GOAT Discussions

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

And how many of those 21 tournaments have a 4 or an 8 man field?? Give me a break here, you know perfectly well that those exhibitions should not have the same value as an ATP recognized tournament. Otherwise we should sart to take more seriously those exhibitions between Sampras and Federer or what about The Battlle of the Surfaces between Fed and Rafa, should we award the winner of that match with a title too??
I am not taking anything away from Borg, i would be crazy to deny him as an all time great, but in my opinion he doesn`t belong in the top tier.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by sonicare

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.

So let me get this straight for you:

12 majors > 11 majors (not counting AO)
6 years as the top player (1993-199 > at best 4 years as the top player ( 1977-1980)
better player on grass and hard> better player on clay
5 masters > 2 masters and 1 WCT

Keep up the good work sun

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

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

Kiki would agree with any argument favoring great grandfathers, it's like me celebrating about NadalAgassi agreeing with me. Borg didn't win the USO despite full commitment towards winning one. What makes you think he'd have won the AO in, say, today's field?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Borg retired at 25 with more majors than Nadal at 25

Borg retired at 26, my dear Kiki. And he quit, more like.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by ARFED

So let me get this straight for you:

12 majors > 11 majors (not counting AO)
6 years as the top player (1993-199 > at best 4 years as the top player ( 1977-1980)
better player on grass and hard> better player on clay
5 masters > 2 masters and 1 WCT

Keep up the good work sun

You sound a little butthurt but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Sampras marginally better player on fast but not even in the same stratosphere on clay. Even on grass, sampras could never win 5 wimbledons in a row. Dont get me started on how much sampras sucked on clay.

Thus Borg > samopras. always was and will be.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Kiki would agree with any argument favoring great grandfathers, it's like me celebrating about NadalAgassi agreeing with me. Borg didn't win the USO despite full commitment towards winning one. What makes you think he'd have won the AO in, say, today's field?

Atleast Borg got to 4 USO finals

Sampras has how many finals ar RG?

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Borg retired at 26, my dear Kiki. And he quit, more like.

Still achieved more than sampras and was more dominant. Rather live a day like a lion than a 100 years like a jackal. LMAO He left on his own terms which makes him an incredible human being and a greater champion.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Atleast Borg got to 4 USO finals

Sampras has how many finals ar RG?

Compare likes for likes, please.

Sampras : 7 Wimbledons, Borg : 6 French Opens
Sampras : 5 US Opens, Borg : 5 Wimbledons
Sampras : 2 Australian Opens, Borg : 4 US Open finals

Even if we disregard the AO during Borg's time and take into account his WCT wins, Sampras is ahead by a good bit.

[sonicare]

Just want to add, i don't think people comprehend what Borg was able to do with his 3 consecutive channel slams.

he would grind from the baseline at the FO and win. two weeks later he would be serving and volleying against the best on grass and winning wimbledon.

I want you to think about that for a second.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Still achieved more than sampras and was more dominant. Rather live a day like a lion than a 100 years like a jackal. LMAO He left on his own terms which makes him an incredible human being and a greater champion.

He lived like a lion and he quit when he had become a Jackal. Make no mistake about it, he was a jackal when he quit. Sampras, and hopefully Nadal, have more heart than Borg ever did. That's a champion.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Just want to add, i don't think people comprehend what Borg was able to do with his 3 consecutive channel slams.

he would grind from the baseline at the FO and win. two weeks later he would be serving and volleying against the best on grass and winning wimbledon.

I want you to think about that for a second.

Thought about it, I'd still put Federer, Sampras and Nadal (given time) over him.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

He lived like a lion and he quit when he had become a Jackal. Make no mistake about it, he was a jackal when he quit. Sampras, and hopefully Nadal, have more heart than Borg ever did. That's a champion.

sampras who couldnt get to 1 french open final

nadal who hasnt shown his face after the embarassing loss at wimbledon against world no 105

oh and lets not forget threatening to boycott a tournament becos clay was the wrong color
hahahahhahahahahahahaha

great champions indeed.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

sampras who couldnt get to 1 french open final

nadal who hasnt shown his face after the embarassing loss at wimbledon against world no 105

oh and lets not forget threatening to boycott a tournament becos clay was the wrong color
hahahahhahahahahahahaha

great champions indeed.

Borg who couldn't get to one US Open win, even when it was on his best surface, Clay.

Borg, who sulked off center-court like a little boy after he was spanked by McEnroe and was never relevant again.

See, I can do it too.

Besides, Nadal was more worried about the surface being slippery than its freaking color.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

You sound a little butthurt but I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Sampras marginally better player on fast but not even in the same stratosphere on clay. Even on grass, sampras could never win 5 wimbledons in a row. Dont get me started on how much sampras sucked on clay.

Thus Borg > samopras. always was and will be.

On Grass : Sampras > Borg

On Clay : Borg >>> Sampras

On Hardcourts : Sampras >> Borg

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

On Grass : Sampras > Borg

On Clay : Borg >>> Sampras

On Hardcourts : Sampras >> Borg

on fast courts

sampras > borg

on slow courts

borg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sampras

thus borg >>> sampras

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Borg who couldn't get to one US Open win, even when it was on his best surface, Clay.

Borg, who sulked off center-court like a little boy after he was spanked by McEnroe and was never relevant again.

See, I can do it too.

Besides, Nadal was more worried about the surface being slippery than its freaking color.

ofcourse because that exposes nadal for what he is. a glorified grinder/pusher who could never dominate on fast skidding courts by being agressive.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

on fast courts

sampras > borg

on slow courts

borg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sampras

thus borg >>> sampras

False, false, false.

Sampras would've decimated Borg on Hardcourts, much like Borg would've Sampras on Clay. You know this, which is why you over generalize and oversimplify matters with the black/white fast/slow court distinction.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

False, false, false.

Sampras would've decimated Borg on Hardcourts, much like Borg would've Sampras on Clay. You know this, which is why you over generalize and oversimplify matters with the black/white fast/slow court distinction.

more nonsense without proof. go ahead and post some proof my dancing monkey. it feels great to see you so desperate to get my approval. LMAO

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Sampras would've decimated Borg on Hardcourts.

Apart from the fact that the game in Sampras' era was very different to what it was in Borg's era, on what do you base the assertion in your quote above? Remember that Sampras lost to players like Yzaga, Philippoussis, Korda and Kucera in hardcourt majors during the periods when he was world number 1. Also, Borg only played in 4 hardcourt majors in his career, while Sampras played in 25 hardcourt majors.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Apart from the fact that the game in Sampras' era was very different to what it was in Borg's era, on what do you base the assertion in your quote above? Remember that Sampras lost to players like Yzaga, Philippoussis, Korda and Kucera in hardcourt majors during the periods when he was world number 1. Also, Borg only played in 4 hardcourt majors in his career, while Sampras played in 25 hardcourt majors.

The same basis on which people state Borg would decimate Sampras on Clay: their respective records on the surface.