Sampras 14 slams 12 yrs, Federer 9 slams 4 yrs
- Thread starter AJK1
- Start date
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
driger said:
At age 25 years, 1 month, Sampras had 8 Slams ('90, '93, '95-'96 US Opens, '93-95 Wimbledons, and '94 Australian).
At age 25 years, 1 month, Federer has 9 Slams.
The win today puts Federer ahead of Sampras' pace, and he may have a further leg up by his ability to win on clay and Rebound Ace. (Obviously, Sampras never got past the semis at the French and he only won the Australian twice... whereas Federer will presumably be the favorite or a strong contender for both those titles for the next 5-6 years.)
InvisibleSoul
Hall of Fame
Yep, you can check on Sampras' wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras
Includes those up to and including '96 US Open...
So Federer is already ahead of Sampras' pace.
Sampras won two more in 97, one in 98, one in 99, one in 00 and finally one last one in 02.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why Federer would be slowing down significantly in the next few years, so it isn't out of the question for him to catch up to Sampras in 3 years time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sampras
Includes those up to and including '96 US Open...
So Federer is already ahead of Sampras' pace.
Sampras won two more in 97, one in 98, one in 99, one in 00 and finally one last one in 02.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why Federer would be slowing down significantly in the next few years, so it isn't out of the question for him to catch up to Sampras in 3 years time.
If Federer doesn’t surpass Sampras 14 grand slams there is something seriously wrong with him. Also Federer will retire later then when Sampras did. Sampras retired too early due mostly because of his marriage to Bridgette. His marriage ended his career prematurely. He should have been playing just as long as Agassi did.
dandy2fast
Rookie
And how many years did it take to sampras to win 9 slams?
Please.
In 1996 Sampras had much better competition at the age of 25 - there are only, what, seven (as of 2006 US Open) current players with Slam wins (Federer at 25)?
Federer, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Roddick, Gaudio, and Agassi? (Costa retired this past April.)
How many Slam singles titles were held by then current players in 1996? Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Noah, Chang, Courier, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Krajiek, Stich, Kafelnikov, Brugera, and Muster?
And Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, and Gomez had just retired two/three years earlier... and, Patrick Rafter would win the US Open in 97 and 98, as well.
In 1996 Sampras had much better competition at the age of 25 - there are only, what, seven (as of 2006 US Open) current players with Slam wins (Federer at 25)?
Federer, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal, Roddick, Gaudio, and Agassi? (Costa retired this past April.)
How many Slam singles titles were held by then current players in 1996? Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Noah, Chang, Courier, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Krajiek, Stich, Kafelnikov, Brugera, and Muster?
And Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, and Gomez had just retired two/three years earlier... and, Patrick Rafter would win the US Open in 97 and 98, as well.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
BigboyDan said:
Please, go home and look through the draw again.
A good site comparing the 2:
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html
quest01 said:
so what if Federer doesnt surpass Sampras' 14? if his career were finish now his curent record of 9 already is enough to rank him amongst the best ever. he is what 6th all time now? that in itself is already a remarkable achievement. Pete Sampras was the best so what if federer ends up second or 3rd or 4th or 5th.
i dont think anyone is going to walk up to MJ23 or Karl Malone and say what's wrong with u becos they couldnt beat kareem's record as NBA's all time leading scorer.
Lleytian3
Semi-Pro
[
im glad that bigboydan brought that up. not to disrespect any players today, but back during sampras era he had sum unbeleivable players. i mean, courier agassi n becker, edberg all in their prime. that is sum reelie stiff competetion
also right now, federer is kind of lucky that sum of the top players are injured and can't compete at their top level peformance.
but the mens field is catching up and then federer wont be as "god-like".
i cant see federer beating samparas mark of 14 slams though. i want that record to live forever
im glad that bigboydan brought that up. not to disrespect any players today, but back during sampras era he had sum unbeleivable players. i mean, courier agassi n becker, edberg all in their prime. that is sum reelie stiff competetion
also right now, federer is kind of lucky that sum of the top players are injured and can't compete at their top level peformance.
but the mens field is catching up and then federer wont be as "god-like".
i cant see federer beating samparas mark of 14 slams though. i want that record to live forever
oberyn
Professional
BigboyDan said:
Or Federer's the best player that we've seen, which is why his competition can't beat him.
