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

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
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.

Is that why players start coming in to net more as they get older?
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
They serve and volley? Since when?

Connors did it later in his career, Djokovic has added it to his arsenal in the last year or so. It's smart percentage play for an aging player who can't run side to side all day long anymore.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
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.
Indubitably, Sampras won his Slams when he won them; he did not win them at some other time.


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

Well, was the gentleman saying that 1993-98 was an "era" in five years? An era in five years? Was he saying this "era" was uniquely resistant to winning three out of four? Either assertion would be odd. But if that was the assertion then my point that no one could win three Slams during those years precisely because Pete was the best player is valid, if boringly obvious. Pete could not do so - not in the sense of win three out of four Slams. Kind of hard to anyway when there is one at which you ain't got no chance in heck. He could not win three of four. That is just the record. And if Pete was going to win two each year (roughly), then of course the five-year "era" would be particularly resistant. Hmmm. :unsure:

If, on the other hand, the poster meant an era a little more like an era, then the inclusion of these other players is correct. Perhaps not the 1950s, I don't know. But "era" according to Oxford Dictionary, means "a long and distinct period of history." At the least an era is a generation - at the least. A generation is now generally thought to be about 30 years - 25-30 years. In the Open era pre-Sampras No. 1 (1968-1992), three out of four was done eight times.

Maybe he did not mean "era" when he wrote "era". Maybe he meant the decade of the 1990s. That is fine, I guess. I don't know as 1990s were so much more resistant to a player winning three out of four, but fine. But he said era, so I discussed era.

Finally, I tried to point out that Pete's 1994 and '97 were quite splendid from a historical perspective. In 1997 he became only player to win YEC and GSC in same fortnight. That achievement is surely Slam-like. I'd say he won three of five that season. Petros "Rocked".
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Connors did it later in his career, Djokovic has added it to his arsenal in the last year or so. It's smart percentage play for an aging player who can't run side to side all day long anymore.
Connors and Djokovic did not become serve and volley players. They occasionally serve and volleyed.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Who are you arguing with? Read it again
I read it. That was your response to me saying the serve and volley style was more taxing than the baseline style, which I'm trying to tell you isn't an apples to apples comparison. Coming in to the net to finish points =/= serving and volleying, particularly in the Conors era of athleticism versus the Sampras era
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
I read it. That was your response to me saying the serve and volley style was more taxing than the baseline style, which I'm trying to tell you isn't an apples to apples comparison. Coming in to the net to finish points =/= serving and volleying, particularly in the Conors era of athleticism versus the Sampras era

Right.

I said, "players come in to net more as they get older"

You said "no, these players did not become serve and volleyers"

You argued against something I didn't say, which is why you're dishonest and not fun to debate.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Right.

I said, "players come in to net more as they get older"

You said "no, these players did not become serve and volleyers"

You argued against something I didn't say, which is why you're dishonest and not fun to debate.
Which you said in response to my statement about serve and volley being harder than baselining...I'm honestly confused as to how my line of argument is hard to follow. I took your statement as a sarcastic repudiation of mine, and responded accordingly. If not, I'm not sure what your point was.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Which you said in response to my statement about serve and volley being harder than baselining...I'm honestly confused as to how my line of argument is hard to follow. I took your statement as a sarcastic repudiation of mine, and responded accordingly. If not, I'm not sure what your point was.

But it's not harder. You do a lot less running overall with S/V because the points are shorter. And that's why older players become more net-focused as they age and lose a step.

You just want to make Sampras out to be some kind of superhuman whose later drop in form was just because he played such a difficult style.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
But it's not harder. You do a lot less running overall with S/V because the points are shorter. And that's why older players become more net-focused as they age and lose a step.

You just want to make Sampras out to be some kind of superhuman whose later drop in form was just because he played such a difficult style.
Glad we established that I was not "arguing with myself". Knew you'd come around.

Serve and volleying is much harder. The start-stop explosiveness off of a modern 120+ mph serve and its return, the hand eye coordination, net coverage and anticipation require far more athleticism and focus than baselining. I'm making Pete out to be exactly what he was. Why does this bother you so much?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Connors did it later in his career, Djokovic has added it to his arsenal in the last year or so. It's smart percentage play for an aging player who can't run side to side all day long anymore.
Connors was forced to come to the net more late in his career, really. He no longer had the stamina for loads of long rallies against much younger opponents, so used his smarts and experience to shorten points.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Connors was forced to come to the net more late in his career, really. He no longer had the stamina for loads of long rallies against much younger opponents, so used his smarts and experience to shorten points.

You are making my point for me
 
His on court workman like demeanor, not creating drama and controversy worked against his popularity and unfairly diminishes his memory and legacy. In his era, he was the most feared opponent anyone could face.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Biggest legacy is being the first "modern GOAT" and laying the template that all future ones will follow.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Like a champion of tennis before man discovered fire. Befoe man learned how to actually hit forehands, backhands, and return serve.
But just as modern man lost his ability to chase down sabertooth tigers successfully without getting eaten, with new technology, tennis players lost the ability to hit volleys and offensive second serves.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
But just as modern man lost his ability to chase down sabertooth tigers successfully without getting eaten, with new technology, tennis players lost the ability to hit volleys and offensive second serves.
And became largely overweight, overly medicated, anxiety ridden, sloth infested creatures incapable of the thought that brought them their new technology in the first place.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
S&V is pretty exhausting as well. Muscle use seems a bit different from baseline play.

Time on the court is less as points are faster but when on the court the exertion and energy expended seems to be equal if not more than if you had predominantly played from the baseline for the same duration.
 

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
There's a big caveat to that. Remember the Wimbledon era Sampras played in (and dominated), and the complaints/fears that the game was devolving into a simple serving contest. When the pattern of S&V is simply serve, serve, serve/miss, serve... that's nowhere near the energy expenditure of extended, hard-hitting baseline points. There's a potential discussion when actual points are being played regularly. But Pete was able to rack up several Wimbledons without doing much of that.
 
Top