Pete is always the best tennis player in my heart!! Federer, Nadal or Djokovic....none can compare with him....Even I am watching their games today, none can impress me as Pete did. His serve and volley are always so powerful!! He is the King of Swing!!!
All Pete´s haters who are putting their stupid comments on this video should burn in hell. Do not stain this video of the greatest player ever with your dirt.
I don't have respect for any tennis player MORE than I do for Pete Sampras - just the greatest and the classiest. And I agree, with the exception of maybe Federer, I don't think any of today's players can claim to be at his level. Too bad injuries started to plague his later career - but when he was at his peak - hard to argue anyone (including Federer) could beat him. And definitely no one had his class.
The 10 year spell during which Sampras won his 14 Grand Slam titles also saw 13 other players win at least 1 GS compared to 6 other players and a 6 year spell as for Federer. This is a perfect proof Sampras met with much more resistance.
Also, the 90s generation had a lot of champions which made it harder for Sampras to be the best. We had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang back then just to name some. Moreover, Krajicek (winning Wimbledon in '96, beating Sampras in the quarterfinals) though not a great champion, was one of the few players Sampras has a worse H2H if I'm correct.
sampras n federer two legends...u knw u hear ppl talking a lot of shit,,,but after all the experience i m 100% sure the only way to judge a tennis players greatness is by no. of grandslams no matter which 1..i mean if a player wins 15 times d same grandslam he is better thn sampras...i mean doesnt matter which ones u win but wat matters is how many..sum1 might say agaasi won all four hey but sampras mite not hv won french but won wim 6 times which is a greater acheivemnt
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Sampras undoubtedly is one of the greatest player of all time,and before Federer became who he is today,Sampras was considered by most pundits the best of them all,if he would have won the French Open at least once,the conversation of who is the best between him and Federer would be a lot tighter,Fed is an all around player while Pete always struggled on clay regardless of who was in front of him,however I think on grass he would've had it his way against pretty much anybody.
@Gman256 hahah you are a fool. fed won against who??? haha soderling never heard of him... nadal wasnt there... fed would have won only few grand slams if there were good players.. the guy is a lucky joker.. always loses to djokovic and nadal.. his time is gone.. ITS NADALLLL now.. federer will never win french again.. e is a not a winner he is a loser... SAMPRAS was always best against top 10 opponents, fed has the worst record against his arch rivals, why ?? because he gets lucky ..
Failing to win a major tournament doesn't necessarily means you are worse. Although Agassi (or Courier) won the French Open, still Sampras had a better head-to-head record between the 2. And most importantly, he finished world No. 1 for a record 6 consecutive years.
Now with Sampras retired I like Federer as he's got a very similar style of play but the best way to decide who is better would be if the 2 met now with Sampras being at like 26 at his best.
i miss pete!!! hard to find new favorites. I dont care for federer, hes a great player but i for now im going for nadal...this sport is so short lived do the high energy needed to stay on top but i love it.
Federer has been facing losers, nobody really steps up to challenge Roger. Roger is losing his matchup with Nadal too.
Sampras always beats his number one opponent Agassi.
The courts are different now, too high bouncing so you can chase down balls and encourage rally. Racket technology and strings helps too. Even John McEnroe is still competitive at his age because of the courts and equipments today.
@momay69 You are either slightly retarded or being intentionally antagonistic. You realise that with such nonsensical comments Sampras himself would likely consider you a dimwit.
@espanolporaplicacion No, you are the one who is retarded, How many top 10 today doesnt have a grandslam you idiot. And the supposed greatest of all time can't even beat his number 1 opponent.
Fed has been facing losers. The talent is there but nobody steps up to beat him. AND he can beat anybody not named Rafael NAdal.
@soadl80 I disagree. She's cute as a button. Not beautiful, but cute. If she's ugly, then Pete Sampras is the most hideous creature to ever walk the face of the earth. Ouch!
@BurtReyn who knows... i think fed still moves better and has a better forehand. sampras would have his chance on a very quick surface like at the us open, no longer at wimbledon
Sampras Vs Federer in their primes on hard or Grass courts would of been a tough call. Both are Great Great Champions... it would of been a coin toss to who would of been the victor.
On Clay, i think Rodgers Ground strokes would of come out on top..With Pete's serve being negated by the slow surface.
I don't think you can say Agassi made things up. He certainly did seem like a bit of a tortured soul but I think he always gave Pete his respect and he understood the larger picture, particularly later on in his career. Though Pete did tend to dominate in the slams, Agassi won more masters events and their head to head was I think 20-14 in Sampras favor. I would call that a pretty good rivalry. wouldn't call that
@tommyenglish1 agreed. if both of them were in their prime and played on old grass courts (which were much faster than they are now), sampras would have won hands down
if both of them were at their prime and played on today's courts which are equivalent of the clay courts of Pete's time, I doubt that Mr. Sampras would have won hands down
but, you see, playing on a fast surface plays right into the hands of pete sampras. there were faster courts when pete played than today, where the courts are much slower. federers game is designed for the consitent baseline battles of today, not for the power game that was and is sampras's era.
Way more power? Are you joking? sure the technology has increased immensely but you never see players right now just blowing through guys on the court like in Sampras' day. Todays game is so much more about consist baseline strokes. The power game is set up only by consistently working your opponent around the court today.
No, I'm not really joking. Why the fuck would I be telling jokes on a video? If you're talking about power, wouldn't the fact that Federer's got the best and most powerful forehand ever, and the fact that Karlovic and Roddick having the most powerful serves ever, play a part in a "power" game? I saw Fed blow through Murray in US open 2008, Agassi in 2005, Tsonga, Murray, and Hewitt at AUS this year with massive forehands. How is that not power? You should define what you mean.
Why don't you watch their final in AUS 07 and see who has the better forehand. Gonzalez's is powerful, but not better. No one hits the same percentage/quality forehand winners as Federer. I didn't originate the claim, McEnroe did, who I'm sure knows more about tennis than either of us.
@sauceyboy Well really the topic in question was the power of the forehand...not the quality. federer has a better all around forehand but he isn't hitting the 100mph that gonzalez is. so gonzalez is a power player, and has no grand slams. This era is about consistency.
harder does not mean better, i hit the ball a damn sight harder than one ofmy friends, but he is a lot better player than me. placement consistency, spin. power is not everything
they both have equal serves and equal mental toughness; Sampras might have a better second serve (not sure); Sampras is a better serve and volleyer (Fed has intimidated all others to stay at the baseline); Federer is a better shotmaker; I think Agassi at his best would give Federer a good run - Agassi a better returner; Federer a better server
It's annoying that Agassi has to make shit up for his book to compensate by getting whipped by Pete his whole career. Agassi is a sellout joke. Agassi needs attention even if it means making up lies.
I think that when u are talking about the dominance of the greatest player ever statistally federer is the best. federer also dominates everyone around him. the only place where he is not dominant is on clay vs. nadal. I think that on hardcourt Nadal hasnt been that great in his career. Sure he won the australian but before that Nadal was not much of a threat on hard court. Federer dominate everyone. look at him vs andy roddick. the best serve in tennis and he still spanks him left and right
Pete has said time and time again that the reason he was so dominate was because of the competition around. The players around today are already above Pete Sampras' level, but they aren't winning because there is someone even better around... known as Federer.
Federer is much more dominate than Pete in the fact that he won more grand slams in less than half the time.
true in one sense but explain the dominance nadal has over federer. Sampras had dominance over every player on the tour in his time. Federer clearly does not.
True at 13 to 7 Rafa does have a dominate record, but that record is deceiving because 11 of those matches were on clay were Rafa is 9 and 2. So people criticize Fed and say how can he be the most dominate player if he has a losing record to Nadal. However, the truth is Federer is being punished for being such a great clay court player. Had Federer been as good on clay as Sampras, his record against Nadal would be pretty even because he'd never get to the finals to play Nadal.
