i was reading in tennis magazine about them comparing pete to andre.....and they asked both marat and ferrero this question...... who will go down in history as the better player, andre aggasi or pete sampras?.... marat said sampras is the best. no one else has won 14 grand slams he hasnt won the french but he was on top of the world for six years, thats no picnic, thats no joke. agassi is a good player but sampras has done the most. he's a classic!......ferrero responded agassi is better because he won all four grand slams including the french open. sampras won more slams, but seven of those came at wimbledon. what agassi had done is the best!........ok did ferrero get his boxers stuck in a bunch or what??.......did he forget that half of AGASSIS slams came from australian?......how can he say that hes better because he won all four slams.....so what who cares theirs no comparison......pete has won the most of us open and wimbledon the two best and agassi the australian and french the more "unimportant ones in my opinon"......petes won 14 andre 8.....pete 286 no.1 for all time.....andre 88 no. 3 of all time...... tell me what YOU think?