Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Financial Statements

Krosero has suggested that radical "trimming" should be enacted on this bio article. I would disagree to a radical trim, and point out that exercising personal judgment at this enormous distance of time from the sources consists of original work and is outside the boundaries of the source practice in this Wikipedia article. I have no objection to reducing the citations for financial results, but I suggest that we should start by including all of the Kramer statements as a beginning, they are a primary source, plus the Hoad biography which had access to Hoad's personal records. Kramer was the source of the tour payments to players. Krosero, as I recall from our conversation above, that report of a reporter did not quote from Hoad, but was an amount the reporter put into a question, to which Hoad did not comment on. That is how I recall you explained the report. Do you have a complete quote? I think that you stated that this was not a direct quote from Hoad. Just as a side note, I would ask the editors to please try to avoid bloating with ad hominems, they really have no connection with this bio. That would represent an enormous improvement in the tone of contributions here.Tennisedu (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The financial statements no longer represent a burdensome read for the average reader.Tennisedu (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

With the financial statements now in footnotes, there is no longer a need for radical "trimming", but I see that Krosero has removed some well-sourced statements.Tennisedu (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me make my views crystal clear on this. I agreed with krosero's decision and judgement to make a substantial reduction on the financial statements in this article. I did not agree with your proposal listed above. You are acting against wikipedia consensus. You say this needs to be discussed on talk, but it already has been discussed. KROSERO AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You cannot arbitrarily join with a fellow editor and remove without reason longstanding edits. There must be a justification, and if there is no justification, then the edit should stand. Especially if it is a central edit relying on a primary source. You do not have a license to arbitrarily remove edits, even if one other editor is in agreement. You are supposed to discuss the changes on Talk before removing longstanding edits.Tennisedu (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've said that I'm not getting into spin-your-wheels debates with tennisedu but I have to say something here. The purpose of a talk page is not so that every last editor must be personally convinced of changes. Consensus is not unanimity. If it was, then a page will only be as objective as its least objective editor; it will contain only what its most biased editor will allow to stand. That obviously doesn't work and cannot continue.

Original research is not what we're doing here. We are not stating conclusions, or giving information, that are not present in the sources themselves. We're judging what sources to use, and all Wiki editors have to do that. Nowhere does Wikipedia say that all sources, and all their claims, must be included in a Wiki bio.

We have agreed not to bloat the page any longer. Other pages on Wikipedia do not have such financial bloat. Even Federer's highly detailed page doesn't have midcareer financial earnings totals, so there is no reason to put them into Hoad's bio. If Kramer's midcareer total from 1959 is included, it will be necessary to list also the many other sources that contradict his figure; and that will just re-bloat the article, which we've agreed not to do (besides also including the type of material that is not present in other articles).

As for longstanding material, all of your material has been challenged from the start and we are only now getting around to removing it. You put in that false 1957 figure some months ago, that doesn't make it longstanding; I never saw it until now. And only now have we decided to make another effort to remove material you've put in; as we've described here, there is a cycle here which produces frustration in good editors so that after a while they stop trying; that doesn't mean that the questionable material suddenly gets a shoe-in grace as "longstanding."

I will state it again: trying to convince every editor of every change, including the most biased editor, will leave the page only as objective as its least objective editor. That cannot work and it has to stop, if this page is going to regain a neutral point of view. Krosero (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of this particular 1959 number from Kramer, a primary source, is juxtaposed to the statement about Hoad's earnings relative to athletes in other sports in 1959, so this gives a contemporary benchmark to compare with other athletes. This source and citation was not put there by myself, but by some other astute editor, and it appears to be a good one, there is no reason to question it or to remove it. Some of the other citations derive from secondary material and are less authoritative. It is not clogging up the article, it is placed within a note, and the average reader will not be burdened with it. To place ourselves above the primary sources we need to do a great deal of original work, and that has not happened for this reference. It could hardly be any more objective than it is.Tennisedu (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not true that another editor put it there, it was placed there by you, March 30, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=948119345&oldid=947919160

Again, this type of statement is not present even in Federer's detailed bio. And two, placing it there just means that more midcareer totals will have to be placed there to counter it, just beginning the bloat-race all over again. We have already decided not to do that, so you are going against two editors on this particular citation and against the entire group on the issue of bloat, because every editor here has said that the article has too much financial information in it.

