why does sampras refer to nicklaus instead of...

[Jack Romeo]

... graf or court?

when he talks about his record of 14 slams and the possibility of roger federer passing him, he says things like "roger is on his way to matching jack nicklaus with 18 majors" or something of the sort. in fact, when he first set his own record of 13 back in 2000, he wondered out loud if he could possibly catch up with nicklaus' 18.

first of all, obviously, roger and pete are tennis players while nicklaus is a golfer. so there really shouldn't be a comparison. it just doesn't sound logical to me for him to compare his record or roger's record with a record which is of a totally different sport.

shouldn't pete be speculating on how far roger could go in trying to catch up with steffi graf or margaret court instead, since at least they are tennis players too? i mean, even given the fact that the history and circumstances of the women's tour are different, in my opinion, graf's and court's records merit a closer or more logical comparison to their own records than that of nicklaus. i just don't see how they can have anything significantly in common with nicklaus vis-a-vis setting records for majors.

 

[SER]

There should be no comparison between tennis and golf, just as there should be no comparison between men and women. Women don't play with men, and tennis players surely don't play with golfers. Therefore there is no comparison.

 

[FitzRoy]

There should be no comparison between tennis and golf, just as there should be no comparison between men and women. Women don't play with men, and tennis players surely don't play with golfers. Therefore there is no comparison.

Following this reasoning, would you agree then that someone such as Rod Laver shouldn't be compared to Federer, considering that they do not and have not played with one another?

 

[SER]

Following this reasoning, would you agree then that someone such as Rod Laver shouldn't be compared to Federer, considering that they do not and have not played with one another?

Uh..they are on the same circuit. Laver has played against somebody who has played against somebody who has played against Federer. Using you're theory we shouldn't ever compare anything at all.

 

[FitzRoy]

Uh..they are on the same circuit. Laver has played against somebody who has played against somebody who has played against Federer. Using you're theory we shouldn't ever compare anything at all.

But Laver played against somebody who played against Bobby Riggs, and Riggs played against Margaret Court, and also against Billie Jean King, who played against somebody who played against somebody who played against Graf, yes? Anyway, it wasn't my theory to begin with. I was using yours.

I believe, and I think most people would probably agree, that individuals don't need to have competed against one another, or on the same circuit, or even in the same sport, for comparisons to be relevant.

To the OP: you raise an interesting question. I think the honest answer is that when Pete spoke about chasing Nicklaus' record of majors, the thought of comparing himself to a female athlete didn't enter his head, even though, in this case, it happens to be the same sport. Or he simply didn't want to compare himself to a woman. But really, it's not just him - I've never heard anyone talk about a male tennis player breaking certain records held by women, or vice versa. It's sort of taboo, on some level.

 

[angharad]

I think it's just because Nicklaus is someone who has 18 titles, a more-attainable number for Federer, and is also a well-known figure. I don't think anyone's ready to talk about Federer with 20+ slams, so comparisons to Graf or Court are pretty much pointless at the moment. I suppose you could argue Navratilova or Evert, but I think their Slam singles title count have been overshadowed or forgotten by the general public.

 

[SER]

Yeah I guess you can really compare anything you want...then it's up to people like us to do the debating.

 

[joeyscl]

*IF* Roger keeps his form until he is 30 (and no one better than he is comes along), then we just *might* see 20 Grand Slams

 

[Eviscerator]

... graf or court?


shouldn't pete be speculating on how far roger could go in trying to catch up with steffi graf or margaret court instead, since at least they are tennis players too?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Warriorroger]

But Laver played against somebody who played against Bobby Riggs, and Riggs played against Margaret Court, and also against Billie Jean King, who played against somebody who played against somebody who played against Graf, yes? Anyway, it wasn't my theory to begin with. I was using yours.

I believe, and I think most people would probably agree, that individuals don't need to have competed against one another, or on the same circuit, or even in the same sport, for comparisons to be relevant.

To the OP: you raise an interesting question. I think the honest answer is that when Pete spoke about chasing Nicklaus' record of majors, the thought of comparing himself to a female athlete didn't enter his head, even though, in this case, it happens to be the same sport. Or he simply didn't want to compare himself to a woman. But really, it's not just him - I've never heard anyone talk about a male tennis player breaking certain records held by women, or vice versa. It's sort of taboo, on some level.

Not entirely true. I do agree with the poster with the cool avatar, but Sampras did address Graf 's record upon her retirement.

