Why the hate for Sampras?

[Sentinel]

Who is 90's clay and Suresh?

They are both Fed haters who keep creating hilarious threads to diss Fed.

Whenever Fed is about to play a big match, we all wait for 90sclay to create a thread, and often predict what exactly they will say. And we are invariably correct. When Fed wins a match, then the other player is a clown and mug and should retire. If Fed loses, then he was exposed for the fake and fluke winner he has been all along.

Both of them use one formula, no creativity, no variation. Just silly stuff repeated over and over. I pine for them to refine their trolling a bit but sadly that won't happen because a few grey cells are required for that.

 

[KINGROGER]

The hate is borne out of jealousy. Fed fans genuinely believe their man is supremo uno 1 and no one comes close. They ingrain it in to themselves on a ritual basis.

When they compare Fed with his co-era players, they just point to the slam count.

When comparing Fed to the Laver era players and earlier, they laugh it off.

But when they compare Fed with Sampras, they get salty, and for good reason, namely:

Sampras has as many W and USO titles as Fed, they know deep down that in a prime for prime match in the Wimbledon final, Sampras is only one of 2 players who could beat Federer, Nadal being the other. They hate the fact that Sampras never lost in the world's most important annual match although Fed has lost 1, 2, 3.

They hate the fact that Sampras never got owned by his rivals when at his prime and they love to throw in Hewitt who was what, 10 ****ing years younger than Sampras when they were meeting in the later stages of tournaments. They also love to throw in the Krajicek match although they fail to mention that Sampras subsequently beat Krajicek at the USO.

They despise the fact that Sampras has more YE #1s than Federer so instead throw up weeks at #1 as the more important stat.

They hate the fact that Sampras played in a lot tougher era and Sampras was still head and shoulders above everyone else when he retired. Sampras never had to play an AO17 fight to the fealty type final that Fed played, he was simply a mile in front.

They hate the fact that Sampras won slams in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, thus spanning 3 decades.

And again, they know that Sampras would wipe Fed in a prime for prime match up at W, the USO and the WTF.

They can throw up 18 as much as they like, it does determine GOAT because you're comparing different eras which is so so apples with oranges.

Federer fans, insecure, jealous, salty, butthurt flogs. The lot of them.

That is all.

Prime for prime, Fed and Sampras would likely split any 90s Wimbledon matches, but I doubt Sampras would win more than 1/10 on the modern grass Federer won on. Fed's 3 extra finals > SF/QF/4R, 1-0 H2H there, 5 consecutive serve as tie breakers which elevate Fed as the Wimbledon GOAT.

USO again the 5 consecutive means Fed dominated there better than Pete did.

As for WTF, 6>5 so Fed wins again there.

YE#1? Sampras wins there but Fed's 237 consecutive weeks and getting back to number 1 at age 31 are equally as impressive in my view.

No idea how you can say he never got owned by his rivals when he constantly got owned at RG, only won 2 AO, as you said Krajicek, lost to pre prime Fed as defending champ at Wimbledon, lost to Hewitt and Safin at USO (30 year old Fed would never lose these matches) you're talking bollocks on this regard.

I don't hate any of Sampras facts as he was a brilliant player just hate pathetic trolls who manipulate these facts to try and denigrate another player.

 

[-NN-]

90's Clay is banned???
He's my favourite troll...

As for the subject at hand: nobody 'hates' Sampras. I'm pretty sure some 99% of the poasters here at least respect him a lot. Doesn't mean we actually all have to like him, that's something completely different, but everyone at least regards him as one of the ATGs and/or GOAT-candidates (the entire GOAT-concept being a failure imho, but that's beside the point here).

People putting Nadal, or even Djokovic, 'above' him, is a clear case of recency bias: the silly belief that sportsmen always get 'better' with time.
Which is nonsense, as one cannot compare different era's with completely different circumstances, but a lot of fans do get affected by all of this kind of silly talk by the pundits, Matts Trollander being about the worst of them all.

A haughty statement if I ever saw one. All three players have good arguments for being better and/or greater than the other and many have all 3 close, along with Borg.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

We love Pete.

 

[chut]

I hated Sampras when i saw him play. But that's just because he kept hammering my favourite players

He was a great champion an everyone with a bit of tennis knowledge knows this. He has so many career accomplishments. He didn't win RG, but it doesn't matter, on the opposite that means he managed to win 14 GS out of 3 slams only. Also, he stayed #1 an impressive amount of time, and the ranking at that time was designed differently (took account of your opponent's ranking), it wasn't easy to do at all.

