Agrre and disagree. Quotes and opinions hold weight, but aren't the be all and end all. As I said earlier I can find quotes from players, experts (so-called) whatver in favour of many players. People just took the quotes and ran with it whichever way they felt.
Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.
I have qualms with you're assertions. In 2001 he started the year #3 and finished #13. Two rounds before federer he went 5 sets with Barry Sanders. Yes... Sanders, cuz Cowan sounds terrible. And Federer played very well that day not to say Sampras played badly. .
Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:
a)Neither player was in his prime.
b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.
c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.
Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.
It's somewhat like Sampras/Lendl 1990 US Open. Sampras was playing beyond his prime and Lendl was just 3 weeks removed from the #1 spot despite skipping the French Open. Who would agree that Lendl was at his peak due to the fact he reached the Aus Open F 5 months later. Bad comparison though, cuz Lendl was playing better than Sampras.
I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.
You talk of the 2001 US Open. Outside of that Pete was 29-15 in 2001. In 2002 he was 20-17 going into the US Open. So Sampras still reaching US Open finals isn't a true indicator of how he was playing. he lost to "lucky loser" George Bastl at Wimbledon, so he was fading... and fast. The 33 tournament, 26 month title drought??? Not the hallmark of someone still relatively close to their prime.
Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.
As far as Pete's 1999 performances at Wimbldeon that summer and YEC F,they were excellent. Pete played great in 1999, but the problem was his body didn't hold up. He missed 2 slams, competed in 14 tournaments, only completing 8 (5 of those he won).
Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break

) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.
But when a certain buffoon says "his best" performances came 1999-2002 that clown better be able to show me how Pete's best performances 1999-2002 surpass his best performance prior to 1999, and or that he had more 1999-2002. If not he really should shut the f*** up.
That's an argument with someone else.I already said my stance on that issue but I'll repeat it again,no I do not think Sampras was in his prime in 1998-2002 period.His prime IMO was 1993-1997 period.
P.S. Off topic but I don't really think you need to get that personal over an internet debate.If you call me an idiot or dumbass or whatever it hardly affects me that much since this is just internet and I take in that way but getting personal and insulting people too often can get you banned here.We're all just a bunch of die-hard tennis fans here and both Federer and Sampras are/were amazing player,I personally feel priviliged to have watched them both.