I'll be waiting to hear who thinks for the first 4 years ( where Fed amassed his most slams 03-07) where this "stiffer" competition came from outside of Nadal on clay. Fedmug4ever's post is very biased, and not taken into very good context.
I'm not sure how you can accuse anyone of being biased and not taking things into context since you're the king of hypocrisy and using selected data. I posted all of Sampras' and Federer's wins and losses from the 6 year period of their prime against top 10 opponents in each of the 4 Slams and provided thei rankings at the time. I didn't cherry pick stats like you always do or throw in names of players he never faced or faced when they were out of the top 10 just to try to artificially impress.
In the 24 grand slams played between 1993-1998, Pete Sampras beat a top 10 ranked player only 16 times. Between 2003-2008, Federer beat a top-10 ranked player 31 times. Who had the easier draws?
You're going to try to make some argument that it's the quality that counts not the quantity, but Sampras only faced Agassi twice in that span going 1-1. Who was Sampras beating to win his Slams? It wasn't Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera. He was 0-5 against these players between '93-'98 when they were in the top 10.
Explain to me how beating Agassi once, Chang twice, Ivanisevic, Kucera, at the US open is more impressive than beating Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman?
Explain to me how beating Courier, Chang and Muster at the Australian is more impressive than wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo?
Explain to me how 1 win over Courier (on a ridiculously fast sun-baked RG surface where Pete served 28 aces and Courier served 27!) with losses to Schaller, Norman, and Delgado at the French and 1 SF as your best result is more impressive than beating Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, and making 3 finals only losing to arguably the best clay-courter ever in Nadal.
Explain to me why beating Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin at Wimbledon is much more impressive than beating Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic?
Explain to me why we should ignore the fact that starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. However, starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.
When looking at the real hard data and not just the imaginary stats in your head, there is nothing that you could possibly say to any rational person that can convince them that Sampras was beating up on tougher competition. As much as you make fun of baby Nadal or baby Djokovic or dismiss the qualities of Hewitt, or Roddick, Murray etc., the fact is they were all in the top 10 at that point and all playing well enough to win had Federer not been around.
Sampras only had 16 wins in 24 tournaments against top 10 players! What is so impressive about that? Keep in mind that as much as you bad mouth Federer's peers, Agassi and Ivanisevic were known as being mental midgets in the 90s, Chang was weaponless, Becker was aging and Courier was burnt out.