Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer
Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras
Of course. And Pete would have won 25 majors without this blood disorder.Lets see Fed do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ
I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got
Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.
Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can
Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer
Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras
High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.
Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".
I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.
Lets see Fed do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ
I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got
Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.
Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can
Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
Lets see Fed do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ
I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got
Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.
Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can
Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got
Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.
Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can
Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8
I'm pretty sure that's better than half the stuff in the Sampras video. And it's pretty sad if you're using the ability to jump high as the sole comparison for athleticism.
Of course there was several dunks in the Sampras version that were better, it's just that that dunk was quite a bit better than some of the dunks in the Sampras video.Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.
Sampras who?
They're both amazing athletes.
But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.
I don't think it's that obvious.
Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.
As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.
I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.
17 > 14
10federers
Yes, let your inner ******* shine!
There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.
Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.
But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.
Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.
H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.
Seriously?
You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?
Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.
What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the btter player?
Let me clarify this for you.
Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.
Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.
Yes, let your inner ******* shine!
There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.
But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.
I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.
So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:
-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer
I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.
Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)
It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.
So you think Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Isner are all "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?
Not Isner...
God only knows how he got in the top 10.
Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?
I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.
So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.
His winning percentage says otherwise.
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.
His winning percentage says otherwise.
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.
Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.
Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".
What have you been drinking?
I would refer you back to my Post #31.
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.
However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.