Did Connors Loss to Ashe at Wimbledon 1975 Negatively Impact The Rest of His Career?

[CHillTennis]

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that when Jimmy Connors lost the 1975 Wimbledon Final to Arthur Ashe, it had a way of spilling over into the rest of his career.

Never again would he have a season that was as brilliant as the one that he had experienced the year before.

Connors' aura of invincibility, was forever erased from the results of this match. Because Arthur Ashe was able to expose a gaping weakness in Jimmy's game.

Jimmy Connors did not like to generate pace off of his forehand.

When Arthur Ashe played him in the finals of Wimbledon, he routinely pulled Connors forward by giving him balls that had no pace.

It makes me wonder about what Connors' career might have been like, if he'd faced Bjorn Borg or Tony Roche in the finals (instead of Arthur Ashe.)

 

[urban]

At least is was a big surprise. Connors played probably his best Wimbledon that year 1975, miles better than 1974. He went through a tough draw like hot butter. H dismissed good grass players like Amritaij and Ramirez, who had a similar smooth game as Ashe, in straight sets. In his semi with Roscoe Tanner he was devastating, cracking the Tanner bombs back with fervor. People like Dan Maskell compared his performance to that of Vines 1932. Somehow Ashe showed the way to beat Connors, returning his relatively weak service and exposing his low forehand. Its also to be reckoned, that Ashe served very well and varied in this final, and his forehand volley, normally his weakness, worked well that day.

 

[buscemi]

How do you factor in Connors already having lost to Newcombe in the Australian Open final earlier in the year?

 

[Mustard]

How do you factor in Connors already having lost to Newcombe in the Australian Open final earlier in the year?

An excellent result for Newcombe between the top 2 players in the world in the 1975 Australian Open final (Newcombe won 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 7-6), after they had somehow avoided each other throughout 1974. However, Connors avenged this loss a few months later in a big money exhibition match in Las Vegas that Connors won 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 6-4. Connors also beat Laver in another exhibition 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 7-5.

The 1975 Wimbledon final result was a huge surprise, despite Ashe having recently won the WCT Finals in Dallas, and it exposed Connors' weakness to soft, angled shots where he'd have to generate his own pace. What it did was shatter the invincibility factor that Connors had before that final, even though Connors still remained pretty formidable for lots of years afterwards.

 

[jrepac]

I don't think Jimmy's mind worked that way. Every day was a new day for him. Didn't matter if he was 20 or 40yrs old, he was going to play to the best of his ability that day. If he didn't, I think he would have tossed in the towel by 1980 when Borg was ascendant and Mac was surpassing him. He did not and rebounded strongly in '82 with a couple more solid years after that. That Ashe strategy is a bit overdone and we know Ashe never beat him again after that. Plus, it was not so easy to execute to such a degree that you'd win a match against him. However, the general tactic of taking pace off the ball was the way to go (as Lendl learned as well)

 

[Mustard]

I don't think Jimmy's mind worked that way. Every day was a new day for him. Didn't matter if he was 20 or 40yrs old, he was going to play to the best of his ability that day. If he didn't, I think he would have tossed in the towel by 1980 when Borg was ascendant and Mac was surpassing him. He did not and rebounded strongly in '82 with a couple more solid years after that. That Ashe strategy is a bit overdone and we know Ashe never beat him again after that. Plus, it was not so easy to execute to such a degree that you'd win a match against him. However, the general tactic of taking pace off the ball was the way to go (as Lendl learned as well)

It was more about how other players viewed Connors after the 1975 Wimbledon final. Connors loved the fight, the challenge, the battle, the war, both before and after that match. I believe Tanner was the one player, other than Newcombe, who had beaten Connors all year before 1975 Wimbledon, and then Connors battered Tanner in the Wimbledon semi final. Tanner said that he briefly tried some of what Ashe had been suggesting as a strategy, but it didn't work, so he went back to his usual game, which didn't do much better. Ashe, in the other semi final, needed a tough 5-setter to beat Roche, while Connors had never seemed more dominant in the tennis world than at that moment. Then the final happened, and not only did Ashe win as a big underdog, but he changed the way he usually played, using a lot of soft balls and angled shots that would force Connors to run a lot and to generate his own pace, which Connors clearly found a lot tougher to deal with compared to when his opponent gave him a load of power shots. Lendl later learned the same, of course. Connors, in the 1975 Wimbledon final, did win the third set and go 3-0 up in the fourth set, so he was threatening to turn it all around and bring Ashe's strategy down like a pack of cards waiting to fall down, but Ashe reasserted his control after that.

From Connors' point of view, a terrible result, but move on to the next match, but other players never felt quite as scared of him again, even if Connors always remained one of the best in tennis for well over a decade after that.

 

[WCT]

I do think it did effect how other players viewed him. Some of his aura of invincibility was gone. Now, I don't think it was some huge detriment either. It didn't greatly damage his career. It's not like Seles with the knifing. Still, I do think it might have kept him from an even greater career.

 

[BTURNER]

I don't think Jimmy's mind worked that way. Every day was a new day for him. Didn't matter if he was 20 or 40yrs old, he was going to play to the best of his ability that day. If he didn't, I think he would have tossed in the towel by 1980 when Borg was ascendant and Mac was surpassing him. He did not and rebounded strongly in '82 with a couple more solid years after that. That Ashe strategy is a bit overdone and we know Ashe never beat him again after that. Plus, it was not so easy to execute to such a degree that you'd win a match against him. However, the general tactic of taking pace off the ball was the way to go (as Lendl learned as well)

Yes, I agree here. . It seemed to me, what was surprising was that Ashe ( one of the harder hitters of his day) would be able to sustain that set of softball tactics consistently throughout a 3 of 5 setter, not so much that they might be effective against Connors. Ashe was no Brad Gilbert by temperament or stroke. Its sure not the game plan that Connors would have practiced for, before than final and Jimmy had such small margin for error with those flat strokes. Does anyone happen to recall whether those courts were dry or soggy that day? I would think that dry conditions would be ideal to Jimmys ground game while soggy lawn and heavy tennis balls, would be problematic.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I would think that dry conditions would be ideal to Jimmys ground game while soggy lawn and heavy tennis balls, would be problematic.

Overcast day but no rain.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

In 2015 on the match's 40th anniversary, the ATP published a terrific three-part story analysing this match, which covers many of the issues OP raised. Highly recommended reading.

