Sampras vs Borg

Both all time greats but who ranks above who for me Sampras because he his longtivty he wons majors in his teens twenties and thirties.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Well, we can never know --

* Borg had way better clutch -- proven on many more occasions than Pete ever did and against better players playing peak (check the stats)...

* Borg beat great servers repeatedly on fast surfaces (Tanner at Wimby 1976, 1979 and at the US Open 1980, 1981 and who could serve better than Tanner at those times? -- plus Mac and Dibley and countless others)

* Borg was faster than Sampras and Sampras never met anyone even close to that court speed.

* With all due respect for Andre Agassi but Borg's service return was better than Andre's and Borg adjusted in matches and had greater skills at improving according to his opponents.

* Greater versatility meaning Sampras would be bageled at RG by Borg effectively burying this thread and this debate once and for all...

That said -- Sampras could probably beat Borg occasionally and always be a major threat as was Tanner and Mac when they peaked -- but look what happened to them...
 
Last edited:

CyBorg

Legend
Three factors to consider, in my opinion. Longevity, peak play, surfaces.

It all depends on how you weigh these.
 
Three factors to consider, in my opinion. Longevity, peak play, surfaces.

It all depends on how you weigh these.

Longevity- Sampras, Pete won majors in his late 20's and early 30's.
Peak play- Draw, Pete's prime 93-97 and Borg's 78-80 are pretty similar.
Surfaces- Sampras, I would take Pete to beat Borg on grass, hardcourt and indoor and Borg obviously on clay.

So imo thats why Sampras was the better player.
 

GameSampras

Banned
I cant really say as I only seen videos of Borg. I didnt get to experience the legend first hand as he was way before my time.

What I have seen, Peak Sampras and his A game was more dominant than anyone else's Ive seen. Wimbeldon 99 for example. Though Borg looked like a machine. Surfaces, Borg was great on 2 surfaces? Pete was the master on grass, HC USO and indoors. Longveity Pete was winning slams all the way into his final year and his final slam at 31 years of age. 6 years as Number 1 and could have been more but was injured in 99 and most likely would have won the USO as Andre just could not beat him and 2000 he missed the YEC and Masters I believe because he was getting married. So reasonably Pete could have been 8 years as Number 1.

Borg did have quite a few years of longevity as well. Beginning at 17 years of age. But I still think Borg quitting by 25 hurts him a bit. Just my opinion. I heard he quit because he just couldnt handle Johnny Mac, Also his personal life and Burnout etc.

Sampras extended his slam wins to 3 different era. From the early 90s winning at 19 years old, to his prime years to past his prime years into his 30s winning against the new generation of players
 
Last edited:

cristiano

New User
Three factors to consider, in my opinion. Longevity, peak play, surfaces.

It all depends on how you weigh these.

Longevity: Sampras. But almost even, if you consider only years @ n.1

Peak Play: Borg, if you consider 'peak years'. Even, if you considera 'peak tournaments or game' (Borg on clay was as good as anyone ever in the game)

Surfaces: Borg , if you considerer 'to play very well on every surface'. Sampras if you consider 'surfaces where you can beat any goat contender'.

Sampras is an exception between goat contenders, in a way. He was good as anyone when he was on (not on clay, ok), but he wasn't able to play a great tennis for years like the others. He was the worst in minor tournaments (even if not bad, ok), and he never won 3 majors in one year. Gonzales in maybe a more continous Sampras. But in my opinion he's certainly the best player at Wimbledon in last fourty years (even if i know it's just subjective)

c.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Longievity- I guess Sampras soley gets the nod to this because he played more years..Borg was definity well capable of going on but he didn't..but this is about what happened so you have to give it so Sampras.

Peak years- Borg easily gets this nod, 78-81..Borg was destructive completly dominating two surfaces consistently, back to back masters wins and tons of titles.

Surfaces -
Carpet - Everyone is like throwing this one at Sampras, Borg won about the same ammount of carpet titles..kind of want to say this is pretty even.
Clay- Borg
Grass- I am going to edge Sampras on this but not by much, Borg can probably win a wimby off Sampras even though Sampras serve and volley Borg showed he could beat tons of S+V on grass.
Hardcourts - Sampras no doubt.

Overall edge - Lets not pick and say we did.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.


Yea I dont understand that. Pete won 7 Wimbeldons in 8 years and 5 USO's. But he was injured at a few of those USO's so I guess that could hurt Pete's case
 
Last edited:

CyBorg

Legend
Longevity- Sampras, Pete won majors in his late 20's and early 30's.
Peak play- Draw, Pete's prime 93-97 and Borg's 78-80 are pretty similar.
Surfaces- Sampras, I would take Pete to beat Borg on grass, hardcourt and indoor and Borg obviously on clay.

So imo thats why Sampras was the better player.

That's fine. I would rate Borg's peak play ahead of Sampras' (Pete didn't post a single year with a percentage of 90 or over) and also give Borg the surfaces, largely because of Sampras' incompetence on clay. Longevity definitely goes to Sampras and I'm speaking about longevity as to quality in particular.

We can give Sampras quality years from 1990 to 2000, 2001/2002 are debatable. Borg had quality years 1974-1981. That's about 11 to 8 in favour of Sampras.
 

anointedone

Banned
Wow all I can say is that is one matchup I would have loved to see. Arguably the greatest defensive player of all time vs argaubly the greatest offensive player of all time, both who have the abilities to play both offense and defense very well though. One guy one of the mentally toughest players of all time who is also one of the smartest players ever (Borg), the other though also one of the mentally toughest and most clutch big point players ever, whose smarts on court were vastly underrated (Sampras). One guy who is king of the baseline, but can attack the net very well (Borg) vs one guy who is king of the serve/volley game (not just volleying specifically) who also can rally with the best from the backcourt albeit far less consistent from their (Sampras). I would pay money to see that matchup in their respective primes anyday, except on clay. :)

As to who rates greater now that their careers are both in the past. For me:

Dominance: Borg
Longevity: Sampras
Consistency: Tough call
Quality of competition: Borg overall
Versatility: Borg
Subjective view on peak level of performance and games: Tough call

So overall I would have to say Borg is who I would rate a bit higher.
 
Last edited:

egn

Hall of Fame
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.

Titles. Slam ratio. Winning Percentage. Titles on all Surfaces. Consistency.

Borg 1979 - 14 atp titles, 3 non atp titles draw at least 8, title on every surface..including his worst. I don't have the exact record but from what atp lists it appeasr to be 84-6..I might have added in a walkover so its something like 82-85 wins and 5-7 losses roughly. Thats still shaky but that alone is better than every sampras prime year.
Borg 1978 and 1980 are probably better than most of Sampras' years.
 

anointedone

Banned
Why are Borg's peak years so much better than Sampras's? Sampras in his peak dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.

