Prologue

"Tough Love the Hard Way" a) completes the picture painted by my two obituaries and b) is engendered by the everybody-is-a-winner culture that has been steadily growing for the last 30-plus years and which is totally out of control - as evidenced by these politically-driven halls of fame that in order to keep them going are watered down with individuals that may very well be great human beings but simply have no business being in a particular hall of fame.   

Regarding politically-driven halls of fame, a case in point involves my second wife Justina Bricka, a living legend of tennis who was born and raised in St. Louis.   The GOAT of all GOATS has to be Margaret Smith Court.  Society will probably never recognize this because of her gender:  we still have yet to have a female president.  Society would probably hand that distinction out to someone like Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali ( Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.), or Tom Brady, etc.  In addition to her Herculean 64 individual grand slam titles - 24 singles titles which is the record for females and has been recently tied by Novak Djokovic - she is the only tennis player (male or female) to have won a singles grand slam (all four grand slam tournaments in a calendar year) and all three events at the four grand slam tournaments (singles, doubles, and mixed doubles).  She also has 21 mixed doubles titles and mixed doubles means she is competing with and beating men at the highest level of the sport!!!  Regarding Margaret's doubles and mixed doubles partners at grand slam tournaments, the majority that got to rub elbows with the GOAT hailed from Australia, and only a handful literally were from other countries.  Four were from America.  If it weren't for these four individuals, the most powerful country in the world would have been out in the cold not unlike men's soccer at the World Cup stage (never won it).  Justina's accomplishments are too lengthy and beyond the scope of this prologue, but she is one of the four!!! 

That said, certain people decided to create a St. Louis Sports Hall of Fame.  One would think based on the name that inductees would have to be born in St. Louis or grow up in St. Louis as a toddler as evidenced be grade school attendance.  Such is not the case.  This hall of fame started in 2009.  Politics is one thing but for Justina not to be inducted until 2023 shocks the conscience!!!!!  Even more egregious, other tennis players went in before her!!!!!  However, knowing Justina when I did and speaking for myself, it was never a concern whether either of us was inducted or not inducted into something like a sports hall of fame.  We were not raised that way and we did not raise our boys to lose any sleep over something so trivial in the grand scheme of life. 

At the end of the day, not recognizing greatness in a timely manner does reflect poorly on St. Louis.   However, St. Louis is not exactly a city without major problems.  First and foremost, having traveled nationally and internationally, St. Louis is the only city that cares about what high school you went to.  How hopelessy pitiful and pathetic.  Until that mindset changes, St. Louis will never have the panache or flair necessary to join the ranks of a Miami, New York, Los Angeles, or Houston.  Considering its size, other problems include losing an NBA team and losing two NFL teams.  It is simply embarrassing for St. Louis not to have a team in the NFL and NBA!  Even though the men have never won the World Cup, St. Louis is known on an international level for its roots in soccer and not to be a host city for the 2026 World Cup is offensive!!  Not having a large enough stadium in terms of seating capacity is totally irrelevant.  It's all about revenues from TV rights.  

                                                          Tough Love the Hard Way

First, we must define sport or sports.  Prize money and endorsements have nothing to do with the definition.

If it can be played, practiced, or done by yourself, it is not a sport but a type of game.  If you want to practice your golf game by playing a round of golf, you do not need anyone else, but if you want to practice your tennis game by playing a practice set, you cannot do it alone, i.e., you need an opponent.  If you remain seated it is also not a sport but a type of game.  Examples: golf, track and field (where you merely run, jump, and throw things), swimming, skiing, gymnastics, etc. 

Consider why the Olympics are often referred to as the Olympic games (and the word 'events' might also be used, e.g., this year's Olympic events include such and such) as opposed to the Olympic sports.  Moreover, with this definition, to say that a gold medalist in an Olympic game, not sport, can and should be considered for a greatest athlete award is preposterous.  It is not fundamentally sound to compare sports with games, it is not an apples to apples argument.  What really needs to happen is there needs to be two separate halls of fame:  one for individuals that specialize in sports and one for individuals that specialize in games!

