Originally Posted by NatF
That's not why he quit, he lost his passion for the game. After he took a year out he was told he had to qualify to play Wimbledon (?) or some other tournament and he refused to do that.
And, he gets CREDIT for doing that? I don't care WHY he quit, he quit, and did so, as "luck" would have it, right after he got his *** kicked at Wimbledon and the US Open. And, speaking of the US Open, I recall reading several years ago that it was, by far, the indicator of the top ranked player for that year-that is, the player who won the US Open ended the year as the world's top ranked player at the US Open than any of the other Slams-by far. Now, the time period in the study preceded the Open era, so, it may have been a bit misleading, but the last time I checked, Borg was the ONLY one of the top 20 male Slam winners who never won the US Open, with the exception of some old English guy who played in the 19th century and rarely, if ever, played the US Open-and, since in those days the Slam champion played only one match, that guy's 7 or so Wimbledons should be ignored, IMO. So, Borg being the ONLY modern Slam champion to NEVER win the tournament that historically been the best indicator(failing on 3 different surfaces, no less) would, by itself eliminate him, in my book from any GOAT discussion. Factor in that I like champions who react well to adversity-Ali vs Liston, and Foreman, as far as seemingly invincible opponents are concerned, and Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, and Spinks, as far as avenging defeats is concerned is one example, Michael Jordan overcoming the Pistons and Celtics is another. The Red Sox overcoming the contemporary Yankees who had just beaten them in the ALCS the year before(to say nothing of an 86 year curse they heard about incessantly) is still another. And contrast all of that to Goldilocks, who, the nanosecond the going got tough, took his ball and ran home to mommy. Open era GOAT? Please...