Talk:Open Era tennis records – Men's singles/Archive 1

First impressions by individual editors

GoodIntentionedFreak

I noticed this page when Kendu020 linked to it in the ATP Records talk. I immediately recognized that it was based on the ATP records page, but cleaner and more relevant. I suppose the main operations were: 1) deletion of irrelevant records; 2) expansion to 1968 (which essentially means Rod Laver); 3) introduction of Grand Prix tournaments. The more concise the page, the less problems will there be with ambiguous sources, daily updating (for example the ATP Records page should have been updated whenever Jürgen Melzer lost a match) etc. I find that both 2) and 3) have a deeper significance, because they remind there is yet something to be achieved in consecutive Major titles and in the Masters total. I hope that the issue of early years (1968-1972) can be dealt with methodologically, so the page can have integrity when it comes to e.g. total GS matches won, career titles etc. GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

Fyunck

I just noticed this article existed. If there is going to be a "Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles" I assume there will also be a "Tennis records of the Open Era – Women's Singles?" And since we are being more specific should we just merge the info from "List of open era tennis records" into here and the ladies article? Seems silly to double dip info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Most info on the 'List of Open Era tennis records' is indeed the same as on this page, and the rest is either women or non-important info. So that page does look a bit redundant now that this page exists. And it will be great to have a 'Tennis records of the Open Era - Women's Singles' as well - if ever i have time i will be glad to work on that. Obviously to me this page makes the 'ATP world tour records' also a little bit redundant, but I'm sure many will disagree with me on that. Kendu020 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really since ATP records and open era records are not the same, just as all-time records and open era records are not the same. Different beasts altogether. One thing though, because of the title of "open era" it will eventually encompass things that the atp doesn't care about, just like "List of open era tennis records" does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ATP records and Open Era records are not the same, since, bluntly said, the first don't make sense in the context of the history of the game, and the second do. I am inclined to believe that 'ATP records' are only discussed on Wikipedia and nowhere else. I wonder who and why created that page originally: perhaps it was a technical reason (as the ATP website, the main source of information for men's singles tennis records, does not list matches pre-1972)? --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea the original reasons. In the press I do hear talk of atp records. I guess the problem stems from the fact that prior to 1972 the ATP does not recognize many tournaments that were played from 1968-1972. So when the press talks of atp records they are 100% not talking open era records. My thoughts are that they are both pretty useless and I would just have historical records (which I think are lacking here). The wta does the same thing. Plus there are events even in the 70s that the atp does not recognize, where the open era or historical era would encompass them. Tennis is a strange beast as far as it's stuttering goes. It was not a smooth transition throughout its history. We could easily have: 1877-1911 early tennis, 1912-1924 ILLTF establishes WHCC, WCCC and Wimbledon as the three world championships, while the USLTF does the same for the US Championships. 1877-1921 Wimbledon uses the challenge round (US last challenge round in 1911). 1925-present: tennis establishes the 4 Majors of Australian, French, Wimbledon and US championships. 1927-1967 the best players migrate to the profession ranks and play in head to head tours and pro majors. 1962-present: server can take their feet off the ground while serving. April 1968-present: open era begins. 1968-1978: contract war era. Players under different contracts were not allowed in certain majors or events. 1972-present: ATP era begins. 1973-present WTA era begins. 1990-present: modern era of ATP control. All this is to show that tennis has had many starts and stops. We could have all of these or none of these or somewhere in-between as we do now. 1968 may have started the open era but the majors certainly were not totally open to all players until 1978ish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck, this is really interesting! I am aware that e.g. Connors could not compete at RG for a while, but could you give more details/examples, please? Which events in the 70s were not recognized by the ATP? Which tournaments prior to 1972 were not recognized by the same association? IMO, these informations at least warrant a note on this page (as "All tournaments" are then not exactly "all".) --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I may have to do this in steps as I dig them up. You mentioned Connors, he has 149 titles but the ATP only lists 109 of them. Rival tour was some of it but others were simply whatever the ATP wanted to recognize or not. 4 player pepsi grand slams of the late 70's are atp listed but other 4 player events are not. WTC tournament of champions not recognized either. Rod Laver has 77 open era titles, 41 of which are atp recognized. Those were the two players I checked first but I'm sure it's endless. The main point is that ATP recognized wins/losses/records/ are not the equivalent of open era records. From 1990 onwards, sure. So a page with the title "records of the Open era" one expects the whole open era, not the atp's version of the open era. I tried to change the criteria that said "All statistics are based on the data at the ATP World Tour website" but was rebuffed. Really, with that stipulation, the article should be titled "ATP Tennis records of the Open Era – Men's Singles." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Curljets

I recently visited the page to double check some facts on respective calender slam records for several players and it struck me that that section seemed unfinished compared to other sections. The main problem I saw with it was the "Two Majors" table. The table was hiding too much information about calender year achievements, mainly the consecutive and non-consecutive slam wins. For instance, the way the information was presented made it seem at a glance that each of the players listed had only won two slams in a particular year when some had won 3 or four. The table name was misleading too. I suspect that anyone not very familiar with tennis records would have found this section confusing. So I broke the table down into five different tables: 3 for consecutive slam wins (4,3 and 2 respectively) and two tables for non-consecutive wins (3 and 2). It gives a better representation of a player's achievements in a calender year which were glossed over by the previous table. Curljets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Specific record categories and records

Grand Slam tournaments

I am not at all sure what the table headed "At each Grand Slam totals" means. There are tables that list Finals, Semis and Quarters but it is unclear what these numbers are about. Later on there is a section called "Per Grand Slam Event" which is clear. For each of the four grand slams the number of wins and finals are given for the top players. However, "At each grand slam totals" does not seem to mean anything. Are these meant to be winning streaks? But then why is the first table labelled "Finals"? Either this table should be properly explained or deleted.

