Did McEnroe defeat more great players at the US Open than any other player in history

[McEnroeisanartist]

Wondering if McEnroe defeated more great Grand Slam champions (at time of match and/or future) at one Grand Slam than any player in history?

McEnroe defeated Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg at the US Open. He also defeated Nastase, Gerulaitis, Gomez. That is 8 Grand Slam champions.

Connors defeated Kodes, Tanner, Rosewall, Borg, Gerualitis, Vilas, Orantes, Panatta, McEnroe, Gomez, Lendl, Edberg. That is 12 Grand Slam champions.

For perspective, at Wimbledon, Federer has defeated Sampras, Roddick, Johannson, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nadal, Del Potro, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 11 Grand Slam champions.

At the French Open, Nadal has defeated Federer, Hewitt, Djokovic, Del Potro, Moya, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 7 Grand Slam champions.

 

[Maximagq]

Wondering if McEnroe defeated more great Grand Slam champions (at time of match and/or future) at one Grand Slam than any player in history?

McEnroe defeated Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg at the US Open. He also defeated Nastase, Gerulaitis, Gomez. That is 8 Grand Slam champions.

Connors defeated Kodes, Tanner, Rosewall, Borg, Gerualitis, Vilas, Orantes, Panatta, McEnroe, Gomez, Lendl, Edberg. That is 12 Grand Slam champions.

For perspective, at Wimbledon, Federer has defeated Sampras, Roddick, Johannson, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nadal, Del Potro, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 11 Grand Slam champions.

At the French Open, Nadal has defeated Federer, Hewitt, Djokovic, Del Potro, Moya, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 7 Grand Slam champions.

I think you just answered your own question by using Connors

 

[Mustard]

Jimmy Connors at the US Open was extraordinary, with 5 titles, 98 match wins, and all those wins over great champions. Connors losing 3 out of 4 matches to McEnroe at the event is the biggest disappointment, though. I remember Jimmy saying in an interview that those losses bothered him badly at the time.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Jimmy Connors at the US Open was extraordinary, with 5 titles, 98 match wins, and all those wins over great champions. Connors losing 3 out of 4 matches to McEnroe at the event is the biggest disappointment, though. I remember Jimmy saying in an interview that those losses bothered him badly at the time.

I swear I heard somewhere that his most satisfying victory in his career was the 1982 Wimbledon final against McEnroe. And one of the best matches he was a part of was the 1980 US Open semifinal loss to McEnroe. But, then, I thought years later, both players said the 1984 US Open semifinal was superior to the 1980 US Open semifinal. I think 1984 is much more watchable. I think 1980 has a much more dramatic ending, although the tiebreaker feels so anticlimactic.

 

[pc1]

Wondering if McEnroe defeated more great Grand Slam champions (at time of match and/or future) at one Grand Slam than any player in history?

McEnroe defeated Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg at the US Open. He also defeated Nastase, Gerulaitis, Gomez. That is 8 Grand Slam champions.

Connors defeated Kodes, Tanner, Rosewall, Borg, Gerualitis, Vilas, Orantes, Panatta, McEnroe, Gomez, Lendl, Edberg. That is 12 Grand Slam champions.

For perspective, at Wimbledon, Federer has defeated Sampras, Roddick, Johannson, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nadal, Del Potro, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 11 Grand Slam champions.

At the French Open, Nadal has defeated Federer, Hewitt, Djokovic, Del Potro, Moya, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 7 Grand Slam champions.

Connors also defeated Olmedo in 1971 which makes it at least 13.

 

[Mustard]

Connors also defeated Olmedo in 1971 which makes it at least 13.

I think the OP is talking about 1 particular major only. Olmedo didn't win the US Championships.

 

[austintennis2005]

in 1990 Sampras defeated Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe and Muster,

that is a total of 24 slams that his opponents accumulated in their careers....plus 8 slams total between all his opponents at that particular major us open ( agassi 2 lendl 3 and mac 3)

all this done by a 19 yo

i cant think of any draws that were comparable for total slams of opponents or total in that particular major

 

[Mustard]

At the time, though, Agassi and Muster weren't major winners.

That sort of logic goes for the OP, too. If they weren't major winners at the time, why count them?

 

[Gizo]

Sampras did beat 13 different players at the US Open who won majors during their careers:

Agassi (1990, 1995, 2001, 2002)
Chang (1993, 1996)
Courier (1992, 1995)
Hewitt (2000)
Ivanisevic (1996)
Krajicek (2000)
Lendl (1990)
McEnroe (1990)
Muster (1990)
Rafter (2001)
Roddick (2002)
Safin (1998, 2001)
Wilander (1989)

9 of those players had previously won majors when Sampras beat them there.

