How would you rank the following, mac, angre, connors?
- Thread starter dmt
- Start date
borg number one
Legend
This is a tough one here, especially between McEnroe and Connors, but I would rank them in the following order, with a bit more focus on "peak performance" rather than overall career accomplishment/longevity.
1. McEnroe-7 slams & 3 Masters Titles (also 9 GS doubles titles, including 1 mixed doubles title). Unique game that combined power with deft angles/touch. Maybe the best net player of all time (Laver, Roche, Edberg?) Great on hard courts, grass courts, and indoor courts. Not so great on clay, but reached 1 FO final in 1984. Faced many greats in the late 1970's-1980's like Connors, Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
2. Connors-8 slams & 4 time SF at the FO & 1 WCT Championship in 1977. He won 3 GS doubles titles too. Incredible longevity and tenacity. Great on hard courts and grass courts. Also great indoors, but not the very best red clay player. He was a better rubico (green clay) player. Faced many greats during the mid to late 1970's-1980's (Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, and then still more during his late, late years.)
3. Agassi-Won all 4 of the Grand Slam tourneys and has 8 GS titles total (AO not a big tourney in the late 70's through the early 1980's). Very good on grass, great on hard courts/rebound ace and indoor courts, and very good but not great on red clay. Had to face Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Chang, and Becker among others. He faced McEnroe when McEnroe was declining quite a bit post 1984, as he battled injuries. His H2H with McEnroe is 2-2 by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WShBaHxLmpk (Agassi vs. Connors at 37. Agassi wins 6-4 in the 5th)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCtm9NyegeE (McEnroe on Agassi)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED_Dc1VYib8&NR=1 (McEnroe vs. Agassi at the end of McEnroe's career in 1993 when McEnroe was 34)
1. McEnroe-7 slams & 3 Masters Titles (also 9 GS doubles titles, including 1 mixed doubles title). Unique game that combined power with deft angles/touch. Maybe the best net player of all time (Laver, Roche, Edberg?) Great on hard courts, grass courts, and indoor courts. Not so great on clay, but reached 1 FO final in 1984. Faced many greats in the late 1970's-1980's like Connors, Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
2. Connors-8 slams & 4 time SF at the FO & 1 WCT Championship in 1977. He won 3 GS doubles titles too. Incredible longevity and tenacity. Great on hard courts and grass courts. Also great indoors, but not the very best red clay player. He was a better rubico (green clay) player. Faced many greats during the mid to late 1970's-1980's (Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, and then still more during his late, late years.)
3. Agassi-Won all 4 of the Grand Slam tourneys and has 8 GS titles total (AO not a big tourney in the late 70's through the early 1980's). Very good on grass, great on hard courts/rebound ace and indoor courts, and very good but not great on red clay. Had to face Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Chang, and Becker among others. He faced McEnroe when McEnroe was declining quite a bit post 1984, as he battled injuries. His H2H with McEnroe is 2-2 by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WShBaHxLmpk (Agassi vs. Connors at 37. Agassi wins 6-4 in the 5th)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCtm9NyegeE (McEnroe on Agassi)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED_Dc1VYib8&NR=1 (McEnroe vs. Agassi at the end of McEnroe's career in 1993 when McEnroe was 34)
Ranking
It depends on how you weight the relative factors involved here...even then, I still have a hard time putting Andre ahead of Mac or Jimmy...if you look at their careers in totality, it is very hard not to put Connors first, and I could even see Andre sliding into the 2nd slot. If you look at absolute peak skill levels, how can you not pick Mac? Surface versatility, I'd say Andre, Jimmy, Mac....so, it really is a crap-shoot.
But, when I take into account all of their GS achievements, their opponents, their consistency at the events, etc. I do like Jimmy/Mac/Andre, in that order.
It is hard for me to put 4AOs on the same footing as multiple Wimby and US wins by Mac and Connors...just not of the same quality (and many will disagree, I am sure)
And I think Connors won the Masters at least once; did not see it listed up there..
It depends on how you weight the relative factors involved here...even then, I still have a hard time putting Andre ahead of Mac or Jimmy...if you look at their careers in totality, it is very hard not to put Connors first, and I could even see Andre sliding into the 2nd slot. If you look at absolute peak skill levels, how can you not pick Mac? Surface versatility, I'd say Andre, Jimmy, Mac....so, it really is a crap-shoot.
