Why Borg is the definitive Open Era GOAT

T

Tennusdude

Semi-Pro
Borg the great overall when you include Sportsmanship

Some people will laugh at this, however, sportsmanship is supposed to be first and foremost in tennis.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Mustard said:
You trust them as full-proof sources? When Borg was at the 2008 French Open to see Nadal vs. Federer, McEnroe asked Borg after the match if it was Borg's first appearance there since he last won the title in 1981, clearly expecting a yes reply, and Borg said yes. That is actually incorrect, as Borg was on commentary for a few years after that. I've heard Bud Collins say that Borg left Flushing Meadows in a car after losing in 1981, and exited tennis. The latter bit of that is clearly false, since Borg won a tournament on clay in Geneva straight after.

There are lot of myths surrounding Borg's exit from tennis. One question that the people who believe that McEnroe drove Borg out of tennis can never answer is why did Borg wait until January 1983 to announce his retirement from full-time tennis competition, a time when McEnroe wasn't the reigning champion at any of the majors, nor the WCT Dallas or Masters at MSG titles. Heck, according to Bud Collins, Borg was long gone by January 1983, since he was supposed to have left tennis in September 1981.

Sampras didn't announce his retirement until August 2003, almost a whole year after winning the 2002 US Open, yet there are many people out there who think that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and then retired almost immediately afterwards.
Click to expand...

if Borg was serious about playing tennis still he would have played events like the French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open. Even if he didnt feel like playing as much and was butting heads with the ATP, nobody who is still playing serious tennis skips the biggest events in tennis. Sorry. Yes I definitely believe those people. They know more about the truth than any of us do, and looking at what transpired everything indicates Borg pretty much gave up on tennis after losing the U.S Open to McEnroe. Was that the ONLY reason he did, perhaps not, but was it a huge factor, hell yeah.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
NadalAgassi said:
if Borg was serious about playing tennis still he would have played events like the French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open. Even if he didnt feel like playing as much and was butting heads with the ATP, nobody who is still playing serious tennis skips the biggest events in tennis. Sorry. Yes I definitely believe those people. They know more about the truth than any of us do, and looking at what transpired everything indicates Borg pretty much gave up on tennis after losing the U.S Open to McEnroe. Was that the ONLY reason he did, perhaps not, but was it a huge factor, hell yeah.
Click to expand...

Borg didn't play the majors in 1982 because of a dispute he was engaged in with the ITF over how many tournaments he would have to play that year. Borg wanted to play less tournaments, while the ITF were pressing for him to play more tournaments on pain of having to qualify for the majors. Borg was burned out, so stuck to Monte Carlo and exhibitions throughout 1982, but he was expected to return to full-time competition in 1983. His announcement in January 1983 changed all that.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
zagor said:
Definite/undisputed? No but he's up there, personally If I had to pick the Open Era GOAT I'd probably go with Borg but Fed is close.
Click to expand...

Borg over Federer. Please. You know full well I am no Federer fan but Federers record far eclipses Borg on all but clay, and Borg was only the Worlds best player for about 3 years at most. I cant think of a single thing Borg has over Federer except the duel dominance of grass and clay, which is significant, but still not enough to overcome all the rest.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
NadalAgassi said:
and looking at what transpired everything indicates Borg pretty much gave up on tennis after losing the U.S Open to McEnroe. Was that the ONLY reason he did, perhaps not, but was it a huge factor, hell yeah.
Click to expand...

What transpired to give you this idea? Borg didn't leave tennis after the 1981 US Open, because he won in Geneva afterwards and played the rest of 1981. In 1982, he was clearly well about in exhibitions, playing against Connors and McEnroe pretty regularly. In January 1983, when Borg announced his retirement from full-time tennis, McEnroe's star had fallen some way since the end of 1981.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Borg has 11 majors, Novak has 6, Fed has 11 plus 6.

The gap between Borg and Fed is equivalent to what Novak is.

So please get a perspective.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Mustard said:
What transpired to give you this idea? Borg didn't leave tennis after the 1981 US Open, because he won in Geneva afterwards and played the rest of 1981. In 1982, he was clearly well about in exhibitions, playing against Connors and McEnroe pretty regularly. In January 1983, when Borg announced his retirement from full-time tennis, McEnroe's star had fallen some way since the end of 1981.
Click to expand...

