@@matisms His forehand is not near the heaviest or fastest forehand, it also is not the most consistent or the best in defense (even if he was to use a modern racquet and strings). It was good for its time but it's below average for modern standards, it would be wild for a player whose game is not centered around the baseline to have the best baseline shots. It's like me trying to say that modern players like Djokovic have better volley's than Pete, there is just no logic in it.
basically dominated between 93 and 99, "only" 7 years prime of Pete who smashed all the rest on faster courts. The USO 00(vs Safin) and 01(vs Hewitt) clearly could have been his if only he had slightly more gas left in the tank and a day off inbetween semifinal and final like it is now.(since 2002 i believe) And maybe 2-3 years more of play until age 33-34 might have added another 1-2 slams, so his career was way shorter than the ones of the big 3 and other players of the new eras.
nothing advanced. he just did not use wrist. IF you see Sampras vs Hewitt or Safin, your notice, that his forehand did not work well against this players, even during winning matches.
Amazing video! Something to remember; Sampras grew up playing with the Wilson Jack Kramer, which is a wooden racquet, which had a lot to do with his technique and the way he hits the ball/follows through. A wooden racquet makes you go through the ball straight, rather than brush because the material and head size will simply not allow it. If you wanted to hit a high ball, you would have to get under it with your legs and still go through it straight BUT at an angle (the angle depends on how far you are from the net and how deep/high you want to hit it). His ProStaff 85 had a lot of weight added, plus very tight strings in order to mimic the Jack Kramer frame.
That's interesting. I thought the high string tension was to essentially make the strings "dead" so that he could hit hard but still maintain control (since he wasn't using luxilon or other poly strings that would allow you to whack the ball as hard as you wanted but still get control and safety from the spin that you could impart). At least that's what I remember his stringer, Nate Ferguson, write once.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 That's correct. Another fun fact of the Wilson ProStaff 85 is that it will play best with natural or synthetic gut, simply because of the technology used on the frame.
Thanks for covering this! The more you do these different players' (from different eras) forehand analyses the more it becomes clear that what disagreements I've had with your concepts in the past have mostly been a semantic issue. Keep up the good work.
For me, The greatest forehand ever, because you can perform it even on a wooden racket! Modern forehands today can’t be perform using an outdated phased out wooden rackets!👌
Being able to play well with a wooden racquet is no way a legitimate criteria for having a good forehand. And modern players would probably still hit better forehands with a wooden racquet.
@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten There's a video of Monfils and Wawrinka you can find it online, they don't seem to hit too well with them. It's just what you train on, if you hit thousands of balls a day on certain equipment, you will need re-training, and that re-training wouldn't make modern players any money so no point.
Very nice video! Sampras had such a beautiful and efficient techique! Would you be able to also demonstrate his serve? I am trying to copy it myself but don't really get near to what he was doing....
Even Agassi called it an “obnoxious forehand”! 😁 Pete bludgeoned so many players with it. It’s also unusual in being a bent elbow whilst most Eastern grip players will have it straight.
It’s not like the modern players at all , which is why it’s much flatter and direct , if you want to compare in its entirety , it’s closest to Lendls forehand . They are more classic forehands not modern forehands so not sure where you’re getting that modern forehand idea from . If your going to just look at micro movements that everybody does then ok but in no shape or form is the Sampras forehand comparable to what’s happening today , nothing about his game is , it’s the total opposite I would say , a full court ballistic high octane game with cat like movement , athleticism and classic flowing forehand with rock solid volleys . Sampras was a very very rare gem Another thing I’m going to correct you on . Not all his shots were flat , his backhand was actually quite loopy and high clearing as it was his set up shot for the flatter forehand . If you watch enough of his matches , you’ll see that he stands to the left side of the T by quiet a bit and plays his backhand high from there , enticing the opponent to go down the line where he would go into his amazing running forehand .
you have an unnecessary tendency to express yourself in hyperboles: "no shape or form comparable to..,.", "the total opposite", "a very very rare gem". Besides (arguably) his forehand; standing on the left side of the court was something he adopted from Lendl's game. He came after the generation of Lendl Becker and Edberg so he learned from them; that's the way it goes but his game wasn't that original really. He was good at it though and with 14 grandslams very successful (!). But 14 grand slams has been bettered obviously.. and not by 1 either. So much for the rare gem.. let alone "very very rare gem".
