Poll: Who's better? Sampras or Federer?

[psteng19]

It's a hard comparison to make with Sampras' career over (14 grand slam titles) vs. Federer (6 grand slams), whose future is still unknown.
At 24, he's yet to hit his peak and the commentators went as far as saying he could be the best ever.

After watching yesterday's match against Agassi, I would have to say Sampras at the moment.

Fed's service game is very good with a balance of power and accuracy, but he only hit 120's on first serve.
Sampras used to hit 130-140's all day and even 150 mph.
Combine his strong serve with his volley game and overhead smash, he was unbeatable for a good stretch.

 

[KLin]

Too early to tell.

 

[IAteYourMother]

As of now, Sampras

 

[jspeicher]

give it some time, we can compare when he has finished his career. by the way things are going now, he will be the best of all time.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

let's see if Federer can keep his top ranking as the years pass by.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: KLin
Too early to tell.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
let's see if Federer can keep his top ranking as the years pass by.

QFT , let's see where he is in say 6yrs then we decide, potential to be a great is one thing and achieving it is another

 

[LikeLinus]

He won his 6th Grand Slam this weekend. Not 4.

 

[amoeba]

I don't think sampras ever hit 150.

sampras's serve was all about kick and placement rather than raw speed.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: calvinHobbs

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
let's see if Federer can keep his top ranking as the years pass by.

QFT , let's see where he is in say 6yrs then we decide, potential to be a great is one thing and achieving it is another

Longevity doesn't mean much in Tennis. Say he only plays for 3 more years..and wins 3 Grand Slams each year (something he's done before and it's very hard to do). That would leave him with 15 Grand Slams. So you're saying if he retires early, but still holds the overall record...that he can't be considered the greatest?

Tennis careers are not that long. But they can be dominant for as little as 5 years and still be considered one of the greatest all time.

 

[bigrash]

imo Federer is good but not great like Sampras. He practicaly has no competetion right now because most of the men's player are not as good as a decade ago. Look at the competition and challenge that Sampras put up with.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
He won his 6th Grand Slam this weekend. Not 4.

Corrected.

Originally posted by: amoeba
I don't think sampras ever hit 150.

sampras's serve was all about kick and placement rather than raw speed.

Not 100% sure but I thought it was near 150.

 

[GeneValgene]

federer hands down

even agassi claims that federer is the best he has every played against

scary thing is - federer can win without playing his best

the only thing keeping him from being the greatest is boredom

he has shown he can win on clay, reaching the semis at the french - i dont' think sampras ever made it that far

he beat sampras in 2001 at wimbledon when sampras was the defending champion

but as stated, time will tell - he could get bored and not break pete's records, but in terms of tennis, federer hands down could beat sampras in his prime

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: bigrash
imo Federer is good but not great like Sampras. He practicaly has no competetion right now because most of the men's player are not as good as a decade ago. Look at the competition and challenge that Sampras put up with.

you got to be kidding me...if anything teh men's tour is much deeper than it was back then

 

[hdeck]

federer.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: calvinHobbs

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
let's see if Federer can keep his top ranking as the years pass by.

QFT , let's see where he is in say 6yrs then we decide, potential to be a great is one thing and achieving it is another

And he has to stay healthy.
Injury is often an athlete's biggest nemesis.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Since Agassi>Sampras.. Federer is >both.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene
federer hands down

even agassi claims that federer is the best he has every played against

scary thing is - federer can win without playing his best

the only thing keeping him from being the greatest is boredom

he has shown he can win on clay, reaching the semis at the french - i dont' think sampras ever made it that far

he beat sampras in 2001 at wimbledon when sampras was the defending champion

but as stated, time will tell - he could get bored and not break pete's records, but in terms of tennis, federer hands down could beat sampras in his prime

Sampras reached semis in French.
His loss to Federer was towards the end of his career, on his decline.
It was his only match against Sampras and it was a tight 5 set match.

Pete was #1 for 6 years/286 straight weeks :Q

 

[habib89]

it's hard to tell this early.. federer is definately one of the best if not the best.. i was raised watching agassi and sampras though, so those two take up a very large section of my tennis heart

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: bigrash
imo Federer is good but not great like Sampras. He practicaly has no competetion right now because most of the men's player are not as good as a decade ago. Look at the competition and challenge that Sampras put up with.

you got to be kidding me...if anything teh men's tour is much deeper than it was back then

I'm not so sure about that.
Sampras had to battle Agassi, Lendl, Boris, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Corretja, Ivanisevic, Rafter.
That's pretty stiff competition.

Who's today's elite?

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Since Agassi>Sampras.. Federer is >both.

I seriously disagree that Agassi > Sampras.
Anyone know what their records are against each other?

Even if you disregard their records or titles won (Sampras - 14, Agassi - 8).
Agassi's serve is not as dominant as the taller players, but tries to make up for it with speed.

But as you can see from yesterday's match, power (serve) > speed.
Just look at the tiebreak in the 3rd set.
You can pick up so many easy points on aces or service winners.
Andre had to hang tough in just about every game, and fight for every point.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Too early to tell....I favor Sampras with his 14 GS titles, but Fed's just 24! We shall see in a few more years

I predict that player's like Nadal and Gasquet, maybe even Blake and Ginepri will provide some stiffer competition for Roger. Even Hewitt is starting to raise his level with his effort in the Semi's. I don't know about Roddick...I think he's reached the peak of his game. He just doesn't return serve well enough or move as good as the players mentioned above. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: bigrash
imo Federer is good but not great like Sampras. He practicaly has no competetion right now because most of the men's player are not as good as a decade ago. Look at the competition and challenge that Sampras put up with.

you got to be kidding me...if anything teh men's tour is much deeper than it was back then

I'm not so sure about that.
Sampras had to battle Agassi, Lendl, Boris, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Corretja, Ivanisevic, Rafter.
That's pretty stiff competition.

Who's today's elite?

Corretja and Ivanisevic don't belong on that list. Lendl was at the end of his career when sampras was in his prime. Same for edberg and becker. Courier was just a hard worker. He was like Hingis when hingis was #1 but lost every major.

Really, his only competition were Agassi and occasionally Rafter.

Which is not bad. Federer's main competition is Safin when he plays well, Hewitt, and Roddick. Pretty good.

I see a lot of the same things in Federer that made pete great. Stepping up to yet another gear when he needs to being the main one.

Pete is still the golden standard because of how consistent he was, even through injuries of his somewhat frail body. But don't discount Federer's talent. I'd pick Federer to win at least 8 out of 10 matches in his current form versus pete in his prime. Pete's running forehand was the main shot he could use to go from defense to offense. Federer has that and about 10 other shots that turn the point towards offense. No one has ever made such amazing shots with consistencey like federer since the days of wooden rackets and meager power.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
Too early to tell....I favor Sampras with his 14 GS titles, but Fed's just 24! We shall see in a few more years

QuotedFT

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: bigrash
imo Federer is good but not great like Sampras. He practicaly has no competetion right now because most of the men's player are not as good as a decade ago. Look at the competition and challenge that Sampras put up with.

you got to be kidding me...if anything teh men's tour is much deeper than it was back then

I'm not so sure about that.
Sampras had to battle Agassi, Lendl, Boris, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Corretja, Ivanisevic, Rafter.
That's pretty stiff competition.

Who's today's elite?

Federer is getting better and better all the time, and he is ranked no. 1 seed right now. Sampras had to battle some great player, but Agassi did more in his career. Hard to say.