Sampras thinks players are better today...
- Thread starter 35ft6
- Start date
federerfanatic
Banned
Federer would have torn Gilbert to pieces, against a master junkballer type player, which is not the kind of player Federer ever has trouble with, any shot Federer would hit would be spectacular over and over and over.
The Gorilla
Banned
what's your point?
It's a full match, sampras hits many backhands.
Oh, and didn't andy murray beat him a while back?
Didn't santoro oush him to three consecutive tie breaks in the aussie open?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Gorilla, like I said Sampras never had a dominant backhand. Gullickson specifically worked with sampras to improve his backhand. With Gullickson, Sampras was able to improve his drive and topspin backhand, along with his already consistent slice.
One match on youtube from 90 against Gilbert hardly helps your argument. In addition, Edberg's backhand compared to Fed's was not even remotley in the same league.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, some people are very passionate. My favorite players are Agassi, Sampras, Mcenroe. However, I have no problem saying Federer blows all of them away.
In regards to Sampras' backhand, it puzzles to me read when people say he had a dominant backhand. I seriously laugh out loud.
The Gorilla
Banned
But it's a full match,commentator says, 'His backhand is the better shot'.It's a full match, you cannot dismiss a full match.Saying 15 second clips can be misleading is absolutely correct but an entire match?
Please just watch the whole match, Sampras moves like a dancer and plays virtually flawless all court tennis.
The Gorilla
Banned
he's playing brad gilbert!
Yeah, but that's a fast surface with low bounce. Sampras is just grooving his shots in his wheelhouse. If Gilbert were playing Sampras on today's typical surfaces, Pete would probably have serious problems finding his range on the BH. I'm not saying that Sampras had a big BH weapon at the time; but I think if the surface conditions had stayed as it did then, his BH would have been more of a weapon.
The Gorilla
Banned
watch the video;gaze in awe at Pete's amazing backhand;pick your jaw up off the ground;accept Sampras for what he is and move on.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
did you laugh when Fred Stolle called it his best shot in that youtube clip? That was said by many players/analysts circa 90-92, I have many matches where commentators rave about his backhand in that period(Tony Trabert, Mary Carillo, etc), some saying it was the best one hander on tour at the time. Sampras' backhand only went to pieces when Annacone made him a pure S&V in 1997.
federerfanatic
Banned
Sampras from late 1990 until he retired I saw play tons of times and he never had a backhand nearly as good as Federer's. Anybody who says otherwise is a deluded Sampras fanboy.
Yeah I did remember Stolle saying that once and although the question wasnt to me I laughed out loud to that indeed, as it was around when I started watching the game closely it was one of my first introductions to idiocy of tennis commentary and to take it with a big grain of salt. The new hotshot is always overpraised by commentators who come up with metaphors, and who probably laugh at themselves years later and how stupid they were. Federer is now too, no difference.
Yeah I did remember Stolle saying that once and although the question wasnt to me I laughed out loud to that indeed, as it was around when I started watching the game closely it was one of my first introductions to idiocy of tennis commentary and to take it with a big grain of salt. The new hotshot is always overpraised by commentators who come up with metaphors, and who probably laugh at themselves years later and how stupid they were. Federer is now too, no difference.
Last edited:
The Gorilla
Banned
Spot on. When there was a high bounce, the frailty in the backhand showed up: at about the 5:36 mark, there is kick serve from Gilbert and Pete returns with that akward elbow-in-front technique and the return sails long.
As for the commentators saying it's the best bh in the game, they can get caught in the moment and go overboard in their praise. At Paris Masters last year, commentators were gushing about Davydenko's play - saying they had seen very few people playing at the level, he was returning better than Agassi ever had etc.
