He should still be in the conversation of greatest ever. Best server ever best overhead ever. No weakness in his game and 14 grand slams when there was way deeper fields than today.
When Sampras came around, besides his signature serve, there was one thing that stood out. Either you were a great baseline or a great serve and volleyer, but you weren't both. McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter, and even Becker were great serve and volleyers, but at the baseline were solid, but not as good as baseliners like Lendl, Wilander Agassi, or Courier. And vice versa. Sampras was a tremendous serve and volleyer, but when he stayed back could go blow to blow with any top baseliner and still beat them. He was the epitome of the true all courter.
Pete Sampras - greatest volleyer of modern times! Absolute thrill to watch him. Crafty, mentally super tough, handsome, powerful, focused and calm. Unparalleled hands and angles at net. USTA should name at least one of the US Open Stadiums after him. How about change the Gandstand to Pete Sampras Stadium? He is Truly the GREATEST AMERICAN TENNIS CHAMPION!
Pete is always my champion. He has patience, skills, right attitude, manners and everything else. He was a total package. Always the humble guy on and off the court which is extremely difficult for an american to do. He should have played few more years, gone too soon but wish him the best.
Fed and Nadal had more titles but on hard court or grass if Pete was on his game and that serve was on NOBODY beats him nomatter how much on their game they were. To me , that's the goat
It's a shame that ATP does not remasterize all the greatest matches from Sampras, Agassi and all the greats that have ever played before the HD era. It would be priceless
I sometimes watch tennis matches in 90's and every time I watch it it shocks me what a phenomenal player he was. Especially his second serves, forehand counter shots, overall net play and angle shots are still second to none. These aspects of his game are something I've never seen it in other players up to now and I honestly can't say the Big 4 is certainly better players than this guy at 90's. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were given chance to compete each other at the same age with same racket technology.
Peter Sampras is definitively a top #3 player of all time but his records can’t possibly all stand through time, first of all Sampras held the record for most consecutive weeks at #1 with 286 weeks, has won over 65 pro tour titles, 8 straight grand slam finals won, 5 masters and 14 grand slams, his fast first serve probably the best of all time which never needed a second serve. nearly 9,000 aces, honestly Sampras is as good of a tennis player as you’ll ever see. I don’t think the surface really matters, there’s always an element in tennis that changes over the years, the rules, the officiating, the challenge, the surface but Sampras’ game still remains intact, there aren’t that many players who could do more and will do better than Sampras ever did. If you take the all time top 8 guys, and took the surfaces back to before the were homogenized, and played round robin like they do at atp finals on all Of them for 1000 iterations, I think it would surprise no one if Pete ended up with the most wins. If the Big 4 played on the courts that Pete played on, the only member who'd have a Wimbledon title would be Roger. Novak, Andy, and Rafa wouldn't even sniff a combined 7 titles. Rafa would have 11-12 RGs by now. Surface homogenization was nonexistent back in Pete's day, and that's why he never did anything at RG (getting to the semis itself as a serve and volleyer is impressive as fuck). Way, way easier to win one of each slam when the two hard courts play close to the same, the clay is only like 3% slower than the hard, and the grass is only like 3% faster as opposed to an incredibly slow hard court in Australia, a ridiculously fast hard court (maybe 75% faster than Melbourne) in New York, an extremely fast and low bouncing court (35% faster than New York) in London and a brutally slow and high bouncing court in Paris (60% slower than Australia).
sampras - zidane of the tennis world. i never really was into this sport, but once i saw pete many years ago, oh boy i was almost in love. his style to play, his serves, just awesome and never gets boring.
Pete Sampras game was impressive. Perfect serve and net coverage with magnificent volleys and his single backhand was good and not weak as it was told at the time. I wish there were more players like him nowadays.
he is supreme player , got skills, elegance, power and unreturnable serve. When he played there were 11 wimbledon champions from Connors to Federer , Lleyton Hewitt , 15 french open champions from yannik Noah to Costa , Periera , Moya and many Us open champions including young Marth saffin who beat himin 2000. Hence arguably he is the best and in his era . Hewitt, Rodick and safin had strong strokes. He was beaten when he looks little tired or not at his best when Richard Krajecjk beat him in 1997 at Wimbledon in semis and Federer beat him in in 2001 .But when he is best he is much supreme player than anybodyelse.
The best Sampras combo highlight I've seen on UA-cam with a fitting soundtrack:-) Thank you for this great work! Truly magical for a Sampras and Pro Staff 85 fan.
Even today I still think of Sampras as the greatest grass court player of all and he would have pulverised today's players on a fast Wimbledon surface. Nadal is the greatest clay court player and Federer is the greatest all rounder.
Lucien Draay Djoko is an amazing returner, maybe better than Agassi but no one can read Sampras serve because of how he tosses his ball. He has the same toss as if he would hit a kick serve and yet he can hit a slice or flat in any direction with that toss.
