Question for Older Fans - Connors/Borg

[Waspsting]

For most younger fans, Borg>Connors is as simple as 11>8 and the-rankings-sucked-back-then

Am I correct in thinking that most of you have Borg>Connors?

Why? Or why not?

A number of threads here have made me see just how complicated assessing greatness in that period was

Questionable ranking system. Players skipping Slams and YEC. Multiple concurrent tours. Big unofficial invitation only tourneys. Muddy motivations for top players.

What's important? Big payday? Slams? Dominance throughout the season? Versatility across surfaces? H2H over top rivals?

----

I figure you gentlemen and ladies (mostly) have the same conclusion vis-a-vis Borg>Connors. what I'm keen to hear about is the more nuanced reasoning behind it

This is a jumping off point. I'd like to explore the whole scheme of what constituted "greatness" from Connors heyday through to Lendl's departure - before slams and ranking took over the roost

 

[Gary Duane]

The first problem you are going to run into is different ways people here evaluate careers.

If you value longevity and high quality for many years of play, Connors will be way up on your list.

If you value mostly peak play, then Borg will be higher and Connors will be lower.

 

[jrepac]

The first problem you are going to run into is different ways people here evaluate careers.

If you value longevity and high quality for many years of play, Connors will be way up on your list.

If you value mostly peak play, then Borg will be higher and Connors will be lower.

That's exactly it. Connors started before Borg and played for another dozen years after he left the game. Prime Borg beats prime Connors, but you are not talking leaps and bounds here. They were quite competitive. '79/80 was when Borg really got on top of Connors, I'd say. Watching their exos was a lot of fun too. They really played like their last meal depended on some of them.

 

[Gary Duane]

That's exactly it. Connors started before Borg and played for another dozen years after he left the game. Prime Borg beats prime Connors, but you are not talking leaps and bounds here. They were quite competitive. '79/80 was when Borg really got on top of Connors, I'd say. Watching their exos was a lot of fun too. They really played like their last meal depended on some of them.

Here's the thing: We don't know that Borg would have continued to play on the same insane high level if he continued, so I think it is a bit unfair to other players to assume that because he had those incredibly dominant year, that was destined to continue. Look at Djokovic a year ago. Some of us thought that he was already weaker - signs of a future decline when someone like Simon was within a hair of beating him. But he still got two majors.

Then bam, he fell off a cliff.

I was a huge Borg fan. But he still basically quite tennis, and that has to be a knock against him.

If he had continued to play and had maintained his very high level, he would be right at the top of GOAT lists.

I was a fan of Connors spirit and competitiveness but never like him, so I had mixed feelings. But I think he is undervalued today.

 

[newpball]

I would rate Borg slightly over Connors, but it is close.

 

[Tshooter]

...Prime Borg beats prime Connors,...

 

[jrepac]

Here's the thing: We don't know that Borg would have continued to play on the same insane high level if he continued, so I think it is a bit unfair to other players to assume that because he had those incredibly dominant year, that was destined to continue. Look at Djokovic a year ago. Some of us thought that he was already weaker - signs of a future decline when someone like Simon was within a hair of beating him. But he still got two majors.

Then bam, he fell off a cliff.

I was a huge Borg fan. But he still basically quite tennis, and that has to be a knock against him.

If he had continued to play and had maintained his very high level, he would be right at the top of GOAT lists.

I was a fan of Connors spirit and competitiveness but never like him, so I had mixed feelings. But I think he is undervalued today.

Connors is a bit underrated....not sure why. Some of his records are remarkable...only Fed and Sampras have been able to surpass some of his marks. His game was really exceptional and not wildly different from the all court play you see today (minus the serve). When Connors was "on" he was pretty amazing to watch...even in his 30's. But, if Borg had not left the game, would Connors have had that remarkable comeback in '82? That was Connors' inspiration and Mac's downfall, in some respects. Something clicked in Borg's head...telling him he was done, while the reverse happened w/Connors, he was motivated to get back to the #1 ranking. And Mac lost his motivation w/out Borg. A tennis psychology class it is....

