![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
September 2006-January 2007
Like I have mentioned on the talk pages of other articles regarding big name tennis players, everyone agrees that the header should not descend into a list of streaks, statistics, and random achievements. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting one or two major career attributes unique to a particular player. Why is okay for "repetitious trivia" about Sampras's long and impressive stay at number one and his Wimbledon record to be kept in his article's header, but similar information ought to be deleted from Federer's? Just because something is repeated deep within an article does not mean it is not valuable enough to include in the header. Federer has piled up a mound of eye-popping stats and statistics; not every one should be at the top of the page. But a couple of unique ones do deserve inclusion in the header, and I am putting them back in. BrandoPolo 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted "He became the first player to win Grand Slam events (Wimbledon & US Open) the year after having won three Grand Slam events in the same year." from trivia as Roy Emerson (64/65), Lew Hoad (56/57) and Fred Perry (34/35) acchieved that before. 84wb 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this initial record cited in this article is incorrect. As far as I can tell, Boris Becker was ranked 65th in the world year end in 1985 at 18 years, 1 month.
Jakewvulaw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)==Criticism?==
I think people too often praise Federer for what he's accomplished and never really do anything other than praise. Shouldn't there be a criticism part as well? One of the older players definitely had some stuff to say about Federer, about how Federer's competition isn't really up to par (and I think it was Ivanisevic, though I'm probably wrong); not to mention Mary Carillo has even stated in live broadcasts that all Federer does is play baseliners since no one comes to net much anymore. Even during the US Open final this year, Roddick didn't come up to net that much, and when he did, it often failed. Also, Haas has made statements negating Federer a bit.
Basically, is there anywhere or anyway we can add in something to add in a "criticism" part?
Unless there is any official criticism that is cited, I don't think we should.
Should we add something about the current rivalry between Federer and Nadal? I scanned the article and couldn't find a section on it. Akshayaj 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wilson's advertisement has reappeared in the players page. I have removed it. Inventingfacts
Contrary to popular belief, Federer plays with a racquet with a "paint job" to make it look as though he uses the n6.1 Tour. It is believed that he might use a custom mold of a racquet similiar to the n6.1, but he seems to have a wider string pattern. "Paint jobs" are rather common in tennis, and the sponsor, of course, markets the supposed racquet as the one the player uses. Lleyton Hewitt does not use the RDX500, and Safin does not use the Liquid Metal Prestige (infact, nearly all pros that "seem" to use the Liquid Metal Prestige, do not). A modification to present the facts to the reader would be appropriate, but if this is not possible, the page will not self destruct. :p There are several threads about this at [1]. Any person(s) interested in investing time to research the topic beyond my knowledge would be greatly appreciated for the article. I would gladly do so, but I think that my approach would be rather skeptical, and I do not have adequate Wikipedia experience. Thank you for reading!
Hi, some time ago i wrote an article explaining this, the section dealing withteh paint job was removed unwisely by an editor. i have put it back however. thank you for your concern. --Nanonugget
Yes, I'm a member of Talk Tennis I saw your thread. This is quite outrageous and should be handled as necessary. To the moderator removing, could you please refute your deletes?
Why was this allowed to be included: "Roger Federer officially uses the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90 tennis racquet. This is the first tennis racquet to utilize nanotechnology, which according to Wilson's promotional literature is twice as strong and twice as stable as traditional racquets, yielding 22% more power, as well as added control and a greater life span." Has the proof of this appeared in a comparative industry survey or scientific journal? Why are no details provided about the claims? Isn't this just an advertisement by a manufacturer? Has an article substantiating these claims appeared in a trusted source like a newspaper or racquet industry publications? If so, where are the references? In the absence of any proof, this is just marketing material and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.48.120 ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks, Noelle and Redux. If no one names the source, please remove it as you have suggested. I am not familiar with the protocols.
