Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

smoledman · Feb 22, 2013

When he had won his 3 straight Channel slams - it really meant something. You could say in 1981 that Borg was by far the best Open Era player ever. Has anything Sampras or Fed done since been greater then Borg's achievements(6 FO, 5 consecutive Wimbys, 3 consecutive channel slams)?

LuckyR · Feb 22, 2013

Everyone gets an opinion... even silly ones...

DropShotArtist · Feb 22, 2013

17 slams
/end thread

smoledman · Feb 22, 2013

DropShotArtist said:
17 slams
/end thread

When Borg retired he has 50% more slams then the next best. Fed is only 21% up on Sampras. The point is it's not about the raw slam count, it's about real dominance in the Open Era.

forzamilan90 · Feb 22, 2013

The way things stand, if we look at the credentials, Federer is definitively the best open era player. I can see a case for Borg being better than Sampras, since Sampras isn't as versatile as Fed.

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

smoledman said:
When Borg retired he has 50% more slams then the next best. Fed is only 21% up on Sampras. The point is it's not about the raw slam count, it's about real dominance in the Open Era.

True, Borg´s feats are mitical...and he left at 25¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

jimbo333 · Feb 22, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
The way things stand, if we look at the credentials, Federer is definitively the best open era player. I can see a case for Borg being better than Sampras, since Sampras isn't as versatile as Fed.

Yes, I would say Federer is the best, and have Borg ahead of Sampras definitely!

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

If the greatness of a champion is measured by the toughness of his opposition, well, Borg stands alone.He played from Laver,Ashe,Newcombe,Smith and Rosewall to Mc Enroe,Lendl with Connors,Vilas,Nastase,Kodes,Panatta,Orantes,Gerulaitis,Tanner or Okker in the middle.And to think that if he had played till 28 or 29 ( he retired at 25), he´d also have played Becker,Edberg and Wilander...

Maybe only Gonzales ( who played from Tilden to Connors ) and, of course, Rosewall ( who played from Kramer to Gerulalaitis) can equal that.

sonicare · Feb 22, 2013

I have Borg ahead of sampras/nadal too but just marginally behind fed in the open era

jimbo333 · Feb 22, 2013

kiki said:
If the greatness of a champion is measured by the toughness of his opposition, well, Borg stands alone.He played from Laver,Ashe,Newcombe,Smith and Rosewall to Mc Enroe,Lendl with Connors,Vilas,Nastase,Kodes,Panatta,Orantes,Gerulaitis,Tanner or Okker in the middle.And to think that if he had played till 28 or 29 ( he retired at 25), he´d also have played Becker,Edberg and Wilander...

Maybe only Gonzales ( who played from Tilden to Connors ) and, of course, Rosewall ( who played from Kramer to Gerulalaitis) can equal that.

And of course Connors himself as well (70's and 80's tough eras in my opinion).

tennisaddict · Feb 22, 2013

Man,this thread should be moved to 60 plus age forum, for them to reminesce their school days. Clearly the sport has moved from the wooden stick , serve and volley game.

You need atletisicm, power, stamina 10 times what the olden players had to even be in the top 10.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Feb 22, 2013

Borg never won the Grand Slam, so while he was a fantastic player, he's not a part of any GOAT discussion.

sunof tennis · Feb 22, 2013

tennisaddict said:
Man,this thread should be moved to 60 plus age forum, for them to reminesce their school days. Clearly the sport has moved from the wooden stick , serve and volley game.

You need atletisicm, power, stamina 10 times what the olden players had to even be in the top 10.

You don't think Borg had athleticism, power or stamina? I would suggest you stop playing video games and look up some old Borg matches. You might learn something.

firepanda · Feb 22, 2013

This really should be in former pro player section. But I agree with the sentiment. His skill level will be nowhere near modern players, but his record is on the same level as Nadal and Federer, and above Sampras.

smoledman · Feb 22, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Borg never won the Grand Slam, so while he was a fantastic player, he's not a part of any GOAT discussion.

