The myth faded, Pete Sampras

KG1965

Legend
When he retired in many argue that it was the largest .
Now it's hard to add it in the top 5 of the open era ( for me it is the 6th / 7th )
The record of 14 Grand Slam stunk because nobody cares before then , the titles won are very few for a number 1 , won the match are few, the 1000 Master laughable , the percentage of victories laughable .
The myth was crumbling from Fedal .

Conclusion : Although he had worthy opponents won little respect to the myths that preceded and Fedal .

Djokovic won twice Masters 1000 !!!! Twice!!!!!!
 

Camus

Rookie
I think Sampras is still TOP 5 of the Open era- Lever, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal.

That can change, if Djokovic has 2 more years (more like year and a half) of being No1 player, and maybe 4 more majors.

But, a think that even than we should put Sampras and Borg on the same level, and they will be part of the BIG 6 in the Open Era.
 

Zetty

Hall of Fame
Hmm, I think what you're saying is a little simplistic, I'm not of the 90s era so I can only speculate but I don't think the Masters and the legend building of today were so completely important. I think Sampras probably always made sure he peaked for the slams. For example, just taking a quick look at his stats versus Chang, he lost quite a few matches in Masters to him but when you start to look at the grand slam record Chang couldn't get a win off him.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Djokovic won twice Masters 1000 !!!! Twice!!!!!!
Already more than twice actually, so have Nadal and Fed and all 3 are still active.
Almost all top players won more masters than Sampras, including Agassi.
That and the fact he didn't win a slam on clay are the weakest points in Sampras' resume and although his fans try to rationalize those flaws one way or the other, it will always hurt Sampras' status in the list of all time great.
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
#Sampras shares the record for winning the most #Wimbledon titles in the history of tennis. #THAT fact #ALONE places him in the top five all-time, without having won #ONE #FO title.

#You don't have to win the #FO to be an all-time great, but you have to win #Wimbledon.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
#You don't have to win the #FO to be an all-time great, but you have to win #Wimbledon.

Wow. That is some American bias right there. Ask anyone outside of America and the French Open is a pretty important tennis tournament.

For Americans, Wimbledon>US Open>>Austrailian Open>>>>>>French Open.

For the rest of the world (non-American or UK), Wimbledon=French>USO>AO.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Wow. That is some American bias right there. Ask anyone outside of America and the French Open is a pretty important tennis tournament.

For Americans, Wimbledon>US Open>>Austrailian Open>>>>>>French Open.

For the rest of the world (non-American or UK), Wimbledon=French>USO>AO.

Not just America. I think in 99% of countries around the world, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Wow. That is some American bias right there. Ask anyone outside of America and the French Open is a pretty important tennis tournament.

For Americans, Wimbledon>US Open>>Austrailian Open>>>>>>French Open.

For the rest of the world (non-American or UK), Wimbledon=French>USO>AO.

Wimbledon > all others

The degree will vary but it is the most prestigious tournament out there.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
When he retired in many argue that it was the largest .
Now it's hard to add it in the top 5 of the open era ( for me it is the 6th / 7th )
The record of 14 Grand Slam stunk because nobody cares before then , the titles won are very few for a number 1 , won the match are few, the 1000 Master laughable , the percentage of victories laughable .
The myth was crumbling from Fedal .

Conclusion : Although he had worthy opponents won little respect to the myths that preceded and Fedal .

Djokovic won twice Masters 1000 !!!! Twice!!!!!!


On no planet in any galaxy in any universe would the record of 14 Grand Slams stink in any way, shape or form!

Sampras is still only behind Federer and level with Nadal in this all-time accomplishment. There is no myth....it is all still very real!
 

Wynter

Legend
Already more than twice actually, so have Nadal and Fed and all 3 are still active.
Almost all top players won more masters than Sampras, including Agassi.
That and the fact he didn't win a slam on clay are the weakest points in Sampras' resume and although his fans try to rationalize those flaws one way or the other, it will always hurt Sampras' status in the list of all time great.