Hey you guys, Nanonugget/chiru here. I hope you're talking about the stuff thats currently there. as far as the first paragraph is concerned, i don't think you need a citation for any of that information except for the wilson promo stuff, i hope thats all thats required. as far as teh second paragraph. thats from the nate ferguson interview, adn i'm not quite sure how to cite that. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/priority1.html thats the link if you'd like to do it yourself, or tell me how either way its find with me. the players racket stuff, well thats from a combination of http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Features/9908NateFerguson.html where ferguson talks about how using a heavy players racket is an indication of skill in regards to sampras. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/catthumbs.html?CREF=160 this classifies it as a player's racket according to common industrial classification. I'm not sure if any further citation is needed, most of this stuff, as I said, may not be in CNN or Time Magazine, but its perfectly true, verifiable, and unless you accept such sources, you're going to have to remove the entire equipment section, as well as basically any subjective look at federer, in terms of his playing style, famous matches, the possibility of him being the GOAT. etc.
Yes, I was talking only about the Wilson promo stuff. That one needs to be deleted if not substantiated.
Time to remove the promotional material?
Hi. I'm sorry but this article is looking a lot like a news page, which is kind of not the point. For instance, when it states: "Federer is currently at the top of the ATP Tour rank", that's news because it reflect the state of affairs in late 2003/early 2004, but the article is supposed to be around for a long time, and sometime in the near future Federer will no longer be the world nº1. Perhaps that sort of observation should go as a note in the "career" section of the article, and even so it would have to be reworded to read something like: "as of 2004 Federer is the nº1 player" — and once he loses that condition, it would have to be altered to something like "he was the nº1 player between January 2004 and – let's say – March 2005". Furthermore, it would be nice to have more biographic information heading the article. Regards, Redux 21:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, he's still #1. Feeeshboy 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but they still shouldn't put it. It's biased. What about Sampras or Agassi? Dyna 12:30 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I put the NPOV dispute template because someone has dedicated himself to decribe Federer as...well, short of a machine, as this person practically says ("Federer is not a machine"). So, we need to keep a close eye on this one. For Zaheen:Arguably the greatest player ever" is ok in my opinion. Arguably means that it can be argued, + I use that word a lot of times in the articles I write. Antonio Mental Case Martin 15:09 25 JAN 2005 (MST)...rainy day in Arizona ..hehe
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/04/roddick_problems_ap/
Zaheen 01:35, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
User:203.177.51.219 10:53, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
CHIRU I GOT UR BACK
What racquet Roger Federer acually uses is a custom racquet combining the traits of the Wilson Pro Staff Tour 90 and the Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 Original 85. The racquet that Wilson Sporting Goods claims Federer uses is the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90. Roger does not use this racquer, sorry to break it to you.
The racquet the Federer uses has a 88 inch head. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 90 inch head and the Pro Staff 6.0 Original (which Federer grew up using and is the racquet Pete Sampras used throughtout his career) is a 85 inch head. The width of Federer's racquet's beam is 16.5 mm (like the old China made 6.0 Orginal, but only the China version, which Federer used). The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 17 mm beam. The handle area of his racquet is the one on the 6.0 Original is not like the one on the nSix-One Tour 90.
Other specs about his racquet is that the shape of his handle is different from the one on the nSix-One Tour 90. His handles are custom molded by Nate Ferguson. The custom racquet weighs in at 357g while the nSix-One Tour 90 (the one Wilson claims he uses) weighs in at 352g. Also the paint pattern on the custom Federer racquet is slightly different from the one on nSix-One Tour 90. The balance on his racquet is dead even while the nSix-One Tour is 9pts head light. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 16x19 string pattern. The custom Federer racquet also has a 16x19 pattern but the spacing between the grommets (and therefore the strings) is different. The sweetsport area on his racquet is more open.
