What connects Novak Djokovic with Sampras, McEnroe and Connors?

[pj80]

Djokovic is the 4th player with nine world no. 1 runs, joining the American trio of Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras.
John McEnroe collected 14 world no. 1 runs between 1980 and 1985.
Jimmy Connors embraced nine ATP reigns between 1974 and 1983.
Pete Sampras added 11 during his best years, overpowering all his rivals and finishing on 286 no. 1 weeks.
Novak's ninth reign came after a historic triumph in Paris, adding 2000 ATP points to his tally and hoping to confirm his position at the upcoming Wimbledon.
Novak is in a good place to have an extended run at the top, although he will lose the throne if Carlos Alcaraz claims the ATP 500 Queen's crown.

What connects Novak Djokovic with Sampras, McEnroe and Connors?

 

[weakera]

They are all American icons, clearly

 

[ChrisRF]

I never understood the obsession with a high number of reigns in such a regard. It's the same like praising a boxer fo having many championship reigns. But it always means that they had to lose the title in between.

Federer had only one reign between 2004 and 2008. By this logic here it would be an argument against him.

Even the great Muhammad Ali has this one thing where he is praised for what was actually a failure. When he started his 3rd championship reign after beating Leon Spinks, that was only possible because he didn't take Spinks seriously some months before and lost his title against him. This is in huge contrast to his first comeback as a champion after he was undeservedly robbed of the title by politics.

Same for Djokovic: Being back NOW is a great and well-deserved achievement, because similarly to Ali he was robbed by politics. However, generally a high number of reigns is irrelevant. Only the number of weeks matters, and because he is on top THERE, he is the best. McEnroes "14 reigns" mean nothing.

 

[Hitman]

I never understood the obsession with a high number of reigns in such a regard. It's the same like praising a boxer fo having many championship reigns. But it always means that they had to lose the title in between.

Federer had only one reign between 2004 and 2008. By this logic here it would be an argument against him.

Even the great Muhammad Ali has this one thing where he is praised for what was actually a failure. When he started his 3rd championship reign after beating Leon Spinks, that was only possible because he didn't take Spinks seriously some months before and lost his title against him. This is in huge contrast to his first comeback as a champion after he was undeservedly robbed of the title by politics.

Same for Djokovic: Being back NOW is a great and well-deserved achievement, because similarly to Ali he was robbed by politics. However, generally a high number of reigns is irrelevant. Only the number of weeks matters, and because he is on top THERE, he is the best. McEnroes "14 reigns" mean nothing.

It goes with the saying - It's doesn't matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get back up.

 

[NAS]

I never understood the obsession with a high number of reigns in such a regard. It's the same like praising a boxer fo having many championship reigns. But it always means that they had to lose the title in between.

Federer had only one reign between 2004 and 2008. By this logic here it would be an argument against him.

Even the great Muhammad Ali has this one thing where he is praised for what was actually a failure. When he started his 3rd championship reign after beating Leon Spinks, that was only possible because he didn't take Spinks seriously some months before and lost his title against him. This is in huge contrast to his first comeback as a champion after he was undeservedly robbed of the title by politics.

Same for Djokovic: Being back NOW is a great and well-deserved achievement, because similarly to Ali he was robbed by politics. However, generally a high number of reigns is irrelevant. Only the number of weeks matters, and because he is on top THERE, he is the best. McEnroes "14 reigns" mean nothing.

Yeps total matters in the end.
Fed having more than 300 weeks eclispe everybody apart from one player

 

[TripleATeam]

You could switch #1 every other week with a similarly skilled player. That'd give you hundreds of reigns at #1. It still isn't better than dominating the competition and having a single reign.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Just another "anti-record", that nobody should take seriously, unless each reign itself no less than 100 weeks each or something...LOL in which case it actually becomes relevant and significant...

 

[SonnyT]

Having many reigns means that that players has several competitors for #1. Take, for example, Federer's long reign, where he had no competition.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Having many reigns means that that players has several competitors for #1. Take, for example, Federer's long reign, where he had no competition.

I dunno about that man...i just don't buy this narrative...sounds fishy to me...

 

[Hood_Man]

Who's greater, the one who can hold a scalding hot potato the longest, or someone tossing it back and forth in their hands because it's too hot for their delicate hands?

 

[tex123]

Having many reigns means that that players has several competitors for #1. Take, for example, Federer's long reign, where he had no competition.

What do you make of this reign then? 6 - 7 slams.

 

[Kralingen]

Being key parts of their eras

 

[ChrisRF]

Having many reigns means that that players has several competitors for #1. Take, for example, Federer's long reign, where he had no competition.

This is an interesting post because it's so ambiguous. It's either intended to sound very positive for Federer or very negative. Could have been from the Pythia in Delphi.

I would interprete is as Federer simply being too good to have serious competition for his throne though.

 

[T007]

It goes with the saying - It's doesn't matter how many times you get knocked down, but how many times you get back up.

But Has to beat the best