Greatest USO player of all time?

Who is the USO GOAT?

  • Federer

    Votes: 83 48.3%

  • Sampras

    Votes: 39 22.7%

  • Connors

    Votes: 50 29.1%
  • Total voters
    172
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
Federer/Sampras/Connors

Number of championships : 5/5/5
Number of finals : 6/8/7
Number of semifinals : 8/9/14
Number of quarterfinals : 9/10/17
Number of wins : 64/71/98 (Federer has 8 losses, Sampras has 9, Connors has 17)

Most consecutive championships : 5/2/2
Most consecutive finals : 6/3/5
Most consecutive semifinals : 8/3/12
Most consecutive quarterfinals : 9/4/13
Most consecutive wins : 41/17/19



Who would you say is the USO GOAT? This is a really tough call.
 
I regard titles as being the ultimate trump card over any other factor. Second on my list is consecutive titles.

Matches played, number of finals, number of semis etc are a distant factors which don't even factor compared to the others - they're only tie-break factors when other things are equal. Other than that they're irrelevant imo...*

For me, Federer - by virtue of five consecutive titles - is the man here so far as US Open greatness is concerned.

(*As an example, while Federer's semi-final run of 23 consecutive majors is amazing - they will never equal a title in terms of absolute achievement.)
 
Why is winning them consecutively not better than say, 5 over a span of 20 years? I mean, is dominance more important than longevity?
 
Prisoner of Birth said:
Federer/Sampras/Connors

Number of championships : 5/5/5
Number of finals : 6/8/7
Number of semifinals : 8/9/14
Number of quarterfinals : 9/10/17
Number of wins : 64/71/98 (Federer has 8 losses, Sampras has 9, Connors has 17)

Most consecutive championships : 5/2/2
Most consecutive finals : 6/3/5
Most consecutive semifinals : 8/3/12
Most consecutive quarterfinals : 9/4/13
Most consecutive wins : 41/17/19



Who would you say is the USO GOAT? This is a really tough call.
Click to expand...

CAn you make your poll public ?
 
Sampras is the best. Finals are better than semi finals and quarterfinals etc...Federer was the most dominant over a 5 year stretch but overall Sampras is better.
 
joeri888 said:
Why is winning them consecutively not better than say, 5 over a span of 20 years? I mean, is dominance more important than longevity?
Click to expand...
It is to me.

I think someone who can string them together without faltering has achieved something better and/or more difficult than someone who couldn't > it's part of the same reasoning the calendar slam is the holy grail and the career slam is another rung down the order of grand achievements. Doing four in a row is, in many ways, much harder than across a career.

That said, I can see how you could argue that dominance over consecutive years could be viewed by some as proof of weak competition... :)
 
Bobby Jr said:
It is to me.

I think someone who can string them together without faltering has achieved something better and/or more difficult than someone who couldn't > it's part of the same reasoning the calendar slam is the holy grail and the career slam is another rung down the order of grand achievements. Doing four in a row is, in many ways, much harder than across a career.

That said, I can see how you could argue that dominance over consecutive years could be viewed by some as proof of weak competition... :)
Click to expand...

Sampras has 8 trophies(5 W & 3 F). Federer has 6 trophies(5 W & 1 F). Sampras >> Federer as far as US Open is concerned.
 
helloworld said:
Sampras has 8 trophies(5 W & 3 F). Federer has 6 trophies(5 W & 1 F). Sampras >> Federer as far as US Open is concerned.
Click to expand...

So when comparing Fed and Sampras at FO for example Fed has 5 trophies (1 W and 4 F) compared to zero (0 W and 0 F) ? 5>0 ? Funny thing is, I remember Sampras fans always arguing that until Fed actually wins FO it doesn't matter how many finals he makes (who cares about finals, right?).
 
zagor said:
So when comparing Fed and Sampras at FO for example Fed has 5 trophies (1 W and 4 F) compared to zero (0 W and 0 F) ? 5>0 ? Funny thing is, I remember Sampras fans always arguing that until Fed actually wins FO it doesn't matter how many finals he makes (who cares about finals, right?).
Click to expand...
Yep... and until this year people said Federer wasn't GOAT because Sampras had more weeks at #1.

