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

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[nolefam_2024]

The Tennis 128 is a Herculean achievement. One of the best lists ever.

The only issue most of us have with such an amazing list is that The ELO system of measurement surveying the 3 key per-determined survey eras to generate the list leaves the great players of the 90s slightly out in the cold because, bizarrely, 90s tennis has a dearth of written match charting data.

I think there is another problem. It gives 2 ratings for players one for peak and one for longevity. I don't believe every player has followed the same path especially the way elo is calculated.

Eg. Nadal had more 85% seasons in his late career than before but his strongest years are when he was playing everywhere and losing. There is some problem with elo just like every criteria.

But the guy has done this for even guys like tilden era scouring through so many matches. It's commendable.

 

[RS]

Golf is very physical. Definitely a sport.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I think there is another problem. It gives 2 ratings for players one for peak and one for longevity. I don't believe every player has followed the same path especially the way elo is calculated.

Eg. Nadal had more 85% seasons in his late career than before but his strongest years are when he was playing everywhere and losing. There is some problem with elo just like every criteria.

But the guy has done this for even guys like tilden era scouring through so many matches. It's commendable.

I agree totally. The list is an extraordinary achievement. It’s one of the best ever surveys of the totality of the sport. No one has come up with anything better, and the commitment he has shown to updating, revising and explaining it is amazing.

Honestly even though it is evolving, I would love a final print edition one day.

 

[RS]

Tennis abstract Jeff Sachman puts Sampras outside of all time top 10 let alone top 5.

Were does he rank Sampras?

 

[NatF]

Were does he rank Sampras?

The list is a joke, too much emphasis on Elo.

 

[nolefam_2024]

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.

@RS 11th.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Were does he rank Sampras?

21st overall in The Tennis 128 and 11th if the list is filtered for men only.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Were does he rank Sampras?

@nolefam_2024 is right. Sackmann’s 128 is a fantastic achievement. We refer to it as a ranking and list but it’s way more than that because of how much he has written on each of the entrants. It’s a treasure trove of info and may end up becoming one of the definitive written overviews of approx. the 150 greatest players of all time (technically 128 but quite a few new entries now lol)

 

[RS]

@RS 11th.

To be honest that is a top 11 that a lot of people here would have it's just the order that people disagree on

 

[Dropshot777]

?

Yes, if it is open era. I would say big 3, sampras, borg. If not open era he'd be 5th behind big 3/laver.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Golf is very physical. Definitely a sport.

 

[NAS]

What do you think Sampras would need to have included in his achievements to guarantee a top 5 spot, or is it more a question of the strength of his field and level of play?

Sampras is such a historical lynchpin imo. I think more than any other single player he might have been the biggest influence on the current day obsession with majors and the devaluing of the other tiered events because of his own career choices and the way he yielded such control and agency in his career. He has also become a very important link point between the 80s and the oncoming avalanche that was the Big 3 and the slow court era for me because we saw the vulnerability in his game in real time.

He keeps such a low profile but it’s going to be very hard for him to not always be front and centre in tennis history giving his position as the best OE American male player ever with the USA being such a huge tennis market and traditional superpower in the sport.

Sampars missed on huge opportunity between 1997 us open to AO 2000 , never won a single HC slam between these 6 HC slam.
People call Big three draw weak in many Major but they still won it, now think if Pete has worked on his fitness and game he would have easily won 3-4 HC slam and would have retired with 17-18 slam.
Put either of the big three in 1997 us open to AO 2000 open time frame and they will clean house completely
What sucks it that he started playing better in Us open 2000 , 2001,2002 and AO 2002 but this time he faced a hard draw, he only flopped in only one HC Major AO 2001
Just think he get past Marat and there was even no agassi in AO 2002
Sampars never worked on his fitness and didn't cash in when free easy majors were available

 

[RS]

Never watched it bud

 

[RS]

@nolefam_2024 is right. Sackmann’s 128 is a fantastic achievement. We refer to it as a ranking and list but it’s way more than that because of how much he has written on each of the entrants. It’s a treasure trove of info and may end up becoming one of the definitive written overviews of approx. the 150 greatest players of all time (technically 128 but quite a few new entries now lol)

There was a list I remember people weren't happy with but not sure if it was this one. I think it was Sackmann.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

The ELO system of measurement surveying the 3 key per-determined survey eras to generate the list leaves the great players of the 90s slightly out in the cold because, bizarrely, 90s tennis has a dearth of written match charting data.

? the Tennis 128 ranking has no connection to the Match Charting Project. the Elo ratings are just based on documented results as inputs for Sackmann's particular Elo formula (along with, apparently, "a mild era adjustment, because [he] do[es]n’t entirely trust Elo to compare eras.")

Eg. Nadal had more 85% seasons in his late career than before but his strongest years are when he was playing everywhere and losing.

