Some GOAT questions for chaog and others

[John123]

I’m new to these forums and am trying to educate myself enough to have an informed opinion about the GOAT issue. So far, I’ve had trouble finding statistics about the professional tours and tournaments — in particular, the ones that Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales played in, because those seem particularly relevant regarding GOAT. I gather that Gonzales was the best player during most of the 1950s, that Rosewall was the best in the early 1960s, and that Laver was the best in the mid-late 1960s. But I don’t know the margin by which they were the best, what their win-loss records were, and how important they considered the tours in relation to the tournaments. Any suggestions on where I could find such information? The Wikipedia articles on the professional era are extremely helpful, but even they don’t tell me everything I feel is necessary to know.

I’ve appreciated very much the comments of chaog and others who seem enormously knowledgeable about this issue. In order to learn more from you, I wonder if you’d be willing to address any or all of the following few questions that have been on my mind:

1. How, if at all, should we factor in the point that a sport tends to be more difficult to dominate as time goes on? Bill James has incorporated that idea into his rankings of baseball players, and it would seem to make sense for tennis as well. If a handful of players between 1920 and 1970 dominated tennis to a degree greater than any player has since 1970, then that seems far less likely to be a coincidence than to be attributable to an increase in the difficulty of dominating.

2. Why did (certain) players of the past play so many more matches in a year than anyone plays today, even though each match could be longer due to the absence of tiebreaks? Is it that the game was less physically demanding then (perhaps because the rackets didn’t allow players to hit as hard)?

3. Why is the record of “total or consecutive Wimbledon titles” so important? If pros couldn’t compete at Wimbledon until 1968, and if in the early days some top players like Tilden occasionally eschewed it due to travel difficulties, then doesn’t that detract from the importance of the record in comparing pre-1968 players with Open Era players?

4. I’m sure that it was always hard to win on all surfaces, which makes the achievements of Laver, Tilden, Budge, and perhaps a few others so amazingly impressive. But is it possible that in the last 15 years, the feat has become even harder than it was before? Before 1993, the players who dominated the French Open won other majors as well (Borg, Wilander, Lendl, even Courier — and also Rosewall and Laver who won the French Pro during the 1960s); whereas after 1993, no French Open champion has ever won any other major, except for Agassi (who won the French once) and Kafelnikov (who won the French and the Australian once). If this represents a meaningful change from the past, does it render less damning Federer’s failure to win all four majors?

5. How important are annual win-loss match records? Laver’s Wikipedia entry says that in his Grand Slam year of 1969, he went 106-16. That’s a fantastic record, but not as good in terms of percentage as those compiled by Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, or Federer in their prime years. Cliff Drysdale seems to weigh this pretty heavily when he discusses relative greatness in his telecasts, but others evidently don’t agree because Laver is widely regarded as superior to everyone who came after him. What’s the right answer?

Sorry for the barrage of questions. Thanks so much to anyone who can help me out with answering them and/or point me to sources of results from the 1960s pro circuit or from the Tilden era.

[chaognosis]

I think it's best if I answer this in pieces, so I apologize in advance for the length of this post and the sort of disjointed format:

Originally Posted by John123

I’m new to these forums and am trying to educate myself enough to have an informed opinion about the GOAT issue. So far, I’ve had trouble finding statistics about the professional tours and tournaments — in particular, the ones that Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales played in, because those seem particularly relevant regarding GOAT. I gather that Gonzales was the best player during most of the 1950s, that Rosewall was the best in the early 1960s, and that Laver was the best in the mid-late 1960s. But I don’t know the margin by which they were the best, what their win-loss records were, and how important they considered the tours in relation to the tournaments. Any suggestions on where I could find such information? The Wikipedia articles on the professional era are extremely helpful, but even they don’t tell me everything I feel is necessary to know.

The best source available is a book called The History of Professional Tennis by the late Joe McCauley, a tennis writer who used to be the official historian of the Australian Open. The book came out in 2000, and it's hard to find, but you can order a copy from this website:

http://www.thetennisgallery.co.uk/bo...=17&prodid=451

Bud Collins, in his encyclopedia Total Tennis, is indebted to McCauley's work on the "lost" pro years. Collins reproduces the records of the three major professional tournaments--Wembley, the US Pro, and French Pro--from McCauley's book, though the McCauley text includes a far more thorough statistical appendix (about 80 pages!) with year-by-year results for many of the most important professional events. Even McCauley's information is not complete, of course... I've yet to find any source that is. But this book is nevertheless vital and has become the backbone of much of the research you will find these days on the Internet (Wikipedia, discussion forums like this one) as well as in publications like TennisWeek.

