Talk:Steffi Graf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nickname

Isn't her title "Fräulein Forehand", with the umlaut, as it is correct German? Lecartia

Yes, that's true! (Carsten; Nürnberg/Germany)

No, it should be Fraulein Forehand, without the umlaut - it's a nickname created by an English-speaking commentator and in its use by English-speaking commentators, it is pronounced 'Fraw-line', as if there is no umlaut.

Btw her German Nickname ist "Gräfin", because Graf means Count [title of nobility] and Gräfin is a female Count. --85.197.15.212 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Steffi Graf quit the Roman Catholic church around 1998

Steffi Graf quit the Roman Cathoic church around 1998. MIght have been for tax reason, but we cannot really tell. From [1] . Brickbats by Charles Oliver:

Tennis player Steffi Graf says she quit the Roman Catholic Church for "personal reasons." But others say that she could have been one of the thousands of Germans who have left their churches to save on taxes. Since the days of the Weimar Republic, Germany has collected a tax from members of organized religion to fund those churches. Only members of unrecognized faiths, such as Islam or Scientology, are exempt. The tax is now 8 percent or 9 percent of a person's income. But those who aren't members of a church don't have to pay, prompting many to leave their churches. -- Pinktulip 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

She is a famous person who has been all over TV, etc and there is no picture of her?

yes, and also someone teach me how to put a picture on articles.Tennislover 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add a picture 206.126.81.95 03:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

The facts sections states her highest ranking as #5. Wasn't she ranked #1 for like 377 weeks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.153.2 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 August 2006.

Well singles and doubles have seperate rankings. I have removed the editprotected template until there is a consensus to change the doubles-ranking. Singles are already at 1. Agathoclea 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Major tournament singles performance timeline

The row detailing Graf's Australian Open performance is incomplete or the chart was not correctly constructed. A person familiar with creating these charts should review and fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Modeling career

She has appeared in plenty of photo shoots and there is no mention of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.142.146 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Considered to be one of the greatest of all time

"She is generally considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time." Maybe, but it's horribly bad style to include this in an encyclopedia article intro without introducing at least one lousy reference. You see, just about every single extraordinarily successful sportsperson (especially Tennis players, it seems) is "considered to be one of the greatest of all time". I am intending to make this bad habit stop, because it is generally considered to be necessary for any information to be verifiable. <humour with a hint of seriousness>Death to fan cruft inserters!</humour with a hint of seriousness>. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that intro style, either. But it seems to be used with many sports stars. When I have time, I will try to work in the quotes of Navratilova, Evert, and Billie King, all of which greats in their own rights who share the opinion that Graf was the greatest seen in women's tennis.Ernham 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotes from Navratilova, Evert, and King are already in the article.Tennis expert 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They are, indeed. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though. The point is that they decrease "weaselness" to vague "greatest" statements.Ernham 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are what they said and indicate when they said them. If you can find 2006 or 2007 quotes where they unequivocally say that Graf was the "greatest of all time," then I would have no problem with you adding the quotes. But when Navratilova said something in 1996 or King said something in 1999 about Graf's career, it's important to note when they said them because of the players who have come along since. As for Evert, I found the source you recommended and added the appropriate information. Tennis expert 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They said what they said. You sure said it. Date information is usually available via examining the cite, one of the main reasons cites even exist. You expect Evert , King, or Navratilova to update you on a weekly basis on who they think the greatest is? If you have a quote saying they no longer feel Graf is the greatest, share it. If not, you have not a leg to stand on. Ernham 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I still have both my legs and stand on them regularly. If the article said, "Billie Jean King has said that Graf is the greatest player of all time," without noting the fact that she said it in 1999, then the article implies that's her current belief. It is misleading to readers not to note specifically the year in which she said it. I do not serious doubt that I could find a 1973 quote from a still-alive tennis commentator saying that "Margaret Smith Court is the greatest player of all time." If I added that to her article without explaining when the quote was provided, then I would be misleading readers and verging on POV pushing. Tennis expert 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As said, the onus is on you to find a quote by them stating they have changed their minds about Graf. Go find whatever you want about Court and put it in her wiki; it's sure going to be less weasel than the "one of the greatest" intro already there that does not supply anything backing that title up. For someone that edits a ton, you srue seem to be pretty clueless about wikipedia. Ernham 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet more incivility from you.... Tennis expert 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Stop saying such absurd things, then. You can't expect someone to make daily updates on who they think was the greatest all time "whatever" at. You just don't like the fact that they think it's Graf, that's all. And you can take your POV-laden agenda and beat it.Ernham 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She IS the greatest female player of all time and not just one of the greatest. You should write that. I appreciate the achievements of all the other great female players in history but the fact that Steffi was unbelievable succesfull on ANY surface till the last day of her career makes it obvious to anybody that she was the best. Not to talk about her great behaviour on and off the court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.236.94.137 (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for my edits

