Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 5555, Nov 11, 2012.

?

Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

  1. Yes

    40 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. No

    16 vote(s)
    28.6%
  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I rate him behind Nadal at this point and I do not believe Nadal is a GOAT candidate right now, so no. Gonzales, Laver, and Federer are probably the only 3 serious GOAT candidates. I guess Rosewall could be for people who value longevity a huge amount, but he could be barely in or right out of the top 10 entirely for those who dont. Sampras could be for those who have high regard for fast court record and subjective views on peak level of play worth on faster courts. Tilden could be as well for some I suppose. That would be it.
     
    #51
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Nadal/Agassi, Even if one does not value longevity, he or she can hardly omit Rosewall from the top ten. Muscles keeps too many records to be omitted. I just mention most majors won, most majors won in a row (9) among others.
     
    #52
  3. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    As far as Nadal/Borg, the AO makes the comparison difficult, because Nadal has gotten to play in a time period in which attending the AO is no cost to him at all (doesn't cut into his off-season) and carries every incentive to attend it and to win it (ranking points, prestige, prize money, competition, etc.). That is very different from Borg's time when the AO was all cost and no benefit. If you played it you would lose much of your off-season, and even if you won it, some of the same modern fans who would fault you for skipping it would then fault you anyway for winning a Mickey Mouse tournament. That's an unwinnable situation. The AO in that era came with a heavy cost and little benefit.

    You could either adjust the comparison for the AO by speculating, or make no adjustment at all and simply compare Nadal and Borg according to their titles as they stand.

    Either way Borg comes out with a lead.

    If you drop Nadal's AO by speculating that he doesn't play a tournament with all cost and no benefit, Borg is leading in Slams by 11-10. Or if you speculate that Borg would have played the AO if it had been a Slam on par with the other majors, Nadal would stay at 11 Slams and Borg would have whatever number of AO's you picture him winning back then. He would have had a good chance to win at least a couple, but just one AO victory for him in the late 70s and early 80s would be enough to put him past Nadal.

    The second way is to do without speculating at all. Leave both players in the conditions and circumstances that they played in, and just count the titles. Borg and Nadal are then tied at 11 Slams apiece. But Borg has two year-end championships, to Nadal's none. Borg also has far more tournament victories overall: 64 to 50 if you use the ATP's numbers. Other counts have Borg at 77 victories (see Wikipedia), and he's over 100 if all his titles are counted.

    Of course you could say that Borg, due to circumstances in his era, got to rack up titles in a way that Nadal, due to current circumstances, could never do. But if you make that sort of adjustment then some kind of adjustment has to be done for the different circumstances regarding the AO. To do one without the other is an unfair comparison.
     
    #53
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    If you removed the AO and assumed that Nadal focus on other smaller tournament instead, there's no way he could have won as much title as Borg, because not only he can play 1 event to replace AO, but we all know it's much more difficult to rack up title today. There are 4 slams, 9 MS and WTF in a year. That's 14 tournaments that are very competitive and difficult to win. And Nadal can only play 20 tournaments a year, which leaves him only a few mickey mouse tournaments. Borg's 77 titles is not better than Nadal 50 titles. Sorry, not everything carry the same weight.
     
    #54
  5. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    LOL I see nothing about your long winded post that proved this in anyway. Fact is they both have 11 slams. Speculation beyond that can go either way for both so becomes meaningles. You can say what if the Australian Open was a real slam then and Borg had played all those years, and if he did play all those years and if it were a real slam played on grass like it was then he probably would have won a few more slams. I can say what if Nadal got the U.S Open on clay for 3 years like Borg (although in Borg's case still didnt capatilize), while had the Australian Open been exactly like today, a real slam played on hard courts Borg might still have won 0 or at best only 1 there vs the 3 additional Nadal would likely have won with 3 U.S Opens on clay after his first RG win. Thus they all cancel out and become irrelevant.

    Either way my reason for ranking Nadal over Borg is simple. Borg couldnt even win a U.S Open with it on 3 different surfaces. By extension could never win a hard court slam. On top of that on Borg's best surface (clay) Nadal is now the hands down GOAT ahead of Borg.

