Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archive 1

Definition of "winning the Grand Slam"[edit]

I know it has been discussed before and people have strong views on either side, but for Wikipedia's purposes whether or not "winning the Grand Slam" in tennis requires that all four consecutive wins be in the same year or not has to be verified by a reliable source. The article quotes an item from People on June 25, 1984 that reports that "in 1982 the ITF redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years". The article then claims without a source that "today it is once again winning all 4 slams in a single calendar year". Unless a source citing an ITF reversal of the 1982 decision can be found, then the Wikipedia page cannot legitimately make that claim.

I checked the ITF website and found nothing that offered a clear definition of what "winning the Grand Slam" means. The best information I could find was on this page: http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp. It uses the phrase "pure Grand Slam" (see 1970) and "pure 'Open' Grand Slam" (see 1969) when talking about winning all four in the same calendar year. But if "Grand Slam" meant only doing it in one year, adding the word "pure" would make no sense. Calling this a "pure" Grand Slam implies that there is some other sort of "Grand Slam" one could win. They also use the term "calendar year Grand Slam" (see 1988), which, again, implies that winning all four in the same calendar year is only one type of Grand Slam. This does not constitute a citable source for the claim that the ITF still considers it a "Grand Slam" when the four consecutive wins come in two different years, but it strongly suggests that it is the case. It certainly supports the People article claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on someone who wants to claim that the ITF did reverse their definition change. If such a reverse happened, then there should be a source that reports that it happened. Without such a source, it appears that the official ITF definition of "winning the Grand Slam" allows it to include cases where the four consecutive wins span two years. 99.192.82.144 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: The reason that the source for the definition of "winning the Grand Slam" has to directly or indirectly (as with the People item) come from the ITF and not some other source is because, as they state on the ITF website, "Grand Slam® is a registered trademark of the ITF." So since the ITF literally owns the term "Grand Slam", its real definition is whatever they say it is, no matter how many other people say otherwise. It would be fair for this Wikipedia article to say something like this: "Even though the ITF defines 'winning the Grand Slam' as winning the four Grand Slam tournaments consecutively regardless of year, many tennis players, journalists and fans still use the term to mean winning the four Grand Slam tournaments in the same calendar year only." Of course, such a claim would have to have a source to support it before it could be included, but that should not be too hard to find (if the claim is true).99.192.82.144 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If the ITF owns the name Grand Slam, it has allowed it to be devalued more than you suggest. This year's Australian Open was officially marketed as The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific. (Look at that link.) The Australian marketers could hardly do that without the ITF's approval, so it is presumably allowing it to be used now to refer to a single event.
That is ridiculous. The term "Grand Slam" has been use for 70 years to be winning all 4 Major in a calendar year. ATP articles such as atpworldtour show that it has been won 3 times by men, twice by Laver. Winning all 4 majors in the same year is winning the "grand slam." Anything else is a cheapened version and must be paraphrased as such. There are a lot of things to be argued about in tennis but this is not one of them. Heck just this year World Tennis Magazine was talking about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Language is a funny thing: sometimes the term "Grand Slam event", referring to a single tournament (e.g. the French Open), is abbreviated to "Grand Slam". You know the sort of thing: "He's won the first 3 Grand Slams this year; now for that elusive 4th". Well, it's impossible to win more than 1 Grand Slam in a year, but quite possible to win more than 1 Grand Slam event, and that's obviously what they mean. Language is our servant, not our master. Unfortunately, when it comes to sporting terminology, language is a total victim of abuse, rape, murder, you name it, at the hands of sporting journalists. It should never have been necessary to start talking about "calendar Grand Slams", as that relegates the original Grand Slam to just one type out of many, all apparently of equal value. Well, they're NOT all of equal value. It's a great thing to win 4 in a row spanning two years, but that will still never have the status of winning all 4 in the same year. All the other types can have their qualifying adjectives, but leave the original one alone - it's "Grand Slam", pure and simple. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Fyunck: "The term "Grand Slam" has been use for 70 years to be winning all 4 Major in a calendar year." You have given no source to back up this claim. The People article already cited on the Wikipedia page proves that your claim is wrong. The ITF, who literally own the term "Grand Slam" have not used the term the way you say for 70 years. Also, pointing out that the ATP site says that "it has been won 3 times by men, twice by Laver" does nothing to settle the issue since the only three times men have won all 4 in a row regardless of calendar year have all been cases where they won 4 in a row in the same calendar year. In other words, the ATP's claim about how often men's singles players have won the Grand Slam is consistent with both the claim that it must be done in one calendar year and the claim that it can be done over two years. You still need a credible ITF source saying that they reversed their decision to count cases where the 4 events are won over 2 years or else the article cannot source a claim that the original meaning of "Grand Slam" is the same as the meaning over the last 28 years.99.192.65.51 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Fyunck is right about the original definition. The absence of any source at this stage doesn't make him wrong. But I do acknowledge that the meaning has now, sadly, changed. Call it OR if you like, but back in the 1950s I was a brainwashed kid in a tennis mad Australian family, and there was no doubt that a Grand Slam meant only one thing - all four in one year. Sports journalists (see Jack's polite description of their activities above) felt it necessary to invent more "Grand Slams" over the decades after that so that they could write with more apparent excitement. It's sad that it's the Australian event that's now displaying the worst of the modern corruption of the word. Anyway, re that missing source, I reckon we could find something in Australian newspaper archives from the 1950s and 60s, most especially around the time of Laver's two Grand Slams. May try to see what I can find. HiLo48 (talk)