 

[TheMusicLover]

A haughty statement if I ever saw one. All three players have good arguments for being better and/or greater than the other and many have all 3 close, along with Borg.

I wonder what's so 'haughty' about having a dissenting opinion...

Once again: the entire 'GOAT'-concept is bunk, and so is the discussion about 'who's for sure #2, #3, #4, etc'.

 

[Winners or Errors]

To reiterate: no one hates Sampras. People dislike trolls on the Internet. Sampras had a beautiful game. His personality always left me a little underwhelmed, but if cameras were stuck in my face all the time I may be a bit quiet, reclusive, and stand-offish as well.

 

[-NN-]

I wonder what's so 'haughty' about having a dissenting opinion...

Once again: the entire 'GOAT'-concept is bunk, and so is the discussion about 'who's for sure #2, #3, #4, etc'.

But that's a different topic. Not everybody is interested in these GOAT discussions and just enjoy the tennis.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

There are good arguments for any ranking amongst Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras.

I feel like people sometimes underrate Sampras in these discussions because they implicitly try to draw comparisons to Federer while ranking these players. It is easier in some ways to argue that Nadal or even Djokovic is better than Federer, than to argue the same for Sampras. There are important achievements Nadal has over Federer, while Sampras' domination of the game is in areas where Federer is statistically even better. People forget that Pete still hugely dominates in those categories, or grudgingly concede it while making up weak era arguments to rationalize it.

That's the reason why 90s Clay spends most of his time trying to prove that Nadal, rather than Sampras, is better than Federer. His twisted agenda has led him to rank Nadal over Sampras on his list of Open Era greats.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

OK, I'll bite:

Sampras has as many W and USO titles as Fed, they know deep down that in a prime for prime match in the Wimbledon final, Sampras is only one of 2 players who could beat Federer, Nadal being the other. They hate the fact that Sampras never lost in the world's most important annual match although Fed has lost 1, 2, 3.

Equality in those areas is rarely begrudged as far as I can tell. Fed has lost finals, but he won 7. Pete didn't make 8 finals, so who knows if that trend would have continued. 7 wins and 3 extra finals is not outright worse than 7 wins.

They despise the fact that Sampras has more YE #1s than Federer so instead throw up weeks at #1 as the more important stat.

Well both feats are great, but one can easily argue the case for weeks > year end by virtue of the fact that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not your #1 ranking timing happens more often in November.

They hate the fact that Sampras played in a lot tougher era and Sampras was still head and shoulders above everyone else when he retired. Sampras never had to play an AO17 fight to the fealty type final that Fed played, he was simply a mile in front.

The era thing has been done to death, but regarding the latter part of this point, Pete was ranked outside the top 10 when he retired; you don't get to cherry pick the 2002 US Open. Wow, Fed's final was closer... Shall we look at all of the circumstances surrounding the match? Or shall we just assume that you know all of them and are lying through omission (and your teeth)?

They hate the fact that Sampras won slams in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, thus spanning 3 decades.

So what you really mean is he won slams over a span of at least 12 years (rounded up to nearest year). Roger has won slams over a span of 15 years. The significance of the timing with relation to years with zeros at the end couldn't be more contrived nor brain-dead. This point is beyond asinine and you should be ashamed of yourself.

And again, they know that Sampras would wipe Fed in a prime for prime match up at W, the USO and the WTF.

This is NOT knowledge.

They can throw up 18 as much as they like, it does determine GOAT because you're comparing different eras which is so so apples with oranges.

There are very, VERY few fans of any player who would rank Sampras above Federer in a GOAT list, purely because of slams, weeks at no.1 and CGS/versatility all being in Federer's favour.

These considerations don't detract from Sampras' qualities and overall excellence, nor the fact that he could very well deck Federer in a reasonable number of matches peak for peak, especially on the very fast surfaces. It sounds like you are far more defensive and insecure about this than those you seek to condemn.

 

[Vish13]

Simple answer. 90s Clay.

No one on this forum dislikes or disrespects Sampras. Why would they?

I basically opened the thread to post what you posted

 

[JMR]

7 wins and 3 extra finals is not outright worse than 7 wins.

In fact, 7-3 in Wimbledon finals is significantly better than 7-0. Making a slam final is a considerable achievement; it's arguably better than winning a Masters event. E.g., Miloslav Mecir is remembered as a USO and AO finalist, and the first Olympic gold medalist, rather than as the Lipton champion. If the number of titles is the same, 10 finals clearly beats seven finals. Not losing in the final just means that you lost in an earlier round that year.

