Sampras V. Agassi (new thought) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras V. Agassi (new thought)

fooolingu
02-02-2007, 12:32 PM
Sampras has more slams, leads the H2H, lost his hair later, has the hotter wife.

Sampras PWNED Agassi at life.

scarecrows
02-02-2007, 12:53 PM
:lol:

shme that it's gonne be deleted but it's a good thread anyway

disturb3d
02-02-2007, 01:02 PM
Sampras will be shortly forgotten, as much as he may hate it.

As much as he won't admit it, Agassi is bigger than tennis itself.

fooolingu
02-02-2007, 01:20 PM
Sampras will be shortly forgotten, as much as he may hate it.

As much as he won't admit it, Agassi is bigger than tennis itself.

Sure, he'll be remembered by a few orphans because he threw away millions on them. That's the only way he could compensate. Sampras didn't need such gimmicks as earings, clothes, and charity cause he's supremely confident and blessed in life.

And you think those orphans will remember him when the honey pot runs dry? Ha!

denisgiann
02-02-2007, 01:26 PM
Sampras will be shortly forgotten, as much as he may hate it.

As much as he won't admit it, Agassi is bigger than tennis itself.

Nobodys bigger than the game:rolleyes:and certainly not someone like Agassi.He played until 35 and slamwise is nowhere near Pete.Petes last match was a grandslam win.Agassi maybe won with his mouth forty slams or more but the cold hard facts say that he is nowhere near Pistol Pete.Not even close:wavey: .

disturb3d
02-02-2007, 01:41 PM
Agassi didn't have the most versatile, brilliant game.
But Agassi had image, a sense of humor, and charisma. To the point where people came to see Agassi, and not tennis.

What Hulk Hogan is to wrestling, Agassi is to tennis.

When you're remembered for your game. It will eventually slip away.
Federer has duplicated and surpassed Sampras' game. Personality on the other hand, can't be duplicated.

name_change
02-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Agassi didn't have the most versatile, brilliant game.
But Agassi had image, a sense of humor, and charisma. To the point where people came to see Agassi, and not tennis.

What Hulk Hogan is to wrestling, Agassi is to tennis.

When you're remembered for your game. It will eventually slip away.
Federer has duplicated and surpassed Sampras' game. Personality on the other hand, can't be duplicated.
:worship:

now that's what i call PWNED.

Fumus
02-02-2007, 03:42 PM
Agassi and McEnroe are the best things to happen to tennis.

To respond...overall in endorsements etc Andre made way more money than Pete. Andre married a tennis playing wife and will have ridiculously good tennis playing children. Pete had the edge on faster surfaces, Andre had the edge on the slower ones. Andre won all four slams, and has the most master series titles. Finally, Andre if you remember was with Brooke shields for awhile, who imo is better looking than Bridget Wilson...lol. Also, who cares about hair, Andre was/is a better looking guy overall than Pete ever was.

Advantage Agassi.

name_change
02-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Agassi and McEnroe are the best things to happen to tennis.

To respond...Agassi won at life he overall in endorsements etc, he made way more money than Pete. Andre married a tennis playing wife and will have ridiculously good tennis playing children. Pete had the edge on faster surfaces, Andre had the edge on the slower ones. Andre won all four slams, and has the most master series titles. Finally, Andre if you remember was with Brooke shields for awhile, who imo is better looking than Bridget Wilson...lol. Also, who cares about hair, Andre was a better looking guy in overall than Pete ever was.

Advantage Agassi.totally. with hair he was hot, without he was hotter. plus, he never played in a bundle of GS', especially the australian open which was his best slam. yes, shoulda coulda woulda i know, but heck. many of the young guys claim agassi as their idol growing up, not sampras.

Fumus
02-02-2007, 03:48 PM
totally. with hair he was hot, without he was hotter. plus, he never played in a bundle of GS', especially the australian open which was his best slam. yes, shoulda coulda woulda i know, but heck. many of the young guys claim agassi as their idol growing up, not sampras.

That's cuz Sampras was BORING! Agassi ushered in a new era of baseline tennis.

name_change
02-02-2007, 03:56 PM
plus andre won an olympic gold.

Lee
02-02-2007, 04:39 PM
:yawn:

scarecrows
02-02-2007, 04:41 PM
oh, I'm so waiting for GWH's reply to this thread, if he can have the nerve to reply

TennisGrandSlam
02-02-2007, 04:41 PM
Agassi finished Golden Grand Slam but never form his dynasty!

Sampras was successful to create his dynasty!

Actual ATP Dynasty :

Connors -> Borg -> McEnroe -> Lendl -> Edberg -> Sampras -> Hewitt -> Federer :devil:

Fumus
02-02-2007, 04:41 PM
Andre rocks! After Pete loses the record for most grand slams to Federer, I think Agassi will be remembered as the better player.

Audi
02-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Andre rocks! After Pete loses the record for most grand slams to Federer, I think Agassi will be remembered as the better player.
By who..anybody that follows tennis closely, any expert will say Sampras was better player, is greater and is legend. I mean it's not even close. Both played in the same era, both played head to head..and out of that Sampras ends up with almost double Grand Slam wins than Agassi, that's the definition of getting owned.

I agree that Agassi was more charistmatic and had a better personality..but that's just not how you measure greatness. Yes Agassi brought more fans, people like my brother who only watched when Agassi played but is not a real tennis fan. And that's the type of people who think Agassi is greater, the type of people who don't watch tennis for the sport..but for the personalities. When I watch tennis I'm amazed by the players talent not by the color of his hair or his attitude. That's why Agassi can only dream of being put in the same category as Sampras or Federer...except of course by people who look at tennis as a popularity contest. For anybody else who judges in terms of achievement, success and talent..it's even a debate.

Fumus
02-02-2007, 05:53 PM
By who..anybody that follows tennis closely, any expert will say Sampras was better player, is greater and is legend. I mean it's not even close. Both played in the same era, both played head to head..and out of that Sampras ends up with almost double Grand Slam wins than Agassi, that's the definition of getting owned.

I agree that Agassi was more charistmatic and had a better personality..but that's just not how you measure greatness. Yes Agassi brought more fans, people like my brother who only watched when Agassi played but is not a real tennis fan. And that's the type of people who think Agassi is greater, the type of people who don't watch tennis for the sport..but for the personalities. When I watch tennis I'm amazed by the players talent not by the color of his hair or his attitude. That's why Agassi can only dream of being put in the same category as Sampras or Federer...except of course by people who look at tennis as a popularity contest. For anybody else who judges in terms of achievement, success and talent..it's even a debate.

That because they played more on faster surfaces, and the balls were faster etc. If they played in the slower conditions of today certianly you would see Agassi the more complete player would hold the edge. Look at Pete's record against Andre on the the slower surfaces..that's ownership. Pete won most of his slams at Wimbledon, where as Andre kicked ass on all surfaces. Pete's only a legend because the conditions of the time allowed him to be. You see what I am saying Pete dominated the things he was good at like those fast surfaces, where Andre able to be sucessful on all surfaces because he had a more complete game. I think if Andre's serve was 10-20mph faster like it was at the end of his career he could have beat Pete on some of those faster surfaces. Andre was the better player.

guga2120
02-02-2007, 06:16 PM
That because they played more on faster surfaces, and the balls were faster etc. If they played in the slower conditions of today certianly you would see Agassi the more complete player would hold the edge. Look at Pete's record against Andre on the the slower surfaces..that's ownership. Pete won most of his slams at Wimbledon, where as Andre kicked ass on all surfaces. Pete's only a legend because the conditions of the time allowed him to be. You see what I am saying Pete dominated the things he was good at like those fast surfaces, where Andre able to be sucessful on all surfaces because he had a more complete game. I think if Andre's serve was 10-20mph faster like it was at the end of his career he could have beat Pete on some of those faster surfaces. Andre was the better player.

that sums it up, Pete never beat Andre in Australia, and got smoked by him in Paris. Agassi led their h2h in Master series too, and won 17 to Sampras 11.
Pete and Andre only played once in Paris b/c Pete was usually out in the 1st or 2nd round.

nobama
02-02-2007, 06:37 PM
Andre rocks! After Pete loses the record for most grand slams to Federer, I think Agassi will be remembered as the better player.Didn't you get the memo that if your game isn't based around s/v then you can't be the better player? ;)

R.Federer
02-02-2007, 07:08 PM
When you're remembered for your game. It will eventually slip away.
Federer has duplicated and surpassed Sampras' game. Personality on the other hand, can't be duplicated.


