Sampras thinks players are better today...

The Gorilla

Banned
His forehand doesn't (didn't) look especially heavy to me, certainly not on most shots. The annoying thing is that there is no means of proving it (and making a direct comparison with today's players etc.) as groundstroke speed etc. wasn't recorded back then as it is today.

there actually is, if you go into the tennis tips section there is a sticky on how to measure the mph of shots from vids.
 
That's frankly bizarre, with all due respect... you completely dismiss the observations of professional that actually played the sport in favour of your own opinions?

I'm absolutely certain that Tracy Austin must have been referring to Serena's recent level of play. Even though Serena's results had clearly improved during last summer's US hardcourt season, she clearly wasn't fully match fit, and was observably sluggish when forced to move across the court. Consequently, very little was expected of her at this year's Australian Open, especially after a five month gap from tournament play. The woman hardly practised at all if the 'off season' because of court appearances etc. Why would you expect a Grand Slam win on the back of that? It's very, very rare for a player to win a Grand Slam coming off the back of nothing, or very little. Yes, Serena turned it on last month, as Venus did in June 2005 but it's not (at all) common.

Back to Tracy Austin. This is the same woman that stated that Serena Williams (in her opinion) was the 'best ever player' in the women's game. [Wimbledon, BBC, 2003, 2006]. She also stated that Serena and Venus could both be at the very top of the game "if they wanted it" and committed themselves to the game. She has commented that both players are enormously talented, and athletically gifted - and has asserted this on numerous occasions. In a wider sense, that it is hardly 'dismissive'.



Well, there you go. I think the commentators are crappy. All of them, and I wouldn't believe one word that came out of their mouths. Tracy Austin whose article before the AO had to be pulled because it was so dismissive of Serena Williams, a 7-time gs champion. Mary Carillo who was foolish enough to say that Sharapova was a better player than Serena Williams. Again, that crazy logic, when she said it, Serena had 6 slams to Maria's one. Who listens to these people? or do people really listen to these people?
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
That's frankly bizarre, with all due respect... you completely dismiss the observations of professional that actually played the sport in favour of your own opinions?

That is the problem. Real players confirm that the pace is much faster today. But not on this board.
 

bluegrasser

Hall of Fame
His forehand doesn't (didn't) look especially heavy to me, certainly not on most shots. The annoying thing is that there is no means of proving it (and making a direct comparison with today's players etc.) as groundstroke speed etc. wasn't recorded back then as it is today.

Lendl's groundies had big time pop, but he also hit those loopy topspin groundies when he wanted to change the pace. The man was the most fit player on the tour, and would have no problem competing with the current group, in his prime that is.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
I think Pete would have won 18+ if he had the same [lack of] competition Fed has.

I diasgree slightly.

SAMP had the opportunity to win more than 14 but didn't (due to age/motivation etc). I think he believed his record of 14 GS would stand a lot longer, without being threatened so soon.
 
All players of the 70's and 80's would get KILLED in today's game. This I agree with.

However, I cannot tell if Pete is better or worse than Fed. I'd like to say that people like Agassi are much, much better than Andy Roddick and Nadal (despite how much I like Andy).

I think Pete would have won 18+ if he had the same [lack of] competition Fed has.

Where do you think Pete would have picked up those extra 4+ slams if Federer was never born, and Fed was born 10 years later per say?

Obviously a 19 year old Sampras would not have beaten a smoking hot Safin in the 2000 U.S Open final so he is already down 1, needing to gain 5+. From 1993-2000, his main period on top he won Wimbledon 7 out of 8 years only losing once. I dont see how one can assume he would do any better then that today, 1 loss at some point is inevitable, I can see somebody thinking he would have matched the 7 of his 8 he did there born 10 years later with no Federer though. So still needing to gain 5+. From 1993-2000 losses at the U.S Open were to Yzaga, Korda, to Rafter while injured in the semis, and getting destroyed by Safin. He wasnt going to win the U.S Open 10 years later in years he lost to Yzaga and Korda in the 4th round. Since he was injured in his semi loss to Rafter it is unlikely he wins 10 years later with an injury either. Getting destroyed by a smoking hot Safin the way he did he probably does not win that 10 years later either. The French Open? Forget it. Australian Open? In 1993 he had shin splits and lost in straight sets to Edberg in the semis, in 1995 he lost to Agassi in the final after struggling the whole event due to distress over his coaches illness, in 1996 he lost to Phillipousis in the 2nd round, in 1998 he lost to Kucera in the quarters, in 1999 he chose not play, in 2000 he lost injured to Agassi in the semis. He was not going to win an Australian Open 10 years later where he had serious shin splints in the semis and lost in straights to Edberg, he would not win an Australian Open 10 years later where he lost to Kucera in the quarters and had his worst early hard court season in years that year, he likely would not have finished and won an event 10 years later he was injured enough in the semis to have missed 4 weeks after for-despite almost beating Agassi in that semi. So the only possable 2 I see are the 1995 and 1996. Well if he couldnt even win a set from Phillipousis in the 3rd round, what makes you think he was going to win the title ten years later? I know how dangerous Phillipousis can be but Pete didnt even get a set in that match. As for 1995 Sampras struggled so much to reach the final and fought emotional diress the whole event, still since he did play well enough to beat Courier, and almost go up 2-sets-1 vs Agassi I will concede maybe he would have won that time 10 years later without Federer. So so far I only see 1 additional slam.

