Photo credit: International Tennis Hall of Fame. The Class of 2017 Hall of Fame inductees (left to right): Andy Roddick, Steve Flink, Kim Clijsters and Monique Kalkman-van den Bosch.
Tennis is a game of motion, but major movers stick in our psyche.
Generational champions come and go, but iconic legends live on forever.
Now, American tennis’ most impactful icons converge in a new 216-page coffee table book.
In his new book The Immortals of American Tennis, Hall of Fame journalist Steve Flink selects the 19 most important champions in American history— from Big Bill Tilden through Venus Williams and Serena Williams—and tells their stories through their most memorable matches, striking career stats, captivating photos that chronicle the expanse of their careers and one-on–one interviews Flink conducted with these icons throughout their lives. Flink examines their varied journeys to the top of the sport—and makes the case for what makes each of the 19 players featured in the book true tennis legends.
Published by Geldingstreetpress.com, The Immortals of American Tennis will be available on Amazon and leading bookstores, including Barnes & Noble, starting on Tuesday, August 4th. Click the link to order the book.
The book brings a lifetime of reporting into an insightful recount of the pioneers, renegades and fighters who combine to create a glorious American championship history on the nation’s 250th birthday.
With the exception of Maureen “Little Mo” Connolly, who died tragically of ovarian cancer at the age of 34, Flink interviewed virtually every champion in the book—and the 11 outstanding Honorable Mention champions, including several former world No. 1 players.
If you think of American tennis as a massive family tree, what are the essential elements—the competitive DNA, the deep desire, the impact of growing up in a hard-court nation—that bond these immortal U.S. champions?
Flink is uniquely qualified to cite the most towering champions in a crowded United States’ tennis forest. A long-time writer and editor for World Tennis Magazine, Flink served as a lead writer for fellow Hall of Famer Gene Scott’s Tennis Week Magazine from 1992-2007 and later regularly wrote for Tennis and Tennis Channel from 2007-2021.
These days, Steve Flink is a columnist for Racquet Sport Industry Magazine.
Born in California and raised in Connecticut in New York, Flink attended Wimbledon for the first time at age 12.
Four years later, Flink and his father ran into legendary Pancho Gonzalez on the flight from JFK to London and gave the combustible Gonzalez a ride from airport to his hotel. The book is filled with personal anecdotes, like the first Grand Slam champion, Don Budge, describing just how hard it is to win the calendar Slam after running into Flink at JFK Airport. Or a veteran Jimmy Connors confessing to Flink he surprised himself winning Wimbledon because “everything Wimbledon was, I wasn’t.”
We caught up with Hall of Famer Flink in a New York City suburb that was once the hometown of his friend, Arthur Ashe, for this interview.
RP: Steve, what inspired you write the book? The cover is quite striking with three immortal champions—Sampras, Serena and Chrissie—in the foreground. Why were they chosen as the cover champions? What was the biggest challenge writing this book?
Steve Flink: The publisher, an Australian publisher Gelding Street Press, asked me. They did a series of immortal books—boxing, golf—and they were zoning in on American sports in a lot of cases. They came to me and we just discussed it. Was it going to be one book on the men and one book on the women?
I thought it was better to combine the men and women. I thought if you’re going to do immortals you have to do pre-Open Era champions too. The challenge is they like to keep their books to certain lengths. It’s heavy on the photos—the photos are great—but it’s not like they wanted to short-change me on the text. It was a challenge because it was basically coming out to about 3,000 words per player.
You asked about the cover. They asked me: How many players do you want and which ones on the cover? I said well, I want Tilden, Billie Jean, Arthur, Pete, Chrissie and Serena. And they selected the shots. I thought they did a phenomenal job. They got the players I wanted, but I thought they did an extraordinary job with the flow and the symmetry. It’s just a beautiful cover. Sampras with his forehand follow through, Serena the forehand swing, Chrissie the backhand backswing. And then you have Billie Jean, Tilden and Arthur. The three in the front of the image are more important in terms of giving the cover the elegance, but I still wanted the others in there. Their art director did a wonderful job.
