Talk:Glossary of tennis terms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request[edit]

I want to add a new term - 'Donut' for 6 - 0. However I don't have a good book reference to use. Is it OK to reference a reputable website instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbirch99 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who knows his Tennis add and explain walk-over on this page? Nixdorf 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did so. Maybe it could be edited; I'm not feeling very eloquent today. -- Mikeblas 23:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "retired/retiring" is not explained. I think it refers to when a player pulls out due to injury. Can someone put the term in? 69.209.193.24 04:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye -- I have changed 'overall' to 'overrule' the call. Surely this makes the only sense, but change it if not. Trevor H. (UK) 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

The definition of winner refers to a forcing shot, but there is no definition of forcing shot. Could someone please explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRF8771 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wictionary[edit]

Shouldn't all of these be moved to the Wictionary, BTW? -- Mikeblas 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) "Buggy Whip – nhahahididi lilt bon the opposite side but rather goes from low to high and finishes on the same side (similar to the driver of a horse drawn carriage whipping a horse)." What the hell is this? Can someone clean that please. Im a noob and dont know how to - Tiwaking at some time[reply]

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

helpful article![edit]

I know nothing about tennis and am in the midst of reading David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest. Just quickly glancing over this list of tennis terms has made a number of things from that book much clearer to me. Thank you to the contributors who put this together! -Zefryl (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let[edit]

I don't think there needs to be two definitions. I think they can be merged, and I think the definition is broader than them both. For example, right now (September 4, 2010) at the US Open, it is very windy, and a napkin flew across the court during the match between Sharapova and Capra. The chair umpire called a let, because it would have been a distraction to either player, and they replayed the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercillo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between half-volley and groundstroke[edit]

It isn't clear from this glossary (nor from the respective articles) exactly what the difference is (if any) between a half-volley and a groundstroke. It would be good to clarify this. 86.181.201.14 (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flat[edit]

I have, I thought, seen a "flat" shot explained by commentators as being one that goes low over the net (i.e. has a flat trajectory). This glossary says it is a shot with no spin. I am confused in my mind about which is the primary meaning. Are shots with no spin are called "flat" because they have a flat trajectory? Are there other types of shot (e.g. hit very hard) that also have a flat trajectory and hence can be called "flat"? Are there two different meanings of "flat" here that can overlap, or just one meaning? 81.159.111.3 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACE!![edit]

ace: Serve where the tennis ball is served in and not touched by the receiver. Aces are usually powerful and generally land on or near one of the corners at the back of the service box

  • Should we or not add "or when the receiver touches it but cannot return it over the net"?...cause Ive seen several cases like THAT called an ace on American television, at least. I don't know, maybe someone can clarify this for me wether we should or shouldn't. Antonio Ace Ventura Martin dimelo por aca 10:15, 13 December, 2012 (UTC)

Bundling off[edit]

Bundling off - feeding balls haplessly to another person until basket is empty in repetition until a class is over, and then saying "10 crowns each minute please".

In Thomas Berdych speech:

" Men then realize that they are closer to the end than the beginning of their careers. Therefore, returning back to the first phase. One can say one day comes to an end, what will I do? What will happen when I finish? What next? I have earned enough? I have to do something else? But when I have hobbies, interest and scheduled life a little more or less these things do not care. Then you still enjoying tennis. It's easier than if one sat like a lump, and one day would end. The full truth is not my dream, If I went after the career somewhere with basket bundling off balls. It would be really boring for a child."

New entries[edit]

I am unsure how to add

Premier - a category of WTA tournament--Billymac00 (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rebound ace - a cushioned hardcourt surface

serving wide[edit]

The below-cited Wimbledon.com source, unilaterally deleted by the 'Oknazevad' person who has offered no source, very clearly indicates that 'serving wide' means serving outside the sidelines, i.e.:

- wide-left of the deuce box and

- wide-right of the ad box.


That source is Hodgkinson, Mark, Five Things You May Not Know About Federer's Game, published 2016 June 10, accessed 2016 Nov 15, specifically the first section, 'Federer ... During His Service Games', especially the two court diagrams.


The 'Oknazevad' person so far has insisted on destroying that citation and the related proposed article text, both of which were carefully prepared.


To 'Oknazevad' and any other readers and editors:


1. Consider instead choosing a

constructive, increment-inviting approach: leaving the supported text in the article and adding a tag seeking further support. That would contrast sharply with the current

destructive, increment-blocking approach of deleting the text-and-support on a topic that is necessary for an encyclopedia.

Or, consider stating simply that at least this Wimbledon.com author Hodgkinson uses 'wide' to mean outside the sidelines.

Or, perhaps you can start to be constructive & increment-inviting for Wikipedia in some other creative way that you can suggest.

It makes you feel good to say No, but it would be infinitely better for Wikipedia for you to start to be constructive & increment-inviting, using that Wimbledon.com article.


