Who was better Borg or Becker?
- Thread starter RFLEGEND
- Start date
Björn Borg. No doubt.
Borg had a game that suited both the fast grass at Wimbledon and the slow clay at Roland Garros. His 2HBH enabled him to dominate his opponents from both sides while also being superior physically.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
If you wanted to talk simply about Grass/Wimbledon I think it could actually be an interesting discussion but in terms of overall ability it is Borg for me. Borg's game transcended all surfaces and he was a threat virtually everywhere, While Becker was a phenominal player on grass who couldn't string together that same kind of ability everywhere else. Becker did have some impressive stats, like 4 YEC finals in a row from 1985-1989 (although he only won once in those 4 times), and making the finals of Wimbledon 7 times between 1985 and 1995, He doesn't really have the same overall accomplishment level (or game to go with it), to really be argued as superior to Borg anywhere outside of Grass, and even on grass it is difficult to really try and argue becker over Borg.
grafselesfan
Banned
It would be interesting to see them play in their primes on any non clay surface, of course on clay Borg would destroy clunky clay courter Becker.
However I am not sure if Becker would be better anywhere other than maybe carpet. On grass Becker was 3-4 in Wimbledon finals and other than 86 none of his Wimbledon wins were as dominant and convincing as some of Borgs, and I feel Borg probably had more overall grass court competition and still far more dominance at Wimbledon. Becker still close to his prime was thrashed by Ivanisevic and was nearly thrashed by Agassi at Wimbledon too, and in his prime had massive trouble with Edberg, sometimes trouble with Lendl, and went out in a big upset in 87. Beating Lendl and Cash to win Wimbledon (keeping in mind Lendls inferiority on grass) is nothing like beating McEnroe and Connors to win Wimbledon.
On hard courts Becker has 3 hard courts slams and Borg 0. Yet I am still not sure at all Becker is the better hard court player. Borg only got the chance to play 4 hard court slams ever, how many did Becker get to play. Probably over 20. The only really great player Becker beat to win a hard court slam was Lendl twice, and the 2nd time was Lendl clearly past his prime. Borg ran into Connors and/or McEnroe nearly every year at the U.S Open. Becker wasnt even ever that consistently making semis or better on hard courts, he had alot of early exits.
I just dont think Becker would do that well. He couldnt hang with Borg from the backcourt, and when he played Agassi he often tried to do this so might well have if he played Borg too. Borg is one of the best passers in history and an excellent returner. He would definitely have some serious trouble with the Becker serve, but not enough to take him out of contention for winning their matches. Becker was an excellent volleyer but his agility, reflexes, movement, and touch at the net is still clearly not up with say McEnroe. Becker won alot of matches from sheer will but Borg is just as mentally tough if not moreso, and alot fitter and in far better condition. In a long war of attrition Borg would come out on top. Becker would give Borg some competition on grass, carpet, and hard courts, but other than maybe carpet Borg would most times come out on top on each.
However I am not sure if Becker would be better anywhere other than maybe carpet. On grass Becker was 3-4 in Wimbledon finals and other than 86 none of his Wimbledon wins were as dominant and convincing as some of Borgs, and I feel Borg probably had more overall grass court competition and still far more dominance at Wimbledon. Becker still close to his prime was thrashed by Ivanisevic and was nearly thrashed by Agassi at Wimbledon too, and in his prime had massive trouble with Edberg, sometimes trouble with Lendl, and went out in a big upset in 87. Beating Lendl and Cash to win Wimbledon (keeping in mind Lendls inferiority on grass) is nothing like beating McEnroe and Connors to win Wimbledon.
On hard courts Becker has 3 hard courts slams and Borg 0. Yet I am still not sure at all Becker is the better hard court player. Borg only got the chance to play 4 hard court slams ever, how many did Becker get to play. Probably over 20. The only really great player Becker beat to win a hard court slam was Lendl twice, and the 2nd time was Lendl clearly past his prime. Borg ran into Connors and/or McEnroe nearly every year at the U.S Open. Becker wasnt even ever that consistently making semis or better on hard courts, he had alot of early exits.
I just dont think Becker would do that well. He couldnt hang with Borg from the backcourt, and when he played Agassi he often tried to do this so might well have if he played Borg too. Borg is one of the best passers in history and an excellent returner. He would definitely have some serious trouble with the Becker serve, but not enough to take him out of contention for winning their matches. Becker was an excellent volleyer but his agility, reflexes, movement, and touch at the net is still clearly not up with say McEnroe. Becker won alot of matches from sheer will but Borg is just as mentally tough if not moreso, and alot fitter and in far better condition. In a long war of attrition Borg would come out on top. Becker would give Borg some competition on grass, carpet, and hard courts, but other than maybe carpet Borg would most times come out on top on each.
Last edited:
Ano
Hall of Fame
Borg could handle Lendl's power.
I guess he could handle Becker's power just fine, especiallly on clay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU
becker
I dont think he ever had to play Cash at Wimbledon.....he beat Curren in 85 and Lendl in 86. Cash won in 87....I don't recall Becker playing him there, but I could be wrong. Maybe he played Cash in 86 prior to the final round?
still could never quite figure how Curren lost that match in 85....he had nerves of steel and a buzz saw game in taking out Mac and Connors back to back...totally astounding. Then he just gagged against Boris....amazing.
But, credit to Becker who was young and fearless..
I dont think he ever had to play Cash at Wimbledon.....he beat Curren in 85 and Lendl in 86. Cash won in 87....I don't recall Becker playing him there, but I could be wrong. Maybe he played Cash in 86 prior to the final round?
still could never quite figure how Curren lost that match in 85....he had nerves of steel and a buzz saw game in taking out Mac and Connors back to back...totally astounding. Then he just gagged against Boris....amazing.
