Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

Originally Posted by TMF

One tier below, yes. I've stated Nadal can't be in the same tier with Federer. Since Nadal is so even with Borg and should be in the same tier, they both are below Federer. If you guys include Borg in tier 1 with Laver, Sampras, or Pancho, etc., then you must include Nadal.

I actually agree with you for once:

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Rosewall
Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge

Also concur there is absolutely no way, even for those who want to argue Borg as being above Nadal which is not how most people feel at this point (I am talking the real World, not Planet TW), that there is no way he is in a higher tier. So if one wants to argue Borg as being tier 1, Nadal must be also.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually agree with you for once:

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras
Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Rosewall (I would put Rosewall tier 1 but I know almost all would disagree)

Also concur there is absolutely no way, even for those who want to argue Borg as being above Nadal which is not how most people feel at this point (I am talking the real World, not Planet TW), that there is no way he is in a higher tier. So if one wants to argue Borg as being tier 1, Nadal must be also.

I disagree with your opinion on Borg but let's not discuss that now. What I am curious about is why you have Tilden in the second tier. He won over 160 tournaments, was virtually unbeatable for about a decade and won on every surface. If you include Pro Majors he won 14 majors. If you don't he won 10 majors. He won 98% of his matches during his peak years. How much more dominant can you be? Tilden is overwhelming qualified as a GOAT candidate.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually agree with you for once:

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras
Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Rosewall (I would put Rosewall tier 1 but I know almost all would disagree)

Also concur there is absolutely no way, even for those who want to argue Borg as being above Nadal which is not how most people feel at this point (I am talking the real World, not Planet TW), that there is no way he is in a higher tier. So if one wants to argue Borg as being tier 1, Nadal must be also.

NadalAgassi, If you believe that Rosewall belongs to tier 1 then you should rank him there unaffected by the opinions of other posters.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I disagree with your opinion on Borg but let's not discuss that now. What I am curious about is why you have Tilden in the second tier. He won over 160 tournaments, was virtually unbeatable for about a decade and won on every surface. If you include Pro Majors he won 14 majors. If you don't he won 10 majors. He won 98% of his matches during his peak years. How much more dominant can you be? Tilden is overwhelming qualified as a GOAT candidate.

pc1, I agree that Tilden belongs to tier one. He is a worthy GOAT candidate.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalAgassi, If you believe that Rosewall belongs to tier 1 then you should rank him there unaffected by the opinions of other posters.

And yes Rosewall should be in tier one also. I didn't see Muscles in the second tier when I glanced at it.

NadalAgassi, as BobbyOne wrote if you believe it just write that Rosewall's tier one. His record certainly puts him there.

As far as Borg is concerned. Borg won 106 tournaments in his career by age 25. He has perhaps the highest lifetime winning percentage in tennis history. Some may argue that was because he retired early but no one at 25 had some a high lifetime winning percentage I believe. He won 11 of 27 majors entered and was in the finals of a number of others. That's a majors winning percents of around 41.7%. No one in the Open Era is close. And he was superb on all surfaces. At his peak he was almost unbeatable and it is arguably that his peak was higher than anyone in tennis history. We're talking about a period of years here during his peak. Yes I believe he is easily a GOAT candidate.

Originally Posted by pc1

I disagree with your opinion on Borg but let's not discuss that now. What I am curious about is why you have Tilden in the second tier. He won over 160 tournaments, was virtually unbeatable for about a decade and won on every surface. If you include Pro Majors he won 14 majors. If you don't he won 10 majors. He won 98% of his matches during his peak years. How much more dominant can you be? Tilden is overwhelming qualified as a GOAT candidate.

I find it hard to rank players from the 20s. The game wasnt very competitive then, although atleast for the men it was better than the women where Lenglen or Wills won every single match 0 and 2, 0 and 0, 1 and 0. At the U.S Open it seemed he played the same opponent in the final every year, and that opponent is not an all time great at all (not saying he isnt a great player or a weak opponent, just someone you shouldnt play in the finals 5 years in a row), which really calls into question the state of the game back then.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I find it hard to rank players from the 20s. The game wasnt very competitive then, although atleast for the men it was better than the women where Lenglen or Wills won every single match 0 and 2, 0 and 0, 1 and 0. At the U.S Open it seemed he played the same opponent in the final every year, and that opponent is not an all time great at all (not saying he isnt a great player or a weak opponent, just someone you shouldnt play in the finals 5 years in a row), which really calls into question the state of the game back then.

You really can't say that because then a person could argue today's era was dominated by Nadal and Federer for many years. Tilden played great competition in greats like Johnston, Lacoste, Cochet, Richards, Patterson, Borotra, Nusslein, Perry, Budge and even Pancho Gonzalez. He beat everyone in his prime. You really couldn't get much better.

[BruceG]

Originally Posted by TMF

People should realize a great player can loses his goat status when players of the future matched or surpassed his achievements. .

And that should tell everyone, no-matter how dopey they are, that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'greatest of all time'.

Seriously, if the message board was ever to have a requirement for membership it should be that anyone believing in a a greatest of all time not be allowed to join (along with the Graf-Seles freaks).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BruceG

And that should tell everyone, no-matter how dopey they are, that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'greatest of all time'.

Seriously, if the message board was ever to have a requirement for membership it should be that anyone believing in a a greatest of all time not be allowed to join (along with the Graf-Seles freaks).

You realize that one of the fun discussions in ANY SPORT is who is the greatest of all time. So while you believe that there is no such thing, others like to discuss it. It is enjoyable for many. It has been perhaps the most discuss topic in sports. Who is the best boxer? Who is the best baseball team? Who is the best hitter in baseball? Who is the best NFL quarterback?