Back then the Australian Open wasnt really valued like a major. Borg would in years like 1978 and 1980 win 2 of the 3 then recognized "majors" and be runner up in the 3rd. That is far more dominant than Sampras who never won more than 2 of 4 currently fully recognized majors, only once ever making 3 finals, and the only year ever making the French Open semis being a year he lost quarters of Wimbledon and 3rd round of the Australian Open.
 
Back then the Australian Open wasnt really valued like a major. Borg would in years like 1978 and 1980 win 2 of the 3 then recognized "majors" and be runner up in the 3rd. That is far more dominant than Sampras who never won more than 2 of 4 currently fully recognized majors, only once ever making 3 finals, and the only year ever making the French Open semis being a year he lost quarters of Wimbledon and 3rd round of the Australian Open.

True but you have to take into account Pete was denied 2 US Open's through injury in 98 and 99 so that would have given Pete more prime years.
 

anointedone

Banned
True but you have to take into account Pete was denied 2 US Open's through injury in 98 and 99 so that would have given Pete more prime years.

Even if he had won the U.S Open his 98 and 99 would not have been as dominant or strong overall in the slams as his best years of 93, 94, or 95 even, let alone more than Borg's most dominant years. So in that regard it would have made no difference. Also while I agree on 99, the 98 U.S Open is harder to tell for certain as Rafter had beaten Sampras in a warm up Masters final and was the hottest player on hard courts that summer.
 

cristiano

New User
One of the reasons why Sampras was less dominant in his best years than Borg is the impossibility to stay in perfect health all year. So , for me, reasonement like 'if he was healthy with Rafter he would be as dominant as anyone' do not make sense.
 
One of the reasons why Sampras was less dominant in his best years than Borg is the impossibility to stay in perfect health all year. So , for me, reasonement like 'if he was healthy with Rafter he would be as dominant as anyone' do not make sense.

What I meant was that if Pete wasn't injured in those 2 years he would have had a longer prime and this wouldn't be a discussion because Sampras would be way ahead of Borg.
 

bet

Banned
Both all time greats but who ranks above who for me Sampras because he his longtivty he wons majors in his teens twenties and thirties.


Sampras clearly ranks above given 3 extra slams! Say what you will about Borg, but Borg quit, voluntarily. You can say coulda/woulda with Borg, and maybe it's fun speculation, but in the end, he didn't! NO MAS!!! It's not even as plausible as speculating about a guy who gets injured....that isn't really his "fault" and so it's very compelling to wonder what he could have done had he not got hurt. But when a guy just quits because he doesn't want to play anymore....well...that's what he did! He didn't have the fight or desire to go on......

PS. Sampras had great respect for Borg but actually, the guy who really wanted to play Borg in a dream match up was Courier! Courier said he would have loved to go toe to toe with Borg on clay, both at their best. Both Sampras and Courier felt that against Borg, Courier would have had to be very aggressive and Sampras said "god, it would have been a war!"
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Titles. Slam ratio. Winning Percentage. Titles on all Surfaces. Consistency.

Borg 1979 - 14 atp titles, 3 non atp titles draw at least 8, title on every surface..including his worst. I don't have the exact record but from what atp lists it appeasr to be 84-6..I might have added in a walkover so its something like 82-85 wins and 5-7 losses roughly. Thats still shaky but that alone is better than every sampras prime year.
Borg 1978 and 1980 are probably better than most of Sampras' years.

Yes -- in Borg's time RG, Wimby, US Open and YEC was the the real majors. In 1980 he won RG for the second time without losing a set, beat Mac at Wimby in one of the greatest matches of all time (what a fifth set!), almost won the US Open although he was injured and uneven and suffered the worst line-call in a fifth and final set in a major in recent memory and crushed everyone at the fast carpet Masters. That's four finals and three supreme wins against supreme opponents who were specialists on their respective surfaces and they played peak even though Borg was incredible.

When did Sampras match this in any way? Borg still has the record of 41 straight Wimby-match wins against fast surface specialists who wasn't tired after a long RG tourney like Borg did and then he quit at 25. To keep such a streak is the toughest. Sampras couldn't match this streak and he had years when his opponents wasn't really that great...
 

flying24

Banned
I dont think Agassi is a good barometer to how Sampras would do against Borg. Borg is superior to Agassi in pretty much every facet of the game.
 

bet

Banned
Yes -- in Borg's time RG, Wimby, US Open and YEC was the the real majors. In 1980 he won RG for the second time without losing a set, beat Mac at Wimby in one of the greatest matches of all time (what a fifth set!), almost won the US Open although he was injured and uneven and suffered the worst line-call in a fifth and final set in a major in recent memory and crushed everyone at the fast carpet Masters. That's four finals and three supreme wins against supreme opponents who were specialists on their respective surfaces and they played peak even though Borg was incredible.

When did Sampras match this in any way? Borg still has the record of 41 straight Wimby-match wins against fast surface specialists who wasn't tired after a long RG tourney like Borg did and then he quit at 25. To keep such a streak is the toughest. Sampras couldn't match this streak and he had years when his opponents wasn't really that great...

Nope. Streaks are great, so are one year records etc. You can cherry pick the best moments/days/months/year/years of all players and hold them up against others. Borg's are very impressive. But where do you draw the line? There is no logical way. The only thing you can do if you want to make a career judgment is to look at measures of the entire career. Sampras wins.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Nope. Streaks are great, so are one year records etc. You can cherry pick the best moments/days/months/year/years of all players and hold them up against others. Borg's are very impressive. But where do you draw the line? There is no logical way. The only thing you can do if you want to make a career judgment is to look at measures of the entire career. Sampras wins.

That's one way to look at it but you could also say that having such amazing domination on both clay and grass which were at that time complete polar opposities(unlike today when clay is faster and grass is slower)is quite possibly the most impressive feat any player had ever done in the history of tennis.Look how long it took for another player to win Wimbledon-FO double once since Borg(and in a time when grass and clay aren't nearly as different as they were in Borg's time)let alone achieve such records as 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 FOs.You could also add that Borg had way better results in his worst slam(USO,4 finals)than Sampras(FO,1 semi),Borg was a contender at USO,Sampras wasn't one at the FO.On the other hand Sampras did win 14 slams,ended 6 years number one,won 7 Wimbledons and had great longevity winning slam as a teenager,in his 20s and in his 30s.

