Bjorn Borg is the GOAT

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think that was when Laver, Borg and Sampras were honoring Federer so what would you expect Borg to say? Sampras said the same thing but he took it back and I don't think he ever believed it. I think Sampras thinks Sampras is the GOAT. Laver said the same thing and yet he said later he would love to play Federer with a wood racquet and that he wasn't afraid of anyone with a wood racquet.

Basically I think most of these guys, including Federer believe that they themselves are the best. Nothing wrong with that because that is what drives them to be great.

Nadal always says Federer is the GOAT but you know he feels that he should beat Federer every time they play.

Lol, I suspect that to be the case as well.

[Bjorn99]

Could anyone except Federer do this to this guy at such a young age? NO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN...eature=related

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by forehand_dude

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

11 > 9, so Borg > Federer

Borg chose to retire at 26. His problem.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Bjorn99

Could anyone except Federer do this to this guy at such a young age? NO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN...eature=related

Actually many players were better than Federer in 2000. Federer is a late bloomer. He peaked at 23-24, which was around 2004-2005. That version of Federer was nowhere close to a prime Federer.

If you want the GOAT teenager, Borg and Nadal would probably be a better example. At young age, they were already capable of beating GOATs in their respective eras.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by zagor

I don't know if he's the overall GOAT, certainly a candidate in my book, his domination of polar opposites in clay and grass is an amazing achievement.

He's the claycourt GOAT though, no question about it.



Hamsters and rangers everywhere! Rejoice!

[nadalwon2012]

Originally Posted by forehand_dude

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

But Borg's early retirement reveals that he was lacking the qualities of a player with longevity (either physically or mentally, or both, whatever triggered his early retirement). Part of being numero uno of all-time is actually going out there and winning for more years than the other guys. Sampras had to stick around and prove at least some longevity (hence he won more slams than Borg), so did Federer, so does Nadal. A great tennis career isn't just a sprint, but a marathon too.

Originally Posted by accidental

Borg's early retirement was also partly to do with his dispute with the atp. He played regularly in exhibition tournaments in 1982 and beat McEnroe a few times, and also beat Wilander easily on clay just before the 1982 French. borg would have been the heavy favorite in that tournament had he chosen to play

True, that adds another variable to why he retired, and it may be a reasonable reason to retire. In the end though, if you don't put the runs on the board, those runs are missing. Borg probably doesn't regret it though, since there is no actual title of GOAT. It's not like he missed out on anything.

[accidental]

Borg's early retirement was also partly to do with his dispute with the atp. He played regularly in exhibition tournaments in 1982 and beat McEnroe a few times, and also beat Wilander easily on clay just before the 1982 French. borg would have been the heavy favorite in that tournament had he chosen to play

[helloworld]

Borg was like a Rock Star during his time. Not only he was a great champion, but he was good looking as well. Back then, girls would go crazy over Bjorn Borg. However, this is NOT a popularity contest. Despite his popularities among the girls, Borg is NOT the GOAT!!

[nadalwon2012]

Originally Posted by helloworld

Borg was like a Rock Star during his time. Not only he was a great champion, but he was good looking as well. Back then, girls would go crazy over Bjorn Borg. However, this is NOT a popularity contest. Despite his popularities among the girls, Borg is NOT the GOAT!!

Although, GOAT is exactly that - a popularity contest - since there is no actual objective award called 'GOAT', it is internet-made and has no wrong answer.

[MotherMarjorie]

Originally Posted by forehand_dude

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Borg quit the sport in his prime...not due to injury, but lacking mental fortitude, which automatically disqualifies him from GOAT consideration.

Borg's competition got better and he quit. Legacy: Quitter. Which is why Mother Marjorie gives tons of praise to players like Roger Federer who chose to stay and fight, in spite of his competitors gaining ground on him.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse
"Queen Until The Bitter End"

Originally Posted by MotherMarjorie

Borg quit the sport in his prime...not due to injury, but lacking mental fortitude, which automatically disqualifies him from GOAT consideration.

Borg's competition got better and he quit. Legacy: Quitter. Which is why Mother Marjorie gives tons of praise to players like Roger Federer who chose to stay and fight, in spite of his competitors gaining ground on him.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse
"Queen Until The Bitter End"

I concur............

