Why Do People Say Sampras is Greater Grass Courter Than Federer

[Larrysümmers]

i think he and fed are = great on grass

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

One has 7 titles, the other 6....not identical.

What about now? :twisted:

 

[valiant]

What about now? :twisted:

Next Option : No Real Grass.

 

[helloworld]

What about now? :twisted:

Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

 

[SLD76]

Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

see the post above where it was pointed out that even though those guys were in the field, Pete did not face them year in year out to win WB.

meanwhile Fed almost always met a top 5 guy in the WB semi/final.

hewitt, roddick, djoker, murray, nadal

people knock fed for his final against phillipousis.

didnt sampras play pioline in a WB final?

 

[pringles]

One more wimbeldon title then Federer.. Played a MUCH stronger grass field then Federer as well. Peak for Peak a higher level then Federer at wimbledon etc..


I give Fed the age over Pete on hard courts (slower ones at least) and clay.. While I give Pete the edge indoors, grass, and slight edge on faster hard courts.

Pete rules grass though.. The best to ever step on the lawns of wimbledon

Until he met Federer that is.

 

[helloworld]

see the post above where it was pointed out that even though those guys were in the field, Pete did not face them year in year out to win WB.

meanwhile Fed almost always met a top 5 guy in the WB semi/final.

hewitt, roddick, djoker, murray, nadal

people knock fed for his final against phillipousis.

didnt sampras play pioline in a WB final?

You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I will keep it simple. It is impossible to stop people from thinking and saying whatever they want to ....regardless of facts.

My own opinion is that Sampras fans are looking for something to hold on to as Roger petty much took care of most things Sampras used to own (# of slams, # of days at number 1, etc).

It is fact of life. Records are there to be broken. Roger broke Sampras's and Some day (could be in 15 yrs or a 100 yrs) Roger's records will be broken too.

 

[pringles]

Why Sampras is a better grass player than JesusFed

-Depth of Field; Sampras had to deal with Agassi, Goran, Becker, Rafter, The Dutch Bloke and a host of solid grass courters. Federer had Roddick. Then Nadal who was affectively a clay courter untill 2007 and beat him soon after that.

The only real great grass courters that Sampras could face in his career were Edberg and Becker, Edberg was a non-factor after 1993 (and a pity cause he owned Sampras on both occasions in slams they played, also they never played on grass) while Becker, still a good grass courter, wasn't close to his peak years of 1988-1991 at the time of his meetings with Sampras at Wimbledon in 93/95/97.

Ivanisevic wasn't any better than Roddick. Both had the game (and a similar game nonetheless) and both choked A LOT (Ivanisevic in 1998, Roddick in 2009 or 2004)

He also played Philippoussis, someone you deliberately ommited because he was a part of the Sampras era (and owned peak Sampras on a few occasions - including 1996AO and 1999 Wimbledon before he got injured in the latter). Not to mention Hewitt you also omitted when Federer played him 3 times at Wimbledon.

Hilarious how Petetar**s mention Rafter as one of Sampras' main rivals at Wimbledon when they played a total of 1 time there, the 2000 Wimbledon final where Rafter had to choke the match away to give Sampras a chance to shine one last time. Federer played Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon but of course you would never mention them, would you (since they played only once there)? Haha, talk about being biased.

-Type of Grass; The grass was real, not fake clay

The grass was faster meant nothing more, nothing less than it was
a) easier to hold
b) harder to break

You can switch the 2 now when talking about the current grass:
a) easier to break
b) harder to hold

-You mention "dominance", sets won, games lost etc. It is much harder to break on the fast grass of the 90s than in Federer's post '01 era hence why Pete won fewer games, look at how Rafa lost 40 odd games at RG in 2008 and Roger's best was 65 games in 06(?) and Wimby, slower = easy to break.

It was harder to break but Sampras has NO EXCUSE for losing sets at Wimbledon to complete mugs (I won't even bother to check now) while Federer lost an odd set or 2 in a tournament to solid players.

-Federer was taken to 5 by ******* and Nadal (at his 07 peak), surely he should have done better if he was so good

While Sampras was taken to 5 by Ivanisevic (1995 and 1998), Agassi (1993) with a wrist injury, Korda (1997), Barry freaking Cowan (2001), baby Federer (2001) and George freaking Bastl (2002) - a match he lost btw.

I thought prime Sampras on grass could only be pushed to 5 sets by God himself?

