Who was better Borg or Becker?

[World Beater]

there is no question who the greater player is...

better is...tougher to say. but on a fast surface i think becker could win.

 

[Borgforever]

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.

Borg hadn't held a racquet for years when he came back in 1991. Anyone with a shred of credibility knows what that means. Any person claiming with authority that Borg without practice at 35-37-years-old was at his physical and tennis peak and could be used in level and playing style comparisons has disqualified himself intellectually and it's painfully obvious and can't be defended.

Datacipher's statement is without doubt one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated theories made in TW history.

I could go on writing 40-50 other flaws just in this first paragraph but it would be waste of time.

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.

Priceless gem of 24 carat flaws!

"I think it's quite absurd to envision any player beating a prime Becker 8 of 10 times on grass."

Well, Pete Sampras was what against Boris on grass in H2H at Wimby?

Let's examine Boris Wimby-grass record swiftly and on faster surfaces.

Boris went to five against Nyström in 1985 W85. Nyström, while good, was never, ever in Borg's caliber on grass. Ever. Nyström didn't have a ligthning, clutch serve. He lacked clutch overall but still beat Becker handily on fast surfaces during this time and almost stopped his clock at W.

Lendl in 1986 wasn't close to Borg's grass game ever in his career. I like Borg's chances against Boris 1986 at W any year between 1976-1981. Boris NEVER, EVER faced a clutch phantom like Borg in his career at W -- except, arguably Sampras -- and we all know what happened when, almost every single time Pete face-offed with Boris at W -- Data don't seem to know.

Still Pete hadn't Borg's 14 straight five-setter, invincibility record between 1976-1980 at W AND ELSEWHERE. No one can match Borg on this. In the fifth -- you were dead against Bear Fortress.

Let's forgive Boris for his great match against Doohan. In 1988 Boris would've lost against any kind of W-Borg. Edberg wasn't sublime. He was fightnng well against an uneven Boris -- who usually had a tendency to wilt deep in matches because of his very energy-intense service motion. Keep those returns coming making him busy and when the fifth comes around he's more pliable.

1989 would've been tough for Borg. But chances are that I would be a very close deal against Borg 1978 for instance -- or Borg 1979. Again Boris would risk running out of gas in the fifth against a stamina and fifth set service master who went 19 straight points twice in his career in his serve in the fifth -- at clutch -- at W1980 F against Mac and USO1980 QF against Tanner.

Of course Boris lacks these fifth set service records at W at clutch. But Data gives Becker the upper-hand any way. Because he just has a hunch... I say -- you know aht I say!

Then we have sleeping pill-Boris at W1990 -- I take any Borg-W-perf against Becker's sleeping pill perf, 5th set choke against Stefan any day of the week and five times on Sunday...

Then we have Becker's meltdown-final. Boris head explodes while Stich is living on his level. Harakiri at the big W. Boris would be blowouted by Borg too if he went down with that frustration in a close match. Which the record proves that he did. Let's not kid ourselves. But hey, let's give give Boris a close five-setter with Borg here anyway. Christmas is close.

1992? 1993? 1994? 1995 he ran out of gas against a consistent returner again and shot his bolt to early in the match.

Aww, why I am I doing this. The point and facts are too obvoius without me even bothering with this.

I know Magnus Larsson, Johansson and several others who crushed Becker around this time on faster surfaces -- even Jordi Arrese took out Boris 6-1, 6-2 at Monte 1990.

Lots of people manhandled Boris around 1989-1990 I know. And Wilander was never even close to going six straight Wimby-finals -- even Pete never made that. Wilander was usually a really poor fast courter -except in the late 80s. Yeah, Mats lost in the DC-final to Boris in December 1989 by the tune of 6-2, 6-0, 6-2 but a month later, sissy-serve, weak-powered Mats blowouted Boris at AO 1990 4-6, 4-6, 2-6.

Records don't lie. I don't know what Datacipher is doing though.

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.

Priceless. No serve poor form Mats who never reached even W SF once in his career is comparable to the man who has the longest Wimby-triumph streak in the Open Era. You can't make this up! It's golden. And this poster actually also believes he has any kind of understanding on this subject. Hmmm, interesting.

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.

Completely incomprehensible. I wonder if anyone can understand this.

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.

About 60-70 severe flaws in summary in here. Conservatively speaking. Maybe people who know a thing or two won't tell Datacipher this to his face -- what they really think when he voices his opinions -- and I don't blame them -- who wants to hurt such a "special" person as he -- undoubtedly -- is -- but it could very well be so that they're quietly laughing inside themselves -- just the same...

Anyway -- Datacipher -- I don't care what you think, you're ignored, I won't read your response -- I sincerely wish you a happy life...

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

I'm a bigger Becker fan than anyone I know. Borg was better than Becker, this is obvious. Borg won more Wimbledons and that pretty much says it all. I would pick Becker in a match over Borg but Borg was still the greater of the two.