For the same reason, Sampras has a slight edge over Federer at the U.S. Open: 5-3 vs. 5-2. (The fact that Fed won all his titles consecutively is something that different people will weight differently.)

 

[netlets]

Could this post be any more biased?
Fed is the more talented player, simple as that. He won their only meeting when Pete was defending champ (I believe) and Fed hadn't done anything. Pete was all about his serve and mental strength. He could take games off returning serve if he got behind and then pounce when he had an opening. His serve was simply an awesome weapon and he was clutch. BUT, if you compare him to Fed consider this:

1. No French Open - not even a sniff - huge blemish that shows he was more about his serve than an all around game.
2. If the Wimbledon courts played really slow - almost like clay like they do now, how many Wimbledons would he have won?
3. If he played Guga 15 times on clay and in several French Open finals (best of 5), how many would he have won - maybe 1 or 2 best of 3 set matches. So I guess his head to head against Guga would have been something like 1-14. BUT he wasn't good enough to make the final. Fed was, and Rafa is better on clay than Guga was. So the fact he made all those finals against clay goat works against him? Short sighted to think that way.
4. Fed has sustained his success, has more time at #1, and his main rival never took years off at a time.
5. Fed has played in a tougher Era. Look at Pete's opponents in Grand Slams: Pioline twice, Todd Martin, Goran (twice) Michael Chang, Carlos Moya - that's half his slams!

The hate is borne out of jealousy. Fed fans genuinely believe their man is supremo uno 1 and no one comes close. They ingrain it in to themselves on a ritual basis.

When they compare Fed with his co-era players, they just point to the slam count.

When comparing Fed to the Laver era players and earlier, they laugh it off.

But when they compare Fed with Sampras, they get salty, and for good reason, namely:

Sampras has as many W and USO titles as Fed, they know deep down that in a prime for prime match in the Wimbledon final, Sampras is only one of 2 players who could beat Federer, Nadal being the other. They hate the fact that Sampras never lost in the world's most important annual match although Fed has lost 1, 2, 3.

They hate the fact that Sampras never got owned by his rivals when at his prime and they love to throw in Hewitt who was what, 10 ****ing years younger than Sampras when they were meeting in the later stages of tournaments. They also love to throw in the Krajicek match although they fail to mention that Sampras subsequently beat Krajicek at the USO.

They despise the fact that Sampras has more YE #1s than Federer so instead throw up weeks at #1 as the more important stat.

They hate the fact that Sampras played in a lot tougher era and Sampras was still head and shoulders above everyone else when he retired. Sampras never had to play an AO17 fight to the fealty type final that Fed played, he was simply a mile in front.

They hate the fact that Sampras won slams in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, thus spanning 3 decades.

And again, they know that Sampras would wipe Fed in a prime for prime match up at W, the USO and the WTF.

They can throw up 18 as much as they like, it does determine GOAT because you're comparing different eras which is so so apples with oranges.

Federer fans, insecure, jealous, salty, butthurt flogs. The lot of them.

That is all.

 

[fednad]

Is 90s clay really banned ?
Shucks !
How can we ban kids !

 

[JMR]

They despise the fact that Sampras has more YE #1s than Federer so instead throw up weeks at #1 as the more important stat.

There appears to be a lot of projecting in your post (hostility felt is hostility attributed to others).

Regarding rankings: The week is the fundamental unit of the ATP ranking system. New rankings are calculated for each week, and theoretically the No. 1 player could change each week. All other rankings, including the annual one, are derivative, in the sense that they depend on the data from the weekly system. There is no logical requirement for the ATP to recognize/honor a calendar year No. 1 player. That tradition is, in part, a holdover from the pre-ranking days, when tennis magazines named an annual top player based on subjective considerations.

If the ATP moved to a PGA-style two-year rolling ranking system, as some players have suggested (e.g., Nadal), the year-end No. 1 award might vanish. It could be replaced by an award for anyone who ascends to the top ranking, whenever that is accomplished. If the ATP moved to a fiscal year system, the cumulative No. 1 also would be different. E.g., "The WTF has become too expensive for us to run. We're going to end each season with Wimbledon instead, so our fiscal year will run August through July. The player with the most ranking points in that span will be honored in a ceremony after Wimbledon each year."

The year-end No. 1 is surely a very important accomplishment, but there are good reasons for treating weeks at No. 1 as the primary measure of domination.

 

[mike danny]

They are both Fed haters who keep creating hilarious threads to diss Fed.