    Others can disagree but there is nothing that conclusively proves Borg or Nadal have the "lead", fact is both have 11 slams and beyond that it is speculation and opinion to who is better. However most in the real World (not Planet TW of lovesick Federer worshippers and Nadal haters which is a comedy based irrelevance) most now regard Nadal as being above Borg.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 24, 2012
    #55
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes one time I agree with you. People in the FPPT always try to compare regular tournament title counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you cant do that. Even by the 90s it was far harder, Graf won 107 tournaments vs the 199 Court won and 167 Navratilova own, are they that much better than her. Federer will likely never win as many tournaments as Connors or Lendl, but everyone knows he is a big level above both of them as a player, so how can that tournament count be realistic. Meanwhile Laver is reported to have 144, Federer might not reach 60% of that but is he really that much worse, even for those who feel Laver is better. I dont concur with your beliefs that tennis competition was always better now than then, however I would agree the game is far more physically demanding and the requirements of the players to all meet at major events outside the slams with everyone present is much more than in the past too. So winning as many tournaments as back in the days some events you only needed 3 or 4 rounds to win one, and the game was far less physically taxing with far fewer injuries, and when players arent going to last until their last 30s like they often did now, is simply impossible.
     
    #56
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,113
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Regarding the Australian Opens of 1970, 1972-1973 and 1976-1982, my view is one of players who missed it should not be blamed, but also that those players who participated (particularly if they won) deserve full credit for doing so at a difficult time of the year.
     
    #57
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    There were like 10 masters equivalents during Borg´s time.he also had to fight for a WCT title which is no more at stake.

    of course, with much tougher opposition than Nadal ever dream to face.
     
    #58
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    what exactly makes you think nadal would win all 3 on har-tru ? The surface closest to har-tru is probably madrid masters , where rafa hasn't exactly been dominant ....

    also borg didn't play 77 RG, where he'd easily be the favorite to win had he played .... he'd have played if the tour was standardized as it is today ...

    nadal is one slam ahead at RG .... borg is 3 slams ahead at their mutual 2nd best slams, wimbledon ...

    borg was still not that experienced to win on grass in 74 ... nadal at the same age wasn't either ...and borg was injured at the 77 USO ...

    borg had just 4 shots at HC slams ... what exactly did nadal do in HC slams after he had won his 1st slam ? lets see , hmm, lose to blake at USO 2005, youzhny at USO 2006, gonzalez at AO 2007, ferrer at USO 2007 ..even in the next 2, lost to tsonga at the AO in 2008, murray at the USO in 2008

    oh well, that's just ignoring the reality that the indoor tournaments ( WCT/Masters ) were very important tournaments then, far more important than the AO and borg won them .....

    LOL @ just counting the slams won, when the slams weren't 'standardized'/borg didn't get as many shots at them in the time-frame when he played .....

    also borg was clear YE no 1 for 3 years ( 78-80 ) and arguably in 77 as well ... nadal was only for 2 years (2008 and 2010)

    And finally while borg's lack of US Open definitely hurts him, that wasn't because he was weak on decoturf, he was still pretty good there, just that he faced 2 of the greatest players at the USO there - connors/mac , and another loss was against a hot tanner , whom he did beat next year , also beat connors in straights in 81 ( connors had taken the winner mac to a close 5-setter in 80 and would go on to win the 82 and 83 US Opens )

    certainly by some distance better than nadal indoors ...

