What was Pete Sampras like?

[theSHAMOO]

For those of you who had the pleasure of watching Petes career live, what was he like? Was there more to him than just being the most dominant of the serve & volley era of the late 90's?

If anyone has any signifant interviews, matches, or details, I'd love to know/watch. For having obtained 14 slam titles in the open era, I don't really see many 'super fans' of Pete like I do the other greats. He seems like one of the all time greats with the quietest fans. I never really see any players try to emulate his style of play (unlike the current big 3).

 

[helterskelter]

I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that Federer tried to emulate Sampras's style of play, but he was certainly influenced by it.

 

[Kralingen]

Watch the first minute and a half of this and try not to laugh:

 

[Deleted member 748597]

He smoked the competition.

 

[Checkmate]

like Former Pro Player Section.

 

[Lorenn]

Watching Pete was like watching Micheal Phelps. He just seemed so naturally designed for his game. He was super nice while being insanely talented.

 

[theSHAMOO]

like Former Pro Player Section.

oops

 

[spottishwood]

He seems like one of the all time greats with the quietest fans.

Well, not really. They weren't that many in number but you've definitely missed the not-so-quiet ones

 

[The Blond Blur]

 

[King No1e]

oops

Don't bother. That section is where threads go to die.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Closest thing to Michael Jordan in tennis when it came to sheer dominance on the big stage, determination and stepping up under pressure and killer instinct and taking things personally if someone shows him up and he comes back for revenge

not the most week in week out consistent player ever (though I don’t necessary hold that against him 100 percent because there used to be diversity in the game unlike todays homogenizing) but probably the mentally toughest and most competitive player ever. There’s a lot of similarities with Jordan there. He ripped out more hearts than a surgeon and left no equals in his era

To paraphrase Agassi : “I felt like I played my best tennis that day, yet there is Pete at the end of the match holding the trophy”

 

[UnderratedSlam]

For those of you who had the pleasure of watching Petes career live, what was he like? Was there more to him than just being the most dominant of the serve & volley era of the late 90's?

If anyone has any signifant interviews, matches, or details, I'd love to know/watch. For having obtained 14 slam titles in the open era, I don't really see many 'super fans' of Pete like I do the other greats. He seems like one of the all time greats with the quietest fans. I never really see any players try to emulate his style of play (unlike the current big 3).

I followed his career from 1991 onwards, and it was no pleasure, trust me. I found him very boring. If tennis were only about skill, audiences would be composed of robots programmed to applaud to perfection.

Sampras had relatively few fans - considering his huge success - simply because he was a bit of a servebot in an era when servebots had it much easier than now. (Quicker surfaces, balls, shorter rallies...)

And what's really crucial - he lacked charisma. He treated tennis the way an accountant treated his boring desk job: he pretty much showed up on court, fired his barrage of service winners, several spiffing volleys and one or two spectacular FH/BH winners (much more often FH) and then left the court, with very little visible emotion, very little acknowledgment of the crowd's existence.

He even compared tennis to a desk job, or a regular job, he hated the entertainment aspect of it - possibly because he was an introvert and knew he had very little entertainment in him. So bland. His interviews were mostly boring too.

Over the years at the top of the game, Pete's demeanor became arrogant, he started believing the hype, that he is God's gift to the world just because he hits a little yellow ball better than most others, which is always bad. He was a grounded kid at the outset, but that drastically changed. He dissed other players, such as Rusedski and Rafter, showed little respect for them, because hey, how dare they even hope to beat The Great Pete? How dare Rafter become no 1 during his Highness's reign. Even if for one week. (One week is all it took to trigger Pete.) Good thing Rafter was such a down-to-Earth, smart guy so he mostly took it with humour.

I never liked him. Though I like him more now, as a retired player. He seems to have "landed" back on Earth, appears more grounded, more likable. No doubt the Big 3 successes have helped in this.

But nobody can deny the huge shots he had: serve (his main weapon, that won him the majority of points), his volley, and his FH. Wimbledon matches with Pete were very boring in terms of tennis.

Also, he was a consummate professional, never a diva. No spoiled talent screaming for attention.

Nevertheless, he was lucky to play in the Fast Era, because today he'd have to work a lot harder to win points, and I doubt he would have been anywhere close to as good. Today it's far more baseline, less net-game, and that would hurt him. I doubt he would have been able to adapt, but who knows. Still, can't imagine a baseline Sampras slugging it out with Nadal and Djokovic, and winning often.

