Dispelling a Myth about Sampras regarding Masters 1000's

[timnz]

It seems unexceptionable.

Sorry you will have to elaborate on what 'it' is.

 

[KG1965]

The main point of all of this thread is - did Sampras compete in these Masters 1000's? The hard evidence is that he did. Yes, the makeup of perception of these events and their relation to the overall tennis year may have been different, but the fact is Sampras competed in them. Now if you say, well he didn't try...that is a serious claim. There are rules about not trying.

I have watched tennis since the early 1970s , I DO Get that things have changed over time. if anything - in the 1990s the point system had the slams at less value relative to other events than they do now regardless of Sampras' slam focus. For instance, in 1993 Sampras won 409 points for winning Miami and only 637 points for winning the US open and only 654 points for winning Wimbledon. That means back in 1993 those slams were only worth a little more than 50% more than the Miami Masters 1000, compared to double today. So the implication is, as far as the ATP was concerned, Masters 1000's were worth more than they are today!

It's okay that Sampras had a slam focus. But that doesn't take away the achievements of the modern players. Because someone else didn't try (so goes the claim) doesn't mean that Djokovic efforts in winning 30 Masters 1000's aren't worth as much.

It 'a difficult puzzle:
1) Slam tournaments > Miami and other M1000 but only slightly
2) Sampras which considers only the slam tournaments, perhaps only W + USOpen

IMO, as written elsewhere, the cases are 4:
1) apply only the slam tournaments
2) the slam t. >>>>>>>> Masters 1000
3) the slam t. >> Masters 1000
4) the slam t. > Masters 1000

ATP rankings think like 4)
Kg thinks like 3)
Most people think that in the last 25 years like 1) and 2).

The truth is in the middle:
1) Sampras was aimed almost exclusively on the record-slam because he realized he could do the history and why the peak in the two big tournament did not rivals
2) Sampras had a problem of continuity during the year, the rule of six years hiding the fact that he did heady numbers (Murray did better in 2016 !!).
Pete could not play many tournaments in a row to an extremely high level.

My conclusions:
Sampras
- Maximum peak was possibly the GOAT, even more than Gonzalez, Laver and Federer,
- During the year, in any race, I think isn't one of the top 10, despite six years as number one (Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Federer, Nadal, Djoker > Sampras)

 

[timnz]

It 'a difficult puzzle:
1) Slam tournaments > Miami and other M1000 but only slightly
2) Sampras which considers only the slam tournaments, perhaps only W + USOpen

IMO, as written elsewhere, the cases are 4:
1) apply only the slam tournaments
2) the slam t. >>>>>>>> Masters 1000
3) the slam t. >> Masters 1000
4) the slam t. > Masters 1000

ATP rankings think like 4)
Kg thinks like 3)
Most people think that in the last 25 years like 1) and 2).

The truth is in the middle:
1) Sampras was aimed almost exclusively on the record-slam because he realized he could do the history and why the peak in the two big tournament did not rivals
2) Sampras had a problem of continuity during the year, the rule of six years hiding the fact that he did heady numbers (Murray did better in 2016 !!).
Pete could not play many tournaments in a row to an extremely high level.

My conclusions:
Sampras
- Maximum peak was possibly the GOAT, even more than Gonzalez, Laver and Federer,
- During the year, in any race, I think isn't one of the top 10, despite six years as number one (Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Federer, Nadal, Djoker > Sampras)

And my main point is that the current players shouldn't have their Masters 1000 achievements downgraded because Sampras didn't apparently value them. They are still incredible achievements.

 

[metsman]

It 'a difficult puzzle:
1) Slam tournaments > Miami and other M1000 but only slightly
2) Sampras which considers only the slam tournaments, perhaps only W + USOpen

IMO, as written elsewhere, the cases are 4:
1) apply only the slam tournaments
2) the slam t. >>>>>>>> Masters 1000
3) the slam t. >> Masters 1000
4) the slam t. > Masters 1000

ATP rankings think like 4)
Kg thinks like 3)
Most people think that in the last 25 years like 1) and 2).

The truth is in the middle:
1) Sampras was aimed almost exclusively on the record-slam because he realized he could do the history and why the peak in the two big tournament did not rivals
2) Sampras had a problem of continuity during the year, the rule of six years hiding the fact that he did heady numbers (Murray did better in 2016 !!).
Pete could not play many tournaments in a row to an extremely high level.

My conclusions:
Sampras
- Maximum peak was possibly the GOAT, even more than Gonzalez, Laver and Federer,
- During the year, in any race, I think isn't one of the top 10, despite six years as number one (Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Federer, Nadal, Djoker > Sampras)

The exception is 94 where from AO-Wimbledon he was at a high level pretty much everywhere. But he was never really the same after that ankle injury even though he had a great 95. Started focusing more and more on slams.

 

[NonP]

Haha..what's it like caring about tennis just 8 weeks a year? Or six, because the Australian isn't a real major, right?

I never said the rest of the season doesn't count. But keep putting words in people's mouths if that helps you stick to your preconceived notions.

^well, it's not really about what we care about, but what Sampras cared about right? That's what this thread is about. you've said multiple times here that you didn't follow tennis in the 90s(like the majority of this board I'm sure)so here is something rather telling that Sampras said when he won his first ATP title at the age of 19. Normally a player is rather overjoyed at that sort of thing, but Sampras in the press conference afterwards said, "this is nice, but let's be honest, no one remembers Who won Philadelphia."
The OP has posted many threads about this stuff, he seems rather obsessed with his 'research' and getting others to respect it. I gather he's done a lot of work on wikepedia as well. That's fine and dandy, but its also important to also have knowledge of past eras and what players and media said at the time, which he seems incapable of. And knowledge of past ranking systems, you can't just assign todays points to players of the past and act like you're comparing apples to apples.

