Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I'm utterly baffled as to why. 200 singles tournaments at all levels not enough?

Number of titles doesn't say much because not all events carry the same weight.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

You also have remember that the media loves to promote today's game and of course the focus will be on the present players, as it should be. They are the now. However just because they don't discuss Laver doesn't mean he's dropped in status.

That's not always true. I don't hear them saying Nadal is greater than Laver and Sampras. Or Kobe Bryant is greater than Michael Jordan.

Past players can drop in goat status provided if the future players can match/surpass him. e.g. When Borg retire he was very high in goat status, but some of his records got broken: Wimbledon titles(share by Fed/Pete), FO titles(Nadal won 7), single titles(Connors at 109).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's not always true. I don't hear them saying Nadal is greater than Laver and Sampras. Or Kobe Bryant is greater than Michael Jordan.

Past players can drop in goat status provided if the future players can match/surpass him. e.g. When Borg retire he was very high in goat status, but some of his records got broken: Wimbledon titles(share by Fed/Pete), FO titles(Nadal won 7), single titles(Connors at 109).

First of all you didn't understand what I wrote (or you did and wanted to write what you decided to write) but I wrote that the media should focus on the present players. It's best for them to publicize the game.

And yes your second paragraph is incorrect about Laver because in this case more records of Laver has come to light. No one knew Laver won 200 tournaments or won 19 majors, second only to Rosewall. I don't believe the media thinks any less of Laver as the Talker believed. But that's the Talker's opinion and he is entitled to it. He may have seen some things I have not seen.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix1983, Interesting list but why do you rank Budge ahead of Tilden? I guess because of Don's Grand Slam. I would like to argue that Tilden, if he had entered all GS tournaments, would probably also won the GS, even two or three GSs.

Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.

Tilden's success as I see it was largely restricted to dominating a select group of American contenders such as Johnston. I give him great credit for winning Wimbledon three times when he ventured across the Atlantic, and of course for being tennis' first international star.

However I don't agree that he would have won the Grand Slam had he entered all majors. He was beaten by the Musketeers when he eventually did enter the French, there's nothing to indicate he could have dominated on clay...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Talker

Laver had some great passing shots. At his age you have to wonder how he would have been in his prime.

Thanks for posting.

No problem. Bear in mind that even in that Laver against Ashe 1969 Wimbledon semi that Laver would shortly become 31 and many believe he was already past his prime by a few years even though he won the Grand Slam that year.

Here's highlights of the match that Laver won the Grand Slam, the 1969 US Open final against Tony Roche who was a sensational player. Notice how awful the courts at the old West Side Tennis club. Not only are the courts much faster than Wimbledon of today but the bounces were just awful. Often the ball wouldn't bounce at all. You couldn't play baseline tennis like today if you wanted to win. Obviously that and the much inferior equipment affects the level of play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.

Tilden's success as I see it was largely restricted to dominating a select group of American contenders such as Johnston. I give him great credit for winning Wimbledon three times when he ventured across the Atlantic, and of course for being tennis' first international star.

However I don't agree that he would have won the Grand Slam had he entered all majors. He was beaten by the Musketeers when he eventually did enter the French, there's nothing to indicate he could have dominated on clay...

Tilden won many claycourt tournaments including the World Hardcourt in 1921 and many US Claycourts. When the Musketeers came onto the scene he was already in his thirties. He also injured his knee around 1927 I believe and that affected him the rest of his career. Also bear in mind the US Championships had an international field and Tilden still won. Players came from England, Japan, France, Australia etc. Bill Johnston was a great player who also won Wimbledon and several US Championship and Tilden defeated him most of the time.

I agree with BobbyOne that it's very probable that Tilden would have won at least one Grand Slam and I think more than that.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

There isn't anymore information about Laver that are missing that affected his goat debate. I think the existing of the internet and historians have provided more than enough resources that are available for all fans to access, and as of now, most have Federer is #1. Sure, Laver's career isn't completely documented as say Sampras, but that's only the finer details(e.g. aces, winners, serve speed, minutes play, etc). But missing those detailed information doesn't improve his goat argument. We have the key information: the event he played, who he faced, total titles, scoreboard. Those are good enough to evaluate where he stand with among the great ones. More information on Laver's career may improve his goat debate, but that can back fire. For example, posters have stated that Laver played on events that consist only 4 man draw, or only needed to win 2 matches, which explain why he won so many single titles. The young, new tennis fans have no idea that slams was competing on only 2 surfaces, and there's a split field during the pre-open era. Exposing more information out of the past players isn't a good thing, because there's negative facts. The same with the female tennis player. If someone know nothing about Margaret Court and just know that she won 24 slams, he/she could just say WOW! But when one learned more about the lack of depth/strength of the field(particularly her 11 AO), the perception changes, and it isn't as amazing as Graf, Martina, Chris or Serena winning their slams.