He was a rare gem , can you name another player in modern tennis history that dominated an era , serve and following and with cat like movement , huge forehand , with such a complete game ? Name one , I’ll wait .
@@stealthcat100 You're clearly a fan - also judging your yt channel content - and it's understandable, he had traits in his game that made tennis appealing. If you look at his accomplishments from a statistical point of view, "dominance" becomes less of an appropriate definition. There was an interesting forum years ago discussing this very issue and I'd like to quote a comment in particular that offers a different way of looking at things than just the fanboy type comments that always boil down to subjective reverence. "I think people are too impressed by the 14-4 record in finals. Yes it's a great record but the key number is that he played in 52 majors and won 14. Remember he often lost before he got to the final but once he was there he was tough. Winning 77.2% of your matches in your career isn't dominating and winning only 64 tournaments in your career isn't super. I think Sampras was fabulous and on a fast court when he was at his best he was unbelievable but dominating is not the word I use for him. In his BEST year he won 77 matches and lost 12 in winning 10 tournaments. He never won ten tournaments again and never won 90% of his matches in one year. Compare that year to some of Djokovic's or Nadal's or Federer's years. Djokovic has already won 59 tournaments in his career and is at about the 90% range for since 2011. Djokovic is at 89.83% for the last FIVE years which is fantastic. Sampras hasn't been that high for just one year."
@@Thijs-Kuiken If you just go by statistics on don’t take into account the way someone dominates during their reign then no one would care about Michael Jordan’s , Ayrton Sennas , , Mike Tyson’s of the world , they have become iconic and in time will become mythical . Even Federer for that matter since two players during his era have more grand slams than him , but I’m sure Federers flame will burn for a long time . In 50 years from now , no one will remember much of Djokovic , he can win another 12 grand slams , because he will never capture the imagination of people because of the way he wins , so statistics as time goes on don’t hold the weight that you think. Djokovic will be a Bill Russel’s type , all the rings , all the grand slams , but will mostly be remembered for just that . When you watch highlights of how Sampras played during his 6 year dominance , it makes Djokovic look very bland . But to those who did not experience both eras tend to lean to the stats side of things . It’s an easy default argument , but as time goes on it doesn’t hold that much weight and for good reason .
@@stealthcat100 "they will become mythical".. only in the eyes of those who - much like you - chip in when it comes to mythologizing their efforts; not in the eyes of those who look at things with a more down to earth view on accomplishments mixed with the ability to think critically. Nothing wrong with idolizing though and, again, it's clear that this is what you're doing in your texts about Sampras. You shift away from facts to "the way someone dominates" and that is of course a slippery slope in a discussion of how a dictionary meaning of "dominance" applies to Sampras. By doing so, you unintentionally point out the difference in what is to be observed from facts and figures and could give credence to a lable like "dominance".. and what is just a subjective view related to your personal preference wrapped in an opinion. I have nothing against Sampras, quite the contrary.. he was great (!) and for sure will be remembered as one of the all time greats; you on the other hand bring up Djokovic and can't resist being derogatory about his accolades with which he is simply placed higher up the ranks of prestige and accomplishments, records etc... than (e.g.) Sampras is; thinking otherwise reflects poorly on your ability to see things from a different point of view.. so what the reader of your arguments is left with, is that you really really really like Sampras' way of playing. Btw, the comparison with Jordan falls short on statistics alone.. but Jordan's worth exceeded his basketball game; he was an ambassador of the sport in a way that Sampras, with his closed off personality and rather boring public persona, was never able to be for tennis.
Pete is highly unusual in that he often kept his hitting (right) shoulder behind his off (left) shoulder at contact. Almost every high level forehand had the hitting shoulder ahead of the off shoulder, or at worse, even with the off shoulder. Unorthodox, but clearly one of the best forehands ever!
Nothing unusual nor unorthodox. Pete's forehand was orthodoxy for an eastern grip forehand in his era. The more closed shoulder position is a result of his bent hitting arm (double bent position) and traditional swing path (more forward and up, less around the body) which require the contact point to be closer to his body and less out in front.
the first thing Pete does is pull the elbow back and high . everything starts from there. It's a copy of Lendl's forehand . that's where the energy is stored and then released .
