Wimbledon 85 McEnroe / Connors chance against Boris

[VintageMac84]

Would love to know all thoughts and opinions on this topic. I believe Connors would have stood a much better chance than Mac against the red hot , 85 Becker in the final , only because Connors return was far superior to Johnnie Mac's , and Connors fed off pace big time !! Your thoughts please

 

[sandy mayer]

If McEnroe or Connors played in the final the way they played against Curren, then there's no way they would have beaten Becker in the final. Both McEnroe and Connors were flat in their matches against Curren. However if Connors and Mac played in their best 85 form then they would have had a better chance. If Mac played at his best 85 form I think he would have taken out the 85 Becker. Mac finished the year number 2 and won many tournaments, including several wins over number one Lendl. Connors was clearly past his best in 85 and failed to win a tournament that year for the first time since he turned pro in 1972. Connors is a lot older than Becker and gave him tough matches even past his best, but Connors never beat Becker. I think Becker would have been the favourite to beat Connors in 85 though Connors may have given him a tough match and possibly even won. The thing about the 17 year old Becker is he had the temperament for the big occasion. He played with no fear and would not have been intimidated by Connors or Mac. Becker was remarkable to be so tough so young.

 

[travlerajm]

If McEnroe or Connors played in the final the way they played against Curren, then there's no way they would have beaten Becker in the final. Both McEnroe and Connors were flat in their matches against Curren. However if Connors and Mac played in their best 85 form then they would have had a better chance. If Mac played at his best 85 form I think he would have taken out the 85 Becker. Mac finished the year number 2 and won many tournaments, including several wins over number one Lendl. Connors was clearly past his best in 85 and failed to win a tournament that year for the first time since he turned pro in 1972. Connors is a lot older than Becker and gave him tough matches even past his best, but Connors never beat Becker. I think Becker would have been the favourite to beat Connors in 85 though Connors may have given him a tough match and possibly even won. The thing about the 17 year old Becker is he had the temperament for the big occasion. He played with no fear and would not have been intimidated by Connors or Mac. Becker was remarkable to be so tough so young.

Becker has a rare condition that makes him age at 1.5x the rate of a normal human. When he was 17, his biological age was 25. Now that he is 52, his body is 76.

 

[big ted]

i would have favored mcenroe if his game was on..
they played a couple times indoors that year too and mac won both in straights..
one was the exhibition in antwerp tho...

 

[HBK4life]

Becker has a rare condition that makes him age at 1.5x the rate of a normal human. When he was 17, his biological age was 25. Now that he is 52, his body is 76.

I think his libido is still 17.

 

[jrepac]

Really hard to know...I don't judge Mac or Jimbo based on the Curren matches. He simply shut them down...big time. Ion Tiriac, who was Boris's manager back then, stated that it was good that it was NOT Mac or Jimmy, as it would've been an extra level of pressure on Boris. And, I think Jimmy or Mac would have stepped up their game in the final...they were both big match players. Jimmy played Boris pretty close in several matches, Mac too.

 

[NicoMK]

I think his libido is still 17.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Becker's game was very mature in 1985. (Rare youtube footage of Johan Kriek)

 

[big ted]

Becker's game was very mature in 1985. (Rare youtube footage of Johan Kriek)

pretty amazing... apparently queens was his 1st singles title then two weeks later wimbledon was his 2nd singles title lol...

 

[jrepac]

I remember that Queens win...it was a big deal...still, no one expected what happened next...

 

[Beckerserve]

Becker would have destroyed both. He moved fast court tennis to a new era. His power was overwhelming. Mcenroe and connors would have had no answers the way they played.
Becker was still a huge threat 14 years later on fast courts. His problem was in the 90s other players came along who served and hit as big as he did but moved better.
On hard courts i think Mcenroe and connors at their peak would run rings around Becker. But on grass and indoors back then he was unbeatable if on. Until Sampras and Ivanisevic came along. Id still back Boris against them at his very best more often than not but if they got hot they could blow anyone off a fast court as well. In the 80s it was just Becker.