 

[Gizo]

Lendl beat 15 players that won majors during their career at the US Open; Agassi, Becker, Cash, Connors, Courier, Edberg, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Kriek, McEnroe, Noah, Stich, Teacher and Wilander.

Agassi beat 11 at the US Open; Becker, Chang, Connors, Edberg, Federer, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Korda, Kriek, Muster and Stich.

Federer beat 9 at the Australian Open; Agassi, Chang, Del Potro, Djokovic, Ferrero, Hewitt, Murray, Roddick and Safin.

 

[Arafel]

Lendl beat 15 players that won majors during their career at the US Open; Agassi, Becker, Cash, Connors, Courier, Edberg, Gomez, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Kriek, McEnroe, Noah, Stich, Teacher and Wilander.

Agassi beat 11 at the US Open; Becker, Chang, Connors, Edberg, Federer, Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Korda, Kriek, Muster and Stich.

Federer beat 9 at the Australian Open; Agassi, Chang, Del Potro, Djokovic, Ferrero, Hewitt, Murray, Roddick and Safin.

There are a few on that Lendl list that aren't that impressive, such as Teacher, Kriek, Noah, Ivanisevic, Stich and Gomez. Most of those players never did well at the U.S. Kriek had a good run in 1980, losing to Borg in five in the semis. Goran made the semis once, the fourth round once, and in every year went out third round or earlier. Stich had a final and a quarter, one fourth round, and a bunch of first and second round losses. Krajicek had three quarters, two fourth rounds, two third rounds, and a bunch of first round losses. Gomez made the quarters once and the fourth round twice, but has numerous first and second round defeats. Teacher never made it past the fourth round, and let's face it, his one Slam is a joke. Noah had three quarterfinal losses and four fourth round losses, plus a first round defeat, a couple of second round losses and a third round loss. Kriek made the quarters twice and had the semi loss, then one fourth round defeat and mostly losses in the third round.

The thing about Connors is that he beat a lot of those players on their best surfaces. Even though he lost finals to Vilas and Orantes on clay, he also beat them on clay at the U.S. He also beat Borg on clay at the U.S., still one of his most impressive wins to me. He beat Rosewall on grass, and he beat McEnroe and Lendl on hard courts.

 

[austintennis2005]

At the time, though, Agassi and Muster weren't major winners.

That sort of logic goes for the OP, too. If they weren't major winners at the time, why count them?

i never said they were at the time, i said in their careers

i count them because it helps to show the caliber of players that they were --that they were grand slam winning caliber of player, even tho at the time they hadnt won one

 

[eldanger25]

Connors also defeated Olmedo in 1971 which makes it at least 13.

Yep, and Nastase in '82.

 

[AngieB]

Boris defeated a lot of number one players, albeit, not so much at the US Open.

AngieB

 

[kiki]

But,for one single year it is clear my pick are
75 Orantes:Nastase,Vilas, Connors
80 Mc Enroe:Lendl,Connors, Borg
90 Sampras:Lendl,Mc Enroe,Agassi
The 1980 one is just unmatchable

 

[eldanger25]

But,for one single year it is clear my pick are
75 Orantes:Nastase,Vilas, Connors
80 Mc Enroe:Lendl,Connors, Borg
90 Sampras:Lendl,Mc Enroe,Agassi
The 1980 one is just unmatchable

1976 Connors: Kodes, Vilas, Borg (on clay) - lost 1 set total in the three matches.

Yes, 1980 is most impressive to me as well.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Lendl - 1987 US Open - McEnroe, Connors, Wilander

Cash - 1987 Wimbledon - Wilander, Connors, Lendl (all in straight sets)

Sampras - 1993 Wimbledon - Agassi, Becker, Courier

 

[Gizo]

There are a few on that Lendl list that aren't that impressive, such as Teacher, Kriek, Noah, Ivanisevic, Stich and Gomez. Most of those players never did well at the U.S. Kriek had a good run in 1980, losing to Borg in five in the semis. Goran made the semis once, the fourth round once, and in every year went out third round or earlier. Stich had a final and a quarter, one fourth round, and a bunch of first and second round losses. Krajicek had three quarters, two fourth rounds, two third rounds, and a bunch of first round losses. Gomez made the quarters once and the fourth round twice, but has numerous first and second round defeats. Teacher never made it past the fourth round, and let's face it, his one Slam is a joke. Noah had three quarterfinal losses and four fourth round losses, plus a first round defeat, a couple of second round losses and a third round loss. Kriek made the quarters twice and had the semi loss, then one fourth round defeat and mostly losses in the third round.

