Borg's only possible claim against Nadal would be that Nadal had no serious competition in many slam finals, always beating the same talentless Federer habitually. That's not enough to be on the top 20 GOAT list, in my opinion, so no for Borg.
When Fed had around 12 slams he was already compared to Sampras and some brought Laver up also at that time.
Those three were considered the best, with Laver having a 11-6 slam record.
Sampras had 14-4. Fed was 12-2.
At that time they were tier 1 with no arguments from Laver and Sampras fans for the most part. The only argument was who was at the top of tier 1.
Fed has accomplished so much more since then, enough to make a player considered great just on the records Fed has since that time.
Fed has accomplished too much since then to be in the same tier as Sampras and Laver.
How can someone add to his totals such a great amount,
4-5 more slams,
added weeks at #1,
more masters and WTF's,
a completion of the career slam
but still be in the same tier?
The problem with the bolded part is that it's too general a statement. Some people may well have considered those 3 players the best, but that was several years ago. Without knowing who those people were, we have no idea what their opinions are today.When Fed had around 12 slams he was already compared to Sampras and some brought Laver up also at that time.
Those three were considered the best, with Laver having a 11-6 slam record.
Sampras had 14-4. Fed was 12-2.
At that time they were tier 1 with no arguments from Laver and Sampras fans for the most part. The only argument was who was at the top of tier 1.
Fed has accomplished so much more since then, enough to make a player considered great just on the records Fed has since that time.
Fed has accomplished too much since then to be in the same tier as Sampras and Laver.
How can someone add to his totals such a great amount,
4-5 more slams,
added weeks at #1,
more masters and WTF's,
a completion of the career slam
but still be in the same tier?
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.I'm with you 100%. The amount of Roger's achievements are good enough to separate him from the past legends by 1 tier.
It seem like when a player reaches Tier 1 great, he can't move up anymore, regardless of how many more years he continue to win.
But that's not how it works. Federer raises the bar, just like Usain Bolt did in sprinting.
The problem with the bolded part is that it's too general a statement. Some people may well have considered those 3 players the best, but that was several years ago. Without knowing who those people were, we have no idea what their opinions are today.
Just because you heard some people comparing Sampras to Laver back then, and you hear some people comparing Federer to Laver today, does not mean they are the same people.
And if they are the same people, that does not automatically mean they are wrong. A lot of Laver's history has mostly been unknown to tennis fans until recently -- even today. It's been 11 years since Sampras retired, and in that time a lot of people have learned a lot about Laver that they didn't know then.
You imply above that Laver, Sampras and Federer were all in the same tier because they had a similar number of Grand Slam victories, with Laver at 11. Well that's precisely why some people, back in Sampras' time, might have equated Sampras with Laver: because all they knew about Laver was that he won 11 Slam titles. Big problem right there, because he did so much more.
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.
A lot of the tennis that was played on the pro tours before '68 has only been discovered recently, through the research of historians. Some tennis fans know a lot about Laver's career, most don't know too much. But that's one reason that an older player's career can be re-assessed -- and his ranking in the GOAT debate can increase over time.
If anything, it's the modern players who will remain "fixed." We know everything that Sampras won. Everyone has always known it, because the modern media keeps track of all of it, and tennis fans have always had access to the information.
Same with Federer. His career is brandished in bright lights and documented in heavy detail.
Not so with older players like Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. That's especially true for a guy like Pancho who spent most of his career in the "dark ages" of the pro tours before '68.
You're treating the GOAT debate as if it were a set of columns with a fixed number of blocks in each column (Laver has 11 blocks, Sampras 14, Federer 17). It's not like that at all. People always can learn more, and revise their opinions accordingly.
Heck, fans have the right to revise their opinion even without learning new information, but just from re-evaluating their opinions of the tennis players in question.
It's not at all like fixed columns of blocks.
The problem with the bolded part is that it's too general a statement. Some people may well have considered those 3 players the best, but that was several years ago. Without knowing who those people were, we have no idea what their opinions are today.
Just because you heard some people comparing Sampras to Laver back then, and you hear some people comparing Federer to Laver today, does not mean they are the same people.
