Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records/Archive 1

Should this article be deleted?

It seems this is just a rehash of another article on wiki, Tennis statistics. Should we dump this article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have always been pro-split given that Tennis statistics is so long  Francium12  10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, this article should be updated sometimes. Kim Clijsters' November 2009 US Open victory is missing there. Didn't check, but then probably the 2010 Australian Open is also missing...82.141.95.126 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me to delete article, the other one is different, links to this at higher level - Jamie Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.160.14 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Margaret_Osborne_duPont#Mixed_doubles gives the subject 9 US Mixed doubles slams so according to that she should be the record on here not Court. Please verify. Jamie Fox, no account

I looked at it and from what I can see you are correct. I have changed it to reflect Ms DuPont is the record holder. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) here. It is not too big and would make a new section that fits in with the rest of the information found here. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen

Suzanne Lenglen of France actually had 12, not 8 "Grand Slam" singles titles.

http://tennis-champions.findthedata.org/q/19/1987/How-many-grand-slam-titles-has-Suzanne-Lenglen-won

Ryoung122 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WHERE IS SAMPRAS, AGASSI, NADAL, CONNORS, LENDL, ETC ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.80.129 (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Most wins on any given grand slam?

With Nadal being the record holder for men / single (8 FO wins) I was wondering if it was worth adding a section for 'Most wins on any given grand slam' or maybe add a column to an existing table like 'Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.1.16 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

@83.38.98.127: As for this edit, can you link to the MOS you refer to? Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what the MOS is? It's the manual of style. Everyone who edits should be familiar with it. It defines basic standards and formats for articles. You should also be familiar with the requirement to explain yourself when reverting. Merely saying "I reverted" is not helpful to anyone, and will only ever cause annoyance.

The MOS says that the title of the article should be in bold face in the lead section of the article. The article title, in this case, is "List of Grand Slam related tennis records". But the text in bold was "Grand Slam tournaments". Why did you want that text in bold?

The MOS also says that the lead section serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The fact that grand slam tournaments are also known as majors does not seem at all relevant to an article about the records set in these tournaments. Why did you want to mention it in this article? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to be condescending, of course I know what the MOS is. Please be respectful and simply link to the MOS guideline I asked for. That is a far more effective way to improve Wikipedia. See the list of five pillars on your talk page, in particular the fourth. Fair enough about asking me for a good edit summary, I'll be better with that next time. Remember that yourself too when editing. The text I bolded is part of the title and can be bolded by MOS:BOLDTITLE, although 'records' would probably need to be included. In tennis, 'Majors' is often used synonymous to 'Grand Slam', and mentioning that may help clarify the article topic better to certain readers. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me to "link to the MOS you refer to", that sounds like you don't know what the MOS is. Hence, I told you what it was.

"In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear."

Indeed the term is synonymous, but that's mentioned in Grand slam so the link can help to clarify the article topic if anyone reading it doesn't know what is meant by a grand slam. Do you think anyone is likely to search for "major related tennis records" or similar? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I never call them anything but Majors, as it's been for 80 years....so I might search for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Then one could argue for a redirect to be created, if there isn't already one. But how is the nomenclature of the tournaments actually relevant to the list of Grand Slam related records? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mixed doubles

With the same gender Doubles it's 4 titles per team and it's 4 titles per player but in the Mixed Doubles it's 3 titles per team and titles per player is undefined. Why is the titles per player undefined in the Mixed doubles? Mobile mundo (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done It was strange so I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing wheelchair results

This article does not include any records relating to Wheelchair Tennis divisions at any of the the Slams. Wheelchair Tennis has been an official open event at all the slams for over a decade. These players play world-wide throughout the year on a professional tour for purse money and earn ranking points in a system run by the ITF. They earn a living as pros like fully able-bodied pros and play at an elite level of their sport.

The comment was made by one contributor who erased my reference to Wheelchair Tennis that "The main events are implied" and that similarly this article does not include seniors/legends/champions tournaments or juniors. Juniors are amateurs and do not play for prize money. "Champions" or "legends" competitions don't play an "open" event. They play invitationals intended purely for entertainment and do not purport to be a competition based on some kind of objective draw of the world's best talent. Even the use of the term "main" events is descriptive and is always in the eye of the beholder. Wiki articles are intended to be factual. Including Wheelchair tennis in this article would include all open professional events at the majors. Also the use of "main events" is self perpetuating. Events become "main events" when they are covered in various media and people become aware that they are worthy of being watched. It is this continued omission of wheelchair tennis from media that self perpetuates the absence of knowledge about the sport.

