Comparing the great triumvirate of Borg, Connors and McEnroe

[sandy mayer]

Probably the golden era of men's tennis was this trio's rivalry with each other.

I would say most people would put Borg as the greatest with debates over who is second.

But 1 thing that gets overlooked is this: people tend to put Borg first on the basis of his winning 11 slams to Connors' 8 and Mac's 7. But as is often pointed out in this forum, the French was much less prestigious than Wimbledon and the US Open in the years Borg was winning the French. Connors didn't bother with the French quite a bit and Mac missed it sometimes.

The big two were definitely Wimbledon and the US Open, by miles.

So if we take number of 'big two' blue chip slams won by the trio, the ranking order is as following:

1= Connors (2 W 5 US) and Mac (3 W 4US) on 7
3 Borg on 5 (5 W)

The question raised is if you had asked Connors and Mac in 74 whether they would rather win 7 of the big two, or 6 French and 5 Wimbledons, what would they have said?

I think it's difficult to rank the trio: I don't think it's as clear cut as some make out.

 

[CyBorg]

But as is often pointed out in this forum, the French was much less prestigious than Wimbledon and the US Open in the years Borg was winning the French. Connors didn't bother with the French quite a bit and Mac missed it sometimes.

Connors didn't bother with it until 1979 because he was an egomaniac. Mac worked tirelessly to win the French and was very depressed when he choked to Lendl. The year he skipped the French was when he knew he wasn't good enough to win it. This was partly Connors' reason as well.

The big two were definitely Wimbledon and the US Open, by miles.

Nonsense. For a number of years in the 1970s the US Open was best-of-three sets until the semi finals. The US Open truly rose in stature right alongside the French, towards the mid-70s. The Borg-McEnroe rivalry, in particular, cemented its reputation.

So if we take number of 'big two' blue chip slams won by the trio, the ranking order is as following:

1= Connors (2 W 5 US) and Mac (3 W 4US) on 7
3 Borg on 5 (5 W)

The question raised is if you had asked Connors and Mac in 74 whether they would rather win 7 of the big two, or 6 French and 5 Wimbledons, what would they have said?

I think it's difficult to rank the trio: I don't think it's as clear cut as some make out.

This is not a convincing argument. There is no real research, facts, nor reference. It is just an assumption based on something taken for granted.

 

[drakulie]

This is not a convincing argument. There is no real research, facts, nor reference. It is just an assumption based on something taken for granted.

Hmmm, very interesting considering you used this very same argument not too long ago.

 

[AAAA]

It's not a beauty pageant, a vanity parade or about who has the prettiest slams. On merit the French-Wimbledon double is probably statistically harder to achieve than a Wimbledon-USO double because of the surface disparity between grass and clay.

Based on merit it's clear who is better, to me, introducing style marks blurs the issue.

 

[CyBorg]

Hmmm, very interesting considering you used this very same argument not too long ago.

The old troll and bait is back. I've missed you, darlin'.

 

[sandy mayer]

[

Nonsense. For a number of years in the 1970s the US Open was best-of-three sets until the semi finals. The US Open truly rose in stature right alongside the French, towards the mid-70s. The Borg-McEnroe rivalry, in particular, cemented its reputation.

I disagree alot with your view about the US Open. I have never heard anyone imply the US was less prestigious until Mac-Borg, until you said it.

The only reason I can see for somebody saying the US wasn't big in the 70s is a love for Borg, who of course never won the US. Incidentally I'm a big fan of Borg.

I haveheard it said MANY MANY times that the French was not the event it is now in the 70s. That's not just people on this forum. Ive heard pros say it.

In the 70s Evert missed the French 3times even though she was a cert. to win it every time she entered. She NEVER skipped the US in the 70s.

In 74 Ashe said he'd rather win the US than Wimbledon. Connors said pre-Borg Mac rivalry that the US meant more to him than any other tournament.

The fact some matches were best of 3 doesn't mean the US was less important anymore than the fact ladies grandslams are less important than the year end championships because this tournament has been best of five while ladies grand slams have always been best of 3.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Probably the golden era of men's tennis was this trio's rivalry with each other.

Wimbledon and the US Open in the years Borg was winning the French. Connors didn't bother with the French quite a bit and Mac missed it sometimes.

The big two were definitely Wimbledon and the US Open, by miles.

the thing (for good and for bad) with forums is that people can say whatever comes to their mind...

 

[Gizo]

The French Open-Wimbledon double was considerably harder to achieve than the Wimbledon-US Open double. In those days, the grass at Wimbledon was lightening fast, and the clay at Roland Garros (speeded up in the mid-nineties) was slower and heavier than it is nowadays. Borg was better on hard than Connors or McEnroe were on red clay. Borg won as many Wimbledon titles as McEnroe and Connors put together (nowadays all 4 grand slams are on a par with each other, but in those days Wimbledon was the creme de la creme). It is a no brainer than Borg is considerably greater than both Jimbo or Mac.

 

[CyBorg]

I disagree alot with your view about the US Open. I have never heard anyone imply the US was less prestigious until Mac-Borg, until you said it.

