GOAT Discussions

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

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

Prove that Borg could beat Sampras on Clay. Go on, prove it

[Gizo]

Sampras was better than Borg on 3 out of the 4 surfaces; grass, hard and carpet/indoors which is a big plus in his favour.

Plus his longevity was outstanding. I've always believed that his feat of winning slam titles as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s (Rosewall is the only other man to have done that) is one of the most underrated achievements in tennis history. In fact I believe that Sampras's longevity is actually better than Agassi's, which was hugely aided by him half-assing it and not fully dedicating himself to the sport throughout most of his 20s.

As far as domination goes, Sampras was the year end no. 1 from 1993-1998, and Borg was the best for 3 years from 1978-1980, so you can argue that Sampras was far more dominant. However if you look at the quality of Borg's prime years, they were better than Sampras's in my opinion. I think that Borg's 1979 and 1980 were both better seasons than any years that Sampras ever had. His 1978 also rivals any of Sampras's best seasons. Borg's 1976 and 1977 seasons when he wasn't the best player in the world, were still better than Sampras's 1996 and 1998 seasons when he finished as the year end no. 1. Sampras was never really as dominant over a stretch of years as Borg was from 1978-1980.

I do think it is very close between them and many writers and tennis historians considered Borg to be greater than Sampras and vice versa. Neither of those two players are on the same tier as Federer or Laver in my opinion though.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Prove that Borg could beat Sampras on Clay. Go on, prove it

LOL... so you have been trolling all along. i thought u were having a serious discussion. LMAO..well played. i fell for it initially. 9/10 for effort

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

LOL... so you have been trolling all along. i thought u were having a serious discussion. LMAO..well played. i fell for it initially. 9/10 for effort

If I was trolling, so were you. You asked me to prove Sampras could beat Borg on Hards, and I asked you to prove Borg could beat Sampras on Clay. Hypocrisy much? Hmm?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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

Hardcourts wasn't that widespread in Borg's era, and he still won 7 hardcourt titles. Borg also won 6 titles on grass, 42 titles on clay and 46 titles on carpet, so he was clearly excellent across all surfaces.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hardcourts wasn't that widespread in Borg's era, and he still won 7 hardcourt titles. Borg also won 6 titles on grass, 42 titles on clay and 46 titles on carpet, so he was clearly excellent across all surfaces.

Borg was the more rounded player, no doubt about that, but Sampras was still better on every surface other than Clay (where he was way worse). But then, if Sampras was that good on Clay, he'd be up there with Federer fighting for the GOAT position, or heck, he'd be the undisputed GOAT.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

That is even more ridiculous than the fantasy Australian Opens for Borg some are trying to award.

Here again the same inconsistency. One speculation and not the other. You're happy moving some of the conditions of Nadal's time, like an all-hardcourt USO, into Borg's time. But other conditions of Nadal's time, you won't give to Borg. Imagine if Borg, Connors and McEnroe had an AO in their time that was on par with the other Slams, in terms of prize money, prestige, attendance and ranking points; and imagine it was played in January, starting a new season rather than cutting into the off-season. There is no way that under those conditions, Borg, Connors and McEnroe would not be playing the AO every year.

About your first speculation, putting the USO at Flushing Meadow throughout Borg's career: as I said above, he would probably be taking early losses in those early years. But paradoxically I think it improves his chances of winning at Flushing when he hits his peak. In '78 when the USO moved to Flushing, it was a necessary but controversial move; people complained about the surface, the planes, the noise, the lights, you name it. But after a few years, the hullabaloo died down to some extent, as people realized this was what the USO was going to be. There were a lot of things about Flushing that Borg did not like, but if he'd been playing there from the start, as a teen, I think there would have been a good chance that he would have settled in by the late 70s and adapted to the place -- like Stefan Edberg did after many uncomfortable years there.

So no, I don't agree with your "absolute best unlikely case scenario no better". I think if you put Borg at Flushing from the beginning of his career, his chances of taking the title late in his career (as Nadal did) improve.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

You can't assume zero wins for Borg on AO hardcourts just because he didn't win at Flushing. He lost at Flushing to three Americans (Connors, Tanner and McEnroe) who had the highest possible motivation -- winning their home Slam -- and who all fed off the rowdy energy at Flushing, or were, at worst, comfortable with it. Connors was never better than in front of the New York crowd; and McEnroe was born in New York.

