Relying on memory regarding S. Orange on red clay...maybe it was Har-Tru.....perhaps I'll drive over and see! I suppose the only way some people will be satisfied is if the red clay was dug up from Europe and moved to the US. If you look at the QF thru Finals during those 3 years of the USO, it's obvious tipped in favor of the European clay players, as you point out. That was one of the criticisms here in the US, actually (why install a surface that works against US players?). But, it's still clay, any way you cut it....even if it is a bit faster than the red stuff. To claim otherwise or somehow use that to devalue Connors wins on Har-Tru is a bit silly. But, when it was hot and dry in Paris, seemed to me that the surface there played much faster, more like the green stuff under those conditions. Again, all visual observations here.
I've never been to the tournament site. Perhaps they have red clay there somewhere, but the multiple finals I saw on PBS in thelate 70s and early 80s were definitely green clay. I've been saying har tru because when I see green clay in the US, that is what I think of. The tournament was originally on grass, btw, and switched to clay in the mid 70s. I can specifically remember seeing Clerc beat Mcenroe badly in one final.
From the mid 70s, when I started watching, Indy was green clay. I don't remember those Connors passages, but I think it's just a case of one har tru court playing faster or slower than another. All hard courts don't play the same speed. All indoor supreme courts didn't play the same speed. But I believe that Indy and US Open 75-77 were played on essentially the same surface.
I never claimed that har tru is the same as red clay. My claim is that plays close enough to it that the same type of players were winning on it as were winning on the red clay. S/V players are generally not winning on it or going deep in the majors. Obviously, there were exceptions. John Alexander, Gerulaitis, Pecci, but they had success on both. It's not like they only did well on har tru. Bottom line, I believe that with the amount of titles Connors had on har tru, that he certainly would have won at least some titles on red clay if he played their circuit regularly. And I think he could have possibly pulled off a French if he hadn't skipped it those 5 years. I said possibly. I wouldn't have called him the favorite. Wouldn't have called him a longshot either.
Is the 11 instead of 3 French Opens referring to me? I never said he only played there 3 times. I said, in his prime, the most Europeon red clay tournaments he played was . 2 warmups and the French. Most years it was 1 or none.
Again, in his prime. He played several early on, 72 and 73. In 89, he played 4 or 5 red clay tournaments leading up to the French. Did very poorly in all of them. At the time, I remember wondering what he was doing. At 36 you decide to play the entire spring circuit?
Anyway, my point stands. In his prime years, when he was having all this har tru success, when he'd be the most likely to win on red clay, he wasn't playing much on it.
I did forget about Houston,though. He played there at least once or twice. Panatta beat him there one year. Maybe 1977 and maybe in the first round.