Talk:ATP Tour records/Archive 1

Possible combining
If there is repetition, attempts should be made to combine, not simply strip from one for the other. Alonsornunez (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what we do. That is how the tennis statistics article was formed.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That article is already too long and unwieldy, but that's neither here nor there. If we are to combine the articles, concensus needs to be made to do so, and then do so; we cannot just start removing sections arbitrarily. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION:Stop posting FALSE numbers about the total numbers of titles for Sampras,Agassi and Borg.

Sampras has 64(not 65),so does Borg(not 63),Agassi has 60(not 59)...stop being an idiotic Sampras fan and leave facts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.70.151 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags are unneeded, unnecessary, distracting, and unwise
I am SOOO sorry to have to revert some of the recent additions to this fine chart, but the use of the flag icons is governed by, among other things, MOSFLAGS. There has been a recent complaint about this page on another talk page. The chart is just as good (in fact, to my mind, better,) without the flags. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC) come on man youd ont have to respect every rule..... and no one uses that anyway.. the flags make the page, and everyone else wants them as well
 * Your interpretation of the policy is quite wrong imo. This is sport, where nationality is conventionally to the forefront. Therefore there is nothing nationalistic about the motivation of the editors adding the flags here. They are supplying basic relevant information with which readers will expect to be provided. The flags are essential to the usability of the page, and should stay. Alex Middleton (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Aces hit in a match
This number is usually also highly dependent on the number of games a player was at serve (ESPECIALLY in matches where no or only a "limited" number of tie-breaks are played). To give a much better number, this category should not just include the number of sets, but at least, also, the number of service games. The best would be to include the number of times the player served. A player getting a quick win in 3 short sets could "almost" never hope to get the same amount of aces as a player in a 5-set game with no tie-breaks at all, or only a tie-break in the last set. Especially in Davis Cup matches, a player could theoretically get hundreds of aces... . On the other hand, a player who serves "perfectly" in a short 3 (out of 5) set match (all going to 6) in which never losing serve could "only" get 6*4*3 = 72 aces... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would be great to see under the grand slam section the most wins per individual slam tournament - could that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.203.43 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Women's earnings
Why are women's earnings not shown in the relevant section? For instance Stefi Graf with $25million has earnt more than some of the men on the list. Snellios (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) This article is for "ATP World Tour" records. Women's statistics would be found under the "Sony Ericsson WTA Tour" records. The basis of the division (rightfully or wrongfully) is on gender. This makes the most sense given the nature of the two tours (because women play shorter matches and historically been paid less they will be disproportionately underrepresented). Schmittz (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Career winning percentage per individual surface in slams and overall career in the Open Era.
This information can be found on the ATP site. Someone will need to work out the percentages using specific win loss records per surface.

This fact alone will likely decide who the top players were in the last 15 years in professional tennis. The surface arguement was not as relevant but with 4 GS being played on 3 surfaces and the ATP tour having a 4/9 masters series on clay I think its something that must be included in this article.

The biggest debate in Tennis for years to come will be the "GOAT" debate and with Rafa's youth and Roger still going strong we maybe talking about this for years. There is no more a telling stat than how they both have progressed on each surface. As of now Roger's stats on clay are slightly better than Rafa's stats on hard courts, yet Rafa is 2% points above Roger in the overall winning percentage. This needs to be shown and explained. Will Rafa's clay court dominance swing Career winning percentage stat to favor him overall when infact Roger was the better player over years on two/3 surfaces? This should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.219.89 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * this is sort of a soapbox presentation as opposed to how to improve this tennis article. GOAT will always be looked at as who did the best in the biggest events of their time regardless of surface. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors 109 wins finals + 54 loses finals=163 finals! no 160? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.214.39.90 (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you not read the summaries supplied with the reverts? Of the 54 loses in finals 3 of them were exhibitions and not atp events. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello to whoever mainly runs this site. Mainly good work; I'm quite often reverting to it. However, most recently, some mistakes came up due to (as I am suspecting) wrong understanding of the relatively new "fedex reliability zone" at atpworldtour.com. For example, if you generate the index for 'grass courts' and 'career', the Top 30 players of all time are shown in rank of their grass court career index. However, if you then arrange the list in order of match wins, still only these 30 players are shown. The effect is a dropout of whoever has to many losses, thus a worse index, but still many wins. An example would be Phil Dent, who has a grasscourt record of 119-65 and a relatively "poor" index of .647; still he is tied 2nd with McEnroe in the win column. The same holds true for the Masters 1000 section: Wayne Ferreira is 9th overall with 128 wins, but doesn't appear at the atp page under the Top 30 because of 103 losses and thus a relatively "poor" .554 index. The index at atpworldtour.com seems a bit odd anyways, for it shows more than 300 players for "career" and "indoor" / "clay", but the afformentioned only 30 for "career" and "grass" as well as for "career" and hardcourts. Maybe someone should encourage the persons in charge at atpworldtour.com to broaden the two latter categories. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.86.186 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nastase
Ilie Năstase 57 Titles no 48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.214.39.90 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those were pre-atp titles I believe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Finals
Well, I have information of the tennis players than have more Match Wins, Particpations, percentage of wins and More Semifinals, but Who many I can show in the page? 5 or 10?

PD Sorry for my english, I have only the Basic English

--Bry17may (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ilie Nastase has won a year end championship in 1971, so he has 4 wins total!!! He has 23 matches won... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.169.191 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The ATP didn't exists until 1972 so what he won in 1971 was not an ATP title. The article is 1972 onwards and if we are talking Open Era titles I believe there is already a page for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agassi is 7. (not 6.) on the list of most 250 tournament winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.166.79 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * fixed. thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Open Era records vs ATP Tour records
This article cannot name ATP World Tour Record, but (Tennis) Open Era Record or sth that. Present name is according to me misunderstanding and refer to much lesser scope than should. We now that atp was established in 1972, but modern tennis started in 1968 and our statistics should include also all professional before 1972 and after 1967. Even on official website of atp, statisticians include in statistics all those matches. Now we have mix-up. For example Ilie Nastase according this article has 49 wins, but under official ATP website has 57 because they take also matches before 1972 into account. ATP was created as an association to protect the players not to organise the better system of play. This "beeter system of organisation" started in 1990. Beside, we have on this article no consequence. Part of moderators don't want to number the matches before atp was established, in spite these matches belong to Era open. But for the same group, the name "ATP Grand slam history" doesn't disturb. The question is why? Grand Slam doesn't belong to atp but to itf and talking about GS as a part of atp is false. So, if we want to be strict, we must minus the GS matches and wins from all statistics in this "ATP world tour record" site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edamian (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to clarify. The name of this particular article is "ATP World Tour records‎" not "Open era records." There are plenty of pages on wikipedia with open era records. I didn't start this page but it exists as a page of ATP records from its inception in 1972. Tennis has all kinds of clumps in its history... pre-1920 with the Majors having a challenge round, 1925 when the French Championships became a major, the pro tours, the Open era, the Atp and Wta, grass being turned into an almost irrelevant surface except for Wimbledon, oversized graphite rackets, etc... people categorize these things all the time on wikipedia and this page is about the ATP from its inception in 1972. Borg was pretty much after the ATP and the Connors records we start from January 1972 onwards. That's the way this article is set up. I hope that helps a little. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. But still remains one problem - grand slam. GS doesn't belong to atp. And it could be mean we should eliminate from the article all GS matches, eg. To be honest, Roger Federer has following stats in ATP: Matches: 544 wins and 135 losses; tournaments: 51; and rest is ITF (Grand Slam). The same, we should change eg. winning streaks, wins tournament on different surfaces or even aces in the season.
 * So, the idea of strict atp statistics is ridiculous. Isn't it? Let me repeat, the title "ATP grand slam history" is false, just nonsense.


 * Well, I suggest to change the rules of the article and conform its to grand slam. The common denominator for all veryfied statistisc is 1968 year, because then was a breakthrough. And since that time we speaks about present tennis.Edamian (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. We have stipulated ATP records recognized since 1972, one can draw lines in the sand all over the place and there are plenty of pages that relate to open era records. We already have open era records, pro slam records, grand slam records, non-grand slam records, wta records and pre-open statistics. We have wimbledon winners overall and wimbledon winners of the open era. We even have articles on open era tournaments by nationality. We have no lack of open era info. Now like the WTA we also have an article on records since the ATP became an entity in 1972. I don't know why you have a problem with this article. If you don't like it then ignore it and edit the open era pages. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that I think shouldn't be there or data on tennis pages I think are overkill, but I see plenty of people editing them who feel the data is worthwhile so I usually move on to articles I'm more passionate about. And I think that your 1968+ being "present tennis" is in the eye of the beholder. The youth of today will think more 1990 onwards with Borg and McEnroe, with their small wood rackets, as being archaic dinosaurs. Yet others talk of Laver winning 2 grand slams with the first being 6 years before the open era or maybe the ITF declaring in 1925 exactly what the 4 Majors will be. I'm not saying they are right or wrong just that dividing lines are blurry even for those with a good optometrist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In semiotical point of view, it still remains inconsistent. Besides, you said "the Connors records we start from January 1972 onwards", it's completly untrue E.G. His appearances of GS should be 55, the numbers of his all matches and wins - 1242 etc are since 1970 (when he embarked on career) the same percentage winning Newcombe, Laver, Ashe and connors. Ashe's wins on carpet surface includes also his paris indoor in 1970, the same Stan Smith. Nastase 79 Titles since 1972 and it is more than Becker and Edberg. The danger is that there are many wikipedians and they take their data from atp website.
 * The article can name atp, but similarly like on atp website we can take the matches since 1968
 * But, of course, I don't want to change sth forcefully, especially that it's not mine:) Edamian (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Errors creep in and since you noticed them it would be good if you would fix them with a proper summary. When I see Connors with 233 Major match wins I have no idea if that includes his singles win in the first round of 1971 of the US Open. I wasn't the one who added that chart. Lot's of people edit these pages and to stay on top of every possible error is a tough job. And yes there is also a chart that says "Matches Played / Matches Won / Matches Lost and Winning %, Open Era" that should be changed to atp era 1972 to present. However in changing that chart to atp era I don't have the numbers so it's either remove it, leave it or change it. If you have the proper numbers it would be great if you could fix it. You could always create another open era article with these same charts but with open era records. You'd have to make sure the records start on April 28, 1968 and not before since that was the date the open era started. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

