What is better federer 8-11 in wimbledon finals or sampras 7-0?

[BlueClayGOAT]

That's you being presumptuous. I'll take the question as it was asked.

That's you being deliberately obtuse.

 

[ADuck]

That's you being deliberately obtuse.

Take it as you wish, but that's my stance.

Essentially you would then agree that Pat Cash has a better Wimbledon finals record than Federer.

Pat Cash's wimbledon finals record is not even comparable to Federer's so no. Federer was once 1-0, then he went to 5-0, so that already makes comparing the two stupid. On top of that, 1 final isn't even close to 11 finals.

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

Take it as you wish, but that's my stance.

Pat Cash's wimbledon finals record is not even comparable to Federer's so no. Federer was once 1-0, then he went to 5-0, so that already makes comparing the two stupid. On top of that, 1 final isn't even close to 11 finals.

But then you are contradicting the standard you set yourself. 1/1 is mathematically a higher ratio than 8/11. It is just the same as 7/7, in fact. How is it not better than 8/11?

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

Take it as you wish, but that's my stance.

Pat Cash's wimbledon finals record is not even comparable to Federer's so no. Federer was once 1-0, then he went to 5-0, so that already makes comparing the two stupid. On top of that, 1 final isn't even close to 11 finals.

Here's the exact same question as applied to Federer and Cash:
What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals- 1/1 or 8/11?

What's your answer?

 

[ADuck]

But then you are contradicting the standard you set yourself. 1/1 is mathematically a higher ratio than 8/11. It is just the same as 7/7, in fact. How is it not better than 8/11?

Well if i'm being consistent, 1/1 is "technically" a higher win-rate, however I would never compare them in the first place because 1 and 11 aren't at all comparable, coupled with the fact the Federer was once 5-0 before he even had a loss, so the fact that it's a higher win-rate means absolutely sh*t all, but you asked the question.

 

[ADuck]

Here's the exact same question as applied to Federer and Cash:
What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals- 1/1 or 8/11?

What's your answer?

Also if there is only 1 data point, we should only be able to compare it to other people who have had only 1 final. So my answer to the question means absolutely nothing. At least 7 is close to 11.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Wtf is this? And also you failed to explain wth you meant by "And since we always take about the numbers conditional on the event of reaching the extra finals, by empirical probabilities Fed still finishes ahead." You just answered "Yeah" real mature man. Instead of just pulling random terms out from your behind, why not try explaining them? Otherwise your words are lost, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, pathetic.

If by empirical probability, Sampras does not reach the 8th final, how is his record of 7/7 comparable with 8/11? Because, now pay attention, P(8th Final for Sampras) = 0, empirically speaking.

Problem is you are talking probabilty and statistics all the time without using it in the right way.

The win rate can of course be compared, however if you think 7 is too different from 11, then don't compare them to begin with.

Now, please tell us whether you are picking Sampras 7 best performance or not? Now, go ahead and pick his 11 best performance at Wimbledon! Now, using the numbers based on his best 11 performance at Wimbledon, what is your conclusion?

Do you know that once a player hits 30, it is a humongous task for him to even make semis or finals, leave alone winning the whole thing. Just where, how and when Pete gets the 8th final is the basic question you are conveniently avoiding, and this is what I mean by numbers of convenience. You know damn too well that there is no room of that 8th final for Pete, and yet you have no shakes in generalizing that 7/7 is better than 8/11. If you want to conclude that, you need to prove that Pete reaches.

Well no ****, because he played MORE finals! Doesn't mean ****. 7/7 > 8/11. You do know those are fractions right? and 7/7 = 1 as in 100% and 8/11 = 0.727272 roughly 73%? Meaning 7/7 is mathetically MORE than 8/11 ? No? Flew right over your head again right? Doesn't matter how you try and spin it, facts are facts mate.

Why does this damn 7/7 skip the defeat to Richard in 1996? There is no basis for having skin in some and leave that for others. You picked Petes 7 best performance, and now do the same for Fed. It is not 7/7 > 8/11, it is ALWAYS (7/7 < 7/7 + 1/4). There is no 8th for Pete, and this is something that never gets in your brain, right

If you don't want to compare them, don't compare them lmao. But here we are, comparing them. These are the numbers. Also this is exactly why I offered to use Fed's first 7 matches when he WAS in his prime to be more fair.

