Originally Posted by sonicare
Borg is no.2 on the all time great list.
ROTFL the very idea you think Borg is ahead of 2 out of 3 of Laver, Gonzales, or Federer is already enough to not bother reading any of the rest of your post (which I am sure was complete and utter crap anyhow).
BTW people retiring at 25 is NOT a further mark of greatness, in fact just the opposite. Dont make me laugh by even thinking of introducing that as a way to further build Borg up. That is even more ridiculous than the fantasy Australian Opens for Borg some are trying to award.
As for Borg and Sampras, Sampras is easily better than Borg on any surface outside of clay (where of course Borg is light years ahead). Sampras did not suck on all slow courts, I am quite sure he is easiily better than Borg on a hard court of any speed, slow, medium, or fast. Now as for normalizing, if we are going to do one what if we might as well do them all, so if Borg couldnt win the U.S Open not only on fast hard courts in all his peak years, but on more preferred surfaces in his non peak ones, so the only normalization to assume when comparing him to Sampras and Nadal is if the Australian Open were also on hard courts like the times of both Sampras and Nadal, and he played it every year, he would have probably won none and still had only 11 slams. Meanwhile if we want to do a hypothetical for all from Borg's vantage point, now the Australian Open is on grass for all 3 rather than hards, and all playing in full fields like a regular slam each year, all time grass GOAT Sampras then gains a TON more slams vs the few Borg gains, and Nadal probably even gains an additional 1 or 2 as he is better on grass than hard courts himself. So in the latter scenario Borg might stand in better stead vs Nadal, but yet even worse vs Sampras. When Sampras retired nobody ranked him below Borg btw.