Originally Posted by philosophicalarf
Sampras won 8 of his 14 slams in the second half of the 90s, when it's fairly obvious the competition was not at its most formidable (Carlos Moya at world number one speaks for itself). 1990-92 was extremely strong, probably the best period of all time, and he only made two finals there.
On the other hand, imo his peak Wimbledon level was so high he'd likely have won most even against stronger opponents.
This is pretty much true. But the same goes for most of the top players who manage to remain at the top for a long time; their careers span over more than one era, and the argument of one of those eras being weaker than the other can always be made. It goes for COnnors too, he won some of his slams against peak McEnroe and Borg (a VERY strong era), but then again he won 3 SLams in 1974, when the era of Borg and McEnroe was yet to emerge, and the previous generation of Laver and Rosewall was getting very old.