I loved Mac , Becker and Agassi but Pistol Pete was on another level in the men's game . For me he like others before him changed the game. He wasn't just boom boom but could play with elegance ok maybe not how Federer plays but he just oozed class . But what l loved most was when you thought he was against the ropes he never panicked but just knew how to turn it around. He w as and still is my fave men's tennis player of all time..( notice I said MY FAVE PLAYER before anyone replies with statistical formats about who the best player was or is....NOT INTERESTED!!!!!) My fave serve ( loved Beckers and Navratilova's too btw) , next to Mac , my fave volleyer , forehand , overhead v's .....just sheer class. Great documentary. Thanks for posting it.....
To me he is no question the best player he is still king of tennis I don’t care about statistics the fact on how he played not just his servant his volley he had a true game.
Pete is that kind of person that needs to be challenged all the times. He has the greatest talent but he needs the motivation and to believe on it.. Awesome career. Best of the bests.
I would think Pete on old faster surface would beat Federer. Guys Pete had to beat to win slams or lost to in the process include legends like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, etc. During later part of career, competition got easier, but during early to mid 90s, Petes competition was way more versatile and tougher than Federer's. Just look up his and Federer's record against Rafter, Kefelnikov, or even Tim Henman who had all court game instead of just baseline grinding.
you gotta love Agassi, if you watch closely at 6:04 he starts walking towards the net before the point is already over. He must have been thinking something like "oh well, this guy again"
Spot on John. I enjoy watching Fed play but I wud wanna like my son play like Pistol. He was mentally the toughest player I ever saw & he had to compete with great past champions (Mac, lendl, Wilander, Becker), great contempories (Agassi, Courier, Rafter) + future generation (Hewitt, Safin). He beat them all, with different styles. Fed basically beat baseliners, not his fault but he had it easier
The Sampras/Federer debate regarding the GOAT is quite misleading, and a hollow one. We can compare their respective records: Federer certainly has the better resume; he's won more grand slams and has won the French which Pete hasn't done. Yet it has been pointed out by a number of professionals and tennis historians that Federer's competition in his heyday was a little weaker than Sampras'. Moreover, questions concerning who would win on which surface in his prime is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is that such imaginings are an abstraction: a Federer in his prime meeting a Sampras in his prime would no longer be Federer and Sampras. In other words, part of what made them the players we remember is their immersion in a particular historic context and era. Imagining Federer as part of a different era is to conjure up an imaginary Federer, not the Federer we know. And don't forget that while Federer had the advantage of studying Sampras' play when he was in his prime, Sampras did not yet have the luxury of studying Federer in his own prime. Sampras could only study the past masters such as Borg, Mcenroe, Laver, etc. So part of Federer's greatness is thanks to the historic development of tennis, and the access to tapes or matches whereby Federer could learn from the past greats. Sampras did not have the luxury of studying Federer and then stepping into a time machine whereby, in top form, he could play Federer. The basic point is that players of a given generation should be judged on the basis of that generation's competition. (And frankly, it isn't clear that Federer is the best of his own generation, given the fact that he lost to Nadal at Wimbeldon in 2008 and then at the Australian in 2009 AT A TIME WHEN HE WAS ARGUABLY STILL IN HIS PRIME.) And racket skills themselves are not nearly enough to determine who the greater player is (in the historic sense). For example, everybody knows that Sampras had far more racket skills than Laver, but not everyone agrees that Sampras was the greater player. One could also point out that many current players, not nearly the equals of Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, have superior racket skills to the Laver we remember. Yet these same players will not be remembered. So it's to be expected that Federer's racket skills are superior to those of Sampras, but that's partly due to the nature of how tennis has developed and the players' access to past matches (which they can study). Why MUST there be a GOAT? Why not simply (and wisely) concede that certain great players have contributed to the evolution of tennis, and then leave it at that?
butterflyblue999 So you ask us to accept that Federer and Sampras were both greats in their time, and not to compare them, and then negatively compare Federer's competition to Sampras's? How about we just take the objective measure- what they accomplished- and- like countless pros and contemporaries of Pete - sportingly agree that Federer is head, shoulders, and more above Pete .
I dont understand the comparison between eras. How is petes era stronger. Agassi and.. Fed has two guys in his era alone who probably will go down better than him. And both of those along with Fed have won all four slams. But dont get me wrong im a pistol fan but not sure of the era debate
Federer fans should watch all of petes documentsries to see why he is and always will be the best. Federer is great but not as good as sampras. Sampras had much tougher and better players in his era.
Well pete did win a slam at age 32 and that was his last tournament. This era the atp slow down the grass and hard court to suit baseline grinders like nadal and djokovic and speed up the clay to help players like federer, tsonga, berdych to play better on this surface. Nowdays, tennis has no variety. Sampras, borg and laver were able to win on the fast grass court at wimbledon something fed, nadal and djokovic never did. Plus federer hasnt beat nadal in a GS since wim 2007.
Yeah , I absolutely agree with the statement about Hewitt and the 2002 US Open ! Hewitt's game was definitely better suited for Sampras' than that of Andre Agassi !In addition , I sort of felt that Hewitt wasn't expecting Agassi to play so well against him and therefore wasn't ready for a big fight in the semifinal ! :D :D
And if a 35 year,injured in every part of hi's body Haas can and still win players like Djokovic and Federer why couldn't Pete or Andre,the tennis back there was great.