 

[encylopedia]

I remember that Queens win...it was a big deal...still, no one expected what happened next...

Except Johan - who predicted Becker could win Wimbledon playing as he did. He actually reminded some of us of that recently.

....and yes, there is a very good chance Connors or Mac would have beaten him. Mac had just beaten him quite cleanly that year, and Jimmy would have pulled every trick in the book to get to Boris mentally if need be. Boris was a true slam prodigy, but facing either of those two at the Wimbledon final would have been several levels beyond facing Curren.

 

[jrepac]

Becker would have destroyed both. He moved fast court tennis to a new era. His power was overwhelming. Mcenroe and connors would have had no answers the way they played.
Becker was still a huge threat 14 years later on fast courts. His problem was in the 90s other players came along who served and hit as big as he did but moved better.
On hard courts i think Mcenroe and connors at their peak would run rings around Becker. But on grass and indoors back then he was unbeatable if on. Until Sampras and Ivanisevic came along. Id still back Boris against them at his very best more often than not but if they got hot they could blow anyone off a fast court as well. In the 80s it was just Becker.

Exaggerate much? Becker's serve was much more readable than Curren's...that's what really took out both Mac and Connors in '85. Would have liked to see Mac play Becker on grass...very much first strike tennis. In '87, Connors played Becker pretty evenly in the Queen's final...his returns were pretty spot on...arguably, he let that final slip from his grasp. And, he was only a tender 34yrs old at the time.

 

[Beckerserve]

Exaggerate much? Becker's serve was much more readable than Curren's...that's what really took out both Mac and Connors in '85. Would have liked to see Mac play Becker on grass...very much first strike tennis. In '87, Connors played Becker pretty evenly in the Queen's final...his returns were pretty spot on...arguably, he let that final slip from his grasp. And, he was only a tender 34yrs old at the time.

Becker had the best flat serve on deuce and out wide on ad side of all time. While i agree it was more readable, on grass it was devastating. That said with mac and connors being left handed perhaps they would deal with that serve better than most

 

[encylopedia]

Becker had the best flat serve on deuce and out wide on ad side of all time.

ROFL. No.

As Jrepac said your propensity for extreme exaggeration doesn't serve you well. It's a bit silly when you claim Becker would "destroy" them and they'd have "no answers", but later say they'd "run circles" around Becker on hard court. None of these statements are true of course. Rarely are matters between all-time greats so starkly one-sided.

Note that Mcenroe beat Becker 4 and 3 on indoor carpet 4 months before Wimbledon. Becker of course improved even in those 4 months, but asserting Mac would be helpless and destroyed is silly.

Note also that while you say Becker "at his very best" would beat Sampras more often than not, you're contradicting Becker who has said on numerous occasions that he realized that when Pete was at his best he would still lose even if he were at his best.

 

[big ted]

Note that Mcenroe beat Becker 4 and 3 on indoor carpet 4 months before Wimbledon. Becker of course improved even in those 4 months, but asserting Mac would be helpless and destroyed is silly.

he also beat becker by same score 4 months after wimbledon...

https://webcache.googleusercontent....cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d

 

[jrepac]

ROFL. No.

As Jrepac said your propensity for extreme exaggeration doesn't serve you well. It's a bit silly when you claim Becker would "destroy" them and they'd have "no answers", but later say they'd "run circles" around Becker on hard court. None of these statements are true of course. Rarely are matters between all-time greats so starkly one-sided.

Note that Mcenroe beat Becker 4 and 3 on indoor carpet 4 months before Wimbledon. Becker of course improved even in those 4 months, but asserting Mac would be helpless and destroyed is silly.

Note also that while you say Becker "at his very best" would beat Sampras more often than not, you're contradicting Becker who has said on numerous occasions that he realized that when Pete was at his best he would still lose even if he were at his best.

Sampras seemed to be too much for Boris, on grass at least. Boris could not really hurt him from the back and Sampras served better. An enhanced version of Boris's game.

 

[encylopedia]

Sampras seemed to be too much for Boris, on grass at least. Boris could not really hurt him from the back and Sampras served better. An enhanced version of Boris's game.