Arthur Ashe's Wimbledon Win Over Jimmy Connors, 45 Years On | ATP Tour | Tennis

On Saturday, 5 July 1975, Arthur Ashe beat Jimmy Connors for the 1975 Wimbledon title. With insight from Ashe's closest friends, James Buddell recounts one of the most significant wins in the sport's history.

www.atptour.com

Arthur Ashe: 40 Years On... (Part 2) | ATP Tour | Tennis

On Saturday, 5 July 1975, Arthur Ashe recorded his greatest triumph on a tennis court. With exclusive insight from his closest friends, James Buddell of ATPWorldTour.com recounts how Ashe lifted the Wimbledon trophy — one of the most significant wins in the sport’s history.

www.atptour.com

Remembering Arthur Ashe: 40 Years On... (Part 3) | ATP Tour | Tennis

On Saturday, 5 July 1975, Arthur Ashe recorded his greatest triumph on a tennis court. With exclusive insight from his closest friends, James Buddell of ATPWorldTour.com recounts how Ashe lifted the Wimbledon trophy — one of the most significant wins in the sport’s history.

www.atptour.com

 

[PDJ]

Yes, I agree here. . It seemed to me, what was surprising was that Ashe ( one of the harder hitters of his day) would be able to sustain that set of softball tactics consistently throughout a 3 of 5 setter, not so much that they might be effective against Connors. Ashe was no Brad Gilbert by temperament or stroke. Its sure not the game plan that Connors would have practiced for, before than final and Jimmy had such small margin for error with those flat strokes. Does anyone happen to recall whether those courts were dry or soggy that day? I would think that dry conditions would be ideal to Jimmys ground game while soggy lawn and heavy tennis balls, would be problematic.

My grandparents were there for the final and my grandmother told me years later that it was a damp day and not warm.
This might explain Connors wearing his sleeveless jumper.

 

[sandy mayer]

I don't think the Ashe loss was that damaging to Connors' career. It meant one fewer Wimbledon title and the loss of the number one ranking in 75 (in the eyes of the experts) but I don't think it cost Connors anything else.

Connors never dominated again the way he did in 74 but that was because of the rise of Borg and McEnroe. The reason they had success against Connors wasn't due to using Ashe's strategy. McEnroe played his normal game against Connors. Borg said he tried the Ashe strategy and it didn't work. He used his big serve and superior consistency to beat Connors. He could hit hard enough to keep up with Connors but with his topspin he had more margin for error and he could outsteady him.

Let's look at the years 75-84 for Connors
75 Ashe stops Connors being world number 1
76 Connors is world number 1
77 Borg stops Connors being world number 1 (in the eyes of the experts) by beating him at Wimbledon. Vilas beats Connors at Forest Hills but on clay that is no big shock (I don't believe Connors loses because he lost to Ashe in 75)
78 If not for Borg Connors would be clear number 1
79 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
80 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
81 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
82 Connors is number 1 in the eyes of the experts and outdoes McEnroe
83 Connors loses to Curren at Wimbledon who certainly doesn't use Ashe's strategy. McEnroe beats Connors to number 1. It's hard to say who would be number 1 if not for McEnroe. It would be between Lendl, Wilander and Connors.
84 McEnroe dominates. If there was no McEnroe the fight for number 1 would be between Lendl and Connors

If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would have been number 1 for sure in 78-81, and possibly 77, 83 and 84. Without Borg and McEnroe Connors would have won Wimbledon in 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 84, and Flushing Meadows in 79, 80, 81, and possibly 84. That would leave Connors with at least 8 Wimbledon titles and 8 US Open titles. If Connors had played all the Australian and French Opens between 76 and 84 without Borg and McEnroe present he would have won a load of Australian Opens and I think he would have cracked the French at least once.

Connors would be considered the GOAT if Borg and Mac didn't exist, regardless of Ashe's big win in 75.

If in 74 peak Borg and Mac were around Connors wouldn't have dominated that year. I'm not knocking Connors when I say this. He also deprived Borg and Mac of plenty of titles.

My point is don't over-estimate the importance of Ashe's win. It wasn't a big turning point in tennis history besides increasing Ashe's greatness.

 

[hoodjem]

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that when Jimmy Connors lost the 1975 Wimbledon Final to Arthur Ashe, it had a way of spilling over into the rest of his career.

Never again would he have a season that was as brilliant as the one that he had experienced the year before.

A three-slam year is pretty hard to beat.
But these were his first three major titles, and he won five after--but more spread out.

 

[WCT]

I don't think the Ashe loss was that damaging to Connors' career. It meant one fewer Wimbledon title and the loss of the number one ranking in 75 (in the eyes of the experts) but I don't think it cost Connors anything else.

Connors never dominated again the way he did in 74 but that was because of the rise of Borg and McEnroe. The reason they had success against Connors wasn't due to using Ashe's strategy. McEnroe played his normal game against Connors. Borg said he tried the Ashe strategy and it didn't work. He used his big serve and superior consistency to beat Connors. He could hit hard enough to keep up with Connors but with his topspin he had more margin for error and he could outsteady him.

Let's look at the years 75-84 for Connors
75 Ashe stops Connors being world number 1
76 Connors is world number 1
77 Borg stops Connors being world number 1 (in the eyes of the experts) by beating him at Wimbledon. Vilas beats Connors at Forest Hills but on clay that is no big shock (I don't believe Connors loses because he lost to Ashe in 75)
78 If not for Borg Connors would be clear number 1
79 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
80 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
81 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
82 Connors is number 1 in the eyes of the experts and outdoes McEnroe
83 Connors loses to Curren at Wimbledon who certainly doesn't use Ashe's strategy. McEnroe beats Connors to number 1. It's hard to say who would be number 1 if not for McEnroe. It would be between Lendl, Wilander and Connors.
84 McEnroe dominates. If there was no McEnroe the fight for number 1 would be between Lendl and Connors

If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would have been number 1 for sure in 78-81, and possibly 77, 83 and 84. Without Borg and McEnroe Connors would have won Wimbledon in 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 84, and Flushing Meadows in 79, 80, 81, and possibly 84. That would leave Connors with at least 8 Wimbledon titles and 8 US Open titles. If Connors had played all the Australian and French Opens between 76 and 84 without Borg and McEnroe present he would have won a load of Australian Opens and I think he would have cracked the French at least once.

Connors would be considered the GOAT if Borg and Mac didn't exist, regardless of Ashe's big win in 75.

If in 74 peak Borg and Mac were around Connors wouldn't have dominated that year. I'm not knocking Connors when I say this. He also deprived Borg and Mac of plenty of titles.

My point is don't over-estimate the importance of Ashe's win. It wasn't a big turning point in tennis history besides increasing Ashe's greatness.

All valid arguments. While I think it might have hindered it a bit in that it diminished his aura, that can be argued. Like someone else said, what about Newcombe? He beat him first. IMO, at best it was marginal, a bit. We are not talking Seles here. I don't think the Ashe loss cost him 5 or 6 GS titles.

 

[Mustard]

All valid arguments. While I think it might have hindered it a bit in that it diminished his aura, that can be argued. Like someone else said, what about Newcombe? He beat him first. IMO, at best it was marginal, a bit. We are not talking Seles here. I don't think the Ashe loss cost him 5 or 6 GS titles.