Define prestige. None of the grand slam events had consistent 'prestige' at the start of the open era. Wimbledon was sahara in 1973. The French was sahara until 73. The US Open was still looking for identity for much of the 70s and finally reached its peak in popularity in the Borg-McEnroe years. Arguing that the French was thin from mid-70s onwards is weak and unsubstantiated - the number of American players who skipped the event from time to time did so for the same reason latino players tended to skip Wimbledon even into the most recent years: they knew that they could not win on their weakest surface. Even without them the French Open had great 128-man fields from 1973 onward.

The only reason I can see for somebody saying the US wasn't big in the 70s is a love for Borg, who of course never won the US. Incidentally I'm a big fan of Borg.

This is an interesting way to shift the blame. You made a thread without supporting your argument with anything tangeable and I took you up on it. This is an interesting way to spin your way out of your own maze of ignorance.

I haveheard it said MANY MANY times that the French was not the event it is now in the 70s. That's not just people on this forum. Ive heard pros say it.

That's great. I heard people say that the Australian Open was not a lame duck major in the 1970s. Maybe I should use this hearsay to support a ridiculous argument in the future.

In the 70s Evert missed the French 3times even though she was a cert. to win it every time she entered. She NEVER skipped the US in the 70s.

Let me get this straight. You are going to support your argument about the depth of men's fields at the French Open by bringing up a female player Chris Evert? This is very amusing.

In 74 Ashe said he'd rather win the US than Wimbledon. Connors said pre-Borg Mac rivalry that the US meant more to him than any other tournament.

First of all, Ashe was an American therefore bias figures in. Secondly, clay was Ashe's worst surface.

The fact some matches were best of 3 doesn't mean the US was less important anymore than the fact ladies grandslams are less important than the year end championships because this tournament has been best of five while ladies grand slams have always been best of 3.

I am glad you are more up to speed as to the ladies' game than I am.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Sandy... this is what happens when someone tries to put the Great Athlete and Gentleman that BORG was behind the GREATEST BUNSHOLES OF ALL TIME (GBAT) that are JMAC AND CONNORS based solely on personal opinions and biased ideas on relevance of events.

 

[sandy mayer]

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me and acknowledge that I can get things wrong. However, I am only prepared to address posts which aren't rude. There is no reason why people can't disagree with each other politely. Even if somebody says something which is completely wrong I think the appropriate response is a gracious polite post giving reasons for diagreeing with an opinion.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me and acknowledge that I can get things wrong. However, I am only prepared to address posts which aren't rude. There is no reason why people can't disagree with each other politely. Even if somebody says something which is completely wrong I think the appropriate response is a gracious polite post giving reasons for diagreeing with an opinion.

Graceful response; well said.

Further, your point is well taken: the French Open only had FIVE tennis courts--FIVE!--and did not expand until well after 1970 under the guidance of Phillipe Chartier. The TOTAL attendance for the French Open in 1972? 51,101. Average daily attendance for the fortnight? 3,650. The French Open in the early 1970's was in dire straights financially. It was hardly on a par with the U.S. Open which was not played on a measly FIVE courts, but on 28 grass courts which included a grandstand and a 15,000 seat stadium that already had proved to be too "cramped." The French Open was not the U.S. Open; especially in the early-to-mid part of the 1970's. Even before the French Open was trying to 'expand' to the big time, the U.S. Open was first in awarding EQUAL prize money to both men & woman as well as introducing Jimmy Van Allen's tiebreaker, etc..

Again, the French Open went through many a dark $$$ day until Chartier came to the rescue later in the 1970's; it was not on a par with the other big two at the time.

 

[sandy mayer]

Graceful response; well said.

Further, your point is well taken: the French Open only had FIVE tennis courts--FIVE!--and did not expand until well after 1970 under the guidance of Phillipe Chartier. The TOTAL attendance for the French Open in 1972? 51,101. Average daily attendance for the fortnight? 3,650. The French Open in the early 1970's was in dire straights financially. It was hardly on a par with the U.S. Open which was not played on a measly FIVE courts, but on 28 grass courts which included a grandstand and a 15,000 seat stadium that already had proved to be too "cramped." The French Open was not the U.S. Open; especially in the early-to-mid part of the 1970's. Even before the French Open was trying to 'expand' to the big time, the U.S. Open was first in awarding EQUAL prize money to both men & woman as well as introducing Jimmy Van Allen's tiebreaker, etc..

Again, the French Open went through many a dark $$$ day until Chartier came to the rescue later in the 1970's; it was not on a par with the other big two at the time.

Many thanks for your support. I appreciate that there are people like you committed to keeping this forum a pleasant one. And thanks for your information too. Do you bey any chance know which year precisely the French moved on?

 

[drakulie]

The old troll and bait is back. I've missed you, darlin'.

Whatever. fact is, The French was a weak slam. Deal with it.

 

[CyBorg]

Whatever. fact is, The French was a weak slam. Deal with it.

You're a confident little girl aren't you?

 

[drakulie]

^^^Yup. fact remains, the French was a weak slam, with a weak field.

 

[CyBorg]

^^^Yup. fact remains, the French was a weak slam, with a weak field.

Convincing argument. So thin you can wear it around your waist on a mediterranean nudist beach and no one would notice it.

 

[Wuornos]

Sandy is absolutely correct.

I use my own weighetd rating system as a measure of a player's greatness and the system uses an algorithm to adjust events by their value based upon the standing of players competeing over a range of years.