Photo credit: Gelding Street Press
RP: On the visuals, one of the things I love about it is each champion’s chapter starts with an image of the champ as a younger player. So you see like a 16-year-old Chrssie, you see Stan Smith with a full head of hair, you see Arthur Ashe, in a rare action shot not wearing glasses and swinging a wood racquet instead of his Head. Was telling a visual story part of the design of the book as well?
Steve Flink: It was a combination of things. The publishers sent me a lot of different photos. We went through thousands of photos. In the end, they worked with another agency that came in at the last minute. The bottom line is I got to choose a lot of the photos that the publisher could then choose from for the final book.
Like they might say: On each player give us the best five to seven shots you see. I was looking to make sure we got the players at every stage of their career.
The combination of the black and white and color images is good too. You and I both know a man named Gene Scott, who ran a certain publication called Tennis Week. And he would have lectured both of us and said: This should have been all black-and-white photos. I think the combination of the two is great.
RP: One of my favorite things about the book is you share anecdotes about talking tennis to these immortals off court and out of the press room. There’s a cool exchange with Don Budge at JFK Airport where he explains how tough it was to win a Grand Slam.
Or when Jimmy Connors tells you he’s amazed he actually won Wimbledon a couple of times because: “Everything Wimbledon was, I wasn’t.” Or Pete Sampras confessing the final 30 minutes of his US Open final loss to Stefan Edberg changed the next 10 years of his career. Can you share the anecdotes or moments just talking tennis with these immortal champions that struck you or resonated with you?
Steve Flink: Those are all very good ones. I think those are some of the best examples. There were many conversations with Jack Kramer like that.
I was out at at dinner with him in ‘86 as a friend of mine did a portrait of him from ‘46. So we did a photo of Jack Kramer in ‘86 looking back at Jack Kramer in ‘46. I was with Jack and a friend of ours and he sat in the front seat. The driver had a Sunday night Frank Sinatra show on. So we saw Jack obviously enjoying Sinatra’s music. Just seeing him in that setting was a reminder of how Jack Kramer, in his own way, was the Sinatra of his world.
I would say you pulled out the right ones from the book.
RP: There’s another great Connors quote where he says the 11 days of his run to the ‘91 US Open semifinals were the best 11 days of his career.
Steve Flink: Which I was amazed he said that. You would never hear Sampras say that. And I’m not knocking Jimmy, I’m saying it’s what made Jimmy different: That he would single that out.
RP: It would be almost a little like Roger Federer saying the greatest moment of his career was losing the greatest match to Nadal at Wimbledon
Steve Flink: Exactly. I think it was just such a gratifying fortnight—11 days as he puts it—but such a gratifying tournament coming from wrist surgery and there he is at ‘91 and he’s 39 years old making that run. And even he did not anticipate.
The one I like from Jimmy was during the ‘74 US Open. Of course this was a different world then that I could even get him to do an interview during the US Open then would not happen now. I said to him, which I thought was an innocent question: Arthur Ashe said as an American, he’d rather win the US Open than any other tournament.
And Jimmy, who has won Wimbledon at this point hasn’t yet won the Open, he’s like: Well, everyone said Wimbledon was the biggest, now I win it and they try to tear it down. Ask Arthur if he won Wimbledon, which one would be the biggest?
I thought that comment was the essence of Connors and maybe what made him succeed. Jimmy had a little bit of a chip on his shoulder, like no one is going to tell me anything. He also went off on the ATP in that interview: They want to tell you where to play, when to play, when to hit an overhead.
There’s a defiance to Jimmy that’s actually there to this day. To this day.
RP: If Jimmy Connors reads this book, I believe he would be proud. There’s a line where you write, and I’m paraphrasing from memory: Jimmy Connors wasn’t the greatest American champion, though he’s certainly in the conversation, but he was the greatest competitor American tennis ever had. That’s very high praise.
Steve Flink: He is. He is. I mean, I only rank Jimmy just very slightly behind Rafa in terms of day in and day out competitive champion.
That comment said a lot about Connors, who he is, his outlook and how he operated. For Jimmy, it was me against the world—especially in his prime.
