Connors greater than Agassi

[sandy mayer]

A lot of people put Agassi ahead of Connors but I don't see this at all.
If we look at career achievements:
Grand slams: both won 8 but of Agassi's 8 4 are the AO. Even though today the AO is worth alot more than it was in Connors time I think any player would rather win Connors' set of 2 W, 5 US and 1 AO than Agassi's 1 W, 1 FO, 4 AO and 2 US.
And the career grand slam is no reason to take Agassi past Connors: Connors won a grand slam on clay (US 1976) as well as hard and grass.
Connors missed the AO and FO alot; not only would he have won more slams if he'd played them, he probably would have won the FO.
Tournaments: Connors won 109, Agassi won a lot fewer. I'm not sure of the precise figure, I think it's sixty something.
Most importantly: Connors was no.1 for far longer than Agassi. The computer says Connors was no.1 from 1974-78, probably wrongly but tennis experts unanimously hail Connors as no.1 for 1974, 1976, and 1982. Connors was completely dominant in 1974 and no-one would really argue that Connors was the best player in the world from 1974-1976.
In the case of Agassi he only finished no.1 in 1999, and even this year I'm not sure if he really was the best player in the world. Sampras beat Agassi more often than not this year, and in their 2 important matches the W final and YEC final. Sampras missed the US through injury, which in my view is why Agassi won it that year. Sampras' injuries and decision not be concerned about being no.1 anymore handed the no.1 spot over to Agassi. Agassi wasn't ever a convincing dominant no.1 like Connors.
Furthermore, Connors had great wins over his main rivals on the really big occasions. 2 wins over Borg in US finals, 2 wins over Lendl in US finals, 1 win over Mcenroe in a W final. In Agassi's case Sampras pretty much owned him on the really big occasion, the only GS final he won over Sampras being AO 1995 (he lost 4 US/W finals to Sampras).
In longevity there's not much to choose, both had 16 year top ten finishes, both won slams in their early 30s. Connors I think edges it as he got to US semis at 39 and Agassi is retiring at 36. Both were very consistent, but I think Connors definitely more so. He never had the kind of dips Agassi had which took him out of the top 100 while only 27. Connors was never out of the top four in the world from the age of 21 until 33.
Don't get me wrong Agassi was a great, great player: a true hall of famer. And if wer'e talking about standard of play Agassi is greater as the game always improves. In my view the Agassi of 2000 would beat Borg, Laver, Connors and even McEnroe regularly. But if wer'e looking at simply career accomplishments Connors is greater. If I was a pro starting out and had a choice between the career of Connors or Agassi I'd choose Connors' career without thinking twice.

 

[mowcopian]

i cannot disagree with that long post. good post sandy mayer

 

[illkhiboy]

A lot of people put Agassi ahead of Connors but I don't see this at all.
If we look at career achievements:
Grand slams: both won 8 but of Agassi's 8 4 are the AO. Even though today the AO is worth alot more than it was in Connors time I think any player would rather win Connors' set of 2 W, 5 US and 1 AO than Agassi's 1 W, 1 FO, 4 AO and 2 US.

That is just your opinion. Agassi's resume has more variety.

And the career grand slam is no reason to take Agassi past Connors: Connors won a grand slam on clay (US 1976) as well as hard and grass.
Connors missed the AO and FO alot; not only would he have won more slams if he'd played them, he probably would have won the FO.

While it is true that Conners won Slams on all surfaces, I think winning four slams in different countries has to be considered more special. For example, even though Borg won six French Opens, he could never win a US even when it was on clay. So adaptability to conditions/crowds etc. is also a factor that should be noticed.

Tournaments: Connors won 109, Agassi won a lot fewer. I'm not sur of the precise figure, I think it's sixty something.

That is true. But to put that into perspective, Sampras also won 'just' 64. I don't why, but it seems to me that Connors might have won a lot of smaller tourneys with weak competition. Agassi has of course won 17 Master Series Events which Connors did not have a chance to participate in, but how many events did Jimmy win with fields that can be compared to TMS events? Besides, with the game getting more and more physical annually, it's not feasible to play in as many tournaments as was possible during Conners' time.

Most importantly: Connors was no.1 for far longer than Agassi. The computer says Connors was no.1 from 1974-78, probably wrongly but tennis experts unanimously hail Connors as no.1 for 1974, 1976, and 1982. Connors was completely dominant in 1974 and no-one would really argue that Connors was the best player in the world from 1974-1976.
In the case of Agassi he only finished no.1 in 1999, and even this year I'm not sure if he really was the best player in the world. Sampras beat Agassi more often than not this year, and in their 2 important matches the W final and YEC final. Sampras missed the US through injury, which in my view is why Agassi won it that year. Sampras' injuries and decision not be concerned about being no.1 anymore handed the no.1 spot over to Agassi. Agassi wasn't ever a convincing dominant no.1 like Connors.