Considering he won 14 slams in an era when 8 seemed to be the ceiling - yet being far less popular than Mac, Connors, Agassi or Becker - tells you everything. Fans love success and especially records and yet despite that not that many tennis fans, relatively speaking, clamoured to become Sampras fans.

I know this post will cause upheaval among Sampras fans, but this is my take on it, love it or hate it.

 

[Mike Bulgakov]

I first saw him playing when he was hitting and playing a practice set against Edberg at UCLA a few weeks before winning his first U.S. Open in 1990. I was sitting on the ground right next to the court. Four things really caught my attention: he was incredibly chill with the attitude and shorts of a surfer; he was cat-like with amazing reflexes at the net; he was incredibly smooth with effortless power; and he was lightning fast off the mark. I had crossed paths with him off court a year before.

 

[Ledigs]

Tennis was different back then. Sampras and Agassi were big names and the rivalry was just as important albeit not as close in results as Federer and Nadal. Many people lost interest once they retired for awhile because they were such big stars within the game. I personally was an Agassi fan because he was more fun to watch and had a personality. But Sampras was definitely a big name and his matches were exciting to watch simply because he was a great player. I can still see him flying around on the court in my mind. Shorter points, more volleys, overheads etc.

 

[Zoid]

It was no pleasure, trust me. I found him very boring. If tennis were only about skill, audiences would be composed of robots programmed to applaud to perfection.

Sampras had relatively few fans - considering his huge success - simply because he was a bit of a servebot in an era when servebots had it much easier than now. (Quicker surfaces, balls, shorter rallies...)

And what's really crucial - he lacked charisma. He treated tennis the way an accountant treated his boring desk job: he pretty much showed up on court, fired his barrage of service winners, several spiffing volleys and one or two spectacular FH/BH winners (much more often FH) and then left the court, with very little visible emotion, very little acknowledgment of the crowd's existence.

He even compared tennis to a desk job, or a regular job, he hated the entertainment aspect of it - possibly because he was an introvert and knew he had very little entertainment in him. So bland. His interviews were mostly boring too.

Over the years at the top of the game, Pete's demeanor became arrogant, he started believing the hype, that he is God's gift to the world just because he hits a little yellow ball better than most others, which is always bad. He dissed other players, such as Rusedski and Rafter, showed little respect to them, because hey, how dare they even hope to beat The Great Pete? How dare Rafter become no 1 during his Highness's reign. Even if for one week. (One week is all it took to trigger Pete.)

I never liked him.

But nobody can deny the huge shots he had: serve (his main weapon, that won him the majority of points), his volley, and his FH,

Nevertheless, he was lucky to play in the Fast Era, because today he'd have to work a lot harder to win points, and I doubt he would have been anywhere close to as good. Today it's far more baseline, less net-game, and that would hurt him.

While I mostly agree that Pete was a little bland, you gotta appreciate how good that serve was. If he was playing today he would be a different player, he would have developed a better ground game and better defence I imagine; he certainly was a good enough athlete to be an amazing mover like today's greats.

Players are products of their time as much as they influence the times.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

No match for his new kind of power. Boris waxing lyrical about Pete like he was the t1000.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Interesting thread.
Pete Sampras was an awesome player. Would be cool to reminisce some of his greatest moments

 

[Deleted member 788697]

He was a more athletic, more powerful and less error-prone version of Federer.

 

[Lorenn]

And what's really crucial - he lacked charisma. He treated tennis the way an accountant treated his boring desk job: he pretty much showed up on court, fired his barrage of service winners, several spiffing volleys and one or two spectacular FH/BH winners (much more often FH) and then left the court, with very little visible emotion, very little acknowledgment of the crowd's existence.

Over the years at the top of the game, Pete's demeanor became arrogant, he started believing the hype, that he is God's gift to the world just because he hits a little yellow ball better than most others, which is always bad. He was a grounded kid at the outset, but that drastically changed. He dissed other players, such as Rusedski and Rafter, showed little respect for them, because hey, how dare they even hope to beat The Great Pete? How dare Rafter become no 1 during his Highness's reign. Even if for one week. (One week is all it took to trigger Pete.) Good thing Rafter was such a down-to-Earth, smart guy so he mostly took it with humour.

You disliked him from beginning to end. Maybe that was why he didn't speak early in his career. Rafter liked to wind Pete up behind the scenes. So I wouldn't really use it as the best example. Basically fans like or dislike players and that tends to color their opinion of them.

