Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

[abmk]

note: Isn't it a bit strange for a Fed Fan, to transport a sentence of the mans weaknesses everytime in his own "avatar"? Looks really strange, i must say.

oh jeez, you don't realize that is meant to be poking fun @ BobbyOne's comment !? really ?

My previous signature was actually a subtle jab @ federer , but very few actually got it (zagor, krosero etc )

 

[abmk]

The Oklahoma event, Sgt. John mentioned and included in his top four, was on clay.

reference ?

Was it best of 5 ? the field size and no of rounds ?

again, could laver have beaten rosewall at RG in 67/won RG on clay in 67 ... possible ... a lock to do so ? nope .......

I mentioned the upset to drysdale in 68 USO as well ...

all it takes is 1 match out of 28 ....... any player estimated to have 97% chance of winning the GS ? :lol:

 

[Mustard]

none of the pro majors in 67 were on clay ...

None of the amateur majors in 1962 nor open majors in 1969 were on indoor wood.

 

[hoodjem]

I don't think there is anybody who would argue that Laver's 1969 Grand Slam was a much more impressive achievement than his 1962 version-Jack Kramer, in his excellent book "The Game" frequently mentioned that amateurs who turned pro usually struggled upon doing so, Laver included, and, why wouldn't they? That doesn't change the fact that nobody clams that Rosewall won a Grand Slam in 1963 or that Laver has 3 Grand Slams, that is completely and utterly false.

I, for one, would argue exactly that--that Laver's 1969 Grand Slam was a much more impressive achievement than his 1962 Grand Slam.

But maybe I am not anybody.

 

[OTMPut]

Johnny Mac is the GOAT. He played with both wood and graphite racquets. He also won doubles and mixed doubles GS titles. He played best of 5 sets. He played on vastly different surfaces.

He had coke, beer and burgers and lived a normal life. Unlike chumps today who lead unreal lives surrounded by a team of caretakers and play on similar surfaces and have no credentials in doubles/mixed doubles.

 

[OTMPut]

Johnny Mac is the GOAT. He played with both wood and graphite racquets. He also won doubles and mixed doubles GS titles. He played best of 5 sets. He played on vastly different surfaces.

He had coke, beer and burgers and lived a normal life. Unlike chumps today who lead unreal lives surrounded by a team of caretakers and play on similar surfaces and have no credentials in doubles/mixed doubles.

Guess what, this deserves a thread of its own.

 

[dafinch]

I, for one, would argue exactly that--that Laver's 1969 Grand Slam was a much more impressive achievement than his 1962 Grand Slam.

But maybe I am not anybody.

I would argue it, too, lol. I worded it incorrectly: I don't think anybody would argue that the '69 was NOT a more impressive achievement than the '62 Slam, which was in keeping with the contention that pros are-shocking!-better than amateurs and the pros were allowed to play in '69. Sorry for the typo.

 

[kiki]

I would argue it, too, lol. I worded ii incorrectly: I don't think anybody would argue that the '69 was NOT a more impressive achievement than the '62 Slam, which was in keeping with the contention that pros are-shocking!-better than amateurs and the pros were allowed to play in '69. Sorry for the typo.

Professor Hoojdem is a great linguistic, I have had the honour to be corrected by him often

 

[BobbyOne]

Either way Laver clearly won 2 Grand Slams. Factually he won the 62 and 69 Grand Slams. Subjectively which is where we are going if people choose to refuse accpetance of his 6 2 slam he won the 67 and 69 ones, as the Pro Slams in 67 contained all the best players, and it is atleast 97% certain he would have won the Open Era Slam in 67 too if he was able to win the Pro Slam that year.

Nadal/Agassi: Well written.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Either way Laver clearly won 2 Grand Slams. Factually he won the 62 and 69 Grand Slams. Subjectively which is where we are going if people choose to refuse accpetance of his 6 2 slam he won the 67 and 69 ones, as the Pro Slams in 67 contained all the best players, and it is atleast 97% certain he would have won the Open Era Slam in 67 too if he was able to win the Pro Slam that year.