On the first frame looks like he is in a semi open stance and going forward whit his feet, kind of walking, would you do a video on the correct tecynically of the semi open stance?, I struggle to find it..
Tennis Doctor?Well then go to doctor..Pete Sampras and many other players doesn't use windshield moves..Thats what some "Coaches "Teach because they think they teach Topspin. Unfortunately like I saw yesterday they have know clue what they are doing because they dont know what to do..Sometimes I asking myself why this people are Caoces and not anything else
I think a so called student should really try to form their own style before instruction, just whack at the ball and have fun for a while, then when they find their own way of doing it adjust from there.
Can''t really look at the technique in isolation without accounting for the racquet & string specs, and just conclude "bad technique! It didn't work against newer players!" I'm pretty sure Hewitt & Safin were using poly or natural gut/poly or polymono combos, and Hewitt's forehand technique, in isolation, was not powerful or anything I'd emulate with ANY racquet. He needed a huge swing where the racquet folds behind his back, almost WTA style, to produce power that still didn't come close to Pete's. Pete's technique, on the other hand, made the most of what you could with a racquet that was thin beam and 85 sq inches, 14 oz weight, from the 80s and strung with natural gut at 70 lbs; you are handicapped when you're playing with that setup in 2000, it's like a joke. In isolation and with the racquet setup in mind, there's nothing wrong with the technique here. It also works if you want to hit deep, penetrating flat shots, same with Delpo.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 yes. Sampras technigue was not suited for modern tennis and strings. DelPO played with much more spin(2500-2700 rpm) than Safin and Hewitt,who played with 2200-2400 rpm and used much more wrist.Sampras did not use wrist. But i thing , he made misstacke and did not changed his racket.With modern coaches he would learn new technique in 2 or 3 weaks. it was not difficult even for me.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 So, The Tennis Doctor believes Sampras' forehand is not much different from today, and here you are, saying his game was not suited to modern racquets or strings, as if he was playing in 1937. Some of you UA-cam guys live in your own wacky world and you try hard to bring others into it.
@@BurnsTennis You can see how i play. Sampras did not drop racket head and did not use wrist. If Tennis Doctor believes , that he had modern technigue, he had no idea about tennis.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Of course not, you guys are the real masters of tennis knowledge on UA-cam. How about this. Start your own channel and impart your knowledge officially. Then we can see and judge how much you really know.
No offense but you sound like someone who's watched two Sampras highlights on youtube and couldn't wait to share your opinion. He was an all-courter the first half of his career and volleyed behind a 1st serve only. Very competent from behind the baseline considering he could hold his own against the likes of Agassi on slower hard courts and held wins on clay vs Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov etc.
He hits with the elbow and arm too much folded and near the body. This would be considered a mistake today but in reality proves that there is no one technique that fits all.
@@Poltergest1978 Well, to be fair, Medvedev has the most awkward type of styles but he's consistently top 10 for years. What Sampras did worked for that time and those racquets, today the sport could be called an entirely different one, especially if one compares 1980s tennis to 2020s tennis.
most powerful drive ever.. 400g racquet 85in 70lb.. insane
Seriously?
YEP@@akifm6160
There are many forehands much more powerful, just because he used a heavy racquet doesn't change that.
powerful = heavy + speed + no comeback... pete sampras@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten
@@matisms His forehand is not near the heaviest or fastest forehand, it also is not the most consistent or the best in defense (even if he was to use a modern racquet and strings). It was good for its time but it's below average for modern standards, it would be wild for a player whose game is not centered around the baseline to have the best baseline shots. It's like me trying to say that modern players like Djokovic have better volley's than Pete, there is just no logic in it.
14 years on the tour. 14 slams, all with that puny 85in. Impressive.
basically dominated between 93 and 99, "only" 7 years prime of Pete who smashed all the rest on faster courts. The USO 00(vs Safin) and 01(vs Hewitt) clearly could have been his if only he had slightly more gas left in the tank and a day off inbetween semifinal and final like it is now.(since 2002 i believe) And maybe 2-3 years more of play until age 33-34 might have added another 1-2 slams, so his career was way shorter than the ones of the big 3 and other players of the new eras.
Pete's techniques are too advanced for modern tennis. that's why modern fans (barely know tennis) think it's ugly. 😂
Can’t agree you more !
nothing advanced. he just did not use wrist.
IF you see Sampras vs Hewitt or Safin, your notice, that his forehand did not work well against this players, even during winning matches.
Luv this well said
Yeah but your modern tennis fans are rabid and will attack you for just saying so
Amazing video! Something to remember; Sampras grew up playing with the Wilson Jack Kramer, which is a wooden racquet, which had a lot to do with his technique and the way he hits the ball/follows through. A wooden racquet makes you go through the ball straight, rather than brush because the material and head size will simply not allow it. If you wanted to hit a high ball, you would have to get under it with your legs and still go through it straight BUT at an angle (the angle depends on how far you are from the net and how deep/high you want to hit it).
His ProStaff 85 had a lot of weight added, plus very tight strings in order to mimic the Jack Kramer frame.
That's interesting. I thought the high string tension was to essentially make the strings "dead" so that he could hit hard but still maintain control (since he wasn't using luxilon or other poly strings that would allow you to whack the ball as hard as you wanted but still get control and safety from the spin that you could impart). At least that's what I remember his stringer, Nate Ferguson, write once.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 That's correct. Another fun fact of the Wilson ProStaff 85 is that it will play best with natural or synthetic gut, simply because of the technology used on the frame.
112 comments? Where are they? I only see 3.
Simply, the greatest ❤
Thanks for covering this! The more you do these different players' (from different eras) forehand analyses the more it becomes clear that what disagreements I've had with your concepts in the past have mostly been a semantic issue.
Keep up the good work.
For me,
The greatest forehand ever, because you can perform it even on a wooden racket! Modern forehands today can’t be perform using an outdated phased out wooden rackets!👌
Being able to play well with a wooden racquet is no way a legitimate criteria for having a good forehand. And modern players would probably still hit better forehands with a wooden racquet.
@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten There's a video of Monfils and Wawrinka you can find it online, they don't seem to hit too well with them. It's just what you train on, if you hit thousands of balls a day on certain equipment, you will need re-training, and that re-training wouldn't make modern players any money so no point.
Very nice video! Sampras had such a beautiful and efficient techique! Would you be able to also demonstrate his serve? I am trying to copy it myself but don't really get near to what he was doing....
Even Agassi called it an “obnoxious forehand”! 😁
Pete bludgeoned so many players with it. It’s also unusual in being a bent elbow whilst most Eastern grip players will have it straight.
You don't see forehands like that any more
Rajeev Ram's technique, which he patterned after Sampras', is eerily similar to the great Pistol Pete.
It’s not like the modern players at all , which is why it’s much flatter and direct , if you want to compare in its entirety , it’s closest to Lendls forehand .
They are more classic forehands not modern forehands so not sure where you’re getting that modern forehand idea from . If your going to just look at micro movements that everybody does then ok but in no shape or form is the Sampras forehand comparable to what’s happening today , nothing about his game is , it’s the total opposite I would say , a full court ballistic high octane game with cat like movement , athleticism and classic flowing forehand with rock solid volleys .
Sampras was a very very rare gem
Another thing I’m going to correct you on . Not all his shots were flat , his backhand was actually quite loopy and high clearing as it was his set up shot for the flatter forehand . If you watch enough of his matches , you’ll see that he stands to the left side of the T by quiet a bit and plays his backhand high from there , enticing the opponent to go down the line where he would go into his amazing running forehand .
you have an unnecessary tendency to express yourself in hyperboles: "no shape or form comparable to..,.", "the total opposite", "a very very rare gem".
Besides (arguably) his forehand; standing on the left side of the court was something he adopted from Lendl's game. He came after the generation of Lendl Becker and Edberg so he learned from them; that's the way it goes but his game wasn't that original really. He was good at it though and with 14 grandslams very successful (!).
But 14 grand slams has been bettered obviously.. and not by 1 either. So much for the rare gem.. let alone "very very rare gem".
He was a rare gem , can you name another player in modern tennis history that dominated an era , serve and following and with cat like movement , huge forehand , with such a complete game ? Name one , I’ll wait .
@@stealthcat100 You're clearly a fan - also judging your yt channel content - and it's understandable, he had traits in his game that made tennis appealing.
If you look at his accomplishments from a statistical point of view, "dominance" becomes less of an appropriate definition.
There was an interesting forum years ago discussing this very issue and I'd like to quote a comment in particular that offers a different way of looking at things than just the fanboy type comments that always boil down to subjective reverence.
"I think people are too impressed by the 14-4 record in finals. Yes it's a great record but the key number is that he played in 52 majors and won 14. Remember he often lost before he got to the final but once he was there he was tough. Winning 77.2% of your matches in your career isn't dominating and winning only 64 tournaments in your career isn't super.
I think Sampras was fabulous and on a fast court when he was at his best he was unbelievable but dominating is not the word I use for him. In his BEST year he won 77 matches and lost 12 in winning 10 tournaments. He never won ten tournaments again and never won 90% of his matches in one year. Compare that year to some of Djokovic's or Nadal's or Federer's years. Djokovic has already won 59 tournaments in his career and is at about the 90% range for since 2011. Djokovic is at 89.83% for the last FIVE years which is fantastic. Sampras hasn't been that high for just one year."
@@Thijs-Kuiken If you just go by statistics on don’t take into account the way someone dominates during their reign then no one would care about Michael Jordan’s , Ayrton Sennas , , Mike Tyson’s of the world , they have become iconic and in time will become mythical . Even Federer for that matter since two players during his era have more grand slams than him , but I’m sure Federers flame will burn for a long time .
In 50 years from now , no one will remember much of Djokovic , he can win another 12 grand slams , because he will never capture the imagination of people because of the way he wins , so statistics as time goes on don’t hold the weight that you think.
Djokovic will be a Bill Russel’s type , all the rings , all the grand slams , but will mostly be remembered for just that .
When you watch highlights of how Sampras played during his 6 year dominance , it makes Djokovic look very bland . But to those who did not experience both eras tend to lean to the stats side of things . It’s an easy default argument , but as time goes on it doesn’t hold that much weight and for good reason .
@@stealthcat100
"they will become mythical".. only in the eyes of those who - much like you - chip in when it comes to mythologizing their efforts; not in the eyes of those who look at things with a more down to earth view on accomplishments mixed with the ability to think critically.
Nothing wrong with idolizing though and, again, it's clear that this is what you're doing in your texts about Sampras.
You shift away from facts to "the way someone dominates" and that is of course a slippery slope in a discussion of how a dictionary meaning of "dominance" applies to Sampras.
By doing so, you unintentionally point out the difference in what is to be observed from facts and figures and could give credence to a lable like "dominance".. and what is just a subjective view related to your personal preference wrapped in an opinion.
I have nothing against Sampras, quite the contrary.. he was great (!) and for sure will be remembered as one of the all time greats; you on the other hand bring up Djokovic and can't resist being derogatory about his accolades with which he is simply placed higher up the ranks of prestige and accomplishments, records etc... than (e.g.) Sampras is; thinking otherwise reflects poorly on your ability to see things from a different point of view.. so what the reader of your arguments is left with, is that you really really really like Sampras' way of playing.
Btw, the comparison with Jordan falls short on statistics alone.. but Jordan's worth exceeded his basketball game; he was an ambassador of the sport in a way that Sampras, with his closed off personality and rather boring public persona, was never able to be for tennis.
I would like you to cover Monica Seles' forehand and backhand. :)
Pete is highly unusual in that he often kept his hitting (right) shoulder behind his off (left) shoulder at contact. Almost every high level forehand had the hitting shoulder ahead of the off shoulder, or at worse, even with the off shoulder. Unorthodox, but clearly one of the best forehands ever!
Nothing unusual nor unorthodox. Pete's forehand was orthodoxy for an eastern grip forehand in his era. The more closed shoulder position is a result of his bent hitting arm (double bent position) and traditional swing path (more forward and up, less around the body) which require the contact point to be closer to his body and less out in front.
the first thing Pete does is pull the elbow back and high . everything starts from there. It's a copy of Lendl's forehand . that's where the energy is stored and then released .