interjection 2012-05-10 HiLo48 or another formerly mad Australian may have valuable input at #Dating 1977 and 1985, re the flip-flop from beginning to end to beginning-of-calendar-year schedule for the Australian Open. --P64 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think you missed the point here. No one (at least no me, anyway) is contesting the claim that "winning the Grand Slam" originally meant winning all four tournaments in the same calendar year. It is indisputable that this is the case. What I have disputed is the claim that this is still what it means today. We have a source that confirms that in 1982 the ITF changed the definition. Since the term is trademarked by them, that carries definitive weight. So if you find a source from an Australian newspaper in 1969 that says otherwise it does not settle anything.
I should add that in my brief web searching for more sources on any official chages in the meaning of the term, I also found a column from 1984 by Paul Fein reprinted in his book Tennis Confidential. He strongly advocates the position that "winning the Grand Slam" should only apply to winning all four in the same calendar year, but he also reports that the Men's International Professional Tennis Council voted in 1982 to also change the definition of "Grand Slam" to mean any four in a row regardless of year. He adds that the British press also endorsed this change. So when it comes to the question of what does the term mean (and not what did it mean or what does one want it to mean) it seems more clear that it really does just mean any 4 in a row regardless of year.99.192.65.51 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. thanks for the clarification. I didn't pick up quite that message in your earlier words, but that may well be my sloppy reading. I certainly agree that the meaning has changed. I have a strong view that sporting administrative bodies don't have any absolute role in defining our language and telling us how we should use it, but the sports journalists and many of the fans have obviously spoken too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The ITF does not own the term Grand Slam. They own it as far as plopping on the 4 majors for license fees. As far as the press or tennis authorities are concerned winning the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in one year. Period. There was an ITF fight when navratilova won 4 in a row because it had never been formally written down in tennis legalize. But the definition has not changed. You seem to be new around here 99.192.65.51, might I ask if you are perhaps banned editor Tennis Expert? I just want to make sure I'm arguing with a legit editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No worries, HiLo48. I agree with you in general about administrative bodies defining language, but in the case of a technical term (like "deuce"), a trademarked term (like "Grand Slam"), or a name (like "Louis Armstrong Stadium") they do get the final say.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Fyunck: "The ITF does not own the term Grand Slam." Yes they do. It is a registered trademark, as their website notes and as I previously mentioned. "As far as the press or tennis authorities are concerned winning the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in one year. Period." No, not 'period'. You need a source that can be cited that says that. And it is not sufficient to find one source that uses the term that way, but a source that says that this is a generally accepted definition. Wikipedia requires sources, so without such a source, it cannot go in the article. "But the definition has not changed." Not according to two sources I have cited. You tried to cite one source (the ATP Laver page) but it says nothing to support your view. Without a source you have nothing that can be included in the article. "You seem to be new around here 99.192.65.51, might I ask if you are perhaps banned editor Tennis Expert?" I'm not new nor am I any banned editor. Please try to keep the discussion civil. Unfounded accusations like this are not productive.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a crazy waste of my time, like having to link that the sun is hot, but for peace of mind I'll do it. I said new because your ip has pretty much only a day or two's worth of edits. I asked about Tennis Expert because he shows up from time to time with the same sort of posts which must be reverted on sight, no exception. I apologize for asking, I just didn't want to go through all the linking when it would all be reverted again later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(1) Citing claims is not a waste of time when they are a source of controversy. The claim that the sun is hot is not in dispute by anyone, but the definition of "Grand Slam" clearly is. Comparing the two claims is absurd. (2) "...your ip has pretty much only a day or two's worth of edits". Yes. My ISP assigns a new IP address every time I go online. That's how they do it. That's how a lot of ISPs do it. The IP address at the end of this message will be different again, but not because I am doing anything to change it nor does it show that I am "new". (3) "I just didn't want to go through all the linking when it would all be reverted again later." I don't see why you think good citations should or would be reverted later. If the citations indisputably show that "Grand Slam" means winning all 4 in a calendar year, then they are worth keeping permanently. If you don't think that others will come along and question the claim when if it reverts to being uncited, then you don't understand that the term's definition is controversial. (4) I plan next to check the sources you cited to see if they really do support the calendar year claim, but I can already tell you that the first one - the Britannica citation - does not. It reports that Laver won the Grand Slam, which he did on either definition of "Grand Slam". The Britannica article says nothing to indicate that they take the term "Grand Slam" to mean 4 in a calendar year. So I will start by removing that citation for not supporting the claim made.99.192.84.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Finished. I removed a couple of references for not supporting the "in a single year" claim and reordered the 5 that did support the claim, putting the most authoritative ones first. I then made the same adjustment to the "List of..." page. I see no reason to remove any of the 5 citations (Wikipedia policy justifies over-citing where there is controversy), but the first two citations - the US Open site and the WTA site - are official enough sources and clear enough statements of the definition of "Grand Slam" that they might be enough without the other three citations - two newspapers and a website of indeterminate authorship. I mildly prefer leaving all 5 up, but if anyone feels strongly that 5 is too many, I'd suggest at least leaving the US Open site and WTA site as citations.99.192.84.58 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not previously noticed that the same list of citations was added to the section 3 header ("Grand Slam"). I just removed them (and the statement of definition of "Grand Slam" in the header) because they are redundant, given that the definition and relevant citations for it is in the opening paragraph.99.192.49.44 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

""in 1982 the ITF redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years". The article then claims without a source that "today it is once again winning all 4 slams in a single calendar year". Unless a source citing an ITF reversal of the 1982 decision can be found, then the Wikipedia page cannot legitimately make that claim."

-This is correct. At the moment fuynck reverted my edits to a version which lists incorrect reference - The reference says absolutely nothing about ITF reversing Grand Slam definition back to the original, does it?: http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/article-9312655/Martina-Navratilova

...On the contrary, according to the official ITF definition Grand Slam indeed is holding 4 majors at the same time, REGARDLESS whether it's achieved in 1 or 2 years: http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_46448_original.PDF (Page 54) The official definition should be presented early in the document, regardless of one's personal feelings about it. --Mrmarble (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The term Grand Slam was derived from American Baseball - not the ITF. For other than the sake of argument, why refer to the ITF definition when common sense should suffice. Tennis has a season and when one wins the four major tournaments within a season, one has earned a Grand Slam - a term derived from American Baseball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindSqrl (talkcontribs) 15:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I reworded it. The ITF is ambiguous in it's own document. And just because they own the marketing rights doesn't give them the right to change the long held definition. Pat Riley owns the term 3-peat but he can't now change the definition now that it's part of english vernacular. Overwhelming support is for a single calendar year and that's what should show in opening intros. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this version is little better. I disagree with you that the ITF *definition* is in any way ambiguos though. There are some corrections I'll make: "In 2010, the ITF Limited stated (in a "Roll of Honour" appended to its corporate documents)"

-The name of the document is not "Roll of Honour", and in my opinion speaking of "corporate" documents gives a slight biased tone...while the source is mentioned in references anyway. Also, using "Limited" - is not normally used in addition to ITF, nor in Wikipedia.

-I'll make these changes and hope we can end this edit war here. ...Although I DO believe that ITF definition should be mentioned in actual introduction of the term Grand Slam, in the beginning of the document...regardless it being controversial in common use--Mrmarble (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The document says ITF Limited but I'll not argue it. It is very ambiguous as people have pointed out to you in rec.sport.tennis, but again I'll not argue it. You notice how they ignore Steffi Graf's supposed grand slam in 1994? and they put the other bogus grand slams under notes? Because the ITF would love to take back their error without losing face. I took out your somewhat controversial and my very controversial and left simply "controversial." The fact they ignored Serena and Steffi I left in.

"The document says ITF Limited but I'll not argue it. It is very ambiguous as people have pointed out to you in rec.sport.tennis,"

-Leave fanboy infested non-moderated discussion groups out of Wikdipedia discussion, thank you.

"You notice how they ignore Steffi Graf's supposed grand slam in 1994?"

-But they don't do that for Navratilova or Serena... Maybe you should inform ITF about their mistake?

-Also I removed your claim of controversy in 1984 about Navratilova's slam as false. There have been multiple calls for citations in the past and still no one have came up with a reference. The only reference I can find about the subject is the first Grand Slam winner Don Budge commenting on Navratilova's achievement, clearly drawing parallel between his Calendar Slam and Navratilova's Non-Calendar one. http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20088137,00.html

-Also I wonder why you removed ITF definition from the header of the Wiki article after leaving it there in your previous version. The correct place for such definition should be in the beginning of this article.

