tennis : sampras or federer...

[MmmSkyscraper]

Federer > *

 

[LS20]

fed >

 

[FreshPrince]

I don't think it will be even close....Federer

Sampras was good, but not a beast like Federer.

both in their prime, Federer all the way

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I don't think it will be even close....Federer

Sampras was good, but not a beast like Federer.

both in their prime, Federer all the way

Sampras was good and not a beast? We're talking purely on grass courts when comparing the two.

 

[psteng19]

Sampras' serve and volley game gives him the slight edge over Federer's ground strokes IMO.

 

[tmc]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: tmc
answer poll. comments are welcome!!!

shouldnt the real question be Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova ?

sharapova, definitely. on a lighter note, navratilova will kick both sampras and federer. LOL!!!

btw, sampras serve and volley will be just too good for federer, IMHO. it will be very interesting to see who dictates the points. federer's problem will be breaking sampras serve.

 

[LS20]

mike chang and jim courier ftw

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: tmc
answer poll. comments are welcome!!!

shouldnt the real question be Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova ?

skill or hotness? Maria is clear winnar for both.

Maria would beat them all lol

 

[tmc]

was watching ausopen live now, they were on the phone with sampras, and they asked the exact same question - wimbledon centre court, sampras vs. federer, who would win? unbelievable!!!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: tmc
was watching ausopen live now, they were on the phone with sampras, and they asked the exact same question - wimbledon centre court, sampras vs. federer, who would win? unbelievable!!!

how did sampras answer?

 

[tmc]

he didn't pick out, but said the +/- for himself and federer. mostly what is already said in this thread (that is obvious).

my wife recalls him saying that federer is a great player but the other players are not pushing federer that much. he said that the agassi match in 1999 was his best!!!

he predicted that federer will get about 18 slams!!!

 

[Supa]

Federer at Prime would be unbeatable; and he may not have reach his "Prime" yet at 25. Sky is the limit, as Federer manages to improve every year; scary though for his opponents, but great for tennis fans everywhere.

Although if the match takes place on grass, at Wimbledon, Sampras would be near impossible to beat - lots of tie-breakers for sure.

Speaking of Federer, is there a shot that he can't hit? He seems to find angles that others can only imaging. No doubt he is determined to win at Paris this year; won't be surprised if he wins French this year.

BTW, they use the same racquet (even though Wilson tried to camouflage it with new paint), as did Jim Courier, Stephen Edberg and Chris Everett. Just seems like this racquet has no limit to the style of play as all these great champions played vastly different styles: serve and valley (Pete, Edberg), base liner (Courier, Everett) and all court (Federer), what a frame!


---

 

[Pacfanweb]

Sampras. Federer has no competition. Sampras had plenty, and still dominated.

 

[yosuke188]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Sampras. Federer has no competition. Sampras had plenty, and still dominated.

Again, as others have said, this weak competition theory is weak.

Who is to say that Sampras had better competition? I feel that Federer is so dominant that he makes the competition look bad. I would say all the players are getting better, but Federer is so ahead of his time that no one can match him.

 

[Shaotai]

Originally posted by: Supa

BTW, they use the same racquet (even though Wilson tried to camouflage it with new paint), as did Jim Courier, Stephen Edberg and Chris Everett. Just seems like this racquet has no limit to the style of play as all these great champions played vastly different styles: serve and valley (Pete, Edberg), base liner (Courier, Everett) and all court (Federer), what a frame!

A buddy of mine just found an original pro staff, like the one used by sampras and all the other greats in mint condition at his work! I'm trying to pull it out of his hands, it hits great!
Although the new K series rackets are good, nothing beats the old pro staff!!!

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Sampras. Federer has no competition. Sampras had plenty, and still dominated.

How can you take aways something from a guy that he has no control over??

What makes you so sure that you couldn't beat the competition that Sampras faced?

It's a weak argument for someone who doesn't know anything about tennis. You're not using examples of their game as a whole. Using something that is out of the control of both men is lame.

So if Federer had played back then and Sampras now....

It's all speculative and subjective.

 

[OrByte]

Sampras actually had competition.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Sampras actually had competition.

Ugh, read the post above yours. :roll:

 

[Ronin]

Agassi > both (baby Jesus cried when he shaved his head)

But I said Sampras.

 

[Supa]

[/quote]

A buddy of mine just found an original pro staff, like the one used by sampras and all the other greats in mint condition at his work! I'm trying to pull it out of his hands, it hits great!
Although the new K series rackets are good, nothing beats the old pro staff!!! [/quote]


The amazing thing about the old pro staff is that once you start hitting with it, you'll find out a lot about your game, almost as if the racquet "tells" you what goes right or wrong on your strokes. It's not just for Tennis Pro, but also great for people who want to learn and improve.

Sounds unreal, but those who had played with it (experienced players) know exactly what I'm talking about. I came to that conclusion on my own, but as I searched around the web seeking others' experiences with it, I found similar comments all over, which brought a smile to my face.

BTW, they still sell the Pro Staff Classic 6.0, if you can't have it from your friend. It is the same as the old Pro Staff, just painted a little differently, with bigger font on the letters.

One of the great racquets that is no longer being produced is the Dunlop Max 400i (Graf, MacEnroe); wish I grabbed one before it went out of circulation, but too bad. It hits like an old wooden racquet, very forgiving and soft, but with the power of the modern graphite composite material; of course, quite moderate compares to the power of today's racquets.


---

 

[Supa]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Agassi > both (baby Jesus cried when he shaved his head)

But I said Sampras.

Not Andre Agassi, but maybe Agassi and Graf's 5 year old son, Jaden Agassi. This kid has the genes of 30 grand slam singles cramped into his little body.


---

 

[kindest]

sampras is my favorite player but no doubt federer is the more complete player and would beat sampras on most surfaces..

now both in prime on wimbeldon i think sampras would win cause his serve and volley is perfect on grass.. that said on every other surface federer would dominate.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Sampras. Federer has no competition. Sampras had plenty, and still dominated.

How can you take aways something from a guy that he has no control over??

What makes you so sure that you couldn't beat the competition that Sampras faced?

It's a weak argument for someone who doesn't know anything about tennis. You're not using examples of their game as a whole. Using something that is out of the control of both men is lame.

So if Federer had played back then and Sampras now....

It's all speculative and subjective.

You don't have to know anything about any sport to know there's no competition. There were other great players when Sampras was playing. Agassi. Becker. Courier. McEnroe. Lendl. All won major tournaments.
Until you have someone challenge Federer, you can't say he's as great as Sampras.
Who, other than Federer...TODAY....is considered great? There aren't even any older players past their prime that can still play at the top level occasionally.

Federer is certainly awesome, but there is also no competition....and no, he can't help that, but that's just unfortunate for him. He dominates against nobodies.

Sampras played against all-time greats on their way out, all-time greats that were at their peak before he was, all-time greats who were at their peak at the same time he was, and then....who did he play that was an up-and-coming all-time great when he was past his prime? Federer is the only one that I can think of.

The competition DOES matter. Until Federer gets some, I don't see how he can be considered better.
Byron Nelson is one of the greatest golfer of all time, and he holds the longest winning streak in PGA history....but there is one problem with that: It was during World War II, when many of the best golfers were participating in the war and not playing golf.
So yeah, he won a lot of tournaments, but the overwhelming odds say it was because of the lack of quality competition.

BTW, I personally think that Borg is really the greatest of all time.

 

[0roo0roo]

bridgette wilson...so samprass>federer