Sampras: I knew I was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked

[PeteWasLucky]

"It was emotional in a lot of ways,” Sampras said to the CBC of his choice to end his career. “It’s tough letting something go that you’ve been doing since you were seven years old. At the same time I knew I was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked. That I had nothing left in the tank. I won my last major. I nothing else to prove to myself and in that aspect it was easy to retire but something I’ve been doing for a lot of years and it’s not easy to say good-bye. It was a tricky time but at the end of the day I’m glad I did what I did and it was time to move on.”

[soccerfan777]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:10:34 PM UTC-5, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> "It was emotional in a lot of ways,” Sampras said to the CBC of his choice to end his career. “It’s tough letting something go that you’ve been doing since you were seven years old. At the same time I knew I was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked. That I had nothing left in the tank. I won my last major. I nothing else to prove to myself and in that aspect it was easy to retire but something I’ve been doing for a lot of years and it’s not easy to say good-bye. It was a tricky time but at the end of the day I’m glad I did what I did and it was time to move on.”

And how is this relevant during 2016 French Open eve?

[TT]

It appears everything is, except actually discussing today's matches...

For the record, I wasn't that happy with Rafa's performance... although
I liked how he changed his tactics because the opponent was a lefty...
he rallied mostly cc backhands to pressure his opponent's bh - and what
I really liked were his dtl bh winners... Lots of them. Rafa's bh is
quite aggressive nowadays, this is definite improvement to his game.
(Now if he only got back his forehand...)

[Shakes]

Waleed just wants to start another long thread !

[TT]

And he normally contributes by making only the opening post... and then
chuckles in the background.

[Shakes]

Yeah ! Now, if only Mikko would stay away from these threads.

[PeteWasLucky]

Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 3:20:22 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.

I realized that. And I asked the same question there also.

[TT]

27.5.2016, 1:20, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
>

Smart thing would be to reply that thread instead then.

[PeteWasLucky]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

> 27.5.2016, 1:20, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
>> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
>>
>
> Smart thing would be to reply that thread instead then.
>

I decided not to get into any arguments.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[bob]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
<Waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.

fair enough. but you need to understand that pete was fried mentally,
if it's true, solely because he set records and did what he wanted. if
the record was 16 he might've been "fried mentally" not until he hit
16.

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

"If" was used twice and "might've" was used once in two sentences.

[Whisper]

On 27/05/2016 7:10 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> "It was emotional in a lot of ways,” Sampras said to the CBC of his choice to end his career. “It’s tough letting something go that you’ve been doing since you were seven years old. At the same time I knew I was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked. That I had nothing left in the tank. I won my last major. I nothing else to prove to myself and in that aspect it was easy to retire but something I’ve been doing for a lot of years and it’s not easy to say good-bye. It was a tricky time but at the end of the day I’m glad I did what I did and it was time to move on.”
>

Yes, thank you for this post. Sampras had nothing to prove as he set
the all time record. This proves what bob & I have been saying for yrs.

Keep going & you may move up the analyst tier ranks.

: )

[Whisper]

Wahleed has a poor reputation in rst. If he wants to be considered a
good analyst he needs to lift his game. I think he has potential, but
needs a lot more time to mature.

[Whisper]

Correct. Sampras was a strange animal. Immensely talented & arguably
best big match player ever, but couldn't be arsed in tune-ups/clay etc.
There's no doubt he would have played on with vigor if the slam record
was > 14, or if he knew Fed would soon win 17. No way of knowing such a
thing at the time.

I would have loved to see say Sampras of '99 Wimbledon final taking on
peak Federer. The tennis would have been amazing, with Sampras winning
something like 63 46 64 75, acing him on 2nd serve on match point.

: )

[John Liang]

I don't think anybody here would have poorer reputation than yours, the only one may considered to be worst would by iceberg.

[John Liang]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 6:22:48 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 27/05/2016 10:03 AM, bob wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2016 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
> > <Waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
> >
> > fair enough. but you need to understand that pete was fried mentally,
> > if it's true, solely because he set records and did what he wanted. if
> > the record was 16 he might've been "fried mentally" not until he hit
> > 16.
> >
> > bob
> >
>
>
> Correct. Sampras was a strange animal. Immensely talented & arguably
> best big match player ever, but couldn't be arsed in tune-ups/clay etc.

Couldn't be arsed ? The facts is he wasn't good enough to win more than 5 matches on clay in a row.

> There's no doubt he would have played on with vigor if the slam record
> was > 14, or if he knew Fed would soon win 17. No way of knowing such a
> thing at the time.

Woulda, coulda and shoulda means nothing. Every pro knows the records are there to be broken.

>
> I would have loved to see say Sampras of '99 Wimbledon final taking on
> peak Federer. The tennis would have been amazing, with Sampras winning
> something like 63 46 64 75, acing him on 2nd serve on match point.

No, Sampras would probably lost 6,6,4 with Federer winning with a dink cross court backhand.
>
> : )

[John Liang]

Top tiers are reserve for complete idiot like yourself and bob.

[stephenJ]

At the time, between 2000-2002, Sampras insisted that he had one slam
left in him. You and bob denied that and said he should retire rather
than keep embarrassing himself by losing to Bastl-types early at Wimbledon.

Pete was proven correct when he won the 2002 US Open, but also knew that
would be his last slam win. He knew he had one slam left in him, and
that was it.

So this notion that had Sampras known that Federer would win 17 he would
have won more is just ridiculous. Plus, it's also ridiculous because
every champ knows that you never know how many slams someone else is
going to win so you win as many as you can. Pete knew he had one slam
left so he stuck out those 2+ dry years to get it.

As Sampras said in 1999, "every top guy has a window, a time when he is
in slam-winning form. The window opens for you and it eventually closes,
and the goal is to win as many slams as you can before that window
closes". Pete did just that.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[stephenJ]

Pure speculation, and baseless from Pete says. Pete didn't say "I didn't
have anything to prove to anyone else", he said "to myself". The former
would imply that had the slam record been 16, he might have hung around
to try and get it, the latter does not, because when people talk about
proving something to themselves, they typically mean achieving all they
are capable of achieving. Had it been just about breaking the slam
record and not pushing it as far as he could, he would have quit after
13 slams. But Pete didn't want that, he wanted to win as many as he
could, and he did.

