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

What is a better record in Wimbledon Finals federer 8-11 Sampras 7-0

  • 8-11

    Votes: 127 85.8%

  • 7-0

    Votes: 21 14.2%
  • Total voters
    148
tennisfanboy said:
I can't believe people can't see the flaw here. If Federer was somehow knocked out before the final in the 3 instances he was the runner up, he's have 8/8 and show 100%. I think the better measure is Fed reached 11/19 finals and Pete Could reach 7/14 finals
Click to expand...

People do see it lol
 
tennisfanboy said:
I can't believe people can't see the flaw here. If Federer was somehow knocked out before the final in the 3 instances he was the runner up, he's have 8/8 and show 100%.
Click to expand...
no flaw look..you use this logic only when he losing the final but what about if he was somehow knocked out when winning the final then it would be 5-3 even worse not 8-3 ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
125downthemiddle said:
Yes in an indivdual given tournament you are of course correct and 8-11 represents insane longevity. Like I said though losing that many finals could indicate other things going on.

For example, Rafa is what 86-2 at FO. Would his record be more impressive to you if it was 86-32? After all a loss is better then not even participating right? What about 89-32?
Click to expand...
It could indicate other things going on, but if all you are looking at is the numbers and you have no other information, then the base assumption should be that simply they lost to the better man on the day, not that they “couldn’t handle the pressure” of the final. In Lendl’s case it certainly was the former in most cases - all but one of those losses were to a player who held the number 1 ranking sometime in their career (the other one was losing to grass specialist Pat Cash at Wimbledon - hardly a bad loss)
 
Last edited:
One is more dominance in big matches.
One is more longevity and more titles.

8 titles is greater than 7, no doubt. But the 8th came after a lot of struggle and losing 2 finals. For a guy who's supposed to the best in his generation in this surface, losing 3 finals doesn't look good.

"Never having lost in a Wimbledon final" is a pretty cool thing to say. And obviously those are for great champions who reached atleast 5 finals.
Not a one slam wonder like krajichek

For the record, both Pete and Boris reached 7 finals and while Pete is having 7 titles, Boris is having 3.
 
FFS. People still do not get it, and if you've read through my several posts here suffice to say you will never get it. I never claimed Sampras is better than Federer at Wimbledon. 8>7 + Federer has 11 finals to Sanpras' 7. However, cherrypicked stat or not 7-0 is a better finals record than 8-3. People arguing to me that contexts matters, sure it does, when you're debating who is the better player at Wimbledon that matters, when you're talking about who has the better finals record it's Sampras. Unless you want to say it's unfair to make a comparison because there's not an equal sample size for each player, that's the answer. In a maths test, y'all would fail this straitghtforwar question.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I love this argument. What's better 5-0 or 5-4?

One side says definitely 5-0 is better, perfect on the big stage

Other side laughs and says you're stupid, that's 4 more finals whereas the 5-0 guy lost earlier 4 more times and didn't even make final

Both sides are kind of wrong imo ;)
Click to expand...
But it's 5=5. It is 8>7.
 
paranoidandroid said:
345lsog.jpg
Click to expand...
 
There are two kinds of people in the world.

1. People who are not stupid.
2. People who think being a runner-up at a Grand Slam tournament is a bad thing.
 
ADuck said:
F*ck no. Reaching a final is better than not reaching one. Winning the final is better than not winning it. Federer is better at reaching finals. Sampras is better at winning finals. End of argument
Click to expand...

Disagree with the above on grounds it’s too straightforward.

Refer to guide book #6.42:
Thou shall not endeavour to make swift and concise truisms.

Ban the duck.
 
Zhilady said:
There are two kinds of people in the world.

1. People who are not stupid.
2. People who think being a runner-up at a Grand Slam tournament is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
1.people who are not stupid
2.people who don't even suspect that they're stupid (most people in the world);)
 
Zhilady said:
There are two kinds of people in the world.

1. People who are not stupid.
2. People who think being a runner-up at a Grand Slam tournament is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Regarding point 2, that's what separates good players from great players. People or media may also praise being runner up, but the great player can never be satisfied.

Unfortunately in this age there are 3 all time greats so when they face each other, one has to lose. The one who has better skills and better fights wins.
 
