The Big 3 of USO--put them in order

What is the pecking order in America?

  • Total voters
    44
I would rank them about equally, i.e., a three-way tie. Sampras was 5-3 in finals, whereas Fed and Connors were 5-2. So Pete gets credit for that extra final, but there are no other special factors in his favor. He made nine total trips to the USO semifinals; Fed did it 10 times, and Jimbo an impressive 14 times, including 12 in a row! Pete never had more than three finals in a row; Fed had six, and Connors five. Fed of course gets extra points for holding the record for consecutive titles, with five. And Connors won the title on three different surfaces, although it's a little unfair to penalize Fed and Pete in that respect, since the tournament was played on only one surface in their eras.
 
DSH said:
Connors
Sampras
Federer
:cool:
Click to expand...
In fact, all three have enough merit to achieve this distinction.
But unlike Connors and Federer, Sampras missed an edition in his absolute prime, in 1999, at the age of 28 and after winning Cincinnati in spectacular fashion.
I don't think anyone could have stopped him in NY that time.
 
They are equals, 5 titles each.

Connors has a special record in that he won it on three different surfaces, but Sampras and Federer were not given that luxury.

Sampras has more finals to his name, the ability to win in his teens, 20s and 30s, but never lost under the lights. No one outdid him in the night sessions.

Federer has the concentrated dominance, only player to win five in a row.


However, this should only be for OE.
 
Can stake their claim for each to be #1.

Whilst Sampras and Federer didn't have the opportunity to win it on 3 different surfaces, I very much doubt they would have won it on clay...

Sampras was just not suited very well for the surface and Fed would have had a Nadal problem that he wouldn't be able to solve. Maybe if Rafa dnp.

Then again, Connors didn't have to play Nadal on clay to win his US Open either.

One thing people may forget about Connors is, he also made the sf at 39 years of age.

Fed won 5 in a row.

Pete has one more final appearance over the other 2.

Again, just highlights the problems with trying to compare players from different eras...
 
The_Order said:
Can stake their claim for each to be #1.

Whilst Sampras and Federer didn't have the opportunity to win it on 3 different surfaces, I very much doubt they would have won it on clay...

Sampras was just not suited very well for the surface and Fed would have had a Nadal problem that he wouldn't be able to solve. Maybe if Rafa dnp.

Then again, Connors didn't have to play Nadal on clay to win his US Open either.

One thing people may forget about Connors is, he also made the sf at 39 years of age.

Fed won 5 in a row.

Pete has one more final appearance over the other 2.

Again, just highlights the problems with trying to compare players from different eras...
Click to expand...

You make valid points, but we don't know how they would have adapted to the green clay on USO. It plays faster and different, Borg who owned the red clay couldn't beat Connors there. While it is true that Federer might not have gotten past Nadal, the conditions for that clay court would be quite different. The way we saw with blue clay.
 
I lean Pete in this comparison because if not for injuries I think he would be the outright leader at the USO, which I don't think is the case for Federer or Connors - Fed was at times hampered in his later career there but it's not the same as being injured in your prime/peak. I'd probably put Fed second because I'm a fanboy and I like dominance lol.
 
NatF said:
I lean Pete in this comparison because if not for injuries I think he would be the outright leader at the USO, which I don't think is the case for Federer or Connors - Fed was at times hampered in his later career there but it's not the same as being injured in your prime/peak. I'd probably put Fed second because I'm a fanboy and I like dominance lol.
Click to expand...
If not for Fed's brain injury in the USO 09 final he'd be the outright leader
 
Connors for sure at the top of the pack. Ridiculous longevity that was being stopped only by top 10 players all the way to the very end. Multiple surfaces, multiple locations. Truly the king of New York.

Pete second for how he clung on there at the end even after he was washed everywhere else. Roger third.

Shoutout to Big Bill, the real king of New York. It's a shame he didn't have to/get to play Cochet and Lacoste more often.
 
