Talk:Martina Hingis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
Tennis
Tennis
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, which collaborates on Tennis-related subjects on Wikipedia, such as players, tournaments and rules. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

I'd say someone should nudge this toward a GA.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

I'd say someone should nudge this toward a GA.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy in Data

The Wins-Loss Ratio when added in the table of performance index is 473-112. But this data is incorrect. As per WTA she has a Win-Loss as 484-106 (singles). Vivek 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have all of the facts about her career that are not fan-club flattering-like removed? Particularly the details of the famous 1999 French Open Final? Her comments about Mauresmo and the Williams sisters that were so publicized that she had to hold press conferences to apologize/explain. These are quite notable. She is better known outside of the tennis world for this than most anything else. They should be included.

All sources are cited and backed-up? So why the removal? Perhaps someone could explain? I also don't think that who she is dating should be in the first paragraph? Maybe we could include a "personal life" section. But that's a minor issue :)

I don't agree with your characterisation of the article as a fan page, but regardless, the changes you made to correct it bordered on vandalism. If you want to dish out stinging criticism of people, start a blog or find a forum. This is an encyclopedia - please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  • edited title of this area to make it correct (from Discripancy to Discrepancy).124.104.45.30 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)AARON

[edit] Info Needed

Can someone add win% like in other profiles? THanks124.104.39.45 (talk)Aaron —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Who is currently coaching Martina?

Can we have list of titles? (88.105.43.211 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

Yes sure. You can add data that is verifiable.

Can somebody list her WTA singles runner ups? It's at WTA tour website but I'm too lazy now to do it :D I'm curious how many more titles she could've had! Thanks! and more power to wiki! 124.104.33.235 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)AARON:

Okay so im no so lazy: I got this from WTA TOUR website but I don't know how to make it into those pretty tables you guys make:

Martina has 26 singles runner-ups:

1) PROSTEJOV ST, CZECH REPUBLIC, March 5, 1995, $ 25,000 , HARD (I) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 54, Seed/Entry: 2P

F H2H (1/P) HABSUDOVA, KARINA 25 L 7-5 6-4

2) HAMBURG VS, II, GERMANY, May 7, 1995, $ 430,000 , CLAY (O) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 60, Seed/Entry:

F H2H (2) MARTINEZ, CONCHITA 4 L 6-1 6-0

3) ITALIAN OPEN VS, I, ITALY, May 12, 1996, $ 926,250 , CLAY (O) Draw: 64M/0Q/32D, Rank: 20, Seed/Entry: 6

F H2H (2) MARTINEZ, CONCHITA 3 L 6-2 6-3

4) ZURICH VS, I, SWITZERLAND, October 20, 1996, $ 926,250 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 9, Seed/Entry: 5

F H2H (4) NOVOTNA, JANA 8 L 6-2 6-2

5) CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS VS, CH, USA, NY, November 24, 1996, $ 2,000,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 16M/0Q/8D, Rank: 0, Seed/Entry: 7

F H2H (1) GRAF, STEFFI L 6-3 4-6 6-0 4-6 6-0

6) FRENCH OPEN GS, FRANCE, June 8, 1997, $ 4,566,003 , CLAY (O) Draw: 128M/0Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (9) MAJOLI, IVA 9 L 6-4 6-2

7) TOKYO (PAN PACIFIC) VS, I, JAPAN, February 8, 1998, $ 926,250 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 6-3 6-3

8) LOS ANGELES VS, II, USA, CA, August 16, 1998, $ 450,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 4-6 6-4 6-3

9) US OPEN GS, USA, NY, September 13, 1998, $ 6,012,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/0Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 3 L 6-3 7-5

10) SYDNEYVS, II, AUSTRALIA, January 17, 1999, $ 420,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 2, Seed/Entry: 2

F H2H (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 1 L 6-4 6-3

11) FRENCH OPEN GS, FRANCE, June 6, 1999, $ 4,407,123 , CLAY (O) Draw: 128M/0Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (4) GRAF, STEFFI 6 L 4-6 7-5 6-2

12) US OPEN GS, USA, NY, September 12, 1999, $ 6,235,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/0Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (7) WILLIAMS, SERENA 6 L 6-3 7-6(4)

