How would Borg have fared in this slow era?

kiki · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
Amazing! Any opinion that you don't like are newtard, including Borg who's one of our most respected champion.

We were discussing Borg´s in current tennis context.We didn´t discuss any opinion that a journalist put in the mouth of a sportsman.

I also believe Federer being a great talent and a potential all time great, just that you cannot look at players isolately, without taking into account the context.If we isolate him, he is a superior talent but, in his playing context, given the weakness of his era, we will never know how Federer would fare in strong eras.

IMO; the title of the thread should not be how Borg would fare nowadays, rather how would Federer in the 70´s or 80´s

kiki · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
Huh? Do you actually play tennis? Bulking up has absolutley NOTHING to do with hitting a tennis ball. If it did, Bob Lutz would be the GOAT. You've never even heard of Lutz, have you?

Or perhaps Slobodan Zivojinovic, Manuel Orantes, Johan Kriek or Guillermo Vilas would be the GOAT.

Having said that, you probably are also unaware that Borg was considered to have the perfect athletic physique. Nadal may have more muscularity, but, Borg has wider shoulders and a wider rib cage giving him more angular velocity and more power.

Tony D. Roche was also quite bulky, wasn´t him?

kiki · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
I was thinking a triple decker with Serrano ham, pork balogna, sharp chedder and Emmentaler swiss cheese, sliced tomato, romaine lettuce and dijon mustard all on thick cut wheatberry bread.

Specially Jabugo Iberico as a serrano ham...but it looks tasty, don´t post a photo of it...swiss cheese is excelent if Pre Federer...

kiki · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
Amazing! Any opinion that you don't like are newtard, including Borg who's one of our most respected champion.

"The great luck of current tennis is having those thrillions of newtards that never knew the great eras and, therefore, are plenty satisfied believing real tennis is the current game"

The reason I don´t like so much Mc Donalds...and, believe me, TMF, tennis was a lot more fun in (some) former eras.

TMF · May 25, 2012

kiki said:
We were discussing Borg´s in current tennis context.We didn´t discuss any opinion that a journalist put in the mouth of a sportsman.

I also believe Federer being a great talent and a potential all time great, just that you cannot look at players isolately, without taking into account the context.If we isolate him, he is a superior talent but, in his playing context, given the weakness of his era, we will never know how Federer would fare in strong eras.

IMO; the title of the thread should not be how Borg would fare nowadays, rather how would Federer in the 70´s or 80´s

Actually there shouldn't be a thread asking who would fare in the past or present.

Would Phelps and his peers can compete against Spitz and his peers going back in the 70s? The obvious answer is YES, and they would beat them easily. There's no point to question how Spitz and his peers would fare competing in today's standard, because the results would be the same. Tennis is the same. Capiche?

TMF · May 25, 2012

kiki said:
"The great luck of current tennis is having those thrillions of newtards that never knew the great eras and, therefore, are plenty satisfied believing real tennis is the current game"

The reason I don´t like so much Mc Donalds...and, believe me, TMF, tennis was a lot more fun in (some) former eras.

"For me Federer is the greatest player who ever played the tennis game"
-- Borg

McDonalds was founded in the 40s, not in the new millenium.

Limpinhitter · May 25, 2012

kiki said:
Tony D. Roche was also quite bulky, wasn´t him?

5'10" 175lbs.

Limpinhitter · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
"For me Federer is the greatest player who ever played the tennis game"
-- Borg

McDonalds was founded in the 40s, not in the new millenium.

Borg is as humble and classy as Laver and Rosewall.

kiki · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
Actually there shouldn't be a thread asking who would fare in the past or present.

Would Phelps and his peers can compete against Spitz and his peers going back in the 70s? The obvious answer is YES, and they would beat them easily. There's no point to question how Spitz and his peers would fare competing in today's standard, because the results would be the same. Tennis is the same. Capiche?

Completely false.Would Spitz, having today´s means and training techniches have won many medals nowadays? would Phelps, provided the training methods and means of the 60´s-70´s ( Spitz era) have won so much? that is the correct way to ask it.Not your way.

kiki · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
Borg is as humble and classy as Laver and Rosewall.