There would be 1991 and 1992 10 years later to look at. The only real possabilities would be 1992 Wimbledon and 1992 U.S Open 10 years later. Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002, was Sampras a better player in 92 then he was in 2000 and 2001 when Hewitt beat him both times they played on grass? Would Sampras who left the court with stomach ailment in his 4 set loss to a fatigued Edberg in 92 have won the same U.S Open 10 years later and older in 2002? I am not sure on either of those, I would guess 1 out of 2 though.

Speaking of that last 2002 U.S Open would he won that at the 2012 U.S Open without Federer? Well since as many rightfully point out 2002 was a transition period, I doubt the mens game will be as weak then as it is now. So right now I would guess no. As for the other 2001-2002 slams 10 years later, the only other slam he was past the 4th round was the 2001 U.S Open where he was crushed by Hewitt in the final due to massive fatigue. Hard to see him winning that one 10 years later either.

So that leaves him at 14 slams born 10 years later, facing the same field Federer does today, without Federer, adding the 1995 Australian Open he would have won 10 years later, and 1 of the 1992 or 2002 U.S Opens he might have won 10 years later. Losing the 1990 U.S Open and 2002 U.S Opens he would not have won 10 years later. Same number he has now.
 
Last edited:

35ft6

Legend
Yawn

Yes, atheletes are smarter in terms of nutritional, conditioning and strength training.

Yes, the evolution of the game has created powerful shots from off both sdes of the ball.

But make no mistake, it is the racquet technology that is the key component in this equation.
Technique and racket technology are not mutually exclusive. Besides, we're talking about Sampras versus Federer mostly, and I think they use the same racket still. (confirm somebody?)

I've used this example before, it's not just technology, though. Like people thought the 4 minute mile was impossible until somebody did it, and then all of the sudden many people could do the impossible. From Wikipedia:
It was once thought by some to be impossible but has now been achieved by many male athletes, and is now the standard of all professional middle distance runners. In the last 50 years the 4 minute barrier has been lowered by almost 17 seconds. Still, it remains the standard by which all male amateur milers, including American college milers, are measured.
Shots that were once considered reckless in how big the swings were, the grip, and the pace attempted, are now considered the norm. Swinging volleys aren't considered ridiculous anymore. It wasn't just technology creating the shift, it was juniors who tried to hit harder and harder, pushing the envelope even as, probably, their coaches told them not to, and then, for some of them, there comes a day when suddenly their shots stay in play. Except for maybe Nick B, who is a big believer in the disproportionately powerful Killer Forehand. Each generation takes it a bit further. They take bigger and bigger cuts at the ball. We may reach a limit at some point, and maybe we already have. Or maybe we haven't.
Personally, I have a problem with "opinions" of any kind, since they are both biased and deal with whatever the sayer is comparing it to in their own wealth of experience. McEnroe, Laver, Shriver, etc. all have different and conflicting opinions on this issue and an array of other topics. If you're a person who believes in the validity of "opinions" which one do you go with?

1. The first published one
2. The last published one
3. The one concealed in hate

Please, the idea of people spouting someone else's opinion as a fact, is um, well, I won't say what I think about that!
Is that based on your opinion or some kind of fact? This is a message board, you're going to hate it here. It's all about opinions here. If you like objective truth, you might want to check out a math forum but even there you're likely to run into some subjectivity.
Well, i'm still young and, though i have no particular attachment to today's players i think that its glaringly obvious that that they better technically equipped than players of the 1970s and 1980s. I cringe when i look at the groundstroke (not the serve or the volley) technique in replays of 'classic matches'.
Case in point, Lendl versus Borg 1981. Didn't search long, took the first recent french open men's match that came up, but just to compare here's Ferrer versus Nadal. If the sound throws you off, then by all means just turn off the volume.
And, If so many pros that were playing then can admit that there has been enormous technical improvement in the game without hesitation, then why on earth is it so hard for fanatical contributors to tennis forums to admit the same?
Do they actually know the sport better than the (ex)pros, some of who now teach?
This is the eternal question.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
His forehand doesn't (didn't) look especially heavy to me, certainly not on most shots. The annoying thing is that there is no means of proving it (and making a direct comparison with today's players etc.) as groundstroke speed etc. wasn't recorded back then as it is today.

I think most agree that the ball today is so much heavier than it was even 10 years ago. That said, I think Sampras's crosscourt FH (probably Eastern grip, and so not much spin) has the most pace of any shot I've seen, including guys like Gonzo's FH. It has 2nd serve pace.

I actually don't think average pace has gone up that much over the past 10 years, because the role of defense is more important now than 10 years ago. If a ball is fast and spinny, it's harder to take the ball on the rise unless you're a unusually tall player (i.e. the ball is "on the rise" longer for you.) I guess I kinda see Hewitt's ascendancy years back, as reflecting this shift in the overall baseline game. At the same time, people taking on more TS-friendly swings means that less players can take low shots or pounce aggressively on shortballs. So, we're talking about probably a feedback cycle here.

