GOAT Discussions

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

The only one which continues is your nasty ignorance, Dan.

Gimeno had never problems in pro and open majors. Are you dreaming?

Gimeno beat Rosewall three times in pro majors and once in open majors.

He reached final of the AO, SF of Wimbledon, won French Open (only Laver and Rosewall absent) and lost to Smith in the 1972 US Open in five sets. That even as an old man. Santana did nothing in the open era at majors!

Santana was injured.
The only major WIN was the 1972 French, the only tough match being against Metreveli (Nastase lost in the first round).
Of course, Gimeno was a good player. But not significantly above others such as Emmo, Santana, Stolle, Newcombe, Roche, Ralston, etc.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Santana beat both Laver and Emmo to win at RG in 1961, Emmo won over Laver at AO and US finals in 1961.
Gimeno won RG in 1972 when his toughest match was against Metreveli. (Nastase lost in the first round.)
Yes, I think that Rosewall, Trabert, and Hoad all had the equipment to beat Borg and Nadal on clay. Hoad claimed that Trabert's backhand was better than Rosewall's.
True, Gonzales was rusty in the 1953 Wembley final, but Sedgman was rusty at the 1956 Wembley, and the 1957 Forest Hills Pro. Sedgman won on grass at Sydney in 1958, and in the Kooyong final in 1959, 6-4, 9-7, 6-4.
Hoad/Gonzales on grass? Again, we do not know all the surfaces, but we have
1957 Forest Hills--Gonzales wins over a raw rookie Hoad 9-7, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
1958 Australia--Hoad wins Australian five-set portion of pro tour 8 matches to 5 (the key match of the series at Kooyong 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16)
1958 Kooyong--Hoad wins decider 7-5, 5-7, 6-4
1958 Forest Hills--Hoad wins 13-15, 6-3, 6-4
1959 Kooyong--Gonzales wins semi-final 8-6, 6-2, 6-3
1959 Brisbane--Gonzales wins 3rd place--unknown
1959 Sydney--Gonzales wins semi-final--15-13, 6-4, 6-4
1959 Forest Hills--Hoad wins final--6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1
1959 Perth--Hoad wins decider--7-9, 6-4, 12-10
1959 Adelaide--Hoad wins--6-4, 6-0
1959 Sydney--Gonzales win final--11-9, 6-1, 6-1
1967 Wimbledon--Hoad wins quarter-final--4-6, 11-9, 8-6

Add them up--14 to 10 for Hoad.
More importantly, 2 to 1 at Forest Hills, 1 to 0 at Wimbledon.
No, I do not assume that Gonzales is favoured on grass.

I have tried to clear up the confusion and amended the listing for 1958.
I hope that it is clearer now.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I do not follow your math. It is exactly 14 to 10.
The grasscourt matches in Australia were not a separate event, but were individual matches.
The question was, what was the hth record ON GRASS.
I think that you understand the importance and significance of establishing the hth on grass, the surface of three of four slam events.

Dan, you have not answered my remark that the former pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) won the vast majority of open majors in the first years of open era.

I correct me: they won 8 out of 10 majors (or 10 out of 13 majors). They did it even though they were old men then! Is there a better prove that the outcast pros have been clearly better than the amateurs?

Lew Hoad might have been impressed by Santana's 1965 grass game because Manolo was earlier known as a typical claycourt player. Absolutely he was not awesome on grass in comparison to the top pros.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Santana was injured.
The only major WIN was the 1972 French, the only tough match being against Metreveli (Nastase lost in the first round).
Of course, Gimeno was a good player. But not significantly above others such as Emmo, Santana, Stolle, Newcombe, Roche, Ralston, etc.

Santana was injured for years?

"Gimeno was a good player"? From now onwards I will call you the GOAT expert for this comment.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, you have not answered my remark that the former pros (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno) won the vast majority of open majors in the first years of open era.

I correct me: they won 8 out of 10 majors (or 10 out of 13 majors). They did it even though they were old men then! Is there a better prove that the outcast pros have been clearly better than the amateurs?

Lew Hoad might have been impressed by Santana's 1965 grass game because Manolo was earlier known as a typical claycourt player. Absolutely he was not awesome on grass in comparison to the top pros.