 

[jrepac]

Look, I loved watching Connors, but Borg at his best was unreal. Right there w/Mac '84. Not like prime Connors was shabby, by any stretch, but Borg was from another planet.

 

[WCT]

The first problem you are going to run into is different ways people here evaluate careers.

If you value longevity and high quality for many years of play, Connors will be way up on your list.

If you value mostly peak play, then Borg will be higher and Connors will be lower.

I agree with this. Borg for peak, Connors for longevity. Let's not overstate the impact of the longevity though. That didn't help him accumulate more GS titles than Borg. Borg has him 11 to 8 despite retiring from the tour at 26. But it did get Connors 15 or 16 straight years in the top 10. Pretty damn impressive. Again, the question is do you go with the peak or the length at a lower peak.

 

[jrepac]

I agree with this. Borg for peak, Connors for longevity. Let's not overstate the impact of the longevity though. That didn't help him accumulate more GS titles than Borg. Borg has him 11 to 8 despite retiring from the tour at 26. But it did get Connors 15 or 16 straight years in the top 10. Pretty damn impressive. Again, the question is do you go with the peak or the length at a lower peak.

Longevity allowed Connors to impact the game across multiple generations....in a pretty significant way. He played guys from Laver all the way thru Sampras. That's pretty special. Along with 109 titles. And, of course, then he did the seniors tour for another 8 years or so, which did very well up until 2001. shoot, he even got Borg and Mac to join.....love or hate him, he's probably one of the players who had the most impact on the sport...in terms of raising its profile...

 

[KG1965]

That's exactly it. Connors started before Borg and played for another dozen years after he left the game. Prime Borg beats prime Connors, but you are not talking leaps and bounds here. They were quite competitive. '79/80 was when Borg really got on top of Connors, I'd say. Watching their exos was a lot of fun too. They really played like their last meal depended on some of them.

Sorry, what does "PRIME" mean?
It is meant "early times" or "peak" or other ?

 

[KG1965]

I'm this, an old Jimbo's fan.

Waspsting poses (as always) a matter ... pungent.

I try to give my version but it takes time, because it's not easy.

 

[KG1965]

Starting from the end:
Borg > Connors on the whole? I think so.
I'm a Connors fan, but I think I can say yes.

Why is Bjorn universally considered to be bigger than Jimbo?
For these reasons:
1) Borg has won more because 11> 8
2) Borg has won significantly more in the h2h
3) Borg at the peak (78,79,80) >>> Connors at the peak (74,76,78)
4) Borg is number one for a decade, Connors has re-turned to 80 but not enough
5) Borg dominated so many years (say 4 or 5), Connors only in 1974,
6) Borg made an incredible job with doubles duplicated at Wimbly & French
7) Borg is a revolutionary icon, Connors is a legend but a step down


Connors has two arrows at their bow but they are considered bumped:
8) 109 but 80 tournaments suck
9) 5 years number one but in reality they are only 2.

There may be other points, but only these ones come to mind.

It seems easy to conclude: Borg >>> Connors

 

[KG1965]

Point 1) Borg has won more because .... 11> 8

The slams are a part of the whole, a considerable part of it all. It's very likely that Borg would win more Connors slams at the end of the career if the two played 4 slams each year (not 2 or 3..). I have a lot of doubts whether in Australia and USA they played like now on hc.

However, putting together all the tournaments won and trying to give them a fair value is clear that Connors has won more.
Beware I'm not saying that Connors is bigger, I'm arguing he's won more. The reason is obviously simple: Borg has played a number of years considerably lower.
But the first axiom of the media is idiotic.

2) Borg has won significantly more in the h2h
Borg won 6 matches in 1979....
If they had played since the 1973 all years.. six matches who would be in the lead?
H2h should be reasoned a bit.
....Bypassing the fact that some clashes have been made in invitational tournaments.