That is a big advantage in favour of Connors. Btw, even though Agassi finished number one only in 1999, was there any doubt he was the best player of 1995? Won one slam, but consistent in all of them. He had a 73-9 record, including two losses due to injury. Had a 3-2 H2H record against Sampras, was number one by quite a marjin when he injured himself with a few months still to go. Eventually finished 2 but that was Agassi's year.

Connors won more tournaments
Furthermore, Connors had great wins over his main rivals on the really big occasions. 2 wins over Borg in US finals, 2 wins over Lendl in US finals, 1 win over Mcenroe in a W final. In Agassi's case Sampras pretty much owned him on the really big occasion, the only GS final he won over Sampras being AO 1995 (he lost 4 US/W finals to Sampras). .

This is true. But Agassi did win all of his matches against Sampras at AO and FO. Perhaps if Sampras had advanced further in the 2001 AO Agassi would have gotten a chance to better their stats. Sampras obviously owned Wimby and the US Open, winning 12 titles over there and his game was just better than Agassi's over there.

In longetivity there's not much to choose, both had 16 year top ten finishes, both won slams in their early 30s. Connors I think edges it as he got to US semis at 39 and Agassi is retiring at 36. Both were very consistent, but I think Connors definitely more so. He never had the kind of dips Agassi had which took him out of the top 100 while only 27. Connors was never out of the top four in the world from the age of 21 until 33.
Don't get me wrong Agassi was a great, great player: a true hall of famer. And if wer'e talking about standard of play Agassi is greater as the game always improves. In my view the Agassi of 2000 would beat Borg, Laver, Connors and even McEnroe regularly. But if wer'e looking at simply career accomplishments Connors is greater. If I was a pro starting out and had a choice between the career of Connors or Agassi I'd choose Connors' career without thinking twice.

Well about the 36 and the 39 thing, the game is much much more physical today than back in 1991. Besides Connors never really had a chance to win the tourney, Agassi pushed Federer to a fourth set tie-breaker. He could have beaten anyone else that day.
Overall, I say you make some good points. To each his own I guess, I would probably pick Agassi's career.

 

[mowcopian]

yeah aswell, the game is alot more physically demanding now and is also more technical with the introduction of topspin in the game.

 

[Ztalin]

Don't feel like reading your whole post, but I disagree that most people would want Connors' set of grand slam trophies over Agassi's. Agassi won all four championships; which is an absolutely monumentous deal to most great players.

 

[mowcopian]

only 5 or 6 people have won all four grand slams and agassi won the australian 4 times, even federer hasnt won 4 wimbledons. yet!!!

 

[baseliner]

Very thoughtful well documented post Sandy. While I would tend to vote for Agassi as the greater of the two, I admit to being biased against Connors due to his personality and persistant gamesmanship (cheating?). Connors did not get along with his fellow pros at all and was not well liked by his peers. Remember eh never threw a fit when he was ahead or winning a match. Remember his run to the semis of the USO at the advanced age of 39? Remember his "walk about in a daze, reaction to drinking a coke when he was getting hammered (by Krickstein I think). Did anyone really believe he was reacting to the sugar in the drink? He was getting pummeled and needed a break to catch his breath and regroup. But like I say, i am not necessarily neutral. I vote for Agassi based on the career grand slam as much as anything. But again, good post.

 

[dh003i]

baseliner,

Sounds like Connors played like Nadal -- taking more time between points than allowed by the rules. Basically cheating. At least Connors had a better excuse, being much much older.

 

[baseliner]

dh,
Actually Connors cheated from the very start. Even in juniors, he was notorious for bad line calls. His tempertantrums started as a very young pro. I played junior tennis at same time but never played match against Connors but knew him by reputation. He would travel with his mother and grandmother (two mom is what he called her if i remember right). Never ever saw his Dad.

 

[Condoleezza]

A lot of people put Agassi ahead of Connors but I don't see this at all.
If we look at career achievements:
Grand slams: both won 8 but of Agassi's 8 4 are the AO. Even though today the AO is worth alot more than it was in Connors time I think any player would rather win Connors' set of 2 W, 5 US and 1 AO than Agassi's 1 W, 1 FO, 4 AO and 2 US. ....

Greatness is not ONLY about titles. Connors had a really mean character which disqualifies him from any "greatness" discussions.

Condi

 

[Jet Rink]

i cannot disagree with that long post. good post sandy mayer

Neither can I. I agree with mowcopian.

+1 on Connors.

Jet

 

[paterson]

I disagree. Agassi had to face peak Sampras - that's the worst break of anyone in history. That makes his career even more impressive. Sampras and Agassi were better players than Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

 

[tommytom11]

AA, hands down

 

[royaldoyal]

I agree with Mayer on the post and disagree with any one that supports Agassi on this post. Agassi doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Connors. The guy had too many inconsistencies in his career. Connors won his 8 slams by basically playing the US Open and Wimbledon. JC played the Aussie open twice winning it once and losing the final the following year. Then on the French he was prevented from playing it in 74 because he played team tennis or something. Jimbo didn't go back to France until 79 to start playing it again. Connors owned borg on clay and there is no telling how many times he would have won it had he decided to play the years he decided to skip.