I will never understand why having a better record in finals is better than having more finals played overall.
To lose a final you have to get there, it's not a bonus trip.
If Federer and Sampras have a 5-2 record in the final compared to Connors' 5-3, it means they had a less convincing tournament by being eliminated before the final.
It's not exactly the same as having a 6-2 instead of a 5-3 with the same number of appearances.
So 5-3>5-2 without any doubt, for the same reason that Djokovic's 4-6 despite its negative record remains superior to Nadal's 4-1 despite its positive record, precisely because getting to play 5 more finals is a plus not a minus.

Just as I will never understand why winning 5 consecutive editions is a more significant feat than always winning 5 times but distributed differently.
Winning 5 consecutive times can be synonymous with greater dominance but at the same time also with having been more competitive in a shorter period of time.
For example, if one were to win the same number of times but perhaps spread over 15 years between the first and last time, it would be a type of feat that is anything but less significant.
 
Hitman said:
You make valid points, but we don't know how they would have adapted to the green clay on USO. It plays faster and different, Borg who owned the red clay couldn't beat Connors there. While it is true that Federer might not have gotten past Nadal, the conditions for that clay court would be quite different. The way we saw with blue clay.
Click to expand...

Nah... very different to blue clay...

blue clay was blue due to a dye they used and that is what made it slippery (which is what players complained about). Madrid historically always played a bit faster due to the altitude as well.

green clay is actually naturally green (made from crushed metabasalt)

Conditions aren't that different (I've played on both) and of course I say that without knowing the moisture levels of the har-tru they played on at the US Open. But from my xp, har-tru was only a little faster.

Federer would've had to have a Rome 2006 level performance or Nadal a really bad day at the office.
 
The_Order said:
Nah... very different to blue clay...

blue clay was blue due to a dye they used and that is what made it slippery (which is what players complained about). Madrid historically always played a bit faster due to the altitude as well.

green clay is actually naturally green (made from crushed metabasalt)

Conditions aren't that different (I've played on both) and of course I say that without knowing the moisture levels of the har-tru they played on at the US Open. But from my xp, har-tru was only a little faster.

Federer would've had to have a Rome 2006 level performance or Nadal a really bad day at the office.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
As I said many times Connors and Sampras were victim of circumstances in us open
Connors getting three clay years and loosing two to clay courter.
Sampras getting injured in 1994,98,99 and then playing style changed from 2000.
I am pretty sure with little bit of Lady luck they both would have won more than six.
Only time Fed luck betrayed him was 2017 but even there he was being greedy , wanted to become number one.
2017 was not lock as he has to beat Delpo and Rafa back to back but seeing his Shanghai form I will give Fed edge.
For me Connors> Sampras> Fed in us open
 
To me Connors is definitely no. 1. From 1974-1985, he reached the semi-finals every year without fail, and from 1973-1991, the only times he failed to reach the quarter-finals were in 1986 when his season had been hugely derailed by his 10 week suspension, and 1990 when he was sidelined due to a wrist injury.

The fact that his US Open record includes beating Vilas and Borg back to back, to win the title on 1976 on har-tru, a big tiebreaker IMO. He destroyed Vilas in their SF only facing 1 break point (Rosewall had 3 break points during the 1974 final massacre on grass). Specifically on har-tru, Borg had won 3 straight US Pro titles in Boston from 1974-1976, and beat literally everyone else of note on the surface during that period (Nastase, Vilas, Orantes, Kodes Panatta, Ramírez, Dibbs and Solomon) apart from Connors.

He could conceivably had have won more than 1 US Open title from 1975-1977 had it either continued to be held on grass, or had the switch to the hard courts at Flushing Meadows taken place 3 years earlier. But as it was, he has able to win it on 3 different surfaces, and win 4 out of his 6 matches vs. Borg, Orantes and Vilas during the 3 year har-tru window.

Sampras's feat of winning US Open titles as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s of course stands out.