Grand Slam match streaks

There are quite a few players who have streaks (match wins, finals, semi's, or Jimmy Connors' 27 quarter finals) that were achieved while skipping one or more GS. This is not the kind of streaks this page is talking about - that would mess up the entire tables. There was a long discussion on this at ATP World Tour Records, and they added non-consecutive streak lists, but even that to me was nonsense and non-information. A GS streak is only a streak when achieved over consecutive slams - Nadal's skipping of Wimbledon 2009 for example does matter in his consecutive streaks. Streaks are about dominance of an entire period, otherwise it's no different from the totals tables (think about appearance table as well). Another example, from women's tennis - Kim Clijsters didn't lose a match at the US Open from 2005 until 2011, but that didn't mean she dominated that entire period. So, with respect ;), i'm undoing the revision of Rod Laver's 29 match wins again. Kendu020 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this topic to the talk! I claim that match streaks are fundamentally different than tournament level streaks (titles, finals, ..., appearances). I agree that non-cons. streaks lists are nonsense, but I believe that is not the topic here at all.

For example, Jimmy Connors did not reach four consecutive finals in 1974–75, as he did not reach FO final of 1974 -- but he did win 26 consecutive matches of GS play, as he did not lose any. And the same goes for Laver. His wiki page also claims he has a streak of 29 and backs it up by a contemporary report.

I don't think the examples of Nadal and Clijsters prove, or in fact illustrate anything against the point above. It is much more obvious for Nadal, since his last GS match before withdrawing from Wimby 2009 was a loss to Soderling, so he did not have a streak anyway. The question remains: does that interrupt his Wimby streak? IMO, and in the opinion of the sports media (for any single tournament, in fact), the answer is: no, it does not interrupt it. So, if it goes for individual events, it should go for all four. Furthermore, nobody claims Nadal reached 5 Wimby finals in a row, as he did not reach the 2009 final. This goes on to underline the difference I am making between GS tournament-level streaks and GS match-level streaks.

The Clijsters example, however, can help me illustrate a different point. Even if Clijsters streak of consecutive matches took place in consecutive years, it would still NOT imply her dominance "of an entire period". Dominating a period means doing what Novak did in 2011, or Roger 2004-2007. The US Open takes about 6% of the tennis season. So, for me, these streaks, and in fact almost all match streaks which are listed on the page, are about dominating in certain circumstances: e.g, grass courts, Roland Garros, top 10 oponents, finals, GS play (higher stakes and best-of-5). So skipping a tournament does not hurt a match streak.

(And to go back to Jimmy Connors, he won AO, skipped RG, won Wimby, won USO, played AO finals. What is GS dominance if not this?)

You mentioned the discussion on the ATP World Tour Records page. I remember it, but I do not think it dealt with match streaks at all. If it did, they would not have included the McEnroe streak (he skipped AO and RG during his GS match streak).

In short, IMO, a (GS) match streak in interrupted when a match is lost, and a GS tournament level streak is interrupted when said level is not reached on the next occasion.

(Another example. During his streaks of 46 and 49 wins, Borg made several walkovers, no? Does this in your opinion break the streak? In my opinion, it does not, as only a loss can break a match winning streak, and walkovers are not credited as losses.) --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you make a good argument with the distinction between GS tournament-level streaks and Gs match-level streaks. In that case i can agree, and put Laver back on 29. This was also possible only because you changed the layout and removed match wins from the tournament-level tables. so nice work, i'll change it back. Kendu020 (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Records per Grand Slam event

Match winning per Grand Slam event

[I have a problem with] GS winning percentages, where the criterium is not the number of appearences, but of wins. Vilas played AO only in the peak years of his career, and won it two times: 23 wins to 3 losses. When he started losing GS matches earlier on, he stopped travelling to Australia -- but he would go on to play 8 more French Opens, with mixed results. And that he is ranked higher in this list than Roger and Novak (implying: Vilas was on average a better AO player than those two are), is simply silly. I would either impose a strong criterium (10 appearances -- which would also happily exclude some of the ever-changing records of the currently active players), or delete such "records" altogether. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any difference if we use appearances or match wins as a criterium - what you basically want is raise the standard with it, so you can also take a minimum of 40 wins for example. That to me is way too strict though, Nadal's first 5 or 6 titles already belonged in the FO table back then. I agree Vilas' achievement is a bit of an odd one out here, but that can happen in these cases. It was still a great accomplishment what he did at the AO, and it's good that it's mentioned somewhere (as it doesn't appear anywhere else either). Like i said before, these tables tell a different story than e.g. match wins, but still an important one.

Also, by deleting the GS winning percentages, you lose the symmetry in sections that you say is important here. Kendu020 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Calendar year achievements

[There was previously a list of "GS titles won per season", sorting the Grand Slam (Laver) and 3/4 winners as winners of 4 and 3 GS respectively. Similarly there was a list of "GS finals played per season".] GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

With the listing of finals/semi-finals in a season (GS) the most important info in this is the fact that they made ALL 4, not the fact that they made 4 - so maybe it's better here to mention that in the way it was before ("all finals" and "all semi-finals" above the table). Kendu020 (talk)

Yes, it does feel nicer to see "All 4 Semis" and "Finals". If this is the principle here, I was thinking of splitting the GS titles per season into two achievements which already have popular names - the Calendar Year GS and the Small Slam. Would also bring out Laver's achievement more.--GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

Nice addition - also the Channel Slam! Kendu020 (talk)

Sorted the "Two major" tables into consecutive and non-consecutive calender year slam wins tables. I feel this is a less confusing way to display the information- things like three major wins in a year were somewhat lost in the "Two majors" section Curljets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

All tournaments

Where should "All tournaments" go?

I'd like to agree on a principle, or at least an idea, guiding the ordering of records sections. If it is by importance, as perceived to be perceived in the media, with the fans and the players, then by all means GS records should (as they currently do) top the contents of this page. What about other records, then? For example, I'd say that "ATP rankings" is bigger even than "All tournaments", and definitely bigger than Masters records. (Most obviously, World No 1 for most total and most consecutive weeks is a much bigger deal than having most Masters 1000 or Championships titles.) Further still with the Olympics: would RF rather hold a gold, instead of a silver medal, or top the masters titles list?

