Is Borg a GOAT candidate?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL I see nothing about your long winded post that proved this in anyway. Fact is they both have 11 slams. Speculation beyond that can go either way for both so becomes meaningles. You can say what if the Australian Open was a real slam then and Borg had played all those years, and if he did play all those years and if it were a real slam played on grass like it was then he probably would have won a few more slams. I can say what if Nadal got the U.S Open on clay for 3 years like Borg (although in Borg's case still didnt capatilize), while had the Australian Open been exactly like today, a real slam played on hard courts Borg might still have won 0 or at best only 1 there vs the 3 additional Nadal would likely have won with 3 U.S Opens on clay after his first RG win. Thus they all cancel out and become irrelevant.

Either way my reason for ranking Nadal over Borg is simple. Borg couldnt even win a U.S Open with it on 3 different surfaces. By extension could never win a hard court slam. On top of that on Borg's best surface (clay) Nadal is now the hands down GOAT ahead of Borg.

Others can disagree but there is nothing that conclusively proves Borg or Nadal have the "lead", fact is both have 11 slams and beyond that it is speculation and opinion to who is better.

This has become so strange, because you more than most posters seem to understand what a serious problem there is when evaluating the AO’s of the 70s and 80s; you know how extremely depleted the AO fields were. You’re always the first to say that those AO victories were not worth a full Slam. So you know there’s a problem there, when comparing to the present era: you’d be the first to say that two AO victories by Kriek are not worth anything near what two AO victories today by Nadal would be; you’d be the first to object to anyone trying to make them seem equal.

Yet when it comes to comparing Nadal to Borg, you sweep this entire issue away and just count up Slams. And you say that if Borg didn’t play the AO, “it’s his own fault” (just quoting a recent post of yours from memory: I don’t know if I have the exact words but that’s what you said). But you know that there’s no way Borg could have chosen to go the AO and gotten full credit for winning a full-fledged Slam. If he had chosen to go down there you’d be saying he won a Mickey Mouse tournament – and ranking him lower for it. Plainly, winning a full-fledged Slam over the entire field was not in his hands. For him to accomplish that, all the other players on tour would have had to go down there as well.

It’s a fact that the AO issue in this period is a collective problem: not something that can be put down solely to the choices of a single player. It’s a collective problem, a circumstance of the time period: a problem not with the players, but with the AO tournament (or more exactly, a series of problems, ranging from low prestige and prize money to a poorly chosen date in December that cut into the off-season). You have to account for that circumstance when comparing different time periods.

You do that already when comparing total tournament victories. That problem you don’t sweep aside at all. You show every willingness to come to grips with it, and to make adjustments for it. When someone says that Laver has over 200 titles while Nadal has only 50, you’re the first to point out the different circumstances of each time period.

And I agree with you about that. My issue is your inconsistency. When it comes to tournament titles, you’re not willing to just count them up. You want to qualify them; evaluate them; talk about different circumstances; etc. But when it comes to Slam titles, you become a simple Slam-counter. “Fact is they both have 11 slams.”

There are two glaring differences apparent when we compare Borg’s era to today’s. The champions of Borg’s era have no AO titles in their resumes, while today’s champions have AO titles. That’s one difference. The other difference is that the older champions have as many as 200 titles in their resumes, while today’s champions have several dozen at most.

I don’t think those are random differences; nor do I put them down to the personal deficiencies of a single player. I don’t put down Nadal’s 50 titles to some personal deficiency in him; nor do I put down Borg’s 11 Slam titles to some personal deficiency in him. These counts are what they are because of larger circumstances in each era.

In other words, if the champions of the 70s had an AO that looked like today’s AO, they would have played it every year: and their Slam titles would consequently be higher. And if today’s champions had an AO that resembled the one of the 70s, they would be no more likely to attend it than the champions of the older era: and consequently the Slam totals of the modern champions would be lower.

That’s a problem that can’t be swept away. You’ve tried to sweep it away by claiming that speculations all cancel each other out. And to demonstrate that, you’ve stacked the deck in Nadal’s favor, in your speculations, imagining him playing 3 USO’s on his favorite surface (clay) while picturing Borg playing more USO’s on his weakest surface (hard). Well, if you stack the deck like that, you can wipe out anything. You didn't even say anything in the other direction: like where Borg and Nadal would stand if Borg had played the ’77 French, instead of playing WTT; or where they would stand if WTT today was equivalent to what it was then, and Nadal skipped the French one year. Or what if Nadal had to play on Wimbledon’s grass as it was in Borg’s time period: he would almost surely not have beaten Federer in 2008 and would arguably have no Wimbledons at all, considering how close he was to getting beaten before the final in 2010. Bye-bye goes the career Slam: and then Nadal’s lack of a Wimbledon title would parallel Borg’s lack of a USO title.

