Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records/Archive 1

Should this article be deleted?

It seems this is just a rehash of another article on wiki, Tennis statistics. Should we dump this article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have always been pro-split given that Tennis statistics is so long  Francium12  10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, this article should be updated sometimes. Kim Clijsters' November 2009 US Open victory is missing there. Didn't check, but then probably the 2010 Australian Open is also missing...82.141.95.126 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me to delete article, the other one is different, links to this at higher level - Jamie Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.160.14 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Osborne_duPont#Mixed_doubles gives the subject 9 US Mixed doubles slams so according to that she should be the record on here not Court. Please verify. Jamie Fox, no account

I looked at it and from what I can see you are correct. I have changed it to reflect Ms DuPont is the record holder. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Grand slam champions who saved match points (from 2000) here. It is not too big and would make a new section that fits in with the rest of the information found here. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen

Suzanne Lenglen of France actually had 12, not 8 "Grand Slam" singles titles.

http://tennis-champions.findthedata.org/q/19/1987/How-many-grand-slam-titles-has-Suzanne-Lenglen-won

Ryoung122 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WHERE IS SAMPRAS, AGASSI, NADAL, CONNORS, LENDL, ETC ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.80.129 (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Most wins on any given grand slam?

With Nadal being the record holder for men / single (8 FO wins) I was wondering if it was worth adding a section for 'Most wins on any given grand slam' or maybe add a column to an existing table like 'Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.1.16 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

@83.38.98.127: As for this edit, can you link to the MOS you refer to? Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what the MOS is? It's the manual of style. Everyone who edits should be familiar with it. It defines basic standards and formats for articles. You should also be familiar with the requirement to explain yourself when reverting. Merely saying "I reverted" is not helpful to anyone, and will only ever cause annoyance.

The MOS says that the title of the article should be in bold face in the lead section of the article. The article title, in this case, is "List of Grand Slam related tennis records". But the text in bold was "Grand Slam tournaments". Why did you want that text in bold?

The MOS also says that the lead section serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The fact that grand slam tournaments are also known as majors does not seem at all relevant to an article about the records set in these tournaments. Why did you want to mention it in this article? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to be condescending, of course I know what the MOS is. Please be respectful and simply link to the MOS guideline I asked for. That is a far more effective way to improve Wikipedia. See the list of five pillars on your talk page, in particular the fourth. Fair enough about asking me for a good edit summary, I'll be better with that next time. Remember that yourself too when editing. The text I bolded is part of the title and can be bolded by MOS:BOLDTITLE, although 'records' would probably need to be included. In tennis, 'Majors' is often used synonymous to 'Grand Slam', and mentioning that may help clarify the article topic better to certain readers. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me to "link to the MOS you refer to", that sounds like you don't know what the MOS is. Hence, I told you what it was.

"In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear."

Indeed the term is synonymous, but that's mentioned in Grand slam so the link can help to clarify the article topic if anyone reading it doesn't know what is meant by a grand slam. Do you think anyone is likely to search for "major related tennis records" or similar? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I never call them anything but Majors, as it's been for 80 years....so I might search for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Then one could argue for a redirect to be created, if there isn't already one. But how is the nomenclature of the tournaments actually relevant to the list of Grand Slam related records? 83.38.98.127 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mixed doubles

With the same gender Doubles it's 4 titles per team and it's 4 titles per player but in the Mixed Doubles it's 3 titles per team and titles per player is undefined. Why is the titles per player undefined in the Mixed doubles? Mobile mundo (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done It was strange so I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing wheelchair results

This article does not include any records relating to Wheelchair Tennis divisions at any of the the Slams. Wheelchair Tennis has been an official open event at all the slams for over a decade. These players play world-wide throughout the year on a professional tour for purse money and earn ranking points in a system run by the ITF. They earn a living as pros like fully able-bodied pros and play at an elite level of their sport.

The comment was made by one contributor who erased my reference to Wheelchair Tennis that "The main events are implied" and that similarly this article does not include seniors/legends/champions tournaments or juniors. Juniors are amateurs and do not play for prize money. "Champions" or "legends" competitions don't play an "open" event. They play invitationals intended purely for entertainment and do not purport to be a competition based on some kind of objective draw of the world's best talent. Even the use of the term "main" events is descriptive and is always in the eye of the beholder. Wiki articles are intended to be factual. Including Wheelchair tennis in this article would include all open professional events at the majors. Also the use of "main events" is self perpetuating. Events become "main events" when they are covered in various media and people become aware that they are worthy of being watched. It is this continued omission of wheelchair tennis from media that self perpetuates the absence of knowledge about the sport.

