Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022[edit]

Update Nadal winning the 21st Grand Slam K param (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Option 2 had most users sharing that opinion. Option one was also liked, but it seems like 2 better suits the article. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam–related tennis records → List of Grand Slam tennis records – In the interest of simplicity and conciseness I propose we drop the "–related" qualifier from the title. While it may be technically correct due to the Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics section, I don't think anybody will fault us for omitting it. This also avoids the MOS:SUFFIXDASH instead of a hyphen which some may find confusing. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not "List of Grand Slam and related tennis records"? That is more concise and omits the dash. When you have a section that includes Year-End Championship and Olympics it might be best to keep "related records" in the title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Grand Slam and related tennis records would certainly work. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer the current name, but I also support this option if it really has to be changed. ABC paulista (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would work. List of Grand Slam what? Winners? Tournaments? Records? Titles need to be clear and specific. I think your original title suggestion was better as I don't see an issue with dropping "–related". The current title is not bad either. Koyotto (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments records OR List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments related records. Koyotto (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 'tournaments' is necessary because Grand Slams are, by definition, tennis tournaments. Your second proposal still needs a dash. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by definition, Grand Slams are winning all four tournaments in a single year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call to vote[edit]

I am picking up 4 different title proposals:

  1. List of Grand Slam tennis records
  2. List of Grand Slam and related tennis records
  3. List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments records
  4. List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments related records
  • I vote for 1 also. 2 would be an improvement too. Oppose 3 and 4. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is the best one presented yet IMO. ABC paulista (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of these I would go with 2. One thing... in 3 and 4 why would tournament need to be pluralized to tournaments? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click):, because there's multiple tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think since Grand Slam tennis tournament already encompasses a plural quantity it is not needed. We have categories for "Grand Slam tournament champions" which is for all the events and i would think that this would be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count 3 votes for option 2 List of Grand Slam and related tennis records. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I reverted this article page move, "List of Grand Slam and related tennis records" sounds incredibly awkward in English. Related to what? I don't think this RM ran long enough. I don't think this change was widely supported. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, you can reopen this discussion and suggest a more suitable title name. I would have suggested a better name but couldn't come up with one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of All-Time Records[edit]

The pre-Open tennis world was a vastly different organization from the Open Era. Most notable were the inadmittance of professional players into the Grand Slam events. Prior to 1968, the best tennis players, the pros, were banned from participation in the Grand Slam events. This meant that for many of the greatest players, such as Vines, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver in particular, large numbers of Grand Slam tournaments were beyond their entrance capabilities.

