Teams

Lamar 3.5 18 Spring

2026 Decatur Spring Adult 18 and Over 2.5W - 5.0 · 3.5 Men

11 players · average NTRP 3.30 / ALABAMA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-03-28vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringLost 02
L#1 DoublesChuck Lamar / Michael Gibson vs Andrew Devine / Perry Baker3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJoey Rushing / Christopher Proctor vs Josh Wisener / Richard Mukadam2-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-03-19vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringLost 12
L#1 DoublesAllen Hines / Chuck Lamar vs Andrew Devine / Akshay Singh6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesMichael Gibson / Christopher Proctor vs Tucker Fleming / Dewayne Maze3-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesEugene Acupan / Joseph Montgomery vs Zach Ingrum / Derek Epp6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2026-03-15vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringWon 21
L#1 DoublesEugene Acupan / Allen Hines vs Tucker Fleming / Andrew Devine0-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMichael Gibson / Newell Johnson vs Eugene McNutt / Perry Baker7-5, 6-1
W#3 DoublesChristopher Proctor / Joey Rushing vs Zach Ingrum / Derek Epp7-6, 0-6, 1-0
2026-03-15vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringLost 12
L#1 DoublesChuck Lamar / Michael Gibson vs Josh Wisener / Akshay Singh6-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJoey Rushing / Joseph Montgomery vs Timothy Nave / Dewayne Maze5-7, 2-6
W#3 DoublesNewell Johnson / Vu Pham vs Richard Mukadam / Zach Ingrum6-2, 6-1
2026-03-15vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringLost 12
L#1 DoublesAllen Hines / RAUNAQ BAJAJ vs Andrew Devine / Tucker Fleming5-7, 2-6
W#2 DoublesJason Seale / Joseph Montgomery vs Zach Ingrum / Derek Epp7-6, 6-3
L#3 DoublesChristopher Proctor / Michael Gibson vs Josh Wisener / Dewayne Maze6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2026-03-14vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringLost 12
L#1 DoublesChuck Lamar / Ben Donahue vs Perry Baker / Tucker Fleming2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesMichael Gibson / Allen Hines vs Josh Wisener / Kip Potter5-7, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesChristopher Proctor / Joey Rushing vs Derek Epp / Richard Mukadam2-6, 4-6
2026-03-05vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringWon 21
W#1 DoublesNewell Johnson / Vu Pham vs Josh Wisener / Andrew Devine6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesMichael Gibson / RAUNAQ BAJAJ vs Rishi Patel / Dewayne Maze1-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJoseph Montgomery / Jason Seale vs Derek Epp / Richard Mukadam6-1, 6-2
2026-02-21vs Baker 3.5 18 SpringSplit 11
L#1 DoublesBen Donahue / Allen Hines vs Andrew Devine / Eugene McNutt3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesChristopher Proctor / Jason Seale vs Zach Ingrum / Timothy Nave6-2, 6-4
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings2 teams · 3.5 Men
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Baker 3.5 18 Spring62141024205
2Lamar 3.5 18 Spring2691533235

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.15 estimated across 11 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

3.44
Newell Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.27
Vu Pham
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.27
RAUNAQ BAJAJ
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.23
Allen Hines
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.19
Ben Donahue
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.14
Christopher Proctor
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
3.10
Chuck Lamar
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.09
Jason Seale
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.07
Joseph Montgomery
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.96
Eugene Acupan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.90
Joey Rushing
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Christopher Proctor + Joey Rushing4547% games+9.2% vs expected
Newell Johnson + Vu Pham3257% gamesnot enough data
Newell Johnson + Chuck Lamar0535% gamesnot enough data
Allen Hines + Chuck Lamar224 matchesnot enough data
Jason Seale + Joseph Montgomery303 matchesnot enough data
Allen Hines + Christopher Proctor213 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

Newell Johnson
75W–85L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%68%32%
3.44
Vu Pham
58W–38L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.27
RAUNAQ BAJAJ
25W–26L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Allen Hines
22W–47L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Ben Donahue
16W–18L career · 2 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.19
3
Christopher Proctor
50W–43L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%14%86%
3.14
3.5
Chuck Lamar
34W–75L career · 4 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.10
Jason Seale
11W–19L career · 3 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.09
Joseph Montgomery
22W–10L career · 4 lines in 2026
30%70%<1%
3.07
3
Eugene Acupan
16W–33L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%62%38%
2.96
Joey Rushing
18W–31L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.90

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.