Originally Posted by krosero
Either way Borg comes out with a lead.
LOL I see nothing about your long winded post that proved this in anyway. Fact is they both have 11 slams. Speculation beyond that can go either way for both so becomes meaningles. You can say what if the Australian Open was a real slam then and Borg had played all those years, and if he did play all those years and if it were a real slam played on grass like it was then he probably would have won a few more slams. I can say what if Nadal got the U.S Open on clay for 3 years like Borg (although in Borg's case still didnt capatilize), while had the Australian Open been exactly like today, a real slam played on hard courts Borg might still have won 0 or at best only 1 there vs the 3 additional Nadal would likely have won with 3 U.S Opens on clay after his first RG win. Thus they all cancel out and become irrelevant.
Either way my reason for ranking Nadal over Borg is simple. Borg couldnt even win a U.S Open with it on 3 different surfaces. By extension could never win a hard court slam. On top of that on Borg's best surface (clay) Nadal is now the hands down GOAT ahead of Borg.
Others can disagree but there is nothing that conclusively proves Borg or Nadal have the "lead", fact is both have 11 slams and beyond that it is speculation and opinion to who is better. However most in the real World (not Planet TW of lovesick Federer worshippers and Nadal haters which is a comedy based irrelevance) most now regard Nadal as being above Borg.