@djstony1 YOU HAVE IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE REASON WHY FEDERER WON SO MUCH IS BECAUSE HE HAD NO COMPETITION UNTIL NADAL AND THAT RUSSIAN GUY CAME ALONG. NOW HE LOSES ALL THE TIME. PETE BEAT GREAT VERSITLE PLAYERS LIKE IVANESAVIC, AGASSI, COURIER, CHANG, SAFIN, BECKER,LENDL, RAFTER ETC. HE IS THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME.
But federer didn't dominate his main rivals like pete. Pete's competition was tough and what made him so great is that he consistently won big matches and beat most of his main rival. Ever since 2004, federer consistently lose to nadal particular in GS (8-2). I'm not saying H2H records means ur betta, it just most of the memorable matches like wimbledon 2008, aus open 2009, french open finals are all won by nadal. Plus nadal beat fed in 3 different surfaces in GS while fed only won on grass.
Not EVER SINGLE tennis legend says that. Some ppl think laver is the best coz he won 2 calender slam. Tennis legends like McEnroe said that federer play in a weak era, ( From 200-2006), thus allowing fed to accumulate many slams and surpassing sampras. And no i dont think McEnroe is right, imo federer just raise tennis to a higher level, but federer still hasnt won a calender slam which is probably the best and hardest achievement to get. Tennis legends are not always rite like McENroe.
Not much has changed in racquet technology....Federer's 90" Ksix-one hits the same as Pete's 85" Pro-Staff. The only thing different would be racquet-head size..which some are using for mainly spin, such as Rafa's 110". The Grass courts may start out slower..but towards the end of the tournament, Centre Court looks just as trashed as it always does...so the ball flies faster at the end of the tournament.
Sampras wasn't even better than Agassi. Andre just underperformed, got hooked on drugs etc. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic totally eclipsed Sampras, who while spectacular in serve and volley tennis, was a limited and one-dimensional player.
Its true he competed with 5 hall of famers but the thing is out of dem 3 already passed their career peak points by 1993/4 lendl becker edberg they were 29/30 then so the remaining were agassi and courier and he was better than them he is one of d greatest tennis players no doubt but is he d bst its arguable and a player name Federer will always come in that arguement
pete lost to agassi at AO 95 final and 2000 semi final. and others master series tournament but it's sure that pete was psychologically strong champion then agassi
In 2001, wimbledon was given the nickname ''the green clay'' so no the grass was not fast, u didnt need to S&V to win wimbledon. WTF and MAsters 1000 are not that important compared to GS. IF u want to compare everything then nadal still leads 18-10 anyway. I do agree that pete is not GOAT, i would put Laver as the goat since he won the calender slam twice, buh federer is one of the best buh not the GOAT for sure.
St. James 4:10 Be humbled in the sight of the Lord God, and he will exalt you. St. Matthew 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. St. Luke 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.
Winning major's is 100% down to your own input; winning the DC requires a strong team! Pete had Chang, Courier, Agassi in his team, its like the whose-who of tennis! like you say Federer has Stan who can be a patchy player...so its only right that Pete gets a bigger stick for not winning RG than Roger not winning the DC! Tiger Woods comparison in the RC is poor 'cause Tiger plays poorly , the US can still win, But Roger plays great in DC & Switzerland still lose.
my personal belief,is that the sampras-federer debate will go on until federer wins the davis cup. everyone says that federer is better because pete never won a french open. well he won two davis cups, which is a void on federer's resume if people can criticize tiger woods for his poor performances in the ryder cup, it's certainly fair to criticize federer's lack of results in davis cup play (though it's tougher to win a davis cup when he and wawrinka don't have much help )
@nocode61 Bullshit. Rafter was mentally weak. I mean, come on, here's a guy who lost to Ivanisevic in five sets in the final of Wimbledon.... give me a fucking break. Becker, Edberg and Lendl were at the end of their careers in the early 90's, WAY past their primes. Kafelnikov was mainly a clay court player, and Henman was such a disappointment he is not even worth mentioning. Agassi and Courier were great players, but so are Nadal and Djokovic. In fact, they're better. By far.
federer is a dominating one eye king in the world of blind competing against bunch of losers oops sorry he got one strong talented oppenent Nadal getting trashed by him al the time pete did compete against 11 different hall of fame GS champions and up against all including against Andre 5-1 on GS finals ! federer is a left alone player who cant even dominate Nadal
Sampras was a unique player. But Agassi was the better player, and looking back it was more a case of Agassi underperforming, than Pete being so good. Pete had massive holes in his game, and never won the French open. Unlike Agassi, who won every slam. Ultimately Nadal, Djokovic and Federer totally surpassed him.
there is not a single player that doesn’t have holes in his game, nadals fh weakness is exploited by fedole. federer is mentally weak on big points & novak had a losing record to fedal when they were in their prime. Pete"s record was 14- 4 in their first 18 slam finals federer & nadal were 13- 5 novak 10- 8 Sampras was more clutch in his era than these guys r in their era
