Sampras still owns 2 huge records...

[samboy01]

I know that Federer right now owns the biggest record of all, which is the most grandslam titles, and an additional edge over Sampras is that he has is the French Open title... There's no question that overall in terms of achievements alone he's stronger. (not taking into account competition faced and other points that are valid in debates for GOAT).

However, Sampras still owns 2 very important records: most weeks at no.1 and most Wimbledon titles.

I guess it's nice to see, because Federer seems like he was going to hold every record in the book, but it looks like he won't... I'm happy for Sampras because he deserves to keep a few records, and as it looks, he will keep 2 pretty important ones...

 

[Legend of Borg]

After achieving so much, we can safely assume he won't lose much sleep over these records. Besides, he still has at least a few more years to go........... It's not over yet!!!!!

 

[BullDogTennis]

i HIGHLY doubt federer is done...he could easily get those 2 records. if he gets his head into tennis, i think right now its more on his wife and kids!

 

[samster]

I am sure Sampras was happy today...

 

[anointedone]

Actually he has 3 huge records:

-Most Wimbledon titles
-Most year end #1s
-Most weeks at #1

The only record Federer has that is more meaningful than any of those is his 16 slams. If anything Sampras at this point has a more impressive career and slate of records than does Federer.

 

[anointedone]

i HIGHLY doubt federer is done...he could easily get those 2 records. if he gets his head into tennis, i think right now its more on his wife and kids!

It is pretty unwise to just flip off that switch at his age. Not easy to get it back.

 

[Rippy]

Actually he has 3 huge records:

-Most Wimbledon titles
-Most year end #1s
-Most weeks at #1

The only record Federer has that is more meaningful than any of those is his 16 slams. If anything Sampras at this point has a more impressive career and slate of records than does Federer.

Federer has other records over Sampras too... Eg:

Career Slam
Consecutive weeks at no1

 

[autumn_leaf]

the wimby titles..well i think fed will still be a contender for years to come even if he's declining.

 

[anointedone]

Federer has other records over Sampras too... Eg:

Career Slam
Consecutive weeks at no1

The Career Slam is not a record. Federer is the 6th guy to achieve this, and there are 2 who achieved the Calendar Slam which is even better (one doing it twice).

Consecutive weeks at no #1 is a record and a good one, but I am not sure I think it is a better one than any of the 3 I named.

 

[anointedone]

the wimby titles..well i think fed will still be a contender for years to come even if he's declining.

His level is apparently not high enough to beat Tomas Berdych anymore. If he cant even beat Berdych at Wimbledon how far off is he from ever beating a Nadal there again, or one of the other really big guns.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Actually he has 3 huge records:

-Most Wimbledon titles
-Most year end #1s
-Most weeks at #1

The only record Federer has that is more meaningful than any of those is his 16 slams. If anything Sampras at this point has a more impressive career and slate of records than does Federer.

The thing about Sampras' year end number 1's is that they are consecutive. So he's at six, and Federer could only get four. I don't know if anyone will ever break six years in a row of number 1. Obviously that requires 7 consecutive years...that's a long time.

 

[anointedone]

The thing about Sampras' year end number 1's is that they are consecutive. So he's at six, and Federer could only get four. I don't know if anyone will ever break six years in a row of number 1. Obviously that requires 7 consecutive years...that's a long time.

Yeah that is amazing. 6 total would have been a great record but 6 consecutive is going to be hard for anyone to touch. We talk about Federer having most consecutive weeks at #1 and Sampras most total weeks at #1, but this record of Sampras's combines both as far as the year end #1s. To be the best player in the World 7 years in a row would be a huge ask for players in the future.

 

[new_tennis_player]

Sampras is still the greatest of all time. He had to deal with a much stronger group of rivals than Federer ever has. Sampras vs. Agassi in particular was legendary.

 

[powerangle]

His level is apparently not high enough to beat Tomas Berdych anymore. If he cant even beat Berdych at Wimbledon how far off is he from ever beating a Nadal there again, or one of the other really big guns.

Sampras' level was apparently not high enough to beat George Bastl...in the event where he holds the record for most titles...


...yet we know Sampras still won a major after that scenario.

