-
He'd do it quite often, actually. Whenever he got a chance he would go for it and he enjoyed it immensely. You can tell by the little smirk on his face right after but not always. He liked baseball a great deal but he wasn't tall enough to be a baseball player I suppose. But I am sure his real passion was always tennis.
impressive stuff. so he was the master of slam dunk in tennis.
here is something else he was famous for: the running forehand.
that running forehand was the best in the business in his day. check it out:
-
-
-
-
Loved Sampras!
Never understood how they got people to think he was boring.
Oh, duh. I know. McEnroe and his smear campaign. How they could convince the masses that Pete was boring was insane. His game was awesome to watch and he showed true class all the time.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. -
-
It's not only McEnroe but also Agassi. He was very colourful and had a few outburst on court too, so compared to that, Sampras looked boring. Also, Sampras' serve was very dominating so that didn't make those people very happy who wanted to see long rallies.
-
-
Sampras was a champion off and on the court.
true class. I wonder if he grew up idolizing all those all time great aussie players.
guys like laver, emerson, rosewall, and newcombe. -
-
He grew up idolizing Laver that much I know. He also liked Lendl a great deal but he got to play in his laters years when he was a rising star.
Pete beat Muster in the 4th round, then Lendl in the qtr final, McEnroe in the semi and then Agassi in the final to win his first Major in 1990 - the USO.
In 2002, again at the USO, he beat Haas, Roddick, Schalken and Agassi to win his last Slam. -
-
pistol pete was tough enough on clay too: he won the Italian open.
RG is just not that easy to win.
certainly the RG+Wimbledon double is not easy.
it took 30 years for somebody to come along and do it after borg. -
-
pistol pete was tough enough on clay too: he won the Italian open.
RG is just not that easy to win.
certainly the RG+Wimbledon double is not easy.
it took 30 years for somebody to come along and do it after borg.
And now you will have 3/4 people doing and possibly a lot more in the future. Surface being all the same it helps.
Sampras did beat some 'decent' players like Muster, Kafelnkov, Courier, Agassi, Bruguera, Corretja (twice in Rome Masters) on clay. Playing two weeks of tennis on clay was just too much from him to ask especially when Wimbledon was just around the corner. -
-
It's not only McEnroe but also Agassi. He was very colourful and had a few outburst on court too, so compared to that, Sampras looked boring. Also, Sampras' serve was very dominating so that didn't make those people very happy who wanted to see long rallies.
It's not only McEnroe but also Agassi. He was very colourful and had a few outburst on court too, so compared to that, Sampras looked boring. Also, Sampras' serve was very dominating so that didn't make those people very happy who wanted to see long rallies.
[/quote]
I never thought he was boring in any way. He didn't bring a lot of attention to himself, but I found that refreshing. I had quit watching tennis for a while at that time. Then, I started hearing all this talk about Agassi so I decided to check him out.
But, Agassi didn't do it for me. There was something about him that made me uncomfortable, and while I was checking out the tennis scene I saw Pete and was hooked instantly.
On Inside the Glory Jim Courier said that the media (and McEnroe and Agassi, who are always in cahoots) decided to portray Pete in that manner. It was an arbitrary decision that had no basis in reality.
Now, I will admit that Pete is rather socially awkward and doesn't speak well publically, but his tennis was sublime, and that's all I cared about. -
-
Oh I should tell you this and my experience is first hand since you know I was at Murray's forum for almost two years. I have yet to find one Brit person who liked Sampras. They all hated him and they still do. They liked Agassi and they still do. baron britbox is no different i am sure.
And if you ask them why they didn't like Sampras then they will always give you this bizarre reason, 'he was boring and he was all about serve'. Bizarre because Goran was also a big server but they adored him.
But the funny thing is now, a lot of them or at least 80% of them on the forum simply hate Federer but Federer also have a lot of fans from the UK. You can tell you when hear those loud voices at WTF. some of them sound quite drunk at times and I was told later by a fan who was there that a lot of Fed fans were actually drunk.
I didn't care for Agassi much. I preferred Sampras out of the two, but didn't root for either. Edberg was my favourite player through to his retirement and then a little gap through to Marat Safin.
Nobody I knew ever liked Goran until he won Wimbledon unseeded in a fairytale script. He'd come close so many times and people warmed to him when he finally achieved his dreams and showed how much it all meant for him. Other than that, he was never universally liked from what I can remember.
At the WTF, all the thuggish Fed fans rolled in drunk after a day of rampant violence shortly followed by Murray fans who had spent the day in church and helping old people across the road.
-
-
Goran was very well liked at Wimbledon. I strictly remember their 1998 encounter in the final where Goran received a lot of support from the crowd. A lot more than Sampras received. I was at the edge of my seat the whole time because there was no room for errors in that match, unlike today's match where you can make 50 errors and still win the match.
And Murray fans aren't innocent but I don't think they have enough room to be obnoxious because they don't have the bragging right just yet.
