Safin or Chang?

[Azzurri]

I'm surprised so many are arguing for Chang. Yes he did have a greatly underrated career, but there are two factors which weigh heavily in Safin's favour:

- He beat a near-peak Sampras back-to-back in 2000 (just past his peak, but months removed from winning Wimbledon), which includes the drubbing the US Open final

- He beat a peak Federer in the semi of the 2005 Aussie

Chang quite simply couldn't beat the best when it mattered. His whole career, while excellent, was second fiddle to someone else. Now, add the fact that he was never #1 and that about wraps it up.

Safin played the best he had ever played prior and since on the day he beat Pete. I was as shocked back then as I was with Tsonga completley dominating Nadal. But one or 2 matches should not define a CAREER. Chang has won more tourney, had been in the top 10 for a lot longer, has better winning %, has made more QF (and beyond) matches in Grand Slams, has a much better record against his peers than Safin against his.

I seriously don't think people know what a CAREER is. I think Safin has more skills and abilities, but he wasted them and he knows it.

 

[Azzurri]

You're not wrong. Safin has earned more money than Chang, but a lot of it is by virtue of million dollar contracts with corporate names, appearance fees, etc. Add all of that up and Safin's earnings blow away Chang's.
Most of it has to do with the fact that Safin is enormously popular even today. His good looks and charisma help. He's still earning millions and is probably the third most popular tennis player after Roger and Rafa. And he's not even coming close to winning small events.

The fact that Safin got an invite to Kooyong shows how his popularity exceeds his current abilities.

not even sure what this has to do with his tennis career. Uh, Kournikova made way more money than almost any female due to endorsements. So she had a better career than say Hingis? Graf? Williams sisters? That has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Azzurri]

Save for Chang's 1989 RG triumph he simply didn't stack up against the best. Sorry to break this to you, but he didn't. Chang gave Pete lots of trouble when Pete was just starting out, but this turned around very quickly.

I'll give you a reminder: 1996 US Open final. Both guys at their collective peak. It wasn't close.

That said, Chang won some real biggies on the tour, like the back-to-back Indian Wells titles in 96 and 97. I remember those very well and he was amazing. But as impressive as those were Chang quite simply wasn't strong enough to win the true big ones (majors, masters). Sampras and Agassi (and even Becker) were able to give it a bit more gas in big matches, when the chips were on the line. They overpowered Chang in those situations.

Hey, no arguement here. Chang was no Pete, Andre or Boris. But Safin has rarely beaten the best too. Besides his two wins. Here is Safins record against the better players from 2000. Your arguement while true is the same for Safin.

2-8 vs Federer
6-6 vs Hewitt
3-4 Roddick
3-4 Kuerten
3-3 Henman
2-4 Haas
2-2 Kafelnikov

Now I see two problems with my list. One, notice how few times he played the "better" players. Part of the problem is he lost so often by the 2nd or 3rd round. his entire career has been inconsistent to say the least.

Second is he dominated NO ONE. Besides Fed, not one of these players is an all time great. Chang took many, many wins from all-time greats. How anyone continues to ignore FACTS is beyond me.

also, you and some others keep mentioning Chang could not beat the best and so on. First thing is I proved that wrong and secondly, neither did Safin. Safin has done very little besides his 2 majors.

 

[Azzurri]

I would much rather have an Australian and a US Open than one French championship.

Safin all the way

that's ironic. I don't know how many threads are argueing that the AO is a second rate GS. It should not count, etc, etc. Now you people want use it. Man.

 

[Azzurri]

i'd rather be safin even though im chinese

this is a perfect example why people vote for Safin. They want to be Safin and like him for his personality. Nothing to do with his career.

 

[Azzurri]

i did not say all-time great and yes, everyone you mentioned is atleast as talented as safin with much stronger work ethic. however, winning 10 masters series tourns and 0 majors would be a far more regrettable career for any pro than 0 masters and 1 major. i said all-time TALENT, like phat phil mickelson. too bad safin plays a real sport, he would be an all-time great in golf or baseball.

dude...you are a strange person. based on this thread you should be ignored.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=182313

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=182405

 

[firstservethenvolley]

I would much rather have an Australian and a US Open than one French championship.

Safin all the way

Do you think Fed says that ?

 

[lethalfang]

I would much rather have an Australian and a US Open than one French championship.

Safin all the way

Do you think Fed says that ?

That's only because Federer has 4 US Open and 3 Australian Open Titles. If he had only one USO and one AO, he wouldn't trade 2 for 1.

 

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

It's a two for one deal. Pure mathamatics settle the issue. Safin has had the better career (though not in terms of maximizing his potential).

 

[Azzurri]

^^^you are obviously one of the children on this board. The 2 slams Safin has does not make it a career, it adds to it, makes it more special to him. If tennis was only 4 tourney's a year (the slams) then you would be correct, but there are many, many more. You are basically stating no other torurney matters, then why bother playing them? you just make so little sense.

 

[Ripster]

that's ironic. I don't know how many threads are argueing that the AO is a second rate GS. It should not count, etc, etc. Now you people want use it. Man.

I never said that the AO is a second rate Grand Slam, and I don't agree with others who think so.

 

[Azzurri]

I never said that the AO is a second rate Grand Slam, and I don't agree with others who think so.

just making a poiint about the AO and how people disrespect it as a GS...sorry if I directed towards you. Meant it as a generality.

 

[NamRanger]

Hey, no arguement here. Chang was no Pete, Andre or Boris. But Safin has rarely beaten the best too. Besides his two wins. Here is Safins record against the better players from 2000. Your arguement while true is the same for Safin.

