What is Pete Sampras' legacy today?

How do you assess Pete Sampras?

  • The Greatest Ever

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Arguably The Greatest Ever

    Votes: 24 20.0%
  • 2nd Tier ATG right behind the Big 3

    Votes: 46 38.3%
  • Greatest Of His Generation But Not Necessarily Better Than Other Generational Goats like Bjorg/Laver

    Votes: 56 46.7%
  • Weak Era Goat

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • An Underachiever

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Total voters
    120

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Any player who was definitively the best of their generation goes into a special category, and he'll always have that.

14-4 record in slam finals is crazy clutch, especially since he went 13-2 before his last 3 finals.
Between 1993 Wimbledon and 2000 Wimbledon, Sampras won 12 out of 13 major finals.
 
H

Herald

Guest
True.

And 0-2 vs. Edberg in majors. The 1992 US Open final was the 1991 champion (Edberg) against the 1990 champion (Sampras). Edberg was world number 2 and Sampras was world number 3. Sampras had recently beaten Edberg 6-2, 6-3 in the semi final of the 1992 Cincinnati tournament that Sampras went on to win (beating Lendl in the final). To reach the 1992 US Open final, Edberg had to come back from a break down in the fifth set in 3 consecutive matches (against Krajicek, Lendl and Chang), while Sampras beat world number 1 Courier 6-1, 3-6, 6-2, 6-2 in his semi final. If Sampras ever did have a bad loss in a big final in terms of having chances, this was it. Sampras won the first set, and served for a 2-1 sets lead at 6-5 up in the third set, and Edberg won 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2.

The 1993 Australian Open semi final, their world rankings were still the same, with Edberg at number 2 and Sampras at number 3, Sampras again having won their most recent match. Edberg won this 1993 Australian Open semi final match 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.

Their ages at the time. Sampras was 21, and Edberg was 26-27.
Yes to all. Edberg was a great great player. The 92 final made Sampras look himself in the mirror (literally I believe) and ask himself whether he really wanted to be a champion or not.
 
Tough to make a case for him as GOAT at this point, because of the backhand, the clay, the longevity, the tipping habits and all the known reasons.

But there is ONE stat that will always leave everyone doubting... his W-L record in finals, and especially in GS finals, is something none of the current goaters can even dream of.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Tough to make a case for him as GOAT at this point, because of the backhand, the clay, the longevity, the tipping habits and all the known reasons.

But there is ONE stat that will always leave everyone doubting... his W-L record in finals, and especially in GS finals, is something none of the current goaters can even dream of.
Nadal was once 10-2 in major finals, and is 22-8 today.
 
H

Herald

Guest
Tough to make a case for him as GOAT at this point, because of the backhand, the clay, the longevity, the tipping habits and all the known reasons.

But there is ONE stat that will always leave everyone doubting... his W-L record in finals, and especially in GS finals, is something none of the current goaters can even dream of.
Longevity is fine, that was a very reasonable age to retire in his day. Backhand was an issue, as was clay, but neither as big as consensus makes them out to be. With better conditioning he would have managed a RG title even with a lousy backhand and game not favoring clay. Pete was a fine tipper. Kid was a buck richer after driving Pete's car than before. 'Nuff said.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Safin and Hewitt were both 20 when they beat Sampras in US Open finals. Sampras was 29-30, so more than 6 years difference.

