Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

Title

Should the article be renamed to "Grand Slam (tennis)"? Kent Wang 18:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definition

Quite a few web pages are out of date, by still indicating that winning the grand slam means winning all the tournaments in a calendar year. In fact, the current definition (simply holding all four titles at once) was given in the 1995 Guinness Book of Records.

I agree, but it's apparently pointless to debate this issue since the creator of this page has his mind set on "calendar" grand slam or bust. Notice that any comments to the contrary are left unanswered, nor does he cite any sources. The ITF is the sanctioning body of tennis, and in 1984 recognized Martina Navratilova as a "grand slam" winner by awarding her a $1 million bonus, even though the 4 consecutive slams were not in the same calendar year.

Does anyone have any idea when the definition changed? This would help to tidy up this page a bit. -- Smjg 13:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this 'change' in the definition. For all I know, winning the grand slam still means winning all four in the same year. --Cantus 03:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition change? See here, for example (also, it's on sports TV channels): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4659846.stm

"Federer sets sights on Grand Slam World number one Roger Federer is eyeing victory in the French Open after his second Australian Open success. The Swiss ace, who took the 2005 Wimbledon and US Open titles, now only needs to win in Paris to hold all four Grand Slam titles simultaneously."

The headline is the only part of the article that makes it seem as if he'd be winning the grand slam, and headlines are often not written by the writer of the article. -- 24.14.15.57

The definition given in the entrance sentence, is crap. There is no true Grand Slam and a Grand Slam, there is only one Grand Slam, all four majors in a calendar year. This is the standard definition given in the leading reference book 'Total tennis' from 2003. The concept of the ITF in the early 80s, to name all four without year end aspect, was a futile effort by the then president Philippe Chartier, to attract attention to the major events, controlled by the ITF. But now, even the ITF has returned to the original concept of calendar year.Tony Trabert never went after the fourth major win in 1956, when he had won the 3 last in 1955, because it would be no Grand Slam, simply 4 in a row. The career Grand Slam is also a newly found press invention, to make things more interesting. Please return to the original concept of Grand Slam, all other efforts are only watering and thinning the cristal clear concept. (german friend 17.2.2007)

That is simply untrue, the ITF has not "returned to the original concept of calendar year." In fact, the ITF makes no mention of the word "grand slam" anywhere in its rulebook, so all we have to go by is historical precedent. Navratilova was awarded a $1 million bonus in 1984 for winning 4 straight grand slams, even though they were not all in one calendar year. If a player holds all 4 majors at the same time, that's a grand slam, and the definition should reflect that.

Driving the point home was the moving of the Australian Open from December to January in 1987. Prior to 1987, a calendar year grand slam required the AO to the final leg, now it's the first leg. There is no meaningful relevance to calendar year versus non-calendar year. (razorback 6/4/2007)

A plea: please rewrite the definition!

Someone seems to be puliing readers' legs using recursive "definitions" that define nothing. This article states:

"a singles player or doubles team that wins all four Grand Slam titles in the same year is said to have achieved the Grand Slam or a Calendar Year Grand Slam."

...while the Grand Slam titles article says:

"A Grand Slam title is a tennis championship won at one of the four tournaments that comprise the tennis Grand Slam."

Clear, huh? Can anyone please clean up this mess, or better, this joke? --AVM 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The ITF returned indeed to the original concept, going by the 'World of Tennis' yearbooks in 2000 and 2001, edited by John Barrett, which were the official ITF-Yearbooks. There the GS denotes' all four majors in one calendar year'. In a rulebook you will not find anything about the GS, because it is not a rule factor.The calendar year concept was always intact. Prior to 1977, the Austalian, played in January, was the first of the big four majors.There are some important factors, which differenciate a Grand Slam from 4 majors in a row.There are far fewer chances to get one, if you start with the first tournament in a year. A top player has say 10 chances in his career to win a GS. If he could start in each major, he would have around 40.Less chances imply more pressure to go through.Then, the real GS integrates the famous and difficult double French-Wimbledon, with its clay-grass-transition in two weeks. The ITF deviation of 1983 was never accepted in the tennis community. Paul Fein has written a piece about it in his book 'Tennis Confidential'. Nobody in tennis is counting the achievements of Navratilova (as good as they were), Graf or Serena Williams a Grand Slam, not even the players themselves.Look at the reports in 2007: Nobody was talking about a GS, when Federer reached the final of RG: It was only a question in regard of eventual later Wimbledon and USO wins. (german friend 29.7.2007).

Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tournament names

If Wimbledon is to be reffered to as such is it not fair that the French open be reffered to as Roland Garros?

Also I agree about Grand Slam (tennis). ricjl 14:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Hi. In the "Holding four titles" section, there's a note attached to Martina Navratilova's entry saying that she won six consecutive Grand Slam events. That doesn't sound right. How is it possible to win six consecutive event and not hold a true Grand Slam? Regards, Redux 15:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Assuming all the tournaments were held, there's only one way: 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3. That is: Starting with Roland Garros and ending with Wimbledon a year later. Both years she would have been one tournament short of a Grand Slam. Aliter 18:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It is possible to win six consecutive Grand Slam events and still not complete a Grand Slam. It's back to grammar school for me! But still this article seems to be wrong. According to our own article on Navratilova, she "only" won 4 (not 6) consecutive events (starting with the French Open 1984 and ending with the Australian Open 1985, that is: 2,3,4,1 – then she won Wimbledon 1985, but that skips the French Open 1985, hence not being consecutive wins). And doesn't that mean that she did exactly what Serena Williams did in 2002/2003, only 20 years earlier? And I mean, down to the exact order of events (2,3,4,1). Wouldn't that preclude dubbing Serena's accomplishment "the Serena Slam"? Since it's not "new", shouldn't it be named "the Navratilova Slam" (that is if someone else hasn't done the exact same thing before her), which Serena Williams was able to duplicate? That would have repercussions in other articles (namely Serena's). I do not believe that any tennis Grand Slam event was cancelled in the 1980's, and I'm assuming that the information in both our Navratilova and Serena Williams articles are accurate. Regards, Redux 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake: The explanation I gave is correct, but I should have left it at that. Or even better: Had I checked the actual situation, I would have understood why you asked. What tripped up both of us, is that, from 1977(2) to 1986(-), Australia was the end of the season, rather than the start. This means that for Navratilova 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3 means: Starting with Wimbledon in 1983 and ending with U.S. Open a year later in 1984.

As you can see, a Martina slam is indeed quite a bit more impressive than a Serena Slam; in fact, it holds the same number of titles as the actual Grand Slams (Budge, Connolly, and Smith Court: 6 in a row; Graf: 5 + Olympic (Laver 2 x 4)).

The first to win four singles titles in a row was Don Budge, I think, but he continued to make it the first Grand Slam. You might want to check this, but indeed, I can't think of anyone holding four singles titles without a Grand Slam before the Martina Slam. And not many after: Our list of four-title holders might be quite comprehensive already.

What it comes down to: The information in the Martina Navratilova article is accurate, but slightly misleading: The list of titles ought to take into account, maybe even mention, the changed order of tournaments at that time. Aliter 12:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ITF awarded Navratilova a $1 million bonus for winning the grand slam in 1984, even though she didn't win all 4 in the same calendar year. How does that comport with the view that all four must be in the same calendar year?

Slams on four surfaces

The intention of those descriptions is to present them as more special, hence there's no use in adding extra details, making them less special. Adding the specific type of clay or carpet just detracts from the achievement.

This is similar to claiming Wikipedia is the largest coöperative on-line encyclopedia still active in 2005 based in the USA. Exclude coöperative on-line encyclopedias still active in 2005 outside the USA, unless there actually is one that is better. Why exclude coöperative on-line encyclopedias no longer active in 2005, unless one of them actually was larger. Why only on-line coöperative encyclopedias, unless there's a actually an off-line coöperative encyclopedia that is bigger. If not, then "Wikipedia is the largest coöperative encyclopedia" would make it the largest of a far wide class.

That's not to say that the details of those surfaces can't be added to Wikipedia; they are more detail about the players, and could be added to the players pages. But this side is about the grand slam, and there those details just detract from the achievement. Aliter 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Re

The Australian Open is played on REBOUND ACE, not CARPET; therefore, the four Grand Slam surfaces are as follows: REBOUND ACE, clay, grass, and hard court.

