Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

Next time let Rafa Nadal win

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

Title

Should the article be renamed to "Grand Slam (tennis)"? Kent Wang 18:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definition

Quite a few web pages are out of date, by still indicating that winning the grand slam means winning all the tournaments in a calendar year. In fact, the current definition (simply holding all four titles at once) was given in the 1995 Guinness Book of Records.

I agree, but it's apparently pointless to debate this issue since the creator of this page has his mind set on "calendar" grand slam or bust. Notice that any comments to the contrary are left unanswered, nor does he cite any sources. The ITF is the sanctioning body of tennis, and in 1984 recognized Martina Navratilova as a "grand slam" winner by awarding her a $1 million bonus, even though the 4 consecutive slams were not in the same calendar year.

Does anyone have any idea when the definition changed? This would help to tidy up this page a bit. -- Smjg 13:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this 'change' in the definition. For all I know, winning the grand slam still means winning all four in the same year. --Cantus 03:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition change? See here, for example (also, it's on sports TV channels): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4659846.stm

"Federer sets sights on Grand Slam World number one Roger Federer is eyeing victory in the French Open after his second Australian Open success. The Swiss ace, who took the 2005 Wimbledon and US Open titles, now only needs to win in Paris to hold all four Grand Slam titles simultaneously."

The headline is the only part of the article that makes it seem as if he'd be winning the grand slam, and headlines are often not written by the writer of the article. -- 24.14.15.57

The definition given in the entrance sentence, is crap. There is no true Grand Slam and a Grand Slam, there is only one Grand Slam, all four majors in a calendar year. This is the standard definition given in the leading reference book 'Total tennis' from 2003. The concept of the ITF in the early 80s, to name all four without year end aspect, was a futile effort by the then president Philippe Chartier, to attract attention to the major events, controlled by the ITF. But now, even the ITF has returned to the original concept of calendar year.Tony Trabert never went after the fourth major win in 1956, when he had won the 3 last in 1955, because it would be no Grand Slam, simply 4 in a row. The career Grand Slam is also a newly found press invention, to make things more interesting. Please return to the original concept of Grand Slam, all other efforts are only watering and thinning the cristal clear concept. (german friend 17.2.2007)

That is simply untrue, the ITF has not "returned to the original concept of calendar year." In fact, the ITF makes no mention of the word "grand slam" anywhere in its rulebook, so all we have to go by is historical precedent. Navratilova was awarded a $1 million bonus in 1984 for winning 4 straight grand slams, even though they were not all in one calendar year. If a player holds all 4 majors at the same time, that's a grand slam, and the definition should reflect that.

Driving the point home was the moving of the Australian Open from December to January in 1987. Prior to 1987, a calendar year grand slam required the AO to the final leg, now it's the first leg. There is no meaningful relevance to calendar year versus non-calendar year. (razorback 6/4/2007)

A plea: please rewrite the definition!

Someone seems to be puliing readers' legs using recursive "definitions" that define nothing. This article states:

"a singles player or doubles team that wins all four Grand Slam titles in the same year is said to have achieved the Grand Slam or a Calendar Year Grand Slam."

...while the Grand Slam titles article says:

"A Grand Slam title is a tennis championship won at one of the four tournaments that comprise the tennis Grand Slam."

Clear, huh? Can anyone please clean up this mess, or better, this joke? --AVM 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The ITF returned indeed to the original concept, going by the 'World of Tennis' yearbooks in 2000 and 2001, edited by John Barrett, which were the official ITF-Yearbooks. There the GS denotes' all four majors in one calendar year'. In a rulebook you will not find anything about the GS, because it is not a rule factor.The calendar year concept was always intact. Prior to 1977, the Austalian, played in January, was the first of the big four majors.There are some important factors, which differenciate a Grand Slam from 4 majors in a row.There are far fewer chances to get one, if you start with the first tournament in a year. A top player has say 10 chances in his career to win a GS. If he could start in each major, he would have around 40.Less chances imply more pressure to go through.Then, the real GS integrates the famous and difficult double French-Wimbledon, with its clay-grass-transition in two weeks. The ITF deviation of 1983 was never accepted in the tennis community. Paul Fein has written a piece about it in his book 'Tennis Confidential'. Nobody in tennis is counting the achievements of Navratilova (as good as they were), Graf or Serena Williams a Grand Slam, not even the players themselves.Look at the reports in 2007: Nobody was talking about a GS, when Federer reached the final of RG: It was only a question in regard of eventual later Wimbledon and USO wins. (german friend 29.7.2007).