There is a historian named Ray Bowers who has done the best work on professional tennis in the prewar years. You'll find links to the chapters of his text on the bottom of this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_No._1_Tennis_Player

I’ve appreciated very much the comments of chaog and others who seem enormously knowledgeable about this issue. In order to learn more from you, I wonder if you’d be willing to address any or all of the following few questions that have been on my mind:

First of all, thank you for your kind words! I will do my best. A lot of what I know about the game comes from other posters on this forum, especially Urban and SgtJohn. If you look through the archives of their posts you will find a lot of helpful information, insights, and good references.

1. How, if at all, should we factor in the point that a sport tends to be more difficult to dominate as time goes on? Bill James has incorporated that idea into his rankings of baseball players, and it would seem to make sense for tennis as well. If a handful of players between 1920 and 1970 dominated tennis to a degree greater than any player has since 1970, then that seems far less likely to be a coincidence than to be attributable to an increase in the difficulty of dominating.

This is a very tricky issue that I've been thinking a lot about lately--SgtJohn has proposed adjusting a player's accomplishments based on changing "standards" of accomplishment in order to make fairer cross-generational comparisons. I myself wouldn't even know where to begin in terms of doing this systematically. My gut reaction, though, is that even if the standard of competition increases over time (and the standard of dominance correspondingly decreases), that does not necessarily mean that the champions of previous eras were anything less than the champions of today. If you think of it in terms of plotting a graph, as you move forward in time the average of the points may steadily increase, but in any era there will be one or two points way above the rest--statistical outliers--which aren't governed by any underlying trends. That's just my take on it though, and I'm sorry my thoughts aren't more organized on this topic.

2. Why did (certain) players of the past play so many more matches in a year than anyone plays today, even though each match could be longer due to the absence of tiebreaks? Is it that the game was less physically demanding then (perhaps because the rackets didn’t allow players to hit as hard)?

In large part this has to do with money. Top players today earn huge sums for every tournament they play, not to mention endorsements, so it isn't critical to be playing all the time. Federer, e.g., is already fabulously wealthy and only needs to play enough events each season to maintain his No. 1 ranking; otherwise he can structure his schedule however he likes, so that he has time to rest and is less likely to experience fatigue or sustain an injury. Forty years ago this was not the case, as players sometimes needed to endure grueling schedules just to make end's meet. Laver was the first tennis player in history to earn over $1 million in his entire career. It was Borg who really began the "boom" in terms of tennis endorsements, paving the way to the modern era of super-rich superstars.

3. Why is the record of “total or consecutive Wimbledon titles” so important? If pros couldn’t compete at Wimbledon until 1968, and if in the early days some top players like Tilden occasionally eschewed it due to travel difficulties, then doesn’t that detract from the importance of the record in comparing pre-1968 players with Open Era players?

Because Wimbledon is quite simply the most prestigious tournament in the world, and always has been as far as I know (it may have been debatable at times before World War I, but I am really not qualified to say). The one true exception I know of is the Davis Cup, which as an event was regarded as being more important than any tournament, even Wimbledon, until at least 1939. This touches on a point that Al Laney makes in his great book Covering the Court: A Fifty-Year Love Affair with the Game of Tennis (1968 ), one of the best books written on amateur tennis. Laney noted that while arguably all the best players in the world were at times in the pro ranks, and thus not competing in the majors, these pros nevertheless weren't proving themselves on the biggest stages, before the eyes of the world. So yes, the Wimbledon fields were depleted by the absence of the best players. But so, too, were the best players in some sense "weakened" by the fact that they played precious few important matches. Urban has cautioned us, from time to time, not to completely forget about the amateurs when we discuss the great players of 1946-67, and he is absolutely right.

But then, you are right as well. It becomes very difficult to compare records before the Open Era and after it, just as it is very difficult to compare records that straddle different epochs... take, for instance, Willie Renshaw's six straight Wimbledons (in the era of the Challenge Round) vs. Fred Perry's three straight Wimbledons (in the "modern" era). I do think that Wimbledon always needs to play an important part of any GOAT debate, though it is never so simple as comparing a few records or statistics from radically different time periods, as you have noted. And that methods of transportation do have an effect on this too--for Tilden it simply wasn't practical to make annual boat trips to Europe, especially since, from his perspective, he had nothing left to prove and would have won easily every time.

4. I’m sure that it was always hard to win on all surfaces, which makes the achievements of Laver, Tilden, Budge, and perhaps a few others so amazingly impressive. But is it possible that in the last 15 years, the feat has become even harder than it was before? Before 1993, the players who dominated the French Open won other majors as well (Borg, Wilander, Lendl, even Courier — and also Rosewall and Laver who won the French Pro during the 1960s); whereas after 1993, no French Open champion has ever won any other major, except for Agassi (who won the French once) and Kafelnikov (who won the French and the Australian once). If this represents a meaningful change from the past, does it render less damning Federer’s failure to win all four majors?

