Thanks, I will keep trying to find something and will let you know.Toledo, Ohio: Ivan I did not get the newspaper article I had found months ago on google.com but I found another one.
The BG news 21 april, 1978
Scholarworks.bgsu.edu.
I managed a first time, then now I can no longer access that date.
I hope you succeed, the article writes that the opponent was supposed to be Stockton but that he was injured.
Connors's special events
- Thread starter Carlo Giovanni Colussi
- Start date
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4484&context=bg-news
I found the link. You should have no problems, there is the whole newspaper of April 21, 1978. The text of the article is this, however.
Connors trying to improve image On a TV game show the other week, a question was asked, "What male athlete do women hate most." The most popular answer, not surprisingly, was Jimmy Connors. Connors has been one of the most recognizable athletes in sports since his torrid 1974 campaign, which saw him dominated the tennis world like no one since the Grand Slam days of Rod I aver. That year he destroyed ageless Ken Rosewall in the finals of both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon in straight sets, and found himself on the cover of numerous magazines and a hot media item. But not all the stories about Conners had to do with his tremendous ability. Rather, many of the stories were centered around the controversy that often surrounds him. THE STORIES, instead, talk about his failure to play for the United States in Davis Cup competition, his questionable defaults, his outward expression of anger towards referees and his loner attitude towards many of his fellow players. With such stories surfacing regularly, it's not surprising women, and men for that matter, dislike Jimmy Connors. He's a man people love to hate. But Connors is working on a new image. Sure, he's still cocky and still has occasional flare-ups with linesman and referees, but he is improving. As former tennis great turned TV commentator Tony Trabert said on a national TV telecast, "his choice of words is getting better." CONNORS WAS in Toledo last week for a tennis exhibition for muscular dystrophy, and not only marveled the crowd with his superb play, but also entertained them with humorous antics. Eddie Dibbs, a late replacement for Dick Stockton, played the straight man role for Connors as the two put on a show which received as many laughs as it did applause. Among Connors' antics were; climbing into the crowd for a fan who wanted a photograph, "allowing a young ball boy to use his racquei and hit a few shots with Dibbs, bounce ball! off his head and playfully jostle with Dibbs. Connors rarely missed a chance to pull i stunt, and the crowd enjoyed it. He beat Dibbs 6-4,6-4, but that really didn'tseem tomatter. It was the revised Jimmy Connors. ONE OF CONNORS most dismal, lowly moments came after Guillermo Vilas defeated him in four sets in the finals of the U.S. Open last fall. Steve Sadler After the match, which ended on a controversial call that went to Vilas, Connors stormed off the court in anger, swiping at someone and angrily shouting, "Who's next?" He didn't bother to stick around to receive his second place trophy, and, again, Connors' image as a trouble maker wasfueled. Connors later said the action was in answer to the crowd who cheered for the Argentine rather than their American player. But a funny thing happened at the U.S. Pro Indoor and Masters tournaments earlier this year-the crowd began to root for Connors. Connors had, for the most part, cleaned up his act, and found that American crowds aren't alwaysfickle. HE STILL IS no angel, but Connors is making a conscious effort to revamp his controversial ways and slowly people are beginning to notice. The problem is, you see, as a psychologist will tell you, the primacy effect, making a judgement about someone on the basis of first impressions is more effective than the recency effect, which is making a Judgement about someone based on their most recent actions. The first impression Jimmy Connors gave most of the media and fans was a negative one. Now, however, he is giving us positive actions. It all make me wonder if Jimmy Connors watches daytime TV.
https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4484&context=bg-news
I found the link. You should have no problems, there is the whole newspaper of April 21, 1978. The text of the article is this, however.
Connors trying to improve image On a TV game show the other week, a question was asked, "What male athlete do women hate most." The most popular answer, not surprisingly, was Jimmy Connors. Connors has been one of the most recognizable athletes in sports since his torrid 1974 campaign, which saw him dominated the tennis world like no one since the Grand Slam days of Rod I aver. That year he destroyed ageless Ken Rosewall in the finals of both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon in straight sets, and found himself on the cover of numerous magazines and a hot media item. But not all the stories about Conners had to do with his tremendous ability. Rather, many of the stories were centered around the controversy that often surrounds him. THE STORIES, instead, talk about his failure to play for the United States in Davis Cup competition, his questionable defaults, his outward expression of anger towards referees and his loner attitude towards many of his fellow players. With such stories surfacing regularly, it's not surprising women, and men for that matter, dislike Jimmy Connors. He's a man people love to hate. But Connors is working on a new image. Sure, he's still cocky and still has occasional flare-ups with linesman and referees, but he is improving. As former tennis great turned TV commentator Tony Trabert said on a national TV telecast, "his choice of words is getting better." CONNORS WAS in Toledo last week for a tennis exhibition for muscular dystrophy, and not only marveled the crowd with his superb play, but also entertained them with humorous antics. Eddie Dibbs, a late replacement for Dick Stockton, played the straight man role for Connors as the two put on a show which received as many laughs as it did applause. Among Connors' antics were; climbing into the crowd for a fan who wanted a photograph, "allowing a young ball boy to use his racquei and hit a few shots with Dibbs, bounce ball! off his head and playfully jostle with Dibbs. Connors rarely missed a chance to pull i stunt, and the crowd enjoyed it. He beat Dibbs 6-4,6-4, but that really didn'tseem tomatter. It was the revised Jimmy Connors. ONE OF CONNORS most dismal, lowly moments came after Guillermo Vilas defeated him in four sets in the finals of the U.S. Open last fall. Steve Sadler After the match, which ended on a controversial call that went to Vilas, Connors stormed off the court in anger, swiping at someone and angrily shouting, "Who's next?" He didn't bother to stick around to receive his second place trophy, and, again, Connors' image as a trouble maker wasfueled. Connors later said the action was in answer to the crowd who cheered for the Argentine rather than their American player. But a funny thing happened at the U.S. Pro Indoor and Masters tournaments earlier this year-the crowd began to root for Connors. Connors had, for the most part, cleaned up his act, and found that American crowds aren't alwaysfickle. HE STILL IS no angel, but Connors is making a conscious effort to revamp his controversial ways and slowly people are beginning to notice. The problem is, you see, as a psychologist will tell you, the primacy effect, making a judgement about someone on the basis of first impressions is more effective than the recency effect, which is making a Judgement about someone based on their most recent actions. The first impression Jimmy Connors gave most of the media and fans was a negative one. Now, however, he is giving us positive actions. It all make me wonder if Jimmy Connors watches daytime TV.
