Jump to content

Talk:Ken Rosewall

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

Question about 1956

[edit]

Question about 1956 The article says Rosewall and Hoad failed to win the French Open doubles (alone of the slams)in 1956. In fact Hoad lost in the final playing with Cooper. My memory from that period is that Rosewall didn't play in the French of that year, but I could be wrong and the article does not make that clear. Could it be clarified? Did he play or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanboot (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewall played in 1956 an Aussie exhibition at Cairns on April 29 then went to Europe to play the International Club Week in Brussels, June 4-9, then the British Grass season so Rosewall didn't play the French amateur in 1956 (nor in 1955) Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct source?

[edit]

Is there a direct source for the claim that Rosewall decided not to play at Roland Garros after 1969? I have found articles in the New York Times in '71 and '73 stating that he skipped the tournament to rest for Wimbledon, and I'm happy to include those are sources, if there is nothing better. Perhaps his record in the claycourt season before Roland Garros in these years can be mentioned as evidence (for example, he did not play the 1971 Italian Open, the only WCT player not to do so). I've started a thread at the Tennis Warehouse boards on this topic. Krosero (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TENSCR

[edit]

Hi,

Good work on the expansion here. Can I just point you in the direction of WP:TENSCR, a summary of the relatively recent discussions at WP:TENNIS regarding the use of tennis scores within articles. Although I'd describe the consensus arrived at as "loose" (only a handful of editors were participating, myself included), the guideline to include scores in prose "only where necessary" was in place before those discussions. This article seems to have a lot of scores in the prose itself, which appear to be predominantly the scores in finals matches that are also included in the wikitables etc.

Would you consider removing the less important scores from the prose, perhaps only leaving the more crucial/interesting ones?

Best wishes, —User:MDCollins (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Colonel Kuntz Cup source??

[edit]

Regarding the 1956 title listed: is there a source for this particular cup? A quick google search reveals no details about this event's existence, with the exception of another wikipedia article, of Rod Laver career statistics, attributing him the 1961 title. Curiously, both mentions of this cup have dates that overlap with other events. In Rosewall's case, he apparently took out both the "Colonel Kuntz Cup" and Newport Casino Invitational simultaneously, both starting and finishing on the 23rd and 29th respectively, albeit on different continents.

Given the naming, and lack of reference, I'm prone to think this event is entirely fictional, however, it has been listed on this page since early 2008, and his apparent French opponent (Marcel Bernard) would be plausibly still in the game (1956 being his final year of play). So, I'm leaving it up to an actual tennis buff to prove me wrong. As on the Laver page, it states that he overlapped this competition with another, starting and eventually winning both the Centennial Cup and the Colonel Kuntz Cup from the 25th of July 1961, with both conveniently located in Deaville, France. Possible source of this (potential) vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.146.204 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer :

Here are the complete Rosewall results in this 1956 Deauville (and not Deaville) tournament :

July 23-29 1956

Deauville FRA

2R defeated Tamal Moyaret 62 62

QF defeated Monbarak 61 62

SF defeated Wayne Van Voorhees 62 64

F defeated M Bernard 61 63 119

I do not remember but in 1961 or 1962 when Laver played at Deauville two events were played simultaneously there (I found it in a World Tennis magazine that I have not to hand) so it is very likely that the Centennial Cup and the Colonel Kuntz Cup were held simultaneously.

If you want some sources about Kenny and Marcel (mine are Sutter's book, Tennis de France, World Tennis and for the complete results, Andrew Tasiopoulos)

Other sources : look at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=Rosewall+Bernard+Deauville&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&ned=us&as_user_ldate=1956&as_user_hdate=1956&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a in the Google Archives. You will decipher that Bernard also beat Malcolm James Anderson in the semis 61 64

In the first decades of tennis there were often two men's singles events at the same location and dates especially in Germany (complete results can be found in Ayres' Almanacks for instance compiled by Arthur Wallis Myers). Look for instance at Wilding's titles, he won the Wiesbaden Cup and the Wiesbaden Championship the same week in 1907. In fact many players could default one match in one event and play in the other event. For instance Josiah George Ritchie defaulted in the 1908 London Chps final while he won the Chp of Europe, both held at the same site, London, Queen's Club, and dates, June 15-20, 1908. Below the final results :

