Originally Posted by pc1
Connors also played Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Laver, Newcombe, Vilas, Dibbs, Solomon, Panatta, Ashe, Smith, Sampras (yes Pete), Agassi, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Gonzalez, Roche, Gimeno, Noah, Leconte, Gottfried, Ramirez, Gerulaitis, Lendl, Tanner, Higueras, Gene Mayer, Clerc, Arias, Krickstein, Mecir, Gomez, Curren, Courier, Chang most of which he had a plus record. Many of the ones like Sampras, Courier, Chang and Agassi he played during really late in his decline period and was yet was still fairly competitive even though he did not win. Connors played many of them in majors.
Let's not make it ridiculous here. Federer played a number of easy tournaments too and Connors played plenty of huge super tough events. Yes Connors played the weak Pepsi Grand Slam against weak players like Borg and Gerulaitis. If the Pepsi existed today Federer would probably be playing Nadal on har tru. What would happen? And we still have to factor in the years in which Connors lost much more often by percentage in his later years on the tour. Your theory does not hold water. Just assume the competition was equal. They both played a huge variety of tournaments so just assume they both played the same level of tournaments overall.
People have complained about Federer having no competition at his peak and even now except for Djokovic and Nadal. I don't think there is any proof of that and I reject that. So don't use the Connors played weak competition argument. Connors played everyone.
Connors played to a late age and was still competitive as proven by his result in the 1991 US Open.