And that jibes with what Pete said at the time: Between 2000-2002, when
fans like you and whisper were saying Pete was finished and should
retire rather than lose to Bastl-types at Wimbledon, Pete consistently
said he kept playing because he thought he had one slam left in him. Not
many more or two more or three more or four more, "one". He always said
"one". And he was proven correct.

Bottom line: Pete won as many slams as his skills and talents, physical
and mental, allowed him to win. Not one more or one less.

[Whisper]

On 28/05/2016 2:43 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 2:59 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 7:10 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>> "It was emotional in a lot of ways,” Sampras said to the CBC of his
>>> choice to end his career. “It’s tough letting something go that you’ve
>>> been doing since you were seven years old. At the same time I knew I
>>> was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked. That I had nothing left in
>>> the tank. I won my last major. I nothing else to prove to myself and
>>> in that aspect it was easy to retire but something I’ve been doing for
>>> a lot of years and it’s not easy to say good-bye. It was a tricky time
>>> but at the end of the day I’m glad I did what I did and it was time to
>>> move on.”
>
>> Yes, thank you for this post. Sampras had nothing to prove as he set
>> the all time record. This proves what bob & I have been saying for yrs.
>
> At the time, between 2000-2002, Sampras insisted that he had one slam
> left in him. You and bob denied that and said he should retire rather
> than keep embarrassing himself by losing to Bastl-types early at Wimbledon.
>
> Pete was proven correct when he won the 2002 US Open, but also knew that
> would be his last slam win. He knew he had one slam left in him, and
> that was it.
>
> So this notion that had Sampras known that Federer would win 17 he would
> have won more is just ridiculous.

Huh? C'mon Steve stop trolling. I know you're not a retard. Obviously
if the record was 17 at the time Sampras would have trained/beefed up
etc to break it. He beat the record by 2 & had no reason to think it
would be challenged so quickly.

> Plus, it's also ridiculous because
> every champ knows that you never know how many slams someone else is
> going to win so you win as many as you can. Pete knew he had one slam
> left so he stuck out those 2+ dry years to get it.

Give me a break. 140 yrs of tennis history & the previous mark was 12
slams. Why the fuck would he think it would be challenged so quickly?
You're making as much sense as you do in the Seles v Graf debate - ie
none at all.

>
> As Sampras said in 1999, "every top guy has a window, a time when he is
> in slam-winning form. The window opens for you and it eventually closes,
> and the goal is to win as many slams as you can before that window
> closes". Pete did just that.
>
>

Yes, but you'd have to be pretty fucking dumb to think anyone saw this
current era coming. There is zero doubt Sampras would have played on &
won more than14 slams if he knew Fed would get to 17. It's a complete
no-brainer. When Pete said he was 'done' it was in the context of
setting the all time slam record & thinking it won't be challenged in
his lifetime.

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

> On 5/27/2016 2:59 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 7:10 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:

>>> "It was emotional in a lot of ways,? Sampras said to the CBC of his
>>> choice to end his career. ?It?s tough letting something go that you?ve

>>> been doing since you were seven years old. At the same time I knew I
>>> was done. I knew I was emotionally cooked. That I had nothing left in
>>> the tank. I won my last major. I nothing else to prove to myself and

>>> in that aspect it was easy to retire but something I?ve been doing for
>>> a lot of years and it?s not easy to say good-bye. It was a tricky time
>>> but at the end of the day I?m glad I did what I did and it was time to
>>> move on.?

>
>> Yes, thank you for this post. Sampras had nothing to prove as he set
>> the all time record. This proves what bob & I have been saying for yrs.
>
> At the time, between 2000-2002, Sampras insisted that he had one slam
> left in him. You and bob denied that and said he should retire rather
> than keep embarrassing himself by losing to Bastl-types early at Wimbledon.
>
> Pete was proven correct when he won the 2002 US Open, but also knew that
> would be his last slam win. He knew he had one slam left in him, and
> that was it.
>
> So this notion that had Sampras known that Federer would win 17 he would
> have won more is just ridiculous. Plus, it's also ridiculous because
> every champ knows that you never know how many slams someone else is
> going to win so you win as many as you can. Pete knew he had one slam
> left so he stuck out those 2+ dry years to get it.
>
> As Sampras said in 1999, "every top guy has a window, a time when he is
> in slam-winning form. The window opens for you and it eventually closes,
> and the goal is to win as many slams as you can before that window
> closes". Pete did just that.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

He should have made career in betting not training and sacrificing
to?play tennis. After all, he "knew" how many slams he could win.


I
--

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

And Agassi underachieved I guess? :)
--

[Whisper]

Are you on holidays & trying to fire up rst with horseshit that's
already been discussed 100 times before?

Sampras played in an era when the slam record was 12. Your nonsense
above makes no logical sense. Stop spamming rst with garbage posts -
pick a topic that's genuinely debatable.

[bob]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:02:10 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

wahleed is a very dishonest poster, but his stupidity is the worse
crime.

bob

[arahim]

Brahman didn't stop at 70 since no one had an average in the 70s. He blew away the line so far no one has caught him or come close even after along time.

[Whisper]

On 28/05/2016 3:28 AM, arahim wrote:
> Brahman didn't stop at 70 since no one had an average in the 70s. He blew away the line so far no one has caught him or come close even after along time.
>

Yes, Sampras thought he'd beaten Bradman. Get it?

[bob]

which can only be judged for the day in which it happened - a day when
the record was 12.

bob

[stephenJ]

Pete broke the record at 2000 W. Did he quit then? Nope, he kept going
for two more years, years in which he won very little, permanently lost
the #1 ranking, and had plenty of critics like you and whisper saying it
was getting a bit embarrassing and he should hang it up.

But Pete wasn't about just breaking the record, he wanted to win all he
could win. Wanted to push the record as far as he could. He wasn't
stupid, he knew other guys in the future would be gunning for him so
wanted to win as much as he could. Didn't want to leave even a single
slam on the table. Didn't want to look back from 5, 10, 20, 30 years
later and say to himself "you know, if I'd just hung in there a bit
longer, pushed myself a little more, I'd have won that next slam".