The "old pros" (not including Newcombe, Roche, Smith, Ashe) won six of the first seven, only Ashe winning at Forest Hills, but in 1970 and 1971 the younger guys finally broke through, although Rosewall won at Forest Hills.
This dominance was mainly by Laver and Rosewall. Where was Gimeno (apart from the weakened 1972 French), Stolle, Ralston, Bucholz, McKay, etc. Emmo had a good run at Wimbledon in 1970 and Forest Hills in 1969.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Santana was injured.
The only major WIN was the 1972 French, the only tough match being against Metreveli (Nastase lost in the first round).
Of course, Gimeno was a good player. But not significantly above others such as Emmo, Santana, Stolle, Newcombe, Roche, Ralston, etc.

Dan, I'm afraid we will never become friends because of your strange kind of argumentation. I just cannot stand you.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The "old pros" (not including Newcombe, Roche, Smith, Ashe) won six of the first seven, only Ashe winning at Forest Hills, but in 1970 and 1971 the younger guys finally broke through, although Rosewall won at Forest Hills.
This dominance was mainly by Laver and Rosewall. Where was Gimeno (apart from the weakened 1972 French), Stolle, Ralston, Bucholz, McKay, etc. Emmo had a good run at Wimbledon in 1970 and Forest Hills in 1969.

Again wrong: The younger guys did not break through after 1969. Laver and Rosewall just could not or would not participate at all majors. When they did the still were awesome.

I have already given you Gimeno's highlights in open era, but you just ignore them. Okay.... Stolle, Buchholz, Ralston were still very good even when they declined.. For instance Ralston beat Newcombe at the AO and Laver at the US Open...

Stolle and Buchholz had also good runs in open majors. Not just Emmo.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

[b]Again wrong: The younger guys did not break through after 1969. Laver and Rosewall just could not or would not participate at all majors. When they did the still were awesome.[b]

I have already given you Gimeno's highlights in open era, but you just ignore them. Okay.... Stolle, Buchholz, Ralston were still very good even when they declined.. For instance Ralston beat Newcombe at the AO and Laver at the US Open...

Stolle and Buchholz had also good runs in open majors. Not just Emmo.

You are the one that's wrong. Laver participated in the 1970 Wimbledon and US Open and didn't make it past the 4th round at either event. Not exactly "awesome".

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You are the one that's wrong. Laver participated in the 1970 Wimbledon and US Open and didn't make it past the 4th round at either event. Not exactly "awesome".

I'm not as wrong as you might think. Of course you are right that Laver had a terrible downfall in 1970 and later (that's the reason, btw, why I cannot give him the alone No.1 for 1970) but Rosewall and Gimeno kept carrying the flag of the old pros: Rosewall won the 1970 US Open and reached final at Wim.,Gimeno reached SF at Wim., Rosewall won the strong 1971 AO and reached SFs at Wim., Rosewall won the 1972 AO and Gimeno won the 1972 French Open. How good the old pros might have been we can see also in Rosewall's two big finals in 1974 when he was 39.

I agree that Laver declined earlier than Rosewall, at least at the majors.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by krosero

Nope, no speculation about how Borg would have done at the USO after '81. I just emphasized his record as it stands: 3 finals in 4 attempts in pretty good.

Sure, anyone who tried to argue that Borg would have won the USO on hard courts before '78 would have a weak case. That was not my argument at all. I was just bringing up Borg's hardcourt major record to show that it was pretty decent: 3 finals in 4 attempts. I don't have a problem with Nadal getting placed above Borg on hardcourts, because after all he's got two titles on hard; but he also has plenty of early-round losses before '09, on hard. His overall record in hardcourt majors may be superior to Borg's due to his trophies, but his early losses before '09 close some of the distance between the two men.

Sorry but the whole problem of that argument is Borg only got to play a hard court during his absolute peak years of 1978-1981. It would be like if the only hard court slam Nadal could ever play was the U.S Open from 2008-2011, and in that case Nadal's overall record would be superior to Borg with a title, runner up, and two semis, vs Borg who has no title, one more final, but a loss in the quarters which Nadal those years did not have. Had Borg had to play the U.S Open on hard courts before 1978 you can rest assured he would have numerous early losses, as it was he had 3 losses before the quarters the 5 previous years with it played on clay or grass, so would likely (almost certainly) have only been worse, or in absolute best unlikely case scenario no better, had it been on hard courts.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sorry but the whole problem of that argument is Borg only got to play a hard court during his absolute peak years of 1978-1981. It would be like if the only hard court slam Nadal could ever play was the U.S Open from 2008-2011, and in that case Nadal's overall record would be superior to Borg with a title, runner up, and two semis, vs Borg who has no title, one more final, but a loss in the quarters which Nadal those years did not have. Had Borg had to play the U.S Open on hard courts before 1978 you can rest assured he would have numerous early losses, as it was he had 3 losses before the quarters the 5 previous years with it played on clay or grass, so would likely (almost certainly) have only been worse, or in absolute best unlikely case scenario no better, had it been on hard courts.

