Sampras Legacy: The forgotten great?

[nolefam_2024]

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.

Yeah its the only source we got.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

He is legend and his legacy will be there for many many years. He is easily the best grass court player I have seen even better than Federer and his dominance was unmatchable.

 

[hoodjem]

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.

I have Sampras ahead of Connors by a decent margin.

 

[KG1965]

I have Sampras ahead of Connors by a decent margin.

I am pleased.

Can I not be agree ?
For me
RESULTS Connors > Sampras
RESULTS + EXTRA Connors >> Sampras
PEAK Connors << Sampras

I am free to write what I think, no ?

 

[Phoenix1983]

I am pleased.

Can I not be agree ?
For me
RESULTS Connors > Sampras
RESULTS + EXTRA Connors >> Sampras
PEAK Connors << Sampras

I am free to write what I think, no ?

You are free to write what you think, we are free to point out that it's inaccurate.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

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.

Beautiful comment. I wouldn't agree with all of it but yes, to the extent that tennis was still like an art form-sport hybrid in the 90s. It's why we Indians follow (should I be saying followed?) it (well after cricket, of course) even though it's a pretty expensive sport and seen as 'elitist'. Nowadays you mainly get to see that with Fed...ahem, less so since the advent of the RF97. It's not entirely unacknowledged. Somebody like Amritraj who's much less hung up on talking up today's tennis than other commentators does obliquely refer to it by way of pointing out the things Fed does which the rest don't. But yeah, by and large, it seems tennis as a power-packed, athletic/fitness oriented sport is going to be the main idea. I don't have a particular problem with that but it's definitely not the same thing in that case. What I do have a problem is the myth that's gradually built up over time of Sampras being a glorified servebot. Oh, that is so not true and if your attention span is so terrible then maybe you deserve the tennis you get.

 

[hoodjem]

Beautiful comment. I wouldn't agree with all of it but yes, to the extent that tennis was still like an art form-sport hybrid in the 90s. It's why we Indians follow (should I be saying followed?) it (well after cricket, of course) even though it's a pretty expensive sport and seen as 'elitist'. Nowadays you mainly get to see that with Fed...ahem, less so since the advent of the RF97. It's not entirely unacknowledged. Somebody like Amritraj who's much less hung up on talking up today's tennis than other commentators does obliquely refer to it by way of pointing out the things Fed does which the rest don't. But yeah, by and large, it seems tennis as a power-packed, athletic/fitness oriented sport is going to be the main idea. I don't have a particular problem with that but it's definitely not the same thing in that case. What I do have a problem is the myth that's gradually built up over time of Sampras being a glorified servebot. Oh, that is so not true and if your attention span is so terrible then maybe you deserve the tennis you get.

Interesting and provocative.

Djoker-Nadal forehand slugfest as battle of attrition.

 

[Enga]

What, no whippy forehand with 3000 rpm of spin? No fancy baseline footwork? No clay titles? Old hack. <- says a lot of "new" tennis fans

The brilliance of Sampras isnt deniable. To me, records are meaningless. I watch the players. And Sampras is obviously one of the best of all time. He ranks at the top with many of the other greats of the game, records be damned, because theyre so situational.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Even if we do look at the records, what's not to like about 14 slams including 7 Wimbledon and 6 straight years as year ending no.1? Fed couldn't achieve the last nor has Nadal nor Djokovic. Yes, he hasn't won RG but Nole hasn't either and nor did Edberg, Becker or McEnroe. Maybe because of Fed overshadowing him, Sampras can no longer be called the GOAT but he is undeniably an all time great and in the top tier of ATGs at that. Ridiculous how people use even Borg to shade him; yeah, exactly how many hard court slams did Borg win? That's right. So there is a counter argument for everything.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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

Wasn't a Sampras fan, but as an Agassi fan I must say it was obvious how great Pete was.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Was more of an Agassi fan to start with. Began to really like Sampras around 2000 or so and I was a convert by the time of his 2002 USO triumph.

 

[KG1965]

You are free to write what you think, we are free to point out that it's inaccurate.

'Federer is without any doubt the most successful player seeing the Grand Slams, and Jimmy Connors won more singles titles and fifth set matches'.

However according to Becker, the best Sampras would have beaten Federer and Connors: 'But had they played against Sampras in Pete's best moment, they would have been able to return his serve so good to win? I doubt it.'

Boris summed up what I wanted to support (Becker 27.12.2015).