-The quality of this article is quite low imo...how many time is "Calendar" meantioned... Listen: Grand Slam is BOTH Calendar and Non-Calendar Slams...otherwise there wouldn't even be use for the latter term.--Mrmarble (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is it's ambiguous. And you had agreed that it would not be in the header in your last post even though you wanted it there. I have never left it in except in a complete self revert while I thought of a better way to tackle this. Understand this: The Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in the same year. Because of Martina and now others the term non-calendar grand slam and now also career grand slam have entered the vernacular. This is sourced multiple times in the article. If you want to make this huge change to the article, put it back to normal and call for opinions here instead of forcing it through. You haven't posted a lot here but the general policy is boldly make a change but if there is a revert you should bring it up in talk and try to gain consensus for that change. I'll look at it again and see if there is some compromise room on placement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"The phrase 'grand slam' has recently been applied to refer to a Major tournament."[edit]

I changed this sentence and provided a source that shows that Jimmy Connors used the term this way in 1974, Ivan Lendl in 1984, the New York Times in 1994, and Venus Williams in 2000. It's not "recent". Reverting this with no explanation or counter-source offered is not constructive.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova, women's doubles Grand Slam, 1986[edit]

Martina Navratilova could not possibly have won the Grand Slam for women's doubles in 1986 because the Australian Open was not played in 1986. The listing on the page notes that it was not played that year and also notes that Navratilova won it in December 1985 and again in January 1987. That's all well and good for counting the number of consecutive Grand Slam tournaments won regardless of year, but "The Grand Slam" requires that they all be in the same calendar year, so she did not do it in 1986. The situation is much like her achievement in 1985, where she won all three Grand Slam tournaments that had mixed doubles competitions but did not win the Australian Open mixed doubles because there was none.

It is also similar to the her run of four Grand Slam singles titles in a row from December 1983 to September 1984. Every winner of the Grand Slam in singles has won four in a row from January-September, winning the Australian first and the US Open last. Navratilova also won four in a row starting with the Australian and ending with the US Open, but the fact that Navratilova's Australian open came one month earlier, pushing it across the calendar line, means she did not win the Grand Slam. Similarly, the December 1985 Australian doubles came a month too early to count toward a 1986 Grand Slam and the 1987 Australian doubles came a month too late.

As far as I can tell, the Martina Navratilova page correctly reports that she won the doubles Grand Slam in 1984, but (also correctly) it does not claim that she won the doubles Grand Slam in 1986. This page should be changed to remove that claim. It should be placed as a "note" at the end of the section explaining why it was an impossible feat, just as there is a "note" doing the same about the 1985 mixed doubles.99.192.49.44 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I just tweaked the format of the notes at the end of both the doubles and mixed doubles sections. Taking away the bullet point and putting the note in parentheses makes it visually clear (I hope) that these are not cases of winning the Grand Slam. If you or anyone else does not like these changes, feel free to tweak further.99.192.71.70 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks better your way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-calendar year Grand Slam (four consecutive majors spanning two years)[edit]

Fuynck: You can not make multiple Grand Slams out of one streak, it is logically incorrect: You are quoting same majors twice. One example why this is wrong would be Nadal's clay streak, using your logic Nadal's records would be: All time clay streak of 81 matches, All time clay streak of 80 matches, All time clay streak of 79 matches etc...

Also, it's a custom in tennis world that if a player achieves Non-Calendar Slam but continues it further to a Calendar Slam...the Non-Calendar Slam will not be mentioned separately. Also, logically, again, you would be using same majors twice. There's a different section in the article where Calendar Slams are listed and thus they should not be listed again as Non-Calendar Slams under this particular section...not to mention logical fallacy I pointed out above. --Mrmarble (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. If a non-calendar slam is achieved when players win all four majors in a row at any time then certainly it should be listed here. Whether there should be multiple listings for continued streaks I leave to others here to decide. And this is not a baseball streak...if someones wins 8 majors in a row starting with the Aussie Open they will have won two Grand Slams, not one long Grand Slam. Don Budge won a non-calendar slam but he more importantly won the Grand Slam. Both must be listed in their separate sections. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
We could also leave them out but make mention of the fact in the non-calendar slam header that Budge, Connolly, Court and Graf also won non-calendar slams but since they won the Grand Slam it is listed in that section only. If we do that then Martina's blurb should say the same as the rest and not mention her 6 in a row. Just a thought at an alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the CYGS and NCYGS should be listed separately...in the latest provision I find it hard to figure out quickly who did and what without doing a lengthy comparison between the two paragraphs(Calendar/Non calendar)...Not ideal for readers imo. "Martina's blurb"...Why not keep it, it's interesting info without looking at references? Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam shouldn't be mentioned at all if a player made a Calendar Slam during same streak - that leads to double counting of majors from same streak, we'd be complimenting players with extra Grand Slams(+the reader confusion). This means that Non-calendar section will be left as it was originally (Graf's 93-94, Navratilova and Serena). (btw: liked your link about Martina slam controversy)--Mrmarble (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with Martina's blurb with no one elses stats for comparison is it's not needed. If we leave it in then I'll have to go up to the Grand Slam section and add the same sort of thing to Budge, Connolly and Court. It seems overkill to me and not relevant to a Grand Slam or a non-calendar grand slam. The new link is fine but my old link must remain in the 1984 section because that is what it's talking about. It's an old article describing an old subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, what part or text do you exactly mean by "Martina-blurb"? (You left the new link on wrong place btw, it's supposed to refer to controversy, not the itf definition itself.) There should be only one mention of controversy in short paragraph like this. Also the 2 references should point out to mentioning that controversy...all the controversy is because of that ITF definition change from 1982 - you can't make 20 different mentions of the controversy each time it has surfaced/will surface during all these years...but you can make multiple references to single mention of controversy.--Mrmarble (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Martina blurb - the fact she won 6 in a row and the fact the aussie open changed dates as opposed to just saying she won the non-calendar slam. It's unneeded and overkill and is covered in other articles. Second, either it is one controversy in which case we don't need the 2010 paragraph at all, or it's two controversies, the one which happened when Martina won a million in 1984 and a secondary issue in which we have a 2010 ambiguous bylaw you posted which needs different links along with Nadal trying for the non-calendar slam. I have no idea why you won't leave it be and why you are being so hard-nosed about this. I think you are making way to big a deal out of an ITF entry that they don't seem to support by word of mouth in the press and which is not supported by the overwhelming majority of tennis organizations. This article was built slowly by consensus and instead of bringing a section to "talk" after a revert you bulk revert it again along with other constructive passages such as the addition of the fact that Budge, Connolly and Court also won the the non-calendar grand slam. We need to bring in some help I think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "(Navratilova then won the next two Grand Slam singles titles, for a total of six consecutive, but did not complete the calendar-year Grand Slam.)" is not necessary, but I think the text before that is...it's very interesting fact that she got 1m dollars for non-calendar slam, and not very well known either. Of course the first sentence is necessary to inform when the ITF change was made, as of course is current ITF definition. Stating that "it's controversial" doesn't take position on number of events, there is one thing that is controversial and that is public acceptance of ITF definition...the controversy itself need not be mentioned many times. Yes, it's probable that we do need help...we had agreed not to define how big/small the controversy was, and not to include "limited" with ITF...yet after that you have reverted back to "great contoversy" and added "limited" to ITF document reference. And we still seem to have disagreement on Budge non-calendar slam etc, despite the danger of counting same majors multiple times. This document has not listed non-calendar slams for players who have won calendar slams in single streak of majors...and now you want to change that??? Why can we not leave all biased nuances aside such as "great" etc and just state things as they are. It's obvious that this is currently a hot-topic...but not as hot as one would figure looking at our exchange. It would be called "Rafa" Slam", no matter how we word it here--Mrmarble (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing here. We have a paragraph "In 1982 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years.[10] After Martina Navratilova won her fourth consecutive Grand Slam singles title at the 1984 French Open, she was awarded the $1 million bonus in recognition of her achievement. (Navratilova then won the next two Grand Slam singles titles, for a total of six consecutive, but did not complete the calendar-year Grand Slam.) This redefinition of the Grand Slam by the ITF was the source of great controversy in the tennis world at the time"... this paragraph I have not changed at all that I recall. All I have done is added a source link to the 1984 controversy that you keep removing. The word great was always there.
The part I'm talking about is later under the listing: "Martina Navratilova (1983–84)
Won six consecutive Grand Slam titles. Her streak was Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian Open in 1983, followed by French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open in 1984. (The Australian Open was held in December from 1977 through 1985, returning to its original January date in 1987.)
Steffi Graf (1993–94)- Her streak was: 1993 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, and the 1994 Australian Open.
That part under Martina should read the same as Steffi's. I keep changing it and you keep reverting it back. I think it's un-needed bloat. I also said that if for some reason it stays I would need to add the same bloat under the grand slam winners such as Budge that he also won 6 in a row.
Budge, Connolly and Court also won non-calendar slams. I added them in and you reverted them. I tried a different tact and instead just mentioned it in prose and you reverted that too. That is unacceptable to me.
as for the amount of controversy we were talking about a different sentence altogether. You had written- This definition differs from the traditional definition of the Grand Slam as restricted to a single calendar year, and its acceptance is "somewhat" controversial in the tennis world. I had used the term "very" controversial. I dumped them both and used nothing. I have no idea what you are talking about with the term "limited" as I don't see that in my last edit.
you say this document has not added those Grand Slam/non-Calendar slam winners before. This is absolutely correct. This document has also not boosted the context of the non-calendar slam with an extra paragraph and it's placement in the header also. As those things increase it's becomes important to show the non-calendar slam was not just won by those originally listed.
As for a Rafa slam, if he wins it, it will only be a footnote here as was the Navratilova Slam, Serena Slam and in Golf the Tiger Slam. Those are not encyclopedic terms as much as a few magazines wanted to sell more copies. When ESPN, CNN, AP, almanacs, the ATP and the ITF starting listing it as a Rafa Slam that would be a different story. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fyunck, My answer:

