Talk:Tennis: Difference between revisions

This title is just to bring the contents to the top

It would be great if someone in the know could add some info' about the playing surface (it seems they sometimes play on grass, dirt, and paved surfaces). - stewacide

---

"The convention of numbering scores "15," "30" and "40" comes from the French quinze, treize and quatorze, which to French ears makes a euphonious sequence."

I know next to nothing about the history of tennis, but treize and quatorze mean 13 and 14, not 30 and 40 (which are trente and quarante). Could the convention of scoring come from somewhere else? Sabbut 18:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The scoring comes from the French, which, correctly, is "quinze", "trente", and "quarante', meaning 15, 30, and 40. Why it's scored that way in English is beyond me, however.... Hayford Peirce 23:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had heard (and this site [1] partially backs it up) that the scroing was based on a clock face, with the score pointer being moved round in quarters, i.e. 15, 30, 45, with 60=game. Over time, "45" got abbreviated to "40".

---

WTF?! An article on tennis with NO mention of Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Martina Hingis, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, etc.? Any tennis fan will tell you those aren't "minor" names! I'm gonna have to heavily edit the history section..."more than competitive in today's game." shows a complete lack of following the sport past the 70's. --Etaonish 19:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

You don't think those 12 great players from before the Open Era would be competitive today? I suppose you think that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lefty Grove, Ted Williams, and Stan Musial wouldn't be stars in today's major league baseball? I suggest that you read a little about the history of tennis....

---

In the interest of strict fairness, I have recently added a couple of words about Bjorn Borg to my comments about Jack Kramer being possibly the greatest tennis player of all time. And also the fact that Jack Kramer is still alive as of today, 2004.

Some asshole named Zigger, for whatever motive, has twice gone into the tennis article and edited out the reference to both Borg and the the date. Why he is apparently obsessed with doing this I dunno. He doesn't believe that a case can be made that Borg was the greatest player who ever lived? I myself don't believe that he was, but I do believe that a case can be made for it.

Who is this Zigger, and what is his problem? If he doesn't like Bjorn Borg as a great player, then why doesn't he say so in the text of the article?

Hi '66.1.40.242', I'm this Zigger. I twice removed your edits that inserted the "Click for more information about dating" HTML link to an ad-server (see history), leaving your previous edits intact. Personally, I have no view on whether Björn was the greatest or just great. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Zigger 21:01, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly never put in links to anything such as you said. I'm completely baffled. In fact, I didn't put in any links at all, just a couple of words about Borg and Kramer.Hayford Peirce 16:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These were the reverted insertions: [2] [3]. --Zigger 17:02, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

---

• I'm stupid, but I still don't see the point of what you're talking about. All I did was add a mention of Borg and "as of 2004" -- is that the date you're talking about? And if so, why? I've seen lotsa entries with that phrase used in the article. In any case, I didn't link anything in my additions to anything else -- maybe someone else did, I dunno....Hayford Peirce 17:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  Page histories have got messed up recently: sometimes when someone edits a page, the previous edit is removed from the page history and made to appear as if it were part of the later edit. This seems to be what happened here: someone else's vandalism is shown as part of your edit. --Zundark 21:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for the explanation! I really didn't *think* I'd done anything wrong, but as a newbie I'm a little nervous sometimes about what I've been doing. Cheers!Hayford Peirce 22:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Grips. If I have the strength of character to write about the grips that were used in the days before two-handed tennis (and still are used, to a different degree) what should I do with this information? There are three separate grips, the Eastern, Western, and Continental, and I could probably write a couple of hundred words about each of them. Should there be 3 separate articles, with links to Tennis? One separate article called Tennis grips, perhaps, with a link to Tennis? Or a long section here in Tennis? Give me some feedback on this and I'll see if I'm motivated enough to do it. Hayford Peirce 03:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Too long This article once had a nice balance. It is now WAY too long in the "play of the game" area for an encyclopedia article. Sfahey 03:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should the rules of tennis be a separate article? Skor 18:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Probably. Hayford Peirce 22:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

recent edits

The history areas I shortened seemed too "adorned" for an encyclopedia ("fascinating" topic for discussion, "tennis athleticism", etc.). I guess someone wanted "chronological" inserted so it would not appear the six players were being arbitrarily ranked by skill. I though it was an unnecessary qualifier ... but perhaps edited too aggressively. Unfortunately, much of this article does need a strong hand.Sfahey 20:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tennis articles in need of immediate attention

