Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)/Archive 1

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Quite a few web pages are out of date, by still indicating that winning the grand slam means winning all the tournaments in a calendar year.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)

A "Grand Slam" in golf is winning all four "Majors". A "Grand Slam" in Tennis is a single tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.197 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The media now always refer to winning any one of the four nominated tournaments as a Grand Slam. They say Federer is now looking for his 17th or 18th Grand Slam which is nonsensical with the proper definition. Apparently, the requirement to win all four ( either in a single year, or consecutively, or whatever ), is too much for their tiny attention spans. Advocates of the proper definition may as well give up, you have about as much chance as you doing of having a billion with twelve zeros in it. Eregli bob (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually they usually say Federer is looking for his 17th or 18th Grand Slam Title. But just because the media is incorrect doesn't mean that in a dictionary or encyclopedia that we can't be correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says it's the media creating the confusion? I don't think this helps.....

   image: Australian Open logo.svg

HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry everyone. DASHBot has removed the above image as "non-free". Probably true, but I didn't even think of it being an issue on the Discussion page. It was the official logo of the Australian Open, which includes the text "Australian Open....The Grand Slam of the Pacific") HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

lol...All too true. The media started with the error and the Majors are now using the incorrect term because it makes marketing sense. What's also funny is right after I wrote my response I was watching tennis on tv and the announcer said "Federer is looking for his 16th Major." So "Major", "Slam", "Grand Slam".... they are all interchangeable by the media. Only Major or Slam are correct though. Watcha gonna do these days when the English language is under so much assault? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2010 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.158.94 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

The one that makes no sense to me is "A number of high-achievement players have failed to achieve the Career Grand Slam because they did not have long careers or because particular tournaments.." Does this mean if they had played longer they would have won or if they played of different surfaces they would have won? Dow this mean I could claim that if I had been a boxer I would have been heavyweight champion of the world? This is pure speculation and has no place here. 75.191.151.75 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2010 (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)

Calendar Year Golden Slam

"Tennis was not an Olympic sport from 1928 through 1984 (except as a demonstration sport in 1968 and 1984); therefore, many top tennis players from the past never had the chance to complete a Golden Slam." A Calendar Year Grand Slam was achieved in Single: 1938, 1962, 1969, 1953, 1970 ; Doubles: 1951, 1960, 1984, 1998 ; Mixed: 1963, 1965, 1967 : In only one case there were Olympic Games: 1984. In all other cases no Olympic Games were held at all. So even if there would had been tennis as part of the Olympic Games, no players other then the Women double of Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver (1984) had been denied this achievment because of tennis beeing not part of the olympic games.
You can hardly call that 'many' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.130.171 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed Maria Bueno in 1960, but yes, this is a good point. It's not that it's untrue that Laver & co didn't have the chance to complete a Calendar Year Golden Slam, but it's also true that (all other results equal) they wouldn't have been able to accomplish it even if given the chance. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Probably, the sentence simply referred more to Career Golden Slams, in which case it's more to the point of course, but then it's in the wrong section. —JAO • T • C 08:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Federer's Streak

while it seems almost certain that Federer holds the record for most consecutive men's singles finals, the actual content here is wrong (and i don't know how to fix things!) First of all, 14 appearances would've taken him from '05 Wimbledon to '08 US, not '09 (which obviously hasn't even happened yet!), and secondly he was defeated in the semifinal at the Australian Open in '08, so his streak is only from '05 Wimbledon to '07 US (10 appearances.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.131.123 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Calendar year Grand Slam (four consecutive majors regardless of year)

I never heard of the term "Grand Snap", but didn't someone refer to the non-consecutive Grand Slam achievement (notably, Martina Navartilova's) as the "Grand SHAM"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was used by several Tennis announcers to signify the fact the the 1 million dollar bonus given to Martina Navratilova was paid out by sponsor "Playtex."

Most consecutive Grand Slam singles finals (Women)

I notice 2 streaks that include only US Championships are omitted, presumably because the other 3 Slams were not held during this timespan: Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 4 (US 1915 - US 1918) and Pauline Betz Addie 4 (US 1941 - US 1944). I would argue that these should still be included in the table, as their streaks were not interrupted by other Slam finals that they didn't participate in.--Gap9551 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't even considered this before now so you bring up a good point, and I would be inclined to agree with you. It's sort of funky but it's not their fault there were no other tournies to play. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Career "Boxed Set"

Can someone expand the details in the Career "Boxed Set" section please. The first year of each tournament being won would be useful. Fig (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Justine Henin Gram Slam Finals

Justine Henin PARTICIPATE in 5 consecutive grams slams finals, from Asutralia Open 2006 to French Open 2007 (Se was absent in 2007 Australia Open)Please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.252.57.49 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tennis Majors