I think there has definitely been a tendency for players to specialize on a particular surface, which may in turn present a challenge for a player attempting to win on all surfaces. It is more economical from a good, but not great, player's perspective to maximize his winning (and earnings) potential on the surface for which his game his best suited. Nevertheless, Federer may benefit from this specialization, as well, in another way: with some players being a factor only during the clay season, and others a factor only on hard courts, who is left to challenge him on grass?

[chaognosis]

(Part II - my full response was too long for a single post)

5. How important are annual win-loss match records? Laver’s Wikipedia entry says that in his Grand Slam year of 1969, he went 106-16. That’s a fantastic record, but not as good in terms of percentage as those compiled by Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, or Federer in their prime years. Cliff Drysdale seems to weigh this pretty heavily when he discusses relative greatness in his telecasts, but others evidently don’t agree because Laver is widely regarded as superior to everyone who came after him. What’s the right answer?

I believe, quite simply, that if you play more matches you will lose more matches. This gets back to your earlier question. If a player must have a fuller, more grueling schedule, then he is bound to get tired, injured, sick, or just have a few bad days here and there. I think winning percentages are somewhat important in comparing players of roughly the same time period, but outside of that their usefulness deteriorates. Players of the Rosewall-Laver generation probably played more tournaments throughout the year than players of any other era. So yes, Laver had worse percentages than Federer or Borg. But Laurie Doherty had seasons in the early 1900s where he didn't lose a single match. Willie Renshaw, tennis's first big star, had undefeated seasons in the 1880s... but he only played one match during the year. Nevertheless he was unanimously considered the top player. As you can see, it becomes very complicated.

Sorry for the barrage of questions. Thanks so much to anyone who can help me out with answering them and/or point me to sources of results from the 1960s pro circuit or from the Tilden era.

No trouble at all. I hope this was helpful.

[Moose Malloy]

Why did (certain) players of the past play so many more matches in a year than anyone plays today, even though each match could be longer due to the absence of tiebreaks?

If the prize money of today was the same as it was circa 1969(and the top players' endorsements, or lack thereof, was the same) many players of today would be still playing 30 events a year, both singles & doubles.
You do what you have to do in order to make a good living. Guys back then were pretty worn out by the schedule, but there was no guarantee tennis would continue to offer all that prize $, so they chased it while they could.

Once it was apparent the prize money was here to stay(& that lucrative endorsements were now offered to some top players) some top guys started reducing their schedule. Borg was the first that I can recall that reduced his schedule in order to peak for the big events, he didn't just play every week there was a big paycheck available. But we still have players like that today(Davydenko), & not long ago had one that played both singles & doubles(Kafelnikov)

Rod Laver made $124,000(which was considered a lot at the time) in '69 playing 32 events. Borg played 19 events in '79 & made 1 million(& god knows how much more in endorsements) I doubt Laver would have played as much in '69 if they had the same amount of prize money available as they did in '79.
So win/loss % isn't an entirely fair way of comparing players.

and as far as racquets, see my sig, it is/was a different game with wood.

Bill James has incorporated that idea into his rankings of baseball players, and it would seem to make sense for tennis as well.

Could you tell me more? I'd like to know more about his baseball rankings.

Why is the record of “total or consecutive Wimbledon titles” so important? If pros couldn’t compete at Wimbledon until 1968, and if in the early days some top players like Tilden occasionally eschewed it due to travel difficulties, then doesn’t that detract from the importance of the record in comparing pre-1968 players with Open Era players?

There aren't easy answers to these questions, tennis is a very young professional sport, and it wasn't very organized throughout much of its existence.

Wimbledon was always a big deal, if you won it you were more likely to get an invitation to play on the pro tour & get a chance to make some real money.
Gonzales was hurt initially by his lack of a W title(even though he only played it twice, he knew how important winning there was) in terms of being offered a good deal on the pro tour. In some ways tennis was like a team sport in the 50s/60s, Wimbledon was your 'college' career, & doing well there ensured you were a high 'draft pick' for the pros.

[CyBorg]

One small correction. Borg actually most likely played just as much in some years as Laver did. The problem is that the ATP website leaves out a lot of his tournaments, ignoring the invitational 4-man tourneys. Laver, I believe, has all of his counted in most of his player pages online. Borg, if I recall correctly, actually won 22 tournaments in 1979 if you count everything which means that he won way over 100 matches that year. It's somewhere in the 80s that tennis became more organized and exos became a thing of the past. Players started earning tons of money and high-paying exos (eg. Tokyo Suntori) went the way of the dinosaur. And then of course starting with 1990 we began to have the masters series and other reorganization.