I agree players like Sampras or Federer's legacy is fixed, but the past players doesn't gain anymore goat debates. I don't see Kramer is getting anymore goat claims, and he's well before Laver's time, when tennis is even less documented.

Fans certainly have right to change their opinion, but if two players(or group) are very close. Like between Nadal/Borg, or between Lendl/Connors, it's easy to flip flop. However you don’t want to flip flop between Agassi and Courier, because anyone in their right mind knows Agassi > Courier.

TMF, The fact that Laver played 4-man tournaments does NOT explain why he won so many titles. I guess that Laver won only about 15 4 man tournaments out of the 200 he won altogether (probably even a few more than 200).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.

Tilden's success as I see it was largely restricted to dominating a select group of American contenders such as Johnston. I give him great credit for winning Wimbledon three times when he ventured across the Atlantic, and of course for being tennis' first international star.

However I don't agree that he would have won the Grand Slam had he entered all majors. He was beaten by the Musketeers when he eventually did enter the French, there's nothing to indicate he could have dominated on clay...

Phoenix1983,

Tilden won 8 consecutive majors where he participated (which is second only to Rosewall's 9). This is about as great a feat as Budge did.

I'm sure Tilden would have won several GSs. You can't take his losses to Cochet and Lacoste because in that time he was an old man. Through 1925 he beat the French men.

Tilden was superb on clay. As late as 1939 he defeated Budge on clay in an important tournament (Southport). He also beat von Cramm in 1934. And he won seven US Claycourt championships...

Tilden also won the 1921 World Hardcourt champ.s. (Played on clay)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix1983,

Tilden won 8 consecutive majors where he participated (which is second only to Rosewall's 9). This is about as great a feat as Budge did.

I'm sure Tilden would have won several GSs. You can't take his losses to Cochet and Lacoste because in that time he was an old man. Through 1925 he beat the French men.

Tilden was superb on clay. As late as 1939 he defeated Budge on clay in an important tournament (Southport). He also beat von Cramm in 1934. And he won seven US Claycourt championships...

Tilden also won the 1921 World Hardcourt champ.s. (Played on clay)

Corrected in my post and I want to point out that again that the World Hardcourt was a major.

Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Corrected in my post and I want to point out that again that the World Hardcourt was a major.

Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?

pc1, I believe you are correct with that scandal caused by Cochet.

By the way, Tilden had beaten Cochet in the SFs by 9-7,6-3,6-2...

In the 1928 Davis Cup Challenge round Tilden beat Lacoste in five sets in the Roland Garros stadium. Tilden not a superb claycourter??? Tilden was 35...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix1983,

Tilden won 8 consecutive majors where he participated (which is second only to Rosewall's 9). This is about as great a feat as Budge did.

Budge won 9 straight, as well: his last 6 as an amateur, and his first 3 as a pro.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Number of titles doesn't say much because not all events carry the same weight.

Did you miss the bit where I said "at all levels"? Laver won a load of big tournaments in his career.

Originally Posted by pc1

Tilden won many claycourt tournaments including the World Hardcourt in 1921 and many US Claycourts. When the Musketeers came onto the scene he was already in his thirties. He also injured his knee around 1927 I believe and that affected him the rest of his career. Also bear in mind the US Championships had an international field and Tilden still won. Players came from England, Japan, France, Australia etc. Bill Johnston was a great player who also won Wimbledon and several US Championship and Tilden defeated him most of the time.

Johnston would have been a dominant player if it hadn't had been for Tilden. A bit like Pancho Segura for much of the 1950s, if it hadn't had been for Gonzales.

Originally Posted by pc1

I agree with BobbyOne that it's very probable that Tilden would have won at least one Grand Slam and I think more than that.

Almost certainly, but travelling across the world was much more inconvenient in those days.

Originally Posted by pc1

Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?

The 1927 French Championships final saw Rene Lacoste beat Bill Tilden by 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9. Was Henri Cochet a line judge? Seriously? Doesn't that call line judge impartiality into question? Tilden was back playing in Europe for the first time in 6 years because of the threat the Musketeers posed to Tilden's dominance. Tilden had an even more frustrating loss at 1927 Wimbledon, when he blew a 2-set and 5-1 in the third set lead against eventual champion, Cochet.

Tilden won the WHCC at the Stade Francis, Paris in 1921, and the 1927 French Championships was also held there (the last one before it moved to Roland Garros in 1928 ). Tilden failed to win the French Championships as an amateur, but he won 2 French Pros (in 1933 and 1934), beating Cochet and Martin Plaa in the respective finals.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by pc1

No problem. Bear in mind that even in that Laver against Ashe 1969 Wimbledon semi that Laver would shortly become 31 and many believe he was already past his prime by a few years even though he won the Grand Slam that year.

