I ushered at the LA Open in 1996. Chang played Richard Krajicek in the finals and won. Chang was the fan favorite during the whole tournament. He was also the player that all of the staff and volunteers liked. He was just such a super nice guy.
Thank you USTA for classic matches' highlights. Sampras was at his peak, playing very smart and strongly with his big serve, baseline and net games. 96 was also a great year for Michael Chang, already been the finalist of Australian Open earlier that year. Here entering into the final by beating Agassi in straight sets in semi. You have to admire Chang, such a great player and valiant fighter. Even not being able to match Sampras's big serve and attacking game though, Chang still fought tirelessly and valiantly. Credits to both great champions. Going forward hope USTA could post few other us open classic matches' highlights: 92 open final Edberg vs Sampras 92 open semi-final Chang vs Edberg (longest us open match) 93 open quarter-final Chang vs Sampras (a cracking match)
The USTA have yet to put Sampras on the main "US Open Tennis Championships" RUclips channel but I would love to see Edberg v Sampras 1992 final. I have the match recorded off BBC back in 1992 including presentation and picture quality is incredibly good for VHS. But it would much better if USTA uploaded the match. I would also love to see USTA re-run the 2001 4th round between Sampras and Rafter. It was on Labour Day, high quality match with a great crowd in hot sun and blue skies. That would be a tremendous match to re-run.
IN the mid-80s, these two played an exhibition match at The Forum in Inglewood, L.A., as the opening match for an exhibition of a pair of already-famous pros. I was a tennis coach and teaching pro in SoCal, and frequently attending these cool tennis exhibitions. I knew of Chang because my high school team (my first year as varsity coach) lost to his in the first round of CIF team playoffs, but Sampras was not known to me. In that match, Sampras used a two-hand backhand, which was changed to a one-hander soon after. By the way, Chang was the superior player back then, and in that night's exhibition match. In a future exhibition match, again as the opener to the main event, the local Williams sisters faced each other in singles. It was fun to see. Chang had the earlier success, but Sampras gained momentum and never looked back ..... even for his old two-hander. I was a fan of both!
Didn't Sampras always (or almost always) lose to Chang as a junior? I think Chang won his first and only major before both Pete and Andre. His height became more and more of a handicap in the men's circuit given all the booming servers that appeared in that era from Becker to Pete to Goran.
Shame Chang barely improved his service mechanics to get more power. The extended racket helped a bit later but he should’ve improved his net game too to save his legs.
Anna kourninova for me😂. jokes aside in a pre mainstream sky era and not everybody having the money for it. Wimbledon was the only tennis i got. I had no idea about his exploits and losses on the tour. Same way the legend of mike tyson and eric cantona struck fear into me and i would assume he would beat whoever he faced even if he was a shadow of the prime tyson and i just assumed utd would win if cantona was playing 🤣 In a way i miss those days in a nostalgic sense these guys just seemed more legendary having no weaknesses even if they did. I had no idea utd were no good in europe even with king eric or tyson struggled with holyfield twice or pistol pete couldnt win on clay.
I got to spend five days with Chang in 1989 and a week with Sampras in 1988. Chang was quiet and polite and Sampras was a good guy too. The way Sampras stuck the ball so clean was incredible. I didn’t know he was going to become the GOAT for a time.
These commentators are obsessed about height.. Chang was seed No.2 so they better talk about game plans and tactics. Here Sampras clearly was executing perfectly what he intended. Getting paid to comment a tennis match and saying only "oh the big guy beats the little guy"is so lame. Did they forgot Chang made it to the final beating taller guys? Height is a thing, talent and work is another.
chang is standing a 5'7" (170 cm), is truly a handicap in tennis. he's lucky that he played back them to be able to win 1 grand slam. made it to a grand slam final a few more times. had he played in this era, he probably would be in the same fate as diego schwartzman, who is by the way the same height as chang.
@@minavamp2811 Height can be a handicap, but well if the player made it that far it's because he deserves it and has the weapons to be there. No need to emphasize it all the time. They do it with Diego as well, but if the guy is top 10 it's maybe because he doesn't give a damn about height and just is a great tennis player. Would be cool that commentators point that out more than the pointless "oh look it's the little guy"
@@bastienlauer8396 Its weird because they kept saying Chang is 5 ft 9 which wouldn't be too bad. But as pointed out he's 5 ft 7 which is a big difference. Chang won six matches to get to the final and I assume all six opponents were taller than him so yes ludicrous commentating.
@@minavamp2811 If being short is a "handicap", then being tall would be ideal. But, that hasn't helped John Isner, Reilly Opelka, or Ivo Karlovic at all (no Grand Slam finals). The ATP Tour site has Chang at 5'9"; John McEnroe, the commentator talking about how Chang's lack of height is a disadvantage, is only 5'11". It's true Chang won only the '89 French - but he beat 6'2" Lendl (world #1 in the 4th Round) and 6'2" Edberg (world #3 in the final). What's overlooked about Chang is he's also won seven Masters titles. If Chang played in the current era, he wouldn't be Schwartzman, Olivier Rochus, or David Ferrer, but he'd be Lleyton Hewitt (5'10") - gritty, lightning quick, great defense, and a great returner, as well as a two-time Grand Slam Winner, and four-time Masters winner.
@@egdfbznz Those websites are a joke. Chang is not 5 ft 9 by any stretch of the imagination. Even for a male tennis player 5 ft 9 would be a respcetable height. Like Thomas Johansson who won the Aussie Open in 2002. I wouldn't compare Chang to Hewitt because Chang was a great clay court player and Hewitt's results on clay are virtually non existent, for a baseliner as well.
So much talk about the big 3 these days but watching Sampras when he plays reminds you of how fantastic and what a beautiful player he was. Just a joy to watch. A great competitor but also respectful to his opponent. Also I believe he was an influence to all the great players today.
