How has Nadal passed Sampras?

Has Nadal surpassed Sampras?


  • Total voters
    135
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
You are evading by not agreeing that Sampras is more accomplished at 3/4 slams.
Machi ... omala, a little honesty is required. I agreed he is more accomplished. I objected when you said he's better.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Yes machi, I have some time now. While it's true that Djokovic in 2013 wasn't the same player he was in 2011, I don't know that we can use such arguments to devalue Nadal's victories over him. The Federer fans like to do that to downplay Nadal's victory over him at Wimbledon 2008 but though a Djokovic fan primarily, I'm not going to do that. I think Nadal thoroughly deserved those victories. In 2013, he pretty much swept the summer American hardcourt season if memory serves right.
No one’s saying he didn’t deserve them. If you win a match, you deserve it. We’re just comparing competition. Djokovic wasn’t that bad in 2010 and 2013, but he was just average in those finals while Agassi played a really superb match in the 2001 QF.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
No one’s saying he didn’t deserve them. If you win a match, you deserve it. We’re just comparing competition. Djokovic wasn’t that bad in 2010 and 2013, but he was just average in those finals while Agassi played a really superb match in the 2001 QF.
Yes, quality of play wise, fully agreed (y) The 2001 QF was from a different world!
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
And of course, the perennial question that no Federer fan has been able to answer ... after years of dismissing Sampras while Federer was chasing his records, why are the Federer fans so bent on propping him up now? :)
 

PilotPete

Professional
Machi ... omala, a little honesty is required. I agreed he is more accomplished. I objected when you said he's better.
'Better' for all intents and purposes has to mean 'accomplished', otherwise the true meaning of better is quite meaningless since it is entirely subjective.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
'Better' for all intents and purposes has to mean 'accomplished', otherwise the true meaning of better is quite meaningless since it is entirely subjective.
Otha, you're contradicting yourself now. If they both mean the same, would you agree that Roy Emerson was better than Rod Laver & Bjorn Borg? Omala!
 

PilotPete

Professional
Otha, you're contradicting yourself now. If they both mean the same, would you agree that Roy Emerson was better than Rod Laver & Bjorn Borg? Omala!
You misunderstand. You can never truly determine who is better, especially across generations. Therefore, when people use the word 'better', they generally mean accomplishments.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
You misunderstand. You can never truly determine who is better, especially across generations. Therefore, when people use the word 'better', they generally mean accomplishments.
OKKALI OMALA OTHA!

Now I'm the one who is misunderstanding? Pray tell, just what did I misunderstand? :rolleyes:
 

PilotPete

Professional
OKKALI OMALA OTHA!

Now I'm the one who is misunderstanding? Pray tell, just what did I misunderstand? :rolleyes:
you misunderstood, that 'better' by default has to mean more accomplished since the other definition of better is impossible to say with any objectivity, it's just an opinion. This thread is about accomplishments.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
you misunderstood, that 'better' by default has to mean more accomplished since the other definition of better is impossible to say with any objectivity, it's just an opinion. This thread is about accomplishments.
Accomplishments as comparators aren't objective either. This is because an accomplishment isn't a standard unit. For example, if my fastest 100 meters run was 15 seconds, and your fastest was 13 seconds, your accomplishment is objectively better, as meters per second is standard unit.
That's not the case for Slams, or weeks at number 1. There's no reason to assume that the value of each slam, or value of a YE#1, is the same as another.

Nadal has won as many Grand Slams having to face a possible GOAT, as Sampras has won Slams in total: 14.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
you misunderstood, that 'better' by default has to mean more accomplished since the other definition of better is impossible to say with any objectivity, it's just an opinion. This thread is about accomplishments.
Machan ... how can you say better is by default the same as 'more accomplished'? There are people, and quite few of them on this forum, that claim Nadal/Djokovic's accomplishments are not comparable to Federer's because they were achieved in a 'weak' era. So if you asked them, they'd refuse to accept that more accomplished is the same as better because that would mean conceding that Nadal is better than Federer.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
To add further to my post above, who's better- Sebastian Vettel or Lewis Hamilton?

