did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly
have a nice day and pleasant evening
interview
also is there biography on bjorn borg
hg
"have a nice day and pleasant evening" <makh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly, in a book or
> interview
>
> also is there biography on bjorn borg
Ask Johnny Mac. I can remember a few Wimbledons ago him going on and on about every detail of Borg's career for hours during the
rain delays on BBC TV. He knows the reasons why Borg left better than Borg himself, it seems.
RuPEDski
"have a nice day and pleasant evening" <makh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> interview
>
> also is there biography on bjorn borg
Borg was burned out, he worked extremely hard on and off court to maintain
his game. He ate and breathed tennis and that plus the pressures of stardom
began to weigh on him. Then a guy came along named Mcenroe. Borg knew that
his days at #1 were over and that Mac was going to surpass him. (poor Bjorn
never thought that Mac himself would burn out in the not too distant
future...though maybe that wouldn't have happened had Borg stayed). Borg's
ego didn't allow him to back off for a while or play second fiddle. So he
just quit. Though actually, Borg made some attempts to comeback the next
year, but his game was shabby already and he wasn't willing to put in the
work needed to try.
blueskates
> "have a nice day and pleasant evening" <makha...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly, in a book or
> > interview
>
> > also is there biography on bjorn borg
>
> Borg was burned out, he worked extremely hard on and off court to maintain
> his game. He ate and breathed tennis and that plus the pressures of stardom
Who hit like a girl, cheated, and drove Borg out of the game.
drew
> Ask Johnny Mac. I can remember a few Wimbledons ago him going on and on about every detail of Borg's career for hours during the
> rain delays on BBC TV. He knows the reasons why Borg left better than Borg himself, it seems.
McEnroe loves his own voice.
Sakari Lund
Whisper and Rupedski also know it better than Borg himself. It is so
handy that we have them here to answer all tennis questions anyone can
ask.
Patrick Kehoe
++ I remember Borg saying he knew his career was over when he was in
the second set of the 1981 Wimbledon final and he was thinking about
the issues he and his lady were having at the time concerning their
apartment in Monte Carlo and what furniture she wanted to decorate,
which he didn't care for... and he knew his concentration was
evapourating... the main source of his tennis persona and well spring
of his game was vanishing... he couldn't keep his mind clear, fixated,
in the absolute present any longer... and his confidence just
eroded... what confounded him at the time, so he said in 1986, was
that a big part of him was enjoying the challenges coming from McEnroe
and Lendl and he looked forward to testing himself... as he always had
at the highest level... but... his powers of concentration were
leaving him and with it so was his confidence to be able to battle on
every point... put for total effort on every point... that was the
hallmark of his game and he didn't know how to play any other way...
that's what Borg said in 1986...
P
uly...@mscomm.com
explained more in many interviews. They divorced in 1984. Lots of
people don't seem to remember (or know) that Borg and Mariana were
pursued by paparazi all the time and they were this incredibly famous,
golden couple. Sort of like Posh and Becks. They had no privacy and
she said this really began to wear him down off the court. She said
that in late 1981 Borg was on the verge of break-down.
In 1982, Borg lost to Noah in an early round Monte Carlo and the loss
apparently unhinged him. He didn't announce he was leaving tennis till
6 or 7 months later, but didn't play and was out of the limelight.
I always felt that Borg didn't want to be in the game if he couldn't
win majors and dominate at the big events. He also realized his
chances of ever winning the USO were slim to none. He didn't deal with
losing very well so he left the game. This is logical and has been
suggested by "people in the know."
GOAT
> This is logical and has been
> suggested by "people in the know."
Whisper ?
Joe Ramirez
> Borg always just said he was burned out. His then-wife, Mariana,
> explained more in many interviews. They divorced in 1984. Lots of
> people don't seem to remember (or know) that Borg and Mariana were
> pursued by paparazi all the time and they were this incredibly famous,
> golden couple. Sort of like Posh and Becks. They had no privacy and
> she said this really began to wear him down off the court. She said
> that in late 1981 Borg was on the verge of break-down.
>
> In 1982, Borg lost to Noah in an early round Monte Carlo and the loss
> apparently unhinged him. He didn't announce he was leaving tennis till
> 6 or 7 months later, but didn't play and was out of the limelight.
>
> I always felt that Borg didn't want to be in the game if he couldn't
> win majors and dominate at the big events. He also realized his
> chances of ever winning the USO were slim to none.
Why? If Connors could win in 1982 and 1983, why couldn't Borg have
won?
> He didn't deal with
> losing very well so he left the game. This is logical and has been
> suggested by "people in the know."
If they were truly "in the know," they wouldn't need to "suggest"
anything. Speculation is cheap.
Joe Ramirez
Whisper
I have a couple of Borg's autobiographies & can read.
Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
> "have a nice day and pleasant evening" <makha...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Wow, Rupdeski the utlimate know it all troll. Truly despicable
considering whatever he said is utter bullcrap and is based on a
fictional theory which has no basis.
uly...@mscomm.com
Borg would have retired in Jan. '83 had he won Wimbledon in 1981 and
1982? No chance.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Well you hadn't actually said anything in this thread yet. I just
added you because you do know everything better generally.
arnab.z@gmail
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:02:30 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:17:39 -0000, "hg" <h...@hg.hg> wrote:
>
> >>>news:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly, in a book or
> >>>> interview
>
> >>>> also is there biography on bjorn borg
> >>> Ask Johnny Mac. I can remember a few Wimbledons ago him going on and on about every detail of Borg's career for hours during the
> >>> rain delays on BBC TV. He knows the reasons why Borg left better than Borg himself, it seems.
>
> >> Whisper and Rupedski also know it better than Borg himself. It is so
> >> handy that we have them here to answer all tennis questions anyone can
> >> ask.
>
> >I have a couple of Borg's autobiographies & can read.
>
> Well you hadn't actually said anything in this thread yet. I just
> added you because you do know everything better generally.
Everything in between 1981 and 2002 generally. Shows poor grasp of
history outside that range.
topspin
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:17:39 -0000, "hg" <h...@hg.hg> wrote:
>
> >news:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly, in a book or
> >> interview
>
> >> also is there biography on bjorn borg
>
> >Ask Johnny Mac. I can remember a few Wimbledons ago him going on and on about every detail of Borg's career for hours during the
> >rain delays on BBC TV. He knows the reasons why Borg left better than Borg himself, it seems.
>
> Whisper and Rupedski also know it better than Borg himself. It is so
> handy that we have them here to answer all tennis questions anyone can
> ask.
Didn't he leave suddenly because he learnt that Whisper had started
watching. Combined with Connors and McEnroe ranting and raving at the
other end of the court he thought "That's it. The inmates are running
the asylum. Time to leave!". ??
:-)
RuPEDski
"blueskates" <blueska...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:22f6bb21-9b8a-4e1b...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, that to.
RuPEDski
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:47b1fb56$0$20194$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
As do I. Not to mention countless interviews with both, though the story
varies particularly with Mac, who just talks off the top of his head as he
does on every subject. Nevertheless, this was hardly rocket science. The
general causes and reasons are quite straight forward. The psychological
minutia and exact thought processes of Borg are speculative. But there is no
doubt that a combination of burn-out and ego simply did not allow him to
face the changing situation and challenge that Mac presented. He (somewhat
impulsively) decided to just quit and get away from the pressure that way.
He came to regret his decision but had no easy way back in. (which is
something Mac has criticized a great deal).
By the way Sakari, jealousy is not becoming. If you disagree with something
I said, go ahead....if all you can do is whine and snipe with insults, then
you've become no better than Raj and his puppets.
RuPEDski
<uly...@mscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1b8dd7b5-6d91-4872...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It was obvious he couldn't deal well with losing. Do you really think
> Borg would have retired in Jan. '83 had he won Wimbledon in 1981 and
> 1982? No chance.