 

[urban]

On grass, i think it would be very much depending on the equipment. With the new graphite, young Boris brought a new power and pression to the game, that stunned all experts and older players, even more than later Sampras. And don't forget, that Becker had a formidable return on grass, from both wings. From memory, the 1986 Boris was in my view still the most natural and allrounded grass player of the graphite era, powerful, confident and absolute fearless, and a clutch player par excellence.

 

[pundekman]

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.

again. the "would have" and should have" "if". But didn't. If I would have bought 2 million shares of Citi at .90 I "would have" made so much money. lol

Stop living in the past. You cannot compare athletes of past generations. In general, atheletes just keep on improving. It's a fact. Just appreciate them without trying to compare eras ok?

 

[Borgforever]

Urban -- I agree with your every point there -- no exception.

I would add and clarify -- since I respect your perceptive qualities enormously -- that I consider Becker at Wimby 1986 and 1989 as two of the greatest old grass, Wimby-performances ever. Easily.

Those two versions of Boris would be very tough indeed for Borg at his peak to topple. No question. I am questioning the certain perception by some that the greatest Boris would probably blowout greatest Björn on grass and not the other way around when the video evidence and standing records provide solid support for hesitation to such a claim.

My firm conviction remains that during those most stunning Wimby-perfs were made in the Open Era, IMO;

Ashe vs Jimbo 1975

Borg vs Nastase 1976

Borg vs Jimbo 1978 and consistently magnificent in the 5th set in
Borg vs McEnroe 1980

Mac vs Jimbo 1984

Becker vs Lendl 1986

Becker vs Edberg 1989

Sampras vs Goran Ivanišević 1994

Sampras vs Agassi 1999

Federer vs Roddick 2005

Very few of these, IMO, faced an opponent that was truly as sublime as they were -- at the same time or great on that surface.

But in general -- their opponents were in very fine form and usually a severe threat if they hadn't peaked their powers.

What one would like to see is Borg 1976 vs Sampras 1999, Sampras 1999 vs Becker 1986, Borg 1976 vs Becker 1986 et al...

But I have a hard time seeing any of the sublime perfs blowouting each other when they were in such a peak form. So 5th set stamina and prowess would start to be very important. How well and consistently did they go on serve, tactics, winner-ability, focus, big point play deep into matches.

Still I see the possibility that Becker could've defeated Borg at his best. Yes, IMO he could've beaten Borg either in 1986 or 1989 form against the best Borg -- out of probability IMO I think Boris could've managed to demolish Björn in four decisive sets, if very focused but fairly close sets.

Definitely a likely scenario in my book. Like several other scenarios of course.

I've played against Boris in 1988 and 1989 -- when he was arguably in his most splendid form and didn't do too badly. And I was, ahem, no peak Borg...

 

[Borgforever]

I mean the performances have very similar characteristics in all of the above-mentioned examples of stunning Wimby-Final-Extreme-Prowess against another great opponent in fine form.

Sampras comes out against Andre in 1999 -- and Pete is on so much ice-cold, contained, bottled fire he starts out napalming Agassi to a stifled version of Edward Munch's painting THE SCREAM.

Pete hammers every serve, volley, half-volley, smash, and groundie from the back of the court to a clean winner at will with intimidating consistency.

Some said he was walking on water. He was doing whole bunch of extremely tough things very well all the time -- that's for sure.

Still -- in peak form Agassi fought bravely on. Buckles up. Fires off some great return missiles. Digs in. Success after success.

But it's really not close.

With a final terrifying array of lightning winners and the final, ominous THUNDER-CLAP the jaws of The Great White Sampras-Shark slams shut and the water colors red and the screams die out...

That's what Boris did in 1986 and 1989. And Mac in 1984. Borg in 1976 and 1978 et al...

Only that kind of reciprocal performance could stand upright during such an assault.

Those are many of my dream matches -- they against one another -- in that form during those years...

 

[Datacipher]

Borg hadn't held a racquet for years when he came back in 1991. Anyone with a shred of credibility knows what that means. Any person claiming with authority that Borg without practice at 35-37-years-old was at his physical and tennis peak and could be used in level and playing style comparisons has disqualified himself intellectually and it's painfully obvious and can't be defended.

This of course is a complete lie. IF anyone believes I ever even implied that Borg was at his peak...please go ahead and quote what made you think I said that. IF not, I think this lie speaks for itself. Amazingly, the passage Borgforever quotes had absolutely NOTHING to do with this statement but was merely a comment on wood racquets.

Datacipher's statement is without doubt one of the most ridiculous unsubstantiated theories made in TW history.

I could go on writing 40-50 other flaws just in this first paragraph but it would be waste of time.

One has to love people who say this. He made a completely non-sequitur reply claiming I said Borg was at his peak during his comeback and then claims there are "40-50" other flaws, but he can't be bothed? Sad.

Priceless gem of 24 carat flaws!