My view here is the following: to first display the records in the most prominent tournament categories (GS, Masters, Year-end, Olympics -- in order of modern tennis tradition, for example), then the records in all categories combined (All tournaments), and finally the rankings and the prize money-related records, which both come as an award for tournaments won. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but i believe you're approaching this too rigidly, and have to think of what people want to see most - i'm very adament about the sequence in this. GS is most important, then all tournaments. Anything after that is not that important, we can do ranking first, or year-end tournaments, or masters. But GS first, and all tournaments second, is really important in this i think. Kendu020 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry for being a bit short, i'm away for work for a week!) Kendu020 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No hurry from my side! I do not quite follow your argument, about thinking what people want to see the most. I only know about two people -- me (who first wants to see different categories of tournaments, then all tournaments, then rankings), and you, who want it differently. I also don't understand the problem here, as there is after all the table of contents at the top of the page, which is of course hyperlinked. Even if people have to scroll down, it is easier to scroll through 5 lines of tables for Masters, Year-End and Olympics combined to reach All tournaments -- than to scroll through 13 lines of tables through All tournaments to see any of the other categories.

Further still, the most active record nowadays, apart from GS totals, resides exactly in the Masters series, as Fed and Nadal battle for the top spot. With his Cinci triumph, Federer equalled the Villas achievement of 56 outdoor titles, but the ATP World Tour and the media I read failed to mention it -- while they did prominently mention that he tied Nadal with 21 Masters titles. On the other hand, looking at the titles total, which is the first thing to be seen in All tournaments, it is firmly held by Connors and will not be threatened unless the sport radically changes. All time titles list is of course extremely important, but does not offer real excitement as it obvious that neither Roger, nor Nadal nor Novak can ever top it. Live records are what is important. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(PS. Being very adamant about something sounds a little bit too rigid for me ;) But I believe you possibly had more to say, and there is no hurry here. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC) )

Some more time to comment on this ;). I believe the 'normal' sequence would be All tournaments first, and then the rest. But since GS is all-important in tennis, it makes sense to put that at the top. Putting All tournaments at the bottom to me is strange, because it would make the seperate 'components' of all tournaments more important than the total. This is why i believe the current sequence is the best one. The fact that certain records are more likely to change is irrelevant i think - that just talks about the now, what's going on at this moment in tennis, while 'records' by default talks about the entire history; so same reason why we think active player lists are not relevant here. Kendu020 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand the connection between ordering in the table-of-contents and importance. This is why I put an interrogation mark in the section title. I believe that a different ordering is NOT a statement about importance (since we have a hyperlinked table-of-contents etc). That is why I tried to sketch a couple of contradictions stemming from that approach, and suggest another one, based on a different idea (that subsets should be split from the superset). Also, I agree - having All first, and then GS and the rest, is still more natural than the current ordering. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I can try different ways of arguing this, but to me it is how i put it here before. I don't think people use the table of contents that much - you read a page mainly by scrolling through it, so that's why it is to be a logical follow up, with mainly the most important things first. That's why i also thought that winning streaks should be put together - now you kind of have to scroll back and forth to see the different kinds of match winning streaks in context. To put them the way they are now because of the right sequence with first all courts, and then for seperate court types, is i think too much a technical issue and you miss out on clarity/overview with this. Kendu020 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, but the layout cannot be in both ways at the same time. You claim the table is read by scrolling down; to that I say, it is much easier to scroll down smaller lists, then bigger lists (or as I have written above: "Even if people have to scroll down, it is easier to scroll through 5 lines of tables for Masters, Year-End and Olympics combined to reach All tournaments -- than to scroll through 13 lines of tables through All tournaments to see any of the other categories", and actually now it is 14, not 13.)

The logical followup is first the superset, then the subsets, or the opposite. A followup based on perceived importance is illogical by definition. It is based on perceived public sentiment about the records. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic tournament

There is already a "Tennis at the summer olympics" page, where a reader is more likely to look if (s)he is interested in gold medallists. With the list as it presently stands, no comparison of players is offered -- unlike the meaningful Match wins table. Even in the "Career Grand Slam" there is a comparison, because players who achieved it earlier should be more revered, but with the Olympics it just does not make sense as they happen regularly and as someone is going to win them anyway.

I think this is an example of being too rigid about the layout. I know Olympics is different in this, but i really believe it should be part of this page - the olympics are an important part of the tennis calender, for players and fans. Just as the career Golden Slam, which i want to add (don't know where yet though). Kendu020 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand you feel Olympics are important, and I blame the hype about London 2012, we'll see how you feel in a year ;) Anyway seriously, what I also have against OG is that they offer so little data in comparison with everything else on the page. Year-end tournament? ~40 instances. GS events? ~180 instances. Masters? ~360 instances. Olympics? 7 (seven) instances. It is also a record that can only be updated for a week every four years - vastly different than everything else here. Further still, they are only on since 1988, so, the likes of Lendl, Borg and McEnroe are out of comparison (unlike everywhere else).

In a similar vein, the Davis Cup is an important part of the tennis calendar, and has existed for much longer and is played constantly. It is big with the fans, hence the expression "Davis Cup atmosphere". Now I don't know if this is an argument against OG or for DC.

Finally, an example. Fernando Gonzalez is the only player to have won two singles medals. Is this worthy of the Olympics section?--GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I do think actually this is an argument for DC :). I'll think about adding that. Still feel the same about the olympics! Kendu020 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Earnings

Career earnings - inflation adjustment

Here I argue for the removal of the "adjusted for inflation" column, which as of this writing adjusts the total prize money with the inflation from the retirement year of the player to the present date.

• Player career span many years, and each year's earnings should be adjusted separately to make up for any semblance of meaningful information. For example, Sampras won $350,000 for his first US Open title; when he won his last and retired, in 2002, that money would have the buying power of $480,000. However, the present table treats it still as $350,000 when adjusting to 2012. The difference is huge.
• However, even such precaution would not change the fact that dollars are not the only prize money currency. Wimbledon pays in pounds, AO in Australian dollars and all the European tournaments, for many years now, in euros. So the inflation of the dollar does not mean almost anything.
• Even if it did mean something, the rearranged list (after sorting for inflation-adjusted sums) would exclude all players who are not found on the original list (straight prize money sum) -- like winners of 100+ titles such as Connors. It gives the reader no way of knowing if his achievement, in terms of adjusted prize money, betters that of Murray or Kafelnikov.