As the article was extremely sparse in many areas of Steffi's career I added a lot of information detailing her form over the years, her injuries,and her achievements. I use games lost per tournament as a relatively accurate gauge of her relative form in that tournament. For example, when she only lost 20 games in total at the 1988 French Open she was dominant in a way she rarely equalled again. In using this measure I'm not alone; it's frequently mentioned in publications such as "The Guinness Book Of Tennis Facts And Feats" as a measure of player dominance. However, "Tennis-Expert" seems to have some problem with it - but ONLY sometimes. He/she leaves it in most of the times but keeps removing the reference to her losing 48 games at the 1990 Australian Open. And "tennis-expert" keeps undoing my edits without manually correcting them for some obscure reason - which I guess why he keeps his own grammatical errors from his earlier version intact. And he seems to have a problem with the information that Steffi was the youngest player ever to win 500 careert-matches. Surely this is relevant to her achievements? And why he keeps cutting out the fsct that she lost 19 matches to seven different players from 1991-April 1993 is a mystery as well: surely this information is vital in ascertaining how much Steffi's fall from the top was due to Seles and how much to other players?

And he objects to my using terms like "lost badly". Well, if all he wants is a bare summary of her Grand Slam wins and losses why have any text at all outside the tabels at the bottom of the article? Encyclopaedia's aren't as dry as he makes out: read the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and see how many times they use terms that aren't entirely dry and scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LJSO (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC) LJSO 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 11:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tennis expert's" POV pushing and agenda edits

What is with this guy thinking his POV is reality? He has an entiere history of trying to bully people with repeated edit warring. Why is he still allowed to edit this and other pages???!? Dude. This wiki is about Graf, not Margret Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The open era of tennis and the "pre-open era" tennis is as different as amatuer versus pro stats. Everyone talks aqbout PROFESSIONAL results, they do not get into amateur record. This was clearly an attempt by one user who has a history of NPOV agenda edits and edit warring to make more relevant a handful of pre-open era tennis players.66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides you, who says that "everyone talks about PROFESSIONAL results, they do not get into amateur record"? You and who else? I have read and cited many tennis histories in many Wikipedia tennis articles. And I can assure you that results across the pre-open era and the open era are compared constantly. I am not making relevant a "handful of pre-open era tennis players." That's a ridiculous assertion, aside from being incivil. Tennis expert (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Final stages of her career

One of the highlights of the last leg of her career was her playing mixed doubles with John McEnroe--216.165.4.171 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt either McEnroe or Graf would say it was a "highlight." Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Split article

I would highly suggesting putting all the tables, records, statistics, etc into a separate article.- Levineps (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam Graph

What happened to the graph that shows when she won slams and when she didn't? Almost every other tennis player has some type of non-narrative element that depicts each slam result. I know she used to have one, but I don't know why anyone would get rid of it. Fdssdf (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

203.84.95.183

Is she a US citizen by now?

No,she's still German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffistism (talk • contribs) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sleeveless Top

Steffi never wear a tank top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.140.30 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Ms M. Court any important to S. Graf, that she is mentioned in the second sentence? It looks a bit forced into this article and might be better mentioned further down... ? 11:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.203.226 (talk)

Steffi

It is rather upsetting to learn that there is but one photograph of Steffi Graph on a page dedicated to her; I think of her to be one of the most beautiful women to grace the tennis court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.94.147 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

best player ever

I remember reading a long time ago an article, where she was not considered the greatest because the weak level of her opponents at the time. Can't remember when it was or who wrote it. It was probably in one of my old tennis magazines, I think I should check them sometime. 85.217.14.140 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

goes by 'Stephanie' now

It looks like she goes by 'Stephanie' and not 'Steffi' now. I guess though that the page should stay named at 'Steffi Graf', as that was what she went by when she became famous (passed WP:Notability) Mayumashu (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

should stay as per common name GAtechnical (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Stefanie, not Stephanie.93.203.44.7 (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Most lopsided defeat