"I think it's quite absurd to envision any player beating a prime Becker 8 of 10 times on grass."

Well, Pete Sampras was what against Boris on grass in H2H at Wimby?..

Ah...irony. Apparently, you believe Boris was of the same tennis generation as Sampras? Close, but NOPE. EVEN with the terrible match-up for Boris(Sampras was a better Boris), Sampras still wouldn't have won 10 or 9 matches out of 10 against Boris. Boris would Still HAVE GOTTEN A COUPLE and that's against SAMPRAS. LOL.

.

Of course Boris lacks these fifth set service records at W at clutch. But Data gives Becker the upper-hand any way. Because he just has a hunch... I say -- you know aht I say!
.

Nope. I have an opinon based on their games, and my experience. That is all any of us have. There is absolutely no empircal data to support this scenario. Claiming there is either shows stunning mental retardation or simple dishonesty.

Priceless. No serve poor form Mats who never reached even W SF once in his career is comparable to the man who has the longest Wimby-triumph streak in the Open Era. You can't make this up! It's golden. And this poster actually also believes he has any kind of understanding on this subject. Hmmm, interesting..

Sad. That somebody would dismiss Wilander in this way. Wilander's career certainly wasn't what it should have been after he burned out but his record speaks for itself. As to his "no serve"...well people who saw tennis in that era will remember that Mats turned his 1st serve into an underrated weapon, (according to Lendl and Mcenroe among others), gee....sound familiar?

About 60-70 severe flaws in summary in here. Conservatively speaking. Maybe people who know a thing or two won't tell Datacipher this to his face -- what they really think when he voices his opinions -- and I don't blame them -- who wants to hurt such a "special" person as he -- undoubtedly -- is -- but it could very well be so that they're quietly laughing inside themselves -- just the same....

OOoh....now up to 60-70. You MADE...um...a bazillion! yeah, that's it! WHoohooo...I win! I WIN! Back to grade 3 with you trollboy!

Anyway -- Datacipher -- I don't care what you think, you're ignored, I won't read your response -- I sincerely wish you a happy life...

Excellent. I congratulate you. You have gone from the biggest Borgfanboy in the world, who posts random stories (many of which contain factual errors...not to mention the times you've actually screwed up the story or gotten facts and quotes wrong), to a total, ranting, irrelevence. I to, think it best if you ignore my posts.

 

[Borgforever]

Finally, I could add that I don't see any probability-scenario that Bear could inflict a blowout or straight set triumph over peak 1986 or 1989 either.

Becker's too tough those years. I think they both in 1989 and 1986 and 1976 and 1978 respectively that it would take a minor miracle to predict the outcome.

Those Wimby-finals mentioned by me above are all fairly intangible performances in Wimby-history IMO. How great was that? It's very debatable. I am of the opinion that after I watched each and every one of those Wimby-finals I had just seen the greatest performances in the cathedral of tennis. They are very hard to judge because of the stratospheric-level tennis...

 

[Borgforever]

I to, think it best if you ignore my posts.

I will -- if you ignore mine. Deal?

 

[Datacipher]

I will -- if you ignore mine. Deal?

AHA! Not one chance in heck! Man would this troll love this. Nope, I rarely read your posts, so take heart, but on the odd occasion I do, I reserve the right to continue to correct your factual errors and ommisions. Too bad for you. Stop lying and you won't have to worry.

Originally Posted by Borgforever
Anyway -- Datacipher -- I don't care what you think, you're ignored, I won't read your response -- I sincerely wish you a happy life...

 

[Borgforever]

I do ignore your posts and while I was posting I just saw that last bit. And I thought to respond if you you were so crazy to listen to such advice.

For the last time. You're complete sham IMO. An incompetent. A joke. A liar. Your facts are all wrong. You have never corrected me and your full of confusing bias.

And your manner really poor and your insulting, unprovoked posts on me are unwarranted.

Post all you want. Sorry. Go in peace...

 

[urban]

I agree with Borgforever, that we shouldn't talk about blowouts, if comparing really greats of the game. I only want to point out some aspects of Boris' 1986 performance. When i said, that Boris was the most natural grass courter of modern times, i have in mind, that he was a factor on grass, pratically as soon he set a foot on it with 16.He beat a big guy named Odizor that first Wim in 1984, and could have reached the quarters or semis in his very first grass attempt (if not injured vs. Scanlon). In 1986, when he had matured a bit, but was still fresh, eager and fit, he beat in succession Pernfors, Mecir, Leconte and Lendl. OK, Pernfors wasn't that good, but he had a great run that year, and had beaten Boris a few times. Mecir then looked quite simple, but in retrospect (seeing his 1988 performance) it was no easy draw. Leconte was a very dangerous player, and Lendl on the peak of his form. And they were very different types of players, so Boris had to deal with different styles, say a more talented Murray, a peak Tzonga and a better Djokovic in succession. When Newcombe saw the first two sets against Leconte, he was in awe over the power and explosive hitting of Boris. On the dry and fast Centre Court he completely demolished Leconte, who, with some instinctive hitting, could get a hold only for spurs in the third, which he won with luck on a tiebreak. Later on in the 90s, Boris often suffered in the latter stages of Wim by bad conditioning, but in the later 80s, he was fit like a sneaker.

 

[Datacipher]

I do ignore your posts and while I was posting I just saw that last bit. And I thought to respond if you you were so crazy to listen to such advice.

For the last time. You're complete sham IMO. An incompetent. A joke. A liar. Your facts are all wrong. You have never corrected me and your full of confusing bias.

And your manner really poor and your insulting, unprovoked posts on me are unwarranted.

Post all you want. Sorry. Go in peace...

Originally Posted by Borgforever
Anyway -- Datacipher -- I don't care what you think, you're ignored, I won't read your response -- I sincerely wish you a happy life...


One really has to wonder about the mind that insults people, then claims others are insulting them, then describes a person as a "sham" "joke" "liar" and says "go in peace". About as irrational as his joy joy Borg Glasses.

I prefer to discuss tennis with informed ADULT posters.

 

[joe sch]

If they were both to play each other 100 times over a decade on different surfaces, like on the ATP tour, I put all my money on Borg to have atleast 60 wins. Becker would have the edge on fast courts. Borg was one of the most dominant greats ever because of his skills and physiological makeup.

 

[hoodjem]

I saw both Becker and Borg play.

At their peaks (1989 Becker and 1980 Borg), Borg takes it by a small majority.

I think on grass at Wimby it would be close, probably five sets.

On clay, Borg would gobble up Becker.

Hard courts?

 

[AndrewD]

I do not expect you to have the same zeal for Borg that I and others do.
I only insist on a balanced view towards him and will not allow any biases/factual errors to go unnoticed when I see them. I

You mean bias, not zeal.

Bit rich for you to be asking for 'balance' when you won't offer it yourself.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I saw both Becker and Borg play.

At their peaks (1989 Becker and 1980 Borg), Borg takes it by a small majority.

I think on grass at Wimby it would be close, probably five sets.

On clay, Borg would gobble up Becker.

Hard courts?

Borg is better on hardcourts. I know Becker has 3 HC slams and Borg has 0, but Borg only played in 4 HC majors and Becker played in 22. If Borg plays in 22 HC majors he wins quite a few. The only surface Becker has a chance of leading the h2h is indoor carpet, but Borg has a amazing indoors record aswell and I would take Borg indoors over Becker. This is a strange thread because Borg is more consistant, more dominant, more versatile and more clutch than Becker, I don't see how this is a contest who is better.

 

[srinrajesh]

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..

Becker beat cash in straight sets in 1988 when cash was the defending champion...

 

[borg number one]

Datacipher, please re-read my post.

I explained that if you look at say 10 matches total, between Becker and Borg, with say about 3 on each surface (grass, clay, and hard courts), Becker would only win about 2 of the 10, in my estimation, and I think his wins would have to be on grass and/or hard courts (2 on grass, or say 1 each on hard and grass). Let's say for the sake of argument that they played that 10th match on hard courts,since you need 10, not 9 matches.

I think that talking about all 10 matches having to be on hard courts in a hypo match up tends to be inherently slanted to advantage Becker in that you don't have as much of a objective test for each. Yet, I STILL think Borg would win that type of series handily, with Borg still winning about 7-8 of those ten matches, even on hard courts (or indoors for that matter, where Borg was VERY tough).

Why not look at the hypothetical match up on various surfaces and try to grade them that way? I think that's more objective than saying Becker would win approximately 4 out of 10 on hard courts, but I understand your reasoning now.

Also, I do think you grossly underestimate just how difficult it is to play with wood racquets at the highest levels, IF your competition has the advantage of using the most modern frames against you, with the the most modern strings/stringing patterns (say a gut/Luxilon combo or just pure Luxilon).

Where the racquets make a huge difference is not just with the serve, but also on the return of serve and groundstrokes (esp. on DEFENSE, not just OFFENSE. Counter punchers of today are able to let their racquets absorb a lot of pace to simply get the ball back pretty deep. So, they can easily go from defense to offense, no problem.

Also, on the return, you would not be able to return serves back from strange positions at a pace nearly equal to serving pace with wood racquets so easily. You would have to hit it extremely clean in just the center of wood racquets (huge sweet spot size difference!)

It just wouldn't work out the way you are trying to present things. For example, if Becker laced a hard serve to Borg's forehand and he was stretched out and hitting with his Donnay, that's much different than him being in that same position with say a Babolat/Wilson/Volkl, etc. or Head with a slightly larger face and much larger SWEET SPOT. I'm surprised that you don't realize the contrast, but you are right in saying that you can still hit balls pretty well with a wood racquet. It's just that you have "overgeneralized" things with that statement and glossed over some very critical subtle differences. Plus, I haven't even discussed how much heavier wood frames were. Borg used a 17 ounce frame, strung at about 81 pounds! So, imagine him waving around a very light more powerful frame with a huge sweet spot, in peak shape. I think all the players of today would agree that they WOULD NOT want to face him in the final of a Grand Slam. Do you disagree? Or, do you think that they would simply be licking their chops thinking, this guy is toast. I vote for the former, but I'm not sure about you. One must at leasty acknowledge that Borg, under such hypo conditions, could play with anyone and everyone the Game has EVER produced. A player like him comes along very rarely, but Federer is in his class, and Nadal is getting there. Sampras and Laver, I would place in that very highest tier.

 

[Borgforever]

I agree with all points made by Cesc and Urban.

Urban -- I saw Boris when I was there at Wimby in 1984 and was stunned at his level. He was a boy almost but had the most seasoned, mature and brilliant game at that age I've ever seen. One shade sharper than Borg was at that age -- or, maybe three steps sharper.

That injury in 1984 was also one of the worst bad luck moments I've ever seen too. Boris would probably not been ready for Mac that year but he could of course reached the semis at 1984 and probably would've done a darn great job there too IMO -- at 16!?

In 1985 he almost fully formed and deserved every triumph at big W.

When I saw his Boris 2.0-version up close in 1986 it was one of the most formidable performances ever. Such precision. Such focus at that precision. Such precision at that consistency -- with that extra impact of power he seemed invincible to me.

Boris was youthfully swift and very athletic during this time. Maybe 1986 was even more polished than 1989. I seem to think that Becker was a little more chiseled and experienced in 1988 and 1989. I still think his YEC Masters-final at MSG-triumph was one of his finest BIG matches ever. Against a great Lendl, he broke back to 6-all -- when he had lost his serve to fall back 5-6 in the 5th -- by ripping a down-the-line BH-winner from the baseline on BP and finally taking the breaker by one phenomenal marathon-alloyed clutch-display.

But I do see the 1986-performance as -- strange as it may seem -- probably more penetrating and splendid. Becker at 18 was a jet-motor. A whirl-wind.

And I agree with you Urban -- when you voted Boris as one of the greatest natural, old grass-courters ever. It's a good choice. Seven finals is no joke. But I always thought that since he had that 1986-capacity within him -- he did do it -- and 1989 -- that he should've won more of those finals.

I don't really have Edberg as stronger than Boris at big W. If Boris hadn't taken those pills I do think the match in 1990 had a good chance of ending in another manner. And Stich, a player I admire a lot, would arguably had a tougher afternoon than he already had back in 1991 -- had Boris emulated his 1986/1989-calm-focus in that match too.

I would include Pat Cash vs Lendl in 1987 as one of the stunning big W F-performances too -- including supreme levels of classic-grass-court play...

 

[Datacipher]

Datacipher, please re-read my post.

I explained that if you look at say 10 matches total, between Becker and Borg, with say about 3 on each surface (grass, clay, and hard courts), Becker would only win about 2 of the 10, in my estimation, and I think his wins would have to be on grass and/or hard courts (2 on grass, or say 1 each on hard and grass). Let's say for the sake of argument that they played that 10th match on hard courts,since you need 10, not 9 matches..

AHEM. YOU brought up this theoretical TEN match up series. I WOULD have used a much different scenario(yours didn't even add up to 10...now you're suddenly adding in an extra hard court match! Sigh. At minimum, 10 matches on each surface. In any case, YOU then simply declared I would have given Becker 4 matches.... that isn't true. I gave Becker 4 of 10 on hard courts. It's you who must read my posts again.

I think that talking about all 10 matches having to be on hard courts in a hypo match up tends to be inherently slanted to advantage Becker in that you don't have as much of a objective test for each..

Um....I DIDN'T. I gave a breakdown percentage for the one surface I considered close. I haven't discussed it further except in response to other people. In my OP, I specifically said I gave grass to Becker and clay to Borg. I have never tried to make any point about what their hardcourt matchup illustrates. Though, AGAIN (8th time?), NOTE I still gave the hardcourt match up to Borg!

Yet, I STILL think Borg would win that type of series handily, with Borg still winning about 7-8 of those ten matches, even on hard courts (or indoors for that matter, where Borg was VERY tough)..

FINE! You give Borg 7, I give him 6! Pretty close. Though I'm sure our reasons differ. (and I did NOT include indoor courts...I feel the advantage would definitely shift to Becker there)

Why not look at the hypothetical match up on various surfaces and try to grade them that way? I think that's more objective than saying Becker would win approximately 4 out of 10 on hard courts, but I understand your reasoning now. .

That's what I was DOING, when I said 6-4 Borg. I only mentioned THAT surface, because it's the closest one.
**********************************************
"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...."
*********************************************

Also, I do think you grossly underestimate just how difficult it is to play with wood racquets at the highest levels, IF your competition has the advantage of using the most modern frames against you, with the the most modern strings/stringing patterns (say a gut/Luxilon combo or just pure Luxilon). .

I disagree completely. I believe wood frames would give a small disadvantage (though NOTE, i pointed out that small differences are significant at that level), and poly strings are largely psychological in advantage. Players competed wood vs graphite during the transition. Graphite definitely offers an advantage, but it isn't enough to alter the natural order among the players THAT much. The truth is, Becker's puma, wasn't all THAT different from a custom made, high quality, wood racquet! Difference? YES. Huge? NO. I'd guestimate it might be worth 20-30 ranking spots at most. That's huge to a pro player, but really, not significant overall. The notion that goes around that a top 10 player would become say....number 500....or college level....or good amateur level....were he to use wood....ridiculous!

Where the racquets make a huge difference is not just with the serve, but also on the return of serve and groundstrokes (esp. on DEFENSE, not just OFFENSE. Counter punchers of today are able to let their racquets absorb a lot of pace to simply get the ball back pretty deep. So, they can easily go from defense to offense, no problem. .

I think that the biggest difference with wood is on:
1.volleys
3.counterpunches

least difference:
1.serve
2.regular groundstrokes

Returns are somewhere in the middle.

But honestly, I don't know why you are talking to me in such length about your opinions on racquet technology. It wasn't a factor I brought up. I envisioned them playing in their regular way. Now if you wish to say, that Borg playing with graphite would be different....well fine....BUT, I'd say:

1.if he played with the same strokes, I doubt a huge difference would be seen....maybe he'd get an extra game on hardcourts...I doubt it would make any real difference on grass or clay, where I think Borg would still get killed and kill respectively, with either racquet.

2.if he altered his game....well now....it's not even Borg. It's some imaginery creature we've created based on fantasies about how Borg MIGHT have played. Now it may well be, that he would play a bit differently. Everyone is a product of their evolutionary tennis development, and something else might have evolved (better OR WORSE!) but, that should be under a thread "how would Borg have played if he grew up with a graphite racquet?"....of course one could ask the same question of Becker, who grew up with wood. In any case, it's a bit ridiculous to then start comparing imaginary, different playing Borg, with Becker.

. I think all the players of today would agree that they WOULD NOT want to face him in the final of a Grand Slam. Do you disagree? Or, do you think that they would simply be licking their chops thinking, this guy is toast. I vote for the former, but I'm not sure about you. .

Oh brother. I ONLY gave Borg 6-4 over Becker on hardcourts and now you're portraying me saying "the players of today" would be "licking their chops" because he's "toast"......sigh. Come on....you're the only Borg fanatic who's even trying, and I give you credit for that, but when you say things like this, frankly, it's asinine.

 

[borg number one]

Some things we can all agree on:

1. Becker was definitely very dangerous even at 17 and especially on Grass.
2. Borg would win a 10 match series against Becker whether they played on hard courts or if they played on various surfaces.

That much we can agree on, so let's take note of the above and move on as far as the discussion. I want to now focus on a couple of other things:

1. Wood racquets are not the same as more modern frames (including the graphite frames of the 1980's). At the level we are talking about, even minor technology differences can change the outcome of close matches. Why did Connors not play with his T-2000 later in his career? Why did Lendl shift from wood to graphite (see difference in his pace at the '81 RG final, when he was using wood, not graphite)? Why did McEnroe give up the feel of his Dunlop Wood and Wilson (Pro Staff Wood) for the Dunlop Max 200G?

Did these players simply make racket changes for fun because they got bored and wanted to get larger contracts? Or, did they make the changes to have better pace, etc., in order to adapt to changes in the game and improve their chances against other hard hitters who were switching to graphite?

4. All the players noted above made the switch, so I'm simply asserting that Borg would have made the shift too if he had played until say close to 30-31 years of age, for example.

Anyway, most of us agree that Borg would have won say 6-8 matches out of 10 against Becker. Also, I assert that Borg would have blown out Becker as often as vice versa.

I'm looking for common ground within this thread, while noting some issues that may still be major sources of disagreement.

 

[GuyForget]

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.

didn't get to 87 YEC final

 

[pierceforehands]

there is no question who the greater player is...

better is...tougher to say. but on a fast surface i think becker could win.

Edberg had the better of Becker in big matches, including even at his haven of Wimbledon (1-2 in Wimbledon finals), and Sampras and Agassi both completely dominated Becker. I see nothing in his head to heads with the best players that indicates him getting the overall better of prime Borg in general anywhere.

I mean who is the best player Becker actually did well against overall, atleast in big matches (I know he has a huge head to head lead with Edberg, but in big matches usually comes up short, and it would probably be worse had they actualy played in Australia any of 90-93). I guess you could say Lendl who he has a 5-1 record vs in slams, but I am sure not sure what to make of that when 3 of those matches were on grass, by contrast they had 0 at the French where Lendl likely wins 20 times out of 20 with far more certainty even than Becker likely winning each time on grass, and when one was an old Lendl in 91. That basically leaves 1-1 with Becker having a huge win over still primeish Lendl in the 89 US Open final, and old Lendl beating prime Becker at the 92 US Open. Then at the YEC which is carpet which is probably Becker's real best surface, even over grass, he is 1-2 in finals vs Lendl, and 2-3 overall. After that the best is Courier who is a great player that Becker did own, which is obviously a far ways from a Borg caliber player.

 

[toth]

I vote for Borg

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Datacipher comparing Chang and Wilander to Borg... arguing wood rackets would be competitive with pros and that poly is psychological... WHERE is the ball knowledge...

 

[Grafil Injection]

Borg should have at least shifted to a mid-size wood, which would have kept him viable until 1988 like Mecir, and probably another 4-5 slams if he had gone to Australia. But he was still clearly above Becker with 6FO, 5W and 3 Channel slams by 25.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Datacipher comparing Chang and Wilander to Borg... arguing wood rackets would be competitive with pros and that poly is psychological... WHERE is the ball knowledge...

You cant even compare Chang to Wilander. I'm pretty sure Borg would have liked Wilander's 1988 though.

 

[timnz]

tell me your thoughts on who was a better player

Borg - greater surface range - great on clay , great indoor, greater speed and fitness

becker - much bigger serve, more power

 

[Galvermegs]

You cant even compare Chang to Wilander. I'm pretty sure Borg would have liked Wilander's 1988 though.

Wasnt the aussie open growing in stature by 88 tho. So perhaps its hard to compare.

 

[Mustard]

Wasnt the aussie open growing in stature by 88 tho.

Yes. It slowly started to grow from 1983, a process which was hugely accelerated by the move to the new venue in 1988. By 1995, it had equal ranking points with the other 3 majors.

 

[timnz]

Yes. It slowly started to grow from 1983, a process which was hugely accelerated by the move to the new venue in 1988. By 1995, it had equal ranking points with the other 3 majors.

The Australian Open had only 1970, 1972-1982 ie 12 years when it was 'bad' in terms of level. But that image seems to linger for decades beyond that in some quarters.

 

[Mustard]

The Australian Open had only 1970, 1972-1982 ie 12 years when it was 'bad' in terms of level. But that image seems to linger for decades beyond that in some quarters.

Although the 1975 final was big. with Connors vs. Newcombe happening after it didn't at any point in 1974.

In the pre-open days, the Australian often had less people travelling down there, but Australian tennis was pretty dominant 1930s-1970s, with a conveyer belt of talent.

 

[timnz]

Although the 1975 final was big. with Connors vs. Newcombe happening after it didn't at any point in 1974.

In the pre-open days, the Australian often had less people travelling down there, but Australian tennis was pretty dominant 1930s-1970s, with a conveyer belt of talent.

Yes big final in 1975 but the field depth I don't believe was there in the whole tournament..

 

[Galvermegs]

Becker was very humble on one uk show a long while back where he said to borg that he couldnt win wimbledon without the swede first retiring...

However beckers big match record against other greats is so strong that i suspect he would.get a good number of wins against borg like all the others. But perhaps hardcourts, and for sure clay wouldnt be much of a free cruise for the big man from the south west of germany.

 

[Vincent-C]

Becker was very humble on one uk show a long while back where he said to borg that he couldnt win wimbledon without the swede first retiring...

However beckers big match record against other greats is so strong that i suspect he would.get a good number of wins against borg like all the others. But perhaps hardcourts, and for sure clay wouldnt be much of a free cruise for the big man from the south west of germany.

Boris's record in W finals (and YEC finals) was less than stellar. I won't mention his record against Andre..
Not a consistent top-tier player in my book, though he could be scintillating at his best. Nobody wanted
to see Boris in their draw.

 

[timnz]

Boris's record in W finals (and YEC finals) was less than stellar. I won't mention his record against Andre..
Not a consistent top-tier player in my book, though he could be scintillating at his best. Nobody wanted
to see Boris in their draw.

Just making a final is an achievement. If he had lost in the semi-finals in the Wimb and YEC instead of being runner-up would his record be much better? After all he would be 100% in finals then. But that would be the same as saying losing a semi-final is better than winning it if you go on to lose the final. Sorry, winning a sermi-final is always better than losing it.

 

[Vincent-C]

Just making a final is an achievement. If he had lost in the semi-finals in the Wimb and YEC instead of being runner-up would his record be much better? After all he would be 100% in finals then. But that would be the same as saying losing a semi-final is better than winning it if you go on to lose the final. Sorry, winning a sermi-final is always better than losing it.

Tell PETE, or Bjorn.

 

[timnz]

Tell PETE, or Bjorn.

Inescapable conclusion saying it it better to lose a semi-final than win it. That obviously isn't correct.

For instance Djokovic has a superior Wimbledon record compared to Sampras as he has the same number of wins but has made more finals.

Djokovic's best 3 results at Wimbledon otuside of his 7 wins - 3 runner-ups
Sampras' best 3 results at Wimbledon outside of his 7 wins - 1 Semi-final, 1 quarter final, 1 4th round.

Sorry - 3 Runner-ups is considerablly better than 1 Semi, 1 Quarter, 1 4th round.

 

[Vincent-C]

Inescapable conclusion saying it it better to lose a semi-final than win it. That obviously isn't correct.

For instance Djokovic has a superior Wimbledon record compared to Sampras as he has the same number of wins but has made more finals.

Djokovic's best 3 results at Wimbledon otuside of his 7 wins - 3 runner-ups
Sampras' best 3 results at Wimbledon outside of his 7 wins - 1 Semi-final, 1 quarter final, 1 4th round.

Sorry - 3 Runner-ups is considerablly better than 1 Semi, 1 Quarter, 1 4th round.

OK. We see it differently, which is fine.

 

[RSJfan]

didn't get to 87 YEC final

Worth a 16 year bump.

 

[RSJfan]

I vote for Borg

I vote Skinner would have loved the similar threads list. More enticing than cheese.

 

[Vincent-C]

I vote Skinner would have loved the similar threads list. More enticing than cheese.

You def win the TTW crypto-awards, at least for now.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I mean who is the best player Becker actually did well against overall, atleast in big matches

really depends on how you define big matches

against Wilander, Becker was 5-0 on carpet at YEC and in Davis Cup, 0-2 at RG, and 0-1 at AO
you said Edberg had the edge in big matches but Becker led 4-2 at YEC (lost their only final, won their only semifinal, rest were round robin) and 3-0 in Davis Cup, which should probably make up for some of the 1-2 at Wimbly and 0-1 at RG

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

really depends on how you define big matches

against Wilander, Becker was 5-0 on carpet at YEC and in Davis Cup, 0-2 at RG, and 0-1 at AO
you said Edberg had the edge in big matches but Becker led 4-2 at YEC (lost their only final, won their only semifinal, rest were round robin) and 3-0 in Davis Cup, which should probably make up for some of the 1-2 at Wimbly and 0-1 at RG

Becker has positive H2H against basically every great player of the previous generation (Connors, Mac), his own (Wilander, Stich, Edberg, Mecir) and even the next (Goran, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Hewitt) sometimes even by a big margin. The only players he is trailing are Pete (7-12), Lendl (10-11 with 5-1 in slams) and Agassi (4-10) so even here he could well hold his own at least against the first two. As for big matches: it is true that he has some negative H2H at slams against players he usually owned (0-1 Mac, 0-3 Mats, 1-3 Edberg) but on the other hand he owns Lendl 5-1 and as you said, YEC and DC were both also very big during his time and he excelled in both (38-3 being among the best DC records in history).
Becker’s problem was definitely not that he wasn’t a big match player or could handle the big guys. On the contrary, he did extremely well against them his problem was that he was inconsistent and often lost against lesser players.

 

[Mustard]

Becker has positive H2H against basically every great player of the previous generation (Connors, Mac), his own (Wilander, Stich, Edberg, Mecir) and even the next (Goran, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Hewitt) sometimes even by a big margin. The only players he is trailing are Pete (7-12), Lendl (10-11 with 5-1 in slams) and Agassi (4-10) so even here he could well hold his own at least against the first two. As for big matches: it is true that he has some negative H2H at slams against players he usually owned (0-1 Mac, 0-3 Mats, 1-3 Edberg) but on the other hand he owns Lendl 5-1 and as you said, YEC and DC were both also very big during his time and he excelled in both (38-3 being among the best DC records in history).
Becker’s problem was definitely not that he wasn’t a big match player or could handle the big guys. On the contrary, he did extremely well against them his problem was that he was inconsistent and often lost against lesser players.

Becker trails Lendl 10-11, even though he leads 5-1 in majors
Becker leads Edberg 25-10, even though he trails 1-3 in majors
Becker leads Wilander 7-3, even though he trails 0-3 in majors

Yes, very odd.

 

[timnz]

really depends on how you define big matches

against Wilander, Becker was 5-0 on carpet at YEC and in Davis Cup, 0-2 at RG, and 0-1 at AO
you said Edberg had the edge in big matches but Becker led 4-2 at YEC (lost their only final, won their only semifinal, rest were round robin) and 3-0 in Davis Cup, which should probably make up for some of the 1-2 at Wimbly and 0-1 at RG

Becker also beat Edberg in the 1988 WCT finals. Becker has a superior H2H in best of 5 matches

 

[timnz]

OK. We see it differently, which is fine.

It is fine

 

[fritzhimself]

I don't understand how you can clutter up the whole Internet with such hypothetical questions - don't you have anything else to do - or are you bored?