The result is that the majors in 1978 have the following weights applied to the results.
Australian 2.7
French 3.5
Wimbledon 4.8
US 5.2

By 1982 these weights had changed to
Australian 2.4
French 4.6
Wimbledon 5.9
US 5.9

Weightings that are calculated for each event for each year, the following Career level achievements can be calculated.

1. Connors 865
2. John McEnroe 688
3. Bjorn Borg 623

However, these data are to a certain extent influenced by the respective lengths of careers.

If we look at the most points achieved within a single year by each player we get the following.

1. John McEnroe 148 points in the calendar year of 1984
2. Bjorn Borg 136 points in the year ending with the French Open of 1981
3. Connors 105 points in the calendar year of 1982

I think this is probably the best indicator of standard.

Incidentally and just as an aside as I doubt it has any real statistical significance. The following are the single events for which each player scored the most points.

1. John McEnroe 56.1 points in the US Open of 1981
2. Connors 52.7 points in the US Open of 1982
3. Bjorn Borg 52.6 points in Wimbledon of 1980.

Regards

Tim

 

[martin]

Did not read all the posts but Sandy is right.
just saw an interview with Mcenroe a few years ago on Charlie Rose.
He said that the australian open had no importance at all(Mcenroe missed the first seven years) and the same goes for the French Open. Maybe it was slightly more important. That's why they skipped these grandslam tournaments or were not as prepared as they should have been. It was all about Wimbledon, US open and the number one ranking. In a way they had to play for only two important grandslams in a year which makes it quite easy to understand why they didn't win more grandslams.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

And amazingly you guys have proven that Borg (widely apreciated as the Greatest athlete the ever landed on pro tour) is Overated...
i love this forum.
one day i will see writen here that Burkina Faso is the worlds n1 Power nation and we are all living in a huge spacecraft.

 

[Wuornos]

And amazingly you guys have proven that Borg (widely apreciated as the Greatest athlete the ever landed on pro tour) is Overated...
i love this forum.
one day i will see writen here that Burkina Faso is the worlds n1 Power nation and we are all living in a huge spacecraft.

The Earth is a huge spacecraft.

 

[sandy mayer]

And amazingly you guys have proven that Borg (widely apreciated as the Greatest athlete the ever landed on pro tour) is Overated...
i love this forum.
one day i will see writen here that Burkina Faso is the worlds n1 Power nation and we are all living in a huge spacecraft.

I never said Borg is overrated: he is a true all time great. All I have done is compare him to Connors and Mac, other all time greats, and say I'm not sure if it is indisputable that he is greater than the other two. The other two have things about their careers which are better than Borg's, though of course Borg has achievements the other 2 don't have. Personally, I think a case can be made for any of the trio of Borg, Connors and Mac being greater than the other 2:

Borg and Mac have the advantage of better head to heads than Connors

Connors destroys them both in longetivity, and Mac does better than Borg here.

In period as no.1 it's about even between the three. Connors has no.1 in 74, 76, 82, 3 years.
Mac has no.1 3 years 81, 83-84.
Borg has no.1 3 years 78-80, though a decent case can be made for no.1 in '77, though I think Vilas gets it in the end.

In no. of grand slams Borg wins, but Connors and Mac definitely have the advantage in 'blue chip slams', where Mac and Connors are tied.

In no. of titles won, Connors wins easily.

In surface versatility Borg wins, I think.

In consistency I think Connors wins (in so rarely losing before latter stages of slams for donkey's years)

In level of play, I think Mac wins, in that I think his performance in 84 was higher than the other 2 ever played.

I think it is didfficult to confidently place the trio of Borg, Mac and Connors in order.

 

[Gizo]

Regarding longevity, Borg held at least one grand slam title for 413 weeks during his career, compared to Connors's corresponding total of 303 weeks, and McEnroe's 271 weeks. Therefore there is possibly a case, as strange/ridiculous as it might sound, to say that Borg actually beats the other 2 players in this category.
I doubt that Connors and McEnroe would have traded in their career accomplishments for Borg's, as after the true grand slam the Wimbledon-US Open double was the holy grail for them. But then again would Borg have traded in his accomplishments for McEnroe's or Connors's? I would also have to say a firm no. There is no doubting that Borg regarded Wimbledon as more important than the French Open, and I agree that the US Open was a bigger tournament than the French Open for a while. However for Borg personally, the French Open was definately a bigger priority than the US Open. If you'd have offered him a choice of 6 French Open titles or 6 US Open titles during the start of his career, while I'm not saying that I can read his mind, I'm sure that he would have chosen the former option over the latter. Borg considered Wimbledon to be his main priority, so he would have preferred to have held that prestigious gold cup aloft 5 times, rather than 3 times like Mac or twice like Jimbo.
Also from 1973 onwards, US and French Opens both had draw sizes of 128 players, so I would say that the gulf between the US Open and French Open was smaller than the one between the French Open and Australian Open during the 70s/early 80s.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Its funny how you claim that AO and FO were minor slams because of what 2 or 3 american players say and the number of players at draw and number of courts. lets see the list of winners of these 2 "minor events":
AO:
1981 Kriek (1/2) ††
1980 Teacher (1/1) ††
1979 Vilas (4/4) ††
1978 Vilas (3/4) ††
1977 Tanner (1/1) (Jan)
Gerulaitis (1/1) (Dec)
1976 Edmondson (1/1)
1975 Newcombe (7/7)
1974 Connors (1/8)
1973 Newcombe (5/7)
1972 Rosewall (8/8)
1971 Rosewall (7/8)
1970 Ashe (2/3)
1969 Laver (8/11)