It is now 10 years after all the majors themselves have included the Wheelchair divisions in their tournaments. At the 2017 US Open, two wheelchair events were played on Arthur Ashe Stadium. It is time to be as inclusive as are the majors themselves. If you are skeptical you have probably never seen a wheelchair tennis match at this level or likely misunderstand what the nature of this competition is. Wheelchair tennis competition is as much tennis as is a Roger vs. Rafa final. Skeptics should see players like 2017 US Open Men's Singles Champion, Stephane Houdet, play. His serve has been clocked at 100 mph from his chair in match play (even though from his chair he gives away at least 2.5 feet in height to the average standing male player). I invite you to see a snippet from a men's doubles match at 2015 Wimbledon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_qGTS1gDs

As it is, some noteworthy records of wheelchair tennis players are omitted that surely some readers would want to know: e.g., Esther Vergeer, holds 21 Grand Slam Women's Wheelchair Singles Titles. She was undefeated for about 10 years. If it were in the same article, readers can easily compare stats side by side (and draw their own conclusions). They could notice that Vergeer had more singles slam wins than Steffie Graf. Similarly, Stephane Houdet won the 2017 US Open at age 46y 7m. I presume that some readers interested in researching records in tennis would want to know that and compare him to the oldest Men Singles winner, Arthur Gore, the 1909 Winner of Wimbledon at 41y, 6m.

One note about comparisons: When we list champions, we use categories because they are usually descriptive and helpful. We separate out Men and Women in tennis. When we list boxing champions, we list them by weight division. We don't compare apples and oranges nor do we say we only include the "main" weight classes and decide that for the reader. We recognize that there are different abilities and capacities based on various factors -- in boxing divisions are by weight. When Floyd Mayweather, Jr. was a lightweight champion, no one said, "yeah but he can't beat John Ruiz or Lamon Brewster" who were heavyweight champions at the same same time. We recognized Mayweather and still do for his greatness in his weight categories. Nor do we only list male tennis players with the assumption that the best man of a given year could beat the best woman of the same year. We don't ask realistically pit Serena Williams against Roger Federer. It is an irrelevant question. They don't have the same genes - they are of different sexes. As a woman Serena does not have the testosterone that builds men's muscles to be generally stronger than women's. The comparison is neither relevant nor helpful.

The history of tennis is littered with inequality and bias. We all have some and hopefully grow in the process. Wikipedia's job is to provide reportorial objectivity. If we eliminate an entire category of tennis which is in the record books at these Opens, we fail to properly fulfill this mission. Tennis is more inclusive that this this article reflects and tennis continues to evolve...as should this article. I am happy to do the necessary work which is easily documented from a combination of the ITF Wheelchair Tennis website and from the majors themselves. ARichster (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be a wheelchair set of records also. However, their article weight is much smaller than men's and womens singles and doubles. But they are far more important than seniors/legends/juniors. I transcluded the text from our wheelchair champions article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wheelchair records

Could someone please delete Paralympics are Masters from the Wheelchair records section as they are not Grand Slam events? Mobile mundo (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed as requested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flags

Why are there nazi flags next to some German (pre war) players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao1968 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That was the flag they played under at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove the First-round losses section

I suggest we remove the Fewest career first-round losses section. It's of minor significance and seems kind of strange compared to the other items on this page. Plus it's somewhat skewed given that there were lots of byes in older generations of events. -Testpored2 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? If not I'll remove it. -Testpored2 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. Is is minor, yes. But no more so than participation... who cares about that? Or winning a title after saving match point? The chart has a pretty small footprint too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that those aren't that important either. But the Saving match point is appropriate after the other two "Won a title..." sections, and Participation is part of the other singles records pages. The first round section just seems like an outlier to me. -Testpored2 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Unisex tables.... really?

Some of these tables were getting way out of hand. We have mens and womens tables right next to each other we certainly don't need overkill unisex tables. The press or sources don't report stats that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. --Wolbo (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since?

A fair number of these records are incredibly old (LONG standing records)... Dare we add a "since" column? (given the combined tables; one for men and one for women). Date of record achievement?
I am able to do the work, but wanted to ask before being THAT bold... Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Career title leaders timeline

The men’s total is in my opinion een mass. Till French Open 2019 a player has to more titles than the previous holder. Now the definition a tie from 1999. Before 1999 a player has more titles. There are 3 options 1 to continue this mass 2 change it back to the previous definition. This means deleting Nadal & Djokovic. Change Sampras back to 2000. 3 changing the full table with ties. This means the woman’s table has also to change. Is we chose this definition.