That is exactly how Sampras described it bluntly. He felt that at his best, he and Boris were extremely similar, but that he just did everything a tiny bit better. I would agree with him - with movement being a LOT better, even though Boris was a great mover for 6'3. In addition, Boris' superior reach, really did not seem to give him any real advantage over Sampras - not even on serve. Serve was a bit of an open-question depending on the day, but I think it's safe to say the Sampras second serve was better in general. On any given day, one might outhit the other on first serve.

Boris for his part has always said this of Pete. It's why he said he was so honoured to have his last (or so he claimed at the time) match at Wimbledon with Pete....he always claimed that he had an epiphany in that match that Pete was too good, and that prior to that, he could always believe that at his best he would beat anyone else at Wimbledon. Even in retirement he has reiterated that story, as well as saying that he felt that comparing peak level of play Pete was the best of all-time. He once mentioned that you couldn't say Federer was better than Mac on grass, despite having more titles, because he played Mac and could confirm Mac was a "genius", but he felt that Pete at peak was more unstoppable because at his best, you couldn't even get his serve back well enough to get to the rest of his game - which was also great.

 

[Beckerserve]

ROFL. No.

As Jrepac said your propensity for extreme exaggeration doesn't serve you well. It's a bit silly when you claim Becker would "destroy" them and they'd have "no answers", but later say they'd "run circles" around Becker on hard court. None of these statements are true of course. Rarely are matters between all-time greats so starkly one-sided.

Note that Mcenroe beat Becker 4 and 3 on indoor carpet 4 months before Wimbledon. Becker of course improved even in those 4 months, but asserting Mac would be helpless and destroyed is silly.

Note also that while you say Becker "at his very best" would beat Sampras more often than not, you're contradicting Becker who has said on numerous occasions that he realized that when Pete was at his best he would still lose even if he were at his best.

He never said that so dont make things up. Becker has actually said his 89 version would beat Sampras on grass but to be that good would be hard consistently.
I am right on this issue. Mcenroe and connors were obsolete post 1984 as the game had moved on because of Becker on fast courts.

 

[encylopedia]

Note also that while you say Becker "at his very best" would beat Sampras more often than not, you're contradicting Becker who has said on numerous occasions that he realized that when Pete was at his best he would still lose even if he were at his best.

He never said that so dont make things up. Becker has actually said his 89 version would beat Sampras on grass but to be that good would be hard consistently.
I am right on this issue. Mcenroe and connors were obsolete post 1984 as the game had moved on because of Becker on fast courts.

Again you're a person prone to absurd overstatement - suggesting very simplistic thinking, so I'm not going to take you seriously. I will reply this once, since you accuse me of making things up. I did not and never have. I'd appreciate and respect a retraction and apology if you have the integrity. He's actually expressed this on several occasions as I mentioned.

 

[Beckerserve]

Again you're a person prone to absurd overstatement - suggesting very simplistic thinking, so I'm not going to take you seriously. I will reply this once, since you accuse me of making things up. I did not and never have. I'd appreciate and respect a retraction and apology if you have the integrity. He's actually expressed this on several occasions as I mentioned.

No. Becker has stated his 89 performance was good enough to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. On hard courts he has admitted his best would never be good enough.
The simple reality is Becker 85 would have dismissed Mcenroe and connors with ease. That is just proven by the event.

 

[encylopedia]

No. Becker has stated his 89 performance was good enough to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. On hard courts he has admitted his best would never be good enough.
The simple reality is Becker 85 would have dismissed Mcenroe and connors with ease. That is just proven by the event.

I sensed you were the kind of person that would simply refuse to acknowledge reality and even argue against your own hero's explicit words. LOL. Hopeless. Ah....the internet.....

 

[Beckerserve]

I sensed you were the kind of person that would simply refuse to acknowledge reality and even argue against your own hero's explicit words. LOL. Hopeless. Ah....the internet.....

The thread is about Would becker beat Mcenroe and connors at W in 1985. The answer is yes. He won the event beating the guy who beat the other two.

 

[Musterrific]

The thread is about Would becker beat Mcenroe and connors at W in 1985. The answer is yes. He won the event beating the guy who beat the other two.

It's not that simple. Styles and games match up differently between players on the day. You can't automatically assume that if either Mac or Connors would have gotten past Curren that either of them would have been blown away by Becker anyway. As someone above already mentioned, Mac beat Becker easily in straights both before and after his initial Wimbledon win.

 

[Beckerserve]

It's not that simple. Styles and games match up differently between players on the day. You can't automatically assume that if either Mac or Connors would have gotten past Curren that either of them would have been blown away by Becker anyway. As someone above already mentioned, Mac beat Becker easily in straights both before and after his initial Wimbledon win.

On grass?

 

[encylopedia]

The thread is about Would becker beat Mcenroe and connors at W in 1985. The answer is yes. He won the event beating the guy who beat the other two.

First person to mention Sampras:

Until Sampras and Ivanisevic came along. Id still back Boris against them at his very best more often than not but if they got hot they could blow anyone off a fast court as well. In the 80s it was just Becker.

Anything to avoid having to simply be a man of integrity and say: 'Sorry, Boris did say that. I'm sorry I claimed you made that up.'
I don't know how people like you look in the mirror, but I know you probably don't have the wherewithal to even to even have a coherent self-image.

 

[jrepac]

He never said that so dont make things up. Becker has actually said his 89 version would beat Sampras on grass but to be that good would be hard consistently.
I am right on this issue. Mcenroe and connors were obsolete post 1984 as the game had moved on because of Becker on fast courts.

Sorry, but that is rubbish on 2 counts. Yes, Becker did say that re: Sampras. And, to say that Mac and Connors were 'obsolete' because of Boris is silly. In Germany perhaps, not in other places. They were still reaching later rounds of GS events in the mid to late 80's. Generations age out and new players arise, no question, but guys like Mac and Connors (and Borg) had diehard fan bases.
Boris and Edberg were on the rise in the latter part of the 80's, no question, but I never felt they 'obliterated' the relevance of other players (Lendl for instance)

 

[jrepac]

It's not that simple. Styles and games match up differently between players on the day. You can't automatically assume that if either Mac or Connors would have gotten past Curren that either of them would have been blown away by Becker anyway. As someone above already mentioned, Mac beat Becker easily in straights both before and after his initial Wimbledon win.

Completely true. It's all about the matchup. At his best, Curren was extremely dangerous. I did NOT think he played his best in the final against Boris. Mac or Jimmy vs. Boris might have been more interesting matches, for sure.

 

[Beckerserve]

Sorry, but that is rubbish on 2 counts. Yes, Becker did say that re: Sampras. And, to say that Mac and Connors were 'obsolete' because of Boris is silly. In Germany perhaps, not in other places. They were still reaching later rounds of GS events in the mid to late 80's. Generations age out and new players arise, no question, but guys like Mac and Connors (and Borg) had diehard fan bases.
Boris and Edberg were on the rise in the latter part of the 80's, no question, but I never felt they 'obliterated' the relevance of other players (Lendl for instance)

What is h2h of Becker v Connors and Mcenroe? Exactly. My point is spot on.

 

[Beckerserve]

First person to mention Sampras:



Anything to avoid having to simply be a man of integrity and say: 'Sorry, Boris did say that. I'm sorry I claimed you made that up.'
I don't know how people like you look in the mirror, but I know you probably don't have the wherewithal to even to even have a coherent self-image.

I have followed Boris for 30 years. I know what he has said. Helps to read his book.
As an aside can i hypothesize you are not a Donald trump advocate?

 

[big ted]

i watched tennis back then.. anything can happen in a final, esp if its connors or mac..
that said, id probably favor becker over connors because by '85 connors seemed to be
done with being able to beat the top top echelon guys unless they had an off day...
i would have loved to watch becker/connors W final tho, esp with connors returning beckers
serve with his T2000 lol... for mcenroe, his game dropped off by end of 85/86, so if we're talking
a sharp '85 mcenroe id give him the edge over becker.. he played him 2x that year on fast surfaces
and beat him in straights both times... plus when mac was on top (he was #1 at '85 W),
his mindset would have been "theres no way im losing to this newbie no matter what" lol

 

[jrepac]

What is h2h of Becker v Connors and Mcenroe? Exactly. My point is spot on.