FO:
Borg (11/11)
Borg (9/11)
Borg (7/11)
Borg (5/11)
Vilas (1/4)
Panatta (1/1)
Borg (2/11)
Borg (1/11)
Năstase (2/2)
Gimeno (1/1)
Kodeš (2/3)
Kodeš (1/3)
Laver (9/11)
Rosewall (5/8)

Definitely minor player too. should i post the list of finalists too?

 

[Gizo]

Who is greater out of Connors and McEnroe is an interesting question. Connors won 32 more titles than McEnroe which seems like a big difference. Both players won 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles, with Connors winning an Australian Open title. McEnroe won the Masters title 3 times, while Connors won it once. McEnroe won the WCT Dallas title 5 times, while Connors won it twice. I think McEnroe won the equivalent of 21 masters series titles during his career, while Connors's total is 17 titles. I actually think that McEnroe's title haul is more impressive than Connors, as he won more 'big titles', and Connors did pad out his total by playing and winning a lot of small tournaments with weak fields. His career title and weeks/years ended at world no. 1 stats are inflated. I would prefer 3 Wimbledon titles and 4 US Open titles (it seems more balanced) over 2 Wimbledon titles and 5 US Open titles, but that is just a personal preference I guess.
Both players achieved the Wimbledon-US Open double twice. Comparing their best seasons, I think that McEnroe's 1984 was better than Connors's 1974. Comparing their 2nd best seasons, I think that McEnroe's 1981 (an underrated year) was better than Connor's 1982.
Connors has the greater longevity out of the two players. McEnroe has a French Open final appearance on his CV, while Connors doesn't (I don't think he would have reached the final had he played there from 1974-1978 as there were several players better than him on red clay at the time).
McEnroe won the Davis Cup with his country many times (6 times I think but I'm not sure). Connors never won it once. I know he didn't care about the competition, but I think that was his loss.
I would give the edge to McEnroe over Connors, although the gap is a very narrow one.

 

[sandy mayer]

Its funny how you claim that AO and FO were minor slams because of what 2 or 3 american players say and the number of players at draw and number of courts. lets see the list of winners of these 2 "minor events":
AO:
1981 Kriek (1/2) ††
1980 Teacher (1/1) ††
1979 Vilas (4/4) ††
1978 Vilas (3/4) ††
1977 Tanner (1/1) (Jan)
Gerulaitis (1/1) (Dec)
1976 Edmondson (1/1)
1975 Newcombe (7/7)
1974 Connors (1/8)
1973 Newcombe (5/7)
1972 Rosewall (8/8)
1971 Rosewall (7/8)
1970 Ashe (2/3)
1969 Laver (8/11)

QUOTE]

This list of winners tells us the Australian Open went down hill after 1975. The only player who won from 76 onwards who won a slam elsewhere was Vilas. This is very revealing. It shows they weren't truly of thecalibre to win strong slams. In 76-81 Borg, Mac and Connors completely dominated slamswith fast surfaces. Vilas is the best of the AUs winners from 76 onwards,, but Vilas would never have beaten Borg and Connors on grass in 78/79 and not a recently crowned US Open champ Mac in 79. To have won the Aus. in 78 with a full strength filed, Vilas would certainly have had to beat both Borg and Connors and in 79 2 of Borg/Mac/Connors. I don't think Vilas would have ever have won the Aus. Open in this era with afull strength entry.
Tanner could upset 1 of Mac/Borg/Connors (though the odds would be against it) but he wouldn't have beat 2 of them to win the tournament.
Gerulaitis beat John Lloyd in the final of the Oz who though a very talented player was not of the standard to get near a final in a full strength slam.

 

[brc444]

In hindsight the skipping of the AO and FO were terrible career decisions. Apparently Evert played world team tennis a few times instead of the FO -- to me thats insane.

 

[krosero]

I doubt that Connors and McEnroe would have traded in their career accomplishments for Borg's, as after the true grand slam the Wimbledon-US Open double was the holy grail for them. But then again would Borg have traded in his accomplishments for McEnroe's or Connors's? I would also have to say a firm no. There is no doubting that Borg regarded Wimbledon as more important than the French Open, and I agree that the US Open was a bigger tournament than the French Open for a while. However for Borg personally, the French Open was definately a bigger priority than the US Open. If you'd have offered him a choice of 6 French Open titles or 6 US Open titles during the start of his career, while I'm not saying that I can read his mind, I'm sure that he would have chosen the former option over the latter. Borg considered Wimbledon to be his main priority, so he would have preferred to have held that prestigious gold cup aloft 5 times, rather than 3 times like Mac or twice like Jimbo.

Questions about whether players would trade their own accomplishments for others are about as speculative as you can get, but they're interesting nevertheless.

Connors and McEnroe were both Americans; each man won a majority of his Slam titles at the U.S. Open. I doubt that they would have wanted Borg's career with its consistent failure there.

