Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

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

  1. Tennusdude

    Tennusdude Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    The best will always be an opinion

    Even if I say Michael Jordan was the Greatest, it is still only an opinion.
     
  2. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    331

    You can find all the head-to-head information at the ATP site, at least for the Open era.
     
  3. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Thanks for the info, but I just went there and put "Borg vs Solomon" in the search category, but nothing came up. I looked under "Results Archive," but, not surprisingly, it doesn't seem to go back 30 plus years.
     
  4. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,733
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    It should go back to 1968.

    Here's his H2H's against the guys you mentioned

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=S065

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=G008

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=D026

    So your assumption was correct. He's played them all more than 10 times, and he's never lost to them. Going a combined 44-0.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
  5. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,820
    i dont think you can be in greatest of all time contention without winning the usopen even just one time. there is something about that, yes he was unlucky, but for other champions to be able to win it 3-5 times and he couldnt even win it once says he was unlucky AND he didnt like the conditions and didnt feel comfortable there. kind of like edberg near the beginning of his career except he overcame it and borg never did. at that time period the usopen and wimbledon were the top 2 tournaments in the world that meant the most
     
  6. Mahboob Khan

    Mahboob Khan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,094
    And that would be Jimmy Connors because he won a total of 109 Open Era titles; he won a Slam in 1974 before Borg was even seen on the Circuit, and then he beat Borg in 1976 in the U.S. Open final, and then he won the U.S. Open finals in 1981-82 beating Ivan Lendl when Borg was contemplating retirement.
     
  7. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Thank you VERY much, I thought as much, only it's worse than I imagined: 44-0, unreal. Now we see why Mr. Borg-was-in-a-tough era disappeared like a fart in the wind...
     
  8. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,446
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    erm..you are totally wrong..:confused:borg won the french open in 1974.

    and connors didnt win ths u.s. open in 1981.. :confused: mcenroe did. :?
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    he won zero slams in full fields - wimbledon 73 was the worst wimbledon in the open era ... field in 70 FO was laughable ...only one good win in the majors he won was nastase in FO 71 and even there, laver/rosewall were not there ....(laver did defeat kodes at rome 1971 , that had a better field than RG 71 )
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    read and learn :

     
  11. Mahboob Khan

    Mahboob Khan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,094
    Sorry, Connors won the U.S. Open in 82-83 for a total of 5 USOs.

    I should have checked the stat at the ATP site.
     
  12. Tennusdude

    Tennusdude Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people
     
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    No he had two, just massive
     
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Edberg never won RG or WCT
     
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Hewitt won shameful W over mediocre Malbamdiam
    His only good win was US open but we all know Sampras was tired or injuried
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    I wasn't talking about hewitt in that post, I was talking about nalbandian ....can you even read ?

    if nalbandian is mediocre by your standards, so are mecir, rios .....

    oh and hewitt beat henman as well that wimbledon and henman on grass was clearly better than anyone kodes faced in 73 W

    before you bring up the whole draw, sampras, agassi, federer, krajicek etc were also there in 2002 W ... it was a full legit field , unlike 73 W with the boycott ...

    regarding sampras in USO 2001, sampras was a bit tired, but hewitt would've beaten him regardless given how zoned in he was ..... hewitt also beat him 4 other times , including at the Masters in 2000 & twice @ queens ....
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Amritraj lost to Kodes and he is as good if not better than Henman
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    no, he's not ...henman is clearly superior ....

    amritraj only reached the QF of wimbledon & USO twice each on grass ...career high ranking of 16 ...

    henman reached the SFs of wimbledon 4 times, QFs 4 times ; career high ranking of 4 ...

    henman of course reached the semi @ the FO & USO as well, amritraj didn't make a semi @ any major
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
  19. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    SuperKodes beat all time greats on grass like massives Newk,Smith,Ashe,Roche
    Winning W against peak Nasty, Borg and Connors as well as best Vijay ever
    Winning RG vs Nasty
    Barcelona over Peak Orantes and last but not least winning Madrid over one of the all time toughest cc fields ever assembled that includedPrime Borg, prime Nastase, prime Orantes, prime Vilas, prime Panatta and ither great cc like Okker and Dibbs

    Huge
    Only Laver got beyond reach but prime Laver is GOAT
     
  20. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    ignore duplicate post
     
  21. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    What, no comment about Borg's 44-0 record against 3 frequent Top Ten players after all of you gushing about how tough an era it was? And, btw, Laver won the Grand Slam twice, not 3 times, which you stated in a post that seems to have deleted.
     