True, but Fed was beating those guys and giving them hell in losses up until the end. Sampras got wrecked by Safin and Hewitt, like no chance. And if he'd faced one of them in US02 it would've been the same story
 
H

Herald

Guest
True, but Fed was beating those guys and giving them hell in losses up until the end. Sampras got wrecked by Safin and Hewitt, like no chance. And if he'd faced one of them in US02 it would've been the same story
Safin legitimately GOATED against an average Pete 10 years older than him at the USO in 2000, and also GOATED against same age Fed at the AO in 2005.
The Hewitt beatdown of PETE is due to him being exhausted after a draw from hell and not having a day of rest before the final as they do now. Pretty universally accepted.
As far as USO 02, very likely would not have been the same story. Pete actually beat Safin at the USO the year prior, and Hewitt the year before that. In good form, which he was in 02, he could beat them both even with a significant age disadvantage.
 

crimson87

Semi-Pro
True, but Fed was beating those guys and giving them hell in losses up until the end. Sampras got wrecked by Safin and Hewitt, like no chance. And if he'd faced one of them in US02 it would've been the same story

Super Saturday was a thing back then though. The player that had the toughest semi final was in a significant disadvantage. Specially if it was the second match.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
True, but Fed was beating those guys and giving them hell in losses up until the end. Sampras got wrecked by Safin and Hewitt, like no chance. And if he'd faced one of them in US02 it would've been the same story
Well, Sampras did face Safin in the 2001 US Open semi final and Sampras won 6-3, 7-6, 6-3, so it wasn't the same story in the 2001 semi as in the 2000 final. That said, I would have fancied Hewitt to beat Sampras had they met in the 2002 US Open final, but it's still no guarantee of victory.
 

California

Semi-Pro
True.

And 0-2 vs. Edberg in majors. The 1992 US Open final was the 1991 champion (Edberg) against the 1990 champion (Sampras). Edberg was world number 2 and Sampras was world number 3. Sampras had recently beaten Edberg 6-2, 6-3 in the semi final of the 1992 Cincinnati tournament that Sampras went on to win (beating Lendl in the final). To reach the 1992 US Open final, Edberg had to come back from a break down in the fifth set in 3 consecutive matches (against Krajicek, Lendl and Chang), while Sampras beat world number 1 Courier 6-1, 3-6, 6-2, 6-2 in his semi final. If Sampras ever did have a bad loss in a big final in terms of having chances, this was it. Sampras won the first set, and served for a 2-1 sets lead at 6-5 up in the third set, and Edberg won 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2.

The 1993 Australian Open semi final, their world rankings were still the same, with Edberg at number 2 and Sampras at number 3, Sampras again having won their most recent match. Edberg won this 1993 Australian Open semi final match 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.

Their ages at the time. Sampras was 21, and Edberg was 26-27.
Great write up. The most telling thing to me is you used to have to beat great players to win a slam, and many of those opponents also had slam wins on their resume! Edberg had to beat several slam winners on that road to the 92 US Open, while today in the inflation era, you can win a slam beating nobody. Sometimes you can win a slam without beating anyone even ranked in the top 20! It’s amazing how low tennis has sunk in the quality of competition recently.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Great write up. The most telling thing to me is you used to have to beat great players to win a slam, and many of those opponents also had slam wins on their resume! Edberg had to beat several slam winners on that road to the 92 US Open, while today in the inflation era, you can win a slam beating nobody. Sometimes you can win a slam without beating anyone even ranked in the top 20! It’s amazing how low tennis has sunk in the quality of competition recently.

Don't talk about Kevin Anderson and Tommy Paul that way
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
His legacy is very secure because he is from one of the big traditional superpower tennis nations, United States, and he is considered by most to be the best American male player ever. He sits atop all that history that the U.S has in tennis.

His choice to prioritise majors had a huge impact. Pete’s approach to peaking for the biggest events is something we all point to as one of the main contributing factors to all four majors achieving parity in the current day.

I don’t think he has impacted subsequent tennis generations stylistically or technically as much as players like Lendl and Agassi did. I don’t think that reflects badly on Sampras though. It’s probably more a reflection of his game being so high risk and requiring so much “clutchness” and athleticism that it was not a sustainable playing style for mere mortals. The percentage play for the next generation was not to attack the net while there was generational change happening with string technology and slower court speeds.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Somehow I actually think his legacy is in a better place today than it was 10 years ago when only Federer had blown past him in achievements. With 3 people surpassing and essentially taking him out of the GOAT debate entirely, we're able to stop tearing him apart in comparison to them and solely focus instead on how he dominated his own era.