Convenience, and nothing logical in your offering. You can't conclude that Pete's loss to Richard in 96 is better than Fed's loss to Nadal in 2008. You are having flawed thinking, rectify it. Its never late
Now that you are talking about prime, why does Pete lose in 1996 then? Pete did not put up 7/7 in a consecutive fashion at all. So, you want skip 1996 for him, then you can't object to skipping 2008, 10, and 11 for Fed, just because it suits you. You are no one to pick first 7 matches. If some other player goes down 0-3 and then goes 9-3, he IS better than Fed at Wimbledon finals because Fed has no business to not reach that 12th final and claim to be better than somebody who has 12 finals.

Lmao, what's the point talking to you? Everything goes right over your head. I'm using what EXACTLY what was given in the question. 7/7 or 8/11. This is hilarious. Being a good finals player HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REACHING MORE FINALS. When will you understand that? Being a good finals player means exactly how well you perform in finals, and not how many finals you reach.

LOL, is the question poser/thread creator a supreme authority Nothing is sacrosanct about the question. He is asking the question and not dictating it as God's rule. You are certainly flawed in your thinking that a good finals player can become one by reaching less finals. When you take the bigger context that Pete was never reaching that damned 8th final, any conclusion of 7/7 being better than 8/11 is erroneous. To win more finals you need to reach more finals. Get back to me when you find a player who has ever won more finals but reached lesser of them. In a physical game, like tennis, it takes entirely different mettle to reach the 8th slam final at any given venue and only Sampras, Lendl, Fed, and Nadal have done that in open era. Pete at Wimbledon, Borg at FO and Wimbledon, even Connors at USO, Agassi, Becker at Wimbledon, and heck even Nole at AO have not accomplished that.

Why am I so adamantly ruling out what? Wth does this paragraph even mean? It's like you're responding to something else entirely. If I can't compare Fed's extra finals performance, then I'll use Fed's first 7 data points, or use any string of 7 points in the correct order they were played. W W W W W L W W L L W. There's nothing there which beats 7-0. Closest 7 points are 6-1. Worst is 4-3. You can't just pick and choose whatever points you want as that just ruins whatever statistics even means. Right now Rafa has a GS SF record of 23/26, whereas Fed has a record of 29/42. Rafa's record is obviously superior to that of Roger's as he has a much higher win percentage. Just because Roger has more wins out of more SF's doesn't mean he has a better record. What matters is the average, and Rafa has a better average, and therefore a better record.

It was never consecutive that you can be selective as you fancy it. Now, look at the string carefully.
For Pete: 1R,1R,2R,SF,W,W,W,QF,W,W,W,W,4R,2R
which when sorted gives that
W W W W W W W,SF,QF,4R,2R,2R,1R,1R
For Fed: 1R,1R,QF,1R,W,W,W,W,W,F,W,QF,QF,W,2R,F,F,SF,W
which when sorted gives
W W W W W W W W F F F SF QF QF QF 2R 1R 1R 1R.

So, W W W W W L W W L L W is truly sorted as WWWWWWWWLLL. So, the best 7 in Feds case is still 7-0. You can't skip over the other loses as it fancies you. You can't string together the 7W's, or WWWWWWW, because it suits your argument.

Not really, not at all. It's not "convenient" lmao, stop being salty, it's just what we have. I'm not using Sampras' best i'm using them in the order they were played in. Same with Federer. Sorry this is a really poor argument.

You are choosing the order because it suits your case. Fed has 5/7 at USO, but is still inferior than 5/8 of Pete because it is a humungous order for Fed to get another USO final. If we go by your thinking of picking first best finals, Fed will turn out better which is pointless.

Lmao, take things out of context why don't you. We're not guessing how Sampras would have performed in an 8th final. BTW, if we do guess basing it off his current record of 100%, he wins again.

Come out of your comfort zone. You are afterall comparing his 7 against somebody's 11. Either stick with his 7 finals (best) against other's 7 finals (best), or don't bother. Basing of the current record of 100% finals wins is fine, but basing out that 8th final was never reached, and hence no 8th title is wrong? Gimme break

It doesn't. Saying it does shows 0 understanding of what we're talking about. I'm talking numbers here, you're trying to make up false hypotheticals.

