kiki
Banned
And Rosewall was 39 in 1974 so what?
Connors dominated Lendl until 1982 and it is really impressive.
But he didn´t dominate JMac,It was even until 1982 or 1983.
Is Jimmy Connors actually underrated?
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
And Rosewall was 39 in 1974 so what?
Connors dominated Lendl until 1982 and it is really impressive.
But he didn´t dominate JMac,It was even until 1982 or 1983.
I don't see how anything you said even addresses what I said. My point is that Connors' career is often judged based on his win-loss record against McEnroe and Lendl, and they are both quite a bit younger. Their careers overlapped, but Connors was clearly at a disadvantage as it became further into the eighties. What does Ken Rosewall in 1974 have to do with that?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I would have to agree with you JCat. I believe Connors is born in 1952 and McEnroe in 1959. That's a big difference.
kiki
Banned
You have just mentioned it again.
If we are gonna give Connors palatable excuses, let´s start with Ken Rosewall
But this thread is titled, "Is Jimmy Connors actually underrated?", so who cares about Rosewall? That's a whole other thread. No doubt you'll want to create one.
kiki
Banned
You don´get it, no?
You mentioned that Connors was unlucky or misstreated vis a vis Lendl and Mc Eroe as he lost to them many times because of the age difference...well, he is more than lucky to win 2 of his majors against 39 yrs old Rosewall.Simple as that.
But this thread is titled "Is Jimmy Connors actually underrated?", so who cares about Rosewall? That's a whole other thread. No doubt you'll want to create one.
Connors consistency was right up there with Fed's. If things broke a bit differently, if he had played RG and AO regularly, he could've had 12 slams or more. That's no hard to see.
He was still quite competitive past '83....contending in late stages of slams in 84/85/87. It's forgotten that in '87 he was the #1 US player while Mac was off getting his head together.
Jimmy had that weird 4yr title drought from 85-88...it was clearly a crisis of confidence. Something like 12 finals in a row and no wins. But he rebounded in '89...even getting a couple of wins over Mac that season. Was he the Connors of 74/76 or even '82? No. But, he was still a formidable opponent. Guys like Edberg got the worst of that, catching him on a day when they were "off" and he was "on".
Clearly, all those years on the hard courts took a toll on his body, but man, it was fun to watch.
Sorry, I put that response under the wrong quote. I didn't say he was mistreated or unlucky. I just think people don't like to take his age difference to McEnroe and Lendl into consideration. Not so with Connors versus Rosewall. Everyone knows and acknowledges the huge age difference there. Connors could only play whoever reached the final opposite him. Maybe he WAS a bit lucky that it ended up being Rosewall. Nothing he could do about that though.
kiki
Banned
True.TBH, Rosewall was no candy at all even at 40.He had survived 5 sets battles at either Wimbledon and Forest Hills with Smith ( World´s number one in 1972) and Newcombe ( world´s number one in 1971) who were 10 yrs his junior
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think it's 10-0 Kiki.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall wasn't exactly a power player. He relied on footwork, positioning, his strong consistent groundies and a great volley. He didn't lose as much as many players as he got older.
Connors was also very good at 39 but I think he lost a lot more because he was more of an attacking baseliner than Rosewall.
Gonzalez is another player who was fantastic at age 40. Arguably even better than Rosewall at that late an age. The Howard Hughes Opens Gonzalez won in 1969 and 1970 over Ashe and Laver were huge tournaments and essentially majors.
I would never try to argue that Connors be rated higher than Borg. He clearly had a losing record to him, and 5 Wimbledons in a row is hard to beat. However, I do think there is a strong argument that he be rated higher than McEnroe and Lendl; way more titles won overall, and more Slams won than McEnroe and the same as Lendl. The losing head to head record against each of them may sway some people, but this where I think the big age difference between them needs to be factored in when evaluating their careers overall. Do you penalize him for playing way past his prime as he racked up losses against them?
kiki
Banned
John Mc Enroe: 5 WCT crowns and 3 Masters
Ivan Lendl: 5 Masters crowns and 2 WCT finals
James Scott Connors: 1 Masters and 2 WCT finals
AMEN
Yeah, I get it. Let's not pretend that those carry the same weight as the Grand Slams though. They were important for sure, but I rarely hear them mentioned in determining greatness, except on this board.
Backhanded Compliment
Legend
Yes and he likes it that way... "Underrate this you...."
