How many years was Connors REALLY #1

[krosero]

Ah but there is clear difference between 1975 or 1983 and 1976. In 1975, Ashe won a slam and the most prestigious one at that, while Connors didn’t. Plus no title that Connors won was as important as Ashe’s next biggest title.

In 1983 McEnroe won a major and 3 out of the 6 biggest tournaments in 1983, and Connors and Wilander each won a major, while Lendl failed to win each any of the 6 biggest tournaments.

Yes but you're looking at the entire season in these examples. We were debating, first of all, whether Connors or Borg did better in the majors in '76. We've talked about Dallas as a possible major but you've argued that in the Big Three Slams alone (RG, W, USO), Borg did better in '76 than Connors did.

So my question for you would be, did Connors or Ashe perform better in the traditional Slam events in '75?

Connors and Ashe both attended Wimbledon and the USO, but Connors attended the AO while Ashe did not. That is similar to Borg attending RG the next year while Connors did not.

Connors won 5 rounds at the AO before losing to Newcombe, so his GS record for '75 is 17-3. Ashe's record is 10-1.

You've argued that Borg's edge over Connors (winning 6 more GS rounds) constitutes the equivalent of a runner-up showing. Jimmy's edge over Ashe in '75 is 7 extra rounds, which constitutes an entire title.

I think, then, by this method Connors and Ashe look equal in '75, in the majors, because Ashe leads Connors 1-0 in actual trophies, but Connors makes that up with extra rounds that are the equivalent of a title.

But does that really make sense? Ashe is the one who won a GS title in '75. Connors was consistently able to win through the semis, but he couldn't win a final. All other things being equal, winning the final of a Slam (or major) is the highest level of difficulty in the sport. So how can Connors be seen as equal to Ashe in the '75 Slams?

I'm bringing this up because I think this is what happens if players are simply given credit for the number of GS rounds they win, without their losses also counted up. An inferior player could then, by entering more events, rack up more points than a superior player who played fewer events.

In '83, for example, who did better in the traditional Slams, Connors or Lendl? Connors' Slam record was 14-2. Lendl's was 20-4. That's 6 more wins for Lendl. But Lendl got that edge because he went to Australia (reaching the final), while Connors did not. If Lendl gets credit for entering the tournament and his loss there does not count against him, then he would appear to have a greater GS record for the year than Connors -- which I don't think anyone would agree with, given Jimmy's USO title.

But if the win/loss records are taken as a whole (Jimmy with 14-2, Lendl with 20-4), then it's clear that Connors was the one with a better record in the Slams.

All I want to do with the losses is count them up with the wins. In '75, Ashe has a 10-1 record in the Slams. With 7 wins at a major, and 1 loss at the only other Slam he played, he comes away with 1 GS trophy. Connors has a 17-3 record in the Slams. Those 3 losses came at the 3 events he entered, so he comes away with no trophies.

That's how a player would become #1 for the year: by winning enough GS rounds and not taking too many losses. His record cannot be evaluated simply on how many GS rounds he wins.

I know, of course, that you've put Borg and Connors roughly on the same level in '76 by the fact that they each took home a GS trophy, and only then are you counting up the GS rounds as a way to choose between them. But that's where I disagree. Borg's GS record was 17-2. Connors' was 11-1. Therefore Borg's edge over Connors is not just 6 extra wins. His "edge" is 6-1. He got 6 more wins than Connors, and he did it at the cost of incurring 1 more loss.

I'm not trying to penalize Borg for entering RG while Connors skipped it. If you look back at my last post, I said that I had no problem giving Borg credit for those extra GS match victories: so long as his defeat is also counted. I can't just give him credit for the 4 rounds he won in Paris, and leave it at that. His loss to Panatta is, of course, the reason he didn't take home the RG trophy. Not tabulating the loss, and only tabulating the wins, loses that fundamental part of the picture.

In 1976, we’re comparing players who split the two biggest events, but Borg did better at the event he didn’t win than Connors. He also had a better record at the third biggest event than Connors as well. So when comparing two players that each won major, there records at other majors has to carry some weight, as one of the dividing factors.

This part I bolded, I agree with -- up to a point. The fact that Connors and Borg met directly in the USO final and Connors won, in my opinion, makes them more or less equal when we're looking just at Wimbledon and the USO.

But just in terms of rounds won and lost, I agree. Borg won 7 matches at Wimbledon, Connors 7 at the USO. But Borg went all the way to the USO final, while Connors went only to the Wimbledon quarterfinals.

Essentially that is giving Borg an edge because of the two last rounds he won at the USO (the quarters and semis). That's an edge he does have over Connors -- leaving the H2H aside.

I do not see RG, for all the reasons I mentioned, as giving Borg an edge over Connors. Borg won 4 rounds there and took 1 loss. Connors neither won any rounds nor incurred any losses.

