Pete Sampras | TIME Magazine Interviews | TIME

[@ciaronsmith4995]

The GOAT. Upon reflection, nobody was or has bee better than this guy on hardcourts and grass. Nobody.

[@TarTacular]

He called about Rafa and djokovic - this long ago ? WoW

[@humanentity2214]

Always a class act

[@stealthcat100]

The most dominant player in history . King of the champions . A panther in human form with a Jordan clutch. Some athletes are just beyond anything else . Jordan , Tyson & Sampras were the untouchables .

[@Tunainthebrine79]

I love how he comments on the majors having a ton of sponsors. Pure tennis is where it is at!

[@elenushinvirtecush]

Miss you, Pete!

[@user-xg4td3gg7e]

Thanks for entertainment and memories pistol Pete. 😉

[@sweetberries683]

Love Sampras so much

[@vidin85]

THE BEST TENNIS PLAYER FOR ME

[@pps1fan]

Rafter's a smart guy, and he's pointed out the facts nothing more! Respect Federer's achievements but Pete Sampras will be to me always the greatest! Pete's comments here were fantastic too...at least he acknowledges Nadal's great talent!

[@gamblerpete]

Also, the 90s generation had a lot of champions which made it harder for Sampras to be the best. We had Agassi, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Chang back then just to name some. Moreover, Krajicek (winning Wimbledon in '96, beating Sampras in the quarterfinals) though not a great champion, was one of the few players Sampras has a worse H2H if I'm correct.

[@khalefadel]

Pete was for tennis what the birds were for the skies, flying very high.

[@Bambotb]

He shouldn't shave though lol

[@saadamiens]

Most enjoyable tennis player I have ever watched !

[@ragnarjonsson1122]

saadamiens couldn''t agree more. A brilliant player, a real sportsman.

[@muchoudh]

I don't have respect for any tennis player MORE than I do for Pete Sampras - just the greatest and the classiest. And I agree, with the exception of maybe Federer, I don't think any of today's players can claim to be at his level. Too bad injuries started to plague his later career - but when he was at his peak - hard to argue anyone (including Federer) could beat him. And definitely no one had his class.

[@mcrubio2]

Fully disagree

[@minboogie]

​@@mcrubio2 Entonces....quien es tu idolo

[@MrJuntaoJenkins]

As a fan I miss this guy. Wish he would be open for interviews on some podcasts.

[@Катерина-я8ш1т]

He is best of the best!

[@juandi2570]

Fed's idol was Sampras period. He idolized sampras. You remember wrong. He also admired Ebgerg and Becker but he idolized sampras.

[@dae3xt]

Pete is a sharp guy.. the questions are good. I wished they showed his wife.. easy on the eyes..

[@faicez]

wimbledon is my favourite``, not to dissrespect the US Open and the French``...lol Here we can see how much He cares for Australian Open..hahaha

[@julius5551]

Sampras undoubtedly is one of the greatest player of all time,and before Federer became who he is today,Sampras was considered by most pundits the best of them all,if he would have won the French Open at least once,the conversation of who is the best between him and Federer would be a lot tighter,Fed is an all around player while Pete always struggled on clay regardless of who was in front of him,however I think on grass he would've had it his way against pretty much anybody.

[@spirg]

Well said

[@juandi2570]

My point is that sampras was the whole package, not only serve and volley like you insinuated in your post. Sampras used more serve and volley in Wimbledon and towards the end of his career when his backhand lost intensity, not before, during great part of his career he was really dominant from the baseline; however, The slow clay courts were his weakness but he was awesome anyway.

[@daviddragutin2981]

The best ever

[@drumdude1000]

Can't we all just get along!!

[@gamblerpete]

The 10 year spell during which Sampras won his 14 Grand Slam titles also saw 13 other players win at least 1 GS compared to 6 other players and a 6 year spell as for Federer. This is a perfect proof Sampras met with much more resistance.

[@mcrubio2]

Federer is writing history

[@anjanachakraborty9939]

Love you Pete !

[@theoriginalthinker9199]

I wish people would stop comparing Federer to Sampras. They're both great players.

