Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. | |
According to his article, "He is credited with popularizing the term "Grand Slam", ...".
Worth a mention here? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, because the blurb on his article was not sourced properly. The Hall of Fame only mentions the term "Ace." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Alan Gould first used the term Grand Slam on July 18, 1933, not Danzig. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3052793/moberly-monitor-index/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, Gould did not use the term in this way. He stated that Crawford "has a chance for a "grand slam"", the term was at that time used since the 1920s to describe a sweep of any kind in tennis. Notice the quotation marks in Gould's reference. Not the Grand Slam.Tennisedu (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Order of importance
[edit]Similar to what we have in seasonal tournament pages where the tournament winners are listed below the lead section, I propose the list of current champions section, located at the bottom of the page, be placed at the top of the page for ease of access and relevance for the readers.
Instead of having to go through the slams' descriptions and various tournament win combinations just to get to the list of reigning champions at the bottom, the readers can find it at the top for convenience. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Grand Slam
[edit]In the article Grand Slam there is a subsection called "Grand Slam" (I changed the title of the subsection but that was reverted). If the subsection would be about "Grand Slam" then the other sections of the article would obviously be about something else and should therefor be deleted. So something is wrong here. Bob.v.R (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point here. I changed the subsection title, but differently than your suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- At this moment, it has a very confusing lead. Would it be a good idea to split this article? I am thinking about an article about the grand slam tournaments and an article about the achievement. The Banner talk 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's confusing. I just changed two or three words, but this is an article on the term "Grand Slam" in tennis, and it happens to have several meanings. They are spelled out in the lead. It's original, and longest used term is listed first. It's mixed use with the term "major" is listed second. We have plenty of articles on the tournaments themselves. I see no reason for a split but perhaps the best thing would be to add a few more articles to the "See also" section? This article is a history of the term as used in professional tennis and the fact it is multifaceted in its use can't really be pulled apart easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The term "Grand Slam" was used in the press coverage of the majors to refer to several different configurations, for example, sometimes it referred to the Australian-Wimbledon-US championships as "the Grand Slam" first won by Perry in the 1930s. Those three tournaments were also referred to as the "Big Three". It only became a clearly defined term in some of Danzig's writings, and he was alone in this. In 1962 it was clearly referring to Laver's first GS wins. So that term was not cast in stone, although in the old pro tour, the "Pro Slam" events did not clearly stand out as the most eminent tournaments. In some years the US Pro or World Pro fields were much weaker than at Wembley or Roland Garros. Kramer did not provide many pros to the Cleveland event after 1957 and he left Cleveland out of his premier tournament series in 1959 and 1960. Kramer made sure that all his pros played in the 1957-1958-1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills, even though it was not the US Pro. So the old pro majors were not always the most important events on the pro calendar. That point should probably be made in this article.Tennisedu (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of that could be details the article should not go into. There were times some of todays majors were not the best fields of the year. The Australian also got a lot of bad wraps in the 60s and 70s. But that's more for a book rather than an encyclopedia. Sure, the term was not always exact, just like horse racings Triple Crown. But lets not kid ourselves either. In 1953 it was clearly today's four majors as the press headlines poured in for Mo Connolly winning a Grand Slam. And the only reason it wasnt prominent in the 1920s was that travel was very difficult and long and expensive for players. Otherwise you'd have had Helen Wills winning three of four straight Grand Slams over journeyman Daphne Akhurst. 1938 newspapers are filled with Don Budge and his "Grand Slam" of todays four majors. In 1951 McGregors name was all over the press in winning a Grand Slam. And in 1956 the papers were filled with Lew Hoad's failure at winning a Grand Slam. And back in 1933 the papers are filled with Jack Crawfords failure at winning a Grand Slam. So while "some" sources may have thought differently, the term Grand Slam was pretty well cemented in the 30s and 40s. The Big Three you referred to were the big three grass events of their day. Very special to win it. In 1951 the "Big Three" was mentioned with Dick Savitt winning those three grass events, but by the time Ashley Cooper did the same in 1958 I see nothing mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It may be cemented today, and since 1962, but it was certainly not cemented in the 1950s. The press often used the term Grand Slam for something other than the 4 majors we have