Greatest Forehands of All Time

[BlackSilver]

IAs far as Hewitt only doing truly well with passing shots, that's a gross underestimation of Hewitt's game. You don't get to be #1 in the world for 2 years with just good passing shots. For starters he was an elite mover with exceptional fitness, great mental strength and one of the best shot selectors of the modern era. He was excellent at absorbing and redirecting pace. His ground strokes were deceptively strong and he was very good on the run or when passing. In terms of return he was also elite and he's got the best lob on any player since Agassi (it's close with those two).

His first serve was actually very good for his height, he scored a lot of aces but could suffer with percentage - also owing to the era, service numbers have been trending upwards for years. It doesn't say much but he tended to get a good 10 kmph more on his second serve than a guy like Murray so it's not like he had a weakness there. His net game was also great, he won a doubles slam at 19 and had one of the most reliable overheads in the game.

But no his forehand is not one of the best 25 of all time I agree

I was talking about his forehand, not his overall game. Outside his passing shots it's forehand didn't have a distinct feature.

Grosjean is a good choice, it made Agassi and Tsonga look like challenger players at moments.

Soderling is also and unforgivable absence.

 

[Incognito]

Grosjean is a good choice. Under appreciated player.

He was super talented. His forehand was huge and for a short guy he could serve big as well and of course very fast on court. Unfortunately, Sebastian was weak-minded
Here's a reminder of why he's forehand is on my list. He was 2 sets to love up and 3 match points against a Nalbandian at the top of his game.

 

[droliver]

I sort of agree. But some of that is the fact Sampras wasn't that consistent for a dominating all time great. When he was in the business end of tournaments his forehand was often very good. I do think it was probably worse on average than Agassi and Courier, I've seen match stats of matches between Sampras and them and in pretty much all of them they had more effective forehand sides (less errors and more winners).

It's not that Sampras didn't have a very good forehand, he did. It just wasn't one of the great ones. The things about Sampras that were great relative to the tour were the serve (arguably no worse then 2nd all time behind Karlovic), movement, athleticism, and his laser focus on tennis above all else.

 

[Limpinhitter]

It's not that Sampras didn't have a very good forehand, he did. It just wasn't one of the great ones. The things about Sampras that were great relative to the tour were the serve (arguably no worse then 2nd all time behind Karlovic), movement, athleticism, and his laser focus on tennis above all else.

I think your view is in the minority by a large margin.

 

[NatF]

I was talking about his forehand, not his overall game. Outside his passing shots it's forehand didn't have a distinct feature.

Grosjean is a good choice, it made Agassi and Tsonga look like challenger players at moments.

Soderling is also and unforgivable absence.

Fair enough. There's been so many great forehands it's hard to get them all in.

He was super talented. His forehand was huge and for a short guy he could serve big as well and of course very fast on court. Unfortunately, Sebastian was weak-minded
Here's a reminder of why he's forehand is on my list. He was 2 sets to love up and 3 match points against a Nalbandian at the top of his game.

I have that whole match on DVD. Really good quality.

 

[droliver]

I think your view is in the minority by a large margin.

Ok then, what's more likely. Someone with a GOAT level serve, superior movement, and GOAT forehand had bad luck for most of his career on clay so as to be a midddling player on it.... Or that his forehand was overrated?

You logically can't be operating at GOAT level in the 2 most important shots in the men's game (FH and serve) and be a good mover and put up the results he did for most of his career on the stuff. With this imagined "forehand of the gods " he would have done better. If you've watched a lot of Sampras' matches, its pretty clear he was a "hold serve and see what happens" style rather then the guy dictating play with his forehand. He wasn't consistent enough to play that way and win. His forehand was certainly a good weapon, but it wasn't among best in class

 

[pc1]

Ok then, what's more likely. Someone with a GOAT level serve, superior movement, and GOAT forehand had bad luck for most of his career on clay so as to be a midddling player on it.... Or that his forehand was overrated?

