Talk:2012 ATP World Tour

Images

Typically the four photos only involve the slam winners, they don't even include the winner of the World Tour Finals which gets twice as many points, should Murray be there for Olympics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.98.8 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hell no! Olympics ≠ Grand Slams. Wait till Murray actually wins a Grand Slam title. And we might have to wait a long time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you by the numbers game. Olympics is held every four year while there are four GS in a year. One can win 16 GS but only one Olympics during this interval. A player can possibly participate in three Olympics in his career and e.g. there is a high chance Federer won't make the next cut. So not liking Murray has nothing to do with the fact he has won a rare trophy, whose tradition goes back far more in history than the ATP tour and its tournament categories. So until you give me better reasons I have to answer Olympics>Grand Slams. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And your edit summary, which says "As per 2009, 2010 and 2011 ATP World Tour articles, ONLY Grand Slam winners should be included in the pic" is really unlogical and unrelated considering there were no Olympics in those years. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if there weren't any Olympics that year. Grand Slams are the most prestigious. Stop equating Grand Slam titles with an Olympic Gold medal, because they are not equal. And you're calling me unlogical. Nonsense. Your argument doesn't stick; if it did, then why are the ATP World Tour Finals winner not pictured. WTF offers 1500 points to the winner, whereas Olympics only offer 750 (less than even the Masters 1000 titles). Another hole in your argument is that Olympic tennis wasn't even held from 1924–1988. Legends such as Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Vilas and Borg couldn't participate in it because it didn't even exist. Tennis Olympic tradition, what tradition? Seriously, any bias for Murraymania is most definitely not acceptable on Wikipedia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't like Murray but that's out of the scope of this question. Arguing with ranking points that was determined by a company that has interest in promoting and selling his own tournaments is NPOV. If the term "Golden Slam" exist it notes that it is something that makes the Slams full circle (while there is definitely isn't an "World Tour Final Slam" or allmastersslam. Olympics is prestige that's why hundreds of millions of people watched it this year and definitely more people heard about it than any of the Slams. And these are facts. If the points are the only reason to remove Murray...well it falls short on this. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 17:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You do know that the ITF runs both Grand Slams and Olympic tennis. And no, I wouldn't label them as a "company" selling its own tournaments. Those are the only tournaments it runs. Furthermore, you're blowing the Olympics out of proportion. Olympics as a whole (i.e. including track and field, swimming, basketball, etc.) of course garners more viewers than Grand Slams for tennis. But in terms of Olympic tennis, it of course has less viewers than Grand Slams. If not, why weren't the Olympics held over two weeks (the full course of the Olympics) and best of 5 sets? Obviously they are beneath the Grand Slam tournaments. Finally, please tell me how an event that wasn't held for 64 years more prestigious and has more tradition than Grand Slams. Give me a valid answer to that question and I'll back down. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The final ran best of 5 sets, but sets has nothing to do with this (Davis Cup has the 5-set format shall we add pictures about Davis Cup teams??) Current tennis bio infoboxes enlist Olympics (in the same section as GS). Also every player who won Olympics has a Template:MedalGold (but there's no Template:Wimbledonwinner). None of these is true for the Masters, which you claim to be higher than the Olympics based on the points, right? Olympics is huge as a whole, yes, that's why so many people heard about it. Imagine a person who doesn't follow tennis (like I doesn't follow e.g. water polo championships) but hears about a tennis Olympic champion he/she will definitely think of it as a big thing (like I do when I read something about an Olympic gold medalist of a sport I'm not interested in). It's not a tennis forum but an encyclopedia for readers of any kind. Going into traditions is a dangerous field as the US and Australian Open have less than the other two or the Olympics so I really don't want to measure it as it is impossible. Olympic sports are changing every four year but one thing is sure those categories that qualify to be included are 100% worth mentioning here no matter if they were out of the programme previously. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Murray picture being added (or not being added) to the article but no doubt that Slams are more prestigious and important than Olympic tennis. It's similar as Olympic football, which is not the most important football tournament, even though it's a part of Olympics. Niktute (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(In response to Lajbi's post) Davis Cup is a team sport for countries. Grand Slam titles are for individual players (or two for doubles, at the max). Also, tennis info boxes also include World Tour Finals results in the same section as GS (conveniently forgot to include that?). And of course the Olympics would have a medal template. These are for all sports and denote gold, silver and bronze medals. On the other hand, Wimbledon (along with all the other Grand Slams) can only be won or loss (no medals for runner-ups or 3rd place). Basically, you're comparing apples (Grand Slams) and oranges (Olympics). Finally, it was you who mentioned "traditions" by stating that the Olympics has "tradition [that] goes back far more in history than the ATP tour and its tournament categories." I wasn't the one who brought it up; I'm just trying to refute that claim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get the conversation hijacked even more so let's just stick to basic Wikipedia pillars. Davis Cup is a part of this article so it can be pictured as well no matter how different or similar it is compared to other tournament, just saying. The pedia is for average readers who want to read about Olympics (just check the Olympic related articles' visitor numbers in the recent weeks and compare to the upcoming US Open let's say). Wikipedia must be backed up by reliable sources, and while I can find dozens of sources (even the ATP itself) that claim Murray did win the big one and made his breakthrough there is no contrary ones that would dare to say it's just a minor, unorthodox, non-important tournament to clinch. By tradition I meant the Olympics in general in the Ancient Greek era, which undoubtly dates back more in time than any tennis events. It's obvious for me by your comments that you don't like Murray and like Federer, which is a thing that really should be left behind when editing. That's all. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't hate Murray. I think he's a great tennis player and shows much better sportsmanship compared to Djokovic and Nadal IMHO. And I feel he deserves his Olympic gold medal; he beat Fed fair and square. What I don't like is equating the Olympics as being equal to or greater than Grand Slam titles. Out of all legendary Grand Slam winners (Laver, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Federer) none of them had an Olympic Gold medal. Does that diminish their accomplishments? No. On the flip side, the only notable tennis players who won an Olympic gold medal were Agassi and Nadal. Just them. And why are they notable? Because of their successes in Grand Slams. Fed already stated he didn't mind losing to Murray. And this article sums it up the best. Yevgeny Kafelnikov stated that he would trade all his titles except for his grand slams for Olympic gold. This all comes to show that Grand Slams >>> Olympics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved Y Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 04:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympic gold as "major" title