Hi. I've decided to place this message here because it's quite general, and it wouldn't properly fit in any more specific article. Over the last few days, I've going through our articles on tennis tournaments and players. Two points: 1)Although we have quite a few articles, we seem to be missing some key subjects, for instance, we don't have an article on the tennis masters series, neither about the 9-tournament ensemble, nor about any of the 9 tournaments that make up the series. We are also missing articles on some quite conspicuos players, such as Jonas Björkman, Todd Woodbridge and Jared Palmer; 2)Concerning the articles that we do have, quite a few, maybe the majority, are far from being ideal. Some are poorly written, others are rather superficial, since they don't tell enough of the history of a tournament or an athlete. One of the best examples of this is our article on the Davis Cup. There's so much to say about it, so much history there, and yet our article barely scratches the surface. I don't mean to be delegating the work here, but there's really, really a lot to be done, and I'm far from having anything near the time that it would take to get all of those articles up to an acceptable standard. I mean, our articles on the Grand Slam events are way too short, and we don't even provide a list of champions/runner-ups for all the five main events of each Grand Slam tournament (there's too much focus on the singles, very few on the doubles, and none on the mixed doubles). We need to do something about it! Is there someone with me on this? Regards, Redux 22:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main "Tennis" article is a dog, too. Reams of excessive detail on how to play, and wandering, speculative stuff on the top players. Very non-encyclopedic. I gave it a shot a couple of times, but it didn't take, so I returned to topics where there were fewer "experts". Sfahey 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Justine

no mention on "henin-hardenne" in item "backhand"?80.201.29.132

• Budge and Rosewall are mentioned in the backhand article because 1.) for more than 50 years each of them is generally considered to have had perhaps the greatest backhand of all time, and 2.) Budge had a *topspin* forehand and Rosewall had a *slice* backhand, illustrating that even the greatest shot may be hit in different ways. The same principle applies to the "forehand" article in which Bill Johnston and Pancho Segura are mentioned. As far as I know, Henin-Hardenne does not hit a backhand in any special way worth mentioning (Seles uses two hands for both her forehand and her backhand and *is* noted as doing so). Nor, as far as I know, is she *especially* known for her backhand above all other shots, nor is it generally called "one of the greatest, or maybe even the greatest, backhand of all time." If there were anything distinctive about her backhand, then maybe it should be mentioned. If not, it shouldn't be.

replaced terrible forehand shot sequence

Reason the three photos were taken out is that the fellow is not even looking at the ball (his eyes were closed!) as he hits the ball, plus he is leaning back and is late.

I thought the photo of a little girl doing a nice step-in, closed stance (albeit two-handed) forehand is a nice touch. It is two handed, but that is the beauty of the photo.

There was also no photo for backhand, so, I put it in.

• Your two tennis pictures are terrible and have no place in a serious article. Also, just about everything you have written above is incorrect. 1.) He is looking at the ball. 2.) He is not leaning back. 3.) He is not late. He is showing perfect timing and rhythm as he puts his entire body into hitting the ball. He is hitting it with a Western forehand, which I myself think is ridiculous looking, but it is, nevertheless, the prevalent forehand style these days, and he is executing it perfectly. The pictures that you have substituted for these are close to vandalism.... (And, no, I'm not the guy who put the original pictures in, I don't know him, and I would, if I could find some, put in some better ones, but, in the meantime, the original ones are a million times more useful than your "contributions".) Hayford Peirce 23:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Look at the third photo. his eyes are closed. my 'contribution' is meant to add a bit of fun into the webpage to have kids excited about playing the game. That is the reason to put a young player in.

Also, the text on the backhand is wrong. on both, Forehand and Backhand, player hits the ball "away from the body". I have not had the time to edit the forehand and backhand parts (I will soon though) because they are not correct.

Lastly, on "vandalism", one mans vandalism is another mans contribution. I had reasons to put this in, to get kids excited about playing, so, I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.

• Your contribution to "add a bit of fun" is not the reason for an encycl. This article is to convey information.

