Talk:All-time tennis records – Men's singles/Archive 1

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Why this article was created

I have created article to add continuity to the existing articles Tennis Records Open Era (Singles Men) and ATP World Tour records it is from 1877 to present day which is the start date for the first Grand Slam tournament at the Wimbledon Championships I have also include statistics for the Professional Grand Slam tournaments which will be further updated. --Navops47 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is here Tennis records of All Time-Men's Singles, I would appreciate if any members of the tennis project can check data and offer any further assistance or advice and help in improving the article--Navops47 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure situations

These tables are a newer addition (dec 2013) and I'm cool with them. One major item though. They are all 100 wins needed except for deciding 5th set percentage. That is set at 20 wins. Makes sense... it doesn't happen as often and otherwise someone could be 4-1 and rule the top. The problem is 7 of the 10 players don't fit the criteria. They either need to be dumped or this chart needs to be scrapped. Also Murray doesn't make the cut off for the deciding set %, so he needs to go too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Slam confusion

In titles per pro slam event it has Rod Laver 4 French Pro titles, 4 Wembley Pro titles and 3 US Pro titles yet in Pro Slam totals it says Rod Laver has 8 titles overall. 4+4+3=11 not 8. However in the Wembley Championships Wikipedia page the total Wembley Pro titles is 8 and in the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships Wikipedia page the total US Pro is 5. 4+8+5=17. I'm a bit confused by all this.Perfectamundo (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are seeing that Laver has 4 French Pro titles. He has two, one before the Open era, and one afterwards. The one before counts as a Major (slam) and the one after does not. So as far as Majors he has 1+4+3=8. Here's the thing to remember. After the Open Era started in 1968 these tournaments became instant lower tiered events... they were no longer Majors. They continued being played until they became defunct but they were minor events. So Laver won 6 Wembly Pro titles, but only 4 of those are considered Majors because two of them came after 1968. Sort of the opposite of the French Open which was a lesser event until 1925, where it was given Major status for the first time by opening the event to the world instead of only having French club members allowed. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note - I found the table where you saw Laver with 4 French Pro slams.... that was an error that crept in. I fixed it. He has only 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fyunck nothing is set in stone and thank you for spotting the error and correcting it sometimes the facts and figures become a blur when your researching and reading so much data hope your well --Navops47 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nav, you did a lot of work getting those things in shape. If that's the only error that crept in after all the typing and fact-finding, I'd say that's well done. I know I'd do far worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! and off topic by the way I have started the overall women's article found here:User:Navops47/sandbox3 its really to complete the set I've already done and compliment this one obviously still in draft would appreciate if you could take look at it and leave me any feedback on my talk page I have also reduced the table sizes which actually look better and should be done for this article I think. The section on winning a GS title without losing a set is a bit messy I like the one you put in here but don't know how to do the same--Navops47 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked this table the other day I noticed it was incorrect on Perry. The one on List of Grand Slam men's singles champions was also incorrect. I fixed the later but it was formatted differently than this article and I didn't want to do it all over again, so I replaced it with my corrected version. The ladies have one also at List of Grand Slam women's singles champions that can be built upon to include all of tennis history. It'll be quite large I assume. For the men's table I had to make a decision on what to do with the challenge system that was around before 1920s. I guess technically if a guy won 6–1 6–1 6–1 in the final, but that was the only match he played, he'd have won the event without losing a set. I didn't count those. But if a player went through the full challenger bracket without losing a set, and then won against last years champion, again without losing a set, I counted that tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksPerfectamundo (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References date tag

If there are no objections can we now remove this tag I have spent a lot of my time finding sources now totaling 42 we have talked about this before for all records articles the ATP World Tour records has 18 sources only.--Navops47 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have plenty here and can remove the tag. -Testpored (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title changed and moved

I am proposing that this article should go back to either its original name or be changed to "All-time tennis records men's singles as a follow on from this discussion here: User talk:Testpored: Overall tennis records article name.

Based on these dictionary definitions

all-time (ôl′tīm′)

adj. Exceeding all others up to the present time: an all-time speed skating record.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011) by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

all-time

adj (prenominal) informal unsurpassed in some respect at a particular time: an all-time record at the Olympics.

Source: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition (2014) by HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014.

Please also note the original move here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overall_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles&diff=prev&oldid=588671507 was not done via consensus on the talk page.--Navops47 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If agreed the same should be done for Overall tennis records – women's singles.--Navops47 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem like this needed a big discussion, so I just moved it. If it gets complaints we can discuss the proper move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

Lots of interesting stats here, but here are a few items I think would improve it

Remove the 1973- rankings sub-section and just link it to the Open Era (OE) page, similar to the YEC and Masters links
Same for Prize Money (just link to OE) because that's redundant too
Delete the "playing top 10 opponents" section as that is just 1973- ATP website stuff already on the OE page. Plus I'd think that all the challenge-match tours prior to the OE could result in literally hundreds of top 10 wins for guys like Pancho, Kramer, and Rosewall given that their nightly opponents were probably top 10 by the rankings of the time. My opinion is just delete it and don't go down that rabbit hole of pre-ATP top 10 rankings.