2. Interpreting a cited source is fine according to the Verifiability Policy, but you claim in your edit summary that there is so much interpretation required here that you are justified in your destructive, increment-blocking approach. Yet the interpretation is very clear and easy, and was already spelled out: the Wimbledon.com article's two court diagrams analyze 100% of the 2016 Wimbledon serves of e.g. Federer, Djokovic, and Murray, and clearly indicate that 'wide' is:

- - only serves other than serves in the main area of the court (i.e.

- - only serves other than 'to the body' and 'down the T', as stated in the article).


3. You argue that 'wide' is 'just [the] common adverb' 'wide'. That seems wrong, as was previously explained in the deleted, proposed article text, because the Wimbledon.com article clearly excludes from the phrase 'serving wide' the following common-language phrases:

- - wide-right of the deuce box and

- - wide-left of the ad box.


4. On a related point, you also refer in your edit summary to 'differing uses' of 'wide' indicating to you that 'wide' can only be a common-language meaning. Maybe you can detail that here, precisely and fully, or maybe forego that, because the cited Wimbledon.com article gives a very clear definition of 'wide' that is tennis-language-specific because it excludes common-language meanings (e.g. wide-left of the ad box).

Bo99 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The point, which you seem to be ignoring despite the fact that I've stated my case twice, is that it's not a separate technical term that needs an entry. I didn't propose a replacement source, not a replacement text, because neither are needed at all. It's just stating the serve landed wide of the court lines. It doesn't need an entry at all. I think you're hung up on trying to define as technical a phrasing that is not such. oknazevad (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC) PS: refering to me as "this oknazevad person" is rude. If you want to address me , address me. Otherwise don't bother using my name. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, my '4' above refuted that point by you already: a definition entry is clearly needed because the cited Wimbledon.com article gives a very clear definition of 'wide' that is tennis-language-specific because it excludes common-language meanings, e.g. excludes wide-left of the ad box. Bo99 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. Indeed, that's exactly what it reads as, reading into a source something that is not in the source. There's nothing tennis-specific about using the word "wide" to mean "away from the center". Also, please stop adding pointless extra spacing on talk pages. Indentation is all that is needed. oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't make any changes to the talk entries of others; if you want me to spoonfeed the relevant Wikipedia principles to you i will. The point of the spacing was missed by you.
No. It's tennis-specific to use the word 'wide' to exclude wide-left of the ad box. In other words, wide-left of the ad box is wide in common language but not wide in tennis language.
No. You are prohibited by the Verifiability Policy from simply stating that you claim to disagree with my reading of the source. You have to specifically analyze my '2' above.
Bo99 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what was the point of spacing that doesn't actually appear on the page again?
As for the substance of the claim, I read your interpretation and found it wanting. The verifiability policy also requires you to make your case. Reading one source one way is insufficient. The way I see it is you're generalizing from the one analysis as being valid for all tennis, while it seems to me to ne that one article giving a framework to its data for that specific analysis, not a general term. But clearly we are not going to agree on the reading, so let's see what others have to say. Any of the other project regulars around that want to add their 2¢? oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my case in detail, e.g. wide-left of the ad box is wide in common language but not wide in tennis language, so the tennis definition is needed in Wikipedia, and i have given you the definition and a reliable source for it. You yet again refuse to state your supposed analysis of my '2' far above; you are violating the Wikipedia policy, 'Once an editor [i.e. me, Bo] has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor [i.e. you] who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems'. the Verifiability Policy (emphasis added). If you were to give the required specifics for the first time, then we would indeed reach agreement or equivalent result, because you have no valid reasoning supporting you, which is why you withhold the specifics. Also, you yet again ignore the creative alternatives i offered you in my '1' far above, which would allow you to exit without providing specifics; you are violating the duty to be constructive. You are damaging Wikipedia and yourself. Bo99 (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just refuse to read what I wrote. You have provided one source. You have provided no proof that the exclusion of certain uses you keep pointing at is in fact how it's done in all tennis usage, not just limited to this one article where the authors made a choice to have a clear analysis-specific use for consistency within the article, a common practice in data analysis. In other words, we need more than one source, or a source that itself is a glossary or similar, to show that it is more widespread than one article to limit the meaning the way you claim. oknazevad (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are violating Wikipedia. Only one source is needed: 'verifiability means ... a reliable source'; Verifiability Policy, with italics added around the 'a'; infinite numbers of sources are possible, but only one is required.
I have spoonfed the source to you.
I have done searches of the sources and of the tennis industry, and all agree with the source spoonfed to you:
Serving wide has tennis-specific meaning, and that meaning is clearly shown in the article as only serves outside the sidelines, not wide of the box but into the body of the court.
You have done nothing other than generally-prohibited original analysis.
I recall you have never quoted from the reliable source spoonfed to you; you have never shown that you understand its three clear categories, wide, to-the-body, and down-the-T, and how wide-but-into-the-court-body is clearly, paradoxically, not wide, and is instead clearly down-the-T.
You have never done the Wikipedia-required analysis, using quotations, of my '1' or '2' far above, which even allow you to exit with a compromise that posts the reliable source but questions it and asks for more sources -- that's the way to construct.
You have never described any search or inquiry you could have done.
Stop harming Wikipedia and yourself. Start being constructive.
I will even give you contact info for the Wimbledon source, if you indicate willingness to start to do something useful to Wikipedia, and then you can try to get from them or anyone some additional reliable sources to post.
You are much more harmful to Wikipedia than you realize: not only are you engaging in erroneous, destructive, beneficial-increment-blocking behavior on this tennis matter, but you disincentive all people from making constructive, broad additions to Wikipedia generally, because of your type of destructiveness.
Bo99 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one proposing an addition. It is your burden to prove your point. Your attempts have failed. Just like other past attempts to force your edits and make it about the person not the content. I am harming myself?!? What nonsense. I'm done with this line of conversation because you clearly lack the competence to argue your point, and your grasp of the English language is poor. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously you are not proposing the addition, but you have already been spoonfed above that there is a special burden on you: 'Once an editor [i.e. me, Bo] has provided any source ... in good faith ..., then any editor [i.e. you] who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems ... [using] direct quotes and other relevant details from the source... .' the Verifiability Policy (italics added).
You don't dispute with specificity any of my points, against your position, in my posting immediately above.
You state you have run away now. Why? -- I have given you various excellent alternatives in my posting immediately above. You refuse all of them.
You run because you are wrong.
Bo99 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I walk away because I have explained why your reading is incorrect and incompetent and you refuse to listen. After nearly 50,000 edits I think I know what I'm doing here. oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lie or deceive. You stated above that you were done here, yet here you are. Perhaps readers can start to believe you if you state the same thing a 3rd time or 33rd time.
Don't claim quality because of your claimed quantity.
Don't run. Finally start to meet the burden put on you by Wikipedia policy: articulate specific problems in full, using direct quotes and other relevant details, in full, and finally using the substantive vocabulary: wide, to-the-body, and down-the-T, and also wide-but-into-the-court-body (which is clearly, paradoxically, not wide, and is instead clearly down-the-T per the Wimbledon source). You have to spell out each link of your supposed argument, in full, before it can be dissected.
Do your first search on the topic.
Do let me get you in touch with the Wimbledon source, so that you can post a second or third source.
Do start to quote from the article in detail and show in detail that you understand the relevant points.
Do consider the graceful exit i allowed you: posting the reliable source but tagging it, questioning it, and asking for the posting of contrary sources -- that's the way to construct.
Do your first useful thing on this matter, not generally-prohibited original analysis and damage to Wikipedia and to your Wikipedia profile.
Bo99 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion. It is a construction / compound of plain English and not genre specific and that Wimbledon website doesn't prove any deviance from plain speaking.

