Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Borg won 11 slams - all of them were consequent RGs and Ws. He skipped other slams regularly and as soon as he got enough of tennis, he stopped competing.

I think it's safe to say that with 100% dedication and not skipping slams, Borg's slam count would be somewhere around Nadal and Federer, if not even higher, and he would almost certainly have at least 1 CYGS and who knows how many more Channel Slams and other records. Also, his high popularity would be even higher and his charisma even more appreciated.

So with Borg's 100% dedication to tennis, I think it's safe to say he would be bigger than Sampras easily. But how he would compare to the Big 3 in term of greatness and popularity (not level of play, that's laughable)? How many slams approximately and what important records (CYGS, Channel Slams) would he have? How much would all of that help Borg in the GOAT debate if we take into account that the Big 3 era is much stronger? Also, would we have Borgtards on MTF?

I think 1 thing is certain - with Borg's 100% dedication to tennis, tennis and it's history would be much more interesting.
 

·
|
Joined
·
14,285 Posts
Nobody was more dedicated to tennis than Borg, and that's why he retired young.
He destroyed himself in the search for perfection, and couldn't take it anymore.
He's an example of what happens when you are too obsessed with winning : )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Borg's 3rd consecutive Channel Slam(1980) when that meant something might be the most impressive record in Open Era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,077 Posts
He reached 4 us open finals and didn’t win one of them. Maybe he just wasn’t good enough on hard courts...
he competed at 1 HC slam a year and made the final of it almost every year while injured in one...


yeah, just not good enough for the surface.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
He reached 4 us open finals and didn’t win one of them. Maybe he just wasn’t good enough on hard courts...
No, you are too young I assume. Borg was something. He didn't like to play at the US Open. He hated the night matches.

He also didn't like to play at the AO because the AO, unlike today, was not that relevant. Borg also didn't count majors. Everything that matters was Wimbledon and RG. He was great on HC too but it was different time. Everything was so different. It's hard to explain to younger posters here.

His frame of mind was different. Shoot. I don't how many times I have to explain the same thing.

Give me a player who can win 6 RG and 5 Wimbledon titles nowadays. No way. I don't think it will ever happen again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
Even without 100% dedication Borg is just below Federer, Laver, and Djokovic and tied with Sampras in the GOAT debate.
So he is good where he is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,400 Posts
I rate Borg above Nadal and Djokovic. The biggest impact if he played more was that he would have pushed Connors aside, and we'd not see Connors winning slams outside of the USO after 1980. Big question if Lendl ever breaks through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
No, you are too young I assume. Borg was something. He didn't like to play at the US Open. He hated the night matches.

He also didn't like to play at the AO because the AO, unlike today, was not that relevant. Borg also didn't count majors. Everything that matters was Wimbledon and RG. He was great on HC too but it was different time. Everything was so different. It's hard to explain to younger posters here.

His frame of mind was different. Shoot. I don't how many times I have to explain the same thing.

Give me a player who can win 6 RG and 5 Wimbledon titles nowadays. No way. I don't think it will ever happen again.
Well if it weren’t for nadal federer would’ve had 5 RG and 7 Wimbledon by 2009. not bad either. Yes I know if if if

Yes I’m 27 so I’ve never seen Borg obviously. I just know what my father told me since he was watching tennis in this era. But he was more in the McEnroe-camp and didn’t like Borg all that much. He thought his game was stale and boring, and relied on stamina and grinding rather than technique and finesse. Is this true to a point (for the time) I’ve never seen Borg play?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,405 Posts
What makes a "100% dedicated" Borg different from the actual Borg? Would he have trained more? Would he have kept on playing beyond the 30s?

More importantly, what would have "100% dedication" meant at the time Borg was active?

As @Alex999 mentioned, it was a vastly different time back then, different culture, different mindset, different economy, different everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
Well if it weren’t for nadal federer would’ve had 5 RG and 7 Wimbledon by 2009. not bad either. Yes I know if if if

Yes I’m 27 so I’ve never seen Borg obviously. I just know what my father told me since he was watching tennis in this era. But he was more in the McEnroe-camp and didn’t like Borg all that much. He thought his game was stale and boring, and relied on stamina and grinding rather than technique and finesse. Is this true to a point (for the time) I’ve never seen Borg play?
Nope, you didn't see Borg playing and yes I was right that you are too young which is fine. Cocky too. What your father thinks is also irrelevant especially if he was a JMac fan. You need to go on YouTube and watch some old matches.

Think on your own. Do not let other people influence your opinion. Read, watch and learn. Don't tell me about Borg and grinding. That's BS. Kid, I know you try hard to understand some tennis stuff but you don't.

Borg was able to adapt to any court, any surface. He was a genius. End of story. He was able to grind at RG but he was also able to serve and volley at Wimbledon.

Do not try to be too smart and talk about stuff you simply do not understand. Please. Also, don't give me that BS 'It wasn't for Nadal Fed would win this and that'... Well Nadal does exist. That's not how it works. This is a real world, not some fantasy world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
Forget all the ifs- Borg is still one of the greatest ever with whatever records he holds currently. Borg played at a time when nobody kept a count of slams won- that only started in the late 90s when Sampras reached double figures. Borg won the French- Wimbledon double three times at a time when the game was completely different on the two surfaces.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
He would probably end on 16-18 slams

He would have 4-5 AOs, with a couple more RGs, don't think he would have gotten more Wimbies or USO though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
As mentioned earlier he burnt out so there isnt an option to have committed 100%, his success and problem was that he already had. even if he had hung on for longer i think his game style may have only had a couple more years anyway as it was very soft and non-wood racquets and big hitters were on the way. he's top 5 all time in my mind (big 3 plus laver and him) given how hard it was to win on fast grass with only a two week gap from winning at the french. Sampras may have more slams but one semifinal at RG isnt greatest of all time material.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
Nope, you didn't see Borg playing and yes I was right that you are too young which is fine. Cocky too. What your father thinks is also irrelevant especially if he was a JMac fan. You need to go on YouTube and watch some old matches.

Think on your own. Do not let other people influence your opinion. Read, watch and learn. Don't tell me about Borg and grinding. That's BS. Kid, I know you try hard to understand some tennis stuff but you don't.

Borg was able to adapt to any court, any surface. He was a genius. End of story. He was able to grind at RG but he was also able to serve and volley at Wimbledon.

Do not try to be too smart and talk about stuff you simply do not understand. Please. Also, don't give me that BS 'It wasn't for Nadal Fed would win this and that'... Well Nadal does exist. That's not how it works. This is a real world, not some fantasy world.
Man i was just asking a harmless question, no need to become so arrogant as if you’ve sucked up all the tennis wisdom.
Also kinda cute that you feel offended because my dad was a McEnroe fan and you’re obviously the biggest Borg fan ever.
Just watched some Borg footage from RG (compilation) and man are they playing the same sport. Everything is slow and stale and the players barely move around the court. Maybe he was a genius of his time but I can’t see it now in retrospective because I didn’t grow up watching tennis in that time. Yes it had to do with racket and string technology but it’s nothing I can simply leave out when comparing eras, so it’s pretty difficult for an outsider to get a grip of the player‘s greatness of their time.
I specifically added the if if if to the nadal part so you don’t become cocky about this as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,644 Posts
Man i was just asking a harmless question, no need to become so arrogant as if you’ve sucked up all the tennis wisdom.
Also kinda cute that you feel offended because my dad was a McEnroe fan and you’re obviously the biggest Borg fan ever.
Just watched some Borg footage from RG (compilation) and man are they playing the same sport. Everything is slow and stale and the players barely move around the court. Maybe he was a genius of his time but I can’t see it now in retrospective because I didn’t grow up watching tennis in that time. Yes it had to do with racket and string technology but it’s nothing I can simply leave out when comparing eras, so it’s pretty difficult for an outsider to get a grip of the player‘s greatness of their time.
I specifically added the if if if to the nadal part so you don’t become cocky about this as well.
I'm not arrogant, I'm a grumpy old man. Everyone on MTF knows that :lol:.

I do understand that you don't understand and everything seemed to be 'stale' to you. Again, it was a different story back then. You have to look at the big picture. Wooden racquets, different strings. Nobody knows what Borg or JMac were eating. Nowadays, we know everything. Djokovic eats fish only, gluten free blah, blah. As soon as the big 3 fart it's all over the net :speech:.

I do tend to be sarcastic but I'm asking you to try to learn, develop your own sense of what it is and what it isn't. Think for yourself. Do not follow what common society dictates nowadays. Be original and you will make it :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,497 Posts
He would probably end on 16-18 slams

He would have 4-5 AOs, with a couple more RGs, don't think he would have gotten more Wimbies or USO though
Welcome back to the forum. We missed your insight greatly. :bowdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,798 Posts
he competed at 1 HC slam a year and made the final of it almost every year while injured in one...
Winning is what counts, not making the final. So yes he was not quite good enough by the standards we are measuring here. He did claim that the lights were the problem but then it was the same for his opponent presumably.... So he was fully committed to winning the USO but failed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,042 Posts
Nobody really cares about the GOAT debate outside of this forum so it wouldn't affect the tennis world so much except for Borg having a much better career and being more well off because of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,573 Posts
Much less than Laver or Rosewall if they had stayed as amateurs for the better part of their careers.

Because 27-30 y.o. Borg would've stood no chance against younger prodigies Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander & co. i.e. would've been very lucky adding a couple of slams more with his old racquet.

Had he had always played AO beforehand since his 16/17 birthday, he would've probably lost several of his RG or Wimb titles instead and maybe would've ended his career even earlier due to injuries, or as his younger compatriot Wilander (7 slams + 4 more finals) would've reached his last slam final by his 24th birthday reaching only one GS SF thereafter.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top