a no backhand rule would mean that challenger has to be in that much better shape. But it's kinda lame in either case.

I'll take the under. He doesn't dare. Even if it happens by accident (which it's sounding like it might), he had better run FAST.

How did this bet come about? Solid hustle by Hunting or is OP just delusional?

both

I don't think I can be legitimately blamed if old man can't dodge large yellow balls.

You sure? There's a few of us who play forehands on both sides by switching the raquet between hands.

don't mean to rain on ur parade:
out of sample of few hundred, the absolute best player I've ever seen do that normally prob played at a meh 3.0 level

there's a reason why 0 college level and 0 semi-pros and 0 pros do that :/

i'm a decent 4.0 player and i played a guy who probably 7 years earlier played #2 or #3 at a huge NCAA school....... i didn't win a point. doubles alley would have been irrelevent....... do you get the doubles alley on serves too? even though there's no line. that would really help if you practiced it.

Just to show how much poo you're in here. If you win 55% of points on your serve and he wins 70% on his serve and these are incredibly generous numbers to you, he wins 99.07% of matches.

In a one set match, that falls to a mere 97.36%.

More realistic numbers are 40% and 85% where he's 38.98% to win 6-0 and wins 99.99% of sets.

Lori

Really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/sp...the-court.html

There was a male pro in the early 80s who did the same.

outliers :/

necro but w/e

"Virgin Airlines heir Sam Branson was hanging out with Andy Roddick, and couldn't resist challenging him to a bet.

Branson wagered $150 that he could beat Roddick in a tennis match, as long as the right-handed sports star played with his left hand. Even as a leftie, Roddick cleaned up. They played one set and Branson didn't score a single point."

reminded me of this thread, in particular at the end. i'm sure most pros could play passably ambidextrous, but what's the point

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/2...ref=rss_latest

edit: also, celebrity bets are kinda lame

A billionaire betting $150 makes me lol.

It's not even the small amount of money that makes it amusing, it's the fact that they bothered to make it $150 instead of $100 or $200. It's like me making a bet with my buddy for $10.50.

Yeah, I wanna guess that it was like dinner or something of the sort instead of a finite amount. The money is trivial. The savoring of a nutritious and delicious meal while realizing that your victory provided it is far more satisfying.