Would you prefer Nadal's 14 RGs or Pete's slams?

[JohanLiebert]

If Nadal wins RG in June (or later), would you as a professional rather have 14 RGs or Pete's entire slam tally?

Benefits of choosing Nadal's 14 would imply undisputed dominance over one surface apart from the numerical equivalent of Pete's slams. Choosing Pete could imply some variety in slam distribution but no clear dominance on one surface (Fed on Wimbledon & US, Djoker on AO have the maximum).

 

[USO]

14 FO (or at any single slam) is a record that will never be broken and will stand the test of time probably forever. It’s more special.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Jack of all trades >>>> master of one

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams. That‘s quite impressive considering he’s 6 slams behind him

 

[Phoenix1983]

Are you talking about Nadal's career vs Sampras's?

Or a hypothetical career where a player had won 14 RGs but no other slams, vs Sampras's?

 

[JohanLiebert]

Are you talking about Nadal's career vs Sampras's?

Or a hypothetical career where a player had won 14 RGs but no other slams, vs Sampras's?

I am talking about the latter.

 

[TripleATeam]

Even if I had never won a single tournament but Nadal's 14 RG titles, that would be a record no one else would ever match. I could be remembered as a GOAT at one point that was surpassed, or I could be remembered as the king of a slam.

 

[Winner]

Jack of all trades >>>> master of one

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams. That‘s quite impressive considering he’s 6 slams behind him

Yes, Pete leads him at 3 of 4, but the lead is slim. Yes, 2>1, and 5>4, but it's not like it's 5>1. You could also say it's telling that he leads him at 3 slams, but is 6 slams behind already.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Nadal's record at RG wouldn't be considered as impressive if he had won all his slams at RG only. Someone who wins 10+ slams in a single event without having the ability to do it even once at others slams would be seen as a player who benefits from a weak competition on the surface he dominates.

 

[JohanLiebert]

Nadal's record at RG wouldn't be considered as impressive if he had won all his slams at RG only. Someone who wins 10+ slams in a single event without having the ability to do it even once at others slams would be seen as a player who benefits from a weak competition on the surface he dominates.

Alternatively, it could imply that he is simply much better than the rest of the competition on the surface.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I am talking about the latter.

Ah, in which case, definitely Sampras's career.

 

[Deleted member 775898]

Jack of all trades >>>> master of one

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams. That‘s quite impressive considering he’s 6 slams behind him

Your jack of all trades couldn't reach a FO final to save his life spit.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Your jack of all trades couldn't reach a FO final to save his life spit.

We have already established that Rome is more prestigious than RG

https://imgur.com/a/gLomrNg

@Nole Slam

 

[Deleted member 775898]

We have already established that Rome is more prestigious than RG

https://imgur.com/a/gLomrNg

@Nole Slam

So Sampras > Federer then I guess .

 

[TheNachoMan]

So Sampras > Federer then I guess .

Exactly

 

[GabeT]

7 Wimbys!

 

[Deleted member 748597]

PETE dominated Wimbledon and the USO. He also won the prestigious Rome. I'd take that.

 

[NatF]

PETE.

 

[TheNachoMan]

PETE dominated Wimbledon and the USO. He also won the prestigious Rome. I'd take that.

He would’ve won 8 Wimbledon‘s in a row if not for Krajicek peaking.

 

[Winner]

It really is sad he isn't named Peke Sampras. Endless jokes about Peke Sampras never being able to reach FO final. Peke Sampras losing to babyFed.

 

[tonylg]

7 Wimbledons on fast grass >> 700 dirt court things

 

[Beckerserve]

If Nadal wins RG in June (or later), would you as a professional rather have 14 RGs or Pete's entire slam tally?

Benefits of choosing Nadal's 14 would imply undisputed dominance over one surface apart from the numerical equivalent of Pete's slams. Choosing Pete could imply some variety in slam distribution but no clear dominance on one surface (Fed on Wimbledon & US, Djoker on AO have the maximum).

Well given Nadals RG record has transcended the sport and has him compared to Phelps etc this is an easy answer. Sampras never transcended the sport.