London Championships, Queen’s Club BRI (Grass):

Kenneth Powell (BRI-G) - Josiah George Ritchie (BRI-G) 6-4 3-3 (retired)

Championship of Europe, Queen’s Club BRI (Grass):

Josiah George Ritchie (BRI-G) - Walter (or William) Cecil Crawley (BRI-G) 6-3 10-8 6-8 2-3 (retired)

In 1911 in a German or Austrian location Rodney Wilfred (or Wilfrid, I don't remember) Heath was beaten by the future winner of the main tournament but took his revenge in the secondary tournament.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few sources

[edit]

While I have little doubt that most of the info in this bio is accurate, it is woefully lacking in sources. I'm not sure any info in his "year by year" sections has any citations at all! This really needs to be fixed for such a great player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan....[The concept of Pro Grand Slam was not acknowledged at the time, but is a creation of tennis writers of later years.s It is an anachronistic idea, and should not be used in an encyclopedic context.} —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Doubles performance

[edit]

Where are all his important doubles results? Save his infobox, there is hardly anything on his doubles results on his article and his career statistics article on his doubles results. Given the fact that he achieved two career grand slams in doubles, it should be notable enough to be included? And how about his mixed doubles results. Tvx1 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mixed doubles of older players are always tough to find since the ATP/ITF don't mention them. I dug his up though and entered them in the infobox. he actually played very few. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Cup

[edit]

Tennis Hall of fame website lists Rosewall as 4-time Davis Cup champion. This article lists only three titles. Who's right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.163.63 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done He contributed to the 1973 Davis Cup win by playing a doubles match in the semifinal so that year has been added to the infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

[edit]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_of_Champions_(tennis) he won it in '68 - but it was different than in the decade before. Still change his result record to W? 2A02:2788:1004:4D:595B:D524:7E62:867E (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I fixed it in the infobox. The table should have no mention since it was not a pro-slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Rosewall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Rosewall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores

[edit]

What is the policy on numerical scores? I have been told that no numerical scores are allowed. There are many numerical scores in this article, should they be removed? Signed. 64.229.32.48 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

There is no wikipedia "policy" on scores. The usual guideline for scores is do not have them in prose unless they are an amazing record of some sort. Since the match or matches should have a proper source, or at least a tournament source if not a match source, then readers can get that detail from the source. So the best thing to do would be to make sure the paragraph is sourced properly and then remove the scores. You'd say he won in four sets rather than a set of scores. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TennisFan[ Thank you, Fyunck. I will proceed to edit the large number of numerical scores on the Rosewall page.64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Pro Grand Slam

[edit]

The concept of the Pro Grand Slam in the pre-Open era is anachronistic, the players did not mention the idea, the press

did not mention the idea, and it was a concept apparently developed only some years after the old pro era had ended.

It has no basis in tennis history, and if it used in discussing tennis records, it should be qualified by some

disclaimer such as "unacknowledged" to reflect the lack of awareness at the time of such a concept.

64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

I agree. I grew up in a tennis and Ken Rosewall loving family, and I've never heard nor seen the term. Too many slams these days. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. However the same could be said of the term Grand Slam when it first happened. And today we often talk of Grand Slam as one of the four majors, but that never happened before the 1980s so I guess we'd have to put disclaimers on those records also. Terminology and concepts change. Shall we put disclaimers on totals of majors won today when we compare them in a list of players from the 30s? Those events didn't mean as much then so players often skipped them. helen Wills would surely have won a Grand Slam many times and her total of majors would have been off the charts ridiculous at something like 35-40. But no, we simply put them in a chart with others and say she only won 19 majors and never won a Grand Slam. We often use contemporary comparisons of older records. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I often find them quite misleading and silly. I read the other day that Ash Barty had won her first Grand Slam, and wondered what we'll call it when she wins four in one year. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the English language, and I guess there's not a lot we can do about it. It starts out as an error but if enough people start using it, it becomes the norm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still wonder what we'll call it when she wins four in one year. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[TennisFan] If we start exporting our own contemporary terminology and applying it to historical events, we risk giving a misleading impression as to how those events were viewed and understood AT THE TIME. Historical discussion should use the terminology and understanding of the era being examined.