But, when I take into account all of their GS achievements, their opponents, their consistency at the events, etc. I do like Jimmy/Mac/Andre, in that order.
It is hard for me to put 4AOs on the same footing as multiple Wimby and US wins by Mac and Connors...just not of the same quality (and many will disagree, I am sure)
And I think Connors won the Masters at least once; did not see it listed up there..
borg number one
Legend
Last edited:
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
IDK, AO makes it hard to judge
removing the AO
if you factor it OUT, then Mac and Jimmy have 7 GS titles each and Andre only 4....that would make it pretty open and shut for Andre as #3
Then between Mac and Jimbo, you have:
Mac w/ 4 USOs on HC
Mac w/ 3 Wimby's on grass
Jimmy w/3 USO on HC
Jimmy w/1 USO on grass
Jimmy w/1 USO on clay
Jimmy w/2 Wimby on grass
Based on GS alone, still kinda tips to Jimmy a bit...not too much tho'
if you factor it OUT, then Mac and Jimmy have 7 GS titles each and Andre only 4....that would make it pretty open and shut for Andre as #3
Then between Mac and Jimbo, you have:
Mac w/ 4 USOs on HC
Mac w/ 3 Wimby's on grass
Jimmy w/3 USO on HC
Jimmy w/1 USO on grass
Jimmy w/1 USO on clay
Jimmy w/2 Wimby on grass
Based on GS alone, still kinda tips to Jimmy a bit...not too much tho'
Carsomyr
Legend
1. McEnroe
2. Connors
3. Agassi
It's really close - Agassi might have been a more complete player than Connors, but both McEnroe and Connors were the best players in the world for a substantial amount of time. Agassi was dominated by Sampras for most of his career. While the same could be said of Connors being dominated by both McEnroe and Borg, he did have incredible longevity and was the undisputed #1 player in the world for several years even if the computer rankings said otherwise. Then again, Agassi also had incredible longevity, winning slams at the remarkable age of 32 and being #1 in the world at 33. Well - maybe Agassi and Connors tied, but I think McEnroe is a clear #1 of this grouping.
2. Connors
3. Agassi
It's really close - Agassi might have been a more complete player than Connors, but both McEnroe and Connors were the best players in the world for a substantial amount of time. Agassi was dominated by Sampras for most of his career. While the same could be said of Connors being dominated by both McEnroe and Borg, he did have incredible longevity and was the undisputed #1 player in the world for several years even if the computer rankings said otherwise. Then again, Agassi also had incredible longevity, winning slams at the remarkable age of 32 and being #1 in the world at 33. Well - maybe Agassi and Connors tied, but I think McEnroe is a clear #1 of this grouping.
Last edited:
Why factor Australian Open out?
As has been said it was only weak at the Australian Open from about 1972 to 1982 - and certainly by the late 80's it had an extremely deep field of top players. Since Agassi didn't start playing there until 1995 then his Australian Open wins count as much as any other Grand Slam title.
As has been said it was only weak at the Australian Open from about 1972 to 1982 - and certainly by the late 80's it had an extremely deep field of top players. Since Agassi didn't start playing there until 1995 then his Australian Open wins count as much as any other Grand Slam title.
joe sch
Legend
Agree, based on Singles slight edge to Jimbo *but* tennis career *should* include all competition and when you consider doubles and Davis cup records, it Mac #1 !
AA is behind both by any statistical evaluation.
Last edited:
Jimmy-JMac
true, if you take into account the doubles...not sure I'd include Davis Cup...net, net, it's awfully close between the 2...
If anyone is interested '83 USO final is now on U-Tube...was nice to revisit that one...and re-appraise the match...which seemed quite different to me nearly 30 years later!
true, if you take into account the doubles...not sure I'd include Davis Cup...net, net, it's awfully close between the 2...
If anyone is interested '83 USO final is now on U-Tube...was nice to revisit that one...and re-appraise the match...which seemed quite different to me nearly 30 years later!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Considering Connors won more than twice the amount of tournaments Agassi won and won the same amount of majors I can't see how anyone can pick Agassi over Connors except on a subjective basis.
Nice job Hoodjem.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Agree X 3.
Connors was the most consistent and over a longer period of time. Likewise, Connors' game was more imposing against more varied styles of play. When Connors broke into the tour in 1972, Pancho Gonzales was still playing on a semi-retired basis. Connors left the tour in 1996, two years before Roger Federer turned pro. Connors debut in 1972 was 9 years before Federer's birth.