Yeah but when Laver did it(1969) it was only grass/clay. He didn't have the brutal hardcourts to deal with yet.

tennisaddict · Feb 22, 2013

sunof tennis said:
You don't think Borg had athleticism, power or stamina? I would suggest you stop playing video games and look up some old Borg matches. You might learn something.

With all respect to Borg for the class he had, he is a mental midget when it came to McEnroe. still cannot figure out why this guy at 25 dropped the ball and called it quits once he realized he was failing against Mac.

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

jimbo333 said:
And of course Connors himself as well (70's and 80's tough eras in my opinion).

yes, jimmy faced Rosewall and Courier.he belongs to that exclusive group.

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Borg never won the Grand Slam, so while he was a fantastic player, he's not a part of any GOAT discussion.

Only Laver ( three times) and Budge did.

NatF · Feb 22, 2013

tennisaddict said:
With all respect to Borg for the class he had, he is a mental midget when it came to McEnroe. still cannot figure out why this guy at 25 dropped the ball and called it quits once he realized he was failing against Mac.

That's not why he quit, he lost his passion for the game. After he took a year out he was told he had to qualify to play Wimbledon (?) or some other tournament and he refused to do that.

The-Champ · Feb 22, 2013

kiki said:
Only Laver ( three times) and Budge did.

That is just insane. Talk about domination.

NatF · Feb 22, 2013

The-Champ said:
That is just insane. Talk about domination.

Only once in the open era though...

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

NatF said:
Only once in the open era though...

oh, yes " only" once indeed

kishnabe · Feb 22, 2013

smoledman said:
When he had won his 3 straight Channel slams - it really meant something. You could say in 1981 that Borg was by far the best Open Era player ever. Has anything Sampras or Fed done since been greater then Borg's achievements(6 FO, 5 consecutive Wimbys, 3 consecutive channel slams)?

Federer must be even more special winning both Wimbledon and US Open from 04-07. 4 years better than 3.

kishnabe · Feb 22, 2013

kiki said:
Only Laver ( three times) and Budge did.

Laver pro and amateur slams aren't that special. 1969 was insane....especially considering how old he was and the number of tough matches he had. Amateur slam in 62....he did not get to face Gonzalez, Rosewall and other pro\s who were 10 times a player like Emerson who capitalized on a weak Laver and other nobodies.

Didn't Laver say he could not compete with the pro\s in t he first few years.

The pro slam in 67.....had way fewer matches than a normal CYGS....and it may not have the 1-2 good amateurs.

NatF · Feb 22, 2013

kiki said:
oh, yes " only" once indeed

I didn't mean to belittle it, once is more than anyone else has managed. But still...saying he's done it 3 times like the other two mean as much is misleading...

OrangePower · Feb 22, 2013

Borg is possibly my favorite player ever, but I can't consider him GOAT for two main reasons:

- Failed to win USO (despite 4 finals)
- Voluntarily quit the game so young

For those talking about overall slam titles, to me that is less important since AO was not as relevant back then. If Borg cared about AO he could have won several of those on grass.

jimbo333 · Feb 22, 2013

OrangePower said:
Borg is possibly my favorite player ever, but I can't consider him GOAT for two main reasons:

- Failed to win USO (despite 4 finals)
- Voluntarily quit the game so young

For those talking about overall slam titles, to me that is less important since AO was not as relevant back then. If Borg cared about AO he could have won several of those on grass.

Indeed, this is such an important point about the Aussie Open. Connors for example even though he was at the top of the game for 20 years, only played the Aussie Open twice (winning one and getting to the final in the other).

So there is a very good chance Connors would have won at least another 3 GS titles, making 11 in total. Back in those days the Aussie Open was not important to most players!

Prodigy1234 · Feb 22, 2013

I found reading the book High Strung really enlightened me on Borg. I'd highly recommend it

kiki · Feb 22, 2013

NatF said:
I didn't mean to belittle it, once is more than anyone else has managed. But still...saying he's done it 3 times like the other two mean as much is misleading...

You´re right.His 1969 one is the best one of the three.I was just being ironic, don´t take any offense.

NatF · Feb 22, 2013

kiki said:
You´re right.His 1969 one is the best one of the three.I was just being ironic, don´t take any offense.