Rafter took it with humor because he loved to goad Pete. It showed it was working.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Definitely had the other world aura about him. It made me think Krajicek would go on to smoke the competition when he beat him in 1996. That's how shocked little ol me was. To be fair, Krajicek was awesome for 2 weeks. Shame we didn't have a better final.

''Mal Washington lol''

 

[lim]

All the super fans are in the pro staff 85 thread trying to decode the 3 letters on the butcap to see if it’s a St Vincent lol

 

[Kevin T]

Closest thing to Michael Jordan in tennis when it came to sheer dominance on the big stage, determination and stepping up under pressure and killer instinct and taking things personally if someone shows him up and he comes back for revenge

not the most week in week out consistent player ever (though I don’t necessary hold that against him 100 percent because there used to be diversity in the game unlike todays homogenizing) but probably the mentally toughest and most competitive player ever. There’s a lot of similarities with Jordan there. He ripped out more hearts than a surgeon and left no equals in his era

To paraphrase Agassi : “I felt like I played my best tennis that day, yet there is Pete at the end of the match holding the trophy”

This is 100% spot on. We can argue weak era, big 3, blah, blah blah, but the guy was a 'killer' in the vein of Jordan, Koby, Tom Brady. He's also one of the best tennis athletes ever. I mean, 12-2 in Slam finals in the 90's with a streak of 8-0 in the mid to late 90's. Won 5 of 6 year end ATP finals. Year end #1 six years in a row. Winning record against all major contemporaries from his era and those winding down as he was starting (Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Lendl, etc.)He seemed to view the Master's tourneys differently than the Big 3, as well. To him, they were strictly warm-ups for a Slam. Watched him dog a ton of matches because he wasn't going to waste energy on a non-Slam title. The lack of an RG title will keep him from GOAT status but again, he just didn't care about it as much. And after 10-11 years of brilliance, he was happy to walk away and play cards and golf and spend time with family. Just a different mindset.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

While I mostly agree that Pete was a little bland, you gotta appreciate how good that serve was. If he was playing today he would be a different player, he would have developed a better ground game and better defence I imagine; he certainly was a good enough athlete to be an amazing mover like today's greats.

Players are products of their time as much as they influence the times.

Yes, I altered my post to include more speculation on that.

I agree that for example Borg would have been a more aggressive player today.

However, Sampras hated playing long rallies, his RELATIVELY unsuccessful adaptation to clay seems to speak against his success today. As fit as he was, not sure he would have been able to out-fitness the Big 3.

 

[Aabye5]

Becker on Pete

 

[reaper]

Watching Pete was like watching Micheal Phelps. He just seemed so naturally designed for his game. He was super nice while being insanely talented.

Not so sure about the super nice part. It might be professional jealousy but he was far from universally popular among the players.

 

[Aabye5]

Wimbledon montage

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You disliked him from beginning to end. Maybe that was why he didn't speak early in his career. Rafter liked to wind Pete up behind the scenes. So I wouldn't really use it as the best example. Basically fans like or dislike players and that tends to color their opinion of them.

Rafter took it with humor because he loved to goad Pete. It showed it was working.

You were there behind the scenes?

Pray tell, give us all the details.

Rafter was and still is a class-act, and a relaxed, funny Aussi. Pete was uptight and a bit humourless. (The way he reacted to Agassi's joke about his stinginess was that of a hugely hurt Ego. Agassi may have gone overboard, but Pete was foolish to get so upset over such piffle.)

 

[Lorenn]

Not so sure about the super nice part. It might be professional jealousy but he was far from universally popular among the players.

He wasn't kind to rivals, he didn't goof off. He took things to seriously. I found him nice when I talked to him.

Watching him play it broke my heart for the future of the game. Still if you look at how fluidly he moved it is hard not to respect his talent. This from a hardcore late Agassi fan

 

[Zoid]

Yes, I altered my post to include more speculation on that.

I agree that for example Borg would have been a more aggressive player today.

However, Sampras hated playing long rallies, his RELATIVELY unsuccessful adaptation to clay seems to speak against his success today. As fit as he was, not sure he would have been able to out-fitness the Big 3.

I think Pete once you're as talented and athletic as someone like Pete, you would be great in any era. He would have become fitter and learned to rally more. I still think he would be best suited to an aggressive hardcourt game like a Kyrgios. Or a more aggressive and powerful Fed

 

[Grafil Injection]

That second serve against Agassi, while Steffi was looking on. Most people would've loved that for their first serve!

