Sampras achieved more as in he set the biggest distance from the previous record he broke. He could have continued a few more years, but probably had no hunger anymore as he was the best at the time and had nothing to prove. HAS THE BEST SERVE EVER!!!! 2ND SERVE ACES........SICK. comeback would be nice, like Borg.
sampras is a great wimbledon champion im afraid thats all he never really turned up anywhere else nd by that i mean he only ever turned on the style at wimbledon because grass suited him. federer is a all surface player so i think u have to say roger is better.
Sampras had more and quality competition compared to Federer. Federer is more talented and versatile overall. Only Nadal prevented him from winning the French more often. Sampras could not adapt to the slow clay to save his life. He was still great. A bygone era.
there both good but as time goes the game of tennis intensity rises and so what i mean is that if sampras was to play atp in 2011 he would of been a completely average ranked guy probably like world no.50.. because baseline hitting is less risky to attempt than constant up to net volleying like sampras does and guys hit basline winners alot more these days
I will say it again...I believe Pete Sampras was the best player and tennis champion of all time. We his serve was on, he was unbeatable. ....and yes, I think his serve was better than Federer's.
0:39 -0:58 Sampras vs Courier Australian Open. Tears on his eyes because of his coach and mentor, Tim Gullickson, who had died in earlier year 1996. He even said Jim: "Pete, if you can't finish it today, we can't finish it tomorrow" Too bad for him. =(
Unfortunately, we will never know who is better between Sampras and Federer because of the completely different circuit they played on. Wimbledon and US Open surfaces were both slowed down dramatically, and the disappearance of serve & volley coincides perfectly with the surface modifications ... Now its all baseline play because of the slower courts (not because of the rackets. Racket technology was the same in 2001 as it was in 2002). Fed's competition was basically cut in half.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Federer is not better than Mac or Sampras, or Lendl, he won so many slam, thanks to the fact that now the courts has more or less the same speed, so the players now seem all the same, the grass at Wimbledon is not slippery, the clay has been speeded up and slowed indoor courts, there are no more specialists in each surface, was very different face Stich, Krajicek or grass, indoor Becker, Bruguera, costs etc., on the sand!
But we can't deny Federer's greatness too....And if Sampras ever saw Federer is coming he would have atleast win couple of Grand Slams....At that time no one ever imagined that this could be surpass, otherwise he would have prolong the mark. And don't forget when Sampras is winning other big players had no chance against him.,
Any way we had the fortune to witness two geniuses during one life time.
But no matter how Roger plays I still thinks Pete would defeat him in his best/hey-day.
Sure He did re-define the greatness.....,He did amazing things those days where tennis is not much evolving comparing to modern days. I think people has forgotten what he did. He had great contenders throughout his career from the beginning.,like Couriers...,till the end(Ivanisevic had to wait till Sampras retires to win the Wimbledon.,it never happen to Nadal with Federer) Where Roger currently having lot improved players to play from a while, he had easy run in the beginning I guess.
I don't think he would ever win the French. Most of Sampras' success came because of his serve, which was neutralized on clay. He had some good results on clay but wasn't good enough to win the French open.
Nobody would've been able to win 14 slams and 6 years as number one WITH only a good serve. Sampras is one the top three players ever and He was the WHOLE package.He had the best serve ever and some of the most lethal ground strokes ever too, besides his mental power was just amazing. He never won the french open because he played in an era of specialists. He faced awesome clay specialists like Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Norman,ETC and great players on clay like Agassi, Courier,Kafelnicov etc.
I agree that Federer is a better claycourt player than Sampras however im not sure Fed is facing the same clay specialists Sampras faced in his career..............
lol you are idiot... ;p this that sampras has not so many grand slam titlesas now has federer doesnt mean that federer is better... Sampras always will be much more exciting player than Federer
@dannieljack Roddick serves incredibly fast but this man can find the corners like no other. He could pull out an ace whenever he needed it. He is Pistol Pete!
actually if you look at the real stats, pancho gonzales was the greatest of all time easily, and got payed a fraction of what all the white players who played against him did, and was treated like shit. even in his early 40s he beat Rod Laver, the 20 something world #1 (who was great). Also, did anyone else see pete's dad's unibrow? I thought Pete's brows were huge!
boris becker,andrei agassi,jime courier,kefelnikov,jhon macenroe(for shorter period of time),gustav kuertne.
while fedrer has:-nadal,roddik(little bit)..
so samprass had a tough era of tennis..fedrer got little easy and that is the reason that he win 15 grand slams in 6 years...but although i will say that everybody has their own quality and passion of game,so dont compare them to others...tht makes a poor sense...keep the enthusiasm of tennis in a good way.....
it's amazing........everybody is writting whatevr they feel.....i'll nt use any kind of joke for any tennis player here b'cz everybody has there own standards...but let me say one thing...go back and improve ur knowledge son...samprass did something way back 10 years...he played all the legends of tennis era-
McEnroe was retiring by the time Sampras appeared, so was most of these guys you mentioned when they faced Federer. Some of the others guys you mentioned won few Grand Slams, so did Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Potro, they're not legends because the'ye still playing. Courier and Agassi are really something since they've won 3+ grand slams, so did Nadal who won 6 and is in his way to surpasse all of them and has a plenty of time to do so. Just defending my opinion, i dont like comparisons.
