The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
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.
PETE has always been the goat honestly. 90’s clay just ruffled too many feathers.
Fed blew by him and set an unprecedented mark. Surely looks to be passed, just like 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.
Agassi was 6 years younger than Sampras?Remember that time when grass GOAT Pete lost 3 Wimby finals to Agassi?
Nice. Get what u did thereRemember that time when grass GOAT Pete lost 3 Wimby finals to Agassi?
Can't lose to Agassi in the final if you lose to Goran in the SFRemember that time when grass GOAT Pete lost 3 Wimby finals to Agassi?
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.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.
Rafa fans won't want to hear that.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.
basically a bad version of kyrgios.Not only the GOAT, but the GOAT gamestyle. Touch volleys, flying overheads, huge second serves, running forehands, jumping put away forehands
Neither. His generation were Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, who all had promising careers until the Fed express drove them off a cliff.Fed is not the same generation as Nadal and Djokovic.. At least not Djokovic.
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.
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).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.
In which case we can all agree that Federer was without doubt the greatest of his era -the era of Hewitt, Roddick and Baghdatis.Fed is not the same generation as Nadal and Djokovic.. At least not Djokovic.
Don't Forget Haas, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Blake (although he is older he was a late bloomer)Neither. His generation were Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin, who all had promising careers until the Fed express drove them off a cliff.
In which case we can all agree that Federer was without doubt the greatest of his era -the era of Hewitt, Roddick and Baghdatis.
Not only the GOAT, but the GOAT gamestyle. Touch volleys, flying overheads, huge second serves, running forehands, jumping put away forehands
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.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).
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...Hewitt and Roddick are better players than old Fed, Thiem, Zverev, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Tsitsipas , etc
And almost Nalbandian.In which case we can all agree that Federer was without doubt the greatest of his era -the era of Hewitt, Roddick and Baghdatis.
Hahaha... Fed fans...Fed is not the same generation as Nadal and Djokovic.. At least not Djokovic.
basically a bad version of kyrgios.
Thus speaks someone who clearly didn't see Sampras play. And doesn't have any knowledge of what constitutes tennis greatness.Pete would be Isner today, he is a rubbish mug
Thus speaks someone who clearly didn't see Sampras play. And doesn't have any knowledge of what constitutes tennis greatness.
You mad bro?
insert troll iwasonlypretendingtoberetarded.jpg
Yup, confirmed mad
seething
let it all out bro
if they all retired at 31 like Pete: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.
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.
Hewitt and Roddick are better players than old Fed, Thiem, Zverev, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori. Tsitsipas , etc
No one will think like that. No one is considering Sampras to be even close to the Big3.
there are so few players winning GS titles the field was much more even in past tennis eras.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.
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.
In which case we can all agree that Federer was without doubt the greatest of his era -the era of Hewitt, Roddick and Baghdatis.
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.