Connors' record continues....
- Thread starter juanparty
- Start date
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
How many titles does Djokovic have? He could give it a go if he is able to stay healthy
88 titles. He usually only plays the big events though. But I agree, he will get to 22 more titles if he stays healthy anyway.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Connors deserves a lot of credit for setting such an immense Open Era record. Laver won far more titles, of course.
juanparty
Hall of Fame
I don't think so, how long would it take Alcaraz to reach 25 titles? 2 or 3 years? too much for Djoker
But what does that have to do with Alcaraz? We shouldn't fool ourselves only because of his US Open title. He hardly got there with saving match point and playing 5 sets against players he shouldn't need 5 sets. No, Djokovic is still much better than him and likely will stay so for a while.
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Professional
Vulturing is not a record.
Spencer Gore
Legend
198 -Rod Laver
147 -Ken Rosewall
138 -Bill Tilden
111-Pancho Gonzales
109 -Jimmy Connors
103- Roger Federer
Anyone else hit the century?
147 -Ken Rosewall
138 -Bill Tilden
111-Pancho Gonzales
109 -Jimmy Connors
103- Roger Federer
Anyone else hit the century?
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Another failure for the Swiss mug.
Enceladus
Legend
This list is unfair. Connors and Federer is count only their ATP Tour titles, while the others players in this list count is all titles of them. Connors won another 40 tournaments, which are not recognized by the ATP, and Federer also won several exhibition events, which have the same weight as some of Laver's or Tilden's titles.
Only those titles recognized by the ATP (in the WTA women's game) should be counted as official / approved / full-fledged titles.
Spencer Gore
Legend
You want to disregard the majority of tennis history?
Enceladus
Legend
Pre-Open era titles are of inferior value. The list of ATP titles (full-fledged, approved tournaments) speaks better about the qualities, success and longevity of a tennis players.
Tennfan123
Legend
That record will never be broken if not even Federer with his skills and longevity couldn’t do it.
Jaroslav Drobny won up to 158 titles in amateur tennis, some articles have 147 titles.. Sources give Emerson 110 titles, 6 ATP titles in open era. As far as i know, Laver has now 211 titles documented, 72 ATP titels alone in open era and sanctioned by the ATP, 77 overall in open era alone, In the last third of his career. Open era started in 1968, when he was almost 30 years of age..
Last edited:
The speech is a bit long. It is a long road but it must be traveled.
Part 1: from the 4 eras to anarchy
Premise: the Big 3 were probably the best tennis players in history, the greatest tennis players in history and the tennis players with the best achievements in history.
For someone who has a bit of neurons in his head and is not just an avid fan, there is no doubt that is aware a comparison with the best players, the greatest players and those with the best achievements of other eras is difficult, if not impossible.
Because, simply, the other eras had other achievements and the players had other goals, there are few statistics, few photos, few images, few videos in relation to the last 30 years.
There are 4 tennis eras: before WWII, from post-war to 1968, OE up to the standard circuit (1990), after until today.
Comparing the Big 3 with the top players from before WWII to the Big 3 is not serious because tennis was another sport.
Comparing the Big 3 with the top players from postwar to 1968 is unfair to Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver; it is unfair because Jack and Pancho were pros and did not participate in the slams, moreover for them the most important thing was the title in the World Series (which now no longer exist and of which no media writes reports and articles, because they are not capable) ; and Ken and Rod have careers divided by the 1968 watershed, where before 1968 they had the Jack and Pancho problem and after the two Australians won a lot but their hill was soon overcome.
Comparing the top players from 1969 to 1990 is more feasible but there are many problems the first of which is that the 2 best players (Borg and McEnroe) have had a short career and with the current standards (Slams and records) are heavily penalized.
Connors and Lendl are less penalized.
In fact, in all the overall numerical statistics, the two always figure ahead of Bjorn and Supermac.
Ivan and Jimbo, however, are also penalized by the fact that the circuit was too fragmented, anarchy reigned, a ton of exhibitions were played, there were many invitationals no-ATP tournaments and current critics and the current media cannot talk about it because they are not informed. .
In this context, the Connors record was born. From anarchy.
Part 1: from the 4 eras to anarchy
Premise: the Big 3 were probably the best tennis players in history, the greatest tennis players in history and the tennis players with the best achievements in history.
For someone who has a bit of neurons in his head and is not just an avid fan, there is no doubt that is aware a comparison with the best players, the greatest players and those with the best achievements of other eras is difficult, if not impossible.