 

[KG1965]

3) Borg at the peak (78,79,80) >>> Connors at the peak (78,79,80) .. it's true, .... but in 1979-80 Connors was no longer at the top of the hill.
4) Borg is number one for a decade, ... but are we sure that Bjorn was the number one of the 70s?
There is an old discussion with the big pc1 and I do not want to resuscitate it, I just want to remember that the 70s ended on December 31, 1979, not in 1980.
5) Borg dominated so many years (say 4 or 5), Connors only in 1974...
Borg did not dominate in 1977, very strong playing in 1978 but did not dominate, Connors was close; dominated instead in 1979-80. Connors dominate only 2 years (1974 & 1976).
6) Borg made an incredible "memorable moment" with duplicated at Wimbly & French...I AGREE... BIIIIIIIIG MOMENT.
7) Borg is a revolutionary icon, Connors is a legend but a step down... I AGREE, BORG IS A UNIVERSAL ICON, CONNORS MYTH but not for everyone, for little European people.

 

[KG1965]

The Connors's two arrows:
8) 109 but 80 tournaments suck ... 80 ? Or 20-30 ? Has anyone ever analyzed the 109? Not to mention the others 38 ...
9) 5 years by number one but in reality they are only 2. Only 2 ? It may be ... in fact, however, in many other occasions he would end the year very close to the number one.

 

[KG1965]

Ultimately IMHO:
- Connors has won more than Borg, consider the only sanctioned ATP titles or also include special events / invitationals
- the h2h question is very questionable,
- I am very doubtful that Borg was number one of the 70s, if I look at the titles and the trend of the individual years, ... very doubtful....
but Borg
- dominated a period not extremely long but steadily (unlike Connors)
- was unattainable at its peak (Borg 78-79-80 v Jimbo 74,76,78 )
- has been imprinted in memory as an icon for Wimbly & RG.

... then Borg > Connors.

End.

 

[MAX PLY]

Well, they were pretty even head to head until 1978, after which Borg dominated Jimmy through 1981. Interestingly, they were 3-3 on clay while Jimmy never beat Bjorn on grass. My view is Borg was a bit better for the time he played but Jimmy was clearly better for longer. All of that stated, if you had to bet big stakes and they were playing in each of their respective primes on any surface other than Wimbledon fast grass--who would you pick? I think I'd pick Jimmy in that scenario but only after changing my mind back and forth a lot.

 

[muddlehead]

Real problem for Jimbo comparisons to Borg. Crotch grabbing, middle finger salute, Evert abortion outing Connors is one of the all time d*cks. Borg one of the most beloved athletes of all time.

 

[JCat]

Real problem for Jimbo comparisons to Borg. Crotch grabbing, middle finger salute, Evert abortion outing Connors is one of the all time d*cks. Borg one of the most beloved athletes of all time.

That may be the way you feel, and it may even be the way a lot of people feel, but it is also true that Connors has always had a loyal fan following. He was extremely popular in the latter part of his career, despite his on court behavior. Maybe some of us appreciated his fighting attitude that produced some great late career comebacks. Unlike Borg, he hung in there for the long run, even after being #1 was well out of his reach. As to Evert, I agree it would have been better to leave that out of the book. As a fan of his, I was disappointed in it, but it didn't make me dislike him. Though of us who were his fans have always had to accept the bad with the good.

 

[jrepac]

3) Borg at the peak (78,79,80) >>> Connors at the peak (78,79,80) .. it's true, .... but in 1979-80 Connors was no longer at the top of the hill.
4) Borg is number one for a decade, ... but are we sure that Bjorn was the number one of the 70s?
There is an old discussion with the big pc1 and I do not want to resuscitate it, I just want to remember that the 70s ended on December 31, 1979, not in 1980.
5) Borg dominated so many years (say 4 or 5), Connors only in 1974...
Borg did not dominate in 1977, very strong playing in 1978 but did not dominate, Connors was close; dominated instead in 1979-80. Connors dominate only 2 years (1974 & 1976).
6) Borg made an incredible "memorable moment" with duplicated at Wimbly & French...I AGREE... BIIIIIIIIG MOMENT.
7) Borg is a revolutionary icon, Connors is a legend but a step down... I AGREE, BORG IS A UNIVERSAL ICON, CONNORS MYTH but not for everyone, for little European people.