I wasn't offended, I was just clarifying what I meant. No harm done.

90's Clay · Feb 22, 2013

Borg has probably been overtaken by Nadal at this point (Nadal with the career slam, overtaken Borg as clay GOAT etc) much less considered as any open era GOAT anymore among Sampras and Federer

NatF · Feb 22, 2013

90's Clay said:
Borg has probably been overtaken by Nadal at this point (Nadal with the career slam, overtaken Borg as clay GOAT etc) much less considered as any open era GOAT anymore among Sampras and Federer

Career slam is an achievement of versatility, Borg's channel slams are the greatest show of that in tennis IMO. I think Borgs domination of two completely different surfaces puts him on the same level as Nadal. I actually think Borg's achievements might be superior to Nadal's, but I feel Nadal's playing level is so high I can't put Borg ahead...

NEW_BORN · Feb 22, 2013

When you are winning, it's easier to keep winning, but when you start losing and then being able to regain the winning form, that's what makes a champion.

Fed became more of a champion / legend in 2009 after bouncing back from losing all those matches in 2008.
Same with Nadal, he too became a greater champion in 2010 after bouncing back from his 2009 season.

The mark of a champion is measured by how they bounce back from setbacks, which is why Borg should never be considered greater than Fed or Nadal, simply because he ran away from the big bad bully.

90's Clay · Feb 22, 2013

NatF said:
Career slam is an achievement of versatility, Borg's channel slams are the greatest show of that in tennis IMO. I think Borgs domination of two completely different surfaces puts him on the same level as Nadal. I actually think Borg's achievements might be superior to Nadal's, but I feel Nadal's playing level is so high I can't put Borg ahead...

I got Nadal over Borg now because:

1. Nadal still plugging away at it out there (Borg quits at 25)
2. Nadal was better on his weaker surfaces. A better hardcourt player then Borg
3. Demolished Borg's clay records
4. Success over ALL his main rivals (Federer, Djoker, Murray). Borg really couldn't figure out McEnroe. Nadal got the best of everyone of the main players of his era more times then not.
5. Career slam (It wasn't as important then but Borg still attempted and only managed 2 of the 4 slams while Nadal won all 4

There are still arguments for Borg, but I'll take Nadal

tennisaddict · Feb 22, 2013

Let us forget 17 > 11 due to the AO.

How can Borg be GOAT when he fails to win a major (USO) all his career ?

Federer, Nadal and even Agassi have achieved that and Djokovic is on the line.

Borg quitting 25 or losing passion is no excuse. if he did not have the passion, then dont get him into the GOAT discussion in the first place.

During the late 70's he was the master of French and Wimbledon and no one was even close. That is all to it.

tennisaddict · Feb 22, 2013

If anything this thread is going to make people lose the respect they have for Borg, who consider him one of the greats and not even close to the GOAT.

90's Clay · Feb 22, 2013

tennisaddict said:
If anything this thread is going to make people lose the respect they have for Borg, who consider him one of the greats and not even close to the GOAT.

Well if you throw Pre-open era guys (which you have to since we consider it ALL TIME), Borg is NOT in the discussion. Not even close really

You got half a dozen guys (including Open and Pre-Open) or so with more claims to GOAT status then Borg

DropShotArtist · Feb 22, 2013

Open era rankings:

1) Federer
2) Borg
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Nadal

cork_screw · Feb 22, 2013

This is so stupid. I like how you mention one of borg's accomplishments and then you ignore everything else that everyone else has done. You don't mention all the achievements that rafa or federer have made. so so so dumb.

tennisaddict · Feb 22, 2013

Goosehead said:
no he did not run away..you are so clueless its embarrassing.

quitting at age 25 after tough losses is what ?

NEW_BORN · Feb 22, 2013

Goosehead said:
no he did not run away..you are so clueless its embarrassing.

Deluded FOOL :twisted:

NEW_BORN · Feb 22, 2013

Actually he just acted like a "GOOSEHEAD"

Dedans Penthouse · Feb 22, 2013

tennisaddict said:
quitting at age 25 after tough losses is what ?

Looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, winning Davis Cup matches at age 15 is what?

15

monfed · Feb 22, 2013

DropShotArtist said:
Open era rankings:

1) Federer
2) Borg
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Nadal

This. Same as my list(though I might bump down Laver due to his height. I mean 5'8?

), I've got Nadal further down 5, don't consider him a tier 1 great yet.

Mustard · Feb 22, 2013

smoledman said:
When he had won his 3 straight Channel slams - it really meant something.

They still do. As great as that achievement was by Borg, it wasn't as lauded at the time as his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles.

smoledman said:
You could say in 1981 that Borg was by far the best Open Era player ever.

Well, obviously. The open era was only 13 years old at that point. Who were his closest challengers? Connors, Laver, Newcombe, Rosewall?

smoledman said:
Has anything Sampras or Fed done since been greater then Borg's achievements(6 FO, 5 consecutive Wimbys, 3 consecutive channel slams)?

I think Borg's record is better than Sampras. I know Sampras finished 6 years in a row at world number 1, but Sampras never had a dominant period like Borg's 1976-1981.

jimbo333 · Feb 22, 2013

DropShotArtist said:
Open era rankings:

1) Federer
2) Borg
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Nadal

monfed said:
This. Same as my list(though I might bump down Laver due to his height. I mean 5'8? ), I've got Nadal further down 5, don't consider him a tier 1 great yet.

Mine is similar:-

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)

As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 5 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.

Mustard · Feb 22, 2013

kishnabe said:
Didn't Laver say he could not compete with the pro\s in t he first few years.

First few months, not years. Laver really struggled with Hoad and Rosewall in those opening months as a professional. By the end of 1963 (Laver's first year as a professional), he had risen to be the second best pro behind Rosewall, overtaking Gimeno and Hoad. And in 1964, Gonzales returned and did a full-time schedule, with Laver becoming the best pro in 1964, ahead of Rosewall and Gonzales.

dafinch · Feb 22, 2013

NatF said:
That's not why he quit, he lost his passion for the game. After he took a year out he was told he had to qualify to play Wimbledon (?) or some other tournament and he refused to do that.

And, he gets CREDIT for doing that? I don't care WHY he quit, he quit, and did so, as "luck" would have it, right after he got his ass kicked at Wimbledon and the US Open. And, speaking of the US Open, I recall reading several years ago that it was, by far, the indicator of the top ranked player for that year-that is, the player who won the US Open ended the year as the world's top ranked player at the US Open than any of the other Slams-by far. Now, the time period in the study preceded the Open era, so, it may have been a bit misleading, but the last time I checked, Borg was the ONLY one of the top 20 male Slam winners who never won the US Open, with the exception of some old English guy who played in the 19th century and rarely, if ever, played the US Open-and, since in those days the Slam champion played only one match, that guy's 7 or so Wimbledons should be ignored, IMO. So, Borg being the ONLY modern Slam champion to NEVER win the tournament that historically been the best indicator(failing on 3 different surfaces, no less) would, by itself eliminate him, in my book from any GOAT discussion. Factor in that I like champions who react well to adversity-Ali vs Liston, and Foreman, as far as seemingly invincible opponents are concerned, and Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, and Spinks, as far as avenging defeats is concerned is one example, Michael Jordan overcoming the Pistons and Celtics is another. The Red Sox overcoming the contemporary Yankees who had just beaten them in the ALCS the year before(to say nothing of an 86 year curse they heard about incessantly) is still another. And contrast all of that to Goldilocks, who, the nanosecond the going got tough, took his ball and ran home to mommy. Open era GOAT? Please...

Goosehead · Feb 22, 2013

NEW_BORN said:
Deluded FOOL :twisted:

Do some research before you post stuff on here, or carry on with the self humiliation..blockedhead.

monfed · Feb 22, 2013

jimbo333 said:
Mine is similar:-

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)

As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).

And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 8 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!

Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.

Connors at 3? :lol:
How can you possibly rate Connors over Borg?

Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

monfed

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

monfed

Guest

Similar threads