Whenever Fed is about to play a big match, we all wait for 90sclay to create a thread, and often predict what exactly they will say. And we are invariably correct. When Fed wins a match, then the other player is a clown and mug and should retire. If Fed loses, then he was exposed for the fake and fluke winner he has been all along.

Both of them use one formula, no creativity, no variation. Just silly stuff repeated over and over. I pine for them to refine their trolling a bit but sadly that won't happen because a few grey cells are required for that.

Between Fed and Nadal for now the debate is settled.

But between 90's clay and Sureshs, we don't know which one created the true GOAT thread

 

[uliks]

Simple answer. 90s Clay.

No one on this forum dislikes or disrespects Sampras. Why would they?

And what is the difference beetwen 90s Clay and like million Fed fanboys here on TTW, other than the name of their idol?!

 

[Zara]

I am a big Sampras fan and I don't believe he's hated here but there are posters like Druss (Federer fan I think?) who tend to disrespect Sampras from time to time. He's probably driven by sheer ignorance, jealousy, hatred etc. Will probably overcome this challenge at some point or so I hope.

But why blame it all to 90s Clay? If I were to make an assumption here I would say Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are hated by a lot of fans here. If I see a Murray thread here, I hesitate to open it because most of the time I find posters whining about Murray's whining on court all the time. Talk about pot calling kettle black. You do know you have the freedom to choose? If it bothers you that much then be wise and choose not to watch him play. Just like you can choose to ignore 90s Clay's posts if it bothers you that much.

 

[Zara]

Anyway, I think I should just grab this opportunity and post this. I am sure a few of you must have seen it already.

 

[ZiggyStardust]

And what is the difference beetwen 90s Clay and like million Fed fanboys here on TTW, other than the name of their idol?!

Really. You see 90s Clay as a Sampras fanboy?

 

[Tennisanity]

Simple answer. 90s Clay.

No one on this forum dislikes or disrespects Sampras. Why would they?

Yup this is the #1 reason. #2 reason is that idiot poster Blocker, another guy with his nose shoved up Sampras' butt.

 

[metsman]

Prime for prime, Fed and Sampras would likely split any 90s Wimbledon matches, but I doubt Sampras would win more than 1/10 on the modern grass Federer won on. Fed's 3 extra finals > SF/QF/4R, 1-0 H2H there, 5 consecutive serve as tie breakers which elevate Fed as the Wimbledon GOAT.

USO again the 5 consecutive means Fed dominated there better than Pete did.

As for WTF, 6>5 so Fed wins again there.

YE#1? Sampras wins there but Fed's 237 consecutive weeks and getting back to number 1 at age 31 are equally as impressive in my view.

No idea how you can say he never got owned by his rivals when he constantly got owned at RG, only won 2 AO, as you said Krajicek, lost to pre prime Fed as defending champ at Wimbledon, lost to Hewitt and Safin at USO (30 year old Fed would never lose these matches) you're talking bollocks on this regard.

I don't hate any of Sampras facts as he was a brilliant player just hate pathetic trolls who manipulate these facts to try and denigrate another player.

eh...2010 Fed would have gotten destroyed by Safin at the USO most likely. 2011 Fed would have decent chances against Hewitt but far from certain. If he didn't play well, Hewitt could take it.

 

[BHud]

They are both Fed haters who keep creating hilarious threads to diss Fed.

Whenever Fed is about to play a big match, we all wait for 90sclay to create a thread, and often predict what exactly they will say. And we are invariably correct. When Fed wins a match, then the other player is a clown and mug and should retire. If Fed loses, then he was exposed for the fake and fluke winner he has been all along.

Both of them use one formula, no creativity, no variation. Just silly stuff repeated over and over. I pine for them to refine their trolling a bit but sadly that won't happen because a few grey cells are required for that.

But at least Suresh has provided us with countless hours of entertainment after posting the video of his...um...tennis skills?

 

[KINGROGER]

eh...2010 Fed would have gotten destroyed by Safin at the USO most likely. 2011 Fed would have decent chances against Hewitt but far from certain. If he didn't play well, Hewitt could take it.

No

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

In fact, 7-3 in Wimbledon finals is significantly better than 7-0. Making a slam final is a considerable achievement; it's arguably better than winning a Masters event. E.g., Miloslav Mecir is remembered as a USO and AO finalist, and the first Olympic gold medalist, rather than as the Lipton champion. If the number of titles is the same, 10 finals clearly beats seven finals. Not losing in the final just means that you lost in an earlier round that year.