"The players around today are already above sampras' level" do you want me to brutalize your argument?. Players today are brute forces and ball bashers in most cases due to technology. Have you heard "synthetic strings" and new technology raquet speed. Technology advancements make mediocre players have more ball control. Give sampas today's technology and he would rape most today's players due to his "raw talent and power" but FED AND nadal who are hall of famers.
@juandi2570 it is an unfair comparison. although today's generation do have the new technology, they are not competing with people without the new technology. they are competing against people with the same knowedgle and technology as them so in the end, it is all the same
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
4, I have already said H2H were useless to define skills and I think we are lookign for teh best player, aren't we?
1 Faster courts suited a Serve and Volley game what Sampras was about. It made him thougher to beat. See how he played on clay to know how he'd perform on today's court.
Federer is more complete and used to S&V and he's still a rare player able to win it off the first volley. He plays each shot very well so, it's hard to tell he wouldn't be hard to beat on harder court.
And, if you know Roger well, you cannot deny he's hitting the target fairly well. Would probably actually suit his game, but I won't be as optimistic and I'll simply say it would get him more winners and perhaps more errors. In all likelihood, it would be pretty even since he can play all around with great accuracy.
3 I clap my hand for Pete, makes him amazing to counter this an still play. I cannot say he's not good and it's not the point of my explanation. Obviously, they are both really good
2- Federer's opponents cannot show similar statistic for one reason:
Federer won too often for too long.
You cannot use trophy stats to prove them to be better since Federer and Nadal won 20 of the last 24 GS events... Doesn't leave much for the rest of the top ten players.
I said Federer was more complete and I think he did showed to be able to play better baseline play, a similar net game and a bit lesser good serve.
I have to give Sampras the serve. Simply too great to be ignored.
Seen Federer's serve analysis when he played Wimbledon. They took two different serve and made both videos play one over the other. You can clearly see the motion almost identical, but one aces wide and the other near the T...
They say Sampras had the same disguise. Explain partially how he made 120-130mph aces over a thousand time in a year.
Your GOAT is only about grandslams wins and french opens.
My GOAT is still about grandslams but in fast courts, he has heart, disease, great opponents. They all say baseliners always beat S&V but sampras overcomes that obstacle everytime.
Now players are just defensive players, prefers to stay at the baseline and just wait for their opponents to self destruct, such a boring way to win.
The greatest is not all about grandslams trophies won. If so, federer gets beaten by steffi graf.
Federer is great because his game display, not because of his trophies.
Federer has the greatest mechanics and the most elegant game ever showed on the tour.
And, a baseline player can be offensive. Net play is part of the game, but it's not the whole picture.
Nadal is an example of defensive baseliner.
Defense in tennis is giving your opponent balls that are hard to return well and doing them at high percentage. This is what he does. He's aggressive, but yet defensive.
It's important to have trophies behind your name, but it's not the only thing that matters.
Actually, a defensive baseliner cannot win against a S&V. He needs to attack.
Serve and volley can be a defensive strategy as well. How? With S&V, it's all or nothing. He has to attack and he cannot miss. If he misses, you have an easy volley. Offensive is about hitting winners, defense is about forcing errors.
Forcing your opponent to attack is an aggressive game play, but this cause errors.
Modern game is about forcing your opponent to do what he can't do or does bad or lesser good.
Pete's game had a tint of this. His heavy spinning flat serve is an example. % playing. More balls in, more S&V, but also, more errors. He could whip this ball 130mph on each serve. But, lesser would have gone in.
Also, his S&V forces you to make better returns.
Think a second. Was it so much his volley or all what I mentionned which made it so efficient...
But, again, you claimed stuff and they stayed unexplained, without any proofs.
And you grant me a side like I am sided, but, my answer is sided, not me. Logic is about links, relation and conclusions.
And, at best, you suceeded to show me you take Sampras because you prefer him. How? Well, you make him look great with values such as effort, working hard against the current(Basliner versus S&Ver).. You even go as far saying mine is ONLY. This is a limitation, a reduction.
You also present current players as boring, defensive, almost worthless.
Very nice for your stylistic, but what does it explain? At best it sounds like a politician trying to sell his thing. We even can denote an "american-patriotic-like" feel when you describ Sampras. How he fights and no matter teh obstacle, he went over it.
But, I didn't came here to read a story. I still think to be right and never been showed to be wrong. So, we still face the same problem: Which answer is right and why?
Wow I've pointed out each one as simply as i can. Unexplained? I think you need to read my posts again. Do you really need an explaination for those very easy facts? come on you're not that dumb. I am just stating the facts and the truth, It's not my fault if you can't accept it. lol
You state your depiction of reality. But, this doesn't make it true.
You claim his opponent are better, but you never said how and why.
You say not dominating his rival makes him lesser good, but again, you never said how and why.
I claimed the inverse, but I did said how and why.
You know, there's a major difference between a fact and a judgement. A fact is listed, a judgement claim somthing on state or quality of something. You're best answer so far is again saying you are right.
Listen GueorguiJoukov or whatever your nick name is, Sampras, Fed, Laver, Borg are the best 4 players of all time. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless qualityme, they're the all time royalty of tennis.
"Very good at specific and althogh much over average at others" I disagree, nobody can be that great like Borg, Sampras, Laver without being world class at everthing. You haven't seen enough of these guys. Ask Fed what his opinion is on these guys. Fed said that sampras was his idiol and that sampras did amazing things on a tennis court.
Roger is in an other class. In an era where power, surface mastery and specific stroke leaders are often identified, he is the only able to play the best stroke possible in about any given situation.
May it be a serve, a backhand slice drop shot, a blazing 100mph forehand right on the line or even impossible volleys.
Agassi never spoke so accurately than when he said the amount of oportunities seems to be endless when it comes to Federer's game.
They are all great champions, great players, but Federer is really aside anything ever witnessed.
In every sport, describing the greatest, you will come to a couple of lines where you say "but" and start to highlight a whole game side he wasn't to be considered the best at.
With Federer, of my memory, it's the first I see a Champion so near perfection.
I respect all their accomplishment, but since we admit there are good and bad, Roger must be the Greatest because he presents the least flaws.
i might agree with ya that Roger might be the closest to perfection but Sampras, Borg and Laver were in a class of their own in their times. It's difficult to compare eras and name a goat but these four players(borg, sampras, fed and laver), if you would put em' in the same moment in time, with the same technology, equipment,etc those matches between em would be amazing.
My point is that sampras was the whole package, not only serve and volley like you insinuated in your post. Sampras used more serve and volley in Wimbledon and towards the end of his career when his backhand lost intensity, not before, during great part of his career he was really dominant from the baseline; however, The slow clay courts were his weakness but he was awesome anyway.
I don't mean he cannot, I mean that he wasn't extraordinary. He was good, but not amazing at the baseline. You have to admit it's hard to conceive adjective to fit such great players and when one is lesser good at something, nothing really fits because he's still very good.
Federer is considerably more complete "in his greatness" meaning he's amazing at doing more things.
But, I never put in doubt Sampras' place in history. What a player he was.
You don't get it..................Fed, Sampras, Laver, Borg are tennis royalty....They were not good, they were world class in all areas, get in your head, ALL AREAS: groundstrokes, serves, movement, volleys, smashes, drop volleys. These guys are the best ever. You can't dominate an era without having that variety in your game. I saw every final and semifinal of the great sampras and he had Phenomenal ground strokes(best running forehand i ever saw along with delpo's), a fantastic backhand....
he wasn't perfect. He lost in early rounds but he won 14 slams and was number one 6 straight years, you can't do that without being a world class in every depto: baseline, net, serve, etc. I played tennis in college and love the game and you can't be number one and dominate the game for so long like sampras did without being exceptional at everything.
