What remains of Sampras' legacy?

[Fiero425]

Wimbledon (pre 2001): 6-4 Sampras
USO: 5-5
YEC (carpet): 5-5

While I think Sampras’ best on carpet is the best in history (only challenged by Becker), he was not very consistent on that surface and when talking about ten matches series I always consider a fluctuation in level over the matches. If we create some fantasy scenario in which both players in all ten matches always perform at the best they ever showed it would be pointless, as one player would have the higher peak level and win basically all matches.

IDK about that! McEnroe and Becker were more feared on carpet, but Lendl had a very good record on the surface, actually winning the YEC several times more; twice in '86 when both ladies and Men's tours changed the date of the YEC to Nov.! Martina won it twice as well that year!

 

[Fiero425]

I wasn't around to watch McEnroe, but I've heard mythical things about him on carpet. Would you rate him higher than Becker/Sampras?

John had the best, technically sound game to play & win on carpet; esp. if fast! He chipped and charged his way to many wins, but back in the day I'm thinking Lendl!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

IDK about that! McEnroe and Becker were more feared on carpet, but Lendl had a very good record on the surface, actually winning the YEC several times more; twice in '86 when both ladies and Men's tours changed the date of the YEC to Nov.! Martina won it twice as well that year!

His record was great and he might be the most accomplished carpet player. But there is a difference between best level and accomplishments. Pete wasn’t very consistent (losing a RR match in all four YECs he won on carpet, being 2-5 on carpet in DC matches and only having a 76% win rate overall). This is why I say him vs Federer over ten matches goes 5-5, Pete’s peak level though is the highest of all times for me.

 

[Ombelibable]

The stuff about Sampras and other eras in general is an embarrassment to the forum.

I’m 31 years old and would never disrespect past eras like the 70s 80s. Some of you modern day clowns should hang your heads in shame. Especially lance fans. Your supporting the worst of tennis in lance.

Pete Sampras legacy?

The greatest fast court player in the history of tennis period! There’s no arguments for anyone else.

Huge argument for him to be the GOAT!

Me personally I think that’s Federer because Federer has proved over the years he’s incredible on every surface. He’s a mental midget but he’s still the goat. Nadal can never be goat obviously but Djokovic can pass Federer and Sampras.

Nadal and Djokovic wouldn’t have a fcuking prayer in any other era. Especially lance. I’ve got more respect for Djokovic game wise.

Nadal would be brutalised and would fain injury like in the wawrinka 2014 Australian open final or look like a total pathetic mug like in his Dustin brown encounters. A man ranked 130th in the world who is actually a grass court player destroyed him. Imagine nadal in the 70s 80s 90s or early 00s on grass. He’d be ****ed totally fcuked.

Someone post a video of nadal winning a title on a fast court? It’s never happened and never will happen.

The courts now are so slow at every tournament it suits nadal and Djokovic now days. In the 90s they are in trouble slam count wise.

If Sampras has 4 slams all playing quick god knows how many slams he would have had. He keep racking them up that’s for sure. And Federer would also to be fair.

Back to Pete.

The 90s was such a strong era depth wise. To win 14 in that era is like 20 in this era. Because the early round upsets were far more likely because of the strength of depth on tour. Look at the grass court and clay court fields? Insane to be honest. His 7 Wimbledon’s in 8 years in that era is one of the biggest achievements in all sports history. Bigger than federers 8 and nadals 12 French against weak fields. The top 20 were basically all threats at slams in the 80s and 90s. Nows it’s just the big 5 who ever have the performances.

Game wise?
Sampras matches up very well against the current big 3. Mental strength, Serve, forehand, volley, movement and grit. Everything he does as well or better.

Peak for peak?
Watch Wimbledon is 1999 final. Point proven.

Head to head against rivals?
Leading against everyone.

Statistics and records?
When he retired he had every big record in the sport.
In order of importance

Grand slam record that had stood for 40 years

Most weeks at number one

6 consecutive year end number 1 finishes

5 yec/wtf

Dominated the biggest tournament in the world

Won 5+ slams at 2 different majors

And once he broke these records he basically stopped trying to further them. He got the record and focused on something else or lost motivation. Mainly lost motivation to be honest. But you have to question life wise not tennis wise who got it right? Sampras or Federer? Sampras has had years of retirement with his young family in his los Angeles mansion probably going between his pool and the golf club for lunch with his film star wife. He currently watches tennis tournaments when he can be bothered on tv with a cigar on in a totally relaxed frame of mind. While being close to his kids while they are young.

Look I watch every Federer match and want him to go on forever so me and dad can have moments like the Australian open final 2017. Even the Djokovic match last week was special. Thank you roger ! But from a life perspective traveling around the world and the day to day grind of staying fit and practicing and travel and dieting and media all while 2 players are relentlessly chasing down all your records can’t be fun.