Interesting....particularly since he went on to win the inaugural USO at Flushing that year and gave his "You may not like me, but I like you" speech....probably a turning point for his image
Thanks for the info. As we know Jimmy won Rotterdam I think on 9th April, then probably he flew to the USA but he didn't played any tournament in the week 10-16. I suppose he took a couple of days for rest and probably this match vs Dibbs was played on 15th of April Saturday for more attendance. I suppose the surface was cement.https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4484&context=bg-news
I found the link. You should have no problems, there is the whole newspaper of April 21, 1978. The text of the article is this, however.
Connors trying to improve image On a TV game show the other week, a question was asked, "What male athlete do women hate most." The most popular answer, not surprisingly, was Jimmy Connors. Connors has been one of the most recognizable athletes in sports since his torrid 1974 campaign, which saw him dominated the tennis world like no one since the Grand Slam days of Rod I aver. That year he destroyed ageless Ken Rosewall in the finals of both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon in straight sets, and found himself on the cover of numerous magazines and a hot media item. But not all the stories about Conners had to do with his tremendous ability. Rather, many of the stories were centered around the controversy that often surrounds him. THE STORIES, instead, talk about his failure to play for the United States in Davis Cup competition, his questionable defaults, his outward expression of anger towards referees and his loner attitude towards many of his fellow players. With such stories surfacing regularly, it's not surprising women, and men for that matter, dislike Jimmy Connors. He's a man people love to hate. But Connors is working on a new image. Sure, he's still cocky and still has occasional flare-ups with linesman and referees, but he is improving. As former tennis great turned TV commentator Tony Trabert said on a national TV telecast, "his choice of words is getting better." CONNORS WAS in Toledo last week for a tennis exhibition for muscular dystrophy, and not only marveled the crowd with his superb play, but also entertained them with humorous antics. Eddie Dibbs, a late replacement for Dick Stockton, played the straight man role for Connors as the two put on a show which received as many laughs as it did applause. Among Connors' antics were; climbing into the crowd for a fan who wanted a photograph, "allowing a young ball boy to use his racquei and hit a few shots with Dibbs, bounce ball! off his head and playfully jostle with Dibbs. Connors rarely missed a chance to pull i stunt, and the crowd enjoyed it. He beat Dibbs 6-4,6-4, but that really didn'tseem tomatter. It was the revised Jimmy Connors. ONE OF CONNORS most dismal, lowly moments came after Guillermo Vilas defeated him in four sets in the finals of the U.S. Open last fall. Steve Sadler After the match, which ended on a controversial call that went to Vilas, Connors stormed off the court in anger, swiping at someone and angrily shouting, "Who's next?" He didn't bother to stick around to receive his second place trophy, and, again, Connors' image as a trouble maker wasfueled. Connors later said the action was in answer to the crowd who cheered for the Argentine rather than their American player. But a funny thing happened at the U.S. Pro Indoor and Masters tournaments earlier this year-the crowd began to root for Connors. Connors had, for the most part, cleaned up his act, and found that American crowds aren't alwaysfickle. HE STILL IS no angel, but Connors is making a conscious effort to revamp his controversial ways and slowly people are beginning to notice. The problem is, you see, as a psychologist will tell you, the primacy effect, making a judgement about someone on the basis of first impressions is more effective than the recency effect, which is making a Judgement about someone based on their most recent actions. The first impression Jimmy Connors gave most of the media and fans was a negative one. Now, however, he is giving us positive actions. It all make me wonder if Jimmy Connors watches daytime TV.
I know the score 7-6 3-6 6-3 but maybe yours is more correct.
you're right, I correct.
