Mens Tennis Forums banner

Which is the weaker era?

1 - 20 of 129 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First off, I realise this thread has probably been done to death. (I haven't seen any myself - I guess I'm too new to tennis/this forum)
But please humour me and my laziness in going back to look - its my first thread after all and its not like there are currently any "real" matches to talk about:)

The first match of Sampras that I remember seriously watching was the Sampras-Agassi USO final (Sampras's final title). Thus, I am totally clueless about what Sampras' era was like.

So I would like to find out what is the general consensus about this question: Which is the weaker era - the current one or Sampras' era? (Are either weak at all?)

Please, do not turn this thread into a GOAT debate:rolleyes: , and only post if you feel
you have ample experience of both eras (and with reasons for your answer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,676 Posts
This thread is 10 years premature; all players from this era must have retired before that kind of evaluation can be made at all (and even then it's pretty futile).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
If you like Samprass more -> this era is the weaker era
If you like Ro...euhhmm..if you are objective -> Samprass era is the weaker era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,739 Posts
This is soooo stupid.

This era is much harder. The top 100 are more well balanced than the top 100 in the Sampras era.

Back then a few players dominated the top, but if those players played now, be certain of at least half of those dominating top having significantly less titles.

As time improves competition becomes more fierce, but think total competition more than those who win grandslams.

It is clear that Federer, and Nadal on clay are more than super star level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Whatever it is there is no doubt.

Because I said so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
this era is much weaker, sampras had to play agassi, mcnroe, becker, edberg, borg, laver, tilden, emerson, rosewall, gonzalez.... and federer only plays nadal on clay
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
I remember Todd Martin, Enqvist, Pioline and Clement in grand slam finals. I remember Kafelnikov and Korda winning grand slams. Would this happen today?

I dont think the current top players would allow that, better players are dominating more than ever and the new generation is the most diverse I have seen since starting to watch tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
I remember Todd Martin, Enqvist, Pioline and Clement in grand slam finals. I remember Kafelnikov and Korda winning grand slams. Would this happen today?

I dont think the current top players would allow that, better players are dominating more than ever and the new generation is the most diverse I have seen since starting to watch tennis.
Enqvist and Pioline are certainly no worse than Gonzalez and Puerta.

Kafelnikov is no worse than Gaudio.

I think that era's cannot be compared in any meaningful way and so this discussion always boils down to which bunch of clowns get bored first and which bunch of clowns defends themselves to the last.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
I remember Todd Martin, Enqvist, Pioline and Clement in grand slam finals. I remember Kafelnikov and Korda winning grand slams. Would this happen today?

I dont think the current top players would allow that, better players are dominating more than ever and the new generation is the most diverse I have seen since starting to watch tennis.
diverse? no.

better? maybe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
Era needs to be defined before the discussion starts anyway. I see some people talk about Roger's era as 04-07 and talk about Sampras era from 90-2002. Truth is players shouldn't define era's but they do and that's part of the reason this discussion won't work.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
diverse? no.

better? maybe
Maybe I used the wrong words. The young guys coming up, Gasquet, Nadal, Berdych, Djokovic and Murray are really exciting and have a great diversity of shots and plays the game quite different from each other. I mean it is not like serve and volley or baseline games are the only diferent ways to play tennis, serve and volley was overused in the 90s, now there are too few of them. Now we have all these guys staying back, but they are all so different that I wouldnt say they are all ballbashers like some people like to call them. More and more seem to be approaching the allcourt game instead of just staying back or rushing to the net all the time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Enqvist and Pioline are certainly no worse than Gonzalez and Puerta.

Kafelnikov is no worse than Gaudio.

I think that era's cannot be compared in any meaningful way and so this discussion always boils down to which bunch of clowns get bored first and which bunch of clowns defends themselves to the last.
Gonzalez can beat any top player when he has a great day unlike Enqvist, I would say there is way more talent in him than Enqvist.

I would rather not mention claycourters like Puerta and Gaudio in the debate, we are talking about the faster courts where Sampras and Federer dominate. Pioline went to a wimbledon final and another gs final, that would not have happened today. I think this generation is alot more exciting than the 90s generation, but ofcourse I am biased as I was bored to death by the big servers in the 90s dominating tennis. I dont know if that is the reason I think they are better, but I sure as hell prefer watching them than Ivanisevic and Sampras having ace contests in wimbledon finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,796 Posts
Enqvist and Pioline are certainly no worse than Gonzalez and Puerta.

Kafelnikov is no worse than Gaudio.

I think that era's cannot be compared in any meaningful way and so this discussion always boils down to which bunch of clowns get bored first and which bunch of clowns defends themselves to the last.
And where are the Big 9 of Gonzalez and Puerta , where are the 19 singles titles ?
I must to say I never liked Enqvist as tennis player but he won 3 Big 9 and Gonzo has won ZERO
Pioline was 500 times better than Gonzalez in terms of talent and won Big 9 titles. No comparison here

Kafelnikov was an all court player , much better than Gaudio (only plays on clay ) :shrug:

This era is the weaker by faaaaar
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
The first match of Sampras that I remember seriously watching was the Sampras-Agassi USO final (Sampras's final title). Thus, I am totally clueless about what Sampras' era was like.
How is Agassi so neatly in Sampras's era? Didn't he play the USO final just 2 years ago :scratch: ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
this era is much weaker, sampras had to play agassi, mcnroe, becker, edberg, borg, laver, tilden, emerson, rosewall, gonzalez.... and federer only plays nadal on clay
did sampras really play borg, laver?!:confused:

Era needs to be defined before the discussion starts anyway. I see some people talk about Roger's era as 04-07 and talk about Sampras era from 90-2002. Truth is players shouldn't define era's but they do and that's part of the reason this discussion won't work.
What would you say is a good definition of the eras?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Ok, the worst "era" was the middle era between Sampras and Federer 1999-2002. Those years where horrible to watch, Todd Martin, Enqvist, Clement and Johansson (Even as a Swedish I thought it was horribly funny) in finals and winning some too. Old Ivanisevic and Costas marathon grand slams where entertaining but still would be impossible today. Agassi at almost 30 resurrecting and winning 3 of 4 grand slams was also quite entertaining, but it certanly was a shame for the mid 20s clowns of the era. I love Guga but he should have atleast been to another final except RG to be a real nr1, his master cup was sweet however. Then there was Hewitt appearing as the big star of the new generation when he still was a teenager and winning 2 grand slams.

I dont think there is any doubt that tennis was worse than today in that era. Now between 93-98 which was Sampras era, there could be some debate, but sure as hell tennis wasnt entertaining to watch back then. But then that is not an objective opinion, is it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
And where are the Big 9 of Gonzalez and Puerta , where are the 19 singles titles ?
I must to say I never liked Enqvist as tennis player but he won 3 Big 9 and Gonzo has won ZERO
Pioline was 500 times better than Gonzalez in terms of talent and won Big 9 titles. No comparison here

Kafelnikov was an all court player , much better than Gaudio (only plays on clay ) :shrug:

This era is the weaker by faaaaar
What super 9s do Federer or Nadal allow Gonzalez to win? He has been to some finals, but then there are these 2 giants waiting for him every single time.
 
1 - 20 of 129 Posts
Top