But, credit to Becker who was young and fearless..
Bruguera
Banned
It would be a very interesting matchup both of them at their peaks on grass. I really dont know who would win.. Both were flat on great on the grass.
Clay- Borg easily
Grass- Peak vs. Peak. I dont know.. I really dont. Over a series of years I think Borg would get the slight edge
Indoors- Becker definitely IMO.. Greatest indoors players of all time next to Pete IMO. Though I think Becker may be a bit better at his peak.
Hardcourts- I really dont know.
I know the "sexy" answer is Borg. But its really tough to say. Beckers was just an unreal player on grass at his peak and indoors and I wouldnt be surprised if Becker at his peak would come out on top quite a few times against Borg on grass and win most times indoors. But over time I do see Borg getting the edge. He was more consistent.
Clay- Borg easily
Grass- Peak vs. Peak. I dont know.. I really dont. Over a series of years I think Borg would get the slight edge
Indoors- Becker definitely IMO.. Greatest indoors players of all time next to Pete IMO. Though I think Becker may be a bit better at his peak.
Hardcourts- I really dont know.
I know the "sexy" answer is Borg. But its really tough to say. Beckers was just an unreal player on grass at his peak and indoors and I wouldnt be surprised if Becker at his peak would come out on top quite a few times against Borg on grass and win most times indoors. But over time I do see Borg getting the edge. He was more consistent.
Last edited:
I dont think Becker is better on any surface. It might seem strange to think a 0-slam winner on hard courts is better than a 3-slam winner on hard courts. However just imagine if Borg actually got to play 22 hard court slams like Becker rather than a mere 4 hard court slams. Becker wasnt exactly facing prime Connors and prime McEnroe when he did win his hard court slams either. Only once he faced prime Lendl to win a hard court which is the only thing comparable (91 is not prime Lendl of course). Borg made the finals of 3 of the 4 hard court slams he ever played. Becker's career record on hard courts, both in slams and outside, was riddled with all kinds of earlier losses to relatively obscure opponents.
On grass Borg was much more dominant vs a tougher field. Indoors he was atleast as dominant again vs a tougher field.
On grass Borg was much more dominant vs a tougher field. Indoors he was atleast as dominant again vs a tougher field.
Can someone enlighten me why does everyone say that Borg has a tougher field than say Becker, Sampras or Becker? If I remember correctly, Borg played guys like Armitraj during the 1/4's of GS. How is that tougher than Sampras playing Todd Martin or Federer playing Robredo? If anything i would say that the field has gotten tougher with each generation and WILL continue to get tougher in future years.
As for the subject, achievement wise Borg over Becker but if both had to play at their peak, Becker would kill Borg. Just like how Aresse killed Borg in Monte Carlo. except easier.
As for the subject, achievement wise Borg over Becker but if both had to play at their peak, Becker would kill Borg. Just like how Aresse killed Borg in Monte Carlo. except easier.
schenkelini
Semi-Pro
Borg all the way!
borg number one
Legend
Imagine what a Borg/Becker W final would have been like. That would have been a tough fight for even Borg, given how Becker was playing that year. Yet, on all other surfaces, I would of course, give the nod to Mr. Bjorn Rune Borg.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
it's a rank (taking ex-aequo into account ?) or a quantity ?...
borg number one
Legend
I think that it's illustrative that Boris Becker, in a interview on the Wimbledon DVD collection, talks about practicing with Borg at Monte Carlo in the early 1990's. Borg was 37 and trying to play tournaments again. He practiced with him then and said he could see that "I had the serve, but even though he was hitting with a wood racquet at the time, I realized that I would not have stood any chance against him". He then imagined what it would have been like to play a 20 something Borg.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
GOAT-list rank.
You must not have watched Borg. The only lopsided victory would be in Borg's favor. Borg would have at least 16 slams if he ever went to Australia. He won 5 Wimbledon titles in a row and the Australian Open was on grass at the time. Since people didn't revere Slams like they do now, not as many players went down under right around the holidays. The only way Becker could beat Borg, since his athleticism was totally inferior, was if Borg used a wood racquet and Becker was able to use graphite. If you put Becker in Borg's time with wood, I believe Borg would beat him soundly on any surface. His first serve was as clutch a shot as there ever was in tennis. He was possibly the best ever mentally, and he could pass off any wing with ease.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
My thoughts??
B J O R N B O R G 365 days a year.
Datacipher
Banned
Ugh....to give this the proper non-borg fanboy (borg forever anyone? lol), Becker AT THE TIME, also candidly said after practicing with Borg that he hit with "no force" (he actually used a German term for this).
For Becker to claim that he would have had no chance against him is nothing but hot air. I'm sure we can all see that. Borg got trounced by journeymen.
Now in their primes, I like Borg on clay, Becker on grass, and I'd give the series 6-4 for Borg on hard courts, because of Borg's mental consistency (until he gave up entirely). Becker was more up and down, at his best, his game would be too much for Borg, but he didnt' reach that level consistently.
grafselesfan
Banned
I think Becker could definitely beat Borg on grass but I am surprised anyone would give him a series. Becker has a 3-4 record in Wimbledon finals. While his competition in those finals was high quality, only Sampras in 95 was a nearly impossible task. Borg faced Connors or McEnroe in 4 of his 6 Wimbledon finals and is still 5-1 in Wimbledon finals. Borgs movement is on another planet from Becker on any surface, and his mental strength is equal or even greater which was always a huge asset for Becker who won many matches through force of will just as much as force of his serve and power game. While Becker was very good from the ground and better than alot of people credit him for being no way could he hang with Borg off the baseline either. He would really have to play a perfect match to beat prime Borg on any surface in a big event atleast.