1. I'm ok with how the section reads now. You do have a point that Budge and Navratilova are not treated equally though. As you say, we have two options: Either remove "Martina Blurb" or add one for Budge etc. The difference is not that great imo, could be either way. My suggestion is adding a mention for Budge having a 6 major streak...no harm having that extra info, right? As you feel forced to clean "the blurb" up, perhaps this would be fine? (I will add them after writing this):

    • Note: Navratilova won 6 consecutive Grand Slam titles from 1983 Wimbledon to US Open 1984.
    • Note: Budge won 6 consecutive Grand Slam titles from 1937 Wimbledon to 1938 U.S. Championships.

2. You wrote: "Budge, Connolly and Court also won non-calendar slams. I added them in and you reverted them. I tried a different tact and instead just mentioned it in prose and you reverted that too. That is unacceptable to me." I have commented on this multiple times already: It's completely incorrect to credit for example Budge 3 Grand Slams...from his 6 consecutive majors!! Common sense should tell that one would need at least 12 majors for 3 Grand Slams. Frankly I wasn't certain if you did that change "in good faith". Your "mentioning in prose" got lost because I reverted the whole thing because you made other changes as well which I though we had agreed not to include already. Sorry. Your addition was: "Don Budge, Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court and Steffi Graf also had non-calendar Grand Slams but since the time period encompassed their Grand Slams they are listed in that section of the article." I have nothing against this addition in principle. However I wonder if mentioning this is necessary and if it might be conter-productive aka confusing for the reader?...Reader could get the wrong impression about number of Grand Slams don Budge has achieved for example. If we do as I suggested, adding under Budge 1938 Grand Slam that he won 6 majors in a row - a reader with normal intelligence will be able to conclude that he had 2 majors before his Grand Slam and actually achieved NCYGS first(Sort of, it was before 1982).

3. Mentions about "conroversy": I have previously argued that one mention of the same contoroversy with multiple references should be enough for one tiny section...complimented with multiple citations how "true" Grand Slam is a Calendar Slam in the header of the article etc. The mention about controversy should be after the ITF document, so we can add all references, regardless of year, to one context.

4. As I noticed, you had made a "rollback vandal" notification of me. I definitely have acted in good faith, trying to keep this article dictionary-like. Dictionary is supposed to tell the facts and leave value judgement to readers. In my opinion you have added all the time during our exchange various little "loaded" comments in your edits, additions that try to take a stand on importance of ITF, non-calendar Grand Slam etc. I think one mention of controversy(and no, not "great" controversy), complimented with around 20? citations in the article how Calendar Slam is more prestigious, should do the trick. Trust the intelligence of the reader. Also, as mentioned earlier, I found your addition of Non-calendar slams for Budge etc pretty much the exact behaviour you accused me of. I hope you acted in good faith though and we can still resolve these trivial matters. (Although admin intervention is welcome)

5. "Rafa Slam". Heheh, are you sure we need ALL those citations you listed? Well, I think they pretty much can be found already. I don't understand why mentions of "Serena Slam" or "Rafa Slam" would be off-limits for the NCYGS section. Yet, maybe we should wait to see if Nadal wins the AO first - we don't need MORE topics to be controversial with... :) --Mrmarble (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Added some "blurbs"/streaks. Not sure if a good idea since they're listed in another section. Comments?--Mrmarble (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A few things. I don't recall the rollback/vandal click (as opposed to just rollback) but it might have been when you were reverting whole edits when new items were added. I'm not sure. The multiple uses of grand slam are very confusing even to me so I changed it to the preferred term major. That has nothing to do with our argument but I thought I would note it here. I'm still not sure about your additions to Budge and Court etc.. as far as streaks. I do not like doubling up info and using extra bandwidth when we have a whole section below on consecutive slam streaks. Less is better. I didn't revert it, but I believe the article is worse because of it.
As for the section on prose of Budge, Connolly, Court and Graf having won non-calendar slams I think it should stay since they did win non-calendar slams. There is no total listed, and without it someone reading the section will say that a man has never won a non-calendar grand slam before, and that would be false.
As far as serena slam or rafa slam we'll wait and see. the main thing is that in an encyclopedia you don't include an item just because it has a source. It must be well used also. If there are one or two sources that call a basketball a dumbledor, sure those are sources that are legitimate ...but if you can find 100 other sources that simply call it a basketball, and the public at large calls it a basketball, then we need not mention a dumbledor. Of course early on something like a rafa slam would get used more and may have a place, but then as time goes on (like with martina-slam, graf-slam, serena-slam, and probably more to come) the term goes into disuse and we would remove it from wikipedia. I guess that's the benefit of a living/breathing encyclopedia like wiki as opposed to a hard copy on a bookshelf. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

knowIG comments[edit]

Right as the AO is on at the moment and there is lots of talk about the Rafa Slam or Grand Slam etc. Since this has been going one for a month and has 4 sections I am going to comment on each of the sections in turn.