 

[merlinpinpin]

You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

Agree to an extent. Becker was a great Wimbledon player--from 1985 to 1991. (I might actually be overly generous to him in adding 1991, as the way Stich dismantled him in the final was the beginning of the end for him. As he said after the match: "I feel old today.") After that, he lost a step (and some power) and great servers like Sampras and Ivanisevic just routined him when they met him on grass.

So, yes, Becker was a huge threat on grass--*before* Sampras burst upon the scene. Pete beat him for the first time at Wimbledon *eight years* after his first title, which is like an eternity in tennis. (Coincidentally, Federer beat Sampras eight years after Pete's first Wimby title, so his fans should really make up their minds here--either Sampras was still fully fit and at the height of his prowess, which means that Federer also had a seven-time Wimbledon champion as one of his (main) rivals on grass, or Becker was a past-his-prime, washed-up old mug and the matches he played against Sampras shouldn't be mentioned to try and hype up the American.)

So, which is it?

 

[SLD76]

You forgot to add Berdych and Tsonga. Becker alone is already better on grass than all the guys you mentioned. Nadal? Rosol? :lol: Roddick? Gimme a break! :lol:

and yet becker was owned by agassi who was at least owned by fed and nadal.

 

[pringles]

In addition to a better first and second serve, Sampras was a better volleyer and a much better net player. He was also physically stronger, faster, and more explosive. And, although Federer's forehand is better, Sampras' forehand was his second best shot, and one of the best of all time, IMO. BTW, how many majors do you think Federer would have with Sampras' forehand?

While Federer had 10x the backhand Sampras ever had, better movement, better footwork, anticipation, defensive skills, passing shots. His first serve is also very underrated.

The only areas in which Sampras is visibly better than Federer is the 2nd serve and volleys.

 

[abmk]

Agree to an extent. Becker was a great Wimbledon player--from 1985 to 1991. (I might actually be overly generous to him in adding 1991, as the way Stich dismantled him in the final was the beginning of the end for him. As he said after the match: "I feel old today.") After that, he lost a step (and some power) and great servers like Sampras and Ivanisevic just routined him when they met him on grass.

So, yes, Becker was a huge threat on grass--*before* Sampras burst upon the scene. Pete beat him for the first time at Wimbledon *eight years* after his first title, which is like an eternity in tennis. (Coincidentally, Federer beat Sampras eight years after Pete's first Wimby title, so his fans should really make up their minds here--either Sampras was still fully fit and at the height of his prowess, which means that Federer also had a seven-time Wimbledon champion as one of his (main) rivals on grass, or Becker was a past-his-prime, washed-up old mug and the matches he played against Sampras shouldn't be mentioned to try and hype up the American.)

So, which is it?

lol, pwned

becker did play one great grass court match @ wimby vs agassi in 95 SF, but that's about it .... he was less sharper than at his peak in 93, was bit a tired and a DFing mess in the 95 final and wayyyy past it in the 97 encounter ...

 

[SLD76]

lol, pwned

becker did play one great grass court match @ wimby vs agassi in 95 SF, but that's about it .... he was less sharper than at his peak in 93, was bit a tired and a DFing mess in the 95 final and wayyyy past it in the 97 encounter ...

this is dangerously close to the old "was pete's era really that strong" argument.

Its a known that many of the so called heavyweights of Pete'se day were either old or declining when he started to dominate.

the lendls. beckers, jmacs, wilander, courier(post 1994) , edberg

when examining his peers we have goran, agassi, rafter, woodbridge, pioline

that does change the argument somewhat.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Why do people say Sampras is the Greatest Grass Court Player of all Time?

Nostalgia, that's why.

I think its clear that Federer dominated Wimbledon in a way that Sampras never did.

You're right about that, no question. However, it's also clear that their game was perfectly suited to the grass they had to deal with, ie Sampras with arguably the greatest serve of all time ruled supreme on a surface on which serve was about 80% of the package needed to win, and Federer's all-court game and movement were lethal weapons on the slowed-down grass of the 00's (and still are, although age made them much less potent, if this year is to be believed).

There's a caveat, though, in that Federer showed in 2001 (and 2003) that he had what it took to win on "old" grass, while it's anybody's guess how Sampras would have fared on "new" grass. But that's never here nor there--both compiled huge records on grass during their respective careers, although Federer's are just a tad more impressive (both at Wimbledon and outside Wimbledon).