Hewitt and Roddick are not legends. They have won a total of three slams, all in the transitional period between Sampras and Federer.
I was encouraged by the rise of Djokovic and Murray but their performances this year have been poor. They're now at the age when they should be stepping up and winning slams, but they haven't yet.
They might in the future, but that's counting your chickens before they hatch. As of now it's unreasonable to say that they will be, because there's no evidence.
Legends are made in future, you might hear something about a blonde guy winning Slams and a guy who did a serve that buried the ball. This is just speculations, you know, Philipousis has never won a GS and he's a legend, that's because he became one after retiring. But that's not the point. BTW these guys coulda been able to face Agassi, Sampras, Guga, etc, in a final and win, if they were in good conditions. They're not winning GS because of Federer and Nadal HESUasheauah, just kidding (Am I?)
What about Edberg, Lendll, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Ferreira, Muster, Korda, Martin, Pioline, Rios, Roddick, Philippoussis? We could count those guys though, right?
I'm not saying we have to compare players. I just said that if we have to compare let's do it properly (or in the best way possible). As I said before, in another way, comparisons are useless.
I'm sorry, I don't get your point, what's the matter with all those players you cited?
You have to compare what Fed and Pete were able to do in their era, not compare their ability. I think Fed is winning because he was able to do more than Pete could do. If you say that's not fair when Sapras faced guys like Agassi while Federer had not-so-good players to face that's a falacy...Federer is facing guys like Djokovic, Murray, Roddick and, by the way, he's facing the greatest clay tennis player of all time and one of the greatest ever (aged 23 only), Rafael Nadal.
But Djokovic, Murray and Roddick have achieved so little in comparison, and Federer isn't an excuse anymore - Roger has visibly declined from his prime days.
But I think Sampras' competition also started thinning out after 1996. I don't think the depth of the ATP has ever managed to fully recover since then.
Just goes to show how difficult and ultimately pointless these GOAT debates are.
Well, certainly I would give the edge to Pete on grass, but a 100% fit Nadal always has more than a chance against anyone. I'm sure if they played each other in their primes, Nadal's speed and incredible passing shots would have given Sampras fits. Nadal arguably has better passing shots than anyone Pete ever played against, even Agassi
lol, back then nadal would get smashed on grass by sampras. the only reason nadal does well on grass now is because theyve slowed it down alot. thats why theres no more pure serve vollyers.
funny you should say that, because from another perspective, the only reasons why the serve and volleyer's of before the 2000s won on grass was because they didnt slow down the courts yet. sampras now would get smashed by nadal on grass by your logic.
wimbledon's wimbledon, and a slow grass court's still a grass court regardless of anything.
federer will never in his life be better than pete. He knows that. pete came out of retirement to whip him at msg. Federer is weak in the head.Pete is not. Pete had becker, edberg, agassi,mcenroe, lendl,. nough said!!!!!!
which is why sampras himself calls federer the greatest of all time
the fact that federer's name was even brought up in a sampras video just goes to show people feel the need to prove that sampras is better than federer... why put in that much effort if sampras is indeed, as you know, the best? so at one point or another you all know federer is a threat when it comes to clinching the GOAT spot. i'm not saying sampras is less, but lets face it, you and i both know federer is great.
dude, chill lol. we aint saying federer sucks, we are saying you cant compare the 2 because of all the varries in their eras. and im sure just like pete, when fed is older and loses his skill some new guy will come. then youll know what its like
After watching tennis for nearly 3 decades now it is always boring to have the same discussion over and over again! Rog and Pete of course are/were both outstanding champions. I think there is no serious way to compare them! The number of Grand Slam Tournaments they both won does not do it for me. Is Ivan Lendl, for example, a less honorable champion because he only won 8 Grand Slam Titles? He won them in an era where he was rivaled by Wilander (7 GS), Becker (6 GS), Edberg (6 GS), McEnroe....
o maior tenista , nunca irá existir outro igual a ele o federer só fez o q fez pq pete sampras estava aposentado ele em forma é o melhor o pelé do tenis
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Never got anywhere in the French, and couldn't really make an impact on clay. A player can never be called the Greatest Ever until they've mastered all surfaces, as Federer has, and as Nadal is on the way to doing.
Sampras was great, no doubt. But not the greatest.
Im sorry, but the ONLY reason federer won the french open is because he faced some random rank 30 dude that doesnt have any experience at all playing with the pro's.........Everyone thinks federer is amazing but look who hes playing........hes playing a bunch of people who have no experience, no knowledge of the game and somehow people are amazed at that fact........
u cant say hes not the best...and u cant compare him to other greats because each era has its own particular style of playing...ofcourse if and only if federer was born 10 years earlier, things would have been interesting if not different...but since he was not, we cant know...so we should acknowledge him as one of the true legends of the game...