Borg is ahead of Nadal. he has pedigree on both slow and fast courts. nadal, for a lack of better word, sucks on fast courts. That is all i need to know.

Also Borg's 11 slams come from 3 majors a year since no one played AO. So if we normalize his major count, we get

11 *4/3 = 14.66 ~ 15 majors.

Or you can pick the most important non-slam tournament from that era and add it to Borg's slam count. Either way, Borg is miles ahead of Nadal.

Like I said in some other post, Nadal needs 3 more non-FO slams, preferably from at least 2 of the majors on top of what he already has. nadal could win another 50 FO's, it doesnt add anything to his GOAT status. he needs to double his non-clay resume and add some big indoor titles to go above borg. unfortunately, I don't see that happening. sucks cos nadal works hard, he was just never as talented as borg or federer.

Borg is no.2 on the all time great list. ahead of sampras who is in a way reverse nadal. great on fast courts but comparatively sucked on slow courts.

P.S sorry to school you like this but sometimes adults have to discipline kids with honest talk. i am sure you will get over it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Borg is ahead of Nadal. he has pedigree on both slow and fast courts. nadal, for a lack of better word, sucks on fast courts. That is all i need to know.

Also Borg's 11 slams come from 3 majors a year since no one played AO. So if we normalize his major count, we get

11 *4/3 = 14.66 ~ 15 majors.

Or you can pick the most important non-slam tournament from that era and add it to Borg's slam count. Either way, Borg is miles ahead of Nadal.

Like I said in some other post, Nadal needs 3 more non-FO slams, preferably from at least 2 of the majors on top of what he already has. nadal could win another 50 FO's, it doesnt add anything to his GOAT status. he needs to double his non-clay resume and add some big indoor titles to go above borg. unfortunately, I don't see that happening. sucks cos nadal works hard, he was just never as talented as borg or federer.

Borg is no.2 on the all time great list. ahead of sampras who is in a way reverse nadal. great on fast courts but comparatively sucked on slow courts.

P.S sorry to school you like this but sometimes adults have to discipline kids with honest talk. i am sure you will get over it.

For once I agree with you
Fact is AO does not equal WCT or Masters during Borg days so we must consider indoor majors when comparing both guys

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Also Borg's 11 slams come from 3 majors a year since no one played AO. So if we normalize his major count, we get

11 *4/3 = 14.66 ~ 15 majors.

If that's how things are, Nadal would only play the French Open, because he'd then effectively have 7*4/1 = 28 Majors. But that's not how things are, unfortunately, so Nadal has 11 Majors and do does Borg. The difference-maker is that Nadal hasn't quit at 26. Yet.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

If that's how things are, Nadal would only play the French Open, because he'd then effectively have 7*4/1 = 28 Majors. But that's not how things are, unfortunately, so Nadal has 11 Majors and do does Borg. The difference-maker is that Nadal hasn't quit at 26. Yet.

Borg retired at 25 with more majors than Nadal at 25

[BauerAlmeida]

Borg has the best percentage of grand slam finals reached and grand slams won. He played 27 slams and reached 16 finals, wining 11.

He has more slams than Lendl, Agassi, Mac, etc. playing only 3 slams per year and retiring at 25.

An absolute beast.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

If that's how things are, Nadal would only play the French Open, because he'd then effectively have 7*4/1 = 28 Majors. But that's not how things are, unfortunately, so Nadal has 11 Majors and do does Borg. The difference-maker is that Nadal hasn't quit at 26. Yet.

No because all 4 majors today are regarded as important. Back in the day, AO was not. your argument sucks.