Just because many use a term doesn't make it correct. When I grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's the only term I heard to describe the Aussie, French, Wimbledon and US Opens were "Majors." Somewhere, probably during Navratilova's dominance, the term "Slam" was used for the individul tournies. This made sense as winning all 4 in a calendar year was a "Grand Slam", a term used since the 30's. But people got lazy, sportscasters included, and started calling the individual tournies "Grand Slams" incorrectly. In conversation you let that slide, but this is an encyclopedia! Can't we at least get it right here? Do not call them "Grand Slams", call them Majors or Slams. The headings in all the wiki Tennis articles should reflect this. Maybe if enough people see it printed the correct way the debasement of the term will change. Fyunck(click) 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

   image: Australian Open logo.svg

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

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

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

Tournament names

If Wimbledon is to be reffered to as such is it not fair that the French open be reffered to as Roland Garros?

Also I agree about Grand Slam (tennis). ricjl 14:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

Hi. In the "Holding four titles" section, there's a note attached to Martina Navratilova's entry saying that she won six consecutive Grand Slam events. That doesn't sound right. How is it possible to win six consecutive event and not hold a true Grand Slam? Regards, Redux 15:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Assuming all the tournaments were held, there's only one way: 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3. That is: Starting with Roland Garros and ending with Wimbledon a year later. Both years she would have been one tournament short of a Grand Slam. Aliter 18:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It is possible to win six consecutive Grand Slam events and still not complete a Grand Slam. It's back to grammar school for me! But still this article seems to be wrong. According to our own article on Navratilova, she "only" won 4 (not 6) consecutive events (starting with the French Open 1984 and ending with the Australian Open 1985, that is: 2,3,4,1 – then she won Wimbledon 1985, but that skips the French Open 1985, hence not being consecutive wins). And doesn't that mean that she did exactly what Serena Williams did in 2002/2003, only 20 years earlier? And I mean, down to the exact order of events (2,3,4,1). Wouldn't that preclude dubbing Serena's accomplishment "the Serena Slam"? Since it's not "new", shouldn't it be named "the Navratilova Slam" (that is if someone else hasn't done the exact same thing before her), which Serena Williams was able to duplicate? That would have repercussions in other articles (namely Serena's). I do not believe that any tennis Grand Slam event was cancelled in the 1980's, and I'm assuming that the information in both our Navratilova and Serena Williams articles are accurate. Regards, Redux 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My mistake: The explanation I gave is correct, but I should have left it at that. Or even better: Had I checked the actual situation, I would have understood why you asked. What tripped up both of us, is that, from 1977(2) to 1986(-), Australia was the end of the season, rather than the start. This means that for Navratilova 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3 means: Starting with Wimbledon in 1983 and ending with U.S. Open a year later in 1984.

As you can see, a Martina slam is indeed quite a bit more impressive than a Serena Slam; in fact, it holds the same number of titles as the actual Grand Slams (Budge, Connolly, and Smith Court: 6 in a row; Graf: 5 + Olympic (Laver 2 x 4)).

The first to win four singles titles in a row was Don Budge, I think, but he continued to make it the first Grand Slam. You might want to check this, but indeed, I can't think of anyone holding four singles titles without a Grand Slam before the Martina Slam. And not many after: Our list of four-title holders might be quite comprehensive already.

What it comes down to: The information in the Martina Navratilova article is accurate, but slightly misleading: The list of titles ought to take into account, maybe even mention, the changed order of tournaments at that time. Aliter 12:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ITF awarded Navratilova a $1 million bonus for winning the grand slam in 1984, even though she didn't win all 4 in the same calendar year. How does that comport with the view that all four must be in the same calendar year?

Slams on four surfaces

The intention of those descriptions is to present them as more special, hence there's no use in adding extra details, making them less special. Adding the specific type of clay or carpet just detracts from the achievement.

This is similar to claiming Wikipedia is the largest coöperative on-line encyclopedia still active in 2005 based in the USA. Exclude coöperative on-line encyclopedias still active in 2005 outside the USA, unless there actually is one that is better. Why exclude coöperative on-line encyclopedias no longer active in 2005, unless one of them actually was larger. Why only on-line coöperative encyclopedias, unless there's a actually an off-line coöperative encyclopedia that is bigger. If not, then "Wikipedia is the largest coöperative encyclopedia" would make it the largest of a far wide class.