I don't think Borg dominated for 5 years....that's just not true. The top spot was uniquely Borg's for barely 3 years, as Mac was coming on the scene. I'm not sure he was any more dominant than Connors....Connors certainly had more weeks at #1. At their best, do I think Borg is better? Sure. I'd say Mac is too. But, overall career accomplishments, total wins, win%, impact on the game, you've got to have JC right up there. Borg made a big impact too, but during a much shorter time frame. The popularity of tennis in the US was stratospheric from the mid 70's to early 80's, due to the "characters" out there like Bjorn, Jimmy, Chrissy, Mac, Martina, et, all. Very dramatic stuff

 

[Gary Duane]

I don't think Borg dominated for 5 years....that's just not true.

Borg was a lot like Nadal. Total domination on clay. His amazing 5 year run on Wimbledon gets a huge amount of credit, and rightfully so, but he only played something like 73 matches on grass. His record was not nearly as strong on HCs + carpet, and that hurt his weeks at #1.

 

[Limpinhitter]

For most younger fans, Borg>Connors is as simple as 11>8 and the-rankings-sucked-back-then

Am I correct in thinking that most of you have Borg>Connors?

Why? Or why not?

A number of threads here have made me see just how complicated assessing greatness in that period was

Questionable ranking system. Players skipping Slams and YEC. Multiple concurrent tours. Big unofficial invitation only tourneys. Muddy motivations for top players.

What's important? Big payday? Slams? Dominance throughout the season? Versatility across surfaces? H2H over top rivals?

----

I figure you gentlemen and ladies (mostly) have the same conclusion vis-a-vis Borg>Connors. what I'm keen to hear about is the more nuanced reasoning behind it

This is a jumping off point. I'd like to explore the whole scheme of what constituted "greatness" from Connors heyday through to Lendl's departure - before slams and ranking took over the roost

I value peak level of play over longevity as long as peak level can be maintained for a reasonable period of time. In my view, Borg's peak level of play was higher than Connors' (and many other all time greats such as Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, McEnroe, etc.), and makes him a genuine GOAT candidate along with Federer, Laver, Sampras and Gonzalez.

 

[hoodjem]

Borg had much better hair. Still does.

 

[TnsGuru]

Borg was just more patient and very fit. The man could run for hours, not that Jimmy couldn't run it just wasn't in his nature to grind it out for hours. Jimmy would beat himself when playing Borg because he wanted to press and make something happen but not always successful but that was his style. The way Borg played he had to be mentally and physically tough all the time and eventually, it took its toll and he retired early.

Typical Borg rally with Lendl. Notice the net clearance from both players. Connors groundstroke clearance was not as high resulting in shorter rallies and unforced errors. I believe Connors denied Borg the U.SOpen title twice, one on clay and one on hard court. Clay surprised me as this wasn't Connors best surface by far. Connors also has the distinction of winning the Open on three different surfaces- Grass, Clay andHardcourt.

 

[WCT]

1978 thru 81, Borg played in 11 Grand Slam tournaments and made the final of 11 of them. If we are counting the Jan Masters as counting for the year before, he played Jan of 80 and 81 and won them both. He only played in one WCT finals, in 79, and lost in the finals.

In 1977, he skipped the French, won Wimbledon and pulled out of the US Open with an injury. In 1976, he won the WCT finals and Wimbledon and lost in the US Open final.

Seems like a pretty fair period of dominance to me. Connors 74 thru 78 is also very impressive. 11 finals made in 12 Grand Slam finals appearances. But he lost 6 of his 11 finals, played in a weaker field in Australia and didn't show the surface versatility by not playing the French. Well, partially he did because he played on har tru for 3 years. Not the same as Europe red clay, though. Borg was winning on the extremes of that and grass 3 straight years.