2-8 vs Federer
6-6 vs Hewitt
3-4 Roddick
3-4 Kuerten
3-3 Henman
2-4 Haas
2-2 Kafelnikov

Now I see two problems with my list. One, notice how few times he played the "better" players. Part of the problem is he lost so often by the 2nd or 3rd round. his entire career has been inconsistent to say the least.

Second is he dominated NO ONE. Besides Fed, not one of these players is an all time great. Chang took many, many wins from all-time greats. How anyone continues to ignore FACTS is beyond me.

also, you and some others keep mentioning Chang could not beat the best and so on. First thing is I proved that wrong and secondly, neither did Safin. Safin has done very little besides his 2 majors.

Safin's head to head against his peers is alot better then Chang's. You are defending someone who lost to Edberg well past his prime on clay, during Chang's own respective prime. Shows you that he didn't win on talent, he won on determination.

 

[NamRanger]

Man...I can't believe how you could bold face LIE and just make-up stuff. Again, I am going to make you look stupid:

Chang beat Sampras (besides clay) on these surfaces/venues:

1995 Singles Championship, Germany CARPET (faster than hardcourt)
1992 Key Biscane, FL HARDCOURT
1990 Cincinnati, Montreal, Los Angeles ALL HARDCOURT

Chang's 8 wins (out of 20) only two were clay courts.
Also, if you make the arguement that Chang beat a young Pete (DUUUUUHHH, they were the same age!!!!), then Safin beat an OLD/sub-prime Pete. So your silly, silly arguement holds NO WATER. Man, the thickness just keeps building.

Chang beat Edberg (besides clay) on these surfaces:
1996 Indian Wells and Los Angeles HARDCOURT
1994 Cincinnati HARDCOURT
1993 Long Island and Cincinnati HARDCOURT
1991 Paris Indoor CARPET
1990 Grand Slam Cup CARPET
1989 Indian Wells HARDCOURT

Chang's 9 wins (out of 21) only ONE was on clay. Again, yoiu show your ignorance. This is your problem. Why do you make up stuff?

Edberg was no slouch on clay. He won 3 clay toourney's on clay...not bad for a pure S&V with a supposed poor baseline game.
This just shows you NEVER watched Chang. He was not a clay court specialist like you presume. Why yoiu keep mentioning clay is beyond me.

Agassi DID NOT dominate Chang. Many of their matches went 3 sets. Agassi said Chang was difficult to beat because he never gave a point..NEVER. Agassi has said many times Chang was a warrior. Since you never watched tennis during this time, you woulod never know this. Of Agassi's 15 wins (7 losses), Agassi won 4 after 1998...Chang was done by then. Chang competed with Agassi, he did not get DOMINATED as you say.

What annoys me is that I am argueing with a fool that never saw Chang.

Yea, Safin had 2 great matches. No arguement, but why do you make up stuff and lie? You think Chang is not remembered? The 89 FO...ruing any bells? Guess not since you have only been a fan a few years. Face it, I have proved you wrong post after post.

I was talking about GS play, but I guess you don't like to read.


Outside of Chang's victory of Pete Sampras in the 89 FO, he lost to Sampras on every other surface in GS play. GS play is what determines your career, not master shields or smaller tournaments. Edberg beat Chang at GS play every single time when they played after 89.


You are not reading the facts. Agassi had a 15-7 record, and you call that not dominating? Agassi consistently beat Chang, with some of his win streaks extending up to 5-0 vs Chang. Chang's best win streak was 2.


Heck, friggin John McEnroe put beatdowns on Chang, and Chang's one victory against him was at the U.S. Open in a 5 set victory well past John's prime.



Safin will be remembered more because of his legendary victories. You do not just dismantle a 14 time GS Winner in the fashion he did in the final of his own native country. You do not BEAT a 100% Federer. These things are anomolies, and do not happen very often. There is really only two people I've seen so far that can beat a full steamed Federer, and that's Nalbandian and Nadal on clay.


Safin's career h2h with his peers is alot better then Chang's simply because he win's about 50% of them. Chang gets blown out as evidenced by his records against Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, etc.


And I'm sorry, you also aren't including the fact that Safin is a Davis Cup monster. And please don't say Chang did all the work either, because Safin had a MUCH less dominating team then Chang did. Safin did not have a multiple GS winner Agassi, nor did he had a GS calibur doubles team. Both Davydenko and Safin carried their team to victory, Safin especially in doubles.

 

[lambielspins]

Safin's head to head against his peers is alot better then Chang's. You are defending someone who lost to Edberg well past his prime on clay, during Chang's own respective prime. Shows you that he didn't win on talent, he won on determination.

That rational means squat when comparing Chang to Safin. Sampras well past his prime at the 2001 U.S Open straight setted Safin as well. Most players have lost to a great player well past their prime, even some of the all time greats who are much greater then either the overhyped Safin or Chang. Laver has lost to a grandpa Gonzalez before, and Graf and Seles lost matches to a grandma Navratilova in the early 90s, while Newcombe lost at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open to grandpa Rosewall in 1974. I guess they must suck too by that logic.

Safin has had more losses to nobodies in his career then I can even begin to count, even in his so called prime years (if he even had a prime) like 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005. Safin has embarassed himself many times far worse then losing to a past his prime Edberg once or twice.

 

[lambielspins]

Safin played the best he had ever played prior and since on the day he beat Pete. I was as shocked back then as I was with Tsonga completley dominating Nadal. But one or 2 matches should not define a CAREER. Chang has won more tourney, had been in the top 10 for a lot longer, has better winning %, has made more QF (and beyond) matches in Grand Slams, has a much better record against his peers than Safin against his.

I seriously don't think people know what a CAREER is. I think Safin has more skills and abilities, but he wasted them and he knows it.

