Talk:Tennis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

1 vs 2

There are 1 vs 2 (Canadian or Australian style matches right?)... Shouldn't those be mentioned? MalionX 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No there is more!!!! ?

There is more what? Your statement confuses me. MalionX 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wood surface

The last indoor tournaments played on wood were played in the late sixties and early seventies. The last competition that I ever heard played on wood was the 1985 Davis Cup meeting between Paraguay and France : this is why I've slightly corrected the article.

Carlo Colussi 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This title is just to bring the contents to the top

So why doesn't anyone talk about the mental aspect of tennis why only the physical mental is actually the hardest part it is what seperates a good player from a great one.

It would be great if someone in the know could add some info' about the playing surface (it seems they sometimes play on grass, dirt, and paved surfaces). - stewacide

The types of court are partly covered on here tennis_courts. I have started a small page on Turf_management which includes a section on tennis. If anyone has the time i would appreciate it if they would have a look and advise. Suspect i might have put a little too much on types of court surface as opposed to how to look after them.Also not sure about quoting £s as taken from LTA website Thankyou in advance IndianSunset 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


"The convention of numbering scores "15," "30" and "40" comes from the French quinze, treize and quatorze, which to French ears makes a euphonious sequence."

I know next to nothing about the history of tennis, but treize and quatorze mean 13 and 14, not 30 and 40 (which are trente and quarante). Could the convention of scoring come from somewhere else? Sabbut 18:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The scoring comes from the French, which, correctly, is "quinze", "trente", and "quarante', meaning 15, 30, and 40. Why it's scored that way in English is beyond me, however.... Hayford Peirce 23:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I had heard (and this site [1] partially backs it up) that the scroing was based on a clock face, with the score pointer being moved round in quarters, i.e. 15, 30, 45, with 60=game. Over time, "45" got abbreviated to "40".
The last comment is correct. Please see the article on Tennis scoring where I added the comment that scoring corresponds to the quarterly stations of the clock. JJ 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone really has the true, factual, reason tennis is scored in the 15, 30, 45 fashion. I'd like to see "FACTS" about it...who made it up and why it was done in this manner...Kris Jacobs September 11 2006


WTF?! An article on tennis with NO mention of Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Martina Hingis, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, etc.? Any tennis fan will tell you those aren't "minor" names! I'm gonna have to heavily edit the history section..."more than competitive in today's game." shows a complete lack of following the sport past the 70's. --Etaonish 19:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You don't think those 12 great players from before the Open Era would be competitive today? I suppose you think that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lefty Grove, Ted Williams, and Stan Musial wouldn't be stars in today's major league baseball? I suggest that you read a little about the history of tennis....

In the interest of strict fairness, I have recently added a couple of words about Bjorn Borg to my comments about Jack Kramer being possibly the greatest tennis player of all time. And also the fact that Jack Kramer is still alive as of today, 2004.

Some asshole named Zigger, for whatever motive, has twice gone into the tennis article and edited out the reference to both Borg and the the date. Why he is apparently obsessed with doing this I dunno. He doesn't believe that a case can be made that Borg was the greatest player who ever lived? I myself don't believe that he was, but I do believe that a case can be made for it.

Who is this Zigger, and what is his problem? If he doesn't like Bjorn Borg as a great player, then why doesn't he say so in the text of the article?

Hi '66.1.40.242', I'm this Zigger. I twice removed your edits that inserted the "Click for more information about dating" HTML link to an ad-server (see history), leaving your previous edits intact. Personally, I have no view on whether Björn was the greatest or just great. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Zigger 21:01, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Well, I certainly never put in links to anything such as you said. I'm completely baffled. In fact, I didn't put in any links at all, just a couple of words about Borg and Kramer.Hayford Peirce 16:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
These were the reverted insertions: [2] [3]. --Zigger 17:02, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  • I'm stupid, but I still don't see the point of what you're talking about. All I did was add a mention of Borg and "as of 2004" -- is that the date you're talking about? And if so, why? I've seen lotsa entries with that phrase used in the article. In any case, I didn't link anything in my additions to anything else -- maybe someone else did, I dunno....Hayford Peirce 17:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Page histories have got messed up recently: sometimes when someone edits a page, the previous edit is removed from the page history and made to appear as if it were part of the later edit. This seems to be what happened here: someone else's vandalism is shown as part of your edit. --Zundark 21:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for the explanation! I really didn't *think* I'd done anything wrong, but as a newbie I'm a little nervous sometimes about what I've been doing. Cheers!Hayford Peirce 22:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grips. If I have the strength of character to write about the grips that were used in the days before two-handed tennis (and still are used, to a different degree) what should I do with this information? There are three separate grips, the Eastern, Western, and Continental, and I could probably write a couple of hundred words about each of them. Should there be 3 separate articles, with links to Tennis? One separate article called Tennis grips, perhaps, with a link to Tennis? Or a long section here in Tennis? Give me some feedback on this and I'll see if I'm motivated enough to do it. Hayford Peirce 03:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Too long This article once had a nice balance. It is now WAY too long in the "play of the game" area for an encyclopedia article. Sfahey 03:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Should the rules of tennis be a separate article? Skor 18:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • I deleted
    Tennis balls
    Tennis balls
    because it contained corporate advertising. -Palmerston

recent edits

The history areas I shortened seemed too "adorned" for an encyclopedia ("fascinating" topic for discussion, "tennis athleticism", etc.). I guess someone wanted "chronological" inserted so it would not appear the six players were being arbitrarily ranked by skill. I though it was an unnecessary qualifier ... but perhaps edited too aggressively. Unfortunately, much of this article does need a strong hand.Sfahey 20:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tennis articles in need of immediate attention