Well sampras and federer played a couple matches and Sampras beat him........the only time Fed won was at a charity event for publicity because sampras was retired
dont get me worng...I am a huge huge Sampras fan...and before Federer came into professional tennis, I was thinking whether we'll see the like of Sampras in tne next 2 decades...so it was a treat for tennis overall that we got Federer...but yeah, I guess if u ask me to pick one, then i'll pick Sampras
drdestoryerify - even if Federer never won the French Open, he at least reached the finals NUMEROUS times while Sampras only got as far as the semifinals in FO. And the man Roger beat in the finals is actually the man who beat defending champion Rafael Nadal in the 4th round so yes, the win DOES count. I like Pete, but please stop discounting Roger's achievements. He did win the French Open, something that Pete never even came close to doing, nothing you say can erase that.
im sorry to say this, but i disagree. pete sampras will always be one of the greats, but i feel that federer's form and technique is much better on forehand and backhand. he may not have as much skill with drop volleys but i still believe that he is better
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
u cant quite call him the "king of swing" that name is taken, by babe ruth. And dont complain that this is a different sport, everyone knows who babe ruth is
the arguement about who is better has gone too long. u can say sampras had harder matches and more competitive players, but u could say federer was more complete, because he won the french n he was a finalist a couple of times which sampras never did. u can never noe who is better unless they played each other in ther primes which they cannot do. so i offer u this analogy, winning this arguement is like winning the special olympics. even if u win, ur still retarded
I still say the competition when Sampras was playing was better than against Federer. Sampras played against slam winners and tougher competition. They send the calibre of players like my grandmother against Federer. The only one to give him a hard time is Nadal and he is not up to par because he plays such a physical game and it causes injury. Sampras made a lot of sacrifices during his career to be the best and he is the best in his era.
Yes he went without a title from 2001-02 but he made the US Open finals three years running...no one could've beaten Safin or Hewitt in the form they were in they were on fire in those two finals! Two players who have won more than one Grand Slam titles in their career which cements my argument that Sampras had far tougher competition than Federer has had to face!
hold on a sec Federer never had as much competition because his level was so much better than everyone, he raised the bar more than sampras did and thats why. Even Agassi said Federer is the best player he's ever played and he played sampras alot! in terms of all-round talent no one can say Federer isn't the best..
I'm sorry but Federer's only competition is Nadal. During the time period of Sampras and Agassi, the competition was a lot tougher. You had such talents as Henman, Rafter, Grojean, Guga, and the list just won't end.
Federer is no doubt great, but the tennis Era in which he was born was spoon fed to him.
If he was born 10 years earlier I'm quite sure he wouldn't hold the same amount of titles as he does today. THAT IS FACT.
I have nothing against Sampras. In fact, i respect him for what he did but i just cannot stand some people being jealous of Federer and keep rattling about the 'weakness' of his opponents.
pastaboyy you're right bowt those guys being decent players but you forget he beat all of those players in the us open as well as losing to them this being at the end of his career when his form wasnt as good.
All these were in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 but was stopped by Federer in 2001 ( if he did not meet Federer he could probably have clinched the title). Hence, his form was not as bad as you have described.
federer and sampras are great players....and u can't say that federer doesn't deserve to be a great player.....federer is the best player in his time...and sampras was the best player in his time...who is the best of all time ?...it it depends on who we like more...they did their job brilliantly...u ask us why we are watching this video ? im a federer fan but i still enjoy the king of swing pete sampras
I perfectly get his/your point, but what I was trying to picture right in my comment (as I did somewhere else on "the Tube"), was what could be choosen as arguably the most annhileting performance of Pete's career (no matter the opponent, the scenario..and so on). As example, in my mind it could be the equivalent of what Roger Federer produced in his 1997 AO semif. against Roddick.
0:41 the ball hit the man in blue
doxxx1000 1 day ago
Pete came in a time where great player played against him .....
for the last 8 to 10 years ONLY Roger & Nadal are playing great tennis .... is is the worst decade in tennis history.
Pete game Style is Unmatchable !!
milan3443 2 days ago
Different tennis. More exciting. I stopped when they slowed tennis down - now it's just baseliner rallies - boring!
UpstairsMaid 3 days ago 2
go to :42 to see pete hit the ball boy in the background.
vorephilia 3 days ago
Djokovic childhood idol,great player
djoleluk 4 days ago
Sampras achieved more as in he set the biggest distance from the previous record he broke. He could have continued a few more years, but probably had no hunger anymore as he was the best at the time and had nothing to prove. HAS THE BEST SERVE EVER!!!! 2ND SERVE ACES........SICK. comeback would be nice, like Borg.
boogiebudgie 5 days ago
When grass used to be grass & hard courts were hard courts...
Melshae10 5 days ago
He never won roland garros, so he will never be the greatest, maybe one of the best but far from being the best!
cokomoko7 1 week ago
Sampras a great champion.....but Roger is the GOAT
dgolijan 1 week ago
0:41= -Line umpire: SHIT! Pete, be careful or i'll say all the balls out
haha
cueh42 1 week ago
sampras is a great wimbledon champion im afraid thats all he never really turned up anywhere else nd by that i mean he only ever turned on the style at wimbledon because grass suited him. federer is a all surface player so i think u have to say roger is better.
vfdvdsvfs 2 weeks ago
Sampras is my favorite player of all time!
hhgtipower 2 weeks ago
Sampras had more and quality competition compared to Federer. Federer is more talented and versatile overall. Only Nadal prevented him from winning the French more often. Sampras could not adapt to the slow clay to save his life. He was still great. A bygone era.