 

[Waspsting]

I'm this, an old Jimbo's fan.

Waspsting poses (as always) a matter ... pungent.

.

Don't be silly KG1965, this is you, as everyone knows -





(Seriously, I didn't know how to title the thread - I thought "older" might be a tad rude, but wanted to get the perspective that preceded the 90s and onward Slams-are-all-and-rankings-are-the-rest philosophy)

----


Let's return to rosey and peachy -

The gist of what I'm getting is Borg-Connors comes down to a Dominance/Peak level vs Longevity thing.

My question is what are the things that go into those categories?

Today, it would be slams 1st, world ranking 2nd.

What was it before?

. I'd like to explore the whole scheme of what constituted "greatness" from Connors heyday through to Lendl's departure - before slams and ranking took over the roost

As Sampras neared Roy Emerson's record of 12 Slams, that was the talk of the tennis town.

The big record, a super big deal

By contrast, I haven't read anything to suggest this was the case for Borg in 81 - that story gets told in terms of him going for his 6th Wimbledon/1st US or in terms of how his rivalry with McEnroe was shaping. NOT him moving to the record 12 slams

Do you guys think that's accurate?

Borg won two Slams in a year 3 times. Back then, did anyone say "yeah, but he can't win 3 like Jimmy did in 74... now that was dominance!" ? Or was it a non-issue?

One more example for now - jumping ahead in time, Mats Wilander did what Borg, McEnroe and Lendl couldn't: Win 3 slams in a year.

Was this enthusiastically acclaimed as a greater feat than anything his more celebrated colleagues managed?

Or was it a piece of trivia, given Wilander won just 6 tournaments at a winning percentage in the low 80s that year (Lendl was routinely winning about 10 tourneys a year at 90% + round about that time)?

 

[muddlehead]

Majors count non issue in Borg era. Too close in time to: Wimbledon strikes / bans of early 70's. French Open WTT bans. An Aussie Open that was minor. And, of course, 1968 was only a few years earlier. The number 1 issue as I saw it with majors in that day was Laver was thought to be the GOAT. He missed 20 majors - 5 years. Grand Slam before leaving. Grand Slam 2nd year back. Rendered majors meaningless until enough time had elapsed. That time came in the 90's.

 

[WCT]

Yeah, Grand Slams were just viewed differently then. Not Wimbledon and the US, but certainly Australia and, to a lesser degree, the French. It wasn't until about 83 that most of the top players went to Australia. In the 70s, players sometimes opted for World Team Tennis over the French. EVert skipped at least twice, maybe three times. Borg did it in 1977. Connors didn't plat there for five straight years. He would never have done that with Wimbledon or the US no matter how pissed he was with them.

Borg only played the three. To win three he had no wiggle room. Connors did win the 3 in 74, but Australia was over a depleted field. That doesn't happen anymore. Hasn't in over 30 years.

 

[KG1965]

Let's return to rosey and peachy -

The gist of what I'm getting is Borg-Connors comes down to a Dominance/Peak level vs Longevity thing.

My question is what are the things that go into those categories?

Today, it would be slams 1st, world ranking 2nd.

What was it before?

I only partially understand your post.

Peak Borg> Peak Connors
... but the perception is wrong because it points out that the 1979-80 comparison was both at the peak.

Dominance Borg> Dominance Connors, it's true because Connors never has more than one consecutive year of dominance.

Longevity: There was no comparison because Borg did not have enough time.
Connors's longevity is legendary but not from the point of view of winning longevity (such as Rosewall & Federer) ... Jimmy has long been victorious from 1973 to 1984. Then he won no more, he just gave performance.

99.9% of Jimbo's wins are not due to longevity.
Too overvalued.

Connors's titles:
- 70% in 70 years,
- 29,9% in 80s,
- 0,1% longevity.