In terms of technique, yeah, I just don't think today's style could work with a wooden racket. Especially Federer's FH. Even though he uses a smaller racket, it's designed with the assumption that you got a generous sweet spot. That said, Fed's feel, movement and defensive game from both wings is better than anybody else in this generation, and perhaps better than from Sampras's era. Considering that he's rarely going at full speed, and that a 1 handed BH is not as strong a defensive weapon as a good 2-hander with depth, his footwork truly is exceptional regardless of generation.

On the other hand, Sampras would be better now, because he could have opted to use a lighter racket or use one of equivalent weight with more fine-tuned power distribution. Probably his BH errors would have gone down, and likely his double faults would have gone down too. The nature of his equipment means he strikes heavy shots relatively well given his technique.
 
This is the eternal question.
It could be (of course) that all the people here that believe there has has been no technical improvement, indeed, no technical transformation, in the sport are.... all world class coaches.
;-)


Just as an aside: i have bought a collection of [4] wooden racquets (from charity shops; i think that they look 'cute' :). I have played with a couple and found that i can generate almost as much power off the ground, on most shots. I have long, extended swings off both wings and hit with controlling topspin. They are heavier and the sweet spot is much smaller, no question of that - but they are still playable, even for a person like me who had never picked up a wooden racquet in their life (before). The problem with the wooden racquets is that i cannot hit with the kind of topspin that i apply with my normal racquets - thus my margin for error is greatly reduced[/i] and i can't swing at freely as i normally would with the same results. And they are far less responsive on the return-of-serve. But even with my playing style, the wooden racquets are still more than playable.

I have also used a Yonex frame (used by a club player in his sixties) produced in the mid 1980s (he thinks it was 'Navratilova's racquet', of that period). I can hit just as hard - and strike just as many winners - using his fame as i can using my Prince Diablo. If anything, this 1980s Yonex frame is more (rather than less) 'powerful' than my 2000s Diablo..... And if you read a articles on racquet technology, you'll find that racquets (today) are still made of essentially the same materials as the graphite/composite racquets on the 1980s. I'm sure that racquets are a little more 'powerful' today but there is tendency to vastly overstate this.
 
Last edited:

35ft6

Legend
^ Maybe the Babolat is notably different, but, yeah, if you look at the specs, the players frames of today aren't much different. Still thin beam, flexible, and low powered. Head sizes seem to be bigger on average, but Federer essentially plays with the same racket as Sampras, no? (confirm? hehe)
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
They are heavier and the sweet spot is much smaller, no question of that - but they are still playable, even for a person like me who had never picked up a wooden racquet in their life (before).

Yeah, the thing with wooden racquets is that you just can't crank on the ball and keep the ball in. Also, you depend more on swing plane than very little hand rotation because you absolutely need to make sweet-spot contact with the ball.

Which is the inherent problem with the modern FH mechanics you see today -- Fed's hybrid swing, Roddick's throw swing, Nadal's reverse FH swing and most other swings relying on wrist stretch-shorten mechanics -- use a lot of hand rotation to accentuate spin while mantain pace. You could do all this with old-school graphite racquets. It's extremely difficult with wood. Laver could (albeit without the elbow bend), and well he cleaned house.

That all said, it's fun learning strokes on wood. In fact, it's not a bad idea trying to tweak your swing with a wooden racquet (it forces you to feel everything), and then transition it to the current one.

Agassi's abbreviated stroke works fine on wood. There's a lot of rotational dynamics, but his abbreviated style (leading to a nice distribution of those dynamics) and conservative grip means he'd keep the errors down. No doubt in my mind that Agassi would have dominated the sport had racquets stayed wood.

I kinda speculate that Sampras would have been a dangerous, dangerous baseliner with a 2-handed BH had the game stayed with wood. A 1H BH would have been a serious liability for him; instead he'd build his entire game around running FHs.
 

35ft6

Legend
^ I think Jiri Novak would have been top 10 if wood was mandatory. Korda would have been a legend. Sampras would maybe have dominated even more.
 

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
You are a moron. Go ask Agassi himself, and watch his serve speed and ground stroke speed. It's not how fast you feel by watching on TV. Many guys had the impression some women hit harder ground stroke than Roddick by watching TV.

Hey tennis guy calm down. Did I say something to **** you off or something? I always enjoyed reading your post and respected you opinion so I don't think it's necessary to call me a moran. You are right about watching tennis on TV and makig conclusions and you are right about Agassi serve speed and his overall ground game. What I was refering too was that when Agassi was younger he blasted his forhand for winners a lot more then later in his career. In other words, he went for the winner more. I've seen Agassi live since '87 and it appeared that his forehand was bigger then when he retired, but overall his game was better and faster later on. I think other on this board would agree.
 

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
Agassi was a much more punishing player in his later years.

Agreed. His strokes got more compact and he became a more punishing player. But would you agree that he went for more winners earlier on, thus this his forehand was bigger. Because of this he was also a lot more inconsistant.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
That's true, Agassi went for lines earlier when he wasn't playing percentage tennis. Also, the baseline game then was much flatter, which plays to Agassi hitting on the rise.

Just looked at old Agassi vs. Sampras from 1993. Whoa, forgot how Agassi used to serve. :(
 

The Gorilla

Banned
That's true, Agassi went for lines earlier when he wasn't playing percentage tennis. Also, the baseline game then was much flatter, which plays to Agassi hitting on the rise.