March 1971:
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Segura unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Olmedo unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Gonzalez unknown score
LA Times:
UCLA freshman Jimmy Connors whipped three veteran professionals, Pancho Gonzales, Alex Olmedo and Pancho Segura, in a series of exhibition tennis matches that concluded Sunday at the Palm Springs Racquet Club.
Playing 10-game pro sets, Connors won 32 games in matches with the three pros. Gonzalez, as runner-up, won first prize money of $1,250.
Thanks krosero.
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Segura unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Olmedo unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Gonzalez unknown score
LA Times:
UCLA freshman Jimmy Connors whipped three veteran professionals, Pancho Gonzales, Alex Olmedo and Pancho Segura, in a series of exhibition tennis matches that concluded Sunday at the Palm Springs Racquet Club.
Playing 10-game pro sets, Connors won 32 games in matches with the three pros. Gonzalez, as runner-up, won first prize money of $1,250.
Thanks krosero.
Interesting if the other players played each other or just Jimmy played vs the other 3.March 1971:
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Segura unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Olmedo unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Gonzalez unknown score
LA Times:
UCLA freshman Jimmy Connors whipped three veteran professionals, Pancho Gonzales, Alex Olmedo and Pancho Segura, in a series of exhibition tennis matches that concluded Sunday at the Palm Springs Racquet Club.
Playing 10-game pro sets, Connors won 32 games in matches with the three pros. Gonzalez, as runner-up, won first prize money of $1,250.
Thanks krosero.
The information is partial, but the 4-men round robin was a format used on other occasions;
basically it was taken over by the 2 rounds robin of the Masters GP, then ATP Finals.
Oh, yes, it was used. And I like this format. It shows at best who is the best player of the tournament.
1973 - March 18 (Sunday)... post/thread krosero (thanks krosero)
Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin
Whitefish Bay High School Fieldhouse
Wisconsin Tennis Patrons Classic
4-man, one-day tournament
SF Connors d. Buchholz (a replacement for Graebner), score unknown (10-game pro set)
SF Nastase d. Gonzalez, score unknown (10-game pro set)
F Nastase d. Connors 6-4, 3-6, 8-6
Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin
Whitefish Bay High School Fieldhouse
Wisconsin Tennis Patrons Classic
4-man, one-day tournament
SF Connors d. Buchholz (a replacement for Graebner), score unknown (10-game pro set)
SF Nastase d. Gonzalez, score unknown (10-game pro set)
F Nastase d. Connors 6-4, 3-6, 8-6
March 1971:
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Segura unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Olmedo unknown score
Palm Springs exhibition match + Pancho Gonzalez unknown score
LA Times:
UCLA freshman Jimmy Connors whipped three veteran professionals, Pancho Gonzales, Alex Olmedo and Pancho Segura, in a series of exhibition tennis matches that concluded Sunday at the Palm Springs Racquet Club.
Playing 10-game pro sets, Connors won 32 games in matches with the three pros. Gonzalez, as runner-up, won first prize money of $1,250.
Thanks krosero.
IMHO this is a tournament, not 3 exhibitions, so Connors won one more title.
From Wikipedia 149 (109 ATP + 40 unofficials)
+ 1 (Palm Springs 1971)
+ 1 (Modesto 1970, a amateurs tournament)
- Asuncion 1979 (not won, but runner-up)
- Napa Valley 1980 (exhibition match v Tanner, not tournament)
-----------
149
Last edited:
ALL NOT OFFICIAL RESULTS
1970 (4-0)
MODESTO 4-0
1971 (19-4)
OJAJ 4-1
LOS ANGELES 4-1
SAN DIEGO 4-1
KINGSTON 3-1
EL PASO 1-0
PALM SPRINGS 3-0
1972 (6-0)
NOTTINGHAM 3-0
OCEAN CITY 3-0
1973 (2-2)
COLUMBUS 1-1
WHITEFISH BAY 1-1
1975 (7-2)
CHICHESTER 3-1
BUCHAREST 0-1
SYRACUSE 1-0
LAS VEGAS 1-0
RIDGEFIELD 1-0
LAS VEGAS 1-0
1976 (10-2)
BECKENHAM 5-1
CARACAS 1-1
LAS VEGAS 1-0
PROVIDENCE 1-0
HARTFORD (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
1977 (3-0)
DORADO BEACH 1-0