That's what he said, and that's what he did.

He didn't just finish his dinner, he licked the plate clean. He left
when he knew he had zero slams left in him. That's what the record shows.

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

This is very stupid sorry.
--

[arahim]

Considering the numbers that would be delusional...and Sampras was not delusional.

Look at Nadal he is way past anyone at FO still trying for more...he may be done physically or mentally or both but it will be because he is done
If you are mentally done you are done.

[bob]

the day i graduated college i was "done" mentally with school. or so i
thought when i went back 5 yrs later for a master's deg. it can change
as the goal changes. pete got the goal he wanted, and he was then done
mentally. if he had a different goal, who knows. but 17 is way out
there, sure.

bob

[bob]

kind of. he semi half assed it for 2 yrs. he only got motivated for 3
more months cause he got insulted. in fact, the insults gave him the
motivation to play that last USO.

> Nope, he kept going
>for two more years, years in which he won very little, permanently lost
>the #1 ranking, and had plenty of critics like you and whisper saying it
>was getting a bit embarrassing and he should hang it up.

the press said it too, and that's what motivated him in 2002.

>But Pete wasn't about just breaking the record, he wanted to win all he
>could win.

how do you know?

> Wanted to push the record as far as he could. He wasn't
>stupid, he knew other guys in the future would be gunning for him so
>wanted to win as much as he could. Didn't want to leave even a single
>slam on the table. Didn't want to look back from 5, 10, 20, 30 years
>later and say to himself "you know, if I'd just hung in there a bit
>longer, pushed myself a little more, I'd have won that next slam".

steve, the record was many decades old, who would ever think guys
would be getting 14 like tying their shoes within 10 yrs? djok will
soon have 14..that'll make 3 in about 5-6yrs?

>That's what he said, and that's what he did.
>He didn't just finish his dinner, he licked the plate clean. He left
>when he knew he had zero slams left in him. That's what the record shows.

he ate that 14th donut, and smiled afterward. if he knew someone else
could eat 14 very soon, who knows...

bob

[bob]

:-)

bob

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> kind of. he semi half assed it for 2 yrs. he only got motivated for 3
> more months cause he got insulted. in fact, the insults gave him the
> motivation to play that last USO.

Why he specifically hired Higueras for 2002? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/1845264.stm

Anyway....if someone can be mentioned who left slams ungotten .... it was Borg. Anyone else compared is wouldacouldashoulda into maximum.

.mikko

[bob]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:39:37 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> kind of. he semi half assed it for 2 yrs. he only got motivated for 3
>> more months cause he got insulted. in fact, the insults gave him the
>> motivation to play that last USO.
>
>Why he specifically hired Higueras for 2002? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/1845264.stm

i remember my opinion, he hired higueras because higueras had an
absolutely steller reputation as a coach, perhaps tops of the time. i
know others questioned why he'd hire a clay player but higueras
supposedly was known as an expert strategist, professional. plus it
was feb 2002, right about the time sampras was pissed for the
disrespect and wanted to go for a slam.

>Anyway....if someone can be mentioned who left slams ungotten .... it was Borg. Anyone else compared is wouldacouldashoulda into maximum.

absolutely, he didn't even play ones he likely would win and retired
with maybe 1-2 FO hanging. also, if mcenroe kept his motivation
another 2 yrs, IMO he gets at least 3 more.

bob

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:53:30 AM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >Anyway....if someone can be mentioned who left slams ungotten .... it was Borg. Anyone else compared is wouldacouldashoulda into maximum.
>
> absolutely, he didn't even play ones he likely would win and retired
> with maybe 1-2 FO hanging. also, if mcenroe kept his motivation
> another 2 yrs, IMO he gets at least 3 more.
>
> bob

All things should have gone this way -> " (lets let Pete have his 14 slams)
Borg 13 slams
Mac 9 slams
Lendl 10 slams
Becker 8 slams
Agassi 10 slams.

Slams off from Edberg/Wilander/Kriek/Chang/Gomez....

.mikko

[bob]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@dnainternet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:53:30 AM UTC+3, bob wrote:
>> >Anyway....if someone can be mentioned who left slams ungotten .... it was Borg. Anyone else compared is wouldacouldashoulda into maximum.
>>
>> absolutely, he didn't even play ones he likely would win and retired
>> with maybe 1-2 FO hanging. also, if mcenroe kept his motivation
>> another 2 yrs, IMO he gets at least 3 more.
>>
>> bob
>
>All things should have gone this way -> " (lets let Pete have his 14 slams)
>Borg 13 slams
>Mac 9 slams

>Lendl 10 slams

? just cause of all the USO losses?

>Becker 8 slams

>Agassi 10 slams.

i remember watching the gomez match, gomez just outplayed him pretty
well that day. surprising.

>Slams off from Edberg/Wilander/Kriek/Chang/Gomez....

b0b

[John Liang]

semi assed to get to USO final and then lost the final, that is coming from typical tier 1 analysis of RST. And according to lunatics like bob and whimp Sampras probably would still be swinging his tennis racquet today if the record is 32.

[John Liang]

Your master degree certainly did not do you much good and your reading/comprehension and maths skill still no better than high school level graduate.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 2:20:24 AM UTC+3, bob wrote:
> >Lendl 10 slams
> ? just cause of all the USO losses?

And skipping of FO 90/91 when he would have had a good shot.
Also other narrow coin-flip losses at slams (to Cash 2 x AO, Chang at FO....)

> >Agassi 10 slams.
> i remember watching the gomez match, gomez just outplayed him pretty
> well that day. surprising.

Those were the days when image, eh... a wig stability, was everything...

.mikko

[stephenJ]

God you are a stupid Sampras fan.

[stephenJ]

Because that's what he said at the time - "I think I have one slam left
in me". Pretty clear cut.

More than any player of the open era before him, Pete had a clear sense
of history and where he wanted to end up being regarded by it. Not just
at the time of his retirement, but well past it. He wasn't going to be
happy breaking a record only to see it broken shortly thereafter. And
not being dumb, Pete knew there would be a time when he personally
couldn't be on the court to prevent other legacy-rivals from winning
slams, like he could with Agassi. So he tried to push it as far as he could.