Yes Borg suffered one more defeat, but I don’t see how that should count against him when he entered the one extra event in the first place. That would be punishing him for turning up at RG which wouldn’t make sense. Also I don’t think one extra defeat at a major carries the same weight as 6 extra victories, especially additional QF and SF victories.

Also looking at win-loss records and percentages across the entire year is a bit different as that is a way of normalising players vast records adjusted for the total number of events they entered, particularly more minor ones.

However the majors (well the big three in that era) are a more equalised and standardised benchmark for two players, so I think looking at the number of wins accumulated at those events, regardless of participation, makes more sense.

Again I don't want to punish Borg for showing up at RG. He can have his 4 match victories counted, so long as his defeat is also counted.

If Borg had received a bye in the first three rounds, and his 4 match victories constituted the last 4 rounds of the tournament, that would be a different story. Because then he wouldn't have a loss to count: then he would take home the RG title. But he didn't; he lost there, and I simply want to count the loss up with whatever he won there.

I also think perspective needs to be shown. Winning 4 rounds at major is not some irrelevant achievement. Tennis was and is a tough, competitive and global sport, and not just about the big name players. Those wins shouldn’t be discounted, as Borg won them to reach the last 8 at RG and at least give himself a chance of winning the title before Panatta ended that. Connors didn’t even try to put himself in that position at all. I think every win should be considered in its own merit.

All this is true: but I am crediting Borg for his rounds won at RG; it's just that I also count his loss.

Well to me it’s quite simple, to try at something and not succeed (in sport or in life for that matter) is to better than not try at all, whether it is due to rage like Jimbo, ambivalence or cowardice. I don’t see how not entering an important tournament out of choice could possibly be better than making the effort to enter it and register some progress.

That’s why I respect someone like Felix Mantilla (one of the biggest fighters I’ve ever seen in the sport) who entered Wimbledon year after year only to lose early, more than a lot of the other clay court players in the 90s who regularly skipped it. Similarly I think that Lendl’s 1982 season and Wimbledon resume would have looked better had he entered Wimbledon and lost in the 1st week to a lower ranked banana skin opponent, than ducking it to play golf.

I agree about Mantilla and the Spanish players who skipped Wimbledon -- and about Lendl in '82. Similarly, I respect Vilas for entering Wimbledon in '77, even if he ended up with a third-round loss to a lesser player.

However, I still count that loss -- and I count it as a bad one, for a player of Vilas' ranking. It plays a role in how I evaluate his grasscourt achievements or failures for '77.

Yes morally it's better to try and fail, than to not try at all. But if you fail, the failure has to be counted.

If someone transparently ducks a tournament to avoid a bad loss, that plays a (negative) role, too, in how I evaluate their season. But it is still not the equivalent of a bad loss: because no wins or losses occurred there. The player simply wasn't there.

Not really. Borg would still have 2 significant major runs that year, at Wimbledon and US Open so both of the 2 biggest events, and Connors only one, at the US Open but not Wimbledon, so that weakens Connors’s case more than Borg’s.

Again, what I'm doing would have an impact both on Borg's QF run at RG and Jimmy's QF run at Wimbledon. It affects them equally.

You've argued that my way of looking at it takes away the significance of Borg's RG run. I wouldn't put it that way, but if it does, that means he is left with 2 significant major runs, as you said, instead of 3. And it leaves Jimmy with 1 significant major run, as you said, instead of 2.

They both drop by 1. Neither man is affected more than the other.

 

[krosero]

I would agree that Connors’s draw at Philly was more difficultly than Borg’s at Dallas. However difficultly doesn’t equal prestige or important as I think you’re acknowledging.

However I think if you’d asked players at the time in the mid 70s which title they wanted to win more, most would have said Dallas. Philly had a great draw but I think was a notch below, heading up the second tier of events. Philly was a WCT event at the time, and I would class it as by far the most important tournament on the road to Dallas.

Connors was an outsider for a period and didn’t want to show the same loyalty to the WCT as other players which was fair enough. He did commit to WCT the next year and of course was the last man standing in Dallas, which he was very proud of. In his very best year in 1974, he also didn’t play in Dallas for the same reason as in 1976, but I don’t think that detracts from the importance of the event in the slightest.

It can often be the case that players come through more difficult draws at less prestigious events.

For instance Borg’s January 1981 Masters title where he beat McEnroe, Connors and Lendl at that event was brutal and incredibly impressive. However should that title really carry more weight, or even equal weight, to his 1980 RG title that season where his draw wasn’t as difficult? I would say no because as great as the Masters were and his draw was, RG was a more important title to win.