Here's how the "weak competition argument" turns into a non-starter.
1. Federer isn't as good as he seems. Why not? B/c the competition is weak.
2. How can his competition prove they're not weak? Simple. They need to start beating Federer.
Conclusion: The only way for Federer to really prove his greatness is by losing more frequently.
Um, o.k. . . .
BigboyDan said:
u are ********. this speaks more of federer's greatness than it does about his competition being weaker. people like you cant seem to accept the fact that players nowadays are just BETTER than they were in the old days. the game is more physical, the schedule is more demanding, you cant just serve your way out of matches, the game has more depth, they do more drug testing than ever before, the game requires more power and speed....etc etc. to dominate in this era of tennis is an incredible feat. federer will shatter that 14 slam record. i love how the thought of that makes you squirm.
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
BigboyDan said:
BigBoyDan,
I agree with you regarding the stiffer competition in the Sampras era. However, you missed a few Slam winners in the current crop. Moya, Ferrero, and Johansson were also at the US Open this year, and you might include Kuerten in there if he is ever able to get healthy again (especially since he beat Federer at the French just a couple years ago).
I actually think the men's field is deeper right now overall than in the early 90s, but there is less great talent at the top. There are a number of young guns in the 17-21 year old range that will be hall of famers, but they haven't matured enough yet. Federer will continue to rack them up for another year or so, but his production is likely to drop to 1 Slam a year at best once the newbies figure out how to play. If he wins 3 of 4 Slams again next year, I think he will break Sampras' record for sure. However, if he only gets 1 or 2 next year, then it could be close.
oberyn
Professional
Lleytian3 said:
Eh? I love Pete, but his prime years were 1993-1997. He won 9 of his 14 majors during this period.
Edberg didn't win a slam during this period. He made the 1993 Australian Open Final and that was about it.
Courier made it to 3 slam finals in 1993. He won one, and never won another one.
Agassi was the tennis equivalent of a roller coaster during these years. He was Pete's biggest rival, and he was hardly "consistent".
Becker made a comeback in 1995 and 1996. He won one slam. The 1996 Australian Open. He didn't do too much in 1993 and 1994 and he did nothing at all in 1997.
Yannick Noah, Pat Cash, and Mats Wilander? None of them won a slam after 1988. All 3 were retired by 1996. Stefan Edberg retired in 1996.
As for the rest of your list, that's like listing Sampras, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Agassi, and Ivanisevic as players against whom Federer has had to compete.
Give me a break.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
as the thread title suggests sampras winning 14 slams in 12 yrs...thats fine...but it should be said that sampras won 14 slams in his 14 yr career (1988-2002)
so far federer has won 9 slams in his almost 6 yr career so far (1998-2006)
federer is by far a great, great player, one i admire a lot...but we quickly forget how good pete sampras was...fighting for his ranking straight from when he turned pro
against lendl and even johnny mac early on, then early 90s to mid 90s even with becker, edberg, stich, ivanisevic, courier brugera, chang, and agassi...and some of those to the late 90s, then with guga and others...
basically this yr might be the distinguishing point for federer, because he won 3 slams out of the 4 again, and now has 9 compared to sampras' 8 at this point in their comparison careers
so if federer keeps this pace up, he is on track now, as he is in top form to win wimbledon every year, and the us open for another 4-5 yrs...same with the AO...just at the french open, his window to me is basically 2 yrs max...then it will become very tough even for him to win it...
so far federer has won 9 slams in his almost 6 yr career so far (1998-2006)
federer is by far a great, great player, one i admire a lot...but we quickly forget how good pete sampras was...fighting for his ranking straight from when he turned pro
against lendl and even johnny mac early on, then early 90s to mid 90s even with becker, edberg, stich, ivanisevic, courier brugera, chang, and agassi...and some of those to the late 90s, then with guga and others...
basically this yr might be the distinguishing point for federer, because he won 3 slams out of the 4 again, and now has 9 compared to sampras' 8 at this point in their comparison careers
so if federer keeps this pace up, he is on track now, as he is in top form to win wimbledon every year, and the us open for another 4-5 yrs...same with the AO...just at the french open, his window to me is basically 2 yrs max...then it will become very tough even for him to win it...