And that's why he didn't quit when he still felt he had one slam left in
him. And it's why he seems to have peace of mind today. He knew he left
it all on the table so no regrets.

[Whisper]

er, so he stopped winning when he broke the record he set for himself &
admitted to being aimless? Duh.

C'mon Steve you never used to be this dumb. I hope you're just trolling
for kicks.

[Whisper]

On 28/05/2016 6:45 AM, stephenJ wrote:

No offense but this is bottom of the barrel 'analysis', even by rst
standards. You must be drunk. Nobody loses half their IQ so quickly.

[Whisper]

> This is very stupid sorry.
>

It really is. As dumb as john's logic, but better english.

[Whisper]

But Pete wasn't chasing a number & still won a slam in his very last
match. Why are so many rst'ers so deficient in logic? It amazes me how
gullible/clueless you guys are.

I know you guys make fun of bob/skriptis, but they run rings around you
guys in the logic dept - no contest, taking candy from a baby.

[John Liang]

This logic is as stupid as it come and obviously coming from someone whose greatest achievement was winning 2 games from Peter Doohan in a club level match. Using this logic every world champion, every world record holder would have retired after they won a world championship or break the record. Carl Lewis should still be running if he know Usam Bolt is going to break his 100 metre record or take it to another level somehow. I would not be surprise idiot like you or bob believe if the slam record was in 30s you would say Sampras still playing today, such is crazy logic by the three known Sampras die hard idiots. Steve is pretty smart and reasonable and he found it was difficult to follow the stupid logic by idiot like yourself, bob and skripshit.

[John Liang]

No offense here but I don't see any analysis is lower than Roddick winning 12 slams or Federer winning just 1 slam in the last 12 years, as for nobody loses half of their IQ so quickly I see clear example of someones loses their IQ here in RST, bob is a prime example for that how else you expect a claimed engineer to give total probability of 104% or maths/reading skill approaching primary school level. And of course only you can match bob in those area.

[Whisper]

Yes, can you guys coach Steve back up in private? Some of his recent
posts have been very embarrassing.

[John Liang]

bob and skrpshit are good in following script drawn by their master, they run rings like little pup around their master whimp.

[Whisper]

Maybe Steve's just rusty from being out of the loop for so long? He
seemed much sharper in the past.

[John Liang]

Steven has always been very sharp certainly won't be as foolish as you or your fellow doggies like bob and scripshit.

[Whisper]

Good so far.

Now completely off the rails with fairytale bit....

> Not just
> at the time of his retirement, but well past it. He wasn't going to be
> happy breaking a record only to see it broken shortly thereafter. And
> not being dumb, Pete knew there would be a time when he personally
> couldn't be on the court to prevent other legacy-rivals from winning
> slams, like he could with Agassi. So he tried to push it as far as he
> could.
>

The last bit makes more sense, as it is in context of the time (ie 12
was the record in over 100 yrs of tennis);

> And that's why he didn't quit when he still felt he had one slam left in
> him. And it's why he seems to have peace of mind today. He knew he left
> it all on the table so no regrets.
>
>

That middle paragraph is very embarrassing - I'm actually redfaced for
you because I remember you used to be a decent analyst. Now it seems
you're on some kind magic mushroom.

[Whisper]

Pete broke a record that was the best in tennis history to that point -
130 yrs of tennis. No reason to immediately think it would be under
threat, but on deeper reflection it could be seen '12' was artificially
low for many different reasons - pro tour, few played AO etc. The real
record probably would have been about 25 if opportunities were similar
to modern tennis.

But at any rate using events in the future to judge something that was a
fact in 2000 is not very smart or helpful in any way.

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

Sampras didn't "know" how many slams he had in himself. It's an
absurd statement.

He was low on, motivation, really. It's something where modern
guys excell, eg Djoker being 29 and hugely motivated.


But history teaches us players lose motivation when they see no
purpose. For Wilander it was winning slams and reaching number 1
at 23, for Borg it was probably combo of years grind work with
wooden racquets and the realisation it was all going to be
downhill for him at the age if 25.

For Sampras the end was breaking the slam record in 2000. He was
still 27, but logically his motivation fell of the cliff. And
there is that physical impairment issue where playing long or
just playing wasn't going to be much fun for him anymore.


That "one slam" he kept saying about was the one he wanted to win
before he retires after the Americans lost faith in him. It was a
one-off motivation for proving home critics wrong and general
public who was more into Agassi who also had a renaissance at the
time.

That's why he was telling you about that one slam. And it was all
about USO really, his home slam and the one he hadn't won in a
couple of years. No way AO would play the role of that one
slam.

Not even winning Wimbledon would shut those mouths like USO title did.

It's not s coincidence he had F-F-W at USO after breaking slam
record and hardly won any matches at all in other venues.




--

[John Liang]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 10:57:35 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 28/05/2016 10:14 PM, John Liang wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:50:02 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> >>
> >> er, so he stopped winning when he broke the record he set for himself &
> >> admitted to being aimless? Duh.
> >>
> >> C'mon Steve you never used to be this dumb. I hope you're just trolling
> >> for kicks.
> >
> > This logic is as stupid as it come and obviously coming from someone whose greatest achievement was winning 2 games from Peter Doohan in a club level match. Using this logic every world champion, every world record holder would have retired after they won a world championship or break the record. Carl Lewis should still be running if he know Usam Bolt is going to break his 100 metre record or take it to another level somehow.
>
>
>
> Pete broke a record that was the best in tennis history to that point -
> 130 yrs of tennis. No reason to immediately think it would be under
> threat, but on deeper reflection it could be seen '12' was artificially
> low for many different reasons - pro tour, few played AO etc. The real
> record probably would have been about 25 if opportunities were similar
> to modern tennis.

We know Laver would have won a lot more and Borg if not for skipping the AO would have won more than just 11. The idea that somehow a record of 12 was safe does not hold up very well and certainly would not hold for a great player like Sampras.

> But at any rate using events in the future to judge something that was a
> fact in 2000 is not very smart or helpful in any way.