Agassi was extremely popular at Wimbledon. In fact, I posted at Murray's World for almost 2 years and I never once found one fan who supported Sampras. They loath him and gave me slack every time I talked about Sampras; on the other hand, they simply adored Agassi and made excuses to all his obnoxious behaviour over the years. Given that this forum has about 4000 British fans, I will take my first hand experience there as enough of a proof.
And also, given that both Murray and Sampras are a couple of down to earth type of guys, and Federer is arrogant and Agassi is basically a prick, I'll make a safe conclusion that the Brits perhaps adore that kind of personality. And why not. Their media is after all one of the worsts in the world where people live and die in the name of celebrities. In fact, a friend once told me that 'just when you think Federer is arrogant and perhaps a bad champion when it comes to appreciate his opponents, there are still two things that are worst than that - Federer fans and the media that hypes it". Couldn't have agreed more. -
-
And of course, it is also my observation that a lot of the Murray fans at Murray's World dislike Federer a great deal mostly because they feel he's a bit of a smug. They don't dislike his game just his attitude. In case of Sampras, they found his game boring and thought he was all serve. I contribute that to pure ignorance and being selective. Agassi, on the other hand, of course can do nothing wrong. For a certain period of time, Murray was very disliked by a lot of English fans. They say it's because of his footie comments but I highly doubt it. Let's put this to test and make Federer say the same things and see where that stands. Of course, a lot of Federer fans find Murray's game and personality very boring. That of course stems from the fact that Murray has Fedeer's numbers but of course, Fed fans will always throw the 3-1 Slam in your face. Still, that doesn't explain why anyone would find Murray's game boring or even his personality. But of course, it's probably a bit too much for the fans to understand Murray's game let alone his personality, since they are more used to the one dimensional game.
-
-
It's not only McEnroe but also Agassi. He was very colourful and had a few outburst on court too, so compared to that, Sampras looked boring. Also, Sampras' serve was very dominating so that didn't make those people very happy who wanted to see long rallies.
I never thought he was boring in any way. He didn't bring a lot of attention to himself, but I found that refreshing. I had quit watching tennis for a while at that time. Then, I started hearing all this talk about Agassi so I decided to check him out.
But, Agassi didn't do it for me. There was something about him that made me uncomfortable, and while I was checking out the tennis scene I saw Pete and was hooked instantly.
On Inside the Glory Jim Courier said that the media (and McEnroe and Agassi, who are always in cahoots) decided to portray Pete in that manner. It was an arbitrary decision that had no basis in reality.
Now, I will admit that Pete is rather socially awkward and doesn't speak well publically, but his tennis was sublime, and that's all I cared about.
Courier was quite right in his assessment of the media. Pete was never a media darling and in truth, he was never into it to begin with. While McEnroe was genuine in his reactions on court, Agassi was a bit of a media ****. He loved the attention. He got away with a lot of ugly stuff he said about Sampras and Pete never had any reaction to it. He couldn't have possibly fallen for the traps set out by Agassi and get into mindless back and forth bashings. He was a much better person than that so the media must have fallen short about it, so they continue to portray him as boring.
I never found Sampras boring in any regards. If anything he was very genuine in his take and would have a very original approach to it. I mean look at their respective books. Sampras' is loaded with information while Agassi' became very controversial as soon as it came out, because he added stuff that no one was ready for. Why do you think? Do you think he was being honest? From a person who lived his whole life under the limelight and sought attention as if there's no tomorrow? Well, I have my doubts. People don't change. They like being who they are twisted or not
But in the big scheme of things, we can't really argue if a player is boring or if he has the most beautiful game, simply because beauty is a subjective matter' therefore, can't really be measured. What you find boring, I may find it very beautiful. When some say Federer's game is the most beautiful out there, I highly beg to differ for the reasons given above. Because not only you have not seen the game of all the other players, but also, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, as they say. So let's not make a subjective matter to an objective one. Even so, it doesn't hold much water. That's why I'd like to say this to a Federer, just say you find his game as the most beautiful and I am fine with it, but don't ever say it's by everyone's standard because it's not. -
-
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1825470-roger-federer-vs-rafael-nadal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras
I enjoyed reading this report however the comments thereafter just ruin your appetite when you realize the whole point as successfully missed by Federer fans. There's literally no end to this nonsense.
Here's a comment by a Fed fan:
"Nice piece, enjoyed reading it. While I accept that Sampras was a great player (and I loved watching him play), I beg to differ, King Federer is the GOAT. No one else is even in the conversation. Come on, look at the numbers, it is not only about the 17 Grand Slams, but also the 6 WTFs, 23 consecutive slam semis, 36 quarters, 10 consecutive finals and ABOVE ALL 302 WEEKS AT THE TOP. No one is going to beat these, NO ONE. Everyone else can compete for the 'second best player in history' slot. And I am not even talking about intangibles such as his elegance and class, no one can match his elegance on court. Fed Floats while eveyone else scampers around."
Obnoxious freak. -
-
More to the point...
-
