Another Sampras record bites the dust ...

[ahonkan]

The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison
of Fed v Sampras career achievements.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-Sampras.aspx

There's really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
take away Sampras' thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
(with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).
Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1 & Fed wins with
total 6 YE #1 (so far).

[Shakes]

On Jul 16, 11:18 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison

> of Fed v Sampras career achievements.http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-...

>
> There's really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
> take away Sampras' thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
> (with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
> tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
> and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
> and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).
> Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1 & Fed wins with
> total 6 YE #1 (so far).

Excuse me, undeserved YE #1 in 1998 ? And you want to award Fed the YE
#1 for 2003 ? Why can't you take the stats as they are ?

[stephenj]

Fed did have a better year in 2003 than Sampras did in 1998. For what
that's worth.

[Shakes]

You could be right (though I think Sampras got some more points
because he did better in the USO that yr compared to the 4th rd loss
in 1997). But we do not have to take away Sampras' YE #1. Slam wise, I
think Sampras did better.

[TennisGuy]

On Jul 16, 2:18 pm, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison

> of Fed v Sampras career achievements.http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-...

>
> There's really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
> take away Sampras' thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
> (with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
> tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
> and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
> and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).
> Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1 & Fed wins with
> total 6 YE #1 (so far).

I love this one:

Federer Sampras
- Carpet 50-19 (2 Titles) 144-44 (15 Titles)

It looks like Sampras is the 'rug-master' in more ways than one! :)

Well Federer has his work cut out for him now.
The only thing he should concentrate on is playing ATP indoor rug
tournies now.
Do they still play them?

[RzR]

> Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1& Fed wins with

> total 6 YE #1 (so far).

sampras isnt even in federers league...what are we talking about?

this was always on feds racquet...every single match

good for him that he could actually find time to put more effort to show
these pretenders how its done

[RzR]

On 16.7.2012. 23:50, Shakes wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2:28 pm, stephenj<sjar...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/2012 2:50 PM, Shakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 11:18 am, ahonkan<ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison
>>>> of Fed v Sampras career achievements.http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-...
>>
>>>> There's really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
>>>> take away Sampras' thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
>>>> (with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
>>>> tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
>>>> and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
>>>> and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).

>>>> Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1& Fed wins with

>>>> total 6 YE #1 (so far).
>>
>>> Excuse me, undeserved YE #1 in 1998 ? And you want to award Fed the YE
>>> #1 for 2003 ? Why can't you take the stats as they are ?
>>
>> Fed did have a better year in 2003 than Sampras did in 1998. For what
>> that's worth.
>
> You could be right (though I think Sampras got some more points
> because he did better in the USO that yr compared to the 4th rd loss
> in 1997). But we do not have to take away Sampras' YE #1. Slam wise, I
> think Sampras did better.

its ok...the stats are perfectly fine like they are

sampras and nadal types can only dream of having any consistency, since
they picked and chose their spots to compete at the highest level during
the year...fed always competed at the highest level...way out of their
league...

[Iceberg]

LOLOLOL trust Jaros to come back from years sitting in a cave to try
to bash and detract Sampras. This is classic we should take away
Sampras' 98 so Fed can have 5 consecutive years, LOLOLOL!

[Shakes]

On Jul 16, 3:24 pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16.7.2012. 20:18, ahonkan wrote:
>
> > The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison
> > of Fed v Sampras career achievements.

> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-...

>
> > There's really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
> > take away Sampras' thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
> > (with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
> > tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
> > and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
> > and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).
> > Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1&  Fed wins with
> > total 6 YE #1 (so far).
>
> sampras isnt even in federers league...what are we talking about?
>
> this was always on feds racquet...every single match
>
> good for him that he could actually find time to put more effort to show
> these pretenders how its done

Fed is the overall king, no doubts, but one doesn't have to
exaggerate. Sampras is surely within Fed's league. I mean, only this
yr, he (Fed) was able to equal/surpass some of Sampras'
accomplishments.

