Connors 109 vs. Rogie 75... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Connors 109 vs. Rogie 75...

theseth1119
07-19-2012, 07:19 PM
My question is, of Connors' 109 titles, how many of them were Mickey Mouse titles (i.e. only 16, 8, or less players in the main draw)? Rogie's events always have at least 28-32 guys in them right?

EliSter
07-19-2012, 07:23 PM
Ofcours Rogi 75 titles >>>>>> Conors 109 MM ones :rocker2:

samanosuke
07-19-2012, 07:30 PM
At least 30 from his titles Connors won by beating 2-3 rounds. He himself said that

TennisOnWood
07-19-2012, 09:00 PM
At least 30 from his titles Connors won by beating 2-3 rounds. He himself said that

That's far from truth. He won some 6 ATP titles in 70's when he didn't played more than 3 matches

EddieNero
07-19-2012, 09:07 PM
Fed's titles are far more valuable. First of all modern tennis is incomparably more physical than 20-30 years ago so logically it required much more effort from Federer to collect those titles.

Litotes
07-19-2012, 10:02 PM
My question is, of Connors' 109 titles, how many of them were Mickey Mouse titles (i.e. only 16, 8, or less players in the main draw)? Rogie's events always have at least 28-32 guys in them right?

I don't know about "Mickey Mouse" but it always interested me that only 29 of those titles were taken abroad. Mostly he got them travelling the US.

jonas
07-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Ignoring Masters and Grand slam cup here are Connors titles with 16 or less in the draw:

Roanoke 1972, Draw: 4
Baltimore 1973, Draw; 16
Jacksonville 1973, Draw: 16
Roanoke 1973, Draw: 16
Paramus 1973, Draw: 16
Roanoke 1974, Draw: 16
Manchester 1974, Draw: 16
Hampton 1976, Draw: 16
Denver 1976: Draw: 16
Birmingham 1977, Draw: 16
St Louis 1977, Draw: 16
Dallas 1977, Draw: 8
Dallas 1980, Draw: 8

Dallas was however best of five and with top players in it. What's the story there? Like a Masters in cup-form?

All in all not too many small draws. And I guess it's more important who's in the draw, really.

Johnny Groove
07-19-2012, 10:25 PM
Connors has won more events equivalent to 250 and 500 events than Fed. His 109 titles are legit, but if Fed gets to like 85-90, I think it'll be more impressive.

TennisGrandSlam
07-19-2012, 11:23 PM
No way for Federer wins more than 100 titles, more non-Mandatory Tournments (Non-GS, non-1000, non-ATP Tours Finals) will not contribute more race / ranking points!

Litotes
07-19-2012, 11:29 PM
Connors has won more events equivalent to 250 and 500 events than Fed.

How many of his titles are close equivalents to masters tournaments? Do you know?

TigerTim
07-19-2012, 11:29 PM
Ignoring Masters and Grand slam cup here are Connors titles with 16 or less in the draw:

Roanoke 1972, Draw: 4
Baltimore 1973, Draw; 16
Jacksonville 1973, Draw: 16
Roanoke 1973, Draw: 16
Paramus 1973, Draw: 16
Roanoke 1974, Draw: 16
Manchester 1974, Draw: 16
Hampton 1976, Draw: 16
Denver 1976: Draw: 16
Birmingham 1977, Draw: 16
St Louis 1977, Draw: 16
Dallas 1977, Draw: 8
Dallas 1980, Draw: 8

Dallas was however best of five and with top players in it. What's the story there? Like a Masters in cup-form?

All in all not too many small draws. And I guess it's more important who's in the draw, really.

Dallas used to be regarded as the 5th slam, the bloke who built the USTA came from their, much of the oil money was used to lure big name players to texas in those days.

Johnny Groove
07-20-2012, 12:25 AM
How many of his titles are close equivalents to masters tournaments? Do you know?

Dallas used to be regarded as the 5th slam, the bloke who built the USTA came from their, much of the oil money was used to lure big name players to texas in those days.

This is true. Dallas was the culmination of the WCT year from 71-89, sort of like a TMC, but played in May with the top 8, and separate from the ATP Masters Year End.

List of champions:

Rosewall
Smith
Newcombe
Ashe
Borg
Connors
Gerulaitis
McEnroe
Lendl
Becker

That's about as good as it gets.

TigerTim
07-20-2012, 12:30 AM
Rosewall
Smith
Newcombe
Ashe
Borg
Connors
Gerulaitis
McEnroe
Lendl
Becker

That's about as good as it gets.

Holy crap! All slam winners, 7 with 5+ slams (Newcombe, Borg, Jimbo, McEnroe, Becker, Ivan and Ken), no?

latso
07-20-2012, 07:54 AM
Federer - the player with most tittle won abroad.

That's a new record right there :)

Litotes
07-20-2012, 09:13 AM
Federer - the player with most tittle won abroad.

That's a new record right there :)

Depends how you define "abroad". Federer has won 69 titles outside Switzerland, but Ivan Lendl has won 94 titles outside Czechoslovakia.

Federer has the record for most titles outside the US, though, with 58. Lendl 56.