Hi. I've decided to place this message here because it's quite general, and it wouldn't properly fit in any more specific article. Over the last few days, I've going through our articles on tennis tournaments and players. Two points: 1)Although we have quite a few articles, we seem to be missing some key subjects, for instance, we don't have an article on the tennis masters series, neither about the 9-tournament ensemble, nor about any of the 9 tournaments that make up the series. We are also missing articles on some quite conspicuos players, such as Jonas Björkman, Todd Woodbridge and Jared Palmer; 2)Concerning the articles that we do have, quite a few, maybe the majority, are far from being ideal. Some are poorly written, others are rather superficial, since they don't tell enough of the history of a tournament or an athlete. One of the best examples of this is our article on the Davis Cup. There's so much to say about it, so much history there, and yet our article barely scratches the surface. I don't mean to be delegating the work here, but there's really, really a lot to be done, and I'm far from having anything near the time that it would take to get all of those articles up to an acceptable standard. I mean, our articles on the Grand Slam events are way too short, and we don't even provide a list of champions/runner-ups for all the five main events of each Grand Slam tournament (there's too much focus on the singles, very few on the doubles, and none on the mixed doubles). We need to do something about it! Is there someone with me on this? Regards, Redux 22:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main "Tennis" article is a dog, too. Reams of excessive detail on how to play, and wandering, speculative stuff on the top players. Very non-encyclopedic. I gave it a shot a couple of times, but it didn't take, so I returned to topics where there were fewer "experts". Sfahey 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Justine

no mention on "henin-hardenne" in item "backhand"?80.201.29.132

  • Budge and Rosewall are mentioned in the backhand article because 1.) for more than 50 years each of them is generally considered to have had perhaps the greatest backhand of all time, and 2.) Budge had a *topspin* forehand and Rosewall had a *slice* backhand, illustrating that even the greatest shot may be hit in different ways. The same principle applies to the "forehand" article in which Bill Johnston and Pancho Segura are mentioned. As far as I know, Henin-Hardenne does not hit a backhand in any special way worth mentioning (Seles uses two hands for both her forehand and her backhand and *is* noted as doing so). Nor, as far as I know, is she *especially* known for her backhand above all other shots, nor is it generally called "one of the greatest, or maybe even the greatest, backhand of all time." If there were anything distinctive about her backhand, then maybe it should be mentioned. If not, it shouldn't be.


replaced terrible forehand shot sequence

Reason the three photos were taken out is that the fellow is not even looking at the ball (his eyes were closed!) as he hits the ball, plus he is leaning back and is late.

I thought the photo of a little girl doing a nice step-in, closed stance (albeit two-handed) forehand is a nice touch. It is two handed, but that is the beauty of the photo.

There was also no photo for backhand, so, I put it in.

  • Your two tennis pictures are terrible and have no place in a serious article. Also, just about everything you have written above is incorrect. 1.) He is looking at the ball. 2.) He is not leaning back. 3.) He is not late. He is showing perfect timing and rhythm as he puts his entire body into hitting the ball. He is hitting it with a Western forehand, which I myself think is ridiculous looking, but it is, nevertheless, the prevalent forehand style these days, and he is executing it perfectly. The pictures that you have substituted for these are close to vandalism.... (And, no, I'm not the guy who put the original pictures in, I don't know him, and I would, if I could find some, put in some better ones, but, in the meantime, the original ones are a million times more useful than your "contributions".) Hayford Peirce 23:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Look at the third photo. his eyes are closed. my 'contribution' is meant to add a bit of fun into the webpage to have kids excited about playing the game. That is the reason to put a young player in.

Also, the text on the backhand is wrong. on both, Forehand and Backhand, player hits the ball "away from the body". I have not had the time to edit the forehand and backhand parts (I will soon though) because they are not correct.

Lastly, on "vandalism", one mans vandalism is another mans contribution. I had reasons to put this in, to get kids excited about playing, so, I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.

  • Your contribution to "add a bit of fun" is not the reason for an encycl. This article is to convey information.
Do you bother to read the articles? The forehand article says that the stroke goes *across* the body. The backhand article says that the stroke goes *away* from the body. Two entirely different things. Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong.
Do you play tennis? Is it possible that someone's eyes might once in a while close for 1/100th of a second under the impetus of hitting the ball? Have you ever heard of blinking? In any case, so what? The sequence of photos is a textbook example of how to hit a western forehand.
These are not *my* forehand pictures -- they are someone else's. Please put them back in. If you want to keep your ridiculous backhand picture, fine. If you want to go to higher authority about these pictures, fine again. You will find, if you do, that, obviously to your surprise and dismay, eventually all of your "contributions" will have been disappeared.... Hayford Peirce 04:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I share Hayford's opinion, although I'll try to express it in a more friendly manner. While the pictures you have submitted certainly aren't vandalism, they're also not professional and not nearly as useful as the originals. The backhand picture you have submitted gives virtually no information, and amounts essentially to a picture of a very nice-looking young girl. In my opinion, it doesn't warrant the amount of space it takes in the article. It's possible that there doesn't exist a single photo that would warrant the use of that much space, in which case we should simply not include a picture.
You say the player's eyes are closed in the original third photo? I guess he blinked. Darn. There are plenty of redeeming qualities of the picture, so that seems like a pretty minor nitpick to me.
I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.
This may be only my opinion, but to me that making threats isn't conducive to a compromise. It sounds like you're issuing an ultimatum, which, last I checked, is a pretty poor approximation of a compromise. Play nice, now. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the original pictures.
Ah, darn, Hayford beat me to it. Aerion//talk 04:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, beat me on the Talk page, too. But please try to be more courteous. Both of you. Sentences such as "Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong" don't really help anybody, and are generally bad for everybody's health. Aerion//talk 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum. And what is wrong with a cute photo? The world needs more fun, and it is a backhand shot, so, it does both things.... it relayed correct informaiton as to what a backhand shot looks like. So, here is a compromise: I leave the forehand shot and you leave my backhand shot until we both come up with a better shot sequence for both shots... I want to make sure everyone is happy. BTW: The youg man is late hitting the forehand shot, and his eyes are closed. So, we ought to be able to come up with a better photo.... and I made the backhand photo smaller.

All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum.
Because it was one. Originally, you proposed a compromise, but then made a threat to enforce it. That's not a compromise, and not a good way to win trust and good faith.
That said, I think your compromise is probably a fair idea, so long as adding the picture doesn't clutter the page too much. Make sure you size/float the picture appropriately in order to avoid that. I may not agree with your statement that the picture shows what a backhand shot looks like (a series of pictures is really required, which is why such a series exists for the forehand stroke), but the picture is probably better than nothing.
It might be a good idea to limit pictures in the article to one picture per stroke, and attempt to encapsulate in that single picture what that stroke "looks like." Then, in order to reduce clutter but still convey the valuable information afforded by a series of images, move the rest of the pictures to another article, perhaps one called "Gallery of tennis strokes" or something. Aerion//talk 21:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok... thank you! I really did not mean to have any threats, I just did not understand why such a reaction and my apologies. Photos going in. Thank you again. We leave everything in for now.

