Is Jimmy Connors actually underrated?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes beats Newcombe who far exceeds Perry ( the major guy at his peak that Vines beat).

Ashe or Nastase were more or less the equivalent of Crawford.Kodes owned them when it mattered as did Vines with Crawford.

Both had a very bad record agaainst two GOAT candidates: Borg and Budge.

The deepth of 1970´s far exceeds the 1930´s.

Cochet and Tilden were fantastic but oldies in the middle 30´s, when Vines played,a ccording to you, his bestt ennis.

Sorry to say that but Nusslein,Kozeluh,Kovacs were good enough for a BBQ&Tennis week end at your country club but that is it ( since we weren´t there, go by records at majors).

So...make your minds up.At best, Vines gathers Kodes or Neale Fraser ( who has also 3 majors and beath GOAT Laver in 2 major finals, being laver´s worst match up at majors along ken Rosewall).But, since deepth wasn´t nearly the same, if somebody ever claimed Kodes and Fraser being in the upper echelon, he could be perfectly right...

Kiki,

Kodes was a fine player and of course he probably will beat players like Newcombe on occasion. Vitas Gerulaitis beat Connors a few times in a row but no one would logically say Gerulaitis was superior or on the same level of Jimmy Connors. Kodes was not as good as the top players of his era in my opinion. I've seen Kodes many times in person in his prime and on television. Very good but I don't believe he's an all time great.

I will use the ITF website to see some of Kodes' head to heads against top player of that time.

Vines was according to almost everyone who knew about him and saw him an all time great and possibly the greatest. The man beat Crawford, Perry, Budge, Austin, Tilden, Nusslein, Cochet. The only one I gather that he didn't beat more than 50% was Budge and I do wonder if Vines was totally healthy that he wasn't better than Budge.

Anyway here's Kodes against many of the top player of his time head to head according to the ITF website.

Against Laver-2-6
Against Borg-1-6
Against Vilas-1-9
Against Newcombe-2-6
Against Rosewall-1-4
Against Nastase-5-13
Against Ashe-4-5
Against Stan Smith-4-6
Against Solomon-0-2
Against Dibbs-4-2
Against Gerulaitis-1-3
Against Tanner-0-4
Against Okker-3-3
Against Emerson-0-1
Against Riessen-3-2
Against Connors-0-5
Against Orantes-4-4
Against Panatta-3-5
Against Lutz-3-4
Against Alexander-5-0
Against Gottfried-0-4
Against Vijay Amritraj-2-1
Against Raul Ramirez-0-0
Against Roche-2-1
Against Drysdale-1-1
Against Santana-0-1

Incidentally I am a big John Newcombe supporter but to say that Newcombe FAR EXCEEDS Fred Perry I believe is inaccurate. Perry was a great player with great speed and stamina. He had a forehand that some consider the best ever. Perry won all four majors and I believe he was the top pro in 1941 before a major injury ended his time as a threat for number one.

Nusslein was a fantastic player and Tilden at one point said he was the best player for 365 days a year that he had ever seen. Tilden would know and yet Vines defeated him most of the time. Cochet was 30 when he lost in straight sets to Vines in the 1932 US Championship so he was not in his mid thirties. Cochet never won a match from Vines.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

Kodes was a fine player and of course he probably will beat players like Newcombe on occasion. Vitas Gerulaitis beat Connors a few times in a row but no one would logically say Gerulaitis was superior or on the same level of Jimmy Connors. Kodes was not as good as the top players of his era in my opinion. I've seen Kodes many times in person in his prime and on television. Very good but I don't believe he's an all time great.

I will use the ITF website to see some of Kodes' head to heads against top player of that time.

Vines was according to almost everyone who knew about him and saw him an all time great and possibly the greatest. The man beat Crawford, Perry, Budge, Austin, Tilden, Nusslein, Cochet. The only one I gather that he didn't beat more than 50% was Budge and I do wonder if Vines was totally healthy that he wasn't better than Budge.

Anyway here's Kodes against many of the top player of his time head to head according to the ITF website.

