Amazing things I learned about BORG

[dirkgnuf]

Reading a 1980 TIME article on BJORN, I learned that he possessed a resting heartrate of 38, strung his racquets at 80 lbs, had one of the highest leg strength record among sweedish athletes.
I do have a qustion though.
In the article, his technique is described as unorthadox since he hit with topspin. The article attirbuted this to the fact that he never really had formal training as a kid, so he imitated ping-pong players(his dad was one) and hit with whippy motions. His coach even got a specially balanced racquet that would encourage him to stop using so much wrist. What I'd like to know is whether his technique was already something that was around, or was it more something that he seems to have invented. Also, how accurate are the facts in the article?
Link to the article is:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924275,00.html

[stormholloway]

There's a lot of speculation about who invented the modern stroke, but if anyone did, it was Borg.

With the racquets used back then, topspin shots allow for little margin for error and the weight of those racquets wasn't considered suitable for the wrist. Borg proved all of this wrong. Borg was the father of modern tennis. Lendl followed as perhaps the godson.

[LttlElvis]

Yes, I believe the article is factual. I actually have that original Time magazine. I was a big Borg fan when I was 14.

His technique was pretty unusual for that time. He used big loopy topspin strokes and hit with an open stance. Both those techniques were really frowned upon by instructors at the time. Everyone wanted to hit like him, but tennis instructors wouldn't teach that way.

The article also had the typical cartoony Time graphics. One showing the effects of topspin versus traditional strokes. It showed how Borg could hit harder than most players, yet keep the ball in because of his spin. ( This is very well known now, but at the time I don't think anyone used heavy topsin to the extent of Borg. Maybe Vilas, but Borg was just on another level ).

As far as conditioning, Borg had to be one of the most fit pros at the time. I think in a Superstars sprint competition he actually won it beating an Olympic hurdler.

[urban]

Topspin was invented resp. really practiced in the 60s. Players like Laver, Santana, later Okker began to hit all the shots or the greatest part with topspin. On European clay they began to hit from an open stance. But Borg was the first to hit with an extreme western grip, and with extreme rotation . He came from ping-pong and ice-hockey.While the US top players like Evert or Connors played more a hard court adapted flat style (also with dh backhands), the Europeans and South Americans used extreme topspin on their favorite surface, clay. They had the advantage, that many events in the USA were played on clay-like surfaces. So topspin became the dominant style of the 70s, even adapted by US players like Solomon or Dibbs.

[dirkgnuf]

A few questions.
I recall reading somewhere that Borg's grip was exterme eastern/mild western?
Also, I'm assuming that Borg's technique was half self-learned/taught, but the former more so than the latter?

[eunjam]

i read/saw somewhere that he got his stroke from hitting hockey pucks.

[Bjorn99]

Cyborg was created to play tennis. No sane person buys that theory that he got started with a tennis racquet won at a ping pong tournament, do they?

[LowProfile]

I've often heard that Borg's unorthodox two-to-one handed backhand was modeled after his hockey slapshot.

[thejackal]

I've often heard that Borg's unorthodox two-to-one handed backhand was modeled after his hockey slapshot.

While it's probably true, I've never seen any hockey player finish a slap shot with 1 hand on the stick, and I've been playing since the age of 6.

[Take2]

Borg hit his forehand with a semi-western grip...which, at the time, was considered extreme. The true extreme western grip came later along with poly strings and light-powerful rackets. The "moonballs" that Borg, Vilas and Wilander hit were actually very heavy balls.

We all copied Borg's strokes back in the day, so open-stances and heavy topspin were at all the public courts and junior tournaments back in the late 70s.

I do think Borg is the father of the modern topspin game. And, since someone mentioned Lendl, it's been said here before that he invented the inside-out forehand.

[Amone]

Actually, while uncommon, it did happen, albiet not with the big-name players. Apparently, there were a number of semiwestern players as far back as Tilden's days in the 20s. Kumagae, for instance. Not many, but there were a very few.

[Trinity TC]

Bjorn Borg was the first world class player to hit the modern forehand. Nobody of any consequence hit the ball with an open stance, table tennis loop forehand before him. The extreme topspin and unusual bouncing heavy ball was what separated Borg's forehand from Laver, Santana, European clay court specialists and pre-WWII western forehands such as Kumagae and Little Bill Johnston. Another thing, Borg was 15 when he first burst on the scene.

And, since someone mentioned Lendl, it's been said here before that he invented the inside-out forehand.
Lendl didn't invent the inside out forehand. I saw matches where Borg ran into the backhand doubles alley and hit inside-out forehand winners. Forehand dominant players such as Frank Froehling used the inside-out forehand back in the 60s.

BTW, I think that Andre Agassi is the inventor of the modern game as he was one of the first to exploit the advantages of carbon fiber racquets with his catch the ball on the rise, power groundstroke game. Hoad, McEnroe, Mecir and others did it too but not with the power of Agassi.

[dirkgnuf]

I'm still amazed by his extremely low heart rate and amazing fitness, but I guess most of the players of today are in similar shape?

[slice bh compliment]

...Lendl didn't invent the inside out forehand. I saw matches where Borg ran into the backhand doubles alley and hit inside-out forehand winners. Forehand dominant players such as Frank Froehling used the inside-out forehand back in the 60s.

BTW, I think that Andre Agassi is the inventor of the modern game as he was one of the first to exploit the advantages of carbon fiber racquets with his catch the ball on the rise, power groundstroke game. Hoad, McEnroe, Mecir and others did it too but not with the power of Agassi.

Good points, especially about Hoad.
Of course Borg brought topspin to the people and Lendl made superb fitness a pre-req for tennis, but let's not forget the violent topspins of Laver and Nastase and the majestic and illegible one-handed backhand topspin lobs and passes that oozed from the frame of the great Manolo Santana.

[Rabbit]

From what I remember, topspin was just a natural evolution in tennis. Nastase, definetly a precursor to Borg, had everyone in awe because he could hit a backhand topspin lob on the dead run. Nastase also used a big topspin forehand to put his opponents in trouble. I think Nastase's idol was Pancho Gonzalez. I'm not sure if Gonzalez hit with top, but Nastase grew up on red clay and probably learned it there.

Borg's slapshot backhand was more an invention of the press (see one Bud Collins) than anything else. The press went on to say that Agassi's forehand looked like a punch (his father was an Olympic boxer for Iran), Courier's backhand looked like a baseball player's batting swing (Courier wass a big Reds fan). Borg's backhand was unusual because prior to Borg, not many players had two-handed backhands. Borg, Connors, and Evert arrived on the scene at around the same time all sporting two-handers.

Borg's fitness was legendary. The matches back then had longer rallies and lasted longer than today, especially on clay. Lendl has said in an interview that tennis then was more akin to a marathon while today it's closer to being like s sprint.

[nickarnold2000]

Every tennis player's nightmare - strings breaking by themselves while you're sleeping!

[Bjorn99]

Evert apparently was very unlike her public image. Meow.

[dpfrazier]

Every tennis player's nightmare - strings breaking by themselves while you're sleeping!

Evert apparently was very unlike her public image. Meow.

Are these non sequiturs? Or are you two implying that Borg's very-tightly-strung racquet strings would break when he slept with Chris Evert? :rolleyes:

[Mick]

...The article attirbuted this to the fact that he never really had formal training as a kid, so he imitated ping-pong players(his dad was one) and hit with whippy motions...

Ping pong anyone ??? :)

http://i15.tinypic.com/35d831g.jpghttp://i10.tinypic.com/44kgr2c.jpg

[MLoutch]

Jim Courier a few weeks back was here in Houston for his senior tour event and was doing the rounds on local Tv and talk radio - on three different shows Courier was asked which past player he looked "up to". well Jim stated:cool: that Borg was his "tennis God" for achieving the grand 3 - Jim said that Borg in the 70's had slept with ALL 3 Charlie's Angels - Farrah, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith!!! He didn't get to elaborate if it was all at once or one at a time!
Borg - the legend continues.

[Eli_Ace]

Reading a 1980 TIME article on BJORN, I learned that he possessed a resting heartrate of 38, strung his racquets at 80 lbs, had one of the highest leg strength record among sweedish athletes.
I do have a qustion though.
In the article, his technique is described as unorthadox since he hit with topspin. The article attirbuted this to the fact that he never really had formal training as a kid, so he imitated ping-pong players(his dad was one) and hit with whippy motions. His coach even got a specially balanced racquet that would encourage him to stop using so much wrist. What I'd like to know is whether his technique was already something that was around, or was it more something that he seems to have invented. Also, how accurate are the facts in the article?
Link to the article is:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924275,00.html

They said he also tried to kill himself on sleeping pills...

[emerckx53]

I'm still amazed by his extremely low heart rate and amazing fitness, but I guess most of the players of today are in similar shape?

Extrememly low heart rates are not always a factor of fitness. Yes, in general terms more fitness means lower HR but much of it is natural. There are some absolute cardio monsters in professional cycling that have resting Hr's in the mid 40's and they could crush someone like borg in cardio fitness....resting and max HR's vary from person to person.....

[emerckx53]

Mick,

Your Borg stuff rocks......I was the biggest Borg fan on earth! I was self taught and learned by watching Borg play on TV....I had my bedroom walls plastered with Borg photos, I even tried to walk like him on the court, used both models of Donnays, even had like 6 Donnay Allwoods in my bag when I was a senior in high school! begged for Fila pin stripes from my parents, I even used the Bancroft Borg Auto woodie prior to the Donnay's...even strung them as tight as his, the right hand and thumb wrapped in tape... Bjorn was the dogs bollocks!....I was the Minnesota version of Borg! If you have any great photos I would be very grateful. love to have some desktop shots!

madair@fastmail.fm

[emerckx53]

Ping pong anyone ??? :)

http://i15.tinypic.com/35d831g.jpghttp://i10.tinypic.com/44kgr2c.jpg



Mick,

See my post just above...

[Mick]

Mick,

Your Borg stuff rocks......I was the biggest Borg fan on earth! I was self taught and learned by watching Borg play on TV....I had my bedroom walls plastered with Borg photos, I even tried to walk like him on the court, used both models of Donnays, even had like 6 Donnay Allwoods in my bag when I was a senior in high school! begged for Fila pin stripes from my parents, I even used the Bancroft Borg Auto woodie prior to the Donnay's...even strung them as tight as his, the right hand and thumb wrapped in tape... Bjorn was the dogs bollocks!....I was the Minnesota version of Borg! If you have any great photos I would be very grateful. love to have some desktop shots!

madair@fastmail.fm

Nice! I only have 3 Donnay rackets :)

I got those pics from this website . Lots of cool Borg pics there, some I saw for the first time. Check it out :)

http://bjornborgfanforever1.free.fr/cariboost1/

[emerckx53]

Nice! I only have 3 Donnay rackets :)

I got those pics from this website . Lots of cool Borg pics there, some I saw for the first time. Check it out :)

http://bjornborgfanforever1.free.fr/cariboost1/

Thanks..it was priceless..

[Mick]

Thanks..it was priceless..

No Problem :)

I probably was not as big of a Borg fan as you were but i recall my tennis buddies used to call me Bjorn Borgno (porno) http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[heycal]

Did we settle on what kind of grips Borg used? And also, what about the grips used by Laver and Nastase to create their topspin as mentioned above?

[The Gorilla]

topspin and full westerns were used as long ago as the 1920's,this fella,little bill johnston hit with a full western grip and hit the ball at shoulder height.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Johnston

[slice bh compliment]

topspin and full westerns were used as long ago as the 1920's,this fella,little bill johnston hit with a full western grip and hit the ball at shoulder height.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Johnston

Yeah, and do not forget Zenzo Shimizu (and his contemporaries). Of course they would have lost to Borg by scores like 6-negative 3, 6-negative 2, 6-0.

[PimpMyGame]

well Jim stated:cool: that Borg was his "tennis God" for achieving the grand 3 - Jim said that Borg in the 70's had slept with ALL 3 Charlie's Angels - Farrah, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith!!! He didn't get to elaborate if it was all at once or one at a time!
Borg - the legend continues.

The sign of a real sportsman - they don't make them like that too often nowadays. Very cool.

[civic]

Borg's fitness was legendary. The matches back then had longer rallies and lasted longer than today, especially on clay. Lendl has said in an interview that tennis then was more akin to a marathon while today it's closer to being like s sprint.

I bet Borg was Lendl's main idol. In terms of fitness, Lendl definitely followed Borg's path, and it's probably why Lendl became so successful at the French Open.

[borg number one]

See this interesting article called the hard facts about Bjorn Borg. I enjoyed this excellent summary about him.

http://www.bjornborg.com/en/Heritage/Hard-Facts/

video:

http://www.bjornborg.com/en/Heritage/?version=1

Q&A with Borg:
http://www.bjornborg.com/en/Heritage/Ask-Bjorn-Borg/

[jnd28]

As has been noted here, there were plenty of players who used western gripped/ heavy topspin forehands before Borg.

Interestingly, Nick B. says that his teaching of the "killer forehand",which really was the stroke that has changed the game, came from Jimmy Arias.

Who would have thought! I remember reading someplace that after seeing Arias as a 12 year old, Bollettieri changed his view of the stroke and started teaching the "arias" forehand which became the Bollettieri forehand that he in turn taught to all of his celebrated students.

JND28

[pmerk34]

Yes, I believe the article is factual. I actually have that original Time magazine. I was a big Borg fan when I was 14.

His technique was pretty unusual for that time. He used big loopy topspin strokes and hit with an open stance. Both those techniques were really frowned upon by instructors at the time. Everyone wanted to hit like him, but tennis instructors wouldn't teach that way.

The article also had the typical cartoony Time graphics. One showing the effects of topspin versus traditional strokes. It showed how Borg could hit harder than most players, yet keep the ball in because of his spin. ( This is very well known now, but at the time I don't think anyone used heavy topsin to the extent of Borg. Maybe Vilas, but Borg was just on another level ).

As far as conditioning, Borg had to be one of the most fit pros at the time. I think in a Superstars sprint competition he actually won it beating an Olympic hurdler.


