Fed's 6 Wim, 1 FO...or...Pete's 7 Wim (record)?

Fed's 6 Wim, 1 FO...or...Pete's 7 Wim (record), 0 FO?

  • I choose Fed's career. It's more complete.

    Votes: 46 90.2%

  • I choose Pete's career. Wimbledon is where it's at, plus it's a record.

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • They're the same. A slam is a slam, and both equal 7 slams from that area.

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Total voters
    51
powerangle

powerangle

Legend
Which presents the bigger deficit in their respective careers?

Many people (though not all) consider Wimbledon to be the biggest tournament and most important slam. I basically feel the same way, though it is very marginal for me.

Some people feel Pete's 7 Wimbledons are his biggest achievement. And as such, Roger's 6 Wimbledons is a "big hole" when comparing their careers.

Of course we all know Pete has his own glaring hole...his lack of a French Open title, while Roger has 1 title there.

So now I ask, which is the bigger "hole" if you will? Federer lacking that one extra Wimbledon (biggest title in tennis), or Sampras lacking his French Open? Or basically in other words, would you rather have 6 Wimbledons and 1 French, or 7 Wimbledons (biggest title in tennis, and setting a record in Open Era).

I personally choose Fed's 6 Wim, 1 FO...but wanted to see how many people weigh Wimbledon extra heavily or if any Sampras fans would argue against this.
 
7 wimbledons and a semi at the french

Its actually pretty close when you factor in the semis, so i heard from gamesampras :)
 
I hope people don't look at my username as a bias, but I think it's pretty obvious. Really obvious in fact. The difference between 6 Wimbledons and 7 is hardly a difference at all really. I think what would be more important is who both faced in the finals. Fed has beaten Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, and Phillopousis I believe. I'm too lazy to look at who Sampras beat but I'm sure Samrpas would have traded a Wimbledon for a French Open easily, maybe even two. Fed also had 5 straight Wimbledons and then lost the greatest match of all time at Wimbledon (Sampras hasn't played a match of that caliber) and then won the next year in an epic five setter.
 
I choose Fed's career. It's more complete.
AznHylite, Chadwixx, FEDERERNADAL13, Hockey4Life, Jchurch, jones101, norbac, powerangle, rainingaces, Satch, slicefox, TMF, vive le beau jeu !, woody88, [d]ragon
15
93.75%

I choose Pete's career. Wimbledon is where it's at, plus it's a record.
Cesc Fabregas
1
6.25%

shaqlaugh.gif
 
Definitely Fed's career. Think about it this way. If you were "given" 14 grand slams, how would you choose to distribute the winnings? Obviously you wouldn't choose to leave one of the slams out. And you'd definitely not choose 14 Wimbledons and zero of anything else. Sampras would love to switch any of his other titles for a FO title.
 
ledwix said:
Definitely Fed's career. Think about it this way. If you were "given" 14 grand slams, how would you choose to distribute the winnings? Obviously you wouldn't choose to leave one of the slams out. And you'd definitely not choose 14 Wimbledons and zero of anything else. Sampras would love to switch any of his other titles for a FO title.
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
I'm sure Pete would switch an Australian or MAYBE a US for an FO. I dunno if he would trade a Wimby...7 Wimbys is awesome...
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
Bjorn Borg has 5 Wimbledon's and 6 French Open's so Federer's record is not the best, nobody has 7 Wimbledon's like Pete.
Click to expand...
Federer does have 5 consecutive US open wins. Only big Bill tilden has matched that record and that was when the champ played 1 round I think.
 
muzza123 said:
Anyone without a bias against Fed would pick the former option.
Click to expand...

WHAT? how is sorta being a '1 slam wonder' a better achievement than winning 1 less than the '1 slam wonder' plus the slam he never had? yes i realize sampras won others, but so did fed.
 
Falloutjr said:
I bet Sampras would trade 3 of those Wimbledons for a French Open. Definitely Federer here.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt bet very much on that. 3 wimbledons for a french open?! :shock: Its a "disgrace, an scandal, a outrage" as Cesc would say.
 
