Borg 30 bageled the Romanian Davis Cup team

[Gonzalito17]

Read this interview with a local hacker player and he said he once hit with a Romanian Davis Cup player who told him that Borg once came to play/practice with the entire team in Romania and beat them all by bagels, 30 total bagels. LOL. Must have been when Borg was married to the Romanian beauty Marina Simonescu or whatever her name was. Pretty amazing feat by Borg which shows how dominant he was -- or how weak the Romanian Davis Cup team was.

The info is in this QA link http://www.tennis-prose.com/articles...inick-decarlo/

[pc1]

I believe Borg hold the record by far of most bagels that has been record.

[Gonzalito17]

30 sets and 30 bagels is mindblowing. I doubt Fed or Djok could 30 bagel the Romanian Davis Cup team in Romania. Borg was a machine.

Wonder if the ATP can dig up the all time bagel king stats in it's vast archives.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Gonzalito17

30 sets and 30 bagels is mindblowing. I doubt Fed or Djok could 30 bagel the Romanian Davis Cup team in Romania. Borg was a machine.

Wonder if the ATP can dig up the all time bagel king stats in it's vast archives.

Gonzalito17, those matches you mentioned are all practice, which doesn't say much.

These are the REAL matches:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...2&postcount=72

[borg number one]

Interesting topic. Borg could be a beast even on the practice court. Just ask Mats Wilander who famously declared that he "couldn't even get a set" off of Borg when they practiced before Wilander went on to win the 1982 French Open, while Borg was absent (he would have had to qualify for the FO that year!). But outside of practice, he really got serious. I'm counting 105 bagel sets for Borg in his official ATP matches here!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...a&y=0&m=s&e=0#

I wonder what the numbers are for others like Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, etc?

Borg also holds the record in the open era for fewest number of games allowed at a major with 32 at the 1978 French Open. He is also the only player to have won Wimbledon without losing a set in the open era.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Interesting topic. Borg could be a beast even on the practice court. Just ask Mats Wilander who famously declared that he "couldn't even get a set" off of Borg when they practiced before Wilander went on to win the 1982 French Open, while Borg was absent (he would have had to qualify for the FO that year!). But outside of practice, he really got serious. I'm counting 105 bagel sets for Borg in his official ATP matches here!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...a&y=0&m=s&e=0#

I wonder what the numbers are for others like Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, etc?

Borg also holds the record in the open era for fewest number of games allowed at a major with 32 at the 1978 French Open. He is also the only player to have won Wimbledon without losing a set in the open era.

Originally Posted by TMF

Gonzalito17, those matches you mentioned are all practice, which doesn't say much.

These are the REAL matches:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...2&postcount=72

No no no. Don't you understand.?

Whatever record you can come up with Fed always, no matter what, has it beat.

And if Fed doesn't have it beat, then it's not a real record so it doesn't count anyway.

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

No no no. Don't you understand.?

Whatever record you can come up with Fed always, no matter what, has it beat.

And if Fed doesn't have it beat, then it's not a real record so it doesn't count anyway.

Ha Ha..Well, how can I argue with that ironclad logic Hoodjem? Thanks for that important forum reminder !

[pc1]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Ha Ha..Well, how can I argue with that ironclad logic Hoodjem? Thanks for that important forum reminder !

That is ironclad history, not logic. I have to correct you borg number one. lol.

Check the history of all of TMF's posts. The old saying history repeats itself is never more accurate in this case.

[Gonzalito17]

TMF I think bagels in practice does mean a lot, Borg was probably exerting at around 75% and he still bageled the entire team. You have to think the Romanians were fighting their hearts out there for that one game and they couldn't get it. No tennis player wants to be bageled in a live pro match or a practice set.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Gonzalito17

TMF I think bagels in practice does mean a lot, Borg was probably exerting at around 75% and he still bageled the entire team. You have to think the Romanians were fighting their hearts out there for that one game and they couldn't get it. No tennis player wants to be bageled in a live pro match or a practice set.