Yes, there is little doubt of this, only Borg fanboys suggest otherwise. If
he won the USO there is no doubt he would have kept playing. There is no
doubt he faced great pressure(as all stars do...but certainly Borg more than
most) on and off court and Borg's game was built on work. Nonetheless, had
he been cruising, he would have kept going. Along comes Mac, who's best game
beats his best game. Now, do I try to work EVEN harder and know that I still
may become #2? Or should I go do some partying like everyone else? I already
have all these slams, i'm already a legend, nah, i'm gonna go take it easy.
Again, he had 2nd thoughts soon after but had no easy way back into the game
and still did not like the outlook for work necessary to fight Mac. So...bye
bye....
TJT
Borg himself said he should have won their last Wimby match. According
to him he was playing better but just had wrong attitude going into that
match.
But yeah, Mac and Lendl were closing the gap.
Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:47b1fb56$0$20194$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:17:39 -0000, "hg" <h...@hg.hg> wrote:
>
> >>> message
> >>>news:a477824d-9cf9-4d30...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> did borg ever explained why he left tennis suddenly, in a book or
> >>>> interview
>
> >>>> also is there biography on bjorn borg
> >>> Ask Johnny Mac. I can remember a few Wimbledons ago him going on and on
> >>> about every detail of Borg's career for hours during the rain delays on
> >>> BBC TV. He knows the reasons why Borg left better than Borg himself, it
> >>> seems.
>
> >> Whisper and Rupedski also know it better than Borg himself. It is so
> >> handy that we have them here to answer all tennis questions anyone can
> >> ask.
>
> > I have a couple of Borg's autobiographies & can read.
>
> As do I. Not to mention countless interviews with both, though the story
> varies particularly with Mac, who just talks off the top of his head as he
> does on every subject. Nevertheless, this was hardly rocket science. The
> general causes and reasons are quite straight forward. The psychological
> minutia and exact thought processes of Borg are speculative. But there is no
> doubt that a combination of burn-out and ego
Wrong analysis dickhead. If you are burned out, you accept defeat and
hence have no ego. If you have ego you behave like Serena Williams and
come back with a vengeance like 2007 AO.
Borg was basically forced out of the game due to off court troubles.
Interesting you and Whisper make a million excuses for McEnroe's
decline giving no credit to Lendl, but give no excuses to Borg and
give all credit to McEnroe. Talk about hypocrisy!
Led-Yes-Pin-Bea-Rol
> RuPEDski wrote:
> > "blueskates" <blueskates1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lendl couldnt close the gap until 1984...lol
greg...@hotmail.com
Which casts doubt on the theory that he quit because he didn't think
he could beat McEnroe.
He won the first set in the 1981 Wimbledon final, and, as you say,
should have won the match, but he didn't have the desire/focus to do
it. He was still technically able to beat McEnroe, but was basically
burnt out.
jean-yves hervé
<a5a87fb4-85dd-4b94...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
uly...@mscomm.com wrote:
Another factor is that around that time ATP started to emerge as a
business entity (as opposed to simply a players' union) and to wrestle
power away from Chatrier's ITF. One of the first things they tried to
enforce was a minimum number of tournaments for top players, in order to
be allowed to enter slams, while at the same time Borg was actually
thinking of further cutting on his schedule. Just because he took that
as his reason for retiring does not mean that there is not some truth in
it.
jyh.
Dave Hazelwood
Dave Hazelwood
i love you even more now !
Whisper
Haze's new word for the day.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
In short, the reason Borg left tennis was because Mac came around and
the reason Mac left tennis was that Borg wasn't around.
Jack Hollis
>I always felt that Borg didn't want to be in the game if he couldn't
>win majors and dominate at the big events. He also realized his
>chances of ever winning the USO were slim to none. He didn't deal with
>losing very well so he left the game. This is logical and has been
>suggested by "people in the know."
It sure seemed like that. I think Borg wanted to put up the numbers
to be considered the goat and when it became apparent that it wasn't
going to happen, he lost his motivation. Mac's motivation was less
lofty. He wanted to get the best of Borg. When that happened, Mac
lost his motivation.
