Great article showing how we have never seen anything like Rafa's clay domination

"I quickly checked Bjorn Borg's record, just to see how he stacked up in this one-man from perfection department at comparably big tournament. It's a tricky undertaking, because the Masters concept was still a speck on the horizon in Borg's time. But some of the present day Masters events, including the Italian Open (Rome) and Monte Carlo, were more or less as prestigious and lucrative then as they are now.



Borg played in Rome four times (I was there for the last of those occasions, when Borg beat local hero Adriano Panatta, 6-3 in the fifth, while the fans pelted him with coins and assorted debris), but only won the title twice. He had to give Richard Russel a first-round walkover in 1973, and lost in the 1975 quarters to Raul Ramirez. Granted, only Ramirez truly beat him in Rome, but Nadal has already played there two more times and the official record for Borg has him with two losses.

Borg's record in Rome was 15-2; Nadal's is 27-1. Borg was 24-8 at Monte Carlo, Nadal is already 34-1. And at the French Open, Borg lost to only one man (Panatta), although he lost to him twice. Borg won the title in six of his eight attempts and finished his career in Paris 49-2. Nadal is already 38-1, with five titles. His Panatta is, ironically, a Swede named Soderling, although we have yet to see that second, streak-ending win.

—In 2010, Nadal didn't have to beat a single player ranked in the Top 10 to earn his title, but he lost only 14 games—more than some players lose in a single match—in the entire tournament.

Well, fellas, spin the chamber, point the barrel. Might as well get it over with."

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42540417/ns/sports-tennis/

I pulled out different excerpts from a longer article by Peter Bodo

Amazing when you not only look at his records at the Master's and at Roland Garros. If I was Nadal I would seriously consider the south American swing in Argentina, Brazil, and Acapulco. That is a month less of hard court wear and tear on the knees and virtually 3 guaranteed tournament wins a year.

He's no Horace, though, is he?

I have to ask TITN who is Horace? Are we referring to the classical writer?

socal1976 wrote:I have to ask TITN who is Horace? Are we referring to the classical writer?

You've never heard of HUNGRY HORACE?! The man is living legend! Horace, son of Horace, clay court messiah.

TITN, you crack me up, they must have pretty good liquor on Pluto; I don't think they do in Saudi, but you would be the expert.

its true socal, Horace has a lively following, almost a secret cult fan base.

Ok, well why exactly does he have this cult following? I would like to be initiated into the secrets of the Horace society.

socal1976 wrote:Ok, well why exactly does he have this cult following? I would like to be initiated into the secrets of the Horace society.

You do not ask to become part of the legions of Horace. You just pray he accepts you.

I've never been initiated, I'm only an observer.

I do know from sources close to the tabernacle, that shrimps and pants seem to be part of the Baptism, along with rumours of eating two tennis balls in a minute.

I like shrimps, but don't fancy eating two tennis balls. Well it is good to see that Horace has such a following. Interesting I started a thread on Nadal and everyone wants to talk about the legendary Horace.