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

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
It depends whether one finds the ATP process of selecting which matches to include adequate to result in selecting only matches similar to the current status of the ATP tournaments that the current normal elite players play.

:cool:
This is the Question where the key word is "selecting". They were 40-50 tournaments similar to the ATP tournaments but this is not a theme for ATP. Anyway, I don't expect to find them there but they deserve to be counted.
 
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.
Pele did not score 1000+ goals by any official metric, which is exactly the point I am making. To get Pele to 1000 goals you need to include goals he scored for the coast guard in the military competitions, tours, friendlies, behind-closed door matches etc. He has an official goal tally of 757. That is how many he scored.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
The modern standards I was alluding to are directly related to his record, so put in that context they are relevant to it. Whether one thinks that that is the single measure of quality is a completely different matter. The debate is not "everything old is low quality and everything new is high quality", but rather it is a question how the perception of "quality" changes.
Pele's goals are not so important for themselves. They are discussed according to the standards been valid either in the current times or 50 years ago. They show basically 2 important issues in football - 1. how much you help to your team in winning matches and titles and 2. the personal qualities and talent of the player. No old standards, no modern standards. The targets were / are always the same - to win. And you and your team win only when scoring more goals than the opponent. So, the number of goals is important.

As to the quality there is no measurement for it. If you know such please tell me. A perception of quality would be an endless discussion without any result. Every era has it's beauty, it's type of players, it's tactics. Finally, the results matter most, in every sport in every era.
So we do. That doesn't mean to not taking them for what they are: a unique result of the time back then.

"Noone will reach them" has to be put in context. The brand of tennis, the competition they faced and their achievements are making such statement pointless.
Maybe you are right. I pointed out my opinion on the matter. Unfortunately I don't see many perspectives after the big 3 are gone. The new players (with some rare exceptions) are getting lazier and mostly money-thinkers. Almost nobody plays more than 50-60 matches per year. Jimbo was a big machine in this aspect and he has my full admiration.
I don't mind that, although I don't see it as very meaningful. The only requirement is that while comparing one is not tempted to take criteria that stem from the context of one of the players and apply it to the other without recognising that he is doing it.
Exactly. The key word is recognition. That's why I don't work with the ATP database.
I find it extremely ironic that you diss ATP as "political", but take at face value the actions of FIFA, which is by far the most political sports organisation in an individual sport. BTW, you have to examine closer Pele's contribution to some of these WCs.
No irony at all. Both are political bodies with their pluses and minuses. I am not defending FIFA, I just mentioned their recognition for past players because ATP didn't made any proper recognition for the past. Even more the pre Open era doesn't exist for ATP. And this era is a huge tennis treasury. That's shame for tennis.
Or maybe ATP recognises also that the situation in different eras was completely different and inflating records by including wins/tournaments that wouldn't be even considered on the current elite level and acts accordingly to weed out those that are such. Both are true, so claiming "politics" in favour of the modern game conveniently misses the politics involved in wanting to include them too.
Nope. ATP stubbornly ignores the tournaments not sanctioned by it. It thinks - this is not mine, it shouldn't be there. ATP knows maybe very well that many not sanctioned tournaments have a very high value, even more value than many ATP tournaments. They don't want this.
Would the people that claim completeness of Connors's record of match wins be OK with it, if suddenly Federer starts mopping up every Futures and Challenger title available in the calendar? I think that he can win those in his late forties eclipsing the records of Connors?
Jimbo has 150 titles. Only 5 of them in the early years are Challenger type with weak competition. ;)
Yes, but somehow Pele didn't play all that much against those players you mention for his goals (and against a lot of them not at all). I wonder, would he have scored as many against Herrera's Internazionale, or against Juventus's defence from the 90ies, or the total football of Ajax? I really really doubt it, so what gives? Isn't the bankruptcy of joga bonito in the WC of 1982 (but also the previous two WCs) the most obvious answer to what happened?

