Sampras vs. Federer

Namy · 01-19-2007, 07:47 PM

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 · 01-19-2007, 07:51 PM

Fed unless he's on clay court

SuperMcGee · 01-19-2007, 07:52 PM

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 · 01-19-2007, 07:55 PM

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 · 01-19-2007, 08:08 PM

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

SeanTaylorRIP · 01-19-2007, 08:34 PM

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 · 01-20-2007, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghettosermon

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 · 01-20-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghettosermon

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 · 01-20-2007, 01:22 AM

Fed is the greatest of all time.

Caddy · 01-20-2007, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillaraiderfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghettosermon

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 · 01-20-2007, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24cadillac24

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillaraiderfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghettosermon

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 · 01-20-2007, 01:50 AM

Roddick would own all.

Tobzilla · 01-20-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayceheathman

Roddick would own all.

no

jayceheathman · 01-20-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobzilla

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayceheathman

Roddick would own all.

no

yes

socaldude · 01-20-2007, 04:15 AM

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 · 01-20-2007, 10:03 AM

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 · 01-20-2007, 10:24 AM

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

Philliez01 · 01-20-2007, 10:47 AM

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.

01-20-2007, 10:50 AM

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

josh07039 · 01-20-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 think that James Blake also has the opportunity to challenge Federer, when Blake is on, he is simply unbelievable.

Namy · 01-20-2007, 12:22 PM

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 · 01-20-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Sampras wasn't only great at net, he could also run all over the baseline, returning everything.

dcrls · 01-20-2007, 12:45 PM

federer wins evrything

TitleTown088 · 01-20-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobzilla

Fed is the greatest of all time.

eh, no. Pete is.

ncbigbody · 01-20-2007, 04:12 PM

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.