Wilander’s 1983 AO title run was incredibly difficult and impressive, but I don’t think that can carry the same weight as Connors’s US Open title run that same year, as the USO was simply a bigger and more important event at the time.

Sure, I agree that prestige and difficulty are not equivalent. But there's an unavoidable connection between them. Prestige only goes so far; if the best players stop attending a tournament and the event becomes easier to win, the prestige inexorably drops -- no matter what the historical prestige of the event is. That's what happened with the AO. Obviously, despite it's historical prestige, very few players wanted that title badly enough to go there. By that time it had, in a real way, lost prestige in the minds of the players who preferred to get enough rest and be fit for the Masters.

Prestige is an amorphous concept. It's a real phenomenon, and it has a concrete impact on the court, in the pressure that players feel.

But it's still a problematic concept. Prestige can lag behind the actual difficulty of a tournament.

I was checking the draws in Dallas over the years. In 1981, of the players ranked in the Top Ten at the end of the year, only McEnroe attended Dallas. It was the worst attendance that Dallas had in its whole history (compare to '74 when, with a draw of only 8 players, it attracted 7 of the Top Ten).

The draws in Dallas were also weak in '80 and '81. In each of those years only 3 of the top ten were in attendance.

That's why I have a problem with the push to count Dallas a major -- especially beyond '75. After that time there were more difficult tournaments to win (and a big factor in that was Jimmy getting off the Riordan tour after '75 and starting to play the events everyone else was playing, like Philly).

I would not count McEnroe's 1981 Dallas victory as one of his "majors", for example -- despite the tremendous history of that event in early and mid-70s. It's impossible to count it as one of Mac's majors, when no one else in the Top Ten was there to oppose him.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=610&y=1981

http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/yearend_topten.html

 

[kiki]

Coming to think why nobody could beat Borg at Wimbledon from 1975 till 1981 I came to a very simple conclusion.The true grass court experts like Laver,Newcombe and Smith were off their prime or retired.There were champions at mind nad heart like Connors,Vilas and Nastase, but no assets to beat him on grass.Then, the guys who really had the game to beat him, like Gottfried,Tanner or Gerulaitis, didn´t have the mind or the heart to do so.The conclusion is clear: only two serve and volley players, both at their prime, and with a mind and a heart of a champ could beat Borg at Wimbledon when Borg was peaking.Ashe and Mc Enroe.

 

[sandy mayer]

In 1974 Connors was number one by a country mile. I give 1975 to Ashe. I think Connors was the number one for 1976 quite comfortably, given he and Borg split the two big slams at the time, but Connors won 5 more tournaments than Borg, won their head to head, and had a comfortably better in percentage. In 1977 I think Vilas and Borg both had better years. 1978 is actually very close. Connors won one more title but Borg won 2 slams to Connors' one. At the time Roland Garros was not as big as Wimbledon and the US Open, but I still think it was big enough to give the number one ranking to Borg, but only just.

1982 is a strange year with Lendl winning 15 tournaments and with a 92% winning percentage. Ordinarily this would grant him the world number one ranking, but Connors Wimbledon US Open double has to give him the number one ranking.

I believe the majority of tennis experts are right to give Connors the number 1 ranking for 74, 76, and 82.

 

[martinezownsclay]

1974, 1976, 1982.

1975 should be Ashe
1977 Borg and Vilas probably both have stronger cases
1978 is clearly Borg
1982 he did not end the year #1 on the computer, but was the real #1.

 

[martinezownsclay]

In 1974 Connors was number one by a country mile. I give 1975 to Ashe. I think Connors was the number one for 1976 quite comfortably, given he and Borg split the two big slams at the time, but Connors won 5 more tournaments than Borg, won their head to head, and had a comfortably better in percentage. In 1977 I think Vilas and Borg both had better years. 1978 is actually very close. Connors won one more title but Borg won 2 slams to Connors' one. At the time Roland Garros was not as big as Wimbledon and the US Open, but I still think it was big enough to give the number one ranking to Borg, but only just.

If you want to note RG was not as big as Wimbledon or the US Open, you must also then note Wimbledon was bigger than the US Open. As someone said in another thread Borg won the 1st and 3rd biggest tournaments of the year, Connors only the 2nd. Just of note RG 78 for men was in no way a rogue/near Australian Open then type slam the way it was in 77 for men and 76-78 for women. Particularly when it was won by Borg, who nobody who missed it had a prayer of beating him, anyone who would qualify as that was in the draw already and either lost to Borg, or lost in the draw (the former including Connors who had as much chance of winning a lotto as beating Borg on red clay by the time of 78).

 

[Mustard]

Why were the ATP rankings so bad before the 1985 US Open?