I already told you, he didnt play anything that mattered after the U.S Open. Playing a few exhibitions is nothing, 50 something Navratilova still plays some exhibitions. In fact Borg only played 4 remaining ATP tournaments after that U.S Open, two Monte Carlos where he did really crappy, getting crushed by Noah, and losing to a teenaged Henri LeConte; and two post U.S Open touranments in 81, but didnt even finish the year. No U.S Opens, no Wimbledons, no French Opens, no semi significant events on tour besides the 2 Monte Carlos. That is basically being retired, sorry.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
tennisaddict said:
Fed has highest number of weeks at number 1
Fed has 5 finals at least at all majors
Fed has 4 plus major wins on 3 of the 4 majors
Fed has 3 more majors than his nerest. A player with 3 majors is of a very high calibre. So 3 majors gap is HUGE.
Fed at 31 was number 1, during a time when three other super stars where at their prime age 24-26
Fed has 7 wimbledons as opposed to Borg's 5.
If not for Nadal, Fed will probably have twice the majors that Borg has.
5 YEC

Borg failed to win USO, that takes him out of any GOAT discussion.
if Nadal won 14 FO, 2 wimbledon and 1 AO and had failed USO, he would still be rated less than Fed.

FED is the undisputable GOAT for the near future.

No one even comes close.

Folks who think otherwise are deluded.
Click to expand...


This.


The fact that Borg is even in the GOAT discussion after only playing to 25 is amazing...such a great player.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
NadalAgassi said:
I already told you, he didnt play anything that mattered after the U.S Open. Playing a few exhibitions is nothing, 50 something Navratilova still plays some exhibitions. In fact Borg only played TWO remaining ATP tournaments after that U.S Open, two Monte Carlos where he did really crappy, getting crushed by Noah, and losing to a teenaged Henri LeConte. No U.S Opens, no Wimbledons, no French Opens, no other events on tour besides the 2 Monte Carlos. That is basically being retired, sorry.
Click to expand...

Exhibitions were much bigger in 1982 than today.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
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.
Click to expand...
GOAT contenders don't lose their passion for the game at 25, nor do they expect automatic entry into tournament when their current ranking doesn't make it automatic. :p

Leaving the game so young was Borg's decision and, by the standards/logic often used here regarding current players, it means he was either scared of the increased competition or somehow a mental midget. Neither are GOAT-worthy scenarios.
 
Marius_Hancu

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Borg-> Agassi -> Academies -> Ruin of tennis
(esp of the American tennis)
workmanlike, workmanlike, workmanlike

Instead of getting inspiration from the likes of McEnroe and Sampras ... or Federer ...
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Bobby Jr said:
GOAT contenders don't lose their passion for the game at 25, nor do they expect automatic entry into tournament when their current ranking doesn't make it automatic. :p

Leaving the game so young was Borg's decision and, by the standards/logic often used here regarding current players, it means he was either scared of the increased competition or somehow a mental midget. Neither are GOAT-worthy scenarios.
Click to expand...

To say Borg was a mental midget is the foolish post I have ever seen.it is plainly and simply moronic.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
To say Borg was a mental midget is the foolish post I have ever seen.it is plainly and simply moronic.
Click to expand...
Pray where did I claim he was a mental midget? It was a comparison to the board logic often used here.

Try learning some reading comprehension and then come back and reply.
 
Last edited:
T

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
tennisaddict said:
Fed has highest number of weeks at number 1
Fed has 5 finals at least at all majors
Fed has 4 plus major wins on 3 of the 4 majors
Fed has 3 more majors than his nerest. A player with 3 majors is of a very high calibre. So 3 majors gap is HUGE.
Fed at 31 was number 1, during a time when three other super stars where at their prime age 24-26
Fed has 7 wimbledons as opposed to Borg's 5.
If not for Nadal, Fed will probably have twice the majors that Borg has.
5 YEC

Borg failed to win USO, that takes him out of any GOAT discussion.
if Nadal won 14 FO, 2 wimbledon and 1 AO and had failed USO, he would still be rated less than Fed.

FED is the undisputable GOAT for the near future.

No one even comes close.

Folks who think otherwise are deluded.
Click to expand...

His most incredible record, to me, is that he's tied for the most wins at three of the four slams. No one in the open era has won more than Federer at the Australian Open, Wimbledon, or the U.S. Open.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Bobby Jr said:
GOAT contenders don't lose their passion for the game at 25, nor do they expect automatic entry into tournament when their current ranking doesn't make it automatic. :p

Leaving the game so young was Borg's decision and, by the standards/logic often used here regarding current players, it means he was either scared of the increased competition or somehow a mental midget. Neither are GOAT-worthy scenarios.
Click to expand...

