Did really Connors and Mac hate each other?

NicoMK

Professional
Yes, I have heard that his Australian Tour was successful.
Fact is, that else where and most often, his obscene gestures (while seemingly more entertaining to some today) were crude, self serving and showboating, especially in the fair sportsman standards of that era. That was true time and time again - for years...
Putting him in perspective, I still rely on Charles Pasarell's description of JC - "He is a p#ick." Everything that I have read supports that other pros saw him that same way.
I am so glad that Newk won that fine AO Open match. One of my favorites to view.
But maybe Mac saw him just as other pros saw JC ... True, I am no fan of JC. (For some perverse reason, today, some admire the darkness of the outsider who tears things apart for self gain and our morbid entertainment. Do not forget his earlier efforts not to join the movement as pros tried to form a unified tour. Unity was difficult. Not only that, but he profited greatly as he dominated on "his own" tour coordinated by his agent.)
I agree with you. Of the two "bad guys", I liked Johny Mac a lot but for some reason, I never quite liked Jimmy. I found him pretty arrogant on and off court. Mac has soften a lot while getting older, sometimes even making fun of young himself. I don't see Jimmy doing this for instance. Saying this, I don't know him personally so it's only based on what I could see on TV, in interviews etc.

I was a bit too young to remember prime Jimmy but I remember well his incredible run at the 1991 US Open. What a show!
 

Frankc

Professional
Yes, I agree - "What a show." The only trouble is that I prefer tennis over "the show. " Others have disagreed with me in another thread, but imo portions of that 1991 run were a direct affront to the professionalism of his opponent and the game itself. Every trick in the book was used to get the crowd going and set up the umpire for the "bad guy." Yes, a great show - but not tennis. Krickstein, I have read in many places, refused to talk to JC for years after that match. Krickstein was right, JC was more than wrong. There is a rule in tennis called "intentional distraction." Should have been enforced - watch that match again. Ask yourself what you would do if someone did that in a serious match to you. No, the rules do not change.
Is pro tennis an entertainment vehicle or a wonderful sport pitting two athletes?
Again, no fan of JC here. I watched his whole career and have read all that I can put my hands on. Btw, A. Krickstein is a superb athlete and a perfectly decent & fair sportsman - nothing in his career says otherwise...
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Is pro tennis an entertainment vehicle or a wonderful sport pitting two athletes?
Clearly, it's a bit of both. Which is why I consider Connors and Lendl, respectively, as embodying the two parts of your statement and being the fathers of the modern game.
 

Frankc

Professional
Good enough for you... I prefer tennis.
Lendl's influence on the game of tennis is beyond belief... And obviously, JC was a dominant force in tennis. But this thread concerns feelings of dislike among the players, particularly Mac and JC.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
Clearly, it's a bit of both. Which is why I consider Connors and Lendl, respectively, as embodying the two parts of your statement and being the fathers of the modern game.
And by Connors and Lendl you mean Lendl alone, right? Connors absolutely is NOT a "father" of the modern game.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I agree - "What a show." The only trouble is that I prefer tennis over "the show. "
Connors--more than most who ever played the game--delivered the sport. He helped dig tennis out of its phony, country-club game (which some regressive types still desire--especially in women's tennis) to make it popular and accessible to the average person, but in a real, heartfelt way, as opposed to certain male players who would (post heart of Connors' era) bow and blow kisses to the ausience as if they were at the Academy Awards ceremony.

Yes, a great show - but not tennis. Krickstein, I have read in many places, refused to talk to JC for years after that match. Krickstein was right, JC was more than wrong.
Krickstein was an entitled whiner who lacked the talent to ever win even one major, and was bitter that a man far older than himself tossed him into a tennis clinic...and he still failed to learn anything. Krickstein added nothing to the sport--unlike Connors, who was one of its true transformational talents.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
And by Connors and Lendl you mean Lendl alone, right? Connors absolutely is NOT a "father" of the modern game.
Connors is one of the fathers of the modern game; during his era, the serve and volley game was omnipresent, but he (and a few others) pushed a more baseline-centric game, and with his greatest weapon being his return of serve--which would also be Agassi--of the next generation 1/2's--greatest weapon. So much of the modern game was copy+pasted from Agassi (and the dreary Bollettieri training method), that there's a clear "heritage" passed on fro Connors, to Agassi, to the rest--the only difference is that 21st century players are so net-phobic and one-dimensional that they do not even have a sense of the net (when necessary) like Connors.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
Connors is one of the fathers of the modern game; during his era, the serve and volley game was omnipresent, but he (and a few others) pushed a more baseline-centric game, and with his greatest weapon being his return of serve--which would also be Agassi--of the next generation 1/2's--greatest weapon. So much of the modern game was copy+pasted from Agassi (and the dreary Bollettieri training method), that there's a clear "heritage" passed on fro Connors, to Agassi, to the rest--the only difference is that 21st century players are so net-phobic and one-dimensional that they do not even have a sense of the net (when necessary) like Connors.
So what do you think it's more indicative of the modern game in Connors, his strokes or his racquets? Maybe his non-acceptance of the new order that the ATP brought on?