However, I will look for some real nice photos for forehand and backhand in the mean time.

good edit

good edit ...on that tedious "scoring" section.Sfahey 17:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, nicely done. The old section was awesomely tedious.... Hayford Peirce 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


a general "article is too long" discussion

It's already mentioned many times here, but really.. we should create more pages, each for rules of the game, courts, etc; so that the main Tennis article is not too cluttered with information that is too tedious. I'm just guessing the contributors are good tennis lovers who'd love to paste their knowledge here, but on the main Tennis page it is way too much and will intimidate people who come here to learn what tennis is about.

  • I agree and have been thinking about it. But *someone* is going to have to come up with a cohesive plan first. And then get people to agree to what needs to be moved. Otherwise there are going to be endless revert wars. It's too long at the moment, with too much finicky details, but on the other hand we don't want to reduce it to 100 words, each of which is a link to something else.
I think, for instance, that there could be a single paragraph about "shots", just as there is now. And each one of the 8 shots could be a link to a separate article. Ditto for the rules and most of the other. Since I'm the guy who wrote most of the stuff about the great players of the past and the greatest players of all time I'd *hate* to see that stuff moved -- but I could live with it if it was done correctly in the context of a complete revamping of the entire article.
I myself, frankly, don't have the strength of character to attempt this revamp myself: I'm a grouchy guy and I don't suffer nitwits easily. Whoever tries to do this is going to have to be both smart, hard-working and a conciliator and compromiser.... Hayford Peirce 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously we don't want just a page of links, but I think we can reduce it to just a couple paragraph each for each topic, for the general info without the technical details. For example: for the forehand, explain what it is, how it is used, maybe mention a few legends with great forehands ,but (as mentioned before) tennis grips can be put into a separate article.
P.S. I am an advocate of removing all but one photo of the forehand
  • Well, I guess I agree with you. Here's a suggestion. Someone should open a separate article outside Tennis called grips. The word "grips" within the Tennis article should be linked to it. The Forehand article, then, could be reduced to something like this:
The forehand is considered the easiest shot to master, perhaps because it is the most natural stroke. It is made by swinging the racquet across one's body in the direction of where the player wants to place the shot. There are three basic grips for executing the forehand, the Eastern, the Western, and the Continental. Their popularity has changed over the years. For a number of years the small, apparently frail 1920s player Bill Johnston was considered by many to have had the best forehand of all time, a stroke that he hit shoulder-high using a "western" grip. No matter which grip is used, most forehands are generally executed with one hand holding the racquet, but there have been fine players with two-handed forehands. In the 1940s and 50s the Ecuadorian/American player Pancho Segura used a two-handed forehand to devastating effect against larger, more powerful players, and many female and young players use the two-handed stroke today. Few top players used the "western" grip after the 1920s, but in the latter part of the 20th century, as shot-making techniques and equipment changed radically, the "western" forehand made a strong comeback and is now used by many modern players.
The article called Grips should then include:
The simplest grip to understand, but perhaps the most difficult to master, is the "continental". With the racquet held so that the hitting surface is vertical to the ground, the handle is gripped on its top as if the player were shaking someone's hand or grasping a hammer. With the "continental", both the forehand and the backhand are hit with the same grip. With the "eastern" grip, the racquet is slightly rotated so that the palm of the hand is now somewhat more on the larger side of the handle. The "eastern" grip will hit a "flatter" forehand with less spin on it than the "continental". With the "western" grip, the rotation of the racquet in the player's hand is even more exaggerated, to the point where the striking surface of the racquet is now parallel to the ground after being turned from its initial vertical position. "Western" forehands are generally hit with enormous amounts of spin.
Plus, of course, additional info taken from the Backhand article, the Serve article, and new info specially written for it.
All other shots, such as volleys, half-volleys, etc. should be treated in the same way. Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • One picture for forehand -- sure, I agree with that also. But it should be a really GOOD picture! Too bad that all the pix I have at home are copyrighted. I suppose I could take some pix of my seriously kute girlfriend hitting shots if worse comes to worst. She hits a 1,000 MPH western forehand like a laser beam.... Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Using some more recent players is useful too. While we appreciate Pancho Segura's forehand, people with little knowledge of tennis would like to read some familiar names with the best forehands in recent times: Sampras? Agassi? Federer? Graf? Davenport? Younes El-Aynaoui? (ok the last one is too obscure) -Aree
Sure. But I put in Pancho primarily because he had a *two-handed* forehand, not just because he had a great one. As for more recent ones, Ivan Lendle's is the only one that springs to mind, although I guess people have said that Sampras's was great too. Unless separate forehand and backhand articles are done outside the Tennis article (as you have done with Serve) I don't think we want to list too many in the main article.

Forehand picture

Just revert if you don't like it.

it looks fine to me. Hayford Peirce 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

types of courts

The article claims there are four general types of courts, but only mentions three (clay, grass, hard). I cannot think of a fourth, but I don't know much about tennis. So is there a fourth, or has the number to be changed? --Flosch 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes indoors are considered a different type of court, even though some indoors are made of the same as outdoors (e.g. hardcourts, clay). There are also the indoor carpets as well, or some rubber materials. --Aree


Someone kept putting in carpetcourt (one word) in the listings of courts. I've removed it twice. I'll have to check out the "three" or "four" and will fix it. No matter how one counts the types of courts, the word "carpetcourt" simply does not exist! Hayford Peirce 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I corrected the number and added some examples of hardcourts. Hayford Peirce 17:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The other "major" or "common" type of court surface is a collection of synthetic materials often called "carpet". Another surface that is not very common is synthetic grass. Since only a few tournaments are played on these "alternative" surfaces, mentioning them is really not necessary. MrPrecise 25 January 2006
This article lists 3 types of courts, the tennis court article lists 4 types of courts. This discrepency should be reconciled. -- Seitz 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I checked the USTA rules for a list of surfaces. They divide court surfaces into 3 classes:
  • Slow pace: clay courts and other types of unbound mineral surface.
  • Medium pace: hardcourts with various acrylic type coatings plus some textile surfaces.
  • Fast pace: natural grass, artificial turf, and some textile surfaces.
-- Seitz 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

is brickdust counted as a general type of court?

No, it would fall under "clay court", since, in general, that encompasses all of the materials such as plain dirt, "en-tous-cas", and other stuff like that. Hayford Peirce 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In the explanation of the mechanics of the relatively slow speed of a ball on a clay surface, the article uses the adjective "course". Don't we mean "coarse", in order to imply that the roughness of the clay court contributes to the damping of the kinetic energy of the moving ball? I think so.


