Federer is a brilliant tennis player whose grace and sportsmanship are awesome to have in the sports world. However, while he has had Nadal to contend with in the French the past three years and now on all surfaces, Sampras had much stiffer opponents who are legends in their own right.

In terms of grand slam number on all surfaces, Roger is the better. But do not forget that Roger and Pete are in different generation of competition; Pete, as jeff-1143043 said, had more talented players who specialized in each surface, esp. clay, to contend with. so both Pete and Roger are great champions in their own right and time.

Federer - more dominant and absolutely the best ever !!!

Nonetheless, both GREAT champions.

Federer, for sure. Pete never was competitive on clay, usually lost in the first week of competition every year.

Both are great equal champions. Maybe everyone thinks Roger because it is happening now and Pete was a long time ago. My favorite-Pete Sampras U.S.A. What can I say?

Roger Federer has way better allround game than Sampras. All you need to do with Sampras is return his serve consistently and play a longer rally than one or two exchanges. No wonder he never came close to winning the French open.

What kind of question is this? Mr. Rogers can play on any surface and won on every single surface. Sampras can play on any surface except for clay and has never even won a challengers on clay. Sooooo, what comparison is there?

Although I will have to agree with everybody's post that Roger Federer is undoubtedly a better player and has had tougher competition, but personally I think nobody stood a chance with Pete's aces on serves. I mean those were quite impressive, somthing that Roger doesn't possess!

1) Sampras is the king of Wimbledon - 7 time champion

2) Sampras came back from utter wilderness to win the US Open, his 14th Slam

3) Sampras had to contend with legends like Boris Becker, Stefen Edberg, Andre Agassi, Kafelnikov, Goran Ivanisevic etc, all of whom are multiple Grand Slam winners. With all respect to Djokovic and Murray, they are more pretenders than real contenders.

Sampras had to contend with a great great great one in his prime in Agassi. Also true champions like Becker, Courier, Edberg and Rafter.

However, Nadal has owned Federer so much at the French, and beat him at Wimbledon last year, took over the #1 ranking..... it's hard to call Federer the greatest ever when he's not even better than Nadal is.

I know Sampras never won at the French, but neither did McEnroe, or Connors, or Becker or Edberg.

That's because the French is on silly brick-clay which is as different as playing on ICE would be. Why not have a 5th major on ICE?
I'll take Ivo Karlovic to win that one :o)

I'm thrilled for Federer, but really missed Nadal. Watching part of last year's Wimbledon following this year's French really exemplifies how their rivalry has elevated the level of tennis. It's hard not to miss that energy. The great thing is that we'll have many more matches between them to come.

I Say Pete still, main reason is that Fed is not even #1 right now and honestly Nadal is a Better Player!

I always though Federer could win the French if somebody gave him some help with Nadal. Nobody else has really beaten Federer on clay and he didn't play anyone higher than a 5 seed for the tournament. Federer is definitely a better clay court player than Sampras but I think Sampras was better on grass and maybe even on hard courts. Sampras had the greatest serve of all time and volleyed better than any player today. Unlike players of today, Sampras' forehand flies through the court and from watching their exhibitions and Wimbledon match, Sampras is the only player I have seen who really makes Federer look rushed (even Nadal cannot do that). Even though he had more bad losses, Sampras had better competition and consistently beat Agassi in finals, whereas Federer has a losing record to the younger Nadal in finals. Sampras would have destroyed Nadal on grass.

I certainly agree with many of the thoughts and opinions mentioned here - pro & con alike. But I think the bigger picture being overlooked here is this; since what many of you said IS true - Sampras had a coterie of would-be challangers to his throne, they never quite made it! Why? Can't answer that, nor can anyone! But the truth is that regardless HOW GREAT each one was in their own right, how many of them (including Pete) EVER made it to 20 consecutive semi's and 15 of 16 finals? NONE OF THEM! As for Nadal owning Roger lately - this is true! However (again) a true champion overcomes ALL OBSTACLES! This would be referring to health problems as well as potential oponents! The great Steffi Graf NEVER complained, but suffered MANY physical problems. Many other male and female tennis player alike have suffered from chronic health problems, but in no way allowed them to hinder them from playing the best tennis THEY knew how! SOOOOO, why are there MORE players huddled together atop the leaderboard of all-time singles, grand slam championships?

Lets all reserve judgement on WHO is the greatest until we see a few more years come forth from Nadal! After all, he is still only 23! Will he be able to overcome HIS physical demons just like Roger has and still is (remember folks - Roger also has back problems, just like the great Steffi Graf). Lets remember to give credit where credit is due! Nobody paved the road to all of Rogers victories, nor did anyone play each of his matches for him BUT HIM! And that is something anyone of us can take to the bank! (A true, but UNBIASED Roger Federer and Pete Sampras fan, and player for 28 years, before heart and back problems finally won over me!)

Oh, forgot one IMPORTANT note for all; please google OR yahoo 'search' Roger Federer Wikipedia. Once you are there, take particular notice of 'List of Career Achievements by Roger Federer'. Then see what the 'all-time legends' of the sport of tennis are saying (McEnroe, Connors, etc., etc.) And take special notice of the 18 bullet-points highlighting this man's amazing career - AND HE IS STILL PLAYING! I was shocked, as will ALL of you be! Enjoy everyone!

Federer's success is more impressive simply because it has been achieved in half the time, across every surface. Making the French Open final for four years running really puts paid to any suggestion that Federer lacks all surface skills, that Sampras simply did not possess. The arguments that there were more specialist clay courters in Pete's era is ridiculous. The rise of South American and Spanish tennis players in the top 20 destroys that argument. Rjkardo (see above) picked up some nice fallacious reasoning in some of the comments. Yes the competition was more even in Pete's era, but this only reflects the dominance of Federer since 2003 and is the simple reason for the relatively few multiple title holders around. To say that Sampras would destroy Nadal on grass seems unlikely. Does everyone forget the thrashing that Sampras received from Hewitt at the similarly fast surfaced 2001 US Open?

Federer no question, as said before already half the time to do, on every surface with years ahead to do hopefully more. Everyone will go on about who has more competition Sampras or Federer, and that's why we all have opinions and are entitled to them. Some will say Sampras' serve was so much better than Federer's. If those folk care to feel this way then by all means feel that way. I'm sure Soderling didn't feel that way against Federer today. I'm hoping Federer will break Sampras' 14 by four or five slams so we no longer have to have any of these inane discussions about who was better since Sampras already acknowledges himself that he thinks of Federer as the greatest of all time.

Each generation has its own "best in the world" player but Federer is one for the ages because of his astounding accomplishments against the most talented and dedicated collection of players ever on all four surfaces. He is an artist where most others are mere (muscled) grinders. It is a thing of beauty to watch him glide around a court with seemingly no effort while his opponents huff, puff and sweat profusely - and that is why his tennis career will last longer than most. Sampras is one of the greatest ever but Federer is Sampras +++!

You cannot honestly say that Federer is the "greatest of all time". Although he has now won the French Open, he has NEVER beaten Nadal there so how can he be considered the greatest when he cannot even beat the best player of his own generation? AND Nadal has also beat him at Wimbledon and Australia. Sampras had winning records verse all the greats of his time.