Second, even though tennis may be the healthiest sport (according to a 2018 report from the Copenhagen City Heart Study that was based on a 25-year study), it is arguably one of the most difficult sports to play well - that is, of course, after jai alai and water polo and, incidentally, if you have never seen jai alai played live, it's as if you have been cheated out of life. 

Third, regarding tennis being an extremely difficult sport to play well, the four major sports - football, basketball, baseball, and hockey - all have players that have not only won a championship but from a generational perspective they also have a son that has won a championship.  Coaches (unless they won a championship as a player) are excluded as a class on the grounds that they are no different from sports announcers that never competed in the sport, i.e., it is downright insulting to each sport (games I am not concerned with) for the announcers to not have played the sport at the very least at the high school level or its equivalent so much so that it amounts to stll yet another crime of the century.

Whereas, in tennis, no son or daughter of a player that has won a singles grand slam tournament
has come remotely close to also winning a singles grand slam tournament.   Again, as far as men's tennis is concerned, there are two indisputable rites of passage.  See June 22, 2025 obituary.

Fourth, in order to get to a rite of passage, a player will have excelled at the sectional level of the United States Tennis Association ("USTA").  There are 17 sections within the USTA:  Caribbean,
Eastern, Florida, Hawaii Pacific, Intermountain, Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Midwest, Missouri Valley, New England, Northern, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Southern, Southern California, Southwest, and Texas.  Missouri is in the Missouri Valley which includes four other states: Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

Fifth, some family history and the age group that broke the mold.  Justina and I never won the Missouri Valley in singles but our boys did.  Both boys always qualified for nationals each year, i.e., in both bottom and upper years of the age group.  That meant they were always in the top four or five.  To qualify when in the bottom year of an age group (e.g., the first year of 12s, 14s, 16s, and 18s) is always more challenging because you have to beat players a year older than you.

The age group that broke the mold was Lou's age group.  America and Australia have each had two or three age groups that had two players that would eventually win a grand slam tournament in singles.   Lou's age group had four players that would eventually win a grand slam tournament in singles:  Michael Chang, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, and Pete Sampras.  Never before and never again.  It was, is, and always will be simply mind blowing.  Again, history has only had two and those were not common occurrences considering the amount of time that has elapsed.

Conspicuously absent from the above list of four players is the player with most junior national titles:  Al Parker.  Just more evidence that no age group in the history of tennis is even remotely close to this age group.  In a 128 draw, Al would only play 7 players.  Lou always remembered his three losses to Al Parker and one even occurred at the Zoo.  With only four national tournaments that may have killed his ranking but it did not bother Lou.  He always said do you know how many great players never had a match on record with Al Parker.  At the time he was the best and he ended up being the best in the history of American junior tennis.  

Other interesting tidbits.  Lou remembers the time he played the Boys 12s Orange Bowl for two reasons.  First, Lou won at least two rounds, no more than three, but one of the rounds he beat South Africa's Clinton Banducci and he lost to the Netherlands' Mark Koevermans.  Both were outstanding players at the time and for years to come.  Koevermans made it to the fourth round at Wimbledon one year.  Second, Lou witnessed Al Parker lose in the finals to Sweden's Kent Carlson.  Lou said the expression on Al's dad's face was priceless.  Lou said that Carlson did to Al what Al would do to his opponents.  Carlson would surely have been the next Laver or Borg but he had to stop in the 16s or 18s due to something terribly wrong with his knees that could not be fixed.  Lou said he had never seen such a display of talent and the world never got to.  What a true  shame.   

Everyone is famous for five minutes or so the saying goes.  Considering Al's place in junior tennis, Lou's five minutes of fame came at the Boys 14s national hards held at TCU.  Lou and his partner were seeded (#2) ahead of Al Parker and his partner (#3) in doubles.  In general, no one was seeded ahead of Al in those days.  That meant Lou had either the singles or doubles ranking to support the seeding or Lou's partner had the singles or doubles ranking to support it.  They were in the same half of the draw and held their seeds.  They lost.  Lou remembers the match was played inside at night because it rained during the day.  Lou said it was standing room only.  Al's dad was present of course.  Those were the days!  Again, it would all be meaningless but for the fact of Al's accomplishments underscored by the fact that four players from this age group would go on to win at least one grand slam tournament in singles:  the test for if your age group is any good.