Sampras does not use lag. The take back is slow then accelerates just before contacting. There is no lag.
Semi western grip as well.
It definitely would still work, look at Bautista Agut with similar technique and has one of the best forehands on tour.
what is his forehand grip ??? eastern grip ?
Can you show us Steffi Graf's forehand ? Same époque as Sampras and Agassi...
he doesn't pat the dog it seems
Fantasticccc
أعظم من لمسة الكرة الصفراء كان جميلا في الملعب
On the first frame looks like he is in a semi open stance and going forward whit his feet, kind of walking, would you do a video on the correct tecynically of the semi open stance?, I struggle to find it..
He hits his forehand with a continental
@@FMD023 Hid did not hit his forehand with a continental. He changed his grip from his serve (which was continental) to his forehand.
Please review Boris Becker's forehand.
Del Potro
Yes!!!
Good analysis 🎉
Nice, but i am not a great fan you calling us tennis 'patients' .
Noted.
I have to agree with the comment. No one likes to be a patient 😂
With a wooden racket he would win against Medvedev today!
Tennis Doctor?Well then go to doctor..Pete Sampras and many other players doesn't use windshield moves..Thats what some "Coaches "Teach because they think they teach Topspin.
Unfortunately like I saw yesterday they have know clue what they are doing because they dont know what to do..Sometimes I asking myself why this people are Caoces and not anything else
I think a so called student should really try to form their own style before instruction, just whack at the ball and have fun for a while, then when they find their own way of doing it adjust from there.
😂😂
like
IF you see Sampras vs Hewitt or Safin, your notice, that his forehand did not work well against this players, even during winning matches.
Can''t really look at the technique in isolation without accounting for the racquet & string specs, and just conclude "bad technique! It didn't work against newer players!" I'm pretty sure Hewitt & Safin were using poly or natural gut/poly or polymono combos, and Hewitt's forehand technique, in isolation, was not powerful or anything I'd emulate with ANY racquet. He needed a huge swing where the racquet folds behind his back, almost WTA style, to produce power that still didn't come close to Pete's. Pete's technique, on the other hand, made the most of what you could with a racquet that was thin beam and 85 sq inches, 14 oz weight, from the 80s and strung with natural gut at 70 lbs; you are handicapped when you're playing with that setup in 2000, it's like a joke.
In isolation and with the racquet setup in mind, there's nothing wrong with the technique here. It also works if you want to hit deep, penetrating flat shots, same with Delpo.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 yes. Sampras technigue was not suited for modern tennis and strings. DelPO played with much more spin(2500-2700 rpm) than Safin and Hewitt,who played with 2200-2400 rpm and used much more wrist.Sampras did not use wrist.
But i thing , he made misstacke and did not changed his racket.With modern coaches he would learn new technique in 2 or 3 weaks. it was not difficult even for me.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 So, The Tennis Doctor believes Sampras' forehand is not much different from today, and here you are, saying his game was not suited to modern racquets or strings, as if he was playing in 1937. Some of you UA-cam guys live in your own wacky world and you try hard to bring others into it.
@@BurnsTennis You can see how i play. Sampras did not drop racket head and did not use wrist. If Tennis Doctor believes , that he had modern technigue, he had no idea about tennis.
@@thebigmonstaandy6644 Of course not, you guys are the real masters of tennis knowledge on UA-cam.
How about this. Start your own channel and impart your knowledge officially. Then we can see and judge how much you really know.
Horrible motion
His technique was awkward. His main game was serve + volley.
No offense but you sound like someone who's watched two Sampras highlights on youtube and couldn't wait to share your opinion. He was an all-courter the first half of his career and volleyed behind a 1st serve only. Very competent from behind the baseline considering he could hold his own against the likes of Agassi on slower hard courts and held wins on clay vs Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov etc.
His technique made him No. 1 bro….
He hits with the elbow and arm too much folded and near the body. This would be considered a mistake today but in reality proves that there is no one technique that fits all.
@@TheBlessedLion six years in a row....
@@Poltergest1978 Well, to be fair, Medvedev has the most awkward type of styles but he's consistently top 10 for years.
What Sampras did worked for that time and those racquets, today the sport could be called an entirely different one, especially if one compares 1980s tennis to 2020s tennis.