Which Jimmy Connors longevity record is Federer more likely to reach?

[The_18th_Slam]

The two Jimmy Connors records that speak for his longevity in the game are:
1. Most (officially-recognized) titles in the Open Era - 109
2. Most (officially-recognized) match wins in the Open Era - 1256

Which of these two records do you think Federer is more likely to reach?

Most titles in the Open Era:
1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Roger Federer - 94
(Ivan Lendl - 94)

Most match wins in the Open Era:
1. Jimmy Connors - 1256
2. Roger Federer - 1124
3. Ivan Lendl - 1068

Yes, I do think Federer is unlikely to reach either, but that isn't the question. Discuss and vote.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed has almost no chance at all to reach 109 titles. Forget about that one. Match wins is a possibility, but he would have to play until 39/40 to get there. Few people factor in age-related decline, which accelerates the older he gets.

 

[racquetreligion]

109 is possible if he won past 40 or went hybrid 6 billion $ not 6 million $ man etc

 

[Bobby Jr]

109 would have been possible if Federer had played in an era where a third of the tournaments he played were tiny, virtually locals-only, events.

Connors' 109 titles is a record like comparing pre-open era majors - they just can't be compared like-for-like with the modern game. There are too many obvious differences.

 

[reaper]

The two Jimmy Connors records that speak for his longevity in the game are:
1. Most (officially-recognized) titles in the Open Era - 109
2. Most (officially-recognized) match wins in the Open Era - 1256

Which of these two records do you think Federer is more likely to reach?

Most titles in the Open Era:
1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Roger Federer - 94
(Ivan Lendl - 94)

Most match wins in the Open Era:
1. Jimmy Connors - 1256
2. Roger Federer - 1124
3. Ivan Lendl - 1068

Yes, I do think Federer is unlikely to reach either, but that isn't the question. Discuss and vote.

Mathematically he would win 1256 matches before he won his 109th title...so if he doesn't win 1256 matches he won't meet the title criterion either.

 

[Chadillac]

100+ matches is alot..

Matches won is my choice

 

[Tennisanity]

What equivalent does Connors have in terms of Slams + WTF + Master's?

 

[aman92]

None....they are untouchable

 

[reaper]

None....they are untouchable

If Federer wins 12 more matches this year which is entirely possible, that leaves him 40 per year for 3 years to get the record. Hardly insurmountable.

 

[aman92]

If Federer wins 12 more matches this year which is entirely possible, that leaves him 40 per year for 3 years to get the record. Hardly insurmountable.

You may think that right now....at this age, the body is more exponentially deteriorated

 

[big ted]

isn't Connors 109 tour wins an underestimate tho? I thought he won a bit more tournaments that weren't counted as ATP events (WCT tournaments and the like..)

 

[merlinpinpin]

Depending on how the end of the year (and especially 2018) pan out, he might still get both, as crazy as this seems. And yet, 109 titles was *the* record that everyone thought would forever be out of his (and everyone's) reach, even when he said quite a few years ago that it would be amazing if he could reach it. He's still too far now, but should he end 2017 at 96 and win 6 more in 2018, who knows?

 

[reaper]

You may think that right now....at this age, the body is more exponentially deteriorated

His body didn't look "more exponentially deteriorated" in Shanghai. Federer may not be playing better than he was 13 years ago, but he's playing better than he was 3 years ago.There's no dominant young player on the horizon for at least 2 years...so 120 wins from 2018-20 seems far from impossible. He's probably 50/50 to do it.

 

[timnz]

109 would have been possible if Federer had played in an era where a third of the tournaments he played were tiny, virtually locals-only, events.

Connors' 109 titles is a record like comparing pre-open era majors - they just can't be compared like-for-like with the modern game. There are too many obvious differences.

Of Connors 109 official titles - 77 were at 500 series equivalent level or higher . So his record isn’t at all top heavy with 250 level events. these are approx, figues open to interpretation. I just wanted to make the point though that around 3 quarters of his wins had quite a decent pedigree.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If Federer wins 12 more matches this year which is entirely possible, that leaves him 40 per year for 3 years to get the record. Hardly insurmountable.

Exactly.

Barring serious injury that would leave him sidelined for a long period of time Federer is almost certain to beat the #of matches won.

The # of titles is much harder to reach as these days Federer is doing exactly the opposite of Connors.

He is entering only the biggest tournaments ( with the occasional lower level warm up).

 

[Tenez!]

Of Connors 109 official titles - 77 were at 500 series equivalent level or higher . So his record isn’t at all top heavy with 250 level events. these are approx, figues open to interpretation. I just wanted to make the point though that around 3 quarters of his wins had quite a decent pedigree.

Fed has 70 at ATP 500+
So that's the real benchmark. Possible? You bet.

