Hacker News Reader

Comment by brusch64 | Hacker News Reader

What was the rivalry like ? I've never been interested in tennis, so I don't know about that.

Pete Sampras, the clear cut and nice guy and Agassi the loudmouth badass player ?

Why did Pete Sampras' career end earlier than Agassi's ?

Agassi wasn't loud-mouthed to be exact. Agassi was on a journey of self-discovery, and wasn't sure who he was. He resented playing tennis (until much later in his career), and disliked authority. The combination of these factors came out as someone who was 'badass'.

Sampras was single-minded in his focus for achieving greatness, but he wasn't always that way. It took a defeat on the tennis court in his early twenties to give him the pure appetite for winning. Before that, he was ok with losing.

Sampras ended his career earlier for a few reasons; spending more time with his family, feeling he had nothing left to prove, and the emergence of Roger Federer!

Agassi clearly found a resurgence in his tennis once he hated it less, and having his premier rival no longer around to stop him winning Grand Slams, felt he could still achieve more.

I would add burnout to the list of things that made Sampras retire. I would not include Roger Federer, because it's not like he's ever been Pete's nemesis - they've only played one match and it was a close one, but that's beside the point (Pete wasn't even ranked in the top 5 when he won his last US Open).

They are exactly one generation of players apart. Pete had been thoroughly burned out (and retired) long before Roger started to win everything in sight.

Agassi, on the other hand, became a philantropist closer to the end of his career and was trying to earn as much money for his foundation as he could. So he continued grinding despite his aggravating back problem (he had to get cortisone shots in his back before matches).

> What was the rivalry like?

It was pretty close in terms of wins against each other. However Sampras has won more matches that _really_ mattered (in Grand Slam tournaments).

Also, they had 2 completely different styles of play (on top of having completely different personalities). Sampras had a great serve (his second serve is still considered the best of all times) and came to the net a lot (serve-and-volley tennis). Agassi, on the other hand, was a great returner of serve (probably the best of all times until Djokovic showed up) and had devastating ground strokes (stepping into the court and hitting the ball early on the rise). That difference made their rivalry extremely entertaining.

I don't know much about tennis, but that sounds familiar regarding McEnroe and Connors from the generation before - I remember announcers talking about how McEnroe had a great server and Connors had a great return.

Oh yes, a very good point. McEnroe himself said that Connors was the best returner before Agassi. And of course Mac's can opener serve is a weapon still to this day (I watched him play live recently and it was a beauty).

if you are at all interested I can recommend Andre Agassi's biography [1] it definitely goes quite a bit into their rivalry as it was a big part of his career, as somebody who grew up watching them play it was a really enjoyable read.

I am not sure how much this is nostalgia but I think the era back then was probably the golden age of tennis due to the changes in equipment that were happening, it felt like each match was a lot more unique than they are now.

In terms of pure ability I still think that Federer at his peak was the greatest tennis player ever, but overall I think that era was the most fun to watch.

[1]'Open: an autobiography' ISBN: 978-0307388407

I remember thinking of Sampras as icy cold perfection and Agassi as making it up as he went along. Order and Chaos on the same court. It was fun to watch them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com