Against Laver-2-6
Against Borg-1-6
Against Vilas-1-9
Against Newcombe-2-6
Against Rosewall-1-4
Against Nastase-5-13
Against Ashe-4-5
Against Stan Smith-4-6
Against Solomon-0-2
Against Dibbs-4-2
Against Gerulaitis-1-3
Against Tanner-0-4
Against Okker-3-3
Against Emerson-0-1
Against Riessen-3-2
Against Connors-0-5
Against Orantes-4-4
Against Panatta-3-5
Against Lutz-3-4
Against Alexander-5-0
Against Gottfried-0-4
Against Vijay Amritraj-2-1
Against Raul Ramirez-0-0
Against Roche-2-1
Against Drysdale-1-1
Against Santana-0-1

Incidentally I am a big John Newcombe supporter but to say that Newcombe FAR EXCEEDS Fred Perry I believe is inaccurate. Perry was a great player with great speed and stamina. He had a forehand that some consider the best ever. Perry won all four majors and I believe he was the top pro in 1941 before a major injury ended his time as a threat for number one.

Nusslein was a fantastic player and Tilden at one point said he was the best player for 365 days a year that he had ever seen. Tilden would know and yet Vines defeated him most of the time. Cochet was 30 when he lost in straight sets to Vines in the 1932 US Championship so he was not in his mid thirties. Cochet never won a match from Vines.

Kodes beat Smith,Ashe,Nastase,Laver,Newcombe...and Vitas never won 1 W and 2 RG, he just isn´t in the same league as Kodes.

[kiki]

If Vines is the GOAT...then what is Newcombe?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

If Vines is the GOAT...then what is Newcombe?

I didn't write that I think he's the GOAT but many do and he very well could be a much better player than Newcombe.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I didn't write that I think he's the GOAT but many do and he very well could be a much better player than Newcombe.

PC1,

I understand your flaw for Vines.I just don´t think he is in a top 20-25 all time greatest list, but Kodes isn´t there.Both around 30-40.

I see there is permanent disagreement over that thing, but that is why TT exists.

I´ll pick Kodes over Vines everytime and You´ll pick Vines over Kodes anytime.it´s fine for me.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes beats Newcombe who far exceeds Perry ( the major guy at his peak that Vines beat).

Kodes went 2-5 against Newcombe. Vines, by contrast, actually has a winning record against Perry, in two long tours played over two years.

No comparison there.

Originally Posted by kiki

The deepth of 1970´s far exceeds the 1930´s.

It’s interesting you say this, because of the depleted fields in Kodes’ victories. It’s also interesting because if you think the 1930s had no depth, then you have to knock down other players besides Vines. I’ve heard you call Budge a GOAT candidate. But all his major rivals were missing during his 1938 Slam campaign. If the depth of the 30s doesn’t hold a candle to the depth of the 70s, according to you, then 1938 has to be placed even lower than Vines’ pro career – a career which you seem to regard as next to nothing.

Also, according to you the pro tennis world was weak in that time period, so Budge’s pro career also has to get tossed out. So what’s left for Budge? 1936 and 1937? That’s about it. The rest gets dismissed. It leaves him nowhere near being a GOAT candidate.

Originally Posted by kiki

Both had a very bad record agaainst two GOAT candidates: Borg and Budge.

Kodes was 1-6 against Borg (with the only victory coming over a 16-year old Borg). Vines went 22-37 against Budge in their '39 tours.

Again, no comparison. Kodes DOES have a bad record against Borg (and Connors). Vines has a decent record against Budge.

Of course we shouldn’t even be calling Budge a GOAT candidate anymore, since his era is worth so little in your estimation.

Originally Posted by kiki

Sorry to say that but Nusslein,Kozeluh,Kovacs were good enough for a BBQ&Tennis week end at your country club but that is it ( since we weren´t there, go by records at majors).

Kiki you know nothing of Nusslein.

That’s part of the reason you think so poorly of the 30s pro scene. You don’t even know one of the top players who gave it depth.

Originally Posted by kiki

So...make your minds up.At best, Vines gathers Kodes or Neale Fraser ( who has also 3 majors and beath GOAT Laver in 2 major finals, being laver´s worst match up at majors along ken Rosewall).But, since deepth wasn´t nearly the same, if somebody ever claimed Kodes and Fraser being in the upper echelon, he could be perfectly right...

