Talk:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions/Archive 3

Champions by year chart
@Fyunck(click), hey man! Could you please tell me what's wrong with the changes I've made to the table? --ForzaUV (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. By longstanding convention, both here and on player stat pages, we do not include a (1) for only one victory. It's simply extra fluff. The Pre-International French winners should still be small. They are not Grand Slam Champions. There was an agreement long ago to include them but they need to stand out as non-winners. There is no need to have an ugly squiggle mark next to Challenge round winners. That could be handled with a simple note at the bottom of the table signifying the years of the challenge round. I like the color change of Open Era. The flag key is required because not everyone has mouse-over capabilities. We used to do the wikipedia-required first flag icon shows full country name, but changed to a key instead. I like the way you handled the legend key on top and moved some notes to the bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like those (1)s either but I thought about it and they seemed useful to me basically for one reason. Since we can't list all the champions, those (1)s can make it easier to identify all the one-time winners, just do a quick page search for "(1)" and -voila- you've got them all. They're fluff on a player stat page because the page is about one player but not in this case imo. Still, I can easily remove them if necessary. The Pre-International French winners DO stand out as non-winners, a) their background color is different, b) their names in italic, c) there is no (1)s next to their names. Is that really not enough? The challenge round format is indicated with symbols even on the List of USO Open/Wimbledon champions pages so why it's an issue here? As for The flag key, they can be added to the legend key, no problem, I'll do it. Seems to me they're are all minor issues that could have been edited without having to revert everything, don't you think? --ForzaUV (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There is also something else to look at that was a minor issue that hasn't been fixed. I keep thinking that maybe we need an extra column to hold a symbol or perhaps a symbol after the year in the first column. I'm not sure if we need anything. Wikipedia rules say color cannot be the only means of identification of an attribute because of readers who are colorblind. So if a player name/cell was in blue because they retired from the sport after a win, and the key says blue signifies retirement, that would be wrong. It would need a symbol also. We now have a key the uses only color for winning 4,3,2 majors in a year. Now, a player that wins four majors in a year is listed 4x that year, so the color could be argued as the second attribute as opposed to being the only attribute. It's iffy. If we need to add another attribute I'm not sure how to handle it so as not to detract from the clean look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add anything but if I have to, then the easiest way to do it is by adding symbols to those years. I suggest ♠ for winning four – 1969 ♠, three 2006 ♣, two 2019 ♦. --ForzaUV (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the table here and remove it when we finish fixing any minor issue it has. For now, I added the flag key to the legend. I don't think removing the (1)s is a good idea or that 91-24 French winners need to stand out more than they are already do but feel free to change as you see fit.

Australian Open held in December, after the US Open from 1977 to 1985.

I corrected certain items back to the original version. I like the added flag key in the legend. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that some players have asterix's next to their names with no key. At first I thought it was for the first winners at each event but then noticed a whole bunch on Australian Open winners had them. You will wind up with an asterix after every single name! That really seems overkill for what this chart is, and they should all be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One other thing. While I am absolutely against adding (1/1) or (1) because it is not needed and of the precedent it sets against long-standing consensus, there now could be a slight advantage in this singular instance. If others agree that we need a link to the actual singles event, instead of an asterick link we could link it through the (3/7) nomenclature instead. I don't think we need it but maybe others do, and it would certainly be better than an asterisk next to every name in the list.. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's cleaner to have the events linked through those small numbers. I've just tried to do it with a couple of events and I like it. ForzaUV (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok I've moved it to the article. Everything looks good, except for the asterisks but let's see what the others have to say. I prefer (1) or (1/1) to asterisks. ForzaUV (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think a (1/1) is better due to the fact there isn't a table that shows a full list of players by the amount of titles they've won. Having an asterisk for players with 1 title but no asterisk for players with more than 1 looks to somewhat undermine 1 time slam champions. It's also less clear for viewers to click on a draw link for an asterisk rather than a number. Xc4TNS (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While I do not agree with the first part, the second part about it being less clear for viewers to click on is true. In this particular case (1/1) is better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to the respective singles events via the (x/y) counter seems a good idea. To be consistent with the linking I would in this particular case not object to adding (1/1) behind the respective player names.--Wolbo (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

NCYGS
What happened at Wim 1938? Did Budge not hold all 4 titles at that point? Is that not "NCYGS"? The man wins his 5th straight slam, extending his streak, holds all 4 titles for the second time, and as if it's nothing?