I did not understand the question "My question is what are the things that go into those categories? "

 

[KG1965]

1) Roy's record did not matter until the 90s, he was not taken seriously.
Emerson itself was never mentioned, many of the slams were a name slam but not really.

2) Borg became a myth in Europe for the 6 RG and the 5 W.
In America he was struggling because USO rejected him, but the character liked it and became legendary when he won 2 times at Madison Square Garden.
No one has reproached him for not going over Emerson.

3) The media wrote that Jimbo dominated in 1974 for the 3 slams and Borg in 1978, 79, 80 for the two slams because AO was not considered.
IMO
Connors dominated in 1974 for the two real slams, for other big titles and an AO, always considered slam but relatively brilliant.
Jimbo was much stronger and dominant in 1976 than in 1974 even though he won only one slam (on two).
Borg dominated in 1979-80 because he won almost all the big tournaments he attended.

4) Wilander made a memorable year but the media did not treat Wilander properly.
He also won Key Biscayne, almost slam.

 

[hoodjem]

1) Roy's record did not matter until the 90s, he was not taken seriously.
Emerson itself was never mentioned, many of the slams were a name slam but not really.

I've stated this before, but maybe it bears repeating.

Back in the early 70s, Laver asked Emerson how many majors he had won.

Emmo said he didn't know--he had never kept track of them.

 

[KG1965]

I've stated this before, but maybe it bears repeating.

Back in the early 70s, Laver asked Emerson how many majors he had won.

Emmo said he didn't know--he had never kept track of them.

They lived in a parallel world.
Incomprehensible to our eyes.

 

[thrust]

Starting from the end:
Borg > Connors on the whole? I think so.
I'm a Connors fan, but I think I can say yes.

Why is Bjorn universally considered to be bigger than Jimbo?
For these reasons:
1) Borg has won more because 11> 8
2) Borg has won significantly more in the h2h
3) Borg at the peak (78,79,80) >>> Connors at the peak (78,79,80)
4) Borg is number one for a decade, Connors has re-turned to 80 but not enough
5) Borg dominated so many years (say 4 or 5), Connors only in 1974
6) Borg made an incredible job with doubles duplicated at Wimbly & French
7) Borg is a revolutionary icon, Connors is a legend but a step down
According to the ATP official computer rankings, Borg was the YE #1 in 79-80. Connors was #1 for at least 5 years. Connors peak was 74-78. I was not a fan of either, but IMO, Borg is slightly overrated and Connors is underrated.

Connors has two arrows at their bow but they are considered bumped:
8) 109 but 80 tournaments suck
9) 5 years number one but in reality they are only 2.

There may be other points, but only these ones come to mind.

It seems easy to conclude: Borg >>> Connors

 

[thrust]

I don't think Borg dominated for 5 years....that's just not true. The top spot was uniquely Borg's for barely 3 years, as Mac was coming on the scene. I'm not sure he was any more dominant than Connors....Connors certainly had more weeks at #1. At their best, do I think Borg is better? Sure. I'd say Mac is too. But, overall career accomplishments, total wins, win%, impact on the game, you've got to have JC right up there. Borg made a big impact too, but during a much shorter time frame. The popularity of tennis in the US was stratospheric from the mid 70's to early 80's, due to the "characters" out there like Bjorn, Jimmy, Chrissy, Mac, Martina, et, all. Very dramatic stuff

Excellent post. According to the official ATP computer rankings, Connors was the YE #1 from 74-78, Borg 79,80. I was not a fan of either. For me, off grass, Borg's game was boring. Connors personality was a problem for me. IMO, Borg is slightly overrated here and Connors underrated.

 

[MathGeek]

For most younger fans, Borg>Connors is as simple as 11>8 and the-rankings-sucked-back-then

Am I correct in thinking that most of you have Borg>Connors?

Back in the day, there was less tendency to attempt such one dimensional evaluations.

We could accept that a player may be weaker in one aspect, but still be a fan and enjoy watching them, because we perceived them as stronger in other aspects. There was something in the heart of Connors that just made him fun to watch. He turned young people onto the game - including me.