That said, on seeing these clips, it's evident how wrong the people who say Sampras is all about serve or power are. His game is so beautiful to watch and he makes it look easy from everywhere on the court. Sweet Pete and Silky Sampras were absolutely apt monikers. With others who possess beautful games, there is at least a part that makes me sometimes cringe (like McEnroe hitting groundstrokes, Edberg a FH and Federer, until the last 6 months, hitting low volleys).
federerfanatic
Banned
I didnt say he was stupid, I said he like others so called experts loves to comes up with dumb metaphors and exagerrations about the "new hotshot" which is what an irrational statement like that is based on, and overgush them on air and to the press until the initial excitement factor wears off, then return to making rational statements about the player without being unreasonable. "oh goody goody the new hotshot, lets gush him to pieces" is always the way it is when the new hotshot first appears. When Phillipousis first came on the scene Drysdale said once he had the best backhand on tour. Drysdale and P Mac said Roddick had the best serve ever, and an amazing net game when he first came on tour. Irrational gushes over the new hotshot are just common practice, and the statements are probably laughed at by the same people themselves who made them years later.
I dont need to watch a stupid youtube clip, I started following tennis in 1990 which was when Sampras came into prominence. Sampras NEVER had a backhand anywhere near as good as Federer, Agassi, or many others. His forehand was by far his better side always, and even his forehand is nowhere near the forehand of Federer or Lendl for example. This whole conversation is stupid, anybody who even argues a dominant Sampras backhand is a demented Sampras fanboy and even debating something so obvious with those who live in a delusion is a waste of my time.
I dont need to watch a stupid youtube clip, I started following tennis in 1990 which was when Sampras came into prominence. Sampras NEVER had a backhand anywhere near as good as Federer, Agassi, or many others. His forehand was by far his better side always, and even his forehand is nowhere near the forehand of Federer or Lendl for example. This whole conversation is stupid, anybody who even argues a dominant Sampras backhand is a demented Sampras fanboy and even debating something so obvious with those who live in a delusion is a waste of my time.
Last edited:
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
True, but Stolle is generally quite reserved in his praise over the years. Carillo & Drysdale were calling Sampras(& Mac before him) the best ever in his prime, while Stolle was just a "wait & see" type.
Ditto Tony Trabert, he's as reserved as they get & he was very impressed by the Sampras backhand circa 1990. It was considered better than his forehand.
I'm not comparing Sampras' backhand to Federer's but to other one-handers on tour from '90-'93 & it compared very favorably.
BTW, how many user ids are you up to by now? 10? Try not to misspell the same words over & over again if you don't want anyone to notice.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Gorilla, I have seen many 'full matches" of Sampras. In fact I own many, many of his full matches. His backhand was not dominant.
GRANITECHIEF
Hall of Fame
Attacking the Sampras backhand, especially with high bouncer, was on page one of the playbook, in bold.
Yeah, actually I tend to agree. Sampras may think he was so much better with Annacone, but it's better in what way? It happens to EVERYONE though if you try to emphasize another part of your game, by nature, another part of your game tends to go down a bit in my experience. It happened with my backhand, when I started on focusing on making my forehand as good as my backhand. I think it's also what happened to Sampras with his backhand when he started focusing so much on the chip and charge tactic and his serve and volley attack.
Just goes to show that much like MMA, there are SO MANY ways to win AND lose in tennis, such that improving and regressing one area or another can tend to equalize itself out relatively.
Also, the point about court surfaces is a great one I had not really considered. Back in the days of the Grand Slam Cup, the court surfaces were ridiculously slanted to flatter hitters in my opinion, skidding low and fast. I think it was around 98, however, that they really started to slow down the indoor surfaces more noticeably. Still not like it is now, where it's practically like a slow hard court they've made the top surface so grainy at times. That would definitely hurt Sampras' backhand. His backhand held up well against Agassi I always felt, because Agassi's shots were semi-top but still fairly flat and thus right in Sampras' ideal strike zone. He would always connect just right on a few backhands in an Agassi match and send a message I felt, but it was deceptive because it was against a guy who's groundie trajectory I felt was tailor made to fit right into Sampras maximum power zone in terms of his wheelhouse.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
The fact you mentioned Mary Carillo just blew your entire argument. She was/is a diehard Sampras puller who felt he could do no wrong.