[@ciaronsmith4995]

Pete's discipline was terrifying. As was his in-game composure. The guy was an introverted machine. Looking back I didn't appreciate this guy, because the media called him boring. In fact those Sampras vs Agassi games were the best I have ever seen.

[@juandi2570]

i might agree with ya that Roger might be the closest to perfection but Sampras, Borg and Laver were in a class of their own in their times. It's difficult to compare eras and name a goat but these four players(borg, sampras, fed and laver), if you would put em' in the same moment in time, with the same technology, equipment,etc those matches between em would be amazing.

[@lighting15]

Federer hasn't finished his career yet so he can still get more. The only time they played each other was at Wimbledon where Sampras won the previous 4 years and was the heavy favourite to win again, and Federer was only a 19 year old playing in his first or second wimbledon.

[@juandi2570]

a great backhand during his peak years. I saw sampras dominate great baseliners from the baseline like: agassi, courier, muster, kuerten, Kafelnicov,etc. Fed might be better than sampras but doesn't take anything away from pete. Pete was one the most complete players i've ever seen after Roger.

[@juandi2570]

it would be a five setter with a tie break in the last set. Federer, Sampras and Laver the three unquestionable best ever.

[@juandi2570]

Roger could be more talented than sampras but sampras would never let anybody get in his head like Nadal has done to roger and now delpo. Sampras was so dominante in slams' finals that he barely lost(3 times) coz he's been the best player ever mentally speaking period. He was tougher than federer in the mind dept but i respect your opinion of roger being the goat however naming a goat could be tricky.

[@juandi2570]

Listen GueorguiJoukov or whatever your nick name is, Sampras, Fed, Laver, Borg are the best 4 players of all time. Those guys had careers that spanned decades and won majors in the double-digits because they were world-class in all areas, be it the groundstrokes, the serves, the movement, and the volleys. This gave them more options and gave their games a timeless qualityme, they're the all time royalty of tennis.

[@lreally]

He KNEW

[@juandi2570]

agree with what you said.

[@sponge63]

I don't think you can say Agassi made things up. He certainly did seem like a bit of a tortured soul but I think he always gave Pete his respect and he understood the larger picture, particularly later on in his career. Though Pete did tend to dominate in the slams, Agassi won more masters events and their head to head was I think 20-14 in Sampras favor. I would call that a pretty good rivalry. wouldn't call that

[@seanburgundy1]

Let's see...Sampras played against Agassi, Courier, Chang, Becker, Edbert, Kafelnikov, Muster, Ivinisevic, Krajieck, Stich, Korda, and many others. This was a ridiculously competitive era. Who did Federer have for the first 4 years of his dominance? A young Nadal, Marcos Baghdatis, a 35-year-old Andre Agassi...please...

[@humanentity2214]

I thought about writing a long reply but then I realized my 2019 resolution. " Don't respond to idiots"

[@2lesserevil]

Simply the best! Miss the Pistol!

[@deaneng8540]

He retired at 31 wow Federer is 40. I wonder how many more grand slams Pete could have won if he still had the fire in him and to continue on many more years?

[@Maddawg31415]

Pete was right back in early 2008. Federer kept going, but Nadal and Djokovic would come onto the fray and dominate.

[@juandi2570]

he wasn't perfect. He lost in early rounds but he won 14 slams and was number one 6 straight years, you can't do that without being a world class in every depto: baseline, net, serve, etc. I played tennis in college and love the game and you can't be number one and dominate the game for so long like sampras did without being exceptional at everything.

[@Boudosaved]

they both have equal serves and equal mental toughness; Sampras might have a better second serve (not sure); Sampras is a better serve and volleyer (Fed has intimidated all others to stay at the baseline); Federer is a better shotmaker; I think Agassi at his best would give Federer a good run - Agassi a better returner; Federer a better server

[@gamblerpete]

@Gman256 Are you sure of that? Failing to win a major tournament doesn't necessarily means you are worse. Although Agassi (or Courier) won the French Open, still Sampras had a better head-to-head record between the 2. And most importantly, he finished world No. 1 for a record 6 consecutive years. Now with Sampras retired I like Federer as he's got a very similar style of play but the best way to decide who is better would be if the 2 met now with Sampras being at like 26 at his best.

