If Nadal and/or Djokovic pass Fed in slam count, it will help Pete Sampras' legacy.

[HunterST]

Since Roger, Nadal, and, most recently, Djokovic passed Pete's slam count, Pete has kind of dropped out of the GOAT discussion. Probably because of talk about Roger capturing the record, slam count has become more of a focus than it ever has been in the past. It almost became the sole factor fans and journalists have looked at when measuring a players' success.

With Nadal and Djokovic both nearing Federer's record of 20, I think the hyper-focus on slam count will begin to diminish, and a wider array of factors will be taken into account. Partly because people love Federer, but also because the three will likely be quite close in overall slam count.

So, factors like week/consecutive weeks at #1, domination of the field, success across surfaces/tournaments, and even the opinions and testimonies from other pro players will become much more relevant.

In the end, I think this wider array of stats will bring Sampras back to a teir 1 GOAT candidate. Other than his lack of success at the French, he had near flawless career statistics.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Sampass won only 12 GS titles and zero on clay! In his time, he was the GOAT, but.....others have surpassed him in that claim! Just like Laver at his time was the GOAT!

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

Freddy fans are having sleepless nights these days.The little kingdom that they built on a weak era is finally coming tumbling down.. Hope fed records get broken!

 

[aman92]

Nope, Sampras is well behind the GOAT discussion now I am afraid. He has too pathetic a record at one GS to even warrant a discussion

 

[mahesh69a]

Anyone who pushed a boundary is a Tier 1 GOAT. So, I think Pete was never out of tier 1 just because others got more slams than him.
Events that happen later do not diminish a legacy of dominance.
Its true for Laver or Pete or Fed.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Sampass won only 12 GS titles and zero on clay! In this time, he was the GOAT, but.....others have surpassed him in that claim! Just like Laver at his time was the GOAT!

14.

 

[Harry_Wild]

14.

I thought it was more but TC said 12 so I figure they had the right info!

 

[TripleATeam]

There is nothing that Sampras had that Federer hasn't equalled or surpassed other than the extra YE#1.

AO: 2 v 6
RG: 0 v 1
WIM: 7 v 8
USO: 5 v 5
YEC: 5 v 6
YE#1: 6 v 5
Weeks: 286 v 310
Titles: 64 v 101
H2H: 0-1 Federer

What does Sampras have over Federer?

 

[Towny]

How will Djokovic and Nadal reaching 20+ slams put Sampras with 14 slams back in the conversation? Bear in mind that Djokovic will likely match Sampras' YE#1 record this year and surpass his weeks shortly after as well

 

[TripleATeam]

I thought it was more but TC said 12 so I figure they had the right info!

12 would be his Wimbledons + USOs. He also had 2 AOs.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Don't see how it helps him. If anything it drops him to a different tier. If, for example,
Nadal is at 22, Fed 20, Djoker 19, Pete's pretty much out of the conversation.

 

[augustobt]

Pete has 7 majors on Grass and 7 on Hard.
Nadal has 2 on Grass and 4 on Hard
Nadal obliterates him on clay, but we're talking about multiple circumstances and surfaces.

So this, along with Pete's circuit dominance (it's not for chance that he has multiple more weeks and YE as #1) still makes him Tier 1 material and a true GOAT candidate of his era.

 

[Sysyphus]

Completely irrelevant.

A wise man named Petros Sampras once said: «but you can't compare the eras.»

He was right. Each era works under a different set of conditions. You can only be the best of your own era. And Pete crapped all over his. What people do in this inflation era where everyone and their mother gets a career slam doesn't change that.

That's why Pete, Borg and Laver are still very much in the goat conversation. The story on who will join them from this era is still being written.

 

[HunterST]

Don't see how it helps him. If anything it drops him to a different tier. If, for example,
Nadal is at 22, Fed 20, Djoker 19, Pete's pretty much out of the conversation.

Because I foresee it ending the "slam-only" focus.

Sampras has the most year-end finishes at number one. That's a huge statistic that shows his domination of the field. That's just as important as slam count.
He's second in total weeks at number one. Same story.
I think it's fair to say Pete dominated the field in his era more than any current players have.

Not saying I put him above any of the modern players. Just that I think he belongs in the same tier.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Completely irrelevant.

A wise man named Petros Sampras once said: «but you can't compare the eras.»

He was right. Each era works under a different set of conditions. You can only be the best of your own era. And Pete crapped all over his. What people do in this inflation era where everyone and their mother gets a career slam doesn't change that.

That's why Pete, Borg and Laver are still very much in the goat conversation. The story on who will join them from this era is still being written.

This. Sampras played in an era with 16 seeds, polarized surfaces and way worse equipment. Authorities did everything in the last few years to ensure records are broken. It is completely pointless to compare slam count if this era 1:1 to the numbers of former greats.

