- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How come Pete Sampras never achieved the popularity of the Big 3 or Andre Agassi?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:57 pm to Paul Allen
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:57 pm to Paul Allen
Sampras and his serve and volley technique was devastatingly effective during his era, but it didn't always make for a compelling, casual viewing among spectators. Sampras was a master of serve and volley tennis. In his prime, matches on fast courts could feature a blur of unreturned serves, short points, and quick holds, which casual fans sometimes found lacking in long, dramatic baseline rallies. Sampras possessed a ruthless efficiency. He rarely showed any outward emotion, meaning he didn't give the crowd the theatrical highs and lows they got from fiery players like McEnroe, Connors, or Agassi. I enjoyed watching him play, stoic tennis.
0
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:05 pm to Paul Allen
He wasn't flamboyant, flashy, he was a lunch pail guy. Went out and took care of business.
He didn't need to be flashy, he married a hotter chick than the big3 or Andrew ever got
He didn't need to be flashy, he married a hotter chick than the big3 or Andrew ever got
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:37 pm to Paul Allen
he was the face of tennis in the 90s. often was on sportscenter with ken griffey jr and jordan in those days. he was definitely popular and respected back then so i disagree with the premise of the question
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:41 pm to mdomingue
Agassi and Sampras had enough body hair between the two of them to make a Gossamer.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:45 pm to Paul Allen
Because he may have been more boring than Ivan Lendl.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:48 pm to Boodis Man
He retired at 31. Federer won 3 slams after 32, Nadal 5 and Djokovic 12. Pretty interesting.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:52 pm to coolpapaboze
Pete was like a Matt Olson or Freddie Freeman. He was dominate on the court, and just a nice steady guy off the court. He provided very little entertainment in his personal life.
A well lived life is great, but it makes bad television.
Who has the most interesting story Johnny Manziel or Matt Ryan? Who has the better life?
Good for Pete. I’ve always respected the hell out of him.
A well lived life is great, but it makes bad television.
Who has the most interesting story Johnny Manziel or Matt Ryan? Who has the better life?
Good for Pete. I’ve always respected the hell out of him.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:55 pm to Dr RC
quote:Maybe it says something about me. Huge fan of both of these guys.
Sampras = Tim Duncan
dull dominance
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:59 pm to bird35
quote:
Who has the most interesting story Johnny Manziel or Matt Ryan? Who has the better life?
Under this analogy that would mean Agassi is Manziel???
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:05 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
Under this analogy that would mean Agassi is Manziel???
Agassi did enjoy a little nose candy and partying. And meth.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 8:06 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:12 pm to Paul Allen
I’ve felt he got his just do. Married a movie star to boot. He was just before where modern science would provide solutions to aging so his career wasn’t as long.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:23 pm to Paul Allen
Probably because he had the personality of a hamburger.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:28 pm to Paul Allen
Personality contrast with Agassi as the other guy then and more flashy.
Pete also lost his coach to cancer I think in his prime and basically lost 3+ years of his prime to it. Then also retired early because his heart wasn’t in it.
His serve and volley game also led to lots of quick point and less long rallies than the other 4.
Pete also lost his coach to cancer I think in his prime and basically lost 3+ years of his prime to it. Then also retired early because his heart wasn’t in it.
His serve and volley game also led to lots of quick point and less long rallies than the other 4.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:37 pm to Paul Allen
quote:The premise of this fails
How come Pete Sampras never achieved the popularity of the Big 3 or Andre Agassi?
Sampras at his peak was crazy popular.
His rivalry with Agassi was must-see TV
He just wasn't an attention whore like Agassi
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:15 pm to Roaad
Sampras was a great tennis player, he could get on the cover of Sports Illustrated
Agassi was by far the greater media celebrity.
Image Is Everything
Those are about the same timeframe, early 90's.