In Australia it would have been reversed. Sampras mentioned in his book how he didn't particularly like the AO, for various little reasons (including the surface); obviously he found his deepest motivation at Wimbledon and at his home Slam. I guess that would have been generally true for the Americans that Borg lost to.

Sampras also mentioned how much the Swedes tended to like the AO. I think he put it down to how they thrived in the intense heat. Do I even need to go into how Borg would have thrived in that heat, especially against his less fit American rivals?

Wilander loved playing in Australia when it was still at Kooyong and won that title early. He did well when it moved to Rebound Ace, winning on his first try, with big wins over defending champion Edberg and hometown hero Cash. New York was a tougher place for him throughout his career; it took him longer to adapt there, though he did eventually (just like Edberg).

And I think Rebound Ace would have suited Borg more than DecoTurf. The high bounce would have been to his liking (same as it was for Chris Evert and, of course, for Agassi). His main obstacle, McEnroe, would have done better, imo, on the fast courts at Flushing.

Same with the Australian grass. The bounce there was higher than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills, because the dry heat hardened the turf. The one year that Wimbledon played close to that was 1976, in the middle of a long English heat wave. Dan Maskell noted how the high bounce that year was to Borg's liking: and Borg won that Wimbledon without dropping a set, not having any of the problems he usually had in Wimbledon's first week when the grass is typically still thick and often slippery.

Sampras, as the grasscourt GOAT, would have done great on any grass surface. But I hope you're not assuming that because he won 7 Wimbledons we might as well imagine 6 to 8 AO titles for him. As he said himself, he never especially liked the AO, for various reasons; now imagine him playing at the inferior Kooyong facilities, for less prize money, in December. How motivated do you think he would have been there, compared to Wimbledon or the USO?

Rod Laver won 4 Wimbledons, but he didn't win 4 times at the other grasscourt majors. He took the AO three times; the USO just twice. Sampras' haul of AO titles, even if he got to play it on grass, could have been significantly lower than his 7 Wimbledon titles.

[BobbyOne]

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.

sonicare, I agree

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Sampras was better than Borg on 3 out of the 4 surfaces; grass, hard and carpet/indoors which is a big plus in his favour.

borg with his style of play would've probably done better on slow HC than sampras tbh .....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, but I was always impressed that Jan Kodes, apart from his big wins, was able to battle with Connors (in the latter's best year) at Wimbledon in a five set match...

Yes, he gave Jimbo a big scarece.Connors always aknowledged Jan.But he was a bit past his prime, although the 1974 version of Jimmy Connors , well, I think just the best Newcombe or the best Nastase could have beaten him.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

And what is your point? I believe they both are equal(for now) but disagree with kiki who think Borg > Nadal.

In fact, surfaces and schedules are so much different today than in Borg´s time that the only common thing both have is their terrific top spin and having the two best ever records at the French Open.While I think both are the two greatest clay courters ever, for the rest of the surfaces it is quite different.

In Borg´s time, grass was extremely fast, making it amazing how he could switch in15 days from the ultraslow RG clay to the Wimbledon turf...and winning three times in a row while doing soNadal´s only won Wimbleodn twice, and the grass court is now like clay, just a bit faster.It is no possible to compare but, of course, while Borg is one of the 4 best ever on grass ( Laver,Sampras,Federer and maybe Tilden would join him), Nadal is like Connors or Edberg: he only won 2 titles, not a big deal.Not even fifth or sixth tier on grass ( even his clay court rgass)

In Borg´s time fast indoor carpet was as important as hard court is today.In reverseal, hard court was a secondary surface in Borg´s era and carpet has become the same in Nadal´s era...Nadal won 2 majors ( 3 if we add OG 200 on hard and none on carpet, Borg took three indoor majors and no major title on hard ( in spite of reaching 3 finals at the USO)

So, it looks pretty even here.

As a conclusion, Borg fared much much above Nadal on fast courts, and Nadal has a better record on slow courts.But Borg , retiring at 25, has a total of 14 majors and Nadal, AT 26, has a total of 12.

