Is Pete Sampras a top 5 tennis player of all time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RS
  • Start date Start date

?

  • Total voters
    74
59326.jpg
 
Unsure as I don't know how much weight should be given to pre open era players. He is top 5 open era. Alcaraz is just 21 and already on 4 slams. Let's see by 2030 end where Raz is.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Unsure as I don't know how much weight should be given to pre open era players. He is top 5 open era. Alcaraz is just 21 and already on 4 slams. Let's see by 2030 end where Raz is.
Click to expand...
You don't have to focus pre open era if you don't want to. I try to because I think it's important even though admittedly my knowledge lacks in that time frame compared to other posters.
 
All-time, no. Open Era, yes. If you talk about the level of play he achieved then you could put him in the discussion still probably. I would put Fedalovic + Laver and Gonzalez definitely ahead, I think the discussion is basically PETE versus Rosewall and Tilden. The problem with PETE in the all time comparisons is his longevity and the fact that he really picked his spots compared to other ATG's. Rosewall had some years of dominance but his claim to the GOAT discussion is his longevity and the sheer amount he won in totality. Tilden is a guy that has a GOAT peak in terms of numbers but in a much shallower era, but he also had ridiculous longevity competing with Don Budge into his 50's. For me PETE is in the 6-8 range.
 
TheGoldenEra1990’s said:
Arguably the best ever IMO. . He didnt let competition stack up 20 plus slams against him. He kept them on single digits

I could also only imagine his domination if he got fast low bouncing surfaces all years. That would be it for the tour
Click to expand...
Didn't you also say Agassi would have like 20+slams in the big 3 era?
 
The greatness of Pete cannot be measured in just GS and total titles.

He is 14-4 in slam finals. Take that. At one time, he was 13-2. In big matches, he showed up. Was 7-0 in W finals. Djokovic and federer are 7-3 and 8-4 respectively.
His mental strength is unparalleled. He targeted year end no. 1 finish and he did that 6 times in a row.

On the flip side , he was considerably weak on clay. And Agassi was main opponent in addition to Goran, Becker, Rafter, Courier etc.
And he stopped early.

Still he is well above Borg . Rod Laver played in late 60s so its hard to compare
 
TheGoldenEra1990’s said:
Arguably the best ever IMO. . He didnt let competition stack up 20 plus slams against him. He kept them on single digits

I could also only imagine his domination if he got fast low bouncing surfaces all years. That would be it for the tour
Click to expand...

Who was his competition?

Agassi best competitor. Goran on grass. Rafter on hard? Muster on clay? Edberg, Courier?
 
roysid said:
Was 7-0 in W finals. Djokovic and federer are 7-3 and 8-4 respectively.
Click to expand...
I'm firmly in Pete's corner for this thread, but that's a really unfair comparison and you know it.

Fed & Novak likely aren't losing to any of Pete's Wim finals opponents either, and wouldn't have accumulated so many losses if they didn't play deep into their 30s. Fed lost finals at 33, 34 and 38. Novak dropped two at 36 & 37. Pete played his last Wimbledon final at 29.
 
MeatTornado said:
I'm firmly in Pete's corner for this thread, but that's a really unfair comparison and you know it.

Fed & Novak likely aren't losing to any of Pete's Wim finals opponents either, and wouldn't have accumulated so many losses if they didn't play deep into their 30s. Fed lost finals at 33, 34 and 38. Novak dropped two at 36 & 37. Pete played his last Wimbledon final at 29.
Click to expand...
7-0 in finals in a span of 8 years is still impressive, regardless.
Both Fed and Djokovic suffered losses (during their primes) in the finals to Nadal or Murray, type of players who don't really take a full advantage of the surface, but rather play their (more or less) customary baseline game.
Pete was broken only four times during his Wimbledon finals, can't see him losing to any of these players (especially not during his peak/prime years).
 