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Can you give me the records for Federer, nadal and Djokovic against the likes of Monfils,Tipsarevic or Fish?
     
  23. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Whatever it is, it ain't 44-0. Fish and Monfils have beaten Fed, I'm pretty sure, and that's not the point, you were babbling about how tough the era that Borg played in was, if he played 3 junior players, he couldn't improve on 44-0. Then there's the fact that you claimed that Laver had won the Grand Slam 3 times, when he didn't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Borg played from Laver to Lendl, you know, beat Nastase,Laver,Rosewall,Connors,Tanner,Vilas,Orantes,Gerulaitis,Panatta,Kodes,Okker,Lendl and Mc Enroe among other players.He also beat great australian John Newcombe,Arthur Ashe,Stan Smith.I can´t think of tougher competition.When you think of that, current era pales enormously.
     
  25. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Doesn't change the fact that 1) he had 3 Top Ten whipping boys to the tune of 44-0 2) you lied about the number of Grand Slams Laver won and 3) you tried to pretend you know what Federer would do if confronted with certain situations, when you have no clue
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Truth is always dangerous, and it depends on which side of the coin you pick.
     
  27. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Kiki interprets that Laver's 1967 Pro Slam is the equivalent of a Grand Slam. He thus adds that one to the 1962 Amateur Grand Slam and the 1969 Open Grand Slam.

    A number of others do also.
     
  28. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    I've never anybody else do so, and I don't think it IS open to interpretation, the definition of a Grand Slam is very precise in contents-and time, as players who didn't win the 4 in a calendar year discovered. The 4 Slams didn't allow the professionals to play in 1967-unfair, but that's the way it was.
     
  29. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    What the hell does THAT mean? A dubious statement and 2 lies, and you're talking like Yoda?
     
  30. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,621
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I started following pro tennis closely in the late 1970's and have been doing so ever since. What a golden era that was and I'm now enjoying the current players at the top. I've watched everything in between with keen interest. As a junior growing up, my coach instilled in me a deep respect for those that came before Connors, Borg, and McEnroe. He would talk to me about what Jack Kramer and Rod Laver were like, so from an early age I had an appreciation for the history of tennis. It fascinated me and made my junior tennis seem so much more meaningful. My first coach also taught me a lot about sportsmanship and how you should behave on a court. I remember him saying that Borg was a class act on the court and that was something I immediately picked up on and really admired. His lack of any sort of observable reaction after searing points at critical times really did make him seem like a guy from another planet. Borg was so self effacing and modest, but then I also realized that he was a "viking" who did not consider any player to be his superior. As to McEnroe for example, he always considered himself to be the better player. His rivalry with McEnroe was obviously cut short, but it ended at 7-7 in official meetings all played on fast grass, hard courts, and indoors. Recall that Borg even beat McEnroe twice indoors at MSG in New York at the Masters Cup, which was then the 4th largest tournament of the year (Borg went 5-0 at the 80/81 events vs. Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors while winning both titles). Obviously, I'm a huge Borg fan, but I submit that everyone has their own biases, even if it is simply a bias towards the era (s) that you have been exposed to (when you followed tennis).

    I consider the top tier of all time greats to include Laver, Borg, Federer, and Sampras, with Rosewall and Gonzalez right there as well. I also think that Nadal will end up in this top tier. I think that one could make plausible arguments for any of those players. Much depends on what you want to emphasize. Meanwhile, I do expect Djokovic to win some more majors, but I actually think that Nadal will outplay Djokovic in the next few years. We'll see how that plays out. I think all great players have pluses and minuses that you can point to. Let me accentuate some of the positives for Bjorn Rune Borg, my personal favorite. I would pick Borg over any player if you took say 10 GREAT players and had them play with equal equipment, all over the world on a tour where they played against one another in round robins at great venues and on truly varied surfaces. Yet, I think that you'd have a situation where every great player would have his share of wins and losses (with the match ups and the surface acting as big factors in determining winners). Again, I would pick Borg over anyone if it was a contest to see who would win the most over the course of such a hypo year of amazing tennis.