That´s the figures, rest is subjective

[kiki]

Originally Posted by urban

For me as a German, one of the most astounding things about Rosewall was, that Germany won the World Cup in Soccer in 1954 and 1974. In 1954, before my time, Fritz Walter captained the German team as heavy underdog against Hungary with Puskas. In 1974, a complete different gerneration was at work, when Beckenbauer's German team, again a heavy underdog against Holland, won over Cruyff's Netherlands. It was a good sign for Germany for the final Sunday, that the Wimbledon final had been played the day before, and the same man, still the same man, had lost the final to Drobny and Connors. In sports, 20 years are an eternity. That the Rosewall of 1974 was the same Rosewall of 1954, boggeled the mind.

In 72 Germany won the Euro Cup...and Rosewall, the best ever WCT final.Just to find more similarities.

In 1970, Germany lost to Italy one of the best ever WC matches and Rosewall lost to Newcombe in a gruelling 5 sets final at London.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

My theory is that the top groundstrokers tend to be the most consistent and Rosewall certainly was consistently great. You look at guys like Borg, Connor, Tilden, Lendl, Wilander (for a little while) Budge, Riggs and they rarely had bad losses.

Gonzalez was a serve and volleyer but he didn't mind groundstroking rallies.

Guys like Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Newcombe could occasionally had some bad losses. I think it's because of their high risk game. Just a theory. I could be wrong.

You are right.

In fact, one of the amazing things looking backwards is that John Mc Enroe did not have too many bad loses when he was peaking, provided his risky serve and volley style and inspirational touch.If we look back from 1979 to 1985, just a few remarkable ones (by that I mean losing to a guy out of the top 30).If I can recall well, I think of Teltscher in Palm Springs, ( when Teltscher was not a top guy yet)Mc Namee at Rg, Francisco Gonzalez at the 1980 Cincinnati event, ...of course, he seldom visited the cc events...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Gizo

No I'm not equating Rotterdam to the Australian Open in Nadal's time. I'm equating Rotterdam now to the Australian Open in Borg's time. There's a big difference there.

Imagine now if there was a slam that offered considerably less ranking points and prize money than the other 3 majors (and many non-slam tournaments for that matter), had absolutely terrible facilities, and was held at such an inconvenient time (so close to Christmas and for several years so soon before the more important Masters event). There would be withdrawals left, right and centre. That was the situation with the Aussie Open in Borg's time. Player's ranked outside the top 200 were getting direct entries into the Aussie Open during the mid to late 70s (despite the fact that it had a significantly smaller draw size to the other majors).

So using the Australian Open as some sort of yardstick when discussing Borg's career is stupid, as that ignores the context of his era. And yes many historians make an equally big mistake and judge Federer based on 60s and 70s standards (comparing Laver's overall title count to Federer's for instance is a utterly stupid).

Borg's career needs to be judged on the context of his era, i.e. when non-slam and invitational events were very lucrative and hence very important, when absolutely nobody cared about the grand slam title count including the players themselves, when there were only 3 proper majors a year, when the Masters and WCT Finals were hugely important tournaments etc.

Federer and Nadal's careers needs to be judged on the context of their eras, i.e. when grand slam counting is very important, when there are 4 equally important majors a year, when the non-slam events don't mean so much any more etc.

The players from the 70s and 80s like Borg and Connors probably get the worst deal. Some older historians judge them based on the context of the 60s Laver/Rosewall era and even previous eras, while some younger tennis fans judge them based on the context of the Sampras/Federer 90s and 00s era. i.e. looking at slams and nothing else. They are pretty much stuck in the middle.

This is completely truth.Most posters here have not lives through the golden, yet struggling years of tennis, in the 70´s and 80´s and don´t know the inmense difference of title´s value compared to today.

WCT/Masters were much, but really much above an AO, who still deserved respect because of tradition ( and some true champs winning it).It did not change till AO recovered its prestige around the middle to end 80´s and WCT dissapeared due to financial trouble and Hunt´s lack of interest in the game he helped to bright in the early 70´s.