In addition, I will take Agassi's word (who played sampras 34 times) over Stolle who never played Sampras.
Believe what you want>>> bottom line HE NEVER HAD A DOMINANT BACKHAND.
PS: I have many matches where the commentators don't rave about his backhand, and say it's his only weakness.
Last edited:
I have absolutely zero interest in politics in real life, but that IS how *real* life is in my opinion. There is A LOT of grey area, and things are NOT definitive. You have opinions and more importantly hard and seemingly irrefutable evidence and opinions and case example in *every* which way, and it is not something as subjective as getting clocked in a race in my opinion.
To treat it as anything less or anything less simple or anything perfectly obvious and straight forward would in my opinion be disingenuous, again, in my opinion.
...AND? And if I contradict myself, so be it. It's not a big deal to me, again, that IS real life, and I think contradictions are the ground-shattering remains upon which man has built himself up to be anything more than what he really is...an an animal, an ape, nothing more, nothing less...we only think we're important and that tennis is important and politics are important and science is important and so on and so forth. When we're all kaput in the grave, we're kaput though, and really don't know after that now do we?
Last edited:
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
<Mod Mode> Gorilla, stop posting the same "watch the match" remark repeatedly. That's the same as SPAM. Thank you. </Mod Mode>
2 - Gilbert was pretty smart as a player. Did you ever think Pete was getting lots of BHs because Brad knew better than to attack his FH? (The answer for anyone paying attention would be "Yes".) Sampras' BH was ... good. His FH was great.
3 - Gilbert's approach shots were amazingly poor in that match. (He was choosing to attack ... but his approaches lacked "zip" and depth. *I* could have passed Brad off those approach shots....) I think he played badly *because* he was playing Pete. He'd psyched himself out already....
4 - Give it up, Gorilla.
- KK
1 - Stolle was simply doing what commentators have been doing for decades ... puffing-up the match. Sampras' BH was never his dominant shot.
2 - Gilbert was pretty smart as a player. Did you ever think Pete was getting lots of BHs because Brad knew better than to attack his FH? (The answer for anyone paying attention would be "Yes".) Sampras' BH was ... good. His FH was great.
3 - Gilbert's approach shots were amazingly poor in that match. (He was choosing to attack ... but his approaches lacked "zip" and depth. *I* could have passed Brad off those approach shots....) I think he played badly *because* he was playing Pete. He'd psyched himself out already....
4 - Give it up, Gorilla.
- KK
federerfanatic
Banned
This is about the 12th time you posted the same message and each time it keeps getting deleted. Did you ever think you are wasting your time re-posting it. Yeah we get it, you are a Sampras addict who thinks Sampras once had an amazing out-of-this-world-backhand that those of us who followed tennis then never came to realize, and that you think his backhand was once much better then Fed's which bewilders almost all of the rest of us who remember him back then. You arent going to get anybody other the most loyal of loyal Sampras fans to come over to your side so give it up.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
whistle - Sorry, but you quoted a post complaining about moderation. (Not your fault.)
Posts which whine about moderation routinely get nuked. And quoting a "zappable" post makes your post subject to being zapped, too.
(Gorilla knows the rules. He's just being ... Gorilla.)
- KK
Posts which whine about moderation routinely get nuked. And quoting a "zappable" post makes your post subject to being zapped, too.
(Gorilla knows the rules. He's just being ... Gorilla.)
- KK
federerfanatic
Banned
Exactly so if we have to accept some bogus opinion that Sampras, who most of us feel never had more then a top 30 backhand at any given time, somehow had the games best 1 handed backhand, which also was much better then Federer's backhand today, because "expert" Fred Stolle was having a Sampras orgasm that day and choice to say so; then we must also accept Roddick is the most powerful hitter ever, with the most powerful forehand ever, because John McEnroe, who is every bit as qualified an "expert" as Stolle, decided to say so one day. That pretty much puts the ridiculousness of the whole argument in perspective.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
I'll take this further. Mcenroe (both brothers), have stated Sampras' backhand was mediocre, and was definitely his biggest weakness. So, who do we believe?? The McEnroe brothers who both played Sampras? Agassi who played him 34 times?