Fed may not dominate ever again (looks far from it) but he could still sneak out a major or two by the end of his career.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Sampras will always be the King of Wimbledon and don't you forget that Roger Dodger and the *******s.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Sampras is still the greatest of all time. He had to deal with a much stronger group of rivals than Federer ever has. Sampras vs. Agassi in particular was legendary.

Not really. I know it sucks to face that truth. Sampras is not greatest of all time. He cant play on Clay and doesnt have a french open to his name.

Clay is 40% of the season. So Sampras even at his peak wasnt greatest.

his rivals appear as Stronger rivals because sampras couldnt dominate them. Not the other way round.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mustard]

His level is apparently not high enough to beat Tomas Berdych anymore. If he cant even beat Berdych at Wimbledon how far off is he from ever beating a Nadal there again, or one of the other really big guns.

Federer hasn't had a George Bastl moment, though. The talk about Sampras at 2002 Wimbledon was that it may be his last (it was) and "could he go out in a blaze of glory?". Instead it turned into his worst nightmare when he lost to the lucky loser, Bastl. Sampras would have to wait until the US Open to go out in a blaze of glory. Sampras' Wimbledon career ended on a huge downer.

 

[Net47]

Federer hasn't had a George Bastl moment, though. The talk about Sampras at 2002 Wimbledon was that it may be his last (it was) and "could he go out in a blaze of glory?". Instead it turned into his worst nightmare when he lost to the lucky loser, Bastl. Sampras would have to wait until the US Open to go out in a blaze of glory. Sampras' Wimbledon career ended on a huge downer.

He came within a whisker of a "Bastl moment" in the first round. You could see by the way he was pushed around in that match that it wasn't going to go well for him this year.

Sampras does remain the undisputed king of Wimbledon for another year, maybe much, much longer.

 

[Mustard]

Federer certainly came very close to being a victim of a big upset on the first day of his Wimbledon defence, something that only Hewitt in 2003 and Santana in 1967 have had happen to them. Nevertheless, Falla is currently ranked at 60 in the world, so he had earned his place in the Wimbledon draw via that ranking. Bastl, on the other hand, was ranked 145 when he beat 7-time Wimbledon champion, Sampras, who was ranked 13. As I said, Bastl was a lucky loser, he had lost to Alexander Waske in the last round of the qualifiers.

Nadal came close to losing to Haase, who is ranked 151 in the world. That would have been a bigger upset than if Falla had beaten Federer. Still, I understand what you mean

 

[davey25]

The thing about Federer is making an unlikely run clearly past his prime will be much harder than Sampras since he is reliant so heavily on his baseline game. Sampras could rely on his all time great serve which is the last thing to go with age, and his ability to attack and finish points off quickly with volleys or 1st strike forehands. Federer is a little different in that regard, he has the 1st strike forehands (or atleast had to as his forehand seems to be leaving him) but he relied alot on his movement, ability to outrally people. And that is where he is declining so it will be much harder for him to win a late career slam than Sampras.

 

[T1000]

Doesn't Federer also have the most years with 3 slams in one year? He did it in 04, 06, and 07. Did anyone do it more than three times in the open era?

 

[Mustard]

Doesn't Federer also have the most years with 3 slams in one year? He did it in 04, 06, and 07. Did anyone do it more than three times in the open era?

Players in the open era to win 3 slams in a calendar year
Rod Laver (1969)
Jimmy Connors (1974)
Mats Wilander (1988 )
Roger Federer (2004, 2006, 2007)

Players to hold 3 slams at the same time in the open era
Rod Laver (1968 Wimbledon, 1969 Australian Open, 1969 French Open)
Rod Laver (1969 Australian Open, 1969 French Open, 1969 Wimbledon)
Rod Laver (1969 French Open, 1969 Wimbledon, 1969 US Open)
Jimmy Connors (1974 Australian Open, 1974 Wimbledon, 1974 US Open)
Mats Wilander (1988 Australian Open, 1988 French Open, 1988 US Open)
Pete Sampras (1993 Wimbledon, 1993 US Open, 1994 Australian Open)
Pete Sampras (1993 US Open, 1994 Australian Open, 1994 Wimbledon)
Pete Sampras (1996 US Open, 1997 Australian Open, 1997 Wimbledon)
Andre Agassi (1999 French Open, 1999 US Open, 2000 Australian Open)
Roger Federer (2004 Australian Open, 2004 Wimbledon, 2004 US Open)
Roger Federer (2005 Wimbledon, 2005 US Open, 2006 Australian Open)
Roger Federer (2005 US Open, 2006 Australian Open, 2006 Wimbledon)
Roger Federer (2006 Australian Open, 2006 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open)
Roger Federer (2006 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open, 2007 Australian Open)
Roger Federer (2006 US Open, 2007 Australian Open, 2007 Wimbledon)
Roger Federer (2007 Australian Open, 2007 Wimbledon, 2007 US Open)
Rafael Nadal (2008 French Open, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open)
Roger Federer (2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon, 2010 Australian Open)

