Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious
Yeah, you got some excellent points there.
Not so sure about that.
A comparison between Fed and Sampras is far easier to do (and even in that case there are various difficulties) than a comparison between Borg and Nadal (or Fed, Sampras for that matter etc.).
In Nadal, Fed and Sampras' era AO is clearly at worst the 4th most important tourney of the year while arguably tourneys Basel and Dubai today have better fields than AO did in Borg's day.
As much as people (though mainly Nadal fans to be precise) ridicule WTF/YEC today it was the 4th most important even in Borg's era and he did very well there (overall he was a terrific player on indoor carpet while Nadal struggles on slow indoor HC).
Regarding USO, true Nadal won the title but Borg reached 4 USO finals and arguably had the toughest competition there out of any tennis great (McEnroe and Connors are some of the best USO players of all time and Borg had them both in the way and at their peaks/primes), given that (some) Nadal fans love to bring the competition argument even when compared to a player largely from the same era (Fed) they should realize that a case can be easily made for Borg in that regard.
There's also the matter of the polarization of surfaces, grass and clay were complete polar opposites in Borg's day and his continued dominance in both of those tourneys is one of the most impressive feats in tennis ever (if not even the most impressive).
It is very hard to make a straightforward comparison between Borg and any other modern (say since 1990) tennis great, personally I wouldn't even put Fed above him and Nadal still has some ways to go to match Fed's achievements overall.