And if they are the same people, that does not automatically mean they are wrong. A lot of Laver's history has mostly been unknown to tennis fans until recently -- even today. It's been 11 years since Sampras retired, and in that time a lot of people have learned a lot about Laver that they didn't know then.
You imply above that Laver, Sampras and Federer were all in the same tier because they had a similar number of Grand Slam victories, with Laver at 11. Well that's precisely why some people, back in Sampras' time, might have equated Sampras with Laver: because all they knew about Laver was that he won 11 Slam titles. Big problem right there, because he did so much more.
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.
A lot of the tennis that was played on the pro tours before '68 has only been discovered recently, through the research of historians. Some tennis fans know a lot about Laver's career, most don't know too much. But that's one reason that an older player's career can be re-assessed -- and his ranking in the GOAT debate can increase over time.
If anything, it's the modern players who will remain "fixed." We know everything that Sampras won. Everyone has always known it, because the modern media keeps track of all of it, and tennis fans have always had access to the information.
Same with Federer. His career is brandished in bright lights and documented in heavy detail.
Not so with older players like Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. That's especially true for a guy like Pancho who spent most of his career in the "dark ages" of the pro tours before '68.
The problem with the bolded part is that it's too general a statement. Some people may well have considered those 3 players the best, but that was several years ago. Without knowing who those people were, we have no idea what their opinions are today.
Just because you heard some people comparing Sampras to Laver back then, and you hear some people comparing Federer to Laver today, does not mean they are the same people.
And if they are the same people, that does not automatically mean they are wrong. A lot of Laver's history has mostly been unknown to tennis fans until recently -- even today. It's been 11 years since Sampras retired, and in that time a lot of people have learned a lot about Laver that they didn't know then.
You imply above that Laver, Sampras and Federer were all in the same tier because they had a similar number of Grand Slam victories, with Laver at 11. Well that's precisely why some people, back in Sampras' time, might have equated Sampras with Laver: because all they knew about Laver was that he won 11 Slam titles. Big problem right there, because he did so much more.
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.
A lot of the tennis that was played on the pro tours before '68 has only been discovered recently, through the research of historians. Some tennis fans know a lot about Laver's career, most don't know too much. But that's one reason that an older player's career can be re-assessed -- and his ranking in the GOAT debate can increase over time.
If anything, it's the modern players who will remain "fixed." We know everything that Sampras won. Everyone has always known it, because the modern media keeps track of all of it, and tennis fans have always had access to the information.
Same with Federer. His career is brandished in bright lights and documented in heavy detail.
Not so with older players like Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. That's especially true for a guy like Pancho who spent most of his career in the "dark ages" of the pro tours before '68.
You're treating the GOAT debate as if it were a set of columns with a fixed number of blocks in each column (Laver has 11 blocks, Sampras 14, Federer 17). It's not like that at all. People always can learn more, and revise their opinions accordingly.
Heck, fans have the right to revise their opinion even without learning new information, but just from re-evaluating their opinions of the tennis players in question.
It's not at all like fixed columns of blocks.
I can't speak for other fans, I don't know their criteria.
For me, as I looked into Laver's career he has dropped in status.
The historians here do a fine job BTW.
I can't speak for other fans, I don't know their criteria.
For me, as I looked into Laver's career he has dropped in status.
The historians here do a fine job BTW.
His 200 title wins are the standard for total titles overall, but a feat like that is unachievable, and somewhat not comparable to today with the official ATP tourneys. The great players of today simply don't enter that many tourneys every year so they can't really rack them up like guys in the past did (hell Connors and Lendl's title counts is likely to remain unchallenged with the current ATP standards). Never mind larger fields and organization (pretty sure some of Laver's titles are 2-3 matches tourneys, exos that get counted anyway)
The 3 out of 4 on grass is also something that i wasn't aware at first. Granted supposedly different types of grass, but not the Grand Slam I envisioned (grass, clay, hardcourt) but hey that was a different standard back then.
You also have remember that the media loves to promote today's game and of course the focus will be on the present players, as it should be. They are the now. However just because they don't discuss Laver doesn't mean he's dropped in status.
Laver won the hard court tournaments, indoor tournaments and the fastest surface of them all---wood tournaments aside from grass and clay.
I know he won, just at first i was picturing a different GS
I can't speak for other fans, I don't know their criteria.
For me, as I looked into Laver's career he has dropped in status.