Joe Ramirez
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:00:01 -0800 (PST), ulys...@mscomm.com wrote:
> >I always felt that Borg didn't want to be in the game if he couldn't
> >win majors and dominate at the big events. He also realized his
> >chances of ever winning the USO were slim to none. He didn't deal with
> >losing very well so he left the game. This is logical and has been
> >suggested by "people in the know."
>
> It sure seemed like that. I think Borg wanted to put up the numbers
> to be considered the goat and when it became apparent that it wasn't
> going to happen, he lost his motivation.
When did it become apparent that "it wasn't going to happen"? People
in RST like to disparage Borg's intelligence, but he could not
possibly have been so stupid to believe that because he lost to Mac in
some slam finals, he (1) would never, ever beat Mac again, or (2)
could not possibly ever win a slam again. No tennis champion has ever
been that dumb. Borg knew the French was still his domain, that he was
at least competitive with Mac at Wimbledon, and that Mac could always
lose to someone else at the US Open. (How many USOs did McEnroe win
after 1981? One!) Exactly what kind of numbers do you think Borg
believed he had to put up?
Joe Ramirez
Whisper
Yes, Borg quitting may have cost him 1 slam, but it cost Mac at least 6
& goat status (woulda won calendar slam, maybe twice). He just couldn't
get up for the (relative) lightweights Lendl/Jimbo.
Whisper
It was clear that Borg was playing at his very best & Mac was getting
better. Mac beat him in their last 3 slam finals, 2 US & 1 Wimbledon,
as well as tune-up finals like Milan in straights. In Borg's mind he
went from big champ winning big slams every yr, to losing to an
improving Mac everywhere he turned. There's no doubt he woulda played
on had he won either Wim or USO '81.
He's also famous for telling Mac there is huge difference between no.1 &
2 - you may as well be no.20 if not No.1. This suggests r/up is same as
losing 1st rd for him.
Carey
That is possibly the most obtusely lame assertion you've ever made. If
it were true,
why then was *'84* Mac's best year?
Whisper
Took him 2 yrs to get over Borg quitting - then he realized he better
give it a real crack as he wasn't coming back & Jimbo snuck in with 3big
slam wins - but at his best Lendl/Jimbo were no competition so he hit
the coke & wasted his immense potential.
Joe Ramirez
The claim that Borg quit because he couldn't stand being no. 2, though
unproved, is at least coherent. However, that is not what we are
debating here. Jack Hollis said Borg left the game because he realized
he couldn't "put up the numbers to be considered the goat" since he
couldn't beat McEnroe. I'm saying that makes no sense. No way could
Borg possibly have thought he had no more slams in him just because he
had lost a few to McEnroe. No one in the game thought that at the
time. And the fact that *Connors* won three slams after 1981 proves
that the game was still pretty wide open, despite McEnroe's
ascendancy.
Joe Ramirez
Carey
Funny, that's nothing like how JMac tells it- but why listen to
him? :)
Whisper
Jimbo wouldn't have won those 3 slams if Borg was around - Borg was
better, + Mac woulda continued his upward trajectory rather than wallow
in depression. FO meant little next to Wim/US at the time so that was
no incentive for him.
Bink B
I'm sure he had a few more left in him but total numbers of slams wasn't
that important in that day and age. They didn't even play the AO. Borg
wanted more time off, the USO was very very frustrating for him to lose,
his skills were starting to erode, Mac was playing great, and personal
probs with gals and the press told him.... I'm done.
B
Bink B
Oh come on... look back through a few years and I'm sure you'll find
equally lame assertions. His obsession with Mac and Sampras seems to
have no bounds. They were both great, but there were/are a dozen other
players just as great that he can't comprehend. It's sad really because
tennis has such a rich history.
B
Bink B
LOL... this is funny to read. Borg was not as sharp as he had been in
years past. He was winning but girlfriends, the press and his weakening
concentration were starting to take a toll. Sure he could still get by
most others but he needed his total focus against Mac... and it was
wavering. He thought maybe a reduced schedule would help and had been
complaining about the number of tourney's he had to enter for a while.