The Grand Slam did have a historical meaning, being coined by the press in 1933 to describe Crawford's near win of all four national majors of the time. It had already been used by the press to describe Bobby Jones' four major golf wins (different tournaments from today's golf Grand Slam) in 1930. It is possible that Vines in 1933 and Perry in several of the mid 1930's seasons attempted to win the four major national titles of that era. Budge and Laver won Grand Slams in 1938 and 1962 which were highly touted in the press of the day.

So the term Grand Slam was well known in 1963 and COULD have been used to describe Rosewall's 1963 season IF anyone had thought of it as a comparable Grand Slam to the amateur concept. But no one did, not Rosewall himself, the press, the other players...no one.

Part of the challenge of the GS is the necessity to play on three different types of grass Australian, Wimbledon, Forest Hills, plus the major clay venue for red clay at Roland Garros.

There was nothing in the pro game in 1963 which corresponded to Roland Garros, the French Pro was indoor on wood. So the major distinctive of the tennis GS was missing from the pro tennis season, and no one thought of it as a GS season for Rosewall.

The so-called "Pro Grand Slam" was unknown to the players, and it was not something which the players themselves aspired to or attempted to win, it would be only an accident if they fulfilled some later idea of a pro GS. Therefore, it was not a part of the pro season, the players did not gear their games to achieve a pro GS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there was no general agreement as to which specific tournaments would be included in a pro tennis GS. Laver in 1964 specified several pro events as "important", but that list was well above the arbitrary limit of three which is assumed here for a supposed pro GS. Some proposed pro tennis majors, Wembley, U.S. Pro, French Pro either did not exist in many years, or were subject to itinerant lives, travelling from venue to venue without official recognition. In some years, these three events were not the most important pro tournaments in terms of money or recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term Grand Slam today for the 1963 season retrospectively is an anachronistic historical error. If some contemporary reference to the proposed 1963 Pro Grand Slam could be found either in the press or contemporary interviews or statements by Rosewall or other players, that would justify using the term in this context. But that level of requirement is not met here, and no matter how low the bar is set, this concept fails to meet it.64.229.32.48 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

