Drawing a different comparison: Tiger and Pete. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Drawing a different comparison: Tiger and Pete.

angiel
02-15-2007, 06:37 PM
by: Kamakshi Tandon, TENNIS.com
Wednesday, February 7, 2007

It's almost too easy. Tiger Woods shows up in Roger Federer's box at the U.S. Open. Roger shows up to watch Tiger in Shanghai. Roger and Tiger become friends. Tiger wins his seventh tournament in a row just as Roger wins the Australian Open. Tiger = Roger.

Trouble is, it is too easy. If you want to draw parallels between contemporaries who dominated golf and tennis, the best comparison isn't Woods and Federer -- it's Woods and Pete Sampras.

Think about it. Woods and Sampras are closer in age (31 and 35, respectively) than Woods and Federer (31 and 25).

They project similar personalities -- detached, literal and focused. In fact, the first time I saw Tiger speak, he immediately reminded me of Sampras. Even for someone who didn't know golf, it was an inkling that he was going to be good.

They both took their sports' power to a new level, enough to prompt calls for serving restrictions in tennis and longer fairways in golf.

They won their first major almost right out of the gates, but took a couple of years to find their dominating mode. Then, with destiny-like conviction, they geared their careers toward a long-standing record that many had thought would never again be broken: total majors won. Blips in form after getting married led to speculation about loss of motivation, but both eventually contended for majors
again.

Heck, even their wives look a little alike.

Federer, meanwhile, is a neoclassical player, blending old artistry with modern power. His personality is textured; his opinions nuanced and clearly expressed. It's a different vibe.

And if you want to look at social and pop culture impact, the Williams sisters might be the better equivalent.

Sampras vs. Federer at 25� Years Old
Sampras Federer
Grand Slams 9 10
Weeks, No. 1 159 160
Titles 45 46
Win pct. 79.0 80.0


Still, chronological convenience means it's Woods and Federer who've been the hot item in the last couple of weeks. In career terms, it doesn't make much difference -- the eerie symmetry between Sampras' and Federer's careers is well-known. They were born almost exactly 10 years apart, and their respective numbers at 25� years old (Federer's current age) are remarkably similar (see chart).

But the two do diverge in one aspect of their careers. Sampras didn't want to be remembered as the nice guy, the funny guy or the colorful guy, he wanted to be the guy "with all the titles." What about Federer? "I hope I'm remembered as one of the good guys -- fair, kind of an idol to kids -- because that's what I needed to get started," he said at the Australian Open.

At this point, it looks like they'll both get their wishes. Sampras ended his career with 14 Slams, four more than Federer. Good luck figuring out how that compares to Woods' pursuit of six more majors to break golf's all-time mark of 18, set by Jack Nicklaus. It's like comparing archery and fencing.

But if it's going to be done, it might as well be done right. When it comes to what they've meant within their sport, it's Sampras that Woods should be compared with, not Federer. Don't let the recent Nike matchmaking tell you otherwise.

Source: Tennis.com

Whistleway
02-15-2007, 08:36 PM
WTF.. Author is comparing Fed with William sisters.. Is that a good thing or a bad one?

Vin Judah
02-15-2007, 09:41 PM
WTF.. Author is comparing Fed with William sisters.. Is that a good thing or a bad one?

trust me, that ain't a good thing!

Kip
02-15-2007, 10:22 PM
:yawn:

I'm so over this bs. Always and forever
trying to find a way to take pot shot's
at Federer.

One wonders if Federer were American, would
he yet still have as much garbage thrown his
way in the American press?

i.e.If this were Roddick in Federer's shoes,would
we see less ridicule and more praise in chasing
down the records of a fellow American?

As far as the Williams Sister's impact socially and
pop-culture wise, I see that as an honor as they
transcend the relms of their sport. An impact that
is not something in the way of less.

Corey Feldman
02-16-2007, 12:08 AM
Sampras vs. Federer at 25� Years Old
Sampras Federer
Grand Slams 9 10
Weeks, No. 1 159 160
Titles 45 46
Win pct. 79.0 80.0Notice how Fed is just that 1 step ahead all the time ;)

nobama
02-16-2007, 12:39 AM
Notice how Fed is just that 1 step ahead all the time ;)
He just needs to remain 1 step ahead by the end of the year. ;)

angiel
02-16-2007, 03:42 PM
trust me, that ain't a good thing!



