YUP!! I concur!! I grew up in the 70s and my male favorites were Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, then Pete Sampras. All 3 were about the tennis. No theatrics. Elegant. Smooth. ICONIC!!
For me, there will never be another Sampras. As a kid a saw him play and he's the best player I had the honor to witness. Best player in tennis history
I agree that it's not terribly productive to compare athletes from different eras. Technology changes, tactics change, rules change, and there's no accounting for the relative quality of a given athlete's opponents. What is clear is that, in his prime, Pete Sampras was the most successful tennis player of his era.
I got to see Pete Sampras play Marat Safin in Toronto back in the day. My dad worked for Newsweek and he snuck me in lol. I became a fan of tennis right then and there.
If it wasn't for Pete I would have never picked up a racket. 1996 and I was 9 yrs old all I did was practice my serve from morning til night. Thanks Pete you will always be #1
Cascão same here, for me he will always remain no. 1. For his ever elegant and powerful way of playing, and not the least, his gentlemanly behavior. Thanks Pete.
I remember watching Pete in his later years. I think I was around 14 at the time (31 now). His serve, backhand and volley just blew me away. His crushing second serve aces were awe inspiring. I finally took up tennis 3 years ago and people like Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Murray give me inspiration when I'm in a slump. Watching how they move and there effortless power and precision makes me strive to be a better player. Thanks for the memories Pete :-)
What a beautiful life and story! Love Pete when he was competing and loved him when it all ended. A wonderful human being all around and the greatest tennis player ever.
Beautiful video. I wasn't a fan of Pete's, but of course admired his determination and was amazed by his record. This video is a wonderful and personal view of the man, as well as the tennis legend. Great respect for his integrity, his dedication and talent. Happy life ahead to you, Mr. Sampras :-)
His play was so perfekt and beautiful! How he played backhand!!! For me he is the best. I am still missing. Unfortunately I couldn't see his play live....
I remember watching Pete Sampris play Agassi when I was a high school student. I had nothing to do that weekend and was trying to find something to do. I noticed on TV they were having some kind of tennis championship (don't know if it was Wimbledon or what) but I watched it and was in awe of how good this kid was. I didn't know anything about tennis but even I could say what a beast he was on that court!
I firmly believe that Pete at his peak is the best player I have ever seen, and I say this without every really having been a fan as such. His main problem was that his consistency was not that great, but when he was "on" he was simply the best ever.
@@ais6863 I think he's talking about Pete's performances at GS. Unlike the big three or older greats like Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors he didn't make it to every semifinal for five years. But he had this star quality about him which meant that he could win if he really wanted to.
@@Ultimate.Tennis I agree w/ your take in general. There were also so many more different ways to win in the 90s, w/ how much more different the surfaces were, playing styles, graphite technology was in effect, but more so just the elementary version of the metal post-wooden racquets, w/o the strings to return crazy spins against great shots, and from awkward positions like there is now. There were a lot more different players in the top-20, capable of winning a major if the surface suited them, they got the style-draw they wanted, and if they were just playing 80-90% to their best; and if then the great they were facing in a later round had a mildly off-day. But no, Pete wasn't the most consistent, definitely not like a Federer or Borg, as it prevented him from winning the 17-19, high teens majors that he would've needed to put himself in GOAT talks. I didn't think he had come into his own yet when he won the 90 US Open, but I didn't think I'd take him a another 3yrs to win his 2nd major. He had a good to very good, but not great all-court game, and he needed to be having a dominating serving day to set it up.
@@arsonhakobyan I generally agree. But I think if Pete had a bigger record to break than Emerson's 12 GS, he would have stayed motivated after getting his 13th slam and not had his early 2000s slump before winning his last major and retiring at 14. He would have been motivated and played for significantly longer than he actually did.
Pete is a truly blessed human being. He deserves all the goodness in life that comes his way. I have so many wonderful memories watching him play tennis. Hope he will still be involved with professional tennis in some way. All the best Pete.