The tennis world, and I assume many sports, is always applying today's terms to yesterdays news. Gordon Lowe didn't know he was playing in one of the four Majors when he won the 1915 Australasian Championships. But in later years that's the category history has put him in. Career Grand Slams? Doris Hart won one but probably never knew it. Non-Calendar year Grand Slams? Unheard of at the time but Maureen Connolly did it and no one cared. The ATP didn't exist until 1972, yet 40 years later they start including records from 1968 as ATP records. Retroactive awards happen all the time and to single out the three most prestigious pro tournaments seems unfair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TennisFan [Fyunck,In your other examples, there was some level of continuity in the titles. In the case of the old pro tour, the titles ceased to exist when Open tennis arrived, and the discontinuity between the old pro circuit with its small fields and indoor venues, with no clay surfaces after 1962, compared to the traditional majors with major outdoor stadiums, large fields, and a complete variety of major surfaces is so stark and drastic as to preclude any reasonable comparison. To suggest some comparability by using the Grand Slam label is preposterous.
Further, the suggested Pro GS events were not always played, and when played were often overshadowed by superior pro tournaments with more prestige, traditional outdoor major venues, and more money.
At the very least, it should be recognized that the identity of the most prestigious pro events changed from year to year, and thus the idea that there was a continuous series of regular pro majors is not sustainable. The real motivation for suggesting the idea of pro majors only occurred after the fact, perhaps by Bowers, who admitted that it was a controversial idea, in an attempt to revive interest in the old pro era by creating an idea similar to the post-1968 GS popularized by Laver in 1969. A rather transparent effort, but completely artificial.64.229.32.48 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan.[reply]
(edit conflict) Look, I don't make the rules. We source it. If the ATP and press want to do retro-work on tennis info, and you don't like it, that's your problem. My guess is they will continue to do it. I can't help what the press and media write these days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Three reliable sources the New york Times reported in 2009 winning all three pro slams in the same calendar year was considered (I assume Mr Anderson meant at the time) achieving the pro Grand Slam. And John Bercows book chapter on Rod Laver, won the Pro Slam in 1967. Tennis Australia governing body Laver capturing https://www.tennis.com.au/news/2012/09/28/friday-10-to-1-lavers-greatest-moments the Pro Slam in 1967. An interview by Laver himself with Martin Herman, Reuters June 2017 is very interesting analysis of his own game and despite winning the calendar Grand Slam in 1962 when he started to play the pro tour he realized how bad his game was. Two interesting quotes from him " “I know that a lot of amateur officials and players thought that the pros couldn’t be very good because we just played against ourselves all the time... so I told them they shouldn’t believe that" and “The pros were tough and fast and you needed a big first serve and good second serve. You had to play more of a percentage game that we see today. As an amateur you didn’t need to do that and you would still win".--Navops47 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But what is a pro slam? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Grand Slam article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Won all three Pro slams Wembley Pro, French Pro and US Pro same calendar year. Source: Robertson, Max (1974). Encyclopedia of Tennis. pp. 60–71.--Navops47 (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, but things seem to be getting a bit circular here. That wording says - "was considered to achieve a "Professional Grand Slam", or "Pro Slam"." No, he definitely wasn't. Not at the time. And that's part of our problem here. Some people NOW describe it that way, but not back then. So they NOT considered to have done that. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of disputing the sources given please provide a reliable sources that you can link to that we can see that to verifies they were not considered that at all many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a source that supports what the article says. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TennisFan Navops47, you mention Laver and his supposed Pro GS, but NOT ONCE did Laver himself ever claim to have won something called the "Pro GS", so you must admit that if Laver won something like this, Laver himself was completely unaware of it. Laver in his autobio gave lists of "important" professional tournaments that he won each year, but that list went well beyond the so-called three Pro GS events. The whole concept of Pro GS is in conflict with pro tennis history. The three Pro GS events were not the most important pro tennis tournaments, not even close. Probably the six TOC events were the biggest events in status and money, and the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, which offered much more prestige and money, prestige outdoor stadiums, not the smoky indoor wood of Wembley or Stad Coubertin. By giving emphasis to those indoor wood events, we get a distorted picture of what really constituted important professional tennis.64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Well that's interesting because historian Bud Collins says you are full of condensed all-soup. He said the three events that the outcast pros held dearest were the US Pro, French Pro, and Wembley. Somehow I'll take his word over an anonymous IP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very interesting but as I said to the previous editor you need to provide sources contrary to the statements already given in sources that meet Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and support what your commenting about many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TennisFan] I will take Laver's own statements as to what constituted important events in HIS OWN career over those of any tennis writer. It appears that Bowers was probably the creator of the "Pro GS" concept, and that was well after the end of the old pro tennis era, and Bowers even admitted that this was a controversial idea. That alone should cause us to pause and reconsider. Collins made some odd choices in his own lists, especially on the U.S. Pro, so I am not regarding Collins as the Bible of tennis history. Sorry. The official expert on Laver's career is Laver himself, not a freewheeling writer.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the point here simply is this if the term Pro Grand Slam or Pro Slam is found in a reliable source book, newspaper, news agency, official governing body of the sport concerned you can include it.
What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

  1. The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  2. The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  3. The publisher of the work

What I provided to meet those three key points from one reliable source was.

  1. New York Times Sports Article on (Tennis)
  2. New Times Sports Journalist (Tennis)
  3. The New York Times Company an American mass media company and publisher of the NY Times.

My suggestion is you still need to provide reliable sources per the first 3 guidelines that support what your saying I'm all for improving articles thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's virtually impossible to provide a source that says a particular expression was NOT used to mean something at a particular time, written at that time. But I know it's the case here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TennisFan] There cannot be any reasonable doubt that Laver would have mentioned the purported Pro GS of 1967 in his autobiography (ghosted by Collins) if he had been aware of it or considered it to be of any significance, that is just common sense. It is an argument from silence, but sometimes arguments from silence are deafeningly loud and persuasive.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships 1946-1968

[edit]

In the era we are discussing, it was generally accepted that the title of "world champion" was awarded to the winner of the world championship tours arranged by Kramer.

