1. Murray today was better than 1980 Lendl
2. Nadal has as many HC slams as 1980 Connors
3. Federer is much better than Borg, especially on HC
To answer each point. I believe point one may be correct but Lendl did win at least 6 tournaments in 1980 that I counted. Murray may be better than Lendl in 1980 but it's not a slam dunk. It's easily argued the other way that Lendl was better in 1980 than Murray now. It's a very debatable issue.
Point two is really not viable since the US Open wasn't switched to Hard Court until 1978 and Connors won in 78, 82 and 83. He had no other hard court major tournaments to play. If the Australian was a top flight major on Hardcourt in the early 1970's then I believe Connors would have won his share. That is assuming he entered.
Point three is really debatable. That's an opinion, not a fact. I don't care if you think Federer is better than Borg, that's not the point but you really can't say Federer is
MUCH better than Borg. In Borg you are talking about someone with perhaps the highest winning percentage in the history of tennis and has won 11 majors in 27 attempts. Borg won 100 tournaments by his mid twenties. Federer has won 60 at almost age 28. How is Federer MUCH better than Borg?
You're a chessplayer. Do you think Gary Kasparov would defeat Bobby Fischer 19 out of 20 games in chess? This is assuming Fischer is in his prime and is up to date with current theory. There is no way that would happen.
For that matter would Anand defeat the 1970's World Champion Karpov by a big margin. I don't think so. Yet Anand is the current champion and Karpov, like Borg was the 1970's World Champion. Given up to date theory I would favor a young Karpov over Anand.
Victor Korchnoi is very competitive, even at a very old age. Heck Kasparov wouldn't wouldn't defeat the present Korchnoi 19 out of 20 games.
Botvinnik once said that Jose Capablanca, given a few months to update himself on theory would be the best player in the world and as you know, Capablanca played in the 1900's to around 1940 but his peak was about the late 1910's or early 1920's. I think Botvinnik said that in the 1970's, with Karpov as the World Champion. I'm not sure if that's true because as you know, I respect Karpov but Botvinnik is clearly a voice to be respected in chess.
In tennis Borg played with a wood racket and he was able to dominate tennis in the late 1970's to early 1980's. They play a different game now with the rackets of today. The rackets do a lot of the work. The game has greater shotmaking simply because the racket allow it. Some players may seem greater than some in the past because of the illusion the rackets give.
John McEnroe serves harder today than when he was in his prime. Is he really a better server today? I don't think so.
Roscoe Tanner, in the early 1990's served a ball at I believe 135 mph on the Senior Tour. It actually was higher than the record on the regular tour by 1 mph. What's the reason? He had a better racket.
To say Federer is much better than Borg is your opinion but facts show that there is no way the record of Federer is MUCH better than Borg.