So how exactly is it established that Pete is mentally tougher than Roger?

[tennis_pro]

Stay salty my friend.

About what, you daisy? Add this to your fantasy list in your fantasy world, harold.

 

[Herald]

About what, you daisy? Add this to your fantasy list in your fantasy world, harold.

 

[mike danny]

Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang.

None of those on the level of Djokovic/Nadal.

Edberg wasn't even a rival by the way.

 

[tennis_pro]

None of those on the level of Djokovic/Nadal.

Edberg wasn't even a rival by the way.

WTF how can even someone compare Chang to Djokovic or Nadal with a straight face?

I honestly don't think that the competition post 1993 that Sampras had was any better than what Federer had in 2003-2007. Agassi could've made things a lot harder for Sampras, but apart from 1995 he didn't really start to play conistently to his potential until 1999 when Sampras was already sitting at 12 Slams.

Some of the years the competition was so weak - especially 1996-1998 and Sampras could only win 4 Slams in these 3 seasons aged 25-27. It's really his fault that he lost so often to people he should be beating thus creating this illusion that the competition was a lot tougher than it actually was.

That's the main difference between Federer and Sampras - both could play at an insanely high level, Federer just did it on a consitent basis and you needed people like Nadal, Djokovic or a zoning Safin or Del Potro to take him out in a Slam when he was in his prime. Sampras could lose to some absolute mugs right in the middle of his peak.

 

[Fiero425]

Fed fans are happy to take the high ground of graciousness and class until you suggest someone is a better player than RF, or even if you suggest someone is better in an important area of the game.

Well, reality eventually begins to sink in & drives them insane! If it's all about the numbers, Roger doesn't have a leg to stand on with 2 rivals that overtook his records early while still playing! Sampras at least got 8.5 years of being the retired GOAT before Fed took over in '09! Pete probably should have won a few more majors, but at the time, it was a milestone few had come close to in the Open Era! I never thought we'd get one to "get there," but 3 have smashed Pete's record of 14!

 

[chjtennis]

I think Roger proved he is right up there with mentally toughest guys ever by hanging with Djokodal who have similar level of talent and ability as him but 5-6 years younger. He even made adjustments and dominated Nadal towards the end of his career, and pushed still-close-to-his-prime Djokovic all the way even in his late career at slam level. Those actually show Fed is probably one of the most mentally toughest player of all time.

 

[CHillTennis]

None of those on the level of Djokovic/Nadal.

Edberg wasn't even a rival by the way.

Why do they need to be on the same level as Nadal and Djokovic to be considered rivals?

And why wouldn't Edberg be considered a legitimate rival?

He's the only player to have beaten a prime level Sampras in back to back slams.

 

[mike danny]

Why do they need to be on the same level as Nadal and Djokovic to be considered rivals?

Because only then can Sampras and Federer be compared mentally.

And why wouldn't Edberg be considered a legitimate rival?

He's the only player to have beaten a prime level Sampras in back to back slams.

Sampras never beat hom at slam level so he didn't have to deal with him.

 

[chjtennis]

When Sampras lost to Edberg at USO final in 1992, people said Sampras should've won that match. Also, at USO 2000, Sampras looked mentally shocked by Safin's level. Those matches don't make Sampras a mentally weak player. There are other matches he should've won but lost. Every player at some stage gets losses that should've been wins. Federer losing some big matches to much younger rivals of extremely high level(all time top 5 kind) shouldn't make him a mental midget. I remember the times when people used to say Djokovic was mentally rubbish, but now everyone says he is mentally the toughest player. People's perception sometimes is not so reliable.

 

[chjtennis]

Peak for Peak there never was any doubt on Roger's level as far W and USO are concerned, however in AUS and FO his level peak for peak is below Novak's and Rafa's (obviously) respectively.

Yet Roger lost the slams race despite being better at 2 slams, because he choked some slams which belonged to him. All he had to do was clutch those wimbledons which he lost and perhaps take a USO title in 2010s, rest was set, at 25 slams he would have ended the winner.

Fair points, but I think people easily dismiss the fact that Fed is 5-6 years older than his main rivals. Historically, once the younger legend reaches his peak, the older guys struggle to beat the younger ones which is only natural. Federer being significantly older but did as well as he did against Djokodal is such a clear proof how mentally strong he is. People will finally see and get this once Alcaraz start dominating Djokodal.

 

[DSH]

Fedal fans don't want to acknowledge those records unless held by them! Since Novak has 7 YE #1 and owns weeks @ #1 at 373 weeks, it's rarely brought up!

Two insane Joker records; I take my hat off to applaud him!

 

[Herald]

None of those on the level of Djokovic/Nadal.

Edberg wasn't even a rival by the way.

8-6, with Stefan taking away 2 potential slams from Pete says otherwise.

And Pete had 4 rivals as he was trying to pile up slams, unlike Fed whose 2 rivals only arrived after he'd gobbed up 12/20. So without meaning to, you proved that Pete had it much harder.