Pros use heavier rackets than most people think. There's some good reasons for this. There's also good reasons why beginners, and then recreational players use different racket weights. That being said, and not knowing just how heavy wood rackets were back then, the heavy racket Sampras used throughout his career wasn't heavy enough to his liking. So he made it/had it made heavier with lead tape and butt caps. His right shoulder was really something else.
Yeah Sampras really was the Master, made a truly great player and athlete like Pat Rafter look almost second rate!! And remember Pat Rafter NEVER lost a Match to Federer, I believe he holds a 4-0 winning record over the Fed??
This video only shows points won by Pete. But u look at the score and it was close. The big 3 djok, fed, nadal are the same class as Pete. The big 3 are more aggressive to set more winning record. So the big 3 also maintain a excellent performance in every tournament which Pete could not. At Pete dominance, other players could still won grand slam and master titles
@@leebrandt33 Yes precisely ! So that means that if you are a top player in the beginning of the 2002 on one surface , you are practical a top player on ALL surface ! It was another game in the 90 ties !
It's high time we stop comparing greats of different eras and let go of all the " what ifs" forever. Sampras in fast courts in his zone is the most destructive player ever was. Nadal in his prime the monster of clay court, Djokovic in his prime is invincible, Federer in his prime is a magician. None of these legends are any less or more than the other. There is no point in comparing these greats and rather enjoy the genius on display, because the pathetic new generation of players are yawn inducing at best and sooner tennis will be a pauper when Big3 retires(no offence to Murray)
In the modern game post Laver era, IMHO,, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Stich, Wawrinka, Courier, Del Potro, Cilic, Roddick, Ivanisivic, Rafter, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten and Krajicek are all big time legends, but are below the guys just mentioned and are also below McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Edberg and Becker.
Right…invincible is probably not the right word, especially considering how anti-climactic that season ended for Novak…but Federer isn’t magician either…lol
wimbledon 97 bercy 97 masters 97 and this ..yeah the guy was there not only to win but to destroy you over and over with every available shots he had...only federer come close to that merciless level of opponent humiliation. .but he had to grind more from the baseline
1997 is how I’ll always remember Pete. The most complete, most technically sound attacking player ever.
Sampras was really incredible.
This is UNBELIEVABLE!
Crazy how early he took the ball on a 85sq inch frame.. 380grams i believe and 70+ lbs string tension.. insane
McEnroe picked it up once a said it was WAY to heavy for him.
Pros use heavier rackets than most people think. There's some good reasons for this.
There's also good reasons why beginners, and then recreational players use different racket weights.
That being said, and not knowing just how heavy wood rackets were back then, the heavy racket Sampras used throughout his career wasn't heavy enough to his liking.
So he made it/had it made heavier with lead tape and butt caps.
His right shoulder was really something else.
0:51 & 3:05: Just two examples of pure genius. Pete was in the Zone at this final. :-)
0:47 Nice backhand
how is pete not GOAT? yeah federer has good strokes, but sampras was a diff. league and its evident here.
Federer was far better on clay
@@cosmojairzinho14 this is true. Though the French Open is now slightly faster than back then. Ironically, all the other majors are slower
Yeah Sampras really was the Master, made a truly great player and athlete like Pat Rafter look almost second rate!! And remember Pat Rafter NEVER lost a Match to Federer, I believe he holds a 4-0 winning record over the Fed??
This video only shows points won by Pete. But u look at the score and it was close.
The big 3 djok, fed, nadal are the same class as Pete. The big 3 are more aggressive to set more winning record.
So the big 3 also maintain a excellent performance in every tournament which Pete could not.
At Pete dominance, other players could still won grand slam and master titles
@@leebrandt33
Yes precisely !
So that means that if you are a top player in the beginning of the 2002 on one surface , you are practical a top player on ALL surface !
It was another game in the 90 ties !
It's high time we stop comparing greats of different eras and let go of all the " what ifs" forever. Sampras in fast courts in his zone is the most destructive player ever was. Nadal in his prime the monster of clay court, Djokovic in his prime is invincible, Federer in his prime is a magician. None of these legends are any less or more than the other. There is no point in comparing these greats and rather enjoy the genius on display, because the pathetic new generation of players are yawn inducing at best and sooner tennis will be a pauper when Big3 retires(no offence to Murray)
In the modern game post Laver era, IMHO,, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Stich, Wawrinka, Courier, Del Potro, Cilic, Roddick, Ivanisivic, Rafter, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten and Krajicek are all big time legends, but are below the guys just mentioned and are also below McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Agassi, Edberg and Becker.
Prime Djokovic invincible? 2011 RG SF says hello
Right…invincible is probably not the right word, especially considering how anti-climactic that season ended for Novak…but Federer isn’t magician either…lol
3:50
wimbledon 97 bercy 97 masters 97 and this ..yeah the guy was there not only to win but to destroy you over and over with every available shots he had...only federer come close to that merciless level of opponent humiliation. .but he had to grind more from the baseline
Patrick you are once again MY BITCH !!!!!