To the part I bolded above: this is pretty astounding, that you’re referring to Vines as winning only 3 majors. You want to stick to the amateur majors, and group players according to the number of amateur majors? Vines and Kodes and Fraser all together, with 3 majors each? Okay, so Gonzales and Safin are grouped together, with 2 majors each, right?

Originally Posted by kiki

PC1,

I understand your flaw for Vines.I just don´t think he is in a top 20-25 all time greatest list, but Kodes isn´t there.Both around 30-40.

I see there is permanent disagreement over that thing, but that is why TT exists.

I´ll pick Kodes over Vines everytime and You´ll pick Vines over Kodes anytime.it´s fine for me.

That’s mainly because you’re only giving Vines 3 majors.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Orantes himself beat Connors in straight sets 15 months later at New York...and he made RG finals in 74.

But, anyway, since you never watched tennis from that era, you have no credibility at all.You don´t even have it in your era....keep on reading press repports, wiki and press conference quotes on your regional paper and bringing them to this forum in the form of a mature, well thought opinion, Mr Cluelessness¡¡¡

Oh look Mr. Hypocrite clueless copycat Kiki who hasn't watched any tennis from any era and has zero clue of tennis is now accusing others who have watched/followed/read about it of doing the same ......

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Once again, as a young teen, you keep buying what 3 or 4 old journalists you never heard of want to sell to you...LMAO

no clueless. I'm aware of the records of the players of that era , unlike you

Anyone who calls Nusslein a journeyman or places Kodes in the same league as Vines is hopelessly delusional, I repeat delusional ....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Kodes went 2-5 against Newcombe. Vines, by contrast, actually has a winning record against Perry, in two long tours played over two years.

No comparison there.

It’s interesting you say this, because of the depleted fields in Kodes’ victories. It’s also interesting because if you think the 1930s had no depth, then you have to knock down other players besides Vines. I’ve heard you call Budge a GOAT candidate. But all his major rivals were missing during his 1938 Slam campaign. If the depth of the 30s doesn’t hold a candle to the depth of the 70s, according to you, then 1938 has to be placed even lower than Vines’ pro career – a career which you seem to regard as next to nothing.

Also, according to you the pro tennis world was weak in that time period, so Budge’s pro career also has to get tossed out. So what’s left for Budge? 1936 and 1937? That’s about it. The rest gets dismissed. It leaves him nowhere near being a GOAT candidate.

Kodes was 1-6 against Borg (with the only victory coming over a 16-year old Borg). Vines went 22-37 against Budge in their '39 tours.

Again, no comparison. Kodes DOES have a bad record against Borg (and Connors). Vines has a decent record against Budge.

Of course we shouldn’t even be calling Budge a GOAT candidate anymore, since his era is worth so little in your estimation.

Kiki you know nothing of Nusslein.

That’s part of the reason you think so poorly of the 30s pro scene. You don’t even know one of the top players who gave it depth.

To the part I bolded above: this is pretty astounding, that you’re referring to Vines as winning only 3 majors. You want to stick to the amateur majors, and group players according to the number of amateur majors? Vines and Kodes and Fraser all together, with 3 majors each? Okay, so Gonzales and Safin are grouped together, with 2 majors each, right?

That’s mainly because you’re only giving Vines 3 majors.

When I mentioned deepth, I refeered that the fields were much more loaded in the 70´s than 30´s at the, what I call, Upperclass Journeyman, which is what gives comptetitiveness to any era.Not even posible to compare.

I think you misunderstood me.Budge has one of the best records ever, that is why he is GOAT legitimate candidateVines can´t be in the same elague just as Kodes is not in Borg´s league.

You seem to diminish Kodes achievements so to enchance your hero Vines.Kodes ( and Fraser and Vines) won 3 majors.RG was loaded with the best clay courters except Rosewall, but then again, Vines didn´t play full field in some of his majors, isn´t it? I mean, Tilden and Cochet were great players in the early 30´s, but they were,IMO, old enough after 1934 or 1935 ( they would still play great tennis for some matches but I don´t think they could keep it for a long tour).