ZhengJieisagoddess
Semi-Pro
Becker was great; but Borg was a legend. There's a HUGE difference. Borg revolutionized the game.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
I couldn't agree more with those posts by Grafseles and Jheng ^^^^^^^^
Datacipher
Banned
That is why I gave Borg an edge in a series. Still, though, I think that the match-up is bad for Borg, when Becker came to really play. Becker had so much firepower at his best, he could hurt you from anywhere, and in any individual match, his willpower and "cool" at big moments was at least a match for Borg (NOT overall, where becker's moodiness hurts him badly). Borg's topspin, while heavy, was not good enough to get the ball out of Becker's wheelhouse. Becker, with his height and strength, would not mind those balls at all. Indeed, Borg could run down many, many a shot, but Becker would be closing in. Now, one could talk about advantages Borg has over Chang, (though I don't think it's as one sided as their grand slam titles would show!), but I still think Borg would suffer from the same problems Chang, or Wilander, or others, did when Becker was at his best!
So I still think Borg 6-4. And one or 2 of those 4 matches Becker wins, might actually be one-sided beatings.
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
I suggest you study these three, short YT-clips before you absolutely make a silly absolutist statement of Borg not being able to handle peak Becker on grass. He knocked them all out -- in succession -- Tanner, Nastase, Mac, Jimbo FOUR TIMES -- no losses on grass to Jimbo -- Mac can only dream of such a record against himself and Jimbo on grass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT5mvbTaKeM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugw-pjROUQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU0SG-ZkUA4&feature=channel_page
I am sure you have biases -- but please stop denigrating posters here who happen to use a player's name in their nick -- or should I start denigrating your biases as bs just because who happen to admire certain players and you have those biases maybe because of that and then call you rude-punk-Data?
Grow up please Sir...
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
STILL angry that I proved I know more about Borg than you? I think we all know who is unreasonably biased towards a player. (probably lost on dizzyborgfanboy, but I picked BORG in the head to head here)
We also know who presents arguments, instead of showing edited youtube clips....as if this is somehow convincing. (hint: I've SEEN Borg play as much as you have...in fact, I've been standing ON court during a Borg practice session) Not only is is non-sequitur, non-enlightening, and unconvincing, it stinks of condescension. Just because you base your opinions on youtube clips, and think they are "discoveries" does not mean the rest of us haven't seen these matches. You'll find there are many people here who have seen Borg's matches.
PS. I noted how you posted only to accolade a post that simply said borg was a legend, and becker is not in his class! How apropros! Informed analysis at it's finest! We DO need more posts like that! It's right up there with "Borg is the SHIIITE!!!"
Borgforever
Hall of Fame
No I am not angry at you at all Data. You can never make me angry. I don't waste much thought to you I am afraid. You're mostly a complete joke of a poster. A poseur who sometimes get some things right but has inflated sense of his own prowess. It's entertaining to witness sometimes. I don't even remember what silly reference you make about what you knew or what gibberish that you talk. You're not reasonable. And your proud like a rooster. Fatal combo.
I don't care what you say in fact. I just answered you this time to tell you for once how much I respect "your knowledge about certain things"...
I might've respected you Data if you didn't pose yourself as such a superior, dismissive, ungracious punk with insults at hurled at people unprovoked -- directed at people with player's names in their nicks.
You're so deluded you say you know so much making direct reference to Borg's prowess in the early 1990s as some kind of proof for his level during peak against Becker. You may have stood on the same court with Borg but that doesn't prove squat. More than your defunct reasoning. And that his fine manners haven't changed the fact your's are not one of your finest assets.
And you have only imaginary knowledge of Björn Borg.
You Data -- don't know much about Borg. All your posts about him reeks of self-satisfied false confidence in your knowledge of him yet I've seen so many faults in each and every one of them I don't bother to respond because my life is too short. Please, be my guest and blow your mouth off if now, like a good punk, as much as you very well please. Your limp attempts at witty comebacks just might, maybe, impress me some day if the would rise above rock-bottom level. They haven't yet. But it would be exciting if that could happen. Come on now.
You're only yet another astonishing proof of the fact that a broken clock have the right time at least twice a day...
I don't care what you say in fact. I just answered you this time to tell you for once how much I respect "your knowledge about certain things"...
I might've respected you Data if you didn't pose yourself as such a superior, dismissive, ungracious punk with insults at hurled at people unprovoked -- directed at people with player's names in their nicks.
You're so deluded you say you know so much making direct reference to Borg's prowess in the early 1990s as some kind of proof for his level during peak against Becker. You may have stood on the same court with Borg but that doesn't prove squat. More than your defunct reasoning. And that his fine manners haven't changed the fact your's are not one of your finest assets.
And you have only imaginary knowledge of Björn Borg.
You Data -- don't know much about Borg. All your posts about him reeks of self-satisfied false confidence in your knowledge of him yet I've seen so many faults in each and every one of them I don't bother to respond because my life is too short. Please, be my guest and blow your mouth off if now, like a good punk, as much as you very well please. Your limp attempts at witty comebacks just might, maybe, impress me some day if the would rise above rock-bottom level. They haven't yet. But it would be exciting if that could happen. Come on now.
You're only yet another astonishing proof of the fact that a broken clock have the right time at least twice a day...