This record is easily verified by going to WTA, for example, and finding the wimbledon records for all the number one ranked players for a given years and seeing their performance at wimbly. The stat is constantly trotted out during wimbledons when people are getting beaten badly. It's common knowledge, something a "tennisexpert" would surely know.Ernham 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First, your comment is incivil. Second, if it is "common knowledge," you should be able to find and cite a source for the information within just a couple of minutes. This is your burden because you are the editor wanting to add the information to the article. Tennis expert 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The cite is simply wimbledon tournament results. Easily verifiable. Your continued abuse of this wiki I will not tolerate. You continually apply a double standard in your editing of tennis players. If you cannot be bothered to check a simple tournament report for ~30 years(since ratings began), I find it striking you "allow" all sorts of much more convoluted, assumptive, extravagant and calculation oriented stats in wikis such as Roger Federer's, which I know you edit daily. Where does your hatred for Graf come from, hmmm? Ernham 12:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And before you bother to demand formal proof from a notary republic or somesuch over the Evert comments(Gosh, it must be revolting to you that one of the greatest female tennis players ever think Graf was the greatest female tennis player, eh?), they are from ESPN classics interview with her, which I'm trying to get the info on for a formal APA cite.Ernham 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit using the comparison with male players. It isn't valid. The male game is much harder and Federer, for example, would probably win every slam every damn year on the female tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.183.138 (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Federer? Not with female genes. 93.203.44.7 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this...

(from an outsider's perspective)

I agree with what's been said about "greatest player" being thrown about all over the place with all sorts of athletes - most of my most recent edit work has been rewording these kinds of flaky claims into something more reasonable.

But if you look at Graf's accomplishments, most notably the 22 Grand Slam titles, and compare to those of her peers, I can't conceive of a list of five or more "greatest female tennis players", by any standard, that doesn't include her.

If you insist on semantics, try something like "...among the most dominant female tennis players..." or "...among the most successful female tennis players..."

If that doesn't work, you might want to consider leaving this one alone - and moving on to editing articles of other athletes whose careers were not quite as prolific - Jerry Rice, for instance.

Peace,  Cdcon  06:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About the only other possibilities(still living) for the "greatest" female tennis players have all themselves said Steffi was the greatest. This is probably the worst wiki one could pick for worrying about that being in the lead.Ernham 15:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My inclination is to remove the sentence "She is generally considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time." I believe the policy concerning weasel words applies here.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

Kingmundi 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Might want to read the following 4 paragraphs.Ernham 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By "the following 4 paragraphs" do you mean the paragraphs after the sentence "She is generally considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players of all time." in the article? The sentence seems to follow along the lines of the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." Let me quote the passage that seemed to apply. It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way, for example, "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of the facts that support the assertion: "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team." Kingmundi 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is puerile. It is impossible to determine who the "greatest player of all time" is because players from the various decades did not play each other, surfaces, venues and equipment have changed and even the rules of the game have changed. What amazes me is how people "edit" the pages on Evert, Navratilova and Graf by removing text from one (for example, such as comments regarding whether a player entered a particular grand slam event during certain years or not) but leaving the same text in another. The only thing this whole useless exercise proves is that there are several individuals out there with an agenda, which is to promote the player THEY have decided was the greatest ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montydad (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User Tennis_expert reverts all attempts to remove the sentence "Graf is widely considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players in history." This appears to be covered in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words I have linked getting a third opinion to here to get more opinions on this matter. Kingmundi (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a gross exaggeration. There's been one (and only one) attempt that I've reverted. Tennis expert (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "That's a gross exaggeration" follows from "I've only reverted it once." Maybe there was only one attempt, which would mean that you reverted all of them. I haven't looked at the edit history, so I don't know. It would, however, make your case stronger (to an outsider at least) if you stated exactly how many times it's been changed and compare that to the number of times you have reverted it. 67.71.158.63 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

The text is pure WP:WEASEL and shouldn't be included. First off, "widely" can't be accurately quantified, and neither can "greatest." It's WP:SYNthesis to take a number of sources and draw a conclusion off of them. If you want to say "She is considered to be a successful tennis player," then that's another thing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really. How do you define "successful"? Is there an objective, quantifiable definition of that term somewhere? If people like Billie Jean King specifically say that Graf is the "greatest" of all time (which she has said), changing their words to "successful" is inaccurate and a misquote. The article gives examples of where Graf has been described as the greatest or one of the greatest of all time. It is neither weasely, a synthesis, nor unsourced. Tennis expert (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you revert attempts to change the sentence "She is widely considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players in history." and/or attempts to apply the weasel word tag to it? Have you read the wikipedia entry concerning weasel words? Have you not noticed that a third opinion was requested by an outside source, and that they agreed that the sentence is a weasel word sentence? Kingmundi (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

5 consecutive grand slams, etc.

