Whose career would you rather have, Sampras or Agassi?

[secund2nun]

At first it seems simple because 14>8, but Sampras failed to win the French Open or an Olympic gold. Agassi has won everything there is to win including a career GS, a gold medal, and the Tour Finals. That has to be a satisfying feeling and he never had to experience the feeling of someone taking his GOAT status away from him because he was never considered GOAT. I can't help but wonder if Sampras ever regrets not experiencing the feeling of winning RG. Though Agassi won 6 less GS and he also never had the honor of being considered GOAT for a number of years like Sampras did.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Who's got the better looking wife?

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Who's got the better looking wife?

I like Steffi more sorry...just a personal preferrence...but still voted Sampras...

 

[Mazz Retic]

Sampras. This should be in former pro players section.

 

[Curtennis]

Who's got the better looking wife?

Pete.

 

[Razer]

Sampras anyday

CGS and Olympics are useless if you don't have things like Big Slam Count, Weeks at 1, Year end 1.

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Who's got the better looking wife?

Sampras married Sonya Blade, it's hard to do better than that.

 

[Holmes]

Sampras for sure. Winning the French Open became a big deal after him because of him. Essentially, he defined the parameters of becoming GOAT, in his success as much as his failures which is ultimately success.

 

[Kralingen]

Triggered.

 

[Sudacafan]

Both.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Useless thread without wives' pictures.

 

[NedStark]

Sampras also got bigger, much bigger prize money, don’t forget.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Tough one. Pete due to the 6 slam advantage, h2h, and weeks/Year end #1s but In many ways Agassi.. Still the only player with a true career slam and Olympic gold, Year end title. No one else has it. You name it, Agassi could play and win on it

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Sampras married Sonya Blade, it's hard to do better than that.

He must love those leg scissors

 

[messiahrobins]

Tough one. Pete due to the 6 slam advantage, h2h, and weeks/Year end #1s but In many ways Agassi.. Still the only player with a true career slam and Olympic gold, Year end title. No one else has it. You name it, Agassi could play and win on it

My thoughts exactly. Hard to call. I probably go just with Sampras due to the h2h. If agassi had the h2h id go with him. I prefer Agassi career but 20-14 h2h is a big deficit really so that tips the scale just to Sampras

 

[Federev]

At first it seems simple because 14>8, but Sampras failed to win the French Open or an Olympic gold. Agassi has won everything there is to win including a career GS, a gold medal, and the Tour Finals. That has to be a satisfying feeling and he never had to experience the feeling of someone taking his GOAT status away from him because he was never considered GOAT. I can't help but wonder if Sampras ever regrets not experiencing the feeling of winning RG. Though Agassi won 6 less GS and he also never had the honor of being considered GOAT for a number of years like Sampras did.

Sampras was a poor GOAT candidate in hindsight.

Compared to the Big 3 he was a surface specialist.

Best he ever did at RG was win one quarter-final.

One.

 

[Searchlight]

Agassi for me...would rather win everything important at least once...Sampras was a boring person as well...and the hair on his chest seems too rough for me to deal with on a daily basis...

 

[Razer]

Sampras was a poor GOAT candidate in hindsight.

Compared to the Big 3 he was a surface specialist.

Best he ever did at RG was win one quarter-final.

One.

Peter was Best of his era and that ponytailed guy was 3rd.... sad...

 

[Federev]

Peter was Best of his era and that ponytailed guy was 3rd.... sad...

Oh we’ve been though this Razer.

And it still doesn’t get him anymore quarterfinal awards at RG.

He’ll always have that one tho.

 

[metsman]

ban yourself

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras has better career than Agassi.

Federer has better career than Nadal. Harsh but true.

 

[Razer]

Oh we’ve been though this Razer.

And it still doesn’t get him anymore quarterfinal awards at RG.

He’ll always have that one tho.

RG was not important, it was a peasant's slam in those days. Back in the 90s and until early 00s Wimbledon was elite tier 1, USO was tier 2 and RG/AO both were like Tier 3 stuffs, or maybe AO was 4th... something like that.....

QF/1st round/Final or even winner of RG did not matter back then, but now Nadal has put RG on the map with his massive 14 FOs.