But of course, there's still the nostalgia card to play for those who want (or need) to.

 

[jokinla]

Now they have the same #of titles, and Fed won their only meeting, so it's clear, Fed is better at Wimbledon.

 

[TMF]

Sampras is still the greatest on grass. In the 90s, grass competition was the most competitive with Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, Henman, Rafter, etc. all playing to win Wimbledon. In the Federer era, only Roddick challenged him and later on the clay courter Nadal challenged and beat him. Losing a Wimbledon final to a clay courter certainly does not put you in the GOAT category on grass.

For the umpteen time since Roger won his 7th Wimbledon:

-he has a better win/loss record
-reach more Wimbledon finals
-more grass titles
-beat more top 10 players
-beat Sampras on his backyard
-won 5 straight Wimbledon

The players you listed above wouldn't beat Roger anyway. In fact, Hewitt, Roddick, Nole, Murray, Nadal are much more likely to beat Pete on slow grass than the 90s players beating Roger on fast grass.

 

[monfed]

Maybe I'm out of line here but I think Sampras is a better fast-grass player than Fed while Fed's a better slow-grass(post 2001) than Pete mainly because Sampras's game was more tailored to fast grass compared to Fed as Pete's game was more explosive which is what's needed. Fed still prefers the grass in the first week though so a little quicker but not as quick as the "old grass",I feel.

It's a bit like saying if Fed won 4 RGs and Kuerten only had 3, I'd still rate Kuerten as a better claycourter than Fed because Kuerten's game is more tailored to clay, but isn't this pointing out the obvious?

 

[DropShotArtist]

Maybe I'm out of line here but I think Sampras is a better fast-grass player than Fed while Fed's a better slow-grass(post 2001) than Pete mainly because Sampras's game was more tailored to fast grass compared to Fed as Pete's game was more explosive which is what's needed. Fed still prefers the grass in the first week though so a little quicker but not as quick as the "old grass",I feel.

It's a bit like saying if Fed won 4 RGs and Kuerten only had 3, I'd still rate Kuerten as a better claycourter than Fed because Kuerten's game is more tailored to clay, but isn't this pointing out the obvious?

Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

 

[90's Clay]

A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on grass as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him).

Even though Pete had a more quality overall grass field to contend with, he got to 7 titles much quicker as del


If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

 

[monfed]

A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on clay as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him)

Cmon now,the bolded is taking fandom to a whole new level. :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

Cmon now,the bolded is taking fandom to a whole new level. :lol:

1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

 

[pringles]

A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. I would say Pete's best was also better then Fed's best on clay as well.


The 2nd best grass court player we have had since 2003 is Nadal.. (Who was a good grass court player, but certainly more of a weak point for him).

Even though Pete had a more quality overall grass field to contend with, he got to 7 titles much quicker as well

 

[pringles]

1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

Which CLAY match from 1999 are you referring to?

 

[90's Clay]

Which CLAY match from 1999 are you refering to?

my bad.. I meant grass


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well


Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

 

[monfed]

1999 final Sampras' best was better then any "Fed best" I've seen

2006 Rome Fed would send any clay version of Sampras to the ER room. :lol:

 

[pringles]

my bad.. I meant grass


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well

Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

You do, you just pointed out that Sampras' best is better than Federer's best on clay.

Here's some proof that you're an ***"* (pick a word):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy7EPqaxjUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRmUIwyxpTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI8X-bdLkWs (Federer lost but this form would be enough to beat Sampras 1 2 and 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U (this also shows that people who claim Sampras was faster are idiots)

To counter these matches you throw in a match that Sampras barely won in DC against Andrei freaking Chesnokov. I mean, really? Sampras was decent on clay in 1992-1996 but still lost just about every match he played with a better clay courter. The only 2 wins he has against FO champions at the French is when they were at their lowest lows, Bruguera was playing just crap while Muster was just coming from a life-threatening accident. Sampras isn't a good clay courter no matter how you present the stats and to claim that he was better than Federer on clay (especially when Federer was at his best) is just pure blasphemy.

 

[TMF]

90's Clay, so at their best Pete is also better than Fed on clay too??? You're crazy!

 

[pringles]

2006 Rome Fed would send any clay version of Sampras to the ER room. :lol:

Soon we will hear that Sampras could beat Nadal at the French Open. Maybe if Nadal didn't show up and I mean literally didn't show up - got stuck in a jam or something, then Sampras might have a chance.