LOL! False comparison is what you are doing

This shows you do not know what you're talking about.

Wrong, i'm using Sampras' first 7 performances. Not his best performances.

Fine, show me his that best performance that was better than first 7 performance.

So, overall Fed's 8-11 is better than Sampras 7-0 because there is no 8th final for Pete in any and all cases!

 

[ADuck]

If by empirical probability, Sampras does not reach the 8th final, how is his record of 7/7 comparable with 8/11? Because, now pay attention, P(8th Final for Sampras) = 0, empirically speaking.

Problem is you are talking probabilty and statistics all the time without using it in the right way.

Now, please tell us whether you are picking Sampras 7 best performance or not? Now, go ahead and pick his 11 best performance at Wimbledon! Now, using the numbers based on his best 11 performance at Wimbledon, what is your conclusion?

Do you know that once a player hits 30, it is a humongous task for him to even make semis or finals, leave alone winning the whole thing. Just where, how and when Pete gets the 8th final is the basic question you are conveniently avoiding, and this is what I mean by numbers of convenience. You know damn too well that there is no room of that 8th final for Pete, and yet you have no shakes in generalizing that 7/7 is better than 8/11. If you want to conclude that, you need to prove that Pete reaches.

Why does this damn 7/7 skip the defeat to Richard in 1996? There is no basis for having skin in some and leave that for others. You picked Petes 7 best performance, and now do the same for Fed. It is not 7/7 > 8/11, it is ALWAYS (7/7 < 7/7 + 1/4). There is no 8th for Pete, and this is something that never gets in your brain, right


Convenience, and nothing logical in your offering. You can't conclude that Pete's loss to Richard in 96 is better than Fed's loss to Nadal in 2008. You are having flawed thinking, rectify it. Its never late
Now that you are talking about prime, why does Pete lose in 1996 then? Pete did not put up 7/7 in a consecutive fashion at all. So, you want skip 1996 for him, then you can't object to skipping 2008, 10, and 11 for Fed, just because it suits you. You are no one to pick first 7 matches. If some other player goes down 0-3 and then goes 9-3, he IS better than Fed at Wimbledon finals because Fed has no business to not reach that 12th final and claim to be better than somebody who has 12 finals.



LOL, is the question poser/thread creator a supreme authority Nothing is sacrosanct about the question. He is asking the question and not dictating it as God's rule. You are certainly flawed in your thinking that a good finals player can become one by reaching less finals. When you take the bigger context that Pete was never reaching that damned 8th final, any conclusion of 7/7 being better than 8/11 is erroneous. To win more finals you need to reach more finals. Get back to me when you find a player who has ever won more finals but reached lesser of them. In a physical game, like tennis, it takes entirely different mettle to reach the 8th slam final at any given venue and only Sampras, Lendl, Fed, and Nadal have done that in open era. Pete at Wimbledon, Borg at FO and Wimbledon, even Connors at USO, Agassi, Becker at Wimbledon, and heck even Nole at AO have not accomplished that.


It was never consecutive that you can be selective as you fancy it. Now, look at the string carefully.
For Pete: 1R,1R,2R,SF,W,W,W,QF,W,W,W,W,4R,2R
which when sorted gives that
W W W W W W W,SF,QF,4R,2R,2R,1R,1R
For Fed: 1R,1R,QF,1R,W,W,W,W,W,F,W,QF,QF,W,2R,F,F,SF,W
which when sorted gives
W W W W W W W W F F F SF QF QF QF 2R 1R 1R 1R.

So, W W W W W L W W L L W is truly sorted as WWWWWWWWLLL. So, the best 7 in Feds case is still 7-0. You can't skip over the other loses as it fancies you. You can't string together the 7W's, or WWWWWWW, because it suits your argument.


You are choosing the order because it suits your case. Fed has 5/7 at USO, but is still inferior than 5/8 of Pete because it is a humungous order for Fed to get another USO final. If we go by your thinking of picking first best finals, Fed will turn out better which is pointless.