HARTFORD (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
1978 (19-2)
TOKYO 1-1
TOLEDO 1-0
NEW HAVEN (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
BECKENHAM 5-0
BUENOS AIRES 3-0
LUCERNE 3-0
TOKYO GUNZE 3-0
FRANKFURT 1-1
1979 (14-6)
SAN PAULO 1-0
BUENOS AIRES 1-0
SANTHIAGO DE CHILE 0-1
FRANKFURT 2-1
FREJUS CARRè D'AS 1-1
AIX EN PROVENCE 0-2
BUENOS AIRES 4-0
MONTPELLIER 2-0
RIO DE JANEIRO 2-0
ASUNCION 1-1
1980 (26-4)
COPENHAGEN 1-0
COPENHAGEN 1-0
DETROIT 1-0
TORONTO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
SAN DIEGO 1-0
NAPA VALLEY 1-0
BRUSSELS 1-1
WIEN 1-1
MUNICH 2-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
FREJUS CARRE' D'AS 5-0
LOUISVILLE 2-0
MELBOURNE MAZDA CHALLENGE 5-0
MILAN 1-2
1981 (13-2)
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 4-1
TORONTO 3-1
SAN DIEGO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TEL AVIV 2-0
1982 (21-3)
TORONTO 2-2
MONTREAL MOLSON 3-0
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 5-0
INDUSTRY HILLS 2-0
NORTH MIAMI BEACH 4-0
RICHMOND 1-0
SEATTLE 1-0
LOS ANGELES 1-0
VANCOUVER 1-0
SAN FRANCISCO 1-0
OTTAWA 0-1
1983 (41-3)
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPS 3-2
BATON ROUGE 1-0
PROVIDENCE 1-0
SEOUL 1-0
CAPE TOWN 1-0
SAN DIEGO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
TAMPA 1-0
NEWPORT BEACH 3-0
VANCOUVER 5-0
ATLANTIC CITY 2-0
TULSA 4-0
NORTH MIAMI BEACH 4-0
BEAVER CREAK 2-0
SUN CITY 3-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TORONTO MOLSON 5-0
ANVERSE 1-1
1984 (8-3)
LOS ANGELES 0-1
SEATTLE 1-0
JAKARTA 1-0
KUALA LUMPUR 1-0
TOKYO 0-1
S. JUAN 1-1
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 4-0
1985 (17-7)
LAS VEGAS 2-2
STOWE 3-0
TULSA 4-0
BEAVER CREEK 3-0
JERICHO 4-1
EAST RUTHERFORD 0-1
CAPE TOWN 1-0
BOSTON 0-1
INGLEWOOD 0-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
1986 (21-5)
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TULSA 4-0
ATLANTA 3-2
BEAVER CREEK 1-1
STOWE 2-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
INGLEWOOD 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
NEW ORLEANS 1-0
OTTAWA 1-0
AMELIA ISLAND 3-0
1987 (10-4)
INGLEWOOD 0-1
AMELIA ISLAND 3-1
BEAVER CREEK 3-0
LOS ANGELES 1-1
ATLANTA 3-1
1988 (6-7)
TULSA 3-1
AUBURN HILLS 1-0
OSAKA 2-1
AMELIA ISLAND 0-1
BREMEN 0-1
STUTTGART 0-3
1989 (10-7)
NIMES 2-0
EDINBURGH 4-1
PALM COAST 4-3
SAN DIEGO 0-1
BOSTON 0-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
1990 (1-1)
STANFORD 1-1 (WO)
1991 (1-1)
SAO PAOLO 1-1
1992 (1-0)
INGLEWOOD 1-0
1970 (4-0)
MODESTO 4-0
1971 (19-4)
OJAJ 4-1
LOS ANGELES 4-1
SAN DIEGO 4-1
KINGSTON 3-1
EL PASO 1-0
PALM SPRINGS 3-0
1972 (6-0)
NOTTINGHAM 3-0
OCEAN CITY 3-0
1973 (2-2)
COLUMBUS 1-1
WHITEFISH BAY 1-1
1975 (7-2)
CHICHESTER 3-1
BUCHAREST 0-1
SYRACUSE 1-0
LAS VEGAS 1-0
RIDGEFIELD 1-0
LAS VEGAS 1-0
1976 (10-2)
BECKENHAM 5-1
CARACAS 1-1
LAS VEGAS 1-0
PROVIDENCE 1-0
HARTFORD (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
1977 (3-0)
DORADO BEACH 1-0
HARTFORD (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
1978 (19-2)
TOKYO 1-1
TOLEDO 1-0
NEW HAVEN (AETNA WORLD CUP) 2-0
BECKENHAM 5-0
BUENOS AIRES 3-0
LUCERNE 3-0
TOKYO GUNZE 3-0
FRANKFURT 1-1
1979 (14-6)
SAN PAULO 1-0
BUENOS AIRES 1-0
SANTHIAGO DE CHILE 0-1
FRANKFURT 2-1
FREJUS CARRè D'AS 1-1
AIX EN PROVENCE 0-2
BUENOS AIRES 4-0
MONTPELLIER 2-0
RIO DE JANEIRO 2-0
ASUNCION 1-1
1980 (26-4)
COPENHAGEN 1-0
COPENHAGEN 1-0
DETROIT 1-0
TORONTO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
SAN DIEGO 1-0
NAPA VALLEY 1-0
BRUSSELS 1-1
WIEN 1-1
MUNICH 2-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
FREJUS CARRE' D'AS 5-0
LOUISVILLE 2-0
MELBOURNE MAZDA CHALLENGE 5-0
MILAN 1-2
1981 (13-2)
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 4-1
TORONTO 3-1
SAN DIEGO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TEL AVIV 2-0
1982 (21-3)
TORONTO 2-2
MONTREAL MOLSON 3-0
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 5-0
INDUSTRY HILLS 2-0
NORTH MIAMI BEACH 4-0
RICHMOND 1-0
SEATTLE 1-0
LOS ANGELES 1-0
VANCOUVER 1-0
SAN FRANCISCO 1-0
OTTAWA 0-1
1983 (41-3)
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPS 3-2
BATON ROUGE 1-0
PROVIDENCE 1-0
SEOUL 1-0
CAPE TOWN 1-0
SAN DIEGO 1-0
PORTLAND 1-0
TAMPA 1-0
NEWPORT BEACH 3-0
VANCOUVER 5-0
ATLANTIC CITY 2-0
