Talk:List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrected 1937 French Open win from Don Budge to Henner Henkel. Was wondering why all sources had Don Budge as 6-times winner of Grand Slams and not 7! test

Contents

[edit] French 'Open' controversy

I think it is unfair not to provide an historical background on the French players from 1891 to 1924. Note other tournaments, like Wimbledon, tended to be entered by only UK players at the start. Even the Australian 'Open' was the Australian Championships before 1969.Ryoung122 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that bios for pre-25 French should be included but most aren't written yet. However they should remain grey with the links maybe a different color and they should not count towards slams. Fyunck(click) 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a few arguments against the present layout:

  • A. The women's page isn't 'greyed out'
  • B. There are other 'rules' such as the 'Open era' and the 'challenge round' that also affect who won
  • C. Read the article on Suzanne Lenglen. She went to NY to play the US 'Open' and was treated terribly. Open on paper only.
  • D. You can't link an article if it is greyed out.
  • E. Most of the people have different versions, a simple notation for '1925' should be enough.
  • F. The 'Australian Open' certainly wasn't before 1969.
  • G. Look at the Wimbledon list, when do you see the first non-English flag? Except that Ireland was a part of the UK then so its a phantom?Ryoung122 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comparing being treated badly as opposed to "French Players Only" is a big deal. I have no trouble linking the greyed out text. An American won the Aussie in 1908. Fyunck(click) 07:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The first 30 years we don't see any non-UK winners of the British championships...and since Australia's head of state is the Queen of England, really we don't see the emergence of 'modern' tennis until the 1920's.Ryoung122 07:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

However it was open to all countries. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we to say that Babe Ruth's home runs shouldn't count because the US prevented non-whites from playing pro baseball from 1880 to 1947? Hmm....Ryoung122 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but the Negro leagues records aren't incorporated into MLB records either. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should take George Washington off the dollar bill because he owned slaves? Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson too?Ryoung122 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, someone still had to compete and win despite the rules being restrictive. In reality, since from 1877 to 1920 nearly all titles were within each individual nation, the best comparison to be made is to not grey out. Notably, stars like Henri Cochet and Jean Borotra did just as well after competition was 'open' as before.

ok... I agree to not have it greyed out. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In reality, however, consider this: all four were 'amateur' because tennis was an elitist sport. By not paying money, only the 'idle riche' were expected to compete. There were complaints from Suzanne Lenglen to Althea Gibson about this. So, just how 'open' were these national championships, anyway? Truly, the 'Open' era began in 1968, but we should not 'diss' those who still played by the rules in their own time. If someone won 7 times, they must have been really good.Ryoung122 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Really good yes, great maybe, but not included in the tennis slam records. Fyunck(click) 07:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The real point here is that the four championships today each trace to 1877, 1881, 1891, and 1905...more than a century ago. During the past century-plus, there have been many changes, from the elimination of the challenge round, the elimination of the amateur requirement, the renamings, the surface changes...the 'Australian Open' was once the 'Australiasian championships'. Not only that, it was common practice for one person to compete only in their home nation. Persons like Federer today have a decided advantage...even as recent as the 1970's, Bjorn Borg didn't bother to go compete in the Australian Open which had so little respect, people like Brian Teacher were able to win it. The move from Jan. to Dec. denied Martina Navratilova a calendar-year Grand Slam. Now, however, since 1988 everything has come together, the 'Aussie Open' and the 'Big Four' are all highly competitive.

I agree here, but pre-Connors there a great deal of respect for the Aussie Championships. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The real purpose of this article is to lay out the history of the championships over the years. I note that some of the reports for Venus William's victory yesterday only mentioned the recordholders from the 'Open' era...no Helen Wills, Molla Mallory or the like. So, the media will do what they want.

No, the purpose of this article is to lay out the SLAMS (hence the title). Pre-25 the French was not a Slam in that only French were allowed... all the other Slams allowed all countries even if those other countries had few entries or were treated badly. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What we SHOULD do on Wikipedia, however, is to present the information incorporating multiple points of view. It is not for you to decide that the pre-1925 French championships shouldn't be counted...they are, after all, listed in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, so why not Wikipedia?

