Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)/Archive 5

Sourcing, etc.
Another small thing, but are there any objections to declaring the WP:ENGVAR British like it is in Tennis? We currently use a hodgepodge and I'd like to standardise it per MOS:ARTCON, which says. —Somnifuguist (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC) ✅ (for American English)
 * We currently cite all three editions of Bud Collins' encyclopedia. Can someone with one of them on hand please change the citations (updating the page numbers) so we only refer to one of them?
 * For the Roberson's Encyclopedia of Tennis refs (and the Bud Collins), can the s be changed to   (again by someone with who has the book), so each statement has the page number referenced. ✅
 * I think it's best not to cite non-English (Portuguese) sources if we can avoid it as the terms originate in English. ✅
 * I have no idea where the Phil Dent quote comes from—none of the sources in the edit that added it mention him. I'll try to find a quote from a bigger name like McEnroe (who has discussed it) or similar, which would be more compelling anyway. ✅
 * The statement, stemming from this discussion, is unverifiable WP:OR and needs to be removed. ✅
 * It would be good to have a paragraph in the history section on how pro players were banned from the slams until the Open Era.
 * I do own both books... Robertson in hardback and Collins in paperback. Certain pro players were banned from the French in the 1970s also, so not just the Open Era. Finally, we should use one English variant throughout, however in this case it should be US since the term Grand Slam as used in tennis was invented by United States personalities. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * French source are fine especially for the French Open section, speaking of the French sources, it's not clear where the first edition of FO took place, here it's mentioned it was at the Croix-Catelan of the Racing Club de France. Related discussion on a tennis forum. The ITF statement is verifiable with the ITF Constitution document, no need to remove it but keeping is necessary. --ForzaUV (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes French for the French Open section is fine obviously, I forgot about that. That the ITF constitution was changed in 2011 is WP:OR derived from an email exchange if you read the linked discussion. I've reworded the section to avoid saying it. I added a note about the disputed 1891 location with the source you linked, the same source the French wiki uses. —Somnifuguist (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the edit made by the IP is fine, "sometimes referred to as a Three-Quarter Slam" is more accurate than "known as a Three-Quarter Slam". --ForzaUV (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I guess. ABC paulista (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Tournament's table
and, I think that we should remove the table on the tournament's section. That table offers no informations that isn't state elsewhere here (aside form the tiebreakers format, which is of lesser importance for this article), being full of redundancies. So I feel that it's useless for the article, it aggregates nothing for the reader and for the editors. Honestly, I've always been againt its creation and inclusion, and now even more than before. ABC paulista (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Somnifuguist here with new account. I'm not opposed to this per se, but I think we need to replace it with prose outlining the similarities, those being: draw sizes (the redundancy of in each section is bothersome); tournament length; points for each of the tours; match formats; and being the only significant tournaments with mixed doubles events. Also, mentioning the year of the first women's events (and first wheelchair events) in each tournament's section is needed. The deciding set rule info would have to be split to the individual sections as well. Kuinyo (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm thinking. Getting rid of the table and transferring all the info that's pertinent to all tournaments to a first paragraph. The phrase before the table should be the expanding point. ABC paulista (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I kinda like it, it's small and summarizes the tournaments' main differences and similarities. Maybe we can change a few things here and there, but for me it's good as it is. ForzaUV (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And what do you suggest to make it more useful and less redundant? ABC paulista (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also tend to like it. It gives readers a quick access view if they don't want to read all the history. I think folks make too big a deal out of some redundancies. Our infoboxes on players are filled with redundancies but the give quick access to vital prose info. Same with this chart. I don't think we need the winners in them though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, infoboxes and tables are different things and serve distinct purposes that shoudn't overlap with each other. It's not the job of a table to summarize key points of a prose-based info, but to collect and organize data. So, maybe we should transform this table on a infobox. ABC paulista (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Demanding a re-vote on the removal of the tables and restoring all of the important tables that removed