Do you bother to read the articles? The forehand article says that the stroke goes *across* the body. The backhand article says that the stroke goes *away* from the body. Two entirely different things. Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong.

Do you play tennis? Is it possible that someone's eyes might once in a while close for 1/100th of a second under the impetus of hitting the ball? Have you ever heard of blinking? In any case, so what? The sequence of photos is a textbook example of how to hit a western forehand.

These are not *my* forehand pictures -- they are someone else's. Please put them back in. If you want to keep your ridiculous backhand picture, fine. If you want to go to higher authority about these pictures, fine again. You will find, if you do, that, obviously to your surprise and dismay, eventually all of your "contributions" will have been disappeared.... Hayford Peirce 04:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I share Hayford's opinion, although I'll try to express it in a more friendly manner. While the pictures you have submitted certainly aren't vandalism, they're also not professional and not nearly as useful as the originals. The backhand picture you have submitted gives virtually no information, and amounts essentially to a picture of a very nice-looking young girl. In my opinion, it doesn't warrant the amount of space it takes in the article. It's possible that there doesn't exist a single photo that would warrant the use of that much space, in which case we should simply not include a picture.

You say the player's eyes are closed in the original third photo? I guess he blinked. Darn. There are plenty of redeeming qualities of the picture, so that seems like a pretty minor nitpick to me.

I will propose a compromise: we keep your forehand photos until we get better ones with people actually looking at the ball, and we keep my backhand one. if you agree, great, if not, I am happy to take this to higher powers.

This may be only my opinion, but to me that making threats isn't conducive to a compromise. It sounds like you're issuing an ultimatum, which, last I checked, is a pretty poor approximation of a compromise. Play nice, now. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the original pictures.

Ah, darn, Hayford beat me to it. Aerion//talk 04:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, beat me on the Talk page, too. But please try to be more courteous. Both of you. Sentences such as "Do not bother to edit these articles, as anything you say will be wrong" don't really help anybody, and are generally bad for everybody's health. Aerion//talk 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum. And what is wrong with a cute photo? The world needs more fun, and it is a backhand shot, so, it does both things.... it relayed correct informaiton as to what a backhand shot looks like. So, here is a compromise: I leave the forehand shot and you leave my backhand shot until we both come up with a better shot sequence for both shots... I want to make sure everyone is happy. BTW: The youg man is late hitting the forehand shot, and his eyes are closed. So, we ought to be able to come up with a better photo.... and I made the backhand photo smaller.

All I tried to do is to propose a compromise and it was called an ultimatum.

Because it was one. Originally, you proposed a compromise, but then made a threat to enforce it. That's not a compromise, and not a good way to win trust and good faith.

That said, I think your compromise is probably a fair idea, so long as adding the picture doesn't clutter the page too much. Make sure you size/float the picture appropriately in order to avoid that. I may not agree with your statement that the picture shows what a backhand shot looks like (a series of pictures is really required, which is why such a series exists for the forehand stroke), but the picture is probably better than nothing.

It might be a good idea to limit pictures in the article to one picture per stroke, and attempt to encapsulate in that single picture what that stroke "looks like." Then, in order to reduce clutter but still convey the valuable information afforded by a series of images, move the rest of the pictures to another article, perhaps one called "Gallery of tennis strokes" or something. Aerion//talk 21:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok... thank you! I really did not mean to have any threats, I just did not understand why such a reaction and my apologies. Photos going in. Thank you again. We leave everything in for now.

However, I will look for some real nice photos for forehand and backhand in the mean time.

good edit

good edit ...on that tedious "scoring" section.Sfahey 17:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, nicely done. The old section was awesomely tedious.... Hayford Peirce 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a general "article is too long" discussion

It's already mentioned many times here, but really.. we should create more pages, each for rules of the game, courts, etc; so that the main Tennis article is not too cluttered with information that is too tedious. I'm just guessing the contributors are good tennis lovers who'd love to paste their knowledge here, but on the main Tennis page it is way too much and will intimidate people who come here to learn what tennis is about.

• I agree and have been thinking about it. But *someone* is going to have to come up with a cohesive plan first. And then get people to agree to what needs to be moved. Otherwise there are going to be endless revert wars. It's too long at the moment, with too much finicky details, but on the other hand we don't want to reduce it to 100 words, each of which is a link to something else.

