Connors's special events

[KG1965]

Some clarification:

1) 4 matches (3-1) must be added (Tanglewood 71, Boston 69, Manchester 74, as NM post ..thanks);

2) I thought maybe it's better to treat WTT matches apart by splitting them from exhibition matches;

3) perhaps it makes no sense to insert the 3 matches (2-1) as amateurs in consideration of the fact that they are tournaments disputed post 1968, it is more correct to add them in the not sanctioned (as amateurs maybe only pre-1968 match amateurs should be inserted, like Kirkwood);

4) the intercollegiate "chapter" will remain incomplete if many other matches have been played that I am unable to find.

 

[bry17may]

Tanglewood 71: I have not found news, I take note of the additional match won by Jimmy.
ok Boston 69, is titled US National Amateur, definitely a great sanctioned event.

Manchester 74: I note, I've always heard that Connors had won 4 matches, not 6.
On this event, I ask a your personal opinion.
ATP has sanctioned all GP, WCT and IPA events. I note even if I am personally perplexed about some IPA tournaments, but this tournament (as Surbiton played the same week, the same week as the FO), because according to your opinion the ATP considered it sanctioned? It seems to me that the tournament has a value << even compared to the worst IPAs.
But above all... it is outside any circuit (GP, WCT, IPA).
It's actually the only one that I can't understand how ATP may have considered it sanctioned.

IIRC, It counted for the ATP Rankings, I read somewhere the ATP give points to that tournament in a way to compensate the ban of Connors from RG

 

[KG1965]

IIRC, It counted for the ATP Rankings, I read somewhere the ATP give points to that tournament in a way to compensate the ban of Connors from RG

I thank you for your contribution but I believe (almost sure) that Connors didn't earn any points (even 1) for that title.

 

[NoMercy]

Kirkwood Open was a draw40 tournament.
Connors 3-1 in that event

Yes, it was an amateur event

 

[NoMercy]

IIRC, It counted for the ATP Rankings, I read somewhere the ATP give points to that tournament in a way to compensate the ban of Connors from RG

If you have read it somewhere, it’s a lie
No ATP points as the minimum prize money for points was $25,000 and Manchester had an astonishing $8,000 purse

 

[NoMercy]

Tanglewood 71: I have not found news, I take note of the additional match won by Jimmy.
ok Boston 69, is titled US National Amateur, definitely a great sanctioned event.

Manchester 74: I note, I've always heard that Connors had won 4 matches, not 6.
On this event, I ask a your personal opinion.
ATP has sanctioned all GP, WCT and IPA events. I note even if I am personally perplexed about some IPA tournaments, but this tournament (as Surbiton played the same week, the same week as the FO), because according to your opinion the ATP considered it sanctioned? It seems to me that the tournament has a value << even compared to the worst IPAs.
But above all... it is outside any circuit (GP, WCT, IPA).
It's actually the only one that I can't understand how ATP may have considered it sanctioned.

This tournament has no right to be inside the ATP. And even they know that.
It’s a mistake that happened in 1978 and it was never fixed and then became history, it can’t change.
When Connors won the Us Open 83, he won the 100th tournament. There was a lot of press about that. And when he stayed so long at 105, at every single tournament he was reminded about that. “Will you ever move from 105?”

 

[KG1965]

This tournament has no right to be inside the ATP. And even they know that.
It’s a mistake that happened in 1978 and it was never fixed and then became history, it can’t change.
When Connors won the Us Open 83, he won the 100th tournament. There was a lot of press about that. And when he stayed so long at 105, at every single tournament he was reminded about that. “Will you ever move from 105?”

I thank you for the explanation, it was what I had intended for years but the reason was not clear to me: it is simply a mistake that having done "the history" cannot be corrected.
There are other tournaments like Manchester 1974 that Jimbo won and that ATP considers sanctioned and with they didn't give points for the ranking but it was still of the IPA circuit and I understand the reasoning that ATP considers anyway all IPA tournaments, it is a little logical choice but at least it is understandable.
Manchester is the only one that was not logical and not even understandable.