Not really apart from Teacher, those other scalps were very good quality ones for Lendl.

Stich was probably the most technically complete player of the 90s, and was the recently crowned Wimbledon champion (having also reached the RG semis that year) when Lendl beat him there in 1991. An excellent win. And he reached the final in New York a few years later.

Noah like Leconte was a difficult match-up for Lendl and beat him on clay (including their 1983 RG quarter-final), hard courts and carpet, so that was a tough match for him to come through in 1985. Lendl admitted a few times that Noah was a player that could cause him a lot of trouble.

Kriek was an incredibly underrated player with tremendous speed, a superb backhand and excellent all-around technical versatily and nice accomplishments on all surfaces (even reaching the semis at RG in 1986) A few years earlier he was 2 sets to love up against Borg in their US Open semi. Another nice win for Lendl.

The fact that Lendl owned Gomez doesn't mean that Gomez wasn't an excellent player himself with tremendous power through his serve and groundstrokes. He underachieved on hard courts during his career was still a tremendous talent. Plus he had an excellent year in 1984 when Lendl beat him in New York, racking up the titles including the Italian Open and putting some nice results together in general. Another good win.

Ivanisevic had already made huge waves in 1990 and was considered to be a big danger with his lethal serve (which even then some people were saying was the biggest of all-time), strong return and athleticism. 1991 when Lendl beat him wasn't as successful for him as 1990 but he was still considered to be a big talent and player which an excellent future ahead of him.

Plus Lendl was the wrong side of 30 when he was still regularly beating the likes of Ivanisevic and Stich. His general record against the 'next generation' was excellent, winning over 70% of his matches against the best of the players born in the late 60s/early 70s who went on to achieve big things in the 90s.

 

[Gizo]

Connors defeated 10 past/future major winners at Wimbledon; Edmondson, Gerulaitis, Kodes, Kriek, Lendl, McEnroe, Panatta, Rosewall, Smith and. Tanner. Of course the glaring omission from that list was Borg, and it was a huge shame that we didn't get a Connors vs. Newcombe match at Wimbledon in the mid 70s, although it wasn't Jimbo's fault that Newk couldn't get far enough to play him when that showdown was on the cards.

 

[Dan L]

Wondering if McEnroe defeated more great Grand Slam champions (at time of match and/or future) at one Grand Slam than any player in history?

McEnroe defeated Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Edberg at the US Open. He also defeated Nastase, Gerulaitis, Gomez. That is 8 Grand Slam champions.

Connors defeated Kodes, Tanner, Rosewall, Borg, Gerualitis, Vilas, Orantes, Panatta, McEnroe, Gomez, Lendl, Edberg. That is 12 Grand Slam champions.

For perspective, at Wimbledon, Federer has defeated Sampras, Roddick, Johannson, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nadal, Del Potro, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 11 Grand Slam champions.

At the French Open, Nadal has defeated Federer, Hewitt, Djokovic, Del Potro, Moya, Murray, Wawrinka. That is 7 Grand Slam champions.

To get a better perspective, how many victories over champions OF THAT EVENT?

For example, how many RG champions has Nadal beaten at RG? One?

 

[Dan L]

Sampras did beat 13 different players at the US Open who won majors during their careers:

Agassi (1990, 1995, 2001, 2002)
Chang (1993, 1996)
Courier (1992, 1995)
Hewitt (2000)
Ivanisevic (1996)
Krajicek (2000)
Lendl (1990)
McEnroe (1990)
Muster (1990)
Rafter (2001)
Roddick (2002)
Safin (1998, 2001)
Wilander (1989)

9 of those players had previously won majors when Sampras beat them there.

Please exclude "senior" players, like McEnroe in 1990.

Guys in their thirties deserve a better fate.

 

[Gizo]

Please exclude "senior" players, like McEnroe in 1990.

Guys in their thirties deserve a better fate.

Why? Of course players' results whilst in their thirties deserved to be analysed in their correct context, but that doesn't mean that all of their defeats at that age level should all be ignored or swept under the carpet or anything. Every result counts and is included from day 1 right through until retirement. Mac was 31 when that match was played, past his prime but still an excellent player but not exactly a geriatric. Many people thought that Mac had an excellent shot of winning the Aussie Open earlier that year before he got defaulted against Pernfors, and of winning that US Open after Lendl had been knocked out.