Nadal's Elo peak was in Madrid '09 though, not '13 or '18, because it's not just about win rate

It gives 2 ratings for players one for peak and one for longevity.

there's just one Elo rating at any given time for a given player, iirc the Tennis 128 ranking just sampled peak, 5 best years, and any other great (~2k+) year

 

[nolefam_2024]

? the Tennis 128 ranking has no connection to the Match Charting Project. the Elo ratings are just based on documented results as inputs for Sackmann's particular Elo formula (along with, apparently, "a mild era adjustment, because [he] do[es]n’t entirely trust Elo to compare eras.")

Nadal's Elo peak was in Madrid '09 though, not '13 or '18, because it's not just about win rate

there's just one Elo rating at any given time for a given player, iirc the Tennis 128 ranking just sampled peak, 5 best years, and any other great (~2k+) year

I am saying the Jeff Sackman formula for GOAT gives 2 ratings, 1 for 6 year peak and another for whatever happened over entire career. That's why he says Djokovic can't take over laver even if he keeps winning slams. Because his peak is 2011-16.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I am saying the Jeff Sackman formula for GOAT gives 2 ratings, 1 for 6 year peak and another for whatever happened over entire career. That's why he says Djokovic can't take over laver even if he keeps winning slams. Because his peak is 2011-16.

ah yeah. i think the (relatively disproportionate) focus on "peak" is the best feature of the project because it comparatively helps out players from the past or high competition eras a lot, and it aligns well with my (and most people's) prime > longevity priorities

 

[Vincent-C]

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).

Good, thoughtful list, though I can't see Rosewall over Fred, myself.

 

[Vincent-C]

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.

Anyone who hasn't seen it should watch that Sampras-Fred match in full, with all its ebbs and flows.
Not to be missed, with Fred's incredible poise- and PETE's scintillating fourth set, esp in the tb..

 

[RS]

Good, thoughtful list, though I can't see Rosewall over Fred, myself.

I don't think people try argue that often. Laver and Pancho sometimes ranked ahead though.

 

[Rosstour]

It is hard to justify Petros (Sampras) above the Big 3. Throw in Rod Laver and Sampras is hovering at spot #5.
I do not know enough about players before open-era . Not sure, if there are any that would push Sampras further down.

Bottom line is , Petros was best during his time. "Of all time" , not as much. If he made top #5, it is barely.

Laver was great but I don't think he wins a Calendar Slam in Sampras' era. Maybe B3 era. The game was too different back then.

I am Laver's height and I get dunked on constantly for it. You guys think Carlos is too small to be a great player, have you seen Rocket? He's my height (5'8")

 

[Dan Lobb]

@nolefam_2024 is right. Sackmann’s 128 is a fantastic achievement. We refer to it as a ranking and list but it’s way more than that because of how much he has written on each of the entrants. It’s a treasure trove of info and may end up becoming one of the definitive written overviews of approx. the 150 greatest players of all time (technically 128 but quite a few new entries now lol)

Although the ranking itself is not too serious. Ranking Hoad well behind Seixas, Bromwich and Trabert is not a rational system. Also putting Newcombe behind Ashe is odd, there is no doubt who had the better career and hth.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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).

I think that the old pro tournaments should be rated differently. The concept of pro majors was not known by the players themselves, but was a much later construction by tennis writers, the major venues should be added whenever there was a tournament held there.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Although the ranking itself is not too serious. Ranking Hoad well behind Seixas, Bromwich and Trabert is not a rational system. Also putting Newcombe behind Ashe is odd, there is no doubt who had the better career and hth.

Fair point. It’s such a sprawling overview. I agree there are some positions that are questionable. The ranking of some of the 90s players is slightly iffy to me and the system doesnt allow for some data gaps. But I still think the list is a sprawling achievement. I can’t believe how much history has been carefully taken into a singular system, and I love the individual writeups provided for each player with curated statistical data. But I agree with your comments for sure.

 

[Subway Tennis]

? the Tennis 128 ranking has no connection to the Match Charting Project. the Elo ratings are just based on documented results as inputs for Sackmann's particular Elo formula (along with, apparently, "a mild era adjustment, because [he] do[es]n’t entirely trust Elo to compare eras.")

Nadal's Elo peak was in Madrid '09 though, not '13 or '18, because it's not just about win rate

there's just one Elo rating at any given time for a given player, iirc the Tennis 128 ranking just sampled peak, 5 best years, and any other great (~2k+) year

My understanding was that match charting data was used in the computations where available. I happily stand corrected there. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Anyone who hasn't seen it should watch that Sampras-Fred match in full, with all its ebbs and flows.
Not to be missed, with Fred's incredible poise- and PETE's scintillating fourth set, esp in the tb..

Even the handshake was epic. The deference at the net and the class of Sampras. The only thing that was missing was a small figurative torch, with Sampras respectfully passing it on to the new standard-bearer. Very beautiful moment and not sure why it isn’t referred to more often.