top ten
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tenistas_top_ten_en_el_ranking_ATP#Jugadores_top_ten.2C_por_ranking_alcanzado_y_por_fecha 190.121.86.65 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

top 10 limit
Pretty much everything on this page is top 10 (assuming we can fill that many spaces). I fix a couple charts, of which there are many in this article, that were over that so the page has conformity, and I add an edit summary that I did so. I see there is someone reverting it using no summary what so ever to explain why. Just reverting at will. I could keep reverting on the basis of no summary but I thought I'd see what others think. 10 seems pretty liberal as is, otherwise we could have 20, 30 or more names listed in just one chart. We need a good explanation to keep two charts at 15 while the rest are at 10. ATP_World_Tour_records Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * copy and pasted conversation from User talk:Capricornmanager1 for future reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would you keep reverting two charts in ATP World Tour records where the rest of the charts have a top 10? A top 10 is pretty normal for charts and I see no explanation in your edit summaries as to why you reverted. It is important that you add summaries whenever you revert (or actually whenever you edit). Please leave it at 10. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * since you edited once and I see no response I'm changing it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why have you reverted these 2 charts from top 15 to 10 in the first place? Very few players have had the number 1 ranking, therefore it is very relevant to include these. Please leave it at top 15. Thank you. (Capricornmanager1 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for answering. Because all the other charts are top ten and people start expanding them to top 12, top 13, top 15. Why have one chart in the article at top 15? It looks out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not all the other charts are top 10! However, it is correct that all charts now are "cut" down to max top 10. I for one do not agree with that as a general good rule but ok.. Reg. the rankings, firstly, I do not agree that it looks out of place. If anything it fits the section "ATP Ranking" Secondly, the main reason for having a top 15 (for no. 1 ranking) is the same as I posted it in my first answer . (11:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Okay, I don't agree but I'll leave those two charts as is unless multiple others chime in to say otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say top 10 makes more sense in the article, since the same data (with more entries) already is in List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players, which is directly linked to above the tables. I don't mind the odd top 15 though if people really want that. Many tables are also shorter than 10. Gap9551 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In general you could even argue that the same limit everywhere is not optimal, since some stats are much more important than others. For instance, the number 10 in a mildly important stat would be listed while the number 11 in a very important stat would be absent. For that reason I wouldn't mind varying limits over different sections. But agreeing on a consistent limit may result in a better readable and coherent article. Gap9551 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Connors Match Wins Grand Slam 232 no 233!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.214.39.90 (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Winning Percentage Individual Grand Slam Tournaments
Hi I need help in compiling a top 10 list of winning percentages at indvidual GS tournaments by player does anyone have a complete list thanks --Navops47 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, here is a list:, but it is not fully updated for active players (last 6 Slams missing), not ordered per individual Slam, and includes only players with 15+ (scroll down) matches in total at Grand Slams, no match treshold per individual Slam is applied I think. It is still useful though. Gap9551 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks gap very useful site and have outlined a top 10 list for the article do you know the what the individual GS match win loss records since since 2009 for these active players as it will affect the list Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick. ie how many matches they played and lost since the 09 to work out current figures (just thought they may be at ATP archives?) cheers --Navops47 (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just realised those records on that site are from 1968 to 2009 I know the article is from 1972(atp formation) but some key players in view of their individual GS win % performance are missing out like Emmerson, Laver, Rosewall, Roache, Newcombe thats a real shame.--Navops47 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of Statistical Information
Hi I'm opening a discussion about continuity in sources for statistical information to articles we edit for records percentages etc do we have guidelines as to where that information should come from or should we as a group set up our own guidelines within discussion the main reason I'm asking this if you work on something add it and then it just gets re-edited most of the time and no explanation is given by an editor in the edit summary it can be annoying can we reach consensus on this point as to avoid having to leave request on peoples talk pages seeking an explantion form an editor. what's your thoughts? --Navops47 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

1.2.4 Match wins per court type & 1.2.7 Masters 1000 Match Wins
Hello to whoever mainly runs this site. Good work! I'm quite often reverting to it. However, most recently some mistakes came up due to (as I am suspecting) wrong understanding of the relatively new "fedex reliability zone" at atpworldtour.com. For example, if you generate the index for 'grass courts' and 'career', the Top 30 players of all time are shown in rank of their grass court career index. However, if you then arrange the list in order of match wins, still only these 30 players are shown. The effect is a dropout of whoever has to many losses, thus a worse index, but still many wins. An example would be Phil Dent, who has a grasscourt record of 119-65 and a relatively "poor" index of .647; still he is tied 2nd with McEnroe in the win column. The same holds true for the Masters 1000 section: Carlos Moya is 8th overall with 133 wins, but doesn't appear at the atp page under the Top 30 because of 98 losses and thus a relatively "poor" .576 index (Wayne Ferreira is 10th with 128-103; .554). Overall, the index at atpworldtour.com seems a bit odd in regards to what it provides for the career statistics on the different surfaces in the "reliability zone". When looking closely at the win-loss columns, it seems quite sure there is a "hard cut" (ignoring the index) of 50 matches played for "carpet" and "indoor", of 100 matches played for "clay", of 150 matches played for "outdoor" and of 200 matches for "overall". However, it only provides a "soft cut" of the afformentioned 30 best players for "grass" as well as for hardcourts, "Masters 1000" and "Grand Slams". Thus one must be careful when providing absolute win columns in this wiki article for the latter four categories by referring to the atpworldtour.com's index. Maybe someone should encourage the persons in charge at atpworldtour.com to standardise their index campaign. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.86.186 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for alerting us for these omissions! Have you considered joining Wikipedia and occasionally correcting or updating articles like this one? Have a nice day. Gap9551 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Murray has won 5 of the 9 different ATP1000 events but is not listed whilst others who have won 5/9 are listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.230 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Clement has 327 lossses
Clement has 327, not 326 losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.143.143.198 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lock this page, please
Please, lock this page forever because vandalism continues since the end of the protection. All factual errors would be reported here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.239 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Connors has 19 consecutive wins in Grand slams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to delete something, check the facts, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ATP doesnt list R64 of 1975 AUstralian Open (Connors def. Kachel 75 62 63) for some reason. Check the official Australian Open website. Cant understand why so many imbeciles live with us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.239 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/draws/1975_MS_1.html here is the link  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.239 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this but there is no reason to use offensive language towards fellow editors. Many edits on Wikipedia are wrong, especially to this article, and we have to correct these. Inevitably, once in a while we mistake a correct edit for a wrong one. Since you make useful contributions, have you considered making an account on Wikipedia? That makes you and your edits better recognizable and even more reliable, since most erroneous edits are made by IP accounts. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Im sorry for that rude comments, my fault for being explosive. I understand that the spam come from unregistered users. Most of the time, I only try to correct mistakes on Wiki because of passion for the topic and accurate infos for everyone. Often it`s not easy because all the things are changing as time passes so sometimes the stats are subjective/cover not the whole topic (all the problem with ATP stats before and after 1990; different rules for Rankings etc). I appreciate your advice, i will probably create the account regarding the easier and more useful contribution for Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.239 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok great! Gap9551 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor mistakes corrected
Gerulaitis achieved 4 consec. Grand slam semifinals in non-cons. Slams (1977-1979) as well as Lendl (1989-1990), check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitas_Gerulaitis and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics78.128.181.239 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (since inception in 1990)
Hi all,

First, many thanks to those who contribute to this page. I like it a lot!

I'm opening a discussion here to understand why the chapter "ATP World Tour Masters 1000" is only including the results since 1990. As reminder, this category of nine tournaments was called: - 1970-1989: The Championship Series - 1990-1993: Championship Series, Single Week - 1993-1999: Mercedes-Benz Super 9 - 2000-2004: Tennis Masters Series - 2005-2008: ATP Masters Series - 2009-2011: ATP World Tour Masters 1000

Shouldn't we add the results from 1972 to 1989 to the statistics of this chapter? A page exists already here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Tennis_Championship_Series_1970-1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepone1 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! It's really an interesing page to look at! Just wondering why the ATP 1000 champions/finalists are not listed separetly, as they are at the majors! I mean whos, and how many times has won at the differents 1000 series events? How many matches won here and there, on hard, on clay, etc... Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.132.154 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

More information here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics, but still no information for quantity of semi finales or match won. --190.44.173.49 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have this since 1970:

Most different tournaments won
 * 10/12: Connors (only missing Rome and Stockholm)
 * 10/11: Borg (only missing Washington)
 * 9/10: Lendl (only missing Paris)
 * 7/10 McEnroe (only missing Monte Carlo, Rome and Las Vegas)
 * 7/9: Agassi (only missing Monte Carlo and Madrid)
 * 7/9: Federer (only missing Monte Carlo and Rome)

Most different tournament finals played --Tommy The Wise (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 11/12 Connors (only missing Rome)
 * 10/11 Borg (only missing Washington)
 * 9/10: Lendl (only missing Paris)
 * 9/9: Federer
 * Yes, also from my point of view we should add the results starting with 1972.Mrf8128 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Roddick 250 count
Are you sure Roddick is not already at 21 ATP 250 Series titles with the one, he won in Atalanta last week?