IMO it should go like this:

Achievement - player - completion

CYGS - Budge - 1938 USO CYGS - Laver - 1962 USO CYGS - Laver - 1969 USO (OE)

NCYGS - Budge - 1938 FO NCYGS - Budge - 1938 Wim NCYGS - Djokovic - 2016 FO (OE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.101.233 (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All that is already there. I do see your point that Budge won another major to make it five in a row and some might consider that another NCYGS. I'll look into it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

, you reverted my edit stating that "Another NCYGS = another series of four different titles. A player with 10 consecutive titles would achieve 2 NCYGS not 5.". I disagree with this argument, since I don't see where it is stated that NCGS instances can't overlap with each other, and if that was the case them Budge's first NCYGS wouldn't also be valid because it overlaps with his CYGS. Well, maybe that's why neither NCGS are cited on the Grand Slam article, just stating that his CYGS is part of 6 consecutive GS titles. ABC paulista (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is how I see it, we have 3 different achievements and each instance of the same achievement requires a series of 4 different titles. Budge's CYGS and NCYGS overlap but those are not instances of the same achievement, they're two different achievements. It just seems logical to me. Unless there is a reputable source giving Budge two NCYGS, I'd rather keep it as it is. 1 CYGS and 2 NCYGS for a six-title run doesn't look right and kinda cheapens the achievements. --ForzaUV (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , these achievements doesn't say anything about requiring a series of 4 different titles and prohibiting any overlapping. If anything, they just state that the player must hold all four slams at the same time. Sources by sources, none are presented to validade Budge's NCYGS, and they are not even cited on ITFs constituition, so probably Budge's first NCYGS shouldn't be cited by overlapping with his CYGS. In any case, it seems me that, for consistency's sake, either both are citer or none are, your argument of "not looking right" and "kinda cheapening the achievement" is pure WP:POV. ABC paulista (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I had to go with what seemed logical to me but you're probably right and it doesn't matter if it makes sense for the achievements to have a series a 4 different titles. Budge's first NCYGS shouldn't be cited by overlapping with his CYGS. Do it per the ITF source you provided. It's not how I like it to be but it is what it is. ForzaUV (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Majors
I propose this page "Grand Slam winners" be ultimately merged with "ILTF World championships winners". Those two tournaments (WHCC and WCCC) should be added in 5th and 6th column for the period of 1913-1923 in this page.

Present day 4 majors have become big titles ultimately due to ILTF designation since 1924, but ILTF designations run older, since 1913. The merger should definetely be done because Wimbledon/WGCC was both "ILTF World championships" 1913-1923 and is now an "ILTF official championships" 1924-present" so there is a clear link.

Ultimately it would present a coherent view of tennis history regarding most coveted titles designated by the ILTF.

I want to add, this is not a proposal to create a page that would encompass entire tennis history (that would be a more difficult and complex, and it would be similar to that "big titles from 1990-present" page. Such mega page would have to deal with pro era, majors, pro tours, olympics, davis cup, varios ATP/WCT/ITF year-end finals etc). I think that one should be made but it's a bit difficult. It's an entire different project.

This proposal here is different though. It's only about the tennis majors. ILTF World Championships 1913-1923 are predecessors of grand slams or "ILTF official championships" 1924-present.

It's totally incomplete to have e.g. French winners before 1925 but not having listed WHCC winners 1913-1923. WHCC was not merely a de facto major, it was de iure major in its days. In fact, nominally it was even a bigger title. It was "ILTF world championships" vs "ILTF official championships".

I support having pre-1925 French winners listed, but they're there to provide a complete picture. With ILTF World Championships not being listed, not only we lack a full picure, we are omitting de facto and de iure majors won by the players in those days. Those 1913-1923 ILTF championships winners should be added to overall "slam" tallies.