Keep in mind the Aussie Open wasn't a lucrative tourney to play back then like it is now. I guarantee if Connors had decided to play it he would have won it a couple of more times. Connors second apperance at the Australian was his last in 75.

Anyone who wants to debate the Connors Agassi issue, bring it... you don't have anything on my man!

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

unfair to compare different era's. statiscally, theres no comparison. agassi was always second best to someone, whereas connors was the best in his prime.

yearend #1's, connors 5,(maybe 7 if you included 82 and 83) agassi 1. connors had most alltime wins, and won 109 tournaments. connors played longer and had more success, especially since connors only played the ao twice and was banned from the french, denying him a grand slam. agassi won slams on all surfaces and so did connors. connors was also important to tennis's success. tennis boomed during his era. connors was tennis's first mega superstar. his flamboyant, badboy image helped sell tennis. only connors was a true rebel, not just media hype.

and being from nevada, let me tell you, agassi was a terror as a junior.

 

[nadalgirl26]

mydfa NADAL is abettera then boetah Connros and AGassi. Heaw is too mcuh powerful frewsom the baseline asn would houthit them adn he rusn too fast and geta too masny balls back forae both. Theay gre good but not sweet Nadal.

 

[Breaker]

mydfa NADAL is abettera then boetah Connros and AGassi. Heaw is too mcuh powerful frewsom the baseline asn would houthit them adn he rusn too fast and geta too masny balls back forae both. Theay gre good but not sweet Nadal.

Yes I agree alligators are ornary cause they got all those teeth but no toothbrush.

 

[nadalgirl26]

JHusat accept Nadals groundstrokes are atoo powderful for Agassi or Conrors in their primes! Too much powder on them, too hard an powderful!!

 

[Moose Malloy]

In longetivity there's not much to choose, both had 16 year top ten finishes, both won slams in their early 30s.

Computer only started in 1973. Connors was clearly a top 10 player in 1972, so it is a bit misleading to say that they are "tied" in this stat. Connors really had 17 top 10 finishes.

Connors was never out of the top four in the world from the age of 21 until 33.

This is amazing & Agassi falls way short in comparison.

They may be "tied" in top 10 finishes but...

Years in top 5
Connors 14
Agassi 8

Years in top 3
Connors 12
Agassi 6

Years in top 2
Connors 8
Agassi 4

Besides the #1 ranking, Connors obviously played the game at a much higher level.

The most consecutive years Agassi had in the top 5 was 3. Connors had 13 straight years in the top 5!

Connors reached 11 straight slam semis, Agassi 4.

Agassi has of course won 17 Master Series Events which Connors did not have a chance to participate in, but how many events did Jimmy win with fields that can be compared to TMS events? Besides, with the game getting more and more physical annually, it's not feasible to play in as many tournaments as was possible during Conners' time.

Quite a few actually. There were several events on tour in Connors' day that were considered more important than the Australian or French. Thats another reason why its so hard to compare era, not all criteria was equal from era to era. Slams are everything today, not so much 30 years ago. In Connors' day the US Open & Wimbedon were so far ahead of the other slams. And the masters series don't seem to be as big a deal today as the atp would think, since so many players skip a few per year.

Many seem to think Connors' 109 titles were the result of him being some Davydenko like workhorse & that they were small events. Not true. Connors didn't play that many events per year(only 19-20), just had a phenomenal win/loss %. He was like Fed, execept without as many majors won (he was skipping 2 per year in his prime)

Connors didn't win any titles from '85 to '87, so that he won 109 isn't just due to longevity, but due to dominance from '74 to '79. He won 65 titles from '73 to '79, a 7 year period(only leading the tour in titles won in 4 of those years) Federer will probably win that amount over a 6 year period, its not fair to dismiss that stat as Connors winning "smaller events" since he was beating hall of famers like Mac, Borg, Vilas in many of them. He wasn't like Thomas Muster(won 40+ titles, most smaller events) or something.

Well about the 36 and the 39 thing, the game is much much more physical today than back in 1991.

Irrelevant. The game will be much more physical in 2016 than it is today as well, doesn't mean that it wasn't damn physical in 1991(check out how many players were injured in the 90s- it was no joke on a physical level) It was a miracle on many levels that Connors made the semis of the 1991 & not all due to age. Borg is younger than Connors & was getting destroyed by journeyman in a 1991 comeback, while Connors was playing top 50 type tennis that year.

