[jjc225]

As of the most recent stats, Jimmy Connors has the fifth best winning percentage of all time with a win-loss record of 1274-283. The top five by winning percentage are:

Nadal - .831
Djokovic - .829
Borg - .824 (he would be first but came out of retirement and went 0-13)
Federer - .821
Connors - .818

I examined all players with lifetime winning percentages of .600 or better who had played Connors at least once. Here are the players that Connors has losing records against (win-loss):

Borg, 8-15
McEnroe , 14-20
Lendl, 13-22
Sampras, 0-2
Boris Becker, 0-6
Andre Agassi, 0-2
Nastase, 12-15
Wilander, 0-5
Clerc, 1-3
Stich, 1-3
Courier, 0-3
Chang, 0-1

Against almost everyone else he mopped up big time. For some reason he really feasted on fellow Americans. Here are some of his notable pigeons:

Ken Rosewall, 7-1
Arthur Ashe, 6-1
Stan Smith, 14-4
Manuel Orantes, 12-3
Vitas Gerulaitis, 18-5 (one of his best buddies)
Eddie Dibbs, 16-1
Yannick Noah, 6-2
Cliff Richey, 4-0
Brian Gottfried, 17-2
Raul Ramirez, 16-3
Gene Mayer, 7-1
Roscoe Tanner, 17-4
Tony Roche, 5-0
Sandy Mayer, 17-2
Eliot Teltscher, 15-1
Jan Kodes, 6-0
Harold Solomon, 11-2
Wojtek Fibak, 10-1
Johan Kriek, 7-2
Adriano Panatta, 9-2
Tomas Smid, 7-0
Aaron Krickstein, 7-0

Anyway, I love looking into these head-to-head data. I hope you find something useful as a glimpse into Connors' career.

 

[Darth Vaderer]

It was really impressive how much that guy owned sandy mayer, said no one ever

 

[jjc225]

It was really impressive how much that guy owned sandy mayer, said no one ever

Yes, but remember, all these players have lifetime winning percentages of .600 or better. There are no mugs here.

 

[El_Toro]

This is very interesting! He had a losing record against almost all of his great rivals. That is why Connors, even with great stats (he had an outstanding win-loss percentage at the time he had his 1000th win), is not rated as highly as one would expect of a person with his records (# wins, # titles).

 

[Slasher1985]

Wow, no mention of Vilas vs Connors H2H at all. Incredible omission... in front of someone like Richey... The .600 lifetime number is pure arbitrary, although Vilas stands at .766

Has 4 Grand Slam titles
Has 7 weeks at number 1 (unrecognised)
H2H vs Connors was a mere 4-5.

 

[florentine]

Nastase, 12-15

Among Connors' negative h2h, this is an interesting one.

He's the only one against an older opponent.
6 years apart, Connors 1952-Nastase 1946

From 71 to 73, Nastase leads 11-1.
From 74 to 76, Nastase leads 4-3.
And from 77 to 84, Connors won last 8 matches, 8-0 when Nastase passed 30 and was already on the downhill

 

[doubletrollt]

...

I examined all players with lifetime winning percentages of .600 or better who had played Connors at least once. Here are the players that Connors has losing records against (win-loss):

...
Andre Agassi, 0-2

...
Against almost everyone else he mopped up big time. For some reason he really feasted on fellow Americans. Here are some of his notable pigeons:

Ken Rosewall, 7-1
...

Anyway, I love looking into these head-to-head data. I hope you find something useful as a glimpse into Connors' career.

Rosewall has played his first slam rubber in 1951, Agassi his last in 2006.

Pancho Gonzales played his first slam rubber in 1947, and was 1:2 vs Connors.

 

[florentine]

Wow, no mention of Vilas vs Connors H2H at all. Incredible omission...

Clearly a provocation to make Slasher react.

This h2h is also interesting.
Connors 02-09-1952
Vilas 17-08-1952

"Only" 5-4 for Connors, for 10 years (1972-1982), for players of this standing, same age, who occupied the top players for a long time.

This gives a clear idea here that "the hunting grounds" were not the same.

And it is 1982 which offers the most meetings, when the 2 thirties know a revival, with the cancellation of Borg.

 

[florentine]

This vintage cross study around Connors leads me to take an interest in the h2h Vilas Nastase, which reveals a few anecdotal matches.

- on hard, no way for Vilas.

-the surprising victory on grass, Masters 74, Vilas' first great title, against the .. "master" of the event at the time.

-the famous Aix en Provence match against mega Vilas on clay 1977 .. which forced him to abandon against Nastase and .. double-strung spaghetti racket Fisher banned thereafter.

-Well avenged by the match in MC 81 with a double bubble

 

[NADALalot]

Slam h2hs are more interesting.

