Where do you rank Sampras in the Open Era now

[deacsyoga]

One person who seems to be continously losing ground in peoples eyes since he retired is Sampras. At the time he retired there was some talk he was the GOAT even over Laver. However it now seems that was largely recency bias, and also some misinterpretation to the true value of 14 slams in the modern game, and now he is seen by almost nobody as ahead of Laver, and most behind Gonzales, and possibly some others (eg- Tilden) as well. He has been firmly passed by Federer, and now has pretty clearly been passed by Nadal which is likely to become more emphatic over time. In the Open Era alone he is no better than 3rd but there are some who have Borg and/or Djokovic over him too. In addition to people surpassing his stats, the fact it is his records that were broken by Federer, while the best marks of others like Laver and Borg are remaining largely intact (apart from Borg's RG record and clay GOAT status) he is suffering more than those others. Where would you rank Sampras in the Open Era at this point.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

co-#1 with federer.

 

[deacsyoga]

co-#1 with federer.

How can he possibly be tied with Federer when Federer is the one his career is most parallel to in its strengths and relative weaknesses and Federer has him beat in everything.

 

[NonP]

co-#1 with federer.

Don't have time for a detailed reply, and I know I play coy about this topic all the time, but in all seriousness this is pretty much my own thinking, at least among the guys I've seen. If I had to pick one player to excel day in and day out and regardless of circumstances it'd be Federer, but if I wanted somebody to play for me in that mythical tournament where all-time greats of the game duke it out in their peak form, I'd say Sampras. With all due respect to Rafa and Novak (whom BTW I've rooted for harder than I ever did Pete in his heyday) I think they fall a tad short of their great predecessors in sheer firepower and all-court brilliance (of course we know where Pete and Fed are more comfortable on the court).

But that's only among men. I've long maintained that the true tennis GOAT is Martina Navratilova and that's unlikely to change in my remaining days on this planet. Otherworldly dominance including an unrivaled 6-Slam run (against another GOAT candidate no less), a boatload of titles in singles and doubles, a fearless voice for freedom off the court, and a healthy (for moi) dose of arrogance to boot with no hint of false modesty. What more can you ask for in an athlete?

 

[Rhino]

It's hard to put him in the top 5 when he never made a single French Open final.

My top 5 are:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Agassi

 

[NatF]

It's hard to put him in the top 5 when he never made a single French Open final.

My top 5 are:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Djokovic
5. Agassi

I see no argument for Agassi over Sampras. Pete was 100% the man of his era, Agassi was only #1 for one year - he's below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe let alone Sampras.

 

[Rhino]

I see no argument for Agassi over Sampras. Pete was 100% the man of his era, Agassi was only #1 for one year - he's below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe let alone Sampras.

I guess I value the career grand slam. None of the guys you mention have it. I can forgive Borg because he retired so young and I think he was at least capable of it.
I always felt that Agassi's tennis was more complete.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras now ranks #3 of the Open Era, behind Federer and Nadal. However...

but if I wanted somebody to play for me in that mythical tournament where all-time greats of the game duke it out in their peak form, I'd say Sampras.

On this point, I agree.

 

[muddlehead]

*** One person who seems to be continously losing ground in peoples eyes since he retired is Sampras. At the time he retired there was some talk he was the GOAT even over Laver ***

Not exactly. I think Mcenroe had it right. If he didn't say it, I'll put words in his mouth. This is what he should have said. At retirement Pete maybe the hard / grass / fast court goat. Borg clay goat. Laver champion and still undisputed goat.

 

[70sHollywood]

I think there should be an option for 2nd.

 

[deacsyoga]

I think there should be an option for 2nd.

It is a very clear consensus Nadal has surpassed Sampras, Borg and (for the moment) Djokovic at this point. The very odd person (such as you I suspect) might dissent, just as there are some who might believe Borg or Nadal or Sampras is above Federer, but both are too much against the strong consensus to be worth discussion at this point.

Not exactly. I think Mcenroe had it right. If he didn't say it, I'll put words in his mouth. This is what he should have said. At retirement Pete maybe the hard / grass / fast court goat. Borg clay goat. Laver champion and still undisputed goat.