KamikazeDemolisher 4 weeks ago
sampras=the king of tennis
nadal=the tennis machine
federer=THE GOD of tennis
iraklaras99yt 1 month ago
there both good but as time goes the game of tennis intensity rises and so what i mean is that if sampras was to play atp in 2011 he would of been a completely average ranked guy probably like world no.50.. because baseline hitting is less risky to attempt than constant up to net volleying like sampras does and guys hit basline winners alot more these days
turkville 1 month ago
Nothing left to prove, How about winning the French open ?
LeebeKing 1 month ago
FIRST 2 things that come to my mind when thinking about tennis:
1) SAMPRAS
2) GORAN`s Wimbledon Final 2001
This is it. cant be topped emotionally. I stopped watching tennis when PETE retired!!!!
COOLEST SERVE EVER!
4panta 1 month ago
I swear Sampras has the most underrated baseline game for someone of his caliber.
tokinblckgie 1 month ago
He stands in the dead center between Old School and New School TENNIS!
and his eyebrows are so absorbent! hehe
SIMPLY THE BEST
jantisoy 1 month ago
a consulate, who is the music that pass the 25 seconds of video??, I think that's when you getting the rival Sampras in Wimbledon. thanks
Javor2012 2 months ago
great music towards the end. Anyone know what the composition is called?
BeachandOcean 2 months ago
I will say it again...I believe Pete Sampras was the best player and tennis champion of all time. We his serve was on, he was unbeatable. ....and yes, I think his serve was better than Federer's.
gornhorror 2 months ago
why is pete crying at 0:39?
26Remoh 2 months ago
@26Remoh
I think his coach was diagnosed with brain tumor day before and he was in shock...
M12343333333 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:39 -0:58 Sampras vs Courier Australian Open. Tears on his eyes because of his coach and mentor, Tim Gullickson, who had died in earlier year 1996. He even said Jim: "Pete, if you can't finish it today, we can't finish it tomorrow" Too bad for him. =(
TXAZ84 3 months ago
Comment removed
TXAZ84 3 months ago
Comment removed
TXAZ84 3 months ago
Comment removed
TXAZ84 3 months ago
1:09 Sampras says in his head: "Haha here it comes."
rayp526 3 months ago
The King of swing until Roger Federer comes along
popular890 3 months ago
no matter what. Sampras retired no.1. Which federer will never do.
electrotech3000 3 months ago
@electrotech3000 Now that is totally debatable, i believe federer will come out as #1 soon enough.
FrankShan777 2 months ago
god damn sampras was so good
funkydankspliff 3 months ago
sempras sucks.
dmh091 3 months ago
I think Sampras' biggest accomplishment was marrying Ms. Veronica Vaughan...
mmeyer1 3 months ago
Unfortunately, we will never know who is better between Sampras and Federer because of the completely different circuit they played on. Wimbledon and US Open surfaces were both slowed down dramatically, and the disappearance of serve & volley coincides perfectly with the surface modifications ... Now its all baseline play because of the slower courts (not because of the rackets. Racket technology was the same in 2001 as it was in 2002). Fed's competition was basically cut in half.
splendid1000 3 months ago 2
SAMPRAS = GOAT
splendid1000 3 months ago
Sampras was my Idol, but U gotta accept that a player named Federer is just better.
ottackon 2 years ago
Simply the best
adoniszeus 2 years ago
Goran had an AMAZING SERVE, he poped up around 1:20-2:00.
Sampras was a VERY good player (:
LoLucas02 2 years ago
the match point at .55 seconds that he leaves and doesnt bother to look at is quite close to being in. haha gotta love it
tommyenglish1 2 years ago
no sampras is a better player than roger but roger is a great clay-courter so roger federer is the best Roger LOVE
UltimateTopspin 2 years ago
This guy was the best ever, nobody could handle his power and attack, I would back him to beat Federer everywhere except clay
EJS20101 2 years ago 2
@EJS20101 In his prime yes. Federer is also a very sore loser. What a crybaby.
GeneralKenobiSIYE 2 years ago
pete sampras and andre agassi were in a simpsons' episode. so were venus and serena
freakkiller277 2 years ago
I love Roger and Sampras
federerbestclass 2 years ago
the ball hits the guy at :43 lol
jomamma483 2 years ago
He Looks Like Drake!!!
TennisSage 2 years ago
The best video i have ever seen before.
salaheddine10 2 years ago
my fav players :
Roger Federer
Pete Sampras
Stefan Edberg ;D
FederM0N0 2 years ago
Perfect!! Could not have said it better!!!
ravishekhar23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Federer is not better than Mac or Sampras, or Lendl, he won so many slam, thanks to the fact that now the courts has more or less the same speed, so the players now seem all the same, the grass at Wimbledon is not slippery, the clay has been speeded up and slowed indoor courts, there are no more specialists in each surface, was very different face Stich, Krajicek or grass, indoor Becker, Bruguera, costs etc., on the sand!
lukkkino 2 years ago
But we can't deny Federer's greatness too....And if Sampras ever saw Federer is coming he would have atleast win couple of Grand Slams....At that time no one ever imagined that this could be surpass, otherwise he would have prolong the mark. And don't forget when Sampras is winning other big players had no chance against him.,
Any way we had the fortune to witness two geniuses during one life time.