My argument posted above is solid. Even kiki agrees with me FFS

[ARFED]

Borg did have an amazing career, his versatility in order to adjust his game fron clay to grass was and still is unparalleled but he was never as dominant as other players great players have been, and that in my opinion is what excludes him from tier 1 greats (i consider him a top 5 player all time though behind Fed, Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras).
For example, during his prime years (1978-1981) he won 7 out of 11 majors played (64%). He also won 2 Masters. Federer in his prime years (2004-2007) won 11 out of 16 majors (69%) and in addition 3 Masters. Borg won a total of 34 titles whereas Federer won a total of 42 titles.
Overall not a big difference but nevertheless a clear one. I personally regard dominance in peak years as the main criteria to evaluate greatness and is my feeling that sometimes Borg is a bit overhyped around here as he was some superhuman being during his dominant years where it was almost impossible to beat him.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Borg did have an amazing career, his versatility in order to adjust his game fron clay to grass was and still is unparalleled but he was never as dominant as other players great players have been, and that in my opinion is what excludes him from tier 1 greats (i consider him a top 5 player all time though behind Fed, Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras).
For example, during his prime years (1978-1981) he won 7 out of 11 majors played (64%). He also won 2 Masters. Federer in his prime years (2004-2007) won 11 out of 16 majors (69%) and in addition 3 Masters. Borg won a total of 34 titles whereas Federer won a total of 42 titles.
Overall not a big difference but nevertheless a clear one. I personally regard dominance in peak years as the main criteria to evaluate greatness and is my feeling that sometimes Borg is a bit overhyped around here as he was some superhuman being during his dominant years where it was almost impossible to beat him.

Actually Borg won over 70 tournaments in his best five years including an incredible 21 in 1979. I believe Borg won 76 tournaments over his best five years. For example in 1979 Borg won the French, Wimbledon, the Masters, the Canadian Open over McEnroe on hard court. Borg's winning percentages over that period exceed anyone but Bill Tilden plus his games won percentages are on a totally different level from anyone perhaps ever.

Borg was not overhyped. For example Pat Rafter won two majors and eleven tournaments in his whole career. Borg in 1979 surpassed Rafter's entire career and I believe Rafter is in the Hall of Fame.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Borg did have an amazing career, his versatility in order to adjust his game fron clay to grass was and still is unparalleled but he was never as dominant as other players great players have been, and that in my opinion is what excludes him from tier 1 greats (i consider him a top 5 player all time though behind Fed, Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras).
For example, during his prime years (1978-1981) he won 7 out of 11 majors played (64%). He also won 2 Masters. Federer in his prime years (2004-2007) won 11 out of 16 majors (69%) and in addition 3 Masters. Borg won a total of 34 titles whereas Federer won a total of 42 titles.
Overall not a big difference but nevertheless a clear one. I personally regard dominance in peak years as the main criteria to evaluate greatness and is my feeling that sometimes Borg is a bit overhyped around here as he was some superhuman being during his dominant years where it was almost impossible to beat him.

That is a complete strawman. I have Fed slightly ahead of Borg anyway so I don't know why you posted all the above.

As for Sampras, b**ch please..

Sampras is the complete opposite of nadal. great fast court, sucked comparatively on slow courts. Thus, Borg will always be ahead of sampras and he has more majors when we normalize them anyway.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Borg is no.2 on the all time great list.

ROTFL the very idea you think Borg is ahead of 2 out of 3 of Laver, Gonzales, or Federer is already enough to not bother reading any of the rest of your post (which I am sure was complete and utter crap anyhow).

BTW people retiring at 25 is NOT a further mark of greatness, in fact just the opposite. Dont make me laugh by even thinking of introducing that as a way to further build Borg up. That is even more ridiculous than the fantasy Australian Opens for Borg some are trying to award.

As for Borg and Sampras, Sampras is easily better than Borg on any surface outside of clay (where of course Borg is light years ahead). Sampras did not suck on all slow courts, I am quite sure he is easiily better than Borg on a hard court of any speed, slow, medium, or fast. Now as for normalizing, if we are going to do one what if we might as well do them all, so if Borg couldnt win the U.S Open not only on fast hard courts in all his peak years, but on more preferred surfaces in his non peak ones, so the only normalization to assume when comparing him to Sampras and Nadal is if the Australian Open were also on hard courts like the times of both Sampras and Nadal, and he played it every year, he would have probably won none and still had only 11 slams. Meanwhile if we want to do a hypothetical for all from Borg's vantage point, now the Australian Open is on grass for all 3 rather than hards, and all playing in full fields like a regular slam each year, all time grass GOAT Sampras then gains a TON more slams vs the few Borg gains, and Nadal probably even gains an additional 1 or 2 as he is better on grass than hard courts himself. So in the latter scenario Borg might stand in better stead vs Nadal, but yet even worse vs Sampras. When Sampras retired nobody ranked him below Borg btw.