 

[TennisHockey]

Lmao at this thread and all the Djokovic fans cumming over Pete's pistol

 

[TheNachoMan]

Lmao at this thread and all the Djokovic fans cumming over Pete's pistol

PETE smoked the competition

https://imgur.com/a/KaQjFAe

 

[clout]

Jack of all trades >>>> master of one

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams. That‘s quite impressive considering he’s 6 slams behind him

I can’t believe Pete still leads Nadal at 3 slams and Djokovic at 2. Obviously, no one in their right mind would rank Pete above Djokodal on the all time list but that’s definitely an interesting stat.

 

[HitMoreBHs]

Wimbledon and US Open are the blue chip slams. 4-3-2-1 points system should be attributed for respective slam value.

 

[game..set..match]

obviously nadal 14 RG because he's also won all other slams.

pete can't say the same

 

[MeatTornado]

I think 14 RGs would be more impressive. But personally I'd rather have Pete's career.

 

[dominikk1985]

14 times at one slam is imo more impressive than 20 slams.

Don't get me wrong, 20 slams is very special but two guys already did it and a third with novak could join soon. I also think laver and maybe borg could have done it had they focused on slam chasing and if not for that pro slam stuff.

But 14 slams at one site will never be broken, unless Nadal does it himself next year.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

14 RGs vs Pete's 14, I would choose Pete.

15 RGs vs Pete's 14, I would choose the 15.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Jack of all trades >>>> master of one

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams. That‘s quite impressive considering he’s 6 slams behind him

Agassi ain’t Djokovic and Fed either. Imagine how many slams Nadal would have won on those guys...

 

[D.Nalby12]

pete - it's not even close roflmao

 

[beast of mallorca]

If Nadal wins RG in June (or later), would you as a professional rather have 14 RGs or Pete's entire slam tally?

Benefits of choosing Nadal's 14 would imply undisputed dominance over one surface apart from the numerical equivalent of Pete's slams. Choosing Pete could imply some variety in slam distribution but no clear dominance on one surface (Fed on Wimbledon & US, Djoker on AO have the maximum).

I'd prefer Rafa's 20, thank you very much

 

[King No1e]

2, 0, 7, 6 vs 0, 14, 0, 0?
I'd take PETE's career easily

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Sampras’ career has been resurrected more often to put down others than as genuine credit to him.

Controversial opinion time:

Having watched the Big 3 these past two decades as well as Sampras, Agassi,etc in the decade prior, I feel Pete is overrated compared to them; while many accuse Roger, Sampras was the real servebot who relied on that shot alone on conducive surfaces to run up his slam tally while his main opponent distracted himself with off-court dramas most of the time.

One can tell how flimsy Sampras’ GOAT status was, that after watching Roger on grass, former players started calling him the greatest way before he ever crossed Pete’s total.

Sampras has been made legendary in hindsight only because of his success rate in Wimbledon finals which frankly isn’t half as impressive as what Rafa has done at RG.

 

[Russeljones]

If Nadal wins RG in June (or later), would you as a professional rather have 14 RGs or Pete's entire slam tally?

Benefits of choosing Nadal's 14 would imply undisputed dominance over one surface apart from the numerical equivalent of Pete's slams. Choosing Pete could imply some variety in slam distribution but no clear dominance on one surface (Fed on Wimbledon & US, Djoker on AO have the maximum).

Pete's made him unrivalled. Really difficult to compare. Nadal is unrivalled in a different sense (as of today).

 

[Russeljones]

Sampras’ career has been resurrected more often to put down others than as genuine credit to him.

Having watched the Big 3 these past two decades as well as Sampras, Agassi,etc in the decade prior, I feel Pete is overrated compared to them. He ran up the slam tally servebotting with his main opponent missing in action much of the time.

One can tell how flimsy Sampras’ GOAT status was, that after watching Roger on grass, former players started calling him the greatest way before he ever crossed Pete’s total.

Sampras has been made legendary in hindsight only because of his success rate in Wimbledon finals which frankly isn’t half as impressive as what Rafa has done at RG.

You have no place on a tennis board. Scratch that. The thought process that birthed that bolded line can only be a function of another botched birthing.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

You have no place on a tennis board. Scratch that. The thought process that birthed that bolded line can only be a function of another botched birthing.

Sorry, Agassi fan here. Never quite found Sampras that impressive. Those awkward groundstrokes don’t belong anywhere in GOAT territory

 

[Russeljones]

Sorry, Agassi fan here. Never quite found Sampras that impressive. Those awkward groundstrokes don’t belong anywhere in GOAT territory

Subjective opinions on aesthetics - fine. Denigrating a legacy rich in achievements based on that same view - poor.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Subjective opinions on aesthetics - fine. Denigrating a legacy rich in achievements based on that same view - poor.