Now that Federer got that, which I assumed these people thought was a secure record of Sampras', the goalposts have been readjusted as usual.
 
zagor said:
So when comparing Fed and Sampras at FO for example Fed has 5 trophies (1 W and 4 F) compared to zero (0 W and 0 F) ? 5>0 ? Funny thing is, I remember Sampras fans always arguing that until Fed actually wins FO it doesn't matter how many finals he makes (who cares about finals, right?).
Click to expand...

The finals trophy is usually compared when both players are tied with the win trophy. In this case, both players have the same amount of win trophies, therefore, it should be fair to compare them by the secondary trophy instead.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Yep... and until this year people said Federer wasn't GOAT because Sampras had more weeks at #1.

Now that Federer got that, which I assumed these people thought was a secure record of Sampras', the goalposts have been readjusted as usual.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would have thought the total weeks record at #1 for Sampras was safe. However, the record that is definitely safe though, is the 6 straight years at #1. Federer ain't going going to be touching that record even if he plays into his 40s.
 
How much importance do you place on dominance in winning their 5 championships. Dominance defined as sets won/loss percentage during their 5 U.S. Open wins and overall.

Overall Sets Won/Loss
Federer - 200-45 81.6%
Sampras - 221-61 78.4%
Connors - 290-85 77.3%

During 5 Wins
Federer - 102-13 88.7%
Sampras - 105-18 85.37%
Connors - 99-13 88.39%
 
Prisoner of Birth said:
Federer/Sampras/Connors

Number of championships : 5/5/5
Number of finals : 6/8/7
Number of semifinals : 8/9/14
Number of quarterfinals : 9/10/17
Number of wins : 64/71/98 (Federer has 8 losses, Sampras has 9, Connors has 17)

Most consecutive championships : 5/2/2
Most consecutive finals : 6/3/5
Most consecutive semifinals : 8/3/12
Most consecutive quarterfinals : 9/4/13
Most consecutive wins : 41/17/19

Who would you say is the USO GOAT? This is a really tough call.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me how inconsistent Sampras was at Grand Slams compared to Federer. I mean most consecutive semifinals - 3. Wow.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Yep... and until this year people said Federer wasn't GOAT because Sampras had more weeks at #1.

Now that Federer got that, which I assumed these people thought was a secure record of Sampras', the goalposts have been readjusted as usual.
Click to expand...

Also notice how when it comes to comparing them at USO, # of finals reached is a dealbreaker but not when it comes to comparing Fed to Sampras at Wimbledon (where Fed reached an additional final compared to Pete).

helloworld said:
The finals trophy is usually compared when both players are tied with the win trophy. In this case, both players have the same amount of win trophies, therefore, it should be fair to compare them by the secondary trophy instead.
Click to expand...

They were both tied with the win trophy before 2009, they both had zero win trophies (if a football match ends with 0-0 score it's still a tie, right?) but somehow Fed making 3 FO finals in a row didn't count for anything compared to Sampras' one measly SF in his whole career.

helloworld said:
I don't think anyone would have thought the total weeks record at #1 for Sampras was safe. However, the record that is definitely safe though, is the 6 straight years at #1. Federer ain't going going to be touching that record even if he plays into his 40s.
Click to expand...

You mean 6 years at #1 (compared to Fed's 5), right? Why should Sampras get extra points for ending 6 years at #1 straight yet Fed winning 5 USOs straight is supposedly irrelevant in this discussion?
 
zagor said:
Also notice how when it comes to comparing them at USO, # of finals reached is a dealbreaker but not when it comes to comparing Fed to Sampras at Wimbledon (where Fed reached an additional final compared to Pete).
Click to expand...

It's like you read my mind Zagor :lol:

Guess Fed is Wimbledon GOAT then :D
 
Connors winning all those U.S Opens on different surfaces, including clay which is his worst by far, is mighty impressive so I voted him. Had the U.S Open been on decoturf every year he probably would have 7 titles now as well.
 
Connors-In-5.jpg
 
I think Connors is currently a bit ahead of federer, but federer can pass him if he keeps doing well at the US open.

Federer having 5 consecutive and 6 finals in a row is pretty huge, but connors played for a really long time.
 
It's close, but I voted Connors due to him

winning it on 3 surfaces
having one more final than Federer and only one less than Sampras
Having a lot more semis and quarters
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
How much importance do you place on dominance in winning their 5 championships. Dominance defined as sets won/loss percentage during their 5 U.S. Open wins and overall.