 

[sandy mayer]

If you want to note RG was not as big as Wimbledon or the US Open, you must also then note Wimbledon was bigger than the US Open. As someone said in another thread Borg won the 1st and 3rd biggest tournaments of the year, Connors only the 2nd. Just of note RG 78 for men was in no way a rogue/near Australian Open then type slam the way it was in 77 for men and 76-78 for women. Particularly when it was won by Borg, who nobody who missed it had a prayer of beating him, anyone who would qualify as that was in the draw already and either lost to Borg, or lost in the draw (the former including Connors who had as much chance of winning a lotto as beating Borg on red clay by the time of 78).

I don't agree that Wimbledon was bigger than the US Open in 1978. I think they were on a par. I say this even as an Englishman.

 

[Hard Court]

1975 is an interesting year.
Computer had it as:
1. Connors
2. Vilas
3. Borg
4. Ashe



A lot of people go with Ashe. He won Wimbledon, but didn't enter Australia or the French Open. He only got to the 4th round of the US Open. He did win the WCT Finals.

Vilas did not win any of the big titles. F at French, QF at Wimbledon, SF at the US Open

Borg won the French Open, QF at Wimbledon, SF at US Open. F at WCT and the Masters

Connors F at Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

This is certainly a year where you can't just glance at the Grand Slam results and ignore the lesser tournaments. How players did at the mid-level tournaments and even lower tournaments all matter more than most years.

 

[jrepac]

1975 is an interesting year.
Computer had it as:
1. Connors
2. Vilas
3. Borg
4. Ashe



A lot of people go with Ashe. He won Wimbledon, but didn't enter Australia or the French Open. He only got to the 4th round of the US Open. He did win the WCT Finals.

Vilas did not win any of the big titles. F at French, QF at Wimbledon, SF at the US Open

Borg won the French Open, QF at Wimbledon, SF at US Open. F at WCT and the Masters

Connors F at Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

This is certainly a year where you can't just glance at the Grand Slam results and ignore the lesser tournaments. How players did at the mid-level tournaments and even lower tournaments all matter more than most years.

Connors won 9 "official" events according to Wiki...that probably kept him atop the rankings, along w/reaching those finals as well. It was an odd year. Ashe had the "big" win, but that's about it for him, aside from WCT.

 

[KG1965]

1975 is an interesting year.
Computer had it as:
1. Connors
2. Vilas
3. Borg
4. Ashe



A lot of people go with Ashe. He won Wimbledon, but didn't enter Australia or the French Open. He only got to the 4th round of the US Open. He did win the WCT Finals.

Vilas did not win any of the big titles. F at French, QF at Wimbledon, SF at the US Open

Borg won the French Open, QF at Wimbledon, SF at US Open. F at WCT and the Masters

Connors F at Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

This is certainly a year where you can't just glance at the Grand Slam results and ignore the lesser tournaments. How players did at the mid-level tournaments and even lower tournaments all matter more than most years.

Unlike 1978 where there were two players playing a separate circuit (another planet), in 1975 the top 5 were close because the two top dogs (Connors and Borg) played a mediocre tennis.
IMHO
1) ASHE a little about ORANTES
3) BORG
4) CONNORS or VILAS

Later or tomorrow I will try to explain why the Ranking recognized Connors as number 1.

 

[KG1965]

1975 was a mediocre year compared for example to 1978 because the two top dogs (Borg & Connors) played badly and so the ranking was short.
Anyone could have been an ATP number 1, in fact Connors' score was a like a number 4 or 5 (42,72 media is low):

Ranking 1975/12/31
1) Connors 42,72
2) Vilas 42,52
3) Borg 38,32
4) Ashe 37,71
5) Orantes 35,48

Jimbo won all little tournaments with very low scores and lost 5 finals instead of big titles (in addition to the slams also Stockholm and the Dewar Cup).
He was rewarded a little by the 5 lost finals to which the ranking gave a good score.
The real opponent was Vilas despite modest results.
In 1975 the argentine reached number one for 5 weeks towards the end of the year but ATP didn't recognize them because coincidentally they weren't published in that period.
Ashe, the highest performing player, only finished fourth at the end of the year because the WCT tournaments he had dominated had low scores and the Dallas finals were not counted.
Furthermore, the most decisive reason was the fact that Ashe played so many tournaments (I think 25) compared to only 17 for Connors.
So his score was divided by 25, and Jimbo's by 17.
Basically, Ashe, playing many tournaments, lost 18 times while Jimmy only lost 7 (5 runnerups + 2 quarters)
These are indicatively the reasons why Ashe finished fourth.

As in 1978, my intent was to explain how the ATP Ranking works.
I think that Connors despite being recognized as number one by the Rankings didn't do enough in 1975.
The american was probably the best player but for some reason he didn't prove it during the year losing all 5 big finals.
I confirm that Ashe, despite having had mediocre results compared to any number 1, was the player who won the most.
Also because he played twice as many tournaments as Connors.

