Reminded me of my favourite Andre story. This is after his career and I was watching some charity tennis thing (no clue what it was). However, Andre and his wife Steffi Graf were on the court and auctioning off a weekend with the two including tennis lessons at their private home. The auction was taking place at the centre court of the US Open venue in NY. The bids were up to $75,000 for the weekend with Andre and Steffi. When the bidding stopped, they asked the last two bidders if they would each pay $70,000 (the highest amount both had bid) and they would each have a weekend with Steffi and Andre. They basically doubled the amount given to charity by giving up two of their weekends to complete strangers.
Jeff Tweedy, singer for the band Wilco, does a similar thing. As part of Second City's annual Letters to Santa 24-hour charity benefit, he auctions off a private living room concert. Last time I watched, he ended up accepting bids for 3 shows at the final bid amount.
The concerts themselves are legendary among Wilco fans, who form syndicates to bid on shows. The buy-in is at least a few-hundred dollars per person.
I love how, among the more strategic thoughts on life, he mixes in advice about how to play one specific point against Agassi in the 1995 Australian Open. 20 years later, a fierce competitor still litigating where he should have placed one serve.
I thought the same thing. Winning 4 out of 5 is pretty definitive -- you're going to obsess over some possible way to win the 5th all these years later?
I've heard it said that champions like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Sampras, etc. are motivated more by avoiding the feeling of loss than by than having the feeling of winning. They are motivated by negative emotions rather than positive. That jibes with this anecdote IMO.
I would probably congratulate myself on 4 out of 5, which is why I'm not a champion :)
Champions don't fear loss otherwise they would never try for the last second winning shot. Champions like Michael Jordan, etc, believe they should win every single time because they are the best. When they take that last second shot, they believe it is going to score. A championship is theirs for the taking and if they lose, it's because they fucked up, not because someone else beat them.
I think this is true for many of us in our lives; we tend to remember and obsess over our failures more than our successes, particularly the large ones. If we learn from our mistakes, maybe we learn the most from our most expensive mistakes?
I think very often, such obsessing over the details of our failures is just wishful thinking. We are trying to rationalize our failure. Rationalizing is much easier if you distill the causes of failure to one simple event. In this specific case, that modification of strategy would have saved the set, perhaps, and given him a chance to continue fighting in the match. A win would be far from guaranteed, counterfactuals are hard to construct and almost always impossible to verify.
Tennis is a sport where you will rue every single point in a lost match. It lends itself particularly well to the if-only-I-did-that-one-thing-differently rationalization. It is due to the hierarchical (game-set-match) nature of the scoring and how one only needs to win one crucial point to get past their competitor (e.g. at 30-30, 30-15, the players are really sitting on a knife's edge).
Well, it is strategic to him, as he would have probably gone on to win the match and the tournament (a 'major' which is a very big deal) had he won that one point.
Even though I was firmly in the Andre-camp as a kid, I can’t but help the words of a genius. Witnessing the Sampras-Agassi rivaly is one of my best memories growing up. I remember how much of an effect it had on me and my desire to get out on the court and whack a ball.
More than that though, it think Sampras’ words ring true regardless of your occupation. Don’t sweat the small stuff, celebrate every success, appreciate the people you have in your life.
I was more in the Sampras camp - I liked Agassi's rebellion but hated his fashion sense ;) That said, he's aged well and I read his autobiography, Open, a few years ago. Really blown away by his candor, insight into himself and the price to compete. Recommended reading even if you aren't a tennis nut.
There was something about Agassi that made me root for him. He seemed like the quite rebel. The media, for some reason NBC stand out the most in my memory, played Sampras up as the all-American boy and that was wack to teenaged me. Agassi had better sneakers too, and that mattered where I'm from
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).
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.
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.
20 years on and I still remember that 1995 Australian Open final, one of the most intense and beautiful sporting events I've ever watched on TV. I was in the Pete Sampras camp, if it matters :)
OP here, in contrast, here is Andre Agassi's farewell speech text:
The scoreboard said I lost today, but what the scoreboard doesn't say is what it is I have found.
And over the last 21 years, I have found loyalty: You have pulled for me on the court and also in life. I have found inspiration: You have willed me to succeed, sometimes even in my lowest moments.
And I have found generosity: You have given me your shoulders to stand on, to reach for my dreams, dreams I could have never reached without you.
Over the last 21 years, I have found you, and I will take you and the memory of you with me for the rest of my life.
I have never really followed tennis but I happened to see the end of Agassi's last professional match (and this speech) in 2006. It's basically required viewing for anyone who is capable of feeling emotion.
"""Luckily, you’ll be out of the game before these things called Twitter and Facebook come around. Be thankful for that. One day you’ll understand what I mean."""
All rookies in the NFL and NBA go through "rookie" training with something like a two week conference on how to act off the court, handle your money, and then advice on how to stay out of trouble and what to avoid.
The NBA and NFL go to great lengths to try and keep these guys safe and their careers long. Even with all that, these players still shoot themselves in the foot on a regular basis.
Two weeks can't undo a lifetime of bad decisions being burned into habits. This isn't an indictment on the NFL/NBA, of course - they are doing what they can.
Strangely, social media, and it particular Twitter, seems to be working rather well for the NASCAR drivers, but NASCAR has always been the most open sport from a fan's perspective. I guess they got that training given how often they interact with fans.
The media, and society more generally, are also more forgiving of the foibles of young white men than they are young black men. The same social media missteps may lead to very different interpretations and outcomes.