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Datacipher, so using your logic what's more likely is that Becker actually was TOTALLY MAKING THINGS UP when he talked about playing against Borg and how impressive he was hitting, and that he was just trying to cast him in the best possible light, knowing that he'd likely beat him pretty badly sometimes, prime vs. prime. Plus, Chang was a pretty comparable player to Borg in terms of how Borg would have fared against Becker. Okay, if that's your logic, fine. I just happen to have quite a different take on this issue.
B. Borg was a SHADOW of himself in about 1990-1991 when he had been away from the tour for 10 years, and he was hitting with a old frame in Monte Carlo, practicing the week before the tournament. In the interview, Becker says that he was nervous about approaching him, and asked if he "wanted to hit", feeling like a "schoolboy" asking a great player to hit with him. Borg was happy and said "great, I also admire your tennis", etc. and "I have followed your play", etc. Becker says though it was practice, he was extremely nervous hitting with him. Have you heard that interview to assess his genuineness?
I believe your argument starts to go WAY SOUTH when you brought in the Chang-Borg comparison. That's not even an apples to oranges comparison, but something like an apples to "hard candy" comparison. To think Michael Chang was a more modern equivalent of Borg and to try to use that to diminish Bjorn Borg vs. Becker just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
I'm sorry if having "Borg" in a user name is bothersome perhaps to some people, but I personally can't think of any other way to convey just how much impact he had on me as a young junior player. For me, when I learned tennis, Borg WAS Tennis, and all else seemed to fall by the wayside. I was mesmerized by his abilities and used them as fuel to motivate me on the court, as I learned the game, worked on fitness, etc. I could think of no better role model on the court and have yet to find another player that impacts me so deeply. Put it this way, if you were to ask me, "who would you like to sit down and talk to for about 15 minutes, guys like Borg, Gandhi, and Einstein come to mind. Anyway, I feel compelled to support him because he had such an impact on me. By watching him, I realized the meaning of the word "excellence", not just in tennis, but in life.
For those of you who seem to somehow feel "threatened" by Borg's success, because you support other more modern players, I urge you to have a broader perspective about the sport. I have a HUGE "NEWS FLASH" FOR YOU:
Tennis actually existed well before say 1990.
There was not a huge tennis talent infusion all over the world all of a sudden, just because folks actually started training harder and hitting with much different racquets. That's like comparing driving distance in golf today with the drives of past golf greats who used wood clubs. Do you not think folks with great mechanics would also benefit with modern technology?
Borg was training harder THEN than probably 99% of the players playing on the tour TODAY. He ran like crazy, both on and off the court. He was not a dumb guy. In fact, he was extremely intelligent and was a very good student in school (as was McEnroe by the way). Believe me, he could figure out how to hit with modern frames. He saw the writing on the wall and was considering gaining even more strength and would have surely kept modifying his racquets the same way every other player did during the 1980's and beyond. McEnroe's fitness hurt him in the 1990's, because he did not like off court training that much. Borg did not suffer from the same weakness, by a long shot. How many times have you seen him tired?
On the other hand, I'm secure in my support for Borg and feel no need to diminish the considerable accomplishments of other players, such as Sampras, Federer, Laver, etc. I wish some other fans of this Sport would approach it that way.
Borgforever knows more about tennis history than just about anyone I've come across in my life, and believe me, I've talked personally to MANY professionals who were at least on the Tour for many years. Just listen to guys who played on the Tour, or to tennis historians, who are true students of the game. I only made it as far as a few satellite tournaments, before deciding to hit the books all out. Yet, at least I got a taste for how difficult it is to play at the highest level. I recall losing 6-3, 6-1 to a guy who had done well at W a few years back, but was still returning from an injury.
Many posters are tennis history experts and many others have also played tennis at a high level, so if they commend Borg so much, don't you think they might be "on to something"? If one doesn't reasonably appreciate the past history of the Game, how can that person, with credibility, judge past players vs. current players. I'm not directing this only at the previous post, by the way.
One more question that I like to ask everyone: How many times and how long have you ever hit with a wood racquet? If the answer is really never, or "not very much at all", then you have little credibility when trying to compare Borg's game to the play of other greats. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how else you can truly appreciate the games of older players. Keep in mind that Borg did certain things with his racket that were UNHEARD OF before he was on the scene. This is in terms of magnitude, not that what he was doing was that fundamentally different, besides his two hander.
Borg was too quick, consistent, and deceptively strong. To think that he would have simply been overpowered by Becker when Agassi could handle his pace just fine, is way off the mark.
ZhengJieisagoddess, GrafSelesFan, and Borgforever, I agree with the content of your posts wholeheartedly. I am not trying to be mean spirited, but I do tend to defend my positions quite strongly, whether it's tennis, politics, or any other issue really. Why not? If you don't stand up for your beliefs, who will, someone else?
B. Borg was a SHADOW of himself in about 1990-1991 when he had been away from the tour for 10 years, and he was hitting with a old frame in Monte Carlo, practicing the week before the tournament. In the interview, Becker says that he was nervous about approaching him, and asked if he "wanted to hit", feeling like a "schoolboy" asking a great player to hit with him. Borg was happy and said "great, I also admire your tennis", etc. and "I have followed your play", etc. Becker says though it was practice, he was extremely nervous hitting with him. Have you heard that interview to assess his genuineness?