You keep claiming they must be dominant in every point, but you never showed anything about it. Show me how it is required.
I hold that, against incomplete players, a specific game play can make you a dominant players because only few will have enough variety to take advantage of your deficiencies.
They just needed to be slightly better at more things which doesn't mean that they were any near as complete as you pretend they were.
And Federer's idol was Boris Becker, if I can remember well.
I perfectly understand your point and fully see the consequences of your logic, if I shall call it so.
He may have been complete, they may all have been exceptionnal. But, again, Roger is set in a box in front of them since he is the only between all these player to be a great baseliner, a great volleyer, a great server, a great receiver, a great defensive, offensive and conter-attacking player and, this, no matter the conditions.
Roger could be more talented than sampras but sampras would never let anybody get in his head like Nadal has done to roger and now delpo. Sampras was so dominante in slams' finals that he barely lost(3 times) coz he's been the best player ever mentally speaking period. He was tougher than federer in the mind dept but i respect your opinion of roger being the goat however naming a goat could be tricky.
a great backhand during his peak years. I saw sampras dominate great baseliners from the baseline like: agassi, courier, muster, kuerten, Kafelnicov,etc. Fed might be better than sampras but doesn't take anything away from pete. Pete was one the most complete players i've ever seen after Roger.
He didn't dominated them were his serve or his net game wasn't involved. If he couldn't threaten them with pressure by either serving or playing the net or both, he wasn't any where as dominant.
Clay courts are where his serve and net game where nto useful and his baseline game has been shown to be very far from being as good as you claim on this surface.
I pretend that his baseline performance on other surfaces were considerably enhanced by the threat of his net game and serve.
disagreed. Sampras' groundstrokes were formidable and amazing. I saw most of his matches and everybody agrees he was a special force. Why do you insist on putting him down? i agree that Fed might be the best ever but sampras is just royalty in tennis. A phenomenal player who's respected deeply by everybody who knows tennis, including King Roger.
Saying Pete's opponent have GS titles cannot be used for one reason: Federer's opponent couldn't win whose Federer had won and there's wasn't much left.
You cannot here say they have fewer because Federer is weaker since you would simply reafirm your argument.
It would be saying: Federer had weaker opponents and it allowed him to win more.
Ok you want me to put it one by one? Where do I start on the weak opponents? Roddick is all power, no technique and does he really deserve his ranking? etc.
It's not like im making up stories. Why are you even here? Go watch Federer's videos then. You can't even accept his era is inferior to sampras in the first place.
So, you cannot present this sentence as a fact, because it's a judgement. If you want to claim it to be so, you will have to explain me how they allow Federer to look great.
Again and again you keep claimign without anything behind it.
But, further than this I cannot remember. I think it's pretty much what he faced.
Sampras. Well, he faced Federer once. Agassi once been number one in 1995.
He probably faced Becker who was numebr one as of 1991.
Did he face McEnroe?
Landl?
Edberg?
Now, it's hard to tell the quality of their opponents out of that since Federer has been number one for 237weeks, then number two for 46weeks and then he's back as number one...
Make the count. From the week following the US Open 2003, Roddick was number one, he was number two. Then, from that position, He went up in first position for 237 weeks and then went down one and Nadal was number one for 46weeks. Then, from there to now, Federer stands as number one.
In about 6 and a half years, three persons where number one counting Federer. How many place does it leaves for number one opponents? 2
Anyway, Pete Sampras was a great Champion and gives us a great lesson of humility and class with how he handles the situation of Federer taking his place.
if nadal did not reach the finals that fed has, does that count? did the french open 2009 where nadal lost earlier make fed's victory less? should potentials be given more weight than what already is?
What is more interesting is that Federer made Soderling look ridiculously poor and prohibited him from being as offensive where Nadal has fail.
H2H only tells what happened during these games; although they are important to some extend, results aren't the final judgement on the player capacity.
I'll show how useless they are. Implying Nadal is better than Federer FOR his record is implying this:
A>B
B>C
C>A
I'll show you how they imply it, but we can see it's ridiculous!
Where's the problem then? Because there must be a flaw somewhere.
Yes. Nadal isn't greater than Federer.
Which also means H2H record worth nothing when it comes to skills and as I said, only shows what happened in these games, period.
Now, unless you can show me this pattern wasn't logical or prove me that somethign can be both lesser and greater at the same time and space, any argument based on this record showing Federer to be lesser great is USELESS and ILLOGICAL.
One, yours, stating Federer has weaker opponents and thus he can have more titles.
Two, mine, which state Federer is simpyl harder to beat.
Most of the top 10 players today didn't even win a grandslam.
Well, what is certain is that they cannot have similar statistics since there's a limited amount of event and considering Federer plays well o neach surface, there's lesser left.
Well all my arguments are valid, I've laid down so much points. You can't even counter my arguments. lol
You're only argument was about clay courts. Your answers are weak at best. Then you say my arguments are useless? You need to read my posts again then answer accordingly. lol
No your argument on Federer's opponents being weak isn't valid. Your argument on Federer-Nadal rivalvry is not valid. And, this is all you led down.
Show me how Federer's opponent are weak. You say they are. I say Federer is the hardest opponent from both and I showed why. Majorly, because he's got the best mechanics and present lesser to exploit.
Show me how I am wrong to say Federer is the reason why his opponents look week.
You said the inverse, but, unlike me, you couldn't show it.
Arguments are only valid if they logically supported.
Then, show me how Federer's opponents are weaker. I say they simply look weaker because Federer is harder to beat. Then, if you support the inverse, don't repeat it, say me why. Why are they lesser good?
And Nadal h2h record, if you read well, I have asked you how this is true:
A>B
B>C
C>A
I'll simplify the equatiosn so you understand how it's wrong:
If B>C and C >A, I can say B>A. But why do I have a line saying A>B while we showed B>A?
You understood A was Nadal; B, Federer; and C is Blake.
Because you say his record against his rival show him to be weak. I say it doesn't matter. And, by this, I simply showed that H2H record doesn't make you greater or lesser great than your opponent in any way.
If it doesn't change your state of greatness (how good you are) compared to your opponent and vice-versa, it implies each player stay unchanged by H2H records. Simply put, it doesn't make him greater, nor worst in any way.
Not comparing math to players, but the situation goes this way:
If H2H shows someone to be better than an other, then each time we face a leader he should be greater than each and other he leads as well as greater as each player those he leads leads at their turn.
I simply use the math symbole to say "greater than" or better than if you prefer.
I simply showed it saying H2H record tells somethign about greatness implies saying Nadal is both greater and lesser great than Federer.
Well, I say the skills are relevant to the person. Why?
Because as I showed with the H2H thing, many things can change the outcome of a game such as opponents (as you admit yourself as you use it as an argument), health, your skills, surface, time, pressure, mental strength and so on.
But through all this one thing remain unchanged: your own capacity. Players performance varies according to different variables, but they remain the same player and this is what my demo was about.
I understand what you mean, but you will have to show me how Federer's opponent are so weaker both players cannot be compared.
You will have to prove me where I made a mistake saying H2H record doesn't change anything here.
You might be right as wall as you could be wrong, but you have to show me where I made a mistake because what is certain is that we cannot be both right.
I said they were useless and it's trueuntil you show me somethign else to explain your statements.
You know Federer play S&V as well. He was Junior world number one doing that. He's still a rare player able to kill off the first volley on these slower court.
He could have manage to play faster surfaces because he can serve and volley way better than most players. But, Pete couldn't afford to play slower because his baseline game was at best medium. Again why he couldn't play on clay.
Beside, I don't understand the point of understimating Federer. Take example on Sampras, be a good sport and clap your hands.