Also, Davis Cup meant a lot to McEnroe. He was on 5 winning teams. Borg helped Sweden win the Cup in 1975 only.

Another thing that meant a lot to John was having a great doubles career. Borg had nothing of the kind.

On the other hand, McEnroe's most painful failure was never winning the French. He'd love to have six FO trophies -- who wouldn't? -- but still I think that if he'd failed to win the USO throughout his career, that would have been a greater disappointment to him (at least personally) than the FO was.

Borg's career stands out because he set record marks at not only the French (4 consecutive, 6 overall) but also at Wimbledon (5 consecutive being a record since the Challenge Round was abolished; before then the record was 7 total and 6 consecutive).

I can't remember where I read it -- probably Sports Illustrated -- but Borg once said that his ambition was to win so many titles that anyone looking at the record would have to say that this man was the greatest of all time. And that's what you get with Borg. You don't have to know any details; you just look at the ledger and you see Borg establishing a record number of consecutive and overall titles, not just at one Slam but at two (though if you don't know what the Challenge Round was, then Borg's Wimbledon titles look, maybe not like THE record, but at least the best Wimbledon performance in "modern times," which is how Borg's Wimbledon record used to be referred to when I first learned about it in the 80s).

That's what is so sterling about Borg's record. Just on paper, as it would look to even the most casual observer, he had records at two majors. McEnroe and Connors don't have such a mark at even one Slam. And Borg's mark at Wimbledon -- five consecutive at the greatest of the Slams -- is about as sterling an achievement as a player could want (other than the calendar Grand Slam), if what he's looking for is to make a big mark on the record books.

And that's just to the casual observer looking at the lists of champions. Once you become a fan of tennis and you learn how hard it is to win on grass and clay generally, not to mention a few weeks apart, then the fact that the man did this and did it repeatedly, actually establishing records in both places, is astonishing. Among his two rivals, only Connors has a similar achievement in versatility (USO wins on three surfaces).

But it's still hard to imagine Connors and McEnroe -- both great, proud champions -- wishing that they didn't have the career they had. They got what they wanted most (great success at the USO; and for Mac, doubles and Davis Cup), and Borg got what he wanted, too (big records at the majors).

And there's more to consider, other than titles. Would Connors want to give up his long career -- with all the accolades that he won in the late 80s and early 90s, not to mention having the best time of his life -- for Borg's career, cut short by his own decision to retire when he still had so much potential? Of course not.

A further twist is if you ask about their rivalries against one another. Would Borg want to trade in his head-to-head with McEnroe? Would he want to lose the 1980 Wimbledon final to McEnroe but win the next three meetings at the majors, the last two decisively? Maybe.

Would McEnroe want to lose that and take Borg's place? No way. That is one of the things that McEnroe is most proud of and best-known for -- his supplanting of Borg.

Would Connors want to take Borg's place in their rivalry? I don't pretend that he would ever think in such terms, but theoretically speaking, yeah, who wouldn't want to be on the winning end of a 16-8 head-to-head? Would Borg want to give up his supplanting of Connors and take the losing end? No way.

 

[CyBorg]

Borg's total amount of titles is close to 100 if you count everything. It's too bad that Bjorn could not know that a whole lot of them wouldn't be counted by the ATP body. He did play a lot and win a lot, but no one remembers many of these events. I think that we've lost much of the information for them too - like, try to get the draw for the Montreal Challenge Cup from 1979. No chance.

 

[brc444]

Today it's clear what the ATP counts as a tournament before the tournament starts. Why wasn't this the case when Borg was playing? Thanks.

 

[CyBorg]

Today it's clear what the ATP counts as a tournament before the tournament starts. Why wasn't this the case when Borg was playing? Thanks.

The ATP tour was organized in 1990.

 

[Gizo]

It's a shame that Borg never had the opportunity to play McEnroe on clay (red or green) in an 'official' match (recognised by the ATP).

 

[Deleted member 21996]

I think it is didfficult to confidently place the trio of Borg, Mac and Connors in order.

Lets see Sandy;

Slams:
Borg:11/15
JMac:7/11
Connors:8/15

HUm... this is a hard question to me... ? i wonder if a can sum 2+2?

ps: should we talk about the gentleman ranking too?

 

[llgc8080]

Borg's total amount of titles is close to 100 if you count everything. It's too bad that Bjorn could not know that a whole lot of them wouldn't be counted by the ATP body. He did play a lot and win a lot, but no one remembers many of these events. I think that we've lost much of the information for them too - like, try to get the draw for the Montreal Challenge Cup from 1979. No chance.

You were reading Wiki. Many of those plus tournaments= EXO & Invitational, or draw 4 or 8. So, besides WCT Challenge Cup in 79, ATP don't miss too much (Helsinki??? Come on!!!). And ATP count Pepsi Grand Slam, a joke of tournament (EXO for ever!).

 

[suwanee4712]

I would add Vilas to the mix as a 4th to the top 3 in the late 70's, very early 80's. It was truly a golden era. At least from an entertainment standpoint.

Vilas had a fantastic 1977. And did well everywhere except for Wimbledon where he couldn't get past the quarters. Though he did win a couple of watered down Aussies. Considering he wasn't a grass courter, I would still add this to his credit.