In the first paragraph, there is the following statement:

"She is the only player, male or female, to win 5 consecutive grand slams (1988 Australian Open to 1989 Australian Open) and 7 grand slams out of 8 in 2 calendar years (1988 Australian Open to 1989 US Open, except 1989 French open)"

Firstly, Maureen Connolly and Margaret Court have each won six grand slam tournaments, consecutively. If you have won six tournaments consecutively, it follows that you must also have won five consecutively. Therefore Steffi Graf is not the only player to have won five consecutive grand slams. I believe she is the only player to have won exactly five, but this is still not even an Open Era record (Court did this between 1969 and 1970.)

Secondly, Margaret Court won seven out of eight grand slams during the calendar years of 1969 and 1970 (again, during the Open Era.) Therefore the second statement about Graf being the only player to win seven grand slams during two calendar years, is also not true.

Rather than delete the information, I have reworded it slightly, to remove the appearance of Graf holding records in these areas, and moved it into the paragraph discussing her versatility across all surfaces. Even if not records, I think these achievements are very impressive and still deserve to be mentioned.HMS Rodney (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions you should consider creating an account and possibly joining Wiki Project Tennis--Navops47 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And Navratilova also won 6 straight Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Greatest of all time"

An IP editor is repeatedly entering into the lead the "fact" that Graf is no longer considered by many to be "the greatest of all time", based on the fact that some pundits now rank Serena Williams this. There are a few problems with this.

• It is possible for many people to have differing opinions on this. The fact that some consider Williams greatest does not necessarily mean that others don't consider Graf greatest.
• It is possible for the articles for both players to state that they are "regarded by many to be the greatest female tennis player of all time". It's just opinion.
• None of the cites indicate a change of mind by anyone.
• The way it is being worded suggests to the reader there has been some kind of official hand-over of this "greatest" recognition. There hasn't. It's just opinions.
• The opinion that some hold about Williams is irrelevant to Graf's article. In the same way that Williams' article doesn't discuss opinions about Graf.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversial Court mention

It's highly inaccurate to just casually mention that Court has 24 slams without ANY qualification whatsoever. The majority of Courts wins are pre-Open Era (13) and the majority of those were in highly uncompetitive Australia, 7. It's not just as if it were 3 or 4, it was the majority. They make the distinction between Open-Era Slams and pre-Open Era tournaments for a good reason: They are completely different! Just to give an example: of Courts seven pre-Open Aussie Era wins, two had just four matches, five she played for 5 matches, because she got a bye EVERY time. In one she had a walkover ... in the final! In one only 27 players competed, in another 39. Out of the 322 competitive players in those seven tournaments, only 8 were foreigners, half of whom lost the first rounds. Graf surely needed seven wins, not just four. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is never 'inaccurate' to mention a fact, at worst it can be misleading. The undisputed fact is that Court won 24 Grand Slam tournaments. The clear distinction which you claim between Open-Era and pre-Open Era is valid on the men's side (but we don't change their GS title count because of it), but it is largely irrelevant on the women's side. There was no real women's pro tour after WWII and few female players in those days turned pro (Althea Gibson is an exception). It is true the Australian Championships / Open was seen as the weakest GS during Court's career, but they were nevertheless valid Grand Slam titles and need to be mentioned as such. Also the weakness of the Australian Championships should not be exaggerated. Between WWII and the Open Era it was won by six world-class American players (Hart, Brough, Connolly, Fry, Richey, King) and during the period in which Court won her Australian pre-Open Era titles leading foreign players like Bueno, Truman, Hard, Jones, Casals and King competed as well as strong compatriots like Lesley Turner Bowrey. Besides, when we start interpreting and assessing the quality of a player's Grand Slam title count we run the risk of opening a can of worms and ending up in WP:OR territory.--Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What you are wishing to indulge in here is original research. That's not allowed. Your analysis of the merits of Court's wins are not suitable for inclusion, particularly in the lead of an article not about her. If you really think that a point needs to be made, please find a reliable source that makes it, and add it to Margaret Court's article, not here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, noting the number of Pre-Open slams is not opinion, it's a fact. All I want is a qualified mention, because the way it is now, it's misleading. Fact remains, slams pre-open era are different from Open Era. You're free to say they've the same value, but you're not free to not mention it. When Budge or Renshaw get mentioned when discussing Nadal and Federer it's ALWAYS noted that they were pre-Open Era. The arguments about Seles and Henin are TOO opinion. No-one knows what would have happened if they had been in the game 100%, that's mere speculation. But that Court won 13 slams in the Pre-Open Era is not an opinion. Also, that there's no difference between pre-open era and open era on the womens side is speculation. If the rules had been changed earlier, who knows how more competitive women's tennis might have become? The thing is, we do not know either way. Therefor, that is opinion --CrashTestSmartie (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said; produce a source discussing this, then add it to Margaret Court's article, not here. I don't think it'll come as a surprise to the reader that some slams were won easier than others. For a million different reasons. But to start drawing distinctions between them, in the middle of the lead paragraph about someone else entirely, is going off on a tangent that is overly detailed, just confusing and not obviously relevant to the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think especially in the lead it's unwarranted. Steffi got a BIG boost when Monica Seles was stabbed so in that same sentence we could put (22 Majors - but 11 post Seles stabbing)... and constantly hammer that home. Or with Serena we could put that she won 20 majors but actually put it as 8 pre-Henin retirement and 12 post Henin retirement) since Henin retired while No. 1. to have kids and heal some injuries. Clijsters retirement helped Serena a great deal too. But no.. we simply say the in history Serena Williams has won 20 majors. That's all that's needed. In Graf's article we say that she surpassed Helen Wills record 19 majors. That's all we need. However in Helen Wills article we may point out that travel to Australia was long and arduous so she never went there, or that in her last 5 years of play Helen Wills only played two majors, and won them both at Wimbledon. She'd have had 35 major wins without working a sweat which would have been untouchable today. But instead we usually just say "Helen Wills is 4th on the all-time list with 19 majors." Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "Grand Slam" vs "Majors"