My first statement was saying Sampras was classy and nice to congratulates Roger with a smile. He wasn't forced to be there, but he did.
I never said he was a bad player, nor a bad man. He has been a wonderful player. You behaviour would be nice if at least it was justified by something else than frustration.
superb pete...love you always
cksampras2011 4 months ago
Pete is always the best tennis player in my heart!! Federer, Nadal or Djokovic....none can compare with him....Even I am watching their games today, none can impress me as Pete did. His serve and volley are always so powerful!! He is the King of Swing!!!
borninhk80s 5 months ago
24 straight semi finals of a slam says it all about federer,
with distance the greatest ever.
he is going to win 1 or 2 more
djdenns 5 months ago
I love how he comments on the majors having a ton of sponsors. Pure tennis is where it is at!
Tunainthebrine79 5 months ago
All Pete´s haters who are putting their stupid comments on this video should burn in hell. Do not stain this video of the greatest player ever with your dirt.
cammpinno 7 months ago
I loved this man; so handsome, so tall, so lovely
androidamonx 8 months ago
that is BS the best ever can't be someone who is owned by another like Federer is owned by nadal
miamigreyhound 9 months ago
I don't have respect for any tennis player MORE than I do for Pete Sampras - just the greatest and the classiest. And I agree, with the exception of maybe Federer, I don't think any of today's players can claim to be at his level. Too bad injuries started to plague his later career - but when he was at his peak - hard to argue anyone (including Federer) could beat him. And definitely no one had his class.
muchoudh 9 months ago
lol sampras
zanoases 11 months ago
i love pete sampas, one of the best of ALLTIME!
zanoases 11 months ago
He was right about Nadal and Djokovic is closing in also...
Grindking 11 months ago
The 10 year spell during which Sampras won his 14 Grand Slam titles also saw 13 other players win at least 1 GS compared to 6 other players and a 6 year spell as for Federer. This is a perfect proof Sampras met with much more resistance.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
Also, the 90s generation had a lot of champions which made it harder for Sampras to be the best. We had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang back then just to name some. Moreover, Krajicek (winning Wimbledon in '96, beating Sampras in the quarterfinals) though not a great champion, was one of the few players Sampras has a worse H2H if I'm correct.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
@IIIlIIlllI ya well losing your hair will do that to you. but then again, he's got a lotta wrinkles for 39 too though.
bhallic24 1 year ago
Def my idol.
Federer's too by the way....
oisashko 1 year ago
I'm sorry, McEnroe is NOT competitive today. Maybe on the seniors tour where he plays guys his age.
TorgeistLLN 1 year ago
sampras n federer two legends...u knw u hear ppl talking a lot of shit,,,but after all the experience i m 100% sure the only way to judge a tennis players greatness is by no. of grandslams no matter which 1..i mean if a player wins 15 times d same grandslam he is better thn sampras...i mean doesnt matter which ones u win but wat matters is how many..sum1 might say agaasi won all four hey but sampras mite not hv won french but won wim 6 times which is a greater acheivemnt
sabertooth7777 1 year ago
Please go away little Federer fanboys, and stop insulting our intelligence. This video is about the greatest tennis player of all times.
bjarktron 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Wilde4Ever 1 year ago
Federer and Nadal are lightyears ahead of Pete, Remember in 01 02 how everyone was talking about Hewitt and Roddick as fresh talent, no one said of them, how crap they are compared to the players of yesteryear but then along comes Federer and he just a different league and suddenly as an insult not only to Roger but to all the players he is beating the players are not a high level of competition and not as good as those of Sampras' day it's nonsense.
Wilde4Ever 1 year ago
He's well spoken and seems intelligent. He also predicted Nadal's and Djokovic's rise to the top.
23house23 1 year ago
Sampras undoubtedly is one of the greatest player of all time,and before Federer became who he is today,Sampras was considered by most pundits the best of them all,if he would have won the French Open at least once,the conversation of who is the best between him and Federer would be a lot tighter,Fed is an all around player while Pete always struggled on clay regardless of who was in front of him,however I think on grass he would've had it his way against pretty much anybody.
julius5551 1 year ago
Never won the French Open. That's a big reason for why Federer is better.
Gman256 1 year ago 9
@Gman256
yeah, cos federer dominates at the french open, you fucking bus wanker!!!
mboner1 1 year ago
@Gman256 Oh no, that's not the biggest reason. Absolutely not... :)
FedererALegend 1 year ago
@Gman256 hahah you are a fool. fed won against who??? haha soderling never heard of him... nadal wasnt there... fed would have won only few grand slams if there were good players.. the guy is a lucky joker.. always loses to djokovic and nadal.. his time is gone.. ITS NADALLLL now.. federer will never win french again.. e is a not a winner he is a loser... SAMPRAS was always best against top 10 opponents, fed has the worst record against his arch rivals, why ?? because he gets lucky ..
1BGhimire 1 year ago
@Gman256 6 years in the #1 spot, im pretty sure he is better than federer
SPBTsnyder 1 year ago
@Gman256
Are you sure of that?
Failing to win a major tournament doesn't necessarily means you are worse. Although Agassi (or Courier) won the French Open, still Sampras had a better head-to-head record between the 2. And most importantly, he finished world No. 1 for a record 6 consecutive years.
Now with Sampras retired I like Federer as he's got a very similar style of play but the best way to decide who is better would be if the 2 met now with Sampras being at like 26 at his best.
gamblerpete 1 year ago
pueden subtitularlo al español por favorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
nuxakemi 1 year ago
there is only one king,SAMPRAS,competition in Sampras era,and Federer era,is silly even think to compare,fact
MrArsenalist 1 year ago
i miss pete!!! hard to find new favorites. I dont care for federer, hes a great player but i for now im going for nadal...this sport is so short lived do the high energy needed to stay on top but i love it.
madsexy69r 1 year ago
enjoyed very much
lpvcrcd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer has been facing losers, nobody really steps up to challenge Roger. Roger is losing his matchup with Nadal too.
Sampras always beats his number one opponent Agassi.
The courts are different now, too high bouncing so you can chase down balls and encourage rally. Racket technology and strings helps too. Even John McEnroe is still competitive at his age because of the courts and equipments today.
momay69 1 year ago 17
@momay69 You are either slightly retarded or being intentionally antagonistic. You realise that with such nonsensical comments Sampras himself would likely consider you a dimwit.
espanolporaplicacion 1 year ago
@espanolporaplicacion No, you are the one who is retarded, How many top 10 today doesnt have a grandslam you idiot. And the supposed greatest of all time can't even beat his number 1 opponent.
Fed has been facing losers. The talent is there but nobody steps up to beat him. AND he can beat anybody not named Rafael NAdal.
momay69 1 year ago
fuck this boring business
have you seen this guy play tennis?
i mean he fucking bounds around the court like a god damn panther
he flies through airspace like some shit out of avatar
this guy is so clutch he makes plays on the level of michael jordan but more consistently
pete is the man
kinetik44 1 year ago 2
actually his wife is ugly. I don't understand why some people found his wife hot.
soadl80 1 year ago
@soadl80 I disagree. She's cute as a button. Not beautiful, but cute. If she's ugly, then Pete Sampras is the most hideous creature to ever walk the face of the earth. Ouch!
scottdavis0676 1 year ago
pete is awesome
smosh211 1 year ago
Sampras would beat Federer if they played in the same era, I have no doublt
BurtReyn 1 year ago
how can you claim that? thats a riduclous thing to say, there are so many variables its just impossible to say that. moron.
domisdabest 1 year ago
@domisdabest - because it's a free country and I can say what I feel like you twat!! So fuck off...
