Sampras Legacy: The forgotten great?

[TheMaestro1990]

When Sampras retired 2002, practically no one could have guessed that just seven years later on, his Grand Slam record of 14 titles would be broken. And absolutely NO ONE could have guessed that less than 15 years after Sampras' retirement, there are three active players (Well, Djokovic soon enough, maybe) who has a convincing argument to actually be known as a greater player than him.

This, along with Sampras not being the most popular player and a quiet person off the court, has put him and (?) his legacy in the shadows. I mean, we're talking about a guy here who has 14 (!) Grand Slam singles titles. To take 10 is hard enough, just look at how hard Djokovic has had to work. And Sampras has four more at this point, which is quiet a lot.

All of this got me thinking. Federer has overtaken him in almost every page of the record books - but Sampras is still an all time great. In few places I see Sampras named as a reference point for players nowadays. Everyone talks about how great Federer's serve is (the variation, placement, disguise) and Nadal's running forehand (mostly passing shots). But the running forehand of Sampras is arguably just as great as the one of Nadal. On the full run he could create ridicoulus winners and the player didn't even have to be at the net. Contrary to that of Nadal, who usually just plays the safe shot on defence in case the player is not at the net. And the serve we shouldn't even talk about. If there ever was a clutch serve, it belongs to Sampras.

To sum all of this up: How can a player this brilliant... this great, be so far in the shadows that people feel more indulged to create endless weak/strong era threads every other day?

So, I hope, that this thread can be sort of a "Sampras legacy thread" where we can talk more precisely about his accomplishment (his accomplishments on this forum is only mentioned to make another player look better, example: Djokovic is not even close to Sampras total over number 1 weeks, and yet you guys make him look better than Federer, lol.)

To salute the greatness of Sampras, I decided to make a video of his 10 best points from his career, which can be seen below. Every one can have diferent opinions, but for me, these are his 10 best points.

 

[NatF]

How could this point not make the cut?

Good collection though.

 

[El Diablo]

Certainly a very good player, but a guy who only made one semi at the FO isn't going to top my list of greats.

 

[vanioMan]

Certainly a very good player, but a guy who only made one semi at the FO isn't going to top my list of greats.

Nobody cares about your list of greats.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

How could this point not make the cut?

Good collection though.

Yup, definitely missed that one. Don't know how though, I'm usually very careful with my researches before I make a video. Certainly a fantastic point.

 

[NatF]

Yup, definitely missed that one. Don't know how though, I'm usually very careful with my researches before I make a video. Certainly a fantastic point.

That one is the obvious pick though. It's good to see some others which people might not have viewed before.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He was forgotten the day, they declared Roger as GOAT. GOAT to me seem disrespectful term, Roger is best of his generation, not Sampras's.

 

[Russeljones]

And absolutely NO ONE could have guessed that less than 15 years after Sampras' retirement, there are three active players (Well, Djokovic soon enough, maybe) who has a convincing argument to actually be known as a greater player than him.

I still don't know this. When did this happen?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Certainly a very good player, but a guy who only made one semi at the FO isn't going to top my list of greats.

A guy who shares a record for most titles at 2 Slams and is the joint 2nd most decorated Slam player in history of this sport will qualify for any reasonable list of greats.

 

[El Diablo]

^ no argument there, but I think I said he wouldn't "top my list."

(and I think slams are only part of the story. Sampras' overall winning percentage open era is only about 8th for all surfaces, 6th on hard court, 5th on grass, not even top 10 on clay)

 

[TheFifthSet]

Would love to see a prime Pete rip it up on the fast courts today (well, whatever ones are left). Sampras, Federer, Gonzales, Laver and McEnroe are the five best fast court players ever.

 

[Krish872007]

Fantastic video
I remember when Pete waved goodbye to the sport and held the (Open Era) Slam record at the end of 2002. I thought it would be years before it fell.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Thanks for this post, TheMaestro1990.