You logically can't be operating at GOAT level in the 2 most important shots in the men's game (FH and serve) and be a good mover and put up the results he did for most of his career on the stuff. With this imagined "forehand of the gods " he would have done better. If you've watched a lot of Sampras' matches, its pretty clear he was a "hold serve and see what happens" style rather then the guy dictating play with his forehand. He wasn't consistent enough to play that way and win. His forehand was certainly a good weapon, but it wasn't among best in class

I think the Sampras forehand was superb but it wasn't the ideal clay forehand that had a lot of margin for error. It was an excellent attacking shot on most other surfaces but a lot of power was obviously blunted on clay. Still excellent even on clay. I think the main problem was his thalassemia which really hurt his stamina which is vital in a long best of five clay court tournament.

 

[droliver]

I think the main problem was his thalassemia which really hurt his stamina which is vital in a long best of five clay court tournament.

So Sampras' thalassemia trait (he actually didn't have the full blown disease) was so devastating to his fitness as to keep him from from even doing very well in best of 3 set events on clay/during temperate weather but was no problem playing 4 hour matches at the USO and Australian in the summertime?

Does not compute. His problems were less fitness and more consistency. It's what undercuts this idea of GOAT forehand nonsense to me.

 

[pc1]

So Sampras' thalassemia trait (he actually didn't have the full blown disease) was so devastating to his fitness as to keep him from from even doing very well in best of 3 set events on clay/during temperate weather but was no problem playing 4 hour matches at the USO and Australian in the summertime?

Does not compute. His problems were less fitness and more consistency. It's what undercuts this idea of GOAT forehand nonsense to me.

For what it's worth I don't think it's close to a GOAT forehand. However sometimes at the end of some of those French Opens he played, he seems totally exhausted and out of energy!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Ok then, what's more likely. Someone with a GOAT level serve, superior movement, and GOAT forehand had bad luck for most of his career on clay so as to be a midddling player on it.... Or that his forehand was overrated?

You logically can't be operating at GOAT level in the 2 most important shots in the men's game (FH and serve) and be a good mover and put up the results he did for most of his career on the stuff. With this imagined "forehand of the gods " he would have done better. If you've watched a lot of Sampras' matches, its pretty clear he was a "hold serve and see what happens" style rather then the guy dictating play with his forehand. He wasn't consistent enough to play that way and win. His forehand was certainly a good weapon, but it wasn't among best in class

Perhaps my one of my posts in the "Is Rosewall a GOAT Candidate" thread will help explain why Sampras' relative lower achievement on clay does not disqualify his forehand as one of the greatest of all time:

I see it like this:

Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, et al., played in the "big game" era where the equipment rewarded the big game on all surfaces, especially the best of the big game players. A serve and volleyer on grass was a serve and volleyer on clay, as a primary gameplan, with few exceptions. Sampras played in the post Borg/Vilas era of graphite racquets and numerous clay court specialists. It was understood that players whose styles of play were developed to succeed on clay were not suited to succeed on grass. However, although Sampras' equipment was superior to wood racquets, the graphite racquets of the pros then were still thin beamed, flexible racquets commonly referred to today as "player's frames," which played more like wood racquets than the racquets today. The first strike style of play that was successful on grass and fast indoor and hard courts with that equipment was not rewarded on clay. Compare that evolution to the equipment and courts today in which the racquets and homogenized speeds of the surfaces of the courts have basically required all of the pros to become the equivalent of clay court specialists. Like the big game era, the pros now have to play the same style of play on all surfaces to be successful. Sampras' time came in between those two bookends.

As we all know, Sampras elected to develop his game to succeed at Wimbledon. As I see it, that was a choice he had to make because at that time, given the equipment and surfaces, the approach that would be most likely to succeed on clay would not succeed on grass or faster hard and indoor courts, or vise versa. Today, he wouldn't have to make that choice, nor would there be a choice to make.

If Sampras was in his prime right now, even if his stroke production was identical to what it was in the 90's, his approach to the game would have to adapt for him to be successful on any surface. And, it is my opinion that he would be competing for the #1 ranking in any era.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think the Sampras forehand was superb but it wasn't the ideal clay forehand that had a lot of margin for error. It was an excellent attacking shot on most other surfaces but a lot of power was obviously blunted on clay. Still excellent even on clay. I think the main problem was his thalassemia which really hurt his stamina which is vital in a long best of five clay court tournament.