[CCNM]

I've said this before, but Borg is the god of tennis. I don't think anybody would question that. Sorry, Federer, Sampras, and Nadal fans, but I think the highest he (or anyone else) can get is to be Bjorn's second in command.
BTW I'm not dissing those players.

[borg number one]

In my opinion, a tier system works much better overall, compared to trying to single out any one player as the greatest ever. I think that you have arguably 4-5 guys in this very top tier. I've long held the view that Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer are in the top tier, but a very strong argument can also be made for Pancho Gonzalez to be up there. You can make arguments both for and against any of them, so you'll have difference in opinion. I do think Rafael Nadal will also eventually end up in that "top tier" of greatest players.




What does one value the most in terms of criterion? How is one's own personal experience with tennis a factor in that person's subjectivity? This is necessarily both a subjective and objective exercise, no matter how you slice and dissect it from every vantage point. Anytime you have different eras, different conditions, different equipment, different surfaces, different competition, and so forth, you can never have truly direct comparisons, so you are necessarily left with subjective assessments to consider. For example, Borg played with a very heavy frame 16 ounces plus with weighting (double ply wood due to high tension), 80+ pounds tension, and no modern strings. Think of Borg playing with modern frames and poly strings, and even new shoes, given his game and the playing surfaces of today which have all arguably tilted the balance in favor of baseliners away from serve and volleyers/net rushers. I think he would be so tough to handle.

Consider the following in the case of Bjorn Borg:

-Bjorn Borg was dangerous on any surface. He could also serve and volley quite adeptly when required. At 20, in 1976, he served and volleyed very frequently to take that title without losing a set. I don't know of another player in the Open Era that has won Wimbledon without the loss of a set. He won titles on hard courts, clay courts, grass courts, and indoor courts. If one thinks he was predominantly a "clay courter", they'd be overlooking his ~23 or so indoor titles, 5 straight titles on the fast grass of Wimbledon and his 41 match win streak there, and also ~6 or so hard court titles. His worst H2H record with a rival that I know of is 7-7 versus McEnroe (and that was only on hard courts, grass, and indoors, with no clay court matches). The only two players he lost to in the finals of majors were Connors and McEnroe. He played against very tough competition, with guys like Ashe, Connors, Nastase at or near the top early in his career, and later, players such as Vilas, Gerulaitis, Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl as foes at the majors. This was during times when there was much more variety in surfaces and court speeds. He won the 1978 French Open having lost 32 games (the lowest total for a major won I believe, at least in the Open Era).

- When the "Iceman" was playing at the top, the 4th biggest tournament of the year was either the WCT finals (esp. in the 70's) or the Masters (as it was in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81). He won the last two Masters that he played on indoor carpet in New York, going 5-0 vs. Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe. He won 6 FO titles. He reached 6 straight W finals, and won 5 in a row. The big hole in his resume was the US Open, but dig deeper there. He played in exactly 4 hard court majors during his career (the US Open). He reached the final on 3 of 4 of those occasions.

-Bjorn Rune Borg has the best winning percentage of any player in the Open Era at the "majors" (nearly 90%). Before one dismisses that, due to his early departure from tennis, note that neither Federer or Nadal could match that % through the age of 25 (nearly 26). He is also at the very top of all players in overall winning percentage at nearly 82%.

-He has been SO influential as a tennis player, impacting all pro players that followed. Bob Kain, his former agent and former IMG CEO, once said that "all players today should thank Bjorn for their big paychecks", because he "really took tennis endorsements to the next level". He was the first player to gain million dollar endorsements.

-He played at the top for a long time. He also won at least 1 major for 8 straight years. Look at his total match totals, even though he stopped playing full time at a relatively young age. Plus, back then, the top players like Connors and Borg played heavy "unofficial" schedules, playing at big money exos, that were often quite competitive and important for players. That was on top of a heavy playing schedule, without all the insulation provided to the players of today (from media, fans, etc.). Borg was a rock star like no other in tennis, so he would regularly be mobbed at hotels and basically wherever he went. He had to rely heavily on his coach Lennart Bergelin to help him with that. Borg was the first player to have a full time coach that traveled exclusively with him everywhere and to all tournaments. Now, that is standard practice.