Of note, Connors made the finals of 158 tournaments during his career winning 108 of them, truly remarkable.
Between Agassi and McEnroe, it's a tough call. Both were very gifted and both had their interest in the game wane from time to time. Both were underachievers IMO. Agassi was dominated by Sampras, McEnroe simply lost interest I believe after Borg left.
Connors was the most consistent and over a longer period of time. Likewise, Connors' game was more imposing against more varied styles of play. When Connors broke into the tour in 1972, Pancho Gonzales was still playing on a semi-retired basis. Connors left the tour in 1996, two years before Roger Federer turned pro. Connors debut in 1972 was 9 years before Federer's birth.
Of note, Connors made the finals of 158 tournaments during his career winning 108 of them, truly remarkable.
Between Agassi and McEnroe, it's a tough call. Both were very gifted and both had their interest in the game wane from time to time. Both were underachievers IMO. Agassi was dominated by Sampras, McEnroe simply lost interest I believe after Borg left.
perhaps Andre's colorful outfits and various hairstyles give him the edge
I also consider that having seen Connors play Andre competitively when he was in his late 30's (in USO and exos) that in his prime, he would be superior.
Connors
If there are doubts, I'd suggest watching the just posted '83 USO final. I watched sets 3 and 4...have to go back and watch the first 2 sets. Really had to re-evaluate my opinion of the match. Lendl did not play as horribly as I remembered, nor did he completely tank it. He was still trying/struggling, and in the long run appeared mentally and perhaps physically exhausted.
What totally impressed me was the way Jimbo lifted his game at 3-5 in the 3rd and kept it up all the way through the 4th set, bagelling Ivan. At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs; Ivan was all of 22 (or 23). Jimmy's aggressiveness and speed of foot in this match are remarkable; and the service returns, at times are simply stellar.
If there are doubts, I'd suggest watching the just posted '83 USO final. I watched sets 3 and 4...have to go back and watch the first 2 sets. Really had to re-evaluate my opinion of the match. Lendl did not play as horribly as I remembered, nor did he completely tank it. He was still trying/struggling, and in the long run appeared mentally and perhaps physically exhausted.
What totally impressed me was the way Jimbo lifted his game at 3-5 in the 3rd and kept it up all the way through the 4th set, bagelling Ivan. At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs; Ivan was all of 22 (or 23). Jimmy's aggressiveness and speed of foot in this match are remarkable; and the service returns, at times are simply stellar.
He didn't have the runs; Donald Dell revealed last year that he was in the bathroom actually getting a painkilling injection for a blood blister between two toes.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
What I remember about that match was how Connors played TO Lendl's forehand, breaking it down over the length of the match. It was a great match by Connors from a strategic standpoint.
borg number one
Legend
He was such a fighter out there. That's something we can all keep in mind (in a good way).
Hear Borg give him that praise in the middle of Part 2 into Part 3 which finishes talk of that first meeting there:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694418/5686082 (Part 2)
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1694791/5681794 (Part 3)
He says:
"That was the first match we played at Wimbledon (Wimbledon '77 final). He was a big fighter, they loved to see him play...for Jimmy, EVERY point was like a match point...To beat Jimmy, you had to play your best Game."
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I was at the 1983 US Open final and I can tell you that it seemed very clear to me that he was mentally exhausted by not only playing Connors but having the crowd very heavily against him. The heat that day was incredible.
I never got the feeling Lendl had any confidence in winning that match. Connors was battling him for every point.
ah, yes, you mentioned that before....something of a cover up, huh?
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I wonder if painkilling injections were allowed in those days. If not maybe Lendl can claim the 1983 US Open.
There was a Tennis Week article about Dell and Connors that can't be pulled up anymore, but there's this one: http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/archives/4299
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Good points.
Because you brought up Lendl (versus Connors), let's add him to this mix.