[Superdave]

i love this comparison. it really shows just how far ahead of sampras roger is
across the board. it's not even close ! took sampras starting earlier and playing
longer to do less than Fed.

[bob]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

at Wim/USO, 7=7 and 5=5, at YE#1 sampras #1. fed's 2 AOs, 1 FO and
utter dominance of roddick/hewitt/lubo is the #s difference.

the pt i find funny is that before fed hit 14, everybody wanted to
analyze the games, not the #s. now only the #s. mikko this morning
said he had sampras #2 til he hit 14 cause he hates pete and loves
borg - that's what we're dealing with from a so called numbers guy, at
least he was honest.

plus nobody cares about H2H unless it's 2001 wimbledon where a 21 yr
old kid struggled in last 2 sets VS an old out of shape shell of
sampras 6-7, 7-5 in final 2 sets - a time in the match when fed's
fitness and youth advantage was at it's absolute highest. fed
should've taken the last 2 sets handily, i can understand the 1st 3
being close.

bob

[Superdave]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

sure but look at that chart. overall Fed dominates almost everything
and by a BIG margin in categories most don't even realize. Like Fed is
far and away the King of Hard Courts compared to Pete. That is a lil
bit of a surprize.

took fed 24 Slam Tourn. in 7 years to win his 14th whereas it to Sampras
45 Slam Tourn. in 13 years to win his 14th. In whisperworld that means
sampras is barely half as good as roger !!!

[Court_1]

On Jul 16, 9:06 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com>

Look you can try and find a million different excuses to try and bring
down Federer's numbers and try and diminish the fact that Federer >
Sampras but all that is just bitter sour grapes from you and does not
matter. The fact is if it was not evident before that Federer had
surpassed Sampras when Federer won his15th slam, it is clearly evident
now that Federer has surpassed Sampras and is greater. There is no
doubt at this point in time, just look at the numbers, it is all there
in black and white or whatever color you may want to use. Federer >
Sampras, just let it sink in nice and slowly! ;)

[TennisGuy]

bob will have to think about it and get back to you Courty. :)

[ahonkan]

On Jul 17, 6:06 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com>

You have to make up your mind sometime.
Was Fed 19 or 21 when he beat 29-yr old
Sampras at W in 2001? Or did he suddenly
age 2 yrs during the match but didn't age
for the next 2 yrs - because he was still 21
when he won W in 2003! And if Fed's "fitness
and youth advantage was at its absolute
highest" in 2001, do the ravages of time not
apply to Fed but apply to everyone else?
You keep claiming that Fed is still at peak
11 years later and don't allow him the same
handicap against much younger guys in
their prime like Rafa/Djoker/Murray that you
give to Sampras though Fed was just a teen
and not in his prime at all.
You are fooling nobody. Baby Fed beat a
4-yr defending champ who had won W 7 times
in 8 yrs. If Sampras was over the hill, at least
admit that his 2002 USO was a fluke.

[ahonkan]

On Jul 17, 12:50 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Excuse me, undeserved YE #1 in 1998 ? And you want to award Fed the YE
> #1 for 2003 ? Why can't you take the stats as they are ?

Sampras didn't normally play so much after USO. He did
it solely to hang on to YE #1. YE #1 is a merely a
coincidence of time - # of weeks at #1 is the real indicator
of who is #1. I would say that YE #1 is the least
significant record among all tennis records.

[MBDunc]

On Jul 17, 4:06 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com>

Well that was 10y ago. Pete's USO 02 did not make me like him but made
me eventually more objective. And around that time, I just did not
have the the knowledge I've gathered afterwards (read: *numbers* if
you like ;) . ).

(and I do not particularly love Borg, he is fine but not among my
favourites).

