Thank you, Pete, for years of triumph, class, fight, drama, emotions. What a ride it was! I was lucky to live through that.

Thanks to people like Pete Sampras the 90s were not complete shit.

Class written all over it !! Miss u Pete, love u always :)

I loved Mac , Becker and Agassi but Pistol Pete was on another level in the men's game . For me he like others before him changed the game. He wasn't just boom boom but could play with elegance ok maybe not how Federer plays but he just oozed class . But what l loved most was when you thought he was against the ropes he never panicked but just knew how to turn it around. He w as and still is my fave men's tennis player of all time..( notice I said MY FAVE PLAYER before anyone replies with statistical formats about who the best player was or is....NOT INTERESTED!!!!!) My fave serve ( loved Beckers and Navratilova's too btw) , next to Mac , my fave volleyer , forehand , overhead v's .....just sheer class. Great documentary. Thanks for posting it.....

Thank you Pete for years of great time.

Pete is that kind of person that needs to be challenged all the times. He has the greatest talent but he needs the motivation and to believe on it.. Awesome career. Best of the bests.

I watched u from 1990 until 2002... u r the best pete... again & again won GS tittles

Sweet!!!! Sampras your aces, you grass game will be in our hearts!!! for ever!!!

pete is the goat cause he beat the best of the past, present, and future and he did it all end of story.

Perfect Champion. Perfect Ending.

The last Grand was really hard,Rusedcki, Haas,Rodick,Andre on his's way to win,well done and what a beautiful way to end such a great career.

Sweetest way to retire,his first and last major title on the same arena! Miss watching you thanks to youtube !

He was so humble. I never guessed he had such high expectations

Pete will always be the greatest!

I would think Pete on old faster surface would beat Federer. Guys Pete had to beat to win slams or lost to in the process include legends like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, etc. During later part of career, competition got easier, but during early to mid 90s, Petes competition was way more versatile and tougher than Federer's. Just look up his and Federer's record against Rafter, Kefelnikov, or even Tim Henman who had all court game instead of just baseline grinding.

Pete is a Greek God and a legend!!

Courier is a class act. Great commentary.

Pete will always be my tennis hero! Wish I could meet him.

Sampras & Federer give so much to tennis, let's admire them both.

Spot on John. I enjoy watching Fed play but I wud wanna like my son play like Pistol. He was mentally the toughest player I ever saw & he had to compete with great past champions (Mac, lendl, Wilander, Becker), great contempories (Agassi, Courier, Rafter) + future generation (Hewitt, Safin). He beat them all, with different styles. Fed basically beat baseliners, not his fault but he had it easier

Greatest of all time!!!

The Sampras/Federer debate regarding the GOAT is quite misleading, and a hollow one. We can compare their respective records: Federer certainly has the better resume; he's won more grand slams and has won the French which Pete hasn't done. Yet it has been pointed out by a number of professionals and tennis historians that Federer's competition in his heyday was a little weaker than Sampras'. Moreover, questions concerning who would win on which surface in his prime is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is that such imaginings are an abstraction: a Federer in his prime meeting a Sampras in his prime would no longer be Federer and Sampras. In other words, part of what made them the players we remember is their immersion in a particular historic context and era. Imagining Federer as part of a different era is to conjure up an imaginary Federer, not the Federer we know. And don't forget that while Federer had the advantage of studying Sampras' play when he was in his prime, Sampras did not yet have the luxury of studying Federer in his own prime. Sampras could only study the past masters such as Borg, Mcenroe, Laver, etc. So part of Federer's greatness is thanks to the historic development of tennis, and the access to tapes or matches whereby Federer could learn from the past greats. Sampras did not have the luxury of studying Federer and then stepping into a time machine whereby, in top form, he could play Federer. The basic point is that players of a given generation should be judged on the basis of that generation's competition. (And frankly, it isn't clear that Federer is the best of his own generation, given the fact that he lost to Nadal at Wimbeldon in 2008 and then at the Australian in 2009 AT A TIME WHEN HE WAS ARGUABLY STILL IN HIS PRIME.) And racket skills themselves are not nearly enough to determine who the greater player is (in the historic sense). For example, everybody knows that Sampras had far more racket skills than Laver, but not everyone agrees that Sampras was the greater player. One could also point out that many current players, not nearly the equals of Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, have superior racket skills to the Laver we remember. Yet these same players will not be remembered. So it's to be expected that Federer's racket skills are superior to those of Sampras, but that's partly due to the nature of how tennis has developed and the players' access to past matches (which they can study). Why MUST there be a GOAT? Why not simply (and wisely) concede that certain great players have contributed to the evolution of tennis, and then leave it at that?