There's even an argument to be made that he's in a better position now than Roger is. Would you rather be 4th-5th all time but undeniably the best of your era, or 3rd all time but behind your main rivals? I'm not saying I personally agree with that by any stretch, Federer undeniably had the better career. But in terms of legacy and how people think about you, Pete's in a very enviable position these days.
As a Fedfan I feel the same way about Fed. Now that he's been surpassed in every way by two players of his own era, it's easier to focus on his incredible semi and quarter final streaks against familiar friends like Roddick and Hewitt, and stop putting the pressure of expectation on Roger to be something he never was - GOAT.

I for one am grateful.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
His legacy is very secure because he is from one of the big traditional superpower tennis nations, United States, and he is considered by most to be the best American male player ever. He sits atop all that history that the U.S has in tennis.

His choice to prioritise majors had a huge impact. Pete’s approach to peaking for the biggest events is something we all point to as one of the main contributing factors to all four majors achieving parity in the current day.

I don’t think he has impacted subsequent tennis generations stylistically or technically as much as players like Lendl and Agassi did. I don’t think that reflects badly on Sampras though. It’s probably more a reflection of his game being so high risk and requiring so much “clutchness” and athleticism that it was not a sustainable playing style for mere mortals. The percentage play for the next generation was not to attack the net while there was generational change happening with string technology and slower court speeds.
....And bigger racquet head surfaces, making it easier to return serve. A different game today, comparing the stats is meaningless.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Tough to make a case for him as GOAT at this point, because of the backhand, the clay, the longevity, the tipping habits and all the known reasons.

But there is ONE stat that will always leave everyone doubting... his W-L record in finals, and especially in GS finals, is something none of the current goaters can even dream of.
Yes, bad-tipper disqualifies him. Definitely!
:-D:laughing:
 

JasonZ

Hall of Fame
sampras got forgotten very fast, i think his not very interesting personality had a lot to do with it.

of course federer is even much more boring, but he was a better and more dominant and more spectacular player, and also had a marketing machine behind him.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
sampras got forgotten very fast, i think his not very interesting personality had a lot to do with it.

of course federer is even much more boring, but he was a better and more dominant and more spectacular player, and also had a marketing machine behind him.
What people don't get is that Sampras didn't want fame. He wanted to be obscure and after winning the US Open as a 19 year old publicly complained that now he couldn't go somewhere without being recognized. He wasn't forgotten because he was boring, he faded because he wanted to. No doubt makes it easier to be a dad and husband and human.

Feddy seems to want to be in the public eye forever, for whatever reasons. And good luck to him. Empires of Sand always wash away.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
sampras got forgotten very fast, i think his not very interesting personality had a lot to do with it.

of course federer is even much more boring, but he was a better and more dominant and more spectacular player, and also had a marketing machine behind him.
What are you talking about? Both were the most exciting players of their era. And who cares about off-court stuff? They mainly let their racquet do all the talking. That's also the best way to respect the sport, by not creating unnecessary sideshows.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
The whole series is very good but in part 3 there is a segment from Agassi about what that 1990 Finals meant in terms of a new era of tennis.

Yes there were power players before. There were athletic players before.

This was the first time you were seeing a combination of both. An exceptional athlete and that power game. Of course old timers can counter that but I am echoing what Andre is also saying.

Andre: “He hit a level that day that pushed the game of tennis forward”

This was Pete’s legacy.

 
Last edited:

FD3S

Hall of Fame
The whole series is very good but in part 3 there is a segment from Agassi about what that 1990 Finals meant in terms of a new era of tennis.

Yes there were power players before. There were athletic players before.

This was the first time you were seeing a combination of both. An exceptional athlete and that power game. Of course old timers can counter that but I am echoing what Andre is also saying.