Interesting. My bother was constantly being told by the High School tennis coach that he was going to hurt his wrist becuase he hit with an open stance and western grip off his back foot. Our coach was always trying to get him to hit with a closed stance and with more traditional grip and this was in 1988! of course our coach was in his 50's and from the old school

[pmerk34]

As has been noted here, there were plenty of players who used western gripped/ heavy topspin forehands before Borg.

Interestingly, Nick B. says that his teaching of the "killer forehand",which really was the stroke that has changed the game, came from Jimmy Arias.

Who would have thought! I remember reading someplace that after seeing Arias as a 12 year old, Bollettieri changed his view of the stroke and started teaching the "arias" forehand which became the Bollettieri forehand that he in turn taught to all of his celebrated students.

JND28


Yeah, but who of note? Borg reached number one playing this new style.

[borg number one]

One more link from that site I talk about in the above post. Some of these things tend to humanize him, just click on the links under "your own stories":

http://www.bjornborg.com/en/Heritage/Your-stories/Mr-Borg-in-a-supermarket/

[borg number one]

Until the last few years, when I began revisiting Bjorn Borg's legacy, etc. , I did not realize that he had such great success playing for the Swedish Davis Cup Team. Check this out:

"At the age of 14, Borg left school to devote all his time to tennis. It paid off, and at 15 he was selected for the Swedish Davis Cup team; by 16 he was Wimbledon Junior Champion."

Now that is a "prodigy" as others on this website have mentioned.

See his Davis Cup Record. He led Sweden to the Davis Cup win in 1975. His Davis Cup record was 37-3 from 1972-1980.

From: http://www.daviscup.com/teams/player.asp?player=10002258

[borg number one]

I suppose there was a confluence of events that led to Borg's retirement, including some burnout due to his meteoric rise and then all that winning, but let's not forget this big reason. He most definitely did not just "run away from the game" because he was afraid of other players. That couldn't be farther from the truth in my opinion and greatly discounts this guy after he proved so much and raised the popularity of the game more than anyone before him and more than anyone ever since. He brought tennis to the "masses" and in the words of one British commentator he took tennis out of just the country club set and made it something interesting for the working person.

"Borg chose not to follow the entire world-wide tour, insisting on a long vacation. This decision brought him into conflict with the men’s tennis council in 1982, and some believe this was part of his decision to retire early, aged only 27."


See full text for the excerpt just above and for the excerpt from the post above:
http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/284:93/1/Bjorn_Borg.htm

[borg number one]

You guys have to watch this video, it includes Borg/McEnroe hitting just a few years ago, but I did not realize that at 19, McEnroe was so grateful that Borg was the first guy to "take him under his wing". That's an amazing quality and says a whole lot about Borg. Anyway, hear McEnroe talk about "the hell with everyone else".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUa2ltLC0hw

These guys are like brothers now...

[jnd28]

Yeah, but who of note? Borg reached number one playing this new style.


Lets see...Bill Johnston reached number one in the world and won two US championships and a Wimbledon title. He's in the Hall of Fame. I think that qualifies as player of note.

[pmerk34]

Lets see...Bill Johnston reached number one in the world and won two US championships and a Wimbledon title. He's in the Hall of Fame. I think that qualifies as player of note.

From when 1928? He played like Borg? Borg spawned the generation of heavy topspin back court guys. Not Bill Johnston

[jnd28]

Actually he was #1 I believe in 1919. My point in the first post was that Borg was not the first western gripped heavy topspin player. There were plenty before him. Some really good ones at that. The other point was that the modern forehand game can be attributed more to Nick Bolllettieri than it can be to Borg.

My point by the is not meant in anyway to minimize the greatness of Borg. He was great and I can see why some might argue the best ever. But for people to say he was the first western gripped topspin player and to give him credit for the modern topspin game is simply not supported by the actual history of the game.

JND28

[pmerk34]

Actually he was #1 I believe in 1919. My point in the first post was that Borg was not the first western gripped heavy topspin player. There were plenty before him. Some really good ones at that. The other point was that the modern forehand game can be attributed more to Nick Bolllettieri than it can be to Borg.

My point by the is not meant in anyway to minimize the greatness of Borg. He was great and I can see why some might argue the best ever. But for people to say he was the first western gripped topspin player and to give him credit for the modern topspin game is simply not supported by the actual history of the game.

JND28

Borg is the forefather of the modern game period

[jnd28]

I guess because you say so I have to believe it regardless of the actual facts.
Thanks for your well thought out and supported perspective.

JND28

[pmerk34]

I guess because you say so I have to believe it regardless of the actual facts.
Thanks for your well thought out and supported perspective.

JND28

I say so? It's been common knowledge that Borg invented it and then Lendl added the power.

[jnd28]

Gee, I must have missed that memo. If you say that it is generally accepted i guess I can put it in the category of a flat earth and using leaches for medical purposes.

I base my POV on actually following the history of the game.

Sorry

JND28

[borg number one]

Guys, I tend to think that you can argue this point both ways actually. From reading about past greats, there were definitely several players that could hit massive amounts of topspin, to combat the original tendency for players to simply "cut" or "slice" the ball to death (esp. on grass, that makes sense).

Yet, my view is that Borg tended to take it to the next level during the Open Era, which greatly influenced so many of the modern players, who of course, grew up watching Borg. So, he has had a huge impact on the modern game. There has been a slow evolution with the use of topspin over time. I don't mean to imply that Borg was the very first player to successfully use topspin (think Vilas during just Borg's time), but he did revolutionize the Open era with his use of it, thus impacting so may youngsters growing up. These players (like Lendl) grew up watching him and then, with modern frames, found the use of topspin to be such a perfect "fit". Thanks for the insights. The history of the game is fascinating though. In that thread started by Borgforever, which alludes to so much of the history of the game, I was struck by the fact that in this book, from perhaps the early 20th century (year?) one of the first sentences states that there is great debate over whether the "modern players" are better than the players of old. That's amazing, they were having the same debate back then that we are having now! Oh how the wheel spins. The history of this game is quite fascinating indeed.

[jnd28]

points well taken..For the record It was not my intention to say that old school players were better than modern players - or visa versa. The players get to play against who they play against and I happen to believe that the best in whatever era in whatever sport would be able to compete with the modern versions. That aside, my main issue is the belief that tennis history prior to 1970 for some, 1980 for others, 1990, for a few and 2005 for the least informed did not exist. To say that no player of note hit with a western topspin forehand is the only evidence needed that the poster is clueless to the history of the game.

I also maintain that during borgs era there were tons of heavy topspin players. Pecci, Pannata, Vilas, Nastase are just a few that come to mind. Lendl is only 4 years younger than Borg so I doubt that he was pinning for Borgs game to the extent mentioned here.

Maybe its the lack of definition of the modern game that is at issue. Yes Lendl took fitness to a high level. Maybe even as high as Roy Emerson. He hit a big forehand maybe as big as Hoad. He may even been as quick as Segura but I doubt it.

JND28

[borg number one]

Good point as far as Lendl, with just a 4 year difference he was too young, so his shots were already well established by Borg's time. I have another person especially in mind. Again, see this fascinating forehand comparison. It always blows me away. Federer, I think, must have watched Borg quite a bit, especially being Swiss. Check this out, and if you've already seen it, excuse my indulgence. In my opinion, Federer has a BEAUTIFUL topspin forehand, as does Nadal (which is more "violent" no doubt), but Borg's is even more impressive to see (IMO). Check out the positioning of 2 of the game's greats. You could use these in a tennis lesson, but man do you have to talent and racquet head speed. With this discussion, Think..accelerating through the strike zone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg

Now see some footage of a well past his prime Rocket Rod Laver giving Connors fits as well. I do detect some topspin for sure from Laver. What a historic match up! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcRNZeo70P4&feature=PlayList&p=34B8731EF839BA24&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29

[ubermeyer]

heart rate of 38??? isn't that unhealthy?

[jnd28]

Thanks for the link. I do think that Fed hits the forehand with a straighter arm than Borg did. It all depends on the shot however.

Take a look at this in case you havent seen it. You can see that Lavers topspin is on par with the Borg. Borg won this match but the Rocket was 38 years old. Tell me if you have seen anyone in todays game (other than a 50 year old Mac) who can cover the net like this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU&feature=related

[borg number one]

See excerpt from Wiki:

Borg's physical conditioning was legendary as he could outlast most of his opponents under the most grueling conditions. Contrary to popular belief, however, this wasn't due to his exceptionally low resting heart rate, often reported to be near 35 beats per minute. In his introduction to Borg's autobiography My Life and Game, Eugene Scott relates that this myth arose from a medical exam the 18-year-old Borg once took for military service, where his pulse was recorded as 38. Scott goes on to reveal Borg's true pulse rate as "about 50 when he wakes up and around 60 in the afternoon."

I've read that this is a medical condition for certain people and not particularly dangerous. I've got to think it gave him an advantage, because I hardly ever saw him breathing very hard, even at the French!

See info from the web (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/tc/bradycardia-slow-heart-rate-overview):

"What is bradycardia?

Having bradycardia (say "bray-dee-KAR-dee-uh") means your heart beats very slowly. For most people, a heart rate of 60 to 100 beats a minute while at rest is considered normal. If your heart beats less than 60 times a minute, your doctor may diagnose bradycardia.

A slow heart rate is sometimes normal and can be a sign of being very fit. Healthy young adults and athletes often have heart rates of less than 60 beats a minute."

[borg number one]

I've watched that before JND28 and the points are amazing. There is no doubt that he was "rocket" rod laver, with amazing closing speed. I agree, there are not many even in today's game that can cover the net like Laver did, no doubt about it. He would absolutely "school" a lot of the players of today, even well past his prime (adjusting for the newer racquets though, b/c they generate SO much pace easily for you and you can hit the ball practically ANYWHERE on the face and still have a solid shot). He was too quick/too sound with his shotmaking. It's great footage, thank you.

[borg number one]

We were talking Lendl/Borg, so I'll throw in this 1981 Masters action. At this time, Borg was reportedly doing extra strength training by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU&feature=related

[jnd28]

Thanks I had not seen that. Very impressive!

JND28

[krosero]

Now see some footage of a well past his prime giving Connors fits as well. I do detect some topspin for sure from Laver. What a historic match up! :

Actually that video was copied by a YouTube user from my upload. Please link to the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM. Thanks.

[borg number one]

Very famous instance. I've NEVER seen Borg protest a call like this in my life. I remember it made headlines. Check out just how much McEnroe respected him. Have you ever seen McEnroe do something like this with anyone else? Great sportsmanship by Big Mac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVwPAOpFweY

The Umpire felt the long gaze of the "Ice Man". Borg always said "though he never showed emotion, when he lost a point, it burned him up inside".

[Borgforever]

I think all of you guys are correct more or less.

May Sutton was playing classic western FH with heavy topspin in early 1900s.

Johnston was a western-grip guy. H. L. received some flack for hitting more topspin on both flanks than let's say Larned and Gore. Everyone was wondering why H. L. did that. Of course the margin for error was bigger with heavy top as opposed to flat-hitting.

It seems tennis, as many other things, move in cycles and memory is short.

Laver deserves a lot of credit for playing moderate to severe topspin on his groundies being direct inspiration to Borg, who went topspin bananas, in a way ushering in today game. The graphite-bats further boosted a topspin, solid groundie-game together with Ivan Lendl's masterful power game.

It's a big confluence of factors were a lot of people deserve credit, not just one guy IMO...

[borg number one]

Yes, I do agree Borgforever that there were lots of factors. Borg did not bring in topspin all by himself, that's for sure. Krosero, thanks for your upload of the Laver footage. That video is priceless. I could tell by the commentary that Laver was so revered, but here was this "young upstart". Beautiful tennis. What talent on display! Though Laver was well past his prime and Borg was fairly young, the tennis was absolutely, well, "classic".

[Wondertoy]

The other point was that the modern forehand game can be attributed more to Nick Bolllettieri than it can be to Borg.

WTF? You cannot be serious!

[charliefedererer]

WTF? You cannot be serious!

Borg not only had the massively heavy topspin from both sides, but the tremendous reflexes, quickness and consistancy to beat most of his opponents with well constructed points, with few unforced errors and pinpoint passing shots.

He played with a wood racquet strung at 80, and did not bludgeon the ball with the "modern forehand" as his main weapon like Courier, a string of others and now Del Potro. Borg did not have to regularly risk all with overly hard hit shots played from the baseline.

That sort of baseline bashing did come out of the Bolletieri camp, with Jimmy Arias being the first of the line and inspiration for Courier and others.

Borg was more artist than basher, though I'm sure he could have been if he had chosen to. I'm just glad he did not.

[pundekman]

"He played with a wood racquet strung at 80, and ..."

I believed his Donnay was graphite....if I am not mistaken

[borg number one]

Folks, I have posted some of these weblinks during various posts, including the thread that contains all those video links. Yet, I just wanted to have these together in one spot, and this seemed like a good place. I love watching some of these together before I go out and practice/play tennis, or even go for a run. These are high standards to try and replicate indeed!

Borg/Sampras/Federer (Kings of Wimbledon):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs

Borg on Winning in Tennis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLVoUl4OVGc

Borg-Federer Forehand (Frame by Frame Comparison):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg

Borg/Federer Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KNcpwsBQHU&NR=1

Borg Wimbledon Video (From Wimbledon DVD collection):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOedxoa_0J0

Borg-Connors (1976 US Open Final):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcBWYNm6b1g


Borg-Lendl (New York, Masters):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmF...om=PL&index=72

Borg-Vilas (86 shot rally!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_v4gD_QnE&NR=1

Borg-Lendl (French Open Final):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBaq...rom=PL&index=8

Borg-McEnroe (1980 Wimbledon Final):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16O_V_Gjw4

[Don't Let It Bounce]

I never knew the story of Borg's heart rate was a myth. However, a lower RHR does correlate with extreme cardio health: I had a college prof who still ranks high among triathletes; his RHR was in the 30's.

I remember reading in the 80's that Borg used to do side-to-sides, with Bergelin (his coach) feeding outside the doubles sidelines, for an entire cart of balls before resting. (I was always generally ready to display my lunch after a couple dozen.) What makes it even more impressive was that his lifestyle had as much in common with Vitas Gerulaitis's as it did with Lendl's.

