US Open final 1976 Borg VS Connors

[ErdalYildizFan]

For me Björn Borg was one of the hottest tennis Players EVER! Wow he was hot! :)

[krishikishi]

This is marvelous

[rocketman6464]

federbestclass.....'connors is overated".......?????? you obviously have shit for brains.-----Connors is a legend and one of the greatest to ever play the game

[kimskis]

Connors was already using graphite racquet back in 1976? Interesting...

[Rabbbe8]

66666668IOG76I



[therubtyk]

"Connors is overrated"???

Won more pro tournaments than any other player in the history of the game, and you reckon the guy is overrated. What kind of total fuckwit are you?

[federerbestcIass]

Connors is overrated

[nextmovebestmove]

Two legends.... thanks for posting.

[1histori]

ja björn borg är fan bra!



[AukeWind]

Back in the good old days they didn't fall to the ground after winning a tournament !

[TheTennisace05]

omg tennis was so different back then..

[kelman221]

Why the hell does it look like Connors slices all his forehands.

[mnagano1]

Whenever Borg hits the ball, the high pitch of the sound makes you wonder how tight the strings are... I kinda recall he's made his at 80lbs...

[DaDa2Phlux]

Jeez the skill,the strength of mind & heart.I've played with both the Bancroft Borg (a railroad tie with strings) and that whippy trampoline masquerading as a slingshot-the Wilson T2000..Even if the lore is true that Connors had lead tape at 12,3 & 9o'clock on his raquet's face.It's a testament to both these men that they could orchestrate the masterful points in spite of the crap tools of that era.

[cys12141]

arthur ashe (?) was a seer? Check out his prediction coming to life at 4:10.

[cahsargentina]

las mujeres juegan con mas emocion

[atisto]

great

[patrick7pat]

federer would have a better chance with a wood racket then nadal would

[JBHutto]

Connors is a little lad who loves berries and cream?

[Sin31]

4:15 – a thing of beauty.

[templedown]

surprised borg would lose this with it being on clay

[angryniggah]

the irony of ashe joking that connors was going to die of a heart attack. ashe himself suffered one on a tennis court a scant 3yrs later.

trabert and ashe were the best commentator/analyst--2 braniacs

[busterbone]

he got balls in his shorts

[chrissiebosede]

Borg`s racket sounds hilarious...i love him.

[simplykel04]

What brand were Jimmy Connors' clothes back then?

[wha65]

@simplykel04 Jimmy had the " Cerruti 1881 " brand of Sergio Tacchini clothing, which he exclusively wore. His shoes were Converse. Both looked great. Borg had Fila clothing and his signature Diadora " Elite " shoes.

I was a mad Connors fan here in Australia in the 70's and set the alarm clock just after midnight. ( time difference ) Wimbledon and the US Open was essential viewing for me. Yet, i wasn't as keen on the French Open as he never really looked like winning on the slow red clay.

[wha65]

You can clearly hear the different sounds from the 2 rackets. Bjorn had his Donnay wood strung to maximum tension. Jimmy had far less tension on his metal Wilson.

[vierdiez]

@wha65: Bjorn´s racket was a Bancroft, two years before his signature Donnays.

[kurtmandos66]

@vierdiez 34 kilo or something I heard he strung his rackets so tight that the strings broke in the hotelroom!

[vierdiez]

@kurtmandos66 Wow!!!

[goofydog2]

I just noticed that after Jimmy rubs Bjorn's hair at the end, 6:35, he then places his left hand on Borg's shoulder and @ 6:36 you can see Jimmy push off on Bjorn's shoulder rather conspicuously. I wonder if Borg made some facial gesture while Jimmy was rubbing his hair, or just prior, as they met at the net, however inconspicuously, thus, pissing Jimmy off? Or, did Jimmy push him just to let him know that he, Jimmy was still the King of the Court??? I'd pay to hear the answer from Jim's lips!

[superstition2]

@goofydog2 I assume he was trying to be friendly, but it does come off as obnoxious.