I don't see why quitting at 25 discounts his achievements and what a great player he was. I don't think he's the GOAT but he deserves to be mentioned as one of the greats.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Sorry if I misunderstood you, I always thought you were quite an aknowledged poster.
Click to expand...
Board logic was the comparison.

It stands to reason that if Borg ended his career early then there was something which motivated it. It doesn't have to be he was bored of tennis - it could be he was scared of the increasing competition coming through, especially on clay - Lendl, Wilander etc. Were that the case it would paint him in a rather poor light - true (sic) champions don't shy away from challenges, they put their head down and fight it out.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Bobby Jr said:
Board logic was the comparison.

It stands to reason that if Borg ended his career early then there was something which motivated it. It doesn't have to be he was bored of tennis - it could be he was scared of the increasing competition coming through, especially on clay - Lendl, Wilander etc. Were that the case it would paint him in a rather poor light - true (sic) champions don't shy away from challenges, they put their head down and fight it out.
Click to expand...

Borg feared no one.He was even with Mac even after Mac´s terrific 1981 year, in which he defeated Bjorn three times in a row.Wilander had not emerged yet.He was just tired and wanted to try new things in life.period.End of debate.
 
Goosehead

Goosehead

Legend
Bobby Jr said:
Board logic was the comparison.

It stands to reason that if Borg ended his career early then there was something which motivated it. It doesn't have to be he was bored of tennis - it could be he was scared of the increasing competition coming through, especially on clay - Lendl, Wilander etc. Were that the case it would paint him in a rather poor light - true (sic) champions don't shy away from challenges, they put their head down and fight it out.
Click to expand...

posters have told you what happened with borg but you dont listen..you have a problem accepting reality and the truth :confused:

when presented with the facts, you still carry on..in which case you are just thick or a troll.
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Goosehead said:
posters have told you what happened with borg but you dont listen..you have a problem accepting reality and the truth :confused:

when presented with the facts, you still carry on..in which case you are just thick or a troll.
Click to expand...
Given the sheer amount of bollocks that gets posted why would you assume I bother to read every post on the topic? I've read/seen dozens - if not more - articles and interviews over the years on the topic and the one thing which stands out as clear is no-one really knows why he gave it up other than him. His answers on it seem rather vague on it too - at least so far as what the motivations were.

So far as presented with the facts - perhaps you should go back to school and learn what fact means. Being a strongly held opinion doesn't make something a fact - something global schooling systems seem to have failed to properly instil over the years.
 
Bartelby

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If not for Nadal ... does not really work as an argument as that's the competition.



tennisaddict said:
Fed has highest number of weeks at number 1
Fed has 5 finals at least at all majors
Fed has 4 plus major wins on 3 of the 4 majors
Fed has 3 more majors than his nerest. A player with 3 majors is of a very high calibre. So 3 majors gap is HUGE.
Fed at 31 was number 1, during a time when three other super stars where at their prime age 24-26
Fed has 7 wimbledons as opposed to Borg's 5.
If not for Nadal, Fed will probably have twice the majors that Borg has.
5 YEC

Borg failed to win USO, that takes him out of any GOAT discussion.
if Nadal won 14 FO, 2 wimbledon and 1 AO and had failed USO, he would still be rated less than Fed.

FED is the undisputable GOAT for the near future.

No one even comes close.

Folks who think otherwise are deluded.
Click to expand...
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Mustard said:
I will. Believing reality rather than fantasy is always advisable IMO. I wonder how many people out there really believe that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and then retired right after?
Click to expand...

Had Sampras lost the USO 02 final, i believe he would have played one more WIM and USO in 03. Yeah he felt burned out before that tournament, but the fact that he won was the one major contributing factor for him not playing another season.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
kiki said:
Borg feared no one.He was even with Mac even after Mac´s terrific 1981 year, in which he defeated Bjorn three times in a row.Wilander had not emerged yet.He was just tired and wanted to try new things in life.period.End of debate.
Click to expand...

Borg had lost to McEnroe 3 straight times in majors after his narrow escape at Wimbledon 1980, and in their 81 U.S Open match he looked like he didnt even believe he could win the match for a moment; not even when he reached 1 set all and up a break in the 3rd. I would say Borg definitely had developed a fear of McEnroe by that point.

Yes McEnroes star did fall over the next year but there was no way of knowing this would happen, and nobody expected it to happen before 1982 began. The clear consensus of all was that McEnroe was the new undisputed king of tennis, whatever Borg chose to do. McEnroe also claims his form fell off largely since he was discouraged about Borgs retirement, as he was inspired by their rivalry.
 