As noted above, he also had speed to a degree that you rarely find with that kind of endurance. He and Graf have often been noted as tennis players who could have become world-class sprinters.

The guy really won the genetic lottery (for physical gifts, anyway).

[Borgforever]

Great post man!

Borg had as low as 33 beats per minute when he woke up and about 35 to 38 during rest during daytime. He's was a freak exactly combining absolutely fantastic chardio-prowess with supreme world class sprinter-properties in one practically extinct package.

When I was at peak -- always being tall, strong, swimmer's build I was slightly impressed with own physical prowess. Running about 15 km a day or every other day until I was 35. And gym and lots of very structured tennis practice and matches in-between -- just living tennis, I was very strong and fast.

I did service as special forces man -- Navy Seal material -- and when I did side-to-sides -- at the peak of my form -- I managed very fiercely to be accurate outside the doubles-lines -- about half-a-cart in splendid fashion -- shortly there after the light started fading fast. And I was reduced to rubble.

My stamina pulverized to ashes -- at once...

Borg did easily one cart in the early practice and the second daily practice -- each and every day. And nailed every one. Maybe shanked a very few sometimes but always greyhounding around smoothly and consistently.

Sick.

Sick I say.

That's one of the reasons why I love to watch him. And his amazing resolute fightning prowess. The terminator.

Vitas and Björn were both freaks. When they played during a few days off every year out on Björn's private island -- on Björn's private court -- out in the Stockholm Archipelago -- the often played matches that blew peoples minds in their insanely spectacular rallies -- one packed after the other -- 7-8 sets a day, on a Plexipave HC-cement, fairly fast surface.

Rarely said witnesses that such spectacular rallies have been performed out in tourneys with audiences.

Although in the 1977 Wimby SF Gerulaitis and Borg gave a supple taste of what those secluded private practice-matches was brim-filled with...

It's an understatement that Borg was lucky in the genetic department...

Nobody deserves to be so lucky...

[Borgforever]

By the way I was about 43 beats per minute during the day and 41 when waking up. Now about 46-48 beats per minute...

[Borgforever]

When Jimbo was down -- while playing stunning tennis himself -- about 2-6, 1-3 in the slaughter on cow's food that was the Wimby F of 1978 -- Bud Collins said to John Newcombe in the booth during the NBC coverage -- for which I have a copy of:

Bud Collins: "John -- Jimbo's got Borg problems. And Borg problems is like having termites and in a balsa-tree-house!"...

Yup I say...

[Ano]

Borg had as low as 33 beats per minute when he woke up and about 35 to 38 during rest during daytime. He's was a freak exactly combining absolutely fantastic chardio-prowess with supreme world class sprinter-properties in one practically extinct package.

It's an understatement that Borg was lucky in the genetic department...

Nobody deserves to be so lucky...

If my memory serves me right, Borg's blood pressure was 70/30.

[Borgforever]

Ano -- that blood pressure deal I didn't know in fact.

By the way -- as regards to his private practice-matches with Gerulaitis out on the secluded island during the summers of 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981 -- Borg also says that Vitas was muuuuuuch better, ALWAYS, in practice with him there.

Borg mentions how he once lost two sets in a row to Vitas only getting something like 5 points combined in the sets, while he was playing great and Gerulaitis was just sublime, hitting winners on everything.

Borg said he lost in great matches to Vitas -- out on the island "about 50-60% of the time and he usually played better on the island than he did in our famous semifinal (at Wimby 1977)".

Borg thought that Vitas nerves was the problem. That he was always way better under more relaxed atmospheres -- not in front of 20000 people and millions on TV...

[jnd28]

WTF? You cannot be serious!

Just pointing out the facts.

[borg number one]

Great stuff with these last posts. Thank you. Yes, Borg's workout regimen was legendary. Borgforever, yes, you can appreciate Borg's fitness, because you have pushed your body to the limit in the past. Thanks for providing just a few specific examples of just what his workouts were like.

Now, does anyone still want to argue about how the players of today are so much stronger and better trained than Borg was? Anyone at all? That argument has some credence when you talk about all the players as a whole, but it fails miserably when applied to B. Borg. He was WAY AHEAD of his time.

1. Heart
2. Mind
3. Body
4. Composure

What else do you want in a great tennis player?

See Borg Quotes:

"It didn’t matter if it was a practice, I wanted to win every single point. I practiced five hours a day and I wanted to win every single point in those five hours.

"Still in my mind I had the suspension when I was a kid and I think by being very serious on the court, learning how to play well under pressure, I could play really well on the important points in the match. I think that was probably one of my strongest points."

[Borgforever]

John Barrett tells a wonderful story he witnessed during the French Riviera around 1978 when Lennart had brought a young group of Swedish juniors to practice beside Borg and a maybe a few moments with him a few times -- just so the kids would get some early looks a great pro up close for a week.

Borg practiced with severely structured focus, honing his very aspect like virtouso. It was laughable the match-point seriousness he displayed on every little move.

One afternoon -- after the second 2-2,5 hours practice all the kids and Lennart ended up in the rented bus back to the hotel for the announced dinner -- everyone except Borg of course.

Lennart looked around desperately, The bus was about to go. The driver wouldn't work past 6 o'clock in the afternoon and they were going to miss dinner.

A flash went off in Lennart's head and he dashed off to the courts and -- lo and behold -- Borg stood there polishing his different, new serves, getting pace and the angle just right -- like he had done for the last 60-80 minutes or so...

Pounding serves. Oblivious. Hmmm-ing to himself. Adjusting. pounding the next. Analysis.

Lennart scream hysterically to Björn: "Are you crazy Burken?! Take your racquets and run to the bus -- right this instant -- or the bus will go and we all miss dinner! COME ON -- RIGHT NOW!"

Björn: (in his focused bubble): "One second Lennart -- just one more..."

And he focused -- hammered -- then ran to the bus and they all made it to dinner...

[slice bh compliment]

An amazing thing I just learned about Borg:
He shops at Mohumbai and Sons in Manhattan. He actually tried to pawn some valuable memorabilia there. My friend Dave told me.

[borg number one]

Awesome. Borgforever, I have heard of that story before, but never with all the details surrounding it!

SliceBHCompliment-Very Interesting, thank you.

[Datacipher]

I never knew the story of Borg's heart rate was a myth. However, a lower RHR does correlate with extreme cardio health: I had a college prof who still ranks high among triathletes; his RHR was in the 30's.
).

Wow. This is the first time I looked at this thread, and I was about to post this. In actuality, Borg's heartrate was recorded in the high 30's once, but that was during sleep! The funny thing is, the urban legend was around 37/38 about a decade ago...but now I see it is dropping to 33ish! In about 2030, Borg koolaid drinkers will be proclaiming he had a resting heart rate of -8!

Borg's didn't even need heartbeats, so he donated them to charity. All this while lighting the world with the glow from his buttocks and flowing locks! ;-)

[Borgforever]

^^^^ I won't answer anymore to this bonda-fide bone-head but you can take it from me from now on -- Data is -- as usual -- as totally misinformed about the facts of Björn -- before the above post and in the above post -- as he is -- as usual -- snarky to the point of silliness and deluded about his supposed "knowledge".

If he sometimes gets it right -- and if I even read his posts from now on -- I will respond and point that out...

Don't hold your breath folks...:-)

But I guess many have noticed this by themselves already...

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

There's a lot of speculation about who invented the modern stroke, but if anyone did, it was Borg.

That is absolutely correct.

[Borgforever]

Borg Number One -- for the record regarding Björn's heart-beats per minute:

If memory serves I think I wrote a while back on the AKAI-thread about Borg's heart rate. Having read various conflicting reports in various different sources -- I did some double-checking and triple checking on first-hand sources which only confirmed my just above mentioned statements: 33 bpm measured in the very early morning, 8 o'clock, resting on a bed for about 15 minutes -- which is the usual and established measurement-routine made by a doctor in the Swedish military. This was when Borg was around 18 years of age and this test was only made once.

When it was measured again a couple of times by doctors when Björn was 20-22, taken during the afternoon, during a medical test, this was during the day but the test was performed after Borg had been lying down on a sick-bed for 15 minutes, fully relaxed the whole time, he was clocked between 35 and 38.

The more usual test of doing this heart bpm-test on people is taking the test after the person has just taken a seat (not lying down), being calm for just a few minutes at the longest (and subsequently not totally relaxing for as much as 15 minutes as Borg did).

Then the pulse-rate usually revolves around 50-60, during your physical peak, if you have extreme fitness and physical chardio-gifts.

I would maybe have 55-65 bpm or slightly more if I just sat down and just took the test within minutes during the day during my peak. I measured it sometimes at 65 bpm during the day then -- sitting straight on a chair.

So now you have the whole context of why Björn was saying he was more in line with 50-60 bpm's in HIS LIFE AND GAME (1980 -- with second, updated edition 1981).

And having any kind of heart-trouble coupled with a slow pulse-rate is a highly individualized issue -- depending on your specific gene-make-up.

My pulse-rate at 41-43 was taken when I was 18 at the military doctor's test with the customary method as Borg did -- early in the morning, not far after sleep, lying down for 15 minutes almost reaching a state of slumber. The doctor measured me 41, which isn't totally unique, but clearly within a small, minority percentage being that low.

This was mostly due to me practicing about 5 hours a day by that time and having a low pulse-rate to begin with.

Having the lowest measured together with another guy that week (a guy who was measured at 42 bpm he told me) he did the test again and I was allowed to sit on chair, being a not as relaxed as lying down, the doctor double-checked by bpm and came out with 43.

I was allowed some more intense chardio-prowess tests which I found were quite easy and was promptly assigned military service for 15 months as second-lieutenant in a special forces branch.

In summary -- there's some truth to all statements made about this, more or less, but all statements are also false considering that the origins of all the different figures aren't fully explored and neither is their correct contexts that existed referenced completely.

[Borgforever]

Incidentally there's several small errors in Scott's and Björn's MY LIFE AND GAME BOOK. I don't have the time to review them all right now -- but in brief, the errors that do exist are no biggies and it would be erroneous to think that only 300 pages would explain every little detail about Borg during that time and without any flaw here and there in the fact department.

[Cesc Fabregas]

John Barrett tells a wonderful story he witnessed during the French Riviera around 1978 when Lennart had brought a young group of Swedish juniors to practice beside Borg and a maybe a few moments with him a few times -- just so the kids would get some early looks a great pro up close for a week.

Borg practiced with severely structured focus, honing his very aspect like virtouso. It was laughable the match-point seriousness he displayed on every little move.

One afternoon -- after the second 2-2,5 hours practice all the kids and Lennart ended up in the rented bus back to the hotel for the announced dinner -- everyone except Borg of course.

Lennart looked around desperately, The bus was about to go. The driver wouldn't work past 6 o'clock in the afternoon and they were going to miss dinner.

A flash went off in Lennart's head and he dashed off to the courts and -- lo and behold -- Borg stood there polishing his different, new serves, getting pace and the angle just right -- like he had done for the last 60-80 minutes or so...

Pounding serves. Oblivious. Hmmm-ing to himself. Adjusting. pounding the next. Analysis.

Lennart scream hysterically to Björn: "Are you crazy Burken?! Take your racquets and run to the bus -- right this instant -- or the bus will go and we all miss dinner! COME ON -- RIGHT NOW!"

Björn: (in his focused bubble): "One second Lennart -- just one more..."

And he focused -- hammered -- then ran to the bus and they all made it to dinner...

Thats a great story, thanks for sharing.

[borg number one]

Excellent Borgforever. That analysis of heartrates and testing of Borg's heartrate, is as detailed as any I've ever come across. There is simply no substitute in life for personal experience and you sir have it when it comes to this issue and many others, especially when it comes to B. Borg. Thanks.

[Datacipher]

Incidently. My resting heart rate is generally around 48-55, and during sleep drops to 38. Lower than Borg's! Unusual, but actually a lot of endurance athletes (which I'm not) are in this range.

Correction. My min. heart rate during last 24 hour monitor was 39. Average rate over 24 hours, including 3 workouts was 66.

[laboule]

Björn when he was 14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Rmiq5uXRk

Hehe I love that he got suspended from his local tennis club when he was young because he had such bad temper. He was not allowed to come there for some months so he played against his garage wall all day long with the 2 handed backhand. Which came from the fact that the racquet was heavy and the fact that he had played hockey.

[Xenakis]

Thanks for the vid borg number one, not seen Borg and Mac play as 'oldies', even at their age they are better than I'll ever be by a country mile. Would be good to see more of them play.

[borg number one]

No problem Xenakis, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Yes, they can still hit that ball around pretty well can't they? What struck me was the last part of that youtube clip. I only recently heard McEnroe's take on what it was like to come onto the tour at 19. Thank you.

[borg number one]

To get a great overview of Borg at Wimbledon especially see these videos from the Wimbledon DVD Collection:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694076/5681964

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694418/5686082

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694791/5681794

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695359/5682850

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695735/5683378

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1702965/5702564

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695987/5684466

[borg number one]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5161864.ece


See this article above entitled "Bjorn Borg peerless in Paris; The Swede stuns the world of tennis at the 1974 French Open" for a look back at Borg. See this excerpt:

"The British Davis Cup captain John Lloyd recalled an example of the Swede’s strength on the BlackRock Tour of Champions a few years ago. “He was asked by an institute of sports science in Sweden to do a cardiovascular test,” said Lloyd. “It was December, so there wasn’t any tennis at that time of the year and he wasn’t in peak shape, but he just got on the running machine and set a fair pace. Two and three-quarter hours later somebody asked him if he wanted to stop. ‘Up to you,’ he replied. That just shows how fit he was.”

[borg number one]

Here is some background on Borg's losses at the US Open through 1979.

Of course, he lost to McEnroe fair and square in the 80 and 81 finals, but see this excerpt below from "Bjorn Borg, My Life and Game" as told by Eugene L. Scott about Borg's losses there through 1979:


"Borg is not given to making excuses for himself, but it is a matter of record that he has been unlucky at the U.S. Open. In 1975, when he lost to Connors in the final, he was taking massive doses of antibiotics for an intestinal infection. In 1977, he lost to Dick Stockton and had such a bad shoulder injury that he could barely lift his arm to serve. In 1978, he lost to Connors after doctors had advised him not to play because of a severe thumb injury for which he took two injections of morcaine, a powerful pain killer, an hour before the final, and in 1979, he lost to Tanner's 140-mph serve under lights, which may be a worse handicap for him than any injury."

