Sampras: "But you can’t compare the eras. And in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s"
wkhedr
probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or
not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now
that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in
history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.
I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t
have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And
in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s"
TT
"It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors,"
Sampras said. "Does it mean I was the greatest or not the greatest?
The greatest of all time is (a label) we want to pin it on someone.
With the numbers you have to give it to Roger; with (Federer's) record
against Nadal you might not give it to him. If I was 7-13 against
Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of my generation. It's
hard to give a definitive answer when he's not done yet. Roger knows
he has to figure out this kid, but it's a tough match up. Nadal is one
of the few guys who believes he is better than him."
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
wkhedr
RzR
but its just a little cockroach type tennis player nadal vs. 16
slams...surely you can see the difference...nadals ugly anti-tennis game
would bother anyone...it does bother everyone...but not because of
skill, so it doesnt really count...once nadal loses his physical side,
its SEE YA!!!
Ali Asoag
> On 18.12.2010 2:27, wkhedr wrote:
>> "What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and
>> probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or
>> not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now
>> that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in
>> history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.
>> I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t
>> have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And
>> in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s"
>
> "It would bother me if I had a losing record against Andre in majors,"
> Sampras said.
But it doesn't bother Roger a tiny bit because he knows he's the best.
Whisper
It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
of it. He's free to comment on his own era, & I note he doesn't say
Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
Imo Laver's era was probably the toughest. You had so many great
grasscourt legends capable of winning multi-slams, yet Laver mastered
them all.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
>of it. He's free to comment on his own era, & I note he doesn't say
>Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
By that logic he can't comment Fed's era either. You are saying he can
only comment on his own era and not compare it to anything.
Whisper
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:25:08 +1100, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
>> Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
>
> By that logic he can't comment Fed's era either. You are saying he can
> only comment on his own era and not compare it to anything.
You have to be suspicious when he doesn't downgrade his own era, only
other greats.
By minimizing Laver he elevates himself & Federer. History doesn't look
at it that way. Laver will always have strong goat claims until someone
else wins 1 or 2 calendar slams.
Iceberg
erm 14 slams.
Iceberg
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:25:08 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
> >of it. He's free to comment on his own era, & I note he doesn't say
> >Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
>
> By that logic he can't comment Fed's era either. You are saying he can
> only comment on his own era and not compare it to anything.
there's a lot more TV coverage etc going on in this era, so Sampras
does have a valid comment on this era.
Rodjk #613
> On 18/12/2010 11:27 AM, wkhedr wrote:
>
> > "What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and
> > probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or
> > not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now
> > that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in
> > history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.
> > I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t
> > have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And
> > in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s"
>
> It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
> of it. He's free to comment on his own era, & I note he doesn't say
> Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
That isn't what he was asked...
>
> Imo Laver's era was probably the toughest. You had so many great
> grasscourt legends capable of winning multi-slams, yet Laver mastered
> them all.
There is no way that Laver's era was tougher than the era's that
followed it.
To say so is just silly.
Rodjk #613
Whisper
> On Dec 18, 5:25 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2010 11:27 AM, wkhedr wrote:
>>
>>> "What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done—and
>>> probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he won there or
>>> not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now
>>> that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in
>>> history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.
>>> I’m a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn’t
>>> have an opportunity to win majors. But you can’t compare the eras. And
>>> in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod’s"
>>
>> It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
>> Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
>
> That isn't what he was asked...
>
>>
>> Imo Laver's era was probably the toughest. You had so many great
>> grasscourt legends capable of winning multi-slams, yet Laver mastered
>> them all.
>
> There is no way that Laver's era was tougher than the era's that
> followed it.
> To say so is just silly.
>
> Rodjk #613
Rafter recently said no way were his & current era tougher than
Laver/Newk & co, so forgive me if I take his opinion over yours.
Ali Asoag
Hey, you already admit repeatedly that Fed is GOAT. What's this crap again?
Ali Asoag
Well, Rafter beat Sampras so it's understandable he said his ear was not
the toughest ...
Rodjk #613
"These days you have to be a great athlete. When you played in my era,
you could say top 20 (players) don't have to be great athletes. Right
now, everyone is 6-foot-2 or 6-foot-3 (and) runs well."
I didn't find anything from Rafter saying what you say he did.
Links?