You obviously don't remember the talk in the 99-2002 when Sampras was winding his career down/had retired. It seems unbelievable now, but there was talk of Sampras being the GOAT at that particular moment.

 

[muddlehead]

*** You obviously don't remember the talk in the 99-2002 when Sampras was winding his career down/had retired. It seems unbelievable now, but there was talk of Sampras being the GOAT at that particular moment ***

Ridiculous. How can a goat's best French Open result be 1 trip to a semi final. When Pete retired, he was modern era #3 all time behind Laver and Borg.

 

[deacsyoga]

*** You obviously don't remember the talk in the 99-2002 when Sampras was winding his career down/had retired. It seems unbelievable now, but there was talk of Sampras being the GOAT at that particular moment ***

Ridiculous. How can a goat's best French Open result be 1 trip to a semi final. When Pete retired, he was modern era #3 all time behind Laver and Borg.

Recency bias, the same thing that Federer (and to a minor extent Nadal) probably benefit from today. I am genuinely curious if Federer when he has been retired 5 years will still be seen as above Laver and Gonzales, and similarly if Nadal and Djokovic will be regarded as highly as they are just before their retirements to several years after.

I am not agreeing with Sampras ever being rated as the GOAT, not at all. I am just pointing out immediately after his retirement there was a lot of talk in that vein. I am sure there are others who can corroborate this is true.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Recency bias, the same thing that Federer (and to a minor extent Nadal) probably benefit from today. I am genuinely curious if Federer when he has been retired 5 years will still be seen as above Laver and Gonzales, and similarly if Nadal and Djokovic will be regarded as highly as they are just before their retirements to several years after.

I am not agreeing with Sampras ever being rated as the GOAT, not at all. I am just pointing out immediately after his retirement there was a lot of talk in that vein. I am sure there are others who can corroborate this is true.

It's interesting to read some of the quotes from this page, from 2000, after Sampras had won his 13th slam;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/826318.stm

As you can see, many here are touting him as the GOAT. Although admittedly, several still mention Laver and Borg as being greater than him, and point to Sampras' lack of clay prowess. However, if a poll had been done at the time, I think Sampras might have just pipped Laver in a GOAT poll (among the public, not tennis experts).

 

[droliver]

When you've seen a subsequent generation of top players both more consistent and dominant on all surfaces for longer careers, it has highlighted the (relative) inconsistency of Sampras and pushed home down mount Olympus at least 2 spots (below Federer and Nadal). They've just put up better resumes.

 

[70後]

Or to put this topic another way : out of 5 people, who comes 5th?

 

[thrust]

I see no argument for Agassi over Sampras. Pete was 100% the man of his era, Agassi was only #1 for one year - he's below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe let alone Sampras.

Right again! Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, Borg. The rest, a toss up.

 

[abmk]

I rate Sampras and Borg as better players than Nadal, but greatness wise, gotta put Nadal over them now.

 

[Limpinhitter]

In my view, Sampras is a genuine GOAT candidate along with Gonzalez, Laver, Borg and Federer.

 

[Limpinhitter]

It is a very clear consensus Nadal has surpassed Sampras, Borg and (for the moment) Djokovic at this point. The very odd person (such as you I suspect) might dissent, just as there are some who might believe Borg or Nadal or Sampras is above Federer, but both are too much against the strong consensus to be worth discussion at this point.



You obviously don't remember the talk in the 99-2002 when Sampras was winding his career down/had retired. It seems unbelievable now, but there was talk of Sampras being the GOAT at that particular moment.

I completely disagree. In my view, peak Sampras was the better player.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I see no argument for Agassi over Sampras. Pete was 100% the man of his era, Agassi was only #1 for one year - he's below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe let alone Sampras.

In my view, peak Agassi was a better player than Lendl and Connors and probably McEnroe too.

 

[Powderwombat]

I see no argument for Agassi over Sampras. Pete was 100% the man of his era, Agassi was only #1 for one year - he's below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe let alone Sampras.

An argument for Agassi over Sampras is Agassi won all 4 slams whereas Sampras did not. Agassi was also #1 for 2 years in total, not one (101 weeks).