[@juandi2570]

agreed but Roddick never was a threat to Fed in fed's prime years due to his lack of versatility.

[@drumzwizard]

true in one sense but explain the dominance nadal has over federer. Sampras had dominance over every player on the tour in his time. Federer clearly does not.

[@MrLarryLessor]

That is certainly an argument that there are challengers to "Best Ever" that are legit against Federer. Roger is up there in the top 2 or 3.... Pete should be as well. Pete never had a mental hang-up over any player during his era - not legends or past champions like McEnroe, not Lendl or Agassi, or Becker or Ivanisivic... Not Courier (Pete beat Courier at Jim's better surface - Roland Garros) Nadal struggled on Hard Courts for years. Federer had a hard time vs. Nadal. Djokovic has been one of the most skilled ever too but he's also had problems with various players - Federer first of all.... Novak didn't win a 2nd major until like 2011 which was 5 or 6 years into his career!

[@djdenns]

24 straight semi finals of a slam says it all about federer, with distance the greatest ever. he is going to win 1 or 2 more

[@juandi2570]

I meant to say: australian open, wimbledon and roland garros.

[@smithcm14]

Andre Agassi had a career grand slam....and that's about it. Agassi was great, but sampras has almost double Agassi's grand slam record.

[@juandi2570]

McEnroe has said that Pete is the best grass player of all time, sampra's game was suited for grass. In regards with the "goat" discussion, i accept that Roger is looking good for that title however Pete and Laver are not far away.

[@Wodz30]

McEnroe has also repeatedly stated that Federer is the GOAT. You cannot compare Pete's 15 year career to Federer's sudden dominance.. the numbers alone crush Pete. Sampras was amazing, but you would have to blind not to understand the numbers. When Federer wins his 7th Wimbledon, maybe that will put you in your respective place :)

[@truefacts85]

Federer might be a better player overall than Sampras. BUT Federer won his French Open when Nadal wasnt there. Sampras had to contend with Clay Court Specialists. Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Stich, Chang, Costa, Corretja, Pioline, Courier etc etc etc Nowadays all players are all court players...

[@theoriginalthinker9199]

I think Sampras was better overall. He could do what Federer does, AND he could serve and volley.

[@dagreatmogul]

"Centre Court, Wimbledon... not to disrespect the US or the French..." What about the Australian? That's the one he disrespected! Lol, great athlete, player and competitor, one of the best of all time.

[@bjarktron]

Please go away little Federer fanboys, and stop insulting our intelligence. This video is about the greatest tennis player of all times.

[@idrawbetterthanyouXD]

ya their tied now which is acceptable i guess but no one wants to forget pete he pwnz nadal no matter what anyone says

[@WWChrisCornellDo]

@antekkk what did he lie about? Sorry, I haven't read the book yet.

[@juandi2570]

yeah but Sampras had to deal with 5-6 great clay players like Muster, Kuerten, Kafeknicov, Courier, Chang, Bruguera, etc. Probably those guys were not as dominant as Nadal on clay but were damn good clay players.

[@Truthseekerinspe]

Yes , and they played with heavier ball at that time , so harder for a hardcourt specialist to succeed !

[@sauceyboy]

Why don't you watch their final in AUS 07 and see who has the better forehand. Gonzalez's is powerful, but not better. No one hits the same percentage/quality forehand winners as Federer. I didn't originate the claim, McEnroe did, who I'm sure knows more about tennis than either of us.

[@jfiles000000]

Pistol Pete Sampras is the best ever.Federer cannot beat Nadal and if Nadal was not injured Federer would have lost again and cried again ruining Nadal cermony again.Pete Sampras and Nadal are the greatest ever.

[@Timurito1]

@juandi2570 I agree with all your comment. However the last sentence "rape Nadal and Federer" is a bit too strong.

[@sauceyboy]

There's way, way more power in today's era than Sampras' era. When did power-based players like Del Potro win slams in Sampras' era?

[@deandoucette7206]

Goran Ivanisevic. Saw him defeat Sampras in the ‘92 Wimbledon Semi-Final. He had a huge serve and hit powerful baseline shots.

[@juandi2570]

Pat Rafter said last week in a interview with BBC that it's a matter of time before young players like Murray take over tennis completly. He says that Federer has been struggling to pick up slams since two years ago. He won the french and it was a titanic effort from Federer having lost many sets in his way to the final, besides Nadal, Murray and Djcovic lost early so was lucky too. Do you really think that Federer is gonna win eternally..........?

[@cronicas_cosmicas]

This comment haha 13 years ago... And Federer kept winning slams

[@MrArsenalist]

there is only one king,SAMPRAS,competition in Sampras era,and Federer era,is silly even think to compare,fact

[@juandi2570]

Listen when i said Rafa owns Roger, i was basing my opinion on facts. Rafa has a 5-2 record in slam finals against Roger and has beaten roger in three different surfaces in slam finals(roland garros, australian open and wimbledon). That's dominance. Fed has only beaten Nadal twice in slam finals in his favorite surface which is grass. besides, the h2h overall is 13-6 on rafa's side.

[@juandi2570]

not really, fed's been the most consistent player in grand slam history however nadal´s been pretty consistent since 07, dont ya think so?

[@juandi2570]

what are talking about? Sampras has won 7 wimbledon titles and Federer 5. McEnroe has said that Sampras is the best grass player ever.

[@juandi2570]

You don't get it..................Fed, Sampras, Laver, Borg are tennis royalty....They were not good, they were world class in all areas, get in your head, ALL AREAS: groundstrokes, serves, movement, volleys, smashes, drop volleys. These guys are the best ever. You can't dominate an era without having that variety in your game. I saw every final and semifinal of the great sampras and he had Phenomenal ground strokes(best running forehand i ever saw along with delpo's), a fantastic backhand....

[@su79er]

I think nadal is a fantastic player and an athlete, but I don't see him dominating the tour like Sampras/Federer do...he will always have Roland Garros and maybe pick up the odd US / OZ open here and there which will increase his majors tally but I don't see him having that stranglehold over the ATP tour, like going for 3 or 4 years as No 1 and winning everything in between the majors!

[@juandi2570]

"Very good at specific and althogh much over average at others" I disagree, nobody can be that great like Borg, Sampras, Laver without being world class at everthing. You haven't seen enough of these guys. Ask Fed what his opinion is on these guys. Fed said that sampras was his idiol and that sampras did amazing things on a tennis court.

[@juandi2570]

fed is almost 28 and his play now is not as perfect as it was in his peak years when he was almost invincible. He didn't choke against nadal in those finals, nADAL was better.

[@dagreatmogul]

NO! Federer, 27 - Sampras, 37 (10 years) Nadal, 22 - Federer, 27 (5 years)

[@juandi2570]

disagreed. Sampras' groundstrokes were formidable and amazing. I saw most of his matches and everybody agrees he was a special force. Why do you insist on putting him down? i agree that Fed might be the best ever but sampras is just royalty in tennis. A phenomenal player who's respected deeply by everybody who knows tennis, including King Roger.

[@antekkk]

@virgilsheart It's annoying that Agassi has to make shit up for his book to compensate by getting whipped by Pete his whole career. Agassi is a sellout joke. Agassi needs attention even if it means making up lies.

[@juandi2570]

Listen Karlos, Nadal has a grand slam final record of 5-1 against your federer. Nadal has beaten fed three times at roland garros finals, one at wimbly and one at the australian open however Fed has beaten Nadal only in one slam final: wimbledon.......................My only asterisk to fed's greatness is his inability to dominate Nadal.................

[@juandi2570]

you are pretty smart, don't come up with roger being sick. Nadal has owned fed so far. Don't take anything away from Nadal. If Nadal gets healthy he will dominate again, but his knees are a question mark to me so we will see.

[@Wodz30]

Federer had fought off mononucleosis and now back injuries. Federer has destroyed nearly every world record for tennis (124 owned or tied), perhaps after he wins his seventh wimbledon and erases sampras from history you can join reality. Sampras' loss in 2001 was not a fluke. Murray is overconfident and smug. Djok is too up and down. Nadal is the big rising star.