Right.Not a sore loser.But, even that, teens have no experience in reaching it.

pc1 · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
Borg is as humble and classy as Laver and Rosewall.

Champions say nice things all of the time about present champions but in general I would think many of them don't mean it. I remember McEnroe saying Sampras was the GOAT many times and yet when someone asked him how he felt he would do in his prime against Sampras he replied he would like his chances.

Laver has said many players were great but he also said that with a wood racquet he wouldn't fear anyone or at least words to that effect.

Nadal often says Federer is the GOAT but do you really think he ever expects to lose to Federer? Champions have belief in their abilities and many believe that they are the GOAT.

Limpinhitter · May 25, 2012

pc1 said:
Champions say nice things all of the time about present champions but in general I would think many of them don't mean it. I remember McEnroe saying Sampras was the GOAT many times and yet when someone asked him how he felt he would do in his prime against Sampras he replied he would like his chances.

Laver has said many players were great but he also said that with a wood racquet he wouldn't fear anyone or at least words to that effect.

Nadal often says Federer is the GOAT but do you really think he ever expects to lose to Federer? Champions have belief in their abilities and many believe that they are the GOAT.

My recollection is that Laver said: "I'd like my chances against anyone with a wood racquet."

pc1 · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
My recollection is that Laver said: "I'd like my chances against anyone with a wood racquet."

Sampras also called Federer the GOAT but he was in a position where it would look bad if he didn't say it. He has since taken it back I believe.

1970CRBase · May 25, 2012

I saw Borg play and I think he's better than Rafa. Their results are similar, although Rafael might obtain even greater achievements on clay. But I have the feeling Borg was better. However, Rafael is still playing and we'll have to wait to see what titles they both obtain within the other. -- Toni Nadal

In my view, Borg is the greater player for the reasons given above by various ppl, and there are many solid reasons for thinking so, but of course Uncle Humble has nothing to lose with a statement like this, everything to gain, it is vague, it is ultimately unverifiable, nor does he have to state one actual reason why he thinks so, just, I have the feeling - but lets wait and see! yeah, flattery never hurts. :-?

NadalAgassi · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
Actually there shouldn't be a thread asking who would fare in the past or present.

Would Phelps and his peers can compete against Spitz and his peers going back in the 70s? The obvious answer is YES, and they would beat them easily. There's no point to question how Spitz and his peers would fare competing in today's standard, because the results would be the same. Tennis is the same. Capiche?

Yes so Spitz swimming today would just be a mediocre collegiate swimmer, which is what would be true based on times alone. You are truly stupid beyond words.

Limpinhitter · May 25, 2012

1970CRBase said:
In my view, Borg is the greater player for the reasons given above by various ppl, and there are many solid reasons for thinking so, but of course Uncle Humble has nothing to lose with a statement like this, everything to gain, it is vague, it is ultimately unverifiable, nor does he have to state one actual reason why he thinks so, just, I have the feeling - but lets wait and see! yeah, flattery never hurts. :-?

IMO, Borg's game was superior to Nadal's game in every respect except his forehand, which was almost as good as Nadal's. Further, he was faster, in better shape and mentally tougher.

TMF · May 25, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
Yes so Spitz swimming today would just be a mediocre collegiate swimmer, which is what would be true based on times alone. You are truly stupid beyond words.

Hey dumbass. Did I ever said he was a mediocre. Spitz and his peers are slower than than Phelps and his peers. But what do i expect from a ******** Davey25 who believe 5'10" Serena is only 3" taller than a 5'5" Henin.

borg number one · May 25, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
IMO, Borg's game was superior to Nadal's game in every respect except his forehand, which was almost as good as Nadal's. Further, he was faster, in better shape and mentally tougher.

Good discussion. I agree Limpinhitter, except on the forehand. I think it's very close. Borg's forehand was the best in the pro game. His fellow players voted his fh #1 in 1980, while his BH came in a close second to the Connors BH. I agree that Nadal's FH when at its most lethal, is awesome! Great spin. He can hit from all angles, short and very deep, in every part of the court. Plus, he even throws in great drop shots, especially when he has an opponent running around a lot. Yet, Borg's FH could be blistering as well and it was an extremely consistent shot. His FH was more consistent than Nadal's, I would submit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiSGjRYNvY
(Borg and Federer on the FH)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2h6-i6Q5is
(Borg and Nadal on the FH)

sonicare · May 25, 2012

Uncle Toni has already stated numerous times that Borg is better clay courter than nadal. He also said that federer is the nephew he never had.