[urban]

I think, Chaognosis and Moose have answered most of the questions. In Laver's match percentage of 1969, one-night-stands and 3r place matches are also counted. Without that he may have a bit higher percentage. In his 18 tournament wins is one 4 man tournament: the BBC 2 at Wembley, which was quite important at that time, had very good prize money and had 4 top 5 players, Roche, Rosewall and Okker in its field. I think, if a top player plays more than 85-90 matches a year, he becomes prone to more defeats, simply because of physical and mental fatigue. Laver had a letdown after his Grand Slam.
To the exhibitions. Its quite a difficult question, how to count these 4 man exos. I am personally reluctant here. The ATP counts the Pepsi Grand Slam, played in Florida for Borg. In wikipedia they have now rearranged the numbers for Lendl, Connors and Borg, including exos with 4 man events. The Pepsi event was a quite important event in those years, mostly with a 4 man field. Borg won over Connors there in 1977 for the first time after a long series of losses, setting up his later Wim win. Also the Antwerp 'Diamant Racket' tournament in the 80s was an important event, despite not being an official ATP tourney. I saw many matches on tv between Lendl, Mac and Becker, they were hotly disputed.
To the time line factor. I think, in his recent analysis Raymond Lee on Tennis week, has given a points for the time line.
To the pre open rankings. I still believe, that you have to evaluate a player in this period for both his amateur and pro careers (eventually his open career). If you only count pro results, you can get a false impression. Take Rosewall and Hoad. Both started out at the same time, 1953. Rosewall was in the long run the better player. But if you count only big pros events, you get something like 22-1 for Rosewall. This is a ridiculous gap. As amateur Hoad had the slightly better career, only as pro Rosewall overtook him gradually. But the overall career margin wasn't that big.

[John123]

Moose, in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (2001), James outlines a method for evaluating players called the Win Shares System. His main goal is to surmount an obstacle that is fortunately inapplicable to tennis: sorting out how much a player contributes to his team's success. But on pages 343-344, he also explains the need to include a time-line adjustment that gives a boost to more recent players over less recent ones. He says that the quality of play has improved because (1) as time went on, general agreement emerged as to what the best leagues were, so all the best players were funneled to the same place; (2) the talent pool increased dramatically, as the sport opened its doors to everyone (in particular, blacks and international players); and (3) standards of performance in all athletic events naturally improve over the years because we build on the past. As a result, "the extent to which the best players dominate the game has steadily decreased because the quality of the average player has moved upward. If you don't make any time-line adjustments, then . . . you will wind up with a top 100 list which is dominated by players who played before 1950."

[John123]

Many thanks to Chaognosis, Moose, Cyborg, and Urban for your extremely helpful replies. I will definitely buy the McCauley book.

In trying to take the first steps toward answering the GOAT question, I've been thinking about comparisons between players of similar eras -- much easier comparisons than the intergenerational ones. First, I thought about Federer vs. Sampras and decided that my pick would be Federer because I value his dominance (far better match records, 3 Slams in each of 3 different years, better results on clay, mind-boggling 4 straight years winning both Wimbledon and the US Open) over Sampras's advantage in overall accomplishments (14-12 in Slams, 5-3 in year-end championships, 2 years longer at #1 ranking). But I could certainly understand someone making the argument the other way. I think it's just a question of what you consider most important.

Second, I thought about Federer vs. Borg. This is harder for a variety of reasons, one being that Borg skipped many tournaments that would have been useful for comparison (every Australian Open except 1974, the Masters in 1976, 1978, and 1981, and the French in 1977). I gather that the Australian wasn't what it is now, so missing it made sense. And maybe the French is a wash because Borg's absence in 1977 is balanced by the benefit he gained from Connors' absence in 1974. But what about the Masters? I suppose Borg was sort of beginning his retirement when he skipped it in 1981, but what about in 1976 and 1978 -- does anyone know why he didn't compete?

More generally, I can't decide whether Borg gets the nod because he leads Federer in Slams they both played (11-9 at the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open; and 4 finals to 2 in the Slams that each respectively failed to win), or whether Federer gets the nod because (a) it's unfair to exclude his Australian Open titles or to minimize his Masters titles just because Borg didn't play those tournaments, and (b) more importantly, Federer has been the absolutely clear and dominant #1 for four years whereas Borg did it only for two years (or maybe for three years, if you count his great 1978 season despite the fact that Connors ended that year #1 in the computer rankings). Who do you think comes out ahead? Am I at least weighing the appropriate factors?

Because it's so hard to compare players from the Open Era to those who came before, a nice first step is to decide who's the best of the Open Era. So I'm wondering whether that's Federer or Borg.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by John123

But what about the Masters? I suppose Borg was sort of beginning his retirement when he skipped it in 1981, but what about in 1976 and 1978 -- does anyone know why he didn't compete?

I recall that there was some kind of boycott in 1978 on the part of a number of players. There was a depleted field at the Masters that time. Maybe someone can clarify. Not sure about 1976, but the Masters rose in prestige closer to the end of the decade, coinciding with the move to New York in 1977.