I believe your argument starts to go WAY SOUTH when you brought in the Chang-Borg comparison. That's not even an apples to oranges comparison, but something like an apples to "hard candy" comparison. To think Michael Chang was a more modern equivalent of Borg and to try to use that to diminish Bjorn Borg vs. Becker just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
I'm sorry if having "Borg" in a user name is bothersome perhaps to some people, but I personally can't think of any other way to convey just how much impact he had on me as a young junior player. For me, when I learned tennis, Borg WAS Tennis, and all else seemed to fall by the wayside. I was mesmerized by his abilities and used them as fuel to motivate me on the court, as I learned the game, worked on fitness, etc. I could think of no better role model on the court and have yet to find another player that impacts me so deeply. Put it this way, if you were to ask me, "who would you like to sit down and talk to for about 15 minutes, guys like Borg, Gandhi, and Einstein come to mind. Anyway, I feel compelled to support him because he had such an impact on me. By watching him, I realized the meaning of the word "excellence", not just in tennis, but in life.
For those of you who seem to somehow feel "threatened" by Borg's success, because you support other more modern players, I urge you to have a broader perspective about the sport. I have a HUGE "NEWS FLASH" FOR YOU:
Tennis actually existed well before say 1990.
There was not a huge tennis talent infusion all over the world all of a sudden, just because folks actually started training harder and hitting with much different racquets. That's like comparing driving distance in golf today with the drives of past golf greats who used wood clubs. Do you not think folks with great mechanics would also benefit with modern technology?
Borg was training harder THEN than probably 99% of the players playing on the tour TODAY. He ran like crazy, both on and off the court. He was not a dumb guy. In fact, he was extremely intelligent and was a very good student in school (as was McEnroe by the way). Believe me, he could figure out how to hit with modern frames. He saw the writing on the wall and was considering gaining even more strength and would have surely kept modifying his racquets the same way every other player did during the 1980's and beyond. McEnroe's fitness hurt him in the 1990's, because he did not like off court training that much. Borg did not suffer from the same weakness, by a long shot. How many times have you seen him tired?
On the other hand, I'm secure in my support for Borg and feel no need to diminish the considerable accomplishments of other players, such as Sampras, Federer, Laver, etc. I wish some other fans of this Sport would approach it that way.
Borgforever knows more about tennis history than just about anyone I've come across in my life, and believe me, I've talked personally to MANY professionals who were at least on the Tour for many years. Just listen to guys who played on the Tour, or to tennis historians, who are true students of the game. I only made it as far as a few satellite tournaments, before deciding to hit the books all out. Yet, at least I got a taste for how difficult it is to play at the highest level. I recall losing 6-3, 6-1 to a guy who had done well at W a few years back, but was still returning from an injury.
Many posters are tennis history experts and many others have also played tennis at a high level, so if they commend Borg so much, don't you think they might be "on to something"? If one doesn't reasonably appreciate the past history of the Game, how can that person, with credibility, judge past players vs. current players. I'm not directing this only at the previous post, by the way.
One more question that I like to ask everyone: How many times and how long have you ever hit with a wood racquet? If the answer is really never, or "not very much at all", then you have little credibility when trying to compare Borg's game to the play of other greats. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how else you can truly appreciate the games of older players. Keep in mind that Borg did certain things with his racket that were UNHEARD OF before he was on the scene. This is in terms of magnitude, not that what he was doing was that fundamentally different, besides his two hander.
Borg was too quick, consistent, and deceptively strong. To think that he would have simply been overpowered by Becker when Agassi could handle his pace just fine, is way off the mark.
ZhengJieisagoddess, GrafSelesFan, and Borgforever, I agree with the content of your posts wholeheartedly. I am not trying to be mean spirited, but I do tend to defend my positions quite strongly, whether it's tennis, politics, or any other issue really. Why not? If you don't stand up for your beliefs, who will, someone else?
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
You and others are entitled to decide which quote was more reflective of Becker's true thoughts. I ONLY provided the other side of the info which you were either ignorant of, or conveniently forgot to promote your agenda.
Was Becker really of the belief that he had no chance against Borg as you implied....or was he unimpressed with the way Borg was hitting the ball (ironically, later in this post YOU admitted Borg was nowhere near his prime...gee...what would have Becker said then, if he REALLY thought he had no chance against the comeback Borg?).
Again, I simply provided what Becker said initially after hitting with Borg AND I point out that: Borg got trounced by journeymen quite badly
So, we are left with one of 2 scenarios:
1.Becker knew Borg was not hitting very well, but in subsequent quotes wishes to pay tribute a great legend (note: Mcenroe has said the same thing about Borg in retirement...he has candidly admitted to carrying Borg in matches, but most of the time in public praised Borg's performance)
2.Becker thought that he had no chance against Borg and must have been absolutely shocked when Borg got soundly trounced in every match
I'll let people decide for themselves which is more plausible to them.
Datacipher
Banned
Sorry. You don't get to dictate who responds to your nonsense. I am sure many are aware of the times I've had to correct you in the past, as others also have. I realize you love Borg. He was a great player. Others will note, that I recall NEVER starting a thread about Borg. I do not hate him. In fact, I rarely think of him spontanously. Were one to search my posts, I am sure one would find that my percentage of posts about Borg would be incredibly low.
If you find factual faults in my posts, (doubtful, since you have never identified a single one), please do. I give plenty of facts about numerous players, (usually not Borg, as I rarely speak of him) but note that, your differing OPINION of Borg is not a factual error.
I think my posts and knowledge speak for themselves, as I also think your bias speaks for itself.
Again, note that I picked BORG over Becker, but again, I realize this does comes nowhere near the contentless gushing you pine for.
Datacipher
Banned
Yes. The post that simply said:
"Becker was great; but Borg was a legend. There's a HUGE difference. Borg revolutionized the game. "
Again, I am sure this is a noteworthy posting to you. This is the 2nd time you have heaped accolades on it, and you are free to. Again, I feel it perfectly represents your mindset.