As to the U.S. Open, the lights were not as good back then as they are now, and it's interesting that Lennart Bergelin had been told by Asst. Referee Bob Howe two months before the Tanner match that Borg would not have to play under the lights, and then on the first day of the Open, Lennart requested that if Borg had to play at night, schedule him on one of the first few days, and not for the Tanner match.

Lennart was then told that Borg would not have to play under the lights at all. Then, Connors at the last minute said that he wanted to play his quarterfinal during the day, and not at night. Then, they put Borg on at night against Tanner. Roscoe beat Borg in 4 sets. Borg said that "I wasn't thinking about the Grand Slam. I wouldn't ever think about it unless I had won three legs and then had to change my regular plans to go to Australia at the end of the year, which is the time I normally rest".

[borg number one]

I really like the great Harry Hopman's quote concerning Borg on the back of Scott's book:

"Bjorn Borg is like Rod Laver in being a pleasant, shy country boy who could win with never a boast and lose with never an excuse and who became a great in Tennis in his early twenties. Just as Laver did in his era, Bjorn has turned all pre-tournament conjecture into the simple question: "Who can beat Number One?" What I like best about Bjorn, and Gene Scott has brought it out well in his story, is that it is hard to fault Borg on or off the court. He is a complete credit to the game."

[hoodjem]

"Bjorn Borg is like Rod Laver in being a pleasant, shy country boy who could win with never a boast and lose with never an excuse . . . ."
Nice quotation.

[slice bh compliment]

I really like the great Harry Hopman's quote concerning Borg on the back of Scott's book:

"Bjorn Borg is like Rod Laver in being a pleasant, shy country boy who could win with never a boast and lose with never an excuse and who became a great in Tennis in his early twenties. Just as Laver did in his era, Bjorn has turned all pre-tournament conjecture into the simple question: "Who can beat Number One?" What I like best about Bjorn, and Gene Scott has brought it out well in his story, is that it is hard to fault Borg on or off the court. He is a complete credit to the game."

I love this. Thanks for posting it.

I'm sure Eugene L. Scott wrote it long before the cokehead days, the divorce, the trist with Loredana Berte, the alleged suicide attempt and the attempted selling of the trophies.

Somehow he went from pleasant, shy country boy to tortured soul. But still credit to the game, without question.

[Borgforever]

Slice BH -- you know I like you -- so I have to respond to this.

* Björn Borg never took more Cocaine than anybody on the tennis circus. That is libelous what your saying. Just trying something a few times doesn't make you Scarface-like sitting at your desk with three Gasherbrum-size mountains of nose-candy in front of you.

* Selling the trophies, as I have written here about 95 gazillion times before but everyone seems to have the memory of a horse-fly -- was because Borg is the kind of person that doesn't care about fame, trophies or anything like that. The trophies were shoved under a table in his garage for over 20 years. If your inside Borg's home -- nothing in there suggests he ever played tennis ever. Not one thing. He is not a bragging, chest-thumping self-aggrandizing guy.

* The late 80's stuff though, the divorces and bad businesses was natural errors. Everybody has a bad patch, or patches in their lives. For someone like Borg, who was almost perfect on and off court while he was the world's most famous man -- at what? 21?! -- the contrast to his subsequent set-backs look bigger. And it's also blaming the victim here. Borg's business partner Lars Skarke makes Bernie Madoff look like FDR in comparison and Borg is not alone in the world at going through a divorce.

* The suicide attempt was also a paper-tiger -- pure and utter bull-crap. I could tell you the backstory and what really happened there -- but you wouldn't remember what I said next week anyway so why bother...

[Borgforever]

There's an old newspaper adage: "Good news is no news."

And the sleaziest copy rife with insinuations are the ones that sell the best.

I absolutely despise the fact that Borg was so famous. I wish he was as famous as Lendl, maybe he would've played until 1987 or thereabouts...

Fame killed the Bear...

[slice bh compliment]

Slice BH -- you know I like you -- so I have to respond to this.

* Björn Borg never took more Cocaine than anybody on the tennis circus. That is libelous what your saying. Just trying something a few times doesn't make you Scarface-like sitting at your desk with three Gasherbrum-size mountains of nose-candy in front of you.

* Selling the trophies, as I have written here about 95 gazillion times before but everyone seems to have the memory of a horse-fly -- was because Borg is the kind of person that doesn't care about fame, trophies or anything like that. The trophies were shoved under a table in his garage for over 20 years. If your inside Borg's home -- nothing in there suggests he ever played tennis ever. Not one thing. He is not a bragging, chest-thumping self-aggrandizing guy.

* The late 80's stuff though, the divorces and bad businesses was natural errors. Everybody has a bad patch, or patches in their lives. For someone like Borg, who was almost perfect on and off court while he was the world's most famous man -- at what? 21?! -- the contrast to his subsequent set-backs look bigger.

* The suicide attempt was also a paper-tiger -- pure and utter bull-crap. I could tell you the backstory and what really happened there -- but you wouldn't remember what I said next week anyway so why bother...
I like you too.

Nah, I've got a good memory.

The late 80s stuff, of course, everyone's got bad deals. Business is one thing. It's the other stuff. ANd, yes, absolutely...bad patches abound. No big deal at all. I never said so.

The drugs. He's not Tony Montana. But...sorry, I just don't see the shy country boy Rod Laver guy there. I'm not sayig he's a bad guy at all. I am saying he more than experimented with the nose candy. If you think that's average or cool in any way, fine. I just don't think it is consistent with the Gene Scott musings. Sorry mate.

I'm also sorry about the 95 gazillion times you've written that the selling of the trophies was a sign of his not caring about fame. Yore right, he's not a braggart. He does not have to be. He thought about it for the money. It was about debt, man. Trying to save up for retirement. If he really did not want the trophies, don't you think he would have quietly donated them or auctioned them off for charity?

About the ALLEGED suicide attempt, go ahead, try me. I've got a good memory. You just never know what is spin and what is real.

[Borgforever]

Trust me man. I know about these things.

And that Borg needs cash is also complete and utter bunk Slice BH.

Borg had about 100 mill in 2000 -- his clothing line had been going fantastic since about 1995 -- why would he need to sell the trophies?! Your don't know one iota of which you speak and your sinking in my estimation since your so strident with you steaming bs and lies.

Borg bought the trophies back for a bigger amount just weeks after he sold them.

You know absolutely nothing about Borg in this matter.

Rod Laver was married, didn't have a 50 mill when he retired at 25 and a more normal life -- and when he reitred at 36-37 he wasn't a guy invited to STUDIO 54, hanging out with Peter Sellers, Ingrid Bergman and the Rolling Stones and many others that hung around Borg when he was 22-23...

Borg was isolated, lacking the youthful experiences that most of us had and his yearning life was understandable.

Please, do your research and, at least, read the AKAI-thread before you spread lies here man...

You're embarrassing.

Shape up!

[Borgforever]

Borg has given away each and every trophy he ever has won -- EVERY SINGLE ONE -- except the RG and Wimby ones which he planned to auction since people thought you can't give these away too.

Borg is extremely generous -- he even let Roscoe Tanner borrow 100 000 dollars in the late 1990s -- money that Roscoe has never paid back of course -- being the person that he is...

Borg never needed any money. That's the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. Björn Borg is one of the strongest brands in the world and has been for over 30 years...

Amazing that empty myths like this gain traction...

[Borgforever]

Borg has earned -- about 100 000 dollars for every exxo he ever played since the mid 90s. He's got offers every week to do this. If he needs money he can scoop up a couple million dollars in a month without notice...

[Borgforever]

Okey -- here's the truth about the so-called "selling-papers" suicide-lie:

Borg was depressed in the late 1980s, shocked by the backstabbing of Skarke and that his relationships hadn't worked out. Also, since he was so revered as a tennis-player -- an image that bored him since he was bored of tennis ("from being the most fun activity to me to becoming as much fun as watching paint dry") he wasn't in tip-top shape and had sleeping problems.

One of the main problems he had was finding his place in life. He was an all time great in tennis, but being a genius is tennis doesn't mean you're comfortable anywhere else.

Anyway -- if you're knowledgable about sleeping pills you may know that a certain type of sleeping aid are very deceptive -- I could name the brand but it's unnecessary, if you ask me I will answer, anyway -- these types of tablets make you very tired of course -- but they have the side-effect that if you don't fall asleep at once, you will take another, and another, and another...

These types of sleeping aids are very dangerous. You're basically sleeping but your eyes are open and you can go around and do things anyway. The next day you don't have any memory of what you did the night before -- although you're shocked when you see you emptied the sleeping pill bottle and you can't remember why.

Borg didn't wake up -- was rushed to hospital -- they pumped his stomach and got out about 20 tablets. Not lethal. But in that zombie state of mind that these tablets easily produce there could've been more.

The lovely, classy news-magazines like NATIONAL ENQUIRER and such of course wrote -- of course without knowing or caring about the ENTIRE COMPLEX TRUE BACK-STORY -- and since people tend to believe a negative story more than a positive one -- just human nature even if it's out of whack -- people always also love the comfort of the false, simple, easy to grasp explanation rather than the complex, paradoxical truth -- at any rate NE and the like wrote that there were maybe over a 100 sleeping pills in Borg's stomach. Couple that with the context of him having problems at the time and you got circumstantial -- but still phoney as a 3 dollar bill -- evidence of a suicide attempt.

Borg being still one of the most famous men on the planet -- take a really wild guess what NATIONAL ENQUIRER opted to write in their screaming headlines to raise their circulation?

Yeah, you right...

[borg number one]

Bingo Borgforever, exactly! Money is not one of the problems Borg has had. He can earn money at will really, just by making appearances at places and playing tennis. He was/is also generous almost to a fault. He's a humble genius in my estimation, being both "an artist and a scientist" on Court. We may never again see the likes of him play Tennis, though Federer, I believe learned quite a bit by watching and analyzing him. The combination of so much "fire in the belly" and "competitive drive/intensity", along with "clutch ability", joined by unrelenting coolness on the court and seemingly effortless grace/class was something to behold. What a truly unique player he was! Alas, at the pace he set for so many years, it certainly took a toll on him, as he was a victim of his own fame surely. I keep saying it, but gosh I wish he would have properly taken a extended vacation (perhaps 6 months) in 1982 or so, during which he could have trained some, but stayed away from so much match play and travel! Then, if you had a more understanding tennis body that would not have forced him to qualify for everything, that may have been enough for him to keep playing. Yet, Borg I'm sure would say "I have zero regrets" and wouldn't change one thing. He truly met "triumph and defeat" and treated those two "imposters" the same, as that great quote at The All England Lawn & Tennis Club reads.

[slice bh compliment]

Trust me man. I know about these things.

... complete and utter bunk Slice BH.

...Your don't know one iota of which you speak and your sinking in my estimation since your so strident with you steaming bs and lies.

.You know absolutely nothing about Borg in this matter.

...Borg was isolated, lacking the youthful experiences that most of us had and his yearning life was understandable.

Please, do your research and, at least, read the AKAI-thread before you spread lies here man...

You're embarrassing.

Shape up!

I'm very sorry I sank in your estimation. But the above vitriol smacks of fanboi-ism. Tons of it.

I think your estimation of me doesn't really matter, but I also think you've gotten the idea that I'm libelously looking to slam your idol. Look man, and I think you know this: he was a genius tennis player, not a genius. He was an amazing athlete, but not a guy with all his mental and emotional faculties about him. I grew up idolizing him, too, and my first non kiddy frame was a sawed-off Bancroft Borg Personal. I always admired him. But I feel he fell short of the Gene Scott quote. I have actually met Gene Scott, and I may be overstating this, but I think he'd shake his head at the way Borg ended up (pills, thrills and bellyaches). It's very mysterious.

I absolutely accept and I'm happy to read your explanation of the sleeping pill incident. I do not know a thing about precription drugs, except to simply stay away from them (including NSAIDs). Believe me, I am thrilled he did not attempt suicide. However, you must know, I did not get that from a salacious tabloid. It somehow made its way on to actual news sources.

Now on the other hand, the money problems issue....it was two reputable news sources who triple-source, and one John McEnroe...(and a Swedish tennis player I knew personally in the 90s) who alleged that. I'm just going on that. I realize money problems are not consistent with his megamillionEuro earning potential, but I was there in 1996 when Borg started in with the exos. I remember how not into it he was. Obviously he's a huge name with tremendous earning potential (more than even Mac, because Borg is not overexposed, in fact, he's still mysterious).

The coke use thing....well, that's common knowledge. I appreciate your discounting Laver from that and from NYC club culture for his age. But it was also because Laver really did end up as Gene Scott wrote. Borg, sadly, as you pointed out, suffered from depression. Probably clinical depression. In some ways, I'd say he started his brilliant career like Laver, and ended it more like Cliff Richey with a side of Vitas.

Now, he seems happy. ANd he's got TONS of us as fans. That is nice.

EDIT:
And under the topic: Amazing things I learned about Borg....I've learned that his fans are more committed than Nadtards, Fedtards, McEnHeads, Graffers, Beckturds, Gorans, Murrons, and even Seventh-Day Baghdatists!

[ZhengJieisagoddess]

I think that, for some things, our minds form a template of what is, at least to our subjective judgement, perfection.
For instance, I'll always think of President Kennedy as THE President. Johnny Unitas was THE quarterback. Pope John XXIII was THE Pope.
Well, for me, Bjorn Borg is THE tennisplayer.

[slice bh compliment]

I think that, for some things, our minds form a template of what is, at least to our subjective judgement, perfection......
Great point.

[Borgforever]

Slice BH -- I am sorry I was too harsh on you -- that's what I think I was.

But I've checked this stuff five times over -- since I was personally curious myself. Being the world's most famous man is a great curse for anybody except the narcissistic extrovert.

Today's media is a joke too. To say the least. They report the most sensational angle at all times. Ben Bradlee of Washington Post would spin in his grave if he worked as an editor today -- and he's not even dead yet!

There's not even blip of interest in fact-checking in today so-called media-outlets -- only quarterly bottom-line linked to circulation.

