If he had knocked every fighter out in 30 seconds, how would you decipher whether the other fighters were crap, or Ali was just supremely awesome?
Sampras was better than Federer
- Thread starter SpeedFreak
- Start date
If he had knocked every fighter out in 30 seconds, how would you decipher whether the other fighters were crap, or Ali was just supremely awesome?
Man of Honour
Is Schumacher a great?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
sampras had way more hair, WAY MORE, therefore he was/is more manly, therefore he wins ¬_¬
you can't really compare anyone easily, ever. its simply unquantifiable right now. is federer that much better that the rest look crap, or are the rest just crap. The fairly obvious part is that there were a lot of very good tennis players back in samprass vs agassi era. but was that only the case because sampras wasn't that good that the rest seemed better.
personally, i think Sampras may be the all time best, but its a point you can't prove. though if federer played with his all and lost a 3rd game to sampras whose clearly not anywhere near his peak, it does push the argument in Sampras's favour.
another way to look at it, in other sports would be, for instance, peter crouch, he's got a great international record at the moment, against completely and utterly crap teams. is he better than shearer, lineker, ian wright, cantona just because he's scored so many already. no he's very clearly not, but they play way more games, have more teams to compete against so its unfair.
in other words, federer might start from a younger age, or be injured less in his career, play longer which could all cause him to win way more titles, but do the titles make him better, not definately. also, if theres less competition it should be easier to win titles. Basically, unanswerable question that time will never be able to tell on.
you can't really compare anyone easily, ever. its simply unquantifiable right now. is federer that much better that the rest look crap, or are the rest just crap. The fairly obvious part is that there were a lot of very good tennis players back in samprass vs agassi era. but was that only the case because sampras wasn't that good that the rest seemed better.
personally, i think Sampras may be the all time best, but its a point you can't prove. though if federer played with his all and lost a 3rd game to sampras whose clearly not anywhere near his peak, it does push the argument in Sampras's favour.
another way to look at it, in other sports would be, for instance, peter crouch, he's got a great international record at the moment, against completely and utterly crap teams. is he better than shearer, lineker, ian wright, cantona just because he's scored so many already. no he's very clearly not, but they play way more games, have more teams to compete against so its unfair.
in other words, federer might start from a younger age, or be injured less in his career, play longer which could all cause him to win way more titles, but do the titles make him better, not definately. also, if theres less competition it should be easier to win titles. Basically, unanswerable question that time will never be able to tell on.
Formula One is a bit different as there can only be one champion in a year and the car is a big part. It could be argued that he wasn't. He lost a tight championship to Hill, Villeneuve, Hakinen and Alonso and when he won they were mostly easy wins.
If you never reach your peak you cannot be the best. Federer drops very few sets, but it is inconcievable that even at his absolute best he is significantly better than Sampras at his peak. A little maybe, but massively, no. If he is not pushed to his limits by his peers, he will never reach his peak. That would be a waste of his talent as he has the ability to be a better player than sampras, but he isn't yet.
If you never reach your peak you cannot be the best. Federer drops very few sets, but it is inconcievable that even at his absolute best he is significantly better than Sampras at his peak. A little maybe, but massively, no. If he is not pushed to his limits by his peers, he will never reach his peak. That would be a waste of his talent as he has the ability to be a better player than sampras, but he isn't yet.
The 3 matches they played were exhibition matches, like a friendly in football. Federer won the first 2 encounters in straight sets. Sampras and Federer are very good friends, Federer was certainly not giving it his all and had just played several weeks of tennis in a row, including winning the Masters Cup a few days before starting to play the matches against Sampras. He also didn't want to embarass his friend/idol by wiping the floor with him on all 3 occasions.
Ivanisevic recently beat James Blake (around world no. 12) in an exhibition match. They don't count for anything.
Man of Honour
Ha ignore me I've just restated somebody's question above..
Maybe, but by the same logic one could argue that had Sampras been playing over the last few years instead of the mid90s that he would have won fewer Wimbledon titles when facing Federer at the top of his game.
At the end of the day, titles isn't the only way of judging greatness in any case. As you suggest, it is somewhat dependent on the standard of the opposition too.
I used to love watching Sampras play (his serve was so luscious and smooth, right from the raised toes at the start) and I think it is a bit too hard to call at the moment. See how Federer develops over the next few years and then make a judgement.
Sampras did have a slightly better serve than Federer. Fed admitted in one of the post match interviews that it was very difficult to read.
However, Ivanisevic had an even better serve. When Sampras was asked if he could take one shot from another player he said he would have Goran's serve!
The most lethal (first) serve around today is that of one 6 foot 10
Ivo Karlovic.
However, Ivanisevic had an even better serve. When Sampras was asked if he could take one shot from another player he said he would have Goran's serve!
The most lethal (first) serve around today is that of one 6 foot 10
Ivo Karlovic.
Last edited:
I think the choice excluded his own serve though. In fairness, if I had the choice, I would pick Sampras'. It is much more accurate, which is what you need on grass.
That doesn't really make sense though. If he could take one shot from another player, why would he take Ivanisevic's serve if he thought his own was better? Surely he'd take, I dunno, an Agassi return or something? Unless he thought was the best at every shot in the book and that the Ivanesevic serve was the smallest 'downgrade' available.
Everyone keeps saying that the players back then were better but I bet most of you haven't even watched many other top 20 guys play outside that grass court tournament in June 
In fact I bet no one in this thread could name the top 20 without looking at the ATP site.
There are great players around now, you can tell when they play each other. Ferrer was awesome in the Masters Cup, he blew everyone off the court until he met Fed.
Federer just makes everyone else look ordinary... all except one
In fact I bet no one in this thread could name the top 20 without looking at the ATP site.
There are great players around now, you can tell when they play each other. Ferrer was awesome in the Masters Cup, he blew everyone off the court until he met Fed.
Federer just makes everyone else look ordinary... all except one
Man of Honour
In fairness I'm not sure too many outside of the top 20 would be able to name all the players in there without a bit of a struggle.
As I said at the start, there might or might not be more strength in depth during Sampras' day but Federer has beaten everyone who he has faced and in most instances done so very comfortably. His technique is nearly impeccable and what would be a low percentage shot for almost anyone else becomes better than 50/50 for him.