I’d say ‘denigrating’ is subjective too.

As I said earlier, *in comparison to the Big 3* he is overrated and the only legendary aspect that might remain is the success rate in slam finals. These guys have not only crossed him in, as you say, an achievement-based legacy, but their games and contributions to the sport are far better.

Does he stay an ATG for his achievements, of course. But even compared to Borg or Laver, his marketing driven GOAT status was always suspect. Up until he crossed that 12 slam mark and the whole GOAT thing started in basketball with Nike and Jordan, there wasn’t such a clear cut definition in tennis.

 

[Thetouch]

It's impossible to win 14 GS only on one surface, it wouldn't make any sense. Thomas Muster won like 99% of his titles on clay and he still couldn't win RG more than once. Had he won RG at least 4-5 times be assured that he would have been good enough to win the AO as well or make it deep to other slams and at least even win a single WImbledon match.

With that being said I would probably rather win 14 slams (with a double career slam) than 20 x Wimbledon or 20 x US Open or even each of them 10 times.

 

[aditya123]

Sampras’ career has been resurrected more often to put down others than as genuine credit to him.

Controversial opinion time:

Having watched the Big 3 these past two decades as well as Sampras, Agassi,etc in the decade prior, I feel Pete is overrated compared to them; while many accuse Roger, Sampras was the real servebot who relied on that shot alone on conducive surfaces to run up his slam tally while his main opponent distracted himself with off-court dramas most of the time.

One can tell how flimsy Sampras’ GOAT status was, that after watching Roger on grass, former players started calling him the greatest way before he ever crossed Pete’s total.

Sampras has been made legendary in hindsight only because of his success rate in Wimbledon finals which frankly isn’t half as impressive as what Rafa has done at RG.

You are like a fresh breath here, bringing in a new perspective to the discussion. Btw whats your opinion on Court speed of Wimbledon ?? Has it really slowed down???While I do agree that court speed of Uso has slowed down but this narrative of drastic reduction in court speed of Wimbledon seems tricky and false to me with an agenda to degrade present Carreer Slam achievers. Whats your view on this???

 

[victorcruz]

So let me get this straight, people are not trolling when they say 7 wimbys > 13 rgs?! Blasphemous!

 

[Breakpointerer]

Easily PETE's

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

OP: There is no either / or where majors count is concerned: whether one has 14 at one major, or 14 at several, its still 14. Nadal's mastery of the French Open cannot be downgraded as he prepares to leave Federer in the dust.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

You are like a fresh breath here, bringing in a new perspective to the discussion. Btw whats your opinion on Court speed of Wimbledon ?? Has it really slowed down???While I do agree that court speed of Uso has slowed down but this narrative of drastic reduction in court speed of Wimbledon seems tricky and false to me with an agenda to degrade present Carreer Slam achievers. Whats your view on this???

I think grass is grass. It’s still going to skid and bounce lower on that surface compared to HC or clay.

Was 90s grass faster? Possibly. But it also wore faster (which is why they changed the seed around the new millenium) and caused more unpredictable bounces.

A bigger cause for S&V to decline was poly string, not the grass itself. Now Im a fan of aggressive/attacking tennis myself but I don’t buy that 90s grass players were better.

(By the way the slowdown is real and is most prominent on HC not grass)

 

[TheNachoMan]

So let me get this straight, people are not trolling when they say 7 wimbys > 13 rgs?! Blasphemous!

1 Wimbledon = 5 RGs
Therefore, PETE has 47 slams.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Bull's record unless I'm American, British or Australian. It would last forever.

 

[aditya123]

(By the way the slowdown is real and is most prominent on HC not grass)

You strengthened my opinion abt miniscule change in speed of Grass . Nice to have some one who discusses facts here. Few people here are obsessed with Sampras and spin n no of false narratives and hyping him to sky and using him and then court speeds as a parameter to degrade the Top 3 which is insanely meaningless.

 

[FRV4]

Pete's slams. It fits my agenda.

 

[FRV4]

But seriously, I would prefer Pete's slams because it contains Wimbledon. Nothing is complete without Wimbledon. Then again, Pete has no FO, but I can do without that since Nadal has made me hate the FO.