Usually I never respond when a greenhorn moron splashes in here barfing such complete bunk such as Borg being Tony Montana with party-powder in the 1980s, McEnroe became better than him that's why he retired, he could never, ever have won USO, swallowing a cart of suicide-pills while he was homeless not worth a nickel -- but I always cringe when a guy I respect a lot -- like you Slice BH -- throws out such stuff...

I know that respected papers reported lies about the trophies -- since it was spun by some guy at Reuters looking at the bottom-line again. Those quarterly reports are a nightmare every three months!

However, I don't see at all that Borg-fans are tards in that sense. I think pc1 and Borg Number One, and if I may say so myself, talk quite well of other players and don't indulge in tardish-behaviour to a disturbing and unmotivated amount, you really think so?

Personally I am very careful before I accuse any tennis-player anywhere of criminal conduct or extremely irresponsible behavior -- even if I read it in the NY Times -- why do you do that?

It's not particularly classy or nice -- or is it?

[slice bh compliment]

...
Personally I am very careful before I accuse any tennis-player anywhere of criminal conduct or extremely irresponsible behavior -- even if I read it in the NY Times -- why do you do that?

It's not particularly classy or nice -- or is it?

Because I think it is wrong. I myself have done it (recreational drug use). It's wrong. I'd never do it again.

It's not classy or nice. But I do believe in the truth. I do not think pro athletes and legends should get a pass. I do not think they should be lied about either.

I also would take the truth over glorying over a legend. I would like my kids' generation to learn of a man's great tennis and character, but also learn from his mistakes. Rather than glossing over them. Not nice? True. Not classy...hmmm. I think truth, acceptance, forgiveness and learning from mistakes is classy. Classier than fanboy-ism.

My point was simply that Gene Scott's beautiful quote eloquently referred to a certain time in Borg's life. And that said quote did not apply to the man's entire life. That's all.

I believe we all agree that journalism for the shareholders is disgusting. Frankly, I do not know what is true and what is spin. So I go with whatever I can learn and I pray for discernment.

[Borgforever]

Fair point. But I've never denied that Borg didn't party and did illegal substances -- I don't mind people mentioning that or saying the truth even if it sounds uncomfortable. But what I do mind is the exaggerations about Borg's partying or his economy and stuff -- which was just a few years out of his 53 now. Borg never had his teens and since he was such p*ragon from his baby years I do cut him some slack -- isn't Borg allowed to make some mistakes and be human? Must he be Ice Borg every waking minute?

Some people talk about Borg like he was Roscoe for crying out loud -- and that has to be argued against since silence usually means agreement...

I know some facts about other tennis-players both from that time, earlier and more recent -- that is true and truly serious and worrying but I won't talk about that either because I refuse to smear anyone. That's not decorum.

Or do you want me to name names now and really spill the beans Slice BH?

[slice bh compliment]

...I know some facts about other tennis-players both from that time, earlier and more recent -- that is true and truly serious and worrying but I won't talk about that either because I refuse to smear anyone. That's not decorum.

Or do you want me to name names now and really spill the beans Slice BH?

Nah, let the 'journalists' do it when it's a slow news day..or it's the end of the quarter and it's time to spill some otherwise useless beans.

Better yet, let Peter Bodo do it.

LOL!

[borg number one]

See:http://besteversportstalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/bjorn-borg-sandy-koufax-of-tennis.html

See excerpt below about Borg:

"Well before Borg's unexpected retirement (he played his last Grand Slam in 1981 but did not officially announce his retirement until 1983), many observers felt that he had already proven himself to be the greatest player of all-time. In a September 17, 2003 Tennis Week article , Raymond Lee evaluated the statistics of all players whose careers took place entirely in the Open Era (1968-present). Borg proved to be the runaway winner in Lee's analysis, placing first in seven of the 10 categories considered, including career won-loss percentage (.855), best five year won-loss percentage (.916), career percentage of tournaments won (.483--a staggering number; Jimmy Connors ranked second at .312), percentage of tournaments won during best five year period (.655), percentage of career Grand Slams won (.407--another staggering number; Sampras ranked second at .269), Grand Slams won in best five year period (eight, tied with Sampras) and percentage of Grand Slams won during best five year period (.571). Federer's career was just kicking into high gear when that article was written, so it remains to be seen if he can match Borg's numbers. Federer broke the Borg/Sampras mark by winning 10 Grand Slams in a five year period (2003-07--and he may add this year's Wimbledon and U.S. Open to that list) but Borg retains an edge in most of the categories that are based on percentages, so Federer will have to play even better than he has (and then retire young before he begins to decline) in order to beat Borg in those departments.

Borg's dominance can really be seen in his Grand Slam record. He won at least one Grand Slam title for eight straight years (1974-81), a mark later matched by Sampras. Borg's Grand Slam winning percentage of .898 is the best of the Open Era (Federer's stood at .850 entering this year's Wimbledon). A record five of his Grand Slam titles came in five set matches, showing his mental and physical toughness (Borg's overall record in five set matches, 24-4, is by far the best in the Open Era). Three times he won a Grand Slam singles title without losing a single set (1976 Wimbledon, 1978 and 1980 French Open); only three other players have accomplished this in the Open Era, none of them more than once.

Borg's Grand Slam totals would undoubtedly be even more impressive but for the fact that he only played in the Australian Open once, losing in the third round in 1974, his second season as a pro. In 2001, Borg explained in a Reddiff.com interview why he made a habit of not playing in the Australian Open: "When I boycotted the Australian, I was trying to make a statement. I had made my mind up. My point was that a player requires some time to himself, he can't keep rushing from one court to another all the time without a break. They all heard me say that, but no one did anything about it. So I did it myself, I skipped the Australian and gave myself the time I needed. That was the only way that I could think of to do it. I have always played my tennis and lived my life on my own terms. I have no regrets."

He really made his mark at the French Open and Wimbledon, going a combined 100-6 in his matches in those two events. Borg won a record six French Open titles, including a record four straight (1978-81); he retired with a 28 match winning streak at Roland Garros. Borg won his first French Open at age 17 in 1974 and for eight years he held the record as the youngest man to win a Grand Slam singles title. He won Wimbledon for the first time in 1976, the youngest winner in the Open era there until Boris Becker's 1985 triumph. Borg won a record 41 straight matches at Wimbledon, a streak that extended from his first title in 1976 to his loss to John McEnroe in the 1981 Finals.

The only blemish, such that it is, on Borg's Grand Slam resume is that he never won the U.S. Open. Still, he reached the Finals four times in nine tries, losing twice each to Connors and McEnroe, his two main rivals. Borg finished his career with a 15-8 overall record versus Connors and a 7-7 overall record versus McEnroe.

Borg did not lose a match to a younger player until 1977, when he had already been a professional for several years. During his career he set numerous records for being the youngest player to achieve various accomplishments; in addition to being the youngest ever (at the time) to win the French Open and Wimbledon titles, Borg was the youngest player to win a Davis Cup match (1972 at age 15), the youngest Italian Open winner (1974, age 17; this record has since been broken) and the youngest player to win 11 Grand Slam titles (1981 at age 25; Sampras was nearly 27 when he won his 11th, Roy Emerson was 30 and Rod Laver was 31)."

[jrepac]

Here is some background on Borg's losses at the US Open through 1979.

Of course, he lost to McEnroe fair and square in the 80 and 81 finals, but see this excerpt below from "Bjorn Borg, My Life and Game" as told by Eugene L. Scott about Borg's losses there through 1979:


"Borg is not given to making excuses for himself, but it is a matter of record that he has been unlucky at the U.S. Open. In 1975, when he lost to Connors in the final, he was taking massive doses of antibiotics for an intestinal infection. In 1977, he lost to Dick Stockton and had such a bad shoulder injury that he could barely lift his arm to serve. In 1978, he lost to Connors after doctors had advised him not to play because of a severe thumb injury for which he took two injections of morcaine, a powerful pain killer, an hour before the final, and in 1979, he lost to Tanner's 140-mph serve under lights, which may be a worse handicap for him than any injury."

As to the U.S. Open, the lights were not as good back then as they are now, and it's interesting that Lennart Bergelin had been told by Asst. Referee Bob Howe two months before the Tanner match that Borg would not have to play under the lights, and then on the first day of the Open, Lennart requested that if Borg had to play at night, schedule him on one of the first few days, and not for the Tanner match.

Lennart was then told that Borg would not have to play under the lights at all. Then, Connors at the last minute said that he wanted to play his quarterfinal during the day, and not at night. Then, they put Borg on at night against Tanner. Roscoe beat Borg in 4 sets. Borg said that "I wasn't thinking about the Grand Slam. I wouldn't ever think about it unless I had won three legs and then had to change my regular plans to go to Australia at the end of the year, which is the time I normally rest".

It is wrong to imply that Borg's losses were not fair and square....injuries are part of the game, and night at the USO, under the lights, is what makes it so unique.

I think Borg later recognized the 76 final (not 75) as his best chance to win that escaped him; re: 78, I believe he has said that Jimmy would've won that match, regardless of the thumb situation...he was just on fire that match

Ironically, Bjorn lost to Jimmy in the semis in 75, on clay....(which some have noted as one of Connors best matches against Bjorn)

Borg was just a bit unlucky, a bit cursed at the USO, much like Lendl at Wimby. That plus some very tough competitors (for both, Mac and Connors) and it just never quite worked out for either of them.

[wyutani]

chris evert started the two handed bh trend. not borg.

[CyBorg]

I like you too.

Nah, I've got a good memory.

The late 80s stuff, of course, everyone's got bad deals. Business is one thing. It's the other stuff. ANd, yes, absolutely...bad patches abound. No big deal at all. I never said so.

The drugs. He's not Tony Montana. But...sorry, I just don't see the shy country boy Rod Laver guy there. I'm not sayig he's a bad guy at all. I am saying he more than experimented with the nose candy. If you think that's average or cool in any way, fine. I just don't think it is consistent with the Gene Scott musings. Sorry mate.

I'm also sorry about the 95 gazillion times you've written that the selling of the trophies was a sign of his not caring about fame. Yore right, he's not a braggart. He does not have to be. He thought about it for the money. It was about debt, man. Trying to save up for retirement. If he really did not want the trophies, don't you think he would have quietly donated them or auctioned them off for charity?

About the ALLEGED suicide attempt, go ahead, try me. I've got a good memory. You just never know what is spin and what is real.

Didn't Borg buy back the trophies for twice the money?

Does not sound like a man in serious financial debt. Not a very smart thing to do, perhaps. But you've got no information to go on here, except for some gossip and rumour mills.

[slice bh compliment]

Didn't Borg buy back the trophies for twice the money?

Does not sound like a man in serious financial debt. Not a very smart thing to do, perhaps. But you've got no information to go on here, except for some gossip and rumour mills.

Not to beat a dead horse, but....

The information about his financial woes comes from articles on CNN SI and ESPN. McEnroe also referenced the situation during commentary (maybe he was trying to take credit for talking Borg out of it). I do not have a recording of it. I'm sure you can research it in the CNN SI or ESPN archives.

My understanding is that he did not sell them, and thus, did not buy them back.

[Hypatia]

Not to beat a dead horse, but....

The information about his financial woes comes from articles on CNN SI and ESPN. McEnroe also referenced the situation during commentary (maybe he was trying to take credit for talking Borg out of it). I do not have a recording of it. I'm sure you can research it in the CNN SI or ESPN archives.

My understanding is that he did not sell them, and thus, did not buy them back.

Borg himself said at the time that he was selling the trophies in the interest of 'financial security' and in consideration of his family's future, or words to that effect. News reports suggested (or assumed) that Borg needed the money.

I did read that Borg had to buy the trophies back from the auction house. I think that if you commit with an auction house to sell, there is some kind of hefty fee or charge for withdrawing the items.

I never understood the fuss anyway. Borg had the victories and the memories, he didn't need trophies around the house to prove it.

[Rabbit]

I had seen, in a documentary on Borg, that his dad had a trust fund set aside for him that would keep him comfortable for the rest of his life. I think Borg found out a little late that being a great tennis player doesn't translate to being a great businessman. I guess another BB, Boris Becker, is learning that lesson...

In any event, I have also read and have no idea as to the validity that he's doing well financially and able to live in Monaco.

[CyBorg]

Not to beat a dead horse, but....

The information about his financial woes comes from articles on CNN SI and ESPN. McEnroe also referenced the situation during commentary (maybe he was trying to take credit for talking Borg out of it). I do not have a recording of it. I'm sure you can research it in the CNN SI or ESPN archives.

My understanding is that he did not sell them, and thus, did not buy them back.

CNNSI and ESPN are not reputable sources. They report rumours and false information as well. Secondly, I bet 100 bucks that the word 'reportedly' or 'allegedly' was used in the articles you've read. I suggest doing close, critical reading next time.

I have read that Borg sold the trophies and then bought them back at twice the amount. I might be wrong, but I'm not claiming to know anything for sure.

[slice bh compliment]

Oh okay. Thanks for the tip about critical reading! If you only knew what I do for a living, hahahha.

Look, I love Borg, too. I'm just saying that he did not quite end up as the shy country boy Gene Scott thought he was early in his career.

[Don't Let It Bounce]

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/24/sports/borg-bankruptcy-sought.html

Borg's business difficulties appear to be more than rumor, but I can't see that they offer any insight into his character, tennis career, achievements as an athlete, or anything else of interest to me.

[CyBorg]

Oh okay. Thanks for the tip about critical reading! If you only knew what I do for a living, hahahha.

It's not a "tip". You're being immodest and people don't appreciate it.

[slice bh compliment]

CNNSI and ESPN are not reputable sources. They report rumours and false information as well. Secondly, I bet 100 bucks that the word 'reportedly' or 'allegedly' was used in the articles you've read. I suggest doing close, critical reading next time.

I have read that Borg sold the trophies and then bought them back at twice the amount. I might be wrong, but I'm not claiming to know anything for sure.

It's not a "tip". You're being immodest and people don't appreciate it.

I am sorry I called it a tip. It was a SUGGESTION. Thanks for the suggestion about close, critical reading.

As for me being immodest, I agree with you and I apologize.