Did you know that Connors missed all of 1990 due to injury? We all know how hard it is to comeback from that kind of layoff, no matter how young you are, but for a 38 year old, to miss that much time & return to tour & do well on a tour dominated by power players like Stich, Goran, Courier, Becker, Agassi, Sampras is quite amazing. Connors was still top 10 in early 1989, before he started having injuries. If he didn't get injured, its quite possible that he would have been at least top 20 for a few more years, the guy beat #3 Stefan Edberg(who would win US Opens 1991,92) in straight sets at the 1989 US Open! Too many see that he beat guys like Haarhuis, Krickstein at the 1991 US Open & dismiss it as a fluke, but they should look at his results pre injury to see how he fared against "modern" players.

The guy was a wildcard ranked 174 in the world when he made the semis at age 39. Agassi was a top 10 player when he made the US Open final last year at 35. Not fair to compare the two results, both were in very different places in their career.

 

[drakulie]

Agassi, is/was a way better player than Connors. Period.

 

[paterson]

Results don't lie. In the 1988 US Open, an 18 year old Agassi blew Connors off the court. In 1989, Andre won in the 5th after getting an early break but Andre tanked the 4th set. Nobody dead or alive took the ball earlier. Andre could do everything Jimmy could do, only alot better. Put a T-2000 in Andre's hands and he still hits the ball cleaner and faster than Jimbo.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

He was like Fed, execept without as many majors won (he was skipping 2 per year in his prime)

Just out of curiosity how many majors more are you estimating he would have won though? Obviously Borg was much superior on clay(especialy red European clay), and Connors lost in the semis or quarters to good clay courters, but still was a regular semi and quarter loser at the French, once he started playing the event in 78 onwards(and he won 3 Wimbledon or U.S opens in 82 and 83 so obviously alot of those were still prime years). He probably would have won the 74 French Open but perhaps never another one. Also the Australian Open was played on grass. Borg won every Wimbledon title from 76-1980, and McEnroe was the strongest on grass from 81-84, Connors was able to win 1 Wimbledon during all those years so wouldnt 1 Australian Open be a reasonable guess? So would 10 majors be a reasonable estimate you think or not.

 

[superman1]

Agassi, no question. Just watch them play and make up your mind. Agassi was a new and improved Connors.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Sorry but for me it has to be Connors easily. They are similar in some stats like slam wins is a big one and each have 8. They both showed amazing longevity, Agassi reaching a slam final at 35, and winning his last slam at 32, Connors winning his final 3 slams at ages 29-31, and his last slam semi at 39. However Connors mantained so much a very high level on a substained basis then Agassi.

Connors never at any point over his long prime was ranked below players he absolutely should not have been. Connors was between #1 to #3 in the World from 1973 through to 1984. The only guys to ever be ranked over him were Nastase, Newcombe, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl in all those years. Actually if we exclude 1973, the year before he won his first Grand Slam, the only 3 ever ranked over him once he first became #1 until being 32 years out and falling out of the top 3 for the first time since were Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. I dont mean to downplay the value of competition or other quality players challenging the greatest, but to be ranked below somebody(barring injuries)it means being outplayed by them overall over a full year period which Connors never allowed to happent to anybody but other real greats.

Contrast that to Agassi who reached World #3 in 1988 behind only Lendl and Wilander. Then dropped to #7 in 1989 falling below somebody like Brad Gilbert; then up to #4 again in 1990; then down to #10 in 1991 below people like Forget, Novacek, and Korda. Down still at #9 at years end of 1992, despite finaly winning his first Slam title, ranked below Chang who didnt do that much these couple years, Korda, and an aging Lendl. Then in 1993 all the way out of the top 20 while 1-time slam winner Stitch is at #2, and Medvedev, Muster(in his pre clay dominant days), and Pioline all take up spots in the top 10. Up to #2 in both 94 and 95 where he spends parts of 95 at #1. Then down to year-end #8 in 96. Then right out of the top 100 in 1997, dealing with injuries, but also mediocre results the entire year. Then up to #6 in 1998, in a year Rios ends year at #2, Corretja at #3, and Moya at #5. His only year-end #1 in 1999, his best year ever, thus excuses of any prior years not being his potential prime go out the window. From then on mantained very impressive run of form considering advancing age, and was arguably a more consistent and stronger player from 2000-2005 then he was for most of what should have been his "physical prime" which is a sad reflection of what Agassi chose to do to his own career in some ways.

Better to get it together late and never, and he did bring his career and greatness to a much higher level then it would have been without his late career surge. Still no way did he substain an extremely high level throughout his entire prime of many years like Connors did.

From 1992 when he won his first major until his best ever year in 1999 he ended years ranked below:

Ivanisevic 4 times
Chang 4 times
Korda 3 times
Muster 3 times
Rios 2 times
Corretja 2 times
Rafter 2 times
Moya 2 times
Kafelnikov 2 times
aging Lendl 1 time

Not to diminish these players in anyway, fine players, but not the kind Connors would have let ranked over him multiple times in his prime. Like I said only Borg, McEnroe, or Lendl ever got in front of him from 74-84.