Just looked at old Agassi vs. Sampras from 1993. Whoa, forgot how Agassi used to serve. :(

he did very well back in the days of wooden racquets, only he went by the name of jimmy connors back then...
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
35ft6 - Great post. I think you broke it down very well.

My only "beef" with your argument is your contrast of Borg / Lendl 1981 French -vs- Nadal / Ferrer French 2005. (You aren't the first -- or the last -- to use that '81 match to "prove a point" but it's disingenuous to claim those are "fair" comparisons.) Lendl was *spent*, completely spent, by that point ... and Nadal / Ferrer was in the first set. Borg was happy to let Lendl finish collapsing. Not a fair contrast at all.

(But I still agree with your basic point....)

- KK
 
Yeah, the thing with wooden racquets is that you just can't crank on the ball and keep the ball in. Also, you depend more on swing plane than very little hand rotation because you absolutely need to make sweet-spot contact with the ball.

That is essentially what i found... i don't think that i use too much rotation on the ball but i had to make (more) certain of the contact, otherwise the ball would fly out or i would get too many mis-hits.

Agassi grew up using wooden racquets, of course - he must of been one of only a couple of players left on the Tour [in 2006] that actually used wood racquets as a child/junior.

I'm sure about Sampras being baseliner with wooden racquets, though... from what i have read he seemed to develop the mentality to be a serve-volleyer, to be a generally 'attacking' player, and i think that he would have been even better served as serve-volleyer in the wooden era as returns (in relation to the serve) weren't nearly as effective - or devastating. Thus, i fear that he would have been even more dominant in the wood era, with his natural game style.
 

Mick

Legend
Today's players may be better but I don't think many will end up in the Hall Of Fame if Federer keeps on winning all the big tournaments.
 

BeckerFan

Rookie
I agree that Sampras's strengths would have been even better suited to the wood era; however, he also would have faced opponents whose games were similarly fine-tuned to wood racquets. I'm not so sure he could have dominated Gonzales, Rosewall, or Laver any easier than he dominated Becker, Agassi or Ivanisevic. People often make the case that Sampras would have won more Grand Slam titles in the past, when three of the four tournaments were played on grass. I don't buy it. Sampras played in an era when grass was something of a specialist's surface. Back then, EVERYONE was the equivalent of a 'grass-court specialist.'
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
well sampras just switched rackets and strings now, probably to feds racket. And he says it lets him hit the ball better now than in his prime. So obviously the racket and string technology feds been playing with currently was better than what Sampras had been playing with in the past. So it lets Fed hit with more controlled pace and wicked angles. Dont forget fed and other atp players have been able to develop and fine tune their game with the new technology, and develop different skill sets that the past technology didnt allow to do, so obviously they should be better than past players. Anyways Sampras and others chose theirracket and strings and game that were available and which suited the times they were playing in. Things have changed now and in the future something else will change and the next era of players will also be better.

They should have a few 85 square inch wooden racket and standard string tournaments a few times a year to bring more pure skill and less ball bashing into play..lol. Obviously if that happened a lot of the different skills and types of shots current players have developed would be obsolete, and they would have to develop different skills.







^ Maybe the Babolat is notably different, but, yeah, if you look at the specs, the players frames of today aren't much different. Still thin beam, flexible, and low powered. Head sizes seem to be bigger on average, but Federer essentially plays with the same racket as Sampras, no? (confirm? hehe)
 

35ft6

Legend
Agreed. His strokes got more compact and he became a more punishing player. But would you agree that he went for more winners earlier on, thus this his forehand was bigger. Because of this he was also a lot more inconsistant.
Agassi did go for bigger shots earlier in his career. He really played on sheer instinct, and won on shotmaking. He didn't learn to play tennis until he met Brad.

But, also, when Agassi came out, he was a completely new breed of player. Mac said nobody had EVER hit the ball that hard at him -- and remember, Mac had played Lendl several times -- and I think he said this about a 16 or 17 year old Agassi. And Agassi could hit huge off both sides and he didn't need a sitter to unload. So in comparison to other players back then, when he arrived on the scene, his balls looked harder if only by comparison, too.
My only "beef" with your argument is your contrast of Borg / Lendl 1981 French -vs- Nadal / Ferrer French 2005. (You aren't the first -- or the last -- to use that '81 match to "prove a point" but it's disingenuous to claim those are "fair" comparisons.)
I've posted that match before, so it was probably me. Here's Muster's match point against Chang in the 1995 French Open. Just spent some time looking for the match point of a long match at the French. I probably don't think it's as unfair a misrepresentation as you do. I have a taped match of Lendl versus Mecir, and it's actually SLOWER. And not just the fifth set. And I would contend Nadal hits like that on every point, first to last. But I understand what you're saying...

Here's a video of Borg Vilas final of 1978? Pretty sure it's not the end of a tiring match.
 
Last edited:

tricky

Hall of Fame
I'm sure about Sampras being baseliner with wooden racquets, though... from what i have read he seemed to develop the mentality to be a serve-volleyer, to be a generally 'attacking' player, and i think that he would have been even better served as serve-volleyer in the wooden era as returns (in relation to the serve) weren't nearly as effective - or devastating. Thus, i fear that he would have been even more dominant in the wood era, with his natural game style.