I can make these changes (like I did with the YEC and Masters before) but don't want to step on any toes here. -Testpored (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me but can you leave the section and link you did with the YEC ATP 1000's tournaments.--Navops47 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just made the above changes -Testpored (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borgs all-time titles and finals

On this article Borg's total titles = 101 and total finals = 125. Yet on the open era records page and the ATP world tour official site his titles = 64 and finals=88 - where have all the extra titles and finals come from? Is this a mistake?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.112.93 (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are listed on Borgs article. The ATP misses a lot of events in their records... especially if it's before 1980. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating ATP Rankings

During the 2 weeks tournaments (GSs, IW and Miami) the rankings should be updated after the first week because every player already has one week added. If one drops a spot after the tournament, he still has one as before the tournament, although ATP site displays the rankings only at the end. The same situation with the match record: ATP site includes the wins and loses when the tournament is finished, but on this page the changes are operated right away.193.111.232.153 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We go with the source. When the ATP and WTA update their ranking we update our rankings; not before. Otherwise it's original research and WP:Crystal Ball. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the match records of the players? They are not listed on ATP until each tourn is done.193.111.232.153 (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is also true. Officially we MUST have a source for all info we put here on wikipedia. No source, no info. But, most tournaments also show the match record on their own websites. Some of those tournaments also say a player's ranking will change when the new rankings come out, but that is assuming the player isn't run over by a truck or decides to retire. Justine Henin retired No. 1 and asked all rankings to be removed instantly. Because that can happen we can't assume what a ranking will be 5 days from now. We have to wait until the ATP makes it official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but this is a different situation. Even if the player dies, the week is already his in the charts. By the way, you have just reverted only a part of the rankings update, so now they are not consistent.193.111.232.153 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I missed it unfortunately. All I can say is that by consensus we update rankings when the official sites update their rankings. We must have those sources or we can't add it. That makes it easy for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tilden numbers

At 'Grand Slam tournaments non-consecutive streaks', Tilden is listed as having 9 titles, 11 finals, 11&10 semis, and 22 quarters. However, Bill Tilden#Career statistics appears to show 8, 10, 10&10, and 21, respectively. Am I missing something? Gap9551 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it pending explanation, feel free to discuss. Gap9551 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gap9551: I'm guessing it's this...Tilden's career stats are totaling Aussie, French (1925-present), Wimbledon and US championships. However pre-1925 the World Hard Court Championship was also an official Major, and Tilden went to and won that event in 1921 (the only time he played the tournament). That total must have been included at "Grand Slam tournaments non-consecutive streaks". Now, it's fine to include it as a Major, but that would mean other players' totals should be taken into consideration. For example, Anthony Wilding's total should be 7 if the World Hard Court Championship is included. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. But the section has 'Grand Slam' in its name, so I agree with you that if we would add these titles, it has to be done for everybody. Gap9551 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament totals

Another thing that's being contested is player's win totals from the early days of tennis... specifically Bill Tilden. The Tennis Hall of Fame has numbers, the ATP has numbers, books have numbers etc. And now an editor says that the website thetennisbase.com (with no sourcing) has the correct numbers. the problem is it also incorporates numbers from head to head tours and one-off exhibition matches... not real tournaments. So it's numbers are highly skeptical. It's one thing to add a player using those numbers, but it's quite another to remove a player altogether without us putting our heads together to figure out what counts and what doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to count what's on the unsourced website, but as near as I can tell Tilden is 1083–136 in tournament play. That's 88.84%. That doesn't include tours and exhibitions or 4 man events. I could have missed 1 or 2 in doing my tallying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a commercial paysite? there is a https://www.paymill.com/ link at the bottom of the page so my view is they could have taken all of their stats from a whole host of places re-package them and then sell the data like some book publishers do with wikipedia articles its not reliable in my view.--Navops47 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but wouldn't the LA Times be a commercial paysite? You can view one or two articles there but to view all the info you must pay and be a subscriber. What's the difference? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also true but you can obtain newspaper sources for free most of the time we have no way of verifying unless someone joins the site to check whats going on inside (where are the sources coming from) which I have just done now I will spend a bit of time looking around before I go to work.--Navops47 (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people, I took a look in the questioned website and I must admit it's quite comprehensive. In the Legal Notice states: "thetennisbase.com is a web of: Tennismem SL. Av - Alberto Alcocer 5, 1st Right. 28036 Madrid, Spain" and there is also an email contact: info@thetennisbase.com. Finally, in the "General Terms and Conditions" section there are some limitations: "Unless that it is expressly permitted in the present Contract, you will not be able to: (a) Copy, download, store, publish, transmit, transfer, sell or otherwise use the content or part thereof in any way or form". Do you accept to use this website as a valid source to improve the article? If the answer is YES, a lot of data should be updated and I'd like to collaborate; if the answer is NO, perhaps this article could look a little obsolete, ignoring old statistics (I understand that is very difficult to find valid sources for old tennis data). Another thing that I like to comment is if it's time to deprecate the article Tennis male players statistics. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trance4Life (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely do not deprecate the article. Too vital. As for the website, so far all the info I've looked at has checked out with legitimate sources. It seems to be a great repository of facts that are already out there if one chooses to search. However the ABCDEF tournament rankings are subjective... in fact I do not agree with some of them and have argued by email to the administrator. So we have to be careful there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-time tennis records – men's singles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-time tennis records – men's singles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Drobný

