Will Fed get to Connors 1,256 match wins?

Pass Connors total??

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 88.9%
  • No

    Votes: 12 11.1%

  • Total voters
    108

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Interesting, it will be a bit more difficult for Federer to break the record of Connors but at the end of the 2020 season we could see a new leader in victories in the history of the open era.
 

tudwell

Legend
Unless he goes on a tear and wins every tournament he enters fedr will pass the match win total long before the title total...5 minimum x 9 titles equals 45 matches.
You forget he only wins 250s these days, or so I hear, which only require 4 matches to win, and if he keeps getting walkovers from mugs like Nadal, he could keep winning titles without even setting foot on court! Fraud indeed.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
This would make no difference to Fed's career, and, if the above estimation is correct (1274), he will achieve it anyway, given that the same requirements for breaking 1256 are fulfilled.

:cool:
I beg to differ, I believe that surpassing a record of that caliber, will further enhance the legacy of Federer, which in itself is already immortal.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
That is all good, but you didn't answer my question which those matches are?

Also interesting is how it will be determined which will be counted and which not.

Also interesting is why it is happening exactly now?

Questions, questions ...

:cool:
So, I honestly can’t explain here how the tournaments are choosen, because that will make people give their own opinion and it’s not a good idea. There are some very weird posters here, so it’s better to not give them the possibility to argue!

Anyway, here you go.

There are 10 missing wins from missing early rounds tournaments already in ATP.
Roanoke 72 was a draw9 (ATP has draw2)
Manchester74 was a draw64 (ATP has draw16)
WCT Challenge Cup 76/77 was a Masters-style tournament : RR plus Sf and F (ATP has only Sf and F)
Tanglewood71 was a full draw64 (ATP has a bye for Connors in 1R)
Connors won 3rd place final in Dewars Cup 73 and Pepsi Grand Slam 76 (no third place finals in ATP)

Missing matches in missing tournaments : 8-3

Boston 69 : 0-1
Kingston Indoor 71 : 2-1
New York Indoor 72 : 0-1
Aetna World Tennis Cup : 6-0
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Connors has over 1,600 wins in his career.
Of course we are not going to post all of them.
I would say 1274 will be the final step
So do you think 1274 is a fair represention for his career?

Are there any tournaments you think that the ATP should add?
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
So do you think 1274 is a fair represention for his career?

Are there any tournaments you think that the ATP should add?
I don’t know if it’s fair.
Let’s say that it will be the more politically correct number for Jimbo.

We are going to add around 50 tournaments
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
You forget he only wins 250s these days, or so I hear, which only require 4 matches to win, and if he keeps getting walkovers from mugs like Nadal, he could keep winning titles without even setting foot on court! Fraud indeed.
We can thank The Nadal for demoting IW to 5-match 500 status because his knee hurt. Also, some 250’s have abandoned 1R bye to top 4 seeds. Delray was the most recent example. Vulturerer will pick those to keep match win counts up.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Anyway, here you go.

There are 10 missing wins from missing early rounds tournaments already in ATP.
Roanoke 72 was a draw9 (ATP has draw2)
Manchester74 was a draw64 (ATP has draw16)
WCT Challenge Cup 76/77 was a Masters-style tournament : RR plus Sf and F (ATP has only Sf and F)
Tanglewood71 was a full draw64 (ATP has a bye for Connors in 1R)
Connors won 3rd place final in Dewars Cup 73 and Pepsi Grand Slam 76 (no third place finals in ATP)

Missing matches in missing tournaments : 8-3

Boston 69 : 0-1
Kingston Indoor 71 : 2-1
New York Indoor 72 : 0-1
Aetna World Tennis Cup : 6-0
Does that tournament ended as a Connors title? If so, will they change it to 110 titles for Jimbo?
 

Soul_Evisceration

Hall of Fame
What if Connors comes back to Tour ? won't that make it impossible for Roger ?
LMAO. You're kidding right?

Jimmy Connors would not be able to beat anyone within the Top 700-1200 ranked players right now.

He would hardly win any matches if any matches including ITF Future Events (maybe D1 College matches) .

It's best that he stays retired.

Something like El Aynaoui and Rios will learn the hard way.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Interesting that the guy spitting for years on the ATP database is now it's best friend. Whether ATP shows 1274 Connors' wins or 1266 or 1256 really doesn't matter when Connors has more than 1500 tournament wins. The same is valid also for Lendl with more than 1300 tournament wins. And that stats unfortunately will be never presented by ATP. So, the ATP stats are not reliable for the past players, maybe forever.

I understand that many fans of current players want to build "new" records. But ... working with the ATP data is simply a bad idea.

Somebody speaks above about "a political correctness". Ha. Just to state it clearly that politics should have no place in sport. Politics only damages the sport.

By the way, if somebody is interested in Connors' stats it is a thread called "Connors' special events". The guys there did a great job.
 