I actually wonder whether Sampras would have made the transition had the game stayed with wood. Would he have been initially comfortable volleying with it as a matter of course? Would he have given up the rallying stability of the 2H BH, given that he could put away his opponent if he set up the running FH? It's often been said that for the first half of his career, Sampras only played true S&V on grass, otherwise applying an aggressive mix of power serving and selective net approach.

Also, his game was quirky in that his baseline game was really built around linear transfer. He not only had arguably the perfect tennis body, essentially a 6'2 Scottie Pippen, but he was especially good at using his foot speed in order to improve his baseline accuracy as well as his running FH. Studies have shown that the energy produced from rotational mechanics and that of linear transfer come out about the same, and so if Sampras was moving toward his FH wing, he could generate as much if not more power than his opponents. He brought a "baller" athleticism to the game.

And Agassi could hit huge off both sides and he didn't need a sitter to unload. So in comparison to other players back then, when he arrived on the scene, his balls looked harder if only by comparison, too.

In a way, I think the effect between early Agassi and tennis is similar to how we see Safin now. Like, when he came onto the scene, other people were stunned at the ungodly pace he could mantain from both wings. Just as today, the idea of an Agassi-Sampras hybrid who looks like Heath Ledger is too good to be true.
 

35ft6

Legend
In a way, I think the effect between early Agassi and tennis is similar to how we see Safin now. Like, when he came onto the scene, other people were stunned at the ungodly pace he could mantain from both wings. Just as today, the idea of an Agassi-Sampras hybrid who looks like Heath Ledger is too good to be true.
It may have been Becker, who said something about how he came along after Lendl raised the ante, so Becker came along to hit bigger than Lendl, then Goran came and hit bigger than him/Boris, then Safin came along and outhit Goran. I think those are the names he mentioned. But, yeah, every so often a youngster comes out who appears to be hitting big almost to a reckless degree and sort of makes people redefine what an acceptable level of pace is. Kids grow up idolizing, usually, the biggest hitters. 10 year olds don't appreciate variety so much, but they know a big hitter when they see one. When I was growing up, everybody was idolizing Agassi. And for a while it was probably Roddick, and now there are probably kids idolizing Nadal, Federer, and Gonzalez, so tennis might be very interesting in about 5 to 10 years when all these kids come into their own. IMO, of the current pros, Agassi is the most copied and idolized. Sampras might be a close second but you really can't see his influence in their game so much.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
There was a joint interview in Tennis Magazine some years ago. The objects of the interview were Andre Agassi & Pete Sampras. This interview came after John McEnroe had made some disparaging remarks about the then current pros and the state of American tennis (Sampras & Agassi had recently reached the apex of the professional game).

I remember Sampras stating his admiration for the old Aussie pros because they respected those who came after them and didn't "pop off" at the mouth. Sampras was making a direct comment about McEnroe's "popping off".

I think Sampras is following the lead of his idol, Rod Laver and doing what he thinks is "giving back" to the game by saying that the latest greatest are better. When pressed about his chances against Federer, Sampras gives himself a better than even chance on grass. The dichotomy is pretty clear here.

About Becker's comments, remember who "retired" him at Wimbledon? Yep, it was Sampras. After beating Becker at Wimbledon, the two came to net for a handshake and Becker let Sampras know before anyone that he had just played his last match at Wimbledon. Sampras was shocked. Becker said he didn't think he could ever beat Sampras on grass and he might as well bow out. I think that tennis pros, regardless of the era, start out knocking the crap out of the ball because that's all they know to do. Once they learn how to win, once they figure out they are in the big leagues, once they have something to lose, then they start learning how to win and reigning in the power.
 

The Gorilla

Banned
I think it's important to remember that Sampras was much better at playing the all court game Federer's playing now than serve and volley.After Guillickson died he turned himself into a pure serve and volleyer under paul annacone and his dominance plummeted.

Playing Federer's style he was pretty much exactly as dominant as Federer, as a serve and volleyer he was nowhere near as dominant.

Sampras says in that interview that he was playing the best tennis of his life in that 2002 US open title, he probably was playing the best SERVE AND VOLLEY of his life but he was only playing to about 3/4 of his potential.
__________________
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1260981&postcount=324