4 years later and this assessment still holds up. We’ll see where Djokovic ends up (I’m a big fan of his) but pure tennis skill I’d still put Federer ahead of him. Djokovic is probably the greatest athlete the sport has seen combining size, power, speed, and skill.
I think they make the court to slow down and less bouncy to make the matches long. People donot see the old matches and how classy with power they are.This man is incredible to win 14 grand slams when there are 7 wimbledon champions around and 10 french open champions . Very stiff competition . Beating Agassi, Chang, Lendl, Curier is a not a joke.becker, Edberg, Cash, rafter, Goran, Richard are all great serve and volley players.
Kaelnicov, Moya, Costa, Bruguera, Kurten, even Hewit and Safin then was a new genereation and check this out! all of them champions of grand slam and not just one; Agassi 8, Lendl 8, Becker 6, Edberg 6, Mcenroe 8, Kurten 3, come on!!!! Federer beats for five straght years a very ñow competition Bagdatis, Roddick, Blake, Fish, Tsonga, Monfills, and a one very old Agassi in his carrer ending until Nadal born and what happend??? the end of kindom of Federer couse head to head vs Nadal Nadal rule for nine matches of diferance that"s it
Just imagine what this dude could do with current rackets. His serve and groundstrokes would be crazy! By far the greatest service holder of all time !!! And by far the greatest forehand the world has ever seen. I don't think that people realizes how great is forehand was. Just ask Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Rafter, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov, etc.
Great point Erick. Federer faced no where near the level of competition that Pisol Pete faced in his career. For Federer's first 12 slams, he basically had byes into the semifinals. Sampras would face Grand Slam winners as early as round 2. This is no contest. Sampras is the GOAT
Completely unreadable serve as well. Up there with the best, so sadly forgotten by the BBC during Wimbledon fortnight when they show a montage of former greats! Shame on you BBC!!!!
Sampras' forehand is modeled after Lendl's, two of the best forehands in the game. Federer's resembles Borg's more. I don't know why players don't emulate the Sampras/Lendl forehands. It may have to do with rackets and strings. The Lendl/Sampras forehand is very loose, which allows for extreme power.
One of the greatest editing work I've ever seen, featuring what the Greatest player (IMHO) could do on a tennis court. The music level could be a little lower. Aside from that, thank you very much for this work of heart!👍❤👍
This is classic tennis, I miss the old times. Small head heavy rackets, one handed backhand and serve & volley, vintage. Today, there's only baseline and two handed backhand players. Federer and Dimitrov are one of the few players right now who still perform one hand backhands and nice volleys. But there's no small frame racket anymore, blx 90 was the last. Shame.
To me THE greatest player ever. His prime level was unparalleled, unmatchable. With or without FO. And fuck the clay anyway, it is a different game than tennis. His GS and No1 records are broken, but so are the Schwarzenegger's or Senna's. Coleman and Haney have 8 Olympias, Schumacher has more titles than Ayrton. But when the question who's is the greatest comes up, people always say Arnold and Senna.
people keep forgetting that the rackets are different now. If fed had the same racket as pete in this time era he would have been another victim. Petes the best ive ever seen
Richard Jones Federer is better in every area. Natural talent, physique, coordination, technique, mental strength. The only thing Pete was better at proportionally, was his serve. I think you overrate the evolution of racquet technology. I still play with an old wilson pro staff now and then and there's not a big difference.
Axel Vhad hmmmm... I'm a die hard sampras fan and watched countless vids of these 2 guys and have to say man.. they are just fucking equal. I have to actually give it to Sampras, by a nose ahead with his athleticism in his prime. Some/most of his unlikely shots were just in god mode, just like Federer, but it's very hard I think to say who I better. I guess to win the argument it's purely who you enjoy watching more :)
+Richard Jones Sampras was definitely the greatest fast court player in the history. Federer has a better backhand though. Actually the only thing that Fed is better than Pete is the Backhand. Pete had the best Serve / Volley / Forehand (specially the running forehand) in the history of the sport. As the most loyal Agassi and Djokovic's fan, I must admit that the Pistol was by far the best fast court player ever!!! He simply took out the greatest of the sports!!! I would love to see him face off against Djokovic!!
GoogmorningDan...I don't think you have a clue. Sampras in his prime played against (and won might I add) against the best players of his playing days - Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Stich, Ivanesevic, Lendl, Edberg and others. At the end of the day, how many finals did Sampras win against players who had a grand slam to their name in a Grand Slam final compared to Pete Sampras? I know it's not even close. Sampras stayed away from Australian open which cost him at least 3 or 4 Grand Slam titles. He, in my humble opinion, would have kicked Federer's backside in their prime, full stop.