13) ZURICH VS, I, SWITZERLAND, October 17, 1999, $ 1,050,000 , HARD (I) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) WILLIAMS, VENUS 3 L 6-3 6-4

14) PHILADELPHIA VS, II, USA, PA, November 14, 1999, $ 520,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/0Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 6-3 6-4

15) CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS VS, CH, USA, NY, November 21, 1999, $ 2,000,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 16M/0Q/8D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 6-4 6-2

16) AUSTRALIAN OPEN GS, AUSTRALIA, January 30, 2000, $ 3,156,711 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/128Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 6-1 7-5

17) INDIAN WELLS VS, I, USA, CA, March 19, 2000, $ 2,000,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 64M/32Q/32D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 4-6 6-4 6-0

18) PHILADELPHIA VS, II, USA, PA, November 12, 2000, $ 535,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/32Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 L 7-6(7) 6-4

19) AUSTRALIAN OPEN GS, AUSTRALIA, January 28, 2001, $ 3,569,290 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/128Q/64D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (12) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 14 L 6-4 6-3

20) TOKYO (PAN PACIFIC) VS, I, JAPAN, February 4, 2001, $ 1,188,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/32Q/16D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 2 L 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2

21) CHARLESTON VS, I, USA, SC, April 22, 2001, $ 1,200,000 , CLAY (O) Draw: 64M/32Q/32D, Rank: 1, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 5 L 6-0 4-6 6-4

22) AUSTRALIAN OPEN GS, AUSTRALIA, January 27, 2002, $ 3,818,613 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/128Q/64D, Rank: 4, Seed/Entry: 3

F H2H (1) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 1 L 4-6 7-6(7) 6-2

23) INDIAN WELLS VS, I, USA, CA, March 16, 2002, $ 2,100,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 128M/64Q/32D, Rank: 4, Seed/Entry: 2

F H2H (18) HANTUCHOVA, DANIELA SVK 26 L 6-3 6-4

24) TOKYO (PAN PACIFIC) VS, I, JAPAN, February 5, 2006, $ 1,340,000 , CARPET (I) Draw: 32M/32Q/16D, Rank: 117, Seed/Entry: W

F H2H (2) DEMENTIEVA, ELENA RUS 9 L 6-2 6-0

25) MONTREAL VS, I, CANADA, August 20, 2006, $ 1,340,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 64M/64Q/32D, Rank: 12, Seed/Entry: 7

F H2H (13) IVANOVIC, ANA SCG 19 L 6-2 6-3

26) GOLD COAST VS, III, AUSTRALIA, January 6, 2007, $ 175,000 , HARD (O) Draw: 32M/32Q/16D, Rank: 7, Seed/Entry: 1

F H2H (2) SAFINA, DINARA RUS 11 L 6-3 3-6 7-5

Okay so I fixed the singles runner-up and then someone else polished it up. thanks!!! Now i request for information regarding her doubles runner-ups performance to see how many more titles she could have won if she didn't lose, and interesting to see who she lost to during those runner-up appearances. It might be as well that I look it up and write it and someone else polish it again. Many Thanks. 124.104.45.30 15:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Aaron

[edit] Comeback account

As I hinted in my edit summary, I don't really see the point of a detailed account of her performance in the 2006 Aussie Open. But then I thought no point, unless she wins. So I would like to propose a compromise: we keep it (and keep updating it) while she is still playing. If she ends up winning the tournament, we definitely keep the account of what would be the greatest comeback ever; but if she looses, then we should have a simple paragraph stating that she managed to reach X stage on a Grand Slam tournament in her comeback, but no need to go into details for each of her matches, as it is being done now. This would mean removing most of what is up right now on that account.
And not that it will happen here, but I'd like to state in advance that, if this post goes unanswered (as it sometimes happens), I will procede as I've just suggested on grounds of lack of opposition. Regards, Redux 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