Exactly. A players career cannot be defined by a couple of great matches. Heck Djokovic beat a prime Federer much more easily at this years Australian Open then Safin did at the 2005 Australian Open, a comprehensive straight sets win vs Safin's win which was by the skin of his teeth which he could easily have lost too (Federer had a match point) and where Federer ended the match with the better stats in every area despite losing after the failed match point conversion (Federer more points won then Safin, Federer more winners then Safin, Federer lower unforced errors then Safin) yet nobody gushes overboard on Djokovic on this years Australian Open win over Federer like they do Safin's far less overwhelming win three years ago. Krajicek dismantled a prime Sampras at Wimbledon 1996 nearly as decisively as Safin did at the 2000 U.S Open, and that was at Wimbledon where Pete never loses unlike the U.S Open where he has an incredible record but more losses then Wimbledon, and that was an absolutely prime Pete as opposed to an almost-but-not-quite-prime Sampras in 2000, yet nobody goes overboard on him being an invincible force based on that match either. Yet somehow for Safin he is in a completely different league supposably then other 1 or 2 time slam winners just because he had 2 sensational matches and tournaments in his career, something basically every 1 or 2 time slam calibre player has had in their careers, most of whom are far more consistent then Safin ever was.

 

[NamRanger]

That rational means squat when comparing Chang to Safin. Sampras well past his prime at the 2001 U.S Open straight setted Safin as well. Most players have lost to a great player well past their prime, even some of the all time greats who are much greater then either the overhyped Safin or Chang. Laver has lost to a grandpa Gonzalez before, and Graf and Seles lost matches to a grandma Navratilova in the early 90s, while Newcombe lost at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open to grandpa Rosewall in 1974. I guess they must suck too by that logic.

Safin has had more losses to nobodies in his career then I can even begin to count, even in his so called prime years (if he even had a prime) like 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005. Safin has embarassed himself many times far worse then losing to a past his prime Edberg once or twice.

I would hardly call a player who got to a GS final past his prime. Especially considering he went through probably the craziest draw I've seen to date.


Edberg however is a S&V well past his prime, and he easily beat a PRIME Chang who is supposed to be one of the better players on clay. Big difference here.

 

[lambielspins]

I would hardly call a player who got to a GS final past his prime. Especially considering he went through probably the craziest draw I've seen to date.


Edberg however is a S&V well past his prime, and he easily beat a PRIME Chang who is supposed to be one of the better players on clay. Big difference here.

So a player who reaches a slam final is automatically in their prime, even one of Sampras's greatness? So I guess you then feel 37 year old Navratilova was in her prime in 1994 when she reached the Wimbledon final and loss to Cowchita Martinez, ROTFL!! Sampras in his "prime" (according to you) in 2001 failed to win a single touranement in 15 events, ended the year ranked #10 in the world (would have been out of the top 20 without that U.S Open run), ended the year with a 33-15 win/loss record, and failed to reach the quarterfinals of any of his other 3 slam events. Funny how people like you were also arguing how far past his prime Sampras was this same year when it is brought up he lost to a very green Federer at Wimbledon, and yet now he was in his prime based on his U.S Open performance just because he straight setted the grand Safin there. Funny how the perspective changes depending who is the topic at hand.

So Chang had a bad day at the French Open and lost to a past his prime Edberg. Big deal, to base your argument on that one match is downright desperate. It is just as ridiculous as basing it on two matches Safin played his whole career, so the argument of Chang<Safin is based on one bad match from Chang, and two great matches from Safin, when both guys have played hundreds of matches in their career. Particularly when you are comparing him to Safin who has more singular embarassingly bad days then any other top 5 player back even at his peak. If I listed all the Safin losses even in his "good" years worse then losing to a past his prime Edberg on clay the computer would explode from all the input.

 

[Azzurri]

Safin's head to head against his peers is alot better then Chang's. You are defending someone who lost to Edberg well past his prime on clay, during Chang's own respective prime. Shows you that he didn't win on talent, he won on determination.

2 points you missed. he does NOT have a winning record against any of them and besides Federer, none are all time players. The other point you missed/ignoired is the few times he has played the top players. he lost so often in the early rounds that he rarely faced them. Don't you see the big picture? he is competitive for very short periods of time. his entire career has been that way. he began his decline at age 24...what more proof do you want? Chang had a long, sustained career in the top 10. He made a few slam finals and won one. he had a nice career considering he had no weapons. Hence, his career vs Safin is better. Is he the better player? that cannot be answered because they need to have played more than twice and the stage was Chang's latter. So how does one measure a career? by more than just 2 matches....

 

[Azzurri]

I was talking about GS play, but I guess you don't like to read.


Outside of Chang's victory of Pete Sampras in the 89 FO, he lost to Sampras on every other surface in GS play. GS play is what determines your career, not master shields or smaller tournaments. Edberg beat Chang at GS play every single time when they played after 89.


You are not reading the facts. Agassi had a 15-7 record, and you call that not dominating? Agassi consistently beat Chang, with some of his win streaks extending up to 5-0 vs Chang. Chang's best win streak was 2.


Heck, friggin John McEnroe put beatdowns on Chang, and Chang's one victory against him was at the U.S. Open in a 5 set victory well past John's prime.



Safin will be remembered more because of his legendary victories. You do not just dismantle a 14 time GS Winner in the fashion he did in the final of his own native country. You do not BEAT a 100% Federer. These things are anomolies, and do not happen very often. There is really only two people I've seen so far that can beat a full steamed Federer, and that's Nalbandian and Nadal on clay.


Safin's career h2h with his peers is alot better then Chang's simply because he win's about 50% of them. Chang gets blown out as evidenced by his records against Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, etc.


