Can a former pro beat a current college tennis player

ttwarrior1

ttwarrior1

Hall of Fame
lets say they are 50 years old and they played someone ranked about 30th in college. Would they win or lose? And does anyone have any examples.

Would a McEnroe of now win any games vs the Mac of 20 years ago, etc.

I ask this because all the best players where i live are all in their 50's pretty much and seem to be able to stick the racket out and put it anywhere they want.
 
Probably. McEnroe plays a game that no college player has ever seen, and he'd probably do pretty well against them.

But if the former pro was a grinder on tour, and he's lost a lot of speed, then probably not.
 
Depends on how fit they have stayed since leaving the pro tour, and how often they play.

A guy like McEnroe will woop ass on current college players.
 
johnny mac aside(there is only couple players with that god given talent), i feel that top 30 college guy will wipe the floor with the 50 something top pro, look at the guys that came out from college, kevin anderson, isner, they hang tough against current competition, i think it is so tough right know to make it to the top, that people underestimate the current college playing level.
 
ezdude1970 said:
johnny mac aside(there is only couple players with that god given talent), i feel that top 30 college guy will wipe the floor with the 50 something top pro, look at the guys that came out from college, kevin anderson, isner, they hang tough against current competition, i think it is so tough right know to make it to the top, that people underestimate the current college playing level.
Click to expand...

There is No way a top 30 college player would beat Courier, Martin, even Pernfors. Even Arias. OK, maybe Arias.Anyone else, Forget it. I just don't see it.
 
daveyboy said:
There is No way a top 30 college player would beat Courier, Martin, even Pernfors. Even Arias. OK, maybe Arias.Anyone else, Forget it. I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

courier and martin are 38, pernfors is not 50 either, arias is in mid 40(just a guess) and you saying he can be beaten, what are you saying friend?
 
You don't think Ben Becker could have beaten those guys during his senior year at Baylor? There are always exceptions to the rule.
 
There are levels in college tennis just like anywhere else. A former top college player said the difference between the pros and college is that in college tennis you know there are only a couple of guys who you know can beat you if they're playing their best, whereas in the pros, you know that EVERYONE can beat you if they're playing their best. In other words, there are at best only a few true pro caliber players in college tennis. The rest are middling by comparison in talent, drive, speed, athleticism, power, touch, court sense, mental toughness, or all of the above.

Remember, Gene Mayer at 40 something was on vacation in Hawaii with his family when asked by an old buddy to fill in at the last second at a challenger tournament. Mayer had not played seriously for years, and was not in match shape at all. Yet, he still SMOKED...absolutely smoked...Cedric Kaufman who only a few short months later would give Pete Sampras everything he could handle at the French Open. In the next round, Mayer was said to be schooling Mike Bryan (a former standout collegiate player not too far removed) as well...before his lack of conditioning caught up to him. He basically said afterward that he decided to just let him win at that point.

So to answer the question, can a former pro beat a current college tennis player? You better believe it. John Isner remember lost to Kevin Kim not that long ago, and Kevin Kim could definitely lose to a former top pro. I think people overestimate the difference in levels in tennis. In my opinion, once you get to top 300 level or so, there really isn't that much difference...it's all subtle at that point, and that's why you can see someone like Isner or Nishikori make such a splash one week and then come back down to earth another without seemingly any rhyme or reason.
 
^^great post. I agree completely.

Former pros have something that none of us will ever be able to comprehend.

Harold Solomon (50+ years of age) about a year ago took a current 400??+ pro to a tie break.
 
There are good reasons why most college players aren't playing on the pro tour already - most of the top college players will never go on to enjoy great success in the professional ranks. Isner is a notable exception, but we really don't know how his career will pan out, do we? He may have reached his peak during last summer's hardcourt season.

Former pros have mental toughness honed through years of having to win matches to pay the bills. Their strokes won't have fallen off much, as it's mostly muscle memory anyway. Movement is the only advantage that a college player might have.

Any former pro who loses to a college player should consider hanging up their racquets.
 
I like to go against the grain so I thought I'd share this piece of information on how the skill level of pros are exaggerated on this board.

Wayne Odesnik is currently ranked #104 in the world rankings.

