Is winning 20 slams still that impressive nowadays?

[martinezownsclay]

All those PRO slams had only 3-4 rounds of play
Now imagine how many slams Federer could win if he had to win only 3 matches to win the slam
And amateur tour lacked the top players for a good deal of years
And there was bunch of tournaments which were more important at the time then any of Pro or amateur slams.
So in the end can't compare to modern tennis

What do the first 3 rounds matter anyway. How often do Federer or other greats lose in those early rounds? Oh yeah never, except Nadal at Wimbledon sometimes.

Federer today would not win anymore than like 1 more slam if there were 3-4 rounds vs 7. What slam did he go out early other than maybe say 2004 French he was ever winning. When he loses in any event he is in possible form to win, it is late, like all the greats.

 

[pcft369]

What a stupid thread.

Thank you. And as sure as the sun rises in the morning, these same dumb threads will keep coming, over and over

 

[pcft369]

Let's wait and see who gets 20 next...might have to wait a long time friends.

I think it will be a long time before anyone breaks Pete's record again. Which one of the next gen is going to win 14 slams lol

 

[pcft369]

It is impressive, just not as unprecedented as it seems. In the 50s and 60s Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall would have each combined for 20ish. Rosewall would have probably wound up with the highest number, despite that he is clearly the weakest and least great player of the the 3, which yes does show it isn't all about numbers in some cases anyway. If you say that would have required them to win say 60 of 72 slams from 52-69, well yes it would have, and anyone familiar with that time period realizes the 3 would have in fact combined for nearly every slam over that time period too.

Budge, Tilden, Vines all had decent likelihood to have reached that range too, and Tilden would have been nearly a lock to do so if everyone regularly played all 4 slams + no pro game then (Tilden likely goes well beyond 20).

It was immortalized more than reality since a)people had a flawed perspective since Sampras was the first one to set an actual mark of someone trying to win as many majors as possible. I remember mocking and outright ridiculing people who thought 14 would be a nearly impossible mark to beat, and this was before Federer was even relevant, let alone Nadal and Djokovic. Turns out I was right even more emphatically than I thought. b)since the mark was set by the super popular Federer, who people like to fantasize as being the Michael Phelps of tennis, and echeclons above all others in history, which reality is he isn't, and never was. He might be the GOAT but he is definitely not the Michael Phelps of tennis either.

So, you enjoy mocking and ridiculing people? And then congratulating yourself for that? Yikes

 

[RaulRamirez]

Doesn't matter, in 5-6 years the game changed.


When Lendl was 31 there were like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 (Lendl 2 and Gilbert ranked 19)
When Becker was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 (Korda)
When Sampras was 31 there was like 1 guy 30+ in the top 20 ( Agassi 2 & Pete 13 )
When Kuerten was 31 there was like 2 guys 30+ in the top 20 ( Canas & Coria )
When Federer was 31 there was like 2 guys aged 30+ in the top 20 ( Federer 2 & Ferrer 5 )
When Djokovic was 31 there were 6 guys aged 30+ in the top 20
When Djokovic is now 34 there are 8 guys aged 30+ in the top 22

Do you see the pattern ?

Federer is from that generation which is no different from Pete's or Lendl's or Mcenroe's

Djokovic and Nadal along with their whole generation enjoyed a lot in the 30s....so their 20 slams is not impressive.

What does that prove? why were they (just about) the only guys winning slams if not so impressive.

 

[RaulRamirez]

All of these names are clearly inferior to the guys who started playing tennis from the times of mcenroe onwards.

Bigger and stronger stars arrived from the 80s onwards.

You should occasionally do some research to back up your points -- most of which are ludicrous, but even so.
Yes, Laver and Rosewall were comparatively short, but look up the height and weight of Pancho Gonzales.
No, there's not much footage on him, but I'm picturing a possibly more athletic Sampras. A big guy who was quick as a cat and played a power game -- and kept playing at a pretty good level past 40.