I think you are over reaching here. It is clear that Laver was the best player in the world by far in 1967, but he doesn't mean that he could have the four true slam. I had a look at the fields of the 1967 pro slams and it is not so impressive.

To win the french pro, he defeated a certain Mackay in the QF (the tournaments begins here for him), then Stolle, then Gimeno, on wood.
At Wembley pro he defeated Mackay again, Davidson, Rosewall on indoors (which surface I don't know).
At the US Pro he had to play four matches: Olmedo, Ayala, Stolle, Gimeno.
At Wimbledon pro, 3 matches were enough again: Stolle, then Gimeno, then Rosewall.

None of these were played on clay, Rosewall's best surface. So, as we know how many times the ultra dominant player of a year failed to win the calendar slam, I think it is overreaching to consider that he had 97% chance to win it all. A deeper field in each tournament, a tournament to be played on his main rival best surface, it make it harder.

 

[kiki]

I think you are over reaching here. It is clear that Laver was the best player in the world by far in 1967, but he doesn't mean that he could have the four true slam. I had a look at the fields of the 1967 pro slams and it is not so impressive.

To win the french pro, he defeated a certain Mackay in the QF (the tournaments begins here for him), then Stolle, then Gimeno, on wood.
At Wembley pro he defeated Mackay again, Davidson, Rosewall on indoors (which surface I don't know).
At the US Pro he had to play four matches: Olmedo, Ayala, Stolle, Gimeno.
At Wimbledon pro, 3 matches were enough again: Stolle, then Gimeno, then Rosewall.

None of these were played on clay, Rosewall's best surface. So, as we know how many times the ultra dominant player of a year failed to win the calendar slam, I think it is overreaching to consider that he had 97% chance to win it all. A deeper field in each tournament, a tournament to be played on his main rival best surface, it make it harder.

Right but then consider how mamy people here belittle his amateur slam
And evem his open!!!

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Right but then consider how mamy people here belittle his amateur slam
And evem his open!!!

Yes, but I'm not responsible for them right? I don't consider the amateur slam as an achievement which can be used when we compare him with the other greats though, as the best players of that time didn't compete. It is still an incredible achievement to dominate once category though, even if it is not the highest category.

 

[kiki]

You can´t have it both ways.Either belittle his am slam or his pro slam, never the two at once.

 

[dafinch]

Nadal/Agassi: Well written.

Putting aside the fact that the one in '67 was not a Grand Slam, I don't quite get the logic of giving him the one in '67 because they were pros, and gushing over the one in '62 won amongst amateurs.

 

[urban]

I think, the thread is about Borg... but simply put. Laver had the best seasons on all worlds, in all amateur tennis (for some 60 years), in all pro tennis and in all open tennis (for 44 years now.).

 

[hoodjem]

I would argue it, too, lol. I worded it incorrectly: I don't think anybody would argue that the '69 was NOT a more impressive achievement than the '62 Slam, which was in keeping with the contention that pros are-shocking!-better than amateurs and the pros were allowed to play in '69. Sorry for the typo.

Oh, okay.

Yes, I agree.

 

[hoodjem]

You can´t have it both ways.Either belittle his am slam or his pro slam, never the two at once.

Can I admire and respect both?

 

[kiki]

Can I admire and respect both?

I guess you know that my answer is pretty obvious...

 

[kiki]

Santana, Fraser,Pietrangeli,Osuna,Mulligan and Emmo among Laver victims in 62
That is pretty impressive

 

[Phoenix1983]

Borg is only the 3rd greatest of the Open Era after Federer (who he is a long way behind) and Sampras.

Nadal is only just behind him as well.

 

[Mustard]

I don't think Borg is "a long way behind" any player. His record is way too good for that.

 

[Xavier G]

Federer has surpassed Borg overall, Sampras in GS too, but Bjorn is still a monster champion: 5 straight Wimbledon (41 successive match wins), 6 French (4 in a row, 28 successive match wins.
Borg competed better at the US Open than Sampras at the French.

