PDA

View Full Version : What's More Impressive?


Leelord337
11-07-2009, 10:52 AM
What's More Impressive?
Roger Federer's 15 grand slam titles (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx)
or
Jimmy Connors' 109 Career ATP Titles? (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx) (roger is at 61 titles)

Personally I have to call it a tie...They're both "inhuman" accomplishments

Cup8489
11-07-2009, 10:59 AM
i said tie as well. 15 majors is great, but 109 titles is insane. i mean, sure part of it is that connors ended up right in the era he needed to dominate it for so long, using his steel T2000 he was a big hitter compared to alot of the woodie users, and his unique game gave him considerable longevity.

But Federer won more majors than any other man in history, which is also very very impressive. he knows what to do when it really counts.

IvanAndreevich
11-07-2009, 11:04 AM
Any top player who has a long career can win countless mickey mouse events if he wants. Connors was the only one who did it, though.

So, what's more impressive?
1) Beating the absolute best players
2) Beating many lesser players over and over

Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

Serve_Ace
11-07-2009, 12:20 PM
Any top player who has a long career can win countless mickey mouse events if he wants. Connors was the only one who did it, though.

So, what's more impressive?
1) Beating the absolute best players
2) Beating many lesser players over and over

Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

That's true, you have to remember, people train in tennis to win a Grand Slam, and that's all they live for is to win one. So of course it's going to be harder to win a grand slam because players bring their best to the slams

T1000
11-07-2009, 12:27 PM
Federer could just play 250s from now on and win 109 titles easily. Grandslams are a lot tougher. Anyone have a list of Connor's titles (who he played, ranking at the time, value of the tournament etc.) I don't know what tournaments Connors won, before my time.

JeMar
11-07-2009, 12:30 PM
It's well-known that Connors played a lot of smaller, meaningless events.

Toxicmilk
11-07-2009, 12:31 PM
Being called one of the ugliest guys ever and date some of the most popular women on tour =D

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40988000/jpg/_40988704_tennis.jpg

I voted fed's 15 slams.

T1000
11-07-2009, 12:31 PM
It's well-known that Connors played a lot of smaller, meaningless events.

Ah ok, thanks. Federer's is more impressive then. I was born in 1992 so I never got to watch Connors play except for the Connors-Krisckstein rerun at every U.S. Open

Ripper014
11-07-2009, 12:44 PM
I think people need to relook this... both are impressive accomplishments... and I don't know who it is that thinks that Connors didn't have to beat anyone but... that was the golden age of tennis. I grew up watching Connors play and there were a lot of great players... not good... great.

Also back then tennis was a lot more popular... tennis pros were rock stars. They played what seemed like every week and that is not an easy task. These days players are taking weeks off to rest so they can play at 100% when they do play. Consider this... playing a heavy schedule and making almost every final or semi... and having to play opponents that are fully rested because they got knocked out in an early round the week before... and having to do this week in and week out for 52 weeks.

It is a mental and physical grind that I don't think is appreciated by the fans of today. That was a golden era that though recognized may not be fully appreciated.

Anybody here remember the days of Laver, Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe... or Ashe, Nastase, Fibak, Okker or Borg, Vilas, Gerulitas, Orantas or Becker, McEnroe, Lendl... the list goes on and on... and Connors had to face all these opponents. I don't think it was that easy. 109 is pretty impressive... not considering probably another 60 or so runner-ups.

One of the things I find most impressive about him is that he had no serve... he did all this without the benefit of cheap service points.

Ripper014
11-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Ah ok, thanks. Federer's is more impressive then. I was born in 1992 so I never got to watch Connors play except for the Connors-Krisckstein rerun at every U.S. Open


Though it was a great win for an old man... he was at the very end of his career... you should have seen him in his prime. A bit of an arrogant ***** but there was probably never a better competitor.

jimbo333
11-07-2009, 12:45 PM
It's well-known that Connors played a lot of smaller, meaningless events.

I hope you are joking:shock:

Connors won more ATP equivalent tournaments than any player in the modern game!

Only Lendl can be said to have arguably won more. It is an amazing achievement by these 2, but I had to vote Connors:)

Oh, and Connors has still won the highest number of US Open titles in the modern game (jointly with Sampras and Federer admittedly)!

JeMar
11-07-2009, 12:50 PM
I hope you are joking:shock:

Connors won more ATP equivalent tournaments than any player in the modern game!

Only Lendl can be said to have arguably won more. It is an amazing achievement by these 2, but I had to vote Connors:)

Oh, and Connors has still won the highest number of US Open titles in the modern game (jointly with Sampras and Federer admittedly)!

I mean he won plenty of huge events, but he also padded his resume with a lot of wins at much smaller, lass-than-top-tier tournaments.

JeMar
11-07-2009, 12:52 PM
I actually think that McEnroe's huge number of singles and doubles titles is more impressive than Connors' singles titles.

CyBorg
11-07-2009, 12:52 PM
Winning that many titles is, in a lot of ways, a reflection of the times. There were more events, especially in the 70s, than today, varying tours, and weaker draws. In a standardized tour, a player will not win 100 titles. It's as simple as that.

For a more accurate comparison of events won between Roger and Jimmy would involve looking at "important titles". Eg. adjusted majors, adjusted masters events (such as the 'super 9' events). This has been done, but not without flaws.

Connors fares well historically against most players, as he's won a lot. But when his accomplishments are adjusted and compared fairly, the result is definitely not lopsided with Federer.

100 singles titles is a curious number. Laver won over 150 throughout his career. But these numbers are meaningless without context.

Personally, I value years as in the top-5 or top-3 as best indicators of greatness and longevity. Years as #1 as particularly good indicators of dominance. Of course, there are always arguments about who the numbers ones are and it's really close in some years.

Ripper014
11-07-2009, 12:57 PM
I hope you are joking:shock:

Connors won more ATP equivalent tournaments than any player in the modern game!

Only Lendl can be said to have arguably won more. It is an amazing achievement by these 2, but I had to vote Connors:)

Oh, and Connors has still won the highest number of US Open titles in the modern game (jointly with Sampras and Federer admittedly)!


Don't forget to add... he is the only one to win it on 3 different court surfaces (grass, clay and hardcourt).

Serendipitous
11-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Grand slams....yummy....:)

Ripper014
11-07-2009, 01:02 PM
Personally, I value years as in the top-5 or top-3 as best indicators of greatness and longevity. Years as #1 as particularly good indicators of dominance. Of course, there are always arguments about who the numbers ones are and it's really close in some years.

It is always hard if not impossible to compare numbers between generation since the variables are different. Competitors conditions... etc... But viewing it for what it is... these are both incredible accomplishments... I think maybe Federers semi's streak in majors may be even more impressive than the wins. It relates to the fact of exactly how consistant he is in the largest events.

jimbo333
11-07-2009, 01:03 PM
I mean he won plenty of huge events, but he also padded his resume with a lot of wins at much smaller, lass-than-top-tier tournaments.

So has every other player in the modern game, not just Connors, the difference is that Connors won them!

How big is the tournament that Federer is playing in this week?

Ripper014
11-07-2009, 01:04 PM
100 singles titles is a curious number. Laver won over 150 throughout his career. But these numbers are meaningless without context.

I think a lot of Laver's wins may have been exhibitions and small draw events... Connors also has a lot of these that are not included in his 109 tourney count, I remember a lot of specialized events with Connors back in the late 70's.

jimbo333
11-07-2009, 01:08 PM
Winning that many titles is, in a lot of ways, a reflection of the times. There were more events, especially in the 70s, than today, varying tours, and weaker draws. In a standardized tour, a player will not win 100 titles. It's as simple as that.

For a more accurate comparison of events won between Roger and Jimmy would involve looking at "important titles". Eg. adjusted majors, adjusted masters events (such as the 'super 9' events). This has been done, but not without flaws.

Connors fares well historically against most players, as he's won a lot. But when his accomplishments are adjusted and compared fairly, the result is definitely not lopsided with Federer.

100 singles titles is a curious number. Laver won over 150 throughout his career. But these numbers are meaningless without context.

Personally, I value years as in the top-5 or top-3 as best indicators of greatness and longevity. Years as #1 as particularly good indicators of dominance. Of course, there are always arguments about who the numbers ones are and it's really close in some years.

The difference is that Connors and the other big players in the 70's/80's entered way more tournaments than todays players, they often played every week for months in a row!

Todays players have it much easier!

Connors tournaments win record is an amazing one for sure, but if Federer can win 20 Grand slams then I will change my vote:)

kishnabe
11-07-2009, 01:18 PM
Logically it would be connors, but emotionally it is federer. Since 15 grand slams are emotional and aggracating tourneys to pick up. ANd to get 15 is emotionally insane. Connors winning 109 tournaments is logically insane for a 40 year old Connors.

jimbo333
11-07-2009, 01:30 PM
Logically it would be connors, but emotionally it is federer. Since 15 grand slams are emotional and aggracating tourneys to pick up. ANd to get 15 is emotionally insane. Connors winning 109 tournaments is logically insane for a 40 year old Connors.

Connors only won about 15 tournaments after the age of 30 though!

jimbo333
11-07-2009, 01:33 PM
Also don't forget Connors won 8 Grand Slams, but didn't play the French Open at his peak for 5 years in the 70's and only played the Australian Open twice ever (winning once and runner-up once)!

He could have arguably won 15 Grand Slams if he played French at his peak and Australian more than twice!

sh@de
11-07-2009, 05:12 PM
Fed's GS number of course. No question about it. Do you remember how many titles Nadal has won? Hardly. What he's remembered by is his 6 grand slams at his young age and across 3 surfaces. It's the slams which count.

jimbo333
11-08-2009, 10:57 AM
I mean he won plenty of huge events, but he also padded his resume with a lot of wins at much smaller, lass-than-top-tier tournaments.

So has every other player in the modern game, not just Connors, the difference is that Connors won them!

How big is the tournament that Federer is playing in this week?

Well Federer didn't win today in this small tounament!

That's the difference, like I said all players enter these tournaments, the difference is that Jimmy won them, no other player in the modern game (except maybe Lendl) has been so succesful and that's why this is so impressive:)

GasquetGOAT
11-08-2009, 12:00 PM
This thread a joke?

There are 40 ATP 250 events on the calender. If any of the top 5 wanted to, say, Murray can skip all slams and masters and seriously win 20 ATP250 a year, just for the sake of breaking the all time number of titles record.

MuseFan
11-08-2009, 12:02 PM
Is this even a question?

MuseFan
11-08-2009, 12:02 PM
This thread a joke?

There are 40 ATP 250 events on the calender. If any of the top 5 wanted to, say, Murray can skip all slams and masters and seriously win 20 ATP250 a year, just for the sake of breaking the all time number of titles record.

Just as Fed could if he wanted to rack up the ATP 1000/500 events. But Fed lives for the slams and the proof is in the pudding. 15 baby.

jimbo333
11-08-2009, 04:06 PM
But Fed lives for the slams and the proof is in the pudding. 15 baby.

Yes, he does and I hope he gets 20!

Whereas Jimmy tried for every event he played in that's the difference!

Jimmy's 109 record is very impressive and I doubt it will ever be broken:)