Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by smoledman, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,104
    When he had won his 3 straight Channel slams - it really meant something. You could say in 1981 that Borg was by far the best Open Era player ever. Has anything Sampras or Fed done since been greater then Borg's achievements(6 FO, 5 consecutive Wimbys, 3 consecutive channel slams)?
     
    #1
  2. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    Everyone gets an opinion... even silly ones...
     
    #2
  3. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    17 slams
    /end thread
     
    #3
  4. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,104
    When Borg retired he has 50% more slams then the next best. Fed is only 21% up on Sampras. The point is it's not about the raw slam count, it's about real dominance in the Open Era.
     
    #4
  5. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,481
    The way things stand, if we look at the credentials, Federer is definitively the best open era player. I can see a case for Borg being better than Sampras, since Sampras isn't as versatile as Fed.
     
    #5
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    True, Borg´s feats are mitical...and he left at 25¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
     
    #6
  7. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Yes, I would say Federer is the best, and have Borg ahead of Sampras definitely!
     
    #7
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    If the greatness of a champion is measured by the toughness of his opposition, well, Borg stands alone.He played from Laver,Ashe,Newcombe,Smith and Rosewall to Mc Enroe,Lendl with Connors,Vilas,Nastase,Kodes,Panatta,Orantes,Gerulaitis,Tanner or Okker in the middle.And to think that if he had played till 28 or 29 ( he retired at 25), he´d also have played Becker,Edberg and Wilander...

    Maybe only Gonzales ( who played from Tilden to Connors ) and, of course, Rosewall ( who played from Kramer to Gerulalaitis) can equal that.
     
    #8
  9. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    I have Borg ahead of sampras/nadal too but just marginally behind fed in the open era
     
    #9
  10. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    And of course Connors himself as well (70's and 80's tough eras in my opinion).
     
    #10
  11. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,157
    Man,this thread should be moved to 60 plus age forum, for them to reminesce their school days. Clearly the sport has moved from the wooden stick , serve and volley game.

    You need atletisicm, power, stamina 10 times what the olden players had to even be in the top 10.
     
    #11
  12. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,272
    Borg never won the Grand Slam, so while he was a fantastic player, he's not a part of any GOAT discussion.
     
    #12
  13. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,119
    You don't think Borg had athleticism, power or stamina? I would suggest you stop playing video games and look up some old Borg matches. You might learn something.
     
    #13
  14. firepanda

    firepanda Professional

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,423
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This really should be in former pro player section. But I agree with the sentiment. His skill level will be nowhere near modern players, but his record is on the same level as Nadal and Federer, and above Sampras.
     
    #14
  15. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,104
    Yeah but when Laver did it(1969) it was only grass/clay. He didn't have the brutal hardcourts to deal with yet.
     
    #15
  16. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,157
    With all respect to Borg for the class he had, he is a mental midget when it came to McEnroe. still cannot figure out why this guy at 25 dropped the ball and called it quits once he realized he was failing against Mac.
     
    #16
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    yes, jimmy faced Rosewall and Courier.he belongs to that exclusive group.
     
    #17
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Only Laver ( three times) and Budge did.
     
    #18
  19. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,212
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    That's not why he quit, he lost his passion for the game. After he took a year out he was told he had to qualify to play Wimbledon (?) or some other tournament and he refused to do that.
     
    #19
  20. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    That is just insane. Talk about domination.
     
    #20
  21. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,212
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Only once in the open era though...
     
    #21
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    oh, yes " only" once indeed:)
     
    #22
  23. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,095
    Location:
    Toronto
    Federer must be even more special winning both Wimbledon and US Open from 04-07. 4 years better than 3.
     
    #23
  24. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,095
    Location:
    Toronto
    Laver pro and amateur slams aren't that special. 1969 was insane....especially considering how old he was and the number of tough matches he had. Amateur slam in 62....he did not get to face Gonzalez, Rosewall and other pro\s who were 10 times a player like Emerson who capitalized on a weak Laver and other nobodies.

    Didn't Laver say he could not compete with the pro\s in t he first few years.

    The pro slam in 67.....had way fewer matches than a normal CYGS....and it may not have the 1-2 good amateurs.
     
    #24
  25. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,212
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I didn't mean to belittle it, once is more than anyone else has managed. But still...saying he's done it 3 times like the other two mean as much is misleading...
     
    #25
  26. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,045
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    Borg is possibly my favorite player ever, but I can't consider him GOAT for two main reasons:

    - Failed to win USO (despite 4 finals)
    - Voluntarily quit the game so young

    For those talking about overall slam titles, to me that is less important since AO was not as relevant back then. If Borg cared about AO he could have won several of those on grass.
     
    #26
  27. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Indeed, this is such an important point about the Aussie Open. Connors for example even though he was at the top of the game for 20 years, only played the Aussie Open twice (winning one and getting to the final in the other).

    So there is a very good chance Connors would have won at least another 3 GS titles, making 11 in total. Back in those days the Aussie Open was not important to most players!
     
    #27
  28. Prodigy1234

    Prodigy1234 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    232
    I found reading the book High Strung really enlightened me on Borg. I'd highly recommend it
     
    #28
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    You´re right.His 1969 one is the best one of the three.I was just being ironic, don´t take any offense.
     
    #29
  30. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,212
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I wasn't offended, I was just clarifying what I meant. No harm done.
     
    #30
  31. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Borg has probably been overtaken by Nadal at this point (Nadal with the career slam, overtaken Borg as clay GOAT etc) much less considered as any open era GOAT anymore among Sampras and Federer
     
    #31
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,212
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Career slam is an achievement of versatility, Borg's channel slams are the greatest show of that in tennis IMO. I think Borgs domination of two completely different surfaces puts him on the same level as Nadal. I actually think Borg's achievements might be superior to Nadal's, but I feel Nadal's playing level is so high I can't put Borg ahead...
     
