AlexanderTheGreat08
Hall of Fame
Long time ago
You are evading by not agreeing that Sampras is more accomplished at 3/4 slams.
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 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.
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.
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.
OKKALI OMALA OTHA!
Now I'm the one who is misunderstanding? Pray tell, just what did I misunderstand?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Brilliant post! Explained in a succinct and brief manner the same thing I'm using several paragraphs to explain
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.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.
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?
See you still can't admit it. Really sad.
Won't answer the question? Alright, no problem. Otha!
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.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.
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?...
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.
...
What's the point when you can't admit basic facts!
It'll live until Nadal passes Sampras apparentlyIs this thread still alive? LOL
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.
What's the point when you can't admit basic facts!
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.
A slam is a slam. To dominate one tournament every single time is surely significant. Why is it excluded just because it's clay?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?
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.
You seem to have overlooked a sentence in my post.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.
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.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 know that the OP was trolling, but let it be said anyways:Total Slams:
Sampras- 14, Nadal- 20
Total Weeks as #1:
Sampras- 286, Nadal- 209 weeks
HUGE difference
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!
Sure, those are all dumb arguments. But you can't deny that Sampras is better than Nadal at 3/4 slams.
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 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.
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.