There was a lot of Masters-type events at the time, anything that involved the top-eight seeds. Pepsi Grand Slam (4-man) usually took place early in the year and there was also The Challenge Cup (which employed the round robin format but with more players than Pepsi) which had deep fields. Borg was ousted in the semi of the Challenge Cup in 1978, but won it in 1979. Another important round robin-type event was in Salisbury in 1980, which Borg won. I'm not sure about this event in other years, but it had a strong field that year.

Federer has been the absolutely clear and dominant #1 for four years whereas Borg did it only for two years (or maybe for three years, if you count his great 1978 season despite the fact that Connors ended that year #1 in the computer rankings). Who do you think comes out ahead? Am I at least weighing the appropriate factors?

Don't place too much weight into computer rankings. Objectively speaking, Borg and Vilas were the best in 1977 and after that Borg was clearly the best for three consecutive years (78-80). The computer rankings were messed up - most would agree with this on this board.

Because it's so hard to compare players from the Open Era to those who came before, a nice first step is to decide who's the best of the Open Era. So I'm wondering whether that's Federer or Borg.

Don't forget Laver. He had three great years at the start of the open era encompassing 1968-1970, with the grand slam mixed in.

[CyBorg]

By the way, I have the Bill James abstract and I am an avid reader. If he was a tennis enthusiast he would definitely be into the likes of Tilden and Budge. He speaks glowingly of players like Honus Wagner - a guy who played 100 years ago.

Sadly, baseball is much more statistically richer, allowing James to build up an excellent argument... or should I say, criteria - the formula is based for the large part as to how much a player helps his team win.

In tennis there are no teams. It's just individuals (unless you count The Davis Cup). Very different.

One thing to add about James is that he is not terribly analytical about players (or selectively analytical, such as his thoughts on Hornsby). Most of his writings are anecdotal (Hal Chase) - fascinating in themselves, but they don't support the criteria. The rankings are based almost entirely on statistics. He also writes two pages for some players and a mere sentence for others. My favorite is his line for Don Mattingly: "100 percent ballplayer. 0 percent bullshlt." That's all.

[John123]

Good point about Laver, CyBorg. I guess I refer loosely to the Open Era when I really mean the post-Laver era.

I just looked up the entry for 1978 in Total Tennis, and it looks like Borg was the best player that year -- but not by a wide margin. Borg killed Connors in the Wimbledon final; Connors returned the favor in the U.S. Open final; and Borg won the French, which Connors didn't enter. Borg had a 39-match win streak that ended at the U.S. Open, and Connors had a 30-match streak that began after Wimbledon. According to the book, Borg's match record for the year was 88-8, and Connors' was 84-7. Borg won 12 tournaments and Connors won 14. In head-to-head meetings, Borg was 3-2.

After the U.S. Open, a young McEnroe went on a tear, winning four significant tournaments including Stockholm, where he beat Borg 6-3, 6-4 in their first match ever and their only encounter in 1978. McEnroe won the Masters (Borg and Vilas boycotted due to a dispute about the prize fund, and Connors played but was hampered by a foot injury). Arthur Ashe called McEnroe "the best player in the world the last four months of 1978."

It seems to me that Borg had the best year, and that most knowledgeable observers agree on that (though not all: Tennis magazine's ranking panel put Connors #1). But it doesn't seem like Borg was the same dominant, absolutely clear #1 in 1978 that he was in 1979 and 1980 -- or that Federer has been from 2004-2007.

[CyBorg]

The head-to-head between the two was actually 2-1, unless one counts certain exos... but I don't those results on me at this point. Borg beat Jimmy at Pepsi and Wimbledon and Jimmy struck back at the US Open.

Let's take a close look at Jimmy's season:

- loses in the final of the Pepsi Grand Slam to Borg
- wins the prestigious Philadelphia WCT which Borg usually skipped, but here he lost to Tanner
- wins Denver - where Borg did not play - usually a tourney with solid draws but not that year, beat the aging Stan Smith in the final
- wins in Memphis, Rotterdam and Birmingham - fairly minor events but some good wins along the way over the likes of Gerulaitis, Ramirez and Tanner .. so good draws all around - no Vilas-type events.
- ousted in the first round of Las Vegas - probably the equivalent of a masters series event at the time
- interestingly enough, Jimmy skips the prestigious Dallas WCT
- plays no red clay events whatsoever (something that would change beginning in 1979) and skips RG .. so Jimmy didn't even bother practicing on red, still bitter at Ashe no doubt.
- final at Wimbledon - loses to Borg in straights
- wins solid event in Washington, a very strong one in Indianapolis and a minor one in Stowe - Borg didn't play in any of those
- wins US Open with impressive triumphs over McEnroe and Borg (straight sets each) .. Borg got hurt in the match, but no doubt was also affected by the atmosphere that Connors so ate up
- very quiet fall - wins minor Sydney indoor; loses Tokyo, struggles at the masters ousted in the round robin (looks like I was wrong about Jimmy skipping this Masters, but I recall that it was a weak field).
- tournament wins unaccounted in the ATP website: Beckenham (over Stan Smith), Tokyo-Gunze (over Nastase)
- combined record (ATP accounted results only): 67-6