And I'm sorry, you also aren't including the fact that Safin is a Davis Cup monster. And please don't say Chang did all the work either, because Safin had a MUCH less dominating team then Chang did. Safin did not have a multiple GS winner Agassi, nor did he had a GS calibur doubles team. Both Davydenko and Safin carried their team to victory, Safin especially in doubles.

OK. you want to base your arguement purely on GS, then the only thing that Safin has over Chang is 2-1 GS...that's it.

He has less victories, wins, win %, top 10 in weeks, less QF and above appearnces in all tourneys (including majors) than Chang.

By the way, Chang has the record for the most amoiunt of weeks at #2....yea, THE MOST! Guess who was on top for almost every week....yes the GOAT, Pete Sampras. Chang had a better career as an overall tennis player. I am counting all of it, because a career consists of more than 4 tourneys a year. if you want to poo poo all others, then that would be your narrow-mindedness.

Let me ask you this:
Lets say Tsonga won the AO and retired the next day. Would he have had a better career than say a player who was in the top 10 for 10 years, won 35 tourneys, was ranked #2 for more weeks than anyone else in history, won the year end championship 2 times....who had a better career? if you think Tsonga, then you are very, very clueless.

Before John Elway won his 2 Super Bowls, would you have said Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer had better careers than him? So Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino since Marino never won a SB. Since you define someone's career by majors, then you must also believe Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino...do you see how MORONIC that sounds.

 

[firstservethenvolley]

Exactly. A players career cannot be defined by a couple of great matches. Heck Djokovic beat a prime Federer much more easily at this years Australian Open then Safin did at the 2005 Australian Open, a comprehensive straight sets win vs Safin's win which was by the skin of his teeth which he could easily have lost too (Federer had a match point) and where Federer ended the match with the better stats in every area despite losing after the failed match point conversion (Federer more points won then Safin, Federer more winners then Safin, Federer lower unforced errors then Safin) yet nobody gushes overboard on Djokovic on this years Australian Open win over Federer like they do Safin's far less overwhelming win three years ago. Krajicek dismantled a prime Sampras at Wimbledon 1996 nearly as decisively as Safin did at the 2000 U.S Open, and that was at Wimbledon where Pete never loses unlike the U.S Open where he has an incredible record but more losses then Wimbledon, and that was an absolutely prime Pete as opposed to an almost-but-not-quite-prime Sampras in 2000, yet nobody goes overboard on him being an invincible force based on that match either. Yet somehow for Safin he is in a completely different league supposably then other 1 or 2 time slam winners just because he had 2 sensational matches and tournaments in his career, something basically every 1 or 2 time slam calibre player has had in their careers, most of whom are far more consistent then Safin ever was.

Finally someone who makes sense.

 

[Azzurri]

Exactly. A players career cannot be defined by a couple of great matches. Heck Djokovic beat a prime Federer much more easily at this years Australian Open then Safin did at the 2005 Australian Open, a comprehensive straight sets win vs Safin's win which was by the skin of his teeth which he could easily have lost too (Federer had a match point) and where Federer ended the match with the better stats in every area despite losing after the failed match point conversion (Federer more points won then Safin, Federer more winners then Safin, Federer lower unforced errors then Safin) yet nobody gushes overboard on Djokovic on this years Australian Open win over Federer like they do Safin's far less overwhelming win three years ago. Krajicek dismantled a prime Sampras at Wimbledon 1996 nearly as decisively as Safin did at the 2000 U.S Open, and that was at Wimbledon where Pete never loses unlike the U.S Open where he has an incredible record but more losses then Wimbledon, and that was an absolutely prime Pete as opposed to an almost-but-not-quite-prime Sampras in 2000, yet nobody goes overboard on him being an invincible force based on that match either. Yet somehow for Safin he is in a completely different league supposably then other 1 or 2 time slam winners just because he had 2 sensational matches and tournaments in his career, something basically every 1 or 2 time slam calibre player has had in their careers, most of whom are far more consistent then Safin ever was.

what a great example!! I saw that match while on vacation in Ocean City, Maryland with 11 buddies. Most of my friends were not tennis fans, but liked to watch the dominate athlete of tennis..Pete Sampras. You have no idea how many comments of what the F came out of their mouths, who is this Kraijcek, they were stunned. I was miserable the rest of the trip. I was in denial and couild not believe what had happened to Pete. To me, the worst loss of his GS career (more so than Edberg, Safin and Agassi). He was destroyed that day. So I guess Kraijcek also had a better career than Chang..:shock:

 

[Azzurri]

I would hardly call a player who got to a GS final past his prime. Especially considering he went through probably the craziest draw I've seen to date.


Edberg however is a S&V well past his prime, and he easily beat a PRIME Chang who is supposed to be one of the better players on clay. Big difference here.

how many times should I make you look ignorant? Edberg won 3 tiourneys on clay and Chang won 4. Chang was not considered a clay-court player. He was much better on carpet and hardcourt, but he did win the FO and it was nothing less than the biggest shock to most tennis fans. Even after wards, he only made the FO finals one more time. He most lost befiore the 3-4 rounds, so he was not a great player on clay. again, you like to make up stuff as you go.

 

[Azzurri]

So a player who reaches a slam final is automatically in their prime, even one of Sampras's greatness? So I guess you then feel 37 year old Navratilova was in her prime in 1994 when she reached the Wimbledon final and loss to Cowchita Martinez, ROTFL!! Sampras in his "prime" (according to you) in 2001 failed to win a single touranement in 15 events, ended the year ranked #10 in the world (would have been out of the top 20 without that U.S Open run), ended the year with a 33-15 win/loss record, and failed to reach the quarterfinals of any of his other 3 slam events. Funny how people like you were also arguing how far past his prime Sampras was this same year when it is brought up he lost to a very green Federer at Wimbledon, and yet now he was in his prime based on his U.S Open performance just because he straight setted the grand Safin there. Funny how the perspective changes depending who is the topic at hand.