I've always admired Borg's tennis, but I do not apologize for being something other than a YES MAN in a Borg thread. I am pretty sure that's what PEOPLE don't appreciate. People who have Borg's name in their usernames, LOL!

Perception is what you'd like it to be. We read critically when we want to, especially when we have a dog in the race (fanboys one way or another).

I am objective and as I've demonstrated, I'm more than willing to accept facts countering the published stories. In fact, I want to believe Borg is a wonderful example of integrity and character!

I have no dog in this race. I just like Borg's tennis and I feel comparing his persona to Laver's is not entirely accurate if you look at the entire career arc of both guys.

I'm purely speculating, but I suspect if you were to have a cup of tea with Gene Scott (he liked tea), he might agree that Borg shed the shy country boy label at some point while Laver did not.

[pundekman]

I had seen, in a documentary on Borg, that his dad had a trust fund set aside for him that would keep him comfortable for the rest of his life. I think Borg found out a little late that being a great tennis player doesn't translate to being a great businessman. I guess another BB, Boris Becker, is learning that lesson...

In any event, I have also read and have no idea as to the validity that he's doing well financially and able to live in Monaco.

u mean Borg was from a rich family?

[Puddy]

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/24/sports/borg-bankruptcy-sought.html

Borg's business difficulties appear to be more than rumor, but I can't see that they offer any insight into his character, tennis career, achievements as an athlete, or anything else of interest to me.

The article was posted in 1996. In 1996, I hardly had two pennies to rub together. I'm sure Borg is doing much better today :confused:

[borg number one]

Yes, it looks Bjorn Borg is doing just fine financially now. See this excerpt from the following 2006 article:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2006-05-24-borg-cover_x.htm

"Borg is a million flashbulbs away from those days. The player nicknamed "Ice Man" for his emotionless poise keeps a residence in the tax haven of Monte Carlo but lives on the outskirts of Stockholm with his third wife, Patricia, a Swede he met in tennis circles about five years ago. They married in 2002 and had a son, Leo, in 2003.[/I] "[I]She is my third and last wife, hopefully," Borg says with a chuckle.

He is still fit, athletic, with graying hair — not as long as when he competed — and glasses or contacts when he's playing tennis. His face is still handsome but more weathered.

His home, castle-like, is right on the water in the Stockholm archipelago, about 20 to 25 minutes outside the city. There is a pool and a tennis court and two huge wings where Borg's grandparents and parents used to live.

Borg's other son, Robin, the product of a long-term relationship with Jannike Bjorling, will turn 21 this year. Robin lives in southern Sweden and, like his father, is involved in the fashion industry.

Now absent the business associates Borg once partnered with, the Bjorn Borg fashion line of sportswear, shoes and accessories for men and women is doing "unbelievably well" in Europe, he says.

"We started all over again because it was too infected with bad people before who were just after the money," he says.

The company, Worldwide Brand Management AB, licenses his name under the Bjorn Borg Sport collection in seven European markets. The upscale line, created in 1997, includes clothes, footwear, bags, eyewear and fragrances. It did more than $117 million in sales in 2005 (at current exchange rates), according to the company's annual report. Borg gets a percentage. When not working, he spends his free time with his son and his wife's two children from a former marriage.

He dabbles in golf but prefers soccer. In the winter he plays ice hockey, the game he favored as a child. He plays tennis five hours a week. "I still love tennis very, very much."

Borg says he keeps a distant eye on pro tennis and believes the lack of rivalries — such as the one he shared with McEnroe and Jimmy Connors — is one reason the sport has declined in recent decades. But he sees hope in the budding struggle between No. 1 Federer and No. 2 Rafael Nadal.

"It's two different styles they play, and that's why people like to see them playing," says Borg, who won an unprecedented six French Open titles.

"It makes you think back a little bit. People enjoyed watching, for instance, Agassi-Sampras. Or even me and McEnroe."

"Post-tennis life cannot duplicate the thrills he experienced as the Open era's first transcendent figure, particularly the rock-star status he achieved at Wimbledon. "All those girls, all those teenagers," Borg recalls. "It was kind of a rock thing, a music thing. It was a new thing for tennis. It was a new thing for me."

Although nothing has surpassed the adulation, one thing has equaled it.

"Babies," Borg says. "I think that is the most fulfilling thing, the most beautiful thing you can have in life, actually. You have to have a nice wife, too."

He has no regrets about leaving tennis when he did, and he is comfortable with his legacy. Entering his sixth decade, he says he has never been more at peace.

"I've never been more happy than I am today," he says. "I have a great family, great kids. I have practically everything, you know? Sometimes I have to pinch myself. It's really true: Life starts at 50."

Then, here's a 2009 UK Interview:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6637160.ece

[Hypatia]

u mean Borg was from a rich family?

My understanding is that the trust fund was from money made during Borg’s playing days. I have a vague recollection of reading that Borg might have run through those funds too but I find that difficult to believe. In any case he seems to be doing fine today, although if he was sitting on a giant pile of money it's hard to understand why he'd offer up financial security for loved ones as a reason for putting his trophies up for auction to the highest bidder. However, when he withdrew them he said publicly that he was not in any financial trouble.

[Rabbit]

u mean Borg was from a rich family?

No, the documentary said that Borg's father (Rune?) had take over managing Borg's finances while he was on tour. Prudently, he set aside enough money that Borg couldn't touch to ensure he would live comfortably if he did lose the rest of his earnings. The trust fund then was a fall back plan which turned out to be a great idea.

[Hypatia]

Borg's father (Rune?)

Yes. (Which was Borg's middle name, too.) I think he ran a grocery.

[borg number one]

What people don't realize is that Borg played no grand slams in 1982, and he was actually starting to play even better.

See article:
http://besteversportstalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/debunking-myths-about-bjorn-borg-john.html


The article contains video clips of Borg playing the big money AKAI event where he beat #1 McEnroe indoors, as well as Lendl. Obviously, it was not a fear of being #2 to McEnroe that caused Borg to leave Pro Tennis. It was largely due to Tennis Organizers who insisted on him playing a minimum number of events to avoid qualifying for Grand Slam tournaments. Just look at years 1980 and 1981 (his 2 last grand slam years). The big majors were the FO, US Open, and Wimbledon. Of the 6 total events, he won 3 of them ('80 FO, '80 Wimbledon, '81 FO), while McEnroe won the other 3. He also won the big Masters event in 1980 (New York, Indoors). This idea that McEnroe had simply outclassed Borg at the top of the game is fiction.

See excerpt:

"Though Borg did not play in the number of events that the lords of the sport thought that he should have played in, he was still training and, if anything, his game was actually getting better in some ways; he became stronger and he was serving harder than he ever had before: if you don't believe that or are still convinced that Borg could no longer handle McEnroe after 1981, consider what happened in November 1982 in the Akai Gold Challenge Round Robin; Borg won the event by defeating the number one ranked McEnroe 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 and trouncing Ivan Lendl--who just months later would become the number one ranked player--6-1, 6-4, 6-2."

[newmark401]

I don't think that Borg was afraid of being no. 2 to John McEnroe, but it is clear that McEnroe had replaced Borg at the very top of the game when Borg walked out in 1981 for whatever reason(s). Their head-to-head results in the majors, close as they were, speak for themselves.

I think Borg was actually relieved to have all of the pressure off his shoulders, at least initially. After a while he began to miss the game and get swallowed up in the void his absence had created.

[borg number one]

Newmark 401, so using your logic, if Federer had retired after the 2009 AO, his H2H deficit to Nadal in GS would mean what exactly? Nadal was obviously superior to him as a player? No, especially because Nadal's game happens to be a PERFECT FIT for Federer's.

JUST looking at the Big 3 slams back then and JUST 1980-1981, you've got 6 total slams: 2 FO, 2 Wimbledons, and 2 US Opens. Of those 6, Borg won 3 of them and McEnroe won 3 of them. Of course, McEnroe didn't have a prayer against Borg at the French going forward. Plus, they would have likely faced off some more (or not), depending on whether they both made the final. In 1980-1981, they split the Wimbledon Finals, and Yes, McEnroe EKED out the 1980 win at the US Open and won comfortably in the 1981 US Open Final (hello death threats for Borg...and cumulative burnout by then). So, he only has a clear edge on hard courts, while Borg has the clear edge on clay going forward, am I wrong?

See this interesting excerpt from McEnroe's "You Cannot Be Serious". In about 1985, Borg and McEnroe were playing exhibitions, and obviously Borg was partying a lot during that rough patch for him. The two were out having a few drinks and here is what Borg said to him (which really motivated McEnroe to go right back at Lendl who had taken over #1 from McEnroe by then, just a little over 1 year after his DOMINATING 1984 (he had also lost to Lendl at the US Open recently):

"...Maybe it wasn't such a bad thing to be number two, I mused. There was a hell of a lot less pressure, and number two wasn't exactly chopped liver! Maybe I should hang it up as number two and call it a good career, or-here was another idea-what about just regrouping for a while, then going for the gold again? He interrupted me, shaking his head. "Number one is the only thing that matters John," he said. "You know it as well as I do. If you're number two, you might as well be number three or four-you're nobody." He motioned me closer, and lowered his voice, even though the music was blaring in the hotel bar. "You've got to go win the Australian!" Bjorn whispered, fervently. "If you win down there, then come back and win the Masters, it'll put you back on top again." "Huh," I said. I blinked, thought about it a moment. "You're going to be twenty-seven, John," Borg said. "Getting on. Grab it while you can grab it." He nodded slowly and solemnly, with absolute certainty. I was listening. I felt he was about the only person I could've discussed these things with who really knew what he was talking about. I decided then and there to go Down Under. He had convinced me I could still be number one."

That's Borg for you, ever the tennis perfectionist. I think the quote above speaks to Borg's regret at how he left the game so suddenly, albeit with some extenuating circumstances at 26. I think, that by 1985, he was thinking, "why didn't I just stay in the Game and grab #1 back!"

I'm also reminded again of McEnroe's comments at the end of the video clip of that Black Rock Tour they did together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUa2ltLC0hw

So, Borg took McEnroe "under his wing" when McEnroe came on the scene at 19 and then he tries to motivate McEnroe when McEnroe was still 27 in Nov. 1985. What a class act and a good friend to McEnroe!

[CyBorg]

What people don't realize is that Borg played no grand slams in 1982, he was actually starting to play even better.

See article:
http://besteversportstalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/debunking-myths-about-bjorn-borg-john.html

Some nice bits here, but the author is giving Borg too much credit for being an early bloomer. A career winning percentage in the grand slam is an irrelevant number. Some players become competitive almost immediately. Other struggle for years before becoming competitive. Ultimately the most important thing is how well they perform once they reach they prime. This span of years should be isolated and analyzed.

I'm a huge Borg fan, but even I realize that an honest examination of career achievements places Federer higher than Borg. Not necessarily by much, but I think it's fairly clear nonetheless.

However at peak form I'll take Borg. :)

[borg number one]

Cyborg, I agree with almost all of the post above except where you say that the author of that article (me too in effect because I agree with the author's central contention) is giving "too much credit to Borg for being an early bloomer".

The material about 1982 was used by me to illustrate that yes, Borg was not too "injured" or physically spent after 1981, that is all really. The video also gives one a glimpse of some future possibilities, but yes, not certainties. Being an early bloomer does not necessarily mean that one could not say continue to get better from say 27-30 in tennis.

I agree that IN GENERAL an early bloomer basically means you've spent more "mental and physical capital", so maybe you have less left by say 26-27. Yet, you're talking about averages then, and not about Bjorn Borg who was anything but your average guy. I envision another possible road that Borg COULD HAVE CHOSEN BUT FAILED TO/DIDN'T WANT TO/DIDN'T HAVE TO:

A extended vacation and a return to the Game in gradually better form in terms of a little more strength (like 1982), plus a equipment adjustment (say Donnay would design a new generation frame ESPECIALLY for Borg).

Then, he could have continued focusing on the Slams primarily, but he could have still fought back and regained #1 from McEnroe, and basically had a great continued rivalry with him, with Connors, Lendl and Wilander later in the real mix through about 1985. That's all. That would have most likely translated in at least 1-2 more slams for Borg (still the best on clay, about even on grass with McEnroe, but a bit behind at the US Open). Also, remember McEnroe was to Borg what Nadal has been to Federer (a perfect match up to face Borg's game). The other rivals did not have such an advantage. Yes, I agree that Federer's overall Grand Slam record is now more impressive in total than Borg's, and yes, I agree that I would take a peak Borg over peak Federer (especially because Borg was more "clutch" than Federer and because the quality of his main rivals).

What I don't agree with you on is your seeming assertion/implication that Borg had already peaked, thereby meaning that he was on a natural downward slope in terms of his playing ability/mental focus on court. I would disagree with that. How does being Borg (not Joe Smith) being an "early bloomer", correction, "unmatched prodigy", NECESSARILY mean that he would start declining EARLIER than others too? Thanks for the thought provoking post. I appreciate your perspective as a fellow Borg fan and knowledgeable poster as well.

[CyBorg]

I was actually referring to the constant bringing up of Borg's career grand slam winning percentage (11/27). The number does speak volumes about Borg's greatness, but it is also as high a percentage largely due to a) Borg's early development and b) Borg's early retirement.

Conversely, Federer is a late bloomer (meaning he had a lot of mediocre losing years early in his career) and may stick around into his thirties. In entirety his grand slam win percentage will never be as good as Borg's. However accounting for his prime his numbers are right up there with anyone's.

[borg number one]

Got it Cyborg, yes I agree in part, but not totally as to your analysis above. It's just that Borg is such an anomaly, so it's not out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion, that he could have basically maintained that 11/27 percentage (~40-41%! of slams played). Let's see, say he played during 1982-1984 (3 years), and focused on the Big 3 still. That's another 9 more slam opportunities, and I think that he could VERY WELL have won approx 40-41% of those remaining ones.

If he won 4 of out of those remaining 9, his percentage would have actually INCREASED. With 3/9, it would basically stay the same, but would drop very slightly, and he would STILL be ahead of Federer I believe because that would be 14/36 (winning 39% of slams played).

