Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

[NEW_BORN]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

no he did not run away..you are so clueless its embarrassing.

Deluded FOOL

[NEW_BORN]

Actually he just acted like a "GOOSEHEAD"

[Dedans Penthouse]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

quitting at age 25 after tough losses is what ?

Looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, winning Davis Cup matches at age 15 is what?


15

[monfed]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Open era rankings:

1) Federer
2) Borg
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Nadal

This. Same as my list(though I might bump down Laver due to his height. I mean 5'8? ), I've got Nadal further down 5, don't consider him a tier 1 great yet.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by smoledman

When he had won his 3 straight Channel slams - it really meant something.

They still do. As great as that achievement was by Borg, it wasn't as lauded at the time as his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles.

Originally Posted by smoledman

You could say in 1981 that Borg was by far the best Open Era player ever.

Well, obviously. The open era was only 13 years old at that point. Who were his closest challengers? Connors, Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall?

Originally Posted by smoledman

Has anything Sampras or Fed done since been greater then Borg's achievements(6 FO, 5 consecutive Wimbys, 3 consecutive channel slams)?

I think Borg's record is better than Sampras. I know Sampras finished 6 years in a row at world number 1, but Sampras never had a dominant period like Borg's 1976-1981.

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Open era rankings:

1) Federer
2) Borg
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Nadal

Originally Posted by monfed

This. Same as my list(though I might bump down Laver due to his height. I mean 5'8? ), I've got Nadal further down 5, don't consider him a tier 1 great yet.

Mine is similar:-

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)

As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 5 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Didn't Laver say he could not compete with the pro\s in t he first few years.

First few months, not years. Laver really struggled with Hoad and Rosewall in those opening months as a professional. By the end of 1963 (Laver's first year as a professional), he had risen to be the second best pro behind Rosewall, overtaking Gimeno and Hoad. And in 1964, Gonzales returned and did a full-time schedule, with Laver becoming the best pro in 1964, ahead of Rosewall and Gonzales.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by NatF

That's not why he quit, he lost his passion for the game. After he took a year out he was told he had to qualify to play Wimbledon (?) or some other tournament and he refused to do that.

And, he gets CREDIT for doing that? I don't care WHY he quit, he quit, and did so, as "luck" would have it, right after he got his *** kicked at Wimbledon and the US Open. And, speaking of the US Open, I recall reading several years ago that it was, by far, the indicator of the top ranked player for that year-that is, the player who won the US Open ended the year as the world's top ranked player at the US Open than any of the other Slams-by far. Now, the time period in the study preceded the Open era, so, it may have been a bit misleading, but the last time I checked, Borg was the ONLY one of the top 20 male Slam winners who never won the US Open, with the exception of some old English guy who played in the 19th century and rarely, if ever, played the US Open-and, since in those days the Slam champion played only one match, that guy's 7 or so Wimbledons should be ignored, IMO. So, Borg being the ONLY modern Slam champion to NEVER win the tournament that historically been the best indicator(failing on 3 different surfaces, no less) would, by itself eliminate him, in my book from any GOAT discussion. Factor in that I like champions who react well to adversity-Ali vs Liston, and Foreman, as far as seemingly invincible opponents are concerned, and Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, and Spinks, as far as avenging defeats is concerned is one example, Michael Jordan overcoming the Pistons and Celtics is another. The Red Sox overcoming the contemporary Yankees who had just beaten them in the ALCS the year before(to say nothing of an 86 year curse they heard about incessantly) is still another. And contrast all of that to Goldilocks, who, the nanosecond the going got tough, took his ball and ran home to mommy. Open era GOAT? Please...

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by NEW_BORN

Deluded FOOL

Do some research before you post stuff on here, or carry on with the self humiliation..blockedhead.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by jimbo333

Mine is similar:-

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)

As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 8 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.

Connors at 3?
How can you possibly rate Connors over Borg?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by monfed

Connors at 3?

Do you know how good Connors was, or did you just look at 8 majors? Connors won 98 matches at the US Open and 84 matches at Wimbledon. Who else has?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by dafinch

And, he gets CREDIT for doing that? I don't care WHY he quit, he quit, and did so, as "luck" would have it, right after he got his *** kicked at Wimbledon and the US Open. And, speaking of the US Open, I recall reading several years ago that it was, by far, the indicator of the top ranked player for that year-that is, the player who won the US Open ended the year as the world's top ranked player at the US Open than any of the other Slams-by far. Now, the time period in the study preceded the Open era, so, it may have been a bit misleading, but the last time I checked, Borg was the ONLY one of the top 20 male Slam winners who never won the US Open, with the exception of some old English guy who played in the 19th century and rarely, if ever, played the US Open-and, since in those days the Slam champion played only one match, that guy's 7 or so Wimbledons should be ignored, IMO. So, Borg being the ONLY modern Slam champion to NEVER win the tournament that historically been the best indicator(failing on 3 different surfaces, no less) would, by itself eliminate him, in my book from any GOAT discussion. Factor in that I like champions who react well to adversity-Ali vs Liston, and Foreman, as far as seemingly invincible opponents are concerned, and Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, and Spinks, as far as avenging defeats is concerned is one example, Michael Jordan overcoming the Pistons and Celtics is another. The Red Sox overcoming the contemporary Yankees who had just beaten them in the ALCS the year before(to say nothing of an 86 year curse they heard about incessantly) is still another. And contrast all of that to Goldilocks, who, the nanosecond the going got tough, took his ball and ran home to mommy. Open era GOAT? Please...