BTW, I find it unfair to group the 80ies and 90ies defensive tactics as part of the "old" defence play. They are much much closer to what happens nowadays than to what happened in Pele's time.
We can only guess how Pele would have played vs Inter or Juventus. I don't work with guesses, they give just disputes but no answers.
I didn't group anything. I mentioned 4 top defenders (I would add also Jacky Charlton) in the Pele times which are still in the all time lists. This has to show that football had very good defenders which are still recognized by the football community.
You are not able to compare directly the football in the 50s-60s with 80-90s. As well as the football in 80-90s is not comparable with the current game. Already said about the natural evolution of every sport. The point is that we don't talk how the game was developed through the years. The point is what the players have achieved in their years. And the result is that Pele was the motor of the club and national teams and is 3 times World champion and nobody did this. Laver has 2 GS and nobody did this. That's what remains in the history - the accomplishments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Counting is fine. The question how the counted relates to the modern idea of "counting" is, however paramount when deciding what will and what won't be counted.

:cool:
If ATP is the body saying what to count and what to not count I say thanks for the "modern counting". I don't buy it. I can't trust to an incomplete or intentionally hidden info. I am not happy that ATP has 0 info about the pre OE like the tennis has started in the 70s. ATP has no arguments to say to the world WHAT are the criteria for it's counting (not counting). Don't expect that from ATP never.

And counting of non sanctioned events could be done relatively easy. Every tournament could be evaluated based on prize money, draw and competition and placed in the respective categories. I have done this already in my database though it requires time for the analysis. One example - Antwerp was the richest tournament for many years (more than slams) but was not sanctioned in the 80s. It was the typical Grade B tournament (if A are the slams) - big money and strong presence.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Pele did not score 1000+ goals by any official metric, which is exactly the point I am making. To get Pele to 1000 goals you need to include goals he scored for the coast guard in the military competitions, tours, friendlies, behind-closed door matches etc. He has an official goal tally of 757. That is how many he scored.
I can't argue about this. Is Guinness an official source for you? As far as I know they check carefully everything.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...s-world-records-achievements-in-london-52558/
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I won't get into long drawn debates about the decisions of the ATP unless I see a clear statement about their selection process.
You expect a clear statement? Good luck.
You don't work with guesses, but you "like to compare", so how exactly does that work?
Simple. I work with the players' full stats. No need to guess anything.
You don't want to "guess" but you are deluded to think that he would have scored that number of goals, and the number of goals is the record, not how much they helped his teams. BTW, as a team sport it is not clear who helped who. Pele was in the team that produced the backbone of the WC winning team of Brazil on two occasions, with up to 8 fielded players at one point. Surely you know what that means.
The time will tell who is deluded. Whether this is a record is said not by me. It's Guinness. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...s-world-records-achievements-in-london-52558/ Is Guinness deluded?!? I really don't know.

Who helped who? How do you think? Would be Barca without Messi the same Barca? Like I said Pele was not only a scorer, he was the motor of the team.
Since you don't have any argument about quality, I will leave you at your theories.
You didn't answer - how do you measure the quality?
They don't do anything for me, as IMO they lack substance (especially seeing your statements about pre OE players being "more than machines").
Yep. They were more than machines. Do you know how many matches Laver, Rosewall, Tilden etc. played during their careers?
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I won't get into long drawn debates about the decisions of the ATP unless I see a clear statement about their selection process.

You don't work with guesses, but you "like to compare", so how exactly does that work?

You definitely grouped them by saying "past" vs "present", and like I said Pele rarely played those prominent defenders. You don't want to "guess" but you are deluded to think that he would have scored that number of goals, and the number of goals is the record, not how much they helped his teams. BTW, as a team sport it is not clear who helped who. Pele was in the team that produced the backbone of the WC winning team of Brazil on two occasions, with up to 8 fielded players at one point. Surely you know what that means.

Since you don't have any argument about quality, I will leave you at your theories. They don't do anything for me, as IMO they lack substance (especially seeing your statements about pre OE players being "more than machines").

:cool:
Why do you speak to Ivan like this?!?
He is SO knowledgeable!!!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, Federer has a great chance to break Connor's all time most career match wins. Federer has 20 match wins this season so far, assuming that he gets 30 more wins by end of 2019, he will have 1,230 wins. So if he's healthy and maintain the same playing schedule in 2020, history in the making is imminent !
 