    Borg's versatility in winning RG/wimbledon back to back thrice when surfaces were more different than they are now is a major plus ...

    just as nadal winning all 4 slams is for him ....
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
    #59
  10. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    Yes Rafa's career Slam is a plus. But Borg's "Channel Slams" are more impressive than Nadal's, not just because he won 3 and Rafa 2, but because Borg's involved doing something unheard of today: winning RG from the baseline and winning Wimbledon with regular, frequent SV (even if not the SV-on-all-serves of the past). Increasingly this is becoming one of Borg's most appreciated accomplishments, even more so than his 5 straight Wimbledons which used to be his "calling card."
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
    #60
  11. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    This has become so strange, because you more than most posters seem to understand what a serious problem there is when evaluating the AO’s of the 70s and 80s; you know how extremely depleted the AO fields were. You’re always the first to say that those AO victories were not worth a full Slam. So you know there’s a problem there, when comparing to the present era: you’d be the first to say that two AO victories by Kriek are not worth anything near what two AO victories today by Nadal would be; you’d be the first to object to anyone trying to make them seem equal.

    Yet when it comes to comparing Nadal to Borg, you sweep this entire issue away and just count up Slams. And you say that if Borg didn’t play the AO, “it’s his own fault” (just quoting a recent post of yours from memory: I don’t know if I have the exact words but that’s what you said). But you know that there’s no way Borg could have chosen to go the AO and gotten full credit for winning a full-fledged Slam. If he had chosen to go down there you’d be saying he won a Mickey Mouse tournament – and ranking him lower for it. Plainly, winning a full-fledged Slam over the entire field was not in his hands. For him to accomplish that, all the other players on tour would have had to go down there as well.

    It’s a fact that the AO issue in this period is a collective problem: not something that can be put down solely to the choices of a single player. It’s a collective problem, a circumstance of the time period: a problem not with the players, but with the AO tournament (or more exactly, a series of problems, ranging from low prestige and prize money to a poorly chosen date in December that cut into the off-season). You have to account for that circumstance when comparing different time periods.

    You do that already when comparing total tournament victories. That problem you don’t sweep aside at all. You show every willingness to come to grips with it, and to make adjustments for it. When someone says that Laver has over 200 titles while Nadal has only 50, you’re the first to point out the different circumstances of each time period.

    And I agree with you about that. My issue is your inconsistency. When it comes to tournament titles, you’re not willing to just count them up. You want to qualify them; evaluate them; talk about different circumstances; etc. But when it comes to Slam titles, you become a simple Slam-counter. “Fact is they both have 11 slams.”

    There are two glaring differences apparent when we compare Borg’s era to today’s. The champions of Borg’s era have no AO titles in their resumes, while today’s champions have AO titles. That’s one difference. The other difference is that the older champions have as many as 200 titles in their resumes, while today’s champions have several dozen at most.

    I don’t think those are random differences; nor do I put them down to the personal deficiencies of a single player. I don’t put down Nadal’s 50 titles to some personal deficiency in him; nor do I put down Borg’s 11 Slam titles to some personal deficiency in him. These counts are what they are because of larger circumstances in each era.

    In other words, if the champions of the 70s had an AO that looked like today’s AO, they would have played it every year: and their Slam titles would consequently be higher. And if today’s champions had an AO that resembled the one of the 70s, they would be no more likely to attend it than the champions of the older era: and consequently the Slam totals of the modern champions would be lower.

    That’s a problem that can’t be swept away. You’ve tried to sweep it away by claiming that speculations all cancel each other out. And to demonstrate that, you’ve stacked the deck in Nadal’s favor, in your speculations, imagining him playing 3 USO’s on his favorite surface (clay) while picturing Borg playing more USO’s on his weakest surface (hard). Well, if you stack the deck like that, you can wipe out anything. You didn't even say anything in the other direction: like where Borg and Nadal would stand if Borg had played the ’77 French, instead of playing WTT; or where they would stand if WTT today was equivalent to what it was then, and Nadal skipped the French one year. Or what if Nadal had to play on Wimbledon’s grass as it was in Borg’s time period: he would almost surely not have beaten Federer in 2008 and would arguably have no Wimbledons at all, considering how close he was to getting beaten before the final in 2010. Bye-bye goes the career Slam: and then Nadal’s lack of a Wimbledon title would parallel Borg’s lack of a USO title.

    Of course, if we speculate like that, there will be no end to it. And we will be able to say whatever we want to say.