Andre: “He hit a level that day that pushed the game of tennis forward”

This was Pete’s legacy.

I wish I could find where McEnroe echoed a really similar thought - he said something along the lines of while there were guys who were excellent from the net/baseline and at least competent in the other category, Sampras broke the mold by being legitimately elite at both.
 

sandy mayer

Semi-Pro
Pete gets severely underrated. He was not as consistent as the big three but his peak level on grass, HC and carpet was scary. Wimbledon final 95, USO F 95, Davis Cup against Rafter 97, YEC finals 96,99, there are multiple matches where he looked close to unbeatable. If he had had the benefits of today’s sport science and be able to play until 36, as well as having a higher slam target to beat than Emerson’s 12, he could well have ended in the same slam region like the big three.
I think Sampras could have won more slams, but not as many as 24.
 

thrust

Legend
Safin legitimately GOATED against an average Pete 10 years older than him at the USO in 2000, and also GOATED against same age Fed at the AO in 2005.
The Hewitt beatdown of PETE is due to him being exhausted after a draw from hell and not having a day of rest before the final as they do now. Pretty universally accepted.
As far as USO 02, very likely would not have been the same story. Pete actually beat Safin at the USO the year prior, and Hewitt the year before that. In good form, which he was in 02, he could beat them both even with a significant age disadvantage.
TRUE!
 

thrust

Legend
5th best of all time behind 1. Nadal 2. Djokovic 3. Federer 4. Borg
Open Era: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg.
Pre Open: Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Tilden
Tilden though, for me is a problem. True, he has great statistics, but until Cochet and Lacoste reached their peak, Tilden's competition was rather weak.
 
Last edited:

Mazz Retic

Hall of Fame
Speaking only of the open era, I'll always rate Sampras highly same as Borg and Mac to name a couple. Obviously the big 3 achievements speak for themselves but the love of the game is more than that imo.
 

thrust

Legend
Speaking only of the open era, I'll always rate Sampras highly same as Borg and Mac to name a couple. Obviously the big 3 achievements speak for themselves but the love of the game is more than that imo.
I meant to put Sampras in that list, above Borg, which I just did by editing my post.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
Sampras played in an era of specialists and 16 seeds at majors. Winning 3 majors in a year was uncommon.

Uncommon, but achieved seven times by five players in 25 years between 1974 and 1998 (end of Sampras peak):

Connors '74
Wilander '88

And in era when Australian not treated as a Major:

Borg '79 and '80 (RG, Wim., YEC)
McEnroe '84 (Wim, USO, YEC)
Lendl '86 and '87 (RG, USO, YEC)

As someone mentioned, Pete held three titles simultaneously in early 1994. But nobody was going to win 3 out of 4 calendar year in the Sampras era because Sampras was the best player hands-down 1993-97 and he was not going to achieve it. Interesting is 1997, Pete's last peak year. Australian, Wimbledon, then finish year with blitz through Paris, YEC and GSC. And 1994 is AO, Sunshine Double, Italian Open, Wimbledon and YEC, among a total 10 titles for the year. Great seasons but not 3 of 4 Slams.

In 25 seasons 1999-2023, achieved eight times by three players: Fed '04, '06, '07; Rafa '10; Novak '11, '15, '21, '23.

Post-War Amateurs, five times in 22 seasons: Trabert '55, Hoad '56, Cooper '58, Laver '62, Emerson '64.