The Tour said no to a reduced schedule and that if he played too few
events he would have to qualify for slams. I'm sure being number 2
wasn't too appetizing to Borg either. Total it all up and it was time to
leave Tennis.
B
Whisper
>>
>> It was clear that Borg was playing at his very best & Mac was getting
>> better. Mac beat him in their last 3 slam finals, 2 US & 1 Wimbledon,
>> as well as tune-up finals like Milan in straights. In Borg's mind he
>> went from big champ winning big slams every yr, to losing to an
>> improving Mac everywhere he turned. There's no doubt he woulda played
>> on had he won either Wim or USO '81.
>>
>> He's also famous for telling Mac there is huge difference between no.1
>> & 2 - you may as well be no.20 if not No.1. This suggests r/up is
>> same as losing 1st rd for him.
>
> LOL... this is funny to read. Borg was not as sharp as he had been in
> years past. He was winning but girlfriends, the press and his weakening
> concentration were starting to take a toll. Sure he could still get by
> most others but he needed his total focus against Mac... and it was
> wavering. He thought maybe a reduced schedule would help and had been
> complaining about the number of tourney's he had to enter for a while.
> The Tour said no to a reduced schedule and that if he played too few
> events he would have to qualify for slams. I'm sure being number 2
> wasn't too appetizing to Borg either. Total it all up and it was time to
> leave Tennis.
> B
If it's 'funny to read' I feel sympathy for you. It's sad a big time
fan like you had no idea what was going for the last 25 yrs - I really
mean that.
Borg himself backs up what I say above & it's in print in several
biographies. It was 'time to leave tennis' because in his mind he was
playing his best tennis ever (as his results aside from Mac testify) &
he wasn't winning any of the biggest titles (FO was Masters series level
in his mind).
You must be a Borg nut - I can't think of any other reason why any
analysts would think Borg was somehow a better tennis player...? Only
have to watch them at their best for 5 minutes to conclude who the
superior talent was.
Whisper
....& yet had he won either Wim or USO he woulda played on.
Very easy to lose motivation when you win nothing big all yr while
playing your best game - too much for Borg to take given his high standards.
No need to make excuses about playing x number of tournaments etc - that
was his way of blaming something for running away. If they agreed to
his low number he woulda gone lower until they had to say no.
Shakes
the arguement is not necessarily about borg being better than mac at
his best. it's about slam count not being as important as it was when
sampras came about.
i mean, just think, do you think borg would've stopped just 1 slam
short of emerson's record if it was that important.
forget about Wim/USO, do you think borg would've thought "i can never
any more slams, not even FO because of mac. no matter how many yrs i
play." ??
i mean, FO was still his domain. and FO was still a slam. that's one
slam short of emmy's record. One slam. If he wanted he could've tried
in 1982 or 1983 or even 1984 etc. Just the FO ?
Bink B
You'll have to dig it up then. I've read biographies too and I see
nothing that says Borg was driven out of tennis by Mac while he was at
the top of his physical and mental game.
It was 'time to leave tennis' because in his mind he was
> playing his best tennis ever (as his results aside from Mac testify)
Again... I watched them play and this is not true whatever you would
have others believe. Borg's play level had dropped.
> he wasn't winning any of the biggest titles (FO was Masters series level
> in his mind).
links?
>
> You must be a Borg nut - I can't think of any other reason why any
> analysts would think Borg was somehow a better tennis player...? Only
> have to watch them at their best for 5 minutes to conclude who the
> superior talent was.
More dribble. I have watched them at their best and they were both
great! Mac won his first slams in 79 and 80 but wasn't at his best till
1981-1984. Borg won his first slams in 74 and 75 and was at his best
from 1977-1980. That's the way tennis goes... a player ebbs a bit and
another is there to take his place. Kramer fades and Gonzales is there
to take the crown, Rosewall wins a bazillion slams and Laver comes
along, Sampras out - Federer in. Borg/Mac is nothing special in tennis
history.
B
Whisper
That's because the raw slam number takes a back seat to the quality - 7543.