RP: History repeats itself sometimes and we see historical situations recur in the book. Like Maureen Connolly, who won the Grand Slam, talks about how working with coach Harry Hopman was good for her because he simplified the game and she competed with much more positivity than out of anger. Fast forward a few decades and Harry Hopman pops up again working with another young American star with anger issues named John McEnroe. It’s a similar scenario.
My question is: If you look at immortal American tennis as a family tree what is the shared DNA, the common connectivity, at its roots? Like for me one through line is how many of these immortals sprung from public park tennis courts: Don Budge, Billie Jean, Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Chrissie Evert, Connors, Sampras, Capriati, the Williams sisters.
Is there a defining champion’s character or essential elements and traits these American immortals shared?
Steve Flink: Well, you summed it up well. When I wrote it, I wasn’t thinking conceptually in those terms. I was thinking: Who belongs in this book?
But when you think about it in overarching themes, yes it’s there.
RP: For me, there are similarities in the Gonzalez story and the Williams sisters stories. They all learned the game in Los Angeles public parks, they were all outsiders, game-changers, who shook up the establishment, self-taught in many ways. All three took breaks from tennis at various points, all three were written off at various points, all three were world No. 1 champions, all three great instinctual players also students of the sport, all three could be charming or completely blow off media after matches depending upon their mood that day and all three won Slam titles at young ages and eventually played pro tennis into their 40s.
Steve Flink: It is. There absolutely is a similarity and I think the reader is going to see that connection.
RP: Serena is a hot story in tennis right now. You write about her extensively in this book. My question is: How do you assess what you’ve seen from Serena in this comeback? If Serena does indeed play the US Open, how do you envision her performing? Lastly, what is the end game here? Why is Serena motivated to comeback in the first place?
Steve Flink: First of all, I don’t think it’s going to go well [at the US Open]. Because I think that what I saw at Wimbledon was very impressive to see a 44 year old can still play at that level and go three sets with anybody.
But on the other hand, there are so many players in that draw, a 128 draw, just about anybody in that [US Open] draw can beat her potentially. Certainly, by the second or third round [she can be beaten].
So I don’t really know what she’s after. I don’t understand the driving force behind the return. Other than the fact her daughter seems to have struck a chord. The daughter seems to be an engine saying I really want to see you play.
But Serena knows at 44, watching Venus, and Venus has been struggling to win matches for years, and then she sees Novak who has never stopped. He’s just cut back and he’s 39 and she sees how hard it is and the dedication of him to be making the semifinals of Wimbledon or the finals of Australia. Maybe, Serena thinks: Okay if I can do that…
But Serena is five years older. Frankly, I don’t get it.
To me, it’s a mystery and she hasn’t clued us in. It’s not as if she came in after the match and talked about it and the press was given more understanding of what was behind the return.
So now, we hear the Open is on the horizon, but I’m not optimistic about it in terms of how well she can perform. And also, by the way, she jarred her knee. We couldn’t see that at the time. There’s gonna be more of that because at 44 those things happen.
I think maybe because she lost all the weight, somehow that made her think I’m much trimmer now, but that alone is not going to compensate for 44-year-old legs. So I don’t full get it.
Look, Serena is entitled to do whatever she wants. I get that part. If she loves the idea of getting out in public again and having fans shower her with affection, okay. But Serena has standards too. To me, it’s still a mystery.
Venus is different. Her outlook. Her demeanor are just night and day from Serena. Venus, a long time ago, made her peace with it. She said: Okay, I may go on losing, but I’m going to have fun and I’m going to try. I think I’m still playing pretty well. Even that puzzled me to a degree, but not to this degree.
Serena is a different kind of champion altogether. She knows a lot of people consider her the Greatest Of All Time. This will have no bearing on that, but I still think great champions, is it gonna be worthwhile if she squeezes on a first-round win at the US Open? That’s what I’m gonna be asking.
RP: Roger Federer will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame with Mary Carillo next month. At Wimbledon, Roger did an interview with ESPN’s Mary Joe Fernandez and Patrick McEnroe where he said he called Sampras to gain some insight into how the Hall of Fame induction will feel? It sounds like Sampras told him it will be very very emotional. You’re one of the few people on the planet who knows exactly what it will feel like.
