<cite>
@Federberg said:</cite>
Personally for me weeks at number 1 is extremely important. It speaks to dominance. As for having the full set, if that's so important then should Rafa having such a concentration at one slam be a disadvantage? Doesn't wash for me. I would actually place Sampras over Rafa because he was clearly the alpha dog in his day. I'm surprised how that can be marginalised so much these days..
Well, Sampras has 14 slams, half of which came at Wimbledon. I'd call that concentration mate. Now, yes, Nadal has even bigger concentration but he's actually won all of them, whereas five of Sampras' other slams came at Flushing Meadows. And having the full set is not something to brag about to your friends, it actually speaks to your ability to play on all surfaces...something Sampras couldn't.
I've no problem with people ranking Sampras ahead of Nadal on the basis of dominance. But using Nadal's FO wins against him in this particular conversation (Nadal vs. Sampras) has to be some of the most absurd logic I've encountered as you're somehow punishing the guy who was otherworldly on clay over the guy who couldn't even fluke out more than a single French Open semi final appearance. Come on. How does that work?
And yeah, we can speak about surface homogenizations all you want, but that hardly excuses just how bad Sampras was on clay by his standards (I'm talking strictly within all time great standards here. So him winning Rome once means nothing).
As far as dominance and weeks at number 1, we go with facts and the fact is Sampras was the alpha dog. So again, I can't hold it against anyone if that's what they're basing their argument on. However, the truth is he didn't have to deal with anyone nearly as good or as consistent as Federer and Djokovic, and those are facts. I actually rank Nadal over Sampras pretty easily because he's more consistent on a week to week basis, and played in one of the most top heavy eras in tennis. So to reach so many finals, week in and week out, against the likes of Federer and Djokovic, and be able to be a dominant world number 1 on three separate occasions, while spending like a million weeks as world number 2 (honestly, imagine how long he would have been at world number 1 had it not been for Federer. Or do we only play the "had it not been for Federer" card to inflate Roger's competition?).
----------------------------------
Now, all that aside, the actual GOAT is not even a debate. Federer takes it hands down and I legitimately don't see an argument for anyone else. Perhaps that's why we're arguing about who should be number 2 or 3, lol.