 

[WCT]

The WCT part makes no sense. Low points for the tour and no points for the biggest event on that tour? Do you have a source for that info? I don't know how the rankings worked then. Later on, it was based on, maybe, a player's top 14 results. Something in that area range.

I looked at the ATP site and Connors was 79-7 and Ashe 80 something and 23. If all Ashe's results count than he has a much lower winning %. Connors made the finals of 3 slam events, Ashe 1. He might have lost at Wembley and Stockholm, but he made finals of pretty major indoor tournaments. He won North Conway and Denver on the regular tour. As you said, he also won a bunch of lesser tournaments.

It depends on the model the computer used, but if everything counts, I see how it might have ranked Connors first. Me, Ashe won the biggest tournament and, whatever the computer said, at the time, Dallas was one of the top half dozen most prestegious titles. And he won a bunch of other tournaments.

I think the computer may have valued consistency more than you or I might. I think Connors had 2 tournaments, injury aside, the entire year where he didn't make the finals. No really bad early lossed. Maybe the computer really valued that.

 

[urban]

KG is correct about the WCT finals, which was not counted in the ATP computer. The ATP was a players union, and in the early computer time 1973 and afterwards, they only recognized for the computer full field tournaments, where all members could play, not play offs like Dallas or the Year end Masters, or other rich invitationals. Ashe was 102-23 for 1975, according to Tennis Abstract. Connors was 81-11, but mostly on a much lighter circuit.
To get a better overview on the competition level, i would also look to the stats of matches vs. top ten. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, in 1975, Ashe was 13-11 against top ten players, while Connors was 6-3. Jimbos percentage is better, but the absolute numbers speak towards Ashe. Jimbo had only 9 matches vs. top ten in 1975, which is imo very liitle..

 

[GuyForget]

Jimmy Connors VS Bjorn Borg | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

 

[GrandSlam24]

Did Connors lose all 5 finals against other players? If so, then it's clear why he became number 1 in 1975.
He stuck to the rules back then. You can't change the rules afterwards!
For me, Connors was number 1 from 1974 to 1978, and in 1982 he was the best Grand Slam player. So the ITF World Champion.
Number 1 is McEnroe. Best player possibly Lendl.

 

[jrepac]

Did Connors lose all 5 finals against other players? If so, then it's clear why he became number 1 in 1975.
He stuck to the rules back then. You can't change the rules afterwards!
For me, Connors was number 1 from 1974 to 1978, and in 1982 he was the best Grand Slam player. So the ITF World Champion.
Number 1 is McEnroe. Best player possibly Lendl.

What you say is true, but we are questioning some of the ranking rules used by the computer...went in Connor's favor in a few cases (75, 77) but against him in '82. Lendl had the best year, but Jimmy won the best events in '82. I still say '78 is close...when it's explained you can see how the points played out. Even if Bjorn was the better player, you can't argue w/results. Just say "hey, did that method make sense?"

 

[WCT]

KG is correct about the WCT finals, which was not counted in the ATP computer. The ATP was a players union, and in the early computer time 1973 and afterwards, they only recognized for the computer full field tournaments, where all members could play, not play offs like Dallas or the Year end Masters, or other rich invitationals. Ashe was 102-23 for 1975, according to Tennis Abstract. Connors was 81-11, but mostly on a much lighter circuit.
To get a better overview on the competition level, i would also look to the stats of matches vs. top ten. According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, in 1975, Ashe was 13-11 against top ten players, while Connors was 6-3. Jimbos percentage is better, but the absolute numbers speak towards Ashe. Jimbo had only 9 matches vs. top ten in 1975, which is imo very liitle..

I screwed up before saying that the ATP site had Ashe with 80 some wins. No, it has him at 102 and 23. I just remembered wrong. It has Connors with 3 withdrawls which would account for the differences, or most of it, in losses.

I still don't agree with this policy on Dallas. I am not disputing that it may have been the policy. I don't agree with it. Because it is only 8 players? Where is th demarcation line here. We don't worry about 64 man draws being as inclusive as 128? 32 not being as inclusice as 64? 16 not being as inclusive as 32? Some of Connors' early 70s Riordan tour titles had 16 man draws.

The Masters and Dallas are the year end championships for thos tours. How could they not be counted when trying to determine, especially, the top players for the year?
Seems off to me. Again, this is not me stating that it wasn't done this way. Rather me stating that I don't agree with it.

I did some research on this. A lot through wikipedia which is sometimes to be taken with a grain of salt. The ATP rankings were based on the average points per tournament, not the total points. There were years that Connors had far less total points, but the highest average.

This being the case, I could see where Ashe's 23 losses might find him behind Connors. Then Connors going so deep in most of the tournaments he played. Wiki says that starting in 90, with th ATP tour, the rankings were based on the best 14 results a player had.