I think, for instance, that there could be a single paragraph about "shots", just as there is now. And each one of the 8 shots could be a link to a separate article. Ditto for the rules and most of the other. Since I'm the guy who wrote most of the stuff about the great players of the past and the greatest players of all time I'd *hate* to see that stuff moved -- but I could live with it if it was done correctly in the context of a complete revamping of the entire article.

I myself, frankly, don't have the strength of character to attempt this revamp myself: I'm a grouchy guy and I don't suffer nitwits easily. Whoever tries to do this is going to have to be both smart, hard-working and a conciliator and compromiser.... Hayford Peirce 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously we don't want just a page of links, but I think we can reduce it to just a couple paragraph each for each topic, for the general info without the technical details. For example: for the forehand, explain what it is, how it is used, maybe mention a few legends with great forehands ,but (as mentioned before) tennis grips can be put into a separate article.

P.S. I am an advocate of removing all but one photo of the forehand

• Well, I guess I agree with you. Here's a suggestion. Someone should open a separate article outside Tennis called grips. The word "grips" within the Tennis article should be linked to it. The Forehand article, then, could be reduced to something like this:

The forehand is considered the easiest shot to master, perhaps because it is the most natural stroke. It is made by swinging the racquet across one's body in the direction of where the player wants to place the shot. There are three basic grips for executing the forehand, the Eastern, the Western, and the Continental. Their popularity has changed over the years. For a number of years the small, apparently frail 1920s player Bill Johnston was considered by many to have had the best forehand of all time, a stroke that he hit shoulder-high using a "western" grip. No matter which grip is used, most forehands are generally executed with one hand holding the racquet, but there have been fine players with two-handed forehands. In the 1940s and 50s the Ecuadorian/American player Pancho Segura used a two-handed forehand to devastating effect against larger, more powerful players, and many female and young players use the two-handed stroke today. Few top players used the "western" grip after the 1920s, but in the latter part of the 20th century, as shot-making techniques and equipment changed radically, the "western" forehand made a strong comeback and is now used by many modern players.

The article called Grips should then include:

The simplest grip to understand, but perhaps the most difficult to master, is the "continental". With the racquet held so that the hitting surface is vertical to the ground, the handle is gripped on its top as if the player were shaking someone's hand or grasping a hammer. With the "continental", both the forehand and the backhand are hit with the same grip. With the "eastern" grip, the racquet is slightly rotated so that the palm of the hand is now somewhat more on the larger side of the handle. The "eastern" grip will hit a "flatter" forehand with less spin on it than the "continental". With the "western" grip, the rotation of the racquet in the player's hand is even more exaggerated, to the point where the striking surface of the racquet is now parallel to the ground after being turned from its initial vertical position. "Western" forehands are generally hit with enormous amounts of spin.

Plus, of course, additional info taken from the Backhand article, the Serve article, and new info specially written for it.

All other shots, such as volleys, half-volleys, etc. should be treated in the same way. Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• One picture for forehand -- sure, I agree with that also. But it should be a really GOOD picture! Too bad that all the pix I have at home are copyrighted. I suppose I could take some pix of my seriously kute girlfriend hitting shots if worse comes to worst. She hits a 1,000 MPH western forehand like a laser beam.... Hayford Peirce 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Using some more recent players is useful too. While we appreciate Pancho Segura's forehand, people with little knowledge of tennis would like to read some familiar names with the best forehands in recent times: Sampras? Agassi? Federer? Graf? Davenport? Younes El-Aynaoui? (ok the last one is too obscure) -Aree

Sure. But I put in Pancho primarily because he had a *two-handed* forehand, not just because he had a great one. As for more recent ones, Ivan Lendle's is the only one that springs to mind, although I guess people have said that Sampras's was great too. Unless separate forehand and backhand articles are done outside the Tennis article (as you have done with Serve) I don't think we want to list too many in the main article.

