Bjorn Borg is the GOAT
 

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

I concur..I have repeated this trillion times that FEd is not even a GOAT candidate,he's barely a WEeird nosed cow..

Of course not. Obviously, slams that he *didn't* play can't count towards his final tally (nor can the fact that he was washed up at 25 award him several more "ghost" slams), and two slams are missing from his resume, so case closed as far as I'm concerned. He's not part of the A-list (Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, and Federer) but is firmly part of the B-list, though (with Sampras and Nadal).

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

11 > 9, so Borg > Federer

Your reasoning is skewed, in that there is no rule that says "GOAT candidates' achievements are to be judged at 26 years of age". We must look at their whole career, and if Borg stopped at 26, tough luck to him (otherwise, Chang could be considered the GOAT, you would just have to put the limit at 17 and several months). When you look at their slams, there is no doubt that 16 out of 4 >>>>>>> 11 out of 2.

Do you think Bjorn would have retired at 26 if he believed he could still play or had the motivation to play for that sort of success?

This is incredibly idiotic logic. Borg peaked and was winning majors much younger than Fed. Even if he had stayed on the tour, it's not likely he would have had much success past 26.

go for the eyes boo. GO FOR THE EYES!

If you don't play, you can't win. Longetivity (or is this not an English word?) counts as well. Much of Agassi's legacy is due to him still performing well in 2005, even though he didn't win anything. Borg couldn't bring himself to playing once he didn't win everything anymore. So he quit, good for him, but it's not helping his tennis legacy imo

IIRC he reached the 3rd round at AO, so lets not assume he would have won them.

Even Roger's count is essentially 3 slams (only one win at RG), so he is still 15 slams if you count only 3 slams.

But whatever suits your fancy.

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

ROFL.. accidental, this is truly priceless .. still lmao

Except he tried to come back and utterly failed.

Borg won RG-Wimby double three times(78,79,80) when Wimby was played on fast grass(unlike today's slow grass). This particular achievement certainly puts him ahead of Nadal but I'm not sure if it puts him ahead of Federer because Roger would've won on fast grass.
He's still 5 slams short of Federer so one can't conclusively say he's the GOAT.

If Serena had nuts, she'd have won 20 slams by now.

LAWL !

When regarding Borg and the players of that era then the fact that nobody really played the Australian does need to be taken into account. This and the whole amateur/pro divide obviously means that simply counting Majors is insufficient.

Borg's retired young because he was burnt-out. If he had continued to play then it is hardly a given he would've won more, due to this. Keep in mind that he had won Majors for 8 years in-a-row at this stage, which is the same as Sampras and Federer. It isn't as if he would be expected to have another 3-4 years of Major wins in him.

Borg's phenomenal level on courts of all speeds is what I find most impressive. 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles on fast, low-bouncing grass and 6 wins on the slow, high-bouncing clay of Roland Garros. 3 consecutive French Open-Wimbledon doubles is one of the all-time great achievements. His weakest Major (considering he played the Australian only once) was really the US Open with 4 finals, losing to two other greats McEnroe and Connors twice each. He only ever played 4 Majors on hard and reached the final of 3 of them. By comparison, it took Federer and Nadal until their 11th Major on clay and hard respectively to win one and Sampras played 13 Majors on clay, reaching only one semi. His 22 titles on carpet also show his ability on fast courts. He had 3 years where he reached 3 Majors finals out of 3 played. The only reason his number of weeks at #1 is so low is due to the poor system. He was voted ATP Player of the Year for 3 years that he did not end as #1.

Due to Sampras' relatively poor showings on clay, I place Borg ahead of him, but behind Federer in my ranking of the greatest players of the Open era. One of the very, very best.

A GOAT without the USO title? You don't say.

Wow, I did not know that. Borg was absolutely amazing. Also he won on real grass and all those channel slams as well.

According to people on these forums....
Bjorn Borg:
- Greatest forehand, backhand, serve, serve return, volley, and overhead ever.
- Would have won the 100m, 200m, and 400m at the Olympics
- Outran a cheetah in a sprint
- Had a resting heart rate of 4 beats per minute
- Could squat 1175 pounds
- Had 0% bodyfat
- Walked on water in order to appear at the French, US Open, and Wimbledon
- A single strand of his hair could cure cancer and heart disease merely by touching it
All 100% true and verified.

And that would probably be a LOT less than some would think of their tennis heroes today.

Let's just say Borg was a great player. I don't think there is much argument about that.

Nadal's great as is Federer, Djokovic, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Pancho Gonzalez and many others and all of them were great tennis talents. Some people used to think Yannick Noah was such a great athlete that he should have tried the NBA. That never happened but indirectly his DNA played in the NBA in the form of his son Joakim Noah who plays for the Chicago Bulls.