I've mentioned this before. I am almost certain that I heard Donald Dell talk about this on telecasts. At th earliest the lated 70s and at the latest the early 80s. That the ATP rankings were based on a player's x best results. It may not have been 14, but something like that. 12 or 14 maybe? It was a relatively low number. I would bet I heard that.

And I'm not confusing that with grand prix points which the telecasts would also regularly reference. Those were cumulative. The Masters was the players with the points. Before 1978, if you played the WCT tour, it could be tight qualifying for th Masters. In 1977, Connors was 8th in points because he played WCT. He barely qualified. Plus, Connors just didn't play that much period. For him to play 20 tournaments would be a lot.

 

[urban]

Yep the outcome of the computer ranking always depended heavily on the ranking system, which was often quite dubious (see the case of Vilas for instance). In the era of percentage parameter it was better to play less than more, because it weighed losses more than wins. Connors was a master of this percentage average system, often pulling out of events in the last minute, to avold losses. Under the modern points system, the ranking of the 1970s could be totally different. However a reconstruction is difficult, because there was no standard hierarchy of slams (only 3 Wim, Paris and USO had slam status on the computer), Masters and 500 events. Imo, Ashe would be number one in 1975 under a modern points system and including the counting of Dallas, where he won, and Stockholm, where he won his 3 group matches..

 

[KG1965]

The biggest problem for Ashe in 1975 were the many defeats.
If you take Connors, Borg and McEnroe in their years as number 1 they suffered defeats from 4 to 10 in ATP Tour tournaments.
Ashe lost 18 matches in 1975.
An enormity for a number 1.

 

[jrepac]

I screwed up before saying that the ATP site had Ashe with 80 some wins. No, it has him at 102 and 23. I just remembered wrong. It has Connors with 3 withdrawls which would account for the differences, or most of it, in losses.

I still don't agree with this policy on Dallas. I am not disputing that it may have been the policy. I don't agree with it. Because it is only 8 players? Where is th demarcation line here. We don't worry about 64 man draws being as inclusive as 128? 32 not being as inclusice as 64? 16 not being as inclusive as 32? Some of Connors' early 70s Riordan tour titles had 16 man draws.

The Masters and Dallas are the year end championships for thos tours. How could they not be counted when trying to determine, especially, the top players for the year?
Seems off to me. Again, this is not me stating that it wasn't done this way. Rather me stating that I don't agree with it.

I did some research on this. A lot through wikipedia which is sometimes to be taken with a grain of salt. The ATP rankings were based on the average points per tournament, not the total points. There were years that Connors had far less total points, but the highest average.

This being the case, I could see where Ashe's 23 losses might find him behind Connors. Then Connors going so deep in most of the tournaments he played. Wiki says that starting in 90, with th ATP tour, the rankings were based on the best 14 results a player had.

I've mentioned this before. I am almost certain that I heard Donald Dell talk about this on telecasts. At th earliest the lated 70s and at the latest the early 80s. That the ATP rankings were based on a player's x best results. It may not have been 14, but something like that. 12 or 14 maybe? It was a relatively low number. I would bet I heard that.

And I'm not confusing that with grand prix points which the telecasts would also regularly reference. Those were cumulative. The Masters was the players with the points. Before 1978, if you played the WCT tour, it could be tight qualifying for th Masters. In 1977, Connors was 8th in points because he played WCT. He barely qualified. Plus, Connors just didn't play that much period. For him to play 20 tournaments would be a lot.

I was of the belief that ATP was the average of your top 12/13 events. WCT, I thought, was a separate ranking that ran well into the 80's. Not exactly clear cut. Today, we only know the ATP system...it was a bit different from mid 70's to 80's

 

[urban]

One has to recall the value of thes early 1970s computer rankings. The specific structure (average or point summary system) is best understood by experts like Elegos or Slasher. It was originally conceived in Ponte Vedra on a rolling basis, for the seedings in the draws of the smaller ATP tournaments, that the event managers now could build a reasonable seeding, not based on an arbitrary choice. Wimbledon always did its own thing, and made the seeding for itself.. The Computer rankng was not planned to represent the standard world rankings fpr the year end. You had so many rankings in the early 1970s, the WCT had its own points race since 1971, which did represent well the world class players of the WCT series. The Grand Prix of the ITF had an own points system, which was not so representative, people like Richey and Dibbs won it, because they played most of the events. Many experts and players looked at the papers rankings, of Daily Telegraph (Tingay), Boston Globe (Collins) or the panel of editors for World Tennis or Tennis Magazine. So the ATP computer was far from the holy bible for the world rankings in those days...

