Roger Vs Pete !?

C

Chadwixx

Banned
Imo the greatest player of all time cant be a cry baby. Its an embarassment to the sport to have ur greatest player weeping on court. Makes us look soft.
 
K

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
Federer weeps every time he wins Wimbledon.
And you are soft, compared to athletes in contact sports.
How can you compare what tennis players do to the NBA or NFL?
 
legolas

legolas

Banned
hmm, pete or roger, well pete has more slams as of now, but he never won 3 slams in one year ryt? and roger did, and i think roger will beat 14, i like roger better
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
tennisfans said:
Let see if Roger can be number one 6 years in a row...
Click to expand...

Year ending #1 in the world, there is a difference.

He stunk up the first half of the year, wins wimbledon and the us open, and viola, #1.

How many consecutive weeks was pete #1? How many consecutive weeks is feds current streak?
 
L

laurie

Guest
Chadwixx, people like you need a lesson in humility. You always come on here asking silly questions and/or making silly pronouncements.

Player From To Weeks
Jimmy Connors 29-Jul-74 22-Aug-77 160
Ivan Lendl 09-Sep-85 11-Sep-88 157
Pete Sampras 15-Apr-96 29-Mar-98 102
Roger Federer 02-Feb-04 27-Nov-05 95
Jimmy Connors 30-Aug-77 08-Apr-79 84
Pete Sampras 13-Sep-93 09-Apr-95 82
Ivan Lendl 30-Jan-89 12-Aug-90 80
Lleyton Hewitt 19-Nov-01 27-Apr-03 75
John McEnroe 03-Aug-81 12-Sep-82 58
John McEnroe 13-Aug-84 18-Aug-85 53
Andre Agassi 13-Sep-99 10-Sep-00 52
Bjorn Borg 18-Aug-80 05-Jul-81 46
Ilie Nastase 27-Aug-73 02-Jun-74 40


As you can see Sampras appears twice in the top ten. I hope that answers your questions. By the way, Federer has a long way to go grab top spot. Over a year in fact.

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/longreign_No1.html
 
L

laurie

Guest
legolas said:
hmm, pete or roger, well pete has more slams as of now, but he never won 3 slams in one year ryt? and roger did, and i think roger will beat 14, i like roger better
Click to expand...

For your information Pete won 3 slams in a row. 1993 Wimbledon, 1993 US Open, 1994 Australian Open
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
laurie said:
Chadwixx, people like you need a lesson in humility. You always come on here asking silly questions and/or making silly pronouncements.

Player From To Weeks
Jimmy Connors 29-Jul-74 22-Aug-77 160
Ivan Lendl 09-Sep-85 11-Sep-88 157
Pete Sampras 15-Apr-96 29-Mar-98 102
Roger Federer 02-Feb-04 27-Nov-05 95
Jimmy Connors 30-Aug-77 08-Apr-79 84
Pete Sampras 13-Sep-93 09-Apr-95 82
Ivan Lendl 30-Jan-89 12-Aug-90 80
Lleyton Hewitt 19-Nov-01 27-Apr-03 75
John McEnroe 03-Aug-81 12-Sep-82 58
John McEnroe 13-Aug-84 18-Aug-85 53
Andre Agassi 13-Sep-99 10-Sep-00 52
Bjorn Borg 18-Aug-80 05-Jul-81 46
Ilie Nastase 27-Aug-73 02-Jun-74 40


As you can see Sampras appears twice in the top ten. I hope that answers your questions. By the way, Federer has a long way to go grab top spot. Over a year in fact.

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/longreign_No1.html
Click to expand...

tennisfans said:
Let see if Roger can be number one 6 years in a row...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

And people like yourself need to read what we are talking about before interjecting themselves into our conversation. If there are 102 weeks in 6 years then i apoligize.

Thanks for the link to the current streaks.
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
legolas said:
hmm, pete or roger, well pete has more slams as of now, but he never won 3 slams in one year ryt? and roger did, and i think roger will beat 14, i like roger better
Click to expand...

laurie said:
For your information Pete won 3 slams in a row. 1993 Wimbledon, 1993 US Open, 1994 Australian Open
Click to expand...

So 1993 and 1994 are the same year?

Once again pay attension to what people are talking about.
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
hyperwarrior said:
Are you a pro-Federer Chadwixx?
Click to expand...

I respect what he has achieved and like the way he constructs points and strikes the ball, but not a fan. Im not anti anyone when it comes to on court play except players like the williams sisters, davenport, pierce (most disliked), and capriati type players who just bash the ball.
 
R

Rob_C

Hall of Fame
Chadwixx said:
Year ending #1 in the world, there is a difference.

He stunk up the first half of the year, wins wimbledon and the us open, and viola, #1.

