Talk:Björn Borg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Born in Stockholm, not Södertälje!
Re change made: It's a common error to say he was born in Södertälje, a town he is famously associated with, but he was born in central Stockholm, (at the Söder Hospital) around 11pm of the 6th of June 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.214.131 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2005
[edit] Underwear
Why do we have such an obvious and clumsy plug for BB underwear at the end of an otherwise even-handed piece of writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.216.65 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 June 2006
[edit] Even-Handed?
I dispute this article being 'even-handed'. It is full of exploitative conjecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.216.65 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 June 2006
[edit] Australian Open
The article mentions that Borg didn't play at the Australian Open after 1974. Does anybody know why? SteveO 19:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the Australian Open wasn't as prestigious in the 1970s, so Borg skipped it because apparently he didn't thought it was worth the trip. Plus the tournament was scheduled in the month of December in the late seventies through 1985, with some players opting to rest for the next season. Connors only participated twice for the same reason. Igorrr 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Borg has said several times that had he won the first three legs of the Grand Slam, he would have gone to Australia to try to complete it. Borg won the first two legs (French Open and Wimbledon) for 3 consecutive years (1978-80) but never won the U.S. Open. Tennis expert 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Header information
While I agree that a header should not contain an exhaustive list of statistics, there is nothing wrong with highlighting a couple of achievements unique to a particular player, especially in relation to other great players. A header should at least be a blurb that allows someone passing through to get a perspective on a player's place in tennis history, in lieu of reading the entire article and every stat included therein. The major highlights I've included are important in doing that. Just because something is repeated deep within an article does not mean it is not valuable enough to be mentioned in the header. No one objects to including the grand slam record in each tennis player's headed, but how is this more relevant than an incredible match winning percentage? Number of grand slams, after all, is information that is repeated more than once throughout every tennis players article -- does that mean it does not belong in the header? Otherwise, every header about every player should only be one sentence, and I don't find that very useful at all. BrandoPolo 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Two of the "points" of these articles is to avoid needless repetition and avoid turning the articles into fan pages. If you want to have a one or two sentence highlight of Borg's career at the top, you would do much better to include original prose, something other than raw statistics. One other thing: how do you know that Borg's 89.8% Grand Slam matching winning percentage is a male record? You are big about wanting citations to back up factual information. So, what is the citation for this? And how do you define "place in tennis history," and how would an objective person go about determining it? Tennis expert 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The point is that each reader should be able to define a player's place in tennis history himself by reading the page. There is no need for me to define it for them. I still don't see why Borg's grand slam record, which is also repeated multiple times in the body of the article, is more relevant than his win percentages, and therefore I am putting them back in, with citation. I am not convinced that it should be mentioned that he was the world number one, which can also be found in other parts of the article, and not that he has a relatively high match winning percentage, so I am also putting that back in. I can change a couple of words here and there to make it "prosey," but these are not random stats so much as unique career achievements that deserve to be highlighted. BrandoPolo 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It should be mentioned in the header that he was a World No. 1 because that fact is in the header of all the other No. 1s and is, in fact, a rather important point. Hayford Peirce 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, I realize it's important, I was just indicating that it is not necessarily more important than other information which was being deleted from the articles header, namely his most unique percetange records, which, to my mind, are more impressive than his status as a World No. 1. BrandoPolo 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I have reworked the header to match the style of Roger Federer's since I feel strongly that the most important tennis bios ought to be streamlined -- especially the headers -- so as to aid those who come across these pages to fairly and easily compare players' major career accomplishments.
The line which indicated in part that Borg "is regarded by many as one of the greatest..." I changed to "regarded by many as the greatest." It's a subtle change but important. Although both statements are true, Federer's article includes phrasing that more resembles the latter. I would like to remove word "many" from that phrase in all the tennis articles and replace it with "peers" or "tennis insiders/observers" since the Wikipedia standards urge users to avoid weasel words but other users seemingly insist on keeping the weasel words, so I won't press the issue.
I personal feel all of these "greatest" statements violate Wikipedia's point-of-view standards, but apparently I am in the minority on that. Thus, it is only fair that the others who are in the greatest of all time discussion -- Gonzales, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Tilden and to a lesser extent Lendl, Budge, Connors, and McEnroe -- get the same treatment in their articles that Federer has gotten by those who edit it.
Doing so is difficult since this knid of statement has to be referenced to be even remotely acceptable, and of course such statements in regards to Federer will be more readily available than anyone else since he is the only one of the above players who started collecting slams in the digital information age, and therefore the only player who can have one of his peers call "possibly the greatest of all time" and have it online within thirty minutes. It's all but certain Gonzales's peers made the same statements about him, but it's next to impossible to find and link to those statements on line. I'm sure I can find relevant citations from respectable sources for at least Sampras and Laver, which I will tackle over time, but the rest I'm not sure about.