If another editor wishes to keep it, that is one thing, and will be the basis for discussion. But it's another thing entirely for you to go against the group like this, when there is no indication that anyone else wants this statement, and every indication that all editors wish to reduce the bloat and that none wish to see the resumption of the citation-wars that bloated the article in the first place. Krosero (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that reference was from another edit earlier in the article found by another editor. Check that one.Tennisedu (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a primary source statement from the tour operator, so it has a status above the secondary material. Further it gives support to the statement from the Chicago Tribune comparing athletes in professional sports, so it has a particular function here. There is no reason to question this statement from Kramer.Tennisedu (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We agreed by consensus to reduce the financial statements in this article. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We have done that to a an extreme degree. What remains is bare bones, similar to other articles. The 1959 reference in a note, not the body of the article, is a supportive reference to the Chicago Tribune article, and is very brief and easy to assimilate by the average reader. We did not agree to eliminate ALL of the primary references to earnings. We have eliminated nearly all of them. This particular one is not part of a series of annual financial statements, but is serving a comparative function in this context.Tennisedu (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agreed to the material removed by Krosero. This article now has the amount of financial statements in line with other articles. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Kramer statement is connected with the Chicago Tribune reference and related to it. We do not have excessive financial statements in this article now. No one has shown any problem with this Kramer statement.Tennisedu (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agreed to the material removed by Krosero. This article now has the amount of financial statements in line with other articles. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, we have a consensus -- one subject, as always, to change, pending comments from other editors. No one has stepped in to say they want this statement. There are larger issues with it, not merely whether it's correct: 1) including it would resume the bloat again; 2) it goes against the standard practice for tennis players at Wiki. You're ignoring these issues, and ignoring the current consensus, rather than trying to change the current one. That's all any single editor should do: if they don't like the current consensus, try changing it, by persuading other editors. Krosero (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Two editors in an agreed agenda does not constitute a consensus. This reference relates to the Chicago Tribune article, comparing earnings of pro athletes in different sports, and also relates to the contract terms for the 1957 contract. It serves an important function in the logic of the narrative. There is no bloat in a single reference to a primary official source, that is absurd. And placed in a note.Tennisedu (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to Krosero's assertions about mid-career earnings not being included in these articles, other tennis bio articles contain mid-career and even annual financial numbers, see Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall. This is consistent for pre-open tennis pros, who often had irregular trends in tennis earnings.Tennisedu (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennisedu, you are winning no one over with your disgraceful behaviour. Stop now. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not responding to the point raised by Krosero, that these few financial details are out of line with other tennis bio articles. I showed you above that the opposite is true, the Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales articles contain annual and mid-term financial statements. We have to be consistent with the rules. If you think that consistency is unimportant, complain to someone else other than me.Tennisedu (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennisedu, you are winning no one over with your disgraceful behaviour. Stop now. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I would vote to trim those articles too. Tennishistory1877 urged me to do so when he agreed with my proposed trimming here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I said all the articles with financial bloat added by tennisedu should be reduced, not just this one (although there was far more bloat here than on the other pre-open era pro player articles). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I may have placed a lot of that material on those pages, because in the course of the Hoad "discussions" I found information that I placed on some those pages. But one thing we have since discovered with this Hoad article is that such financial detail can easily become excessive and bloat an article, and for that reason alone I'd be willing to remove such info from those articles, if there was agreement/consensus of the type we can have here (not unanimity).

