Talk:Tennis, male players statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)