As for winners chart, I propose 5-colour designations, listed here from newest to oldest, dealing with 5 notable eras/periods:


 * ILTF designated MAJORS (open era): 1968/1969-present
 * ILTF designated MAJORS: 1924/1925-present
 * ILTF designated WORLD CHMAPIONSHIPS: 1913-1923
 * non-ILTF, but nevertheless major international championships: Wim=1877-1912, US=1882-1923, Aus=1905-1923
 * non-ILTF, non-international championships: US=1881, French=1891-1924

If US in 1881 was "closed" or reserved for US nationals only, it is imperative we treat is as the French 1881-1924 and label the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.108.128  (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't follow this arguement as "ILTF World championships winners" doesn't seem to exist on the internet, please point me in the direction of these pages, whether on Wiki or elsewhere. However, my initial thought is oppose on the grounds that a Grand Slam is not the same as a tennis major. There are major tournaments which are not Grand Slam events. SSSB (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem... no sourcing. However, a Grand Slam tournament is identical to a major tournament. The term "major" for one of the four big events is quite common and is all some people use to describe them. At wikipedia we do not use the term "major" for other tennis tournaments in the present day except Australian, US, French Opens, and Wimbledon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sad that my questions haven't been addressed nor answered. You were all polite but you simply ignored the stuff I wrote so what's the point of me asking the same stuff again? Please address the issues I brought in my opening message.

As for you questions, what do you mean that there's no ILTF World Champion winners? You have wiki pages for WHCC and WCCC and most importantly WGCC is incorporated into Wimbledon page suggesting continuity. You can't find official page on ILTF world championships today because those 2 tournaments (WHCC and WGCC) have been disbanded, just as you can't find anyone keeping an official track of results from ancient Olympics.

However, unlike ancient Olympics, there are plenty contemporary sources for ILTF world championships.

Wilding as the triple crown world champion under auspice by ILTF snd England awarded with permanent josting of WGCC to be held in Wimbledon.

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PATM19131203.2.26?items_per_page=100&page=16&query=Wilding+world+champion+&snippet=true&sort_by=byDA

I will repeat my main talking poing here. I do not suggest that ILTF championships were huge events and therefore we should count them as slams. Yes, obviously they were huge, but so was e.g. WCT finals in early 1970s and we don't count those as slams.

ILTF championships should be listed here because:

1. Even if they weren't official of huge, they're integral part of grand slam history and they were instrumental in the development of current tennis structure. E.g. if you have listed pre-1925 French winners then ILTF championships are equally relevant in providing a complete picture. Even wiki French Open page says "in a way WHCC is a proper predecessor to Roland Garros".

2. But more importantly, ILTF world championships were both huge and *officially sanctioned by ILTF in 1912*, same tennis body, the supreme tennis body of the planet, which in 1923 *officially sanctioned* US, Australian, French and Wimbledon as *major championships*. The grand slam was just a term invented by journalists to name the feat of conquering 4 major championships. But those championships officially became majors in 1924.

There's e.g. another article from that era, 1913, questioning viability of no world championships being held in America. Obviously Americans from the beggining oposed Wimbledon's unofficial claim as the world championship, then once ILTF was formed and Wimbledon was given an official status of world's grass court championships, Americans oposed that as well so they refused being part of it. Finally in 1923 they got what they wanted, being admitted to ILTF and recognized as the major championships with a provision that no major championships is superior surface wise to any other.

As I said in my opening post going backwards you find these demarcations

1968/1969 - ILTF majors go open← 1924/1925 - AUS/FR/Wim/US officially become ILTF majors← 1913 - Wim/WHCC/WGCC officially become world championships (majors)←

1913 really the year zero if we observe official beginnings.

