Talk:Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions

Tennis High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

1891-1920's[edit]

Not listed are French champions 1891-1920's.Ryoung122 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View' states that:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Yet we see just one person insist that French pre-1925 titles are 'not viable for slam-counting purposes'...this is a violation of 'original research.' In fact, we see many sources from the World Almanac to the Encyclopedia Britannica list the pre-1925 champions. Thus, this article must be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV.Ryoung122 22:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one person disagrees with you and and my World Almanac does not have a heading that says "all-time Grand Slam Champions" with a listing of the pre-25 French. Fyunck(click) 04:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World Almanac does list Suzanne Lenglen with '12' grand slam titles. It doesn't list pre-1925 (or pre-1925 Wimbledon for that matter) due to issue of 'space.' Wikipedia articles are supposed to take a pluralistic view, including major points of view and even minority viewpoints (just not 'extreme minority' viewpoints). But it seems that most of the major media sources, except Wikipedia, list the pre-1925 champions.Ryoung122 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pre-1925[edit]

I can weigh in here.

Some history

The ILTF (the sports governing body) didn't establish the major tournaments in the current configuration of the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US - until their meeting in late 1923. Hence these group of 4 tournaments as being the majors was only from 1924 on (with the French being active from 1925 due to it not being open to all-comers (amateur) until 1925). The only one of the currently existing majors that was a major before 1924 was Wimbledon. That is because it was voted as such in 1913, again by the ILTF when it listed its three Majors (that lasted from 1913 to 1923) - Wimbledon, the World Hard Court Championship and the World Covered Court Championship.

Conclusions

To list the Australian Championships, French Championships and the US Championships as majors before 1924 is an example of interpreting history through current standards and perspectives. The fact is the Australian Championships and the French Championships weren't regarded by people of the time, as majors titles, before 1924. (The US was a slight exception because it had a sort of defacto status as a major, even though it wasn't officially recognised as such).

Listing particularly the French as a Grand Slam tournament before 1925 is misleading. Many don't know that it was only open to members of French Clubs before that.

With regard to Wikipedia standards - surely the issue of consistency between Wikipedia entries are important. The fact is that on Suzanne Lenglen's wikipedia page - doesn't list her pre-1925 French championship victories, as being part of her major wins. In my view it judges correctly and instead lists her wins at the World Hardcourt Championships on Clay as major wins instead. To argue that current encylopedia's list the current 4 majors as being Grand Slam tournaments since their beginnings - is the standard we should aim for, is just wrong thinking. Just because the writer of an encylopedia was ill informed doesn't mean that the people's encylopedia (Wikipedia) needs to be too.

Golf takes a much more mature perspective on this recognizing that the major titles have evolved over time. Hence, Bobby Jones won the 'Grand Slam' even though wins at the time don't match the current tournaments, because it was recognized as the Grand Slam at the time. Golf is okay with that, and so should Tennis historians be okay with the changing nature of what are tennis' majors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not chronological[edit]

It isn't chronological, the years are all over the place and there is no way to sort them in order. --Jameboy (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's chronological from year of first major title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the article title is misleading as it doesn't mention "first major title", so what I was expecting to see here is what is actually at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. I think we should improve the article titles or perhaps merge them. --Jameboy (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have what you want at another article. They should not be merged as they handle two different topics. Certainly the article title could be changed, but what would be a better title? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really two different topics, it's the same topic but showing different presentations of more or less the same data. The other one is strictly chronological based on the events whereas this one is more focused around the players. Both are useful. Maybe the titles could be something like List of Grand Slam men's singles champions by event and List of Grand Slam men's singles champions by player. I'm sure others could word it better than I can. --Jameboy (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]