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Just out of curiosity how many majors more are you estimating he would have won though? Obviously Borg was much superior on clay(especialy red European clay), and Connors lost in the semis or quarters to good clay courters, but still was a regular semi and quarter loser at the French, once he started playing the event in 78 onwards(and he won 3 Wimbledon or U.S opens in 82 and 83 so obviously alot of those were still prime years). He probably would have won the 74 French Open but perhaps never another one. Also the Australian Open was played on grass. Borg won every Wimbledon title from 76-1980, and McEnroe was the strongest on grass from 81-84, Connors was able to win 1 Wimbledon during all those years so wouldnt 1 Australian Open be a reasonable guess? So would 10 majors be a reasonable estimate you think or not.

connors had a legitimate shot at the 74,75,76 frenches, and maybe 3 more aussies, especially if borgs not playing. connors prioritys were his ranking and the us open. connors had an edge on borg from 74-78. and connors won 2 wimbys, an aussie, and the uso on grass.

 

[illkhiboy]

Results don't lie. In the 1988 US Open, an 18 year old Agassi blew Connors off the court. In 1989, Andre won in the 5th after getting an early break but Andre tanked the 4th set. Nobody dead or alive took the ball earlier. Andre could do everything Jimmy could do, only alot better. Put a T-2000 in Andre's hands and he still hits the ball cleaner and faster than Jimbo.

Can someone shed more light on this match? It just seems hilarious to me, that Agassi would tank a set just to win in 5. How did Connors react? What about the crowd? How bad was the tank? Was Agassi tired or did he just do it to poke fun at Connors? How obvious was the 'tank?' Apparently Agassi joked to his camp about it. What was going on? It sounds like something that would happen in the juniors, or at a club tournament, but this was Centre Court of the US Open!

 

[superman1]

Never seen the match, but during the Agassi/Blake match, they commentated on it and McEnroe said, "I don't think spanked is the word Jimmy would use." From that, it seems fairly clear that Agassi probably did do it on purpose, since McEnroe raised no objections. Plus, how the hell is Jimmy Connors going to bagel Agassi from the baseline? No one can do that. Yeah, he definitely did it on purpose, and you can tell since their meeting a year before was a straight set win for Agassi. He was just better than Connors in ALL departments. And back then, he was probably further from his prime than Connors was. He hits the ball twice as hard these days as he did back then.

I have respect for the past, but I'm a realist. Connors would NOT be so dominant in this era. These guys are relentless. Agassi was able to beat up on them up until last month. That's not to deny Connors greatness, as I place him very high, but how can you say Connors would beat Agassi in their primes? Ridiculous.

 

[illkhiboy]

Never seen the match, but during the Agassi/Blake match, they commentated on it and McEnroe said, "I don't think spanked is the word Jimmy would use." From that, it seems fairly clear that Agassi probably did do it on purpose, since McEnroe raised no objections. Plus, how the hell is Jimmy Connors going to bagel Agassi from the baseline? No one can do that. Yeah, he definitely did it on purpose, and you can tell since their meeting a year before was a straight set win for Agassi. He was just better than Connors in ALL departments. And back then, he was probably further from his prime than Connors was. He hits the ball twice as hard these days as he did back then.

I have respect for the past, but I'm a realist. Connors would NOT be so dominant in this era. These guys are relentless. Agassi was able to beat up on them up until last month. That's not to deny Connors greatness, as I place him very high, but how can you say Connors would beat Agassi in their primes? Ridiculous.

I think Connors would be able to adapt, as a lot of other players have done. And Connors did go from wood to graphite, thats a big change. And he remained top 10 for a long time.
As for no being able to bagel Agassi, Enqvuist did do it. And guess when? 1999 Euro Masters. Agassi was ranked number one.

 

[ctbmar]