My choice is option 2.

--Micnl (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NP Accuracy

There are many players here with a dubious to impossible 0-0 for wins-finals in listed Majors rather than a NP. Now the NP is useful to help clarify who went to what and there are some surprises (Brooke's at FO in 1928 perhaps) so the idea and detail is useful but it gets problematic when it is not clear. While it would be great if someone checked this off to determine the definite state it may be preferable if it is not clear to say so. Antipodenz (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "NP" means that the player never contested in the tournament/event, while "0-0" eans it played it, but never reached the final. So, nothing dubious or impossible here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I get the definition and your confidence which indicates a lot of checking has already been undertaken. When I refer to impossible it is aligned to periods when, for example, their active tennis years preceded the AO but are recorded as 0-0 and where their attendance for similar reasons at the FO and/or slim chance they qualified as a member of a French Club at this tournament make it dubious they entered and competed in it. Examples of these that have 0-0 recorded for the. AO and FO include: Reginald Doherty, Robert Wren, Arthur Gore, Wilfred Baddeley, Henry Slocum, Joshua Pim. Antipodenz (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Name correction

Tony Wilding is listed under the 5 titles for doubles table. While he has been known by that shortened version of his first name he was far more consistently known as Anthony Wilding e.g unique references in NZ papers for those (full) names to approx 1950 (comprehensive but not complete): Anthony 4,972; Tony 125. It has caused some confusion previously - recommend change to Anthony. Antipodenz (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Won title at first appearance (in main draw)

This looks to be very limited including only first year achieved of 1956 - is it intended to have a since ...? or does it need more research and adding names? Antipodenz (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is woefully incomplete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's that bad it should be removed as an published aspect of the article. Antipodenz (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Mabel Cahill

Two issue she: 1. She is listed under two flags for the same period, firstly U.K. Flag in section for Women title records for each tournament and the St Patrick's Saltaire (proxy flag for Ireland pre independent) for the triple crown achievement. Now both could be relevant but in this case I consider it best to refer to her personal Wikipedia page to determine this which shows the UK flag. 2. The triple champion list has this achievement for Cahill in both 1891 and 1892 but I understand the mixed doubles only started in 1892. So that would mean she is only a one time triple crown attainee. Antipodenz (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To add further to the triple crown issue. Cahill did play in and win the mixed doubles in 1891 but it was not an official part of the US National Championships and thus cannot be accorded a Championship title (she wasn't but the fact that the game was played has caused confusion). That means she should only be recorded as winning one triple crown, however it appears to me that the significance of this feat is not made clear. As this (1892) was the first triple crown for any of these tournaments, both for men and women, it would be approapriate to state this in the introductory text. Antipodenz (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Australasian Championships

The AO was officially known as the Australasian Championships until 1926 (Australian Championships from 1927); accordingly when referring to periods that included or were specific to pre-1927 the proper term should be used. Examples include at Most wins per event (where multiple titles are recognised but not Australasian Championships) and for the Championships won in the triple crown achievements of Daphne Akhurst Cozens (1925) and Jack Hawkes (1926). Antipodenz (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Won title at final appearance

This set is described as being for players who, after their last Grand Slam tournament, retire but it includes a number of players who did not retire but went on to play in professional tournaments. Antipodenz (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I have reverted a bad edit [1] from December. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Most wins per event

When different disciplines and/or disciplines for women are added to the tournament as part of the official programme the relevant year should be recorded e.g. 1892 for Mixed Doubles in the US Open. This helps make clear the opportunity (or not) various players had in being able to pursue titles and/or multiple titles. Antipodenz (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Most titles - Frank Sedgeman

Franks achievement of 22 titles is featured twice in this table Antipodenz (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. A bad row was added in [2]. I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

please Change 21 to rafa nadal. 216.73.160.165 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

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

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

Existence of All-Time Records

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 11 June 2023

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)

---

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)

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)

List of Grand Slam and related tennis records would certainly work. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments records OR List of Grand Slam tennis tournaments related records. Koyotto (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

Actually, by definition, Grand Slams are winning all four tournaments in a single year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Call to vote

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. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I vote for 1 also. 2 would be an improvement too. Oppose 3 and 4. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 is the best one presented yet IMO. ABC paulista (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

@Fyunck(click):, because there's multiple tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

I count 3 votes for option 2 List of Grand Slam and related tennis records. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Billie Jean King titles without losing a set

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)