 

[Federev]

Federer has a losing H2H v the Djokovic and Nadal.

Sampras has a losing H2H v Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick.

 

[Federev]

RG was not important, it was a peasant's slam in those days. Back in the 90s and until early 00s Wimbledon was elite tier 1, USO was tier 2 and RG/AO both were like Tier 3 stuffs, or maybe AO was 4th... something like that.....

QF/1st round/Final or even winner of RG did not matter back then, but now Nadal has put RG on the map with his massive 14 FOs.

Says who? You?

Doesn’t make him any better at RG.

 

[metsman]

I guess there's also people out there who would rather eat carrots and kale to live to 105 as a mousy shriveled beta male, rather than be a proper red meat eater, maybe knocking back the occasionally brandy and cigar, and only living to 85 but commanding respect and admiration in any group you are in, ala an Otto von Bismarck.

In the context of a world where most people might actually pick the former, I guess this question makes sense.

 

[crimson87]

How come this is even a question? PETE is the pre pussyfying of tennis (poly - surface homogenization) goat.

 

[Razer]

Says who? You?

Doesn’t make him any better at RG.

Yes, I say it. ....Infact the world says it.
Boris Becker was more famous globally than Lendl .... you think the wimbledons did not have a role to play in it ? .,.... WHat good were lendl's 3 french opens? or wilander ? That wilander guy's name I heard first many years after I started following Tennis but Boris Becker I knew before I watched my first tennis match ...... Hype matters.....Wimbledon is elite stuff .... It really matters .... Pete had 7Ws and it was a big deal.... then again he had 5 USOs too, that was also more important than these french opens, lol

 

[crimson87]

RG was not important, it was a peasant's slam in those days. Back in the 90s and until early 00s Wimbledon was elite tier 1, USO was tier 2 and RG/AO both were like Tier 3 stuffs, or maybe AO was 4th... something like that.....

QF/1st round/Final or even winner of RG did not matter back then, but now Nadal has put RG on the map with his massive 14 FOs.

That's just the anglo centric POV. RG is only second to WB.

 

[Federev]

Yes, I say it. ....Infact the world says it.
Boris Becker was more famous globally than Lendl .... you think the wimbledons did not have a role to play in it ? .,.... WHat good were lendl's 3 french opens? or wilander ? That wilander guy's name I heard first many years after I started following Tennis but Boris Becker I knew before I watched my first tennis match ...... Hype matters.....Wimbledon is elite stuff .... It really matters .... Pete had 7Ws and it was a big deal.... then again he had 5 USOs too, that was also more important than these french opens, lol

It’s a slam for a reason and you’re not the Authority.

No matter what you say:
For a supposed GOAT he sucked at clay.

None of what you say changes that.

 

[Razer]

That's just the anglo centric POV. RG is only second to WB.

I am not from any anglo centric regions, I speak neutrally how the neutral world views it. Wimbledon is the birthplace of Tennis and USA has been the dominate country not just economically but also in tennis, so many ATGs/GOAT players in 3 decades (70s/80s/90s). Compared to all this, the French and Aus Open were less rated for sure, the Aus was less serious/skipped by players until Agassi and Sampras started to take it serious ? right ? We must thank Nadal and Djokovic for adding prestige to the French and Aus open. If GOATY players don't win a slam many times then it has no importance, AO and even French was skipped by people in the past.

It’s a slam for a reason and you’re not the Authority.

No matter what you say:
For a supposed GOAT he sucked at clay.

None of what you say changes that.

Sampras won Rome, Federer did not.
And the way I remember, if it was not for that guy from Sweden then Roger would have retired without the 2 most important clay tournaments in the world.
If you were a Nadal fan or a Nolefam then I would have humbly accepted the clay argument but it doesn't suit Roger fans to talk of clay when your own french open is a charity slam from someone else who removed the obstacle in your path.