And, if you are wondering, REBOUND ACE is a slower and higher bouncing form of hard court. It is NOT another form of CARPET, so don't waste your time sending me messages saying that I am wrong, when it is YOU who is wrong. Therefore, I'm going to change it back to the PROPER INFORMATION. (Doublea)

Based on this information, it appears I'm mistaken in classifying Rebound Ace as a carpet surface, and should instead have classified it as a hard court surface. Hence, I've removed the claims about four different surfaces, as this means they include hard court twice. Aliter 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! A happy compromise. I apologize for my impolite badgering.

Just to confirm, I've played at Melbourne Park, Rebound Ace is definitely not carpet - it is RUBBER. jkm 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why?

To User:80.200.219.87: Why did you revert my changes? What's wrong? Is it wrong that Doris Hart won a Career Grand Slam in doubles? that Martina won a Career Grand Slam in mixed doubles? And so on... Avia 07:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-Grand Slam Statistics

There seems to be a lot of information in this article unrelated to Grand Slams, most notably the section entitled "Winners by number of singles majors accumulated". Shouldn't that be in a more generic tennis article? What does that have to do with Grand Slams? If you're contesting Grand Slams as the only measure of tennis worth, then there should be a "Criticism" or "Caveat" section that says: "Grand Slams are not necessarily the best measure of blah blah blah, because blah blah blah: See also Tennis statistics" or something. I think it should be removed from this article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: I started this section because I could not find a similar section on wikipedia. Unsure what you mean by "unrelated" as a "major" is another term for a Grand Slam in tennis or golf. Please if it is removed, move it somewhere, don't delete it as it took me a while to compile and correct. It is accepted by the tour players themselves that winning a major is the de facto yardstick of tennis worth in the open era at least. Pete Sampras, who has a keen sense of history, when interviewed was very proud to be on top of the list. Just ask Tiger Woods or Roger Federer their priority in life. --Sandman 22:30, September 14, 2005

That's not a good reason to clutter an article with an unrelated topic. I suggest that you start a new article for it. Do what you like with it, but if it's still on this page in 24 hours, I'm just going to blank it and you're going to have to go into the history to get it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Tennis statistics as suggested. I'm sure this section is of use to *someone*, as it was edited immediately after Federer won the US Open last week. You didn't have to be this harsh about it though, as I don't necessarily connect here every day. --Sandman 23:21, September 15, 2005

Sorry I was bitchy. Didn't mean to come off harsh. Cheers. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It was a pretty stupid thing to post all things considered - threatening to delete somebody else's work.

Header styles

I removed underscores that had been added to some of the titles. While I agree that the title distinction in the MonoBook skin is poor, this should not be countered at the level of individual articles. Also, doing that may make the article less readable in some of the other skins. Feel free to try to improve the Monobook skin itself in this respect. Aliter 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Same-sex doubles - terminology

We refer to "same sex" and "mixed" doubles. This doesn't sound like the way the rest of the world knows these terms. It's always been "doubles" and "mixed doubles". Tennis players always play with their own sex except for mixed doubles, which is why it's called that. Hence there's no need to call doubles "same-sex doubles". It also has unnecessary sexual overtones. JackofOz 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to Grand slam (tennis)?

Is there some compelling reason this should be capitalised? Like I don't think the players actually get anything like a trophy for doing it (do they?!). And it kinda irks me. :) Thoughts? pfctdayelise 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Grand Slam' is also a term used for any country competing in the 'Six Nations' rugby tournament that wins all five games - so it should be moved to 'Grand Slam - Tennis'. NB - The French call it the 'Grand Schlem' (the rugby that is...)88.105.125.228 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1988 Olympics?

In the Golden Slam section it says that Stefi Graf was the only person to accomplish this, winning the gold at the olympics in 1988; however, right above this it says "..but also because in between the games of 1924 and 1988, tennis was not a medal sport at the Games." One of these is wrong. 1988 was the first time since 1924 Tennis was considered an Olmpic sport. So 1988 was the 1st and so far only golden slam.

