Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

[tennisaddict]

Being a Fed fan or not has nothing to do with it, it's just my opinion.

4 out of 17 of Fed's slams came at AO which was an almost insignificant event in Borg's day, yes I know you can't award him hypothetical slams but given how amazing he was on grass I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have won several if the event had the importance it has today (and that it did since 1995).

Borg's mastery over two slams which were complete polar opposites at the time is the feat I regard to be one of the most impressive in tennis history (winning Wimbledon-FO double today just doesn't compare in my eyes) and one that I don't think anyone else was capable of in tennis ever (not even Laver or Rosewall).

His performance at his worst slam-USO is very comparable to Fed's performance at his worst slam-FO with about the same level of competition more or less, while individually Connors and McEnroe at USO weren't on Nadal's level at the FO, combined they made it about as tough for someone to win it (I also think the depth was better than the largely lackluster modern CC era).

I'm not one of those who believe that finals don't count for anything and the title win is the only thing that matters, for me Fed was a much, much better claycourter than Sampras (the greatest player of previous era) long before he won FO in 2009 and Borg gets his due from me for making 4 USO finals (or even only 3 if we discount the one on green clay).

Furthemore while Fed is a beast indoors so was Borg which further speaks to his versatility as a player (given that he won most if not all of his indoor titles on carpet while Fed did on indoor HC).

Good post, except for the bolded part. A victory at FO and 4 other finals and innumerable SF's over almost a decade is not "comparable" to Borg's USO achievement, but clearly better which puts Fed at a higher pedestal.

I agree that if Borg had played AO, he would have been at 14 or 15 majors and hence he ranks more than Sampras for winning on such disparate surfaces.

The combination of 5 plus finals on all surfaces , winning 17 of them and having 5 YEC, 302 weeks - all makes Fed way ahead of the competition.

 

[dafinch]

when asked if he´d trade one of his 5 Wimblies for just one USO title, Borg said just two words: " NO WAY"

He answered your question

Again, one can't assume that he is going to be objective about the subject, like his claim that he retired because of those mean old tennis officials forcing him to play too many tournaments. I think if you polled knowledgeable tennis people if he would be more favorably viewed if he had 4 Wimbeldons and 1 US Open, or 3 Wimbledons, 1 US Open and 1 Aussie Open, I think it's pretty obvious what the answer would be.

 

[kiki]

duplicate post

I explained myself poorly.The question was exactly the way you wrotte.

He´d have a career slam, with 5 majors ( instead of 4), which are Wimbledon, US open, Masters,WCT and Roland Garros.In fact, he won 4 out of 5 top events of golden tennis.ture, just one WCT

 

[forzamilan90]

when asked if he´d trade one of his 5 Wimblies for just one USO title, Borg said just two words: " NO WAY"

He answered your question

that has to with whether he'd trade titles, not why he failed to win a third unique slam

 

[kiki]

The ability of Borg, EVEN HALF INJURIED to not give up and get over the worst situations is unique.Not even laver would be able to.

In 74, he was down 2 sets to zero against the possibly world´s best cc player, Orantes.He won the last three sets 0,1,0

In 80, he lost 9 or 10 match balls in that epic tiebreak at Wimbledon against Mc Enroe...anybody else would have yielded...well, he won 8-6¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

In 78, at Rome, he was throwm lots of coins in the finals against Panatta.He won in 5 sets.

This guy was mad eof Iron.He looked undestroyable

 

[forzamilan90]

^^^good to know you avoided my question yet again

 

[Chanwan]

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.

when Borg retired the Open era was very, very young

 

[dafinch]

I explained myself poorly.The question was exactly the way you wrotte.

He´d have a career slam, with 5 majors ( instead of 4), which are Wimbledon, US open, Masters,WCT and Roland Garros.In fact, he won 4 out of 5 top events of golden tennis.ture, just one WCT

No, I read carelessly, when I re-read it, I edited my post. Maybe he really believes what he said, but there's no doubt it can be viewed as self serving, and, like I said, the fact that he's the only guy among the top 20 Slam winners without a US Open win on his resume is glaring, to say the least.

 

[kiki]

^^^good to know you avoided my question yet again

...Connors euqals Borg after being down 0-4 in the fifth at W 77.He also leads 2 to 0 at W 81.Tanner saves 3 match points in the fifth of W 79 and pairs at 4 all...well, Borg still emerges the winner.No man has ever had Borg´s balls in any sport.

