Greater Wimbledon Champion - Fed vs Sampras?

[Sysyphus]

1. I didnt say competition was better for Pete. I really do not know who faced stiffer challenge.

2. What I did state was "Becker+Agassi+Goran not stopping Pete" is a poor argument to make for Federer's competition. Because technically it can also mean Pete was that good or Federer was worse.

Yeah, this absolutely correct. It is one of the most commonly committed fallacies in here. It's basically assuming the conclusion.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I am a Federer fan and comments like this one are hilarious to me. It does not "seal the deal" for Federer. The reality is that both Sampras and Federer have 7 Wimbledon titles. Federer has a slight edge when you are trying to figure out who was the better Wimbledon player because of his extra couple of finals and the fact that he won five consecutive titles as compared to Sampras' four consecutive titles. But the reality is that you are basically comparing dog scraps between them.

Consecutive titles is the key deal-breaker when players are equal. Winning five in a row is better dominance than having missed years no matter which way you bake it.

If they both happened to be on 14 majors and their weeks at #1 were equal, the five consecutive Wimbledons and US Opens Federer has would make the argument for him pretty much beyond dispute.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Consecutive titles is the key deal-breaker when players are equal. Winning five in a row is better dominance than having missed years no matter which way you bake it.

If they both happened to be on 14 majors and their weeks at #1 were equal, the five consecutive Wimbledons and US Opens Federer has would make the argument for him pretty much beyond dispute.

Is winning 5 titles in a row really that much more impressive than winning 4 in a row though? :? Also one could argue that winning 7 titles in 8 years shows greater dominance than 5 consecutive wins so there'll never really be a definitive way of finding out who the greater champion was.

 

[ARFED]

People that claim making 2 extra finals doesn`t matter when comparing Federer and Sampras at Wimby, then must think that Goran and Krajicek are equally great at Wimbledon as well, which is just laughable

 

[Bobby Jr]

Is winning 5 titles in a row really that much more impressive than winning 4 in a row though? :? Also one could argue that winning 7 titles in 8 years shows greater dominance than 5 consecutive wins so there'll never really be a definitive way of finding out who the greater champion was.

Yes.

Your example of 7 titles in 8 years would make sense if Federer only had 5.. but he doesn't. Peak years dominance is a big factor in considering greatness. Sampras set the modern benchmark of 4 in a row 97-2000 and Federer topped it. It's pointless to argue it's not a better achievement.

Breaks between wins shows a sort of dominance but your example of 7 titles in 8 years is just an example of conveniently partisan bookending - Sampras' Wimbledon career isn't defined by his first and last wins - he played it 14 times (in a row) and won it 7 times. Even if you're generous and start the clock from his first major win (1990 US) then he played 12 times, not 8.

 

[tennisaddict]

Is winning 5 titles in a row really that much more impressive than winning 4 in a row though? :? Also one could argue that winning 7 titles in 8 years shows greater dominance than 5 consecutive wins so there'll never really be a definitive way of finding out who the greater champion was.

Overall titles is what matters. The consecutive or concenterated wins have the same value as longevity. They are just different ways to win.

When titles are same, 2 extra finals are HUGE. There is no reason for this thread.

The competition discussion is really subjective.

 

[AngieB]

When titles are same, 2 extra finals are HUGE. .

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals. Even William Renshaw has a better Wimbledon finals record than Roger.

Roger isn't the greatest player to have won Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Roger, his best and last chance to win it was dashed by Novak in July. Rafael denied Roger's march toward history by defeating him at Wimbledon. Roger could never beat Rafael in Paris.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[cc0509]

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals. Even William Renshaw has a better Wimbledon finals record than Roger.

Roger isn't the greatest player to have won Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Roger, his best and last chance to win it was dashed by Novak in July. Rafael denied Roger's march toward history by defeating him at Wimbledon. Roger could never beat Rafael in Paris.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

AngieB, we don't know that for sure yet unless we have psychic powers. I said this time last year that Roger was done winning slams but I am not sure if that is true. I think he "may" have one more in him and I think Wimbledon is his best shot. If he gets one more Wimbledon title, there can be no doubt about who the best W player in history is.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals.

You forgot to mention the two 2nd round losses and the 4th round losses Sampras suffered once already a major champion.

Please explain how they are somehow more impressive than losing in the final.