List away but don't go adding to the Slam total. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, people make of what they will here. The number system (1/7) is used to help people visually find multiple winners, so it should be included for everyone. Even for single-time winners, because that way there is no need to look to see if there's a second title or not, plus it is aesthetically more pleasing.Ryoung122 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is for Slams not small "French Only" tournies. If you start adding non-slams you could also throw out all the Slams after the professionals started their tournies. Wimbledon/French/US/Aussie meant nothing in the 40s-60s so you should actually count the Pro events instead. But that's for a different article as it should be, just as pre-25 winners of the French should not be included in slam totals. Fyunck(click) 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French 'pre 1925' controversy, part II

Let's take a look at some outside sources. ESPN lists the pre-1925 French winners:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/history?type=men Ryoung122 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The history of tennis is that it was a French game ('royal tennis') that the Brits adapted to the lawn, to create a new game called 'lawn tennis':

http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp Ryoung122 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article also said the French may have taken it from Egypt but that has nothing to do with our conversation. Fyunck(click) 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ndtv.com/sports/frenchopenpastwinners.asp?gender=menRyoung122 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, like golf, where there is dispute about how many 'majors' Bobby Jones won, the best thing Wikipedia can do is to present all the data and let the reader decide.

Unfortunately the only way to do that is to remove all the total numbers from the columns and I don't think that is a really good idea either. Fyunck(click) 08:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of work to do yet and to get into an edit war isn't really the right idea. Ryoung122 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the original makers of this page were on the right track when they greyed out the pre-1925 French Champions. Ungreying them opens up all kinds of problems since people might think they are true slam champions. Should they be on this "Slam" list at all when the French Tourney wasn't an international event then? (I don't think it was even a country event, being open only to its own club members). I guess it lets the people reading this article know that the French Title has been around longer than 1925 and many websites (cbs, msnbc, etc...) don't show pre-1925 at all. But I think it's best to remain grey so as not to confuse it with a slam victory. This is a slam article not a French club website. Other viewpoints? Fyunck(click) 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions

There is still work to be done to make this more conformational. For example, there are still some first names, instead of last-name only with a link (i.e. Federer, Roger). Also, for multiple winners there's no need to have the first name several times...Ryoung122 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Wolbo 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, you were supposed to include the first name for the first mention...Ryoung122 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say 'supposed to' are you refering to an accepted consensus on this? If so, can you point me to that? The overview does not contain any first names at all in the Open Era part and just a couple in the recently re-added pre 1925 part of the French Open so at least now it's consistent. Again if it's accepted consensus that the first mention of a player should include a first name as well I'll be willing to contribute to an update. Wolbo 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to all the first mentions of a person have a formula...you don't see the first name on the page but the first name is visible on the 'edit' page. This allows three things:

A. to disambiguate between those persons with the same last name (i.e. Ernest and William Renshaw)

B. allows for a wikilink to a (potential future) article on the person.

C. It allows a person to find out the person's full name without forcing the table to be too large.

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 03:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself.Ryoung122 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors

When there were color bars for 3x and 4x per year champions I saw no problems but with the addition of 2x champions in a year this table has become much more difficult to read. If we must include the 2x winners as a separate color could we make it a closer off-white? Heck even the 3x and 4x could be softer... just a hint of color change would be more readable. Fyunck(click) 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we 'must' include the 2 x winners but it seems logical to indicate them as well. I could understand only highlighting the calendar Grand Slam but see no reason why 3 x winners should be highlighted but not 2 x winners. At least now we highlight all multiple winners which is more logically consistent and IMO also deserved as it is after all a special achievement. I agree that extra colors can make tables harder to read but tried to pick a softtone to minimize that effect (you should have seen my earlier choice ;-) ). I guess that's always somewhat subjective but feel free to select a better color if you can find it. Wolbo 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

Needs a cleanup, why is Sampras (4) below some with 3? Federer in the wrong place. Also, I suggest if a player does it multiple times, they should be listed multiply. For example, if Federer wins Wimbledon 5 times that is different than winning the US Open 3 times, so the listings should be split. This would give proper credit. The current situation alternately discredits (only the 'best effort' counts) and over-credits (a '3' ahead of '5').Ryoung122 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Open Grey-Out?