Sampras is a legend who dominated for 4-5 years just like Federer. In virtually all aspects of play, he appeared to be superior. He may well have been pretty cool guy off the court after a few beers, but you didn't see much of that on court. Apart from Agassi and earlier perhaps Becker, most players were pretty focused in that era too. I suspect the concentration needed in the fast court and fast ball years, reduced most peoples linguistic brain areas down to a pea.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I think Pete once you're as talented and athletic as someone like Pete, you would be great in any era. He would have become fitter and learned to rally more. I still think he would be best suited to an aggressive hardcourt game like a Kyrgios. Or a more aggressive and powerful Fed

That is not a fact, it is an unprovable assumption.

We simply don't know to what extent it is true, and for whom.

Each era is different and rewards a "slightly" different skill-set, natural skill-set I mean.

Timing is everything. Becker for example with his build and relatively lumbersome movement would have greatly struggled today, at least age 25 onwards. He was lucky to be a 17 year-old bomber who perfectly seized the opportunity in the mid-80s when the first real power era was just about to start. You believe he would have dominated Wimbledon the way it is today - especially at that age? No chance. He would have been just another kid with a huge serve, albeit more gifted than most.

Luck and timing always play a role in life, nobody's success is guaranteed or "universal" i.e. independent of eras and uncontrollable factors. We are just humans, and pros are not gods.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

He wasn't kind to rivals, he didn't goof off. He took things to seriously. I found him nice when I talked to him.

Watching him play it broke my heart for the future of the game. Still if you look at how fluidly he moved it is hard not to respect his talent. This from a hardcore late Agassi fan

Basing a person's personality on one encounter (perhaps even brief?) is a common mistake I hear from people.

I often hear this, for example from music fans. "But Axl Rose was awesome to me!" Yes, awesome to a GIRL FAN, but generally known to be arrogant and unpleasant.

Not saying you are wrong about Pete, just saying it is a very limited sample... One person, one encounter. Not scientific.

 

[Zoid]

That is not a fact, it is an unprovable assumption.

We simply don't know to what extent it is true, and for whom.

Each era is different and rewards a "slightly" different skill-set, natural skill-set I mean.

Timing is everything. Becker for example with his build and relatively lumbersome movement would have greatly struggled today, at least age 25 onwards. He was lucky to be a 17 year-old bomber who perfectly seized the opportunity in the mid-80s. You believe he would have dominated Wimbledon the way it is today - especially at that age? No chance. He would have been just another kid with a huge serve, albeit more gifted than most.

Luck and timing always play a role in life, nobody's success is guaranteed or "universal" i.e. independent of eras and uncontrollable factors. We are just humans, and pros are not gods.

Of course we can't predict. But my point is Becker wouldn't be Becker if he was born in 2000's. Odds are he would have had a two-hander and a better tolerance/ability to hit groundstrokes and move from the back. The conditions make the player more than the other way round. It's why you see North American/Aussie with similar styles; flat shovel backhands and big forehands.

Lopez is a Spaniard who plays old school/non-spanish tennis; he grew up mainly on hard courts in his part of SPain.

 

[theSHAMOO]

Hard to tell if I would have liked him or not. I really admire when players are professional, driven, and focused. I'm despise my generations adhesion to self branding on social media, it makes everyone look like an ego-maniac. How can I tell which players love tennis and love winning? And which players are just trying to boost their brand (cant get over themselves)?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Of course we can't predict. But my point is Becker wouldn't be Becker if he was born in 2000's. Odds are he would have had a two-hander and a better tolerance/ability to hit groundstrokes and move from the back. The conditions make the player more than the other way round. It's why you see North American/Aussie with similar styles; flat shovel backhands and big forehands.

Lopez is a Spaniard who plays old school/non-spanish tennis; he grew up mainly on hard courts in his part of SPain.

Verdasco is arguably better on HC and grass than clay despite being a Spaniard and in an era when nearly all Spaniards have that grinding baseline game.

He and Lopez show that genetic considerations exist too. Becker was predisposed to playing a 1HB, perhaps he might have played 2HB now, but you can't assume that. Fact is that Thiem, Shapo, Tsits and others exist, so why would a NextGen version of Becker be different in that sense.

Becker's movement would have been the same or similar, i.e. a big liability nowadays, at least in terms of winning slams and being no 1.