Other big guys: Tilden, Jack Kramer and Don Budge, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe were all Fed/Rafa height or taller.
Mac wasn't big and strong -- just had ridiculous racquet skills and feel.
Even Agassi -- who became buff in his later career -- was not a big guy, but he obviously, was an incredibly talented/skilled ball striker.
Yes, given the same skill set and mobility, it's nice to be taller, but it's just one factor.
I also tend to believe that - given what they had to play with/on, that almost every name mentioned here had lots of skill.

 

[Sunny014]

You should occasionally do some research to back up your points -- most of which are ludicrous, but even so.
Yes, Laver and Rosewall were comparatively short, but look up the height and weight of Pancho Gonzales.
No, there's not much footage on him, but I'm picturing a possibly more athletic Sampras. A big guy who was quick as a cat and played a power game -- and kept playing at a pretty good level past 40.

Other big guys: Tilden, Jack Kramer and Don Budge, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe were all Fed/Rafa height or taller.
Mac wasn't big and strong -- just had ridiculous racquet skills and feel.
Even Agassi -- who became buff in his later career -- was not a big guy, but he obviously, was an incredibly talented/skilled ball striker.
Yes, given the same skill set and mobility, it's nice to be taller, but it's just one factor.
I also tend to believe that - given what they had to play with/on, that almost every name mentioned here had lots of skill.

I never talk without taking into account facts

Sorry, height and and weight of pancho is not of much use. Same for the other tall guys you mentioned.

We now know that a 6'4 guy like felix or a 6'6 guy like medvedev move much better than someone 6'4-6'6 did 20 years ago, this would be worse when we go back to the times of pancho or earlier, in those days tall guys were not as athletic as required, thats why the short guys won or else the height of a pancho or stan or someone like that should make them unbeatable.

SO in the modern era the athletes are just too fast and strong, no chance to win.

Maybe Becker and Sampras onwards guys can adapt with more training, before that seems tough

 

[Sunny014]

How athletic is Tilden compared to Felix/Stefanos/Novak/Federer ???

Pancho looks so thin, his legs are so weak. Can he do anything better than servebotting in the modern era?

 

[James P]

I mean, the number of people with 20 slams has tripled in two seasons. Not as cool as it once was.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Zverev about to win 30

 

[mike danny]

Given the players we see now and on the horizon i think it could be a very long while, but for those players good enough I do think 20+ slams won't be that difficult. A lot of that is the playing conditions, the really homogenized conditions, make all surface dominance easier. So the best players are the top contenders on every surface. I mean without Nadal's clay dominance, Federer and Djokovic would have dominated every surface. Nadal would even have a dominant record on every surface if Djokovic didn't exist (even with Federer existing, as Federer rarely stops Nadal over the years anyway).

Nadal wouldn't have a dominant record on every surface even with Federer existing, come on now.

 

[Sunny014]

20 would never have happened if weak era never kicked in.

Every 6-7 years an ATGs should be there, they regularly arrived until 2010s decade.

If Nick Kyrgios and Thiem were the fast court and slow court ATGs respectively in the 2010s decade then by mid 2010s they would have started reaching last rounds of slams and would have been there to take over the rank 1 and rank 2 status in 2017 when the resident ATG novak collapsed, but in 2017 it was the Fedal who took grip of tennis sharing the 6 slams 3 a piece among from 2017-2018 FO..... this itself meant that novak would return and begin a dominant run, nadal would reach wimbledon second weeks after years, 38 yr old grandfather and a 32 yr old middle aged jackass would play wimbledon finals in 2019 and finally a weird CYGS in 2021......

Big 3 slam count have been this if the next gen had manned up by the mid-late 2010s

Fed : 18
Nadal : 15
Dokovic : 15-16

 

[Standaa]

lol. few years ago people laughed at the idea of someone getting to 20 and now it's "not that impressive anymore"

 

[martinezownsclay]

Nadal wouldn't have a dominant record on every surface even with Federer existing, come on now.