it makes sense to me. Lambertman 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hingis lost in the Quarterfinals. Last chance for anyone who would like to counterargument or suggest a different form of adjusting the article. Regards, Redux 13:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
She is in the mixed final; winning that would be fairly notable. Mark1 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
We should make a note of it in the article, definitely. But to keep perspective: Martina Navratilova did the same, being much older and after a much longer hiatus from competitive tennis. Still, once her participation in the 2006 Aussie Open is complete, the paragraph about her comeback (which was in this tournament) should include all the aspects — that she made it to the Quarterfinals in the singles and that she won/was runner-up in the mixed doubles. But no need to go into details for each match. Redux 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Per Redux' point above, this keeps being edited like we're the sports section of a local paper. Specific match results and detailed daily updates on her progress are not encyclopedic. I agree with Mark above, but (and I think Redux will agree with me) a general summary is more than sufficient to describe her comeback. Eusebeus 05:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now edited the comeback section to bring its content into line with the rest of the article. I really don't think we need details of every single match, nor to list the nationalities of every one of her opponents (all of whom have their own articles). Eusebeus 05:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the change. I was basically waiting for the mixed doubles final's result, and in the process, giving the anons who have been editing the article time to notice this discussion, but the change was already overdue, so thanks for it. I'd only change one thing: the passage made a convincing demonstration may be perceived as POV, since it would be editorial judgment of her performance in the Aussie Open, unless we can provide an external source that refers to her performance there as having been convincing (or any other adjective). Regards, Redux 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Please change the passage at will. I wrote that b/c reaching the qf in a grand slam after 4 yrs absence struck me as a convincing demonstration. A less POV phrase may well be more appropriate, however. My main concern is that we summarise, not chronicle! Eusebeus 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I have already reworded, or rather, mainly rearranged, that passage to avoid any POV. Thanks, Redux 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
As Redux noted above, this page looks like it is becoming a repository for the results of every single tournament that Hingis will play. This is not a newspaper, however, and we need to summarise, or else the article's length will become completely out of control. I suggest that the Comeback section be radically shortened, with only a line or two about non G.S events (which is in keeping with precedent). Eusebeus 10:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not tennis?

Can we put any info into the page about her non-tennis life? Is she married? Is she involved in any businesses/franchises, etc.? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford

Does anyone have a source to support the article's claim that Martina "completed two years of a Law degree at Oxford"? A February 2006 interview by Matthew Lee in Time Out Dubai contradicts this:

So to the obvious question: just where have you been these last few years? Hingis erupts with laughter again. ‘You can go on the internet and find out there!’ Having already done exactly that, I ask why she chose to study law at Oxford. ‘No, not law,’ she replies, ‘but English at Cambridge University here in Zurich.’ Thank you, Wikipedia. ‘And two years ago I did some commentary for television,’ she continues, ‘so I’ve been doing some studying; spying on the girls and now I’m going to use that knowledge.’

Note the sarcastic remark about Wikipedia being the source for this info... 59.167.36.5 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmph - I'm just going to delete it as it's completely unsupported on the surface. Several sources indicate that she studied English at AKAD in Zurich (the course apparently being related to Cambridge in some way), which I think deserves mention in the previous section of the article. 59.167.36.5 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's an appropriate course of action. You can always slap a source tag on the relevant section of the article in order to call the deficiencies to more general attention. As it is, since she herself provided the information, I think we can assume that's verification enough. Eusebeus 12:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, although it is true she did enter an english course: check out historical and news data for Martina Hingis in a chronological order here: http://hingis.quickfound.net/martina_hingis_news_2003.html ; It was never mentioned if she graduated from the said course. Hope to see a conclusion to this mystery. 124.104.45.30 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)AARON

[edit] "Half a man" quote

This widely-reported "incident" may be noteworthy, but I can't verify the quote that was added to the article. From what I can gather, Hingis made a remark in Swiss German, and the English articles quote translations (seemingly unofficial) made by Swiss journalists, not what what Hingis spoke. According to a February 1999 International Herald Tribune article:

Mauresmo came here with her new coach, Christophe Fournerie, and her partner, Sylvie Bourdon. On Thursday, after her semifinal victory, Hingis, 18, was asked about Mauresmo at a news conference, which was broadcast around the tennis center, with Swiss journalists who reported that she answered in a joking tone in German: "She's here with her girlfriend. She's half a man."

Hingis later denied making the comment and explained that she had said only that Mauresmo played like a man, but neither Fournerie nor Mauresmo was convinced.

