i thought this was amusing how someone had the boldness to tag jimmy connors
and connors retweeted and responded... lol
The idiot sounds like a Federer fanatic fan.
i thought this was amusing how someone had the boldness to tag jimmy connors
and connors retweeted and responded... lol
Bet that guy wouldn't dare face him on a tennis court!
The 109 titles are all approved by the ATP , an additional 40 were not sanctionedThis very aggressive twitter makes me think:
1) many fans of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were in the past very aggressive against the two rivals, against all opponents and all the old champions;
2) now it seems to me that the situation has improved even if areas of shadow remain
3) Federer is probably the GOAT, Nadal and Djokovic among the best of all time, there is no need to discredit others
4) many titles of Connors are week, ... but it is true that many titles won were not sanctioned by ATP.
5) the responsibility of this specific case IMO is above all of the media that have not adequately translated the past (the 70s and 80s are not as difficult as the 50s and 60s, and before that ...).
Certainly timnz; in my point 4) I just wanted to say that twitter has a reason, and that is that many of Connors's titles are weak, ... but we must not forget that the american (like Mac, Borg and Lendl) also won other titles not sanctioned by ATP.The 109 titles are all approved by the ATP , an additional 40 were not sanctioned
Mods, please delete this post. It's very offensive to accountants.
i thought this was amusing how someone had the boldness to tag jimmy connors
and connors retweeted and responded... lol
He never did beat them?Connors certainly belongs to the atgs in tennis. Wilander and Becker were not mentioned among the opponents. for a reason?
not in official ATP competition.....I know he beat Mats in a few exos, tho' Keep in mind JC did not play these guys until he was into his 30's....He never did beat them?
Otoh Jimbo couldn't handle teenagers...not in official ATP competition.....I know he beat Mats in a few exos, tho' Keep in mind JC did not play these guys until he was into his 30's....
hard to overrate connors. didn't have the biggest serve, or groundstrokes, or net game, but knew how to put it all together and just...win, man. just have to watch some highlights to know the guy was special.
LOL....Mats was more than just a "teenager"....let's give him his due.Otoh Jimbo couldn't handle teenagers...
The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.He never did beat them?
i thought this was amusing how someone had the boldness to tag jimmy connors
and connors retweeted and responded... lol
hard to overrate connors. didn't have the biggest serve, or groundstrokes, or net game, but knew how to put it all together and just...win, man. just have to watch some highlights to know the guy was special.
he is under-rated, if anything. His impact on tennis in the US was huge and cross generational. His groundies were pretty darn good...until Agassi came a long, probably the best among the US players. He was something of an opportunistic all-court player....with excellent court sense, timing, etc. Very unique. And very fun to watch, as most fans know. Love him or hate him. He was rarely boring.
How many ATP titles does that pansy Bearded Man have? What a disrespectful POS.
Jimmy earned his 109 titles. He didn’t get them in a Cracker Jack box. Records are always earned. Any type of manipulation of numbers is just an agenda.
Jimmy is the Open Era champ for titles. It’s also super cool that he had enough in the tank to make a slam semi at age 39. I don’t think that Federer can match that one, despite the advantages today in nutrition, training, surfers, etc.
Jimmy is a legend. Let’s leave it at that.
I don't know about winning ugly. That is not how I would describe prime Connors. He did not win by attrition. He was forceful and attacking. He won points, he didn't wait for the other player to miss. That's my idea of winning ugly.
Thing is, he didn't even win 109 as a result of hanging around so long. He had 105 at 32 and a couple months old. He only won 4 more titles after 1984.
He played in like 4 or 5 per year for the first 4 years of his career. Would have to go back and look at how many he won but you can see the draw size on the ATP website. There's tons, especially earlier in his career.A third had fields of 16? Seems awfully high to me. 36 of his titles were with fields of 16 or less? I think I'd take that bet. He did win a bunch on Riordan's tour and I could see some of them having smaller draws, but that's gone by what, 1976? I'll have to take a look. Maybe I'm wrong. I followed this guy awfully closely, though, and a third seems awfully high.
Certainly timnz; in my point 4) I just wanted to say that twitter has a reason, and that is that many of Connors's titles are weak, ... but we must not forget that the american (like Mac, Borg and Lendl) also won other titles not sanctioned by ATP.