IMO this isn't as clear situation as you make it to be,you could make a case for either one.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
That's one way to look at it but you could also say that having such amazing domination on both clay and grass which were at that time complete polar opposities(unlike today when clay is faster and grass is slower)is quite possibly the most impressive feat any player had ever done in the history of tennis.Look how long it took for another player to win Wimbledon-FO double once since Borg(and in a time when grass and clay aren't nearly as different as they were in Borg's time)let alone achieve such records as 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 FOs.You could also add that Borg had way better results in his worst slam(USO,4 finals)than Sampras(FO,1 semi),Borg was a contender at USO,Sampras wasn't one at the FO.On the other hand Sampras did win 14 slams,ended 6 years number one,won 7 Wimbledons and had great longevity winning slam as a teenager,in his 20s and in his 30s.

IMO this isn't as clear situation as you make it to be,you could make a case for either one.

Absolutely diamond-cutter correct Zagor! It's the best we are debating here. If it comes to longevity -- well my money is on Pancho -- then Rosewall...
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Most experts would rate Sampras above Borg Simply because of the 3 more slams that Sampras has, and remember, Borg quit tennis.
 

bet

Banned
That's one way to look at it but you could also say that having such amazing domination on both clay and grass which were at that time complete polar opposities(unlike today when clay is faster and grass is slower)is quite possibly the most impressive feat any player had ever done in the history of tennis.Look how long it took for another player to win Wimbledon-FO double once since Borg(and in a time when grass and clay aren't nearly as different as they were in Borg's time)let alone achieve such records as 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 FOs.You could also add that Borg had way better results in his worst slam(USO,4 finals)than Sampras(FO,1 semi),Borg was a contender at USO,Sampras wasn't one at the FO.On the other hand Sampras did win 14 slams,ended 6 years number one,won 7 Wimbledons and had great longevity winning slam as a teenager,in his 20s and in his 30s.

IMO this isn't as clear situation as you make it to be,you could make a case for either one.

Most impressive feat? Sure. If you say so. It's impressive. I think so. Many other feats have also been impressive. Actually impossible for me to say what I'm MOST impressed with given the variables involved in each feat. If you think it's the best, sure, "impressive" is subjective.

Indeed, what you choose to look at is always subjective. Borg has a great resume, so there's many things you could try to argue. The same as Sampras. But all knowledgable tennis people know that grand slams are the gold seal. You could argue, order of winning them, speed in which they were won, but at the end of the day, that always ends up 2nd to how many you won. (I will note the exception of the true Grand Slam since it has always had a certain qualitative elevation for obvious reasons) For example, if I win 3 slams in a year and never win any again, am I better than a 4 or 5 slam over 10 year champ? I doubt many would say that.

Thus, while you may be more impressed with some of Borg's feats (and that is certainly your right), I don't think that there is any logical or strong way to get around the 3 slam deficit.

BUT what I really was objecting to, and the bulk of my post is addressing, is the illogic of Borg defenders who will argue "well if Borg had kept playing THEN.....". You can see clear evidence of that here, even in the posts I was responding to. Borg didn't. He gave up. Because there is a lot of hero-worship with Borg, people tend to overlook that, but it is the same as saying, "hey! If Safin had always tried, he'd have 16 slams, therefore he's the GREATEST!!". Again, Safin didn't have any more slams in him and neither did Borg, neither have any excuse other than themselves for that!

PS. Furthermore, if one wanted to argue that performance only over peak years is important, then Federer beats Borg. In 4 years, Fed won as many slams as Borg got in his entire career. But again, I would not get into these arguments, as it is completely unclear where to draw the line on any of the many possible parameters and becomes quite nonsensical.
 
Last edited:

380pistol

Banned
Even if he had won the U.S Open his 98 and 99 would not have been as dominant or strong overall in the slams as his best years of 93, 94, or 95 even, let alone more than Borg's most dominant years. So in that regard it would have made no difference. Also while I agree on 99, the 98 U.S Open is harder to tell for certain as Rafter had beaten Sampras in a warm up Masters final and was the hottest player on hard courts that summer.

He won the US Open in 1993 and 1995. If not for leg injury in 1994 that's 3 slams for Pete that year and straight opens (1993-96).

In 1999 he was leading Rafter 7-6,4-6,4-2 when he got hurt. And Rafter beating Sampras in Cincinnati means what exactly??? Sampras was 12-4 vs Rafter lifetime, giving him some serious beatdowns (1997 Davis Cup SF 7 1997Grand Slam Cup F), beat him hurt (2000 Wimbledon F) and other fine performances (2001 Indian Wells 47 win, 7 unf). That win in 1998 for Rafter was the 1st he'd beaten Pete in FIVE years!!!!! Sampras had won 7 straight including 18 of 23 sets!!!!

And Agassi was just as hot in the summer of 1995 (26-1, Rafter finished the summer of 1998, 25-2), and how'd Dre fare in the Open final vs Pete??
 

380pistol

Banned
Overall it's close, but I may give the slight nod to Sampras.

Surface wise, the biggest advantage goes to Borg on clay. While Sampras won't dominate Borg on any surface like Borg could get him on clay, Sampras is better on grass, hard and carpet.

Longevity is obviously Sampras, as Borg retired early. Dominance is close, Borgs percenatges may be higher as some noted, but Sampras never really played for that he played for slams. Speaking of slams it's deeper than the 14-11 lead Pete has, as Borg only went to Australa 2 or 3 times. Likewise Sampras may have lost some slam opportunities to injuries and circumstance. The both have holes, Borg (US Open) and Sampras (French Open), and though Borg reached 4 US Open finals, I think it's a bigger hole for him. Borg had the chance to contest the US Open twice on hard, and twice on green clay. What if Sampras got 2 chances on each grass and hards in Paris???

As close as it is what gives Sampras the slight nod is that despite the inconsitencies of the ranking system Sampras had 6 consecutive years at #1, while Borg had just 2, as well as 286 weeks at #1 for Sampras to 109 for Borg. And Borg lost 3 of 4 slam F to McEnroe, and I find it hard to see anyone doing that to Sampras.
 

egn

Hall of Fame

Thus, while you may be more impressed with some of Borg's feats (and that is certainly your right), I don't think that there is any logical or strong way to get around the 3 slam deficit.

BUT what I really was objecting to, and the bulk of my post is addressing, is the illogic of Borg defenders who will argue "well if Borg had kept playing THEN.....". You can see clear evidence of that here, even in the posts I was responding to. Borg didn't. He gave up. Because there is a lot of hero-worship with Borg, people tend to overlook that, but it is the same as saying, "hey! If Safin had always tried, he'd have 16 slams, therefore he's the GREATEST!!". Again, Safin didn't have any more slams in him and neither did Borg, neither have any excuse other than themselves for that!