Federer GOAT Open Era but must solve the problem 70s .
Connors , Borg and Mac are very close to the Swiss .
Connors and Borg are above to Nadal and Sampras .
Federer > Connors / Borg > Nadal > Sampras / Mac
Last edited:
The key the key.. where is the key?
DolgoSantoro
Professional
I must admit that I've come to think of Connors as the gate between Tier 1 and Tier 2, for probably arbitrary reasons. I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments and I know he could've done much more, but even so, I have trouble rating him among the Borg/Sampras/Nadal crowd. Might be a tendency on my part to focus excessively on majors, but I really don't know 
The key
To solve a puzzle , to solve a problem we must first know .
The key in all things is to know .
You need to know exactly what happened from 1973 to 1985 .
Exactly, though.
Once one knows all the information about something , a period, a music , it can make a judgment.
I can not say I like Pink Floyd when I listened 4 songs ! I can tell if I listened to almost all albums .
I must admit that I've come to think of Connors as the gate between Tier 1 and Tier 2, for probably arbitrary reasons. I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments and I know he could've done much more, but even so, I have trouble rating him among the Borg/Sampras/Nadal crowd. Might be a tendency on my part to focus excessively on majors, but I really don't know
To solve a puzzle , to solve a problem we must first know .
The key in all things is to know .
You need to know exactly what happened from 1973 to 1985 .
Exactly, though.
Once one knows all the information about something , a period, a music , it can make a judgment.
I can not say I like Pink Floyd when I listened 4 songs ! I can tell if I listened to almost all albums .
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I must admit that I've come to think of Connors as the gate between Tier 1 and Tier 2, for probably arbitrary reasons. I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments and I know he could've done much more, but even so, I have trouble rating him among the Borg/Sampras/Nadal crowd. Might be a tendency on my part to focus excessively on majors, but I really don't know
Actually if you compare Connors to let's say Sampras you'll find Connors stacks up pretty well.
Tournaments won
Connors 149
Sampras 64
Winning pct lifetime
Connors 81.8
Sampras 77.2
Majors won
Connors 8
Sampras 14
Seasons winning over 90% of matches
Connors 4
Sampras 0
You also have to consider that Connors didn't play the Australian and French in most of his great years in which he very well could have picked up a few more majors.
Also consider that WCT was really a major and Connors won two of them and he didn't enter it every year. Connors also won more Masters Level tournaments than Sampras.
Sampras is called a GOAT candidate because it's traditional since he's retired to call him that. He is a great player but he wasn't super dominant.
Ask yourself if 6 majors are better than 85 more tournaments won and a number of more Masters titles and WCT titles.
Last edited:
Wow. I didn't even realize how few tournaments Sampras has. I don't tend to use the 140s number for Connors because I don't think of 4 and 8 man events as the same, but it's 109 to 64 without them. And Connors didn't get that high by hanging around. He won 105 not long after turning 32.
If I'm being objective ,though(Connors was my favorite player), I'm still taking Sampras. Too much of an edge on grand slams. It's do you prefer peak or consistency? Connors was in the top 10 how many years? Made how many Wimbledon and US Open semis? 12 straight for the Open, wasn't it?
If I'm being objective ,though(Connors was my favorite player), I'm still taking Sampras. Too much of an edge on grand slams. It's do you prefer peak or consistency? Connors was in the top 10 how many years? Made how many Wimbledon and US Open semis? 12 straight for the Open, wasn't it?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay a major is 2000 points so Sampras has a 12,000 point edge there. Connors has six more Masters Tournaments so it's down to a 6000 point edge for Sampras. Connors has 45 more tournaments won so the lowest is 250 points points 45 equals 11,250 point edge for Connors. I'm sure Connors' extra tournaments won don't average 250 points so I would tend to think his edge
is much higher.
Connors also has two WCT tournaments which is a majors equivalent but let's say it's the equal of tier 1000. That's in Connors favor also but I would think it's far more than the 2000 points which I'm giving to Connors here.
Sampras has six year end championships to one for Connors.
I would guess that Connors has a substantial edge, peak and career.
Last edited:
bonjour le borg /connors rosemont 83 est il passer a la télévision merci
Hi
not sure how my post wound up in French, but have you looked on You Tube? Rosemount was a pretty big exo back then. Good matches too
Similar threads