It is now 10 years after all the majors themselves have included the Wheelchair divisions in their tournaments. At the 2017 US Open, two wheelchair events were played on Arthur Ashe Stadium. It is time to be as inclusive as are the majors themselves. If you are skeptical you have probably never seen a wheelchair tennis match at this level or likely misunderstand what the nature of this competition is. Wheelchair tennis competition is as much tennis as is a Roger vs. Rafa final. Skeptics should see players like 2017 US Open Men's Singles Champion, Stephane Houdet, play. His serve has been clocked at 100 mph from his chair in match play (even though from his chair he gives away at least 2.5 feet in height to the average standing male player). I invite you to see a snippet from a men's doubles match at 2015 Wimbledon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_qGTS1gDs

As it is, some noteworthy records of wheelchair tennis players are omitted that surely some readers would want to know: e.g., Esther Vergeer, holds 21 Grand Slam Women's Wheelchair Singles Titles. She was undefeated for about 10 years. If it were in the same article, readers can easily compare stats side by side (and draw their own conclusions). They could notice that Vergeer had more singles slam wins than Steffie Graf. Similarly, Stephane Houdet won the 2017 US Open at age 46y 7m. I presume that some readers interested in researching records in tennis would want to know that and compare him to the oldest Men Singles winner, Arthur Gore, the 1909 Winner of Wimbledon at 41y, 6m.

One note about comparisons: When we list champions, we use categories because they are usually descriptive and helpful. We separate out Men and Women in tennis. When we list boxing champions, we list them by weight division. We don't compare apples and oranges nor do we say we only include the "main" weight classes and decide that for the reader. We recognize that there are different abilities and capacities based on various factors -- in boxing divisions are by weight. When Floyd Mayweather, Jr. was a lightweight champion, no one said, "yeah but he can't beat John Ruiz or Lamon Brewster" who were heavyweight champions at the same same time. We recognized Mayweather and still do for his greatness in his weight categories. Nor do we only list male tennis players with the assumption that the best man of a given year could beat the best woman of the same year. We don't ask realistically pit Serena Williams against Roger Federer. It is an irrelevant question. They don't have the same genes - they are of different sexes. As a woman Serena does not have the testosterone that builds men's muscles to be generally stronger than women's. The comparison is neither relevant nor helpful.

The history of tennis is littered with inequality and bias. We all have some and hopefully grow in the process. Wikipedia's job is to provide reportorial objectivity. If we eliminate an entire category of tennis which is in the record books at these Opens, we fail to properly fulfill this mission. Tennis is more inclusive that this this article reflects and tennis continues to evolve...as should this article. I am happy to do the necessary work which is easily documented from a combination of the ITF Wheelchair Tennis website and from the majors themselves. ARichster (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be a wheelchair set of records also. However, their article weight is much smaller than men's and womens singles and doubles. But they are far more important than seniors/legends/juniors. I transcluded the text from our wheelchair champions article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wheelchair records

Could someone please delete Paralympics are Masters from the Wheelchair records section as they are not Grand Slam events? Mobile mundo (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fixed as requested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flags

Why are there nazi flags next to some German (pre war) players? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao1968 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That was the flag they played under at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove the First-round losses section

I suggest we remove the Fewest career first-round losses section. It's of minor significance and seems kind of strange compared to the other items on this page. Plus it's somewhat skewed given that there were lots of byes in older generations of events. -Testpored2 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? If not I'll remove it. -Testpored2 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. Is is minor, yes. But no more so than participation... who cares about that? Or winning a title after saving match point? The chart has a pretty small footprint too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that those aren't that important either. But the Saving match point is appropriate after the other two "Won a title..." sections, and Participation is part of the other singles records pages. The first round section just seems like an outlier to me. -Testpored2 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Unisex tables.... really?

Some of these tables were getting way out of hand. We have mens and womens tables right next to each other we certainly don't need overkill unisex tables. The press or sources don't report stats that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. --Wolbo (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since?

