gold soundz
Professional
Who do you think out of these three players was/is the most dominant at a particular slam? Sampras at Wimbledon, Federer at Wimbledon or Nadal at Roland Garros?
Nadal is most dominant.
Sampras had more years to accrue his seven titles.
Federer not a part of this equation unless he wins at least a couple more Wimby titles.
huh, Sampras won 7 Wimbledons in 8 years. The only way to be more dominant is to accrue 7 in 7 years or 8 Wimbledons in 8 years.
And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?
Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.
We're talking about dominance, whenever that dominance began does not matter, as it wasn't dominance yet before the dominance began. Nadal would need to win the Fo next year as well to have won it 7 times in 8 years like Sampras.
Hmm Hmm 2009. lolWell that's your opinion. Sampras also started losing early rounds after 2000 Wimbledon.
I think Rafa is more dominant at RG. Until Rafa loses early, I consider him more dominant.
Hmm Hmm 2009. lol
And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?
Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.
By that logic, Nadal (or any player) would be the most dominant player ever at a particular slam, if they won their first slam there in their first attempt and then retired immediately.![]()
That's your choice to choose Sampras.
Rafa winning RG on his debut, and having only lost one match so far, and having 6 titles, is more dominant for me. This may change if Rafa loses early next year.
Rafa's winning percentage plus 6 titles is more dominant according to me.
I didn't choose Sampras, the numbers chose Sampras.
Your numbers chose Sampras. A select 8 year period for Sampras, discounting his losses in other years.
My numbers chose Nadal. A 7 year period, starting from his debut until now.
You have your criteria, and I have mine (which includes Rafa dropping fewer sets).
As dominant as Nadal has been, you'd have to give it to Petros unbelievable WImbledon record he has. Fed ranks third out of those 3.
Another deciding factor could also be how close they have been pushed at their respective slams during their dominating period.
Fed has had to go through 3 5 setters, losing 1 of them
Rafa has had to go through only 1 5 setter
Sampras went through 4 5 setters
So to summarise, they have all lost at least once in their dominating periods. Fed had been pushed all the way 3 times, Sampras 4 times (but in 8 years an extra year than Fed) but Nadal has been pushed all the way only once. This means that players weren't even getting close to beating Nadal at RG apart from the one loss to Soderling.
But to me the amount of titles won is more important, that's why I give the edge to Sampras because it is harder to win 7 over 8 years than it is to win 6 over 7 years. If Rafa wins RG number 7 next year, then he will undoubtedly be the more dominant provided he isn't pushed to 5 sets in 3 of his matches, otherwise statistically he would be equal with Pete.
it just seems logical that winning 7 slams is more dominant than winning 6. In that period of Sampras' dominance he also had a period where he had won 6 Wimbledons in 7 years, but he improved it by winning 7 in 8 years.