Let's take a close look at Bjorn's season:

- won the deep but not terribly prestigious event in Birmingham to start a fairly inconsistent tenure in America where he also won Pepsi and Las Vegas
- bad loss to Newcombe in Richmond .. I wonder what happened - Borg retired after losing badly (it is common knowledge that Borg never beat Newcombe (0-3), although they had actually played a number of other times in events not listed by the ATP, in which Borg beat him at least twice)
- wins Milan, and in typical fashion withdraws in the middle of two events - Dallas and Rotterdam
- almost withdraws in the Rome final, where a rowdy, drunken crowd throws coins onto the field .. beats Panatta in five sets to win the RG tune up
- wins RG without losing a set (perhaps the most dominant performance in a grand slam event ever; lost five games to Vilas in the final)
- difficult first week at Wimbledon as usual; toughest match being the first round five-setter against Amaya .. dominant in the second week with wins over Mayer, Okker and Conors to complete his first RG-Wimbledon sweep
- a very lax summer with only one tournament mixed in - Bastad, unless you count whatever exos he played at this time .. in the meantime Connors busied himself playing events in the US
- played hurt and lost badly to Connors in the final of the US Open
- fairly relaxed play in the fall, but won a biggie in Tokyo
- tournament wins unaccounted in the ATP website: Goteborg (4-man), Copenhagen (4-man), Tokyo-Suntory (4-man), Essen (40-man), Manila (4-man), Anvers (4-man); these prestige of these is hard to nail down .. Suntory brought in a lot of money .. don't know who participated, Connors probably played Suntori.
- combined record (ATP account results only): 68-6

Let's compare:

- Connors won one major - the US Open and biggies like Philadelphia and probably Indianapolis; with solid secondaries in Denver, Birmingham and Washington
- Borg one two majors - RG and Wimbledon and biggies like Las Vegas, Rome and Tokyo; with solid secondaries in Milan and Birmingham WCT USA (not to be confused with Birmingham, Great Britain which Connors won)
- Connors played almost exclusively in the United States: the breakdown is like so: 11 of 16 events (as recognized by ATP) were played in his home country .. played six events on carpet, three on clay (apparently only green, not on red), five on hard, two on grass.
- Borg played eight events in Europe, eight in the US, one in Tokyo .. wins eight events on carpet, five on clay, three on hard, one on grass
- the level of competition these two faced appears to be very close, so I won't bother overanalyzing that .. Jimmy played surprisingly fewer events than in past years and seemed to focus more on the important ones, although the fact that he played more in the US than anywhere made it impossible for him to face Borg very often outside two grand slams and one four-man invitational
- What can we conclude .. it is indeed closer than I originally remembered it to be, however Borg's two majors do still overwhelm Jimmy's one (the fact that Jimmy didn't play at the French by no means suggest that he would have a shot at beating Borg there .. very likely not) .. what was strongly on Borg's side was the fact that he won his two majors handily .. his performance at the French brought back memories of Cochet and may be unprecedented in its dominance (although he may have done as well two years later) .. his triumph at Wimbledon was even more convincing than in 1976, whereas the event in 76 played slow and in the heat, this one was very fast and removed all doubts as to Borg's abilities on lawns.
- Borg was recognized near unanimously as the top player that year: ITF World Champion, ATP Player of the year and tennis magazine all granted him that honour .. the near-unanimous praise is probably backed primarily by Borg's winning record against Connors that year, his larger amount of majors, the fact that he won by far the most prestigious major and slightly more high profile non-major event victories (3 to 2 .. Borg's Last Vegas, Rome, Tokyo to Connors' Philadelphia and Indianapolis) .. closer than it seems but still enough to state conclusively that Borg was better .. I don't think that these bodies had much sympathy for Connors' decision to skip the clay season in Europe, most likely prompting Jimmy to commit to it in 1979, where he proved that he was not in Borg's league in that department.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by John123

After the U.S. Open, a young McEnroe went on a tear, winning four significant tournaments including Stockholm, where he beat Borg 6-3, 6-4 in their first match ever and their only encounter in 1978. McEnroe won the Masters (Borg and Vilas boycotted due to a dispute about the prize fund, and Connors played but was hampered by a foot injury). Arthur Ashe called McEnroe "the best player in the world the last four months of 1978."

This is a little controversial. McEnroe, of course, was a fantastic indoor player and still holds a number of records in that respect. However he first established himself that fall, but not without limitations. Both Borg and Connors took quite a bit of time off after a busy year and McEnroe faced them only twice (Connors, whom he beat at the Masters .. he played and beat Borg in Stockholm - not a terribly deep event). It was actually quite typical of Borg to take a lot of time off in the fall - one time in his 20s he did not do it was in 1977 where he won almost everything). So, no, I wouldn't put too much stock in McEnroe's dominating that fall.