Reading direct from the U.S. Open Wikipedia page:

The US Open originated from two separate tournaments: the men's tournament and the women's tournament. The event was first held in August 1881 and staged at the Newport Casino, Newport, Rhode Island (men's singles only). The championships were known as the U.S. National Singles Championship for men. Only clubs that were members of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association were permitted to enter

Hmmm...so the US National championships count from inception, even though they were originally restricted to Americans, but the French don't? Once again, If Funclick would stop being such a bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, self-appointed prophet and soothsayer and stopped and considered things a bit more, he'd realize that all four tournaments were 'embryonic' in the early years, limited in scope and entry, and geared toward a 'national' championship...which is why they were called 'national' championships.Ryoung122 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In checking Wikis source for this it is unclear if this innagural 1881 tourney was the only event which was restricted to US clubs and it is also unclear whether that was a restriction only for US players. There is evidence of other countries at the US event in the 1890s and foreign winners in the 1900s. France however through 1925 forbid other countries and other french clubs from entering. This is why ESPN, NBC, CBS, my set of world book encyclopedias, and many other sources refuse to classify the French Championships as a slam caliber event until 1925. I have no doubt that some sources do include it but that doesn't make it right. Fyunck(click) 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is: you should be attempting to arrive at a 'fair' position. Your position right now is NOT fair; it is like demanding that Wikipedia reflect the position of a political party (Democrat or Republican) when in fact it should be neutral. So far you have overstated your case: the FACTS are that there was no such thing as a 'slam' before the 1930's, and this list is meant for primarily historical relevance. Titles must be taken within the context of their era. Of course, some would argue that Pancho Gonzales was one of the greatest players of all time and that Roy Emerson, with 12 'slams', was a second-fiddle player who survived because of the pro-am rule until 1968 (notice no titles after 1968). This compares to the French situation, where the likes of Lenglen, Borotra, Cochet etc. continued to win AFTER the rules changes. This strongly suggests that the pro-am rule was in fact worse. Also, there seems to be too much repeating of things and not enough investigating. France has long been inclusive to include people 'within the French empire' which is why people like Yannick Noah, from Cameroon, represented France in 1983...over 50 years later. This compares well to the elite British tennis establishment which has been lily-white.Ryoung122 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair was allowing it to be ungreyed not numbered. And the more you dig at British society and put France's openess on a pedestal, the more your appearance of a whore for France. And I look at Gonzales as one of the all-time greats, but not Emerson. Fyunck(click) 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on the French Championships

I love it... Ryoung asks for a compromise and edits like a banshee when I'm not around... adding more and more to a controversial subject and burying it amoung dozens of edits every 2 minutes. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should.

But this article is "Grand Slam Men's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must. Fyunck(click) 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now also being discussed at WPT:TENNIS. Fyunck(click) 07:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I despise your informalist language usage. "Slam" is a media term; Wimbledon is properly the Championships, Wimbledon and the winners are called 'title holders.' The holders of the most 'singles' titles is what you are talking about. Quite properly, if a 'slam' is winning all four titles in a given year, then we only need to be discussing Rod Laver, Steffi Graf, and a few others.

LOL... you mean the Grand Slam... boy oh boy. here I am opening this up for discussion amoung peers and you are still being snotty. Fyunck(click) 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Second: the first-ever winner of the "French Open" was an ENGLISHMAN in 1891:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/277261/the_history_of_the_french_open.html

I see... an Englishman living in Paris and a member of that French tennis club. As were the guys below most probably. Nice source too. Fyunck(click) 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that destroys your 'French-only' theory. More likely, like the U.S. Open it was a "French clubs" only rule...but foreigners could join a French club and then play in the tournament. All in all, I suggest you reconsider.Ryoung122 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We also see that in 1892 and 1897 the French finalist was British:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-french-men-s-singles-champions-and-finalists