Goosehead

Goosehead

Legend
Bobby Jr said:
Given the sheer amount of bollocks that gets posted why would you assume I bother to read every post on the topic? I've read/seen dozens - if not more - articles and interviews over the years on the topic and the one thing which stands out as clear is no-one really knows why he gave it up other than him. His answers on it seem rather vague on it too - at least so far as what the motivations were.

So far as presented with the facts - perhaps you should go back to school and learn what fact means. Being a strongly held opinion doesn't make something a fact - something global schooling systems seem to have failed to properly instil over the years.
Click to expand...
yes and borg has said why he gave up..it wasnt me, it was borg himself..

all the reasons are in this thread..read mustards posts if you dont want to read 'the sheer amount of bollocks' i posted.
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
I don't see why quitting at 25 discounts his achievements and what a great player he was. I don't think he's the GOAT but he deserves to be mentioned as one of the greats.
Click to expand...

Borg's achievements before 25 are not up for debate. But that was prime Borg, we were deprived of seeing post-prime Borg, where winning becomes much tougher against younger opponents. The fact that Borg chose to retire before fighting to take on the next generation of players for whatever motivational reasons is a cop-out, plain and simple. True champions are those who get pummeled (FO08 )but still gets back up to fight another day, which is why Fed is still playing today. He wants to challenge himself against the current generation, knowing full well that he is more vulnerable than ever to heavy / humiliating defeats.

Imagine if Fed had quit the game for whatever reason at the end of season 2007 at the age of 26, at which time his H-H with Nadal was 8-6 Nadal's way, history would be very different right now.
 
Last edited:
D

dafinch

Banned
Mustard said:
You trust them as full-proof sources? When Borg was at the 2008 French Open to see Nadal vs. Federer, McEnroe asked Borg after the match if it was Borg's first appearance there since he last won the title in 1981, clearly expecting a yes reply, and Borg said yes. That is actually incorrect, as Borg was on commentary for a few years after that. I've heard Bud Collins say that Borg left Flushing Meadows in a car after losing in 1981, and exited tennis. The latter bit of that is clearly false, since Borg won a tournament on clay in Geneva straight after.

There are lot of myths surrounding Borg's exit from tennis. One question that the people who believe that McEnroe drove Borg out of tennis can never answer is why did Borg wait until January 1983 to announce his retirement from full-time tennis competition, a time when McEnroe wasn't the reigning champion at any of the majors, nor the WCT Dallas or Masters at MSG titles. Heck, according to Bud Collins, Borg was long gone by January 1983, since he was supposed to have left tennis in September 1981.

Sampras didn't announce his retirement until August 2003, almost a whole year after winning the 2002 US Open, yet there are many people out there who think that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and then retired almost immediately afterwards.
Click to expand...

You seem to put a lot of stock in when players formally announce their retirement as opposed to when they actually stop playing; did Sampras play any more after the 2002 US Open? No, he didn't, and it seems likely that his retirement announcement was timed so that he could say farewell at a special ceremony organized for him at the Open a year later, so, for all intents and purposes, he quit after the 2002 US Open. As others pointed out, the fact that Borg played several lucrative exhibitions and some minor tournaments doesn't mean much when you consider he abruptly stopped playing majors. Once again, a de facto retirement, and, I repeat, one that just happened to coincide with his getting his ass kicked by McEnroe. You also act like you know definitively why he left, seemingly based on his statement about his disputes with tournament organizers; does it occur to you that he might not exactly be objective about the situation and said that to save face? Finally, you keep droning on about McEnroe's decline by the time of Borg's formal announcement, conveniently ignoring the fact that he regained the top spot not long thereafter, with a particularly impressive year in '84, and also apparently don't consider that having worked so hard to overcome Borg, only to have him disappear, might have affected his motivation(at the same time, you seem to imply that Borg could've kept winning had 1) the organizers kowtowed to his demands and/or 2) he felt like giving more effort. No inconsistency there, lol...

This statement, in particular, stands out for its arrogance and presumptuousness:

" His retirement had nothing to do with McEnroe and the suggestion that it did is a total myth."

Who died and made YOU Master of Mind Reading?
 
