Whose career is more impressive?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by urban

I would be careful, to bring in head to heads with main rivals. But again, i refer to my previous post.

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 ...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Fed faced the goat on clay(Nadal) at the FO many times, yet, he still managed to win 50(and counting) matches on this red clay. How many times did Connors ever met his main rival(Borg) at the FO? Oh wait, none.

Because either Connors was banned (1974), didn't play (1975-1978 ) or was in the other half of the draw to Borg (1979-1981).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Because either Connors was banned (1974), didn't play (1975-1978 ) or was in the other half of the draw to Borg (1979-1981).

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by pc1

Is it really? You have a man who won 8 majors plus 148 tournaments versus a man who won 16 majors plus 74 tournaments.

Federer has a 81.55 winning percentage lifetime. Connors has a 81.76 winning percentage lifetime in a much longer career. Connors had his decline years and still has a winning percentage slightly higher than Federer. Federer hasn't had his bad decline period yet.

Federer has double the majors in an era where he plays all the majors. Connors didn't play all the majors in his prime.

So it's odd that Federer has double the majors won, Connors has double the total tournaments won at this point. It's almost sort of a symmetry here with the stats comparing Connors and Federer.

It doesn't seem that clear to me.

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

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.

[OriginalHockeytowner]

Whose career is more impressive?

According to LuckyR, it's the guy who made more money

[kiki]

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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.

A very rational viewpoint and I can see that.

[Mustard]

If Connors failed at the French Open then Borg failed at the US Open.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If Connors failed at the French Open then Borg failed at the US Open.

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.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Because he played into his early 40s. He had winning head-to-heads against McEnroe and Lendl before he started to age and they started to hit their peaks. It was 1984 that turned the McEnroe rivalry around (McEnroe's peak), and it was 1985 and onwards when Lendl could actually beat Connors in big matches.

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

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.

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.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

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.

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.

[borg number one]

Delete post..wrong thread, sorry.

[urban]

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.

[borg number one]

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.

[TMF]

Thanks to McEnroeisanartist for the update.

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Federer reached his 31st Grand Slam semifinal, which ties Jimmy Connors for most grand slam semifinals of all time.

Federer reached his 7th French Open semifinal. This is the most of any male player ever in the open era.

Federer has now reached at least 7 semifinals of all four grand slams. Only Lendl and Agassi reached at least 5 semifinals of all grand slams.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Thanks to McEnroeisanartist for the update.

Great achievements by Federer as we all would expect.