 

[WCT]

I was of the belief that ATP was the average of your top 12/13 events. WCT, I thought, was a separate ranking that ran well into the 80's. Not exactly clear cut. Today, we only know the ATP system...it was a bit different from mid 70's to 80's

The WCT was folded into the Grand Prix tour 78-81 so the conversation is moot those years. In 82, when WCT broke off and ran a year long circuit, I find it near impossible to believe that their tour events counted in the ATP rankings. How could Lendl, with 15 titles, be behind Mcenroe? Unless his 11 WCT titles weren't used in the rankings.

In 75, I'm not as certain. However, 5 of Ashe's 8 titles were WCT. Then again, he was only 4 on the ATP computer He still had the most ponts, but not the best average. No way is was based on the top 12-14 results that year. Pretty clearly, all Ashe's losses hurt him.

Either way, I don't get it. They were the ATP rankings, not the Grand Prix or WCT rankings. Why wouldn't the players want the results from both tours to count?

 

[jrepac]

The WCT was folded into the Grand Prix tour 78-81 so the conversation is moot those years. In 82, when WCT broke off and ran a year long circuit, I find it near impossible to believe that their tour events counted in the ATP rankings. How could Lendl, with 15 titles, be behind Mcenroe? Unless his 11 WCT titles weren't used in the rankings.

In 75, I'm not as certain. However, 5 of Ashe's 8 titles were WCT. Then again, he was only 4 on the ATP computer He still had the most ponts, but not the best average. No way is was based on the top 12-14 results that year. Pretty clearly, all Ashe's losses hurt him.

Either way, I don't get it. They were the ATP rankings, not the Grand Prix or WCT rankings. Why wouldn't the players want the results from both tours to count?

I could swear in the early 80's WCT wins were separate....otherwise Lendl would've been on top of everyone....

 

[WCT]

I could swear in the early 80's WCT wins were separate....otherwise Lendl would've been on top of everyone....

Not in 80 and 81. WCT was definitely folded into the Grand Prix tour those years. 78 and 79. WCT was separate in 82-84, but there were only a few tournaments in 83 and 84. They greatly reduced it in 83 and then even more in 84. Maybe 4 tournaments in 84?

 

[jrepac]

Not in 80 and 81. WCT was definitely folded into the Grand Prix tour those years. 78 and 79. WCT was separate in 82-84, but there were only a few tournaments in 83 and 84. They greatly reduced it in 83 and then even more in 84. Maybe 4 tournaments in 84?

OK...that makes sense...'82 was in my mind when Lendl won so many events....and then it kind of drifted away. I recall going to the Forest Hills event in '84 ...when it was still well regarded. Kind of just melted away, didn't it?

 

[WCT]

OK...that makes sense...'82 was in my mind when Lendl won so many events....and then it kind of drifted away. I recall going to the Forest Hills event in '84 ...when it was still well regarded. Kind of just melted away, didn't it?

What I remember about 82 is how every tournament had a 100k first prize. That was big in those days. No way big grand prix tournamensts, like Philadelphia and Memphis, had first prizes that big. I'm not sure Wimbledon and the US Open did. They had a full year tour with a spring, fall and winter finals. I'm sure they were higher than 100k. It seems pretty clear that it didn't work out since it only lasted that 1 year.

 

[Scott_tennis]

Not in 80 and 81. WCT was definitely folded into the Grand Prix tour those years. 78 and 79. WCT was separate in 82-84, but there were only a few tournaments in 83 and 84. They greatly reduced it in 83 and then even more in 84. Maybe 4 tournaments in 84?

In 1983, WCT staged nine tournaments:

January 9, London, $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Gunthardt Taroczy d Gottfried Ramirez
January 30, Detroit, $250,000 WCT Winter Finals - Lendl d Vilas
February 13, Richmond, $300,000 United Virginia Bank Classic - Vilas d Denton
February 28, Delray Beach, $300,000 Gold Coast Cup - Lendl d Slozil
March 20, Munich, $300,000 Munich Cup - Teacher d Dickson
April 10, Houston, $300,000 - Lendl d McNamee
April 17, Hilton Head, $250,000 WCT Spring Finals - Lendl d Vilas
May 1, Dallas, $300,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Lendl
May 8, Forest Hills, $300,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Gerulaitis

In 1984, WCT staged six tournaments.

January 8 London $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Slozil Smid over Jarryd Simonsson
February 5 Richmond $100,000 - McEnroe d Denton
April 8 Houston River Oaks $250,000 - Dickson d Giammalva
April 30 Dallas $500,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Connors
May 13 Forest Hills $500,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Lendl
January 6, 1985, London $200,000 WCT World Doubles - Flach Seguso d Gunthardt Taroczy
[The January 1985 World Doubles was not part of the Grand Prix, as the merger between WCT and the Grand Prix did not occur until after the Masters.
So the January 1985 WCT World Doubles was considered the end of the 1984 WCT non-Grand Prix circuit]

 

[Fintft]

" You may not have a house anymore, buddy" Connors to Nastase at the Hawai WCT Challenge, after a hurricane had blown up parts of Romania (Nastase had not heard the news yet).So much for friendship

Close, but instead, I think Connors made a joke about an earthquake that presumably had killed Nastase's mom....