Since it has been chosen to bring up the "greatest-of-all-time" debate in headers, those who browse these pages should not get the biased and erroneous idea that Federer is the only one in the discussion, while all the others are merely consider to be "one of the greatest." We really need to be even-handed since we are going to do this. BrandoPolo 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In the 'Place among all time greats department', it is said, that Borg is rated greatest of all time with some internet articles as sources. Actually, not one of these articles is saying that, indeed some place Borg lower, than he might deserve.At best, Borg is rated third by the Times article, behind Laver and Navratlova.1 Dec.
Nine year old career is not correct.--Tennis old man (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with old man, 9 isn't the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.14 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other victories
I've added 16 new titles not listed by the ATP, mainly invitation tournaments but also WCT events forgotten by the ATP statistics.
From 1972 through 1982 very few top players entered the Australian Championships because it was held during the year end and prize money was low. To give you an example in 1972 and 1973 only Rosewall and Newcombe among the Top20 entered the tournament and in 1982 none of the top10 players came. In the mid-sixties, the Masters, the WCT Finals or the U.S. Pro indoor at Philadelphia were greatest events than the Australian Open. Even Roland Garros had sometimes low fields as in 1970, 71, 72. Moreover after Borg's defeat in Australia the Swede said that he then had time to go to the beach : this Borg's miss of motivation greatly infuriated the Australians and in particular the local press. The Swede then decided not to return in Australia except if he could make the Grand Slam.
Carlo Colussi 08:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links
I don't know why, "Tennisexpert", you have erased so many times my links World No. 1 Tennis Player Rankings Tennis male players statistics in different articles because there are not inaccurate. ATP rankings didn't exist before 1973 but tennis was born one century before ATP, then to compare players of different eras is instructing : thus you can see who were the best players before 1973. There is a very bad tendancy to make believe that tennis was born with Borg and that before him tennis hadn't existed. Moreover the ATP rankings are sometimes bad : in 1975 everyone rightly thought that Ashe was the best though he was only 4th in the ATP rankings. In 1977 and 78 Connors was ATP #1 but no one believed it and Borg was then considered as the best (perhaps co-No. 1 with Vilas in 77), in 1982 Connors was the true World No.1 and not McEnroe (even Lendl was ranked ahead McEnroe by any tennis expert). So this is right to link people to such an article as World No. 1 Tennis Player Rankings.
Tennis male players statistics is too an article which let make comparisons between the present and the past. Now all the records shown everywhere are only the ATP records which completely ignore the preopen era. So in incorporating Tennis male players statistics in the Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe or Nastase articles I make appropriate comparisons with past players. I then hope that you won't erase INAPPROPRIATELY these links once more. Thank you.
Carlo Colussi 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You should assume good faith of Wikipedia editors more often, Mr. Colussi. I was not attempting to erase your work or consign it to the ash heap of history. In a Wikipedia article, references to other Wikipedia articles should go at the end of the article in a "See also" section. It's as simple as that. Yes, I've read your arguments about the woefulness of ATP rankings at least 50 times. I do not need to be lectured on that subject yet again. Regards. Tennis expert 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the fight, you both know a lot about this great sport!!!--Tennis old man (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The fight was over on January 200...7 Carlo Colussi (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Supposed unofficial titles
I've changed the section title "Other singles titles (unofficial) (15)" in "Other singles titles including invitational tournaments titles (15)" because if some tournaments have been just invitational ones other were completely official but forgotten or not included by the ATP : for instance Helsinki 1973 or Salisbury WCT 1980.
Do not forget that tennis has existed for a century before the ATP and that the ATP statistics of the start of the open era are very incomplete : for instance for 1969 the ATP Website just shows three meetings (Australian, Philadelphia and US Opens) between Roche and Laver whereas in reality Roche led Laver 5-4 that year : January 19, Roche won the New South Wales Open in Sydney 64 46 97 1210 over Laver in the final ; January 25 or 26, Laver beat Roche in the semifinal of the Australian Open, Brisbane, 75 2220 911 16 63 ; February 3, Roche b Laver in the New Zealand Open final, Auckland, 61 64 46 63 ; February 9, Philadelphia Open final, Laver b Roche 75 64 64 ; February 13 or 18, Hollywood (Florida) Pro final, Roche b Laver 63 97 64 ; February 26 or 27 or 28, Oakland Pro final, Roche b Laver 46 64 119 ; May, Amsterdam Pro 3rd place, Roche b Laver 63 36 62 ; September 7, US Open, Forest Hills, final, Laver b Roche 79 61 61 62 ; November 22 or 23, Wills Open Covered Courts, Queen's Club & Wembley Arena Laver b Roche 64 61 63.
