Talk:Golden set

Merge? or Delete+Move
When I created Golden set (tennis), I wrote a completely new article, and I took a couple of lines (only the see also section) from the history of Golden set before it was turned into a simple redirection 2 years ago.

Is a merge the right thing to do? I think it'd be better to delete Golden set and move Golden set (tennis) here. But of course I'm not an expert in Wikipedia policy. Just saying what seems to make sense.

Azylber (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the note. The fact that you did reuse a portion of the old article leads me to think that the article history should be preserved (see copying within Wikipedia), and that a history merge may be the simplest option. If it's okay with you, we can leave the tag and see what the cut and paste move repair holding pen regulars (Hi, Anthony Appleyard!) have to say. - Eureka Lott 01:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Eureka, the bit that I took from the old version was the "see also" section, which is the least important part of the article. I wrote the article, and I'm happy to remove the "see also" section if it helps to resolve this. Azylber (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's an entirely accurate characterization. You deserve credit for rewriting the article, but it does includes material that's substantially similar to the old article. - Eureka Lott 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it's going to be similar, because the topic is the same. But I only took the "see also" section. The rest, I wrote independently. Hope this clarifies it. Azylber (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

3 or 4 times - Confusing and indeed self-contradictory
We're told it has only been achieved 3 times in 'top-class professional tennis', by 1 man and 2 women. But the table shows 4 entries, 1 man and 3 women. Presumably either the counts have not been updated, or one of these matches (the one in 1995? or in 1943?) is not deemed 'top class professional', but we are not told which one, nor who says so. Indeed 'top-class professional' is neither defined nor supported by any citation. Which competing professionals are not top class? And who says which of these competitors are top-class professionals and which are not? And arguably either both the winner and the loser must be deemed 'top class professionals', or somebody (who?) must be classifying events as 'top class professional events'. I know too little to answer these questions, but clearly the article needs fixing by somebody who does know. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Best would be not to count at all. -Koppapa (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Shvedova vs. Frazier
Hi,

It is not possible that Shvedova “won the 23 first points of her match vs. Frazier before double-faulting”: indeed, the match statistics indicate that she only made 2 breaks during the whole match. (To double-fault in the 6th game you have to serve second, and then Shvedova would have broke in 1st, 3rd and 5th games). A forum topic about this match (see references in the main article) speaks of Shvedova's having won the 19 first points, then double-faulted (after which she won her service game and lead 5-0, before losing the next game and then winning the first set 6-1). That version seems more reliable, since it fits with the actual number of breaks for Shvedova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remsirems (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, removed it. -Koppapa (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

top-tier professional tour tennis
The claim about "top-tier professional tour tennis" in this article and similarly in the Golden Match article seems misleading to me. I would suggest that another formulation be found. There are at least (!) two entries that do not seem to match this description, wiz. the 1910 game against a woman who lost 6-0, 6-0 and whose first name is not known and the 2013 US Open qualifying. In fact, there is only one entry which I would consider indisputably acceptable without a deeper investigation (2012 Wimbledon Championships, and to boot over a strong opponent).

I note that if women did play professionally in 1910, they did not do it on any reasonable level, further that the semi-unknown opponent is extremely unlikely to be considered even remotely top-tier.

I note that the tournament level of the qualifying for a GS tournament is not top-tier by even the most generous definition I could live with. Second tier at best (and with the assumption that some individual players will not be above third tier). 80.226.24.4 (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum, there is an inconsistency between "Golden Match" and "Golden set" wrt to second-word capitalization. 80.226.24.4 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so no one has responded in two years; I'll have a go. I think the 1910 game is probably not notable, unless anyone has good evidence for the importance of the tournament; presumably it wasn't professional, and one could assume that such things happen in state, county regional championships etc. with reasonable regularity.


 * As for the grand slam qualifying Golden set, I think it is notable; Grand Slam qualifying events have their own draw pages on Wikipedia, and the quality is high - almost everyone who plays in them is in the top 250 of the world rankings and, with respect to the number of matches won, they award more prize money and roughly equivalent ranking points to challenger tournaments.


 * With regards to the other matches, I would incline towards considering the Tri-State championships notable; though not professional, they were among the biggest matches of their time. The Fed Cup records should likewise be notable of their own accord. The status of futures and challengers qualifying is in my opinion a bit more marginal - in both cases, no money is won solely in the qualifying rounds, although the matches are technically professional.


 * Does anyone have any thoughts? Mechaniik (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Laura Huiskamp
I believe the "Miss Huiskamp" who was beaten in the 1910 Washington State Championships was actually Mrs Laura Huiskamp.

Here are brief biographical details posted on the TennisForum board (although without reference to the golden set/match):

"HUISKAMP, LAURA (nee Laura Eliza McVay) United States Born 8 December 1885 in Pennsylvania Died 25 April 1943 in Iowa Married Carleton Huiskamp on 30 October 1907 in Seattle [Active circa 1908-12]

This player is usually referred to as “Mrs Huiskamp” in contemporary sources. Carleton Huiskamp was born in Iowa to Dutch parents. she was active mainly in the Pacific Northwest."

While not proof of the identification, I do not believe there were many tennis players called Huiskamp in 1910 in Washington state! Nigel Campbell (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden set. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901165743/http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day1/11125ms.html to http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day1/11125ms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dan Added - golden match
I am not really sure whether it is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article, since it was only in qualification at ITF level. Still, I'd guess that even at this level it is rather rare occurrence. Dan Added won golden match against Freddy Prioton in Poitiers. Source: http://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/ATP_Tennis/52743/golden-match-alert-dan-added-writes-history-against-freddy-prioton/ --Kompik (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No, this and the other pre-tournament qualifiers of lowest-level events (Futures and such) don't belong. The 55-year-old getting golden matched twice was utterly absurd. I removed all of it, and now it's just the two golden sets that occurred in the main draws of top-level pro events. -Testpored2 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hotchkiss-Huiskamp
I have tried to do some research regarding this match and was able to provide a bit more detail:


 * The match took place on August 12, 1910.
 * Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman was still unmarried at this point and was known only as Hazel Hotchkiss.
 * The opponent, only known by her last name, is referred to as Mrs. Huiskamp in all contemporary accounts, though the name was also listed as Huskamp and Hunskamp in some newspapers. I have corrected the article, which had previously shown her as Miss Huiskamp.
 * The sets were 6-0, 6-3, not 6-0, 6-0. Thus this could not have been a golden match as the article had previously indicated.

I have corroborated this info with several contemporary news accounts.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find Mrs. Huiskamp's first name. The mystery endures. Gcjnst (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Two golden match losses for Tomas Fabian??
This is what the source actually says: "This weekend, Fabian was again in the spotlight, losing to Joffrey De Schepper in the first qualifying round of the France F23 Futures in Rodez by 6-0 6-0, this time managing to somehow win one point, on his second serve, avoiding the second Golden match loss in just a few weeks." 89.20.174.130 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Same seen, three of the mentioned Golden matches are not Golden matches, this article is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plamen1994 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)