To this day, I'm shocked Agassi never cashed in as a movie star. Dude was everywhere on TV and magazines, women loved him, he was the cool 'rebel'. And you can't tell me you couldn't cast him just on looks, stick a sword in his hand and tell him to swing it like a racket, and put him in a Conan/Beastmaster type movie with a lot of hot babes at the time (and that was a big genre then).
Agassi was by far the greater media celebrity.
Image Is Everything
Those are about the same timeframe, early 90's.
To this day, I'm shocked Agassi never cashed in as a movie star. Dude was everywhere on TV and magazines, women loved him, he was the cool 'rebel'. And you can't tell me you couldn't cast him just on looks, stick a sword in his hand and tell him to swing it like a racket, and put him in a Conan/Beastmaster type movie with a lot of hot babes at the time (and that was a big genre then).
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:17 pm to Paul Allen
He kinda sucked on clay. His best finish at Roland Garros was a semifinal. Once.
Agassi has a career slam and was a more complete player.
Agassi has a career slam and was a more complete player.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:20 pm to facher08
quote:
Serve-and-volley isn't the most entertaining style of tennis.
damn, here i was thinking that was a big part of it.
Really don’t know shite about tennis
Posted on 8/28/26 at 7:06 am to A12 Oxcart
Define complete . I don't consider being not so good on clay a lack of completeness. Borg sucked at the Australian never getting past the third round. Sampras was as patient a player as there has been working the baseline and forcing a lot of competition to wear themselves out.
He was not a flashy personality, but his fellow players respected him a lot. He was actually a very shy and reserved person.
He was not a flashy personality, but his fellow players respected him a lot. He was actually a very shy and reserved person.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 7:16 am to A12 Oxcart
quote:
He kinda sucked on clay
quote:
Pete Sampras finished his career with a 125–52 record on clay courts, translating to a roughly 70.6% win rate, which was his lowest win percentage across all surfaces.
quote:
Sampras won 4 clay court titles and made the quarterfinals or better 4 times at Roland Garros
He was still really really really good on clay
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 7:17 am
Posted on 8/28/26 at 8:43 am to Paul Allen
He was very boring and frankly, his game was as boring as the baseliners today. I mean, Edberg and Becker were pretty boring too as they had similar games and personalities.
Proof? The match he is most known for is the Wimbledon match with Goran that was not a tennis match but an ace fest.
He never had those great matches that stand out. Connor and Borg, Mac-Borg, Federer-Nadal have a plethora of matches that stand out in the imagination. Sampras? Not so much. For example, the match called a classic, the last time he faced Agassi at the US Open, is considered one because it went five sets and every set was a tiebreaker. IF you actually watched the m match it was boring as hell. Aces or serve, return wide or in net, or return is put away at net. Both held serve until one would win a break point in the tiebreaker. It was boring arse tennis. And that is their classic.
Andre grew up in the casinos. His whole team was a marketing machine when he first came on the scene. The hair, the talent, and the endorsements. The wild Nike clothes. His ad was "image is everything" or something like that.
Andre also had a redemption arc much like Connors did. They had a second act unlike Borg or McEnroe.
Proof? The match he is most known for is the Wimbledon match with Goran that was not a tennis match but an ace fest.
He never had those great matches that stand out. Connor and Borg, Mac-Borg, Federer-Nadal have a plethora of matches that stand out in the imagination. Sampras? Not so much. For example, the match called a classic, the last time he faced Agassi at the US Open, is considered one because it went five sets and every set was a tiebreaker. IF you actually watched the m match it was boring as hell. Aces or serve, return wide or in net, or return is put away at net. Both held serve until one would win a break point in the tiebreaker. It was boring arse tennis. And that is their classic.
Andre grew up in the casinos. His whole team was a marketing machine when he first came on the scene. The hair, the talent, and the endorsements. The wild Nike clothes. His ad was "image is everything" or something like that.
Andre also had a redemption arc much like Connors did. They had a second act unlike Borg or McEnroe.
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 8:49 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News