Year Champion Runner-up Score 1891 H. Briggs a British resident of Paris P. Baigneres 1892 Jean Schopfer Fassitt 1893 L. Riboulet Jean Schopfer 1894 André Vacherot Gérard Brosselin 1895 André Vacherot L. Riboulet 1896 André Vacherot Gérard Brosselin 6-1 7-5 1897 Paul Aymé F. Wardan 4-6 6-4 6-2 1898 Paul Aymé Paul Lebreton 1899 Paul Aymé Paul Lebreton 1900 Paul Aymé Alain Prévost 1901 André Vacherot Paul Lebreton 1902 Marcel Vacherot Max Décugis 6-4 6-2 1903 Max Décugis André Vacherot 1904 Max Décugis André Vacherot 6-1 9-7 6-8 6-1 1905 Maurice Germot André Vacherot 1906 Maurice Germot Max Décugis 1907 Max Décugis Robert Wallet 1908 Max Décugis Maurice Germot 1909 Max Décugis Maurice Germot 1910 Maurice Germot François Blanchy 1911 André Gobert Maurice Germot 1912 Max Décugis André Gobert 1913 Max Décugis Georges Gault 1914 Max Décugis Jean Samazeuilh 3-6 6-1 6-4 6-4 1915 no competition World War I 1916 no competition World War I 1917 no competition World War I 1918 no competition World War I 1919 no competition World War I 1920 André Gobert Max Décugis 6-3 3-6 1-6 6-2 6-3 1921 Jean Samazeuilh André Gobert 6-3 6-3 2-6 7-5 1922 Henri Cochet Jean Samazeuilh 8-6 6-3 7-5 1923 François Blanchy Max Décugis 1-6 6-2 6-0 6-2 1924 Jean Borotra René Lacoste 7-5 6-4 0-6 5-7 6-2

Note above, in 1924 Jean Borotra had to win a 5-set marathon against Rene Lacoste (inventor of the 'tennis shirt', usurped by Ralph Lauren to become the 'polo' shirt in the late 1960's).

And we see that players like Paul Ayme and Max Decugis of France played in the Olympics and Davis Cup:

http://www.answers.com/topic/1904-international-lawn-tennis-challenge

Thus, a little research shows that France was at the forefront of tennis (perhaps not the best, but already competitive). I don't see a Frenchman competing at Wimbledon in 1877.Ryoung122 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN not only lists all of them, but mentions Max Decugis as the all-time recordholder: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/05/24/singles.wnners/ Ryoung122 09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As it should, I would list him also in an article on French Championship winners. That's never been the issue and it's why there is a French Open wiki site that has all that info. I can plop open ESPN records and CBS records and encyclopedia records as I'm sitting here and find that they list each individual championships players including the French, all the way back. But when counting slams they each stop with France at 1925 because of it's severe restrictions before then. Fyunck(click) 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slams by the Decade

I feel this is a good addition but apparently RY does not as he dissed mine and Wolbos edits. I'm reverting it back. FreepRipper 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I already stated I had NO PROBLEM with Wolbo's edits (so far). Rather, his edits got caught in the cross-fire. I see just how destructive you are, setting up sockpuppets to make it appear you are more than you are and then attacking/editing at convenient times to incorporate others' changes to within your fold. Evil, but effective.Ryoung122 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently FreepRipper is a Fyunclick sockpuppet...he did not exist until July 19 2007 (see his contributions list).Ryoung122 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What, when one signs up has a bearing on edits? I've edited for quite awhile without joining but I see you are engaged in multiple edit wars over several articles. Is this habitual with you? Get over yourself. FreepRipper 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting Trivia

