[GOAT] Which kind of domination?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Nickognito, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Hoad had the edge over Laver into 1964.
    In February, they played a two-man EXHIBITION tour of Laver's home state, with Laver winning 7 to 1. These results should not be (but no doubt are) be included in official totals.
    The following month, Hoad won a four-man tour of New Zealand, with Hoad and Laver posting 7 and 5 records, (Rosewall ended up 6 and 6, Anderson at 4 and 8). However, Hoad was awarded first place with a 3 to 1 edge against Laver. When it counted, Hoad could still dominate Laver. (Hoad lost his first three matches against Rosewall, but won the fourth and deciding match against The Little Master, the last time he would win a big match against Rosewall). Foot injuries slowed Hoad from this point on, although he won a big match against Laver in 1966 at Sydney, and against Gonzales in the Manly final in 1965, and the Wimbledon quarter-final in 1967.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2012
  2. Pete M.

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Thank you :)
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    McCauley wrote that Manly 1965 was not a tournament. Do you have other details than Joe?
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Hoad himself claimed that it was a tournament (in 1969, London Times).
    It appears that Laver and Rosewall played off for third place.
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Maybe cause he had to handle a big smack at the hands of Santana, thus does not have a good memory of it...
     
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    The Tennis Champions Classic was NOT a tournament. It was a SERIES of matches, each one separated by several days.
    Note: This format was crafted with players like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales in mind, players who could no longer (supposedly) get through seven uninterrupted matches without a break to win a major tournament.
    It played perfectly into Laver's hands.
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Again, the TCC was not a tournament, but more like an exhibition for older players.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I think both versions are wrong. It was not a tournament and it was not a series of exhibitions for older players. It was a series sui generis.

    It must rank among Laver's greatest feats.
     
  9. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    It gave Laver time to rest between matches. It was like a series of challenge matches, not a tournament.
     
  10. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    It gave him rest in between the 100 singles matches he played in those years. It may him cost a better result at the AO in 1971, that was played on grass in between those indoor matches and tournaments in the US, without any building up events. Not that he needed those rests to make such winning streaks, he did so in 1962, spring 1965, in spring and summer 1967, in summer 1969 (31 matches in a few weeks in uninterrupted tournament play), in 1972, when he won 3 WCT events in 3 weeks, even in 1974, when he won 3 (Indian Wells, Tokyo, Houston) in 3 weeks, or in 1975, when he won 24 straight matches, a record then, in WCT tournaments. That were all streaks in continued tournament play, playing one week after the other, whith travel and surface changes all in between.
     
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    So what were the 3rd, 4th and 5th events in 1970

    Given that Wimbledon and the US Open were the first two, what were the number 3, 4 & 5 events (in order).

    I know the French Open wasn't fully open (in both 1970 and 1971) and the AO was weak in terms of field depth in 1970

    Was it:

    Sydney

    Rome

    Philadelphia

    ??
     
  12. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    Rome had no WCT players in it, i would say LA South West Pacific (it was best of 3), Sydney, Philly had good draws. But in terms of financial reward and world wide headlines those Champions Classic topped all other events. They were imo a kind of proto-WCT series and were substituted by the WCT tournament series since mid 1971.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,459
    By that logic every tournament is an exhibition. Since when was Okker, Ashe, Roche and Newcombe in those days older players?
     
  14. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    Quite right. Exhibition is im my view a match, where both players are paid beforehand on more or less equal terms, to show up and give the audience a good show. In a series of big challenge matches, where the winner got 10000$ resp. in the series final 35000$, and the loser nothing resp. in the series final 15000$, i expect hard fought matches more than in any other tournament of this era. Those sums were absolute new and sensational for tennis in this time. It was absolute new in 1970, that a tennis player could win more prize money in a a year than the best golfer (Trevino). Tennis for the first time became a million dollar sport. Newk wrote, that he was thinking in a match less on 40-15 points than on the 10000 or 5000 bucks, he would receive as a winner. Remember it was the same period in time, when sports just was on its way to the big financial boom of later years, it even preceeded the million dollar Ali-Frazier fights, which paved the way for other sports into big time.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, three good candidates. Also US Pro must be mentioned.
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,459
    To quote Laver before his last match with Tom Okker in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic--"I do not like to lose. I can understand anyone who is a good loser. If you go into a match with the idea that if you lose, you will be a good loser, you are going to be a loser."