As I pointed out above, the addition of this related financial detail is linked to the Hoad 1957 contract and the Chicago Tribune article comparing pro athlete earnings, so it plays a pivotal role in the narrative of this article. And it certainly is in line and consistent with other articles on Gonzales, Hoad, and Laver, which include some mid-career and annual financial data. I would suggest that we get a broader view on this issue, because we have exhausted the mental resources of the current editors on the financial information here, which we all agreed was excessive. Could we get another opinion?Tennisedu (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC

There is a need for more viewpoints on these issues.Tennisedu (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennisedu added some of it, but who added it in the first place isnt the point. The point is articles on modern players such as Nadal (who has earned far more than Hoad even allowing for inflation) have roughly the same amount of figures listed as the Hoad article does AFTER all the reductions of today. Which is one of the main reasons I agreed to your proposal, Krosero. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

But it is stretching things to try and equate current players and the current tour with the experience of pre-Open players, whose earnings could rise and fall drastically from year to year depending on how they were able to get a contract. We should compare like with like, Hoad with Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver. The contemporary experience.Tennisedu (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Its insulting to modern players who earned far more to take the view that their earnings should be mentioned far less. I dont think reading a lot of financial information about players is interesting. This is something I have always felt and its only recently I discovered other editors feel the same way. It was receiving this confirmation of other editors' views, plus comparing the financial statements listed on this page to modern great players that led me to back Krosero's large reduction. And that is the consensus view established thus far, with all editors able to comment if they wish. Refusal to accept that other editors do not agree with you and trying to ramraid your views onto the page endears you to no one, tennisedu. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is precisely what you mention, that current players receive more money. That creates a misperception that tennis players in the Kramer tour days were not earning very much. That Chicago Tribune article proves the opposite, that tennis players were earning more than any other professional athletes of the era. Today, that is not the case, tennis is no longer the top money maker for athletes.Tennisedu (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish someone would say what the issue is if they're going to open an RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing edit war over a statement by Jack Kramer, the promoter of the 1959 pro tennis players, giving the two-year earnings total for Hoad as of 1959 of $225,000. This reference supports the Chicago Tribune statement that Hoad was expected to earn more than the top baseball and football players. We have been removing excess financial statements like crazy the last few days, but these two statements seem to be important to the article, in my view. Krosero and Tennishistory1877 are insistent that they be removed from the article. We cannot resolve this disagreement.Tennisedu (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And what is the reason they say this statement should be removed? And why do you guys indent so much? Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay responding. They think that there is too much financial information in the article, and Krosero has held that he believes that Kramer's statement was inaccurate. I think that is what they believe. I believe that this reference is important, it relates to the Hoad contract from 1957 (which guaranteed $125,000) and also supports the Chicago Tribune statement that Hoad earned more than the top baseball and football players.Tennisedu (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon. There are two issues with this article. Firstly, there is the issue of tennisedu's bias, for which he has been warned many times over the past year (in addition to myself, I have seen krosero, Wolbo and fyunck all speak to him about POV editing). Krosero has discussed tennisedu's dubious figures in this thread. The second issue is the excessive financial details. In a previous thread some days ago fyunck and myself indicated we felt there was excessive financial details in this article. I removed some financial details, tennisedu reverted me and Wolbo reverted tennisedu and stated he agreed with myself and fyunck. Then Krosero proposed a larger reduction in the financial details, which I agreed with. Then tennisedu refused to accept this. Even with the vast reduction enacted yesterday the article still has around the same amount of financial detail as Nadal's and even allowing for inflation Nadal earned far more than Hoad. Krosero has stated he is prepared to accept the majority view on this and encouraged other editors to become involved, which I agree with. It is a matter of judgement and something for which the majority view should carry. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, thanks for stopping in. The statement in question is a problematic one here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is is contradicted by other good sources, so if the statement itself stays in the article, the other sources should also be put back in. All these statements were part of a paragraph that one editor, fyunck, said recently was a trivial paragraph about Hoad's earnings in one particular year of his career; he said there was a lot of bloat of financial detail in the article, in his view. Tennishistory1877 and I have agreed with that view, and have been trying to remove such material.