Mate if you think i'm reading all of that.. you got another thing coming. lmao that must be near 1000 words on why you think 8-3 is a better win rate than 7-0.. This has gone too far. You're overthinking everything and i'm not even sure if you're talking to me because can't seem to acknowledge anything i'm saying, you're off on some tangent I can't follow. Goodbye

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Mate if you think i'm reading all of that.. you got another thing coming. lmao that must be near 1000 words on why you think 8-3 is a better win rate than 7-0.. This has gone too far. You're overthinking everything and i'm not even sure if you're talking to me because can't seem to acknowledge anything i'm saying, you're off on some tangent I can't follow. Goodbye

The question in the OP is "which is a better record".

How do you jump from that to "better winning percentage in finals is a mystery"

You need to evaluate the same sample size and if possible to compare circumstances (a lot more difficult).

You don’t clear even the first obstacle.

 

[ADuck]

The question in the OP is "which is a better record".

How do you jump from that to "better winning percentage in finals is a mystery"

The OP's question is who has a better record IN WIMBLEDON FINALS. The jump is so unimaginably small I don't even know why this is a criticism.

You need to evaluate the same sample size and if possible to compare circumstances (a lot more difficult).

You don’t clear even the first obstacle.

The question asks what is a better record 7-0 or 8-3. It doesn't ask to guess what would have happened if Sampras entered 4 more finals, which is what you desperately want to do but you can't. If you want the same sample size, either limit Fed's 11 finals to 7 and use any string of 7 data points, OR, just don't compare them in the first place because the 7 and 11 are too different.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The OP's question is who has a better record IN WIMBLEDON FINALS. The jump is so unimaginably small I don't even know why this is a criticism.

The question asks what is a better record 7-0 or 8-3. It doesn't ask to guess what would have happened if Sampras entered 4 more finals, which is what you desperately want to do but you can't. If you want the same sample size, either limit Fed's 11 finals to 7 and use any string of 7 data points, OR, just don't compare them in the first place because the 7 and 11 are too different.

So, what are you doing in this thread?

Because it really cannot be that you are saying that 7/7 is 100% and 8/11 is not as that clearly is not what the OP is asking (presuming that he is not a five year old, who cannot do this calculation all by himself).

 

[Xemi666]

8>>7, how is this even a question?

 

[The Harkleroad]

I'll take 8/11 over 7/7 please.

IMHO This could have been a harder choice for me if Roger had a lesser number of wins but with significant number of runner-ups.

Let's say Roger won 5 Wimbledons out of 15 Finals. Pete won 7 Wimbledons out of 7 Finals. What would you rather have?

6 Wimbledons out of 12 Finals vs. 7 Wimbledons out of 7 Finals, what would you rather have?

Now for me those are difficult choices.

8/11 vs 7/7 is a ridiculously easy choice. 1 more Win and an additional 3 runner-ups. Are you kidding me?

 

[ADuck]

So, what are you doing in this thread?

Because it really cannot be that you are saying that 7/7 is 100% and 8/11 is not as that clearly is not what the OP is asking (presuming that he is not a five year old, who cannot do this calculation all by himself).

Well, it's the question he asked. Who am I to presume?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Well, it's the question he asked. Who am I to presume?

In that case 8>7.

Who are you to presume?

 

[ADuck]

In that case 8>7.

Who are you to presume?

xD

 

[rografnovand]

Federer easily.
More finals.
More wins.
4 finals after 30. That's the most impressive stat for me

 

[BGod]

It's Sampras but I'm not saying he's got the greater grass career.

Pete played on faster grass and defeated the following:

Goran twice
Becker
Agassi
Rafter
Courier
Pioline

Becker was older on the tail end but still electric on grass and a 3 time champion. The weak links here would be Courier and Pioline. For Fed the comparison would obviously be Cilic and Philipousis.

Nadal compares most with Agassi and Roddick with Goran. Murray is left to compare with Becker? Rafter? Closer to Rafter in terms of achievements but peak-wise I'd take Rafter.

Roger's record also boasts two 5 set victories, three in 4 and three straight. Sampras had one 5 setter, three 4 and three straight. But Roger had two 5 set losses.

To me though it comes down to concentration. Roger essentially made 7 Finals winning 6. Then had back to back quarter exits. So 7 titles in 10 years. On slower grass. The 2014-2017 campaigns are about longevity and value of opponents. He only had Djokovic to worry about since he destroyed Murray while Murray as noted above isn't a Boris Becker and only maybe even to Rafter.

