Who was more dominant? Rafa at French Open or Sampras at Wimbledon?

[Zain786]

Both dominated during their peak/prime years and ruled the field for a long time. Both set open era records for titles won and both are undefeated in finals. But who dominated the slam more, was it Rafa or Pistol?

Rafa at French Open -

1) Titles - 9
2) Finals - 9
3) W/L in Finals - 9-0
4) Match Win % - 97.22%

Pete at Wimbledon

1) Titles - 7
2) Finals - 7
3) W/L in Finals - 7-0
4) Match Win % - 90%

 

[NatF]

Nadal.

 

[AustinTx24]

Rafa is love, Rafa is life.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Why is this even a question?!

 

[RF-18]

Well you can see it on the stats.

 

[VamosBamos987]

Murray at Australia

 

[RF-18]

Lol, said by a Nadal hater.

What is wrong with what I said. It's obvious that Nadal was more dominant if you look at it factually.

 

[RF-18]

I mean it's strange to read something like that from somebody who thinks Federer was prime in 2015.

I really do not know what you are talking about and how you got Federer prime thing and ''nadal'' hate mixed up out of my post. Unreal.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Compare Nadal at RG to any (male) player in tennis history in a specific Grand Slam, and Nadal would come out on top every time.

 

[tennisaddict]

<90's clay mode >

Rafa faced his bunnies Fed and Djok in a poor clay era.

Petros faced giants like Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and a slew of great grass players.

</90's clay mode >

 

[VamosBamos987]

Sampras goat.

















-60s weed

 

[roger presley]

<90's clay mode >

Rafa faced his bunnies Fed and Djok in a poor clay era.

Petros faced giants like Agassi, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and a slew of great grass players.

</90's clay mode >

Agree.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Compare Nadal at RG to any (male) player in tennis history in a specific Grand Slam, and Nadal would come out on top every time.

Djokovic is two Australian's away from making a case

 

[Tennisanity]

Only a fool would say Sampras. Cue 90's clay!

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal for sure. Most dominant player at any GS.

Federer would've been the same at Wimbledon, had they not slowed it down so the pushers could win it

 

[PeterHo]

Nads.

Not even close.

 

[nadalfan2013]

3 fools so far.

4 if you count the OP.

 

[Prabhanjan]

3 fools so far.

4 if you count the OP.

20+ if you add the responders

 

[JoelSandwich]

Nadal, but good luck beating either of them.

 

[ultradr]

is this a trick question?

of course it is nadal on clay. He is the most dominant player on clay, and longest consecutive slam winning years in entire human history !

 

[mxmx]

Could one not argue that it is harder to win wimbledon back then than it is to win the french in recent years?

 

[Druss]

Who are the 4 idiots who voted Sampras?

 

[Tshooter]

Ask George Bastl.

VAMOS RAFA !

 

[S'in-net]

Sampras reached Renshaw at 7
Nadal reached Decugis at 8, then went past Decugis, into unknown uncharted territory, on his own

You can win Wimbledon with a one very big weapon (serve) and an incomplete game

You can fail to win Roland Garros, with one very big weapon (serve), AND a complete game...

 

[NatF]

Sampras reached Renshaw at 7
Nadal reached Decugis at 8, then went past Decugis, into unknown uncharted territory, on his own

You can win Wimbledon with a one very big weapon (serve) and an incomplete game

You can fail to win Roland Garros, with one very big weapon (serve), AND a complete game...

This complete bollocks

Guys like Karlovic have what 1-2 QF's at Wimbledon.

 

[Nappa]

Not even close. Lol

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras doesn't own the most WB victories! Nadal outdistances the most slam victories at any venue by 4!

 

[The Blond Blur]

I’m normally against bumping years old dead threads. But since it’s already been bumped and even back in 2016 it was obvious who was ahead I’ll just say this:

Lol:

 

[JasonZ]

This complete bollocks

Guys like Karlovic have what 1-2 QF's at Wimbledon.

well, incomplete game can mean ivanisevic level or karlovic level, thats a huge difference.

 

[Pheasant]

How can have this even been a question in 2016? Even when Nadal "only" had 9 titles, he was still 50% ahead of #2 Borg in FO titles. However, Sampras was 0% ahead of Federer in Wimbledon titles. This should end the discussion.

Let's look at Sampras vs Federer(through age-31 seasons) at Wimbledon. Similarly, let's look at Borg vs Nadal through his 2016 season; the season in question.

Player	Titles	record	record vs top-10	most consecutive titles won
Sampras	7	63-7, .690	10-1, .909	4
Federer(through age-31 season, Sampras' last year)	7	66-7, .904	12-2, .857	5
Nadal	9	72-2, .973	19-1, .950	5
Borg	6	49-2, .961	8-0, 1.000	4

 

[DSH]

Both dominated during their peak/prime years and ruled the field for a long time. Both set open era records for titles won and both are undefeated in finals. But who dominated the slam more, was it Rafa or Pistol?

Rafa at French Open -

1) Titles - 9
2) Finals - 9
3) W/L in Finals - 9-0
4) Match Win % - 97.22%

Pete at Wimbledon

1) Titles - 7
2) Finals - 7
3) W/L in Finals - 7-0
4) Match Win % - 90%

Sampras won 7 Wimbledon titles in a period of 8 seasons, which is extraordinary, but Nadal won 9 Roland Garros titles in a period of 10 seasons, which is extraterrestrial.
In the end, in the best Grand Slam of both, the Spanish left-hander ended up doubling Pistol Pete's figure.

 

[velvetsledgehammer]

Nadal accomplishments at FO the greatest achievement ever in all sports to me. Sampras at Wimbledon certainly not in that conversation.