Don't get me wrong, Connors was hugely influential and a great player, just not the "father of the modern game."
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Don't get me wrong, Connors was hugely influential and a great player, just not the "father of the modern game."
This is a really interesting statement.

If you look at the most successful Modern players ... Federer, Nadal, Djokovic ... they are probably the three guys that embody the "Modern Game".

Now if I take those three players and those three players only ... this is what I see ...

The mental prowess and sportsmanship of Laver.
The competitive spirit of Connors.
The movement / topspin / mental prowess of Borg.
The flair of McEnroe.
The power of Lendl.

So I certainly believe that Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl can all claim a piece of Parentage of the Modern Game.

Interestingly, when you look at those five names, all but Laver did their nut on court at some point or other during their Pro. Career.
 

Slowtwitcher

Hall of Fame
The competitive spirit of Connors.
If that's your claim as to Connor's contribution to the "modern game" then that's pretty weak.

Competitive spirit is a characteristic of tennis through the times, not just during the modern era. Nobody started having a higher competitive spirit because of Connors.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
Look, I really think a lot of the antics that Connors got up to were mainly for "Show" or "Entertainment" value. A lot of people remember his behaviour in that 1991 US Open. But in some ways what he was saying was correct. That particular Umpire was more interested in his own fame than Jimbo's.

And what happened to his Mother in front of him must have made some impression that he was able to disguise early in his Pro. Career but came to the surface later on and manifested in some of his on court behaviours.



Well I was never really a fan of his behaviours. But guys like Nastase, McEnroe and Lendl were a lot worse and a lot more disrespectful of the Sport. Still each to his own.

One thing that cannot be denied though .. Connors made the most of the limited talents he had with plain hard work. He had a nothing serve and his forehand was like a wet tissue. His trademark DHBH was a nice shot, and a decent weapon, but nothing special. Where he did excel was in his Never Give Up attitude. He played out every single point to the max. A lot of modern players would be well to follow his lead.
'
I disagree with your assessment of his talent. Connors had a powerful forehand. When it was on, it was a weapon. His backhand was absolutely a weapon. He was the hardest hitter in the game, for years. His groundstrokes and return of serve were absolutely weapons. Absolutely, his serve was relatively weak.

Vintage Connors isn't just grinding his way past opponents with grit and determination, he's blowing them off the court with tremendously aggressive all court play. Just look at the stats for all the matches done here. Look at Connors winners and the opponents winners. He was a go for it player, not a grinder who waited for the opponent to miss because he had no weapons. He planted himself on the baseline, not 6 feet behind it, and pushed opponents all over the court.

Again, there is no denying that his serve was for the most part weak. And that is the most unreturnable shot. The shot you most associate with blowing someone off the court. Still doesn't mean that Connors was without weapons. Not, IMO, anyway.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
He was the consummate respectful Gentleman Tennis player in Australia during those years. And most, if not all of us loved him for it. I don't think he ever lost that popularity in Australia. But sadly, he never returned to play an AO after 1975.
I agree with this. Connors was a very gracious and sporting loser in 1975. Same at the US Open that year. However, that was not something seen much afterward. He tended to be a very ungracious loser.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Krickstein was an entitled whiner who lacked the talent to ever win even one major, and was bitter that a man far older than himself tossed him into a tennis clinic...and he still failed to learn anything. Krickstein added nothing to the sport--unlike Connors, who was one of its true transformational talents.
I used to see Krickstein the same way back in the day but now I believe that the competition in his time was so strong that he just looked ordinary compared to other players and he always had to deal with some kind of injuries anyway. But he actually had good groundstrokes and an effective forehand from my memory, maybe lacked some aggressiveness. I remember his AO run in 1995, he beat Edberg in a 5 set thriller and faced Agassi in the semis. He got hurt in the first set already and still made Agassi produce errors and even broke his serve. It was too bad that he had to retire because of that injury. From what I know Krickstein is the only player next to Becker and Federer to come back from 0:2 sets more than 10 times and he has a big overall 5 set winning record as well. If he stayed healthy he could have become the 3rd or 4th force in american tennis behind Sampras, Agassi and Courier.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
So what do you think it's more indicative of the modern game in Connors, his strokes or his racquets? Maybe his non-acceptance of the new order that the ATP brought on?

