Connors's special events

KG1965

Legend
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....................
It doesn't make sense, also because it's the same score.
San Diego 71 was reported at the beginning of this thread, I found the results of San Diego 70 on a website that was not particularly reliable.
And for this I asked for any confirmations.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
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.
I agree with you that this is not a big problem. I just have little doubts that other readers would understand what you mean and what you have included under your categories. Because you did a very good job.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
His record was 15-3 in men's singles sets; 105-63 in cumulative games.
5/8 d Case (Hawaii) 62 and 61
5/11 d Fletcher (Toronto Buffalo) 64 and 64
5/13 d Mottram (Philadelphia) 76 and 63
5/15 d Dent (Detroit) 63 - Connors did not play second half singles
5/17 d Fairlie (Philadelphia) 63; tied with Mottram 55 when substituted by Carmichael (who lost 75)
(League changes format)
5/19 d Richey (Cleveland) 61
5/20 d Pilic (New York) 63
7/8 vs Philadelphia - only played doubles
7/11 d Rosewall (Pittsburgh) 75
7/24 d Buchholz (Chicago) 62
7/26 d Taylor (Boston) 63
7/29 L Newcombe (Houston) 76
7/31 d Masters (Los Angeles) 60
8/1 d Dent (Detroit) 63
8/2 L Pattison (Denver) 63
Scott, sorry to turn you back to your post. I ask for some clarification:
1. You wrote about 3 losses but I see 2 - Newcombe and Pattison. I understand that the match vs Carmichael was a win for Connors.
2. What is your opinion about the number of matches for the statistics? Should the matches vs Case, Fletcher and Mottram be counted as 6 matches total or just 3 two-set matches? How is this explained in the book?
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
It doesn't make sense, also because it's the same score.
San Diego 71 was reported at the beginning of this thread, I found the results of San Diego 70 on a website that was not particularly reliable.
And for this I asked for any confirmations.
I confirm the 1970 scores.
 

KG1965

Legend
I confirm the 1970 scores.
It's obvious that the 1971 San Diego matches are a mistake, Jimmy didn't participate in the tournament, which therefore should be excluded from the calculation.
The error indicates as opponents Cripe and Tiball who were the opponents of the 1R of the tournaments held in South Bend and Los Angeles.
To tell the truth at the beginning in this thread it was reported that the tournament seems to have lasted from 9 to 14, in this case perhaps to get to the final Connors beat as well as Teacher and Austin at least one other player, or two.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
On the recommendation of Ivan, I try to identify TOURNAMENTS NOT-SANCTIONED ATP those that can be considered comparable challenger tournaments:

1969 :
Tulsa: CHALLENGER VALUE
Palm Springs: CHALLENGER VALUE

1970:
San Diego South Coast Championships (CA, USA) CHALLENGER VALUE
Ojai CHALLENGER VALUE
Los Angeles Southern California Championships NON-SANCTIONED but VALUE > CHALLENGER
Modesto CHALLENGER VALUE
Southampton CHALLENGER VALUE

1971:
Ojai CHALLENGER VALUE
South Bend CHALLENGER VALUE
Los Angeles Southern California Championships NON-SANCTIONED but VALUE > CHALLENGER

1972:
Ocean City CHALLENGER VALUE

From 1978 onwards ATP has created the famous category of lower level tournaments called "Challengers".The not-sanctioned tournaments played by Connors from 1978 onwards cannot be equalized with such tournaments because the value of the opponents has always been of high level. Before the advent of the Challenger circuit there are basically the ATP sanctioned and not-sanctioned tournaments. In not-sanctioned there are some fairly important tournaments (which for example can be compared to Masters 250 or in few cases Masters 500) but also tournaments like the current "challengers".
This division is only theoretical, I repeat, because it did not exist at that time.
I think it is correct to add among the "challengers" Kansas City 1973 and in Ocean City in 1972.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
On the recommendation of Ivan, I try to identify TOURNAMENTS NOT-SANCTIONED ATP those that can be considered comparable challenger tournaments:

1969 :
Tulsa: CHALLENGER VALUE
Palm Springs: CHALLENGER VALUE

1970:
San Diego South Coast Championships (CA, USA) CHALLENGER VALUE
Ojai CHALLENGER VALUE
Los Angeles Southern California Championships NON-SANCTIONED but VALUE > CHALLENGER
Modesto CHALLENGER VALUE
Southampton CHALLENGER VALUE