Not according to reliable sources:

1. As it happened: Andy Murray wins first major title at US Open Daily Record
2. Andy Murray wins first Major title in US Open ending for the ages CBS Sports
3. Andy Murray wins US Open for first major title Boston Globe
4. Andy Murray wins the U.S. Open; First Major win CBS News
5. Andy Murray beats Novak Djokovic at U.S. Open for 1st major title Los Angeles Times
6. Murray Wins US Open; Collects First Major The Epoch Times
7. Andy Murray wins a major title for first time in 5 finals Seattle Times
8. Kim Sears, Andy Murray's Girlfriend, Finally Sees Boyfriend Win His First Major Title At US Open Huffington Post

...so on ad nauseam. Article will be changed. Albrecht (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that, in an article about the ATP World Tour, it makes sense to present accomplishments in a manner consistent with the value determined by the ATP World Tour, which assigns a point value of 750 to the Olympic singles, making it only the fifteenth-biggest title of the season. As a sporting event more generally, the Summer Olympics are obviously several orders of magnitude more significant than any ATP event, but the benchmark here cannot be "importance" in some absolute sense, but rather importance as measured by the ATP: thus, mentioning the Olympics in the introduction to this article is WP:UNDUE at its most flagrant. Albrecht (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2012 ATP World Tour. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Tournament-Landing.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?columnist=kamakshi_tandon&id=3686016
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103011450/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414115912/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110060538/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Press/Rankings-and-Stats.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Press/Rankings-and-Stats.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

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) 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)