And Federer winning 5 consecutive titles at hard court major, in an era when tennis had become far more hard court centric and when there was clearly stronger competition overall on hard courts compared to clay and grass, was of course outstanding.

But overall I agree with the Connors > Sampras > Federer rating.
 
Last edited:
Rosstour said:
Fed won his 5x in a row, nothing else need be said IMO. And it was almost 6
Click to expand...
Should have been 7 consecutive USO finals had Federer not screwed up 2 match points.

All 3 have 5 USO, but if you ask who was more impressive than it has to be Federer
 
Gizo said:
To me Connors is definitely no. 1. From 1974-1985, he reached the semi-finals every year without fail, and from 1973-1991, the only times he failed to reach the quarter-finals were in 1986 when his season had been hugely derailed by his 10 week suspension, and 1990 when he was sidelined due to a wrist injury.
Click to expand...
the main issue for me is that Connors made all those QFs/SFs, but i don't think he would generally have been capable of winning against the finalists/winners/other semifinalists, or against that level of player in other events/eras, so i wouldn't value his longevity as much as e.g. Agassi's. then when we get into peaks Connors was clearly less dominant than Sampras and Federer, and arguably even McEnroe and Lendl
Gizo said:
He could conceivably had have won more than 1 US Open title from 1975-1977 had it either continued to be held on grass, or had the switch to the hard courts at Flushing Meadows taken place 3 years earlier. But as it was, he has able to win it on 3 different surfaces, and win 4 out of his 6 matches vs. Borg, Orantes and Vilas during the 3 year har-tru window.
Click to expand...
i mean, 1. he broadly lost those matches to Orantes and Vilas because they held even from the baseline and outdid him on serve-return, while outright rolling over Borg with power baselining (distinctly unclay-like paradigms), 2. Connors had prior wins over those three on green clay even outside of the USO (so it's not just a home field advantage being insufficient over multiple tough matches thing), and 3. in general Connors' green clay record from '74-79 (barring maybe '77) was quite good (not to mention his wins at North Conway and RG '79)

i think it's more accurate to say that Connors' losses were very much due to Orantes, Vilas, and Connors' forms in those events and years, than to say that Connors would have done better on hard/grass. feel like the other slam losses in '75-'77 are quite relevant here
 
NatF said:
I lean Pete in this comparison because if not for injuries I think he would be the outright leader at the USO, which I don't think is the case for Federer or Connors - Fed was at times hampered in his later career there but it's not the same as being injured in your prime/peak. I'd probably put Fed second because I'm a fanboy and I like dominance lol.
Click to expand...
Yzaga was too strong
 
Hitman said:
They are equals, 5 titles each.

Connors has a special record in that he won it on three different surfaces, but Sampras and Federer were not given that luxury.

Sampras has more finals to his name, the ability to win in his teens, 20s and 30s, but never lost under the lights. No one outdid him in the night sessions.

Federer has the concentrated dominance, only player to win five in a row.


However, this should only be for OE.
Click to expand...

I was also going to say this one is not straight because USO has been played on all surfaces. Even just by the record, I find it hard to pick one guy like you said.
 
NatF said:
I lean Pete in this comparison because if not for injuries I think he would be the outright leader at the USO, which I don't think is the case for Federer or Connors - Fed was at times hampered in his later career there but it's not the same as being injured in your prime/peak. I'd probably put Fed second because I'm a fanboy and I like dominance lol.
Click to expand...
Federer was sabotaged by the surface slowing down too. 2011-2018 was a disgrace compared to early 00s and before.

If 2010s USO plays like Cincy Federer wins at least 2 more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF
Fed has the best overall case, imo. 5 in a row against every variety of player is tough to beat.

Pete winning it 12 years apart is incredible, but 40 match wins in a row is…mwah…and almost no squeakers among those 40 wins.


