Originally Posted by ARFED
Borg did have an amazing career, his versatility in order to adjust his game fron clay to grass was and still is unparalleled but he was never as dominant as other players great players have been, and that in my opinion is what excludes him from tier 1 greats (i consider him a top 5 player all time though behind Fed, Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras).
For example, during his prime years (1978-1981) he won 7 out of 11 majors played (64%). He also won 2 Masters. Federer in his prime years (2004-2007) won 11 out of 16 majors (69%) and in addition 3 Masters. Borg won a total of 34 titles whereas Federer won a total of 42 titles.
Overall not a big difference but nevertheless a clear one. I personally regard dominance in peak years as the main criteria to evaluate greatness and is my feeling that sometimes Borg is a bit overhyped around here as he was some superhuman being during his dominant years where it was almost impossible to beat him.
Actually Borg won over 70 tournaments in his best five years including an incredible 21 in 1979. I believe Borg won 76 tournaments over his best five years. For example in 1979 Borg won the French, Wimbledon, the Masters, the Canadian Open over McEnroe on hard court. Borg's winning percentages over that period exceed anyone but Bill Tilden plus his games won percentages are on a totally different level from anyone perhaps ever.
Borg was not overhyped.
For example Pat Rafter won two majors and eleven tournaments in his whole career. Borg in 1979 surpassed Rafter's entire career and I believe Rafter is in the Hall of Fame.