Defintion

Notion of pure open in the cited ITF link surely just means the first man to complete it within the open era. ALthough other players like Budge did it when professionalism was low players were still missing so that's what I would interpret that as. And same for MC the following year. Pure simply means everyone there I think. Also I will add that all the experts are saying Rafa has a chance to win all 4 and 4 in a row and specifically state this is not a Grand Slam as he has not done it in the same year. Instead it will be coined Rafa Slam the same way Serena coined her streak. See here. This I think may end any problems on the other sections. So I will not comment on anything else untill I have got a reply. Ok. KnowIG (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on the next 2 sections kind of resolved. But the final one, seems to be I want it this way. No I think this is better give a bit of time and I may come up with a compermise.

Most wins[edit]

I am aware of the double meaning of "Grand Slam", and that it originally was used for winning all four tournaments. But its is also a fact that most people, players and viewers, use the term for one of the single torunaments as mentioned in the beginning of the article, and I think this article is neclecting som historical facts from this definition. Who has won most Grand Slams i their carreer? I actually thought to get the answer on this page. Is it listed elsewhere? Anyway I think i should be mentioned here. And it puzzeles me, that "golden slams" are mentioned at the top of the article also mentioning Nadal, Agassi and Graf. Indeed this seems a bit of topic (perhaps written by fans of one of the three player - a generel problem in sportsachievement articles. Insteed I would suggest mentioning the people actually achieving the feat like Don Budge and Ron Laver, and to fullfill both sides of the term also mentioning the top three most winning Grand Slam players in the history of the sport (Federer, Sampras etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friislund79 (talkcontribs) 08:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has become clumsy. Maybe we now need two disambiguated articles, one to discuss the "classical" grand slam of four tournaments, and the other for the "modern" usage of a single tournament. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the lists on the bottom. You are looking for List of Grand Slam related tennis records. Unfortunately the records take up more than one page so it can't be put in one article. It should perhaps be a more obvious link and I'll fix that. The proper term is "Major" for a single event and has always been "Major." It is used almost everyday in tennis related stories and I think you are incorrect because I hear players say they want to win a Major in most interviews. Usually I see the term "Grand Slam tournament" used when talking about a single event like the French Open. Sure the tournaments themselves advertise "we are the best grand slam" but an encyclopedia has no control over that. You also see the sentence "home of the Slams" bantered about, which is a much better choice...win all four Slams and you win the Grand Slam. And I see no problem with talking about golden slams in the header since it is obvious from sentence one that this is the traditional definition of a grand slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's all very well arguing about the "proper" term, but the OP has made the valid point that using the term Grand Slam for a single tournament has become common. And you're right to say that we have no control over it, but that's really the point. We must accept the change in common usage, and not become an encyclopaedia reporting on how things should be or used to be. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
"Grand Slam tournament" is in common usage as is the proper term "Major." Those two terms are pretty much interchangeable though usually when i pick up a tennis magazine or here an interviewer I see the term "Major." If you want to make a disambiguation page you'll first have to move the article Grand Slam to "Grand Slam (card game)" then include a new link on the "Grand Slam" disambiguation list page called something like "Grand Slam (tennis tournaments)". I did make it easier to find the Major tennis records by putting a link up top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Majors[edit]

first of multiple comments in one session

Regardless of all tennis matters, it's a travesty that "Majors" redirects here [fixed -P64, below]. It's here as the natural plural of a nickname by abbreviation and several other Major (disambiguation) that are nicknames by abbreviation (golf tournaments, baseball league strata, cards suits). Tennis editors should not feel compelled to address this travesty. --P64 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Majors now redirects to Major (disambiguation); the obsolete hatnote of this article is the only link to "Majors" in article space. See Talk:Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments for some report on current major championship/tournament/etc WP:REDIRECTion. -P64
P.S. I disagree with User:HiLo48 immediately above, iiuc. "Grand Slams" or "grand slams" is common as a casual abbreviation for "grand slam tournaments", "grand slam tennis tournament", "grand slam men's lawn tennis championships", etc, depending on context. As "Majors" or "majors" is common for "major tournaments", etc.
I see no reason (and guess there is none) for this article to acknowledge that use of "grand slams" by anything more than a one-liner. Nor does wikipedia need any article on those grand slams unless it is warranted under some more complete name, like Major tennis tournaments.
By the way, that redirects to List of tennis tournaments. Should "Major/s" disambiguation or redirect send tennis readers to that list or send them here? --P64 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments gives a current report on redirection of Major(s) championship/tournament/etc.
P.S. I have rewritten the article lead incorporating many of my thoughts suggested but not specified above. --P64 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Calendar year[edit]

There are multiple issues at stake, not only Wikipedia cornerstones concerning research and documentation.

  • how to strike a balance between present and past, and perhaps origin, and perhaps future
  • how to strike a balance among lead sentence, lead section, and later sections such as History
  • what to say concerning trademarks, etc — the article isn't "Grand Slam (trademark)"; should that be one of its sections?
  • how to handle what is or may be "official", and how else to use that word, in articles and in discussions

--P64 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dating 1977 and 1985[edit]

There are narrow questions, perhaps narrow versions of all issues listed above, concerning calendar year 1977 and calendar year 1985 in particular. There were five and three of the four major tournaments scheduled, rather than four, because the Australian Open "moved" from January to December, and later moved back.

For a start: does anyone here know whether any body (ITF, players, writers, specifically Australian versions of same) expressed opinion in advance of Jan 1977 and Dec 1985 how the next Grand Slam would or should be defined? If ITF owned trademark, this includes its licensees. Hypothetical examples re 1985 and licensees: Grand Slam bonu$ for anyone winning Dec 1985 and the three majors scheduled during 1986; same for the three 1986 and Jan 1987). --P64 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Consecutive grand slam wins[edit]

(consecutive wins by one player in one discipline)

Do we (intend to) list every run of 6 or more consecutive championships? or is there a different minimum for different disciplines? or do we (intend to) note every Grand Slam whose run was longer than four?

