somebody twitter trolling jimmy connors on his 109 titles
- Thread starter big ted
- Start date
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Seems odd that they would make two errors- the draw size which is states, and to list Connors as having bye when you suggest he didn't. Their info does get more sketchy the further they go back so it wouldn't surprise me.
It's not odd, it's just wrong.
Connors beat Bengtson 64 46 62, Froehling 63 67 63 and Zednik 64 76.
WestboroChe
Hall of Fame
He was a ferocious competitor which overcame his less than stellar shots. And yeah. He is probably responsible for more people playing tennis in the US than any person and was just an interesting personality on top of it. He is probably the second best US player after Sampras and the top player in terms of impact on the game here.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Oh yea!
Only two of the six were straight-set wins by Becker: 1987 quarters at RG on clay and their 1992 last match on hard court in Indianapolis.
(That 1987 Queens Club final score was 6-7, 6-3, 6-4.)
Last edited:
I would have to agree with you...aside from his relatively weaker serve, he was a damn solid player. Excellent mover, precise footwork and timing. He seemed to have uncanny instincts as to when to apply pressure, which I think won him many close matches (see USO '91, 4th round!)
Did Lendl win it 3 out of 5 years? Amazing, I can remember, from watching the telecast on USA, what someone needed to do to win the trophy. And I remember that Lendl won the first year, but I can't remember how many times. Well, wasn't exactly a major. Just a really big money special event.
Regarding the ATP site. Connors played in a lot of tournaments and a lot of matches. Not a stretch to believe someone simply made an error. I certainly lean that way with that 1972 tournament. A 4 man field and you get a bye in the first match? But maybe it did happen that way. Maybe I'll try a newspaper archive search.
Regarding the ATP site. Connors played in a lot of tournaments and a lot of matches. Not a stretch to believe someone simply made an error. I certainly lean that way with that 1972 tournament. A 4 man field and you get a bye in the first match? But maybe it did happen that way. Maybe I'll try a newspaper archive search.
1973: 11 titles won, 3 big + Quebec City which is a medium level tournament, in style Master 500, 7 are to be considered Masters 250:
15.000 $ Baltimore,
???????$ Roanoke,
17.000$ Salt Lake City,
50.000$ Salisbury,
17.000$ Paramus,
35.000$ Hampton,
25.000$ Columbus.
IMHO ATP did not award points to the 4 tournaments of Baltimore, Roanoke, Salt Lake City, Paramus, while ATP attributed points to Columbus (not a tournament Riordan Tour), Salisbury and Hampton.
Salisbury, Columbus and Hampton are decent Masters 250 comparable, the others 4 are bad.
15.000 $ Baltimore,
???????$ Roanoke,
17.000$ Salt Lake City,
50.000$ Salisbury,
17.000$ Paramus,
35.000$ Hampton,
25.000$ Columbus.
IMHO ATP did not award points to the 4 tournaments of Baltimore, Roanoke, Salt Lake City, Paramus, while ATP attributed points to Columbus (not a tournament Riordan Tour), Salisbury and Hampton.
Salisbury, Columbus and Hampton are decent Masters 250 comparable, the others 4 are bad.
In 1972 we need to speculate because ATP Ranking didn't exist, so we can assume that out of 6 titles won, Albany and Cincinnati are mid-level tournaments in style Master 500, 4 are to be considered Masters 250:
Columbus (25.000$) is a decent Masters 250 comparable, the others 3 are:
- 15.000$ Jacksonville,
- 7.500$ Roanoke.... it's horrible,
- 8.300$ ??? Quenn's.
In conclusion, out of 109 won ATP sanctioned tournaments indicatively 38 are Masters 250 = 71> Masters 250.
of these 38 ATP didn't assign points to 3 tournaments of 1972, 4 of 1973, 6 of 1974 = 13.
In essence, ATP awarded points to 96 tournaments (109-13) (* the realities didn't even award points to the Masters GP, WCT Finals and WCT Special events, but they were certainly events > Masters 250).
In my opinion instead Jacksonville and Queen's are Masters 250 to all effects even if the prize money is low compared to the ATP cut, but 5 titles of 1975 are horrible despite being included in the ATP ranking: 96 + 2 -5 = 93. Ultimately IMHO 93 titles have characteristics of at least Masters 250 while 16 seem to me worse than a Masters 250 (Roanoke 1972-73 and Manchester 1974 certainly, the other 13 are more questionable).