The big 3 is really just Federer, because of the way he plays. Without him, there would not have been a big 2 even though Nadal and Djokovic would win a lot more. Without Sampras, Agassi alone would not make an Era.
Michael Chang was one of the most fit tennis players around. For his height he covered ground taller players have a hard time covering. His stamina was unwavering.
Didn’t help much when he played Pete . You had to “ Hurt “ Pete , he loved baseliners , the guys that gave him the most trouble were relentlessly attacking players , ( Rafter , Edberg , etc .). Early on , Chang won often , until Pete came around in his career , 12-8 head to head , but Pete won most of the “ Big Ones “
Back to 1996, to keep up with the of highest level of rivalries, Michael Chang has improved his serve (faster & stronger), and try to approach the net more often.That was a huge improvement for him , especially for a small guy. That’s why watching Michael’s play is always full of fun.
Sampras saved the year by winning Us Open and ATP Finals and Chang lost two grandslam finals 1996 at AO and Us Open but played the most consistent tennis of his carrier imo.
He also lost Roland Garros in 95 against Muster. Must have gotten to his nerves after this US Open Final to lose three Slam Finals without winning a set...Chang was great, but he just couldnt make the last stop another time after his surprising French Open Win.
That's a good perception..must be the acoustics, surface crowd combination. The ball sounds like it should sound here. Solid and resonant,! Good call. 👍
invicibility? sampras only won the us open that year. he didnt win any of the other grand slams that year and lost in the quarters at wimbledon in straight sets, so much for invincibility, smh
I would always root for Chang in matches like this, usually to no avail. He did beat Sampras 8 of 20 attempts though, much better than I would have expected.
Wow, that’s very respectable! Diego would never get 8... and Diego is a world class player. Just goes to show Chang was super good for his size. Won a grand slam!
Pete was 16 to 18 for more than half of those wins, and his backhand was still very shaky and inconsistent, and Chang was older. Once Pete became an adult Chang would get blown off the court if it wasn’t on clay.
@@spirg: That's because Chang was winding down and Sampras was winding up. Happens to every player. Just ask Becker, Edberg, Currier, Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal....but don't ask Djokovic. 😆
This U.S. Open match between Sampras and Chang is clear example of how Sampras' topspin backhand has been grossly underrated and underappreciated by tennis fans. His topspin backhand was obviously not as great as Lendl's or Edberg's and it was outshined by his superb running, crosscourt forehand and magnificent serve , but it was still a very solid and very effective aspect of Pete's tennis game!
@@ronimogy1133 . I don't know what you are referring to in your response comment, but Federer's one-handed topspin backhand is different than Sampras' one-handed topspin backhand because Federer's is a beautifully fluid backhand whereas, by contrast, Sampras' topspin backhand is more mechanical/workmanlike!
it was solid, basically his other weapons gave him more time on the backhand. his movement is excellent. serve, movement, forehand and volleys , very attacking tennis.
@@michaelbarlow6610 different eras. sampras faced a lot of fast courts with very few rallies, S&V era. so his perceived weakness on the backhand couldnt be exploited. if sampras played on todays slow surfaces he wouldn't win any slams.
Quand t'as regardé Sampras et que tu regardes maintenant les marathons du tennis... c'était trop beau de plier le point comme lui. Il y arrivait pas toujours, y avait une forme d'humilité, mais 14 tournois du grand chelem qd m. C'est magnifique le jeu offensif.
Un an après cette finale, on a aussi l’éclosion de Pat Rafter, qui triomphe à NYC vs Rusedski. Un tennis d’attaque et de rêve qui a aujourd’hui disparu. Le dernier des Mohicans du beau jeu, c’était Roger. Depuis son départ, j’ai arrêté de suivre le tennis (dont j’étais fan depuis une éternité : 1987). Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune, ce ne sont que des déclinaisons uniformes du morne Djokovic. Bref, il va falloir attendre quelques années avant que le tennis ne redevienne intéressant. Qu’il y ait à nouveau des oppositions de style, qui sont l’essence-même de ce sport. Sampras et Agassi étaient complémentaires, comme Borg/Lendl vs McEnroe ou Rafa/Nole vs Roger. On attend le prochain artiste du tennis… en espérant qu’il y en ait un à nouveau.
What's amazing to me watching this in 2020 is realizing that these same commentators are still working the Grand Slam finals regardless of what network has the TV rights to it.
@@TennisOnAction forget how close their head to head was...12-8 looking back on the ATP website I did see Michael won the first five meetings before Sampras even won that first major at the U.S. Open in 1990...a little like Federer-Hewitt played out
its so good to see tom gullikson celebrating with sampras on the stand, a few months after his identical twin brother, tim, which was pete sampras's coach, died from brain cancer.
Chang gave all us short guys hope on the courts he he. I wanted to play like Sampras but added the double handed backhand. I still use both double handed and single handed backhand
Same racquet as Courier, Edberg and even Federer in the early part of his career. Weighted up to 14 ounces. I still occasionally play with one weighted to 13.5. Still just as good as modern racquets unless you mishit too often.
dominating?sampras only won the us open that year. he didnt win any of the other grand slams that year and lost in the quarters at wimbledon in straight sets, so much for dominating, smh
@@jamesbedugraham8056 that was my point. 1996 wasnt his best year. someone on here mentioned it was. i didnt like pete or ivanisevic because they made tennis boring, you werent going to see rallies with their big serve.
In 1996, the US Open experimented in altering the scheduling of the matches and put both the men's and women's finals on the final Sunday. There was a torrential downpour after the women's final which meant that the men's final was delayed until much later in the evening.
@@americanpatriot7233that was terrible for the players. The women's finalists didn't know what time they were starting and the second men's semi finalists could be there until very late before they even started - leaving them at a big disadvantage for their final the following day.