Rodjk #613
Whisper
>
> "These days you have to be a great athlete. When you played in my era,
> you could say top 20 (players) don't have to be great athletes. Right
> now, everyone is 6-foot-2 or 6-foot-3 (and) runs well."
>
> I didn't find anything from Rafter saying what you say he did.
> Links?
>
> Rodjk #613
I have it on video.
Ali Asoag
If this is true: Post it!
--
Say, how dumb are you, Whisper? Probably you are so dumb that you can't
realize that you are dumb.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
You won't take Sampras' assessment of Laver's era... but... you will
take Rafters... of course you will :)))))))))))))
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
"[Laughing] Oh! there's no comparison to our time with these boys. The
game is so much faster and they hit the ball much harder than we did;
Roger and Nadal, they are tremendous athletes."
Ken Rosewall interviewed at the AO final.
SliceAndDice
ha ha ha :)
jdeluise
On 18-Dec-2010, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> Rafter recently said no way were his & current era tougher than
> Laver/Newk & co, so forgive me if I take his opinion over yours.
Well, I'll just point out that you weren't at all sure that Laver would be
able to hack it in Pete's era...
Whisper
>
> Well, I'll just point out that you weren't at all sure that Laver would be
> able to hack it in Pete's era...
Once you equalize for equipment I have little doubt Laver/Hoad would be
world beaters in any era.
felangey
take Rafters... of course you will :)))))))))))))<
Heh heh.
MBDunc
>
> >> Rafter recently said no way were his& current era tougher than
> >> Laver/Newk& co, so forgive me if I take his opinion over yours.
>
> > Well, I'll just point out that you weren't at all sure that Laver would be
> > able to hack it in Pete's era...
>
> Once you equalize for equipment I have little doubt Laver/Hoad would be
> world beaters in any era.
As good as they probably are, I have hard time to think that Laver's
barely 170cm figure with shoes on (Hoad was 175cm btw) is sufficient
for dominating current era.
.mikko
Ali Asoag
Liar again, Whisper?
StephenJ
> On 18/12/2010 10:38 PM, Sakari Lund wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It's not Sampras' place to comment on Laver's era, given he wasn't part
> >> of it. He's free to comment on his own era,& I note he doesn't say
> >> Fed's era is tougher than his ; )
>
> > By that logic he can't comment Fed's era either. You are saying he can
> > only comment on his own era and not compare it to anything.
>
> You have to be suspicious when he doesn't downgrade his own era, only
> other greats.
>
> By minimizing Laver he elevates himself & Federer. History doesn't look
> at it that way. Laver will always have strong goat claims until someone
> else wins 1 or 2 calendar slams.
Yes, there's something qualitatively different about the CYGS that
defies even 7543 or 7554 type analysis. Since it is the Holy Grail of
tennis, it's in an even higher category than grand slam event wins, on
a higher plane of merit.
StephenJ
>
> >> Rafter recently said no way were his& current era tougher than
> >> Laver/Newk& co, so forgive me if I take his opinion over yours.
>
> > Well, I'll just point out that you weren't at all sure that Laver would be
> > able to hack it in Pete's era...
>
> Once you equalize for equipment I have little doubt Laver/Hoad would be
> world beaters in any era.
Yes, it's amazing what Laver could do with a wood racket. Even
watching him in the mid-70s playing Borg/Ashe/Jimbo types, when they
were at peak and he was 10 years past his prime, you can still see it.
StephenJ
Pete knew that once Fed won the FO, history would rank Fed > Pete, so
his claim to #1 was gone. But, Pete still wants to be regarded as
highly as possible, so how he compares to Laver still matters.
And on that basis, this is clearly an indirect self-serving statement
of the kind Pete is a master at. He knows that many think his 90s era
was at least as tough as Fed's era, so by saying Fed's era was tougher
than Laver's, he's also saying that his era was tougher as well, thus
giving him a boost over Laver for #2 in the legacy standings.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
What Pete and Fed wouldn't give to have had 3 of the 4 slams on
grass...
P
tuan
embellishment. No need for psychoanalysis here. Comparing Laver to
Federer is like comparing Jim Hines (Laver's contemporary) to Usain Bolt
(Federer's contemporary). All of them are great, though.
Pelle Svanslös
Yes. And in between the CYGS and the 7xxx's lies the NCYGS. Even holding
all slams at the same time guarantees a mention when Laver's
achievements are talked about. For ever and ever.
Pelle Svanslös
Whisper
> Sampras is saying it exactly like it is, without any distortion or
What rot.