But no matter how Roger plays I still thinks Pete would defeat him in his best/hey-day.
cyberclk 2 years ago 2
Sure He did re-define the greatness.....,He did amazing things those days where tennis is not much evolving comparing to modern days. I think people has forgotten what he did. He had great contenders throughout his career from the beginning.,like Couriers...,till the end(Ivanisevic had to wait till Sampras retires to win the Wimbledon.,it never happen to Nadal with Federer) Where Roger currently having lot improved players to play from a while, he had easy run in the beginning I guess.
cyberclk 2 years ago
im sure deep down, he still really wanted to get the french, but i think as age past, he convinced himself getting 14 was just as good
but i think a french woulda made a hella difference.
gabe228 2 years ago
I don't think he would ever win the French. Most of Sampras' success came because of his serve, which was neutralized on clay. He had some good results on clay but wasn't good enough to win the French open.
thrillamf 2 years ago
thanks for the cliche answers
gabe228 2 years ago
If you can't handle the truth then that's your problem chief.
thrillamf 2 years ago
Nobody would've been able to win 14 slams and 6 years as number one WITH only a good serve. Sampras is one the top three players ever and He was the WHOLE package.He had the best serve ever and some of the most lethal ground strokes ever too, besides his mental power was just amazing. He never won the french open because he played in an era of specialists. He faced awesome clay specialists like Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Norman,ETC and great players on clay like Agassi, Courier,Kafelnicov etc.
juandi2570 2 years ago 3
You got those today as well. Federer is just a better claycourt player than sampras.
mysteriekiller 2 years ago
I agree that Federer is a better claycourt player than Sampras however im not sure Fed is facing the same clay specialists Sampras faced in his career..............
juandi2570 2 years ago
@thrillamf just because of serve??? are you kidding me??
sathyaseelann 2 years ago
sampras will be the best for a long time. rafa and federer can kiss my ass
vlakamalaka93 2 years ago 8
pause at 5:34
MintyFrsh 2 years ago
big deal. he has a scrape
vlakamalaka93 2 years ago
Federer and Sampras have the same level
I prefer Federer
cuz he's complet (in clay too)
carokiros 2 years ago
the music at the end of this clip is just so damn epic!
CuprousChloride 2 years ago
Roger has got more Slams but Pete is still THE MAN!
zachary27 2 years ago 23
did he hit the line judge at 0:42?
animaanimaanima 2 years ago
Federer= goat
dpistons149 2 years ago
One of the best Tennis Players Ever
Pete Sampras
Vriendelijke Groeten Danny van Strien
dannyvanstrien 2 years ago
great vid
mascur1994 2 years ago
Sampras is the greatest human tennis player of all-time. Federer is an alien so it's just unfair to compare him to other humans.
CuprousChloride 2 years ago 46
lol you are idiot... ;p this that sampras has not so many grand slam titlesas now has federer doesnt mean that federer is better... Sampras always will be much more exciting player than Federer
thielas 2 years ago
That's just your opinion. I can tell English isn't your first language so there's no point arguing with you over such trivial matters.
CuprousChloride 2 years ago
@CuprousChloride Federer has the record now and there´s nothing Sampras can do about it.
vierdiez 3 months ago
@CuprousChloride Since when can a human serve like this???
SiaWinsi 3 months ago
@SiaWinsi andy roddick ;)
dannieljack 2 months ago
@dannieljack Roddick serves incredibly fast but this man can find the corners like no other. He could pull out an ace whenever he needed it. He is Pistol Pete!
SiaWinsi 2 months ago
@CuprousChloride and Djokovic is an alien-shooter.
jiridy 2 months ago
@CuprousChloride so pete is batman and fed is superman. so pete is more badass XD
wonhoyoung 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i don't know if they played like this back in the day, but watching sampras play is fuking boring. Serve and volley all the time... blahh
milankaka8 2 years ago
king pete forever
V1kingMetalFreakBACK 2 years ago 5
federer is the greatest , 15 grandslams 21 finals !
emmat1988 2 years ago
not titles means about the best player... Sampras is much exciting than Federer... and his way ob play is better
thielas 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is the best ever!
rob2804 2 years ago
actually if you look at the real stats, pancho gonzales was the greatest of all time easily, and got payed a fraction of what all the white players who played against him did, and was treated like shit. even in his early 40s he beat Rod Laver, the 20 something world #1 (who was great). Also, did anyone else see pete's dad's unibrow? I thought Pete's brows were huge!
ersatzibidem 2 years ago 3
haha ref got hit on 0:42
bellpoop333 2 years ago
Why can't people just get over this juvenile need to rank players (then trash those below the top spot) and just appreciate players for who they are?
TWKang 2 years ago
5:34 Did he get a cut?
HanKang0 2 years ago
who ever thinks negatively about Peter Sampras, is a dick-face who knows nothing about Tennis, and sucks shit at Tennis!!!!
HUSKY5757 2 years ago 11
@HUSKY5757 What?!?! Sampras is obviously one of the most brilliant players ever, but let´s face it, he´s one of the most boring too.
vierdiez 3 months ago
samprass get his opponent as:-
boris becker,andrei agassi,jime courier,kefelnikov,jhon macenroe(for shorter period of time),gustav kuertne.
while fedrer has:-nadal,roddik(little bit)..
so samprass had a tough era of tennis..fedrer got little easy and that is the reason that he win 15 grand slams in 6 years...but although i will say that everybody has their own quality and passion of game,so dont compare them to others...tht makes a poor sense...keep the enthusiasm of tennis in a good way.....
perfectneel 2 years ago
game, set and match... SAMPRAS
for me, he's the greatest tennis champion of all time
tiamat87 2 years ago 3
com'on man!