I was attempting to correct the 'trivia' lists (i.e. put Pete Sampras, with 7 Wimbledons, ahead of Bjorn Borg, with 6 French Opens) when...voila!...FreepRipper/Fyunclick reappears to vandalize again. It's bad enough that he won't negotiate, but to falsely misrepresent someone else's position is UNCONSCIONABLE.Ryoung122 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, join the crowd. My posts got vandalized by you so I put them back. I could really care less about what happens to your own edits now. FreepRipper 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'Editing' and 'vandalizing' aren't the same thing. I re-made 'your' list (this is your personal page, after all?) to conform to multiple major sources (i.e. Encylopedia Britannica, World Almanac, CNN, ESPN, etc). Then I did a little history-digging and discovered evidence that the assertion that no non-French persons were allowed before 1925 was simply a falsehood that has been repeated one time too often. Then I discovered that the early U.S. 'Open' was also 'exclusive.' Despite this evidence, you chose to completely ignore it and turn this into a 'turf' battle instead of finding a happy medium. I am disappointed mostly by the lack of an 'open' mind on your part. Apparently, reasoned arguments couldn't penetrate a stubborn will.Ryoung122 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the Numbering System

This is really getting old Mr RYoung and I've tried to just ignore your petty little tantrums but let's look at the facts here instead of your lies. I don't have access to "World Almanac" or "Britanica" online but I have a "World Almanac" on my desk along with ESPN's Sports Almanac, Time Almanac 2006, Comptons Encyclopedia, Concord Encyclopedia, Tennis - History of the Sport.... NONE of them have a list of slam totals that include the pre-1925 French Championships. NONE of them! Now, they do include winners of just the French Championships and that list of course has all winners back to 1891. But when it comes to adding up slams (which they do)... nada, nothing, zilch for the pre-1925 French Championships and that goes for MSNBC and CBS also. I have misplaced my UK Sports History book so I won't include it here. There are plenty of sources for the fact that the French only allowed certain French Club players to participate and you brought up a source that said Englishmen living in France who were members of those clubs were also allowed to play. There may be some grey areas here or there but the French Tourney was far and away more exclusionary then any of the other 3 tournies. That is why it is excluded from so many slam lists. This page was set up to also exclude the pre-1925 French Tournament which was why those names are greyed out and not counted among slam victories...they are just French victories which are included on this wikipedias' French Open Championships article. That's fine and as it should be. You say I am being unfair? Well I said I would agree to ungrey the names so I did not revert your change to black. But you took it further to include numbering them as international SLAM victories so I reverted it back to grey. You now say that you asked me if italics would be ok and I admit I didn't notice that request through all your insults. I have no problem with italics either if it will ease this conflagration and allow better linking to player bios. However they are not slams so numbering them as such is still out in my book. I put this issue before the Tennis wikiproject collaborate to see if they could come to some sort of agreement on whether to keep the status quo as I believe is correct, or change the article to include the pre-1925 French champions as you propose. It may take some time to come to an agreement but for some reason you want to put the cart before the horse and change it now. This makes it tough for others to edit and where I've tried to incorporate others edits by just weeding your changes you seem to just blanket undo... this seems unfair. So while we wait for a ruling if you want to ungrey and italicize or color the pre-1925 names to make it easier to link I have no objection to that compromise. But we must wait until we see some sort of consensus amongst our tennis peers before we fiddle with numbering them as slams. Fyunck(click) 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fyunclick and WP:OWN

I see that no one else really cares, but again I think it is WRONG to 'grey out' early French champions (when the very first winner was British!) and while the early US championships were closed to international competition. Such listing smack of anti-French bias, not fairness. Even the World Almanac lists Suzanne Lenglen with '12' women's grand slam titles. Your insistence on 'having it your way' is simply mis-informing a great deal of the public. Ms. Lenglen was one of the greatest players of all time and beat the best that the UK and the USA had to offer. To grey out her victories is simply unacceptable.Ryoung122 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, an acceptable compromise would be to list championship totals in three ways:

'all-time' 'since the elimination of the challenge round in 1922' 'in the Open era' (since 1968)

'All-time' should be 'all-time', not 'grey-out' all-time. After all, we can't say that the titles of Richard Sears are strictly comparable to Federer's with the elimination of the challenge round. We can't say that Rod Laver or Pancho Gonzales should be judged by their 'amateur' victories alone when much of their career was spent professionally. It would be more fair, honest, and open to everyone to produce the data in these three ways. Despite giving you the time to arrive at 'consensus,' I see that instead you simply 'sat on' the results 'your way.' If you really want to go at it again, let me know.