A comment: at All-time tennis records – men's singles#All tournaments he is listed with 140 titles from 145 finals (first two tables), for a 140-5 finals record. His bio article says he has a 3-5 Grand Slam final record in singles. That leaves a 137-0 record in finals excluding GS. Theoretically that is possible, but I find it hard to believe without good sources. Gap9551 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you were right to be suspicious. Excluding exhibitions he was 147/56 in finals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then the 140 is too low, assuming those 147 are legitimate events (surely it is hard to define that). Gap9551 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so difficult. Between several sites (such as Tennisbase) we can see all the tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about you fix it then? Because, it is obvious to see, that at least something is wrong there. I waited many months, that a registered user fixes that and adds one or more reliable sources. So, if you are right, Drobny has 147 titles and 203 finals. I won't pay for a tennis base account, just to check that. --2003:42:294A:7900:85A7:C139:FDA9:EDED (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-time tennis records – men's singles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-time tennis records – men's singles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ILTF totals - there's something wrong

There is no time from for the totals of the ILTF Majors. All it says is "early." I look at those two tables of titles and finals and the totals don't match up to reality. As close as I can tell, those totals are supposed to be the most when counting the World Hard Court, World Covered Court, and Wimbledon championships. Is that supposed to be all the totals prior to 1925? If so William Renshaw had 8 finals and 7 wins. Does it exclude Wimbledon? If so that needs to be said so our readers understand that the totals are only for two of the three majors. If it's only totals of two of the three majors from 1912 to 1923 then again the totals are wrong since Goert was in 3 finals and won only one. And there are many more players that were in one final that aren't listed. As it is, that section is a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy in match totals

@Navops47: two months ago you added tables with numbers of matches played per court type. These totals are not consistent with other content of the article. For example, currently Federer is listed as having 948 hard court match wins in one table, but as having a 736–144 hard court record (880 matches played) in another table. The difference is 68 matches. I cannot verify the first number as your source is behind a paywall. If different types of matches are counted (Challengers, Davis/Hopman/Laver Cups, qualifying, etc), this should be explained in a note. Gap9551 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subsection. Even if accurate, matches played per court type is not a significant stat, compared to e.g. matches played overall, and matches won per court type. And the article is very long as it is (191k now). Gap9551 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JS8:, you reverted my edit, but did not give an explanation. Can you give it here, please? In particular why you want to include stats here that are better suited for the Open Era. Thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gap9551: the stats are not listed in the Open Era page, they're nowhere right now, that's why I reverted your edit.

They were removed from the Open Era article by someone else. If you want the stats somewhere, I believe you should re-add them there, not here, since they fit that article better than this. Gap9551 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ILTF world championships

Why aren't they counted as majors?

Cochet is supposed to won 10 majors, not 7. ILTF majors in bold.

French: 1922, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932
Wimbledon: 1927, 1929
US: 1928
WHCC: 1922
WHCC: 1922, 1923

Anyway you slice it, he has to be 5-time major champion on Parisien clay. Whether you acknowledge all of his French titles, or if you abide by ITF and ignore his French only title but then you must include his WHCC.

Likewise, Tilden is in its earnest, a 7-time major champion or 11-time major champion.

If you go per ITF, then he's credited for Wimbledon titles post 1913, his sole WHCC title, and for US titles post 1924, totaling only 7 slams. More sane approach is to include all of Wimbledon and US titles, so 10, but not ignore his ITF majors in Paris in 1921, WHCC. So 11.

Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.236.22 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They should be. What's tough is you had several governing bodies back then and lots of squabbling. The US Nationals looked at itself as a Major, as did the Australasian Championships. Then you had Europe's ILTF saying they had Wimbledon, WCCC, and WHCC as Majors. They were all open to everyone but travel times back then precluded a lot of crossover. However, you are correct that all those five events should be considered Majors and they are listed here in the section of Overall Majors. Cochet has 11 Majors in the list. So we have it covered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four majors in one calendar year

Seems a bit excessive to include semi- and quarterfinals. Any objection to removing those? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majors played yearly with the exception ...