Sixth, if it is not clear from my two obituraries, let me add the following regarding why college tennis is not considered a rite of passage. 

The stark reality is that beginning with Wimbledon in 1877, the US Open in 1881, the French Open in 1891, and the Australian Open in 1905, the number of players to have won a grand slam tournament in singles and have obtained a college degree before doing so are, if at all, few and
far between. 

Further, imagine you are talking tennis with any of these individuals that have won a grand slam tournament in singles - Rene Lacoste, Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Lew Hoad, John Newcombe, Fred Stolle, Roy Emerson, Manuel Santana, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Năstase, Bjorn Borg, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Thomas Muster, Andre Agassi, Andrés Gómez, Pete Sampras, Goran Ivanišević, Mats Wilander, Guillermo Vilas, Yannick Noah, Gustavo Kuerten, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz, or Jannik Sinner - and you want to distinguish yourself with any of your collegiate accomplishments that you believe to somehow be noteworthy.  None of the aforementioned has a college degree.  End of story!

Seventh, since we want to leave no stone unturned, high school tennis is a complete and utter joke.  It is not a USTA sanctioned event.  Thus, it is a nonfactor with respect to state and sectional rankings and sectional rankings are the primary basis for determining eligibility for national and international tournaments such as Kalamazoo (the "Zoo") and the Orange Bowl.   See June 22, 2025 obituary.  For the limited purpose of Missouri's history, I have been told that one of the two years I played the team lost only two individual matches and apparently that is a record for the best team in the history of high school tennis in Missouri. 

Even more of a joke is the high school I attended.  Thank God (to prevent any confusion the usage here is in its non-literal sense) my brother never played high school tennis for the school.  There is nothing good to say about the school.  Further, it was also systemic in that all the other schools within this particular suburb's jurisdiction suffered the same affliction.  The kids were spoiled beyond repair.  The kids that participated in sports or games had egos that were so far out of touch with reality you wanted to vomit.  Not getting out of the little conference, district, or league that the school was in did nothing to bring them back to reality.  Why on earth would anyone want to fit in with or otherwise know people like that.  Because they are already wealthy based on what they are going to inherit and later claim how hard life has been.  Are you kidding?  How hard is it to make 10 million when you are handed 10 million out of the gate for free?  In short, I had been international (and the age at which I was competing internationally was a record in our family dynasty of five)  before even setting foot in the building and kept that to myself.  

Eighth, for purposes of comparing players from different eras (i.e., each age group representing a different era) and for assessing the depth of an era, the question to be answered after applying the rites of passage test is did you or anyone from your age group win a grand slam tournament in singles.  See June 22, 2025 obituary. 

When it's all said and done and it's time for you, a familty member, friend, or loved one to face reality, being ranked one or 100 in the United States at 12 or 18 ends up being particularly irrelevant if no one from the age group went on to win a grand slam tournament in singles.  In short, the quality from any such eras simply was not good! 

Consider this additional information.  The 2025 grand slam tournaments are finished.  To date, there have been 526 individual grand slam tournaments and 160 players have won at least one singles tournament.   Nearly three quarters of the singles tournaments have been won by five countries:  United States, Australia, France, Great Britain, and Spain.  In the early days, the host country frequently won.   The draw sizes back then were at most 32-player draws compared to today's draw sizes of 128.   The first Wimbledon draw had 22 entrants and all were from Great Britain; the first Australian Open had 17 entrants and all but two were from Australia; and the first US Open had 25 entrants and all but one were from the United States.  Having won 146, we (the United States) have a comfortable lead in this area given that there are only four tournaments a year.  Australia is in second place at 100, followed by France, Great Britain, and Spain at 54, 46, and 38, respectively. 

What if we change our starting point based on the first year that each tournament's draw size reached 128: Wimbledon was 1921; French Open was 1969; US Open was 1915; and Australian Open was 1988.  Let's start with 1946 because the Zoo started in 1943 and Wimbledon did not resume from World War II unrtil 1946.  We (the United States) still have the lead and Australia is still in secod place but the lead is not as comfortable and Great Britain and France have essentially been eliminated for the time being. The results are as follows:  United States - 76; Australia - 71; Spain - 39; Sweden - 26; Serbia - 24; and Switzerland - 23.