 

[Limpinhitter]

How can he possibly be tied with Federer when Federer is the one his career is most parallel to in its strengths and relative weaknesses and Federer has him beat in everything.

Not in peak level of play.

 

[deacsyoga]

I completely disagree. In my view, peak Sampras was the better player.

Better is arguable, but he is definitely no longer greater. Greater and better are different things. The same way you may think Sampras is still a better grass courter than Federer which is reasonable, but at this point Federer is unquestionably the greater grass courter with 8 Wimbledons, 11 Wimbledon finals, more grass titles, and a much better grass W-L ratio.

Not in peak level of play.

Even in peak level play Federer is light years ahead of Sampras on clay, clearly ahead on slower hard courts, and even if you put Sampras marginally ahead on grass, fast hard courts, and indoors (debateable) he would still be behind overall.

An argument for Agassi over Sampras is Agassi won all 4 slams whereas Sampras did not. Agassi was also #1 for 2 years in total, not one (101 weeks).

Agassi was only YE#1 once and most people look at YE#1s over weeks at #1.

 

[thrust]

In my view, Sampras is a genuine GOAT candidate along with Gonzalez, Laver, Borg and Federer.

Nonsense! Sampras and Gonzalez never won a clay court Major, therefore, cannot be considered a genuine GOAT over Rosewall, who won 6 Majors on clay, 9 on wood, and 8 on grass. Also, FYI, Borg never won a hard court slam and was washed up at 26.

 

[deacsyoga]

Nonsense! Sampras and Gonzalez never won a clay court Major, therefore, cannot be considered a genuine GOAT over Rosewall, who won 6 Majors on clay, 9 on wood, and 8 on grass. Also, FYI, Borg never won a hard court slam and was washed up at 26.

Sampras and Gonzales are generally both ranked over Rosewall.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Better is arguable, but he is definitely no longer greater. Greater and better are different things. The same way you may think Sampras is still a better grass courter than Federer which is reasonable, but at this point Federer is unquestionably the greater grass courter with 8 Wimbledons, 11 Wimbledon finals, more grass titles, and a much better grass W-L ratio.



Even in peak level play Federer is light years ahead of Sampras on clay, clearly ahead on slower hard courts, and even if you put Sampras marginally ahead on grass, fast hard courts, and indoors (debateable) he would still be behind overall.



Agassi was only YE#1 once and most people look at YE#1s over weeks at #1.

In my view, the player who plays at the highest level, and is able to maintain it for a reasonable period of time, is the better player and the greater player.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Sampras and Gonzales are generally both ranked over Rosewall.

I rank them as GOAT candidates along with Laver, Federer and Borg. I don't see Rosewall quite at that level.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Nonsense! Sampras and Gonzalez never won a clay court Major, therefore, cannot be considered a genuine GOAT over Rosewall, who won 6 Majors on clay, 9 on wood, and 8 on grass. Also, FYI, Borg never won a hard court slam and was washed up at 26.

First, Rosewall won 4 open majors, 1 on clay. The remainder of Rosewall's titles are not equivalent to open majors. Second, my analysis of greatness hinges primarily on level of play at the most prestigious events available to a player at his peak, not merely counting titles, majors or otherwise. There have been too many players who played at a higher level than Rosewall, including, but not limited to, Laver, Gonzalez, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors and Lendl for him to be a GOAT candidate.

 

[deacsyoga]

In my view, the player who plays at the highest level, and is able to maintain it for a reasonable period of time, is the better player and the greater player.

Fair enough. For me the greater player is always the most accomplished (of course that is even subjective). Comparing Sampras and Nadal in that aspect is almost impossible anyway since Nadal is light years better on clay, Sampras is much better on some of the fast surfaces, etc..It is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[BGod]

Can't vote in poll because he's 3rd in Open Era for me but behind Fed & Borg not Nadal.

The total Slam count in this era has to be taken in context. Nadal having a 10 French Opens doesn't mean he leapfrogs on that alone. I've done this many times before:

AO: 2>1 Sampras
FO: 10>0 Nadal
WMB: 7>2 Sampras
USO: 5>3 Sampras
WTF: 5>0 Sampras
Weeks #1: Sampras

So it's quite clear to me Sampras is ahead. Now Nadal is going to catch up with weeks at #1 but he needs to win some WTFs plural and they're only Bo3 now so I don't even know how you compare. He's only 2 short in USO now though.