Quite right, it's changed. El Ingles 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed picture of serve

Since the self-proclaimed authority on this page has asked for an explanation (and not in a polite manner, and not that he is owed one either), the explanation is simple: the only reason my photos were removed is that he did not want them there and I have too many things to do to edit and re-edit and so on. However, I will grant that photos of pros are more appropriate and will therefore yield only because this makes more sense for a page such as this: it shoul dhave official photos. So, since the serve photo is not one of a pro doing a serve, following the logic of master pierce, I have done to the serve photo what he did to my forehand and backhand photos. So, maybe someone can just put up some pro, like Rodick or another big server and we'll be done with it.

You are reverting this picture (ie, cutting it out), without warning and against the wishes of the other members, all of whom have left it untouched for many weeks. You are doing so, not because it is a bad or inappropriate picture, but out of spite. This, when it is done 3 consecutive times, is called vandalism. If you do this one more time I will ask an administrator (or sysop) to review the history of this article and then to either block this page so that you can no longer remove the picture, or I will ask him/her to ban you for at least a 24-hour period. That might, perhaps, teach you how to edit in an appropriate manner. If you have better picture of a serve, would you kindly put it in the article. If not, then please leave the present picture alone. I have looked at your "contributions" -- as far as I can tell, the only contributions you have ever made to Wikipedia in any form are your insertions of pictures or removals of pictures in the tennis article. Why don't you learn a little more about Wikipedia and its etiquette before doing such things in the future? We are here, in theory, to make these articles as good as possible. Certainly removing this particular picture just because you're feeling grouchy at me or at other editors is no step in improving the article. Hayford Peirce 00:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't found any other free picture of the serve to use. If this one works, it shows somewhat a consistency with the other pictures (perhaps?). Oh, by the way, I was the one removing the old pictures to replace with professional players, not Hayford Pierce. Sorry if I acted as if I were the self proclaimed authority. Aree
I don't understand why the Sampras service GIF wasn't put there in the first place -- it's very nice. I was going to do it myself tomorrow... But, at least on my computer, the image, intially, breaks up a little bit in a way that it doesn't in the serve article. Hayford Peirce 04:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nothing is done out of spite. If there is any spite it is your removal of photos I put up because you did not like the photos. I have as much right not to like your photos as you have the right not to like mine, so, there we are. You may threaten as much as you like, but I had a reason to put up the first ones, which you removed without any reason given (unlike I gave a reason, which you took a stand against in the first place. So, in order to cut this debate, I proposed a compromise, which you shot down, so, clearly you have an agenda against me...ie. if I dont agree with you then I must be either a vandal or deserve punishment. Perhaps this is the way your world spins, but in my world (and see all of my remarks before), I try to work with people without threats. So, whilst I understand in any form there are people who think they are the 'main man' just because others cower, I agree with Mr. Aree: professional players should be up there, so, I deleted the photo of the serve (and do again today), not out of spite (which you are free to accuse all you like), but because I changed my mind, simply: pros. should be there because they represent what Wiki should be about to readers better.

So, take your spiteful action if you would like, as surely that one will be the one done out of spite.

I delete the photo because it does not show a serve... it gives people no idea what a serve is like.

As far as my 'contributions' to Wiki, so what? I just started contributing. Last I checked there were no 'seniority union' rules as to whose stuff is more accurate or more valued. I also put in the "Lundar Beach" entry, but so what?

This will be the last time I take this much time defending myself in front on any user on anything but content, raw and simple.

Bottom line is: the tennis page could be much better. There is a bunch of stuff missing and it should be much bigger. I am happy try try to help, but only if we all work together and not throw around threats.

As far as 'my contribution' to the tennis page: GUESS WHAT? the end result is that the terrible photos which where "left untouched for weeks" have now been replaced with three videos of pros. doing it right. so, this is what Wiki is all about: one thing causes another to improve even though it might annoy 'people with their own names on Wiki'

Game point merging

I think the tennis article is long as it is, while Game Point is somewhat more technical. I propose, should it be merged, merge with Tennis score instead.

Deletion of speculation

I have deleted the openly speculative article about comparing the greatness of players from different eras because it is speculation, which is not verifiable, citable, or relevant to the article at hand. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specifically from the last link:

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Wars and Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not.

Speculation is specifically banned because it is neither verifiable or encyclopedic. (Could you imagine an encyclopedia article in a major print edition including this sort of speculation in their Tennis article in any possible circumstances?) Leave this sort of discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump instead. I am sorry to come on so strong, but I think it is important that there be no ambiguity regarding this matter, particularly as the change was quickly reverted (and then reverted back again by me) - I don't think there's a need for a revert war when the policy is very clear. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Concur. I especially disliked the part that says "there is relatively little difference in the quality of play among the top hundred players" because clearly there is. If the statement were true, we'd see massive ranking changes from week to week. In any case, the entire speculative section, IMHO, contributed very little other than a selected list of names of players, and added virtually no objective content to the article. I agree with its removal (and regret that I lacked the initiative to do it myself earlier!). Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Animated GIFs

Does anybody think those are a little big? Let's not kid ourselves; the images bring the article size way over a half megabyte. Yikes. I can smell the smoking 56k modems from here. Any chance of replacing them with static thumbnails which link to the full animated file, perhaps with a little note that says "click to view animation"? Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Don't add game point

This article is already too long as it is. For someone unfamiliar with tennis there is far too much information. I would suggest not merging game point into the tennis discussion. Escochris

Agree. It should be in Tennis score or Tennis terminology instead. Aree
I vote for Tennis terminology. After all, game point is almost entirely made up of definitions. - dcljr (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The term "game point" is used in more situations than just tennis (generally, in any game in which the first player to reach a certain number of points is the winner). Due to its generality, I think it shouldn't be merged at all, although if it is to be included it ought to go on the terminology article. Aerion//talk 04:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason I made it a separate article was so that it would be easy to link to. I suppose it would be OK to make it a section of Tennis terminology (not Tennis, that's already too long), as long as it's a section, so we can still link directly to it (e.g. via Tennis terminology#Game point). If so, someone will have to go around and change all the links to game point (as well as set point, match point, etc) as redirects to sections don't work (and probably never will). Noel (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fastest ace

The Ace (tennis) article says:

The fastest recorded ace in tennis history has been served by the American Andy Roddick.