 

[tennisaddict]

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals. Even William Renshaw has a better Wimbledon finals record than Roger.

Roger isn't the greatest player to have won Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Roger, his best and last chance to win it was dashed by Novak in July. Rafael denied Roger's march toward history by defeating him at Wimbledon. Roger could never beat Rafael in Paris.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

It does not even make sense to have a discussion with someone who thinks 7 wins and 0 finals is better than 7 wins and 2 finals.

I dont have any issue in admitting Sampras has a better resume at USO, by the same token.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals. Even William Renshaw has a better Wimbledon finals record than Roger.

Roger isn't the greatest player to have won Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Roger, his best and last chance to win it was dashed by Novak in July. Rafael denied Roger's march toward history by defeating him at Wimbledon. Roger could never beat Rafael in Paris.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

So if two players have the same amount of titles like Federer and Sampras do at Wimbledon, how do you ascertain who the greater player was at that tournament if you don't look at the next set of criteria(like extra finals reached)?

 

[NatF]

Anyone who thinks a 1R loss is better than a finals loss is an idiot...

 

[AngieB]

So if two players have the same amount of titles like Federer and Sampras do at Wimbledon, how do you ascertain who the greater player was at that tournament if you don't look at the next set of criteria(like extra finals reached)?

The next set of criteria is record in finals, not how many finals are reached. That is where you kids continue to get it all wrong. Your generation lacks the logic, reasoning and experience to understand.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[Djokovic2011]

The next set of criteria is record in finals, not how many finals are reached. That is where you kids continue to get it all wrong. Your generation lacks the logic, reasoning and experience to understand.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Exactly, so surely Federer's 9 finals > Sampras' 7 finals, no? :-?

 

[Sysyphus]

Only to Roger's fans who are desperately attempting to usurp Pete's insurmountable 7-0 perfect record in Wimbledon finals. Even William Renshaw has a better Wimbledon finals record than Roger.

Roger isn't the greatest player to have won Wimbledon. Unfortunately for Roger, his best and last chance to win it was dashed by Novak in July. Rafael denied Roger's march toward history by defeating him at Wimbledon. Roger could never beat Rafael in Paris.

Roland Garros is a mickey mouse tournament that no one cares about. Stop majoring in minors. Roger is 2-1 in the only h2h that matters, and 7-2 in the slam tally.

#MajoringInMajors

 

[Sysyphus]

The next set of criteria is record in finals, not how many finals are reached. That is where you kids continue to get it all wrong. Your generation lacks the logic, reasoning and experience to understand.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Reaching finals is better than failing to do so. Stop majoring in failures. Or failing in majors.

 

[tennisaddict]

The next set of criteria is record in finals, not how many finals are reached. That is where you kids continue to get it all wrong. Your generation lacks the logic, reasoning and experience to understand.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Dont tell me you are seriously this hollow !

 

[ARFED]

The next set of criteria is record in finals, not how many finals are reached. That is where you kids continue to get it all wrong. Your generation lacks the logic, reasoning and experience to understand.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Moya is a better player than Federer at RG then, right? Better percentage at finals, so he must be better.

Yes, i see your point...

 

[tennisaddict]

Moya is a better player than Federer at RG then, right? Better percentage at finals, so he must be better.

Yes, i see your point...

Like Djoko2011 pointed out, Chris Evert has 18-16 . It is a joke to say that this is bad as compared to Serena's 18-4

 

[fed_rulz]

Moya is a better player than Federer at RG then, right? Better percentage at finals, so he must be better.

Yes, i see your point...

Or Thomas Johansson is a better player at AO than Nadal :shock:
Fed haters would go to any lengths..

On topic: Federer is THE greatest Wimbledon champion. Federer and Sampras are separated by Lendl's career-best Wimbledon achievements (which is quite a chasm)

 

[eldanger25]

I value finalist appearances as a standalone thing - but I also think it's fair for people to say that they should be subsumed into a look at overall w/p at the event. It takes all kinds.

I also agree with AngieB that title fights are their own thing, and one's record on championship Sundays - when only two players are left standing - is its own thing and relevant.

So it's relevant that Pete woke up on the morning of seven title fights, pulled himself together, and won 'em all (unlike Rog, who lost a few). Just like it's relevant that Roger made 2 more finals during his time, and has a basically identical w/p to Pete despite playing two extra editions of SW19.