The French fields of the 70's don't look as bad as the ladies fields during the same time. What seems to be missing are a lot of the top American and Australian players. But the better European and South American players supported the event fairly consistently. These were the likely winners of the event anyway.

So maybe an American might view the French as being a poor slam in the 70's. But my guess is that Europeans and South Americans didn't feel that way.

 

[suwanee4712]

In hindsight the skipping of the AO and FO were terrible career decisions. Apparently Evert played world team tennis a few times instead of the FO -- to me thats insane.

In the context of the time, most of the big name players joined BJK in playing world team tennis. So perhaps at the time it was the right decision. However, history proves that this was poor foresight believing that team tennis in the states was going to trump decades old slam events by which players are ultimately judged.

So while I don't blame them that much. I also don't like hearing them whine about not playing these slams when trying to shore up their records. They had a choice, and they made it. Forever they must live with it. There are no asterisks in the record books, even though Mac, Connors, Evert, Martina, etc. like to bring this up.

 

[jean pierre]

Its funny how you claim that AO and FO were minor slams because of what 2 or 3 american players say and the number of players at draw and number of courts. lets see the list of winners of these 2 "minor events":
AO:
1981 Kriek (1/2) ††
1980 Teacher (1/1) ††
1979 Vilas (4/4) ††
1978 Vilas (3/4) ††
1977 Tanner (1/1) (Jan)
Gerulaitis (1/1) (Dec)
1976 Edmondson (1/1)
1975 Newcombe (7/7)
1974 Connors (1/8)
1973 Newcombe (5/7)
1972 Rosewall (8/8)
1971 Rosewall (7/8)
1970 Ashe (2/3)
1969 Laver (8/11)

FO:
Borg (11/11)
Borg (9/11)
Borg (7/11)
Borg (5/11)
Vilas (1/4)
Panatta (1/1)
Borg (2/11)
Borg (1/11)
Na<breve>stase (2/2)
Gimeno (1/1)
Kodes<caron> (2/3)
Kodes<caron> (1/3)
Laver (9/11)
Rosewall (5/8)

Definitely minor player too. should i post the list of finalists too?

You're absolutely right ! I don't understand when some people say that AO was'nt a big tournament. All the winners are great players (even Kriek or Teacher, who were in the top 10). Borg and Connors wasn't there, but it's not the problem of the players who went in Australia. It's a Grand Slam, that's the only important thing.

 

[jean pierre]

Its funny how you claim that AO and FO were minor slams because of what 2 or 3 american players say and the number of players at draw and number of courts. lets see the list of winners of these 2 "minor events":
AO:
1981 Kriek (1/2) ††
1980 Teacher (1/1) ††
1979 Vilas (4/4) ††
1978 Vilas (3/4) ††
1977 Tanner (1/1) (Jan)
Gerulaitis (1/1) (Dec)
1976 Edmondson (1/1)
1975 Newcombe (7/7)
1974 Connors (1/8)
1973 Newcombe (5/7)
1972 Rosewall (8/8)
1971 Rosewall (7/8)
1970 Ashe (2/3)
1969 Laver (8/11)

QUOTE]

This list of winners tells us the Australian Open went down hill after 1975. The only player who won from 76 onwards who won a slam elsewhere was Vilas. This is very revealing. It shows they weren't truly of thecalibre to win strong slams. In 76-81 Borg, Mac and Connors completely dominated slamswith fast surfaces. Vilas is the best of the AUs winners from 76 onwards,, but Vilas would never have beaten Borg and Connors on grass in 78/79 and not a recently crowned US Open champ Mac in 79. To have won the Aus. in 78 with a full strength filed, Vilas would certainly have had to beat both Borg and Connors and in 79 2 of Borg/Mac/Connors. I don't think Vilas would have ever have won the Aus. Open in this era with afull strength entry.
Tanner could upset 1 of Mac/Borg/Connors (though the odds would be against it) but he wouldn't have beat 2 of them to win the tournament.
Gerulaitis beat John Lloyd in the final of the Oz who though a very talented player was not of the standard to get near a final in a full strength slam.

The victories of Vilas in Australian Open are great victories, because he was a specialist of clay court. He beat in Australia a lot of very good grass players, like Phil Dent, Tony Roche, Peter McNamara, Chris Lewis (finalist in Wimbledon) ... And it's not his fault if Borg and Connors was'nt there because they prefered to take holidays !! And remember the Masters in Australia, on grass, in january 1975 : Vilas beat Borg, Newcombe and Nastase !!

 

[hoodjem]

In the 70s Evert missed the French 3times even though she was a cert. to win it every time she entered. She NEVER skipped the US in the 70s.

In 74 Ashe said he'd rather win the US than Wimbledon. Connors said pre-Borg Mac rivalry that the US meant more to him than any other tournament.

There is a different explanation possible here from the USO being more significant than the FO: Evert, Ashe, and Connors are all American. They would want to win their own national championship. Show me three top-ranked French players who skipped the FO to play the USO, and then I will agree.

I neither agree nor disagree. I have always ranked the FO and the USO equally.

I am persuaded that winning on red clay then switching to grass is probably more difficult than winning on grass then hard court. I regard the former as more difficult and perhaps more impressive, but not "better." They are all slams.

 

[CyBorg]

You were reading Wiki. Many of those plus tournaments= EXO & Invitational, or draw 4 or 8. So, besides WCT Challenge Cup in 79, ATP don't miss too much (Helsinki??? Come on!!!). And ATP count Pepsi Grand Slam, a joke of tournament (EXO for ever!).

No one is suggesting that it is possible to win 22 events in a single year anymore, like Borg did in 1979.

That said, we discriminate less with Laver's total due to the fact that the atp doesn't list his results for the late 60s-early 70s.

 

[paolo2143]

so called weak slam

i would say the french open was one of the hardest to win as it required skill,patience,endurance and a lot of mental strength to play on that really slow clay court surface for several hours.part of the reason connors and mcenroe did not like it is deep down they knew they could not beat borg there at his peak,i have a statement from mcenroe asking where would the most satisfying place for him to beat borg at and he said the french open in 5 sets on clay because he knew that would be an amazing achievement.Also connors,mcenroe were both there with vilas,gerualitis and lendl in 1979,1980 and 1981 and mcenroe and connors could not even reach the final so there is nothing to indicate borg's slam total would have been any different if they had turned up earlier.I think they are all great in their own right but i would have borg at the top on a spli decision

 

[Benhur]

There is a different explanation possible here from the USO being more significant than the FO: Evert, Ashe, and Connors are all American. They would want to win their own national championship. Show me three top-ranked French players who skipped the FO to play the USO, and then I will agree.

Agree. Basing the importance of the US Open on some idle quotes from two or three American players is not particularly convincing. Similarly, basing the weakness of the FO on the sporadic absence of an American player from it, tells me nothing. RG has always been hugely important to European players. Diminishing it is a particularly American pastime. It's all a matter of perspective.

I neither agree nor disagree. I have always ranked the FO and the USO equally.

Me too.

I am persuaded that winning on red clay then switching to grass is probably more difficult than winning on grass then hard court. I regard the former as more difficult and perhaps more impressive, but not "better." They are all slams.

In going from RG to Wimbledon you are making the most drastic transition in surfaces, and you have to do it in a very short time -- much shorter than from Wimbledon to the USO. I agree the feat is considerably more difficult on those grounds.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Agree. Basing the importance of the US Open on some idle quotes from two or three American players is not particularly convincing. Similarly, basing the weakness of the FO on the sporadic absence of an American player from it, tells me nothing. RG has always been hugely important to European players. Diminishing it is a particularly American pastime. It's all a matter of perspective.

The French, by its own admission, was considered a pretty subpar event in the early to mid 70s. I read that the entire attendance for the event in 1973 was like 2,000. Fans could care less about it. Phillipe Chatrier helped make it an important event again in the late 70s, redesigning the grounds, stadium, & most importantly the prize money. I believe the president of French tennis actually thanked Chatrier for 'saving' the French Open.

Prize money is a fact that should not be overlooked in such discussions of what was or wasn't the most important GS in the 70s. The USO frequently offered twice the prize money that either the French or Wimbledon offered in the 70s! Imagine if that was the case today. Not surprisingly, it always had great fields in the 70s, while the French did not. And keep in mind, Borg, arguably the clay GOAT, skipped the French in his prime('77) in order to play WTT! So this clearly isn't an American thing, it took time for the French to get the support of all the top players. We shouldn't assume that all the Slams back then had the same stature they have today. When the game went Open, the slams did not do enough to ensure their events remained the most important events on tour. The fact that you got more for winning Dallas WCT than for winning all 3 slams(except USO) combined in 1972 should say something. There were so many now defunct events that offered more prize money than the slams, even WTT offered more money. Money is the bottomline in all pro sports. If the FO cut their prize money in half tomorrow, & the USO doubled theirs, in about 10 years time, less top players would be playing the FO, less fans would therefore be attending it, & it could be 1973 all over again. have anyone of you thought why the slams are consistently increasing prize money(by a signifcant amount) every year? Because they know they have to in order to remain competitive with the others slams. Yet in the entire decade of the 70s, the USO was the only slam that was constantly increasing their prize money. No wonder Borg skipped the AO so much, he was probably getting 10 times the amount for playing an exo in Detroit in December than he would for winning the AO in the 1977.

One other thing, about the FO's prestige, Ivan Lendl actually said he would trade all his FO's for one Wimbledon in the early 90s. The interviewer then asked him, would he trade any of his USO's for a W? He said no. We should really stop trying to think they way we view things are in 2008 in any way reflects they way they really were in 1977 & that anyone who thinks the USO has been a more important event historically than the FO is just a biased American, there is far too much data(& don't get me started on pre Open Era) that backs that theory up.

I know its not cool to act like money is all that matters, but I don't think its a coincidence that when all the majors started offering big prize money(circa 1985) they all started getting all the top players in attendance. IMO, the 'most majors' record is only relevant from that year forward & players pre '85 should not be judged the same way we judge today's players.

In hindsight the skipping of the AO and FO were terrible career decisions. Apparently Evert played world team tennis a few times instead of the FO -- to me thats insane.