 

[The Safinator]

No. Sampras is out of the GOAT discussion, and has been for years, now. If anything, Djokovic and Nadal surpassing Fed would push him even further down the depth chart, because there would be such a disparity between those 3 guys and Pete. There will always be that discussion of best player and era. Pete was great, and for a short while, he was the GOAT. But, those days are gone.

 

[chimneysweep]

How? That 3 players are much better than him, rather than 1? His legacy is already taken a big hit with Federer eclipsing most of his marks and 3 guys pretty easily passing his slam mark since. It proves what many in the know already suspected, 14 was never that impressive a mark, the only reason it ever existed was guys didnt start taking all 4 slams seriously until mid 80s atleast, and the pro-amateur and split tours until 68. Many were just deluded to that until recently, including Sampras himself, who probably could have set the mark a lot higher but was foolish and delusional. That he was passing the mark of a non great like Emerson, should have already told him how fragile a mark like that would be, it was simply the first real mark that even existed, nothing more. 20 wouldnt even be the slam record had it not been the pro-amateur split, it would probably be about 4th, just as it would stand 4th in the current womens slam race.

 

[HunterST]

No. Sampras is out of the GOAT discussion, and has been for years, now. If anything, Djokovic and Nadal surpassing Fed would push him even further down the depth chart, because there would be such a disparity between those 3 guys and Pete. There will always be that discussion of best player and era. Pete was great, and for a short while, he was the GOAT. But, those days are gone.

How? That 3 players are much better than him, rather than 1? His legacy is already taken a big hit with Federer eclipsing most of his marks and 3 guys pretty easily passing his slam mark since. It proves what many in the know already suspected, 14 was never that impressive a mark, the only reason it ever existed was guys didnt start taking all 4 slams seriously until mid 80s atleast, and the pro-amateur and split tours until 68. Many were just deluded to that until recently, including Sampras himself, who probably could have set the mark a lot higher but was foolish and delusional. That he was passing the mark of a non great like Emerson, should have already told him how fragile a mark like that would be, it was simply the first real mark that even existed, nothing more. 20 wouldnt even be the slam record had it not been the pro-amateur split, it would probably be about 4th, just as it would stand 4th in the current womens slam race.

Most people responding are completely missing the point.
You're still subscribing to the "Most slams=Greater" idea. My point is that people are going to realize slam count alone can't tell the whole story. If/when Fed's count is surpassed, it's going to strongly indicate that it is now easier to rack up slams. Probably because of the homogenization of surfaces.

Yes, slam count is still huge, but I think people will realize it can't be the ONLY stat that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed isn’t my GOAT for his slam record.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Pietros is worth half a coin at most.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Pete's relative lack of competition compared to the big 3 will put him back in teir 2 status if things start getting examined closer.

 

[chimneysweep]

Most people responding are completely missing the point.
You're still subscribing to the "Most slams=Greater" idea. My point is that people are going to realize slam count alone can't tell the whole story. If/when Fed's count is surpassed, it's going to strongly indicate that it is now easier to rack up slams. Probably because of the homogenization of surfaces.

Yes, slam count is still huge, but I think people will realize it can't be the ONLY stat that is relevant to the discussion.

Maybe it will show homogenization makes things easier, but it wont stop from also showing that it is also much easier to compile slams since players started focusing on it for the first time ever which didnt even start until the mid to late 80s. Sampras was basically the first male player who won as many slams as he could, a fact that was glossed over at the time, but can no longer be. This being make emphatically more obvious with 3 players destroying his slam mark, does not enhance his legacy.

 

[Grampa]

There is nothing that Sampras had that Federer hasn't equalled or surpassed other than the extra YE#1.

AO: 2 v 6
RG: 0 v 1
WIM: 7 v 8
USO: 5 v 5
YEC: 5 v 6
YE#1: 6 v 5
Weeks: 286 v 310
Titles: 64 v 101
H2H: 0-1 Federer

What does Sampras have over Federer?

I suspect one more YE 1 as well as 6 consecutively.

 

[Crisstti]

Well, many of us said long ago that slams can't be the only criteria. Of course, when it looks like the record might not hold, a lot of Fed fans begin to agree

Whether there's a GOAT or not, we cannot actually know who it is. Eras, competition, surfaces, impossibility to know how players would have fared against each other, to know what records are more important than others, etc. At most we can establish tiers.