Why do you think so????:( :(

angiel
02-16-2007, 03:57 PM
From his Sports Illustrated Interview Last Week.

About The weakest era in Tennis & the Mediocre Players playing today.



SI: Justin Gimelstob wrote a column for SI.com saying he thought you were playing today at a level as high as anyone except Federer.

Sampras: We were talking about the game and the sport. James Blake is No. 6 in the world and I wonder what it would be like to play him at this stage of my life if he gave me a few months to prepare. The serve is something that I still possess and I felt pretty hard to break.

SI: You are 35 -- not that old.

Sampras: It is true. Look at what guys are playing with today. It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.

World Beater
02-16-2007, 04:18 PM
From his Sports Illustrated Interview Last Week.

About The weakest era in Tennis & the Mediocre Players playing today.



SI: Justin Gimelstob wrote a column for SI.com saying he thought you were playing today at a level as high as anyone except Federer.

Sampras: We were talking about the game and the sport. James Blake is No. 6 in the world and I wonder what it would be like to play him at this stage of my life if he gave me a few months to prepare. The serve is something that I still possess and I felt pretty hard to break.

SI: You are 35 -- not that old.

Sampras: It is true. Look at what guys are playing with today. It is crazy the amount of power a guy like Fernando Gonzalez can get from that racket. It has made mediocre players better and it has made the great players that much better. It's something I'll always think about.

if sampras is saying what i think, he is an absolute tool. :rolleyes:

Corey Feldman
02-16-2007, 04:41 PM
Yes pete..
more power but guess what else mate..... slower courts.
that is the thing he never mentions.

About The weakest era in Tennis & the Mediocre Players playing today.that old chestnut again...
damn the yanks need 5 of their guys in the top10 for them to change their tune..
remember the rule over there: if your a champion and not American = its because the game is weak and mediocre.
:lol:

Sjengster
02-16-2007, 04:52 PM
I've never understood this argument that modern racquets help untalented players to reach a position that they don't deserve. I mean I may not care for Davydenko's playing style, but if you can't see the early ball-striking ability he has off both sides, the footwork, the balance, and you put that all down to his racquet, you're crazy. Likewise Gonzalez, he's not the only player using the type of racquet he does, so how come he can generate more power than others? It couldn't be because he's more naturally gifted than them, could it? No, of course not, that would be far too generous.

Mediocre players are ranked in mediocre positions, they might have the help of technology but guess what, guys - their more talented colleagues have the same help, and with all things being equal the superior players are at the top. Everyone brings up players like Ljubicic and Robredo as examples of joke Top Tenners, but it's not like they're hitting massive powerful groundies. The most depressing ball-bashing fest I ever saw was between The Great Dane Kristian Pless and Paul-Henri "too much pressure" Mathieu back in 2002 in Lyon, which was nothing but mindless injury-inducing slugging from the back of the court. And you don't see them anywhere near the top of the game.

alfonsojose
02-16-2007, 05:17 PM
Is this a Golf Forum? What's next? Nadal and Woods? Schumy and Federer? Stop using another sports' biggest figures to lick your fave's ass. Go to a golf forum or non-tennis :rolleyes:

alfonsojose
02-16-2007, 05:18 PM
if sampras is saying what i think, he is an absolute tool. :rolleyes:

like most ex-tennis players, they can't find a life out of tennis

Howard
02-16-2007, 08:23 PM
Is this a Golf Forum? What's next? Nadal and Woods? Schumy and Federer? Stop using another sports' biggest figures to lick your fave's ass. Go to a golf forum or non-tennis :rolleyes:Just another hack writer scrounging for something new to say about the mega-stars.

nobama
02-17-2007, 02:09 AM
Yes pete..
more power but guess what else mate..... slower courts.
that is the thing he never mentions.
:lol:This is what I don't get. Sampras thinks he'd give Fed a run for his money but most of the courts are a lot slower now. Heck last year at Wimbledon Roddick and Justine Henin said the courts were playing like clay courts.

Sjengster
02-17-2007, 02:16 AM
There are matches that never took place that you'd love to have seen with the benefit of hindsight.... because people forget that after George Bastl's upset victory over Sampras at Wimbledon 2002, he then lost 2, 2 and 2 in the next round to a certain D. Nalbandian who then went on to make the final. How Sampras would have fared against him, bearing in mind that 2002 was the first year when the courts were noticeably slower and a younger generation of players started to come through, would be a useful indication of how he'd do now on grass.