Post 1963, the world championship title was awarded to the winner of the extended tournament series which the pros conducted.

There is no controversy about this in the literature.

Some media reports would off-handedly refer to the Forest Hills TOC winner as "world pro champion", the Cleveland World Pro was billed as a world championship, Wembley was billed as a world championship, and Roland Garros Pro was billed as a world championship, but those claims were never pursued consistently by the media.

It was always the winner of the Kramer world tour who could legitimately claim the title of world champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 64.229.32.48 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Tennis Fan[reply]

Looking at newspaper accounts, none of those things allowed anyone to claim a "world champion" title. The press just parroted what the event said. So there is controversy of this in literature. Tournaments had more prestige than a traveling tour. And usually, if anyone got heavy press as a world champion, it was the amateurs who won Wimbledon and the US Championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And it would be nice if the OP could actually provide links to that "literature", and evidence of it being "generally accepted". I lived through those years, and don't recall anything about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in fact there was a lot of controversy about this in the contemporary literature. The PLTA named Segura as #1 in 1951 for winning at US Pro, and did not even rank Kramer due to "insufficient data" -- despite Kramer's World Series win (over Segura himself!) A tennis magazine, The Racquet, wrote in early '52: "Despite the fact that Kramer topped him on that tour, Pancho has since then successfully defended his [US Pro] title and is still regarded by officials as the first ranking player of the world." Gonzalez said he had the rating of #1 for 1953, and that was the year that Kramer beat Sedgman in the World Series: but Gonzalez could claim #1 because Jack March ranked him #1 and declared him world champion for winning the World Pro Champs in Cleveland. Jack March had his own "official" rankings, based on his tournament, just as PLTA had their own, based on the US Pro. In '56 March told World Tennis that French Pro was wrong to bill itself as World Pro: "There is only one World Professional tournament. It has been played in Cleveland for the last six years for a $10,000 purse." Kramer then aped March in late '58 when he was quoted in World Tennis: "When Jake was asked which of the many 'World Professional Championships' he considered deserved the title, he replied 'Forest Hills, Los Angeles, Melbourne and Sydney.' The four tournaments are under Kramer’s aegis. Among those not mentioned were Wembley, and Jack March’s World Pro event in Cleveland."
Kramer and March did this a lot, going back and forth, each claiming only their own tournaments as legitimate World Pro Championships. Nothing about the World Series, in these exchanges -- though of course the World Series billed itself as conferring the world title. But so did a lot of tournaments, most prominently Cleveland/US Pro, French Pro and Wembley. A Barcelona newspaper, La Vanguardia, even said that though Gonzales was the true #1 for 1957, Ken Rosewall was "officially" #1 ("oficialmente," in Spanish), because he won Wembley. And Gonzalez had beaten him in the World Series that same year! (This is a little like Segura losing to Kramer in the '51 WS but getting an official nod from the PLTA as #1). Wembley seems to have had some type of official sanction as the world pro championship (this needs to be investigated and sourced if possible).
In '64 when Laver took the Wembley title from Rosewall, who had held it since 1960, the British press said that Ken had been world champion since 1960.
In 1961, as I mentioned, the NY Times reported, the day after Ken beat Pancho in the World Pro Championships/French Pro at Roland Garros, that Gonzalez had lost his title in Paris to Rosewall.
Then in 1964, the press in South Africa quoted the players as saying: "It is generally accepted that the major tournament on the annual international circuit decides the world championship for that year. This year it was the Wembley tournament in London, which Laver won." So with Laver getting those accolades as world pro champion, but Rosewall still ahead in the pro ranking system of points, the players themselves decided to set up a Challenge Match between Rod and Ken: and this event thus became a World Pro Championship. It was even in some sense official, since it was agreed upon by all the Kramer pros -- though Jack March still held his Cleveland World Pro event in '64, won by Gonzalez, and still, no doubt, regarded Gonzalez as the true world champion. In later years Gonzalez is sometimes named as world pro champion from 1953 (the first year he won Cleveland) through 1964 (the last year he won it).
The whole pro scene was filled with claims of world pro championships -- though in general it was only US Pro/Cleveland, French Pro and Wembley that took on that title. And the World Series too, of course. The WS was surely the single most important event, as we judge it today -- but that doesn't mean there was anything "official" about it. Krosero (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[TennisFan]. It was not a chaos of world titles, however. There were two divisions, the Kramer tours (and Kramer owned the contracts of all 12 top professional tennis players) and the events outside the Kramer tour.
The conflict exists only in one way, between Kramer's official Tennis Inc. world championship title, awarded to the winner of the world series (which usually was played only in the U.S., not internationally), and those tournaments outside the Kramer management (Wembley, Roland Garros, Cleveland) all of which tried to affix the "world championship" rubric to their own tournament.
Because Kramer owned the contracts of all the touring pros, his designation of "world championship" bears the greatest weight, although these world series were often between only two players, and not necessarily the top two players.
So it makes sense to distinguish between "official (Tennis Inc.) world champion" and "world No. 1", who might be a different player.
I would not be distracted by the use of "world championship" for a single tournament, especially since the most prestigious and lucrative pro tournaments were inside the Kramer tour, and Kramer himself designated four of them as the pro majors, Forest Hills, Kooyong, Sydney, L.A. Masters. It is worth noting that in 1958, there were two Masters titles, one in L.A. won by Segura, and the other in Sydney, won by Sedgman (a $21,000 money pot).64.229.32.48 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Removal for lack of citation

