connors bio

realplayer

Semi-Pro
It is pretty decent from Connors that he never revealed this for almost forty years and he has every right to tell his story.
However it is not so decent from Evert to exclude Connors from her decision.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Again, let's just say that our sense of morality is somewhat different. Having an abortion against the father's wishes poses for me a bigger moral dilemma than Connors disclosing that fact in a book. You said that you didn't think Connors was a decent human being for doing so. I question the moral inversion of making a moral judgment call on Connors while not acknowledging that the far bigger moral problem lays with Evert and the abortionist.

Like I said, our sense of moral outrage differs. I laugh, though, at you saying that Connors is not a decent human being while not having a problem with Evert's choice.

I have no problem with any woman’s choice. The key word is choice. If you find abortion morally objectionable, fine. But your objection and judgment of a woman choosing to have a legal procedure does not make it any less of a medical decision and like 99.9% medical issues they are private.

Let's say while Connors and Evert were together Connors left the tour for 3 months and it was assumed it was for injury. But it was really because he had a mental breakdown and was hospitalized. Would it be ok for Evert to write that in a book if Connors never mentioned it in public? The short and long answer is NO.

I use to have the very same views as you. I would wag my finger at a woman that would do such a "horrible" thing. My view changed when I met and got to know a person that made the same hard choice as Evert. She was the same age Evert was, 19 years old. Why would anyone would to re-open a wound that old only to sell a few more books? Or more likely just to be hurtful. There is a difference between being honest vs being truthful.

Jimbo has given a pass for being a world class jerk. And he’ll get a pass for this.
 

realplayer

Semi-Pro
I have no problem with any woman’s choice. The key word is choice. If you find abortion morally objectionable, fine. But your objection and judgment of a woman choosing to have a legal procedure does not make it any less of a medical decision and like 99.9% medical issues they are private.

Let's say while Connors and Evert were together Connors left the tour for 3 months and it was assumed it was for injury. But it was really because he had a mental breakdown and was hospitalized. Would it be ok for Evert to write that in a book if Connors never mentioned it in public? The short and long answer is NO.

I use to have the very same views as you. I would wag my finger at a woman that would do such a "horrible" thing. My view changed when I met and got to know a person that made the same hard choice as Evert. She was the same age Evert was, 19 years old. Why would anyone would to re-open a wound that old only to sell a few more books? Or more likely just to be hurtful. There is a difference between being honest vs being truthful.

Jimbo has given a pass for being a world class jerk. And he’ll get a pass for this.

You forget that the abortion of this child(also Connors child) makes it his business and I think you have every right to talk about your business and certainly after forty years. It's not only her tragedy and she made her decision(not mutual) and didn't gave him a choice.
The comparison between your example and the abortion are like apples to oranges.
 
Last edited:

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
You forget that the abortion of this child(also Connors child) makes it his business and I think you have every right to talk about your business and certainly after forty years. It's not only her tragedy and she made her decision(not mutual) and didn't gave him a choice.
The comparison between your example and the abortion are like apples to oranges.

So, 21 year Connors was dying to be a father?

The example I gave is very relevant because both involve private medical matters. That is why there are laws against the release of medical information, and medical personnel can be fired and medical centers used over the release of such information. Evert terminated a pregnancy, not kill a child. That is per Medical Science and Law.

I realize that moral outage seem to be en vogue regarding Evert’s right to privacy; but why is Poor Lil Jimmy speaking up now…forty years later?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
He's trying to sell books. Let's not get it twisted. Jimmy is about Jimmy.

Obviously he wants his autobiography to sell, but he's putting his story out there for the first time. I must admit that there were times in the past when I never thought that Connors would ever do an autobiography, because I didn't think him the type to reveal sensitive information about his life to the public at large, and he would never do a watered down account because that's not Jimmy's way.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Obviously he wants his autobiography to sell, but he's putting his story out there for the first time. I must admit that there were times in the past when I never thought that Connors would ever do an autobiography, because I didn't think him the type to reveal sensitive information about his life to the public at large, and he would never do a watered down account because that's not Jimmy's way.

Jimmy's way is to screw anyone and everyone one else.

What insight will be gained knowing Evert had an abortion? This from a guy that told reporters that Agassi could be his kids because spent a lot of time in Vegas.