Post-War Pros four times by three players in 22 seasons: Gonzalez '56, '57, Rosewall '63 (4 of 4), Laver '67 (4 of 4)

Early Open Era: Laver '69
 
Last edited:

thrust

Legend
Uncommon, but achieved seven times by five players in 25 years between 1974 and 1998 (end of Sampras peak):

Connors '74
Wilander '88

And in era when Australian not treated as a Major:

Borg '79 and '80 (RG, Wim., YEC)
McEnroe '84 (Wim, USO, YEC)
Lendl '86 and '87 (RG, USO, YEC)

As someone mentioned, Pete held three titles simultaneously in early 1994. But nobody was going to win 3 out of 4 calendar year in the Sampras era because Sampras was the best player hands-down 1993-97 and he was not going to achieve it. Interesting is 1997, Pete's last peak year. Australian, Wimbledon, then finish year with blitz through Paris, YEC and GSC. And 1994 is AO, Sunshine Double, Italian Open, Wimbledon and YEC, among a total 10 titles for the year. Great seasons but not 3 of 4 Slams.

In 25 seasons 1999-2023, achieved eight times by three players: Fed '04, '06, '07; Rafa '10; Novak '11, '15, '21, '23.

Post-War Amateurs, five times in 22 seasons: Trabert '55, Hoad '56, Cooper '58, Laver '62, Emerson '64.

Post-War Pros four times by three players in 22 seasons: Gonzalez '56, '57, Rosewall '63 (4 of 4), Laver '67 (4 of 4)

Early Open Era: Laver '69
Pete's peak years, 93-98, does not coincide with the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era or the Federer-Novak- Nadal eras. The fact IS that Pete won 14 slams, when he won them is not really important.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Uncommon, but achieved seven times by five players in 25 years between 1974 and 1998 (end of Sampras peak):

Connors '74
Wilander '88

And in era when Australian not treated as a Major:

Borg '79 and '80 (RG, Wim., YEC)
McEnroe '84 (Wim, USO, YEC)
Lendl '86 and '87 (RG, USO, YEC)

As someone mentioned, Pete held three titles simultaneously in early 1994. But nobody was going to win 3 out of 4 calendar year in the Sampras era because Sampras was the best player hands-down 1993-97 and he was not going to achieve it. Interesting is 1997, Pete's last peak year. Australian, Wimbledon, then finish year with blitz through Paris, YEC and GSC. And 1994 is AO, Sunshine Double, Italian Open, Wimbledon and YEC, among a total 10 titles for the year. Great seasons but not 3 of 4 Slams.

In 25 seasons 1999-2023, achieved eight times by three players: Fed '04, '06, '07; Rafa '10; Novak '11, '15, '21, '23.

Post-War Amateurs, five times in 22 seasons: Trabert '55, Hoad '56, Cooper '58, Laver '62, Emerson '64.

Post-War Pros four times by three players in 22 seasons: Gonzalez '56, '57, Rosewall '63 (4 of 4), Laver '67 (4 of 4)

Early Open Era: Laver '69
Connors did it when 2 majors were played on grass. Not a fair comparison. And then exalting Borg/Mac/Lendl seasons to 3/4 major seasons even though YEC wasn't a major over PETE's '94 and '97 isn't exactly apples to apples either (though Mac's '84 is probably the greatest season ever)
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Pete's greatest legacy is probably being the fuel for some of the finest tennis trolling the game has ever seen. His very existence and records seemed to agitate my fellow Fedfans in the Roddick days, and now his generational GOAT status seems to light a fire inside them again. No idea why.

Also, being the subject of the top 4 threads on the Former Pro Player section, a feat that rivals his 14 slams for sure.
 
Last edited:

NedStark

Professional
The whole series is very good but in part 3 there is a segment from Agassi about what that 1990 Finals meant in terms of a new era of tennis.

Yes there were power players before. There were athletic players before.

This was the first time you were seeing a combination of both. An exceptional athlete and that power game. Of course old timers can counter that but I am echoing what Andre is also saying.

Andre: “He hit a level that day that pushed the game of tennis forward”

This was Pete’s legacy.