1973 Wimbledon field incldues 3 of the top 5 players of the decade:Nastase ( who was in his very prime even if he lost to Mayer, but it is not Kodes fault), Connors ( close to his prime) and Borg, who was young, yes, but just one year before getting to the top of the game.

And Newcombe is a quite more dangerous opponent than Perry, with a better serve, volley and possibly Forehand.Both had weak BH, but Newcombe was " less weak" than Perry´s.

Finally, you cannot compare Gonzales to Safin, since Gonzales was probably the ebst player of his decade and Safin jst stayed atop for 3-4 years, no more.Gonzales played in what I consider the toughest era as far as top 7-8 players are concerned and dominated the field.Vines was a great player, but he lived in an era where Budge ( and Perry) were the referential players, not him.

Just to remind you the pros of the 50´s were:Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Kramer ( 4 GOAT candidates),Sedgman,Trabert... and second stringers of such quality as Olmedo,Cooper,Anderson and Segura.Olmedo was a W and FH champion, so was Cooper, and still they were second fiddle.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

no clueless. I'm aware of the records of the players of that era , unlike you

Anyone who calls Nusslein a journeyman or places Kodes in the same league as Vines is hopelessly delusional, I repeat delusional ....

The day you come with an opinion of your own ( no matter wether right or wrong, that could be subjective), please, wake me up.You king of Copy&Paste

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

When I mentioned deepth, I refeered that the fields were much more loaded in the 70´s than 30´s at the, what I call, Upperclass Journeyman, which is what gives comptetitiveness to any era.Not even posible to compare.

I think you misunderstood me.Budge has one of the best records ever, that is why he is GOAT legitimate candidateVines can´t be in the same elague just as Kodes is not in Borg´s league.

You seem to diminish Kodes achievements so to enchance your hero Vines.Kodes ( and Fraser and Vines) won 3 majors.RG was loaded with the best clay courters except Rosewall, but then again, Vines didn´t play full field in some of his majors, isn´t it? I mean, Tilden and Cochet were great players in the early 30´s, but they were,IMO, old enough after 1934 or 1935 ( they would still play great tennis for some matches but I don´t think they could keep it for a long tour).

1973 Wimbledon field incldues 3 of the top 5 players of the decade:Nastase ( who was in his very prime even if he lost to Mayer, but it is not Kodes fault), Connors ( close to his prime) and Borg, who was young, yes, but just one year before getting to the top of the game.

And Newcombe is a quite more dangerous opponent than Perry, with a better serve, volley and possibly Forehand.Both had weak BH, but Newcombe was " less weak" than Perry´s.

Finally, you cannot compare Gonzales to Safin, since Gonzales was probably the ebst player of his decade and Safin jst stayed atop for 3-4 years, no more.Gonzales played in what I consider the toughest era as far as top 7-8 players are concerned and dominated the field.Vines was a great player, but he lived in an era where Budge ( and Perry) were the referential players, not him.

Just to remind you the pros of the 50´s were:Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Kramer ( 4 GOAT candidates),Sedgman,Trabert... and second stringers of such quality as Olmedo,Cooper,Anderson and Segura.Olmedo was a W and FH champion, so was Cooper, and still they were second fiddle.

Krosero's point with the Gonzalez comparison is that you are comparing Vines with Kodes because they have the same amount of classic majors but Vines actually is far ahead of Kodes in total majors since he won a number of Pro Majors in his time as a pro and as the best player in the pros I will add again. If you were to compare Kodes with Vines because of majors that logic thereby goes that you should compare Gonzalez with Safin and we all know that it doesn't work that way.

As far as Newcombe being tougher and more dangerous than Perry, it's very debatable. First of all you don't take into account the great speed of Perry. He was considered the fastest man in tennis and arguably the fastest of all time up to that point. Newcombe was never more than average speed. Second while I am not a fan of the Perry backhand I am also not a fan of the Newcombe backhand. Both backhands however were shots capable of withstanding powerful shots hit to them otherwise they never would have reached the high levels they did reach. I love the Newcombe forehand and frankly I think it's up there with any forehand I have ever seen but in tennis history Perry's forehand is regarded in higher esteem and very often mentioned as the greatest forehand of all time. Perry's forehand was a shot that often was hit on the rise, often on the half volley and he used it as a great approach shot to follow to the net.

