borg number one
^^I understand that Borg competed against other great players, and agree that he had an amazing ability to meet challenges, but this still does not change the fact that he lost his grip on the game and walked away. This isn't a personal criticism of Borg, but in my book, at least, a serious detriment to his GOAT status.
I also don't quite agree that Sampras didn't have incredibly tough competition--I don't even think it's debatable. As for Federer, contrary to many, I do think he's faced tough competition in the sense that many of the players he routinely faced would be probably be multiple slam winners if Federer was not winning all the slams. It's the chicken and the egg question when it comes to Federer's performance, but I will say that guys like Hewitt, Safin and Roddick would be much more accomplished if Federer were not around. People gripe about the lack of slam winners today, but I think it's an unconvincing argument just because there are four slams played every year (same as always) and if Federer wins most of them for years on end, how can other people amount slam totals? You know? Either everyone else sucks, or Federer is that good. I think it's the latter.
In general, I feel that the level of tennis competition has only gone up and up as tennis has expanded around the globe. I personally think it's harder in the objective sense to dominate today than in Borg's era by virtue of the global game (not tennis's popularity in the media).
I hear your argument loud and clear though, and I do appreciate Borg (and Laver)--I watched them play on the TTC the other night--and certainly think Borg is a legend of the game, and one who deserves respect.
Wear cotton, not plastic