having won each of the four Grand Slams at least four times

The four competitions (the Australian Open, the French Open, the US Open, and Wimbledon) are called "Majors". Any player who wins all four majors is said to have had a "Grand Slam" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.115 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Majors is more accurate and has been in existence much longer. But actually it should say "having won each of the four Major tournaments at least four times" or "having won each of the four Grand Slam tournaments at least four times." What is written now is very inaccurate indeed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The term "Grand Slam tournament" is the same as "Major tournament". --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a lot easier to write "Majors" than "Grand Slam Tournaments". Especially when it's over and over and over in an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Records

The "Records" section contains no cites and has a lot of ridiculously specific, trivial and made-up "records". I expect that if you keep adding qualifications to the "records", any tennis player would be able to boast dozens of these Stands alone records. Especially if there is no attempt to verify them. On this basis, here's a few more (not entirely serious) to add.

• Most aces scored in one match after a lunch of a cheese and pickle sandwich - 4 - Stands alone
• Winning streak on Tuesdays across the month of June - 90% - Stands alone
• Wins over opponents with the middle name "Jane" during calendar year 1988 - 3 - Stands alone

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Love it, and you are 100% correct. This happens to a lot of our tennis champion articles these days.... frivolous records that no one on earth talks about. For the record I think Tarzan has the most wins over opponents with first names of Jane. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Steffi Graf 23 stand alone records (considered excessive) versus Novak_Djokovic#Records 68 stand alone records (just a tad excessive) with no citations at all and with no original research notice so have just added it.--Navops47 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but all you've added is a source for the original research in these "records". For instance, you cited the "4 consecutive German Open title wins record" to http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/2718/title/steffi-graf#stats . Where on this page does it say that Graf has won four consecutive German Open titles, and that this has never been equalled by any other player?