Overall Sets Won/Loss
Federer - 200-45 81.6%
Sampras - 221-61 78.4%
Connors - 290-85 77.3%

During 5 Wins
Federer - 102-13 88.7%
Sampras - 105-18 85.37%
Connors - 99-13 88.39%
Click to expand...

Federer was more dominant despite having to play on foreign soil while Connors and Sampras had the home court advantage.
 
gavna said:
Mainly due to him playing for much longer - dude was still grinding it out there at 40.

He has 5 wins, 2 finals, 7 semis, 3 qtrs And then a 1R, 1R,2R, 3R and 2R (all when he was 18 - 20, 34 and 40 yrs old.

Do you really think Federer at 39 will be making runs into the semis!!!! No way Jose.

And as stated if the open had been played on Decotuf or hard from 1975 on Jimbo would easily have won 8 or 9 in a row.....the dude OWED the USO.
Click to expand...

Not the point. The fact he played it for so long shows in his number of wins there so if age can discount the losses it should also do the same for the wins. Otherwise it's just excuses.

His longevity was insane though, no denying that. I'd prefer not to speculate on how many he could have won 'if this' or 'if that'.

I'd probably rate Federer third out of these guys after thinking about it more. I still give Sampras the nod due to the extra final.
 
TMF said:
Federer was more dominant despite having to play on foreign soil while Connors and Sampras had the home court advantage.
Click to expand...

Let's be real here -- Federer probably (saying probably to be generous to Pete) has more American fans than Sampras did, so this doesn't mean much.

And Sampras played against Agassi 4 times at the Open, who is undeniably the most beloved American tennis player of all time. You think Sampras thought of it as 'homecourt advantage' then?
 
Bobby Jr said:
Yep... and until this year people said Federer wasn't GOAT because Sampras had more weeks at #1.

Now that Federer got that, which I assumed these people thought was a secure record of Sampras', the goalposts have been readjusted as usual.
Click to expand...

haahahaa :) ive got this image of sampras fanatics moving the goat goalposts around to a more favourable position for his royal peteyness.
 
Mustard said:
Obviously Jimmy Connors with 98 match wins at the US Open.
Click to expand...

How is most match wins at the slam is relevant for Connors but when using the same criteria for Federer at the FO it's irrelevant. That's a double standard.
 
TheFifthSet said:
Let's be real here -- Federer probably (saying probably to be generous to Pete) has more American fans than Sampras did, so this doesn't mean much.

And Sampras played against Agassi 4 times at the Open, who is undeniably the most beloved American tennis player of all time. You think Sampras thought of it as 'homecourt advantage' then?
Click to expand...

2002 USO final I see a lot of fans rooting for Sampras, and a huge ovation after a match point. Federer had to deal with other American players(i.e. Roddick).
 
TMF said:
2002 USO final I see a lot of fans rooting for Sampras, and a huge ovation after a match point. Federer had to deal with other American players(i.e. Roddick).
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sampras was more of a sentimental favourite that year compared to others (although most of the crowd was still pro-Agassi). But that's one match, or a couple. It really wasn't much of a homecourt advantage. Agassi was always #1 in the hearts of Americans. And Federer IS ARGUABLY THE MOST POPULAR TENNIS PLAYER ON PLANET EARTH RIGHT NOW, and has been for a while. I doubt it was a huge ordeal for him. Sure, there was the '04 and '05 USO QF's and finals, but I'd say the support he had from 2008-2011 vs. Djokovic more than makes up for it. Or in '12 vs Berdych (they were going crazy when Fed won that third set), '08 vs Andreev (you woulda thought Fed was American), et al. They love him in New York.

In any case, who cares? They both won 5 U.S Opens. They're pretty even (Federer and Sampras) in terms of U.S.O pedigree, although if I had to pick I'd give an edge to Fed. But the fact that it's played in Pete's home country isn't a valid argument imo.

Connors, he wasn't as dominant as Federer at the Open but he might just be the best of all time there. Won on 3 different surfaces, against all-time great players, and made multiple other finals. If Federer wins one more, though, it's pretty unanimous of course.
 
Last edited:
TMF said:
How is most match wins at the slam is relevant for Connors but when using the same criteria for Federer at the FO it's irrelevant. That's a double standard.
Click to expand...