^^^in tennis regards, Laurie Doherty supposedly was godly back in the day too, then you have Renshaw, but I have already mentioned my thoughts on guys like that. Their records are sick though no doubt about it.
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.
If anything, it's the modern players who will remain "fixed." We know everything that Sampras won. Everyone has always known it, because the modern media keeps track of all of it, and tennis fans have always had access to the information.
Same with Federer. His career is brandished in bright lights and documented in heavy detail.
Not so with older players like Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. That's especially true for a guy like Pancho who spent most of his career in the "dark ages" of the pro tours before '68.
You're treating the GOAT debate as if it were a set of columns with a fixed number of blocks in each column (Laver has 11 blocks, Sampras 14, Federer 17). It's not like that at all. People always can learn more, and revise their opinions accordingly.
Heck, fans have the right to revise their opinion even without learning new information, but just from re-evaluating their opinions of the tennis players in question.
It's not at all like fixed columns of blocks.
Mustard do you know how many clay titles that Frenchie that won 8 French Opens (though they weren't open back then I'm just using the term) had won during his career? Can't remember his name, think it starts with an M
^^^Welcome! Give us your top 5 ever
lol welcome to the guy above you
You also have remember that the media loves to promote today's game and of course the focus will be on the present players, as it should be. They are the now. However just because they don't discuss Laver doesn't mean he's dropped in status.
I'm utterly baffled as to why. 200 singles tournaments at all levels not enough?
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Gonzales
8. Budge
9. Tilden
10. Lendl
I will await the historians here telling me I've underrated the pre-Open Era greats. However in my opinion this was not as strong a period of tennis history.
You might want to consider that the best ATHLETES make the best TENNIS PLAYERS.
By this standard, you would probably have to rate Budge, Gonzales, Hoad, at or near the top all-time.
and Monfils too :wink:
You think that Monfils was a great athlete?
It's not the numbers, it's the level of play.
Looking at the clips back then is painful for me, people clapping on some simple point for instance.
Hard to say much more, I know people like his game a great deal.
I was talking about myself.
Others may be more impressed as they look into Laver's ERA.
That one poll awhile back had Laver at #2 so there's plenty of love for Laver's game still.
Here's a clip of Borg versus Laver in the 1975 WCT finals playoff. Laver would turn 37 that year and was way past his best and Borg wasn't nearly at his best. It's starts at around 10:15.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5sBBFQfcNU
Here's Laver against Ashe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk
His 200 title wins are the standard for total titles overall, but a feat like that is unachievable, and somewhat not comparable to today with the official ATP tourneys. The great players of today simply don't enter that many tourneys every year so they can't really rack them up like guys in the past did (hell Connors and Lendl's title counts is likely to remain unchallenged with the current ATP standards). Never mind larger fields and organization (pretty sure some of Laver's titles are 2-3 matches tourneys, exos that get counted anyway)
The 3 out of 4 on grass is also something that i wasn't aware at first. Granted supposedly different types of grass, but not the Grand Slam I envisioned (grass, clay, hardcourt) but hey that was a different standard back then.
I think out of all the legendary players, he is one who has really been featured quite a lot in recent years if you think about it. With Fed's quest to GOAThood and him setting/surpasing records, commentators often throw legends of the past into convos, and Laver's name pops up a lot, even a few notable interviews as well, there was that one at the AO this year with Fed and Laver together with the commentators. Weird though Laver kind of got a media bump, but people like Rosewall barely ever get mentioned, and that dude is legit too, his longevity beats that of Connors.
Laurie Doherty is famous for being the first player to win his home major (Wimbledon) and then cross the Atlantic Ocean to win the other major (US Championships), which he did in 1903. The US Championships was held in Newport, Rhode Island back then, the current location of the Hall of Fame Championships every July.
I must mention Tony Wilding. He was the first player to dominate internationally, and regularly win big events outside of his own continent. Wilding won 2 Australasian Championships in 1906 (Christchurch, New Zealand) and 1909 (Perth, Western Australia), in the days before it was a major, i.e. when the tournament was just a regional event. Wilding then started going abroad and was able to win Wimbledon for 4 years in a row (1910-1913), admittedly only having to play 1 match at the 1911-1913 tournaments, as defending champions did at Wimbledon up to 1921, even though Wilding offered to play through.