I never said if he kept playing...and a number is a number. A lot of times numbers don't reflect for example Connors had 5 straight years number 1 and Borg only had two? Though I am still unsure of how Connors had 77 and 78 over Borg? (77 should be villas though...) But then there were other rankings that gave it to Borg and Villas it was very confusing back then. Anyway Borg was clearly the best player on the tour from 77-80 Sampras might have 6 years as number 1, but during Sampras time we had some of the weakest number 1's ever. Marcelo Rios, Kalfenikov, Moya, Muster..tons of strictly clay court players took stranglehold on that top spot..Borg had intense competition also Connors, Villas, McEnroe, Lendl 3 of 4 in prime. He also had Ille Nastate, Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulatis and Roscoe Tanner to deal with. His field was tight. Connors and Lendl each won 8 slams, McEnroe 7, Villas 4, Ashe 3, Nastate 2, Gerulatis and Tanner had 1. His field at times was rough. Borg deserves a nod for what he went up against and what he did. He practically invented the modern baseline game and dominated two surfaces consistently and assembled some remarkable seasons during that time period. You can believe who you want to be better but saying it is impossible to get around a 3 slam deficit is very extreme.

Please don't compare the Borg thing to the Safin thing. It's not right for Borg fans to be like he could have won 3 more slams if he did this..but saying it is like saying Safin would be at 16 is extreme..Borg probably could have got to 14..Safin probably not. I will never use the Borg could have in an argument, but please don't compare it to the Safin theory.
 
Overall it's close, but I may give the slight nod to Sampras.

Surface wise, the biggest advantage goes to Borg on clay. While Sampras won't dominate Borg on any surface like Borg could get him on clay, Sampras is better on grass, hard and carpet.

Longevity is obviously Sampras, as Borg retired early. Dominance is close, Borgs percenatges may be higher as some noted, but Sampras never really played for that he played for slams. Speaking of slams it's deeper than the 14-11 lead Pete has, as Borg only went to Australa 2 or 3 times. Likewise Sampras may have lost some slam opportunities to injuries and circumstance. The both have holes, Borg (US Open) and Sampras (French Open), and though Borg reached 4 US Open finals, I think it's a bigger hole for him. Borg had the chance to contest the US Open twice on hard, and twice on green clay. What if Sampras got 2 chances on each grass and hards in Paris???

As close as it is what gives Sampras the slight nod is that despite the inconsitencies of the ranking system Sampras had 6 consecutive years at #1, while Borg had just 2, as well as 286 weeks at #1 for Sampras to 109 for Borg. And Borg lost 3 of 4 slam F to McEnroe, and I find it hard to see anyone doing that to Sampras.

Great post
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Many of you Sampras-lovers here obviously doesn't read many of the serious debates about what a major consisted of during all eras. The GS-tourney final tally is not a complete argument that settles the question.

You disregard that RG is the toughest tourney physically as well as psychologically win -- your dead after a RG win and then change to superfast grass in two weeks and for three years running defeat a rested and peak Tanner, Mac, Connors and beat them too on their more favored turf for five years in a row (and six straight finals) then to go to HC US Open and reach more finals than either Mac and Connors (when Borg was even more tired) then continue on having amazing results on carpet and cap it off by going undefeated at YEC against Mac, Connors and YEC-master Lendl is just waaaaaaaaaay more versatile and impressive and tougher than Sampras. Borg was the most complete player -- period.

You just seem to forget that Pete sucked on clay. Sucked. He couldn't regularly handle great, peak playing clay-courters while Borg beat master grass and HC and indoor masters regurlarly.

And Borg had greater competition. And as far as racking up majors there's a lot of great, great players from all eras who's far more successful than Pete in this area.

Laver and Rosewall each had around 20 majors waaaaay beyond Pete's 14 plus that they had greater versatility which Pete lacked. Pete was a fast court specialist -- while Borg was slow court King plus has one of the most impressive records on faster surfaces as well as still having the greatest Wimby streak -- still unbeaten (41-4 at Wimby already at only 25!).

Borg won more five-setters than Pete too against peak opposition -- came back 1-2 and 0-2 so many times a thing Pete didn't do. Borg had even greater clutch than Pete against the best, proven.

And it is harder to achieve this domination, maturity and all-round skill at such a young age. It's the toughest skill -- ask anybody.

And Pete never dominated fast surfaces with the prowess that Borg did on clay. Borg won three Majors without losing a set -- even on superfast grass at Wimby 1976 (it's only been done three times since 1877 and never against a final opponent like Ilie Nastase who also, like Borg hadn't dropped a single set reaching the final -- just maddeningly impresssive by "The Ice Man" and in tropic 41 degree Celsius heat too) -- something that's never been done since either by Laver, Fedex or Pete who never, ever did it ever even against weaker opponents. Doesn't that tell you anything?

There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...

And WCT 1976, YEC 1979 and 1980 ranked as the unofficial fourth major during Borg's era making his final tally 14 (when he was only 25) as with Pete (and that on all different surfaces) plus that Borg had several YEC finals and US Open-finals (while severely injured and tired several times) to boot and he quit when he was 25.

Also take in to account Borg's career and majors winning percentage into this debate also it's settled in Borg's favor. I mean I could go on and on. It's arguable that Krajicek of 96 is what Tanner was in 1979. Wimby was Pete's church, tailor-made for his game and fave tourney (like RG for Borg) and Krajicek blew Pete off the court. Tanner played out of this world in the Wimby 1979 final and had a heavy lead -- but who won that match?

Borg was/is the real tennis Houdini.

And Borg even bageled more players than Fed or anybody did. I mean the records go on and on in Borg's favour...

So I rest my case...
 
Last edited:
Many of you Sampras-lovers here obviously doesn't read many of the serious debates about what a major consisted of during all eras. The GS-tourney final tally is not a complete argument that settles the question.

You disregard that RG is the toughest tourney physically as well as psychologically win -- your dead after a RG win and then change to superfast grass in two weeks and for three years running defeat a rested and peak Tanner, Mac, Connors and beat them too on their more favored turf for five years in a row (and six straight finals) then to go to HC US Open and reach more finals than either Mac and Connors (when Borg was even more tired) then continue on having amazing results on carpet and cap it off by going undefeated at YEC against Mac, Connors and YEC-master Lendl is just waaaaaaaaaay more versatile and impressive and tougher than Sampras. Borg was the most complete player -- period.

You just seem to forget that Pete sucked on clay. Sucked. He couldn't regularly handle great, peak playing clay-courters while Borg beat master grass and HC and indoor masters regurlarly.

And Borg had greater competition. And as far as racking up majors there's a lot of great, great players from all eras who's far more successful than Pete in this area.

Laver and Rosewall each had around 20 majors waaaaay beyond Pete's 14 plus that they had greater versatility which Pete lacked. Pete was a fast court specialist -- while Borg was slow court King plus has one of the most impressive records on faster surfaces as well as still having the greatest Wimby streak -- still unbeaten (41-4 at Wimby already at only 25!).