Last September he beat a guy named Morgan Shepherd (Rated 5.5) in a USTA National tournament by a score of 6-3, 7-6. Wayne Odesnik has also played a few other 5.5 rated players and gave up a few games to each of them (no double bagels).

A month before that, a guy named Tyler Neill (Rated 5.0) beat Morgan Shepherd in three sets. Tyler Neill has lost to a few 5.0 players himself.

By this logic, a 5.0 player should be somewhat competitive against a top 100 player in the world since my example shows a 5.0 beat a 5.5 who only lost by one break to a top 100 pro.
 
I'd say that McEnroe could hold his own against almost any player if they were to play just one set. Best of two sets or more, different story.

Take care-
 
I think it would be very interesting to see, and as someone who likes to watch alot of college tennis, I really don't know who I think would win between the pro and the college player.
 
What if Pete Sampras decides he would like to resume studying like Justine Henin? Would he join the college tennis team? :) Could Mac beat him? Then again.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
!Tym said:
Remember, Gene Mayer at 40 something was on vacation in Hawaii with his family when asked by an old buddy to fill in at the last second at a challenger tournament. Mayer had not played seriously for years, and was not in match shape at all. Yet, he still SMOKED...absolutely smoked...Cedric Kaufman who only a few short months later would give Pete Sampras everything he could handle at the French Open. In the next round, Mayer was said to be schooling Mike Bryan (a former standout collegiate player not too far removed) as well...before his lack of conditioning caught up to him. He basically said afterward that he decided to just let him win at that point.
Click to expand...

I actually had the good fortune to ask Gene Mayer about this very match and the tournament. He was in Hawaii vacationing with his daughter and asked to fill in. He resisted, but then thought it would be fun. His first round match with Kauffmann was anything but. He said that Kauffmann acted like a fool, throwing his racket, cursing, and stalling. It got so bad that Mayer told the chair umpire that they had a stricter code of conduct on the senior tour than was being enforced there. He also began to really try. He did beat Kauffmann and for a week or two was the oldest guy to have an ATP ranking.

The next match was against Bryan. He said he lost the first set by one break and was up a break in the second when he asked himself what in the hell he was doing. He wasn't too interested in winning a set...

raiden031 said:
I like to go against the grain so I thought I'd share this piece of information on how the skill level of pros are exaggerated on this board.

Wayne Odesnik is currently ranked #104 in the world rankings.

Last September he beat a guy named Morgan Shepherd (Rated 5.5) in a USTA National tournament by a score of 6-3, 7-6. Wayne Odesnik has also played a few other 5.5 rated players and gave up a few games to each of them (no double bagels).

A month before that, a guy named Tyler Neill (Rated 5.0) beat Morgan Shepherd in three sets. Tyler Neill has lost to a few 5.0 players himself.

By this logic, a 5.0 player should be somewhat competitive against a top 100 player in the world since my example shows a 5.0 beat a 5.5 who only lost by one break to a top 100 pro.
Click to expand...

I don't see that activity on the ATP tour for 2007. The only match Odesnik played in September 2007 was against Alberto Francis in Tulsa Oklahoma. One would think any match that counted in the ATP or for money would appear.

My point is that if he did play a 5.0 and the 5.0 got a few games, it may well have been that the guy wasn't trying or the guy was hurt.

I've played 5.0 league and I've played Div I college players. There is no way a 5.0 can hang with a good Div I player. And, if a Div I player was good enough, in any sport, they'd go pro instead of playing college. Historically since the advent of big money in tennis, no college player has gone on to set the pros on fire. If they coulda they woulda.

There is no way anyone with an NTRP rating can compete with a world class player. Anyone with an ATP/WTA ranking is hands down a better player than anyone with an NTRP ranking. I'd even say that a decent 5.0 male isn't going to put a dent in a WTA player.
 
1970CRBase said:
What if Pete Sampras decides he would like to resume studying like Justine Henin? Would he join the college tennis team? :) Could Mac beat him? Then again.......
Click to expand...