If we’re talking about sheer accomplishment difficulty without factoring in competition or luck, then Connors winning on three surfaces might take the cake, but I’ll always believe the guy was born with a horseshoe up his rear in that tournament: soft draw in ‘74, Borg’s brutal blisters in ‘78, the infuriatingly bad line calls in ‘82, the scandalous unchecked gamemanship (and probable outright cheating, if his then-agent is to be believed) in ‘83…..miss me with that.

So:

1. Fed
2. PETE
3. Connors
 
fedfan24 said:
Federer was sabotaged by the surface slowing down too. 2011-2018 was a disgrace compared to early 00s and before.

If 2010s USO plays like Cincy Federer wins at least 2 more.
Click to expand...

Speed is the key. Federer was robbed many titles because of the moronic decision by converting to homogenous environment
 
Angrybirdstar said:
the main issue for me is that Connors made all those QFs/SFs, but i don't think he would generally have been capable of winning against the finalists/winners/other semifinalists, or against that level of player in other events/eras, so i wouldn't value his longevity as much as e.g. Agassi's. then when we get into peaks Connors was clearly less dominant than Sampras and Federer, and arguably even McEnroe and Lendl
Click to expand...

In 1973 had he got past Newcombe, he'd have stood a pretty good chance of beating Rosewall and Kodes to win the title (he was very much on the rise then), and in 1984 had he got past a peak Mac who he took to 5 sets, he'd have been favoured to beat Lendl (physically battered after his SF win vs. Cash) in the final. Plus he was the heavy favourite in the 1975 final, though Orantes was supremely good that day. So i think he could have conceivably have won more than 5 titles there.

The main knock against his US Open record IMO, was his huge slice of luck to face a completely injured Borg in the 1978 final - the match was essentially a walkover. Then again he played entire matches himself at the tournament when injured, his 1979 (back injury) and 1985 (ankle injury) semi-finals for example, though it would have been difficult for him to beat Mac and Lendl in those respective years.

I think his longevity at the US Open comfortably beats Agassi's. In 10 years from 1991-2000 when aged 21-30, Agassi failed to reach the quarter-finals 5 times and failed to reach the semi-finals 6 times. With Agassi, in comparisons with other legends like Connors, there can be a habit of focusing mainly on the earlier and later portions of his career and discounting much of the middle portion in-between (which still counts towards longevity IMO).

Sampras was marginally more more dominant than Connors at the US Open with 3 titles in 4 years there compared to 3 in 5 years for Connors, but still failed to reach the quarter-finals in 1997 during his peak run.

I also personally think when comparing players' records at majors, all of their results there from day 1 through to retirement should be considered, and not just the years in which they were serious title contenders. So to me Connors gets huge props for destroying a prime Edberg for the loss of 6 games on his 37th birthday (one of the 6 games that Edberg won was awarded to him following a game penalty for Connors), and his memorable semi-final run in 1991, which was more iconic than any of his, Sampras's, or Federer's titles runs.

Angrybirdstar said:
i mean, 1. he broadly lost those matches to Orantes and Vilas because they held even from the baseline and outdid him on serve-return, while outright rolling over Borg with power baselining (distinctly unclay-like paradigms), 2. Connors had prior wins over those three on green clay even outside of the USO (so it's not just a home field advantage being insufficient over multiple tough matches thing), and 3. in general Connors' green clay record from '74-79 (barring maybe '77) was quite good (not to mention his wins at North Conway and RG '79)

i think it's more accurate to say that Connors' losses were very much due to Orantes, Vilas, and Connors' forms in those events and years, than to say that Connors would have done better on hard/grass. feel like the other slam losses in '75-'77 are quite relevant here
Click to expand...

While Connors was outstanding on har-tru and literally beat everyone of note on it, the fact that he was even stronger on the preceeding and suceeding surfaces used at the same tournament is different to overlook for me. Har-tru was merely his 4th strongest surface.