Yes, and that's why we remember Borg and Laver, you know, because full of personality. :bigclap:

Bagelicious
02-02-2007, 08:04 PM
Yes, and that's why we remember Borg and Laver, you know, because full of personality. :bigclap:

Well in Laver's case, who needs a personality when you can volley?

Volley>personality. :lol:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-02-2007, 08:07 PM
Well in Laver's case, who needs a personality when you can volley?

Volley>personality. :lol:
:haha: Volley = ultimate indication of talent (usually only indication of talent) ;)

MisterQ
02-02-2007, 08:24 PM
Are we in a time warp? :lol: I remember when this was the most common topic of discussion.

Sampras had the greater numbers, but Agassi proved himself a legend in his own right by the end. The two defining names of their generation.

Fumus
02-02-2007, 08:26 PM
Didn't you get the memo that if your game isn't based around s/v then you can't be the better player? ;)

Yea, well I am not talking about Pete vs. Fedex. I mean that's just a whole nother story about who was the greater player in their era/time and yada yada.

RonE
02-02-2007, 08:26 PM
:lol: at people like Fumus who try to rationalize things by using the "what if" arguments- "if" conditions were slower, "if" Agassi's serve was 10mph faster...

The fact of the matter is the conditions were how they were and what is done is done. Let's have a look at the facts shall we?:

1.) 20-14 in h2h for Sampras over Agassi in which Sampras leads 4-1 in slams finals. Meaning not only has he won more of their matches but he also won more of their really important matches.

2.) Sampras finished six years in a row as the world #1, Agassi only finished one year as #1. Sampras was therefore much more consistent over time whereas Agassi could never maintain his own level of intensity for an extended period of time.

3.) Agassi only had one year when he won more than 1 slam, Sampras had 4 years when he achieved that. Another indication that when it mattered the most Sampras again delivered more than Agassi.

4.) Win-loss ratio in grand slam finals for each player- an indication of who was the better big match player overall:
Sampras 14-4
Agassi 8-7

Nuff' said ;)

Lee
02-02-2007, 08:29 PM
Are we in a time warp? :lol: I remember when this was the most common topic of discussion.

Sampras had the greater numbers, but Agassi proved himself a legend in his own right by the end. The two defining names of their generation.

I am too tired today. Otherwise, I will bump those threads up. ;)

Richard_from_Cal
02-02-2007, 08:58 PM
:lol:

Totally apropos of nothing: Rod Laver leads Ken Rosewall in h2h, 12-5!

:lol: :lol:

Fumus
02-02-2007, 09:12 PM
:lol: at people like Fumus who try to rationalize things by using the "what if" arguments- "if" conditions were slower, "if" Agassi's serve was 10mph faster...

The fact of the matter is the conditions were how they were and what is done is done. Let's have a look at the facts shall we?:

1.) 20-14 in h2h for Sampras over Agassi in which Sampras leads 4-1 in slams finals. Meaning not only has he won more of their matches but he also won more of their really important matches.

2.) Sampras finished six years in a row as the world #1, Agassi only finished one year as #1. Sampras was therefore much more consistent over time whereas Agassi could never maintain his own level of intensity for an extended period of time.

3.) Agassi only had one year when he won more than 1 slam, Sampras had 4 years when he achieved that. Another indication that when it mattered the most Sampras again delivered more than Agassi.

4.) Win-loss ratio in grand slam finals for each player- an indication of who was the better big match player overall:
Sampras 14-4
Agassi 8-7

Nuff' said ;)

Yea, RonE. You go there buddy!! Way to show me up with all those facts there. I feel so beat! The truth is dude, you are right...Sampras did achieve more. I don't argue that he had better results. By the way RonE, I think you are a clown of a poster so the fact that I respond to you at all is beyond me. That said, my arguement isn't a "what-if" it's a "what was". Sampras dominated on faster surfaces but he wasn't the complete player Agassi was. Excuse me while I do another "what-if" but, if 3 of the slams were played on a slower surface like Rebound ace or Clay Agassi would own all those little records you were just talking about. Sampras just had a better serve, a ridiculous serve, the likes of which maybe never been seen again but that didn't make him a better player than Andre. Sampras just thrived in the conditions he was presented with at the time.

guga2120
02-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Yea, RonE. You go there buddy!! Way to show me up with all those facts there. I feel so beat! The truth is dude, you are right...Sampras did achieve more. I don't argue that he had better results. By the way RonE, I think you are a clown of a poster so the fact that I respond to you at all is beyond me. That said, my arguement isn't a "what-if" it's a "what was". Sampras dominated on faster surfaces but he wasn't the complete player Agassi was. Excuse me while I do another "what-if" but, if 3 of the slams were played on a slower surface like Rebound ace or Clay Agassi would own all those little records you were just talking about. Sampras just had a better serve, a ridiculous serve, the likes of which maybe never been seen again but that didn't make him a better player than Andre. Sampras just thrived in the conditions he was presented with at the time.

Sampras had the best serve in the history of tennis, and could win Wimbledon based on it alone, but if you slowed his serve down, like the clay did, you could see he was not the dominant player he was at the 2 majors that had fast surfaces.

player2k0
02-02-2007, 09:29 PM
Agassi was the better player. I don't consider Wimbledon a real slam. Though it looks good, Tennis shouldnt be played on grass. Sorry.

Bilbo
02-02-2007, 09:34 PM
:lol: at people like Fumus who try to rationalize things by using the "what if" arguments- "if" conditions were slower, "if" Agassi's serve was 10mph faster...

The fact of the matter is the conditions were how they were and what is done is done. Let's have a look at the facts shall we?:

1.) 20-14 in h2h for Sampras over Agassi in which Sampras leads 4-1 in slams finals. Meaning not only has he won more of their matches but he also won more of their really important matches.

2.) Sampras finished six years in a row as the world #1, Agassi only finished one year as #1. Sampras was therefore much more consistent over time whereas Agassi could never maintain his own level of intensity for an extended period of time.

3.) Agassi only had one year when he won more than 1 slam, Sampras had 4 years when he achieved that. Another indication that when it mattered the most Sampras again delivered more than Agassi.

4.) Win-loss ratio in grand slam finals for each player- an indication of who was the better big match player overall:
Sampras 14-4
Agassi 8-7

Nuff' said ;)

funny that you never mentioned olympic gold and a few other records agassi has over sampras.

thrust
02-02-2007, 09:35 PM
Andre was a great baseline tennis player, but Pete had a complete game. To say that Andre was a better player than Pete is just plain silly. Both were great players, but Pete was just better! Andre^s charity work is very admirable, but perhaps Pete is also involved in charity but doesn^t advertise it?

RonE
02-02-2007, 09:36 PM
By the way RonE, I think you are a clown of a poster so the fact that I respond to you at all is beyond me.

Actually the complete reversal of that rings more true- which is why after this post I will no longer bother to respond to your feeble antics.


That said, my arguement isn't a "what-if" it's a "what was". Sampras dominated on faster surfaces but he wasn't the complete player Agassi was. Excuse me while I do another "what-if" but, if 3 of the slams were played on a slower surface like Rebound ace or Clay Agassi would own all those little records you were just talking about. Sampras just had a better serve, a ridiculous serve, the likes of which maybe never been seen again but that didn't make him a better player than Andre. Sampras just thrived in the conditions he was presented with at the time.

And again, this is basically a lesson in how to say nothing using as many words as possible. Sampras had a much more complete arsenal than you would give him credit for, no doubt he used his serve as one of the fundamental bases for his game but ultimately in his peak he could hit almost any shot from anywhere in the court. If you would actually watch many of their encounters you would see it was not entirely the serve that won Sampras those matches but he actually constructed strategies in the rallies and often outsmarted Agassi.

Now I will keep my word not to pointlessly argue with arseclowns and let you troll this thread to your heart's content. Knock yourself out...

nobama
02-02-2007, 09:58 PM
I don't get downgrading Pete's accomplishments because the conditions suited his game and he made the most of it. I mean should we downgrade Nadal's achievements because his game just happens to be taylor made for clay and there are a lot of clay tournaments on the calendar? Makes no sense to me. :shrug:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-02-2007, 10:04 PM
Agassi was the better player. I don't consider Wimbledon a real slam. Though it looks good, Tennis shouldnt be played on grass. Sorry.
Yeh I totally agree with that statement. Besides, I don't think anything looks good, in fact tennis on grass has always been extremely boring imo. I mean who wants to see a guy serve 50 aces a match.