ADuck said:
FFS. People still do not get it, and if you've read through my several posts here suffice to say you will never get it. I never claimed Sampras is better than Federer at Wimbledon. 8>7 + Federer has 11 finals to Sanpras' 7. However, cherrypicked stat or not 7-0 is a better finals record than 8-3. People arguing to me that contexts matters, sure it does, when you're debating who is the better player at Wimbledon that matters, when you're talking about who has the better finals record it's Sampras. Unless you want to say it's unfair to make a comparison because there's not an equal sample size for each player, that's the answer. In a maths test, y'all would fail this straitghtforwar question.
Click to expand...

‘Strait for war’ is exactly where US and China are eventually going to work out their emerging differences.

Seems like you’re already there.
 
Before comparing 7-0 with 8-11, the first and foremost task is when was Pete ever reaching the 8th final?

Benben245 said:
One caveat, in his prime Sampras did not lose a final at wimby, fed did.
Click to expand...
The caveat is meaningless because Sampras never reached all the Wimbledon finals in his prime, did he? Krajieck 1996 says Hi!
 
Prabhanjan said:
Before comparing 7-0 with 8-11, the first and foremost task is when was Pete ever reaching the 8th final?


The caveat is meaningless because Sampras never reached all the Wimbledon finals in his prime, did he? Krajieck 1996 says Hi!
Click to expand...
I attack the primary proposition of the thread's commencement. I offer a devils advocate counter to my critique and then you ridicule me for not thinking outside the frame work of finals won and consider quartfinal losses? For the integrity of the thread I focused on the parameters set by its originator.

I am so alone.
 
Last edited:
Benben245 said:
I attack the primary proposition of the thread's commencement. I offer a devils advocate counter to my critique and the you ridicule me for not thinking outside the frame work of finals won and consider quartfinal losses? For the integrity of the thread I focused on the parameters set by its originator.

I am so alone.
Click to expand...

I apologize! My question, though it quotes you, is certainly not restricted to you :)
 
tennisfanboy said:
I can't believe people can't see the flaw here. If Federer was somehow knocked out before the final in the 3 instances he was the runner up, he's have 8/8 and show 100%. I think the better measure is Fed reached 11/19 finals and Pete Could reach 7/14 finals
Click to expand...

He's trolling for trolling's sake or he's a salty Nadal fan.
 
125downthemiddle said:
I love this argument. What's better 5-0 or 5-4?

One side says definitely 5-0 is better, perfect on the big stage

Other side laughs and says you're stupid, that's 4 more finals whereas the 5-0 guy lost earlier 4 more times and didn't even make final

Both sides are kind of wrong imo ;)
Click to expand...

Sampras has the better record in Wimbledon finals, Federer has the better record at Wimbledon. Simples really. When you try and extend a better record in finals to better play overall that's where the problems start as making a final is obviously a superior result to a QF.
 
alexio88 said:
no flaw look..you use this logic only when he losing the final but what about if he was somehow knocked out when winning the final then it would be 5-3 even worse not 8-3 ;)
Click to expand...
Ofcourse it's flawed! Fed reached more finals than Sampras AND won more. Sampras would be better if he reached atleast as many finals as Fed and won atleast 1 more than him
 
sarmpas said:
Let him carry on but recognise his motive for what it is.
Click to expand...
Its just stupid. Whats the point of looking at finals alone without looking at why you werent in the final? If you lost R4 of course its worse than losing in the final, and in that case 7-1 is better than 7-0. If its meant as some kind of trick question it is even more stupid.
 
Jonas78 said:
Delete thread and ban every troll in it...
Click to expand...
there's no trolls ..there's different points..it's you who trolling now coz if you don't want to continue thris debate why you still here i forgot about this already but you still here relax , everyone stays on their points period
 
Amy Foster said:
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.
Click to expand...

8 > 7 is all that matters.

The benefit of winning more is more valuable than the cost of losing more.

FEDR.
 
alexio88 said:
there's no trolls ..there's different points
Click to expand...
There is no point in looking at finals results without looking at why you were/werent in the final. If you lost R4, then of course you did a worse tournament than if you reached the final. If you play 7 slams in a row and win them all, then you are extremely dominant, and in that case, i could agree 7-0 is at least more dominant than for example 8-5. But if 7-0 involves also losing 5 slams before the final, then of course the player with 8-5 has done considerably better.
 
tennisfanboy said:
Ofcourse it's flawed! Fed reached more finals than Sampras AND won more. Sampras would be better if he reached atleast as many finals as Fed and won atleast 1 more than him
Click to expand...
facepalm)))))))ok stop it!
 
