Sampras vs. Federer

[Namy]

Who would win? Take Pete Sampras when he was in his prime and Federer as of now. I'll take Sampras by a hair. Federer is an awful lot more consistent, but Sampras was just unearthly when he was on.

[4pAc]

Fed unless he's on clay court

[SuperMcgee]

I don't really have an answer for this, but congrats to Sampras on his HOF induction. These are two guys that almost made me watch tennis. I'd say it goes 5 sets, with Sampras winning the tiebreaker 88-86

[Rob S]

If sampras plays his absolute best vs federer he wins. But say it is a best of ten, I think Federer would take it provided it wasnt on clay.

[Caddy]

Federer has a ways to go before he has done what Sampras has done

[SeanTaylorRIP]

Sampras his power and speed would beat Federer but it would be close. Federer is one of the greatest ever but a lot of his dominance is because he has never had a rival unlike Sampras.

[yo123]

Sampras his power and speed would beat Federer but it would be close. Federer is one of the greatest ever but a lot of his dominance is because he has never had a rival unlike Sampras.


Isn't Nadal his rival?

[slightlyaraiderfan]

Sampras his power and speed would beat Federer but it would be close. Federer is one of the greatest ever but a lot of his dominance is because he has never had a rival unlike Sampras.


Isn't Nadal his rival?
He's the one that has a chance againist him, but Federer still beats him most of the time.

[Tobzilla]

Fed is the greatest of all time.

[Caddy]

Sampras his power and speed would beat Federer but it would be close. Federer is one of the greatest ever but a lot of his dominance is because he has never had a rival unlike Sampras.


Isn't Nadal his rival?
He's the one that has a chance againist him, but Federer still beats him most of the time.

Beating your rivals is what makes you great

[DChess]

Sampras his power and speed would beat Federer but it would be close. Federer is one of the greatest ever but a lot of his dominance is because he has never had a rival unlike Sampras.


Isn't Nadal his rival?
He's the one that has a chance againist him, but Federer still beats him most of the time.

Beating your rivals is what makes you great

nadal can only beat him on clay

[jayceheathman]

Roddick would own all.

[Tobzilla]

Roddick would own all.

no

[jayceheathman]

Roddick would own all.

no

yes

[socaldude]

Thanks for posting this thread i was just talking about it.

I definitely take Sampras over Fed because of the competition Sampras had to face to get where hes at. Fed is good but the competition he faces doesnt even compare to what Sampras had to go through. Sampras had to compete with the other top 3 American tennis players which were Agassi, Courier, and Chang. On top of that he also had to play the likes of Rafter, Becker, and Kafelnikov all in their prime.

[josh07039]

This happens in a lot of all time player vs. current player threads, everyo ne either forgets or didn't see the all time guy. Many of you forget how unbelievable Sampras was. All I can say is this would be an interesting match to watch, I think Sampras would ultimately win, but I think it would be a close one. Sampras' ability to get all over the court and his great first serve would decide it.

[bearfan]

I dont watch much tennis, but RFed makes everything look so easy.

[Philliez01]

Nadal is the closest thing that there is to a rival to Federer, but the fact is that Nadal is only great on clay. That's Federer's main weakness as well, and I don't recall but wasn't Sampras pretty good on the clay courts? Sampras had Agassi in his second tenure of greatness and Chang. Andy Roddick couldn't hold Federer's jock as of right now, he has to actually beat him first.

I'd say Sampras as of now. Federer will probably surpass him later on though.

[josh07039]

Nadal is the closest thing that there is to a rival to Federer, but the fact is that Nadal is only great on clay. That's Federer's main weakness as well, and I don't recall but wasn't Sampras pretty good on the clay courts? Sampras had Agassi in his second tenure of greatness and Chang. Andy Roddick couldn't hold Federer's jock as of right now, he has to actually beat him first.I think that James Blake also has the opportunity to challenge Federer, when Blake is on, he is simply unbelievable.

[Namy]

I know Sampras was widely celebrated for his powerful first serve... but bak then 120's was incredibly fast. Now with guys like Roddick, serving speed has gone another level. This would also be interesting in that Fed and Sampras played in two different eras in terms of the style in which tennis was played. For example, Sampras was known for coming to the net (or his air shots) while Fed is more of a dominant baseline player.

[josh07039]

I know Sampras was widely celebrated for his powerful first serve... but bak then 120's was incredibly fast. Now with guys like Roddick, serving speed has gone another level. This would also be interesting in that Fed and Sampras played in two different eras in terms of the style in which tennis was played. For example, Sampras was known for coming to the net (or his air shots) while Fed is more of a dominant baseline player.Sampras wasn't only great at net, he could also run all over the baseline, returning everything.

[dcrls]

federer wins evrything

[TitleTown088]

Fed is the greatest of all time.

eh, no. Pete is.

[ncbigbody]

Federer will be the greatest of all time when his career is over.

People also forget Sampras was terrible on clay too, at least compared to other surfaces. Doesnt matter where they faced, federer would win.

[AZ9er]

"For me, he's the most complete player I've seen," said Richard Krajicek, the Dutchman who won here in 1996. "He reminds me of Pete Sampras, with a better backhand. With Sampras, I always had the feeling his backhand could fall apart."

Boris Becker, who won here in 1985, 1986 and 1989, said: "He doesn't really have a weakness. He's comfortable from the back of the court, he's comfortable at the net. And I think the other players have to learn from that."

John McEnroe, who won here in 1981, 1983 and 1984, said: "People think I'm kidding or that I'm just talking him up when I say he's the greatest talent of all time, but I believe that





I seen Feder DOMINATE Nadal, Blake, Roddick, Hewwitt

But i also seen Sampras dominate alot of players as well.


BJORN
Björn Borg, retired from professional tennis at 25 years and 4 months old and had already won 61 ATP events. Among those wins are 6 Major Grand Slam titles at Wimbledon on grass, 5 of them consecutive and 6 titles at Roland Garros on clay, 4 of those titles were consecutive, which is unanimously considered as the hardest surface to win in any Grand Slam!

Borg is the only player to have won in three consecutive years both Wimbledon and the French Open. An accomplishment considered by many experts as "the most difficult double in tennis". Besides that superb feat, Borg seriously handicapped his record because, unlike most top players of the last 25 years, Borg chose not to make the journey to the Australian Open, except only once in 1974 at 18 years old!