Originally Posted by zagor
Of course and you're entitled to it.
So those people don't have a right to their opinion that Fed is clearly ahead of other tennis legends? Why is that?
Other sports are other sports, it's comparing apples and oranges.
Actually, all the players boycotting slams/majors and split fields makes it pretty hard to pinpoint the exact number of slam/major equivalents players from those eras won.
But I'm glad you're now having a more open mind when it comes to this, given the circumstances (such as AO not being a "real" slam and the flawed computer ranking system) I presume you won't have an issue anymore with people ranking Borg above Sampras?
I may have had Borg above Sampras.. if he didn't retire at 25. But overall Sampras has a better resume then Borg. Whats Borg got thats superior to Pete other then clay?
Winning Percentage? Hell when you retire at 25, I would hope you had a great winning percentage. LOL
Sampras has him at longevity, top at #1, Slam count, more dominance at his best slam, better on more surfaces, winning h2h over his main contemporary rivals (Borg couldn't figure Mac out though its not as bad as Roger's issues with Nadal overall of course), Slam win 12 years apart which is insane.