 

[jigar]

Unless he retire, I wouldn't count him out for those records.

 

[Net47]

The thing about Federer is making an unlikely run clearly past his prime will be much harder than Sampras since he is reliant so heavily on his baseline game. Sampras could rely on his all time great serve which is the last thing to go with age, and his ability to attack and finish points off quickly with volleys or 1st strike forehands. Federer is a little different in that regard, he has the 1st strike forehands (or atleast had to as his forehand seems to be leaving him) but he relied alot on his movement, ability to outrally people. And that is where he is declining so it will be much harder for him to win a late career slam than Sampras.

Very valid point. In general, the points are longer now on all surfaces, which is tougher on older players. At 29, Federer will be among the oldest players at Wimbledon next year. He'll be 30 at next year's Open, and might just be the oldest guy in the field. Still, I think he remains a threat for the next year or so, anytime he gets a weak draw.

The other factor that is when the mystique of near invincibility is shattered, it is almost impossible to repair, and players pounce on that perceived weakness. He's not at that point yet, but an early exit at the Open would bring him very close. Of course, a win would reverse the trend.

 

[martini1]

I know that Federer right now owns the biggest record of all, which is the most grandslam titles, and an additional edge over Sampras is that he has is the French Open title... There's no question that overall in terms of achievements alone he's stronger. (not taking into account competition faced and other points that are valid in debates for GOAT).

However, Sampras still owns 2 very important records: most weeks at no.1 and most Wimbledon titles.

I guess it's nice to see, because Federer seems like he was going to hold every record in the book, but it looks like he won't... I'm happy for Sampras because he deserves to keep a few records, and as it looks, he will keep 2 pretty important ones...

Weeks @ #1 would be tougher but I won't count him out on Wimbledon in the future. I can see him stay more focused on slams in the future and play less on other ATP events. He could still win it but not in the way he has been playing since AO.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

I know that Federer right now owns the biggest record of all, which is the most grandslam titles, and an additional edge over Sampras is that he has is the French Open title... There's no question that overall in terms of achievements alone he's stronger. (not taking into account competition faced and other points that are valid in debates for GOAT).

However, Sampras still owns 2 very important records: most weeks at no.1 and most Wimbledon titles.

I guess it's nice to see, because Federer seems like he was going to hold every record in the book, but it looks like he won't... I'm happy for Sampras because he deserves to keep a few records, and as it looks, he will keep 2 pretty important ones...

Don't forget the most important record of all: Less money tipped to a parking valet on two consecutive occasions.

 

[HellBunni]

The Career Slam is not a record. Federer is the 6th guy to achieve this, and there are 2 who achieved the Calendar Slam which is even better (one doing it twice).

Consecutive weeks at no #1 is a record and a good one, but I am not sure I think it is a better one than any of the 3 I named.

consecutive weeks at no #1 is much more impressive than 2/3 of what you listed at least. Because the closest is 77 weeks away, that is more than 1 year!!

6 consecutive year end #1 isn't that impressive, because this just means Sampras had 6 consecutive year #1 at the end of December.

Fed has 6 consecutive year #1 in the months of July and August.

Since tennis ranking doesn't start over at the end of December, it is calculated over a sliding 12month window. So #1 in December vs #1 in July isn't all that different.

 

[samboy01]

Don't forget the most important record of all: Less money tipped to a parking valet on two consecutive occasions.

LOL!

