Originally Posted by TMF
If you removed the AO and assumed that Nadal focus on other smaller tournament instead, there's no way he could have won as much title as Borg, because not only he can play 1 event to replace AO, but we all know it's much more difficult to rack up title today. There are 4 slams, 9 MS and WTF in a year. That's 14 tournaments that are very competitive and difficult to win. And Nadal can only play 20 tournaments a year, which leaves him only a few mickey mouse tournaments. Borg's 77 titles is not better than Nadal 50 titles. Sorry, not everything carry the same weight.
Yes one time I agree with you. People in the FPPT always try to compare regular tournament title counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you cant do that. Even by the 90s it was far harder, Graf won 107 tournaments vs the 199 Court won and 167 Navratilova own, are they that much better than her. Federer will likely never win as many tournaments as Connors or Lendl, but everyone knows he is a big level above both of them as a player, so how can that tournament count be realistic. Meanwhile Laver is reported to have 144, Federer might not reach 60% of that but is he really that much worse, even for those who feel Laver is better. I dont concur with your beliefs that tennis competition was always better now than then, however I would agree the game is far more physically demanding and the requirements of the players to all meet at major events outside the slams with everyone present is much more than in the past too. So winning as many tournaments as back in the days some events you only needed 3 or 4 rounds to win one, and the game was far less physically taxing with far fewer injuries, and when players arent going to last until their last 30s like they often did now, is simply impossible.