BurtReyn 1 year ago
@BurtReyn wow what a well constructed an elegant argument
domisdabest 1 year ago
@BurtReyn who knows... i think fed still moves better and has a better forehand. sampras would have his chance on a very quick surface like at the us open, no longer at wimbledon
pauloolem 1 year ago
Serena`s no 1!!! He`s orthodox...<3
petronije1001 2 years ago
what a player but roger is the better player
MrFretmanic 2 years ago
Sampras Vs Federer in their primes on hard or Grass courts would of been a tough call. Both are Great Great Champions... it would of been a coin toss to who would of been the victor.
On Clay, i think Rodgers Ground strokes would of come out on top..With Pete's serve being negated by the slow surface.
JohnRagoon 2 years ago
ZZzzz....
roguemsmarvel 2 years ago
pete seems like a pretty boring guy
podge325 2 years ago 2
What do you want him to do ? -- drop his pants ??
You seem like a real dipsh!t ! He's doing an interview and answering some pretty routine questions - questions he get every day - every day !
Tell us about your exciting life pudge ??
codlyman 2 years ago
he was always a bit boring, hes just that kind of person doesnt make him less great though
pootubeftw 2 years ago
he has a hot wife that he bangs. who cares if hes boring
denshaotoko89 2 years ago 6
I don't think you can say Agassi made things up. He certainly did seem like a bit of a tortured soul but I think he always gave Pete his respect and he understood the larger picture, particularly later on in his career. Though Pete did tend to dominate in the slams, Agassi won more masters events and their head to head was I think 20-14 in Sampras favor. I would call that a pretty good rivalry. wouldn't call that
sponge63 2 years ago
nobody would beat sampras if he played his best. not even federer (on a fast surface.)
tommyenglish1 2 years ago
@tommyenglish1 agreed. if both of them were in their prime and played on old grass courts (which were much faster than they are now), sampras would have won hands down
cain2335 2 years ago
if both of them were at their prime and played on today's courts which are equivalent of the clay courts of Pete's time, I doubt that Mr. Sampras would have won hands down
mulan400 2 years ago
but, you see, playing on a fast surface plays right into the hands of pete sampras. there were faster courts when pete played than today, where the courts are much slower. federers game is designed for the consitent baseline battles of today, not for the power game that was and is sampras's era.
pyro888000 2 years ago
There's way, way more power in today's era than Sampras' era. When did power-based players like Del Potro win slams in Sampras' era?
sauceyboy 2 years ago
Way more power? Are you joking? sure the technology has increased immensely but you never see players right now just blowing through guys on the court like in Sampras' day. Todays game is so much more about consist baseline strokes. The power game is set up only by consistently working your opponent around the court today.
pyro888000 2 years ago
No, I'm not really joking. Why the fuck would I be telling jokes on a video? If you're talking about power, wouldn't the fact that Federer's got the best and most powerful forehand ever, and the fact that Karlovic and Roddick having the most powerful serves ever, play a part in a "power" game? I saw Fed blow through Murray in US open 2008, Agassi in 2005, Tsonga, Murray, and Hewitt at AUS this year with massive forehands. How is that not power? You should define what you mean.
sauceyboy 2 years ago
Federer has the best forehand huh? im pretty sure fernando gonzalez has the best and most powerful forehand in the game....and no grand slams
pyro888000 2 years ago
Why don't you watch their final in AUS 07 and see who has the better forehand. Gonzalez's is powerful, but not better. No one hits the same percentage/quality forehand winners as Federer. I didn't originate the claim, McEnroe did, who I'm sure knows more about tennis than either of us.
sauceyboy 2 years ago
@sauceyboy Well really the topic in question was the power of the forehand...not the quality. federer has a better all around forehand but he isn't hitting the 100mph that gonzalez is. so gonzalez is a power player, and has no grand slams. This era is about consistency.
pyro888000 1 year ago
harder does not mean better, i hit the ball a damn sight harder than one ofmy friends, but he is a lot better player than me. placement consistency, spin. power is not everything
domisdabest 1 year ago
so if sampras played his best and federer played his best, pete would still beat him huh ?
hass2070 2 years ago
on a fast court yes he would
tommyenglish1 2 years ago 2
What would you say if they played against one another in all 4 Grand Slam surfaces, Sampras would still triumph over Roger ?
hass2070 2 years ago
they both have equal serves and equal mental toughness; Sampras might have a better second serve (not sure); Sampras is a better serve and volleyer (Fed has intimidated all others to stay at the baseline); Federer is a better shotmaker; I think Agassi at his best would give Federer a good run - Agassi a better returner; Federer a better server
Boudosaved 1 year ago
THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER FOR ME
vidin85 2 years ago
Can't we all just get along!!
drumdude1000 2 years ago
Sam is the best...to me he is the king of tennis
dingpuii2802 2 years ago
i just love this guy!! for me he is the best!!!
but he retired...so now, Rafa is my hero in tennis!!
NormanSawyer 2 years ago
Comment removed
virgilsheart 2 years ago
Andre Agassi had a career grand slam....and that's about it. Agassi was great, but sampras has almost double Agassi's grand slam record.
smithcm14 2 years ago
how do you know he's cheap. how are you sure he's not contributing in his own secretive way? what a stupid thing to say
bjornsiborgsi 2 years ago
it's not stupid, it's called being careless. I guess you're not that well informed. "Here's a buck kid. Bring my car around."
virgilsheart 2 years ago
@virgilsheart
It's annoying that Agassi has to make shit up for his book to compensate by getting whipped by Pete his whole career. Agassi is a sellout joke. Agassi needs attention even if it means making up lies.
antekkk 2 years ago
@antekkk what did he lie about? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet.
WWChrisCornellDo 1 year ago
........
hypercarbon 2 years ago
I think that when u are talking about the dominance of the greatest player ever statistally federer is the best. federer also dominates everyone around him. the only place where he is not dominant is on clay vs. nadal. I think that on hardcourt Nadal hasnt been that great in his career. Sure he won the australian but before that Nadal was not much of a threat on hard court. Federer dominate everyone. look at him vs andy roddick. the best serve in tennis and he still spanks him left and right
catrachoking 2 years ago
Pete has said time and time again that the reason he was so dominate was because of the competition around. The players around today are already above Pete Sampras' level, but they aren't winning because there is someone even better around... known as Federer.
Federer is much more dominate than Pete in the fact that he won more grand slams in less than half the time.
blessreborn 2 years ago
true in one sense but explain the dominance nadal has over federer. Sampras had dominance over every player on the tour in his time. Federer clearly does not.
drumzwizard 2 years ago 2
True at 13 to 7 Rafa does have a dominate record, but that record is deceiving because 11 of those matches were on clay were Rafa is 9 and 2. So people criticize Fed and say how can he be the most dominate player if he has a losing record to Nadal. However, the truth is Federer is being punished for being such a great clay court player. Had Federer been as good on clay as Sampras, his record against Nadal would be pretty even because he'd never get to the finals to play Nadal.
zdlore1985 2 years ago
"The players around today are already above sampras' level" do you want me to brutalize your argument?. Players today are brute forces and ball bashers in most cases due to technology. Have you heard "synthetic strings" and new technology raquet speed. Technology advancements make mediocre players have more ball control. Give sampas today's technology and he would rape most today's players due to his "raw talent and power" but FED AND nadal who are hall of famers.
juandi2570 2 years ago 19
@juandi2570 it is an unfair comparison. although today's generation do have the new technology, they are not competing with people without the new technology. they are competing against people with the same knowedgle and technology as them so in the end, it is all the same
FeDXeGX 1 year ago
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
talsmajd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@juandi2570 Sampras used the heaviest and stiffest racket he could get his hands on, eg: Wilson Pro Staff. He used Natural Gut strung at 72 pounds because he liked the feel. If anything the technology he used would give him far superior ball control to the new technology today. Synthetic strings lack feel but add power they don't necessarily give players more ball control. Sampras was a physical freak in that he didn't need loose or synthetic strings to generate pace.
talsmajd 1 year ago
@juandi2570 I agree with all your comment. However the last sentence "rape Nadal and Federer" is a bit too strong.