I would mention Federer's silver slam at the slams (Djokvic has chance for the bronz slam by winning Roland Garros). Could be a new expression as well.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.206.175 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Youngest to reach...
It would be interesting to know who was the youngest player to reach 100 wins, 200 wins, 300 wins, and on. Rafael Nadal is probably the best in most of these records (now is 600 wins with 26 years and 9 month), do anyone know where to find that record? --Tommy The Wise (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there is no photo finish: Borg is the youngest to achieve any age records. And concerning this particular record: when he retired at 25, he had already more than 600 wins. For Borg and Nadal comparisons, see this very interesting page: http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Borg_Nadal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepone1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

getting unwieldy in size
Wiki articles are supposed to be about 60k in size and contain prose setting up any charts. 100k maximum for prose and suggested for others because of load times on older computers. This list was at least a stable at about 100k size until edit "22:13, 27 January 2013‎" but has now bloated to 118k in a matter of hours. I trimmed some but suggest going back to charts and size from the earlier date. Chart-only articles are already on thin ice by the wiki police and we certainly don't want to give administrators more ammunition to axe large sections. A lot of the new additions are ridiculously trivial and some are plain wrong to be here at all...i.e. "silver slam?"... Yeah right. I can bring this up at tennis project if need be but let's correct this here by editors who regularly edit this article by keeping up with the already large housekeeping chores. If something new is absolutely "vital" then we might be able to reach some consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * addendum - this got cleaned up but in July 2013 a bunch were re-added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Borg Streak
We have to be careful with the Borg winning streak as there are other sources with different views. The ATP site is riddled with errors that I've had to send correspondence in order to correct.

1978: 49 - Bjorn Borg (43 tournament wins + 6 Davis Cup rubbers) Won 6 titles during the streak, including 2 majors Surfaces: (22 clay, 12 carpet, 8 hard, 7 grass) Number of "the best of five" matches: 26 - Borg gave two walkovers during the streak, after wins No. 13 & 14 - he had also a 48-match winning streak in years 1979-80, but the streak included 3 invitational tournaments, however, recognized by ATP as his official titles; during that streak gave one walkover, after win No. 7

Some will say that the walkovers end the streak and some will not. There is a source that ends it, yet per official ATP Nadal's streak would NOT have ended if he gave a walkover back in 2007. Maybe there should be an asterisk for this fact? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Consecutive Streaks
I suggest listing only the best results a player has reached in the Consecutive Streaks. I have no idea, how it should be possible to maintain long time support, the way it is now. E.g. the streak of 19 matchs won Nadal had, when was it? On the other hand maybe you could think of a way to verify these entries. In my opinion that would be even better. --188.194.5.11 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how should it be possible, that Jimmy Connors won 24 matches in a row, but never won 3 tournaments in a row? I just wondered. I thought\think it is impossible either of these entries should be wrong. --188.194.5.11 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I found the information. 1974 he participiated in the Australian Open and won, than left out French Open and won the next 2 Grand Slams he participated in. So normally we must put him up to Consecutive Streak 3 Slams, because we argumented in other articles, that not participated does not interfere with streaks. But I think it is very surprising for most people if there appears Connors Name at the top out from nowhere. So a registered user should do it. But if no one does it today, and no one answers me until tomorrow, I think I will add it tomorrow. --188.194.5.11 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Missing an event "does" interfere with streaks. What if someone stinks on grass and refuses to play wimbledon every year because she knows she'll lose early. You don't say they have won 3 in a row because she won aussie, french and US open's. It has to be fair across the board. Kim Clijsters just won her 2nd consecutive US Open, not her third consecutive just because she didn't compete for 3 years. You can say someone won the "their" last 3 slams, but they didn't win 3 consecutive slams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Fyunck, so we have to correct the 24 to 20 am I right? --188.194.5.11 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked on the ATP-site seems like 18 is his top streak, that means, he leaves this category completely? --188.194.5.11 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should also mention this kind of interpretation in the article. "If a player does not intend, or is not able to participate in a Grand Slam, this ends his/her streak. Something like that. --188.194.5.11 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked up the relevant records Jimmy Connors won 25 consecutive grand slam matches from round 1 of the aus open 1974 to losing the final in 1975. I have no idea how to edit a page and therefore will not do so but this should be done. Also he therefore gets in the 3 consecutive grand slam titles. That he did not play the french was not his fault. Had he been eligible and not done so then I think it could be fairly said that he does not have this streak. However, this was not the case. he was banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.33.191 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

what is about the 27 QF-streak at GSs from jimmy connors? http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/01/3/Australian-Open-Sunday-Federer-Equals-Connors.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.49.6 (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is very strange indeed. But it's television, I guess they really should have said 27 in a row non-consecutive streak. During that streak he missed 5 French Opens and 8 Australian opens, Federer didn't. But of the ones Connors decided he liked, he won 27 in a row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For those adding Connors' 27 Slam QF streak or 25 Slam match streak, these are interrupted by Slams Connors did not play (for whatever reasons) and therefore do not quality in the lists here. If you disagree please discuss it here before editing.Gap9551 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gap9551 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree Gap but people are adding it anyway and the press isn't helping...at least the US press. I don't think it should count but I tweaked the wording so that it would work in the article. Unfortunately we would really need to add Borg's and McEnroe's streaks (and others?) now since they weren't included because of tournies they also didn't play. I really don't want Connor's streak to stay but if it does more names must be added and the parameters I wrote should stay. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the Connors stat is problematic. Seems a little weird to include 'streaks' where certain slams were skipped. That said, it's used by media and the ATP itself. That precedent being established, I added in McEnroe (10) and Borg (12). Weird, I know, but I don't think we count as a source. lol Alonsornunez  Comments  19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So does it have a meaning anymore consecutive appearances? It looks like is the same as the number of appearances, isn't it?Mrf8128 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are so right and it should either be removed or set to the same as appearances since it has identical meaning in these charts. It's why I did not and do not want those non-consecutive streaks in here. I just did the best I could in tagging the the exceptions with a "†." I would rather go back to the way it was and add separate charts for non-consecutive slam streaks. Maybe I'll work on that today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a problem, and also the possibility for a player to have 4 consecutive majors won without holding all of them at the same time. Different charts may better if we want to include this new type ofMrf8128 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, my attempt at trying to fix this. All the info is there but I have included those Connors and Borg streaks in separate charts that designate them as non-consecutive Majors. I didn't check carefully if all the names in the consecutive charts should be there so we may need to do additional shifting. I'm hoping everyone is happy with this even if grudgingly so (like me). Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think adding these separate tables is a good solution, at least now these stats won't be added to the real streaks anymore. Personally I think these non-consecutive streaks are worthless. But in the end, this article collects records people care about. It is not complete, and only contains those statistics that one or more people think are worth adding. Clearly these streaks have proven to be such a statistic, so it's good to have them here. One could argue though that a consecutive streak is a special case of a non-consecutive streak, so they could also be included in the new tables (not that I like or advise that! the new tables are better serving as a complement). Now a player is required to miss at least 1 tournament to have a chance to do well in this table, which appears odd to me. Gap9551 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, more stats have questionable value. When it really comes down to it, the records for most consecutive finals won and played imply that it may be better to e.g. win 10 tourmanents, lose in the semis of a tournament and win another 5 tournaments (streak of 15 consecutive finals won), than it is to win 10 tournaments, lose a final and win another 5 tournaments (streak of only 10, while the player performed better measured to any standard). Gap9551 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course a skipped Major has a little more meaning in the earlier history of tennis where someone like Helen Wills didn't play Australia because of the distance yet didn't lose a set in 6 years. She won 14 consecutive titles in non-consecutive Majors. She then lost in a final and then won 2 more in a row. She played in 23 Majors and made the finals in 22, only failing when she woke up with appendicitis at the 1926 French Championships. A streak like that is impressive yet would never show up on a consecutive-Major-only chart. Thinking about that made me bend a little and say maybe a separate set of charts would be "ok." Yeah it can make for some funky stats but the press talks about them a lot and makes people come here and say "where is it?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's quite a good argument, though these same early top players are disadvantaged relative to present-day top players in many more stat lists of course. Gap9551 (talk)


 * That's a good point about the meaning/value of a statistics. But we don't interpret them, we just include anything relevant and everybody is free to look at the big picture. More data is better then less if there are questions related to the relevance. Nobody can say about the performance of Vilas for example in 1977 (130-14 and 46) that it was the best in open era. He was never number one that year and in terms of quality the winning streak won't be even in top 10 probably. Even if I didn't like at all at the beginning the idea of including the streaks with skipped majors now I get the feeling that the article made one step further in terms of objectivity. Mrf8128 (talk)


 * While I didn't like it, I was preparing to live with Alonsornunez' edits until you mentioned the appearance chart being 100% useless. That actually upset me to the point I offered the new charts. I was fearing a hail of boulders from you two since I was in your camp and wasn't sure how I would have reacted myself. I had my helmet on :-) And you're right about the short end of the stick on the old-timers in these stat lists. We'll just plod along and fix things as we go I guess. You two do a lot more tedious additions than I do around here... mostly thankless work too. I hope tennisproject appreciates it... I know I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Updating stats here is much more rewarding and fun than keeping track of them in a private file, don't worry! Your guiding role and historical knowledge and perspective are also much appreciated. I can imagine that contemporary players will be favored in any era, if only because contemporary editors are more inclined to add new stats that their favorites do well in. Perhaps it would be good to have some brainstorm session on which 'objective' stats are still missing. Gap9551 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right of course about not interpreting, it's still interesting information and I'm all in favor of adding more stats. Gap9551 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

On the 'ATP world tour records' page under 1.1.2 Consecutive streaks it shows Ivan Lendl having 2 different Grand Slam consecutive semi final streaks at 10 and 6 respectively. Yet when you compare these with 'Ivan Lendl Career Statistics' page and look at his Grand Slam singles performances his streaks were actually 9 and 5. I've tried to edit this but someone keeps changing it back. Either change this or the career statistics of Lendl as its confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ten and six is correct and this is also what the Ivan Lendl Career Statistics page says. Perhaps you were unaware that the Australian Open was held in December from 1977-1986? Gap9551 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the 1986 Australian Open wasn't held, so looking at the 'Ivan Lendl career statistics' page again I still find he only had semi final streaks of 9 and 5 as follows: 1984 French Open - 1985 French Open (5) and 1985 US open - 1988 Australian Open (9 since 1986 Australian Open not held) I know what I'm seeing and no where else in his career does have longer semi final Grand slam streaks. I'm just pointing this out in the interest of correct records, I realise I may have sounded a bit annoyed but I assure you I don't intend to sound it. If it is indeed 10 and 6 could you point out whicch Grand slams were included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the Australian open that has you confused. The 6 streak is (Wimbledon 1983–US 1984)... the 10 streak is (US 1985–Australian 1988). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but thats wrong I'm looking at it and Lendl got to 4R at 1984 Australian Open so that streak of 6 semis can't have occured and must be the 5 I stated earlier. That 10 can't be as the Australian Open wasn't held/it did not take place in 1986 so how can he have reached a semi final if he didn't play and so must be 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me go through it match by match. 6 game streak in playing order (remember that chart is not in order)... 1983 QF French loss just before the streak... then 1) July 1983 SF Wimbledon, 2) September 1983 Final US, 3) December 1983 Final Aussie, 4) May 1984 win French, 5) July 1984 SF Wimbledon, 6) September 1984 Final US... then a December 1984 4r loss at Aussie ends the streak.


 * The 10 game streak is the same... 1) 1985 Sep win US, 2) 1985 Dec sf Aussie, 3) 1986 May win French, 4) 1986 July final WIM, 5) 1986 Sep win US, 6) 1987 Jan sf Aussie, 7) 1987 May win French, 8) 1987 July final WIM, 9) 1987 Sep win US, 10) 1988 Jan sf Aussie. A qf loss at the 1988 French ended it. I can't be much clearer. Just remember those performance charts are not in order of matches played when it come to the Australian Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I get it now. Thanks, the tables for singles performance timelines confused me. sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal %80 2012
Most consecutive years winning 80% of matches or more:

must have a minimum of 50 games and this year I fail Rafael Mundialitto (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... - Lendl's 1988 season had only 49 matches - Borg's 1981 seaon had only 41 matches. If we stop Nadal's 80% winning streak, we have to double check other's performances too! But first what is the minimum wins to count a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepone1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Classify a season by number of tournaments participated in as opposed to matches played or won? Maybe a realistic absolute minimum number of tournaments to represent some form of a full season is 12? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Most titles at a single tournament
someone has recently listed federer as winning '6 clay masters' (hamburg + madrid). It is untrue. while he indeed has won 6 ms titles in that clay ms slot which are accounted in his MS tally, he never won 6 titles at a single tournament. He won 4 German Open titles on clay (02,04,05,07) and 3 Madrid Open titles (indoors 06 and clay 09,12).

It was not a matter of changing the schedule (eg madrid masters autumn to spring) or even changing the venue (eg atp finals beijing to london). It was matter of another tournament occupying a certain slot in a season.

Degrading or uprading certain tournament in this case (hamburg from 1000 to 500) doesn't make that tournament go away.

To clarify things, eg if the ITF decides italian open is a major starting in 2014 and french open is a ms event and federer wins italian open for the first time that would be his second clay gs, second clay major, but still his first italian open.

So..give a credit where it's due and do not where it isn't. Federer indeed has 6 titles on that third clay masters slot but that's a stat for atp 1000 section.

He is otoh, 4-time German Open champion and 3-time Madrid champion.

87.252.130.226 (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree and corrected.--Wolbo (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Win Loss against top 10
Hi the statistics of players against top 10 players are out of date according to this link Top 10 these statistics were up to the Monte Carlo Masters and posted 2/5/2013. Current players have increased their totals I have added up to data here Open Era tennis records – Men's Singles --Navops47 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ATP MASTERS MATCH WINS
Not the best at editing so will leave to somebody. Ferrer is on 137 match wins, thus equal to Tommy Haas and Michael Chang as of ATP Paris masters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.187.222 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sergi Bruguera
Hola, en los tenistas con mas victorias en tierra batida falta Sergi Bruguera, que tiene 296.

Hi, in the players with more victories on clay foul Sergi Bruguera, which has 296. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.150.141 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Most Tournaments won without losing a set
I would like someone of you to dig and create a section in the tour records of most tournaments won without losing a set. I will present some preliminary data and links where the information is gathered and up to date until 13.05.2012.

I have also updated the stat for the top 4 players up to now (25.02.2014).

Here they are:

Ivan Lendl......28

John McEnroe....27

Jimmy Connors...24 ***ATP SITE MISSING DATA FROM 11 TOURNY WINS

Guillermo Vilas.21 ***ATP SITE MISSING DATA FROM 1 TOURNY WIN

Rafael Nadal....20 updated 25.02.2014

Bjorn Borg......16

Roger Federer...15 updated 25.02.2014

Andre Agassi....13

..................

Novak Djokovic...6 updated 25.02.2014

....................

Andy Murray......4 updated 25.02.2014

The link where you can find the rest is pasted below but as I said it is updated until only 13.05.2012

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=45443&highlight=Tribute+Nadal+without+dropping+a+set

Can all this be included as a section in the stats page? I know there is a subsection with Grand Slams tournaments won without losing a set, but this is different and more sophisticated stat. Unfortunately, a lot of digging should be performed in various sources for confirmation.

Kenshark101 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Ken Shark

Players and Davis Cup Titles won
I've been thinking why there is not a separate section for Davis Cup and players' results playing there?

For example a list of players and Davis Cup titles they won during their careers.

Also we can have number of wins/losses playing Davis Cup, and others.

Do you think it is a good idea?

Kenshark101 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Ken Shark

Single season records
Single Season Records: Jimmy Connors is incorrectly listed as Number 2 on the "Match Winning %" list with a 93–4 match win-loss record for 1974 (see first link). This is wrong. According to the ATP website (see second link), Connors lost 6 matches in 1974, which means his actual win-loss is 93-6 (93.94%), thus dropping him to Number 5 or Number 4 on the list depending on how Djokovic performs over the next three weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Single_Season_Records http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx?t=pa&y=1974&m=s&e=0# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.112.249 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The inflation adjustment is problematic. The correct way to do it is given by the following example: if Player Alice won $100 in 2005 and $120 in 2007, we want to adjust the 100 2005$ to 2011$ and the 120 2007$ to 2011$, then sum this total. Right now how it's being done is: 100+120=220. If say Alice retired in 2011, her inflation adjusted prize total is $220. Which makes no sense. Even this correction would not be perfect - one other major problem is the fact that not all the players are from the US and not all prize money is in US$; so using the US's CPI Index to make the adjustment would probably not be correct either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.86.40 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the inflation adjustment is pointless unless done properly, which would be extremely complicated and impossible to verify conclusively as there are many different measures of inflation, and moreover price money is paid in many different countries and currencies. It would be better to get rid of it. It could be replaced by a top 10 in price money earned in that calendar year. Fatboy Malone (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed incorrect years at Borg's winning streak. Let's go to his activity and check it out counting match-by-match if you don't believe. In 1978 actually he won 49 matches in a row, ok 43 if we don't count Davis Cup wins.

Looking at the Grand Slam section of the article, Nadal's name is not listed, despite his Grand Slam win-loss record being .824. I understand a cut-off (for example best win-loss record in a career is 700 matches) but it's not listed. Either a cut-off should be listed, or Nadal's name added.

how is roger federer's hardcourt win streak 56 if he lost to david nalbandian at the tennis masters cup on a hard court. that was before nadal defeated him in dubai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.56.93 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been some confusion about this elsewhere on wikipedia, but the TMC was on carpet, not hardcourts, in 2005. See here for more info. --Armchair info guy (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be some pre-Open Era champions, namely Tilden and Perry, on the Grand Slam list, which is specifically Open Era. These names will be deleted. Alonsornunez (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Alonso

All existing ranking points were doubled at the start of 2009, completely shattering the "highest number of ranking points" record. It should either be credited now to Rafael Nadal or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.120.26 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

why isn't federer above sampras on the most grand slams list? they both have 14 but F is before S in the alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.207.92 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they were not ordered by the alphabet, but by the year the record had been attained. GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy Roddick compiled a 533-167 W/L Record (0.761) ans must appear in the list just before Agassi (10 may 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.142.183 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ATP Rankings before 1984 (Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg & Vilas numbers at #2, #3 especially) THIS NEEDS PROPER ANALYSIS OF RANKINGS
ATP Ranking wasnt updated every week in that years, whatsmore usually there was update only for 2-3 players, all players were updated 3-6 times a year. And right here the problem begins. In this situstion it happens always, that the new update (the one with 2-3 players) isnt complete (concrete example: Lendl was ranked #2 in January 1982, but there was an incomplete update in November 1982, where Connors became the new #2, but Lendl's place wasnt updated since January and IMO incorrectly counted on this page as #2 until December 1982, link for Lendl ranking http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=rh and for the incomplete update http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=15.11.1982&r=1&c=#). It means that 2 players can be counted on the same ranking place at the same time in the section ATP Rankings. Proper (not shallow) analysis of places lower than #1 is needed for those players (already done for #1 ranking and Lendl). Before that I remove them from the tables.Krivo4457 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Krivo4457 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that more than 2 players can be involved in this. Concrete example: in December 1975 Vilas was #2, Borg #3, Ashe #4, but there was an incomplete update in May next year with Ashe as #2. Borg and Vilas werent updated until June 1976. What is the ranking of Borg and Vilas at the end of May 1976? Is Vilas #3 and Borg #4 or is it something else? Links http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=15.12.1975&r=1&c=# http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=10.05.1976&r=1&c=# http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx?t=rh http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Vi/G/Guillermo-Vilas.aspx?t=rhKrivo4457 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've already counted all those players and numbers for them should be correct. Maybe we could make consecutive weeks in Top 2, 3, 4, 5 & 10, too.Krivo4457 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope not. I already think the most weeks in the top 2,3,4,5,10 is ridiculously trivial. All anyone really cares about is weeks at number 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a tennis fan I'm interested in the ranking weeks for players although this should be changed to most weeks in top 1,2,4 and 8 instead of top 1,2,3,4,5 and 10 so as to better reflect a grand slam draw (finalists, semis and quarters). So keep it there, just modify it for better consistency and analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I regularly during the year like to see the updates to records, stats and so forth, so Fyunck I think you speak for yourself when you say people are only interested in the weeks at number 1, I have a strong interest in the consistency of a player at the elite end of the game (top 8), I'm sure there are people like you and others like me. It's like the GS titles, I'm also interested in the finals, semi's and quarters I just have a keen curiosity to find out who did what achievements not just victories.