In terms of skills and winning percentage, Connors is definitely better than McEnroe & Lendl & Borg & Edberg. Why I say that? Connors is 4 years older than Borg, 7 years older than McEnroe 8 years older than Lendl, and 14 years older than Edberg. Yet, Connors' head to head against Borg, McEnroe & Lendl were dominating when Connors was 25, equal when Connors was between 25 to 31/32 years old, and losing consistently when Connors was above 31/32. Connors is even 6-6 Head-Head against Edberg 14 years younger than him. But to think of it, Agassi is also equal in Head-Head with a 10 yrs younger Hewitt. I just want to highlight that many people forget that Connors has a huge age gap difference as compared to his more famous peers like Borg, McEnroe & Lendl. The age gap difference is something like Federer against Murray or someone even younger. I feel that Connors was able to compete with these 3 great players, Borg, McEnroe & Lendl even until he hit 30 and still win 50% of those matches while giving away a big age difference. Yes, Agassi has also won many youngers but all the youngers except Hewitt are mediocre, green-horns, not Hall of famers material. So in terms of achievements, Connors had a better achievement against his younger hall of famers peers than Agassi. Even the loss to Agassi who is 18 years younger than him, the 37 years old Connors was able to bagel an inexperience mentally weak Agassi who is fresh on the tour at 19 years old, and take him to 5 sets. To think of it, Connors' greatness as compared to Agassi should be the same as Agassi' greatness to Baghdatis' future greatness since Agassi was able to beat the 21 year old Baghdatis in 5 sets at Australian Open 2006 at the age of 36. But in terms of who will win if a peak Agassi competes against a peak Connors, of course a peak Agassi will win that match.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Never seen the match, but during the Agassi/Blake match, they commentated on it and McEnroe said, "I don't think spanked is the word Jimmy would use." From that, it seems fairly clear that Agassi probably did do it on purpose, since McEnroe raised no objections. Plus, how the hell is Jimmy Connors going to bagel Agassi from the baseline? No one can do that. Yeah, he definitely did it on purpose, and you can tell since their meeting a year before was a straight set win for Agassi. He was just better than Connors in ALL departments. And back then, he was probably further from his prime than Connors was. He hits the ball twice as hard these days as he did back then.

I have respect for the past, but I'm a realist. Connors would NOT be so dominant in this era. These guys are relentless. Agassi was able to beat up on them up until last month. That's not to deny Connors greatness, as I place him very high, but how can you say Connors would beat Agassi in their primes? Ridiculous.

Like I said though Connors showed a full career commitment to being at his best, reflected by his consistent top 3 ranking. Agassi wasted about 2/3rds of his physical prime, which is why it is even hard to define his prime since his era of most substained commitment to the game was beyond his physical prime and alot of years past his physical prime were better then most of the years in his physical prime because of it. The only exceptions to that are years like 94, 95, and 99, which obviously were his highest level years of tennis ever. Other then that Agassi was a better player from 2001-2005 then he was most years of his physical prime because he was actually fully commited to tennis year after year. If Agassi had substained a full commitment to the game the way Connors did his entire career of course he would be better, but as it is Agassi managed to go from top 3 to low top 10, to out of top 10, then back to #1 or #2. Connors didnt do that, he substained that excellent level, and did not go through periods of squandering years like Agassi did.

In the years of his physical prime Agassi was not fully commited to his tennis he was barely a top 10 player at best, and probably not even as good a player as the older Agassi was from 2001-2005. He spent 2/3rds of his physical prime in that mode. Since Connors never went through those periods, even if a commited primed Agassi of years like 94, 95, and 99 would have owned Connors, Connors would have owned Agassi the othe 2/3rds of their primes nonetheless.

 

[superman1]

Agassi's peaked at many times during his career. You can't just look at his year-end rankings and decide. He's had wrist injuries and such that have held him back. I always say this and I'll say it again: you can't judge a damn thing in tennis without actually WATCHING MATCHES. Watch Agassi play, watch Connors play, and then tell me that Agassi is not better in every single category. Connors was a baseliner in the time of serve and volleyers; with his power and great return, he gave those guys something they'd never seen before. But when he came up against a better baseliner than himself (which most baseliners today are), he had nothing. Lendl beat him, what, 18 times in a row? Lendl himself said something to the effect that he played the same way every time, just blocked the ball back, and Connors couldn't do a damn thing.

It is ridiculous to compare players who peaked 2 decades apart, because present will almost always beat the past. It's the evolution of the game, and it's why people like Agassi say that they stayed on top simply by working to get better every single year to keep up with the rest of the guys. If Connors played in this era, he'd have a completely different game, because his would not win him 105 titles. Federer will not win 105 titles, so there's no way Connors could.

 

[urban]

I saw that 89 USO match just last year in a TV replay. Agassi was very lucky to win this match. After falling behind early, the 38 years old Connors warmed up in the 2-4 sets, and seemed to have the upper edge. Agassi then used a Connors letdown early in the 5th, to build up a big lead. But Jimbo came storming back, and an exhausted Agassi was glad to keep a slim lead until the end. I would rank Connors over Agassi because of his longer high ranking. Maybe Connors was not the real Nr.1 in 75, 77 and 78, but in 82 he was, so he has at least 3 years at Nr.1.

 

[AndrewD]

Grand slams: both won 8 but of Agassi's 8 4 are the AO. Even though today the AO is worth alot more than it was in Connors time I think any player would rather win Connors' set of 2 W, 5 US and 1 AO than Agassi's 1 W, 1 FO, 4 AO and 2 US.