Of course Wimbledon before 1913 was always unofficially world championships and US before 1924 was a huge event as well. Australian before 1924 waa big too, and French before 1925 shoild be listed aa well, despite being closed to provide full picture. Im 93.140.167.149 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please spell out your abbreviations, or link to the relevant Wikipedia pages, googling "WGCC tennis" (for example) does not give any positive results. The closest result google gives for "ILTF world championship winners" is ITF World Champions, but I don't think this is what you mean. I have very little idea of what you are arguing. Therefore, I am reduced to making general statements: if it is not a Grand Slam event then it falls outside of the scope of this article. SSSB (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The query is such a mess it's hard to follow. It's always a question of sourcing as to the weight or names given to different events. No chance the French Open pre-1925 is sourced as a Major since it was not an international title. The US was every bit as important as the ILTF events... and the WCCC was a blip even by ILTF standards. I believe you made an error in your sentence "1913 - Wim/WHCC/WGCC"... you meant Wim,WHCC,WCCC since Wim and WGCC are the same. Wimbledon was the unofficial world championships through 2000, and it still carries more weight and prestige than any of the other majors. For 100 years we've had the same four majors or Grand Slam events, and the sources tell us that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I wish to apologize because obviously I'm not good at quoting here.

2. The stuff you said, "If it's not a grand slam then it falls out of scope of this article" is something I understand but I like too add it is a very strict criteria you ask. If you really go that route, then you'd have to delete all the content regarding pre-1925 French, which we all know why, but even moreso, the question arises, can you prove e.g. Australasian championships from 1908 satisfies that criteria? Where is the proof that Australasian in 1908 was a "Grand slam"? Yes, Australian Open of today is a grand slam tournament but please you provide me links or contemporary sources suggesting Australian championships in 1908 is/was a grand slam tournament? Sure everyone counts it now as a grand slam title, but can you prove it by listing sources from 1908? I'm not trying to troll you, rather I'm trying to prove to you that lots of stuff which is listed here is merely assumed, and isn't backed by sources.

Grand slam as a term was coined in the 1930s to describe the feat of winning all 4 major titles in tennis in a season. Later it became a name for those, AUS/FR/W/USO tournaments. However these championships *officially* became majors in 1924 once ILTF gave them that status (1923 ILTF meeting), with French excersizing it from 1925. So 1924/1925 is the start year for this structure in which we have 4 official championships. Grand slam is just a name from the 1930s newspapers, a one that ILTF/ITF adopted much later for those 4 big tournaments, something they clearly called "official championships" from the beginning in 1923.

Grand slam history, therefore starts with 1924 in the strictest sense. Being totally strict, you'd have to delete everything else on this page.

Obviously I'm not advocating that. But before 1924, you had another, similar structure in tennis, also sanctioned by supreme body in tennis matters, ILTF. They had three official championships that they even called "world championships", on all three major surfaces, clay- WHCC, wood- WCCC (yes I made a typo above, meant WCCC, not WGCC) and grass- Wimbledon/WGCC.

The situation can not be clearer to me.

Strictly speaking, everything before 1924 is pre-grand slam.

But 1913-1923 Wimbledon was simultaneously Wimbledon and one of the 3 ILTF officially sanctioned world championships. You open the above link from a newspaper in 1913, you'll notice that Wilding is praised for mastering all, or open this page and click on WGCC at the bottom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hard_Court_Championships

Clicking WGCC leads you to Wimbledon, confirming Wimbledon's dual role.

I just can not understand that we consider these current 4 majors as majors (grand slams) due to ILTF status from 1924 onwards, and then we even apply this status retroactively to pre-1924 events, sometimes based on no grounds for rather weak tournaments (e.g. Aus 1908) yet we completely ignore tournaments with ILTF status from 1913-1923?

Who is to award a championships with an official status if not an Iternational Tennis Federation? Was that status not important and instrumental in creating current tennis structure?

This confusion and history being ignored is imo is caused by US blackmail (opposition to the idea of Wimbledon as the world's top event). Wimbledon was self proclaimed world championships. If you read tennis history, Americans wanted to challenge Wimbledon from the start, so they e.g. pushed for davis cup to be a world championships instead of Wimbledon, and they refused to join ILTF in 1913 because they didn't want Wimbledon to take the title of world grass court championships. Even though they could have gotten and would have gotten WCCC but they wanted to be on equal terms with Wimbledon as the preeminent lawn/grass championships so they skipped formation of ILTF.