Don't get me wrong, Connors was hugely influential and a great player, just not the "father of the modern game."
I might say that Connors, Borg and then Lendl (who was only a few years behind them both) ushered in the modern, power baseline game among the men. As someone else said, S&V was still the dominant style heading into the 70's. Then Connors shows up and starts blasting the ball, which had not been seen before, as he demolished Rosewall in 2 consecutive finals. Then along comes Borg, who is not only the fastest, most consistent baseliner, but develops a wicked serve. Lendl, also cut from a similar cloth (he got faster and fitter a bit later, I'd say).

Entertainment-wise, I always felt it was a combination of the stars aligning....BJK, Evert, Connors, Borg, Mac, Martina....and Connors DID help move the game away from the country club mentality and gentility. Love it, hate it, whatever. Borg was hugely popular, Connors had his followers...then comes the upstart Mac. In the US, '75 to '85 were the salad days for the men's game, in terms of drawing in a new generation of fans (like me). At least in the US, the popularity of the game has receded...but the Williams sisters helped hold it up on their end.

Krickstein drama? He's an adult man. If he had a beef w/Connors, he could have addressed it sometime in the last 20 years. He surely knew Connors was going to pull out all the stops in a USO match. Jimmy won the match fair and square, by executing a hyper aggressive game plan in that last set, while Aron was playing it safe. Not saying JC was not being an a#s, but that was not a shock to anyone.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Vintage Connors isn't just grinding his way past opponents with grit and determination, he's blowing them off the court with tremendously aggressive all court play.
H2H
Borg 15-8 Connors (Borg WON the last 10 Meetings between them)
Nastase 15-12 Connors
Connors 5-4 Vilas
McEnroe 20-14 Connors
Lendl 22-13 Connors
Connors 2-2 Newcombe

The numbers speak for themselves. Big weapons are required to beat the best players. Nastase, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl clearly dominated Connors during his peak years. Connors only BIG weapon was his "Never Say Die" attitude. His game was good enough to get him to a lot of SF and Finals of the Big Tournaments. But once there, confronted by the best players of the Era, his game was often left wanting.
 

encylopedia

Professional
Connors is one of the fathers of the modern game; during his era, the serve and volley game was omnipresent, but he (and a few others) pushed a more baseline-centric game, and with his greatest weapon being his return of serve--which would also be Agassi--of the next generation 1/2's--greatest weapon. So much of the modern game was copy+pasted from Agassi (and the dreary Bollettieri training method), that there's a clear "heritage" passed on fro Connors, to Agassi, to the rest--the only difference is that 21st century players are so net-phobic and one-dimensional that they do not even have a sense of the net (when necessary) like Connors.
Yes... I was going to say that although Connor's flat strokes were somewhat unorthodox then and now, his baseline "bashing" style, return of serve, and ability to take the ball early were considered pretty innovative. Moreover he and Borg were probably almost entirely responsible for the 2 handed dominance we see today. Connors and Borg were big inspirations on the Bollettieri flood that came soon after.....
 

encylopedia

Professional
Wouldn't it be Borg instead of Connors? I often heard that Björn was the first mega superstar of tennis. Just asking though :)
Borg was certainly a pop culture phenom at his peak....making the little girls scream and giggle....but Connors definitely did more - for much longer, to bring interest and fans to the game.

Arthur Ashe - who certainly had his....ups and downs with Connors as recently discussed on this board, once said that Connors had been unquestionably the most important player of the Open era - that sports fans really started caring about tennis when Connors played.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
H2H
Borg 15-8 Connors (Borg WON the last 10 Meetings between them)
Nastase 15-12 Connors
Connors 5-4 Vilas
McEnroe 20-14 Connors
Lendl 22-13 Connors
Connors 2-2 Newcombe