For the same reason, Sampras has a slight edge over Federer at the U.S. Open: 5-3 vs. 5-2. (The fact that Fed won all his titles consecutively is something that different people will weight differently.)

Agreed. Thank you for fleshing out the full argument; my original response was just to reject the claim for the purposes of concision.

 

[Blocker]

Sampras' first slam win was the 1990 US Open. You don't need to make up s*it to defend Sampras.

1990 is part of the 80s. Did you not study math at school?

 

[Blocker]

Sampras didn't win any major in the 1980s.

Yes he did, 1990 is the last year of the 80s decade.

 

[Mainad]

My father was born in Wallesey. If you have not been there the accent is nothing like London, from what I hear. So he was British. My grandfather moved to England where his three children were born.

I worked for almost 5 years in Liverpool (went to college there many years prior to that) which is just across the river from Wallasey. Trust me, I know the accents and speech patterns of the area all too well. They are certainly nothing like London or the south at all.

This was a LONG time ago. My dad would be 110 in July of 2017.

What age did he live to? Mine would only have been 95 this year (in May) but he died at 68.

My grandfather moved with his family to NYC when my dad was around 16. He and his two sisters never lost their British accent or customs.

My dad and mom were 41 and 31, respectively, when I was born. I grew up with Journeys through Bookland and Rupert Bear. I was quickly turning into a young Little Lord Fauntleroy, but I sound 100% American.

I learned from that side of my family that "nonsense", delivered in a British accent, is THE final word and wins all arguments.

I still have problems spelling because I "learnt" British English first and had to adapt later to American English.

My dad and his family sounded quite a bit like Patrick Stewart and Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Very strange!

Stewart is actually a Yorkshireman and grew up speaking Yorkshire dialect and not the way he speaks today. Burton, of course, was Welsh and his first language was Welsh. He too changed his accent and way of speaking. Harris was the only one who continued to retain his native Irish accent.

Yes that's me in the picture...

But I may change back to Yoda - he's better looking!

You look very distinguished. Don't change it!

 

[shug]

He should be coaching someone...

 

[JMR]

1990 is part of the 80s. Did you not study math at school?

Please don't be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with mathematics. There are different ways to count the years within decades, but when you NAME a decade by using the last two digits of the years, obviously those two digits are always necessary. The "1980s" or "80s" includes the 10 years of 1980 through 1989. That decade does not include 1990.

I am aghast at some of the silly trolling here.

 

[Blocker]

Please don't be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with mathematics. There are different ways to count the years within decades, but when you NAME a decade by using the last two digits of the years, obviously those two digits are always necessary. The "1980s" or "80s" includes the 10 years of 1980 through 1989. That decade does not include 1990.

I am aghast at some of the silly trolling here.

When you start counting to ten you start with 1 and end with 10. When you count the years in the decade of the 80s you start with 1981 and end with 1990. The year 2000 was the final year of the second millennium. And so it goes, 1990 was the final year of the 1980s. If you can't handle that fact then maybe drink a glass of cordial or milo.

 

[Bender]

Please don't be ridiculous. This has nothing to do with mathematics. There are different ways to count the years within decades, but when you NAME a decade by using the last two digits of the years, obviously those two digits are always necessary. The "1980s" or "80s" includes the 10 years of 1980 through 1989. That decade does not include 1990.

I am aghast at some of the silly trolling here.

I am ashamed to admit that I had an argument with Chico over whether 2010 was part of the 2000s.

He insisted that Djokovic back in 2013 was the best player of the 2010s because he counted it from 2011-2020 like a flippin moron, and not from 2010 to 2019 like a normal person, because that fit his agenda.

 

[Bender]

When you start counting to ten you start with 1 and end with 10. When you count the years in the decade of the 80s you start with 1981 and end with 1990. The year 2000 was the final year of the second millennium. And so it goes, 1990 was the final year of the 1980s. If you can't handle that fact then maybe drink a glass of cordial or milo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s

The 1990s (pronounced "nineteen-nineties" and abbreviated as the "Nineties") was a decade of the Gregorian calendar that began on January 1, 1990, and ended on December 31, 1999.

 

[Mr.Lob]

As an Agassi fan, I never cared much for Pete... because he was usually whooping up on my boy Andre. But he was certainly the goat of his time, as well as a class act.

 

[JMR]

When you count the years in the decade of the 80s you start with 1981 and end with 1990.