Secondly, the statement in question is the kind of statement that we don't usually have in tennis bios here on Wiki. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, for example, have statements about their total career earnings, but their bios don't say what their career earnings had totaled by 2010, for example. Midcareer totals are part of the trivial bloat that the editors here have been trying to remove. Reinserting the one figure in question is not only against the practice that we've seen in other tennis articles; it would also then make necessary the addition of other midcareer figures from the year in question (1959), as I said, to indicate that the first figure is contradicted by other sources and should not be taken as factual.

That's how the article became bloated, not just with financial figures, but with all kinds of data, which I won't get into here: tennisedu introduces data that is questionable or incorrect, we remove some of it, but he insists on keeping other material, even when he doesn't carry a majority -- so then our only option has been to put in solid figures and data, to try to keep the article objective.

Thanks again for stopping by. You can see we are having larger issues/disputes here that are beyond any one editor's ability to fix, but any comment you may have on the one particular statement/paragraph would be welcome. Krosero (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to reduce the size and amount of material for the amateur years in this article, but others have resisted that attempt. There is no need to discuss minor amateur events. The issue of what constitutes a primary source is key here, Kramer's statements have a special status as he was the pro manager and source of payments. We were all agreed that there was excessive financial material in this article, but I think that issue is now resolved, The articles on Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall have more financial material now than this Hoad article. That is no longer the issue. Krosero believes that the Kramer comment about Hoad receiving $225,000 in two years is contradicted, but I do not see what he is referring to. Perhaps we could start there, because Kramer himself does not seem to contradict this statement. The statement itself ties in to the Chicago Tribune article comparing pro athlete compensation, and follows up the 1957 Hoad contract. I would like to know where exactly Krosero sees a contradiction.Tennisedu (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately Kramer is not always reliable. We already know he gave the press incorrect H2H figures for Hoad in fall '57, which ended up in McCauley; he said at another point that Hoad was the most successful player of the '57 tour, which is far from true, we know now (he didn't win the tours in Europe, South Africa or Australia, and won no tournaments). As we've said repeatedly, he was trying to hype Hoad as Gonzalez' challenger.

That's the context in which all his statements should be seen. You yourself believe that Kramer told the press that Hoad will be earning $140,000 by the end of 1957 alone, but we know now that Hoad, and Jack Kramer himself only a month later, said that the true figure was only $35,000.

Hoad was reported to be at $138,750 total career earnings by the end of '58 (Nov. 9). He had made "almost" $50,000 in all 1959 events through Memphis, which was about the time that Kramer made the statement we're all debating. That puts Hoad at about $188K, at the time Kramer spoke, not $225K.

Hoad himself said at the time that Kramer spoke, in a July 2 newspapers, “In less than two years I have earned almost 200,000 dollars. I like the work and the money.” So he contradicts Kramer here but confirms quite nicely the $188K figure.

We know that Hoad's total for the 1959 season was $84,000, from another source. If you add that to the 138K figure from end-'58, then by the end of '59, he's at around 222K. Actual press reports from the end of 1959 say that Hoad has made around or over 200K. Hoad is quoted as saying so, in one. In another, from January 10, 1960, Hoad is reported to have made £100,000 since turning pro, which as you know comes out to 224K dollars (converting from Aussie pounds).

That is remarkably close to the number Kramer had given earlier, in the debated statement from six months earlier. I think we can't rule out that Kramer, given his track record, was making another prediction and stating it as an accomplished fact, given that Hoad was certain to reach that amount very shortly (and he was certain to reach it). Kramer was, after all, speaking with the reporter about why Butch Buchholz should turn pro and join him; he was trying to recruit amateurs and would have done all he could to tempt them with the biggest financial numbers at his disposal. We know already that he was not truthful about Hoad's performance record in 1957, so this should not be a controversial thing, to say that Kramer's numbers should never be taken automatically as fact.

That is not something, of course, that we could state in the article; we have to go with the sources, and the best we can do, if the questionable statement stays, is to add all the other figures that contradict it, so the reader knows it cannot be taken as factual.