Not winning the US Open is the only blemish on Borg's record, but it's not as if he flopped there. He beat Connors there in 1981, beat Tanner there in 1980 and 1981, i.e. men who had beaten Borg at the US Open before.

[Bartelby]

Who else has five wo and six fo?, surely the two greatest and then most contrasting tournaments in the world, so he's clearly ahead of everyone excpet perhaps Laver and Federer.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Not winning the US Open is the only blemish on Borg's record, but it's not as if he flopped there. He beat Connors there in 1981, beat Tanner there in 1980 and 1981, i.e. men who had beaten Borg at the US Open before.

Didn't say that he DID flop, but, as far as GOAT status, I like WINNERS, or, as Connors said after winning Wimbledon, "127 losers and me."

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by kiki

If the greatness of a champion is measured by the toughness of his opposition, well, Borg stands alone.He played from Laver,Ashe,Newcombe,Smith and Rosewall to Mc Enroe,Lendl with Connors,Vilas,Nastase,Kodes,Panatta,Orantes,Gerula itis,Tanner or Okker in the middle.And to think that if he had played till 28 or 29 ( he retired at 25), he´d also have played Becker,Edberg and Wilander...

Maybe only Gonzales ( who played from Tilden to Connors ) and, of course, Rosewall ( who played from Kramer to Gerulalaitis) can equal that.

Well Federer faced Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Rios, Moya, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Coria, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer, etc. Just a walk in the park...

And Agassi apparently didn`t have much trouble playing against Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Connors, Mc Enroe, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Courier, Chang, Rios, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Rafter, Safin, Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, etc

[NEW_BORN]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

Do some research before you post stuff on here, or carry on with the self humiliation..blockedhead.

When you start with the name calling, it just makes you look like a GOOSEHEAD, wait a second...hey that's you

Anyway, in all seriousness everything i said in my first post is what i consider to be the most important character of a champion - recovering from setbacks.

In Borg's case, he just couldn't find it in himself to keep fighting, regardless of whatever motivational reasons he had for quitting, all because he could no longer beat one guy. There's no sugarcoating the fact that he GAVE UP, unlike other champions of the past and present

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NEW_BORN

When you start with the name calling, it just makes you look like a GOOSEHEAD, wait a second...hey that's you

Anyway, in all seriousness everything i said in my first post is what i consider to be the most important character of a champion - recovering from setbacks.

In Borg's case, he just couldn't find it in himself to keep fighting, regardless of whatever motivational reasons he had for quitting, all because he could no longer beat one guy. There's no sugarcoating the fact that he GAVE UP, unlike other champions of the past and present

You believe a legendary myth, I'm afraid. Borg didn't annouce his retirement from full-time tennis competition until January 1983. By then, McEnroe was about to lose to Lendl for the 7th time in a row, and wasn't a champion at any of the majors.

Borg didn't play in 1982, apart from Monte Carlo and exhibitions, because he was involved in a dispute with the ITF over how many tournaments he would have to play. The ITF threatened to force Borg to qualify for the majors if he didn't play the required number of tournaments, so Borg didn't bother. It was expected that Borg would return to full-time competition for 1983, but then he made his retirement announcement in January 1983 during the Masters tournament.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

quitting at age 25 after tough losses is what ?

I've heard it said that Borg walked out of tennis after the 1981 US Open. Do you believe that myth? Or do you believe the fact that Borg won his next tournament, on clay in Geneva?

[NEW_BORN]

Originally Posted by Mustard

You believe a legendary myth, I'm afraid. Borg didn't annouce his retirement from full-time tennis competition until January 1983. By then, McEnroe was about to lose to Lendl for the 7th time in a row, and wasn't a champion at any of the majors.

Borg didn't play in 1982, apart from Monte Carlo and exhibitions, because he was involved in a dispute with the ITF over how many tournaments he would have to play. The ITF threatened to force Borg to qualify for the majors if he didn't play the required number of tournaments, so Borg didn't bother. It was expected that Borg would return to full-time competition for 1983, but then he made his retirement announcement in January 1983 during the Masters tournament.

Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that Borg couldn't will himself to play through these qualifying rounds (however humiliating it may be for a former champion) and fight back up to the top. Instead, he chose the easy way out, in my opinion.

[Bartelby]

Easy way out? It was his decision - so he had the courage to do what felt right to him.