.mikko

[Manuel aka Xax]

Le lundi 16 juillet 2012 23:28:13 UTC+2, stephenj a écrit :
> On 7/16/2012 2:50 PM, Shakes wrote:

> &gt; On Jul 16, 11:18 am, ahonkan &lt;ahon...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;&gt; The ATP website has produced a thorough comparison
> &gt;&gt; of Fed v Sampras career achievements.http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Federer-No1/Federer-vs-...
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; There&#39;s really no comparison, esp if we try to be fair,
> &gt;&gt; take away Sampras&#39; thoroughly undeserved YE #1 for 1998
> &gt;&gt; (with just 4 titles, earned only by playing 6 Mickey Mouse
> &gt;&gt; tournaments in 6 weeks after USO to collect enough points)
> &gt;&gt; and award Fed his rightful #1 for 2003 (won 7 tournaments
> &gt;&gt; and had a better record than the statistical #1 Roddick).
> &gt;&gt; Then both will have 5 consecutive YE #1 &amp; Fed wins with
> &gt;&gt; total 6 YE #1 (so far).
> &gt;
> &gt; Excuse me, undeserved YE #1 in 1998 ? And you want to award Fed the YE
> &gt; #1 for 2003 ? Why can&#39;t you take the stats as they are ?

>
> Fed did have a better year in 2003 than Sampras did in 1998. For what

> that&#39;s worth.

Sure, but that only means that Roddick had a better 2002, if -despite a good year- Federer wasn't able to catch him.
Sorry, you can't consider 2003 outcome as irrelevant.

I tend to agree more on Pete's 2008... yet, again, if he was able to have his shot at #1 it's because nobody was able to prevent him from doing so(based on 1997 results+1998), unlike Andy was able to deny Fed.

If you agree on ATP ranking rules, you take them as they are.

[stephenj]

On 7/17/2012 4:39 AM, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
> Le lundi 16 juillet 2012 23:28:13 UTC+2, stephenj a �crit :

Point is, if ATP ranking rules allow a player in 1998 to be ranked #1
while a player in 2003 who had a better year was ranked #2, then it's
silly to take those rules seriously.

[drew]

On Jul 17, 1:24 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>     You have to make up your mind sometime.
>     Was Fed 19 or 21 when he beat 29-yr old
>     Sampras at W in 2001?

It depends upon how you want to frame the argument. To be fair it
could
be argued that Federer was 17. Why not? If we're going to go plus or
minus
two years....

Or did he suddenly
>     age 2 yrs during the match but didn't age
>     for the next 2 yrs - because he was still 21
>     when he won W in 2003! And if Fed's "fitness
>     and youth advantage was at its absolute
>     highest" in 2001, do the ravages of time not
>     apply to Fed but apply to everyone else?

The ravages of time don't affect Federer. He's the youngest 30 year
old in the history of the game according to bob. I'm not sure how he
time
travelled Federer. Maybe he feels the water from the Swiss Alps has
preserved
Federer's youth....another unfair advantage.

>     You are fooling nobody. Baby Fed beat a
>     4-yr defending champ who had won W 7 times
>     in 8 yrs. If Sampras was over the hill, at least
>     admit that his 2002 USO was a fluke

Depends on whether you want to present the possibility that Sampras
could
have won many more majors but couldn't be arsed....in this case he's
only old
and out of shape when he loses....but perfectly capable of becoming
young again
and winning more majors in his 30s if he'd only realized that somebody
might challenge
his 14 majors record.

So he's both defending champion and washed up, jaded, mentally and
physically burned out,
couldn't be arsed, didn't take Federer seriously 29 year old going on
39.

And he was either 31 or 33 when he won his last USO....

When you read this stuff it isn't hard to understand how Jesus
performed his miracles....he had
Whisper and bob's ancestors working the transcripts.

[Patrick Kehoe]

:))))))))

W only deals in 'facts' remember Drew?

:)))

Goodness...