+j2thashaw As the greatest Agassi fan of all time (and currently a Djokovic's Die hard fan), I must admit that Pistol was by far the greatest Grass/Hardcourt player ever !!!! Too bad he never learnt how to deal with the tricky Clay courts, otherwise, he would have been the greatest ever. He was just unlucky to be born at such amazing era of tennis, whereas Fed had a nice few years without top notch adversaries. Just imagine how many Slams could Fed actually win, if he did face such amazing challengers!! I would say 10 tops !!
Legado do Dragão love how people that have never played tennis denigrate Federer's contemporaries. Just so you know, Pete lost in back to back USO finals vs those nobodies Fed beat up on.
@@concertom8774 I believe they made the balls bigger to slow the game down as rallies were very short in the 90s. I think the rackets are also bigger now.
Being a Pete fan, I bet he still wishes he could have won those 3 US Open finals against Edberg, Safin and Hewitt. IMHO, Pete was the better player over those 3 guys. I just wonder if his stamina was off on those 3 matches - he just didn't seem right in each of those matches. He also had Agassi down for the count in that 2000 Australian Open Final and lost. If he had won that match, he would have played Kafelnikov who Pete matched up well against. I believe Michael Jordan has never gotten over the loss against Indiana in his final college game.
If you followed Pete's career and read his book, you can conclude that: vs Edberg = Pete didn't have the fire inside of him to win. vs Agassi, Safin and Hewitt = You said it well. By year 2000, Pete no longer had the tank to go 5 sets, or play a seventh match in a GS. He had that magical run in 2002 and that was it, he cashed in. Had any of those matches been prior 1997, there is no doubt he would have won all of them.
Pete seemed listless in the losses to Safin and Hewitt. Do you think Pete's Thalassemia Minor (T.M.) condition got worse as he got older. From what I have read, T.M. makes one fatigued due to reduced blood oxygen. I have not read Pete's book, does he mention T.M.?
Early in the book he makes a brief mention that he was diagnosed with TM, but that's about it. He makes zero excuses for all his crucial losses in his career. vs Edberg: he states that the loss haunted him for several months, because he 1) realized that up until that point, he was happy with getting to the finals or semis of any tounrment; and 2) after analyzing the match, he concluded that the final match per se was not a good quality match, meaning that both Edberg and himself didn't play their best tennis, therefore he wondered: "if he played bad, and I played bad, then why did he end up winning?" vs Safin and Hewitt: he gives all the credit to Marat and Lleyton, saying that on both matches, both of them simply played better than him, and in fact reminded him of his 1990 US Open run. Another two losses that he talks about: vs France 1991 Davis Cup Finals: he says he was the wrong man for the job, saying that the french while lower ranked and lesser players, won those matches with hard working mentality and fire in their eye, and got the best out of him with their match experience vs Agassi 1995 Aus Open: he says on that day Agassi was the better player.
Thanks. Pete not only had TM, he struggled with ulcers, which can really take your legs out from under you.....he always walked like he was in pain, kind of hunched over, with his mouth open...that's an ulcer walk,,,I know....I imagine that these conditions made him develop such a big game. He didn't have the stamina to get into long rallies consistently ,so whenever he had an opening, he was going for it, and Man, was he good at it! He'd clean up on fast courts today....I think he was as quick around the court as anyone, even Chang or Hewitt....
Pete is the Bad XXX of tennis - most kick XXX serve of all time with complete all court game. Federer always acts like he knows the camera is one him - he plays with his hair, roars, fist pumps.
His fore hand was lethal , killer.His service has lot of spin.His era was most competitive and wimbledon court was fast bouncy. Often they slip and slide and still play volleys. He played 10 wimbledon champions from Connors , Mckenroe, Becker,Edberg cash,Stick, Agassi, Krachijeck, Hewitt , Goran Ivanosivich, Federer and 15 French champions , yannick Nova, Lendl, Wilander Thomas Muster,Andre Agassi, Chang, Sergei Bruegera, Albert Costa, carlos Moya, Curier, Yugeeny kalfinikov, Gustavo Kuerten, CJuan carlos Fererira, Gaston claudio and many semi finalsists and finalists . I would rate the best player is one who beat the best in the most competitive area.In to day One Federer, one Nadal, and one Jokovich.