Timurito1 9 months ago
@blessreborn When the fuck did Pete ever say that? please link. And please cut the other bullshit it makes you look pathetic
bjarktron 1 year ago
Pistol pete is the most exciting player, me and my brother would always watch for his high flying slam dunks when we were younger.
His era is the fast and dynamic. contrast of styles, great matchups. You only see baseliners now.
momay69 2 years ago 2
Miss you, Pete!
elenushinvirtecush 2 years ago
Just answer my questions directly, I'm putting it as simple as possible.
Sampras time
1. Faster courts -
2.Stronger opponents top 10 most grandslam winners
3. winning those when he has a genetic disease.
4. Has winning record against his number 1 rival and superstars.
Fast courts, fast reaction, quick thinking
slow courts- nevermind.
Now show me your explainations, because your "Federer is harder to beat answer is too weak."
momay69 2 years ago
4, I have already said H2H were useless to define skills and I think we are lookign for teh best player, aren't we?
1 Faster courts suited a Serve and Volley game what Sampras was about. It made him thougher to beat. See how he played on clay to know how he'd perform on today's court.
Federer is more complete and used to S&V and he's still a rare player able to win it off the first volley. He plays each shot very well so, it's hard to tell he wouldn't be hard to beat on harder court.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
And, if you know Roger well, you cannot deny he's hitting the target fairly well. Would probably actually suit his game, but I won't be as optimistic and I'll simply say it would get him more winners and perhaps more errors. In all likelihood, it would be pretty even since he can play all around with great accuracy.
3 I clap my hand for Pete, makes him amazing to counter this an still play. I cannot say he's not good and it's not the point of my explanation. Obviously, they are both really good
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
2- Federer's opponents cannot show similar statistic for one reason:
Federer won too often for too long.
You cannot use trophy stats to prove them to be better since Federer and Nadal won 20 of the last 24 GS events... Doesn't leave much for the rest of the top ten players.
I said Federer was more complete and I think he did showed to be able to play better baseline play, a similar net game and a bit lesser good serve.
I have to give Sampras the serve. Simply too great to be ignored.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Seen Federer's serve analysis when he played Wimbledon. They took two different serve and made both videos play one over the other. You can clearly see the motion almost identical, but one aces wide and the other near the T...
They say Sampras had the same disguise. Explain partially how he made 120-130mph aces over a thousand time in a year.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Your GOAT is only about grandslams wins and french opens.
My GOAT is still about grandslams but in fast courts, he has heart, disease, great opponents. They all say baseliners always beat S&V but sampras overcomes that obstacle everytime.
Now players are just defensive players, prefers to stay at the baseline and just wait for their opponents to self destruct, such a boring way to win.
The greatest is not all about grandslams trophies won. If so, federer gets beaten by steffi graf.
momay69 2 years ago
Federer is great because his game display, not because of his trophies.
Federer has the greatest mechanics and the most elegant game ever showed on the tour.
And, a baseline player can be offensive. Net play is part of the game, but it's not the whole picture.
Nadal is an example of defensive baseliner.
Defense in tennis is giving your opponent balls that are hard to return well and doing them at high percentage. This is what he does. He's aggressive, but yet defensive.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
It's important to have trophies behind your name, but it's not the only thing that matters.
Actually, a defensive baseliner cannot win against a S&V. He needs to attack.
Serve and volley can be a defensive strategy as well. How? With S&V, it's all or nothing. He has to attack and he cannot miss. If he misses, you have an easy volley. Offensive is about hitting winners, defense is about forcing errors.
Forcing your opponent to attack is an aggressive game play, but this cause errors.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Lol Well you just agreed with me about the grandslam trophies,
You even said it not the only thing that matters. So what does matter? Well read my comments again. lol
momay69 2 years ago
Modern game is about forcing your opponent to do what he can't do or does bad or lesser good.
Pete's game had a tint of this. His heavy spinning flat serve is an example. % playing. More balls in, more S&V, but also, more errors. He could whip this ball 130mph on each serve. But, lesser would have gone in.
Also, his S&V forces you to make better returns.
Think a second. Was it so much his volley or all what I mentionned which made it so efficient...
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
But, again, you claimed stuff and they stayed unexplained, without any proofs.
And you grant me a side like I am sided, but, my answer is sided, not me. Logic is about links, relation and conclusions.
And, at best, you suceeded to show me you take Sampras because you prefer him. How? Well, you make him look great with values such as effort, working hard against the current(Basliner versus S&Ver).. You even go as far saying mine is ONLY. This is a limitation, a reduction.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
You also present current players as boring, defensive, almost worthless.
Very nice for your stylistic, but what does it explain? At best it sounds like a politician trying to sell his thing. We even can denote an "american-patriotic-like" feel when you describ Sampras. How he fights and no matter teh obstacle, he went over it.
But, I didn't came here to read a story. I still think to be right and never been showed to be wrong. So, we still face the same problem: Which answer is right and why?
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Wow I've pointed out each one as simply as i can. Unexplained? I think you need to read my posts again. Do you really need an explaination for those very easy facts? come on you're not that dumb. I am just stating the facts and the truth, It's not my fault if you can't accept it. lol
momay69 2 years ago
You state your depiction of reality. But, this doesn't make it true.
You claim his opponent are better, but you never said how and why.
You say not dominating his rival makes him lesser good, but again, you never said how and why.
I claimed the inverse, but I did said how and why.
You know, there's a major difference between a fact and a judgement. A fact is listed, a judgement claim somthing on state or quality of something. You're best answer so far is again saying you are right.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
I actually showed the opposite of your main argument to be right and busted your statement on rivalry and H2H. This means you are wrong.
You are the one who denies, it's not me.
I'll make it simpler then, answer this:
How and why Sampras' opponents are better than Federer's opponents?
How and why dominating your rivals make you greater?
These are you two arguments since pages and since pages, you didn't answered logically any of these two questions.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Well your even said trophies matter. Sampras' opponents totalled 35 grand slams iirc. Federer's opponent totalled only 22. Still sampras dominates.
Yes dominating your rivals make you greater. What kind of question is that? Michael jordan, tiger woods, kobe bryant dominate their rivals.
You wouldnt even accept the Faster/slower courts factor.
momay69 2 years ago
If it makes you greater, explain me how.
Faster courts actually advatages serve and volley... Sampras' game. It would most likely mean he'd be lesser good now.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Ok, I've already presented a lot of points.
Now show me your answers why Federer is the greatest?
momay69 2 years ago
Comment removed
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Comment removed
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
I supressed last answers, don't know if you get them, but anyway, forget them if you do.
I just forgot where I was going to. Give me sometime so I catch up my answers on previous post.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Well boxing for example, If you got more loss to your number 1 opponent what would that make you?
momay69 2 years ago
Listen GueorguiJoukov or whatever your nick name is, Sampras, Fed, Laver, Borg are the best 4 players of all time. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless qualityme, they're the all time royalty of tennis.
juandi2570 2 years ago
They were not all great and over the top at doing everything except perhaps for Roger Federer.
They surely were above average, but they were not all top notch at every single pattern, stroke and situation.
I'll give you an example. At highschool, I led academic score boards in one or two subjects. The other, I always ended second or third.
Laver, Sampras, Borg were like me; very good at specific things and although much over average at others, they were not the best. Just 2nd or 3rd...
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
"Very good at specific and althogh much over average at others" I disagree, nobody can be that great like Borg, Sampras, Laver without being world class at everthing. You haven't seen enough of these guys. Ask Fed what his opinion is on these guys. Fed said that sampras was his idiol and that sampras did amazing things on a tennis court.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Roger is in an other class. In an era where power, surface mastery and specific stroke leaders are often identified, he is the only able to play the best stroke possible in about any given situation.