I know, Jimmy is being Jimmy...
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Jimmy's way is to screw anyone and everyone one else.

Absolute nonsense.

What insight will be gained knowing Evert had an abortion?

A big event in their relationship, and how he felt about it.

This from a guy that told reporters that Agassi could be his kids because spent a lot of time in Vegas.

It was a joke.

I know, Jimmy is being Jimmy...

And he rubs some people up the wrong way, while others totally "get" what he's all about. I'm in the latter camp.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Absolute nonsense.



A big event in their relationship, and how he felt about it.



It was a joke.



And he rubs some people up the wrong way, while others totally "get" what he's all about. I'm in the latter camp.

I get him, love his tennis, but he is about as narcissistic an *** as anyone can be. Not even a 'heads up' email to her so that anyone she had not told did not find out this way. YOu know he must have broken a personal promise to her never to reveal, right? Come on!
 
Last edited:

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
Tried to buy the book today, but just found out it isn't available in the UK until middle of next week. I should have spotted this earlier, but still gutted:(
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Jimmy's way is to screw anyone and everyone one else.

So, he should place a gag order on himself to be as media friendly as possible?

What insight will be gained knowing Evert had an abortion?

If it was his child, then the answer is clear: because it was HIS child, too! Why do you continue to defend Evert as though abortion is only her concern? Fathers do not count? His experience and feelings do not count?
 

8F93W5

Rookie
So, he should place a gag order on himself to be as media friendly as possible?



If it was his child, then the answer is clear: because it was HIS child, too! Why do you continue to defend Evert as though abortion is only her concern? Fathers do not count? His experience and feelings do not count?

Jimmy could have told that story without mentioning any names.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
So, he should place a gag order on himself to be as media friendly as possible?



If it was his child, then the answer is clear: because it was HIS child, too! Why do you continue to defend Evert as though abortion is only her concern? Fathers do not count? His experience and feelings do not count?

Evert terminated her pregnancy, not kill Jimmy’s child. As I stated before, men can't get pregnant. It's a woman right to choice. The only thing I am defending is Evert or any woman right to privacy in regards to this matter. Yes, it takes two for a pregnancy, but only women have the burden and the decision to go through with a pregnancy. It’s not fair, it’s biology.

If Evert had made this public knowledge, not hearsay, then Connors would have every right to speak about it because it would have no longer been a private matter. Does anyone believe Connors life fell apart because of Evert’s decision? Well, other than that beatdown a post-prime Ashe gave him at Wimby in ’75. But may have had more to do with the frivolous lawsuit Jimbo filed against a guy speaking his mind than anything else...But that's just Jimmy being Jimmy. Speaking of that lawsuit, I hope this fighter from East St. Louis explained in his book why he dropped that suit. Because that would be HONEST and OPEN. Was he afraid to lose to Ashe in Court as well as on Centre Court in the same year? Because would have really sucked.

As far as Connors giving himself a gag order, I was only hoping, as I'm very sure that Evert was hoping, that Connors would have be a mature adult in this matter. I guess that would too much to ask.

Evert may not be Chrissie America that was sold to the public, but no one deserves to have a such a private matter brought to light this way.
 
Last edited:

8F93W5

Rookie
For those of you who don't see anything wrong with Jimmy writing about Chris and the pregnancy, what would you think of a man who had a private, just for him, nude photo of his famous (or not) girlfriend and then sold it to publisher after the relationship ended?
Well, this is worse.


Yes, I'd like to see a nude picture of Chris from 1974, but He'd be a jerk if he shared one.
Yes, I know he married a nude model. Not the same thing as my question.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
from Steve Flink's review

Connors tells us that he had become engaged to Evert while they were on their way to winning the men’s and women’s singles championships at the 1974 South African Open, but that is at odds with the documented evidence—including Evert’s account in her 1982 book Chrissie. She wrote then that the engagement took place during the 1973 South African Open. Perhaps Connors simply mixed up the years innocently and perhaps not, but the details matter because the readers of The Outsider are led to believe that the subsequent breakup of these two superstars took place only a short time after the termination of the pregnancy, but was that really so? (Incidentally, Connors has other dates in the book confused, including an incorrect reference to playing his last Grand Slam final at the 1983 U.S. Open) He writes of postponing the wedding in 1974, “It was a horrible feeling but I knew it was over. Getting married wasn’t going to be good for either of us.” He says he told Evert over the phone, ‘I’ve been thinking. We’re both pretty young. Maybe we should take a step back and think about giving it a little more time.’ She was on the East Coast but she did not hesitate. ‘O.K., if that’s what you think. I’ve got a match tomorrow. Not a problem.’”