A fair number of these records are incredibly old (LONG standing records)... Dare we add a "since" column? (given the combined tables; one for men and one for women). Date of record achievement?
I am able to do the work, but wanted to ask before being THAT bold... Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Career title leaders timeline

The men’s total is in my opinion een mass. Till French Open 2019 a player has to more titles than the previous holder. Now the definition a tie from 1999. Before 1999 a player has more titles. There are 3 options 1 to continue this mass 2 change it back to the previous definition. This means deleting Nadal & Djokovic. Change Sampras back to 2000. 3 changing the full table with ties. This means the woman’s table has also to change. Is we chose this definition.

My choice is option 2.

--Micnl (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NP Accuracy

There are many players here with a dubious to impossible 0-0 for wins-finals in listed Majors rather than a NP. Now the NP is useful to help clarify who went to what and there are some surprises (Brooke's at FO in 1928 perhaps) so the idea and detail is useful but it gets problematic when it is not clear. While it would be great if someone checked this off to determine the definite state it may be preferable if it is not clear to say so. Antipodenz (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "NP" means that the player never contested in the tournament/event, while "0-0" eans it played it, but never reached the final. So, nothing dubious or impossible here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I get the definition and your confidence which indicates a lot of checking has already been undertaken. When I refer to impossible it is aligned to periods when, for example, their active tennis years preceded the AO but are recorded as 0-0 and where their attendance for similar reasons at the FO and/or slim chance they qualified as a member of a French Club at this tournament make it dubious they entered and competed in it. Examples of these that have 0-0 recorded for the. AO and FO include: Reginald Doherty, Robert Wren, Arthur Gore, Wilfred Baddeley, Henry Slocum, Joshua Pim. Antipodenz (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Name correction

Tony Wilding is listed under the 5 titles for doubles table. While he has been known by that shortened version of his first name he was far more consistently known as Anthony Wilding e.g unique references in NZ papers for those (full) names to approx 1950 (comprehensive but not complete): Anthony 4,972; Tony 125. It has caused some confusion previously - recommend change to Anthony. Antipodenz (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Won title at first appearance (in main draw)

This looks to be very limited including only first year achieved of 1956 - is it intended to have a since ...? or does it need more research and adding names? Antipodenz (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is woefully incomplete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's that bad it should be removed as an published aspect of the article. Antipodenz (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Mabel Cahill

Two issue she: 1. She is listed under two flags for the same period, firstly U.K. Flag in section for Women title records for each tournament and the St Patrick's Saltaire (proxy flag for Ireland pre independent) for the triple crown achievement. Now both could be relevant but in this case I consider it best to refer to her personal Wikipedia page to determine this which shows the UK flag. 2. The triple champion list has this achievement for Cahill in both 1891 and 1892 but I understand the mixed doubles only started in 1892. So that would mean she is only a one time triple crown attainee. Antipodenz (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To add further to the triple crown issue. Cahill did play in and win the mixed doubles in 1891 but it was not an official part of the US National Championships and thus cannot be accorded a Championship title (she wasn't but the fact that the game was played has caused confusion). That means she should only be recorded as winning one triple crown, however it appears to me that the significance of this feat is not made clear. As this (1892) was the first triple crown for any of these tournaments, both for men and women, it would be approapriate to state this in the introductory text. Antipodenz (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Australasian Championships

The AO was officially known as the Australasian Championships until 1926 (Australian Championships from 1927); accordingly when referring to periods that included or were specific to pre-1927 the proper term should be used. Examples include at Most wins per event (where multiple titles are recognised but not Australasian Championships) and for the Championships won in the triple crown achievements of Daphne Akhurst Cozens (1925) and Jack Hawkes (1926). Antipodenz (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Won title at final appearance

This set is described as being for players who, after their last Grand Slam tournament, retire but it includes a number of players who did not retire but went on to play in professional tournaments. Antipodenz (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right. I have reverted a bad edit [1] from December. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Most wins per event

When different disciplines and/or disciplines for women are added to the tournament as part of the official programme the relevant year should be recorded e.g. 1892 for Mixed Doubles in the US Open. This helps make clear the opportunity (or not) various players had in being able to pursue titles and/or multiple titles. Antipodenz (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Most titles - Frank Sedgeman

Franks achievement of 22 titles is featured twice in this table Antipodenz (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. A bad row was added in [2]. I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

please Change 21 to rafa nadal. 216.73.160.165 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)