So Chang had a bad day at the French Open and lost to a past his prime Edberg. Big deal, to base your argument on that one match is downright desperate. It is just as ridiculous as basing it on two matches Safin played his whole career, so the argument of Chang<Safin is based on one bad match from Chang, and two great matches from Safin, when both guys have played hundreds of matches in their career. Particularly when you are comparing him to Safin who has more singular embarassingly bad days then any other top 5 player back even at his peak. If I listed all the Safin losses even in his "good" years worse then losing to a past his prime Edberg on clay the computer would explode from all the input.

This Namranger is obviously a kid. He tells lie after lie and makies up stuff as he goes. he never saw Chang play and probably recently watched Safin on a DVD play Sampras and or Federer, so he has no clue how inconsistent Safin has been. For some to argue with lies and incorrect information shows either complete ignorance or mental health issues.

 

[Morrissey]

The OP question was whose career would you pick. I'll pick Safin's. He's done more with it (even though he underachieved) than Chang who did everything he could and got one slam by the hair of his chin. Even that one slam Chang got was almost a miracle, with tactics involved too. Safin won more slams, got the number one ranking and beat Sampras and Fed in big stages in Grand Slams. I'll take him. You disagree? Too bad, I don't care.

 

[SempreSami]

The OP question was whose career would you pick. I'll pick Safin's. He's done more with it (even though he underachieved) than Chang who did everything he could and got one slam by the hair of his chin. Even that one slam Chang got was almost a miracle, with tactics involved too. Safin won more slams, got the number one ranking and beat Sampras and Fed in big stages in Grand Slams. I'll take him. You disagree? Too bad, I don't care.

I agree, plus I'd have youtube videos dedicated to my racquet smashing.

 

[NamRanger]

OK. you want to base your arguement purely on GS, then the only thing that Safin has over Chang is 2-1 GS...that's it.

He has less victories, wins, win %, top 10 in weeks, less QF and above appearnces in all tourneys (including majors) than Chang.

By the way, Chang has the record for the most amoiunt of weeks at #2....yea, THE MOST! Guess who was on top for almost every week....yes the GOAT, Pete Sampras. Chang had a better career as an overall tennis player. I am counting all of it, because a career consists of more than 4 tourneys a year. if you want to poo poo all others, then that would be your narrow-mindedness.

Let me ask you this:
Lets say Tsonga won the AO and retired the next day. Would he have had a better career than say a player who was in the top 10 for 10 years, won 35 tourneys, was ranked #2 for more weeks than anyone else in history, won the year end championship 2 times....who had a better career? if you think Tsonga, then you are very, very clueless.

Before John Elway won his 2 Super Bowls, would you have said Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer had better careers than him? So Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino since Marino never won a SB. Since you define someone's career by majors, then you must also believe Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino...do you see how MORONIC that sounds.

Good thing you completely ignored the fact that I stated Michael Chang does not beat the good players very often at GS play. Best he mustered were a few wins on clay, and some against Agassi (which were impressive, but he only got two). Safin on any given day even when he was completely off could beat anyone. 2004 was a great example, where he was unseeded, and made it to the finals going through quite a tough draw, including the likes of Nieminan, Blake, Roddick, and Agassi.


You keep arguing that Safin's two great wins are nothing. Do you not understand the magnitude of those victories? Safin literally destroyed a 14 GS winner on his own home soil. He beat possibly the greatest of all time player at his very peak. These victories didn't just come at some small tournament or a masters either, these victories came at slams. Chang in no way shape or form could even touch Sampras at all.


I would go as far as to say Roddick has a much better career then Chang, and his isn't even done yet. He is just unlucky he lives in Federer's era, otherwise he defintely would have snuck in a few slams here and there.


The fact that you call me a kid is funny too. You and BreakPoint are probably the most obnoxious posters on this board, but at least BreakPoint doesn't think he's superior to anyone due to age. The fact of the matter is you believe your older generation is better simply because you grew up with them.


You are also comparing apples and oranges. Of course Marino is better because he literally carried his team upon his shoulders. However, you want a fair comparasion, look at Tom Brady v. Peyton Manning, or Marino vs John Elway. Brady and Motana are better then the other two stat machiners simply because they win SBs, not because they put up better stats. Without either of those two, their teams would not win SBs, period.


Sorry, Edberg made one run at the FO due to the way his draw unfolded. The fact that you say Michael Chang is not a good clay player when he won it, and then went to the finals, had a semi-finals appearence, and was a two time quarter finalist is rediculous. He has a 38-15 record at the FO, which is better then his 21-10 at the AO and 18-14 record at Wimbledon. It's very comparable to his best surface, the USO where he was 43-17.


Edberg was well past his prime in 96, and clay is his worst surface. You trying to say Edberg is a good clay player (he is better then the majority of S&V because he grew up on the surface, unlike Rafter, McEnroe, and Sampras) is rediculous. Chang was in his prime and was extremely favoured to win that match. Guess what happened? 4 set victory for Edberg along with a bagel added. I'm sorry, you don't just let a S&V bagel you on one of your best surfaces.


Your insulting me when you don't even know my age or my tennis experience is laughable also. You also insult my knowledge of tennis, when I've proven to you with numbers that Chang does not beat the better players at the GS's. He has been able to pull off a couple wins here and there, but with no consistency what so ever. He's a great player, no doubt. But I pick Safin simply because anyone who has ever watched tennis recently will always remember the epic matches Safin has had, such as his 2004 semi vs Agassi, and his 2005 semi vs Federer, or his thumping of Sampras at the 2000 Open.