Let's face it, most of us can never aspire to the skill of Borg or Connors, but we can all learn something and emulate and aspire to Connors' heart and fighting spirit.

 

[thrust]

Back in the day, there was less tendency to attempt such one dimensional evaluations.

We could accept that a player may be weaker in one aspect, but still be a fan and enjoy watching them, because we perceived them as stronger in other aspects. There was something in the heart of Connors that just made him fun to watch. He turned young people onto the game - including me.

Let's face it, most of us can never aspire to the skill of Borg or Connors, but we can all learn something and emulate and aspire to Connors' heart and fighting spirit.

TRUE!

 

[KG1965]

.

 

[markwillplay]

MAC did not lose his motivation when Borg left. He got married...lost desire to kill. When he tried to get it back, Lendl had figured him out and began to dominate him. I love Mac, but Borg was NEVER his biggest rival. Not by a long shot. Lendl was. Mac still refers to Borg as his biggest rival. BS. I remember watching far more matches between Mac and Lendl. Mac doesn't want to admit that Lendl was his biggest rival because he did not do so well against him. Borg quit at 26 after loosing the final of US open AGAIN. He wanted that title sooooo bad.

What Borg was at his best, he was awesome. Connors was remarkably tough no matter what. He was very consistent and never mailed it in. Vicious competetor. He may not beat the other greats at their best, but thwy knew th ay had to play well to beat him. No free points....none.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Back in the day, there was less tendency to attempt such one dimensional evaluations.

We could accept that a player may be weaker in one aspect, but still be a fan and enjoy watching them, because we perceived them as stronger in other aspects. There was something in the heart of Connors that just made him fun to watch. He turned young people onto the game - including me.

Let's face it, most of us can never aspire to the skill of Borg or Connors, but we can all learn something and emulate and aspire to Connors' heart and fighting spirit.

Great post. So was it just about the tennis? I think today it's much more than that.

 

[Waspsting]

Back in the early 70s, Laver asked Emerson how many majors he had won.

Emmo said he didn't know--he had never kept track of them.

I wonder if Laver was testing him - or he genuinely didn't know Emerson's figure

For that matter, did Laver know how many he himself won?

In 2000, Emerson said he hadn't known he owned the record until Sampras passed it (This I'm sure, was a joke)

 

[KG1965]

Sudden.

1) Laver knew who Emerson was, of course, how NBA basketball players in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80 knew, perhaps, who was some the players who won the Basketball Olympics.
Laver knew Roy's record counted zero.
Like the Olympics won by other non-NBA states.

 

[KG1965]

2) Emerson did not say the truth, knew he had the record, knew it was worth zero but it was a record.
For 30 years the best did not fight in slams, when Open started the first record he was Laver that won 5 then in essence he did not participate anymore.
Connors won the 4th in 1976 but never said he was overtaking Laver.
Borg surpassed Laver's five in 1978 but did not say he had passed Laver's slams, nor did he say he wanted to overtake Laver's 11 (6 amateurs) or Roy's 12 (all amateurs).
If anyone interested in the record the top players would participate in mass at Melbourne or Paris ....

IMHO's Roy record research was ranked 78th among the top priorities.

 

[KG1965]

TRUE!

thrust, something is missing.
Something has disappeared in your previous post you sent me.

 

[KG1965]

There was a split, a double binary.

In non-American states the most important basketball's event in the 1950-60-70-80 was the Olympics, not NBA.
In the 1950s and 1960s no one was interested to the NBA.
Only since the 70s the NBA began to be ... familiar.

I think the same happened in the tennis.

In Italy, for example, in the early 60's we knew that Pietrangeli had won 2 RG, did not care anyone Pancho or Segura, Rosewall or Laver.

 

[hoodjem]

I wonder if Laver was testing him - or he genuinely didn't know Emerson's figure

For that matter, did Laver know how many he himself won?

Laver and Emmo were good friends, and often doubles partners.

