Talk:Pete Sampras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tennis
Tennis
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, which collaborates on Tennis-related subjects on Wikipedia, such as players, tournaments and rules. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

He has aged terrible over the past decade. I just saw him on tv now and last viewed him play in 1999 and compared to back them he looks like an old man. Lost his youth for sure and is balding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.97.187 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that more could be said in certain places in this article. In 1989, Pete Sampras defeated Mats Wilander (the defending champion) in the second round of the US Open and no mention is made of this remarkable upset. Also, the article is very vague about his matches in the US Open of 1990 leading up to the final. When he defeated Ivan Lendl in the quarterfinals, it marked the first time since 1981 that Lendl failed to reach at least the final of the US Open. That's a really interesting bit of information that I feel should be added.Tyranus 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wilander gave up the ghost after 1988 - I am convinced that he sold his soul to the devil just to win those three majors and get the #1 ranking. That doesn't count. No, I'm kidding. Yeah, the Lendl thing is big. Pete was also noted as saying that he felt "relieved" that he didn't have to deal with the pressure of his title defense after he lost in the 1991 U.S. Open quarters, and there's a quote from many of his peers from around that time that widely criticized him for saying that. I think that might be a worthy addition too. I'll try to incorporate all of this ASAP.Trip to Your Heart 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Should it be "considered by some" rather than just "considered"? Remember for all his abilities he missed out on one event, the French Open, which eluded him. Mandel 08:58, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Currently says "considered by many" which is probably the right level to pitch it at. Would be better to say "considered by many, including InsertFamousTennisPersonHere," Pcb21| Pete 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Man has won more Grand Slam titles than anybody else up to date. I think it would be correct to say that he is the greatest. Considerations of the people are not interesting. This is a encyclopedia based on facts. Some feel that Borg, with his four consecutive Garros and Wimbledon, wins was the greatest though he was not willing to play in Australia. People tend to compare Roger to Pete at his age etc.. All this speculation can be avoided by simply using the simple definition. The guy who has the most Grand Slam titles is simply: The greatest.

If still problematic I vote for removing the whole Greatest ... thing. If someone disagrees the "The Greatest" is then a strongly subjective matter and should not be included in encyclopedias.

It's a fairly conservative way of putting it. He IS one of the greatest players of all time, there is no rational debate about that. Whether he is the greatest of all time is certainly questionable, but the fact that he is ONE of the greatest is not. I say get rid of "generally considered to be." 70.132.14.150 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you as well. Pete won 14 Grand Slams, was ranked year-end #1 for 6 years, and is the all-time leader on money earned. Rod Laver's and Bjorn Borg's articles both state that "fans consider him the greatest of all time" or something to that effect, so why not Sampras as well?

Guys...it's stupid to call him "one of the greatest". andre agassi is also one of the greatest, yet he's nowhere near Sampras. Sampras is GOAT. Greatest of all time. Not that it means his record is perfect, far from that. Even Steffi Graf, who is GOAT amnog women doesn't have a perfect record. She almost has, but not entirely.

Sampras doesn't have a perfect record, but still, his record is the best record in tennis history so far. Therefore, he's GOAT.

Sampras is the top league, along with Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg and Federer. And among them, no one is near.

Tilden was extremly dominant in his era, but fails to back that with numbers. He skipped numerous Wimbledons, played almost only in the USA. Sure, he's won a lot and his achievements are one of the best but he has lesser pure number than Sampras.

Budge won only 6 slams, yes, 6 in a row, record, along with Grand Slam, but way to little to be GOAT.


Guys like Kramer or Gonzales, were great, but they don't qualify for GOAT contenders. Why? They won nothing (important). Kramer was prevented because of the war, and Gonzo played as a pro.

You can't transform potential which Kramer had, or pro matches that were played like exos, into slam wins.

Laver. Won Grand Slam in 1962, but the amatuer tennis was low quality back then, like never before. He played pro as well, and did well there, like Gonzales, but the pro-era is incomatible with amater-open eras stuff. Just can't give him credit for that. He did won record number od tournaments in one year in each of those hree eras, amateur, pro and open, he won also Grand Slam in each of those eras 1962-amater, 1967-pro and 1969-open Grand Slam. When discussing and looking at broader picture, he could be considered GOAT, but only he, along with Sampras.

Downsides are, he won only 5 open era slams, compared to Sampras' 14.

