I've always been very consistent, as any objective reader can see -- now if you're looking to quickly skim over what I've written in order to flame me, then it might be harder to appreciate that. So let me spell it out for you clearly what my views are: Pete Sampras is the 2nd greatest player of all time, behind only Federer. He unquestionably has the greatest 1st serve and greatest 2nd serve of all-time. He also has the greatest running FH of all time, and one of the top-5 FH of all time. He played in a decent era, which was SLIGHTLY more difficult than the current era. He was a very good volleyer, but not in the league of Edberg or McEnroe. For his FH brilliance, it was very streaky when confronted with consistent deep pace, but difficult to expose on fast surfaces largely b/c of his serve, and b/c of his prowess at the net. Still his FH was a lethal shot and far more consistent than his BH. His BH was average, and one of the worst for a GOAT candidate. But this shot was streaky as well, and if he was hitting BH winners, he was virtually unbeatable (see 1996 San Jose final vs. Agassi and 1999 YEC final vs. Agassi for examples). However, his BH went off much more routinely than players of comparable achievements which explains 3 things: 1. Why he never came close to making a French final (making only 1 SF where you get bageled while losing in straight sets isn't close), 2. Why even in his prime he lost to very low ranked players -- much lower than Fed has lost to (i.e. Leander Paes, Jaimie Yzaga, Paul Haarhuis, Gilbert Schaller), 3. Why early in his prime he was owned by Edberg in slams (92 US Open, 93 Australian) -- the quality of his BH passing shots and BH return were average, not great. That anyone would even hint that Pete's BH was as good as Federer's is laughable. Pete was very good at hiding his BH b/c of his serve (very few rallies), his movement (very good at running around his BH), and the strength of his running FH (best example IMO were the rallies with Courier in the 1st set of the 93 Wimbledon final) which allowed him to camp on the BH corner for the majority of baseline rallies. When his serve was neutralized (slow surfaces like clay), it became harder for him to come to the net and his streakiness on the ground could be exposed -- i.e. his 99 UEs against Schaller in the 95 French (the only year where he made the finals of every other Slam), getting smoked by Agassi in the 92 French winning only 9 games, losing to Kucera in the 98 Australian. Pete was also one of the great movers in tennis history -- his speed in his era was second only to Chang's, and it was a close second IMO. His movement was what separated him from Agassi in their big matches on fast surfaces, as Pete could get to Andre's big shots, but Andre couldn't get to Pete's. A lot of people felt Pete's game was boring b/c of how much he relied on his serve, and b/c how many games he would not give it his all, especially on return games if he had already gotten an early break in a set. I loved Pete's serve and never found that boring. It did annoy me how many return games he would tank whenever he got up an early break in a set. For as great a champion as Pete was (tons of talent, guts, athleticism and mental toughness), he had very poor physical conditioning for a #1 player (especially considering how many short points his matches consisted of b/c of the dominance of his serve). As many slams as he won (14), he would have easily won at least 5 more if he had been in better condition (some examples: 94 US Open, 96 French, 98 US Open, 00 Australian, 01 US Open). Some people erroneously attribute this to his thalassemia minor, which is wrong b/c many athletes have the condition and it does not require treatment -- only thalassemia MAJOR requires treatment. You can go to medical school to learn the difference between the two conditions if you don't believe me. Off the court, Pete was ok -- he had a lot of class, but was also very passive-aggressive and insincere when other players got more attention than him (i.e. Agassi, Rafter in the summer of 98.). He could also be quite arrogant after losses, even Serena-esque -- best example was after his lost to Bruguera at the 1997 Miami Masters on HC (Datacipher flamed me and questioned my integrity about this until I posted the proof on this board, then he wisely never brought up the subject again). Compared to Connors, Lendl and McEnroe, of course Pete was far more gracious and well-mannered on and off the court. However he had less off-court class than Chang, Rafter and Edberg of his time, and Nadal and Federer of present time. Pete has always been self-centered, which is ok as long as he doesn't pretend to be some magnanimous generous figure (which he certainly is not, hence why he has never been heavily involved in charity work). I challenge you to show any post of mine that has contradicted these views.