I guess that Steffi Graf's run of five major singles championships is noted only because it coincides with the Golden Slam, and that other "fives" are not mentioned. If so, that note should make the Golden Slam primary and the five majors an aside. --P64 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. It's only supposed to be the record for consecutive wins not a listing. I saw that one extra had slipped in there so I removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Grand Slam (tennis)#Men's singles. Does the Rod Laver listing imply that he won only four consecutive on both occasions, because five or more would be noted? I guess not. If some runs of five or more are not listed, then five by Steffi Graf (immediately below, in a category where others won six) is not notable, only an aside to the "Golden Slam". --P64 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see. Yes Rod Laver only won those 4 in a row. This is a category not on how many in a row, but rather if they won the grand slam. The extra asterisks just tell you they also won more in a row than just the grand slam. I think Steffi's note of 5 is perfectly fine there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And Court didn't win more than four straight mixed doubles? OK. If it can be done clearly. then let readers know "no Note" means only four consecutive major wins. It isn't very important, might not fool another reader. --P64 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Slam Sets terminology[edit]

(Grand Slam (tennis)#Multiple Slam Sets)

Is the term "slam set(s)" clearly established and in what sense?

What about "Multiple Slam Sets" and its initialism "MSS"? --P64 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No it is not clearly established as a name. There is no real name though the press talks about it from time to time on tv and in print. They use different terminology though. I think we had to use something that at least described it well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. So there is no need to use MSS or its fullname in the wikitable heading.
Upon skimming the whole I see "Career Grand Slam" above. That is one Slam Set, right? Perhaps this can be rewritten in terms of more than two career grand slams? Anyway the text should make the connection. --P64 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Slam Sets wikitable[edit]

last of multiple comments in one session (five sections)

I have redesigned the table in a few ways. For now the crux is that I have introduced numerals in column one which retain the capability to display previously-default chronological order. While doing so I have made these corrections to the chron sequence.

  • move Emerson doubles up two rows (current row 7) --not only one because Australian date is January 1966
  • switch rows 13 and 14
  • switch rows 19 and 20 --not also 21 because Australian date is December 1984

This is errorprone, needs another editor or two, to confirm or correct the chronological sequence (column one), for several reasons. I'm not sure that the December/January flip and flop is the only relevant change in the majors schedule. Even if sure, the clerical work is errorprone. It's possible that the previous chronological order of table rows was correct but some of the entries were typos, most likely dates "off by one". I have not checked any of the dates, only moved rows based on the dates (and bolded the crucial completion of the slam set).

Further discussion of the table depends on the interest expressed by other editors. --P64 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. A couple things though. It starts off in order by type of event...mens singles, womens singles, mixed doubles, etc... and by clicking the arrow you can get back to chronological order. That's fine but once clicked you can never get back to event type order no matter how many times you click. The discipline doesn't order correctly... Can that be fixed? The tournies have no need to be ordered, nor the player names since it alphabetizes by first name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know wikitable sortability is limited to class="sortable wikitable" which is limited to single-column sorting and pertains to every column. But I don't know much.
Default order can be restored by reloading the page, or by devoting a column to that order (as i did with column one, in effect, to provide restoration of the default order chosen by previous editors).
I have revised the table in several ways, "experiments" i say in the edit summary, easy to revert or extend to the whole table
  • for "Mixed Doubles", spelled out the discipline in every row, plainface in contrast to boldface for the leader Margaret Court, 4. Sort by discipline now groups them all together, with internal order that varies somehow.
  • forced the tournament column labels into narrow format (determined by the default size of flag icons, i infer); among other things this previews the column-width that default flag icons will provide if they are used alone as column labels
  • for row 27 (with the longest fullname in the table for both player and discipline), provided whitespace padding with nbsp
Jointly those three revisions provide sorting by discipline (for visitors who don't know to reload), with narrow columns for the four dates, so that few(?) visitors will experience all display of all rows double-width and display of few rows in all. As I created the first version, the full discipline names forced double-width rows only for the leading player in each discipline --which was neato! but only for a narrow range of visitor screen setups.
Finally,
  • for "Mixed Doubles", increased the yellow and grey color backgrounds. I prefer the subtle but noticed how much the visibility varies with screen and posture (using today a screen and posture different from yesterday)
Sorting players by surname requires (a) lastname firstname format, (b) two-column format for names [which i detest], (c) more tedious coding than i am willing to do, using {{sortname}}. If you want single-column "firstname lastname" sortable by surname --here or elsewhere in WikiProject Tennis, I suggest that you finish the tables in other respects and use project Talk to recruit an editor with better hardward, software, or wetware ;-) That editor may be able to automate coding the desired sortability into a table that is finished in all other respects (get consensus that the table is finished).
WP:TENNIS might compile a tasklist of finished wikitables where improved sortability is desired and recruit a specialized editor when the list is "long enough". --P64 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Consecutive[edit]

It may be possible to add clarity by using the expressions "consecutive wins[titles?] in grand slam tournaments entered", one discipline: Men's Singles, ...; and "wins[titles?] in consecutive grand slam tournaments", one discipline: ... .

Given so much interest in cumulative achievements it is a surprise to see little or nothing aggregated over all five disciplines. --P64 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Championships[edit]

The repetition of "Championships" seems outlandish to me. If I lived here (but I don't) I would delete it one hundred times. --P64 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have to 'live' somewhere as a precondition to edit an article. Granted 197 mentions of 'Championships' is a bit much and I can see how it can make the article a bit trickier to read but that comes more or less with the type of article and the fact that the word 'Championships' is part of the official names of all four Grand Slams tournaments in the pre-open era. From your page it appears that baseball is bit closer to where you 'live' so if repetition bothers you perhaps you can have a go at the 343 mentions of 'Series' in the World Series article. --Wolbo (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I did boldly abbreviate the names of the four championships to {Au., Fr., Wi., US} when I revised the Slam Sets table last week.
Some consensus of editors who live here should underly both how much to abbreviate and which particular set of abbreviations to adopt in listings such as this (both from one subsection).
  • Fred Perry (1933 U.S. Championships, 1934 Australian Championships, 1934 Wimbledon Championships & 1935 French Championships) [26]
  • Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1995 Australian Open & 1999 French Open) [29]
My two cents? I would go at least so far as {US, Australian, Wimbledon, French}, dropping both "Championships" and "Open". --P64 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify career grand slam[edit]

Evidently a "Multiple Slam Set" is simply a double-or-greater Career Grand Slam. I have rewritten section Career Grand Slam to reflect that, with appropriate(?) in-line links down to the Slam Sets table that another editor and I heavily revised last week.

At each subsection i counted the winning players and/or teams in a hidden comment, which i then refashioned as a visible table at the top of the section (without removing the comments).

Table details need recount and completion by someone who understands the listings for Doubles. Especially see the Doubles players (6) i have marked {clarification needed} and others i may have missed, who are named both as members of a slam team and alone. Perhaps the twice-listed player Neale Fraser won a career Slam with one partner and separately won one with different partners(?). Or he may be listed twice in order to record that he completed the career Slam individually (1959) prior to completing it with Emerson (1962).

The last needs clarification in the text of each doubles subsection. If/when I understand the point, I will be happy to check my own counts (now embodied in text and table) but counting is errorprone and often benefits from double-check by a second editor. --P64 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Major (disambiguation)[edit]

identical to Talk: List of tennis tournaments#Major (disambiguation) -P64

Last month I re-targeted Majors from Grand slam (tennis) to the disambiguation page, which covers both singular and plural (M/major/s).

