H
Herald
Guest
And they come nowhere near those of Petros, nor Rodger's. Petros more explosive, Rodger more graceful.
What remains of Sampras' legacy?
- Thread starter Ombelibable
- Start date
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
This match with Becker was classic
No, the consensus is with Gonzales and Hoad as the strongest players ever. Read the reference I gave you above.
Pete stumbled around, Fed is in the mix.
Looks like Becker has sore feet, wincing around.
NonP
Legend
Our resident fabulist getting schooled left and right. What else is new. The old fart is really wrong about everything.
Y'all have done a good job slapping him around so I'll just get to his biggest howler in a while, which is saying something. Guess who Pat friggin' Etcheberry once singled out as the athlete par excellence among the elites he'd worked with:
So you can either listen to a renowned sports fitness coach or choose to swallow the not-even-wrong buffoonery of a perpetual punching bag on Wiki whose nonstop lies and distortions have given its mods countless fits (I know cuz I've heard directly from at least two of 'em). Talk about a real toughie.
Back in the real world, the whole interview is worth a read. Tennis Week used to produce top-notch content like this prior to its demise in '09 and sadly no other mag has come close since. (SI does its share of in-depth pieces, but rarely about tennis.)
Y'all have done a good job slapping him around so I'll just get to his biggest howler in a while, which is saying something. Guess who Pat friggin' Etcheberry once singled out as the athlete par excellence among the elites he'd worked with:
So you can either listen to a renowned sports fitness coach or choose to swallow the not-even-wrong buffoonery of a perpetual punching bag on Wiki whose nonstop lies and distortions have given its mods countless fits (I know cuz I've heard directly from at least two of 'em). Talk about a real toughie.
Back in the real world, the whole interview is worth a read. Tennis Week used to produce top-notch content like this prior to its demise in '09 and sadly no other mag has come close since. (SI does its share of in-depth pieces, but rarely about tennis.)
Okay, so Pete was better than people thought that he was, he wasn't as slow and awkward as many thought he was....ho hum. That is a recommendation?
You should read your own material sometime.
You come here to get educated again? Okay, Wiki tennis bios are now in great shape due to huge edits added by a contributor, you can read those articles and learn something about real tennis skill.
Your knowledge of tennis is about on a par with your understanding of classical music, which sets a special standard of sorts. (Ahem)
If you want to upgrade your classical music knowledge, rejoin the discussion on those threads.
Last edited:
H
Herald
Guest
Check this from one of Pete's trainers, who also trained players on the Lakers:
"Every great athlete needs a great team, and for a decade, Sampras was led in the gym by Gunnar Peterson.
Based in Beverly Hills, Peterson has trained everyone from the Los Angeles Lakers to Hugh Jackman to the Kardashians to word champions like Sampras.
"Honestly one of my favorite people," Peterson says. "Pete Sampras' work ethic, second to none."
..."On a recent episode of the TENNIS.com Podcast, he explained that whenever he showed Sampras a new move in the gym, like a one leg dumbbell deadlift, his first rep would look much like anyone else's.
"It's a new movement, you're learning the mechanics of it," Peterson says. "By the second set, it literally looks like the guy invented the move. His athletic learning curve, second to none... I loved the hours he was in there."
H
Herald
Guest
I think what you meant was Pete moved like a panther, in which case you are correct.
H
Herald
Guest
The mutual resentment feeds the belly's need for laughter like an ice cream flavor does its need for sweet.My like of talking to you is starting to border on true enjoyment. I think you are enjoying this too, which makes it all the better.
NonP
Legend
Etcheberry meant know-nothing dilettantes like U when he was referring to those "people." Every coach would laugh at your howler that Sampras of all people was no elite athlete when the guy could hang with Charles friggin' Woodson. So I schooled U like I always do. Take the free education and move on.
And your history of lies and distortions isn't even an open secret among the tennis Wiki crowd. They see U as a pest to be swatted over and over, which would come as no surprise to longtime regulars here who are used to your shenanigans. U really should be thankful that the mods still let U roam around when they must deal with the umpteenth reporting about your latest falsehood and U keep treating the classical threads as your personal blog of sorts.
Old-timers including Vines, Budge and Gonzales paid tribute to Pistol's athleticism so our resident trickster isn't even passing his own "pros vs. amateurs" test. The geezer couldn't keep a ruler straight if he tried.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
agree 100%. fast, strong, touch/creativity, balance...no doubt among the very best. said it before, you put him, fed, nadal, novak in the same academy from the same age...would not be surprised to see pete come out at or near the top.