I watched this match live. Big Michael Chang fan. Modeled my game after him. He worked so hard and was just “beaten up” by a bigger guy. At 5’5” as quick as I was in the day happened to me more times than I’d want to admit.
At the end of it all, Sampras just had too much firepower . Surprisingly, the only time Chang ever defeated Sampras in a Grand Slam was a triple bread-stick in the 2nd round at Roland Garros 1989, which became Chang's tournament so to speak.
One thing that I've always noticed that when commentators talk about Michael chang they always indirectly demean him. John McEnroe always spoke down about Michael chang his whole career. . Use to call him a Bible beater and always referred to him as short...very condescending always. I lost all respect for McEnroe due to this treatment of Michael chang. Poor treatment
Mac I feel might have a problem with Michael personally but I think that's in the past and both get along a lot better now Mac is a consummate professional in his role as a commentator he has grown and mellowed as has Michael Both are Gentlemen and role models
Chang himself often said he was he chosen one after he won a match. I can remember what he said after his 89 FO win over Edberg, he said the god was looking after him more than Stefan Edberg. Stefan was one of the most classiest player if no the classiest player ever in tennis. what an insult to say that about Edberg.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Wilander used to be one of the kindest and most fair players on tour yet he made some pretty stupid remarks about Federer.For someone who commentates so often Mac is OKish.
I agree, it was excellent, but it could have been even better on hardcourt and clay. He could have developed the slice even more to be more penetrating like Federer's slice or Graf and also to take it on the rise as Federer and Thiem have learned to do. Too often he got into these looping backhands by waiting for the ball to come to him when he lost to guys like Wayne Ferriera. Regardless, he had such dominant weapons (forehand, volley, serve, movement, etc.) that it didn't matter most of the time.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Sorry, though I agree with a lot of what you wrote, I just don't agree except on a very fast surface with your analysis of his slice backhand compared to Federer or Graf.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Sampras' slice improved consistently over time and was absolutely world class in his later years. I also loved his American slice, high to low, a beautiful shot which we don't see today. He also used the slice for short balls and take to the net. Regarding his topspin backhand, the mechanics were fine but what failed him around 2001 to 2002 was his footwork, or lack of it, his movement went down a notch. Maybe that's what shocked Agassi in the 2002 US Open final, he was hitting backhand winners from the baseline left and right, 12 in total compared to 4 by Agassi. For that match his movement came back. I watched an interesting video from Pat Rafter recently where he claimed Sampras didn't work hard enough (I assume off court training). Rafter said if Sampras worked harder he would have been "even better". Perhaps sometimes people with a certain ability coast on their talent without realising, not miaximising it.
Petes backhand was all timing. If he was feeling it, it worked, if he was off, it wasnt very effective. Lucky for Pete, he had some of the best timing ever.
@@peterookotai6965 I mean I'll say it was his weakest stroke but in no way was it a weak shot.. Pete definitely had some great timing.. had to because of the racket he used.. The Prostaff 85 had zero forgiveness.. you hit it well.. or you might as well not hit it at all.. more often than not.... Pete hit it well...
@@fischputza yea man, Chang was fun to watch when he wasn’t playing Sampras 😂 nobody looked good against Sampras... Agassi was fun to watch, until he played Sampras too😂 granted he did have a few good matches with Sampras.
I remember watching this in real time. It was a great match for sure but nothing like the battle of the gods that was the 95 US Open final between Sampras and Agassi.
Absolutely Brutal. Pete made it look like he was playing with his little brother, in fairness to Chang, he looked tense and didn't play his best in this match.
Excellent highlights with great quality video for a standard def match. Appreciate you posting this but if you’re going to go through the trouble of editing down to the highlights it would be nice to see the score box in the corner. I know the original footage only periodically showed the scores but I think it’s important to know the score because that sets the context of the point being shown and what is at stake.
İ remember his quarterfinal where he barely made it past Alex Corretja while suffering cramps. Had Alex been a gamesman he would have won but as he was a real court gentleman he gave Sampras a break!
@@EduardoMartinez-ze6tl for me Eduardo, Sampras will always be the greatest. I like the TOP 3, but their games are somewhat ONE DIMENSIONAL. As we know, Federer emulated Sampras, and played a similar game. Djokovich is a purely baseline defensive player. He relies too much on unforced errors from 'LESSER' opposition. His stamina has always been in question. Remember in his early years how he used to suffer exhaustion at the AO? And his BATHROOM BREAKS when he is down a set is pure gamesmanahip. NADAL is unique! Nothing comes close. He plays every shot to kill. He puts his life on the line for every point. For me though, Sampras was the only one who created space with every ball played, and was prepared for every return. It is a debate that will be talked abiut for ever. All we can do is marvel at these greats.
Chang had to face big servers and fast courts in the 90s. If he took the ball early and hit a more penetrating backhand he would have had greater success.
Interesting fact. The racket Chang is using is a racket he helped design with the help of Prince engineers. Since then, Prince went bankrupt, and the naming rights were sold but that particular racket to this day is a collector's racket and is widely used to this day by players all over the world.
@@jamesbondiv4072 I dont think so.. I've been lifting since i was 16.. 54 now.. when I take long breaks I'm definitely slower in every way, shape and form... Maybe if it was just heavy.. and he tried to bulk up.. yea.. I mean look at Nadal.. genetically smaller than the rest but trained like an animal
@@jamesbondiv4072 now that u mention it..I do remember a time towards the end when he was a lil bit bigger and the commenters mentioned it.. but he never regained form.. I don't think it was the weights though.. he was already out of it
No roids, no fist pumps, no screaming after every point, no looking over at their coach for validation, no grandstanding. Just great tennis from two mature young players.
Yes that has been mentioned elsewhere. I agree, looking back the standard of commentating seems poor. Over here (England) we had Sky Sports for US Open, would be interesting to see if it was any better.
