Originally Posted by pc1
Whatever you want. Let's me ask you a question. Let's say I shoot free throws in basketball and I make 99 free throws. Let's say another person makes 98 free throws. Looks like I'm better, doesn't it? What happens if you found out that I made 99 out of 200 free throws and the other guy made 98 of 100? By your logic I'm better in free throw shooting.
No more mention of this from me.
Depends how much you value hypotheticals, I don't value them at all. We don't know if the other guy would have kept on scoring virtually every time, or on his 101st attempt would have fallen over and injured himself, thus leaving him stranded at 98 forever.
Oh and of course the situation is not analogous to tennis majors at all: doesn't account for different surfaces (most of Connors' missed majors were at the French, on his worst surface, so unsure why you are assuming he would have added to his title count there), the impact of age (Borg could not be expected to go on dominating into his late 20s etc.), and quite simply the fact that winning a tennis major one more time is not as easy as getting the ball in a basketball net one more time.
Bottom line is Sampras > Borg, and Sampras >> Connors.
However I also do not wish to discuss this any more...