Pete got it right life/family wise. Tennis wise yes Sampras could have won more Wimbledon’s and us opens but in 2002 he didn’t need to. He was already the goat and after this post it’s hard to argue against Pete Sampras still being the Goat in 2019!

You've gone to great lengths to trash on Nadal, but no amount of furiously typing on a keyboard about surface homogenization will change the fact that he has the career slam (youngest), an olympic gold medal and as many titles at one slam as Sampras has in all four combined. Cope and seethe.

 

[Fiero425]

You've gone to great lengths to trash on Nadal, but no amount of furiously typing on a keyboard about surface homogenization will change the fact that he has the career slam (youngest), an olympic gold medal and as many titles at one slam as Sampras has in all four combined. Cope and seethe.

You have to admit Nadal has some gaping holes in his resume! He'll end up half the weeks @ #1, no YEC's, no Golden Masters, etc.! He's had a stellar career, but I can't give him GOAT honors lacking in so many categories that Fedovic own!

 

[Mustard]

You have to admit Nadal has some gaping holes in his resume! He'll end up half the weeks @ #1, no YEC's, no Golden Masters, etc.! He's had a stellar career, but I can't give him GOAT honors lacking in so many categories that Fedovic own!

Nadal has 14 French Opens, 12 Barcelonas, 11 Monte Carlos and 10 Italian Opens. He defended his own turf like no other.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal has 14 French Opens, 12 Barcelonas, 11 Monte Carlos and 10 Italian Opens. He defended his own turf like no other.

....AND? So what? So he's the "clay GAWD!" Congrats! Rafa's still no Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Lendl, Djokovic, or a Federer who he owned from the early days!

 

[Mustard]

....AND? So what? So he's the "clay GAWD!" Congrats! Rafa's still no Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Lendl, Djokovic, or a Federer who he owned from the early days!

LOL.

 

[buscemi]

His record was great and he might be the most accomplished carpet player. But there is a difference between best level and accomplishments. Pete wasn’t very consistent (losing a RR match in all four YECs he won on carpet, being 2-5 on carpet in DC matches and only having a 76% win rate overall). This is why I say him vs Federer over ten matches goes 5-5, Pete’s peak level though is the highest of all times for me.

If we're going by absolute peak level, I might take Stich in his 1993 WTF final over Sampras. 27 aces vs. 2 double faults. Excellent net game. Outplayed Pete from the baseline.

 

[Holmes]

surprised SaintPetros hasn’t posted a “what remains of Federer’s legacy” thread yet

Looks like he's banned which would explain why this never happened.

 

[RS]

Top 5 all time behind the Big 3 and maybe Borg is still nothing to sniff at.

 

[BGod]

Greatest Player of a Generation/Decade is still a pretty big deal.

Borg/Connors for the 70s
McEnroe, Lendl for the 80s
Sampras 90s
Federer 00s
Nadal/Djokovic 10s

 

[Mark-Touch]

Legacy shmegacy.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about his legacy.

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, can take away the unadulterated pleasure I enjoyed for more
than 10 years as I watched Sampras develop and mature into the dominant monster he was in the 90's.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

(with apologies to Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront").

Not very classy.

 

[timnz]

For a player who was the most prolific Grand Slam winner of all time less than two decades ago and was hailed as a GOAT, looks like pretty much all of his records are shattered, in one generation.

Most Majors? Broken thrice.
Most wimbledons? Broken.
Most weeks at #1 ? Broken.
Being the only player to win a slam in his teens, twenties and thirties ? Joined by Nadal, who has many more in his thirties.

The only one that remains is 6 consecutive years at YE #1, which exists only because the Big 3 co-exist in the same era, else that would've been broken too. He's also the youngest to win the USO.

The big three each have the career slam, which Sampras wasn't close to achieving. IMO, if he played today, he'd be another John Isner.

Edit : 24th November 2019 : Thank you, members of TTW, for proving the 'Cunningham effect' right. It states that "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it’s to post the wrong answer. " https://medium.com/@jussiahola/cunninghams-law-and-human-motivation-d88063fdc098

I played a social experiment with this forum. If I had simply asked "What's Sampras' legacy?"I would've gotten a few, brief answers. Instead I asked an obviously loaded and provocative question which brought out the best facts. Its also telling of the nature of human behaviour, especially in a time where the world is so polarized, yet moderates and centrists aren't half as popular as radicals with the most outrageous ideologies.

I started watching tennis in 2003, the year after Sampras retired. I have since watched his interviews, watched a few matches of his and have read his biography. This thread gave me all that I might have missed. Thanks again, TTW.

Best fast court player ever? Remember that fast-medium is the very fastest surface today

 

[mcs1970]

Greatest Player of a Generation/Decade is still a pretty big deal.