Newcombe was world number 2 and only a slight underdog going into the 1975 Australian Open final, and they hadn't met at all throughout 1974. Newcombe had intended to skip the tournament, until he heard that Connors was heading down there to defend his title. It had really bugged Newcombe that his two losses to Rosewall at Wimbledon and the US Open had prevented a possible meeting with Connors in 1974. The 1975 Australian Open final was a great match and played in a great spirit. I'm surprised that Connors never played the event again, as the Aussie crowd seemed to really like him.

The 1975 Wimbledon narrative was very different. Connors had never looked more dominant. He had only lost once since the Australian Open final (to Tanner in Nottingham), had won at least 6 tournaments since losing the Australian Open final, had won 2 big money exhibition matches against Laver and Newcombe in Las Vegas, and had an aura of invincibility. Ashe was given very little chance, despite being a former major winner and the 1975 WCT Finals winner in Dallas. Ashe's Wimbledon semi final win over Roche (a tough 5-setter, compared to Connors blitzing Tanner) only seemed to confirm that.

 

[jrepac]

I don't think the Ashe loss was that damaging to Connors' career. It meant one fewer Wimbledon title and the loss of the number one ranking in 75 (in the eyes of the experts) but I don't think it cost Connors anything else.

Connors never dominated again the way he did in 74 but that was because of the rise of Borg and McEnroe. The reason they had success against Connors wasn't due to using Ashe's strategy. McEnroe played his normal game against Connors. Borg said he tried the Ashe strategy and it didn't work. He used his big serve and superior consistency to beat Connors. He could hit hard enough to keep up with Connors but with his topspin he had more margin for error and he could outsteady him.

Let's look at the years 75-84 for Connors
75 Ashe stops Connors being world number 1
76 Connors is world number 1
77 Borg stops Connors being world number 1 (in the eyes of the experts) by beating him at Wimbledon. Vilas beats Connors at Forest Hills but on clay that is no big shock (I don't believe Connors loses because he lost to Ashe in 75)
78 If not for Borg Connors would be clear number 1
79 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
80 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
81 If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would be number 1
82 Connors is number 1 in the eyes of the experts and outdoes McEnroe
83 Connors loses to Curren at Wimbledon who certainly doesn't use Ashe's strategy. McEnroe beats Connors to number 1. It's hard to say who would be number 1 if not for McEnroe. It would be between Lendl, Wilander and Connors.
84 McEnroe dominates. If there was no McEnroe the fight for number 1 would be between Lendl and Connors

If not for Borg and McEnroe Connors would have been number 1 for sure in 78-81, and possibly 77, 83 and 84. Without Borg and McEnroe Connors would have won Wimbledon in 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 84, and Flushing Meadows in 79, 80, 81, and possibly 84. That would leave Connors with at least 8 Wimbledon titles and 8 US Open titles. If Connors had played all the Australian and French Opens between 76 and 84 without Borg and McEnroe present he would have won a load of Australian Opens and I think he would have cracked the French at least once.

Connors would be considered the GOAT if Borg and Mac didn't exist, regardless of Ashe's big win in 75.

If in 74 peak Borg and Mac were around Connors wouldn't have dominated that year. I'm not knocking Connors when I say this. He also deprived Borg and Mac of plenty of titles.

My point is don't over-estimate the importance of Ashe's win. It wasn't a big turning point in tennis history besides increasing Ashe's greatness.

I think '83 is a pretty unusual year...Connors spent a fair amount of time at #1...through Wimbledon, I believe. Before that, you have Noah breaking through at the French. So, Mac wins W and takes over and is looking pretty much like a lock. But Wilander and Lendl are also both having excellent seasons, Connors kind of meh, UNTIL he wins the USO of course. So, spin the bottle on who is #1 for '83.

 

[WCT]

Newcombe was world number 2 and only a slight underdog going into the 1975 Australian Open final, and they hadn't met at all throughout 1974. Newcombe had intended to skip the tournament, until he heard that Connors was heading down there to defend his title. It had really bugged Newcombe that his two losses to Rosewall at Wimbledon and the US Open had prevented a possible meeting with Connors in 1974. The 1975 Australian Open final was a great match and played in a great spirit. I'm surprised that Connors never played the event again, as the Aussie crowd seemed to really like him.

The 1975 Wimbledon narrative was very different. Connors had never looked more dominant. He had only lost once since the Australian Open final (to Tanner in Nottingham), had won at least 6 tournaments since losing the Australian Open final, had won 2 big money exhibition matches against Laver and Newcombe in Las Vegas, and had an aura of invincibility. Ashe was given very little chance, despite being a former major winner and the 1975 WCT Finals winner in Dallas. Ashe's Wimbledon semi final win over Roche (a tough 5-setter, compared to Connors blitzing Tanner) only seemed to confirm that.

Absolutely right about Wimbledon. There was an aura the way he sailed through that tournament. Heavy, heavy favorite going into that final.

Connors is an enigma in that he was a better sport early. He was a very gracious loser to Newcombe and Orantes. In the post match ceremony Newcombe praises him. Says he showed him that he was a champion, And it was because of his behavior. Mind you, he wasn't too happy with him when Connors entered the Denver tournament that Newcombe was already entered. This was not long before the challenge match and Newcombe didn't think they should play each other before then.

The thing with the Australian back then is you had to be willing to give up the holidays. You were going to be there across Christmas and New Years. Connors was a relatively late entry in 75. It's why Newcombe had no plans to play. It was only after they told him that Connors was playing that he changed his mind. He wasn't really in the best shape for the tournament. I think he had a few weeks to prepare.

But he won. IIRC, Connors was entered in 84, but withdrew. That's the only year I know of him planning on going there again. I'm sure if Borg had gone for the grand slam in 78-80 he would have entered. I'll follow him to the ends of the earth. I believe that was the quote.

 

[jrepac]

Absolutely right about Wimbledon. There was an aura the way he sailed through that tournament. Heavy, heavy favorite going into that final.

Connors is an enigma in that he was a better sport early. He was a very gracious loser to Newcombe and Orantes. In the post match ceremony Newcombe praises him. Says he showed him that he was a champion, And it was because of his behavior. Mind you, he wasn't too happy with him when Connors entered the Denver tournament that Newcombe was already entered. This was not long before the challenge match and Newcombe didn't think they should play each other before then.

The thing with the Australian back then is you had to be willing to give up the holidays. You were going to be there across Christmas and New Years. Connors was a relatively late entry in 75. It's why Newcombe had no plans to play. It was only after they told him that Connors was playing that he changed his mind. He wasn't really in the best shape for the tournament. I think he had a few weeks to prepare.

But he won. IIRC, Connors was entered in 84, but withdrew. That's the only year I know of him planning on going there again. I'm sure if Borg had gone for the grand slam in 78-80 he would have entered. I'll follow him to the ends of the earth. I believe that was the quote.