[@Wodz30]

juandi2570, Federer has 15 slam titles. No one cares if even Seppi had beaten Federer like 25 times in a row. No one cares. Only Nadal fanboys. Sampras dominated Agassi...yet Nadal is dominating Federer (on clay) and Federer has 15 titles. Do you see how trivial your points are? Just end this.

[@adamblister6005]

Who is this invisible robot interviewing him?

[@michelez715]

He wasn't interviewing Sampras, he was simply reading out questions people had sent in.

[@idrawbetterthanyouXD]

atm ide say if him and federer played at their primes pete would win but not by much

[@prosenjitbanerjee7490]

Skill wise roger Federer is better than Sampras.Roger has won all the grand slams which proves his versatility and even at 38 yrs he still entering finals and last won in 2018, thats unbelievable at his age.

[@FryderykFChopin]

Well who just lost to Federer in the Madrid Masters final?

[@juandi2570]

but he is going to win two slams(french and wimbledon) back to back without facing any of the fourth best players in the world. When we have to discuss the "goat" we'll have to look into all these details. Nadal wasn't in the final either. He faced THE mediocre Soderling and tomorrow he will face the one dimensional roddick. The lack of competition in some of roger's grand slam finals is gonna tarnish roger's legacy.

[@miamigreyhound]

that is BS the best ever can't be someone who is owned by another like Federer is owned by nadal

[@sauceyboy]

No, I'm not really joking. Why the fuck would I be telling jokes on a video? If you're talking about power, wouldn't the fact that Federer's got the best and most powerful forehand ever, and the fact that Karlovic and Roddick having the most powerful serves ever, play a part in a "power" game? I saw Fed blow through Murray in US open 2008, Agassi in 2005, Tsonga, Murray, and Hewitt at AUS this year with massive forehands. How is that not power? You should define what you mean.

[@juandi2570]

You are losing perspective in this debate. Federer might be the best ever but Nobody is gonna erase the great sampras for history. Are you insane? as for now, sampras and roger are tied with 14 slams each othe, clearly the best two players ever. Don't be blind, fed won't be as dominant as he was between 2004-07. He is on decline despite his french open win.

[@pharoahrussell]

Ok 1 on 1 Nadal is better than Federer, but thats not what makes you greatest of all time. What make you greatest is the ability to beat everyone(not just 1 guy) and Federer is better at that than Nadal is at this stage, who will know will happen from here, but right now Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, the same way Sampras was greater than Federer 5 years ago, you gotta consistently prove yourself...

[@lighting15]

Federer dethroned Sampras (then considered the king of grass) in wimbledon.

[@juandi2570]

Don't come up with excuses that Nobody buys..... Nadal beat fed when fed was 100%. Nadal got into Roger's head and Nadal ownes Fed having beaten fed in three grand slams and three different surfaces. I disagree, Roger is not playing at the level he used to. He is past his prime and Nadal will beat him again once he is healthy. If you analyze this past wimbly final, Fed played his worst grand slam final in recent years making tons of unforced errors.

[@carlo88moe]

um, actually read the comment, ad nauseam if you must, before getting indignant. that's what he said.

[@manwiththeplan4130]

Pistol pete 🔫🔫🔫

[@jsbruce11]

Nadal is not tied for first for the greatest ever. Sit down child.

[@virgilsheart]

it's not stupid, it's called being careless. I guess you're not that well informed. "Here's a buck kid. Bring my car around."

[@zsivaz]

So I guess Agassi's a better player than Sampras aswell lol

[@tyruk]

Federer isn't better.

[@HyperHorse]

tyruk Yes, he is.

[@ciaronsmith4995]

@@HyperHorse Sampras is the GOAT on grass and hardcourts. Its obvious now when I reflect.

[@animanga9597]

@@HyperHorse no sampras is much better. the best ever to play.

[@hypercarbon]

........

[@MrFretmanic]

what a player but roger is the better player

[@marstonrobert]

Sampras the 4th best male tennis player of all time!! Djokovic Federer Nadal are ahead now!!! ANYONE else agree???

[@MariaE99]

No. You cannot rank them 1st 2nd 3rd, they are the greatest players period

[@podge325]

pete seems like a pretty boring guy