At the end of the day, Agassi was more talented than Sampras, but Sampras made better use of his ability, and tennis was his only focus.

denisgiann
02-02-2007, 10:15 PM
[QUOTE=disturb3d;4797208]Agassi didn't have the most versatile, brilliant game.
But Agassi had image, a sense of humor, and charisma. To the point where people came to see Agassi, and not tennis.
QUOTE]

Τhen he should have been an actor and not a tennis player.Your arguments are charisma and sense of humor?:haha: :haha:

Deal with it.Agassi is not even in the top five of the best players ever.:wavey:

ranaldo
02-02-2007, 11:20 PM
:lol: at people like Fumus who try to rationalize things by using the "what if" arguments- "if" conditions were slower, "if" Agassi's serve was 10mph faster...

The fact of the matter is the conditions were how they were and what is done is done. Let's have a look at the facts shall we?:

1.) 20-14 in h2h for Sampras over Agassi in which Sampras leads 4-1 in slams finals. Meaning not only has he won more of their matches but he also won more of their really important matches.

2.) Sampras finished six years in a row as the world #1, Agassi only finished one year as #1. Sampras was therefore much more consistent over time whereas Agassi could never maintain his own level of intensity for an extended period of time.

3.) Agassi only had one year when he won more than 1 slam, Sampras had 4 years when he achieved that. Another indication that when it mattered the most Sampras again delivered more than Agassi.

4.) Win-loss ratio in grand slam finals for each player- an indication of who was the better big match player overall:
Sampras 14-4
Agassi 8-7

Nuff' said ;)

Finally someone who talked some sense into all the bullshiters who said Agassi was better than Sampras.
One more thing, Sampras wasn't boring, he didn't care about the offcourt show-us-how-cool you-are media attention.
Check this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DACYNTNbD0)

R.Federer
02-02-2007, 11:23 PM
funny that you never mentioned olympic gold and a few other records agassi has over sampras.

Did Sampras even try to get the olympic gold? I don't think he bothered :shrug:

ChinoRios4Ever
02-02-2007, 11:23 PM
both LEGENDS!!!!! :worship:

R.Federer
02-02-2007, 11:28 PM
This is an odd rebuttal to RonE or others.

It is like saying, 10 years from now "Well, Federer would have been a zero-slam non-wonder if only the conditions were different. Well roddick he would have never won the USO if it had been played on clay (and that would be true indeed)." People still rave about Laver's achievements. Are you saying that it's only because of the surface that he is what he is? And that say, Lew Hoad would be GOAT if they had had different surfaces then?

Agassi had far better returns, Pete had far better serve. Agassi had a far better bh, Pete had far better fh and esp. running forehands. Agassi had far better physical conditioning, Pete was far stronger mentally. How does this all add up to Agassi being the more complete player??


Yea, RonE. You go there buddy!! Way to show me up with all those facts there. I feel so beat! The truth is dude, you are right...Sampras did achieve more. I don't argue that he had better results. By the way RonE, I think you are a clown of a poster so the fact that I respond to you at all is beyond me. That said, my arguement isn't a "what-if" it's a "what was". Sampras dominated on faster surfaces but he wasn't the complete player Agassi was. Excuse me while I do another "what-if" but, if 3 of the slams were played on a slower surface like Rebound ace or Clay Agassi would own all those little records you were just talking about. Sampras just had a better serve, a ridiculous serve, the likes of which maybe never been seen again but that didn't make him a better player than Andre. Sampras just thrived in the conditions he was presented with at the time.

angiel
02-02-2007, 11:47 PM
Andre was a great baseline tennis player, but Pete had a complete game. To say that Andre was a better player than Pete is just plain silly. Both were great players, but Pete was just better! Andre^s charity work is very admirable, but perhaps Pete is also involved in charity but doesn^t advertise it?


He is involve in charity:worship: :worship: but we only see and hear what we want to here.:angel: :angel:

angiel
02-02-2007, 11:49 PM
Agassi was the better player. I don't consider Wimbledon a real slam. Though it looks good, Tennis shouldnt be played on grass. Sorry.



And Jesus Christ is Lord.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek: :sad:

Sjengster
02-02-2007, 11:49 PM
Sampras was considerably better from the baseline than Agassi was at the net, just watch their last encounter in that US Open final and you'll see that he was quite happy with the hard pace set by Agassi from the back of the court, at times overwhelming him on the backhand as well as the forehand side. That's not to say that Agassi didn't have the superior backhand overall, but to suggest that he was the more complete player of the two is nonsense.

I always find it hard to produce a definitive answer to this much-exhausted debate, since both men have aspects of their careers that make them stand out over the other one. But aside from the undoubted significance of Agassi winning all four majors (and it's not as if Sampras in his prime was lousy on clay, considering he has wins on the surface over almost every top claycourt player from the period), Sampras has a huge lead in nearly everything that defines a champion and an all-time great, and that doesn't mean how many commercials you put your image to or how many fashion changes you go through.

Strange, I never thought I would end up as a defender of Sampras. Can I be even-handed and say that I disliked both of them in their last years on tour and wished for someone new altogether?

Audi
02-03-2007, 06:07 AM
At the end of the day, Agassi was more talented than Sampras, but Sampras made better use of his ability, and tennis was his only focus.
Wow..crazy talk at it's best.

kronus12
02-03-2007, 03:16 PM
pure tennis talent agassi was better then pete why because agassi is one of a select group to win all the gslams. Agassi had an all court game not pete that's why he failed miserably at Rolland Garros and once made the semi-final which was admirable but he didn't win like agassi did.
Both are great players but in years to come after they are long gone only person i think that will stick out in that era for me is that bald guy agassi.

RonE
02-03-2007, 04:28 PM
pure tennis talent agassi was better then pete why because agassi is one of a select group to win all the gslams. Agassi had an all court game not pete that's why he failed miserably at Rolland Garros and once made the semi-final which was admirable but he didn't win like agassi did.
Both are great players but in years to come after they are long gone only person i think that will stick out in that era for me is that bald guy agassi.

Wrong. If you talk about all court game Sampras' abilities outweighed Andre's in that department and he was the more versatile of the two. The reasons Sampras was no where near as good as Agassi on clay are:

1. His serve was nullified on the clay and couldn't win him as many cheap points as it did on other surfaces forcing him to engage in more backcourt rallies where he tended to get impatient and end the point too quickly. Agassi kept himself in the rallies and was more solid off the ground in ground stroke to ground stroke rally.

2. Movement- Sampras never got the footwork right on the clay. Often times he would hit a shot and then slide instead of slide into the shot. This resulted in him being caught off balance and out of position and put his opponent in a position to control the point. Agassi's movement on clay was also far from natural however it was good enough to get the job done.

oz_boz
02-04-2007, 11:52 AM
Both are great players but in years to come after they are long gone only person i think that will stick out in that era for me is that bald guy agassi.

Props to kronus12 for putting those two words into his post, and not ridiculously trying to argue that Agassi will be remembered because he was a better player, when results tell a completely different story.

IF surfaces were faster blah blah - but the weren't! Tennis was played in a certain way in the 90's and the one who did it best was Pete, that can't be argued unless you dismiss the numbers, which in fact are the only possible valid evidence.

Agassi' impact on the game may be greater, but he is not in Sampras' league resultwise, as shown by RonE a.o. (Andre has his Olympic Gold, which certainly to most tennis players means less than a Slam win, and a career Slam, but that definitely doesn't make up for the Slam crown difference of six plus Pete's sheer dominance both in rankings and h2h.)

almouchie
02-04-2007, 01:56 PM
totally. with hair he was hot, without he was hotter. plus, he never played in a bundle of GS', especially the australian open which was his best slam. yes, shoulda coulda woulda i know, but heck. many of the young guys claim agassi as their idol growing up, not sampras.

yeah right

sampras was & is so much more handsome than agassi
but its realtive
its in the eye of the beholder

almouchie
02-04-2007, 02:03 PM
Wrong. If you talk about all court game Sampras' abilities outweighed Andre's in that department and he was the more versatile of the two. The reasons Sampras was no where near as good as Agassi on clay are:

1. His serve was nullified on the clay and couldn't win him as many cheap points as it did on other surfaces forcing him to engage in more backcourt rallies where he tended to get impatient and end the point too quickly. Agassi kept himself in the rallies and was more solid off the ground in ground stroke to ground stroke rally.