Or Fred Stolle, Mary Carillo, (who never faced him)?
federerfanatic
Banned
Exactly, excellent point. Also John only ever played Pete from 1990-1992 didnt he, those years that Stolle and Carillo made those comments. So he played him when according to random comments by Stolle and Carillo that Sampras's backhand was the cream of the game, but apparently John failed to notice anything close to that while on court with him.
Nextman916
Professional
When was this quote said about Roddick? It must have been upon his rise to fame, because at that time his forehand was actually the biggest on tour. He could hit it so big and so consistently all the time it took many players off guard. Him with his huge serve+forehand game labeled him a status of big hitter, which he was no doubt. I agree Mac's statement was pretty wack but i also recall many other sources labeling roddick as the biggest hitter in the game at that time. Roddick even admitted in at interview late 2006: "they used to say I was the biggest hitter but I dont know if thats the case anymore" (chuckles).
35ft6
Legend
The thing I find interesting about this line of thought, though, is that it's often used to help prove ones argument. I know you said contradictions are cool, and I'm not getting nitpicky, and you're certainly not the only person who's done this, but it usually goes something like "players say things for different reasons whether it be ego or lack of ego, so you really can't trust their opinions... except for the ones who say the game was stronger back in the day of course..."
Actually, it was a throwaway post, because I didn't appreciate the insinuation/tag of being politician when it was just a post on tennis, nothing more, nothing less to me, I really, honestly don't care either way *that* much anymore; it's just a post on tennis, that's all. It's not really that big a deal, but that's just how I post naturally--long. I was born that way, and I am tired of of some people insinuating like there's something underhanded or duplicitous about me and the way I post just because I post long (not you, by the way). I don't understand why people can't just post whatever they have to say, without having to take underhanded jabs at one another (again, not you), and gently, subtly nudging people back into their "place."
Anyway, I think that there's merits to both sides of the "debate," but I choose to "argue" on behalf of Moose Malloy's side more so just because I feel like it's under represented on this issue. Just trying to lend a different perspective on the neverending debate, that's all. Again, just as for "balance" sake as much as for true belief. A belief at 70% toward one side of 50/50 split line is still a belief, but it doesn't necessarily have to mean or be qualified with I believe this 100%. That's all.
J
Jayst
Guest
Federer vs. Sampras.
Guys
Stumbled on a website with some interesting analysis of Federer vs. Sampras. Did Sampras really have a tougher group to deal with????
Here is the website:
************.wordpress.com
Guys
Stumbled on a website with some interesting analysis of Federer vs. Sampras. Did Sampras really have a tougher group to deal with????
Here is the website:
************.wordpress.com
35ft6
Legend
^ What's the website, dude!?
There's a lot of angry dweebs on these boards.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Gorilla - I apologize.
I just learned that when we Mods delete a post and leave a note like, "Complain via e-mail or on "TW Questions / Comments;" NOT within a thread" ... that Mods and Admins are the only ones who can see these notes.
I thought you knew this already.... When you have a complaint or challenge to moderation, you should do so via e-mail or on the "TW Questions/Comments" thread; NOT within a thread.
(When you complain within a thread, we are instructed to zap it....)
- KK
I just learned that when we Mods delete a post and leave a note like, "Complain via e-mail or on "TW Questions / Comments;" NOT within a thread" ... that Mods and Admins are the only ones who can see these notes.
I thought you knew this already.... When you have a complaint or challenge to moderation, you should do so via e-mail or on the "TW Questions/Comments" thread; NOT within a thread.
(When you complain within a thread, we are instructed to zap it....)
- KK
alwaysatnet
Semi-Pro
Somebody call for a waaahmbulance?
Similar threads