And I reported (Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments) on the current redirection of several "major" terms, mainly those with golf or tennis expressions or targets. (Tennis is a latecomer that did not get many redirects.)

Major (disambiguation) needs attention. The latest revision is a big improvement in some respects and a big de- in others. See recent sections of that Talk page (Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Latest revisions -05-26 an -06-02). --P64 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat that all four simple redirects have men's golf targets: Major championship(s) and Major tournament(s). Simple redirects are therefore unavailable for tennis use.
It does not follow that this article should cover "Grand Slam (tennis)" in the sense "slam", "grand slam", "Slam", "Grand slam", or "Grand Slam" is a nickname for one of the major tennis championships or tournaments. That can be handled here by a footnote when one of the "Major tennis ..." titles is selected for that coverage.
(repeat) Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments. --P64 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(Scope and emphasis)[edit]

under neutral heading /*(Scope and emphasis)*/ restore twice-reverted 1743-byte new section, except heading and two lead sentences -P64 (with reiteration immediately above)

[...] I struggle to believe that anyone would fail to see the problems that needed rectifying. Well, let's have a close look at the shit you keep putting back in.

The four Major tennis tournaments, also called "Grand Slam tournaments", "slams" and "majors", are the most important annual tennis tournaments.

The article title is Grand Slam, not major tennis tournaments, so the first term in bold should be Grand Slam. You also got the capitalisation wrong anyway. Putting in several minor perturbations of the names is unnecessary. Otherwise you'd end up saying "also called grand slam tournaments, grand slams, slams, major tennis tournaments, major tournaments, majors", and that would be really stupid.

The term Grand Slam primarily refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single year in one of the five disciplines: men's and women's singles; men's, women's, and mixed doubles.

No, it does not primarily refer to that. If you said "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams", it would not be understood to mean he's won all four titles in a single year 17 times.

So, please do enlighten us all as to the good reasons why flawed writing must be kept. If you could tell me after how long bad writing becomes immune from editing by virtue simply of its age, that would be very helpful. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

190, the tone of opening and closing paragraphs is destructive.
Wolbo, that doesn't justify wholesale reversion of substantial talk.
After restoring this twice-reverted comment I have provided a neutral heading and deleted the first two sentences only. --P64 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow someone took some anger pills this morning. If it's written that "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams" it is written poorly, is not encyclopedic, and could very easily be misconstrued. "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams" means exactly that he won 4 titles in a year, and did it 17 times. This was talked about in the past in multiple tennis articles whose names elude me right now. Throughout its history the correct term is winning a "Major" not winning a "Grand Slam". To this day Major is used in plenty of books and magazines along with interviews[1]. It has long standing backing. Now I realize that just because it is the longstanding name doesn't mean it's the only name. Certainly the press also uses the more recent "grand slam tournament" language and if the press uses something the general public starts to follow. Historian Bud Collins says it well in this article. We can take it to tennis project and talk about it there since it could affect thousands of articles. I feel the term "major" is the more proper term for an encyclopedia but we must also have "grand slam tournament" because of it's popularity in the press. I almost always use the term "Major" but others here use the term "grand slam tournament" or "grand slam event" and it's recognized that in prose the terms are interchangeable. But in an encyclopedic article talking specifically about the Majors I don't see why we should change the long standing sentence order. 190.44.158.38 has been editing since July 9 2012, this is his/her only tennis edit, and maybe he doesn't understand that he should bring this to talk "before" insisting on his version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't surely be ignorant of the fact that "Grand Slam" is used all the time to refer to one of the tournaments and is not used "primarily" to mean the achievement of winning all four in a single year. So you must realise that no matter what your own pedantic gripes are, the article should not say something that isn't true.
As for my editing history, you realise IPs change, right? The first edit I ever made was in 2004. So don't give me any shit about not "understanding". When reverting substantial edits, you need to understand that "the old version was there for a long time" is not a sensible justification. When trashing work that other people have done, have the basic courtesy to explain yourself. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Your first edit to the thing appears to be with the tag "Tidied up massively" which means pretty much nothing. And as for IPs, get yourself a real ID because right now your history is a short one. For all we know you could be a good wikipedian or some old banned editor back for more (which I'm starting to wonder about). And surely you also realize that the term Major is much more historically accurate and is used all the time as I noted. As for the term grand slam, well the word ain't is used a lot too but that doesn't make it correct English for an encyclopedia. You also seem to have added this material under 200.120.204.246 (which has been around since June 15, 2012) and David0811 reverted it with your once again revert reply being "Don't be so fucking stupid...". I then wrote "looking closer, you got rid of the abundance of edits in your last revert. I liked the M dash fix, and we'll go with your styling of the opening sentence as a compromise, but not the exact wording" to which your attitude was "dick" fetish" and "not into compromising" with the following "You want to be a dick about it? I'm not into compromising over quality or fetishising text just because no-one changed it for a while. This version is better.". Maybe you have some issues but at least two editors have reverted you and yet you keep at it with a nasty tone. You need to be a bit calmer and bring it to talk if you want to change people's minds. Maybe you will and maybe not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Tidied up massively" means I tidied it up massively. Pretty simple really. Whatever problem you have with the use of "grand slam" to refer to a single tournament is your problem, not mine. Once you've convinced the world of sports journalism that they are getting it wrong, then you can change it here. Until then, the article reflects the usage. A simple question for you - is the title of this article "major tennis tournament" or is it "grand slam"? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering what happened to you in this discussion. The article is at "Bill Clinton" also, but the first line is the more accurate "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton". You have been reverted by at least two people and you complained about someone calling yours vandalism yet you have now done the same. Please put it back the way it was before this started and discuss it here rationally. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You're not acting in good faith, as shown by your selective quoting above. If you ever wanted to discuss things in a collegiate manner, you shouldn't have reverted my work with the utterly banal and uninformative "reverted some of the last edit". If you don't have the courtesy to explain a revert, then you're not likely to be a productive person to discuss things with. The manual of style explains the conventions for biographical articles and other articles. You are violating the manual of style with your foolish attempt to impose your own pov on the article. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The burden is on you to convince us since yours is the "new" entry and it was reverted by others. I see no good faith here from you here. You refuse to take the edits back to their previous state, you are foul mouthed, and you are re-introducing errors into the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I made a good faith edit. You demonstrated bad faith by reverting it without explanation. Two other people reverted because they were too stupid to actually look at the edit, and falsely claimed that it was vandalism. Your attempt to use their edits to pretend that there's a "consensus" here only further confirms your own bad faith. I took errors out of the article, as I explained to you already. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your nasty tone aside, I for one am getting a headache with this and I'm willing to try a compromise solution. We'll leave in your order and we'll leave in your also instead of primarily. But the lead should read: "The four Grand Slam events, properly called Majors, are the most important annual tennis tournaments." I'm not happy with it, but it seems a reasonable step to me. Are you game? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Properly" is your POV. It's not reasonable to impose your POV on an article. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
In other words, no compromise from you? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
No. NPOV is a core policy and there is no scope for compromise. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Small slam[edit]

"Small slam" was a redirect to section "Three Grand Slam tournament titles in a year" but the redirect was used only in one User-space list of articles that do not exist. So I have changed the target to the contract bridge glossary entry Small slam. It's used in three other times in the glossary and in many contract bridge articles. --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What redirects here?[edit]

Now there are 20 redirects to this page[2]. Seventeen incorporate "Grand Slam", "grand slam", etc, and none of the three others is now used anywhere (Tennis Majors, Tennis open, Tennis Championship). Editors of tennis articles do not currently directing any major-terms here.