Borg was losing the big ones at Wim/USO - FO/AO were & are lesser
events. The main reason Emmo's record wasn't given as much respect as
Sampras' was the low quality. Aside from being amateur, 6 of his 12
were AO - that's scraping bottom of the slam barrel (only won 4 at
Wim/US combined, which is the same as guys like Becker/Edberg).
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
yeah. Whisper knows him better than he knows himself. Just like Pete.
Bink B
links?
>
> Very easy to lose motivation when you win nothing big all yr while
> playing your best game - too much for Borg to take given his high
> standards.
>
> No need to make excuses about playing x number of tournaments etc - that
> was his way of blaming something for running away. If they agreed to
> his low number he woulda gone lower until they had to say no.
At least we see where you come from on this issue where once again your
judgment spirals down the toilet. You are so in love with two players
that you are blind to the greatness of others.
B
Jack Hollis
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>When did it become apparent that "it wasn't going to happen"? People
>in RST like to disparage Borg's intelligence, but he could not
>possibly have been so stupid to believe that because he lost to Mac in
>some slam finals, he (1) would never, ever beat Mac again, or (2)
>could not possibly ever win a slam again. No tennis champion has ever
>been that dumb. Borg knew the French was still his domain, that he was
>at least competitive with Mac at Wimbledon, and that Mac could always
>lose to someone else at the US Open. (How many USOs did McEnroe win
>after 1981? One!)
It's true but in order for Borg to win more GS titles he would have to
put up with no longer being the #1 player and losing most GS that he
played. He didn't take well to loosing.
> Exactly what kind of numbers do you think Borg
>believed he had to put up?
The numbers that Pete Sampras put up.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>> In short, the reason Borg left tennis was because Mac came around and
>> the reason Mac left tennis was that Borg wasn't around.
>
>
>Yes, Borg quitting may have cost him 1 slam, but it cost Mac at least 6
>& goat status (woulda won calendar slam, maybe twice). He just couldn't
>get up for the (relative) lightweights Lendl/Jimbo.
The difference between the great players and the greatest player is
more mental than physical. Borg didn't have the mental toughness to
accept defeat and continue in order to win a few more GS titles.
Joe Ramirez
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:03:19 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>
> >When did it become apparent that "it wasn't going to happen"? People
> >in RST like to disparage Borg's intelligence, but he could not
> >possibly have been so stupid to believe that because he lost to Mac in
> >some slam finals, he (1) would never, ever beat Mac again, or (2)
> >could not possibly ever win a slam again. No tennis champion has ever
> >been that dumb. Borg knew the French was still his domain, that he was
> >at least competitive with Mac at Wimbledon, and that Mac could always
> >lose to someone else at the US Open. (How many USOs did McEnroe win
> >after 1981? One!)
>
> It's true
Yes.
> but in order for Borg to win more GS titles he would have to
> put up with no longer being the #1 player and losing most GS that he
> played. He didn't take well to loosing.
Now you are reverting to the "he couldn't stand being no. 2" argument,
which is different from the "he knew he couldn't win any more slams"
argument. Fine -- at least we've clarified the position.
> > Exactly what kind of numbers do you think Borg
> >believed he had to put up?
>
> The numbers that Pete Sampras put up.
I don't see why Borg would have fixated on 14 slams, given that the
all-time record was 12 and Borg himself held the open era record of
11. Nevertheless, 14 certainly appeared within Borg's reach as of the
end of 1981. He would have remained the favorite at the FO for the
next 3-4 years, and would have been in the mix at Wimbledon (one of
the top two) at the USO (one of the top four) as well. If the draw and/
or the breaks worked out once or twice -- as they did for Connors --
Borg would have been in fine position.
Joe Ramirez
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>He's also famous for telling Mac there is huge difference between no.1 &
>2 - you may as well be no.20 if not No.1. This suggests r/up is same as
>losing 1st rd for him.
I always felt that second place is the worst.
This sentiment was best expressed in 1851 when the yacht America won
the first competition for the Hundred Guinea Cup (now the America's
Cup). When Queen Victoria asked who was second, the reply was, "There
is no second, your Majesty."