The importance of Borg, the first pop tennis star is even bigger outside the court than in the court.Nadal has not even 10% of Borg´s charisma and , as good as he is playing the game, his figure is just that of a midget comparing to Borg.

George W Bush also won 2 elections...can he be compared to Reagan who also won 2?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, my goal was to show which players would have been the favourites for "open" majors. For instance I wanted to show that the famous amateurs like Emerson would not have won a single major...

I did not know that Kramer was injured in 1951.

I gave Hoad and Sedgman some credit. Over the long run , Pancho was simply stronger than both.

You underrate Gonzalez on clay. Don't forget that he reached SFs at Roland Garros at 21 and at 40 and that he won several clay tournaments.

Dan, It's not that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are shown that good because I admire them. It's just the reverse: because they are so great, I admire them and must give them their due places in history.

If anybody, only Hoad could have won a GS in the 50´s ( and he was the guy closer to).He was by far more complete than Gonzales on slow courts and much more powerful than Rosewall on clay.Hoad just one title? don´t make me laugh.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He was the third best pro, but probably fifth or lower in the world.

Top tier:Laver and Rosewall, head and shoulders above in terms of achievements

Second Tier: Gonzales and Emerson

Third Tier: Santana,Gimeno,Stolle and the half injuried Hoad

Fourth tier: Ayala,Olmedo,Osuna,Mc Kinley,Graebner,Butcholtz and the rest

Only Newcombe,Ashe and Roche were able to jump into second or third tier but they are from another generation and I don´t mixém up with the players born in the 30´s.

[kiki]

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 retired in 1970, aged 32.

His last match was an awsome cc exhibition against Rod Laver.Laver had just won the GS a year before.

I know what I am talking.I actually watched the match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

borg with his style of play would've probably done better on slow HC than sampras tbh .....

It's amazes me the gizo says Sampras was better than Borg on three of four surfaces when Borg crushes Sampras in lifetime winning percentage by 84% to 77%. The 84% is from his actual lifetime record. Seven percentage points is huge and Borg won 106 tournaments to Sampras' 64 in a much shorter career.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

In fact, surfaces and schedules are so much different today than in Borg´s time that the only common thing both have is their terrific top spin and having the two best ever records at the French Open.While I think both are the two greatest clay courters ever, for the rest of the surfaces it is quite different.

In Borg´s time, grass was extremely fast, making it amazing how he could switch in15 days from the ultraslow RG clay to the Wimbledon turf...and winning three times in a row while doing soNadal´s only won Wimbleodn twice, and the grass court is now like clay, just a bit faster.It is no possible to compare but, of course, while Borg is one of the 4 best ever on grass ( Laver,Sampras,Federer and maybe Tilden would join him), Nadal is like Connors or Edberg: he only won 2 titles, not a big deal.Not even fifth or sixth tier on grass ( even his clay court rgass)

In Borg´s time fast indoor carpet was as important as hard court is today.In reverseal, hard court was a secondary surface in Borg´s era and carpet has become the same in Nadal´s era...Nadal won 2 majors ( 3 if we add OG 200 on hard and none on carpet, Borg took three indoor majors and no major title on hard ( in spite of reaching 3 finals at the USO)

So, it looks pretty even here.

As a conclusion, Borg fared much much above Nadal on fast courts, and Nadal has a better record on slow courts.But Borg , retiring at 25, has a total of 14 majors and Nadal, AT 26, has a total of 12.

That´s the figures, rest is subjective

kiki, What about Rosewall on grass? That guy won eight grasscourt majors and reached 27 SFs in grass majors. He was able to beat Laver twice in big grasscourt finals. Maybe a better record than Tilden.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

If anybody, only Hoad could have won a GS in the 50´s ( and he was the guy closer to).He was by far more complete than Gonzales on slow courts and much more powerful than Rosewall on clay.Hoad just one title? don´t make me laugh.

kiki, As you can see in my list, I gave Hoad three major wins. It could be that I underrated him a bit. I could give Hoad five majors but not more. Don't forget that Lew was rather inconsistent over a full year. I can't imagine that Hoad would win an open Grand Slam rather than Gonzalez.

Hoad cannot compete with Rosewall on clay or at the most only for a short period. Power does not mean too much on clay.