WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    I have reposted Krosero's research in the thread "Men's Season with the most achievement" showing the press coverage.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Then buy eye-glasses. The 1964 tour was very much visible for the experts and journalists as krosero has shown. Have you read his posts at all???
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Most experts ranked Gonzalez No.1. I find it more justified to give two No.1 places.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, You are entitled to say that those rankings (Rosewall No.1) by all those contemporary experts were unjustified (even though they of course were justified) but you and Limpin are NOT entitled to refuse accepting they made their rankings. You cannot ignore facts. It's a fact that J.F. Kennedy was killed in 1963 as it is a fact that the experts considered the 1964 tour as the deciding measure to determining the ranking. Get serious!
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Officially Pancho was...
     
  6. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,767
    In my view, it is a fact that Rod Laver was the #1 player on the pro tour in 1964 because he had a better year than the #2, Rosewall, in every material respect. Once again, for the casual reader:

    - Laver led in total titles for 1964,
    - Laver led in total match wins in 1964,
    - Laver led in winning percentage in 1964,
    - Laver beat Rosewall in 2 out of 3 so called "pro majors," in 1964,
    - Laver led Rosewall H2H by 15-4 in 1964,
    - At least one source says that Laver and Rosewall each won 7 "important" titles in 1964.

    Based on this data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Laver was #1 for 1964, and Rosewall was, at best, #2. Further, in my view, any so called expert who would be aware of this data and nevertheless declaim that Rosewall was #1 in 1964 makes a mockery of the word "expert," if not of himself, e.g. 1970.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
    pc1 likes this.
  7. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,478
    Here's Laver, interviewed in April 1965, saying he was still No. 2.

    This is from the St. Louis Dispatch (a newspaper only recently uploaded to the internet) of April 27, 1965, just as the ’65 tournament tour was about to begin:

    Laver Eyes Top Spot on Pro List

    By Harold Flachsbart

    Australia has the Davis Cup, emblematic of amateur tennis supremacy. Australia also is the home of the No. 1 and No. 2 professionals in the sport and the No. 2 pro has high hopes of becoming No. 1 in 1965.

    Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver, the top two play-for-pay players, visited St. Louis yesterday to do a little tub-thumping for the second annual St. Louis International professional tennis tournament at Triple A June 29 through July 5….

    The lefthanded Laver, who reached the No. 2 position in the list of touring players in just his second year as a professional, won three of six tournaments in Australia last winter and one in Oklahoma City last weekend.

    “I don’t know if I can beat Ken for the top spot,” Laver said, “but I’m sure going to give it a good try. At least I’m off to a good start and I’m looking forward to the series of eight or nine big tournaments we have scheduled in the United States.”

    The pros will open their series of $10,000 meets (plus $5,000 for expenses) tomorrow in New York. From there they will move to Los Angeles, San Francisco, probably Seattle, then Chicago, Washington, St. Louis, Newport, R.I., and Boston in that order….

    Both Rosewall and Laver believe that a tournament televised recently at Dallas, and to be shown on the national Columbia Broadcasting System hookup the second week of May, will be a big boost to tennis.

    “Television certainly has helped to build up golf and bowling,” Rosewall said. “It can’t miss helping us. Our tournaments don’t begin to reach the spectator appeal of golf, partly because of lack of playing arenas. But we are making strides in the right direction.

    “Tennis needs more sponsors, such as golf has in many cities, and we need more spectator interest. Our $10,000 prize money doesn’t compare to the rich purses of golf, but we feel we’re making a step forward. The TV tourney had $35,000 in prizes.”

    Laver came onto the pro scene just as the switch was made from one-night, head-to-head stands between two topnotchers to the tournament program in which there are different opponents from day to day or night to night.

    “Playing head-to-head matches night after night can be demoralizing,” said the spunky redhead, who is the only bachelor of the pro troupe. “In tournaments you meet different players on the way to the finals—all probably among the best eight in the world.

    “When you lose, you know there’s another tourney ahead. And when you win, it gives you the ‘kick’ and confidence to play perhaps better in the next match. You can say for sure that anyone who wins one of our tournaments is playing the best tennis. He has to in order to beat the formidable field.”

    … Neither Rosewall nor Laver is overlooking the powerful influence of Gonzales. The temperamental Gonzales, unbeatable on many days with his smashing service, finished third in the 1964 competition. Gimeno was fourth and Buchholz, who had been No. 4 in the two previous years, settled for fifth place.

    Gonzales won only one of the major ’64 American tourneys, Rosewall captured three and Laver two. Gonzales did better in the European phase of the tour.

    Counting matches in the states, in Europe and Australia, a tour that kept the Aussies away from home eight months, Rosewall figured he earned about $35,000.

