![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
<ref name="Robertson" />
s be changed to {{sfn|Robertson|1974|p=X}}
(again by someone with who has the book), so each statement has the page number referenced. [t]his was true until later in 2011, when the ITF edited the description, stemming from this discussion, is unverifiable WP:OR and needs to be removed.
Another small thing, but are there any objections to declaring the
WP:ENGVAR British like it is in
Tennis? We currently use a hodgepodge and I'd like to standardise it per
MOS:ARTCON, which says [w]ithin a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently
. —
Somnifuguist (
talk) 08:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Done (for American English)
ForzaUV and Fyunck(click), I think that we should remove the table on the tournament's section. That table offers no informations that isn't state elsewhere here (aside form the tiebreakers format, which is of lesser importance for this article), being full of redundancies. So I feel that it's useless for the article, it aggregates nothing for the reader and for the editors. Honestly, I've always been againt its creation and inclusion, and now even more than before. ABC paulista ( talk) 16:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Today, the event has draws that host 256 singles players, 128 doubles teams and 32 mixed doubles teamsin each section is bothersome); tournament length; points for each of the tours; match formats; and being the only significant tournaments with mixed doubles events. Also, mentioning the year of the first women's events (and first wheelchair events) in each tournament's section is needed. The deciding set rule info would have to be split to the individual sections as well. Kuinyo ( talk) 19:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
ABC paulista, ForzaUV and Fyunck(click) I demand a re-vote on the removed sections of the article pertiment to the topic and their reinstatement. Qwerty284651 ( talk) 11:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Most Grand Slam titles across all disciplines in a year | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Titles | Player | Year | Australian Open | French Open | Wimbledon | US Open | ||||||||
Singles | Doubles | Mixed | Singles | Doubles | Mixed | Singles | Doubles | Mixed | Singles | Doubles | Mixed | |||
9 |
![]() |
1965 | W | W | W1 | F | W | W | W | 3R | W | W | A | W |
8 |
![]() |
1938 | W | SF | QF | W | F | A | W | W | W | W | W | W |
![]() |
1951 | SF | W | A | SF | W | W | QF | W | W | W | W | W | |
![]() |
1952 | F | W | A | F | W | W | W | W | W | W | F | W | |
![]() |
1963 | W | W | W | QF | F | W | W | F | W | F | W | W | |
![]() |
1969 | W | W | W1 | W | F | W | SF | W | SF | W | F | W | |
7 |
![]() |
1951 | A | A | A | F | W | W | W | W | W | SF | W | W |
![]() |
1952 | A | A | A | W | W | W | QF | W | W | F | W | W | |
![]() |
1964 | W | F | W | W | W | W | F | W | F | 4R | F | W | |
![]() |
1967 | A | A | A | QF | QF | W | W | W | W | W | W | W | |
![]() |
1970 | W | W | NH | W | SF | SF | W | SF | 2R | W | W | W | |
![]() |
1984 | SF | W | NH | W | W | A | W | W | QF | W | W | A | |
![]() |
1985 | W | W | NH | F | W | W | W | F | W | F | F | W | |
6 |
![]() |
1925 | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | W | W | A | A | A |
![]() |
1939 | A | A | A | A | A | A | W | W | W | W | W | W | |
![]() |
1950 | W | W | SF | SF | F | A | W | W | W | 3R | W | 3R | |
![]() |
1953 | A | A | A | F | W | W | F | W | W | F | W | W | |
![]() |
1956 | W | W | A | W | F | 2R | W | W | A | F | W | F | |
![]() |
1960 | QF | W | SF | SF | W | W | W | W | F | F | W | F | |
![]() |
1960 | A | A | A | W | W | SF | QF | W | W | W | W | QF | |
![]() |
1973 | W | W | NH | W | W | A | SF | QF | A | W | W | F | |
![]() |
1983 | W | W | NH | 4R | A | A | W | W | A | W | W | A | |
![]() |
1987 | F | W | SF | F | W | QF | W | QF | A | W | W | W |
that, hopefully, will replace the current tables, the very ones, whose new design, you @ Somnifuguist suggested, which was then accepted via consensus here [5]:
Career Golden Slam | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singles | Doubles | Wheelchair Singles | Wheelchair Doubles | |||||||
Men's | Women's | Men's | Women's | Mixed | Men's | Women's | Quad | Men's | Women's | Quad |
2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
and the
Career Super Slam | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singles | Doubles | Wheelchair Singles | Wheelchair Doubles | ||||||
Men's | Women's | Men's | Women's | Men's | Women's | Quad | Men's | Women's | Quad |
1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