1971:
Ojai CHALLENGER VALUE
South Bend CHALLENGER VALUE
Los Angeles Southern California Championships NON-SANCTIONED but VALUE > CHALLENGER

Work in progress...
Yeah, I think that's the list. We will wait only if somebody can confirm or deny the existing of San Diego 71. You are right that it seems so and so - name and dates are shown but missing scores and the final score look doubtful.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
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?”
And it took 5 years for that to happen....injuries, crisis of confidence, some tight losses along the way
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I think it is correct to add among the "challengers" Kansas City 1971 and in Ocean City in 1972.
Kansas 71? What matches of Jimmy do you have there? Anyway for me it's not chall. type. Richey, Graebner, Lutz, Ashe played there in 70 or 71.
In 73 when Conn. played also Drysdale and Roche were there.

Ocean city - I agree. Weak draw.
 

KG1965

Legend
Kansas 71? What matches of Jimmy do you have there? Anyway for me it's not chall. type. Richey, Graebner, Lutz, Ashe played there in 70 or 71.
In 73 when Conn. played also Drysdale and Roche were there.

Ocean city - I agree. Weak draw.
I thank you for reporting. I honestly assumed it was a bad event but I hadn't found any news about it.
It's wrong even the year. :oops:
 

KG1965

Legend
I will comment on something later.
Reflection 1
2000 games
played in career: in short, the extract of this is the thread.
I don't care and it's not my intention to make comparisons with old myths (Rosewall, Pancho, Laver ...) or the currents Big 3.
What really matters to me is to watch twenty years of tennis by focusing on a player. By studying JC in detail, all the greats of that period are better discovered, from Nastase and Rosewall to Agassi and Becker, the veil is literally torn apart in the 70s and 80s, and all secondary players are analyzed.

Of the almost 2000 total matches of JC 1556, 80.50% ATP were sanctioned.
This means that 19.50% of the total matches played is not ATP. Basically 1 match out of 5.
A fifth of his career is "hidden".

The american has played against all the other main players of non-ATP events (tournaments or exhibition matches), so it is easy to say that almost all the best players (from McEnroe to Nastase, from Borg to Lendl), and all the others have a "hidden" career. "
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Reflection 2
14.43%
of the matches played relates to not-sanctioned tournaments while 5.07% are exhibition matches (WTT included).
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Reflection 1
2000 games
played in career: in short, the extract of this is the thread.
I don't care and it's not my intention to make comparisons with old myths (Rosewall, Pancho, Laver ...) or the currents Big 3.
What really matters to me is to watch twenty years of tennis by focusing on a player. By studying JC in detail, all the greats of that period are better discovered, from Nastase and Rosewall to Agassi and Becker, the veil is literally torn apart in the 70s and 80s, and all secondary players are analyzed.

Of the almost 2000 total matches of JC 1556, 80.50% ATP were sanctioned.
This means that 19.50% of the total games played is not ATP. Basically 1 match out of 5.
A fifth of his career is "hidden".

The american has played against all the other main players of non-ATP events (tournaments or demonstration games), so it is easy to say that almost all the best players (from McEnroe to Nastase, from Borg to Lendl), and all the others have a "hidden" career. "
It's always better when we know about the full careers of the top players. A very few people care about that. Most of the fans look only at the ATP data which is bad. Jimbo was a big tennis machine and he deserves to be observed fully.
The so called by you "hidden" career was a casual practice for many players in the 70s and 80s. So it should be a part of the careers not only ATP.
Good job.
 

KG1965

Legend
Reflection 3
The percentage of win matches over the total "overall" is 80.96% while the percentage of win matches over the total ATP is higher (81.88%).
They are similar but it follows that for JC it was slightly easier to win matches in ATP tournaments than in not-sanctioned (78.14%)
While it was much more difficult to win in the exhibition matches (72.50%)
This is due to the fact that in the early rounds of ATP JC tournaments (and all the best ones) they face much lower players while in not-sanctioned tournaments (especially in RR tournaments or 4draws) this does not occur.
In exhibitions this is almost impossible (in fact of all the 80 exhibitions only one is won by a relatively easy opponent, Hank Pfister in 1979).
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Reflection 3
The percentage of win matches over the total "overall" is 80.96% while the percentage of win matches over the total ATP is higher (81.88%).
They are similar but it follows that for JC it was slightly easier to win matches in ATP tournaments than in not-sanctioned (78.14%)
While it was much more difficult to win in the exhibition matches (72.50%)
This is due to the fact that in the early rounds of ATP JC tournaments (and all the best ones) they face much lower players while in not-sanctioned tournaments (especially in RR tournaments or 4draws) this does not occur.
In exhibitions this is almost impossible (in fact of all the 80 exhibitions only one is won by a relatively easy opponent, Hank Pfister in 1979).
Yep. Correct conclusions. That's the main reason why the non-sanctioned are so important.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Reflection 3
The percentage of win matches over the total "overall" is 80.96% while the percentage of win matches over the total ATP is higher (81.88%).
They are similar but it follows that for JC it was slightly easier to win matches in ATP tournaments than in not-sanctioned (78.14%)
While it was much more difficult to win in the exhibition matches (72.50%)
This is due to the fact that in the early rounds of ATP JC tournaments (and all the best ones) they face much lower players while in not-sanctioned tournaments (especially in RR tournaments or 4draws) this does not occur.
In exhibitions this is almost impossible (in fact of all the 80 exhibitions only one is won by a relatively easy opponent, Hank Pfister in 1979).
Connors at 1261 on ATP.
And counting....
 

KG1965

Legend
Reflection 4
In the first career period (1969-1972) JC plays
- many Under18 tournaments (which are not considered in the discussion),
- many Intercollegiate (some of these are reported but not in the final calculation because the data are incomplete) and
- some tournaments with similar characteristics to current challengers, who fall under the not-sanctioned because there was no sub-classification at the time like now.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Big work. Especially the RR matches of the Challenge Cup, a great WCT special event held in 1976 with the 1977 final, which had been lost.
It's not lost.
It's in 1977.
We put the RR and the SFs in dec 1976 (as they were) and the final in Apr 77 (as it was) ;)
 

bry17may

New User
And as NoMercy said a while ago, Connors is now at 1274-282.
NoMercy is.... inevitable :cool:
Hi NoMercy, do you know if the ATP is going to keep updating W/L for another players, like McEnroe and his 3rd places in Pepsi Grand Slam of 1979 and 1980?
 

bry17may

New User
Yes, all the 3rd place finals will be included.
WCT finals, Masters, Pepsi, US open 1972,...
And what about the "R256" of US Open 1972?, will they add the R1 match of Borg for that tournament. The same question for RG 68 and 72? The last one with a peculiar draw jeje
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
And what about the "R256" of US Open 1972?, will they add the R1 match of Borg for that tournament. The same question for RG 68 and 72? The last one with a peculiar draw jeje
Yes.
About RG72 we have to think how to do it because a bye vs bye is not allowed! :D
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
KG, you know Mac beat Annacone in the final of Palo Alto Tennis challenge in Sep 1990. Do you know about any other matches in this tournament, draw, scores? Some posters say it was held in the period 13-16 Sep, maybe 2 or 3 rounds have been held.
 

KG1965

Legend
KG, you know Mac beat Annacone in the final of Palo Alto Tennis challenge in Sep 1990. Do you know about any other matches in this tournament, draw, scores? Some posters say it was held in the period 13-16 Sep, maybe 2 or 3 rounds have been held.
I am sorry but the only sources I found are on page 5 (INDEPENDENCE EXAMINER ARCHIVE Sept. 17, 1990) ; I will try to search again.
 

KG1965

Legend
Draw8, played in Stanford and not in Palo Alto. Connors in the draw.
So Jimmy won two matches, not just v McPhie. :eek:

McPhie? Who was ... a student? :D
Ooops Brian MacPhie... 1972, Turned Pro in 1993 (ATP Site).
Poor singularist but top 50 in doubles.
 
Last edited:

nono30

New User
[QUOTE = "Ivan69, post: 13118930, membre: 746244"]
J'ai ce match et l'ai mentionné à peine dans le post 202. Merci pour la présence. Ce nombre est vraiment énorme pour un exo.
[/CITATION]
bonjour Ivan 69 have you matche exhibition Seattle 81 macneroe /connors challenge matche vidéo thank you nono
 
Top