And assuming Sampras would still be physically and mentally up to the task if the target is 17/18 does not make you or bob smart.

[stephenJ]

> Sampras didn't "know" how many slams he had in himself. It's an
> absurd statement.

So why did Pete make it over and over?

You really should just let bob handle this. He's not any more correct
than you are but his comments have intelligence while yours are
raja-level brainless. Zero contributory value at all.

[MBDunc]

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:57:35 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Pete broke a record that was the best in tennis history to that point -
> 130 yrs of tennis. No reason to immediately think it would be under
> threat, but on deeper reflection it could be seen '12' was artificially
> low for many different reasons - pro tour, few played AO etc. The real
> record probably would have been about 25 if opportunities were similar
> to modern tennis.

Instead of averaging 1,8 slams / year 93-97, Sampras suddenly "decided" to win big titles with lesser rate - 0,8 slams / year 98-02.

Just a stupid decision to play low, missed way more golden opportunities compared to speculative 2003- career add-ons.

.mikko

[undecided]

> >
> >> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
> >
> > fair enough. but you need to understand that pete was fried mentally,
> > if it's true, solely because he set records and did what he wanted. if
> > the record was 16 he might've been "fried mentally" not until he hit
> > 16.
> >

> > bob
> >
>
>
> Correct. Sampras was a strange animal. Immensely talented & arguably
> best big match player ever, but couldn't be arsed in tune-ups/clay etc.
> There's no doubt he would have played on with vigor if the slam record
> was > 14, or if he knew Fed would soon win 17. No way of knowing such a
> thing at the time.
>
> I would have loved to see say Sampras of '99 Wimbledon final taking on
> peak Federer. The tennis would have been amazing, with Sampras winning
> something like 63 46 64 75, acing him on 2nd serve on match point.
>
> : )
The counter-argument could be that when Sampras had 8-9 slams, 17 would be too far away to be deemed reachable/beatable and he may not have tried as hard thus never reaching 14.

[undecided]

> >>>> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
> >>>
> >>> fair enough. but you need to understand that pete was fried mentally,
> >>> if it's true, solely because he set records and did what he wanted. if
> >>> the record was 16 he might've been "fried mentally" not until he hit
> >>> 16.
> >>

> >> Pure speculation, and baseless from Pete says. Pete didn't say "I didn't
> >> have anything to prove to anyone else", he said "to myself". The former
> >> would imply that had the slam record been 16, he might have hung around
> >> to try and get it, the latter does not, because when people talk about
> >> proving something to themselves, they typically mean achieving all they
> >> are capable of achieving. Had it been just about breaking the slam
> >> record and not pushing it as far as he could, he would have quit after
> >> 13 slams. But Pete didn't want that, he wanted to win as many as he
> >> could, and he did.
> >>
> >> And that jibes with what Pete said at the time: Between 2000-2002, when
> >> fans like you and whisper were saying Pete was finished and should
> >> retire rather than lose to Bastl-types at Wimbledon, Pete consistently
> >> said he kept playing because he thought he had one slam left in him. Not
> >> many more or two more or three more or four more, "one". He always said
> >> "one". And he was proven correct.
> >>
> >> Bottom line: Pete won as many slams as his skills and talents, physical
> >> and mental, allowed him to win. Not one more or one less.
> >
> > which can only be judged for the day in which it happened - a day when
> > the record was 12.
>

> Pete broke the record at 2000 W. Did he quit then? Nope, he kept going

> for two more years, years in which he won very little, permanently lost
> the #1 ranking, and had plenty of critics like you and whisper saying it
> was getting a bit embarrassing and he should hang it up.
>

> But Pete wasn't about just breaking the record, he wanted to win all he

> could win. Wanted to push the record as far as he could. He wasn't
> stupid, he knew other guys in the future would be gunning for him so
> wanted to win as much as he could. Didn't want to leave even a single
> slam on the table. Didn't want to look back from 5, 10, 20, 30 years
> later and say to himself "you know, if I'd just hung in there a bit
> longer, pushed myself a little more, I'd have won that next slam".
>
> That's what he said, and that's what he did.
>
> He didn't just finish his dinner, he licked the plate clean. He left
> when he knew he had zero slams left in him. That's what the record shows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

That is nonsense though. When he won the 2002 USO, that performance was good enough to put him as contender for more slams. Definitely more at Wimby/USO. What did him in back then is that to be a contender, you need to keep your ranking up and to keep your ranking up you need to play a lot of tournaments which he did not want to do anymore thus the 'burned out' comment. I am paraphrasing here but that is how Pete explained it many times over since then.

[Whisper]

Perhaps, but he did reach 7 slams when he was 24 so no feelings of
jadedness with the tour just yet. I think the record being a relatively
low 12 made him feel like he had plenty of time, rather than thinking I
have to win at least 2 slams a yr etc. He always said winning 1 major
in a yr was a good yr, 2 was a great yr. I doubt he woulda thought that
way if the slam record was 17 instead of 12.

Even with his relaxed approach he certainly wouldn't have virtually
given up after Wimbledon 2000. Even if he thought 17 was too far away
he'd be motivated to get as close to it as he could as it was a real
tangible goal. He would have marked off 'I'm 3 behind', 'I'm 2 behind'
as real tangible achievements.

End of the day it's all speculation, but what I think isn't speculation
is Pete's approach would have been a lot different post Wimbledon 2000
if he was still 4 slams short of the record rather than being the owner
of it. His aimless approach after 2000 wouldn't have been aimless if he
had a slam number to aim for.

Pete was all about efficiency. He always aimed to win with the least
amount of physical exertion, do just enough to secure No.1 etc. He
never aimed to beat guys 60 60 as that required a lot of effort in every
game & point, when 64 64 was less taxing for him & the end result was
the same. Just hold your serve & have a few cracks to get 1 break.
Agassi said if he played crap Pete would beat him 64 75, & if he played
great Pete would beat him 64 75. This is a very revealing insight in how
Pete approached his matches - ie little effort in return games that
required a lot of effort to win, rather wait for a 0-30, 15-30
opportunity & have a crack to get the 1 break required.