That's not to say that the details of those surfaces can't be added to Wikipedia; they are more detail about the players, and could be added to the players pages. But this side is about the grand slam, and there those details just detract from the achievement. Aliter 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Re

The Australian Open is played on REBOUND ACE, not CARPET; therefore, the four Grand Slam surfaces are as follows: REBOUND ACE, clay, grass, and hard court.

And, if you are wondering, REBOUND ACE is a slower and higher bouncing form of hard court. It is NOT another form of CARPET, so don't waste your time sending me messages saying that I am wrong, when it is YOU who is wrong. Therefore, I'm going to change it back to the PROPER INFORMATION. (Doublea)

Based on this information, it appears I'm mistaken in classifying Rebound Ace as a carpet surface, and should instead have classified it as a hard court surface. Hence, I've removed the claims about four different surfaces, as this means they include hard court twice. Aliter 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! A happy compromise. I apologize for my impolite badgering.

Just to confirm, I've played at Melbourne Park, Rebound Ace is definitely not carpet - it is RUBBER. jkm 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why?

To User:80.200.219.87: Why did you revert my changes? What's wrong? Is it wrong that Doris Hart won a Career Grand Slam in doubles? that Martina won a Career Grand Slam in mixed doubles? And so on... Avia 07:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-Grand Slam Statistics

There seems to be a lot of information in this article unrelated to Grand Slams, most notably the section entitled "Winners by number of singles majors accumulated". Shouldn't that be in a more generic tennis article? What does that have to do with Grand Slams? If you're contesting Grand Slams as the only measure of tennis worth, then there should be a "Criticism" or "Caveat" section that says: "Grand Slams are not necessarily the best measure of blah blah blah, because blah blah blah: See also Tennis statistics" or something. I think it should be removed from this article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: I started this section because I could not find a similar section on wikipedia. Unsure what you mean by "unrelated" as a "major" is another term for a Grand Slam in tennis or golf. Please if it is removed, move it somewhere, don't delete it as it took me a while to compile and correct. It is accepted by the tour players themselves that winning a major is the de facto yardstick of tennis worth in the open era at least. Pete Sampras, who has a keen sense of history, when interviewed was very proud to be on top of the list. Just ask Tiger Woods or Roger Federer their priority in life. --Sandman 22:30, September 14, 2005

That's not a good reason to clutter an article with an unrelated topic. I suggest that you start a new article for it. Do what you like with it, but if it's still on this page in 24 hours, I'm just going to blank it and you're going to have to go into the history to get it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Tennis statistics as suggested. I'm sure this section is of use to *someone*, as it was edited immediately after Federer won the US Open last week. You didn't have to be this harsh about it though, as I don't necessarily connect here every day. --Sandman 23:21, September 15, 2005

Sorry I was bitchy. Didn't mean to come off harsh. Cheers. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It was a pretty stupid thing to post all things considered - threatening to delete somebody else's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.158.94 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Header styles

I removed underscores that had been added to some of the titles. While I agree that the title distinction in the MonoBook skin is poor, this should not be countered at the level of individual articles. Also, doing that may make the article less readable in some of the other skins. Feel free to try to improve the Monobook skin itself in this respect. Aliter 23:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Same-sex doubles - terminology

We refer to "same sex" and "mixed" doubles. This doesn't sound like the way the rest of the world knows these terms. It's always been "doubles" and "mixed doubles". Tennis players always play with their own sex except for mixed doubles, which is why it's called that. Hence there's no need to call doubles "same-sex doubles". It also has unnecessary sexual overtones. JackofOz 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Move to Grand slam (tennis)?

Is there some compelling reason this should be capitalised? Like I don't think the players actually get anything like a trophy for doing it (do they?!). And it kinda irks me. :) Thoughts? pfctdayelise 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Grand Slam' is also a term used for any country competing in the 'Six Nations' rugby tournament that wins all five games - so it should be moved to 'Grand Slam - Tennis'. NB - The French call it the 'Grand Schlem' (the rugby that is...)88.105.125.228 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1988 Olympics?

In the Golden Slam section it says that Stefi Graf was the only person to accomplish this, winning the gold at the olympics in 1988; however, right above this it says "..but also because in between the games of 1924 and 1988, tennis was not a medal sport at the Games." One of these is wrong. 1988 was the first time since 1924 Tennis was considered an Olmpic sport. So 1988 was the 1st and so far only golden slam.