Yeah, I think it was '83 that Jimmy was supposed to play the AO, then changed his mind? End of '84 was the Davis cup debacle and his wife was having a baby. Having the event in December, which interfered with the holidays was always pretty dumb

 

[Mustard]

Yeah, I think it was '83 that Jimmy was supposed to play the AO, then changed his mind? End of '84 was the Davis cup debacle and his wife was having a baby. Having the event in December, which interfered with the holidays was always pretty dumb

The Australian Open was in a pretty good slot by 1982-1985, i.e. late November to mid December, so over way before Christmas/New Year. In 1984, the Davis Cup final took place on indoor clay in Gothenburg, Sweden, from 16-18 December 1984, a week after the Australian Open had finished, but no ideal preparation for any of those participants obviously.

The dates of the Australian Open from 1969-1988 below. The event was held at Kooyong, Melbourne from 1972-1987:

1969 (Brisbane): 20-27 January 1969 (the first leg of Rod Laver's Grand Slam in Brisbane)
1970 (Sydney): 19-27 January 1970 (a much weaker field than the 1970 Dunlop Sydney Open from 16-22 March 1970, where Laver beat Rosewall in the final)
1971 (Sydney): 7-14 March 1971 (the date and the strong field suggests that the 1971 Australian Open effectively became the 1971 Dunlop Sydney Open)
1972 (Kooyong, Melbourne): 26 December 1971 - 3 January 1972 (tournament moves to Kooyong, Melbourne, where it stays up to 1987)
1973: 26 December 1972 - 1 January 1973
1974: 26 December 1973 - 1 January 1974
1975: 21 December 1974 - 1 January 1975
1976: 26 December 1975 - 4 January 1976
1977 (Jan): 3-9 January 1977 (a much better slot for Roscoe Tanner's win)
1977 (Dec): 19 December 1977 - 31 December 1977
1978: 25 December 1978 - 3 January 1979 (interestingly, the 1978 tournament finished in January 1979)
1979: 24 December 1979 - 2 January 1980 (again, the 1979 tournament finished in January 1980)
1980: 26 December 1980 - 4 January 1981 (even more bizarre this time with the January 1981 end, while the women's event was 24-30 November 1980)
1981: 21 December 1981 - 3 January 1982 (the last of the bizarre end dates)
1982: 29 November 1982 - 13 December 1982
1983: 29 November 1983 - 11 December 1983
1984: 26 November 1984 - 9 December 1984
1985: 25 November 1985 - 8 December 1985
1986: No Tournament held
1987: 12-25 January 1987
1988 (move to Flinders Park, Melbourne): 11-24 January 1988

The Australian Open has stayed around the 1987-88 slot ever since, sometimes finishing in early February. The only exception was the 2021 event being on 8-21 February 2021 due to Covid, taking place 3 weeks later than the originally planned 18-31 January slot.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that when Jimmy Connors lost the 1975 Wimbledon Final to Arthur Ashe, it had a way of spilling over into the rest of his career.

Never again would he have a season that was as brilliant as the one that he had experienced the year before.

Connors' aura of invincibility, was forever erased from the results of this match. Because Arthur Ashe was able to expose a gaping weakness in Jimmy's game.

Jimmy Connors did not like to generate pace off of his forehand.

When Arthur Ashe played him in the finals of Wimbledon, he routinely pulled Connors forward by giving him balls that had no pace.

It makes me wonder about what Connors' career might have been like, if he'd faced Bjorn Borg or Tony Roche in the finals (instead of Arthur Ashe.)

Perhaps, but the competition also got a whole lot stronger as Borg matured and McEnroe/Lendl developed.

 

[Gizo]

I remember Pancho Segura's comments after the 1974 Wimbledon final 'Jimmy is ruthless, he is a killer. He has the heart of a lion. He will dominate the game. He will not win Wimbledon one time, he will win 10 times'. Now while of course I doubt many people thought he win it 'quite' so many times, it was widely thought that he would dominate indefinitely.

I agree that he was outstanding en-route to the 1975 final, playing far better tennis than he did en-route to the 1974 and him defending his title was considered to be a foregone conclusion - then again there are quite a few examples of majors on both the men's and women's side in which the player that struggled a lot more en-route has beaten the player that had a more dominant passage there.

I do think that Connors, while of course he still was a fighter and competed hard on the court, didn't work and train quite so hard off it 1975 - it seemed that he slacked off at least a bit after winning the big money challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe in Vegas earlier in the year. He basked in the spotlight and was enjoying life off court (and he was young after all). Several opponents adjusted more to his game in terms of feeding him less pace, with him then adjusting and adapting as he rebounded with a strong year in 1976 - his win at Philly in early 1976 was a very big deal with the headline 'the kid is back'.

1974-1976 could have been an interrupted 'Connors era', though he just came up short in so many big matches in 1975, including vs. Ramirez in a crucial Davis Cup 5th rubber at the end of the year.

 

[sandy mayer]

I remember Pancho Segura's comments after the 1974 Wimbledon final 'Jimmy is ruthless, he is a killer. He has the heart of a lion. He will dominate the game. He will not win Wimbledon one time, he will win 10 times'. Now while of course I doubt many people thought he win it 'quite' so many times, it was widely thought that he would dominate indefinitely.

I agree that he was outstanding en-route to the 1975 final, playing far better tennis than he did en-route to the 1974 and him defending his title was considered to be a foregone conclusion - then again there are quite a few examples of majors on both the men's and women's side in which the player that struggled a lot more en-route has beaten the player that had a more dominant passage there.

I do think that Connors, while of course he still was a fighter and competed hard on the court, didn't work and train quite so hard off it 1975 - it seemed that he slacked off at least a bit after winning the big money challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe in Vegas earlier in the year. He basked in the spotlight and was enjoying life off court (and he was young after all). Several opponents adjusted more to his game in terms of feeding him less pace, with him then adjusting and adapting as he rebounded with a strong year in 1976 - his win at Philly in early 1976 was a very big deal with the headline 'the kid is back'.

1974-1976 could have been an interrupted 'Connors era', though he just came up short in so many big matches in 1975, including vs. Ramirez in a crucial Davis Cup 5th rubber at the end of the year.

When Segura made this prediction Borg was nowhere near the grass court player he became, and McEnroe wasn't around yet. If Borg hadn't improved his serve, and Mac didn't exist Segura's prediction would have been near right. Connors would have won Wimbledon about 8 times. Segura probably assumed the competition wouldn't get tougher than it was in 74.