How many consecutive weeks was pete #1? How many consecutive weeks is feds current streak?
Click to expand...

How did he stink up the 1st half of the year? By losing in the semis of the Aussie & the French to the eventual champions, and by winning 3 TMS titles, plus however many other tourneys and only losing 3 matches?? Is that how he stunk up the 1st half???
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
Rob_C said:
How did he stink up the 1st half of the year? By losing in the semis of the Aussie & the French to the eventual champions, and by winning 3 TMS titles, plus however many other tourneys and only losing 3 matches?? Is that how he stunk up the 1st half???
Click to expand...

I was unaware pete was a yearly contender at the french open, my mistake :)

My comments were mainly for the latter parts of his career, not during his peak years. Winning the us open and wimbledon are usually good enough to secure #1.

Btw i was refferring to his career as a whole, not one year.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Chadwixx said:
So 1993 and 1994 are the same year?

Once again pay attension to what people are talking about.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that Sampras won 3 slams in a row, which is just as impressive as winning 3 slams in a year.

Pay attention young man.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Chadwixx said:
:rolleyes:

And people like yourself need to read what we are talking about before interjecting themselves into our conversation. If there are 102 weeks in 6 years then i apoligize.

Thanks for the link to the current streaks.
Click to expand...

Question sir, Are you losing the plot???

You asked how many consecutive weeks was Sampras number one and I provided the answers. In one instance he was number one for three weeks short of two years and in another instance he was number one for a year and a half . Thats over 180 weeks of been number one in two sections of his career. Don't you find that extremely impressive?

I'm not sure you know what you are actually asking. You asked a question. I gave you an answer.

Time to stop playing silly games Chadwixx.
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
laurie said:
I was pointing out that Sampras won 3 slams in a row, which is just as impressive as winning 3 slams in a year.

Pay attention young man.
Click to expand...

Serena also won the "serena" slam, four consecutive grand slam titles. Which has what todo with winning 3 grand slams in one year? Thats right, absolutly nothing.
 
C

Chadwixx

Banned
laurie said:
Question sir, Are you losing the plot???

You asked how many consecutive weeks was Sampras number one and I provided the answers. In one instance he was number one for three weeks short of two years and in another instance he was number one for a year and a half . Thats over 180 weeks of been number one in two sections of his career. Don't you find that extremely impressive?

I'm not sure you know what you are actually asking. You asked a question. I gave you an answer.

Time to stop playing silly games Chadwixx.
Click to expand...

Go back and look at the posts. I was correcting someone who stated he was #1 for 6 straight years.

tennisfans said:
Let see if Roger can be number one 6 years in a row...
Click to expand...

Asking how many weeks sampras/fed were number #1 was for my own curiosity. Thanks again for the links, fed will over take sampras without even playing, one of the benefits of finishing the year number #1.
 
J

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
Rob_C said:
How did he stink up the 1st half of the year? By losing in the semis of the Aussie & the French to the eventual champions, and by winning 3 TMS titles, plus however many other tourneys and only losing 3 matches?? Is that how he stunk up the 1st half???
Click to expand...

Seems like Chadwixx is talking about Sampras with that comment and you think he is talking about Federer this year.
 
T

tennisfans

Banned
About classic match

bout classic match the best match ever is this quarter in 2001 at US between pete and andre match in 4 tie break...!!! amazing!
 
R

Rob_C

Hall of Fame
Steve Dykstra said:
Seems like Chadwixx is talking about Sampras with that comment and you think he is talking about Federer this year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I assumed he was talking about Fed. Isnt he one of the Fed haters though?
 
Rabbit

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
Chadwixx said:
Sampras cares as much for tennis as Rabbit does women, i dont think it will be happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Awwwwww...personal attacks, Chawixx? And that's the best you could come up with? What a pathetic idiot are.

Just for the record, if there was a correlation there, then Sampras would be on court 24X7. Oh, by the way, correlation means relationship, that would be something that you have with your hand.
 
J

janipyt05

Professional
even if feds equals, smashes sampras's records it still wouldn't make him sampras, so the comparing thing isn't worth it, there are thing fed does that smapras can't and they are thing sampras didn't that feds can't do. Fed has only been number 1 for 2 years he has another 5 years to go and another 4 wimbledons to win, is it impossble no i dont think so, things were a little different when the sampras express train ruled.