I do err towards Sampras as the best. I’m not even saying that Federer is any less great as such; it’s more like they’re indivisible at the apex of tennis aesthetics and beauty, and I just happen to prefer Sampras, and I just can’t relate to the stupid partisan online GOAT arguments. I’d be more interested in seeing peak Federer and Sampras playing doubles together. It’s all love.❤
U.S open 2002 26/8 - 8/9 Pete Sampras last tournament ! Pete sampras born 12 / 8 1971 , so 31 year`s and 26 days old when he won his last Slam and stopped playing .. .....14 slams So if we gave the big 3 the samme retirement age things would look like this ! Federer birth 8/8 1981 so about 1/9 2012 Pete`s retirement age last slam wimbledon would be 8/7- 2012 ....17 slams Nadal birth 3/ 6 1986 so about 1/7 2017 Pete`s retirement age last slam French Open would be 11/6-2017 .....15 slams Djokovic birth 22/5 1987 so about 1/7 2018 Pete`s retirement age last slam Wimbledon would be 15/7-2018 .....13 slams If we also consider Federer`s easy ride until 2008 , where Nadal and djocovic appeared , in that time he won 12 Slams , things really look different ! And Nadal`s 13 RG wins shows he is most of all a clay specialist .....only 9 slams on grass and carpet ! And last.....Novak would only have 13 Slams in this setup ! Remember Sampras goal was to break Roy Emerson`s record of 12 GS ,and to break Jimmy Conners 5 year end number one in a row, he did that with 14 GS , and 6 year end number one in a row , no one close to him (number 2 Agassi had 7 GS ), and stopped playing at 31 years old .............nothing more to prove ! His dominance in his era was total ! I my eyes .........................................GOAT
Well said. Also, had Sampras continued for maybe another 3 or 4 years, the whole dynamic of tournaments (particularly Grand Slams), would have been very different. For us tennis fans, Pete retired too early. But of course, we respect his decision, and are lucky that we can still marvel at his mastery.
@@KayleJudicator Serve: Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic Forehand: Sampras>>>Djokovic Backhand: Djokovic>Sampras Footwork: Sampras>>Djokovic Volleys: Sampras> 90s early round fodder> Djokovic Ability to grind out points because he has no real finishing weapons: Djokovic>>>>>>>>Sampras
@@youhavetogoback8449 Id put KING NOVAKs footwork and movement as better than KING PETEs bb. Yea KING PETE is still better but u gotta admit and KING NOVAK (As well as Rafa on clay) r the best movers in terms of intensity
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Pete had it all. GOAT, plain and simple.
He should still be in the conversation of greatest ever. Best server ever best overhead ever. No weakness in his game and 14 grand slams when there was way deeper fields than today.
The true GOAT. Retired at 32!
This guy is so graceful and quick he is like a panther.
When Sampras came around, besides his signature serve, there was one thing that stood out.
Either you were a great baseline or a great serve and volleyer, but you weren't both. McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter, and even Becker were great serve and volleyers, but at the baseline were solid, but not as good as baseliners like Lendl, Wilander Agassi, or Courier. And vice versa.
Sampras was a tremendous serve and volleyer, but when he stayed back could go blow to blow with any top baseliner and still beat them. He was the epitome of the true all courter.
Pete Sampras - greatest volleyer of modern times! Absolute thrill to watch him. Crafty, mentally super tough, handsome, powerful, focused and calm. Unparalleled hands and angles at net. USTA should name at least one of the US Open Stadiums after him. How about change the Gandstand to Pete Sampras Stadium? He is Truly the GREATEST AMERICAN TENNIS CHAMPION!
Pancho Gonzales and Pete Sampras are both like closely tied.
👍👏👏👏 The best
Pete is always my champion. He has patience, skills, right attitude, manners and everything else. He was a total package.
Always the humble guy on and off the court which is extremely difficult for an american to do. He should have played few more years, gone too soon but wish him the best.
@Ion L. No he's American.
@@bascorasco7984
You're both correct. He is technically a "Greek-American". 👍
Because he is Greek.
Indeed, PETE is the King of tennis ever!
Fed and Nadal had more titles but on hard court or grass if Pete was on his game and that serve was on NOBODY beats him nomatter how much on their game they were. To me , that's the goat
great point
Can’t agree more.
Lol Wimbledon 2001, Sampras lose to the real king
@@TheKDX7the real king lost to rafa in 2008 and was killed in roland garros final 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
One of the greatest Tennis players in history.
His serve is so perfectly natural in some way.
It's a shame that ATP does not remasterize all the greatest matches from Sampras, Agassi and all the greats that have ever played before the HD era. It would be priceless
YES................come on ATP
Sampras had the look of an athlete-fast,strong and elegant,plus he wasn’t 2 meter monster but could serve strong.
It's a truly privilege to grow up on his tennis, what a player he was!!! IMHO all time best
Sampras just the greatest
I sometimes watch tennis matches in 90's and every time I watch it it shocks me what a phenomenal player he was.
Especially his second serves, forehand counter shots, overall net play and angle shots are still second to none.
These aspects of his game are something I've never seen it in other players up to now and I honestly can't say the Big 4 is certainly better players than this guy at 90's.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were given chance to compete each other at the same age with same racket technology.
+Moreno Artyom Best Fast Court player of all time. Too bad he couldn't adapt his awesome game to clay
the current era's top 4 is stronger, but the 90s were deeper.