    If you’re saying that speculation can run rampant until it’s meaningless, I agree. But I’m not talking about unlimited speculation. I’m talking about limited speculation, to account for the single most glaring difference there is between these two eras, when comparing Slam counts: the fact that the champions of Borg’s era have no AO titles in their resumes while the champions of this era do. I'm talking about adjusting for this global difference, and not wiping it away by saying that all speculation cancels itself out and is meaningless. It seems to me as plain as day that if the older champions had an AO like today’s, they would have played it, and their Slam counts would be higher; and if today’s champions had an AO like the one of the 70s, they would not have played it, and their Slam counts would be lower.

    It seems just as plain to me that if the older champions played today, they would have tournament totals similar to the current champions (several dozen titles at most); and if today's champions played in the circumstances of past time periods, some of them would have tournament totals in the hundreds.

    Now, if you just want to stick to facts, and leave all speculation and opinion aside, like you said above, fine. But stick to them. "Fact is they both have 11 slams." Okay. And fact is, Laver has 200 titles, and Borg over 100, while Nadal has 50. And Borg has 2 year-end championships, while Nadal has none. Those are facts. You want to leave it just at facts?

    Yes exactly. People always try to compare Slam counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you can't do that. Bingo. You got it.

    Exactly. And winning as many Slams back then as the players do today, when they played 3 Slams per year, at most (or none, in the case of the pros before '68 ), as opposed to 4 today, was simply impossible.
     
    #61
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    yep, precisely ....
     
    #62
  13. Borrelli

    Borrelli Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    CT
    Agreed, the AO is a big problem when comparing era's. The 5 straight Wimbledon's on fast grass while serving a volleying was unheard of for a baseline player like Borg. The 6 French Open titles while skipping a year and then retiring early and basically giving the 82 French to Wilander and the fact that he's probably the greatest athletic talent to ever step on a tennis court all put him in contention. At the very least Borg > Nadal.
     
    #63
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    the difference between grass and clay, the channel slam ,was incomparable bigger in Borg´s time than in Nadal´s time.Almost No difference now, oceans of difference back then.
     
    #64
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    Good point, I've wondered how Nadal and Federer might have played on Har-Tru. It's difficult to say, although Federer has adapted better to the conditions at Madrid.

    And Madrid was the place where Djokovic, before he became dominant, came closest to getting a claycourt win over Nadal.

    Generally Har-Tru at the USO was always described as faster than red clay. If that's true, it would favor Federer. In 2006 Federer came very close to beating Nadal at Rome, on a red clay court that was playing fast -- faster than RG.

    If Har-Tru's speed would work in Federer's favor, there would no longer be reason to assume that Nadal would take 3 out of 3 USO's on Har-Tru in those early years around 2006.

    Borg was injured for one of his 3 Har-Tru Opens, and Nadal has similar issues to Borg in the late season. Both of them went into RG fresh, but both of them tended to have physical issues later in the season. Another reason not to assume that Nadal takes 3 out of 3 on Har-Tru (though obviously you'd still favor him to do so).
     
    #65
  16. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Seems to me that Federer is the mens GOAT for the open era until someone wins more slam championships. Sampras was the mens GOAT for the open era until Federer surpassed him. The pre-open era GOAT is a much more unclear choice thus there would be "candidates".
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2012
    #66
  17. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I am sceptical. The "Career Slam" is the invention of media-hypers trying to drum up interest by a waning public in the Agassi era.

    Now that grass has been slowed down, it is easier than ever. Djokovic will have one soon.

    The "Career Slam" is a shallow Carilloism.
     
    #67
  18. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    I don't place that much importance on a career Slam, at least nowadays, for some of the reasons that you mention. It still counts as a plus, though. Rafa had to master the Flushing courts in order to do it. And he did.
     
    #68
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    If the career slam isn't worth much to the player's legacy, then the Grand Slam isn't worth much either.

    Two can play that game.
     
    #69
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    NO! Unless your game is shallow thinking ignorant of history.