And that's how the article got bloated financial details in the first place. Personally, though I value accuracy in numbers very highly, I think the average reader would consider it a trivial paragraph, if it's occupied with the relatively minor matter of how much exactly Hoad had made at a given time in 1959.

The other bios about Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, etc., as we said last night, are no longer an issue. They can be pruned of such information is a consensus finds the info to be trivial or unnecessary; so they no longer support your argument for keeping this particular statement/paragraph in the Hoad bio. Krosero (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"I have tried to reduce the size and amount of material for the amateur years in this article, but others have resisted that attempt." I have no idea what this refers to. I am in favour of reducing the amateur years in size. Personally I would remove in 1956 statements such as "In the Australian ranking published in April, reflecting the season until the end of March, Hoad overtook Rosewall as No. 1." Hoad finished 1956 ranked no. 1 amateur which is duly noted. Mid-season ranking is not necessary to note. Also "Following the win in Paris, Hoad stated his intention to remain amateur after 1956, "Even if I win the three big tournaments, even if Kramer raised his offer, I still wouldn't turn pro for at least two or three seasons." Not really very interesting reading about Hoad speculating when he would turn pro. "As a preparation for Wimbledon, Hoad played the singles event at the Northern Championships in Manchester instead of the Queen's Club Championships. He reached the final but lost to 34-year old Jaroslav Drobný who won the deciding set 7–5" can be said "Hoad lost in the final of the Northern championships in Manchester to Jaroslav Drobny in five sets". "In mid December Hoad and Rosewall competed in the final of the Victorian Championships which was their last final as amateurs as Rosewall turned professional at the end of the month. The final started late due to rain and was stopped due to darkness at two sets to one for Hoad but the following day Rosewall won the last two sets and the title" can be said in a lot fewer words and the fact the final started late and resumed the next day isnt of much interest. These are just some of the reductions possible for 1956. I could recommend reductions for 1953 and 1954 too. A lot of it is the phrasing of sentences, writing results succinctly. I want readers to read about Hoad's accomplishments and dont want them getting bogged down in unnecessary padding. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Krosero, again you refer to unidentified "reports" to try to contradict Kramer's clear statements. We are supposed to cite the source, not debate it or construct our own scenarios around them. That is original work.Tennisedu (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the type of debate we've had here. The paragraph as it was before the trimming -- the paragraph that fyunck said was trivial -- contained no analysis from you or me. It just listed different claims: it had your Kramer statement of 225K by mid-July '59, it had my citations of 200K by end--59, and it had the 224K by early-'60, and I think that last one may have been added by you, not me. The paragraph was bloated with citations, with no comment or analysis. I am not proposing here to introduce into the article any of my personal analysis -- I've said repeatedly on this talk page that I'm only talking about the fact that Kramer's statement has other competing statements that contradict it. The one from Hoad in mid-59 ("almost 200K") maybe you didn't know about, but that's yet another contradiction of Kramer's statement. My post here was merely to establish that Kramer's statement is contradicted -- not to propose that any analysis be introduced into the article. The paragraph was regarded as excessive and trivial as it was, with citations merely listed, no analysis whatsoever. The only question here is whether we reinstate the paragraph (maybe we add Hoad's statement from July '59, now that we have). That's all. I added my analysis in my post above, not to put it into the article, not to persuade you (this is not a forum for general discussion about the subject, as you can see in the message at the top of every talk page), but to evaluate Kramer as a source, which is just the same thing you were doing, except that you called him reliable, while I said he wasn't always reliable. I am going no farther than you.