It seems to me that Borg had the best year, and that most knowledgeable observers agree on that (though not all: Tennis magazine's ranking panel put Connors #1). But it doesn't seem like Borg was the same dominant, absolutely clear #1 in 1978 that he was in 1979 and 1980 -- or that Federer has been from 2004-2007.

There are a few things worthy to note here:

- Federer also tended to skip a variety of events in the fall
- in Borg's time there were no assigned masters series events, so the idea of what is 'important' was ambiguous
- did Federer have a rival as strong as Connors in 2004?
- Federer was mediocre on clay in 2004, while Borg was strong across the board

[John123]

That was an absolutely fantastic post. No one could have shed more light on the question. Thank you so much!

As for the upshot regarding a comparison between Borg and Federer, I'm not sure what to make of it. Maybe it was harder to establish dominance in 1978 because the top players just didn't play the same events too often.

Do you have an opinion on the Borg/Federer question?

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by John123

That was an absolutely fantastic post. No one could have shed more light on the question. Thank you so much!

As for the upshot regarding a comparison between Borg and Federer, I'm not sure what to make of it. Maybe it was harder to establish dominance in 1978 because the top players just didn't play the same events too often.

Do you have an opinion on the Borg/Federer question?

Looking at Federer's three peak years (2004-06), he was more dominant than Borg with a better (though not vastly better) combined record. Where I am not sold altogether on him is the clay - I think that his results on the red flatter him, partly the result of a weak clay court era. But this does not change the fact that Federer's results on hard and grass are breathtaking.

Some other things to consider: if we count in the Masters as the hypothetical fourth major, considering the weakness of the Aussie (we don't have to, but just for kicks) Borg winds up with eight major victories in three years, as many as Federer. Also, for a good 30 months of his three peak years Borg had two outstanding rivals in Connors and McEnroe (I wouldn't count Vilas), while Federer has had only one (Nadal) for a duration of about 24 months.

My conclusion: a wash. Picking one over the other I think depends on how you rate the all-around play of these guys, across all surfaces. I think that Borg was a better hard courter than Federer was clay courter.

[chaognosis]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

- Borg was recognized near unanimously as the top player that year: ITF World Champion, ATP Player of the year and tennis magazine all granted him that honour .. the near-unanimous praise is probably backed primarily by Borg's winning record against Connors that year, his larger amount of majors, the fact that he won by far the most prestigious major and slightly more high profile non-major event victories (3 to 2 .. Borg's Last Vegas, Rome, Tokyo to Connors' Philadelphia and Indianapolis) .. closer than it seems but still enough to state conclusively that Borg was better .. I don't think that these bodies had much sympathy for Connors' decision to skip the clay season in Europe, most likely prompting Jimmy to commit to it in 1979, where he proved that he was not in Borg's league in that department.

You are right that most authorities rated Borg as the top player; however, let's just be clear about the sources. It was a French 'Tennis Magazine' that had Borg over Connors, while the U.S. 'Tennis Magazine' actually ranked Connors No. 1. (The American publication, though, has always been overly kind to Connors, most recently in its top 40 players countdown.) The magazine 'World Tennis' also rated Borg first in 1978. The ITF World Champion title, awarded for the very first time that year, was probably the most significant, with a selection panel consisting of three great former champions representing three countries: Fred Perry, Lew Hoad, and Don Budge.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by chaognosis

You are right that most authorities rated Borg as the top player; however, let's just be clear about the sources. It was a French 'Tennis Magazine' that had Borg over Connors, while the U.S. 'Tennis Magazine' actually ranked Connors No. 1. (The American publication, though, has always been overly kind to Connors, most recently in its top 40 players countdown.) The magazine 'World Tennis' also rated Borg first in 1978. The ITF World Champion title, awarded for the very first time that year, was probably the most significant, with a selection panel consisting of three great former champions representing three countries: Fred Perry, Lew Hoad, and Don Budge.

Although I think that Borg was not far and away best player in 1978 the selection of Connors by the US "Tennis Magazine" is pure bullshlt. I'd like to read that argument.

[John123]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

if we count in the Masters as the hypothetical fourth major, considering the weakness of the Aussie (we don't have to, but just for kicks) Borg winds up with eight major victories in three years, as many as Federer.

Good point. But Federer continued his dominant run in major tournaments for a fourth year, 2007. He has 11 majors in four years, whereas Borg's four-year total would be 9 -- eight from 1978-1980, plus one from either 1977 (Wimbledon) or from 1981 (the French).

The question is which matters more, an extra year of dominance or more total career accomplishment in the 3 Slams they both played? You're probably right that Borg was better on hard courts than Federer on clay, but Federer's clay results are still impressive in context. Since Sergi Bruguera ushered in the era of the specialist in 1993, none of the best fast-court players have had much success on clay -- Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Roddick. Agassi won the French in 1999, but his other two finals appearances there were pre-specialist-era, and only 1 of his 22 Masters series finals was on clay (Rome 2002). Federer, by contrast, has reached 8 Masters series finals on clay, winning 4 (all Hamburg), and he's been kept from winning Roland Garros the past three years only by Nadal. Without the serious misfortune of having to play Rafa in his prime, he might well have won more than one French Open. His clay career still falls short of Borg's career on hard courts, I'm sure, but I'm not convinced that the difference is decisive in light of the difficulty of winning on clay in Federer's era.

In any event, I agree that it's very close and perhaps a wash. Chaog, do you have an opinion on Federer vs. Borg?

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by John123

Good point. But Federer continued his dominant run in major tournaments for a fourth year, 2007. He has 11 majors in four years, whereas Borg's four-year total would be 9 -- eight from 1978-1980, plus one from either 1977 (Wimbledon) or from 1981 (the French).

2007 has been a bit of a mixed bag for Federer. I think that his level has dropped, but you can't argue too much about the three majors. That's still pretty special. Borg, however, was better in 1977 than Roger in 2003 and has had more years as a top-3 player than Federer (it remains to be seen how well Roger ages). '77 was actually one of Borg's better years - he was the top player on grass and red clay, but entered only two majors, winning one and getting hurt in the fourth round of the other.

The question is which matters more, an extra year of dominance or more total career accomplishment in the 3 Slams they both played? You're probably right that Borg was better on hard courts than Federer on clay, but Federer's clay results are still impressive in context. Since Sergi Bruguera ushered in the era of the specialist in 1993, none of the best fast-court players have had much success on clay -- Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter, Roddick. Agassi won the French in 1999, but his other two finals appearances there were pre-specialist-era, and only 1 of his 22 Masters series finals was on clay (Rome 2002). Federer, by contrast, has reached 8 Masters series finals on clay, winning 4 (all Hamburg), and he's been kept from winning Roland Garros the past three years only by Nadal. Without the serious misfortune of having to play Rafa in his prime, he might well have won more than one French Open. His clay career still falls short of Borg's career on hard courts, I'm sure, but I'm not convinced that the difference is decisive in light of the difficulty of winning on clay in Federer's era.

If anything, I think that Roger is lucky that he only has Nadal to contend with on clay. Nadal is one of the best ever, but there is virtually no one else out there. Without Nadal it would have been a complete laughingstock.

[chaognosis]

Originally Posted by John123

Chaog, do you have an opinion on Federer vs. Borg?

Borg's level of dominance for several years and his ability to win on all surfaces make him undoubtedly one of the top five or six players of all time IMO--as is the case with Budge, the only thing separating him from Tilden and Laver, my top two, is longevity. For Federer to surpass Borg, as well as Rosewall and Gonzales, he will have to win at Roland Garros at least once. (For perspective, Gonzales was the No. 1 player in the world far longer than Federer, longer even than Sampras, and he was at least as successful on clay as Federer, reaching two French Pro finals and later the semis at Roland Garros while much past his prime... so how could we rate Federer above him?) Until and unless that happens, I do believe that Bjorn Borg is the greatest player since Laver, ahead of both Federer and Sampras. That said, in fairness, most authorities have rated Sampras, and now Federer, ahead of the Swede. An important 1999 poll put Sampras second behind Laver, while Borg was fourth (with Tilden at #3 and Budge at #5). More recently, in 2006 a panel assembled by Tennis Week voted Laver and Federer in a tie at #1, ahead of Sampras by a single point. Borg followed in fourth place, with Tilden fifth and Budge sixth. Bruce Jenkins, Joel Drucker and Steve Flink all rated Sampras ahead of Borg in 2006. I believe Paul Fein also has Sampras ahead of Borg; indeed, if my memory is right he considers Sampras the all-time great. A prominent dissenting voice comes from Bud Collins, who in 2006 placed Borg at #5 and Sampras at #6. I do not know where Collins stands on the matter of Borg vs. Federer.

As a caveat: in my own mind Tilden and Laver are clearly the top two. After that, it becomes difficult and the lines between players are very thin. So while I have put Borg ahead of Federer and Sampras here, I am the first to admit that such placement is fragile and there are compelling arguments to the contrary. You will hear many strong opinions on these boards and elsewhere, and your views will probably (even hopefully!) change over time, as mine have. The important thing, I believe, is that your opinion be thoughtful, sensitive and well informed--not dogmatic--and that you can make your case without being boorish, purposefully distorting facts, or taking personal swipes against those who disagree with you. If these boards are any indication, then such opinions, and such people, are quite rare.