 

[Federev]

I am not from any anglo centric regions, I speak neutrally how the neutral world views it. Wimbledon is the birthplace of Tennis and USA has been the dominate country not just economically but also in tennis, so many ATGs/GOAT players in 3 decades (70s/80s/90s). Compared to all this, the French and Aus Open were less rated for sure, the Aus was not a slam until Agassi and Sampras started to take it serious ? right ? We must thank Nadal and Djokovic for adding prestige to the French and Aus open. If GOATY players don't win a slam many times then it has no importance, AO and even French was skilled by people in the past, isn't it ?



Sampras won Rome, Federer did not.
And the way I remember, if it was not for that guy from Sweden then Roger would have retired without the 2 most important clay tournaments in the world.
If you were a Nadal fan or a Nolefam then I would have humbly accepted the clay argument but it doesn't suit Roger fans to talk of clay when your own french open is a charity slam from someone else who removed the obstacle in your path.

This isn’t really about Roger Federer. And it’s not going to go well for Pete to go there anyway - especially about the clay. Like “Rome”. That’s kind of funny.

You invent opinions here and call them facts.

The reality is what it is. Sampras was a wonderful USO hard court / fast grass player.

As a GOAT candidate he was absolutely LAME as an all surface player.

I’m sure you’ll reply. But… Gotta go to bed now.

‘Night Razer

 

[daggerman]

Give me Stepanek's over either

 

[Holmes]

Sampras was a poor GOAT candidate in hindsight.

Compared to the Big 3 he was a surface specialist.

Best he ever did at RG was win one quarter-final.

One.

Made a Semi-final is how to put it when not trying to diminish the achievement. Also won Davis Cup for the US on clay singlehandedly, and collapsed after match point.

Compared to the big 3 (Djokodal, Sampras), Fed was a weak era specialist. Fed was surpassed as a GOAT candidate while playing because of his weakness against great players. Never lead the h2h against his chief rival. Never.

 

[Third Serve]

please move to former pro player section

 

[Breakpointerer]

delete

 

[FeroBango]

Semi-final. Won Davis Cup for the US on clay singlehandedly, and collapsed after match point.

Compared to the big 3 (Djokodal, Sampras), Fed was a weak era specialist. Fed was surpassed as a GOAT candidate while playing because of his weakness against great players. Never lead the h2h against his chief rival. Never.

Actually lead it against the GOAT till 2015 but sure. Mugerer.

 

[thrust]

My thoughts exactly. Hard to call. I probably go just with Sampras due to the h2h. If agassi had the h2h id go with him. I prefer Agassi career but 20-14 h2h is a big deficit really so that tips the scale just to Sampras

Slam count, YE and weeks at #1, WTF wins, H-H, especially, in slam finals favor Pete.

 

[jrepac]

This is Sampras, hands down. Not winning RG does not disqualify him from the GOAT convo, nor does Agassi winning it somehow make him superior. And, sorry, but I just don't buy into the prestige placed upon an Olympic medal. Participation in the event has always been spotty to being with. Obviously, Andre has had a great career, but Pete was the far better performer at the 2 most important GS events (USO and W, sorry FO and AO), was more dominant, and had more titles, more weeks at #1. It's like saying Borg is s#it because he never won the USO. That pig don't fly.

 

[jrepac]

Semi-final. Won Davis Cup for the US on clay singlehandedly, and collapsed after match point.

Compared to the big 3 (Djokodal, Sampras), Fed was a weak era specialist. Fed was surpassed as a GOAT candidate while playing because of his weakness against great players. Never lead the h2h against his chief rival. Never.

I want whatever drugs you are taking. Nadal is every bit the "specialist" that Fed is. In reality, they (along w/Novak) are "all surface GOATs." At one time, Nadal was the ONLY player who led Fed H2H, but that was partly due to the bad matchup for Fed on clay. Fed is clearly better on grass and while it's more of a tossup on hard courts, I would still lean to Fed as the better player w/5 USOs in his trophy case, consecutively mind you. The simple reality is that after 2008, his game declined slightly with age, even though he achieved many great wins up until he retired.

 

[alexio]

petros

 

[NatF]

Imagine thinking this is a debate. Agassi was great at carrying the flowers but PETE was the bride in the 90's.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

Sampras.

If Agassi had won 11/12 slams, then the GCS argument would be more relevant.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Sampras.

If Agassi had won 11/12 slams, then the GCS that Agassi achieved would be more relevant.