Forehand picture

Just revert if you don't like it.

it looks fine to me. Hayford Peirce 23:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

types of courts

The article claims there are four general types of courts, but only mentions three (clay, grass, hard). I cannot think of a fourth, but I don't know much about tennis. So is there a fourth, or has the number to be changed? --Flosch 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes indoors are considered a different type of court, even though some indoors are made of the same as outdoors (e.g. hardcourts, clay). There are also the indoor carpets as well, or some rubber materials. --Aree

Someone kept putting in carpetcourt (one word) in the listings of courts. I've removed it twice. I'll have to check out the "three" or "four" and will fix it. No matter how one counts the types of courts, the word "carpetcourt" simply does not exist! Hayford Peirce 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the number and added some examples of hardcourts. Hayford Peirce 17:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed picture of serve

Since the self-proclaimed authority on this page has asked for an explanation (and not in a polite manner, and not that he is owed one either), the explanation is simple: the only reason my photos were removed is that he did not want them there and I have too many things to do to edit and re-edit and so on. However, I will grant that photos of pros are more appropriate and will therefore yield only because this makes more sense for a page such as this: it shoul dhave official photos. So, since the serve photo is not one of a pro doing a serve, following the logic of master pierce, I have done to the serve photo what he did to my forehand and backhand photos. So, maybe someone can just put up some pro, like Rodick or another big server and we'll be done with it.

You are reverting this picture (ie, cutting it out), without warning and against the wishes of the other members, all of whom have left it untouched for many weeks. You are doing so, not because it is a bad or inappropriate picture, but out of spite. This, when it is done 3 consecutive times, is called vandalism. If you do this one more time I will ask an administrator (or sysop) to review the history of this article and then to either block this page so that you can no longer remove the picture, or I will ask him/her to ban you for at least a 24-hour period. That might, perhaps, teach you how to edit in an appropriate manner. If you have better picture of a serve, would you kindly put it in the article. If not, then please leave the present picture alone. I have looked at your "contributions" -- as far as I can tell, the only contributions you have ever made to Wikipedia in any form are your insertions of pictures or removals of pictures in the tennis article. Why don't you learn a little more about Wikipedia and its etiquette before doing such things in the future? We are here, in theory, to make these articles as good as possible. Certainly removing this particular picture just because you're feeling grouchy at me or at other editors is no step in improving the article. Hayford Peirce 00:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found any other free picture of the serve to use. If this one works, it shows somewhat a consistency with the other pictures (perhaps?). Oh, by the way, I was the one removing the old pictures to replace with professional players, not Hayford Pierce. Sorry if I acted as if I were the self proclaimed authority. Aree

I don't understand why the Sampras service GIF wasn't put there in the first place -- it's very nice. I was going to do it myself tomorrow... But, at least on my computer, the image, intially, breaks up a little bit in a way that it doesn't in the serve article. Hayford Peirce 04:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nothing is done out of spite. If there is any spite it is your removal of photos I put up because you did not like the photos. I have as much right not to like your photos as you have the right not to like mine, so, there we are. You may threaten as much as you like, but I had a reason to put up the first ones, which you removed without any reason given (unlike I gave a reason, which you took a stand against in the first place. So, in order to cut this debate, I proposed a compromise, which you shot down, so, clearly you have an agenda against me...ie. if I dont agree with you then I must be either a vandal or deserve punishment. Perhaps this is the way your world spins, but in my world (and see all of my remarks before), I try to work with people without threats. So, whilst I understand in any form there are people who think they are the 'main man' just because others cower, I agree with Mr. Aree: professional players should be up there, so, I deleted the photo of the serve (and do again today), not out of spite (which you are free to accuse all you like), but because I changed my mind, simply: pros. should be there because they represent what Wiki should be about to readers better.

So, take your spiteful action if you would like, as surely that one will be the one done out of spite.

I delete the photo because it does not show a serve... it gives people no idea what a serve is like.

As far as my 'contributions' to Wiki, so what? I just started contributing. Last I checked there were no 'seniority union' rules as to whose stuff is more accurate or more valued. I also put in the "Lundar Beach" entry, but so what?

This will be the last time I take this much time defending myself in front on any user on anything but content, raw and simple.

Bottom line is: the tennis page could be much better. There is a bunch of stuff missing and it should be much bigger. I am happy try try to help, but only if we all work together and not throw around threats.