I think Borg defeated Ilie Nastase 6-3 6-0 6-0 in actual Davis Cup play. I think Nastase is a decent player for Romania, even at an older age.

Edit-It was in 1979 when Nastase would be 33 but he was still I believe top 20 or 25.

[pc1]

Just looked at the Davis Cup site and if I counted correctly Borg had 19 bagels in Davis Cup play in 40 matches. He played a lot of excellent players like Fibak, Ashe, Nastase, Orantes (several times), Kodes (several times), Gerulaitis, Higueras, Lendl, Franulovic, Fillol, Metrevili, Meiler, Pohmann, Panatta.

Not sure if this is counted in the his official record for bagels. I've notice a lot of Davis Cup records don't show up in ATP stats.

[borg number one]

PC1, it's all in good humor. That's excellent info on the Davis Cup bagels and the fact that all those matches may not be posted on the ATP site under his official matches (by the way, those are some healthy match totals by Borg even with official matches only..). I understand that TMF has a deep admiration for Federer's accomplishments/records. As I've discussed, we all have biases to take into account (even if it's just a general bias due to what we have seen/experienced). I tend to think it's a general bias that's prevalent out there. The very latest players, stats/records. That's the myopic focus. This would be an example. Federer does bagel opponents a lot and he wins a lot of lopsided sets, but that's in relation to his peers and among players during the last 10 years primarily. (I wonder about Sampras in particular..how many?). Yet, it's not so easy to comprehend how dominant some past greats could be if you haven't lived it and felt it first hand. Tennis from past greats such as Rosewall, Laver, Borg, and even Sampras for many now is just not something many people have experienced directly or at least studied and read up on a lot (at least watch lots of video). For me, I started watching tennis seriously when Connors was at the top along with Borg and have never stopped and never will. Yet, I am still trying to learn about Laver, Rosewall and those before them even to this day. So it's more difficult to comprehend past domination by greats among most modern tennis watchers. It's the natural bias towards the modern, latest and greatest. Just look on the grocery shelves and how everything is constantly marketed as "new and improved". Is it all really "new and improved"?

[BrooklynNY]

Originally Posted by borg number one

I tend to think it's a general bias that's prevalent out there. The very latest players, stats/records. That's the myopic focus. This would be an example. Federer does bagel opponents a lot and he wins a lot of lopsided sets), but that's in relation to his peers and among players doing the last 10 years primarily. (I wonder about Sampras in particular..how many?). Yet, it's not so easy to comprehend how dominant some past greats could be if you haven't lived it and felt it first hand. Tennis from past greats such as Rosewall, Laver, Borg, and even Sampras for many now is just not something many people have experienced directly or at least studied and read up on a lot (plus at least watch lots of video). For me, I started watching tennis seriously when Connors was at the top along with Borg and have never stopped and never will. Yet, I am still trying to learn about Laver, Rosewall and those before even today. So it's more difficult to comprehend past domination by greats among most modern tennis watchers. It's the natural bias towards the modern, latest and greatest. Just look on the grocery shelves and how everything is constantly marketed as "new and improved". Is it all really "new and improved"?

Agreed. Except I started watching Sampras, and now aspire to learn more about the past greats like Mac, Borg, Connors, Lendl...and for the past few years I'd always go to the US Open and try to watch the legends playing on the outside courts, and have seen Todd Martin, Jimmy Arias, and more. One of the best shots I've ever seen hit was a backhand return in the legends event on court 7, the same court I played my USTA match on, by a 50+ year old Guillermo Vilas.

For example McEnroe, I've always known he was a great, and of course had respect for his game, but seeing it in person is just a different experience. I wrote about how impressed in the How Good is McEnroe thread still. I've seen him play twice in the past few years at age 50 against Lendl, Pete, and Pat Rafter and I could not believe how amazing he is, still!!!

I can only imagine how good he was when he was 25, it must have been unreal, the same way people think of Fed today. The actual experience of seeing something while it happened just heightens the feeling for people, after all, seeing is believing.

Some people are naturally intrigued by what came before them, and some people spit on it.