Of course, if we speculate like that, there will be no end to it. And we will be able to say whatever we want to say.

If you’re saying that speculation can run rampant until it’s meaningless, I agree. But I’m not talking about unlimited speculation. I’m talking about limited speculation, to account for the single most glaring difference there is between these two eras, when comparing Slam counts: the fact that the champions of Borg’s era have no AO titles in their resumes while the champions of this era do. I'm talking about adjusting for this global difference, and not wiping it away by saying that all speculation cancels itself out and is meaningless. It seems to me as plain as day that if the older champions had an AO like today’s, they would have played it, and their Slam counts would be higher; and if today’s champions had an AO like the one of the 70s, they would not have played it, and their Slam counts would be lower.

It seems just as plain to me that if the older champions played today, they would have tournament totals similar to the current champions (several dozen titles at most); and if today's champions played in the circumstances of past time periods, some of them would have tournament totals in the hundreds.

Now, if you just want to stick to facts, and leave all speculation and opinion aside, like you said above, fine. But stick to them. "Fact is they both have 11 slams." Okay. And fact is, Laver has 200 titles, and Borg over 100, while Nadal has 50. And Borg has 2 year-end championships, while Nadal has none. Those are facts. You want to leave it just at facts?

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

People in the FPPT always try to compare regular tournament title counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you cant do that.

Yes exactly. People always try to compare Slam counts of players from the 60s and 70s directly to today when it should be increasingly evident you can't do that. Bingo. You got it.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Meanwhile Laver is reported to have 144, Federer might not reach 60% of that but is he really that much worse, even for those who feel Laver is better. I dont concur with your beliefs that tennis competition was always better now than then, however I would agree the game is far more physically demanding and the requirements of the players to all meet at major events outside the slams with everyone present is much more than in the past too. So winning as many tournaments as back in the days some events you only needed 3 or 4 rounds to win one, and the game was far less physically taxing with far fewer injuries, and when players arent going to last until their last 30s like they often did now, is simply impossible.

Exactly. And winning as many Slams back then as the players do today, when they played 3 Slams per year, at most (or none, in the case of the pros before '68 ), as opposed to 4 today, was simply impossible.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes Rafa's career Slam is a plus. But Borg's "Channel Slams" are more impressive than Nadal's, not just because he won 3 and Rafa 2, but because Borg's involved doing something unheard of today: winning RG from the baseline and winning Wimbledon with regular, frequent SV (even if not the SV-on-all-serves of the past). Increasingly this is becoming one of Borg's most appreciated accomplishments, even more so than his 5 straight Wimbledons which used to be his "calling card."

yep, precisely ....

[Borrelli]

Agreed, the AO is a big problem when comparing era's. The 5 straight Wimbledon's on fast grass while serving a volleying was unheard of for a baseline player like Borg. The 6 French Open titles while skipping a year and then retiring early and basically giving the 82 French to Wilander and the fact that he's probably the greatest athletic talent to ever step on a tennis court all put him in contention. At the very least Borg > Nadal.

[kiki]

the difference between grass and clay, the channel slam ,was incomparable bigger in Borg´s time than in Nadal´s time.Almost No difference now, oceans of difference back then.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

what exactly makes you think nadal would win all 3 on har-tru ? The surface closest to har-tru is probably madrid masters , where rafa hasn't exactly been dominant ....

Good point, I've wondered how Nadal and Federer might have played on Har-Tru. It's difficult to say, although Federer has adapted better to the conditions at Madrid.

And Madrid was the place where Djokovic, before he became dominant, came closest to getting a claycourt win over Nadal.

Generally Har-Tru at the USO was always described as faster than red clay. If that's true, it would favor Federer. In 2006 Federer came very close to beating Nadal at Rome, on a red clay court that was playing fast -- faster than RG.

If Har-Tru's speed would work in Federer's favor, there would no longer be reason to assume that Nadal would take 3 out of 3 USO's on Har-Tru in those early years around 2006.