The Glossary needn't be bloated with normal words that mean the same everywhere. Otherwise e might as well have "tennis ball" and tennis shorts" and tennis dress and so on and so forth. The list will be endless.

As a compromise solution I suggest expanding the already existing "Wide" entry to be specified that with regard to serves it means wide on either sides of the service box. L 14:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New terms[edit]

I've added the following new terms to this glossary, found mostly in Wiktionary's tennis category wikt:Category:en:Tennis:

all-courter, ad in, ad out, American doubles, ATP Tour, Australian doubles, backboard, ball machine, banana shot, Billie Jean King Cup, Canadian doubles, chair umpire, Champions tiebreak, claycourter, cut-throat tennis, double break point, double break, double-handed backhand, doubles net, drive, game, set, match, grasscourter, hardcourter, Hawk-Eye Live, junkballer, long, love game, masters, one-handed backhand, order of play, point penalty, pull the trigger, run around the ball, serve-and-volleyer, serve out, shallow, single-handed backhand, singles net, skyhook, stringbed, two-handed bachand, wood shot, wrong-foot, WTA Tour.

Please review and improve these new definitions, and remove those that aren't helpful. Letcord (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Infinite numbers”[edit]

I wanted to proactively apologize for my overly-strident and technically-incorrect edit summary,

(→‎L: ‪usage quibble: there’s no such thing as an “infinite number”; it’s an “unlimited number”)

for this edit.

Yet I still stand by the edit itself.

If you’re into higher math, you may know there are such things as infinite numbers (a.k.a. transfinite numbers). But they’re abstract concepts in the branch of mathematics called set theory; in a real-world, counting usage—such as the number of serves in a tennis match—a count cannot be infinite. So unlimited is the better word choice here.

(To get into really pedantic semantics, the word arbitrary is most correct in a mathematical sense, because there are limits on the serve count: the heat death of the universe, the lifespan of the player, or—rather more likely—the player’s physiology or patience. But the word arbitrary’s mathematical sense is even further-divorced from its everyday meaning than the words infinite and unlimited.) TreyHarris (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_tennis_terms&oldid=1219857519"