 

[NoMercy]

I thank you for the explanation, it was what I had intended for years but the reason was not clear to me: it is simply a mistake that having done "the history" cannot be corrected.
There are other tournaments like Manchester 1974 that Jimbo won and that ATP considers sanctioned and with they didn't give points for the ranking but it was still of the IPA circuit and I understand the reasoning that ATP considers anyway all IPA tournaments, it is a little logical choice but at least it is understandable.
Manchester is the only one that was not logical and not even understandable.

Well...
Also Queens 72 is kinda borderline...

 

[KG1965]

Well...
Also Queens 72 is kinda borderline...

I agree but only partially.
I try to explain the reason to you.
From a prize money point of view it was extremely inadequate (players played "gratis..free?" if I remember correctly) would not be considered by ATP ranking and Grand Prix, it's true, but I remember being very competitive seeding.
I looked now: there was only Stan Smith of the top 15-20 but then there was a very good seeding (Gorman, Bertolucci, Solomon, Moore, Amritraj, Gonzalez, Stockton, Panatta, Vilas, Meiler, Tanner, Gottfried, Metreveli, Parun, Graebner).
It's been real tournament.
In Manchester there was the nothing cosmic.

 

[KG1965]

1) 4 matches (3-1) must be added (Tanglewood 71, Boston 69, Manchester 74, as per NM post ..thanks);

2) I thought maybe it's better to treat WTT matches apart by splitting them from exhibition matches;
3) perhaps it makes no sense to insert the 3 matches (2-1) as amateurs in consideration of the fact that they are tournaments disputed post 1968, it is more correct to add them in the not sanctioned (as amateurs maybe only pre-1968 match amateurs should be inserted, like Kirkwood);

ONLY NON-SANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS (no Under 18, no Intercollegiate, no Amateurs)
281 Matches
63 Loss
221 Win
-----------------
77,82%

ONLY EXHIBITION MATCHES
80 Matches
22 Loss
58 Win
-----------------
72,50%

ONLY WTT MATCHES
18 Matches
3 Loss
15 Win
-----------------
83,33%

ONLY INTERCOLLEGIATE MATCHES
15 Matches
2 Loss
13 Win
-----------------
86,67%

ONLY AMATEURS MATCHES
1 Match
1 Loss
0 Win
-----------------
00,00%

ATP MATCHES
1556 Matches
282 Loss
1274 Win
------------------
81,88%

 

[KG1965]

What is still missing...

NON-SANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS (no Under 18, no Intercollegiate, no Amateurs)
- 1984 Beaver Creek
- 1969 Tulsa Invitation: + Hose (R2) - McKinley (Q) ???
- 1969 Charlie Farrell Invitation (Palm Springs): + Van Linge (R1) - Bohrnstedt (Q) ???

EXHIBITION MATCHES - score 2 matches v Borg 1986

WTT MATCHES - 90s

INTERCOLLEGIATE & AMATEURS MATCHES ...

ATP MATCHES THE END

 

[Ivan69]

1984 Beaver Creek

For sure Jimmy won 1984 Beaver Creek. Since some time I don't have an access to many American newspapers and my links were corrupted. A friend told me that many newspapers were stopped for European readers. But I remember very well an article from July or August 1985 saying that this was the 3rd consecutive title of Jimbo there.
Connors, Wilander, Curren, Scanlon, Nastase, Tanner were planned to play in the 1984 event. I don't know the draw but I think it was 6 or 8. It was planned to be held b/w 27 and 29 July 1984.
So feel free to count Jimbo with at least 2-0.

- 1969 Tulsa Invitation: + Hose (R2) - McKinley (Q) ???
- 1969 Charlie Farrell Invitation (Palm Springs): + Van Linge (R1) - Bohrnstedt (Q) ???

I think I gave you this info but maybe I am not. TB has for:
1. Tulsa 69 - win vs Humphrey Hose 6-3 6-0 in R16 and loss to Robert McKinley 3-6 6-4 6-3 in Q
2. Farrell 69 - win vs Van Linge 6-4 5-7 6-4 in R16 and loss to Bohrnstedt 5-7 9-7 8-6 in Q
I value both events Challenger type.

 

[bry17may]

Here is the article about it

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SBS19850729.1.19&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

 

[Ivan69]

Here is the article about it

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SBS19850729.1.19&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

Yeah. This was what I have read for 1985.