TULSA 4-0
NORTH MIAMI BEACH 4-0
BEAVER CREAK 2-0
SUN CITY 3-0
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TORONTO MOLSON 5-0
ANVERSE 1-1
1984 (8-3)
LOS ANGELES 0-1
SEATTLE 1-0
JAKARTA 1-0
KUALA LUMPUR 1-0
TOKYO 0-1
S. JUAN 1-1
ROSEMONT CHICAGO CH. OF CHAMPIONS 4-0
1985 (17-7)
LAS VEGAS 2-2
STOWE 3-0
TULSA 4-0
BEAVER CREEK 3-0
JERICHO 4-1
EAST RUTHERFORD 0-1
CAPE TOWN 1-0
BOSTON 0-1
INGLEWOOD 0-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
1986 (21-5)
SUNTORY CUP 2-0
TULSA 4-0
ATLANTA 3-2
BEAVER CREEK 1-1
STOWE 2-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
INGLEWOOD 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
TOKYO 1-0
NEW ORLEANS 1-0
OTTAWA 1-0
AMELIA ISLAND 3-0
1987 (10-4)
INGLEWOOD 0-1
AMELIA ISLAND 3-1
BEAVER CREEK 3-0
LOS ANGELES 1-1
ATLANTA 3-1
1988 (6-7)
TULSA 3-1
AUBURN HILLS 1-0
OSAKA 2-1
AMELIA ISLAND 0-1
BREMEN 0-1
STUTTGART 0-3
1989 (10-7)
NIMES 2-0
EDINBURGH 4-1
PALM COAST 4-3
SAN DIEGO 0-1
BOSTON 0-1
LOS ANGELES 0-1
1990 (1-1)
STANFORD 1-1 (WO)
1991 (1-1)
SAO PAOLO 1-1
1992 (1-0)
INGLEWOOD 1-0
Last edited:
NON-SANCTIONED MATCHES
321 Matches
68 Loss
253 Win
-------------
78,9 %
ONLY NON-SANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS (no Under 18, no Intercollegiate, no Amateurs)
260 Matches
52 Loss
208 Win
-----------------
80,00%
ONLY EXIBITION MATCHES
61 Matches
16 Loss
45 Win
-----------------
73,8%
ATP MATCHES
1535 Matches
279 Loss
1256 Win
------------------
81,8%
Last edited:
Good efforts. I can't write so much as you.
For sure Connors' "unofficial" matches (I don't like this word) are 50-60 more. I can check my database but it will take time to identify the missing by you.Good that you removed the doubled matches from Aetna Cup. Jimbo played only 2 matches a year there.
2 points at first look:
1. Challenge of champions events were held mostly in early January. But I know that they related to the previous year as stats. What's your info about that?
2. You are showing 4 matches for Jimmy at Amelia Island 1987. I know he played 2 vs Pate and Agassi. Do you have a source and details for the other 2 matches (wins)?
I appreciate your stats' presentation but I may disagree with some of the terms used.
Unofficial sounds to me too harsh, specifically for the 70s when the tour wasn't unified. The tournaments may not be sanctioned by ATP or WCT, may not bear points but many of them had a good history, a loooooooot of money, a loooooooooot of prestige and good draw.
The unofficial matches are divided into invitational and exh (challenge). I understand here that the tournament matches go in the invitational section. I can't agree with that. The invitationals were a very small part of these matches.
I think that the most proper terms in this case are:
1. Non-sanctioned matches
a) non-sanctioned tournament matches
b) non-sanctioned exhibition matches (what do challenge matches mean?)
2. Sanctioned matches (not ATP because ATP didn't exist in some Jimbo years and even when it existed it counted also some non-ATP tournaments). You know what a mess it was.
Certainly the "unofficial" matches of Connors (I do not like this word) are 50-60 more. Another 50-60 matches !!Good efforts. I can't write so much as you.
I was wrong.
So it seems to me that it took place at the beginning of January, the week after the Masters GP. But I'm not sure about all the editions...
I see if I find anything out of Amelia Island 1987.
Last edited:
I do not think there is an established definition of these tournaments.
My reasoning is simply this:
3 circuits / tours were recognized until 1976 (GP, WCT, IPA) and after 1976 up to 80s (GP & WCT).
Any tournaments organized outside these three (or 2) organizations are considered non-official.
If the non-official term is not correct, we can write
- not sanctioned by the three main circuits until 1973
- not sanctioned by ATP since 1973 (in this case the WCT anomaly would remain outside ATP since 1982 but Connors did not play it).
Non-sanctioned (or unofficial) matches are divided into
- exhibition matches (a player v a player)
- matches inside a tournament between 3 or + players.
Tournament between 3 or + players: generally they were considered "Invitational" especially in the 80s.