Well lets see. He wins Wimbledon 2011 and Wimbledon 2018 for sure. That brings him up to a minimum of 4 there, but maybe more with the added confidence. That is fairly dominant, I mean I think most of even his critics call him a pretty dominant player at the U.S Open where he has 4 titles and many late round showings.

U.S Open he has 5 titles now.

Australian Open I don't remember exactly how many times he lost to Djokovic, but atleast twice in finals in years he wasn't losing to anyone else, so even there he probably has a great record now.

 

[Azure]

How athletic is Tilden compared to Felix/Stefanos/Novak/Federer ???

Pancho looks so thin, his legs are so weak. Can he do anything better than servebotting in the modern era?

Are you kidding me? He looks like a beast!

 

[Kralingen]

Lol Pancho whose pre and post-match meal was a 24 pack of Marlboro Reds has better legs than Tsits/Zverev/Medvedev/Berrettini.

 

[Kuclas]

The main point of the thread is previously most male tennis players were done competing for grand slam titles by age 30. But the current big 3. Fed has won 4 after age 30
Novak and nadal have won 6/8 after age 30.

we have had just and incredibly weak era the last 5-6 years. No way those guys who be winning let alone being in the top 3 all those years.

Nadal peaked in 2008-2010 (ages 22-24)
Fed peaked 2004-2007 (ages 23-26)
Novak peaked 2011-2015 ages 24-28

those are NORMAL PEAK ages for most male tennis players the past 50 years. We are talking peak levels.

It’s a failure of development of players born 1990-1996 to step up their games

 

[Sunny014]

Are you kidding me? He looks like a beast!

Lol Pancho whose pre and post-match meal was a 24 pack of Marlboro Reds has better legs than Tsits/Zverev/Medvedev/Berrettini.

Body structures of these guys is not fit it win any slam in 2021 and they cannot improvise either. Sure they are tall but this is not how their bodies should be if they are to beat Tsitsipas or berretini. I mean if you bring these guys from their eras to modern era they would all be stomped.

However if they are born in this era and subjected to different sort of trainings since birth then it is a different thing.

99% of the comparisons in TTW is unrealistic, they want to bring a guy from the past to present, that sorta logics won't work, everyone born before 1960s would be impotent in the modern era vs the youngsters if you bring them via a time machine to the present.

Nd guys like Laver even if born in this era cannot win slams, their heights are too less.....

 

[mehdimike]

Doesn't matter if Nadal won his 1st slam 3 years after Fed, all that is not gonna change the fact that Rafa benefitted or at COULD HAVE BENEFITTED ..... but nobody asked him to ruin his knees .... right ? .... It is his problem

His whole generation benefitted, even Gael Monfils and John Isner are playing into their mid 30s and if Rafa could not then that is a lame excuse

Roger also benefited from the same thing. In fact he was the first one who won many titles since turning 30! He won 3 slams at 36-37 years old. Could you show me another case in the open era who enjoyed the same thing? Also Nadal at 31 at RG in 2017 would beat any player from any era you choose, including both Federer and Djokovic since he is that talented on clay. Federer was the first one who changed the trend so yes he benefited from the same trend. You say how come Rafa and Novak are playing at a high level in +30?! Well I ask you the same thing. How come Roger was playing great tennis at almost 38 years of age!

 

[mehdimike]

20 would never have happened if weak era never kicked in.

Every 6-7 years an ATGs should be there, they regularly arrived until 2010s decade.

If Nick Kyrgios and Thiem were the fast court and slow court ATGs respectively in the 2010s decade then by mid 2010s they would have started reaching last rounds of slams and would have been there to take over the rank 1 and rank 2 status in 2017 when the resident ATG novak collapsed, but in 2017 it was the Fedal who took grip of tennis sharing the 6 slams 3 a piece among from 2017-2018 FO..... this itself meant that novak would return and begin a dominant run, nadal would reach wimbledon second weeks after years, 38 yr old grandfather and a 32 yr old middle aged jackass would play wimbledon finals in 2019 and finally a weird CYGS in 2021......