Connors was an ass and not as talented as Nastase either

 

[jrepac]

In 1983, WCT staged nine tournaments:

January 9, London, $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Gunthardt Taroczy d Gottfried Ramirez
January 30, Detroit, $250,000 WCT Winter Finals - Lendl d Vilas
February 13, Richmond, $300,000 United Virginia Bank Classic - Vilas d Denton
February 28, Delray Beach, $300,000 Gold Coast Cup - Lendl d Slozil
March 20, Munich, $300,000 Munich Cup - Teacher d Dickson
April 10, Houston, $300,000 - Lendl d McNamee
April 17, Hilton Head, $250,000 WCT Spring Finals - Lendl d Vilas
May 1, Dallas, $300,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Lendl
May 8, Forest Hills, $300,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Gerulaitis

In 1984, WCT staged six tournaments.

January 8 London $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Slozil Smid over Jarryd Simonsson
February 5 Richmond $100,000 - McEnroe d Denton
April 8 Houston River Oaks $250,000 - Dickson d Giammalva
April 30 Dallas $500,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Connors
May 13 Forest Hills $500,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Lendl
January 6, 1985, London $200,000 WCT World Doubles - Flach Seguso d Gunthardt Taroczy
[The January 1985 World Doubles was not part of the Grand Prix, as the merger between WCT and the Grand Prix did not occur until after the Masters.
So the January 1985 WCT World Doubles was considered the end of the 1984 WCT non-Grand Prix circuit]

Those really were large sums of money for the times....more than the GS events

 

[jrepac]

Close, but instead, I think Connors made a joke about an earthquake that presumably had killed Nastase's mom....

Connors was an ass and not as talented as Nastase either

Did he really? That would be low even for him.
Still, those guys were pretty good friends.
Very few were as talented as Nastase.
But very few accomplished as much as Connors.

 

[WCT]

Connors made the remark to Nastase at thier 1977 challenge match in Puerto Rico.
It basically what Kiki said. Maybe on a changeover. I'm not sure you have a house anymore.

3 or 4 weeks later they played in the finals of the WCT challenge cup in Las Vegas. They were going at each other and Nastase basically said, go get your mother so she can fight for you. Connors lost that match.

So, they were on the outs for awhile. It didn't last very long. They were pretty clearly on good terms in the early 80s, at the latest.

 

[WCT]

In 1983, WCT staged nine tournaments:

January 9, London, $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Gunthardt Taroczy d Gottfried Ramirez
January 30, Detroit, $250,000 WCT Winter Finals - Lendl d Vilas
February 13, Richmond, $300,000 United Virginia Bank Classic - Vilas d Denton
February 28, Delray Beach, $300,000 Gold Coast Cup - Lendl d Slozil
March 20, Munich, $300,000 Munich Cup - Teacher d Dickson
April 10, Houston, $300,000 - Lendl d McNamee
April 17, Hilton Head, $250,000 WCT Spring Finals - Lendl d Vilas
May 1, Dallas, $300,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Lendl
May 8, Forest Hills, $300,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Gerulaitis

In 1984, WCT staged six tournaments.

January 8 London $200,000 Barratt World Doubles - Slozil Smid over Jarryd Simonsson
February 5 Richmond $100,000 - McEnroe d Denton
April 8 Houston River Oaks $250,000 - Dickson d Giammalva
April 30 Dallas $500,000 WCT Finals - McEnroe d Connors
May 13 Forest Hills $500,000 Mercedes Tournament of Champions - McEnroe d Lendl
January 6, 1985, London $200,000 WCT World Doubles - Flach Seguso d Gunthardt Taroczy
[The January 1985 World Doubles was not part of the Grand Prix, as the merger between WCT and the Grand Prix did not occur until after the Masters.
So the January 1985 WCT World Doubles was considered the end of the 1984 WCT non-Grand Prix circuit]

I wasn't thinking about doubles. but they were included. So, Dallas and Forest Hills total prize money went from 300 to 500k in a single year? I didn't remember that.

 

[BGod]

1974 and 1982.The rest of the years, he does not deserve nº1.

While I agree those are clear I think 1976 goes to Connors as well considering overall win percentage, only a 2-1 edge for Borg in Slams while Connors despite his own hand not appearing at FO creates a big enough what if he either wins it or gets to SF.

So to OP's answer 3.