, and  I demand a re-vote on the removed sections of the article pertiment to the topic and their reinstatement. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are you? What tables and sections do you think are important? ABC paulista (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Qwerty284651. They had failed to sign properly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry, for forgetting to sign. Rookie mistake right there. Anyway....I was inspired to pursue tennis stats on wikipedia, especially with the Open Era and All-time men's singles and women's singles articles, following the 2008 Wimbledon Fedal final - my first tennis match I ever saw live on TV, the one that started it all. With time I expanded my knowledge to other areas, such as Masters, and most notably Grand Slam - the pinnacle of tennis - over the past 13 years. And it devastated me that this article, was shortened, on the request of 4-5 Wikipedia editors. I am desperate to get at least some of the subsections back, via consensus or other means, o satisfy my emptiness. With my backstory - why I am doing this - out of the way, here are my points, that I demand they be restored; the sections, especially, the tables in the following 3 sections in this older version: here:
 * 

  that, hopefully, will replace the current tables, the very ones, whose new design, you @ suggested, which was then accepted via consensus here :
 * First of all, wikipedia doesn't care about your feelings on the subject, only if its contents follow the guidelines and serve well its purpose of informing its readers, so all your backstory and fellings of "desperation" and devastation" are meaningless here. Second, please tone down a bit your speech, because saying that you "demand" something feels like you WP:OWN the article (which you don't, obviously), and saying that you are willing to bring them back through means other than consensus emphasizes this "owning vibe" you are giving, and also feeling like WP:INTIMIDATION. About the subject in hand, maybe you should first explain on why they should be brought back, but consider that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, so an argument like "inspiring to pursue tennis stats on wikipedia" isn't valid. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, after putting some consideration in what you said. I suggest we reinstate the tables, because it is more appealing to the visual types of people. Plus, the current tables' layout look plain to me. Yes, they are categorized into their respective articles, but it just looks so colorless. Anyway, that is all I have to say for now.Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While visual appealing and formatting are important criterias, the amount of redundancy and the increasing of the article's length would do more harm than good. Conciseness, brevity and coherence are more important for readability than layouts. Also, your first table has nothing to do with the Gramd Slam achievement, it has no place here. ABC paulista (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And, in your opinion, in which article, if not in this one, should the first table belong then? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly the article it currenly belongs to. ABC paulista (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. It never occurred to me that the tables, I am "demanding" to be restored, were just moved to said article. Thanks a lot, @ P.S. Never meant to threaten anyone with, or any other means, statement, it came as a blur. Also, thanks for pointing out the guidelines I was borderline violating. Encouraged me to brush up on my WP rules and guidelines. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Authoritative reference in introduction
I recommend that ref #1 being a US Open document be replaced by the ITF Constitution as the primary reference because: - it is more authoritative - it contains events (junior, wheelchair) not mentioned in te US Open document - it refers to Grand Slam achievement for non calendar year in Doubles categories while the US Open document does not Antipodenz (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ITF Constitution makes no mention of the Career (Grand) Slam achievement, which the US Open source does, so this replacement wouldn't be totally appropriate. Both could be mentioned there, tho. ABC paulista (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The ITF Constitution contents page iii. is headed "Roll of Honour" and lists the various Champions and other award winners etc. Key pages listing players who have attained the Grand Slam and/or the non-calendar year Grand Slam are at 62-63. The US Open DOC has less information in part (e.g. not the non-calendar year Grand Slam winners) but includes the Career Grand Slam and Three Quarter Grand Slam.

Prevented or something else?