Lewis has far more wins and more championships than Vettel so according to your definition, he's better as he has accomplished more. Not a great way to come to that conclusion but let's accept it for discussion sake. How about back in 2013 when Vettel had 4 championships to Hamilton's 1? Using your same definition, Vettel was better. We arrive at contradictory conclusions showing that your logic is flawed.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Accomplishments as comparators aren't objective either. This is because an accomplishment isn't a standard unit. For example, if my fastest 100 meters run was 15 seconds, and your fastest was 13 seconds, your accomplishment is objectively better, as meters per second is standard unit.
That's not the case for Slams, or weeks at number 1. There's no reason to assume that the value of each slam, or value of a YE#1, is the same as another.

Nadal has won as many Grand Slams having to face a possible GOAT, as Sampras has won Slams in total: 14.
Brilliant post! (y) Explained in a succinct and brief manner the same thing I'm using several paragraphs to explain :)
 

PilotPete

Professional
Accomplishments as comparators aren't objective either. This is because an accomplishment isn't a standard unit. For example, if my fastest 100 meters run was 15 seconds, and your fastest was 13 seconds, your accomplishment is objectively better, as meters per second is standard unit.
That's not the case for Slams, or weeks at number 1. There's no reason to assume that the value of each slam, or value of a YE#1, is the same as another.

Nadal has won as many Grand Slams having to face a possible GOAT, as Sampras has won Slams in total: 14.
At the very least # slams is more objective than "I think Nadal is better than ....".
 

PilotPete

Professional
Machan ... how can you say better is by default the same as 'more accomplished'? There are people, and quite few of them on this forum, that claim Nadal/Djokovic's accomplishments are not comparable to Federer's because they were achieved in a 'weak' era. So if you asked them, they'd refuse to accept that more accomplished is the same as better because that would mean conceding that Nadal is better than Federer.
Again, you misunderstand. The whole point is that this thread is talking about comparing Pete's and Nadal's accomplishments. You got caught up with semantics when I used the word better to mean the same thing as accomplishments. The bottom line is Pete has achieved more than Nadal at 75% fo the slams.
 

PilotPete

Professional
Brilliant post! (y) Explained in a succinct and brief manner the same thing I'm using several paragraphs to explain :)
It's not really that great. Otherwise one can claim that the entire concept of 'objectivity' is subjective in itself at which point all discussions seize.
 

Rapenj

New User
Many posters on here see it that way.
Is it the case of recency bias or something else?

Total Slams:

Sampras- 14
Nadal- 20

Total Weeks as #1:

Sampras- 286
Nadal- 209 weeks

HUGE difference

Year End #1:

Sampras- 6
Nadal- 5

Time spent at #1 is, and will always be Rafa's shortcoming on his GOAT resume. He won't catch Sampras here.

AO:

Sampras- 2 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 1 win, 3 final

Advantage Sampras


RG:

Sampras- 1 SF
Nadal- 13 wins

Complete wash here, Sampras' lack of performance on clay is one of the only reasons Rafa even has a shot to come close to Pete's achievements.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 7 wins
Nadal- 2 wins, 3 finals

5 additional championships for Pete at the most prestigious tennis event in the world.


USO:

Sampras- 5 wins, 3 finals
Nadal- 4 win, 1 final

Not even close here

Year End Masters:

Sampras- 5 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 0 wins, 1 final

Another destruction.

Masters 1000:

Sampras- 11 wins, 8 finals
Nadal- 35 wins, 51 finals

Rafa has this trump card, but how much is it worth?

OVERALL:

Bull is the clay GOAT with solid success on other surfaces.

Sampras beats him handily at 3/4 slams the YE#1 / Weeks at #1 and WTFs.
That's nonsense. The most important thing is the total Slams. As simple as that. When there's a tie, a +1 or even a +2 difference at most, you can start talking about other things. Now, 20 > 14. That's too much a difference. They are in another league. As simple as that.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Again, you misunderstand. The whole point is that this thread is talking about comparing Pete's and Nadal's accomplishments. You got caught up with semantics when I used the word better to mean the same thing as accomplishments. The bottom line is Pete has achieved more than Nadal at 75% fo the slams.
Machan ... simple question. Who's better ... Lewis Hamilton or Sebastian Vettel? Why?
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Who knows, who cares? They both played tennis about as well as it could possibly have been played at the time they played.
 

demrle

Professional
Yes, but if you compare all big 3 with Sampras, their numbers are almost identical at the age Pete retired.
If Sampras stayed motivated like them for another 4-5 years he would have added to his tally. But he felt he has done enough at that time so he retired.
If you compare the big 3 with Sampras when they were all six years old their numbers are completely identical, so Nadal hasn't passed Sampras.

