Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jinju]

Notice, I didnt say greatest. That will come in time. But on ability, will and character is he the best ever? I would say yes. If he ends up winning that French Open I think that should catapult him above pretty much anyone. ESPECIALLY if he does it as part of a Grand Slam. The sky though is the limit for the guy as he should be pretty much unbeatable on grass and hard courts. Anyway, 4 Wimbeldon titles in a row, thats just amazing.

[otis]

Tennis?

[jinju]

yes.

[otis]

Tennis is a fairy nice sport.

Me and the boys down at the gay bar just love to watch it.

[jinju]

Cool. Takes a really repressed homosexual to use the "gay" insult.

[otis]

[SPINOZA]

Sadly Otis's very childish, lower class and painfully demotic sense of humour is a curse on decent threads, Jinju, and it's down to outstanding Dave's Warriors like me to rescue them.

I've not seen this year's Wimbledon at all, so my opinion is worth less than would normally be the case.

I say no. I say Pete Samprass is the best of all time and many people who know a great deal about the game, including former greats such as John McEnroe, agree with me. Sampras could do everything - bassline tennis, at-the-net, power AND flair. He had everything and was a hero of mine in my teenage years during the 1990s.

I'd LOVE to watch modern day Federer v Sampras in his prime. I wouldn't bet against Big Pete. Federer's a great, he's so awesome, but Sampras was an invincible destroyer.

Totally gets to me how Sampras has a boring "all power, all serve" reputation. It's complete shlt.

[jinju]

Before Federer hits 30 he will have 15-20 grand slam titles on his resume and atleast one or two Grand Slams. He is just so good. I think he is the best ever and he is probbaly much more versetile than Samprass as far as surfaces go. 1:1 I would bet on Roger against a prime Samprass. Anyway, we will see. Its a pleasure to watch Roger play.

[ajstew]

"I say no. I say Pete Sampras is the best of all time and many people who know a great deal about the game, including former greats such as John McEnroe, agree with me. Sampras could do everything - bassline tennis, at-the-net, power AND flair. He had everything and was a hero of mine in my teenage years during the 1990s. I'd LOVE to watch modern day Federer v Sampras in his prime. I wouldn't bet against Big Pete. Federer's a great, he's so awesome, but Sampras was an invincible destroyer. Totally gets to me how Sampras has a boring "all power, all serve" reputation. It's complete shlt." Spinoza

Federer is the best ever. Pete Sampras is just a little less one dimensional than Andy Roddick is today. It's amazing what the guy accomplished with a backhand as poor as his was... and quite frankly, in this age of heavy top-spin forehands... his forehand wouldn't hold up either. And most people who know the game... contrary to what Spinoza says, suggest that Federer is the best ever. Sampras did have a great serve... that's true, and it's a good thing because without it, he wouldn't have had enough to win on the tour consistently. Sampras could do everything? He couldn't win from the baseline and he had little flair. A modern day Federer v Sampras would end in a Federer win... and probably not even a close win. Federer returns fast serves, in my opinion, better than any before him, and he would get that important break of serve when needed, either in the set or in the tiebreak.

I think it's pretty sad, to hear Sampras say something along the lines of "If I played Federer today, he would have his hands full." Yeah right. He'd mop the floor with you.

[Merlyn]

[diablo3]

Well, don't ever say Federer is the best until he wins all of them.

Don't call Sampras or McEnroe or Edberg or Becker or Lendl or whoever the greates until they actually win Wimbledon, the French Open, the US Open, and the Australian Open.

Any idea which player in the modern era won all 4? One guess ....

[jinju]

[diablo3]

When he does, then I will agree with you that is is the greatest ever.

Most top ranking players always win 3 out of 4 grand slams.

[Jasobang]

It's a different age in the tennis world, comparisons are useless. Who is to say that any one player, from one generation, could beat any other player from another. I'm sure either Sampras or Federer would have raised their game in what-ever area needed to compete with each other. Predictions are useless.

Sampras was dominating because of his serve and volley style of game. Contrary to what many say, he was a baseliner originally. He changed his game as the game changed. That was why he could have such a great rivalry with Agassi for all those years.

Federer is just a perfectionist. He has a complete game. He can serve and volley or sit back a exchange ground strokes all day. What's interesting is watching him compete with Nadal. Nadal is king on clay and Federer is in the process of showing just how great he is by elevating his game. This rivalry will set in stone his greatest in the end.

[Doogie]