Therefore, it seems to be reasonable that for Grand Slam records, there should be recognition of the fundamental distinction between the pre-Open Era and the Open Era. The greatest pre-Open tennis players were ineligible to be considered as Grand Slam champions, and GS records can have no meaning for pre-Open players. This means that there can be no genuine All-Time Grand Slam records, inasmuch as the game was not centrally connected to the Grand Slams prior to 1968. There can only be Open Era Grand Slam Records. Tennisedu (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with this premise. Yes, many of the best players could not compete pre-1968. These Grand Slam records are for those who did compete. It's as simple as that. Do they have less meaning... sure, but they are records nonetheless. Many couldn't compete in the French in the mid 70s. Russians couldn't compete at Wimbledon in 2022. The records that happen there still count as records. They have meaning even if they aren't perfect. And I don't know what you mean that the game was not centrally connected to the four majors. Sure it was. The pro tour was not centrally connected to the four majors... though the pro majors were often held in the same places or nearby. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Grand Slams were in a totally different context prior to 1968, they were strictly amateur events with the best tennis players ineligible to participate. There is absolutely nothing like that after 1968, all players were permitted to appear at the GS events. Therefore, GS records have a completely different significance before and after 1968, and that dividing line must be acknowledged in any reference to a GS record. Therefore, the post-Open era records are simply that, Open Era records, not All-Time records. Tennisedu (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. Not all the pros were better than all the amateurs. And not all the players were permitted to play in all the Grand Slam tournaments after 1968. We do not need a dividing line. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list is meant to tabulate and count records related to the Grand Slams for the sake of comparing and registering them, so it's pretty objective and straightforward. It's not meant to hold such subjective analysis, and for the numbers and tables a Grand Slam has the same value/meaning regardles of when and how it was held. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the GS achievement has a totally different meaning and significance before and after 1968, because the best players were excluded from competition before 1968. That creates a completely different significance with the onset of the Open Era. There is nothing subjective about that evaluation, it is clear cut and obvious. These records are not All-Time records but are specific to the Open Era. No one really cares about pre-1968 GS records because the top players typically turned pro and were removed from GS competition. Therefore the GS records totals before 1968 have no real significance.Tennisedu (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely subjective, controversial and unsupported personal point of view, and that's not the point of this list. Wherever you are right or not (which cannot be properly addressed by objective standards because it depends on personal opinions), the point of the list is to tally and agregate the Grand Slam's notable statistics, and in terms of numbering the era divide holds no notable significance.
Margaret Court, for example, is the woman who won the most Grand Slam titles, period. One can discuss about how significant were her titles, or how she compare with other very successful women like Serena, Graf, Navratilova or BJK, but nothing changes the fact that she won the most grand slams, regadless of context or significance. And it is in this way that this list works. It gives numbers and orders to the readers, not contextualization or subjective significance. ABC paulista (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a subjective point, it is a clear historical fact that the top players in the pre-Open era were not allowed to play in the Grand Slam events. That means that there is no comparison between pre-1968 and post-1968 Grand Slam total victories in a player's career, and the records which emerge from those GS events cannot be compared pre-1968 and post-1968. Therefore, there can be no All-Time GS records. This is a very simple observation. We made the same decision with regards to rankings, there are no All-Time rankings records, because the type of rankings before 1973 do not compare with the rankings post-1973. We removed all All-Time rankings records. I guess you missed that.
I agree that for the women, this problem does not really exist. There was a seamless transition in 1968 for the women, the amateur fields were the same as the post-1968 professional fields. However, that was not the situation for the men, quite the contrary. Tennisedu (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that it is a historical fact? It is very subjective in you assessment of black and white. Some pros could beat all the amateurs most nights... not every night. And that is mostly in the 50s and 60s.... not the earlier 1900s. But regardless of all of this, these are Grand Slam tournament records for every year, whether the fields were weak or strong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective points are "GS achievement has a totally different meaning and significance before and after 1968", that "No one really cares about pre-1968 GS records", that "GS records totals before 1968 have no real significance", that " there is no comparison between pre-1968 and post-1968 Grand Slam total victories in a player's career, and the records which emerge from those GS events cannot be compared pre-1968 and post-1968" and that "Therefore, there can be no All-Time GS records". These are your own personal views on the matter with no reliable back-up presented to validate your claims, thus rendering them as WP:POV. The ITF, ATP or WTA certainly don't share similar stances from yours, for example.
The rankings situation is uncomparably different to this one, because before ATP and WTA created their own rankings there were no official rankings which could be fitted together to their ones, just a bunch of unnoffical ones which often disageed with each other, and they didn't retroactively applied theirs to the years prior their creation, thus making fair comparisons hard, rendering tabulation useless. Meanwhile, the Grand Slams were created in 1924 by the ITF, who retrofitted this status for all editions of these tournaments that were held before the designation was created (except for Roland Garros which wasn't international before 1924) and they never lost their status since them, thus making comparison easier, objective and more straightforward. It's really like comparing apples to oranges. ABC paulista (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a historical fact that the best players pre-1968 did not play in the Grand Slam events, they were officially banned. That is clear history and every tennis writer acknowledges it. I do not see why you have trouble with that. The best players turned pro from Tilden in 1930, through Vines in 1933, Perry in 1936, Budge in 1938, Riggs in 1941, Kovacs in 1941, Kramer in 1947, Segura in 1947, Gonzales in 1949, Sedgman in 1952, Trabert in 1955, Rosewall in 1956, Hoad in 1957, Laver in 1963. All of these players could not play in the Grand Slam events, and career GS counts meant nothing to the pre-1968 players for that reason. That is not my personal POV but is a basic fact of tennis history.