And for good measure, let's remove the last two centuries so the starting point will be this century.
Now look at these results:  Spain - 30; Serbia - 24; Switzerland - 22; and United States - 6.

However, the last time an American won a singles grand slam tournament was 2003.  Never before in our history has there been such a gap, drought, or recession.  The longest "gap" in the history of American tennis is five years and that occurred two times: 1963 - 1968 and 1984 - 1989.  Some champions (and the year they were born) that contributed to keeping the "gap" to just five years are:  Richard Sears, 1861; Robert Wrenn, 1873; Bill Tilden, 1893; Don Budge, 1915; Jack Kramer, 1921; Tony Trabert, 1930; Stan Smith, 1946; Jimmy Connors, 1952; John McEnroe, 1959; and Pete Sampras, 1971.

In terms of the greatest ever, IMHO that is why Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer were each able to win so many singles titles at grand slam tournaments.  They indeed would be the greatest of their time, but if they are truly the greatest ever, how come not one of the three was able to win a grand slam (all four in a calendar year)?  Rod Laver has 2 singles grand slams and only 11 total titles.  You have to also remember that Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer did not grow up with wood rackets. 

Another interesting tidbit concerning the French Open (arguably the hardest of the four grand slam tournaments to win) is that Borg only has 6 titles compared to Nadal's 14, but Borg beats Nadal in terms of having given up the fewest number of games in one tournament (Borg, 1978, 32 games given up; Nadal, 2017, 35 games given up)!!   Further, there was more depth when Borg played as evidenced by the draws of 1978 and 2017 and fact that there was no American "gap."  See two two paragraphs above.  Borg's draw in 1978 had ten other players that had already won a grand slam tournament in singles or would go on to win one and eight other players that had already made it to the finals of a grand slam tournament in singles or would go on to reach the finals; Nadal's draw in 2017 had seven other players that had already won a grand slam tournament in singles or would go on to win one and six other players that had already made it to the finals of a grand slam tournament in singles or would go on to reach the finals.  And regarding the American "gap" which did not exist when Borg played, the number of Americans in the 1978 draw 28 as compared to only 11 Americans in the 2017 draw for Nadal.  When deciding who the best is at the French, you are splitting hairs.  There is no way Nadal would have had the same success he had if he played in Borg's era and back then he would have had to use a wood racket.  No way.  28 Americans in a draw (when there is no "gap") as opposed to 11.  And the number of champions and runners-up (18 compared to 13).  Simply no way.  Maybe some day the world will hear his case for why he considers himself better than Borg on the red clay.  Further, IMHO there was no depth in the Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer era and it continues today for Alcaraz and Sinner.  

That said, the junior age groups associated with players born in or after 1985 are the ones that did not or have yet to produce a player to win one of the grand slam tournaments in singles and  consequently are eras, again, that simply were not that good. 

Based on historical information, the story is not over for, let's say, players born in or after 2006,
but the time is definitely running out for players born between 1998 and 2004.  For instance, Taylor Fritz lost in the finals of the 2024 US Open.  He was born in 1997 and had he won that he would have been 26. 

In addition, there are presently 21 players with a minimum of 7 singles grand slam tournament titles:  Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Bill Tilden, Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, Richard Sears, William Renshaw, William Larned, Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, John Newcombe, John McEnroe, and Mats Wilander.  Only six (not even 1/3) did not win a singles grand slam tournament before reaching the age of 23:  Roy Emerson, Bill Tilden, Fred Perry, Ivan Lendl, William Larned, and John Newcombe.  Emerson was 25 when he won his first singles grand slam tournament; Tilden was 27; Perry was 24; Lendl was 24; Larned was 29; and Newcombe was 23.  

Additional players that have won a singles grand slam tournament before reaching the age of 23
are (this is not an exhaustive list):  Malcolm Whitman, John Doeg, Don McNeill, Ashley Cooper, Bobby Riggs, Max Decugis, Ellsworth Vines, Frank Sedgman, Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzalez, Don Budge, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Michael Chang, Jim Courier, Pat Cash, Gustavo Kuerten, Sergi Bruguera, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Carlos Alcaraz, and Jannik Sinner.     