GAME, SET AND MATCH SAMPRAS!
(6-7 7-6 6-4 6-2)
robertogradini 2 years ago
Because of insecurity maybe? What do you think?
awesomerepublican 2 years ago 2
Everybody is insecure, u me and donald duck
aonutube 2 years ago
no,,only you
bfand001 2 years ago
rod laver and roger federer are the greatest of all time. they achieved things no body else could.
hliu090 2 years ago
it's amazing........everybody is writting whatevr they feel.....i'll nt use any kind of joke for any tennis player here b'cz everybody has there own standards...but let me say one thing...go back and improve ur knowledge son...samprass did something way back 10 years...he played all the legends of tennis era-
mckanroe,jim courier,agassi,goran ivanesevic,patric rafter,gustav kuertne,richard crizak,mark philiposis,
comparision to this fedrer gt only nadal...
so dnt compare fedrer with samprass..
perfectneel 2 years ago
McEnroe was retiring by the time Sampras appeared, so was most of these guys you mentioned when they faced Federer. Some of the others guys you mentioned won few Grand Slams, so did Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Potro, they're not legends because the'ye still playing. Courier and Agassi are really something since they've won 3+ grand slams, so did Nadal who won 6 and is in his way to surpasse all of them and has a plenty of time to do so. Just defending my opinion, i dont like comparisons.
FellipeSNK 2 years ago
Hewitt and Roddick are not legends. They have won a total of three slams, all in the transitional period between Sampras and Federer.
I was encouraged by the rise of Djokovic and Murray but their performances this year have been poor. They're now at the age when they should be stepping up and winning slams, but they haven't yet.
They might in the future, but that's counting your chickens before they hatch. As of now it's unreasonable to say that they will be, because there's no evidence.
TWKang 2 years ago
Legends are made in future, you might hear something about a blonde guy winning Slams and a guy who did a serve that buried the ball. This is just speculations, you know, Philipousis has never won a GS and he's a legend, that's because he became one after retiring. But that's not the point. BTW these guys coulda been able to face Agassi, Sampras, Guga, etc, in a final and win, if they were in good conditions. They're not winning GS because of Federer and Nadal HESUasheauah, just kidding (Am I?)
FellipeSNK 2 years ago
What about Edberg, Lendll, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, Chang, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Ferreira, Muster, Korda, Martin, Pioline, Rios, Roddick, Philippoussis? We could count those guys though, right?
awesomerepublican 2 years ago
Sampras had tougher guys to face, yes, no doubt about that.
LDis1 2 years ago 2
There's is nobody for Federer. Nadal is weak sauce just like all of the other pros out there today. Federer is just flying through.
jyy82993 2 years ago
Weak enough sauce to win the grand slam, I guess.
awesomerepublican 2 years ago
I'm not saying we have to compare players. I just said that if we have to compare let's do it properly (or in the best way possible). As I said before, in another way, comparisons are useless.
I'm sorry, I don't get your point, what's the matter with all those players you cited?
FellipeSNK 2 years ago
Never mind. That was supposed to be for someone else.
awesomerepublican 2 years ago
You have to compare what Fed and Pete were able to do in their era, not compare their ability. I think Fed is winning because he was able to do more than Pete could do. If you say that's not fair when Sapras faced guys like Agassi while Federer had not-so-good players to face that's a falacy...Federer is facing guys like Djokovic, Murray, Roddick and, by the way, he's facing the greatest clay tennis player of all time and one of the greatest ever (aged 23 only), Rafael Nadal.
FellipeSNK 2 years ago
But Djokovic, Murray and Roddick have achieved so little in comparison, and Federer isn't an excuse anymore - Roger has visibly declined from his prime days.
But I think Sampras' competition also started thinning out after 1996. I don't think the depth of the ATP has ever managed to fully recover since then.
Just goes to show how difficult and ultimately pointless these GOAT debates are.
TWKang 2 years ago
Andre Agassi had fallen so far from 1995 in 1996 and 1997, no doubt that he would have beaten Pete if he was still at the top at those years...
LDis1 2 years ago
You have to compare what Fed and Pete were able to do in their era? In order to what? Are you saying that's what the 2 have in common to compare to?
awesomerepublican 2 years ago
My sporting hero of all time and the greatest in my eyes.
ScottishSparkle 2 years ago 5
lol, if not for pete. tennis would never be what it is today. hes the one who stepped up the league and made tennis more interesting
idrawbetterthanyouXD 2 years ago 3
Well, certainly I would give the edge to Pete on grass, but a 100% fit Nadal always has more than a chance against anyone. I'm sure if they played each other in their primes, Nadal's speed and incredible passing shots would have given Sampras fits. Nadal arguably has better passing shots than anyone Pete ever played against, even Agassi
changmaster5 2 years ago
Not exactly. Pete's Serve is the greatest serve of all time, and Nadal is a bad returner compared with Andre.