 

[Ellentonboy]

As of the most recent stats, Jimmy Connors has the fifth best winning percentage of all time with a win-loss record of 1274-283. The top five by winning percentage are:

Nadal - .831
Djokovic - .829
Borg - .824 (he would be first but came out of retirement and went 0-13)
Federer - .821
Connors - .818

I examined all players with lifetime winning percentages of .600 or better who had played Connors at least once. Here are the players that Connors has losing records against (win-loss):

Borg, 8-15
McEnroe , 14-20
Lendl, 13-22
Sampras, 0-2
Boris Becker, 0-6
Andre Agassi, 0-2
Nastase, 12-15
Wilander, 0-5
Clerc, 1-3
Stich, 1-3
Courier, 0-3
Chang, 0-1

Against almost everyone else he mopped up big time. For some reason he really feasted on fellow Americans. Here are some of his notable pigeons:

Ken Rosewall, 7-1
Arthur Ashe, 6-1
Stan Smith, 14-4
Manuel Orantes, 12-3
Vitas Gerulaitis, 18-5 (one of his best buddies)
Eddie Dibbs, 16-1
Yannick Noah, 6-2
Cliff Richey, 4-0
Brian Gottfried, 17-2
Raul Ramirez, 16-3
Gene Mayer, 7-1
Roscoe Tanner, 17-4
Tony Roche, 5-0
Sandy Mayer, 17-2
Eliot Teltscher, 15-1
Jan Kodes, 6-0
Harold Solomon, 11-2
Wojtek Fibak, 10-1
Johan Kriek, 7-2
Adriano Panatta, 9-2
Tomas Smid, 7-0
Aaron Krickstein, 7-0

Anyway, I love looking into these head-to-head data. I hope you find something useful as a glimpse into Connors' career.

I can't believe his head to head results against someone like Tanner or Gottfried, truly amazing.

 

[jjc225]

Wow, no mention of Vilas vs Connors H2H at all. Incredible omission... in front of someone like Richey... The .600 lifetime number is pure arbitrary, although Vilas stands at .766

Has 4 Grand Slam titles
Has 7 weeks at number 1 (unrecognised)
H2H vs Connors was a mere 4-5.

I did not include Vilas because it was basically even. You are wrong on the H2H, Connors won 5-4 not the other way around.

 

[florentine]

H2H vs Connors was a mere 4-5.

You are wrong on the H2H, Connors won 5-4 not the other way around.

It's the same

 

[Howard]

The Connors/Gerulaitis rivalry led to one of the (if not the) most quoted lines in tennis history.

Connors sure could jack up a crowd, both for and against him. And I wonder if players of that era had a lot more natural flair and bigger personalities than today’s players, or is it just because of the crackdown on court behavior?

 

[florentine]

The Connors/Gerulaitis rivalry led to one of the (if not the) most quoted lines in tennis history.

These two were close, as much as one can be friend with Connors.

But there is also a rather unforeseen salty missile.

Sampras - Rafter 17-5.
Before Cinci 98, Sampras leads .. 8-1 but.. Rafter won their first meeting, 5 years before in the summer of 93, as Sampras is preparing to reign over ATP for 5 years.

Cinci 98, the sun begins to shine less for Sampras and Rafter has the nerve to remember his bad memory, yet so far away and beats him.

A journalist dares the question ...

- What is the difference between Rafter and you?

the answer bursts.

- 10 slams.

Except that Rafter also has an answer ... he reshoots Sampras at the US Open 98, crime of lese majesty, before defending his title of 97.

I believe that a reporter of course recall the 2 words of Sampras.

- Well, now it's only 9.

I never fully understood Sampras' animosity towards Rafter.

 

[JediFed]

This is very interesting! He had a losing record against almost all of his great rivals. That is why Connors, even with great stats (he had an outstanding win-loss percentage at the time he had his 1000th win), is not rated as highly as one would expect of a person with his records (# wins, # titles).

Connors doesn't get enough credit for the length and excellence of his career. Only Federer has really matched him.

 

[Howard]

Connors doesn't get enough credit for the length and excellence of his career. Only Federer has really matched him.

He was fun to watch too, especially when he played Borg. It was an intriguing contrast in personalities and styles. Fire vs. ice, lasers vs. loopers.

 

[Matthieu]

Jimmy Connors is for sure a top five favorite of all-time. 😎

they don't make tennis pros like they used too

 

[jjc225]

One thing I overlooked is that Jimmy Connors' one loss to Arthur Ashe was the finals of Wimbledon in 1975. I watched the match recently which is available on YouTube, and Ashe had the right plan in this match. He simply outmaneuvered Connors in this one.

 

[Howard]

Jimmy Connors is for sure a top five favorite of all-time. 😎

they don't make tennis pros like they used too

Well they do have different parents