Last edited:
D

dafinch

Banned
NEW_BORN said:
Borg's achievements before 25 are not up for debate. But that was prime Borg, we were deprived of seeing post-prime Borg, where winning becomes much tougher against younger opponents. The fact that Borg chose to retire before fighting to take on the next generation of players for whatever motivational reasons is a cop-out, plain and simple. True champions are those who get pummeled (FO08 )but still gets back up to fight another day, which is why Fed is still playing today. He wants to challenge himself against the current generation, knowing full well that he is more vulnerable than ever to heavy / humiliating defeats.

Imagine if Fed had quit the game for whatever reason at the end of season 2007 at the age of 26, at which time his H-H with Nadal was 8-6 Nadal's way, history would be very different right now.
Click to expand...

I said pretty much the same thing in post # 50 in this thread. Getting credit for quitting, whether it was for fear of losing or whatever, is ludicrous. Playing professional tennis is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't wanna follow the rules, then don't let the door hit ya in the ass. I wonder what BB thought about "burnout" years later when he was selling, or threatening to sell, trophies...
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
dafinch said:
I said pretty much the same thing in post # 50 in this thread. Getting credit for quitting, whether it was for fear of losing or whatever, is ludicrous. Playing professional tennis is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't wanna follow the rules, then don't let the door hit ya in the ass. I wonder what BB thought about "burnout" years later when he was selling, or threatening to sell, trophies...
Click to expand...

Agree :)

Too many players wanna play by their own set of rules.
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Borg's biggest blemish is that he could not stand the test of TIME.

In terms of longevity, guys like Connors, lendl, Agassi all have him beat comprehensively
 
T

Tennusdude

Semi-Pro
NEW_BORN said:
Borg's biggest blemish is that he could not stand the test of TIME.

In terms of longevity, guys like Connors, lendl, Agassi all have him beat comprehensively
Click to expand...

Has anyone else who ever played tennis won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens?

During his relatively brief pro career, Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 89.81% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played. His winning rate across all surfaces (carpet, clay, hard, and grass) was 82.72% (608–127), and his winning percentage at Wimbledon was 92.73% (51–4); all are records for an entire career. He is one of four players in the open era to win both Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year and the only player to do so for three consecutive years. He is the only player to win three majors without dropping a set.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
When a player announces his retirement, he's not going to tell the press every single reasons why he chooses to retire. He will pick a specific reasons to make the story that suit best for him. Borg certainly is not going to say that he quit because he lost Wimbledon/USO, or JMac has taken over the tour and he's not the main guy anymore. I didn't see Wimbledon 1981, but I've seen the 1980 and when he went down on his knees in celebration of his victory over JMac, you know the slam mean so much to him. The USO had eluded him for years, and when he lost to the same guy(JMac), that was even more devastating. The losses had a psychological effects. It's naive to think what Borg said in his retirement announcement are the only reasons. He's 26, not 36. Federer had a few tough losses at the slams himself, but he was still feeling positive, motitvated to fight back to the top. He could have quit when he was stuck at 12 slams(constantly losing at the FO final and a big blow in 2008 Wimbledon). Had he did quit, there's no reason not to believe that the changing of the guard is the reason.
 
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Tennusdude said:
Has anyone else who ever played tennis won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens?

During his relatively brief pro career, Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered (11 of 27) and 89.81% (141–16) of the Grand Slam singles matches he played. His winning rate across all surfaces (carpet, clay, hard, and grass) was 82.72% (608–127), and his winning percentage at Wimbledon was 92.73% (51–4); all are records for an entire career. He is one of four players in the open era to win both Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year and the only player to do so for three consecutive years. He is the only player to win three majors without dropping a set.
Click to expand...

You reinforced the quoted person's point by mentioning that Borg only played 27 slams. Rate of success and overall success are two different variables. If a guy played 4 slams in his career and won all 4, and they were all in the same calendar year, some posters might say that player would be GOAT, yet his overall success would be minuscule as far as greats are concerned.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
NadalAgassi said:
Borg over Federer. Please. You know full well I am no Federer fan but Federers record far eclipses Borg on all but clay, and Borg was only the Worlds best player for about 3 years at most. I cant think of a single thing Borg has over Federer except the duel dominance of grass and clay, which is significant, but still not enough to overcome all the rest.
Click to expand...

Being a Fed fan or not has nothing to do with it, it's just my opinion.

4 out of 17 of Fed's slams came at AO which was an almost insignificant event in Borg's day, yes I know you can't award him hypothetical slams but given how amazing he was on grass I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have won several if the event had the importance it has today (and that it did since 1995).

Borg's mastery over two slams which were complete polar opposites at the time is the feat I regard to be one of the most impressive in tennis history (winning Wimbledon-FO double today just doesn't compare in my eyes) and one that I don't think anyone else was capable of in tennis ever (not even Laver or Rosewall).