The cite has to actually say this (or words to that effect). It's not good enough to expect the reader to work this out from the stats on the page, and then go compare them with every other possible player. That's the very essence of original research. Otherwise I could cite the same page and slice and dice the stats any way I liked to create another "record". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So how do you write them e.g. Graf was the International Tennis Federation World Champion a record seven times (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996) source:https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/stefanie-graf/ or Graf became the only player male or female player in history to win each of the four major singles titles at least four times. Source: https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/stefanie-graf/ or The German also placed a stranglehold on the world No. 1 ranking for 377 cumulative weeks, the longest reign of any male or female player in history. Source:https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/stefanie-graf/ if you can use those words and attribute the tables will get very large to fit all the words in and if you can't find the exact words you have to remove them? If do that that would mean around 80% of current records on players articles have to be removed because an awful lot of them don't source word for word and use official stat pages so when a reader comes to look at at a page for e.g. Djokovic's his current 98 stated records should be parred down to 10 that's better?. My issue constantly on here is finding word for word sourcing is nigh on impossible requires a substantial amount of time as I have had to do with the all times records article also as this is a webased platform I think its very wrong to penalize players achievements because they were a victim of them not living in the internet age and the posting of source content was not available prior to 1995 to verify information which again pisses me off. Finally give tennis readers more credit I have 4 nephews who are avid tennis fans and play I told them about the different record articles on here they are intelligent enough to work out information and evaluate for themselves and as Wikipedia does not conduct annual readership intelligence feedback surveys to see how smart or stupid there readers are you would assume that visitor traffic to tennis articles and particularly those to do with statistics are being viewed by people who are keen sport fans and are more than able to work things out for themselves instead of complaining and as you are a member of tennis project also be helpful and try to improve the records sections yourself instead of going around like a one man the citation law enforcement agency looking at your past edit history on this article between 2008 and present you have made many edits to complain about sources: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Escape+Orbit&page=Steffi_Graf&server=enwiki&max= and yet no positive effort to improve the article by finding some yourself.--Navops47 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Navops47: That's not how Wikipedia works. Every statement in the article has to be sourced to a reliable source that supports that exact statement. So, for example, for the statement that Djoković holds a record for "defeating all Top 10 players in a season", we need a source that says exactly that: that Djoković has defeated all Top 10 players in a season and that he is the only one who's done that. It is not enough to cite statistic tables and/or lists of matches, that would be original research. Your argument that readers are intelligent enough to deduce the information from those tables is not a valid argument. By that argument, we don't need references and sources at all. Readers are intelligent enough to go to Google or to the library and find sources. But, that's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:V, [...] material whose verifiability [...] is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. The word "directly" is crucial here. Tables and lists support the material indirectly, not directly. So, yes, all those records that cannot be verified by direct sources should be removed. I know that you think that is bad, but that is the logic of Wikipedia: if something can't be found in reliable sources, than it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So can you explain these viewpoints to me DO I HAVE TO CITE SOURCES FOR EVERY FACT I USE? No. You do not have to cite sources for facts that are not the result of unique individual research. Facts that are readily available from numerous sources and generally known to the public are considered "common knowledge," and are not protected by copyright laws. You can use these facts liberally in your paper without citing authors. If you are unsure whether or not a fact is common knowledge, you should probably cite your source just to be safe. Please visit Purdue's guide, "Deciding if Something is Common Knowledge. SourceL: "http://www.plagiarism.org/ask-the-experts/faq/ and again Categories of Common Knowledge Widely known facts source: http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342055 and again Deciding if something is "common knowledge" source: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/2/ and this from MIT is where I am coming from "What is Common KnowledgeYou may have heard people say that you do not have to cite your source when the information you include is “common knowledge.” But what is common knowledge? Broadly speaking, common knowledge refers to information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. This includes:Information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.Information shared by a cultural or national group, such as the names of famous heroes or events in the nation’s history that are remembered and celebrated. Knowledge shared by members of a certain field, such as the fact that the necessary condition for diffraction of radiation of wavelength from a crystalline solid is given by Bragg’s law.However, what may be common knowledge in one culture, nation, academic discipline or peer group may not be common knowledge in another". Having looked at various university sites you only cite if you are using somebody else's words, word for word and in the case of these records that applies if those statements were borrowed from a source and that has not been properly cited and these records IMO are common knowledge.--Navops47 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's also true, not everything needs to be sourced. Only items that could likely be challenged need be sourced... not commonly known things. However those commonly known things, while not needing sources, could almost always be easily sourced if need be. We just don't need it. I don't look at these record lists as having to be ironclad and rigidly enforced, some flexibility is really needed. On the other hand when you see records listed that are talked about by no one on earth, I start to scratch my head and ask for a source that talks about that type of record. Something that shows that's it's important. One thing though on the Graf example above. If the WTA or German Open websites have a entire list of winners that shows Graf won 4 consecutive German Open's, and that same list shows no other player has won 4 consecutive championships, I don't think it's original research when that fact is staring you in the face. The chart is there, and the fact is there. We don't need to be silly in OR interpretation. Whether or not it's trivial is of course debatable. The thing is books and magazines talk about German Open winners. They don't talk about things like a player winning the French Open, the Miami Open and the China Open in the same year (stand alone). If it's something that isn't sourced as being noteworthy, it's trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the problem with these "records" is not that the cited source has to be worked out to verify them, but that there is no indication anywhere, other than in this article, that they are significant. Who decided that winning four consecutive German Open titles is a "record" of any significance? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But Wikipedia should not be the one deciding that. That is why I say the source actually has to say it. The source has to have decided it is a "record" and it is of note. Otherwise, as I said, I could take the stats and construct dozens of records that I, in my my opinion, think are significant, even if absolutely no-one else does. And then I could argue that the figures are there for anyone to verify, and easily worked out. But this is where it is obvious that the line has been crossed into original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot also depends on where the record is located. If you are on the German Open wiki page, it is perfectly fine to say that Steffi Graf has the record for consecutive wins. It is significant to that tournament. In fact, it needs that in prose. But to say it's significant outside that specific arena is a different story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay all points noted but in future please don't just single out one article with a notice when other player articles that have far more records that are out of control and no citations have no notice on them be balanced and apply it to all or none at all.--Navops47 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The size of Wikipedia makes it impossible to do this. And just because guidelines are being ignored on one article is not an excuse for it to occur on another. We can only do some much as individuals and encourage other editors to do the same. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency under "Records"