How? That 3 players are much better than him, rather than 1? His legacy is already taken a big hit with Federer eclipsing most of his marks and 3 guys pretty easily passing his slam mark since. It proves what many in the know already suspected, 14 was never that impressive a mark, the only reason it ever existed was guys didnt start taking all 4 slams seriously until mid 80s atleast, and the pro-amateur and split tours until 68. Many were just deluded to that until recently, including Sampras himself, who probably could have set the mark a lot higher but was foolish and delusional. That he was passing the mark of a non great like Emerson, should have already told him how fragile a mark like that would be, it was simply the first real mark that even existed, nothing more. 20 wouldnt even be the slam record had it not been the pro-amateur split, it would probably be about 4th, just as it would stand 4th in the current womens slam race.

Very good points. Makes you wonder how impressive the current record is and whether a similar number will hold up for long.

It is all very recent.

 

[Crisstti]

OP has a good point in any case. Could turn out like that, or he could be considered less than now as GOAT.

 

[chimneysweep]

Well, many of us said long ago that slams can't be the only criteria. Of course, when it looks like the record might not hold, a lot of Fed fans begin to agree

Whether there's a GOAT or not, we cannot actually know who it is. Eras, competition, surfaces, impossibility to know how players would have fared against each other, to know what records are more important than others, etc. At most we can establish tiers.


Very good points. Makes you wonder how impressive the current record is and whether a similar number will hold up for long.

It is all very recent.

Good points. I do think whether the record that ends this era holds up depends partly if it stays at 20 or not. I do think a mark of 20 will fall within the next 30 years max. A mark higher than that, could last longer.

I do think Sampras will fall rapidly fast down the all time slam wins leader board though. The combination of homogenization of surfaces that the OP referenced making dominance year round much easier, the seeming new trend to much greater longevity and older players which might or might not last, and the fact that as I mentioned guys didnt even start focusing on all 4 majors and winning as many as they could until the late 80s at the earliest, will lead to that. I feel for Sampras who probably could have set a better mark than 14, although not likely 20, and I think had a poor comprehension of the true value of that mark.

Now the up and comers currently look weak, and there probably isnt one that is going to win 15+ slams even in a weak field, but such players will eventually come.

The sport, like all sports, is so political, corrupt, and obsessed with GOAT talk and record breaking, I wouldnt even be surprised if they do something completely wrong like add a 5th major, to make it easier for future players to break records and win more slams.

 

[Backspin1183]

No, it will help their legacy. Not Pete's.

 

[travlerajm]

I remember when Federer was dominating the tour in 2005, I still didn’t consider his level quite as good as Sampras’ peak level. Federer eventually surpassed most of Sampras’ accomplishments, but it doesn’t change the fact that Sampras was the measuring stick until someone else came along that could make an argument.

When Lebron eventually passes most of MJ’s records, it won’t change Jordan’s legacy.

 

[Crisstti]

Good points. I do think whether the record that ends this era holds up depends partly if it stays at 20 or not. I do think a mark of 20 will fall within the next 30 years max. A mark higher than that, could last longer.

I do think Sampras will fall rapidly fast down the all time slam wins leader board though. The combination of homogenization of surfaces that the OP referenced making dominance year round much easier, the seeming new trend to much greater longevity and older players which might or might not last, and the fact that as I mentioned guys didnt even start focusing on all 4 majors and winning as many as they could until the late 80s at the earliest, will lead to that. I feel for Sampras who probably could have set a better mark than 14, although not likely 20, and I think had a poor comprehension of the true value of that mark.

Now the up and comers currently look weak, and there probably isnt one that is going to win 15+ slams even in a weak field, but such players will eventually come.

The sport, like all sports, is so political, corrupt, and obsessed with GOAT talk and record breaking, I wouldnt even be surprised if they do something completely wrong like add a 5th major, to make it easier for future players to break records and win more slams.

Yeah, Sampras was probably not quite aware of the importance it would acquire. Though I agree with the OP maybe the whole goat discussion with stop being so slam centric.

Guess 30 slams are quite feasible for a future all times great, especially if he goes unchallenged for a while. Maybe 35.

 

[chimneysweep]

Yeah, Sampras was probably not quite aware of the importance it would acquire. Though I agree with the OP maybe the whole goat discussion with stop being so slam centric.

Guess 30 slams are quite feasible for a future all times great, especially if he goes unchallenged for a while. Maybe 35.

Not sure about 35, but I didnt think before today 20 would be so easily attainable for 3 guys (even though I expected 14 to fall much easier and sooner than most did), so anything is possible.

I agree things have become too slam centric. However people like Sampras are partly at fault for that. He trumpeted his slam record in excess, rather than his 7 Wimbledons and 6 consecutive YE#1s which IMO were more impressive records. And while his 6 overall YE#1s might not survive this era, his 6 straight will, and might last a very long time, proving my point. Instead he overfocused on his slam record. Heck I consider his 5 U.S Opens over a remarkable 12 year stretch to be probably more impressive than 14 slams.