The ILTF (ITF today) said that there would be 3 official major tournaments in 1913:
1. the World Hard Court Championships (a clay-court event in Paris that was the precursor to the French Championships)
2. the World Grass Court Championships (aka Wimbledon)
3. the World Covered Court Championships (an indoor wood tournament that moved around the continent of europe. Held in Stockholm in 1913)
In 1913, Wilding won all 3 of these official majors. In 1914, he retained his WHCC title, but failed to win his fifth Wimbledon title. As he was from New Zealand, Wilding won 4 Davis Cup titles with Australasia in 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1914. WW1 had already started at the time of the 1914 Davis Cup final, and Wilding was killed in the trenches in 1915 at the age of just 31. Something I recently discovered about Wilding is that he won more clay-court tournaments than any other player in history. I believe it is over 60.
forzamilan90, I agree that Rosewall almost never is in an official GOAT discussion in comparison to Laver. I find this a bit unfair, not only because I'm a Rosewall fan. Muscles and Pancho Gonzalez should be in any GOAT discussion with Tilden, Borg, Federer and Sampras...
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Gonzales
8. Budge
9. Tilden
10. Lendl
I will await the historians here telling me I've underrated the pre-Open Era greats. However in my opinion this was not as strong a period of tennis history.
yeah to me of all the greats, Rosewall is the most underrated (a lot of pro majors, a lot), it seems living under Laver's shadow, but his career is top 10 worthy
Yes that's an excellent example of how opinions can legitimately change over time, even when no new information is learned. Borg's channel Slams have always been common knowledge to tennis fans (even if they were not called that back then). What's changed, though, is how we view them.As this thread is nominally about Borg and his place in history, I'd like to pick up on your point about revisions of opinion over time.
I feel that Borg most definitely is a GOAT candidate (and I can't really understand why 16 people have voted that he is not!) However, I think that the reasons for this status have changed over time. If you asked someone 30 years ago why Borg was a GOAT contender, they would have replied it was because of his 5 (consecutive) Wimbledon titles. This was his unique claim to fame in tennis history (post-Challenge round era).
However, since Sampras and Federer have now surpassed him in overall Wimbledon titles, and the latter equalled his consecutive titles, this achievement is no longer sufficient for Borg to be proclaimed as GOAT. So, ironically, it is Borg's 6 FO titles (which I'm sure he valued far less than his W titles) which are his primary claim to immortality - or, more accurately, the fact that he was utterly dominant at the game's biggest grass and clay court tournaments simultaneously. The average tennis fan today would tell you that Borg's greatest achievement is his 3 consecutive 'Channel Slams' - and that this is why he should be kept in the GOAT debate.
I think if anything Laver's overall place in the GOAT debates will continue to rise, as tennis fans come to know more about his career. Right now the casual fan knows very little about his pro years before '68. What they do know of Laver is basically restricted to his two Grand Slams, and to his 11 Grand Slam titles. Many are not even aware, or are only dimly aware, that he played his best tennis during his pro years before '68, when he wasn't winning Slams because, of course, he was barred from them.
A lot of the tennis that was played on the pro tours before '68 has only been discovered recently, through the research of historians. Some tennis fans know a lot about Laver's career, most don't know too much. But that's one reason that an older player's career can be re-assessed -- and his ranking in the GOAT debate can increase over time.
If anything, it's the modern players who will remain "fixed." We know everything that Sampras won. Everyone has always known it, because the modern media keeps track of all of it, and tennis fans have always had access to the information.
Same with Federer. His career is brandished in bright lights and documented in heavy detail.
Not so with older players like Pancho Gonzalez and Laver. That's especially true for a guy like Pancho who spent most of his career in the "dark ages" of the pro tours before '68.
You're treating the GOAT debate as if it were a set of columns with a fixed number of blocks in each column (Laver has 11 blocks, Sampras 14, Federer 17). It's not like that at all. People always can learn more, and revise their opinions accordingly.
Heck, fans have the right to revise their opinion even without learning new information, but just from re-evaluating their opinions of the tennis players in question.
It's not at all like fixed columns of blocks.
I'm utterly baffled as to why. 200 singles tournaments at all levels not enough?