This part of your post I disagree with wholeheartedly. When Connors won the Aus Open it still had credibility. It was only from 77 to 82 it lost that status (from 83, when Wilander won, onwards that argument has no weight). As to players preferring to win the US Open over the Aus Open, I think that's rubbish and I would suggest that Agassi deserves far more credit for winning his Aus titles. It's one thing to win in your own country when you've got the whole stadium, and nation, behind you. It's another thing altogether and infinitely harder to do so in a foreign country when you don't have that kind of support or level of comfort. In that regard, Agassi won 75% of his majors away from home while Connors only won 37.5% outside of the US. So, Agassi deserves much credit for winning outside of his comfort zone.

Regardless, you can argue it any way you like but it's basically pointless. 1 US Open = 1 Aus Open (excepting all US Opens prior to 1926 and Aus Opens from 77 to 82). The only major that might prove an exception to that rule is Wimbledon.

Apart from that, I've never considered Agassi to rank above Connors although, at times, I've thought them to be on a par (I rank both of them well below Rosewall who won the same number of majors). As you said, and I agree, Agassi was for the most part a wonderful number 2 while Connors, for a record period of time, was a wonderful number 1. If Agassi had achieved more in the early part of his career I doubt we'd be discussing this now. Unfortunately he didn't so.....

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

pete, the 1995 top player

That is a big advantage in favour of Connors. Btw, even though Agassi finished number one only in 1999, was there any doubt he was the best player of 1995?

ah yes there's definitely a big doubt !
agassi may lead the 1995 H2H 3-2 but, sampras won THE important match of the season : their ultimate meeting in 1995 at the last slam of the year... for finishing the year with one more slam than agassi !

so for me... definitely no doubt that pete is the n°1 of 1995 !
(even if it was definitely not his most "dominating" season as agassi was a tough rival !)

 

[Breaker]

Like I said though Connors showed a full career commitment to being at his best, reflected by his consistent top 3 ranking. Agassi wasted about 2/3rds of his physical prime, which is why it is even hard to define his prime since his era of most substained commitment to the game was beyond his physical prime and alot of years past his physical prime were better then most of the years in his physical prime because of it. The only exceptions to that are years like 94, 95, and 99, which obviously were his highest level years of tennis ever. Other then that Agassi was a better player from 2001-2005 then he was most years of his physical prime because he was actually fully commited to tennis year after year. If Agassi had substained a full commitment to the game the way Connors did his entire career of course he would be better, but as it is Agassi managed to go from top 3 to low top 10, to out of top 10, then back to #1 or #2. Connors didnt do that, he substained that excellent level, and did not go through periods of squandering years like Agassi did.

In the years of his physical prime Agassi was not fully commited to his tennis he was barely a top 10 player at best, and probably not even as good a player as the older Agassi was from 2001-2005. He spent 2/3rds of his physical prime in that mode. Since Connors never went through those periods, even if a commited primed Agassi of years like 94, 95, and 99 would have owned Connors, Connors would have owned Agassi the othe 2/3rds of their primes nonetheless.

I agree, Agassi wasted much of his 'prime' with lack of preparation and mental fortitude so it is difficult to determine which Agassi to compare to Connors. If Agassi would have had the same drive (or near the same drive) in his younger years as he did in his latter years then we would probably be having Agassi GOAT discussions right now.

Connors on the other hand used his talent to its fullest, never trailing off in the rankings like Agassi. Connors was better consistently than Agassi, but Agassi had more talent and his 'best match' would probably beat Connors' 'best match'.

Overall Agassi's career slam evens him up with Connors in an all time sense imo due to the rarity of the accomplishment. Based on consistency and overall achievements Connors has to be given the nod but getting that French title is why Agassi is seen as great as Connors.

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Plus, how the hell is Jimmy Connors going to bagel Agassi from the baseline? No one can do that.

agassi was a notorious frontrunner early in his career, if he got behind he would tank.

the aussie tournament is right around the holidays, on the other side of the world, and very early in the year. it was a tournament where the best either didn't show up or didn't bring there best game. the us open is played later in the year, in the heat of the race for #1.

 

[illkhiboy]

ah yes there's definitely a big doubt !
agassi may lead the 1995 H2H 3-2 but, sampras won THE important match of the season : their ultimate meeting in 1995 at the last slam of the year... for finishing the year with one more slam than agassi !

so for me... definitely no doubt that pete is the n°1 of 1995 !
(even if it was definitely not his most "dominating" season as agassi was a tough rival !)

Yeah, true. There definitely is doubt.
My point of view, is that Agassi was the more consistent player in Slams,
W, QF, SF, F while Sampras reached 3 finals, winning two he did screw up at the French. And Agassi was also more consistent in the TMS events, winning Miami, Cincinatti, Canada. And I think the main reason Pete got the computer ranking was because Agassi got injured soon after the US Open and basically didnt compete the last 3-4 months of the year. How many points seperated Agassi and Pete after the US? I am sure Agassi still had a healthy lead. What about at the end of the year?
Interestingly, the year Agassi finished number one, he went 1-4 against Sampras so I guess it evens out. However, one can always make the argument that all their meetings came Wimbledon onwards on faster surfaces that favored Sampras.