In my view, it wasn't Sampras' stroke production that limited him on clay. It was his approach to the game. He played a higher risk brand of tennis which was rewarded on faster surfaces.

 

[Limpinhitter]

For what it's worth I don't think it's close to a GOAT forehand. However sometimes at the end of some of those French Opens he played, he seems totally exhausted and out of energy!

As I see it, Sampras doesn't have a GOAT forehand for two reasons: Federer and Nadal. They are in a league (tier, or however you'd like to characterize it), of their own. I can't think of anyone else who had a clearly better forehand. If you think about it, doesn't it seem that Sampras had the 85 sq. in. graphite version of the Vines forehand?

 

[pc1]

In my view, it wasn't Sampras' stroke production that limited him on clay. It was his approach to the game. He played a higher risk brand of tennis which was rewarded on faster surfaces.

Perhaps. To give Sampras some credit, he did win the 1994 Italian Open.

 

[pc1]

As I see it, Sampras doesn't have a GOAT forehand for two reasons: Federer and Nadal. They are in a league (tier, or however you'd like to characterize it), of their own. I can't think of anyone else you had a clearly better forehand. If you think about it, doesn't it seem that Sampras had the 85 sq. in. graphite version of the Vines forehand?

I have seen a few forehands in my opinion that were superior to the Sampras forehand. It's not a huge amount but some. I even think Sampras' rival Agassi had a superior forehand.

 

[NatF]

Perhaps. To give Sampras some credit, he did win the 1994 Italian Open.

But that draw though...

 

[5263]

His forehand is certainly not at the top. Federer's and Nadal from his own era have better forehands. His forehand is definitely an excellent shot though these days, it let him down in big matches in that 12-14 period though.

except we are not in the 12-14 period....we are in the 15-16 period and his Fh is clearly one of the best overall on the tour and all time based on current skills. As powerful as any and maybe more versatile than any before it.

 

[NatF]

except we are not in the 12-14 period....we are in the 15-16 period and his Fh is clearly one of the best overall on the tour and all time based on current skills. As powerful as any and maybe more versatile than any before it.

Nope.

Best at the moment but not all time. As far as power goes it's definitely not in the same league as a guy like Del Potro and versatility wise Federer beats him comfortably.

 

[5263]

Nope.

Best at the moment but not all time. As far as power goes it's definitely not in the same league as a guy like Del Potro and versatility wise Federer beats him comfortably.

Really lol. Most all these guys can hit a 120 fh, so not seeing what you mean on that. Sure, some do it more often, but notice that is not normally a top 3 play with that level of risk or desperation. I guess we can agree to disagree about who has the better versatility. No need to argue with a Fed fan about their player.

Important to remember that DJ may have come in during the toughest and most competitive time in the history of tennis, met that challenge and looks to rewrite a lot more records before he is done. His Fh is a big part of dominance he has exhibited.

 

[scootad.]

Sampras had an unbelievably good running forehand, the best I can remember. But I'm talking about when he was on the dead run. His neutral forehand was good but not the best.

 

[NatF]

Really lol. Most all these guys can hit a 120 fh, so not seeing what you mean on that. Sure, some do it more often, but notice that is not normally a top 3 play with that level of risk or desperation. I guess we can agree to disagree about who has the better versatility. No need to argue with a Fed fan about their player.

Important to remember that DJ may have come in during the toughest and most competitive time in the history of tennis, met that challenge and looks to rewrite a lot more records before he is done. His Fh is a big part of dominance he has exhibited.

Most of those guys can but some obviously hit a more consistently powerful forehand. Goes without saying. If you're comparing him to just recent top 3 players then sure...

His forehand is incredible. Just not at the very top of all time. And we don't need to argue, just discuss. But suite yourself.

