Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
The hardest USO title wins since 1978 according to UTS:

1. McEnroe - 1980
2. Wawrinka - 2016
3. Del Potro - 2009
4. Lendl - 1985
5. McEnroe - 1979
6. Connors - 1978
7. Sampras - 1990
8. Djokovic - 2011
9. McEnroe - 1984
10. Murray - 2012

Interesting list but I have no idea how Wawrinka 2016 is that high. Beating Djokovic should not account for that much of a high rating when his next best opponents were Nishikori and 100+ ranked Del Potro. A lot of these were very high level wins though.
Plus Djokovic was kinda bad in that final at times and certainly not worth the high rating the system gave him. UTS is fun but it tends to miss out on a lot of context when assessing matches and sets of matches. Murray 2012 is another one that shouldn't be as high as it is. And while Delpo's win was nice, I struggle to see it being placed higher than some of these other runs.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Plus Djokovic was kinda bad in that final at times and certainly not worth the high rating the system gave him. UTS is fun but it tends to miss out on a lot of context when assessing matches and sets of matches. Murray 2012 is another one that shouldn't be as high as it is. And while Delpo's win was nice, I struggle to see it being placed higher than some of these other runs.
I get that a Djokovic win would have a high rating since his domination was just ending, but he didn't really beat any other great in form players so #2 is way too high. That one and the 1979 McEnroe win as well, when he had a walkover and retirement. I understand the Del Potro one since he beat the two dominant forces in the game at the time who were dominating. I don't have a problem with his or Murray's ranking. Murray had a tough draw at the 2012 USO.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The hardest USO title wins since 1978 according to UTS:

1. McEnroe - 1980
2. Wawrinka - 2016
3. Del Potro - 2009
4. Lendl - 1985
5. McEnroe - 1979
6. Connors - 1978
7. Sampras - 1990
8. Djokovic - 2011
9. McEnroe - 1984
10. Murray - 2012

Interesting list but I have no idea how Wawrinka 2016 is that high. Beating Djokovic should not account for that much of a high rating when his next best opponents were Nishikori and 100+ ranked Del Potro. McEnroe 1979 is another one that is too high imo. A lot of these were very high level wins though.
Wawrinka being there but not Federer is extremely weird. Even Murray is debatable, IMO, but I guess it was because of the wind.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.

Then either Sampras or Federer. I need to observe as idk.

5 titles seems low to me for a record. I think this record will be broken. Hopefully later one guy wins 7 or so to became clear best at USO:) Who knows maybe nobody will.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.

Then either Sampras or Federer. I need to observe as idk.

5 titles seems low to me for a record. I think this record will be broken. Hopefully later one guy wins 7 or so to became clear best at USO:) Who knows maybe nobody will.
Connors actually might be the fourth best In USOpen. Behind Nole. Yes Pete and Roger are ahead.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Wawrinka being there but not Federer is extremely weird. Even Murray is debatable, IMO, but I guess it was because of the wind.
Federer highest rated USO win is 2005 but it's not close to the top 10. 2 of his AO wins (hardcourt only) are in the top 10 though: 2010 and 2017.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Considering the USO competition in this thread and the USO achievements in the earlier thread (linked below), combining them provides any rational fan with a comprehensive understanding.

 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Connors actually might be the fourth best In USOpen. Behind Nole. Yes Pete and Roger are ahead.

I am sure Nole is really ahead in your mind because he lost to Fed, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev ..... it takes great talent to lose to so many people in the final and still be on 2 US opens on 31st birthday ..... (y)
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I am sure Nole is really ahead in your mind because he lost to Fed, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev ..... it takes great talent to lose to so many people in the final and still be on 2 US opens on 31st birthday ..... (y)
Thanks
Yes he did not have as much success early on. But he got to 4 already. Now going for fifth.
 
D

Deleted member 765728

Guest
I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.

Then either Sampras or Federer. I need to observe as idk.