Interesting that the guy spitting for years on the ATP database is now it's best friend. Whether ATP shows 1274 Connors' wins or 1266 or 1256 really doesn't matter when Connors has more than 1500 tournament wins. The same is valid also for Lendl with more than 1300 tournament wins. And that stats unfortunately will be never presented by ATP. So, the ATP stats are not reliable for the past players, maybe forever.

I understand that many fans of current players want to build "new" records. But ... working with the ATP data is simply a bad idea.

Somebody speaks above about "a political correctness". Ha. Just to state it clearly that politics should have no place in sport. Politics only damages the sport.

By the way, if somebody is interested in Connors' stats it is a thread called "Connors' special events". The guys there did a great job.
Think the sooner these old records are "broken" the better. A touch of the Pele "I scored over 1000 goals" about most of their unverifiable stats.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Think the sooner these old records are "broken" the better. A touch of the Pele "I scored over 1000 goals" about most of their unverifiable stats.
Well, nobody knows. We have old unbroken records in almost all sports. The players in the past were also too good. Pele is definitely such an example. I think his record is already verified with 1,170 goals if I recall correctly the research of experts.
 
Apparently what NoMercy said about the 1274 Connors’ victories became reality......
Few credited your complete ownage of this thread. Unfortunate.

Looks like Federer eclipsing 1274 would be meaningless, objectively, given how many Connors wins are being swept under the rug.
 
Federer also didn't play complete nobodies for many of his wins. Nowadays that is impossible for an elite tennis player.

:cool:
Yeah, I know that. But then even when Fed was at 1100 or 1000 wins, that was always true. He didn't be at no. 1 wins all time for people to accept that his wins were much higher quality.

What I mean is that breaking the record as an achievement in itself is meaningless if we simply take it at face value if the objective truth is that Connors has over 1500 wins. Federer won't truly be at the no. 1 position.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Few credited your complete ownage of this thread. Unfortunate.

Looks like Federer eclipsing 1274 would be meaningless, objectively, given how many Connors wins are being swept under the rug.
I got enough credit from the ones who really matter, so trust me, i’m more than happy.

And regarding Federer, what he will accomplish will be great anyway, as Connors era and Fed era are not comparable.
 

Luka888

Professional
We are mixing oranges with apples here. I said it before and I will say it again. Connors was wining some silly MM tournaments and he was playing so many tournaments with a couple of rounds. Even the ATP can't figure it our.
Fed is in another category. I hope Fed can do that magic number but it's irrelevant.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Pele played in time when the teams barely played defence compared to the modern standards.

He was great, but comparing that "record" to the modern goal scorers is pure BS. Same for Connors and his wins.

The best approach would be to never compare different eras, but the fake historians will always do that while crying about how the modern record books don't recognise their crooked approaches.

:cool:
The so called "modern standards" are not the mark for football quality, right? Hailing the current players and ignoring the past is nothing else than ignoring the natural evaluation of every sport. If following your thinking the fans in 30-50 years will say that the game and achievements of Fed, Nadal, Djok etc. were too old and not "modern". I definitely disagree with this approach. We should respect all the past achievements of the players as they are. No interpretation is needed.
Especially Connors and Lendl were big tennis machines and played incredibly a lot. I think nobody will reach them in the OE in this aspect. Not to forget the pre OE players which were more than machines.

Like it or not the players will be always compared. Not the modern record books but one political organisation (ATP) doesn't recognize the real stats of the players due to its chaotic and inconsistent organisation of the tour in the 70s, 80s and partly 90s. We have to be proud and happy that the modern books, i.e. recent discoveries in the last decade, have the full or almost full records of the players in the past. The big question is whether the fans, experts and journalists want to read and accept the real stats. Most of them obviously don't want following the easy way - "the current heroes are always the best". Yes but not.

Re Pele - not accidentally the guy is considered the best or one of the best in football. And he is there not because of the number of his goals. He is there because of his achievements - 3 times World champion and more than 20 club titles. Not accidentally FIFA chose Pele as "the player of the 20th century". This speaks enough. I am sure that heroes like Messi and Ronaldo wont be there.

As to the thinking that the teams barely played defensively I would only mention that defenders like Beckenbauer, Bobby Moore, Ruud Krol and Giacinto Facchetti are still in the all time lists of the best defenders - 40-50 years later. Adding to them 70s-90s glorious defenders like Maldini, Baresi, Hierro, Camacho, Vogts, Koeman etc. the list definitely goes in favor of the past.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
We are mixing oranges with apples here. I said it before and I will say it again. Connors was wining some silly MM tournaments and he was playing so many tournaments with a couple of rounds. Even the ATP can't figure it our.
Fed is in another category. I hope Fed can do that magic number but it's irrelevant.
Every player has won some "silly" tournaments. Is this the most important? What about Connors' multi battles with Lendl, Mac, Nastase, Borg? These were among the greatest rivalries.
 
Top