Borg is one of the best ever, but hardly a GOAT. People talk how Sampras failed to win RG, but Borg has won only 2 out 4 possible slams. Also, Sampras has more Wimbledon titles. More slams as well. Also, Borg spent very little timea as no1 when compared to Sampras. 2 years ended as no1. vs Sampras' 6 years. Similar stuff with weeks.

Federer is also, still short of Sampras' achievements.


So, I think in this article, Sampras should be declared the guy with best record ever, which means guy with greatest accomplishments in tennis history. He has one week spot, RG, but all other guys have not just one, but two, three or four weak spots, just like that, which makes his record the best, however unperfect it may be, but still, it's the best record in tennis history, and that record makes him the greatest player of all time.

Just take 6 most important things in tennis and look at it, Sampras holds/shares record in 4 out of 4 categories.


Wimlbledon - Sampras US Open - Connors, Sampras Roland Garros - Borg Aus Open - Agassi Masters - Lendl, Sampras (but in Lendl's time Masters was woth 0 points, while in the 90s, it was worth just as any other slam)

And #1, Sampras reigned as no one else.


Sure, never won RG, but give someone who has better record.

Connors and Mcnroe both have a better record than sampras and more singles titles.


One of Sampras' classic matches not listed was in the Quaterfinals of the 1995 Australian Open when he beat Jim Courier 6-7 6-7 6-3 6-4 6-3 in 4 hours.

Contents

[edit] Animated picture?

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia policy for animated images, can someone consult it and change (or not) accordingly? If there is no policy, I'd say to get rid of it in favor of a still image. zellin 15:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is also rather heavy at more than 400KB, which I think is too much. Lovro 12:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think that maybe this article is a little too much statistics, and not enough talking about the man?

[edit] hands over face

Can someone tell me about the time he lost to a no-name and then sat in his chair for a while?

I don't remember this incident, but if I had to guess, I would guess it was his loss at 2002 Wimbledon to George Bastl.Atarr 14:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on this description, my guess is that you're right.

[edit] T-script down

Link to transcript w/Leno is 404, may be temporary. --Doctorcherokee 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad link

The transcript link at the bottom of the main page (http://www.samprasfanz.com/news/020924jayleno.html) returns a file not found error.

  • I just removed that link, it's still broken. Copied below, in case it gets fixed, but not an essential link in any case. Dze27 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
* Transcript of Sampras' appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno

[edit] Equipment section

I have removed the entire Equipment section, as it was little more than free advertising for the manufacturers listed. If it's sourced, it can be re-added, but considerably cut down. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your removing the section because I consider it fluff. But just FYI, virtually all the information about his racquet was confirmed in a Tennis Channel interview with Sampras that I saw recently. Tennis expert 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
One or two sentences about his tennis racket is fine, four paragraphs raving about it isn't. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, personally I really liked the article about the equipment, and i notice its loss. The racket, unlike any other, has a considerable amount of history behind it because of sampras's use of it. Because of its "cult" status/following, its featured on almost anything said about sampras, which is why it was mentioned in the tennis channel interview. I dont think its much free advertising, as the racket isn't widely available, but i think its more a tribute to sampras and his skill that he was able to use such a powerless racket to create so much. all of the information that was listed can be found at http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/60/60Review.html throughout the various articles listed on the top, particularly the interview with Pete sampras's own stringer (proving its legitemacy) and the article on the st. vincent origins, largely based on an interview with a wilson official. thanks. chiruyuy

I never got to read the article about the racquet. I know it was a design that was implemented in 1983. I used it for a short time myself but settled on the 6.1 classic. The importance is that all this tennis technology and Sampras used the old one along with Edberg, Courier, Everett and so many others to win many Grand Slams


I really don't think that section was an advertisement. As a tennis player it's always enjoyable to read what kind of racket and modifications a professional (especially one as legendary as Sampras) made to their racket. I don't see the section as an advertisement or fluff, as information like that on professionals is hard to come by and is usually a good read. I think it should be kept.

67.163.230.132 03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Andrew


[edit] Entering Wimbledon 2007?

Some reports are saying that Pete sampras would be offered a wild card into the all England championships if he wanted to enter the mens draw, anyone have anymore info on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.108.147 (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

He has repeatedly stated in public interviews that he will never return to competitive tennis.