you gotta love Agassi, if you watch closely at 6:04 he starts walking towards the net before the point is already over. He must have been thinking something like "oh well, this guy again"

You echoed my feelings completely!

BEST PLAYER OF ALL TIMES.

All time.

Federer fans should watch all of petes documentsries to see why he is and always will be the best. Federer is great but not as good as sampras. Sampras had much tougher and better players in his era.

a far greater generation back then and pete was the best example

Pete Sampras was a class act throughout his career. I thought Courier's tribute was excellent.

i love you Pete!

Pete Sampras always let his racket do the talking. Winning a grand slam and retiring is the best way to end a great career.

Pistol Pete...one of the greats. Will never forget the 1995 quarters against Jim.

Pete Sampras. The great

Greatest!!!

Well pete did win a slam at age 32 and that was his last tournament. This era the atp slow down the grass and hard court to suit baseline grinders like nadal and djokovic and speed up the clay to help players like federer, tsonga, berdych to play better on this surface. Nowdays, tennis has no variety. Sampras, borg and laver were able to win on the fast grass court at wimbledon something fed, nadal and djokovic never did. Plus federer hasnt beat nadal in a GS since wim 2007.

I stopped following tennis when Sampras retired,I wanted him to play more he was only 31..

Federer VS Pete Sampras wimbledon final. Computer simulation. Sampras beats federer 6-2 4-6 6-3 6-4

BEST OF THE BEST OF ANY SPORT, A REMARKABLE HUMAN

dude if pete went against fed when he use to play in the year 2000 he owuld whoop him left n right

I love Agassi “holy cow”

@rangeboyry its true, nobody can argue against his record. and i had no idea he competed against 5 hall of fame guys.

@djstony1 YOU HAVE IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE REASON WHY FEDERER WON SO MUCH IS BECAUSE HE HAD NO COMPETITION UNTIL NADAL AND THAT RUSSIAN GUY CAME ALONG. NOW HE LOSES ALL THE TIME. PETE BEAT GREAT VERSITLE PLAYERS LIKE IVANESAVIC, AGASSI, COURIER, CHANG, SAFIN, BECKER,LENDL, RAFTER ETC. HE IS THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME.

@benmarks1984 lol, yeah right, and Hewitt also had the key to winning 14 major right????

Yeah , I absolutely agree with the statement about Hewitt and the 2002 US Open ! Hewitt's game was definitely better suited for Sampras' than that of Andre Agassi !In addition , I sort of felt that Hewitt wasn't expecting Agassi to play so well against him and therefore wasn't ready for a big fight in the semifinal ! :D :D

The goat

And if a 35 year,injured in every part of hi's body Haas can and still win players like Djokovic and Federer why couldn't Pete or Andre,the tennis back there was great.

But federer didn't dominate his main rivals like pete. Pete's competition was tough and what made him so great is that he consistently won big matches and beat most of his main rival. Ever since 2004, federer consistently lose to nadal particular in GS (8-2). I'm not saying H2H records means ur betta, it just most of the memorable matches like wimbledon 2008, aus open 2009, french open finals are all won by nadal. Plus nadal beat fed in 3 different surfaces in GS while fed only won on grass.

still the greatest of champions

@MrSaberq i thought u meant MJ as in Michael Jackson :)

Respect

Not EVER SINGLE tennis legend says that. Some ppl think laver is the best coz he won 2 calender slam. Tennis legends like McEnroe said that federer play in a weak era, ( From 200-2006), thus allowing fed to accumulate many slams and surpassing sampras. And no i dont think McEnroe is right, imo federer just raise tennis to a higher level, but federer still hasnt won a calender slam which is probably the best and hardest achievement to get. Tennis legends are not always rite like McENroe.