"I listened to the press conference, and she really said that 'she was half a man because she was with a woman,"' Fournerie said. "Despite her young age, she has got responsibilities in light of her ranking. She needs to understand certain things."

Perhaps "She's here with her girlfriend. She's half a man." can be added to the article, correctly attributed to the "Swiss journalists" and with the IHT article as the source. 59.167.36.5 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why were the other quotes removed?

See below: 1. "She's here with her girlfriend. She's half a man already" (referring to Amelie Mauresmo, French lesbian tennis player on the eve of their 1999 Australian Open Final).

2. Being black only helps them, "Many times they get sponsors because they are black. And they have had a lot of advantages because they can always say, 'It's racism.' They can always come back and say, 'Because we are this color, things happen." (referring to the "advantages" that Venus and Serena Williams have in a Time Magazine article, 2001).

3. "It was probably one Russian too many. It used to be two Williams sisters and a Davenport. Now there's a whole army of Russians in the way." (Toray 2006 Final post-match interview)

4. "She's old and slow" (responding in a 1999 press conference on why she terminated her doubles partnership with former Wimbledon champ, Jana Novotna)

All quotes are cited and attributed to her. She is "known" for being "quotable" What the heck is going on here, is this a Wikipedia or a fan page? Explanation please. Perhaps I am wrong is questioning your objectivity and motives, so I'd like an explanation. In the interim, the quotes have been replaced. Fairly.

COMMENT ON QUOTES - I didn't have anything to do with the missing quotes, but I came into the discussion page specifically because I was wondering why there were four quotes as part of the Hingis entry that don't reflect very well on her. I was wondering what the point of the quotes was supposed to be, and if the point is that she's somewhat of a loose cannon why isn't that made in the body of the text? I would say that isolating these four quotes, each of which makes Hingis look bad and not balancing them with other neutral or more favorable ones, makes this entry appear rather partisan. While reading them my thought was that somebody didn't like Hingis, and I don't think that's the impression someone should get when they read a Wikipedia entry. I randomly selected a half dozen entries on other contemporary tennis professionals and none of them had a quotes section. I won't remove them for now because I would rather get other opinions first, but my sense is that it would show good judgment. 69.204.39.38 23:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That batch of quotes was just one of many wildly-POV edits made by some anon user with an agenda. Do whatever you like with them. SubSeven 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But the quotes concern other tennis players. They are not meaningless per se. I think it should be at least attempted to make the article more fair while leaving some of the quotes already here. Is anyone going to edit this soon? BKmetic 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a paragraph in the article that noted Hingis for her controversial claims. But I agree with 69.204.39.38, this article needs more normal quotes. I doubt all Hingis does in interviews is condemn groups of people, those certainly aren't her most worthwhile quotes. I fell they should stay howerer, since they are notable in being particulary villainous, and after all, that's what she said. They paint her in a bad way, but she did make those claims herself, and never properly apologized. Proposal:There should a note on her controversial quotes in the main article, and non-controversial quotes should be added to the quotes section. BKmetic 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the selection of quotes is heavily biased. People have mentioned the selection of quotes that are non-representative. Another problem is taking things out of context. For example, the Russian quote is fairly recent, so I think I recall the context. She was impressed by the huge gains by Russian tennis players. It wasn't some sort of disgust. And I think the Williams endorsement thing was a fairly innocuous remark about tapping new markets, the type of thing that some people say in praise of the Williams sisters. Plus, the use of quotes around "advantages" seems to be conveying sarcasm. --JamesAM 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that she says controversial/smart-ass things a lot (here is an article that claims that, towards the end; I'm sure there are others that mention it). It would make more sense to have a sentence or two about her reputation in interviews and press conferences and things and the give the quotes as evidence of it instead of just having the quotes there without any context. Recury 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the quotes quite funny. She really is sharp tongued; that's just the way she is. I've been watching tennis since 1990s and those quotes fit in perfectly with her personality on the court. I find her refreshing sometimes. Why try to coat it over with artificial sweetners? Leave the quotes in I say. 66.171.76.251 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland

Why is she considered to be "from Switzerland"? Because she lived there for a few years? But she lives in U.S. now, so is she an American now? If she's not American or Switz, then she's what her parents were - Slovak - plus she was born in Slovakia. So what more? Chaldean 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "from" is too ambiguous, so I'm going to fix that shortly.
Which leaves Khoikhoi's request to cite a source. Frankly, anyone who's followed her career will view that as being about as silly as asking for evidence that she's female. Sources that explicitly identify her as a Swiss citizen, and instances of her referring to herself as such, are numerous. Sources that state otherwise are, to my knowledge, nil, so I think the burden falls upon those who want to show that she is a citizen of a different country and refers to herself as such.
Incidentally, where did you get the idea that she only lived in Switzerland "a few years" or lives in the US on a long-term basis? By my calculations, she's lived in Switzerland almost 20 years, and if she resides in the US at various times, it's probably to train in Florida with the numerous tennis players from abroad who do the same. 59.167.45.46 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
20 years? If I'm not mistaken, she has been leaving in the U.S. for the past 8 some years, and we do know she lived in Slovakia, and she is only 26 years old. What I want to know is
She moved with her mother to Moravia for a short period, then to Switzerland. - when did this happen. Chaldean 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
She moved to Switzerland when she was seven[1][2][3].
The only source I can find to support the Moravia claim is a reproduction of a Guardian article on Karol Hingis[4]. I am neutral on whether this should be in the article.
I believe your claim that she's "lived" in Florida "for eight years" is overstated. Hingis owned a house there, and has owned several in Switzerland (her current one reportedly being in Hurden). Where top athletes and other celebrities who travel all over the world as a matter of routine "live" is often tricky to pin down, and you have to be very careful about inferring their nationality based on this.
Getting back to your challenge about whether she is Swiss, I consider this common knowledge, and am not going to cite sources for it in the absence of a credible claim to the contrary. The burden is yours - provide a single credible source (major news organisation or tennis publication articles, official tournament press conference transcripts, etc.) that explicitly states she is Slovakian or American. 59.167.45.46 23:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I wont argue. People can judge for themselves. Chaldean 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


BY THE WAY, WHY HER NAME IS HINGIS NOT HINGISOVA? IS SHE SO ASHEMD OF HER CZEK AND SLOVAK ORIGINS? OR WHAT??

[edit] Performance Timeline expansion

Can we expand the performance timeline to include the Tier I events? This seems quite appropriate for Martina Hingis since she is one, or probably the only one, among the tennis players who have won all the tournaments at least once. Joey80 09:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline updating

To those who wish to update the timeline, the update doesn't just end by filling up a box with "QF" or "F", it will greatly help other editors if the affected numbers like surface win-loss, overall win-loss, the win-loss numbers in the career column, and the win-loss in the footnotes is also updated. This will prevent any confusion for any successive editors who might be unfortunate enough to finish an unfinished updating. Joey80 08:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of WTA Tour singles victories

Is it used as a general rule that every tournament ends on Sunday? For example the date of winning Australian Open 1997 is written to be 1997-01-26. I remember that day very well... (it was my 16th birthday :-)) and it was Sunday, the women's final was held the day before (01-25)... Similar mistakes (if it is considered as a mistake) are present in some other dates as well. Enlyten 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Hello. I created the victory chart. I used the dates on the WTA Tour website. If you want to change any, feel free.

Okay, thanks for the response. Further to Enlyten's comments, the dates of all three AO files are wrong. Martina won her first GS at exactly 1997-01-25 2:43pm. As evidence, I each of these matches on tape, date-stamped by my VCR - though I am not sure how to site this as a source. I am correcting the entries on the victory chart now. Dapto@mailinator.com 05:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radek Stepanek

From what I can find, it would be factual to say that there are rumours Hingis is dating Stepanek, but the evidence is insufficient to say any more than that.

The Lawntennisnews source[5] that was provided is the best there is, and that is reporting on an unnamed Czech newspaper/magazine. Even if we assume the Lawntennisnews account is correct, it's not clear whether the Czech publication is respected or a sort of gossip mag/tabloid that would go as far as inventing quotes.