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Ah, Sampras. He was the player that I really watched when I was a kid (I was born in the '80s), and he really got me into tennis. I really never though that someone (Federer) would usurp him from his throne that quickly. I never wanted Federer to surpass that 14 Grand Slams, but when Roger got into 10-12 at the age of 25-26, that's when I really accepted that yeah, that 14 is going to be broken very soon. Nonetheless, Pete is a hell of a great player. He was one of those guys that when 'ON', there's just nothing that you can do. Who can forget those second serve aces?

Nadal's running forehand (mostly passing shots). But the running forehand of Sampras is arguably just as great as the one of Nadal.

Sampras had the best running forehand of all time. He used to camp in his backhand side due to the strength of this forehand.

Djokovic is not even close to Sampras total over number 1 weeks, and yet you guys make him look better than Federer, lol.

Well, what can you expect? Novak is beating an old version of Roger, so, you know. Some people really expects a lot from Federer, as he himself stated that he created a monster, and we then expect him to be playing like he is 25 or 27 years old, which really isn't fair.

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?

People love speculating and comparing. It's just how it is.

 

[90's Clay]

Most authoritative player to ever step on a tennis court and there will probably NEVER be one as authoritative again. Is Pete the GOAT? No. Is his peak level higher than anyone who has ever played? Without a doubt IMO.

Though I always felt if Pete wanted to, he would have won 20 plus slams (If that was the Goal he needed to reach). He was that good and mentally tough to do it

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Though I always felt if Pete wanted to, he would have won 20 plus slams (If that was the Goal he needed to reach). He was that good and mentally tough to do it

He always wanted to win slams, that's his goal from the beginning. So I don't know where you got that thinking that he would have won when he wanted to. I mean, that's what he always wanted. That's his goal. I doubt that you won't give your all for a goal that you've always wanted. But he only won 14.

 

[90's Clay]

He always wanted to win slams, that's his goal from the beginning. So I don't know where you got that thinking that he would have won when he wanted to. I mean, that's what he always wanted. That's his goal. I doubt that you won't give your all for a goal that you've always wanted. But he only won 14.

If the goal was to hit 19-20 slams and surpass it, he would have done it. But the goal was only 12 with Emerson

 

[nolefam_2024]

Lol. Sampras is no god. His opponents BEAT him when he went so 20 in your dreams.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

If the goal was to hit 19-20 slams and surpass it, he would have done it. But the goal was only 12 with Emerson

Sampras' goal is the Slams. He always wanted to establish a record, regardless if it was 20 or 14. I think he wanted to go further from the record, he just wasn't able to. If he could, he would have won 14 when he was 26 or 27. That's his goal: distance himself from the record. But he wasn't able to.

 

[Laurie]

Lol. Sampras is no god. His opponents BEAT him when he went so 20 in your dreams.

I think you missed the point of 90's Clay comment. Personally I always thought Sampras would get to 15 slams then retire. He got to 14 so one short of what I thought he was capable of.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras' goal is the Slams. He always wanted to establish a record, regardless if it was 20 or 14. I think he wanted to go further from the record, he just wasn't able to. If he could, he would have won 14 when he was 26 or 27. That's his goal: distance himself from the record. But he wasn't able to.

I think he thought his record was safe. He held Agassi to 8 slams and Im sure he thought no one would come along for quite a long time and even challenge that record.

With Federer he knows he has to win some slams to put it out of reach because he has has Nadal (and now Nole) breathing down his neck.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I think he thought his record was safe. He held Agassi to 8 slams and Im sure he thought no one would come along for quite a long time and even challenge that record.

With Federer he knows he has to win some slams to put it out of reach because he has has Nadal (and now Nole) breathing down his neck.

Agree with you,Fed ,Rafa and Nole always have the target and if some how Sampras knew about Fed 17 he would have tried to win more AO which he never did seriously like Wimbledon and US open.
Hell he even missed some AO to prepare for Wimbledon and Us open session like he faked his injury and missed olympics 96 but was playing the tournament on the day when olympics ended to prepare for US open.
Btw 96 olympics was played on similar surface like US open which he won that year.

 

[NatF]

Sampras is both undervalued an extremely overrated at the same time.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras is both undervalued an extremely overrated at the same time.

Actually I think he's just undervalued.

Much of the debate these days focuses solely on the current greats (Fed, Rafa, Nole). When historians step in to argue against their status, they usually bring up players from a mystical yesteryear like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden.