 

[penguin]

Sampras had an unbelievably good running forehand, the best I can remember. But I'm talking about when he was on the dead run. His neutral forehand was good but not the best.

I think Lendl's runnign forehand was slightly superior to Sampras's.

 

[mattosgrant]

I have seen a few forehands in my opinion that were superior to the Sampras forehand. It's not a huge amount but some. I even think Sampras' rival Agassi had a superior forehand.

I am not sure I agree. I have seen many Sampras-Agassi matches, and in forehand exchanges Agassi usually came out 2nd best.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nope.

Best at the moment but not all time. As far as power goes it's definitely not in the same league as a guy like Del Potro and versatility wise Federer beats him comfortably.

Yeah I agree. I am a huge Djokovic fan but I would never say his forehand is the best all time. Maybe top 10, but even that might be a stretch. He is incredible off both sides, probably even a bit stronger off the backhand. I don't think he even has the best backhand of the Open Era, but he would be in stronger contention for that as less guys have truly outstanding backhands.

Saying his forehand is the most flat out powerful of all time as one poster said is just LOL, even crazier than calling it the best of all time. I swear some people here have watched only 18 months of tennis or something.

 

[abmk]

I am not sure I agree. I have seen many Sampras-Agassi matches, and in forehand exchanges Agassi usually came out 2nd best.

disagree, this is one of those myths ..overall agassi won more points with his fh than sampras did..sampras could come close to leveling on big points in matches where he was playing well, but that's about it ..

 

[Devilito]

Petros is one of the top 3, if not the top forehand of all time. I think some people are forgetting how ruthless it could be. You can rally with Rafa and Roger's forehands. Petros was the only player where when you hit to his forehand side, you had about a 50/50 chance of having a play on the next ball no matter how well or where you hit it. It's not like he had to be set up properly to have time to unload on it. Petros could hit that stink from anywhere on the court and from any position and make you look foolish. Only Rafa has that type of forehand ability. While fed has probably the best and heaviest forehand rally ball ever, it's not nearly as good when he's on the run or out of position (in general, highlights aside). His backhand actually has more variety when put in a bad spot.

 

[droliver]

Petros is one of the top 3, if not the top forehand of all time. I think some people are forgetting how ruthless it could be.

Not even close. A top 3 FH, does make you an average clay court player for most of your career. Arguing "well, it wasn't a forehand for clay" undermines the idea it could then be a GOAT stroke. The great shots are great on all surfaces, especially the two (clay and hc) that make up 90%+ of events.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Deleted.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Not even close. A top 3 FH, does make you an average clay court player for most of your career. Arguing "well, it wasn't a forehand for clay" undermines the idea it could then be a GOAT stroke. The great shots are great on all surfaces, especially the two (clay and hc) that make up 90%+ of events.

Who said that Sampras' forehand was not a forehand for clay? Did you see my response to your previous post? You didn't reply to it so I presume you didn't see it.

 

[droliver]

Who said that Sampras' forehand was not a forehand for clay? Did you see my response to your previous post? You didn't reply to it so I presume you didn't see it.

No offense. That was less directed to you then one of the usual arguments you get about Sampras' shots ie. "It wasn't a clay court forehand". It's just one of the non sequiturs you get in this kind of debate.

 

[Limpinhitter]

No offense. That was less directed to you then one of the usual arguments you get about Sampras' shots ie. "It wasn't a clay court forehand". It's just one of the non sequiturs you get in this kind of debate.

If you did get a chance to read my prior post I would just add that it seems unfair to downgrade Sampras' forehand for his relative lack of success at the French Open for the reasons stated. In my view, if Sampras was in his prime now, I am confident that he would not only be a contender for the #1 ranking, he would also be a contender to win all of the majors including the French Open (now that Nadal is no longer Nadal), even with the same stroke production he had in his prime, because modern equipment and homogenized court surfaces would take away his choice to focus on developing an approach to the game that is rewarded by fast surfaces.