As someone who first started watching tennis when Sampras was 'The Man', I can attest that he was, at the time, considered arguably the most dominant figure ever to step on a tennis court. 'Dominant' in the sense that he seemed unbeatable when 'on fire' on a faster court, with his phenomenal serve (often having the confidence to go for a second serve ace, so that he could win or lose the point on his own terms), running forehand, and even his own version of the 'slam dunk' while hanging in the air.

Many like to portray him as a dull character, and for sure he was quiet and something of an American jock, not the smooth polyglot figure that Federer is. However, he often showed his heart and character in important matches: such as against Courier at the AO 1995, when he came through for victory despite crying tears of sadness for his coach Tim Gullikson who was dying of cancer; and against Corretja at the USO 1996, when he vomited on court but still managed to battle through a deciding tie-break to win.

It's true that Sampras shot himself in the foot in some ways, with his (and the media of the time's) obsession with the slam count. Getting to 14 slams was a marvellous accomplishment, but it's just given the subsequent greats a target to aim at - a target which, in a homogenised era, was never going to be impossible to surpass.

Nevertheless, his lack of clay prowess notwithstanding, I still consider Sampras to be greater than all men who have yet played the game, bar Federer and Laver.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Also, Sampras's star dimmed after his career because he didn't seek the limelight and didn't have the same mainstream appeal Agassi did. He's remained in the shadows ever since '02, save for the odd exhibition/champions tour. I don't know if Federer had much of a hand in Sampras being seen as an afterthought, like some might claim. Pete left an indelible mark on the game from the perspective of true tennis historians that appreciate great tennis and not just theatrics.


Btw great vid! Seen every point before but that compilation is not one I would get tired of watching quickly

 

[Zodd]

When Sampras retired 2002, practically no one could have guessed that just seven years later on, his Grand Slam record of 14 titles would be broken. And absolutely NO ONE could have guessed that less than 15 years after Sampras' retirement, there are three active players (Well, Djokovic soon enough, maybe) who has a convincing argument to actually be known as a greater player than him.

This, along with Sampras not being the most popular player and a quiet person off the court, has put him and (?) his legacy in the shadows. I mean, we're talking about a guy here who has 14 (!) Grand Slam singles titles. To take 10 is hard enough, just look at how hard Djokovic has had to work. And Sampras has four more at this point, which is quiet a lot.

All of this got me thinking. Federer has overtaken him in almost every page of the record books - but Sampras is still an all time great. In few places I see Sampras named as a reference point for players nowadays. Everyone talks about how great Federer's serve is (the variation, placement, disguise) and Nadal's running forehand (mostly passing shots). But the running forehand of Sampras is arguably just as great as the one of Nadal. On the full run he could create ridicoulus winners and the player didn't even have to be at the net. Contrary to that of Nadal, who usually just plays the safe shot on defence in case the player is not at the net. And the serve we shouldn't even talk about. If there ever was a clutch serve, it belongs to Sampras.

To sum all of this up: How can a player this brilliant... this great, be so far in the shadows that people feel more indulged to create endless weak/strong era threads every other day?

So, I hope, that this thread can be sort of a "Sampras legacy thread" where we can talk more precisely about his accomplishment (his accomplishments on this forum is only mentioned to make another player look better, example: Djokovic is not even close to Sampras total over number 1 weeks, and yet you guys make him look better than Federer, lol.)

To salute the greatness of Sampras, I decided to make a video of his 10 best points from his career, which can be seen below. Every one can have diferent opinions, but for me, these are his 10 best points.

Nice post! Sampras was one of my favourite player growing up, must have spent hours in front of the mirror trying to emulate his service motion.

The first point in this tie break vs Safin shows some truly sweet touch

 

[beltsman]

Great thread OP. People also have to remember that the 90s were a completely different era of tennis when it came to expectations, court homogenization, etc. Back then there were actual clay court specialists, grass specialists, etc.