 

[KG1965]

For sure Jimmy won 1984 Beaver Creek. Since some time I don't have an access to many American newspapers and my links were corrupted. A friend told me that many newspapers were stopped for European readers. But I remember very well an article from July or August 1985 saying that this was the 3rd consecutive title of Jimbo there.
Connors, Wilander, Curren, Scanlon, Nastase, Tanner were planned to play in the 1984 event. I don't know the draw but I think it was 6 or 8. It was planned to be held b/w 27 and 29 July 1984.
So feel free to count Jimbo with at least 2-0.

I think I gave you this info but maybe I am not. TB has for:
1. Tulsa 69 - win vs Humphrey Hose 6-3 6-0 in R16 and loss to Robert McKinley 3-6 6-4 6-3 in Q
2. Farrell 69 - win vs Van Linge 6-4 5-7 6-4 in R16 and loss to Bohrnstedt 5-7 9-7 8-6 in Q
I value both events Challenger type.

Hi Ivan, the usual tournament at Beaver Creek was definitely scheduled in those 3 days of 1984 (I found the news in a Colorado Springs Gazette article of 6 July 1984).
I too (here in Europe) have limited access to American newspapers.
I managed to access the Colorado Springs Gazette but in late July and early August sports news is actually only occupied by the american Olympics.
Probably attended by Wilander, Curren, Scanlon, Nastase, Tanner for a 6seeding with bye for Connors and Wilander.
I am tempted to add +2 as you suggest to me, the only problem is that in this case it would be +1 also for tournaments, which becomes more relevant (obviously it is not about life or death ...). But adding a tournament has different consequences.

 

[Ivan69]

I am tempted to add +2 as you suggest to me, the only problem is that in this case it would be +1 also for tournaments, which becomes more relevant (obviously it is not about life or death ...). But adding a tournament has different consequences.

Sorry, I don't understand what is the problem. This is the second tournament of Jimbo which we don't have the full info for. We know the winner and we can be sure that he played 2 or 3 matches there. My approach is to be conservative until I have the full info. That's why I suggested 2-0 for now. Sooner or later we will find the opponents and the scores in BCreek.
The other issues I miss for Connors are:
1. The scores of the 3 exos in Palm Springs 71
2. The scores of 4 matches in San Diego tournament 71 (I have only the score of the final)
3. The scores of the 2 exos in Tokyo 86
4. The score of the semi in Amelia Island 86 vs Arias
5. The score of the semi in Whitefish Bay 73 vs Buchholz
6. The score of the quarter in Washington indoor 73 vs Fletcher

Not so bad.

 

[KG1965]

The score of the quarter in Washington indoor 73 vs Fletcher

63 61... only this.

 

[Ivan69]

63 61... only this.

The same score was in the semi vs Meiler. It's not a mistake, right?

 

[KG1965]

The same score was in the semi vs Meiler. It's not a mistake, right?

In an old newspaper with Connors data, it appears 63 61 in both matches. I have no other info.

 

[Ivan69]

In an old newspaper with Connors data, it appears 63 61 in both matches. I have no other info.

thanks

 

[NoMercy]

In an old newspaper with Connors data, it appears 63 61 in both matches. I have no other info.

It’s 36 62 63.

I also have the other scores of the “list” but again, let’s see how it goes without having them on TennisBase

 

[Ivan69]

It’s 36 62 63.

I also have the other scores of the “list” but again, let’s see how it goes without having them on TennisBase

It goes perfect. A couple of missing scores or opponents is not a big problem.

 

[NoMercy]

It goes perfect. A couple of missing scores or opponents is not a big problem.

“A couple” like the almost 200 hundred singles matches you miss for Rosewall?
Yes, I agree it’s not a big problem for you.

Eheheh

 

[Ivan69]

“A couple” like the almost 200 hundred singles matches you miss for Rosewall?
Yes, I agree it’s not a big problem for you.

Eheheh

You maybe forgot that you gave me your total matches' figures of Rosewall. I have discovered around 60-70 more. So no, the missed are a couple.

 

[NoMercy]

You maybe forgot that you gave me your total matches of Rosewall. I have discovered around 60-70 more. So no, the missed are a couple.

Ok, if you say that, I will make you live in your dream. I don’t remember when I told you that, but probably one year and a half ago?
Oh and forget they will go on TennisBase.
People like you don’t deserve that

 

[Ivan69]

Ok, if you say that, I will make you leave in your dream. I don’t remember when I told you that, but probably one year and a half ago?
Oh and forget they will go on TennisBase.
People like you don’t deserve that

"Don't worry, be happy" sings the singer. For you the copyright of the data is a matter of life and death. For me not. It's my view that the tennis info is for all the people unlike you. It's fully OK for me if you want to keep the data for yourself. I wont beg you for this.

I am delighted to discuss tennis issues with KG and other posters, to exchange info and to go forward. You may stay in the everyday competition about the
completeness of the data hiding cards in your sleeves. Sorry, my friend, I don't play there. I am an open minded person and stand for openness and normal friendly relations b/w the posters. The wish for supremacy is not appropriate for this forum.

 

[NoMercy]

"Don't worry, be happy" sings the singer. For you the copyright of the data is a matter of life and death. For me not. It's my view that the tennis info is for all the people unlike you. It's fully OK for me if you want to keep the data for yourself. I wont beg you for this.

I am delighted to discuss tennis issues with KG and other posters, to exchange info and to go forward. You may stay in the everyday competition about the
completeness of the data hiding cards in your sleeves. Sorry, my friend, I don't play there. I am an open minded person and stand for openness and normal friendly relations b/w the posters. The wish for supremacy is not appropriate for this forum.

Sure but at least don’t write BS.
Tilden played around 10,000 matches in his career, including singles and doubles, so your beloved Rosewall is not first.
And I tell you a secret, it’s not even second

 

[Ivan69]

Sure but at least don’t write BS.
Tilden played around 10,000 matches in his career, including singles and doubles, so your beloved Rosewall is not first.
And I tell you a secret, it’s not even second

Ha-ha. Good jokes. When I see from you these 10,000 matches one by one I will believe. Now ... I don't. And I tell you a secret, I can't trust to tricky people and the naked words of tricky people.

 

[NoMercy]

 

[Ivan69]

One by one documented. Such general figures don't work. You know very well how many mistakes there are in the articles. So, one by one. Keep going.

 

[NoMercy]

One by one documented. Such general figures don't work. You know very well how many mistakes there are in the articles. So, one by one. Keep going.

Eheh.
They can be wrong, but wrong about 6,000?
I don’t think so. Also, Tilden said that many times, it’s something pretty well known to people that know just a little bit of tennis history.
I don’t have all of them, I never said that.
Just saying the 2,800 Rosewall matches are topped by Tilden and Segura

 

[NoMercy]

One by one documented. Such general figures don't work. You know very well how many mistakes there are in the articles. So, one by one. Keep going.

You see Ivan...
Apparently urban, that his tennis knowledge is at least 2,500 times better than yours, believes that Tilden played more matches than Rosewall...
But actually it’s kinda easy even for you, if you would have read McCauley. As many Tilden tours are not in TB.

 

[Ivan69]

Eheh.
They can be wrong, but wrong about 6,000?
I don’t think so. Also, Tilden said that many times, it’s something pretty well known to people that know just a little bit of tennis history.
I don’t have all of them, I never said that.
Just saying the 2,800 Rosewall matches are topped by Tilden and Segura

You are a big fan of the documented figures, right? Working with not documented figures is not serious. Just naked figures.
I fully doubt that in these times somebody has counted the players' matches one by one. I am 100% sure that the same Bill didn't count his matches.
For now this figure is just imaginary.

 

[Ivan69]

You see Ivan...
Apparently urban, that his tennis knowledge is at least 2,500 times better than yours, believes that Tilden played more matches than Rosewall...
But actually it’s kinda easy even for you, if you would have read McCauley. As many Tilden tours are not in TB.

Ha-ha. Do you work with "believes"? Really? Thanks, I don't. Once again, if you "believe" in this figure try to document it. Over with this, very boring.

 

[NoMercy]

You are a big fan of the documented figures, right? Working with not documented figures is not serious. Just naked figures.
I fully doubt that in these times somebody has counted the players' matches one by one. I am 100% sure that the same Bill didn't count his matches.
For now this figure is just imaginary.