You may defend your opinion on Borg till your blue in the face. I am glad you admit that it is only an opinion. Again, I simply corrected the picture you tried to portray of Becker. I provided his actual statement after hitting with Borg. I happen to believe people deserve that balance. They may decide for themselves, which scenario was more plausible as I outlined in the post above. What you did was either ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty.
stormholloway
Legend
Surely Borg could handle Becker's power if he could handle Tanner's power. I realize Becker was a much better player than Tanner but Tanner's serve was bigger to my knowledge.
Though I realize I'm butting into a personal battle here. Carry on.
Though I realize I'm butting into a personal battle here. Carry on.
Datacipher
Banned
Well, I was actually referring to groundstroke power.
But on the subject of serve power, no, I don't think Tanner served bigger than Becker. I think they were roughly equivalent. Note that Tanner's top serves got into the 130-140mph range, but so did Becker's. (on today's radar). Further, Becker could produce a MUCH higher kick than Tanner, and his serves came in on a higher trajectory. His percentages with the bomb tended to be a bit better than Roscoe. Roscoe did have much better disguise however, but on the subject of Borg, the truth is, he didn't handle Tanner's biggest bombs all THAT well. Luckily for him, Tanner didnt' go for AS MANY big bombs as a lot of the servers today, as he played the "percentages" a bit differently. When Tanner did fire bombs at him at the USO, Borg was in some despair, and at one point, wailed at Bergelin that he "can't read it!" (Borg never liked the lights or night matches anyways). Borg also talked in an interview on strategy about how far back he would sometimes move to try and cover Tanner's flat serves. But, anyways, the Borg return was excellent, and I certainly expect him to "handle" Becker's serve, though I VERY much doubt he'd handle it as well as say......Agassi, nor would he hurt Becker as much on the return as Agassi. I do not think he would consistently generate the Agassi's ripping power, nor would he be able to take Becker's big kick serves (or the power serves) as early as Andre.
All this plays into why I feel, while Becker might only get the minority of matches, some of them would probably be blow-outs.
borg number one
Legend
Datacipher, I think you and I have an honest difference of opinion then. I just don't contrast Agassi's abilities with Borg's in that fashion. Don't be fooled by watching Agassi hit with a larger, more powerful frame. I noticed that you did not answer the question about wooden frames. So, I'll throw in a McEnroe reference....."answer the question!".
Have you hit with them and if so, how much, and for how long?
I agree with you that McEnroe and Becker were undoubtedly kind to Borg, in talking about his past. For God's sake, McEnroe must have a soft spot for Borg, because when he was 19, he says that Borg was one of the first people on the Tour to accept him and "take him under his wing", so that's not surprising. They were pushing each other to dizzying heights. But to characterize such compliments as pure "puffery" weakens your arguments considerably.
I do not expect you to have the same zeal for Borg that I and others do. No problem, I understand that people have their own favorite players, and that Borg does have weaknesses (not many). Who doesn't? Tennis is just too damn difficult and will always be "bigger" than any one player at any one time. I only insist on a balanced view towards him and will not allow any biases/factual errors to go unnoticed when I see them. It's just a debate on the facts, nothing else. You make way too much of his performance in the early 1990's, about 10 years after he left the Tour. Thanks.
Have you hit with them and if so, how much, and for how long?
I agree with you that McEnroe and Becker were undoubtedly kind to Borg, in talking about his past. For God's sake, McEnroe must have a soft spot for Borg, because when he was 19, he says that Borg was one of the first people on the Tour to accept him and "take him under his wing", so that's not surprising. They were pushing each other to dizzying heights. But to characterize such compliments as pure "puffery" weakens your arguments considerably.
I do not expect you to have the same zeal for Borg that I and others do. No problem, I understand that people have their own favorite players, and that Borg does have weaknesses (not many). Who doesn't? Tennis is just too damn difficult and will always be "bigger" than any one player at any one time. I only insist on a balanced view towards him and will not allow any biases/factual errors to go unnoticed when I see them. It's just a debate on the facts, nothing else. You make way too much of his performance in the early 1990's, about 10 years after he left the Tour. Thanks.
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
Not according to Becker himself. He claimed on TV his biggest serve was 135 mph. He was commentating a Roddick match and was asked about his fastest serve.
Well, I don't know if anyone is arguing that Borg would handle Becker's serve as well as Andre. Then again, nobody did. As for kick, I don't think that would be an issue with Borg as he stood so far back and seemed to handle the high ball well in general. My point was just that he could handle pace on the return. Becker's serve was readable by the way. It wasn't the best disguised in the game by any stretch.
Strange. So Becker would lose the series yet blow Borg out when he did win? Ok....
borg number one
Legend
Also, you talk about groundstroke power, so let me be sure I understand your stance. You are asserting that Borg could not handle Becker's grounstroke power. Is that correct?
If so, I again disagree. If he could handle the groundstroke power of Connors and Lendl, he could handle anyone's groundstroke power. My analysis is that he would have been just fine on the forehand wing, but would have likely shortened his backswing somewhat on the backhand side in order to be able to react even more quickly when pressed. If Becker got into baseline rallies (as he was prone to do often), he would have been huffing and puffing by set two, and ready to cry uncle by the third. I'm sorry, but Borg was doing what Nadal does now to so many players. Simply grinding them down from the baseline. He would welcome such a strategy from Boris. I think Becker would realize that. So, do you rally with him or try to cut off the points quickly at net, facing his passing shots over the course of a long match. That's not easy to pull off over the course of a best of five set match.