The numbers speak for themselves. Big weapons are required to beat the best players. Nastase, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl clearly dominated Connors during his peak years. Connors only BIG weapon was his "Never Say Die" attitude. His game was good enough to get him to a lot of SF and Finals of the Big Tournaments. But once there, confronted by the best players of the Era, his game was often left wanting.
this is patently wrong....in the sense that it's not his 'peak' years which are really 74-78....you could also look at his 'comeback' in 82 and even '83 as near peak, but that's about it. He then played on from '84-'91 and gradually declined against the top guys (Mac, Lendl, Becker, etc.). Borg was truly dominant from 79-81 over Jimmy, not really before then. Mac really did not start to blow past Connors with any regularity until '83-84 and Lendl not until '85 onwards. So, while your numbers are correct, the 'story' you are portraying is warped. Connors did not win Wimbledon over Mac and 2 USOs over Lendl on hard courts w/out 'weapons'...which would be the backhand and the return. Please do watch those 2 USO finals to get a sense of what reality is.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
'
I disagree with your assessment of his talent. Connors had a powerful forehand. When it was on, it was a weapon. His backhand was absolutely a weapon. He was the hardest hitter in the game, for years. His groundstrokes and return of serve were absolutely weapons. Absolutely, his serve was relatively weak.

Vintage Connors isn't just grinding his way past opponents with grit and determination, he's blowing them off the court with tremendously aggressive all court play. Just look at the stats for all the matches done here. Look at Connors winners and the opponents winners. He was a go for it player, not a grinder who waited for the opponent to miss because he had no weapons. He planted himself on the baseline, not 6 feet behind it, and pushed opponents all over the court.
I think Karma has some ax to grind here or is just trolling. Connors had weapons, and even his often criticized forehand was solid when it was on. It was not a "wet tissue." Some of these posters must not have ever seen the guy play or are watching some slo-mo videos. His stats speak for themselves. Roger, Rafa, Novak were all chasing records set by Connors. You can hate the guy all you want, dislike his behavior and boorishness, but you can't deny his accomplishments. In addition to his impact on the sport, which is not small.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yes... I was going to say that although Connor's flat strokes were somewhat unorthodox then and now, his baseline "bashing" style, return of serve, and ability to take the ball early were considered pretty innovative. Moreover he and Borg were probably almost entirely responsible for the 2 handed dominance we see today. Connors and Borg were big inspirations on the Bollettieri flood that came soon after.....
Don't forget the Ice Princess, Christine Marie Evert who may have had the best 2-hander of all of them.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I think Karma has some ax to grind here or is just trolling.
An ax? Or an axe? Either way, you are the one chopping the tree down, not me.

If Connors was at his peak early on, then how do you explain his H2H against Nastase and an aging Newcombe?

And forget the trolling bit please. I love watching Connors. I was very excited when he came and played in Australia at both the AO and IIRC some of the indoor Tournaments organised by Newcombe including the Custom Credit Australian Indoor Championships.

He was a great player.

He was one of the main instigators to change the face of the sport in the 1970s. There is some famous footage I've seen of him strutting through the grounds of West Side Tennis Clubs during a US Open held there. It was like Luke Skywalker had just landed his X-Wing Fighter in Hill Valley in 1885.

And he achieved something very special that no other player in the history of the sport ever will. He won a Major Titles three times, each time winning on a different surface, Grass, Clay and Hard Court. That feat alone makes him one of the greatest players ever to grace the court.

Credit where credit is due. But he was no Laver, Borg or McEnroe.
 

barone

New User
this is patently wrong....in the sense that it's not his 'peak' years which are really 74-78....you could also look at his 'comeback' in 82 and even '83 as near peak, but that's about it. He then played on from '84-'91 and gradually declined against the top guys (Mac, Lendl, Becker, etc.). Borg was truly dominant from 79-81 over Jimmy, not really before then. Mac really did not start to blow past Connors with any regularity until '83-84 and Lendl not until '85 onwards. So, while your numbers are correct, the 'story' you are portraying is warped. Connors did not win Wimbledon over Mac and 2 USOs over Lendl on hard courts w/out 'weapons'...which would be the backhand and the return. Please do watch those 2 USO finals to get a sense of what reality is.
Connors 2 peak-era came when Borg didnt have his/had quit.....interesting
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
So what do you think it's more indicative of the modern game in Connors, his strokes or his racquets? Maybe his non-acceptance of the new order that the ATP brought on?
His strokes; early Agassi was seen as the "next generation" of Connors in many ways, with that aforementioned return of serve being his best weapon. After Agassi, most of the male players ran screaming from any game involving the net, only stumbling there in a last-ditch effort to win a point (Roddick was an example of that). I'm not saying Connors was net-phobic like the generations who followed him, but it was not his strongest game discipline at all, and later generations were more than happy to never know how to play at net.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
H2H
Borg 15-8 Connors (Borg WON the last 10 Meetings between them)
Nastase 15-12 Connors
Connors 5-4 Vilas
McEnroe 20-14 Connors
Lendl 22-13 Connors
Connors 2-2 Newcombe