 

[70sHollywood]

Fair enough. For me the greater player is always the most accomplished (of course that is even subjective). Comparing Sampras and Nadal in that aspect is almost impossible anyway since Nadal is light years better on clay, Sampras is much better on some of the fast surfaces, etc..It is like comparing apples and oranges.

It is very tough to compare this way, but I think one such way is to compare Federer with Nadal and then Federer with Sampras. Simply put, I think the gap between Federer and Nadal is bigger, thus Sampras > Nadal.

It's like if they were sprinters, and Federer and Nadal both won their races but Sampras only finished second. However, he finished second behind Federer and actually ran a faster time than Nadal.

 

[Gizo]

It will be interesting if Nadal ends his career with more USO titles than Djokovic, but Djokovic ends his career with more Wimbledon titles than Nadal.

A few years ago, before Nadal's results at Wimbledon went down a cliff, I certainly thought it would end up the other way around, and I'm assuming many others did as well.

 

[deacsyoga]

It is very tough to compare this way, but I think one such way is to compare Federer with Nadal and then Federer with Sampras. Simply put, I think the gap between Federer and Nadal is bigger, thus Sampras > Nadal.

And I totally disagree. Nadal has a decisive winning record vs Federer, which Sampras IMO never would have. And Nadal is by a HUGE margin superior to Federer on one surface- clay, while Sampras is clearly inferior to Federer on every surface. Plus Nadal is only 3 slams behind, and likely to be less, and Sampras is already 5 and counting.

Nadal fans (delusional ones but still) atleast try to argue Nadal against Federer, while Sampras fans gave up years ago since it is such a no brainer in all respects.

 

[msunderland71]

Sampras never won FO but then Nadal probably would not win W in fast grass (Sampras) era. Almost twice as long at no 1 and 5 WTF for Sampras makes up for 2 extra majors of Nadal. So I place them approximately even, and therefore cannot vote.

 

[drewdoo]

Fed
Sampras
Nadal

 

[70後]

And I totally disagree. Nadal has a decisive winning record vs Federer, which Sampras IMO never would have. And Nadal is by a HUGE margin superior to Federer on one surface- clay, while Sampras is clearly inferior to Federer on every surface. Plus Nadal is only 3 slams behind, and likely to be less, and Sampras is already 5 and counting.

Nadal fans (delusional ones but still) atleast try to argue Nadal against Federer, while Sampras fans gave up years ago since it is such a no brainer in all respects.

It has been obvious for quite a while but to put it in blunt terms like these makes it clear just how far behind Sampras has fallen. Annacone Sampras looks more and more obsolete. All they have to fall back on is the "fast grass" humbug. When you are asking about top 5 open era of the men, Borg is definitely in the mix more than ever before due to his mastery of opposites, and he is certainly not the man in the fifth place. In 10 years we will drag this post back out. 10 years is pretty short on tt since 2007 topics are not very far away. 2027 will be when Felix Auger, perhaps, is winning his 12th slam and his Great Rivals Tiafoe The Good and Chung, Man of Big Hair, are not far behind him either, we shall be asking which of those already make it into the open era fifth spot.

 

[cigrmaster]

Modern era.
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Joker
Agassi

Pre modern era
Laver
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl

What I include in the modern era is racquet technology, string technology and fitness technology. I also believe that string technology has more effect on the modern game than does the racquet technology.

 

[Xemi666]

3rd behind Federer and Nadal, but when Djokovic wins another GS I'll rank him above Sampras, too.

Can't vote in poll because he's 3rd in Open Era for me but behind Fed & Borg not Nadal.

The total Slam count in this era has to be taken in context. Nadal having a 10 French Opens doesn't mean he leapfrogs on that alone. I've done this many times before:

AO: 2>1 Sampras
FO: 10>0 Nadal
WMB: 7>2 Sampras
USO: 5>3 Sampras
WTF: 5>0 Sampras
Weeks #1: Sampras

So it's quite clear to me Sampras is ahead. Now Nadal is going to catch up with weeks at #1 but he needs to win some WTFs plural and they're only Bo3 now so I don't even know how you compare. He's only 2 short in USO now though.