 

[vortex1]

Comparing Sampras to Federer is ridiculous. The guy was a total clown on clay while Fed, even though very lucky to win one RG, made several finals losing to clay GOAT every time. Plus Sampras won a lot of his slams by beating mugs like choking Ivanisievic. Agassi was always his pigeon. Imagine Fed's career if Rafa didn't deny him so many slams.

 

[Mustard]

Comparing Sampras to Federer is ridiculous. The guy was a total clown on clay while Fed, even though very lucky to win one RG, made several finals losing to clay GOAT every time. Plus Sampras won a lot of his slams by beating mugs like choking Ivanisievic. Agassi was always his pigeon. Imagine Fed's career if Rafa didn't deny him so many slams.

That post is so disrespectful. Although Federer is a better clay-court player, Sampras is a former Rome champion, a tournament Federer has never managed to win in his career. And Goran Ivanisevic is no "mug".

 

[Berundi]

Federer will break Sampras' W wins record. And consecutive weeks at #1 > total weeks at #1 especially considering how close the two numbers are in this case.

 

[The-Champ]

Sampras will always be the King of Wimbledon and don't you forget that Roger Dodger and the *******s.

Yes..Pete will always be the king of Grass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TMF]

Actually he has 3 huge records:

-Most Wimbledon titles
-Most year end #1s
-Most weeks at #1

The only record Federer has that is more meaningful than any of those is his 16 slams. If anything Sampras at this point has a more impressive career and slate of records than does Federer.

Federer makes Sampras look small:

Most GS finals(22)
Most consecutive GS final(23)
Most consecutive GS final appearances(10)
Most consecutive years winning at least two Grand Slam singles titles(4)
Most consecutive Grand Slam sets won (36)
Most grass titles(11)
Most MS finals(26)
Most Consecutive 10+ Title Seasons(3)
Most consecutive winning on grass(65)
Most consecutive winning on hard(56)
Most consecutive weeks at #1(237)
Career money leader($55,990,245)

And there are many, many more records Roger own that won't even bother to prove my point. Sampras has so little, it's not even a contest. And even his most weeks at #1 is only one week more than Roger( 286/285), which isn't much to brag about since they are virtually identical.

 

[The-Champ]

Federer makes Sampras look small:

Most GS finals(22)
Most consecutive GS final(23)
Most consecutive GS final appearances(10)
Most consecutive years winning at least two Grand Slam singles titles(4)
Most consecutive Grand Slam sets won (36)
Most grass titles(11)
Most MS finals(26)
Most Consecutive 10+ Title Seasons(3)
Most consecutive winning on grass(65)
Most consecutive winning on hard(56)
Most consecutive weeks at #1(237)
Career money leader($55,990,245)

And there are many, many more records Roger own that won't even bother to prove my point. Sampras has so little, it's not even a contest. And even his most weeks at #1 is only one week more than Roger( 286/285), which isn't much to brag about since they are virtually identical.

you forgot one more 3 more things that would make Fed's accomplishments even more impressive:

Number of times Fed lost to a clay courter on a wimbledon Final (1)
Number of times Fed lost to a clay courter on a hard court slam Final (1)
Nuber of times Fed lost to a clay courter playing on one leg (14)

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

Comparing Sampras to Federer is ridiculous. The guy was a total clown on clay while Fed, even though very lucky to win one RG, made several finals losing to clay GOAT every time. Plus Sampras won a lot of his slams by beating mugs like choking Ivanisievic. Agassi was always his pigeon. Imagine Fed's career if Rafa didn't deny him so many slams.

I'd like to see YOU break Goran's 1st Serve or even his 2nd serve on any surface.

Had Goran been a better mental person, he would be much better. Jeez. Federer would have a awfully tough time if he faced Goran on grass with his serve.

 

[The-Champ]

I'd like to see YOU break Goran's 1st Serve or even his 2nd serve on any surface.

Had Goran been a better mental person, he would be much better. Jeez. Federer would have a awfully tough time if he faced Goran on grass with his serve.

I'm a big Pete fan but Roger returns a bit better than him.

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

I'm a big Pete fan but Roger returns a bit better than him.

Yes, I agree, perhaps I reacted too emotionally.

But Goran's 1st serve would give anyone trouble..