5 titles seems low to me for a record. I think this record will be broken. Hopefully later one guy wins 7 or so to became clear best at USO:) Who knows maybe nobody will.
Connors and Sampras had the best chance to break/set the record imo, winning 6 or more. Jimbo was unlucky to play during the surface change period which was pretty chaotic, and could only compete on his best court from the age of 26. Him winning consecutive titles at the age of 30 and 31 speaks enough about his abilities to deliver on the surface, which btw rewards his playing style more than any other.

Pete was struggling with injuries/recovering in 1994 and 1999, where he would be a massive favorite for the title.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I am sure Nole is really ahead in your mind because he lost to Fed, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Medvedev ..... it takes great talent to lose to so many people in the final and still be on 2 US opens on 31st birthday ..... (y)
They beat him and he beat them. All those head to heads at the USO are even except the Nadal one and that's because they didn't play after 2013. In any case, Pete is the best and the rest are debatable in some way or another.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
They beat him and he beat them. All those head to heads at the USO are even except the Nadal one and that's because they didn't play after 2013. In any case, Pete is the best and the rest are debatable in some way or another.

When you have 2 titles in your 20s and then 2 more after 31st birthday then you should not be rated ahead of someone who had 5 titles a week after his 31th birthday.

Your fellow Nolefam Nachiket is saying Nole > Connors... LOL....

Pete is best, I agree, but Nachiket will put Nole above Pete as well if Nole somehow manages to win a 5th one.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
When you have 2 titles in your 20s and then 2 more after 31st birthday then you should not be rated ahead of someone who had 5 titles a week after his 31th birthday.

Your fellow Nolefam Nachiket is saying Nole > Connors... LOL....

Pete is best, I agree, but Nachiket will put Nole above Pete as well if Nole somehow manages to win a 5th one.
Brother if Nole wins 5th we will talk then.

Currently Pete is the best.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
When you have 2 titles in your 20s and then 2 more after 31st birthday then you should not be rated ahead of someone who had 5 titles a week after his 31th birthday.

Your fellow Nolefam Nachiket is saying Nole > Connors... LOL....

Pete is best, I agree, but Nachiket will put Nole above Pete as well if Nole somehow manages to win a 5th one.
It doesn’t matter when you win man, as long as you win. I have no idea why you think it does. If anything, it's more impressive to win in your 30s than before considering your body is slowing down. Pete, Jim and Novak all have longevity on their side. All won it across a decade or more and in their 30s. Even Nadal had longevity but not as good as theirs. I don't think Djokovic has an argument as the best there unless he defends this USO. I don't think he has argument unless he defends one or wins 6, but that's me.
 
Last edited:

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Connors and Sampras had the best chance to break/set the record imo, winning 6 or more. Jimbo was unlucky to play during the surface change period which was pretty chaotic, and could only compete on his best court from the age of 26. Him winning consecutive titles at the age of 30 and 31 speaks enough about his abilities to deliver on the surface, which btw rewards his playing style more than any other.

Pete was struggling with injuries/recovering in 1994 and 1999, where he would be a massive favorite for the title.
Federer was very close too actually. Winning 5 in a row is a massive dominance and losing the 6th against Delpo. Too bad for him though not coming close to win after 2009.
Outside of 2015 he wasn't a factor since 2011.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Federer was very close too actually. Winning 5 in a row is a massive dominance and losing the 6th against Delpo. Too bad for him though not coming close to win after 2009.
Outside of 2015 he wasn't a factor since 2011.
The reason is Djokovic. Stopped him 3 times. At least once he would get it done.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the best USO player is Connors in the OE. Although he lost to mcenroe twice btw(79-81) still he feels the best. Since he won on grass, clay and HC. Lost also twice in the final on clay eventhough it's not red clay, before surface change to HC.
I don’t think it’s really fair to rate Connors the highest when nobody else had to deal with the conditions he had. Difficult to compare.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Connors and Sampras had the best chance to break/set the record imo, winning 6 or more. Jimbo was unlucky to play during the surface change period which was pretty chaotic, and could only compete on his best court from the age of 26. Him winning consecutive titles at the age of 30 and 31 speaks enough about his abilities to deliver on the surface, which btw rewards his playing style more than any other.