Following ww1, Europe was weakened, US influence was stronger so they joined ILTF, and they pushed for ILTF world championships to be abolished and new official statuses by ILTF were given to Aus/Fr/Wim/US. Thus WHCC and WCCC disappeared. Americans finally got their wish, achieved their goal of officially being on equal terms with Wimbledon. These 4 championships were now, at least in theory, of lesser value, simply being "official" championships by ILTF versus former "world" championships. In essence, both were simply, majors.

So it's very logical that there would be a huge bias from perhaps Americans and even Australians to completely shun and ignore WHCC and WCCC because those tournaments had official status in petiod 1913-1923 when US and Aus had none. Wimbledon probably doesn't care since they were also official 1913-1923 so they can go both ways.

3. Someone saying WCCC being a blip by ILTF standards, is not true. If we use Wimbledon (most prestigious event) as the benchmark, and then look at WCCC, in 1913-1923 it had 6 editions and 3 were won by former/future Wimbledon champions. That's 50%. In comparison in 1905-1926 Australasian, which was 19 editions, mere 3 were won by future/former Wimbledon champions. Also 5 out of 7 for WHCC (over 70%).

So not only were WHCC and WCCC official events, they were also satisfactory in terms of quality and arguably superior to Australasian in that era. Yes, US was huge event in its own right, even though prior 1924 it had no official status.

So once again, ILTF gave status in 1924 to current majors, from which they grew and became slams. If we are now acknowledging them as slams even before 1924 (e.g. Aus or US), and we even list pre-1925 French winners in order to provide perspective, least we can do to provide proper full picture is to present 1913-1924 ILTF majors here as well.

I envision this kind of graphic presentation. Check the colours CYAN, GREEN, YELLOW. Green and yellow can be single colour though, if we choose not to emphasize oorn era.

https://cdn.imageupload.workers.dev/tfoRcz6x_IMG_20210513_041711.jpg

93.140.167.149 (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your responses are Tolstoy long. But the basic thing is sourcing today. What you want cannot be sourced and what we have now can be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And yours are haiku like. ;(


 * Sourcing today, you mean like ITF site?
 * Their tournament database goes back only to 1976 sadly.


 * Actually when we're at it, ITF site doesn't mention current grand slams either.
 * So what's the sourcing for this page?


 * Some guy's private website such as:


 * https://www.grandslamhistory.com/stats/grand-slam/all/mens-singles


 * Or


 * https://www.topendsports.com/aboutrob.htm


 * But articles from 1910s confirming ILTF world championships is not enough I see.


 * Tnx93.140.167.149 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Americans have always been self-centered and rightous, but pointing that out isn't really relevant. The fact is, I can't see how you can add those majors without changing the scope and title of the list. This is a list of Grand Slam winners, those majors were never Grand Slams. The reason the 1908 Aussie open is here is because the Aussie open would become a major and it can therefore be argued that it falls within the scope. That being said, I would not be opposed to removing them if it can be cateogorically proven that they weren't grand slams then (that's for a different discussion) SSSB (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can expand the lead a bit or even better, create a new article about those Majors and put its link in the lead, just like this one Championnats du monde de tennis --ForzaUV (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible"

