Talk:Pancho Segura

"two-handed, both sides", in the box

This is false -- he had a one-handed backhand. Only his forehand was hit with both hands. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Having never seen Segoo play I have to go by other sources. This article claims he had a two-handed backhand although it mentions that it was not apparent as he had a single-handed follow through which seems to be corroborated by this image. Also this Corbis image shows a double-handed backhand. --Wolbo (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw him play several times, and he did NOT have a two-handed backhand. somewhere, in either kramer's book or the recent bio of him, segoo says that he never considered doing it that way as a kid, but that he should have. the first pic clearly shows a one-handed shot -- the second pic looks like a posed publicity shot to me.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I downloaded the second picture, then "mirrored" it, flipping the image. Et voila! he is now hitting a two-handed forehand -- just as the caption on the photo itself says he is doing. Trust me on this. Hayford Peirce (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The first answer is correct. I'm his stepson and can verify with no ambiguity that Pancho Segura had a two (2) handed Forehand only! He had a one (1) handed backhand with an assist with the left hand. He released the left hand as he impacted the ball. That was not the case with his forehand. He held the racket with both hands on his forehand all the way through the shot ending over his left shoulder. This was a unique shot with the right hand on top and the left hand underneath at the butt of the racket. The image claiming to be his two-handed backhand is simply a reversed negative. He is right handed and hit the forehand with one hand on occasion, mainly after his pro career when he was teaching. He also had a one (1) handed forehand volley. He learned to play with two hands as a youngster by force. It was not by choice and came about because he was very weak as a child. He suffered from malnutrition and developed rickets as a result. Its obvious to anyone that has seen his bowl legs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotonnaroll (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comment! Have you read the fine biography of your stepfather, Little Pancho. It has a couple of errors in the picture captions, and not enough info about his professional career, but is well worth reading. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of Death

Reports say he died on Saturday November 18, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have just read the Monday print edition of the New York Times. It states clearly that Segura died Saturday. That is the 18th. So I am changing it back. The New York Times can make errors, yes, but until someone comes up with a more authoritative source saying that he died on the 19th, I think we should go with this. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote from the New York Times -- it is the same in both the online and print edition: "Pancho Segura, who surmounted a sickly and impoverished childhood in Ecuador to become one of the world’s leading tennis players in the mid-20th century, died on Saturday at his home in Carlsbad, Calif. He was 96." As you can see, whether you speak American English, UK English, or Australian English, the key word is SATURDAY. Ie, the 18th. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, the NYT source is used to support various facts about him, BUT NOT for his death. The sole source we are using for his actual death, in the section titled "Death", is this, which is in Spanish and says "domingo" (= Sunday). That's the only source I've been looking at, since it's the only one that has been chosen as relevant to his death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's also the sole source used at his entry @ Deaths in 2017 (for 19 November, btw), which is where I read about his death in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to start a war but all the sources I read in English report that he died Saturday, told by his son Spencer Segura : The New York Times, ESPN, The Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times [1], The Washington Post tells also November 18. Just want to help. Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So, we need to deprecate the Spanish source, remove it from the article and elsewhere, and use a more accurate inline source for his death. Who's up for it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Could there be time zone shift problems in relation to the discrepancies? Maybe El Universo pulled it off a European wire source? Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I would happily put in a ref. source to the NYT article if it is the simple process used for OTHER sources. But this whole info business is a mystery to me.Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A "Red Link" (or two)

One down

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pancho_Segura&type=revision&diff=970775075&oldid=966431243 was intended to fix a "Red Link".

One "to go"

However, that section -- (the "Retirement" section) -- also contained another "Red Link", (which is still red, and) which probably should be fixed, ... if someone can figure out what article it should link to (where it should "point" to). That hyperlink that is still "red", points to -- and is still displayed as -- "Beverly Hills Tennis Club". Perhaps that hyperlink was intended to be a reference to the tennis club of [what is now called] the "Los Angeles Country Club"? That is just a guess. Since it might not be correct, I decided to ask here, if anyone knows what was ("intended" to be) meant by ... << "Beverly Hills Tennis Club" >>.

Any comments?

Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Segura play for USA?