Pete was struggling with injuries/recovering in 1994 and 1999, where he would be a massive favorite for the title.
Didn’t Federer have the best chance since he was the closest to come to 6?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer highest rated USO win is 2005 but it's not close to the top 10. 2 of his AO wins (hardcourt only) are in the top 10 though: 2010 and 2017.
What I don’t get is why Stan’s is rated that high when Fed beat a better Djokovic in 2007 and 2008 and other better opponents. How is this UTS calculated?
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
We only know how many people who climbed Mount Everest, we have never heard of how many people failed, no?

Why compare with scenarios completely different? We remember who played the final of each GS, we remember who played the final of the World Cup, the Champions League, the Superbowl, the NBA, etc.


Conventional logic says that reaching a final is better than going out in 3rd rround, it gives more points, more money too, but for the GOATs these losses in finals is actually a black mark compared to a 3rd round loss which can brushed off as bad form.


You can reach the final with poor form, like Djokovic at the USO 2016. I don't see how it's better to play more often with poor form than good form, or how it's better to have poor form than mediocre form.


3rd round is better is better than a final? Is it better than SF too? or QF? Where do you draw the line?

If Djokovic has reached more finals then it only means that he needed more finals to get those 4 Titles, bad conversion rate....

No. The conversion rate is based on participations, not finals reached. You can say that someone playing the event 5 times and winning 5 is better than someone that played 15 times and won 5. That is more arguable, because nobody is denying you to play more, but well, the conversion rate is there. If you play the same amount of times, but lost earlier instead of reaching finals you don't have better conversion rate.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
What I don’t get is why Stan’s is rated that high when Fed beat a better Djokovic in 2007 and 2008 and other better opponents. How is this UTS calculated?
Well Djokovic 2016 was a bigger scalp when he was dominating and holding 2 Slams than he was in 2008 and especially 2007. I'm not sure how it's calculated though but he does usually have the formulas somewhere on the site.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
It doesn’t matter when you win man, as long as you win. I have no idea why you think it does. If anything, it's more impressive to win in your 30s than before considering your body is slowing down. Pete, Jim and Novak all have longevity on their side. All won it across a decade or more and in their 30s. Even Nadal had longevity but not as good as theirs. I don't think Djokovic has an argument as the best there unless he defends this USO. I don't think he has argument unless he defends one or wins 6, but that's me.

Testosterone levels are higher in 20s than in 30s, plus athletes before Big 3 did not have Great Age Shift to aid them in 30s to win slams, so Jimmy Connors, Pete both were at a disadvantage when their 5th title came at 31 while Roger who plays in an era of primes / post prime slam winning phases going into mid- late 30s did not win a title in his 30s, so that could be a way to see things. In any case Jimmy Connors has 5 titles, it is not right to put Novak on par with Connors.

Brother if Nole wins 5th we will talk then.

Currently Pete is the best.

Even if Novak wins 5, he wont be better than Pete because he had only 2 title on his 31st birthday, he will need a 6th title to have a case.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Testosterone levels are higher in 20s in body than in 30s, plus athletes before Big 3 did not have Great Age Shift to aid them in 30s to win slams, so Jimmy Connors, Pete both were at a disadvantage when their 5th title came at 31 while Roger who plays in an era of careers going into late 30s did not win a title in his 30s, so that could be a way to see things. In any case Jimmy Connors has 5 titles, it is not right to put Novak on par with Connors.



Even if Novak wins 5, he wont be better than Pete, he will need a 6th title to have a case.
I am not talking about Nole being above Pete for now. I am fine with Jimmy also in top 3 but he is not the best. He is far closer to Nole anyway.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Testosterone levels dont lie, there is a reason why Federer started to decline athletically from 2007 onwards...

ED-testosterone-number-image.jpg
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Even today Teenagers are winning Slams.

The Great age shift is real.
Tell me which teenager won a slam. Alcaraz won a slam where Djokovic was banned. He was already not a teenager when he won Wimbledon. And he is only 1 player.

80s had wilander Becker Edberg chang so many more. All the records got set then.