! style="width:50px;"| ! style="width:220px;"|WGCC ! style="width:220px;"|WHCC ! style="width:220px;"|WCCC
 * - style="height: 3em; border-bottom: 2px solid gray;"
 * style="text-align:center;"|1912
 * 🇳🇿 Anthony Wilding || 🇩🇪 Otto Froitzheim || style="background: #F5F5F5; color:gray; text-align:center;"| tournament not created
 * style="text-align:center;"|1913
 * 🇳🇿 Anthony Wilding || 🇳🇿 Anthony Wilding || 🇳🇿 Anthony Wilding
 * style="text-align:center;"|1914
 * 🇦🇺 Norman Brookes || 🇳🇿 Anthony Wilding || style="background: #F5F5F5; color:gray; text-align:center;"| Not held due to World War I
 * style="text-align:center;"|1915
 * colspan="3" rowspan="4" style="background: #F5F5F5; text-align:center;"| No competition due to World War I
 * style="text-align:center;"|1916
 * style="text-align:center;"|1917
 * style="text-align:center;"|1918
 * style="text-align:center;"|1919
 * 🇦🇺 Gerald Patterson || style="background: #F5F5F5; color:gray; text-align:center;"| Not held || 🇫🇷 Andre Gobert
 * style="text-align:center;"|1920
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || 🇫🇷 William Laurentz || 🇬🇧 Gordon Lowe
 * style="text-align:center;"|1921
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || |🇫🇷 William Laurentz
 * style="text-align:center;"|1922
 * 🇦🇺 Gerald Patterson || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * style="text-align:center;"|1923
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"|1920
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || 🇫🇷 William Laurentz || 🇬🇧 Gordon Lowe
 * style="text-align:center;"|1921
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden || |🇫🇷 William Laurentz
 * style="text-align:center;"|1922
 * 🇦🇺 Gerald Patterson || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * style="text-align:center;"|1923
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"|1923
 * 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇺🇸 Bill Johnston || 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * }

Scope and title of the list?

Ok, let's discuss title first. Don't we have "ATP finals" page for something that was called Masters Grand Prix, ATP Tour World Championships and Masters Cup? Likewise, don't we have Australian Open for something which was not only Australian Championships but Australasian one? Clearly that's not merely a name difference since such geographical change reflects the change of entire geographical location.

My poing here. Names can change. I see no issue with the title of this page. Todays it's known as the grand slams and that should be the title. The name itself has been officially used only since the 1980s, unofficially since the 1930s, and these tournaments have been officially ILTF sanctioned majors since 1924. Isn't that what its really all about? You know that if Australasian hadn't been given an official status, it wouldn't have become a slam. E.g. Irish championships was arguably second to Wimbledon in early days, and Victorian championships in Melbourne was often bigger than early Australasian which moved across the continent.

It's all abouf official status. So grand slam tournament = major ILTF sanctioned event. From 1924 onwards. And before 1924, there were different official sanctioned ILTF events.

So the scope issue here is very clear to me. I would compare the situation to ATP Masters 1000. Hamburg is not ATP1000 anymore, but if you exclude Hamburg pre-2009 from the lists, then the scope of ATP1000 series page is actually distorted and worsened, not improved. Hamburg is counted as ATP 1000 until 2008, and Madrid takes over from 2009. And rightly so.

And the fact Hamburg and all other tournaments were known as "super 9" way back before they were known as ATP1000 is a trivial issue. It's a naming issue, as we said, names change. Both "super 9" and "ATP1000" represent top tier events under ATP. In the process, some tournaments lost that status (e.g. Hamburg) and some got it (Shanghai).

Likewise, ILTF world championships (1913-1923) and ILTF official championships / grand slam championships (1924-present) represent officially sanctioned top tier events (majors) by international tennis federation. Over the years ome tournaments lost that status (WHCC, WCCC), some got it (Aus, US).

So the proper scope of this page would be to have WHCC and WCCC, not to exclude them.

Obviously present day ITF structure of majors/slams officially began in 1924.

But for me the purpose of this page is to focus on present day grand slams, and then "go back" discovering full picture. Number 1 goal would be to list all official ITF events in history, which includes those before 1924, snd thtn number 2 goal would be to list all the tournaments from the start, even when they weren't officially sanctioned ITF events.

Like this. This is what I have in mind.

https://cdn.imageupload.workers.dev/tfoRcz6x_IMG_20210513_041711.jpg

What do you think of this?

French and WHCC could be in two columns next to each other, uniting in one column from 1925. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.176.253 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot add WHCC and WCCC and keep the title as "Grand Slam winners", as WHGC and WCCC are not Grand Slams. This list is not based on official status, it is based on the most common perception of the name. You may disagree, but most people do not consider WHGC and WCCC (etc.) as slams and therefore they don't not belong in an article titled "List of Grand Slam winners" (or similar). But, by all means create List of ILTF World Championship winners. SSSB (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

So can you guys make up your own mind? What's actually required here, is it "a proper source" or you create pages based on "public perception"?