When excerpts from the book were first released, Evert responded with a statement clarifying her thoughts on the matter. She said, “In his book, Jimmy Connors has written about a time in our relationship that was very personal and emotionally painful. I was extremely disappointed that he used the book to misrepresent a private matter that took place 40 years ago and made it public, without my knowledge. I hope everyone can understand that I have no further comment.”

That dignified response was quoted by nearly everyone who interviewed Connors last week about his book. His explanation was that he did not contact anyone before the memoir came out, and he unabashedly stressed that it was his book looking back on his own life, strongly implying that what anyone else thought or felt didn’t really matter. Yet he was overlooking the fact that he betrayed a trust on a matter that was indeed very private and even delicate. No one can be certain about the motives of Connors for traveling down that path, but his lack of courtesy is striking and, to many observers, disturbing and revelatory. Not only did he break that crucial code of privacy, but he adds insult to injury by portraying Evert as cold-hearted and callous, while making himself come across as magnanimous and sensitive. Is the Connors version of the truth believable? Was he being self-serving? Did she deserve this treatment? Could what he stated stand up to serious scrutiny? I think not. You be the judge.

Connors had other things to say regarding Evert that did not emerge in the excerpts but are nevertheless noteworthy. Alluding to arguments they had over the phone back in the day and how they were often 5000 miles apart, he writes, “I know I strayed, several times, over the two years we were together, both at home in California and on tour. I was young, hanging out with buddies like Nasty, Spencer [Segura], Dino Martin, David Schneider and Vitas Gerulaitis. What do you think happened? After every match, we would be surrounded by women. Chrissie would be in a different state or country, and the two of us might have had another fight on the phone. It happened. I’m not proud of it, but that’s what I did.”

Connors reflects on what it was like playing mixed doubles with Evert at the majors—they reached the U.S. Open final together in 1974— in those years. He makes it clear that he did not take mixed doubles as seriously as Evert, and writes, “I’ve always refused to blast the ball at my female opponent, even if the other guy is aiming at my partner…. Chrissie thought I should go ahead and bury the other woman. I would just shrug and get on with the game, and that made her even madder. Everyone has his or her own insecurities; I had mine and Chrissie had hers. In the often claustrophobic, intense world of tennis, you can feel as if everything revolves around you, and her need to be the center of attention at all times became too much.”

It is puzzling that Connors was largely so unkind and insensitive to someone with whom he shared so much when he was in his late teens and early twenties. Not only did he overstep his bounds by making a private matter public, but he seemed to pile on the criticism of a woman he almost married, and for what purpose? There was something largely unsettling about that part of the book. Connors may have believed he was simply being candid, but he sounded caustic, petty and small-minded in the process.

About Bjorn Borg the person, Connors is fair and generous, but he is disappointingly uncharitable about the Swede’s tennis. He makes Borg out to be more or less a backboard who could impart topspin, failing to acknowledge that his rival was more adaptable than he was. Borg never lost to Connors after the American prevailed in the 1978 U.S. Open final, and Connors takes the reader through the long litany of losses, refusing to laud Borg in almost any way. But, even now, so long after suffering through an agonizing streak of defeats against a player he surpassed regularly in the early years of their rivalry, Connors seems to be fundamentally missing the point.

Four times on the lawns of Wimbledon—including the 1977 and 1978 finals—Connors lost to Borg on the fabled Centre Court. Borg confounded Connors by beefing up his first serve considerably on the grass, and by learning to slice his backhand approach down the middle to the vulnerable low Connors forehand. He gives the Swede remarkably little credit. Meanwhile, Connors writes of his own tennis, “I could end up playing five or six different ways in one match, but whichever style I used, my game was all about precision and aggression. I was always taking chances, going for it, playing with no fear and being willing to accept the consequences if it didn’t pay off. That’s the way I was taught, and being stubborn as I was, I wasn’t going to change my philosophy for anybody.”