Just for your information (and it’s something you should know if you ever read something about him) Tilden always kept very meticulous track of his records.

 

[NoMercy]

Ha-ha. Do you work with "believes"? Really? Thanks, I don't. Once again, if you "believe" in this figure try to document it. Over with this, very boring.

Sure. It’s over.
I’m positive posters over here know who is to trust or not. And who has good info and who just steal from others.
Bye bye

 

[Ivan69]

Sure. It’s over.
I’m positive posters over here know who is to trust or not. And who has good info and who just steal from others.
Bye bye

Your last posts are indicative who works with not documented figures and "believes". Bad. No one serious poster would trust to naked figures thrown in the air.

Ha-ha. What have I stolen from you???? Shame, NM. Big shame. You are falling down and down.

Apparently urban, that his tennis knowledge is at least 2,500 times better than yours

urban is a decent and good guy unlike you. I don't have any problems if he has more knowledge. You have problems in the everyday race about the knowledge. Keep going with the race! I don't play there. Bye bye

 

[NoMercy]

Your last posts are indicative who works with not documented figures and "believes". Bad. No one serious poster would trust to naked figures thrown in the air.

Ha-ha. What have I stolen from you???? Shame, NM. Big shame. You are falling down and down.

urban is a decent and good guy unlike you. I don't have any problems if he has more knowledge. You have problems in the everyday race about the knowledge. Keep going with the race! I don't play there. Bye bye

I had a nice idea.
I will share with TB just the necessary amount of Tilden matches to overcome Rosewall.
Let's say 10 extra matches and 10 extra victories over Rosewall.
So you will have to change your garbage post regarding Rosewall

But just them.
As already said you don't deserve to have access to some information.

 

[Ivan69]

I had a nice idea.
I will share with TB just the necessary amount of Tilden matches to overcome Rosewall.
Let's say 10 extra matches and 10 extra victories over Rosewall.
So you will have to change your garbage post regarding Rosewall

But just them.
As already said you don't deserve to have access to some information.

Keep with your phantasmagorical race and arrogance! I DON'T bye it. I think nobody bye it.
I am open minded and I don't have problems to change data. You have problems with your ego and with your behavior to people.
Everybody knows that you have problems with the Rosewall's career and personality. Nothing new. But ... I don't care.

 

[NoMercy]

Keep with your phantasmagorical race and arrogance! I DON'T bye it. I think nobody bye it.
I am open minded and I don't have problems to change data. You have problems with your ego and with your behavior to people.
Everybody knows that you have problems with the Rosewall's career and personality. Nothing new. But ... I don't care.

It's not Rosewall.
It's funny for me to show you as ridiculous.
I will do the same when you will post Laver's resume that it will be short for sure of the same amount of matches.
And I will have fun

 

[Ivan69]

It's not Rosewall.
It's funny for me to show you as ridiculous.
I will do the same when you will post Laver's resume that it will be short for sure of the same amount of matches.
And I will have fun

You have the right to prepare your own resume. Make it, post it. I will congratulate your efforts. But you don't do it. Your behavior is purely destructive - you want to bite. Anyway, I don't care.
I post what I was able to find. If you want to add new info please feel free to do it. If you don't want to add - it's ok. The life is going forward.

 

[KG1965]

+ 1984 Beaver Creek: presumably 2 matches won;
+ 1969 Tulsa (Tulsa Invitation): + Hose (R2) - McKinley (Q)
+ 1969 Palm Springs (Charlie Farrell Invitation: + Van Linge (R1) - Bohrnstedt (Q)

ATP MATCHES
1556 Matches
282 Loss
1274 Win
------------------
81,88%

NON-SANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS (no Under 18, no Intercollegiate, no Amateurs)
279 Matches
61 Loss
218 Win
-----------------
78,14%

EXHIBITION MATCHES
80 Matches
22 Loss
58 Win
-----------------
72,50%

WTT MATCHES
18 Matches
3 Loss
15 Win
-----------------
83,33%

------------------------------------
"OVERALL" MATCHES
1933 Matches
368 Loss
1565 Win
-----------------
80,96%


are excluded Intercollegiate and amateurs matches from the total calculation because the data are incomplete

ONLY INTERCOLLEGIATE MATCHES
15 Matches
2 Loss
13 Win
-----------------
86,67%

ONLY AMATEURS MATCHES
1 Match
1 Loss
0 Win
-----------------
00,00%

 

[KG1965]

For me it ends here.
I thank all the posters who contributed from the first to the last, and especially hoodjen who started the thread.