    The Grand Slam has been the ultimate tennis goal for any and every player since 1933, including Crawford, Perry, Budge, Hoad, Trabert, Emerson, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, and your god Federer. It is the Everest of tennis: available every year, but apparently unreachable.

    The "Career Slam" is a cobbled-together, Frankenstein's monster of an afterthought coined by those paid for their mouths not their knowledge, a specious media accolade for the best that can be managed given a 15-year career in an era of not-quite-good-enoughs, a last-ditch effort contrived by newbie "sports journalists" for newbie fans--to whip up some iota of interest for a bored, uninterested public.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
    #70
  21. loci

    loci Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    133
    These discussions about the GOAT are tiresome and exhaustive. Is there something else of interest to talk about?
     
    #71
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    loci, I find GOAT discussions interesting and sometimes even thrilling.
     
    #72
  23. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,537
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    borg always claimed that he would play the aust open if he was in with a chance for the grand slam..but in 78, 80, tennis was robbed of this prospect by borg losing u. s. open finals which would has made the grand slam three quarters complete..:(..

    and if mcenroe has won the french in 84..im sure he would have played in the 84 aust open instead of pulling out with an 'injury' ..did he play in the wct finals around the same time also ??..hmmmm :confused:.could be..not sure :-?

    2 big frig-ups in tennis history...banning of pro players pre 68..and the mess that was the prize money and timing of aust open until 1982,

    i was looking at the line up for aust 82 when it moved back to its late nov / early dec slot..and it still had a poor field but by 1983mcenroe, lendl, wilander are in it..(why 83 and not 82 ?) :confused:
     
    #73
  24. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    1984

    The WCT finals was played in May 84 and the Australian Open in December 84 - so not the same time. Mac did play the Masters in Jan. 85 though (where he played amazing tennis)
     
    #74
  25. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,113
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    And Connors said he would follow Borg to Melbourne in 1978. Connors stopped Borg in New York, though.

    Most of the people running the tennis authorities only agreed to the open era very reluctantly, after the LTA forced their hand, and they tried to cling onto the old privileges as much as possible. This is why the WCT and NTL events were far more in tune with what open tennis meant a long time before the ILTF and the majors.

    The change probably came too late in the day to attract the top players in 1982.
     
    #75
  26. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,537
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    timnz & mustard ^^^^

    thanks, i was thinking of the davis cup final in dec 84, so mcenroe either had an injury like he said, or maybe was a bit tired from the season and wanted to prepare for the dc final..but in the end it didnt help him anyway.

    yes could've been a late date change in 82 and the top players were elsewhere.

    typical connors..shame it never happened though...borg wins the u.s open then goes for the grand slam in aust..but wait..oh no..whats this ??..oh no, its jimbo.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
    #76
  27. TomT

    TomT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    Depends on the criteria. For me, Borg was a player that I tried to emulate when first starting out in tennis. I think that his 'larger than life' tennis persona was a major factor in the huge popularity of the game during the '70s.

    But as for GOAT, I would have to say no. In that consideration I would have to say that Federer, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, and Sampras are the major contenders. Followed by Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi and Lendl.

    Just my current opinion. Subject to change as I learn facts and arguments.

    Currently, I would most like to be able to play in the style of McEnroe or Rosewall, because I find their games, their styles, to be most beautiful. But, you know, there are so many. Guys like Ashe, Nastase, Amritraj, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Newcombe, Vilas, oh, and I especially like Edberg's style of play.

    So many, sorry if I didn't recall some of the many wonderful players worthy of mention.

    Of course, we all know that GOAT discussions will be neverending. :)
     
    #77
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    People should realize a great player can loses his goat status when players of the future matched or surpassed his achievements. Borg was definitely one of the goat after he retire in the 80s, but today his position has fallen due to great players of his future have overtook him. An example of Steve Largent in the NFL. When Steve retire in the 80s, he holds the record for most receptions, most touchdown receptions, and most receiving yards in a career. He was widely considered the greatest receiver of all time. However, today he's not even consider a goat candidate, because many receivers have surpassed him and broke all of his records. When you apply that to Borg, he doesn't hold the 5 consecutive Wimbledon anymore, most Wimbledon and most RG, most single titles. And a few players after him have won the career slam, and more slams than him. Borg is like another Steve Largent in the NFL, so I can understand people don't include him in goat discussion.
     