The discussion regarding attendance at the Open's includes the statement that Laver (plus other Australian's) "were prevented from participating in the 1970 Australian Open". It is qualified "because the financial guarantees were deemed insufficient". So it actually implies a matter of choice - not an inability or "prevention". The reference provided for Laver's non-participation states "I have no regrets about not defending my Australian title ... The problem was a monetary one, and the failure of Australia to put up proper prize money kept me and the rest of my league away from Sydney". That seems clear to me that "prevention" is not the approriate term to describe this circumstance. I recommend deleting "were prevented from participating" and replacing it with "chose not to participate". Which also raises the discussion in the preceding sentence regarding professional players who "had to skip ..." because they were committed to more lucrative pro circuits. While this appears correct the fuller story in the key reference advises that the (French) Tournament was 'boycotted' which implies something aligned but different. While I think there is something here that could be unpacked further I have no specific change recommendation to make for this. I do however think there is a link to the general comment in relation to 'skipping majors'. The reasons provided in relation to the Australian Open were "because of travelling distance involved and the inconvenient dates close to Christmas and New Year". However in the references provided to these specific claims there is no mention of the travelling distance (see comments below) and while the time of year was relevant that was in relation to Christmas; this is important as when the Australian Open changed its dates to early in the year it effectively resolved the issue of potentially compromising the period up to Christmas but implicated in various ways New Year but this was accepted. In short I do not think there is sufficient information provided to justify "and New Year" or "travelling distance involved", and for the latter only in relation to the AO. What is key, and deserves further teasing out is Evert's quote ("before counting major titles became the norm" - as this is an actual quote and is later referenced recommend that quotation marks be added). This is a key factor in the history of Grand Slam tennis - the view of the relevance and importance of multiple titles, and the Grand Slam itself has grown over time and players who 'chose' not to enter relevant events in the past could and do regret that today. Haven't read Laver's restrospective views on this but suspect he wished he defended his title in 1970 in place of an extra $20K or so. In summary the key reason for some of the worlds best players not to attend Major tournaments was financial (either because they could not [pre Open Era]) or because they chose not to due to financial determinations (chasing the $) - note that this would have been a major factor pre Open Era if professionals were permitted to play the Majors then also as the same factors driving behaviours would have been relevant. Other personal factors are relevant such as timing of the Majors (specifically the AO in relation to Christmas until it changed dates to the New Year) and view of the relative importance of various Major tournaments and/or their perceptions of them e.g. organisation. Travel was an issue, particularly pre WW2 but it is overstated including in this context where it is not referred to in the various references and where players make clear if other factors were different (e.g. Money, timing) they would have attended more often. Furthermore it is relevant to remember that travel goes both ways - players from the Southern Hemisphere had issues with it also in relation to other Majors at different times - if this is to be raised it should be in an even handed way (I note the manner in which this is exhaustively and inappropriately dealt with in the AO site vs other Majors - not a mention). John McEnroe: "What changed it was the fact that they did a better promotional job. They put money into a new stadium and things of that nature". Chris Evert: Q. Why didn't you play the French those three years from '76 through '78, right in the middle of your streak? A. "Don't think I Don't think about that now. I was playing World Team Tennis. Grand Slams weren't as important then. Nobody was counting titles like they are now. Same with the Australian. I didn't play that many, because it meant going down there in December, and it was just out of the question that I would leave my family during Christmas time". Antipodenz (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those times were very turbulent. Those players were under contract to National Tennis League, just like Borg and Connors were to leagues in the 1970s. Basically a union fight. The union couldn't get the tournament to up more money so they wouldn't allow their players to compete. They were banned from playing by contract. It was Open Era but many times it wasn't truly Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The point about attempts to get the tournament to up the money is pertinent, particularly for the AO where it was significantly lower (and with it the respective points on offer) - these are key reasons why some chose not to attend - mostly it comes back to the financial incentive and while some contracts may have specifically 'banned' players from attending the references provided show that both boycotts (e.g. could go but determine not to on a group basis to make a point) and individual choice (not going there for that $) were involved.