His performance at his worst slam-USO is very comparable to Fed's performance at his worst slam-FO with about the same level of competition more or less, while individually Connors and McEnroe at USO weren't on Nadal's level at the FO, combined they made it about as tough for someone to win it (I also think the depth was better than the largely lackluster modern CC era).

I'm not one of those who believe that finals don't count for anything and the title win is the only thing that matters, for me Fed was a much, much better claycourter than Sampras (the greatest player of previous era) long before he won FO in 2009 and Borg gets his due from me for making 4 USO finals (or even only 3 if we discount the one on green clay).

Furthemore while Fed is a beast indoors so was Borg which further speaks to his versatility as a player (given that he won most if not all of his indoor titles on carpet while Fed did on indoor HC).
 
forzamilan90

forzamilan90

Legend
NadalAgassi said:
Yes 5 majors including the Calendar Grand Slam > winning only 6-8 majors and never more than 2 in a single year (well apart from Djokovic). Hardly a revelation.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that, especially considering the other feats these guys acquired (WTFs, Masters 1000, etc.)
 
forzamilan90

forzamilan90

Legend
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Concentrated dominance at the year's majors is the most rare feat of all. Anyone--as evidenced by history--can win random majors over the years, but they were incapable of mastering the sport in the single year without missing a beat...the very reason Federer, Wilander, Sampras, Borg, et al, are not the GOAT like Laver. This is the reason Graf was already being referred to as GOAT for her Grand Slam victory, when she had many years of majors yet to win.
Click to expand...

so, in your opinion, is Laver's open era feats (only open era feats)>than entire career of a Nadal or Sampras?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
forzamilan90 said:
I disagree with that, especially considering the other feats these guys acquired (WTFs, Masters 1000, etc.)
Click to expand...
The ranking is huge. When experts speak about Sampras, they don't just mention his 14 slams, but his 6 year end #1. Serena cries after she claimed the #1 ranking in Qatar Open. Normally you would expect an emotional reaction after winning the slam, but that just show you how the #1 ranking means to her.

forzamilan90 said:
so, in your opinion, is Laver's open era feats (only open era feats)>than entire career of a Nadal or Sampras?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what THUNDERVOLLEY believe.:twisted:
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
forzamilan90 said:
kiki said:
To say Borg was a mental midget is the foolish post I have ever seen.it is plainly and simply moronic.
Click to expand...
then why no win U.S.Open final in 4 tries?
Click to expand...

More importantly, why not continue to compete until he finally win the USO. Federer couldn't win the FO from 2005-2008, yet he continue to stand up and fight year after year because he believe in himself. Not to say Borg would have won the USO had he continue to play, but at least step up for the challenge. Anything can happen.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
kiki said:
then why win five Wimbledon titles in a row and three channel slams?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's great that he won 5 straight. Guess what? Roger also won 5 straight Wimbledon and suffered a painful defeat in 2008(perhaps more painful than Borg in 1981). But the difference is Roger doesn't give up, as he add another 2 Wimbledon trophies. Capiche?
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
TMF said:
Yes, it's great that he won 5 straight. Guess what? Roger also won 5 straight Wimbledon and suffered a painful defeat in 2008(perhaps more painful than Borg in 1981). But the difference is Roger doesn't give up, as he add another 2 Wimbledon trophies. Capiche?
Click to expand...

it wouldn´t take anything off Federer if he retired just after that.Borg decided he did not wanted to keep on playing top tennis and it is his right to decide it.He had nothing to prove and his legend will remain so.connors wnated to keep on playing, Mac gave drugs and family life a try, Agassi returned after some years lost, Laver decided not to care about traditional majors after 69...every top sportman takes his/her own decisions.Borg is entitled to him and it has nothing to do with federer, who wasn´t even born when Bjorn retired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
How Many AO titles Would Borg Have Won ?
Replies
26
Views
2K
Supertegwyn
Supertegwyn
The Guru
Why are people so high on Sampras?
6 7 8
Replies
379
Views
18K
Karma Tennis
Karma Tennis
clout
Is it an unpopular opinion to say Borg was a better player than Sampras?
2
Replies
96
Views
4K
Crazy Finn
C
N
What are the definitive Majors by year for the OPEN ERA?
2 3 4
Replies
153
Views
7K
BobbyOne
B
Aykhan Mammadov
Peharps Bjorn Borg is the GOAT.
2
Replies
99
Views
9K
pc1
pc1
Top