Martin J said:
7-0 in finals in a span of 8 years is still impressive, regardless.
Both Fed and Djokovic suffered losses (during their primes) in the finals to Nadal or Murray, type of players who don't really take a full advantage of the surface, but rather play their (more or less) customary baseline game.
Pete was broken only four times during his Wimbledon finals, can't see him losing to any of these players (especially not during his peak/prime years).
Click to expand...
Incredibly impressive, of course. I'm not trying to take anything away from Pete, it just doesn't hold up when making a 1:1 comparison with Fed & Novak.

Losing to Nadal & Murray in 08/13 says more about how the game changed than Fed/Novak's specific skills on grass. If those matches were played in like 93 & 98, you couldn't fathom Pete losing to baseliners like that on grass. But that's not the world Fed & Novak were playing in at the time. If Pete tried to play his way in 2008 & 2013 against returners like Nadal and Murray, you better believe he's getting broken more than 4 times.
 
Of course, we can't truly compare eras. But what fun is that if we don't try?

Including all eras, I might go:

1. Laver
2. Djokovic
3. Pancho
4. Rosewall
5. Federer
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Sampras
9. McEnroe
10. Tilden

I think this post will p*** off each member of the Big 3. But I'm trying to call it as I see it.

Here are a few notes. The greats have longevity on their side. Rosewall's 3 slam titles after turning 35; especially during those times, is unreal. Two of those wins were strong, which include the 1970 USO(steamrolled Stan Smith and John Newcombe in straights; both slam winners) and the 1971 AO(crushed Emerson, Okker, and Arthur Ashe in straights). That is insane for an old man. His 1972 featured garbage competition, something each of the Big 3 had the benefit of too when they were older. Rosewall won 9 conseutive pro slam events ithat he played in. That is insane. And he beat Laver and Hoad multiple times during this Pro Slam title runs. He beat Pancho. He beat Gimeno. This guy was a stone-cold killer.

Borg's start is unparalleled. But he didn't play long enough. 3 consecutive channel slams, 5 straight Wimbledon titles, and 6 FO titles by the time he was 25 years old(and 1 month) is absolutely ridiculous. He was kind of the original version of Monica Seles regarding quick starts; except that he was a god when I was growing up. Borgomania is unlike anything I've ever seen from a tennis star. I rank him in the men's game about where I rank Seles.

Laver: he won the amateur grand slam. That hasn't been done many times before. But he did it. . Ok fine, you don't like that? He then won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967. He beat Rosewall multiple times along the way. Still not good enough? Ok, then, he won the Open Era Calendar Slam in 1969 at the ripe of age of 31. He beat Hall of Famers Stolle, Roche, Gimeno in the AO. He beat Gimeno, Okker, and Rosewall at the FO. He beat Ashe and Newcombe in Wimbledon. And he beat Emerson, Ashe, and Roche at the USO.

I had to put McEnroe 9th. That's the one pick where I'm going I'm not trying to be objective. Admittedly, it's not fair to place him above Lendl. But I'm going to ignore my brains and put Mac ahead of Lendl. At least I'm admitting it. And it's my list.

My knock on Pete is this. I said earlier that longevity is key. Sampras at age 29-30 started having serious troubles with Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. All 3 of those alleged "bums" that many people call them have winning records vs Sampras, including a couple of horrendous beatdowns. Yes, this wasn't peak Sampras. But that Agassi fellow, who was a year older than Pete, aged far better, despite losing 2 years of his peak from meth(1 year of use, one year to recover).
 
Pheasant said:
Of course, we can't truly compare eras. But what fun is that if we don't try?

Including all eras, I might go:

1. Laver
2. Djokovic
3. Pancho
4. Rosewall
5. Federer
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Sampras
9. McEnroe
10. Tilden

I think this post will p*** off each member of the Big 3. But I'm trying to call it as I see it.