I don't think Connors played Davis Cup in 75. Wikipedia says Ramirez beat Smith and Tanner


1975 Davis Cup Americas Zone - Wikipedia

 

[Gizo]

When Segura made this prediction Borg was nowhere near the grass court player he became, and McEnroe wasn't around yet. If Borg hadn't improved his serve, and Mac didn't exist Segura's prediction would have been near right. Connors would have won Wimbledon about 8 times. Segura probably assumed the competition wouldn't get tougher than it was in 74.

I don't think Connors played Davis Cup in 75. Wikipedia says Ramirez beat Smith and Tanner


1975 Davis Cup Americas Zone - Wikipedia

The USA also played Mexico in the 1976 Americas Zone tie but held in December 1975, just before Christmas, with Connors struggling past Marcello Lara in 5 sets and then losing in 4 sets to Ramirez in the crucial 5th rubber which was played over 2 days (played was stopped due to darkness midway through the 4th set and resumed the next day with Ramirez finishing off the job). So Ramirez and Mexico beat the US twice within the 1975 calendar year - he enjoyed singles wins vs. Smith, Tanner, his doubles partner Gottfried (who had the upper hand in their h2h though) and Connors, plus 2 wins vs. Stockton in doubles rubbers - very nice going.

On the back of those 3 defeats in major finals earlier in the year, that was also considered to be another defeat for Connors in a big / important match (especially with the Davis Cup such a big deal then - Connors' defeats to Ramirez and Wilander seem more a lot more significant than any of his wins in the competition).

Segura was grandstanding and proud of his boy, and there's no need to focus too much on exact numbers in terms of titles, but on the back of his 1974 season and then incredibly dominant run to the final in 1975 playing such high quality tennis (and better tennis compared to 1974), at that point it certainly seemed like Connors was going to become a dominant force at Wimbledon (some like 3 titles in 4 years like Mac won wouldn't have seemed unrealistic or ambitious at that stage), and certainly not wait another 7 years to win his 2nd title there.

 

[urban]

A question going back to 1976. Some people including me, who saw Connors losing to Tanner at Wimbledon that year 1976, thought, that he looked a bit bulky, not 100% fit. Could it be or is it a memory lapse?

 

[Mustard]

I don't think Connors played Davis Cup in 75. Wikipedia says Ramirez beat Smith and Tanner

Connors played 2 Davis Cup ties in 1975, the second tie seeing Connors lose to Ramirez in 4 sets as Mexico won. Tony Trabert was US Davis Cup captain at this time. Years later, new captain Arthur Ashe talked Connors into playing one tie at home in 1981 against Czechoslovakia with the chance of a match against Lendl, but the Connors vs. Lendl match was a dead rubber when it happened, with Connors winning. And Ashe later talked Connors into giving full dedication to Davis Cup for 1 year, i.e. 1984, where they reached the final but it ended in the Gothenburg fallout. Connors never played any other Davis Cup ties except the two in 1975, one in 1981 and the four in 1984. John McEnroe, by contrast, barely missed a tie, apart from his absence from the tournament in 1985 and 1986.

Connors' Davis Cup ties:

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1976-AME-PR-USA-VEN-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1976-AME-M-MEX-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1981-WG-M-USA-TCH-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-USA-ROU-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-ARG-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-AUS-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-USA-SWE-01

It's odd that some websites now seem to say 1976 for the first 2 ties, even the link on the Davis Cup site, yet the dating on the page still says what it has for years, i.e. 1975.

 

[big ted]

i heard connors lost that ashe match becuz he was out of shape and 15lbs overweight...
and then with ashe playing with a good game plan,, it was his match to win

 

[Mustard]

i heard connors lost that ashe match becuz he was out of shape and 15lbs overweight...

At a time when Connors' dominant aura was never higher?

 

[big ted]

At a time when Connors' dominant aura was never higher?

i didnt watch tennis back then but thats what my tennis coach told me.... maybe he meant just for that tournament i dont know...
i could see how it could make sense since '74 was a great year winning 3GS titles and in '75 he won 0..
maybe he relaxed and took his foot off the peddle a little.. i remember reading in a magazine his prematch meals were steak, potatoes, and a coke..
so i think its possible.... . he does look a little chubby to me in those '75 wimbledon photos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[sandy mayer]

The USA also played Mexico in the 1976 Americas Zone tie but held in December 1975, just before Christmas, with Connors struggling past Marcello Lara in 5 sets and then losing in 4 sets to Ramirez in the crucial 5th rubber which was played over 2 days (played was stopped due to darkness midway through the 4th set and resumed the next day with Ramirez finishing off the job). So Ramirez and Mexico beat the US twice within the 1975 calendar year - he enjoyed singles wins vs. Smith, Tanner, his doubles partner Gottfried (who had the upper hand in their h2h though) and Connors, plus 2 wins vs. Stockton in doubles rubbers - very nice going.

On the back of those 3 defeats in major finals earlier in the year, that was also considered to be another defeat for Connors in a big / important match (especially with the Davis Cup such a big deal then - Connors' defeats to Ramirez and Wilander seem more a lot more significant than any of his wins in the competition).

Segura was grandstanding and proud of his boy, and there's no need to focus too much on exact numbers in terms of titles, but on the back of his 1974 season and then incredibly dominant run to the final in 1975 playing such high quality tennis (and better tennis compared to 1974), at that point it certainly seemed like Connors was going to become a dominant force at Wimbledon (some like 3 titles in 4 years like Mac won wouldn't have seemed unrealistic or ambitious at that stage), and certainly not wait another 7 years to win his 2nd title there.

Thanks for the information. I didn't know about the December 75 Davis Cup tie. I am surprised it was part of the 76 season. I don't think Connors losing on red clay to Ramirez in Mexico is a huge upset. Ramirez was a top player and strong on clay, and it was Jimbo's worst surface.
Connors could have won more titles at WImbledon for sure but he was never going to dominate with Borg's rise. Bear in mind that in 74 Connors was close to defeat at the hands of Dent and went 5 sets with Kodes. He dominated the final of 74, not the tournament.

 

[Mustard]

Ramirez in 1975 was the Italian Open champion, beating Borg, Nastase and Orantes to win that title. The Davis Cup tie later that year was at high altitude in Mexico City, so one would think that would give Connors greater chance than if it had been played in Europe or at sea level, with Connors' power shots flying through the air more. Of course, this assumes that Connors is acclimatized to the high altitude and not out of shape on this. Also, Ramirez is from Ensenada, which is at sea level.

Connors could have won more titles at WImbledon for sure but he was never going to dominate with Borg's rise. Bear in mind that in 74 Connors was close to defeat at the hands of Dent and went 5 sets with Kodes. He dominated the final of 74, not the tournament.

But Connors did dominate 1975 Wimbledon before the final much more, not dropping a set and crushing opponents.

 

[jrepac]

The Australian Open was in a pretty good slot by 1982-1985, i.e. late November to mid December, so over way before Christmas/New Year. In 1984, the Davis Cup final took place on indoor clay in Gothenburg, Sweden, from 16-18 December 1984, a week after the Australian Open had finished, but no ideal preparation for any of those participants obviously.