[Whisper]

> That is nonsense though. When he won the 2002 USO, that performance was good enough to put him as contender for more slams. Definitely more at Wimby/USO. What did him in back then is that to be a contender, you need to keep your ranking up and to keep your ranking up you need to play a lot of tournaments which he did not want to do anymore thus the 'burned out' comment. I am paraphrasing here but that is how Pete explained it many times over since then.
>

I think Steve has taken a creative writing course & is demonstrating
what he learned in rst.

[Guypers]

Pete was lucky to get 14, should have had 13, Rafa is better at 14!

[John Liang]

Poor analysis with a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda, it is pretty much like saying if Carl Lewis in 1991 knew the 100 metres dash record is going to be 9'58 he would try to lift his performance from 9'86. In tennis term it is like saying if Borg only knew Nadal is going to win 9 FO that he would try to win 10 just to keep his record. You assumption take no consideration of event that could impact player's career such as aging, physical decline, injury, drop in form or somebody having a hot two weeks like Krajicek did in 96 Wimbledon. If his approach to the game was half assed as you said then he would not win a lot of grand slam let alone 14. Sampras was as single minded as Federer was when it comes to grand slam tennis.

[Whisper]

What about outside slams? It doesn't make sense he'd win 7 Wimbledons
but only 2 Queen's titles for eg, if he went hard everywhere.

Sampras never aimed to win 7 Queens, he used it to fine tune his game
for Wimbledon. Indeed he probably wanted to lose early in tune-ups so
he could rest more for the slams.

[John Liang]

Is Queen' club a grand slam event ?

>
> Sampras never aimed to win 7 Queens, he used it to fine tune his game
> for Wimbledon. Indeed he probably wanted to lose early in tune-ups so
> he could rest more for the slams.

Why should he ?

[undecided]

I think you missed my point altogether. What I was trying to say is that Pete may not have tried hard at all from early on if the record was 17. Let's say you have 5-6 slams, 17 seems so far away, 12 is much closer and thus can be a goal/target. It's all speculation but looking into the future, a lot of kids might say 17 is just too far. You have to have some easy 2-3 slam years in a row like Fed did to be able to get to those numbers. Even prodigies like Rafa seem to have fallen short.

[Whisper]

I didn't miss your point. I'm saying Sampras would have approached it 1
slam at a time, & each slam opportunity would have fired him up to get
that bit extra. He lost the fire when he came out on top as you can't
improve on No.1. Whether you had 13 slams, 14 or 25 your position was
still no.1 all time slam leader. Sampras played for tangible goals, not
setting as high a bar as possible for future generations. That's
abstract & not real.

[undecided]

ok, I see your point but don't you think that if you see the goal posts
that gives you extra motivation? If the goal posts are too far, doubt might creep in. Maybe the 1 slam at a time would not get it done.

[arahim]

He just did not have enough left to compete at every slam see AO. He had no chance at FO. He did focus on two slams where he felt he could maximize. Federer while competing at all four still matched Sampras best two and on paper he still has a shot to better it.

Surpassing 17 while concentrating on two is going to be too hard. It's hard to see Djokovic surpassing it without winning an FO. And as strong as Nadal has been at FO (strongest anyone has been at any one slam) it's hard to see him surpassing 17 by winning FOs only from here on out.

[Whisper]

Yes I see that, but when he started his career his goal was to win 1
Wimbledon. 12 slams was a long way away & he didn't give up. In fact
his goal wasn't formulated until he realised he could achieve it.

No young player starting out today is going to be targeting 17 slams.
They may be hopeful to win 1, then a 2nd etc. The few who are good
enough to win slams regularly may start thinking about it if they win a
few at a relatively young age.

If the record was 17 Sampras wouldn't have been aiming for 18 when he
got to 10. He would have been marking off how far off the record he was
- eg let's see if I can get within 4, or 2 etc. This is a tangible goal
as the 17 would have been real. He had no real tangible goal when he
held the record.

[Whisper]

On 29/05/2016 2:10 PM, arahim wrote:
> He just did not have enough left to compete at every slam see AO. He had no chance at FO. He did focus on two slams where he felt he could maximize. Federer while competing at all four still matched Sampras best two and on paper he still has a shot to better it.

Yes, but Fed played in an environment where he was chasing Sampras'
tangible tally, & also where all the surfaces play similarly & there is
little diversity in opponent style (eg no big serve volley guys at the
net forcing you to hit quality shots all the time, not just rallying).

Fed knows the top guys today will win a lot more slams than the top guys
in previous eras, because the conditions allow the top guy to be fave in
every slam on every surface. That never really happened before. There
used to be true surface disparity, clay was completely different tennis
to grass, & many more different style of opponents existed.

Sampras played in nothing like that environment. For him 12 was the
record achieved once in 120 yrs. There was nothing there to make him
think all the top guys would be winning career slam & double digit slam
tallies. To hold him to that standard 10 yrs after he retired is
pointless no?

>
> Surpassing 17 while concentrating on two is going to be too hard. It's hard to see Djokovic surpassing it without winning an FO. And as strong as Nadal has been at FO (strongest anyone has been at any one slam) it's hard to see him surpassing 17 by winning FOs only from here on out.
>

I think the point is the top guys seem to have similar chances to win
Wimbledon as they do FO/USO/AO. Sure you can Say Djoker/Fed didn't win
a lot of FO's but it's not like they weren't making many finals (8
finals, many more semis etc). If you make the final you're a big chance
of winning.

If you're going to focus on this era & compare past players to modern
conditions, then it's legit to use the contra view & ask how would
Fed/Rafa/Djoker go in earlier eras playing on slick grass, slow clay,
lesser quality equipment etc?

[John Liang]

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:38:04 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> On 29/05/2016 2:10 PM, arahim wrote:
> > He just did not have enough left to compete at every slam see AO. He had no chance at FO. He did focus on two slams where he felt he could maximize. Federer while competing at all four still matched Sampras best two and on paper he still has a shot to better it.
>
>
> Yes, but Fed played in an environment where he was chasing Sampras'
> tangible tally, & also where all the surfaces play similarly & there is
> little diversity in opponent style (eg no big serve volley guys at the
> net forcing you to hit quality shots all the time, not just rallying).

Yes, when you can't win the argument you are changing the goal post.