Commentators were ignorant in those days. They made fun of Chang's great effort on every point, insinuating that because he's small and not as talented, he had to play that way, as if that is inferior. Well, look how Nadal plays today. The last small guy with great effort was David Ferrer. Effort pays big dividend. Chang got to number 2, Ferre to number 4, and Nadal, well, no need to mention his accomplishments.
It is interesting watching Sampras serve and stay back in these videos from the early to mid 1990s. Then in the videos from 2001 and 2002, he is seve volleying every point, first and second serve, quite a shift in strategy in his later years.
After his herniated disk in his lower back in 1999 that made him drop out of the US Open , Sampras was never the same. Like @jake Huang said, finish the points quicker.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
I ushered at the LA Open in 1996. Chang played Richard Krajicek in the finals and won. Chang was the fan favorite during the whole tournament. He was also the player that all of the staff and volunteers liked. He was just such a super nice guy.
Ive heard some nasty things about players behind the scenes...
@@kailashpatel1706 you're a nobody, you don't know a thing about behind the scenes
Chang was always fun to watch. He had grit never gave up. And he was a very gracious and professional player
Chang is so fast. Its like hes flying on the court
Couldn’t of put it any better
Little chap played actually quite well
I would respect your opinion. But, if you see the 89 French Open it was a pretty unsportsmanlike behavior in semi finals and finals.
One hit wonder
Pete's backhand was great in this match.
Thank you USTA for classic matches' highlights. Sampras was at his peak, playing very smart and strongly with his big serve, baseline and net games. 96 was also a great year for Michael Chang, already been the finalist of Australian Open earlier that year. Here entering into the final by beating Agassi in straight sets in semi. You have to admire Chang, such a great player and valiant fighter. Even not being able to match Sampras's big serve and attacking game though, Chang still fought tirelessly and valiantly. Credits to both great champions.
Going forward hope USTA could post few other us open classic matches' highlights:
92 open final Edberg vs Sampras
92 open semi-final Chang vs Edberg (longest us open match)
93 open quarter-final Chang vs Sampras (a cracking match)
Kraks
The USTA have yet to put Sampras on the main "US Open Tennis Championships" RUclips channel but I would love to see Edberg v Sampras 1992 final. I have the match recorded off BBC back in 1992 including presentation and picture quality is incredibly good for VHS. But it would much better if USTA uploaded the match.
I would also love to see USTA re-run the 2001 4th round between Sampras and Rafter. It was on Labour Day, high quality match with a great crowd in hot sun and blue skies. That would be a tremendous match to re-run.
Oh yes! Why not the whole match between Sampras and Lendl 1990? I think people will be very intrigued with a "changing of the guard" moment.
i dont think sampras was at his peak here, since he lost wimbledon that summer,sampras at his peak would be winning 3 grand slams in a year
@@BurnsTennis lendl had already been on the decline since 1988 it was a slow decline though so most didnt notice it
Thank you to Sampras n Chang for fuelling my love of tennis enough to be a coach in it. Your games are timeless
Golden era of Tennis. Some many contenders in the field. Sampras, Jim Courier, Aggasi, Chang, Ivanesevic, Rafter to name few
Just love Sampras wakjing back to his folks like a shy kid.....such innocence, such simplicity....
IN the mid-80s, these two played an exhibition match at The Forum in Inglewood, L.A., as the opening match for an exhibition of a pair of already-famous pros. I was a tennis coach and teaching pro in SoCal, and frequently attending these cool tennis exhibitions. I knew of Chang because my high school team (my first year as varsity coach) lost to his in the first round of CIF team playoffs, but Sampras was not known to me. In that match, Sampras used a two-hand backhand, which was changed to a one-hander soon after. By the way, Chang was the superior player back then, and in that night's exhibition match. In a future exhibition match, again as the opener to the main event, the local Williams sisters faced each other in singles. It was fun to see. Chang had the earlier success, but Sampras gained momentum and never looked back ..... even for his old two-hander. I was a fan of both!
Didn't Sampras always (or almost always) lose to Chang as a junior? I think Chang won his first and only major before both Pete and Andre. His height became more and more of a handicap in the men's circuit given all the booming servers that appeared in that era from Becker to Pete to Goran.
Shame Chang barely improved his service mechanics to get more power. The extended racket helped a bit later but he should’ve improved his net game too to save his legs.
Pete sampras, The reason why I started to like and watch tennis games!!!! ✌🏾
Me too..
It was Micheal Chang for me.
It was Monica Seles for me
Anna kourninova for me😂. jokes aside in a pre mainstream sky era and not everybody having the money for it. Wimbledon was the only tennis i got. I had no idea about his exploits and losses on the tour. Same way the legend of mike tyson and eric cantona struck fear into me and i would assume he would beat whoever he faced even if he was a shadow of the prime tyson and i just assumed utd would win if cantona was playing 🤣 In a way i miss those days in a nostalgic sense these guys just seemed more legendary having no weaknesses even if they did. I had no idea utd were no good in europe even with king eric or tyson struggled with holyfield twice or pistol pete couldnt win on clay.
Sampras will always be my favorite, no matter who comes along in the future. I guess after a certain age, you stick with the idols of your youth.
I got to spend five days with Chang in 1989 and a week with Sampras in 1988. Chang was quiet and polite and Sampras was a good guy too. The way Sampras stuck the ball so clean was incredible. I didn’t know he was going to become the GOAT for a time.
Much better tennis than orge tennis of today
When the big 3 came, he turned into a footnote in men's tennis history!😀
@@tootspogsforever5590
MORON!
Excelent highlights. For the next one, please add the score.
How??! !! If in the original highlight they didn't display the score, it would be very difficult..