NCAA rules forbid anyone that has received money for playing (i.e. winning a tournament) from playing on a college team. I might be wrong, but I think Pete won a few here and there, making a few bucks in the process. :mrgreen:
 
I think it's really hard to fathom how good these old pros are. I played with a guy who was ex top 50 or so in the late 80's. He's around 50 now. I arrogantly thought I could just bully him with power and spin. He reflected everything so gracefully and smoothly. It was so clearly evident who was dictating out there. I felt like the horse and he was the rider. I was feeding him all the power and he was making me look like a yoyo. The thing that amazed me the most was his prediction and movement (with bad knees). He knew where every shot of mine was going, sometimes before I knew. It was like telepathy. Now beginners may feel that way with me, and felt like that with him to a whole new level.

Same situation with a similar case. Ex pro about 15 years retired. Plays my friend who was at that time Div 1 first singles. Ex pro mopped the floor 6-2, 6-4 or something.
 
Quite a few of the current top Div 1 singles players playing on schools like Virgina, Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Standford, etc have or had atp rankings as well, usually from 400-1000+ or so. So it' depends on how in shape the ex-pro is and how often he still plays, it'd still take quite a bit effort to beat some of the top D1 guys.
 
daveyboy said:
There is No way a top 30 college player would beat Courier, Martin, even Pernfors. Even Arias. OK, maybe Arias.Anyone else, Forget it. I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Pernfors. Every time I turn on the TV, he's losing to McEnroe, Courier, Ferreira, etc.
 
Rabbit said:
I don't see that activity on the ATP tour for 2007. The only match Odesnik played in September 2007 was against Alberto Francis in Tulsa Oklahoma. One would think any match that counted in the ATP or for money would appear.

My point is that if he did play a 5.0 and the 5.0 got a few games, it may well have been that the guy wasn't trying or the guy was hurt.

I've played 5.0 league and I've played Div I college players. There is no way a 5.0 can hang with a good Div I player. And, if a Div I player was good enough, in any sport, they'd go pro instead of playing college. Historically since the advent of big money in tennis, no college player has gone on to set the pros on fire. If they coulda they woulda.

There is no way anyone with an NTRP rating can compete with a world class player. Anyone with an ATP/WTA ranking is hands down a better player than anyone with an NTRP ranking. I'd even say that a decent 5.0 male isn't going to put a dent in a WTA player.
Click to expand...

Well, the way I look at it, there's something wrong with their ratings whether that be sandbagging or whatever if that was the case. These days, it's really hard to say what a "true" 5.0 or 5.5 or WHATEVER rating is these days, because I've people I know to be way...WAY better than 3.5 play in 3.5 tournaments. There is no true rating anymore, because of that. An experienced teaching pro can look at your strokes and go, ok, you're a 4.0 or 4.5 or whatever, but it means nothing these days you have 5.0's competing with 3.5 and can have 4.0's competing with 5.5's thinking that's what they really are. It just makes no sense anymore, there's no rhyme or reason anymore. They just just start classifying players by whatever rating you think you are, you are, but in the end, the only thing that matters is how good you ACTUALLY are. Meaning if a 5.5 took Odesnik the distance then so be it...but he's certainly no 5.5. No, he's just what you call, a really damn good player from where I'm from. Just my opinion.

Do I think the difference in levels is overstated? Yeah, but that's among fellow pros. I think guys who can make it to the top 300 in the world are quite simply out of this world good. No TRUE 5.5 should be able to match with them. And if they did once in a blue moon, it would be once in a very, VERY blue moon, in my opinion. Meaning if they played 9 out of 10 times, you should expect a blowout AT LEAST nine out of ten times, and the one time it didn't happen poor ol' Wayne just got dumped by his girlfriend or his cat Mindy died before the match or something.
 
Ultra2HolyGrail said:
Can you guys believe Nadal beat Pat Cash when he was 14?
Click to expand...

On clay? Yeah, I most definitely can. Put it this way, Nadal even at 14 ain't no Olivier Rochus in my opinion.

This said, Pat Cash gave Moya a good run in Superset, losing like 8-6 or something. I don't think it was scripted either, perhaps not entirely realistic, but at least shows that he's still got something left to give. Was indoors though.
 
