Thanks for that link. I've found a couple of others: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=5949,812569&dq=connors+ashe+injured&hl=en http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=973,1831109&dq=connors+ashe+injured&hl=en The injury certainly appears to be real, but I'm skeptical about how serious it was, for a few reasons. One is how well Connors played at Wimbledon. Riordan says the injury occurred in the first round. Okay, no problem. But we all know how impressive Jimmy was throughout the two weeks, how invincible he seemed. Just tonight I saw an article in which Jimmy said he was playing the best tennis of his life; and Tanner, before he lost to him, said that Connors was playing better than in the '74 USO. You may well be right that junk is more of a problem for someone with a leg injury. But returning Tanner's serves would certainly be difficult too, if the injury had been serious enough, yet by all accounts Jimmy returned them as if they were nothing. On July 16 Riordan told the press that it was questionable whether Connors would defend at the USO (according to the NY Times). But he started playing again at North Conway in early August (only four weeks after the W final), and beat Rosewall and Laver there in straight sets. All this was only a few weeks before the suit was settled between Connors and Ashe/Kramer/Dell, which also makes me wonder. All the parties involved were already engaged in a war of words, as parties in any legal struggle do, trying to gain whatever edge they can on each other. And while I think the injury was real, I wonder if Riordan's announcements to the press about the injury were part of the war of words between the legal parties. Riordan says that Jimmy didn't want to appear to be making excuses, but then why publicize the injury at all? He also says that the injury was serious enough to call into question whether Connors would defend at the USO, but how true was that? Anyway, I see your reasoning about how the injury might have helped Ashe. Fair enough. But Orantes beat Connors by slow-balling him, too. Borg had some success doing the same. A report I saw tonight mentioned how Jimmy's forehand failed him against Vilas at the USO. And so on. Of course Connors often beat these same players even when they tried the slow-balling tactics. Those matches are not remembered that way, simply because Connors overpowered his opponents (for example Orantes at the '77 USO). So it's complicated, and I agree with you that Bodo is over the top when he talks about a "glaring liability." But I'd still pick Ashe over a fully healthy Connors on that day.