Here's highlights of the match that Laver won the Grand Slam, the 1969 US Open final against Tony Roche who was a sensational player. Notice how awful the courts at the old West Side Tennis club. Not only are the courts much faster than Wimbledon of today but the bounces were just awful. Often the ball wouldn't bounce at all. You couldn't play baseline tennis like today if you wanted to win. Obviously that and the much inferior equipment affects the level of play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps

Didn't know they wore spiked shoes back then.
At some spots the court was in terrible condition.

Too bad the video was so limited in that ERA and even well into the seventies.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Talker

Didn't know they wore spiked shoes back then.
At some spots the court was in terrible condition.

Too bad the video was so limited in that ERA and even well into the seventies.

If you look at Laver in the two videos notice the big differences between the Laver of 1975 and the Laver of 1969, I believe Laver had some injuries that hampered his serve and I understand he had a wrist injury that hampered him for the rest of his career. He obviously was slower and I think his forehand, which arguably was the best in tennis was a much lesser shot in 1975. Laver was still pretty good in 1975 but obviously not the Laver of 1969 and the Laver of 1969 according to a number of people like Vines was not the peak Laver of 1964 to 1967.

Incidentally I've seen the US Open at Forest Hills and when you write the court was in terrible condition you're being nice.

Laver in 1967 versus Borg in 1979 would have been a battle for the ages.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Budge won 9 straight, as well: his last 6 as an amateur, and his first 3 as a pro.

krosero, Thanks for the information. I was not aware of it.

But it works for Budge only if we exclude the 1939 Southport event. Southport was sometimes called the British Pro and I rate it as a pro major. Nüsslein, the winner, also valued it as a major tournament.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Thanks for the information. I was not aware of it.

But it works for Budge only if we exclude the 1939 Southport event. Southport was sometimes called the British Pro and I rate it as a pro major. Nüsslein, the winner, also valued it as a major tournament.

Yes it's a problem, the whole question of what's a major. I'm sure Southport could be rated a major, just that I would argue for Budge at least getting a mention when this streak is mentioned. Wrongly or rightly, we usually think of Wembley, French Pro and US Pro as the three pro majors.

IMO it's a little like the situation with the Slams. There were many years when the AO, RG, even Wimbledon had depleted fields not worthy of a true major: but when Grand Slam records are kept (like GS streaks), we still count those four, and no others.

But no question, the pro scene is more ambiguous, and there were certainly other major tournaments. The whole thing is confusing at times.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes it's a problem, the whole question of what's a major. I'm sure Southport could be rated a major, just that I would argue for Budge at least getting a mention when this streak is mentioned. Wrongly or rightly, we usually think of Wembley, French Pro and US Pro as the three pro majors.

IMO it's a little like the situation with the Slams. There were many years when the AO, RG, even Wimbledon had depleted fields not worthy of a true major: but when Grand Slam records are kept (like GS streaks), we still count those four, and no others.

But no question, the pro scene is more ambiguous, and there were certainly other major tournaments. The whole thing is confusing at times.

krosero, I agree.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?

Originally Posted by Mustard

The 1927 French Championships final saw Rene Lacoste beat Bill Tilden by 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9. Was Henri Cochet a line judge? Seriously? Doesn't that call line judge impartiality into question?

I have not yet found a newspaper report from the time period that mentions the incident. Without question Tilden did reach double match point on his own serve. The NY Times and other papers I've checked say only that Tilden didn't convert them, or that he made errors on them.

Frank Deford mentioned the incident in his Tilden bio. He quoted from an interview with Frank Hunter, who was Tilden's doubles partner at that event (they lost to Borotra and Lacoste the day before the singles finals, amid rumors of ill feeling between the two teams).

The press reported after the final that the Americans protested some decisions made by French officials during the final but did not protest any decisions made by Cochet.

TIME magazine actually reported that during the Tilden-Cochet semifinal, the umpire made decisions that went against Cochet, and Tilden refused to accept them.

So if the incident against Lacoste happened, that would be something, for Cochet to receive favors from Tilden during their semifinal, and then rob Tilden during the final.

Not saying whether the incident occurred or not, but it's an interesting issue.

[kiki]

Don´t forget that it is in their genetic that frenchmen get bumped up when facing a US team.From lacoste and Cochet till Noah and Leconte.

Jean Louis Haillet was a mediocre player but he played the only real great tennis in his life to beat Budge Patty, one of the finest ever cc american player, at RG with the fans going crazy.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Don´t forget that it is in their genetic that frenchmen get bumped up when facing a US team.From lacoste and Cochet till Noah and Leconte.

Jean Louis Haillet was a mediocre player but he played the only real great tennis in his life to beat Budge Patty, one of the finest ever cc american player, at RG with the fans going crazy.

kiki, I think it was Robert Haillet who was a fine claycourter. He once beat Rosewall and once won a set against Muscles by 6-0!