I note a comparison to ML basball, which considers the 'modern' era to have begun in 1901...but this is silly. There's no such thing as a 40-game winner today; there was no such thing as hitting 40 home runs in a season in 1901. ML baseball needs a tier system as well.

Ryoung122 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not listed are French champions 1891-1920's.Ryoung122 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View' states that:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Yet we see just one person insist that French pre-1925 titles are 'not viable for slam-counting purposes'...this is a violation of 'original research.' In fact, we see many sources from the World Almanac to the Encyclopedia Britannica list the pre-1925 champions. Thus, this article must be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV.Ryoung122 22:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Ryoung122 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my encyclopedias and World Almanac do not have a "Total Grand Slam Victories" heading at all. It lists a French Championship going back to the 1890's but that is covered completetly in other Wiki articles. This article doesn't cover the French before 1925 for reasons stated many many times. But good to see you back. Fyunck(click) 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey colored text of Pre 1920s French Open

I removed the grey colored text for the following reasons:

  • It is hard to see and not readable.
  • Those winners were recognized by various media/encyclopedia
  • The POV is whether to count them or not. I have no position on that. I just left them as is.
  • Persecution on backwards looking on history is trivial and an insignificant pursuit.
  • NPOV tag is left in place, since this edit does nothing to edit the current listing policy of not counting those slams against the winners.