I dont agree with Sampras' era competion being better then this era. When Sampras came on to the seen and when he first came into his prime, most of the good competition was past their prime or just at the end. Remove Federer from todays good players and add him a few years later and there would be many many different Slam winners thereby according to some people making the competition stiffer in this era. The fact is the competition is just as good or better then in Sampras' era. The players are faster, quicker and stronger and more athletic. It is just that Federer is that good and so dominant that he has held many players back not that the competition is worse.
And as far as the the total number of Slams, all you have to do is go to the man himself Sampras and ask him. He has already said that Fed will pass his 14 Slam record.
And as far as the the total number of Slams, all you have to do is go to the man himself Sampras and ask him. He has already said that Fed will pass his 14 Slam record.
WhiteKnight
New User
I dunno about anyone here, but this is a very impressive list of players to compete against during Pete's prime. Four of Pete's GS title alone came from defeating his long time rival, Andre.
In the past 2-years, no one can pressure Roger consistantly. Does Roger even have a rival right now? Safin may have defeated him in AO final a year ago but it was a five set match where Safin barely edge him out (7-5 4-6 7-5 6-7 7-9). Nadal is the only current player that troubles Roger the most. Can't even say Nadal is a rival until he can beat up Roger a few time on grass.
In all honesty, it's not a fair comparison of who is better. The competition back then is no doubt higher. Post match, Roger said he felt "invincible" out there against Andy and no doubt he should. Andy's game is no where close to his right now. I don't think Pete can say the same thing at any point of his great career, not because he wasn't great but his stiff competition didn't make it easy.
lambielspins
Banned
Jack the Hack said:
Yes Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Murray are so good they will have Roger winning 0 or 1 slams every year once they "mature". What a load of bull! I cant wait to remind you when you are proven wrong, or they simply dont "mature" until Roger retires.
WhiteKnight
New User
Banger said:
Most of the "good competition was past their prime or just at the end"? What are you talking about? If anything it's Roger missing out to compete against prime '90s top players.
Yes, go ask a man, who has always been humble about his record. Do you think Pete will say anything ill about Roger?
ckthegreek
Rookie
BigboyDan said:
Spot on. To reach the FO semi-final in 96 Sampras had to beat Chang and Courier in 5 sets before losing to Kafelnikov.
If (and of course it is a big if) Federer was playing back in the early to mid 90s he would have won 5 Grand Slams max.
Oh, you forgot to mention Rios
superman1
Legend
I used to buy into all this competition stuff, but it's not a good point. Without Federer, guys like Roddick and Hewitt might have a lot more Slams and might be considered to be as great as guys like Edberg and Becker. Not the case. Federer has pounded them into the ground and kept them away from greatness. All you have to do is watch Federer to realize that he is better than Sampras. Sampras at his absolute best was probably a bit better, but on average, Fed is the man. He's the best ever. I've never seen such desperation on a tennis court as I see in Federer's opponents. They work so hard for each point, but it's impossible to keep it up for the entire match. Even Agassi couldn't do it, and I consider him to be one of the top 5 greats.
BiGGieStuFF
Hall of Fame
I believe the talent in today's game is huge throughout the top 100. Today everyone has the potential for big game BUT in sampras' time there were special players that could adapt their game accordingly. That's what separates Federer's game from everyone else's. The ability to change what you're doing when something isn't working.
Back then you had your variety of paper, rocks, and scissors.