    #32
  33. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    When you are winning, it's easier to keep winning, but when you start losing and then being able to regain the winning form, that's what makes a champion.

    Fed became more of a champion / legend in 2009 after bouncing back from losing all those matches in 2008.
    Same with Nadal, he too became a greater champion in 2010 after bouncing back from his 2009 season.

    The mark of a champion is measured by how they bounce back from setbacks, which is why Borg should never be considered greater than Fed or Nadal, simply because he ran away from the big bad bully.
     
    #33
  34. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    I got Nadal over Borg now because:

    1. Nadal still plugging away at it out there (Borg quits at 25)
    2. Nadal was better on his weaker surfaces. A better hardcourt player then Borg
    3. Demolished Borg's clay records
    4. Success over ALL his main rivals (Federer, Djoker, Murray). Borg really couldn't figure out McEnroe. Nadal got the best of everyone of the main players of his era more times then not.
    5. Career slam (It wasn't as important then but Borg still attempted and only managed 2 of the 4 slams while Nadal won all 4

    There are still arguments for Borg, but I'll take Nadal
     
    #34
  35. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,157
    Let us forget 17 > 11 due to the AO.

    How can Borg be GOAT when he fails to win a major (USO) all his career ?

    Federer, Nadal and even Agassi have achieved that and Djokovic is on the line.

    Borg quitting 25 or losing passion is no excuse. if he did not have the passion, then dont get him into the GOAT discussion in the first place.

    During the late 70's he was the master of French and Wimbledon and no one was even close. That is all to it.
     
    #35
  36. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,157
    If anything this thread is going to make people lose the respect they have for Borg, who consider him one of the greats and not even close to the GOAT.
     
    #36
  37. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Well if you throw Pre-open era guys (which you have to since we consider it ALL TIME), Borg is NOT in the discussion. Not even close really

    You got half a dozen guys (including Open and Pre-Open) or so with more claims to GOAT status then Borg
     
    #37
  38. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Open era rankings:

    1) Federer
    2) Borg
    3) Laver
    4) Sampras
    5) Nadal
     
    #38
  39. cork_screw

    cork_screw Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,569
    This is so stupid. I like how you mention one of borg's accomplishments and then you ignore everything else that everyone else has done. You don't mention all the achievements that rafa or federer have made. so so so dumb.
     
    #39
  40. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,157
    quitting at age 25 after tough losses is what ?
     
    #40
  41. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Deluded FOOL :twisted:
     
    #41
  42. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,130
    Actually he just acted like a "GOOSEHEAD" :)
     
    #42
  43. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,956
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, winning Davis Cup matches at age 15 is what?


    15
     
    #43
  44. monfed

    monfed Guest

    This. Same as my list(though I might bump down Laver due to his height. I mean 5'8? :oops: ), I've got Nadal further down 5, don't consider him a tier 1 great yet.
     
    #44
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,052
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    They still do. As great as that achievement was by Borg, it wasn't as lauded at the time as his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles.

    Well, obviously. The open era was only 13 years old at that point. Who were his closest challengers? Connors, Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall?

    I think Borg's record is better than Sampras. I know Sampras finished 6 years in a row at world number 1, but Sampras never had a dominant period like Borg's 1976-1981.
     
    #45
  46. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Mine is similar:-

    1. Laver
    2. Federer
    3. Connors
    4. Borg
    5. Sampras
    6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)

    As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

    And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 5 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

    Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
    #46
  47. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,052
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    First few months, not years. Laver really struggled with Hoad and Rosewall in those opening months as a professional. By the end of 1963 (Laver's first year as a professional), he had risen to be the second best pro behind Rosewall, overtaking Gimeno and Hoad. And in 1964, Gonzales returned and did a full-time schedule, with Laver becoming the best pro in 1964, ahead of Rosewall and Gonzales.
     
    #47
  48. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    And, he gets CREDIT for doing that? I don't care WHY he quit, he quit, and did so, as "luck" would have it, right after he got his ass kicked at Wimbledon and the US Open. And, speaking of the US Open, I recall reading several years ago that it was, by far, the indicator of the top ranked player for that year-that is, the player who won the US Open ended the year as the world's top ranked player at the US Open than any of the other Slams-by far. Now, the time period in the study preceded the Open era, so, it may have been a bit misleading, but the last time I checked, Borg was the ONLY one of the top 20 male Slam winners who never won the US Open, with the exception of some old English guy who played in the 19th century and rarely, if ever, played the US Open-and, since in those days the Slam champion played only one match, that guy's 7 or so Wimbledons should be ignored, IMO. So, Borg being the ONLY modern Slam champion to NEVER win the tournament that historically been the best indicator(failing on 3 different surfaces, no less) would, by itself eliminate him, in my book from any GOAT discussion. Factor in that I like champions who react well to adversity-Ali vs Liston, and Foreman, as far as seemingly invincible opponents are concerned, and Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, and Spinks, as far as avenging defeats is concerned is one example, Michael Jordan overcoming the Pistons and Celtics is another. The Red Sox overcoming the contemporary Yankees who had just beaten them in the ALCS the year before(to say nothing of an 86 year curse they heard about incessantly) is still another. And contrast all of that to Goldilocks, who, the nanosecond the going got tough, took his ball and ran home to mommy. Open era GOAT? Please...
     
    #48
  49. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,446
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    Do some research before you post stuff on here, or carry on with the self humiliation..blockedhead.
     
    #49
  50. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Connors at 3? :lol:
    How can you possibly rate Connors over Borg?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2013
    #50

Share This Page