- RC 04:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the greyout but it makes it easier to see that a block of players are not counted as "Slam" winners by a major proportion of sources. I would suggest a darker color or maybe italisized for clarity. Leaving it ecactly the same as legitimate "slam" winners will likely have someone accidentaly re-do the totals. It's not persecution... their names could have been removed completely but I feel it's better to leave them in place and yet show readers they are not generally accepted as "slam" winners. Fyunck(click) 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, when a discussion is active on talk, don't persuade by RVs. You make valid points and I agree with them. But, they still are champions and thus encyclopedia and every other tennis historian/authority has accepted them as is. Your point of NOT counting them towards their slams may or may not be accurate. But I am not debating that. It is just an issue of listing them as is, as they were awarded trophies that were legacy French championships, whether national or international. Insisting on displaying them different for the sake of being different is somewhat trivial. Clear footnotes has been made showing when the tourney name has been changed and thus started including them. If you feel that it doesn't distinguish enough, feel free to make a statement in the beginning of the article mentioning, "Pre 1925 French Opens were exclusive to French nationals who are part of the club etc.. and hence tradition suggest not counting them towards individual slam count etc..". That along with NPOV tag should be sufficient for all parties concerned to make the distinction you are seeking. Again, I am not taking a position on counting or not. Merely shading them grey IMHO just indicate persecution. If someone still makes them include on slam count, then RV as you desire - RC 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If this were an aticle on the French Championships I would heartily agree with you. In fact there is a wiki article on those championships and those players are not greyed out, nor should they be. But this is not an article on the "legacy" of French Champions. It is an article on Grand Slam Championships and those men are not Grand Slam Champions. This is where you seem to be going astray. The encyclopedias and historians list those pre-25 men as French Champions only. When they include a list of Slam champions they are not included because it was not recognized as an international event. Technically they should not even be listed here but for the uninformed it is a convenience to show they existed but that they were not "Grand Slam" Champions. I didn't have time to italisize or change the colors on all those players so I left it up to you to do. And FYI when this has been discussed forever here you don't persude by removing first and explaining why later. Had you posted here and expressed your opinion that it was hard to read, replies would have been short and on the order of "what's a good color?" Fyunck(click) 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I had taken chance to read over all the discussions on it. I would politely like to refer you to WP:OWN. I have yet to see anyone other than you representing this POV. I would like to get this discussion going and see if other active WP tennis experts can chime in. If the encyclopedia refer to them winning French, that is good enough for me. This list is just a compliation of all those winners irrespective of the nature of grand slams, however you choose to perceive it. Ryoung has taken time to refer to links that indicate the familiar club players playing in most of these slams not just french. If you would like to take time to quote authortative sources that explictly state that they do NOT include them, I would be very happy to agree with your view. Till then, I am disinclined to distinguish them in listings. And I take no position in counting them. More over, lets see if we can get some consensus and common ground. I defer to you in making this article more comprehensive of various POV. - RC 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr RC, There have been others with my pov but most here (as Mr RYoung has found out also) are of the quiet variety. I have listed the books and encyclopedias that do not count the pre-1925 French as Slams. You say this article is irrespective of slams... where is that statement coming from since the article name is GRAND SLAM MEN'S SINGLES CHAMPIONS! You cannot separate out GRAND SLAM from that title however you can change the title to reflect a new meaning. You also have to understand that I believe this article is of the prevailing media/authoritative pov, so it is not for me to change. If someone else wants to include a chart that says something like "While not the mainstream view there is a minority opinion that includes all non-international or non-slam Champions" I would have no problem. Then you could list those French titles in that chart. We could even debate moving older challenge rounds into that chart since it was an unfair advantage to automatically advance to the final if you won the year before. The trouble with that is it might be considered original research since most books and publications only cut off the pre-1925 French titles, not the challenge titles. And then what does one do with the Pro titles from 1935-1968? There are publications that list those titles as true Grand Slam Titles since the best players in the world could compete in them to vie for Worlds Best. Those 3 titles; Wembly Pro, U.S. Pro and French Pro were the true "Slams" of their day. Those were the titles that mattered to Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Jack Kramer... those titles determined who was number one (also the Pro Tour but that's another kettle of fish). Fyunck(click) 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I enjoyed your post. Please add some citations that can be used to defend such a POV in this article. I would be happy to agree with you. References and citations (both older encyclopedia citations and any article from tennis historians would be awesome). Also, I agree with your comment about Pro slams. Maybe we need a better clarification on Grand Slam as the current article on that title Grand Slam (tennis) doesn't do justice to this issue. - RC 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. First: Comptons Encyclopedia 1974(the edition may actually be 1972) and Concord's Encyclopedia... these volumous editions do not say "Slam" they say "Major Championships". Neither of them have a list of slam totals that include the pre-1925 French Championships. Now, they do include winners of just the French Championships and that list of course has all winners back to 1891. But when it comes to adding up slams (which they do)... zilch for the pre-1925 French Championships. I checked msnbc and cbs websites and they do not include pre-1925 French Championships for their Slam totals. I went to the store TODAY just so I could get an up-to-date Sports Almanac. I found two: 2007 ESPN Sports Almanac and 2007 Sports Illustrated Guide. Checking each I found for individual tournies they both list Australia from 1905, French from 1925, Wimbledon from 1877 and US from 1881. Mr RYoung has been quoted as saying it may be for space considerations (I don't