Columbus (25.000$) is a decent Masters 250 comparable, the others 3 are:
- 15.000$ Jacksonville,
- 7.500$ Roanoke.... it's horrible,
- 8.300$ ??? Quenn's.
In conclusion, out of 109 won ATP sanctioned tournaments indicatively 38 are Masters 250 = 71> Masters 250.
of these 38 ATP didn't assign points to 3 tournaments of 1972, 4 of 1973, 6 of 1974 = 13.
In essence, ATP awarded points to 96 tournaments (109-13) (* the realities didn't even award points to the Masters GP, WCT Finals and WCT Special events, but they were certainly events > Masters 250).
In my opinion instead Jacksonville and Queen's are Masters 250 to all effects even if the prize money is low compared to the ATP cut, but 5 titles of 1975 are horrible despite being included in the ATP ranking: 96 + 2 -5 = 93. Ultimately IMHO 93 titles have characteristics of at least Masters 250 while 16 seem to me worse than a Masters 250 (Roanoke 1972-73 and Manchester 1974 certainly, the other 13 are more questionable).
Last edited:
I agree
I suspect the guy in question didn't know that though and was just trying to belittle... a blind pig finds the occasional snuffle
Actually, its very logical - regardless of the tone
There have been a few great players with long careers... so who would you expect to have won the most titles?
The guy among that group who has played in the most weak field tournaments, that's who
The same is true of Federer, (relative to his era) in fact. He has more small tournament wins than others - plenty of Basels, Halles, Dubai and so on
No disrespect to Connors - who did more than enough at the highest levels to justify his reputation as an All Time Great - but yes, the reason he has won the most titles of any player in the Open Era was because he played (and won) a relatively high proportion of weak tournaments
I agree, it's also my suspicion. An involuntary logic ? I don't find the right term ... perhaps the best is your example of the pig ...
I agree
I suspect the guy in question didn't know that though and was just trying to belittle... a blind pig finds the occasional snuffle
Actually, its very logical - regardless of the tone
There have been a few great players with long careers... so who would you expect to have won the most titles?
The guy among that group who has played in the most weak field tournaments, that's who
The same is true of Federer, (relative to his era) in fact. He has more small tournament wins than others - plenty of Basels, Halles, Dubai and so on
No disrespect to Connors - who did more than enough at the highest levels to justify his reputation as an All Time Great - but yes, the reason he has won the most titles of any player in the Open Era was because he played (and won) a relatively high proportion of weak tournaments
On the other 2 questions you raised ...
- surely only a lot of great players can win a lot of titles, but to get to figures over 60-70
it also takes a long and consistent career,- the guy / guys (Connors, but to a lesser extent also Federer and Lendl) of that group that has / have played in weaker tournaments excel. Although we include the not sanctioned where Lendl and Connors emerge many of those tournaments are weaks; and if we put them all where Laver dominates (210...
), many of Rod are weaks.What we can do, considering that we are in a specialized tennis site, is to check so that we can better evaluate.
I have seen a couple of those Becker matches. Yes the final points were always Beckers, Connors made things rather complicated indeed. That return and those passes were still sitting in those broken down limbs and those eyes still saw the ball big and beautiful coming straight towards him. I was impressed. Becker cannot have mistaken Grandpa Connors for a pushover. That pride and competitive fire were still evident.
I get cramps
Semi-Pro
Anybody got insights into the Connors Vs Wilander match-up? Connors never defeated Wilander either, and Mats defeated JC five times. https://www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/mats-wilander-vs-jimmy-connors/W023/C044
My guess is that Wilander's great defensive skills and tactical sense did the dirty work. Wilander got a lot of balls back, moved beautifully across the court, and he tended to keep the pace level pretty low with both his one handed slice and his topspin shots off both sides. He was an clever opportunist up at net, but did not come in predictably enough to be a good target. Just the kind of game that induced a lot of Connors errors.