If only records achieved since the "open era" (1968) count, Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers shouldn't be in there. But if they do count, Maureen Connolly should be mentioned. She won the Grand Slam the only year she entered the four events. An accident ended her career at age 19. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Connolly. Either way, maybe the heading could explain a little more clearly which situation applies. Minicarmen (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Greatness RfC that may affect this article

Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Non calendar year Grand Slam in the open era

The record of achieving a non-calendar year Grand Slam is recorded as being matched by Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams but it was also achieved by Margaret Court (1969 US Open to 1970 Wimbeldon). Also the record of a GS and a non-calendar year Grand Slam is stated to be Stand Alone, but Court also achieved this. Antipodenz (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying periods of applicability to records achieved

There are various records that have no qualification or notation to advise the periods that can apply to various specific and/or combinations of records. For example the introduction states that Graf was the first to achieve the 'Golden Slam' but not that when she did it was the first time this combination of achievements was possible. For that it may be better to state that she is the only player to have achieved this but note that by making clear it is something that was only achievable since 1988. Also the reference for this (a chatty Q and A) does not appear relatyed to this record. Likewise her Career Golden Slam is not qualified by making clear that it was only possible since 1925, and preferably that tennis was not included as an official Olympic sport after 1924 until it was reincorporated in 1988.

Above was written by Antipodenz (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Speculation about Monica Seles

I've removed this recent addition that speculates about the number of tournaments that Graf might have won, had Seles not been assaulted. While it is true that some notable people have speculated that Seles would have won more tournaments, it is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article about Graf, who had nothing to do with Seles' retiral.

There is no end to the speculation that could be done about who might have won tournaments if someone else had competed. Would player A have won if player B not retired/been injured/been born 20 years later/existed? But you don't see speculation like this on other players' articles. So I don't see much reason for it being on Graf's. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit then why are parts of the article that quote random books by random tennis writers (who I have legitimately never heard of) favorably comparing Graf's legacy to Serena Williams left in because of Serena's alleged lack of consistency? It seems to me the most logically consistent stance is to remove any such comparisons if you are going to remove any reference to tennis figures who have said they believe Graf's numbers were inflated due to the stabbing. Serena's consistency doesn't seem to me to have anything more to do with Graf's legacy than Monica's stabbing.

Further, this is a very well known and high profile debate within the tennis community. But if you would read the Legacy section of this article without knowing this, you'd (falsely) believe Graf has tennis experts only praising her accomplishments and propping her up over Serena and others. Even though, again, anyone who follows tennis knows this is not an accurate or complete view of Graf's legacy.

Your edit obscures a major part of how many prominent tennis figures and fans of the sport view Graf's Slam achievements. I do not see how that should be the goal of an encyclopedia either. 170.10.11.16 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit In the mean time, I have removed the references to Flink's opinion regarding Serena's consistency. If others disagree, I believe a discussion is warranted on why that should be allowed but the quotes by Evert and others regarding the stabbing and Graf's achievements should not be. 170.10.11.16 (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The key difference is that the opinion cited is based on actual events, not speculation about what might have happened. People are free to disagree with Flink's opinion, but at least it has a basis in fact, not events in an alternate universe. If we venture in that direction there are an infinite number of opinions possible, based on an infinite number of possibilities. Which ones merit a mention, and which are essentially fantasy?

Do you have a sourced opinion that places Graf second to Williams? That might be suitably used to counter Flink's. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit The Flink quote literally speculates on Serena Williams' future accomplishments versus Graf. Even by your own arbitrary distinction your argument fails. I again assert that it should be both or neither.