Excluding 1924 and 1988. Quoted: Helen Wills... also won the 1924 Summer Olympics. Avia 07:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tennis or Real Tennis

Does the term refer to tennis and real tennis? I mean, which one is all the professionals playing?--Attitude2000 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand Slam Origin

Doesn't the term "Grand Slam" come from Baseball? It's a term for a homerun that is made when the bases are loaded, thus amounting to a maximal gain in points for a single swing: 4.

The article seems to claim it was coined for tennis, then applied to golf, completely omitting baseball, which is the most common use of the term in sports.

The wording should be clarified at the very least.

Most of the world doesn't play baseball mate - most widely used in reference to Tennis. jkm 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Popularity has nothing to do with the origin. It should be clarified.

It has nothing to do with any of that stuff -- read the article, for pete's sake, for the origin of the term!!!! Hayford Peirce 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the New York Times archive (searchable at http://query.nytimes.com/search), the phrase "grand slam" was used in the context of horse racing starting in 1904. Starting in 1911 there are examples for Auction bridge, and at Auction bridge you can read what "grand slam" means there. Usages in baseball start in 1918. Unfortunately one has to pay $$ to the NYT in order to read the complete articles, but it is clear that the history of the phrase is a lot richer than this article suggests. --Zero^talk 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't you read the article first? It clearly says that it was at least originally a bridge term? "The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and British championships, speculation arose about his chances in the American championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled and vulnerable." Crawford, an asthmatic, won two of the first three sets of his finals match against Fred Perry, then tired in the heat and lost the last two sets and the match." If there's evidence that it was earlier applied to horse racing, then please write it into the article. Hayford Peirce 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Roland Garros or French Open

The name of the tournament is Roland Garros. Why is the page at French Open? The tournament is not known as the French Open. Bsd987 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is sooo toooo known as French Open! ;) ... in the anglophone press. In the francophone and European press/media it's known by both names, just like the US Open was known as Flushing Meadow. I think they are interchangeable and have always been that way. We can pretend that "French Open" was invented to breed familiarity for American audiences -Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashTestSmartie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Grand Slam

Hey, you know what, instead of calling Calendar Grand Slam as such, let's call it "Super Grand Slam" instead.

Oh but wait, pretty soon, marketing weasels and sport agents of lesser pros will start bastardizing "Super Grand Slam" again like they did to Grand Slam and start calling their clients "career Super Grand Slam".

People, Grand Slam is reserved exclusively for people winning all four majors in the SAME YEAR, no if's, and's, or but's.

There is no such thing as a "Grand Slam" event, nor career Grand Slam.

Grand Slam is like Jackpot, you have to have all 3 bars, one in each column, all on the SAME pull. You can't say you got bar on the 1st colume only, and then on the other two columes on the next try, that is not a jackpot, and the casino will tell you so.

Grand Slam means you win EVERY majors in that year, w/o loosing a single one -- an amazing feat. Now how does that compare to somebody who lost 36 majors in 10 years, but managed to win 4 during the same period? That make "career Grand Slam" so TINY compare to a real Grand Slam.

So stop using words like "career Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam" event, they mean NOTHING! And I am talking to all sports commentators on TV, idiots, sellouts.

Non-calender year Golden Slam?

How about a non-calender year Golden Slam? Similar to the Serena Slam but with Singles Gold at the Olympics included? It's not in the article, so does that mean it's never been done? For example, let's say Rafael Nadal continued to improve and won the next two major Grand Slams. That would be a non-calender year Golden Slam - then it would be included on this page, correct? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC

Does this make sense?

Five men and nine women have achieved a Career Grand Slam in singles. But only two men (Rod Laver and Andre Agassi) and five women (Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Serena Williams) have won all four Grand Slam singles tournaments at least once since the beginning of the open era.