May it be a serve, a backhand slice drop shot, a blazing 100mph forehand right on the line or even impossible volleys.
Agassi never spoke so accurately than when he said the amount of oportunities seems to be endless when it comes to Federer's game.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
They are all great champions, great players, but Federer is really aside anything ever witnessed.
In every sport, describing the greatest, you will come to a couple of lines where you say "but" and start to highlight a whole game side he wasn't to be considered the best at.
With Federer, of my memory, it's the first I see a Champion so near perfection.
I respect all their accomplishment, but since we admit there are good and bad, Roger must be the Greatest because he presents the least flaws.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
i might agree with ya that Roger might be the closest to perfection but Sampras, Borg and Laver were in a class of their own in their times. It's difficult to compare eras and name a goat but these four players(borg, sampras, fed and laver), if you would put em' in the same moment in time, with the same technology, equipment,etc those matches between em would be amazing.
juandi2570 2 years ago
My point is that sampras was the whole package, not only serve and volley like you insinuated in your post. Sampras used more serve and volley in Wimbledon and towards the end of his career when his backhand lost intensity, not before, during great part of his career he was really dominant from the baseline; however, The slow clay courts were his weakness but he was awesome anyway.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I don't mean he cannot, I mean that he wasn't extraordinary. He was good, but not amazing at the baseline. You have to admit it's hard to conceive adjective to fit such great players and when one is lesser good at something, nothing really fits because he's still very good.
Federer is considerably more complete "in his greatness" meaning he's amazing at doing more things.
But, I never put in doubt Sampras' place in history. What a player he was.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
You don't get it..................Fed, Sampras, Laver, Borg are tennis royalty....They were not good, they were world class in all areas, get in your head, ALL AREAS: groundstrokes, serves, movement, volleys, smashes, drop volleys. These guys are the best ever. You can't dominate an era without having that variety in your game. I saw every final and semifinal of the great sampras and he had Phenomenal ground strokes(best running forehand i ever saw along with delpo's), a fantastic backhand....
juandi2570 2 years ago
His baseline game wasn't this amazing. He lost in early rounds year after year at Garros which means his baseline game wasn't that much effective.
It also tells me how dependant of his net game he was.
When you can't play in certain condition, it means your game relies on something that certain game conditions cancels.
If his baseline game was this varied and this good he would have been better on clay which he never did.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
he wasn't perfect. He lost in early rounds but he won 14 slams and was number one 6 straight years, you can't do that without being a world class in every depto: baseline, net, serve, etc. I played tennis in college and love the game and you can't be number one and dominate the game for so long like sampras did without being exceptional at everything.
juandi2570 2 years ago
You keep claiming they must be dominant in every point, but you never showed anything about it. Show me how it is required.
I hold that, against incomplete players, a specific game play can make you a dominant players because only few will have enough variety to take advantage of your deficiencies.
They just needed to be slightly better at more things which doesn't mean that they were any near as complete as you pretend they were.
And Federer's idol was Boris Becker, if I can remember well.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Fed's idol was Sampras period. He idolized sampras. You remember wrong. He also admired Ebgerg and Becker but he idolized sampras.
juandi2570 2 years ago
I perfectly understand your point and fully see the consequences of your logic, if I shall call it so.
He may have been complete, they may all have been exceptionnal. But, again, Roger is set in a box in front of them since he is the only between all these player to be a great baseliner, a great volleyer, a great server, a great receiver, a great defensive, offensive and conter-attacking player and, this, no matter the conditions.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Roger could be more talented than sampras but sampras would never let anybody get in his head like Nadal has done to roger and now delpo. Sampras was so dominante in slams' finals that he barely lost(3 times) coz he's been the best player ever mentally speaking period. He was tougher than federer in the mind dept but i respect your opinion of roger being the goat however naming a goat could be tricky.
juandi2570 2 years ago 2
a great backhand during his peak years. I saw sampras dominate great baseliners from the baseline like: agassi, courier, muster, kuerten, Kafelnicov,etc. Fed might be better than sampras but doesn't take anything away from pete. Pete was one the most complete players i've ever seen after Roger.
juandi2570 2 years ago
He didn't dominated them were his serve or his net game wasn't involved. If he couldn't threaten them with pressure by either serving or playing the net or both, he wasn't any where as dominant.
Clay courts are where his serve and net game where nto useful and his baseline game has been shown to be very far from being as good as you claim on this surface.
I pretend that his baseline performance on other surfaces were considerably enhanced by the threat of his net game and serve.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
disagreed. Sampras' groundstrokes were formidable and amazing. I saw most of his matches and everybody agrees he was a special force. Why do you insist on putting him down? i agree that Fed might be the best ever but sampras is just royalty in tennis. A phenomenal player who's respected deeply by everybody who knows tennis, including King Roger.
juandi2570 2 years ago
Yes, you answered, but it wasn't logical.
Saying Pete's opponent have GS titles cannot be used for one reason: Federer's opponent couldn't win whose Federer had won and there's wasn't much left.
You cannot here say they have fewer because Federer is weaker since you would simply reafirm your argument.
It would be saying: Federer had weaker opponents and it allowed him to win more.
They are weaker because they have fewer titles.
They have fewer titles because they are weaker...
???
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Your argumentation is still pointless and weak and assume things rather than showing them.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Ok you want me to put it one by one? Where do I start on the weak opponents? Roddick is all power, no technique and does he really deserve his ranking? etc.
It's not like im making up stories. Why are you even here? Go watch Federer's videos then. You can't even accept his era is inferior to sampras in the first place.
momay69 2 years ago
So, you cannot present this sentence as a fact, because it's a judgement. If you want to claim it to be so, you will have to explain me how they allow Federer to look great.
Again and again you keep claimign without anything behind it.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Ok now answer my question,
How may current/ former world number 1 did sampras faced while he was playing?
Now compare that to federer, how many did he face?
momay69 2 years ago
Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Sampras.
Federer faced them.
But, further than this I cannot remember. I think it's pretty much what he faced.
Sampras. Well, he faced Federer once. Agassi once been number one in 1995.
He probably faced Becker who was numebr one as of 1991.
Did he face McEnroe?
Landl?
Edberg?
Now, it's hard to tell the quality of their opponents out of that since Federer has been number one for 237weeks, then number two for 46weeks and then he's back as number one...
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
courier, kuerten, muster, rios, rafter,wilander, connors.
World number 1 means you're on top. Sampras constantly battled top players and was number one by year end 6 straight years.
momay69 2 years ago
Make the count. From the week following the US Open 2003, Roddick was number one, he was number two. Then, from that position, He went up in first position for 237 weeks and then went down one and Nadal was number one for 46weeks. Then, from there to now, Federer stands as number one.
In about 6 and a half years, three persons where number one counting Federer. How many place does it leaves for number one opponents? 2
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Anyway, Pete Sampras was a great Champion and gives us a great lesson of humility and class with how he handles the situation of Federer taking his place.
Congratulations Roger. 15 Grand Slams. Don't stop running!
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nadal makes Sampras seem amateurish
jamesrosevear 2 years ago
Er no, If he was playing in sampras time with faster courts i doubt it. He wont be able to chase every ball.
momay69 2 years ago
if nadal did not reach the finals that fed has, does that count? did the french open 2009 where nadal lost earlier make fed's victory less? should potentials be given more weight than what already is?
Totobee2007 2 years ago
What is more interesting is that Federer made Soderling look ridiculously poor and prohibited him from being as offensive where Nadal has fail.
H2H only tells what happened during these games; although they are important to some extend, results aren't the final judgement on the player capacity.