2. Movement- Sampras never got the footwork right on the clay. Often times he would hit a shot and then slide instead of slide into the shot. This resulted in him being caught off balance and out of position and put his opponent in a position to control the point. Agassi's movement on clay was also far from natural however it was good enough to get the job done.

I would add to that, one important aspect
Pete Sampras never liked Rolland Garros, it was only in the latter stages of his life, that he decided to put a serious effort, but by then it was extremely difficult.
he didnt find his A-game on clay, he did the occasional clay tournament in some 5 matches.
Mostly its his attitude which only at the latter stages, when everyone kept saying he cant be the greatest ever if didnt have a RG crown.
reaching that semifinal was no fluke, it was a stong effort, that shows he could have won, had he put in more work on clay & better atittude,
he lost that semi after being totally drained on his route.
Kafelnikov his opponent won that year

almouchie
02-04-2007, 02:38 PM
Have a pissing contest over whether Sampras or Agassi is the better player all you want, but if you're going to do that, discussions of who had the better personality, hotter girlfriends, larger endorsement deals, should be tossed out the window. Discuss the tennis; everything else is open to too much subjectivity to make for a worthwhile discussion.

For example, people can say that Agassi had more "personality" than Sampras - that Sampras was a boring, hirsute tool that made entire nations yawn when they heard him speak - but I can turn around and say that Agassi didn't have a personality so much as he did an abrasive media image cultivated for so long that it made it hard for me to take Andre seriously when he underwent a personality bypass late in his career and started spouting New Age, pseudo-Buddhist one-liners left and right. :ras: But does my OPINION on his personality or anyone's OPINION on Sampras's lack of star quality have anything to do with their stats and results as tennis players? No. :shrug:

And the "what if's" are just as ridiculous. Sure, what if the courts were slower in the 1990s to allow Agassi a better shot against Pete? Hey, what if all the Slams were on clay - Rafa and Henin would both be on their way to their eleventh majors! :D And Roger would have ZERO! :rocker2:


well said

almouchie
02-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Have a pissing contest over whether Sampras or Agassi is the better player all you want, but if you're going to do that, discussions of who had the better personality, hotter girlfriends, larger endorsement deals, should be tossed out the window. Discuss the tennis; everything else is open to too much subjectivity to make for a worthwhile discussion.

For example, people can say that Agassi had more "personality" than Sampras - that Sampras was a boring, hirsute tool that made entire nations yawn when they heard him speak - but I can turn around and say that Agassi didn't have a personality so much as he did an abrasive media image cultivated for so long that it made it hard for me to take Andre seriously when he underwent a personality bypass late in his career and started spouting New Age, pseudo-Buddhist one-liners left and right. :ras: But does my OPINION on his personality or anyone's OPINION on Sampras's lack of star quality have anything to do with their stats and results as tennis players? No. :shrug:

And the "what if's" are just as ridiculous. Sure, what if the courts were slower in the 1990s to allow Agassi a better shot against Pete? Hey, what if all the Slams were on clay - Rafa and Henin would both be on their way to their eleventh majors! :D And Roger would have ZERO! :rocker2:


well said

Action Jackson
02-04-2007, 02:48 PM
I would add to that, one important aspect
Pete Sampras never liked Rolland Garros, it was only in the latter stages of his life, that he decided to put a serious effort, but by then it was extremely difficult.
he didnt find his A-game on clay, he did the occasional clay tournament in some 5 matches.
Mostly its his attitude which only at the latter stages, when everyone kept saying he cant be the greatest ever if didnt have a RG crown.
reaching that semifinal was no fluke, it was a stong effort, that shows he could have won, had he put in more work on clay & better atittude,
he lost that semi after being totally drained on his route.
Kafelnikov his opponent won that year


You are overrating Sampras on clay more than a little. Yes, he defeated most of the good guys on clay at least once, but he didn't have the fitness to do it for 2 weeks on the surface against an excellent generation of players that excelled on clay when he was number 1.

RonE, explained the basic reasons as to why Sampras lacked on clay. Considering it was easier to get to his weaknesses on the surface and he was never a realistic chance of winning RG, through this and the above in addition to a lack of consistency.

Richard_from_Cal
02-04-2007, 07:25 PM
:lol:

Totally apropos of nothing: Rod Laver leads Ken Rosewall in h2h, 12-5!

:lol: :lol:
further apropos of nothing but dwelling on the past...

"Rocket" Rod Laver versus "Muscles" Ken Rosewall....


....had better nicknames than:

"Sweet Pete" Sampras versus "Randy Andy?" Agassi?:rolls: :lol: :lol: :haha:

Bilbo
02-04-2007, 07:35 PM
IF surfaces were faster blah blah - but the weren't! Tennis was played in a certain way in the 90's and the one who did it best was Pete, that can't be argued unless you dismiss the numbers, which in fact are the only possible valid evidence.

how can pete be the best when he failed to win one of the four big titles? i mean clay is also a big part of tennis, no? he never achieved to win the maximum in tennis.

guga2120
02-04-2007, 08:16 PM
how can pete be the best when he failed to win one of the four big titles? i mean clay is also a big part of tennis, no? he never achieved to win the maximum in tennis.
no question you can not be the GOAT if you have the record he had at Roland Garros.

megadeth
02-04-2007, 11:16 PM
sampras cant pull off the bald look the way agassi did :p

advantaga agassi

tennisforumname
02-04-2007, 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by almouchie View Post
I would add to that, one important aspect
Pete Sampras never liked Rolland Garros, it was only in the latter stages of his life, that he decided to put a serious effort, but by then it was extremely difficult.
he didnt find his A-game on clay, he did the occasional clay tournament in some 5 matches.
Mostly its his attitude which only at the latter stages, when everyone kept saying he cant be the greatest ever if didnt have a RG crown.
reaching that semifinal was no fluke, it was a stong effort, that shows he could have won, had he put in more work on clay & better atittude,
he lost that semi after being totally drained on his route.
Kafelnikov his opponent won that year



In the same light, you could argue that Agassi never took Wimbledon or AO seriously in the beginning, and that it was only in his later years that he started to become a major contender at those. Wimbledon he skipped a few years in the beginning- not going to argue he would've won, but he's regularly made it into the quarters, semis, etc. there otherwise. Obviously he dominated at AO when he didn't have injuries, and would've likely won a couple more slams if he hadn't skipped those years- he even won over pete at the AO.

Bottom line is if Agassi had put more effort into those two slams (especially AO), he would have been much closer to pete's achievements (in terms of slams.) and only dominating at the AO doesn't matter, since the majority of pete's are from wimbledon.

acharlesmobile
02-05-2007, 03:46 AM
i thought this thread was about Agassi being owned in life? Which um... he wasn't.

Mimi
02-05-2007, 03:50 AM
:haha: :bowdown: :bigclap: , yeah, so true, may be i am biased :devil:

Sampras has more slams, leads the H2H, lost his hair later, has the hotter wife.

Sampras PWNED Agassi at life.

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 04:28 AM
1. Agassi is a better person
2. Agassi is more charasmatic
3. Agassi has more fans
4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll
5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image
6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span
7. Agassi`s rollercoaster career & rise back up the rankings is LEGENDARY
8. Agassi won ALL-FOUR SLAMS [have a cry Pete]
9. Agassi`s game was more interesting [Android Pete was the most boring #1 ever]
10. Andre won an Olympic Gold Medal [Pete pretended he didn`t care]
11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already

Mimi
02-05-2007, 04:42 AM
sorry, i don't agree with point 1, 4 and 11

frankly, we never know whether agassi or sampras is a better person coz we never have the chance to know them in real life


1. Agassi is a better person
2. Agassi is more charasmatic
3. Agassi has more fans
4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll
5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image
6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span
7. Agassi`s rollercoaster career & rise back up the rankings is LEGENDARY
8. Agassi won ALL-FOUR SLAMS [have a cry Pete]
9. Agassi`s game was more interesting [Android Pete was the most boring #1 ever]
10. Andre won an Olympic Gold Medal [Pete pretended he didn`t care]
11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 06:48 AM
sorry, i don't agree with point 1, 4 and 11

frankly, we never know whether agassi or sampras is a better person coz we never have the chance to know them in real life

:cool:
Ok mimi~ yeah maybe I was a bit harsh with Pete:devil: ..