Not really the same, because Connors is tied for most US Open titles won. The fact that he has far and away the most match wins can be used as a tiebreaker/bonus when comparing the 3.
 
NatF said:
His winning percentage isn't as good as the other two though.
Click to expand...

Lets see Federer play the U.S Open until he is 40, then compare their win percentages. Sampras's last U.S Open was at 31, so no valid comparision can be made obviously.
 
TMF said:
How is most match wins at the slam is relevant for Connors but when using the same criteria for Federer at the FO it's irrelevant. That's a double standard.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Judge below for yourself, and I think it's obvious who has the best overall record at the US Open as of today:

Jimmy Connors
1970: Round of 128 Loser
1971: Round of 64 Loser
1972: Round of 128 Loser
1973: Quarter Final Loser
1974: CHAMPION
1975: Runner-up
1976: CHAMPION
1977: Runner-up
1978: CHAMPION
1979: Semi Final Loser
1980: Semi Final Loser
1981: Semi Final Loser
1982: CHAMPION
1983: CHAMPION
1984: Semi Final Loser
1985: Semi Final Loser
1986: Round of 32 Loser
1987: Semi Final Loser
1988: Quarter Final Loser
1989: Quarter Final Loser
1991: Semi Final Loser
1992: Round of 64 Loser

Pete Sampras
1988: Round of 128 Loser
1989: Round of 16 Loser
1990: CHAMPION
1991: Quarter Final Loser
1992: Runner-up
1993: CHAMPION
1994: Round of 16 Loser
1995: CHAMPION
1996: CHAMPION
1997: Round of 16 Loser
1998: Semi Final Loser
2000: Runner-up
2001: Runner-up
2002: CHAMPION

Roger Federer
2000: Round of 32 Loser
2001: Round of 16 Loser
2002: Round of 16 Loser
2003: Round of 16 Loser
2004: CHAMPION
2005: CHAMPION
2006: CHAMPION
2007: CHAMPION
2008: CHAMPION
2009: Runner-up
2010: Semi Final Loser
2011: Semi Final Loser
2012: Quarter Final Loser
 
urban said:
Tilden, i would think.
Click to expand...

If we're going back to the amateur years, then it probably is Bill Tilden, who won the title 7 times (including 6 in a row), and this was during the 1920s when the amateur players were the best players in the world, as the professional game only really had pro teachers playing at the time.
 
Just as Sampras being year end no. 1 for 6 consecutive times is incredible achievement in the eyes of his fans, for me Federer winning US open 5 consecutive times stands out as a decider. That just goes on to show his dominance. Mr.Roger Federer is the US-GOAT.
 
I'm not going to vote since Fed is still active and I believe he'll get another US Open title and ultimately surpass both of those at this particular slam. Other two guys careers are set in stone, Fed's legend is still unfolding.
 
zagor said:
Also notice how when it comes to comparing them at USO, # of finals reached is a dealbreaker but not when it comes to comparing Fed to Sampras at Wimbledon (where Fed reached an additional final compared to Pete).

....They were both tied with the win trophy before 2009, they both had zero win trophies (if a football match ends with 0-0 score it's still a tie, right?) but somehow Fed making 3 FO finals in a row didn't count for anything compared to Sampras' one measly SF in his whole career.

....You mean 6 years at #1 (compared to Fed's 5), right? Why should Sampras get extra points for ending 6 years at #1 straight yet Fed winning 5 USOs straight is supposedly irrelevant in this discussion?
Click to expand...
Golden post Zagor :cool:. Should be the end of the thread right there with those three points.
 
zagor said:
You mean 6 years at #1 (compared to Fed's 5), right? Why should Sampras get extra points for ending 6 years at #1 straight yet Fed winning 5 USOs straight is supposedly irrelevant in this discussion?
Click to expand...

This is great stuff here. You really know how to turn the tables on the nostalgic folks.
 
Last edited:
For the same reason that I believe Sampras was more dominant at W than Fed in his winning book end years, the same reason I think Federer is more dominant than Sampras in his winning bookend years at the USO. Bookeend years being 1st and last titles.

Really, in 5 years, there is no interruption. 5 years back to back is just solid with no leakage. You can't beat that. Overall Sampras may have the better record but 5 in a row is pure dominance, albeit over a shorter period of time.
 