The book all told is entertaining and absorbing, but Connors on these pages remains elusive in so many ways, hard to comprehend in some instances, more believable in others, authentic and candid sporadically but just as often hard to trust and difficult to follow. One of my misgivings with the book is the way it is written. At times, the voice of Connors as we know it comes through clearly and unmistakably. It sounds then as if Connors is in the room talking in his customary, distinctive manner. But sometimes his voice is lost and the book reads like someone else is communicating. In many autobiographies or memoirs, a ghost writer gets a billing lower down on the cover from the famous athlete or actor.

In this book, that is not the case. The Outsider does not credit the writer. In his acknowledgments, Connors refers to Casey DeFranco and thanks him for making “it easy to express my feelings.” He then lauds his “brilliant” editor David Hirshey, a former tennis writer for The New York Daily News, which was praise well deserved. The material is well organized, but I maintain the book wanders between sounding like Jimmy Connors and listening to somebody else with a different personality. That can be disconcerting.

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=12296
 

TW Staff

Administrator
Please keep this thread about Jimmy Connors' book and not about the topic of abortion. If the abortion debate continues, the thread will be deleted.

Thanks,

TW Staff
 

Fifth Set

Professional
Just more confirmation that Connors is a jerk. Agassi had the class to ask Brooke to confirm the accuracy of statements made in his book. It was still I'm sure a million times more interesting than Connors' trash novella.

My biggest problem with tennis fans is that they sometimes fall into a mob mentality, supporting someone "with passion" while failing to realize that the player is actually showing zero character and sportsmanship.

The number of folks who adore miserable humans like John McEnroe and Connors is Exhibit A of this. :(
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Just more confirmation that Connors is a jerk. Agassi had the class to ask Brooke to confirm the accuracy of statements made in his book. It was still I'm sure a million times more interesting than Connors' trash novella.

My biggest problem with tennis fans is that they sometimes fall into a mob mentality, supporting someone "with passion" while failing to realize that the player is actually showing zero character and sportsmanship.

The number of folks who adore miserable humans like John McEnroe and Connors is Exhibit A of this. :(

"miserable humans"? wow...that's a bit strong. They are flawed people, just like all of us. And, as is Ms. Evert. Connors can talk about what he wants, who he wants, when he wants. If it's untrue or slanderous, that's what the courts are for. This does not appear to be that kind of situation.
 

Fifth Set

Professional
...Connors can talk about what he wants, who he wants, when he wants. If it's untrue or slanderous, that's what the courts are for...

Really? That's your standard for ethics or character? Victory in litigation?

No wonder we have so many lawyers!
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Really? That's your standard for ethics or character? Victory in litigation?

No wonder we have so many lawyers!

ethics are completely relative....he is clearly lacking in courtesy, that's obvious....but he is entitled to speak about events in which he is/was involved, without requiring permission from anyone.

it's tacky, no question. but let's not make Evert the victim in all this....she's been hiding the truth for many, many years.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
ethics are completely relative....he is clearly lacking in courtesy, that's obvious....but he is entitled to speak about events in which he is/was involved, without requiring permission from anyone.

it's tacky, no question. but let's not make Evert the victim in all this....she's been hiding the truth for many, many years.

What truth was Evert hiding? She kept a very personal matter private. It was no one's business.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I saw Jimmy Connors give an interview to Charlie Rose on Bloomberg earlier, and I fail to see what Connors is supposed to have done wrong.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
The Outsider is a great book about Jimbo and his life! Any fan of Jimbo will love to gain the insight's from his memoir!

Evert was a part of Jimbo's life and as such should be in his book! It helps explain maybe Jimbo's experience and reaction to the world at large! Helps to explain himself in other words to the world. Evert just does not like the picture that is paint about her - that all!
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
The outsider

Just finished the book; a very compelling read overall. But, I have to agree w/some of Steve Flink's comments. For most of the book, it's clearly Connor's "voice" as if he was sitting there talking to you. But, at some spots it kind of drifts off from that, as if someone else were suddenly telling the story. Plus, there are a few factual errors I find odd, particularly when there are parts of the book where Jimmy can rattle off the exact sequence of matches he had against Mac, Borg, etc.

Most prominent error, is a chapter's closing line stating that the '83 USO final was the last GS final he would ever play. uh, no, wrong. Which seems odd when Jimmy mentioned the '84 Wimby match more than once in the book.