I would put him slightly ahead of Connors:
1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. McEnroe
4. Agassi
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Lendl
eh, I had to mention Ivan, and now u throw him in? I have a hard time putting him ahead of Mac and Jimmy, despite his great results. I always felt at their very best, Mac and Jimmy were better. The "problem" with Ivan is that he peaked kind of late, no? In his early 20s, when he should have been winning slams he was losing them (to Bjorn, Mac, Jimmy); then when he was a few years older (mid 20's) he was playing some really top tennis, BUT Connors was aging [like a phoenix, I suppose] and Mac was mentally "off". So, I don't think we really ever saw peak Ivan vs. Jimmy or Mac (maybe in a few non-GS events, I suppose). And, then we have his inability to win on grass tossed in the mix, so I have a hard time placing him ahead of the other two. [but to be fair, he lost several of his grass court matches to John, Jimmy and other fine grass players, so again, it is a tough call]
And, if you choose to factor in doubles, which you may, then John rises to the top of the list, no question. Solely on singles, one might lean towards Ivan or Jimmy over John.
eh, I had to mention Ivan, and now u throw him in? I have a hard time putting him ahead of Mac and Jimmy, despite his great results. I always felt at their very best, Mac and Jimmy were better. The "problem" with Ivan is that he peaked kind of late, no? In his early 20s, when he should have been winning slams he was losing them (to Bjorn, Mac, Jimmy); then when he was a few years older (mid 20's) he was playing some really top tennis, BUT Connors was aging [like a phoenix, I suppose] and Mac was mentally "off". So, I don't think we really ever saw peak Ivan vs. Jimmy or Mac (maybe in a few non-GS events, I suppose). And, then we have his inability to win on grass tossed in the mix, so I have a hard time placing him ahead of the other two. [but to be fair, he lost several of his grass court matches to John, Jimmy and other fine grass players, so again, it is a tough call]
And, if you choose to factor in doubles, which you may, then John rises to the top of the list, no question. Solely on singles, one might lean towards Ivan or Jimmy over John.
SirSweetSpot
Banned
Lendl/Mac
Jimbo
The Royal Gorge Bridge
Agassi
Jimbo
The Royal Gorge Bridge
Agassi
davey25
Banned
Connors clearly should rank 1st IMO. McEnroe had a higher peak level of play most likely but Connors' overall body of work is clearly superior.
The guy was arguably the dominant player overall from 74-76. He won all 3 slams he played in 1974 and was denied a possible Grand Slam by some politics. Then 8 years later he regains his unofficial status as the best in the World by winning Wimbledon and the U.S Open, when it seemed unlikely he would ever do it again. His slam count should really be alot higher than 8 as he missed the Australian Open many times, and missed his best chances of ever winning the French (though he probably wouldnt have won it more than once or twice). Winning over 100 tournaments, his longevity, consistency for so long, winning slams on each surface (even if one was green clay), he is clearly tops.
I would rate Lendl 2nd and McEnroe 3rd. Agassi a very distant 4th. His overall career does not even come close to other 3 even with his career slam.
The guy was arguably the dominant player overall from 74-76. He won all 3 slams he played in 1974 and was denied a possible Grand Slam by some politics. Then 8 years later he regains his unofficial status as the best in the World by winning Wimbledon and the U.S Open, when it seemed unlikely he would ever do it again. His slam count should really be alot higher than 8 as he missed the Australian Open many times, and missed his best chances of ever winning the French (though he probably wouldnt have won it more than once or twice). Winning over 100 tournaments, his longevity, consistency for so long, winning slams on each surface (even if one was green clay), he is clearly tops.
I would rate Lendl 2nd and McEnroe 3rd. Agassi a very distant 4th. His overall career does not even come close to other 3 even with his career slam.
Most career titles when you include doubles, not on singles alone.
Agassi ahead of Connors? well go fight that one someplace else.....having seen both play at prime levels, I think that day-in-day out, Jimmy is the better of the two. Certainly, based on what he accomplished, he outshines Andre...I like Andre a lot, don't get me wrong, but he's no Connors.
SirSweetSpot
Banned
I'm inclined to agree here, it's too bad really.
I must add that this legendary Connors endurance/consistency/longevity is due in large part to his refusal to play doubles, Davis Cup, or anything that didn't suit Jimmy or Jimmy's checkbook. OTOH, Mac's tireless, relentless endurance on the singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles court, coupled with his patriotism and ambassadorship of this great game is why I always put him ahead of of Jimbo. In fact, Mac's incessant doubles career probably cost him 4 or 5 slam singles titles...energy he could have saved for the singles courts...which was ALL that Jimbo was about. And I doubt Mac would trade ANY of his doubles success for more esteem regarding his "underachieving" singles career.
