User talk:Carlo Colussi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
2 Question
3 Bjorn Borg and the Australian Open
4 Translating
5 Look this Carlo

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Carlo Colussi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why have you blanked Tennis world champions named by the International Tennis Federation? I have gone ahead and reverted your blanking. Please let me know why you have done this. Thanks. KOS | talk 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. -- KOS | talk 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - Hello

Because I've accepted the merging proposition of "tennisexpert" into "Tennis Statistics" and then I've inserted all the content in the last article : I have to make modifications and I will make it directly in the "Tennis Statistics" article.

So given that it is now in "Tennis Statistics" I think we can blank or even delete it. If you are OK you can DELETE this article because there is no lost information.

Carlo Colussi 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bjorn Borg and the Australian Open

Hi there. I was always curious about why Borg didn't compete at the Aussie Open. Thanks for your response. Regards. SteveO 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

carlo my response to connors borg head to head is on my talk page

jeffreyneave 1 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translating

I'll be very busy translating in next months.

Thanks for all. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) All right Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC) You can see the "little" progress of the trans in the page. Work isn't finish, AT ALL!. Thanks. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lucio I've seen "Listado de tenistas masculinos número uno del mundo" today. Great : this is almost done. Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1931 WORLD RANKINGS

Carlo , you have obviously seen the andrew tass list of winners and finalists for all amateur events in 1931. I think it is quite clear that cochet is not no1. His performance are very ordinary. Its also quite claer that Vines has the best record. He has completely dominated all the major events in the USA. He has also very importantly beat perry 4 times; and perry seems to be the only top player competiting on both sides of the ATlantic, which leaves VInes as the only real candidate for n01. Myers' rankings should be discounted and as bowers meekly just accepted Myers'views his ranking should be discounted. I feel that as a compromise Vines and Tilden should be named as co-numbers for 1931 ( My gut feeling is that Vines was the better player given he always had the edge on Tilden when they played from 1934 onwards and looks as impressive as ever in 1931). The problem is the source. Can we use Andrew Tass as the source and get round the inevitable objections of Tennis expert's fanaticism on wiki rules

jeffreyneave 14 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.152.44 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey,

Andrew and Károly Mazák, very high class men, have given me their results about 6 months ago not only for 1931 but for all years and in World Tennis it is written black on white that Perry and G. Patrick Hughes were sent to the USA. Perry was the only non-US very top player who made the transatlantic player : Cochet and Austin didn't make the trip. Because of his illness Cochet didn't deserve the 1st amateur rank. I have all the available results for the Monte Carlo Cup and the Italian Chps (Sutter's book for Monte Carlo and Fumarola's book for the Italian) : for Monte Carlo some matches or rounds are missing (Sutter though helped by Alan Little couldn't find all the results before publishing his book in early 1997) but for the Italian I have all the matches (except errors) from 1st round to final. In particular in 1931 Cochet beat just good players at Monte Carlo (as George Lyttelton Rogers) but not top players and in the Italian he beat only "ordinary" players and the only good player he met was G.P. Hughes : being already ill the French couldn't resist and lost in straight sets. So Károly and I agreed 6 months ago that Vines was probably the leading amateur. But contrary to you Károly and I also agreed that Tilden was the best in 1931 because Tilden was a better all-round player than Vines in 1931 in particular on clay. Vines improved after 1931 nevertheless in the very first meetings against Tilden in 1934, Tilden led Vines though all the matches were played on fast indoor courts, Vines's best surface. Only after Vines reverse the results at the very end of their first short tour (11-9 for Vines). Then in the rest of the year 1934 Vines mastered Tilden but mainly on fast courts. Vines became a top player on clay only in 1935 when he won the French Pro beating Nüsslein (then the best pro claycourt player) winner of Tilden in the semis : this was Vines's apogee on clay. So I repeat : even at the very beginning of 1934 Tilden beat Vines on the latter's best surface so I presume that in 1931 Tilden was better than Vines on every surface.