Besides u are never going to find whether feds was better or not. Love the fact they played at a time u were able to watch and enjoy not pit them against each, if u do that u wouldn't have one of them beginng a great woulld now
 
J

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
janipy, what exactly is the point of your last post? Is there anything in it that is not already common knowledge to everyone who follows tennis?
 
federerhoogenbandfan

federerhoogenbandfan

Banned
Winning 3 slams in a row has never been regarded as highly as winning 3slams in the same year, I have never heard any expert consider them the same. If that was the case Navratilova winning 6 straight slams would be considered more impressive than Graf winning the Grand Slam when she never won more than 5 in a row, but Navratilova winning 6 straight is not mentioned nearly as often as her failure to win the Grand Slam.
 
federerhoogenbandfan

federerhoogenbandfan

Banned
As for the most consecutive weeks at #1 record I could see Roger breaking that since he would need to be #1 only until 1 month after the 2007 Australian Open. Given the schedule if he manages to be #1 after the 2007 Australian Open he would probably be #1 atleast another 6 weeks. The key for him will be to be #1 through all of next year, which he probably will, Nadal probably wont be ready to be #1 yet next year; however if Nadal has a not so-great-result at the Australian 2006 and Federer wins the event, and Nadal manages to even finish a close #2 to Federer in 2006, there could be alot of pressure on Federer at the 2007 Australian Open to mantain his #1 ranking and put himself in position for the record.
 
federerhoogenbandfan

federerhoogenbandfan

Banned
Kevin Patrick said:
True, but it is interesting that Sampras & Laver are the only male players in the Open era to do so. Clearly, it's a rare feat.
Click to expand...

True, how good do you think Roger's chances are of doing it at the Australian Open next year though? I think how he recovers from the ankle injury will be the biggest factor. The likelihood of somebody playing as well as Safin did in the semis last year vs him seem unlikely, especialy with Safin and Nadal both injured; Roddick or Hewitt certainly cant play that well vs him.
 
J

janipyt05

Professional
Steve Dykstra said:
janipy, what exactly is the point of your last post? Is there anything in it that is not already common knowledge to everyone who follows tennis?
Click to expand...

Comparaing the players will never match up for me becasue they played in different circumstances. The greats of sampras' time where far more harder to beat i mean feds walks over the rest of the field so even if feds did beat sampras' records u couldnt really say he beat it because fed is having it easy enough for him to say he doesn't fear anyone but respects them. Which off course is taken in different ways none disrespectful

Also think that feds still has time if indeed he will catch up with sampras. The domination he has is not really level if u think about his records against the top ten players, there are a few that trouble him but not on a consistant basis were u can then pit him against sampras.

Sorry i didnt make it clear enough was in a bit of a rush, i may as well jus been agreeing with a few ppl opinion's but ill jus add the above.
 
S

SydW

Rookie
janipyt05 said:
Comparaing the players will never match up for me becasue they played in different circumstances. The greats of sampras' time where far more harder to beat i mean feds walks over the rest of the field so even if feds did beat sampras' records u couldnt really say he beat it because fed is having it easy enough for him to say he doesn't fear anyone but respects them. Which off course is taken in different ways none disrespectful
Click to expand...

So comparing players in differnt circumstances does not work for you, but you are able to conclude sampras time has tougher competitors than Federer? Dude, you are really contradicting yourself.

janipyt05 said:
Also think that feds still has time if indeed he will catch up with sampras. The domination he has is not really level if u think about his records against the top ten players, there are a few that trouble him but not on a consistant basis were u can then pit him against sampras.
Click to expand...

I am confused. So Federer has excellent records against his fellow top ten players, but that is only because the rest are not good enough, is it possible because Federer is very good? This logic about the current top players are not as good as the old timers are almost only based on one basis - Federer beat them consistently. So if Federer does not beat them as much, are you going to say the fields are competitive or are you then going to say Federer really isn't that good because his records against his fellows are mediocre?

janipyt05 said:
Sorry i didnt make it clear enough was in a bit of a rush, i may as well jus been agreeing with a few ppl opinion's but ill jus add the above.
Click to expand...

By adding the above, you are even more confusing to read now.

My answer to the question till the day when Federer won the RG or get his 14 slams, Pete is greater player.
 
AAAA

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Kevin Patrick said:
True, but it is interesting that Sampras & Laver are the only male players in the Open era to do so. Clearly, it's a rare feat.
Click to expand...

But Laver's three in a row has a big edge over Sampras's three in a row because Laver's 3 included the French Open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
My analysis of Pete vs Roger
Replies
46
Views
3K
The tennis guy
T
psamp14
Pete Sampras-roger Federer Comparison-in Perspective
Replies
7
Views
1K
roysid
roysid
abmk
Playing at close/similar/better level in a slam lost compared to slam won in the same year
Replies
2
Views
368
abmk
abmk
T
Pete Sampras speaks on Federer
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Tennis_Goodness
T
Russeljones
Wimbledon: Roger Federer's epic victory over Pete Sampras, 20 years on
2
Replies
66
Views
2K
mxmx
mxmx
Top