which, frankly, I don't like one bit. I would like for the other editors, involved in the truncation of the article, to weigh on my request, so we can reach an agreement. Best, Qwerty284651 ( talk) 22:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I recommend that ref #1 being a US Open document be replaced by the ITF Constitution as the primary reference because: - it is more authoritative - it contains events (junior, wheelchair) not mentioned in te US Open document - it refers to Grand Slam achievement for non calendar year in Doubles categories while the US Open document does not Antipodenz ( talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The ITF Constitution contents page iii. is headed "Roll of Honour" and lists the various Champions and other award winners etc. Key pages listing players who have attained the Grand Slam and/or the non-calendar year Grand Slam are at 62-63. The US Open DOC has less information in part (e.g. not the non-calendar year Grand Slam winners) but includes the Career Grand Slam and Three Quarter Grand Slam.
The discussion regarding attendance at the Open's includes the statement that Laver (plus other Australian's) "were prevented from participating in the 1970 Australian Open". It is qualified "because the financial guarantees were deemed insufficient". So it actually implies a matter of choice - not an inability or "prevention". The reference provided for Laver's non-participation states "I have no regrets about not defending my Australian title ... The problem was a monetary one, and the failure of Australia to put up proper prize money kept me and the rest of my league away from Sydney". That seems clear to me that "prevention" is not the approriate term to describe this circumstance. I recommend deleting "were prevented from participating" and replacing it with "chose not to participate". Which also raises the discussion in the preceding sentence regarding professional players who "had to skip ..." because they were committed to more lucrative pro circuits. While this appears correct the fuller story in the key reference advises that the (French) Tournament was 'boycotted' which implies something aligned but different. While I think there is something here that could be unpacked further I have no specific change recommendation to make for this. I do however think there is a link to the general comment in relation to 'skipping majors'. The reasons provided in relation to the Australian Open were "because of travelling distance involved and the inconvenient dates close to Christmas and New Year". However in the references provided to these specific claims there is no mention of the travelling distance (see comments below) and while the time of year was relevant that was in relation to Christmas; this is important as when the Australian Open changed its dates to early in the year it effectively resolved the issue of potentially compromising the period up to Christmas but implicated in various ways New Year but this was accepted. In short I do not think there is sufficient information provided to justify "and New Year" or "travelling distance involved", and for the latter only in relation to the AO. What is key, and deserves further teasing out is Evert's quote ("before counting major titles became the norm" - as this is an actual quote and is later referenced recommend that quotation marks be added). This is a key factor in the history of Grand Slam tennis - the view of the relevance and importance of multiple titles, and the Grand Slam itself has grown over time and players who 'chose' not to enter relevant events in the past could and do regret that today. Haven't read Laver's restrospective views on this but suspect he wished he defended his title in 1970 in place of an extra $20K or so. In summary the key reason for some of the worlds best players not to attend Major tournaments was financial (either because they could not [pre Open Era]) or because they chose not to due to financial determinations (chasing the $) - note that this would have been a major factor pre Open Era if professionals were permitted to play the Majors then also as the same factors driving behaviours would have been relevant. Other personal factors are relevant such as timing of the Majors (specifically the AO in relation to Christmas until it changed dates to the New Year) and view of the relative importance of various Major tournaments and/or their perceptions of them e.g. organisation. Travel was an issue, particularly pre WW2 but it is overstated including in this context where it is not referred to in the various references and where players make clear if other factors were different (e.g. Money, timing) they would have attended more often. Furthermore it is relevant to remember that travel goes both ways - players from the