you'll have to copy and paste
 

35ft6

Legend
I think that Federer's Six-One Tour 90 racquet is (essentially) the 'descendant' of Sampras's Wilson racquet of the 1990s...
I'm talking about how he's playing with a paintjob, and I'm not sure what the consensus is these days, but not too long ago people thought he was literally using Pete's racket. Painted to look like the latest line Wilson was shilling, of course.
People often make the case that Sampras would have won more Grand Slam titles in the past, when three of the four tournaments were played on grass. I don't buy it. Sampras played in an era when grass was something of a specialist's surface. Back then, EVERYONE was the equivalent of a 'grass-court specialist.'
That's a legitimate way of looking at it. Never thought of it that way. By the same token, maybe Laver would find that he just couldn't compete on modern hard and clay courts against the specialists.
well sampras just switched rackets and strings now, probably to feds racket.
Fed plays with a paintjob. Just did a half butt search in Player's Rackets forum. Not sure what Fed is playing with right now.
And he says it lets him hit the ball better now than in his prime.
There was nothing stopping him from using the racket he thought served him best.
So it lets Fed hit with more controlled pace and wicked angles. Dont forget fed and other atp players have been able to develop and fine tune their game with the new technology, and develop different skill sets that the past technology didnt allow to do, so obviously they should be better than past players.
Except for the Babolat rackets, many players are still playing with rackets that use technology circa 1985. Well, maybe not "many" any more, but certainly Federer. He DOES use Big Banger crosses, though. Crosses? WTF? But if you hit with Sampras' racket, and Federer's racket, except for the grip and static weight, you most likely wouldn't feel that much difference. Federer's would probably feel even deader because at least Sampras played with thin gauge gut, albeit strung pretty high.
They should have a few 85 square inch wooden racket and standard string tournaments a few times a year to bring more pure skill and less ball bashing into play..lol.
I would love to see this, but the players would be hitting and giggling. Some local tournaments would be nice, too. I would play in a wooden racket tournament fo sho.
 

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
But, also, when Agassi came out, he was a completely new breed of player. Mac said nobody had EVER hit the ball that hard at him -- and remember, Mac had played Lendl several times -- and I think he said this about a 16 or 17 year old Agassi. And Agassi could hit huge off both sides and he didn't need a sitter to unload. So in comparison to other players back then, when he arrived on the scene, his balls looked harder if only by comparison, too.

If I remember correctly I thought Mac said that about Becker. He could have said that about Agassi later on also. It was because of Becker that Mac went to Dunlop and asked them to create a more powerful racket for him. His 200g wasn't cuting it anylonger. Does this ring a bell with anyone? My memory is kinda hazy.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
That's frankly bizarre, with all due respect... you completely dismiss the observations of professional that actually played the sport in favour of your own opinions?

I'm absolutely certain that Tracy Austin must have been referring to Serena's recent level of play. Even though Serena's results had clearly improved during last summer's US hardcourt season, she clearly wasn't fully match fit, and was observably sluggish when forced to move across the court. Consequently, very little was expected of her at this year's Australian Open, especially after a five month gap from tournament play. The woman hardly practised at all if the 'off season' because of court appearances etc. Why would you expect a Grand Slam win on the back of that? It's very, very rare for a player to win a Grand Slam coming off the back of nothing, or very little. Yes, Serena turned it on last month, as Venus did in June 2005 but it's not (at all) common.

Back to Tracy Austin. This is the same woman that stated that Serena Williams (in her opinion) was the 'best ever player' in the women's game. [Wimbledon, BBC, 2003, 2006]. She also stated that Serena and Venus could both be at the very top of the game "if they wanted it" and committed themselves to the game. She has commented that both players are enormously talented, and athletically gifted - and has asserted this on numerous occasions. In a wider sense, that it is hardly 'dismissive'.

Well, what's bizarre to me is that people actually listen to and believe in their opinions. Playing the game means nothing when it comes to opinions about players. They could give me knowledge regarding the game, but not about what they think about a particular players chances, or state of fitness. That is reserved for me. Regardless of what they were saying, Serena played last August, came in match rusty, and beat Myskina, Mattek, and a couple others en route to a semifinal appearance after months off of the tour. History tells me that she can repeat that feat, (which she did) so IMO, which is most bizarre? Ruling out what has been done by them on a consistent basis, or attempting to sway the people with their "expert" opinions?

Regarding Tracy, and the others, they always admit the WS are great players, but as many accolades as they give, there give just as many rebuttals to their legacy. It comes down to what we choose to believe. But in addition to the praise they also had numerous comments about what a hard time Serena was going to have with Santangelo, Kremer, Petrova, etc. up until she had that trophy in her hand. Then, and only then did they become believers!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
The fact is, we all have an opinion, and all opinions are subjective. Therefore, no one's opinion is any better than anyone else's. What makes our opinions valid to us is our own wealth of experience to back up those assertions. So, no, I won't have a problem being here, nor do I need to go to a math board, because I understand that opinions are not facts and that I do not have to fear espousing my own opinion, or bow down to the will of others. It is a message board to speak on our opinions and everyone is entitled to their own.
 

35ft6

Legend
If I remember correctly I thought Mac said that about Becker. He could have said that about Agassi later on also. It was because of Becker that Mac went to Dunlop and asked them to create a more powerful racket for him. His 200g wasn't cuting it anylonger. Does this ring a bell with anyone? My memory is kinda hazy.
I'm almost positive he said this about Agassi. It may have been after a match against Andre in the former Mt. Vermont tournament. It's possible he said about Becker, too, a few years before meeting Agassi. Mac, being a serve and volleyer, probably meant it in the context of Agassi's returns, the likes of which he'd probably never seen before. Yeah, Connors had a great return, too, but he didn't rip it like Andre did.
The fact is, we all have an opinion, and all opinions are subjective. Therefore, no one's opinion is any better than anyone else's.
Just want to point out that this is a self defeating argument. If we're to believe the bolded part, we must disregard the bolded part. Who cares? Of course former players who become coaches, who get to run tennis federations and coach Davis Cup teams -- of course their opinions are better informed. Nobody asks a drunken TW poster to give an impromptu interview the way Wilander was.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
35ft6 - Thanks for digging-up more clips. I think the Borg/Vilas one is the "reverse" of the Borg/Lendl one. (First point of the match. They seemed like they were both still "getting the feel" of how their match was going to go.)

