Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

message: According to his article, "He is credited with popularizing the term "Grand Slam", ...". 
Worth a mention here? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the blurb on his article was not sourced properly. The Hall of Fame only mentions the term "Ace." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Allison Danzig]]

message: The history section in this article is for the history of the Grand Slam tournaments collectively, and the history of the Grand Slam achievement. The "Pro Slam" is an invented retrospective term that the players at the time never used, or indeed knew that they were "achieving". This is outlined in Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era#Professional Majors: 
And in this article itself in the Pro Slam section:
Taking this into account, while we should (and do) have a section on the "Pro Slam" as a derived term from the Grand Slam, the retrospective history of the "Pro Slams", being not an official categorization or term used by players/authorities, is not relevant to the history of the Grand Slam/tournaments. Letcord (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that in a history of the terminology it might be a good thing to mention the history of the pro majors also. Nothing massive, but a mention of the three tournaments. The history is a bit of a summary of later prose in the article. I was thinking it could be in the lead but the history section might be a better fit. A Grand Slam is also an invented retrospective term when used prior to the 1930s. But we use it just the same. I see  also mentioned this in his summary. I do see your point, but I think I'd lean to keep it in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , the fact that the concept of the "Pro Slams" was retroactively inferred into these tournaments doesn't change the fact that they were seen as the premier events of the pro tour, akin to the Grand Slams in the amateur tour. The phrase could be rewritten to give less emphasis on the "Pro Slam" concept, but it's still important to cite them as professional equivalents to the then-amateur majors. ABC paulista (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Letcord, c'mon man, the section is not solely about the term of "Grand Slam", it's more of a short summary about a bit of everything and what you removed is not even about the "Pro Slam" term. It's there so readers can get the full picture that even though the professionals were banned for the amateur majors, they had something similar (major events) in their tours. It's just a simple sentence at the end of a relevant paragraph, it fits there. And I don't think it needs to be rewritten, it's perfect as it is. ForzaUV (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My position remains the same but I'm outnumbered, so fine, re-add it if you wish. I'll be rewriting the "This status quo changed..." paragraph because way too much emphasis is put on the Wimbledon Pro, which while maybe being the straw that broke the camel's back for the LTA's position on amateur/pro status, was certainly not the sole reason they decided to rebel from the ITF and allow open tournaments; that decision was the result of years (decades) of building tensions around the issue, shamateurism etc. Letcord (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that paragraph could benefit from expanding a bit, please do. ForzaUV (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two paragraphs are in good shape now I think, a pretty comprehensive summary of the amateur/professional → open history from the various encyclopedias/books referenced, and greater detail than the History of tennis#Open Era section (what Open Era links to). Letcord (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Letcord for you contribution, all looks good. With your and paulista's additions, I really think this is now one of the best tennis articles we have in Wikipedia. It's comprehensive, focused, well sourced and organized. There is a good chance it gets promoted to a featured article if nominated and I might do it in the future.ForzaUV (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro Slam" in the history section 

message: Similar to what we have in seasonal tournament pages where the tournament winners are listed below the lead section, I propose the list of current champions section, located at the bottom of the page, be placed at the top of the page for ease of access and relevance for the readers.
Instead of having to go through the slams' descriptions and various tournament win combinations just to get to the list of reigning champions at the bottom, the readers can find it at the top for convenience. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of importance 

message: In the article Grand Slam there is a subsection called "Grand Slam" (I changed the title of the subsection but that was reverted). If the subsection would be about "Grand Slam" then the other sections of the article would obviously be about something else and should therefor be deleted. So something is wrong here. Bob.v.R (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point here. I changed the subsection title, but differently than your suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Slam