[arahim]

You are the king of cross era comparison;)

How similar can the surfaces be if one won 9 FOs and another one 7 wimbledons and yet another 6 AOs. Even in Sampras time a mid level great was able to win all four and earlier Borg won both grass and clay for many years within a few weeks of each other. Each of djokovic, nadal and Federer's problem was they had to deal with two other greats. Sampras had a half a great Agassi.

It's going to be very hard for anyone to reach 17 with only wins at 3 slams. You can take the best results at Wimbledon, USO, ao (7, 5, 6) and that barely beats it. You need a guy that good at those three. Or you need a Borg who will play till he's 30 and maintain the results. Or you need a nadal plus at hard courts.

[bob]

that's a very good point, i commend that you thought outside the box
even though it goes against what i think.

but anyone saying that they know what a player would do (either better
or worse) under completely different circumstances is just guessing.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 01:16:43 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

IMO sampras did everything - every little detail - with the goal of
winning Wim/USO every year. anything else was a bonus to be used for
the purpose of keeping a winning Wim/USO game in tact.

i don't think he ever thought of breaking 12 until he got to 9-10. but
i agree, every point, every tournament chosen, every everything was
geared toward winning those 2 every yr. if it meant going 1/2 arsed in
return games, so be it; if it meant skipping or going 1/2 arsed in
some tournaments, so be it.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 28 May 2016 22:21:57 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>On 28/05/2016 8:30 AM, bob wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:55:30 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis

>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

>>>> On 5/27/2016 12:56 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 11:53:36 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/26/2016 7:03 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2016 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky

>>>>>>> <Waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Smart people would know this thread is a reply to another if-then-else thread started today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fair enough. but you need to understand that pete was fried mentally,
>>>>>>> if it's true, solely because he set records and did what he wanted. if
>>>>>>> the record was 16 he might've been "fried mentally" not until he hit
>>>>>>> 16.
>>>>>>

>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> This is very stupid sorry.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>
>Maybe Steve's just rusty from being out of the loop for so long? He
>seemed much sharper in the past.

i think he's distracted by a beautiful wife.

bob

[bob]

i'm afraid your hatred of sampras (and let's be honest, you hate him)
is clouding judgment a bit IMO. it's not that you're not entitled to
your opinion, you're opinion isn't "illogical," but sometimes the
story isn't just a matter of "what fits best" in your mind. you need
to look at the timeframe from Wim 2000 to USO 2002 closely to get all
that went on.

i know the people training him, working with him personally every
month, and watched matches myself. he was (a) unmotivated (b) injured
(c) going thru motions. UNTIL he felt a bit dissed by press in
winter/spring 2002 and decided to try hard to win 1 more. he was
talking retirement privately late 2000 and all through 2001.

bob

[John Liang]

I think it was never a surprised that bob agree with his master and classified anyone with a different opinion to them as Sampras hater when there is no way they are going to convince the others with their cross era comparison.

[Shakes]

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:00:41 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:

> IMO sampras did everything - every little detail - with the goal of
> winning Wim/USO every year. anything else was a bonus to be used for
> the purpose of keeping a winning Wim/USO game in tact.
>

I think that's an objective assessment. And that's not just for Sampras, it's true for most US/Western Europe players until recently.

> i don't think he ever thought of breaking 12 until he got to 9-10. but
> i agree, every point, every tournament chosen, every everything was
> geared toward winning those 2 every yr. if it meant going 1/2 arsed in
> return games, so be it; if it meant skipping or going 1/2 arsed in
> some tournaments, so be it.
>
> bob

In his book, Sampras said he didn't think about Emerson's record until 1997, which corresponds with what you say. Sampras also considered the YE #1 record as being very prestigious. So much so that he skipped the AO in 1999 even knowing that it would bring him one slam closer to the magic number of 12.

[Shakes]

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 1:47:45 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:

>
> So much so that he skipped the AO in 1999 even knowing that it **would** bring him one slam closer to the magic number of 12.

Should be *could*

[John Liang]

Somehow asshole like bob believe the 'story' is a matter of what fit his mind. Anyone with a different opinion is considered by the little minded bob as Sampras hater.

>
> i know the people training him, working with him personally every
> month, and watched matches myself. he was (a) unmotivated (b) injured
> (c) going thru motions. UNTIL he felt a bit dissed by press in
> winter/spring 2002 and decided to try hard to win 1 more. he was
> talking retirement privately late 2000 and all through 2001.
>

Why don't you say you sleep with him in the same bad, went to the same toilet with him, shit with him, eat the breakfast, lunch and dinner with him that will be even more convincing. He was unmotivated ? Yes, so unmotivated so he got to three more USO final that explain how unmotivated he was and he was going through the motion, as for injury a lot of players played even with injury
> bob

[John Liang]

If you look at his record in later years even if he played AO in 99 he might be one of the favourite but he could lost. In his later years he was in one AO semi with a tight loss to Agassi in 2000 otherwise he lost to Kucera in 98, Martin in 2001 and Safin in 2002, all in four sets.

[Shakes]

I agree with what you say. But the fact that he would give up even the opportunity to try and win one more slam to get him closer to the record does show that he didn't think that highly of the AO.

[bob]

On Sun, 29 May 2016 13:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

i only say it because i never heard about any slam race until sampras
got to 9 or 10. you'd think pete might've mentioned somewhere earlier
he was hoping to break 12 if it was on his mind.

the YE #1 is a measurement of what you did during the year, and if you
win Wm or USO plus a little more you had a good chance. it was a
measurement of achievement.

bob

[Whisper]

Exactly. Yes Sampras said things like 'I was done - nothing left' etc,
but that was in the context of his time when he was the record holder.
To suggest he would have felt the same way if conditions were different
(eg slam record was 17) is pretty dumb logic even by rst standards. Has
anyone hacked Jaros' account? He's gonna be mad when he finds out.

[Whisper]

His own presumably?

[Whisper]

john doesn't like could or would.

[Whisper]

Sampras did skip a few slams he could have won in hindsight & probably
be on 17, 18 slams even with early retirement.

