If Pete still played.
2006-08-27 09:01:41 · 19 answers · asked by $GET SOME$ 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
about even ..but if roger manages to snag a french open he will surpass pete in my book since pete never won the french
2006-08-27 11:44:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not really sure how it will end up. Federer could blow out a knee tomorrow and Sampras would remain the greatest. I think Sampras had more competition from top players during his era. Essentially it is Fed vs. Nadal now. Pete has more Slams , You do not not say that Bonds is the Greatest home run hitter in baseball history yet even though he is close to Aaron . You still say Aaron is. So until Fed passes Pete ,I think , still wears the crown.
2006-08-27 10:56:51 · answer #2 · answered by messtograves 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete Sampras
2006-08-27 09:06:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete Can't Compete!
Federer's the Betterer!
2006-08-28 20:08:08 · answer #4 · answered by jeff spin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete, but I'll give to the Fed Express if he wins a French Open.
http://chooseit.sitesell.com/abchighincome.html
2006-08-27 15:17:07 · answer #5 · answered by Joel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say. Federer beat Sampras as Federer was ascending and Sampras was declining in his career.
Ultimately, I think Federer will win more grand slam titles. He's 24 and already has eight. As dominant as Sampras was, I don't remember him being as dominant as Federer is right now. I mean, you already know Federer is going to win the US Open and it hasn't even started yet. Whether that's because Federer is better than Sampras, or because Sampras had better competition is a toss up.
I'm a Sampras fan, so I'm more inclined to want to believe Sampras had better competition in Agassi, Rafter, Kuerten, and others. Only Nadal is beating Federer. The fact that Agassi made it to the final of the US Open last year at age 35 is a testament to the greatness of Agassi and the weakness of the competition right now.
So I'll say Sampras was better....but Federer will win more titles unless some greats come up soon and knock him down a couple rungs. My guess is he'll win 17 majors by age 29 or 30.
2006-08-27 09:18:16 · answer #6 · answered by Chapin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know that Pete is still better wether Pete plays or not.
2006-08-29 11:57:24 · answer #7 · answered by jrealitytv 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer. Face Fed vs. Pete at their peaks, and Pete could fail here and there...lose to Agassi from time to time...Federer has proven to be more consistent...Time will tell, But I think that roger will have more money, Grand Slams, Masters, and ATP tournaments won at 30 than Pete...
2006-08-28 05:54:32 · answer #8 · answered by Luis V 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pete had a remarkable career, but he wasn't great on clay.I don't know that he won many French Opens. Federa seems to be great on all surfaces and only 1 or 2 guys can even touch him, the Spaniard is one.
2006-08-27 16:25:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federer of course. Pete only had a serve and could rarely break his opponents serve. Federer on the other hand demolishes his oppenents.
As John Macenroe said, "Federer is the only player I'd pay to go see."
2006-08-29 09:49:29 · answer #10 · answered by eprometheus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