[edit]

TennisFan..... There is a lot of material which has been on this page for a long time without citation, so I think that it is time to remove it. Recently, some of my additions have been deleted immediately, and with a stern warning, for lack of citation. So, what is the policy?64.229.32.48 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Usually, if things have been longstanding, we would put a {{fact}} tag next to the offending statement. If that's been on awhile then it can certainly be removed, but only if it's obvious that it's incorrect. And you have tried to find a source. Things were more lax years ago. Today, you should include the source to anything that could be challenged, right away. Lest it be removed right away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck that is more or less what I would have said, if I could have logged on earlier, before the material was deleted. If a user today writes something in the article and it's challenged or deleted, that's different, because the user is active and can defend his material as he wishes, and if he can. But this older material, I'm not 100% certain who wrote it but I've seen it here for many years and if I'm right it was written by a user who is no longer active here. Some of the material looks to me like it may come from French-language books/sources, which are not exactly easy to find: all the more reason not to be so hasty in removing the material. At least a warning should be given -- and as you said, a sincere attempt to look for the source should be made (and then only if it's obviously incorrect, as you said). The passage from 1961 that was deleted, containing several names which gave the year to Rosewall, would have needed several citations -- one for each person rating Rosewall #1 -- in order to be fully cited. Yet the passage was deleted wholesale, as if every single name was judged to be unsourceable. To my mind that kind of editing is the very definition of disruptive (rather than constructive) editing. Krosero (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

edits in the last day by 64.229.32.48 --
-removed a surface H2H breakdown in the Gonzales article that had a citation and was verifiable
-removed Robert Geist as one of the names that rated Rosewall #1 in 1961 (in the Rosewall article), on grounds of being self-published, even though Geist's rating can be sourced to his article, GOAT With Muscles, published in TennisWeek in July 2009
-removed a statement in the lead of the Rosewall article for being "vague" ("Rosewall was one of the two best male players for about nine years and was the World No. 1 player for a number of years in the early 1960s"), even though that is not incorrect information, merely disputable in details (as all YE #1 debates are); and vagueness is not inappropriate for articles about the old pro tour which almost never had official rankings and in which players commonly shared YE #1 accolades across the tennis world
-removed the statement about Rosewall winning the pro Grand Slam on three different surfaces, after more than one user voted to keep the Pro Grand Slam in the article (and it's present in other Wiki tennis articles; and source-able in the TennisWeek article mentioned above, as well as other sources)
-put a "citation needed" note on the statement that Rosewall was the first in the Open Era to win a Grand Slam title without dropping a set, at 1971 AO, even though that is not incorrect information and is arguably common tennis knowledge (it is on Wiki and other sites and is easily falsifiable/verifiable)
As I said above, destroying material without first confirming that it is incorrect, and even in some cases when it is directly sourced/cited, is aggressive and disruptive editing.
And there were so many reversions of other people's material in the last 24 hours, if I go in and revert these deletions, will I be breaking the 3-revert rule? That's a sincere question to the mods here, I really am asking for guidance. Krosero (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


     [TennisFan].....There should be rules that are applied consistently, we should not have different rules for different players, that would be a biased result. If there are sources, then the citations should be given.  Just looking at a statement does not tell me or anyone how old the statement is, and if we have different rules for different statements depending upon how old they are, it makes it very difficult to edit the article.