She’s had an unbelievable career,” Sampras said. “She did it with a lot of class, went out and got the job done. She let her racquet do the talking. I’ve always looked up to her and the way she approached the game. She worked very hard and was a great athlete.”
“It’s not easy to win 22 Slams,” said Sampras, “That’s one number I won’t get.”

However, I have to admit that as much as I don't want it, it's a different ballgame. I hate it when Roger is talked about the Grand Slam and they don't mention Steffi at all. People maybe forget that she is the only one of the 5 persons who won it on 4 different surfaces. That said, it's an elite club of 5 and Roger can join her. They have the same kind of dominance.

Going to back to the Sampras golf thing: a dumb statement. Apples and chocolate. double standards though, when Graf won the Grand Slam, she was presented with the trophee by a male Grand Slam winner and not Court.

 

[tuk]

...Going to back to the Sampras golf thing: a dumb statement. Apples and chocolate. double standards though, when Graf won the Grand Slam, she was presented with the trophee by a male Grand Slam winner and not Court.

I guess since Sampras's record might be broken by Federer, he (Sampras) doesn't want to feel alone in that situation (having his record broken) so he thought of Nicklaus since there wasn't anyone else in tennis....still a dumb comparison IMO.....
As far your double standards anlogy, I'm not sure, IMO it's all about levels of play...I would be happy to be presented with the trophy by someone who is in a higher level of play than me, for example if I was a male junior player and a pro (male or female) presented me with the trophy it would be fine but if I was a male pro player I wouldn't like the thropy to be presented to me by a junior player or a female pro player (unless she was some sort of legend) because I would consider I'm on a higher level of play than they are...IMO

 

[Orion]

... graf or court?

when he talks about his record of 14 slams and the possibility of roger federer passing him, he says things like "roger is on his way to matching jack nicklaus with 18 majors" or something of the sort. in fact, when he first set his own record of 13 back in 2000, he wondered out loud if he could possibly catch up with nicklaus' 18.

first of all, obviously, roger and pete are tennis players while nicklaus is a golfer. so there really shouldn't be a comparison. it just doesn't sound logical to me for him to compare his record or roger's record with a record which is of a totally different sport.

shouldn't pete be speculating on how far roger could go in trying to catch up with steffi graf or margaret court instead, since at least they are tennis players too? i mean, even given the fact that the history and circumstances of the women's tour are different, in my opinion, graf's and court's records merit a closer or more logical comparison to their own records than that of nicklaus. i just don't see how they can have anything significantly in common with nicklaus vis-a-vis setting records for majors.

Tennis and golf are both traditionally "gentlemen's sport" and play majors throughout the season that are given more weight than other tournaments . This analogy is no different than comparing the number of NBA championships to the number of MLB world series wins. Tennis and golf are individual sports, while the other two are team sports where you win best of 7. The Masters has attempted to provide a season ending showdown, ie championship, but performance in the four majors not the Masters determines how we remember players. Keeping with tradition and performing well on the big stage.

 

[mdhubert]

roger and pete are tennis players

I like instructuve posts... let's go back to basics sometimes

 

[Warriorroger]

I guess since Sampras's record might be broken by Federer, he (Sampras) doesn't want to feel alone in that situation (having his record broken) so he thought of Nicklaus since there wasn't anyone else in tennis....still a dumb comparison IMO.....
As far your double standards anlogy, I'm not sure, IMO it's all about levels of play...I would be happy to be presented with the trophy by someone who is in a higher level of play than me, for example if I was a male junior player and a pro (male or female) presented me with the trophy it would be fine but if I was a male pro player I wouldn't like the thropy to be presented to me by a junior player or a female pro player (unless she was some sort of legend) because I would consider I'm on a higher level of play than they are...IMO

Fair, but I think Roger would be honoured if Steffi was to present the trophy if he wins the Grand Slam.

 

[mentalcase]

So Warrioroger, are you trying to say Roger plays like a girl?:-o

 

[Warriorroger]

So Warrioroger, are you trying to say Roger plays like a girl?:-o

uh, yeah ; well they don't call you mentalcase for nothing. Easy new user, they don't call me a warrior for nothing.

 

[Eviscerator]

The more I read some posts here the more I am convinced people have trouble separating the men's game from the women's. When Jordan was at his peek he was not compared to top women players or their accomplishments. Unfortunately men's tennis has become synonymous with women's because the slams are played at the same time so reporting covers both simultaneously. Furthermore magazines like TENNIS exacerbate the problem when they have articles like "The 50 Greatest Tennis Players" and make half of them women. Can you imagine basketball naming the 50 greatest players of all time and having 25 of them being women?

My overall point as it relates to this thread is that Pete using Nicklaus for a comparison makes perfect sense, all be it a different sport. Nicklaus was considered the GOAT and has more majors than any other players in his sport. To think Pete should compare himself to a woman player should strike people as unusual, not the norm.

 

[Jack Romeo]

i guess men's and women's records really aren't compared to one another even if they are of the same sport, specifically tennis. i was just wondering why men's tennis records would have to be put up side by side with men's golf records instead of women's tennis records. i mean it just lacks any kind of logic to me.

with regards to the nba vs mlb - both are big league men's sports and both are prominent in the public consciousness. so comparing nba titles with mlb titles is somehow understandable even if, just like the tennis-golf thing, it is illogical as well.

but in tennis, the men's and the women's tours are almost equally prominent in the media's and the public's consciousness. when any sports fan or journalist thinks of tennis, they think not only of the men's side but also of the women's, even if they prefer or favor one over the other. yet somehow, women's records are just not seen as something worthy of comparison to men's records.

it would be one thing if circumstances were entirely different, and i do acknowledge that they are. but we must put this discussion in context of the achievements of federer; he who is setting records for being so dominating that it is hardly possible to compare him to any other of the great male players of the past, when in fact, it does sort of make sense to compare him to graf, who was also a dominating champion during her time. federer is also compared to tiger woods (another tennis-golf thing), but the comparison is less about specific records (like number of titles won or weeks spent at number 1) and is instead more about the subject of dominance over their respective competitors. the thing with the sampras-federer-nicklaus issue is that pete referred to a very specific record - number of majors won instead of a more broad (and therefore more logical) matter like, for instance, the qualities of a great competitor.

another obvious example is the record for consecutive wimbledon titles. when people think about this, they immediately think about bjorn borg's 5 consecutive titles. this year, when roger federer tries to equal that record, you can bet that a lot of ink space will be devoted to this particular record. it even seems that borg's 5 consecutive titles get at least equal, if not more, ink space than sampras own record of 7 wimbledon singles titles. people hardly ever think about the fact that someone else was able to actually win 6 titles in a row and even did this more recently than borg. i'm talking of course about martina navratilova, who won 6 straight titles from 1982-1987. add to that, she was also in the finals of both 1988 and 89, before winning again in 1990 for the record 9th time. now i do acknowledge that her record of 9 titles is much lauded in the press, but it still seems less well-remembered than borg's record of 5 straight titles. when sampras won his 7th title and 4th consecutively in 2000, i do not recall him or any sports journalist ever mentioning trying to chase navratilova's record of 9 titles.

on one hand, maybe it is just sampras' way of thinking. as one of the above posters noted, maybe he just doesn't think of comparing his tennis records to any woman's tennis records. i guess since majority of sports fans and sports journalists are also male, they may tend to think along the same lines as sampras. a special case is his rival, andre agassi, who likes to compare himself sometimes to his wife, steffi graf. in particular, he likes to boast that he has more miami titles than steffi.

 

[Eviscerator]

yet somehow, women's records are just not seen as something worthy of comparison to men's records.

It is because women do not and can not compete against men. As good as Graf and other women were, you would never have even heard of them had they competed on the men's tour. As obvious as that sounds, some people do not think in those terms

a special case is his rival, andre agassi, who likes to compare himself sometimes to his wife, steffi graf. in particular, he likes to boast that he has more miami titles than steffi.

While I appreciate why you posted this, it is not a good example. He would not be comparing his records/titles to Graf if she was not his wife.

 

[oberyn]

Going to back to the Sampras golf thing: a dumb statement. Apples and chocolate. double standards though, when Graf won the Grand Slam, she was presented with the trophee by a male Grand Slam winner and not Court.

That's a bit harsh. The guy was asked a question about whether Federer would pass his record. Sampras says, yes, he would, and said that he'd win in the vicinity of 18 majors (Agassi said the same thing). Then, Sampras threw in the Nicklaus reference. What makes the statement dumb? He never said the two sports could or should be compared, and he never said that going after Nicklaus was something Federer should shoot for.

As far as comparisons between golf and tennis, well, go to any sports site and you're likely to find an article or two comparing Federer and Tiger Woods.