There is no contemporary record showing that Segura ever represented the United States in tennis play. He may have done some coaching for the U.S. players after his retirement as a player himself. The 1946 French Championship records which were assembled in 2012 appear to indicate U.S. citizenship for Segura, but that citizenship was acquired in 1991, long after he had retired as a player. The 1946 press accounts of that French tournament indicate that Segura was representing Ecuador in the event.Tennisedu (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is. The official French Open draw has him listed as from the USA. Who you represent has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship and I'd go with French Open before I'd go with the press. Wimbledon in 1968 also lists him as USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, your link to the draw is not working. But it is not the original draw, just a copy of some results of the original draw, apparently dating from 2012, not 1946, and there is no indication that the "country" indicated is from that original draw. The original draw would not look like this, it would be a photo record of some sort. What makes you think that this is from 1946 when it says clearly 2012?Tennisedu (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was the original paperwork. I only said it was from the French Open. The same with the official Wimbledon website. I would go with their info before i would go with a newspaper's info. We obviously have some conflicting data... pretty common with old events like these. But to blanket whitewash some of this data is not kosher. We should simply present all sides. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Which part was from the French Open? Those countries indicated could be added from 2012. You can get the original country indications from the contemporary newspapers, which shows that Segura is listed in 1946 at the French as representing Ecuador. Also, I have highlighted the 1946 US Indoor report where it says that Segura took that title OUT OF THE COUNTRY, meaning that he took it to ECUADOR which is "out of the country". You cannot take those 1946 French draw results, compiled and labelled in 2012, as indicating anything about 1946.Tennisedu (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, check out the Miami Herald report of the 1946 French, linked in the article we have here, where it refers to Segura as "the Ecuadorian". Clearly, there was nothing in the French tournament for 1946 which labelled Segura as an American representative. The recent compilation you refer to is obviously mistaken, because by 2012 when it was made, Segura had indeed become an American citizen. That explains the confusion.Tennisedu (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Again for 1946, check the link given in this article for the 1946 US Championships, where the report refers to "Francisco Segura of Ecuador", so clearly Segura was not labelled as an American representative at the US championships in 1946. We could go through every tournament of those years, and you would never see any reference to Segura representing the US....it just did not happen.Tennisedu (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldnt assume that because the data comes from an official source that it is necessarily correct and neither would I assume the official drawsheets were all kept a long time ago. For instance, Talbert in Tennis Observed states in the 1940 US draw Frank Parker beat P. Maguire 6-3,6-1,7-5 in his first match. But the newspaper results of that day state Parker beat Segura by that score (along with the other results in that round). So this would mean Segura entered the US championships mens singles in 1940. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/370347189/ "I would go with their info before i would go with a newspaper's info" you say fyunck. Newspaper results were published the day the matches occurred. There are many official sources that are wrong, because they have relied on someone finding and transcribing results, which includes human error. It is a great mistake to rely on an "official" source as 100% accurate. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I never said I would rely on something 100%, whether it's the ATP, Wimbledon, or newspapers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"I'd go with French Open before I'd go with the press". So with this thinking you would go with Talbert's book over contemporary press that states Segura played in 1940 US championships. "Fourth-seeded Frank Parker eliminated the strongest of the group Pancho Segura, Ecuadorean, who saw a movie of Jack Bromwich and copied his two handed technique. Parker won 6-3, 6-1, 7-5, but only after Segura frittered away a 5-1 lead in the third set." This sounds like a very accurate description of Segura to me. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/446312275/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly, how does that logic apply? A book is not the French Open or Wimbledon archives. You keep throwing out newspapers so that would be like me telling you that an Alabama High School newspaper is as accurate as the London Times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that Bill Talbert was tournament director of the US championships for many years? The official Wimbledon history by John Barrett states Major Ritchie was the oldest competitor in the men's singles. My research shows it was George Greville. Both Talbert's book and Barrett's have a high standard of accuracy overall, but there are errors. Not every newspaper sent reporters to events and the same results are often reprinted. I am not saying newspapers are infallible, but all sources should be assessed and a decision should be made on which is correct using the preponderence of the evidence. Contemporary sources are extremely valuable. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But we can't do that here if at all possible. We state all sides and give all sources for our readers. The preponderance will get listed first, but if respected sources have it different we tell our readers that. Old newspapers are great, but not always for the nationality they used in entering a tournament. I see plenty of events that list Charlie Pasarell as Puerto Rican entry, but officially it was USA. The same can happen to Segura and it's why we would usually turn to the actual draw to determine things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you what is likely to happen here with Segura, because I've seen it with other players in the past. If it can't be determined which flag icon to put in the infobox, an RfC will be started with tons of non-tennis editors weighing in. They don't like flags so he could wind up as a handful of other players have with no flag at all. But I will start an RfC on it if needed since both the French Open and Wimbledon list him as USA in their draws at certain times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldnt rely on official websites when it comes to countries. Some link directly to players profiles, which list the most recent nationality they were. To avoid the RfC, you may need to accept Segura was Ecuadorian. I presented you with just a very small sample of the many references to show that he was. I agree Olmedo is different, as he played Davis Cup for USA. It is very wrong to assume official websites contain complete and accurate information. I know someone who has been contributing data to ATP website. For many years Connors was listed as having 1256 career wins, its now 1274 thanks to new data added. All researchers use newspapers as major sources in their research, so newspapers are the original sources. Official websites, Talbert, McCauley, my book, etc. are secondary sources. Original sources should be given greater weight in the argument. I observed this edit war between you and tennisedu and felt it was about time some research was done using contemporary sources and listed on here. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What's interesting is Wikipedia policy. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." But in reality newspapers are not the original source. If newspapers tell us who is in an event it is because the tournament told them who is in the event and they wrote it down and reported it to readers. All these things can make mistakes of course whether it's original or secondary or tertiary. But Wimbledon and the French Open are usually accepted as very reliable sources as to who entered their events. Not 100% maybe, but darn close. They contradict some suppositions that newspapers have made and those sources should also be included. Segura was Ecuadorian but there are tournaments that have him entered as USA, and we have sources for it. Those tournaments show him entered as Ecuador in some events and USA in others. That should be acknowledged or there will be an RfC to build consensus. If a consensus of wikipedians feel that no USA entry should be shown for Segura, then I'm cool with that even if I disagree. That happens. If they want the icons removed from his article we'll have to be cool with that too, because that happens. But right now it's really only three of us arguing. Two of us keeping the articles as they were till things get figured out, and one of us changing things on the fly as they see fit. Most I let go because I don't feel like arguing about it. But Segura's actual article is a different matter. Some of the stuff that was added to the lead is way to trivial and belongs in prose. The lead is a summary of the most important highlights of the main body of prose. That foreign player resident crap belongs in the main body, not the lead, but I didn't remove it because I didn't want to edit war. The article is the loser here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Many years ago, before I became a tennis researcher, I assumed every result from every amateur and open event was written on a tournament drawsheet and all of them were kept in official archives back to 1877 (and then transcribed onto official websites). It was only after I became a researcher I realised that was not the case. Newspaper and magazine research accounts for the vast majority of research carried out by myself and other researchers (whether the information in the newspaper was given originally by the tournament is beside the point if the tournament themselves did not deposit their drawsheet containing the results in their archives). For the pre-open era pro tour all the results had to be sourced from newspapers and magazines (it never ceases to amaze me that not one player on the pro tour kept a record of all their matches. If they did, these records have never come to light). Tennis is a sport that seems to have so little regard for its history. We all know a certain editor and his edit wars, but it is important to pick the right battles to fight him on. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice observation. For some reason I always pictured Rosewall as the kind of guy who would keep impeccable records of all the pro tour results together with the financial bookkeeping he was doing. Alas, apparently not, although if all results were readily available at the push of a button that would take away some of the joy of discovery.--Wolbo (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Tilden kept fairly accurate records for each world series he played (often quoted in newspapers), but it seems they were not kept over a long period of time (if they were they have not come to light). That is true what you say Wolbo, the lack of records has meant the joy of discovery for people like me. What I find particularly thrilling is finding results that are offline and emailing libraries, I have found entire tours that havent been reported since the week they took place. The late Robert Geist actually corresponded with some of the players and would occassionally get small pieces of information from them (I know people that knew Geist). For the pre-open era pro tour the vast majority of results have been found by six people (in no particular order): the late Joe McCauley, the late Robert Geist, krosero, a researcher called Andrew who consults Australian archives, the guy I mentioned who provides info for the ATP website and myself. And the process of finding results continues. Although most results have been found, there are still some yet to be discovered. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well seems like this thread got off the topic. Seems to me there are a few reasons to determine whether if someone 'represents' a country like: they are a citizen of that country, they played in a representative team for that country sanctioned by the relevant authority and/or that authority has some exceptional reason to make such a claim that is made transparent. None of these apply. Indeed it is clear that the national authority considered him throughout his career to be a foreign player and, as noted, his citizenship of the USA was gained well after his final playing days. Now that is noteworthy and is actually stated twice (not surprisingly in the retirement section). The title/comment associated with the respective flag is "Country (sports)" and thus it clearly refers to the subjects sporting career, for which Segura was an Ecuadorean citizen playing as a foreign player in the US. Antipodenz (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with this, so why do we still have an American flag with Segura's info box? That conflicts with the information in the lead.Tennisedu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Faulty Edits