The numbers speak for themselves. Big weapons are required to beat the best players. Nastase, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl clearly dominated Connors during his peak years. Connors only BIG weapon was his "Never Say Die" attitude. His game was good enough to get him to a lot of SF and Finals of the Big Tournaments. But once there, confronted by the best players of the Era, his game was often left wanting.
Besides the fact that some of these head to heads are skewed how is this some absolute proof of a lack of weapons? There are players who never contended for top player who had great weapons. You could have weapons and a lack of consistency. Connors lost matches to Borg where he had twice as many winners. He had weapons in his game, absolutely.

The people who think Connors was some sort of precursor to the modern game as far as avoiding the net need to look at some of his 70s matches. He is coming in more than some of these guys would ever dream of. Of course, there is a lot more to it. Namely the equipment which makes it increasingly difficult to approach.

Like him or hate him, I don't think their is any denying Connors impact on the growth of the game ,in this country, in the 70s. He really did, in a sense, brought the game to the masses.

Finally watched the Arias video. Interesting hearing his take. I always read that it was FU, Artie. But Arias thought it was meant for him so he doesn't remember Artie. He mentions Connors and Krickstein playing cards. I do remember that they were friendly at one time.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
An ax? Or an axe? Either way, you are the one chopping the tree down, not me.

If Connors was at his peak early on, then how do you explain his H2H against Nastase and an aging Newcombe?

And forget the trolling bit please. I love watching Connors. I was very excited when he came and played in Australia at both the AO and IIRC some of the indoor Tournaments organised by Newcombe including the Custom Credit Australian Indoor Championships.

He was a great player.

He was one of the main instigators to change the face of the sport in the 1970s. There is some famous footage I've seen of him strutting through the grounds of West Side Tennis Clubs during a US Open held there. It was like Luke Skywalker had just landed his X-Wing Fighter in Hill Valley in 1885.

And he achieved something very special that no other player in the history of the sport ever will. He won a Major Titles three times, each time winning on a different surface, Grass, Clay and Hard Court. That feat alone makes him one of the greatest players ever to grace the court.

Credit where credit is due. But he was no Laver, Borg or McEnroe.
Jimmy was close with Nasty early on you may recall. They practiced together, played doubles together. Won a GS together. So, Nasty knew his game VERY well. He scored a lot of wins early on vs. peak Connors, all of which were remarkable. Nasty was extremely talented and fun to watch. Newk, I'd say if it was on the grass, sure. he had a very good chance at a win. Other surfaces not so much. But, win records are dependent upon time and place....you can't just judge it by the end total...which is a little distorted. Particularly if you claim Connors was at his 'peak", which he surely was not by the mid 80's. Before then, he had a more than healthy head-to-head against all of those guys, aside from Borg. I'd still put him ahead of Mac among US players, for overall accomplishments, but that's a debate for another post.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yes because hitting everything with a Continental grip just screams of "modern game"...
Most folks say he had a semi-western, not a continental grip. Edberg was the guy w/a true continental forehand.
The 'modern' game is what exactly? Guys slamming the ball as hard as they can mindlessly? On surfaces, with balls, that have been made as slow as humanly possible? Some of these matches today are just brain numbing to watch. If it's not Fed, Nadal or Djoker, there's going to be a greater chance of monotony. I think the general theme here was that guys like Lendl and Connors were a few of the first to play something of a 'power baseline' game. But it's not like that's all they could do.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Most folks say he had a semi-western, not a continental grip. Edberg was the guy w/a true continental forehand.
The 'modern' game is what exactly? Guys slamming the ball as hard as they can mindlessly? On surfaces, with balls, that have been made as slow as humanly possible? Some of these matches today are just brain numbing to watch. If it's not Fed, Nadal or Djoker, there's going to be a greater chance of monotony. I think the general theme here was that guys like Lendl and Connors were a few of the first to play something of a 'power baseline' game. But it's not like that's all they could do.
Some want to isolate Connors into a box where he had no inlfuence, but to anyone actually watching the sport, it is clear that if you do not have Connors, you do not have Agassi. No Agassi, and players like Roddick and the majority of the two-handed, return of serve-leaning, baseline-centric, net-phobic, players of the past 25 years do not exist. That is the modern era ATP. There is a clear playing lineage from Connors to today, as opposed to there being no direct, survivng lineage from players such as Laver, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras, et al.
 