In my opinion I think the rankings section should be changed to total and consecutive weeks for positions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 as well as the year ending positions (which btw you could also do consecutive year ending positions as players like Agassi dropped out then re-entered the top positions? just a thought for the page) this is because that's where the key seedings are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.248.147 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

More ATP era early 80's confusion
1980 US Open has Lendl at 10. This increases his consecutive weeks in the top 10 streak for the latter half of the year. At the time, Borg was at 1. Lendl defended his seeding by defeating then 7th seed Solomon, en-route to his quarterfinals loss to McEnroe. QFs were Borg,(1); McEnroe,(2); Connors,(3); Tanner,(9); Lendl,(10); Fibak,(14); Kriek,(unseeded); Telscher,(unseeded). The only player who gained on him was Kriek (unseeded).

Lendl followed up the rest of the year with wins vs Vilas, SF at Madrid (lost to Clerc), wins at Barcelona, Basel, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Taipei. By the 1980 Australian Open, he was seeded 2nd in the tournament:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?Year=1980&EventId=580&Draw=ms Behind Vilas, but ahead of Clerc.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=560&y=1980

In Barcelona, Lendl was ranked 2 ahead of Eddie Dibbs, who had been ranked at 8 in the US Open. So it's pretty clear that Lendl reached 10 by the US Open in 1980, and never relinquished this after his breakthrough in the asian swing that year, winning 4 titles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?Year=1980&EventId=421&Draw=ms

In the Rogers cup in 1980 - Lendl was seeded 4th, behind Gerulaitis, but ahead of Sadri (unseeded at the US Open). After his win at Montreal, he was seeded 5th at Cincinnati (behind Peter Fleming), who was seeded 9th at the US Open. He was seeded ahead of Tanner who was seeded 11th in the subsequent US Open. Lendl and Tanner made the quarterfinals, Fleming did not. It seems reasonable to conclude that at the 1980 Cincinnati Masters on 8.18.1980 Lendl reached the top 10, after winning the Montreal masters the week before. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, see this chart, published by the ATP. http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/6538A475B50245439430E647C2D5AA1B.ashx

Errors
Federer has 623 outdoor wins, not 622 Djokovic should be included in the wining percentage in clay grand slams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.175.179 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Ok, Federer was corrected, but Djokovic wasnt added to the winning percentage in clay grand slams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.175.179 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Another error in section Career achievements - Match winning % : Djokovic has 119-24 (83.21%) so far, only tomorrow it could be 120-24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.181.239 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Clement has 327 loses, not 326 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.75.175.179 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

consecutive wins of at least one title per year are wrong at least for Federer und Djokovic - needs to be changed, Federer`s score runs to 2010, but he has won Paris in 2011, I am sure also Djokovic has won more straight years, must have been done by a Nadal fan... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.234.52 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nadal Year-End Finals
Nadal has been to 8 finals so far and is attending his 9th this year. So he should be level with Guillermo Villas? Or are we not including him because he was injured last year despite qualifying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.90.35 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I would assume. He missed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By 2015 Novak Djokovic also achieved 9th top 3 year-end ranking - the same as Nadal. This is not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.111.179 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Records made by playing bad
Hello all, I have a problem with records that would not have been attained had the player played even better. For example: Weeks at No. 2 (unlike "weeks in top 2", which is a legitimate record), and especially: Consecutive weeks at No. 2 and 3. For example: had Nadal played even better before 2008, he'd become No. 1 at one point during his otherwise "record" 160 weeks "streak" at No. 2 and thus break it. So my suggestion is to completely remove the records which offend this principle. If there is a concensus on this, it would help clean up the page a little bit. GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This page definitely needs some cleanup, as it is exceeding the 100 kB limits already, and we have a lot of material that is without source (and probably even impossible to find source)
 * I will be bold and start by deleting nr of weeks at #2, 3,.. as that was already mentioned in the previous section as well.
 * Also got to go: the olympics records, which is just a list with the winners, not really about records being broken. And the records about racket tensions, which can probably not be verified anywhere. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also in this category i believe is a lot of unimportant info that has been added to this page. Finals and semi's of grand slams i can understand - but 'finals and semi-finals made in a year at the Masters'?? And what about matches lost - or worse: matches lost (active). 'Finals winning percentage active players' also is a non-category for me. Youngest/Oldest player in top 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 is a bit of overkill as well, just 1, 10 and 100 is more than enough. Gold medal winners at the olympics on the other hand seem like a very valid addition to this site. If no one has any great arguments against this, i will go ahead and change it. Otherwise check out the wiki page where this has been 'cleaned up' already, as well as adjusted for the period 1968-1971, ie includes the entire Open Era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Records_Open_Era_(Singles_Men). Kendu020 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Masters semis" records should be removed, both in total and in the yearly count. Reason: for a seeded player it usually takes only three match wins to reach a Masters semi; not an accomplishment to be mentioned when talking about a Federer or a Nadal (who are at the top of finals and titles lists in that section anyway).
 * "Matches lost" is a pointless record as well; and if it should underline the longevity of a player (losing a lot of tour-level matches takes playing a lot of tour-level matches) -- well, for that there is already the "Matches played" category. GoodIntentionedFreak

For me, another set of "records" belongs into this category, namely the "Consecutive streaks in non-consecutive tournaments" (Grand Slams). To me, this list is meaningless, if it excludes consecutive streaks (as it is currently the case). F.i: look at Andy Murray. He is number 5 on that list. Therefore, there are four longer streaks in this tables than Andy's 4 finals - BUT: in addition, there are three players who achieved even longer streaks in consecutive tournaments. So what significance does the number 5 (the 5th place on this list) have? Well, none I would say... I think there are two options to improve this: Either one completely deletes this category OR change it, so that it includes the consecutive streaks. I would then be the category: "Consecutive streaks in NOT NECESSARILY consecutive tournaments". Just one more example why the current situation is bad: in "consecutive streaks", people who reached 3 finals in a row (consecutive tournaments) are not even mentioned. In the non-consecutive category however, those that reached 3 finals in a row, skipping one tournament in between, are named. Is that reasonable? (I feel that i expressed myself in a very complicated manner, but I hope you still get, why I dislike the mentioned statistik. Otherwise don't hesitate to ask me, to better explain myself :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.114.143 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Prize money
I removed the prize money section and referred to Open Era tennis records – men's singles, which currently has exactly the same information (with more entries in the table). Strictly though, the information should have been slightly different between the two eras, since Agassi and Sampras received some prize money prior to 1990. However this was ignored as Sampras was listed with the same amount of prize money in both articles ($43,280,489). Agassi does not make the top 5 cut used in this article. Since our ATP source covers the 1973-present era, I think it is easiest to simply keep one prize money list for this 1973-present era, and keep it in the Open Era article. The correct prize money list for the 1990-present era is almost identical, so it is not worth keeping that separately (that also saves us the trouble of finding sources for the prize money Sampras received before 1990). Gap9551 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... one thing, just because something is duplicated doesn't mean we only have it in one place. There is nothing against that at all. It would probably be ideal to have Sampras money won from 1990 onward, but it may not be practical or easy to do. I don't really see where a small 5-player table was hurting anything, and our readers might very well expect it to be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, if a (nearly) duplicate section here is deemed useful, it can be kept (although it should have the correct figure for Sampras). But I'd rather keep these records articles as distinct and concise as possible, given the large amount of information they already contain. It also makes them easier to update. As a side note, All-time tennis records – men's singles also has a few empty sections with links to the Open Era article, but in that case it is more urgent given the large size of that article (144 kB). Gap9551 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Good points, Gap9551, makes sense for prize money (as do the All-time page links, including the ATP Rankings you merged earlier -- thanks for doing a clean job on that) -Testpored (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Article scope
We currently have several articles covering men's tennis records.


 * Overall tennis records – Men's Singles > covers entire period of (lawn) tennis (1877 onward)
 * ATP World Tour records > covers the ATP records (1972 onward).

and as of July 2012


 * Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles > covers Open Era record (1968 onward)

At the time I was not greatly enthusiastic about the creation of Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles given the apparent overlap with this article and the additional effort required to maintain both. Now that both articles exist side-by-side and share about 90% of the content it makes sense to evaluate the scope of these articles. The scope of this article, especially with its current name, is not always clear and can be interpreted to mean either:


 * 1) all records since the creation of the ATP (September 1972)
 * 2) all records which are recognized and listed by the ATP (on their website)
 * 3) all records since the creation of the ATP Tour (in 1990) or the ATP World Tour (in 2009).