Big 3 slam count have been this if the next gen had manned up by the mid-late 2010s

Fed : 18
Nadal : 15
Dokovic : 15-16

Federer won 3 slams past mid-late 2010. So he would stand at 17 not 18. A 36 year old player shouldn't sniff a slam in the presence of a decent generation.

 

[Sunny014]

Roger also benefited from the same thing. In fact he was the first one who won many titles since turning 30! He won 3 slams at 36-37 years old. Could show me another case in the open era who enjoyed the same thing. Also Nadal at 31 at RG in 2017 would beat any player from any era you choose, including both Federer and Djokovic since he is that talented on clay. Federer was the first one who changed the trend so yes he benefited from the same trend. You say how come Rafa and Novak are playing at a high level in +30?! Well I ask you the same thing. How come Roger was playing great tennis at almost 38 years of age!

He won the titles after 30 because he is in the league of Rosewall, Agassi, Connors type guys with superior longevity.

Nadal and Novak are beneficiaries of modern day longevity, especially Nadal, all those PEDs that he takes help him to play even now.

 

[Sunny014]

Federer won 3 slams past mid-late 2010. So he would stand at 17 not 18. A 36 year old player shouldn't sniff a slam in the presence of a decent generation.

Federer would take the 2017 wimbledon, I generously gave Rafa the 2017 FO too, all the other slams they get kicked out.

 

[mehdimike]

He won the titles after 30 because he is in the league of Rosewall, Agassi, Connors type guys with superior longevity.

Nadal and Novak are beneficiaries of modern day longevity, especially Nadal, all those PEDs that he takes help him to play even now.

Yea someone who had match points against Novak at almost 38 did not enjoy the modern day longevity! Who said Rafa takes PEDs? He is sooooo much slower and weaker than his peak years. There is no proof he does that. Have you got anything to prove that.

 

[Sunny014]

Yea someone who had match points against Novak at almost 38 did not enjoy the modern day longevity! Who said Rafa takes PEDs? He is sooooo much slower and weaker than his peak years. There is no proof he does that. Have you got anything to prove that.

He had matchpoints at 38 because of his exceptional longevity which would have lasted in any era + a sustandard weak field ....

 

[mehdimike]

Federer would take the 2017 wimbledon, I generously gave Rafa the 2017 FO too, all the other slams they get kicked out.

Hehe generously?! He would have destroyed peak Roger, Novak, Wawrinka, Soderling in a row as well, had they been in his side of the draw. As I said no sane person would disagree except the other versions of Rafa, no one would have beat 2017 Nadal at RG. His level was astonishing. Keep dreaming.

 

[Strale]

Of course it is...From my perspective Djokodal did impossible to achieve that stat...I wouldnt actually count Federer since he vultured like 15 in weak era and won few when Djokovic was injured or with pepe...

 

[mehdimike]

He had matchpoints at 38 because of his exceptional longevity which would have lasted in any era + a sustandard weak field ....

And Nadal's 2017-19 RGs are because of his talent and cheat code top spin forehand that nobody has enjoyed having that weapon so far.

 

[Sunny014]

Of course it is...From my perspective Djokodal did impossible to achieve that stat...I wouldnt actually count Federer since he vultured like 15 in weak era and won few when Djokovic was injured or with pepe...

If don't count Federer then novak himself would be trash because his wins are against that vulture

Imagine how pathetic Novak DJokovic is Poor guy doesn't have a young rival, he is preying on some old vultures

That makes Novak the biggest loser in tennis

 

[Sunny014]

And Nadal's 2017-19 RGs are because of his talent and cheat code top spin forehand that nobody has enjoyed having that weapon so far.