Great article by the way. I appreciate these exceptions are noted but also highlight that the AO was played twice in 1977 so that looks like an exception also. Antipodenz (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITF definition

The first paragraph in the Analysis of Records section is relevant but I think the following would complete the story of how the ITF portray it: "The ITF constitution [recommend link] contains a Roll of Honour section that first lists players who have achieved the Grand Slam and then, following this, all the players who have won a non-calendar year Grand Slam (other variations including a career Grand Slam are not recorded)". Antipodenz (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match Winning

The match winning minimum requirement appears to be set too high. Over time the Majors have had different numbers of matches that have been played and generally the numbers were less in the earlier years. So setting this number disadvantages them as well as people that could not/did not travel for financial or other reasons (also disproportionately impacts those from earlier times). I looked at the reference and could not see listed, for example, Laurence Doherty, former multiple Wimbeldon winner and first man to win multiple Championships for those now considered to be Major tournaments. Antipodenz (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match Winning percentage per Grand Slam event

The percentage figures for this have a minimum requirement of 20 wins. That appears reasonable but I argue that it is set too high. The reason for this is that would require a person to enter a Major event on a minimum of three occasions. This might seem fine today but its a full time (and lucrative) profession today; the past limited people to attend these for reasons including: travel and competition time and inability to get sufficient time off from occupation, cost for attending/travel etc., even lack of some events (e.g. French players who were prominent pre 1925, Australasian ones likewise pre 1905 and so on). Added to this is the potential for injury or other life event that limits people's attendance. While clearly some limit is needed I favour 14, whether or not this has any (current) impact on the list. 14 is recommended as it requires a minimum of two Major events to be attended (in the current organisation of such events) and then to have a perfect record in them. Antipodenz (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tilden consecutive majors

Tilden's outstanding achievement to achieve the double Wimbeldon/US double in 1920-21 is appropriately recorded in the two consecutive section (by the way Fred Perry is also recorded as having 2 of the same for years 1934-36 but that implies a three year period, rather it should show 1934, 1936 which while impressive was not consecutive as was Tilden's). There is later a section that states 4 consecutive majors for Tilden (Wimbeldon/US x 2) which might seem odd but a notation is provided which states: "only from 1925 onwards each year had four Grand Slam tournaments". This same notation was also referenced for Laurence Doherty's triple Wimbeldon/US/Wimbeldon in 1903. The problem is that this note does not sufficiently explain the circumstance for either Tilden or Doherty. While it does explain the limitations this article places on (aspects of) Grand Slam recognition (and thus perhaps therefore should be placed elsewhere) the specifics appear that, for Doherty the article only recognises Wimbeldon and US at the time of his achievement, and for Tilden, while this article recognises the Australasian Championships from 1905 and the French Championships from 1925 [this, surprisingly, is not made explicit] it was the timing of the Australasian Championship in 1920 (March) and 1921 (Dec), e.g. both before and after the respective Wimbeldon and US tournaments, that make this achievement possible. Antipodenz (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notation on Pro Slam draw

The comment that the pro Slam players "were the 16 top ranked players in the world at the time" is not agreed. Examples such as Budge in 1938 indicate this is not reasonably supportable. A different term such as 'most of the worlds leading players' would seem reasonable. Antipodenz (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect flag

For consecutive titles per Court type (outdoor) Wilding is paired with an Austrian flag - like others (otherwise correct) it should be that for NZ. Antipodenz (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Cecil Parke

The great Irish sportsman is featured in this article with his tournament streak of 9 in 1913, 8 consecutive titles on grass, 8 titles for the Irish Championships and 6 consecutive titles at the Irish Championships. All records are pre 1916 which is when the current Irish flag (tricolour) is considered to have become 'official' (may be some debate but this discussion applies to the period preceding that). However it is this flag that is used in respect to these records. There is some challenges with this issue but I refer to the Wikipedia entry for him. Firstly it notes he represents Great Britain in the 1908 summer Olympics (Union Jack represented) and for the Great Britain Davis Cup team. The referenced country under his photograph however is Ireland and the flag used to represent this is the red diagonal cross over the white background, often referred to as St Patrick's Cross or St Patrick's Saltaire. It is therefore this flag that appears to be the most appropriate to be aligned with his name and achievements. He is also recorded as attaining 9 consecutive titles outdoors but in this record he is aligned to the US flag. It is recommended that this be replaced with the St Patrick's saltaire. Antipodenz (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships

The article covers well the Grand Slam and Pro Tour Events and while there is some coverage of the World Championships (1913-24) the all time records for these are barely discussed and not tabulated. The relevant Wikipedia sites for the WHCC and WCCC could be referenced for general information but the following are noteworthy: Consecutive winners of the same World Championship tournament: - 1913-14 World Hard Court Championship Anthony Wilding - 1920-21 World Grass Court Championship Bill Tilden - 1922-23 World Covered Court Championship Henri Cochet Two World Championship Titles in the same year: - 1921 WHCC/WGCC Bill Tilden - 1922 WHCC/WCCC Henri Cochet - 1923 WHCC/WGCC Bill Johnston Three World Championship titles in the same year (a World Championship slam): - 1913 WHCC/WCCC/WGCC Anthony Wilding Antipodenz (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career Streaks

Featured here are numbers of matches won and finals played and they don't look like they are aligned. For example Tilden features 4 times in matches played from 61 - 98 in a row from which it is fairly easy to work out the minimum number of consecutive finals he must have played but he doesn't even get into the finals table at 11 consecutive. Antipodenz (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATP substituted for All-time

