utc part iii what's with blanking out the names completely so much for compromise i'm going back to counting the pre champions here's why the outside sources such as the encyclopedia britannica list them all the arguments that could be made against the pre french tournament could also be made against the other three the idea of the slam didn't even emerge until the s with don budge but do we see anyone black out pre wimbledon champs it's clear that the french tournament was more open their first champ was a brit as was two runners up in the early decades interestingly the us open in was open only to americans and was for several years yet we count them because that's the origin of the tournament there's also the pro am dispute pre wikipedia is supposed to reflect pluralistic viewpoints not just the one of one person such as fyunclick who violates wp own to contort this and similar tennis articles to reflect his own views rather than reflecting outside sources that existed long before wikipedia did july