Muster/Chang was, IMO, more "representative" and more fair. Those two were *hitting* the ball, even though that was match point, too.

And to your point ... Muster/Chang still were not *clocking* the ball like in your Nadal clip. But the difference wasn't so "glaringly dramatic" as using a *spent* Lendl as the representative clip of that era's tennis.

I think even the casual observer would look at your Nadal clip and your Muster clip and say, "Yup. Nadal hits the ball significantly more energetically than Muster did."

Good discussion. Thanks for staying with it (and me).

- KK
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
35ft6 - Thanks for digging-up more clips. I think the Borg/Vilas one is the "reverse" of the Borg/Lendl one. (First point of the match. They seemed like they were both still "getting the feel" of how their match was going to go.)

Muster/Chang was, IMO, more "representative" and more fair. Those two were *hitting* the ball, even though that was match point, too.

And to your point ... Muster/Chang still were not *clocking* the ball like in your Nadal clip. But the difference wasn't so "glaringly dramatic" as using a *spent* Lendl as the representative clip of that era's tennis.

I think even the casual observer would look at your Nadal clip and your Muster clip and say, "Yup. Nadal hits the ball significantly more energetically than Muster did."

Good discussion. Thanks for staying with it (and me).

- KK
It pays to hit the ball hard and harder in today's pro tennis world. That's how juniors are taught to play and if they are a physical specimen,like Nadal, it pays off. There's a three legged stool that the modern game rests on: One,the players are bigger and trained better so,two,they can better access the power that modern racquets and strings can provide. Because of his new racquet and strings even Pete Sampras says he can hit harder now than ever.Three, with the rise of topspin that allows one to wail away at the ball like you're beating a rug, that's how the short sighted coaches teach the game now. Tennis has become like the cold war arms race where the ante for the level of destruction that can be dished out keeps rising. And like the post nuclear age,we can never go back,or are extremely unlikely to.
 

Linda

New User
In real life, Pete is probably cursing a thick stream of vitirol. He is NOT happy with Federer's sudden appearance making him old hand news THIS FAST. Not at all. Don't let his political smarm fool you, for a second.

i don't know if this was meant to be funny...but it was. thank you for the humour.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
How does someone make such an observation about Pete's inner motives? Is this guy a psychic? I don't find it humorous so much as presumptive.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
The way Sampras talks is pretty much how Jordan talked, though. Going out on top may be the best way to establish your legacy, but it also means you left the game looking down at your competition.

That said, I also think Sampras philosophically doesn't like the current game. After all, here was a guy who could have stayed a power server-baseliner, but he idolized Laver and wanted to attain a true all-court style. He sees the relative monotony of the current game and kinda wonders out loud who but Federer really plays tennis as it "should be played."
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
I'm almost positive he said this about Agassi.

That's wrong, Mac said that about Becker, not Agassi. As did a number of players in the 80s. Becker shook up the tennisworld far more in 1985 than Agassi in 1988. He hit much harder than Agassi on all shots, Agassi just hit harder more consistently, because Becker wasn't a baseliner & the ball wasn't in play as much. And Becker sure as hell didn't need a sitter to unload. I think its obvious that Becker has quite a bit more natural strength than Agassi. Mac commented that no one had ever hit the ball harder than Becker in 1985. He never said anything of the sort about Agassi. check out your copy of mac's book to confirm.

Even Lendl, considered a power player, was freaked out by Becker's power & said so(check out the 1986 W final with 18 year old Becker manhandling #1 Lendl)I have almost every issue of tennis magazine in the 80s, there was far more talk all around about Becker than Agassi, He was the true new breed, something that tennis had never seen. Mac went off on the racquets when Becker won Wimbledon as did many players. There were discussions about ways to change the game, surfaces, rules. People were freaking out because of Becker all through the tennisworld. lendl said many times of becker, "he just has more power than me" never said that about agassi. wilander also said the same(five o's link with wilander helps put into perspective how different becker was to anyone else. agassi, however powerfull, still played a game with many rallies, so it wasn't quite as earth shattering as becker just completely overpowering guys from the 1st strike)

becker was sampras before sampras. there's a reason more players tried to emulate agassi than sampras or becker. its an easier type of play to learn. you can learn to swing out with much larger racquets with topspin, even if you are a little guy. its hard for a junior to learn how to be 6'1/6'3 & be blessed with so much natural strength/atheticism & a roger clemens type arm that you can just go for winners all the time from all areas of the court & not care if you make a ton of errors, because you know you'll make enough winners in the long run.

and as far as "relative power" to peers go, becker wasn't static either. he hit harder than sampras during their meetings from 1994-1996(higher mph on the serve) he was clearly still one of the biggest hitters on tour when he retired in 1997, when the game had changed so much since 1985. I wish the tennis channel just put that becker-sampras masters final from 1996 on a loop, I have a feeling it would open quite a few eyes here.