61 64 76(3)
Please make it HD 1080p....ask Sampras and Chang to recreate it point for point and refilm pls 🙏🏾🤣
These commentators are obsessed about height.. Chang was seed No.2 so they better talk about game plans and tactics. Here Sampras clearly was executing perfectly what he intended. Getting paid to comment a tennis match and saying only "oh the big guy beats the little guy"is so lame. Did they forgot Chang made it to the final beating taller guys? Height is a thing, talent and work is another.
chang is standing a 5'7" (170 cm), is truly a handicap in tennis. he's lucky that he played back them to be able to win 1 grand slam. made it to a grand slam final a few more times. had he played in this era, he probably would be in the same fate as diego schwartzman, who is by the way the same height as chang.
@@minavamp2811 Height can be a handicap, but well if the player made it that far it's because he deserves it and has the weapons to be there. No need to emphasize it all the time. They do it with Diego as well, but if the guy is top 10 it's maybe because he doesn't give a damn about height and just is a great tennis player. Would be cool that commentators point that out more than the pointless "oh look it's the little guy"
@@bastienlauer8396 Its weird because they kept saying Chang is 5 ft 9 which wouldn't be too bad. But as pointed out he's 5 ft 7 which is a big difference. Chang won six matches to get to the final and I assume all six opponents were taller than him so yes ludicrous commentating.
@@minavamp2811 If being short is a "handicap", then being tall would be ideal. But, that hasn't helped John Isner, Reilly Opelka, or Ivo Karlovic at all (no Grand Slam finals). The ATP Tour site has Chang at 5'9"; John McEnroe, the commentator talking about how Chang's lack of height is a disadvantage, is only 5'11". It's true Chang won only the '89 French - but he beat 6'2" Lendl (world #1 in the 4th Round) and 6'2" Edberg (world #3 in the final). What's overlooked about Chang is he's also won seven Masters titles. If Chang played in the current era, he wouldn't be Schwartzman, Olivier Rochus, or David Ferrer, but he'd be Lleyton Hewitt (5'10") - gritty, lightning quick, great defense, and a great returner, as well as a two-time Grand Slam Winner, and four-time Masters winner.
@@egdfbznz Those websites are a joke. Chang is not 5 ft 9 by any stretch of the imagination. Even for a male tennis player 5 ft 9 would be a respcetable height. Like Thomas Johansson who won the Aussie Open in 2002.
I wouldn't compare Chang to Hewitt because Chang was a great clay court player and Hewitt's results on clay are virtually non existent, for a baseliner as well.
So much talk about the big 3 these days but watching Sampras when he plays reminds you of how fantastic and what a beautiful player he was. Just a joy to watch. A great competitor but also respectful to his opponent. Also I believe he was an influence to all the great players today.
That is true, he has influenced a lot of players today. Something the media particularly in Britain would struggle to acknowlegde.
Sampras is the GOAT. He is the blueprint for the Federers, djokovics etc. No matter how many titles you win. Sampras is always better.
@@cookeatliverepeat8815 I always believe that is true. However Federer did some things that no one else could do, records aside
@@cookeatliverepeat8815 good joke.
The big 3 is really just Federer, because of the way he plays. Without him, there would not have been a big 2 even though Nadal and Djokovic would win a lot more. Without Sampras, Agassi alone would not make an Era.
C'était toujours un plaisir de regarder Sampras jouer, j'adorerais ce joueur. Quant à Chang, c'était un marathonien qui n'abandonnait jamais un point
Hard to believe that the last time two Americans were in the final of the US Open was Pete and Andre 18 years ago.
Wonder why American kids paying so much more to play tournament and coaching but no result
@@TennisOnAction Money. American Football takes away all talents from the pool.
That's actually super easy to believe. Euros hit better and construct points smarter over 5 sets. It is what it is.
It is easy to understand, considering American eating habits 🤣🍔🍟
@@mikkokarkkainen2807 We’ll always have better players than a crappy country like Finland
Michael Chang was one of the most fit tennis players around. For his height he covered ground taller players have a hard time covering. His stamina was unwavering.
He was a fighter too. Gave it all every point. Hard not to like a dude when he plays like that.
Didn’t help much when he played Pete .
You had to “ Hurt “ Pete , he loved baseliners , the guys that gave him the most trouble were relentlessly attacking players , ( Rafter , Edberg , etc .).
Early on , Chang won often , until Pete came around in his career , 12-8 head to head , but Pete won most of the “ Big Ones “
Elephant in the room. Because of his race he had to work alot harder to get praised and recognition. Most people wont admit it but it is true
@@epicwolf why does everything have to be about race!!
@@nala3038
Because its reality that many choose to ignore. You a great example.
Le jeu de Sampras c'était magique, du pur offensif. Magnifique.
Back to 1996, to keep up with the of highest level of rivalries, Michael Chang has improved his serve (faster & stronger), and try to approach the net more often.That was a huge improvement for him , especially for a small guy. That’s why watching Michael’s play is always full of fun.
IIRC, they also banned the racket he was using after this year, which was kind of a jerk move.
Thx 4 the highlights man... I'm the kind of guy who struggles to watch the whole match so I prefer this way. I really appreciate 😊
Sampras saved the year by winning Us Open and ATP Finals and Chang lost two grandslam finals 1996 at AO and Us Open but played the most consistent tennis of his carrier imo.
He also lost Roland Garros in 95 against Muster. Must have gotten to his nerves after this US Open Final to lose three Slam Finals without winning a set...Chang was great, but he just couldnt make the last stop another time after his surprising French Open Win.
I like the sound of the ball sounded more real than modern sounds
Natural gut vs poly strings
That's a good perception..must be the acoustics, surface crowd combination. The ball sounds like it should sound here. Solid and resonant,! Good call. 👍
Thank you for this! My idol Pete is just beautiful to watch!
I remember watching this live on TV. Michael put up a valiant effort. But this was at a time when Pete just had an aura of invincibility around him.
invicibility? sampras only won the us open that year. he didnt win any of the other grand slams that year and lost in the quarters at wimbledon in straight sets, so much for invincibility, smh
I would always root for Chang in matches like this, usually to no avail. He did beat Sampras 8 of 20 attempts though, much better than I would have expected.