This info has been in that article since its creation by an anonymous user. Can someone here verify this? How fast was it? When and where did it happen? The Roddick article doesn't help — it talks about fastest serve, not fastest ace... - dcljr (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If you hit a serve at over 155 mph, you're probably going to ace your opponent so I'd imagine that the fastest serve was also the fastest ace. DavidB601 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It could well be. On the other hand, it all depends on where the serve was hit. If it was straight down the center line, almost certainly it would be an ace. If it was hit directly at the receiver, then it almost certainly would *not* be an ace -- even at my own advanced age I imagine that I could get my racquet onto a ball served at 155 MPH about 3 feet to the right of where I was standing to return serve. I wouldn't be able to DO anything with it, I agree, but at least I would *touch*, thereby nullifying the concept of it being an ace. Hayford Peirce 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got a point there, and it would be an interesting problem to solve. However, I am still fairly adamant that the fastest serve was also the fastest ace, as if you were trying to hit a serve at that speed, you would be trying to ace your opponent. DavidB601 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You may be adamant, but you would be wrong. A.) Just because you try to ace your opponent doesn't mean that you succeed. If that were the case, I don't think I would ever have lost a match. Nor would anyone else with a big serve. B.) If you look at the article about ace, or the Roddick article, I forget which one, you will see that someone has put in the exact info: "on so-and-so day Roddick hit a serve of x MPH to y, who returned it, and Roddick then the return into the net." Or some such.... Hayford Peirce 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ESPN'S Spot Shot

Just wanted to call attention to the tennis editors about Spot Shot. Unfortunately I do not know enough about tennis to make anything more than superificial contributions. I got information from http://www.tennisfax.com/thread02.html which is obviously not a verifiable source but they seem pretty knowledgeable (i tend to trust forums). someone with better knowledge of tennis could improve:

  • what lines the cameras are watching
  • what exactly is being generated...someone who watches ESPN tennis could probably describe it
  • maybe a screenshot...i looked in google images and could not find any

anyway it seems to be new exciting technology and i think it could use a good edit!

-- Bubbachuck 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Great players

Should we be more selective in the Great Players section? I personally think we should restrict it to players who dominated the tour for a while or won multiple Slams. So, these players, while good, is questionable for being one of 'the greats':

  • Goran Ivanisevic : lovable guy, but only one Slam, never no. 1.
  • Michael Chang: same as Goran
  • Andy Roddick: one great run in 2003, but only one Slam so far (Federer stands in his way though)
  • Maria Sharapova: same as Roddick. Would they already be one the greats if their careers end today?

As for the pre-Open players, I don't know which ones should be in or shouldn't.

Another way is to use the Hall of Fame list of players. Would it be somewhat objective? - Aree


____________________________________________

Before recent additions (Ivanisevic, Chang, Roddick, Hewitt, Sharapova, and Clijsters) the list included all players who won at least 4 Open era majors in singles plus three players who won 3 majors (Smith, Ashe, and Davenport). I think it was a reasonable list.

Someone has added Darragh Connaughton in the list of great European tennis players. I think this may be a joke.

Should the list be revised to exclude the players who are currently playing and don't meet the old criteria? Their careers aren't over yet and calling them "greatest" would be a stretch. Noelle De Guzman 14:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Any system is flawed, but number of Grand Slam titles could be the criteria. JJ 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


"Greatest" surely refers to achievements. I don't think anyone believes that Federer is the greatest male player of all time. He may be playing better than anyone before him, but that is an entirely different issue. As for players with only one slam victory, how can they possibly be put on a "greatest" list? E.g. Kim Clijsters is a very good player, but not one of the "greatest" yet. Metamagician3000 06:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We seriously need to clean up the "Greatest Players" category on the main article. It's becoming more of a list of current Slam title holders (even those who have only one Slam title to their name) rather than a list of players who have achieved much in the professional sport. But how can we go about selecting who should be on the list? Noelle De Guzman 01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This Great Players thing is getting completely out of hand. Editors are now sticking in any and everyone who has ever won a Grand Slam title. Soon there will be dozens and dozens of people listed. True, they are all *wonderful* players, certainly by the standards of our own personal playing levels. But are they worthy to be listed in the same list as Sampras, Borg, Federer? Of course not. I would suggest that for the modern players of the Open Era a minimum of three Grand Slam titles be required for being listed here. An argument could be made for *two* titles, I suppose but certainly not for the myriad of players who have won a single title. As for the relatively few pre-Open players listed just above, I don't think any student of tennis history would seriously argue against the inclusion of any of them in the list. Indeed, many other wonderful old players are omitted but this is the place to name the truly *greatest*, and the same should be true about the Open-era players. Someone has *got* to cut that list down to reasonable length. Hayford Peirce 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll do it (be bold!); I'm going to remove the players with only one Slam under their belt, and I'll stick a comment notice in the section that states the qualifications for being a Great Player. Noelle De Guzman 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The following are the players I have removed from the "Great Players" list. If you see a need for their inclusion, please place the appropriate arguments below.

Goran Ivanišević (1), Andres Gomez (1), Marcelo Rios (0), Andy Roddick (1),Juan Carlos Ferrero (1), Amelie Mauresmo (1), Kim Clijsters (1)

Noelle De Guzman 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm reverting the recent addition of Amelie Mauresmo to the Great Players list. IP address 81.57.171.6 added it; if you would like to make an argument for the inclusion of Mauresmo in the Great Players list, I invite you to do so here. :) Noelle De Guzman (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole discussion on "Greatest Player of All Time" is fatuous. It's way beyond speculation, primarily because it's not given any basis. What do we mean by "greatest"? There are probably a hundred reasonable definitions... most aces, most grand slam event wins, highest mean ranking over career, fewest sets lost, broken least often. With any of these definitions, it would be a simple exercise in data collection to decide the "greatest". It's not even clear whether we're trying to be objective at all. I frankly think that the idea that Laver or Tilden, even at the top of their games, would reliably make even the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam event today a somewhat ludicrous proposition. Today's players are much more fit and have used lots of modern tech to fine tune their games. I doubt they'd even do well in the women's singles. So if "greatest" means "most likely to win a hypothetical tournament played among all pros as they played at the top of their game", they're not even on the list.