I'll show how useless they are. Implying Nadal is better than Federer FOR his record is implying this:
A>B
B>C
C>A
I'll show you how they imply it, but we can see it's ridiculous!
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Here's THEIR Logic:
Nadal leads Federer. He is better.
Then, each player leading any other player at any time and space is better and must be better.
let's see if they are right.
Nadal leads 13-7 Federer.
Federer leads Blake what? 8-1? He was 8-0 in AO 2008 after their game.
Blake leads Nadal 3-2.
So, if we follow their logic, Nadal is better than Federer because Federer is better than Blake who is better than Nadal...
There's a problem somewhere in there, right?
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
If you followed well, you understood they imply this:
Nadal (A) > Federer (B)
Federer (B) > Blake (C)
Blake (C) > Nadal (A)
If we go further it means:
Nadal (A) > Federer (B)
Federer (B) > Nadal (A)
(Nadal (A) > Federer (B) > Blake (C) )> Nadal (A)
How can Federer be both lesser and greater than Nadal at the same time?
Now explain me how Nadal can be greater and lesser than what is supposed to be lesser than him?
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Where's the problem then? Because there must be a flaw somewhere.
Yes. Nadal isn't greater than Federer.
Which also means H2H record worth nothing when it comes to skills and as I said, only shows what happened in these games, period.
Now, unless you can show me this pattern wasn't logical or prove me that somethign can be both lesser and greater at the same time and space, any argument based on this record showing Federer to be lesser great is USELESS and ILLOGICAL.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
It's the QUALITY of opponents both faced, Who has federer really faced? Most of the top 10 players today didn't even win a grandslam.
Have you seen their Exhibition Game? An out of shape Sampras aced federer a bunch of times, won sets and won a game. You see how weak federer is?
Federer seems so dominant because there is NO more talent and superstars in today's game and he's facing nobodies.
momay69 2 years ago
Well, it means you didn't udnerstood my point.
I said there's two versions of the facts:
One, yours, stating Federer has weaker opponents and thus he can have more titles.
Two, mine, which state Federer is simpyl harder to beat.
Most of the top 10 players today didn't even win a grandslam.
Well, what is certain is that they cannot have similar statistics since there's a limited amount of event and considering Federer plays well o neach surface, there's lesser left.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Well he lost to tsonga recently, Is tsonga really that good? Is federer really hard to beat or is he just facing amateurs all the time?
Federer's grandslam trophies should say "WON IN A SLOW COURT ERA".
momay69 2 years ago
Because Pete never lost to bad players? And this is why he got out early of Garros most of time.
Federer is considerably hard to beat. You have to be dead blind not to consider the quality of his strokes.
Cry as much as you want, but these useless arguments won't get better.
Face it, Federer made his triumph out of his skills and exhibits the greatest mechanics in tennis history.
It's almost impossible to win all your games, he does have long straights, though.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Well all my arguments are valid, I've laid down so much points. You can't even counter my arguments. lol
You're only argument was about clay courts. Your answers are weak at best. Then you say my arguments are useless? You need to read my posts again then answer accordingly. lol
momay69 2 years ago
No your argument on Federer's opponents being weak isn't valid. Your argument on Federer-Nadal rivalvry is not valid. And, this is all you led down.
Show me how Federer's opponent are weak. You say they are. I say Federer is the hardest opponent from both and I showed why. Majorly, because he's got the best mechanics and present lesser to exploit.
Show me how I am wrong to say Federer is the reason why his opponents look week.
You said the inverse, but, unlike me, you couldn't show it.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Arguments are only valid if they logically supported.
Then, show me how Federer's opponents are weaker. I say they simply look weaker because Federer is harder to beat. Then, if you support the inverse, don't repeat it, say me why. Why are they lesser good?
And Nadal h2h record, if you read well, I have asked you how this is true:
A>B
B>C
C>A
I'll simplify the equatiosn so you understand how it's wrong:
If B>C and C >A, I can say B>A. But why do I have a line saying A>B while we showed B>A?
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
You understood A was Nadal; B, Federer; and C is Blake.
Because you say his record against his rival show him to be weak. I say it doesn't matter. And, by this, I simply showed that H2H record doesn't make you greater or lesser great than your opponent in any way.
If it doesn't change your state of greatness (how good you are) compared to your opponent and vice-versa, it implies each player stay unchanged by H2H records. Simply put, it doesn't make him greater, nor worst in any way.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Comparing math to players is a huge mistake because a person is unpredictable and not absolute. From there u already have a mistake.
momay69 2 years ago
Not comparing math to players, but the situation goes this way:
If H2H shows someone to be better than an other, then each time we face a leader he should be greater than each and other he leads as well as greater as each player those he leads leads at their turn.
I simply use the math symbole to say "greater than" or better than if you prefer.
I simply showed it saying H2H record tells somethign about greatness implies saying Nadal is both greater and lesser great than Federer.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Well, I say the skills are relevant to the person. Why?
Because as I showed with the H2H thing, many things can change the outcome of a game such as opponents (as you admit yourself as you use it as an argument), health, your skills, surface, time, pressure, mental strength and so on.
But through all this one thing remain unchanged: your own capacity. Players performance varies according to different variables, but they remain the same player and this is what my demo was about.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
I understand what you mean, but you will have to show me how Federer's opponent are so weaker both players cannot be compared.
You will have to prove me where I made a mistake saying H2H record doesn't change anything here.
You might be right as wall as you could be wrong, but you have to show me where I made a mistake because what is certain is that we cannot be both right.
I said they were useless and it's trueuntil you show me somethign else to explain your statements.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
It's nice to doubt he is the GOAT, but logical argumentation is about how you explain and not how you claim.
You should be able to prove anything you say. Especially major arguments like yours:
-Federer's opponent makes him look better because they are lesser good opponents.
-Federer cannot be considered great if he is dominated by his rival.
Here, you have to prove me this peculiar key line:
"because they are lesser good opponents"
And, you need to explain your second argument.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
See where I said you were wrong from?
Each time, you're supposed to prove everything. If you post the arguments, you should go like this:
Make a statement. (ex: Federer LOOKS better)
Give a reason (ex: because the yare lesser good than Pete's)
Now, you should show me how and explain why they are lesser good.
This argument miss an explanation.
The other, misses a reason and an explanation to this reason.
Federer cannot be great if he is dominated by his rival.
Because????
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Your made statements which are argument on the question: Is Federer the GOAT.
Then, nothing. No reason. How does this makes him lesser great? I need an explanation somewhere.
Saying: it's obvious, how can't you agree, he simply cannot. It's just reclaiming what already said.
This is why I say your argumentation is uselss. Not because the ideas are bad, because they are left unproven.
I showed H2H were worthless here and that Federer was harder to beat. Show somethign to be wrong in my explan
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
You know Federer play S&V as well. He was Junior world number one doing that. He's still a rare player able to kill off the first volley on these slower court.
He could have manage to play faster surfaces because he can serve and volley way better than most players. But, Pete couldn't afford to play slower because his baseline game was at best medium. Again why he couldn't play on clay.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
Beside, I don't understand the point of understimating Federer. Take example on Sampras, be a good sport and clap your hands.
My first statement was saying Sampras was classy and nice to congratulates Roger with a smile. He wasn't forced to be there, but he did.
I never said he was a bad player, nor a bad man. He has been a wonderful player. You behaviour would be nice if at least it was justified by something else than frustration.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago
I prohibit you from using titles to show Federer's opponents are weaker.
Why? Because there's a limited amount of event to win and if Federer wins so many, there's not much left.
Either Federer is an harder opponent to face which explains why his opponents cannot show similar records or they are simply weaker.
But, as I said, Federer is way harder to beat than Sampras ever been. More complete and his mechanics are considerably better on about any stroke.
GueorguiJoukov 2 years ago