 

[Kevin T]

You were there behind the scenes?

Pray tell, give us all the details.

Rafter was and still is a class-act, and a relaxed, funny Aussi. Pete was uptight and a bit humourless. (The way he reacted to Agassi's joke about his stinginess was that of a hugely hurt Ego. Agassi may have gone overboard, but Pete was foolish to get so upset over such piffle.)

So, Pete was essentially like Lendl or Graf? I'm fine with that comparison and will take it vs a Kyrgios or pink shorts and a mulleted hair piece. I couldn't agree more with your post:

"But nobody can deny the huge shots he had: serve (his main weapon, that won him the majority of points), his volley, and his FH, Wimbledon matches with Pete were very boring in terms of tennis.

Also, he was a consummate professional, never a diva. No spoiled talent screaming for attention."

I enjoy a great personality in pro athletes but I most enjoy athletic excellence. And I don't care what Rusedski thought, as he was a total tool. Would Pete struggle in today's game? Most likely. Would the Big 3 struggle in the 90's game? Outside of Fed, most certainly. No modern poly. Faster balls and courts. Less sophisticated sports medicine. No gluten-free/anti-vaxx/God knows what else gurus.

Goran Ivanisevic was my fave player of that era and before him Becker. Becker and his speed and power at Wimbledon at 17 yo pretty much got me interested in tennis at 10 yo. But I admire Pete the most. I look at Pete like Jim Brown or Gayle Sayers in football. Brilliant and absolutely dominant, yet relatively short careers vs contemporary record holders. Emmitt Smith may have the most yards rushing all time but the only people that think he's the greatest running back are Emmitt and his mamma.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

So, Pete was essentially like Lendl or Graf? I'm fine with that comparison and will take it vs a Kyrgios or pink shorts and a mulleted hair piece. I couldn't agree more with your post:

"But nobody can deny the huge shots he had: serve (his main weapon, that won him the majority of points), his volley, and his FH, Wimbledon matches with Pete were very boring in terms of tennis.

Also, he was a consummate professional, never a diva. No spoiled talent screaming for attention."

I enjoy a great personality in pro athletes but I most enjoy athletic excellence. And I don't care what Rusedski thought, as he was a total tool. Would Pete struggle in today's game? Most likely. Would the Big 3 struggle in the 90's game? Outside of Fed, most certainly. No modern poly. Faster balls and courts. Less sophisticated sports medicine. No gluten-free/anti-vaxx/God knows what else gurus.

Goran Ivanisevic was my fave player of that era and before him Becker. Becker and his speed and power at Wimbledon at 17 yo pretty much got me interested in tennis at 10 yo. But I admire Pete the most. I look at Pete like Jim Brown or Gayle Sayers in football. Brilliant and absolutely dominant, yet relatively short careers vs contemporary record holders. Emmitt Smith may have the most yards rushing all time but the only people that think he's the greatest running back are Emmitt and his mamma.

It's so weird that you place so much value on professionalism yet you liked Ivanisevic the most. He was such a hilarious tanker, so grumpy, so semi-professional... Underachieving headcase.

 

[Zoid]

Verdasco is arguably better on HC and grass than clay despite being a Spaniard and in an era when nearly all Spaniards have that grinding baseline game.

He and Lopez show that genetic considerations exist too. Becker was predisposed to playing a 1HB, perhaps he might have played 2HB now, but you can't assume that. Fact is that Thiem, Shapo, Tsits and others exist, so why would a NextGen version of Becker be different in that sense.

Becker's movement would have been the same or similar, i.e. a big liability nowadays, at least in terms of winning slams and being no 1.

How is one 'pre-predisposed' to playing 1 v 2 hand backhand?

Fact is that when Becker played one-handers were far more prevalent and the trend has been continually heading south for that shot because of the benefits on ROS.

Rafa and Djok are very different specimens but both play baseline tennis and move very well. I don't really see how someone as explosive as Becker wouldn't have adjusted well. Agree to disagree and we will never know

 

[Rosstour]

Basing a person's personality on one encounter (perhaps even brief?) is a common mistake I hear from people.

I often hear this, for example from music fans. "But Axl Rose was awesome to me!" Yes, awesome to a GIRL FAN, but generally known to be arrogant and unpleasant.

Not saying you are wrong about Pete, just saying it is a very limited sample... One person, one encounter. Not scientific.

Yeah but that's the scoop on Pete. He was aloof, imperious, and standoffish. And the press found him extremely boring.