    This is not the way a player speaks before an exhibition match. It was clearly a competitive tournament.
     
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    With all due respect to the WCT, none of these tournaments were seven round majors.
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    A "challenge match" is something like an exhibition. There is no title at stake, the players are in a one-time "championship of each other" event, like the old head-to-head tours, and it does have a somewhat commercial ring to it.
    I believe that even in a challenge match, there is "appearance money" paid out beforehand.
    But, if you like neon lights and blaring horns, you would probably like this type of event. Enjoy!
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  19. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41

    Is this list posted anywhere on this forum?
     
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Sidney,Phily,Wimbledon and USO were the toughest and the next four would beRome, Barcelona or Johannesburg and of course you also have the two remaining slams with their huge draws
     
  21. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    here's my list which covers the Open era. feel free to comment,ask and bash it. oh and if anyone has the draws for the South African Open '70 and '71 please post em,those are the only ones i couldn't find (thankyou thankyou thankyou!)


    2012

    AO Djokovic (Nadal) 1
    RG Nadal (Djokovic) 1
    Wim Federer (Murray) 1
    USO Murray (Djokovic) 1
    OG Murray (Federer) 1*
    Masters Djokovic (Federer) 0.5



    2011

    AO Djokovic (Murray) 1
    RG Nadal (Federer) 1
    Wim Djokovic (Nadal) 1
    USO Djokovic (Nadal) 1
    Masters Federer (Tsonga) 0.5



    2010

    AO Federer (Murray) 1
    RG Nadal (Soderling) 1
    Wim Nadal (Berdych) 1
    USO Nadal (Djokovic) 1
    Masters Federer (Nadal) 0.5



    2009

    AO Nadal (Federer) 1
    RG Federer (Soderling) 1
    Wim Federer (Roddick) 1
    USO Del Potro (Federer) 1
    Masters Davydenko (Del Potro) 0.5



    2008

    AO Djokovic (Tsonga) 1
    RG Nadal (Federer) 1
    Wim Nadal (Federer) 1
    USO Federer (Murray) 1
    OG Nadal (Gonzalez) 1*
    Masters Djokovic (Davydenko) 0.5



    2007

    AO Federer (Gonzalez) 1
    RG Nadal (Federer) 1
    Wim Federer (Nadal) 1
    USO Federer (Djokovic) 1
    Masters Federer (Ferrer) 0.5



    2006

    AO Federer (Baghdatis) 1
    RG Nadal (Federer) 1
    Wim Federer (Nadal) 1
    USO Federer (Roddick) 1
    Masters Federer (Blake) 0.5



    2005

    AO Safin (Hewitt) 1
    RG Nadal (Puerta) 1
    Wim Federer (Roddick) 1
    USO Federer (Agassi) 1
    Masters Nalbandian (Federer) 0.5



    2004

    AO Federer (Safin) 1
    RG Gaudio (Coria) 1
    Wim Federer (Roddick) 1
    USO Federer (Hewitt) 1
    OG Massu (Fish) 1*
    Masters Federer (Hewitt) 0.5



    2003

    AO Agassi (Schuettler) 1
    RG Ferrero (Verkerk) 1
    Wim Federer (Philippoussis) 1
    USO Roddick (Ferrero) 1
    Masters Federer (Agassi) 0.5



    2002

    AO Johansson (Safin) 1
    RG Costa (Ferrero) 1
    Wim Hewitt (Nalbandian) 1
    USO Sampras (Agassi) 1
    Masters Hewitt (Ferrero) 0.5



    2001

    AO Agassi (Clement) 1
    RG Kuerten (Corretja) 1
    Wim Ivanisevic (Rafter) 1
    USO Hewitt (Sampras) 1
    Masters Hewitt (Grosjean) 0.5