Slow Grass people. Less competition people.

 

[a10best]

Well he beat Djokovic in the SF in 2012. I assumed you were talking about the draw seeing as you said 'field' and not just finals

Courier, Rafter, Agassi, Pioline, Ivanisevic, Becker aren't a more threatening group than Philippoussis, Roddick, Nadal and Murray on grass- not considering the stage Becker was in his career. Ivanisevic stands out the most from Pete's competition and was his main rival on grass, but he wasn't the best big match player.



Irrelevant when Federer has played on many years past when Sampras retired. I doubt even if Sampras had competed in another 10 Wimbledons whether he could have bagged another.

You're really telling me Agassi, Rafter, and Ivanisievic are not great on grass? c'mon man. Andre, Courier, and Pat and multi-slam winners. Phillipousis, Roddick have 1 slam between them. Becker was old when he played Pete? Well, Nadal was very young when he played Fed.
Goran did lose lots of close matches.. kind of the same thing with the scud Philipousis. We all know Roddick lost big matches.
Different times for playing longer. In almost every sport, pros are playing longer with better physios, ice baths, medical technology, etc.
I will change my vote now because someone brought up Fed in 4 Wimbledon finals after age 30.

 

[NatF]

You're really telling me Agassi, Rafter, and Ivanisievic are not great on grass? c'mon man. Andre, Courier, and Pat and multi-slam winners. Phillipousis, Roddick have 1 slam between them. Becker was old when he played Pete? Well, Nadal was very young when he played Fed.
Goran did lose lots of close matches.. kind of the same thing with the scud Philipousis. We all know Roddick lost big matches.
Different times for playign longer. In almost every sport, pros are playing longer with better physios, ice baths, medical technology, etc.

Reading comprehension fail? I didn't say they weren't good.

Nadal was #2 in the world when he played Federer at Wimbledon, he was in a stretch of making 5 finals every time he turned up at Wimbledon. He was much closer to his best grass tennis than Becker - who hit 15 DF's in that final. I didn't say Becker was old, that's a nice strawman there. I was saying he was past the peak of his performance on grass. I care about how these guys played on the day, Agassi was poor in the 1999 final for example.

Also Roddick is a greater player than Rafter IMO. He's missing the second major but he had Federer blocking his path in all but one slam final. He won 3x as many titles...

Courier was a great player but clearly inferior to all of Federer's finals opponents on grass IMO. He did play much better than Cilic and Roddick in 2005 though.

Roddick was generally firmer in big matches than Ivanisevic - the guy gave up in the third set of the 1994 final. The fact you think Nadal was happy to just turn up with a performance like Wimbledon 2007 says a lot about you as well.

 

[Xavier G]

It's Sampras but I'm not saying he's got the greater grass career.

Pete played on faster grass and defeated the following:

Goran twice
Becker
Agassi
Rafter
Courier
Pioline

Becker was older on the tail end but still electric on grass and a 3 time champion. The weak links here would be Courier and Pioline. For Fed the comparison would obviously be Cilic and Philipousis.

Nadal compares most with Agassi and Roddick with Goran. Murray is left to compare with Becker? Rafter? Closer to Rafter in terms of achievements but peak-wise I'd take Rafter.

Roger's record also boasts two 5 set victories, three in 4 and three straight. Sampras had one 5 setter, three 4 and three straight. But Roger had two 5 set losses.

To me though it comes down to concentration. Roger essentially made 7 Finals winning 6. Then had back to back quarter exits. So 7 titles in 10 years. On slower grass. The 2014-2017 campaigns are about longevity and value of opponents. He only had Djokovic to worry about since he destroyed Murray while Murray as noted above isn't a Boris Becker and only maybe even to Rafter.

Slow Grass people. Less competition people.

I agree with a lot of your post. Sampras was great too. There's barely anything between Pete and Roger on grass.