Petar**s are just mad that Federer took everything away from him, the only area where there still might throw in an arguement or 2 is the best Wimbledon player, not even grass cause Sampras got upset almost every year he played in Queen's by some journeymen while Federer won like 65 matches in a row on grass.

Hard courts and clay have been taken away from Sampras years ago, well it didn't take much to counter him on clay, anyway.

 

[pringles]

my bad.. I meant grass


Of course maybe clay as well.. 1995 Clay Sampras Davis Cup? Superior to any Fed best clay. Maybe 1996 French Open between Bruguera and Courier as well


Fed was more consistent on clay, but who knows if best for best he was better

Or maybe you meant that Sampras from the 1999 Wimbledon final could counter Federer's best on clay? Well if this is the case, then Pete might have a chance.

 

[TMF]

Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

 

[pringles]

Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

He isn't? I thought that beating prime Nadal in a Wimbledon final means something extra, at least more than beating Cedric freaking Pioline in a final.

 

[monfed]

Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

Gotta throw a bone to the Petetards every once in a while,no point burying them completely,where's the fun in that? :lol:

 

[federerGOAT]

Saying Sampras is better than Fed on clay is like saying Nole is better than Sampras on grass.

You are delusional if you think nole is worse than Sampras on grass. Prime nole schools Sampras and his pathetic 120mph serves anytime. Sampras game is a dinosaur in this era and he would be barely top 20.

 

[TMF]

You are delusional if you think nole is worse than Sampras on grass. Prime nole schools Sampras and his pathetic 120mph serves anytime. Sampras game is a dinosaur in this era and he would be barely top 20.

I'm a Federer fan, not a ******* like you, so we will never eye to eye.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

Oh, Federer has to win 9-10 Wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon? :lol: Here are some facts.

(1) Both have the same number of Championships
(2) Federer has won more matches at a higher winning %
(3) Federer has more finals, more semifinals and more quarterfinals
(4) In their only encounter there, on Sampras's favorite "fast grass", Federer beat him

So sorry, Federer is "greater". It is basically indisputable.

 

[zagor]

Except if that was true, then why would the defending champion Sampras still very close to his prime get beaten by a baby Fed on fast grass?

In a recent interview Sampras also insinuated that the age gap is irrelevant, therefore Fed beating him on the Centre Court when he (Pete) was a defending champion is of utmost importance to this topic.

 

[90's Clay]

Oh, Federer has to win 9-10 Wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon? :lol: Here are some facts.

(1) Both have the same number of Championships
(2) Federer has won more matches at a higher winning %
(3) Federer has more finals, more semifinals and more quarterfinals
(4) In their only encounter there, on Sampras's favorite "fast grass", Federer beat him

So sorry, Federer is "greater". It is basically indisputable.

1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.


We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount

1. Prove it. I could just as easily say the opposite. In fact, I will. The Grass field is stronger today than in Sampras's day.

2. Which only proves Federer's longevity. Federer win 5 Wimbledons in a row and made 7 finals in a row. By contrast, Sampras only ever managed 4 and 4. So Federer has been more consistent and more dominant as well.


About the US Open, yes. You could certainly make that case. But Federer has the better winning % and way, way more consistency. Besides, he's not done yet. And make up your mind. Sampras can't be greater at Wimbledon despite fewer Finals and be the greatest at US Open because of more Finals, considering his consistency is way worse than Federer at both Slams.

 

[zagor]

A wayyy more quality grass field in Pete's day then in Roger's day. .

Given that you said tennis eras are impossible to compare I'm afraid we'll have to completely dismiss the statement above.

If Fed goes on to win 9-10 wimbledon titles then we will see.

Not really, no.

As things stands now, Sampras needs to come out of retirement, get a wildcard for Wimbledon and make another final to compare, of course that still wouldn't make up for him not winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (something true legends like Borg and Fed had no trouble achieving) so I'm not sure what he can do at this point?

 

[90's Clay]

1. Prove it. I could just as easily say the opposite. In fact, I will. The Grass field is stronger today than in Sampras's day.

2. Which only proves Federer's longevity. Federer win 5 Wimbledons in a row and made 7 finals in a row. By contrast, Sampras only ever managed 4 and 4. So Federer has been more consistent and more dominant as well.


About the US Open, yes. You could certainly make that case. But Federer has the better winning % and way, way more consistency. Besides, he's not done yet. And make up your mind. Sampras can't be greater at Wimbledon despite fewer Finals and be the greatest at US Open because of more Finals, considering his consistency is way worse than Federer at both Slams.

