Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by adil1972, Oct 22, 2012.
Isn't Peter bodo that clown.
Yeah I meant in the childish GOAT talks these days, Connors is often left out - guess it's a generation thing that's all.
Personally his 109 tournaments and his longevity were always the key feats for the guy as I only saw him play end of the 80's beginning of the 90's.
But by reading his bio, you really have to reckon he had an extraordinary year in 1974 indeed.
I am young to young to have seen any of his career and I was in diapers when he made his last run at the US Open. That said based upon things people have said the 30 for 30 and the like he the man irritates me.
While when he was having to fight for every inch everyone was against him and he had to make it happen. While losing it was never him that got beat it was a bounce here or there it was a bad or close call .... or the player on the other side of the net just had a fluky day. His words about Borg I think in part drives that home.
I haven't read the book and I don't think I will, but on another note all you need to know about the man is in 400+ pages the excerpt he or his publisher/agent lead is the Evert story. And if you believe her stance that she wasn't even made aware of that story inclusion in the book then that only further drives home the point.
For comparison sake I feel Sampras was every bit the competitor that Conners was. Drove his body into the ground for victories and such all the while being respectful of the opponent and the like...
Maybe it is me but as he said about Agassi: Conners just inst my type of guy.
Ok, you had me until the end when you said Sampras was every bit the competitor Connors was. Big time LOL at that one.
i think he was a player you really had to watch in his day to appreciate him. i think the 30 for 30 show painted him as a one dimensional character, and i wonder if even jimmy knew he would be portrayed in that way. plus if you go by posters opinions of him here, i dont think you would get an accurate representation of his actual likability. he was no saint, but he was exciting to watch not only because of that, but when other players were tanking matches, playing only for $, etc.. he was always trying (similar to nadal). i remember at the 85 usopen semi against lendl, he played (and lost pretty easily with a broken foot) and the commentators mentioned he didnt want anyone to know. in the 80s he played the underdog role to a tee. he was a little smaller than alot of players, stayed back, was in his 30s, and if you watched one of his matches in person, he would draw the crowd in. mcenroe called him a phony for this, but at the end of the day, spectators are paying for tickets and they want to get their moneys worth and connors did that all the while giving 100%. he was a blue collar player and he related to those types of people esp at nyc in the 80s.
I totally understand your stance, and in a sense I respect the tennis game and even the tennis IQ behind the man. But to me the ends dont justify the means. There are always those types of people who advance in life and become successful in spite of there personality traits or as in his case to a degree maybe because of them but rarely so much as they hurt others in the name of money.
That said the ME AGAINST THE WORLD spirit is is amazing. In sports you NEED that. You NEED to feel like the man on the other side of the net is going to give you no quarter. You NEED to feel as if the umpire and linesmen will give you no call, so make there be no doubt. The issue for me and again I think it is a personality conflict in how I am, is that a man like him was self serving at the expense of EVERYONE. Look at the US Open that was the backdrop of his 30 for 30. He and Krickstein (sorry I know thats spelt wrong) had been friends in Krickstein mind, and at worst in Jimmys mind I am sure they were acquaintances. For Conners to win and win that match how he had, yelling at lines people trying to intimidate the chair etc is one thing. But then this man who again at worst you were friendly with never hears from you again .... come on Jimmy. For Jimmy to take the stance of "what am I supposed to do apologize for winning" no of course not never that. But that isnt the point. For me the fact he doesnt see that speaks even more to him being a terrible human being. Amazing tennis player for sure, but just out and out bad person.
I am not trying to be harsh I am just pointing out things as I see them. Now again I was born in `88 so I didnt see his whole career arch or his career at all so perhaps I am still missing something. But add that to the aforementioned dis closer he made about Evert (her most private detail, a detail I am willing to bet she told less then 10 people) that he is now sharing with the world without so much as a "hey Chrissy youre not going to like this but ...". All that you get a man who will do anything for himself leaving broken relationships and turmoil in his wake.
Please don't insult us blue collar folks.
IMO, Connor was/is a sexist, paternalistic, macho, egotistical "nice guy". It's all about him. Always.
Connors was a sexist? He was raised by his mom and grandma and defended them both to the end. In his book and throughout his career, he never waivered that he respected his mom for teaching him the game and acting as a competent manager who stood up for his interests in a man's world.
Navratilova was the one that picked Connors for Battle of the Sexes II. My memory may be failing, but he took that match seriously and had nothing but respect for Martina. The beloved, saintly Arthur Ashe on the other hand said after Battle of the Sexes I that the best place for women was at home with their children.
There is plenty to dislike about Connors (how about his gambling addiction) without making up crap.
Please see my two posts above.
And for the record you can appreciate and value the role of the women in your life and still have a negative view of women as a whole. You mentioning of the battle of sexes I am sure he appreciated and respected Martina game but that doesn't mean he didn't view women as inferior. To wit the fact he was unfaithful as often as he admits he was at least hints of that as well.
I am sorry I am making this seem like a crusade I am not. I watched almost every you tube clip of his highlights and matches over the past few days and again his tennis minus his personality was amazing. As someone said Nadal like in effort and grinding out wins. Shame his personality made his on court demeanor and overall persona terrible. I love history and past events so I am interested maybe too much. For now I will just watch this thread from the sidelines......
Oh please, save it. Seriously. Connors comes out in the book saying he was a scum to his wife and he didn't deserve her and was the luckiest guy alive when she took him back. Start listing off the pro tennis players that didn't cheat. Go!
I think it might be fair to say that Connors has some "old fashioned" views of women, but I don't think that means he has a negative view of women. Ironically, it was Chris Evert who consistently talked about Connors being so respectful of women and such a gentleman away from the court. In his book, he admits to one affair early in his marriage that he deeply regrets now. He sounds extremely devoted to his wife of 35 years and talks very lovingly about her. I can't think of any other player from his era who is still married to their first wife. Not McEnroe or Borg or Tanner, or Kriek. I am sure there are some, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Saying that Connors is a bad human being because he didn't talk to Krickstein after that 1991 match is a bit overly dramatic. Connors may have felt that Krickstein was mad at him or wanted an apology from him for his behavior in that match. Connors has admitted to being a person who avoids confrontation away from the court. He was probably simply avoiding an uncomfortable situation. It may not make it right, but it is understandable. Krickstein said in an interview that he played Connors one more time after 1991, and that they did not speak. After that, they simply never ran into each other again.
As for his disclosure about Chris Evert in his book; I am not going to try to defend that. I agree that it should have remained private. Does that make him a bad person? I don't think so. I think it just shows he made a bad decision.
well said Rosewall.
and I reckon being such a close friend to Dino Martin at las vegas has certainly left its marks
Separate names with a comma.