I would say though that Becker even at his peak lost two out of three Wimbledon finals to Edberg and was then knocked off by Stich in a final, beaten by Agassi in 92 and Sampras in 93. He was by no means as consistent a winner as Sampras and Federer even at his best.
He is a great name on Sampras' Wimbledon record however.
Krajicek beat Sampras in 3 straight sets to depose him. Even Nadal only beat Roger in 5 sets and had to go to 9-7 in the fifth to dethrone him.
Neither Rafter or Roddick won Wimbledon because Agassi, Sampras and Goran beat Pat when he got close and Federer kept stopping Roddick in finals.
Where does Djokovic fit in? He's a three-time champion, yes, and at the same time, beating a Roger in his 30's. Sampras didn't last as long as Federer as we know.
Federer's faced younger champs and challengers like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt (another former champion), Roddick, Phillipoussis (same guy Sampras faced), Wawrinka, Cilic, Safin, Berdych etc.

Imo, my friend, the grass these days is playing slow-er, but not slow.

 

[a10best]

Reading comprehension fail? I didn't say they weren't good.

Nadal was #2 in the world when he played Federer at Wimbledon, he was in a stretch of making 5 finals every time he turned up at Wimbledon. He was much closer to his best grass tennis than Becker - who hit 15 DF's in that final. I didn't say Becker was old, that's a nice strawman there. I was saying he was past the peak of his performance on grass. I care about how these guys played on the day, Agassi was poor in the 1999 final for example.

Also Roddick is a greater player than Rafter IMO. He's missing the second major but he had Federer blocking his path in all but one slam final. He won 3x as many titles...

Courier was a great player but clearly inferior to all of Federer's finals opponents on grass IMO. He did play much better than Cilic and Roddick in 2005 though.

Roddick was generally firmer in big matches than Ivanisevic - the guy gave up in the third set of the 1994 final. The fact you think Nadal was happy to just turn up with a performance like Wimbledon 2007 says a lot about you as well.

That is some memory you have about those finals. I missed them as that the boring time to watch Wimbledon serve bots.
Roddick being better than Rafter on grass is a toss-up Both lost 2 close Wimbledon finals. Since Rafter plays S&V, I give it to him.
I never said Nadal specifically.
Berdych, Murray, and Safin (past his prime) were happy to be there.
Blister footed Cilic certainly could not play well that day.

 

[NatF]

That is some memory you have about those finals. I missed them as that the boring time to watch Wimbledon serve bots.
Roddick being better than Rafter on grass is a toss-up Both lost 2 close Wimbledon finals. Since Rafter plays S&V, I give it to him.
I never said Nadal specifically.
Berdych, Murray, and Safin (past his prime) were happy to be there.
Blister footed Cilic certainly could not play well that day.

I've watched them in the past couple of years, I was too little in the 90's to care.

Rafter would get killed serve and volleying against Federer with today's courts and strings man. Roddick won 4 Queens titles and made 3 Wimbledon finals, he went 32.3 on grass in 03-05 (all 3 losses to Federer). Guy was a damn fine grass court player. His 2004 and 2009 finals were tougher matches than any Pete had in his finals bar Goran in 1998.

This years Wimbledon was Federer's weakest, but he was 35/36 so we can cut him a little slack. Berdych in the SF this year played well, no one to write home about but I've never claimed this Wimbledon was a mighty one. Murray in 2012 was certainly not just happy to be there, he probably played as well as he has in any final at Wimbledon since. Federer played Safin in an early round in 2007, the same year he had beasting Nadal in the final. He also met Safin in the F in 2008 but he didn't win that one anyway.

You've been very harsh with Federer's Wimbledon competition. If you think Pete had it a bit tougher that's fine, but to claim a vast difference is crazy.

 

[papertank]

If Fed had 19 wimbledon finals, that would be the most impressive tennis statistic of all time.

 

[a10best]

I've watched them in the past couple of years, I was too little in the 90's to care.

Rafter would get killed serve and volleying against Federer with today's courts and strings man. Roddick won 4 Queens titles and made 3 Wimbledon finals, he went 32.3 on grass in 03-05 (all 3 losses to Federer). Guy was a damn fine grass court player. His 2004 and 2009 finals were tougher matches than any Pete had in his finals bar Goran in 1998.

This years Wimbledon was Federer's weakest, but he was 35/36 so we can cut him a little slack. Berdych in the SF this year played well, no one to write home about but I've never claimed this Wimbledon was a mighty one. Murray in 2012 was certainly not just happy to be there, he probably played as well as he has in any final at Wimbledon since. Federer played Safin in an early round in 2007, the same year he had beasting Nadal in the final. He also met Safin in the F in 2008 but he didn't win that one anyway.