The original poster annoyed me somewhat with the statement "Pete owns Andre in life":rolleyes: ...or some crap like that:eek: ..


Anyway I think it`s ironic that Agassi began with the Image Is Everything campaign & now he`s doing so much for children:worship:
Whereas Sampras always came across as the Living Simply kind of guy & now he`s gone all Hollywood with his wife & lifestyle [playing celebrity golf pro-ams & turning up at movie premieres etc.:o ].

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 06:52 AM
1. Agassi is a better person
2. Agassi is more charasmatic
3. Agassi has more fans
4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll
5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image
6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span
7. Agassi`s rollercoaster career & rise back up the rankings is LEGENDARY
8. Agassi won ALL-FOUR SLAMS [have a cry Pete]
9. Agassi`s game was more interesting [Android Pete was the most boring #1 ever]
10. Andre won an Olympic Gold Medal [Pete pretended he didn`t care]
11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already

You must be busy with the Hewitt, Federer and Agassi Propaganda Ministries these days.

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 06:55 AM
You must be busy with the Hewitt, Federer and Agassi Propaganda Ministries these days.

As you know GW~> I do take my Ministries very seriously;) :p

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 06:56 AM
As you know GW~> I do take my Ministries very seriously;) :p

I can tell that rubbish you came out about Agassi ( not the tennis related stuff) was some of your best work.

Mimi
02-05-2007, 07:20 AM
its ok :wavey:

but if i am correct, pete also does some charities, he set up (or others to set up and he to finance) a cancer foundation for his dead coach :angel:



:cool:
Ok mimi~ yeah maybe I was a bit harsh with Pete:devil: ..

The original poster annoyed me somewhat with the statement "Pete owns Andre in life":rolleyes: ...or some crap like that:eek: ..


Anyway I think it`s ironic that Agassi began with the Image Is Everything campaign & now he`s doing so much for children:worship:
Whereas Sampras always came across as the Living Simply kind of guy & now he`s gone all Hollywood with his wife & lifestyle [playing celebrity golf pro-ams & turning up at movie premieres etc.:o ].

Mimi
02-05-2007, 07:50 AM
everyone (including non-tennis fans know that wimbledon is the most prestigous tournement in the world) and only who those could not win it say it is unimportant ;)


Agassi was the better player. I don't consider Wimbledon a real slam. Though it looks good, Tennis shouldnt be played on grass. Sorry.

Mimi
02-05-2007, 08:01 AM
many said Laver is greater than pete because he won all four slams, but people forgot that at Laver's time, there were only grass and clay courts, no hardcourts, so to sum up, Laver conquered only 2 surfaces, which is the same as pete: grass and hard courts ;)
no question you can not be the GOAT if you have the record he had at Roland Garros.

bokehlicious
02-05-2007, 08:38 AM
in fact tennis on grass has always been extremely boring imo. I mean who wants to see a guy serve 50 aces a match.

Moonballing, waiting for opponents' UEs is far more interesting tennis :yeah: :retard:

oz_boz
02-05-2007, 11:21 AM
no question you can not be the GOAT if you have the record he had at Roland Garros.

No question? So Laver is GOAT for you then.

Putting Andre above Sampras would be very strange considering they played in the same era and Sampras clearly dominated that era. Not many with insight in the game would agree with you on that.

So "no question" is definitely too strong. There are many more factors that come into play when you judge a player: slam tally, longevity as #1, rate of domination (Fed, Borg, Connors and Lendl do well in that department) etc.

thesupreme
02-05-2007, 01:37 PM
So let me get this right...are we gonna degrade tennis to such a degree that someone with charisma, charm, superb ability and style is regarded as 'better' than someone who..

*is an absolute gent on and off court
*wins matches though totally ill and in grief (vs Corretja)
*a superb win loss record in GS
*Owned Wimbledon
*Consistently won important points with brilliant plays and aces
*Arguable the best serve and tennis motions in the history tennis, very classic
*Is in tennis history for the most GS *PERIOD*
*Kicks agassi's ass more time than i can remember and clearly owned him when the going got *really* tough

Dont get me wrong, i thought Agassi when i was younger was the greatest because of the image, amazing returns, vibrant play and the amazing marketing. But i have to concede this - when it comes down to cold hard facts, classic tennis play and a legacy that true tennis afficianados should hold up in higher regard rather than a mega talented tennis pop icon, it is Sampras without question who is top. And his past girlfriends & wife are WAAAY hotter if you want to be that tabloid, dont be so ridiculous...i cant get down with a nose like Steffi's, thats one hell of a proboscis...

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 04:06 PM
everyone (including non-tennis fans know that wimbledon is the most prestigous tournement in the world) and only who those could not win it say it is unimportant ;)

:wavey:
...
We all know Wimby is the most prestigous;) & that`s why Andre added it to his collection including: Wimby, USO, AO, FO, Olympic Gold, TMC, Davis Cup, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Canada, Cincinati, Madrid, Paris:worship: !!! Andre took everything possible [except Monte Carlo & Hamburg]:p


#Also just in case anyone forgets it~ Andre did defeat Pete in many big matches on many big occassions;)

Eg. 1995 AO final:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax37uKME1Ag

sykotique
02-05-2007, 04:20 PM
Yeh I totally agree with that statement. Besides, I don't think anything looks good, in fact tennis on grass has always been extremely boring imo. I mean who wants to see a guy serve 50 aces a match.

So..you would like to see 2nd serves eliminated...you think a Slam on grass is ridiculous...your favourite current player is Nadal.


Coincidence? Maybe not. Do you have any suggestions at all for the game of tennis that do not somehow incorporate favouritism towards certain players that you just happen to support? I mean, you have a right to an opinion, but you're abusing your right just a little, don't you think?

Bobby
02-05-2007, 06:47 PM
So let me get this right...are we gonna degrade tennis to such a degree that someone with charisma, charm, superb ability and style is regarded as 'better' than someone who..

*is an absolute gent on and off court
*wins matches though totally ill and in grief (vs Corretja)
*a superb win loss record in GS
*Owned Wimbledon
*Consistently won important points with brilliant plays and aces
*Arguable the best serve and tennis motions in the history tennis, very classic
*Is in tennis history for the most GS *PERIOD*
*Kicks agassi's ass more time than i can remember and clearly owned him when the going got *really* tough

Dont get me wrong, i thought Agassi when i was younger was the greatest because of the image, amazing returns, vibrant play and the amazing marketing. But i have to concede this - when it comes down to cold hard facts, classic tennis play and a legacy that true tennis afficianados should hold up in higher regard rather than a mega talented tennis pop icon, it is Sampras without question who is top. And his past girlfriends & wife are WAAAY hotter if you want to be that tabloid, dont be so ridiculous...i cant get down with a nose like Steffi's, thats one hell of a proboscis...

I agree.

RonE
02-05-2007, 08:51 PM
1. Agassi is a better person

What absolute rubbish! The difference is that Agassi cultivated that false "nice guy, elderly spokesman of the game" PR horseshit better than Sampras. Sampras was more of a what you see is what you get kind of character which many people have understandably found dull but Agassi's phoneyness knew no bounds.


2. Agassi is more charasmatic

Agreed. He knew how to manipulate the media into portraying him as the rebel turned darling and his marketing skills are quite superb- no argument there.


3. Agassi has more fans

Have you actually conducted a statistical survey among all the fans of tennis on the planet to determine this?


4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll

That is just your opinion. It's a matter of taste- there are people who will say Brigette is more appealing than Steffi.


5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image

I will concede he definitely did his part and the impact he has had in the way the modern game is played and marketed is certainly felt to this day.


6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span

You conveniently failed to mention that this extended carreer was due to many hiatuses he took from the game because he was busy with other things. Had he been as focused during his prime years as Sampras was and maximized his potential at that time he wouldn't have lasted as long as he had. Since he did not utilize many of his younger years he still had some reserves in the tank well into his thirties. As many continue to point out it's not the age as much as the overall mileage.


