That might be true. But the numbers are numbers, and they will always stand by his name.Yeah, but there are plenty of tennis historians (and "historians") who look back at, say, the 70s and can see that Connors wasn't actually the best player in the world for five consecutive seasons. Almost everyone gives 1978 to Borg, for example. This would be one of those cases. Sure, most pop sports media would cite the ATP, but the truly knowledgeable tennis historians and analysts aren't just going to lazily cite ATP records with no context or clarification.