 

[kiki]

I laugh at those who say Borg knew he couldn´t beat mac anymore.But, if it is right, Fed knew the same about Nadal in the AO 2009.

Difference? While Fed cryied it out as a beaten *****, Borg stood up as a man.It is probably a problem of eras .

 

[dafinch]

when Borg retired the Open era was very, very young

That's an excellent point to a deceptive stat, if Laver had retired in 1971, for example, instead of '79 , think what HIS percentage lead over the next player in Open era Slams would've been, lol.

 

[forzamilan90]

...Connors euqals Borg after being down 0-4 in the fifth at W 77.He also leads 2 to 0 at W 81.Tanner saves 3 match points in the fifth of W 79 and pairs at 4 all...well, Borg still emerges the winner.No man has ever had Borg´s balls in any sport.

 

[kiki]

You guys, newtards.What makes your speech absurd and clueless is not that you prefer or idolatrize Fed or Djokovic.I can understand it.What makes it laughable is that you pretend to give lessons of what happened in the past to expert posters that WHERE THERE when it happened and have a much longer perspective than you have, while you never even watched it.Let´s be serious and honest, even you current teens can make a try at it.

 

[abmk]

I laugh at those who say Borg knew he couldn´t beat mac anymore.But, if it is right, Fed knew the same about Nadal in the AO 2009.

Difference? While Fed cryied it out as a beaten *****, Borg stood up as a man.It is probably a problem of eras .

fed has beaten nadal 4 times after AO 2009 ......

borg surely would've beaten mac even after 81, especially if they met on clay ... while he was probably the toughest mentally in tennis, his lack of US Open title does hurt him ... so does his early retirement due to burn out ....

 

[forzamilan90]

You guys, newtards.What makes your speech absurd and clueless is not that you prefer or idolatrize Fed or Djokovic.I can understand it.What makes it laughable is that you pretend to give lessons of what happened in the past to expert posters that WHERE THERE when it happened and have a much longer perspective than you have, while you never even watched it.Let´s be serious and honest, even you current teens can make a try at it.

if you tell your opinions to just about all the tennis media people nowadays (and older ones too, Mac, Drysdale, Evert), they'd think you're crazy, just flat out telling you

 

[kiki]

if you tell your opinions to just about all the tennis media people nowadays (and older ones too, Mac, Drysdale, Evert), they'd think you're crazy, just flat out telling you

they just say what their boss makes them say...but deep down they know the truth.

 

[forzamilan90]

they just say what their boss makes them say...but deep down they know the truth.

I guess Kramer knows the best of all, since he said Fed is the greatest he ever saw before he died, and he also wasn't much a fan of Laver. Surely, he didn't have a boss whose agenda he had to follow.

 

[dafinch]

I laugh at those who say Borg knew he couldn´t beat mac anymore.But, if it is right, Fed knew the same about Nadal in the AO 2009.

Difference? While Fed cryied it out as a beaten *****, Borg stood up as a man.It is probably a problem of eras .

I don't quite get how crying, but playing, and increasing one's Slam total to the all time high is NOT standing up like a man, while running home to mama after getting your ass kicked and retiring like a petulant bi-yatch is not. Not to mention, the poor, broken, devastated Fed has beaten Nadal sevearl times since the '09 AO.

 

[kiki]

I guess Kramer knows the best of all, since he said Fed is the greatest he ever saw before he died, and he also wasn't much a fan of Laver. Surely, he didn't have a boss whose agenda he had to follow.

Everybody knows he hated the aussies.Kramer has changed his speech much more times than most politicians change their convictions...

 

[kiki]

I don't quite get how crying, but playing, and increasing one's Slam total to the all time high is NOT standing up like a man, while running home to mama after getting your ass kicked and retiring like a petulant bi-yatch is not. Not to mention, the poor, broken, devastated Fed has beaten Nadal sevearl times since the '09 AO.

Never on a slam.In fact, Nadal wipped the floor with him, again, at Roland Garros.

To even imagine the kind of limit situations Borg had to endure, would just force Federer to retire.

 

[TMF]

I laugh at those who say Borg knew he couldn´t beat mac anymore.But, if it is right, Fed knew the same about Nadal in the AO 2009.

Difference? While Fed cryied it out as a beaten *****, Borg stood up as a man.It is probably a problem of eras .

Again kiki, whether Borg and Fed believe they can't win anymore isn't my issue. The point is Federer didn't give in and call it quit. He came back strong by adding 4 more slams after the 2009 AO, breaking Pete's slam count and weeks at #1. The difference between Fed and Borg is day and night. Plus, Borg didn't cry but he also didn't stood up as a man either....chose a safer/easier route by quitting.