Further, the fact that Graf benefitted at least to some degree is just objectively not speculation, so your argument fails here as well. Even at the absolute least it guaranteed more weeks at No.1 since Seles' ranking was not fully protected. Ie: the stabbing objectively and directly by taking Seles off tour and letting Graf catch up to her in the ranking in the mean time. This can all be sourced directly to the WTA discussions at the time about the ranking situation. So unless one makes the implausible argument that Seles would have voluntarily left the tour, Graf at the very least was able to rack up more weeks at No.1. This is not an alternate universe. It is an objective description of what happened in this universe. 170.10.11.16 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit also, are Wikipedia edits not based on consensus? You are the only user removing the Seles discussion and keeping the Serena one. I again am not impressed by the logic of your argument and believe both should be left out as a comprise then. 170.10.11.16 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Flink opinions that the "jury is still out" on Williams. He does not speculate on what Williams may do in future, just that he is of the opinion that it's too early (in 2020) to give the final assessment on her career. Tennis players are involuntarily sidelined all the time and lose their standings. Seles' was obviously a dreadful situation, but why should other players be penalised for it based on what might have otherwise happened? Do other articles discuss how successful a tennis player would have been if their main rival hadn't been injured? Is there a section in the John McEnroe article that discusses how successful he would have been if Björn Borg hadn't retired at such an early age?

Again, if you have a good source that places Graf beneath Williams I'd be happy to consider it for inclusion. Authoritative opinions are welcomed and frequently differ. Wikipedia should strive to reflect them.

Wikipedia edits are indeed based on consensus. That is why it is your responsibility to gain consensus before repeatedly removing long-standing sourced content. This is called the Bold, Revert, Discuss principle on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit where did you get consensus when you removed the Seles part? you just did it.

And your Borg-McEnroe comparison is extremely weak because it never happened. Seles *was* stabbed and Graf *did* benefit from at the very least a quicker return to No.1 than she would have otherwise had. There are many authoritative voices in tennis who have this. There is no other situation in tennis comparable, so matter how long you try in vain to cast around for one. Again, your entire point seems to be to obscure the fact Graf's legacy is viewed this way by many experts like Chris Evert. 170.10.11.16 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit also, I would point out that the Seles article contains multiple sources that "speculate" about just this. So I am confused why you are not on that page fighting to have those removed as well to bring it into line with your feelings about this article? I frankly am confused why experts "speculating" about the effects of the stabbing is allowed on one page but not the other. Literally everything you said applies just as equally to Seles' page as it does Graf's. So the fact that other pages allow it weakens your contention that is has to be this way 170.10.11.16 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The bit about Seles I removed had only recently been added, I was therefore free to dispute its addition as per WP:BRD. No-one at the time responded to my action or what I posted here. So there was no further discussion.

There is nothing in the Monica Seles article that speculates what might have happened to to her based on the events or actions of other players. There is a quote from Navratilova speculating that Seles could have gone on to greater things. But that is about her, not others. She is not saying Graf only achieved this because Seles didn't.

My Borg/McEnroe comparison is sound. Borg *did* retire unusually early and McEnroe probably *did* benefit from that. But that's speculation that rightly isn't in the article.

If you feel there are enough authoritative sources who make a point about Graf's achievements being due to Seles' attack, then please list them here. I would still argue they are speculation, but authoritative speculation might have a place.

I'd also say that this edit you performed looks very like a pointy edit, edit warring and would be considered disruptive. Please don't do that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Repetition of Information

The following two sentences were both in the lead:

"She was ranked world No. 1 in women's singles for a women's record 377 weeks"

"Graf was ranked world No. 1 in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) for a record 377 total weeks"

They are only separated by a few sentences and repeat the same idea. One of these lines should be eliminated to reduce redundancy.

Rmxnuzu (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the first mention from the lead. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Open Era records - Aust open ref for BJK

The inclusion of two Open Era records that have an ‘equaled’ by reference to Billie Jean King (eg career grand slam, winning without losing a set) should not be included here (specific to King’s inclusion) as the 1968 Aust Open era win by King (not later repeated) was in the amateur (eg pre-open) era. 222.152.25.25 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Error under singles titles all time

Graf does not hold the #3 position for singles titles as claimed. The link provided takes one to the WTA records and that is from the early 1970’s - this should be amended to qualify the position (3rd highest) as being a WTA and/or an Open era one. Antipodenz (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Games 1984

Grad’s gold medal achievement in the women’s tennis singles at the 1984 Olympic Games (demonstration sport) deserves to be mentioned in this article. Antipodenz (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)