Measuring greatness by slam total only would have been regarded as absurd back then. Were they less intelligent?

 

[jrepac]

I only partially understand your post.

Peak Borg> Peak Connors
... but the perception is wrong because it points out that the 1979-80 comparison was both at the peak.

Dominance Borg> Dominance Connors, it's true because Connors never has more than one consecutive year of dominance.

Longevity: There was no comparison because Borg did not have enough time.
Connors's longevity is legendary but not from the point of view of winning longevity (such as Rosewall & Federer) ... Jimmy has long been victorious from 1973 to 1984. Then he won no more, he just gave performance.

99.9% of Jimbo's wins are not due to longevity.
Too overvalued.

Connors's titles:
- 70% in 70 years,
- 29,9% in 80s,
- 0,1% longevity.

I did not understand the question "My question is what are the things that go into those categories? "

73 to 84 is 12 years of being at the very top of the game....that does surpass Borg in terms of longevity and achievement and many others in his peer group. After '84, Connors went thru a 4 year dry spell of no ATP titles (very weird, actually to have a dozen finals and no wins), then won like 4 more in 2 years (88,89). 1990 was shot, due to his wrist. '91 was his comeback year, but no titles came with that.....and by '93 he was off frolicking in the Seniors Tour for another 5-6 years or so. All in all, not too bad.

 

[KG1965]

73 to 84 is 12 years of being at the very top of the game....that does surpass Borg in terms of longevity and achievement and many others in his peer group. After '84, Connors went thru a 4 year dry spell of no ATP titles (very weird, actually to have a dozen finals and no wins), then won like 4 more in 2 years (88,89). 1990 was shot, due to his wrist. '91 was his comeback year, but no titles came with that.....and by '93 he was off frolicking in the Seniors Tour for another 5-6 years or so. All in all, not too bad.

jrepac, in period 1985-88 Connors lost 4 finals for injuries (Chicago 86, Queen's 87, Memphis 87, Milan 88), touches the title to Queen's 87 (Becker) and Key Biscayne 88 (Wilander).
In the final rounds he lost brilliance.

 

[Waspsting]

Please analyze a theory of changing nature of playing dynamics I have (it's a bit long and concerns forehand vs backhand and changing racket tech)

---

The backbone of baseline exchanges is cross court rallies. Always has been. when a right hander plays a left hander, that means there's a direct duel -

Forehand vs Backhand

In post-wooden racket times, virtually nobody has a better backhand than forehand. It'd almost be like a woman being better than a man - that's how clear this is

hence, when opposed-handed opponents slug it out from the baseline, there's a sense of one being on the attack (forehand) the other on the defensive (backhand)

--

Which brings us to Jimmy Connors, an attacking baseliner, with the backhand being his stronger side.

A player of this type wouldn't achieve much in modern times. His backhand, even if it's the best in the world, would be outgunned by many a right handers forehand

Yet Connors was tremendously successful.

I speculate this is based on the less powerful racquets used in his heyday. With such equipment, the nominal power one could get into a forehand hadn't reached overwhelming levels

Borg, who had one of the best forehands ever, seems to be the only guy who could get the better of the forehand to Connors' backhand contest - and that too not by much

Thoughts, gentlemen?

 

[jrepac]

jrepac, in period 1985-88 Connors lost 4 finals for injuries (Chicago 86, Queen's 87, Memphis 87, Milan 88), touches the title to Queen's 87 (Becker) and Key Biscayne 88 (Wilander).
In the final rounds he lost brilliance.

This is true, I know. As he got older, his physical problems mounted. At one point, he was wearing a back brace in his matches (a corset type support). But, Connors being Connors, he was going to keep going. Which I am sure contributed to his wrist injury and successive hip replacements. talk about giving an arm and a leg to your sport... BTW...he should've won that Queen's match...I think he got tight in the late stages and let Boris back in. That match against Wilander was a doozy too. At least he finally broke the losing streak in '88. The guy could still play some pretty impressive tennis at times, to say the least.