    Here are some of the reasons that I respect Borg so much. Bjorn Borg is an absolute tennis revolutionary who influenced so many players that followed. He's among the greatest players ever to pick up a racquet. If you look at just the numbers, you'll see some stunning statistics put up by Borg even by the age of 25, playing at just three majors per year. He played in I believe 27 majors, winning 11 of them (41%) and making the finals in another 5! Federer for example has won 17 out of 55 (31%). He has the highest winning percentage in the Open Era and he only lost in the finals at majors to either Connors or McEnroe when the fast court majors were faster than they are these days. More than anything in my opinion, is that he played tennis the way it would be played in the future by the majority of modern players. He played a power baseline game when it was much more difficult to do so. Plus, he was so fit, fast, and quick! He did all of this while while almost never complaining about bad calls, or trying to browbeat his opponent. He displayed great sportsmanship during matches and basically said nothing even when he may have felt like screaming out there. He was such a modest, great champion who had an aura unlike any player I've ever seen. In recent years, Nadal was chasing Borg at the French Open and eventually won his 7th title there, while Borg won #6 in his final year on Tour. Federer matched Borg with 5 straight wins there before he eventually won two more for seven titles in total. So, Borg was somewhat of a mix between Nadal and Federer. Nadal reminds me a LOT of Borg. Borg played at a time with much more surface versatility and he was even a great indoor player, having won 20+ indoor titles. Back then, the Wimbledon courts were faster and the US Open courts were faster. He was a phenomenon and he may be the biggest star tennis has ever known. When Borg arrived on the scene at Wimbledon, the All England Club had never seen such fan reaction. He was truly a great player who inspired me and so many others in tennis and in life. I'm so glad to see him doing so well these days. Bjorn Rune Borg, the "Iceman" or "Angelic Assasin", is a pivotal sports figure and one of the greatest sportsmen of the 20th century.

    See Bjorn Borg discuss his strengths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPGh4p0dyIk

    At 2:40 hear McEnroe describe how Borg took him "under his wing" when he came on the Tour and made him feel as if he belonged. McEnroe says that "if Bjorn Borg was behind me.it's like to hell with everybody else".... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyrLR8nzGJA

    clay (Connors/Lendl): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (thanks Krosero)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY

    grass (McEnroe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BwXwUzMLo

    hard courts (Connors): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_aYm-PyfA

    indoors (Lendl): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, I've told this about 10 times, will tell it the 11th time .... borg was nowhere near his grass court peak in 73 ...connors was to peak next year ,vijay was a good , but not great player ,13 of the 16 seeds were missing, including defending champion smith and newk, both of whom would be majorly favoured over kodes to win ....nastase of course bombed out ...the worst wimbledon in the open era.... no one else except you thinks otherwise ....

    as far as madrid goes, kodes only actually faced nastase and panatta ...

    davydenko beat : federer, nadal, del potro, & soderling in YEC 2009 ... you had djokovic, murray as well in the tournament

    nalbandian in madrid 2007 beat federer, djokovic and nadal in a row ....

    they are certainly more impressive to me than kodes in madrid in 75 ...

    kodes actually had "miserable" records vs laver,rosewall, connors and borg , not just laver ... and he didn't even face prime laver that much btw, that was 64-70 ...
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Thanks for that clear and precise explanation
     
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    You are the first person I know that belittles an entire tournament just cause the champ didnot play this guy or the other, merit goes to the winner and if another guy just fails before the final or semis it means the champ was just the better player in that week or fortnight
    If Newk or Stan would be favoured means nothing since Jan BEAT BOTH on even faster grass at West Side
    You are clueless which I understand cause you never watched other tennis than current but you are also dishonest and that is worse
     
  34. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    get a clue :

    13 of 16 seeds were missing, here repeat slowly - thirteen of the the sixeteen seeds were missing ..

    81 players overall missed it, here repeat slowly - eighty one players overall missed it ..