I rooted for him and still love him, but he and Agassi were both jerks. Zero charisma or relatability.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

How is one 'pre-predisposed' to playing 1 v 2 hand backhand?

Fact is that when Becker played one-handers were far more prevalent and the trend has been continually heading south for that shot because of the benefits on ROS.

Rafa and Djok are very different specimens but both play baseline tennis and move very well. I don't really see how someone as explosive as Becker wouldn't have adjusted well. Agree to disagree and we will never know

Studies show that identical twins who grew up separately often choose the exact same toothpaste. And other such similarities, more relevant ones.

This doesn't mean there is a "toothbrush-choosing gene" of course, but it does mean that genetics is still largely a mystery arena for us, and I personally believe that Free Will is largely overestimated. Humans like to flatter themselves that they can conquer the cosmos, that they are masters of their own destinies bla bla bla... Such delusion and such grandomania. We are mostly slaves to extraneous factors that we have zero control over plus genetics which we never get to choose.

But I digress.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Yeah but that's the scoop on Pete. He was aloof, imperious, and standoffish. And the press found him extremely boring.

I rooted for him and still love him, but he and Agassi were both jerks. Zero charisma or relatability.

Agassi is very strange. Followed his career, read his damn book but still can't figure him out quite. Much contradictory stuff there.

Can't agree that Agassi had zero charisma. Like him or hate him, he did have it.

 

[theSHAMOO]

Agassi is very strange. Followed his career, read his damn book but still can't figure him out quite. Much contradictory stuff there.

Can't agree that Agassi had zero charisma. Like him or hate him, he did have it.

I would have thought Agassi to be very charismatic, judging by his appearance early on.

 

[Kevin T]

It's so weird that you place so much value on professionalism yet you liked Ivanisevic the most. He was such a hilarious tanker, so grumpy, so semi-professional... Underachieving headcase.

I know, right? I think it's because he was such an obvious headcase. So many pros cover up/distract from their true lack of ability to be a closer by being show men/entertainers. Goran had all the physical tools, great junior career but couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together. I've only cried during a handful of sporting events and him winning Wimby was one of them.

 

[Shaolin]

Best smash ever, possibly best serve ever in general, best 2nd serve ever, incredible movement, awesome running fh, great volleys.

Not too shabby.

 

[Zoid]

Studies show that identical twins who grew up separately often choose the exact same toothpaste. And other such similarities, more relevant ones.

This doesn't mean there is a "toothbrush-choosing gene" of course, but it does mean that genetics is still largely a mystery arena for us, and I personally believe that Free Will is largely overestimated. Humans like to flatter themselves that they can conquer the cosmos, that they are masters of their own destinies bla bla bla... Such delusion and such grandomania. We are mostly slaves to extraneous factors that we have zero control over plus genetics which we never get to choose.

But I digress.

Doesn't this point drive home mine? The changes in the environment (poly strings, slowe/bouncier courts) mean the two-hander chooses the player, not the other way round.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I would have thought Agassi to be very charismatic, judging by his appearance early on.

It wasn't his appearance, not to me anyway. Anyone can dress up as a clown and be "interesting".

He was moody, schizo in his matches and his career. Always rushing between points (the anti-Nadal), walking like a penguin almost with those tiny steps. Insecure, depressed, had that worried/sad look on his face - which then suddenly breaks out into a smile after doing st spectacular. He was unusual, but not because of his stupid wig and colourful shorts.

 

[NatF]

Watch the first minute and a half of this and try not to laugh:

Glorious stuff.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Doesn't this point drive home mine? The changes in the environment (poly strings, slowe/bouncier courts) mean the two-hander chooses the player, not the other way round.

Yes, but it also means the 1HB chooses the player.

Besides, you are accentuating the environmental factors in reply to my more genetics-based post, which confuses me a bit.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Best smash ever, possibly best serve ever in general, best 2nd serve ever, incredible movement, awesome running fh, great volleys.

Not too shabby.

And charismatic too!

 

[Mikael]

The fanbase wasn't as polarized in the 90s, you had fewer diehard fans of a single player back then. That changed with the big 2 and then big 3. 90s was more laidback in that sense, a lot of people were fans of different players, it would have been relatively hard to find a fanboy supporting Sampras (or Agassi, or Rafter) in all of their matches.
Maybe that's one of the reasons you have trouble finding "Sampras fans" (along with his lack of charisma and relatively boring game like others have said).