Neither. Ultimately Rafa will get 7 RG and 3+ Wimbledon which will be much more formidable that whatever Fed or Sampras got.
 
veroniquem said:
Neither. Ultimately Rafa will get 7 RG and 3+ Wimbledon which will be much more formidable that whatever Fed or Sampras got.
Click to expand...

Unless Federer got 7 wimbys and 3+ FO's. I mean, Wimbledon is the most prestigious, I think that's fairly inarguable. I think at this stage it's hard to argue the superiority of any of the other 3 over each other though, even though historically the US has easily been "worth more" than the FO or Australian. I just don't think that's the case anymore. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 10-20 years.
 
How is this a question? Federer by far. For all we know, Federer is just repeating 2008 all over again and will come back and win the US in which all of the naysayers will look like tools given than he won half of the GS this year when he was playing awful tennis. Next year, Federer has a really legitimate chance of winning Wimbledon unless he starts spiraling downwards, but I don't think that his talent will allow it. People act like dropping to #3 in the world after breaking nearly every ATP record in a span of a few years makes someone a washed up player :D
 
TennisandMusic said:
Unless Federer got 7 wimbys and 3+ FO's. I mean, Wimbledon is the most prestigious, I think that's fairly inarguable. I think at this stage it's hard to argue the superiority of any of the other 3 over each other though, even though historically the US has easily been "worth more" than the FO or Australian. I just don't think that's the case anymore. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 10-20 years.
Click to expand...
Wimbledon>USO>RG>AO. No one if you ask them even knows anything about Australian open champions because it's the least popular slam, the USO is the most watched since it's the most exciting, the French is only interesting for clay court specialists, and Wimbledon as you said is the most prestigious and just about everyone even if they don't play tennis knows what Wimbledon is.
 
pvaudio said:
How is this a question? Federer by far. For all we know, Federer is just repeating 2008 all over again and will come back and win the US in which all of the naysayers will look like tools given than he won half of the GS this year when he was playing awful tennis. Next year, Federer has a really legitimate chance of winning Wimbledon unless he starts spiraling downwards, but I don't think that his talent will allow it. People act like dropping to #3 in the world after breaking nearly every ATP record in a span of a few years makes someone a washed up player :D
Click to expand...

Federer was playing great in 2008. Nadal was just playing ridiculous. Federer's 2010 play is pretty bad overall, barring his AO win. Since then it's been way way downhill. I don't think Federer is going to come back in 2011, the year he will be 30 and start dominating. Of course he could still win the US Open, split the slams with Nadal, and make a bunch of people look stupid. So who knows really.
 
pvaudio said:
Wimbledon>USO>RG>AO. No one if you ask them even knows anything about Australian open champions because it's the least popular slam, the USO is the most watched since it's the most exciting, the French is only interesting for clay court specialists, and Wimbledon as you said is the most prestigious and just about everyone even if they don't play tennis knows what Wimbledon is.
Click to expand...

Historically yes. But things have changed. Everyone plays the Australian and French now. It's a much more international sport, and the top players don't skip certain majors anymore. It's arguable that the Australian is "better" than the US now in terms of hard court majors. It has a better facility, better fans, and seems to feature better matches than the US. The tournament in no way resembles what it was even 10-15 years ago.

The Open era is still in it's infancy with MANY players and posters being older than the era itself. We are only 40 years in. That is nothing (which is another reason the "GOAT" discussion is really stupid). I think from this point on the idea of this hierarchy of majors is going to quickly disappear with only Wimbledon remaining at the top. As the codgers go away or die out, this idea of the US and Wimby being at the top will go with it. Heck, you already see plenty of people on this site saying that the Australian or the FO is their favorite. Like it or not, that sort of perception is going to go a long way. I agree with your order of majors, but I think that's also going to be a mentality relegated to the past very quickly.
 
TennisandMusic said:
Historically yes. But things have changed. Everyone plays the Australian and French now. It's a much more international sport, and the top players don't skip certain majors anymore. It's arguable that the Australian is "better" than the US now in terms of hard court majors. It has a better facility, better fans, and seems to feature better matches than the US. The tournament in no way resembles what it was even 10-15 years ago.