Wow, that’s very respectable! Diego would never get 8... and Diego is a world class player. Just goes to show Chang was super good for his size. Won a grand slam!
@@goldwolf0606: Yeah. He was a bulldog. Made the late rounds often.
4 of those 8 wins happened no later than 1990 . Just saying
Pete was 16 to 18 for more than half of those wins, and his backhand was still very shaky and inconsistent, and Chang was older. Once Pete became an adult Chang would get blown off the court if it wasn’t on clay.
@@spirg: That's because Chang was winding down and Sampras was winding up. Happens to every player. Just ask Becker, Edberg, Currier, Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal....but don't ask Djokovic. 😆
2:36 such a smart play. Beautifully constructed. Sampras was such a smart player. Perfect sense of timing.
This U.S. Open match between Sampras and Chang is clear example of how Sampras' topspin backhand has been grossly underrated and underappreciated by tennis fans. His topspin backhand was obviously not as great as Lendl's or Edberg's and it was outshined by his superb running, crosscourt forehand and magnificent serve , but it was still a very
solid and very effective aspect of Pete's tennis game!
Not really, Federer got this from Sampras, so it is still alive after so many years
@@ronimogy1133 . I don't know what you are referring to in your response comment, but Federer's one-handed topspin backhand is different than Sampras' one-handed topspin backhand because Federer's is a beautifully fluid backhand whereas, by contrast, Sampras' topspin backhand is more mechanical/workmanlike!
it was solid, basically his other weapons gave him more time on the backhand. his movement is excellent. serve, movement, forehand and volleys , very attacking tennis.
@@ronimogy1133 sampras was more aggressive than federer as the courts were different and more serve and volley.
@@michaelbarlow6610 different eras. sampras faced a lot of fast courts with very few rallies, S&V era. so his perceived weakness on the backhand couldnt be exploited. if sampras played on todays slow surfaces he wouldn't win any slams.
Man this bring back memory. I love Sampras but I also love Chang. I idolised both these players when was like 5
I always rooted for Chang. But Pete was such a class act, that it was fun to watch this match anyway
Quand t'as regardé Sampras et que tu regardes maintenant les marathons du tennis... c'était trop beau de plier le point comme lui. Il y arrivait pas toujours, y avait une forme d'humilité, mais 14 tournois du grand chelem qd m. C'est magnifique le jeu offensif.
Un an après cette finale, on a aussi l’éclosion de Pat Rafter, qui triomphe à NYC vs Rusedski.
Un tennis d’attaque et de rêve qui a aujourd’hui disparu.
Le dernier des Mohicans du beau jeu, c’était Roger.
Depuis son départ, j’ai arrêté de suivre le tennis (dont j’étais fan depuis une éternité : 1987).
Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune, ce ne sont que des déclinaisons uniformes du morne Djokovic.
Bref, il va falloir attendre quelques années avant que le tennis ne redevienne intéressant.
Qu’il y ait à nouveau des oppositions de style, qui sont l’essence-même de ce sport.
Sampras et Agassi étaient complémentaires, comme Borg/Lendl vs McEnroe ou Rafa/Nole vs Roger.
On attend le prochain artiste du tennis… en espérant qu’il y en ait un à nouveau.
What's amazing to me watching this in 2020 is realizing that these same commentators are still working the Grand Slam finals regardless of what network has the TV rights to it.
Michael would have reached world number 1 if he had won that match.
He beat Sampras 8 times how unfortunated his highest was no. 2 of his entire career.
@@TennisOnAction he got to number 1 for a brief time
@@TennisOnAction forget how close their head to head was...12-8
looking back on the ATP website I did see Michael won the first five meetings before Sampras even won that first major at the U.S. Open in 1990...a little like Federer-Hewitt played out
@@abrahamlincoln1677 nope...needed to win this match
@@betpow Oh yeah, I stand corrected. I looked it up. lol
Look at how fast the courts and balls are, incomparable to now
its so good to see tom gullikson celebrating with sampras on the stand, a few months after his identical twin brother, tim, which was pete sampras's coach, died from brain cancer.
Enjoyable video. Thanks for letting us relive some memories from growing up watching this in the 1990s. 💯👍
Chang gave all us short guys hope on the courts he he. I wanted to play like Sampras but added the double handed backhand. I still use both double handed and single handed backhand
Sampras with an 85 Pro staff, and Chang with an extended Prince 106.
I believe Sampras used the same racket his whole career but used some improved strings along the way.
@@2badger2 yes
In exhibition recently, he changed to Babolat. But during his career, certainly Prostaff 85, from Granada if I remember correctly
Same racquet as Courier, Edberg and even Federer in the early part of his career. Weighted up to 14 ounces. I still occasionally play with one weighted to 13.5. Still just as good as modern racquets unless you mishit too often.
Ich habe Pete Sampras immer bewundert ein unfassbarer Spieler!
Man, it was tough being a Chang fan. After the French Open at 17 yrs old, you thought more Slams were in his future.
This is quite a good final.
Chang was standing up against the big man who was dominating the men's tennis world.
dominating?sampras only won the us open that year. he didnt win any of the other grand slams that year and lost in the quarters at wimbledon in straight sets, so much for dominating, smh
@@americanpatriot7233 1996 wasnt his best year but many people hated Pete Sampras for no good reason at all.
@@jamesbedugraham8056 that was my point. 1996 wasnt his best year. someone on here mentioned it was. i didnt like pete or ivanisevic because they made tennis boring, you werent going to see rallies with their big serve.
Na ja,im Gegesatz zu Ivanisevic konnte Sampras auch mit jedem Grundlinienwühler problemlos mithalten!