Ya RGs are but his USOs are pure vulturing

 

[Strale]

If don't count Federer then novak himself would be trash because his wins are against that vulture

Imagine how pathetic Novak DJokovic is Poor guy doesn't have a young rival, he is preying on some old vultures

That makes Novak the biggest loser in tennis

This completely wrong on so many levels...

 

[Sunny014]

This completely wrong on so many levels...

You are only as good as your rivals.

Federer has had zoning teenage prodigy Rafa and later in old age he had peak Novak.

Novak has some old men as his rivals and medvedev/tsitsi/thiem types .... so that is Novak's class .... poor

 

[ibbi]

Nah, that's SO 2018.

 

[Sunny014]

Tennis is now in a damaged state, similar to WWE.

Back in the 90s the WWF/WWE Championship title meant something, even the greatest champions of history were nothing more than 3-5 timers.....

From the mid 00s the titles started to change frequently in a vulgur way, result is someone like Edge won the title like 11 times in a period of 5-7 years, overall we now have Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge etc etc as 12-15 time champions, total mockery of the legacy of the sport.

Sameway, Tennis too has become a joke.

Sampras retired in 03 with 14 slams and in the 18 years of his retirement 3 guys are sitting of 20-20-20 titles each, all 3 of them won the 20 a piece after Pete's last slam....

Total mockery on the century old legacy of Tennis

 

[randomtoss]

I mean, the number of people with 20 slams has tripled in two seasons. Not as cool as it once was.

Absolutely.

The answer to the question: is it impressive? depends a lot, I guess, on the point from where you consider the situation. For us tennis aficionados, it is of course a huge feat. For the casual viewer, it might well appear that since the 3 well-known male tennis players all have dozens of titles then it must not be that difficult to achieve. ATP has created a monster, won't be easy to get rid of it.

 

[Sunny014]

If the BIG 3 are better than the champions before them then HHH, Cena and Orton are better than Austin, Undertaker and Bret the @Hitman Hart.

cc @MichaelNadal

 

[Azure]

Body structures of these guys is not fit it win any slam in 2021 and they cannot improvise either. Sure they are tall but this is not how their bodies should be if they are to beat Tsitsipas or berretini. I mean if you bring these guys from their eras to modern era they would all be stomped.

However if they are born in this era and subjected to different sort of trainings since birth then it is a different thing.

99% of the comparisons in TTW is unrealistic, they want to bring a guy from the past to present, that sorta logics won't work, everyone born before 1960s would be impotent in the modern era vs the youngsters if you bring them via a time machine to the present.

Nd guys like Laver even if born in this era cannot win slams, their heights are too less.....

What body structure? Look at the pictures you posted and put Cilic or Medvedev next to him. Stop being so disrespectful to past greats of the game. Yesterday it was Borg, today it's Tilden. These were great players and extremely gifted. They also were products of their era.

 

[mike danny]

Well lets see. He wins Wimbledon 2011 and Wimbledon 2018 for sure. That brings him up to a minimum of 4 there, but maybe more with the added confidence. That is fairly dominant, I mean I think most of even his critics call him a pretty dominant player at the U.S Open where he has 4 titles and many late round showings.

U.S Open he has 5 titles now.

Australian Open I don't remember exactly how many times he lost to Djokovic, but atleast twice in finals in years he wasn't losing to anyone else, so even there he probably has a great record now.

Not gifting him free Wimb and USO titles against Fed, sorry

And Nadal is not dominant at the USO. No one but the VB claims that.

 

[Sunny014]

What body structure? Look at the pictures you posted and put Cilic or Medvedev next to him. Stop being so disrespectful to past greats of the game. Yesterday it was Borg, today it's Tilden. These were great players and extremely gifted. They also were products of their era.

They were products of their era and thats why they cannot perform now.
Technically even Novak is very thin too, but he is lean muscle at its finest, previous year athletes will not be able to adapt, thats what I meant, they would have to be born now to have some chance of competing, thats what I meant.