The only permutations done by the present sorted table, when selecting "Inflation adjustment", are to push Nadal a little bit below Sampras and Murray & Kafelnikov at the bottom of the table. This is not worth the complications involved, and especially not the dubiousness of the additional information. Therefore I will simplify the table. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Single season highest earning

Top Prize money winners at the end of a season: This list is ordered chronologically and lists every season from 1985, instead of ordering something like ten years when most prize money had been won by a single player, inflation adjusted. I would either delete it or rearrange it. Now, of course it can be done by clicking on the sorting arrows, but still it contains too much information and goes against the layout of all other tables on this page. GoodIntentionedFreak

I think you should be careful not to be too strict and perfectionist about it, wanting everything in exactly the same order and layout; some things are just different kind of records. For example the list of earnings per year. Kendu020

You are right that one should not be too rigid when it comes to arranging real-world data.

However, I still find [this does not apply] to the list of earnings per year. For me, this page is about players struggling to better not only their rivals on the courts, but also in the history of the game. But in the case of all yearly earnings, whatever happens, somebody will make it on the list, and will do so every year -- unlike other records, where a player also needs to better an existing achievement. This is why I feel only the Top 10 "most prizeful" years should be chronicled here (in other words: not keep track of all season prize leaders since 1985, but just of the best). GoodIntentionedFreak

Ok, i think i actually agree with you on the prize leaders. Let me change that. Kendu020

General problems and solutions

Layout principles

The general changes in design (record layout) I made during the day were guided by several principles.

Firstly (and obviously, and inherited from the ATP records page), the GS record tables are separated from "all tournaments" records as the GS are the most prestigious tournaments.

Secondly, the layout of both these most important chapters (all tournaments and their essential subset, GS tournaments) can and should be symmetrical, to give strong structure to the page and not let it become a mess like the previous effort (ATP records page).

Within this common layout, the following guiding principles can be applied:

A) season records are separate from career records.

B) within the career records, streak records are separate from non-streak records, and match records are separate from tournament-level records ("totals": titles, finals, ..., appearances). This makes for the following four categories: (tournament level) streaks, match streaks, (tournament level) non-streak records and match non-streak records.

C) within the non-streak records, a further distinction is made: in the case of GS, separate records exist for each of the 4 events, and in the case of "all tournaments", separate records exist for each of the 4 surfaces and each of the 2 conditions (indoor/outdoor).

Within these constraints, I therefore suggest that both major chapters have the following 10 common subchapters:

• Totals (contains at least "Titles" and "Finals"; can also contain semis, quarters and appearances)
• Streaks (contains the same categories as the "Totals" subchapter above it)
• Matches (contains at least "Match wins"; can also contain "Matches played" and "Winning percentage")
• Match streaks
• Titles per... (breaking down "Titles" as seen in "Totals")
• Match wins per... (breaking down "Match wins" as seen in "Matches", either by GS or by court type)
• Winning percentage per... (breaking down "Winning percentage" as seen in "Matches", either by GS or by court type)
• Match streaks per... (breaking down "Matchs wins" as seen in "Match streaks", either by GS or by court type)
• Single season records (major seasonal achievements, such as winning most GS titles in a season or the most titles)
• Season streaks (streaks of lesser seasonal achievements, such as winning 1 GS or 10+ titles)

Some of these subchapters also make sense for the lesser chapters (the Masters can have 1), 2), 3), 8) and 9); the Year-end championships and Olympic games can have 1), 2) and 3), for example). GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

Great guide lines! Kendu020 (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking re: general formatting- would it make more sense to have active streaks in italics and active players in boldface? Having both condensed right now it prob not the best way to display it imo. Curljets (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Winning percentages in general

To me, winning percentages are a deceptive category. Historically, players vary so much in the amount of matches played in certain circumstances, that lists like these lose relevance even with "min. wins" criteria. These are also the only "records" which can be spoiled by a player after reaching a certain peak. They are also, in my experience, never ever mentioned by the media or the fans. A: "Did you know that, by losing this match, Roger Federer would lose his Open Era record of having the top winning percentage in the US Open of 89.71%?" B: "Wow that is really amazing, thank you for expressing it with such decimal precision." Equivalenty: "Today, Pete Sampras, despite being inactive for years, has a chance to attain the top spot in the Open Era list of winning percentages at the US Open, with 88.75%!" Of course, I am being deliberately ironic, but I think it shows my point. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's a different kind of table, different from the match wins, and different from title totals, etc. But it definitely says something. The fact that it's not mentioned in the media to me really is no argument. They were so full of Connors' non-consecutive streak of 27 GS quarterfinals (when Federer broke it) but you and me both think that wasn't a real record. The winning percentages are not deceptive, they just tell a different story - how good a player was when he was playing. This means that Borg has a very high winning percentage because he retired at the height of his career, and Nadal does as well because he started winning at a very early age. You shouldn't read more into it then it does (ie this player is better then that one (in so and so tournament) - it's just another kind of info, from a different angle. Not all tables are comparable, not all records are comparable. In that case we would have to reassess records like 'most AO titles', or 'most masters' as well, since in the '70s and '80s players weren't going to all tournaments as consistent as now, so the more recent players would be more advantaged in these tables. The changing records of active players is a nice way to see them move up or down these tables and get a different view of their recent performances - to me a great addition to this page (and we're really just talking about 3 or 4 players now, and only because this is such an extraordinary time with 4 really strong players at the top). Kendu020 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that percentages are meaningful, but ranking them is not always meaningful.

[Also] I must notice that you are contradicting yourself, saying that "The changing records of active players is a nice way to see them move up or down these tables and get a different view of their recent performances", and earlier that "The fact that certain records are more likely to change is irrelevant i think - that just talks about the now, what's going on at this moment in tennis, while 'records' by default talks about the entire history; so same reason why we think active player lists are not relevant here."--GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Display of streaks

IMO these tables look the best if first the years are listed, always in full format (e.g. 1996-1997 instead of 1996-97), and then the streak length. The only streaks without years added on this page are GS tournament-level streaks.

However, it still might be that the years are too much information. If so, then they should be deleted. (Personally I loved the old info about the player/match who ended a streak, as it was the only clue for rivarlies on the page.) --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

It is better like this, with the years listed first, but i still think it makes the tables more difficult to read and gives too much information. Not maybe for number nerds like you and me, but the page should be readable to all (i do hope, in the end, of course, this page outdoes atp world tour records :) ). Kendu020 (talk)

I'd keep the years as they show how long a record has been standing. Like, "nobody won 8 titles in a row since 1984!" Also, years explain sorting when the counts (#) are identical. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

PS. It appears that using the proper DASH makes the year columns look much better. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk)

Article Status (March 2015)

I'm writing this with my new wikipedia account (finally took the plunge) but I'm certainly not new, as I'm the one who's done a massive amount of reorganization, cleanup, and corrections to this page since November. Now that this page is in excellent condition I don't see any need for further changes other than the on-going updates of tour activity.