The dates of the Australian Open from 1969-1988 below. The event was held at Kooyong, Melbourne from 1972-1987:

1969 (Brisbane): 20-27 January 1969 (the first leg of Rod Laver's Grand Slam in Brisbane)
1970 (Sydney): 19-27 January 1970 (a much weaker field than the 1970 Dunlop Sydney Open from 16-22 March 1970, where Laver beat Rosewall in the final)
1971 (Sydney): 7-14 March 1971 (the date and the strong field suggests that the 1971 Australian Open effectively became the 1971 Dunlop Sydney Open)
1972 (Kooyong, Melbourne): 26 December 1971 - 3 January 1972 (tournament moves to Kooyong, Melbourne, where it stays up to 1987)
1973: 26 December 1972 - 1 January 1973
1974: 26 December 1973 - 1 January 1974
1975: 21 December 1974 - 1 January 1975
1976: 26 December 1975 - 4 January 1976
1977 (Jan): 3-9 January 1977 (a much better slot for Roscoe Tanner's win)
1977 (Dec): 19 December 1977 - 31 December 1977
1978: 25 December 1978 - 3 January 1979 (interestingly, the 1978 tournament finished in January 1979)
1979: 24 December 1979 - 2 January 1980 (again, the 1979 tournament finished in January 1980)
1980: 26 December 1980 - 4 January 1981 (even more bizarre this time with the January 1981 end, while the women's event was 24-30 November 1980)
1981: 21 December 1981 - 3 January 1982 (the last of the bizarre end dates)
1982: 29 November 1982 - 13 December 1982
1983: 29 November 1983 - 11 December 1983
1984: 26 November 1984 - 9 December 1984
1985: 25 November 1985 - 8 December 1985
1986: No Tournament held
1987: 12-25 January 1987
1988 (move to Flinders Park, Melbourne): 11-24 January 1988

The Australian Open has stayed around the 1987-88 slot ever since, sometimes finishing in early February. The only exception was the 2021 event being on 8-21 February 2021 due to Covid, taking place 3 weeks later than the originally planned 18-31 January slot.

Thanks for pulling....so thru '81, it pretty much crashed into the holidays. I had forgotten that it shifted late Nov while still at Kooyong. still, I think the move to January made good sense....clearly worked as we are 25 years in now...

 

[jrepac]

When Segura made this prediction Borg was nowhere near the grass court player he became, and McEnroe wasn't around yet. If Borg hadn't improved his serve, and Mac didn't exist Segura's prediction would have been near right. Connors would have won Wimbledon about 8 times. Segura probably assumed the competition wouldn't get tougher than it was in 74.

I don't think Connors played Davis Cup in 75. Wikipedia says Ramirez beat Smith and Tanner


1975 Davis Cup Americas Zone - Wikipedia

I have to agree w/you...and Connors was pretty strong at W from '74 to '85, actually...Finals, SFs and 1 QF, I believe. Perhaps he should have won in '75 and '77...he was clearly in contention. In his book Connors alluded to '75 being his 'fat and happy' year....he was enjoying stardom, gained weight, etc. Then after failing to defend at W and US in '75, he got his a## in gear in 76. I always remember reading about him being intense and hard working in practice. Whereas Mac played doubles so he wouldn't have to practice! He was that good.....

 

[jrepac]

i didnt watch tennis back then but thats what my tennis coach told me.... maybe he meant just for that tournament i dont know...
i could see how it could make sense since '74 was a great year winning 3GS titles and in '75 he won 0..
maybe he relaxed and took his foot off the peddle a little.. i remember reading in a magazine his prematch meals were steak, potatoes, and a coke..
so i think its possible.... . he does look a little chubby to me in those '75 wimbledon photos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

He was chubby! The Coke probably gave him a caffeine hit and there was some belief that eating a lot of protein was a plus for grueling athletics. Very keto friendly, eh?

 

[jrepac]

Connors played 2 Davis Cup ties in 1975, the second tie seeing Connors lose to Ramirez in 4 sets as Mexico won. Tony Trabert was US Davis Cup captain at this time. Years later, new captain Arthur Ashe talked Connors into playing one tie at home in 1981 against Czechoslovakia with the chance of a match against Lendl, but the Connors vs. Lendl match was a dead rubber when it happened, with Connors winning. And Ashe later talked Connors into giving full dedication to Davis Cup for 1 year, i.e. 1984, where they reached the final but it ended in the Gothenburg fallout. Connors never played any other Davis Cup ties except the two in 1975, one in 1981 and the four in 1984. John McEnroe, by contrast, barely missed a tie, apart from his absence from the tournament in 1985 and 1986.

Connors' Davis Cup ties:

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1976-AME-PR-USA-VEN-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1976-AME-M-MEX-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1981-WG-M-USA-TCH-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-USA-ROU-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-ARG-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-AUS-USA-01

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-1984-WG-M-USA-SWE-01

It's odd that some websites now seem to say 1976 for the first 2 ties, even the link on the Davis Cup site, yet the dating on the page still says what it has for years, i.e. 1975.

'84 was such a hot mess, as has been documented. Jimmy and Mac played great all year, managed not to kill each other and Mac/Fleming were firing on all cylinders. Then came Gothenburg. Bad court, bad timing, bad blood, bad matchups on Day One. I always felt if the order of the matches was reversed, the US would've had the momentum....not a lock to win, mind you, but Connors was not going to lose to Sundstrom, IMHO and Mac had a better shot at serving Wilander off the court.

 

[Mustard]

Thanks for pulling....so thru '81, it pretty much crashed into the holidays.

All years from 1972 to 1981, apart from the January 1977 tournament that Tanner won. And if we look at the draws, the Australian Open field was good in 1969, 1971 (when it was the Dunlop Sydney Open), Connors and Newcombe (the top 2) both played in 1975, and after that not really a decent field until 1983 when Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander all showed up. The holiday period was obviously the biggest reason for the bad fields.

January 1977 had Tanner, Vilas, Ashe and Rosewall, which was as good as it got during the 1972-1982 period apart from the Connors vs. Newcombe 1975 final.

 

[big ted]

'84 was such a hot mess, as has been documented. Jimmy and Mac played great all year, managed not to kill each other and Mac/Fleming were firing on all cylinders. Then came Gothenburg. Bad court, bad timing, bad blood, bad matchups on Day One. I always felt if the order of the matches was reversed, the US would've had the momentum....not a lock to win, mind you, but Connors was not going to lose to Sundstrom, IMHO and Mac had a better shot at serving Wilander off the court.

i heard there was alot of american drama in that '84 final.. from mac and connors having to stay on different hotel floors, connors writing F.U. to arthur ashe becuz ashe or arias or someone didnt show up on time to practice, and i think connors was having a baby on the way and swedens the last place he wanted to be....im sure mcenroe had issues too but i only know about connors' lol.. they both behaved pretty badly for standards at that time, and i think becuz of that tie, they made the US davis cup team sign some type of contract that they'd promise to behave or they couldnt play.. and they didnt go for that so DC got 2nd rate american players until agassi came along..