Borg was injured for one of his 3 Har-Tru Opens, and Nadal has similar issues to Borg in the late season. Both of them went into RG fresh, but both of them tended to have physical issues later in the season. Another reason not to assume that Nadal takes 3 out of 3 on Har-Tru (though obviously you'd still favor him to do so).

[joe sch]

Seems to me that Federer is the mens GOAT for the open era until someone wins more slam championships. Sampras was the mens GOAT for the open era until Federer surpassed him. The pre-open era GOAT is a much more unclear choice thus there would be "candidates".

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes Rafa's career Slam is a plus.

I am sceptical. The "Career Slam" is the invention of media-hypers trying to drum up interest by a waning public in the Agassi era.

Now that grass has been slowed down, it is easier than ever. Djokovic will have one soon.

The "Career Slam" is a shallow Carilloism.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I am sceptical. The "Career Slam" is the invention of media-hypers trying to drum up interest by a waning public in the Agassi era.

Now that grass has been slowed down, it is easier than ever. Djokovic will have one soon.

The "Career Slam" is a shallow Carilloism.

I don't place that much importance on a career Slam, at least nowadays, for some of the reasons that you mention. It still counts as a plus, though. Rafa had to master the Flushing courts in order to do it. And he did.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I am sceptical. The "Career Slam" is the invention of media-hypers trying to drum up interest by a waning public in the Agassi era.

Now that grass has been slowed down, it is easier than ever. Djokovic will have one soon.

The "Career Slam" is a shallow Carilloism.

If the career slam isn't worth much to the player's legacy, then the Grand Slam isn't worth much either.

Two can play that game.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

If the career slam isn't worth much to the player's legacy, then the Grand Slam isn't worth much either.

Two can play that game.

NO! Unless your game is shallow thinking ignorant of history.

The Grand Slam has been the ultimate tennis goal for any and every player since 1933, including Crawford, Perry, Budge, Hoad, Trabert, Emerson, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, and your god Federer. It is the Everest of tennis: available every year, but apparently unreachable.

The "Career Slam" is a cobbled-together, Frankenstein's monster of an afterthought coined by those paid for their mouths not their knowledge, a specious media accolade for the best that can be managed given a 15-year career in an era of not-quite-good-enoughs, a last-ditch effort contrived by newbie "sports journalists" for newbie fans--to whip up some iota of interest for a bored, uninterested public.

[loci]

These discussions about the GOAT are tiresome and exhaustive. Is there something else of interest to talk about?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by loci

These discussions about the GOAT are tiresome and exhaustive. Is there something else of interest to talk about?

loci, I find GOAT discussions interesting and sometimes even thrilling.

[Goosehead]

borg always claimed that he would play the aust open if he was in with a chance for the grand slam..but in 78, 80, tennis was robbed of this prospect by borg losing u. s. open finals which would has made the grand slam three quarters complete....

and if mcenroe has won the french in 84..im sure he would have played in the 84 aust open instead of pulling out with an 'injury' ..did he play in the wct finals around the same time also ??..hmmmm .could be..not sure

2 big frig-ups in tennis history...banning of pro players pre 68..and the mess that was the prize money and timing of aust open until 1982,

i was looking at the line up for aust 82 when it moved back to its late nov / early dec slot..and it still had a poor field but by 1983mcenroe, lendl, wilander are in it..(why 83 and not 82 ?)

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

and if mcenroe has won the french in 84..im sure he would have played in the 84 aust open instead of pulling out with an 'injury' ..did he play in the wct finals around the same time also ??..hmmmm .could be..not sure

The WCT finals was played in May 84 and the Australian Open in December 84 - so not the same time. Mac did play the Masters in Jan. 85 though (where he played amazing tennis)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

borg always claimed that he would play the aust open if he was in with a chance for the grand slam..but in 78, 80, tennis was robbed of this prospect by borg losing u. s. open finals which would has made the grand slam three quarters complete....

And Connors said he would follow Borg to Melbourne in 1978. Connors stopped Borg in New York, though.

Originally Posted by Goosehead

2 big frig-ups in tennis history...banning of pro players pre 68..and the mess that was the prize money and timing of aust open until 1982,

Most of the people running the tennis authorities only agreed to the open era very reluctantly, after the LTA forced their hand, and they tried to cling onto the old privileges as much as possible. This is why the WCT and NTL events were far more in tune with what open tennis meant a long time before the ILTF and the majors.