I'd suggest that we include all the players who were/are No. 1 in the list of "great players", even if they haven't won a Grand Slam Tournament. It's obvious that if someone became number 1, he or she has dominated the Tour for a while; and I don't think that the ATP or the WTA only admits that someone is a great player if he or she has won more than two Grand Slams. So my suggestion is that we include Kim Clijsters (2005 US Open and 2002-2003 WTA Tour Championships) and Tracy Austin (1979 US Open and 1981 US Open) in the list of greatest women; and Ilie Năstase (1972 US Open and 1973 French Open), Andy Roddick (2003 US Open), Juan Carlos Ferrero (2003 French Open), Marcelo Rios (1998 Grand Slam Cup), Thomas Muster (1995 French Open) and Carlos Moyá (1998 French Open) in the list of greatest men. Smoutebolmetkrenten 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are separate lists for the No. 1 players -- to put them all here would make this "great players" meaningless. This has been discussed before and the consensus was that it takes *TWO* grand slam victories to be listed here. Hayford Peirce 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand (by the way: I meant *TWO OR MORE*, but I typed it wrongly as MORE THAN TWO, clumsy me :) ). But why aren't Tracy Austin and Ilie Năstase included in the list then? After all, they both meet the requirement to be included (winning 2 Grand Slam titles). Smoutebolmetkrenten 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably just because they've been overlooked -- I'll add them. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Great Players list is seriously flawed: Patrick Rafter, who won 11 tournaments in his career is a "great" player, while Thomas Muster, who won 44, is not?! Now, I'm not a Muster fan by any stretch of imagination, but this does not make any sense. Even inclusion according to purely subjective criteria would be better than this (two-Grand-Slams-plus). GregorB 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these players?

Hi... I want to increase the range of photos that commons: has, especially of players, since at the moment it's quite poor. See commons:Tennis. But I need some help identifying pictures. If you know who these players are, could you please tell me?

  1. [4] White woman with brown hair, red shorts at the Australian Open 2005
  2. [5], [6] and [7] are all the same woman, I think (white skin, brown hair, white skirt, Wimbledon) I'd vote for Mary Pierce on the 1st one, but I don't see her name on the scoreboard)
  3. [8] blonde woman with ballboys in foreground
  4. [9] and [10] She should be easy - very identifiable - Thai, "seagames"? "samart"?
  5. [11] woman with blonde ponytail, blue outfit, US Open 2004 - Elena Dementieva?
  6. [12] Man with red shirt, kind of "square" short brown hair cut, US Open 2004
  7. [13] Man with ponytail, white headband and shirt, US Open 2004. looks pretty distinctive - Feliciano Lopez? Definitely NOT Feliciano Lopez Stanley011 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is lefty Jurgen Melzer, Austria's number one player, who has yet to win a title. This picture shows him with what appears to be dyed blondish hair. Feliciano Lopez, another lefty, is one of Spain's top ranked players who has won only one title, Vienna Indoors. A comparison of the two players including current pictures: http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/headtohead/head2head.asp?player1=Melzer%2C+Jurgen&player2=feliciano+lopez

  1. [14] & [15] (serving) Man with wild brown hair, very light facial hair, bright blue shirt, US Open 2004. very distinctive!
  2. [16] Woman with light brown ponytail, white cap, US Open 2004
  3. [17] Black guy, serving, grey shirt, US Open 2004 Scoville Jenkins?

Thanks, pfctdayelise 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreak

shouldn't Tie BREAK be put into the tennis score section? It may be too long for an introduction to tennis in general

Actually it was added by Scilla on [January 12] in poorly worded English (it seems to have been translated from a foreign language). Nobody noticed its addition, and yes, it should be in Tennis score instead. Noelle De Guzman 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have enhanced the article on Tennis scoring with a discussion of tiebreak scoring as well as a history of the tiebreak. Can the tiebreak stuff now be removed from the Tennis article? JJ 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
JJ, thanks for the improvements to Tennis scoring. I think the tiebreak section can be removed now. Noelle De Guzman 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the convoluted tiebreak stuff from the main article on Tennis.

Scoring

I deleted the scoring of "five", "three", "four." Although players will sometimes use "five" to mean "fifteen," I have never in my lifetime of tennis (played and watched) heard of this scoring method. Even if it's used somewhere, it's too arcane for the general article on tennis. Comments? JJ 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a very long-winded addition and you were right to delete it. That said, my regular tennis partner, a guy in his late sixties, *does* sometimes say "three" and "four", particularly when he's serving. I thought it was odd the first time he did it, but since I knew the score anyway, I figured it out fairly quickly. But until I started playing with him about 7 years ago, I had never before heard these terms, and I've been playing tennis since 1955. I do, however, frequently say "forty-five" or "five-forty" when serving. "Five" is definitely fairly common, I would say.... Hayford Peirce 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely that "five" is often used for "fifteen." I'm glad you agree that such an arcane scoring does not belong in the mainstream article on tennis.JJ 22:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to point out in which occasions tie-break is NOT allowed (i.e. in the final set of a final Grand Slam; in the Davis Cup). And perhaps it will be good (although it goes better in the "Tennis score" article) to mention the history of this changes (even from 5 to 3 sets a game). 200.55.118.233 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel

The forehand is accomplished by starting the racquet above the height of the ball, and then dropping the racquet head behind your body.

Really, this guy is persistent, he has changed the forehand to this description over and over (and usually with a link to an obscure website).

"The forehand is accomplished by starting the racquet above the height of the ball, and then dropping the racquet head behind your body. Then swing up and across to get the right amount of spin." really doesnt say anything about a forehand, for backhand you do this too!

Also it describes the mechanics (and not the description) of the stroke which I think is too involved for a general Tennis article. I believe this is the simplest way to describe forehands and backhands:

  • A right-handed player hits a forehand when the ball is on the right side of his body.
  • A right-handed player hits a backhand when the ball is on the left side of his body.