Loved watching Pete Sampras play. Any tennis tournament with Sampras and either of the Williams sisters in the finals was must-see tennis like no other event.
Pete would win on grass of the 1990's. Wimbledon changed the type of grass used to make the surface slower after 2000. You would hardly ever see baseliners win Wimbledon unless your name was Agassi or ? That's about it.
Considering the brilliant Boris Becker serves came before Pete's rise to the top, it is a testimony to his superb heavy hitting seemingly almost 'through' the ball that the Tennis regulators felt the need to alter the tennis balls to make the game slower right around the time of Pete's dominance.
Gotta have Borg ahead of Nadal, if Borg hadn't quit at 25 he'd probably be the best all time, but I'd say Pete then Federer then Borg. Pete is better then Federer just because his competition was better in my opinion.
I love Pete. He is and will always be my favorite male athlete of all time! I remember watching the 1990 us open final. It was AWESOME! Pete no matter what you are MY GOAT!
I am upset that I was not able to witness Pete and other legends in the 80's/90's. It would've been amazing to follow tennis at that time, then to see Federer, Nadal etc. Pete has the best serve ever, I believe it all comes from his confidence. Nowadays its just brutal baseline rallies. I think we will see in the future that tennis players' careers will be cut short because of this. ATP needs to make courts faster so that the definition of tennis doesn't change to 'cage fight' -.- lol
Pete was the one who got me to like tennis and I stopped watching after he retired. I started watching again last year and liked Roger. I like how they are so quiet and graceful.
I absolutely hated when they called him boring. Here was a genius, the very best tennis player at the time ever, and he was decimated by the most offensive possible thing you could call his magical game, that of being boring. He was a true role model for players and children, and adults for that matter, alike, yet nothing could satiate the recalcitrant media from its deeply offensive diatribe.
his big serving and volley style made it look too easy compared to the dramatic baseline rallies that were becoming common due to the rise of the baseliner with guys like Agassi.
Amazing tennis player. I think people will eventually realize that tennis is way more enjoyable when they stop bashing on players that are rivals of their own "favorite" player and just watch and enjoy what these people can produce.
Shame they can't make a programme anymore without blasting music throughout it. You can't even hear an interview now without music, that puts me off even watching this.
DEXTER941 ya, I agree completely with you. They non tennis doc makers don't realise that the watchers might actually be jnterested in watching it and don't require dramatic music.
no Sampras is the king of tennis no one will ever again be 7-0 undefeated in Wimbledon finals and 14-4 in all slam finals in the strongest era......pete was truly complete. read em and weep 6 straight years as year end #1 Federer wont be doing that.
Federer has won a record eight Wimbledon titles, a record six Australian Open titles, a record five consecutive US Open titles, and one French Open title. He is one of eight men to have captured a career Grand Slam. Federer has reached a record 30 men's singles Grand Slam finals, including 10 in a row from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships to the 2007 US Open (and 18 out of 19 from the 2005 Wimbledon Championships to the 2010 Australian Open). He reached the semifinals at 23 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments, from the 2004 Wimbledon Championships through the 2010 Australian Open.[3] Federer has won 97 career titles, including six ATP World Tour Finals, 27 ATP World Tour Masters 1000, and 20 ATP World Tour 500 tournaments. Given these achievements, many players and analysts consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time with some calling him the greatest athlete of his generation....
You're kidding right. You call an era where serve and volley dominated as the strongest era? You call a player who can serve and volley as complete? Come on. Use your brain. Roger dominated in a game where you can not serve and volley without getting destroyed. He played against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, while Pete played against either washed up greats or two great players being Jim and Andre. Roger ended up as year end number 1 more than pete? Who cares if you dominate straight rather than throughout a long period of time. Roger has the most weeks number one and it isnt even close.