WCT

Semi-Pro
I think more cold than hot, but there was at least a bit of both. I suppose never closer than in that funeral moment. One thing Borg, Mcenroe and Connors had in common. They all really liked Vitas.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
I think more cold than hot, but there was at least a bit of both. I suppose never closer than in that funeral moment. One thing Borg, Mcenroe and Connors had in common. They all really liked Vitas.
Most of us liked Vitas! He was a great player. Great skills. Great Entertainer! Just a bit unlucky to be playing in a Golden Era with Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

We need more players like him in the game today.

We loved him in Australia like he was one of our own. He is an Australian Open Champion. One of the greatest matches I witnessed was a Davis Cup Tie between Australia and the United States. Even though he beat our Edo that day, he won us over. One of the greatest tennis matches of all time ..

 

NicoMK

Professional
They ran hot and cold.

I agree with @Karma Tennis, we all liked Vitas, he was a great tennis player and a great entertainer, on and off the court.

What happened to him was very sad, just like every death that happens too soon. To be frank, I never quite believed that defective boiler story. Having said that, I may be completely wrong also… but…
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Yes, I agree - "What a show." The only trouble is that I prefer tennis over "the show. " Others have disagreed with me in another thread, but imo portions of that 1991 run were a direct affront to the professionalism of his opponent and the game itself. Every trick in the book was used to get the crowd going and set up the umpire for the "bad guy." Yes, a great show - but not tennis. Krickstein, I have read in many places, refused to talk to JC for years after that match. Krickstein was right, JC was more than wrong. There is a rule in tennis called "intentional distraction." Should have been enforced - watch that match again. Ask yourself what you would do if someone did that in a serious match to you. No, the rules do not change.
Is pro tennis an entertainment vehicle or a wonderful sport pitting two athletes?
Again, no fan of JC here. I watched his whole career and have read all that I can put my hands on. Btw, A. Krickstein is a superb athlete and a perfectly decent & fair sportsman - nothing in his career says otherwise...
I totally agree about Connors, especially concerning that match. I really felt sorry for Krickstein and despised Connors and the crowd's disgusting behavior.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I agree with @Karma Tennis, we all liked Vitas, he was a great tennis player and a great entertainer, on and off the court.

What happened to him was very sad, just like every death that happens too soon. To be frank, I never quite believed that defective boiler story. Having said that, I may be completely wrong also… but…
I never believed that boiler story either. Whatever, Vital seemed to be liked by just about all his competitors and many fans. I enjoyed his tennis and hoped he would have won more slams.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I totally agree about Connors, especially concerning that match. I really felt sorry for Krickstein and despised Connors and the crowd's disgusting behavior.
Disgusting or not, Krickstein lost because of his play...not anything else. Sympathy that the crowd was not behind him? Perhaps. But he had to know that going in, the crowd was going to mostly be behind Connors. Let's get real here. Interestingly, when he beat Andre that year, the crowd WAS behind him in that match, by all accounts. I always liked Aron, but this sad sack stuff is a bit much....30 years later, no less.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Disgusting or not, Krickstein lost because of his play...not anything else. Sympathy that the crowd was not behind him? Perhaps. But he had to know that going in, the crowd was going to mostly be behind Connors. Let's get real here. Interestingly, when he beat Andre that year, the crowd WAS behind him in that match, by all accounts. I always liked Aron, but this sad sack stuff is a bit much....30 years later, no less.
TO EACH HIS OWN! Yes, I am sure Aron knew the crowd would be rooting for Connors, but Jimmy used that support to make things tougher for Aron than it should have been. Connors was a great player, but at times, a terrible sportsman.
 

max

Legend
Inner america vs cosmpolitan america
Connors was the archetype of Reps even if he had catholic ties..mac was the perfect Dem..and irish¡
I don't think you've got it right there at all. Learn about the St. Louis metro region; learn about the NYC suburbs. Connors father was a policeman, family Democratic part of the local Democratic machine. Irish, too. Have you really studied this much?
 

max

Legend
While Mac,the New Yorker was proud to represent the US in DC play and was very instrumental even for the survival of the competion itself ( in those.big money events years, Davis Cup was close to dissapear as almost no top.player bothered to enter it except Mac,Gerulaitis or Tanner,Vilas and Clerc)..Connors,the Deep America prototype showed how uncomfortable he felt under the US flag.
None of this was more blattantly obvious than in the 1984 Goteborg final
Do you live in the US?
 
Top