i think he was a player you really had to watch in his day to appreciate him. i think the 30 for 30 show painted him as a one dimensional character, and i wonder if even jimmy knew he would be portrayed in that way. plus if you go by posters opinions of him here, i dont think you would get an accurate representation of his actual likability. he was no saint, but he was exciting to watch not only because of that, but when other players were tanking matches, playing only for $, etc.. he was always trying (similar to nadal). i remember at the 85 usopen semi against lendl, he played (and lost pretty easily with a broken foot) and the commentators mentioned he didnt want anyone to know. in the 80s he played the underdog role to a tee. he was a little smaller than alot of players, stayed back, was in his 30s, and if you watched one of his matches in person, he would draw the crowd in. mcenroe called him a phony for this, but at the end of the day, spectators are paying for tickets and they want to get their moneys worth and connors did that all the while giving 100%. he was a blue collar player and he related to those types of people esp at nyc in the 80s.