Sampras seems to have become seen merely as some sort of 'stepping stone' for current greats - i.e. to surpass his 14 slams, ~285 wks as No 1, etc. Few actually care to analyse why he was such a great champion.

He really didn't care about minor tournaments, so those obsessed with percentages always have his win-loss record to put him down. But the man himself played for far loftier goals, and could care not a jot.

He's 3rd all time for me behind only the true GOAT contenders, Federer and Laver...

 

[NatF]

Actually I think he's just undervalued.

Much of the debate these days focuses solely on the current greats (Fed, Rafa, Nole). When historians step in to argue against their status, they usually bring up players from a mystical yesteryear like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden.

Sampras seems to have become seen merely as some sort of 'stepping stone' for current greats - i.e. to surpass his 14 slams, ~285 wks as No 1, etc. Few actually care to analyse why he was such a great champion.

He really didn't care about minor tournaments, so those obsessed with percentages always have his win-loss record to put him down. But the man himself played for far loftier goals, and could care not a jot.

He's 3rd all time for me behind only the true GOAT contenders, Federer and Laver...

Disagree. His mental toughness and peak game get overplayed as does his competition.

He's undervalued for his achievements but his game is exaggerated at times too.

 

[KG1965]

Sampras is
- in Tier 1 as a peak in the slam .
- in Tier 4 as percentage w / l .
- in Tier 3 in other great titles
- in Tier 10 as infuency / contribution
- in Tier 2 as style of play

Pete has some unresolved problems :
- He was clearly the GOAT alltime to 14th, also because he reasoned on the peak . Now Career .
And 7 or 8 players won more ....
- He dominated 6 years but with percentages by number 2 ... and no big opponents .

It's hard for Pete .

I , in my small way , do not forgive Pete the zero influency .

 

[KG1965]

Few things offend me , bother me in tennis , two in particular concern Laver and Sampras .

Laver did not appreciate that in all these years did not say : " The GS 1969 was an extraordinary thing , but that the 1962 does not have value , has zero value , with Ken in the middle I never won."

I do not appreciate that Sampras won 14 Slams without saying that before him the records did not matter to anyone.

 

[70sHollywood]

Something I like about Sampras - In 1995 Agassi played arguably his best tennis, yet still only finished as number 2 in the world. How many ATG's only managed number 2 in their best year? In the Open Era the only other years that I think are possible are 1976 and 1978, depending on whether you rate Connors 1 or 2 in those years.

 

[Laurie]

Sampras' name is mentioned every day on this forum, particularly on General Pro Player Discussion which is for current players; don't see how that equates to "forgotten".

 

[abmk]

Sampras' name is mentioned every day on this forum, particularly on General Pro Player Discussion which is for current players; don't see how that equates to "forgotten".

yeah, its called 90sClay

 

[Mcmullenp4]

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.

I agree

 

[Phoenix1983]

Disagree. His mental toughness and peak game get overplayed as does his competition.

He's undervalued for his achievements but his game is exaggerated at times too.

I agree that his competition gets overplayed (often by fans who dislike the current era and bemoan how "there were multiple specialists on all surfaces in Sampras's era, so it was much harder to dominate" etc.)

Not sure about his mental toughness and peak play being overplayed though. Those are some of the very best in history.

 

[NatF]

I agree that his competition gets overplayed (often by fans who dislike the current era and bemoan how "there were multiple specialists on all surfaces in Sampras's era, so it was much harder to dominate" etc.)

Not sure about his mental toughness and peak play being overplayed though. Those are some of the very best in history.

Some of the best in history I agree wholeheartedly. But some posters on here act like he was unbeatable...

 

[Laurie]

Some of the best in history I agree wholeheartedly. But some posters on here act like he was unbeatable...

That's what forums are all about though. As far as I can see, all top players are given this treatment. Before Federer's racquet change he was called Shankerer, some of the misses were indeed comical but he is a great player. Now some are saying Djokovic has been playing the best tennis anyone has ever seen. Around 2010 they were saying that about Nadal. Then on the flip side the top players get tremendous criticism for almost no reason on many occasions.

Taking a break from tennis forums and any fans forum is always a good idea I think; reading and contributing all day every day is not really a good idea. May work for others but not for me.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

pistol pete isn't forgotten !

 

[Mainad]

pistol pete isn't forgotten !

I've always wondered. Was the name' Pistol Pete' coined by his female admirers?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I've always wondered. Was the name' Pistol Pete' coined by his female admirers?

be careful... you know what they say about the cat's curiosity !