Okay I get your message but if there is no GOAT you can also discuss who accomplished the most. For example the NY Yankees in baseball won the most World Series etc.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually agree with you for once:

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Rosewall
Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge

I almost agree with you.

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Rosewall, Federer
Tier 2: Borg, Sampras, Budge, Daugherty, Nadal, Budge, Lendl
Tier 3: Vines, Perry, Connors, Cochet, Hoad, Lacoste, Kramer

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I almost agree with you.

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Rosewall, Federer
Tier 2: Borg, Sampras, Budge, Daugherty, Nadal, Budge, Lendl
Tier 3: Vines, Perry, Connors, Cochet, Hoad, Lacoste, Kramer

I had thought Budge was better than Vines until recently but looking back it seems Vines was the Worlds best player longer than Budge, wasnt he? Then again Budge does have the Grand Slam which is an enormous achievement. I would find it hard to split them into seperate tiers though.

I predict by careers end Nadal will definitely be tier 1, even if he isnt the GOAT.

[kiki]

If Vines is third tier, then Kodes is, too.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I had thought Budge was better than Vines until recently but looking back it seems Vines was the Worlds best player longer than Budge, wasnt he? Then again Budge does have the Grand Slam which is an enormous achievement. I would find it hard to split them into seperate tiers though.

I predict by careers end Nadal will definitely be tier 1, even if he isnt the GOAT.

There is also a question whether Vines wasn't just a better player when both were at their best. Vines was older and apparently had some injury problems when he toured against Budge. Vines also was getting into the game of golf, a game in which he would later become one of the World's best players so he was on as motivated in tennis anymore. And while Budge won the Grand Slam in 1938 it is debatable whether he could have won it if all the top players like Vines, Nusslein, Perry, von Cramm and Tilden competed. Vines would be a big problem on those grass courts on three of the majors and the others would be extremely tough to beat also.

I think there is a good chance Nadal will be among the top players ever. I agree with you.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually agree with you for once:

Tier 1: Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Rosewall
Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden, Vines, Budge

Also concur there is absolutely no way, even for those who want to argue Borg as being above Nadal which is not how most people feel at this point (I am talking the real World, not Planet TW), that there is no way he is in a higher tier. So if one wants to argue Borg as being tier 1, Nadal must be also.

There's ambiguous ranking from your list. There's a big gap between Nadal and Sampras, and between Sampras and Federer. If Nadal is one tier below Sampras, then Sampras should be one tier below Federer. Honestly, I think Sampras should be in the same level as Laver since he earned that status after retire. Some people unfairly demoted him because of Federer surpasses him and broke his records. An appropriate way is to leave Samrpas in first tier, but remove Federer from the list and leave everything as it is.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

If Vines is third tier, then Kodes is, too.

ROFL! Kodes is ranked #50 in top male tennis player from The Tennis Channel. Nole is #24 so put him in tier 2.

[BruceG]

Originally Posted by pc1

You realize that one of the fun discussions in ANY SPORT is who is the greatest of all time. So while you believe that there is no such thing, others like to discuss it. It is enjoyable for many. It has been perhaps the most discuss topic in sports. Who is the best boxer? Who is the best baseball team? Who is the best hitter in baseball? Who is the best NFL quarterback?

Okay I get your message but if there is no GOAT you can also discuss who accomplished the most. For example the NY Yankees in baseball won the most World Series etc.

Sure, it should be fun but you've got to admit, way too many of the guys on this message board take it way too seriously. Kind of like, their desperate need to crown one player the 'greatest of all time' is a testament to their devotion to that player or an indication of their all-encompassing knowledge of the game. Either way, turns a bit of fun into a bore-fest.

Who won what is wildly different to who 'accomplished' the most because 'accomplished' is still highly subjective. Yeah, we should be sane enough to understand what you meant but that just doesn't happen with fanboys and zealots.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BruceG

Sure, it should be fun but you've got to admit, way too many of the guys on this message board take it way too seriously. Kind of like, their desperate need to crown one player the 'greatest of all time' is a testament to their devotion to that player or an indication of their all-encompassing knowledge of the game. Either way, turns a bit of fun into a bore-fest.

Who won what is wildly different to who 'accomplished' the most because 'accomplished' is still highly subjective. Yeah, we should be sane enough to understand what you meant but that just doesn't happen with fanboys and zealots.

Some do probably take it too seriously and some idolize their players and make them into almost god-like beings. That's a good way to look at things.

I have my opinions of course and I do a lot of research so frankly I really don't care if people may write something I believe is incorrect. I may point out the detail that I believe is incorrect however.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Some do probably take it too seriously and some idolize their players and make them into almost god-like beings.

Nawww, say it ain't so.

[Talker]

When Fed had around 12 slams he was already compared to Sampras and some brought Laver up also at that time.
Those three were considered the best, with Laver having a 11-6 slam record.
Sampras had 14-4. Fed was 12-2.

At that time they were tier 1 with no arguments from Laver and Sampras fans for the most part. The only argument was who was at the top of tier 1.


Fed has accomplished so much more since then, enough to make a player considered great just on the records Fed has since that time.

Fed has accomplished too much since then to be in the same tier as Sampras and Laver.

How can someone add to his totals such a great amount,
4-5 more slams,
added weeks at #1,
more masters and WTF's,
a completion of the career slam
but still be in the same tier?

[monfed]

Borg's tier-1, definitely a tier above Ralph, way more versatile than Ralph will ever be, I mean cmon are you kidding me?
Borg won the channel slam when Wimby and RG were like night n day,which would be nothing more than a dream for the unadaptable Nadal.