Excluding 1924 and 1988. Quoted: Helen Wills... also won the 1924 Summer Olympics. Avia 07:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tennis or Real Tennis

Does the term refer to tennis and real tennis? I mean, which one is all the professionals playing?--Attitude2000 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand Slam Origin

Doesn't the term "Grand Slam" come from Baseball? It's a term for a homerun that is made when the bases are loaded, thus amounting to a maximal gain in points for a single swing: 4.

The article seems to claim it was coined for tennis, then applied to golf, completely omitting baseball, which is the most common use of the term in sports.

The wording should be clarified at the very least.

Most of the world doesn't play baseball mate - most widely used in reference to Tennis. jkm 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Popularity has nothing to do with the origin. It should be clarified.

It has nothing to do with any of that stuff -- read the article, for pete's sake, for the origin of the term!!!! Hayford Peirce 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the New York Times archive (searchable at http://query.nytimes.com/search), the phrase "grand slam" was used in the context of horse racing starting in 1904. Starting in 1911 there are examples for Auction bridge, and at Auction bridge you can read what "grand slam" means there. Usages in baseball start in 1918. Unfortunately one has to pay $$ to the NYT in order to read the complete articles, but it is clear that the history of the phrase is a lot richer than this article suggests. --Zero^talk 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read the article first? It clearly says that it was at least originally a bridge term? "The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and British championships, speculation arose about his chances in the American championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Crawford, an asthmatic, won two of the first three sets of his finals match against Fred Perry, then tired in the heat and lost the last two sets and the match." If there's evidence that it was earlier applied to horse racing, then please write it into the article. Hayford Peirce 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Roland Garros or French Open

The name of the tournament is Roland Garros. Why is the page at French Open? The tournament is not known as the French Open. Bsd987 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is sooo toooo known as French Open! ;) ... in the anglophone press. In the francophone and European press/media it's known by both names, just like the US Open was known as Flushing Meadow. I think they are interchangeable and have always been that way. We can pretend that "French Open" was invented to breed familiarity for American audiences -Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashTestSmartie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Grand Slam

Hey, you know what, instead of calling Calendar Grand Slam as such, let's call it "Super Grand Slam" instead.

Oh but wait, pretty soon, marketing weasels and sport agents of lesser pros will start bastardizing "Super Grand Slam" again like they did to Grand Slam and start calling their clients "career Super Grand Slam".

People, Grand Slam is reserved exclusively for people winning all four majors in the SAME YEAR, no if's, and's, or but's.

There is no such thing as a "Grand Slam" event, nor career Grand Slam.

Grand Slam is like Jackpot, you have to have all 3 bars, one in each column, all on the SAME pull. You can't say you got bar on the 1st colume only, and then on the other two columes on the next try, that is not a jackpot, and the casino will tell you so.

Grand Slam means you win EVERY majors in that year, w/o loosing a single one -- an amazing feat. Now how does that compare to somebody who lost 36 majors in 10 years, but managed to win 4 during the same period? That make "career Grand Slam" so TINY compare to a real Grand Slam.

So stop using words like "career Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam" event, they mean NOTHING! And I am talking to all sports commentators on TV, idiots, sellouts.

Non-calender year Golden Slam?

How about a non-calender year Golden Slam? Similar to the Serena Slam but with Singles Gold at the Olympics included? It's not in the article, so does that mean it's never been done? For example, let's say Rafael Nadal continued to improve and won the next two major Grand Slams. That would be a non-calender year Golden Slam - then it would be included on this page, correct? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC

Does this make sense?

Five men and nine women have achieved a Career Grand Slam in singles. But only two men (Rod Laver and Andre Agassi) and five women (Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Serena Williams) have won all four Grand Slam singles tournaments at least once since the beginning of the open era.

To me, that just doesn't make sense. It's saying that two men and five women have won all four GS singles tournaments at least once, but it said before that that five men and nine women have achieved that. I thought it might've been a mistake and actually meant those people held all four at the same time, but neither Evert or Agassi held all four at the same time. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks Kegzz (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

It is said that "later" the term Grand Slam was applied to other sports such as Golf. However, if the first mention of a Tennis Grand Slam was in 1933, then Bobby Jones' Grand Slam in Golf was first (1930). --Realulim (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)