Prove it?? How many wimbledon titles does Roddick and Hewitt, and Phllipousis etc.. have compared to Goran, Becker, and Agassi,?

We can also prove Pete's Longevity over Roger's at the USO. Yet the ****s won't touch that. Once again.. MORE USO finals appearances and he won the USO 12 years apart. Yet when there was a poll done, Sampras had like 8 votes and Fed with 40 plus? How do you figure that? OBJECTIVELY?

Only a completely biased Fed homer would say the grass field was stronger (especially from 2003-2007 or so when Fed won the majority of his grass titles) then it was in the 90s

 

[TMF]

1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.


We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

But Fed won 5 straight USO, 6 straight finals. Fed also won 5 straight Wimbledon, including 7 straight finals, and is 1-0 against Sampras. Please don't leave out the details.

 

[90's Clay]

Given that you said tennis eras are impossible to compare I'm afraid we'll have to completely dismiss the statement above.



Not really, no.

As things stands now, Sampras needs to come out of retirement, get a wildcard for Wimbledon and make another final to compare, of course that still wouldn't make up for him not winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (something true legends like Borg and Fed had no trouble achieving) so I'm not sure what he can do at this point?

ROFLMAO.. So borg is a bigger wimbledon legend then Pete now? 5 wimbledon titles compared to Pete's 7 in an 8 year span between 1993-2000?

 

[TMF]

Prove it?? How many wimbledon titles does Roddick and Hewitt, and Phllipousis etc.. have compared to Goran, Becker, and Agassi,?

We can also prove Pete's Longevity over Roger's at the USO. Yet the ****s won't touch that. Once again.. MORE USO finals appearances and he won the USO 12 years apart. Yet when there was a poll done, Sampras had like 8 votes and Fed with 40 plus? How do you figure that? OBJECTIVELY?

None of us can prove which era is better. We have to go by the facts/numbers, which is the only objective way.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Soon we will hear that Sampras could beat Nadal at the French Open.

Oh, you mean that?

I'm not denying Federer was superior to Sampras on clay.. I'm just putting into perspective, if Pete had the lollipop draws Fed had en route to the French Open finals that Fed has had over the years, he may have had 1-2 French Open titles himself where if Pete reached the finals (even with Nadal there especially if it was on faster clay and not monte carlo slow type clay) anything could happen.

:roll:

 

[zagor]

1. Overrall grass field during Pete's prime was superior to Roger's (I don't know how this can be disputed. Becker,Agassi,Goran, Rafter>>baby Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Phillipousis, Djokovic and Murray on grass

Easily, by saying that eras are impossible to compare.

2. Pete managed 7 wimbledon titles between 1993-2000. While it took Fed from 2003-2012 to manage the same amount.

Right, but Fed has an additional final and won 5 Wimbledons in a row at one point.

We could also follow your argument as well regarding Finals appearances etc.. Thus giving Sampras the edge over Fed at the USO. Same number of USO titles yet more finals appearances then Rog

And we could also follow your argument regarding the time it took a player to win a # of titles and apply it to USO comparison as well.

Afteral, it took Sampras 1990-2002 to win 5 USOs while it took Fed 2004-2008, the difference is considerably bigger in this regard compared to the same advantage Sampras enjoys in Wimbledon comparison.

In short: 8 years difference >>>> 2 years difference

 

[zagor]

ROFLMAO.. So borg is a bigger wimbledon legend then Pete now? 5 wimbledon titles compared to Pete's 7 in an 8 year span between 1993-2000?

Yes, because he had tougher competition on grass and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, Sampras would have to win 2 more Wimbledons at the very least to compensate.

 

[90's Clay]

Yes, because he had tougher competition on grass and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, Sampras would have to win 2 more Wimbledons at the very least to compensate.

You just said we can't compare eras

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because he played in different conditions on a (basically) different surface.

 

[90's Clay]

Ivanisevic has 1. Becker has 3. Agassi has 1.
Hewitt has 1. Nadal has 2 (possibly more). Djokovic has 1 (possibly more). And then there are guys like Murray. I don't see much of a difference, really.

So let me get this straight. Is Final appearances important or not? If they are, Federer>Sampras at Wimbledon. If they aren't, Federer>Sampras at US Open. Make up your mind, ****.

And Becker has how many?