This ambiguity leads to occasional confusion and edit warring. The current situation, with one article covering the entire history and two others covering almost the same period, seems less than optimal. My proposal is therefore to change the content scope of this article from the creation of the ATP (1972) to the creation of the ATP Tour (1990). That gives a better coverage of the milestones in tennis history, solves the issue of the 90% duplication between this and the Open Era article and better matches the content with the title of the article. Thoughts?--Wolbo (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes for me personally pre-open era and open era are the two definitive periods in tennis history if were talking records and stats the ATP tour is the second men's tour covering the last 25 years out of 138 roughly 20% and who's to say 20 years from now they may not be changing its scope by this you mean changing the data to reflect stats from 1990 onwards? if so that could lead to the creation of a record article about the first tour 1970-89 which will not be me rest assured!.--Navops47 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be better than what we have now. But, these articles get built because the press talks about records in certain eras of tennis. Certainly the press talks about historical records and open era records... those are the two big separations that must remain. They also talk about ATP records which I'm sure they get from the ATP website (which changes all the time because of errors, or doesn't recognize Davis Cup or particular tournaments). Do they ever really talk about 1990 records onwards? It seems a bit arbitrary to pick that certain time period to start records when for the most part no one else uses it. I'm almost thinking we should dump this article completely. The problem with it is so many editors simply plop in what's on the ATP website thinking that everything on it is from the time the ATP was created. We know it's not. The ATP site may have records from the Open Era onwards... but it cherry picks them. It doesn't have all stats from 1972 onwards (especially missing things in the 1970s). It may have stats from the early 1960s... again cherry picking what to carry. So it's unreliable. What is does carry is very very valuable, incredibly so. But what it misses causes many problems here with many editors saying that since it's not on the ATP site it doesn't exist. So 1990 would be better but I do question it's usefulness to the outside world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fyunck when you look at certain tables on the ATP site like overall performance career stats are before 1972 if you look at the Grass Court career go back to Perry & Budge the same with the pressure zone's list showing Tilden and Cochet I suspect at some point the archivist there will complete all the tables as far back as the 1920's but the site it's self doesn't state by definition "ATP Records from 1972" I have cut right back on contributing to the article because of the edit warring and I think the open era article is more important anyway as it covers both tours and short period before tour formation. The 1990 cut off mmmm? please see my earlier comment re-earlier Grand Prix tour and on the individual player articles nearly all of them state "these records were attained in the Open Era of tennis", Personally a stand alone career to date article for all active players or something similar actually makes more sense as they are current live stats and using the actual wording at the ATP site " ATP Performance Zone" but adding Active Player Records" eg "Performance on Clay" covering 52 week index-52 week titles 52 week W/L-Career index-Career Titles-Career W/L it would satisfy those editors wanting to update stats daily just food for thought.--Navops47 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Navops47 asked for my input here over on the thread I started today at the open era records page (which briefly explains who I am). I agree with all of the above points, especially that the Open era is the most definitive juncture in tennis history (disclaimer: I don't know much about tennis history before the Laver-Rosewall era). So I do agree it's a good idea to assess this article, but at this time relevance is the first issue to consider before considering scope (which assumes it'll be kept).

As for relevance, if all this page effectively does is parrot what's on the ATP site, then why even keep it (as Fyunk wrote). Plus (as I discuss in my thread) the Open era page is now of much better quality than this one, so this page is largely a redundant subset of a better one. (By subset I mean starting at Sept 1973 is a subset of the Open era.)

The reasons for keeping this page are popularity and inertia. This page gets a lot more views than the Open era page (perhaps becuase it's several years older and more thoroughly wikilinked throughout tennis articles?) I'm assuming if it is deleted any wikilinks here would redirect to Open era page. Are there any problems/hassle I'm glossing over? As for inertia, the edit history shows lots of different people update it especially during busy tennis weeks. This is not a good reason to keep it, just anticipating there would be some unhappy editors if it gets the axe. --Testpored (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What happened with this discussion nearly one year on? --Navops47 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It sort of evaporated. I think we should simply dump the article (redirect) but it's such a huge article I also think it should be a formal RfC. Three choices should do it: Keep as is, 1990 onwards, redirect to Open Era records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly prefer having two articles; full history and Open Era. I think the term 'Open Era' is much more common in the media than 'ATP Era'. And the difference is a measly 3.5 seasons, about 7%. Stats that are only available for 1972 onwards could still be included in the Open Era article, with a note saying that they are only for 1972 onwards (same for 1990 onwards). This article can then become a redirect to Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles, with the edit histories of both articles preserved somewhere, given the amount of work many editors have put in. Gap9551 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly five of us are making comments I believe we should just have 2 like Gap9551 said Full History/ Open Era should we kick off the formal RFC in a new section? I think Wolbo's original outline was succinct in outlining the case for removal can we proceed with this then?--Navops47 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, an RfC seems the right thing to do here. Gap9551 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pressure Situations section
Hi I updated this sectionATP_World_Tour_records the deciding set table according to this table http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/finalset/all/ Kei Nishikori tops this table with 78% (85-24). This editor 82.137.9.233 keeps reverting it I have reverted it twice so cant revert again 3RR. Their reason is its 100 wins minimum which is not applied by the ATP I mentioned this in my edit summaries the data at the official site http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone is used mainly to update ATP records for this article setting an arbitrary 100 win match limit completely removes the Japanese player from the table altogether which is ridiculous can some please investigate and change this back. --Navops47 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess my question would be, why 80? Haven't we always used 100 for that table? The ATP has changed their own criteria a couple times themselves. We could make it 20 wins and the people on the list might be players no one knows. The ATP chart you mention looks like it uses 30 wins or less, and if we put it at 80 Del Potro get's left off the list at No. 8 with a 70–32 record. I don't particularly care if we use 100 or 80 or 30 or 1, but to change it from longstanding 100 to arbitrary 80 might need a consensus. What happens when a new ATP player wins his first two deciding 3rd sets? He'd be 2–0 and at the top of the chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We do need a minimum dataset for all tables which deal with percentages in order to make the data meaningful. The question is how we set those minimums. Do we do that ourselves, and if so, based on what criteria, or do we follow the criteria that are used by our sources? Looking at the pressure situations tables it is noticeable that we have five tables which use four different minimum data requirements (10 wins / 75 wins / 100 wins / 250 wins). What is the logic for these differences? It strikes me as odd that Nishikori can be listed in the '5th set record table' based on just 12 wins but can not be listed in the 'Deciding set' table based on 85 wins.--Wolbo (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for feedback and points do we just not set the minimums per what that are in the top 10 lists for each table as they are at the ATP site to reflect this in this article? One of the reasons I started other records articles was that the full picture was not being given when we originally had this one type of records article and that the minimums were set so high that they excluded notable players from it e.g Laver, Rosewall I thought if a reliable source states a fact then should we not be reflecting that fact as it is for readers?
 * I haven't looked into the effect of using different minimums, but in my experience the minimums are usually unnecessarily high. I'd say they should be lowered to just above the point where players with lucky series make it into the lists. I admit this is a poorly defined criterion though, and following published minimums would be best, if they exist. But it is easy for the reader to mentally ignore an entry that the reader considers 'lucky', whereas it is a bigger problem when a high-percentage record by a relatively young player (such as Nishikori) is omitted. Gap9551 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing though... unless/until this article is deleted/merged we have to be careful of using those "facts" from the Fedex ATP performance Zone. Many stats are pre–ATP. I fixed some Ashe and Laver and Connors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Another thing. This section is called "pressure situations." What the heck is winning % after winning the first set doing in there? That's not a pressure situation, that's an ease-of-mind situation. It should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha good catch. Yes, maybe it should go to another subsubsection. Gap9551 (talk)

winning streaks
What is the difference between titles in a row as a winning streak, and finals won as a winning streak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo mozzarella (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the subsection 'Winning streaks', 'titles in a row' means that e.g. Lendl won 8 consecutive tournaments he participated in. 'Finals won' means that e.g. Federer won 24 consecutive finals he played, but within that streak there were tournaments where he lost before the final, so he didn't win 24 consecutive tournaments. But he didn't lose any finals within that streak. Gap9551 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

kei nishikori 500 level
Kei Nishikori has 6 500 level titles - it says so in his career stats page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo mozzarella (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this has now been updated by someone. Gap9551 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Youngest player to end a year in the top-100
Aaron Krickstein (as here) or Richard Gasquet (as in that article) ? 201.83.148.241 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That article said, and still says, that Gasquet was the youngest player to finish in the year-end ATP top 200, not top 100. Gap9551 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ranking points reached
Hello, i think there is huge record missing here, it's ranking point reached at any date of the year and at the end of the season for a player. I thought of this with regard to the records reached by Djokovic after the 2015 us open. I can not find these records on the atp page nor in internet blogs, but i have some clues. The problem of course is that the ranking point system have been changing from time to time. Since 2009 onwards it is all clear. But the system have changed in 1990 and in 2000 if not more. I think is possible to get this records at least from 1990 onward with the help of the wikipedians.

(*) Pre 2009 doubled ranking points.

The problem with this table is that the adaptation is not exactly the double of the previous points, but a more accurate conversion. For example a grand slam winner and finalist, got 1000 and 700 each, but now the same results are 2000 and 1200 points each, so the same results are not just the double. The finalist is now less retributed than before. That's why there have to be a proper conversion. Example 2006 Roger Federer season: he got 8360 points that becomes 15495 "new" points. I have no access to the "new" converted points of the other players on the list. It is not so hard to calculate once we now the exact date of the most points reached, which we don't know exactly, because that is the exact date of the most point reached with the older system (from 2000). It´s pretty similar, but not the same, as we see with the 2006 Federer case, it changes from No.1 to No. 2 with that "small" correction. To know the converted point at the end of the season we just have to convert well, giving the right point to each tournament played, (International Series become ATP 250, International series gold become ATP 500, Master series become Masters 1000, etc.), we have the date, that is the most dificult to know as in the previous case.

(*) Converted pre 2009 points.

I hope someone can help to get these tables right. With some sources or converted ranking points. Thanks --Tommy Boy (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be an interesting record to add, but we'd have to make separate lists for before and after he point 'doubling'. In part to avoid original research, and in part because some international series events turned into ATP 250 while others turned into ATP 500. There is no obvious way to convert those. Gap9551 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Muster titles
I think Thomas Muster won 1 Grand Slam, 8 Masters 1000, 4 ATP 500, and 31 ATP 250, completing 44 ATP titles, but the ATP 250 record´s list shows Muster with 26 ATP 250 titles. Is it a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.107.75.9 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think he won 31 ATP Tour events back in the day, and those are not in all cases the same as the present ATP 250 events. I suppose 26 of the 31 are considered equivalent to current ATP 250s while some others are considered equivalent to current ATP 500s. A source for the 26 figure would be great, of course. Gap9551 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ATP World Tour records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629155159/http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/abouttheitf/history.asp to http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/abouttheitf/history.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC proposed deletion, redirecting or renaming of the ATP World Tour Records article
I am proposing that this article should be deleted as we currently have two other articles that already cover records for the most important time periods in tennis history from the beginning in 1877 and from 1968.