But my main purpose in writing this is that I noticed there's a recent talk thread at the ATP World Tour records page that could potentially result in big changes to it.

So I'd like to highlight how this page now differs from the ATP page so that any changes there won't adversely affect this page:

• This page has no lists soley for active players. (I strongly oppose including those, as this is the records page for a long period of tennis history, and active players should not be given special treatment beyond the appropriate use of bolded names.)

• This page has no dedicated sub-section for Grand Slam non-consecutive streaks (though there is a table of "Finals won" that's clearly noted as allowing non-consecutive events). This is the only item at the ATP page I'd consider adding here, but given that this page is already quite long I'd prefer not to. (And for the record I'm in favor of deleting 3 items here: "All 4 QFs" in GS Calendar Year plus the Olympics and Prize money sections.)

• While the top-level sections here are essentially the same as under "Singles" at the ATP page, the sub-sections here are cleaner, better organized, and intentionally formatted to optimize the table of contents. I most definitely do not want to alter these.

I realize I have some strong opinions, but my intention is to work alongside the dedicated editors of wikipedia tennis for the improvement and maintenance of this information we all value.

--Testpored (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Testpored and welcome answering your points tables for active being included I agree with you on that as a players career has not ended and please see my suggestions on the ATP world tour records talk page about that point because rest assured a lot of editors like there inclusion obviously someone like Federer who's records are currently active without doubt stay within the relevant tables. The calendar year achievements IMO are significant and should stay because making the qf's in all for slams today is particularly difficult to do never mind consecutively or more than one occasion and should not be dismissed. Bolding we used to have a note on the article stating these records include current players but do not reflect the final standings until a particular players career is over and are subject to change. This article is of utmost importance more so the ATP article as it encompasses a defining point in tennis history and includes information from more than one tour so will stay without question. The scope change on the ATP article please include your thoughts on that debate on whether its scope should change and or its relevance thanks--Navops47 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I just added a comment to the ATP article talk page. As for the "All 4 QFs", unless others advocate for deleting it it'll remain. I was stating my opinion in the context that this article is long enough already and there are a few items I wouldn't mind getting rid of (but not actively arguing for doing so). --Testpored (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Brief update to my bullet #2 above (leaving the original unmodified): Now that Grand Slam consecutive "Match wins" and "Finals won" are clearly noted as allowing records spanning non-consecutive events, there's no need for any other tables of non-consecutive event streaks. All of the important consecutive records are already here. --Testpored (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted in some way which player's records are illegitimate by not being consecutive. Connors victories for instance should have a symbol and an additional key that's lets readers know he had to skip events to reach his 25 wins in a row. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, it's fine as-is. Plus voluntarily skipping events applies to only one entry, McEnroe's, since Connors was barred from the French until 1978. --Testpored (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why something is skipped and it is not fine as-is. It should be noted that a player has a streak that is non-consecutive. You don't want separate charts, and I'm fine with that as long as we let readers know the details in some way. Agassi skipped Wimbledon early in his career because he felt he sucked on grass. Others can do the same and we have to take into account the future as well as the past when making these charts. It must be noted in some way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry bit confused are we talking Consecutive GS streaks in non-consecutive GS tournaments here has that table gone? If its been integrated I can't see where Connor's 27 qf's or Murray's 16 qf's are I'm sure those table were there before or am I blind. Also I firmly believe in providing ALL readers with as complete a picture as possible instead of paring down and down. I agree with Fyunck must maintain past with future. off topic what happened to the scope discussion about the ATP world tour records I can't see any response from Wolbo yet?--Navops47 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see your points about preventing ambiguity, so I changed GS Consecutives to now enforce that all must be consecutive events, except "Finals won" which is now correctly noted as all of them spanning non-consecutive events. --Testpored (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, it certainly doesn't bother me that non-consecutive records get mixed with consecutive, as long as readers are informed as to which is which. At the Overall tennis records – Men's Singles article we have a separate chart for streaks in consecutive vs non-consecutive Majors. Tennis has all sorts of these odd streaks... look at Kim Clijsters. Was she in 4 consecutive US Open finals? Did she win 3 consecutive US Opens? Sort of, or at least she did for the ones she played in. She was in the finals from 2003–2010, winning in 2005, 2009 and 2010. Of course she skipped 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008. We simply have to have a way of showing players streaks in non-consecutive Majors as compared to consecutive Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted prize money is original research

As mentioned in a prior discussion (and seemingly ignored), the inflation adjusted numbers of career earnings are original research and should be removed promptly. Those numbers are found nowhere else in the world that I can find. Using a players retirement age for his entire career is also suspect because a player may have played 20 years. His early years would need to be adjusted even when compared to his later years. That would require year by year original research. It's a column full of doubt and not encyclopedic imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree and just removed the inflation info. -Testpored (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion of results for the early years of OE

The recent edits by Bry17may combined with the seeming on-going refinement of what the ATP decides to christen its official records remind me of the gray area of what's "valid" data from the nascent OE. As I understand it, the competing promotions (NTL, WCT, Grand Prix) resulted in an effective "open/closed" series of events, including the Slams to some extent, for the first 4+ years. This became the main reason the pros unionized and boycotted Wimbledon in '73. (The Ken Rosewall article provides some helpful historical detail, and in the "First impressions" talk section above Fyunck(click) briefly covered this in the larger context of tennis history.)

I mention all of this because as of now the policy for inclusion on this records page is to strictly go with official ATP and ITF listings. This is the simplest and perhaps best overall policy. From the mid-70s (roughly speaking) onward the official ATP data is inclusive, but it really short-changes the best players of the nascent OE, especially Laver. (I like the way we list all of his and Rosewall's titles on their career stats pages while marking the subset listed by the ATP.)