I wonder why we have substituted ATP ranking records here in place of All-time ranking records, because clearly the ATP era is not All-time. If we are merely substituting ATP era as if tennis history only began in 1973, then it would be preferable to exclude those ranking sections entirely. Also, why was the "youngest/oldest" section dropped? That section is not dependent on era, and is one metric which actually could be compared from both pre-ATP and the ATP eras. I would also suggest that we consider including for the pre-ATP era those years in the old pro and amateur era where there were clear official ranking lists produced by the pro and amateur tours. For the pros, point lists exist for 1946, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. 1968 had a clear all-pro format for a pro championship year-end at MSG. The pro tour produced formal rankings for the top pros in 1942, 1954, 1961, and 1963. So we have performance-based objective rankings not based on personal opinion for 11 years in the old pro tour. Why not use them? The amateur lists of rankings from Myers, Olliff, Tingay, Chatrier, and a few others could be seen as semi-official. The Open era did not solve the problem of indeterminate rankings, there are no less than 12 years with indeterminate rankings on our list, as recently as 2013. The problem of weak rankings has not been solved by the ATP. There are 12 Open Era years with multiple players at No. 1, so we have more players than years for the Open Era right to the present ATP era. Therefore, we should really not be adding up the Open Era No. 1 rankings into totals, either. Or perhaps we should exclude those 12 Open Era years with multiple No. 1 players. We might get some guidance with a look at professional baseball, where All-time records are precisely that. Home runs per season is a record for All-time, even though the length of seasons and the type of baseball and type of bat changed over the decades. The record is defined as "per season", not according to era. In tennis, the annual Grand Slam is still four majors per season, regardless of how the strength of each tournament has changed over the decades. Should we strike out the Grand Slam records, because the strength of each tournament has varied greatly over time, and transportation issues are easier to deal with today?Tennisedu (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in rankings for a few years only and there is the wikipedia policy often quoted by Sod25 to consider too. 1973 onwards official rankings is best for rankings. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Wikipedia policy also applies to the Open Era and post-1973 rankings as well. Many of those years are indeterminate. Using just ATP records do not belong in this article, these are All-time records. The ranking records restricted to ATP are not applicable to this article, they belong in the ATP records article, where they already are found. An ATP list is not an All-time list. This ranking section as currently constituted should be eliminated from this article. The column on playing against Top Ten opponents should also not be relevant for the old pros, because essentially every match they played was against a top ten pro opponent, and only in a few years was there a seeding list for professional tournaments. This Top Ten list is not appropriate here.Tennisedu (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get the argument - the same one for why we've not included just an ATP/ITF table in the all-time number 1 page. I've replaced the tables with links to the other articles in this edit. Likewise for the women's all-time records page. As for the oldest/youngest No. 1 record, it was completely unsourced. If there is strong explicit sourcing for that, it might be possible to include. Sod25 (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1973 it is not feasible to have tables. 1973 onwards its is. I dont have strong views either way about 1973 onwards. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the removal of the ATP tables from this article. Also agree on the theoretical possibility of comparing youngest/oldest across the eras, as this is not adding up No. 1 rankings or comparing the relative value of rankings across eras, just noting how old a player was whan "a" No. 1 ranking was achieved. We do have source references for the Tilden/Hoad age record rankings, but we have to add the age of these two players to get a claimed record, and there is no published account of these records. However, it seems to me that some extra work has been done to prepare many of the All-time records on the tables within this article, so I am not sure that we would be doing any more work than has already been done for other records on this page, probably much less. Many of them do not have published record sources, but are added here as obvious constructs. Take a look at Youngest/Oldest from this article, Open Era tennis records – men's singles#Youngest and oldest, clearly a great deal of work was done to construct this table of age related listings, much more work than we would be required to do for Tilden/Hoad, where the ranking sources are already under citation. The Youngest/Oldest from the ATP article have no published sources and are apparently prepared for this table.Tennisedu (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying with work having been done for those tables, but the difference is that that those players won those tournaments or were ATP No. 1s is undisputed, so there is no issue per WP:CALC, whereas saying a player was the oldest/youngest No. 1 ever requires all the rankings for each year to be certain, which they are obviously not. If there are reputable sources explicitly saying "X is the youngest/oldest No. 1" however, then we could include it. Sod25 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of all these number one rankings is sure a detriment to these articles. Amazing that we have no all-time No. 1 records that readers would expect to find here. I think the chopping has gotten carried away, and I wanted to make a point of saying so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the first part - it was fascinating to see the Big Three's names alongside the likes of Renshaw and Gonzales and Laver... but the tables were also completely unverifiable and so didn't belong here. Comparisons such as those are better suited to enthusiast websites that can play around with the numbers/pick and choose which rankings to use at their fancy. Sod25 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats my feeling too, Sod25. If a pre-open era ranking list were published with tables in a magazine it might be a good article, but is unsuitable for wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on previous discussions on the issue of records, I recall that it is all right to add names and dates to a record table which is already in existence and established as a type of record. We should be able to add the Tilden/Hoad data to the existing Youngest/Oldest records, and also find youngest/oldest data for title wins in the pre-Open era as we have for the ATP era.Tennisedu (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we