    #78
  29. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    And yet I thought I saw a post the other day where you ranked Borg second after Federer to defend your argument.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
    #79
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    One tier below, yes. I've stated Nadal can't be in the same tier with Federer. Since Nadal is so even with Borg and should be in the same tier, they both are below Federer. If you guys include Borg in tier 1 with Laver, Sampras, or Pancho, etc., then you must include Nadal.

    All i'm saying is I can understand some people don't include Borg in the conversation anymore because the future great players have done better in many areas, the same exactly happened to Steve Largent. It also happened to Mark Spitz.

    Goat status can change overtime, unless tennis become extinct.
     
    #80
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I actually agree with you for once:

    Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Rosewall
    Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge

    Also concur there is absolutely no way, even for those who want to argue Borg as being above Nadal which is not how most people feel at this point (I am talking the real World, not Planet TW), that there is no way he is in a higher tier. So if one wants to argue Borg as being tier 1, Nadal must be also.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
    #81
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    I disagree with your opinion on Borg but let's not discuss that now. What I am curious about is why you have Tilden in the second tier. He won over 160 tournaments, was virtually unbeatable for about a decade and won on every surface. If you include Pro Majors he won 14 majors. If you don't he won 10 majors. He won 98% of his matches during his peak years. How much more dominant can you be? Tilden is overwhelming qualified as a GOAT candidate.
     
    #82
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NadalAgassi, If you believe that Rosewall belongs to tier 1 then you should rank him there unaffected by the opinions of other posters.
     
    #83
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, I agree that Tilden belongs to tier one. He is a worthy GOAT candidate.
     
    #84
  35. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    And yes Rosewall should be in tier one also. I didn't see Muscles in the second tier when I glanced at it.

    NadalAgassi, as BobbyOne wrote if you believe it just write that Rosewall's tier one. His record certainly puts him there.

    As far as Borg is concerned. Borg won 106 tournaments in his career by age 25. He has perhaps the highest lifetime winning percentage in tennis history. Some may argue that was because he retired early but no one at 25 had some a high lifetime winning percentage I believe. He won 11 of 27 majors entered and was in the finals of a number of others. That's a majors winning percents of around 41.7%. No one in the Open Era is close. And he was superb on all surfaces. At his peak he was almost unbeatable and it is arguably that his peak was higher than anyone in tennis history. We're talking about a period of years here during his peak. Yes I believe he is easily a GOAT candidate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
    #85
  36. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I find it hard to rank players from the 20s. The game wasnt very competitive then, although atleast for the men it was better than the women where Lenglen or Wills won every single match 0 and 2, 0 and 0, 1 and 0. At the U.S Open it seemed he played the same opponent in the final every year, and that opponent is not an all time great at all (not saying he isnt a great player or a weak opponent, just someone you shouldnt play in the finals 5 years in a row), which really calls into question the state of the game back then.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
    #86
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    You really can't say that because then a person could argue today's era was dominated by Nadal and Federer for many years. Tilden played great competition in greats like Johnston, Lacoste, Cochet, Richards, Patterson, Borotra, Nusslein, Perry, Budge and even Pancho Gonzalez. He beat everyone in his prime. You really couldn't get much better.
     
    #87
  38. BruceG

    BruceG Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    La Jolla
    And that should tell everyone, no-matter how dopey they are, that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'greatest of all time'.

    Seriously, if the message board was ever to have a requirement for membership it should be that anyone believing in a a greatest of all time not be allowed to join (along with the Graf-Seles freaks).
     
    #88
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    You realize that one of the fun discussions in ANY SPORT is who is the greatest of all time. So while you believe that there is no such thing, others like to discuss it. It is enjoyable for many. It has been perhaps the most discuss topic in sports. Who is the best boxer? Who is the best baseball team? Who is the best hitter in baseball? Who is the best NFL quarterback?

