Originally Posted by pc1
That's very debatable on whether Nadal is ahead of Borg. Borg won more tournaments, had a higher lifetime winning percentage and was much more dominant at his peak. Borg won over 90% of his games at his peak over a five year period. Nadal had NEVER won 90% of his matches in a single year.
Borg won over 100 tournaments in his career by age 25.
Incidentally Bill Tilden can be argued to be ahead of anyone and of course Ken Rosewall.
As I already mentioned I dont even care about tournament win totals for any players before 1980 as it is obvious by the huge disparity in numbers it was far easier to win alot of tournaments then than it is today, not due to the so called weaker fields some believe of the past, but the much more physical nature of the game today.
Of course it is debateable but I would still go with Nadal. Borg never won 3 slams in the same year (and if he didnt play the Australian it is his fault), he never won a slam on hard courts, he never won the U.S Open despite having the chance to win it on 3 different surfaces including even on CLAY for sevearal years he was in or close to his prime. Given all the what ifs that are brought up for Borg regarding the Australian Open, if Nadal had 3 U.S Opens on green clay starting after his first French Open win he probably would have 4 U.S Open titles (or at minimum 3) today, and Borg still has 0. Nadal has won multiple slams on each surface, and even if the has the benefit in that sense of 2 slams being on his weakest of the 3 major surfaces (hard courts) he still managed a U.S Open win, Australian Open title, and Olympic singles gold, all on hard courts. Nadal has won atleast 1 slam for 7 years in a row now, so his longevity already matches or exceeds (probably exceeds) Borg's, and Nadal was ranked #1 or #2 for almost every single week for almost 8 years as well, while Borg didnt even become #2 caliber until about 5 years before he retired.