Borg/Connors for the 70s
McEnroe, Lendl for the 80s
Sampras 90s
Federer 00s
Nadal/Djokovic 10s

It’s not just that. Andre captured it perfectly in the clip I posted on this thread where he said that Pete pushed the game of tennis forward. That is something much more tangible with Sampras and his legacy. It was not just about being the greatest of his generation but also showing to the big 3 how the next great needed to be a power player with elite athleticism as well. Anything less would no longer be enough.

That level of athleticism combined with that power game was unique. It took what Lendl and Becker started to the next level. There is no Pete without a Laver or JMac. There is no Federer without a Pete. There is no Alcaraz without Novak or Rafa.

Inspiring the next great is the true legacy of the greats. Other things like records will come and go. It is silly 5 years from now asking what Federer’s legacy is just because his GS record was broken. Legacies are much more than that especially if you have advanced the game forward.

 

[Fedforever]

Legacy shmegacy.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about his legacy.

No one, and I mean absolutely no one, can take away the unadulterated pleasure I enjoyed for more
than 10 years as I watched Sampras develop and mature into the dominant monster he was in the 90's.

All these threads about legacies are becoming absolutely mad - as if everyone should live their lives on the basis of a competition with unknown others who might someday "beat" you.

The "legacy" for Pete is that he knows he made the absolute best of his talents - that he had the joy of holding up trophies, the sound of the crowd......

I can't remember who it was but I remember seeing it on social media - a guy of around 40 who'd just won his first ATP tournament -probably a 250. The look on his face, the tears - who's to say that in that moment he didn't feel just as much joy as Djokovic winning 23 or Federer in AO 17 or Nadal in Wimbledon 08?

Imagine if we applied this to our own lives "Oh no, that kid turned out to be smarter than my kid - why did I bother having her at all?" "Yeah, I know I got a great promotion but I'm not the US President so what does it matter?"

 

[BGod]

All these threads about legacies are becoming absolutely mad - as if everyone should live their lives on the basis of a competition with unknown others who might someday "beat" you.

The "legacy" for Pete is that he knows he made the absolute best of his talents - that he had the joy of holding up trophies, the sound of the crowd......

I can't remember who it was but I remember seeing it on social media - a guy of around 40 who'd just won his first ATP tournament -probably a 250. The look on his face, the tears - who's to say that in that moment he didn't feel just as much joy as Djokovic winning 23 or Federer in AO 17 or Nadal in Wimbledon 08?

Imagine if we applied this to our own lives "Oh no, that kid turned out to be smarter than my kid - why did I bother having her at all?" "Yeah, I know I got a great promotion but I'm not the US President so what does it matter?"

Lorenzi, 34, becomes oldest first-time ATP champion in Kitzbuehel | Tennis.com

Lorenzi beats Basilashvili, is oldest 1st-time ATP winner

www.tennis.com

So I think it was a Challenger Title. Which I mean isn't that low considering it's still professional tennis where probably only a few hundred players a decade can claim titles.

 

[Fedforever]

Lorenzi, 34, becomes oldest first-time ATP champion in Kitzbuehel | Tennis.com

Lorenzi beats Basilashvili, is oldest 1st-time ATP winner

www.tennis.com

So I think it was a Challenger Title. Which I mean isn't that low considering it's still professional tennis where probably only a few hundred players a decade can claim titles.

Even better.

 

[Waves]

All these threads about legacies are becoming absolutely mad - as if everyone should live their lives on the basis of a competition with unknown others who might someday "beat" you.

The "legacy" for Pete is that he knows he made the absolute best of his talents - that he had the joy of holding up trophies, the sound of the crowd......

I can't remember who it was but I remember seeing it on social media - a guy of around 40 who'd just won his first ATP tournament -probably a 250. The look on his face, the tears - who's to say that in that moment he didn't feel just as much joy as Djokovic winning 23 or Federer in AO 17 or Nadal in Wimbledon 08?

Imagine if we applied this to our own lives "Oh no, that kid turned out to be smarter than my kid - why did I bother having her at all?" "Yeah, I know I got a great promotion but I'm not the US President so what does it matter?"

This!

 

[mental midget]

His record was great and he might be the most accomplished carpet player. But there is a difference between best level and accomplishments. Pete wasn’t very consistent (losing a RR match in all four YECs he won on carpet, being 2-5 on carpet in DC matches and only having a 76% win rate overall). This is why I say him vs Federer over ten matches goes 5-5, Pete’s peak level though is the highest of all times for me.

imo fed's best takes pete like 7-3 on carpet. on that surface, yes pete's got the mph but fed was an incredibly accurate server and i see serve stats as close to a dead heat. the difference would be fed's return, and versatility off the ground. close matches though...lots of holds.