 

[jukka1970]

I know that Federer right now owns the biggest record of all, which is the most grandslam titles, and an additional edge over Sampras is that he has is the French Open title... There's no question that overall in terms of achievements alone he's stronger. (not taking into account competition faced and other points that are valid in debates for GOAT).

However, Sampras still owns 2 very important records: most weeks at no.1 and most Wimbledon titles.

I guess it's nice to see, because Federer seems like he was going to hold every record in the book, but it looks like he won't... I'm happy for Sampras because he deserves to keep a few records, and as it looks, he will keep 2 pretty important ones...

Too bad it's the only 2 records that Samprass still owns. I'm sorry, but I really didn't want that jerk to have any of the records. However, I will say that I have no problem with someone other then Federer holding them, it's just that for now Federer really is the only one to have had a shot at the Wimbledon ones, and still does. Federer really has nothing left to prove. I'm sorry that he lost, I really am, but these things happen even to champions.

I'm hoping that Federer will still do well, this is really the first time that I've been concerned, because it happened at Wimbledon. The other ones I can understand, but he's made every final since 2002. But he's turning 30, the body isn't what it was 7 years ago, and like everyone else before him, at some point things start to go different. He's not gone by a long shot, and he may very well win more slams as I believe he will, and he may even get back to number 1, we'll just have to wait and see. I mean it was less then 6 months ago that he won the Australian open, so it's still there.

Jukka

 

[genius24]

no way federer is done. no way he ends his career without and other grand slam title

 

[FedExpress117]

The average sports fan will only care about the 16 slams figure. The only people who will remember stats like these are the people who spend time on tennis forums

 

[TMF]

Yes..Pete will always be the king of Grass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While Pete have one more SW19(for now), but Fed owned him in other area during their prime:

*5 consecutive SW19
*7 straight SW19 finals
*most consecutive win on grass
*most titles on grass
*beat more top ten players
*facing more depth/talented players(more athetes competing)


It doesn't matter how loud you yell b/c it's not going to add anymore fact to help your boy!

 

[aphex]

Sampras is still the greatest of all time. He had to deal with a much stronger group of rivals than Federer ever has. Sampras vs. Agassi in particular was legendary.

What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion. I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s.

* Pete Sampras, winner of 14 Grand Slams, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final

 

[slice serve ace]

Most GS finals(22)
Most consecutive GS final(23)
Most consecutive GS final appearances(10)
Most consecutive years winning at least two Grand Slam singles titles(4)
Most consecutive Grand Slam sets won (36)
Most grass titles(11)
Most MS finals(26)
Most Consecutive 10+ Title Seasons(3)
Most consecutive winning on grass(65)
Most consecutive winning on hard(56)
Most consecutive weeks at #1(237)
Career money leader($55,990,245)

the thing is, it wasn't sampras holding most of those (money+ grass titles he did, maybe?)
it was lendl, connors, borg etc

when sampras ended his career he left 4 big records, + 2 less big

4 biggest were

14
286
6
7

2 less big were ( co-records both)

5 us opens
5 world championships

+ maybe to mention first player after laver to win 3 gs in a row

so interesting thing is :
out of 4 big, only 1 broken
but he clearly accomplished more than sampras
so it seems that he broke the most important record (14) + career slam
but it says a lot about these other records - if even federer with his unseen dominance couldn't break them so far

 

[OrangeOne]

most weeks at no.1

Anyone caring about 1 week when we're talking about 300 weeks or thereabouts...needs to get a life.

A wimbledon win? Sure, that's significant. A week? Who gives.

 

[forzamilan90]

they will fall eventually, i figure fed's got a shot at reclaiming number 1 next year after poor results throughout the year (Australian open win being the only exception) and he just needs 1 more wimbledon title to tie the record

 

[gold soundz]

I think it's absolutely hilarious that Sampras has the record for most weeks at #1 by one week! And Federer might not even get #1 again lol

 

[Xemi666]

Federer>>Sampras, he owns a lot more records over Sampras than viceversa, that is all.

 

[5th Element]

He came within a whisker of a "Bastl moment" in the first round. You could see by the way he was pushed around in that match that it wasn't going to go well for him this year.

Sampras does remain the undisputed king of Wimbledon for another year, maybe much, much longer.

He hasn't had a Bastl moment because

a) He's not 30 yet
b) They haven't put him on Court No. 2