Whose career is more impressive?

[urban]

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?

[abmk]

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.

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 ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

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?

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.

[pc1]

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.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 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.

and lost more than anyone among the greats as well ..... one word - longevity ...

Originally Posted by urban

Thats pretty good competition, i think.

who denied his competition ?

Originally Posted by urban

Nevertheless he won 109 events on the ATP list, and up to 148, including all events.

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 ...

Originally Posted by urban

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 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 ?

Originally Posted by urban

And its not only the longevity aspect. His best year is 99-4, second only to McEnroe in open era,

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 ...

Originally Posted by urban

his best 5 years is over 90% wins, very close to the best, Borg and Federer,

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

Originally Posted by urban

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.

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 ...

Originally Posted by urban

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.

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 ...

Originally Posted by urban

He was the nemesis of Mac and Lendl until 1983, when he was 32

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

Originally Posted by urban

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.

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 ......

[urban]

All i see in this post: Blah, blah, blah.

[abmk]

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 ...

[urban]

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.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by urban

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.

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 ...

Originally Posted by urban

The same suada over and over again, Fed was too old, or was too young, or was a headcase - yawn, what is this boring. Fact is, Connors faced statistically as scientist showed, better competition, played many more years, and still has a better win-loss percentage. Take it and be quiet.

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 ....

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by abmk

umm, no, borg owned him from 77-81

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.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

77-78, official H2H was 4-2 Borg .... maybe not "owned" ....still borg lead the H2H ....

[pc1]

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.

Originally Posted by TMF

Thanks to McEnroeisanartist for the update.

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.

[halbrikj]

I think I'll go with Fed. Even when you compare Jimmy with his contemporaries (Mac, Borg, Lendl), Connors was clearly no. 4

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by halbrikj

I think I'll go with Fed. Even when you compare Jimmy with his contemporaries (Mac, Borg, Lendl), Connors was clearly no. 4

I have Connors above McEnroe and Lendl overall. With Borg, it depends on whether one values short term dominance over long term excellence.

[halbrikj]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I have Connors above McEnroe and Lendl overall. With Borg, it depends on whether one values short term dominance over long term excellence.

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.

[ctromano]

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by halbrikj

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.

You have to take into account that he was over the hill in many of the years he played McEnroe and Lendl.