Borg won more five-setters than Pete too against peak opposition -- came back 1-2 and 0-2 so many times a thing Pete didn't do. Borg had even greater clutch than Pete against the best, proven.

And it is harder to achieve this domination, maturity and all-round skill at such a young age. It's the toughest skill -- ask anybody.

And Pete never dominated fast surfaces with the prowess that Borg did on clay. Borg won three Majors without losing a set -- even on superfast grass at Wimby 1976 (it's only been done three times since 1877 and never against a final opponent like Ilie Nastase who also, like Borg hadn't dropped a single set reaching the final -- just maddeningly impresssive by "The Ice Man" and in tropic 41 degree Celsius heat too) -- something that's never been done since either by Laver, Fedex and Pete who never, ever did it ever even against weaker opponents. Doesn't that tell you anything?

There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...

And WCT 1976, YEC 1979 and 1980 ranked as the unofficial fourth major during Borg's era making his final tally 14 (when he was only 25) as with Pete (and that on all different surfaces) plus that Borg had several YEC finals and US Open-finals (while severely injured and tired several times) to boot and he quit when he was 25.

Also take in to account Borg's career and majors winning percentage into this debate also it's settled in Borg's favor. I mean I could go on and on. It's arguable that Krajicek of 96 is what Tanner was in 1979. Wimby was Pete's church, tailor-made for his game and fave tourney (like RG for Borg) and Krajicek blew Pete off the court. Tanner played out of this world in the Wimby 1979 final and had a heavy lead -- but who won that match?

Borg was/is the real tennis Houdini.

And Borg even bageled more players than Fed or anybody did. I mean the records go on and on in Borg's favour...

So I rest my case...



You don't call winning 7 Wimbledon's in 8 years dominating a surface, Pete played 7 Wimbledon finals winning all 7. Sampras was injured in the USO 94,98 and 99 in which if he wasn't he would have won all 3 imo that would have left Pete with 8 USO's that proves that Pete was equally dominate on the fast surfaces as Borg was on clay.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Now as far as Laver not going 21-0 in sets at a major I cut The King Laver some slack since IMO the 50s and 60s had a very confusing, unfair, complicated, strange, mixed tourney-seasons (the pro/amateur separation) plus that I give the 50s and 60s a slight edge over Borg's era when it comes to a greater field of fantastic competitors...

Rod Laver is the MAN IMO -- maybe even better than Bear Fortress but I'm not sure -- as I said I rank Pancho, The Rodman and "The Ice Man" equally...
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Many of you Sampras-lovers here obviously doesn't read many of the serious debates about what a major consisted of during all eras. The GS-tourney final tally is not a complete argument that settles the question.

You disregard that RG is the toughest tourney physically as well as psychologically win -- your dead after a RG win and then change to superfast grass in two weeks and for three years running defeat a rested and peak Tanner, Mac, Connors and beat them too on their more favored turf for five years in a row (and six straight finals) then to go to HC US Open and reach more finals than either Mac and Connors (when Borg was even more tired) then continue on having amazing results on carpet and cap it off by going undefeated at YEC against Mac, Connors and YEC-master Lendl is just waaaaaaaaaay more versatile and impressive and tougher than Sampras. Borg was the most complete player -- period.

You just seem to forget that Pete sucked on clay. Sucked. He couldn't regularly handle great, peak playing clay-courters while Borg beat master grass and HC and indoor masters regurlarly.

And Borg had greater competition. And as far as racking up majors there's a lot of great, great players from all eras who's far more successful than Pete in this area.

Laver and Rosewall each had around 20 majors waaaaay beyond Pete's 14 plus that they had greater versatility which Pete lacked. Pete was a fast court specialist -- while Borg was slow court King plus has one of the most impressive records on faster surfaces as well as still having the greatest Wimby streak -- still unbeaten (41-4 at Wimby already at only 25!).

Borg won more five-setters than Pete too against peak opposition -- came back 1-2 and 0-2 so many times a thing Pete didn't do. Borg had even greater clutch than Pete against the best, proven.

And it is harder to achieve this domination, maturity and all-round skill at such a young age. It's the toughest skill -- ask anybody.

And Pete never dominated fast surfaces with the prowess that Borg did on clay. Borg won three Majors without losing a set -- even on superfast grass at Wimby 1976 (it's only been done three times since 1877 and never against a final opponent like Ilie Nastase who also, like Borg hadn't dropped a single set reaching the final -- just maddeningly impresssive by "The Ice Man" and in tropic 41 degree Celsius heat too) -- something that's never been done since either by Laver, Fedex or Pete who never, ever did it ever even against weaker opponents. Doesn't that tell you anything?

There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...

And WCT 1976, YEC 1979 and 1980 ranked as the unofficial fourth major during Borg's era making his final tally 14 (when he was only 25) as with Pete (and that on all different surfaces) plus that Borg had several YEC finals and US Open-finals (while severely injured and tired several times) to boot and he quit when he was 25.

Also take in to account Borg's career and majors winning percentage into this debate also it's settled in Borg's favor. I mean I could go on and on. It's arguable that Krajicek of 96 is what Tanner was in 1979. Wimby was Pete's church, tailor-made for his game and fave tourney (like RG for Borg) and Krajicek blew Pete off the court. Tanner played out of this world in the Wimby 1979 final and had a heavy lead -- but who won that match?

Borg was/is the real tennis Houdini.

And Borg even bageled more players than Fed or anybody did. I mean the records go on and on in Borg's favour...

So I rest my case...

Excellent post. Very informative and well reasoned.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
You don't call winning 7 Wimbledon's in 8 years dominating a surface, Pete played 7 Wimbledon finals winning all 7. Sampras was injured in the USO 94,98 and 99 in which if he wasn't he would have won all 3 imo that would have left Pete with 8 USO's that proves that Pete was equally dominate on the fast surfaces as Borg was on clay.

Pete never had to burn himself out at RG like Borg did always and still changed like lightning and reached a better streak than Pete at SW19 with six straight finals. Plus that Borg consistently played rested, greater fast court specialists than Pete. Do your homework man. I'm not a dang teacher!:)

Pete's era was weaker than Borg's as far as great, peak opponents -- Pete's era was in turn way better than Fed's...
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Who were the amazing grass courters of Pete's era vs Borg's anyway. Becker and Edberg were already past their prime when Pete's Wimbledon dominance began, their primes were really 85-91/92. Ivanisevic probably has one of the greatest serves of all time but not much else consistently good (he had some very dangerous other shots but definitely not consistent), and he was an enormous headcase who could have beaten Sampras 2 other times at Wimbledon with even decent mental strength. He isnt much different than Roscoe Tanner in Borg's day and Tanner was certainly not the 2nd greatest of the Borg generation on grass as Ivanisevic is of the Sampras generation. Agassi was a baseliner without a great serve, without even close to the athletic ability of even Federer or Nadal today let alone Borg, with hardly an transition or net game, without a decent slice backhand, and who was so inconsistent in and out of his career during Pete's prime.