You've been very harsh with Federer's Wimbledon competition. If you think Pete had it a bit tougher that's fine, but to claim a vast difference is crazy.

ooohhh... that's the problem with peple who love his generation of players. always demeaning the server and volleyers. If MIcha Zverev can keep the match close at USO against Fed with his style, I think (I know) Rafter would not get smoked by Fed. Sure he'd lose.
Other than that, if these are facts you posted then Roddick is better than Rafter. I always felt bad for Andy running into Federer in slams.
Case closed.

 

[Mustard]

I was wondering this Roger Federer as of 2017 is now 8-11 in Wimbledon Finals meaning 8 wins and 3 losses, Pete Sampras was 7-0 so 7 wins and no losses, what do you think is the better record.

Federer is 8-3 in Wimbledon finals, or 8/11
Sampras is 7-0 in Wimbledon finals, or 7/7

Get it right.

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

Federer is 8-3 in Wimbledon finals, or 8/11
Sampras is 7-0 in Wimbledon finals, or 7/7

Get it right.

This.
Please, everyone.

 

[Mustard]

And obviously Federer's record is better. He has 8 Wimbledon titles (1 more than Sampras) on top of 3 runner-up finishes. Sampras' best Wimbledon apart from the 7 times he won the title was a semi final loss to Ivanisevic in 1992, coming just after Sampras had beaten reigning champion Stich in the quarter final.

 

[NatF]

ooohhh... that's the problem with peple who love his generation of players. always demeaning the server and volleyers. If MIcha Zverev can keep the match close at USO against Fed with his style, I think (I know) Rafter would not get smoked by Fed. Sure he'd lose.
Other than that, if these are facts you posted then Roddick is better than Rafter. I always felt bad for Andy running into Federer in slams.
Case closed.

Mischa Zverev getting routined in straights by old Fed doesn't sell it to me. Rafter probably goes down in 4 sets at best most of the time.

 

[Djokovic2011]

better to think of it as two separate categories:

First order: winning 8 times is better than winning 7 times.
Second order: making three additional finals is better than making zero additional finals.

——
It would be a more interesting conundrum the other way around. E.g., what is best, 8 titles and zero extra finals versus 7 titles and, say, 5 extra finals. And what about context? Luckily, life in TTW is usually pretty easy, so the answers tend to follow simple maxims like 8>7, 19>16>12 etc etc.

7 titles + 5 finals possibly being greater than 8-0?! Perish the thought! You should know by now that consistency is a dirty word in these parts Sysy and that one extra title is always king.

 

[Sysyphus]

7 titles + 5 finals possibly being greater than 8-0?! Perish the thought! You should know by now that consistency is a dirty word in these parts Sysy and that one extra title is always king.

Right on.

I've noticed that this place (or most internet forums, I guess) seems to attract many who prefer things to be clear, simple, and kind of square. So it's best if greatness can be summed up with some simple piece of arithmetic.

 

[timnz]

Before I reply, could you point out which specific point you disagree with?

Saying that 7-0 is a sign of mental strength over another player who has lost some finals. You did say that you don't necessarily have this opinion. So I wasn't arguing against that as your opinion per se, I was arguing against those who take up the 'mental strength' argument. That is why I said that Federer was 7-0 in slams finals at the end of Jan 2006 but then went on to lose 10 finals (whilst also winning another 12 slams). My argument was that didn't necessarily show a drop in mental strength in Federer after Jan 2006.

Good discussion

 

[BlueClayGOAT]

Saying that 7-0 is a sign of mental strength over another player who has lost some finals.

My argument was that didn't necessarily show a drop in mental strength in Federer after Jan 2006.

Exactly.
Arguments about 'mental strength' or 'choking' usually involve the worst kind of amateurish pop psychology and lazy buzzwords designed to fit a preconceived narrative.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

7-0 has a higher percentage, but 8-3 is obviously the better record (which is not the same as %).

Meanwhile, Federer's competition has clearly eclipsed Sampras's due to his longevity. Federer hasn't really had it tougher on average, but he has made himself relevant at Wimbledon for many more seasons than Sampras (10 for Pete, for Fed 14 and counting), so his cumulative competition has been tougher.