To me, that just doesn't make sense. It's saying that two men and five women have won all four GS singles tournaments at least once, but it said before that that five men and nine women have achieved that. I thought it might've been a mistake and actually meant those people held all four at the same time, but neither Evert or Agassi held all four at the same time. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks Kegzz (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

It is said that "later" the term Grand Slam was applied to other sports such as Golf. However, if the first mention of a Tennis Grand Slam was in 1933, then Bobby Jones' Grand Slam in Golf was first (1930). --Realulim (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Calendar Year Golden Slam

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

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

Federer's Streak

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

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

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

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

Most consecutive Grand Slam singles finals (Women)

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

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

Career "Boxed Set"

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

Justine Henin Gram Slam Finals

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

The Tennis Majors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Grand Slam tournament titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of "winning the Grand Slam"

I know it has been discussed before and people have strong views on either side, but for Wikipedia's purposes whether or not "winning the Grand Slam" in tennis requires that all four consecutive wins be in the same year or not has to be verified by a reliable source. The article quotes an item from People on June 25, 1984 that reports that "in 1982 the ITF redefined the Grand Slam as four consecutive victories that could span two calendar years". The article then claims without a source that "today it is once again winning all 4 slams in a single calendar year". Unless a source citing an ITF reversal of the 1982 decision can be found, then the Wikipedia page cannot legitimately make that claim.

I checked the ITF website and found nothing that offered a clear definition of what "winning the Grand Slam" means. The best information I could find was on this page: http://www.itftennis.com/abouttheitf/worldwide/history.asp. It uses the phrase "pure Grand Slam" (see 1970) and "pure 'Open' Grand Slam" (see 1969) when talking about winning all four in the same calendar year. But if "Grand Slam" meant only doing it in one year, adding the word "pure" would make no sense. Calling this a "pure" Grand Slam implies that there is some other sort of "Grand Slam" one could win. They also use the term "calendar year Grand Slam" (see 1988), which, again, implies that winning all four in the same calendar year is only one type of Grand Slam. This does not constitute a citable source for the claim that the ITF still considers it a "Grand Slam" when the four consecutive wins come in two different years, but it strongly suggests that it is the case. It certainly supports the People article claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on someone who wants to claim that the ITF did reverse their definition change. If such a reverse happened, then there should be a source that reports that it happened. Without such a source, it appears that the official ITF definition of "winning the Grand Slam" allows it to include cases where the four consecutive wins span two years. 99.192.82.144 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: The reason that the source for the definition of "winning the Grand Slam" has to directly or indirectly (as with the People item) come from the ITF and not some other source is because, as they state on the ITF website, "Grand Slam® is a registered trademark of the ITF." So since the ITF literally owns the term "Grand Slam", its real definition is whatever they say it is, no matter how many other people say otherwise. It would be fair for this Wikipedia article to say something like this: "Even though the ITF defines 'winning the Grand Slam' as winning the four Grand Slam tournaments consecutively regardless of year, many tennis players, journalists and fans still use the term to mean winning the four Grand Slam tournaments in the same calendar year only." Of course, such a claim would have to have a source to support it before it could be included, but that should not be too hard to find (if the claim is true).99.192.82.144 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If the ITF owns the name Grand Slam, it has allowed it to be devalued more than you suggest. This year's Australian Open was officially marketed as The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific. (Look at that link.) The Australian marketers could hardly do that without the ITF's approval, so it is presumably allowing it to be used now to refer to a single event.