Borg had prime Connors and prime McEnroe for the last few years which already gives him more competition on grass than Sampras had even before getting into the supporting cast of challengers.

I agree that Borg's era > Sampras's era > Federer's era as far as competition. It is early to tell with Nadal's era but early indications are it will be tougher than Federer's era but likely weaker than Borg's era in that regard.
 
Last edited:

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Who were the amazing grass courters of Pete's era vs Borg's anyway. Becker and Edberg were already past their prime when Pete's Wimbledon dominance began, their primes were really 85-91/92. Ivanisevic probably has one of the greatest serves of all time but not much else consistently good (he had some very dangerous other shots but definitely not consistent), and he was an enormous headcase who could have beaten Sampras 2 other times at Wimbledon with even decent mental strength. He isnt much different than Roscoe Tanner in Borg's day and Tanner was certainly not the 2nd greatest of the Borg generation on grass as Ivanisevic is of the Sampras generation. Agassi was a baseliner without a great serve, without even close to the athletic ability of even Federer or Nadal today let alone Borg, with hardly an transition or net game, without a decent slice backhand, and who was so inconsistent in and out of his career during Pete's prime.

Borg had prime Connors and prime McEnroe for the last few years which already gives him more competition on grass than Sampras had even before getting into the supporting cast of challengers.

I agree that Borg's era > Sampras's era > Federer's era as far as competition. It is early to tell with Nadal's era but early indications are it will be tougher than Federer's era but likely weaker than Borg's era in that regard.

Yes, yes, yes. Totally correct IMO and swiss clock-work insight.

Now Rafa -- wow!!!

He has a big chance of becoming a serious, heavy duty GOAT contender. I'm so impressed with him. That AO win just now... Verdasco... Oboy what amazing clutch by Rafa -- and then sawing off Fed's head too even though he was dead tired!

That's like the greatest masters of old...

Holy Moses! I understand why Fed cried when he witnessed that perf...

And Rafa acted like a true gentleman. A wonderful tournament this last AO IMO... One of the best...
 

bet

Banned
I never said if he kept playing...and a number is a number. .

Ok, not sure why you think this was addressed at you...

A lot of times numbers don't reflect for example Connors had 5 straight years number 1 and Borg only had two? Though I am still unsure of how Connors had 77 and 78 over Borg? (77 should be villas though...) But then there were other rankings that gave it to Borg and Villas it was very confusing back then. .

O...K....I couldn't care less about #1 and never mentioned it. Though, it's probably the #2 factor, I think it's a far distant measure to grand slam performance.

Anyway Borg was clearly the best player on the tour from 77-80 Sampras might have 6 years as number 1, but during Sampras time we had some of the weakest number 1's ever. Marcelo Rios, Kalfenikov, Moya, Muster..tons of strictly clay court players took stranglehold on that top spot..Borg had intense competition also Connors, Villas, McEnroe, Lendl 3 of 4 in prime. He also had Ille Nastate, Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulatis and Roscoe Tanner to deal with. His field was tight. Connors and Lendl each won 8 slams, McEnroe 7, Villas 4, Ashe 3, Nastate 2, Gerulatis and Tanner had 1. .

I shouldn't need to point out how spread among slam winner can be interpreted in many ways. Nor should I need to point out how subjective, this argument is. Moya is worse than Gerulaitis? Is Kafelnikov worse than Tanner? Sigh. I can make strong arguments for various comparisions but the whole thing is foolhearty. AND YES, the thread has now degnerated into a "who's era was toughest" argument. You can certainly argue about it, and I myself have strong opinions about it, but in the end, it's an absurd, unproveable and undefendable way to attempt to measure greatness and, of course, completely doomed to failure.

His field at times was rough. Borg deserves a nod for what he went up against and what he did. He practically invented the modern baseline game and dominated two surfaces consistently and assembled some remarkable seasons during that time period. You can believe who you want to be better but saying it is impossible to get around a 3 slam deficit is very extreme....

You want me to give credit to Borg for "inventing" the modern baseline game?? Not in terms of slam greatness. And actually, I'd say Lendl was the first model of the modern baseline power game. (well, first well-known champion that is). As for "believing", that's exactly my point, my opinion is not based on "gee, I think his opponents were "tougher". I give Borg plenty of credit, he was a great player. I just dont' elevate him beyond those with more slams.

Please don't compare the Borg thing to the Safin thing. It's not right for Borg fans to be like he could have won 3 more slams if he did this..but saying it is like saying Safin would be at 16 is extreme...

Yes. Exactly. That's the whole point, I used Safin as an extreme example to demonstrate how truly weak this argument is. You can't give any credit to players who choose to give up, tank or quit.

\Borg probably could have got to 14..Safin probably not. ...

Aw, see, now you're doing it. If both tried, who knows. Maybe Borg would never have won another, maybe Safin would have won 25. But IN REALITY, NEITHER DID. They won as many as their mental strength allowed.

I will never use the Borg could have in an argument, but please don't compare it to the Safin theory.

It is the same theory. That's why neither of them work. The Borg theory only sounds more palatable. I am glad you will never use it.
 
Last edited:

cristiano

New User
There's not any credibility for the view that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg -- no way. Your knowledge is severely lacking about tennis history as a whole...

Again, Borgforever, your statements are not fair. There a lot of tennis experts and former champions who said that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg, and you know it. Maybe they're wrong, sure. But you always seem to say that people who put Pete before Bjorn are lacking in knowledge of tennis, or they are too young. It's simply not true, and you know it for sure. So i think it's not a fair reasonement, even if you were right about everything else.

It's also not fair, i think, to speak about 'fast' and 'slow' courts. If we consider grass and clay courts only, It's obvious that Borg has a great advantage. But Sampras won 5 us open on hardcourts and 5 masters on carpet. Slow courts are not important as fast courts, they're only 1/4 of majors, even in Borg time. I know there many reasons to prefer Borg to Sampras (Pete in Paris was very poorer than Bjorn in N.Y, it's clear, for example). But let's say the right things, and put them in the right way, please. You have a great knowledge of the history of the game and you have a lot of fair argument to try to prove your subjective (and not universal between experts) opinion that Bjorn was (way) better than Pete.

c.
 

anointedone

Banned
Again, Borgforever, your statements are not fair. There a lot of tennis experts and former champions who said that Pete ranks slightly ahead of Borg, and you know it. Maybe they're wrong, sure. But you always seem to say that people who put Pete before Bjorn are lacking in knowledge of tennis, or they are too young.

