Clay Court GOAT

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hypotheticals count for nothing I'm afraid, only results, and Vilas' 1977 results were clearly better than Borg's.

There is nothing hypothetical about Borg's better results than those of Vilas in 1977. I am not sure where you see better results by Vilas.

A hypothetical could be a "would be/could be" argument. For example, if Borg missed several months of playing time and I argued that he would have beaten Vilas had he been healthy and therefore was better, then I would be presenting a fallacious argument.

There is no such hypothetical here. Borg did play and did play better.

The fallacy here is on the side of those who argue for Vilas. Actually there are two fallacies:

a) the fallacious value allotted for Vilas's mickey mouse tourney results - such as his wholly irrelevant clay court streak, obtained by playing mostly weak opponents

b) the fallacious value allotted to the French open, which had many important players missing, including Borg

The French Open was not consistently attended in the 1970s. It was not in and of itself an automatic indicator of clay court superiority. The same thing happened in the early 1970s, when Jan Kodes won two titles at Roland Garros, while the far superior Laver and Rosewall were off playing WTT. However, Laver and Rosewall had other red clay results that supported their superiority over Kodes.

So, there.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

There is nothing hypothetical about Borg's better results than those of Vilas in 1977. I am not sure where you see better results by Vilas.

A 53 match clay-court winning streak, which lasted until Nadal beat it in 2006. This streak also included 2 clay-court grand slam victories at the French Open and the US Open. It's plain to see who had the best results in 1977.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Mustard

A 53 match clay-court winning streak, which lasted until Nadal beat it in 2006. This streak also included 2 clay-court grand slam victories at the French Open and the US Open. It's plain to see who had the best results in 1977.

See above.

I believe that Vilas had, by default, better green clay results than Borg in 1977 due to Borg's absence in the summer when most of the har-tru events were played.

However Borg clearly had better red clay results, meaning that there is evidence that he was better on red clay than Vilas.

Overall, Borg was far superior than Vilas due to his excellence on grass and carpet. Surfaces that Vilas avoided - when he didn't, he performed far worse on them than Borg.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

See above.

I believe that Vilas had, by default, better green clay results than Borg in 1977 due to Borg's absence in the summer when most of the har-tru events were played.

However Borg clearly had better red clay results, meaning that there is evidence that he was better on red clay than Vilas.

Overall, Borg was far superior than Vilas due to his excellence on grass and carpet. Surfaces that Vilas avoided - when he didn't, he performed far worse on them than Borg.

To put it in perspective, when Vilas and Borg finally met in the 1978 French Open Borg won 6-1 6-1 6-3. Vilas actually played very well. In that tournament Borg won 127 games and lost only 32 for an astonishing and superhuman games won percentage of 79.87 percentage which I think may be the best of any era but clearly the best of the Open Era.

Borg may very well have had the most dominant year of the Open Era in 1978 with a Games Won Percentage for the year of 66.18%.

In 1977 Borg won three matches and lost none to Vilas. Borg was clearly a better clay court player than Vilas in 1977 and would have been heavily favored had they met in the French Open.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

In 1977 Borg won three matches and lost none to Vilas. Borg was clearly a better clay court player than Vilas in 1977 and would have been heavily favored had they met in the French Open.

You can't blame Vilas for showing up at the 1977 French Open and winning the tournament in Borg's absence. You've got to blame Borg for not playing in the French Open. You've got to give Vilas the benefit of the doubt, not Borg.

Tournament results should be the only thing that matters as far as rankings are concerned, not head-to-heads. It doesn't matter if Vilas won a load of what would be considered 250 tournaments today, he still won 2 grand slams that year and dominated on clay throughout the second half of the season. Honestly, Borg fans, stick to 1978-1981 when your guy won loads, 1977 was clearly Vilas' year.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You can't blame Vilas for showing up at the 1977 French Open and winning the tournament in Borg's absence. You've got to blame Borg for not playing in the French Open. You've got to give Vilas the benefit of the doubt, not Borg.

Tournaments results should be the only thing that matters as far as rankings are concerned, not head-to-heads. It doesn't matter if Vilas won a load of what would be considered 250 tournaments today, he still won 2 grand slams and dominated on clay throughout the second half of the season. Honestly, Borg fans, stick to 1978-1981 when your guy won loads, 1977 was clearly Vilas' year.

I don't think Vilas should be blamed either. But if a question is posed: "who was the better player on red clay that year?" the answer requires analyzing all the variables.

If the question is "what are some of the most dominant performances at the French open" then Vilas's result should not come with a grain of salt either. Here we go strictly on the results.