 

[Sysyphus]

I value finalist appearances as a standalone thing - but I also think it's fair for people to say that they should be subsumed into a look at overall w/p at the event. It takes all kinds.

I also agree with AngieB that title fights are their own thing, and one's record on championship Sundays - when only two players are left standing - is its own thing and relevant.

So it's relevant that Pete woke up on the morning of seven title fights, pulled himself together, and won 'em all (unlike Rog, who lost a few). Just like it's relevant that Roger made 2 more finals during his time, and has a basically identical w/p to Pete despite playing two extra editions of SW19.

Fed woke up to winning seven title fights too. It's just that he also made two additional finals instead of losing way earlier. Just like the Johansson/Nadal case at AO.

 

[ARFED]

I value finalist appearances as a standalone thing - but I also think it's fair for people to say that they should be subsumed into a look at overall w/p at the event. It takes all kinds.

I also agree with AngieB that title fights are their own thing, and one's record on championship Sundays - when only two players are left standing - is its own thing and relevant.

So it's relevant that Pete woke up on the morning of seven title fights, pulled himself together, and won 'em all (unlike Rog, who lost a few). Just like it's relevant that Roger made 2 more finals during his time, and has a basically identical w/p to Pete despite playing two extra editions of SW19.

You are completely missing the point i am affraid. Fed also woke up and pulled himself together the same 7 times as Pete, . The difference between them is that he also pulled himself together in SF and QF rounds better than Pete, which is the tiebreaker in this situation.

 

[AngieB]

You are completely missing the point i am affraid. Fed also woke up and pulled himself together the same 7 times as Pete, . The difference between them is that he also pulled himself together in SF and QF rounds better than Pete, which is the tiebreaker in this situation.

The difference being that Pete Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon finals. Roger has more than once.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[ARFED]

The difference being that Pete Sampras never lost in a Wimbledon finals. Roger has more than once.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

So, according to you Hewitt is a greater player at Wimby than Ivanisevic? Am i getting you right? Go praise the lord, nice lady

 

[Sysyphus]

For some strange reason, you kids think that Chris Everts' record of 16 losses in a grand slam final (stand alone in men and women's tennis history) qualifies her as a greater champion than Serena, who is 18-4 in grand slam finals?

Unbelievable. Now I understand why you kids twerk. It's to get more blood flowing to your brain at the expense of your dumb @s_es.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

Yes yes. Crashing out in earlier rounds is to be commended. So if Evert had those 16 losses in the 1st round she would be A LOT better. Yes, that does make sense.

 

[Sysyphus]

Syssy, all grand slam tournaments are great, but Wimbledon does hold a certain distinction as being The Championships. First and most distinguished in tennis history. However, in the eyes of the ITF and ITHOF, all grand slams are of equal importance.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
​

They are equal in points, yes. Very good Angie-bird. Winning five Dubai-titles also gives more points than winning a slam. Thus, five Dubais is better then a slam?
No. You are majoring in minors!

 

[Djokovic2011]

For some strange reason, you kids think that Chris Everts' record of 16 losses in a grand slam final (stand alone in men and women's tennis history) qualifies her as a greater champion than Serena, who is 18-4 in grand slam finals?

Unbelievable. Now I understand why you kids twerk. It's to get more blood flowing to your brain at the expense of your dumb @s_es.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

I honestly don't think you truly believe what you're saying here. No sane person would ever think it was better to lose earlier in a tournament and miss out on more ranking points and prize money.

#MajoringInConsistency

 

[eldanger25]

Fed woke up to winning seven title fights too. It's just that he also made two additional finals instead of losing way earlier. Just like the Johansson/Nadal case at AO.

Of course. And as I said, I, presumably like you, value finalist appearances separately from overall winning percentage.

What I'm saying is that I can also appreciate the point of view that title fights are different beasts, and an unbeaten record in them (particularly if somebody's made more than 2 or 3 finals) is damn impressive.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

It does not even make sense to have a discussion with someone who thinks 7 wins and 0 finals is better than 7 wins and 2 finals.

I dont have any issue in admitting Sampras has a better resume at USO, by the same token.

I do agree, But I think many have the feeling that Sampras peak in wimbledon was more impressive, of course Federer has the better resume in the tournament so he is greater at wimbledon, although the margin is quite small.