I think 1256 match wins is very doable. 110 tournament wins is tougher unless Fed starts playing 500 point tournaments. He played Rotterdam recently. Was that a 500 point tournament? He saw an opportunity to climb to #1 and grabbed it. Maybe he will look at 110 and think the 500 point tournaments will get him there. I doubt it though.

Of course it all depends on his health. I would expect him to be healthy since he's been that way nearly his whole career, but you never know.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
Its highly likely that Roger will play until the end of 2020 at the earliest regardless of results. In that time he is bound to pick up another 60 wins, which is enough to claim another one of the sports most momentous records.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Its highly likely that Roger will play until the end of 2020 at the earliest regardless of results. In that time he is bound to pick up another 60 wins, which is enough to claim another one of the sports most momentous records.
I know this is not a very interesting thread.
But if you had read it, you would have noticed that if he picks up another 60 wins, he will not claim anything
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Its highly likely that Roger will play until the end of 2020 at the earliest regardless of results. In that time he is bound to pick up another 60 wins, which is enough to claim another one of the sports most momentous records.
1275 is the magic number.

I believe he can win about 30 more matches for the rest of this year which leaves him with 44 shy of Connor's all time record. With 45 matches to win in 2020, it's very doable barring any injury.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I know this is not a very interesting thread.
But if you had read it, you would have noticed that if he picks up another 60 wins, he will not claim anything
Fed is definitely getting this record . The 109 may be a thing that Connors can hold on to but if you account for the 250’s included in that , it is not a comparison at all
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Fed is definitely getting this record . The 109 may be a thing that Connors can hold on to but if you account for the 250’s included in that , it is not a comparison at all
Are you replying to something I wrote or to another poster? Did I ever write that Fed will not break the record or that Connors’ 109 are better than Federer’s 101?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Why is he arrogant though?

Not a nice character trait.
The original post of NoMercy was different and more interesting:

"Dude, NoMercy is arrogant.
And he doesn’t care to be arrogant."

Can you see the big difference in bold? Nothing about what people think. He wants and is just proud to be arrogant.
Then he edited the post.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
1275 is the magic number.

I believe he can win about 30 more matches for the rest of this year which leaves him with 44 shy of Connor's all time record. With 45 matches to win in 2020, it's very doable barring any injury.
1275 is not a magic number. Connors has more than 1500 tournament wins. Lendl has more than 1300.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Wrong data. Forget them.
Nope.
After Federer's victory over Monfils in Madrid, he recorded his 1200th career victories and news are all over the internet also mentioned Connors is the all-time men's leader with 1,274 match wins. I don't forget them, you shouldn't either.
 