-Consider the fights that he and Connors had with Tour Officials through the years. In 1982, officials at both Wimbledon and the French Open decided to force Borg to play in the qualifying rounds if he decided to reduce his official playing schedule during that year. There had been a recent split between the WCT and the ATP at that time and the Tour was in disarray after enjoying a dizzying climb up in terms of popularity and commercial success after the Open Era. The rise in the profile of tennis in that it came out of the country clubs and out into public parks did not happen overnight. That happened largely on the backs of players like Connors, Evert, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Navratilova, and Laver/Rosewall/Gonzalez, etc. before them. So how did Tour officials reward Borg for his very significant role in the raised profile of tennis? Remember he was playing Davis Cup by 16, he won Junior Wimbledon, etc. Borg wanted to drop down his official schedule, take time off, and really only focus on the majors during 1982 at least, but he met much resistance. That played a huge role in his decision to leave and experience life outside tennis. Later, I think he regretted making that decision, though I think he had every right to basically say "later" to the Tour, but in hindsight, I think he realized that perhaps he should have stuck around and basically played just enough to qualify directly into the main draws of majors, but hindsight of course can be 20/20.

I don't think any other player has influenced modern tennis as much as Borg did. Not Sampras, not Agassi, not Lendl, not Connors, and not even the great Rod Laver. His athleticism, sportsmanship/modesty, style of play, and ability to gain international attention playing tennis, all played a part in his becoming an all time great tennis player. Borg was truly a tennis revolutionary, that really didn't let how others viewed him change the opinion he had of himself (per Bob Kain). He didn't need constant praise and adulation from fans and others to remind him that he was a great tennis player. He KNEW he was great and no one could tell him different.

How many players used a two handed backhand and a great deal of topspin off both wings during his time? Who learned to somehow dominate even at Wimbledon playing a great deal of baseline tennis? Borg had great reliance on baseline play at Wimbledon, but he also had the ability to win lots of point at the net and with big serving. He proved all the naysayers wrong who said confidently that his "style of play" would never triumph at Wimbledon.In the 1970's-early 1980's, who was hitting a FH like this with a wood frame, where the reduced width provides for significantly less margin of error given Borg's swing path?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2h6-i6Q5is

As to any all time great tennis player, you can point to deficiencies or weaknesses, but one really needs to look at the full picture. In my book, Borg is "Number One", largely due to his tremendous impact on the modern game. If Bjorn Borg never played tennis, I firmly believe that tennis would look and feel quite differently than it does today.

[pc1]

Great post Borg Number One.

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by pc1

Great post Borg Number One.

Thanks PC1, especially for all your contributions here through the years! I got some tidbits in there from your many great posts, such as the info on the # of games he lost at the '78 FO. So many of our discussions, along with Hoodjem, Krosero, LH, Kiki, Timnz, Rabbit, Urban, (and many others too, including Borgforever from a couple of years ago) have deepened my understanding of Borg and many of these other great tennis players. It's such a great sport with incredible history. I'm reminded everytime that I read and post on TT of just how many "giants" there have been through the years.

[Crisstti]

Very good post, Borg number one . Thanks for all the info. Very good points. I very much agree with you.

Originally Posted by borg number one

Borg was a rock star like no other in tennis, so he would regularly be mobbed at hotels and basically wherever he went. He had to rely heavily on his coach Lennart Bergelin to help him with that. Borg was the first player to have a full time coach that traveled exclusively with him everywhere and to all tournaments. Now, that is standard practice.

I remember reading an interview with him where he said that was part of the reason why he retired...

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Very good post, Borg number one . Thanks for all the info. Very good points. I very much agree with you.



I remember reading an interview with him where he said that was part of the reason why he retired...

Thank you very much Crisstti. I appreciate it.

[jackson vile]

Very good point, those are a lot of great players, however per amount of time played Borg did the best especially when you consider the AO's.

Originally Posted by pc1

And that would probably be a LOT less than some would think of their tennis heroes today.



Let's just say Borg was a great player. I don't think there is much argument about that.

Nadal's great as is Federer, Djokovic, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Pancho Gonzalez and many others and all of them were great tennis talents. Some people used to think Yannick Noah was such a great athlete that he should have tried the NBA. That never happened but indirectly his DNA played in the NBA in the form of his son Joakim Noah who plays for the Chicago Bulls.

[swordtennis]

Originally Posted by accidental

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

LMAO Epic
bookoo Props....
There are some hilarious posts in this forum.

[helloworld]

These two gentlemen would like to have a word with mr. Borg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYa1bSRoOzs