I will comment on something later.

 

[Ivan69]

+ 1984 Beaver Creek: presumably 2 matches won;
+ 1969 Tulsa (Tulsa Invitation): + Hose (R2) - McKinley (Q)
+ 1969 Palm Springs (Charlie Farrell Invitation: + Van Linge (R1) - Bohrnstedt (Q)

ATP MATCHES
1556 Matches
282 Loss
1274 Win
------------------
81,88%

NON-SANCTIONED TOURNAMENTS (no Under 18, no Intercollegiate, no Amateurs)
290 Matches
65 Loss
225 Win
-----------------
77,59%

EXHIBITION MATCHES
80 Matches
22 Loss
58 Win
-----------------
72,50%

WTT MATCHES
18 Matches
3 Loss
15 Win
-----------------
83,33%

------------------------------------
"OVERALL" MATCHES
1944 Matches
372 Loss
1572 Win
-----------------
80,86%


are excluded Intercollegiate and amateurs matches from the total calculation because the data are incomplete

ONLY INTERCOLLEGIATE MATCHES
15 Matches
2 Loss
13 Win
-----------------
86,67%

ONLY AMATEURS MATCHES
1 Match
1 Loss
0 Win
-----------------
00,00%

Very good. I see you are going forward. Sorry that I forgot your criteria for the categorisation and let me ask some questions:
1. Where do you categorize Davis matches? They are not ATP but sanctioned.
2. Which tournaments with 15 matches do you consider intercollegiate? South Bend, San Diego 71 and ...?
3. Which is the amateur loss? Kirkwood?

 

[KG1965]

Very good. I see you are going forward. Sorry that I forgot your criteria for the categorisation and let me ask some questions:
1. Where do you categorize Davis matches? They are not ATP but sanctioned.
2. Which tournaments with 15 matches do you consider intercollegiate? South Bend, San Diego 71 and ...?
3. Which is the amateur loss? Kirkwood?

1. At the ATP site the Davis Cup matches (and the Nations Cup) were reported and I assume they were included in the overall ATP matches ..... Isn't it?

2.
Ojai 1970
R16 win vs Michael Sprengelmeyer 6-1 6-0
Q win vs Terry Neudecker 10-8 8-6
S win vs Douglas Smith 6-4 6-3
F loss to Jeff Austin 3-6 8-6 6-3

Ojai april, 19-25 1971
1R : Michael Mullan W 6-4 6-4
2R : Sashi Menon W 6-3 7-5
QF: Roscoe Tanner W 4-6 6-2 6-3
SF: Tom Leonard W 6-3 7-6
F : Jeff Borowiak L 6-2 7-5

South Bend National Collegiate Tennis Championships (IN, USA) june, 14-19 1971
1T : Glen Cripe W 6-2 6-3
2T : Fred McNair W 6-2 6-1
3T : Sandy Mayer W 6-3 6-2
QF: Robert McKinley W 6-2 4-6 7-5
SF: Haroon Rahim W 6-4 7-5 6-7 7-6
F : Roscoe Tanner W 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-4

3. Yes, Kirkwood is played in 1967, so before the opening at the Era Open, so either it's a Pro or an amateurs

 

[Ivan69]

1. At the ATP site the Davis Cup matches (and the Nations Cup) were reported and I assume they were included in the overall ATP matches ..... Isn't it?