Not much has changed in racquet technology....Federer's 90" Ksix-one hits the same as Pete's 85" Pro-Staff. The only thing different would be racquet-head size..which some are using for mainly spin, such as Rafa's 110". The Grass courts may start out slower..but towards the end of the tournament, Centre Court looks just as trashed as it always does...so the ball flies faster at the end of the tournament.

Slow death is to some extent worse than fast death. Fast death is slightly worse than already death.

Imagine having 14 grand slams and have it all erased in 7 years with Federer

benchmark1984 thats bull when u look at grand slams it was 1-1 between hewitt n sampras ppl forget that pete hammered hewitt at the us open also

same celebration 14 times.

Its true he competed with 5 hall of famers but the thing is out of dem 3 already passed their career peak points by 1993/4 lendl becker edberg they were 29/30 then so the remaining were agassi and courier and he was better than them he is one of d greatest tennis players no doubt but is he d bst its arguable and a player name Federer will always come in that arguement

@deltok Pete would

Agreed. Today's top five is Federer, Nadal, 2 under achievers, and 1 guy who does bad impressions.

In 2001, wimbledon was given the nickname ''the green clay'' so no the grass was not fast, u didnt need to S&V to win wimbledon. WTF and MAsters 1000 are not that important compared to GS. IF u want to compare everything then nadal still leads 18-10 anyway. I do agree that pete is not GOAT, i would put Laver as the goat since he won the calender slam twice, buh federer is one of the best buh not the GOAT for sure.

pete lost to agassi at AO 95 final and 2000 semi final. and others master series tournament but it's sure that pete was psychologically strong champion then agassi

worst argument ever

St. James 4:10 Be humbled in the sight of the Lord God, and he will exalt you. St. Matthew 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. St. Luke 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.

Winning major's is 100% down to your own input; winning the DC requires a strong team! Pete had Chang, Courier, Agassi in his team, its like the whose-who of tennis! like you say Federer has Stan who can be a patchy player...so its only right that Pete gets a bigger stick for not winning RG than Roger not winning the DC! Tiger Woods comparison in the RC is poor 'cause Tiger plays poorly , the US can still win, But Roger plays great in DC & Switzerland still lose.

1:28- who cares what some CNN reporter thinks?! Ignore them. They all talk rubbish.

@rangeboyry is for styles, pete cant even dominate Nadal ..

Πάντα ήμουν με το μέρος του

my personal belief,is that the sampras-federer debate will go on until federer wins the davis cup. everyone says that federer is better because pete never won a french open. well he won two davis cups, which is a void on federer's resume if people can criticize tiger woods for his poor performances in the ryder cup, it's certainly fair to criticize federer's lack of results in davis cup play (though it's tougher to win a davis cup when he and wawrinka don't have much help )

I don't like Patrick McEnroe

federer is a dominating one eye king in the world of blind competing against bunch of losers oops sorry he got one strong talented oppenent Nadal getting trashed by him al the time pete did compete against 11 different hall of fame GS champions and up against all including against Andre 5-1 on GS finals ! federer is a left alone player who cant even dominate Nadal

@nocode61 Bullshit. Rafter was mentally weak. I mean, come on, here's a guy who lost to Ivanisevic in five sets in the final of Wimbledon.... give me a fucking break. Becker, Edberg and Lendl were at the end of their careers in the early 90's, WAY past their primes. Kafelnikov was mainly a clay court player, and Henman was such a disappointment he is not even worth mentioning. Agassi and Courier were great players, but so are Nadal and Djokovic. In fact, they're better. By far.

Sampras was a unique player. But Agassi was the better player, and looking back it was more a case of Agassi underperforming, than Pete being so good. Pete had massive holes in his game, and never won the French open. Unlike Agassi, who won every slam. Ultimately Nadal, Djokovic and Federer totally surpassed him.

The best!

If Federer wins 14 GS and more, hes biography will be more entertaining and more HD version dramatical sound effects and cinematography.