And oh BTW, that is also the reason why there's no GOAT.
 

demrle

Professional
...
The fact that Nadal has won 13 RG - should not be taken against him. It's probably the ONLY record in Tennis that might survive time.
...
I find this pretty nonsensical TBH. Of course it should not be taken against him. But it should not be taken for him either. Why is that record significant? Is it better to win 13 titles at one slam than to win them spread across different slams?
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
What's the point when you can't admit basic facts! :)
Machan, the problem is you have forgotten my background that I shared with you at the beginning of this debate so let me remind you again ... I was, am and will always be a huge Sampras fan! So there is no need to be defensive or think that I'm setting a trap for you with the questions I'm asking.

Long before you joined, I declared my belief that Sampras is the greatest grass court player without a peer and I maintain that stance to this day. The only difference is that I don't suffer from the syndrome that affects most Federer lovers on this forum, namely 'nobody can possibly be greater than my favorite'! So I'm able to acknowledge that while Sampras is an all-time great and among the greatest of all time, he is simply not in the league of Nadal!

You on the other hand, while being very polite and loyal to Sampras, should be careful not to fall in the trap that many a Federer fanboy has succumbed to. There will always be someone greater than our favorite. Just as Nadal surpassed Sampras, there will come a day when someone will surpass Nadal and that's perfectly alright.
 

PilotPete

Professional
Machan, the problem is you have forgotten my background that I shared with you at the beginning of this debate so let me remind you again ... I was, am and will always be a huge Sampras fan! So there is no need to be defensive or think that I'm setting a trap for you with the questions I'm asking.

Long before you joined, I declared my belief that Sampras is the greatest grass court player without a peer and I maintain that stance to this day. The only difference is that I don't suffer from the syndrome that affects most Federer lovers on this forum, namely 'nobody can possibly be greater than my favorite'! So I'm able to acknowledge that while Sampras is an all-time great and among the greatest of all time, he is simply not in the league of Nadal!

You on the other hand, while being very polite and loyal to Sampras, should be careful not to fall in the trap that many a Federer fanboy has succumbed to. There will always be someone greater than our favorite. Just as Nadal surpassed Sampras, there will come a day when someone will surpass Nadal and that's perfectly alright.
I don't care whether you are a Sampras fan or not. I only ask you to acknowledge the fact that Sampras is ahead of Nadal in achievement at 75% of slams, and you won't do it! Quite funny actually. I'm not a Sampras fan, nowhere did I claim I was. I only acknowledge the facts, you cannot.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I don't care whether you are a Sampras fan or not. I only ask you to acknowledge the fact that Sampras is ahead of Nadal in achievement at 75% of slams, and you won't do it! Quite funny actually. I'm not a Sampras fan, nowhere did I claim I was. I only acknowledge the facts, you cannot.
Machi, you're being silly here. When multiple people such as @Amritia and @tonylg among others have called you out on your inconsistency, maybe it's best to take a step back and see that you're the one being unreasonable here?

Here, let me state it again unambiguously and clearly because you happen to repeat the same point over and over ... I have no problem admitting Sampras is more accomplished than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams because the facts quite plainly say so! So far so good? Now let's move on to the next point.

The disagreement is when you claim that automatically means Sampras is better than Nadal. That is why I brought in the Formula 1 analogy but you got too defensive and would not go there when I was simply trying to illustrate a point.
 

PilotPete

Professional
Machi, you're being silly here. When multiple people such as @Amritia and @tonylg among others have called you out on your inconsistency, maybe it's best to take a step back and see that you're the one being unreasonable here?

Here, let me state it again unambiguously and clearly because you happen to repeat the same point over and over ... I have no problem admitting Sampras is more accomplished than Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams because the facts quite plainly say so! So far so good? Now let's move on to the next point.

