Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.
LOL, so many epic fails in this post, i don't know where to begin.
>> He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys
Yet, he has 3 majors less than Federer at the same age. No FO either. What's the use of all those "weapons" if it does not win him majors?
>>Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals
Now suddenly, losing in R1 is better than losing in a slam final. Sorry, epic fail again. Fed has played in more major finals/SF than Pete, and has won more.
>> a winning record over his nearest rival
which is skewed, because Pete chickened out of meeting Agassi on Agassi's strongest surfaces; whereas Agassi was man enough to meet Sampras on Pete's favorite surfaces. Same with Fed/Nadal; Having said that, the Fedal rivalry is at a much higher level than the Pete-dre one.
Let me give you an analogy:
We have two guys, P & A, who are both great champions in eating competitions. P loves hot-dogs, but is not fond of burritos. A loves burritos, and hot-dogs came second.
In a given year, there were 10 each of hot-dog and burrito competitions. P & A both participated in the hot-dog competitions. P won every time. Fearing the nasty aftermath of eating burritos, P never participated in any of the burrito eating competitions. A won every one of them.
End result: h2h between P & A : 10-0 in P's favor.
go figure!