Its very hard to run down those flat strokes of Jimmy's, but if you have the stamina, patience and speed to do it time after time, point after point and you refuse to supply a lot of power for Jimmy to work off of from the ground, you will get a lot of errors for all that trouble.. Edberg, on the other hand was often Jimmy's cheeseburger, even with that same disparity of age.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The Connors backhand was pretty stellar.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/jimmy-connors-backhand.449143/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/greatest-two-handed-shot-oat.395070/
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
that's exactly right; Mats got everything back, w/out a lot of pace. Keeping in mind this is the older JC, perhaps with not quite the stamina of youth. Some of the matches were close tho', like the Lipton Final where Jimmy really took it to him--very aggressively--but only to fall a little short in 4 close sets. And faster surfaces would favor Connors. Edberg's game was completely different and fed a bit more into Connors' strengths....Jimmy was not very troubled by the Edberg serve, either.
one of the very best; perhaps the best 2 hander, ever.
A lot of those two hander guys did not own a single handed slice shot. Jimmy could roll that forehand crosscourt of his short with some angle and come in, and two handers had a problem reaching it in time to do much . Not so with Wilander, armed with more reach on with that comfortable slice could get those back better. Edberg's game was a carbon copy of all those Aussies and Americans who Jimmy designed his game to defeat in the early to mid seventies. Edberg's strengths ran right into Connors strengths. Not so with Mats.
Agreed....Mats moved better than Edberg too, IMHO.
California
Semi-Pro
Edberg was Connors cheeseburger? Let's review this .... they were 6 and 6 in career meetings, fairly equal? No? And 5 of Connors wins were in or before 1985 when Edberg was just starting on tour. He came on tour in 1983. So Connors beat up on a young, just starting out on tour Edberg. After that it was Edberg who turned the tables...
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I think the comeback by Jimmy was insane. I mean, just to respond as a living legend.
As far as legitimacy goes, you can evaluate on personal opinion. Records are records. I don't count Wayne Gretzky as even Top 5 in goal scoring (Ovechkin, Hull Sr, Rocket, Lemieux, Bossy) but he's got 894 regardless of his era.
And let's be honest, Roger could have played more third-tier tournaments if he wanted. Certainly the atmosphere and money at some is good enough. But he didn't. Connors played a ton of tennis, got to respect that.
As far as legitimacy goes, you can evaluate on personal opinion. Records are records. I don't count Wayne Gretzky as even Top 5 in goal scoring (Ovechkin, Hull Sr, Rocket, Lemieux, Bossy) but he's got 894 regardless of his era.
And let's be honest, Roger could have played more third-tier tournaments if he wanted. Certainly the atmosphere and money at some is good enough. But he didn't. Connors played a ton of tennis, got to respect that.
I think the point to be made is that Stefan's game fit into Jimmy's far more than Mats' did. Connors beat a young Stefan at USO and FO in the early 80's when one might expect him to better the old man...as he was in his early 30's at that stage. And there was that USO drubbing in '89...Connors was 37 at that point. But, I would chalk some of that up to a bad night for Edberg, Jimmy being "on" and it was the USO, after all. Connors was not a good match up for Stefan.
Exactly. Let's not act like Connors owned Edberg. I do agree that he seemed to match up better with him than Mats. Also, in fairness, Edberg was beating him as he aged just as all but 1 of Connors wins are vs a really young Edberg. The 1989 US Open was very impressive, but it was 1 match. Need more than that to see any trends.
It's not as simple as giving Connors a target or not either. There are s/v who have given him trouble. Some who were mid to lower ranked player who even if they didn't beat him, played him really tight in matches.
I do think that of you were going to stay back with him that someone really consistent, who moved really well, could potentially give him problems. Because the longer that rally goes, eventually Connors would miss. Lendl didn't wind up owning him because, serve aside, he was consistently overpowering him. A lot of it was keeping the ball in play until Connors missed.
Another in fairness. Connors was about a month short of his 32nd birthday when he first played Mats. He never really played him at his best. Still, lost every official match. And got killed the time they played on clay.
I said he was OFTEN Jimmys cheeseburger. That suggests that there were times when he wasn't. So what you mean to say is that Edberg couldn't beat up on Connors until after Jimmy had been trained on how to use his walker.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Old but still top Connors vs teenage not yet Slam champ Edberg : 5-1
Mature Edberg against ancient Connors : 5-1
Even on that count. Edberg's wins were generally tougher though, and Connors's 1 'ancient' win was 1989 USO where he routined Edberg, so he certainly had the edge in this match-up.