 

[mike danny]

The match wins is more possible as Fed can just win many matches without winning tournaments.

 

[albertobra]

Difficult but possible.

For someone who has been condamned by media a couple years to not win anything else, but has ansewred with winning 2GS, 3M1000 (plus 1 final) and a ATP 500 in the same year, it would be naivy to exclude Roger to catch up with Jimbo's amazing records.

 

[Red Rick]

15 titles
132 matches

He'd need to win a title for every 8.8 matches won.

Currently, Federer is on 1124 matches won, and 94 titles.

That's 1 title for every 11.96 matches.

He would need to be 35.8% more efficient than he has throughout his career.

Federer is playing a schedule that is notoriously light on 250s and other easier tournaments.

It's almost 100% certain that Federer would reach the match wins before the titles. Therefor, the only way that chances would be equal, would be if they were both 0% or both 100%, and that's simply not true.

 

[NatF]

isn't Connors 109 tour wins an underestimate tho? I thought he won a bit more tournaments that weren't counted as ATP events (WCT tournaments and the like..)

It is. Both he and Lendl won about 150 events total. Some of those should be counted by the ATP but probably not all of them.

 

[Zeref]

If he just wants to go for 109 titles he can play ATP 500 more . If he only goes for Masters 1000,basil and Halle , it's very much impossible

 

[Zebrev]

Federer will reach most match wins, that's certain. He has a body like we've never seen before, and will redefine longevity. Just because he might never win a Major again (but he probably will) doesn't mean his career is suddenly over. There's plenty more to play for.

 

[tennisaddict]

Both. Fed likes his name in the history books and he will do all he can to get there

 

[Bukmeikara]

isn't Connors 109 tour wins an underestimate tho? I thought he won a bit more tournaments that weren't counted as ATP events (WCT tournaments and the like..)

He has an ATP recognised tournament win where he beated ... 1 guy!

 

[fedfan39]

Fed has 70 at ATP 500+
So that's the real benchmark. Possible? You bet.

This doesn't sound right to me.

Federer has 52 *big titles*, and between Halle, Basel and Dubai, he has an additional 23. He should have at least 75 500+ titles by that count.

I didn't research this thoroughly. I know Dubai debuted as a 250 event; don't know when they switched to a 500.

 

[JRAJ1988]

I think Federer can win over 100 titles even perhaps equal or break the title record, he's won 6 titles so far this season, he's played 1 250 (bare that in mind), he'll most likely win in Basel if he maintains his form which will make it 95, WTF's he'll be the favourite in my estimation so that's a hypothetical 96. Can Federer win 6/7 titles a season till he retires? Yes he can, he might have to add more 250s to his schedule or not lose to 39 year old friends on purpose.

His game is built on longevity and in 2002 after Sampras won his 14th slam did anyone see anyone breaking that slam record?

Records are made to be broken and Sir Goat is the amigo to do it.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Of Connors 109 official titles - 77 were at 500 series equivalent level or higher . So his record isn’t at all top heavy with 250 level events. these are approx, figues open to interpretation. I just wanted to make the point though that around 3 quarters of his wins had quite a decent pedigree.

I never said his records are top heavy with 250 level events. They didn't even exist in the way they do now.

Connors factually won tons and tons of titles - regardless of their vague equivalency to modern title categories - which were devoid of top players and had draws the likes of modern players not having access to.

Look at early 1974 for Connors... After winning the Aussie Open he played:
21 Jan - Roanoke, USA (4 matches, title)
28 Jan - Omaha, USA (4 matches runner up)
11 Feb - Little Rock, USA (4 matches, title)
18 Feb - Birmingham, USA (4 matches, title)
25 Feb - Salisbury, USA (4 matches, title)
> One week break
11 Mar - Hampton, USA (5 matches, title)
18 Mar - Salt Lake City, USA (4 matches, title)
25 Mar - Temple, USA (5 matches, title)
> One week break
8 Apr - Washington DC, USA (2 matches, sf)

All up, 9 Tournaments in 11 weeks. 7 titles.

He played Karl Meller in three consecutive finals. Meller was ranked 34 at the time, Connors #4.

By not even a third of the way through the season Connors had won more titles than the top guys nowdays even play tournaments at that level in a whole year!

Impossible by modern standards for any top player to even attempt that.

Connors' 109 is as pointless a number to strive for as comparing pre-open era majors to open era ones.

 

[-NN-]

Fed has almost no chance at all to reach 109 titles. Forget about that one. Match wins is a possibility, but he would have to play until 39/40 to get there. Few people factor in age-related decline, which accelerates the older he gets.

Don't you mean age-related peak which accelerates the older he gets?

 

[KG1965]

I never said his records are top heavy with 250 level events. They didn't even exist in the way they do now.