As far as 'my contribution' to the tennis page: GUESS WHAT? the end result is that the terrible photos which where "left untouched for weeks" have now been replaced with three videos of pros. doing it right. so, this is what Wiki is all about: one thing causes another to improve even though it might annoy 'people with their own names on Wiki'

Game point merging

I think the tennis article is long as it is, while Game Point is somewhat more technical. I propose, should it be merged, merge with Tennis score instead.

Deletion of speculation

I have deleted the openly speculative article about comparing the greatness of players from different eras because it is speculation, which is not verifiable, citable, or relevant to the article at hand. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specifically from the last link:

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Wars and Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War IV" is not.

Speculation is specifically banned because it is neither verifiable or encyclopedic. (Could you imagine an encyclopedia article in a major print edition including this sort of speculation in their Tennis article in any possible circumstances?) Leave this sort of discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump instead. I am sorry to come on so strong, but I think it is important that there be no ambiguity regarding this matter, particularly as the change was quickly reverted (and then reverted back again by me) - I don't think there's a need for a revert war when the policy is very clear. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Concur. I especially disliked the part that says "there is relatively little difference in the quality of play among the top hundred players" because clearly there is. If the statement were true, we'd see massive ranking changes from week to week. In any case, the entire speculative section, IMHO, contributed very little other than a selected list of names of players, and added virtually no objective content to the article. I agree with its removal (and regret that I lacked the initiative to do it myself earlier!). Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Animated GIFs

Does anybody think those are a little big? Let's not kid ourselves; the images bring the article size way over a half megabyte. Yikes. I can smell the smoking 56k modems from here. Any chance of replacing them with static thumbnails which link to the full animated file, perhaps with a little note that says "click to view animation"? Aerion//talk 6 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Don't add game point

This article is already too long as it is. For someone unfamiliar with tennis there is far too much information. I would suggest not merging game point into the tennis discussion. Escochris

Agree. It should be in Tennis score or Tennis terminology instead. Aree

I vote for Tennis terminology. After all, game point is almost entirely made up of definitions. - dcljr (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The term "game point" is used in more situations than just tennis (generally, in any game in which the first player to reach a certain number of points is the winner). Due to its generality, I think it shouldn't be merged at all, although if it is to be included it ought to go on the terminology article. Aerion//talk 04:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I made it a separate article was so that it would be easy to link to. I suppose it would be OK to make it a section of Tennis terminology (not Tennis, that's already too long), as long as it's a section, so we can still link directly to it (e.g. via Tennis terminology#Game point). If so, someone will have to go around and change all the links to game point (as well as set point, match point, etc) as redirects to sections don't work (and probably never will). Noel (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Fastest ace

The Ace (tennis) article says:

The fastest recorded ace in tennis history has been served by the American Andy Roddick.

This info has been in that article since its creation by an anonymous user. Can someone here verify this? How fast was it? When and where did it happen? The Roddick article doesn't help — it talks about fastest serve, not fastest ace... - dcljr (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

ESPN'S Spot Shot

Just wanted to call attention to the tennis editors about Spot Shot. Unfortunately I do not know enough about tennis to make anything more than superificial contributions. I got information from http://www.tennisfax.com/thread02.html which is obviously not a verifiable source but they seem pretty knowledgeable (i tend to trust forums). someone with better knowledge of tennis could improve:

• what lines the cameras are watching
• what exactly is being generated...someone who watches ESPN tennis could probably describe it
• maybe a screenshot...i looked in google images and could not find any

anyway it seems to be new exciting technology and i think it could use a good edit!

-- Bubbachuck 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Great players

Should we be more selective in the Great Players section? I personally think we should restrict it to players who dominated the tour for a while or won multiple Slams. So, these players, while good, is questionable for being one of 'the greats': - Goran Ivanisevic : lovable guy, but only one Slam, never no. 1. - Michael Chang: same as Goran - Andy Roddick: not yet (one day for sure), apart from his great run in 2003 (though Federer stands in his way) - Maria Sharapova: no.1 for several weeks, only one Slam so far. Would Roddick and Sharapova already be one the greats if their careers end today?

As for the pre-Open players, I don't know which ones should be in or shouldn't.

Another way is to use the Hall of Fame list of players. Would it be somewhat objective? - Aree