urban

Legend
All those ATP related match and tournament records are grounded in arbitrary decisions by the ATP. Thank God, even those ATP record themselves are more complete now, thanks by the help of No Mercy, the best tennis researcher today. That the ATP record keeping was a mess for many years, one can see on the ever changing numbers of tournament and match wins for older players. Those older players are winning now more, than the modern players, due to better research of old newspaper and new internet sources. Lendl and Connors in reality have won many more vital tournaments and matches, than the ATP accepts. Federers many wins are great, especially in modern circumstances, but the ATP is doing its best, to hype it without any worthy mentioning of tennis history. On the ATP side, i read, that Laver and Rosewall, who congratulated Federeron 1200 match wins, had won both "over 1000 matches". This makes me laugh, both won close to 2000 matches over their long careers. And No Mercy, found articles, who insist and confirm, that Tilden won 10.000 matches over his ultra-long career. This is the more real history of tennis, and the ATP should do more to shed alight on it, without unnecessarily hyping the modern players.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Nope.
After Federer's victory over Monfils in Madrid, he recorded his 1200th career victories and news are all over the internet also mentioned Connors is the all-time men's leader with 1,274 match wins. I don't forget them, you shouldn't either.
The media, the journalists and the fans copy / paste the wrong ATP info. The ATP info is wrong for the players of the 70s, 80s and partly 90s. Jimbo has more than 1500 tournament wins. I have 1528 and they could be more. So, don't count on Internet or ATP.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
All those ATP related match and tournament records are grounded in arbitrary decisions by the ATP. Thank God, even those ATP record themselves are more complete now, thanks by the help of No Mercy, the best tennis researcher today. That the ATP record keeping was a mess for many years, one can see on the ever changing numbers of tournament and match wins for older players. Those older players are winning now more, than the modern players, due to better research of old newspaper and new internet sources. Lendl and Connors in reality have won many more vital tournaments and matches, than the ATP accepts. Federers many wins are great, especially in modern circumstances, but the ATP is doing its best, to hype it without any worthy mentioning of tennis history. On the ATP side, i read, that Laver and Rosewall, who congratulated Federeron 1200 match wins, had won both "over 1000 matches". This makes me laugh, both won close to 2000 matches over their long careers. And No Mercy, found articles, who insist and confirm, that Tilden won 10.000 matches over his ultra-long career. This is the more real history of tennis, and the ATP should do more to shed alight on it, without unnecessarily hyping the modern players.
Obviously you are an optimist about the ATP database. Good. I am not. I am sure that most of the long hidden skeletons would not be enlighten.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The media, the journalists and the fans copy / paste the wrong ATP info. The ATP info is wrong for the players of the 70s, 80s and partly 90s. Jimbo has more than 1500 tournament wins. I have 1528 and they could be more. So, don't count on Internet or ATP.
I disagree. They all have their own journalists to write and published their articles on their website so there's no copy/paste. It's an unsupported claim with zero evidence on your part. Just because an anonymous poster on TW like you say 1,274 is not a record means nothing to me.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I disagree. They all have their own journalists to write and published their articles on their website so there's no copy/paste. It's an unsupported claim with zero evidence on your part. Just because an anonymous poster on TW like you say 1,274 is not a record means nothing to me.
ok. tell me where this figure 1,274 is coming from?
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I disagree. They all have their own journalists to write and published their articles on their website so there's no copy/paste. It's an unsupported claim with zero evidence on your part. Just because an anonymous poster on TW like you say 1,274 is not a record means nothing to me.
Well, not all the anonymous posters on TW are the same.
NoMercy said Connors was going to have 1274 wins on ATP.
And it happened.
But obviously there is only one NoMercy
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

bry17may

New User
I don't remember even one time the ATP say his records are from tennis hitsory, they are only ATP-recognized matches/tournaments. And like an institution they decide which tournaments recognize a which matches don't. The 1274 wins of Connors are an ATP record and that is all. The ATP doesn't have the responsability to talk about pre OE matches. Or non-sanctioned tournaments.

It's like the Barry Bonds' 762 home runs. It's recognized record of MLB but you have the "world record of Sadaharu Oh with 868 home runs.

Pele scored 767 goals excluding friendly matches, the Guinness could say 1281 if the want and still that is not a record.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
ok. tell me where this figure 1,274 is coming from?
I'm not here to investigate any athlete's stats in his respective sport. If Michael Jordan was credited for his 32,292 career points, I accepted it and not going to dispute it. The same with Connor's 1,274 match wins. If you can't accept it, that's your problem.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
What is the official record: 1256 or 1274 victories of Jimmy Connors?
What do tennis historians say about this?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I don't remember even one time the ATP say his records are from tennis hitsory, they are only ATP-recognized matches/tournaments. And like an institution they decide which tournaments recognize a which matches don't. The 1274 wins of Connors are an ATP record and that is all. The ATP doesn't have the responsability to talk about pre OE matches. Or non-sanctioned tournaments.

It's like the Barry Bonds' 762 home runs. It's recognized record of MLB but you have the "world record of Sadaharu Oh with 868 home runs.

Pele scored 767 goals excluding friendly matches, the Guinness could say 1281 if the want and still that is not a record.
All you say is correct. The BIGGEST problem of ATP is that it was and still is inconsistent in the recognition of the tournaments. If ATP is wrong we must say it clear and loud. If ATP has a limited database we should rely on the well discovered info. ATP is not THE proper tennis database. That's it - simple and clear.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I'm not here to investigate any athlete's stats in his respective sport. If Michael Jordan was credited for his 32,292 career points, I accepted it and not going to dispute it. The same with Connor's 1,274 match wins. If you can't accept it, that's your problem.
If you accept the easy and wrong way (ATP) it's your decision. I prefer the truth. I have for Jimbo 1,524 tournament wins and another 54 exo wins. These figures could be even bigger. You can stay with the wrong ATP.
 
Top