I agree with a lot about what you said, but I do have to add talking about Borg having the best Slam win percentage when he retired at 25 basically and never experienced age and the natural decline that goes with that, is a totally meaningless stat for comparision. Lets say him play well into his 30s like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, and even Sampras (Sampras is a rare great who retired at 31) and see what his win percentage is. Heck let him even play until even 30 and see. There is no way his win percentage does not go down. Maybe if he still has the best win percentage at the age 25 and 3 months, the point he played his last official slam, that would be something, and although I don't know it wouldn't stun me if he did. However anything beyond that is pointless.
And of course due to his decision to retire so young there is no way he has the most slams, even if all 4 slams were fully attended by everyone, and he would still have been passed by the Big 3 all in slam count by now regardless. Although I do agree slam count is not everything, the reason he is not tops there is not the era, it is his extremely early retirement which was self imposed. Of course even if he had a much longer career he probably does not have a mark as high as people like Federer and Nadal now, and that would be partly the less focus on the slams then, and everyone not even playing all 4 slams thing, but that did not even play out as far as it did.
And while I do think Borg is very underrated these days by some people it should also be noted the best aspects of his career are his sheer dominance of the overall game at this peak including some intangibles, his dominance of the polar opposites of clay and grass, and his slam count. So in his case there is only so much you can say it is only about slam count, as his slam wins are one of his biggest strengths anyway. If it is not his slam wins and dominance at his peak for several years, what else is it? It certainly is not his time at #1- a mere 109 weeks which is less than half of his chief rival Jimmy Connors; PS- I definitely do rate Borg over Connors all time, and only 2 YE#1s. And yes I know the rankings were effed up and did not truly reflect the best player much of that time, but they are still a fact. It certainly isn't longevity for him, LOL! Despite his amazing joint Wimbledon/French Open feats which still have been matched by any player in history, it isn't mastering all surfaces or venues with his failure to win a hard court slam (only 4 attempts but partly self imposed again) or a U.S Open even with it being on his beloved clay 3 years. It is certainly not tournament wins with only 64, again much lower than Connors or Lendl who I still rank as his clear inferior, despite them both trouncing Borg in many stats, in fact almost all stats except for ironically slam wins and best year performances. The "it isn't all about slam count" is a far more convincing argument for say Navratilova or Evert than it is for Borg sadly. That is what happens when you retire at 25.