 

[Zodd]

btw I had totally forgotten Agassi's old service motion - it looks all kinds of weird to me now

 

[killerboi2]

Modern day fanboys and Federer fans in particular seem to want him out of goat discussion for good. This is quite laughable and confusing for me, seeing anyone who knows about the game and saw him play would know he was boss. Commentators should mention him more and give the guy his props, as they would no doubt be doing to Federer and Nadal years after they have retired.

 

[WYK]

Sampras is only 'forgotten' by the kids who weren't there. There once was a time when tennis courts and balls weren't artificially manipulated/dumbed down to gain more of a fanbase. A time when you could not make a career by running around your backhand 90% of the time. A time where play was actually aggressive, where 'all court' meant more of a 'baseliner', and the game was actually fast paced. Quick exchanges, awesome passing shots and volleys have given way to homogenized baseline play. Somehow, watching two players slug away from the baseline until someone hits a short ball, hour after hour, is more interesting than S&V is to modern audiences. It makes me feel like we are 'soccer-izing' tennis. Making it as simple as possible so that the masses may more easily partake.

Sampras gets some mentions, but only when the current greats actually pull off Sampras-like maneuvers like brilliant S&V or 120 MPH second serves- which are very rare in today's game. It's not that Sampras is really forgotten, those who saw him and knew him remember - it's that the game isn't what it used to be. Tennis has nearly forgotten itself.

 

[cknobman]

And absolutely NO ONE could have guessed that less than 15 years after Sampras' retirement, there are three active players (Well, Djokovic soon enough, maybe) who has a convincing argument to actually be known as a greater player than him.

LOL, this is recency bias at its best.

In no way is Djokovic even close to being "greater" than Sampras.
There is no argument and it is disrespectful and ignorant to do so.

IF Djokovic puts up the numbers and stats then we can talk about it but until then keep his name out of the discussion.

Nadal and Federer have earned their right to be discussed.

 

[Livedeath]

Pete when on song was simply brilliant. His running forehand was the best and i reckon still is, only Rafa and Delpo could give serious challenge to him. I reckon his defense is seriously underrated, he did not make splits or stretch or slide but he was very quick to get to the balls.

 

[Charlemagne]

Great thread OP. People also have to remember that the 90s were a completely different era of tennis when it came to expectations, court homogenization, etc. Back then there were actual clay court specialists, grass specialists, etc.

We need this again....

 

[AngryBirds]

I must have seen about 10 threads about Sampras in the past 2-3 days alone. 'Forgotten' is definitely not the word I'd use on Sampras.

 

[Gazelle]

Sampras is only 'forgotten' by the kids who weren't there. There once was a time when tennis courts and balls weren't artificially manipulated/dumbed down to gain more of a fanbase. A time when you could not make a career by running around your backhand 90% of the time.

Hmmm....Courier....hmmm......

 

[Roddick85]

I wouldn't say Pete is totally forgotten because we're still talking about him to this very day, but Pete's achievement is what is forgotten by everyone. I get the feeling that a lot of posters on these boards were either too young or not even around when Sampras was at the top of the men's game and it's for that reason that people fail to recognize his accomplishments. While Agassi gets a bit more love than Pete, I get the feeling he just like Sampras just isn't recognized at his fair value. Back to Sampras, a lot of people try to use his poor record on clay to dismiss everything he did on other surfaces which isn't fair at all. Pete's attitude also seems to rub people the wrong way, but he was still a class act on court so I don't understand the hatred for someone that was just a more low key / private person. Federer might of beaten a lot of Sampras's record, but that doesn't change the fact that he's an all time great.

At the end of the day, Sampras was the most dominant player of the 90's, had a beautiful playing style that served as a model for many amateur and pro players. He competed in a time where tennis was very different from now condition wise.
He was a natural grass player and a great hard court player. I hope people will recognize what he achieved for what it's truly worth instead of comparing him to the flavor of the month to discredit him.

 

[randomtoss]

Modern day fanboys and Federer fans in particular seem to want him out of goat discussion for good. This is quite laughable and confusing for me, seeing anyone who knows about the game and saw him play would know he was boss. Commentators should mention him more and give the guy his props, as they would no doubt be doing to Federer and Nadal years after they have retired.