The term Invitational was not particularly used in the 70s (it was written in the newspapers simply "tournament", or "exhibition").
I like it very much the name "Invitational". I think it came from the fact that if the organizer wanted to invite Laver or Gonzalez or Borg that in the ranking was nr. 200 could do it, while the sanctioned tournaments had to follow the ranking (and the qualifications).
Why do you say that the invitationals were a very small part of these games?
The organizers of Anverse, Rosemont, Beaver Creek etc. invited the players they wanted.
Even in the case of challenge matches, there is no real terminology.
For what I know the difference between exho match and challenge match is ... the money:
Prize Money 100,000
- in the challenge match the loser does not earn 1 euro,
- in the exhibition match those who lose earn a sum that is known in advance (30%, 25% ...)
1981-86 (Rosemont Chicago 1981-84, Las Vegas 1985, Atlanta 1986)..... january post Masters GP,
1986 II edition (Atlanta) .... november,
1987 (Atlanta) ... october,
1988-89 (Atlanta) ....april.
It was an 8 seeding tournament (like the previous year).
In an article on Agassi it is written that he won two matches before the final.
What is missing is only a match.
Which I did not find.
Do you have information on Frankfurt Cup 1979?Good efforts. I can't write so much as you.
Good that you removed the doubled matches from Aetna Cup. Jimbo played only 2 matches a year there.
2 points at first look:
1. Challenge of champions events were held mostly in early January. But I know that they related to the previous year as stats. What's your info about that?
2. You are showing 4 matches for Jimmy at Amelia Island 1987. I know he played 2 vs Pate and Agassi. Do you have a source and details for the other 2 matches (wins)?
Connors lost in the final 4 sets v Borg, Jimbo should have won 2 matches: won the semifinal v McEnroe, and the quarter-final? Or was the tournament a 4-me?
Oh, yes. Incl. tournaments and exos.
1980 - 5-11 Jan 1981 (before Masters)
1981 - 4-10 Jan 1982 (before Masters)
1982 - 4-9 Jan 1983 (before Masters)
1983 - 3-8 Jan 1984 (before Masters)
1984 - 2-6 Jan 1985 (before Masters)
1985 - 6-12 Jan 1986 (before Masters)
1986 - Nov, 1987 - Oct and so on
BTW also Masters was played in the middle of Jan but related to the previous year's stats.
It would be good if you find something. I would be surprised if he played 4 matches just 3-4 days after US open. But who knows?
Exactly. That's it
Hmmm, not exactly. The so called "Invitationals" were the 4-man tourneys usually held on Saturday and Sunday. They were officially called so like Munich inv., Stuttgart inv., Buenos Aires inv., Sao Paulo inv. etc. Financially it was better for some of the organizers to attract and to pay to 4 names instead of paying to 32 or 64.
But ... this was not the case with Ch. of Ch., Antwerp, Molson etc. And they invited NOT what they wanted but they invited the currently best. Everybody wanted the best players not just relying on names. And there they played either more than 4 players or 4 players in RR. They were real tournaments.
We have to be precise when evaluating the tournaments. If you want to have an invitational section (I agree on such) you have to put there only pure invitationals but not all tournament matches. I can help where needed.
Well, I haven't heard anywhere about a "challenge" match.
I even can't imagine what should be the meaning of such name.
Even more I can't imagine that a player would agree to travel, pay for a hotel and play a single match somewhere with no money even for the looser. Can you tell me about such matches? I know of some tournaments with no money for the loser but not exo matches.
Possible. But if we miss something it is 1 win not 2. Do you have some confirmation it was a 8-man draw with no bye for anyone?
Can you write them? I thought I had completed the research.
You know I did not understand?
The so-called "Invitationals" were just the 4-man tournaments?
Tournaments with + 4 players should be named "Tournaments not sanctioned"?
I agree that we need to be precise in evaluating tournaments but the problem is that there is no "commonly accepted definition", we can only provide an interpretation and agree on this interpretation.
On the term "challenge" I have to look, what I remember are two examples:
1) the 4 matches won by Connors organized by Riordan were challenge matches where the loser did not earn 1 dollar. Then the opposite happened in reality to the losers came something "underhand".
2) the Challenge Cup, a special event organized by the WCT provided (at least in the first editions) that the losers did not earn 1 dollar (I remember an article that explained that Alexander lost 3 matches in 1977, earning nothing)
I don't have any confirmation of the first round match won by Jimmy, what I know is only:
1) Agassi won two matches before the final;
2) in the edition of the previous year the format was 8-men because Jimbo (who won the tournament) won 3 matches.
Two clues do not make a test, so if we can't recover the 1st match it seems correct to me not to include it in statistics (even if I'm personally 99% sure, but not 100%)
UPI Archives
Sept. 19, 1987
Five-time U.S. Open champion Jimmy Connors routed Johan Kriek,...
AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- Five-time U.S. Open champion Jimmy Connors routed Johan Kriek, and David Pate ousted Tim Wilkinson Friday to advance to the semifinals of the Du Pont All American Tennis Championships at Amelia Island Plantation.
Connors used a patient baseline attack to defeat Kriek, 6-3, 6-1.