In 1996, the US Open experimented in altering the scheduling of the matches and put both the men's and women's finals on the final Sunday. There was a torrential downpour after the women's final which meant that the men's final was delayed until much later in the evening.
i hate what the us open did, i wish they would go back to super saturday, the two mens semis and the womens final in the middle
@@americanpatriot7233that was terrible for the players. The women's finalists didn't know what time they were starting and the second men's semi finalists could be there until very late before they even started - leaving them at a big disadvantage for their final the following day.
I watched this match live. Big Michael Chang fan. Modeled my game after him. He worked so hard and was just “beaten up” by a bigger guy. At 5’5” as quick as I was in the day happened to me more times than I’d want to admit.
You can lie well..
@@airkuna you caught me…I actually watched it live on tv. I stand corrected. 😀
At the end of it all, Sampras just had too much firepower . Surprisingly, the only time Chang ever defeated Sampras in a Grand Slam was a triple bread-stick in the 2nd round at Roland Garros 1989, which became Chang's tournament so to speak.
Chang was like a stubborn, little programmed robot. Not a great fan of his but he had grit.
Sampras was a monster. One of the legends.
It's so maddening that there are no graphics with the score...
Pete Stompass as I used to call him. One of the best ever.
Y'all tried Pete with that thumbnail
The impeccable sampras backhand.
Old beautiful tennis. This seemed to be more original, more variety than nowadays.
Sampras such an elegant game here, looks so simple. No wonder he was Federers idol 🙂
3:08 what a beautiful backhand by my idol Pete Sampras!
One thing that I've always noticed that when commentators talk about Michael chang they always indirectly demean him. John McEnroe always spoke down about Michael chang his whole career. . Use to call him a Bible beater and always referred to him as short...very condescending always. I lost all respect for McEnroe due to this treatment of Michael chang. Poor treatment
Really I need some sources for that but if he did that’s terrible where talking about John rigt
That's because Chang was a religious fanatic.
Mac I feel might have a problem with Michael personally but I think that's in the past and both get along a lot better now
Mac is a consummate professional in his role as a commentator he has grown and mellowed as has Michael
Both are Gentlemen and role models
Chang himself often said he was he chosen one after he won a match. I can remember what he said after his 89 FO win over Edberg, he said the god was looking after him more than Stefan Edberg. Stefan was one of the most classiest player if no the classiest player ever in tennis. what an insult to say that about Edberg.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Wilander used to be one of the kindest and most fair players on tour yet he made some pretty stupid remarks about Federer.For someone who commentates so often Mac is OKish.
Sampras was the ultimate beast.
Chang rode the short white tennis shorts train longer than anyone else.
Pete had an underrated backhand.
I agree, it was excellent, but it could have been even better on hardcourt and clay. He could have developed the slice even more to be more penetrating like Federer's slice or Graf and also to take it on the rise as Federer and Thiem have learned to do. Too often he got into these looping backhands by waiting for the ball to come to him when he lost to guys like Wayne Ferriera. Regardless, he had such dominant weapons (forehand, volley, serve, movement, etc.) that it didn't matter most of the time.
@@Belgarath777 I wish he had switched to a bigger racquet like Federer did. That would have helped him a lot, especially on clay.
@@ZAY109 Yup, completely agree :-)
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Sorry, though I agree with a lot of what you wrote, I just don't agree except on a very fast surface with your analysis of his slice backhand compared to Federer or Graf.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Sampras' slice improved consistently over time and was absolutely world class in his later years. I also loved his American slice, high to low, a beautiful shot which we don't see today. He also used the slice for short balls and take to the net. Regarding his topspin backhand, the mechanics were fine but what failed him around 2001 to 2002 was his footwork, or lack of it, his movement went down a notch.
Maybe that's what shocked Agassi in the 2002 US Open final, he was hitting backhand winners from the baseline left and right, 12 in total compared to 4 by Agassi. For that match his movement came back. I watched an interesting video from Pat Rafter recently where he claimed Sampras didn't work hard enough (I assume off court training). Rafter said if Sampras worked harder he would have been "even better". Perhaps sometimes people with a certain ability coast on their talent without realising, not miaximising it.
Didn't realize what a strong shot Pete's one hander was; always thought it was a weakness but it was a great shot at least in this match.
Petes backhand was all timing. If he was feeling it, it worked, if he was off, it wasnt very effective. Lucky for Pete, he had some of the best timing ever.
@@peterookotai6965 I mean I'll say it was his weakest stroke but in no way was it a weak shot.. Pete definitely had some great timing.. had to because of the racket he used.. The Prostaff 85 had zero forgiveness.. you hit it well.. or you might as well not hit it at all.. more often than not.... Pete hit it well...
@@Eliath1984 100 percent.
Excelente resumen de dos grandes tenistas americanos. Michael Chang que supo potenciar su tennis y Sampras que demostró porque es un gran campeón
Love both these guys boy..usa mens tennis will we ever have two more exciting american guys like this...boy the good old days.
Chang exciting? Now I've seen it all......
@@fischputza yea man, Chang was fun to watch when he wasn’t playing Sampras 😂 nobody looked good against Sampras... Agassi was fun to watch, until he played Sampras too😂 granted he did have a few good matches with Sampras.
Might be the greatest players time span in US history. Sampras, Agassis, Courier and Chang
@@2badger2 Martin, Washington...
I remember watching this in real time. It was a great match for sure but nothing like the battle of the gods that was the 95 US Open final between Sampras and Agassi.
that was a boring final in 95, total domination by sampras
Battle of the Gods = Rafa vs. Roger at Wimbledon 2008
@@americanpatriot7233 1995 final was much closer than this one
A real competitive match and very enjoyable to watch, even after all these years!
The game was so much better with fast courts.
Pete's serve and running forehand were the best ever IMHO.
Absolutely Brutal. Pete made it look like he was playing with his little brother, in fairness to Chang, he looked tense and didn't play his best in this match.