It didn't take much time to get to the top in 70s/80s.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Testosterone levels are higher in 20s than in 30s, plus athletes before Big 3 did not have Great Age Shift to aid them in 30s to win slams, so Jimmy Connors, Pete both were at a disadvantage when their 5th title came at 31 while Roger who plays in an era of primes / post prime slam winning phases going into mid- late 30s did not win a title in his 30s, so that could be a way to see things. In any case Jimmy Connors has 5 titles, it is not right to put Novak on par with Connors.



Even if Novak wins 5, he wont be better than Pete because he had only 2 title on his 31st birthday, he will need a 6th title to have a case.
Yes, testosterone levels decrease, the body becomes more fragile, and stamina is less as you age. So it should be more impressive to win then than when younger but your arguments are that it's less impressive. That doesn't make sense to me. Connors won 2 USOs at 30 and 31, so quite impressive, and he started playing Slams at 18. He wasn't a Becker or Wilander who were winning Slams at 17. He was 21 when he won his 1st. He was a freak though and made a USO SF at 39.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Example : If Federer had lost in 3rd round of wimbledon 2008 then nobody would have rated Nadal that high, but the fact that Roger lost to Nadal in the final did give Nadal a lot of credit at the cost of Federer.
Yea another example would be FO 2008, only an idiot would think that this final added anything to Fed's legacy and that it would not have been better to lose earlier. Same as Nadal-Novak AO19. This might be a little different as he finished YE#1, but as long as he does not lose early enough to ruin that, an early loss instead of being humiliated in the final would have been way better.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Yes, testosterone levels decrease, the body becomes more fragile, and stamina is less as you age. So it should be more impressive to win then than when younger but your arguments are that it's less impressive. That doesn't make sense to me. Connors won 2 USOs at 30 and 31, so quite impressive, and he started playing Slams at 18. He wasn't a Becker or Wilander who were winning Slams at 17. He was 21 when he won his 1st. He was a freak though and made a USO SF at 39.

Why did Novak lose so many GS Finals in New York to Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka ? That just sucks man.... He was a damn loser in all those matches.... it is just not impressive.. He lost more than he won, except Lendl there is nobody with such a performance in finals his peak years..... thats why people are finding it hard to digest his US opens late in 30s and they perceive it as vulturing.
Look I am not gonna get into calling slams won in 30s as vulturing but peak performance is also very important you know, Novak just doesnt have it at USO, so he should not be hyped a lot even if he wins over mugvedev or whoever that is... so weak cucks...

Tell me which teenager won a slam. Alcaraz won a slam where Djokovic was banned. He was already not a teenager when he won Wimbledon. And he is only 1 player.

80s had wilander Becker Edberg chang so many more. All the records got set then.

It didn't take much time to get to the top in 70s/80s.

Alcaraz won, thats enough. Alcaraz could have won french too if he had not cramped, he was close to being a teen. Plus there are other talents on the rise who could win as a teenager in future, dont think now it is impossible to win as a teen just because proper prodigies have not emerged till now. 90s gen are all abject losers, everyone knows it

Anyway, I am done arguing on this topic. You people will defend Novak as if you are being paid for it, I am not so inclined to waste my time over defending his losses....the man just is unworthy of being defended at USO after he lost so much.... period!
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Federer can never be argued over Sampras, to get "over" you need number 6, Federer failed that despite playing in an era where he enjoyed greater longevity. You can at best put Fed on par, there is no argument for being over just because he won 5 straight ones. Sampras has beaten better quality players to win his 5 titles than Federer, much better names. Also Sampras never choked at US Open, had it not been for his injury in 1994 then he would be having 6 titles.
Same (or even more) with 99. Pete was on fire at Los Angeles, Cincinnati and later at the YEC. No way Agassi beats him at the Open in 99.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Yea another example would be FO 2008, only an idiot would think that this final added anyone to Fed's legacy and that it would not have been better to lose earlier. Same as Nadal-Novak AO19. This might be a little different as he finished YE#1, so as long as he does not lose early enough to ruin that, ab early loss instead of being humiliated in the final would have been way better.