We are getting off topic here with the Newcombe and Perry comparison. You argued that Kodes was able to beat Newcombe but in researching I found Kodes beat Newcombe only two out of six times for 33.33%. Vines however if I recall beat Perry on two tours 48 out of 83 times for 57.83%. Large difference.

Kodes was never really close to being one of the top players in the world despite being number three in 1973. Vines however was a clear number one in the amateurs and clear number one in the pros for many years. Big difference.

Kodes won three total majors but frankly in my opinion the three total majors he won were in weak fields but we will give that to him. Vines won I believe eight total majors and yes the three amateur majors were without Tilden and Nusslein. Vines won eight majors to Kodes three. Big difference.

My point if the many head to head records were to point out that Kodes just wasn't that competitive with the top players of his time. Yes he will beat them on occasion and that was my point with the Gerulaitis-Connors comment. Even Gerulaitis beat Connors on occasion but he wasn't on Connors' level. Even Guillermo Vilas who I think we all agree is not a top tier great defeated Kodes nine times out of ten. Now I know you will find this hard to believe but Vines is looked upon in tennis history as a greater player than Vilas.

I have a lot of information and have done a lot of research on Vines. I think he was a fantastic player. Do I think he was the GOAT? No I do not but he was able to defeat virtually everyone in his time most of the time with the notable exception of Don Budge. And he was able to defeat Don Budge fairly frequently. I also know that on the Budge tour that Vines was injured and you wonder if the injury affected the outcome of the tour. But aside from that all the statistical information I have shows that Vines was the best player of his time and his time was for many years. Kodes was never ever the best player.

Kodes on the other hand would be the underdog to many of the players I mentioned in the head to head. Do I think he would be beaten by Vilas on a head to head long tour on many surfaces? Yes I think he would lose. Do I think he would be beaten by Newcombe? Yes. Do I think Brian Gottfried would defeat him on a tour? Perhaps. Let's not even get to the top level players like Laver, Rosewall, Connors and Borg. Do I believe Vines would defeat these players on a long tour? I think he would have a shot against Connors but he would lose to the others. I think Kodes would have no chance at all.

On another note, the general opinion of those watching Vines was that he was unbeatable at his best and I know many of those observers and experts felt that way at least into the 1970's and perhaps 1980's, who knows maybe longer. So you know for one match these people would have thought Vines could have beaten anyone, even if that player was on his game. Kodes was superb was "on" his game but his level at his best wasn't as good as some in my opinion. I felt the best I've seen Kodes play was a period in the 1973 US Open final against Newcombe in which he outplayed Newk. Yet despite this Newcombe still won the match.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Krosero's point with the Gonzalez comparison is that you are comparing Vines with Kodes because they have the same amount of classic majors but Vines actually is far ahead of Kodes in total majors since he won a number of Pro Majors in his time as a pro and as the best player in the pros I will add again. If you were to compare Kodes with Vines because of majors that logic thereby goes that you should compare Gonzalez with Safin and we all know that it doesn't work that way.

As far as Newcombe being tougher and more dangerous than Perry, it's very debatable. First of all you don't take into account the great speed of Perry. He was considered the fastest man in tennis and arguably the fastest of all time up to that point. Newcombe was never more than average speed. Second while I am not a fan of the Perry backhand I am also not a fan of the Newcombe backhand. Both backhands however were shots capable of withstanding powerful shots hit to them otherwise they never would have reached the high levels they did reach. I love the Newcombe forehand and frankly I think it's up there with any forehand I have ever seen but in tennis history Perry's forehand is regarded in higher esteem and very often mentioned as the greatest forehand of all time. Perry's forehand was a shot that often was hit on the rise, often on the half volley and he used it as a great approach shot to follow to the net.

We are getting off topic here with the Newcombe and Perry comparison. You argued that Kodes was able to beat Newcombe but in researching I found Kodes beat Newcombe only two out of six times for 33.33%. Vines however if I recall beat Perry on two tours 48 out of 83 times for 57.83%. Large difference.

Kodes was never really close to being one of the top players in the world despite being number three in 1973. Vines however was a clear number one in the amateurs and clear number one in the pros for many years. Big difference.