Wrong. "80s" specifically means those years that include a number from 80 to 89 in them, as I've explained. And don't bother to try to confound the issue by talking about the definition of a millennium.

I suspect you realize that you're wrong, but you'd prefer to look foolish by stonewalling with an absurd claim about dates than to just admit you made a mistake about Sampras. That sort of attitude manifests itself in your posts.

 

[JMR]

I am ashamed to admit that I had an argument with Chico over whether 2010 was part of the 2000s.

He insisted that Djokovic back in 2013 was the best player of the 2010s because he counted it from 2011-2020 like a flippin moron, and not from 2010 to 2019 like a normal person, because that fit his agenda.

Intellectual dishonesty over a trivial issue -- yep, this must be an Internet forum.

 

[Bender]

Intellectual dishonesty over a trivial issue -- yep, this must be an Internet forum.

He wasn't being intellectually dishonest, IMO.

He was just honestly r3tarded.

 

[Sentinel]

But at least Suresh has provided us with countless hours of entertainment after posting the video of his...um...tennis skills?

He also creates these threads which always fail. He has been predicting the Double Cheeseburger Slam for many years. Also, ruined whatever chance Nadal had of winning WTF by predicting it when Rafa was in good shape.

I just hope he doesn't predict La Decima and ruin that.

 

[Bender]

He also creates these threads which always fail. He has been predicting the Double Cheeseburger Slam for many years. Also, ruined whatever chance Nadal had of winning WTF by predicting it when Rafa was in good shape.

I just hope he doesn't predict La Decima and ruin that.

Oh please for the love of god I hope he shuts up about La Decima, even if correlation =/= causation and all that...

 

[Sentinel]

Oh please for the love of god I hope he shuts up about La Decima, even if correlation =/= causation and all that...

Don't let science fool you about jinxes and such. Gravity bends light, and the laws of science break down in a black hole, so you can imagine what happens near sewretch.

 

[Bender]

Don't let science fool you about jinxes and such. Gravity bends light, and the laws of science break down in a black hole, so you can imagine what happens near sewretch.

Ah yes, the laws of common sense do not apply when dealing with bodies of cosmological proportions...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The hate is borne out of jealousy. Fed fans genuinely believe their man is supremo uno 1 and no one comes close. They ingrain it in to themselves on a ritual basis.

When they compare Fed with his co-era players, they just point to the slam count.

When comparing Fed to the Laver era players and earlier, they laugh it off.

But when they compare Fed with Sampras, they get salty, and for good reason, namely:

Sampras has as many W and USO titles as Fed, they know deep down that in a prime for prime match in the Wimbledon final, Sampras is only one of 2 players who could beat Federer, Nadal being the other. They hate the fact that Sampras never lost in the world's most important annual match although Fed has lost 1, 2, 3.

They hate the fact that Sampras never got owned by his rivals when at his prime and they love to throw in Hewitt who was what, 10 ****ing years younger than Sampras when they were meeting in the later stages of tournaments. They also love to throw in the Krajicek match although they fail to mention that Sampras subsequently beat Krajicek at the USO.

They despise the fact that Sampras has more YE #1s than Federer so instead throw up weeks at #1 as the more important stat.

They hate the fact that Sampras played in a lot tougher era and Sampras was still head and shoulders above everyone else when he retired. Sampras never had to play an AO17 fight to the fealty type final that Fed played, he was simply a mile in front.

They hate the fact that Sampras won slams in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, thus spanning 3 decades.

And again, they know that Sampras would wipe Fed in a prime for prime match up at W, the USO and the WTF.

They can throw up 18 as much as they like, it does determine GOAT because you're comparing different eras which is so so apples with oranges.

Federer fans, insecure, jealous, salty, butthurt flogs. The lot of them.

That is all.

How did Sampras win a slam in the 80s? He won his first slam in 1990.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Also, Blocker.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And finally, 2002 US Open.

"They hate the fact that Sampras played in a lot tougher era and Sampras was still head and shoulders above everyone else when he retired. Sampras never had to play an AO17 fight to the fealty type final that Fed played, he was simply a mile in front."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

 

[Bender]

How did Sampras win a slam in the 80s? He won his first slam in 1990.

Because due to a (namesake?) mental block, according to Blocker, 1990 is apparently in the 1980s.

 

[Blocker]

Prime for prime, Fed and Sampras would likely split any 90s Wimbledon matches, but I doubt Sampras would win more than 1/10 on the modern grass Federer won on. Fed's 3 extra finals > SF/QF/4R, 1-0 H2H there, 5 consecutive serve as tie breakers which elevate Fed as the Wimbledon GOAT.