You also have remember that the media loves to promote today's game and of course the focus will be on the present players, as it should be. They are the now. However just because they don't discuss Laver doesn't mean he's dropped in status.
That's not always true. I don't hear them saying Nadal is greater than Laver and Sampras. Or Kobe Bryant is greater than Michael Jordan.
Past players can drop in goat status provided if the future players can match/surpass him. e.g. When Borg retire he was very high in goat status, but some of his records got broken: Wimbledon titles(share by Fed/Pete), FO titles(Nadal won 7), single titles(Connors at 109).
Phoenix1983, Interesting list but why do you rank Budge ahead of Tilden? I guess because of Don's Grand Slam. I would like to argue that Tilden, if he had entered all GS tournaments, would probably also won the GS, even two or three GSs.
Laver had some great passing shots. At his age you have to wonder how he would have been in his prime.
Thanks for posting.
Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.
Tilden's success as I see it was largely restricted to dominating a select group of American contenders such as Johnston. I give him great credit for winning Wimbledon three times when he ventured across the Atlantic, and of course for being tennis' first international star.
However I don't agree that he would have won the Grand Slam had he entered all majors. He was beaten by the Musketeers when he eventually did enter the French, there's nothing to indicate he could have dominated on clay...
There isn't anymore information about Laver that are missing that affected his goat debate. I think the existing of the internet and historians have provided more than enough resources that are available for all fans to access, and as of now, most have Federer is #1. Sure, Laver's career isn't completely documented as say Sampras, but that's only the finer details(e.g. aces, winners, serve speed, minutes play, etc). But missing those detailed information doesn't improve his goat argument. We have the key information: the event he played, who he faced, total titles, scoreboard. Those are good enough to evaluate where he stand with among the great ones. More information on Laver's career may improve his goat debate, but that can back fire. For example, posters have stated that Laver played on events that consist only 4 man draw, or only needed to win 2 matches, which explain why he won so many single titles. The young, new tennis fans have no idea that slams was competing on only 2 surfaces, and there's a split field during the pre-open era. Exposing more information out of the past players isn't a good thing, because there's negative facts. The same with the female tennis player. If someone know nothing about Margaret Court and just know that she won 24 slams, he/she could just say WOW! But when one learned more about the lack of depth/strength of the field(particularly her 11 AO), the perception changes, and it isn't as amazing as Graf, Martina, Chris or Serena winning their slams.
I agree players like Sampras or Federer's legacy is fixed, but the past players doesn't gain anymore goat debates. I don't see Kramer is getting anymore goat claims, and he's well before Laver's time, when tennis is even less documented.
Fans certainly have right to change their opinion, but if two players(or group) are very close. Like between Nadal/Borg, or between Lendl/Connors, it's easy to flip flop. However you don’t want to flip flop between Agassi and Courier, because anyone in their right mind knows Agassi > Courier.
Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.
Tilden's success as I see it was largely restricted to dominating a select group of American contenders such as Johnston. I give him great credit for winning Wimbledon three times when he ventured across the Atlantic, and of course for being tennis' first international star.
However I don't agree that he would have won the Grand Slam had he entered all majors. He was beaten by the Musketeers when he eventually did enter the French, there's nothing to indicate he could have dominated on clay...
Corrected in my post and I want to point out that again that the World Hardcourt was a major.Phoenix1983,
Tilden won 8 consecutive majors where he participated (which is second only to Rosewall's 9). This is about as great a feat as Budge did.
I'm sure Tilden would have won several GSs. You can't take his losses to Cochet and Lacoste because in that time he was an old man. Through 1925 he beat the French men.
Tilden was superb on clay. As late as 1939 he defeated Budge on clay in an important tournament (Southport). He also beat von Cramm in 1934. And he won seven US Claycourt championships...
Tilden also won the 1921 World Hardcourt champ.s. (Played on clay)
Corrected in my post and I want to point out that again that the World Hardcourt was a major.
Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?
Not just the Grand Slam but six consecutive majors, a men's record which stands to this day.
Budge won 9 straight, as well: his last 6 as an amateur, and his first 3 as a pro.Phoenix1983,
Tilden won 8 consecutive majors where he participated (which is second only to Rosewall's 9). This is about as great a feat as Budge did.