However a question like "what are some of the most impressive performances at the French open", then things get a bit more ambiguous and perhaps here we can take into account that players like Borg or Orantes did not attend the event.

A more useful and interesting question to me would be "what was the most dominant player on (insert surface) at a particular point in time?". This question unburdens us from referring to a grand slam event as the sole variable for consideration. We do this now because of the standardization of the tour. But can we get away with the same knowing what we know about the 70s? I don't think so.

We can ask very different questions and get very different answers.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I don't think Vilas should be blamed either. But if a question is posed: "who was the better player on red clay that year?" the answer requires analyzing all the variables.

If the question is "what are some of the most dominant performances at the French open" then Vilas's result should not come with a grain of salt either. Here we go strictly on the results.

However a question like "what are some of the most impressive performances at the French open", then things get a bit more ambiguous and perhaps here we can take into account that players like Borg or Orantes did not attend the event.

A more useful and interesting question to me would be "what was the most dominant player on (insert surface) at a particular point in time?". This question unburdens us from referring to a grand slam event as the sole variable for consideration. We do this now because of the standardization of the tour. But can we get away with the same knowing what we know about the 70s? I don't think so.

We can ask very different questions and get very different answers.

There's no doubt Vilas was a great clay court player and he was excellent in 1977 but in keeping with this thread which is asking who is the clay court goat, "If you had your life on the line and you had to pick one player to win between Borg and Vilas and they played at Roland Garros in 1977 in the French Open Final, who would you bet on?" You have to pick Borg unless you have a death wish.

Did Vilas have a great clay season in 1977? My answer is yes. Was he the best clay court player in 1977? My answer is no. Clearly Borg was.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

There's no doubt Vilas was a great clay court player and he was excellent in 1977 but in keeping with this thread which is asking who is the clay court goat, "If you had your life on the line and you had to pick one player to win between Borg and Vilas and they played at Roland Garros in 1977 in the French Open Final, who would you bet on?" You have to pick Borg unless you have a death wish.

Whoever you'd bet your life on in a hypothetical 1977 French Open final between Vilas and Borg, you can't base who had the better year on that, you have to go by what actually happened in terms of tournament results throughout the year.

Originally Posted by pc1

Did Vilas have a great clay season in 1977? My answer is yes. Was he the best clay court player in 1977? My answer is no. Clearly Borg was.

Not in terms of results. Vilas won 2 clay court grand slams and had an awesome run on clay in the second half of the year. Whether Borg could have beaten Vilas at the French Open if he had showed up or if he could have beaten Vilas at the US Open if he hadn't have gotten injured is all hypothetical speculation.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Whoever you'd bet your life on in a hypothetical 1977 French Open final between Vilas and Borg, you can't base who had the better year on that, you have to go by what actually happened in terms of tournament results throughout the year.



Not in terms of results. Vilas won 2 clay court grand slams and had an awesome run on clay in the second half of the year. Whether Borg could have beaten Vilas at the French Open if he had showed up or if he could have beaten Vilas at the US Open if he hadn't have gotten injured is all hypothetical speculation.

Again I'm not writing about results in this case. You disagreeing about results and that's fine but I'm writing that in my opinion Borg was the superior clay court player to Vilas in 1977. In tournament results for the year Borg won 13 of 20 tournaments plus Wimbledon and he was unbeaten against Vilas with a 3-0 record.

[Mustard]

I thought Borg won 11 titles in 1977?

1. Memphis
2. Nice
3. WCT Monte Carlo
4. Denver
5. Wimbledon
6. Boca Raton
7. Madrid
8. Barcelona
9. Basel
10. Cologne
11. Wembley

While Vilas won 16:

1. Springfield
2. Buenos Aires (Apr)
3. Virginia Beach
4. French Open
5. Kitzbuhel
6. Washington DC
7. Louisville
8. South Orange
9. Columbus
10. US Open
11. Paris Outdoor
12. Tehran
13. Bogota
14. Santiago
15. Buenos Aires (Nov)
16. WCT Johannesburg

And wasn't it 2-0 to Borg in the head-to-head from 1977?

Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-4, 1-6, 6-2, 6-0) in the final of Nice
Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-2, 6-3) in the semi final of WCT Monte Carlo.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And wasn't it 2-0 to Borg in the head-to-head from 1977?

Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-4, 1-6, 6-2, 6-0) in the final of Nice
Bjorn Borg def. Guillermo Vilas (6-2, 6-3) in the semi final of WCT Monte Carlo.

It was not on clay, but Borg did also beat Vilas at the Masters in NYC on carpet: 6-3, 6-3.