[goofydog2]

@superstition2 Reading Andre Agassi's book "OPEN" he really paints Conners as being a jerk. I was always a HUGE Conners' fan but I believe Andre's few statements about Jimmy. Even John McEnroe agrees, in his book, that no body ever turned there nose up at being famous more than Connors. If you remember, he never said a word about retiring, therefore, excluding himself of all the fanfare that follows a player on his last year of tournament play. Ditto with Borg, Both a different breed, entirely.

[Schrittwieser]

Borg is a 20 yr old Rock Star here.

[goofydog2]

@Schrittwieser Ya got that right!!! Everyone 'wished' they could be Borg or at least, look like him (even McEnroe). In Mac's book, he describes Borg as be exactly what you stated; 'Borg was a ROCK STAR. Said the ladies lined up to get a piece of Borg. ...Of course, Jimmy Conners' was/is my ROCK STAR! Always was, always will be...

[romm1112]

basuraaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[brianclough]

The 1 tournament Borg couldn't win.

[rboltt]

What a great save by Borg on the first match point! My opinion, this was the best tennis rivalry, even their one-sided matches produced the kind of points we will never see again.

[ulizinho]

Nadal Federer is better and produces more spectacular points, coz tennis, as many other sports and things, is ever evolving.

[koochyman]

If I remember right, by winning this US Open Connors became one of the only men ever to win majors on all surfaces: clay (here) grass (Wimbledon, twice) and hardcourt (4 times at US Open). He was one of the greatest players of all time, the all-time leader in tournament wins (109) and the player to remain in the elite the longest (74-91),

[FightwithDream]

I believe Connors also won the U.S. Open on grass as well.

[conndogg79]

3 times on hard court, he also won a US Open on grass in 74, plus an Aussie on grass

[catrachoking]

@koochyman hes the only man to win the us open on all 3 surfaces

[goofydog2]

koochyman well, now we have Federer who has won slams on all surfaces. But, had the French allowed professional players to play in the French open in 1974 (they were the last slam to allow pros to play in 1975), Conners would have been, no doubt, the last player to win a 'full' grand slam in one calender year, 1974. He was simply that over-powering every player that year. ...Jimmy seemed to get many of his major slams on even numbered years. '74, '76, '78, '82, or, at least, it seemed that way?

[koochyman]

Maybe Connors wasn´t the greatest player ever (though his 109 tournaments wins would suggest he was) but he was, for many, the most inspirational, the toughest, the most fun to watch, and the guy who wouldn´t go away. 17 years playing in the top 20. Incredible. He's my favorite player ever. KM

[angelwebeza]

@koochyman

Back then it was much easier to win a tournament. In those years the competition wasn't as big as right now.

[JusticieroDeLaMuerte]

@angelwebeza Back then was back then. You can't compare. There were difficulties like now. Just a different aproach, but I don't think it was easy.

[superstition2]

@JusticieroDeLaMuerte It definitely wasn't easy. Let's see Nadal and Federer play with wood racquets or a T-2000. Certainly they could do it, but their playing style would be different -- especially Nadal's.

[goofydog2]

@koochyman - Cool stats! Thank you for posting them...

[89Pleasek]

borg had one of the ugliest backhands ive ever seen

[virgilsheart]

Connors is superficial in real life.

[xman4un]

meaning what exactly?

[jna180]

borg's racket sounds like its frikkin metal

[PennPearson]

80 lbs of tension on the strings, if I remember correctly.

[Kjellarnek]

It's because of the extremely high tension on the strings.

[kinetik44]

0:46 so graceful

[virgilsheart]

@kinetik44 but his the biggest jerk on or off the court.

[kinetik44]

i was being sarcastic dont worry

connors is an ass

[GHLIII]

Connors once said that this was his best win, ever.

[slider876]

borg is a genius and conners wasnt bad either

[themaliced]

i like the voice of the umpire, he's like an evil robot

[casketofdog]

@themaliced lol yea

[cryofsorrow]

i like the seventies sign in the top right :)

[tomloft2000]

Connors was not noted as a great clay player,but he got to the finals all three years it was played on clay.

[chapaev36]

Connors was not a great red clay player. He was an excellent green clay player.

[mdmguyon]

Yes, that's Arthur Ashe.

[opencurtin]

Wheres Hawk eye?

[Macbrother]

Who is that commentating with Tony Trabert?  It sounds a lot like Arthur Ashe but that can't be can it?

[Ariamaluum]

Yes, it is.

[MisterCrazyLegs]

Pat Summerall and Arthur Ashe

[stell29]

I think if Jimmy had played the French from 74 to 77 he would have had to win it once...he was too good not too. After that Borg was in his prime and dominating Paris and would have trounced Jimmy

In 74 and 75 when Jimmy was dominating and Borg was still young, I think Jimmy could have tamed him at the French

[bidulau]

For sure not, because the har tru and the french clay court are very different. The red clay court is slow, which is not the case at forest hills. Beating borg at RG in 74, and 75, probably not, and borg wasn't the only one in paris. In 1977, i can't see how he could beat vilas on the french red clay court where the argentinian was too strong for the others players...and as you know, he won the us open 77 over connors.

[bidulau]

Vilas had the record of winning matches on clay court this year, and his record was beaten by a raquet with a double string which was took off the day after he lost the final of the porée cup in paris, because tiriac said, "ok you want the players still continue to play with this raquet? i take off vilas and borg off the circuit one month and after they'll come back with a top spin never seen on the circuit before". The atp realizes in one day, it will be the end of tennis, if borg and vilas...

[THEKINKS08]

agree, and Bord did not play in 1977 the French open. the only player that defeated Borg in Paris was Adriano Panatta, twice( in 1973 and1976)

[vccstudents]

Connors owned the US Open during the mid 70's to early 80's. I remember what he said at the trophy ceremony in '78 when he beat Borg. He said to the fans in New York, "You may not always like me, but I like you." The fans roared and haven't stopped yet.

[martynhanson]

When Connors trounced Rosewall in 74 everybody said Jimbo would dominate at Wimbledon. He didn't abd it was Borg who after Ashe showed him the way. Anyway, Borg admitted in the early part of his career he was intimidated by Jimbo. US OPEN 78 was the last time Jimbo best him and Borg had a sceptic thumb which he didn't make a lot of fuss about

[iamtman1]

Borg in his prime was clearly a better player than Connors. The diff was more consistency off the ground, and a much better serve. But i have to give Jimbo great credit for longevity. His consistent greatness was remarkable.

[deirdrenifhaolain]

connors is a legend, and borg the maestro

[robinho1979]

I dont know what's more uglier...Connors Forehand or Borgs Backhand?? One thing is for sure and the court is crap!

[logant44]

Your grammar is uglier than both by a long shot.

[bigeduardal]

I would like to see Orantes-Vilas(semifinal US Open 1975), incredible match, Vilas was 6-4 6-1 2-6 5-1, had match point and finally lost!!

[casheasy]

Right. He got banned for playing the WTT by the FTF. That's why he didn't get to win the French that year.

[chapaev36]

That's why he didn't get to lose in the first round again that year. Minor correction.

[semporini]

Mrs Borg, this is only one example of your poor arguments. Let me remember you a few of them

-)Green clay is faster than carpet, grass, hard and surely red clay courts.

-) Blister is a big injury and enough excuse to lose

-) If you have rallies over 60 shots, surely you are playing on red clay and the only guy who could do that was Borg.

-) Connors was banned of 74 RG because his stubborness and chapaev knows the real and own history.

[chapaev36]

*clap, clap, clap*

[karmasherabwangchuk]

green clay is faster than red clay. ity is most assuredly not as fast as those other surfaces. especially not grass as it was played at that time

[semporini]

The difference between red-green clay are just slightly. There are many variables further on the surface itself like altitude, wetness, dryness, tennis balls etc

[casheasy]

To say Connors would have won RG in '74 is very reasonable. This dude who doesn't remember how he steamrolled everybody and would have klcked Borg aside as well, doesn't remember things accurately. And Har-Tru is not as different from the red clay at RG as one thinks. Connors was robbed of a slam, most likely. That's my opinion, and an educated one.

[chapaev36]

Connors wasn't robbed of anything. The RG ban was entirely due to his own stubborness and then because of his big head he skipped RG for a few years out of pure spite.

[casheasy]

Wrong. Learn your history. Connors was banned in 74 by the French Tennis Federation for nothing he did wrong. He played WTT that year, and got screwed over.

[chapaev36]

He played the WTT that year perfectly aware of the consequences. I know my history.

[semporini]

Chapaev, my arguments are the next:

1) I said that Connors would has won R. Garros at least once, because during his prime he was capable to beat anybody on any surface. During his prime he acumulated three Gran Slams finals on clay. Won one (against the king on clay) and lost against Orantes and Vilas.

2) You say that red clay is entirley different surface and I say is very similar. Both are clay.

3) Borg has better overall record against greaters players because he was a coward

[semporini]

He decided retires just after lost his No.1 position, surely his head-to head record against Mc, Lendl, Mats W. and probably Connors would have been different.

4) Bjorn wasn't capable to win any Grand Slam on hard surface even during his prime. That's why I said that Connors was more complete than IceBorg.

PS: In 1973 Jimbo was not top 4. We are saying during his prime

[chapaev36]

If your argument is that Connors is more complete than Borg then you're welcome to it. It gives me a hearty laugh.

[semporini]

You are wrong again..Connors more complete than Borg is not an argument is an IDEA. In Fact I have some IDEAs abou it.

1) Connors would have won at least one or two R Garros. (obove, you can see my arguments)

2) Connors was a player more complete than Borg. (not better...... COMPLETE)

3) Borg became a coward after lost his No. 1 position.

4) This one is nea on this discussion. May be Borg was a better player than Connors but Jimmy is more important for this awesome sport.

[chapaev36]

Yawn. Whatever gets you through the night.

[Holygrail2]

Just ignore chapaev. I tried to have a discussion with him a couple weeks ago about Ivan Lendl and he is not interested in carrying out a logical conversation about anything. He says whatever he wants, you point out his obvious errors, he changes the subject or says something sarcastic. It's no-win. For the record, you are correct, by and large, in my opinion.

[chapaev36]

Oh, never mind. You're a Federer homer who thinks that Federer was as good on clay as Lendl. That pretty much invalidates any opinion you may have on anything.

[Holygrail2]

I don't even particularly like Roger Federer. You just like making assumptions (which says something about the validity of YOUR "opinions on anything"). I just pointed out that I think Roger Federer's skill on clay is comparable to Ivan Lendl's, taking into account different time periods, technology and competition. It's a perfectly legitimate opinion. If you don't agree, be mature in your disagreement. Instead, your comments are childish ones like: "Yawn. Whatever gets you through the night."

[chapaev36]

Yawn. Whatever gets you through the night. :-)

[semporini]

@Holygrail2

Federer´s victory at Roland Garros last year legitimate your arguments about Roger

er and Ivan skills on clay. Congratulations

[semporini]

He, he. Chapaev is kind of hard head but sometimes he has good opinions. The problem with him is that his rhetorical is too primitive, change the subject and make many assumptions just to keep alive his arguments.

[semporini]

chapaev, you are such obstinated guy. Firstly, metabasalto is a kind of rock, the important things are compounds, red clay has ferrric oxide (leads red color) and green clay has maganesium, titanium and magnesium oxide that leads the green-gray color then add rubber and more syntetich materials, the difference is quantity of humidity that remains in the surface. Is like golden and red apple, both are APPLES, both are clay. IS NOT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, both surfaces are very similar.

[chapaev36]

It's very different. Just watch how it plays. Connors liked quicker rallies where he could attack the ball, not long 60-shot rallies where he had to keep the ball in. Orantes did enough damage against Jimmy on har-tru in 1975 - on red clay he would have driven him nuts.

[casheasy]

Thanks for posting this match. I was 9 at the time, and can remember watching it and becoming a tennis fan. By the way, Connors would have won the French in '74 had he not been banned from competing.

[chapaev36]

He lost in the first round at RG in 1973. So, no, he wouldn't.

[semporini]

Entirley different? What a myth!!!!!!!!!

Its scientific measurable that these surfaces are almost the same. (rebounds, in angle and out angle with all kind of spin) Green surface is more hygroscopic than red clay is the only relevant diference. (look at the net, diferences between green and red clay)

Its relevant because Borg avoided play against a renovate Connors, youngsters like Lendl or Wilander and especially McEnroe in his prime.

[chapaev36]

It's an entirely different surface. Har-tru is made from metabasalt. But not only that the treatment of the court was very different - the way it was kept and the layer that was used. And, of course, the obvious different one can see by just watching matches. It's a relatively quick surface, all things considered. Players who liked fast surfaces tended to enjoy har-tru more.

Not sure what your last comment has to do with anything - total non-sequitur, considering the argument.

[mrbobevans]

@chapaev36 You are right about the old green clay. I played on green clay at my dad's condo courts in Florida. It was the slowest stuff that one can play on. I cannot imagine any red clay court being that slow. Literally, you felt like you were playing in a swamp. They irrigate those courts from the group up. Obviously, they are making the courts slow to tailor to a senior age group. The new green clay appears to be slower than the red.

[chapaev36]

That's very interesting! It used to be the other way around - green clay relatively quick, red clay slow. I'm not sure whether you see the slowness of the surface as a positive or a negative, but I personally hope to see a resurrection of har-tru on the atp tour, but I'm not myself familiar with the politics involved. It would be nice to have the variety.

[mrbobevans]

I would love to see the resurrection of the har-tru. Cliff Drysdale said the har-tru in his opinion is the best of all surfaces. I have never played on red clay, but all I hear is how it gets in your clothes and socks, and you can never wash it out. Honestly, the green clay is getting slower than the red. I also played on another green clay court, and it was slow as hell. It is definitely different than the clay seen in this video.

[greatmya]

you're so right. This court is actually pretty fast. It would allow for more "full court "tennis. You can also see how dry this court is.

[goofydog2]

@greatmya - Wondering what was the difference between clay at the US Campionhip @ Forest Hills vs the red clay at the French open. Conners won a few slams on the US clay but was never able to get beyond the semis at the French, that is, after he was allowed to play there in 1975.

[semporini]

Altough he wasn't great on clay, I said Connors was good enough to beat anybody on that surface. Connors won Grand Slam on clay and Borg did not on hard courts. This is a very important fact. Period. Jimbo did not win on Roland Garros just because didn't play on it.

When Borg lost No. 1 position in 1981, he became a coward. J C changed his service and a little bit his forehand and after that he won 3 more G Slams including 6 victories in a row against Borg in exhibition matches

[chapaev36]

I wouldn't say Connors was good enough to beat anyone on red clay. He won the US Open on har-tru, which is an entirely different surface and that was at a time when Connors was undisputably better than Borg (1976), before Borg established himself as the game's best. Roland Garros, conversely, was played on red clay, Jimmy's worst surface.  I don't really know whether Bjorn was a coward or not - I don't think this is really relevant to the discussion. I don't think exo results are either.

[karmasherabwangchuk]

connors got to the semifinals at the FO i think four times once he started playing there. so he was no slouch. but dcefinitely not his best surface

[semporini]

I agree, clay was not his best surface but I repeat one more time, he was good enough on this surface to beat anybody, included Borg, VIlas and Orantes during his prime.

[karmasherabwangchuk]

yes he was. think about this. he lost to orantes in the '75 us open final badly. do you think orantes would have had a chance on a hard court like today against connors. connors would have carved him up like a thanksgiving turkey. he also lost to vilas in 77. think that would have happenes on a hard court? no way. nobody was a bigger connors fan than i was but you have to admit that after 78 borg overtook him. the 78 and 79 wimbledon matches were comprehensive dismantlings

[semporini]

I am a Connors fan too. This discussion started because i said that Connors during his prime could beat anybody on any surface. I think that he could has won at least one or two RG but he did not participate for some reasons during 5 years. I added too that Jimbo was more complete player (although no better) than Borg because Jimmy won a Major on clay ( 76 US open) and Borg didn't on hardcourts. If you have time try to read all the posts. Regards

[karmasherabwangchuk]

i agree he would have had a good chance RG 74. Borg only 18yo. after that dificult. don't know about more complete. borg better serve. jimmy always stuck w/ that awkward delivery. remem only 1 hardcourt mar after 77,USO. borg beaten there 3 times in final. 78 by connors. 80 and 81 by mac. in 78 he had a bad blister hate to admit it cause i loved it when JC stomped him. lost to mac in 80,81.beat jc in 3 sets in 81 semi. very disappointed.4 attempts at a hard court slam he made 3 finals.not so bad

[semporini]

Not only RG 74, I think 75, 76 even 77 could have been good chances for Jimbo just because Borg was very young in 74 and 75, during 76 the final was Panatta vs Salomon (overall record against them were 13-2 and 17-2 respectively including exxos) two guys very accessible to Connors and 1977 Borg did not participate

[semporini]

I agree with Khale, Connors did not play at Roland garros in his prime, since 1974 until 1978. Connors probably would had won at least one or two French open

[chapaev36]

Connors was never a great red clay player, so I doubt that.

[semporini]

I am totally disagree with you. During his prime (1974-1978) Connors did not play on red clay at the beginning of year just because he was not going to play at the Roland Garros.

During 1974-1985 Connors always was a top 4 and he acumulated 4 SF and 3 QF considering that Connors did not play (was banned) five years is very good example of his performance.

[chapaev36]

Making several SFs and QFs does not make Connors a great player on red clay. It makes him a solid player on the surface, but not great. As for Connors not playing between 74-78 on red, he did it largely because he could play parallel on hard and carpet surfaces, rather than battling it out on a surface he knew he'd never master. After an initial banning from RG in 1974, Connors skipped it outright for four consecutive years.

[semporini]

you are right, he wasn't a great player on clay but good enough to beat anybody (including Borg).

On Clay until 1978 Connors had had record 3-0 over Borg in ATP Official Tournaments.

By the way, I can say the same as you, Borg did not play on hard surfaces at the end of year because he knew he could not be a great player on that surface. In fact Connors was more complete and competitive than Borg because could win on every single surface and Borg was not good enough on hard ones.

[chapaev36]

I wouldn't say Connors was good enough to beat anybody on red clay. He was definitely inferior to guys like Borg and Vilas on it and probably some other ones. Also, they didn't play on hard surfaces at the end of the year - they played on carpet. There weren't very many events at that time on hard, but the ones that Borg played in he did very well. He was a much better hardcourt player than Connors was a clay player. Of the four US Opens on hard, he made three finals.

[chapaev36]

Also I'm confused why you say "Borg did not play on hard surfaces" - when did Borg skip important events on hardcourts? Don't follow. The only important hardcourt event outside of the US Open I can think of is Toronto/Montreal, where Borg played twice and won in 1979 (injured and forfeited in the 1980 final). That leaves events like Dallas/Philly (carpet), Boston (har-tru), Monte Carlo/Rome (clay), Wembley (carpet), Tokyo (carpet). Stockholm may have been hardcourt and Borg won there.

[semporini]

Borg skipped tournaments like Cincinnati, Los Angels or Sidney Indoors instead he preferred play in Europe on clay courts avoiding guys like Connors and McEnroe. I repeat , Borg was not good enough to beat players like Jimmy firstly and McEnroe on hard surfaces during his prime. By the way, he was really great and amazing on grass and clay.

PD: Borg never won in Stockholm on hard courts.

[chapaev36]

Of those three I would say only Cincinnati was a masters-quality event. LA and Sidney was never even played regularly by Connors. And Cincinnati wasn't skipped by Borg in favour of clay events. Borg simply chose to play in Canada instead. To say that Bjorn avoided important hard/carpet events in favour of play is wrong because Bjorn averaged only about 25-30 red clay matches a year, less than Nadal plays today. Jimmy however definitely avoided red clay events, but it was mostly political.

[semporini]

I agree with Khale, Connors did not play at Roland garros in his prime, since 1974 until 1978. Connors probably would had won at least one or two French open

[stell29]

The green clay seems a lot faster than the slow red clay in Europe

[totaleob]

un grand classique des années 70,borg-connors,le duel de la glace et du feu,borg n a jamais croisé la route de connors a roland-garros,,mais on peut penser qu il aurait battu connors,tant la surface europeenne,en terre battu n est pas du tout la meme qu au etats unis,2 grands champions !!!!

[melende1966]

tu as complètement raison

[khale4nia]

Thanks for posting. Jimmy was up against a Clay Court King and beat him! Connors won 6 of their first 7 matches, until Borg won 10 in a row. Lucky Borg didnt have to face Connors at the French