Nadal is not far behind and if he comes back from injury strongly, can surpass Borg and Sampras, Bjorn finishing top level tennis at Rafa's age now.

 

[forzamilan90]

I don't think Borg is "a long way behind" any player. His record is way too good for that.

If Federer wins 20 majors, would you say Borg is not too far behind him?

 

[TMF]

If Federer wins 20 majors, would you say Borg is not too far behind him?

The gap between Fed and Borg(along with Laver, sampras..)hasn't move ever since Roger won his 14th in 2009. Don't expect Fed to move ahead if he ever win another slam.

 

[borg number one]

Borg will be considered one of the greatest players ever as long as tennis is played. That kind of greatness is never forgotten. The same holds true for other all time greats, but Borg had a very unique impact on the game in those years after the Open Era began, during a truly Golden Era of tennis. It's great that we are in another great period where you have 3-4 great tennis players at the top and squaring off. Tennis needs great players and great rivalries from era to era.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Borg will be considered one of the greatest players ever as long as tennis is played. That kind of greatness is never forgotten.

Agreed, he should be considered Tier 1 by everyone.

 

[NatF]

Borg will be considered one of the greatest players ever as long as tennis is played. That kind of greatness is never forgotten. The same holds true for other all time greats, but Borg had a very unique impact on the game in those years after the Open Era began, during a truly Golden Era of tennis. It's great that we are in another great period where you have 3-4 great tennis players at the top and squaring off. Tennis needs great players and great rivalries from era to era.

Agreed, Borg's domination of two polar opposites was incredible. Top tier for sure. Do you know of any good Borg matches to watch on youtube?

 

[borg number one]

Agreed, Borg's domination of two polar opposites was incredible. Top tier for sure. Do you know of any good Borg matches to watch on youtube?

The three channel slams when the grass was faster was impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk (versus Lendl who was playing with a graphite frame in the Jan. 81 final)

This is a interesting indoor match versus Lendl. Borg went 5-0 in Jan. 80/Jan. 81 against McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors to take both the 1980 and 1981 YEC tourneys, played at NY's MSG. It was the fourth biggest tournament around in those days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCAS3FjJvFI (versus McEnroe at the same tournament in the SF the year before. Jan. 1980)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (watch his movement in particular versus Connors! Thanks Krosero.)

 

[jrs]

The only negative against Borg is the lack of US Open title. Also, would he have been able to dominate his peers for longer period of time.
As I posted in another thread - his French-Wimbledon victories will be tough to equal and beat. Federer might have had chance if not for Nadal.

 

[kiki]

The only negative against Borg is the lack of US Open title. Also, would he have been able to dominate his peers for longer period of time.
As I posted in another thread - his French-Wimbledon victories will be tough to equal and beat. Federer might have had chance if not for Nadal.

Not even comparable
And Borg did it thrice

 

[kiki]

The three channel slams when the grass was faster was impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk (versus Lendl who was playing with a graphite frame in the Jan. 81 final)

This is a interesting indoor match versus Lendl. Borg went 5-0 in Jan. 80/Jan. 81 against McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors to take both the 1980 and 1981 YEC tourneys, played at NY's MSG. It was the fourth biggest tournament around in those days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCAS3FjJvFI (versus McEnroe at the same tournament in the SF the year before. Jan. 1980)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (watch his movement in particular versus Connors! Thanks Krosero.)

Bjorn' runs at 79 and 80 Masters still stun me and are among sport history greatest
In 1979 he defeated on fast indoors world n5 Tanner, n2 Connors, n3 Mc Enroe and n4 Gerulaiitis on four successive days and lost a set to Connors and a set to Mc Enroe in two of the best ever indoor matches
In 1980 he started beating n5 Clerc... and in succession he proceeded to beat n2 Mc Enroe n3 Connors and n4 Lendl.Again losing a set to Mc Enroe in thar epic match with Borg being the bad guy and Mc the perfect sportsman, and another set to Connors in a great match
Many here have rated Connors, Lendl and Mc Enroe in open era top ten...well Bjorn beat them one after the other on a courts perfectly suited to them...