Whose career is more impressive?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Leelord337, May 31, 2012.

  1. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    I mentioned the H2Hs vs #1s very specifically because that so called scientific study you were hailing and showcasing considered only wins vs top players, not the losses, which is plain dumb .....

    and what exactly does your previous post contain ?

    proudly showcasing your ignorance regarding the flaws of the so called scientific study ? proudly showcasing that while talking about winning %, you don't want to discuss the factors behind that winning % ( surface, mickey mouse titles etc etc ... ) ... oh jeez, sure, let us all read it time and again ...
     
  2. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Because either Connors was banned (1974), didn't play (1975-1978 ) or was in the other half of the draw to Borg (1979-1981).
     
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    Connors made a total 13 FO appearances, Fed also made 13 times(including 2012). Fed faced clay goat(Nadal) 5 times but Connors never faced clay goat(Borg). Yet, Fed has many more wins at the FO than Connors.
     
  4. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    He only 3 years to do so (1979-1981). Connors lost a semi final to Pecci in 1979, a semi final to Gerulaitis in 1980, and a quarter final to Clerc in 1981.
     
  5. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,113
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    It seems very clear to me. I know about all of these statistics but there is only one of these men who is generally more seriously considered as truly the greatest player ever. If the question was about Connors vs Nadal, I'd have to think a little harder but I still wouldn't be guaranteed to choose Connors.

    Is it really? Why yes. Yes it is.
     
  6. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,113
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Connors VS McEnroe is a more interesting one to consider, especially given all of McEnroe's impressive exploits in doubles (but I give it to Connors).

    Borg vs Connors is another interesting one but I'd have to give it to Borg based on his consistent period of dominance at the biggest events.

    Federer vs Connors is also interesting, as they both have impressive careers. However, I find Federer's to be clearly more impressive. That doesn't mean it's a 'tomahawk jam slam dunk', just that I see enough in Federer's favour for it to be clear, even if it isn't by more than say 1 notch. It would be interesting to see the results of some polls for X player vs X player.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  7. OriginalHockeytowner

    OriginalHockeytowner Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    Michigan
    According to LuckyR, it's the guy who made more money
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Connors clearly failed at RG, never making a final.Maybe, his best shots were 1979, when he should have beaten a top form Pecci, 1983 if he had beaten surprising frenchman Vasselin ( who never before and never again played like that week) and 1984, which I really thought he was gonna win over Mc Enroe ( but Mac was unbeatable that day).

    In 1982, even if he had beaten a peak Higueras, he´d still lose to Vilas, who had beaten him twice, indoors that year and was in the best form since 77.In 1981, Clerc or Lendl were already better clay courters, although he had a mental dominance over Lendl ( not over Clerc, who had beaten him in 1980).

    In 1985, Lendl was clearly ahead and in 1980, Gerulatis was in such great mood, and overconfident, he had beaten Connora at the Masters and deserved to win their semifinal.That is my opinion, of course.

    But, Borg or Wilander in a final? he stood no chance.
     
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    A very rational viewpoint and I can see that.
     
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    If Connors failed at the French Open then Borg failed at the US Open.
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    I think the Borg failing at the US Open is a matter of bad luck in many ways. For example the US Open was played on har tru from 1975 to 1977. The first couple of years Borg wasn't quite good enough and lost to Connors. In 1977 when he probably (in retrospect) was the decent favorite he was hurt. In 1978 they switched the US Open to hard court but he was hurt just before he played in the final. I always thought if he wasn't hurt he would have rolled over Connors in that final like he did in 1981 but who knows? If they kept the US Open on har tru I'm almost certain he would have won it at least once. In 1979, Tanner and his big serve just plain beat him under the lights. And after that Johnny Mac got in the way.
     
  12. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Connors lost the H2H in those rivalries long before he turned 40. McEnroe overtook Connors in their lifetime H2H in early '84, while Connors was still USO champion. In later years Connors kept playing on tour long past the time when he was a top-tier player, but in '84 he was still one of the top players.

    As for Lendl, from '85 onwards he was beating Connors in all their matches, not just the big ones. He had already beaten Connors in big matches at the Garden, in '83 and '84.

    But Lendl's a different case from McEnroe. Lendl didn't overtake Connors in the H2H until early '86, by which time Jimmy had started a steep decline. That was really the first year that Connors was not one of the top 4 players -- although to be fair, Connors won a ton of matches in that rivalry (7 exactly) before Lendl had even reached his first final of a major.
     
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Lendl developed a system of playing Connors when Connors was declining. It was not to give him any sort of power. Lendl also mentioned that when Connors declined he noticed that Connors played defensively on shots he would have attacks a few years before. It worked very well for him but I had a hunch at that point Lendl could have beaten Connors playing a different way. Connors was born in 1952 and Lendl in 1960. McEnroe was born in 1959. When they were all at their peaks it would have been close.
     
