Wait..I don't understand!

[Anaconda]

Sampras fans cling on to the fact that Federer has 16 majors because his era was weak (obviously it isn't a weak era though). They make predictions like this because only two guys have really been dominating the slams since 2005 +, with a few people grabbing some majors. Because of this dominace, they say no one else were good enough to win slams and the era was filled by clowns :roll:

But i read on the 99-03 thread, that Sampras fans were saying that those 4 years were weak because no one dominated and broke through ripping the tour to shreds. Confused!

When is an era strong to Sampras fans? When someone dominates the competition or when the field is wide open and quite a few people are winning slams?

 

[Cantankersore]

When Sampras is playing.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Yeah, actually I do think that a lot of Federer's play is weak era, but then again so was Sampras's. Right now, I would say the Top 8 is rather strong though (although the top 50 is awful), and Fed still won the AO.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

[Falloutjr]

Yeah, actually I do think that a lot of Federer's play is weak era, but then again so was Sampras's. Right now, I would say the Top 8 is rather strong though (although the top 50 is awful), and Fed still won the AO.

____________________________________________________________________________

Yeah from looking at that list, I don't think you can argue that Federer's era is weaker, and it's not as weak as it appears today. There are plenty of people who on a good day can beat Roger in a slam final and there are a few slam winners in today's game. IMO, the field only looks weak because Federer and Nadal have been in a league of their own in the past and been quite a bit ahead of the competition.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

That's the weakest I could find for both. Robredo at 5th??? On the other hand, Korda at #2???

 

[rwn]

Sampras fans cling on to the fact that Federer has 16 majors because his era was weak (obviously it isn't a weak era though). They make predictions like this because only two guys have really been dominating the slams since 2005 +, with a few people grabbing some majors. Because of this dominace, they say no one else were good enough to win slams and the era was filled by clowns :roll:

But i read on the 99-03 thread, that Sampras fans were saying that those 4 years were weak because no one dominated and broke through ripping the tour to shreds. Confused!

When is an era strong to Sampras fans? When someone dominates the competition or when the field is wide open and quite a few people are winning slams?

Federer is just lucky he didn´t have to play Schaller, Delgado, Yzaga and Kucera in slams. If he had played them he surely wouldn´t have won 16 :twisted:

 

[BigServer1]

Federer is just lucky he didn´t have to play Schaller, Delgado, Yzaga and Kucera in slams. If he had played them he surely wouldn´t have won 16 :twisted:

Don't forget Piolene in two finals.

 

[TheMusicLover]

IMO, the field only looks weak because Federer and Nadal have been in a league of their own in the past and been quite a bit ahead of the competition.

This. 10 charz.

 

[Rippy]

They sort of use the logic to suit themselves.

eg:

Slams during Pete's era shared out = good competition
Pete has winning H2H against main rivals = shows how good Pete is

Whereas I suppose one could equally say:

Slams during Pete's era shared out = shows Pete couldn't dominate the slams
Pete has winning H2H against rivals = weak era

(Note: I don't believe the above, just giving an example.)

 

[kraggy]

No offense OP, but this topic has been beaten to death over and OVER and OVER again!

I do not understand why people want to make it their life's mission to convince the 3 Samprastards on board that they are wrong! People are acting as if the majority of Sampras fans or even the majority of TW members aren't convinced that Fed has done more than Sampras - that is not at all the case! Do you not see that if 3 TW members can get under the skin of a 100 others, THEY HAVE WON!

 

[Anaconda]

^^^I'm neither a Fed person or a Sampras fan. I wasn't interested on people opinions about this era.

I was interested on how Sampras fans think, i wasn't making comparisons.

 

[Jasmin_Warren]

Interesting!

This thread is dead interesting! I can't wait to see Sampra and Fed's fans comment on this thing.
i am pretty new here by the way.. I suppose this forum is really a great place to speak out your mind and opinion regarding tennis, and everything about it. I hope to make friends with the people here.

 

[raiden031]

I don't think anyone questions whether Fed is better than Sampras these days...

 

[TMF]

99-mid 03 is definitely weak. Hewitt hold 80+ weeks at number one at a young age and before his prime speak volume. He was never back on top again by the time Roger won his first GS, despite claiming that he improved but Roger was too "bloody" good in 2005. The reason Hewitt was #1 was b/c he destroyed s/v players. Sampras, Ivanisevic, and Rafter was his daddy!!!