Whisper
Correct - & Mac didn't have the mental attitude to play lesser players
after reaching such a high v Borg.
If they had a time machine both guys woulda played til late 30's like
Jimbo/Agassi & maximized potential.
Whisper
Yes, but it's not a given. Mac beat him in last 3 slams & young Lendl
pushed him to 5 in FO final. It's possible he may have not won any
more, losing semis & couple finals etc....
Joe Ramirez
I agree that it's not a "given" -- that's why Borg gets credit for
only 11 slams. No speculation can substitute for wins on court.
However, the question here is *what Borg would have thought* about his
chances in 1981. Would he reasonably have thought that he still had a
good chance to win a few more slams over the next several years?
Absolutely; no other view makes sense.
Joe Ramirez
Jack Hollis
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>The claim that Borg quit because he couldn't stand being no. 2, though
>unproved, is at least coherent. However, that is not what we are
>debating here. Jack Hollis said Borg left the game because he realized
>he couldn't "put up the numbers to be considered the goat" since he
>couldn't beat McEnroe. I'm saying that makes no sense. No way could
>Borg possibly have thought he had no more slams in him just because he
>had lost a few to McEnroe. No one in the game thought that at the
>time. And the fact that *Connors* won three slams after 1981 proves
>that the game was still pretty wide open, despite McEnroe's
>ascendancy.
>
>Joe Ramirez
I have to admit JR that you make a good argument. But these things
happen on an emotional level rather than a logical one. I think Borg
actually felt he was the best there ever was. I certainly did. Then
Mac came around and shattered his illusions. It wasn't as if Borg was
in the twilight of his career and Mac was the new phenomenon. Mac was
less than three years younger and Borg was still in his mid-twenties.
Jack Hollis
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>He would have remained the favorite at the FO for the
>next 3-4 years, and would have been in the mix at Wimbledon (one of
>the top two) at the USO (one of the top four) as well. If the draw and/
>or the breaks worked out once or twice -- as they did for Connors --
>Borg would have been in fine position.
>
>Joe Ramirez
I argue with this but Borg didn't do it.
wkhedr
> Borg was burned out, he worked extremely hard on and off court to maintain
> his game.
What a surprise?!!
wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<b214b4ca-74dd-46cd...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
josephm...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>
> The claim that Borg quit because he couldn't stand being no. 2, though
> unproved, is at least coherent. However, that is not what we are
> debating here. Jack Hollis said Borg left the game because he realized
> he couldn't "put up the numbers to be considered the goat" since he
> couldn't beat McEnroe. I'm saying that makes no sense. No way could
> Borg possibly have thought he had no more slams in him just because he
> had lost a few to McEnroe. No one in the game thought that at the
> time. And the fact that *Connors* won three slams after 1981 proves
> that the game was still pretty wide open, despite McEnroe's
> ascendancy.
Commentators from the period believed the reason Borg left was that he
was burned out and *wanted to play less*. There was a big battle between
Borg and the ATP over the number of events he had to play. Borg said
he'd quit if they didn't let him reduce the number of events per year;
they called what they thought was his bluff; he quit, just like he said
he would.
I've never seen any contmporary explanation that thought he left because
of McEnroe.
wg
smch...@yahoo.com
wife's book (wife and GF when book was being written)... a few things
i might add (some from book's - some not):
seemed to really pain him he couldn't win USO. seemed like he was
real perfectionist and must have eaten him up.
played huge, huge exhibition schedule and was going from major city to
major city each day i.e taipei to manilla and it takes a good part of
day to do local hotel transfer and then flight in-between and does it
for 14 straight days. then back to europe for a tourney with maybe one
day's rest in europe. of course, i'm sure he took a couple of weeks
off sometimes.
i don't think he liked the press coverage and being a cultural icon.
even though it seems like he was a natural star.
i hate to ask this: but given he was into cocaine after he retired.
was he somewhat into it on tour too? that can really kill your
concentration... i think one of the books said his best tour friend
was vitas gerulatis. so i wonder