Maybe in your own mind, but not those of other objective viewers. Or fans who attended events like the USO.
It's not JUST about the H2H...its about what brings viewers and fans coming to events.
I can guarantee you that Mac and Connors were not 'irrelevant' or 'obliterated' because of Boris's rise in the game from '85 to '90.
We are talking about the whole game here, not one person. Boris did not obliterate the competition...the 80's era was probably one of the most diverse, interesting and truly competitive eras of all. Boris was one of several players who garnered attention and became a fan favorite.

 

[jrepac]

i watched tennis back then.. anything can happen in a final, esp if its connors or mac..
that said, id probably favor becker over connors because by '85 connors seemed to be
done with being able to beat the top top echelon guys unless they had an off day...
i would have loved to watch becker/connors W final tho, esp with connors returning beckers
serve with his T2000 lol... for mcenroe, his game dropped off by end of 85/86, so if we're talking
a sharp '85 mcenroe id give him the edge over becker.. he played him 2x that year on fast surfaces
and beat him in straights both times... plus when mac was on top (he was #1 at '85 W),
his mindset would have been "theres no way im losing to this newbie no matter what" lol

Mac got to the USO final in '85...he was ranked #1 in the world going into Wimbledon. Connors spent most of the year at #3 or #4. This is not what 'washed up' players look like. Agree, Connors '85 was much less potent (than '84 even), but he was a pretty consistent performer...meaning he consistently beat guys ranked lower than him. I definitely would have given Mac the edge vs. BB and vs. Connors it would have been a dogfight (like most of their matches were). JC could return his serve...it's not like Curren's at all.

 

[encylopedia]

The thread is about Would becker beat Mcenroe and connors at W in 1985. The answer is yes. He won the event beating the guy who beat the other two.

First person to mention Sampras:
(BECKERSERVE)

I have followed Boris for 30 years. I know what he has said. Helps to read his book.
As an aside can i hypothesize you are not a Donald trump advocate?

Right....so you refuse to acknowledge your false smear that I made that quote up - despite me posting video of one the times he said it explicitly.

Instead you divert by saying the thread is about Mcenroe and Connors. Then when I point out YOU were the one who brought up Sampras, you want to talk about Donald Trump, and Becker's book.

Addled mind.

 

[helterskelter]

Sampras seemed to be too much for Boris, on grass at least. Boris could not really hurt him from the back and Sampras served better. An enhanced version of Boris's game.

The bigger problem for Becker was that Sampras returned better than did Becker. In their three matches at Wimbledon, I believe that Becker never broke Sampras's serve. But Becker was much more competitive on indoor hard and carpet.

 

[Beckerserve]

Right....so you refuse to acknowledge your false smear that I made that quote up - despite me posting video of one the times he said it explicitly.

Instead you divert by saying the thread is about Mcenroe and Connors. Then when I point out YOU were the one who brought up Sampras, you want to talk about Donald Trump, and Becker's book.

Addled mind.

Beckers book kind of is relevant to what he says do you not think? Might i suggest you avail yourself of the opportunity to scroll up and see the thread title?

 

[jrepac]

The bigger problem for Becker was that Sampras returned better than did Becker. In their three matches at Wimbledon, I believe that Becker never broke Sampras's serve. But Becker was much more competitive on indoor hard and carpet.

Becker has a great record indoors on carpet.....one of the best. I also think Sampras was a bit better on the return. Pete was pretty much good at everything.

 

[goldenera]

Would love to know all thoughts and opinions on this topic. I believe Connors would have stood a much better chance than Mac against the red hot , 85 Becker in the final , only because Connors return was far superior to Johnnie Mac's , and Connors fed off pace big time !! Your thoughts please

Good thread
Many times I placed to myself that question
I think Mac would beat hom in 4 and Connors lost in 4