You sure wrote a lot, but it would have been better if it wasn't a bunch of hogwash.

Here, let me point out for you the only stat that matters in their comparison:

16>14

 

[deacsyoga]

Sampras never won FO but then Nadal probably would not win W in fast grass (Sampras) era. Almost twice as long at no 1 and 5 WTF for Sampras makes up for 2 extra majors of Nadal. So I place them approximately even, and therefore cannot vote.

Well if we want to be subjective I am almost 100% certain Sampras wins 0 Australian Opens if he is in the era of the 2 Australian Open GOATs- Djokovic and Federer. I highly doubt he does as well as Nadal who won it once and very nearly a couple other times and reached 4 finals in this super tough era for that event with Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, and others who excel there. Even in the 2 years Sampras won there he struggles with much lesser grinders, going deep into the 5th set numerous times. His only big win was the win over a declining Courier in the 94 semis. Both years Sampras won the Australian Open Agassi didnt play, he couldnt even beat him there. So yeah if you say put Nadal back then and he doesnt win Wimbledon, I say put Sampras today and he wins neither the French or Australian Open, and while he still wins Wimbledons he is nowhere near as dominant on the slowed down grass today just as Nadal suffers on the faster grass of old. Of course that is subjective, but facts favor Nadal too. Sampras is only superior to Nadal at the Australian Open on the extra title, not overall level of play IMO.

 

[aman92]

No player who is such a mug on clay should be ranked in the top 3...Fed,Nadal, Djokovic and Borg are all ahead of him

 

[abmk]

Well if we want to be subjective I am almost 100% certain Sampras wins 0 Australian Opens if he is in the era of the 2 Australian Open GOATs- Djokovic and Federer. I highly doubt he does as well as Nadal who won it once and very nearly a couple other times and reached 4 finals in this super tough era for that event with Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, and others who excel there. Even in the 2 years Sampras won there he struggles with much lesser grinders, going deep into the 5th set numerous times. His only big win was the win over a declining Courier in the 94 semis. Both years Sampras won the Australian Open Agassi didnt play, he couldnt even beat him there. So yeah if you say put Nadal back then and he doesnt win Wimbledon, I say put Sampras today and he wins neither the French or Australian Open, and while he still wins Wimbledons he is nowhere near as dominant on the slowed down grass today just as Nadal suffers on the faster grass of old. Of course that is subjective, but facts favor Nadal too. Sampras is only superior to Nadal at the Australian Open on the extra title, not overall level of play IMO.

Courier played some good tennis in AO 94 semi, but Sampras was too good that day. Sampras' best performance on slow HC at the AO.

Courier was even better in AO 95 QF, but Sampras beat him in 5 sets.
The struggles of Sampras were before the SF. So not that relevant when talking about potential meeting in SF/F b/w these guys.

As far as Agassi is concerned, Sampras had 2 SPs to up 2 sets to one in 95 and was 2 points away from beating Agassi in 00 semi (closer than Nadal was in AO 12 or AO 17 final to winning the match)


Pretty sure that Sampras of 94/95/97/00 would have a good shot taking out Federer of AO 06/08 and more than decent shot in 09 final .
Obviously federer wins in 04/05/07 and even in AO 09 QF/SF form and 10 AO SF/F form as well.


I'd say he has more than a decent shot vs djoko in AO 12/13/14/15 ....
12 - Murray & Nadal came close.
13 - stan came close.
14 - he lost to stan in 5.
15 -- was mediocre in the SF vs stan. In the final, though very good, he was still beatable. Murray was up a break in the 3rd and lost his way from there on then triggered by djoko's shenanigans.

11 was djoko's best, so obviously Sampras loses.
16 - I am only including SF/F, so Sampras loses here as well.


----
I'd say Sampras wins 1 AO.

Level wise, I'd put Sampras a tad ahead.

 

[deacsyoga]

Courier played some good tennis in AO 94 semi, but Sampras was too good that day. Sampras' best performance on slow HC at the AO.