I did a web search, and found Guardian[6] and Pakistan's Daily Times[7] articles that mention the supposed relationship in passing. Some Czech guy in a forum said "Yes...It was in all czech news..they are couple for a few weeks.. look really nice togther"[8], which sounds impressive, except that no links/pics were provided. Searches like "Radek Štěpánek" "Martina Hingisová" site:cz do return results that appear to speculate on a relationship between the two, but I don't understand Czech, and didn't see any pictures showing them together.

So we have a pretty good basis for gossip, but does anyone have anything more solid?

Well, have you been watching CNN's World Sports during the claycourt season? The anchors even stated that Radek Stepanek is Hingis' boyfriend. They even said that Hingis (while playing in Rome) called Stepanek (he was playing in Hamburg) to congratulate him after reaching the finals. Joey80 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No - there's no coverage here. But it prompted me to locate a source[9] that backs up what you said, so I'm now satisfied with it being treated as a fact in the absence of any contradictory info. 59.167.45.241 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playing Style

I have boldly removed this section, since it is a mess of statements that are POV and it attracts unencyclopedic editorialising. This is not the place for Mary Carillo-style commentary. Eusebeus 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This section was restored; I am removing it again. Two points: first, most of our articles on tennis players do not contain encyclopedic descriptions of playing style, so this is somewhat against the informal structure that has emerged through consensus editing. Second, my objections about editorialising and POV problems remain intact. If this must be reinstated, please ensure that it avoids these pitfalls. Otherwise it should remain expurgated. Eusebeus 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting to check out the discussion at Roger Federer. Personally, i think a style paragraph is of great great value, and Wikipedia presents a unique oppurtunity to gather this information quickly and with everybody's input, NPOV, and doesn't need to follow the path of other publications... yet of course, keeping its integrity. Knowsitallnot 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think style of play is very important for this tennis player. It is why she is different from all players even up till present ('07), tell me of any player who can match her defensive baseline game that plays at present? NONE. So it is important to tell those who do not know tennis nor this tennis player that this is why she became a champion and 209 weeks at no.1, because to tell you the truth, that is what makes Martina Hingis. 124.104.33.235 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)AARONʈ

I agree that playing style is an appropriate section for her page. It is a fact that there are serve-volleyers, baseliners, and all-court players. At least stating that Hingis is an all-court player makes a lot of sense here. Also, agreeing with the above poster, her cerebral playing style has been confirmed by the world's most respected tennis experts, so to speak. I do not think calling her a tactician or strategist breaks the formality of this article.

Seeing that there are some people who agree, can somebody come up with a substantial and sourced account of someone talking about her style of play that we can use into making a good description of Martina Hingis' style of play? thanks 124.104.45.30 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)AARON

[edit] Awards

Hingis did not win the "Swiss Sportswoman of the year" award in 1993 but in 1997. Please correct it! 13:08, 2 November 2007

[edit] "Controversies" Not Hardly.