If it is second, then it's kind of stupid argument since incomplete lists such as this one, further enhance false public perception, which you then use as a reasoning behind having this kind of lists in the first place. It's not logical.

Secondly, creating a page about ILTF World Championships 1913-1923 is not the way too go, as it would suggest those were somehow "secondary" events not related to these, when in truth, they were primary ones, which in 1923 lost their status, and got replaced by current four.

Don't you understand that this "Grand Slam titles" page is about the 4 biggest tennis events on the planet which are officially sanctioned by International Tennis Federation? That's why we have this page.

Their status steems from the label ITF has bestowed upon them. Yes, Wimbledon and US are huge even without the ITF decision, but do you follow the timeline? It was logical that one label would be reserved for Wimbledon and US used their immense stature in the game to get that ITF label as well. But this only proves that the label by ITF was something that both championships wanted and it was an acknowledgment of their prestigious status.

Therefore, this article is about major ITF championships (and their past before they became ITF championships).

It's called Grand Slams because it's how they're called nowadays. The naming issue is absolutely trivial. If you want to absolutely nitpick, ITF has been using that term only since the 1980s. Does that mean there were no grand slams before?

And finally, if someone would actually create page about 3 ILTF World Championships, it would be obvious that all 3 are majors. Wimbledon is always Wimbledon, always a major, and if in the period of 1913-1923 WHCC and WCCC were equal to Wimbledon status-wise, then what are they if not majors too?

https://cdn.imageupload.workers.dev/tfoRcz6x_IMG_20210513_041711.jpg

93.140.176.253 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If you google "Grand Slams tennis", you get these four events, you don't get the ILTF World Championships. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources. If secondary sources do not consider them Grand Slams, then neither can we, if we did consider them slams if would be WP:OR.
 * Nobody is dening that, way back when, the ILTF Championships were the biggest championships, but that doesn't make the Grand Slams. The lead of this list makes clear that in the time period when these tournaments existed, they were also majors.
 * The situation here is clear, if they were never designated as Grand Slams, then the winners of these events don't fit in to a list of Grand Slam winners.
 * Secondly, creating a page about ILTF World Championships 1913-1923 is not the way too go, as it would suggest those were somehow "secondary" events not related to these, when in truth, they were primary ones, which in 1923 lost their status, and got replaced by current four. - if you worded the lead of that page well, nobody need make that confusion. The lead of this page makes it hard for someone to make that confusion.
 * Finally, is a dead link for me, so I can not comment on it. SSSB (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand the issue of "grand slam" but as I said, if you pursue that path, everything before 1924 must be deleted from this page. I don't advocate that, I advocate inclusive, not exclusive approach.

But whatever you choose, narrow of broad definition of a "grand slam" you ought to be consistent.

If WHCC and WCCC don't satidfy, show me a source confirming e.g. Australasian championships in 1908 was a grand slam?

ITF officially started using the term in 1980s. ITF officially created 4 major championships in 1924.

Australasian in 1908 was not a grand slam. Certainly not in name, but not even in its essence. It had no official status bestowed by ITF and in some years it wasn't even the most premier championships in Australasia, Victorian (Melbourne) had often better fields.