today. In the late 1920s the term was used whenever there was a tennis sweep of anything, not just tournaments but matches. It simply meant "sweep" and was used to describe some of Tilden's matches. The term "grand slam" was used in 1932 to describe Helen Jacob's quest for all three titles (singles, doubles, mixed) at the US championships. Here is a good summary of how the press used the term https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/grand-slam.416473/ Budge was referred to as a "Grand Slammer" for winning the Wimbledon, US, and Davis Cup crowns in one year...the year was 1937! And Hoad claimed that he never heard of the term before he arrived in New York in 1956 prior to the US championships and saw the Sports Illustrated article about his quest, which he did not know existed up to that point. Hoad himself was aiming for what he called "The Big Three", which was the same as Savitt's 1951 "Big Three" "Grand Slam" (Australia, Wimbledon, US). At that point, the Australian championships were getting stronger men's fields than the French due to the huge US-Australia Davis Cup matchup which dominated the public attention to the game in those decades. Most American players not only skipped the Australian, they also skipped the French. The US Davis Cup team often skipped the French. Kramer never played there in the forties. After long distance planes changed the game in the fifties, Americans would try to play Wimbledon. The Australian team also skipped the French in some years like 1955. Rosewall skipped the French in 1956. The French had no more status than the Australian. It was a different world from today when players aim for the majors and play many fewer matches than in those days.Tennisedu (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, Gould did not use the term Grand Slam for Crawford's campaign in 1933. He simply stated that Crawford had a chance for "a "grand slam""...in other words "a" meaning one possible "grand slam", not capitalized, not "the" Grand Slam. Just one way of using the term, which in 1933 was already well known to refer to a sweep of some sort.Tennisedu (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I started scanning newspapers in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning all four major tournaments. Everywhere I looked. In my book that is cemented. Hoad not knowing could mean his reading skills were poor since I can find it all over the place well before then. Of course not like today and the internet. Or he could be like 20 year old tennis players today don't know who Pete Sampras or Stephan Edberg is. Plus it doesn't happen a lot and the term only comes up when someone gets close. The 40s were all war all the time. As for fewer matches now, I'm not so sure about that. Sure the pros had their tours so they played lots. But otherwise I look at tournament match totals and they seem to play a lot more today. Probably so they can keep making money. Helen Wills barely knew what matches were outside the majors... sort of like Serena Williams for many years. Tilden played 969 matches in his 18 year amateur career. Djokovic has played 1336 in his 21 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In response to the latest deranged fantasies from Tennisedu about the origins of the term Grand Slam. He claimed that Hoad said he didn't know what the Grand Slam was before arriving in New York in 1956. This is from an article in The Birmingham Daily Gazette on 10 July 1956: "Just after last Christmas 21-year-old Lew Hoad solemnly announced that his target for 1956 was the tennis Grand Slam of the four major championships in the world- a feat last achieved by Donald Budge". There were many articles in UK press in early July 1956 that referred to Hoad winning the Australian, French and Wimbledon championships and "now only wants the American title at Forest Hills in September to win the Grand Slam". Of course, in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning the four major championships the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US. There are many newspaper articles in the 1950s about the Grand Slam (including specifying the well known four events comprising it). That list of articles from krosero was interesting and well researched, but has been wilfully misinterpreted by Tennisedu. The prime example is the following: August 20, 1960. An AP story in the Baltimore Sun, reporting on the semifinals at the Newport Casino Invitation Tennis Tournament... "Laver is seeking an unprecedented grand slam of Eastern lawn tennis tournaments." That is not saying that the Grand Slam of Eastern tournaments is the same as the Grand Slam (of all tournaments) we all know and love. You could have a Grand Slam of Wimbledon warm-up tournaments, this merely means they are the premier Wimbledon warm-up tournaments. Also, the Australian was clearly the weakest link of the slams, not the French, just examine the level of press coverage of the Australian outside Australia and the quality of draws. The French was behind Wimbledon and US, but clearly ahead of the Australian. In a few years in the pre-open era the Australian had decent draws, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Tennisedu once again trying to make out the exception is the rule. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12: 55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I started scanning newspapers in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning all four major tournaments. Everywhere I looked. In my book that is cemented. Hoad not knowing could mean his reading skills were poor since I can find it all over the place well before then. Of course not like today and the internet. Or he could be like 20 year old tennis players today don't know who Pete Sampras or Stephan Edberg is. Plus it doesn't happen a lot and the term only comes up when someone gets close. The 40s were all war all the time. As for fewer matches now, I'm not so sure about that. Sure the pros had their tours so they played lots. But otherwise I look at tournament match totals and they seem to play a lot more today. Probably so they can keep making money. Helen Wills barely knew what matches were outside the majors... sort of like Serena Williams for many years. Tilden played 969 matches in his 18 year amateur career. Djokovic has played 1336 in his 21 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of that could be details the article should not go into. There were times some of todays majors were not the best fields of the year. The Australian also got a lot of bad wraps in the 60s and 70s. But that's more for a book rather than an encyclopedia. Sure, the term was not always exact, just like horse racings Triple Crown. But lets not kid ourselves either. In 1953 it was clearly today's four majors as the press headlines poured in for Mo Connolly winning a Grand Slam. And the only reason it wasnt prominent in the 1920s was that travel was very difficult and long and expensive for players. Otherwise you'd have had Helen Wills winning three of four straight Grand Slams over journeyman Daphne Akhurst. 1938 newspapers are filled with Don Budge and his "Grand Slam" of todays four majors. In 1951 McGregors name was all over the press in winning a Grand Slam. And in 1956 the papers were filled with Lew Hoad's failure at winning a Grand Slam. And back in 1933 the papers are filled with Jack Crawfords failure at winning a Grand Slam. So while "some" sources may have thought differently, the term Grand Slam was pretty well cemented in the 30s and 40s. The Big Three you referred to were the big three grass events of their day. Very special to win it. In 1951 the "Big Three" was mentioned with Dick Savitt winning those three grass events, but by the time Ashley Cooper did the same in 1958 I see nothing mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The term "Grand Slam" was used in the press coverage of the majors to refer to several different configurations, for example, sometimes it referred to the Australian-Wimbledon-US championships as "the Grand Slam" first won by Perry in the 1930s. Those three tournaments were also referred to as the "Big Three". It only became a clearly defined term in some of Danzig's writings, and he was alone in this. In 1962 it was clearly referring to Laver's first GS wins. So that term was not cast in stone, although in the old pro tour, the "Pro Slam" events did not clearly stand out as the most eminent tournaments. In some years the US Pro or World Pro fields were much weaker than at Wembley or Roland Garros. Kramer did not provide many pros to the Cleveland event after 1957 and he left Cleveland out of his premier tournament series in 1959 and 1960. Kramer made sure that all his pros played in the 1957-1958-1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills, even though it was not the US Pro. So the old pro majors were not always the most important events on the pro calendar. That point should probably be made in this article.Tennisedu (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's confusing. I just changed two or three words, but this is an article on the term "Grand Slam" in tennis, and it happens to have several meanings. They are spelled out in the lead. It's original, and longest used term is listed first. It's mixed use with the term "major" is listed second. We have plenty of articles on the tournaments themselves. I see no reason for a split but perhaps the best thing would be to add a few more articles to the "See also" section? This article is a history of the term as used in professional tennis and the fact it is multifaceted in its use can't really be pulled apart easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@ABC paulista:, I merged both instances of Margaret Courts "Career Boxed sets" to add a sticky column for better navigation for mobile users (sticky headers (rows and columns) should not contain col-/rowspan, i.e. merged cells, in tables because the cells are skewed when horizontally scrolling).
See the difference in the "Boxed Set" table with sticky headers: with merged cells (revision) vs. without merged cells (revision) in mobile view. You can toggle between desktop and mobile version on desktop/mac by adding .m to en.wikipedia.org -> en.m.wikipedia.org. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a way to solve this issue without merging them back? If not, then manybe the player name could be cited in every row in such instances. ABC paulista (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I merged both instances initially to avoid using row-/colspan because it causes issues with sticky headers. An alternative to that would have been to split the merged rows "2" into "2" and "2" or "2" and "=" and as you mentioned cite the player's name in every row. Luckily, I found a solution. The templates used for sticky headers {{sticky table start}} and {{sticky table end}} have a class for that issue
sticky-table-unsticky. I added it to the cells that were overlapping during scrolling. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I merged both instances initially to avoid using row-/colspan because it causes issues with sticky headers. An alternative to that would have been to split the merged rows "2" into "2" and "2" or "2" and "=" and as you mentioned cite the player's name in every row. Luckily, I found a solution. The templates used for sticky headers {{sticky table start}} and {{sticky table end}} have a class for that issue