Today though you primarily have just rocks. big rock, medium rock, small rock, and Federer just so happens to be the paper to all those rocks.
Back then you had your variety of paper, rocks, and scissors.
Today though you primarily have just rocks. big rock, medium rock, small rock, and Federer just so happens to be the paper to all those rocks.
Ivanišević
Rookie
psamp14 said:
illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
To me thats a ridiculous post. Cash, Wilander, Noah, Edberg were out of it long before '96. Edberg was the youngest of these 4, and he had a terrible Slam run starting from French '94 to Wimbledon '96. He then lost in straight sets to Ivanesivic in the QF of US Open '96 which was his last Slam. Were McEnroe, Connors and Gomez contenders to win majors in 93, 94? Hell no! And when did Muster achieve anything outside of the French? He was a good player on hard courts, but Slam contender? No. Same with Brugera. Agassi wasnt a threat in majors 97-98.BigboyDan said:
And you missed T Johansson from your list of current Slam winners.
lambielspins
Banned
ckthegreek said:Spot on. To reach the FO semi-final in 96 Sampras had to beat Chang and Courier in 5 sets before losing to Kafelnikov.
If (and of course it is a big if) Federer was playing back in the early to mid 90s he would have won 5 Grand Slams max.
Oh, you forgot to mention Rios
It depends what you are referring to, Federer and Sampras both playing those years, or Federer without Sampras, just as Sampras without Federer.
If it was Federer without Sampras he wins alot more then 5 slams playing back then.
Pistol_Pete
New User
Fed and Pete are both great players. Fed has an advantage because he wears Nike's dri-fit whereas Pete's sweat would soak through his cotton shirt and shorts.
federmann
Rookie
BigboyDan said:
i totally agree! you're so right!
the reason for them not being great competition is that all of the players today play the same style.
and that's the style federer can easily compete with, not to say that he plays a little bit different and that's why he's better than the others.
the courts slowed down so much that the only way to survive as a pro is to play the damn boring baseline game without any finesse. they all just want to punch the ball as hard as they can.
in pete's prime the courts were faster than they are now and you could play serve and volley. today you can't!
boris becker, michael stich, goran ivanisevic, pete anyway (in their prime and on courts like ten years ago), could beat fed in every single match. they could get beaten as well, but the point is that they could win. at least i believe they would have the edge over fed.
but unfortunately things are like they are now and we just have to accept that fed wins everything because the competitors are way too bad. we don't have to get angry about it, there's nothing that could change that fact.
so sad for tennis, but true.
capriatifanatic
Banned
The mentaly frail and erratic Stitch would have had "the edge over Fed". LOL! Ivanisevic an "interesting game", yeah it starts with an ace and ends with a double fault. Becker of 93-beyond "the edge over Fed", yeah right.
Dark Victory
Rookie
^^^I'd favor Federer to beat even a prime Michael Stich.
The guy had finesse, but shot-for-shot, I think the venom in Federer's strokes would've made the difference.
The way I see it, if Ivanisevic's serve was ON, his chances are good. Good enough to carry him to tie-breaks where he can hopefully edge out Fed. But it's just his serve, really. He's inferior in every other department.
I wouldn't pick Becker over Federer.
The only serve-and-volley guys I'd probably like against him are Pete Sampras and a prime Richard Krajicek.
Krajicek served every bit as big as Goran. Difference is, as with Pete, he had the A-level net game to make superb volleys. He also had solid groundstrokes, which means that even from the backcourt, he can play.
The guy had finesse, but shot-for-shot, I think the venom in Federer's strokes would've made the difference.
The way I see it, if Ivanisevic's serve was ON, his chances are good. Good enough to carry him to tie-breaks where he can hopefully edge out Fed. But it's just his serve, really. He's inferior in every other department.
I wouldn't pick Becker over Federer.
The only serve-and-volley guys I'd probably like against him are Pete Sampras and a prime Richard Krajicek.