Orantes went into the 1975 US Open in excellent form after notable title runs at Indianapolis and Toronto, and Vilas had won 34 / 38 (including 4 wins at an 'unofficial' event) matches in a row going into the US Open final. And Connors did have chances to go 5-1 up in the 3rd set and had a couple of set points. So it took formidable competition to stop him winning more than 1 title from 1975-1977, after he had already overcome strong competition (Borg in 1975 and Orantes in 1977) to reach the finals he lost.

If he could reach the final every year at the tournament and win it once on his 4th strongest surface, I think it's realistic that he could have won it more than once on grass or hard courts. Plus regarding hard courts, it wasn't just the surface, but the fact that he was far happier playing at Flushing Meadows where he quickly became beloved, than at the stuffy, blue blood Forest Hills where he was widely disliked.

He suffered defeats in grass court majors to Ashe, Tanner, Newcombe and Borg during that window, but Ashe and Newcombe would be less of a threat on any surface post-1975, he was sort of a home boy that was automatically more formidable at his home major anyway (I think it would be tougher to beat him on US Open grass than Wimbledon or Kooyong grass) etc. Tanner was IMO probably the single biggest victim of the switch to har-tru.
 
Last edited:
Connors had nasty competition with Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. And it seems impossible that he won the title on 3 different surfaces.

As much as I really respect Fed’s 5 consecutive titles, I cannot put him above Connors. Fed had some nasty road blocks in his way with Djokodal.

I will go
1. Connors
2. Federer
3. Sampras
 
Gizo said:
In 1973 had he got past Newcombe, he'd have stood a pretty good chance of beating Rosewall and Kodes to win the title (he was very much on the rise then), and in 1984 had he got past a peak Mac who he took to 5 sets, he'd have been favoured to beat Lendl (physically battered after his SF win vs. Cash) in the final. Plus he was the heavy favourite in the 1975 final, though Orantes was supremely good that day. So i think he could have conceivably have won more than 5 titles there.
Click to expand...
has to do with our definitions of longevity probs, but i was referring mainly to the '85-'91 QFs+ as insufficient. i think certain versions from '79-'84 could have done better when transplanted, but there's still some uncertainty given the explicitly missed opportunities in '75, '77, and '80, so that stat is not what i'd bring up as the first point for Connors (i think the points related to handling Orantes, Borg, and Vilas as stiff competition on green clay are much stronger)

Rosewall given his age and the matchup sure, but i'm not sure i'd favor '73 Connors over Kodes, given that Kodes put up a much better fight against Newcombe, Kodes put up good fights against Connors at Wimbly and USO '74, and Kodes at the time had more experience with big matches at slams

i totally agree that Connors could have won more than 5 titles, but i would say that's also true of Sampras and Federer, and that arguments for Connors as the greatest USO player should begin from (determining/describing) how well he played in (at least) '74-'84, rather than merely referring to his consistency to make all those SFs at the USO in that time period. in general i think arguments should be tailored to the player - consistency-type arguments are inherently more viable for Evert because that was her deal, whereas Connors should get something more flashy to reflect the aura he possessed (which you referred to later with his '91 run)
Gizo said:
The main knock against his US Open record IMO, was his huge slice of luck to face a completely injured Borg in the 1978 final
Click to expand...
hm, i wouldn't think it was much more lucky than it was unlucky to deal with the surface switching, and i wouldn't really give Connors' record a knock for something out of his control
Gizo said:
With Agassi, in comparisons with other legends like Connors, there can be a habit of focusing mainly on the earlier and later portions of his career and discounting much of the middle portion in-between (which still counts towards longevity IMO).
Click to expand...
i guess i would refer to most of that middle portion as the prime (even if it is very shaky/approximate in Agassi's case), and the remaining years around that period as early/late-primeish or longevity-type years (depending on how suddenly the player fell off). my point is that:

1. Agassi's level from '99-'06 at AO and USO was more impressive than Connors' at USO from '81-88

2. this is fair to bring up without needing to necessarily contextualize Agassi's ~30-year-old-years with his overall career arc