Sampras out of his prime in 2001? Then how did he win his 2002 US Open? Just by miraculous miracle?

 

[Hooooon]

ok, all-time talent. what does that even mean...to you?

but we are not talking about Chang winning 10 Master series and 0 majors, are we?

Mickelson, Safin is no Mickelson. Mick is consistently a WINNER. He was won more majors and many tourneys. Mick is just to aggressive. He is not mental like Safin. Bad example.

Baseball is not a sport?

the point of my example is that talent alone wins in golf since it's relatively uncompetitive.
same (less so) for baseball

 

[lambielspins]

Sampras out of his prime in 2001? Then how did he win his 2002 US Open? Just by miraculous miracle?

You have NEVER argued Sampras was in his prime in 2001 or 2002 until now. In fact I remember when a green Federer's win over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 was brought up you were adament about how extremely far Sampras was from his prime, even more then the green Federer in fact. Yet now that the argument is involving Safin (a player who you like unlike Federer whom it is apparent you despise) you now argue that Sampras was in his prime by then just because of his 2 U.S Open performances. What a hypocrite!

A player can win a grand slam not in their prime, especialy if they are one of the greats which of course Sampras is. Do you think Navratilova was still in her prime when she won Wimbledon in 1990 with wonky knees at 33? Would you have argued Agassi with his stiff back at 35 was still in his prime had he won the 2005 U.S Open final over Federer? So you are arguing Sampras in his prime could drop out of the top 10 (which he did in both 2001 and 2002) and when his only tournament win those 2 years combined was that U.S Open win. How ridiculous (especialy for someone like yourself who argues heavily in support of Sampras many times in the past), but apparently you will try anything to mantain your argument supporting Safin.

 

[sampras RULES!]

Safin all the way...

 

[NamRanger]

You have NEVER argued Sampras was in his prime in 2001 or 2002 until now. In fact I remember when a green Federer's win over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 was brought up you were adament about how extremely far Sampras was from his prime, even more then the green Federer in fact. Yet now that the argument is involving Safin (a player who you like unlike Federer whom it is apparent you despise) you now argue that Sampras was in his prime by then just because of his 2 U.S Open performances. What a hypocrite!

A player can win a grand slam not in their prime, especialy if they are one of the greats which of course Sampras is. Do you think Navratilova was still in her prime when she won Wimbledon in 1990 with wonky knees at 33? Would you have argued Agassi with his stiff back at 35 was still in his prime had he won the 2005 U.S Open final over Federer? So you are arguing Sampras in his prime could drop out of the top 10 (which he did in both 2001 and 2002) and when his only tournament win those 2 years combined was that U.S Open win. How ridiculous (especialy for someone like yourself who argues heavily in support of Sampras many times in the past), but apparently you will try anything to mantain your argument supporting Safin.

What, people can't change their minds now? Yes, I said before Sampras was out of his prime, but I think he could have won a few more slams after 2002. Even if he was "out of his prime" he wasn't that much worse, considering he still did well by most standards. Also, his exhibition matches against Federer and Haas show that he is still top 30 material at the very least. Peformances like that tend to change your mind. For someone who was out of his prime in 2000-2002, he was real good then. Winning Miami, winning Wimbledon, making the USO final in 2000, making a couple of deep runs at some tournaments in 2001, including a final at Indian Wells, and then in 2002 he had a semi at Miami and won the US Open. For someone who's out of his prime, he's pretty damn good I'd say.


2005 Agassi was still well within his "prime." He fell out at the very end of 2005 and 2006 because of a back injury. Without that injury he could have easily still competed at a top 10 level. From 2000-mid way 2005, he was still a contender for slams, and winning Masters.

 

[Azzurri]

Good thing you completely ignored the fact that I stated Michael Chang does not beat the good players very often at GS play. Best he mustered were a few wins on clay, and some against Agassi (which were impressive, but he only got two). Safin on any given day even when he was completely off could beat anyone. 2004 was a great example, where he was unseeded, and made it to the finals going through quite a tough draw, including the likes of Nieminan, Blake, Roddick, and Agassi.


You keep arguing that Safin's two great wins are nothing. Do you not understand the magnitude of those victories? Safin literally destroyed a 14 GS winner on his own home soil. He beat possibly the greatest of all time player at his very peak. These victories didn't just come at some small tournament or a masters either, these victories came at slams. Chang in no way shape or form could even touch Sampras at all.


I would go as far as to say Roddick has a much better career then Chang, and his isn't even done yet. He is just unlucky he lives in Federer's era, otherwise he defintely would have snuck in a few slams here and there.


The fact that you call me a kid is funny too. You and BreakPoint are probably the most obnoxious posters on this board, but at least BreakPoint doesn't think he's superior to anyone due to age. The fact of the matter is you believe your older generation is better simply because you grew up with them.


You are also comparing apples and oranges. Of course Marino is better because he literally carried his team upon his shoulders. However, you want a fair comparasion, look at Tom Brady v. Peyton Manning, or Marino vs John Elway. Brady and Motana are better then the other two stat machiners simply because they win SBs, not because they put up better stats. Without either of those two, their teams would not win SBs, period.


Sorry, Edberg made one run at the FO due to the way his draw unfolded. The fact that you say Michael Chang is not a good clay player when he won it, and then went to the finals, had a semi-finals appearence, and was a two time quarter finalist is rediculous. He has a 38-15 record at the FO, which is better then his 21-10 at the AO and 18-14 record at Wimbledon. It's very comparable to his best surface, the USO where he was 43-17.