Look, I'm not knocking Jimbo at all here...in fact, Mac of all people stood up for him in his book about how Jimmy earned his talents, wasn't a natural born tennis player like Mac (some people actually have to practice Mac!). And that when Jimbo earned a modicum of success he was gonna be damned sure nobody took a damned thing from him. But the selfishness is hard to overlook sometimes.
Last edited:
I give the edge to McEnroe over Connors. Both players won 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles, with Connors also having won the Australian Open, which wasn't even close to being the 4th biggest tournament during McEnroe's prime, let alone on a par with the other 3 slams. I think that McEnroe's greater record at the Masters and outstanding Davis Cup record easily outweighs Connor's one Australian Open title.
I personally give more value to prime dominance over longevity and McEnroe at his prime was clearly more formidable than Connors at his. Connor's 1974 season when he won 99 matches out of 103 was great, but the overall field was a lot weaker than it was during's McEnroe's annus mirablis 10 years later. Connor's gets praised for winning his 2 Wimbledon titles 8 years apart and rightly so, but in my opinion winning 2 Wimbledon titles back-to-back like McEnroe did in 1983-1984 (of course he also won there in 1981) is far more impressive. Both players the best in the world for 3 years, Connors in 74, 76 and 82, and McEnroe in 81, 83 and 84. To be honest I would argue that McEnroe's 2nd greatest season 81 is more impressive than Connors's 74, given how strong the field was that year.
I personally give more value to prime dominance over longevity and McEnroe at his prime was clearly more formidable than Connors at his. Connor's 1974 season when he won 99 matches out of 103 was great, but the overall field was a lot weaker than it was during's McEnroe's annus mirablis 10 years later. Connor's gets praised for winning his 2 Wimbledon titles 8 years apart and rightly so, but in my opinion winning 2 Wimbledon titles back-to-back like McEnroe did in 1983-1984 (of course he also won there in 1981) is far more impressive. Both players the best in the world for 3 years, Connors in 74, 76 and 82, and McEnroe in 81, 83 and 84. To be honest I would argue that McEnroe's 2nd greatest season 81 is more impressive than Connors's 74, given how strong the field was that year.
Last edited:
why is winning 2 wimby's in a row any more/less impressive than winning 2 USOs in a row? at the ages of 30 and 31, no less? Over a highly talented Chzech who is 8/9 (?) yrs younger??
I think by comparing the GS events alone you are overlooking the # of years Connors was at/near the very top of the game...74/75/77/78 wimby finals, 74-78 US finals...that's 9 slam finals, plus 2 more at the AO..so 11. He and Borg had a stranglehold on the top rungs of the game during those years, really only intruded upon briefly by Vilas, until Mac really forced his way into the mix. Frankly, I could care less about Davis Cup; I've always felt it was political and patriotic rubbish (guess I'm like Connors in that way); but I give Mac 100% credit for his superb doubles record. But, Connors was ranked in the Top 3/4 for something like 10 yrs straight and in Top 10 even longer. Some of his #s, records, etc. are sick like that. so, on singles alone, I don't see how on accomplishments you don't go w/Jimmy; in terms of raw skill, and talent, John for sure
Jimmy was always looking out for himself, this is true. But, he certainly was dedicated to the game of tennis, in the sense of putting all of oneself into the sport, giving the effort, day in and day out. I wonder if the politics that kept him out of the FO in 74 made him bitter in that way...who knows? He was not a "joiner" but a loner who was incredibly determined to succeed. Just a very different psychology at work there...other examples are out there too...Steffi Graf was known for her unique focus on herself and no one else...she was not well liked by anyone on the tour for many years and rarely gave opponents any credit.
robow7
Professional
I personally put a lot of emphasis on longevity and when you consider that Connors was ranked no worse than #4 for almost 15 straight years and the fact that he has won far more professional tourneys than any other male has or probably ever will, I have to put him at the top.
McEnroe right behind for what he did for the game and Agassi a distant 3rd.
McEnroe right behind for what he did for the game and Agassi a distant 3rd.
1. McEnroe
2. Agassi
3. Connors
Connors had a great record, but Agassi would have smoked him in real life. Similar playing styles and athletic ability, but Agassi's game was more evolved. My ranking of players is front-weighted on the belief that tennis is getting better/evolving for various reasons, not least the bigger gene pool.