    Okay I get your message but if there is no GOAT you can also discuss who accomplished the most. For example the NY Yankees in baseball won the most World Series etc.
     
    #89
  40. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I almost agree with you.

    Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Rosewall, Federer
    Tier 2: Borg, Sampras, Budge, Daugherty, Nadal, Budge, Lendl
    Tier 3: Vines, Perry, Connors, Cochet, Hoad, Lacoste, Kramer
     
    #90
  41. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I had thought Budge was better than Vines until recently but looking back it seems Vines was the Worlds best player longer than Budge, wasnt he? Then again Budge does have the Grand Slam which is an enormous achievement. I would find it hard to split them into seperate tiers though.

    I predict by careers end Nadal will definitely be tier 1, even if he isnt the GOAT.
     
    #91
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If Vines is third tier, then Kodes is, too.
     
    #92
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    There is also a question whether Vines wasn't just a better player when both were at their best. Vines was older and apparently had some injury problems when he toured against Budge. Vines also was getting into the game of golf, a game in which he would later become one of the World's best players so he was on as motivated in tennis anymore. And while Budge won the Grand Slam in 1938 it is debatable whether he could have won it if all the top players like Vines, Nusslein, Perry, von Cramm and Tilden competed. Vines would be a big problem on those grass courts on three of the majors and the others would be extremely tough to beat also.

    I think there is a good chance Nadal will be among the top players ever. I agree with you.
     
    #93
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222

    There's ambiguous ranking from your list. There's a big gap between Nadal and Sampras, and between Sampras and Federer. If Nadal is one tier below Sampras, then Sampras should be one tier below Federer. Honestly, I think Sampras should be in the same level as Laver since he earned that status after retire. Some people unfairly demoted him because of Federer surpasses him and broke his records. An appropriate way is to leave Samrpas in first tier, but remove Federer from the list and leave everything as it is.
     
    #94
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,222
    ROFL! Kodes is ranked #50 in top male tennis player from The Tennis Channel. Nole is #24 so put him in tier 2. :)
     
    #95
  46. BruceG

    BruceG Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    La Jolla
    Sure, it should be fun but you've got to admit, way too many of the guys on this message board take it way too seriously. Kind of like, their desperate need to crown one player the 'greatest of all time' is a testament to their devotion to that player or an indication of their all-encompassing knowledge of the game. Either way, turns a bit of fun into a bore-fest.

    Who won what is wildly different to who 'accomplished' the most because 'accomplished' is still highly subjective. Yeah, we should be sane enough to understand what you meant but that just doesn't happen with fanboys and zealots.
     
    #96
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Some do probably take it too seriously and some idolize their players and make them into almost god-like beings. That's a good way to look at things.

    I have my opinions of course and I do a lot of research so frankly I really don't care if people may write something I believe is incorrect. I may point out the detail that I believe is incorrect however.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
    #97
  48. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Nawww, say it ain't so.
     
    #98
  49. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    When Fed had around 12 slams he was already compared to Sampras and some brought Laver up also at that time.
    Those three were considered the best, with Laver having a 11-6 slam record.
    Sampras had 14-4. Fed was 12-2.

    At that time they were tier 1 with no arguments from Laver and Sampras fans for the most part. The only argument was who was at the top of tier 1.


    Fed has accomplished so much more since then, enough to make a player considered great just on the records Fed has since that time.

    Fed has accomplished too much since then to be in the same tier as Sampras and Laver.

    How can someone add to his totals such a great amount,
    4-5 more slams,
    added weeks at #1,
    more masters and WTF's,
    a completion of the career slam
    but still be in the same tier?
     
    #99
  50. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Borg's tier-1, definitely a tier above Ralph, way more versatile than Ralph will ever be, I mean cmon are you kidding me?
    Borg won the channel slam when Wimby and RG were like night n day,which would be nothing more than a dream for the unadaptable Nadal.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2012

Share This Page