D
Deleted member 765728
Guest
The most dominant Wimbledon champion and the greatest all-court player of all time.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah he's the same caliber of player as the Big 3 for sure.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Sampras is underrated these days, but part of the underrating is his own doing as he overhyped his own 14 slam record. Which is something to be proud of and yes he should talk it up, but underplaying his 2 IMO more impressive and significant records at the time- his 6 YE#1 in a row, and 7 Wimbledons. This isn't hindsight talk, I said even at the time 14 slams would not still be around in 20 years. Granted I never would have guessed 3 guys to have broken it in less than 20 years, and 3 guys to be dwarfing it completely, 6+ and counting slams over it about 20 years later. However I predicted even then almost no way the record would be around in 20 years. I did predict back then his 6 consecutive YE#1 and 7 Wimbledons would be around in 20 years. The former is, the latter isn't but it would have had a good chance at lasting for a long time if Federer wasn't so great Wimbledon, and Djokovic wasn't so opportunistic at Wimbledon (yes I know I will be flamed for that last comment, bring it on). His incredible longevity at greatness at the US Open is also something he should have talked up more. Some condensed dominance for sure, 3 titles in the 93-96 span, 4 titles and another final in the 90-96 span. But also incredible longevity there with his 1990 title, and his 3 straight finals so many years later in 2000-2002, including the 2002 title. Which is even more impressive when you look at how someone as great and great on fast courts as well as Federer hasn't been able to return to another US Open final since 2009.
Essentialy he chose the wrong record to hype his entire career around, and did not talk up some of the other aspects of his own career enough. That combined with the homogenization of surfaces, and the advances in nutrition, training, science, leading to far longer careers, and the Big 3 emerging and all capatilizing on all those (plus in Nadal and Djokovic's case especialy a terrible field in the latter part of their careers) has led to him becoming underrated, but part of it in retrospect is his own doing.
Essentialy he chose the wrong record to hype his entire career around, and did not talk up some of the other aspects of his own career enough. That combined with the homogenization of surfaces, and the advances in nutrition, training, science, leading to far longer careers, and the Big 3 emerging and all capatilizing on all those (plus in Nadal and Djokovic's case especialy a terrible field in the latter part of their careers) has led to him becoming underrated, but part of it in retrospect is his own doing.
FABULOUS TENNIS, BY BOTH!
H
Herald
Guest
Let's call a spade a spade, Fed was also opportunistic. Roddick in 3 finals, baby Nadal in another, and Grosjean, Bjorkman, Gasquet and Safin in semis isn't exactly the stuff of legends.
If either had remotely difficult draws, Pete's 7 Wimbledons would still be a record.
I AGREE!
Surprising that our resident codger curmudgeon makes another appearance, what happened to your disappearing act?
You really have developed a sense of humour, putting out quotes about Pete being not so bad and not so slow and awkward and unathletic as so many people think...that is your idea of a positive review?
That is what used to be known as a "backhand compliment". I guess the subtleties of these types of evaluations are beyond your grasp.
Like when I compliment you on your understanding of classical music.....you are in a special category....you can quote me on that as a type of evaluation of your skills.
The Wiki tennis bios are now very extended and strong thanks to major contributions from an editor. There is general agreement on that, which again is beyond your limited radar,
Last edited:
The general evaluation, as seen on Wiki, is not for Pete as among the strongest tennis athletes.. Check the Wiki articles on Gonzales and Hoad.
Not in the same category as the Sedgman/Hoad levels of weight training.
Public education runs in my family genes.
My like of talking to you is starting to border on true enjoyment. I think you are enjoying this too, which makes it all the better.
Pete had some footing issues, like against Rafter at the U.S. Open, he did not always look comfortable on his feet.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Oh I agree Federer didn't have the best Wimbledon competition in history by any means either. Borg for instance definitely had tougher competition than Federer did. And numerous others. However it still was never to the point of the vulturing Djokovic has been able to do at Wimbledon since 2018. Other than a "clearly past his prime on grass" Nadal in 2018 and very old Federer in 2019, who were both still good enough to be capable opponents, who has Djokovic beaten to win any of his last 4 Wimbledons? Compared to anyone else Djokovic faced in his last 4 Wimbledon runs, 2006 Nadal (who is still better than 2018 Nadal on grass I am pretty sure btw, he didn't lose a serve until the final in 06), prime Roddick, prime Hewitt are murderows row comparatively to underachieving Kygrios, Berrettini, Shapapaolov, Anderson, and anyone else you can name.
Pete had some problems in the majors, losses to Rafter, who was not a great player according to Pete. Really got crushed by Safin and Hewitt. Hewitt is not my idea of an all-timer. Krajicek not even in the HOF, but edge over Pete.
Pete won six straight point rankings on the tour in a row, which shows consistency against a generally weakened field. Other players had equal or greater success on the tours.
Last edited:
H
Herald
Guest
Not at all, all these players are much stronger than the Hoad, Gonzalez field, especially when in blitz mode as they were when they beat Pete.
We covered why the 90s was likely the strongest era in the Open Era above. Feel free to respond to those points anytime.
From what I have read Hoad's level of weight training contributed to his injuries which shortened his career. Rosewall concentrated on cardio training, which was one of the reasons he was able to win slams and WCT titles between 33-37 and reach 2 slam finals at nearly 40.