The disagreement is when you claim that automatically means Sampras is better than Nadal. That is why I brought in the Formula 1 analogy but you got too defensive and would not go there when I was simply trying to illustrate a point.
I haven't been inconsistent. I was always talking about achievements since this thread is about achievement. You simply could not admit facts, for what reason, I'm not sure.

I never claimed Sampras was better overall or better anywhere, because BETTER has no meaning (I used better has a proxy for achievements), you cannot know who is truly 'better' except by speculation. All we have to go on, are achievements.
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
I find this pretty nonsensical TBH. Of course it should not be taken against him. But it should not be taken for him either. Why is that record significant? Is it better to win 13 titles at one slam than to win them spread across different slams?
A slam is a slam. To dominate one tournament every single time is surely significant. Why is it excluded just because it's clay?
Do you think Pete was discounted for winning 7 Wimbledons? Was it held against him?
Will winning 8 A.O be held against Novak. Or Winning 8 Wimbledons for Fed?

And yet, Nadal is MORE dominant than Novak/Pete/Fed on their favorite surfaces. Far far more dominant. 100-2 in one tournament. 13 titles out of 15 tries. How is that NOT "Significant"?

I really don't get this. Just because it's on clay - it's whatever? The fact also is that in 50 years - all of Fed/Sampras/Novak's records might be broken. But surely no one will ever win 13 RG titles.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Many posters on here see it that way.
Is it the case of recency bias or something else?

Total Slams:

Sampras- 14
Nadal- 20

Total Weeks as #1:

Sampras- 286
Nadal- 209 weeks

HUGE difference

Year End #1:

Sampras- 6
Nadal- 5

Time spent at #1 is, and will always be Rafa's shortcoming on his GOAT resume. He won't catch Sampras here.

AO:

Sampras- 2 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 1 win, 3 final

Advantage Sampras


RG:

Sampras- 1 SF
Nadal- 13 wins

Complete wash here, Sampras' lack of performance on clay is one of the only reasons Rafa even has a shot to come close to Pete's achievements.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 7 wins
Nadal- 2 wins, 3 finals

5 additional championships for Pete at the most prestigious tennis event in the world.


USO:

Sampras- 5 wins, 3 finals
Nadal- 4 win, 1 final

Not even close here

Year End Masters:

Sampras- 5 wins, 1 final
Nadal- 0 wins, 1 final

Another destruction.

Masters 1000:

Sampras- 11 wins, 8 finals
Nadal- 35 wins, 51 finals

Rafa has this trump card, but how much is it worth?

OVERALL:

Bull is the clay GOAT with solid success on other surfaces.

Sampras beats him handily at 3/4 slams the YE#1 / Weeks at #1 and WTFs.
I image you making these faces as you biased your way through....

 

demrle

Professional
A slam is a slam. To dominate one tournament every single time is surely significant. Why is it excluded just because it's clay?
Do you think Pete was discounted for winning 7 Wimbledons? Was it held against him?
Will winning 8 A.O be held against Novak. Or Winning 8 Wimbledons for Fed?

And yet, Nadal is MORE dominant than Novak/Pete/Fed on their favorite surfaces. Far far more dominant. 100-2 in one tournament. 13 titles out of 15 tries. How is that NOT "Significant"?

I really don't get this. Just because it's on clay - it's whatever? The fact also is that in 50 years - all of Fed/Sampras/Novak's records might be broken. But surely no one will ever win 13 RG titles.
You seem to have overlooked a sentence in my post.
I find this pretty nonsensical TBH. Of course it should not be taken against him. But it should not be taken for him either. Why is that record significant? Is it better to win 13 titles at one slam than to win them spread across different slams?
I would never claim such an idiotic thing that any of Nadal's or anybody else's slams shoud be excluded/discounted or whatever. As you put it yourself - a slam is a slam. But that also cuts both ways and I stand by the rest of my post. Thirteen titles at one slam are by no means more significant than thirteen titles at any combination of slams.
 

demrle

Professional
Total Slams:
Sampras- 14, Nadal- 20

Total Weeks as #1:
Sampras- 286, Nadal- 209 weeks
HUGE difference
I know that the OP was trolling, but let it be said anyways:

20/14 > 286/209

i.e. the difference in total slams in favor of Nadal is actually even a little "huger" than the difference in total weeks at #1 in favor of Sampras.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I haven't been inconsistent. I was always talking about achievements since this thread is about achievement. You simply could not admit facts, for what reason, I'm not sure.