 

[SonnyT]

In women's tennis, it's hard to see anyone young winning 10 slams, much less 20. Sooner rather than later, men's tennis will be like that, and we'll yearning for the strong era of the Big 3.

And historically, women's tennis was more often dominated by superstars like Court, Navratilova, Steffi and Serena.

As they often say in baseball, everything runs in cycles. There's a time for home runs. And there's one for pitching, and it's happening right now: there are more no hitters this season than ever before. In tennis, the passing era was for legends, probably the next era will be for revolving door slam winners.

 

[Azure]

They were products of their era and thats why they cannot perform now.
Technically even Novak is very thin too, but he is lean muscle at its finest, previous year athletes will not be able to adapt, thats what I meant, they would have to be born now to have some chance of competing, thats what I meant.

Put the modern guys in that era and they would all fail too. No modern medicine, no modern diet, no private facilities, no big bucks to travel with entourage…

 

[Sunny014]

Put the modern guys in that era and they would all fail too. No modern medicine, no modern diet, no private facilities, no big bucks to travel with entourage…

Modern day guys are faster and stronger physically, plus they are used to facing quicker serves and playing faster games.

That will make a difference, if peak Federer travels to the 80s/90s he will beat Sampras for sure because he knows how to play with the less powerful racquets, he already has much more endurance than Sampras ever had, his instincts on the fastest of courts are same as Sampras, fast serves won't trouble him because he is used to lot quicker ones, it is disadvantage Sampras all the way.

For Pete to have a chance vs Roger he would have to be born with Roger and growing up in the same environment getting accustomed to the modern day intricacies of tennis.

 

[Azure]

Modern day guys are faster and stronger physically, plus they are used to facing quicker serves and playing faster games.

That will make a difference, if peak Federer travels to the 80s/90s he will beat Sampras for sure because he knows how to play with the less powerful racquets, he already has much more endurance than Sampras ever had, his instincts on the fastest of courts are same as Sampras, fast serves won't trouble him because he is used to lot quicker ones, it is disadvantage Sampras all the way.

For Pete to have a chance vs Roger he would have to be born with Roger and growing up in the same environment getting accustomed to the modern day intricacies of tennis.

Again your analogy is wrong. Federer had better access to medicine than even Pete. Medical technology changes every 5 years. Anyway this is a pointless argument since you are bent upon disrespecting the greats of the game. I don’t know if you are trolling at this point. Calling Borg overrated one day and calling Tilden non-athletic or Pancho as having weak legs on another.

 

[Sunny014]

Again your analogy is wrong. Federer had better access to medicine than even Pete. Medical technology changes every 5 years. Anyway this is a pointless argument since you are bent upon disrespecting the greats of the game. I don’t know if you are trolling at this point. Calling Borg overrated one day and calling Tilden non-athletic or Pancho as having weak legs on another.

Borg ran away at 26, he was beaten by Mcenroe in BO5 (4-1 h2h ), has lesser weeks at 1, lesser ATP titles too, plus his 86% rivals in slams were older to him, means he is untested vs next gen, plus he hasn't faced any server who served at 150+ like Roddick/Karlovic/Isner/Groth/Raonic types. Plus he lost a 100M race to a 40+ Pele when Borg himself was 25-26, he was smoked by Wayne Gretzky but that is understandable, but losing to a 16 years older Pele???

So Borg is overrated for sure.

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

Again your analogy is wrong. Federer had better access to medicine than even Pete. Medical technology changes every 5 years. Anyway this is a pointless argument since you are bent upon disrespecting the greats of the game. I don’t know if you are trolling at this point. Calling Borg overrated one day and calling Tilden non-athletic or Pancho as having weak legs on another.

He has one God and one God only, his name is Roger Federer.

And he also thinks tennis is a popularity contest...kind of like Miss Universe I guess. Another contest Fed would win according to him should he decide to participate.

