1996 India Open – Singles

Thomas Enqvist won in the final 6–2, 7–6(7–3) against Byron Black.

Singles
1996 India Open
Champion Thomas Enqvist
Runner-up Byron Black
Final score6–2, 7–6(7–3)

Seeds
  1. Thomas Enqvist (Champion)
  2. Wayne Ferreira (Second Round)
  3. Byron Black (Final)
  4. Jakob Hlasek (Second Round)
  5. Tim Henman (First Round)
  6. Jonas Björkman (First Round)
  7. Johan van Herck (Second Round)
  8. Jérôme Golmard (Quarterfinals)

Draw

Key

Finals
Semifinals Final
          
1 Thomas Enqvist 78 7
WC Jonathan Stark 66 5
1 Thomas Enqvist 6 77
3 Byron Black 2 63
3 Byron Black 6 6
  Alex Rădulescu 4 4

Top Half
First Round Second Round Quarterfinals Semifinals
1 T Enqvist 6 6  
  M Petchey 4 4   1 T Enqvist 6 6  
WC S Prahlad 3 2   WC M Bhupathi 3 0  
WC M Bhupathi 6 6   1 T Enqvist 6 6  
  O Ogorodov 7 2 3   J-P Fleurian 3 3  
  J-P Fleurian 5 6 6   J-P Fleurian 6 6  
  A Järryd 65 3   7 J van Herck 1 4  
7 J van Herck 77 6   1 T Enqvist 78 7  
4 J Hlasek 6 7   WC J Stark 66 5  
  C Wilkinson 3 5   4 J Hlasek 7 3 5
Q S Kirtane 2 1     S Stolle 5 6 7
  S Stolle 6 6     S Stolle 2 6 63
  M Norman 1 64   WC J Stark 6 3 77
WC J Stark 6 77   WC J Stark 6 6  
  F Fetterlein 1 6 6   F Fetterlein 3 4  
5 T Henman 6 1 0

Bottom Half
First Round Second Round Quarterfinals Semifinals
6 J Björkman 3 4  
  N Kulti 6 6     N Kulti 64 5  
  P Baur 3 3     C Caratti 77 7  
  C Caratti 6 6     C Caratti 6 1 5
Q D Sapsford 77 6   3 B Black 3 6 7
Q C Arriens 63 4   Q D Sapsford 1 2  
  L Paes 6 3 5 3 B Black 6 6  
3 B Black 3 6 7 3 B Black 6 6  
8 J Golmard 6 6     A Rădulescu 4 4  
  J Krošlák 4 2   8 J Golmard 6 6  
Q J Winnink 6 6   Q J Winnink 1 3  
LL S Groen 4 3   8 J Golmard 6 5 0
  A Rădulescu 78 6     A Rădulescu 4 7 6
  L Roux 66 2     A Rădulescu 6 6  
  D Norman 4 4   2 W Ferreira 1 1  
2 W Ferreira 6 6  
gollark: ...
gollark: > “This stuff is funny!” giggles your niece, squishing her fingers in the goop. “It’s all warm, gluey, and bouncy! Someone should be turning out this stuff for kids to play with, or as sticky putty to stick posters to walls, or whatever. You’ve got, like, an infinite supply of it, so that’s good economics, right?”
gollark: > “No! ElGr cells are a scientific miracle!” cries biologist Jack Ponta, jiggling a beaker full of purplish goop as he waves his arms in exasperation. “These cells have been a breakthrough; not only in testing cures for cancer, but also in understanding how cancer develops and functions! All these years later, these cells keep chugging along, outliving all the others! Who knows, with these cells, we might even one day unlock a path to immortality! Are you going to let bureaucracy get in the way of SCIENCE?”
gollark: > “We thought my poor grandmother’s remains had been buried in accordance with her wishes,” growls Elizabeth’s direct descendant, Catherine Gratwick. “Can’t you let her rest in peace? This is her body that you’re messing with. You can’t just irradiate and poison her; you must ask me first! How would you like it if your family’s remains were exhumed and mutilated? You must never use cells from deceased people without the explicit pre-mortem consent of the patient or their relatives. As for granny - I insist that all remaining samples of her be buried, and that you financially compensate her family for the pain and grief you have caused!”
gollark: > Two generations ago, scientists took a biopsy of a tumor from a cancer patient named Elizabeth Gratwick, who died soon after. Without her knowledge or consent, these cells were preserved in the laboratory and proved to be exceptionally stable in replication. As stable cancer cell lines are highly useful for medical research, “ElGr cells” have been sent to and used by scientists all over the world. However, objections are now being raised by Elizabeth’s descendants.

References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.