I never claimed Sampras was better overall or better anywhere, because BETTER has no meaning (I used better has a proxy for achievements), you cannot know who is truly 'better' except by speculation. All we have to go on, are achievements.
Otha Omala ... either you're a lunatic or you take me to be one.

The reason you and I got entangled in a full page of debate is because you claimed Sampras is better based on his having accomplished more and I objected to it. That was the very reason for our debate and now you claim you never said Sampras was better? What the otha! :rolleyes:
 

PilotPete

Professional
Otha Omala ... either you're a lunatic or you take me to be one.

The reason you and I got entangled in a full page of debate is because you claimed Sampras is better based on his having accomplished more and I objected to it. That was the very reason for our debate and now you claim you never said Sampras was better? What the otha! :rolleyes:
Yes you are a lunatic if you it took you this long to admit a simple fact. I never said Sampras was better overall, you are lying, I only said he was 'better' (meaning achieved more) at most of the slams.

Here is my original post:
Sure, those are all dumb arguments. But you can't deny that Sampras is better than Nadal at 3/4 slams.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Yes you are a lunatic if you it took you this long to admit a simple fact. I never said Sampras was better overall, you are lying, I only said he was 'better' (meaning achieved more) at most of the slams.

Here is my original post:
Otha, you really are crazy machan. Really!
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Yes you are a lunatic if you it took you this long to admit a simple fact. I never said Sampras was better overall, you are lying, I only said he was 'better' (meaning achieved more) at most of the slams.

Here is my original post:
Yes, this is what you said- But you can't deny that Sampras is better than Nadal at 3/4 slams.

And my response was that you can say he's more accomplished at 3/4 slams but not better at those slams with the exception of Wimbledon for which I provided an explanation.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
1000 victories for Nadal now.
Sampras did not even play 1000 official matches in his career.
:sneaky:
 

PilotPete

Professional
Yes, this is what you said- But you can't deny that Sampras is better than Nadal at 3/4 slams.

And my response was that you can say he's more accomplished at 3/4 slams but not better at those slams with the exception of Wimbledon for which I provided an explanation.
Yes and then I immediately followed with a post explaining that 'better' in this context HAS to mean more accomplished, because otherwise one course argue Gasquet is better than Sampras, and you agreed with that!!! Then you got horribly confused.
 

PilotPete

Professional
Yes, this is what you said- But you can't deny that Sampras is better than Nadal at 3/4 slams.
And my response was that you can say he's more accomplished at 3/4 slams but not better at those slams with the exception of Wimbledon for which I provided an explanation.
You can't even say Sampras is better than Nadal at Wimbledon because they never played each other there in their primes. You could say it, but that's your opinion, who cares, it's subjective.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Pete for the most part had no consistent rival for much of his prime years. Agassi was a headcase until he started giving a s*** about tennis in 99 (after Pete's prime), Courier was cooked after 93, Edberg was past his prime after 92, Becker was on a downfall after 91/92ish, and the Lendl/Mac gen were longggg gone. Fedal also didn't come out till around 2004/05 so the only time where Pete actually had a consistent ATG rival in his prime was Agassi from '94 USO-'95 USO - that was pretty much it.

Compare that to the big 3 who had to deal with each other for their entire careers (lone exception being the first few years of Fed's career due to age gap), and no wonder Pete still leads in YEN1 and has all those weeks at number one; hell even Murray was better than anyone Sampras faced for the majority of the 93-98 era barring those 12 months of Agassi. Sampras is a titan of the game but in no way was he better or greater than any of the big 3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

mahesh69a

Semi-Pro
Comparison across eras is not right - its difficult at best (if you have to be objective, you have to go into metrics like standard deviations, dominance ratios etc. - even then, there are other variables like homogenization, medicine etc.) and moronic at worst (reducing the argument simply to 20>14 is plainly stupid)
 
Last edited:
Top