While what you say is true the fact of the matter is that even many tennis experts and former champions are biased towards and favor the more recent players. How else to explain all the Federer GOAT talk even when he hasnt achieved anywhere near enough for this title. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, probably Nadal, are all currently overrated to some extent due to their being so recent. The fact there are as many who rates Agassi above players like Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors who all showed far more dominance, far more consistency, had far more success in the context of what were the biggest tournaments in their respective times, is yet another example of how recent players are overrated at the expense of more former ones, not just by tennis fans. The further back in time players are the more prone they are to being underrated, even by many tennis experts and former champions.
 
Last edited:

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
While what you say is true the fact of the matter is that even many tennis experts and former champions are biased towards and favor the more recent players. How else to explain all the Federer GOAT talk even when he hasnt achieved anywhere near enough for this title. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, probably Nadal, are all currently overrated to some extent due to their being so recent. The fact there are as many who rates Agassi above players like Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors who all showed far more dominance, far more consistency, had far more success in the context of what were the biggest tournaments in their respective times, is yet another example of how recent players are overrated at the expense of more former ones, not just by tennis fans. The further back in time players are the more prone they are to being underrated, even by many tennis experts and former champions.

Absolutely correct again. You really know your stuff and it's great to see...:)

And Cristiano -- no offense -- I think you're a fine poster and all but it's easier to win on grass, HC and carpet if you're fast court specialist since they're much more similar in style (and I love that kind of player too -- including Pete of course!) -- but to really reach Everest you must master the toughest, most draining surface on the planet too, i. e. "en-tout-cas"/red clay -- at least once against someone very good or great.

Otherwise we can skip the third biggest Major RG from our discussion -- and we can't. There's a grueling, draining season called the clay season in tennis that eats your heart out if you're good enough to go far in these tourneys and then you have the rest of the year to peak also.

I cut some slack for Gonzo since during his time in the pro circuit clay wasn't that favored by the money-men calling the shots. The blame lies on the era not on Gonzo. Carlo has made some great points about the strange disregard for clay-court tourneys in the past in his fine posts.

But from the 60s on there were some excellent clay-court masters and during Sampras time RG was BIG.

And don't blindly follow certain experts -- form your own opinion.

And in all fairness this is a debate -- and no matter how much I babble on about this or that or the other thing -- if one person invents a time-machine and we take Borg of 78-80 and pit him against peak Sampras it's not impossible that Pete maybe would've won 'em all against Borg.

Anything can -- and will happen. I think wisdom and experience speaks to what I'm arguing for and about -- but it's only a qualified debate, at best... :)
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
Overall it's close, but I may give the slight nod to Sampras.

Surface wise, the biggest advantage goes to Borg on clay. While Sampras won't dominate Borg on any surface like Borg could get him on clay, Sampras is better on grass, hard and carpet.

Longevity is obviously Sampras, as Borg retired early. Dominance is close, Borgs percenatges may be higher as some noted, but Sampras never really played for that he played for slams.
True that Sampras played for Slams -- that's why his percentages are lower than Borg's. Playing that way maximized his Slams and meant fewer titles during the season. You gain something, you lose something.

Speaking of slams it's deeper than the 14-11 lead Pete has, as Borg only went to Australa 2 or 3 times.
Not sure what you mean here, what do you mean by deeper?

I think Borg went to Australia once, in '74.

Likewise Sampras may have lost some slam opportunities to injuries and circumstance.

He won the US Open in 1993 and 1995. If not for leg injury in 1994 that's 3 slams for Pete that year and straight opens (1993-96).
Borg was injured for the U.S. Open in '77 and '78, and if he'd won the latter we might be talking about a calendar Grand Slam. That puts him up at 14 Slams; and getting the USO monkey off his back, I can see him playing better at his remaining USO's; we might even speculate about him retiring a little later. However -- I don't really agree with this way of thinking, anymore than I agree with giving Sampras extra Slams for the times he was injured. I just want to be perfectly clear that if we're going to speculate about what might have been, and bring injuries into it, then it should be done for both players.

As you might know I just don't see injuries the way a lot of posters do (we debated this a little in the long Borg AKAI thread). I think each player wins as much as his mental and physical strength allowed (the exceptions being external circumstances, like players in their primes being banned from the Slams, or being unable to play due to war). I think it's fine if we want to imagine Sampras or Borg as not having this or that injury -- of going through their careers without having any injuries for the Slams -- but in principle this is as much a fantasy as having Sampras and Borg meet in their primes. It's all fantasy -- and fine as a fantasy -- but players incur injuries from hitting the tennis ball. Injuries are often called "bad luck", but there's no way to avoid them if you're going to play. True, some players get more injured than others, but that's a part of the game and all due to a decision to train and play.

So as I said, the only way I'd give a player a bye in a fantasy like this, is if they were healthy and willing to play but unable to do so because of some external barrier (or some injury that didn't come from hitting the tennis ball; something like a car accident). otherwise, they won what they were capable of winning; give them a higher total and it's not them anymore.

The both have holes, Borg (US Open) and Sampras (French Open), and though Borg reached 4 US Open finals, I think it's a bigger hole for him. Borg had the chance to contest the US Open twice on hard, and twice on green clay. What if Sampras got 2 chances on each grass and hards in Paris???
Borg contested just 1 USO final on clay, and 3 on hard court.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you're asking is how many French Opens Pete would have won if he could play it on his best surfaces. Well, since hard and grass are much faster than clay, that just avoids the issue of Pete's weakness on a slow surface. Yes, I see him winning the FO, if all the Slams are on fast surfaces. That's not particularly saying anything.

I think you're getting at a good question, though I would ask it differently. Borg played one USO final on his best surface, clay. It wasn't red clay, it was Har-Tru (green clay) -- so really it was something like his second-best surface. And the final he played was in '76, the year before he first reached #1 on the computer, and two years before he really became the indisputable #1. Something comparable for Pete would be a hard court final in Paris in 1991 or '92 -- against anyone of comparable skill to Connors on green clay in '76 (Courier and Edberg make some interesting comparisons).

Borg lost 3 finals on hard court. There's some debate about it, and while I think Borg was weaker on hard court than on grass or clay, it was still a surface he did well on. He could have won the USO on that surface. I don't think his USO failure comes down merely to surface. With Sampras it was clearly just the surface that stopped him. Borg had other issues that he never overcame, including his issues with night play, American crowds, his own expended energy that late in the season (something we talked about in that AKAI thread).