7. Agassi`s rollercoaster career & rise back up the rankings is LEGENDARY

Yes and no. Yes because you have to admit that going from #1 to #144 back to #1 is something rather unique in tennis. No because again it was always a matter of maximizing his potential. When he felt like it he always had the tools and skills but his fall resulted in him not applying those skills because he basically couldn't be fucked exerting himself. You want legendary? Thomas Muster getting his knee smashed by a drunk driver, doctors telling him he would never be able to walk let alone play tennis with sheer guts and determination worked his way back and came back to the game won RG and made it to #1! That is tenfold times more legendary that Andre and all his drama queen antics.


8. Agassi won ALL-FOUR SLAMS [have a cry Pete]

He had tremendous luck in some of those victories with ridiculously easy draws. Winning RG in 1999- Marcello Fillipini? :haha: Dominik Hrbaty??? :tape: And of course he was getting pasted in the final by Medvedev until the rain came to rescue him :o OK, I will admit there is no doubt you play the players you are drawn to play and Agassi utilized his luck to the best effect and good for him. However you also have to admit he WAs ridiculously lucky to win all four the way he did.


9. Agassi`s game was more interesting [Android Pete was the most boring #1 ever]

Andre's game was much more mechanical and while his stroke production was very solid and accurate he was a monotonous machine whereas Pete executed his shots with more fluidity and grace. Also Andre was never too good at varying his tactics which made him rather one dimensional at times and many times he struggled to change a losing game when an opponent was getting the better of him. Pete had a greater ability to change tactics and was much more versatile overall.


10. Andre won an Olympic Gold Medal [Pete pretended he didn`t care]

Good for Andre but again Olympic Gold in tennis still does not register that high on the radar for many people :shrug:


11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already

Again totally subjective and basically what do looks have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

You know I love you CmonAussie but sometimes the stuff that comes out of your keyboard is rather eccentric if you don't mind me saying so :p

angiel
02-05-2007, 09:07 PM
1. Agassi is a better person
2. Agassi is more charasmatic
3. Agassi has more fans
4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll
5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image
6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span
7. Agassi`s rollercoaster career & rise back up the rankings is LEGENDARY
8. Agassi won ALL-FOUR SLAMS [have a cry Pete]
9. Agassi`s game was more interesting [Android Pete was the most boring #1 ever]
10. Andre won an Olympic Gold Medal [Pete pretended he didn`t care]
11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already


Say who???:( :( :confused: :confused: image is nothing or you never hear of that.

R.Federer
02-05-2007, 09:15 PM
1. Agassi is a better person
2. Agassi is more charasmatic
3. Agassi has more fans
9. Agassi`s game was more interesting

Where's the proof?

4. Agassi`s wife is hotter than Sampras`s barbie doll
11. Agassi looks handsome bald, Pete looks like a wanker already[/B]

There is indeed some truth in this, particularly for the blind.

6. Agassi had a longer career & won titles over a longer time span
What? He played more years than Pete, and still came up with fewer slams? For Pete's sake.... or, for Andre's sake. :)

5. Agassi revolutionised tennis & it`s image

Finally, the truth!

cmurray
02-05-2007, 10:03 PM
Good God. I feel like we're in 1999 again. :p


Look. Debating this is like arguing over whether chocolate covered eclairs or creme brulee is the better dessert. In the end, it's a matter of opinion.

On one hand, you have Pete who has won an absurd number of grand slams. It's difficult to argue with success - and yes sometimes numbers tell the story.

On the other hand, sometimes numbers DON'T tell the story. Andre squandered a great deal of his youth rebelling against the man (or whatever he called it at the time). He was in turns lazy, unmotivated and brilliant. And despite all that, he still managed to rack up wins. Anybody who says that Andre was untalented is either blind, is lying, or has never seen him play.

It's okay for people not to like him - there's been an awful lot to dislike in his lifetime - but to say that Pete PWNED him in life is not only a horrible thing to say, it is also patently untrue. He didn't even own him. :p Seriously. The guy really made something of his tennis career. Some of you blather on about Andre being fake in his efforts to appear like a nice guy. I can't imagine being such a pontificating fool that I think I have the right to call somebody's intentions into question - but obviously a lot of you have no problem doing so. Maybe it was all PR - maybe it wasn't. We'll probably never know. But what we DO know is that Andre started taking tennis seriously. We know he trained like mad. We know that he came back at age 30 and played the best, most consistent tennis of his life. And we know that he managed at age 35 to get to the final of a grand slam. This, at the very least, is worthy of respect.

R.Federer
02-05-2007, 10:06 PM
^ Creme Brulee, and that is a FACT.

cmurray
02-05-2007, 10:09 PM
^ Creme Brulee, and that is a FACT.

:lol:

My husband would beg to differ. It so happens that I agree with you. ;)

Lee
02-05-2007, 10:10 PM
Cream Burlee is for people with sophisticated taste. :angel:

Sjengster
02-05-2007, 10:11 PM
What on earth does PWNED mean anyway? Where does it come from? I find it completely bizarre.

cmurray
02-05-2007, 10:14 PM
What on earth does PWNED mean anyway? Where does it come from? I find it completely bizarre.

:lol:

The original poster meant to type "OWNED" and typed "PWNED" instead. It's taken on a life of it's own in this thread.

R.Federer
02-05-2007, 10:15 PM
Cream Burlee is for people with sophisticated taste. :angel:

Or the burlesque (just kidding you) :)

Maybe Burlee will go the way of Pwned.

angiel
02-05-2007, 10:17 PM
"To be criticized for (being dull), it really pissed me off. I'm puzzled by it. What do these people want? Do they want someone to act like a jerk out there?" says Pete Sampras on ESPN's SportsCentury show. Sampras won his record-tying 12th Grand Slam title after he was voted No. 48 among North American athletes of the 20th century by SportsCentury's distinguished 48-person panel.



I hope all of Andre fans read this - because for all his charms and popularity he his not even rank amongst the best in anything.

http://www.sampras.ws/

MisterQ
02-05-2007, 10:20 PM
What on earth does PWNED mean anyway? Where does it come from? I find it completely bizarre.

Never sat well with me either... but it has a significant internet history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

The best part is trying to pronounce it in real speech. :rolls:

cmurray
02-05-2007, 10:20 PM
"To be criticized for (being dull), it really pissed me off. I'm puzzled by it. What do these people want? Do they want someone to act like a jerk out there?" says Pete Sampras on ESPN's SportsCentury show. Sampras won his record-tying 12th Grand Slam title after he was voted No. 48 among North American athletes of the 20th century by SportsCentury's distinguished 48-person panel.



I hope all of Andre fans read this - because for all his charms and popularity he his not even rank amongst the best in anything.

Wrong. Have you looked at the list of people who have won all 4 majors? Pretty impressive company. And Andre is the only guy who has ever done it on all 4 surfaces. Deal with the facts, my friend.

cmurray
02-05-2007, 10:21 PM
Never sat well with me either... but it has a significant internet history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

The best part is trying to pronounce it in real speech. :rolls:

:lol:

CmonAussie
02-05-2007, 10:25 PM
"To be criticized for (being dull), it really pissed me off. I'm puzzled by it. What do these people want? Do they want someone to act like a jerk out there?" says Pete Sampras on ESPN's SportsCentury show. Sampras won his record-tying 12th Grand Slam title after he was voted No. 48 among North American athletes of the 20th century by SportsCentury's distinguished 48-person panel.



I hope all of Andre fans read this - because for all his charms and popularity he his not even rank amongst the best in anything.


:wavey:
Sampras was dull;) .. He didn`t know how to connect with fans & in his many speeches [after winning slams] he didn`t know how to verbalise his feelings in a way that made people want to pull for him!!

...People who compare Sampras & Federer are blind...

Federer is not dull as he is in fact a very intelligent chap~ speaks 4-languages for Pete`s sake:p

Sampras always responded to questions in a smug way & avoided controversy by saying the PC response [boring Pete]:rolleyes:

Federer is honest in his appraisal of his own game & others~~ this is not arrogance but simply speaking frank:cool: ..
Roger`s interviews are fascinating because he never trys to avoid uncomfortable questions... he`ll assess each question on it`s merits & try to give the fans & media a lasting impression:worship:

guga2120
02-05-2007, 10:26 PM
Wrong. Have you looked at the list of people who have won all 4 majors? Pretty impressive company. And Andre is the only guy who has ever done it on all 4 surfaces. Deal with the facts, my friend.