What is with these faulty edits? They appear to be related to citations. What happened to Colonies Chris? He seems to do this to the tennis articles. Tennisedu (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC) It looks like Colonies Chris has made literally thousands of edits in the last month or so. This is a real person or a program run wild? And these edits create thousands of errors in the articles.Tennisedu (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Such as? We need some examples so we can tell Chris what not to do in the future. If you are talking about the error messages in the ref section it's because whoever originally added the refs did so incorrectly, with improper formatting. He corrected the formatting at which point the missing titles show up as an error. Those need to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tennisedu This was reverted why?[2] Jevansen (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

As a courtesy, you should have notified Chris of this discussion, if you're going to moan about his work (of which I see no issues). Jevansen (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears that he was already notified a few times by others. If you are going to change citations, the editor should do a complete fix, or else leave it. Otherwise errors appear. If no error message appears with the original citation, why change it?Tennisedu (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No error message appeared because it was an ill-formed citation. The citation was wrong to begin with and since no error message appeared everyone who glanced thought all was ok. All was not ok. I agree that usually when it is corrected it should be corrected fully, but at least this goes into a category that shows up on an error message page so that others will notice and help with fixing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Other editors have already been busy trying to fix his corrections. What kind of an improvement is that? He should do a correction so that the result does not generate an error message. If a citation does not generate an error message, why change it to something that DOES generate an error message? And no, some citations do not create an error message because they are fine. They conform to the minimum requirements for an acceptable Wikipedia citation. If an editor tries to IMPROVE the citation (and that is what we are talking about here, not a correction of an error in a citation, but an upgrade in the citation) then he should do the full job and not leave it in a state where it generates an error message.Tennisedu (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

On this occasion I agree with Tennisedu. As editor Fyunck is sharing his views on my edits, I may as well share my view on the subject. On a talk page Fyunck appears to be agreeing with Tennisedu saying "However, with the vast amount of these "fixes" on thousands of articles most are unlikely to ever be looked at... so the red error messages will likely remain forever." Which may well be true.

I used the same template for citations most of the time as it was a template used at that time by other tennis editors. Tennisedu has used an even shorter version for citations. When I edited I never looked to use a longer template, because I dealt with citations in bulk and the more information that had to be provided for each citation meant a greatly increased amount of my time spent on each article. As far as I was concerned providing the citation (and where possible an internet link to it) was the most important priority. I even sourced a lot of statements not written by me because the editor(s) that had originally written the content had provided no citations, a problem which no editor had rectified since the articles had been written/expanded many years earlier, despite many editors periodically fiddling around with formatting on those pages for years.

Some editors (and there are a lot of them) seem to spend all their time on wikipedia altering formatting. I have seen many times (not just on tennis articles) a long list of minor formatting edits on pages (sometimes in articles which contain glaring factual errors that no one has corrected). Whilst formatting is of little interest to me, it benefits wikipedia in a minor way (some corrections are more beneficial than others) and if editors enjoy this sort of editing, I have no problem with it. However, they should leave a page better than they found it. If they think that a title should be listed for each citation, they should find it themselves rather than covering articles with error messages.

Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We are in total agreement on these points. Tennisedu (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually coming around on this also. The problem seems to be that we used "cite web" and the mandatory title= attribute. Most people use title= to add the titles of the actual story, not the title of the newspaper. I myself would always use the name of the story. @Colonies Chris: moved the name of the newspaper to work=. Nothing wrong with that as it's what most people would do to begin with, but he removed the title= parameter, which is required. I read the template docs and they seem to indicate there is nothing wrong with using the newspaper title rather than the actual article name. It may not be normal, but it isn't an error or wrong. They will have to show me the template rules that say otherwise. But Colonies Chris removing the title= info without adding a title looks to be wrong. He created an error where none existed before. It may have been abnormal coding before, but it was error coding afterwards. It's being discussed on Colonies Chris' talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

When the citation templates were added to the article in 2020, the titles of the news articles should have been added. The recent edits have simply made this fact clear instead of misusing the |title= parameter of the citation templates. Every guide to citing sources will tell you that news article titles, if they exist, should be part of each citation. Here's an example of how to fix the missing information that improves verifiability, and which should have been provided in 2020 when these citation templates were first added to the article. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the info given for the templates, titles were used correctly. Per general usage maybe not. In looking at the cite web template there were no errors and now that they are "fixed" there are many errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not be adding titles to these citations, Jonesey95, as I deliberately used shorter citation templates to cut down on the amount of time I spent on each article. I found that providing a citation (including in most cases a web link to that citation) fully satisfied my own desire to source articles and I left the articles with no red error messages visible. As you have contributed nothing of note to any of these tennis articles to date and are so concerned about this issue, perhaps you should add this additional citation information yourself. Wikipedia editing is supposed to be collaborative, after all. I did not moan from the sidelines when I saw some articles had virtually no citations because previous editors from more than a decade ago had not added any. I added citations to the articles. There are still many tennis articles that are in need of additional citations and there are still tennis editors adding information without adding enough citations (or in some cases using even shorter citation templates than I used). There is still plenty to do for those that wish to contribute. Take a look around. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Photograph

That photo at the "1942" section of a tennis player looks like Bill Talbert, not Segura. Tennisedu (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The original photo comes from a newspaper. The caption in the newspaper states it is Segura, though I agree it doesn't look like him. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly Bill Talbert, no doubt.Tennisedu (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)