 

[tennisaddict]

Of course. And as I said, I, presumably like you, value finalist appearances separately from overall winning percentage.

What I'm saying is that I can also appreciate the point of view that title fights are different beasts, and an unbeaten record in them (particularly if somebody's made more than 2 or 3 finals) is damn impressive.

Unbeaten record means nothing.

Reaching a final is infinite times better than losing earlier.

0-1000 win-loss in finals is way better than 0-0, 0-1 or anything up to 0-999.

 

[tennisaddict]

I do agree, But I think many have the feeling that Sampras peak in wimbledon was more impressive, of course Federer has the better resume in the tournament so he is greater at wimbledon, although the margin is quite small.

2 more major finals is not something that I would pass off slightly.

Similarly , Sampras has 2 more finals at USO and it is the same difference.

 

[eldanger25]

You are completely missing the point i am affraid. Fed also woke up and pulled himself together the same 7 times as Pete, . The difference between them is that he also pulled himself together in SF and QF rounds better than Pete, which is the tiebreaker in this situation.

I like to count titles won; finals reached; semifinals reached (aka final weekends reached); overall w/p at an event; and records in championship matches. As to the last category, I find it particularly relevant if a player has a greater than 67 percent or sub 33 percent record in title fights. I don't really differentiate b/w guys whose championship round records are b/w 33 and 67 percent.

So Fed's 7-2 record and Pete's 7-0 record are both superlative. I do find it pretty awe-inspiring that Pete always won when he reached the final. I also find it amazing that Fed has made 9 finals over a decade apart, and won 7 of them. I think I'm capable of holding both those thoughts in my head at once.

 

[eldanger25]

Unbeaten record means nothing.

Reaching a final is infinite times better than losing earlier.

0-1000 win-loss in finals is way better than 0-0, 0-1 or anything up to 0-999.

I disagree with your first sentence, at least w/r/t an unbeaten record across 3 or more finals at an event. I agree with the rest, and take that into consideration when looking at (1) finals reached; and (2) overall w/p at the event.

Think about just who in the Open Era actually has an unbeaten record in GS title fights, minimum 3 appearances:

Nadal, 9-0 at RG
Petros, 7-0 at SW19
Borg, 6-0 at RG
Agassi, 4-0 at AO
Djokovic, 4-0 at AO
Kuerten, 3-0 at RG

Pretty impressive stuff.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

2 more major finals is not something that I would pass off slightly.

Similarly , Sampras has 2 more finals at USO and it is the same difference.

Its even more difference in the case of USO.... because they both have "only" 5 slams.

The more amount of slam tied the less relevant finals are.. of course they are still dealbreakers...

For two players who only won 1 slam at any particular major , reaching 2 extra slam finals make a huge deal of difference...

 

[tennisaddict]

Its even more difference in the case of USO.... because they both have "only" 5 slams.

The more amount of slam tied the less relevant finals are.. of course they are still dealbreakers...

For two players who only won 1 slam at any particular major , reaching 2 extra slam finals make a huge deal of difference...

If 5 slams at one major is just "only" , then should we say Rafa having just 5 majors at ALL non clay majors put together is totally insignificant ?

One must be seriously delusional to think '5 majors at one major' as something trivial.

'2 major finals' is an 'absolute' difference , just as similar to a difference of '2 major wins'.

 

[tennisaddict]

I disagree with your first sentence, at least w/r/t an unbeaten record across 3 or more finals at an event. I agree with the rest, and take that into consideration when looking at (1) finals reached; and (2) overall w/p at the event.

Think about just who in the Open Era actually has an unbeaten record in GS title fights, minimum 3 appearances:

Nadal, 9-0 at RG
Petros, 7-0 at SW19
Borg, 6-0 at RG
Agassi, 4-0 at AO
Djokovic, 4-0 at AO
Kuerten, 3-0 at RG

Pretty impressive stuff.

Please explain to me how those are better if another player has the same number of wins with more finals.

 

[sliceroni]

Sampras is the king of fast grass. Federer is the king of slow grass.

 

[Gazelle]

I don't give much importance to never having lost a final.

My motto is: "If someone has never lost a final somewhere, it's because he hasn't made another final."

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

If 5 slams at one major is just "only" , then should we say Rafa having just 5 majors at ALL non clay majors put together is totally insignificant ?

One must be seriously delusional to think '5 majors at one major' as something trivial.