2. Agassi
3. Connors
Connors had a great record, but Agassi would have smoked him in real life. Similar playing styles and athletic ability, but Agassi's game was more evolved. My ranking of players is front-weighted on the belief that tennis is getting better/evolving for various reasons, not least the bigger gene pool.
borg number one
Legend
Yes, it's a REAL tough call between McEnroe and Connors. Do you value peak performance or overall accomplishment/more longevity? The reason I have it as 1. Connors 2. McEnroe 3. Agassi, with Connors at the top by the smallest of margins, is that Connors at his best could also put VERY dominant performances. Also, he did it multiple years, as has been mentioned. McEnroe is also an all-time great though, perhaps top 10 in history. Remember, even in 1979 he was very good. He took the US Open in 1979 after all, and was pushing Borg and Connors in 1980. Lendl was also doing quite well already by then. Vilas, Lendl, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Clerc, Pecci, and Noah by 1980-1981. How's that for some depth at the top of the Men's Game?
Last edited:
I said that winning 2 Wimbledon titles in a row (which McEnroe did) is more impressive than winning 2 Wimbledon titles 8 years apart (which Connors did) as the former shows dominance, and the latter shows longevity, and dominance is more important than longevity in debates such as this in my opinion.
If we're talking about the US Open, McEnroe won the US Open title 3 years in a row which Connors failed to do, although you'll get no arguements from me that Connors was the king of that event.
I'm not just comparing the slams alone. I was just saying that I didn't think his edge in the singles slam count was significant given that the difference was 1 Australian Open title. I also brought the Davis Cup and Masters into the discussion. It's also worth pointing out that McEnroe won the WCT finals in Dallas 3 more times than Connors. So he had a better record than Jimbo in each of the 3 non-slam competitions I consider to the be the most important during the 70s-80s.
Connors longevity is unparalleled out of the open era greats and I give him a huge amount of credit for that. As I said before though, I given more credence to dominance. McEnroe was the best player in the world 3 times in 4 years from 1981-1984 (I'm not counting 1982 when both Connors and Lendl were better than him), posted either the 2nd or 3rd best season of the open era in 1984 and was better at his peak (I'm not just looking at stats there, I going on what I was seeing with my own eyes). Connors was also the best player in the world in 3 different years, but overall I don't those 3 years weren't as impressive as McEnroe's corresponding 3. Plus he was never the best player in the world in back to back years (again I'm not going on the computer rankings). In sport I consider the 'back-to-back' concept when it comes to titles, years at no. 1 etc to be very important.
I personally consider the Davis Cup to be a very important event, and I think that Connor's failure to win the event (of course brought on by his reluctance to play in it) is a big blemish on his CV. I value the Davis Cup over the many, many lightweight titles with small draw sizes and weak fields that Connors won to pad out his record. His title count and weeks spent at no. 1 are both hugely inflated in my opinion. I think there was a thread on here a while ago which showed that both McEnroe and Lendl won more 'masters series equivalent' titles (i.e the biggest non-slam events over the various years before 1990) than Connors.
Well I've made my case for why I'm going for Mac on singles
. His greater dominance and level at his peak are enough to give him a slight edge over Connors in my book. I would say that both Mac and Jimbo are comfortably ahead of Agassi who wasn't dominant enough to be ranked over either of them.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
For me Agassi is third, I love the guy and he is probably my favorite male tennis player, but I cannot really put him above either Connors or Mac in any kind of GOAT list. While he has a career slam that is really the only big thing in his corner against the other 2 in the equation, and I really don't think that its enough to give him any kind of edge. It really depends, between Connors and Mac, what you prefer, more titles & longevity, or peak level of play. Neither preference is really wrong, but depending where you lean your rankings may differ, personally I would put them:
1. McEnroe
2. Connors (could be argued as 1, very close between the 2)
3. Agassi
1. McEnroe
2. Connors (could be argued as 1, very close between the 2)
3. Agassi
robow7
Professional
Gizo FYI,
actually Connors finished the year at #1 five years in a row. Also, the idea or use of more Masters series wins is not a very good comparison tool since that series and events were not always the same since the beginning of the open era. Mind you, I have no problem with anyone ranking John McEnroe or Agassi above Connors since we all tend to define greatness in different ways.
actually Connors finished the year at #1 five years in a row. Also, the idea or use of more Masters series wins is not a very good comparison tool since that series and events were not always the same since the beginning of the open era. Mind you, I have no problem with anyone ranking John McEnroe or Agassi above Connors since we all tend to define greatness in different ways.