I'm unaware as to whether they were mandatory or not but the same level of acclaim for the Mastrs that exists now did not exist in the 90's. It was simply a tournament you could win 1000 points for as far as I'm aware.

Anyone can be free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I'm unaware as to whether they were mandatory or not but the same level of acclaim for the Mastrs that exists now did not exist in the 90's. It was simply a tournament you could win 1000 points for as far as I'm aware.

Anyone can be free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

Masters weren't mandatory for much on the 90's. Players tended to keep to the surfaces they excelled on, not to mention a bunch of other tournaments which carried similar ranking points to the 'Super 9'.

This masters hype is very recent, even Federer regularly skipped several a year in his peak.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
I think Sampras is still TOP 5 of the Open era- Lever, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal.

That can change, if Djokovic has 2 more years (more like year and a half) of being No1 player, and maybe 4 more majors.

But, a think that even than we should put Sampras and Borg on the same level, and they will be part of the BIG 6 in the Open Era.

I guess you don't like Fedal that much. But who is Lever?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Already more than twice actually, so have Nadal and Fed and all 3 are still active.
Almost all top players won more masters than Sampras, including Agassi.
That and the fact he didn't win a slam on clay are the weakest points in Sampras' resume and although his fans try to rationalize those flaws one way or the other, it will always hurt Sampras' status in the list of all time great.

But he was much more dominant relative to his peers than Fed or Nadal or (I think) any other Open Era player, as shown by his six consecutive years as number 1.

You can argue he faced weaker peers than Nadal or Federer or some of the others mentioned here but that's impossible to prove (although fun to debate). His year end as number 1 stat though is a documented fact.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Djokovic's masters titles don't even elevate him above Agassi.
Agassi has the Career Year Grand Slam (and that counts for more than rankings or masters).
 

90's Clay

Banned
Djokovic's masters titles don't even elevate him above Agassi.
Agassi has the Career Year Grand Slam (and that counts for more than rankings or masters).

Agreed. Agassi's career slam (especially under the conditions of the 90s) still put him above Nole even with the masters titles and time at #1). Masters are just so important when it suits their fanatics agendas around here but when it goes against them, "Well Masters only count for so much"

Which one is it?? :shock:
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic's masters titles don't even elevate him above Agassi.
Agassi has the Career Year Grand Slam (and that counts for more than rankings or masters).

Agassi managed to be year end number 1 exactly once, no? Nole is on his way to his fourth YE1. Nole much more dominant relative to his peers than Agassi.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
If you think Slam wins are all that matters then Cilic had a better season than Federer in 2014. Or Nadal had the same level season as Djokovik in 2014. In fact using this logic Cilic and Djokovik had equivalent seasons in 2014.

Don't believe that at all.
 

KG1965

Legend
Already more than twice actually, so have Nadal and Fed and all 3 are still active.
Almost all top players won more masters than Sampras, including Agassi.
That and the fact he didn't win a slam on clay are the weakest points in Sampras' resume and although his fans try to rationalize those flaws one way or the other, it will always hurt Sampras' status in the list of all time great.

n fact , and please note that the record Masters 1000 will be increasingly important .
Especially when Djokovic will exceed Nadal .
 

KG1965

Legend
I do not support it , but ATP

There is a subversive push in this forum to elevate the historical status of #Masters1000 events and "Weeks at Number One" by the #WikipediaGeneration because their favorites haven't done the heavy lifting in the most important events in tennis, the #ITF-sanctioned GrandSlam events.

Fortunately, there are people who participate in this forum who were born before the #OpenEra began to put that nonsense to rest. Praise be and hallelujah.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

I would like to humbly point out to you that the atp attributes to slam only twice that points to the Masters 1000 .
2 Montecarlo worth a Paris .
So 30 Masters 1000 win 15 slam .