believe it). They each have notes saying the French was not a viable tourney before 1925. They both list Borotra with only 4 Slam titles and they do not list Decugis with any titles Off topic here Sports Illustrated list Suzanne Lenglen with only 8 titles (skipping her 4 pre-25 French titles). Checking websites I found: The BBC sports website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/statistics/2950744.stm, The Grand Slam Tennis Archive - http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/, ESPN French Open History - http://espn.go.com/tennis/french01/history.html, and another http://www.tennislovers.com/. Now here at wiki we can't do original research or type in what we feel is right... We need sources. The vast majority do not include pre-1925 French titles and that is how this article was set up (I did not set it up... I'm a late-comer here). Those pre-1925 French title-holders should not properly be listed at all. I will not deny that a few publications include the pre-1925 French names... I haven't seen them but Mr RYoung has, and I do believe him, but they are a minority view in the published world. But since they are a minority view it seemed a good idea to me to keep them listed and "greyed out" (I came long afer the original authors greyed them out). As I said above, if someone wanted to make a separate little chart of leading slam winners that includes the pre-1925 French I have no problem with that at all as long as it is properly noted that it is not the accepted viewpoint. We might then be able to remove the pre-1925 French names from the main table of Grand Slam Champions. Fyunck(click) 00:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Good work on refering the encyclopedia. Though historically they are correct, we don't have to take their word entirely on it. Also, I got a chance to look at the web urls you cited. I guess the issue is the desire to present all the grand slam winners in one table. And your other comment indicated, it is a great idea to split them into different time periods to show the evolution and beef up the citations. I would have some time this weekend to split them into different years. I am thinking of the following and your ideas would be appreciated.
  • Pre-1925
  • International Amateurs (1925-1968)
  • Pro slams (1927-1968)
  • WCT/ITF rivalry (1968-1978)
  • 1978-current
I would also like the list to indicate that time period when AO emerged as a slam with top pros regularly participating in it (from 1988 Flinders Park edition). - RC 03:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RC, Some may really look at your project as POV but I'm willing to try some things to break up a logjam. Here are the potential problems with your proposed tables: 1. There is a difference between 1924 and 1925 at the French... there is no difference between 1924 and 1925 at the other three events. If most major sources do not include the minor French tourney winners before 1925 because they don't deem it "slam-worthy" it seems unfair to include those French winners in the same table as legitamate slam winners. They may need to be in a separate table... but then you could also have the tourneys that had challenge rounds in a separate table also. Or you could leave the table we have now intact, write below it that a few sources dispute the non-tallying of pre-1925 French champions and include them in a revised table below the main one. Maybe look kinda clunky though. 2. The international Amateurs were 1925-1967 (except the Aussie). The pro slams varied a lot in the earliest years but for the most part there were only 3 big ones (US Pro, French Pro, Wembly Pro). Those were the Pro Slams. 3. The AO didn't really emerge as a top slam...it was a top slam from about 1969-1974 and then dropped off the map till about 1983 or so. It's a tough one to catagorize. But it would be interesting to see what you come up with so we could all take a look. It seems daunting to me so Good Luck Fyunck(click) 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Fyunclick:
1. First, when you use terms like 'going astray,' you are yourself veering off into POV, WP:OWN violations. Wikipedia is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH...it should reflect what other sources show. Further, it is very biased and POV to devalue early French champions while overlooking the fact that all four tournaments, in their infancy, had limited competition, and no one envisioned the 'Grand Slam' idea until the 1930's, over a half-century after Wimbledon was founded. it is simply POV, historical revisionism to present the list the way you do. You also misspelled 'italicized.' And though this has been discussed 'forever', you have shown little or no inclination to compromise, listen to others, respect others points of view, or rework the article into a more inclusive frame. I note, for example, that many tennis TV sources only count 'open era' titles for 'slam-counting purposes.' Would it be too much to ask to develop three sets of data: all-time, since 1919 (addition of the challenge round), and since 1968 (the start of the 'open' era). Despite misperceptions, we find that the French tournament was open to non-French natives (one British winner, two British runners up in the first decade) while the US 'Open' in its early years was limited to Americans only. So, should this list go with what the facts show, or what you want it to be in your mind? Perpetuating a misperception ultimately does a disservice to everyone, including yourself.Ryoung122 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr Young... good to have you posting again and thanks for the spelling lesson. I agree that wiki is not original research... I have done none. MOST sources do not include the pre-1925 French Champions as slam winners. Those other tournies were limited in players mostly by long distances, not exclusion. Those early British winners were living in France and belonged to the one French club that allowed one to participate. Other French players were banned also. I have said change the color. I have said italicize. I have said change the article name to not include Slam Champions. If someone wants to take the time to re-write this article into 3 tiers then do it and present it to the group for evaluation. 1919 is arbitrary (The challenge rounds ended at different times for wimbledon and French titles) so I suggest 1925 since all the tournies were international at that time. 1968 won't work either since the Aussie wasn't open till 1969. You also seem to fixate on the fact that the term Grand Slam was invented in the 30's... we all agree. So should we include only events from Budge onward? I would say no. Actually the term Grand Slam should only be talked about in the sense of winning all 4 titles in a calendar year... the individual titles since Budge should and had always been called "majors" or "slams" until the 1990's. Somehow errors kept popping up in the press and the uninformed and before long even the tournaments themselves started calling each title a Grand Slam Championship. It was improper in the 70's, 80's and 90's, but through usuage it has become the proper terminology. And books extend it backwards in time, all the way back to the 1925 French, the 1905 Aussie, the 1881 US and the 1877 Wimby. That's the way they do it. Fyunck(click) 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)