The Open era is still in it's infancy with MANY players and posters being older than the era itself. We are only 40 years in. That is nothing (which is another reason the "GOAT" discussion is really stupid). I think from this point on the idea of this hierarchy of majors is going to quickly disappear with only Wimbledon remaining at the top. As the codgers go away or die out, this idea of the US and Wimby being at the top will go with it. Heck, you already see plenty of people on this site saying that the Australian or the FO is their favorite. Like it or not, that sort of perception is going to go a long way. I agree with your order of majors, but I think that's also going to be a mentality relegated to the past very quickly.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it. All players might play them, but I don't know of anyone who isnt a tennis fan that bothers to watch the AO. I mean, I don't hardly watch any AO or FO matches, but watch almost everything at Wimby and the USO. They're just more exciting and much better entertainment. That, plus whenever you see the AO or FO, there isn't anything unique about the atmospheres that they have. The AO just seems like a large hardcourt tourney and RG as just the best RG tourney. Wimbledon, however, is slathered in class and tradition and the USO is like the end of season celebration tournament. It's the only tourney that Djoker can in the same night win a match and play against John McEnroe and it's almost expected to happen :lol:
 
TennisandMusic said:
Unless Federer got 7 wimbys and 3+ FO's. I mean, Wimbledon is the most prestigious, I think that's fairly inarguable. I think at this stage it's hard to argue the superiority of any of the other 3 over each other though, even though historically the US has easily been "worth more" than the FO or Australian. I just don't think that's the case anymore. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 10-20 years.
Click to expand...
You seriously think Fed could get 3+ RG? I have to disagree on that. I think Fed is lucky to have got the 1. I can't imagine him getting more. Not at this point.
 
veroniquem said:
You seriously think Fed could get 3+ RG? I have to disagree on that. I think Fed is lucky to have got the 1. I can't imagine him getting more. Not at this point.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But I would take Fed's 6W + 5UO anyday of the week, instead of Rafa's supposed 7FO + 3W
 
Not me, the back to back RG-W has a unique prestige in tennis history. Only Borg and Nadal have done it more than once in open era.
 
veroniquem said:
Not me, the back to back RG-W has a unique prestige in tennis history. Only Borg and Nadal have done it more than once in open era.
Click to expand...

Indeed that is a fantastic achievement.

But for me 11 titles, are 11 titles which is greater than 10. And Wimbledon in itself has a unique prestige in tennis history, and I would rather have more of them.

Ofcourse I am never going to, but that is besides the point.
 
veroniquem said:
Neither. Ultimately Rafa will get 7 RG and 3+ Wimbledon which will be much more formidable that whatever Fed or Sampras got.
Click to expand...

What makes you think 7RG & 3+Wimby is more formidable than Fed/Pete's Wimby + USO combo?
B/c you say so?

And besides, Nadal is not there yet and nothing is guarantee.
 
veroniquem said:
Neither. Ultimately Rafa will get 7 RG and 3+ Wimbledon which will be much more formidable that whatever Fed or Sampras got.
Click to expand...

But Federer has a great chance of becoming the first member of the 5-5-5 club, something Nadal is unlikely to ever achieve. And he still might win a 7th Wimbledon, too.
 
veroniquem said:
Neither. Ultimately Rafa will get 7 RG and 3+ Wimbledon which will be much more formidable that whatever Fed or Sampras got.
Click to expand...

was rafael nadal a part of the poll or supposed to be a part of the discussion. NO, what was the point in bringing him up ? Talk about "fangirlism"..

Anyways since you brought it up , neither sampras nor fed ( and I don't think nadal will) surpass borg as far as wimby+RG is concerned !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Do you really consider the Grand Slams to be of equal value?
4 5 6
Replies
266
Views
11K
Emperor of Belgrade
E
U
  • Poll Poll
Whose record will last longer: Sampras' or Nadal's ?
Replies
43
Views
4K
Bud
Bud
clout
  • Poll Poll
Besides Rafa at Roland Garros, which player has dominated their "pet slam" the most?
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
GabeT
GabeT
T
Great Players - what are their biggest achievements and biggest gaps in their Resumes?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Smasher08
Smasher08
a10best
GOAT per Slam Analysis
Replies
11
Views
771
SpinToWin
SpinToWin
Back
Top