https://pasteboard.co/K1JcNtZ.jpg I envision this. 93.140.176.253 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from but this page is about the tournaments that make up the 4 current Majors, not the Majors throughout history. It's even mentioned in the lead. A few small adjustments can be made I guess but adding other columns is not the way to go either. Moreover, the colors in this chart are about the players not the tournaments. It would be great if you could do the ILTF World Championships, you already have the champions chart and this reference could help The World Championships of 1913 to 1923: the Forgotten Majors. --ForzaUV (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have detailed articles on them... World Hard Court Championships and World Covered Court Championships, and of course Wimbledon. It isn't worth combining six years of events into one article to duplicate the info. And the way this editor is talking, since the ILTF didn't get founded till March of 1913, you couldn't include the 1912 tournaments. This whole topic is bizarre. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch with WHCC in 1912. Yes it wasn't officially ILTF sanctioned in 1912, but it would be included on the list. It was self-proclaimed clay world championships, so legally it's the same status as pre-1913 Wimbledon. Check this list and observe WHCC colour convention. https://pasteboard.co/K1JcNtZ.jpg
 * No, legally it's not the same status at all. It was not something special created by the ILTF as you seem to want. 1912 is added simply because historians and sources say it should be added. And that's ok since we are source based. Just as with the fact that historians and sources say we should not add those two events to the Grand Slam article. And even 1913 with the WCCC... seven girls showed up to play... seven! And it was so dark inside no one could see the ball. Way more showed up for the LondonCCC or the FrenchCCC in comparison. The WCCC event was always the odd one out, and it's why it was disbanded after 1923. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So I tried to add those tournaments to an existing page instead of creating a new article, you reverted my edit claiming the page was about professional majors not amateur majors. Ok, seems reasonable but now I'm curious, which tournaments did the professionals use to play back then? --ForzaUV (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There were no professional players as far as I know. Everyone was amateur since there really weren't any sponsors. The Bristol Cup started in 1920 and I don't see any pro events listed before then. Cash and Carry Pyle was really the guy who started the first true pro tour in 1926 when he signed French star Suzanne Lenglen and US star Mary Browne for the women, and US players Vinny Richards, Howard Kinsey, and Harvey Snodgrass along with French player Paul Feret for the guys. He had a gate of $40,000 at Madison Square Garden. He couldn't really play at any standard court because the clubs that owned them wouldn't risk angering the USLTA. There were always very few pros, but they were usually the best players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being professional isn't about being sponsored. It's about having enough income from your tennis career to not have to subsidise it with another job. If he won $40,000 dollars in 1926, that over $600,000 dollars today, so that would have been enough for him to be considered profesional. SSSB (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I wrote correctly. Having a pro tour, so that you can actually be a professional and earn money, required sponsors so you had money to pay your pros. It was tough to get those sponsors. Back before 1926 players had no income. If you were rich and didn't need income you could play tennis. if you were poor you were out of luck. Mr Pyle made $40,000... I'm sure the players made a few hundred. That made those players pros and they couldn't play any other events again... only the handful of pro events they could find. Maybe you don't realize what a different world tennis was back then. It was basically a purist rich person sport with no pros allowed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Grand Slam titles (men) by country all time
Where can we find the Grand Slam male titles by country all time? The article only has the Open Era records. We also have | Number of Grand Slam Titles by Country, but apparently this includes female titles too. CABF45 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the chart you talk of should not exist as an Open Era only chart. It should include the entire history. It's just no one has taken the time to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort, that's what I was talking about. Is it accurate? I stopped counting at around 40 titles for France... CABF45 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As accurate as the link you gave me that had males and females listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think whoever made this section knew exactly what he was doing. Before the Open Era, most participants of the Australian Open were local players, then you have Wimbledon where it was all about British players in the first 30 events. Same goes with the other two for the most part. The section should be strictly about the Open Era or both Open Era and Pre-Open Era like the other sections. ForzaUV (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can certainly add back the Open Era chart if you think it helps our readers, but this is not an Open Era article. Without the Full chart we miss out on titles won by Mexico and Hungary, and many titles won by the Four Musketeers of France. There are no other charts on the page that list only the Open Era. There are a couple that list both so having two charts is perfectly reasonable so I added it back per your request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The all-time numbers don't add up. Only 440 titles/473 events. ForzaUV (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Women have both all-time and Open Era charts, so should men. The all-time chart is not accurate. CABF45 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought I copied it exactly from your link. That wiki article you gave could be wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually count 440 winners in the chart but there should be 469 winners. We need to hunt down the errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I counted 47 male titles all-time for France. Someone please correct the chart. CABF45 (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The winners of the closed French should not be counted. ForzaUV (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The French total is 20. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)