5 Master 500 are worth more than a Wimbledon title .
On this site , and not only , not considered the ATP !!!!!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#Sampras shares the record for winning the most #Wimbledon titles in the history of tennis. #THAT fact #ALONE places him in the top five all-time, without having won #ONE #FO title.

#You don't have to win the #FO to be an all-time great, but you have to win #Wimbledon.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

I agree that Wimbledon is the biggest tournament in tennis. HOWEVER, a career slam makes you more of a complete player because you have to master on all surfaces/conditions. Many great players(even Laver 69 GS) have never won on all surfaces. Federer, Nadal and Agassi are unique to tennis.
 

ACE of Hearts

Bionic Poster
Sampras's serve was top notch. I miss the serve and volley play in today's game. All the surfaces have been slowed down.
 
I agree that Wimbledon is the biggest tournament in tennis. HOWEVER, a career slam makes you more of a complete player because you have to master on all surfaces/conditions. Many great players(even Laver 69 GS) have never won on all surfaces. Federer, Nadal and Agassi are unique to tennis.

Only Agassi really accomplished something that Laver didn't. Laver, Nadal, and Federer didn't have the opportunity to win on very different surfaces, because the vast majority of tournaments in their eras were played on basically the same surface.
 
Masters weren't mandatory for much on the 90's. Players tended to keep to the surfaces they excelled on, not to mention a bunch of other tournaments which carried similar ranking points to the 'Super 9'.

This masters hype is very recent, even Federer regularly skipped several a year in his peak.

Right. The fact that Djokovic already matches Federer for Masters titles but is less than 50% of the way there for Slams and not much more than 50% of the way there for overall titles tells us how they felt about the titles.

Maybe Federer's lack of titles at Monte Carlo and Rome is indicative of struggling with the surface against Nadal, and Djokovic did indeed manage to figure out a way to win there. But the fact that Federer has three combined titles in the final two MS events of the season shows how seriously he took them over the years. As does the fact that he has skipped Miami twice in the last three years.

For Federer, the Masters events that really matter seem to have been Indian Wells, Rome, Hamburg/Madrid, and Cincinnati.

The same story is true to an even greater extent for Sampras.
 

Wynter

Legend
Something tells me that Federer would trade 2014 results with Cilic, no?

I would say no, Federer proved that he still dominates the field last year. A Cilic-esque year gives him a slam but a ton of inconsistency which would have furthered the 'past it/should retire' diatribe which was spouted in 2013 and severely impacted his confidence.
 

dParis

Hall of Fame
I would say no, Federer proved that he still dominates the field last year. A Cilic-esque year gives him a slam but a ton of inconsistency which would have furthered the 'past it/should retire' diatribe which was spouted in 2013 and severely impacted his confidence.

Maybe you're right, but I think he'd take those inconsistencies, put them in a big silver cup and take a picture of him holding it atop the ESB.

EDIT: Nothing wrong with Federer's fine 2014.
 
Last edited:

Earnest One

Semi-Pro
Horseshit. There is more than one title a year.

People forget the history of our great sport.

Because of Sampras and the vast brouhaha about the record for majors, there is now a level playing field--... now. EVERY MAJOR has "about" the same value.

But it was different before. The transition was partly due to Sampras. Hey, how many Australian Opens did Borg play in? What about McEnroe and Connors? There is a huge difference now.

This speaks volumes to the change in status from ranking the four majors by value to now regarding them "more" evenly.

In short, the history of our sport DICTATES that the original bias has to be considered when evaluating records -- comparing majors. This is simply a fact and, with it, the fact that Wimbledon was the most prestigious title--BY FAR.


It is ironic NOW, because the Australian is often one of the best tournaments to watch--due to the change in calendar and surface. So things have changed. One constant, however, is that winning Wimbledon is generally regarded as the peak accomplishment. Generally.

Blah blah blah. At least Wimbledon and Roland Garros kept the same surface although many now say that Wimbledon plays slower than Har-Tru!!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Only Agassi really accomplished something that Laver didn't. Laver, Nadal, and Federer didn't have the opportunity to win on very different surfaces, because the vast majority of tournaments in their eras were played on basically the same surface.

Incorrect.

Federer and Nadal has won all slams on three different surfaces(hard court, grass, clay). It's Laver who didn't have the opportunity.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
There are only 3 traditions in our sport that cover almost the entire Open Era (1968 - now).

The first is the 4 oldest, most prestigious tournaments: Wimbledon (1877), US Open (1881), French Open (1891) and Australian Open (1905).
The second is the current ranking system (1968 ) and the prestige of being #1.
The third is the ATP World Tour Finals, also known as the year-end championship (1970).

Reasonably new additions are Masters (1990) and the modern Olympics (1988 ), both are rising in popularity but not quite relevant in GOAT discussions.
The total number of titles is perhaps the most meaningless metric, given how it equalizes winning a 250 and winning Wimbledon.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Agassi managed to be year end number 1 exactly once, no? Nole is on his way to his fourth YE1. Nole much more dominant relative to his peers than Agassi.

Yeah but what has that got to do with the Career Grand Slam?
If Agassi and Djokovic both had the Career Grand Slam then we could look at ways to separate them (masters titles, ranking etc.) but until Djokovic wins the French Open he has nothing on Agassi.
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
If you think Slam wins are all that matters then Cilic had a better season than Federer in 2014. Or Nadal had the same level season as Djokovik in 2014. In fact using this logic Cilic and Djokovik had equivalent seasons in 2014.

Don't believe that at all.

You aren't supposed to believe it, as nobody even proposed that.
We aren't talking about a singular season comparison.
Comparing the greatness of players is a career comparison.
So the only greatness comparison between Federer and Cilic would be 17-1.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
You aren't supposed to believe it, as nobody even proposed that.
We aren't talking about a singular season comparison.
Comparing the greatness of players is a career comparison.
So the only greatness comparison between Federer and Cilic would be 17-1.

Disagree. I see no historical or analytical support for the idea that the ONLY thing that matters when comparing relative achievements in tennis is Slam wins. We know Slam importance has varied over time, as have the surfaces. They are the most prestigious events, no doubt, but only part of the overall year for a tennis player.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
And another hate thread for Pistol Pete. I just can't believe how little credit & recognition Sampras gets on these boards. It's like he's the board's favorite pinata, whenever people feel like bashing, he's the target or Agassi. No love for the 90's? I can only assume that a lot of the people who post those negatives/bashing comments have only started to watch tennis in the mid to late 2000's. There's no way someone who actually watched Sampras playing in his prime would say that. Sampras might not be the GOAT, I can agree to that, but he's certainly in the top 5.

Sampras played in an era where court conditions were drastically different from today. He's arguably one of the best server of all time. How can you criticize his record, using today as a comparison when all surfaces play the same and heavily favor the "moden" power baseliner/retriever? The transition between surfaces his seamless nowadays, so just how great is the CYGS Nadal/Federer achieved and Djokovic is so desperate for? The only person to have really accomplished this in my mind is Agassi. Let's face it, if hard courts and grass weren't slowed down so much, would "clay specialist" be what we call Nadal? Would he even have a shot at Wimbledon? Would Djokovic play as well on clay as he does on hard? I'm not trying to take away anything from today's player, they are playing with the courts conditions they are given, but don't fool yourself when comparing the 90's to current tennis.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
And another hate thread for Pistol Pete. I just can't believe how little credit & recognition Sampras gets on these boards. It's like he's the board's favorite pinata, whenever people feel like bashing, he's the target or Agassi. No love for the 90's? I can only assume that a lot of the people who post those negatives/bashing comments have only started to watch tennis in the mid to late 2000's. There's no way someone who actually watched Sampras playing in his prime would say that. Sampras might not be the GOAT, I can agree to that, but he's certainly in the top 5.