 

[NatF]

If you did get a chance to read my prior post I would just add that it seems unfair to downgrade Sampras' forehand for his relative lack of success at the French Open for the reasons stated. In my view, if Sampras was in his prime now, I am confident that he would not only be a contender for the #1 ranking, he would also be a contender to win all of the majors including the French Open (now that Nadal is no longer Nadal), even with the same stroke production he had in his prime, because modern equipment and homogenized court surfaces would take away his choice to focus on developing an approach to the game that is rewarded by fast surfaces.

Other players with games more suited to fast conditions made better efforts at the French Open than Sampras. There's a limit to the excuses one can give him.

 

[pc1]

Other players with games more suited to fast conditions made better efforts at the French Open than Sampras. There's a limit to the excuses one can give him.

Sampras was capable of winning on clay but obviously he would have to win in a different way than you would think of which you think of the typical French Open winner in recent years. I think he would have to play a Pancho Gonzalez or Rod Laver type clay court game.

I don't think he was suited to play a Borg or Orantes type clay court game.

If you did get a chance to read my prior post I would just add that it seems unfair to downgrade Sampras' forehand for his relative lack of success at the French Open for the reasons stated. In my view, if Sampras was in his prime now, I am confident that he would not only be a contender for the #1 ranking, he would also be a contender to win all of the majors including the French Open (now that Nadal is no longer Nadal), even with the same stroke production he had in his prime, because modern equipment and homogenized court surfaces would take away his choice to focus on developing an approach to the game that is rewarded by fast surfaces.

But you have to lower it somewhat because he wasn't able to execute his game plan on red clay. And his main groundstroke weapon is his forehand.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Other players with games more suited to fast conditions made better efforts at the French Open than Sampras. There's a limit to the excuses one can give him.

Sampras was capable of winning on clay but obviously he would have to win in a different way than you would think of which you think of the typical French Open winner in recent years. I think he would have to play a Pancho Gonzalez or Rod Laver type clay court game.

I don't think he was suited to play a Borg or Orantes type clay court game.

But you have to lower it somewhat because he wasn't able to execute his game plan on red clay. And his main groundstroke weapon is his forehand.

We're talking about forehands. It is not disputed that Sampras' approach to winning was designed to succeed on fast courts not on clay. In any event, if it is true that Sampras' forehand (in isolation), was less effective on clay and, therefore, the rank of his forehand should be diminished for that reason, then wouldn't any diminishment be set off by the superior effectiveness of his forehand on fast surfaces?

 

[pc1]

We're talking about forehands. It is not disputed that Sampras' approach to winning was designed to succeed on fast courts not on clay. In any event, if it is true that Sampras' forehand (in isolation), was less effective on clay and, therefore, the rank of his forehand should be diminished for that reason, then wouldn't any diminishment be set off by the superior effectiveness of his forehand on fast surfaces?

Limpinhitter, thing is that guys like Vines, Perry, Laver, Hoad also had their forehands built for fast court play but they were also very good on clay. As you know Laver had a continental grip forehand but he was able to hit heavy topspin on his forehand if he wanted to. I've seen some examples of Laver hitting such heavy topspin on his forehand on red clay that even Rosewall couldn't handle it on his backhand side. It was sort of an early wooden racquet type of heavy topspin Nadal type high topspin to Federer backhand type game in a way.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Limpinhitter, thing is that guys like Vines, Perry, Laver, Hoad also had their forehands built for fast court play but they were also very good on clay. As you know Laver had a continental grip forehand but he was able to hit heavy topspin on his forehand if he wanted to. I've seen some examples of Laver hitting such heavy topspin on his forehand on red clay that even Rosewall couldn't handle it on his backhand side. It was sort of an early wooden racquet type of heavy topspin Nadal type high topspin to Federer backhand type game in a way.

What we have here is a failure to communicate for which I take responsibility. Once again, in my opinion, given all of the factors that I previously enumerated regarding the state of the game in Sampras' era, Sampras elected to focus his efforts on winning Wimbledon which meant that his approach to winning matches - a higher risk, lower percentage brand of tennis - was designed to be successful (rewarded), on faster courts. Vines, Perry, Laver and Hoad did not have to play in an era of oversized graphite racquets and clay court specialists.