Americans currently in the top 20 ATP rankings are Taylor Fritz, Ben Shelton, and Tommy Paul.  Fritz is 28; Shelton is 23; and Paul is 28.  While it is not impossible to win one's first singles grand slam tournament over the age of 23, statistically speaking, it gets harder and harder with each passing year.  For example, regarding the group from two paragraphs above, Roy Emerson ended up with 12 singles grand slam tournament titles; Bill Tilden has 10; Fred Perry and Ivan Lendl are at 8; and William Larned and John Newcombe are at 7.  Of the 21 players with a minimum of
7 singles grand slam tournament titles, only 8 players have a minimun of 10 singles grand slam tournament titles.  Of those 8 players, only 2 (or 1/4) won their first grand slam tournament in singles over 23 years of age:  Roy Emerson and Bill Tilden.  Suffice it to say, neither one is in the top 4 of that very elite group of 8.  What this means is that if you want to join the group with a minimum of 7 (21 players presently) or even a minimum of 10 (8 players presently), your chances are considerably better if you win your first grand slam tournament in singles before reaching 23 years of age.  

In conclusion, the path for greatness in each sport or game is different.  High school or collegiate experience or both in some sports or games may be absolutely essential.  In tennis, everything reverts back to junior tennis.  

If the objective is winning a grand slam tournament in singles (as opposed to late bloomers - someone who does not have a rite of passage but makes it up to four or five hundred in the professional rankings, die hards - similar to late bloomers with the added exception that tennis to them is in the nature of a calling, and players simply with no other choices or interests or players just filling out the draw in order to merely say I played at Wimbledon or the French Open, etc., or players that enjoy traveling and are good enough to use tennis as a passport to see other parts of the world), the road to be traversed has two rites of passage and at least one must be attained:  Kalamazoo (the "Zoo") and the Orange Bowl.  See June 22, 2025 obituary. 

FYI, late bloomers bloom late in large part because all the players that they could not beat in juniors have left the sport.  The reasons why are as simple and diverse as headaches associated with traveling to the brain is developing and having difficulty trying to find any legitimate reason that will explain how hitting a small yellow ball with a racket contributes to society.  But it does seem that the brains of the best athletes, across the board, by and large, rightly or wrongly, have no such concerns.

                                                                  Conclusion

     ●  The rites of passage for males are not the same as the ones for females. 

     ●  The number of unbelievably talented and gifted players at the Zoo and the Orange Bowl from
          certain eras that the general public has never heard about is and always will be staggering.                This will always be the case for future eras as well. 

     ●  Never forget the Golden Rule:  Anyone who has won a grand slam tournament in singles will            have played at either or both the Zoo and the Orange Bowl.  Yes, it's as simple as that!!!

      Footnote
          Junior Wimbledon has a nice elitist ring to it but it does not carry the same weight as the Zoo
          or the Orange Bowl.  Success at junion Wimbledon is fraught with fool's gold especially if
          the player does not play at either of the two aforementioned tournaments.  For perspective,
          draw sizes were the following:  1955 - 19 entrants, 1973 - 30 entrants, 1982 - 64 entrants,
          2010 - 64 entrants, and 2021 - 64 entrants.   And looking back over the draws around the time
          my boys were playing because by then the draw size had reached 64, the representatives for
          the United States were based on politics and not unlike the politics of a sports hall of fame. 
          The only way to get in was if the USTA wanted to promote you. For instance, as an example
          of politics at work, in Joe's age group, one player in particular got to play Junior Wimbledon
          three times.  Once was appropriate but he was undeserving of three times.   And, of course,              he did not go on to win a grand slam tournament in singles.

          Plenty of players have won a grand slam tournament in singles and did not play in junior
          Wimbledon (this is not an exhaustive list):  Neale Fraser, Roy Emerson (fifth highest with 12
          grand slam tournament titles in singles), John Newcombe, Manuel Santana, Lew Hoad, Stan
          Smith, Jimmy Connors, Nicola Pietrangeli, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, Ilie Nastase, Ken
          Rosewall, Rafael Osuna, Arthur Ashe, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras (fourth
          highest with 14 grand slam tournament titles in singles).

                                                                                                                                          1/12/26