USO again the 5 consecutive means Fed dominated there better than Pete did.

As for WTF, 6>5 so Fed wins again there.

YE#1? Sampras wins there but Fed's 237 consecutive weeks and getting back to number 1 at age 31 are equally as impressive in my view.

No idea how you can say he never got owned by his rivals when he constantly got owned at RG, only won 2 AO, as you said Krajicek, lost to pre prime Fed as defending champ at Wimbledon, lost to Hewitt and Safin at USO (30 year old Fed would never lose these matches) you're talking bollocks on this regard.

I don't hate any of Sampras facts as he was a brilliant player just hate pathetic trolls who manipulate these facts to try and denigrate another player.

Love how you say Sampras has an inferior record at W because of the extra finals Fed played there but then also claim Fed is better at the USO because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras played in more finals there. You can't have it both ways. Just more biased crap and my post above just confirms the biased. You probably never saw Sampras play at his peak, he'd rip through any version of Federer on any version of grass, you hypocrite.

 

[Blocker]

OK, I'll bite:



Equality in those areas is rarely begrudged as far as I can tell. Fed has lost finals, but he won 7. Pete didn't make 8 finals, so who knows if that trend would have continued. 7 wins and 3 extra finals is not outright worse than 7 wins.



Well both feats are great, but one can easily argue the case for weeks > year end by virtue of the fact that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not your #1 ranking timing happens more often in November.



The era thing has been done to death, but regarding the latter part of this point, Pete was ranked outside the top 10 when he retired; you don't get to cherry pick the 2002 US Open. Wow, Fed's final was closer... Shall we look at all of the circumstances surrounding the match? Or shall we just assume that you know all of them and are lying through omission (and your teeth)?



So what you really mean is he won slams over a span of at least 12 years (rounded up to nearest year). Roger has won slams over a span of 15 years. The significance of the timing with relation to years with zeros at the end couldn't be more contrived nor brain-dead. This point is beyond asinine and you should be ashamed of yourself.



This is NOT knowledge.



There are very, VERY few fans of any player who would rank Sampras above Federer in a GOAT list, purely because of slams, weeks at no.1 and CGS/versatility all being in Federer's favour.

These considerations don't detract from Sampras' qualities and overall excellence, nor the fact that he could very well deck Federer in a reasonable number of matches peak for peak, especially on the very fast surfaces. It sounds like you are far more defensive and insecure about this than those you seek to condemn.

Ask yourself the following question:

If I had to choose only one player of all players who ever played at Wimbledon to play for my life in the Wimbledon final, against any other player (in which you don't have a say) to have ever played at Wimbledon, who would it be?

I know who I'd put my life in the hands of.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Blocker]

Could this post be any more biased?
Fed is the more talented player, simple as that. He won their only meeting when Pete was defending champ (I believe) and Fed hadn't done anything. Pete was all about his serve and mental strength. He could take games off returning serve if he got behind and then pounce when he had an opening. His serve was simply an awesome weapon and he was clutch. BUT, if you compare him to Fed consider this:

1. No French Open - not even a sniff - huge blemish that shows he was more about his serve than an all around game.
2. If the Wimbledon courts played really slow - almost like clay like they do now, how many Wimbledons would he have won?
3. If he played Guga 15 times on clay and in several French Open finals (best of 5), how many would he have won - maybe 1 or 2 best of 3 set matches. So I guess his head to head against Guga would have been something like 1-14. BUT he wasn't good enough to make the final. Fed was, and Rafa is better on clay than Guga was. So the fact he made all those finals against clay goat works against him? Short sighted to think that way.
4. Fed has sustained his success, has more time at #1, and his main rival never took years off at a time.
5. Fed has played in a tougher Era. Look at Pete's opponents in Grand Slams: Pioline twice, Todd Martin, Goran (twice) Michael Chang, Carlos Moya - that's half his slams!

1) If you think Sampras was nothing but a big serve than you're clueless.

2) FO fields ran a lot deeper than they have since Fedal has been around. Fed would not have won a FO in the 90s, too many dirt rats looking to get a notch on their belt from the flyer go, unlike today where the FO essentially starts from the quarters.

3) Please, when Fed beat Sampras he was in the midst of his 2 year drought. Anyone was beating Sampras at that stage, his confidence was at an all time low. The fact he was defending champion merely means he won it 12 months earlier, no bearing on 2000.

