Talk:Jimmy Connors/Archive 1

Residence conflict

 * There is a conflict in the birthplace in the article and in the summary box at the right hand side of the page.

There is a conflict between the side box and the personal sections on where Connors lives. W.C. 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Some forgotten Connors's victories by the ATP statistics
As written in some articles the ATP statistics are incomplete for the 1968-1972 era and completely absent for the pre-open era. The association was created at Forest Hills (U.S. Open) 1972 when for the first time of the year all players could compete in a same event : this partly explains why data are incomplete before 1973. You can see more informations on players' records in Tennis male players statistics.

Moreover the ATP doesn't incorporate some special events of the 70s in particular those held by the WCT organization. So I have added 8 (at least) tournaments not listed by the ATP in the article and I have slightly erased the expression "ATP Tour" in Connors's list of wins. The ATP tour has really existed since 1990. Before there were several independant circuits. For instance in 1968 there were 1) the amateur circuit held by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) and the national federations, 2) the National Tennis League (NTL) circuit held by the organization of the same name for its professionals under contract, 3) the World Championships of Tennis (WCT) circuit held by the WCT promoters and 4) the Open circuit. In the first half of the 70s there were mainly three circuits : the Grand Prix (GP) circuit (ILTF), the WCT circuit and the U.S. Indoor circuit run by Riordan, future Connors's manager. In the second half of the 70s and the first half of the 80s only the GP and WCT circuits existed. In particular with the ending of the WCT circuit and the players's need to control their own circuit, the ATP tour was created at the end of the 80s and the first one was held in 1990. Since players have lost much control. Then the "ATP tour" is not very adequate because Connors has not truly played that circuit.

So ATP statistics could be a better expression.

I have also tried to modify the Infobox informations but some don't appear :

Though Connors only turned pro in 1972 he began his international career in 1970, his first great performance was his win over Roy Emerson in the first round of the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles. And he didn't retire in 1993 : he semi-retired in 1992 which was his last true season and then he sporadically played from 1993 to 1996. Finally in the doubles part of the infobox I've replaced 370 (1-Mar-93) by ? because it's nonsense to say that Connors was at best the 370th doubles player in the world. That ranking is coming from the ATP statistics which completely forget the 70s results : in the ATP site the oldest Connors's doubles ranking is dated from "3-Jan-83" but Connors was one of the best doubles players in the mid-70's when he played with his teammate, Nastase. Just look at the ATP statistics about his titles and finals : DOUBLES CAREER TITLES (15): 1980--North Conway; 1976--Birmingham; 1975--Salisbury, South Orange, US Open; 1974--Salt Lake City, Salisbury, Indianapolis, London; 1973--Baltimore, South Orange, Stockholm, Wimbledon; 1972--Columbus, Los Angeles WCT FINALIST (11): 1976--Washington, Denver WCT; 1975--London, Rome; 1973--Omaha, Los Angeles, Roland Garros, Quebec, Hampton; 1971--New York, Columbus.

Carlo Colussi 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Connors and Las Vegas and doubles rankings
- I maintain that Connors highest doubles ranking is a nonsense

- Las Vegas May 1977 is listed by the ATP : I've just cited it in order not to confuse with the November Las Vegas WCT tournament Carlo Colussi 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The doubles ranking may indeed be "nonsense." But substituting your opinion in the article violates Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV.  If you can find a published source that provides a higher doubles ranking for Connors, then you may change the text and cite that source.  Until then, the InfoBox calls for a doubles ranking for Connors, and the only source we have so far is the ATP.


 * Please start new topics on discussion pages at the END of the page. Thanks.  Tennis expert 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

160 consecutive weeks?
I am curious about the statistic of Jimmy Connors being ranked number one for 160 consecutive weeks from 1974-1977. I am sure that the article is right and that I am somehow missing something, because I have heard this before when Federer broke the record not that long ago. But how could Connors have been ranked number one for the entire duration of the time when Arthur Ashe was ranked number one in 1975 and then ended 1975 ranked number one? How is it that Arthur Ashe was ranked number one while Connors consecutive streak of being number one was still going? I know I have to be missing something or just not have certain pieces of common knowledge that tennis fanatics would have but that has always confused me. I just have yet to see anything that says Jimmy Connors was ranked higher than either Borg or Ashe at the end of '75 and without that how could he have had 160 consecutive weeks? Just hoping that someone who knows more than I do could clarify this for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdlund (talk • contribs).


 * Hello

Arthur Ashe has never been ranked #1 at the ATP computer rankings : at the end of 75 he was ranked #4 and on May 1976, #2. At the beginning of the ATP ranking, the first goals were just to have statistical data about the players and above all to designate the seeded players in the tournaments. It wasn't really an official ranking. Since the beginning of the XXth century some journalists, players, officials and different specialists had published their own rankings and they continued even when the ATP rankings were first published. Still now the french magazine 'Tennis Magazine' proposes its own annual ranking. In 1975 at the time almost everyone in the world considered that Ashe was the best player in the world except Rino Tommasi (that person consider that every match has the same importance and then publishes a ranking directly linked to the ratio win-loss record) and the ATP ranking, both ranking Connors first. Even the ATP (the association itself not the computer) designated Ashe player of the year. If you want other details you can look at World number one male tennis player rankings which is different from the ATP rankings. Connors was ranked #1 at the end of each year from 1974 to 1978 by the ATP computer but almost everyone thought that Ashe was the best in 1975, that Borg or Vilas were the best in 1977 and that Borg was the best in 1978 : having watched the "destruction" of Connors in the 1978 Wimbledon final by Borg I can guarantee you that at that moment Borg was clearly the best by far even though the ATP ranking contradicted (wrongly) that assertion. Later Connors took his revenge at Flushing but Borg had his thumb injured. At the end of 1978 Borg was rightly designated World Champion by the ITF.