Originally Posted by Goosehead

i was looking at the line up for aust 82 when it moved back to its late nov / early dec slot..and it still had a poor field but by 1983mcenroe, lendl, wilander are in it..(why 83 and not 82 ?)

The change probably came too late in the day to attract the top players in 1982.

[Goosehead]

timnz & mustard ^^^^

thanks, i was thinking of the davis cup final in dec 84, so mcenroe either had an injury like he said, or maybe was a bit tired from the season and wanted to prepare for the dc final..but in the end it didnt help him anyway.

yes could've been a late date change in 82 and the top players were elsewhere.

typical connors..shame it never happened though...borg wins the u.s open then goes for the grand slam in aust..but wait..oh no..whats this ??..oh no, its jimbo.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by 5555

What do you think?

Depends on the criteria. For me, Borg was a player that I tried to emulate when first starting out in tennis. I think that his 'larger than life' tennis persona was a major factor in the huge popularity of the game during the '70s.

But as for GOAT, I would have to say no. In that consideration I would have to say that Federer, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, and Sampras are the major contenders. Followed by Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi and Lendl.

Just my current opinion. Subject to change as I learn facts and arguments.

Currently, I would most like to be able to play in the style of McEnroe or Rosewall, because I find their games, their styles, to be most beautiful. But, you know, there are so many. Guys like Ashe, Nastase, Amritraj, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Newcombe, Vilas, oh, and I especially like Edberg's style of play.

So many, sorry if I didn't recall some of the many wonderful players worthy of mention.

Of course, we all know that GOAT discussions will be neverending.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TomT

Depends on the criteria. For me, Borg was a player that I tried to emulate when first starting out in tennis. I think that his 'larger than life' tennis persona was a major factor in the huge popularity of the game during the '70s.

But as for GOAT, I would have to say no. In that consideration I would have to say that Federer, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, and Sampras are the major contenders. Followed by Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Agassi and Lendl.

Just my current opinion. Subject to change as I learn facts and arguments.

Currently, I would most like to be able to play in the style of McEnroe or Rosewall, because I find their games, their styles, to be most beautiful. But, you know, there are so many. Guys like Ashe, Nastase, Amritraj, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Newcombe, Vilas, oh, and I especially like Edberg's style of play.

So many, sorry if I didn't recall some of the many wonderful players worthy of mention.

Of course, we all know that GOAT discussions will be neverending.

People should realize a great player can loses his goat status when players of the future matched or surpassed his achievements. Borg was definitely one of the goat after he retire in the 80s, but today his position has fallen due to great players of his future have overtook him. An example of Steve Largent in the NFL. When Steve retire in the 80s, he holds the record for most receptions, most touchdown receptions, and most receiving yards in a career. He was widely considered the greatest receiver of all time. However, today he's not even consider a goat candidate, because many receivers have surpassed him and broke all of his records. When you apply that to Borg, he doesn't hold the 5 consecutive Wimbledon anymore, most Wimbledon and most RG, most single titles. And a few players after him have won the career slam, and more slams than him. Borg is like another Steve Largent in the NFL, so I can understand people don't include him in goat discussion.

[pc1]

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. Borg was definitely one of the goat after he retire in the 80s, but today his position has fallen due to great players of his future have overtook him. An example of Steve Largent in the NFL. When Steve retire in the 80s, he holds the record for most receptions, most touchdown receptions, and most receiving yards in a career. He was widely considered the greatest receiver of all time. However, today he's not even consider a goat candidate, because many receivers have surpassed him and broke all of his records. When you apply that to Borg, he doesn't hold the 5 consecutive Wimbledon anymore, most Wimbledon and most RG, most single titles. And a few players after him have won the career slam, and more slams than him. Borg is like another Steve Largent in the NFL, so I can understand people don't include him in goat discussion.

And yet I thought I saw a post the other day where you ranked Borg second after Federer to defend your argument.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

And yet I thought I saw a post the other day where you ranked Borg second after Federer to defend your argument.

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.

All i'm saying is I can understand some people don't include Borg in the conversation anymore because the future great players have done better in many areas, the same exactly happened to Steve Largent. It also happened to Mark Spitz.

Goat status can change overtime, unless tennis become extinct.