If Agassi had won multiple Wimbledons and Roland Garroses, instead of 4 Australian Opens (Which is known to be weakest grand slam tournament even NOW, when its prestige grown exponentially ever since 90's!), then we could talk! But instead he "lucked out" in that RG final barely surviving, cuz his oponent choked! And won his sole Wimbledon title, when Sampras wasn't even at his peak yet! LOL Outside of AO, he has won 1 RG, 1 Wimbledon and 2 US Open titles! That makes all the claims of being greater tennis player over Sampras laughable! Not only that, but Sampras is currently only 3 of all the people, who has won 2 different grand slams 5 times or more! (On two different surfaces mind you!) But even if THAT is still not convincing to you amongst all the things, then how about perfect finals win rate at the Wimbledon like 7 out of 7?! LMAO What about his grand slam win-loss rate overall, like 14 out of 18 (about 77% overall??!) Looking at these stats how can you still say Agassi is better?! Thats crazy man! His only "argument" of having achieved the so called "Super Career Slam" by being the only person in tennis with that designation looks weak as hell all things considered! If we were to make an open era list of 10 best players Agassi barely makes it into the bottom of the list barely scratching it! Whilst Sampras is most certainly top-5 player of entire open era (there is no arguments about that, no matter how you try to spin it!), while before big-3 he was the best man only next to Laver!