4) Sampras was the cause of his main rival taking time off you goof. As Apollo said in Rocky "I've retired more people than social security". As for number 1, Sampras won it 6 years in a row.

5) Tougher era? Really? The top 4 are effectively given free passes to the quarters and in some cases. Aside from Nadal, Fed and Djokovic, what is so tough about this era? It's farming **** weak. Raonic is supposed to be the next big thing coming through and he plays like he's on stilts. Tough era my ass. Look at some of Federer's opponents in slam finals: Baghdatis, Philipousis, Roddick, Soderling... is that really any more impressive? Sampras played guys like Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi.

I don't think you saw Sampras play when he was playing. I think you just read what other numbuts on here write and take their word for it.

 

[1477aces]

1) If you think Sampras was nothing but a big serve than you're clueless.

2) FO fields ran a lot deeper than they have since Fedal has been around. Fed would not have won a FO in the 90s, too many dirt rats looking to get a notch on their belt from the flyer go, unlike today where the FO essentially starts from the quarters.

3) Please, when Fed beat Sampras he was in the midst of his 2 year drought. Anyone was beating Sampras at that stage, his confidence was at an all time low. The fact he was defending champion merely means he won it 12 months earlier, no bearing on 2000.

4) Sampras was the cause of his main rival taking time off you goof. As Apollo said in Rocky "I've retired more people than social security". As for number 1, Sampras won it 6 years in a row.

5) Tougher era? Really? The top 4 are effectively given free passes to the quarters and in some cases. Aside from Nadal, Fed and Djokovic, what is so tough about this era? It's farming **** weak. Raonic is supposed to be the next big thing coming through and he plays like he's on stilts. Tough era my ass. Look at some of Federer's opponents in slam finals: Baghdatis, Philipousis, Roddick, Soderling... is that really any more impressive? Sampras played guys like Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi.

I don't think you saw Sampras play when he was playing. I think you just read what other numbuts on here write and take their word for it.

1. Agreed

2. Kind of hard to determine how much depth there is when they had to play against the Clay GOAT. I think the difference in Sampras's time may have been that a lot of the top players were S and V which didn't transfer to clay as well. In general, assertions like what you are saying are very difficult to prove.

3. Sampras also made the US Open final 3 2 months later ... and was seeded first for a reason. Federer would not make it that far in a slam again until he won Wimbledon 2 years later. Sampras would win a slam the next year. Of course, inferring much if at all from one tight match with a controversial call in the first set TB is pretty foolish.

4. Yep for Agassi. If you read the open, it is clear Agassi had other issues but Sampras beating him in the 95 us open final destroyed him mentally.

# 1 is very close, Sampras did have the 6 YEs, but federer had 5 as well and had more weeks at #1.

5. Edberg made his last slam final at 93 AO (when Sampras had won a total of one slam), and his last SF the following year. Courier reached his last F at 93 W (when Sampras won his 2nd slam). They were barely relevant when Sampras was winning slams. Really Agassi was probably more relevant for federer. Becker also had focus issues and only played well in 95-96. Sampras did truly dominate Agassi however. Federer played Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray on the back part of his career, and absolutely destroyed the players of his generation (roddick, Hewitt, mostly safin).

At Wimbledon, Sampras beat ivanisivec twice, courier, Becker, Agassi, pioline, and rafter once.

Federer beat roddick thrice, Nadal twice, Murray and scud once.

Roddick and ivanisivec are about equal, and Nadal surpasses everyone Sampras beat except Becker who Sampras beat once. Scud equals pioline, and Murray is a more accomplished grasscourter than all but Becker on your list as well.

It is not clear at all that Sampras faced better competition.

 

[KINGROGER]

Love how you say Sampras has an inferior record at W because of the extra finals Fed played there but then also claim Fed is better at the USO because he won 5 in a row even though Sampras played in more finals there. You can't have it both ways. Just more biased crap and my post above just confirms the biased. You probably never saw Sampras play at his peak, he'd rip through any version of Federer on any version of grass, you hypocrite.

USO is closer but Sampras has a whopping ONE extra final but then Fed has 2 extra SF so is more consistent. The 5 in a row and 2 extra SF probably balance out the extra F. I'd choose Fed's record as 5 in a row is more impressive than Pete's longevity there.

No biased crap at all, you pathetic troll. One has 1 extra final the other has 3.

Actually I have seen Sampras play and no chance he'd rip through Federer on grass. He could have 6-4 record on 90s grass but that's not guaranteed with the old 1-0 H2H for Roger. On the modern grass Pete would be lucky to win 2 matches out of 10.