As I pointed out above, we no longer include pre-1973 tennis rankings in the rankings records, because the older rankings used a different system. There were some objective point rankings used by the pros in some years prior to 1973, (specifically 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967), so that was not the criterion for excluding pre-1973 rankings. The reason was that there split fields pre-1968 which meant that there were no official comprehensive pro/amateur rankings. The ITF had no power to do anything about that. The same rule applies for Grand Slam records. Again, that was no one's POV, but just a commonsense decision by the Wikipedia tennis editors.
Your point about the GS status beginning in 1924 does not make sense, because the professional players were excluded from participation, and the GS records pre-1968 do not reflect the full tennis fields. The ITF was unable to do anything about that with the result that GS events were not reflective of the best tennis pre-1968 and the results of those GS events meant little and could not be compared to the post-1968 records. Tennisedu (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It is a historical fact that the professional players pre-1968 did not play in the Grand Slam events, I don't have trouble with that. What I don have trouble with is with your assessements that, because of such, "GS achievement has a totally different meaning and significance before and after 1968", that "No one really cares about pre-1968 GS records", that "GS records totals before 1968 have no real significance", that " there is no comparison between pre-1968 and post-1968 Grand Slam total victories in a player's career, and the records which emerge from those GS events cannot be compared pre-1968 and post-1968" and that "Therefore, there can be no All-Time GS records". These are neither historical facts, nor are opinions widely agreed upon, as you didn't present sources to corroborate with your view. One thing doesn't automatically means the other, these are mere conjecture with no weight on objective tallying.
About the Rankings situation, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even if one consensus was reached there doesn't mean that it has to be applied elsewhere. Also, it doesnt matter how objective the pre-1973 rankings were, they were still unofficial, were not adopted by the official associations (ATP, WTA and ITF) and applied distinct methodologies and criteria over the current official ones, so it doesn't matter how credible these prior rankings were, comparing them with the official ones would not be proper since the associations and federations themselves don't seem to agree on them.
About the ITF, they are the maximum organisational body on tennis and the main administrators of the Grand Slam tournaments, so if they state that these tournaments had Grand Slam status since then, they were period. When it comes to official status, it doesn't matter the strengh of the field, participaltion criteria, or subjective status given by third-parties. The only thing that matters is that the ITF themselves regard them as Grand Slam tournaments, so they do count as much as any other one, and thus have the same treatment applied overall. ABC paulista (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a useless thread that will not gain any traction. I guess now that they allow pros in the Olympics we have to scrap all the older Olympic records too, as if they didn't exist. Not gonna happen. Time to move on and stop writing a book here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, but just to clear up some of your points above, many pre-1973 points rankings were official and were approved by the professional organizations. Take a look at the Wikipedia article "Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_pro_tours_and_tournament_ranking_series#Tournament_ranking_series). The 1946 points ranking was organized by the P.P.A.T. (Professional Players Association of Tennis) which involved every touring professional that year, the 1959 points ranking involved all twelve of the touring pros to determine the official ranking, and the 1964-1967 points ranking was the official ranking of the I.P.T.P.A. (International Professional Tennis Players Association) whose members involved all of the touring pros. The larger amateur tennis world had their own rankings by journalists which were subjective and not by points and were unofficial. Tennisedu (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any of them are acknowledged and accepted by the current organizations and federations, like ITF, ATP and/or WTA and are incorporated, integrated into their own record-keeping? If not, my point stand still. ABC paulista (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, none of them have been challenged by the current tennis authorities, so, yes, these pro point rankings from 1946, 1959, 1960 (which was not reported in the media), 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 have essentially all been accepted. None of these rankings were affiliated with the ITF, which did not have involvement with the organization of pro tennis before 1970. The ATP is a successor organization to previous professional player organizations such as the PPAT of 1946 and the IPTPA of 1960-1967. The WTA began in 1968, and there were no professional women tennis organizations prior to that, as far as I know. Whether or not ATP or ITF includes records of these point rankings in their own info-base is irrelevant, of course. They have historical reality and are included in the article above in Wikipedia. I think that ATP does not include pre-1968 professional tennis results in its info-base and includes only amateur results from before 1968, a rather blinkered approach. Here is the ATP records for Ken Rosewall, and apparently Ken did not play any tennis between 1957 and 1968, as far as the ATP are concerned. The pro world never existed, apparently. https://www.atptour.com/en/players/ken-rosewall/r075/titles-and-finalsTennisedu (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The acceptance is the one that has to be proven, not otherwise. The burden of the proval is on their acknowledgement, and in the face of neither explicit acceptance nor explicit refusal, a direct connection cannot be established, (be it because that they don't have enough notability or relevance to the current authorities be noted by them, or they refuse to acknowldge them, or whatever reasoning that can be speculated), so a direct comparison cannot be properly established, per WP:NPOV. I mean, it doesn't seem that ATP itself recognizes the PPAT, the IPTPA or any other professional association as its predecessor. Like you said, they only acknowledge amateur results pre-Open Era. ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the ATP do not include pro data from 1930 to 1968 in their data base. So that means that their acknowledgement of the point ranking lists in 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 is not even an issue here. However, Kramer himself who initiated the 1970 ILTF points list and the subsequent ATP system was also the one who organized the points system for the pro tour in 1959, 1960, 1964-1967. So there was organizational continuity from the old pro points systems to the ATP post-1973 points systems. But what is relevant is that Wikipedia has acknowledged the point rankings from those years in the articles related to the old pro era, I linked the major one above. That is what we are concerned about here, the decisions already made by Wikipedia tennis articles, not the ATP.Tennisedu (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jean King titles without losing a set[edit]

King has an inclusion for Wimbledon 1972 but she did lose a set in that tournament (eg Wade in Quarters) - however she won the French Open that year without losing a set and it appears this is a transcription error as the 1972 link takes one to the French Open website for that year. Antipodenz (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Grand_Slam_and_related_tennis_records&oldid=1202578637"