Many tournaments of that era are missing, for example the Dunlop Sydney Open in March 1970 (winner Laver) or the 1973-1974 New South Wales Championships (winner Mal Anderson and Tony Roche) or the 1970 US Indoor Open tournament in Salisbury (winner Nastase) or the 1970 Wembley Pro tournament (winner Laver).
So the ATP statistics being very incomplete until the 70s other statistics shall not be considered as unofficial. Though the ATP claims that Connors is the player having won the most titles (105) it is completely untrue : Rod Laver (with at least 181 wins), Bill Tilden, Jaroslav Drobny and Ken Rosewall have won more tournaments than Connors. ATP statistics are just open era statistics far from being exhaustive for the first years of that open era and ATP Statistics are not the only official statistics.
Carlo Colussi 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Carlo, I agree with you that ATP is not the God of Tennis, but it's my opinion that some tournaments you mention were considered like "Exibition" in that moment too. I said that like former tennis player and former tennis journalist. And I was present in the court in more than 150 grand slams and many many other tournaments... Regards for you and keep fight against ATP GODS!... Really thank you for open minds...--Tennis old man (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Hello Tennis old man. Sure sometimes it's difficult to know if some invitation tournaments are mere exhibitions or more serious events. For instance the ECC tournament at Antwerp in 1982 was supposed to be an exhibition but I have seen the final between Lendl and McEnroe and it seemed deadly serious between both players and I suppose that Mac was very bored to lose once again to Lendl even though it wasn't a Grand Prix or WCT or ITF event. The problem with the ATP statistics is a) that the pre-open era (except the Davis Cup and the Slam tournaments) is fully ignored though it spanned over 2/3 of tennis competition history and b) the first five years of the open era are much ignored too. For instance the Dunlop Open at White City, Sydney, played two months after the official Australian Open held at the same site, was considered by some as the "true" Australian Open because the NTL pro players came at last but this tournament isn't listed in the ATP site. That's the problem because now almost everyone considers that players before 1973 (birth of the ATP rankings) were "just an illusion" : in the ATP stat' there is (almost) no mention of WC Renshaw, RF Doherty, HL Doherty, WA Larned, NE Brookes, AF Wilding, WT Tilden, HE Vines, JD Budge, FJ Perry, RL Riggs, JA Kramer and so on and that's a very big shame. When Joshua Pim won the Irish Chps, Wimbledon and the Northern England Chps in 1893 it was a rare feat but who knows it now except some fools like me. Sure Laver and Drobny have won many "beach tournaments" during their amateur careers and we can't compare the number of their wins with Federer's because the latter almost never plays minor events but it makes some justice to show victories before 1973 (and 1968). Tennis competition is not 40 years old but more than 130. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't know why ATP forgets too many tournaments. Doesn't care to they. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well perhaps they have no time or they don't bother. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm writing now (well, since a while) to ATP, about they'll recognize WCT Challenge Cup. I had received a good feedback from a guy called Bram Tucker. They don't like RR events, but I'm sure that they don't want RR one group only (no SF, only F) like Salisbury Invitational 80 & 81 or TOC Dorado Beach 79. About Auckland 74 I don't know the reason of ATP miss... (Carlo or Tennis Expert, do you have the draw of that one?)--Lucio Garcia (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] please add io:Björn Borg
Please add the link to the Ido wikipedia. io:Björn Borg . Thank you io:user:Joao Xavier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.187.184 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Golden tennis racquet
I'm just dumb, but is it the color gold or the metal gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.16.82 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 May 2007
[edit] 3 grand slam titles in a row.
June 10th, Nadal hit the same record. 3 consecutive french open title wins. The information is no longer correct that Borg is the only one who has achieved such a goal.
Borg won 4 consecutive French open titles (1978-1981).
[edit] Place among the all-time greats
"Borg won the third most Grand Slam singles titles (11) of all time, behind Pete Sampras (14) and Roy Emerson (12)." Shouldn't this sentence take into account the women's game? According to the Navratilova article, she won 18 grand slam singles titles in her career. Perhaps: "Among male athletes, Borg won the third most Grand Slam singles titles (11) of all time..."
[edit] Youngest to Win
Note that Roger Federer in winning his 11th Grand Slam (Wimbledon, 2007) at one month short of age 26, has now joined Borg in also being 25 upon reaching this milestone. (Somebody should change the affected page.)