Bring back the quick surface at the USO.
thx for uploading
Excellent highlights with great quality video for a standard def match. Appreciate you posting this but if you’re going to go through the trouble of editing down to the highlights it would be nice to see the score box in the corner. I know the original footage only periodically showed the scores but I think it’s important to know the score because that sets the context of the point being shown and what is at stake.
Mike Kim, you're more polite than I am! It's absolutely infuriating not seeing the score. How difficult can it be to add it on?
I think this match was for the number one ranking.
Can we just name the US Open center court after Sampras already
İ remember his quarterfinal where he barely made it past Alex Corretja while suffering cramps. Had Alex been a gamesman he would have won but as he was a real court gentleman he gave Sampras a break!
Pete Sampras master of the masters
No moaning, no grunting, just clean silent hits.
Why didn't they show the handshake at the net?
We often forget how GREAT Pete was. Really no weaknesses.
I don't think anybody forgets.
For me, he is THE greatest.
@@stevefowler3398
1.Novak Djokovic GOAT
2.Roger Federer
3.Nadal
4.Pete Sampras
@@EduardoMartinez-ze6tl for me Eduardo, Sampras will always be the greatest.
I like the TOP 3, but their games are somewhat ONE DIMENSIONAL.
As we know, Federer emulated Sampras, and played a similar game.
Djokovich is a purely baseline defensive player.
He relies too much on unforced errors from 'LESSER' opposition. His stamina has always been in question. Remember in his early years how he used to suffer exhaustion at the AO? And his BATHROOM BREAKS when he is down a set is pure gamesmanahip.
NADAL is unique! Nothing comes close. He plays every shot to kill.
He puts his life on the line for every point.
For me though, Sampras was the only one who created space with every ball played, and was prepared for every return.
It is a debate that will be talked abiut for ever.
All we can do is marvel at these greats.
Chang had to face big servers and fast courts in the 90s. If he took the ball early and hit a more penetrating backhand he would have had greater success.
My idol growing up Sampras!!
やはりこう見ると、時代と共にテニスのレベルが進化してるのがよくわかる。
I forgot how good Sampras was!
Never really hear too much abouts Pete's ground game but definitely a monster, even against a great ground stroker like Michael.
It can be argued that Michael Chang had the fastest court coverage of anyone to ever play the game...
But no avail..
Sampras was at his peak here. His groundies were strong on both sides, movement was excellent, serve, everything.
great serve, movement and forehand for pete.
Interesting fact. The racket Chang is using is a racket he helped design with the help of Prince engineers. Since then, Prince went bankrupt, and the naming rights were sold but that particular racket to this day is a collector's racket and is widely used to this day by players all over the world.
I prefer the titanium version of that racket. It's heavier so that I don't have to add lead tape.
Michael was a badass who punched way above his weight. He just never stood a chance against PETE at the Open
Why Chang never lifted weights is a mystery to me.. it would have upped his game
@@mattr8251 he did & it made him slower!!!
@@jamesbondiv4072 I dont think so.. I've been lifting since i was 16.. 54 now.. when I take long breaks I'm definitely slower in every way, shape and form... Maybe if it was just heavy.. and he tried to bulk up.. yea.. I mean look at Nadal.. genetically smaller than the rest but trained like an animal
@@jamesbondiv4072 now that u mention it..I do remember a time towards the end when he was a lil bit bigger and the commenters mentioned it.. but he never regained form.. I don't think it was the weights though.. he was already out of it
When you fight and lose Well its ali in the game
I loved how Chang gave Lendl fits of frustration!
Ahah ma là on se régalait avec ces deux là a l'époque .ils nous ont offert de beaux match
No roids, no fist pumps, no screaming after every point, no looking over at their coach for validation, no grandstanding. Just great tennis from two mature young players.
No going to the towel after every point, no breaking rackets, no yelling at the crowd...
Short version: no drama.
Certainly this was the era of classy tennis and I'm so glad I grew up with it.
Mir gefiel es damals besser was ist nur aus der Gesellschaft geworden, viele nehmen sich einfach viel zu wichtig. 👎🏼
Loved the Nike challenge court clothing collection that Sampras is wearing. Classic Vibes.
Redbox shoes and Prince racquet!
We miss those memories 😊
Whats with the court? It looks like the courts were much slower back then.
Sampras was such an elegant and smart player.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, the most beautiful players in my humble opinion 🎾
3:24 Beautiful BH. Nice finish
Sampras looks like Billy from The Gremlins.
The problem was not M Chang's height....only because rivaled P Samprad and A Agassi of his era....
Both guys played very well. Great fun to watch and so much respect for them. Just uncomfortable with the commentator even though it was 1996.
Yes that has been mentioned elsewhere. I agree, looking back the standard of commentating seems poor. Over here (England) we had Sky Sports for US Open, would be interesting to see if it was any better.
Commentators were ignorant in those days. They made fun of Chang's great effort on every point, insinuating that because he's small and not as talented, he had to play that way, as if that is inferior. Well, look how Nadal plays today. The last small guy with great effort was David Ferrer. Effort pays big dividend. Chang got to number 2, Ferre to number 4, and Nadal, well, no need to mention his accomplishments.
would have been great to see the same match on the same surface as us open 2020 ...
If Pete played in the era of the big Three of the last 20 years, none of the big three would have 20+ GS Wins.
"Go McEnroe!" Before Chang's last serve takes the cake. Gosh
It is interesting watching Sampras serve and stay back in these videos from the early to mid 1990s. Then in the videos from 2001 and 2002, he is seve volleying every point, first and second serve, quite a shift in strategy in his later years.
prob tried to end the point earlier as he got older
After his herniated disk in his lower back in 1999 that made him drop out of the US Open , Sampras was never the same. Like @jake Huang said, finish the points quicker.
Loved Mr Chang!
Can't believe almost 30 years.