Courier was even better in AO 95 QF, but Sampras beat him in 5 sets.
The struggles of Sampras were before the SF. So not that relevant when talking about potential meeting in SF/F b/w these guys.

As far as Agassi is concerned, Sampras had 2 SPs to up 2 sets to one in 95 and was 2 points away from beating Agassi in 00 semi (closer than Nadal was in AO 12 or AO 17 final to winning the match)


Pretty sure that Sampras of 94/95/97/00 would have a good shot taking out Federer of AO 06/08 and more than decent shot in 09 final .
Obviously federer wins in 04/05/07 and even in AO 09 QF/SF form and 10 AO SF/F form as well.


I'd say he has more than a decent shot vs djoko in AO 12/13/14/15 ....
12 - Murray & Nadal came close.
13 - stan came close.
14 - he lost to stan in 5.
15 -- was mediocre in the SF vs stan. In the final, though very good, he was still beatable. Murray was up a break in the 3rd and lost his way from there on then triggered by djoko's shenanigans.

11 was djoko's best, so obviously Sampras loses.
16 - I am only including SF/F, so Sampras loses here as well.


----
I'd say Sampras wins 1 AO.

Level wise, I'd put Sampras a tad ahead.

Fair enough. You do agree competition wise at the Australian Open Nadal definitely had it harder though? I do think if we are going to point out things like Nadal has it easier with the homogenized playing conditions of today (which is true) and benefits from the slowed grass, it is also fair to consider something like this.

 

[abmk]

Fair enough. You do agree competition wise at the Australian Open Nadal definitely had it harder though? I do think if we are going to point out things like Nadal has it easier with the homogenized playing conditions of today (which is true) and benefits from the slowed grass, it is also fair to consider something like this.

sure, that's why I said Sampras would win 1 AO now.
But Nadal has it even easier at the USO in his wins -- cakewalks till the final in both 10 and 13 (djoko have to come out of 5-setters vs fed and stan on the other side) and total cakewalk in 17.

 

[deacsyoga]

sure, that's why I said Sampras would win 1 AO now.
But Nadal has it even easier at the USO in his wins -- cakewalks till the final in both 10 and 13 (djoko have to come out of 5-setters vs fed and stan on the other side) and total cakewalk in 17.

That is true. I didnt mention that only since it isnt even contested Sampras is superior at the U.S Open at this point.

 

[abmk]

That is true. I didnt mention that only since it isnt even contested Sampras is superior at the U.S Open at this point.

still that is more of a factor than the AO part when comparing them overall.

 

[deacsyoga]

still that is more of a factor than the AO part when comparing them overall.

I actually disagree on that simply since the biggest thing you could say against Nadal in comparision to Sampras is he is clearly inferior at 3 of the 4 slams, and all surfaces (that includes sub surfaces of hard courts) but clay.

 

[abmk]

I actually disagree on that simply since the biggest thing you could say against Nadal in comparision to Sampras is he is clearly inferior at 3 of the 4 slams, and all surfaces (that includes sub surfaces of hard courts) but clay.

or that he was YE#1 for more years and has more # of weeks at #1 or that he was dominant at 2 slams, not 1.

what I said about USO comes into the picture for the last thing I said ...dominance at 2 slams ...if people start assuming "dominance" at the USO for nadal .

What I meant is the difference in competition is clearly more at the USO than at the AO. (favours Nadal)

Not that your PoV is invalid , but I don't necessarily see it the same way. (since I think Sampras is anyways a tad better at the AO )

 

[deacsyoga]

or that he was YE#1 for more years and has more # of weeks at #1 or that he was dominant at 2 slams, not 1.

what I said about USO comes into the picture for the last thing I said ...dominance at 2 slams ...if people start assuming "dominance" at the USO for nadal .

What I meant is the difference in competition is clearly more at the USO than at the AO. (favours Nadal)

Not that your PoV is invalid , but I don't necessarily see it the same way. (since I think Sampras is anyways a tad better at the AO )

Fair enough.

 

[abhimawa]

How can he possibly be tied with Federer when Federer is the one his career is most parallel to in its strengths and relative weaknesses and Federer has him beat in everything.

same style, same killer instinct, one on the way up, one going down the hill, 11 years difference