Krajicek served every bit as big as Goran. Difference is, as with Pete, he had the A-level net game to make superb volleys. He also had solid groundstrokes, which means that even from the backcourt, he can play.
federmann said:
Taking away Pete, if the others could beat a potential GOAT like Fed in every match, you would think they would have had a much greater record than the mediocre record they actually had, which is winning a total of 3 slams COMBINED in the entire 90's.
Ask Agassi if they could beat Fed every time in a match. Stich and Becker were 1-16 against Agassi in the 90's. These guys and "I-double-fault-and-choke-in-crunch-time" Goran will beat Fed every time in a match!!! LOL at the desparation of Fed haters.
ckthegreek
Rookie
This is not easy to explain but let's have a go anyway...
I'm 33. The first recollection I have of a grand slam final was Becker v Curren in 1985. Becker was 17 then. Sampras won his first GS in 1990 at the age of 19. By that time Becker had already won Wimbledon 3 times and was still only 23 years old. McEnroe was 31 but by no means a spent force. Lendl was 30.
When Sampras broke onto the scene Becker, Edberg, Courier and Chang had won lots and lots of GSs between them and Agassi was coming through at exactly the same time as Sampras.
When Federer broke onto the scene Sampras and Agassi were already in their 30s (a bit like McEnroe and Lendl in Sampras' case) but there were no Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi equivalents. There was Roddick, Hewitt and Moya instead.
Becker played till 97 and (12-7 H2H)
Edberg played till 95 (8-6 H2H)
Courier played till 99 (16-4 H2H)
Chang played till 01 (12-8 H2H)
It is this quality that is absent these days.
Federer loses a set in the Wimbledon final to a guy (Nadal) that doesn't know what grass is. Sampras had to play against grass court specialists and previous champions like Becker, Edberg and McEnroe.
Am I making sense?
I'm 33. The first recollection I have of a grand slam final was Becker v Curren in 1985. Becker was 17 then. Sampras won his first GS in 1990 at the age of 19. By that time Becker had already won Wimbledon 3 times and was still only 23 years old. McEnroe was 31 but by no means a spent force. Lendl was 30.
When Sampras broke onto the scene Becker, Edberg, Courier and Chang had won lots and lots of GSs between them and Agassi was coming through at exactly the same time as Sampras.
When Federer broke onto the scene Sampras and Agassi were already in their 30s (a bit like McEnroe and Lendl in Sampras' case) but there were no Becker, Edberg, Courier, Agassi equivalents. There was Roddick, Hewitt and Moya instead.
Becker played till 97 and (12-7 H2H)
Edberg played till 95 (8-6 H2H)
Courier played till 99 (16-4 H2H)
Chang played till 01 (12-8 H2H)
It is this quality that is absent these days.
Federer loses a set in the Wimbledon final to a guy (Nadal) that doesn't know what grass is. Sampras had to play against grass court specialists and previous champions like Becker, Edberg and McEnroe.
Am I making sense?
stormholloway
Legend
Put it this way. Last year, Federer played Andre Agassi in the US Open. Out of every tennis player in the draw, Agassi, at 35, proved to be the best of the group. You call that good competition? Agassi is a player of the 90s and with all this "great competition" no young player could oust Agassi, who was clearly past his prime? And the year before that, Agassi played Federer in what was essentially the US Open final, a thrilling 5 setter. So the only guy to give Federer trouble was Agassi the past two years. I call that a weak field.
Agreed with the above post. Nadal is Federer's best challenge on grass? A clay court specialist? I think Federer is amazing, but I feel his talents are wasted on a field that isn't up to the challenge. Only Safin compares to Federer in terms of talent, aside from the crop of young guns coming up. I like Nalbandian but he always loses. Look at all the top seeds that got knocked out of the Open. According to the rankings, these guys should have made it way deeper.
Andy Roddick in the final of the US Open? That no-talent muscle baller? Watching Roddick play Federer is like watching a ****** fingerpaint with Van Gogh.