Exactly. Also see how he's now asking whether Sampras competed in the MS events or not, as if things were/are so black and white in the real world. Hell, forget about Sampras. I believe Fed for another has admitted himself that he doesn't always give it 100% outside of the later rounds of the majors, and that's in fact standard practice for just about every top player. Does that mean these guys weren't "competing" and their efforts were tantamount to tanking? No room for nuance here.

 

[KG1965]

And my main point is that the current players shouldn't have their Masters 1000 achievements downgraded because Sampras didn't apparently value them. They are still incredible achievements.

Miami, IW, Rome, Cincy.. incredible achievements ? Oh yeahhh

 

[KG1965]

The exception is 94 where from AO-Wimbledon he was at a high level pretty much everywhere. But he was never really the same after that ankle injury even though he had a great 95. Started focusing more and more on slams.

Can you explain what happened to Pete after 95? I do not know. Ankle injury?

 

[metsman]

Can you explain what happened to Pete after 95? I do not know. Ankle injury?

death of Gullickson hurt 96 and then he focused more on winning slams and he probably lost a step too.

The ankle injury was after Wimbledon in 94.

 

[KG1965]

death of Gullickson hurt 96 and then he focused more on winning slams and he probably lost a step too.

The ankle injury was after Wimbledon in 94.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[timnz]

I never said the rest of the season doesn't count. But keep putting words in people's mouths if that helps you stick to your preconceived notions.



Exactly. Also see how he's now asking whether Sampras competed in the MS events or not, as if things were/are so black and white in the real world. Hell, forget about Sampras. I believe Fed for another has admitted himself that he doesn't always give it 100% outside of the later rounds of the majors, and that's in fact standard practice for just about every top player. Does that mean these guys weren't "competing" and their efforts were tantamount to tanking? No room for nuance here.

It is black and white whether someone competed in an event. All you have to do is look it up. I think you are missing the point. The point is regardless of Sampras' supposed subpar motivation at Masters 1000 events, they shouldn't be allowed to discredit another player putting a full effort in and achieving well at those events. Didn't you hate at school when someone who works hard wins something and someone else who was competing at the same event says - "what you did wasn't that great because I didn't try?".

 

[Drob]

When people compare Sampras' Masters 1000 total of 11, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic having between 24 and 30 - some comment that - "well Sampras' didn't prioritize or compete in Masters 1000's in the 1990's because it was not compulsory to compete in them".

They are right when they say they weren't compulsory.

These are the facts though.

In the 1990-1992 period there were other equivalent (in terms of points and prize money) tournaments at the level of the Masters 1000's (about 8 to 9 a year) - we can give Sampras another 4 Masters 1000 equivalents (2 Philadelphia and 2 Indianapolis' in that period). From 1993 to 1995 the only comparable tournament (in terms of points and prize money) outside of the Slams and 2 season end finals was the Stuttgart Indoor. Sampras didn't compete at that tournament during those years. Hence, outside of the Stuttgart indoor, from 1993 at that level the masters 1000's were the only game in town. Lets look at 1993 through to 1999 (whilst Masters 1000's were non-compulsory):

By year how many Masters 1000's did Sampras compete in.

1993 7 out of 9
1994 5 out of 9 (that year he was out for a time with tendinitis in his left ankle)
1995 9 out of 9
1996 5 out of 9 (that year he suffered a strained Achilles' tendon - I don't know how long this caused him to be out - but he did miss the Olympics because of it)
1997 7 out of 9
1998 8 out of 9
1999 5 out of 9 (remember he significantly injured his back that year so was out for quite some time)

So there we have it - in those years Sampras did at least 7 out of 9 Masters 1000's except the years he was injured. That is a lot of Masters 1000's. 46 in fact.

Please understand me, I think that Sampras was one of the greatest players of all time (in fact I think he is the greatest fast court player of all time), but he doesn't get a free pass on the Masters 1000 front. He did compete in them - he just wasn't a successful there as the big 3 (or if you want to include pre-1990 equivalents to the 1990's Masters 1000 - Lendl 22 (probably a lot higher if you look at 1990, Connors 17, McEnroe 19, Agassi 17 official + 2 equivalent 1988 Forest Hills and Stratton Mountain = 19)

So Sampras' masters 1000 equivalents total is: 11 official + 4 equivalent = 15. Now you might want to add in the two Grand Slam cups (though I would rate it at a higher level like the WTF). Either way that is a lot less than Djokovic on 30, Nadal on 28 or Federer on 24.

I think it is time to honour the achievements of the big three for Masters 1000's. Those kinds of Masters 1000 totals are very impressive - and I don't think they are given credit enough for them. Saying, well they don't count when comparing Sampras and Nadal - both on 14 slams, is just not accurate.

A question: If you are giving the 1990 and '92 Philly (US Pro Indoor) to Sampras and effective M 1000s, do you give the 1991 Philly championship to Lendl as similarly a M 1000 equivalent? Thanks.

 

[timnz]

A question: If you are giving the 1990 and '92 Philly (US Pro Indoor) to Sampras and effective M 1000s, do you give the 1991 Philly championship to Lendl as similarly a M 1000 equivalent? Thanks.

I would say yes and you would assume there are other events that should be included. The way I included them is make sure both 1000 and 500 equivalents were both in my ranking system so these events get at least somewhat represented