Edberg was well past his prime in 96, and clay is his worst surface. You trying to say Edberg is a good clay player (he is better then the majority of S&V because he grew up on the surface, unlike Rafter, McEnroe, and Sampras) is rediculous. Chang was in his prime and was extremely favoured to win that match. Guess what happened? 4 set victory for Edberg along with a bagel added. I'm sorry, you don't just let a S&V bagel you on one of your best surfaces.


Your insulting me when you don't even know my age or my tennis experience is laughable also. You also insult my knowledge of tennis, when I've proven to you with numbers that Chang does not beat the better players at the GS's. He has been able to pull off a couple wins here and there, but with no consistency what so ever. He's a great player, no doubt. But I pick Safin simply because anyone who has ever watched tennis recently will always remember the epic matches Safin has had, such as his 2004 semi vs Agassi, and his 2005 semi vs Federer, or his thumping of Sampras at the 2000 Open.



Sampras out of his prime in 2001? Then how did he win his 2002 US Open? Just by miraculous miracle?

Cry me a river.
Elway lost 3 SB..did you forget? T. Davis won him 2 SB..Elway acknowledged this many times.

Pete was past his prime. His run in 2002 was incredible..one last horrah for GOAT.

Never said Safin 's wins were NOTHING.

I am glad you think so highly of me..I was concerened.

 

[Azzurri]

the point of my example is that talent alone wins in golf since it's relatively uncompetitive.
same (less so) for baseball

Dude..go have another drink.

 

[1337Kira]

Chang. That's all I have to say.

 

[Zimbo]

When all said and done I just rather have 2 slams compared to 1. However, Chang had the better career, but Safin at his best was the better player.

NamRanger, do you think Chang's run at the FO where he but the beat down on a Prime Lendl equal Safin's beat down of Sampras at the USO? I for one sure do.

 

[Azzurri]

What, people can't change their minds now? Yes, I said before Sampras was out of his prime, but I think he could have won a few more slams after 2002. Even if he was "out of his prime" he wasn't that much worse, considering he still did well by most standards. Also, his exhibition matches against Federer and Haas show that he is still top 30 material at the very least. Peformances like that tend to change your mind. For someone who was out of his prime in 2000-2002, he was real good then. Winning Miami, winning Wimbledon, making the USO final in 2000, making a couple of deep runs at some tournaments in 2001, including a final at Indian Wells, and then in 2002 he had a semi at Miami and won the US Open. For someone who's out of his prime, he's pretty damn good I'd say.


2005 Agassi was still well within his "prime." He fell out at the very end of 2005 and 2006 because of a back injury. Without that injury he could have easily still competed at a top 10 level. From 2000-mid way 2005, he was still a contender for slams, and winning Masters.

This is a perfect example of not understanding tennis. Pete was not about going deep and winning 1 tourney in 2 years. Pete was about winning every time he played. Your MISUNDERSTANDING about EVERYTHING that has been said on this board is beyond me. You think a player of Sampras's caliber thinks they are still playing at a high level when they can't win more than one tourney in a 2 year span. Not be #1, let alone be out of the top ten. Sampras was in his twilight years against Safin...bottom line. Safin had ONE major win and that was against Federer.

LOL...I can't help but laugh when you mention Pete and his EXO wins against Haas and Federer. You have plainly shown your lack of tennis education and history.

 

[grafrules]

NamRanger, do you think Chang's run at the FO where he but the beat down on a Prime Lendl equal Safin's beat down of Sampras at the USO? I for one sure do.

Hold your horses here. Chang in no way put a beat down on a prime Lendl at the 89 French Open. For starters he barely won the match, that is not a "beat down". He also resorted to mind games and unorthodox tactics to win the match in the end. It was an amazing win, and I wont take away from that, but in no way could it be termed a beat down.

For the record I still do give it to Chang.

 

[Zimbo]

Hold your horses here. Chang in no way put a beat down on a prime Lendl at the 89 French Open. For starters he barely won the match, that is not a "beat down". He also resorted to mind games and unorthodox tactics to win the match in the end. It was an amazing win, and I wont take away from that, but in no way could it be termed a beat down.

For the record I still do give it to Chang.

True, my bad. I got over excited thinking about that match. Thought Lendl had a mental breakdown that I didn't see from him on a big match since the '82 USO final.

 

[grafrules]

This is a perfect example of not understanding tennis. Pete was not about going deep and winning 1 tourney in 2 years. Pete was about winning every time he played. Your MISUNDERSTANDING about EVERYTHING that has been said on this board is beyond me. You think a player of Sampras's caliber thinks they are still playing at a high level when they can't win more than one tourney in a 2 year span. Not be #1, let alone be out of the top ten. Sampras was in his twilight years against Safin...bottom line. Safin had ONE major win and that was against Federer.

LOL...I can't help but laugh when you mention Pete and his EXO wins against Haas and Federer. You have plainly shown your lack of tennis education and history.

Yes, the fact Sampras was not even in the top 10 and anyone is arguing him being in his prime is laughable. So in the prime of Pete Sampras, arguably the greatest player of all time, guys like Haas and Grosjean would bump him out of the top 10?? So in Pete's "prime" he could somehow be ranked outside the top 10 in a field so weak those two years that Lleyton Hewitt was the #1 player both years. I cant believe anyone is trying to put forth that kind of an argument.

 

[Azzurri]

Yes, the fact Sampras was not even in the top 10 and anyone is arguing him being in his prime is laughable. So in the prime of Pete Sampras, arguably the greatest player of all time, guys like Haas and Grosjean would bump him out of the top 10?? So in Pete's "prime" he could somehow be ranked outside the top 10 in a field so weak those two years that Lleyton Hewitt was the #1 player both years. I cant believe anyone is trying to put forth that kind of an argument.