Jonas78 said:
There is no point in looking at finals results without looking at why you were/werent in the final. If you lost R4, then of course you did a worse tournament than if you reached the final. If you play 7 slams in a row and win them all, then you are extremely dominant, and in that case, i could agree 7-0 is at least more dominant than for example 8-5.
Click to expand...

but 7 in a row is still less dominant than 8 in a row.
 
uscwang said:
There is no shame in losing to Nadal and Djokovic in finals.
Click to expand...
But according to some posters here, its better to lose to Mugs in R1-R4, than losing to Djokovic or Nadal in the final, because if you dont reach the final it doesnt count as a loss.
 
alexio88 said:
[QUOTE="Jonas78, post: 12535054, member: 744336]"If you lost R4, then of course you did a worse tournament than if you reached the final.that's a key..we talking on different languages you looking on the whole tournament i looking only on finals performances please let's stop it
Click to expand...


But why do you think its relevant to look at finals performances without looking at how you reached or did not reach the final? If you didnt play the tournament or if you got knocked out R1 is two different things. I just dont see the relevance, can you please explain?
 
Jonas78 said:
But according to some posters here, its better to lose to Mugs in R1-R4, than losing to Djokovic or Nadal in the final, because if you dont reach the final it doesnt count as a loss.
Click to expand...
never said loss in r2 better than loss in a final
 
Jonas78 said:
But why do you think its relevant to look at finals performances without looking at how you reached or did not reach the final? If you didnt play the tournament or if you got knocked out R1 is two different things. I just dont see the relevance, can you please explain?
Click to expand...
coz thread was only about finals not about who was better on previous rounds,
 
alexio88 said:
coz thread was only about finals not about who was better on previous rounds,
Click to expand...
Well then i dont see the relevance. If you do thats really ok. But for me its irrelevant looking at 8-3 and 7-0 without looking behind the numbers. Both could be more impressive depending on the bigger picture.
 
roysid said:
One is more dominance in big matches.
One is more longevity and more titles.

8 titles is greater than 7, no doubt. But the 8th came after a lot of struggle and losing 2 finals. For a guy who's supposed to the best in his generation in this surface, losing 3 finals doesn't look good.

"Never having lost in a Wimbledon final" is a pretty cool thing to say. And obviously those are for great champions who reached atleast 5 finals.
Not a one slam wonder like krajichek

For the record, both Pete and Boris reached 7 finals and while Pete is having 7 titles, Boris is having 3.
Click to expand...
Michael Jordan is considered great than Lebron because he has more rings even though he has less finals. But this is different, Federer has more titles and more finals. Federer is the wimbledon GOAT and it's not even close.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Michael Jordan is considered great than Lebron because he has more rings even though he has less finals.
Click to expand...
even if james will surpass jordan i doubt he will be considered the goat) jordan will be..and comparing team game and individual kind of sports not correctly a bit i guess;)
 
Noleberic123 said:
And we will never know how Lebron would have done in the 90's when the rules were different and the game wasn't so soft
Click to expand...
yes but in tennis they both would be at least in equal conditions facing each other unlike in basketball where the outcome can be depending on you not completely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheMaestro1990
What is better Nadal 1-3 in AO finals or Murray 0-5?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
TearTheRoofOff
TearTheRoofOff
A
  • Poll Poll
Who has the best record in wimbledon finals Federer or Sampras
Replies
12
Views
583
FHtennisman
FHtennisman
P
  • Poll Poll
Who is the Greatest Wimbledon player of all time?
6 7 8
Replies
369
Views
30K
NadalAgassi
N
JennyS
Federer vs Sampras and Borg in Grand Slams
Replies
42
Views
4K
tudwell
T
6-1 6-3 6-0
  • Poll Poll
Which period was most similar to Nadal's RG dominance: Sampras or Federer@Wimbledon?
2 3
Replies
107
Views
13K
Neptune
Neptune
Back
Top