    I didn't belittle the tournament just because one or two players were missing ..

    I mentioned newk/stan because they would have been the favorites had they played ....
     
  35. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,506
    How does it feel to own him with every single post? Lol
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Madrid 75: Nastase, Panatta,Borg,Vilas and Orantes - + Fillol,Bertolucci,Barazutti,Okker,Higueras...-

    W 73: Nastase at his best, near prime Connors and Borg, who´d win majors very soon..

    Only SuperKodes may do that...
     
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    kodes only beat nastase and panatta .

    davydenko beat : federer, nadal, del potro, & soderling in YEC 2009 ... you had djokovic, murray as well in the tournament

    nalbandian in madrid 2007 beat federer, djokovic and nadal in a row ....



    borg was nowhere near his grass court peak in 73 ...connors was to peak next year ,vijay was a good , but not great player ,13 of the 16 seeds were missing, including defending champion smith and newk, both of whom would be majorly favoured over kodes to win ....nastase of course bombed out ...the worst wimbledon in the open era.... no one else except you thinks otherwise ....

    13 of 16 seeds were missing, here repeat slowly - thirteen of the the sixeteen seeds were missing ..

    81 players overall missed it, here repeat slowly - eighty one players overall missed it ..


    no one except you thinks kodes is more than at the level of a one slam champion. If he faced full fields, he might not even have won one slam ...

    his total no of titles won - only 8 - reflects this ...

    "slamless" players like nalbandian, tsonga, soderling ,rios, mecir etc are better than him
     
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I aknowldge them as good players but there have been many at their level
    Well Mecir was very talented, Nalbandian was very good but Repeat slowly, Kodes was a true champ 3 majors, 3 majors
    Your opinions won' t change it
     
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Here's a post by Sgt. John (IMO a very well-respected poster on here), who ranks the world's most important four tournaments for each year:
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1892492&postcount=10

    If one looks at this post, one one will note that in 1967 he ranks the top four tournaments as
    Wembley: Laver (Rosewall)
    World Pro: Laver (Rosewall)
    Wimbledon Pro: Laver (Rosewall)
    US Pro: Laver (Gimeno).

    IF one accepts his logic (that these four tournaments were the four toughest tournaments in that year with the highest level of play by the world's best players), then the interpretation makes sense because Laver won all four. One could say something very similar about Rosewall's 1963 year.

    Here is another interpretation of Sgt. John's logic:
    I am in agreement that the definition of a true, historical Grand Slam is very precise as to contents and is also time-delimited. I believe that a Pro Slam cannot be regarded as an actual Grand Slam, but only as an equivalent. (Yet I, for one, would regard the 1967 Pro Slam as a higher achievement by Laver than the 1962 Grand Slam.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2013
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Good post
    Best pregolden laver
    Best golden Borg
    Best posgolden Sampras
    Best predull Sampras
    Best dull Fed
    Best posdull Nadal
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    dafinch, Winning the Pro Grand Slam was tougher than winning an amateur Slam.
     
  42. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,308
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    But easier than winning a modern slam.
     
  43. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    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.
     
  44. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Never said that it wasn't, what I said was, saying that Laver won 3 Grand Slams is a lie, period.
     
  45. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
  46. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,831
    Yeah, the guy is getting beaten from pillar to posts and just keeps lying like nothing is wrong.
     
  47. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,621
    While I don't think he's the greatest of all time, I think Borg's best stat is his slam winning percentage.

    He won 11 of 27 slams he competed it (nearly 41%) and made the finals in 16 of 27 (nearly 60%).
     
  48. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, 97% , I guess losing to rosewall next year at RG takes away that 3% , isn't it !? how do we accommodate his loss to drysdale in USO 68 then !?

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

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    most of these players had higher peak levels than Kodes, just they weren't lucky to get even one, let alone 3 shots at weakened majors ......

    I tried repeating what you said here ... it said, you are not clueless as kiki , do not type this ....:)

    no matter what you say, very few will regard kodes as more than a very good player - nowhere close to a great ; he won only 8 titles overall, only 8 ......
     
  50. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    The Oklahoma event, Sgt. John mentioned and included in his top four, was on clay. One 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.
     

Share This Page