[MBDunc]

maanantai 30. toukokuuta 2016 12.36.24 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> Sampras did skip a few slams he could have won in hindsight & probably
> be on 17, 18 slams even with early retirement.

Tier1 favourite at USO '99, a healthy Sampras should have won it.
Those skipped AOs (for various reasons and being slightly off-peak)...oen of the favourites yes...but Sampras at AO was never a gimme, even at his peak he struggled there - winning "only" two.

But previous generations - Borg/Connors/Mac/Laver... have much more speculation materials. Even Agassi has more than Sampras (like skipped AO until '95 and again skipped it 97 & 02).

.mikko

[Whisper]

On 30/05/2016 8:59 PM, MBDunc wrote:
> maanantai 30. toukokuuta 2016 12.36.24 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
>> Sampras did skip a few slams he could have won in hindsight & probably
>> be on 17, 18 slams even with early retirement.
>
> Tier1 favourite at USO '99, a healthy Sampras should have won it.
> Those skipped AOs (for various reasons and being slightly off-peak)...oen of the favourites yes...but Sampras at AO was never a gimme, even at his peak he struggled there - winning "only" two.
>

Yes, but those 2 AO losses to Agassi were both upsets & Sampras had big
winning leads in both. I don't begrudge Andre his wins given how much
Sampras cost him legacy wise, but really if they played those matches
over it's about 80% certain Sampras wins. Imo it's a fine line between
Sampras having 2 AOs or 5.

> But previous generations - Borg/Connors/Mac/Laver... have much more speculation materials. Even Agassi has more than Sampras (like skipped AO until '95 and again skipped it 97 & 02).
>
> .mikko
>

Maybe, but like I say above Agassi could easily have 2 AOs & Sampras 4.
It's kinda fluky Agassi won those 2 coin flip matches imo. I think the
other 2 AOs Agassi won were v woeful competition like Schuettler in the
final?

Again I don't begrudge Andre his AO record, but no doubt Sampras starts
as hot fave to beat him every time in a big match.

[John Liang]

There was no fluke, he beat Sampras two time they played.

>
> Again I don't begrudge Andre his AO record, but no doubt Sampras starts
> as hot fave to beat him every time in a big match.

Hot favourite did not mean much if he couldn't win the last point of the tournament.

[John Liang]

Could have and would have essentially means nothing at all. No player get a grand slam title base on coulda, shoulda and woulda.

[John Liang]

The players don't get those bonus for not playing the tournaments so you can go on with endless speculation but it means nothing, zero, zilch. Does you 7543 system have something that take into account of coulda, woulda and shoulda ？

[stephenJ]

That's the rub: IMO, you are much more a Sampras fan, and Fed hater,
than I dislike Sampras. My dislike of Sampras is really just focused on
one guy. As a big Agassi fan, I do resent that Pete denied Agassi
massive legacy value by beating him in 4 USO/W finals. But I never did
and have disliked Sampras, I rooted for him in the majority of his GS
finals. Heck I even rooted for him against Agassi at 1990 and 1995 USO
finals because at those times I still regarded Agassi as a punk-brat.

IOW's, i believe your judgment is much more biased in favor of Sampras
than mine is against. In this case, there is no getting around the fact
that 2001 - 2002 Pete consistently addressed this issue directly - he
felt he had one slam left in him, and was willing to endure criticism
from the press and fans to get it.

And since that happened AFTER he had already set the all-time slam
record, the obvious implication was that he was mindful of history in a
forethought way. He wanted to push the record as far as he could to
increase his chances that he would hold it longer. What reeks of fan-boy
analysis here are unsupported claims that Pete woulda/coulda won more
slams had he known Federer was going to win 17. That is just pure fanboy
wishful thinking and nothing Pete has ever said supports it.

[stephenJ]

On 5/28/2016 7:14 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:50:02 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:

>>> Pete broke the record at 2000 W. Did he quit then? Nope, he kept going

>>> for two more years, years in which he won very little, permanently lost
>>> the #1 ranking, and had plenty of critics like you and whisper saying it
>>> was getting a bit embarrassing and he should hang it up.
>>
>>

>> er, so he stopped winning when he broke the record he set for himself &
>> admitted to being aimless? Duh.
>>
>> C'mon Steve you never used to be this dumb. I hope you're just trolling
>> for kicks.
>
> This logic is as stupid as it come and obviously coming from someone whose greatest achievement was winning 2 games from Peter Doohan in a club level match. Using this logic every world champion, every world record holder would have retired after they won a world championship or break the record. Carl Lewis should still be running if he know Usam Bolt is going to break his 100 metre record or take it to another level somehow. I would not be surprise idiot like you or bob believe if the slam record was in 30s you would say Sampras still playing today, such is crazy logic by the three known Sampras die hard idiots. Steve is pretty smart and reasonable and he found it was difficult to follow the stupid logic by idiot like yourself, bob and skripshit.

A little harsh with the name-calling, but ignoring that, you nailed it. :)

[stephenJ]

On 5/28/2016 8:53 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:57:35 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
>> Pete broke a record that was the best in tennis history to that point -
>> 130 yrs of tennis. No reason to immediately think it would be under
>> threat, but on deeper reflection it could be seen '12' was artificially
>> low for many different reasons - pro tour, few played AO etc. The real
>> record probably would have been about 25 if opportunities were similar
>> to modern tennis.
>
> Instead of averaging 1,8 slams / year 93-97, Sampras suddenly "decided" to win big titles with lesser rate - 0,8 slams / year 98-02.
>
> Just a stupid decision to play low, missed way more golden opportunities compared to speculative 2003- career add-ons.

Yes, exactly. Pete decided it would be more dramatic if he stretched his
quest for the slam record out until the Millenial year, so purposely won
fewer slams in 98 and 99 so that he would break the record in 2000! It
was all up to Pete. ;)

[heyg...@gmail.com]

I'm not a fan of magical thinking (Sampras could have won X slams had he wanted to), but he was clearly driven by records and would have kept trying if the slam record was 17. That said, he was only great at two of the slams, which his why he ended at 14 anyway. As has been pointed out before, Sampras won slams younger and older than Fed, so years playing isn't really the factor for why he has less.

[Whisper]

Anytime you find yourself aligned with john is a redflag.