LDis1 2 years ago
lol, back then nadal would get smashed on grass by sampras. the only reason nadal does well on grass now is because theyve slowed it down alot. thats why theres no more pure serve vollyers.
AceGuitarR7 2 years ago
funny you should say that, because from another perspective, the only reasons why the serve and volleyer's of before the 2000s won on grass was because they didnt slow down the courts yet. sampras now would get smashed by nadal on grass by your logic.
wimbledon's wimbledon, and a slow grass court's still a grass court regardless of anything.
foul01 2 years ago
federer will never in his life be better than pete. He knows that. pete came out of retirement to whip him at msg. Federer is weak in the head.Pete is not. Pete had becker, edberg, agassi,mcenroe, lendl,. nough said!!!!!!
memachine 2 years ago
which is why sampras himself calls federer the greatest of all time
the fact that federer's name was even brought up in a sampras video just goes to show people feel the need to prove that sampras is better than federer... why put in that much effort if sampras is indeed, as you know, the best? so at one point or another you all know federer is a threat when it comes to clinching the GOAT spot. i'm not saying sampras is less, but lets face it, you and i both know federer is great.
foul01 2 years ago
dude, chill lol. we aint saying federer sucks, we are saying you cant compare the 2 because of all the varries in their eras. and im sure just like pete, when fed is older and loses his skill some new guy will come. then youll know what its like
idrawbetterthanyouXD 2 years ago
yeah, i'm just a little sick of people saying federer is nothing compared to sampras with alittle reasoning behind
foul01 2 years ago
dude what the hell xP how does pete sampras do those dropvolleys !
yomamafat155 2 years ago
After watching tennis for nearly 3 decades now it is always boring to have the same discussion over and over again! Rog and Pete of course are/were both outstanding champions. I think there is no serious way to compare them! The number of Grand Slam Tournaments they both won does not do it for me. Is Ivan Lendl, for example, a less honorable champion because he only won 8 Grand Slam Titles? He won them in an era where he was rivaled by Wilander (7 GS), Becker (6 GS), Edberg (6 GS), McEnroe....
flipflopper 2 years ago
Yes i agree with you!
skyinspecta 2 years ago
How much I miss Pete! He was/is such a great player and I loved watching him very much!
There will never be another Pete......he was/is perfect!!!!!!!!!
sanherz 2 years ago 2
sampras is the greatest in his era... by far
kusta345 2 years ago 4
Sampras es increible.. Pero Federer bajo cualquier punto de vista es el mejor de todos los tiempos.. No hay duda de eso..
isaacbenitez11 2 years ago
o maior tenista , nunca irá existir outro igual a ele o federer só fez o q fez pq pete sampras estava aposentado ele em forma é o melhor o pelé do tenis
wendellege 2 years ago
G.O.A.T.
bebiskos 2 years ago
oops sorry my comment was in reply to
llama3aterr
caboobear 2 years ago
5:07...touching
drdestroyerify 2 years ago
I remember whehe puked on the court
almostballer5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Never got anywhere in the French, and couldn't really make an impact on clay. A player can never be called the Greatest Ever until they've mastered all surfaces, as Federer has, and as Nadal is on the way to doing.
Sampras was great, no doubt. But not the greatest.
faceofboe 2 years ago
Im sorry, but the ONLY reason federer won the french open is because he faced some random rank 30 dude that doesnt have any experience at all playing with the pro's.........Everyone thinks federer is amazing but look who hes playing........hes playing a bunch of people who have no experience, no knowledge of the game and somehow people are amazed at that fact........
llama3aterr 2 years ago
u cant say hes not the best...and u cant compare him to other greats because each era has its own particular style of playing...ofcourse if and only if federer was born 10 years earlier, things would have been interesting if not different...but since he was not, we cant know...so we should acknowledge him as one of the true legends of the game...
drdestroyerify 2 years ago
Well sampras and federer played a couple matches and Sampras beat him........the only time Fed won was at a charity event for publicity because sampras was retired
llama3aterr 2 years ago
dont get me worng...I am a huge huge Sampras fan...and before Federer came into professional tennis, I was thinking whether we'll see the like of Sampras in tne next 2 decades...so it was a treat for tennis overall that we got Federer...but yeah, I guess if u ask me to pick one, then i'll pick Sampras
drdestroyerify 2 years ago
wimbledon 2001 when federer was 20 , he beat samapras!!!!!!
emmat1988 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no he didnt you retard..........sampras beat him
llama3aterr 2 years ago
lol, wtf. U kidding?
niclassj 2 years ago
dumb fuck
dpistons149 2 years ago
drdestoryerify - even if Federer never won the French Open, he at least reached the finals NUMEROUS times while Sampras only got as far as the semifinals in FO. And the man Roger beat in the finals is actually the man who beat defending champion Rafael Nadal in the 4th round so yes, the win DOES count. I like Pete, but please stop discounting Roger's achievements. He did win the French Open, something that Pete never even came close to doing, nothing you say can erase that.
caboobear 2 years ago
Comment removed
WorshipCloudsRest 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The King Of Swing = Roger FEDERER
MrJamesT1 2 years ago
The greatest ever.... !
looods 2 years ago
im sorry to say this, but i disagree. pete sampras will always be one of the greats, but i feel that federer's form and technique is much better on forehand and backhand. he may not have as much skill with drop volleys but i still believe that he is better
TennisFlip95 2 years ago 4
best looking man in the world ever.. since the beginning of time... period.
