Great, All-time Great...Legend?

[El Dude]

The word "legend" has a subjective quality which goes beyond records and is thus perhaps not so useful when comparing players. For instance, Ivan Lendl has a significantly better career resume than John McEnroe, but Mac is more legendary because of who he was as a human being.

As for Novak, we could be under-appreciating his legacy because what he has done is quite amazing - he snuck up on Fedal and said, "Hey guys, I'm right here with you." While Rafa gets the nod as the best player of their generation, Novak isn't far behind - he isn't Vilas to Connors or Roddick/Hewitt to Federer, he's more Agassi to Sampras or Rosewall to Laver.

 

[Moxie]

Tennis achievements are clearly the main determinant for legendary status, I agree. But an all time great with memorable charisma probably earns legendary status as well. For example JMac might only have 7 majors, but guys please... he's a legend. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!! You go anywhere in the world and say that, the odds are people are going to know who you're talking about. If that's not the definition of legend I don't know what is..

Not only that, he says people still stop him in airports and talk to him about that 1980 Wimbledon final with Borg…and they think he won! Now, THAT'S legend. :laydownlaughing

 

[brokenshoelace]

Tennis achievements are clearly the main determinant for legendary status, I agree. But an all time great with memorable charisma probably earns legendary status as well. For example JMac might only have 7 majors, but guys please... he's a legend. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!! You go anywhere in the world and say that, the odds are people are going to know who you're talking about. If that's not the definition of legend I don't know what is..

I agree with this, which is why I brought up Mac as the exception.

 

[DarthFed]

Borg went to 4 finals, Pete barely made to a semi..... huge difference. Sampras is below the other tier players, his clay game is way below par to be comparable.

Pete was better on grass and way better on hard courts. I don't see how Borg gets credit for losing 4 times on the big stage.

 

[Federberg]

Borg went to 4 finals, Pete barely made to a semi..... huge difference. Sampras is below the other tier players, his clay game is way below par to be comparable.

Pete was better on grass and way better on hard courts. I don't see how Borg gets credit for losing 4 times on the big stage.

Perhaps because of who he lost to? Look.. I'm a Sampras fan.. but it wasn't like he was unfortunate to be taken out early by guys approaching his stature. At least Borg could say that...

 

[DarthFed]

Yea Borg lost to Mac and Connors, I'd fancy Pete over both of them at USO, at least twice out of 4 times.

Edit: Well except for green clay which I think one of those 4 were played on. We know Pete wouldn't have made the final there

 

[Federberg]

^I won't disagree with you there. But trying fitting to the times If Pete had been losing to the Agassi's, Brugueras and Musters.. (and I can't recall who he was losing to, my instinct is that it was lesser pedegree players generally although he did lose to Kafelnikov the year he won).. then we can give him a pass. The point is that Borg was being taken out by the opposition of the very highest calibre at Flushing, while I'm not sure the same was happening to Pete

 

[DarthFed]

Ok, I wasn't following where we were just comparing Sampras at RG vs. Borg at USO. Clearly Borg was better at USO than Sampras at RG and Borg could play on hards while Sampras couldn't play on clay.

 

[shawnbm]

Legend is ... to use a cliche, the stuff of legend. It can be a one-time freak occurrence that folks recall for all time. Borg first comes to mind as what he did, and how he did it, was the "stuff of legend". He was a Norse-like tennis god, with long hair, tight shorts, a strange, little-used Donnay racquet and a superhuman heart rate that allowed him to grind for hours on end. He could have won many more French titles (just ask Mats Wilander who hit with him the week before he played and won the 1982 French Open). Then, on top of that, he was able to win 5 straight titles at SW19! Then, poof! He was gone--burnt out and out to live life. THAT is the stuff of legend. I really can't think of another in the Open Era like him. Now, if we go back in time, a guy like Lew Hoad or Pancho Gonzales might qualify. Hoad was a party-animal who could obliterate the best on his day. He also left the game too soon. Pancho pummelled Laver, Rosewall, Emerson and even played into his forties beating the young superstars of the 1970s, Connors and Borg. Those were legends.