California
Semi-Pro
Don't tell me what I meant to say. They were 6 and 6 head to head, these are the facts. You can spin it anyway you like... Connors won 5 of those matches over a teenager, wow I am so impressed! His one very impressive win over Edberg was in the 1989 US Open. His only win over Edberg since 1987. So when did Connors start using his walker? Because from 87 on he was 1 and 5 against Edberg.
California
Semi-Pro
Your scorecard at the beginning is sound. But, how did Connors have the edge in the match up when they ended up 6 and 6? Sounds fairly even to me. So once Edberg started winning Connors was ancient? Didn't he make the US Open semifinals in 1991? Edberg was 5 and 1 against Connors after 1987. So he was ancient after 1987? Help me understand....
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Connors quite clearly declined further after 1985 although he was still a top player for years. Edberg entered his prime around 1987 (1987-1992 imo). Connors routining Edberg at 37 and still taking sets off him at 39 (and Stefan was #1 then) is obvious evidence. I like Edberg a lot, but it's better to be fair. Connors was a better player overall and I'd expect him to lead the H2H if they were close in age. Edberg was better on grass and indoors while Connors was better outdoors and on clay, which occupied a bigger chunk of the tour.
even in '91, connors was going 3 sets with edberg so i think connors gave him trouble...
if you look at h2h with lendl/edberg, edberg was giving lendl trouble in '85 from the get go....(not the case with connors/edberg in '85)...
to me its pretty clear that edberg had areas that connors could exploit...
so its all about matchups imo....
if you look at h2h with lendl/edberg, edberg was giving lendl trouble in '85 from the get go....(not the case with connors/edberg in '85)...
to me its pretty clear that edberg had areas that connors could exploit...
so its all about matchups imo....
I think it is fair to say that Edberg struggled a bit more w/Jimmy's game than would be expected. Even when JC was older and Stefan at his peak. For whatever reason, he seemed to get a bead on Stefan's serve and was not bothered by the kicker. Nor is Stefan the baseliner that Lendl is/was. Sitting back and rallying with Connors, however ancient he may have been, was never in his best interest. JC still had more command of the backcourt rallies, in general, vs. Stefan, IMHO. Stefan needed to have his first serve gunning, with his crisp volleys on point, in order to shut him down. When that did not happen, well you had a tussle on your hands. The '89 USO match perhaps being the most gruesome case...just reminding folks what JC was still capable of, geriatric he may be. Too bad they never met on grass. Would have been interesting to see. I do agree that JC had the edge on HC and Clay, based on the results and style of play. Also would have been a neat USO final if JC could've gotten past Courier. Oh well!
California
Semi-Pro
Well Edberg went 3 sets with Connors in their first match up in 1984 when he was a teenager and lost 7 to 6 in the 3rd set... so Edberg was giving him trouble right from the start.
It is a shame Connors didn't get thru Courier in 1991 to play Stefan in the US Open final.... with Stefan's form that year it would have been nice to watch the beating!
Righto...you presume too much I think. Connors had taken Stefan to 3 sets in an exo the week before the Open, if I am not mistaken. Stefan would have had the clear advantage, I don't doubt that. But, facing down JC in a USO final would have been a very different scenario than meeting Courier. Who played a very lousy final match, given his strong performance in the semis. Edberg typically was very competitive against JC, but Connors handled him much better than someone like McEnroe, for instance. Both superb serve & volleyers, yet a very different interaction with each. Edberg was a great player, but sometimes it's about the match up. Becker vs. Agassi is another one. Agassi was his kryptonite. Sometimes, it just goes that way.
California
Semi-Pro
You saw Edberg's level in the final and you think Connors would have been up for that? Edberg was in the zone and pounded Courier 2, 4, and 0. You think Connors at 39, after having to battle Courier in the semis, would have been able to turn around and make the final competitive with Edberg playing what he would himself would call his best match? Not happening. If I recall correctly back then the semifinals and final were on consecutive days, a 39 year old is gonna do well with that turnaround? Edberg would have beat Connors ugly.