 * Overall tennis records – Men's Singles > covers entire period of tennis records (1877 onward)
 * Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles > covers Open Era records (1968 onward)

This article covers the period from 1972 onward when the ATP came into existence however the men's tour was officially known as the Grand Prix tennis circuit from 1970 to 1989. The original discussion about this articles scope was outlined by User:Wolbo in which he stated. "At the time I was not greatly enthusiastic about the creation of Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles given the apparent overlap with this article and the additional effort required to maintain both. Now that both articles exist side-by-side and share about 90% of the content it makes sense to evaluate the scope of these articles. The scope of this article, especially with its current name, is not always clear and can be interpreted to mean either:

A. all records since the creation of the ATP (September 1972) B. all records which are recognized and listed by the ATP (on their website) C. all records since the creation of the ATP Tour (in 1990) or the ATP World Tour (in 2009)

This ambiguity leads to occasional confusion and edit warring. The current situation, with one article covering the entire history and two others covering almost the same period, seems less than optimal. My proposal is therefore to change the content scope of this article from the creation of the ATP (1972) to the creation of the ATP Tour (1990). That gives a better coverage of the milestones in tennis history, solves the issue of the 90% duplication between this and the Open Era article and better matches the content with the title of the article. Thoughts?"

The previous discussion above opened this debate further with some editors including myself preferring that we just have the 2 articles Overall & Open Era and that we should delete it, it was also suggested by Fyunck(click) that we should move this discussion into a formal RFC with three available options below which I am doing now.


 * Option 1. Do we delete this article and re-direct to the Open Era article?
 * Option 2. Do we keep this article as it is now?
 * Option 3. Do we change this article to reflect only records from 1990 when the ATP took full control of the men's tour?

Editors are most welcome to add your comments, thoughts, etc, below.--Navops47 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles only has singles records and ATP World Tour records also has doubles section, albeit very short. --Kompik (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. If the singles content is merged, the doubles content here should go to Tennis records of the Open Era – men's doubles, to keep consistent article titles. Gap9551 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 3 - I would not be upset if Option 1 came to be, but I think the start of the 1990 ATP World Tour is a significant enough time period. Otherwise you're correct... this is mostly a duplicate article with only 4+ years being different over a 48 year time period. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 – The only thing that really happened in 1990 was that the ATP tour changed its name essentially to reflect that it was the final remaining men's tour with the final shutdown of World Championship Tennis. Really, though, as always, the big change in professional tennis was the beginning of the Open Era; there were professional events before, but they were relatively minor and there was no overall organization. It was the start of the Open Era, that really led to the ATP's (and WTA's) very existence. Most general interest coverage barely even notes the ATP or WTA by name, other than to say they govern the men's tour and women's tour respectively; they don't typically call them by their full name. Even if the ATP were to collapse for some reason, there would still be a men's tour, just with a new governing body. Also, the vast majority of commentary discusses records since the Open Era began, so focusing only on the ATP seems pointless. oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is probably close to unanimous consensus that the start of the open era marks the most significant event but the start of the ATP Tour in 1990 was a lot more than just a name change. Before 1990 the tennis circuit was run by International Tennis Federation and later the Men's International Professional Tennis Council (MIPTC). The start of the ATP Tour meant that the ATP (+tournament directors) wrested control of the tennis circuit away from the ITF.--Wolbo (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Option 1 – I'm not convinced that the period 1990 onwards is sufficiently significant or notable for a separate records article. There is not even a general (men's) tennis article on this period of time (ATP Tour is a redirect), just brief mentions in Association of Tennis Professionals and History of tennis. As for content, are there sources that provide records specifically for 1990-present? ATP World Tour also only exists as a redirect which is an additional argument against Option 2. Then again, Open Era is also just a redirect, although I believe that a separate article on that topic would be justified. I prefer Option 1, as it seems pointless to have two articles on almost identical periods of time, and Open Era is the more commonly mentioned and more relevant period. I suggest redirecting (and technically not deleting) this article to Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles and possibly merging some of the content here. The long edit histories should be properly preserved. Gap9551 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should also be noted that the records editors pull off the ATP website, and use for sourcing for this article, will be pretty poor for using in the "Open Era." The ATP records from 1972-1980 are already "iffy", and the ones from mid-1968 to 1972 are lacking in many many details. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Can't see why the "1990 - " records are notable enough, since that period or era itself does not have a separate article but is a redirect to a section. In that point of view the respective statistics or records can be part of a bigger article rather than separate.--Mondiad (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - I'm on the fence between options 1 & 3, so I'm going with an "inclusionist" stance here. While I agree that 1990 onwards is not that significant per se, several arguments can be made for option 3: a) supplements existing pages of singles & doubles Slam + Masters + Olympics winners since the ATP Tour started in 1990; b) it would truly make this an ATP Tour records page (and NOT an "ATP website records page" like it is now); c) it includes doubles records; and d) it includes singles records for ATP 500 and 250 levels that are not (and should not be) included in the Open Era singles records page. I'll add that if option 3 is enacted, I suggest getting rid of the "active players only" lists, given the reduced historical purview. -Testpored (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - There clearly are two Eras, two different moments. But the Open Era and the ATP World Tour Era conditions are mostly similar, so the records should be merged in one single page in my opinion. Otherwise, there are other big moments in tennis history, but we cannot break it in too many periods. First, the Open Era records page should be updated and after a while this page deleted (or redirected).82.137.8.56 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 3 as a slight preference with Option 1 as an alternative. If it turns out that an article on the ATP Tour period (1990–) can not be successfully maintained it can be redirected to Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles at that point. Keep in mind that the differences between ATP World Tour records and Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles extend beyond just the time period, so if option 1 is chosen we should compare the articles before redirecting to ensure that Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles ends up with the best content from both articles. --Wolbo (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - I think that the Open Era records and the ATP World Tour era records should be merged into one single page, since they are very similar. These statistics can be part of one larger article, due to the opinion that the 1990 era and on wards is not really notable to have its own article.  Like an above user has already mentioned, the only significant thing that happened was that "ATP tour changed its name essentially to reflect that it was the final remaining men's tour with the final shutdown of World Championship Tennis."   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - just a comment/observation on what we are talking about here. It's leave it as is (which is not going to happen based on comments), strip out everything before 1990 and have a much smaller footprint in this article (which also looks to be failing), or delete this article, keeping only the type of charts that are missing from the open era records page. We aren't going to actually merge this article as a separate section at the open era article... that would be ridiculous and we'd keep this article if that was the case. We are deeming here that there is no need to have a 1972 records onwards article when we already have an article that has April 1968 records onwards. There will be very little actually merged and every single chart that is merged will need to be rewritten to encompass results from the extra 4 years. Just making sure we are all on the same page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Based on feedback received there is a currently a majority 6 to 3 in favour of deleting this article apart from a small number of tables its virtually the same as the Open Era article as Fyunck mentioned keeping only the type of charts that are missing from the open era records page.--Navops47 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - the notion held by at least 2 people that the ATP tour was merely a renaming of the ITF Grand Prix tour is a fallacy, and should be disregarded as a criteria for not having an ATP Tour (1990 onwards) article. Brief history lesson: the ATP, i.e. at the time solely the player's union, took power from the staid ITF by announcing in 1988 (the famous "parking lot press conference") they were creating a rival tour starting in 1990. Nowadays this may not seem like much of a change (afterall, the tournaments themselves remained largely the same) but it did introduce new governance structure, explicitly allowed for apperance fees for non-mandatory events (nowadays 500s and 250s), and created clearer mandatory participation guidlines for what became known as the "Super 9" (now called 1000s). Otherwise the tour wouldn't be the way it is today. -Testpored (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said. 1990 was not as big a change as 1968, but it was more than a blip on the radar. Just as 1925 was more than a blip when the 4 majors were created as the 4 biggest events. Or 1922 when the challenge round was removed from Wimbledon. Heck, 1962 was a huge year when the rules of the server changed completely. The question is, do these lesser changes (specifically 1990) warrant a separate article? Do sources talk about these specific time periods enough to group them separately? For the Open Era it's a resounding yes. For the rest no, except perhaps for 1990. And even 1990, as we get further and further away in time, is being mentioned less and less by sources. Very few sources say blah blah is a record since 1990. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True, it's either option 1 or 3, and my opinion stands with 3 (as stated above). If this 1990 onwards page were to exist stand-alone I would be in favor of option 1, but as I mentioned before there are already 1990 onwards ATP records pages that would be complemented by option 3 here. And I'll add, as far as decision-making goes, majority doesn't necessarily win here at wikipedia, especially if majority argument is specious (as we're in agreement here about what 1990 change meant). -Testpored (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Specious had to look that word up in relation to opinions expressed in this discussion (seemingly well-reasoned, but fallacious, insincere), or (with appearance intended to generate a favorable response) or (apparently true or right though lacking real merit and not genuine) hmmm! Its presumptuous to assume the outcome of this discussion when its closed by an uninvolved editor or uninvolved admin that option 3 (already in sandbox phase) is a forgone conclusion).--Navops47 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Specious can simply mean "plausible sounding but fallacious" which is exactly what I described earlier. -Testpored (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True, majority is supposed to mean nothing... it's strength of argument that is required to sway a closer. Of course we know that in practice majority means a LOT. That said, anyone can create an article on 1990 onwards and if they get a few people to say they like it, it winds up staying. I don't want to trample on that. Our biggest problem with this article is that it was 95% the same as the open era record page except for some numbers switching a few players around. We were doubling up the time and effort because of 4 crummy years. Now I was in the camp of option 3 (allow an article of 1990 onwards). But, just because I think this divide is viable doesn't mean our sources do. Can someone list off some really reliable sources that only give records from 1990 onwards? Is this a divide that is readily shown to be used in the outside world so that our millions of readers should be shown these 1990 onward records? Having to do continual synthesis on players stats to get these tables may not be in our best interest. We are an encyclopedia so we take info that is already out there and summarize it. If those sources don't ever show 1990 records, maybe we shouldn't either and I would change my mind on what to back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good question of external sources mentioning 1990. For certain there are ones that explain the significance of the change of tour (as already described above), otherwise I wouldn't know of it. But I don't think it's strictly necessary in the case of stats/records pages to find websites or documents listing just 1990-onwards stats; as of now there are already 2 such stats articles here at wikipedia: List of men's Grand Slam, Olympic and ATP Tour Finals and Masters Series singles champions and List of men's Grand Slam, Olympic and ATP Tour Finals and Masters Series doubles champions. That's the point I've been making; having a general list of records would complement those. And let me be clear on my opinion, which I spell out in a bit more detail at the sandbox below: a 1990- stats page does not need to have identical categories to the Open Era singles or the current version of this ATP 1972- page. Instead I prefer a smaller, more meaningful subset of singles records, along with data unique to this page of doubles records and lesser singles categories (like aces and tiebreakers that the ATP lists on its website) to round it out. That's what I started to do in the sandbox. -Testpored (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly necessary... probably not. But we start to cut the edge of original research if it's not in any sources. You mention those two articles. Those Masters events were the key as they didn't really exist in that form before 1990. The Olympics, the Majors and the ATP finals were put in to give it a comparison. They are not the same at all to this article or to a full 1990 onward article. We don't want to give undue importance to something that no sources care about at all... that's not the wikipedia way and we have to be very careful. Again, going back to those two 1990 articles you mentioned. They talk about the four biggest categories in tennis. Will we need an article that also compiles the smaller events of 1990 onward? We did hit the highlights. To be honest I think 1925 is a more important divide than 1990, but that doesn't mean I think we need to make a pre and post record page. The only reason 1990 gets more attention is because it's much closer to today and many of us remember it quite well. People who were in high school in 1925 are about 107 today. This is devils advocate stuff but my point is, the reason to have a 1990 onward article is on very slippery ground. But I want to see any sources that talk about those since-1990 records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your long historical perspective, going back to periods I'm not all that familiar with. And I certainly agree the recent time period gets attention because that's what we're living in and what we as tennis fans/observers know best. So that's a factor of why this is a gray area call between options 1 & 3, even for me. And I get your concern about original research in terms of importance/significance, but in terms of data accuracy it's a one-time meticulous effort to subtract pre-1990 results from Agassi, Chang, etc. who straddle the ITF->ATP tour transition. In fact I already did some of that in the sandbox and marked some others that would need to be done. As far as complementing the 2 existing 1990- titles pages, I like the way this page currently lists the 500 and 250 records: simply total titles and finals plus single season titles lists. In fact, if I were to continue working on the sandbox that's something I'd like to do for Slams, YEC, 1000s, 500, 250 - just simple categories with these 3 lists in each. So this would mean the 1990- page is quite a bit smaller than the current 1972- or OE singles pages. But it would also contain unique data of Doubles and things like aces (which only have been official stats since 1991 so could really be moved as-is from the Open Era singles page). -Testpored (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Extras
Sandbox for Option 3: since there's interest in Option 3, I went ahead and created a sandbox to work on it. I did some initial work on it, as explained in the comments at the top of the page. My intent is anyone else interested in Option 3 can work on it, and perhaps it can become a drop-in replacement for this article when polished enough. --Testpored (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions
As this has been a pretty cordial discussion, I don't think we need a formal close. It's been up a month now and only 8 people seemed interested in this and it was split 5–3. Since it's only 8 viewpoints we could put it up for continued discussion, however, zero editors want it to remain as is. It's been here a long time and someone could easily create a 1990 onward article with a new title if this gets removed completely. A lot of editors of this article did not comment here. For their sake and the fact it's only 5–3 (redirect vs 1990 onwards) I suggest we allow Testepored's sandbox page to take the place of this article. It's not really that big a deal as Tennis Project is concerned, but as it stands now, it's pretty much useless. I would suggest a link right up top to our Open Era Records article since it will absorb the few items that might be different. I'll wait 24 hours in case there is vehement opposition, but we should get this done before the heart of the clay and Masters events get rolling. I know this would be against the actual !vote, but it seems the most fair considering it's only 8 !votes and it wasn't a snowball 8–0 or 7–1 !vote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this. I'm certainly on board. I must note the sandbox still needs refinement (per my comments there and in several posts above) before it should go live. I'll have some time this week to work on it, but I'll wait until a firm decision is made. Of course others are welcome to work on it too. -Testpored (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It should probably be a redirect until it's ready... so no one keeps adding more info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge
Do it right or not at all, please. The merge deletes information that should stay. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:9004:C395:BFC9:2FF2 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "mostly" a duplicate article. And 'mostly' dead is different from All dead. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:9004:C395:BFC9:2FF2 (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this article is a better start for the one with the Open Era records. It has more information, is more compact, more balanced, with the right dimensions of the fonts and tables... The first part of the Open Era should be added to this one. It would be a lot easier and a better organized page. So my suggestion is to move this entire page to that one, which will be adjusted afterwards. 82.137.8.71 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or this page should start to be adjusted to the Open Era records with a deadline from now on (e.g. 1 week).82.137.8.71 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That ship has sailed... it was down to complete delete with a redirect or change it to 1990–present records only. That's it. I thought we should at least try 1990 records even though I was starting to lean to complete delete. If you think there are some better charts, they will still be here in the archives. Fix the names & stats and add them to the Open Era article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations
I see no point in abbreviating certain players' names in these listings. "Yev. Kafelnikov" and "Nik. Davydenko" look incredibly weird, and it's not like we are limited with space. Everything fits perfectly well if full names are given. I also see absolutely no point in abbreviating "including" in hidden comments. It may not be obvious to everyone who edits what "incl." actually means, and to write that instead of being clear and saying "including" seems perverse. But someone has undone my changes in this respect, without explaining why. So I record here, as well as in the edit summaries I left, what I think, and I wonder what anyone else thinks. 86.171.218.171 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, see no reason whatsoever to abbreviate player names in this article (e.g. Yev. Kafelnikov). Since names (and words) in full are the natural state it needs to be explained why abbreviations are necessary. --Wolbo (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I abbreviated them is it looks weird to me to have long names stick out well past the rest (del Potro being the longest & once that's shortened the other 2 mentioned above stick out noticingly). It also makes the tables wider and thus more likely to do a line wrap, which also looks weird. I see the point that a partial abbr of "Yev." is a bit strange. Just initials would be better. -Testpored (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people have long names. Making them artificially shorter to "match" other people does not seem logical.  As for wrapping, on my browser, in the top three tables, two Novak Djokovics and a "64-27*" wrap before Juan Martín del Potro does.  Amusing to see you have such a dislike of lengthy words that you couldn't even write "abbreviation" without abbreviating it! 86.176.127.241 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You raised some fair points that editors are looking at. But there is no need for snide remarks. Keep it civil please. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not being in the least bit snide and I don't appreciate being lectured to like that. How about we continue to discuss things sensibly, as we were anyway.  86.171.218.171 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I prefer full names unless there is a clear reason why that is a problem (in some browsers or mobile displays), which I don't think is the case here, or if they stick out massively. That would have been the case if Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, Sr. had played tennis at the elite level, for example. If abbreviations are really deemed necessary, I'd go with initials, like J.M. del Potro. Gap9551 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Best season start?
After Federer's win on Chung in the fourth round of Indian Wells, there have been many news articles about the fact that this was equalling Federer's 2006 year start with 16 wins to 0 lost matches. It's only the 3rd time that Federer started a year with 12 wins in a row or more. It could be interesting to find out the best year starts of the ATP era, finding all occurences of 12 (15?) or more consecutive wins at the start of a year (by checking the results of the winners of the January tournaments). I'm guessing it would be nearly impossible to do the same search for the whole Open era. Djokovic started 2011 with 42 consecutive wins, that's probably the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Н Француз (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Djokovic had 41 to start a season, McEnroe had 42. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