Connors factually won tons and tons of titles - regardless of their vague equivalency to modern title categories - which were devoid of top players and had draws the likes of modern players not having access to.

Look at early 1974 for Connors... After winning the Aussie Open he played:
21 Jan - Roanoke, USA (4 matches, title)
28 Jan - Omaha, USA (4 matches runner up)
11 Feb - Little Rock, USA (4 matches, title)
18 Feb - Birmingham, USA (4 matches, title)
25 Feb - Salisbury, USA (4 matches, title)
> One week break
11 Mar - Hampton, USA (5 matches, title)
18 Mar - Salt Lake City, USA (4 matches, title)
25 Mar - Temple, USA (5 matches, title)
> One week break
8 Apr - Washington DC, USA (2 matches, sf)

All up, 9 Tournaments in 11 weeks. 7 titles.

He played Karl Meller in three consecutive finals. Meller was ranked 34 at the time, Connors #4.

By not even a third of the way through the season Connors had won more titles than the top guys nowdays even play tournaments at that level in a whole year!

Impossible by modern standards for any top player to even attempt that.

Connors' 109 is as pointless a number to strive for as comparing pre-open era majors to open era ones.

You're right in part.

Jimmy's career was long:
- from 1972 to 1975 you will find many bad titles (*) ;
- from 1976 to 1984 you will find almost only medium-high titles of the time;
- from 1985 to 1987 he did not win titles but he always participates in medium-high tournaments ;
- the 4 titles that won since 1988 until the end are poor (... Washington is bordeline).

(*) The reason he received many bad titles (1972-75) is because he was enrolled to a secondary circuit called I.P.A. (or USLTA) to which rare top players participated.

 

[Red Rick]

I think the chances are about 70% for the match record and about 15% for the title record. People need to realise this yeas been an incredible outlier

 

[albertobra]

Roger could actually easely reach Connors on titles won.

Just dedicate the whole 2018 seson in ATP 250ies, no GSs, no M1000s and no ATP 500s.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Federer shall play until after his 40th birthday and shall break Connors' win record.

He shall however not reach the 109 titles.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Of Connors 109 official titles - 77 were at 500 series equivalent level or higher . So his record isn’t at all top heavy with 250 level events. these are approx, figues open to interpretation. I just wanted to make the point though that around 3 quarters of his wins had quite a decent pedigree.

Which is why Connors is an all time tier 1 great in my book. Fed or Nadal could build up their title count by playing more low level touraments, but of course they skip them to focus on their slam count, to heal, and to stay mentally fresh. Connors , Mac, Lendl, Borg, Laver...paved the way for today's players to be able to take a break, put all their eggs in the slam basket.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Just because he might never win a Major again (but he probably will) doesn't mean his career is suddenly over. There's plenty more to play for.

But he doesn't care about anything except slams and hasn't for many years. He openly has said this, beginning in 2010. Lendl and Becker said similar things during their careers. Fed is not going to play Mickey Mouse tournaments to catch a record (Jimbo's) that he doesn't care about. If he gave a damn about piddly-assed tournaments, he could play Newport on grass every year and win that blindfolded.

Federer is playing for one thing and one thing only: more majors. Sure, he will play lesser events to maintain his match fitness and to keep his ranking in the top 4, so he gets favorable draws in slams. But it's all about the slams (and WTF) and nothing else is even on his radar screen.

 

[ohiostate124]

If he really wanted to, he could easily do it. There’s tons of 250 events he could rack up wins and titles at if it was really important to him.

He won’t though. He’ll still be focusing on the biggest tournaments.

 

[Deon Sanders]

Of Connors 109 official titles - 77 were at 500 series equivalent level or higher

Absolute fooking boolshit haha

Name those 77 would love to hear it

Most of his titles would not be tour level events today let alone 500 or higher

 

[r2473]

Fed has a Laver Cup. Something Connors wasn't able to win.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

isn't Connors 109 tour wins an underestimate tho? I thought he won a bit more tournaments that weren't counted as ATP events (WCT tournaments and the like..)

WCT, Womenswear Championship Tennis I assume.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I think the chances are about 70% for the match record and about 15% for the title record. People need to realise this yeas been an incredible outlier

Ergo the probabilities are considerably smaller than you suggest. More like 40% and 5%.

 

[tennis_pro]

He would easily reach both if he did what Connors did in 1985-1991.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer would easily reach the Connors' target if he played Chennai, Auckland, Montpellier, Rotterdam, Marseille and Dubai all in a row before Indian Wells/Miami.

That is the modern equivalent of what Connors did to achieve his title haul in the mid 70s. The difference is the tournaments Connors played were geographically closer together and had broadly weaker draws (opponent ranking-wise) most of the time.