So I'm not advocating any change, just noting what is and am curious if anyone else has anything to add... -Testpored (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You have to remember, at wikipedia we have records for all of history, the open era, and the ATP. That ATP website before 1973 is notoriously unreliable. There is no "policy" on what is included on this page at all. We use the records, whatever can be sourced, for the Open era. Which started in early 1968. That's it. We don't narrow it to ATP records. The problems with competing tours lasted much longer than the first 4+ years as there were problems with player bans in 74-75. This article is about records in the open era... we don't censor what the data tells us. If items can be sourced as correct you have to use them. Otherwise we may as well merge the ATP records with this page. As far as I know we have (for men) Alltime Records, Open Era records and ATP records. We also have some records from 1990 onwards for other reasons. We have them because the press uses those terms from time to time when making citations. For me the only one that really matters is Alltime records from the inception of the sport (just like baseball does), but since the press uses other terms we are obliged to show the other categories also. As long as items can be sourced all is ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your stance: if we can reliably source it, then it's a valid record. So, for example, if we can source Laver's 18 titles in '69, then that's the record. A similar thing already exists with Borg's win streaks (which is sourced).

The problem is, in actuality, our Laver stats page has no sources except his ATP page, which as already mentioned only lists a fraction of his early OE titles. Thus, unless sources are noted, how can we claim it? Note: I'm not disputing the data on Laver's page, I'm just arguing it needs to be properly encyclopedic. More like our Rosewall stats page which actually lists sources.

If the sources listed at the Rosewall stats page are indeed the same for Laver, then that should suffice. In fact, one footnote probably would do with a list just like the Rosewal page. They're old print books, though, so I don't have them.

But until sources are provided I'm going to revert back to the version with Bry17may's corrections per the sourced ITF and ATP data. -Testpored (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but this is not a biography of a living person. Most of those stats are well known and easily sourced. And they are long standing. If you have a problem with any of them put a cite tag on it and I'll dig up the source, since you don't seem to want to do it. There is a ton of stuff erased from your removal that will take 5x as long to do from scratch. You don't just remove facts without sources that are easily findable sources unless it's a negative item on a BLP. You add them yourself or ask for help. If we can't find them then certainly we'll remove the item. heck, even the footnote about Vilas 49 match streak was removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your blaming tone. If you look at the edit history and what I wrote above, I personally didn't remove a thing. That said, I'm OK with cite tags and will add them to the areas affected. -Testpored (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reason there is any "tone"... and you are correct that I was a bit perturbed... is that you did remove or add incorrect stuff with your revert right here. First laver stuff was remeoved along with other older players. Second, things like "The ATP site incorrectly lists this as 46" was removed from Vilas. Third, incorrect info on Borg was introduced. That US Open loss you talk of in 1972 was not a loss at all. The itf is both wrong and right on their website. You'll note they have 8 rounds of play listed instead of the usual 7. Well guess what, the US Open has never really had 8 rounds of play. The first round was actually a play-in qualifying round to get into the main draw. That's why the ATP doesn't recognize the tournament loss, because it was in qualifying. It doesn't count.

Many have worked on these articles to get it right even though the ATP has been woeful in what the have in the early years of the open era. They are getting better, but they aren't there yet. So when editors come along and think something doesn't look right, and they simply remove it... and then continue to remove it, I get a little grumpy. Sorry about that. But that's why it's best to ask on the talk page or perhaps put a {{fact}} tag after something in question. Remember that someone could question every score or location that doesn't have an exact source issued. That would be 99 percent of these articles. But most of these are routine facts that aren't questioned. But one person's "routine" is another person's "I need to see a source on that one." I see these citation tags on many articles, sometimes for months or years, before someone feels it's time to remove the unsourced fact. (Unless it's an actual BLP). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And now I see the Borg stuff is wrong again (and I don't know what else), and I'm getting tired of fixing it... literally since I keep getting up at 5am to watch Wimbledon. So our readers tonight will have incorrect info on that subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; wikipedia is chaotic at times. And I could've handled it better myself. When he first made the changes, I honestly thought Bry17may had a valid point about the "openness" (which he repeats below). So I went with it, but upon further reflection I realized there's more to it, which is why I started this talk thread. (And let's be fair to Bry17, he did make quite a few valid fixes to the lists here that did improve the article quality.) It didn't occur to me to use cite tags. That's something I learned from this ordeal, and will try to handle any future situations with that approach.

Thanks for clarifying Borg in '72. The ITF site clearly lists it as a R256 loss, but they don't list any qualifiers nowadays that way. So it appears like a main draw loss. Like you say, it's frustrating the main sources themselves are flawed.

And to clarify my position, the Laver records I tagged need to be cited to protect them. Otherwise this situation will likely arise again at some point. Hopefully no hard feelings here, and enjoy the final. -Testpored (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click), at least for me it's not about the ATP site or not, I know Laver won 18 titles on 1969 but 11 of this were tournaments only for pro and like this page is about open era records, I think we should include only "open tournaments". Bry17may (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get that pro stuff? After 1968 they were all pros... the amateur era was over. The tournaments that say "professional" were open to all players. In fact the professional events, since they were no longer special at all, and had no prestige value, soon died out. And even if they weren't, this article is about the Open Era not any particular tournament. If you start dumping events because of exclusions we'll also have to dump some of the Grand Slam events because they didn't allow contract pros to play in the mid 70s. Or the year end championships would be removed because their were two tours with half the players in each tour, and they each had their own year end events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 17:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Tennis records of the Open Era – men's singles → Open Era tennis records – men's singles
• Tennis records of the Open Era – women's singles → Open Era tennis records – women's singles

– In line with recently renamed articles All-time tennis records – men's singles and All-time tennis records – women's singles as well as List of Open Era tennis records. Wolbo (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - it sounds like a better choice, and consistent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - For the same reasons I always refer to the term Open Era records when I talk to people about tennis records.--Navops47 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - agreed Testpored (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - don't see any reason not to follow WP:CONSISTENCY here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nadal semi-finals, what's going on here?