If so, I again disagree. If he could handle the groundstroke power of Connors and Lendl, he could handle anyone's groundstroke power. My analysis is that he would have been just fine on the forehand wing, but would have likely shortened his backswing somewhat on the backhand side in order to be able to react even more quickly when pressed. If Becker got into baseline rallies (as he was prone to do often), he would have been huffing and puffing by set two, and ready to cry uncle by the third. I'm sorry, but Borg was doing what Nadal does now to so many players. Simply grinding them down from the baseline. He would welcome such a strategy from Boris. I think Becker would realize that. So, do you rally with him or try to cut off the points quickly at net, facing his passing shots over the course of a long match. That's not easy to pull off over the course of a best of five set match.
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
Hello, yes, it is an honest difference in opinion in SOME ways, and that is fine. As to the wooden racquets, I did not answer because I did not feel it relevent to my posts.
However, to answer your last question. Yes, I have hit with wooden racquets and still continue to do so occasionally today. I have posted extensively about my thoughts on wooden racquets, and in fact, some posters on here have seen video of me serving ~100mph with a warped wooden racquet.
Datacipher
Banned
I disagree. I did not say Borg could not "handle" Becker's power. Which is a vague notion at best. I simply said that Becker's groundstroke power, when he is at his best would allow him to open up points. He can attack the net or go for winners. His serve also allows him to shorten up points. Which is why, when he is at his best, the potential is there for him to blitz Borg. Just as he did Wilander or Chang etc. when he is at his best.
In this scenario, I do not think Borg's fitness will be a factor, though on clay, or in longer matches, it will be. Which is part of the reason I gave Borg an edge in a hardcourt series.
I don't necessarily think Nadal would fair much better against Boris at his best on hardcourt. I think Boris could blitz nadal occasionally as well. Nadal does have the advantage of hitting a heavier ball than Borg, due to his size and strength, and his racquet. (though people mistakenly think the racquet makes a bigger difference than it does).
Note, though, as I have repeated OVER AND OVER, this is when Becker is in the zone. This would be comparable to Becker's match with Wilander in Davis cup when Wilander could barely get a game. (though that was indoors). Note as well that Wilander actually has a lopsided record against Becker, and I am giving Borg an edge partly out of respect only. I am totally unconfident that Wilander when at his best is superior to Borg quite frankly. While this will probably be seen as beyond all consideration to extreme Borg fans, it is not an unreasonable comparison by any stretch.
Datacipher
Banned
Um...I noted that Becker's serve was MORE readable, though the vast majority did not read it particularly well (in fact, only Agassi seemed to have a great read on it, whether it was tongue action or not).
I do not know why you find my statement strange. It is VERY simple proposition, and I have now explained the reasoning in detail.
Borg 6-4 over Becker on hardcourts, however, given the style match up, I'd expect 1 or 2 of the 4 to be relatively one sided romps. Exactly as I have written. How difficult to understand is this? One can find NUMEROUS precedents in the tennis world!
PS. OH GOD, I just noticed the comment about Becker's mph. SIGH....I have posted dozens (more?) times about radar, it's non-standardized format, and the strong anecdotal evidence for the wide variance in measurements. I am sure Becker's fastest recorded serve was 135mph, that has NO MEANING whatsoever when comparing it to Tanner's recorded speeds, WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. Can you agree with that at least???
Now, I have complete confidence that Tanner served in the 130+mph range with about the best precision we have ever been able use on serve speed recordings....Vic Braden and I had a discussion about this on court one day.....he recorded Tanner's serve speed in more than one way..... Becker on the other hand.....very difficult to say....his fastest serves of 1990 came in at around 124 mph. His ordinary flat serves of that year were ~105-117mph. By 1992, this had picked up into the 118-128mph range with some regularity. By the mid 90's, 125-132 was being seen SEMI-regularly. AND on top of that, I still believe Becker's fastest serves probably came in 1987ish. Before he changed both his arm, leg, body motion, and his rhythm on the serve...
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
Datacipher, good, if you still hit occasionally with wood frames, I'm glad you can appreciate the difference between wood frames and more modern frames (circa the 1990's, because racquets have continued to evolve somewhat, especially the strings since then).
I understand that you give the edge to Borg in a theoretical series 6-4 (in favor of Borg). So, if they played on 3 surfaces, say grass, hard courts, and clay courts, say about 3 times each on each surface...both at their peaks, with both playing with more modern frames, you think that some of the matches would be blowouts in Becker's favor, and that Becker would win about 4 times.
Meanwhile, I think that Becker may very well win some of those ten matches, and they would likely come on grass/hard courts, but I would say 4 is too many. Perhaps 2 matches on grass and/or hard courts out of 10 would be my estimate. The way I see it, during most sets, Becker would depend on his service games heavily. Yet, as time went on Borg would get better and better at picking up that serve and being able to read it. Meanwhile, Becker would have difficulty breaking Borg's serve as well, because of how well Borg could back up his serves, and because his serves are fairly underrated, in that he could serve at least as hard or harder than John McEnroe (esp. first serves).
The only advantage I can envision is Becker's serve vs. Borg's serve. That's it. Borg would have an advantage in every other aspect of the game, including, groundstrokes, return of serve, movement, stamina, and mental toughness. With Borg's lethal passing shots, especially later in matches, I think he would start hitting more and more passing shots by Becker. I'm glad you would agree that Wilander is not Borg's equal. I agree, though Wilander had tremendous consistency. He just didn't have as much overall skill/pure shotmaking ability, and athleticism.
Anyway, I appreciate your take on this, I just don't see how Becker could beat Borg easily even at his peak or overpower him. Borg at his peak was positively scary and intimidating to other players as he often "won matches before the players ever went out on the court" as is often said.