!Tym said:
Well, the way I look at it, there's something wrong with their ratings whether that be sandbagging or whatever if that was the case. These days, it's really hard to say what a "true" 5.0 or 5.5 or WHATEVER rating is these days, because I've people I know to be way...WAY better than 3.5 play in 3.5 tournaments. There is no true rating anymore, because of that. An experienced teaching pro can look at your strokes and go, ok, you're a 4.0 or 4.5 or whatever, but it means nothing these days you have 5.0's competing with 3.5 and can have 4.0's competing with 5.5's thinking that's what they really are. It just makes no sense anymore, there's no rhyme or reason anymore. They just just start classifying players by whatever rating you think you are, you are, but in the end, the only thing that matters is how good you ACTUALLY are. Meaning if a 5.5 took Odesnik the distance then so be it...but he's certainly no 5.5. No, he's just what you call, a really damn good player from where I'm from. Just my opinion.

Do I think the difference in levels is overstated? Yeah, but that's among fellow pros. I think guys who can make it to the top 300 in the world are quite simply out of this world good. No TRUE 5.5 should be able to match with them. And if they did once in a blue moon, it would be once in a very, VERY blue moon, in my opinion. Meaning if they played 9 out of 10 times, you should expect a blowout AT LEAST nine out of ten times, and the one time it didn't happen poor ol' Wayne just got dumped by his girlfriend or his cat Mindy died before the match or something.
Click to expand...

Although a bit random, I was onced rated a 5.5 by a USTA bigwig without me even knowing he was watching but I have to admit, he just saw me practicing with a buddy without pressure. In tournament play (and most of the time playing college ball), I was a 4.5 at best because I just am not "wired" to play well under pressure. Many say I am a great practice partner, but in tournament play I often flop. Go figure (I'm over it).

Take care-
 
!Tym said:
There are levels in college tennis just like anywhere else. A former top college player said the difference between the pros and college is that in college tennis you know there are only a couple of guys who you know can beat you if they're playing their best, whereas in the pros, you know that EVERYONE can beat you if they're playing their best. In other words, there are at best only a few true pro caliber players in college tennis. The rest are middling by comparison in talent, drive, speed, athleticism, power, touch, court sense, mental toughness, or all of the above.

Remember, Gene Mayer at 40 something was on vacation in Hawaii with his family when asked by an old buddy to fill in at the last second at a challenger tournament. Mayer had not played seriously for years, and was not in match shape at all. Yet, he still SMOKED...absolutely smoked...Cedric Kaufman who only a few short months later would give Pete Sampras everything he could handle at the French Open. In the next round, Mayer was said to be schooling Mike Bryan (a former standout collegiate player not too far removed) as well...before his lack of conditioning caught up to him. He basically said afterward that he decided to just let him win at that point.

So to answer the question, can a former pro beat a current college tennis player? You better believe it. John Isner remember lost to Kevin Kim not that long ago, and Kevin Kim could definitely lose to a former top pro. I think people overestimate the difference in levels in tennis. In my opinion, once you get to top 300 level or so, there really isn't that much difference...it's all subtle at that point, and that's why you can see someone like Isner or Nishikori make such a splash one week and then come back down to earth another without seemingly any rhyme or reason.
Click to expand...

Wasnt Mayer a finesse player?? If I remember correctly, he played with two hands off both sides right?? I dont remember him being a power player, so maybe that's what gave Kaufmann problems.

Just checked, he beat Kaufmann 4 & 4, and lost to Bryan 3 & 6. Doesnt sound like smoked to me, or that he got tired and let Bryan win
 
Last edited:
Rob_C said:
Wasnt Mayer a finesse player?? If I remember correctly, he played with two hands off both sides right?? I dont remember him being a power player, so maybe that's what gave Kaufmann problems.

Just checked, he beat Kaufmann 4 & 4, and lost to Bryan 3 & 6. Doesnt sound like smoked to me, or that he got tired and let Bryan win
Click to expand...

According to Mayer himself, he lost the first set by a service break. He said before he realized it they were starting a tiebreak in the second, he got zoned in the second. He pretty much came to the realization that he could potentially win the second and decided that he had proved enough.

And, you're right, Mayer was a finesse player who hit with crazy spin. He played two hands of both sides and his game never took off until oversized frames came out. Mayer played with the POG and then with Head frames. He now works for Prince. His brother Sandy is the antithesis of this, Sandy Mayer played a very conventional game with one-handers off both wings. He also played serve and volley tennis. Sandy Mayer always reminded me of Dick Stockton and Brian Gottfried.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine a former pro (~50) could beat a current college tennis player in most situations, but...

Eastern Technifibre said:
depends how good the college and former pro player are
Click to expand...