[CyBorg]

I have Borg winning Hilton Head in 1977 as well, which makes for 12 titles. Not sure what the 13th is, but this is not the first time I've heard of 13.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I have Borg winning Hilton Head in 1977 as well, which makes for 12 titles. Not sure what the 13th is, but this is not the first time I've heard of 13.

That was from memory and I could be wrong but I got that from the Collins book.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I thought Borg won 11 titles in 1977?

1. Memphis
2. Nice
3. WCT Monte Carlo
4. Denver
5. Wimbledon
6. Boca Raton
7. Madrid
8. Barcelona
9. Basel
10. Cologne
11. Wembley

Just note, Boca Raton was Borg's first victory of the year, in January (the ATP told me it will be updated when their historical database gets updated).

Borg's got 13 titles in Bud Collins' book, though Bud doesn't say what the extra 2 titles are. Vilas has 16 titles at the ATP and ITF sites, though Bud gives him 17 with Rye, NY which he says was not officially recognized by the ATP.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Just note, Boca Raton was Borg's first victory of the year, in January (the ATP told me it will be updated when their historical database gets updated).

Borg's got 13 titles in Bud Collins' book, though Bud doesn't say what the extra 2 titles are. Vilas has 16 titles at the ATP and ITF sites, though Bud gives him 17 with Rye, NY which he says was not officially recognized by the ATP.

Thanks Krosero for confirming the amount of the titles that I recalled reading in the Collins book.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Whoever you'd bet your life on in a hypothetical 1977 French Open final between Vilas and Borg, you can't base who had the better year on that, you have to go by what actually happened in terms of tournament results throughout the year.



Not in terms of results. Vilas won 2 clay court grand slams and had an awesome run on clay in the second half of the year. Whether Borg could have beaten Vilas at the French Open if he had showed up or if he could have beaten Vilas at the US Open if he hadn't have gotten injured is all hypothetical speculation.

You're totally right !!

[David_86]

Maybe Borg fans should just give up trying to convince Vilas fans that their man had better results in 1977. At least they can go home and watch Borg humiliate Vilas in some very prestigious clay-court tournaments.

[OnceWas]

Your top 3 are the top 3. Maybe not in that order. But, maybe so.

[Ripper014]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

See above.

I believe that Vilas had, by default, better green clay results than Borg in 1977 due to Borg's absence in the summer when most of the har-tru events were played.

However Borg clearly had better red clay results, meaning that there is evidence that he was better on red clay than Vilas.

Overall, Borg was far superior than Vilas due to his excellence on grass and carpet. Surfaces that Vilas avoided - when he didn't, he performed far worse on them than Borg.

Lets stay on point... the title of the thread is "Clay Court Goat", not red clay not green clay not Wimbledon results. Just simply who is the Clay Court Goat...

I believe Vilas in 77' is only second to Nadal in 06'?

I also don't think you can base head-to-head meetings over results over a field. If that is the case... then Panatta is a much better player than Borg... I believe he has a 2-0 record over Borg at the French Open.

All threads here are to solicit opinions... you have provided yours... Mustard his... and I mine. At the end of the day I doubt any of us are going to change our decisions so why don't we just move on.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Ripper014

Lets stay on point... the title of the thread is "Clay Court Goat", not red clay not green clay not Wimbledon results. Just simply who is the Clay Court Goat...

I believe Vilas in 77' is only second to Nadal in 06'?

I also don't think you can base head-to-head meetings over results over a field. If that is the case... then Panatta is a much better player than Borg... I believe he has a 2-0 record over Borg at the French Open.

All threads here are to solicit opinions... you have provided yours... Mustard his... and I mine. At the end of the day I doubt any of us are going to change our decisions so why don't we just move on.

The thread is clay court GOAT, not best year on clay. Borg defeated Panatta most of the time on clay and yes he did defeat Panatta at the French. Panatta never defeated Borg again after Borg made an leap in his tennis level in 1977.

Why don't you check out Borg's clay court record in 1978? He wasn't just defeating people, he was destroying them. Even Panatta, who Borg defeated in five sets at the Italian wasn't really close to Borg if the match was fairly judged. The line calls were so bias in favor of Panatta, the crowd threw objects at Borg and yet Borg still prevailed in five sets. That is possibly the greatest year on clay ever.

Like I wrote before Borg lost only 32 games in seven matches at the French in 1978. That's domination.

Yet you can't base the clay court GOAT on that year alone despite the fact Borg was invincible that year. The thread is the greatest clay court GOAT and I think that means career.

Overall in his career Borg has super credentials to be the clay court GOAT.