It had nothing to do with Sampras' forehand, per se, any more than it has to do with his serve, per se. To conclude that, because Sampras' record at the French Open was not as good as his record at the other majors, therefore, his foerhand, or backhand, or serve, or netgame, was somehow deficient on clay is a giant leap of logic that, so far, has not been surmounted.

 

[pc1]

What we have here is a failure to communicate for which I take responsibility. Once again, in my opinion, given all of the factors that I previously enumerated regarding the state of the game in Sampras' era, Sampras elected to focus his efforts on winning Wimbledon which meant that his approach to winning matches - a higher risk, lower percentage brand of tennis - was designed to be successful (rewarded), on faster courts. Vines, Perry, Laver and Hoad did not have to play in an era of oversized graphite racquets and clay court specialists.

It had nothing to do with Sampras' forehand, per se, any more than it has to do with his serve, per se. To conclude that, because Sampras' record at the French Open was not as good as his record at the other majors, therefore, his foerhand, or backhand, or serve, or netgame, was somehow deficient on clay is a giant leap of logic that, so far, has not been surmounted.

I understand. I do think number three is a little high but no big deal.

 

[5263]

Most of those guys can but some obviously hit a more consistently powerful forehand. Goes without saying. If you're comparing him to just recent top 3 players then sure...

His forehand is incredible. Just not at the very top of all time. And we don't need to argue, just discuss. But suite yourself.

I appreciate your opinion and as we all realize, very hard to compare anything done in the past with what is going on at the much higher level of the game these days. Anything from the historical players is about potential or against weaker threats than we see today.

 

[Limpinhitter]

According to Agassi, Sampras' forehand was "obnoxious."

At 1:20 and 1:30:

 

[Dan Lobb]

What we have here is a failure to communicate for which I take responsibility. Once again, in my opinion, given all of the factors that I previously enumerated regarding the state of the game in Sampras' era, Sampras elected to focus his efforts on winning Wimbledon which meant that his approach to winning matches - a higher risk, lower percentage brand of tennis - was designed to be successful (rewarded), on faster courts. Vines, Perry, Laver and Hoad did not have to play in an era of oversized graphite racquets and clay court specialists.

It had nothing to do with Sampras' forehand, per se, any more than it has to do with his serve, per se. To conclude that, because Sampras' record at the French Open was not as good as his record at the other majors, therefore, his foerhand, or backhand, or serve, or netgame, was somehow deficient on clay is a giant leap of logic that, so far, has not been surmounted.

Although Hoad, Perry, and Laver were great on clay against clay specialists.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Although Hoad, Perry, and Laver were great on clay against clay specialists.

Dan, before Borg and Vilas, there were no clay court specialists of the kind that their were when larger graphite racquets became popular among the pros beginning in the 80's.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, before Borg and Vilas, there were no clay court specialists of the kind that their were when larger graphite racquets became popular among the pros beginning in the 80's.

No, players such as Beppi Merlo, Pietrangeli, Santana, were clearly clay specialists.

 

[Limpinhitter]

No, players such as Beppi Merlo, Pietrangeli, Santana, were clearly clay specialists.

I don't know Beppi Merlo. But, Pietrangeli and Santana are all court players who played all surfaces, not what I consider clay court specialists. Santana was a Wimbledon and USO champion both on grass.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I don't know Beppi Merlo. But, Pietrangeli and Santana are all court players who played all surfaces, not what I consider clay court specialists. Santana was a Wimbledon and USO champion both on grass.

Nadal won two Wimby's, Djokovic won at RG...whom are you referring to as "specialists"?

 

[BobbyOne]

No, players such as Beppi Merlo, Pietrangeli, Santana, were clearly clay specialists.

Dan, You mean Beppe Merlo who had a long career winning his last tournament at St. Moritz in 1972 beating Kim Warwick in the final at 45. Merlo used an extremely soft-tightened racquet. He won at least 27 tournaments.

Santana was not a clay specialist but clay was his strongest surface.