 

[NatF]

I laugh at those who say Borg knew he couldn´t beat mac anymore.But, if it is right, Fed knew the same about Nadal in the AO 2009.

Difference? While Fed cryied it out as a beaten *****, Borg stood up as a man.It is probably a problem of eras .

Federer is still playing now 4 years on. You chat so much **** it's unbelievable.

 

[kiki]

Federer is still playing now 4 years on. You chat so much **** it's unbelievable.

Borg´s competition was so hard...and in the future, there would have been Becker,Edberg and Mats.Federer era is so weak that he has already ensured a berth in the semis.In fact, why don´t they start the tournament at the quarterfinals?

 

[forzamilan90]

Everybody knows he hated the aussies.Kramer has changed his speech much more times than most politicians change their convictions...

fortunately, Kramer is not alone in his resolute belief on that topic. Just about everyone except a few loud mouths on this forum disagree

 

[dafinch]

Never on a slam.In fact, Nadal wipped the floor with him, again, at Roland Garros.

To even imagine the kind of limit situations Borg had to endure, would just force Federer to retire.

You have no idea what Federer would do in whatever it is you're trying to describe in your last sentence, so please stop acting like you do. We DO know that, unlike greats in other sports, like Ali and Michael Jordan, who endured defeats but persevered and eventually defeated tormentors, that Borg quit like a punk, and no amount of spinning as to his reasons for doing so is going to change that fact.

 

[kiki]

fortunately, Kramer is not alone in his resolute belief on that topic. Just about everyone except a few loud mouths on this forum disagree

I maybe wrong, of course.But at least, I talk about what I personally watched.Most posters here don´t have the right to disaprove me if they were not EVEN BORN and pretend they know about it.Pathetic.It is like if I tried to teach what the Second World Was to a War veteran when I wasn´t even born¡¡¡

 

[abmk]

Borg´s competition was so hard...and in the future, there would have been Becker,Edberg and Mats.Federer era is so weak that he has already ensured a berth in the semis.In fact, why don´t they start the tournament at the quarterfinals?

actually boris & edberg came into their own from 85 onwards ...

even in 82,83,84 borg's competition would be still mac, connors, lendl & wilander .....

oh and your federer era statement is just your typical cluelessness & jealousy that federer has surpassed your boy laver in the GOAT debate

the depth in the game now is more than ever before ...federer's just that consistent at reaching the later stages of a slam ... even your boy laver wasn't close ...losing to drysdale at USO 68 in 4R ... federer has defeated quite a few better players before the semis than drysdale - agassi , hewitt, roddick, nalbandian etc ....

 

[NatF]

Borg´s competition was so hard...and in the future, there would have been Becker,Edberg and Mats.Federer era is so weak that he has already ensured a berth in the semis.In fact, why don´t they start the tournament at the quarterfinals?

Odd how every says the depth of today's game is so much higher than it's ever been before? Maybe Federer is just that good that he can consistantly reach the quarters?

 

[abmk]

I maybe wrong, of course.But at least, I talk about what I personally watched.Most posters here don´t have the right to disaprove me if they were not EVEN BORN and pretend they know about it.Pathetic.It is like if I tried to teach what the Second World Was to a War veteran when I wasn´t even born¡¡¡

yeah, only you haven't watched much of modern tennis as is evident by your clueless statements , one such example being comparing hewitt to clay courters like solomon, dibbs, higueras ........:lol:

 

[kiki]

actually boris & edberg came into their own from 85 onwards ...

even in 82,83,84 borg's competition would be still mac, connors, lendl & wilander .....

oh and your federer era statement is just your typical cluelessness & jealousy that federer has surpassed your boy laver in the GOAT debate

the depth in the game now is more than ever before ...federer's just that consistent at reaching the later stages of a slam ... even your boy laver wasn't close ...losing to drysdale at USO 68 in 4R ... federer has defeated quite a few better players before the semis than drysdale - agassi , hewitt, roddick, nalbandian etc ....

<yes, he lost to mighties Tsonga,Henman and Sodelring.nalbdandian is the Chris Lewis of modern era.2,2,2,.Difference is lewis lost to mac and nalbandian to hewitt....