The ATP rankings had many imperfections at the time (then the Masters and the WCT Finals didn't give any points : before the Masters 1973 many persons didn't consider Nastase as the best player in the world though he was ranked #1 by the computer. Then he won the Masters at Boston and didn't gain any new points but the majority then thought he was the #1 ) and still now because the Grand Slam tournaments count only just twice a Masters Series tournament : but there is absolutely no comparison between Cincinnati or the Canadian Open and the U.S. Open. Do you think that Orantes is known for having won the Canadian Open ? No but for having won the U.S. Open in 75. Idem for Safin : he is known for having won the US or the Australian Open and not for having conquered the Madrid or Paris-Bercy Masters tournaments. Finally the ATP ranking doesn't integrate the Davis Cup. Now the players are OK and they said that a player like Baghdatis would be disadvantaged : this is right but if we look at a different angle : Lleyton Hewitt in 2003 was undefeated in Davis Cup and beat players like Ferrero and Federer, the latter being undefeated since 2000 in this competition. Why Lleyton Hewitt hasn't been rewarded with some ATP points ? It's as unfair if not more as the Baghdatis's case.

From 1920 to 1959 the Davis Cup was the main competition of the amateur tennis and almost each year at the time this competition sort of designated the #1 amateur. This competition created the Grand Slam tournaments and not the contrary. When the french muskeeter Henri Cochet lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon in 1931 the French were disappointed but above all they feared that the player didn't recover his good shape for the Challenge Round of the Davis Cup one month later : the summit of the tennis season was the Davis Cup and Forest Hills (the site of the U.S. Nationals at the time) or Wimbledon were far below. In 1930 though Tilden had won Wimbledon Cochet was considered as the best because he had beaten Tilden in the Davis Cup. In 1931 Cochet just played Wimbledon (loss in the 1st round) and didn't enter Roland Garros or the US Chps but Arthur Wallis Myers ranked him #1 amateur for Cochet defeated Austin and Perry in the Davis Cup. Rosewall in 53 and Olmedo in 59 won 2 Slam tournaments but respectively Trabert and Fraser with only 1 Slam under their belt were considered as the best amateurs because they defeated the others in the Davis Cup Challenge Round. And so on ... (I precise "amateur" in many sentences because the professionals, before the open era, were forbidden to play the traditional amateur circuit, Davis Cup, Slam tournaments and other Nationals).

But since the open era this competition has quickly declined.

I think you have then some answers to your confusion and doubts. Carlo Colussi 06:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a thorough and articulate answer from which I garnered a great deal about my favorite sport that I did not already know. Seriously, thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdlund (talk • contribs).


 * One of the reason why Hayford Peirce and myself have put so much work in the "World number one male tennis player rankings" article is that the ATP rankings are far from being perfect (and they begin only in 1973 : more than a century after the birth of tennis). When I hear now that Connors would have been 5 years in a row the best player because the ATP computer put it I can't bear it : the first match I saw on TV was an extract of the Nastase-Kodes meeting in the round of 16 at Roland 1977 so I have seen all the great matches from this date. I can tell you that Connors has never been the true #1 since that year except in 1982 when the ATP computer ranked him ... #2. That year the ATP ranking placed McEnroe ahead Connors himself ahead Lendl but in reality everyone placed Connors #1, Lendl #2 and McEnroe only #3. And I tell you this knowing that Connors was my ... favourite player at the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s : I liked his play and his performances (he was a showman). So when I claim he wasn't the best such or such year I really think it (for me he was the best in '74, '76 and '82 but not from 74 to 78) but I didn't like at all the man because he had sometimes such a bad behaviour on the court : he could be so rude, vulgar, disrespectful, insulting and he had such a high opinion of himself. Carlo Colussi 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

JIMMY CONNORS: OTHER TITLES. ( 3 Special-Event ) 1978: Buenos Aires: Final: Connors - Borg: 5-7, 6-3, 6-3. 1986: Tokyo Suntory Cup: Final: Connors - Wilander: 6-4, 6-0. 1989: Nimes: Semi-final: Connors - Soltenberg: 6-4,6-4. Final: Connors - Jarryd: 6-2,6-3. --87.90.160.149 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Hello Mister Colussi, Do I can write in french? : Comme vous et Mister Feardes, je suis un passionné de tennis surtout des légendes( Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Nastase, Lendl etc...), je me suis permis de vous rajouter 3 resultats de special event sur Connors. Je m'interesse beaucoup aux resultats de special event de ces grands joueurs. Un exemple, sur la page Ilie Nastase hobby site, il est indiqué qu'il a remporté en 1975: Dutch round robin à Haarlem, Graz et Uppsala. Pas de traces de ces tournois sur Wikipedia. Pour Borg c'est la meme chose, sur le site BjornBorgFanForever, il y a un très grand nombre de special event remportés par lui. Les tableaux faits sur Lendl et Connors sur les special event sont extraordinaires. Sur la page française de discussion de Connors, je vous ai ecrit pour vous feliciter de toutes vos connaissances sur le tennis, je suis à la recherche du livre Vainqueurs-Winners 1946-2003 de Michel Sutter. Je ne le trouve pas. Existe t-il vraiment?. Merci infiniment de me répondre. Bravo à vous et à Mister Feardes pour vos contributions sur Wikipedia. ( Mon Pseudo: Jema 974 )--87.90.160.149 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Carlo Colussi 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bonjour monsieur ou madame (?) Jema 974. Étant donné que je ne maîtrise pas l'anglais non seulement je vous autorise à écrire en français mais cela me fait plaisir. Vu que je ne vais pas avoir beaucoup de temps pour Wikipedia je vous invite même à modifier non seulement les pages de discussion mais aussi et surtout les articles eux-mêmes.