 

[BobbyOne]

Nadal won two Wimby's, Djokovic won at RG...whom are you referring to as "specialists"?

Dan, When did Djokovic win at RG?

 

[Limpinhitter]

Nadal won two Wimby's, Djokovic won at RG...whom are you referring to as "specialists"?

Dan, I'm glad you asked this question. The bottom line is that Sampras was in a rather unique position of playing a fast court brand of tennis in a transitional era. It is ironic that you brought up Hoad and Laver as examples of fast court players who were also major champions on clay because they, along with Okker, Nastase, Borg and Vilas are some of the few who I have said I thought would succeed on clay today. They did not have to compete against oversized graphite racquet baseline grinders of the late 80's to today, but, I think they could have coped with that brand of tennis better than other wood racquet era players such as Perry. In any event, think that I fully explained my position on the subject of Sampras' forehand in several posts, one of which you responded to. It's understandable that you may have forgotten about them. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I will quote some of my prior posts here:

I see it like this:

Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, et al., played in the "big game" era where the equipment rewarded the big game on all surfaces, especially the best of the big game players. A serve and volleyer on grass was a serve and volleyer on clay, as a primary gameplan, with few exceptions. Sampras played in the post Borg/Vilas era of graphite racquets and numerous clay court specialists. It was understood that players whose styles of play were developed to succeed on clay were not suited to succeed on grass. However, although Sampras' equipment was superior to wood racquets, the graphite racquets of the pros then were still thin beamed, flexible racquets commonly referred to today as "player's frames," which played more like wood racquets than the racquets today. The first strike style of play that was successful on grass and fast indoor and hard courts with that equipment was not rewarded on clay. Compare that evolution to the equipment and courts today in which the racquets and homogenized speeds of the surfaces of the courts have basically required all of the pros to become the equivalent of clay court specialists. Like the big game era, the pros now have to play the same style of play on all surfaces to be successful. Sampras' time came in between those two bookends.

As we all know, Sampras elected to develop his game to succeed at Wimbledon. As I see it, that was a choice he had to make because at that time, given the equipment and surfaces, the approach that would be most likely to succeed on clay would not succeed on grass or faster hard and indoor courts, or vise versa. Today, he wouldn't have to make that choice, nor would there be a choice to make.

What we have here is a failure to communicate for which I take responsibility. Once again, in my opinion, given all of the factors that I previously enumerated regarding the state of the game in Sampras' era, Sampras elected to focus his efforts on winning Wimbledon which meant that his approach to winning matches - a higher risk, lower percentage brand of tennis - was designed to be successful (rewarded), on faster courts. Vines, Perry, Laver and Hoad did not have to play in an era of oversized graphite racquets and clay court specialists.

It had nothing to do with Sampras' forehand, per se, any more than it has to do with his serve, per se. To conclude that, because Sampras' record at the French Open was not as good as his record at the other majors, therefore, his foerhand, or backhand, or serve, or netgame, was somehow deficient on clay is a giant leap of logic that, so far, has not been surmounted.

You also said:

Nadal won two Wimby's, Djokovic won at RG...whom are you referring to as "specialists"?

As I have said, as a result of modern racquets, string and homogenized surfaces, everyone today is, in effect, a clay court specialist. Everyone has been reduced to a heavy topspin, backcourt, grinder on every surface.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

Indeed. Moya clearly has the better forehand just from that list - Hewitt certainly does not belong. Even a guy like Ferrer arguably has a better forehand than Hewitt did.

Agreed. Lleyton Hewitt's backhand is his better side. Don't know why nobody talks about it though.

 

[pc1]

To get back on the topic. Who has the best forehand in tennis today?

 

[Simon_the_furry]

To get back on the topic. Who has the best forehand in tennis today?

Sock
sock sock sosck soskco sock socks soskck sockso cosock sockso soskcoso sockso soskcos socks osock sock sock soscko sock socks osck sock.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Sock
sock sock sosck soskco sock socks soskck sockso cosock sockso soskcoso sockso soskcos socks osock sock sock soscko sock socks osck sock.

Oy!