Sports
Related: About this forumRosewall’s Feat at 1972 Australian Open Is Aging Well
Ken Rosewall, the reigning champion at 37, had just won his fourth Australian Open, but he felt a little guilty.
Its not good for tennis generally for me to still be winning, he told The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, after beating Mal Anderson, who was 36.
Anderson had worked as a tennis and squash instructor for four years, coming out of retirement only weeks before that 1972 tournament. Asked how two fathers (Anderson had three children, Rosewall two) had made it to a major final, Anderson said: The youngsters these days have things too easily. There is too much money around, and they dont have to fight for a living.
Rosewalls first-place check was for $2,240; Anderson took home $1,120. Forty years later, Rosewall remains the oldest man to win a Grand Slam tournament in the Open era, but the Australian Open has become much more lucrative. This years mens and womens champions will receive a record $2.3 million, or about $1 million more than Rosewall estimated he made in his 25-year career.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sports/tennis/ken-rosewalls-1972-australian-open-victory-is-still-one-for-the-aged.html?_r=1&hpw
marmar
(77,084 posts)I can see a Swiss guy who'll turn 31 this year winning another, though.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)37, no way.
What gets me is he beat a 36-year--old guy to win it!
Doesn't mention he made the finals of Wimbldeon at 40.
dhill926
(16,349 posts)perhaps more strategy, definitely less power and speed......