There are also some neat things in here that most of us probably never knew about Connors...certainly humanizes him quite a bit. Really enjoyed some of the parts about his early days. And, yeah, the bit about chrissie could've been left out, but it's pretty much placed inside the context of their relationship.
 

BTURNER

Legend
f Jimmy promised her that this would remain confidential, it probably did not come with a caveat exempting book agents or us. I have never bought that idea that a biography-for-profit is useless to the world if every sordid and private matter is not included that its readers would want.

If you think all those other greats who wrote biographies were somehow stealing from readers, by not including intimate private details of family, lovers and friends, I feel very sorry for you. I'd bet good money there are still painful and 'lifechanging' secrets in Connors' past, that he conveniently left out. In my book, you keep your promises, just the way you gave them.
 

8F93W5

Rookie
f Jimmy promised her that this would remain confidential, it probably did not come with a caveat exempting book agents or us. I have never bought that idea that a biography-for-profit is useless to the world if every sordid and private matter is not included that its readers would want.

If you think all those other greats who wrote biographies were somehow stealing from readers, by not including intimate private details of family, lovers and friends, I feel very sorry for you. I'd bet good money there are still painful and 'lifechanging' secrets in Connors' past, that he conveniently left out. In my book, you keep your promises, just the way you gave them.

Well said. I agree with everything you wrote, but would add that Jimmy didn't need to promise Chrissy (in 1974) he'd not tell anyone. In this case, it goes without saying that it's a secret. It's too obvious to have to say.
I mean if he promised or not, he still shouldnt have written about it without her persmission.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Well said. I agree with everything you wrote, but would add that Jimmy didn't need to promise Chrissy (in 1974) he'd not tell anyone. In this case, it goes without saying that it's a secret. It's too obvious to have to say.
I mean if he promised or not, he still shouldnt have written about it without her persmission.

the notion that the confidentiality of this matter ( how to keep this a secret)was not discussed but most every other aspect of this complex issue , was discussed, does not pass the laugh test. If they talked about it, they talked about who each would and wouldnot entrust. Most likely that involved a plea not to tell anyone.

This whole debate reflects our modern notion of entitlement. We are entitled to the autobiography that offers us 'a window' into every nook and cranny so that we get the kind of read worth our dollars. It can't be dull. It can't be tentative. It can't be less than total and remorseless candor, or we are cheated.

That is just too damn bad. He can bloody well shove his unvarnished secrets truths in a vault for 50 years until after he and she are dead and buried, and we can wait for the amendments to chapter 6, 10, and 12
 
Last edited:
The Outsider is at number 8 in the New York Times best seller list.



Mac and Agassi went to number 1 and Sampras peaked at 16 in this chart
 
Last edited:
Yes Moose Malloy

A fast and engaging book to read.The part on Gerulaitis is very emotional. I loved Vitas as a player and broadcaster. Well done
Great read. I ate it up in hours.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yes Moose Malloy

A fast and engaging book to read.The part on Gerulaitis is very emotional. I loved Vitas as a player and broadcaster. Well done
Great read. I ate it up in hours.

yeah, that chapter really had a tone of sadness to it. You can tell that Jimmy was thinking "if only I had gotten him to stay here one more day". The part about the intervention was very interesting too...everyone tried real hard to get vitas back on the straight and narrow.

there were definitely some parts of the book that showed some soft spots...who would've thought he was such a dog lover? :)
 

JAY1

Semi-Pro
Best tennis autobiography for years.

But it remind's me of Connors career from 1975 thru 1978, could have, should have, been a lot better!!
 

Goosehead

Legend
lol :) I was looking at the 2007 wimby final last night, via bbc coverage on youtube and 2 of the commentators were..(*drum roll*) Connors and john Lloyd who just in case any folk in here don't know were both going out with crissy evert.

I remember when I was small in the early 80s when they got married he was always in the crowd watching crissy with shades on, and his sleeves on his jacket rolled up Miami vice style :)

a bloke with a guide dog (a Labrador) was on court for the toss up of that 2007 final, a bit surreal seeing a dog out there on centre court..a bit of a risk though..it might have farted out a massive poo :confused: what then ??.
 