[borg number one]

Cyborg, as an aside, please say that you have the DVD's from the Wimbledon DVD Collection, including the full 1980 Wimbledon Final, and "Legends of the Game-Bjorn Borg". That is MUST HAVE stuff for Borg fans and I think great DVD's to have for all tennis fans.

[Mats]

Borg only lost to three players younger than himself
up to the Tokyo tournament October 1981.
John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and Bill Scanlon (Born 13 Nov 1956).

[pc1]

Some nice bits here, but the author is giving Borg too much credit for being an early bloomer. A career winning percentage in the grand slam is an irrelevant number. Some players become competitive almost immediately. Other struggle for years before becoming competitive. Ultimately the most important thing is how well they perform once they reach they prime. This span of years should be isolated and analyzed.

I'm a huge Borg fan, but even I realize that an honest examination of career achievements places Federer higher than Borg. Not necessarily by much, but I think it's fairly clear nonetheless.

However at peak form I'll take Borg. :)

Cyborg,

You can't take away the fact Borg was brilliant from day one and take that away from him. Federer was playing at a young age also and Borg was far far better when both were young. You also state on peak form Borg was better. Essentially you'll saying Borg was better young and just afterwards Borg was better when he reached peak form, which was basically the rest of his career.

Borg was also FAR better than Federer in Games Won percentage in their peak years. Borg has the Open Record for highest GW% for a year in 1978 with an amazing 66 plus percent which is even higher than John McEnroe's 65.32 percent set in his great year of 1984. Borg averaged over 65% in GW% for a three year span from 1978 to 1980. No one but McEnroe is close to 65%. Federer is miles behind at 61 plus percent in his best years.

You also have to take into account the far greater amount of tournaments Borg won by age 25 at around 100 to Federer's current 61 or so. That's a big difference despite what some may argue that the players don't have the time to win so many tournaments now.

Think about it, I know you're a huge hockey fan. If Wayne Gretzky retired after only ten years would you rank Messier over him because Mark Messier scored more goals and had more assists over a longer playing career. I don't think so considering how great Wayne was. If you compare the first ten years however Gretzky destroys Messier. I think Borg is very much like the Gretzky of tennis.

Incidentally I'm a Bobby Orr fan but it's easier to compare stats with Gretzky. lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1fMcTq8Esk

Now that I think of it maybe Borg is the Bobby Orr of tennis. Both started young and were great and both retired young.

Federer may very well surpass Borg someday but I don't think he's done it yet. Of course that will be argued by many from kingdom come.

Actually Cyborg when you think of it you actually have said that you feel that Borg's average level of play from start to peak was much higher than Federer's average level of play from start to peak. Peak level to me is very important is analyzing a player's place in tennis history and in GOAT rankings. Very few, if any in the history of tennis can match Borg for peak level of play.

So as of now (remember Borg played more tournaments than Federer in their respective careers) Borg is ahead in lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won lifetime, percentage of majors won, total tournaments won and Federer is ahead in total majors. I think it's a fair comparison because Federer is still very young at under thirty and perhaps around his peak so his percentage numbers haven't gone down yet due to a decline in skills. I don't think Federer is ahead of Borg yet.

[pc1]

Borg only lost to three players younger than himself
up to the Tokyo tournament October 1981.
John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and Bill Scanlon (Born 13 Nov 1956).

Great work Mats. I knew about McEnroe and Lendl but didn't realize that Scanlon was another younger player who defeated Borg.

Scanlon practiced with Borg at least one year just before Wimbledon. Borg had some special sneakers (I think they had dimpled soles) made for him so he could move better on grass. Anyone, according to Scanlon's book Borg let him have one of the sneakers for the tournament and I think Scanlon never had a better Wimbledon. Scanlon may have painted the sneakers so he wouldn't upset his endorsers.

[CyBorg]

Got it Cyborg, yes I agree in part, but not totally as to your analysis above. It's just that Borg is such an anomaly, so it's not out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion, that he could have basically maintained that 11/27 percentage (~40-41%! of slams played). Let's see, say he played during 1982-1984 (3 years), and focused on the Big 3 still. That's another 9 more slam opportunities, and I think that he could VERY WELL have won approx 40-41% of those remaining ones.

If he won 4 of out of those remaining 9, his percentage would have actually INCREASED. With 3/9, it would basically stay the same, but would drop very slightly, and he would STILL be ahead of Federer I believe because that would be 14/36 (winning 39% of slams played).

This is true and partly why I hate the fact that he retired so soon. But I'm at peace with it knowing that he could have stuck around even less than he did.

[CyBorg]

Cyborg, as an aside, please say that you have the DVD's from the Wimbledon DVD Collection, including the full 1980 Wimbledon Final, and "Legends of the Game-Bjorn Borg". That is MUST HAVE stuff for Borg fans and I think great DVD's to have for all tennis fans.

I don't have those. Don't really trust commercially edited DVDs much. I do have most of Borg's famous grand slam matches and am just now waiting for some more Borg matches to come in. I'm currently on the lookout for matches from more obscure events as well as early round grand slam matches of Borg's.

[CyBorg]

Cyborg,

You can't take away the fact Borg was brilliant from day one and take that away from him. Federer was playing at a young age also and Borg was far far better when both were young. You also state on peak form Borg was better. Essentially you'll saying Borg was better young and just afterwards Borg was better when he reached peak form, which was basically the rest of his career.

Let me illustrate what I meant with a hypothetical.

Player A plays professionally for 15 years. His prime lasts seven years. His peak lasts three years (includes prime). He has three other years in the top-10. In his remaining five years he's a developing player outside of the top 20 in the world.

Player B plays professionally for 11 years. His prime/peak/top 10 numbers are identical. However he had only one developing year as a low-ranked player, before emerging in the top 10 in year two.

Player B's career grand slam percentage is obviously higher than player A's. Player A's numbers are weighed down due to his more gradual development into his prime. Player B is an early bloomer.

I am arguing that the prime is what truly matters between these two, while the development years should not be payed too much attention. Some players develop earlier, some develop later. Those that take longer often stay in the game longer.

These players are equally accomplished, in my opinion. Their peak/prime/top 10 accomplishments are alike. While the early bloomer did player fewer years, the very fact that he was an early bloomer probably contributed to his swift decline.

Borg was also FAR better than Federer in Games Won percentage in their peak years. Borg has the Open Record for highest GW% for a year in 1978 with an amazing 66 plus percent which is even higher than John McEnroe's 65.32 percent set in his great year of 1984. Borg averaged over 65% in GW% for a three year span from 1978 to 1980. No one but McEnroe is close to 65%. Federer is miles behind at 61 plus percent in his best years.

This is true and I can't stress this part enough. Borg at his very best was probably better than Federer. However the entirety of Federer's peak (2004-2007) is remarkable and his winning percentage I believe is better than Borg's comparing to Bjorn's best four years (1977-1980).

However, to me the tiebreaker between the two guys isn't their peak prowess (great for both), but rather Roger's conquering of the French Open, the one elusive title. Borg did not win his elusive crown at the US Open.

Before Roger won the French, I continuously stressed that I didn't believe he had a better resume than Borg. Now I think he does, but not necessarily by much.

Within this thread, my argument isn't specifically about Borg v Federer, as much as it is about a particular approach to arguing the pro-Borg position. I believe that it makes much more sense to isolate quality and prime years to compare players, rather than look at overall numbers.

It's not too different in other sports. In hockey, for example, Joe Thornton made his NHL debut at the age of 18, rushed into action as a professional out of junior. In his first two or so years his numbers weren't very good at all, but he eventually developed into a great player. Because he made his league debut so early, his career points-per-game average is not particularly indicative of his excellence. A player who came into the league at, say, 22 years old, with comparable skills, will probably have a better career points-per-game. But that player is not necessarily better.

Thornton, not an early bloomer, is now in his 30s and is still a great player. He has put up several great years. But compare him to an early bloomer like Michel Goulet - he was a star almost right away; dominated out of his teenage years and put up some of his best numbers in his early-to-mid 20s. But he was done by about 30. Or at least a shadow of his young self. In Goulet's case his worst years came at his career's decline. In Thornton's his worst numbers so far have come at the start of his career. Those, in my opinion, cancel out.

Borg is a classic early bloomer without the late-career drop-off. It probably would have come had he stuck around. But he retired before we got a chance to see it.

You also have to take into account the far greater amount of tournaments Borg won by age 25 at around 100 to Federer's current 61 or so. That's a big difference despite what some may argue that the players don't have the time to win so many tournaments now.

Borg won about 60 events that were similar in their format to contemporary events. "Close to 100" would include exhibitions with very small draws. They do matter, but they do not necessarily take as much time and effort to win. And, yes, it is indeed harder to win tournaments today in a more standardized tour. There just aren't as many out there.

Borg's accomplishments are still staggering.

Think about it, I know you're a huge hockey fan. If Wayne Gretzky retired after only ten years would you rank Messier over him because Mark Messier scored more goals and had more assists over a longer playing career. I don't think so considering how great Wayne was. If you compare the first ten years however Gretzky destroys Messier. I think Borg is very much like the Gretzky of tennis.

What I would do is isolate the prime and peak years of Gretzky and and Messier and compare them. Gretzky, even after 10 years, would still have much greater numbers than Mess.

I'm not sure whether Borg is the Gretzky of tennis, but Federer is definitely not the Messier of tennis. Messier was great, but he was probably never the game's best player.

Incidentally I'm a Bobby Orr fan but it's easier to compare stats with Gretzky. lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1fMcTq8Esk

Now that I think of it maybe Borg is the Bobby Orr of tennis. Both started young and were great and both retired young.

If I were to choose between the two for my team I think I'd take Orr. He had an impact on the game at both ends of the ice.

Actually Cyborg when you think of it you actually have said that you feel that Borg's average level of play from start to peak was much higher than Federer's average level of play from start to peak. Peak level to me is very important is analyzing a player's place in tennis history and in GOAT rankings. Very few, if any in the history of tennis can match Borg for peak level of play.

"Peak" play varies in length. In the case of great players peak play tends to last a few years. For Borg I would say his peak was four years - 1977 to 1980. Federer also four years - 2004 to 2007.

You decide which one is superior. I think it's a throw-up.

I believe that Borg "at his best" was better than Federer. Meaning, not necessarily at his peak, but in his best moments. Such as his dominance at the French Open in 1978. Federer never beat up on his opponents like that.

But peak is a much more extended frame of period. At least, by my definition.

So as of now (remember Borg played more tournaments than Federer in their respective careers) Borg is ahead in lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won lifetime, percentage of majors won, total tournaments won and Federer is ahead in total majors. I think it's a fair comparison because Federer is still very young at under thirty and perhaps around his peak so his percentage numbers haven't gone down yet due to a decline in skills. I don't think Federer is ahead of Borg yet.

I don't think lifetime winning percentage is a representative stat, for reasons already given. Think about it. It even works against Borg. Bjorn's winning percentage would have been much greater had he never made the ill-fated comeback in the early 1990s. It dropped from about 84-85 to 82%. What if Bjorn had stuck around longer in the 1990s and it had dropped to 80-81%? Then he wouldn't have the best winning percentage anymore. Is he any less great?

"Percentage of tournaments won lifetime" - you mean quantity of tournaments? Well, Connors is superior to Borg in that respect.

"Percentage of majors won" - again, not fond of that percentage bit. Percentage of majors won in prime years is much more interesting and relevant.

[pc1]

Let me illustrate what I meant with a hypothetical.

Player A plays professionally for 15 years. His prime lasts seven years. His peak lasts three years (includes prime). He has three other years in the top-10. In his remaining five years he's a developing player outside of the top 20 in the world.

Player B plays professionally for 11 years. His prime/peak/top 10 numbers are identical. However he had only one developing year as a low-ranked player, before emerging in the top 10 in year two.

Player B's career grand slam percentage is obviously higher than player A's. Player A's numbers are weighed down due to his more gradual development into his prime. Player B is an early bloomer.

I am arguing that the prime is what truly matters between these two, while the development years should not be payed too much attention. Some players develop earlier, some develop later. Those that take longer often stay in the game longer.

These players are equally accomplished, in my opinion. Their peak/prime/top 10 accomplishments are alike. While the early bloomer did player fewer years, the very fact that he was an early bloomer probably contributed to his swift decline.



This is true and I can't stress this part enough. Borg at his very best was probably better than Federer. However the entirety of Federer's peak (2004-2007) is remarkable and his winning percentage I believe is better than Borg's comparing to Bjorn's best four years (1977-1980).

However, to me the tiebreaker between the two guys isn't their peak prowess (great for both), but rather Roger's conquering of the French Open, the one elusive title. Borg did not win his elusive crown at the US Open.

Before Roger won the French, I continuously stressed that I didn't believe he had a better resume than Borg. Now I think he does, but not necessarily by much.

Within this thread, my argument isn't specifically about Borg v Federer, as much as it is about a particular approach to arguing the pro-Borg position. I believe that it makes much more sense to isolate quality and prime years to compare players, rather than look at overall numbers.

It's not too different in other sports. In hockey, for example, Joe Thornton made his NHL debut at the age of 18, rushed into action as a professional out of junior. In his first two or so years his numbers weren't very good at all, but he eventually developed into a great player. Because he made his league debut so early, his career points-per-game average is not particularly indicative of his excellence. A player who came into the league at, say, 22 years old, with comparable skills, will probably have a better career points-per-game. But that player is not necessarily better.

Thornton, not an early bloomer, is now in his 30s and is still a great player. He has put up several great years. But compare him to an early bloomer like Michel Goulet - he was a star almost right away; dominated out of his teenage years and put up some of his best numbers in his early-to-mid 20s. But he was done by about 30. Or at least a shadow of his young self. In Goulet's case his worst years came at his career's decline. In Thornton's his worst numbers so far have come at the start of his career. Those, in my opinion, cancel out.

Borg is a classic early bloomer without the late-career drop-off. It probably would have come had he stuck around. But he retired before we got a chance to see it.



Borg won about 60 events that were similar in their format to contemporary events. "Close to 100" would include exhibitions with very small draws. They do matter, but they do not necessarily take as much time and effort to win. And, yes, it is indeed harder to win tournaments today in a more standardized tour. There just aren't as many out there.

Borg's accomplishments are still staggering.