lotsalegs86 2 years ago
the best of history
ferretjans1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
u cant quite call him the "king of swing" that name is taken, by babe ruth. And dont complain that this is a different sport, everyone knows who babe ruth is
guitarkid44 2 years ago
I thought they called ruth the "sultan of swat." Ruth can't hog all the cool sounding names having to do with hitting a ball... :(
jc76109 2 years ago
Babe Ruth. Never heard of him.. Is she a babe..
sunswadesh 2 years ago
LEGEND
PeteMa99 2 years ago 2
the arguement about who is better has gone too long. u can say sampras had harder matches and more competitive players, but u could say federer was more complete, because he won the french n he was a finalist a couple of times which sampras never did. u can never noe who is better unless they played each other in ther primes which they cannot do. so i offer u this analogy, winning this arguement is like winning the special olympics. even if u win, ur still retarded
kadazero 2 years ago
0:42.
does he hit the ballboy? LOL
kevinkun3 2 years ago
Giving dad a hug!! Will never forget that!! :)
baywatchrules12 2 years ago 2
according to me THE BEST
Desaintexupery 2 years ago 5
I still say the competition when Sampras was playing was better than against Federer. Sampras played against slam winners and tougher competition. They send the calibre of players like my grandmother against Federer. The only one to give him a hard time is Nadal and he is not up to par because he plays such a physical game and it causes injury. Sampras made a lot of sacrifices during his career to be the best and he is the best in his era.
bunnyrabbit4 2 years ago 2
Yeah, but you could always say that the players look crappier because Federer is just so much more dominant than Sampras was.
asdfuogh 2 years ago
THE BEST!!!!
PISTOL PETEEEEEEEEEEE
DannyMPower 2 years ago 2
pastaboy he won no titles in 20001 or 2 until us open so his form wasnt good yes he did ok in 2000 but for him he was on poor form.
lagerandapacketcrisp 2 years ago
Yes he went without a title from 2001-02 but he made the US Open finals three years running...no one could've beaten Safin or Hewitt in the form they were in they were on fire in those two finals! Two players who have won more than one Grand Slam titles in their career which cements my argument that Sampras had far tougher competition than Federer has had to face!
pps1fan 2 years ago 2
I've been saying this for years! Bless you. If anyone ignores your arguments, they simply aren't as smart or as knowledgeable about tennis as you are!
Make sure you pat yourself on the back, I'm thrilled to read this comment.
arweiss21 2 years ago
Thanks...good to see someone else that sees things for what they trully are too! :)
pps1fan 2 years ago
hold on a sec Federer never had as much competition because his level was so much better than everyone, he raised the bar more than sampras did and thats why. Even Agassi said Federer is the best player he's ever played and he played sampras alot! in terms of all-round talent no one can say Federer isn't the best..
artikelmusic 2 years ago
" He raised the bar more then sampras did "
I'm sorry but Federer's only competition is Nadal. During the time period of Sampras and Agassi, the competition was a lot tougher. You had such talents as Henman, Rafter, Grojean, Guga, and the list just won't end.
Federer is no doubt great, but the tennis Era in which he was born was spoon fed to him.
If he was born 10 years earlier I'm quite sure he wouldn't hold the same amount of titles as he does today. THAT IS FACT.
hillsong1004 2 years ago 4
To me Roger & Pete are the best of all time,but you cannot tell one is better than the other.
JexPAuk 2 years ago 3
You can if you go by stats.
365to173repubsPWNED 2 years ago
I have nothing against Sampras. In fact, i respect him for what he did but i just cannot stand some people being jealous of Federer and keep rattling about the 'weakness' of his opponents.
PasTaB0yy 2 years ago
pastaboyy you're right bowt those guys being decent players but you forget he beat all of those players in the us open as well as losing to them this being at the end of his career when his form wasnt as good.
lagerandapacketcrisp 2 years ago
All these were in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 but was stopped by Federer in 2001 ( if he did not meet Federer he could probably have clinched the title). Hence, his form was not as bad as you have described.
PasTaB0yy 2 years ago
federer and sampras are great players....and u can't say that federer doesn't deserve to be a great player.....federer is the best player in his time...and sampras was the best player in his time...who is the best of all time ?...it it depends on who we like more...they did their job brilliantly...u ask us why we are watching this video ? im a federer fan but i still enjoy the king of swing pete sampras
zotling 2 years ago 2
No Pete...best tennis you've ever played was against "Kalashnikov" in 1997 Masters Cup final...this comes second..however only you can decide eheh!
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago
That is the best tennis for two reasons:
first of all: wimbledon final
the second one: as usual his challenger andre agassi
robertogradini 2 years ago
I perfectly get his/your point, but what I was trying to picture right in my comment (as I did somewhere else on "the Tube"), was what could be choosen as arguably the most annhileting performance of Pete's career (no matter the opponent, the scenario..and so on). As example, in my mind it could be the equivalent of what Roger Federer produced in his 1997 AO semif. against Roddick.
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago
u said pete retired since 2001 ...... loooool and u call ur self a pete fan...he retired in 2002 after winning us open looooooool
zotling 2 years ago
Yeah 2002, I'm not a fan that's why I d