Also an exo is a exo, I wouldn't put too much stock in it being 3 sets...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, Edberg was in the zone that day. He would have beaten just about anyone in three.
As a Connors fan, I have to agree with you. Hell, Connors was never really in the Courier match. But if he'd won, he has to play the next day. No day to recuperate.
Agree also about the exhibition. Lendl beat Connors 1 and 1 a couple of weeks before the 1982 US Open. And that was in Cincy, a pretty big legitimate ATP tournament.
Let's not confuse beating Krickstein and Haarhuis with beating the top players in the world. I mean not at that point. Go back a few years and I'm more open to the possibility.
connors would have no chance beating edberg in the finals but i think he may have made it 4 sets...
with the usopen crowd, the matchup, connors knowing he'd never be in another final again, he'd pull every
punch he could... at least in the past edberg had a propensity to get frustrated and connors was good at
getting in peoples heads....
with the usopen crowd, the matchup, connors knowing he'd never be in another final again, he'd pull every
punch he could... at least in the past edberg had a propensity to get frustrated and connors was good at
getting in peoples heads....
No one would favor Connors in an Edberg match up. And exos are exos, I agree, it is just a counterpoint to anyone thinking he could not hold his own against Edberg at 39. But all of you are judging it based on the quality of play Edberg delivered against Courier on that day. First off, Stefan was not the most mentally put together of players. I personally watched him go down in straight sets to Volkov in round 1 a few years earlier. I truly believe facing down Connors in a USO Final would have been a more nerve wracking challenge for him. And, Connors, you damn well know would have pulled out every stop against him.. The crowd would have been out of control. And, give him some credit, he beat guys ranked well above him during that tournament, when his back was against the wall. He would have had no fear against Edberg....Courier was a more difficult match up for him, at that particular stage.
I think we are overestimating the power of the crowd a bit. They had been firmly in his corner for a decade. The NYC crowd. They were primed and ready in that Courier match. Just as they had been against Lendl in 85 and 87. Against Agassi in 88.
How did those matches turn out? In 89, no way can Agassi come back to win that match with the crowd going for Connors the way they were going for Connors.
If the other guy is just playing too well or isn't playing that well, crowd isn't going to make much difference. Edberg wasn't inexperienced at this point. Now he's 25ish with 2 Wimbledon titles behind him.
Obviously, there are no absolutes. That's why the play the matches. Connors had beaten him before and had killed him at this tournament 2 years earlier. It would not have been some all time upset. Still, much as I would have liked to see it at the time, I wouldn't have bet on it. I thought Courier was going to beat him, but I did think he'd give him at least one really tough set.
How did those matches turn out? In 89, no way can Agassi come back to win that match with the crowd going for Connors the way they were going for Connors.
If the other guy is just playing too well or isn't playing that well, crowd isn't going to make much difference. Edberg wasn't inexperienced at this point. Now he's 25ish with 2 Wimbledon titles behind him.
Obviously, there are no absolutes. That's why the play the matches. Connors had beaten him before and had killed him at this tournament 2 years earlier. It would not have been some all time upset. Still, much as I would have liked to see it at the time, I wouldn't have bet on it. I thought Courier was going to beat him, but I did think he'd give him at least one really tough set.
In case anyone is interested, I see this was put up in the last week. It's Connors and Edberg from Long Island, right before the 91 US Open. Not the entire match, about 50 minutes. I only watched a couple. Pretty good tennis in that couple. Anyway, it is a match they played in 91 to speculated what might have happened if they had played in the finals.
I sure don't remember watching it in 1991. Looks like it was on Prime. I live in NYC area and don't remember it being in the tv listings. Anything Connors I would usually watch or record.
I still haven't watched anymore. As I said before, what I watched is pretty good. Towards the end. Connors was up a break in the 3rd. He lead 4-3 and lost the last 3 games, 2 on his serve. Part I watched, Edberg was going after his backhand pretty good. Less slicing than I would have expected from memory.
I still haven't watched anymore. As I said before, what I watched is pretty good. Towards the end. Connors was up a break in the 3rd. He lead 4-3 and lost the last 3 games, 2 on his serve. Part I watched, Edberg was going after his backhand pretty good. Less slicing than I would have expected from memory.