'I felt pretty good out there,' Connors said. 'I've been playing well all summer.'
Pate dumped Wilkinson, 6-2, 6-1.
'When I'm serving well, usually the rest of my game picks up as well,' said Pate, who has reached the final of two Grand Prix events this year.
Robert Seguso will face Andre Agassi in Saturday's other semifinal.
Yep. I need time to identify them first.
Yep. I can't remember of inv with more than 4.
There is no "commonly accepted definition" but for me the definition "Invitationals" is not appropriate for the most TOURNAMENTS. The inv were a small part of all non-sanctioned tournaments.
1. Which are these 4 matches? Where?
2. The WCT challenge cup was a tournament not a single match. I know about this. But you have talked about single challenge matches in the section exos and chall matches not tournaments. WCT ch. cup is in the group of the tournaments.
There were 2 in 1975, Laver and Newcombe. 1 in 1976 vs Orantes. And 1 in 1977 vs Nastase. They all were single matches nationally televised by CBS. They were originally advertised as winner take all. It later came out that both players were guaranteed a certain amount. The player that won got extra money for winning, but the loser sure didn't walk away with nothing. Obviously, these matches were not affiliatedI with the ATP or the tour. It's why some people, like Ashe, knocked them at the time.
Interesting about the WCT challenge cup starting out like that. I had zero recollection of that. Connors' challenge matches, absolutely. It was sort of a scandal at the time. I means the lies about winner take all.
It came back to my mind ... it was called "Challenge match winner take all". There was a scandal with those organized by Riordan but maybe because ... he was Riordan.
I remember reading that the TCC 70-71 was also winner take all and Riggs v King challenge matches (I do not know v Court).
I have the impression that it was invented well before Riordan.
Excellent. Unfortunately no info who Agassi beat in the Q.
L.A.Times
L.A. Tennis : Agassi Is on His Way at 17
September 23, 1987|LISA DILLMAN | Special to The Times
It's questionable what people notice first when they spot 17-year-old Andre Agassi on the tennis court: his hair, which he wears in a two-tone punk style that can change on a whim, or his powerful forehand, often called the best this side of Ivan Lendl.Either way, both produce the same kind of head-turning reaction. In Seoul last April, the press viewed him as a novelty. And crowds pulled for Agassi all week as he reached the final against Jim Grabb.Even here, in Southern California, where Agassi wouldn't stand out in a crowd of local teen-agers, he is questioned about his hair.The attention makes sense when you consider the homogenous makeup--obviously, with a few exceptions--of the men's tour. A departure from the norm, be it a diamond stud in one ear, or a liking for Motley Crue, stands out like a pro tennis player without a clothing contract.Agassi wasn't inspired by any particular rock singer, saying he was inspired . . . well, by himself."I don't know, I just enjoy doing something with my hair," he said. "I'm going for it, who knows, I might go bald."Indeed, Agassi is his own guy. He wrinkled his nose at the suggestion that his haircut might have been inspired by a member of a hard-rock band."Nope, no way," he said.He dropped out of school before his sophomore year in high school and, now, speaks about school with the same sort of disdain a USC football player has for UCLA."I never liked studying, I never like opening books and learning," Agassi said. "I like to learn from experiences, like traveling the world."Thus far, his travels have taken him from South Korea to Tokyo to Rome this year. And, he has managed to continue moving up in the rankings. At Stratton Mountain, Vt., he grabbed the spotlight by beating Tim Mayotte and Scott Davis last year and finished No. 91 by year's end.Again, Stratton was the key to another Agassi breakthrough as he defeated Pat Cash and pushed Lendl to three sets last month. At the U.S. Open, he was the victim of an unfortunate draw, losing to Henri Leconte in four sets in the first round.Agassi shrugged off that disappointment, though, and beat 12th-ranked Brad Gilbert and Robert Seguso to set up a meeting with Jimmy Connors in the championship of a special exhibition at Amelia Island, Fla., last weekend.The match against Connors had a special meaning for Agassi because he once hit with his idol at age 4. Unfortunately, for Agassi, the day was somewhat spoiled when Connors succumbed to the heat and humidity and defaulted in the first set, down 4-3."I really wanted to finish it," said Agassi, who is ranked No. 69. "I would rather have lost to Connors in three sets than to play (David) Pate in the final and win it."So, on Tuesday, the heat and a three-set match was nothing for Agassi as he defeated Jaime Yzaga, 6-1, 6-7, 6-2, in a first-round match at the Volvo
Orlando Sentinel
Andre Agassi defeated Robert Seguso...
ADVANCE OF AGASSI.
September 20, 1987|Larry Greene
ADVANCE OF AGASSI. Andre Agassi defeated Robert Seguso, 6-1, 6-2, to move into the final of the Dupont All-American Championship at Amelia Island. Agassi dominated, combining a strong serve with accurate passing shots.
Oh, you mean the World ch. matches. No, they were absolutely not "winner takes all". CBS advertised them so for attracting more audience. But they were not. Even the losers got a huge money. Here something from NY times, Apr 28, 1975:
"No doubt Newcombe wanted to win. But how ferocious can a man's competitive spirit get when he will receive, after losing, at least five times as much money as he ever got for winning? In fact, he got more than he ever earned in a whole year's play."