Something many seem to forget, is Pete Sampras's record at Roland Garros.

R.Federer
02-05-2007, 10:27 PM
Never sat well with me either... but it has a significant internet history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

The best part is trying to pronounce it in real speech. :rolls:

And, missing below, is contributing editor: Hawkman, M.T.F

Metis
02-05-2007, 10:32 PM
:lol:

The original poster meant to type "OWNED" and typed "PWNED" instead. It's taken on a life of it's own in this thread.

Another example is: 'underrented' and 'underrated'. :D

Sorry, I can't offer an opinion on the Sampras vs Agassi debate since I wasn't watching tennis at the time those 2 were playing against each other. :o

angiel
02-05-2007, 10:34 PM
:wavey:
Sampras was dull;) .. He didn`t know how to connect with fans & in his many speeches [after winning slams] he didn`t know how to verbalise his feelings in a way that made people want to pull for him!!

...People who compare Sampras & Federer are blind...

Federer is not dull as he is in fact a very intelligent chap~ speaks 4-languages for Pete`s sake:p

Sampras always responded to questions in a smug way & avoided controversy by saying the PC response [boring Pete]:rolleyes:

Federer is honest in his appraisal of his own game & others~~ this is not arrogance but simply speaking frank:cool: ..
Roger`s interviews are fascinating because he never trys to avoid uncomfortable questions... he`ll assess each question on it`s merits & try to give the fans & media a lasting impression:worship:


:sad: :sad: Was he CmonAussie?? you can't take the heat so you switch to Roger now, my oh my:mad: :devil:

R.Federer
02-05-2007, 10:35 PM
I wasn't watching tennis at the time those 2 were playing against each other. :o

I'm jealous! Just how young are you??

angiel
02-05-2007, 10:40 PM
Something many seem to forget, is Pete Sampras's record at Roland Garros.



nobody is forgetting his Roland Garros record, but he dont need it to vault over Andre head, do you know that Time Magazine did a poll last year, just about or after Andre retires, about who are their favourite tennis players, and Pete Sampras top that list over Andre and everyone else - maybe you need to go have a look at it my friend - I never see one poll where andre ever came out over Pete Sampras, never.:D :) :worship: Pete Sampras is a gaint where by Andre is a midget, sorry.

Metis
02-05-2007, 10:42 PM
I'm jealous! Just how young are you??

I didn't mean I was too young to watch, just that I wasn't a tennis fan back then. :)

angiel
02-05-2007, 11:12 PM
Voted 48th athlete of Top 50 Greatest North American Athletes of ESPN's SportsCentury (also youngest on list).

Where were Andre on this list, he didn't even made it in the top 100.


Selected No. 1 player (of 25 players) in past 25 years in a panel of 100 current and past players, journalists and tournament directors to commemorate 25th anniversary of ATP in 1997.


Again where were Andre on this list.:worship: :worship: :angel:


Named GQ Magazine's Individual Athlete Award for Man of the Year in 2000.

I could go on and on, show me one list that Andre ever top or in.

Mimi
02-06-2007, 02:57 AM
you took words from my mouth :bowdown: :bowdown: :bigclap:

what i always admire pete is his fighting spirits and mental toughness, as revealed after he retired, he said he has an illness which afffects his stamina (sorry for my bad english, i forgot the name), so he really worked very hard to win so many matches, he just loves to use the racket to do the talking, he may be boring for some others, but he never bores me, and if you want entertainment, then watch "Mr Bean" ;)

So let me get this right...are we gonna degrade tennis to such a degree that someone with charisma, charm, superb ability and style is regarded as 'better' than someone who..

*is an absolute gent on and off court
*wins matches though totally ill and in grief (vs Corretja)
*a superb win loss record in GS
*Owned Wimbledon
*Consistently won important points with brilliant plays and aces
*Arguable the best serve and tennis motions in the history tennis, very classic
*Is in tennis history for the most GS *PERIOD*
*Kicks agassi's ass more time than i can remember and clearly owned him when the going got *really* tough

Dont get me wrong, i thought Agassi when i was younger was the greatest because of the image, amazing returns, vibrant play and the amazing marketing. But i have to concede this - when it comes down to cold hard facts, classic tennis play and a legacy that true tennis afficianados should hold up in higher regard rather than a mega talented tennis pop icon, it is Sampras without question who is top. And his past girlfriends & wife are WAAAY hotter if you want to be that tabloid, dont be so ridiculous...i cant get down with a nose like Steffi's, thats one hell of a proboscis...

Hingie
02-06-2007, 02:59 AM
Agassi didn't have the most versatile, brilliant game.
But Agassi had image, a sense of humor, and charisma. To the point where people came to see Agassi, and not tennis.

What Hulk Hogan is to wrestling, Agassi is to tennis.

When you're remembered for your game. It will eventually slip away.
Federer has duplicated and surpassed Sampras' game. Personality on the other hand, can't be duplicated.

That's stupid. Has people forgotten Laver, Borg, Lendl, Vilas, et al? No, they are remembered, and always will be remembered because only stats survive time. Memories don't. Andre is a wonderful humanitarian, but do we really remember athletes from the 50s who donated a lot to their community? No, we don't. But this whole thread is STUPID. Both are great players, both are wonderful people. Why bother saying who owned who.

Mimi
02-06-2007, 03:02 AM
:bowdown: brillant post


What absolute rubbish! The difference is that Agassi cultivated that false "nice guy, elderly spokesman of the game" PR horseshit better than Sampras. Sampras was more of a what you see is what you get kind of character which many people have understandably found dull but Agassi's phoneyness knew no bounds.


Agreed. He knew how to manipulate the media into portraying him as the rebel turned darling and his marketing skills are quite superb- no argument there.


Have you actually conducted a statistical survey among all the fans of tennis on the planet to determine this?


That is just your opinion. It's a matter of taste- there are people who will say Brigette is more appealing than Steffi.


I will concede he definitely did his part and the impact he has had in the way the modern game is played and marketed is certainly felt to this day.


You conveniently failed to mention that this extended carreer was due to many hiatuses he took from the game because he was busy with other things. Had he been as focused during his prime years as Sampras was and maximized his potential at that time he wouldn't have lasted as long as he had. Since he did not utilize many of his younger years he still had some reserves in the tank well into his thirties. As many continue to point out it's not the age as much as the overall mileage.


Yes and no. Yes because you have to admit that going from #1 to #144 back to #1 is something rather unique in tennis. No because again it was always a matter of maximizing his potential. When he felt like it he always had the tools and skills but his fall resulted in him not applying those skills because he basically couldn't be fucked exerting himself. You want legendary? Thomas Muster getting his knee smashed by a drunk driver, doctors telling him he would never be able to walk let alone play tennis with sheer guts and determination worked his way back and came back to the game won RG and made it to #1! That is tenfold times more legendary that Andre and all his drama queen antics.


He had tremendous luck in some of those victories with ridiculously easy draws. Winning RG in 1999- Marcello Fillipini? :haha: Dominik Hrbaty??? :tape: And of course he was getting pasted in the final by Medvedev until the rain came to rescue him :o OK, I will admit there is no doubt you play the players you are drawn to play and Agassi utilized his luck to the best effect and good for him. However you also have to admit he WAs ridiculously lucky to win all four the way he did.


Andre's game was much more mechanical and while his stroke production was very solid and accurate he was a monotonous machine whereas Pete executed his shots with more fluidity and grace. Also Andre was never too good at varying his tactics which made him rather one dimensional at times and many times he struggled to change a losing game when an opponent was getting the better of him. Pete had a greater ability to change tactics and was much more versatile overall.


Good for Andre but again Olympic Gold in tennis still does not register that high on the radar for many people :shrug:



Again totally subjective and basically what do looks have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

You know I love you CmonAussie but sometimes the stuff that comes out of your keyboard is rather eccentric if you don't mind me saying so :p

Mimi
02-06-2007, 03:06 AM
good post :bowdown: :bigclap:
Where's the proof?



There is indeed some truth in this, particularly for the blind.


What? He played more years than Pete, and still came up with fewer slams? For Pete's sake.... or, for Andre's sake. :)



Finally, the truth!