Agassi was a year older than Pete but it took him till 2000s to become an atg (> 5 slams). That's the difference between former GOAT and a wannabe.

 

[ShowStealer]

Who's got the better looking wife?

I would say equal
imagine marrying a hollywood actress and you still end up with someone like bridgette wilson

 

[ShowStealer]

Agassi + sampras < novak

 

[NonP]

That's just the anglo centric POV. RG is only second to WB.

Dunno about prestige, but in terms of draws the USO was definitely better contested than RG in the pre-late '70s OE. In fact the Open even eclipses Wimbledon as it's had no outlier like ATP-boycotted '73 Wimby or even the previous edition where two-time defending champ Newk and his fellow WCT players were banned from competing by the ITF (then called International Lawn Tennis Federation). In fact the '72 USO had a 148-man draw!

1972 US Open – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Speaking of prestige:

Yes, I say it. ....Infact the world says it.
Boris Becker was more famous globally than Lendl .... you think the wimbledons did not have a role to play in it ? .,.... WHat good were lendl's 3 french opens? or wilander ? That wilander guy's name I heard first many years after I started following Tennis but Boris Becker I knew before I watched my first tennis match ...... Hype matters.....Wimbledon is elite stuff .... It really matters .... Pete had 7Ws and it was a big deal.... then again he had 5 USOs too, that was also more important than these french opens, lol

You're probably right that Becker's 3 Wimby titles have much to do with his global fame, though his youngest-ever record and, shall we say, colorful off-court life no doubt have helped, too. I'm sure you've seen this already (you actually liked that post) but @dadadas has cited this chart a few times:

Nole fans, would you like to swap his Wimbledon title # with USO?

7 Wimbledon is very precious, every Djokovic fan understands that when he got his 7th title at the All England Club then he joined a small list of players who are 7+ [Renshaw, Sampras, Federer and now Djokovic] This is more important than vaulting over Nadal at the Flushing, and honestly 4 is...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

For the public and even many of the pros, Wimbledon IS tennis. That's why none other than Fed has said he wouldn't trade one of his 8 Ws for an extra RG, and why even Spaniards like Nadal and Alcaraz saw winning Wimby as the ultimate goal. Nothing else in tennis compares to the biggest prize.

This is Sampras, hands down. Not winning RG does not disqualify him from the GOAT convo, nor does Agassi winning it somehow make him superior. And, sorry, but I just don't buy into the prestige placed upon an Olympic medal. Participation in the event has always been spotty to being with. Obviously, Andre has had a great career, but Pete was the far better performer at the 2 most important GS events (USO and W, sorry FO and AO), was more dominant, and had more titles, more weeks at #1. It's like saying Borg is s#it because he never won the USO. That pig don't fly.

Frankly I don't think it makes sense to compare '90s Olympics with some of the later editions. '08 and '12 were stacked with top-drawer talent and '16 wasn't too far behind, either. And while the last edition was iffy for obvious reasons watching the guys and gals compete HARD for that medal (PCB weeping with joy after his bronze medal match was my fav highlight) finally sold moi on the sport's place in the increasingly bloated Os.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras also got bigger, much bigger prize money, don’t forget.

Agassi nevertheless is richer I would assume as he got way more endorsements. From a tennis perspective it is clearly Pete. Sure it is a great feeling to have won all big titles there are, but 6 slams is too much for me to overcome. Both of them seem to be really happy with their wives and kids after their careers.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras has better career than Agassi.

Federer has better career than Nadal. Harsh but true.

Second one is very debatable.

 

[Holmes]

Actually lead it against the GOAT till 2015 but sure. Mugerer.

His chief rival was Nadal.

 

[Holmes]

This isn’t really about Roger Federer. And it’s not going to go well for Pete to go there anyway - especially about the clay. Like “Rome”. That’s kind of funny.

You invent opinions here and call them facts.

The reality is what it is. Sampras was a wonderful USO hard court / fast grass player.

As a GOAT candidate he was absolutely LAME as an all surface player.

I’m sure you’ll reply. But… Gotta go to bed now.

‘Night Razer

You didn't actually respond to anything he said.