Federer fans know how good Pete was.

 

[Steve0904]

Modern day fanboys and Federer fans in particular seem to want him out of goat discussion for good. This is quite laughable and confusing for me, seeing anyone who knows about the game and saw him play would know he was boss. Commentators should mention him more and give the guy his props, as they would no doubt be doing to Federer and Nadal years after they have retired.

As @randomtoss says. This is not quite accurate. Don't use Federer fans bashing on a certain Sampras fan (and by extension Sampras himself) on this particular board to form your opinion. Granted, I wasn't quite old enough at the time to fully appreciate Sampras's prime, but I'm usually one of the first to speak for his legacy and not against it when the topic comes up.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

I must have seen about 10 threads about Sampras in the past 2-3 days alone. 'Forgotten' is definitely not the word I'd use on Sampras.

Please show them

 

[metsman]

Federer fans know how good Pete was.

most federer fans like myself were sampras fans I would presume.

 

[metsman]

another Sampras point I remember vividly was that MP down against Corretja in the 96 USO made a tricky low volley and then a spectacular lunging volley. That was a huge slam for Pete...having (temporarily) relinquished his WImby crown and came into the USO slamless for the year kinda like Fed in 08. When he started throwing up it seemed like he was done here too but he still came out on top of the marathon tiebreak despite barely being able to walk in between points. That's mental toughness. Sampras was the mentally toughest player ever.

 

[MotoboXer]

Sampras is only 'forgotten' by the kids who weren't there. There once was a time when tennis courts and balls weren't artificially manipulated/dumbed down to gain more of a fanbase. A time when you could not make a career by running around your backhand 90% of the time. A time where play was actually aggressive, where 'all court' meant more of a 'baseliner', and the game was actually fast paced. Quick exchanges, awesome passing shots and volleys have given way to homogenized baseline play. Somehow, watching two players slug away from the baseline until someone hits a short ball, hour after hour, is more interesting than S&V is to modern audiences. It makes me feel like we are 'soccer-izing' tennis. Making it as simple as possible so that the masses may more easily partake.

Sampras gets some mentions, but only when the current greats actually pull off Sampras-like maneuvers like brilliant S&V or 120 MPH second serves- which are very rare in today's game. It's not that Sampras is really forgotten, those who saw him and knew him remember - it's that the game isn't what it used to be. Tennis has nearly forgotten itself.

Same thing has happened in boxing (endless back n forth bashing) all real skill and science has been thrown out(skimmed/loaded gloves and PEDs have become quite common)
So who is responsible for tennis going in this direction? Is it the dominating "serve-bot" type champion or is it the people behind the scenes?
I started watching when Sampras retired and Fed took his place. I noticed Fed was pretty much a clone of Sampras (the serve the ground-strokes)

 

[metsman]

Same thing has happened in boxing (endless back n forth bashing) all real skill and science has been thrown out(skimmed/loaded gloves and PEDs have become quite common)
So who is responsible for tennis going in this direction? Is it the dominating "serve-bot" type champion or is it the people behind the scenes?
I started watching when Sampras retired and Fed took his place. I noticed Fed was pretty much a clone of Sampras (the serve the ground-strokes)

Fed early in his career did look like sampras a lot but his strokes and serves got a little smoother over time. If you watch that match against Agassi in Basel he was a mini Sampras clone

 

[KG1965]

When Sampras retired 2002, practically no one could have guessed that just seven years later on, his Grand Slam record of 14 titles would be broken. And absolutely NO ONE could have guessed that less than 15 years after Sampras' retirement, there are three active players (Well, Djokovic soon enough, maybe) who has a convincing argument to actually be known as a greater player than him.

This, along with Sampras not being the most popular player and a quiet person off the court, has put him and (?) his legacy in the shadows. I mean, we're talking about a guy here who has 14 (!) Grand Slam singles titles. To take 10 is hard enough, just look at how hard Djokovic has had to work. And Sampras has four more at this point, which is quiet a lot.