As sporadic the support for the FO was by the French fans was in the 70s, it was even more extreme for womens tennis. Evert said she was booed quite a bit when she played the French in the 70s just because of her boring playing style. Why bother playing an event(major or not) when hardly anyone is in the stands, you aren't being paid all that well, & you are being booed, while at the same time you are offered a ton to play WTT in front of packed stadiums. I know it seems silly now, but many tennis insiders thought that single elimination events were becoming obsolete in the 70s & that WTT & made for tv exhibitions were eventually going to be the face of tennis. You can't criticize Evert for not knowing how things would turn out.

 

[Benhur]

The French, by its own admission, was considered a pretty subpar event in the early to mid 70s.

The story about the relative importance of grand slam events is endless, and getting into it boils down to a complete lack of any objective measure to gauge player's achievements across generations, if you end up considering current grand slams as equal, but not past ones.

The term itself was first used apparently in 1933 referring to Jack Crawford's chances of winning the US open (from wikipedia):

"In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Crawford, an asthmatic, won two of the first three sets of his finals match against Fred Perry, then tired in the heat and lost the last two sets and the match."

So the term has been in use for a while, and obviously these 4 events had some special prestige as far back as the 1930s, even though the term itself did not carry any official meaning.

I am not exactly sure when the big marketing drive ocurred to make these 4 events part of a special tennis universe, a real official category on its own, but by the mid 80's it was pretty well established as far as I can remember.

In any case, my point is elsewhere. If you are going to use GS titles as one of the most important measures to gauge a player's stature in tennis, then you need a minimum of stability across time. The moment you start thinking that NOW there are 4 grand slams, but in the past there were only 3, or 2, (or even 1), you are blatantly tipping the scales in favor of contemporary players. If "a slam is a slam is a slam" when it comes to Federer or Sampras or even Agassi - but a slam may or may not be a slam when it comes to Borg or players from previous generations, then you have a problem. A basic measurement problem.

The only aspect I would accept bringing into play (from an ELO perspective) is strength of competition, but this would have to be examined and measured on an event by event basis, as it is in chess. Not on vague notions of perceived prestige.

Of all the factors to take into consideration, "prestige" seems to me the most subjective and flimsy of them all, especially if you base it on comments by players. So Lendl said he'd trade some FO titles for one Wimbledon, but not one USO for a Wimbledon. Well...this is rather meaningless. In the first place, Lendl was a US immigrant applying for citizenship in his host country, about which he is very enthusiastic. Do you think he is going to say publicly that he would trade his USO titles for Wimbledons? On the other hand, given his well known dedication, almost obsession, with winning Wimbledon, I have no doubt he would trade at least one US for a Wimbledon.

But the point is, what does all this prove? What follows from it? Are we to consider the FO as the equivalent of half the USO because of comments like that?

Similar considerations have to be given when it comes to prize money, which varied greately over the years, and at some point some WCT events gave more money than Wimbledon if I am not mistaken.

The point is. If you like grand slams as the most important measure (I don't necessarily) then stick with them through thick and thin, at least all the way back to the time when the term started to be used. If you start cherrypicking as to when a slam is a slam, based on relative "prestige" then you are undermining the very process you are defending. Nobody doubts that, even today, 100% of the players would rather win Wimbledon than the AO (or any other slam for that matter). Again, what follows from this? Should we take points away from Djokovic for his AO win?

 

[jeffreyneave]

prsetige of slams

All the slams had problems in the early 70s because of disputes between the ITF and WCT or ATp and ITF.

In 1973 the French had a great field with the top 5 of 1973 all playing (necombe, nastase, connors , smith and Okker).

WTT affected the french from 1974-78. However, the really only important missing player in these years was connors (WTT generally only attracted players near their retirement like Newcombe, rosewall and okker) Connors was banned in '74 because of his WTT contract. The French took the decision to defend the rest of the clay court season which clashed with WTT. However a player like connors was never going to play the Swiss or Swedish open anyway. So it was a siily move by the French. Connors held a grudge and even though he left WTT at the end of '74, He would not play the clay court season in Europe (he did play doubles with Nastase at the 75 Italian) betwen 75 and 78. Connors was at his peak between 74-78 and so he might have been effective on the red clay . However, his very poor showings in 72-73 and his failure to get beyond the sf from 1979 onwards certainly suggest red clay is his worst surface (he never got to play Borg on red clay bceause of these failures)

Connors best shot would be his great 1974 season. Borg had beaten Connors in their 1st match at Stockholm 1973, so he would have no pschological problems (connors won all their matches in 74-76). In their only 74 match, Connors beat Borg in a close 3 setter At the US clay court on the slightly faster American clay. On that basis he would have a chance. Borg won a number of incredibly tough 5 set matches at the french showing incredible stamina. He came back from 2 sets down against Orantes in the final and Orantes was a completely beaten man by the end. I fancy that unless connors could have hit him off the court very quiclky, any sort of contest would have favoured borg; his physical abilities were immense and Connors was never known for incredible stamina.

jeffrey

 

[Ramses]

Connors on French open

Funnily enough, Conners said In Charlie Rose interview about 10 years ago (quote can be found in you tube) that the French open was his 'favourite' slam. He enjoyed the city and atmosphere there and regretted later not playing in the tournament much in the 70's. Stubborn guy....maybe, but anyway somewhat surprise statement from him.