ETA: As far as why Sampras didn't mention Court or Graf, well, sheesh, the guy was asked a question about whether or not Federer could pass his record. He answered it. It's not like he was asked about Court, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, or anything having to do with the women's game. When Federer won the AO without dropping a set, they went back to the last time someone did it on the men's side. Was this somehow a slight against the last woman's player to do the same thing? Only if you're looking for something to complain about.

 

[Warriorroger]

That's a bit harsh. The guy was asked a question about whether Federer would pass his record. Sampras says, yes, he would, and said that he'd win in the vicinity of 18 majors (Agassi said the same thing). Then, Sampras threw in the Nicklaus reference. What makes the statement dumb? He never said the two sports could or should be compared, and he never said that going after Nicklaus was something Federer should shoot for.

As far as comparisons between golf and tennis, well, go to any sports site and you're likely to find an article or two comparing Federer and Tiger Woods.

ETA: As far as why Sampras didn't mention Court or Graf, well, sheesh, the guy was asked a question about whether or not Federer could pass his record. He answered it. It's not like he was asked about Court, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, or anything having to do with the women's game. When Federer won the AO without dropping a set, they went back to the last time someone did it on the men's side. Was this somehow a slight against the last woman's player to do the same thing? Only if you're looking for something to complain about.

Please stay in the home, you are discussing something I didn't even bring up, check the quotes better.

 

[oberyn]

Please stay in the home, you are discussing something I didn't even bring up, check the quotes better.

I thought you were referring to Sampras' statement about Nicklaus' 18 majors as being "dumb". As such, I said I though that was a "bit harsh". If that qualifies me, in your opinion, as needing to be insitutionalized, well, I might politely suggest that you need to take a deep breath, relax, and realize that no insult was either intended or delivered. LOL.

Unless, of course, you consider "that's a bit harsh" to be fighting words. In which case, I sincerely apologize.

 

[FiveO]

That's a bit harsh. The guy was asked a question about whether Federer would pass his record. Sampras says, yes, he would, and said that he'd win in the vicinity of 18 majors (Agassi said the same thing). Then, Sampras threw in the Nicklaus reference. What makes the statement dumb? He never said the two sports could or should be compared, and he never said that going after Nicklaus was something Federer should shoot for.

As far as comparisons between golf and tennis, well, go to any sports site and you're likely to find an article or two comparing Federer and Tiger Woods.

ETA: As far as why Sampras didn't mention Court or Graf, well, sheesh, the guy was asked a question about whether or not Federer could pass his record. He answered it. It's not like he was asked about Court, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, or anything having to do with the women's game. When Federer won the AO without dropping a set, they went back to the last time someone did it on the men's side. Was this somehow a slight against the last woman's player to do the same thing? Only if you're looking for something to complain about.

I agree. Sampras made a reference to Fed's assault on a number, and a number of what? Majors. Sampras projected a number of 18.

Say "18 Majors" to most John Q sporting fans and at least partially because of Tiger's popularity and assault on that number, most will think "Nicklaus".

What did you want him to say?

"18. Yeah, Fed's not chasing me, he's chasing Chris Evert." (?)

I think that would appear a backhanded compliment, at best. It even reads wierd and not just in a Mrs. Robinson kind of way either.

If Sampras thought "24" were the number he may have offered a Margaret Court analogy.

But if he thought "22" and Graf he'd be comparing Federer to the second most prolific Grand Slam singles winner on the women's side, which some would paint as a slight because Federer will be the all-time Major singles winner on the Men's side.

I didn't see the statement as any attempt to compare the two sports either. That's a reach.

I thought Sampras's comment was self depricating (IOW "Fed's going way past me.") appropriate, complimentary, slightly clever and understandable to the average sports fan. When I heard it I also assumed it was quite safe from this kind of negative critique.

 

[Warriorroger]

I thought you were referring to Sampras' statement about Nicklaus' 18 majors as being "dumb". As such, I said I though that was a "bit harsh". If that qualifies me, in your opinion, as needing to be insitutionalized, well, I might politely suggest that you need to take a deep breath, relax, and realize that no insult was either intended or delivered. LOL.

Unless, of course, you consider "that's a bit harsh" to be fighting words. In which case, I sincerely apologize.

Your apology made me lay down my weapons and put down my chakram, you are forgiven and a great man for having done so. The warrior goes to sleep.

 

[oberyn]

Your apology made me lay down my weapons and put down my chakram, you are forgiven and a great man for having done so. The warrior goes to sleep.

I salute you, warrior. Sleep well.

 

[Warriorroger]

I salute you, warrior. Sleep well.

Thank you: ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz