GOAT...best article that I have read so far.

[don_budge]

Splitting hairs...

[QUOTE=licensedcoach;14830]

Josef, I am in a forum and writing at speed and don't feel the need to be completely precise or choose perfect wording. I am entitled to guess at 10 years, knowing full well it wasn't a few (a few is a couple...maybe three in my dictionary).

I liked the article. I found it thorough and interesting when I first read it. Read a few times over, however, and the article can be seen as heavily biased in Pancho's favour and plays with the truth here and there. Pancho is legendary in this forum and takes no 'selling' to most of us. It is a tragedy that he never had the chance to win slams.

To be fair to Borg, he was exceptional, a phenomenon. His temperament was like no other tennis player ever. I rarely use the word unique, but to Borg I would apply it readily.

He was mad to make that comeback...mad to do it in his 30s...madder still to attempt it with a wooden racket.

But splitting hairs is fun too! A couple is two and a few is three, in my book. Specifically Borg attempted his comeback perhaps eight years later...give or take some wiggle room. There may be some other inaccuracies in the story, some minor glitches...we may as well call Bud Collins. Is he still around?

But overall I thought it was a rather profound article and clarified the importance of Grand Slam titles relative to pre and post the point where amateur and professional tennis combined...in 1969, the year that I began to play tennis. Grand Slams has been one of the traditional yardsticks that we use when discussing the relative greatness of tennis players from different eras but now it appears that this may be an erroneous measure...perhaps now we can admit that between this revelation and the obfuscation of the new equipment to further skew the issue, we are basically shit out of luck if we want to compare players of the modern era of "new tennis" and the old guys in the old days...in terms of GOAT (Greatest of All Time)...don't laugh it took me a little while to figure out the acronym when I saw it for the first time on this forum. We are left with our collective logic and reasoning capabilities...which is to admit it is hopeless. Regardless...the more I learn about this guy the more I love him. He was still winning tournaments at the age of 44...that is a fact. Bless johnyandell for loving him too...I am impressed that he would run the article again. What a warrior!

But anyways...this business about Borg. How about the word "enigmatic"? But only in the cultural sense...I maintain that he is only acting Swedish most of the time and I know this because I live in Sweden. These people are definitely unique and perhaps enigmatic...in the sense that their culture is unique, too. Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander had much the same countenance or temperament. But I think that the fact that Borg was using his wood racquets for his comeback long after it was established that the game had gone the way of larger racquets and different materials is an indication that his comeback was actually some form of protest against the modern game of tennis...and the change in equipment. He was definitely one of the players who found himself in the position of either change to the new equipment, or quit the game, or be happy being a loser to opponents who were inferior but had better technology in their equipment. Björn Borg was quite a warrior too...albeit a somewhat silent one. Enigmatic.

Björn was definitely not mad in the sanity sense of the word, Stotty...but he may of been angry and unable to express himself verbally...unlike some other people. Swedish people typically avoid arguments and confrontations. He was in the middle of a great run on the tennis world and then they "reinvented" the game right in the middle of his run...and they probably didn't ask his permission, or McEnroe's either. They interrupted him...how rude and what an utter lack of respect. He quit in '83, right? Connors used a midsized Wilson Pro Staff for the first time at the '84 US Open and lost to McEnroe who had also switched over to a midsized Dunlap, in a five set semifinal. Lendl stuck with his standard sized Adidas, was pushed to five sets in the other semi by a 19 year old Pat Cash playing with a midsized racquet that I did not recognize and was unlabeled in the strings. Lendl then lost to McEnroe in the finals. Is all of this a coincidence? I wonder. Anybody care?

We need an answer from this guy...and I think I am going to give him a call. Anyone out there have his number?

[josef]

[QUOTE=licensedcoach;14830]

Josef, I am in a forum and writing at speed and don't feel the need to be completely precise or choose perfect wording. I am entitled to guess at 10 years, knowing full well it wasn't a few (a few is a couple...maybe three in my dictionary).

I liked the article. I found it thorough and interesting when I first read it. Read a few times over, however, and the article can be seen as heavily biased in Pancho's favour and plays with the truth here and there. Pancho is legendary in this forum and takes no 'selling' to most of us. It is a tragedy that he never had the chance to win slams.

To be fair to Borg, he was exceptional, a phenomenon. His temperament was like no other tennis player ever. I rarely use the word unique, but to Borg I would apply it readily.

He was mad to make that comeback...mad to do it in his 30s...madder still to attempt it with a wooden racket.

Hallo

Sure you entitled to guess at 10 years and you dont have to be completely precise on an internet forum.
But when you accuse an author of a long article of being inaccurate and bending the truth (thats a pretty hard verdict for a journalist) and than pick one of the many( supposedly) inaccuracies and confront it with the accurate description ; then its a good idea not only to guess and to be precise and most of all accurate. Especially when you chose to use a very precise formulation like "a full" ten years and not only ten years.


Imo the formulation in question
"Borg retired in his twenties and was unable to compete against top players when he tried a come-back within just a few years."
is not inaccurate in the sense of not getting his facts straight.
Its within the wiggle room of expression, it is not an inaccurate statement.

English is not my first language but i really liked your gracious interpretation of a few "maybe three". I believe if you give the author the same wiggle room that you used in your interpretation in "your dictionary" then there is no need for accusations.

But i would be interested to hear about the other inaccuracies you have found in this text, because i know very little about tennis in the 60s and 50s, so i am willing to hear the other side of the story, if there is one.


Kind regards, Josef

[stotty]

[QUOTE=josef;14823]

Yeah...read this article some time ago. It's riddled with subtle inaccuracies to strengthen Pancho's position, though. For example, Borg did not attempt his comeback within a few years of retiring at the age of 25 as the article suggests. His comeback was a full ten years after he first retired. There are many similar inaccuracies throughout the article. ]

I wanted to be a journalist before I realized I had little talent for writing. The 'Golden Rule', I was taught for becoming a trusted and respected journalist, is get your facts straight. I've never quite trusted this article because some facts are either dubious or the truth is bent in Pancho's favour. The author is too biased toward Gonzales.


Hello
The quote in question is :

"Borg retired in his twenties and was unable to compete against top players when he tried a come-back within just a few years."
Borg retired 1983 and made his comeback 1991 in Monte Carlo.
Thats 8 years. Maybe that is more than "just a few" but that is open to debate imo. I would have preferred the author had just written after 8 years.
But on the other hand he is pretty nice in saying that Borg could not compete against top players because Borg could not compete with anyone in the top 50. He didnt win a set in 1991. No wonder playing with wood against graphite.
Becker put it nicely after training with him :" His balls have no Druck"
Druck means Pressure in german in this context power.


But to get the facts straight what to you mean by 1. when Borg "first retired" (your expression not the authors) and 2. how do you come up with a full 10 year between retirement and comeback ?


Josef

Josef, I am in a forum and writing at speed and don't feel the need to be completely precise or choose perfect wording. I am entitled to guess at 10 years, knowing full well it wasn't a few (a few is a couple...maybe three in my dictionary).

I liked the article. I found it thorough and interesting when I first read it. Read a few times over, however, and the article can be seen as heavily biased in Pancho's favour and plays with the truth here and there. Pancho is legendary in this forum and takes no 'selling' to most of us. It is a tragedy that he never had the chance to win slams.

To be fair to Borg, he was exceptional, a phenomenon. His temperament was like no other tennis player ever. I rarely use the word unique, but to Borg I would apply it readily.

He was mad to make that comeback...mad to do it in his 30s...madder still to attempt it with a wooden racket.

[josef]

[QUOTE=licensedcoach;14795]Yeah...read this article some time ago. It's riddled with subtle inaccuracies to strengthen Pancho's position, though. For example, Borg did not attempt his comeback within a few years of retiring at the age of 25 as the article suggests. His comeback was a full ten years after he first retired. There are many similar inaccuracies throughout the article. ]

I wanted to be a journalist before I realized I had little talent for writing. The 'Golden Rule', I was taught for becoming a trusted and respected journalist, is get your facts straight. I've never quite trusted this article because some facts are either dubious or the truth is bent in Pancho's favour. The author is too biased toward Gonzales.


Hello
The quote in question is :

"Borg retired in his twenties and was unable to compete against top players when he tried a come-back within just a few years."
Borg retired 1983 and made his comeback 1991 in Monte Carlo.
Thats 8 years. Maybe that is more than "just a few" but that is open to debate imo. I would have preferred the author had just written after 8 years.
But on the other hand he is pretty nice in saying that Borg could not compete against top players because Borg could not compete with anyone in the top 50. He didnt win a set in 1991. No wonder playing with wood against graphite.
Becker put it nicely after training with him :" His balls have no Druck"
Druck means Pressure in german in this context power.


But to get the facts straight what to you mean by 1. when Borg "first retired" (your expression not the authors) and 2. how do you come up with a full 10 year between retirement and comeback ?


Josef

[John Yandell]

Stotty,

Let me know about any other blatant errors you see. I like it for the same reasons Don does and think whether everyone agrees with the conclusion it's worth publishing as part of our Richard Gonzalez festival.

[tennis_chiro]

Seems pretty convincing

Found this in the archives...I was viewing Online readers and "caught" someone viewing this. It is worth a repost...I had never seen it. The article that makes the most sense to me on this subject...so far. Extremely well written and well thought out.

The book is Tilden. Gonzales is the model...with Budge's backhand. Hopman is the coach. Federer is living proof.

http://www.inficad.com/~1stbooks/PG_.htm

I'd heard bits and pieces of this chronology before, but never seen it so well laid out. The author doesn't make clear that the reason Kramer was considered king in those last two years was that he was no longer playing Gonzales in his barnstorming tour because Kramer needed the latest amateur hotshot (not sure who it was those years, but it was not Gonzales). Gonzales' only shot at him was at the pro championship tournaments and those were few and far between. Nevertheless, Pancho won those.

And the victories in the late 60's are pretty impressive as well. It made me reorder my list for potential GOAT's. Gonzales might well have matched Roger's 19 major semis in a row (not even 5 years). It is hard to imagine him losing an important match to anyone outside the top 4 in the middle of that 12 year run, as good a clutch player as he was. I'm putting Pancho at the top of the list as far as relative to his contemporaries. And that's the only way you can look at it. Comparing absolute skill is like trying to drop a race car driver and his car from the 50's with top speeds well below 200 mph into a race today where they might routinely reach qualifying speeds averaging well over 200 mph.

12 years of total dominance. I didn't realize it was that long. Awesome.

don

[julian1]

A post for you related to backswings

Licensedcoach,
I have put a post for you
http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin...?t=1891&page=2
post #20

[stotty]

Yeah...read this article some time ago. It's riddled with subtle inaccuracies to strengthen Pancho's position, though. For example, Borg did not attempt his comeback within a few years of retiring at the age of 25 as the article suggests. His comeback was a full ten years after he first retired. There are many similar inaccuracies throughout the article.

I wanted to be a journalist before I realized I had little talent for writing. The 'Golden Rule', I was taught for becoming a trusted and respected journalist, is get your facts straight. I've never quite trusted this article because some facts are either dubious or the truth is bent in Pancho's favour. The author is too biased toward Gonzales.

[bottle]

The excellence is in the detail, which succeeds in a series of body blows.

[don_budge]

Found this in the archives...I was viewing Online readers and "caught" someone viewing this. It is worth a repost...I had never seen it. The article that makes the most sense to me on this subject...so far. Extremely well written and well thought out.

The book is Tilden. Gonzales is the model...with Budge's backhand. Hopman is the coach. Federer is living proof.

http://www.inficad.com/~1stbooks/PG_.htm