Mimi
02-06-2007, 03:24 AM
sorry, mimi is an oddie :o
Gawd, is this was MTF would have been like in the late 1990s? All this wanking, except everyone would be arguing over 28.8K modems. :o No thanks.

Lee
02-06-2007, 04:09 AM
Gawd, is this was MTF would have been like in the late 1990s? All this wanking, except everyone would be arguing over 28.8K modems. :o No thanks.

I only had a 14.4K modem. :sobbing:

Lee
02-06-2007, 04:39 AM
That's how I started off too, actually! :lol: Let's cry together! :bigcry::bigcry:

:bigcry: :crying2: :hysteric: :tears: :sobbing:

Bagelicious
02-06-2007, 04:48 AM
Gawd, is this was MTF would have been like in the late 1990s? All this wanking, except everyone would be arguing over 28.8K modems. :o No thanks.

:haha: Hilarious! I was thinking much the same thing... It's sad that it's actually kind of refreshing that this isn't a FedNadal thread. :tears:

CmonAussie
02-06-2007, 05:45 AM
#
Personality breakdown!!

*Sampras = monotone, robotic, simple, repetitive, smug, ruthless, insecure

*Agassi = showman, charismatic, rebel turned monk, passionate, enthusiastic

*Federer = natural, multi-lingual, frank, realistic, focussed, smooth, quirky

R.Federer
02-06-2007, 05:55 AM
#
Personality breakdown!!

*Sampras = monotone, robotic, simple, repetitive, smug, ruthless, insecure

*Agassi = showman, charismatic, rebel turned monk, passionate, enthusiastic

*Federer = natural, multi-lingual, frank, realistic, focussed, smooth, quirky

CmonAussie= **% ~~ biased, prejudiced, blindsided, intolerant, repetitive, obsessed ***%%%~

:)

CmonAussie
02-06-2007, 06:08 AM
CmonAussie= **% ~~ biased, prejudiced, blindsided, intolerant, repetitive, obsessed ***%%%~

:)


:wavey:
Sorry;)

I`ll try to be less verbose:devil:

#Sampras = explosive:eek:

#Agassi = inspired:worship:

#Federer = the Yuan [there can be only 1]:angel:



PS. I`ve never pretended to be PC, better to leave that up to Pistol Pete:rolleyes:

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 06:10 AM
PS. I`ve never pretended to be PC, better to leave that up to Pistol Pete:rolleyes:

Yes, Agassi was as legit as Kent Carlsson winning Wimbledon titles.

CmonAussie
02-06-2007, 06:47 AM
Yes, Agassi was as legit as Kent Carlsson winning Wimbledon titles.


:cool: ~ I have a feeling that`s supposed to be funny, but I don`t quite get it:confused: ... Was Kent Carlsson renowned for being PC or the antithesis:confused:

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 06:55 AM
:cool: ~ I have a feeling that`s supposed to be funny, but I don`t quite get it:confused: ... Was Kent Carlsson renowned for being PC or the antithesis:confused:

Alright I will put it this way. Replace Kent Carlsson with Thomas Muster and then you will have it.

CmonAussie
02-06-2007, 06:57 AM
Alright I will put it this way. Replace Kent Carlsson with Thomas Muster and then you will have it.


Where does Jo Beth Taylor fit into all of this:confused:

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 06:59 AM
Where does Jo Beth Taylor fit into all of this:confused:

Agassi was so manufactured with his image, that as a cheese lover I became lactose intolerant to all that crap and Sampras was false in his humility.

The way you are going on about Agassi, you have almost made me appreciate Sampras.

CmonAussie
02-06-2007, 07:20 AM
Agassi was so manufactured with his image, that as a cheese lover I became lactose intolerant to all that crap and Sampras was false in his humility.

The way you are going on about Agassi, you have almost made me appreciate Sampras.


:cool:
Okie dokies I`ll admit it~ when Andre starts talking crap about how: "I just want to make a difference to people`s lives everyday.. & help the children...etc.":eek:
>>> then I too have to reach for the puke bag:o
Also it`s eerily similiar to the spew worthy sentiments that Whacko Jacko would regurgitate:eek:


However Sampras really did love to play his aloof cards didn`t he:( .. Pete really was dull personified:p


Agassi may be false but atleast he`s entertaining, & afterall that is a big aspect of why we like watching tennis in the 1st place;) ..

Andre managed to inspire inspite of his falseness:worship:

angiel
02-06-2007, 10:07 PM
:cool:
Okie dokies I`ll admit it~ when Andre starts talking crap about how: "I just want to make a difference to people`s lives everyday.. & help the children...etc.":eek:
>>> then I too have to reach for the puke bag:o
Also it`s eerily similiar to the spew worthy sentiments that Whacko Jacko would regurgitate:eek:


However Sampras really did love to play his aloof cards didn`t he:( .. Pete really was dull personified:p


Agassi may be false but atleast he`s entertaining, & afterall that is a big aspect of why we like watching tennis in the 1st place;) ..

Andre managed to inspire inspite of his falseness:worship:



Did Pete steal you wife or something my dear, for someone you dislike him so much you have a lot to say about him, who do you really admire Pete or Andre, you are so envious of Pete you are turning green.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rogiman
02-06-2007, 10:25 PM
Sampras owned Mr. Public Relations, what is there to discuss that much...?

Bilbo
02-06-2007, 10:36 PM
typical federer fans side with sampras

angiel
02-06-2007, 11:14 PM
typical federer fans side with sampras


Who's fan are you?????? Andre........:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

CmonAussie
02-07-2007, 12:43 AM
typical federer fans side with sampras

:wavey:
I guess I`m not a typical Federer fan then;)
[Did you read any of my comments on Sampras/ Agassi/ FED:confused: ]

kobulingam
02-07-2007, 01:45 AM
Sure, he'll be remembered by a few orphans because he threw away millions on them. That's the only way he could compensate. Sampras didn't need such gimmicks as earings, clothes, and charity cause he's supremely confident and blessed in life.

And you think those orphans will remember him when the honey pot runs dry? Ha!


Agassi donates money to charities and organizes charity events.
Sampras donates nothing and attends exhibitions for a nice $$ appearance fee.

Agassi is accomplishing more in life than Sampras has, IMO.

llama
02-07-2007, 02:34 AM
Sure, he'll be remembered by a few orphans because he threw away millions on them. That's the only way he could compensate. Sampras didn't need such gimmicks as earings, clothes, and charity cause he's supremely confident and blessed in life.

And you think those orphans will remember him when the honey pot runs dry? Ha!

"Charity" - a "gimmick"? What a really, really stupid post.

Mimi
02-07-2007, 02:39 AM
how do you know sampras donates nothing :rolleyes: , if i am not mistaken, he donated a lot in the Cancer Fund in his death coach's name :rolleyes:

pete is a low profile person, aside from the above, may be he donates a lot more too, just that he does not like to tell the whole world :rolleyes:
Agassi donates money to charities and organizes charity events.
Sampras donates nothing and attends exhibitions for a nice $$ appearance fee.

Agassi is accomplishing more in life than Sampras has, IMO.

R.Federer
02-07-2007, 05:00 AM
Agassi donates money to charities and organizes charity events.
Sampras donates nothing and attends exhibitions for a nice $$ appearance fee.

Agassi is accomplishing more in life than Sampras has, IMO.

Agassi participates in advertisements for all kinds of stuff, from razors, to perfumes, to financial instruments, so he has plenty of non-tennis-earned money to spare.

yomike
02-07-2007, 05:44 AM
Andre won the French the only GS in my eyes.

Mimi
02-07-2007, 06:07 AM
then in your way, Guga is better than Roger since he won 3 FO, while roger has yet to win ;)?
Andre won the French the only GS in my eyes.

angiel
02-07-2007, 07:04 PM
Andre won the French the only GS in my eyes.


Well we are glad it is only in your eyes, thank God for that.:eek: :eek: :confused: :confused:

angiel
02-07-2007, 07:09 PM
Agassi donates money to charities and organizes charity events.
Sampras donates nothing and attends exhibitions for a nice $$ appearance fee.

Agassi is accomplishing more in life than Sampras has, IMO.


What has he really accomplish in life, do you think because somebody give money away, they accomplish anything in life, well my dear Lobulingam if that was true, this world would be a better place, dont you think, giving away money dont make anyone a good person, most of this world most corrupt people give money away my friend, just look around you and you will see that.:sad: :sad: :sad: