Today has been only one winner.. Pistol Pete Sampras





He dominated an era, 14 Gs and far ahead everybody on his generation,

While Fed 20 gs look no longer impressive with 2 dudes hanging around with 19 and 17.
Fed blew by him and set an unprecedented mark. Surely looks to be passed, just like Sampras.

Don't forget, Fed beat Sampras which shows Fed was in a different era then Djoker and Rafa.

Fed is the TIGER until someone sets another unprecedented mark.
 

RelentlessAttack

Professional
Not only the GOAT, but the GOAT gamestyle. Touch volleys, flying overheads, huge second serves, running forehands, jumping put away forehands
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Fed blew by him and set an unprecedented mark. Surely looks to be passed, just like Sampras.

Don't forget, Fed beat Sampras which shows Fed was in a different era then Djoker and Rafa.

Fed is the TIGER until someone sets another unprecedented mark.
NAdal played and beat Agassi twice, which proves Rafa is in a different era from DJokovic, Rafa success if shared beween the 00's and the 10's... Djokovic 95% of success and accolades are from the 10's ..he is the ultimate 2010's player.
 

Winner

New User
He dominated an era, 14 Gs and far ahead everybody on his generation,

While Fed 20 gs look no longer impressive with 2 dudes hanging around with 19 and 17.
Logic? So Sampras winning "only" 14 GS while dominating is more impressive than 20 GS while being challenged by ATGs with 19 and 17?

You could also argue that 14 GS don't look that impressive when, a few years later, three players hammer this record and put up way more GS titles.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Logic? So Sampras winning "only" 14 GS while dominating is more impressive than 20 GS while being challenged by ATGs with 19 and 17?

You could also argue that 14 GS don't look that impressive when, a few years later, three players hammer this record and put up way more GS titles.
What if winning and keeping regularity today is easier to achieve than it used back then? ball homogenization, raquet technology, better knowledge in diet, training, medicine, and making courts more similar to each other (less contrast).
 

Winner

New User
What if winning and keeping regularity today is easier to achieve than it used back then? ball homogenization, raquet technology, better knowledge in diet, training, medicine, and making courts more similar to each other (less contrast).
Now I see your point. From your starting post it just looked like you rate 14 GS higher than 20, 19 and 17 achieved at basically the same era. I think what the Big 3 have achieved is the ultimate feat in tennis. Winning 56 GS at the same era is ridiculous.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Hewitt and Roddick are better players than old Fed, Thiem, Zverev, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Tsitsipas , etc
only in 2002-2004 ... when they were at their peaks.. players nowadays are much more consisntent... SO while Federer claims his era 2003-2009... he had to deal with those guys only in 2003-2004 being closer to their peak.. acually Hewitt hit his peak in 2001-2003 and when Federer already became dominant Hewitt was past his peak...
 

pj80

Semi-Pro
Logic? So Sampras winning "only" 14 GS while dominating is more impressive than 20 GS while being challenged by ATGs with 19 and 17?

You could also argue that 14 GS don't look that impressive when, a few years later, three players hammer this record and put up way more GS titles.
if they all retired at 31 like Pete:

Federer 17 slams 5 YE #1
Rafa 15 slams 3 YE #1
Novak 12 slams 3 YE #1

So their numbers are not that much higher then Pete...who had no motivation to keep playing and keeping his body fit after he got to 14.
 

Eren

Professional
if they all retired at 31 like Pete:

Federer 17 slams 5 YE #1
Rafa 15 slams 3 YE #1
Novak 12 slams 3 YE #1

So their numbers are not that much higher then Pete...who had no motivation to keep playing and keeping his body fit after he got to 14.
17 is much higher than 14 lol, wtf you talking about?
 
One thing that makes Sampras look better is 3 guys will probably wind up with 20+ slams this era. That will almost show it isn't that hard to do in this era with no depth and homogenized conditions, and make his 14 look better than it was starting to look.
 

Eren

Professional
One thing that makes Sampras look better is 3 guys will probably wind up with 20+ slams this era. That will almost show it isn't that hard to do in this era with no depth and homogenized conditions, and make his 14 look better than it was starting to look.
No one will think like that. No one is considering Sampras to be even close to the Big3.
 

TennisFan3

Legend
King of swing, the humble champion, Pistol Pete forever. He will always be the greatest in the minds of his fans. There was no one like him and no one will ever be.
 
No one will think like that. No one is considering Sampras to be even close to the Big3.
Absolutely nobody thinks like that now, but thinking can age and ideas change. In retrospect looking back at this era 3 guys managing 20+ slams might make it looks a lot less impressive, particularly if many guys in the future reach 20+ slams.
 

BH40love

Rookie
Logic? So Sampras winning "only" 14 GS while dominating is more impressive than 20 GS while being challenged by ATGs with 19 and 17?

You could also argue that 14 GS don't look that impressive when, a few years later, three players hammer this record and put up way more GS titles.
there are so few players winning GS titles the field was much more even in past tennis eras.
 

Eren

Professional
Absolutely nobody thinks like that now, but thinking can age and ideas change. In retrospect looking back at this era 3 guys managing 20+ slams might make it looks a lot less impressive, particularly if many guys in the future reach 20+ slams.
A big if. On the other hand, it is a double edged sword right? How pathetic of the American, since he had no ATG close to the level Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and still couldn't get to 20? 19 Year old Freddy showed him the door in his own backyard. That one will count I can tell you.

It's not only positive for Sampras that three guys are owning ALL his records.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
In which case we can all agree that Federer was without doubt the greatest of his era -the era of Hewitt, Roddick and Baghdatis.
Yawn, here we go again. Why do you haters always include 20-year-old 2006 AO finalist Baghdatis as being in Federer's era, but not 20 year old 2006 RG and Wimbledon finalist Nadal?
 
A big if. On the other hand, it is a double edged sword right? How pathetic of the American, since he had no ATG close to the level Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and still couldn't get to 20? 19 Year old Freddy showed him the door in his own backyard. That one will count I can tell you.

It's not only positive for Sampras that three guys are owning ALL his records.
I guess that is true as well, but Federer and Djokovic did not have even one moment of their primes together probably, and Nadal had only a limited amount of time in his prime at the same time as each of Federer and later Djokovic.

Agassi is an all time great, so are Becker and Edberg, just not at the level of these 3 but it is not like Sampras didn't face greats and he faced a ton more depth. The main thing though are the homogenized conditions make it much easier to dominate all surfaces, and modern training and health and techniques make a longer career much easier as we see today.

I am not saying Sampras is better than any of Nadal, Djokovic, or Federer but winning 20 slams today isn't all its cracked up to be IMO when 3 guys are almost sure to do it.
 
Top