This.
 

jxs653

Professional
I think if he had stuck around and battled till age 35( 2006), it wouldn't have been plain sailing but I could see him winning another 2-3 slams. Yes, Federer was Number 1 by then but he hadn't started dominating yet, There were opportunities. Agassi and Safin won AO in '03 and '05, respectively so there were titles to go around. I think Sampras might obviously have had a losing H2H with Fed in these years( maybe a very uneven losing record), but he probably would have been a match for most other top players, and probably would have been better than baby Nadal on all surfaces apart from clay.
I think you're not remembering things well. Sampras retired basically because he couldn't win any more. By the time of his retirement many were dismissing him done and it was a good motivating factor for him to have his last hooray, that is to prove them wrong. It's not just Federer.

My point is he wouldn't have been a factor if he'd played a few more years let alone a slam. His decision to retire says it all: he knew what's be like if he kept playing himself.
 
Last edited:

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
sort of by definition, retiring on a "last hurrah" means he COULD still win.

But yes, it was a lot harder and infrequent. Anecdotally, I think it was more about his motivation and distaste for the daily grind of the tour than thinking he absolutely COULDN'T win. He had just proven the game was still there, but he had to be there mentally and everything had to click.

So, if he stayed to 2006 (another four years) sure, another two Slams was possible. That's two episodes of lightning in a bottle over a relatively long period of time, for one of the very best ever. And it would have been well below his peak output. But it was an if, and bottom line was he was over going through the process.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Pete gets severely underrated. He was not as consistent as the big three but his peak level on grass, HC and carpet was scary. Wimbledon final 95, USO F 95, Davis Cup against Rafter 97, YEC finals 96,99, there are multiple matches where he looked close to unbeatable. If he had had the benefits of today’s sport science and be able to play until 36, as well as having a higher slam target to beat than Emerson’s 12, he could well have ended in the same slam region like the big three.

Agassi was older than PETE and played for like 5 years longer.
 

Pheasant

Legend
Nadal was once 10-2 in major finals, and is 22-8 today.
True. And Federer started out 12-2 in finals. His two losses were to the most dominant player on any surface of any player in history. And those two losses were right in the middle of Nadal's ridiculous streak of 103-1 on clay from early-2005 to early 2008.

To be fair, Nadal, as you said, started 10-2 in finals. And his only two losses were on grass to a guy that was right in the middle of a 65 match winning streak on that surface. That 65 match winning streak on grass is more than 50% bigger than Borg's 2nd longest streak of 41 straight wins. Of course, Nadal's record streak of 81 straight wins on clay was about 50% bigger than the next longest streak on that surface.

Man, I loved that rivalry. Fed stopped Nadal's streak on on clay. But Nadal stopped Fed's record streak on hard courts and grass.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
True. And Federer started out 12-2 in finals. His two losses were to the most dominant player on any surface of any player in history. And those two losses were right in the middle of Nadal's ridiculous streak of 103-1 on clay from early-2005 to early 2008.

To be fair, Nadal, as you said, started 10-2 in finals. And his only two losses were on grass to a guy that was right in the middle of a 65 match winning streak on that surface. That 65 match winning streak on grass is more than 50% bigger than Borg's 2nd longest streak of 41 straight wins. Of course, Nadal's record streak of 81 straight wins on clay was about 50% bigger than the next longest streak on that surface.

Man, I loved that rivalry. Fed stopped Nadal's streak on on clay. But Nadal stopped Fed's record streak on hard courts and grass.
Borg however had this streak with Wimbledon alone and couldn’t care less to play Queens or Halle grass tournaments. As great as Fed was, 50% sounds better than it is in this context.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Agassi was older than PETE and played for like 5 years longer.
Agassi was the exception here and Pete mainly disappeared because he wasn’t motivated anymore after having broken the slam record and believed this would stand for a long time. Had Emerson’s target been 16 instead of 12 he might have stayed around longer as well. He was of course way past his prime, but if fully motivated I could still see him snatching a slam or two.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Agassi was older than PETE and played for like 5 years longer.
The serve and volley style with demands of modern athleticism is far more taxing than Agassi's style. Pete was frankly fortunate to make it 31 with some of his injuries.
 
Top