H
Herald
Guest
Gonzalez' footwork was often extremely sloppy. Don't forget his terrible backhand slice and Hoad's cringe topspin backhand.
H
Herald
Guest
I'd say that 2014/15/19 Federer are tougher than any version of Roddick to be honest. But otherwise I'd agree his competition was light. Still, those 3 finals with Federer meant 3 finals where the outcome wasn't a given, unlike Federer essentially every year bar 2008.
No, that is a joke. Krajicek was not even in the HOF, Hewitt was not an all-timer. Rafter, Safin and Krajicek were never annual No. 1 players. Yet they bundled Pete out of majors.
Gonzales and Hoad would handle those lesser players easily, and had higher peak levels than Pete, that is generally agreed.
Rosewall was a World No. 1 for at least six years, and was evidence of the great depth the fields had in the 1950's and 1960's, far above the 1990's. Pete had only one all-time great to beat in Agassi.
I would give Rosewall the edge over Agassi.
Gonzales and Laver both stated that Hoad's strength was the major factor in his wins. Check the Wiki article for their assessments.
You really are counterfactual there, they were both graceful on their feet, Gonzales was like a panther on the court, and Hoad's topspin backhand was a famous stroke.
I would recommend that you read the Wiki biography assessments of those two players, otherwise your work is only good for laughs.
Readers might get the impression that you are only a weak-kneed troll.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I would say Djokovic's Wimbledon competition for his first 3 titles in 2011, 2014, 2015, does not compare unfavorably to Federer. However the last 4, particularly the last 2, and likely any future Wimbledons he might win, compares extremely unfavorably even to Federer's. And is also enough to bring it sufficiently behind overall. Also considering Djokovic's age, and himself being clearly years past his prime, it is doubtful if he could keep winning these Wimbledons otherwise. Federer himself is an example of this, as he did not win a Wimbleon after 2012 at age 31. This is normal.
H
Herald
Guest
Interesting, because essentially every recent comment implies or outright states this about you, a charge which, by the way I have defended you from.
Gonzales was very lazy, unlike Pete who was constantly on his feet and pressuring his opponents his presence throughout the court. Hoad's topspin backhand was generously very average, nothing special compared to Rosewall's slice or Laver's topspin. It didn't even really fulfill the purpose of containment tennis like Pete's did.
I recommend you stop recommending Wiki biography assessments if you would like people to either stop accusing you of being a troll, or take you seriously.
H
Herald
Guest
Don't be silly, we have already repeatedly covered how superior the 90s was to the 50s/60s for essentially all of which professionals could not even compete for Grand Slams. Surely you wouldn't consider a 90s where professionals were barred from the slams as strong.
Interesting. I would give Agassi the edge over essentially everyone bar Laver from the Amateur and early Open Era. Even the legendary Hoad.
You are obviously not paying attention to the relevant materials which assess the abilities of Pete or Gonzales or Hoad. Check the Wiki assessments which give the sources and experts who made the evaluations.
No one ever accused Pete of being graceful or light-footed, even those friendly assessments from Pete's paid helpers.
Last edited:
You are out of touch with reality, Rosewall was a six-time world No. 1 player, Agassi a two-time No. 1 player when he was healthy. No comparison.
You seem to be stuck in a time-warp with serious evaluation problems, so I will do you a favour and give you some time off your puerile rant.
You have now been nominated to my very distinguished list of Invisibles, whose timeless meditations have entertained the patient readers of this forum.
Last edited:
H
Herald
Guest
Don't worry my friend, I graciously accept your concession given with your back to me, fleeing as quickly as your tail tied legs allow. I promise I won't speak ill of you.
Could not agree more with this.
Pioline was not exactly a giant either, but Pioline reached a US Open final and a Wimbledon final in the 1990s. The fields were not strong in the 1990s either.
Last edited:
Ombelibable
Professional
Its been done at other majors though
Fed AO 2004-2018
Nadal AO 2009-2022
Fed Wim 2003-2017
Nadal RG 2005-2022
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Alot really. Hes still GOAT of his era and hands down best during that time. . Nadal for instance spent 90 percent of his career at #2. Federer has now dropped to third of his own era
Fiero425
Legend
Roger could have owned his era if he had left a little sooner; maybe after Wimbledon in 2012 or 2017! By then he was already #3 all time in my book and ruined his legacy! He looked bad; haggard for a lot of that time! He got an opportunity to expand his initial lead of majors when Novak went "walkabout" for a couple years, but inevitably fell behind both Nadal and Djokovic who own 22 to his his 20!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not as much as 90%. When Nadal was #2, he was the nemesis of the #1 for most of that.
Fiero425
Legend
That just meant Nadal's vulnerable to lower ranked players; esp. at Wimbledon, AO, & the USO early on! I still can't fathom Del Po annihilating him 2, 2, & 2, in '09 SF!
Fiero425
Legend
How soon we forget how we put Sampras on a pedestal above all players w/o even playing a FO final! We anointed him "The Best" of all time not that long ago!
