WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Hiya all, first post on this forum. Love the 70's and 80's era in particular.

I make Connors no.1 for 1974, 1976 and 1982. I would probably give Ashe the nod for 75 and Borg 77, though that is highly disputed, Vilas having a great year. Borg no.1 78-80, even though Connors had a strong 1978.

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

Kiki,

Connors actually was very dominant in 1977, 1978 and 1979. According to the Collins Encyclopedia for example he was 70-11 in 1977 and 84-7 in 1978. It's just that some were considered more dominant in those years, like Borg and Vilas in 1977 and Borg in 1978.

[pc1]

Quote from the Collins Encyclopedia-But even though World Tennis declared him (Vilas) No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg, who, top-seeded, defaultd to Dick Stockton, 3-6, 6-4, 1-0, in the fourth round of the US Open with a shoulder injury. The 21 year old Swede had the best winning percentage for the season--.920, on a record of 81-7. He won 13 of the 20 tournaments he played. Including the Masters--played in 1978, but considered the climax of the 1977 season---Borg was 3-0 over Vilas (two victories in the spring, the third in the semi of the Masters (6-3 6-3), and 2-1 over Connors, who beat him in the Masters final, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, before a crowd of 17,150 at Madison Square Garden.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

Connors actually was very dominant in 1977, 1978 and 1979. According to the Collins Encyclopedia for example he was 70-11 in 1977 and 84-7 in 1978. It's just that some were considered more dominant in those years, like Borg and Vilas in 1977 and Borg in 1978.

...and MC Enroe in 1979.

[kiki]

In any case, I cannot think of a more exciting player to watch than Connors...except Laver,Hoad,Rosewall,Nasty and JMac.My top 6.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

In any case, I cannot think of a more exciting player to watch than Connors...except Laver,Hoad,Rosewall,Nasty and JMac.My top 6.

Connors was fun to watch. He was always trying to work his way into the net for strong putaway volleys. Something I don't understand isn't done more often today.

I enjoyed the way he hit the ball so solidly almost every time. Great pure ball striker, in that way similar to Agassi but he was much faster and a better volleyer.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Connors was fun to watch. He was always trying to work his way into the net for strong putaway volleys. Something I don't understand isn't done more often today.

I enjoyed the way he hit the ball so solidly almost every time. Great pure ball striker, in that way similar to Agassi but he was much faster and a better volleyer.

ONE INCH OVER THE NET, ONE INCH INSIDE THE LINE...ONE INCH OVER THE NET, ONE INCH INSIDE THE LINE...ONE INCH OVER THE NET, ONE INCH INSIDE THE LINE

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by kiki

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

[Mustard]

Vilas is number 1 for 1977 because of his sheer activity, and the fact that he won 2 of the 5 majors that year, and runner-up in another. There's just no way that Vilas isn't number 1 in 1977.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Vilas is number 1 for 1977 because of his sheer activity, and the fact that he won 2 of the 5 majors that year, and runner-up in another. There's just no way that Vilas isn't number 1 in 1977.

I agree. This is an evidence. Like said "World tennis" in 1977. There is several forums here where about this question. A big majority is agree to say Vilas is n°1. But, mysteriously, you can find some people who think that it's Borg. Maybe they don't like Vilas, and they find very poor arguments to say that Borg was the number one.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Vilas is number 1 for 1977 because of his sheer activity, and the fact that he won 2 of the 5 majors that year, and runner-up in another. There's just no way that Vilas isn't number 1 in 1977.

I would say 2 of 3 majors rather than 2 of 5. The Australian really was not on a par with the others as far as attendance, and the Masters, while it was at least the 4th most important tournament, was not in the same category either, if only because of format. An 8-man draw with best of 3 matches is by definition not a major (“slam,” whatever), at least to me.

A big problem is that in all these discussions there seems to be a constant and often unconscious going back and forth between trying to adopt the perspective of the time under discussion (assuming we could know exactly what that perspective was) and replacing it in favor of current standards, with no clear criteria for this constant switching of perspectives. The Australian in particular seems to undergo major changes in status depending on individual years. Was it or was it not an important tournament in that decade? And how important was it exactly in relation to other tournaments? What was it comparable to at the time? Judging by player’s attendance, one has to suspect it could not have been too important. On the other hand, because of the majestic status of Australia as a cradle of modern tennis, it could be that the AO retained a certain old prestige or cachet that was not present in other secondary tournaments with better attendance. I just don’t know. And I know even less how to evaluate and measure those things.

If one adopts the criteria that each tournament's weight is never static, but always strictly established by the quality of the field attending it, then a dispassionate and consistent measuring tool for such quality would need to be ruthlessly applied accross the board for all years, and let the chips fall where they may. But no such tools exist, and so the evaluations and opinions tend to get anecdotal, highly vulnerable to very selective subjectivity and personal preferences. Not even the complete draws of most secondary tournaments are easily available. Judgment is often made based on the presence or absence of a few arbitrarily selected players. It seems to me that almost the entire second half of the seventies could be subject to great uncertainty, as well as various years in the 80s and even 90s. But I do agree that, at least on first impression, Vilas seems to me the strongest candidate for the number one position / player of the year or whatever title one wants to give it in 1977.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

Connors had a very strong '78, even tho' Borg was beginning to get the better of him. Bjorn was pretty amazing, though one could argue that Jimmy had a more impressive career over a 20yr span. He faced off against nearly 4 generations of players at one time or another. Still, nothing like watching Bjorn hit that ball...even better yet was watching him and Connors go at it, just amazing stuff. John was a completely different player, amazing and entertaining in his own right.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

Connors was better than Borg in 76 but Borg had the best year.