Southern Hemisphere had issues with it also in relation to other Majors at different times - if this is to be raised it should be in an even handed way (I note the manner in which this is exhaustively and inappropriately dealt with in the AO site vs other Majors - not a mention). John McEnroe: "What changed it was the fact that they did a better promotional job. They put money into a new stadium and things of that nature". Chris Evert: Q. Why didn't you play the French those three years from '76 through '78, right in the middle of your streak? A. "Don't think I Don't think about that now. I was playing World Team Tennis. Grand Slams weren't as important then. Nobody was counting titles like they are now. Same with the Australian. I didn't play that many, because it meant going down there in December, and it was just out of the question that I would leave my family during Christmas time". Antipodenz ( talk) 23:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The point about attempts to get the tournament to up the money is pertinent, particularly for the AO where it was significantly lower (and with it the respective points on offer) - these are key reasons why some chose not to attend - mostly it comes back to the financial incentive and while some contracts may have specifically 'banned' players from attending the references provided show that both boycotts (e.g. could go but determine not to on a group basis to make a point) and individual choice (not going there for that $) were involved.
The history section (paragraph starting with: "The United States Lawn Tennis Association ..." refers to the growing success of Australian tennis but at that time the membership of the ILTF and the representative team (e.g. Davis Cup) was from "Australasia". Recommend 'Australian' be replaced with 'Australasian'. Antipodenz ( talk) 21:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There is actually two issues here: - the sentence describes the internal politics of the USNLTA/ITLF so it is not a great fit to raise any Australasian issue here, including for the reason that it could implicate the Australasian representatives views in with the US demands; - the success of tennis can be attributed to a variety of factors including administration, events, public support, player results and so on and throughout the period referred to the representative 'national' organisation for tennis in the Commonwealth of Australia, representing the six states, and in New Zealand was jointly managed as Australasia including ILTF representation, Championship naming an organisation and so on. Discussing this period in relation to ILTF determinations should use 'Australasia' not 'Australia'. With reference to the comment "that was how it was written in the sources" I do not agree as it was not the way it was referred to at the time; subsequently there has been innapropiate use of 'Australia' in lieu of 'Australasia' due to reasons of ignorance and laziness and subsequently repetition bias; none of these reasons support maintaining something not correct - they should, actually, be reasons for careful consideration and ensuring, so far as is practicable, accuracy.
I noticed that all of the current tennis champions have been listed from all disciplines, except the Junior ones. Should I add the Junior winners to the list, or not? Qwerty284651 ( talk) 02:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
On various pages I've noticed "4R" under Grand Slam statistics. What does that mean? Wolf O'Donnel ( talk) 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the article about the Grand Slam. In this article there is a section titled "other related concepts" pertaining to Grand Slam. Some of those are "channel slam" ie French-Wimbledon combo, "surface slam" ie majors won on different surface, there's even "golden slam" ie adding non-slam tournament such as Olympics, and even "super slam" adding year end championships. It's all fine. There's even "pro slam" which is made of professional major tournaments. In this case we see that the "slam" label is being awarded rather generously considering some those tournanents have zero connection to ITF or to these 4 tournaments that grew into current grand slam events. So how is it then possible not to have "World slam" mentioned? No mention of WGCC(Wimbledon), WHCC and WCCC? It's bizarre. ITF was formed in 1913 and there were top three events in the world at the time, official ITF world championships, the 1.0 iteration of ITF majors, including Wimbledon itself. Please add section to "World Slam" and Wilding being crowned triple ITF world champion in 1913 winning all 3 official majors. 93.142.155.12 ( talk) 10:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)