 

[TennisLBC]

Isn't 8 greater than 7?
And didn't the guy who has 8 Wimbys beat the guy that has 7?

How is this even a serious question?

 

[mike danny]

Isn't 8 greater than 7?
And didn't the guy who has 8 Wimbys beat the guy that has 7?

How is this even a serious question?

I know, right? But I'm used to this forum debating simple matters over lots of pages.

I mean, 4 pages for a question that should have been answered in 1-2 posts?

 

[TennisLBC]

The only way I would consider 7-0 in Wimbledon finals more impressive than 8-11 if you only played in 7 Wimbledon's. That would be very impressive.

 

[Jaitock1991]

For me, the point of this question is to evaluate which player was the better finals player, NOT who is better at wimbledon or who is better in general. Now if Fed had gone 7-0, then 7-3, then 8-3, then I would admit you had a point, as Fed is only adding on more finals which Sampras never played. However, Fed never made it to 7-0, at best he was at 5-0, after 7 finals he was at 6-1. So given that, statistically, Sampras was better IN Wimbledon finals. You can argue his opponents were not the same, that would be valid, however on this thread I only see people concerned with Federer being the greater player, which is totally a separate question. Personally, when Fed got to 7-1, for me he was already the best player at Wimbledon. 7 W and 1 RU beats 7 W and 0 RU, yet it's not the better record.

I see where you're coming from and I agree(even as a Fed fan). I just think most other posters here either intepret OP's question differently than you(and me), or they're just too obsessed with Fed being GOAT that they're unable to understand what you're saying.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Isn't 8 greater than 7?
And didn't the guy who has 8 Wimbys beat the guy that has 7?

How is this even a serious question?

question was not who won more titles but who better in finals only..so obviously sampras

 

[Deleted member 758560]

The one who has more Wimbledon titles.

wrong..sampras is better in finalsloses also must be considered..of course if both players have comparable number of appearances in finals, 10/10 better than 9/10, 83% points winning on first serve better than 80%winning on first serve etc. and pete won 7 titles aged 28 while fed 30 (less time to achieve)

 

[WestboroChe]

Those numbers make zero sense. It's supposed to say 8/11 and 7/7.
Anyway, when you put it like that, it still isn't correct because you're acting like Sampras won 7 Wimb out of 7 tries. In reality he entered the tournament many more times. Those 3 final losses from Fed are like silver medals, they're not just "the amount of tries".
So really it's Fed with 8 first place trophies, and 3 second place. Sampras has got 7 first place trophies and 0 second place.

Perfectly said.

 

[Sudacafan]

You should have used a forward slash instead of a dash to separate the numbers!

Federer: 8/11
Sampras: 7/7


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even correcting that, OP numbers are wrong.
It’s either 8/11 vs 7/7, or 8-3 vs 7-0.
Alternatively, 73% vs 100%.

 

[Jonas78]

A very very stupid metric, because this makes losing in R1 stronger than losing in the final

 

[Deleted member 77403]

wrong..sampras is better in finalsloses also must be considered..of course if both players have comparable number of appearances in finals, 10/10 better than 9/10, 83% points winning on first serve better than 80%winning on first serve etc. and pete won 7 titles aged 28 while fed 30 (less time to achieve)

I guess Wawrinka is then better than Nadal in AO finals also.

 

[Noleberic123]

When did Federer lose 11 finals?

 

[Zhilady]

question was not who won more titles but who better in finals only..so obviously sampras

Nobody in the history of Tennis is better than Gaudio in Grand Slam finals.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Nobody in the history of Tennis is better than Gaudio in Grand Slam finals.

Kuerten?

 

[sarmpas]

this is actually a good question (for reasons i'm sure i'll get to illustrate later).

of course, the more titles the better; but 7-0 illustrates a level of dominance in finals superior to 8-3...

8 titles = domination of Wimbledon 8 times

7 titles = domination of Wimbledon 7 times

 

[Deleted member 758560]

When did Federer lose 11 finals?

never

 

[Deleted member 758560]

I guess Wawrinka is then better than Nadal in AO finals also.

look what's better 7-0 or 7-2?