    Other income, as is the case with Laver, comes from connection with an Australian sporting goods firm that includes royalties on racquets and promotional fees....

    Laver, guaranteed $110,000 over a span of three years when he turned pro, said he had just about made his guarantee in his first two years….

    Buchholz, who teams with Laver in doubles and finished second in that department in 1964 competition, earned about $25,000 on the tour, not to mention royalties from shirt promotions and TV commercials.

    Because of the extended trip to Australia, Buchholz was away from St. Louis almost 10 of the last 12 months.
    A few days later (April 29, 1965) the Palm Beach Post referred to Rosewall's "title" as number one, with Laver the chief threat to his position:

    Net King Rosewall Fears Laver More than Gonzales

    NEW YORK (AP)—Ken Rosewall has been king of the tennis pros for three years now, but he’s beginning to look over his shoulder at a bandy-legged little left-hander and a big, dark man with a murderous service.

    Which one does Rosewall fear most as a threat to his title—Rod Laver or Pancho Gonzales?

    “Both are tough, but Laver is the one that keeps me awake at night staring at the ceiling,” the frail-looking Australian, nicknamed Muscles by his fellow pros, said Wednesday.

    “Rod is young and eager. He is good and getting better. Gonzales is a great competitor, very determined to be the best again, and no one hits a harder serve. But Laver has the edge almost everywhere else.

    Pancho is 37, Laver is a comparative baby of 23.

    The battle for the No. 1 position among the pros began here Wednesday night with the Professional Indoor Tennis Championships, the first leg of a nine-city tournament tour. Rosewall is seeded No. 1, Laver No. 2 and Gonzales No. 3.

    “One thing is sure—I’m going to have to get back on my racket if I’m to stay No. 1,” Rosewall said. “We played five tournaments in Australia during the winter—your winter, our summer. Laver won three, I won one and Gonzales won one.”​

    I'm going to check World Tennis to see if they have something, in summer '65, about the top ranking switching from Rosewall to Laver.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
    treblings likes this.
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Limpin, You are entitled to give good arguments in favour of Laver (this time correct ones) but every of your readers can see that you are not interested in informing and enlightening your readers objectively but showing your senseless hate against Rosewall: You formulate "Rosewall was, AT BEST, No.2". Nobody else would doubt that Rosewall was one of the two top players in 1964, even not the Laver party. Ranking Rosewall at No.3 or lower is an absurdity and a shame!

    Even a worse shame was your bad lie toward me.
     
    treblings and krosero like this.
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    krosero, Astonishing your permanent great findings of old newspaper reports.

    Some will be impressed by the information you give but I fear a few will not be impressed even if you will find further reports that show Rosewall being No.1 in 1964 and early 1965.

    There are a few little errors in these newspaper quotings. Laver was No.2 already in his first year as a pro. Laver was 27 in 1965 not 23.

    Interesting: The article of the St. Louis Dispatch uses the rankings brought by Buchholz in World Tennis. That's important. We also see that there were pro rankings in 1962 and 1963 when Buchholz was No.4 in both years (Gonzalez retired). Even the doubles teams were ranked in 1964: 1 Hoad/Rosewall; 2 Buchholz/Laver. Rosewall earned about 35 000 Dollars in 1964; Buchholz earned about 25 000 Dollars. Nowadays the No.1 player earns much more than the No.5 player!
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
    krosero likes this.
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,767
    Kros, aren't you missing the point of this thread? Isn't the point of this thread to re-examine the record to determine who really was #1 year-to-year in light of the fact that there was no official ranking, and not merely parrot the uninformed, malinformed, banalities of the past? Considering the records now available, how can anyone maintain that Rosewall was #1 for 1964? That doesn't make any sense at all. We know the following:

    - Laver led in total titles for 1964,
    - Laver led in total match wins in 1964,
    - Laver led in winning percentage in 1964,
    - Laver beat Rosewall in 2 out of 3 so called "pro majors," in 1964,
    - Laver led Rosewall H2H by 15-4 in 1964,
    - At least one source says that Laver and Rosewall each won 7 "important" titles in 1964.

    For the year 1964, Laver was Rosewall's better in every respect except one in which they are tied. With this record, how can anyone now maintain that Rosewall was #1 for 1964 with a straight face? Are aware of any other records that might favor Rosewall? If so, wouldn't now be a good time to share them. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse with old news.
     