Because, simply, the other eras had other achievements and the players had other goals, there are few statistics, few photos, few images, few videos in relation to the last 30 years.
There are 4 tennis eras: before WWII, from post-war to 1968, OE up to the standard circuit (1990), after until today.
Comparing the Big 3 with the top players from before WWII to the Big 3 is not serious because tennis was another sport.
Comparing the Big 3 with the top players from postwar to 1968 is unfair to Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver; it is unfair because Jack and Pancho were pros and did not participate in the slams, moreover for them the most important thing was the title in the World Series (which now no longer exist and of which no media writes reports and articles, because they are not capable) ; and Ken and Rod have careers divided by the 1968 watershed, where before 1968 they had the Jack and Pancho problem and after the two Australians won a lot but their hill was soon overcome.
Comparing the top players from 1969 to 1990 is more feasible but there are many problems the first of which is that the 2 best players (Borg and McEnroe) have had a short career and with the current standards (Slams and records) are heavily penalized.
Connors and Lendl are less penalized.
In fact, in all the overall numerical statistics, the two always figure ahead of Bjorn and Supermac.
Ivan and Jimbo, however, are also penalized by the fact that the circuit was too fragmented, anarchy reigned, a ton of exhibitions were played, there were many invitationals no-ATP tournaments and current critics and the current media cannot talk about it because they are not informed. .
In this context, the Connors record was born. From anarchy.
Last edited:
sportsfan1
Legend
The big 3 could have played many more atp 250s and such but they couldn't to be able to focus on slams. So not entirely without some merit for the previous era players having played and win more.
Part 2: the americans export the record
I don't know exactly when the race for records in all sports started.
Before a certain year, records were talked about and written only in athletics and swimming.
I think perhaps since the end of the 80s the States have exported the idea that everything must be traced back to a record and the idea is exported as democracy also to Europe and then to the world.
In the NBA there is a record for everything: the best defensive rebounder, turnovers, the team that wins the most away from home, the percentage of free throws in the second quarter ... then other sports were extended.
The important thing is the player who makes the record; the second, third and the others are deleted.
Since Michael Johnson broke the 200m record, Mennea has been disintegrated.
Ever since Bolt broke the record, it was Johnson who was forgotten.
A ruthlessly anti-sports culture.
It is assumed that the current tennis champions as they are the best players alltime always beat the old ones, but sometimes it happens that it is very complicated.
Nobody cares now about the records of Tilden or Gonzalez or Rosewall because they are old players, to be hidden, as they played before 1968. Everything that is considered old is hidden. Because the media and tennis journalists are ignorant: they don't know how to tell, they don't know how to judge. Because they have not seen and they have not documented.
In tennis everyone is only interested in one thing: records but only since 1968. Because the data are more available, you don't have to sweat to get old data. It is difficult to collect many results (I summarize the non-ATP ones), but just hide them and that's it.
For the media it must be assumed that the holders of all the most important records must be the Big 3. Because (once the champions from Tilden to Budge, from Gonzalez to Rosewall have been hidden), Laver's career is halved and despised, since Borg and Mac cannot compete as their career has been a flash, no one else remains.
In reality, the real records of titles won are two:
* 210+ by Rod Laver (these were up to last year the data, counting the amateurs/pro/OE),
* 150 by Lendl counting all OE titles (on this second figure Connors in my opinion reaches 149 even if some credit him with 150 or 151).
The 109s are only the tournaments that ATP has made official, so that's what counts in the end.
It is wrong in my opinion, or at least it is a record to be explained every time, but it is so.
In a period like the 70-80s where anarchy reigned in tennis, it is no coincidence that the most anarchic tennis player in history is in the lead.
Among other things, it is not the only record of Jimbo, even the matches won, even the finals reached.
I don't know exactly when the race for records in all sports started.
Before a certain year, records were talked about and written only in athletics and swimming.
I think perhaps since the end of the 80s the States have exported the idea that everything must be traced back to a record and the idea is exported as democracy also to Europe and then to the world.
In the NBA there is a record for everything: the best defensive rebounder, turnovers, the team that wins the most away from home, the percentage of free throws in the second quarter ... then other sports were extended.
The important thing is the player who makes the record; the second, third and the others are deleted.
Since Michael Johnson broke the 200m record, Mennea has been disintegrated.
Ever since Bolt broke the record, it was Johnson who was forgotten.
A ruthlessly anti-sports culture.