Blocker said:
For the same reason that I believe Sampras was more dominant at W than Fed in his winning book end years, the same reason I think Federer is more dominant than Sampras in his winning bookend years at the USO. Bookeend years being 1st and last titles.

Really, in 5 years, there is no interruption. 5 years back to back is just solid with no leakage. You can't beat that. Overall Sampras may have the better record but 5 in a row is pure dominance, albeit over a shorter period of time.
Click to expand...
But Federer did five in a row at Wimbledon also - which Sampras never managed. The first and second paragraphs of your post seem to argue against each other. Federer's total number of Wimbledon's is the same as Sampras' - but his dominant, unbroken stretch is 25% better than Sampras' (5 vs 4).
 
Bobby Jr said:
But Federer did five in a row at Wimbledon also - which Sampras never managed. The first and second paragraphs of your post seem to argue against each other. Federer's total number of Wimbledon's is the same as Sampras' - but his dominant, unbroken stretch is 25% better than Sampras' (5 vs 4).
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I said bookend years. If at W you just want to look at Fed’s 5 titles in succession, that’s fine, but 5 win in 5 years is still less than Sampras’ 7 wins in 8 years. Between Sampras’ 1st and 7th W titles, it was 8 years difference. Between Federer’s 1st and 7th W titles, it has been longer than 8 years. From the time Sampras won his 1st W, it took him 7 years to add another 6 W titles. From the time Federer won his 1st W title, it took him longer than 7 years to win another 6 W titles.

But at the USO, Fed’s 5 wins in 5 years beats Sampras’ 5 wins in 9 or 10 or however many years it was. That’s my point.
 
Blocker said:
Read my post again. I said bookend years. If at W you just want to look at Fed’s 5 titles in succession, that’s fine, but 5 win in 5 years is still less than Sampras’ 7 wins in 8 years. Between Sampras’ 1st and 7th W titles, it was 8 years difference. Between Federer’s 1st and 7th W titles, it has been longer than 8 years. From the time Sampras won his 1st W, it took him 7 years to add another 6 W titles. From the time Federer won his 1st W title, it took him longer than 7 years to win another 6 W titles.

But at the USO, Fed’s 5 wins in 5 years beats Sampras’ 5 wins in 9 or 10 or however many years it was. That’s my point.
Click to expand...
I read your post - you don't make it at all clear which you're arguing for in terms of priority. Is it: if titles won are equal the person with the broader bookends should be considered better, or the person who managed the longest unbroken run? Why do a player's non performing appearances get deleted from consideration. Sampras played Wimbledon a number of times after his first major win* (1990 USO) and his last (2002 USO) where he performed terribly (two 2nd rounds and a 4th round).

It can be argued either way but, in the end the long unbroken runs are far harder to achieve than bookending wins over a much longer period imo.

(*I'm using the first major win as a trigger that a player has now entered the fray of top players. It's convenient but seems to be a good threshold)
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
I read your post - you don't make it at all clear which you're arguing for in terms of priority. Is it: if titles won are equal the person with the broader bookends should be considered better, or the person who managed the longest unbroken run? Why do a player's non performing appearances get deleted from consideration. Sampras played Wimbledon a number of times after his first major win (1990 USO) and his last (2002 USO) where he performed terribly.

It can be argued either way but, in the end the long unbroken runs are far harder to achieve than bookending wins over a much longer period imo.
Click to expand...

That bit I agree with. If both had won only 5 Ws, but Fed's were done in succession and Sampras' were done in sequences of 4 and then 1, then yes Federer's achievement is more impressive. Being the hunted for 5 straight years and fending off challengers in that time is unbelievable. But both have won 7, so looking at the 7 in their entirety, it took Sampras less years to do it. So if just looking at 5, then Federer is more impressive. if look at the whole 7, then Sampras is more impressive.

But for the 5 straight argument, that's why i give Fed the nod ahead of Sampras at the USO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?
6 7 8
Replies
369
Views
22K
NadalAgassi
N
P
Myth : Federer is consistent only because of homogenization
Replies
39
Views
5K
nereis
N
M
Federer and Most Consecutive Records
Replies
14
Views
3K
DMan
D
M
Federer Streaks that Are Still Going
Replies
15
Views
1K
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
BGod
Rank Federer's Greatest Streaks.
Replies
24
Views
2K
BGod
BGod
Back
Top