 

[illkhiboy]

I saw that 89 USO match just last year in a TV replay. Agassi was very lucky to win this match. After falling behind early, the 38 years old Connors warmed up in the 2-4 sets, and seemed to have the upper edge. Agassi then used a Connors letdown early in the 5th, to build up a big lead. But Jimbo came storming back, and an exhausted Agassi was glad to keep a slim lead until the end. I would rank Connors over Agassi because of his longer high ranking. Maybe Connors was not the real Nr.1 in 75, 77 and 78, but in 82 he was, so he has at least 3 years at Nr.1.

So all this stuff about Agassi being in complete control throughout and tanking the fourth just to get to the fifth has no relevance?

 

[Nextman916]

Please read sig.

 

[superman1]

So all this stuff about Agassi being in complete control throughout and tanking the fourth just to get to the fifth has no relevance?

Well, the commentator for the Agassi/Blake match (not John McEnroe, the other dude...what's his name....) said that Agassi said to someone in his box, "I'm doing this on purpose to prove that I can win in five," then "spanked" Connors in the 4th and 5th set. Then McEnroe said, "I don't think 'spanked' is the word that Jimmy would use."

Who the hell knows. What we do know is that Agassi was 2-0 against Connors in the 80's, when Agassi was a kid that hit the ball half as hard as he does today (Lendl called him a "haircut and a forehand," he said nothing about a backhand or a return of serve, because those weren't fully developed), and Connors was an aging legend that had a few more runs left in him. Connors was the first really big name on a big stage that he took out in his career, and it was in straight sets in '88. I'm completely confident that Agassi was a terrible match-up for Connors. You look at every aspect of their games and see that Connors has nothing that would trouble Agassi. Take prime Agassi and prime Connors and Andre would be teeing off on all of his strokes, almost toying with him. He'd probably take pleasure in it since the two never got along. But the above poster is correct, you cannot compare generations. This isn't like most other sports. This sport has gone through tremendous changes in the past 20 years. Connors would be a great player today if he had been born in the 80's. And his game would be totally different.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

I dont think at all that Agassi was farther from his prime in 88-89 then Connors. Agassi aleady was good enough to win Grand Slams if it wasnt for Lendl, Wilander, and Becker ahead of him. Connors was already a shadow of his former self.

 

[AndrewD]

the aussie tournament is right around the holidays, on the other side of the world, and very early in the year. it was a tournament where the best either didn't show up or didn't bring there best game. the us open is played later in the year, in the heat of the race for #1.

The Aus Open is also a tournament where all of the players turn up with renewed incentive. It's the first major of the year, it's a chance to start things off well and many of them have had the chance to re-charge the batteries. It's also played in a very relaxed and inviting city that makes all nationalities feel at home. The US Open, on the other hand, comes at the end of the year when the majority of players are either tired, injured or just want to have a break and go home. Perhaps, by that stage, the cream has risen to the top but, at the Aus Open, the rank and file have yet to learn their place and that is reflected in the number of upsets.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

The Aus Open is also a tournament where all of the players turn up with renewed incentive. It's the first major of the year, it's a chance to start things off well and many of them have had the chance to re-charge the batteries. It's also played in a very relaxed and inviting city that makes all nationalities feel at home. The US Open, on the other hand, comes at the end of the year when the majority of players are either tired, injured or just want to have a break and go home. Perhaps, by that stage, the cream has risen to the top but, at the Aus Open, the rank and file have yet to learn their place and that is reflected in the number of upsets.

It actually is more fun when the rank and file dont know their place I find!

Look at the mens U.S Open finalists the last 8 years:

Federer(3), Agassi(3), Sampras(3), Roddick(2), Hewitt(2), Safin, Ferrero, Martin


Compare that to the Australian Open:

Safin(3), Agassi(3), Federer(2), Kafelnikov(2), Hewitt, Johansson, Bhagdatis, Clement, Schuettler, Enqvist


It is pretty obvious which one moreso has the rank and file not knowing their place which I find more enjoyable in alot of ways then "same old same old".

 

[bluegrasser]

Conners has, what ? 101 titles, Agassi sixty something - enough for me. *


* Connors Da man !

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

The Aus Open is also a tournament where all of the players turn up with renewed incentive. It's the first major of the year, it's a chance to start things off well and many of them have had the chance to re-charge the batteries. It's also played in a very relaxed and inviting city that makes all nationalities feel at home. The US Open, on the other hand, comes at the end of the year when the majority of players are either tired, injured or just want to have a break and go home. Perhaps, by that stage, the cream has risen to the top but, at the Aus Open, the rank and file have yet to learn their place and that is reflected in the number of upsets.

today's aussie is legit, although in past years, it seem the best players didn't always bring there best game.