Echoes
07-20-2012, 09:49 AM
That's far from truth. He won some 6 ATP titles in 70's when he didn't played more than 3 matches

Abraxas must be right.

Connors hasn't won 109 tournament. He won 149 of them. 149-30=119 ! Surely he included ATP non-sanctioned titles in there, right?

Even a 9 GS deficit does not compensate this. Connors > Fed. Lendl > Fed. Achievement-wise.


And the Dallas - WCT Finals is a well-known tournament for those who have a little bit of historical knowledge. Best player from the WCT Tour would gather in Dallas (like for the Masters but at that time WCT Finals > Masters). The 1972 final between Laver & Rosewall was long considered the greatest ever match (before Wimby '80). And the greatest point ever:


rSXETXKi7OI

Connors' Series equivalent wins include: Pacific Southwest 1973, Indianapolis 1974, 1976, 1978, Salisbury 1975, Philadelphia 1976, 1978, 1979 & 1980 (more than a present-day series, that one) and Wembley 1976 & 1981.

Not including the WCT Finals & the Masters + all the high regarded invitational events.

latso
07-20-2012, 10:05 AM
Depends how you define "abroad". Federer has won 69 titles outside Switzerland, but Ivan Lendl has won 94 titles outside Czechoslovakia.

Federer has the record for most titles outside the US, though, with 58. Lendl 56.
If we define it that way, then Jimbo has no tittle in Ireland, so he wins.... :D

But yeah, Lendl's been Czechoslovak for most his career, so Roger will have to accept a second place anyway

latso
07-20-2012, 10:07 AM
Even a 9 GS deficit does not compensate this
:haha:

TigerTim
07-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Is Connors the greatest underachiver at Grand Slams? Or perhaps Ivan Lendl? Or even John McEnroe, these guys won 75+ titles but under 9 slams, what gives? (and as we have discovered most of Connors so called "strolls" were in fact huge limited field tourneys)

Echoes
07-20-2012, 12:32 PM
What we've discovered is that most of Connors' wins were big field tourneys, but of course, anybody can interpret things the way they want, that won't put them in touch with reality.

Actually, trolls have to realize that there is more to tennis than just GS ...


Many 'series' equivalent tournaments were actually Draws 64, without 1st RD exemption and with best-of-five finals and even sometimes SF (or all the way). While Fed won a Mickey mouse tourney in Stockholm.

So you're little off.

timafi
07-20-2012, 01:45 PM
Federer's 17 slams on ALL surfaces
his 6 titles at the YEC
those Masters Series and the tournaments he's won on ALL surfaces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Connors

michel
07-20-2012, 01:57 PM
Fed will never win 109 tourneys for sure
I can't see any player winning 109 titles today

Litotes
07-20-2012, 02:17 PM
Is Connors the greatest underachiver at Grand Slams?

Connors only played the AO two times, winning once. That has to be taken into consideration. Still, he played the others regularly and only managed seven, never winning the French. Federer har 13 slams outside AO, and Borg 11, so one missing is not the whole story.

TigerTim
07-20-2012, 02:18 PM
Fed will never win 109 tourneys for sure
I can't see any player winning 109 titles today

Bernard Tomic and Milos Rionic will do it for sure.

Do the Bryan Bros. have a chance ? ;)

Pratik
07-20-2012, 03:08 PM
Size of the draw should not be the only thing considered. The players you faced also should be. Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing era's. I mean players faced in terms of ranking.

Matches against Top 10 players(simply because these are the stats most easily available)

Federer-232(out of 1045 matches)
That is 22%. Or approximately 2 in every 9 matches he played was against a top 10 player.
Connors-167(out of 1519 matches)
That is 11%. Or approximately 1 in every 9 matches he played was against a top 10 player.

Other than the weak era/strong era logic the only thing that can explain this is that Connors played a lot of tournaments against weak fields(ranking wise). Connors losing early in the later stages of his career is also not an explanation. Were Federer to play 1519 matches(474 more), he would end up with a minimum of 279 top 10 matches(Taking a very pessimistic 1/10 matches against the top 10 for the 474), a whole 112 more than Connors. That is too big a number to be explained by the weak era/strong era logic.

And if you were to compare the tournaments won:
JC ; RF
Grand Slam: 8 ; 17
YEC/equivalent: 3 ; 6
1000/equivalent: 18 ; 20
500/equivalent: 45 ; 12
250/equivalent: 30 ; 20
-
Total: 104 ; 75

I know 5 are missing, but this was all I could gather(shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia-JC career stats page)

I think these numbers speak for themselves.

109 seems like a very high number in itself. But, an 80-85 of Federer would be much more impressive

mark73
07-20-2012, 03:17 PM
What we've discovered is that most of Connors' wins were big field tourneys, but of course, anybody can interpret things the way they want, that won't put them in touch with reality.

Actually, trolls have to realize that there is more to tennis than just GS ...


Many 'series' equivalent tournaments were actually Draws 64, without 1st RD exemption and with best-of-five finals and even sometimes SF (or all the way). While Fed won a Mickey mouse tourney in Stockholm.

So you're little off.

Good job with the cherry picking. :rolleyes: