Talk:Tennis male players statistics

[Untitled]
I want to confirm the contributions of Mr. Colussi, Mr. Neave and myself with a link to a new Tennis week article of 14. September 2007 by Raymond Lee. For all younger contributors who see the meager ATP list as holy bible, and don't recognize the pre open history of tennis, look at his findings. While his statistical approach is certainly debatable, he is quite on one line with this and other wikipedia-articles (see Rosewall, Laver, Nr.1 players and others). In fact he uses imo the findings of these articles. It shows, how good and reliable these articles really are.(german friend 15.9.2007) http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=17405&... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.180.160 (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the link is more like: http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=17405&bannerregion=
 * and in case they change the link a non-direct link is at: http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/ Fyunck(click) 07:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the link, i had forgotten an x. On the issue: Raymond Lee seems to have had access to the findings of Robert Geist from Vienna, who is known as one of the best experts on the history of pro tennis.He gives in some cases slightly different counts of the 14 greatest players, than we have here in the article, probably based on Geist's new findings: Laver 188 title wins Tilden 161 Lendl 143 Rosewall 130 Connors 121 McEnroe 84 Gonzales 81 Borg 77 Sampras 64 Federer 51 Perry 50 Budge 40 Kramer 35 Vines 30. He gives, however, no detailed account about these new findings, so at the moment we have to stick with the counts we can verify. On Tennis week the tennis journalist Richard Evans, who wrote books about Marty Riessen, Ilie Nastase, John McEnroe and Open tennis has in an answer to Lee written a piece on Lew Hoad. There he refers to Michel Sutter's book of 1991, which is given in this article as an important source. Here, too, one can see, that these articles are based on genuin and reliable sources.(german friend, 16.9.2007)


 * Hello germanfriend : I will read Lee's article with great interest. Carlo Colussi 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello I've written this article in the French version of Wikipedia : excuse me for not having yet translated it.

I just would say something about the following articles "Tennis players with most singles titles", "Tennis players with most titles" and "Tennis statistics" : they mainly (if not absolutely for the first two) concentrate on open era tennis and not on the whole story of tennis so their titles are inadequate. Carlo Colussi 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your source for calling the professional tournaments "Grand Slams" (other than the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open)? Tennis expert 15:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't the books at hand but Robert Geist called it like that and I think Joe McCauley did the same but I will check it and if it is right I will rechange the titles Carlo Colussi 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether one or two authors have called the professional tournaments "Grand Slam" tournaments, using that term to refer to them will unnecessarily confuse Wikipedia readers. There are many articles in Wikipedia that already define the Grand Slam tournaments to include only the Australian, French, and U.S. opens plus Wimbledon.  We should be consistent about this.  Tennis expert 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "using that term to refer to them will unnecessarily confuse Wikipedia readers" is a good argument. So I will change that term whenever I've written it (in the English and in the French versions of Wikipedia) but sometimes I will say that such or such author has used this term.


 * Something I regret is the bad choice of Grand Slam tournaments label : The Australian Open has never been Open before 1969 and was indeed very "Close" so to say that Sedgman has won an Australian Open in 49 is completely wrong. First from 1905 to 1926 it was the Australasian (amateur) Championships, from 1927 to 1968 it was the Australian (amateur) Championships and only in 1969 it was the Australian Open. If you have said to Norman Brookes or Harry Hopman that Sedgman had won an Australian "Open" in 49 I think they would have "killed" you knowing they were so against pro tennis and then open tennis because Brookes was healthy and Hopman wasn't interested in money but in power.


 * So Australian Championships would have been a better term than "Australian Open". Identical remark for the US. But it's too late.


 * P.S. : I AGREE WITH THE MERGING OF THE ARTICLES INTO THE "TENNIS STATISTICS" article. Carlo Colussi 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What I have tried to do in tennis articles is use "Australian Championships," "U.S. Championships," and "French Championships" when referring only to the pre-open era editions of those tournaments. The problem is when we need to use a single term to refer to those tournaments throughout their history.  I suppose we could always use something like "Australian Championships/Open" in recognition that they were not open to professional players before 1968 or 1969.  But that seems like an awkward, clumsy term (even though I have used it on occasion).  Most Wikipedia tennis editors just refer to those tournaments by their current names, e.g., Australian Open.  For example, they would say, "The Australian Open is currently the first Grand Slam tennis tournament of each year and was first held in 1905."  By using that term, they're not necessarily ignoring the amateur-only rules of the pre-open era.  Tennis expert 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the modifications Carlo Colussi 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

hello I have some additional titles for connors, but I am not sure what are the four titles which make the 109 up from the 105 on the ATP site. My additions would be : jacksonville 1971 Roanoke     1972 john player nottingham (4 man) 1972 Beckenham 1978 Tokyo gunze open 1978

[jeffreyneave] 4 jan 2007


 * The tournaments absent from the ATP source are the following ones :

- Roanoke January 23, 1972

- Nottingham (4-man tournament) June 1972

- Ocean City August 20, 1972

- Manchester June 8, 1974

- Las Vegas WCT November 20, 1977 (Jimbo has also won Las Vegas May 1, 1977)

- Beckenham June 10, 1978

- Puerto Rico WCT February 25, 1979

then Connors's amount is equal to 112 (with the 4-man tournament)

Carlo Colussi 07:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. From memory I do not know which 4 tournaments make the difference but I remember that Connors has won, I think 111 tournaments : I am not sure, I think Michel Sutter has listed 110 tournaments, in particular Ocean City 72 and Puerto Rico WCT 79 which I haven't seen in any other list but Sutter has forgotten Washington 76. So if I'm not mistaken Connors's record is equal to 111. When I have time I will compare Sutter's list and ATP's. After reading again your list a) I am not sure that Sutter has recorded Nottingham 72 : is it the tournament where Connors has beaten Hoad, Dibley and I do not remember the last player (I have seen it in "Le livre d'or de Connors" by Christian Collin) and b) I don't remember that Connors has won Jacksonville in 71 ? I know that the ATP has made an error because Connors has won Jacksonville in January 72 and not in 73. So perhaps is Connors's total equal to 112 ? Well I will check all that.

Carlo Colussi 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added Jacksonville 1971. He beat Graebner in the final; a good win since Graebner was the top earner on the Riordan winter circuit that year. I have also added the Gunze open 1978 where he beat the over hill Nastase in the final. If rosewall's win in the same event counts in 1975 so does Connors' win in 1978. I am doubtful about Connors' win in the Wimbledon warm up in 1974 at Manchester. There was not another top 100 player in the field let alone a top 50 player, which I feel should be the Criterion for a legitmate tournament when analysing wins of great players. An event with no other top 50 players is really a sub tour event like the ATP's challenger series. What is your view of events which were outside the main Grand prix, WCT or ATP sanctioned events, which proliferated in the late 70's when McEnroe and Borg emerged as the top two; they are  usually referred to as dimisssively exhibitions or more neutrally as special events. Connors won some of these, particularly an 8 man event in Chicago in january 1981, just before the 1981 Masters (played Jan '82), where he beat Lendl in the semis and Mcenroe in the final in 5 sets. The fact that the match went the full distance suggests they were not treating as an exhibition. Connors himself made a distinction between 3 types of play, namely touraments (ie ATP sanction), exhibitions and special events. [jeffreyneave]  7 jan 2007


 * I've never heard of Jacksonville 1971 and Tokyo Gunze Open 1978 so I suppose you've found it in John Barrett's books.

I suppose Jacksonville was in January so Graebner was still in the Top20 (qualified for the december 71 Masters, winner of Nastase at Wimbledon) and Nastase in 78 was still in the Top20 too (quarterfinalist at Wimbledon, beaten by Okker but he overcame Tanner in the previous round and later in Tokyo and in Stockholm only Borg stopped him) : so they are good Connors's victories.

I've found Manchester 1974 in Sutter's books (I have the 1975 edition Barrett's book of the year 1974 so I will look if the 74 tournament is listed) so I think this is a good reason to list it (What do you think ?) but your reasoning is not wrong.

I haven't found the Chicago event in Sutter's books (your date, january 81, seems wrong) but Lance Tingay in his book Tennis-facts and feats (1982 edition) wrote about Lendl's 81-82 winning streak and Lendl's defeat at Chicago.

So Manchester 74 and Chicago (december 81 or january 82 ?) are debatable : What's your opinion ? Thank you for the answer. As soon as I'll have it I will eventually correct the French version.

PS : even if we don't agree on essentially two points,

a) the weighting of performances where you follow the ATP pattern which I disagree and dislike (my "1-2-4" ratios opposed to the "1-1.5-2" ATP ratios and my equal splitting of points at each decreasing round (if the winner has 1 point then the finalist should have 1/2 point and each semifinalist 1/4 point and each quarterfinalist 1/8 point and so on) which differs from the ATP system) and b) the importance of the WCT finals and the Italian in 71 (I give a very slight edge to Dallas while you put Rome ahead),

I greatly take into account your opinion because you have a great knowledge of the 70's.

Carlo Colussi 08:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the date wrong about Chicago; its Jan 82 part of the 81 season like the Masters played in Jan 82. Connors Defeated Lendl in the round robin section and beat Gerulatis in the semis. About its status I'm not Sure. Borg played a lot of these events in '82 and had a decent record, which included a 3-1 edge over Lendl, the best of any player. However, he lost all 3 matches to McEnroe and Connors had at least a 4-2 edge over him. Borg's record included winning the Suntory open over Vilas; runner-up in a Canadian event to Connors; winner of a four man event in Australia over Lendl; semi-finalist to McE nroe In the European Championships; semi-finalist to Lendl in Chicago jan 83, again just before the 82 Masters. Are any of these Borg performances in Sutter's book ? On Manchester I definitely feel it should be dropped. If you look at the world of tennis yearbook, the best win was over syd Ball, not a top 100 player. Challenger wins don't count on the Atp list (I don't think much of the ATp udgements on stastics usually, but I agree with this.) [jeffreyneave] 9 jan 2007


 * The problem about Manchester 74 is that not only it is recorded in World of Tennis '75 p 307 in the 'Bristish Tournaments' section but also in the Connors's record in the 1974 USLTA rankings as one of his 15 tournaments victories (cf. Official USLTA Tennis Yearbook p 89). It is right that Sutter has listed in his book all the challenger tournaments he has found : I suppose he wanted the equivalent in the open era of many minor amateur tournaments of the pre-open era. Drobny or Laver (for instance Deauville 1961) have also won many minor tournaments included in Sutter's list.

Challenger wins don't count both on the ATP list and on head-to-head player details (for instance Gasquet has always lost to Nadal in ATP events while the French has defeated the Spaniard in a challenger event) but count in ATP rankings : I will always remember that a player like Massu who hasn't done anything in his career but winning by chance the Olympic Games, was behind Lleyton Hewitt a few weeks before the end of 2003 and suddenly passed ahead Hewitt just because he has won a challenger tournament.

The Sutter's list is the only almost exhaustive list of all the players since the World War II and Sutter's work has been ordered by the ATP to make comparisons between players of the pre-open era and players of today.

So I think that Sutter's book is the backbone of all victories lists. Of course there are some errors as everywhere but this is the template, the basis of all future work.'''

Therefore I think that if we erase Manchester 74 then we have to suppress many of Laver's and Rosewall's and Drobny's and other players' victories. Don't you agree ?

Another option : having already precised "4-man" for the 4-man tournaments in the Rosewall's and Laver's lists we can also precise "minor" or "challenger" for the tournaments which are supposed to be (I can look Rosewall's one and you can check Laver's).

About Borg's 1982-83 records I am very annoyed because he didn't play any real official competition (if we except Monte Carlo both years and Las Vegas qualifications) though he was still able to beat anyone in the world. In my opinion he deserved a Top10 or Top15 ranking though he was away of the official circuit : I don't know what to do. None of Borg's 1982-83 tournaments (except the Anvers tournament) are recorded in Sutter's books or in any other sources but sometimes his 1982-83 matches are cited in some books or magazines. For instance in Tennis de France his victory over McEnroe (so I don't think he has lost all his matches to McEnroe in 1982 as you've written), Gerulaitis, Lendl in Australia (Sydney ? I don't remember) was cited (but as an exhibition) and his loss to McEnroe in the semifinals of the ECC tournament at Anvers was televised in France (the Lendl-McEnroe final was also on TV and I can guarantee you that McEnroe was disgusted to lose once more against Lendl). Sutter has listed all the Anvers tournaments from the first one in 1982 (with Borg, Lendl, McEnroe ...) before it became an ATP tournament and Tennis de France always made a little account of this event.

So all these 1982-1983 events could be eventually (but not surely) added for Borg, Connors, McEnroe or Lendl : then again a precision should be made as "invitation tournament" or something else for these events. Have you an exhaustive list ?

Carlo Colussi 09:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still feel that Manchester '74 should be excluded. A great player should at least have to defeat a top 50 player to claim a victory. Challenger level touraments or their equivalents should be excluded. Nastase has lot of minor wins in the 66-69 era before he was accepted on the top tier circuit at the end of 69 (he played all 3 major indoor events at Paris, London and Stockholm in 32 man fields), which I hope Sutter has excluded. As for Laver's amateur career, I followed his progress round the globe in the first half of '61, and he and Emerson basically travelled together playing the same event. Therefore my feeling is that nearly all Laver's wins are legitimate. Although, about 10 top players are pros, that leaves around 35 amateurs to make a decent event.My feeling is that amateur events always tried to attract 2 or 3 top twenty amateurs, then filled out the event with local non-talent. The bar of at least 3 top 50 players is not a very high bar, but it should exist to eliminate non-events.


 * I entirely agree that Manchester '74 was a non-event and your selection of 3 top50 players isn't a bad choice (perhaps there have better ones but it seems good enough) and then I almost agree that challenger level tournaments shouldn't be chosen (I have much more respect for Laver's win at Perth 64, a 4-man event, than Dmitry Tursunov's victory at Sunrise 2006, a challenger) but to respect a certain neutral point of view (I know it's hard) don't you think that Sutter's work should be the basis given that he is the only person I know who made almost exhaustive list of players' wins since 1946. Sorry to disappoint you but Sutter has recorded all Nastase's wins since 1967 (there is no Nastase's wins in 66 in Sutter's book) : in fact in his book (the 1991 edition) each year from about 1950 to 1991 has about the same number of pages (generally 4) so I think there is something like 150-200 tournaments by year (for the 40's he had some difficulties to find all the results in particular in 1946 for evident reasons).

So Sutter or not Sutter, that is the question ? For me yes and for you : ?


 * You have a copy and I don't so I'm automatically less likely to have total faith than you are. However, Sutter's work is essential, its the only source for amateur tennis 1946-68 without new original research. On Nastase the only win of his that I would definitely accept in the 66-69 period is Barranquilla '69. His other wins in '69 included wins in India where his only oppisition was the Indian Davis cup team and in Hungary against Guylas, which I'm not inclined to accept. His other wins in obscure southern European events also seem doubtful. Sutter provides runner-ups and I feel with obscure wins on the amateur circuit the oppenent would have to be a top 50 player for inclusion. Does he provde doubles winners to give a greater indication of the strenght of the field ? 3-4 events a week is his average over the period. I feel that men's tennis can really only support at most 3 events a week and still have quality fields, which suggest many of Sutter's are going to be borderline.


 * In Sutter's books, Nastase's wins are Cannes (April 16, 1967), Travemunde (July 12, 1967), Viareggio (August 19,1968), Bucarest (September 8, 1968), Madras (January 1969), New Delhi (January 12, 1969), Gauhati (January 1969), Barranquilla (March 16, 1969), Travemunde (July 7, 1969), La Corogne (July 28, 1969), Budapest (August 18, 1969), Denver (October 20, 1969). Gulyas was still able to reach the round of 16 at Roland Garros in 68 and in 69 only beaten by Gonzales and Rosewall respectively. I've only took the 2003 edition (with only winners and no dates, no finalists, no scores : to make verifications I have noted each date coming from the 1991 edition) so I haven't, at this very moment, the runner-ups at hand but I will look at it later in the 91 edition. Sutter doesn't provide the doubles results but I will be able to look at the some World Tennis Magazines of the period that I have in order to find other players of the fields. Your "3 events" bar seem reasonable and effectively some Sutter's events are probably borderline. Carlo Colussi 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On borg's win over Mcenroe in 82 are sources obviously disagree.


 * I can't absolutely confirm this Borg's win because this is from memory (24 years have passed) : my 1978-1994 Tennis de France magazines are in boxes, following my removal (the other previous magazines I have bought it recently on the web), that I haven't yet open but I think this is right because at the time I was "blown up" by the performance of a semi-retired player. But I can be mistaken and then I won't swear on anything that Borg has beaten McEnroe in 82 (and I won't open the boxes to check it before long because a new removal is possible).Carlo Colussi 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sydney event as reported in the World of Tennis yearbook, suggest it was played over 2 days 5-6 November as a 4-man knockout event. All the matches were best of 5 sets, even the 3rd place match in which Gerualitis beat McEnroe. They also played earlier in the week in perth 2nd-3rd over 3 sets where McEnroe beat borg in the final. Your extra win for Borg would also have to be over 5 sets and would make a unique event in modern tennis best of 5 for a round-robin. You have to go back to Forest Hills '57 for another such event. your magazine may well be right.

In 1976 Nastase won the caracas round-robin beating Connors 6-5 retired accoding to Tennis world magazine; the Yearbook had him beating Connors 6-1, 6-3. [jeffreyneave] 11 jan 2006


 * As I have said before I have not the 91 edition Sutter's book at hand (I will check it later) but I think Sutter has too written 6-5 retired. About the Yearbook I haven't too at hand, but from memory I think this is at the same page as the Caracas RR, you will able to see that they have repeated the results of a challenge match in October 1976 between Nastase and Borg, only the town has changed so '77 Yearbook source at this page seems doubtful. Carlo Colussi 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carlo Colussi 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Borg was a top 10 player in 82, although his bad defeat by Noah in monte Carlo does suggest problems about his attitude. **** Noah even said that Borg whistled during the pauses and that the Swede has no will to win : I have watched the match and it is clear that Borg wasn't motivated. Carlo Colussi 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) I have also read a story, that Borg and McEnroe fixed opening sets when playing exhibitions/challenge matches (an observer was able to pricisely predict when McEnroe would drop his service). However, I do feel that these special events should be counted and that they have the equivalent feel of the many 4 man events that laver won as a pro. I saw the 1985 Antwerp final between McEnroe and Lendl and it was a great match; the best I have seen between those two bar the 1983 WCT final. I don't have an exhaustive list for Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Connors but I will try to gather a fair number of wins for these players. The pre-fix of invitation is a good idea. **** Many exhibitions seemed (seem) to be fixed with often splitting sets and the final one being often the real one. I've watched exhibitions in South of France (Nîmes ?) with Connors, Tanner, Noah and (?) in the beginning of the 80s where it was clear that only the last set was disputed. I also agree with you that Lendl-McEnroe final at Anvers 85 was a great match and so was the McEnroe-Becker semi-final. Carlo Colussi 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [jeffreyneave] 10 jan 2007

Hello, from german friend, 12. Jan. 2007, Because i have the 91/92 Sutter edition just at hand, Nastase won in 1967 Cannes over Marmureanu (widely unknown Rumanian), Travemunde over Lesley (unknown to me), in 1968 Viareggio over Boro Jovanovic (was a solid Yugoslav Davis Cupper, i think Wim doubles finalist wth Pilic), and Bucarest over Alexander (if John Alexander, he must have been very young)(Sutter has wrongly double counted that result in his first edition, which is not well lectured, as i said); in 69 he beat Lall at Madras and New Delhi(solid Inidan DCupper),in Gauharti a unknown Nowicki, Kodes at Baranquilla,, Gulyas at Travemunde, Orantes at La Corogne (don't know the side) and Gulyas again at Budapest, also S. Smith at Denver.In 1976 i cannot find here a 6-5 Nastase- Connors final at Caracas, he lost one WCT final at Caracas to Ramirez and won a Challenge.R.R.(somewhere in the Caribic, maybe Puerto Rico, as far as i recall in my head)in five against Ashe. Now, to verify all this Sutter results on other sources, would be a Sysiphos-work. The Laver results in 61 and 62 at least in Europe seem to be pretty solid. One example i have researched: In the Dutch book 'Het melkhuisje, 100 jaar tennishistorie. Hilversumsche Lawn tennis Club 1895-1995' it is noted Laver's draw in the Dutch Champs. of 1962: Salas, Diepraam (SA DCupper), Hughes, Forbes ( solid D Cupper,last 8 Forest Hills that year, writer of the best tennis book ever), in the final Ramanathan Krishnan. Krishnan, the defending champ beat Clayton, Alvarez (later the coach of some Spanish top stars),Rubinoff and Mulligan. Obviously it was at least a 32 draw with best of 5 all the way, with at least 3 (amateur) top tenners in the draw. It may be representative for most middle class European Champs of that time. The clay courts events of Rome, Hamburg or Bournemouth, also Gstaad had traditionally strong fields, as Forbes has described in his 'Handful of Summers'. One question to Carlo Colussi. Has Sutter significantly changed his numbers from 1991 to 2006?. In 1991 he has: Laver 142, Drobny 133, Connors 111, Rosewall 107, Emerson 106, Lendl 99, McEnroe 80, Nastase 78, Patty 76, Gonzales 74, Santana 72, Ashe 71, Borg 67 and so on.(German freind, 12. Jan. 2007).


 * Very interesting and informative. Nastase's biography does not have his Denver win over Smith, which I would obviously count. His wins in minor events over Gulyas are more debatable. I looked at the world of tenis yearbook for 1969 and Guylas' one good result in a strong tournament was the French, where he beat Hewitt to reach the last 16.(another look suggests Gulyas had decent results in Egypt where he beat EL shafei in one final and lost to him in another; he also reached a minor Italien event losing to Mulligan; this suggests that Gulyas is reasonable contender to get in the top 50**** jan 13 jeffreyneave) He was on borderline of the top 50 payers as far as I was concerned. Similarly, The Indian Davis Cuppers did nothing internationally. They reached theinter-zone semis in the Davis Cup, through the non opposition of the Eastern zone, and lost easily to Rumania. When La Corogne was played the major Euro event that week was the Swiss open where Emerson beat Okker, but I'd still accept the event because Orantes was a definite top 50 player.

La Travemunde looks like it was played the same week as Wimbledon's second week; highly questionable. As for Caracass in'76, this was a four man roundrobin with 4 top players of '76 (panatta ,Borg, Connors and Nastase) played in October. Nastase win over Ashe was in the WCT Avis Challenege Cup in Hawaii. The Nastase/borg challenge is a mistake by the Yearbook for'76. Borg played Panatta instead at that venue according to Tennis world magazine. [jeffreyneave] 12 jan 2006

Hello from German friend. First, its good, that You, Mr. Colussi, have presented these stats, because they correct the often repetited clichés about tennis records. There is a good supporting article on this matter in Tennis Week last year by Raymond Lee ' Roger vs. the Record Book', 02/24/2006

http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14812

Maybe one could make a link to it in the article, if someone, knows the Wikipedia technique. Some small questions. In Sutters first edition in 92, he gives Drobny 133 titles. Is there a correction in his second edition, or has he made a wrong count? The first edition of Sutters book is not always well lectured. Maybe one should note in the article, maybe not count, that Laver won 5 more pro 'majors' after 67: US pro 68, 69; French pro 68, Wembley 69, 70. I obviously see the difference. But at least in 68, when there was no real Australian Open, US pro and French pro were important. Rosewall won Wembley (then Kramer Tournament of Champions) in 68 and Boston in 71, too. In Total Tennis, it is said, that Tilden won 138 titles (probably in his amateur days). I think, that You have added his pro titles for the 145 count.But in all, nice and solid work, thanks (german friend 10. Jan. 2007)


 * Hello

In "Tennis, male players statistics" article (not finished) I've written that Drobny has won 132 tournaments. Knowing that Sutter has made some corrections between the 1991 and 2003 editions (for instance he has seen he had counted twice the 51 Wordl pro at Cleveland or that he had forgotten the 66 French Pro). Consequently I have only considered the 2003 edition which is better. In that edition only years are indicated but no dates are written. Then in my personal 2003 book I've written all the available dates from the 1991 edition or from McCauley's book, World Tennis, Tennis de France, ATP ... Finally I have counted the totals again after corrections. For Rosewall, Laver and Connors, I (and you and Jeffreyneave) have tried to find other victories than those listed in Sutter's book (he had clearly told me that he had brushed away all the less than 8-man tournaments but a few exceptions (as the Pepsi Grand Slam tournaments which are since 2006 in the ATP site but badly documented) so their totals are structurally higher than Sutter's. For the other players I haven't made any research or count (I haven't listed for example all Gonzales's victories recorded in McCauley's book and not in Sutter's). Then all the totals I have written in the "Tennis, male players statistics" article are at least equal to Sutter's totals after verifications.(for the players or in order to make verifications   : this is based on the 2003 edition Sutter's book.

In conclusion Sutter has not made errors about Drobny.

About Laver : you know that I don't consider that the US Pro, French Pro and Wembley Pro were automatically the great ones before the open era but if we take only them into account, Laver has not won 10 tournaments (as written by Lee) or 15 as you think but only 8 (US Pro 64, Wembley 64, Wembley 65, US Pro 66, Wembley 66, US Pro 67, French Pro 67 and Wembley 67). I consider the 5 pro tournaments you've cited as possibly great (or even major) 'open' (and not pro) tournaments because I make the distinction between the era until 1967 and the open era. I consider an event as major if it is one of the four greatest events of the year (to have an equivalent of the 4 Grand Slam tournaments of today).

In 1968 in my opinion the PSW of LA was probably the co-third event (with RG open) so I would rate this tournament as a major one (and I would consider the 68 US Pro, 68 French Pro and 68 Wembley Pro (and possibly the 68 Queen's) as great events but not majors just below the 4 majors of that year) : then in my opinion in 68 Ashe has won 1 major, Rosewall 1 and Laver 2 but Laver's second one is LA and not one the 3 pro tournaments. In 69 I consider that Wimbl, FH and RG were the major ones and that for once the Australian is possibly (but not certainly) 4th and therefore a major one. In 70 : Wimbl was first, the US Open was 2nd and several events were 3th or 4th far behind : in disorder the Masters, Philadelphia Pro, the US Pro, Sydney Dunlop Open, PSW of LA and Wembley Pro. I haven't yet a clear opinion and then I haven't selected the 3rd and 4th ones according to me but this time for 1970 it is possible that I consider the US Pro or Wembley Pro as a major one in 70.

In 1971 I consider the following ranking : 1) Wimbledon, 2) US Open, 3) Australian Open, 4) WCT Finals (and 5) Italian Open) but more time is running more I consider that the Italian Open is probably the 4th, equal with the WCT Finals and Jeffreyneave proposes 1) Wimbledon, 2) US Open, 3) Australian Open and Italian Open tied.

I will stop here. According to me I think that Rosewall has won 21 major tournaments i.e. tournaments comparable to the Grand Slam tournaments of the modern era (if in the future I don't consider any more that the 1971 WCT Finals were in the first four then Rosewall's amount will diminish to 20 or if I consider that before 1968 an amateur exploit in Davis Cup or in a Slam tournament has been better than one of the major pro Rosewall's victories then the Australian's amount will again diminish but I don't think that I am far from the truth by saying that Rosewall's record is about 20 majors. I can't be as much precise with Laver because as I have written just above it is hard to select the major events between 68 and 71 but I think too that I am not far from the truth to affirm that Laver has also won about 20 major ones (and I think the same for Tilden and Gonzales) : perhaps 1 (or 0) in 1963 (I think Kitzbühel or Cannes or perhaps Rome was the 4th event), 2 (Wembley and US Pro) in 1964, probably 2 in 1965 (Wembley sure and perhaps one of the US tournaments as the US Pro indoor), 2 or 3 in 66 (Forest Hills Pro, US Pro, and possibly Wembley Pro; my 66 ranking being : 1) Forest Hills Pro, 2) New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro, 3) the US Pro, 4) Wembley Pro and the French Pro (Coubertin)), 4 in 1967 (US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, Wembley Pro and French Pro), 2 in 1968 (Wimbledon and LA), 4 in 1969 (the 4 Slam tournaments), in 1970 between 0 to 2, in 1971 0 according to me and 1 according to jeffreyneave : so we have at least probably 16 and at best possibly 21. Where I disagree with you is that I think that in his amateur days he was no match to Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad : I think that he wouldn't have won Wimbledon (and the others) in 61 and in 62 if the three pros had been allowed to enter but I recognize that a surprise should have occurred. In this extreme case then Laver's total would be 23 but if we apply the same reasoning for Laver's pro years perhaps Emerson, Stolle, Roche or Santana could have won majors where Laver, Gonzales or Rosewall would have entered and then Laver's amount should be diminished.

Well this is the end.

84.96.87.77 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Hello, from German friend, there were only minor questions, i put forward, by no means a structural critique. I know too well the difficulties and shortcomings of all these lists and 'lost' records.If Sutter in his new edition of 2006, i don't know yet, has corrected Drobny's tally to 132, its okay. I had only proposed, to note somewhere in the article the pro championships won by Laver or Rosewall after 1967. Under Your parameter they are not counted - ok - but they should maybe somewhere be noted, to avoid misunderstandings. Lee seems to count Rosewalls and Lavers US pros, even after 67. I would see the wim pro of 67 as a pro major, but You have discussed it in the article. I cited the Lee article only as a support of Your position, because he adresses the problems of the ATP stats and the problems with tournament wins and head-to-head tours in the old pro days. Your analyses of 'real' majors as equivalents of the 4 Grand Slams is ambitious, but quite reasonable. One thing, one can only speculate on, is what some pro player would have done under the conditions of a 128 draw of an amateur major. For the most parts, i agree on Your choices. The damn problem lies on this absurd segregation before 68 and the chaotic situation of pro tennis in the early 70s. But we have to deal with it.(german friend 10. Jan. 2007).


 * Hello German friend. You are completely right. I've just realized that I haven't understood at all the purpose of your discussion because when you've talked about the article I thought about Lee's article. I was wrong to forget some notes about the Australians' victories in the tournaments after 1967 : I will correct the article right now (but you could have it done yourself without asking me "a sort of permission")

Carlo Colussi 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once a person's full name is stated in a section of the article, give only the person's last name thereafter.
OK for the advice but for Albert Burke I prefer to give the first name because this is the problem with all the players having the same name as brothers or simple homonyms : there were 3 Burkes brothers playing as pros and therefore I don't want people confuse Albert with Edmund for instance. You have thus many examples : Ampon father and son, Krishnan father and son, the Amritraj brothers and now one of their sons, the Renshaws, the Dohertys, the Frasers, the Coopers and so on. According to the ATP statistics there are 11 Beckers with no relation and so on. So I want to make it clear that in this article this is Albert Burke. Do you know that Donald Budge has beaten William Tatem Tilden in the USLTA Championships at Forest Hills but this was William Tatem Tilden III, nephew of William Tatem Tilden II the famous one ? Do you know that in 1946 Riggs has beaten both Budges, Lloyd the elder and John Donald, at the 1946 US Pro ? Who has beaten Borg at Tokyo 81 : Tim or Tom Gullikson ? Tim.

There are so many confusions and errors because the first name isn't precised : so let the first name of Burke to be sure it is Albert and not Edmund even though some previous lines before it is indicated because sometimes repetitions aren't useless. Thank you. Carlo Colussi 07:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Repetition is useless in this case. The article mentions only "Albert Burke."  Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that when "Burke" is mentioned thereafter, a person will be puzzled about whether the article means "Albert Burke" or one of his brothers.  There is no ambiguity here.  Tennis expert 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK Carlo Colussi 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sutter's informations
Hello Germanfriend and Jeffreyneave.

Germanfriend you have rightly written the runner-ups to Nastase : I will just add that Jovanovic was a 68 Roland Garros quarterfinalist. Alexander was to become the youngest player to play a Davis Cup Challenge Round at the end of the year so he was very young as you've stated. Finally in the 2003 edition he has brushed away "Mamaia" 68 (I don't exactly remember) and only kept Bucarest 68. Here is an example of correction so Sutter's amounts have very slightly changed between the 1991 edition and the 2003 one (of course it has changed for ascending or new players).

Nastase indeed beat Borg and Ashe both in 5 sets in the Avis Challenge Cup WCT event which was played at different sites on Hawaii from January to May (it had the same format as the Masters Cup but all matches were best-of-five set ones).

Jeffreyneave : I haven't had the courage to count all the tournaments listed by Sutter but in his 1991 edition which covers all years from 1946 to the autumn of 1991 (October for main circuit and September for challengers circuit), he has written there were more than 7300 tournaments. If we consider that almost 45 years were covered, we have a means of about 160 tournaments a year i.e. about 3 tournaments a week.

You have added Jacksonville 71 as a Connors's win over Graebner but in fact Connors has won Jacksonville over Graebner on January 16, 1972 (according to Sutter, confirmed by World of Tennis '73 where it is written January 12-16, 1972). This tournament is in the ATP list but at a wrong year, 1973, so I will remove this tournament and explain that the ATP has given a wrong year.***** Connors won Jacksonville in 1971 and 1972 both times over Graebner [jeffreyneave 15 jan 2005]


 * You've learnt me something 80.70.42.194 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also add the 4-man Caracas tournament because neither the ATP nor Sutter has retained this event in Nastase's record.

Could you precise what challenge match was the one opposing Borg to Panatta ? Thank you.

In conclusion a) I thank mister germanfriend to have answered more quickly than me and b) I agree with you, mister jeffreyneave, that a bar of three top50 players would be a good selection to choose tournaments wins. The only problem is that it means we should have to check every tournament of Sutter's list and then to decide what tournament counts or does not count; this would be an ambitious work. It is clear that Sutter has retained the challengers tournaments level as the minimum but given that his list is the only one I know that covers the post-World War II era I think that his list is the basis of every publication. Moreover in Nastase's case if I'm not mistaken (I will check it this evening) in his autobiography and in Richard Evans's book, his 1967-1969 wins are listed and in both books the head-to-head statistics (compiled by Joe McCauley at least those until 1978) (incidentally McCauley has forgotten Borg's wins over Nastase at Tokyo and Stockholm in 78) took into account these minor tournaments.

One thing I can suggest is to a) do the same as Sutter has done in his 2003 edition : when he hasn't forgotten (he has in many cases) he added the suffix ch for the challengers tournaments, or b) to write minor tournament.

Carlo Colussi 08:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * here is a list of 'invitation' tournaments won by great players betwween 1974 and 1982, which I suspect Sutter has not counteed.

1974: Nastase Portland ; Nastase world invitational tennis claasic(WITC). 1975 : Nastase WITC 1976: Nastase Argentine Round robin (sept); Borg Mexican Rouund Robin (Sept); Nastase Caracas Round Robin (Oct); Borg WITC (Oct) 1977: Borg WITC (Oct) ; Nastase World Star Rotterdam (Oct) 1978: Borg Suntory tokyo 1979: Connors Ascunion, Paraguay (sept) ; Borg Marbella (sept); Connors Buenos aires (Oct); Borg Rotterdam (4 man)(Oct); Borg Milan (nov); Borg Frankfurt (dec) 1981 Mcenroe Challenge of Champions Chicago 1981 (jan); Connors Suntory tokyo (apr); Borg Edmonton (oct);  Lendl Brooklyn Masters Milan (nov) 1982: Connors Challenge Of Champions Chicago (jan); lendl Molson Challenge Toronto (feb); Borg Suntory (apr); Connors Montreal (sept-Oct); Lendl Mazada Melbourne (oct); Mcenroe Perth (nov); Borg Sydney (nov); 1983: Lendl Challenge of Champions (jan) The challenge of champions was played before the january Masters in each year. Therefore for example Mcenroe's win might be regarded as part of the 1980 season.

Nastase's statistics in both books do not look to be totally comprehensive. If it can miss an important event as Denver 1969 then it is suspect. There was a 8 man event (2 round robin groups of 4) in Hawthorne New Jersey in feb 1970 at which Nastase lost to Smith, which is not covered in the books. Also 1971 states he played 28 events but a study of his wins and losses suggests only 22.

[jeffreyneave] jan 15 2007

- In the http://www.seapines.com/Recreation/Tennis/History/ site only 2 WICT are listed here at the Sea Pines Resort, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina : these two events are in Sutter's books (March 17, 1973 for Laver and October 15, 1976 for Borg). There is no indication for Nastase in 74 and 75 both in this site and in Sutter's books.

I have new information in two other sites : http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-111160.html and http://chrisevert.net/CE-tapesDVD.html but there are many contradictions in particular concerning the years.

- Sutter has listed Portland May 5, 1974

- In Nastase's books Denver 69 is replaced by Ancona 69 so you are right that something is odd.

In these books they have also recorded Kingston in 74 while Sutter has December 14, 1973 therefore if Sutter's right then head-to-head Nastase's records are wrong in 73 and 74 in particular again Gottfried, runner-up at Kingston.

- I will try to incorporate your new tournaments :


 * it isn't wrong to say that the January year n+1 Chicago tournaments can be considered as year n editions because these tournaments were preparations to the Masters tournaments but I think it would complicate the whole damn thing : there are yet Slam tournaments, Masters tournaments and pro tours in that case and I am not eager to do the same for those invitation tournaments so I prefer to consider them as simple n+1 editions tournaments.


 * Here is the invitation tournaments list, player by player (I suppose in particular that "Borg Rotterdam (4 man)(Oct); Borg Milan (nov); Borg Frankfurt (dec)" were held in 1980) :

Nastase

1974 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (invitation tournament)

1975 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (invitation tournament)

1976 Argentine Round Robin (invitation tournament) September

1977 Rotterdam World Star (invitation tournament) October

Borg

1976 Mexican Round Robin (invitation tournament) September, World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (invitation tournament) October

1977 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (invitation tournament) October

1978 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) April????'''

1979 Marbella (invitation tournament) September

1980 Rotterdam (4-man invitation tournament) October, Milan (invitation tournament) October, Frankfurt (invitation tournament) December

1981 Edmonton (invitation tournament) October

1982 Toronto Molson Challenge (invitation tournament) February, Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) April, Sydney (invitation tournament) November

Connors

1979 Asuncion (invitation tournament) September; Buenos Aires (invitation tournament) October

1981 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) April

1982 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January, Montreal (invitation tournament) October

McEnroe

1981 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January

1982 Perth (invitation tournament) November

Lendl

1981 Milan Brooklyn Masters (invitation tournament) November

1982 Melbourne Mazada (invitation tournament) October

1983 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January

Is there any correction or precision to do ? I prefer to wait for you answer because a single modification needs many corrections in the different related articles.

- I haven't understood anything about the 1976 Borg-Panatta challenge match : who has won ? Where ? What score ?

80.70.42.194 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi


 * I made a mistake. Lendl won the Toronto Molson Challenge Feb '82; Not Borg. Borg's wins at rotterdam, milan and Frankfurt were in 1979. There are three challenge matches listed in the world of tennis yearbook between Borg and Nastase just before the caracas event.. The second one shows exactly the same score between Borg and nastase as the first. The second is an error because Borg beat panatta at the second venue and did not play Nastase.


 * Hello. In my edition of world of tennis 1977 the order is different :

I have first the Gothenburg and Las Vegas matches then Caracas then Antwerp and finally both Soedertaelja and Oslo with the same players and scores : I then suppose that Nastase defeated Borg at Soedertaelja and Borg beat Panatta at Oslo. Is it right ? Carlo Colussi 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct information is that Borg beat panatta in Soedertaelja; Nastase beat Borg in Oslo; Nastase beat Borg in Antwerp. I'm sorry for any confusion in my memories of the World of Tennis Yearbook. [jeffreyneave] 24 jan 2007


 * Thank you : I've just corrected the book. Carlo Colussi 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The true information is in Tennis world magazine. I looked at the web pages. The confusion of WITc is that Nastase's 1974 win over borg was shown on TV in 1975. It was the same for every year. The Borg Web list has this definition. The Evert page has the correct year of actual play of the event. You were right that Borg did beat Mcenroe in 4 sets at Sydney event in 1982. (the yearbook wrongly defined the event as a knockout). It also seems that you can add another Connors win at the Suntory Tokyo event in 1983. I think, but am not certain that all these events were played in April; certainly in the spring of each year. Laver's March 17 1973 win is the 16 man CBS tennis classic, part of the WCT circuit; not the WITc. Confusingly, the first 4 man WITc was played later in the year and final was also between Smith and Laver; I don't the winner. I have a tape of Laver beating newcombe in the SF and and at a similar source of listed matches I saw that the final was between Smith and Laver. I also remember reading in Ashe's first book how upset he was at Smith's slow changeover speed in the other Sf. [jeffreyneave] 16 jan 206.



Firstly thank you for the explanations

Secondly there are still uncomprehensive WITC data : on one hand in the Borg site Nastase has defeated Borg 76 63 in the 1975 WITC Final : according to you it was shown on TV in 75 but really played in 74 and on the other hand in the Evert site Nastase has beaten Borg 63 64 in the 1974 WITC Final. So which score is the right one ? 76 63 or 63 64 ?

Thirdly Connors has probably defeated Borg 63 64  in the 1983 Tokyo Suntory Cup Final.

Fourthly according to http://www.seapines.com/Recreation/Tennis/History/ Laver has won 1973 WITC and according to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_d'Hilton_Head "9/09/73 World Invitational Sea Pines Hilton Head Margaret Smith Court d. Chris Evert and knowing that WITC was an event where both women and men played together we can suppose that Laver has won WITC in September 1973 (and the CBS Classic in March).

Fifthly here is the new list I let you check (amazingly there is no invitation tournament record in 1980 and no 1978 WITC : what do you think ?) :

Laver

1973 probably World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (4-man invitation tournament)

Nastase

1974 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (4-man invitation tournament)

1975 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (4-man invitation tournament)

1976 Argentine Round Robin (invitation tournament) September

1977 Rotterdam World Star (invitation tournament) October

Borg

1976 Mexican Round Robin (invitation tournament) September, World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (4-man invitation tournament) October

1977 World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) at Hilton Head (4-man invitation tournament) October

1978 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) probably April

1979 Marbella (invitation tournament) September, Rotterdam (4-man invitation tournament) October, Milan (invitation tournament) November, Frankfurt (invitation tournament) December

1981 Edmonton (invitation tournament) October

1982 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) April, Sydney (invitation tournament) November

Connors

1979 Asuncion (invitation tournament) September; Buenos Aires (invitation tournament) October

1981 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) April

1982 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January, Montreal (invitation tournament) October

1983 Tokyo Suntory Cup (invitation tournament) probably April

McEnroe

1981 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January

1982 Perth (invitation tournament) November

Lendl

1981 Milan Brooklyn Masters (invitation tournament) November

1982 Toronto Molson Challenge (invitation tournament) February, Melbourne Mazada (invitation tournament) October

1983 Chicago Challenge of Champions (invitation tournament) January

Sixthly I've already incorporated these new informations in the "Ilie Năstase" article but I am waiting for your answer to modify Laver, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl articles.

84.96.87.77 09:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi


 * yes this list is right except that Borg won Milan 79 in November. The WITc was discontinued after 1977. The lack of 1980 results is due to the lack of information in the World of tennis yearbook for that year. About WITC I don't know the exact scores, except to say Nastase beat Borg in 2 sets in the 1974 final and beat him again in the 1975 SF in three sets.

[jeffreyneave] 17 jan 2007 **** Thank you. I then will modify each article in English and in French. (Sutter had recorded 1976 WITC in Borg's list) Carlo Colussi 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, from German friend. Nice additional information. Its rightly said, that many invitational tournaments in the 70s in the US were recorded on tv to show them considerably later, sometimes a year later. This would explain some confusing dates, i have also seen for videos of matches on the internet (for example Laver-Newcombe sf Hilton Head 1974).In Europe, especially in Germany i have never seen those matches, but knew about them by old World Tennis or Tennis magazines. One question about Laver in 1962, i already asked in the Laver-article, refers to Newport. In some sources, like the Enclopedia of Tennis by Max Robertson, it is stated, that Laver won Newport on grass in 1962. Sutter doesn't have this result, but McCauley counts 22 titles in 1962, not 21 as Sutter. I don't have the final opponent nor the exact date, maybe one of You have some further information (german friend, 19. Jan. 2007).


 * Knowing that we are writing in many different articles we don't automatically see the new discussions : on August 18, 1962, Chuck McKinley beat Eugene Scott at Newport(US) and Laver didn't even enter the tournament where there were Stolle, Ashe, Riessen and others. Carlo Colussi 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * QUESTION ABOUT INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENTS IN THE 90'S/2000'S ...Hi everyone and thanks for the good work. I agree that many victories of Connors, borg, lendl, in invitational/special/exhibiton tournaments ought to be included in their official record. But then again, why not count, for instance, Roddick's victory at Kooyong? It was an exhibition, but he beat the world n°1. The idea is that, in an exhibition, Federer wasn't playing 100%, then it's not a "real" victory. But you could say the same about Connors, Borg, et al. I think we have to be logical: let's either count every "big" invitational tournaments until 2007, or dismiss any event that doesn't count for rankings (be it ATP, or WCT, or others...).

Jonathan


 * Nowadays the ATP has almost total control over the tennis calender and therefor can define what is official or unofficial. In the 1970's when Connors played they did not control the circuit. In 1974 Connors has 14 listed wins on the ATP web site. However, in 1974 Connors was credited with only entering 13 ATP approved events. Most of connors' victories On Riordan circuit (he won 7) where not ATP sanctioned in 1974. The ATP did not recognise either the WCT finals Or Masters final in the 70s and 80's. Nowadays the Masters counts both for Federer, and looking backwards on the ATP site for Connors and Borg. The 4 man TV invitation Grand Slam event of 70s at Boca raton is also counted by the ATP site. This event is typical invitation event which was ignored by the ATP in the 70's. The ATP web site is a piece of evolving historical research. It is in no way definitive.Particularly before 1973, it is very hit and miss. For instance in 1970 there seems to be almost total lack of tournaments berween January and April. The ATP researches have not been able to track down the results. Some of the missing events for 1970  are on the ITF web site; conversley the ITF site does not pick up some of the results tracked down by the ATP web site. Therefore just because the ATP site does not list an event does not mean it is not a wortwhile event, particularly in the 70s and 80s. As to Kooyong, I would probably count it as a worthwhile win, despite the fact that Federer treated it as just a warm up event for the Australian open. In the 1960s and early 70s , queens was often treated as a warm up event by players for Wimbledon with players more concerned with practising on grass than winning the event.

Jeffreyneave 27 may 2007


 * Hello Mister Jonathan

I wouldn't have better answered you than mister Jeffreyneave has done. In the 70's many events weren't considered by the modern ATP Website which apart from his numerous missing events of the 70s (and its ignorance of all the "preopen" tennis history) shows many wrong statistics. For instance it credits John Newcombe with two Canadian titles in 1971 (Montreal / Toronto and Toronto WCT) whereas it was the same tournament or it does the same with McEnroe in November 1978 with London and Wembley. If I had to list all the ATP errors I would have to write a book but now the ATP and the ITF are (unhappily) the only modern sources so their statistics are believed by the majority. Jeffreyneave had given you some examples and I will do the same. In the 70's Connors and Riordan his manager set up challenge matches against Laver (February 1975), Newcombe (April 1975) and Orantes (February 1976) and I can guarantee you that these matches were considered important by everybody and not considered as simple exhibitions : in many Connors's records you will find those results whereas nowadays meetings between Federer and Nadal such as the Seoul match (the tuesday following the 2006 Masters) or the Mallorca match (on a grass and clay court) will be quickly forgotten and not listed in their records. Before the 80s there were many parallel circuits therefore many players didn't meet many others. For instance in 1973 there were the WCT circuit, the Grand Prix circuit, the US indoor circuit managed by Riordan and the European circuit held in spring. Then sometimes great players didn't face each other for years. Now if a great player doesn't play another one on the official circuit it means either he isn't good enough or he is injured. All the Kooyong exhibitions are completely forgotten while the Connors-Laver match in 1975 was so much covered : World Tennis magazine put Laver on its cover to present the match against Connors at Las Vegas and inside the magazine several pages were dedicated to this match with Billie Jean King's opinion. Idem for the Connors-Newcombe match where many magazines put the result on their cover and everyone thought at the time that Connors had taken his revenge after his Australian Open defeat at ... Kooyong. Even in the 80s some exhibitions had sometimes a certain importance. Just after Wimbledon 1985 Becker played an exhibition (in Chicago if my memory is good) where he defeated McEnroe and John still remembers it : a few months later McEnroe took his revenge in an ECC-tournament semifinal at Anvers (Antwerp) (I've seen the match) then he lost to Lendl in the final (I've also watched this match) and Lendl, McEnroe and Becker were really serious and they didn't treat lightly those confrontations at all. In 1981-1982 McEnroe lost officially 7 straight matches against Lendl but every witness of the era will tell you that McEnroe lost in reality 8 matches in a row because his defeat at ... Anvers (Antwerp) (again) in November 1982 was considered as a true match (in this case I've also seen the McEnroe-Borg semifinal and the Lendl-McEnroe final and I can guarantee you that the players very truly competitive).

Carlo Colussi 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange Slam
Why the heck would we include an unrecognized slam in the article? It's one thing to put it under another heading for a title but not under "slam." No book I know of lists it as a slam so no source can be found. If we want to include it as a win we should talk about such a drastic move here first. Colussi is the expert in this field, what are your thoughts on the subject? FreepRipper (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Colussi being the expert, no Wikipedia editor is citable for anything on Wikipedia. Surely you know that by now.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I only asked for his opinion because of his knowledge on the tounaments of that era. It looks ok to me but the total would be 14 wins by my count. FreepRipper (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello FreepRipper. The World (amateur) Hard Court Chps (Hard in the "Commonwealth" meaning = Clay) were created by the French to match the supposed World (amateur) Grass Court Championships held at Wimbledon (Both championships didn't deserve the label "World Chps" because many players didn't come at the time because of financial and geographical difficulties). The Hard Court Chps were held from 1912 to 1923 (with interruptions due to war) each time at "Le Stade Français" in Saint-Cloud a city bordering Paris (France) except in 1922 (Bruxelles (Brussels)). In 1924 the Olympic Games were held on clay in the suburb of Paris and in 1925 the first international amateur outdoor championships of France, still on clay, were organized in ... Saint-Cloud (if I'm not wrong in 1926 they were held within the limits of Paris and in 1927 came back to Saint-Cloud). Because the French defended for the first time the Davis Cup in 1928 they didn't want to play the Challenge Round in Saint-Cloud because the stadium was too small. So they chose to build a new stadium in Paris just at the border of the city called Boulogne-sur-Seine (if you cross the Avenue Porte d'Auteuil, the address of Roland Garros, you arrive into Boulogne and not far from the other city ... Saint-Cloud) : le stade de Roland Garros (the president of "Le Stade Français" imposed that the name of the new stadium was one of a late member of the club, the aviator who gained fame for making the first nonstop flight across the Mediterranean Sea and who died during WWI). The stadium was ready in early May 1928, 2 months and a half before the Challenge round, so the French (amateur) Chps could be held for the first time at Roland. In conclusion there have been always a great international event on outdoor clay near or within Paris since 1912 (with some interruptions). This is why some consider that the World Hard Court Chps then the Olympics then the French international were sort of major or even Slam events. But in reality, John Kieran (probably before the 1933 US amateur final) and Allison Danzig (probably after this very same final) used for the first time in tennis the expression "Grand Slam" which was almost never used again until the early 1950s (perhaps someone used it when Budge made it but it isn't sure at all and even as late as 1953 tennis journalists still wrote that Budge had won the great Australian, French ... Chps but didn't wrote the word "Slam" in their accounts.


 * With retroactive effect were designed as Grand Slam tournaments the amateur championships since their debut (1905 for the Austral(as)ian Chps, 1925 for the French, 1877 for the British, and 1881 for the US) of the four nations having won the Davis Cup until then. Nevertheless none of these Chps were international when they started (if I consider that the French started in 1891 and not in 1925) : the (outdoor) French was just open to members of French clubs (so some foreigner players could enter the tournament) until 1924. The first US editions were closed too what many people ignore (in 1881 an Irish player, J.J. Cairnes, about the 10th British player at the time, who was not allowed, as a foreigner player, to enter the first US chps at Newport (won by Richard Dudley Sears), influenced the Newport officials to held an international event in the same location just after the closed event : this event was called the "US International Championship" and Cairnes easily defeated R.D. Sears, 46 62 61 63 (this shows that the Americans were very less good than the British players at the time and that the US events didn't deserve the "Slam" label). However the international US chp wasn't later considered as the official US event and then not considered as a Slam event. I don't remember when the US event became open to foreigners (in 1889 Ernest Meers, a British, entered the event). You can see that the Slam tournaments were not chosen in a logical way : why the US closed are included in the modern list and not the French closed (and no foreigners entered the first British and Australasian evnets) ? There was an indoor international French event since 1895 whereas the outdoor event was closed : why not choose this indoor event as a Slam event (to complicate matters there was also a French indoor close event) ? There were supposed "World" Chps from 1912 to 1923 (Grass at Wimbledon, Clay at Saint-Cloud (or Bruxelles), and Indoor in different locations : for instance Wilding won the three of them in 1913) but only the Wimbledon event was later considered as a Slam. In the 30s and after when the Slam notion almost didn't exist some pro events had much better fields than the supposed Slam tournaments but weren't considered as Slam events (though some persons named them "Professional Grand Slam tournaments"). In 1933 Kieran and Danzig talked about that, considering the 4 championships, because Crawford almost won them but he completely failed in the greatest amateur event of the time, the Davis Cup. Why those journalists haven't chosen the Davis Cup itself as the first Slam event because this team competition was the (amateur) Holy Grail ? Until 1959 and even 1967 (the last year before the open era) many considered the Davis Cup challenge round as the climax of the amateur season and very often the World n°1 amateur was chosen among the winning nation of that competition).


 * Summary : Slam tournaments = Wimbledon (amateur and open events) since 1877, US (closed amateur, "open " amateur and open events) since 1881, French ("open" amateur and open events) since 1925 and Austral(as)ian (amateur and open events) since 1905. But in reality those 4 tournaments weren't until the mid-1980s the 4 greatest events of each year.


 * Tilden has won the World Hard Courts in 1921 so this event, mainly because of Tilden's presence (then the best player in the world), was perhaps the greatest clay tournament of the year but wasn't a Slam tournament at the time (see above the 1933 US amateur chps reference : before Crawford the Slam didn't exist and almost didn't the next two decades) and still isn't today (and almost surely never). Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed your concentration on men. The situation for women was, in many ways, entirely different.  Tennis expert (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which tournaments are counted ?
Hello NWill,

I've reversed your edit by explaining it in the article. The main source I've used to list the male players who have won the more tournaments, is Sutter's book, because this is the first source I've found listing tournament wins before 1972 when the ATP was created ''(since I've discovered many other sources listing tournament wins since the 19th century). He chose about 150-200 tournaments every year (since 1946) to make the different years comparable. He included tournaments which were not part of the main circuits before the 90's and when the first challenger series tournaments appeared he picked them up too. He also included some invitational tournaments. This is why I've credited Federer with two more wins (the Brest challenger he won in January 1999 and the AAMI Kooyong Classic in January 2005) than Federer's ATP statistics. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your inclusion of Kooyong and will edit this article accordingly. Everyone, including the players, says that Kooyong is a mere exhibition.  Therefore, it should not count as an official tournament "win" for whoever wins it.  Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. For instance the results of the last edition in January 2008 were much more publicized and commented than the official Australian tournaments held at the same time. Safin in that tournament explained that his wins over Murray and Fernando Gonzalez gave him confidence for the future. All the best players prefer to play that event instead of the official tournaments because there is no Masters Series before the Slam tournament. Last year, when Roddick beat Federer, two months after the American had almost defeated the Swiss in the Masters Cup, many comments were made. So I'm not sure it is a mere exhibition. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a mere exhibition. Just because a few players like to play Kooyong doesn't mean it's a real tournament.  This is a free world.  No professional involuntarily plays exhibitions or tournaments these days.  Tennis expert (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A mere exhibition is just a simple match opposing two players organized as a happening just for the fun (example : the Sampras-Federer series in four different cities from late 2007 through last March : those matches are held almost at random and Federer perfectly know that Sampras, virtually retired since 2002, hasn't anymore his physical condition of the 90s and therefore the Swiss let the American have some seconds of rest between tough points. Nevertheless those players being champions don't like at all to lost even in mere exhibitions and it is very likely that Federer didn't deliberately lost to Sampras in Macao.


 * The Kooyong tournament is held at the same site since 20 years with at least 3 rounds each time (at least 8 players). So it is more than a mere exhibition though it isn't an ATP event. It isn't just a tournament where players like to play it is the event where all the best (except Nadal) come, those players dispising the official events. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, many reliable sources call the Kooyong tournament an "exhibition." See, e.g., Roddick beats Federer to retain exhibition title at Kooyong Federer withdraws from exhibition tournament  Stomach Virus Knocks Federer Out Of Kooyong.  What is the source for your definition of "exhibition" or the statement that the Kooyong tournament is not an "exhibition"?  Tennis expert (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Common sense.

A mere exhibition in tennis is a pseudo-match where the result doesn't count at all for everybody, the players just giving an enjoyable (if possible) show. The result is farcical.

Here the tournament is possibly called an "exhibition" (see your links) but it seems that the players attache a certain importance to the result or at least believe that this invitational event give them indications of their form, condition. In one of your chosen sources it is written The defending champion picked up a confidence boosting 6-2, 3-6, 6-3 win Saturday over top-ranked Federer in the final of the invitational Kooyong Classic exhibition tournament. Thus at least Roddick thought it was for "real" and not farcical as in mere exhibitions.

Are only ATP events the only "official" ones ? When you see how that source has changed its statistics in the last years. In 2007 the ATP included the Pepsi Grand Slam events and this year it has selected the WCT special events. So you can note that if "official" means "ATP" then the definition of this term is moving. Moreover The ATP doesn't give ATP points to the Hopman Cup and the World Team Championship both organized by the ITF (but the ATP records the latter's results). So what's really official ? Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here and in other articles you edit regularly is that you use your own criteria (or own conception of "common sense") to determine which tournaments count, in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, among others. What's relevant is what reliable sources (not just the ATP) say is true, not what you personally believe to be true.  That's why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact Carlo Colussi is taking these matters into his own hands is hilarious. As if he's some authority on this something. Feudonym (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Laurie Doherty could be included here?
Had possibly 20 "Slams": 1 Olympic, 1 USO, 5 Wimbledon, 6 Queens and 7 South of France - Nice.

Plus 4 Davis Cups.

Thanks.

--Lucio Garcia (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Amateur Majors before 1924
In late 1923 the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILFT) declared the following tournaments as being 'Major'. Australian Championship, French Championship, Wimbledon & the US Championship. Before that date the ILTF had 3 designated World Championships - Wimbledon, the World Hard Court Championships (on Clay) and the World Covered Court Championship (indoor).

The US Federation did not become part of the ILTF and the fact that Wimbledon was called the 'World Grass court Championship'. (The US Championship was played on Grass). All that was sorted out in the meeting in 1923. However, from 1913 to 1923, the three aforementioned championships were the internationally recognized championships (officially anyway).

From our perspective in the 21st Century we have 4 majors (the ones established since 1924). However, why are they 'the majors'? Only because of international body recognition. The World Hard Court Championship and the World Covered Court Championships were therefore majors in every sense of the word. To not consider them majors begs a lot of questions. Why recognize the present 4 majors as having that status? Because, of course, they were designated as such by the ILFT in 1923. But if that is the case, then we should recognize their authority in designating the 3 World Championships from 1913 to 1923. If we say that the field to the World Covered Court Championships was variable. Then that is hardly relevant. For some reason lists like this include the French Championship pre-1925. You were only allowed to compete in that championship if you were a member of a French Club? So hardly a strong field. But yet, in this Wikipedia article it is included. The Australian (or Australasian) championship hardly had strongs fields pre-1924. And the US Championship wasn't yet officially recognized as a major.

One cannot excluse Majors because they occasionally didn't have strong fields. Wimbledon 1973 (and to some extent 1972) had a very weak field indeed - but it is still included in histories as being a 'Major'.

Hence, my advice would be to include the World Hard Court Championships (on Clay) and the World Covered Court Championship (indoor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But this is wikipedia and opinion doesn't matter. We need verifiable proof that these were called "the Majors." Today sources for these older tournaments is a bit sketchy but the French Championships (today the French Open) was not a major until it opened itself up to international players. That has been sourced to death. Take a look at this article once again and all others in wikipedia too for that matter. The consensus is that the pre-1925 French is NOT included as a Major. The French Championship page itself includes those years as it should but pages on Slams or Majors do not and should not. The WHCC (really claycourt) is not considered a Major but this particular article had an asterix and it was probably because it drew better fields. It was a premier international French Tourney at the time so no one removed it. But to now add another event just because they threw on a bogus world championship in the title is wrong. The US signing on to the 4 events in the 1920's had a big demand, that world championship titles be dropped because they meant nothing. Also today's majors aren't just majors because someone said so... it is also heavy tradition and well sourced. The Australian was lucky to make it through the 70s and 80s with that title still intact. We have the 4 slams (French since 1925) sourced and sources for the 3 pro slams. How watered down and unsourced do we want this article to be? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "We need verifiable proof that these were called "the Majors." - the International Lawn Tennis Federation called them 'World Championships' (what could be more 'major' than that?). It is actually harder to establish that the US Championship was a major pre-1924 since it had no official body recognition. (However I do agree the US Championship deserved formal major status before 1924. The Doherty's competed in it turn of the century and Tilden was the best player in the world in the early 20's.) In your update you mention that the US didn't recognize them (the ILTF world championships). I don't know that is the case, my thinking was that the US were upset in being left off the list and particularly with Wimbledon being called 'the World Grass Court Championship' And even if that was the case, that is a US only view, and given that tennis is a world sport - the majority would go with the ILTF.


 * Obviously we have a difference in opinion. Can I just say this - I think this page is really great. One of the things lacking in tennis is a good sense of history of the game. A lot of modern commentators are wholy ignorant of the Pro-tennis history and its importance. So kudos on you for contributing to this excellent page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.129.12 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We do differ in opinion but that's ok as it happens a lot on wiki. We also have had World Championship Tennis (WCT) championships and the Masters world championships and they are not Majors. So just because world championship is in the name does not make it a Slam/Major. The Doherty's also competed in the Irish Championships which at the time was probably 2nd in prestige only to Wimbledon. I believe I have an old magazine laying around where the term Irish World Championships was used in 1901 or 02. Yet that is also not considered a major. It is pretty universally accepted that there are 4 Slams since their inception and that the French starts in 1925. There are several books written that use the term "Pro Slams" for the 3 tournies for the professionals who were not allowed in the 4 amateur slams. That is the basis for this article. I did not add the WHCC to Tilden but I wasn't going to argue since it was the premier international event other than the 3 majors at the time even though you'd find no sources saying it's a slam. You have to pick your arguments carefully here or nothing would get done :-) But in adding yet another I feel it would get watered down way to much and take out the meaning of the term Slam or Major. Maybe it would be better to remove the WHCC so as not to entice others to add even more tournies? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is pretty universally accepted that there are 4 Slams since their inception and that the French starts in 1925." I'd have to disagree. No-one regarded the Australasian Championships as being a Major back in 1905. The Victorian State Championships was regarded as more prestigious then. I agree totally that the French Championships started for real in 1925. However, I have seen many tennis forum posts by knowledgeable posters saying that the WHCC should be regarded as a Major. It was in essence the French Open before the French Open started. It had deep fields and was recognised as a World Championship. In fact there is evidence that the top players regarded the French Open 1925 (like Lenglen and Tilden) as being the same tournament as the World Hard court championships - just continued. In 1925 and 1927 the French Open was played at the same site as the previous WHCC. So no don't take it away.

I have looked and there doesn't seem to be any event other than the meeting of the ILTF in late 1923 that designated the current 4 Major tournaments as Majors (Starting in 1924 for 3 of them and 1925 with the French). Hence, if that is the case the ILTF being the International body of tennis (the old name for the ITF) can pronounce them such, then they can also deem from 1913 to 1923 three tournaments as World Championships.

Regarding the World Championship title not being equivalent to 'Major' again I have to disagree. The tournaments you quote as the WCT finals and the Tennis World Championships were in a era when the 4 Majors were established as being as such. Everyone knew in the 1970's what the 4 tournaments you had to win to get a 'Grand Slam' were. In 1913 to 1923 there were no other tournament given that status above the 3 I have mentioned. Now in a defacto sense the US Championships was a 'major' back then, but it wasn't officially recognized as so.

Tennis is like Golf. Bobby Jones won the 'Grand Slam' in 1930. However, those events were different than todays Golf's Grand Slam. No-one takes away from Jones' grand slam because Golf people know things have evolved since then. Tennis people should do the same. The 4 'Grand Slam' tournament have only been given that status since 1924 (1925 in the French Championships case). Hence both the World Hard Court Championships and the World Covered Court Championships were Majors before the term Grand Slam came along.

Now you mention field depth as being one of your criteria. What do you think had deeper fields? The Australasian Championships 1905 to 1923? Or the World Hard Court Championship 1913 to 1923? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna be gone a few days so i won't be able to argue this till after the weekend. I didn't mean that depth of field is a criteria for a Major. I meant that we have 4 majors and intoducing anything that approaches them had better have a strong field. At least the WHCC did. I also disagree the majors aka slam being firmly established in 1924/25. They became a possible grand slam with Perry in the 30's, not before. And they have become much more important to win en masse from the mid-80s onward. Sportswriters and encyclopedias for decades have said there are 4 majors, period. They have then extrapolated backwards in time to include 3 of the majors to their inception and the French to 1925. This is a fact that is well sourced. It is what is used today in all tennis circles no matter what you or i think about the early 1900s. No matter what sports encyclopedia or almanac or newspaper you read there are 4 slams/Majors and they are the US, Aussie and French Opens, and Wimbledon. Nothing else except in a few places where the 3 pro slams are written about. The French Open doesn't use the WHCC as a basis for past Championships... they use their own.


 * I also disagree on your judgment of the US Championships. There was a lot of pushing and shoving of the big boys in the early years and just because the ILTF didn't designate the US as such they knew it was important. They tried their best to downplay it by their world championship designations. I do agree that the Victorian was stronger back then but again it doesn't matter as far as wikipedia is concerned. We don't allow what may be right, we allow what is in use today and can be sourced today. And that is certainly not the indoor championships or irish championships or victorian championships. For those we simply write an article about the winners and make sure we mention that their importance was very high back in the old days. That's all we can do. I may very well agree with you on the WHCC but I'm looking at this from a point of view of wikipedia and other editors. Man my fingers are getting tired :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"We don't allow what may be right, we allow what is in use today and can be sourced today" - this is where we have a different view of history my friend. To go down that road is to encourage inaccuracy. It is akin to saying, well if the majority of people think this, it must be right. Surely we are trying to get at an accurate history, not simply judging things by the standards of today. Let me illustrate. Lets say that the French Open gradually falls out of favour or is upstaged by a new tournament - and this gradually happens so that by 2030 - tournament X is regarded as a true 'major'. Does that mean that suddenly we have to edit out the French Open from being a major from 1925 to 2010? No, we note that it was officially a major at the time. Regarding your thoughts on the current 4 majors not being established in 1924/1925, let me ask this question. In the 1930's when Jack Crawford narrowly missed the Grand slam or in 1938 when Budge got it - why did people regard those as the Major tournaments? Who told them that those 4 were the 4 majors? You will look in vain for an official statement unless you go to the 1923 meeting of the ILTF. And my reasoning is that if the ILTF was the official body (Which is was) and they say that the current 4 'Grand Slam' tournaments are the majors, then they were equally authoritive in stating that from 1913 to 1923 the three top tournaments were Wimbledon, the WHCC, and the WCCC. If you want cross referencing in Wikipedia to hold something authorative then look at Suzanne Lenglen's entry. They list amongst her 'championship wins' the WHCC. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Any similar article for the females?
I was wondering if we will soon have a similar article for the women especially in counting their total titles won in tournaments in general. it would be an interesting list to see how many would have more than 100 titles (wta, pre wta, and invitationals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.42.93 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research & Neutral POV issues
This article appears to represent original research and includes several subjective & unverifiable claims. This is really more of a commentary than an encyclopedia article. Frankly, I'm not sure it can be salvaged in such a way that it can stand on its own as a separate article. (I'll add the commentary is actually very interesting, but belongs in a magazine or on a sportscaster website.)

Here are some examples of potential issues that need to be addressed. These are just from the first section, since nearly every statement made in the entire article relies on speculation, exaggeration, and/or comparisons that may be unverifiable:

1. "the professional circuit was much less popular than the traditional amateur circuit." - "much less" is a substantial claim. This needs data for support. Also, popular in terms of spectators? Popular in terms of the players?

2. "The only exceptional male player who entered Wimbledon that year was Lew Hoad." Making the claim that Lew Hoad was "exceptional" needs to be supported.

3. "experiences small crowds and lost money". to suggest the tournament came out with a deficit in funds needs to be verified.

4. "although he was cruelly forced to play the doubles event there." "Cruelly" is too vague, and how do we know he was "forced" to play? What does that even mean?

5. "motivated tour players to create the Association of Tennis Professionals in 1972 because they no longer wanted to be dependent on tennis federations or professional tennis promoters." - Wanting is an internal state that cannot be verified without drawing support directly from statements made by the players themselves, which would constitute original research. Also, the statement overgeneralizes, suggesting ALL tennis players wanted to make this change and for the same reasons.

6. "U.S. Pro was a high-class tournament with all the best players, but just two years later, this tournament was ordinary because only professional teachers (no leading touring pros) entered the event. - Relativistic claims that need to be hedged or quantified. What makes a tournament "high-class" versus "ordinary".

7. "but it doesn't mean that the banished players of the pre-open era were less great than their open era colleagues." - We know from the article on Federer that the use of the term "great" is difficult to verify without appealing to both statistics and expert opinions. Also, the word "banished" is not used correctly here.

8. "Rod Laver captured the amateur Grand Slam in 1962 he was probably only the 5th player in the world behind Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Gimeno. - speculation - How do you know he was "probably" the 5th player? What does that even mean?

9. "But to give you another ironic example..." This passage includes subjective claims about the relative greatness of tournaments (see 7), and isn't even particularly ironic.

10. "In reality to fairly compare pre-open era players records with open era players's it would be necessary to select from the tennis beginnings the 4 greatest events of each year, knowing it would change every year (some years it is awfully difficult to choose the 4 greatest tennis events)." - Again with the "greatness" - what criteria should be used to determine if a tournament is one of the four greatest in a year? This passage really just proposes one possible method to compare across tennis eras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianeck (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the exact same thing while reading through this article. It's one of the more bizarre styles I've come across on wikipedia, addressing readers directly, huge chunks of random bold and italic typeface, speculation, and very, very few sources. I have removed or edited some of those examples you mention (without having read your comment), but you're right, it needs a massive overhaul. I, too, fear it is too big a job and would require too many drastic edits. It definitely belongs in a magazine article somewhere instead of an encyclopedia. Feudonym (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags removed
MOS:FLAG states that "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". As far as I can determine from this and other tennis articles, tennis players do not represent a country in any sense, and thus the flags cannot be used in the list of matches. Use of flags there violates WP:NPOV, because it over-represents the importance of nationality in a person's identity. As such, I have removed the flag icons. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this article?
Template:Tennis records and statistics links this page as "Misc", and that seems about right - a completely random selection of records nowhere near living up to the title. My first thought is that this page should be merged into All-time tennis records – men's singles. Sod25 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "All-time records" is more about that---records. This article concentrates more on what may be considered "major achievements" rather than "records". Thus the title "Tennis male players statistics". So the focus is on "statistics" rather than "records". It is "statistics" in the sense of important achievements. Many records are obscure and of relatively little significance. So there is a place for this article.
 * I would suggest using the title "Tennis male player major achievements" or "Tennis male player important achievements" to indicate the focus of the article. Tennisedu (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Sod25, that this article should be merged with the one he listed, though I do not feel strongly about it. I haven't edited this page much in the past.  I was just looking back through the edit history of this article.  Some of the prose (now removed) had all the hallmarks of the wikipedia editing style of long ago (very POV, nothing sourced).  Also, there is a more sources needed tag from a decade ago on this page.  I will look to add some sources.  This is what the page requires (it needs more sources before it can be left alone).  I have no objection to it being renamed "Tennis male player major achievements". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"World Championship" on Kramer's brochures
Kramer described the 1959 tournament series as "World Championship Tennis". I understand that this was common for Kramer to do that, but that does not mean that this is an inaccurate designation. When did he use this description for a non-world championship series? Tennisedu (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305207915223?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050
 * Dundee 1961 was not a world championship. It was a standard tour stop.  Kramer used this term on many of his brochures in certain years to boost ticket sales.  I seem to recall a long time ago another editor saying we don't use advertising material as a source on wikipedia, probably for this very reason. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)