Kodes won three total majors but frankly in my opinion the three total majors he won were in weak fields but we will give that to him. Vines won I believe eight total majors and yes the three amateur majors were without Tilden and Nusslein. Vines won eight majors to Kodes three. Big difference.

My point if the many head to head records were to point out that Kodes just wasn't that competitive with the top players of his time. Yes he will beat them on occasion and that was my point with the Gerulaitis-Connors comment. Even Gerulaitis beat Connors on occasion but he wasn't on Connors' level. Even Guillermo Vilas who I think we all agree is not a top tier great defeated Kodes nine times out of ten. Now I know you will find this hard to believe but Vines is looked upon in tennis history as a greater player than Vilas.

I have a lot of information and have done a lot of research on Vines. I think he was a fantastic player. Do I think he was the GOAT? No I do not but he was able to defeat virtually everyone in his time most of the time with the notable exception of Don Budge. And he was able to defeat Don Budge fairly frequently. I also know that on the Budge tour that Vines was injured and you wonder if the injury affected the outcome of the tour. But aside from that all the statistical information I have shows that Vines was the best player of his time and his time was for many years. Kodes was never ever the best player.

Kodes on the other hand would be the underdog to many of the players I mentioned in the head to head. Do I think he would be beaten by Vilas on a head to head? Yes I think he would lose. Do I think he would be beaten by Newcombe? Yes. Do I think Brian Gottfried would defeat him on a tour? Perhaps. Let's not even get to the top level players like Laver, Rosewall, Connors and Borg. Do I believe Vines would defeat these players on a long tour? I think he would have a shot against Connors but he would lose to the others. I think Kodes would have no chance at all.

On another note, the general opinion of those watching Vines was that he was unbeatable at his beat and I know many of those observers and experts felt that way at least into the 1970's and perhaps 1980's, who knows maybe longer. So you know for one match these people would have thought Vines could have beaten anyone, even if that player was on his game. Kodes was superb was "on" his game but his level at his best wasn't as good as some. I felt the best I've seen Kodes play was a period in the 1973 US Open final against Newcombe in which he outplayed Newk. Yet despite this Newcombe still won the match.

As I said, neither you´ll convince me, neither I try to convince you.

Vines faced a poor pro field and there were only, say 5 decent pros against 50-100 in Kodes time.Not even a possible comparison there.Please, do not take mentioning 5 decent pros as an offense to the rest of pros.I never meant that.

Nusslein and Hozeluh were guys to fill the draw, that was a very poor draw, anyway, if it had to feature very old Tilden and old Cochet as main stars...Houston, we have a problem.

Kodes dominated Smith ,Ashe,Newcombe at majors.While Perry is a great player, I am sure Newk would beat him most often than not.While Crawford was the other great Vines owned, Kodes posted nice wins against a Nastase and an Ashe, two players that I think you can compare to Crawford ( and I always defended Crawford, everybody ****ed him off in this forum).

I don´t want to look biassed in what I am gonna say.I have posted, as you know, that Tilden and Cochet are all timers, and I never cared if they wore long pants or Tanga.But, whereas in 1930-31 they would still be young enough to be hot favs, in 1936 or 1937 they simply were not.I never saw them play in 36 or 37, but I guess neither did you...

Finally, and , pleae, don´t take it personally.I have some favs that many TT posters wouldn´t understand, since they have limited feeling and experience.I really think you are too biassed in Vines.Like you have a personal thing to defend him.

I know Kodes will never be, in this mass media and marketing driven world a hot dog.Yet, somebody has to do the dirty job of defending great, yet not mediatic players.

If Kodes were born 10 years later, he would still be so much hated as Lendl, that commie, yes, the commie, but he would have, at least, receive mass media coverage...Kodes was unlucky he was born 10 years before...

I like posting with you, and I respect your opinions a lot.Not bad a disagrement here and there.But, and I never had anything against Vines ( whom I think had Czech ancestors...like Kodes), Vines is one of the best sold Marketing Sports products ever...even in golf...

Take Care

Kiki

[kiki]

Winner takes all, exos run by Riordan gave Connors some worldwide popularity.