It wasn't his first though, which was among the best. It was his second, hands down best second serve the game has seen. And unlike an Ivanisavic or a Karlovic he had a great game to follow it up with.
@@danilo8088 No there isnt cause great tennis isnt defined by number of weeks and trophies. It is defined by the quality of the play. And if u think that only federer plays great u are deluded. There can be and are more then one of legends
@@danilo8088 Exactly and there can only be one Sampras. Both are legends why? Not because they have many grand slames. Its because they play great tennis. Thank you for seeing my point :)
So what I'm trying to say is that not all numbers or statistics say GOAT without the hint of a doubt. But, he certainly is among them, that's for sure. I just like Pete's S&V style better but that's my personal preference, not saying he was the more complete player.
I felt bad for Andre Agassi. No matter how good he played, Pete always found another level, just because it was Andre, it seemed. Pete would rather die than lose to Andre, it seemed.
Why? Agassi was a victim of his circumstances sure but so is everybody else. He turned out just fine, maybe I've been thru a crap ton too in a sense/ know I can only imagine the monumental pressures that come with one wrong misquote or movement lingering with your name for the rest of your career. Seriously, it ain't natural and the amount of destressing that must have occured behind the scenes just be ginormous. Also he's far from perfect- if read Patrick Mcenroe's book he clearly enjoys the finer ways of life the big money provides, not just earning big money for the kiddos, but can you blame him tho? This world revolves around perceptions instead of actual damage done vs. costs, it's insane, and far impossible from redemption probably from near the inception of lots of things years and years ago.... but what can we do except what you must to guard the most precious gifts we have- our family, sanity, or whatever other delicate things we treasure most? Edit: actually come to think of it, Bjorn Borg knew all about the life away from the pro tennis spotlight. Oh yeah, it broke him for sure (at least once upon a time, but nobody is truly an angel I get that lol)
@@Dman9fp Yeah, Agassi got paid well to say a line on TV for Rebel cameras, "Image is everything." A play on words for a camera, a picture is an "image." But people held that line against him for decades, saying it was a cheap philosophy of life, putting image over substance. It was unfair and mean.
@@DexterHaven If you ever have the chance to read his book, much harder time he had with his Dad practically forcing him to excel at tennis when he just wanted to be a kid. Definitely not the way to go, even in the very exceptionally rare case it may work. To each their own tho
Sampras to me is the best men's player to ever play and had a serve like a major league pitcher. And in my opinion had the tougher competition then Federer had.
More GS winners because there weren't two dominant figures for half the decade like there was from 2005-2010. And from 1990-1999, there were 15 different Slam winners to 14 different Slam winners from 2000-2009. 9 multi-Slam winners from 90-99, 7 from 2000-2009.
great documentary on pete. kudos to the director. very well made. pete, is definitely the best player ever till date. Until I saw this documentary, never realized that so much went in Sampras's mind. it looked always easy on court and I felt he totally dominated and his opponents didn't have any chance at all. krajicek was lucky to win the 97 Wimbledon and Agassi, the 95 Australian open.
tennis greats have already said that this era is one of the greatest and toughest with RF, Rafa, Djoko , Murray, Potro 5 slam winners 3 of them having 33 between them never happened before in any era beating every other guy and winning for 8 years since 04... we are not talking about 1 or 2 years 8 years on we will never see domination like this by the big 3 they are class apart...
Retired very early in comparison to modern players. He also used a racket that he didn't want to "upgrade" or change for a better modern one. Making me wonder if he played on, just for a couple of years more, how many titles would he have won? Either way, seems like not just a great player, but a good family man.
AS far as the media situation with Pete, i think the real issue is that Pete was conservative and the media never puffs up a conservative. MUhammad Ali was agreat fighter but he was puffed up by the media far beyong what he deserves because he was a counter-culture figure. He was a Muslim and a draft dodger so the media loved him and puffed him up relebtlessly. Pete got the opposite treatment.