Peter Sampras is definitively a top #3 player of all time but his records can’t possibly all stand through time, first of all Sampras held the record for most consecutive weeks at #1 with 286 weeks, has won over 65 pro tour titles, 8 straight grand slam finals won, 5 masters and 14 grand slams, his fast first serve probably the best of all time which never needed a second serve. nearly 9,000 aces, honestly Sampras is as good of a tennis player as you’ll ever see. I don’t think the surface really matters, there’s always an element in tennis that changes over the years, the rules, the officiating, the challenge, the surface but Sampras’ game still remains intact, there aren’t that many players who could do more and will do better than Sampras ever did.
If you take the all time top 8 guys, and took the surfaces back to before the were homogenized, and played round robin like they do at atp finals on all Of them for 1000 iterations, I think it would surprise no one if Pete ended up with the most wins.
If the Big 4 played on the courts that Pete played on, the only member who'd have a Wimbledon title would be Roger. Novak, Andy, and Rafa wouldn't even sniff a combined 7 titles. Rafa would have 11-12 RGs by now. Surface homogenization was nonexistent back in Pete's day, and that's why he never did anything at RG (getting to the semis itself as a serve and volleyer is impressive as fuck). Way, way easier to win one of each slam when the two hard courts play close to the same, the clay is only like 3% slower than the hard, and the grass is only like 3% faster as opposed to an incredibly slow hard court in Australia, a ridiculously fast hard court (maybe 75% faster than Melbourne) in New York, an extremely fast and low bouncing court (35% faster than New York) in London and a brutally slow and high bouncing court in Paris (60% slower than Australia).
sampras - zidane of the tennis world. i never really was into this sport, but once i saw pete many years ago, oh boy i was almost in love. his style to play, his serves, just awesome and never gets boring.
He is the King, he is the best
Pete Sampras game was impressive. Perfect serve and net coverage with magnificent volleys and his single backhand was good and not weak as it was told at the time. I wish there were more players like him nowadays.
Pete Sampras: The Greatest Tennis Player EVER.
Bar none.
@Frank Roelands Not based on reality.
@ against shit competition,slow courts, slow balls. None of today's players beat Pete in his prime
@@frankmclain3634 nadal 2010 us open was a freaking monster,djokovic in ao 2012 woudl have beaten him,federer wibledon 2006 as well
@@matteo964 They aren't got a chance against Wimbledon 1999 Sampras!
@@yangchen7521 they are all better than Sampras. The big3 are in another level.
he is supreme player , got skills, elegance, power and unreturnable serve. When he played there were 11 wimbledon champions from Connors to Federer , Lleyton Hewitt , 15 french open champions from yannik Noah to Costa , Periera , Moya and many Us open champions including young Marth saffin who beat himin 2000. Hence arguably he is the best and in his era . Hewitt, Rodick and safin had strong strokes. He was beaten when he looks little tired or not at his best when Richard Krajecjk beat him in 1997 at Wimbledon in semis and Federer beat him in in 2001 .But when he is best he is much supreme player than anybodyelse.
Pete is definitely the KING !!!
Sampras = The GOAT.
The best Sampras combo highlight I've seen on UA-cam with a fitting soundtrack:-) Thank you for this great work! Truly magical for a Sampras and Pro Staff 85 fan.
In the big match at Wimbledon or USO I would take Sampras over anyone to win.
Even today I still think of Sampras as the greatest grass court player of all and he would have pulverised today's players on a fast Wimbledon surface. Nadal is the greatest clay court player and Federer is the greatest all rounder.
Djokovic catching up?
Lucien Draay Djoko is an amazing returner, maybe better than Agassi but no one can read Sampras serve because of how he tosses his ball. He has the same toss as if he would hit a kick serve and yet he can hit a slice or flat in any direction with that toss.
4 years later and this assessment still holds up. We’ll see where Djokovic ends up (I’m a big fan of his) but pure tennis skill I’d still put Federer ahead of him. Djokovic is probably the greatest athlete the sport has seen combining size, power, speed, and skill.
He’s not „King of Tennis” - he is the “King Of Swing”!
I think they make the court to slow down and less bouncy to make the matches long. People donot see the old matches and how classy with power they are.This man is incredible to win 14 grand slams when there are 7 wimbledon champions around and 10 french open champions . Very stiff competition . Beating Agassi, Chang, Lendl, Curier is a not a joke.becker, Edberg, Cash, rafter, Goran, Richard are all great serve and volley players.
All with a 85 sq inch, 385 grams magic wand
Kaelnicov, Moya, Costa, Bruguera, Kurten, even Hewit and Safin then was a new genereation and check this out! all of them champions of grand slam and not just one; Agassi 8, Lendl 8, Becker 6, Edberg 6, Mcenroe 8, Kurten 3, come on!!!! Federer beats for five straght years a very ñow competition Bagdatis, Roddick, Blake, Fish, Tsonga, Monfills, and a one very old Agassi in his carrer ending until Nadal born and what happend??? the end of kindom of Federer couse head to head vs Nadal Nadal rule for nine matches of diferance that"s it
the last of american good tennis players
point at 3:40 Pete beats Agassi at his own game, groundstroke battle ! angles !!