Ok, here's how it work. 1) Wikipedia doesn't create a controversy. 2) Wikipedians do not get to label things as controversies. Tennis Expert reccomended that I do a "Google" search to prove that all the listed quotations were "Controversies." When said search failed to produced the results Tennis Expert wanted, and I had edited to reflect the information I found, of course my change was immediately reverted without reason given. There are two separate cases here. 1) Hingis is outspoken, and says things which might be disagreeable to some (like talking about another players lesbianism, or about how she always beat Kournikova). That DOES NOT make it a controvery. 2) Hingis has said things (like the bit about the Williams sisters and their success being somehow tied to their race, and the new cocaine revelation) which HAVE caused controversy. Simply being outspoken and saying something which goes against some sort of social norm, doesn't mean it's a controversy. Take a look at the Akon page and the night club incident, or the Bob Knight page for prime examples of controversies. The night club incident, and Knight's comments about how if rape is inevitable a woman should sit back and enjoy it caused MAJOR uproar, were widely reported on, prompted large social outcry, and hundreds of sources exist to back it up. Beating Kournikova, talking about someone's age or lesbianism and basically EVERYTHING except for the cocain and the rift with the Williams sisters fail ANY logical test at placing a "Controversy" label on them. Another user used as their justification for keeping the information in the article that it had "been there for a long, long time." For a "long, long time" the Ronaldo page has said he was born on the incorrect date...should we leave THAT in there simply because it was there for a "long, long time?" Wikipedia has TWO purposes, to present sourced material and to present accurate material. Tennis Expert wanted sources illustrating the controversies, the ones I found which were there, were left in the article. The ones which could not be substantiated, were cut out. A simple way to avoid this problem is to come up with a more fitting sub-heading for the section. Rather than "Controversies" perhaps something that would more accurately convey what is ACTUALLY in the section. However, calling it "Controversies," when it can be clearly shown that the majority of the information contained therein....are not controversies, is simply not how it works. Like I said, it's not the job of Wikipedia, or Wikipedians to be the ones to create the controversy. Batman2005 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The chronicled incidents are regularly portrayed in the media as controversial remarks, or some such spin, and are not therefore instances of POV pushing. If Batman wishes to suggest a different section title, I would be happy to hear it. I don't think a more specific response needs to be given to the misguided screed above, save to note the obvious: refined google searches (such as this one indicate clearly that these are well-known and associated with Hingis. Eusebeus 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that my logical arguments against calling a spade a heart aren't worth your time? Hmmm, interesting, and not wholly unexpected given your recent nonsense edits to my talk page. I have no problem calling a TRUE controversy...a controversy. I DO have a problem with taking whatever disagreeable thing one might say and labeling it a controversy. Just because she said she "always beats Kournikova" doesn't mean it's a controvery. For gods sake...it was TRUE. I digressed and LEFT IN the bit about the Williams sisters, because there was enough media attention to consider it a controversy. Even a title such as "Media Attention" or "May not play well with others" would be a more fitting title to the contents of the section. Like I said, we don't create the controversy, we merely report on it. If there is insufficient evidence that a controversy existed, we can't call it such. Batman2005 00:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe we have been looking askance at your silly revert-warring, your needlessly belligerent tone, your excessive and adolescent use of ALLCAPS and other such sophomoric antics, all of which distract from the substance of your point, insofar as you have one. Please provide evidence on a case by case basis that the various issues listed in the article did not prove controversial; the onus is on you to provide this evidence since the article has remained stable - and thus is the product of consensus - for quite some time. As far as at least several interested and good faith editors concerned, it is also accurate as it stands, which is why your sudden outburst of edit-warring is being treated rejected, just as your more general behaviour faced with well-earned remonstrance invites contempt. Eusebeus 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the onus is on YOU to provide sources for unsourced material after being asked to do so. If sources cannot be found for these "controversies" wikipedia policy says they should be removed. I find it highly ironic that you call my antics sophomoric, then proceed to personally attack me in your posts. Pot calling the kettle black huh? Just because it's "stable" doesn't mean it's right or the product of consensus. The Ronaldo article was stable for YEARS with the wrong date of birth on it....so that's ok in your book? Not hardly I would think. I notice you have yet to comment on any legitimate argument that I made, instead focusing only on attacking the editor. But i'm sophomoric? Right. Get over it. Batman2005 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your juvenile nature is being further shown by your edits and summaries, calling me "bathing" and "batwhatsitsname." Keep making yourself look more and more (to use your word) sophomoric. Batman2005 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • blah blah. I think the instances cited are accurate & shall we say, uncontroversial ;) Eusebeus 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You have YET to make a valid argument for the inclusion of ANY of these "controversies." Instead of true debate, you choose to act like a juvenile and lob (poorly executed) personal attacks at me. Do you have ANY valid points to make? Or would you just like to sit here and continue to break more policy by attacking me? Batman2005 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


OK...well, given the absolute unwillingness of Eusebeus to actually engage in intelligent discussion that doesn't involve blatant personal attacks, and in light of Tennis Expert being unwilling to participate in any discussion on that matter, right now....there are absolutely no valid reaons on the table for keeping this "Controversies" section. I'll wait awhile longer to give said users an opportunity to actually engage in discussion, before moving ahead with removing it. Batman2005 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus that whole 3RR thing... Sanjayhari 07:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Admittedly we ALL came close to 3RR violations. I chose, however, to begin discussion on the issue. The other two users have not chosen to participate, so at this point...consensus is against including the section. Batman2005 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

is it really hing-GISS? kwami (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the pronunciation, since no one's responding. kwami (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)