Deal with it *******s

obsessedtennisfandisorder · May 25, 2012

TMF said:
Actually there shouldn't be a thread asking who would fare in the past or present.

Would Phelps and his peers can compete against Spitz and his peers going back in the 70s? The obvious answer is YES, and they would beat them easily. There's no point to question how Spitz and his peers would fare competing in today's standard, because the results would be the same. Tennis is the same. Capiche?

didn't reply to my thread again TMF...funny that...what I say cuts to close?

still waiting on how nadal and djoko would get on with wood raquets in the 80's

from a debate /philisophical pov u have no leg to stand on.

for every great brought forward u take todays greats back.

thats' right...racquets with pea sized sweets...potato field courts.

no amount of gym work / latest fad diets will beat mac at wimby in the early
eigties...no where no hide in your athleticism baby.

you gonna have to beat him with PURE skill and technique. borg and connors.

kiki · May 26, 2012

pc1 said:
Champions say nice things all of the time about present champions but in general I would think many of them don't mean it. I remember McEnroe saying Sampras was the GOAT many times and yet when someone asked him how he felt he would do in his prime against Sampras he replied he would like his chances.

Laver has said many players were great but he also said that with a wood racquet he wouldn't fear anyone or at least words to that effect.

Nadal often says Federer is the GOAT but do you really think he ever expects to lose to Federer? Champions have belief in their abilities and many believe that they are the GOAT.

...and a big ego, as humble as they may seem or as correctly as they may behave (Laver was an example, he was only arrogant on court where he was the boldest guy I have ever seen).If they didn´t have that big ego, they would never reach the heights they reached.

kiki · May 26, 2012

TMF said:
Hey dumbass. Did I ever said he was a mediocre. Spitz and his peers are slower than than Phelps and his peers. But what do i expect from a ******** Davey25 who believe 5'10" Serena is only 3" taller than a 5'5" Henin.

TMF...The Master of Freakes (sizes)

kiki · May 26, 2012

borg number one said:
Good discussion. I agree Limpinhitter, except on the forehand. I think it's very close. Borg's forehand was the best in the pro game. His fellow players voted his fh #1 in 1980, while his BH came in a close second to the Connors BH. I agree that Nadal's FH when at its most lethal, is awesome! Great spin. He can hit from all angles, short and very deep, in every part of the court. Plus, he even throws in great drop shots, especially when he has an opponent running around a lot. Yet, Borg's FH could be blistering as well and it was an extremely consistent shot. His FH was more consistent than Nadal's, I would submit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiSGjRYNvY
(Borg and Federer on the FH)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2h6-i6Q5is
(Borg and Nadal on the FH)

Borg´s FH was more consistent but less penetrant than Newcombe´s.Both having the best 1970´s FH shots with Ilie Nastase coming at third.

Newk used his forehand to seize an opportunity to close off at the net, while Borg just moved his opponent around ( and passed him deadly with that tricky top spin shot)

kiki · May 26, 2012

sonicare said:
Uncle Toni has already stated numerous times that Borg is better clay courter than nadal. He also said that federer is the nephew he never had.

Deal with it *******s

hahaha.Never trust a pure native from Mallorca.Uncle Toni fills absolutely all the stereotypes.

borg number one · May 26, 2012

kiki said:
...and a big ego, as humble as they may seem or as correctly as they may behave (Laver was an example, he was only arrogant on court where he was the boldest guy I have ever seen).If they didn´t have that big ego, they would never reach the heights they reached.