 

[abmk]

<yes, he lost to mighties Tsonga,Henman and Sodelring.

henman loss was well before his prime ...

tsonga and soderling were absolutely on-fire when they beat fed ........ in that form, they'd have crushed your darling kodes 2,2 and 2 ......

tsonga's performance vs fed at wimbledon in 2011 was somewhat like that of curren in wimbledon 85 vs mac/connors

soderling's performance at the RG 2010 QF was one of the highest levels ever on clay ....... it was a near flawless performance ....

nalbdandian is the Chris Lewis of modern era.2,2,2,.Difference is lewis lost to mac and nalbandian to hewitt....

eh, again, total cluelessness ....chris lewis was a one slam wonder ...he didn't even reach 4R at any other slam

nalbandian was consistently going deep in slams from 2003-06

he won the masters in 2005, defeating federer in the final ..

also won madrid/paris in dominant fashion in 2007 , beating all top players - federer, nadal, djokovic ...everyone ....

the closest comparisions to nalbandian in other eras would be mecir and rios ...

 

[kiki]

henman loss was well before his prime ...

tsonga and soderling were absolutely on-fire when they beat fed ........ in that form, they'd have crushed your darling kodes 2,2 and 2 ......

tsonga's performance vs fed at wimbledon in 2011 was somewhat like that of curren in wimbledon 85 vs mac/connors

soderling's performance at the RG 2010 QF was one of the highest levels ever on clay ....... it was a near flawless performance ....




eh, again, total cluelessness ....chris lewis was a one slam wonder ...he didn't even reach 4R at any other slam

nalbandian was consistently going deep in slams from 2003-06

he won the masters in 2005, defeating federer in the final ..

also won madrid/paris in dominant fashion in 2007 , beating all top players - federer, nadal, djokovic ...everyone ....

the closest comparisions to nalbandian in other eras would be mecir and rios ...

If Kodes won three slams in golden tennis, I just can´t imagine how many in dull tennis...

 

[dafinch]

<yes, he lost to mighties Tsonga,Henman and Sodelring.nalbdandian is the Chris Lewis of modern era.2,2,2,.Difference is lewis lost to mac and nalbandian to hewitt....

I have an interesting test to give an indication how strong Borg's era was(and, btw, I noticed you carefully avoided answering post # 182, perhaps it dawned on you how silly it is for you to try and pretend you know what Federer is going to do, although one thing we see that he would NOT do is quit like a b.itch): since you're lambasting Fed's era, why don't you tell us the head to head scores of Eddie Solomon, Ernie Dibbs, and Vitas Gerulaitis-all consistent occupants in the Top Ten during their prime-vs Borg?

 

[forzamilan90]

If Kodes won three slams in golden tennis, I just can´t imagine how many in dull tennis...

0 in in 2004-now era for sure

 

[dafinch]

If Kodes won three slams in golden tennis, I just can´t imagine how many in dull tennis...

Three? I know he won one when the best players were on strike, Wimbledon, when virtually all of the top players were on strike. Don't tell me, lemme guess: he won the Dirtball Open twice, right?

 

[kiki]

I have an interesting test to give an indication how strong Borg's era was(and, btw, I noticed you carefully avoided answering post # 182, perhaps it dawned on you how silly it is for you to try and pretend you know what Federer is going to do, although one thing we see that he would NOT do is quit like a b.itch): since you're lambasting Fed's era, why don't you tell us the head to head scores of Eddie Solomon, Ernie Dibbs, and Vitas Gerulaitis-all consistent occupants in the Top Ten during their prime-vs Borg?

Who are Eddy Solomon and Erny Dibbs?

Borg never cried out of impotence.Of course, he never played in the WTA

 

[kiki]

Three? I know he won one when the best players were on strike, Wimbledon, when virtually all of the top players were on strike. Don't tell me, lemme guess: he won the Dirtball Open twice, right?

Borg,Nastase,Connors...Roche,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith,Nastase again...not exactly Tsonga,Nalbandian,Bagdhatis,Philipoussis,Gonzalez ( from chili),Ferrer and Davidoff...

 

[Cup8489]

You guys, newtards.What makes your speech absurd and clueless is not that you prefer or idolatrize Fed or Djokovic.I can understand it.What makes it laughable is that you pretend to give lessons of what happened in the past to expert posters that WHERE THERE when it happened and have a much longer perspective than you have, while you never even watched it.Let´s be serious and honest, even you current teens can make a try at it.

I guess I didn't realize you were there for all of Borg's major titles.

 

[gsharma]

Borg,Nastase,Connors...Roche,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith,Nastase again...not exactly Tsonga,Nalbandian,Bagdhatis,Philipoussis,Gonzalez ( from chili),Ferrer and Davidoff...