Malheureusement quand j'ai vu Sutter il y a 3 ans je crois qu'il lui restait 5 exemplaires de son livre Vainqueurs-Winners 1946-2003 : il devait en donner 1 à Pietrangeli et il m'en a donné un (que je n'ai accepté qu'en lui donnant un peu d'argent en retour).

Merci pour vos félicitations que je n'ai pas encore lues sur le site français.

Je viens de modifier sur le site anglais la page d'Anthony Wilding (j'ai inscrit 105 victoires et j'ai ensuite copié-collé mon rajout sur le site français mais je n'ai pas encore traduit d'anglais en français les commentaires) : je suis donc aussi fan des très vieilles légendes ce qui est confirmé par ma contribution importante à l'article World number one male tennis player rankings et ma contribution quasi-totale à Ken Rosewall et à Tennis, male players statistics, articles que j'ai ensuite traduits sur le site français : j'essaie d'harmoniser les statistiques des 3 articles dans les 2 langues : c'est pourquoi par exemple j'attends donc vos diverses contributions (vous-même, Feardes et autres personnes) pour actualiser l'article "Tennis, male players statistics" et ensuite sa version française "Records divers depuis les débuts du tennis". Carlo Colussi 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Bonjour Mr Colussi, j'ai rajouté des titres (specials event) remportés par Borg, ainsi qu'à Connors et McEnroe. j'espere que Mister Feardes fera les tableaux concernant les specials event pour Borg et McEnroe, car ceux-ci sont extremement bien faits (voir Lendl et Connors). Il me manque plein de resultats des matchs de Connors sur les specials event, ainsi que les tournois hors ATP ( Ocean City et Roanoke 1972, Beckenham 1976 et 1978. Avez-vous ces resultats? Merci de me repondre. Sinceres salutations. --87.90.160.149 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. No I don't think I have the results of both Ocean City and Roanoke 72. About Beckenham it would be possible to find something in Tennis de France but my magazines are deeply hidden in some forgotten boxes. Carlo Colussi 08:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. : in viewing an old edition of the article (January 15, 2007) that I've edited, I saw the date of Ocean City (that I've discovered in the 1991 book of Sutter) : August 20, 1972 but having not this book at hand I don't remember who was the runner-up. About Nottingham 72 I remember that Connors played with Dibley, Hoad and ??? Graebner ???. I've forgotten who was the 4th player. To be checked. I also guess it was played on grass because it was held a few days before Wimbledon. Carlo Colussi 13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

119 or 120 titles ??
Hello Feardes. I've noticed that you erased the 1979 Asuncion invitational tournament. I had included it in the list some months ago because Jeffreyneave had suggested it at the time but perhaps you are right.

Do you confirm that Connors hasn't won this tournament ?

If yes I will change the "Tennis, male players statistics" article.

Thank you for the answer.

Carlo Colussi 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Carlo, I am not aware that I've ever erased it. If so It was not on purpose. I've screened my file with 1979 results and indeed I've found two exhibition events won by Connors in South America during September 1979.

Rio de  Janeiro  (BRAZIL) - Special Event (15 - 16 Sept '79) Final: Connors - Vilas 6-3 6-4 6-3

Asuncion (PARAGUAY) - Special Event (27 - 30 Sept '79) Boqueron International Tournament, Semi-finals: Connors - Dibbs 6-3 6-4, Vilas - Pecci 6-4 6-1 Final: Connors - Vilas 7-5 6-3

Many thanks for alerting me. I will add Asuncion to winning to Connors's other tournament titles. Rio was only 4-men events so I'd propose to divide invitational/exhibition titles into two categories like it is in Lendl's article(min. 8 draw, less then 8 draw) because winning 4-men exhibition is less worth (jut two matches are played). What do you think? Feardes 15:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job with Lendl because in a previous version I have only listed 110 wins (Michel Sutter being the main source) and then I've added 16 titles in the article a few months ago to the 94 listed by the ATP (and by Wikipedia at the time).
 * Hello mister Feardes.

In his books Michel Sutter (who is the first person who's tried to list all the tournaments since 1946) only selected the "8 or more"-man tournaments (if we except some great pro tournaments of the preopen era as the tournament of Champions-Forest Hills, or the US Pro and in the open era the Pepsi Grand Slam tournaments which were introduced in the ATP Statistics just a few months ago (this is why Nastase's, Borg's, McEnroe's ATP statistics have changed)). Sutter being a reference when I've written the "Ken Rosewall" article each time Rosewall had won a 4-man tournament I've precised it. But I absolutely wanted to introduce those victories because in my mind I think that a 4-man tournament win when you defeat both Gonzales and Laver has a greater meaning than a 32-man tournament win with no great player. But I didn't separate into two or three categories because I do not master the presentation in the Wikipedia (and I don't master English too but that's another matter).