Still Borg keeps the record for being the youngest man to accomplish such result: he won his eleventh title on 07 june 1981 at 25 years and 1 day. Federer won his 11th title the 8th of july of this year, just 31 days before his 26th brthday (25 years 324 days).
The maintainer should also add Roger Federer as winner of 11 Grand Slam together whith Rod Laver and obviously Bjorn Borg.
[edit] Section makes no sense
section 5.3 makes no sense where are borg's 18 wins ?. How does 61+18+4+12 =97 ? jeffreyneave 11 dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes it makes sense. 61+2+7+27=97. Hey Jeffrey if a player's number of wins changes, ask yourself if this edit has been done by a certain Carlo or Jema 974. Jema 974 makes a great work by making all his tables in the French site and whenever he has something missing or wrong he asks my help. Each time I want statistics be coherent between both French and English sites I make the changements so when Jema's finished his Borg's work with a total of 97 tournaments won I immediately wrote 97 in the English site. But having no much time I've hoped that someone would have taken a look at the French site to add the details id est the other invitational tournaments won by Borg. Unfortunately no one has made it therefore it wasn't coherent : so I've made the corrections today. To date 97 is sure so if there are tournaments missing in the English site please copy-paste the missing ones from the French site. Conclusion : whenever a total seems odd please take a look at the French site because the answer is perhaps there. Thank you. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Section headings
Some of these are ridiculous. "Other (non-ATP, exhibition/invitational and special events) singles titles - draw less than eight players (12)" as a section heading? I'm removing these headers, as they're more like descriptions than section titles. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Statistics, and the serious spamming of
I actually went to the bother of creating {{almanac}} for the sake of this article, which consists almost entirely of statistical data. Wikipedia is not an almanac, and biographical articles should not be almost completely composed of statistical data as this one is. For now, I'm proposing reinserting the tag until the article can be rewritten (as it really needs to be). Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your opinion is of one editor. The many other editors of this article apparently disagree. You do not (yet) have the consensus to add the tag. Maybe you should try to edit the article so that it has more non-statistical data. As I said in my edit summary, tennis is a sport whose history is heavily described by statistical information. What might not be appropriate in a biography of a scientist, politician, or even an athlete in another sport is very appropriate for a tennis player. Tennis expert (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion concerning this article
A discussion that may affect the name or title of this article is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, this article may be moved to a different title, in accordance with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you. Tennis expert (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
The name of this article should be changed to "Bjorn Borg" because that is the name used on the English-language websites of the official governing bodies of tennis, the Association of Tennis Professionals and the International Tennis Federation. That also is the name used on the English-language websites of the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Davis Cup. Finally, that is the name used on the English-language websites of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he won or was runner-up: French Open (Roland Garros), Wimbledon, US Open. Tennis expert (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is an example of the weakness of the evidence here; all these web sources never use diacritics; but (for this name) the Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia do. Oppose. These are enough to ask whether diacritics are warranted, and in most of these cases they are not; but not enough to answer the question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please explain why it matters that these web sources never use diacritics. Tennis expert (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Because it is not our practice never to use diacritics, and these are weak evidence on the usage of sources not so handicapped. If François Mitterrand has played tennis in his youth, they would list him as Francois, since they have no alternative; but we would still follow the majority of evidence and use the cedilla. Similarly, if there had been a rournament in Göttingen, we would say so. Their evidence is not irrelevant; that they can operate without diacritics (whereas they would never attempt to do without x, for example) is itself evidence of the tenuous Englishry of many of these spellings.
-
-
-
- But Björn is established and should stay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
First, it is your opinion (not a fact) that a source which never uses diacritics is "handicapped" or uses "tenuous Englishry." Second, it's ridiculous to analogize a refusal to use diacritics with a refusal to use a letter of the English alphabet. Third, if Francois Metterrand had been good enough to be listed on the websites I listed, we would be having this same discussion about the name of his Wikipedia article ("Tennis record of Francois Mitterand"). Fourth, the statement that "Björn is established and should stay" is conclusory and not supported by the evidence (other than your citation of general purpose encyclopedias, which appear to be inconsistent in their own usage or non-usage of diacritics). Tennis expert (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see you don't recognize the advantages of half a loaf. We agree, I believe, on 90% of these cases; your remedy on the remaining 10% is to remove diacritics from the edit screen altogether, for which I do not believe you have support. But I could be wrong; please argue the general case at WT:Use diacritics; if you can find consensus to add Do not to the title, more power to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Another blatant and unwarranted mischaracterization of my position. Tennis expert (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