December 16, 1984: The day Sweden upended John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors on way to Davis Cup glory %%page%% - Tennis Majors Tennis: The day Sweden upended McEnroe and Connors on way to Davis Cup glory

 

[Mustard]

i heard there was alot of american drama in that '84 final.. from mac and connors having to stay on different hotel floors, connors writing F.U. to arthur ashe becuz ashe or arias or someone didnt show up on time to practice, and i think connors was having a baby on the way and swedens the last place he wanted to be....im sure mcenroe had issues too but i only know about connors' lol.. they both behaved pretty badly for standards at that time, and i think becuz of that tie, they made the US davis cup team sign some type of contract that they'd promise to behave or they couldnt play.. and they didnt go for that so DC got 2nd rate american players until agassi came along..

McEnroe called the 1984 Davis Cup final experience in Gothenburg the worst trip that he had ever been on. He had been having some issues with Tatum, while he and Connors were barely on speaking terms by this point. Connors' wife Patty was about to give birth to their daughter, and McEnroe said that Connors had an attitude on the trip even by his standards. Connors was waiting for hours at a hotel by himself practicing, waiting for the others to arrive, and the others' car was delayed, so Connors wrote that message to Ashe in the clay and left the hotel to stay somewhere else. McEnroe said his relationship with doubles partner Fleming at the time was near its worst ever, and that he never personally got Jimmy Arias' sense of humour, so McEnroe felt real down about the whole thing. The first rubber of the final had embarrassing meltdowns from Connors, and Wilander swept him aside easily 6-1, 6-3, 6-3. McEnroe lost in straight sets to Sundstrom straight after, only his third loss of 1984. And then McEnroe/Fleming lost to Edberg/Jarryd in the doubles and it was over. McEnroe even said that Connors trying to cheer them on when 5-6 down in the fourth set made him think "Screw you. We're not coming back. If you want to win Davis Cup, try again, I've won 4 already". For all of McEnroe's patriotism, his grudge with Connors won out there.

And then there was a ceremonial dinner after the dead rubbers had been played, and at one point Ashe allowed the players to leave, and USTA president Hunter Delatour saw red when he was speaking and there was only Ashe at the table. Delatour proceeded to give an apologetic speech, saying that the team's behaviour during the matches had made him embarrassed for America, and ashamed to be the USTA president.

Sounds like one hell of a trip

Not only did Jimmy Connors never play Davis Cup again, but even John McEnroe seemed to want a break from it for a while after that

 

[big ted]

Not only did Jimmy Connors never play Davis Cup again, but even John McEnroe seemed to want a break from it for a while after that

yep in this article it says the next tie after that final was the first tie mcenroe ever missed in 7 years...
mcenroe actually said he was willing to play here and there, but the USTA just wouldnt let him without signing some sort
of behavioral agreement.

U.S.T.A. ACTING ON BEHAVIOR - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

anyway theres a funny unrelated quote about mcenroe in the article too about skipping the lipton tournament which is now the miami masters.
it was the first year of the tournament, 14 day 128 draw, wanting to be the 5th grand slam...

McEnroe is also skipping the Lipton International Players championships, a new two-week tournament for men and women beginning Feb. 5 in Delray Beach, Fla. The event is sponsored in part by the Association of Tennis Professionals and the Women's Tennis Association, which represent the players.

McEnroe, a vice president of the A.T.P., said: ''I'm not going to help someone who wants to make money selling condos in Delray Beach.''

 

[Mustard]

Late 1984 was also that famous semi final match that McEnroe had against Jarryd in Stockholm, when he smashed all those glasses on the table that showered over some people in the front row. Jarryd had won the first set 6-1 and McEnroe lost his cool, but came back to win 1-6, 7-6, 6-2, and then beat Wilander in the final.

 

[jrepac]

i heard there was alot of american drama in that '84 final.. from mac and connors having to stay on different hotel floors, connors writing F.U. to arthur ashe becuz ashe or arias or someone didnt show up on time to practice, and i think connors was having a baby on the way and swedens the last place he wanted to be....im sure mcenroe had issues too but i only know about connors' lol.. they both behaved pretty badly for standards at that time, and i think becuz of that tie, they made the US davis cup team sign some type of contract that they'd promise to behave or they couldnt play.. and they didnt go for that so DC got 2nd rate american players until agassi came along..

December 16, 1984: The day Sweden upended John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors on way to Davis Cup glory %%page%% - Tennis Majors Tennis: The day Sweden upended McEnroe and Connors on way to Davis Cup glory

Nope, you've got it right...just a bad series of events, bad timing, misunderstandings, etc. Mac was not as bad w/the antics as Jimmy. USTA imposed that DC "agreement" and Mac refused to sign it.....can't blame him. So the US lost its best DC player for several years...dumb and spiteful actions from the USTA.

 

[WCT]

The Australian Open was in a pretty good slot by 1982-1985, i.e. late November to mid December, so over way before Christmas/New Year. In 1984, the Davis Cup final took place on indoor clay in Gothenburg, Sweden, from 16-18 December 1984, a week after the Australian Open had finished, but no ideal preparation for any of those participants obviously.

The dates of the Australian Open from 1969-1988 below. The event was held at Kooyong, Melbourne from 1972-1987:

1969 (Brisbane): 20-27 January 1969 (the first leg of Rod Laver's Grand Slam in Brisbane)
1970 (Sydney): 19-27 January 1970 (a much weaker field than the 1970 Dunlop Sydney Open from 16-22 March 1970, where Laver beat Rosewall in the final)
1971 (Sydney): 7-14 March 1971 (the date and the strong field suggests that the 1971 Australian Open effectively became the 1971 Dunlop Sydney Open)
1972 (Kooyong, Melbourne): 26 December 1971 - 3 January 1972 (tournament moves to Kooyong, Melbourne, where it stays up to 1987)
1973: 26 December 1972 - 1 January 1973
1974: 26 December 1973 - 1 January 1974
1975: 21 December 1974 - 1 January 1975
1976: 26 December 1975 - 4 January 1976
1977 (Jan): 3-9 January 1977 (a much better slot for Roscoe Tanner's win)
1977 (Dec): 19 December 1977 - 31 December 1977
1978: 25 December 1978 - 3 January 1979 (interestingly, the 1978 tournament finished in January 1979)
1979: 24 December 1979 - 2 January 1980 (again, the 1979 tournament finished in January 1980)
1980: 26 December 1980 - 4 January 1981 (even more bizarre this time with the January 1981 end, while the women's event was 24-30 November 1980)
1981: 21 December 1981 - 3 January 1982 (the last of the bizarre end dates)
1982: 29 November 1982 - 13 December 1982
1983: 29 November 1983 - 11 December 1983
1984: 26 November 1984 - 9 December 1984
1985: 25 November 1985 - 8 December 1985
1986: No Tournament held
1987: 12-25 January 1987
1988 (move to Flinders Park, Melbourne): 11-24 January 1988

The Australian Open has stayed around the 1987-88 slot ever since, sometimes finishing in early February. The only exception was the 2021 event being on 8-21 February 2021 due to Covid, taking place 3 weeks later than the originally planned 18-31 January slot.

Yep, you can see how the date adjustment coincided with them starting to get better fields. They moved it several weeks earlier.

Maybe it was 83 for Connors, and not 84. Makes sense with the other stuff like the baby. My memory was telling me 84. What I would bet is it was one of the years. I distinctly remember reading in some newspaper that he had entered and then withdrawn. I only remember reading about the one year, though. Which doesn't absolutely mean it never happened any other times. Just that I never read or heard about it.

 

[WCT]

A question going back to 1976. Some people including me, who saw Connors losing to Tanner at Wimbledon that year 1976, thought, that he looked a bit bulky, not 100% fit. Could it be or is it a memory lapse?

I never noticed that about 1976. In 75 he had definitely put on weight. He spoke about it at the time. 20 pounds, maybe? Doesn't mean he played the entire year 20 pounds heavier, but at some point.

 

[big ted]

I never noticed that about 1976. In 75 he had definitely put on weight. He spoke about it at the time. 20 pounds, maybe? Doesn't mean he played the entire year 20 pounds heavier, but at some point.

was definitely during wimbledon

 

[WCT]

Seeing that video reminded me of the article Ashe wrote in Sports Illustrated a week or two after the 75 Wimbledon match. How he beat Connors. In that article he talks about the balls used and says people don't understand that the balls are sometimes as important as the surface. Tanner had beaten Connors at Queens , but with different balls than those used at Wmbledon.

It all comes down to whether it works. Tanner said he started off trying to use strategy that Ashe suggested, but that it didn't work for him and he went back to his normal game.
Said it in his book. Although I'm not quite sure why he'd be trying new strategy if he had just beaten him at Queens. And it's not like it ever worked for Ashe again. Those were other surfaces, though. Maybe on grass he might have done it again. I don't think he's going to do 6-1. 6-1 again no matter what they play on.

 

[sandy mayer]

Seeing that video reminded me of the article Ashe wrote in Sports Illustrated a week or two after the 75 Wimbledon match. How he beat Connors. In that article he talks about the balls used and says people don't understand that the balls are sometimes as important as the surface. Tanner had beaten Connors at Queens , but with different balls than those used at Wmbledon.

It all comes down to whether it works. Tanner said he started off trying to use strategy that Ashe suggested, but that it didn't work for him and he went back to his normal game.
Said it in his book. Although I'm not quite sure why he'd be trying new strategy if he had just beaten him at Queens. And it's not like it ever worked for Ashe again. Those were other surfaces, though. Maybe on grass he might have done it again. I don't think he's going to do 6-1. 6-1 again no matter what they play on.

There wasn't a Queen's in 1975 and Tanner never beat Connors at Queen's. Are you thinking of a different Connors Tanner match?

 

[buscemi]

There wasn't a Queen's in 1975 and Tanner never beat Connors at Queen's. Are you thinking of a different Connors Tanner match?

I think he means Nottingham. Here's an article on the match.

 

[Mustard]

There wasn't a Queen's in 1975 and Tanner never beat Connors at Queen's. Are you thinking of a different Connors Tanner match?

It was in Nottingham where Connors lost to Tanner. Connors' only other pre-Wimbledon loss in 1975 was to Newcombe on 1 January in the Australian Open final.

 

[WCT]

I think he means Nottingham. Here's an article on the match.

Yeah, I did, brainfart. I had Wmbledon tune up in my mind and my mind registered Queens.

 

[Gizo]

Thanks for the information. I didn't know about the December 75 Davis Cup tie. I am surprised it was part of the 76 season. I don't think Connors losing on red clay to Ramirez in Mexico is a huge upset. Ramirez was a top player and strong on clay, and it was Jimbo's worst surface.
Connors could have won more titles at WImbledon for sure but he was never going to dominate with Borg's rise. Bear in mind that in 74 Connors was close to defeat at the hands of Dent and went 5 sets with Kodes. He dominated the final of 74, not the tournament.

That Mexico-USA tie in the 1976 competition took place at exactly the same time as the 1975 final between Sweden and Czechoslovakia. It's safe to say that the calendar and scheduling was chaotic and confusing back then. Mexico narrowly beat Canada in Mexico City the previous month without Ramirez. Connors' Davis Cup debut vs. Venezuela in the 1976 Americas Zone qualifying round was 2 months before the 1975 final.

I agree that Ramirez beating Connors on clay wasn't an upset, given his ability on clay, plus the fact that he had single handedly beaten the US team on hard courts in Palm Springs at the start of the year. He inflicted 1 of Connors' 2 defeats during the 1976 summer clay court circuit (the other defeat was against Nastase) as he went 28-2 (or actually 27-2 as the North Conway final was played indoors due to heavy rainfall and nearly 100 miles away). But still the defeat (and Connors' eagerly anticipated foray into the Davis Cup in general) was a big deal, and raised further question marks about his level on the back of him losing major finals that year as the heavy favourite. A decisive 5th rubber in a Davis Cup tie carries a lot of pressure, especially when the Davis Cup in general was far more important, Davis Cup finals were considered on a par with major finals (or sometimes bigger) etc.

And in terms of Wimbledon, as has been said, Connors' performances at Wimbledon in 1975 en-route to the final vs. Ashe were incredibly good, a huge step-up compared to his performances en-route to the 1974 final. So given that he went into the 1975 final as the defending champion, having producing high quality and dominant tennis to get that stage, and was the overwhelming favourite to beat Ashe to retain his title, he was definitely widely predicted to enjoy a period (though how long that period would be was up for debate) of supremacy there. And he went into the 1976 tournament as the pretty heavy favourite again before being upset by Tanner (though Tanner also beat him in a tune-up in Beckenham) - he had the clear upper-hand vs. Borg at that stage winning all of 4 of their tournament matches that year including in an invitational in Caracas that year on 3 different surfaces. I think he could conceivably have had a period of dominance there from 1974-1977, before Borg simply moved to a different level to him from 1978-1980.

 

[KG1965]

As an old and great fan of Jimbo I am enormously pleased that after all these years he remains clearly the most discussed tennis player on the forum.
His career has not been deciphered, decoded, so he remains in limbo, suspended beyond good and evil.