Here are a few notes. The greats have longevity on their side. Rosewall's 3 slam titles after turning 35; especially during those times, is unreal. Two of those wins were strong, which include the 1970 USO(steamrolled Stan Smith and John Newcombe in straights; both slam winners) and the 1971 AO(crushed Emerson, Okker, and Arthur Ashe in straights). That is insane for an old man. His 1972 featured garbage competition, something each of the Big 3 had the benefit of too when they were older. Rosewall won 9 conseutive pro slam events ithat he played in. That is insane. And he beat Laver and Hoad multiple times during this Pro Slam title runs. He beat Pancho. He beat Gimeno. This guy was a stone-cold killer.

Borg's start is unparalleled. But he didn't play long enough. 3 consecutive channel slams, 5 straight Wimbledon titles, and 6 FO titles by the time he was 25 years old(and 1 month) is absolutely ridiculous. He was kind of the original version of Monica Seles regarding quick starts; except that he was a god when I was growing up. Borgomania is unlike anything I've ever seen from a tennis star. I rank him in the men's game about where I rank Seles.

Laver: he won the amateur grand slam. That hasn't been done many times before. But he did it. . Ok fine, you don't like that? He then won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967. He beat Rosewall multiple times along the way. Still not good enough? Ok, then, he won the Open Era Calendar Slam in 1969 at the ripe of age of 31. He beat Hall of Famers Stolle, Roche, Gimeno in the AO. He beat Gimeno, Okker, and Rosewall at the FO. He beat Ashe and Newcombe in Wimbledon. And he beat Emerson, Ashe, and Roche at the USO.

I had to put McEnroe 9th. That's the one pick where I'm going I'm not trying to be objective. Admittedly, it's not fair to place him above Lendl. But I'm going to ignore my brains and put Mac ahead of Lendl. At least I'm admitting it. And it's my list.

My knock on Pete is this. I said earlier that longevity is key. Sampras at age 29-30 started having serious troubles with Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. All 3 of those alleged "bums" that many people call them have winning records vs Sampras, including a couple of horrendous beatdowns. Yes, this wasn't peak Sampras. But that Agassi fellow, who was a year older than Pete, aged far better, despite losing 2 years of his peak from meth(1 year of use, one year to recover).
Click to expand...
You are generous. Tennis Abstract 128 puts him outside of top 10.

1. Laver
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Tilden
5. Nadal
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Rosewall
9. Pancho
10. Ivan
11. Pete

I would admit the flaw in Elo that all matches are considered equal be it a BO3 R1 or slam final leads to some of these eg. McEnroe far above Pete makes no sense to me.
 
Open Era only, he’s a clear #4. Big 3 are def greater, and the only other OE player with an argument over him is Borg, and I’m not personally convinced by that argument.

All-Time, he’s in the lower end of top 10. Big 3, Laver, Gonzales, possibly Tilden would all be greater in my estimation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
Pheasant said:
But that Agassi fellow, who was a year older than Pete, aged far better, despite losing 2 years of his peak from meth(1 year of use, one year to recover).
Click to expand...
I would actually argue that it was precisely that hiatus from tennis that aided Agassi’s longevity. He didn’t have as much mileage on his body when he entered his 30’s, so he added a couple of years to his prime.

All things considered, he definitely had better longevity than Pete, but that difference is exaggerated due to the mileage gap.
 
If all eras are considered even in terms of competition then I think Sampras is out of top 5. I don't go just by slam numbers.
But since older eras of Tilden/Gonzalez even Rosewall/Laver can not be measured vs 90s, I vote unsure.

Open era top 4 for sure ahead of Borg with 286 weeks and 6 year end number 1s.
7 Wimby + 5 USO > 5 Wimby + 6 RG as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
roysid said:
The greatness of Pete cannot be measured in just GS and total titles.