To conclude, unhappily Andrew is not an "official" source and he hasn't published any ranking so we can't use him to rank Tilden and Vines instead of Cochet for 1931.

Other debatable year : 1913. Myers ranked Brookes co-No.2 (with McLoughlin) but Stakovich from Tennis and Golf didn't rank Brookes in the Top10 probably because Brookes didn't quit Australia. But in some aspects I don't entirely contradict Myers. Apparently in 1913 Brookes just played test matches in January and the Victorian Chp in November : in the last one he beat in the semis one Parker (for the moment I can't find if it was Harry or Ernie Parker) but defaulted in the final to Heath. I recall you that the British Isles made an Australasian tour in austral summer 1912-1913. In November the British Isles captured the Davis Cup with in particular Parke beating Brookes in five sets. Then the British team played numerous matches down under (in particular the Australasian Chp and test matches against New South Wales, Queensland, New Zealand, Sydney Metropolitan Club, Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia). In early 1913 Brookes represented Australia (meeting ended on January 21, 1913) then Victoria. The Melburnian had learnt from his Davis Cup defeat to Parke not give angles to Parke and to play in the centre of the court : in those 1913 matches Brookes met Parke twice and beat it : 97 62 as an Australia representative and 63 36 63 as a Victoria player. But more amazing Brookes met Charles Percy Dixon, one of the very top player of the time, and Brookes crushed him ... 60 60. So Myers have perhaps overrated Brookes (on reputation) but not so much. The most puzzling : Charles P. Haggett, a British professional, invited by the West Side Tennis Club in early 1913, had a slight edge on McLoughlin in practice matches for the preparation of Davis Cup in early June 1913 and have beaten Wilding too in practice matches (but I don't know when and where : 1913 seems doubtful because Haggett was mainly in the States whereas Wilding was in Britain so perhaps in 1914 when Australasia played the US in Davis Cup) Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

hello carlo, Vines seems to me to be a good player on all surfaces. In 1931 2 of his wins are definitely on clay. Vines just did not play very often on european clay throughout his career. In the tours with perry and budge he had no problems winning on clay and refuted suggestions that he could only win indoors. As to 1934, Tilden is the one with the advantage because he has played indoors a lot. Amateurs hardly played indoors (vines' events in 1931 are all outdoors); kramer had the same problem against riggs and just used the wrong tactics initially indoors; the point is Vines won the series and who won the 1st match is irrelevant. vines was the better player in 1934 and though it could be argued Tilden had declined from 1931 its not particularly proven. Whether Vines got any better is not sure either. He played great in 1931, great 1932 (his wins in 1932 finals at us open and wimbledon suggested awsome form, but he did not play like that every day), poorly in 1933.; its unknown whether he raised his game in 1934 or not. So a fair compromise would be a tie between the two.

I have no respect for wiki rules whatsoever; I regard them as smug, unpersuasive elitism. Original ideas are great. The truth is what we are after not following silly wiki rules. As 1931 shows being published does not mean quality. We rigged 1964 to give Laver a share when we all knew he was the best. vines was the best amateur according to the facts and it should be recognised; cochet should be dropped and Myers's opinion consigned to oblivion.

jeffreyneave 16 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys "rigged 1964 to give Laver a share." What exactly does that mean? Is WP:NOR one of the "silly wiki rules" full of "smug, unpersuasive elitism" that should not be followed in the rankings? Tennis expert (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NOR is certainly one of those rules; its crap. we want all the original ideas we can get. the object is to increase the world's knowledge not to restrict it to previously published material; the truth counts above all else. being published like myers does not mean quality at all. loads of tennis journalism is hack work of no merit. We are not here to parrot copy from published work. All wiki editing rules are rubbish. rabid elitism and anti democratic. 1964 was not rigged in your silly terms . Geist co-ranked Laver and Rosewall no1. but the majority of pubished sources favoured Rosewall; howver carlo, german friend and myself all clearly saw that laver had the better record in Macculey's book; Laver was no1 and very clearly so. truth is more important than published sources.

jeffreyneave 25 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.157.90 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)