That is ridiculous. The term "Grand Slam" has been use for 70 years to be winning all 4 Major in a calendar year. ATP articles such as atpworldtour show that it has been won 3 times by men, twice by Laver. Winning all 4 majors in the same year is winning the "grand slam." Anything else is a cheapened version and must be paraphrased as such. There are a lot of things to be argued about in tennis but this is not one of them. Heck just this year World Tennis Magazine was talking about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Language is a funny thing: sometimes the term "Grand Slam event", referring to a single tournament (e.g. the French Open), is abbreviated to "Grand Slam". You know the sort of thing: "He's won the first 3 Grand Slams this year; now for that elusive 4th". Well, it's impossible to win more than 1 Grand Slam in a year, but quite possible to win more than 1 Grand Slam event, and that's obviously what they mean. Language is our servant, not our master. Unfortunately, when it comes to sporting terminology, language is a total victim of abuse, rape, murder, you name it, at the hands of sporting journalists. It should never have been necessary to start talking about "calendar Grand Slams", as that relegates the original Grand Slam to just one type out of many, all apparently of equal value. Well, they're NOT all of equal value. It's a great thing to win 4 in a row spanning two years, but that will still never have the status of winning all 4 in the same year. All the other types can have their qualifying adjectives, but leave the original one alone - it's "Grand Slam", pure and simple. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fyunck: "The term "Grand Slam" has been use for 70 years to be winning all 4 Major in a calendar year." You have given no source to back up this claim. The People article already cited on the Wikipedia page proves that your claim is wrong. The ITF, who literally own the term "Grand Slam" have not used the term the way you say for 70 years. Also, pointing out that the ATP site says that "it has been won 3 times by men, twice by Laver" does nothing to settle the issue since the only three times men have won all 4 in a row regardless of calendar year have all been cases where they won 4 in a row in the same calendar year. In other words, the ATP's claim about how often men's singles players have won the Grand Slam is consistent with both the claim that it must be done in one calendar year and the claim that it can be done over two years. You still need a credible ITF source saying that they reversed their decision to count cases where the 4 events are won over 2 years or else the article cannot source a claim that the original meaning of "Grand Slam" is the same as the meaning over the last 28 years.99.192.65.51 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fyunck is right about the original definition. The absence of any source at this stage doesn't make him wrong. But I do acknowledge that the meaning has now, sadly, changed. Call it OR if you like, but back in the 1950s I was a brainwashed kid in a tennis mad Australian family, and there was no doubt that a Grand Slam meant only one thing - all four in one year. Sports journalists (see Jack's polite description of their activities above) felt it necessary to invent more "Grand Slams" over the decades after that so that they could write with more apparent excitement. It's sad that it's the Australian event that's now displaying the worst of the modern corruption of the word. Anyway, re that missing source, I reckon we could find something in Australian newspaper archives from the 1950s and 60s, most especially around the time of Laver's two Grand Slams. May try to see what I can find. HiLo48 (talk)

HiLo48, I think you missed the point here. No one (at least no me, anyway) is contesting the claim that "winning the Grand Slam" originally meant winning all four tournaments in the same calendar year. It is indisputable that this is the case. What I have disputed is the claim that this is still what it means today. We have a source that confirms that in 1982 the ITF changed the definition. Since the term is trademarked by them, that carries definitive weight. So if you find a source from an Australian newspaper in 1969 that says otherwise it does not settle anything.