Australasian reference
The history section (paragraph starting with: "The United States Lawn Tennis Association ..." refers to the growing success of Australian tennis but at that time the membership of the ILTF and the representative team (e.g. Davis Cup) was from "Australasia". Recommend 'Australian' be replaced with 'Australasian'. Antipodenz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was growing success of Australian tennis, not Australasian tennis. Plus that was how it was written in the sources. It should probably stay as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Fyunck's opinion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There is actually two issues here: - the sentence describes the internal politics of the USNLTA/ITLF so it is not a great fit to raise any Australasian issue here, including for the reason that it could implicate the Australasian representatives views in with the US demands; - the success of tennis can be attributed to a variety of factors including administration, events, public support, player results and so on and throughout the period referred to the representative 'national' organisation for tennis in the Commonwealth of Australia, representing the six states, and in New Zealand was jointly managed as Australasia including ILTF representation, Championship naming an organisation and so on. Discussing this period in relation to ILTF determinations should use 'Australasia' not 'Australia'. With reference to the comment "that was how it was written in the sources" I do not agree as it was not the way it was referred to at the time; subsequently there has been innapropiate use of 'Australia' in lieu of 'Australasia' due to reasons of ignorance and laziness and subsequently repetition bias; none of these reasons support maintaining something not correct - they should, actually, be reasons for careful consideration and ensuring, so far as is practicable, accuracy.

Missing Junior reigning champions in Current champions section
I noticed that all of the current tennis champions have been listed from all disciplines, except the Junior ones. Should I add the Junior winners to the list, or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We should first address the fact that this table is already too large as it is. It's breaking the page's layout, going beyond its boundaries. ABC paulista (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

4R
On various pages I've noticed "4R" under Grand Slam statistics. What does that mean? Wolf O&#39;Donnel (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Without seeing the exact wording I would say fourth round. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Wolf O&#39;Donnel (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Albeit, R4 is the more universally used abbreviation for fourth round in tournaments. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually see it as 4R, but actually more often, in a major, it's written as the round of 16. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Or that. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish it was R16, R32 etc in all of tennis project charts because it's clearer than 4R or 3R. In Slams 3R = R32 but in Masters 3R = R16. ForzaUV (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on the size of the draw of one tournament, really. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is the size of the draw wouldn't matter with R64, R32, R16. The way it's done now in tennis charts, you really need to know the size of the draw to understand how many players left in the tournament by 4R, 3R or 2R. ForzaUV (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can always check the size of the draw by looking in the infobox of a tennis event's main page in the upper right-hand corner, therefore making it easier for readers to deduce, for example, which round is R4 or, in this case, 4R, by looking at said numbers to determine, whether it is the third or the fourth round. OR by visiting either ATP or WTA for 2021 you can see next to the short description of each annual tournament's draw size. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And almost all tennis press reports say 1st round, 2nd round, etc... So a person has to think when they see something different. Also you'll hear stats of something like "how many 1st round losses does Chris Evert have?" If all you had was she lost in the round of 32 at one event and the round of 64 at another, it tells you nothing of value. Both ways of doing it can be useful, we have simply decided on doing it the common way you hear it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Urgent update of this article
This is the article about the Grand Slam. In this article there is a section titled "other related concepts" pertaining to Grand Slam. Some of those are "channel slam" ie French-Wimbledon combo, "surface slam" ie majors won on different surface, there's even "golden slam" ie adding non-slam tournament such as Olympics, and even "super slam" adding year end championships. It's all fine. There's even "pro slam" which is made of professional major tournaments. In this case we see that the "slam" label is being awarded rather generously considering some those tournanents have zero connection to ITF or to these 4 tournaments that grew into current grand slam events. So how is it then possible not to have "World slam" mentioned? No mention of WGCC(Wimbledon), WHCC and WCCC? It's bizarre. ITF was formed in 1913 and there were top three events in the world at the time, official ITF world championships, the 1.0 iteration of ITF majors, including Wimbledon itself. Please add section to "World Slam" and Wilding being crowned triple ITF world champion in 1913 winning all 3 official majors. 93.142.155.12 (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Grand Slam (tennis) already says "Anthony Wilding of New Zealand won all three of those World Championships in 1913". The term "Grand Slam" is from 1933. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't make up words. We report what reliable sources say. I didn't find anything relevant with Google searches, and I don't see why it should be urgent to add an invented term for something that happened 109 years ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can it be proven that such term as "World slam" does even exist? ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)