BTW, the way people use clips of random points to prove whatever is rather silly. A tennis match consists of 100s of points, not sure how you can really see it in black & white terms. There are so many factors in why a match may look faster or slower than another. I have the 1980 W final from both BBC & NBC. The NBC feed is like watching a completely different match, camera is close to the players you can see how fast they(wow at Borg) are & a microphone on court makes the pace of shot sound so fast, while the BBC feed is flat & makes them look like dinosaurs(no mike on court). watching their serves from a close angle is impressive, they were hitting world class shots with ridiculously small frames.

also, I'd advise watching the entire Muster-Kafelnikov SF, the entire Buruguera-Chang SF & the entire Muster-Chang F from Roland Garros before coming to concusions on "pace" of the game back then. Certain players play a different way & that affects the way the other plays, & their strategy. Chang gets so much flack on these boards from a few clips, its absurd. If Kafelnikov & Muster look like their teeing off the ball in the semis in 1995 & a match a few days later looks considerably slower, what does that mean? did the a game take a few steps back in a few days? the same thing happens today, but we aren't microanalyzing every match. Watch Hewitt-Murray one day & Federer-Safin another, its night & day, but they are still playing the same game, in terms of pro level. wonder what you'd think of muster-bruguera & muster-becker matches on clay I have. They certainly weren't holding back at all. chang couldn't generate the same racquet speed of nearly any of his contemporaries so he always looked slower, pacewise. was still able to hold his own though. hewitt's racquet head speed is quite slow as well. fortunately he isn't a midget like chang(guy was 5'6, not his listing of 5'9 on the atp site) like I said, if sampras-becker circa 1996 looked as modern as any tennis today, pace-wise, maybe chang was a bit more modern as well since he beat both becker & sampras around that time?

you should try to find match point of the '93 FO final, I don't think I've seen a better match point with a player absolutely unloading on the ball with no hesitation(courier) at the end of a close 5 setter. it probably wouldn't help your point though.

was just watching laver-connors from 1975. guys were crushing the ball(guess what,there were mikes on court & great angles) too bad its not on youtube.

and connors did rip the return. he was doing it at at time when 3 of the majors were on grass, & with a even more antiquated racquet than wood racquets, so he was no joke.
 
Last edited:

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
Thanks for the post Moose. I knew it was Becker that Mac talked about and not Agassi. However, I do disagree with you about Becker vs Agassi forehand. I remember everyone saying Agassi forehand was the biggest out there in '88.
 

The Gorilla

Banned
Thanks for the post Moose. I knew it was Becker that Mac talked about and not Agassi. However, I do disagree with you about Becker vs Agassi forehand. I remember everyone saying Agassi forehand was the biggest out there in '88.

no way, lendl had the biggest forehand of all time, only gonzales is his equal for pace.His backhand was virtually as strong too.
 

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
no way, lendl had the biggest forehand of all time, only gonzales is his equal for pace.His backhand was virtually as strong too.

Lendl had the better forehand but Agassi's was bigger back then ('87-'89) . Everyone said it. Lendl himself said it. But he also said that when he was younger and went for more that is forehand was equal to Agassi's in pace. As for Gonzo's, I think his has more pace then the both Agassi and Lendl.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
moose malloy, excellent post about becker. yes, becker was the first player to truly revolutionize the game.

as that excellent indian sportswriter rohit brijnath said "when boris becker won wimbledon in 1985, it wasn't just the end of the mcenroe and borg era. wimbledon, and tennis, were never to be the same again."

sampras is a faster and more accurate version of becker. when they played against each other, becker was essentially playing a more mobile, accurate version of himself.
 

35ft6

Legend
He hit much harder than Agassi on all shots, Agassi just hit harder more consistently, because Becker wasn't a baseliner & the ball wasn't in play as much. And Becker sure as hell didn't need a sitter to unload.
Becker could potentially unload bigger on his shots than Agassi, not really sure about that, but I maintain that on average, Agassi was generating more heat.
I think its obvious that Becker has quite a bit more natural strength than Agassi.
Have you seen Federer's arms lately? It's about timing. Agassi had better timing than almost everybody, and he's arguably the purest ball striker of all time.
BTW, the way people use clips of random points to prove whatever is rather silly.
Maybe, but it's not like Youtube doesn't exist and we have to completely rely on hearsay. People are free to respond with a link that they think is better.
also, I'd advise watching the entire Muster-Kafelnikov SF, the entire Buruguera-Chang SF & the entire Muster-Chang F from Roland Garros before coming to concusions on "pace" of the game back then.
Nah, I'll pass. I've seen enough tennis in my life, don't need to watch those matches in entirety before I'm entitled to an opinion. If you believe in the dangers of sample bias, choosing only certain parts of matches, then extend that to certain matches out of a season as well.
wonder what you'd think of muster-bruguera & muster-becker matches on clay I have. They certainly weren't holding back at all. chang couldn't generate the same racquet speed of nearly any of his contemporaries so he always looked slower, pacewise.
Are you saying the game wasn't slower back then?
you should try to find match point of the '93 FO final, I don't think I've seen a better match point with a player absolutely unloading on the ball with no hesitation(courier) at the end of a close 5 setter. it probably wouldn't help your point though.
I wasn't looking for clips to prove my point. I'd love to see any clips that relate to this. Find it. If you think I'm only finding clips to prove my point, you or anybody are free to go youtube and post counter clips. Nobody has done this.
 
Top