  14. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    That has to be a big factor in Connors losing all those H2H to Borg, Mac, Lendl, Wilander: he was just older. He had winning H2H records over older players like Stan Smith, Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver (just slightly over Newcombe).

    Nastase is a #1 player who was older than Connors (6 years) and still ended up winning the H2H. Not sure of the exact numbers; the ATP has Nastase ahead 13-11.
     
  15. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Nastase built up a lot of that lead in the head to head early while he was still a top player and Connors was just becoming a force in the game. Connors started beating Nastase regularly after Nastase declined after age 30.
     
  16. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,616
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Delete post..wrong thread, sorry.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  17. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    On pure numbers, not on opinion, Connors has one of the most impressive records ever and a very underrated record. He played and won more matches against top tenners - as the scientific study last year showed - than any other player in open era. Thats pretty good competition, i think. Nevertheless he won 109 events on the ATP list, and up to 148, including all events.
    And yet, his win-loss-percentage - and this includes his losses -over his career, with all the high and lows of age, over 1220 matches, is in the range of the very best, Borg and Nadal, who had or have shorter careers. And its not only the longevity aspect. His best year is 99-4, second only to McEnroe in open era, his best 5 years is over 90% wins, very close to the best, Borg and Federer, in his computer ranking he was ranked straight 5 years Nr.1 at the end of year, second only to Sampras with 6. In many opinions, he was lucky a bit by the computer ranking, but no one can deny, that he had a claim in each of those years. And this doesn't include his 1982 or 1983 ranking. His head to heads with his main rivals were all close, never lopsided, until age took his toll. Borg changed the dynamics in 1977, but later on, including exhibitions in 1982, Jimmy changed them again. He was the nemesis of Mac and Lendl until 1983, when he was 32

    So on pure cold numbers, Jimmy ranks with the very best in open era, no doubt .The rest is opinion, or in some posts here heavy double standard.
     
  18. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,616
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I think in terms of longevity, Connors is way up there, along with Gonzalez and Rosewall. In the Open Era, Connors is truly remarkable in terms of his ability to play and beat players ranging from Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, and Newcombe to Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Lendl, and so even into the 1990's. He played tennis at the the very highest levels over three decades. He made such a remarkable contribution to tennis with his play out on tennis courts and helped propel that Golden age of tennis through the late 1970's and early 1980's, when Connors, Borg, and McEnroe took tennis to dizzying heights of popularity. One thing that gets overlooked is his efforts to popularize tennis worldwide through all those "unofficial" tournaments.

    Borg and Connors especially played very heavy unofficial schedules on top of heavy "official" schedules of tournaments. They were making money, spreading the gospel, and also playing some epic matches at the majors, though the AO was not a big tourney, while the WCT and Masters tournaments predominated outside the top three majors of the time. The WCT/Masters events where you could see Vilas, Connors, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl, and Borg face off before huge crowds at great indoor venues was great back then. With Borg during 1976-1981, when Borg was playing full time, Borg became a different player as he went from 20-25. Yes Borg was a prodigy and won the FO early, yet by 1978 when he turned 22 he was just a different player having matured physically and mentally. By 1980-1981 he was different still. Borg started playing pro tennis very early and winning very early, but he also got stronger and more well rounded as a player. Yet, Connors deserves a lot of credit for his '76 and '78 wins over Borg at the US Open. At Wimbledon, Borg won a lot of big matches versus Connors and at the FO, Borg dominated during his time. In both 1980-1981, Borg beat Connors at the Masters YEC at NY's MSG where they staged great indoor matches before massive crowds. Regardless, Connors had to face players such as Borg, McEnroe and Lendl, when he was 24-34. He also faced a lot of extremely tough competition at the top in 1972-1976, when he was 20-24, with players like Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase, Orantes, Panatta, Vilas, and Borg, at the top of the rankings. So, he had to face a lot of competition during his best tennis years, and he still ended up with a great overall wining percentage, eight majors won, and also a lot of indoor wins on top of one of the best hard court records ever. That's a unique overall resume.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    Thanks to McEnroeisanartist for the update.

     
  20. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Great achievements by Federer as we all would expect.
     
  21. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Fine consistency performance by Federer, no doubt. But Connors' 31 sf record wasn't bad either, regarding he didn't play so many majors in his prime years. Has someone the number of Chrissie?
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    Lendl - agree

    but mac ? no ...

    its 10-8 to mac from 1979-83 , with jmac being 3-1 in slams ...( 79 was when jmac won his first slam and 83 when connors won his last )

    if we consider 1978-84 (mac was playing well in 78 , ditto for connors in 84 ) .....

    it is 17-10 to mac , with mac being 6-2 in slams ....
     
  23. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Just a quick count has Chris Evert at 52 semi, finals, or tournament victories. Incredible consistency. I believe her record for consecutive semis in majors that she entered is unbelievable also.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Quick count of Ken Rosewall shows 25 and that doesn't count the years 1957 to 1967 in which he was banned from the majors, many of those years in which he was the best in the world.