70s and 80s were the golden days of tennis. When have so many greats played as contemporaries since?

 

[kiki]

I guess I didn't realize you were there for all of Borg's major titles.

of course I was.

 

[dafinch]

Who are Eddy Solomon and Erny Dibbs?

Borg never cried out of impotence.Of course, he never played in the WTA

Excuse me, HAROLD Solomon and Eddie Dibbs. They were called the "Bagel Twins" and I confused their first names, but, if you're such an afficianado of old time tennis, I suspect you knew exactly who I am talking about and are trying to skirt the issue. So, why don't you tell the young'uns how 3 top 10 players did against Borg?

 

[kiki]

70s and 80s were the golden days of tennis. When have so many greats played as contemporaries since?

True, it is an era that starts in the down of open tennis, with Laver GS and goes all the way through the start of sampras domination, up to the middle 90´s.

 

[dafinch]

Borg,Nastase,Connors...Roche,Newcombe,Ashe,Smith,Nastase again...not exactly Tsonga,Nalbandian,Bagdhatis,Philipoussis,Gonzalez ( from chili),Ferrer and Davidoff...

I'm guessing didn't beat any of these people during that bogus Wimbledon win, when 13 of the top 16 players(and 81 in all) stayed away. Guy was a notch above a ham n' egger, don't try to make him into an all time great.

 

[Start da Game]

i would have declared borg the greatest had he stayed back and solved the mac puzzle and then retired........otherwise his overall game and resume reflects completeness......

look at nadal in comparison.......he lost 7 close finals, almost all pretty close and heart breaking losses.......he did not retire, he stayed back and hit him hard with three consecutive hammerings, denied novak the non-calender slam and protected that old goof laver's record in the process........

 

[Start da Game]

70s and 80s were the golden days of tennis. When have so many greats played as contemporaries since?

70s was amazing.......most of the 80s was truly boring with old connors, on and off mac, boring trollander etc., until becker and edberg took over in the late 80s and then came sampras.......

 

[Bobby Jr]

<...nalbdandian is the Chris Lewis of modern era.2,2,2,.Difference is lewis lost to mac and nalbandian to hewitt....

Nalbandian is a much bigger talent - realised or unrealised - than Lewis ever was.

He would thump Lewis off the court six ways to Saturday.

 

[kiki]

Lewis lost to a stronger player than Hewitt, but the score was the same...

 

[dafinch]

Suddenly it's crickets from the guy who was gushing about Borg's tough era. I've been unable to unearth the actual head to head of Borg vs Solomon and Dibbs, but he is shown as 16-0 vs Vitas, and I'm almost certain that he never lost to either of the other two, either, despite playing them at least 10 times each. Both of the Bagel Twins were short, with 2 handed backhands, and one of them described returning Borg's shots to that wing as "like reaching up to comb your hair for 4 hours." So, against THREE frequent members of the Top Ten, Borg was roughly 36-0, indicating the era wasn't quite as tough as it is being made to appear, lol...

 

[Bobby Jr]

.....No man has ever had Borg´s balls in any sport.

So much balls he apparently had used them all up by 25.

People - and Borg - call it loss of passion, or even boredom. Perhaps it was really seeing the rising guns Lendl, Wilander etc around him and the realisation that he wouldn't be able to enjoy the sort of dominance he once did. Maybe he couldn't handle facing tennis where he couldn't dominate.

Sounds like the sort of real reason someone would frame publicly as "I lost the passion."

 

[dafinch]

So much balls he apparently had used them all up by 25.

People - and Borg - call it loss of passion, or even boredom. Perhaps it was really seeing the rising guns Lendl, Wilander etc around him and the realisation that he wouldn't be able to enjoy the sort of dominance he once did. Maybe he couldn't handle facing tennis where he couldn't dominate.

Sounds like the sort of real reason someone would frame publicly as "I lost the passion."

Precisely. A variation of that is saying, "I didn't play my best," and, although I'm a fan of Serena's, it pisses me off when she doesn't give the opponent credit and makes that statement. It is not enough to be a great player or team, you must also PLAY well. The losers of the 1980 USSR vs USA hockey game, Douglass vs Tyson heavyweight championship fight, and Connors vs Ashe in the '75 Wimbledon final all played below par(and they were all MUCH bigger favorites than Borg was vs McEnroe at Wimbledon), but, whose fault is THAT? And I'm sure that was small solace to the Russians, Mike Tyson, and Jimmy Connors, respectively...