Borg was also better than Vilas in 77, but Vilas had a better year.

Let´s give everybody a right treatment

[kiki]

Subsequently to this tread, I was thinking that there were so many competitive years in the 1970´s...I pick 2 years that represent the 2 tnnis generations that dominated te decade and gave tennis such a big boost with their unmatched class.

1971

AO: Rosewall beats Ashe
Masters:Nastase beats Smith
WCT:Rosewall beats Laver
Wimbledon:Newc defeats Smith
USO: Smith beats Kodes
FO: Kodes beats Nasty
Italian: Laver defeats Kodes
Phily:Laver defeats Newcombe

adding Okker,Roche,Gimeno,Lutz,Riessen,Pilic,Franulovic to this list, you have one of the most talented fields ever assembled.

1977

AO:Tanner beats Vilas
W:Borg beats Connors
WCT:Connors defeats Stockton
Masters:Connors knocks out Borg
USO:Vilas defeats Connors
Italian:Gerulaitis knocks out Zugarelli
FO: Vilas over Gottfried

adding up and coming Mc Enroe,Ramirez,Fibak,Alexander,Dent,Panatta,Orantes ,Higueras,Barazutti,LLoyd,Pecci,Amritraj,Solomon,D ibbs...the talent and diversity is astonishing.Worthy of the GOLDEN ERA

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by jrepac

Connors had a very strong '78, even tho' Borg was beginning to get the better of him. Bjorn was pretty amazing, though one could argue that Jimmy had a more impressive career over a 20yr span. He faced off against nearly 4 generations of players at one time or another. Still, nothing like watching Bjorn hit that ball...even better yet was watching him and Connors go at it, just amazing stuff. John was a completely different player, amazing and entertaining in his own right.

Yes I agree. I was a Connors and McEnroe fan, always wanted them to beat Bjorn, but I try to be objective. Connors career in many ways is greater than Borg's I think and 1978 was one of Jimmy's best, won about 10 titles I think, it's just that Borg won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Yeah, after 1978, Borg had Jimmy's number every time until he quit the tour. But Jimmy got him in those exos in 82 and 83!

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by kiki

Connors was better than Borg in 76 but Borg had the best year.

Borg was also better than Vilas in 77, but Vilas had a better year.

Let´s give everybody a right treatment

Vilas had an amazing 1977, it's just that 0-3 head to head record against Borg that makes me give the nod to Bjorn. If Vilas wins just one, I probably give him the no1 ranking, but he didn't. Borg had a very good 1977 too.
I remember the annual yearbook covering 1976. They gave Connors no.1 for the year, he won 12 official tourneys, I believe, more than Borg, including a Philadelphia straight sets thumping of Borg in the final, and he also dominated the US clay season that summer, winning Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, and then the US Open, beating Borg in a 4 set final of course. One slam each for 1976, but 3-0 head to head Connors Philadelphia, Palm Springs and US Open. Different surfaces too.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pc1

Quote from the Collins Encyclopedia-But even though World Tennis declared him (Vilas) No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg, who, top-seeded, defaultd to Dick Stockton, 3-6, 6-4, 1-0, in the fourth round of the US Open with a shoulder injury. The 21 year old Swede had the best winning percentage for the season--.920, on a record of 81-7. He won 13 of the 20 tournaments he played. Including the Masters--played in 1978, but considered the climax of the 1977 season---Borg was 3-0 over Vilas (two victories in the spring, the third in the semi of the Masters (6-3 6-3), and 2-1 over Connors, who beat him in the Masters final, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, before a crowd of 17,150 at Madison Square Garden.

'77 was really a very strange season when you look at it carefully. Connors did not win a GS, but was in two of the finals, won the masters and had a solid record. But, I kind of lean towards Vilas for that year as well.

[Mustard]

Sorry, but rankings don't go by head-to-heads, but by results and activity. Vilas blows them all out of the water in 1977 on results and activity. And how can anyone suggest that Connors didn't have the best 1976?

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Yes I agree. I was a Connors and McEnroe fan, always wanted them to beat Bjorn, but I try to be objective. Connors career in many ways is greater than Borg's I think and 1978 was one of Jimmy's best, won about 10 titles I think, it's just that Borg won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Yeah, after 1978, Borg had Jimmy's number every time until he quit the tour. But Jimmy got him in those exos in 82 and 83!

Borg really lost something when he left the tour; not so much physically, maybe mentally. Jimmy was sharper in '82 and '83, I think because he was playing regularly against Mac and the like. Still, Bjorn was awfully good. I always found their seniors tour matches fascinating...it did show how much sharper Connors still was vs. Bjorn, because he never really stopped playing ATP level matches until 1993 or so. To be fair, Bjorn really did step up his game after a few one sided losses to Jimmy

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Sorry, but rankings don't go by head-to-heads, but by results and activity. Vilas blows them all out of the water in 1977 on results and activity. And how can anyone suggest that Connors didn't have the best 1976?

I don't see it either; in '76 Connors was the most dominant with a very critical win over a key opponent on that opponent's best surface.

I also think you can support Connors #1 ranking in '78 as well. He won 10 titles and vs. Borg, he was 1-2 (and he also won an exo). He did not compete at the French (really a shame). After that, Bjorn just got the best of him thru 1981, despite some close ones. If Wiki is correct, Bjorn had 9 titles overall in '78. Very tight, really.