2.
Ojai 1970
R16 win vs Michael Sprengelmeyer 6-1 6-0
Q win vs Terry Neudecker 10-8 8-6
S win vs Douglas Smith 6-4 6-3
F loss to Jeff Austin 3-6 8-6 6-3

Ojai april, 19-25 1971
1R : Michael Mullan W 6-4 6-4
2R : Sashi Menon W 6-3 7-5
QF: Roscoe Tanner W 4-6 6-2 6-3
SF: Tom Leonard W 6-3 7-6
F : Jeff Borowiak L 6-2 7-5

South Bend National Collegiate Tennis Championships (IN, USA) june, 14-19 1971
1T : Glen Cripe W 6-2 6-3
2T : Fred McNair W 6-2 6-1
3T : Sandy Mayer W 6-3 6-2
QF: Robert McKinley W 6-2 4-6 7-5
SF: Haroon Rahim W 6-4 7-5 6-7 7-6
F : Roscoe Tanner W 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-4

3. Yes, Kirkwood is played in 1967, so before the opening at the Era Open, so either it's a Pro or an amateurs


I found these two tournaments, but I await confirmations.

SAN DIEGO 15.11.1970 NON-SANCTIONED
QF: Teacher W 6-2 6-4
SF: Austin W 6-2 6-4
F: Rahim L 6-8 6-3 9-7

MACON Indoor 3.3.1971 NON-SANCTIONED
2T: Bertram W 6-3 3-6 7-6
3T: Koch L 5-7 6-1 6-4

1. ATP website is not a reliable factor for me. I asked you because I didn't know where you have placed them. I place DC separately from ATP matches.

2. Yep, I have these matches. I wanted to see the tournaments you have included. As a matter of fact these intercollegiate matches are tennis-wise the same as some "non-sanctioned" like Modesto, San Diego, Southampton. All they had 0 ranked players, mostly (if not all) juniors. All these tournaments are in fact similar to Challengers or Futures.
When I proposed you once the name "non-sanctioned" I meant it tournaments similar to the ATP (WCT, NTL) but not sanctioned. It's my view that all these early Connors tournaments in 69 and 70 except Southern Cal. Ch. should be considered equally - amateur tournaments or Challenger type tournaments. South California was an old tournament with big history.

3. ok

4. Like I said in point 2 San Diego is rather an amateur tournament. It is far weaker than the other "non-sanctioned". I have the same matches.

5. Macon was sanctioned. As well as Tanglewood and Manchester.

 

[KG1965]

5. Macon was sanctioned. As well as Tanglewood and Manchester.

You are right.

 

[KG1965]

ATP website is not a reliable factor for me. I asked you because I didn't know where you have placed them. I place DC separately from ATP matches.

Yes ATP matches include Davis and Nations.

 

[KG1965]

2. Yep, I have these matches. I wanted to see the tournaments you have included. As a matter of fact these intercollegiate matches are tennis-wise the same as some "non-sanctioned" like Modesto, San Diego, Southampton. All they had 0 ranked players, mostly (if not all) juniors. All these tournaments are in fact similar to Challengers or Futures.
When I proposed you once the name "non-sanctioned" I meant it tournaments similar to the ATP (WCT, NTL) but not sanctioned. It's my view that all these early Connors tournaments in 69 and 70 except Southern Cal. Ch. should be considered equally - amateur tournaments or Challenger type tournaments. South California was an old tournament with big history.

4. Like I said in point 2 San Diego is rather an amateur tournament. It is far weaker than the other "non-sanctioned". I have the same matches.

I agree with you that the greater part of the tournaments in which Jimmy participated in the years 1969-71 are of similar value to the amateurs or challengers, the problem is that the amaterus were no longer present and there were no challengers, so IMHO fall between not-sanctioned. It's obvious that tournaments like Modesto should be considered very poor (like the challengers) but they can only be inserted between not-sanctioned.

The important thing is that we agree on the matches, then we can debate and agree which of these can be considered comparable to the challengers.
It should be easy.

 

[NoMercy]

I agree with you that the greater part of the tournaments in which Jimmy participated in the years 1970-71 are of similar value to the amateurs or challengers, the problem is that the amaterus were no longer present and there were no challengers, so IMHO fall between not-sanctioned. It's obvious that tournaments like Modesto should be considered very poor (like the challengers) but they can only be inserted between not-sanctioned.

The important thing is that we agree on the matches, then we can debate and agree which of these can be considered comparable to the challengers.
It should be easy.

But tell me, what do you think about the two San Diego tournaments?
It's nice to have the same players in the finals right?
A nice rivalry....................