He is 14-4 in slam finals. Take that. At one time, he was 13-2. In big matches, he showed up.
Click to expand...
Except at RG. Without RG Fed was 16-3 in slam finals in his prime.
roysid said:
Was 7-0 in W finals. Djokovic and federer are 7-3 and 8-4 respectively.
Click to expand...
That's more to do with the fact that he avoided a final loss by losing in the quarters instead to a guy he had a losing record against and not playing past 31.
roysid said:
His mental strength is unparalleled.
Click to expand...
It helps that he had no other double digit slam winner to compete with.
 
Martin J said:
7-0 in finals in a span of 8 years is still impressive, regardless.
Both Fed and Djokovic suffered losses (during their primes) in the finals to Nadal or Murray, type of players who don't really take a full advantage of the surface, but rather play their (more or less) customary baseline game.
Pete was broken only four times during his Wimbledon finals, can't see him losing to any of these players (especially not during his peak/prime years).
Click to expand...
Pete didn't face anyone like Nadal at Wimb. Fed doesn't lose Wimb F's to Goran either.
 
Third Serve said:
I would actually argue that it was precisely that hiatus from tennis that aided Agassi’s longevity. He didn’t have as much mileage on his body when he entered his 30’s, so he added a couple of years to his prime.

All things considered, he definitely had better longevity than Pete, but that difference is exaggerated due to the mileage gap.
Click to expand...
I think the same thing kinda happened with Novak and Covid. He basically was forced to rest quite a bit for a couple years and I think that extended his greatness more.
 
nighthawkrr said:
I think the same thing kinda happened with Novak and Covid. He basically was forced to rest quite a bit for a couple years and I think that extended his greatness more.
Click to expand...
This is just bad speculation.
Djokovic was under huge pressure in Wimby 22 to get to 21 and close the gap vs Nadal. He was training every day and kept on asking for exemptions from US open as late as 1 week before the tournament.
He was not sitting on the couch and doing nothing. By end of the year despite having banned for majority of tour events, he played 50+ matches I would assume. No rest at all.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
@Pheasant what is the reason of Sampras decline post 99? Is it just injuries catching up or personal motivation issues like Djokovic in 2024?
Click to expand...
He had thalassaemia, which really started messing with his stamina in 1999. That's part of it. Some of the new guys that troubled him had very good return games when they were clicking(Hewitt and Safin). Hewitt at age 18 showed that he could hang with Sampras already in 1999 by taking him to a final set tiebreak in Queens. The following year, he beat him straights at that event. Safin returned Sampras serves like nobody I had ever seen before or since; especially since he didn't have time to memorize his patterns like Agassi did. Honestly, I lost interest in tennis after Hewitt shredded Sampras at the 2001 USO. Here on our own home court, the great Sampras got destroyed by two young guys in back-to-back years. That was my last hiatus from tennis; from circa 2001 to 2003. Back in those days, many of us didn't really care about the AO. So when Agassi bagged those titles, it was only a mild victory; not enough to get me back into the sport. When Roddick won the 2003 USO, I got back into the sport. I backed Roddick until this Federer guy eventually won me over. I then liked both guys; but Roger a little more by 2006.

Note: Federer showed his return chops in that 2001 match as a 19 year old vs the 4-time defending champ Sampras. Sampras bombed serves up to 136 down the middle. The 29 year old Sampras could still bring it. Hell, he hit one 127 out wide on the corner. He had his share of aces. But everybody was stunned at how many serves Federer had returned so well, despite being very raw at the sport back then.
 
Sampras would blow Borg off the court on anything other than clay, he's a clear Number 4 + still the best on fast grass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

onehandbh
Pete Sampras announces plans to...
Replies
11
Views
1K
BenC
BenC
Legends of Sport
The Arrival of Pete Sampras
Replies
9
Views
1K
smoledman
smoledman
A
Pete Sampras-all court player
Replies
8
Views
1K
PROTENNIS63
P
thor's hammer
Pete Sampras beats Jim Courier in Champions series opener
2
Replies
55
Views
13K
Datacipher
D
P
What is Pete Sampras all black racquet
Replies
5
Views
8K
drakulie
drakulie
Back
Top