How the hell can there be 'no distortion' when he wasn't part of laver's
era? And why doesn't he downgrade his own era?
Of course it's self-serving you nincompoop.
> embellishment. No need for psychoanalysis here. Comparing Laver to
> Federer is like comparing Jim Hines (Laver's contemporary) to Usain Bolt
> (Federer's contemporary). All of them are great, though.
>
That's your opinion & you're entitled to it. I'm 99.9% certain history
will not regard it tthat way when we look back in 50 yrs.
Whisper
Laver was phenomenal. Jimbo was 24 & coming off his best yr ever, &
Laver well past his peak at age 38 & he could play like that with wood
rackets - wow!
It's scary to think Laver, Rosewall & Pancho all say Hoad was even
better. Makes me sad to think we all missed out on seeing the 2 best
players ever (Laver & Hoad).
: (
Superdave
makes me think you are an asshole who likes to exaggerate.
oh wait ! it's whisper!!!
Raja, The Great
>
> >> Rafter recently said no way were his& current era tougher than
> >> Laver/Newk& co, so forgive me if I take his opinion over yours.
>
> > Well, I'll just point out that you weren't at all sure that Laver would be
> > able to hack it in Pete's era...
>
> Once you equalize for equipment I have little doubt Laver/Hoad would be
> world beaters in any era.
Hoad did not dominate his own era, you dumb fuck!
StephenJ
Pete and Fed benefited tremendously from having grass skills during
eras when so few guys did. Pete and Fed usually didn't have to break a
sweat at Wimbledon before the semis, sometimes the finals.
In contrast, in Laver's day *everyone* had grass skills, because the
surface was such a dominant part of the game. Seems that would have
presented a greater challenge ...
StephenJ
Thanks for saving me the trouble of dismissing this dummy. ;)
Whisper
The very finest players of all time all are unanimous in this opinion.
By comparison yours is worth what....?
tuan
Great arguments from you both! :)
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
In fact, neither Pete nor Fed were 'raised' on grass NOR anyone else
of their generations... so NO ONE had special skills from the get-
go... so there was parity of upbringing in that sense and yet both
dominated...
P
StephenJ
not the point - they did develop those skills while others didn't. so
they benefited from easy rides at W.
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor analysis. Grass is all about shot making, fast reflexes, quick
reactions, hitting on the run, grass doesn't give much time to run,
stop and then prepare your body to take a swing like other surfaces,
and this is why few players that have this skill do well on grass.
Players that do well on grass do well on fast surfaces as well. Of
course I'm talking about the fast grass not the clay grass of these
days.
StephenJ
No, outstanding analysis.
>Grass is all about shot making, fast reflexes, quick
> reactions, hitting on the run, grass doesn't give much time to run,
> stop and then prepare your body to take a swing like other surfaces,
> and this is why few players that have this skill do well on grass.
Doesn't compute, because in the first 15 years of the pro era, just
about all guys did have good grass skills. They had to, because grass
was a dominant surface. As that changed and grass became a one-month
surface, grass skills dropped precipitously among the pro population,
giving a huge edge to the few guys who developed them or were
naturally gifted.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's EXACTLY the point... there was no 'gifted exploitation' nor
anything unfair... all had to learn to adapt to the grass... Pete and
Fed did it best... even playing field is all anyone can hope for...
after that, skill/talent/work ethic takes over...
P
MBDunc
Most of Laver's peers said that they did not find him extra special on
court but he just kept on winning all the (key) matches.
.mikko
StephenJ
yes, he just kept winning all the key matches despite being nothing x-
tra special on court. must have been by magic or something ..
Superdave
clown era.
only human
The dipshit american commentators say Federer plays best on slower
courts because it suits his game best. pretty stupid remarks when they
know this is complete BS. especially for his over all record on fast
courts. look how well he did on fast courts before most tournaments
slowed down just about all the courts when Federer was in his prime
winning just about everything in sight. if Federer wasn't dominating
after 03. and it was Roddick instead the courts wouldn't have been
changed at all. John mcenroe admitted he was a big influence on getting
the slower courts since Federer's domination. quote. something had to
change. its not fair for one player to win so much. no surprise John was
behind this move. and it some what worked. but Federer adapted. and
plays less now to try to last a long time in this sport. but i suspect
Federer will play a lot more in 2011 no matter what his schedule looks
like at the moment.