I really don't even know how to argue with this guy anymore. He comes up with crazy analogies, lies, incorrect/half-truths and at this point so many people have argued against him or atleast agreed with me I just don't knoiw what else to tell him. Its so obvious he never saw Pete play (maybe we'll give him the last year or two for Pete's career", but he could not have seen Pete play if he continues to argue Pete was still a high level player...yea, compared to the Davydenko's of tennis. Pete was a machine at Wimby and the USO. Safin beat a tired/bored/weathered Pete Sampras. What Namranger does ot realize is Pete was "re-energized" for the USO and wanted to win that slam more than any other, so he worked his *** off for it. It was NOT a prime Pete, but a motivated one. That USOI showed everyone why he was the GOAT (until Fed came along).

 

[Azzurri]

True, my bad. I got over excited thinking about that match. Thought Lendl had a mental breakdown that I didn't see from him on a big match since the '82 USO final.

I took the term "beatdown" in terms of a mental beat down by Chang. That was the case (a major part anyway). Chang was no where near the player of Lendl and Lendl was still a quality player, but Chang won in a unforgettable match.

 

[NamRanger]

This is a perfect example of not understanding tennis. Pete was not about going deep and winning 1 tourney in 2 years. Pete was about winning every time he played. Your MISUNDERSTANDING about EVERYTHING that has been said on this board is beyond me. You think a player of Sampras's caliber thinks they are still playing at a high level when they can't win more than one tourney in a 2 year span. Not be #1, let alone be out of the top ten. Sampras was in his twilight years against Safin...bottom line. Safin had ONE major win and that was against Federer.

LOL...I can't help but laugh when you mention Pete and his EXO wins against Haas and Federer. You have plainly shown your lack of tennis education and history.

If Sampras was supposedly in his "twilight" years he would be getting rocked left and right in 2001 and 2002. Yet he straight setted Safin the next year in the semi of the U.S. Open? And in 2000, he still won Wimbledon and did well at the other tournaments. Sampras had lost his motivation to really win after the 2000 Wimbledon. When he got that motivation again, he literally demolished the field at the 2002 US Open.


You still haven't come up with a reply to my statement about why Chang's career is not comparable to Safin, which is that he could not beat the big name players at GS play. He had a handful of matches, where Safin has plenty more then that.


Safin only had one major win? I guess snapping Agassi's massive win streak at the Australian Open was nothing at all then, especially in the fashion he did it, which was to pretty much outhit him from the baseline. I guess demolishing Sampras was not an amazing feat in itself. Or the fact that he won both Madrid and Paris indoor tournaments back to back in impressive fashion, the only other player to do it so far is Nalbandian in recent history.



But hey, what do I know? I guess the 70 year old geezer who still hangs out on internet forums should know more then me. After all, I do other things then be an old guy who hangs out on the TW forums.

 

[Azzurri]

If Sampras was supposedly in his "twilight" years he would be getting rocked left and right in 2001 and 2002. Yet he straight setted Safin the next year in the semi of the U.S. Open? And in 2000, he still won Wimbledon and did well at the other tournaments. Sampras had lost his motivation to really win after the 2000 Wimbledon. When he got that motivation again, he literally demolished the field at the 2002 US Open.


You still haven't come up with a reply to my statement about why Chang's career is not comparable to Safin, which is that he could not beat the big name players at GS play. He had a handful of matches, where Safin has plenty more then that.


Safin only had one major win? I guess snapping Agassi's massive win streak at the Australian Open was nothing at all then, especially in the fashion he did it, which was to pretty much outhit him from the baseline. I guess demolishing Sampras was not an amazing feat in itself. Or the fact that he won both Madrid and Paris indoor tournaments back to back in impressive fashion, the only other player to do it so far is Nalbandian in recent history.



But hey, what do I know? I guess the 70 year old geezer who still hangs out on internet forums should know more then me. After all, I do other things then be an old guy who hangs out on the TW forums.

For the last time, Sampras was in decline by 2001. I did not say he was Brad Gilbert, I said he was in decline. Safin beat a player in DECLINE. How many times do I and OTHER POSTERS need to remind you of this.

I have answered everything about Chang, not going to repeat myself to a person that has no comprehension skills.

70? where did you get that from?

 

[Deleted member 22147]

I would rather be Safin for these reasons:

He is a big, good looking guy.
Bags of talent.
Popular amongst fans (partly because of the above 2 reasons obviously)
He has been the best player in the world.
He has won more slams than chang.
He has had a rollercoaster of a career which I find very exciting.

 

[Shaolin]

I would rather be Safin for these reasons:

He is a big, good looking guy.
Bags of talent.
Popular amongst fans (partly because of the above 2 reasons obviously)
He has been the best player in the world.
He has won more slams than chang.
He has had a rollercoaster of a career which I find very exciting.

Or....this reason:

 

[Azzurri]

Or....this reason:

Damn it! My whole arguement for Chang just wnet out the window. I change my vote...I want to have Safin's career.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Nah, I wouldn't touch her with a 10 foot pole.

Well...maybe I would...

 

[siber222000]

i would choose chang, cause safin is so inconsistent ... and i dont like him :twisted:

 

[tennisfreak]

Michael Chang's career - definitely.

Safin will be forgotten in ten years. Michael will always be remembered as the YOUNGEST player ever to win a grand slam. 17 years and 3 months. No one will beat that.

Michael is in the hearts and minds of millions of tennis fans in Asia who watch and play tennis, because of him.

 

[MichaelChang]

Michael Chang's career - definitely.

Safin will be forgotten in ten years. Michael will always be remembered as the YOUNGEST player ever to win a grand slam. 17 years and 3 months. No one will beat that.

Michael is in the hearts and minds of millions of tennis fans in Asia who watch and play tennis, because of him.

yep. if the OP would ask this poll in Asia, the answer will be dominantly Chang.