That's already factored in. Moses had 122 individual events and won them all ... Nadal had 102 and won 100.

Yeah, eh, no.

Edwin moses is a legit example. But the field in the hurdles is not so deep.

I'm no expert so only assuming here, but I'd imagine that an athletic discipline like hurdles would have far less variance than a sport like Tennis, even though it's only a single race and I guess you could bomb a start or something, I'd imagine in general the fastest guy just wins, there'd be less form factors, less upsets because the best guy "wasn't on" etc. You probably don't need to be THAT much faster than someone else to be, say, 98% to win a given race. This would make a large streak less impressive in a sense, because it would be less reflective of a massive edge, just a consistent one. In Tennis upsets are not uncommon, which is what makes this record so amazing. 98% win probability in Tennis is a gigantic disparity in skill.

ya only Bjorn Borg had a 96% win percentage at French while giving infinitely less ****s about tennis than Nadal and retiring at 26

seems like it's not that unparalleled if other people can achieve similar results in the same discipline

Exactly, he retired at 26. I'm not sure if you understand how win percentages work or not but that's not a point in his favour.

I'm not sure what you're not sure about

Pretty clearly Bjorn achieved about same status as Nadal as far as being unbeatable at RG (it was actually better than Nadal since he was the first and then Nadal just slightly improved his WR) and then moved on to better things since only about 10 people in the history of the world ever cared about RG record. But keep spouting nonsense about how it's an unparalleled achievement across every single sport known to man.

6 = 13

Bjorn would have had to go 51-0 instead of retiring to have the same record as Nadal.

About the same though

He retired so early tho...
And he was good everywhere .
It’s probably the only guy who could have dominate like the 3 we have today if he would of continue .

Too young to have seen him play but my mother (and assuming everyone’s mothers at the time) thought he was the GOAT.

I can only look up what he done but he retiring then coming back to the sport with the new equipment is a negative imo he also didn’t win a hard court slam - although clearly they didn’t care about the AO.

Would have been interesting to see what he came up with if he stayed until around 30.

Interestingly he won the fo without dropping a set 3 times (50% strike rate) and dropped fewer games while doing so than Rafa. So it’s not out of the question to say he’d have won a few more and likely wouldn’t have dropped a set.

Borg's record at Wimbledon was almost as good as FO. Plus, Borg did not play against Connors at FO due to Connors being effectively banned for his WTT participation. I'd probably lean toward Wimbledon career as Borg's greatest accomplishment.

It's almost a certainty Borg would have been a dog against Lendl >1983. He took Borg to 5 sets in the '81 final, and was 4 years younger than Borg. McEnroe also had stepped up his clay game and was probably at least on par with Borg in 1984. Wilander was also around, he was 8 years younger than Borg and would have gained favorite status at some point mid 80s.

Not saying Borg could not have won FO, but saying he would likely win it 4+ times post 1981 is a bit of an overreach.

I was just purely guessing based on the numbers I seen. Plus generally speaking 26-29 is considered physical peak of the body in sports. So he missed that.

I’m the goat

Contemporaries of his era:

McEnroe: 8 GS wins, zero after age 25
Connors: 8 GS wins, 3 after age 25
Lendl: 8 GS wins, 2 after age 27
Wilander: 8 GS wins, zero after 24
Edberg: 6 GS wins, zero after 26
Becker: 6 GS wins, 1 after 23

Vilas won all 4 of his GS titles in a 3 year span aged 24-26.

wow

Yeah, there is a difference between physiological peak and peak competitive performance. Injuries, competition, personal life, etc. all enter into it.

25 was old for tennis players before this recent era.

Pre 2004 the median GS winner's age was 24. The node was 25 (18 wins).

So, although 25 was certainly on the old side, it more closely represented the peak.

Agree
The level of perfection for physical training as evolve immensely since the 70 and 80 .
In the 1990s , 30 was very old and if my memory don’t fail me , Agassi was the first to really push the age limit past 30 and still be a top contender.

Connors was somewhat competitive but we all knew he couldn’t actually win anything vs the top 4-5 .

GOAT news to add to the debate:

Nadal has now been in the top 10 for 790 straight weeks, the longest streak ever.

Djokovic has locked up the year end #1 for the 6th time, tying Sampras for the most ever.

hmm, considering changing my vote

What I love about Kyrgios is that's the closest he'll ever come to saying something nice about Rafa.

I like him. I think I’m in the minority. For me he adds something different and when he can e bothered he’s brilliant. I want him to care (I think he does tbf) but keep that motivation up and don’t lose the head he’s in with a chance this crazy year.