All of this got me thinking. Federer has overtaken him in almost every page of the record books - but Sampras is still an all time great. In few places I see Sampras named as a reference point for players nowadays. Everyone talks about how great Federer's serve is (the variation, placement, disguise) and Nadal's running forehand (mostly passing shots). But the running forehand of Sampras is arguably just as great as the one of Nadal. On the full run he could create ridicoulus winners and the player didn't even have to be at the net. Contrary to that of Nadal, who usually just plays the safe shot on defence in case the player is not at the net. And the serve we shouldn't even talk about. If there ever was a clutch serve, it belongs to Sampras.

To sum all of this up: How can a player this brilliant... this great, be so far in the shadows that people feel more indulged to create endless weak/strong era threads every other day?

So, I hope, that this thread can be sort of a "Sampras legacy thread" where we can talk more precisely about his accomplishment (his accomplishments on this forum is only mentioned to make another player look better, example: Djokovic is not even close to Sampras total over number 1 weeks, and yet you guys make him look better than Federer, lol.)

To salute the greatness of Sampras, I decided to make a video of his 10 best points from his career, which can be seen below. Every one can have diferent opinions, but for me, these are his 10 best points.

Pete was a great .
Perhaps the best in the couple W + USO .
Number one for many years .
Shots fantastic .
Record in slam before Federer .

But his career has had weak points and it took a few years to see the dust under the carpet .
1 ) percentage of winnings / losses is poor , so it was number one with numbers lower than many numbers two ( Nadal in the first place , but also Borg , Lendl ... )
2 ) he has won few tournaments
3 ) won few great tournaments ( Master1000 )
4 ) the record of 14 is a bluff . Before him, no one was interested in ( Emerson had more slam Rosewall, Gonzales, Connors, Hoad, and Borg !!!! )

 

[KG1965]

Federer became the number one Open Era when he beat the results of Connors and Borg's myth .
Not when he overcame the 14 of Sampras ....

... the dust under the carpet now you see .

 

[KG1965]

Borg & Connors >> Sampras
Mac & Lendl near... near..

 

[nolefam_2024]

Borg & Connors >> Sampras
Mac & Lendl near... near..

 

[ultradr]

Sampras is not forgotten.

He is still the top guy of open era, in my book .

AFAIK, only 3 guys did 6 straight ear end #1 in last 50 years or so: Panch Gonzalez, Rod Laver, and Sampras (one one in open era, with official ranking).

 

[KG1965]

How do you forget Pete , his triumphs in Flushing and W !

We have not forgotten Pete , we just see the dust collected under the carpet .

 

[KG1965]

Tennis is improved gradually .
Then it came Connors and the evolution of the game has made a tremendous jump forward .
With Borg & Mac there was a further jump .
Then nothing .
15 years still.
Until Fedal .
Fedal took another big jump .

The problem is that while Sampras playing very well has not changed the Tennis .

 

[timnz]

Would love to see a prime Pete rip it up on the fast courts today (well, whatever ones are left). Sampras, Federer, Gonzales, Laver and McEnroe are the five best fast court players ever.

Unfortunately we don't have any fast courts left :-( The fastest we have left are Dubai, BAsel, Cincinatti - and they are all medium to fast.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Borg & Connors >> Sampras
Mac & Lendl near... near..

Borg isn't greater than Sampras, and Connors is nowhere near.

Connors won barely half the slams of Sampras, and most of his 109 tournament wins were in minor events, often on an alternate tour with no other greats playing.

This so-called giant had the following record in slam finals between 1975-78 (a period when he was - largely incorrectly - ranked ATP #1);

1975 AO - Lost vs Newcombe
1975 W - Lost vs Ashe
1975 US - Lost vs Orantes
1976 US - Won vs Borg
1977 W - Lost vs Borg
1977 US - Lost vs Vilas
1978 W - Lost vs Borg
1978 US - Won vs Borg

Only 2 slams in 4 years, and a 2-6 record in major finals! This is the kind of record that gets mocked when guys like Lendl and Djokovic have similar stats, but Connors' record is whitewashed and he's held up as a mental giant.

