grafselesfan
Banned
Obviously there are 3 guys you could debate as the true #1 of 1977- Connors, Vilas, and Borg. Who do you believe was the true #1 of 1977.
Jimmy Connors
Although I'm not going to argue my case as I'm biased, as he is my favourite ever player, so my argument probably won't be seen as credible
Come on now. Most people who vote on any of these are biased.
Yes, they obviously are
Although I really think there is a case for everyone only making comments about players other than their favourites!!!
Now I realise this is never going to happen, but I for one have more respect for comments made by people about players other than their favourites
Is this a vote for who is really the best player or is it a vote for the best record?
I meant the player who you think deserved to be ranked #1 for the year, so I would say best record more than neccessarily best player.
What do you mean by best record? Best W-L record? There is no need for a poll for this. You can find the W-L record yourself.
That's pretty meaningless obfuscation. The purpose of the poll is not to show the record, but to find out how people around here interpret it.
Connors was I think.
Yes, I agree, Connors
And he was ranked no.1 for 77, that must the most important stat when looking at records for the year surely?
So, the smiley face besides Connors means you're joking?
No, the smiley face is like a very small picture of my face, I really do look like this (only slightly less yellow)
And you never answered my previous questions about your avatar, do you actually look like that?
(Borg was best player in the world 1977)
That's a complicated question. The philosophical answer to this is that we really cannot know what we look like to others.
The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas
Grand Slams were always more important than the Masters, and Connors didn't win one Grand Slam that year. He can't be the N°1. It's Vilas (2 Grand Slams + 1 Final + 16 tournaments + 46 matches won consecutively)
The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas
Guillermo Vilas - 16 titles in 1977, all but 3 on clay (three very minor events on hard/carpet)
Jimmy Connors won 8 titles in 1977 (no majors)
All wins on hardcourt or carpet.
One final on grass (Wimbledon) and three on clay but they were American clay (including the US Open).
Lost at majors to both Borg and Vilas.
ALL but one of Connors' wins were in the United States (the other was in Australia).
Won the year-end Masters BUT on carpet and in the USA which weakens its value.
No Davis Cup
0-2 against Vilas (once at the US Open and once at the Masters - the latter result showing the weakness of that event)
1-2 against Borg (one being at Wimbledon)
Absolutely NOT #1 in 1977. NOT even in the equation, unless you rig the system.
I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.
The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.
Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.
Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.
Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.
So would your rankings be something like:
1a. Borg
1b. Connors
3. Vilas
I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.
The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.
Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.
Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.
Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.
That's certainly the way it appears Sir
If I'm to be conservative I would say three-way tie.
If pushed to rank them I would say Borg, then Vilas, then Connors.
I think what's really underrated about Connors in 1977 is the fact that he made all three finals of the "big" events he entered that year. Wimbledon, US Open, Masters.
This is not chopped liver. Two heartbreaking finals losses, but Vilas didn't even come close at Wimbledon - why does he get a free pass for this? That's arguably the biggest of them all.
Right so it is indeed very close then
What you seem to be saying is that if Connors had won a few more points in one of these 3 finals then he would have moved from No.3 to No.1 on your list for 77? Is it really that close?
If it is, then it has to be a 3 way tie for No.1 that year, end of debate!!!
I believe I've been sufficiently clear. All you have to do is read what I posted, which you clearly haven't done.
"OMG, CyBorg just suggested that Connors may be a co-#1 for 1977. I now must reconsider what I've said!"
CyBorg complements Connors. jimbo springs a boner.
Predictable.
I find it hard to understand what you are talking about here.
I threw you a curveball and buckled you at the knees. Accept your punishment.
What is a curveball?
Like what Connors did to Borg at the US Open in 76 and 78