Aree 09:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________

The present forehand definition in the main article is the most ridiculous (and meaningless) thing I have ever read about anything. Your proposed definitions above don't help much, though. Here's another suggestion:
  • For a right-handed player, a forehand is a stroke that begins on the right side of his body, continues across his body as contact is made with the ball, and ends on the left side of his body.
  • For a right-handed player, a backhand is a stroke that begins on the left side of his body, continues across his body as contact is made with the ball, and ends on the right side of his body.
    • These definitions account for all grips and all manners of hitting these strokes. Hayford Peirce 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is good and should be used for descriptions of the strokes. I agree that this article is not a primer on how to play tennis. JJ 23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One wrong technique in low level play is not having follow through, instead stopping the racket at contact point. However, we'd still call that a "forehand" even though the racket doesnt end on the left side of the body. So when do we call the stroke a forehand (not necessarily a textbook forehand)? Thats why I wrote those definitions to be as general as possible. Aree 09:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's a volley (sometimes), or a drop shot, no one stops a forehand stroke the moment he hits the ball. There's always some follow-through because of racquet momentum, even though it's not as much as there should be. Or we follow through in the wrong way, perhaps. I wouldn't worry about trying to include what is mostly a non-event in an all-inclusive definition. Hayford Peirce 15:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol, you haven't seen some of the people I play with. NO follow through at all, believe me. And we will agree its a forehand nonetheless. I'm just saying, should the definition include ALL forehands or 99.9% forehands? I was going for the "general definition" (including non-events), which you said "don't help much". Ah well I have too much time to be actually arguing about this. At least now, its not the "The forehand is accomplished by..." Aree 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I have seen what you described. But that's hardly what I would call tennis, at least the ideal of tennis. I think that in this general article we ought to be concerned primarily about how strokes should be hit, at least basically. We say, for instance, that the forehand is generally hit with one hand -- but that it can be hit with two hands by someone like Segoo. But we don't say that so-and-so, a club player in Tulsa, frequently starts out with a normal-looking forehand, then moves around so that he hits the ball between his legs. If Sampras did it that way, it would be worth writing about.... Otherwise, not. Hayford Peirce 16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. Funny now that you mention it, Sampras loves to hit his topspin approach shot (the one where his right foot is in front) and end up with his racket on the right side of his body. And can we say Steffi Graf? I'm just teasing, hehe...Aree 16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we've all hit some weird shots from time to time. A couple of times I've returned serves that jammed me on the forehand side by hitting a backhanded-racquet head-upside-down-ping-pong sort of lob that made it over the net by about 1 foot. At least once it make my opponent laugh so hard that he missed his put-away smash. And I know what you mean about the Sampras shot. But that's not the way it's taught -- at least I hope not! Hayford Peirce 17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Receiver

I deleted the addtion of the term "returner" in the sentence that talks about one player being the server and the other the returner. In many years of playing and watching tennis, I have never heard the term "returner" used. If anyone has, please let me know on this talk page. JJ 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I started playing in Sept. 1955 and have never heard it that I can recall. I *think* that in French one can say "le renvoyeur", which would mean "returner". Certainly in English one says: "He has a great return of serve." So I suppose by extention someone, maybe even me, has said something like: "Gee, Agassi is a great returner!" But I don't think I'd ever *write* that in a formal or even a semi-formal context. Hayford Peirce 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, never heard the term used. Let's see if others have an opinion. JJ 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
USTA rules describe the "receiver."Sfahey 22:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
My Idiot's Guide to Tennis says "receiver" as well. :) By the way, I reverted some changes made to the spelling of "hardcourt" and inadvertenly reverted to a version that had "returner" instead of "receiver." Sorry for that, and thanks to Hayford Peirce for making the necessary changes. Noelle De Guzman (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Court specialists

Hi everyone. I recently created the article Clay Court Specialist but was thinking we should probably create a more general page of court specialists so we can have sections devoted to "hard court specialists," "grass court specialists," "carpet specialists" etc. Or perhaps we can have separate articles for each. Or perhaps both. What do people think of these ideas? Stanley011 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent article to me. Probably a good idea to extend it to others such as "grass court" etc. Hayford Peirce 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I Mudasar l feel you have a great idea just2kewl

Tennis should it be played by 5 year olds?

what you people think?

Now with all the facilities like mini-tennis and short tennis available, I can't see why it would be a bad idea. DavidB601 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tennis for 5 year old?

Good or bad what do you think?

  • Good. Why not? But don't push him/her to hard -- it should be enjoyable. Hayford Peirce 22:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Scoville Jenkins

I just created this article but it needs lots of work. Hope someone can take a look at it. Thanks. Stanley011 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

World No. 1 player list

I've just created an article/list called World No. 1 Tennis Player and put in the first entries from 1914 through 1937, for both the No. 1 male player and the runner-up. I'll try to do it for as many other years as possible. For some of the years, such as 1954 through 1961, when Gonzales simply beat everyone else on the Pro Tour it will be easy. Other years will be more problematic, but there are at least some encyclopedia articles and autobiographies that have a lot of info in them. It should be possible to figure out whether Riggs was better than Budge in 1946, say.... I've also linked a number of the individual players such as Lacoste to the article. Hayford Peirce 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Scoring Section Needs to be Changed

Hello everyone, I am new to tennis and I don't have much of a clue of how to play and what the terms are. I came to read this article for clarification on what the sport is, but I find the 'scoring' section quite confusing. (I still don't understand what 'love' is.) --JD

Love means you simply have no points in a game. DavidB601 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

numbers in parenthesis

What are the numbers in parenthesis for some of the players in the lists of great players? The number of grand slam titles they've won in their career? It would be swell to add a description to the text so we're not left wondering. -- Mikeblas 00:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

... Marat Safin (2), and Stan Smith (2). (Numbers in parentheses indicate the Grand Slam singles titles.) Hayford Peirce 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It's odd that the description was left in the middle, between the women's list and the men's list. I've fixed it up. -- Mikeblas 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Originating in England in the late 19th Century

"Originating in England in the late 19th Century". I don't think so. There is archaeological evidence for a tennis court off Fenchurch Street in London in 1461.


http://www.real-tennis.com/archive/history/journal.html

Ogg 12:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wold's most prestigious"

