Talk:Tennis/Catalogs/Famous players

&uotCheck out Catalog_of_religions for I think a superior method than having just a list! Stephen Ewen 17:22, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I gotta say I don't think I've ever heard of a ;catalog" of human beings of any kind, although I suppose they do exist. "Catalog" make me think of Sears-Roebuck. But if you think this is a useful renaming, I have no objections. But I don't understand what more you think should then be done -- should each article about the individual tennis player then be put under the list of players in the "catalog"? It's possible, of course, but I don't see the utility of someone doing a "search" for Pancho Gonzales being sent via Redirect to that article under Catalog of prominent tennis players. By the way, is there a Catalog of presidents or Catalog of American presidents, just to find something similar? Hayford Peirce 18:16, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

"Famous" works. However, it's still a catalog of them, per a dictionary def.  :-) --Stephen Ewen 04:43, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Define famous

What would you consider a famous tennis player? Would it include all professional players that are notable, or only players that were World No. 1 at one point in their life? --Charles Sandberg 20:21, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

This is an obvious can of worms with no real answer. When I first came to CZ a couple of months ago and, on the Main Page, clicked on "Sports" there was a long red list of non-articles. Tennis was linked, but went only to a single, rather strange paragraph. I heavily edited the WP tennis article and imported it, then started creating CZ articles about some of the great old tennis players. I listed those under Tennis on the Main Page until Nancy objected and I created a new article called Prominent Tennis Players, which I put under the tennis listing on the Main Page. In the Prominent tennis players article, I then started listing the articles I had created. Stephen suggested that since Larry likes "Catalogs" I turn it into a "Catalog of Prominent Tennis Players". I objected to "Catalog" and Stephen, I believe, moved it to Famous tennis players. Then Larry added some header info about the project. And I've been adding various players since then. It struck me at some point that nearly all the "famous", or "great", or "prominent" old players had at one point been No. 1 in the world. So I figured that I might as well include all those who ever had been No. 1, even though some of them don't particularly interest me. Anyone who's ever been No. 1 probably is going to be famous enough to eventually merit an article for himself AND be included in the catalog or whatever it's called.

Another issue though: Until about 1972, when the ATP or whoever they are started issuing their own rankings, there were no official world rankings. Each country had its amateur rankings, but the pro rankings were completely unofficial. And world rankings, even for the amateurs, were unofficial. But a couple of autoritative newspaper writers and others, at the end of each year, would compile their rankings. If you look at the WP articles about this, you will find all the details in *exhaustive* elaboration. These rankings were for the best player *over the course of the year*, NOT the guy who was No. 1 for this specific week, or even for the guy who was No. 1 on the last week of the year -- he might have been No. 3 for the previous 51 weeks....

Eventually I will port over and rewrite a lot of the WP stuff. I originated it over there and put in a ton of work -- it then got out of hand, with a lot of POV and OR and other issues and I gave up on it. Hayford Peirce 13:27, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll write some stubs too, so far I've written Roger Federer and Pete Sampras which you are welcome to contribute to. Also, though he was never No. 1, would you think James Blake should be on the list? --Charles Sandberg 16:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Absolutely. This is NOT just a list of No. 1 players. Frank Sedgman, for instance, a great, GREAT player, was clearly the No. 1 AMATEUR in the world a couple of years, but when he turned pro was just a *little* less good than Jack Kramer and then Pancho Gonzales. And maybe even Pancho Segura. So he was never a World No. 1, although pretty close. Pancho Segura wasn't much as an amateur but became a great pro for many years and is *arguably* the co-No. 1 for a couple of them, or even the sole No. 1. He was reasonably famous for a long time even though he is forgotten today. Just the way the truly great Pancho Gonzales is forgotten, even though he was probably the World No. 1 for 7 to 12 years, depending on whom you listen to.... So Blake, who is, of course, famous today, *should* be there. Maybe if this catalog ever turns into a WP-type laundry list of everyone's favorite players, it should be weeded out a little. But, of course, that will then upset the people in put in various names. For the moment, though, the more the merrier. If Larry wants a Catalog -- let's give him a Catalog! Hayford Peirce 17:01, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay then I'll add Blake and Rafael Nadal.