I should add that in my brief web searching for more sources on any official chages in the meaning of the term, I also found a column from 1984 by Paul Fein reprinted in his book Tennis Confidential. He strongly advocates the position that "winning the Grand Slam" should only apply to winning all four in the same calendar year, but he also reports that the Men's International Professional Tennis Council voted in 1982 to also change the definition of "Grand Slam" to mean any four in a row regardless of year. He adds that the British press also endorsed this change. So when it comes to the question of what does the term mean (and not what did it mean or what does one want it to mean) it seems more clear that it really does just mean any 4 in a row regardless of year.99.192.65.51 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. thanks for the clarification. I didn't pick up quite that message in your earlier words, but that may well be my sloppy reading. I certainly agree that the meaning has changed. I have a strong view that sporting administrative bodies don't have any absolute role in defining our language and telling us how we should use it, but the sports journalists and many of the fans have obviously spoken too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The ITF does not own the term Grand Slam. They own it as far as plopping on the 4 majors for license fees. As far as the press or tennis authorities are concerned winning the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in one year. Period. There was an ITF fight when navratilova won 4 in a row because it had never been formally written down in tennis legalize. But the definition has not changed. You seem to be new around here 99.192.65.51, might I ask if you are perhaps banned editor Tennis Expert? I just want to make sure I'm arguing with a legit editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No worries, HiLo48. I agree with you in general about administrative bodies defining language, but in the case of a technical term (like "deuce"), a trademarked term (like "Grand Slam"), or a name (like "Louis Armstrong Stadium") they do get the final say.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fyunck: "The ITF does not own the term Grand Slam." Yes they do. It is a registered trademark, as their website notes and as I previously mentioned. "As far as the press or tennis authorities are concerned winning the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in one year. Period." No, not 'period'. You need a source that can be cited that says that. And it is not sufficient to find one source that uses the term that way, but a source that says that this is a generally accepted definition. Wikipedia requires sources, so without such a source, it cannot go in the article. "But the definition has not changed." Not according to two sources I have cited. You tried to cite one source (the ATP Laver page) but it says nothing to support your view. Without a source you have nothing that can be included in the article. "You seem to be new around here 99.192.65.51, might I ask if you are perhaps banned editor Tennis Expert?" I'm not new nor am I any banned editor. Please try to keep the discussion civil. Unfounded accusations like this are not productive.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a crazy waste of my time, like having to link that the sun is hot, but for peace of mind I'll do it. I said new because your ip has pretty much only a day or two's worth of edits. I asked about Tennis Expert because he shows up from time to time with the same sort of posts which must be reverted on sight, no exception. I apologize for asking, I just didn't want to go through all the linking when it would all be reverted again later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) Citing claims is not a waste of time when they are a source of controversy. The claim that the sun is hot is not in dispute by anyone, but the definition of "Grand Slam" clearly is. Comparing the two claims is absurd. (2) "...your ip has pretty much only a day or two's worth of edits". Yes. My ISP assigns a new IP address every time I go online. That's how they do it. That's how a lot of ISPs do it. The IP address at the end of this message will be different again, but not because I am doing anything to change it nor does it show that I am "new". (3) "I just didn't want to go through all the linking when it would all be reverted again later." I don't see why you think good citations should or would be reverted later. If the citations indisputably show that "Grand Slam" means winning all 4 in a calendar year, then they are worth keeping permanently. If you don't think that others will come along and question the claim when if it reverts to being uncited, then you don't understand that the term's definition is controversial. (4) I plan next to check the sources you cited to see if they really do support the calendar year claim, but I can already tell you that the first one - the Britannica citation - does not. It reports that Laver won the Grand Slam, which he did on either definition of "Grand Slam". The Britannica article says nothing to indicate that they take the term "Grand Slam" to mean 4 in a calendar year. So I will start by removing that citation for not supporting the claim made.99.192.84.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Finished. I removed a couple of references for not supporting the "in a single year" claim and reordered the 5 that did support the claim, putting the most authoritative ones first. I then made the same adjustment to the "List of..." page. I see no reason to remove any of the 5 citations (Wikipedia policy justifies over-citing where there is controversy), but the first two citations - the US Open site and the WTA site - are official enough sources and clear enough statements of the definition of "Grand Slam" that they might be enough without the other three citations - two newspapers and a website of indeterminate authorship. I mildly prefer leaving all 5 up, but if anyone feels strongly that 5 is too many, I'd suggest at least leaving the US Open site and WTA site as citations.99.192.84.58 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not previously noticed that the same list of citations was added to the section 3 header ("Grand Slam"). I just removed them (and the statement of definition of "Grand Slam" in the header) because they are redundant, given that the definition and relevant citations for it is in the opening paragraph.99.192.49.44 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I changed this sentence and provided a source that shows that Jimmy Connors used the term this way in 1974, Ivan Lendl in 1984, the New York Times in 1994, and Venus Williams in 2000. It's not "recent". Reverting this with no explanation or counter-source offered is not constructive.99.192.65.51 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Martina Navratilova, women's doubles Grand Slam, 1986

Martina Navratilova could not possibly have won the Grand Slam for women's doubles in 1986 because the Australian Open was not played in 1986. The listing on the page notes that it was not played that year and also notes that Navratilova won it in December 1985 and again in January 1987. That's all well and good for counting the number of consecutive Grand Slam tournaments won regardless of year, but "The Grand Slam" requires that they all be in the same calendar year, so she did not do it in 1986. The situation is much like her achievement in 1985, where she won all three Grand Slam tournaments that had mixed doubles competitions but did not win the Australian Open mixed doubles because there was none.

It is also similar to the her run of four Grand Slam singles titles in a row from December 1983 to September 1984. Every winner of the Grand Slam in singles has won four in a row from January-September, winning the Australian first and the US Open last. Navratilova also won four in a row starting with the Australian and ending with the US Open, but the fact that Navratilova's Australian open came one month earlier, pushing it across the calendar line, means she did not win the Grand Slam. Similarly, the December 1985 Australian doubles came a month too early to count toward a 1986 Grand Slam and the 1987 Australian doubles came a month too late.

As far as I can tell, the Martina Navratilova page correctly reports that she won the doubles Grand Slam in 1984, but (also correctly) it does not claim that she won the doubles Grand Slam in 1986. This page should be changed to remove that claim. It should be placed as a "note" at the end of the section explaining why it was an impossible feat, just as there is a "note" doing the same about the 1985 mixed doubles.99.192.49.44 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just tweaked the format of the notes at the end of both the doubles and mixed doubles sections. Taking away the bullet point and putting the note in parentheses makes it visually clear (I hope) that these are not cases of winning the Grand Slam. If you or anyone else does not like these changes, feel free to tweak further.99.192.71.70 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)