'2 major finals' is an 'absolute' difference , just as similar to a difference of '2 major wins'.

You didnt get what I was trying to say (I assume english is not your native language anyways)..... In certain context you can say that X and Y players "only" have 5 slams at USO compared to 7 at wimbledon . I included the double quote simbols to add some ironic connotation, because despite 5 is less than 7 Its still quite a lot, and you can could easily name the few tennis players who won 5 slams at one grand slam event.

Anyways my point is 2 extra finals are even a bigger dealbreaker when they are tied at slams 5-5 than if they are 7-7 because the more slams they win the less relevant the extra finals become of the total pack.

 

[eldanger25]

Please explain to me how those are better if another player has the same number of wins with more finals.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other a bit. If two players have the same # of titles, and one of those players has an extra final round loss or two, I would credit that player who made the extra finals in evaluating the "greater" career.

Separately, if a guy is undefeated in many, many title fights at an event, I'd also credit that - call it a "clutch" bonus. I wouldn't consider that enough standing alone to overcome a few extra finals.

For the record, I think Federer is the greater Wimbledon champion, bar none. That said, I think Pete would win 3 out of every 5 matches against him, peak to peak, at SW19 were they peers.

 

[ultradr]

"Traditional" Wimbledon has died some time between 2001-2003.

Sampras and Federer are separated by totally different surfaces and thus totally different game.

Federer is the inaugural champion and a new benchmark of new era at Wimbledon. Almost clay-like bounce and top spin baseline game like on clay.

Sampras is one of very few great champions at traditional Wimbledon of last
140 years or so (including William Renshaw in 1880s).

 

[NGM]

Federer and Sampras are separated by Lendl's career-best Wimbledon achievements (which is quite a chasm)

It is scary when you put thing that way lol :twisted:

 

[NGM]

While Federer is slighty more accomplished I do consider Sampras the better Wimbledon and overall grass player, you can see it just looking at his matches at his absolute peak... Sampras was basically a creation for his era, more so for wimbledon... in a good day there was nothing to do against him, quite similar to playing nadal at clay circa 2008, you have just to show up to receive the runner up plate...

With that subjective thinking we can argue to death.

It is why only the first 1 or 2 pages of any thread is worth to read. It is usually where people address fact and obvious thing. After that it comes down to speculation, subjective statement and insult.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

With that subjective thinking we can argue to death.

It is why only the first 1 or 2 pages of any thread is worth to read. It is usually where people address fact and obvious thing. After that it comes down to speculation, subjective statement and insult.

The problem is we have to define greatness..Thats the only thing we need to know to answer the OP question..

Question = achievements/Statics = Federer.
QUestion = PEak of playing (Grasscourt skills, mental strenght,etc) = Sampras.

 

[NGM]

The problem is we have to define greatness..Thats the only thing we need to know to answer the OP question..

Question = achievements/Statics = Federer.
QUestion = PEak of playing (Grasscourt skills, mental strenght,etc) = Sampras.

Mental strength is a sure win for Pete.
Skill is pure speculation again.

The only thing I can say is at Wimbledon Fed is new Everest that every next great player needs to overcome, like Pete in the past.

And Fed is the Everest of the tennis, too.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Mental strength is a sure win for Pete.
Skill is pure speculation again.

The only thing I can say is at Wimbledon Fed is new Everest that every next great player needs to overcome, like Pete in the past.

And Fed is the Everest of the tennis, too.

Federer isnt the Everest of tennis.. the most accomplished yes.. but a different player can have completly different achievements and become as great as him..

 

[cc0509]

But those doggie scraps are all we have when two or more players have the same amount of titles cc0.

I realize that and that is fine but it doesn't change the bottom line that at the AO there are three GOATS--Agassi, Federer and Djokovic. Every fan is going to use stats that favor his favorite player to try and argue why said player is better at an event. Yawn. The only thing that will break the three-way tie convincingly is another title win from Djokovic (or Federer which is much less likely.)

 

[Netspirit]

Not sure why you are arguing, guys. Federer has as many titles as Sampras, plus 2 more finals. He even beat Sampras H2H in there. This one should be easy to figure out.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not sure why you are arguing, guys. Federer has as many titles as Sampras, plus 2 more finals. This one should be easy to figure out.

Didn't you get cc0's memo? Those 2 extra finals are mere doggie scraps! :?