P

[bob]

i'm not disagreeing, only pointing out how when i am accused of
shifting arguments, so many others have done a complete about face in
their own arguments the minute fed had the #s.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:22:17 -0700 (PDT), drew <dr...@technologist.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 17, 1:24�am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> � � You have to make up your mind sometime.
>> � � Was Fed 19 or 21 when he beat 29-yr old
>> � � Sampras at W in 2001?
>
>It depends upon how you want to frame the argument. To be fair it
>could
>be argued that Federer was 17. Why not? If we're going to go plus or
>minus
>two years....
>
>
>
>Or did he suddenly
>> � � age 2 yrs during the match but didn't age
>> � � for the next 2 yrs - because he was still 21
>> � � when he won W in 2003! And if Fed's "fitness
>> � � and youth advantage was at its absolute
>> � � highest" in 2001, do the ravages of time not
>> � � apply to Fed but apply to everyone else?
>
>The ravages of time don't affect Federer. He's the youngest 30 year
>old in the history of the game according to bob.

according to EVERYBODY. is he not according to you?

> I'm not sure how he time travelled Federer. Maybe he feels the water from the Swiss Alps has
>preserved Federer's youth....another unfair advantage.
>
>
>> � � You are fooling nobody. Baby Fed beat a
>> � � 4-yr defending champ who had won W 7 times
>> � � in 8 yrs. If Sampras was over the hill, at least
>> � � admit that his 2002 USO was a fluke
>
>Depends on whether you want to present the possibility that Sampras
>could have won many more majors but couldn't be arsed....in this case he's
>only old and out of shape when he loses....but perfectly capable of becoming
>young again and winning more majors in his 30s if he'd only realized that somebody
>might challenge his 14 majors record.
>So he's both defending champion and washed up, jaded, mentally and
>physically burned out, couldn't be arsed, didn't take Federer seriously 29 year old going on
>39. And he was either 31 or 33 when he won his last USO....
>When you read this stuff it isn't hard to understand how Jesus
>performed his miracles....he had
>Whisper and bob's ancestors working the transcripts.

the concept is simple, and if you're not biased you'll agree. sampras
wasn't nearly as "young" a 30 as fed is. fed is fitter. fed has never
been injured. fed has managed to stay more motivated. fed at 30 has
experienced less of a droppoff from his peak than sampras did after
wim 2000, this is pretty much a given. not an excuse, but pretty
clear. now if you can draw anything relevant from the match in 2001
i'm all ears.

bob

[bob]

a little like fed's 2012 Wim. in more ways than 1.

>And around that time, I just did not have the the knowledge I've gathered afterwards (read: *numbers* if
>you like ;) .

haha

>(and I do not particularly love Borg, he is fine but not among my
>favourites).

lol. taking a page out of my book eh.

bob

[stephenj]

> On 7/16/2012 8:06 PM, bob wrote:

> plus nobody cares about H2H unless it's 2001 wimbledon where a 21 yr
> old kid struggled in last 2 sets VS an old out of shape shell of
> sampras 6-7, 7-5 in final 2 sets - a time in the match when fed's
> fitness and youth advantage was at it's absolute highest. >

Remember, Sampras was clearly closer to his peak in that match than
Federer was to his. That is undeniable.

[stephenj]

> On 7/17/2012 7:36 PM, bob wrote:

> the concept is simple, and if you're not biased you'll agree. sampras
> wasn't nearly as "young" a 30 as fed is. fed is fitter. fed has never
> been injured. fed has managed to stay more motivated. fed at 30 has
> experienced less of a droppoff from his peak than sampras did after
> wim 2000, this is pretty much a given.

Federer and Sampras both suffered a big drop-off in their slam results
after 1997/2007. The parallel is eerie. And it is a common one for top
champions.

[ahonkan]

On Jul 18, 6:52 am, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:

>
> Federer and Sampras both suffered a big drop-off in their slam results
> after 1997/2007. The parallel is eerie. And it is a common one for top
> champions.

I hope the parallel doesn't continue only till 2002/2012
when both ageing greats had a last hurrah - Fed's W
after 2.5 yrs & Pete's USO after 2.25 yrs! I would like
the peak-since-the-day-he-was-born Fed (acco to bob)
to win a few more (1 W & 1 USO would then make
"consecutive YE#1" the only criterion for GOAThood :-))!

[bob]

in time - not level.

bob

[stephenj]

Are you kidding? Sampras would make USO final just two months later
playing brilliant tennis beating Rafter, Agassi, and Safin. Federer got
trounced by Henman very next round and wouldn't make a slam final for
two more years.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Jul 18, 3:26 pm, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/2012 11:02 AM, bob wrote:
>

> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:50:02 -0500, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 7/16/2012 8:06 PM, bob wrote:
>
> >>> plus nobody cares about H2H unless it's 2001 wimbledon where a 21 yr
> >>> old kid struggled in last 2 sets VS an old out of shape shell of
> >>> sampras 6-7, 7-5 in final 2 sets - a time in the match when fed's
> >>> fitness and youth advantage was at it's absolute highest. >
>
> >> Remember, Sampras was clearly closer to his peak in that match than
> >> Federer was to his. That is undeniable.
>
> > in time - not level.
>
> Are you kidding? Sampras would make USO final just two months later
> playing brilliant tennis beating Rafter, Agassi, and Safin. Federer got
> trounced by Henman very next round and  wouldn't make a slam final for
> two more years.

Not only had Federer not launched as of Wimbledon 2001, he wouldn't
even come *close* to launching until Wim 2003. If he wasn't stalling
in the fourth rounds of slams, he was getting upset in the first
rounds. Sampras, in contrast, though very spotty in small events, was
still generally looking quite good in the slams (except FO). But bob
already knows all this -- it's been pounded into him for years now.
Just being stubborn, I guess. :)

[bob]

this is a bad argument because what can we gain by comparing a say 70%
sampras VS a 60% fed or a 60% sampras VS a 70 % fed? we neither know
these exact numbers (but know they're reasonable) nor know which guy
has the 60 and which has the 70.

6-7, 7-5 in last 2 sets (other 3 sets close too) VS two way out of
peak guys. tells us nothing of who would win at peak.

i'm surprised you don't like to bring up connors/borg's seniors
events! :-)

bob

[bob]

i know sampras' form and his overall results and most of all his
effort level for 26 months. the argument either way is lame, and
whether you know it or not, i know it. if there is anything that
surprises me, i'm surprised i keep getting baited into it!

bob

[guyana]

50% Fed > 90% Sampras obviously!

[Joe Ramirez]

You don't get "baited" into it -- you bring it up yourself. YOU are
the person who introduced the Fed-Sampras head-to-head topic into this
thread.

[Patrick Kehoe]

> thread.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes... good point...

What is always NOT mentioned is that Fed played Sampras tennis... Feds
used serve and volley style on both first and second serves throughout
and still won against the greatest s/v player of all time... that was
a statement in and of itself... incredible for a 19 year old...

P

[stephenj]

On 7/18/2012 7:43 PM, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:26:16 -0500, stephenj <sja...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/2012 11:02 AM, bob wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:50:02 -0500, stephenj <sja...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 7/16/2012 8:06 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> plus nobody cares about H2H unless it's 2001 wimbledon where a 21 yr
>>>>> old kid struggled in last 2 sets VS an old out of shape shell of
>>>>> sampras 6-7, 7-5 in final 2 sets - a time in the match when fed's
>>>>> fitness and youth advantage was at it's absolute highest. >
>>>>
>>>> Remember, Sampras was clearly closer to his peak in that match than
>>>> Federer was to his. That is undeniable.
>>>
>>> in time - not level.
>>
>> Are you kidding? Sampras would make USO final just two months later
>> playing brilliant tennis beating Rafter, Agassi, and Safin. Federer got
>> trounced by Henman very next round and wouldn't make a slam final for
>> two more years.
>
> this is a bad argument because what can we gain by comparing a say 70%
> sampras VS a 60% fed or a 60% sampras VS a 70 % fed? we neither know
> these exact numbers (but know they're reasonable) nor know which guy
> has the 60 and which has the 70.

Let's not play dumb here: We DO know that Sampras was closer to his
level-peak than Fed was to his. There is simply no denying it, as their
results from that time period prove it.

[Whisper]

No, Fed was closer to his peak as he actually won a tournament more
recently than Sampras.