Exactly

French Open 2008 cost Federer an additional wimbledon too and ruined his legacy.... but as per bean counting crowd runners ups also should be counted as some feather in cap, LOL.

Same (or even more) with 99. Pete was on fire at Los Angeles, Cincinnati and later at the YEC. No way Agassi beats him at the Open in 99.

Pete should be at 7 US opens.... looks good for someone of his stature... would have been so apt.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
I don’t think it’s really fair to rate Connors the highest when nobody else had to deal with the conditions he had. Difficult to compare.
Isn't he should get praises for this? His best was HC isn't it? He lost twice in clay conditions won 1. Still share the record. As i know only during 75-78 USO played on clay earlier on grass.
Idk his worst that type of clay or grass whatever but his best is HC. I think it's impressive. In his losses Connors pushed Mcenroe to 5 twice even in 84 where he was quite old.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Why did Novak lose so many GS Finals in New York to Federer, Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka ? That just sucks man.... He was a damn loser in all those matches.... it is just not impressive.. He lost more than he won, except Lendl there is nobody with such a performance in finals his peak years..... thats why people are finding it hard to digest his US opens late in 30s and they perceive it as vulturing.
Look I am not gonna get into calling slams won in 30s as vulturing but peak performance is also very important you know, Novak just doesnt have it at USO, so he should not be hyped a lot even if he wins over mugvedev or whoever that is... so weak cucks...



Alcaraz won, thats enough. Alcaraz could have won french too if he had not cramped, he was close to being a teen. Plus there are other talents on the rise who could win as a teenager in future, dont think now it is impossible to win as a teen just because proper prodigies have not emerged till now. 90s gen are all abject losers, everyone knows it

Anyway, I am done arguing on this topic. You people will defend Novak as if you are being paid for it, I am not so inclined to waste my time over defending his losses....the man just is unworthy of being defended at USO after he lost so much.... period!
Are there guys who will win slams in teenage rn?

Who are these? Are you sure. I see Raz benefitting from covid era plus him being physically freak like Nadal. No one else is close.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well Djokovic 2016 was a bigger scalp when he was dominating and holding 2 Slams than he was in 2008 and especially 2007. I'm not sure how it's calculated though but he does usually have the formulas somewhere on the site.
Well, yes, sure, but USO 2016 Djokovic wasn't a bigger scalp than 2007-2008 Djokovic.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Isn't he should get praises for this? His best was HC isn't it? He lost twice in clay conditions won 1. Still share the record. As i know only during 75-78 USO played on clay earlier on grass.
Idk his worst that type of clay or grass whatever but his best is HC. I think it's impressive.
Not necessarily because no other players have had a chance to prove themselves in such conditions. Apples to oranges.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Not necessarily because no other players have had a chance to prove themselves in such conditions. Apples to oranges.
That won't give him extra points imho. Imagine Nadal would have had those conditions, he would easily have won more than five and depending on at what time in his career it was on grass also have won it at three different conditions.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Not necessarily because no other players have had a chance to prove themselves in such conditions. Apples to oranges.
True. This is similar to saying Federer had more chance to win on outdoor and indoor hard ATP finals so he is ahead.

Connors has a unique record because not many players were at the top of tennis when surfaces changed 3 times. He was.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Not necessarily because no other players have had a chance to prove themselves in such conditions. Apples to oranges.
I still didn't understand wouldn't it be better had he played on Hard court those years for himself? I don't think he is even close on HC to Clay or Grass. Btw obviously i'm not his fan just going by logic.

Oh okay i got this if you say it shouldn't make him better. But then i say had 74-78 played all on HC wouldn't it be clearly better for him. So in the end i'm saying he could have won more than 5 as he was the best player during these years and certainly on HC.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
That won't give him extra points imho. Imagine Nadal would have had those conditions, he would easily have won more than five and depending on at what time in his career it was on grass also have won it at three different conditions.
The thing is those were not his preferred conditions.
Exactly

French Open 2008 cost Federer an additional wimbledon too and ruined his legacy.... but as per bean counting crowd runners ups also should be counted as some feather in cap, LOL.



Pete should be at 7 US opens.... looks good for someone of his stature... would have been so apt.
Why this apply to Sampras but when we mention Nadal people just clearly dismiss anything. Due to him being much better on clay why? Also which year other than 99 he didn't play?

Nadal with Mcenroe is also impressive with their Win% in final. Not saying they are best obviously they are not but still great. Nadal only lost to best Djokovic at USO.

For me the only reason Nadal didn't reach more finals during last decade is because he missed many times when his form was good.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
The thing is those were not his preferred conditions.
He was not bad. In 1974 he got a quite easy draw on grass and in the three years it was on clay he won once and reached two more finals so it is not that he was a mug there. Har-tru suited him way better than red clay. So the four years where it was not played on HC, he won twice and reached the finals in the other two. Can hardly get any better. He could maybe have won three, had they been played on HC but I do not see him winning all four.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 765728

Guest
Federer was very close too actually. Winning 5 in a row is a massive dominance and losing the 6th against Delpo. Too bad for him though not coming close to win after 2009.
Outside of 2015 he wasn't a factor since 2011.
Didn’t Federer have the best chance since he was the closest to come to 6?
I see your point, technically he was closer than the other two. What I meant is that he wasn't affected by some unexpected/extraordinary factors, but was rather outplayed solely by his opponents.

Sampras had a monstrous season in 1994 until he got injured, was at his physical peak and in the form of his life, winning AO, the Sunshine Double, Rome, Wimbledon and several other titles. Plus he was the defending champion at the USO, so it's hard to see him losing this title - Federer never experienced anything similar (imagine him not being able to compete well enough at the USO 2005).
In 1999, he was playing some of his best tennis during that summer, beating Agassi (#1 player in the world) left and right, and run at Cincinnati was particularly impressive, scoring wins over Krajicek, Agassi and Rafter (in a row) without losing a set to win the title, but then had to withdraw.

Regarding Connors, he was by far the best player on hard court on Tour since hitting his prime (1974) and had won the biggest titles on the surface more than any other player, twice at Caesars Palace (Las Vegas), twice at Washington, twice at Los Angeles and of course the first edition of the USO played on HC. It's fairly reasonable to assume that he would've won another title between 1975 and 1978. HC was his best surface anyway, suited his big, power game with a great return pretty well.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
In 1999, he was playing some of his best tennis during that summer, beating Agassi (#1 player in the world) left and right, and run at Cincinnati was particularly impressive, scoring wins over Krajicek, Agassi and Rafter (in a row) without losing a set to win the title, but then had to withdraw.
One need to watch the four matches Pete won against Andre. It is not only that Andre didn't win even one set, he looked completely helpless most of the time. Those matches were even clearer victories than the scorelines suggest. I see zero chance Pete would have lost at the USO against Agassi, save some weird upset in early rounds he wins that if healthy.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I see your point, technically he was closer than the other two. What I meant is that he wasn't affected by some unexpected/extraordinary factors, but was rather outplayed solely by his opponents.

Sampras had a monstrous season in 1994 until he got injured, was at his physical peak and in the form of his life, winning AO, the Sunshine Double, Rome, Wimbledon and several other titles. Plus he was the defending champion at the USO, so it's hard to see him losing this title - Federer never experienced anything similar (imagine him not being able to compete well enough at the USO 2005).
In 1999, he was playing some of his best tennis during that summer, beating Agassi (#1 player in the world) left and right, and run at Cincinnati was particularly impressive, scoring wins over Krajicek, Agassi and Rafter (in a row) without losing a set to win the title, but then had to withdraw.

Regarding Connors, he was by far the best player on hard court on Tour since hitting his prime (1974) and had won the biggest titles on the surface more than any other player, twice at Caesars Palace (Las Vegas), twice at Washington, twice at Los Angeles and of course the first edition of the USO played on HC. It's fairly reasonable to assume that he would've won another title between 1975 and 1978. HC was his best surface anyway, suited his big, power game with a great return pretty well.
Ok, but what about 1997?
 
Top