I've seen your new version of the "Ivan Lendl" article because I've looked at the new version of the "Tennis, male players statistics" article I've originally created and suddenly I've seen 143 victories for Lendl replacing my 110 titles : I was very surprised and therefore I've selected the new version of the Lendl article and I was lost because I couldn't find the 143 titles. So I decided to look at it carefully and then I've found 94+37+12 = 143 titles. It would be better to have directly the total.

Don't you think it would be more comfortable for the reader to separate the titles and the finals and not mix them as you've done in the Lendl article ? Then and only then, to answer your original question, you could separate in 3 categories : ATP, "non ATP" min. 8 draw, "non ATP" less than 8 draw (I let you choose the good terms).

As I've said in many discussions elsewhere the ATP statistics are far from being exhaustive (before 1968 there is ABSOLUTELY nothing and from 1968 to 1970 many tournaments are missing and later some WCT tournaments and other invitational tournaments are absent) : when I see that in the ATP Website Rosewall is only credited with 25 titles I am almost dying (I've found 121 titles + 7 pro tour wins). So for me the ATP isn't the official source of tennis statistics but one among others. Then I think it would be fair to list together all the titles of a player (eventually to precise if the source is the ATP or not, if the tournament is an invitational one or an exhibition and so on). But I repeat for instance in 1970 more than the half of the tournaments are missing in the ATP statistics. In 1969 you just have 3 confrontations between Roche and Laver (3 Laver's wins) in the ATP Site while in reality that year Roche has defeated Laver 5 times out of 9.

I would make the same suggestion for the Connors article (I've made some corrections under the username 212.23.162.37) Other point : in re-reading your answer then Connors's new total will be 109+17+6+ 1 (Rio) titles because Rio, September 79, wasn't listed before so equal to 133. Do you confirm ?

When all that be clear I will change the "Tennis, male players statistics" article and the corresponding articles in French (I am French and I try to correct the statistics in the French version of Wikipedia : for instance I have not written the original french "Ivan Lendl" article but last week I've added the tournaments that you've added in the English article).

Nevertheless I repeat that your job on Lendl was very good.

Carlo Colussi 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question on separation of titles and runner-up appearances is absolutely valid but my preference is a bit different. I'd still rather keep "official tournaments" (e.g. 109 titles and 54 runner-ups for Connors) separately from "unofficial events". I am fully aware that the bordeline between "official" and "unofficial" events is nowhere defined and other people might have a different opinion. But I tend to define certain standard which should be followed in all players statistic otherwise the players numbers are hardly comparable. It is extremely difficult task but still easier for players like Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, ... having career in open Era only then for players who started their careers before 1968. I am fully aware that some unofficial tournament titles (they were called in 70's and 80's also pirate tournaments because they pulled the top players from official Grand Prix events mainly due to the higher prize money and appearance payments), e.g. ECC Antwerp, Challenge of Champions were be more difficult to win then ordinary 32-men draw official events but these invitational tournaments were considered exhibitions not belonging to any circuit. For today's players the distinction is very easy: official are only ATP Tour events, all other (e.g. Kooyong in Melbourne) are unofficial exhibitions. I tried to make a definition of official events in open era (unfortunately many exceptions are needed): 1) Grand Prix tournaments (incl. Masters Grand Prix not bringing ATP Ranking points), ended in 1989 (excl. Challenger level tournaments) 2) US Indoor circuit (run in early 70's) 2) WCT circuit (including WCT Special events and Dallas WCT Finals) 3) ATP Tour events (started in 1990), excl.Challenger level tournaments 4) Olympics 5) Grand Slam Cup 6) Pepsi Grand Slam - despite ATP I consider this event as exhibition 4-men invitational like any other similar events. The only difference was that organizers invited top 4 ranked men. I would exclude it from official statistic but up to know we only add titles to ATP stats but never reduce it.
 * Hello Carlo, sorry for not reacting sooner but I am not able to monitor Wiki posts on a regular basis.

I think about to open a task on Wiki Tennis project to conclude on such definition when ATP resigned to do this.

Do you think this definition make sense? What is your opinion?

Perhaps you as an pre-open era expert could try to define "official events" in pre-1968 period.

BTW: While I think that number of tournament titles won by Lendl is now final and I do not believe that anybody can dig some forgotten tournament the list of "unofficiaů" titles for Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, etc. might still increase because in their prime was held a lot of exhibition events and not all of them are listed in their bios. Feardes 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello mister Feardes. Don't be sorry for not reacting too soon because I am not, too, on Wikipedia on a regular basis. But as the discussion page grew bigger and bigger I was not sure you would see my question lost in this big page.

Definition of an official event before 1990 is not an easy task at all : what you propose is good enough and we can infinitely discusse which event was official or not. In the US indoor circuit sometimes the only top player was Connors with sometimes Nastase entering a tournament.

In his head-to-head and titles statistics the ATP Website don't include the challenger tournaments but in its ranking these tournaments count. Therefore I think the ATP and the system is not coherent (for example I think that in 2003 a player like Massu won one or two challenger tournaments at the end of the year and then passed Hewitt in the ATP ranking). I think there should have 3 truly separate circuits (the main circuit, the challenger circuit and the futures circuit) with players changing (or not) of circuit at the beginning of the new year according to their performances during the previous year. But in the course of the year they shouldn't be allowed to change of circuit (or at least to be given ATP points of another circuit : for me the Massu's case is unfair to Hewitt). Thus the best player of the challenger circuit would be ranked just below the less good player of the main circuit (and idem the best "futures" player couldn't be ranked higher than the "worst" player of the challenger circuit). If Santoro meets Monfils in a main circuit tournament that counts but if they met in a challenger it counts in their ATP ranking but doesn't in their head-to-head statistics : that's stupid. So even now what's official ?.

In the preopen era I don't know what was official : when you read some old magazines as World Tennis, Australian Tennis, Tennis de France, Tennis et Golf all the results were mixed. You can see the results of the Men Singles of an amateur Grand Slam tournament inserted between the results of the Mixed Doubles of a Mother-Son tournament in a unknown city and a junior girls' tournament in another lost location. I don't know if there was any official amateur circuit in the preopen era : I suppose there was as many official circuits as there were national federations : these national circuits included all kinds of tournaments. For instance if you look at the USLTA circuit of the time you will find all the city tournaments and all the state tournaments (on every surface) of the USA : the Austin City Championships, the Clay Court Championships of Delaware and every kind of Championships you want with no top player at all but it was official. In the pro circuit it was less much complicated : there were 10 or 15 touring top professionals so every pro tour (i.e a succession of matches in different cities almost each night facing two players : for instance the Gonzales-Trabert tour, from December 9, 1955 to June 3, 1956) and every pro tournaments with one of those players was considered as official by every pro player or promoter but as mere exhibitions by the officials of the amateur circuit. When Gonzales won the Philadelphia and the Wembley pro tournaments in 1952 he became the best pro in the world (and possibly the best player) but the ILTF (International Lawn Tennis Federation) who ruled the amateur circuit, considered Gonzales (and the other pros) as outlaws. Though some years the best pros were really better than the best amateurs almost all the tennis specialists never proposed annual rankings including the pro players. I know one, Robert Roy of L'Equipe who was fully aware of that statement and in 1959 he decided to list a "mixed" ranking : for instance in 1961 he considered Laver as the best amateur but ranked him ... #11 behind 10 pros. In 1962 he didn't publish that sort of ranking because unhappily he ... died on the road.

In conclusion your proposition is not bad but I guess that everyone will propose something else. I always remember McEnroe so sad, so "ill" when he lost to Lendl in the ECC Championships at Antwerp in 1982 though it wasn't either a Grand Prix or a WCT tournament. So should we consider it as an official or not event ? In the two players' minds it was a true match. What to say about the Hopman Cup ? It's an ITF competition so it is official though the ATP doesn't list it. Other problem as I've written many times : the ATP statistics are not complete at all at the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s and are fully absent for the preopen era so in my mind this association (and source) is not official. All the ATP supposed records are limited to the open era and are not exhaustive.

I therefore can't propose you something very valid.

P.S. 1 : Jeffreyneave had quickly proposed to add a rule for every event : at least two players of the Top50 in a tournament to consider this one as an official event : this is why he doesn't consider Manchester 1974, won by Connors, as an official tournament, though it is listed in the ATP Guide Players (as you've said; but not in the ATP Website).

P.S. 2 : you've written "the players numbers are hardly comparable" which is a good argument to compare players since the 70s. Nevertheless to write somewhere in each article (as it is done now except in the Lendl article) the total of wins including the non-ATP singles titles is good. This is why I will add in the Lendl article "making thus a total of 143 singles titles" after "Lendl won a total of 94 career singles titles listed by the ATP (plus other 49 non-ATP tournaments"

P.S. 3 : When I've discovered Wikipedia in the autumn last year I began to contribute the "World number one male tennis player rankings" article originally created by Hayford Peirce and I mainly wrote the "Ken Rosewall" article : in the latter one I decided to list all known Rosewall's victories because I was mad to see in the ATP Website that Rosewall has only won 25 tournaments whereas in reality he had won five times more tournaments : my main source was Sutter's books who had listed something like 150-200 tournaments each year from 1946. Sutter is the only person I know who's tried to make such exhaustive statistics (and I recall he did it for the ATP) : so it became a kind of reference or basis for me because no one else had dared to do such a big work (it took him years). He had listed many amateur tournaments before 1968 and then to make comparisons with the open era he selected the challenger tournaments or some special events of the last period in order to have about 150 tournaments each year. So your argument saying that the ATP source is a good one to compare modern players is good enough but to compare modern ones with ancient ones isn't terrible. I give again the Wilding's example : Len and Shelley Richardson have done a wonderful work to write the New Zealander's biography and they've listed his MAIN singles titles (at least 105 titles (I have some doubts about some wins)). Of course we can't really compare modern tennis players and players of a century ago. I suppose Wilding wouldn't even win a game against modern players but he was a pioneer at the time. Tennis history doesn't restrict to the open era but has begun in 1858-1859 so Reggie Doherty's feats or Larned's or McLoughlin's or Brookes's or Johnston's or Tilden's and so on shall be remembered. Tennis has not debuted with Connors.

Then in addition to Sutter's books I've also used the McCauley's book, "History of professional tennis", the Ray Bowers's writings in the Tennisserver Website, and many magazines (essentially World Tennis) to list the singles titles of players of the open era such as Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Nastase but also of older players as Rosewall, Gonzales and even Wilding. This is why Rosewall's amount moved up from 25 to 121, Lendl's from 94 to 110 and so on ... Then other wikipedia writers such as you have added other titles. Originally my main source was Sutter's because this is the only one which goes beyond 1968 (exactly 1946).