[MBDunc]

On 19 heinä, 15:34, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 19/07/2012 9:56 PM, stephenj wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/18/2012 7:43 PM, bob wrote:

> >> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:26:16 -0500, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 7/18/2012 11:02 AM, bob wrote:

> >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:50:02 -0500, stephenj <sjar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 7/16/2012 8:06 PM, bob wrote:
>
> >>>>>> plus nobody cares about H2H unless it's 2001 wimbledon where a 21 yr
> >>>>>> old kid struggled in last 2 sets VS an old out of shape shell of
> >>>>>> sampras 6-7, 7-5 in final 2 sets - a time in the match when fed's
> >>>>>> fitness and youth advantage was at it's absolute highest. >
>
> >>>>> Remember, Sampras was clearly closer to his peak in that match than
> >>>>> Federer was to his. That is undeniable.
>
> >>>> in time - not level.
>
> >>> Are you kidding? Sampras would make USO final just two months later
> >>> playing brilliant tennis beating Rafter, Agassi, and Safin. Federer got
> >>> trounced by Henman very next round and  wouldn't make a slam final for
> >>> two more years.
>
> >> this is a bad argument because what can we gain by comparing a say 70%
> >> sampras VS a 60% fed or a 60% sampras VS a 70 % fed? we neither know
> >> these exact numbers (but know they're reasonable) nor know which guy
> >> has the 60 and which has the 70.
>
> > Let's not play dumb here: We DO know that Sampras was closer to his
> > level-peak than Fed was to his. There is simply no denying it, as their
> > results from that time period prove it.
>
> No, Fed was closer to his peak as he actually won a tournament more
> recently than Sampras.

So being at peak is about the recent (tuneup) tournament win - i.e
only last match can determine the peak? Explain then how Bruguera then
maintained his absolute peak without any tournament titles after 1994?

Btw: Sampras was seeded #1 at Wimb 2001 and Fed entered first time in
top10 May 2002.

.mikko

[undecided]

You are so mistaken. Post-1999 Sampras was not peak anymore. After he sustained that back injury and pulled out of the USO Sampras lost a significant amount of athleticism from his game. Watch pre-injury vs post-injury matches and you'll see. He was never the same. I think the only reason he won 2002 USO is because he basically put everything on the line and served out of his mind in that tournament. The fact is that when Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon, Sampras was on a rapid decline and Fed was ascending. I think Fed was #13 in the world and climbing fast and Sampras was #6 or #7 in the world and dropping. I am not ashamed to admit Sampras is my 2nd favourite player of all time and I think he had won 1999 USO had he not been injured and he would have probably done much more than he did post-1999.

[stephenj]

Tuneup results are meaningless.

[tuan]

On Jul 20, 6:32 am, undecided <cost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are so mistaken. Post-1999 Sampras was not peak anymore. After he sustained that back injury and pulled out of the USO Sampras lost a significant amount of athleticism from his game. Watch pre-injury vs post-injury matches and you'll see. He was never the same. I think the only reason he won 2002 USO is because he basically put everything on the line and served out of his mind in that tournament. The fact is that when Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon, Sampras was on a rapid decline and Fed was ascending. I think Fed was #13 in the world and climbing fast and Sampras was #6 or #7 in the world and dropping. I am not ashamed to admit Sampras is my 2nd favourite player of all time and I think he had won 1999 USO had he not been injured and he would have probably done much more than he did post-1999.

The best estimate of a player's abilities at mid-year (Wimbledon) is
his ranking at the end of the year, because it is based on his
averaged performance 6 months before and 6 months after the event.
Sampras's 2001 YE was #10 and Federer's #13.

[bob]

are you sure? :-)

bob

[bob]

how you can say you know sampras was closer to his peak *level* is
beyond me. somehow you know pete had the 70 and fed the 60. and
somehow i believe sampras had the 60 and fed the 70. either way, it's
nonsense.

bob

[Superdave]

jaros, like whisper, even knew when Pete had to poop.