In fact Jimbo got $500,000, Newc - 300,000. For just one match.
The challenge match itself was a winner-take-all. But apart of the amount on the line, there was the pot given by the televisions.
For example, Connors-Newcombe challenge match had a $975,000 prize money.
$250,000 check from the Caesar Palace, going to the winner (Connors).
Then $550,000 from CBS and $175,000 from foreign television.
Prize money given by the televisions was shared (nobody really knows in which percentage, but probably 33% each) among Connors, Newcombe and Riordan
"The winner takes all" was just a CBS advertisement. Riordan offered guaranteed money for both players. Then the winner receives additional money.It came back to my mind ... it was called "Challenge match winner take all". There was a scandal with those organized by Riordan but maybe because ... he was Riordan.
I remember reading that the TCC 70-71 was also winner take all and Riggs v King challenge matches (I do not know v Court).
I have the impression that it was invented well before Riordan.
TCC was winner takes all only in the round level matches. The semis and the final shared the money.
I also knew this story (although to tell the truth I never totally understood it), it was called winner-take-all but in reality it was a ... fake.
On guaranteed money or additional money, however, we enter the maze of a problem too complex because there were additional money in many tournaments, in many circuits (such as the WCT), in many not-sanctioned tournaments.
I remember reading that, for example, Connors took part in WCT 1977 because he was guaranteed additional money. Vilas had a problem in 1982 and was disqualified but the other players also almost always took additional money.
I believe we enter mined territory.
Few events were presented as a challenge match winner-take-all but in fact (and I agree with you and Nomercy) they were not winner-take-all but simple exhibition matches.
It must have been absolutely dreadful conditions for JC to default...not like him at all....even at 35 years old...
Exactly. The additional not official prize money was a usual practice for some events.
But isn't it currently the same? Top 10 or top 15 players contract also money only to participate in some tournaments. Prize money is extra.
I don't know about that. Connors had his share of defaults and retirements over his career. I spoke about scandal with the challenge matches. This article talks about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/02/archives/cbs-tennis-series-is-called-deceptive.html
I don't recall there being anything deceptive about the WCT contracts. In 1977, I believe Connors signed a 500,000 contract to play WCT. That was his guarantee. I believe his winnings counted against that. He didn't get the guarantee and his prize money until, presumably, his winnings had exceeded that.
I'm not sure what's particularly scandalous...aside from the fact that the appearance fees were not revealed? Players got $$ to show up and prize money on top of that. As most exos did. If/when ATP/Official tournaments started doing that, then you had a problem....as Vilas found out. But, exos were always glorified entertainment. My only point was that JC was very much into the competition, even at exos....he defaulted from time to time due to injury. To default due to heat/exhaustion, that was rare. Even in the '91 FO, it was more due to his back than anything. He was not one to walk away from a match, or the money involved.
And I would say "good for them". People wanted to see them play, sponsors will willing to pay. So be it. Sure, it's commercial, but it's also what the people wanted to see and spoke to the popularity of the sport at the time. We don't see too many (any?) events like this any longer....
They were falsely advertised as winner take all, that's the problem. Exhibition event or not, CBS was deliberately misleading. These matches , especially the Laver and Newcombe matches, were huge at the time. Nationally televised, Hell, the Laver match had them using a bunch of former tennis greats as linespeople. These were not ordinary exhibitions.
Am I morally outraged? No, read SHORT CIRCUIT. About the 82 tennis year and all the shenanigans going on. Guarantees were an open secret, but when Vilas was actually caught there was a degree of scandal about it. Same thing with CBS here. Depends on how you define scandal, I suppose. What is in that link fits my definition. I believe I said some degree of it, not like it was among tennis' greatest scandals.
Noone is disputing that Connors was a great competitor in generally. However, go back and look at what you said. How horrendous the conditions must have been for him to retire. As if you are almost incredulous that he would do so. And in an exhibition match to boot.
All I'm stating is that it wasn't that unusual for Connors. I found 30 defaults or retirements from the ATP site which mostly. isn't even counting exhibitions. He didn't just play through anything. In general, I mean. Wimbledon or the US Open, I'm right there with you. They would have pretty much had to carry him off.
I guess in 2018, "false advertising" such as that does not seem so scandalous! Back then, perhaps, it was. Yes, I read Short Circuit a long time ago...and payments were something of an "open secret." But exos were not subject to the same rigor. 70's and 80's saw tremendous money growth in the game....I'm sure they all wanted a share of the action....Borg, Connors, Mac, Chrissie, etc. were celebrities of their day.
Connors did default several matches in the later stages of his career, I know that, due to injuries (he hid back problems, wore a brace, knee problems, etc.). But, as you say, at the GS events he played with a bum ankle, severe shin splints (fracture?), etc. Quitting for "exhaustion" makes me think it had to be pretty excruciating out there. And, I'm sure he did not want to quit against the "young gun" Andre.
Let's start one by one.
+ Ojai Valley 3-1 (tournament)
+ San Diego 2-1 (t.)
+ LA 3-1 (t.)
+ Southampton, USA 2-1 (t.)