As a huge tennis fan who grew up loving Pete Sampras (I even copied his serve, as best I could, and utterly failed to imitate his signature "slam-dunk" smash many, many times more than my coach or team mates really thought was acceptable), I loved everything about this.
Tennis always seems to have more than its fair share of real gentlemen, and Pete is front and centre amongst them.
Tennis always seems to have more than its fair share of real gentlemen
There's something about the isolation and the spotlight that burns off the rough edges of tennis players. Most team sports tend to let bad behaviors and elements fester in the shadows.
His kind is rare. Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are still the norm as far as tennis champions are concerned.
I remember reading about Nadal how he showed up to his hotel restaurant after a match in shorts. The restaurant had a shoes and jacket policy, but the manager was obviously willing to make a compromise for the distinguished guest.
His uncle (and coach), however, scolded Nadal in front of the manager and commanded him to change into something more presentable.
So the champion, after having played a four set match, trooped back to his room, wore a jacket and shoes, and came back to eat his dinner.
Can you imagine a NFL player ever doing something like that?
>Can you imagine a NFL player ever doing something like that?
Absolutely. Sure, there are many NFL players I couldn't imagine doing that, but there are tons of NFL players and many of them are class acts. I could easily imagine hearing the same story about an NFL player.
If the article has caught your interest, it is definitely worth having a read of Pete's biography (A Champion's Mind: Lessons from a Life in Tennis).
I would add that it is also worth reading Agassi's biography (Open: An Autobiography).
Together, these books provide a unique insight into life at the top of the game - and the impact this has on their lives. As a bonus, the views are from two players who were very different characters, were viewed in the media as being very different, and brought the best out in each other.
The last of the great single backhand tennis players. Is the double backhand really that much of an advantage? Does power trump lateral range? I'm not a tennis player but I was a fan watching Sampras while growing up.
AFAIK, the single-handed backhander can be hit with more power than the double-hander.
However, the single-hander is tougher to execute when under time-pressure compared to the double-handed backhand (given that you should hit the ball further out in front on the single-handed backhand, and it is possible to have a good contact later for the double-handed backhand). It is also difficult to execute well with higher balls. Given the amount of top-spin that exists in the modern game, this makes the single-hander a tough choice to stick with.
If anybody saw Stan Wawrinka hitting through Federer (my current favourite player, and arguably the GOAT) and Djokovic to claim the French Open this year, you wouldn't say that the single hander is weaker than the double-hander.
And I would suggest that Federer is the last of the great single backhanded tennis players.
* Edited to add a bit of additional info around contact points for the single- and double-handed backhands.
Roger Federer is still playing and he has a single handed backhand and is considered by many as the greatest ever to play the game.
Having said that, I agree with your sentiment. It was a great era to watch tennis. Legends like Becker, Edberg & Lendl were fading and newer upstarts like Sampras, Courier, Agassi were coming up
That validates my theory. I always thought that there is such a big advantage to a single backhand vs double backhand. I haven't watched tennis is a while but I was a Becker and Connors fan.
What about the parent comment validates your theory? The commenter gave another example of a skilled single backhand player but that doesn't really validate a theory that it's better or worse than the double backhand.
Stan Wawrinka is also a single backhand player who just won the French Open, denying Novak Djokovic in the process. There aren't many of them left, but there are a few prominent examples.
All other things being equal, one-handed backhand can generate more pace than a double-hander. However it is vulnerable to high bouncing balls (it's hard to generate much pace on those and they wear you out) and getting "jammed" (when you don't have enough separation between your body and the ball - it's much easier to hit with some pace using 2 hands from a jammed position).
Watching Pete vomit on the court, clearly ill, and immediately come back with several aces to win the match was one of those astounding and inspirational moments in sports.
This was disappointing. I was hoping for more insight, more detail, something more personal. The nutrition bit and the detail about needing to talk to someone after losing his coach were the strongest points but for an article at the top of hacker news that has nothing to do with programming or startups this felt like a sentimental nod to someone a lot of us grew up watching on television. Rather than an article that teaches me something or gives me an important idea to think about.
If I remember correctly, Pete always had a reputation as a nice guy on and off the court. Very similar to Roger Federer. A ferocious competitor but someone who still would interact with his fans. I've always used that as a gauge of who deserves respect and who doesn't. Simply being a badass tennis player while acting like a privileged jerk earns no points in my book.
True Words. Messages like these from celebs from other walks of life (e.g. Sachin Tendulkar) also echo the same message (directly or indirectly) i.e. work hard, respect others, give credit, be humble.
I think he makes some great points in this article that are worth sharing with your kids if you are getting them involved in sports or really whatever they are passionate about.
I meant male US tennis player. But even Serena turned pro in 1995 when Sampras was still at his peak. And she was an instant phenom. So by that measure even though she is still playing now, I always considered Serena to be from that "era" in a way.
I understand this to be: work hard, but because work is such a large part of your life, do a job that you like. Don't do the job just because it pays the bills. Your job has to be fulfilling to your inner self. If not you are not true to yourself, and it is likely that you will have issues with that later in life.
Dude this is Pete Sampras here. One of the best tennis players in the history of ever. He can brag; he's earned the right to brag.
Also, this is a great insight into the mind of a top athlete after his career is over. He talks about what he did right and what he did wrong, and where he'd change things up if he had the chance to do it over again. That's some invaluable insight that can benefit anyone who's just starting or who is in the middle of playing tennis both on a for fun level and on a competition level.
If this was an article written by Linus Torvalds in exactly the same tone, as a letter to his younger self, would you say he was bragging? Or would you be overjoyed that he'd shared some of his struggles so that you could learn from those struggles and maybe avoid them yourself?