He played Laver ( great footage and great to see what Laver would have done to Connors had he been not 37 but 30),Newcombe ( who won all major matches and lost that meaningless exo) and Orantes ( who wipped the floor with Connors at Forest Hills and never cared about the Las Vegas show )

Were there more exos in Las Vegas with the same Riordan´s format?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

As I said, neither you´ll convince me, neither I try to convince you.

Vines faced a poor pro field and there were only, say 5 decent pros against 50-100 in Kodes time.Not even a possible comparison there.Please, do not take mentioning 5 decent pros as an offense to the rest of pros.I never meant that.

Nusslein and Hozeluh were guys to fill the draw, that was a very poor draw, anyway, if it had to feature very old Tilden and old Cochet as main stars...Houston, we have a problem.

Kodes dominated Smith ,Ashe,Newcombe at majors.While Perry is a great player, I am sure Newk would beat him most often than not.While Crawford was the other great Vines owned, Kodes posted nice wins against a Nastase and an Ashe, two players that I think you can compare to Crawford ( and I always defended Crawford, everybody ****ed him off in this forum).

I don´t want to look biassed in what I am gonna say.I have posted, as you know, that Tilden and Cochet are all timers, and I never cared if they wore long pants or Tanga.But, whereas in 1930-31 they would still be young enough to be hot favs, in 1936 or 1937 they simply were not.I never saw them play in 36 or 37, but I guess neither did you...

Finally, and , pleae, don´t take it personally.I have some favs that many TT posters wouldn´t understand, since they have limited feeling and experience.I really think you are too biassed in Vines.Like you have a personal thing to defend him.

I know Kodes will never be, in this mass media and marketing driven world a hot dog.Yet, somebody has to do the dirty job of defending great, yet not mediatic players.

If Kodes were born 10 years later, he would still be so much hated as Lendl, that commie, yes, the commie, but he would have, at least, receive mass media coverage...Kodes was unlucky he was born 10 years before...

I like posting with you, and I respect your opinions a lot.Not bad a disagrement here and there.But, and I never had anything against Vines ( whom I think had Czech ancestors...like Kodes), Vines is one of the best sold Marketing Sports products ever...even in golf...

Take Care

Kiki

Okay I guess I won't convince you. However I would like to point out to you that Nusslein was not a guy to fill out a draw but was a legitimate great player. He won many tournaments and was one of the best players in the world. Some thought he was perhaps unbeaten in one year which I think was 1939. But in checking with some other tennis experts it's probable he lost a few matches that year. Just because you are not familiar with Nusslein does not mean he was not a great player.

I will ask you to keep an open mind with Vines and Nusslein. Research and examine the record of both and examine the 1930's. I often do research on players with some set opinions but in doing research I often change my opinion of that player.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Okay I guess I won't convince you. However I would like to point out to you that Nusslein was not a guy to fill out a draw but was a legitimate great player. He won many tournaments and was one of the best players in the world. Some thought he was perhaps unbeaten in one year which I think was 1939. But in checking with some other tennis experts it's probable he lose a few matches that year. Just because you are not familiar with Nusslein does not mean he was not a great player.

I will ask you to keep an open mind with Vines and Nusslein. Research and examine the record of both and examine the 1930's. I often do research on players with some set opinions but in doing research I often change my opinion of that player.

I have no problem in researching and changing minds.I have done that before and it is not something shameful.Inteligent people do that.If not, we may never have come out of the cave and a simple wheel would be a mistery to us.

I have seen enough tennis, and I worked as a tennis journalist enough so that I reached a point I won´t buy Marketing products ( and I am a Marketing Manager for FMCG right now...so...).

I am not at the point of saying Vines is a Fantasyland charachter.I won´t.if anything, I am proud to be loyal to players that may not be as marketable to the young teens and unmature adults that know nothing about the very soul and basis of this great sport.

I am a Laver supporter just by those principles, not because any marketing or anything...I just made my choice freely and I will continue with that.You are a smart poster, and I really enjoy to go through the motions and explore.