    2000

    AO Agassi (Kafelnikov) 1
    RG Kuerten (Norman) 1
    Wim Sampras (Rafter) 1
    USO Safin (Sampras) 1
    OG Kafelnikov (Haas) 1*
    Masters Kuerten (Agassi) 0.5



    1999

    AO Kafelnikov (Enqvist) 1
    RG Agassi (Medvedev) 1
    Wim Sampras (Agassi) 1
    USO Agassi (Martin) 1
    Masters Sampras (Agassi) 0.5



    1998

    AO Korda (Rios) 1
    RG Moya (Corretja) 1
    Wim Sampras (Ivanisevic) 1
    USO Rafter (Philippoussis) 1
    Masters Corretja (Moya) 0.5



    1997

    AO Sampras (Moya) 1
    RG Kuerten (Bruguera) 1
    Wim Sampras (Pioline) 1
    USO Rafter (Rusedski) 1
    Masters Sampras (Kafelnikov) 0.5



    1996

    AO Becker (Chang) 1
    RG Kafelnikov (Stich) 1
    Wim Krajicek (Washington) 1
    USO Sampras (Chang) 1
    OG Agassi (Bruguera) 1*
    Masters Sampras (Becker) 0.5



    1995

    AO Agassi (Sampras) 1
    RG Muster (Chang) 1
    Wim Sampras (Becker) 1
    USO Sampras (Agassi) 1
    Masters Becker (Chang) 0.5



    1994

    AO Sampras (Martin) 1
    RG Bruguera (Berasategui) 1
    Wim Sampras (Ivanisevic) 1
    USO Agassi (Stich) 1
    Masters Sampras (Becker) 0.5



    1993

    AO Courier (Edberg) 1
    RG Bruguera (Courier) 1
    Wim Sampras (Courier) 1
    USO Sampras (Pioline) 1
    Masters Stich (Sampras) 0.5



    1992

    AO Courier (Edberg) 1
    RG Courier (Korda) 1
    Wim Agassi (Ivanisevic) 1
    USO Edberg (Sampras) 1
    OG Rosset (Arrese) 1*
    Masters Becker (Courier) 0.5



    1991

    AO Becker (Lendl) 1
    RG Courier (Agassi) 1
    Wim Stich (Becker) 1
    USO Edberg (Courier) 1
    Masters Sampras (Courier) 0.5



    1990

    AO Lendl (Edberg) 1
    RG Gomez (Agassi) 1
    Wim Edberg (Becker) 1
    USO Sampras (Agassi) 1
    Masters Agassi (Edberg) 0.5



    1989

    AO Lendl (Mecir) 1
    RG Chang (Edberg) 1
    Wim Becker (Edberg) 1
    USO Becker (Lendl) 1
    Masters Edberg (Becker) 0.5



    1988

    AO Wilander (Cash) 1
    RG Wilander (Leconte) 1
    Wim Edberg (Becker) 1
    USO Wilander (Lendl) 1
    OG Mecir (Mayotte) 1* (*Olympic year extra GS)
    Masters Becker (Lendl) 0.5



    1987

    AO Edberg (Cash) 1
    RG Lendl (Wilander) 1
    Wim Cash (Lendl) 1
    USO Lendl (Wilander) 1
    Masters Lendl (Wilander) 0.5



    1986

    RG Lendl (Pernfors) 1
    Wim Becker (Lendl) 1
    USO Lendl (Mecir) 1
    Miami Lendl (Wilander) 1
    Masters Lendl (Becker) 0.5



    1985
    AO Edberg (Wilander) 1
    RG Wilander (Lendl) 1
    Wim Becker (Curren) 1
    USO Lendl (McEnroe) 1
    Masters Lendl (Becker) 0.5



    1984

    AO Wilander (Curren) 1
    RG Lendl (McEnroe) 1
    Wim McEnroe (Connors) 1
    USO McEnroe (Lendl) 1
    Masters McEnroe (Lendl) 0.5



    1983

    AO Wilander (Lendl) 1
    RG Noah (Wilander) 1
    Wim McEnroe (Lewis) 1
    USO Connors (Lendl) 1
    Masters Mcenroe (Lendl) 0.5



    1982

    RG Wilander (Vilas) 1
    Wim Connors (McEnroe) 1
    USO Connors (Lendl) 1
    Masters Lendl (McEnroe) 1
    Cincinnati Lendl (Denton) 0.5



    1981

    RG Borg (Lendl) 1
    Wim McEnroe (Borg) 1
    USO McEnroe (Borg) 1
    Masters Lendl (Gerulaitis) 1
    Montreal Lendl (Teltscher) 0.5



    1980

    RG Borg (Gerulaitis) 1
    Wim Borg (McEnroe) 1
    USO McEnroe (Borg) 1
    Masters Borg (Lendl) 1
    M.Carlo Borg (Vilas) 0.5



    1979

    RG Borg (Pecci) 1
    Wim Borg (Tanner) 1
    USO McEnroe (Gerulaitis) 1
    Masters Borg (Gerulaitis) 1
    L.Vegas Borg (Connors) 0.5



    1978

    RG Borg (Vilas) 1
    Wim Borg (Connors) 1
    USO Connors (Borg) 1
    Philadelphia Connors (Tanner) 1
    Masters Mcenroe (Ashe) 0.5



    1977

    RG Vilas (Gottfried) 1
    Wim Borg (Connors) 1
    USO Vilas (Connors) 1
    Masters Connors (Borg) 1
    Philadelphia WCT Stockton (Connors) 0.5



    1976

    RG Panatta (Solomon) 1
    Wim Borg (Nastase) 1
    USO Connors (Borg) 1
    Philadelphia WCT Connors (Borg) 0.75
    Boston Borg (Solomon) 0.75



    1975

    RG Borg (Vilas) 1
    Wim Ashe (Connors) 1
    USO Orantes (Connors) 1
    Stockholm Panatta (Connors) 0.5
    Masters Nastase (Borg) 0.5
    Boston Borg (Vilas) 0.5


    1974

    RG Borg (Orantes) 1
    Wim Connors (Rosewall) 1
    USO Connors (Rosewall) 1
    Philadelphia WCT Laver (Ashe) 1
    WCT Finals Newcombe (Borg) 0.5



    1973

    RG Nastase (Pilic) 1
    USO Newcombe (Kodes) 1
    Rome Nastase (Orantes) 1
    Masters Nastase (Okker) 1
    L.Angeles Connors (Okker) 0.5



    1972

    USO Nastase (Ashe) 1
    Los Angeles WCT Smith (Tanner) 1



    1971

    AO Rosewall (Ashe) 1
    Wim Newcombe (Smith) 1
    USO Smith (Kodes) 1
    Rome Laver (Kodes) 0.5
    Wembley Nastase (Laver) 0.5
    Stockholm Ashe (Kodes) 0.5


    1970

    Wim Newcombe (Rosewall) 1
    USO Rosewall (Roche) 1
    Boston Roche (Laver) 0.5
    Philadelphia WCT Laver (Roche) 0.5
    Sydney Laver (Rosewall) 0.5
    L.Angeles Laver (Newcombe) 0.5
    Wembley Laver (Richey) 0.5



    1969

    AO Laver (Gimeno) 1
    RG Laver (Rosewall) 1
    Wim Laver (Newcombe) 1
    USO Laver (Roche) 1
    L.Angeles Gonzales (Richey) 0.5



    1968

    Wimbledon Laver (Roche) 1
    USO Ashe (Okker) 1
    L.Angeles Laver (Rosewall) 1
    Wembley Rosewall (Newcombe) 0.5
    Boston Laver (Newcombe) 0.5
    RG Pro Laver (Newcombe) 0.5

    :shock: ;-)
     
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Another Kodes belitteler...to say the least....

    Many gaps in 76 and 1970
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    veco, you omitted both the 1971 and 1972 WCT finals. Why?
     
  24. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    71 - i wanted to avoid taking sides so i picked the tournaments with both independent and WCT players.if you combine the 2 circuits i think you will find those were the ones with the best draw.IMO that was the only fair solution.
    72 - same as above.
     
  25. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    take a look at who played the finals of those tournaments too :)
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    that lists is completely biassed.

    1979 WCT Finals: Borg,Mac,Connors and Gerulaitis fighting for a major.
     
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    veco: I cannot follow you. Stockholm 1971 was a WCT tournament. The finals (Dallas) were much more important.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773

    veco, You can't find a better final than a Laver/Rosewall one!
     
  29. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    of course it is,everyone would come up with their own list, thats not the point.
    if you want to know about the list ask and i will reply, i think that's reasonable.

    Las Vegas had better field and it combined WCT and Masters players.If that WCT finals were a Round Robin competition i would've placed it above Las Vegas.
     
  30. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    Bobby that may be so but if you exclude Smith,Nastase and Kodes you can't have an objective grasp on those 2 years..
     
  31. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    Stokholm had ALL the best players except Newcombe..Rome was like a substitute for the Roland Garros and Wembley was the only tournament besides Wimbledon to have Smith,Newcombe,Rosewall and Laver in the draw.Again i was trying to look at the big picture..
    oh well i may be absolutely wrong but it really made me happy creating it. :)
     
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,353
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    The Olympic gold shouldn't rank above the Masters in any year IMO. Definately not before 2008 though. The likes of Massu are not major winners. It's only recently been highly valued by the pros. Even now I don't think it counts above the WTF. It's only as difficult to win as an old masters and offers half the points. It's value is mostly sentimental/patriotic.
     
  33. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    Everyone wants that gold medal IMO, its a great competition..i think if you ask Murray to trade his gold medal for a Wimbledon trophy he'd keep his medal..and i also believe Federer would give up a few Wimbledon titles for that gold..
     
  34. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    but you're also right so it should be valued 0.75. that should be fair.
     
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    LOL¡¡¡

    OG is just a mere exhibition.
     
  36. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,353
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It's not as great a competion as the slams though...No way would anyone trade a Wimbledon for that gold. His record at Wimbledon having all those 7 titles are worth way more than a gold medal.

    It has a lot of sentimental value but that doesn't make it a major, it's worth 750 points and is only 6 rounds long. It can't be compared to a slam, not yet. It doesn't have the history. Factor in the rubbish fields for the earlier incarnations and I can't see how it's worth the same as Wimbledon especially in those early years.
     
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    in fact, Federer would trade 7 Gm for a single W title.and so would any other tennis great.
     
  38. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    I doubt it but even if he did that won't increase it's value.

    Should be no points given for the olympics.
     
  39. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    ok ok i agree, Olympic gold does not have Major title value.
     
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,353
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Without that Wimbledon title Federer wouldn't have reached #1, if he swapped out a few of those titles he could still be viewed bellow Sampras...
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    veco,

    I doubt that Las Vegas 1972 had full field. As far as I know there were "only" WCT players participating.

    Dallas in 1971 and in 1972 were the No.3 events of the year...
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2013
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I don't think so.
     
  43. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    Bobby you're right i meant Los Angeles and wrote Las Vegas,my mistake
     
  44. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    But i was actually talking about 1979 in that post,not 1972
     
  45. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    i'm still not used on using quotations sorry :)
     
  46. veco

    veco New User

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    41
    so,for the 79 i go with L.Vegas
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    There is a mistake: Fraser did not win Forest Hills 1962.
     
  48. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I would give all Gold Medal for a Wimbledon title.Even a mixed doubles...

    When asked if he wouldn´t give one of his 5 Wimbledon titles for that elusive one single USO, Borg answered in one second something like " Never on earth"
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    BTW, haven´t seen anybody remember over TT that LAVER also won 4 straight Wimblies; 61,62,68,69 ( could not compete from 63 till 67 after turning pro)
     
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Excellent. Thank you.
     

Share This Page