Hi,

The article says wimbeldon is the "Wold's most prestigious tennis tournament". I asked an author of the article to explain to me how he decided that Wimbeldon was the most presitigious tennis event and he answered me something like : "because google says so". I'm not continuing the discussion with him as he seems a little bit ... aggressive about this. But I was curious to know, in a general manner, what is the rule for superlative on Wikipedia. How do you decide that this car is the greatest car ever produced or those kind of things? Thanks. JeDi 11:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to know. While it may seem obvious to some, it'd be nice to get some explanation on the subject. After all, we don't want POV on here. MToolen 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The New York Times: "UNTIL Wimbledon, any talk about the changing face of men's tennis sounded like idle speculation or wishful thinking. Until Boris Becker became the first unseeded player to win the world's most prestigious championship, there wasn't any reason to suspect that John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander would lose their hold on the Grand Slam events."
  • Sport Magazine: "IN THE memorable summer of 1974, a beleaguered Richard M Nixon resigned in disgrace as President of the United States. Tim Henman was born. And two prodigious American players who were fast approaching their primes walked away with the top honours at the All England Club while they were engaged to be married. Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert - displaying outstanding two-handed backhands, extraordinary court sense, and unwavering determination - stamped their authority sweepingly on the lawns of Wimbledon, winning the world's most prestigious titles as the ... "
  • USAToday: "Yet when play begins today at the world's most prestigious tennis tournament, there will be a bit of chaos in the air."
  • The Sports Network: "He wasn't even supposed to be at the 2001 fortnight, but was extended an invitation (wild card), due to the fact that he's Goran Ivanisevic and was a three-time runner-up at the world's most prestigious tennis event."
  • Grand Slam Tennis Tours: "Television's coverage of "Breakfast at Wimbledon" has been a tradition for Tennis Fans for the past 30 years. However, to truly appreciate one of the world's most prestigious sporting events and to experience the tradition and pageantry of Wimbledon, nothing can replace a seat in Center Court."
  • Gamespot.com: "Blessed with powerful first and second serves, a fierce two-handed backhand, great speed, and an arsenal of amazing ground strokes, Sharapova combines supermodel looks with an aggressive playing style. The Russian-born, U.S.-based player took the tennis world by storm when she won the 2004 All-England Championships at Wimbledon, the world's most prestigious tournament."
  • CNN Sports Illustrated: "We are delighted to be able to continue our long relationship with the world's most prestigious tennis championships," said Ebersol. "For more than three decades we have regarded Wimbledon as one of the crown jewels of the NBC Sports schedule."
Is the World Cup the world's most prestigious soccer tournament? Or just, Wikiwise, "arguably"?
Is the Davis Cub the world's most prestigious tennis trophy for international competition or, Wikiwise, just "one of the"?
Is the World Series the world's most prestigious baseball championship or just, Wikiwise, "according to many"?
You tell me. Hayford Peirce 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool, that's all I needed. Thanks! MToolen 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is no other global soccer tournament.
There is no equivalent to Davis Cup.
I don't know much about baseball, can we really call this "World Series"? But that is another debate.
But, as I know, there is 3 other Grand Slams, and frankly, I do not consider Wimbeldon as being more prestigious that the other three. Anyway, if you really want it to be the most prestigious, I'm not going to fight for that.
JeDi 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Players - Women

Why are the greatest female players shunted into three lines whilst the men have qualifications of their greatness? Gareth E Kegg 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because no one has taken the time or trouble to put in a little of their qualifications. Why don't you do so, yourself? Hayford Peirce 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought the expanded greatness players were Open Players, but perhaps we should put open players from both sexes in there, BUT would the section would be too long? Gareth E Kegg 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would get too long. The whole point of the Great (male) Players was to point out that there were fine players before the Open Era that many people today have never heard of. Most of the Open Era great players have long individual articles about them. There are 4, I think, pre-Open "great" women mentioned. It would be easy for someone to add a line or two for each woman's achivements. And they might put in Althea Gibson and Pauline Betz Addie, the woman Jack Kramer calls the best after Helen Wills Moody (he never saw the Divine Suzanne). Hayford Peirce 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

This line towards the top of the article: 'In a legal service, the ball travels over the net (without touching it) and into the diagonally opposite service court.'

What is the service court? Up until this point, the term is not used nor defined. Not knowing anything about tennis, I have no idea what this could be. This should be clarified.

SEEDING

Can anybody discuss seeding in tennis? How it is established, how often it is reviewed, etc...

Seeding in tennis is a bit like putting the players in order of who is favourite to win. So the number 1 seed is favourite to win, number 2 to be the finalist etc. If you look at the draws for competitions, you will almost always see the number 1 seed at the very top and the number 2 seed at the very bottom. This ensures that a 1 v 2 final is possible as the players won't be able to meet before that. In tournaments, players who are seeded often have the early advantage (in addition to being the world's best) as they will play unseeded players for at least their first match. Different tournaments have a different number of seeded players. For example, grand slams have 32 seeds, whereas smaller tournaments may only have 8 seeds.
The seeding of players varies between tournaments. In the majority of tournaments, it is based on the player's world ranking. However, at tournaments such as Wimbledon the player's grass court record is also taken into consideration to determine seeding. DavidB601 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A link to the glossary

When I first viewed the main tennis page, I was unable to find a link to the glossary - the glossary was not explicitly mentioned even in the table of contents. It is obscured under "8. See also / 8.1 Tennis in general" not very far from the bottom of the page.

I have added a more prominent link to the glossary right under Manner of play. There may be a more suitable location for the link, but it must be prominent, at the top of the page.

tennis grand slams

70.170.121.142 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)kaya soloria where were the grand slams played? my e-mail hawaiianlani101@yahoo.com


kayla kamamaikalani soloria cambra

The 4 grand slams are held in Australia, France, Wimbledon and in the United States. DavidB601 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean England, not Wimbledon. JJ 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Tennis: "Greatest" Tennis Players

I would like to enquire, how can the article consider anyone with more than one Grand Slam title "one of the greatest". Mary Pierce? One of the greats along side Martina Navratilova? Doesn't make any sense to me. This list should be consisted of players with remarkable Slam achievements (like, at least 3-4 titles) and consisted of champions who were great advocates to the games. How can the "greatest tennis players" be considered someone who won more than two slams? Doublea 04:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You should be happy that it's at least limited to players who have won *two* slams or more -- for a while there were a bunch of people who tried to put in the names of anyone who had ever won *one* slam.... Personally, I agree with you -- I think it ought to be 3 or higher, but most of the other editors seem to feel that 2 is a high enough threshholdHayford Peirce 04:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Female pictures

It was recently pointed out on WP:RP that all pictures in this article are of men. If someone with more knowledge about the article than me could add or substitute some pictures of female players, that would be great. I've included a few images of female tennis players as suggestions.

The top image seems to have the most flexible copyright.--YbborT 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they're pictures you've taken yourself, you're almost certainly going to run into copyright problems with any newer ones. This is why all of the pictures in the article are of historic interest and can be used. Hayford Peirce 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The top one has universal free image-sharing.--YbborT 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The site to which you have linked has been "temporarily closed down." Also, the picture has a subtle advertisement in it. Note the tennis ball logo. Tennis expert 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)