    Now if we include Pro Majors, Muscles reaches a total of 52.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    and lost more than anyone among the greats as well ..... one word - longevity ...

    who denied his competition ?


    impressive nos, yet padded up by smaller events - this is not to say he didn't win the big ones ...but you can't deny the padding up due to smaller events and the fact the top players played many different events ...

    and does not include a decent portion of matches on his worst surface, red clay ...... he played pretty less on it ...

    you do understand that skews the numbers or does that elementary math have to be explained ?


    granted great year .... but avoided the 3 places where chances of losing was highest - French Open , Masters and WCT ... Australian had a weak , weak field that year ...

    "relative" lack of big event wins in those 5 years hurts him in this regard ...

    83 ? really ? mac and wilander had a better claim .....

    ATP ranking was bogus in the 70s ..... he was no 1 in 74,76 and 82 ...

    umm, no, borg owned him from 77-81 ...

    the H2H in official matches isn't that close ...

    I do know exos were more serious those days, but it is better to keep them separate ...

    how on earth was he the nemesis of mac till 83 ? see my post before this .....

    one should know how to interpret numbers and not to take them at face value ...... Jimmy's record is very impressive , but good enough to challenge the records of federer/sampras/borg in the open era ? umm, nooo ......
     
  26. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    All i see in this post: Blah, blah, blah.
     
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    typical from the so called historian who has no reply to rebuttal of his half-baked BS stats and showcasing of the so called scientific flawed studies

    All I did was to post stats/numbers in correct perspective and derive conclusions from them ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  28. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ok, all these stats, numbers and studies about Connors are false, you have the truth. Fine. Beware it it for yourself. So go over, write some other 9000 posts, and don't discuss with me further, thanks.
     
  29. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    numbers need to be put in perspective ...

    you were the one who started it ..... I was discussing with pc1 - the numbers and giving them a perspective , when you butted in with this post ...


    and now when I counter it with facts putting them in perspective, you start whining ????? really ??

    This is a free forum btw ..... if you don't want to discuss, by all means move away, but when you butt in with a post like that, expect rebuttals ....
     
  30. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    No he didn't. 1977-1978 was very even between Connors and Borg, with Borg winning 2 Wimbledon finals and Connors winning a US Open final and a Masters final. 1979 was when Borg accelerated ahead of Connors. Connors was also overtaken by McEnroe in 1979.
     
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    77-78, official H2H was 4-2 Borg .... maybe not "owned" ....still borg lead the H2H ....
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Perhaps the best way to look at it is by percentage of majors entered in which the player reached at least the semis, finals or won the tournament. Chris Evert is inhuman in this stat. She started her career by reaching the semi of her first 34 majors at least and for her career 52 out of 56 if I did the math correctly for a percentage of 92.86%. Consistent greatness. Is it any wonder that she had the best winning percentage of the Open Era in Women's Tennis at 90%?

    Here's a few famous tennis players over the decades and how they did in reaching at least the semis of majors.

    Navratilova was 44 for 67 for 65.67%.
    Federer is 31 for 53 for 58.49%.
    Connors was 31 for 58 for 53.45%.
    Bill Tilden was 20 for 23 in classic majors for 89.46%. Tilden was 34 out of 42 if you include Pro Majors for 80.95%.
    Pete Sampras was 22 for 52 for 42.31%.
    Ivan Lendl was 28 for 57 for 49.12%.
    Edberg was 17 for 54 for 31.48%
    Becker was 18 for 46 for 39.13%.
    Rod Laver was 18 for 40 in classic majors for 45%. If you include Pro Majors during his peak he was 33 for 56 for 58.93%.
    Ken Rosewall was 25 for 42 in classic majors for 59.52%. If you included Pro Majors during his best years he was 52 for 73 for 71.23%.

    Hopefully I did everything correctly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  33. halbrikj

    halbrikj New User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    I think I'll go with Fed. Even when you compare Jimmy with his contemporaries (Mac, Borg, Lendl), Connors was clearly no. 4
     
  34. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I have Connors above McEnroe and Lendl overall. With Borg, it depends on whether one values short term dominance over long term excellence.
     
  35. halbrikj

    halbrikj New User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    well, he was 10 - 20 against Mac in their last 30 matches, 0 - 10 against Borg in their last 10, and 0 - 17 against Lendl in their last 17.
     
  36. ctromano

    ctromano Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    not fair to compare the 2, but both have very nice tennis careers, i'll go Jimmy just because in his time you could have gotten more bang for your buck compared to todays prices, Fed might have a lot more money but he must go through it faster since everything cost more today compared to yesterday.
     
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    You have to take into account that he was over the hill in many of the years he played McEnroe and Lendl.
     

Share This Page