  If records are being claimed, there should be a citation, or at least some indication that such a record is acknowledged in the record books.  Otherwise, we could make up records for all kinds of things. There should be a requirement that before a record is attributed to a player, that record should be shown to exist, it should be in a record book.  Otherwise, we have nonsense, every player can be attributed records which do not exist.  I have never heard of this supposed record of holding 3 pro slams on different surfaces simultaneously, this is a non-existent record.

Now, Hoad was the youngest player to win 3 Grand Slam titles, but that record was removed from the Hoad page because there was no indication that it existed in a record book. We should be consistent in our application of rules. Whatever the rules are, they should be applied. 

  I agree that material should not be removed without giving a chance to find a citation, but I have understood that the practice here is not always that way. There should be a consistent approach.

   The "vague" statements there were so vague as to lack clear definition as to which years are being referred to, surely, the years could have been identified, otherwise the information is without value.

I have removed some statements of some people which were only personal opinions or which used aggressive language (such as "revenge"). This may be distressful to some people, but it was necessary to conform to the rules. The results will improve the worth of the article. Hopefully in the future, editors will refrain from overburdening an article such as this with personal opinions and aggressive language. This is not "wrestlemania". 64.229.32.48 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Just commenting on the records section, because on that we agree. Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal all have these piles of records that no one has heard of. If there is a record of most Majors won on a Monday while eating a popsicle and we have a single source for it, then ok. But we should have a source for it before we add it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[TennisFan.......Completely agree, Fyunck.64.229.32.48 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan[reply]

Rosewall and TOC

[edit]

Rosewall's TOC win in 1968 has been replaced in the infobox by the 1958 TOC final showing (actually runner-up in a RR). In the Segura article we have included his TOC win in the Timeline section. In those late fifties years, the TOC was usually the foremost tournament of the year, although not a retro Pro Slam. Should we include TOC in the timeline for the players who won them? It seems logical for Segura, who regarded his TOC win as his greatest tournament win.Tennisedu (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First you brought up infobox and then timeline. What exactly are we talking about? The infobox would contain the TOC up to the Open Era. For the timeline it depends on whether or not they have a career statistics article. Standard practice for all tennis players is once they have a career statistics article their main page gets limited to Grand Slam tournament/Pro Slam tournament timeline only. The career stats article timeline takes care of the rest. If they don't have a career stats article then the player's timeline would be more inclusive. Segura does not have a career statistics article and Rosewall does. It should absolutely be in Rosewall's career statistics article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that is the distinction. We will try going with that.Tennisedu (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be great if Segura would have a career stats article, like Rosewall, with a list of all wins and losses. Far too few of our players from the past have them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewall vs Laver rivalry

[edit]

The term 'biased' in this discussion is not needed and potentially misleading as to cause. The actual total in favour of Laver for the Open Era is clear but the all time record is not due to the way it is worded. Antipodenz (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed entire sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles results

[edit]

We have included Rosewall's doubles results in the header for this article. I have been told that doubles results do not belong there. What is our policy on this?Tennisedu (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation-adjusted prize money?

[edit]

It's hard to interpret prize money from about 70-odd years ago. Is there a list of his cash finishes? If so, we can inflation-adjust these prizes to modern-day outputs to give at least a ballpark estimate of the winnings in modern terms. Electricmaster (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Records to be updated

[edit]

Rosewall and Laver have a shared record of winning a title for 21 consecutive seasons. Secondly, Djokovic reached 24 majors (so this Rosewall's record has been surpassed). I tried to update the page but something's wrong with the graphic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.72.101.30 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Rosewall&oldid=1255116190"