3. we should instead fold that into discussions of Agassi's '92-'98 vs Connors' '74-'80 (HUGELY favoring Connors), Agassi's '88-'91 vs Connors' '72-'73 (moderately favoring Agassi), and Agassi's "nothing" vs Connors' '89-'92 (moderately, rather than infinitely, favoring Connors)
Gizo said:
I also personally think when comparing players' records at majors, all of their results there from day 1 through to retirement should be considered, and not just the years in which they were serious title contenders. So to me Connors gets huge props for destroying a prime Edberg for the loss of 6 games on his 37th birthday (one of the 6 games that Edberg won was awarded to him following a game penalty for Connors), and his memorable semi-final run in 1991, which was more iconic than any of his, Sampras's, or Federer's titles runs.
Click to expand...
i think all those results should be considered, but they should be weighed differently. primarily criticize inconsistency in the winningest (prime) period, give leeway in the late stages when consistency starts dropping off, give even more leeway in the early stages when an identity has not been formed, and celebrate all wins but with preference to better play against better opponents in later rounds
Gizo said:
Har-tru was merely his 4th strongest surface.
Click to expand...
how much less favorable was it for him than grass and carpet (particularly against credible competition)?
Gizo said:
He suffered defeats in grass court majors to Ashe, Tanner, Newcombe and Borg during that window, but Ashe and Newcombe would be less of a threat on any surface post-1975, he was sort of a home boy that was automatically more formidable at his home major anyway
Click to expand...
i think those players would have all been very relevant in '75 on Forest Hills grass, along with Roche, Kodes, and Nastase, and you can also throw in Smith in '76 + '77 and Gerulaitis in '77. if it was instead hard courts, i think Connors would have had much less competition, but to my main point, i think he still could have been vulnerable to Someone (even if not Orantes, Borg, or Vilas specifically) catching fire, because that's what was happening to him in that time period. i would be more satisfied by the surface explanation if, for an example apart from the other slam losses, Connors wasn't also getting pushed to 5 by Panatta at USO '78
 
I’ve gone back and forth on whether Fed or Pete is the best here because they both had super solid wins and were remarkably consistent in their primes and even a good chunk of their post-prime seasons. Both also won against good competition most of the time.

It was like the only Slam Pete was still consistently good at in his twilight 2000-2002 years.

And Fed continued to push a younger, prime ATG to the absolute limits (in his best seasons 2011 and 2015, too) even as he aged, though he never quite got a title in those years.

I think I’ll have to give Fed the marginal edge here because of that jaw-dropping 2004 final performance, but it’s neck and neck. I actually think this is a closer discussion than their Wimbledon comparison.

Those two are far and away the best. Truthfully I don’t know how to even consider Connors in this ranking because he faced very different conditions compared to anyone else in the running. I will say that his ability to win multiple times against Lendl even as he started getting older is definitely a point in his favor. But I just don’t know how to weight his grass and clay USO titles. It’s not fair to compare him to the others so I just don’t. But he’s still an ATG at this Slam even if you only include his accomplishments at the HC USO.


For third I think I’d have to put McEnroe there.
 
It doesn't make much sense to compare what Connors did to what Rog and Sampras did, because it all depends on what we mean by "USO". We can look at it from a historical standpoint or just take into account what the USO is today (that is, an HC slam).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rosstour
  • Poll Poll
The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order
7 8 9
Replies
448
Views
18K
Angrybirdstar
A
Berrettini_Fan
  • Poll Poll
The Semi-Big 3 of USO--What Order?
2 3
Replies
127
Views
6K
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
beltsman
Post Big 3 pecking order?
Replies
6
Views
595
James P
James P
clout
Ranking the big three's slam runner-up performances
Replies
2
Views
451
metsman
metsman
mike danny
Can Daniil Medvedev defend his USO title?
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
BenBen
BenBen
Back
Top