dealing with obstinate fanboys
Hoping to get some consensus here on how to deal with this fanboy, who repeatedly lowers the minimum wins to be eligible for the deciding sets record. He's a del Potro fanboy who even stated "lets give credit to Delpo" in this diff. In terms of content, it's not that big of a deal, and I vaguely recall Nishikori fans doing similar things in the past. But as a matter of prinicple it's irritating for fanboys to swoop in and rig things for their hero. I don't like that, especially when the established threshold even has a comment as to why it's that number. Any thoughts and advice on how to proceed here? -Testpored (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: since no responses here and the fanboy kept at it, I reported it to wikipedia admins and now the page is semi-protected for 2 months. I'm grateful this disruption is dealt with. -Testpored (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don´t get it. If it´s going to be blocked there should be people atualizing it. Yesteraday Leander Paes won a match and today Verdasco. The informations are wrong. Verdasco should bem at 479 wins and Paes at 741 wins and 1160 games.


 * another such user appeared - 109.252.80.112 - for quite some time now. I gave him a last warning in the edit summary, if he lowers the threshold again do you mind requesting the page to be semi-protected indefinitely (or at least for a year)?
 * Update: it happened again. Fresternoch (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just an opinion here. In looking for the best win percentage in deciding sets, shouldn't it be based on setting a minimum amount of deciding sets played rather than a minimum amount of deciding sets won? Same for 5th set record. It seems like we would want a player to have played a minimum amount to qualify rather than win a minimum amount. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And there's another issue.... Sampras. The article lists him at 182–80 (69.5%) in deciding sets. The ATP has him at 167-79 (67.9%). And that ATP record starts in 1988. You'd have to eliminate 1988 and 1989 3rd and 5th sets to fit this article. Doing some quick figuring Sampras was 7–7 in deciders in 1988/89. So that would make Sampras 160–72 (68.97%) from 1990-present. Kind of a peculiar Wiki article since most sources don't show records from only 1990 onward. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought of that too when I first stumbled upon it, but I guess counting by the number of wins is more convenient than counting how many they won, the only explanation that I can think of right now. As in the case of Sampras, I had wondered about that too, and I think John Newcombe on the Open Era records had a similar problem, a not so outstanding win record of Wimbledon if you look at the entire course of his career but because of the time cutoff, it makes him stand out. There were a few other things too. Fresternoch (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for staying on top of this latest fanboy situation. I'm not as involved these days, so it'd be better if you requested page protection. I use the "RPP" option on the Twinkle tool to do it; makes it convenient, and I forget how to do it the regular way. -Testpored (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mats Wilander
Mats Wilander's records are missing from the article, particularly for number of Grand Slam titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.119.179 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where and which ones are records? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is only for records during the ATP Tour, meaning since 1990. All Mats Wilander's seven Grand Slam titles were in the 1980s. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)