As someone who is and was a great admirer of Laver, Borg and Federer, could I ask that we avoid misleading comparisons? GOAT discussions can be fun, but they tend to degenerate into silliness when posters fail to put achievements into context. For example:
1. The number of majors won is not an especially reliable indicator when comparing players across generations. Professionals (such as Laver between the ages of 24 and 29), were barred from playing in the official majors. In addition, for much of the 1970's and 1980's most of the leading players did not play in the Australian Open.
2. Pro majors cannot be considered the equivalent of Open era majors, for reasons best explained by John 123 in his thread in the Former Pro Players forum.
3. The number of titles won is not a good indicator either. No contemporary player is going to come anywhere close to Laver/Rosewall/Connors numbers in this respect. This is partly because players enter fewer tournaments these days, but also (and more importantly, in my view) because ALL the leading players enter the same tournaments (basing their calendar on the 4 majors, 9 Masters events and the YEC). There is no division between amateur and pro ranks, no rival pro tours, no boycotts, no small "invitational events." As another recent thread in the Former Pro Player forum documented, today's leading players have to face each other far more often than they did in the past.
Federer's 70 titles include 16 majors, 18 Masters titles and 6 YEC's - all "big" events in which virtually every leading player who was fit participated. The same applies to the 10 majors, 1 Olympic gold medal and 19 Masters titles included in Nadal's total of 46 titles. Some posters seem to believe that today's players have it easy compared to their predecessors. This is true in some respects, but most emphatically not so in others. It would be pointless to praise or blame players from any generation for things over which they have no control.
4. All players may have their resume gaps, but these gaps are by no means equal in significance. Federer's losing record against Nadal cannot be compared to Borg's failure to win the U.S. Open or Sampras's inability to win at Roland Garros. Here's a simple thought experiment. Suppose that Federer was no better a clay courter than Sampras. In that case he would not have played more than half of his matches against Nadal (losing four French Open and five Masters finals) on his weakest surface. The H2H record would have been shifted significantly in his favor, even though he would have been a less versatile player who would have achieved considerably less.
The H2H criterion produces perverse and counterintuitive results, since it suggests that Federer would be a greater player by being less accomplished on clay. But even apart from this I don't know a single player who would trade a U.S. Open or French Open title for a positive record against one particular rival. By and large the only people who bring this up are Nadal fans and supporters of other GOAT candidates.
5. If pushed I would say that Laver probably had the best resume of any Open era player. With respect to the original question, much as I admired Borg I can't see a strong case for nominating him as the GOAT, simply because I don't see any grounds for ranking him ahead of Laver.
/thread.
Great post Steve123.