Originally Posted by Dan Lobb
Laver and Bucholz recounting their own experiences does not constitute hearsay, but testimony. Obviously, you have not been to court lately.
This is the definition of testimony, quite different from hearsay.
Laver would hardly forget a 13 to 0 skunking, but he did not mention this number until 1997, after the deaths of both Hoad and Gonzales.
I haven't been to court recently but witnesses have been known to have different testimonies. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and not giving concrete evidence.
I have also read that Bunny Austin couldn't see the last serve that Vines aced him with at Wimbledon. So Dan, would you believe that serve was hit so fast it wasn't visible to the eye? I personally would think a 300 mile per hour serve would be visible to the naked eye but testimony says that the Vines' serve which I'm sure went at a speed far less than 300 mph was invisible.
Dan, obviously you're not a lawyer. I don't think lawyers would accept witnesses that indicate the reason a player lost is because the arena was smoke filled.
Again it's not worth going on about this subject since you don't have anything more then what you're written. If you do come up with more evidence I would be very happy because there is more information on the great Hoad.