 

[NedStark]

It’s not just that. Andre captured it perfectly in the clip I posted on this thread where he said that Pete pushed the game of tennis forward. That is something much more tangible with Sampras and his legacy. It was not just about being the greatest of his generation but also showing to the big 3 how the next great needed to be a power player with elite athleticism as well. Anything less would no longer be enough.

That level of athleticism combined with that power game was unique. It took what Lendl and Becker started to the next level. There is no Pete without a Laver or JMac. There is no Federer without a Pete. There is no Alcaraz without Novak or Rafa.

Inspiring the next great is the true legacy of the greats. Other things like records will come and go. It is silly 5 years from now asking what Federer’s legacy is just because his GS record was broken. Legacies are much more than that especially if you have advanced the game forward.

True.

The first player to truly have a combination of outrageous power game and outrageous athleticism. After him, the qualities required to become a great are no longer the same as before.

 

[buscemi]

imo fed's best takes pete like 7-3 on carpet. on that surface, yes pete's got the mph but fed was an incredibly accurate server and i see serve stats as close to a dead heat. the difference would be fed's return, and versatility off the ground. close matches though...lots of holds.

I don't share your confidence in Federer on carpet. I have him winning 2/18 carpet tournaments he entered.

1999: Rotterdam: lost to Kafelnikov in the QF; Basel: lost to Henman in the QF; Lyon: lost to Hewitt in the R32​

2000: Basel: lost to Enqvist in the final; Lyon: lost to Kucera in the R16; Bercy: lost to Hrbaty in the R64​

2001: Milan: beat Boutter in the final; Moscow: lost to Kiefer in the R32; Basel: lost to Henman in the final; Bercy: lost to Novak in the R32​

2002: Milan: lost to Sanguinetti in the final; Moscow: lost to Safin in the QF; Basel: lost to Nalbandian in the SF; Bercy: lost to Hewitt in the QF​

2003: Basel: lost to Ljubicic in the R16; Bercy: lost to Henman in the QF​

2005: WTF: lost to Nalbandian in the final​

2006: Basel: beat Gonzo on the final​

Sure, we can discard those 1999-2001 because Federer wasn't a top 10 player yet. But those are pretty weak results in 2002 when he finished #6 in the world. And those 2003 losses were after Federer won Wimbledon and just before he won WTF (on hard). That leaves the 2005 WTF final loss to Nalbandian when Federer was recovering from injury and the 2006 Basel title over a good, but not great, field.

I think we can say that Federer probably would have been very good on carpet had that remained a significant surface during his era, but I see nothing to indicate that he should be a favorite over Sampras, who demonstrated his dominance on the surface.

 

[mental midget]

I don't share your confidence in Federer on carpet. I have him winning 2/18 carpet tournaments he entered.

1999: Rotterdam: lost to Kafelnikov in the QF; Basel: lost to Henman in the QF; Lyon: lost to Hewitt in the R32​

2000: Basel: lost to Enqvist in the final; Lyon: lost to Kucera in the R16; Bercy: lost to Hrbaty in the R64​

2001: Milan: beat Boutter in the final; Moscow: lost to Kiefer in the R32; Basel: lost to Henman in the final; Bercy: lost to Novak in the R32​

2002: Milan: lost to Sanguinetti in the final; Moscow: lost to Safin in the QF; Basel: lost to Nalbandian in the SF; Bercy: lost to Hewitt in the QF​

2003: Basel: lost to Ljubicic in the R16; Bercy: lost to Henman in the QF​

2005: WTF: lost to Nalbandian in the final​

2006: Basel: beat Gonzo on the final​

Sure, we can discard those 1999-2001 because Federer wasn't a top 10 player yet. But those are pretty weak results in 2002 when he finished #6 in the world. And those 2003 losses were after Federer won Wimbledon and just before he won WTF (on hard). That leaves the 2005 WTF final loss to Nalbandian when Federer was recovering from injury and the 2006 Basel title over a good, but not great, field.

I think we can say that Federer probably would have been very good on carpet had that remained a significant surface during his era, but I see nothing to indicate that he should be a favorite over Sampras, who demonstrated his dominance on the surface.

fair enough. my pov is that part of it is a matchup thing--fed was among the best ever at getting big serves back into play, which over the course of a match is going to equate to more chances to make inroads on pete's serve. second, his game improved dramatically around 04-05, and he kind of stopping losing (-ish, of course) altogether off of clay for like 4-5 years. in the 05 match w nalby he was visibly hampered by a foot injury iirc but still took it to 5 and i think had a match point or two.

but yeah...who knows. pete was an absolute beast, these would be close matches. just feel like at the end of the day fed's got a tool or two extra in the belt is all.

 

[Holmes]

Best of his era, dominated his rivals, has one of the most important records in tennis, Tier 1 ATG who pioneered the GOAT template that the big 3 are in the shadow of...in short quite a legacy. Up there on Rushmore with Novak, Laver, and Gore.