Last edited:

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
The Connors book is absolutely Superb:)

Well i finally finished reading the book last week, and it is absolutely Superb:)

It is everything I hoped it would be, an open and honest account of Jimmy's life. It gave a great insight into what influenced him and what happened throughout his life. My only criticism is that the book could have been double the size, there is so much more detail and so much more I'd have liked to have heard about.

Anyway, i was lucky enough to get to his book signing in London. Jimmy was brilliant with the fans, chatting to every fan and having photos taken and signing everything, he really was amazingly generous. He was due to be there an hour, but the queue was all the way down the street outside the shop and he spent hours there.

Jimmy not only signed the book, but also 2 of the rackets I brought along, 2 rackets he used to use in the 1980's and 90's (a white Slazenger Panther Pro Ceramic and a yellow Estusa Pro Legend Classic). I asked him about the Estusa's and he said he used the same racket between about 1990 and 1993 under all the different colour paintjobs.

I then pulled out a Slazenger Phantom 90 and a 95 out of my bag. He looked really impressed I had these, and said what a great collection I had there. I asked him which size he used 90 or 95. He held both and had a good look at them, but said it was too long ago and he couldn't remember. I'd have really liked a definite answer (I think it's the 90 by the way), but he just couldn't remember, never mind.

Anyway I really recommend the book, it's a very interesting read even if you're not a Connors fan. If you are a Connors fan like me, it's just a brilliant read :)
 
Last edited:

Boom-Boom

Legend
Yeah brilliant book and am only at the middle of it - extremely interesting insights into mid-70's tennis war of organisations such as WCT, Riordan's tour, pre-ATP led by Arthur Ash and ILTF (pre ITF).

What everybody forgot (myself included) is that Connors did win 3 out of 4 Slams in 1974 the year he was banned from the French Open since under contract with another tour manager...and that he did beat Bjorn Borg on Amercian clay at US Open when it took place at Forest Hill. He finished with 8 Slams but did he have played the French Open in the years he was number 1 instead of boycotting it subsequently to his 1974 ban, the story may have been different.

Plus those challenge match between him and Laver at Caesar Palace in Vegas...that's something we miss in today's tennis.

Very exciting, honest and insightful book.
 

8F93W5

Rookie
............What everybody forgot (myself included) is that Connors did win 3 out of 4 Slams in 1974 the year he was banned from the French Open since under contract with another tour manager...and that he did beat Bjorn Borg on Amercian clay at US Open when it took place at Forest Hill.........

What makes you think everyone forgot that? Or maybe I should say how could you for get it? It's one of the best things known about Jimmy. He probably would have won the Grand Slam that year. That's the reason it's unforgettable. We usually are reminded of it when people talk about those who have won THE Grand Slam. They mention the names Budge, Laver, etc. Then they tell about how Connors was cheated or disallowed form a great chance to win it

And yes, he did win a major on clay, so it helps prove that he could have done it in Paris in 1974.
Connors was banned from the French because he was playing World Team Tennis. I think the reason for the ban was it competed with European tournaments in the months right before the French. The people with the power to do it, decided to ban WTT players in hopes it would force them to play Europe rather than WTT. Chris Evert was banned to. Didnt she win the French 7 times?
 
Last edited:

Boom-Boom

Legend
Yeah I meant in the childish GOAT talks these days, Connors is often left out - guess it's a generation thing that's all.

Personally his 109 tournaments and his longevity were always the key feats for the guy as I only saw him play end of the 80's beginning of the 90's.

But by reading his bio, you really have to reckon he had an extraordinary year in 1974 indeed.
 

FedLIKEnot

Professional
I am young to young to have seen any of his career and I was in diapers when he made his last run at the US Open. That said based upon things people have said the 30 for 30 and the like he the man irritates me.

While when he was having to fight for every inch everyone was against him and he had to make it happen. While losing it was never him that got beat it was a bounce here or there it was a bad or close call .... or the player on the other side of the net just had a fluky day. His words about Borg I think in part drives that home.

I haven't read the book and I don't think I will, but on another note all you need to know about the man is in 400+ pages the excerpt he or his publisher/agent lead is the Evert story. And if you believe her stance that she wasn't even made aware of that story inclusion in the book then that only further drives home the point.

For comparison sake I feel Sampras was every bit the competitor that Conners was. Drove his body into the ground for victories and such all the while being respectful of the opponent and the like...

Maybe it is me but as he said about Agassi: Conners just inst my type of guy.
 
Top