 

[RS]

Murray at Australia

Loses to AO 2020 Thiem confirmed.

 

[DSH]

I’m normally against bumping years old dead threads. But since it’s already been bumped and even back in 2016 it was obvious who was ahead I’ll just say this:

Lol:

Me?

 

[a10best]

Dominance:

Rafa - 4 FO titles without losing a set.
Pete - 0 Wimbledon's won without losing a set.

I'm pretty sure Rafa also has the most bagel sets at RG than Pete at Wimbledon.

 

[Razer]

Sampras was the most dominant star at a pet slam ever, later it became Nadal....so the answer is Nadal but the margin is not that big, 9-7 by the 30th birthday

How can have this even been a question in 2016? Even when Nadal "only" had 9 titles, he was still 50% ahead of #2 Borg in FO titles. However, Sampras was 0% ahead of Federer in Wimbledon titles. This should end the discussion.

Let's look at Sampras vs Federer(through age-31 seasons) at Wimbledon. Similarly, let's look at Borg vs Nadal through his 2016 season; the season in question.

Player	Titles	record	record vs top-10	most consecutive titles won
Sampras	7	63-7, .690	10-1, .909	4
Federer(through age-31 season, Sampras' last year)	7	66-7, .904	12-2, .857	5
Nadal	9	72-2, .973	19-1, .950	5
Borg	6	49-2, .961	8-0, 1.000	4

Federer was not as dominant as Sampras at Wimbledin, remember Sampras beat more former/future champions en route to his wimbledons and also dropped serve lesser, was also more clutch

 

[DSH]

Sampras was the most dominant star at a pet slam ever, later it became Nadal....so the answer is Nadal but the margin is not that big, 9-7 by the 30th birthday




Federer was not as dominant as Sampras at Wimbledin, remember Sampras beat more former/future champions en route to his wimbledons and also dropped serve lesser, was also more clutch

Until the age when they both turned 31, it was 10 to 7 in favor of the Spaniard.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Twice as greater, twice as many slams!

Long live the Mallorcan Bull!

 

[Razer]

Until the age when they both turned 31, it was 10 to 7 in favor of the Spaniard.

We should only see till 29-30 because primes end at that point. 31 onwards is post prime, Nadal had his second wind after 2016, Federer had his second wind in 2010s, Djoko had it after 2017, Sampras's era never allowed him to have second wind in the 2000s because great age shift never existed then, instead of 1990s gen losers Sampras had talented 1980s born like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Federer as his next generation, also courts were slowed down too..so it was not possible

9-7 is the right comparison

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal had no competition on clay, so Sampras' record is the greater.

 

[DSH]

Rafa is love, Rafa is life.

Rafa is passion and intensity, just ask the great Vive.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Nadal had no competition on clay, so Sampras' record is the greater.

Federer had none on grass!

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Murray at Australia

 

[Sudacafan]

Just before this thread gets more unnecessary posts, the correct answer is Nadal.

 

[Sudacafan]

Djokovic is two Australian's away from making a case

Four

 

[OTMPut]

Both are impressive stats.
Pete might edge out considering qualitative factors like the depth of grass court competition he faced.
Matches on grass at that time were often decided by couple of points.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Both are impressive stats.
Pete might edge out considering qualitative factors like the depth of grass court competition he faced.
Matches on grass at that time were often decided by couple of points.

As impressive as Pete's 7 Wimbledon's is, I just don't see how it can even compare to 14 RG, considering it's the most titles won by any single person at any tournament, slam or not. Also factored in the fact that clay is the most grueling surface to play you'd think he'd run aground after maybe 10 titles. And not losing a single final too and only losing 4 times throughout his entire career at RG, to 3 different people, one of them during his 2024 season where he was essentially half retired.

 

[Mustard]

Both are impressive stats.
Pete might edge out considering qualitative factors like the depth of grass court competition he faced.
Matches on grass at that time were often decided by couple of points.

Nadal had Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Almagro, Puerta, Soderling, Thiem, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Schwartzman, Del Potro.

At the French Open alone, Nadal is a combined 43-3 against those players that I've mentioned.

6-0 against Federer
8-2 against Djokovic
2-0 against Murray
4-0 against Ferrer
4-0 against Almagro
1-0 against Puerta
3-1 against Soderling
4-0 against Thiem
4-0 against Hewitt
2-0 against Wawrinka
3-0 against Schwartzman
2-0 against Del Potro

 

[OTMPut]

Nadal had Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Almagro, Puerta, Soderling, Thiem, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Schwartzman, Del Potro.

At the French Open alone, Nadal is a combined 43-3 against those players that I've mentioned.

6-0 against Federer
8-2 against Djokovic
2-0 against Murray
4-0 against Ferrer
4-0 against Almagro
1-0 against Puerta
3-1 against Soderling
4-0 against Thiem
4-0 against Hewitt
2-0 against Wawrinka
3-0 against Schwartzman
2-0 against Del Potro

Apart from Djokovic and may be Fed, the list does not have clay court specialists. This is unlike the eras of Muster and Bruguera etc, where an army of specialists came out of the woodwork just for 2 months of a year and then disappeared rest of the year. Pete's Wimbledon era had similar grass court specialists that had success only on grass and fast hard courts like the USO of 90s.

 

[Mustard]

Apart from Djokovic and may be Fed, the list does not have clay court specialists. This is unlike the eras of Muster and Bruguera etc, where an army of specialists came out of the woodwork just for 2 months of a year and then disappeared rest of the year. Pete's Wimbledon era had similar grass court specialists that had success only on grass and fast hard courts like the USO of 90s.

What would you call Ferrer, Almagro and Schwartzman?