I keep looking at edit warring about whether Nadal has made it to 133 or 134 semifinals. The only source I've seen is the ATP site which has 133. I actually counted them all and it is 133. Maybe there's a source that has 134, but if so that source needs to be planted in the right place. There are plenty of time the ATP is wrong, especially with pre-1985 stats, but we need it proved if we change the stats. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the temporary lock to stop that spat and verifying the 133. My guess is at some point a Nadal SF got double-counted and just perpetuated until it was corrected this week. The All Tourney SFs are error-prone because not easily verifiable like titles or finals. -Testpored (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying the count Fyunck(click). I was confused too since only 1 SF has been added in the last 2 weeks whereas Nadal made 2 SF, so I suppose Testpored is right about the count having been wrong for some time. Gap9551 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose someone else could double check my counting at the ATP website. I did change it to 134 since he made a semi today. I mean, for all I know there's another semi missing from the ATP site. As long as the extra one is sourced it's fine... we just need the source if we are going against the ATP. Note - I did just count again and it has 133 but only through the Monte-Carlo Masters. So 134 looks right as of today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Grand Slam tournaments - Consecutive records - Finals (3)

FWIW, based on this list, those who reached three consecutive Grand Slam finals in the Open Era are (following Wimbledon 2016):

• Ken Rosewall (1970-71)
• Jimmy Connors (1974-75)
• Bjorn Borg (1978)
• Bjorn Borg (1980)
• Bjorn Borg (1981)
• Ivan Lendl (1983-84)
• John McEnroe (1984)
• Ivan Lendl (1986)
• Ivan Lendl (1987)
• Mats Wilander (1987-88)
• Jim Courier (1991-92)
• Jim Courier (1993)
• Pete Sampras (1993-94)
• Rafael Nadal (2010)
• Andy Murray (2012-13)
• Rafael Nadal (2013-14)
• Andy Murray (2016)

So that is Ken Rosewall (1), Jimmy Connors (1), Bjorn Borg (3), Ivan Lendl (3), John McEnroe (1), Mats Wilander (1), Jim Courier (2), Pete Sampras (1), Rafael Nadal (2) and Andy Murray (2). Of these, only Nadal has gone on to post a higher finals streak (his sequence of 5 finals in 2011-12). I'm not sure whether reaching three consecutive finals is actually relatively common, or still something that should be highlighted as a record that is difficult to achieve (reaching two consecutive finals is probably even more common). Is the above listing correct, and would it overwhelm the current listing in the article (which seems to have 4 consecutive finals as a cut-off point)? Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it would be ridiculously long to include 3 consec finals. Thanks for compiling this list, though. I'll add a hidden note to the list to reference this for any others who may wonder the same thing. --Testpored (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Noting the addition of that note here for the record (to help find it again if needed): [1]. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

YEC section - added Grand Slam Cup

Two days ago an IP editor added the Grand Slam Cup to the Year-end Championships section (changes made). This makes sense given that it was a big-money event with most of the top guys participating during its brief 10 season run. I'm noting it here in case anyone objects. In the meantime I'm going to finish making the change (cleanup intro + finish adding to Overall stats subsection). -Testpored (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Grand Slam or All Tournament sections listed first?

Until this week Grand Slams were always listed first on this page per the Where should All tournaments go? section above. That discussion is from 5 years ago by editors who haven't been involved in several years. Some things have changed since then including ATP World Tour records page listing All Tournaments first. As of right now this page has also been switched to All Tournaments first. I'm okay with either ordering but thought it should be noted. -Testpored (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think All Tournaments first is more logical for a general overview, followed by specific categories by descending importance (or ATP points). There are other articles about Slams only, so those do no necessarily need to be prioritized here. Alternatively, All Tournaments last. Placing it in the middle of the separate categories is a bit arbitrary. Gap9551 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good points, Gap. I now agree that All Tourn first makes the most sense for logical flow and the fact that Slams already get plenty of coverage on the site. -Testpored (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Five years ago i was the one that started and created this page, when everyone was still going to ATP world tour records - which was the same page, but had the records start in 1973 since ATP started that year. So theoretically it made sense, but in practice it was ridiculous since no one that wanted to find out things about tennis records cared about the 1973 cut off. They wanted 'all-time' or 'open era'. A long discussion ensued, but in the end this page came out as the only right one, since it was logical: that's what the viewers came for. The same goes for this discussion: yes, theoretically it would be correct to do 'all tournaments' first, and then all the seperate classes of tournaments. But 'all tournaments' is not why viewers come to this page in the first place: it's Grand Slams first and foremost, and then (after a loooong gap) it's 'all', 'masters', etc. So i suggest we go back to Grand Slams records first, like it's always been and like it is on similar tennis sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendu020 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC) One other argument: the headings aren't all sub-headings to the 'all tournaments' anyways: ranking achievements and prize money is something entirely different, and olympic titles aren't even included in ATP 'all tournaments'. So there's no need to have 'all tournaments' as the main or the first category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendu020 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also disagree. to the general public and to tennis in general, the majors are everything. Even in individual player bios, Major tables come before "all" ATP events. It's a natural feel. The Majors may be the only tournaments a person watches and their importance completely dwarfs everything else, so it's only logical and natural that they should come first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What you guys say is supported by page view stats. I do prefer the logical flow of All Tourn first as Gap9551 advocated, but I suppose most popular items first is best for mass readership. -Testpored (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Template:tennis win percentage

Ilyan and I used this template to save us the trouble of calculating percentages when making match record updates for active players. Testpored reverted this both times. The first time I agreed with this, as the template's rounding was wrong and the percentage symbol was included. But those issues had been resolved when I used those templates. The given reasons for the second revert did not convince me.

The rendered percentages appear exactly like the manually entered ones, and this template makes updating easier and errors less likely. How the source code looks is less important. Are there additional thoughts on this matter, in particular from editors who make these updates? Gap9551 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem Solved! I made a new 2 column template leveraging this template. Now we have the best possible solution not only for this page but other records pages as well. And I just made the first edit with it on this page! -Testpored (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that template does everything we need. A parameter option in Template:tennis win percentage for the additional W-L record may be the best solution in terms of simplicity, but that can always be done later if desired. Gap9551 (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful. Our template guru, @Vencin, transcludes this template in a number of his other ones. I just followed his example to create this new one. (After flubbing the syntax for a bit, being new to this :) -Testpored (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok then, let's go with this. Gap9551 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

First I was thinking that retired players don't need the template, but it can be helpful to easily adjust the precision whenever ties occur, and potentially fix existing errors. And as you referred to before, it makes the code look more balanced. Gap9551 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It'll be best to replace everything with the template for uniformity. Though, in cases of hidden notes for #11, it'll also be helpful to list the % as a visual aid in case it needs to be swapped into the active table. -Testpored (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