So the question you ask about Pete and the FO is interesting, but in the end it's too easy. I can easily see Pete winning the FO if it's just another grasscourt tournament in June, right next to Wimbledon. The comparison doesn't really say much about Borg's experience at the USO and, by making it all about surface, it completely gives Pete a bye on his Achilles heel (letting him play all the Slams on fast surfaces).

Borg was great -- or at least very good -- on all surfaces, and his 4 USO finals attest to that. His failure to win one is a failure -- but the fact that he made these finals and played his chief rivals at the USO only a little less strongly than he did at Wimbledon is to his credit, as far as surface goes. Certainly that's true in comparison to Pete who never made the FO final.

As close as it is what gives Sampras the slight nod is that despite the inconsitencies of the ranking system Sampras had 6 consecutive years at #1, while Borg had just 2, as well as 286 weeks at #1 for Sampras to 109 for Borg.
Borg was really #1 for three years (1978-80). And the total weeks are just a mess because of those very inconsistencies you mention (though you do it just in passing). However, I will say that even if the computer rankings had made more sense in the 70s, Borg would still end up with fewer total weeks than Sampras, no problem there.

And Borg lost 3 of 4 slam F to McEnroe, and I find it hard to see anyone doing that to Sampras.
People also had a hard time seeing that happen to Borg, before McEnroe actually did it. For a comparable situation we'd need to have Sampras burning out at age 25 and facing McEnroe's skill and consistency of '80 and '81. When Sampras was 30 and tiring -- not burning out, but comparable -- he ran into some hot players on single days, but they either lacked McEnroe's consistency (Safin, Federer) or his skill set (Hewitt); and Sampras himself was not making every W and USO final as Borg was. So the opportunity to lose 3 Slams finals to one player just wasn't there.
 

krosero

Legend
It's funny how stats work, because Sampras has a great win/loss record in Slam finals, losing just 4. Borg lost 5. But Borg was good enough on his weakest surfaces to meet his strongest rival in those Slam finals, unlike Pete. It's ironic, because if Pete was good enough to make FO finals and lose them, his win/loss record wouldn't look as stellar, but to me he'd be a greater player; I'd give him credit for making those finals. His win/loss stat is impressive but like any stat it only means something in context; to me that stat comes principally from the fact that he was the best player of his generation on fast surfaces but was not good enough on clay to make a FO final (much less to win one).

And after the loss in the '96 semis (a loss which in his book he calls "by far my most puzzling and distressing Grand Slam loss"), he seemed to put less effort into it as Urban says. Borg gave up on the USO, in a sense, when he retired -- his reasons different, yet similar. Every player in the Open Era (not including Laver and others who started before '68) seems to have some challenge in their resume that mentally and physically seemed to have them beaten, as the years passed.

The one exception I might make is Lendl, who was physically beaten at Wimbledon but mentally continued to put everything into it. Still, even he reverted to some of his immature self at moments like the one in the '89 semifinal when he dropped into self-pity late in the loss to Becker.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
But kros -- you continually avoid the thread question and your opinion -- or?

Sampras vs Borg? Or as I would formulate it Borg vs Sampras...
 

cristiano

New User
Borgforever, i have my opinions on Borg and Sampras but I prefer not to speak about Sampras, cause i was one of their fans.

Antoine is right when he says also experts overrate the present. But another thing is very dangerous and happens very often: also experts overrate the players they know better, their favourite players, or their former opponents, or the players who were playing when they started to be tennis fans. (i.e., Kramer, one of the better former players analysts of the game, overrate Riggs, and maybe also Vines and Budge).

To answer to another question, i know it's easier for a fast court player to have 3 fast court majors. It' s also easier to win for a player, let's say, who is allergical to australian air than for a player who can play only in Australia fo healthy reason. But tennis has 4 majors (or three, some years ago), and if tha majoritu of them is on fastcourt it's just the game, and we have to accept it. Today it's more difficult to win for a serve and volley player. But if a serve and volley player win his 'Everest' and two slams today playing serve and volley, he doesn't become better than Nadal. Ok, Nadal has the perfect tennis for today. But he plays today, so that's fine. If you play in an era where the fast courts are more important, you have to play well there. The important is 'who win more' (not more majors, it's too simplicistic) not who does the more difficult things for him.

Anyway, I think you can speak a lot about that comparison, two great players, two champions, not a great difference between them. If i have to play for my life, in a single match, i chose Sampras on three surface of four. But I was a Sampras fan, so my opinion doesn't matter.

c.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
sampras maybe got a little unlucky that racket and string technology ushered in the heavy topspin clay game just as he was rounding into form.

facing a bunch of other guys with more classic strokes on clay, i have no doubt that pete, a young pete at least, would have stood a very good chance of winning RG at least once.

his throwback game served him well on fast surfaces, but it screwed him a bit when the game really changed on the dirt.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Borgforever, i have my opinions on Borg and Sampras but I prefer not to speak about Sampras, cause i was one of their fans.

Antoine is right when he says also experts overrate the present. But another thing is very dangerous and happens very often: also experts overrate the players they know better, their favourite players, or their former opponents, or the players who were playing when they started to be tennis fans. (i.e., Kramer, one of the better former players analysts of the game, overrate Riggs, and maybe also Vines and Budge).

To answer to another question, i know it's easier for a fast court player to have 3 fast court majors. It' s also easier to win for a player, let's say, who is allergical to australian air than for a player who can play only in Australia fo healthy reason. But tennis has 4 majors (or three, some years ago), and if tha majoritu of them is on fastcourt it's just the game, and we have to accept it. Today it's more difficult to win for a serve and volley player. But if a serve and volley player win his 'Everest' and two slams today playing serve and volley, he doesn't become better than Nadal. Ok, Nadal has the perfect tennis for today. But he plays today, so that's fine. If you play in an era where the fast courts are more important, you have to play well there. The important is 'who win more' (not more majors, it's too simplicistic) not who does the more difficult things for him.

Anyway, I think you can speak a lot about that comparison, two great players, two champions, not a great difference between them. If i have to play for my life, in a single match, i chose Sampras on three surface of four. But I was a Sampras fan, so my opinion doesn't matter.

c.

IMO your opinion does matter as much as anyones -- we're all biased more or less. Many of us aim/strive correctly for objectivity and search and evaluate the context surrounding specific issues and rate the deciding factors -- but everyone is a little biased. Nothing wrong with that at all IMO. On the contrary.

I've said before that if Sampras gave/give you the greatest joy as regards to tennis you should treasure and cherish that with care. Just because you are a fan of certain player doesn't disqualify your judgement in any way.

But -- if you start to avoid facts and disregard other objective data that matters to the question in hand just because you refuse "tarnish" your holy, inner image of your idol -- then the bias of course turns into a defect...
 
Last edited:
Top