There are 5 redirects to List of tennis tournaments[3]. Only one incorporates "Major", "major", etc, and that one is now used only in talk space. Editors of tennis articles do not currently direct any major-terms there.

I believe it will be unproductive for tennis editors to use those redirects much. Instead create #Major tennis tournaments (next section) and redirect there.

I have expanded and consolidated my disambiguation-talk report on "Major" in sports: articles, disambiguations, redirects". Talk: Major (disambiguation)#Major golf and tennis tournaments. --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Major tennis tournaments[edit]

Grand Slam (golf) should embarrass the golf project at least by its lead section: one line without a link or a copyeditor. Yet that project has done a better job than tennis simply by having that article.

It seems clear to me that tennis should choose one of the redlink titles and cover its majors there. (Offhand I recommend Major tennis tournaments but I don't really know enough to choose tournament over championship and I would look for WP guidelines about singular and plural titles before choosing.) The obvious scope for a Start article is represented by the lead and sections 1-4 of golf major, aka:

Men's major golf championships
(lead)
1 Importance
2 History
3 Television coverage
4 Distinct characteristics of majors

(I don't know enough to be more specific except in general, but that doesn't matter here and now. One theme may be whether and how the four tennis tournaments have been national tournaments of the four most skilled? wealthiest? or whatever tennis-playing nations. Did the Allies alone play high-level tennis or did war ruin the losers or did war winners determine what would be considered major, yada yada yada. General issues about "majority" in tennis.)

At both Grand Slam (tennis) and List of tennis tournaments, editors should be able to rely on adequate coverage of (the four) Major tennis tournaments elsewhere.

Here the main issue should become, as that coverage becomes available, which achievements of players in major tournaments should be covered here, which in the other article, which in some lists. Thus at the same time, how much of golf major sections 5-12 should be in the corresponding tennis article? how much here? how much in the four† major tournament articles? Thus how much covered only once and how much replicated?

† or more than four if more than four tournament articles cover the entire history. --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Something not right...[edit]

"Most consecutive Grand Slam singles finals (women)" lists Navratilova's 6 finals between Wimbledon 1983 and the 1984 US Open, and separately lists her 11 finals between the 1985 French open and 1987 US Open. The only Grand Slam tournament between the 1984 US Open and the 1985 French Open was the 1985 Australian Open... which Navratilova won. Why is this not simply listed as 18 finals in a row? Grutness...wha? 10:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wheelchair tennis[edit]

Shingo Kunieda and Esther Vergeer is one of the few player who I can recall who have achieved a Golden Slam in doubles and all three single GS with a Paralympic title (Wimbledon does not exist as a singles match). Would it be worth including since we also got boys and girls. Donnie Park (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wheelchair tennis is now covered in tables, barely in prose. Someone provided the Note [nb 1] which is obscure, needs expansion. Today I inserted oneliners that call the Note from sections 8.8 and 8.9.
Probably a brief explanation in relation to Grand/Golden slams belongs somewhere in sections 0 to 3. It should state when some wheelchair tennis slam became possible. --and it should link the wheelchair tennis article, of course.
--P64 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A "Career Golden Slam" doesn't exist![edit]

The term was invented by the media, it is nothing official! The section should be deleted.

Apparently the term Grand Slam itself was also first used in the media. Gap9551 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

List formats: bullets and headings[edit]

This concerns |2013-01-09, section 5 and |section 11. -P64

In sections "Non-calendar year ... [mouthful]" and "Three Major ..." is there a good reason for double-bullet format?
and in section "Non-calendar year ...", for subsection headings (which show up in the page Contents and provide link anchors)?

  • column 1 - current "Non-calendar year ..." format, double-bullet with subsection headings
  • column 2 - current "Three Major ..." format, double-bullet with bold headings
  • column 3 - single bullet, bold headings
  • column 4 - no bullet, bold headings

Boys' singles[edit]

Girls' singles[edit]

Boys' singles


Girls' singles
Boys' singles

Mark Kratzmann

  • 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Nicolas Pereira

  • 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Gaël Monfils

  • 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon


Girls' singles

Natalia Zvereva

  • 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Magdalena Maleeva

  • 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open
Boys' singles

Mark Kratzmann

1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Nicolas Pereira

1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Gaël Monfils

2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon


Girls' singles

Natalia Zvereva

1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Magdalena Maleeva

1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open

In my opinion the example formats improve from left to right. --P64 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Three weeks later, section 11 has been revised to replace double-bullet format (column one or two as illustrated above) has been replaced by a single-bullet format (such as column three above, but its complement illustrated below).
Boys' singles
1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open
1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon


Girls' singles
1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open
That too is an improvement.
Double-bullet format now appears only in section 5 and the very brief section 9 Grand Slam (tennis)#Golden Slam.
--P64 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No male player ...[edit]

What does this mean: "No male player has yet accomplished a (calendar year) grand slam, making Laver the most recent male grand-slammer even by this more relaxed definition", given that Laver is listed as having won the Grand Slam twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.26.2 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It means someone messed up, since there have been male players that won even non-calendar year grand slams. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Achievements consecutive or in a row[edit]

Current usage here (maybe not consistent thruout the article)

  • "consecutive" — player or pair wins everything scheduled
  • "in a row" — player or pair is undefeated but may be idle

We always (or generally?) use these terms only within one event such as women's singles.

Sections 7.3 and 7.4 do not fit section 7. Perhaps sections 6 and 7 or even 5 to 7 should be combined.

Is the non-calendar year grand slam equivalent to four consecutive grand slam titles?

--P64 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Trifecta[edit]

In tennis, no one plays singles, doubles and mixed doubles as the matches are scheduled at the same time. Triple crown is something superior achievement used in horse racing. Trifecta is a better word for the once played singles,doubles,mixed doubles at the same time .

The equivalent of triple crown which is originally used in horse racing like winning kentucky derby, preakness stakes, Belmont stakes in the same year, that happens in different cities at different times. It is considered as the most prestigious and difficult, something that can be equivalent and used in tennis as winning French Open, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year. Only Rod Laver achieved this twice and greatness can be understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2FC0:7:5458:4459:CEC0:7E7E (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't use what may or may not be a better word. We use what books, newspapers and other sources use. And there are players who have played all three disciplines... much rarer these days to be sure. My understanding is the tournament will work around a schedule if you enter multiple events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)