Absolutely Kiki. Players that have not only reached #1 in the world, but are also all time great tennis players, occupy rarefied air. Without extremely healthy egos and supreme self-belief there is just no way to reach such heights. Such players have to believe that in essence, no one can beat them when they are at their best. Players like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, and Nadal deep down think they are the very best ever. They have a lot of healthy respect for all other players, but strip away the modesty and these guys would like their chances against all other tennis players. There's nothing wrong with that kind of belief in yourself, especially when you are as good as those guys. Of course, they have all the gifts to back up that kind of self belief.

pc1 · May 26, 2012

kiki said:
Borg´s FH was more consistent but less penetrant than Newcombe´s.Both having the best 1970´s FH shots with Ilie Nastase coming at third.

Newk used his forehand to seize an opportunity to close off at the net, while Borg just moved his opponent around ( and passed him deadly with that tricky top spin shot)

Kiki, I'm glad you mentioned Newcombe's forehand. People don't realize that for a while Newcombe was considered to have the best forehand in tennis. It was a fantastic shot.

But don't underrate the power of Borg's forehand. It was a very versatile shot and he could hit it with tremendous power and angles during on the situation and the surface.

pc1 · May 26, 2012

borg number one said:
Absolutely Kiki. Players that have not only reached #1 in the world, but are also all time great tennis players, occupy rarefied air. Without extremely healthy egos and supreme self-belief there is just no way to reach such heights. Such players have to believe that in essence, no one can beat them when they are at their best. Players like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, and Nadal deep down think they are the very best ever. They have a lot of healthy respect for all other players, but strip away the modesty and these guys would like their chances against all other tennis players. There's nothing wrong with that kind of belief in yourself, especially when you are as good as those guys. Of course, they have all the gifts to back up that kind of self belief.

Of course. When I see other posters writing that so and so player admits that so and so is the GOAT therefore it must be true I am amused because you know a high percentage of the time that the all time great doesn't really believe anyone but himself or herself is the all time best ever.

borg number one · May 26, 2012

I agree PC1. Thanks.

See the Borg FH versus Connors at the Masters YEC, played in January 1981 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Borg went 5-0 vs. Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe and won both the Jan. 81 & Jan. 80 YEC events played at the MSG. So, that forehand had to be lethal to be that effective on a very fast surface, indoor carpet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifSQe99MN4E Borg d. Connors, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuEu_axZIw (thanks Borgforever)

TMF · May 26, 2012

obsessedtennisfandisorder said:
didn't reply to my thread again TMF...funny that...what I say cuts to close?

still waiting on how nadal and djoko would get on with wood raquets in the 80's

from a debate /philisophical pov u have no leg to stand on.

for every great brought forward u take todays greats back.

thats' right...racquets with pea sized sweets...potato field courts.

no amount of gym work / latest fad diets will beat mac at wimby in the early
eigties...no where no hide in your athleticism baby.

you gonna have to beat him with PURE skill and technique. borg and connors.

When/where did you quote me? And if I didn't reply to you doesn't mean you are correct.

Your pov doesn't have any more credibility than mine other fans because you can't prove it either. Atleast mine is very plausible because other individual sports got better, and like sprinter which doesn't required equipments like tennis, got faster since the days of Jesse Owens. So assume that tennis technology/conditions have never changed since Borg's time, it's very likely these current players would perform better. It doesn't make sense if individual sports get better but tennis get worse.

The current players can do just fine had they grew up in the old days playing with the wooden racket. Much can be say the same for past players adapting to the present tennis. Each generation has their own challenge but since tennis is a global sport in my opinion the players today can adapt better than the past players had they switched era. Training today is more demanding/vigorous because the competition required the players to keep up with the field. I agree today has better nutrition but that's been blowing out of porportion. It's not what they eat made them twice the better player. It's the more number of athletes and tennis evolves that continue to get better...a deciding factor when you look at other sports too.

Take a good look at Phelps normal diet...

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

These foods are available in the 70s too, in case you didn't notice.

Anyway, this thread is about past players fare against the present players.

kiki · May 26, 2012

borg number one said:
Absolutely Kiki. Players that have not only reached #1 in the world, but are also all time great tennis players, occupy rarefied air. Without extremely healthy egos and supreme self-belief there is just no way to reach such heights. Such players have to believe that in essence, no one can beat them when they are at their best. Players like Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, and Nadal deep down think they are the very best ever. They have a lot of healthy respect for all other players, but strip away the modesty and these guys would like their chances against all other tennis players. There's nothing wrong with that kind of belief in yourself, especially when you are as good as those guys. Of course, they have all the gifts to back up that kind of self belief.