This, and


Depends on how fit they have stayed since leaving the pro tour, and how often they play.
Click to expand...

this. Some guys destroy their bodies on the tour, and simply couldn't withstand the physical punishment of a match with a top college player.
 
!Tym said:
Do I think the difference in levels is overstated? Yeah, but that's among fellow pros. I think guys who can make it to the top 300 in the world are quite simply out of this world good. No TRUE 5.5 should be able to match with them. And if they did once in a blue moon, it would be once in a very, VERY blue moon, in my opinion. Meaning if they played 9 out of 10 times, you should expect a blowout AT LEAST nine out of ten times, and the one time it didn't happen poor ol' Wayne just got dumped by his girlfriend or his cat Mindy died before the match or something.
Click to expand...

I guess what my post about Odesnik tries to show is that NTRP levels at the higher end are not as distinct as the lower end. A 3.5 would probably get bageled every set against a 5.0, but a 5.5 has the weapons to win some games off a 7.0, although the chance of them outright winning is still slim.
 
ezdude1970 said:
courier and martin are 38, pernfors is not 50 either, arias is in mid 40(just a guess) and you saying he can be beaten, what are you saying friend?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that Arias had a hard time on the tour after the mid eighties, and I wonder how he would do against a top college player. Of any of the players who we think of as former pros, probably arias would be the most beatable. I mean, I could say that a top current college player would beat Fred Stolle in singles. But I didn't go that far. The problem is really with the question, its too broad. Instead, maybe it should be asked "How would a top college player fare against anyone in the Outback Tour".

But I'm not the one asking the question. I'm the one giving my opinion, but opinions are like a sock in a toaster, or jam on a magnet.
 
McEnroe against good D1 competition at your local public court is going to be in one hell of a fight. Put them in front of 10000 people with $100000 on the line he will destroy them. That is the difference. Some people can handle the pressure and step it up at the big moments, some play college tennis.
 
The title of this thread poses such vague a question that it cannot be answered except with a lame "it depends"
There are college players and there are college players. Ditto for former pros.

Among current college players there exist quite a few that will play the pro tour, and a few of those will be quite good. After all, the likes of Michael Pernfors, Benjamin Becker, Todd Martin, John McEnroe, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith and so on did play college tennis, as did countless others. My common sense guess is that a good 19 year old college player, even one well below the level of the above mentioned players, should be able to beat most 50 year old former-pros quite handily. The physical gap is just too huge to ignore. The first thing to go are the legs, and by 50 years of age very few people have the wheels to keep up with a good college player. And after the legs, the eyes, and a lot of other things, one after another. In fact I think that many 50 year old former pros would probably lose agaisnt the top ranked women players, who in turn would certainly lose against decent college players.
 
For men's, it depends - I would guess that the NCAA champion is roughly about 100-200 ranked ATP player.

top 30 NCAA players likely have ATP points, and are ranked in the top 500.

I think that a top ex-pro like Agassi/Sampras would beat ATP No. 500, likely lose to ATP No. 100 at this time
 
Last edited:
raiden031 said:
... I thought I'd share this piece of information on how the skill level of pros are exaggerated on this board.

Wayne Odesnik ...

By this logic, a 5.0 player should be somewhat competitive against a top 100 player in the world since my example shows a 5.0 beat a 5.5 who only lost by one break to a top 100 pro.
Click to expand...
That is some of the most tortured "logic" ever. You don't know enough about the matches in question. Was Wayne even trying? Was he hurt and using the tourney as a "test" of his recovery? Was he playing in the tourney as a favor to a friend? Was he merely "playing down to his competition?"

Nah. Your example proves nothing....

- KK
 
Nellie said:
For men's, it depends - I would guess that the NCAA champion is roughly about 100-200 ranked ATP player.

top 30 NCAA players likely have ATP points, and are ranked in the top 500.

I think that Agassi/Sampras would beat ATP No. 500, likely lose to ATP No. 100 at this time
Click to expand...

Agassi could take out a top 10 player in a best of 3. I think he played an exo with Blake after retirement and it was really high quality stuff, Blake afterwards was wondering why the guy retired.

Sampras...depends on the surface, depends on whether or not he gets extra money for winning. Sampras is not fit anymore, Agassi still is, and his back is probably feeling a lot better.
 
Kaptain Karl said:
That is some of the most tortured "logic" ever. You don't know enough about the matches in question. Was Wayne even trying? Was he hurt and using the tourney as a "test" of his recovery? Was he playing in the tourney as a favor to a friend? Was he merely "playing down to his competition?"

Nah. Your example proves nothing....

- KK
Click to expand...

I don't know why you need to make excuses for him giving up a bunch of games to a couple 5.5 players. Official tennislink results mean a hell of alot more than a bunch of guys on a message board basically saying that anyone who isn't a pro can't win games or sometimes even points against pros (past or present), when clearly they can.
 
Your logic is still tortured.... I haven't "made" a single excuse. I merely pointed-out how little you know about the match you are using as "evidence".

- KK
 
no way a 5.5 can take a game off any half decent pro. Id rate myself around a 5.0 (I beat most of the few 4.5s iv playedbut I dont really know because im a junior)and Iv hit with some of the UC Santa Cruz Alum. They would easily blow me off the court. So anyone in the top 500 double bagels any 5.5 all the time.
 
okdude1992 said:
no way a 5.5 can take a game off any half decent pro. Id rate myself around a 5.0 (I beat most of the few 4.5s iv playedbut I dont really know because im a junior)and Iv hit with some of the UC Santa Cruz Alum. They would easily blow me off the court. So anyone in the top 500 double bagels any 5.5 all the time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go quite that far. A true 5.5 can definitely take games off a pro here and there. But to win, is highly, HIGHLY unlikely, and most sets would be veritable blowouts. Still, by 5.5 you should have enough attributes that you can manage to get lucky and do SOMETHING right for a game or two here and there.
 
Rabbit said:
I actually had the good fortune to ask Gene Mayer about this very match and the tournament. He was in Hawaii vacationing with his daughter and asked to fill in. He resisted, but then thought it would be fun. His first round match with Kauffmann was anything but. He said that Kauffmann acted like a fool, throwing his racket, cursing, and stalling. It got so bad that Mayer told the chair umpire that they had a stricter code of conduct on the senior tour than was being enforced there. He also began to really try. He did beat Kauffmann and for a week or two was the oldest guy to have an ATP ranking.

The next match was against Bryan. He said he lost the first set by one break and was up a break in the second when he asked himself what in the hell he was doing. He wasn't too interested in winning a set...



I don't see that activity on the ATP tour for 2007. The only match Odesnik played in September 2007 was against Alberto Francis in Tulsa Oklahoma. One would think any match that counted in the ATP or for money would appear.

My point is that if he did play a 5.0 and the 5.0 got a few games, it may well have been that the guy wasn't trying or the guy was hurt.

I've played 5.0 league and I've played Div I college players. There is no way a 5.0 can hang with a good Div I player. And, if a Div I player was good enough, in any sport, they'd go pro instead of playing college. Historically since the advent of big money in tennis, no college player has gone on to set the pros on fire. If they coulda they woulda.


There is no way anyone with an NTRP rating can compete with a world class player. Anyone with an ATP/WTA ranking is hands down a better player than anyone with an NTRP ranking. I'd even say that a decent 5.0 male isn't going to put a dent in a WTA player.
Click to expand...
I thought McEnroe played for Stanford, at least for a while.
 
Like former number 1 player? They would probably beat all but maybe a handful of players on any given day. Mac used to get beat by a club pro at Tennissport in Queens according to several members there. I asked, was he just not trying? They said, it's simply a matter of Mac having legs that are 20 years older than his.

But on a fast indoor surface in an 8 game pro set, Mac would probably beat any college player. On clay in a best of three or on a hard court, I'm sure the very top guys would have a slight edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tennis Dunce
Could top D1 & D2 players beat 50 year old John McEnroe?
Replies
7
Views
944
AndrewD
A
C
How would you beat McEnroe ( or anyone else on the Power Shares tour )?
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
encylopedia
E
C
What Should A Former College Player Ntrp Rating Be???!
Replies
15
Views
10K
atatu
atatu
J
Free college alumni tennis network launched by ITA-also for current players
Replies
0
Views
422
jcgatennismom
J
D
Should this forum be called “ men’s college tennis talk “ ?
Replies
24
Views
2K
andfor
A
Back
Top