[edit] DVD picture

The DVD picture looks abit out of place as there, is it appropriate to use a DVD cover as a picture anyway? Are we really that desperate? 81.168.47.139 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this picture

is pure idiocy.

why not pick some nice picture from 1993-2000 peak sampras...maybe the one after wim 00, or something like that?

this one is really lame...bald..old..:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.73.44 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2007

[edit] Why

are so many tennis player articles protected ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.132.255 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 April 2007

Because for a while a persistent editor kept changing the agreed upon scoring format on most tennis bios. It was nasty, and it went on for weeks and weeks. Just check how many IPs and accounts the editor took on here!!! --HJensen, talk 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Fischer

Sampras's early coach's last name is spelled "Fischer," not "Fisher."

[edit] ATP Tour career earnings

The earnings do not add up to 43 million shown at the bottom. Why is that? On the pages such as Nadal's, it adds up fine.216.99.56.91 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runners up section - incorrect.

In the runners up section it clealry states that Sampras lost to Safin and Hewitt at the U.S Open in 2000 and 2001 respectively. However, he lost these games at Wimbledon, not the us open. 58.160.114.207 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section deleted

I have deleted the trivia section of the article. Nothing was sourced. I copy it in here. The editors can take whatever is relevant and can be sourced, and put it back in:

[edit] Trivia

 Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.
The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.
  • He modeled his game after his childhood idol, Rod Laver.
  • He used a very demanding racket, a small 85-square-inch Wilson racket that was strung at a tight 75 pounds. The high tension would presumably make his groundstrokes less powerful; yet, his strokes were among the most powerful in the game.
  • As a junior player, he was a defensive baseliner playing with a two-handed backhand. His coach, Pete Fisher, changed him to be a serve and volleyer with a one-handed backhand with Wimbledon in mind.
  • Because watching Sampras play in person made them too nervous, his parents attended only his loss to Stefan Edberg in a 1992 U.S. Open final and his victory over Patrick Rafter in the 2000 Wimbledon final. After winning Wimbledon that year -- his record-breaking 13th Grand Slam singles title -- Sampras ran into the stands to hug his parents.
  • Sampras admitted to not speaking about his condition with thalassemia minor because that would have lessened his aura of invincibility against fellow players.
  • Sampras had a rabbit named after him in the famous comedy series Father Ted.
  • During the height of his career, he claimed to sleep twelve hours every night.
  • Sampras was featured on more than one episode of The Prince of Tennis.
  • Sampras was featured on an episode of The Simpsons.
  • Sampras was referenced on a season 1 episode of Sports Night, titled "How Are Things in Glocca Morra?"
  • Sampras was referenced in an email episode of the popular cartoon website Homestarrunner.com
  • Sampras has a vibration dampener named after him, created by Unique. He used the donut shaped dampener in most of his matches.

