OK, Rafapologists, what's the excuse this time?

[Fiero425]

Fiero, did you like Pete?

To feel a part of history, I was ready to anoint Sampras "The GOAT" above Rod Laver, but for years I didn't because of Pete's obvious limitations on clay with only a couple titles on dirt! To this day, I still feel a little queasy elevating Federer over The Rocket since we all know he was prevented from playing majors in his prime just before the Open era! I think and look at Rod and demote him a bit because he had a rival like a Rafa that beat him like a rented mule; Lew Hoad! At one time I heard Lew won their first 7 or 8 matches! That's embarrassing while most people think Rocket was The GOAT at one time! Pete took over in most minds until Roger came along and blew up all the record books! We'll keep looking back at the win-loss record vs Rafa, even if somehow the tour can elevate it's collective competitiveness and stop him! I doubt it though feeling most are still gutless wonders even though more fit and athletic than pros of the past! I still remember a handful of top ten players with beer guts, quite old and "past it," but had great minds and could win matches with their court savvy and superior concentration!

 

[Kieran]

Ah ok, so because of the gutless wonders, you obviously bring Roger down a peg or two.

Bear in mind this, with regards to laver: sure, he missed slams, but he won six slams when better players than him were barred, so that may have evened it out.

But you didn't answer the question: did you like Pete?

 

[Fiero425]

Ah ok, so because of the gutless wonders, you obviously bring Roger down a peg or two.

Bear in mind this, with regards to Laver: sure, he missed Slams, but he won six of them when better players than him were barred, so that may have evened it out.

But you didn't answer the question: "did you like Pete?"

Obviously I did! I actually played a lot like him; esp. at the end of my time playing! I had a huge serve going back to when I was 16 having long arms and legs! Anything a few inches above the net was toast! I chipped and charged to quite a few local and club titles in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles! More a double's specialist and rarely if ever lost my serve; esp. with a double's partner to knock off forced, floating returns! That's what Sampras is best known for; esp. that 2nd serve! My 2nd serve was better than most people's 1st; just a fact at the time! Like Sampras, I think I beat some "better" players that couldn't get an edge by breaking my serve and I was constantly attacking theirs!

 

[Kieran]

I liked Pete too. Loved the way he looked dead on his feet until about 4-4, then, blam! Unleashed from everywhere and broke serve, held with ease. He was the maestro. Carried himself well, too, and mentally as tough as Rafa, I reckon. It would be my fantasy tennis match, Rafa v Pete....

 

[Fiero425]

Ah ok, so because of the gutless wonders, you obviously bring Roger down a peg or two.

Bear in mind this, with regards to laver: sure, he missed slams, but he won six slams when better players than him were barred, so that may have evened it out.

But you didn't answer the question: did you like Pete?

If and when you have players who could be 2 points from winning time and time again, but still choke away matches to Roger and Rafa; yep, I do bring him back to the pack regardless of the record! So called "great comebacks" are the norm now when the most average of player could serve out a match in past eras! :nono :angel:

 

[shawnbm]

Sampras--the greatest second serve I have ever seen and likely the "most money" first as well (Roger in his prime was money with his too). Pete was raw tennis ferocity at his best.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Pete was awesome. He was the guy. I remember being so upset when that pony tailed Swiss punk beat on my boy at Wimbledon 2001...little did I know of course that punk was going to be my all time favorite player.

Lehyani was the chair ump. He has come a long way too.

 

[Ricardo]

I liked Pete too. Loved the way he looked dead on his feet until about 4-4, then, blam! Unleashed from everywhere and broke serve, held with ease. He was the maestro. Carried himself well, too, and mentally as tough as Rafa, I reckon. It would be my fantasy tennis match, Rafa v Pete....

mentally as tough as Rafa? delusional...... I loved watching Sampras play but i lost count how many times he lost spirit when he got outplayed on clay, even on hard when big guys were able to put it together and overpower him, he did not put up an almighty fight..... sort of went away really. But sure, he was clutch in a tight match.

in comparison, we all know how often Rafa was able to come on top even when he got outplayed, big difference!

 

[Kieran]

Pete was awesome. He was the guy. I remember being so upset when that pony tailed Swiss punk beat on my boy at Wimbledon 2001...little did I know of course that punk was going to be my all time favorite player.

Lehyani was the chair ump. He has come a long way too.

I was on holidays during that Wimbo - bad things always happen when I'm away. I try time breaks to not coincide with big tennis tourneys, it's one of my superstitions that work: I've won for my players a lot of majors over the years by not going on holidays. :snigger

That year, I was in Lithuania and I rang my mudder to find out the scores, she follows tennis, detests Ralph, loves Wodger, serious taste lapse that having me was unable to fix. Anyway, she told me Pete had lost to Ferrero. At least, she thought it was Ferrero. I agreed, it must have been Ferrero, but it was a gigantic upset, because the Mosquito gets a dose of the sniffles on grass. But I told the missus, watch that Ferrero! He's gonna be great! He'll be a mighty Mosquito! uzzled

 

[El Dude]

Pro Slams should be considered in total Slam count as most of the very best players were barred from the Grand Slams during the 60s and playing the pro circuit. With that in mind, Pancho Gonzales--who may be the most under-appreciated historical great, at least in recent years--needs to be in the conversation (17 total), just below Laver (19) and of course Ken Rosewall (23).

 

[britbox]

Pro Slams shouldn't be counted as equivalent because the fields were tiny - as low as 12 in some cases. They should have some weight but definitely not on a 1:1 with the current format.

Also, Laver wouldn't be on 19 if you are counting pro slams because his amateur slams pre-69 were won when their were pro slams going on, otherwise you'd be counting 7-8 slams a year prior to the open era. Basically you're counting both pro and amateur slams prior to the open era - both being in diluted fields.

 

[Ricardo]

Pro Slams shouldn't be counted as equivalent because the fields were tiny - as low as 12 in some cases. They should have some weight but definitely not on a 1:1 with the current format.

Also, Laver wouldn't be on 19 if you are counting pro slams because his amateur slams pre-69 were won when their were pro slams going on, otherwise you'd be counting 7-8 slams a year prior to the open era. Basically you're counting both pro and amateur slams prior to the open era - both being in diluted fields.

exactly, equalling a pro slam to a current one is just wrong; it's not like players can't lose in the first few rounds, top players today don't get a free pass to the finals.... they get drawn to dangerous floaters or other top players coming back from injury and i see many upsets.