It is assumed that the current tennis champions as they are the best players alltime always beat the old ones, but sometimes it happens that it is very complicated.
Nobody cares now about the records of Tilden or Gonzalez or Rosewall because they are old players, to be hidden, as they played before 1968. Everything that is considered old is hidden. Because the media and tennis journalists are ignorant: they don't know how to tell, they don't know how to judge. Because they have not seen and they have not documented.
In tennis everyone is only interested in one thing: records but only since 1968. Because the data are more available, you don't have to sweat to get old data. It is difficult to collect many results (I summarize the non-ATP ones), but just hide them and that's it.
For the media it must be assumed that the holders of all the most important records must be the Big 3. Because (once the champions from Tilden to Budge, from Gonzalez to Rosewall have been hidden), Laver's career is halved and despised, since Borg and Mac cannot compete as their career has been a flash, no one else remains.
In reality, the real records of titles won are two:
* 210+ by Rod Laver (these were up to last year the data, counting the amateurs/pro/OE),
* 150 by Lendl counting all OE titles (on this second figure Connors in my opinion reaches 149 even if some credit him with 150 or 151).
The 109s are only the tournaments that ATP has made official, so that's what counts in the end.
It is wrong in my opinion, or at least it is a record to be explained every time, but it is so.
In a period like the 70-80s where anarchy reigned in tennis, it is no coincidence that the most anarchic tennis player in history is in the lead.
Among other things, it is not the only record of Jimbo, even the matches won, even the finals reached.
Last edited:
Part 3 (.. and last): from the failure of the critics to the bad luck of Connors, ... to the luck of Connors
But the most curious thing is this: while Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall have not been studied by contemporary critics/journalists, Connors (like Borg, Mac and Lendl) has been analyzed a little more, but nonetheless, the two most pertinent questions about the American were not asked:
- how many slams would he have won, and how many slam matches, how many slam finals and semifinals would he have reached if he had always participated in the AO?
- if he had not participated in the secondary circuit of Riordan which made him win about twenty very low level tournaments but had participated in the WCT how many fewer titles would he have? And if he hadn't participated in all those invitational tournaments and performances but had participated in official tournaments, how many would he have won?
In my opinion the champions of the 1968-1990 period have been underestimated and Connors above all, simply because the critics and journalists are not able to answer the two questions, but in a surprising way Jimbo (who therefore was very unfortunate because he was not adequately studied by critics and journalists) has so far had an enormous fortune: the one that the same incompetent critics and journalists are not able to translate and tell the 200+ tournaments of Laver and 150 of Lendl and finds himself holding the only record on the titles sanctioned won.
But the most curious thing is this: while Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall have not been studied by contemporary critics/journalists, Connors (like Borg, Mac and Lendl) has been analyzed a little more, but nonetheless, the two most pertinent questions about the American were not asked:
- how many slams would he have won, and how many slam matches, how many slam finals and semifinals would he have reached if he had always participated in the AO?
- if he had not participated in the secondary circuit of Riordan which made him win about twenty very low level tournaments but had participated in the WCT how many fewer titles would he have? And if he hadn't participated in all those invitational tournaments and performances but had participated in official tournaments, how many would he have won?
In my opinion the champions of the 1968-1990 period have been underestimated and Connors above all, simply because the critics and journalists are not able to answer the two questions, but in a surprising way Jimbo (who therefore was very unfortunate because he was not adequately studied by critics and journalists) has so far had an enormous fortune: the one that the same incompetent critics and journalists are not able to translate and tell the 200+ tournaments of Laver and 150 of Lendl and finds himself holding the only record on the titles sanctioned won.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
I can take solace in knowing that even if Fed's knee hadn't betrayed him there's a decent chance he wouldn't have gotten there anyway due to COVID taking away 2020 Halle and 2020-21 Basel. He needed all of those since winning another major was a long shot and he only managed to win 1 total Masters in 2018-19.
juanparty
Hall of Fame
I'm not comparing Alcaraz with Djokovic, you didn't understand, what I mean is that Alcaraz can win more titles since he will participate in much more tournaments, Djokovic I don't think he will, that's why 20 more titles seem a lot to me regarding his age and what's left of his career
Mustard
Bionic Poster
So did Connors win more than 109 if you're referring to Laver's 200. Connors had about 149 or something like that.
MadariKatu
Hall of Fame
And most singles matches played and won. Fed was 25 match wins away from beating that, but his knee couldn't take it. I really wanted Roger to get this one; it felt fitting.