  11. Djokovic2015

    Djokovic2015 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    112
    I think if you are going to entertain so many disputed #1s (and furthermore attribute a full point of #1 value to them) especially such as Lendl's 89 as well as 90, there is no reason not to recognize an official entity's selection of Djokovic as #1 for 2013 with the ITF.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Mr. (or Mrs.?) Limpinhitter: Aren't YOU missing the whole tennis history? It's Limpinhitter who parrots always the same things, who insults the top experts of the 1960's, the players, the journalists! It's Mr. or Mrs. Limpinhitter who is not able to realize that there was AN OFFICIAL RANKING that year and that the pros did have a MAIN PARAMETER and MEASURE STICK in 1964. All readers now (except Limpinhitter) are aware of a record that favours Rosewall: It's the ranking list provided and quoted by many persons in 1964, 1965, 2000 (McCauley's book), 2016 (krosero's many newspaper reports). It seems as though you are not able to understand a clear English written sentence such as the many quotings brought by krosero above and since several days.

    It's a shame and disgusting. Stop posting in this forum and come back only when apologizing for your mean lie and when correcting your mistakes and bad insinuations!
     
    krosero likes this.
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Officially, Hoad was..from Jan 2 to May of 1960.

    If you win the world championship , what does that make you....mmmmm...let's see, this is tough....
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    It is a fact that we have no evidence to support the 1964 tour, no award, no title, no money...just a dream.
     
    Limpinhitter and pc1 like this.
  15. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,363
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I think most here don't really entertain the idea of co #1's. Most prefer to make a judgement call one way or the other. For me it is obvious that Nadal was #1 in 2013.
     
    Limpinhitter, pc1 and Sabratha like this.
  16. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,767
    As I recall, World Tennis Magazine brazenly ignored the ATP official ranking of Lendl as #1 for 1989 with "Becker is #1" or words to that effect on the cover. I don't remember exactly how the computer rankings were determined at that time, but, I do recall that they were widely criticized.
     
  17. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,363
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    ATP and ITF both called Becker the player of the year - rightly so.
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    NatF, Who is your 1977 No.1 and how do you substantiate that the two other candidates don't have a claim?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2016
  19. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,363
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I don't think Connors has a claim. I flip between Borg and Vilas - if Vilas had won the FO with all the top players in it I would give it to him no question. I used to believe Borg was #1 but now I lean towards Vilas. They're certainly not tied though ;)
     
    pc1 likes this.
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,767
    I'm pretty sure that the ATP ranked Lendl #1 for the entire year of 1989. World Tennis Magazine disregarded that ranking in favor of Becker probably for winning W and the USO that year.
     
  21. Djokovic2015

    Djokovic2015 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    112
    The ATP contradicted their own rankings and named Becker player of the year. The ITF also named Becker player of the year. Tennis Magazine also named Becker player of the year. Based on the modern day point system, Becker would also have finished 89 as #1.

    Thats fine I would agree Nadal's claim in 2013 is stronger than Djokovic's and if we only give one #1 per year it should go to Nadal. But Djokovic's claim in 2013 is stronger than Lendl's in 89 and far stronger than Lendl's claim in 90. I was criticizing the opening post for counting those for Lendl to give him 5 #1s and then simultaneously ignoring Djokovic's claim in 2013 to leave him with 4.
     
    NatF likes this.
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Yes it's tough as Pancho won the 1961 world series. He used to claim that he was world champion 1954 till 1961.
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    It's you and Limpin who are dreaming. krosero just gave Rosewall's prize money for the 1964 tour. Only an idiot would claim there was no evidence...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    NatF, Your swinging to and fro is the best hint that for several years even the best mathematics teacher cannot decide who was better. Giving the No.1 to only one player in those doubtful years does mean an injustice to another or (like in 1977) to two other players.
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Limpin, I forgot that Rosewall won more important titles than Laver (7:6) during the long tour and even more if we consider (and we should consider it) the important "Heavy Weight World Professional Title" where Rosewall beat Laver 6-4, 6-1, 6-4. Thus it's 8:6 in Ken's favour.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    In '61 Pancho had a hth deficit against Hoad, according to Mulloy.
    Rosewall competed in the 1959 tour which Hoad won. I doubt that Pancho meant continuous, Pancho certainly won the May 1960 tour over Rosewall and also the 1961 tour over Gimeno. Not a continuous reign but, hey, neither was Muhammad Ali a continuous champ.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2016
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    There was no money award for the 1964 tour apparently...no money, no award, no title, no ceremony, no...well, you get the idea...the stuff that dreams are made of, to quote Humphrey Bogart (a Hoad fan and friend).
     
  28. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,363
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I disagree, my indecision is only due to me not studying the details of that year in depth.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Some people call me a fanboy, but then what are you regarding Hoad?

    Mulloy's claim has not been confirmed by other sources but he could be right. However, Hoad and Gonzalez met only a few times in 1961 and Pancho had a better year than Hoad as he won the world series.

    Pancho did not consider the 1959 AMPOL tour as a true world championship (even maybe unjustified). As you know I find it just to rate both players equally (with an arguable third No.1, Rosewall).
     
  30. mattosgrant

    mattosgrant Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    6,480
    I feel horribly for Vilas that not only did he not get the computer #1 (which went to Connors wrongfully) but not even any of the Player of year awards or most experts rank as the top player that year (which went to Borg). He really got screwed by literally everyone out of rightful recognition for that. @jean pierre would certainly agree I bet.

    And now we learnt he should have spent some time on top in 1975 too!

    I wanted to ask you one final question about my Survivor boot episode now that you watched it. Do you think I think should have tried to persuade Rob (with Natalie) to vote out Phillip instead of trying to get Rob to vote out Natalie. Or do you think i should have gone to the two girls to try and convince them to blindside Rob or Phillip with me. Or do you think my plan of hoping Rob and Phillip would vote out Natalie with me was my best bet despite that it didnt work. I just want your opinion as an outsider, do you think I played that right or not? This for example is a comment by someone from a Survivor forum who was criticizing my game:

    "I thought the moment that made Grant look most naive was when he was so certain that Natalie was going after Ashley Rob's intended target won immunity. It was obvious to everyone there how close Natalie was to Rob. He should have just tried to sway him to vote Philip, it wouldn't have worked but it would have at least been a more realistic shot.."
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Even if all is right what you write (we don't know it for sure though), it does not prevent the fact that there was an official pro tour in 1964 (reported by krosero and others hundredths of times) and that Rosewall was considered the 1964 No.1 by all players and virtually all experts of that time. Learn history! As I said before, only an idiot...
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    NatF, You can study as much as you want, you (or another expert) will never be able to determinate a clear No.1 player for several if not many years. Who was No.1 in 1938, Budge or Vines? Who was No.1 in 1982, Connors, McEnroe or Lendl? Who was No.1 in 1972, Nastase or Smith? and so on...
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Bobby, personal epithets are of no interest to me...I am only interested in cold hard facts...Hoad defeated Gonzales in a great match at Wembley in 1961, and according to Mulloy held the hth edge over Gonzales that year.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    The question is, was it an official world championship. Sure, there were tours in 1964, but how to evaluate them....
     
  35. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Actually, the years 1954 to 1961 under-rate Gonzales' year in 1952, where he could have claimed number one status...although not in 1953.

    Kramer rated Hoad fourth in his own personal list, although officially Hoad was number one....they were having a contract discussion at the time.
     
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Bobby, not to recant too far, but you may have a point...if there are two official pro champs in the same calendar year, you could list both, for example as here, with both Hoad and Gonzales official champs in 1960.
     
  37. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    22,363
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I don't have such a detailed recollection man :D I'm not sure what you should have done. Those eps are all I've seen of Survivor.

    Vilas is very unfortunate that he's not been recognised as #1. Hopefully one day.

    You might not feel comfortable anointing someone player of the year unless it's clear, but I'm happy with small margins between the #1 and #2. Someone has to be #1 for a year IMO. We just disagree on principle here, I don't think there's a way we can move forward on this particular issue.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, I maybe will ask krosero to provide yet another 285 reports that show that the 1964 17 tournaments tour was an official one but I'm totally convinced you will ignore them all with your childish kind of arrogance...
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, You are right regarding 1952 but again wrong regarding Kramer's rankings for 1959. His list was an official one and published at least in Lawn Tennis & Badminton as I have found in 1975 at London.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Both were official champions in 1959.
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    NatF, Yes, no discussion about that point anymore.
     
  42. Djokovic2015

    Djokovic2015 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    112
    @BobbyOne - Pretty much this is how I feel. To answer your questions about other years (we discussed in another topic, but just for reiteration since this is the #1 topic)
    38 - Budge
    72 - Smith
    82 - Connors

    @NatF - I have studied 77 in depth and that is the one year I can't come to a conclusion on and am ok settling for Co-1s
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    If Krosero can find some evidence, of course I will accept it.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  44. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    738
    Surely if you guys are so certain there should be only one number 1 you can pick someone for 1977? Why is that year so special, especially if you can pick one player for various pre-open era years which are much harder to judge.

    I agree with Bobby on co-number 1's, though I could very easily pick one for every year if I was forced.
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Those were Kramer's personal ratings, not his official ratings, which were published in World Tennis by Anderson, showing Hoad the official number one.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Hoad did not become official champion until January 2 of 1960, so we have two calendar year champions for 1960, Gonzales from May of that year.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, Your post is ugly and obnoxious: krosero HAS ALREADY FOUND AND POSTED MUCH EVIDENCE. So don't insult his marvellous research and posting. With this your "logic" and ignorance you are a shame for the whole forum! Stop writing nonsense!
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Thanks, 70sHollywood.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,920
    Dan, You even confuse now Jack Kramer with Mal Anderson...
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    How? The World Tennis article was written by Anderson, or have you forgotten?
     

Share This Page