In fact, Sampras was the mental giant, and Connors an overrated ass...

 

[pc1]

Borg isn't greater than Sampras, and Connors is nowhere near.

Connors won barely half the slams of Sampras, and most of his 109 tournament wins were in minor events, often on an alternate tour with no other greats playing.

This so-called giant had the following record in slam finals between 1975-78 (a period when he was - largely incorrectly - ranked ATP #1);

1975 AO - Lost vs Newcombe
1975 W - Lost vs Ashe
1975 US - Lost vs Orantes
1976 US - Won vs Borg
1977 W - Lost vs Borg
1977 US - Lost vs Vilas
1978 W - Lost vs Borg
1978 US - Won vs Borg

Only 2 slams in 4 years, and a 2-6 record in major finals! This is the kind of record that gets mocked when guys like Lendl and Djokovic have similar stats, but Connors' record is whitewashed and he's held up as a mental giant.

In fact, Sampras was the mental giant, and Connors an overrated ass...

Sampras was clearly very very strong mentally. I will never forget some of the matches he won (like the one in Davis Cup against Russia) in which he collapsed right after he won. Unbelievable mental strength.

 

[KG1965]

Sampras was clearly very very strong mentally. I will never forget some of the matches he won (like the one in Davis Cup against Russia) in which he collapsed right after he won. Unbelievable mental strength.

Borg isn't greater than Sampras, and Connors is nowhere near.

Connors won barely half the slams of Sampras, and most of his 109 tournament wins were in minor events, often on an alternate tour with no other greats playing.

This so-called giant had the following record in slam finals between 1975-78 (a period when he was - largely incorrectly - ranked ATP #1);

1975 AO - Lost vs Newcombe
1975 W - Lost vs Ashe
1975 US - Lost vs Orantes
1976 US - Won vs Borg
1977 W - Lost vs Borg
1977 US - Lost vs Vilas
1978 W - Lost vs Borg
1978 US - Won vs Borg

Only 2 slams in 4 years, and a 2-6 record in major finals! This is the kind of record that gets mocked when guys like Lendl and Djokovic have similar stats, but Connors' record is whitewashed and he's held up as a mental giant.

In fact, Sampras was the mental giant, and Connors an overrated ass...

It's not my fault that Sampras has been forgotten. It's the ... Thread.
Sampras was very big with amazing shots and a great mental strength.
The peak probably stronger than Federer, then everyone in the Open Era.
Peak:
Sampras > Borg
Sampras >> Connors

As results is much behind Connors. A lot.
How much distance the myth Borg. So much.
Despite the rivalry and McEnroe.
Borg and Connors are a different category.
Borg & Connors have created Tennis 2.0

Federer has surpassed all records for Pete.
Roger that overtook many records of Connors, has yet to get some of these.
And the myth of Borg is still distant.

 

[urban]

Sampras best records are still unsurpassed, at least by open era standards. He was 6 years Nr. 1 at year end, he won 7 Wimbledons and his 5 USO are not that bad either. Correct, he hadn't the best records in overall titles and percentages, but my god, the guy could play. He resembled in his big cat style the tigers of the 1950s, Kramer and Gonzalez. He came from the cement courts and had to learn grass court tennis for some years. His movement to the forecourt and his transitional play was exeptional. Maybe he wasn't as clever and flexible in a tactical sense as Gonzalez, but his serve and second serve was quite as good, and his forehand groundy even deadlier. He hadn't he stamina of Borg, but nevertheless was extremely dangerous in 5 set matches, especially in big finals. I would put his athlecticism and springing ability over Federer, who had maybe the more rounded baseline play. On a fast court, fast hard or carpet, later on fast grass, imo his game is still unsurpassed. His one strike tennis would give Djokovic, who is crafting for rhythm, extreme fits on fast courts.

 

[KG1965]

I really enjoyed your post , urban.
Also I think he looks a lot like the stars 50s and that his tennis on grass and hc was .. perfect.

If one were to ask me who were the ones that most resemble a god of tennis Kramer , Pancho, Pete and put them together on the podium .. first.

 

[pc1]

Sampras best records are still unsurpassed, at least by open era standards. He was 6 years Nr. 1 at year end, he won 7 Wimbledons and his 5 USO are not that bad either. Correct, he hadn't the best records in overall titles and percentages, but my god, the guy could play. He resembled in his big cat style the tigers of the 1950s, Kramer and Gonzalez. He came from the cement courts and had to learn grass court tennis for some years. His movement to the forecourt and his transitional play was exeptional. Maybe he wasn't as clever and flexible in a tactical sense as Gonzalez, but his serve and second serve was quite as good, and his forehand groundy even deadlier. He hadn't he stamina of Borg, but nevertheless was extremely dangerous in 5 set matches, especially in big finals. I would put his athlecticism and springing ability over Federer, who had maybe the more rounded baseline play. On a fast court, fast hard or carpet, later on fast grass, imo his game is still unsurpassed. His one strike tennis would give Djokovic, who is crafting for rhythm, extreme fits on fast courts.

Totally agree with you Urban. I wouldn't necessarily call Sampras forgotten but unfortunately greats of the past no matter how wonderful they are as players are always eventually forgotten to some extent. It's just the way it is.

I do think that his best accomplishment was being number one at the end of the year six years in a row. His serve is arguably the greatest of the Open Era and possibly all time. One of the best athletes among tennis players that I've seen.

 

[KG1965]

My ranking "peak" Open Era:
1) Sampras
2) Federer
3) Borg (1978,79,80)
4) McEnroe (1979,80 & 84)
5) Djokovic

 

[NonP]

My ranking "peak" Open Era:
1) Sampras
2) Federer
3) Borg (1978,79,80)
4) McEnroe (1979,80 & 84)
5) Djokovic

I take it that you're talking peak level on "fast" courts, that is off clay. If so I'd take Becker over Djoko easily. I was very impressed with Novak at this year's Wimbledon, but even he would fall short of dethroning Boris in his own '86 Wimbledon form. Ditto indoors, and in fact if you pitted all the Open-era greats against each other in an extensive series a la the old pro tours I suspect Becker may well come out on top of everyone else, yes including Sampras. (Of course over the course of their careers is a different story.) Short explanation: once inside the arena Becker turned into an absolute beast not only on serve but especially on return. Long version (expand the quotes for the meatier bits):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erve-v-sampras-1st-serve.547752/#post-9887743

On hard the advantage should shift to Djoko, but mainly because he'd reach his peak more often. If both were firing on all cylinders I'd like Boris' chances even there.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I take it that you're talking peak level on "fast" courts, that is off clay. If so I'd take Becker over Djoko easily. I was very impressed with Novak at this year's Wimbledon, but even he would fall short of dethroning Boris in his own '86 Wimbledon form. Ditto indoors, and in fact if you pitted all the Open-era greats against each other in an extensive series a la the old pro tours I suspect Becker may well come out on top of everyone else, yes including Sampras. (Of course over the course of their careers is a different story.) Short explanation: once inside the arena Becker turned into an absolute beast not only on serve but especially on return. Long version (expand the quotes for the meatier bits):

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...erve-v-sampras-1st-serve.547752/#post-9887743

On hard the advantage should shift to Djoko, but mainly because he'd reach his peak more often. If both were firing on all cylinders I'd like Boris' chances even there.

Didn't Becker show Stefan his place in 1989 final, bagelling that pure S&Vollier? Its a travesty that he lost to Stefan in 1990 again.

 

[NonP]

Didn't Becker show Stefan his place in 1989 final, bagelling that pure S&Vollier? Its a travesty that he lost to Stefan in 1990 again.

According to Boris himself he had one too many (sleeping pills) the night before, which explains his lethargic start. Obviously not the most objective source, but it really doesn't come across as an excuse so chances are it's more or less correct.