What I would do is isolate the prime and peak years of Gretzky and and Messier and compare them. Gretzky, even after 10 years, would still have much greater numbers than Mess.

I'm not sure whether Borg is the Gretzky of tennis, but Federer is definitely not the Messier of tennis. Messier was great, but he was probably never the game's best player.



If I were to choose between the two for my team I think I'd take Orr. He had an impact on the game at both ends of the ice.



"Peak" play varies in length. In the case of great players peak play tends to last a few years. For Borg I would say his peak was four years - 1977 to 1980. Federer also four years - 2004 to 2007.

You decide which one is superior. I think it's a throw-up.

I believe that Borg "at his best" was better than Federer. Meaning, not necessarily at his peak, but in his best moments. Such as his dominance at the French Open in 1978. Federer never beat up on his opponents like that.

But peak is a much more extended frame of period. At least, by my definition.



I don't think lifetime winning percentage is a representative stat, for reasons already given. Think about it. It even works against Borg. Bjorn's winning percentage would have been much greater had he never made the ill-fated comeback in the early 1990s. It dropped from about 84-85 to 82%. What if Bjorn had stuck around longer in the 1990s and it had dropped to 80-81%? Then he wouldn't have the best winning percentage anymore. Is he any less great?

"Percentage of tournaments won lifetime" - you mean quantity of tournaments? Well, Connors is superior to Borg in that respect.

"Percentage of majors won" - again, not fond of that percentage bit. Percentage of majors won in prime years is much more interesting and relevant.

Great post my friend, I disagree with some points but that's what this forum is about.

Percentage of tournaments won is the amount of tournaments won compared to the amount of tournament entered. I saw some stats in which Borg was superior during peak period and lifetime to Connors by a decent amount.

I think Borg won around 65% or 66% of his tournaments during his best years.

[CyBorg]

Great post my friend, I disagree with some points but that's what this forum is about.

Percentage of tournaments won is the amount of tournaments won compared to the amount of tournament entered. I saw some stats in which Borg was superior during peak period and lifetime to Connors by a decent amount.

I think Borg won around 65% or 66% of his tournaments during his best years.

Yes, I have little doubt that Borg's percentages are far better than Connors's, although Jimmy did beef up his quite a bit with mickey mouse events - particularly in 1974.

[borg number one]

^^^^Excellent Posts above PC1 and CyBorg. You guys are a wealth of knowledge for a Borg "fan" (short for fanatic by the way) like myself. If anything, I AM biased towards Borg, but gosh, the guy just continues to amaze me TO THIS DAY, because I've been doing continual analysis of his career since he retired. I tend to agree with the general sentiment above: Borg was better at peak (I've posted this before) BUT now Federer has a more impressive TOTAL CAREER, WHEN FOCUSING on winning.

Having said that, how about bad losses? Borg simply AVOIDED very many IF ANY at the majors. If you guys compare the losses of Borg, Sampras, and Federer at the Big 3 Slams, you'll find, as you may already know that both Federer and Sampras doesn't compare with Borg. So, they get "dinged" for that a bit NOT for their bad losses post 26 or so, but for the ones BEFORE they reached their peak years. Why? Borg should get credit for being a early bloomer relative to those two, shouldn't he? It's not his fault that neither Sampras, NOR Federer could compete with his accomplishments pre-20. Am I wrong?

PC1: for your viewing pleasure, please watch and critique these for me. This is the DVD I referred to. Thanks.

See just one small portion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOedxoa_0J0
(sound/voice over is actually better on the DVD).

[CyBorg]

Borg should get credit for being a early bloomer relative to those two, shouldn't he? It's not his fault that neither Sampras, NOR Federer could compete with his accomplishments pre-20. Am I wrong?

I don't think it makes any difference at what age a player is great. Laver wasn't great like Borg in his teen years. But he was better in his late 20s.

P.S. I've seen that video on tv before.

[borg number one]

CyBorg, my central point is that Borg in essence had a "peak period that went from 1976-1980 (1981 is arguable in that McEnroe did win the US Open and Wimbledon Majors). Now, he started playing majors in 1974 though. So, he had the opportunity for bad losses from 1974-1976, but just didn't have that many bad ones. So, that's his "pre-peak" period. Comparing Federer and Sampras relative to Borg in the pre-peak years should be a PART of the analysis though not the SOLE focus of the analysis. I agree that peak periods are more illustrative of greatness though. I've compared losses that all three had at the Big 3, and Borg's list of people that he actually lost too is pretty short, compared to the other two, not just because he didn't have the "decline", but because he outperformed as to the pre-peak years. That's an "apples to apples" analysis: pre-peak AND peak, but just no post-peak.

[borg number one]

Ok, here's the material from another post:

When trying to analyze the greatest of all time on each surface, it is useful to look at LOSSES as well as WINS/TITLES. So, I looked up the track records of Borg, Federer, and Sampras at the 3 biggest Grand Slams. The Australian Open is catching up, but of course, the tournament was not the same during the era of Borg and Sampras as it is now.

Borg's track record especially as far as "bad losses" is a big reason I give him the slight nod over both Sampras and Federer as the greatest player overall.

Of course, for all 3, many of these losses were while they young and upcoming, and I'm sure some occurred primarily due to injury (Sampras at the US Open, Borg retired vs. Stockton and was not well for 2 US Open matches vs. Connors).

Yet, this list of losses is illustrative of the fact that even these 3
greats get beat by lesser mortals from time to time.

In my estimation, Borg was the most consistently dangerous/dominating player around considering all the surfaces, and he is underrated on grass/hard courts, relative to Sampras and Federer.

Just look at the dearth of bad losses (big upsets) by Borg even on the fastest surfaces. Of course, he and Nadal should be considered tops in terms of prowess on red clay.

See the losses compiled below by Sampras, Federer, and Borg at the "Big 3" Slams:


Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton (retired), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S.
Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.

[pc1]

Borg Number One,

The point that I was trying to make and you explained probably more clearly than me was the Borg was a star from the very beginning and when he reached his peak (Cyborg thought Borg's peak was higher than Federer's) it was essentially the rest of his career. I believe his peak was around 1976 to 1981 and he retired in 1982. His period of almost complete dominance was around 1978 to 1980 in which he AVERAGED over 65% in Games Won Percentage which may be the best indicator of the total strength of a player. To put it in perspective, only John McEnroe is over 65% for the Open Era and that was for one year in 1984. Borg averaged that for three years at least, maybe four years if you included 1977!

[borg number one]

Yes, exactly, PC1. I agree and I think you and I are on the "same page" as to that "sub-issue" we are discussing here. By the way, I'm going to try and post those clips from that DVD (5 parts). I know you don't trust all the commercial stuff, but I think you know enough about the history of the Game especially during this period to separate "fact" from "fiction" or legend. If you are a Borg fan, I promise you that you'll be somewhat mesmerized. I literally watch it from time to time before I go out and play to this day, because it motivates me so much. Thank you. I don't think I'm explaining this position as to "pre-peak", "peak", and "post-peak" years any better than you have already. You've added a lot of very specific details.

[borg number one]

PC1-For your viewing especially at your leisure. This may require Adobe "flash player" on your computer, but I'm not certain. Enjoy.

Bjorn Borg-Legends of Wimbledon (Wimbledon DVD Collection)

(Part 1)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694076/5681964

(Part 2)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694418/5686082

(Part 3)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694791/5681794

(Part 4)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695359/5682850

(Part 5)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695735/5683378

(Part 6)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1702965/5702564

(Part 7)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695987/5684466

[pc1]

PC1-For your viewing especially at your leisure. This may require Adobe "flash player" on your computer, but I'm not certain. Enjoy.

Bjorn Borg-Legends of Wimbledon (Wimbledon DVD Collection)

(Part 1)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694076/5681964

(Part 2)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694418/5686082

(Part 3)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694791/5681794

(Part 4)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695359/5682850

(Part 5)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695735/5683378

(Part 6)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1702965/5702564

(Part 7)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695987/5684466

Someone gave me that DVD a few years ago but thank you.

Not that it means much but my favorite Borg match at Wimbledon is not the 1980 final against McEnroe but the 1977 semi-final against Vitas.

I thought both McEnroe and Borg had a few patchy moments in the 1980 and that both were capable of playing better.

[borg number one]

Good PC1, I'm so glad you have that DVD. I think you may be right in hindsight as to that awesome Borg-Gerulitas semifinal. It was incredible tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXiRhlCnNgE (Borg on Gerulitas, with some of that match)

I think it's because of the SHEER ATHLETICISM on display. Gerulitas was quick/fast, with plenty of stamina..it's just that the McEnroe-Borg 1980 final was such a "sports moment". All converged at once for that match and it propelled tennis to heights never seen before or since. The MOST FAMOUS match, but not necessarily the best in terms of quality of play. The drama of Wimbledon is unequaled. It's the "cathedral" of tennis.

[pc1]

Good PC1, I'm so glad you have that DVD. I think you may be right in hindsight as to that awesome Borg-Gerulitas semifinal. It was incredible tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXiRhlCnNgE (Borg on Gerulitas, with some of that match)

I think it's because of the SHEER ATHLETICISM on display. Gerulitas was quick/fast, with plenty of stamina..it's just that the McEnroe-Borg 1980 final was such a "sports moment". All converged at once for that match and it propelled tennis to heights never seen before or since. The MOST FAMOUS match, but not necessarily the best in terms of quality of play. The drama of Wimbledon is unequaled. It's the "cathedral" of tennis.

I would agree with that.

The best I think I ever saw Borg play at Wimbledon was his great match against Connors in the 1978 final. I thought Connors played a great match and yet he only won seven games.

I understand from second hand accounts that Borg was also fantastic against Connors in the 1979 Wimbledon semi but I didn't see the match. I just remember reading Mike Lupica writing the Connors as well as he possibly could and again only won seven games.

[pc1]

Bjorn Borg once participated in a show called "Challenge of the Sexes" which pit men against women in various competitions. Borg had only one serve and had to play the doubles alley as his handicap. Borg defeated Wade by a score of 6-3. Ilie Nastase in the same competition lost to Evonne Goolagong 7-5 after lead 2-0. I think it was in 1975.

[borg number one]

Very interesting PC1. I'm sure Borg and Nastase were "behaving nicely" so to speak in that situation. Both Wade and Goolagong were both very classy ladies on the Court.

I remember watching that 1979 Wimbledon semifinal as a young kid, with my Dad at night. I got nervous as the match started and Connors looked tough (he's always so dangerous). Borg said once that "with Jimmy, they (Wimbledon Crowd) always loved to watch him". "He was always such a fighter. He played every point as if it was a match point". Yet, literally Borg turned it up several notches and just swept Connors off the court. I think he didn't want to even "open the door" for Jimmy C. Final Score (from the web: http://blog.wimbledon.org/2009/10/06/wimbledons-rivalries/) 6-2, 6-3, 6-2!! I was amazed at the pace watching those two. I thought, "how do they do that!" (I was about 11 or so).

[borg number one]

Connors Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBuwSL6pecM (tennis channel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdyB0VEz7NA (part 2)

Thanks Krosero for this youtube upload
(1979 Pepsi gives you a sense of their play at the time):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY

They are hitting the ball like its 2009 back then!

[zapvor]

Are these non sequiturs? Or are you two implying that Borg's very-tightly-strung racquet strings would break when he slept with Chris Evert? :rolleyes:

thats a great idea...

[hifi heretic]

...had one of the highest leg strength record among sweedish athletes.


This seems like an exaggeration. ..How did they measure this?? ..Leg press machines - though (somewhat) useful in building strength - are not so useful in comparing unless EVERY participant in the comparison uses precisely the same type of machine (not likely as there are hundreds). The gold standard for comparing leg-strength among strength athletes is to do barbell squats, which is what they do in powerlifting competitions. ..I have a hard time believing that Bjork ever attempted to squat 500 or 600 pounds which is probably well short of the Swedish powerlifting champ at his weight.

[toddrobert38]

More about the heart rate...

I was giving a lesson to an MD a year or so ago and he mentioned Borg's freaky resting heart rate. Guess who else he said was the same? That would be Michael Jordan. Hmmm, I wonder if it's an indicator of something.

Borg was not the powerlifting champ of Sweden, or even his town in Sweden but man did he have heart strength! That definitely helps pump the legs. I too would like to know what they tested in that one.

Stroke wise, I'd say Borg hit with significantly more topspin than anyone before him, and that Johnston DID have a semi western grip long ago. They are both pioneers in my mind.

Great Stuff guys!

BTW... Borg's worst head to head w anyone was an even 7-7 with Johnny Mac. If Fed has a career losing record vs Rafa how can he be better than Borg!???????????

[borg number one]

Great points ToddRobert38. Your noting of his head to head record against the perfect "match up" for his Game is quite appropriate. McEnroe called him the greatest athlete in the history of our Sport, and "I don't think there's been anyone even close to him." Nadal has come on since that quote, but Borg was so much lighter on his feet.

Borg had incredible stamina, speed, quickness, leg strength, upper body strength (torque), anticipation, and temperament. What else do you want on court in a tennis player? He simply "fiddled" with his headband all the time and looked like he was walking around in his living room. Though he obviously didn't have the strongest legs in Sweden, he did have very strong legs that propelled him everywhere. Besides powerlifters, I would be surprised if the quote by dirkgnuf that he "had one of the highest leg strength record among sweedish athletes" wasn't accurate.

Of course, guys like Federer and Nadal do have tremendous "wheels" as well, but Borg is tough to match. When folks talk about how athletes in Tennis are much better today than the "old players", I just shake my head when it comes to this guy especially.

That's interesting about Michael Jordan's heart rate. He did always look like he was barely breathing while playing. One thing I'm astonished by is how Borg looks after some of his matches and between points, returning or serving. He always gets ready for the next point with a skip in his step doesn't he, even after a 50 shot rally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY
Notice how soon he's racing towards the shot, just before it's actually hit by Lendl!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQVdZNsyuQ (Thanks Andres for pointing me to this Krosero upload)

His face always looks downright serene and he's barely breathing hard and walking SUPER FAST shaking hands at the net, while the other guy looks like he's thinking "man!!, what a freak!, get me off this Court please"....

Can anyone ever recall seeing him at least LOOK LIKE he was actually breathing very hard?