I said, I have nothing against Vines.Nothing at all.I just think it is only fair to give one of the best player of one of the best eras ( 70´s) the treatment he deserves.He may not be flashy, not nice looking like Nasty or Newcombe, not a guy socializing like Vines or Shields with rich millionaires.Just a self raised man that had to endure extremely hard situations.He made a champion out of himself.And no marketing behind...not even in golf¡¡¡

[bluegrasser]

What happened to Connors ?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Winner takes all, exos run by Riordan gave Connors some worldwide popularity.

He played Laver ( great footage and great to see what Laver would have done to Connors had he been not 37 but 30),Newcombe ( who won all major matches and lost that meaningless exo) and Orantes ( who wipped the floor with Connors at Forest Hills and never cared about the Las Vegas show )

Were there more exos in Las Vegas with the same Riordan´s format?

Can we really call those old winner take all matches exhibitions? They were clearly hard fought matches with the Laver match especially dynamic.

I would disagree on the Orantes match. I just think the surface was more suitable for Connors than Orantes. If they played on har tru or red clay the story may very well have been different.

Connors did play another one against Nastase with that same type of format but I don't remember if it was in Las Vegas.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Can we really call those old winner take all matches exhibitions? They were clearly hard fought matches with the Laver match especially dynamic.

I would disagree on the Orantes match. I just think the surface was more suitable for Connors than Orantes. If they played on har tru or red clay the story may very well have been different.

Connors did play another one against Nastase with that same type of format but I don't remember if it was in Las Vegas.

Good point, PC1.

Winner takes all were exos, but I have seen some exos of that time and it didn´t seem to me like players took it in a light manner.

First on the Laver match.Laver made a big mistake, as he constantly did ( in my mind) during the first half of the 70´s.He never prepared himself for the big events, bar WCT Finals.That was the only major ( and it was, we agree on that) he cared about.

He simply lived on his talent.He had no match record against Connors before, and he really was not ready for that.I am not saying Connors couldn´t beat him if Laver was ready.Connors certainly could.

But, in some long sequences, you could just imagine how a peak Laver ( even at 36 or 37) could just do to Jimmy.A mediocre Laver was owning at will peak Connorsm for a couple of sets.That says it all.

I agree on Orantes.Here is another player that nobody cares much over here, but, had not he gone under surgeon about every 6 months, he would have been up there, maybe a notch behind Borg and Connors, but from 1973 to 1977, he and Nastase were the only players that would have really given both trouble.Panatta was too unconsistent,Laver.Ashe and Rosewall too old and Vilas and Stan Smith, a bit short of talent.

rest didn´t count (Gottfried,Okker,Solomon,Ramirez,Dibbs,Stockton,Ba razzuti,Tanner and young Vitas were great players but clearly behind them)

My Opinion, of course.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

The day you come with an opinion of your own ( no matter wether right or wrong, that could be subjective), please, wake me up.You king of Copy&Paste

I write my own opinions here. Here's one such:

you are clueless about tennis .....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by bluegrasser

What happened to Connors ?

I think we got off track here. At least we didn't get to the usual past versus current player debate. In this case it's a past versus further in the past debate.

Okay to get back on topic here's some stats with Connors that amazes me. First of all his 148 total tournament victories which is slightly ahead of Ivan Lendl with 146. They are by far first and second in the Open Era.

Connors won about 82% of his lifetime matches despite a super long career with a long down period. Guys like Federer, Nadal are around that level now and they haven't had a down period yet.

Connors won the US Open on a clay type surface, grass and har tru showing his ability on all types of surfaces.

He was competitive with players from Pancho Gonzalez to Gonzalez's former brother in law Andre Agassi.

Connors had a period of five years in which he averaged winning 90% of his matches. It's actually a slightly higher percentage than Federer in his best five year period if I have done my figures correctly. And all of you know how unbeatable Federer seemed to be in those years. Also to put it in perspective, Pete Sampras never had ONE YEAR in which he won 90% of his matches. The best year Sampras had was in 1994 in which he was 77-12 for 86.52%.

On a subjective level some experts have said Connors arguably has the best return of all time and the best backhand of all time although I am not sure if they put both together.

Incidentally I wonder how often in tennis history has there been players like Borg and Connors and later John McEnroe in which they averaged winning around 90% of their matches for many years. It makes you wonder how many losses they inflicted on each other in regular tournaments and majors that may not have happened in other times.