How do you see Roger reacting to that Hall of Fame induction and when you were inducted what was the emotions you were feeling as you’re standing there looking out into the crowd of iconic Hall of Famers? It seems like it must be a truly overwhelming feeling?
Steve Flink: It is overwhelming. It really is. In my personal case, I remember my wife went downstairs and I said: Good I’m gonna practice my speech.
And I did practice and I remember I got to the part about my father and I started choking up. I got all choked up. My father was 93 at the time. Then, when I went to give the speech, I was glad I practiced because I felt calmer. I got it out.
Pete was saying that, I’m sure, with full knowledge of Roger’s personality. Roger’s style and his sensitivity. We saw it from the first time Roger won his first Wimbledon in ‘03. We saw all that in him. We saw him crying when he lost to Rafa in Australia in ‘09. So I think Pete said it knowing Roger.
It was more unusual that Pete got so emotional because that was less like Pete. He was more self contained.
I think Pete’s advice was very good. He knows Roger well. Pete is not the only one to say that to Roger.
We had a Zoom call for Roger’s induction and Rosie Casals said to Roger: “I know you’re a cryer, so bring your kleenex.” And Roger smiled. I think everyone is expecting that and maybe he’ll surprise himself and he won’t, but I think at some point he will [cry].
The recognition of the magnitude of the honor—even for Roger Federer as an all-time great. Also, those fans are there for him. I’m told, I think the way it’s gonna work is that stadium will have a separate seating area. My understanding is Roger and Mary [Carillo] will go and greet those people too. It will all be sinking into him as he goes through this day and sees the big crowd at the stadium.
Not to mention, his own family, his own kids. Now, they saw him play, but the four of them are going to be sitting there.
RP: When Roger was at five or six Slams, your friend and fellow Hall of Famer Cliff Drysdale told me Federer was the most complete player he ever saw—and he saw most of the all-time greats. In fact, Cliff said after Roger Federer the next most complete player was Rod Laver.
Given all Novak has accomplished as Grand Slam king, you have to put Novak as GOAT. Stylistically, how do you assess Roger’s game? Is he the most complete player? The most stylish or elegant player?
Steve Flink: Yes, you have to put Novak there as GOAT. I believe there is some debate between Roger and Rafa.
Novak has a complete record, he’s an incredible all-surface player and Novak proved it even ending up with three French Opens and almost matched Roger’s Wimbledon total. His record is diversified. Novak showed he can adapt to anything, any surface.
RP: I feel like Novak does not get enough credit for all the ATP Finals championships he won and his dominance indoors. Look at his record in Asia.
Steve Flink: Yes, that’s what I mean. Rafa never won the year-end ATP Finals and he had some bad losses at Wimbledon. He lost to Steve Darcis, Lukas Rosol, a lot of them. You look at Novak and Roger, that’s not so much the case with them.
Yes, Roger did lose to Sergiy Stakhovsky, but that was the one bad year in 2013 when he was struggling with his back [issue].
To get back to your original question: You can argue Roger Federer is the most complete player. I don’t think Federer volleyed as well as Sampras volleyed. But then again, Pete didn’t have Roger’s backhand.
So these are trade offs. I think Roger is certainly in the conversation for most complete player of all time—no doubt about it.
There’s a way to pick every player apart. In my mind, Sampras was superior to Federer at the net. Then, I also think Sampras’ overhead was the best. The leaping ability had a fan appeal, but Sampras’ standard overhead was unbelievable. He barely missed it.
My point is: Okay, let’s look at the Laver comparison.
Rod Laver had every shot in the book, but did Rod serve as well as Roger?
I don’t think so. I don’t think so.
Laver had a very good serve. Was it one of the great lefty serves of all time? No.
Compare Rod Laver’s serve to McEnroe or Neale Fraser or some of the other great lefty servers. I think Rod backed it up nicely, he was quick to get into the net for a first volley. There’s no doubt, Rod did have a very complete game and he too could play on every surface
RP: So what you’re saying is Roger Federer is one of the most complete players ever, but you would not definitively say he is the most complete champion ever?
Steve Flink: I would not necessarily be that definitive about it. But I clearly understand where Cliff is coming from and Cliff’s point of view on that.
RP: In the book, if you take Jack Kramer and Billie Jean King together—they were not only colossal champions, they are the architects of pro tennis. I mean if you take Jack Kramer and Billie Jean King out of tennis history what is pro tennis? What does it look like? How does it exist?
Steve Flink: It’s ironic that you’re bringing Billie Jean up in that way.
RP: Because they didn’t get along?
Steve Flink: Not just that they didn’t get along. When people saw the Battle of the Sexes movie on Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King, what people who saw the movie and don’t know tennis, don’t understand is that is not a fair depiction of Jack Kramer.
And they didn’t get to the essence of Kramer. They made him look like he was some sort of lowly promoter. So people misunderstood him.
Jack Kramer was no different from Barry MacKay or any other promoters at that time who didn’t believe, at that time, that women’s tennis could draw on its own.
So it was a business perception—and they were wrong—but they all felt the same way. For Kramer to have been singled out…that’s why I didn’t get into that in the chapter on him. Other than by him being made the scapegoat and the villain, then maybe he did them a favor, maybe he spurred them on.
But he tells a great story that I didn’t use in the book. Like six years later, Gladys Heldman called him up and says: Jack, you and I are going to go into business, we’re going to run the game together or something to that effect.
I think people who had political squabbles always respected him, his principles, his intellect—all of it. So it was Gladys, who was on the opposite end, fighting him over the inception of the Virginia Slims circuit. She’s calling him years later saying: We need to join forces to run this game.
Jack had his political battles, but he didn’t want lifetime grudges. Grudges didn’t linger in his mind.
RP: Our old boss, Gene Scott, used to say that nearly every player memoir or autobiography is an attempt to settle old scores. That the competitor in elite champions never dies even after they hang up the racquet. I was thinking about that when Jimmy Connors wrote his book and he said even to this day if he’s in a room with McEnroe the old feelings, the tension, excitement starts building. Do you concur with Gene on that?
Steve Flink: No, I don’t agree entirely.
If you read the Pete Sampras biography that Peter Bodo did and I did a separate book that was a bio of Sampras. But if you look at either book, it’s the same thing: Sampras never wanted life-long lingering feuds. That wasn’t him.
Sampras wanted to continue to get along with people. That’s always been his way.
RP: That’s why I felt the Serena Hall of Fame induction speech for Maria was such a beautiful moment for tennis, for sport, for rivals in life. Like these were two bitter hard-core rivals who seemingly could not stand each other and took shots at each other.
But they did come to terms, they did talk it out, they do indeed seem to be real friends. It’s a great lesson. I was watching it feeling like: If these two can hug it out, then there’s hope for the rest of the world.
Steve Flink: That’s a good example of two people working it out and coming together. Maria called up Serena, asked her to do the speech and Serena readily agrees.
In fairness, Gene Scott was a wise man and he could well be right in a lot of cases—but not all of them. That’s not their purpose for some—they want to tell their story, it’s not about offending others.
Andre’s book, I felt, was a little bit in between. It was a really interesting read, but he was very critical of Brooke Shields and other people. Andre was very tough on Sampras, I felt very unfairly, and he was very tough on Nick.
And none of them could answer.
I think Richard, one of the reasons you like Agassi’s book so much, and why many did is it’s all in the present tense.
He does that, but he also keeps driving along the highway—he doesn’t ever stop. Do you know what I mean?
There’s no chance for reflection. The only time I saw that was with Courier where Andre had said some critical stuff about Courier in the book and then he runs into him at one of the Australian Opens in the early 2000s.
Jim was interviewing Andre on television and there he does a little reflection like: Jim’s a good guy. But I don’t think anyone else got that benefit from him. But I also don’t think the purpose of the book was vengeance.
The purpose of Agassi’s book was to tell his story as honestly as he could tell it.
So I think Gene Scott is partially right, but I don’t entirely agree with him on that observation.