True legend, such a classic brand of tennis
Just imagine what this dude could do with current rackets. His serve and groundstrokes would be crazy! By far the greatest service holder of all time !!! And by far the greatest forehand the world has ever seen. I don't think that people realizes how great is forehand was. Just ask Agassi, Courier, Edberg, Rafter, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov, etc.
His holding percentage is not the best of all time...not even in the top 5....Karlovic and Isner are ahead of him, and so is Federer, i think.....
Great point Erick. Federer faced no where near the level of competition that Pisol Pete faced in his career. For Federer's first 12 slams, he basically had byes into the semifinals.
Sampras would face Grand Slam winners as early as round 2.
This is no contest.
Sampras is the GOAT
Completely unreadable serve as well. Up there with the best, so sadly forgotten by the BBC during Wimbledon fortnight when they show a montage of former greats! Shame on you BBC!!!!
Sampras' forehand is modeled after Lendl's, two of the best forehands in the game. Federer's resembles Borg's more. I don't know why players don't emulate the Sampras/Lendl forehands. It may have to do with rackets and strings. The Lendl/Sampras forehand is very loose, which allows for extreme power.
Respect for all the names, i was a fan of him back in the 90s.. after that ,,, am not into tennis anymore
GOAT - Shhhhhhhh. Hush though. It's still one of the best kept secrets. Only a chosen generation knows.
He has very sharp eyes omg
Pistol Pete Sampras was the greatest tennis player this world has ever seen!!
He is the best in the world
Pete Sampras esta considerado como uno de los mejores tenistas de todos los tiempos🙌🏆👏
the best...
I miss watching my idol! Thank You for all the videos
a true SPARTAN ;)
this video is mesmerizing! How many thousands of points did Pete just rule over his opponents?
Sampras vs Agassi games were always great to watch. A long time ago but feels like yesterday
Pete Samparas Watt a fluid serve action,watt a magnificent Champion
Legend
Je suis fan depuis une certaine demi-finale en 1990 contre Mac Enroe…. Et je le serai toujours 💕💜💗
One of the greatest editing work I've ever seen, featuring what the Greatest player (IMHO) could do on a tennis court.
The music level could be a little lower.
Aside from that, thank you very much for this work of heart!👍❤👍
He is the best in my book!
fantastic
This is classic tennis, I miss the old times. Small head heavy rackets, one handed backhand and serve & volley, vintage. Today, there's only baseline and two handed backhand players. Federer and Dimitrov are one of the few players right now who still perform one hand backhands and nice volleys. But there's no small frame racket anymore, blx 90 was the last. Shame.
Sampras forever 😍🤩😇👍🤟
Best ever
He dominated Tennis on his Era. How many players can say the same?
Sin duda un superdotado, un crack
A champion with NO DRAMAS….
To me THE greatest player ever. His prime level was unparalleled, unmatchable. With or without FO. And fuck the clay anyway, it is a different game than tennis.
His GS and No1 records are broken, but so are the Schwarzenegger's or Senna's. Coleman and Haney have 8 Olympias, Schumacher has more titles than Ayrton. But when the question who's is the greatest comes up, people always say Arnold and Senna.
Title should read: "Hairy Pete was *once* the king of tennis"
Stupid, childish comment.
Pistol Pete💪
people keep forgetting that the rackets are different now. If fed had the same racket as pete in this time era he would have been another victim. Petes the best ive ever seen
Richard Jones Federer is better in every area. Natural talent, physique, coordination, technique, mental strength. The only thing Pete was better at proportionally, was his serve. I think you overrate the evolution of racquet technology. I still play with an old wilson pro staff now and then and there's not a big difference.
Axel Vhad hmmmm... I'm a die hard sampras fan and watched countless vids of these 2 guys and have to say man.. they are just fucking equal. I have to actually give it to Sampras, by a nose ahead with his athleticism in his prime. Some/most of his unlikely shots were just in god mode, just like Federer, but it's very hard I think to say who I better. I guess to win the argument it's purely who you enjoy watching more :)
Axel Vhad Sampras has better volleys and serve, and I'd argue his forehand on the run is better. Federer has better backhand, but that's about it.
Serve Sampras > Federer
Volley Sampras > Federer
Forehand on the run Sampras > Federer
+Richard Jones Sampras was definitely the greatest fast court player in the history. Federer has a better backhand though. Actually the only thing that Fed is better than Pete is the Backhand. Pete had the best Serve / Volley / Forehand (specially the running forehand) in the history of the sport. As the most loyal Agassi and Djokovic's fan, I must admit that the Pistol was by far the best fast court player ever!!! He simply took out the greatest of the sports!!! I would love to see him face off against Djokovic!!
Can he be co-King with Roger, man the guy picked up tough half-volleys so effortlessly!
Sampras against Anybody!!! I choose Pete everytime!!!
Fantastic video
GoogmorningDan...I don't think you have a clue. Sampras in his prime played against (and won might I add) against the best players of his playing days - Agassi, Becker, Courier, Chang, Stich, Ivanesevic, Lendl, Edberg and others. At the end of the day, how many finals did Sampras win against players who had a grand slam to their name in a Grand Slam final compared to Pete Sampras? I know it's not even close. Sampras stayed away from Australian open which cost him at least 3 or 4 Grand Slam titles. He, in my humble opinion, would have kicked Federer's backside in their prime, full stop.
+j2thashaw As the greatest Agassi fan of all time (and currently a Djokovic's Die hard fan), I must admit that Pistol was by far the greatest Grass/Hardcourt player ever !!!! Too bad he never learnt how to deal with the tricky Clay courts, otherwise, he would have been the greatest ever. He was just unlucky to be born at such amazing era of tennis, whereas Fed had a nice few years without top notch adversaries. Just imagine how many Slams could Fed actually win, if he did face such amazing challengers!! I would say 10 tops !!
Legado do Dragão love how people that have never played tennis denigrate Federer's contemporaries. Just so you know, Pete lost in back to back USO finals vs those nobodies Fed beat up on.
Agree with you, but yr second sentence is confusing. Did you mean to say "compared to Federer"?
Serve and volley. That's Pete Sampras' trademark.
people do not realize how much tennis has evolved in the last 20 years
very little.
@@concertom8774
I believe they made the balls bigger to slow the game down as rallies were very short in the 90s. I think the rackets are also bigger now.
Amazing Video !!!
Being a Pete fan, I bet he still wishes he could have won those 3 US Open finals against Edberg, Safin and Hewitt. IMHO, Pete was the better player over those 3 guys. I just wonder if his stamina was off on those 3 matches - he just didn't seem right in each of those matches. He also had Agassi down for the count in that 2000 Australian Open Final and lost. If he had won that match, he would have played Kafelnikov who Pete matched up well against. I believe Michael Jordan has never gotten over the loss against Indiana in his final college game.
If you followed Pete's career and read his book, you can conclude that:
vs Edberg = Pete didn't have the fire inside of him to win.
vs Agassi, Safin and Hewitt = You said it well. By year 2000, Pete no longer had the tank to go 5 sets, or play a seventh match in a GS. He had that magical run in 2002 and that was it, he cashed in. Had any of those matches been prior 1997, there is no doubt he would have won all of them.
Pete seemed listless in the losses to Safin and Hewitt. Do you think Pete's Thalassemia Minor (T.M.) condition got worse as he got older. From what I have read, T.M. makes one fatigued due to reduced blood oxygen. I have not read Pete's book, does he mention T.M.?
Early in the book he makes a brief mention that he was diagnosed with TM, but that's about it. He makes zero excuses for all his crucial losses in his career.
vs Edberg: he states that the loss haunted him for several months, because he 1) realized that up until that point, he was happy with getting to the finals or semis of any tounrment; and 2) after analyzing the match, he concluded that the final match per se was not a good quality match, meaning that both Edberg and himself didn't play their best tennis, therefore he wondered: "if he played bad, and I played bad, then why did he end up winning?"
vs Safin and Hewitt: he gives all the credit to Marat and Lleyton, saying that on both matches, both of them simply played better than him, and in fact reminded him of his 1990 US Open run.
Another two losses that he talks about:
vs France 1991 Davis Cup Finals: he says he was the wrong man for the job, saying that the french while lower ranked and lesser players, won those matches with hard working mentality and fire in their eye, and got the best out of him with their match experience
vs Agassi 1995 Aus Open: he says on that day Agassi was the better player.
Thanks. Pete not only had TM, he struggled with ulcers, which can really take your legs out from under you.....he always walked like he was in pain, kind of hunched over, with his mouth open...that's an ulcer walk,,,I know....I imagine that these conditions made him develop such a big game. He didn't have the stamina to get into long rallies consistently ,so whenever he had an opening, he was going for it, and Man, was he good at it! He'd clean up on fast courts today....I think he was as quick around the court as anyone, even Chang or Hewitt....
mrbobevans It was all stamina. The last year he dedicated himself and destroyed all at the US Open.
Extraordinario.
legendary
Quel jeu ! Y'en aura-t-il un autre comme ça ?
Oui il y a eu Federer et c'était encore plus beau
King of The kort ❤️❤️
Pour les jeunes générations : c'est ça un attaquant au tennis.
Back then they all wanted to be number one and win ...now they are all friends and fashion models
GOAT.........
Pete is the Bad XXX of tennis - most kick XXX serve of all time with complete all court game. Federer always acts like he knows the camera is one him - he plays with his hair, roars, fist pumps.
and of course Fed cries too and the white Wimbledon blazer? the gold swoosh? affected!!! Pete is a Man!
thanks for this great video
The very best!
GOAT
My youth!!!
His fore hand was lethal , killer.His service has lot of spin.His era was most competitive and wimbledon court was fast bouncy. Often they slip and slide and still play volleys. He played 10 wimbledon champions from Connors , Mckenroe, Becker,Edberg cash,Stick, Agassi, Krachijeck, Hewitt , Goran Ivanosivich, Federer and 15 French champions , yannick Nova, Lendl, Wilander Thomas Muster,Andre Agassi, Chang, Sergei Bruegera, Albert Costa, carlos Moya, Curier, Yugeeny kalfinikov, Gustavo Kuerten, CJuan carlos Fererira, Gaston claudio and many semi finalsists and finalists . I would rate the best player is one who beat the best in the most competitive area.In to day One Federer, one Nadal, and one Jokovich.
Sampras + Pro Staff 6.0 85 St. Vincent + Nike Air Oscillate = perfect combination
I do err towards Sampras as the best. I’m not even saying that Federer is any less great as such; it’s more like they’re indivisible at the apex of tennis aesthetics and beauty, and I just happen to prefer Sampras, and I just can’t relate to the stupid partisan online GOAT arguments. I’d be more interested in seeing peak Federer and Sampras playing doubles together. It’s all love.❤
Excellent action clips and a good varied selection of shot making but that music is unbearable.
El rey carajo sampras
If Federer would have played against Sampras in the nineties, he would not have lived up to Sampras.
1,2
Aim
Release
It's an Ace!!!
Top ...
One sampras
Two federer
Sampras one. Fed not even in my top five.
Nice video but what the hell with the music, it felt like the end of the world was happening outside my living room
9:10 por eso es el rey del swing
Goodness...kill the background music!
Ah yes,, the lo def 90's.
music name?
Stefanos Tsitsipas the next Greek G.O.A.T !
sampras is american
@@jschaeffer5549 NO GREEK.PARENTS GREEKS.
Nobody better
what is the song?
The second best player in history, amazing player
The 'second' best player when his ace comes flying past and the point gone in under a second
U.S open 2002 26/8 - 8/9 Pete Sampras last tournament !
Pete sampras born 12 / 8 1971 , so 31 year`s and 26 days old when he won his last Slam and stopped playing .. .....14 slams
So if we gave the big 3 the samme retirement age things would look like this !
Federer birth 8/8 1981 so about 1/9 2012 Pete`s retirement age last slam wimbledon would be 8/7- 2012 ....17 slams
Nadal birth 3/ 6 1986 so about 1/7 2017 Pete`s retirement age last slam French Open would be 11/6-2017 .....15 slams
Djokovic birth 22/5 1987 so about 1/7 2018 Pete`s retirement age last slam Wimbledon would be 15/7-2018 .....13 slams
If we also consider Federer`s easy ride until 2008 , where Nadal and djocovic appeared , in that time he won 12 Slams , things really look different !
And Nadal`s 13 RG wins shows he is most of all a clay specialist .....only 9 slams on grass and carpet !
And last.....Novak would only have 13 Slams in this setup !
Remember Sampras goal was to break Roy Emerson`s record of 12 GS ,and to break Jimmy Conners 5 year end number one in a row, he did that with 14 GS , and 6 year end number one in a row , no one close to him (number 2 Agassi had 7 GS ), and stopped playing at 31 years old .............nothing more to prove ! His dominance in his era was total !
I my eyes .........................................GOAT
Well said.
Also, had Sampras continued for maybe another 3 or 4 years, the whole dynamic of tournaments (particularly Grand Slams), would have been very different.
For us tennis fans, Pete retired too early.
But of course, we respect his decision, and are lucky that we can still marvel at his mastery.
He was a just a big server
Media: Djokovic and Nadal are better than Sampras
Anyone who has held a racket: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Federer vs Sampras both in their prime...I don’t know, maybe Sampras...
Sampras not doubt
Absolutely agree ....it has to be Sampras!
Depends what court modern slow hard courts or older faster courts
prime sampras > prime federer (on grass)
Andunus Dick on fast hard as well.
And prime Djokovic is better than Sampras.
@@KayleJudicator Serve: Sampras>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic
Forehand: Sampras>>>Djokovic
Backhand: Djokovic>Sampras
Footwork: Sampras>>Djokovic
Volleys: Sampras> 90s early round fodder> Djokovic
Ability to grind out points because he has no real finishing weapons: Djokovic>>>>>>>>Sampras
And on hard courts, too, better than Fed.
@@youhavetogoback8449 Id put KING NOVAKs footwork and movement as better than KING PETEs bb. Yea KING PETE is still better but u gotta admit and KING NOVAK (As well as Rafa on clay) r the best movers in terms of intensity