Pick up extremely laid back or gentlemen talented guys like Roche,Orantes,Panatta,Mecir,Noah...their talent was better than just one gran slam title.They didn´t have that big ego.

kiki · May 26, 2012

pc1 said:
Kiki, I'm glad you mentioned Newcombe's forehand. People don't realize that for a while Newcombe was considered to have the best forehand in tennis. It was a fantastic shot.

But don't underrate the power of Borg's forehand. It was a very versatile shot and he could hit it with tremendous power and angles during on the situation and the surface.

I never underrated Borg´s shot.His passing shots remain unmatched and his extreme speed allowed him blistering returns, even if he picked up the ball very late,m with a big loopside that enhanced his top spin ( as Oppossed to Connors fast shots aided by him picking the ball on top).

Newcombe had a great variety and he is underrated as a baseliner.The fact is that he could keep the ball in play, with a light top spin on the FH and a deep slice at the Bh, until he could trhow in a blistering, well angled and deep FH that allowed a winning volley next.His Fh, such as described by Ashe or Smith was one of the most feared shots by the pros during Newcombe´s peak ( 1970-74)

kiki · May 26, 2012

borg number one said:
I agree PC1. Thanks.

See the Borg FH versus Connors at the Masters YEC, played in January 1981 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Borg went 5-0 vs. Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe and won both the Jan. 81 & Jan. 80 YEC events played at the MSG. So, that forehand could had to be lethal to be that effective on a very fast surface, indoor carpet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifSQe99MN4E Borg d. Connors, 6-4, 6-7, 6-3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuEu_axZIw (thanks Borgforever)

The 1979 and 1980 Masters wins by Borg are a resumee of how great this guy could be.In 79, one after the other, he beat world´s nº 5 (Tanner, Wimbledon R/U), nº 4 (Gerulaitis USO R/U), nº 3 (Mc Enroe, USO and WCT champion) and Connors ( who had a pretty lousy year by his normal standarts, which would be great for any other player).His match with Connors, in the final day of the RR stage, is according to Borg´s book his best indoor match and it was considered like a Heavyweight World Championship match.The 1979 Masters is possibly the best ever.

In 1980, he even suprassed himself.Beat world nº 5 (Clerc), nº 2 (Mc Enroe), nº 3 (Connors) and nº 4 (Lendl) and he lost - maybe tanked- his RR match agaisnt Gene Mayer, which was not a decisive match becasue both had already qualified for the semifinal stages.

By contrast, he didn´t have much success in the WCT indoor tour, since he lost to Mc Enroe in the 1979 final and didn´t qualify for the 1980 Finals (that Connors won by beating Mc Enroe in the final)

kiki · May 26, 2012

TMF said:
When/where did you quote me? And if I didn't reply to you doesn't mean you are correct.

Your pov doesn't have any more credibility than mine other fans because you can't prove it either. Atleast mine is very plausible because other individual sports got better, and like sprinter which doesn't required equipments like tennis, got faster since the days of Jesse Owens. So assume that tennis technology/conditions have never changed since Borg's time, it's very likely these current players would perform better. It doesn't make sense if individual sports get better but tennis get worse.

The current players can do just fine had they grew up in the old days playing with the wooden racket. Much can be say the same for past players adapting to the present tennis. Each generation has their own challenge but since tennis is a global sport in my opinion the players today can adapt better than the past players had they switched era. Training today is more demanding/vigorous because the competition required the players to keep up with the field. I agree today has better nutrition but that's been blowing out of porportion. It's not what they eat made them twice the better player. It's the more number of athletes and tennis evolves that continue to get better...a deciding factor when you look at other sports too.

Take a good look at Phelps normal diet...

These foods are available in the 70s too, in case you didn't notice.

Anyway, this thread is about past players fare against the present players.

For anybody not burning the calories that Phelps usually burns, that diet would kill him in a few weeks...

How would Borg have fared in this slow era?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

1970CRBase

Guest

NadalAgassi

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads