Can anyone break Connors' record?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Kobble, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    1,222 match wins is almost unbeatable, especially as the depth of the game grows and along with so many surface specialists on the circuit. It seems even if someone maintained the number one position their whole career it would still not be enough.
     
    #1
  2. guernica1

    guernica1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    PRobably yes. Figuring a guy in his absolute prime can win maybe 100 singles matches in a year tops like Kafelnikov did then multiple x 12 that is really unbelievable.

    The other record that is probably unbeatable is 109 singles titles by Connors as well.
     
    #2
  3. counterpunch

    counterpunch Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    No, it would be nearly impossible to get 1000 wins and 100 wins in a year isn't possible. Federer is dominant but will only get like 75.
     
    #3
  4. dearingfilm

    dearingfilm New User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    yes, if someone turns pro at 16 and dominates for nearly 20 years.. about 62 wins a year would do it.. man that person would need a lotta old changes :)
     
    #4
  5. Ben42

    Ben42 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    528
    Only if they could play non-ATP "tournaments" set up by their manager for the first few years of their careers. :)
     
    #5
  6. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    Hmmm, yes. And if only they had to play against the shallow field of the seventies.
     
    #6
  7. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Ben and Rhubarb beat me to what I wanted to say-the conditions that Connors played under will never be duplicated-no one will win that many matches.
     
    #7
  8. driger

    driger Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    a shallow field in the 70's? newcombe,laver,clerc, vilas, stan smith, orantes, borg, roscoe tanner, nastase, etc, etc. and later mac,lendl. connors won 2 us opens and a wimby in the 80's as well, when mac was in his prime. probably should have been rank number 1 for the year a sixth time.some think todays field could be considered shallow. not because of talent, but because of their heart. they dont seem to play to be number 1. there are few true warriors in the game today. most are simply satisfied to win a tournament every now and then, and getting the occasional big paycheck todays game offers, rather than fight their heart out every match they play, and make their goal be the best in the world.
     
    #8
  9. galahad

    galahad New User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    95
    Connors record will never be broken

    Even with more tournaments available, the competition will not permit this record to ever be broken. Can you imagine Pete playing until he was 40???

    Current pro's make too much money early, and are burned out early as well.

    Connors was 1 of a kind
     
    #9
  10. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    There were many great players in the seventies, and I wouldn't contest that. What I am saying there used to be a big gulf between the top players and the rest of the field, and that is less evident in today's game. So in my opinion it was easier for players like Connors to rack up the wins against lesser opposition, than it would be now. Even in the nineties it was harder - Sampras was dominant but his number of matches/tournaments won comes nowhere near Connors'.
     
    #10
  11. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,825
    Driger - I agree with the way Rhubarb describes it. I'm sure the #50 player today is closer in ability to the Top 10 than he would have been in the first 20 years of the Open Era. Remember, Connors had a losing record against most of the rivals he is identified with, you could look it up. There were many minor tournies where the competition was not really up to snuff, Connors played a lot of those. I doubt the conditions will ever be ripe for this to be duplicated.
     
    #11
  12. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    I agree. I also agree with the statement that Connors was one of a kind. I don't think we'll see a competitor like him for a long time. Connors' idol was Pancho Gonsalez
     
    #12
  13. baseliner

    baseliner Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    As Ben 42 tried to point out, Conners at least early in his career played the weaker field in non ATP (or whatever its predecessor was) events. His manager had him avoid the tougher fields. Later in his career he beat all comers. It is difficult to imagine anyone beating his record for total wins or titles.
     
    #13
  14. alfa164164

    alfa164164 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,164
    Location:
    ATL
    In the early 70's Connors did not play WCT tennis, rather he played in his manager's sham tour (Riordan - the litigious one).
    Laver, Newcombe, and Rosewall all played the WCT tour. I think Ashe and Smith also played on the WCT. So yes, Connors early on racked up alot of wins against a weak field. Joel Drucker's biography of Connors (Jimmy Connors Saved My Life) goes into good detail on this.
     
    #14
  15. jjames

    jjames Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    407
    connors had losing records against other players, because he played well beyond his prime. unlike borg. unlike sampras. j mac and lendl had losing records against players of the next generation too. so did laver. so will federer if he plays long enough. connors was on the riordon tour for only a short time, and from my understanding, those tiitles are not counted in those 109 tornament wins, although i admit i'm not sure(109 good enough for the record books ,good enough for me though) . the 109 tournys consist of ATP Tour, Grand Prix and WCT tournaments.
    the riordan tour lasted less than a year. and the reason he was on the riordan tour was started because he was not allowed to play in the french open by the ATP, and president aurthur ashe. the lawsuits were about the atp trying to monopolize tennis. if it had gone to court the atp would have lost. at that stage in his carreer it wouldn't have mattered where he played anyway. he was 99-4 in 1974. if federer was as intense as connors was, he d have a shot at the record. connors was also a finalist 52 other times.
     
    #15

Share This Page