True for the hidden notes. And we should aim to list a #11 whenever #10 is active, and even #12 if both #10 and #11 are active. Gap9551 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tennis WL table 2columns is the new template (update: but name shortened, see below). The page has all necessary documentation. -Testpored (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well done. The documentation is thorough. do you know how to add the new template to Category:Tennis templates so others can more easily find it? Template:tennis win percentage is in there, but doesn't have a Category line in the code. Gap9551 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know, but perhaps it's auto-added at some point. Update: actually, learned that categories are added in the /doc so I did that. It should appear eventually, per this. -Testpored (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:TWL2C is the new template, now with a shorter name much more conducive to diff inspections. (We sure do have lots of those during busy times on this and other records pages!) This diff shows all current use of the table with the template renaming. -Testpored (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you can also shorten "decimals" to "d", "D", or "dec"? Gap9551 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And you deserve a thanks as well for getting @Vencin to add the necessary additions of no % symbol. And, of course, thanks to Vencin for his template, without which this new one wouldn't have happened. -Testpored (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

2017.05 ATP data changes

The ATP did some recent data changes, relisting some old indoor events as carpet instead of hard court. (Which ones I don't know specifically.) Thus on this page several players had their "per court type" match wins lowered on hard court: Federer, Djokovic, Roddick, Murray, Nadal. These lists are now verbatim what the ATP site says.

But in the case of Nadal there have been several attempts (e.g. this) to reinstate the old ATP data. I spent a little time tonight looking at this specific claim of Paris Masters 2007-09 for Nadal, but can't say for sure short of counting every match of his (which I certainly won't do). And even if that's the case for Rafa, it's not for the other guys above; these 3 Paris events only account for part of their relisting by ATP. So my inclination here is to stick with the ATP on this across-the-board and leave it at that. Thoughts? -Testpored (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the persistence of reverts for Nadal on this (another one today) and that he did have 9 wins in those 3 Paris events (accounting for the relisting difference), I say it's okay to go with the old value for him. But the other 4 guys need to remain with the new ATP data since their numbers for those same 3 events don't fully cover their relisting difference. -Testpored (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Gotta love the ATP. They of course changed it all back to what it was several months ago, which is now restored in the tables here. They probably just like to mess with us from time to time :) -Testpored (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Consecutive matches wins in Grand Slam

Should the consecutive matches wins span non-consecutive events?, There's a valid point why we shouldn't count this in W,F,SF,QF. But in the case of wins I think it should be different, the same as the all time page. I think there's only two streak that should be added Connors in 74-75 and McEnroe in 81-82 and the Laver streak should be expanded to 29. --Bry17may (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. The all-time page is organized differently and clearly indicated there. -Testpored (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer it the current way, to be consistent with the other streaks in the same section (e.g., players cannot benefit by skipping their worst Slam). "Finals won" is the only exception but that is because otherwise it becomes identical to "consecutive titles". We can also added another table for match win streaks across non-consecutive events, but it doesn't add much with the table already in All-time records, where Laver and Connors are listed. Gap9551 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I was going to follow-up with the same point about the uniqueness of "Finals won". I also changed the section note to clearly indicate this. -Testpored (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And why we keep the Borg's streaks in the consecutive matches wins when he gave a w/o, I know it's indicated there but at least I don't think that we have consistency in that aspect. --Bry17may (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the same as if you are given a walkover. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No, this page is consistent in this regard. Look at Nadal's current 26-set streak at the French Open. He withdrew from last year's event but those 6 sets he won are valid per the ITF's criteria (included in the Borg all-match streak note). And getting back to the original topic of GS consecutive event match wins, none of the 10 listed involve withdrawals, but if they did they'd be treated the same as Borg and Nadal. -Testpored (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing here is that I don't see so much diference between a walkover and a withdrawal but that it's your opinion and like I am minority I don't have anything more to say. --Bry17may (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Decimal points

I changed the listings of win rates to be a single decimal point (tenths) precision by default instead of two points (hundredths), so I should explain why. The main reason is readability, as it's just easier on the eyes to peruse a vertical list of e.g., 87.1 87.0 86.9 than 87.12 87.04 86.88. After making a bunch of changes on the new ATP World Tour records page this became quite apparant to me.

This works fine for the vast majority of entries, but of course there are possibilities of pseudo-ties (i.e. not an actual numerical tie but only tied to a certain number of decimal points). In the case of pseudo-ties I extended to the number of decimal points needed to resolve the tie. The current page (permalink) has a few of those: All tournaments->Match record needs 2 decimals to resolve 81.64 and 81.55. And even closer, the Masters tournaments->Match record needs 82.480 and 82.477. I have to credit Tommy Boy for the idea of more decimal places, which he did at the end of last year to resolve a pseudo-tie to 3 decimal places (see here). --Testpored (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I referenced this section earlier today when making these same single decimal edits. My opinion hasn't changed on this matter. It's easier to read, and when ties occur we add 2nd decimal to break it (or 3rd in rares cases, like mentioned above). -Testpored (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made. I think 2nd decimals have little real meaning, since the 2nd decimal changes after every single match played. In general, the typical gap between entries in a table gives an indication of the ideal precision too. If gaps between players are on the order of 0.5 to 1 percentage point, a single decimal is good. If gaps are typically several percentage points (when few matches have been played), no decimal points may be needed. And we can always follow the basic rule for division as a guideline, using the least number of significant digits in numerator or denominator. That also suggests that if wins and total matches are under 100, no decimals are needed. Up to 1000, 1 decimal is enough (apart from ties of course). Basically just confirming everything you already did, Testpored. Gap9551 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a maximum number of decimal points? I'm thinking that beyond 3 decimal points would make tables look ridiculous, so just call it a tie. (I can't recall any instances of needing more than 3.) -Testpored (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

GS Career achievements tables

I don't like the recent edits to add full tables for Career Golden Slam and Career Super Slam. They're entirely redundant subsets of the Career Grand Slam table with identical "Event of completion" and "Age" columns. The existing single sentence statement is sufficient here: "Agassi and Nadal also achieved a Career Golden Slam, and Agassi a Career Super Slam." -Testpored (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)