Note even Brad Gilbert beat Becker at the US Open, and had his number somewhat, so don't be so sure that Borg could not "handle" Becker's power. Also, I don't see a clear edge for him on hard courts. He would have to rely on fast grass courts. Becker was so frustrated at the end of that match at the US Open that he didn't know what to do against him. He made a lot of errors when he tried to generate pace on his own, and Borg would have taken advantage of such weaknesses in Becker's game. He was a master of finding such openings even during a long, close match, in order to take advantage. Even with Becker's height, he would not simply hit the ball by Borg. Then, if he tried to constantly force the action by rushing the net, he would expend so much energy, especially with Borg's passing game and ability to hit at people's feet. That would lead to problems late in the match especially, as fatigue would also impact his serve and volley game.
Also, I don't see why you think Becker would blow out Borg, but not vice versa. I think it's as likely that Borg would have some blowouts. If 3 of the 10 matches were on clay, those may very well be lopsided affairs.
I understand that you give the edge to Borg in a theoretical series 6-4 (in favor of Borg). So, if they played on 3 surfaces, say grass, hard courts, and clay courts, say about 3 times each on each surface...both at their peaks, with both playing with more modern frames, you think that some of the matches would be blowouts in Becker's favor, and that Becker would win about 4 times.
Meanwhile, I think that Becker may very well win some of those ten matches, and they would likely come on grass/hard courts, but I would say 4 is too many. Perhaps 2 matches on grass and/or hard courts out of 10 would be my estimate. The way I see it, during most sets, Becker would depend on his service games heavily. Yet, as time went on Borg would get better and better at picking up that serve and being able to read it. Meanwhile, Becker would have difficulty breaking Borg's serve as well, because of how well Borg could back up his serves, and because his serves are fairly underrated, in that he could serve at least as hard or harder than John McEnroe (esp. first serves).
The only advantage I can envision is Becker's serve vs. Borg's serve. That's it. Borg would have an advantage in every other aspect of the game, including, groundstrokes, return of serve, movement, stamina, and mental toughness. With Borg's lethal passing shots, especially later in matches, I think he would start hitting more and more passing shots by Becker. I'm glad you would agree that Wilander is not Borg's equal. I agree, though Wilander had tremendous consistency. He just didn't have as much overall skill/pure shotmaking ability, and athleticism.
Anyway, I appreciate your take on this, I just don't see how Becker could beat Borg easily even at his peak or overpower him. Borg at his peak was positively scary and intimidating to other players as he often "won matches before the players ever went out on the court" as is often said.
Note even Brad Gilbert beat Becker at the US Open, and had his number somewhat, so don't be so sure that Borg could not "handle" Becker's power. Also, I don't see a clear edge for him on hard courts. He would have to rely on fast grass courts. Becker was so frustrated at the end of that match at the US Open that he didn't know what to do against him. He made a lot of errors when he tried to generate pace on his own, and Borg would have taken advantage of such weaknesses in Becker's game. He was a master of finding such openings even during a long, close match, in order to take advantage. Even with Becker's height, he would not simply hit the ball by Borg. Then, if he tried to constantly force the action by rushing the net, he would expend so much energy, especially with Borg's passing game and ability to hit at people's feet. That would lead to problems late in the match especially, as fatigue would also impact his serve and volley game.
Also, I don't see why you think Becker would blow out Borg, but not vice versa. I think it's as likely that Borg would have some blowouts. If 3 of the 10 matches were on clay, those may very well be lopsided affairs.
Last edited:
Datacipher
Banned
Again, I feel the difference is highly overrated. Borg didnt' necessarily have it all wrong when he came back with the wood racquet, though I would have encouraged him to move to a low powered graphite equivalent, or more if comfortable, as tiny differences help at the pro level. Nevertheless, a player could compete even with wood today, were he comfortable with it and so inclined.
Uh. Not exactly. I said 6-4 to Borg on HARD COURTS. I merely said I give the edge to Borg on clay, and Becker on grass. This does not equate to 4 times out of 9 matches on 3 surfaces as you presented, but nevertheless, 4 is about right. I would give Becker 1 or 2 of 10 matches on clay, and Borg, 2 or 3 on grass.
\
You are entitled to this opinion. Quite frankly, I think it's quite absurd to envision any player beating a prime Becker 8 of 10 times on grass.
\
We must be having some language difficulties. I said I think it is arguable whether a prime Wilander was a lesser player than Borg. I believe they are quite comparable. Wilander was an excellent athlete, with excellent fitness and speed. When he reached his peak and dismantled Lendl at the USO, he would have been a formidable opponent for any player in history. Borg had a much better career, and, I would give him the nod as a superior player due to his mental consistency, though his early quitting, does not help him in that regard.
\
Actually Becker was in amazing shape except for a couple of phases in his career where he let that slide and gain weight. Except on clay, or extraordinarly long matches where Becker was not playing well enough to force the issue, I do not see this being a key factor. More importantly, bringing up Brad Gilbert and Becker.....come on....we're really going into silly troll territory there....first, Gilbert nailed many top players, many times, second, I don't think Gilbert's game and antics have much to do with Borg, nor is it representative of Becker's overall game or ability.
And for the THIRD TIME, stop implying (now you're even using quotation marks!) that I think he couldn't "handle" (whatever that means) Becker's power. If you continue that kind of childish misattribution, any conversation will not be possible.
I DO think Borg might blowout Borg about 3 of 10 times on clay. Though, its a bit harder to "blow" away a player of Becker's ability and championship character on clay. Borg can't "blitz" Becker in the same way. But he may well win several of those matches in straight sets. Again, you're making false allegations, I NEVER SAID this couldn't happen.