The only question here is whether we go back to multiple-citation paragraphs with midcareer earnings figures, when three editors have found the paragraph in question to be trivial and excessive, and no one else has spoken for keeping any part of it, except you. Krosero (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say on this. We've reached a very deja vu point on this, where further discussion helps nothing. Krosero (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I place the Kramer statements, warts and all, in a special category, because he was the source of payments and therefore a primary source. And even after seeing your work above, I do not see any serious contradiction among the Kramer statements.Tennisedu (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune article seems to be appropriate for mention, it does not mention earnings directly, but compares relative earnings of tennis players with baseball and football players, a separate topic. It should be in.Tennisedu (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Rankings in the Top Ten

Tennishistory1877, you have objected to including references to rankings within the top ten, but look at this statement, among others in the Rosewall article, "1977 was Rosewall's last year in the Top 20 in the ATP rankings,[159] which means he was one of the best players for 26 years (in the Top 20 from 1952 to 1977 in some rankings).[citation needed] "...Now, what is the policy here? Do we include top ten rankings over a period of years, or not?Tennisedu (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I will not get involved with any more battles on this page. If I feel you are editing unreasonably, I will request another page lock and continue to do so until you leave this page alone. On the specific point of rankings, all rankings are listed on the rankings page, but I dont think a one line passing reference in a newspaper for Hoad being no. 2 should be endlessly parroted on wikipedia pages, as it is the lowest type of what could be termed a ranking (these are only used at all on the ranking page to stop original research in determining no. 1 and 2 consensus rankings in years where there were no "proper" rankings and add bulk to other years). In an ideal world where proper ranking lists were made each year, we could dispense with these entirely, but unfortunately nothing about pro tennis was ever ideal (apart from the quality of the players). Rosewall's span included the Tingay ranking of 1952 and the ATP ranking of 1977, both legitimate rankings. If there are other player pages where a rankings span was seemingly cobbled together in this fashion, then they should be removed, but actually this seems to be mainly a problem with the Hoad page. Wolbo already removed a 1961 Mulloy no. 1 ranking, which was a passing reference made mid-year. Not something to be parroted. It just looks like a biased editor has been working on these pages to see this sort of stuff endlessly promoted. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877, again we have this for the Rosewall article, you removed a similar statement from the Hoad article, we should be consistent in our methods. Do we include number of years ranked in the top ten or top twenty, or do we not include number of years ranked in top ten? Consistency, please. "1977 was Rosewall's last year in the Top 20 in the ATP rankings,[159] which means he was one of the best players for 26 years (in the Top 20 from 1952 to 1977 in some rankings).[citation needed] " I would be willing to remove this odd statement from the Rosewall article, which would solve the issue.Tennisedu (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it legitimate to say Rosewall ranked in the top 20 for the span quoted (1952 to 1977). I dont particularly like the wording of that sentence on the Rosewall page. I already altered a fair amount of phrasing on the Rosewall page last year to correct it to neutral language, though the page was well researched. I would put "Rosewall was first ranked in the top 20 in 1952 and the last time in 1977" with citations for both years and leave it at that, no need for "which means he was one of the best players for 26 years" (though that is true, it strikes me as being a bit unnecessary). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased Rosewall. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Pro Events

Fyunck, I see that you chose the title "Other Pro Events" in the information section. One problem with this term is that it might be understood as it stands to include consideration of all other pro events, including pro tours. Just to be specific on this point, I suggest that we restrict the title to "Other Pro Tournaments", to eliminate consideration of the pro tours in this location. "Events" is a little too broad. We have not been including the pro tours in the information section. And to be even more specific, in line with the article on "Major Professional Tournaments", should we not also be consistent with the wording in that article for the designation of TOC and other important pro tournaments? That would mean using the designation "Other important pro tournaments", although that might be too many words for this location.Tennisedu (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Zenith

McCauley opines that Hoad's win at Forest Hills TOC in 1959 was the "zenith" of his career. It was probably the greatest tournament win in his career, but McCauley was not aware of the Ampol world series of that year. McCauley believed that the Ampol series was a five-tournament event near the end of 1959 and including the first event of 1960. The Ampol series win was probably the real zenith of Hoad's career, so this judgment call by McCauley is not being made with a full set of facts. I recommend that this statement be removed. If no one objects, I will remove it.Tennisedu (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)