--HJensen, talk 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the section. See WP:TRIV. Tennis expert (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it. In WP:TRIV, I find the following "Trivia sections should be avoided", and "Keep in mind that no content provided for WP articles can be exempt from our rules and style guidelines. Wikipedia should not contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. It is best practice to cite your sources. Both Wikipedia:Biographies of living people and Wikipedia:Copyrights also apply and should be considered. If there are doubts about whether a particular item of information is suitable for inclusion, it can be placed on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help in considering the item's inclusion and locate suitable references." which led me to remove this list of unsourced statements and indeed put it on the talk page. Sure, it also says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." However with absolutely no citations or references, the material cannot stay in the article. So I have removed it per WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP.--HJensen, talk 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can justify removing the whole trivia section instead of removing particular items that are unsuitable without sources. You have to interpret the guideline as a whole and not cherry pick. Doing that, the guideline means don't robotically remove a trivia section but do remove particular items in a trivia section that are unsuitable for a biography because of the lack of sourcing. Finally, you certainly have the option of finding sources for the items that are not currently sourced. That seems like a much more productive way of addressing your concerns. Tennis expert (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also this that you did not yet quote from WP:TRIV: "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. ... It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context, or to add references when needed. ... This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." Seems very clear to me.... Tennis expert (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
... and still unclear to me, as it clashes with WP:BLP where verifiability is particularly important. So your interpretation is that one just leaves unsourced material in a biography until one has time for finding references? I don't find that productive. People constantly add peculiar unsourced stuff to biographies. It is them who should provide sources. It cannot be the job of other editors. They, on the other hand, should delete unsourced info - like this Sampras trivia; which all is unsourced and most are not notable. --HJensen, talk 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not my interpretation. As I have said already in very plain and direct language, there is no cause under any of the Wikipedia policies we have been talking about for the wholesale deletion of a trivia section. The policies we have been discussing are very clear about this. If you have an argument for deleting particular items in a trivia section, then make your argument as provided in the substantive Wikipedia policies about biographies (WP:TRIV is not one of them). But that is not what you are doing. Finally, I strongly believe it hurts Wikipedia for an experienced editor like you, who clearly has the expertise to find and cite sources (which you did several times earlier today), to refuse to make the effort to find sources for items that on their face are not derogatory or libelous and that appear to have a reasonable probability of being correct. Such "drive by" deletions are wholly and completely unproductive. From WP:BLP: "Unsourced .... CONTENTIOUS (emphasis added by me) material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles.... Editors should remove any CONTENTIOUS (emphasis added by me) material about living persons that is unsourced." From WP:V: "This page in a nutshell: Material CHALLENGED OR LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED (emphasis added by me) ... must be attributed to a reliable, published source." We can discuss whether any items in the Pete Sampras trivia section are contentious or subject to challenge. But you have three times deleted that entire section without alleging that even one item within it fits those criteria. Tennis expert (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good points! Let me start by saying that I have no intentions of hurting Wikipedia by my actions. Any damage is caused by experienced editors that again and again passes by pages with tagged trivia sections with no sources without doing anything at all. I have taken action, and I did the best I could do in order to help the article from not being taken seriously by the readers. It was by no means a "drive by" deletion. It may have been a drive-by action, which I think is preferable to a drive-by non-action. I then used various policies to justify my action, but the policies clearly do not help here. I see that now. On the one hand trivia sections are to be avoided. On the other hand they should not be categorically deleted, but some can be and be placed on the talk page. (Note that I actually placed all items on the talk page - also those I think should be deleted completely; see below.) On the one hand, biographies of living persons should only use verifiable information, on the other hand only if it is contentious material. And in general, things should be verifiable, but apparently not things that "have a reasonable probability of being correct" (in your words). The last part obviously opens up for personal judgement, as such probabilities are bound to be subjective, and then any policy is void. So to conclude my rant, I once again see that the policies don't give a clear answer to anything. They are merely guidelines. Hence, I will address the issue from a contents perspective. Hopefully this will appear more productive.
Of the things listed, I find all of them not notable for inclusion in the article except:
  • He modeled his game after his childhood idol, Rod Laver. (This should then be sourced and put into the bio part.)
  • He used a very demanding racket, a small 85-square-inch Wilson racket that was strung at a tight 75 pounds. The high tension would presumably make his groundstrokes less powerful; yet, his strokes were among the most powerful in the game. (Some of this could go into description of equipment, but needs a source as the last part is WP:OR.)
  • As a junior player, he was a defensive baseliner playing with a two-handed backhand. His coach, Pete Fisher, changed him to be a serve and volleyer with a one-handed backhand with Wimbledon in mind. (This could go into bio part, but definitely needs sourcing.)
  • Sampras admitted to not speaking about his condition with thalassemia minor because that would have lessened his aura of invincibility against fellow players. (Again, an interesting thing about his personality, that clearly needs sourcing.)
But as they are now, I don't think one can defend having any of them unsourced in the article. If they were, each on their own, added by someone, I don't think I would get into any trouble by deleting them. They surely do not require inclusion just because they are a whole bunch of statements (I know you don't argue that). I will try to look at it when I have time. --HJensen, talk 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind this from WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles.... The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Done for now. Could cite two of four. The strategic secrecy of his disease exists some places on the web, but are then taken from here (this shows the danger of putting up non-sourced things on wikipedia; they spread and becomes "truths" in themselves). I could not find the stuff on his racket (I can try more, though). And BTW by "notable" I was, given my earlier comments, not referring to wiki policies. I was just using the word to help building sentences. Maybe I should have used the word "relevant" instead. --HJensen, talk 11:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weight, units

What is Pete Sampras' weight? 170 lbs or 90 kg? This is not equivalent, 90 kg is around 200 lbs, and 170 lbs are around 77 kg. According to some other websites, his weight is around 170-175 lbs, which would be converted into 77-79 kg. Could anybody please confirm that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascualangulo (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)