 

[Azure]

He has one God and one God only, his name is Roger Federer.

And he also thinks tennis is a popularity contest...kind of like Miss Universe I guess. Another contest Fed would win according to him should he decide to participate.

I am never quoting his posts again. He is extremely annoying - lots of knowledgeable federer fans on this forum but this guy knows really nothing about the sport nor does he consider even remotely, other viewpoints.

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

I am never quoting his posts again. He is extremely annoying - lots of knowledgeable federer fans on this forum but this guy knows really nothing about the sport nor does he consider even remotely, other viewpoints.

What I find hilarious is that actual tennis accomplishments to him do not matter if used to depict anyone other than Fed as a GOAT. However he has no problem (or better yet shame) to use those same stats to "discredit" other all time greats. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Sunny014]

I am never quoting his posts again. He is extremely annoying - lots of knowledgeable federer fans on this forum but this guy knows really nothing about the sport nor does he consider even remotely, other viewpoints.

42 year old Pele beating 26 yr old Borg

 

[Strale]

You are only as good as your rivals.

Federer has had zoning teenage prodigy Rafa and later in old age he had peak Novak.

Novak has some old men as his rivals and medvedev/tsitsi/thiem types .... so that is Novak's class .... poor

You are completely disconnected from reality...xD haahhahhahah i dont even know what to tell on that rubbish..

 

[martinezownsclay]

Borg ran away at 26, he was beaten by Mcenroe in BO5 (4-1 h2h ), has lesser weeks at 1, lesser ATP titles too, plus his 86% rivals in slams were older to him, means he is untested vs next gen, plus he hasn't faced any server who served at 150+ like Roddick/Karlovic/Isner/Groth/Raonic types. Plus he lost a 100M race to a 40+ Pele when Borg himself was 25-26, he was smoked by Wayne Gretzky but that is understandable, but losing to a 16 years older Pele???

So Borg is overrated for sure.

One place Borg is absolutely not overrated IMO is his clay greatness. He is hands down the 2nd best clay courter ever, after only Nadal, and is rightly recognized as that. Overall? Maybe a bit to those who mythologize him so much. One thing I will give him credit for is dominating the polar opposites of clay and the old traditional super fast grass for a number of years, and completely changing his playing style for grass to do so. This is a hardcore dominant baseline who served and volleyed on every 1st and 2nd serve at Wimbledon. You would never see Nadal or Djokovic do that, although you can't fault them really as they never have to do in todays playing conditions. That is impressive.

He did run away from McEnroe though, and that hurts his legacy bigtime. Connors never ran away from him, even after he began getting dominated by Borg.

 

[Sunny014]

One place Borg is absolutely not overrated IMO is his clay greatness. He is hands down the 2nd best clay courter ever, after only Nadal, and is rightly recognized as that. Overall? Maybe a bit to those who mythologize him so much. One thing I will give him credit for is dominating the polar opposites of clay and the old traditional super fast grass for a number of years, and completely changing his playing style for grass to do so. This is a hardcore dominant baseline who served and volleyed on every 1st and 2nd serve at Wimbledon. You would never see Nadal or Djokovic do that, although you can't fault them really as they never have to do in todays playing conditions. That is impressive.

He did run away from McEnroe though, and that hurts his legacy bigtime. Connors never ran away from him, even after he began getting dominated by Borg.

Yes on clay he is not overrated, he probably would beat Djokovic, Federer and others by outgrinding them on clay even if he was in this era.

But his feats outside clay are controversial. His dominance on grass in his 70s period but there was no serve and volleyer like Mcenroe, once Mac arrived Borg found it tough, he would not be beating Sampras or Federer there as well, plus he has not faced Roddick/Isner/Karlovic type servers.

On clay he would pwn these guys and crush them, but outside that where serve is a potent weapon he would not have his free run of the 70s on grass or even on HCs.