Sampras played in an era where court conditions were drastically different from today. He's arguably one of the best server of all time. How can you criticize his record, using today as a comparison when all surfaces play the same and heavily favor the "moden" power baseliner/retriever? The transition between surfaces his seamless nowadays, so just how great is the CYGS Nadal/Federer achieved and Djokovic is so desperate for? The only person to have really accomplished this in my mind is Agassi. Let's face it, if hard courts and grass weren't slowed down so much, would "clay specialist" be what we call Nadal? Would he even have a shot at Wimbledon? Would Djokovic play as well on clay as he does on hard? I'm not trying to take away anything from today's player, they are playing with the courts conditions they are given, but don't fool yourself when comparing the 90's to current tennis.


I think that most of this is explained by the "importance of the new" approach. For better or worse we give more relevance to what is happening now. This works in Fedalovik's favor today but will work against them in 10 years time.
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
I didn't know Masters titles meant so much. If thats the case than Nadal is hands down GOAT already

It's an interesting argument considering Sampras has nearly twice the majors.

But, the really interesting thing is, considering his argument, the fact that nobody cared about Masters titles until this current era.:)
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Disagree. I see no historical or analytical support for the idea that the ONLY thing that matters when comparing relative achievements in tennis is Slam wins. We know Slam importance has varied over time, as have the surfaces. They are the most prestigious events, no doubt, but only part of the overall year for a tennis player.

I agree slam importance has varied, but the masters shields have varied far more (in fact they were best-of-5-set finals in the past).
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
And another hate thread for Pistol Pete. I just can't believe how little credit & recognition Sampras gets on these boards. It's like he's the board's favorite pinata, whenever people feel like bashing, he's the target or Agassi. No love for the 90's? I can only assume that a lot of the people who post those negatives/bashing comments have only started to watch tennis in the mid to late 2000's. There's no way someone who actually watched Sampras playing in his prime would say that. Sampras might not be the GOAT, I can agree to that, but he's certainly in the top 5.

Sampras played in an era where court conditions were drastically different from today. He's arguably one of the best server of all time. How can you criticize his record, using today as a comparison when all surfaces play the same and heavily favor the "moden" power baseliner/retriever? The transition between surfaces his seamless nowadays, so just how great is the CYGS Nadal/Federer achieved and Djokovic is so desperate for? The only person to have really accomplished this in my mind is Agassi. Let's face it, if hard courts and grass weren't slowed down so much, would "clay specialist" be what we call Nadal? Would he even have a shot at Wimbledon? Would Djokovic play as well on clay as he does on hard? I'm not trying to take away anything from today's player, they are playing with the courts conditions they are given, but don't fool yourself when comparing the 90's to current tennis.

I agree, Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever.
I don't even consider Federer close.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
When he retired in many argue that it was the largest .
Now it's hard to add it in the top 5 of the open era ( for me it is the 6th / 7th )
The record of 14 Grand Slam stunk because nobody cares before then , the titles won are very few for a number 1 , won the match are few, the 1000 Master laughable , the percentage of victories laughable .
The myth was crumbling from Fedal .

Conclusion : Although he had worthy opponents won little respect to the myths that preceded and Fedal .

Djokovic won twice Masters 1000 !!!! Twice!!!!!!

I'm sure this makes even less sense in English...stupid, either way
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Not just America. I think in 99% of countries around the world, Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament.


Not in Southern Europe or Latin America. Anglosphere is a completly different world even from non Anglo Western European countries like France, Germany or the Netherlands. Everytime I visited the US, Australia or even the UK I felt like I took a spaceship and I was transported to mars.. very culturally alien to the rest of the world..
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
It's an interesting argument considering Sampras has nearly twice the majors.

But, the really interesting thing is, considering his argument, the fact that nobody cared about Masters titles until this current era.:)

Nearly twice the majors than who?

If Im not wrong Both Sampras and Nadal have 14 grand slam titles.. and nadal have more grand slam finals..
 
Top