The term "Majors" as describing the four biggest events in tennis has been around far longer than the phrase "grand slam tournament" and there is no need for a reference note to say where it comes from as it is as obvious as many other terms in this article. Heck we'd need to start putting "fact" after grand slam and doubles team which we don't. Nevertheless a reference for the fact that the terms are interchangeable IS in this article and I reject the systematic removal of the term throughout this encyclopedic entry and many other tennis related subjects. Just today on the Tennis Channel they interviewed Lindsay Davenport who said Serena Williams is more interested in accumulating Majors than winning anything else. Both terms are vital to the articles and keep the reading interesting by breaking up repetitive phrases. Plus it keeps the reader informed that they are the same thing, and keeping the reader properly informed is what we are trying to do here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Major. Grand Slam, when referring to a single tournament, is a newer term used by sloppy reporters and marketers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Boy that's true, and I wonder who first blew it with the terminology? Bud Collins says pretty much the same as you for what it's worth, but the fact remains that the incorrect vernacular has entered the public media so both terms now need to be referred to. But now in Margaret Court, this article and goodness knows how many others, one particular editor is removing the term Major. I can't keep up with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The choice is not between "Grand Slam" and "Major." Rather, the choice is between "Grand Slam tournament" and "Major". No one is advocating that a single tournament be called a "Grand Slam". As for the Margaret Court article, Fyunck advocates horrible writing that confuses our readers. A casual reader of that article would have no idea that "Grand Slam tournament" and "Major" are synonyms. Abrupt shifting terminology when the terms have technical meanings should be avoided at all costs. Fyunck, you must stop trashing editors through exaggeration and innuendo. Striving4 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To you it's "horrible" writing but encyclopedias throughout history have use the same style. Your repetitious use of the same term over and over further alienates the proper usage of Major and misinforms readers. You must stop trashing the articles and screaming harassment when someone points out your errors and your removal of the term Major or plopping in "some" is improper. Your other comments are simply spouting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Striving4 - sadly, many DO use the term Grand Slam to refer to single tournaments. Even the official logo for this year's Australian Open did it. They called it "The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific". You can see it at http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/index.html. It's wrong, and obviously confusing. Just marketing garbage. The tennis industry might do it that way, but to be encyclopaedic, we should avoid that term entirely for individual events. Exactly what is your objection to the use of the term Major? HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, "Grand Slam tournament" is overwhelmingly the term used on Wikipedia. Only in a couple of articles that Fyunck fights to supervise is "Major" used. Even worse, when an article uses "Grand Slam tournament" and then switches without explanation to "Major", our readers have no idea that the two terms are synonymous. That leads them to infer that there is an unstated difference between the terms when actually there is not. It's a simple matter of good versus bad writing and serving our readers appropriately. Striving4 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What is used on some wikipedia articles is irrelevant if it's wrong. The readers need to be informed that the two terms are interchangeable. Just because poor English has entered the language doesn't mean you throw out the good with the bathwater, and your systematic book burning of the historical term Majors, since have arrived on the scene, ruins the article and is a disservice to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You've just proved my point about your penchant for exaggeration and spreading innuendo. "Systematic book burning" and "ruins the article", huh? Highly inflammatory, overly dramatic, and incorrect. Striving4 (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks one needs look at ones own inflammatory remarks before commenting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK kiddies, stop the squabbling! Striving4 - You didn't respond to my point about the obvious confusion now being created through the dropping of the word tournament, even by those responsible for tennis. The term Grand Slam now has two conflicting meanings in common usage. Can you please let me know your thoughts? And I really do want to understand. What is your objection to the use of the term Major? It only has one meaning. Much better for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to say. We can't control what the Australian Open marketing department says about its tournament. Again, I am not pushing for "Grand Slam" when referring to tournaments. But I am pushing for consistent usage to help our readers. Mixing "Grand Slam tournament" and "Major" in the same article without explanation only confuses readers and is bad writing. Striving4 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Grand Slam tournament titles

This section is completely wrong for women. Where's Steffi Graf and 22 titles, Billie Jean King, Serena, Navratilova, etc.? The list currently shows:

• Maureen Connolly Brinker (6): (1952 Wimbledon through the 1953 U.S. Championships).
• Margaret Court (6): (1969 US Open through the 1971 Australian Open).
• Martina Navratilova (6): (1983 Wimbledon through the 1984 US Open).

What does that list even represent? — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone changed this to "consecutive"; now things make sense. — Timneu22 · talk 14:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But where is the "Most Grand Slam tournament titles" then? Perhaps the greatest clue towards deciding the greatest tennis champion of all time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.112.127 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I rewieved the article again, and I am a bit clueless, why there is no comment or list of most grand slam wins i the beginning of the article. The problem is, as I see it that it is not obvious what the topic of the article actually is.. Is it the tournaments or the speciel achivement (both called Grand Slam)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.112.127 (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time let Rafa Nadal win

Glad so willing to improve things, and keep the wikipedia update, & even up second. But next time please let the match finish, before giving Nadal´s 2010 Open. --Elloza (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Calendar year

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

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

(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

(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

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

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)

Clarify career grand slam

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)

Championships

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)

Majors

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)

Definition of "winning the Grand Slam"

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 (talk • contribs) 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)