are now misleading readers the other direction. Basically we are telling them that there were no No. 1 players of the year prior to 1973, and that's absolutely false. We are going backwards in making it seem that 1973 is when tennis started and prior to that all was bogus. It's been hard trying to let people know that tennis existed prior to the Open Era and that has taken a huge step backwards in the last couple weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how we're "telling them that there were no No. 1 players of the year prior to 1973" when the very first link is to a list of No. 1s spanning the sport's history. Sod25 (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By having articles such as List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players where it shows charts of "Weeks at No. 1", "Year-end No. 1", No. 1 by country, etc... It makes readers assume that Djokovic, Sampras, and Connors had the best total years of any other players... and that is not true at all. We have diminished 95 years of tennis history in the eyes of readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats right Sod25. There were no official number 1s before 1973. The unofficial number 1 citations before 1973 are listed, but no conclusions are made by adding them up, which is against wikipedia policy. The original article was misleading, with wikipedia editors choosing number 1 (often choosing between 2 players in a year, both with citations). Tennis may have begun in 1877, but official rankings began in 1973. Any attempt to imply there were set-in-stone rankings before that is fake tennis history. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But saying that there were no official No. 1 players before 1973 is incorrect also. There were 11 years in the old pro tour with performance-based official No. 1 rankings, and after 1973 the situation was not clear and obvious with 13 years with disputed and multiple No. 1 players. That is not a clean bill of health for post-1973. It just means that there were fewer disputed years for the No. 1 rankings after 1973. It does not mean that the problems of rankings were suddenly solved. That is a huge exaggeration. And some records do definitely transcend the 1973 marker, numbers of Slams won, Davis Cup victories, and other records. The Youngest/Oldest records should also transcend the 1973 mark, because we have accepted that pre-1973 No. 1 rankings have significance, just because the method of determining No. 1 changed at 1973 does not alter the concept of No. 1. The method of determining No. 1 continued to change after 1973, at several points the method changed. Does that knock out the No. 1 records pre-1990 or pre-2000? Those years saw major changes to how No. 1 is determined. The records for Oldest/Youngest do not specify a particular ranking method as part of the record. Similar in baseball where season records do not change with the number of games per season over the years, or changes in equipment. The record remains as it is specified.Tennisedu (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest obsession with youngest/oldest no. 1s is yet more Hoad promotion. Almost every source for 1953 specifies Trabert as amateur number 1 anyway, including Tingay. I like what Sod25 has done, merely directing people to the rankings page. That seems correct to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, nonsense. I am asking for logic here. The idea that disputed rankings ended in 1973 is clearly contrary to the facts. We have at least 13 disputed rankings after Open tennis, and as recently as 2013. If that is the only distinction between pre-1973 and post-1973 rankings, being undisputed, then there is no real distinction on that score. And if the distinction is having an official results-based ranking, we have that pre-1973 also. If it is believed that there was some sort of sea-change in rankings systems with 1973, then perhaps we should have a separate article for pre-1973 records. That would solve this issue and give some recognition to the achievements and rankings pre-1973. Sound good? Alternatively, we could have two sets of tables for ranking records, included both here and at the end of the annual world No. 1 ranking article, one set of records for pre-1973, another for post-1973. Of course, adding up opinion-based rankings is not possible, but there are other records which would apply.Tennisedu (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem if the ATP and ITF choose different number ones in a close year, that doesnt mean they arent official rankings. We have already discussed the tables issue countless times and the rules are still the same. Surely Sod25 doesnt have to quote the paragraph again! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the point, the point which someone claimed above was that there are no UNDISPUTED rankings post-1973, and that is clearly not the case at all. There were at least 13 disputed years post-1968, and disputes between official rankings beginning in 1971. If the standard is that rankings must be official and performance-based, then there are 11 years of rankings in the pre-Open era which meet that standard. Plus several in the early 1970's. Those should be included in the mix.Tennisedu (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your meaning of the word official and mine differ somewhat when applied to the pre-open era! Just to clarify, what are the 11 years and who are the players? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, Official means that the officials in charge of professional tennis arrange a performance-based system to rank the players. That happened 11 times in the pre-Open era. 1942, 1946, 1954, 1959, 1960 (results unknown), 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. In the Open era 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972. That is actually 15 years in the pre-1973 era. No reason to exclude those results from an official based rankings system.Tennisedu (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These were merely points systems. In 1959 (which is what your whole agenda is about) the point system did not include the main tour or the US Pro at Cleveland. Many 1959 sources ranked Gonzales as number one because they considered the tour (the winner of which was world champion) or US Pro to be of primary importance. This is just another thinly veiled attempt at Hoad promotion. So so bored of hearing the same rubbish again and again and again and again and again. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual nonsense about my intentions attempts and fails to obscure the purpose here, that "points systems" based on performance is what the official ranking lists are all about. You are again referencing opinion-based rankings in your defense, which also existed in 1959, to distract from the main point: that an official points-based ranking related to performance also existed that same year. That satisfies the requirements for an official performance based ranking along a points system. The U.S. Pro that year was a weak field event and was not, of course, included in the ranking series. The opinion-based rankings for that year were not official, and since 1973 there are many opinion based rankings which disagree with the official points rankings. No change there. And we also have 14 other official rankings based on performance for the pre-1973 era. That gives us 15 years in total. There is no reason to discriminate between the 15 performance based official rankings pre-1973 from the post-1973 rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to indulge the private fantasies of one of its editors. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can fantasize along your own lines, but I am interested in the facts only. Some of those facts were discovered by yourself, and I thank you for them. Come to think of it, the decision to exclude opinion-based rankings post-1973 is an arbitrary one. I would not give them the same stature as performance-based point rankings, but they certainly do exist and have a following. By excluding any mention of them post-1973, we are perhaps giving a distorted view of what actually happened in history, because opinion-based rankings certainly did continue. You yourself seem to give some credit to opinion-based rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, in 1973 and 1975 we have disputed years, and the unofficial No. 1 ranked players are ranked co-No. 1 on the basis of opinion-based rankings. And in 1977, Vilas is given one-third of a disputed ranking on the basis of opinion-based rankings. So we have NOT accepted the official rankings for No. 1 as of 1973, that is a misunderstanding. So what is all this fuss about? 1973 is not the watershed for our annual rankings article at all. Are you there, Tennishistory 1877? Your favourite opinion-based rankings are still influential after 1973 on our list! Tennisedu (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to treat the official vs. non-official rankings in the early Open Era on the men's No. 1 article is a valid question to raise (on that talk page). My point still stands that we would need strong explicit sourcing for oldest/youngest No. 1 to include those records on this page. Sod25 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't need strong explicit sourcing for Youngest/Oldest No. 1 on the ATP records page? That sounds like a contradiction in rules. Perhaps we should have separate records on Youngest/Oldest for each era, pre and post 1973, but the rules should be the same for sourcing. Those results for 1973, 1975, 1977 which involve records should also be looked at on the ATP records page, because they are not official rankings. We still use unofficial opinion-based rankings as late as 2020, which is not very long ago.Tennisedu (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vilas in 1977 would have been taken care of if the ITF award had existed (Vilas won 2 Grand slam titles in 1977 and the ITF award focussed on slams). From 1978 with the full compliment of official awards, other rankings are listed in brackets but do not determine number 1 in the left column. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, understandable not to have picked up that the rankings in brackets aren't counted (which is why Thiem isn't in the No. 1 column for 2020 despite there being a Sports Illustrated "ranking" listed), that needs to be noted in the article. As for the No. 1 records listed at Open Era tennis records – men's singles#Youngest and oldest, we definitely need to preface that those records are in the official computer-based ATP ranking system only, as we do in the #ATP Rankings achievements section. Sod25 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It already is noted in the article (just before year 1978). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we use opinion-based unofficial rankings for both 1973 and 1977, and use official rankings after 1977, so...why list the opinion-based rankings at all after 1978? It sounds like the real watershed is not 1973 but 1978. And opinion-based rankings decide for 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977...quite a few years in the open era. And we have 11 official points-based rankings from 1942-1967, showing a new type of ranking was emerging. This was not a clear-cut shift in 1973. It was a gradual evolutionary change.Tennisedu (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in listing magazine rankings from 1978-present though. Some of the final tables of the pre-open era point rankings arent even known! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They may not have been known, in fact, they may have been a fairly well-kept secret, but nevertheless we know that those pro point lists existed as official rankings. There may be some harm in including opinion-based rankings where none is needed, it gives the impression that these unofficial rankings have some weight in the determination of the ranking. And in addition to creating confusion, it wastes space. Tennisedu (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sod25, my understanding of our practice on Wikipedia tennis records is that we can add new items or new achievements to a well-established existing category of records, and all that needs to be done is to cite the achievement itself, since the category of record already exists in our tennis articles. That should apply to Youngest/Oldest as well, which is a category of record which already exists in the Wikipedia tennis articles. Is this not the case? Tennisedu (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of the above, I would suggest that the three Youngest/Oldest tables from the Open era records article be included here, in the All-time records article, including youngest/oldest age of winning first and last titles, and youngest/oldest Grand Slam titles, and expanded by including names from the pre-1968 era. I understand that adding names to an existing table or category is consistent with our policies for records.Tennisedu (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely with tennisedu's proposal. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is not useful in this context. If you have some legitimate disagreement, spell it out. Otherwise you create the impression that you have no argument to make. In the meantime, I am still waiting for some logical response to the question of whether or not editors can add information to existing categories and tables of records. I believe that we have already answered that question, and the answer is YES. Perhaps some other editors with fewer axes to grind can offer an opinion here.Tennisedu (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already have laid out my opinions earlier in this thread. Whether you agree with them is another matter. "We" havent answered anything. You have answered with yet more of the same baloney. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, we need another opinion from an editor who does not have any well-oiled axe to grind. I believe that we have long ago answered the question as to whether or not new information can be added to existing record categories and tables, and that answer was YES. But I will not act on that understanding until we have more input from editors not grinding axes on this issue.Tennisedu (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do not need to hear any more from an editor whose long and well documented bias towards one player informs most of their behaviour on wikipedia. To equate ATP rankings with pre-open era pro point systems is ridiculous. Not only do those point systems not include many of the most important events in some years (ie 1959, when the US Pro and the main tour were not included), but the final tables of these point systems have not even been found in some years (1960 the winner is not even reported). That shows the level of publicity some of these point systems received. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not biased towards any one player, but I do take exception to failures apparently made by tennis historians which obscure or misreport the achievements of certain players, whose identities are well known. And there is no need to perpetuate the mistaken understandings of the records of those players, three of whom are among the most talented players ever. Bringing those records into the light of day is an important duty which we have in tennis history. You seem to be obsessed with 1959, for obvious reasons. That season in particular has been misunderstood in tennis history books. The Ampol series was at least of equal importance to the four-man tour, and involved the entire field of twelve pros, much more money, and covered the entire world, not just one country. To suggest that the 1959 Cleveland was a major tournament is beyond exaggeration, it was weak field event which was not included in the ranking series. At that point of the season, Kramer was not able to provide a strong field of players for the Jack March event. Other tours which have been misreported include the 1947 U.S. Challenge Tour, whose level of play was astonishing. Tennis history needs to be rewritten in many aspects.Tennisedu (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of wikipedia to rewrite tennis history. Wikipedia relies on sources to create its pages. And whilst it may be true that some results were misreported in a past book published more than 20 years ago, these errors have not been perpetuated more recently, where we have greater access to original reports. For the record, my own personal view on whether Lew Hoad has somehow been cheated out of his rightful place in tennis history is that he hasnt. Kovacs, I will agree has been misrepresented to some degree, with the misreporting of his 1947 tour. I have done my best to right this wrong, have I not? Such things can be verified by sources, so I have verified them. I would do the same for any player. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hoad and Kovacs were not given credit for winning an important series, in Hoad's case the ranking tour for the year. That is just the tip of the iceberg for these two players. Vines has also been underrated.Tennisedu (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoad is given credit for winning the Ampol tour. Vines' results are reported correctly and in context. Your source of resentment seems to stem from a book (out of print) published more than 20 years ago. The world has moved on since then. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the historical sources like World Tennis or McCauley, Hoad was not given credit for winning the Ampol ranking series, those authors did not even know that the Ampol series existed. Only in Australian and European newspapers was it reported. That absence was reflected in innumerable books and articles. Only in the last two years did Krosero and myself discover the basis in the historical records for this series. Only recently was the outrageously misreported 1947 U.S. Pro Challenge Tour corrected by yourself, as not a win for Riggs over Kovacs, but as a win for Kovacs over Riggs! Some difference. And we still get recycled under-reporting of Vines' achievements, and Richard Williams, who was the template for Vines. Those four players had something in common, misreported results and enormous talent, they seem to go hand in hand.Tennisedu (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Mal Anderson, writing in World Tennis magazine, stated that Kramer established a tournament point system to decide the best players in the world. The Pros played 14 tournaments with the winner earning 7 points, the runner-up 4, third place 3, 4th 2 and each quarter finalist 1 point each. This resulted in the following final positions:- 1 Hoad, 2 Gonzales, 3 Rosewall, 4 Sedgman, 5 Trabert, 6 Anderson, 7 Segura, 8 Cooper". This quote comes from McCauley and mentions World Tennis so McCauley and World Tennis did report the results of the point series. Maybe the sponsor's name was not given, but the point system is discussed. Krosero has discovered many things about tennis history, but he hasnt discovered the existence of a tour that was already known about. I have no idea what you are referring to regarding Vines. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even close, that reference to Anderson was not backed up with details from Kramer, who did not release the results to American media after the L.A. Masters event, Kramer kept it unreported. World Tennis was confused about "Ampol points" in their one brief mention of them, and Heldman was very confused in his only reference to Ampol points. Heldman did not make the connection between Ampol points and seedings and rankings for the pros. McCauley believed that the Ampol series was six tournaments in Australia in November and December, ending with the Kooyong event from Jan 2-7 of 1960. Total confusion by McCauley. There was never any mention there of annual ranking points or official number one.Tennisedu (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the proposal by Tennisedu, I also am strongly against it. 11 official points rankings from ~90 Amateur Era years is not sufficient to declare any all-time rankings records, even if the large methodological differences were ignored . As Tennishistory1877 agrees, I consider this matter settled. The #Playing Top 10 ranked opponents records are also completely bogus and should be removed. Sod25 (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with getting rid of the Top Ten records, which are meaningless for the old pro tour. But the Youngest/Oldest records for winning Slam titles or general titles or youngest/oldest No. 1 ranking should be added. No reason to exclude those, and that would be consistent with Wikipedia rules of adding information to existing record categories and tables. I would like to hear someone add information on the Wikipedia policy on this, because I think that it is consistent.Tennisedu (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a rankings table

Hi.

I noticed the below subsection had been removed some time in the past.

Youngest & oldest No. 1

Age is measured at 31 December of year ranked as No. 1.

Youngest	19 years, 1 month	Lew Hoad	1953
Oldest	40 years, 10 months	Bill Tilden	1933

I was wondering, in which article it best belongs to if not here, since most of the stats have been replaced with links to various rankings-related pages? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]