I've written all this to say that I am not sure that we have to erase the challenger tournaments from the "official" statistics : in many US indoor tournaments won by Connors in 1973-1974 the fields weren't better than the challengers's and Jimbo didn't defeat great players yet his titles are present in the ATP Website : if Roanoke 1973 has been kept in the ATP statistics for Connors then Drobny's wins at Le Touquet or Laver's title at Deauville 1961 shall be counted : these tournaments were the equivalent of challenger tournaments of today. Three months after Berasategui has reached the final of Roland Garros in 1994 he entered (and won) the challenger tournament of Barcelona. So it is hard to precisely define the borderline.

Sorry for not being able to correctly answer your main question. Carlo Colussi 08:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor tournaments (continued)
Hello Feardes. Firstly could you answer my questions of 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC) ? Thank you a lot and secondly in the article the date of Fréjus is 1980, Oct 1-5 (same day and same month as Buenos Aires 1979 : isn't it a copy-paste ?). My memory is possibly wrong but I think that I've seen in 1980 an exhibition between Connors, Tanner and Noah (and perhaps other players) in the South of France (possibly Fréjus) : in my mind it was during the summer, probably before the U.S. Open so I suppose in August. What do you think ? October or August ? Thank you for the answers. Carlo Colussi 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Feardes 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Carlo, I've posted the answer above in the original thread. As concerns the Frejus Round Robin exhibition you are right, the event was held in August 4-10, 1980.


 * Thank you for the answer. In the French site, Jema974 (see below) had corrected the Tokyo Gunze Open 1978 into Kobe Gunze Open 1978. Do you think it's right ? Carlo Colussi 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mister Colussi. Le Tournoi de Frejus 1980 a eu lieu à ma connaissance du 4-08 au 10-08. Huit joueurs etaient presents: Connors, McEnroe, Vilas, Tanner, Pecci, Panatta, Noah et Caujolle. Resultats: Groupe du Cap d'Agde: Tanner-Pecci 7-6 6-4, Connors-Noah 6-4 6-4, Tanner-Noah 6-1 6-1, Connors-Pecci 6-3 7-6, Pecci-Noah 6-3 7-5, Connors-Tanner 6-3 6-3. Groupe de Nice: Vilas-Panatta 6-4 6-4, Caujolle-McEnroe 6-4 6-2, Vilas-Caujolle 6-0 6-1, McEnroe -Panatta 6-0 4-6 6-1, Panatta-Caujolle 6-4 6-4, McEnroe-Vilas 4-6 6-3 6-1. Phase finale à Frejus Demi-finale: Connors-Vilas 6-3 6-1, Tanner-McEnroe 4-6 6-1 6-3 Finale    : Connors-Tanner 6-0 6-7 6-3. Jema974 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merci pour la réponse très détaillée Carlo Colussi 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas WCT Challenge Cup 1976 or 1977 ?
Hello Mr. Feardes. It is debatable to say that the Las Vegas, USA - WCT Challenge Cup lost by Connors against Nastase was a 1977 edition. What's sure is that Connors has won the 1977 edition against Tanner. The defeat by Nastase was related to the 1976 edition (all the matches except the final were played in 1976) but the final was largely delayed (I do not remember why : I ought to read again "Le livre d'or de Connors" by Christian Collin or the World Tennis Magazine which gave the match report. For me it's a 1976 edition (ended on 1977, April 10 or 12 according the sources). I've noticed that you put the Masters, won by Connors, in 1977 though it was entirely played in January 1978 so there is some ambiguity in you logic. For me this Masters was related to 1977 because the players have to fight all that year 1977 (and not 1978) to qualify for it so I agree with you to put that Masters in 1977 but, as I've said above, I disagree with you with the WCT Challenge Cup won by Nastase (nevertheless I admit there would be confusion that if we consider that Nastase has won the WCT Challenge Cup in 1976 because the Romanian has also won the Avis WCT Challenge Cup (held from January to May) in 1976). Furthermore Connors who was, I think 2nd in the Grand Prix don't choose to play the Masters 1976 (played in December) but the WCT Challenge Cup held about the same week (and finished in April 1977).

What do you think ?

Carlo Colussi 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacksonville 1971 ???
Hello jeffreyneave. You've written that Connors has won Jacksonville in 1971 over Graebner (as in 1972) but you didn't tell what was the source : I haven't found it neither in World of Tennis '72 neither in Sutter's books nor in Christian Collin's book ? Could you give me the source of your information ? Thanks a lot. Carlo Colussi 06:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello carlos. The source is the World of tennis yearbook 1972. Look at the U21 tankings by Jones. The biography by West section is usually an incomplete record of a player's significant results for the year. The early rounds of the 1976 WCt Challenge cup did not clash with the Masters. Orantes played both events. Connors stayed away because of his anger at Commercial Union not following their own rules and putting sanctions on French open for banning WTT players in 1974. The source of Connors' non-atp wins after 1982 needs to be provided. I presume it is the World of tennis yearbooks 1984-89. I am not sure about some of the 4 mam wins. For instance, 1982 industry hills event. I think nobody wanted gerulatitis or mayer to win the semi-finals; the idea was to have a final between new Wimbledon Champ connors and borg. The final was legtit; I have read Connors' post match interview comments. Gerulaitis is such a friend of borg that he be prepared to lose for his appearence money.

Jeffreyneave 5 september 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Biography Picture
I have pictures that I have taken of Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon 2007, signing autographs. Should I post them up? --Wallstreetcrash (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Supposed unofficial titles
I've changed the section title "Other singles titles (unofficial) (15)" in "Other singles titles including invitational tournaments titles (15)" because if some tournaments have been just invitational ones other were completely official but forgotten or not included by the ATP : for instance Jacksonville 1971 or Las Vegas WCT 1977 or Puerto Rico WCT 1979.

Do not forget that tennis has existed for a century before the ATP and that the ATP statistics of the start of the open era are very incomplete : for instance for 1969 the ATP Website just shows three meetings (Australian, Philadelphia and US Opens) between Roche and Laver whereas in reality Roche led Laver 5-4 that year : January 19, Roche won the New South Wales Open in Sydney 64 46 97 1210 over Laver in the final ; January 25 or 26, Laver beat Roche in the semifinal of the Australian Open, Brisbane, 75 2220 911 16 63 ; February 3, Roche b Laver in the New Zealand Open final, Auckland, 61 64 46 63 ; February 9, Philadelphia Open final, Laver b Roche 75 64 64 ; February 13 or 18, Hollywood (Florida) Pro final, Roche b Laver 63 97 64 ; February 26 or 27 or 28, Oakland Pro final, Roche b Laver 46 64 119 ; May, Amsterdam Pro 3rd place, Roche b Laver 63 36 62 ; September 7, US Open, Forest Hills, final, Laver b Roche 79 61 61 62 ; November 22 or 23, Wills Open Covered Courts, Queen's Club & Wembley Arena Laver b Roche 64 61 63.

Many tournaments of that era are missing, for example the Dunlop Sydney Open in March 1970 (winner Laver) or the 1973-1974 New South Wales Championships (winner Mal Anderson and Tony Roche) or the 1970 US Indoor Open tournament in Salisbury (winner Nastase) or the 1970 Wembley Pro tournament (winner Laver).

So the ATP statistics being very incomplete until the 70s other statistics shall not be considered as unofficial. Though the ATP claims that Connors is the player having won the most titles (105) it is completely untrue : Rod Laver (with at least 181 wins), Bill Tilden, Jaroslav Drobny and Ken Rosewall have won more tournaments than Connors. ATP statistics are just open era statistics far from being exhaustive for the first years of that open era and ATP Statistics are not the only official statistics.

Carlo Colussi 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ATP only consider professional titles, Rod Laver won 181, but hard to define the nature of such tournaments, many of them may be considered as invitation or demonstration tournaments now. 218.102.202.203 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No it isn't hard to define the nature of Laver's winnings : just look at the sources such as the history of professional tennis by Joe McCauley or the World Tennis magazines in the 60s. Moreover as I've written everywhere the ATP statistics are very uncomplete circa 1968-1970 and are fully absent for the professional circuits before the open era. Carlo Colussi 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think ATP has a mistake on their web pages where Connors has only 105 titles while in their official ATP Players Guide books they always state 109 titles. But I actually agree to mark these missing 4 tournaments with * to make it clear and possibly avoid that somebody deletes them later. WCT tournaments are considered as official tournaments and not special/exhibition events even if their were run outside of ATP and not counted for ATP Ranking. Feardes 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, it's very possitive for the young minds! --Tennis old man (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carlo and Feardes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.14 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thanks Carlo Colussi (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good words Carlo. I'm just tired of ATP stats. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Missouri Project?
Can someone explain why the Missouri Project tag should not be removed from this article? It appears to be a mistake. Otherwise, I'll remove the tag. My suspicion is that someone programmed a bot to add it the St. Louis, Missouri project list without realizing that there are other states that have a St. Louis, such as Illinois, the one mentioned in this artilce. So I will just remove the tag for now. Feel welcome to reinstate it if you can justify doing so. W.C. 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the st. louis project tag which encompasses the whole region. You are right though, St. Clair County is in Illinois.  DaronDierkes (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Enhancements
"Jimbo" as a nickname. His mother, Gloria Scott Connors (http://www.missourivalley.usta.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=393728) and importance in his life and career. Ilie Nastase. Chris Evert romance. Bud Collins used a nickname for his forehand overhead reaching smash, something like "Belville Backdrop" (he had one for a Nastase shot, too, "Bucharest . ." something). Successes at U.S. Open--special tournament for him. Giant killing, changing of the guard he authored when he knocked off Rosewall, Laver, and Newcombe, thereby ushering in a new era of tennis powered by a new style (and racket technology).


 * The nickname of his overhead smash is not notable, in my opinion. His success at the U.S. Open already is documented in the article.  Giant killing?  That's not encyclopedic language.  And he was not the only player to use the steel racquets.  Many other players used them, perhaps before Connors did, such as Billie Jean King.  Please sign your posts.  Tennis expert (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

results specials events :
Hello (Feardes, Jeffreyneave). Have you got details about those specials events concerning Jimmy Connors :
 * 1984 : Beaver Creek (8-men).
 * 1987 : Dallas (april-27) (Paine Webber Shootout) Connors Wins against Stockton (7-5 6-2) Special event or Exhibition match ?
 * 1988 : Sao Paulo (4-men) (november-19), final perhaps against Eddie Dibbs ?.
 * 1991 : Sao Paulo (4-men) (november-30, december-1) final Transcontinental Cup against Ivan Lendl ?. Have you others unknown specials events won by Connors . In advance thank you very much.--Jema 974 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grunting
Why is there no mention of his grunting? Spiderone (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Non ATP titles Under 8 players
Is this section overkill? I don't see anything like it on other articles and really do not think it adds anything. Tournaments with under 8 players are not very significant...? Comments? (I will give it my standard 30 days) -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

australia and france ?
the article says (...) he entered the Australian Open Men's Singles only twice and that he did not enter the French Open Men's Singles for five of his peak career years but unfortunately it is never said why... ?! kernitou talk 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

5× consecutive titles on 3 different surfaces record
Can someone explain to me the nature of this record? The wording of this seems fairly vague, given the fact that the tournaments he allegedly achieved this on are not listed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... so Jimmy has won 3 consecutive tournaments which happen to be on 3 different surfaces... and done this 5 times. LOL. That's not a record... that's trivia at best and should be removed at once imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fyunck for clarifying it for me. And yes, I've removed it from the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
See Not a proper copyedit request below.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a proper copyedit request
I removed the copyedit tag because this is not a proper request for the Guild of Copy Editors to do. Please do not shout (ie all caps), and make this request in another way.--[[User:Dthomsen8|DThomsen8 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So cowardly and lame, I won't even argue w/ you. Not worth it.User:JCHeverly 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Abortion of Jimmy Connor's Child???
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/youthful-passion-left-chris-evert-pregnant-jimmy-connors-love-child-article-1.1332476

She has not commented on it, but he contends it's true. Fair game???User:JCHeverly 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm currently reading Jimmy's new autobiog. I could provide a citation if needed. --El Ingles (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The gutless wonder/s of both the Connors and Evert articles have not mentioned it.  (Hope you didn't pay for the book, BTW)  I think it is highly relevant as Chris Evert is a "devout Roman Catholic."  It would be useful if you would put the citation/s verbatim alon with the page number.  That way, the primary editor/s of both articles can no longer run away from Connors's claim.  I have only read and seen media accounts of Connors's statements, but in those interviews he stated that Evert was definitely with child during their 1974 romance and "decisions had to be made."User:JCHeverly 08:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are enough verifiable sources. Jimmy Connors has asserted in both print and on television that Chris Evert ABORTED THEIR unborn child.  Time to BOLDLY EDIT.


 * http://www.today.com/news/jimmy-connors-chris-evert-abortion-we-were-young-1C9872997


 * Here's Connors -- "Listen, an issue had arisen as a result of youthful passion and a decision had to be made as a couple. I was staying in an apartment and Nasty [Ilie Nastase] was there when Chrissie called to say she was coming out to LA to take care of that 'issue.' I was perfectly happy to let nature take its course and accept responsibility for what was to come. Chrissie, however, had already made up her mind that the timing was bad and too much was riding on her future. She asked me to handle the details. I said something like 'Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don't have any say in the matter, then I guess I'm just here to help.'"The Outsider by Jimmy Connors. Bantam/HarperCollins, 2013. ISBN 9780593069271. pp. 132-3User:JCHeverly 00:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)User:JCHeverly 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have made necessary changes to the article to include Connors claim about Chris Evert's abortion of their child.  It needs to be included. It was Connors that created the whole public stink by, in his own admission, writing a "tell-all" autobiography where he brought to public attention a very personal, private "issue" between him and Ms Evert.  On the one hand, Connors is a ratfink for doing so.  On the other, he brings to light a salient argument in the abortion debate: what rights does the biological father have in an abortion???  He claims in the book he was prepared to take responsibility for his child.  In other words, he wanted to be a father to the baby he and Evert were going to have, so why does she get to make the decision to abort it on her own???  For all the reasons I have mentioned, this is important information in the story of Jimmy Connors's life.  Why would anyone want to exclude it after CONNORS HIMSELF went to such trouble to bring it to public light???User:JCHeverly 04:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't exclude it (though I'm not sure it should be there to be honest). This is a tiny bio of the highlights of Jimmy Connors career, touching even more briefly on his personal life. To mention it in a sentence is one thing... to add two paragraphs is severe overkill and is against wikipedia policy of WP:UNDUE. This is not a gossip sheet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another completely separate issue is thrice divorced "devout" Roman Catholic Chris Evert's complete willingness to have an abortion. It's completely counter-Official Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  Why she wasn't publicly excommunicated years ago is a mockery of the Church.  But one thing with the RC Church is that, for enough money, you can buy your way out of anything, including murder.  That's another good reason for it the issue to be included in both the Connors's and Evert's articles.User:JCHeverly 01:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grew up in Belleville, not East St Louis!
He's from the Greater St Louis area of Belleville, Illinois. He was born in East St Louis, but grew up in nearby Belleville:

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2006/11/illinois_hall_o_8.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:D0EF:1D40:FB21:C20B (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is correct in the article. Mjquinn_id (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Fake news in this article?
Why is Connors credited with 1981 Davis Cup title? Any links confirming that?

Davis Cup page says he last played in QF of 1981 Davis Cup, meaning he wasn't in the semi or the final, meaning he was not nominated for the team, meaning he didn't win the title?

https://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player.aspx?id=800175043

In 1981, members of US team in the DC final were McEnroe, Tanner, Fleming and Teltscher.

If the official website of the competition doesn't list him, how can you credit him with a title?
 * Both the Davis Cup and Tennis Hall of Fame sites list him as a member of the 1981 Davis Cup Team.Mjquinn_id (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)