And Sampras was a pre-prime 19 year old kid going into that match, that had never enjoyed a deep run in major before that fortnight and had only previously won 1 title. An inexperienced but very dangerous 19 year old kid vs. a past his prime but still strong 31 year old is a good contest which in theory could go either way.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

To get a better perspective, how many victories over champions OF THAT EVENT?

For example, how many RG champions has Nadal beaten at RG? One?

That is a silly measure. Nadal should not be punished for not having beat a lot of Roland Garros Champion when he has won 9 of the last 10.

 

[Arafel]

Not really apart from Teacher, those other scalps were very good quality ones for Lendl.

Stich was probably the most technically complete player of the 90s, and was the recently crowned Wimbledon champion (having also reached the RG semis that year) when Lendl beat him there in 1991. An excellent win. And he reached the final in New York a few years later.

Noah like Leconte was a difficult match-up for Lendl and beat him on clay (including their 1983 RG quarter-final), hard courts and carpet, so that was a tough match for him to come through in 1985. Lendl admitted a few times that Noah was a player that could cause him a lot of trouble.

Kriek was an incredibly underrated player with tremendous speed, a superb backhand and excellent all-around technical versatily and nice accomplishments on all surfaces (even reaching the semis at RG in 1986) A few years earlier he was 2 sets to love up against Borg in their US Open semi. Another nice win for Lendl.

The fact that Lendl owned Gomez doesn't mean that Gomez wasn't an excellent player himself with tremendous power through his serve and groundstrokes. He underachieved on hard courts during his career was still a tremendous talent. Plus he had an excellent year in 1984 when Lendl beat him in New York, racking up the titles including the Italian Open and putting some nice results together in general. Another good win.

Ivanisevic had already made huge waves in 1990 and was considered to be a big danger with his lethal serve (which even then some people were saying was the biggest of all-time), strong return and athleticism. 1991 when Lendl beat him wasn't as successful for him as 1990 but he was still considered to be a big talent and player which an excellent future ahead of him.

Plus Lendl was the wrong side of 30 when he was still regularly beating the likes of Ivanisevic and Stich. His general record against the 'next generation' was excellent, winning over 70% of his matches against the best of the players born in the late 60s/early 70s who went on to achieve big things in the 90s.

Yes, these are all good players. Nowhere did I say they weren't. What I did point out is that they generally didn't play well in New York. Most of them had poor results over the years there.

 

[kiki]

1976 Connors: Kodes, Vilas, Borg (on clay) - lost 1 set total in the three matches.

Yes, 1980 is most impressive to me as well.

That is great, but as much as you probably know I have defended Kodes here, I must say that 75 Nastase ( whom Orantes beat) was a more dangerous and in form player than 76 Kodes ( whom Connors defeated)

 

[kiki]

Not really apart from Teacher, those other scalps were very good quality ones for Lendl.

Stich was probably the most technically complete player of the 90s, and was the recently crowned Wimbledon champion (having also reached the RG semis that year) when Lendl beat him there in 1991. An excellent win. And he reached the final in New York a few years later.

Noah like Leconte was a difficult match-up for Lendl and beat him on clay (including their 1983 RG quarter-final), hard courts and carpet, so that was a tough match for him to come through in 1985. Lendl admitted a few times that Noah was a player that could cause him a lot of trouble.

Kriek was an incredibly underrated player with tremendous speed, a superb backhand and excellent all-around technical versatily and nice accomplishments on all surfaces (even reaching the semis at RG in 1986) A few years earlier he was 2 sets to love up against Borg in their US Open semi. Another nice win for Lendl.

The fact that Lendl owned Gomez doesn't mean that Gomez wasn't an excellent player himself with tremendous power through his serve and groundstrokes. He underachieved on hard courts during his career was still a tremendous talent. Plus he had an excellent year in 1984 when Lendl beat him in New York, racking up the titles including the Italian Open and putting some nice results together in general. Another good win.

Ivanisevic had already made huge waves in 1990 and was considered to be a big danger with his lethal serve (which even then some people were saying was the biggest of all-time), strong return and athleticism. 1991 when Lendl beat him wasn't as successful for him as 1990 but he was still considered to be a big talent and player which an excellent future ahead of him.

Plus Lendl was the wrong side of 30 when he was still regularly beating the likes of Ivanisevic and Stich. His general record against the 'next generation' was excellent, winning over 70% of his matches against the best of the players born in the late 60s/early 70s who went on to achieve big things in the 90s.

Perfectly described.