Agreed with the above post. Nadal is Federer's best challenge on grass? A clay court specialist? I think Federer is amazing, but I feel his talents are wasted on a field that isn't up to the challenge. Only Safin compares to Federer in terms of talent, aside from the crop of young guns coming up. I like Nalbandian but he always loses. Look at all the top seeds that got knocked out of the Open. According to the rankings, these guys should have made it way deeper.
Andy Roddick in the final of the US Open? That no-talent muscle baller? Watching Roddick play Federer is like watching a ****** fingerpaint with Van Gogh.
justineheninhoogenbandfan
Banned
Courier was not even in the top 10 by the end of 1996. He first dropped out of the top 10 at the end of 1994, regained bottom of top 10 at the end of 95 and start of 96, then fell out again for good. He was already a shadow of his former self starting in 94. Edberg fell out of the top 5 in 1994, and out of the top 10 for good in 1995, retiring at the end of 1996 since he said he did not feel competitive enough at the top level anymore. He too was already a shadow of is former self starting in 93(eg-losing to Courier in a Wimbledon semi who is worse on grass then Nadal probably). Becker was up and down, and injured often from 93-97 with only spurts of truly high quality tennis. 95 was the only year he was consistently healthy and strong. Agassi was also up and down during that period, and his tennis in 93, 96, 97, 98 was lower caliber then what the "older" Agassi managed to produce in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and even 2005, since the older Agassi was actually commited to tennis every year as oppose to every 1/3 years.
Chang is not any better then Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, neccessarily. John McEnroe and Jim Courier commentating have called Hewitt a better version of Chang in the past, and if that is a true expert opinion imagine what Nadal is compared to Chang.
Chang is not any better then Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, neccessarily. John McEnroe and Jim Courier commentating have called Hewitt a better version of Chang in the past, and if that is a true expert opinion imagine what Nadal is compared to Chang.
Jack the Hack said:
I agree. I think it's well put. Current top players, except Nadal,
despite being very capable world class atheletes, probably not
such great talents as we have seen in past.
I also feel like Federer knows competitions will get stiff
when these new guys finally figure out what it takes to win a slam.
I mean he plays like there is no tomorrow. He wins every tournament he enters and so on..
justineheninhoogenbandfan
Banned
stormholloway said:
Ken Rosewall in 1974 reached both the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals at age 39, taking out John Newcombe in both events, the great 7-time slam winner who was one of the 2 best at the time(Connors of course dominated that year). If Agassi being Federer's biggest competition at only one event in both 2004 and 2005(the U.S Open was the only event this was true) makes today a weak field, what would Ken Rosewall at 39 being in both the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals, and beating Newcombe one of dominant players of the early 70s in his prime in both, say about the 1974 field? I guess that would mean the field that year would have to be atrocious, yet I have heard nobody say that. So something about that logic does not fit.
ckthegreek
Rookie
Your comparing apples and maltezers. The Rosewall era was completely different. Don't go that far back. Sampras v Fed is the topic so let's stick to that shall we?
I am sure you agree that 93 Wim to 97 Wim is Sampras's prime (he won 9 slams during this period, 1 before and four later). Let's see the slam records of the quality competition you mentioned above:ckthegreek said:
Becker - 1 slam, 1 final, 0-3 vs Sampras
Edberg - 0 slams, 0 finals, 0-0 vs Sampras
Courier - 0 slams, 1 final, 0-5 vs Sampras
Agassi - 2 slams, 1 final, 1-1 vs Sampras
--------
TOTAL - 3 slams, 3 finals, 1-9 vs Sampras
--------
During Fed's reign from 93 Wim to now, Roddick, Safin, Nadal and Hewitt have had 4 slams and 7 slam finals. and they are 3-11 vs Fed.
So Fed's competitors have had both a better overall and h-h record vs Fed than the Sampras's competitors you listed.
No, because Sampras never faced Edberg and McEnroe on grass whereas Federer faced a 4-time defending champion in Sampras and beat him too.ckthegreek said:
Similar threads