This means that surely some of the sanctioned ATP tournaments and some sanctioned tournaments are weak tournaments, but it does not seem correct to me to say that half of those ATPs won are poor, and also excludes all those not sanctioned. Comic film comes out.
Obviously a person reasons as he believes.
Yep. Six matches between 1986 and 1992.The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.
Yep. Six matches between 1986 and 1992.
Connors would have been nearing 40 at the last match in July 1992 in Indianapolis.
Between 1986-92 Becker was aged 19-25.
Clearly a generational mismatch.
The ironic thing is that Connors never beat Wilander in official play, but almost always beat Wilander in non-sanctioned tournaments. H2H for Connors against Becker is 0-6. One has to take into account that their very first match was when Connors was 34.
I believe that the content of your post and that of WCT is not very far from reality.The amusing part of this is there is a fair dose of core truth to Beareded Man's tweet. In the early years Connors was playing tons of tournaments where he was the only top 20 player and almost everyone else were basically nobodies. Some were way worse with no-one else in the top 50 playing - Roanoke 1973 for example. He was #10 and nobody else was ranked in the top 50 and the best-ranked person he played was #77.
And for an idea of the amount of tournaments he sometimes played - he often played 6 tournaments in Jan/Feb alone in some seasons.
Some tournaments he won were 4 person-draws and he still got a bye to the final (Roanoke - 1972). I'd hazard a guess that at least a third of his career tournament wins were at events with 16 person draws (or less). For Federer it's probably none, or less than a handful at worst.
Some notable examples of his titles. And this is a quick look, not a complete list by any means. Not until 1976 did he really have genuine, ongoing competition from similar-age peers. He had already amassed 41 titles by that stage and he was only 23 years old. At the same age Federer had 8 titles.
- 1974 Australian Open title - highest ranked player he played was #29. The others were 49, 90, 155, 195. (This makes Nadal's 2017 US Open look like a tough draw.)
- 1974 Salt Lake City title - highest ranked player he played was #135... the others were 155, 239.
- 1974 Manchester title (#2 at the time) - highest ranked player he played was #63. The others were 285 and unranked (Mike Collins whose career peak was #793).
- 1975 Bahamas - (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were 66, 150, 168.
- 1975 Boca Raton (#1 at the time) - highest ranked player #50. The others were, 66, 88, 103, 108
*just saying* - no need to be butthurt if you love Connors but comparing his and Federer's titles is not comparing apples with apples in a great many cases.
"16 person draw" does not mean a 32 person draw with a bye. It means the draw was a 16 person draw which can accommodate up to 16 people. He played a stack of them, or smaller, early in his career.I looked at the site. Went through 1976 and I think I have counted 16. Some of them were not 16 man draws, though. It was 32 and he got a 1st round bye. Post 76, Dallas aside, I don't think he had many, if any at all. I didn't have time. When I do I'll do a real count. Still no way I see a third of his titles being that way. Big difference between 18 and 36. Not that 18 is insignificant. I won't dispute that.
It's irrelevant as the non-sanctioned events aren't included in his 109 titles anyway. Neither are Federer's Laver Cups, Davis Cups or exos with Sampras, Nadal etc. Nor should they be.I think it's rather impossible to "solve" the worth of the 109 tourneys question, We are to down weight several of them AND exclude non-ATP sanctioned events? That seems like a stacked deck against JC. Many of those non-sanctioned events were few in participants but high in quality of players."
It's irrelevant as the non-sanctioned events aren't included in his 109 titles anyway. Neither are Federer's Laver Cups, Davis Cups or exos with Sampras, Nadal etc. Nor should they be.
Remember the one Lendl used to play where the prize was a diamond tennis racket it was wild. I think that was in Antwerp.
I think it's rather impossible to "solve" the worth of the 109 tourneys question, We are to down weight several of them AND exclude non-ATP sanctioned events? That seems like a stacked deck against JC. Many of those non-sanctioned events were few in participants but high in quality of players. I just think the era was so, so different from today that it's very tough to make a fair comparison. I would leave it at simply "freaking amazing that 2 guys got over 100 wins"