Now his accessories. The grip Federer uses is leather. It is either Wilson Leather Grip or (what I think is right...) the Fairway Leather Grip. The Fairway is a legendary grip that is discontinued. It is the highest quality leather grip and Federer grew up using it. Now the overgrip he uses is Wilson Pro Overgirp (thats the white one). He also uses Babolat Elastocross 2 string savers. The strings he uses are Wilson Natural Gut 16 and Luxilon Big Banger ALU-Power Rough 16L. He strings the Wilson Gut on the mains (the up and down strings) and the Luxilon on the crosses (side to side), dispite popular belief that he uses Luxilon mains and git crosses (he doesn't). The Wilson Natural Gut is the same thing as Babolat Natural Gut. Babolat is the top maker in gut and Wilson Gut is just the same thing repackaged. Wilson buys their gut from Babolat. Federer used to use Babolat Gut until Wilson paid him to use their gut (which is the same). And Federer uses "power pads" (these are not sold by Wilson and are generic). They are leather pads on the bottom grommets. You put them in while striging and they used to use power pads all the time in the wooden racquet days. It serves the same purpose as a vibration dampener. Also the grip on Federer's racquet is short because he uses a one-handed backhand (so the extra grip won't bother him).
As for the "nCode" nanotechnology. It's not real. Wilson's definition of nCode is "When a racquet is nCoded nano-sized silicone oxide crystals permeate the voids between the carbon fibers". What is silicone oxide? It doesn't exist. Wilson acually spelled it wrong. What they meant was silicon oxide (aka silica). What's that then? It's sand. Basically they grind sand into nano-sized bits and throw some into the resin matrix. And it doesn't do anything but kill the feedback of the frame (which is a very bad thing).
The composition of the nSix-One Tour is "10% nCoded Hyper Carbon / 70% nCoded High Modulus Graphite / 20% Kevlar". What I think it Federer uses is "80% Graphite 20% Kevlar" which is the composition of the 6.0 Original. Federer grew up with the 6.0 and would not want to change it. The reason I believe that Federer's racquet is not "nCoded" is because Federer's game (which is extremely string) requires maximum feel for the ball. nCode would just take that away from him. And the 6.0 Original composition is known to give great feel.
But don't go asking WIlson to admit that Federer doesn't use a nSIx-One Tour 90. They WILL NOT admit it. Frankly no one really cares because no one really knows. They've been using old racquets painted as new racquets for a long time (these are called "paintjobs", remember that). If you want to know more players using painjobs, go ask around. If you want to sue Wilson, go ahead (but it's a rather stupid thing to do). But if you win, make sure to give me some of the dough because I told you first (this only applies if I acually did tell you first).
I moved the below here as no copyrighted source was found. Is the text familiar to anyone here? -- Infrogmation 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i belive federer is the greatest player ever to live he is simply magnificent
I'm told by people (and I agree :p) that I look a lot like this guy, but I don't suppose that's interesting information, since I'm no celebrity :-) Wouter Lievens 13:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One of my checks says 302. Can you confirm or quote source? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2003/30/Sport_2fFederer Ram (FedererMagic) 20:04, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
Is Roger just Swiss, or since his mother is South African, and he spends a great deal of time there, should he be listed as: Swiss-South African? WikiDon 22:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The size of this article has passed the limit of normal Wikipedia managability. The Roger's "stats" will most likely need to be moved to a separate article. Thoughts? WikiDon 11:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Roger Federer#Career and Roger Federer#Records and trivia can be merged? It's basically the same information anyway, and will help shorten the article by simply stating how many times Federer has defended a certain title. Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales himself came over to this article and removed the image that used to be here, he then proceded to delete the image from the servers. He did that, as explained by him on the summary in the Deletion log, because the copyright holders of that image (or someone who represented them) contacted him directly to complain about the image being used here. People, please do not upload copyrighted images, they cannot be used on Wikipedia. I realize there's a lot of newcomers who contribute to this article, so I wanted to explain here why the image was removed and why it cannot be reinserted — as well as that other images with similar copyrights status also cannot be used. In the case of this particular image that was just removed by Jimbo, if it resurfaces on this article again, I'm sorry but I will delete it again on sight, so please don't do it (don't re-upload it, and certainly don't post it on this or any other article). Regards, Redux 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
So the article on Roger Federer's style of play was deleted? To me, it's that depth of information in the articles that make wikipedia so valuable. As someone who started watching some tennis and wondered why everyone seemed to be speaking this guy's name in such hushed tones, the style piece was a lot more illuminating than a page of tournament stats. User:71.192.242.135 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone recently added the following text concerning Federer's playing style to the article. Since it isn't NPOV I commented it out and suggested a rewrite. I figured it would be relevant to place it here. I don't know exactly what to do with it either, since the style article was deleted.
Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm an anonymous contributor, it would seem my opinion doesn't matter...in case I'm wrong though, and somebody considers what I say, here's my stance. I'm pretty sure the majority of Wikipedia readers aren't members who contribute quality content. They're readers. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and by its very nature geared toward the reader, it's their opinions that matter. I visited this article for the sole purpose of reading about Federer's style, and was sorely disappointed to see it was not addressed, when style IS addressed for other notable players. If the readers want to read about a player's style, who are you to deny them on the basis of nobody showing up to vote on it?
I also agree that there has to be some discussion of playing style. This should be included for every player's article. There are unique aspects of each players games which are undisputed facts...ie Fabrice Santoro hits with two hands off both sides. This discussion must be included. The paragraph above is of course too generic...that does not mean that a more analytical and objective discussion cannot be created, Tor.
Here is a sample discussion I have created, please comment.
Federer has an all-court playing style and is known for being able to hit virtually all of the fundamental shots with exceptional proficiency. He has stated that the one shot he would like to improve his proficiency in is the dropshot. Like many modern players he uses a semi-western grip for his forehand. He has a one-handed backhand from which he tends to hit fairly equal amounts of topspin and slice. His serve is known for being difficult to read due to the fact that he is able to disguise its delivery by maintaining a consistent ball toss placement. His first serve delivery speed is typically in the 125 MPH range, with his second serve typically being a heavy kicking delivery. His footwork and court coverage are exceptional and he is considered to be one of the fastest movers in the game. Perhaps the most unique part of Federers game is his tactical ability to effectively implement different strategies for the differing opponents by synthesizing a style of play using his arsenal of shots which is precisely the style of play most difficult for his opponent to counter. This spectrum of game styles ranges from pure baseline to pure serve-and-volley with many styles in between, Tor.
Added a section for playing style, containing some of the info from here. I actually come to wikipedia for all players looking for info on thier playing style... perhaps this could eventually become its own overall subtitle. Anys, hope this doesn't cause an upset... just trying to get the playing style ball rolling. Knowsitallnot 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Federer was never the youngest ever in top 100 (and neither was Gasquet, for that matter). Youngest since official rankings started in 1973 was Aaron Krickstein, who finished 1983 at #94 at age 16y 4m. I edited the ATP page regarding this as well.
It was listed in his career match statistics that his 2005 record for carpet is 0-0. Note that the surface for the Tennis Masters Cup is Taraflex (Carpet) -- refer to the ATP website. That's why a player (was it Ljubicic?) compared the surface to the one used in the Paris Masters (carpet). Which means that he is actually 4-1 in carpet this season. This also means that his winning streak in hardcourt is still active, because it was not even at stake in the tournament in the first place.
Some places seem to list it as hardcourt... strange...
In the past day or two, IP address 165.123.150.62 has added statements about Federer being one of the greatest players of all time. I reverted the first change because the statement was unsupported by sources. 165.123.150.62 then made two revisions about the "greatest of all time" tag, the latter adding a qualifier to the statement by stating John McEnroe and Rod Laver as the source of that assessment. [2] The last revision by the IP address reverted to the version I had earlier reverted the article to. [3]
I think statements about "greatest of all time" tend to make the article not NPOV, especially since it's only been five years since Federer began playing on the pro tour. Noelle De Guzman 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In this matter, if it is wideley accepted that McEnroe and Laver have said this, it would be acceptable to state the fact that they have made these statements. We are not calling Federer the greatest, Laver and McEnroe are. I personally cannot provide written references as to McEnroe and Laver stating this however I do recall Laver commenting somewhere about either Federer being the greatest or having the potential to be the greatest. If Laver did say this and a specific reference can be cited (ie he said it on an ESPN broadcast during a particular match) then I believe it should be included because Laver is widely regarded as one of, if not, the greatest players of all time and his opinion in the matter is relevant, Tor.
why not have a section on "notable quotes" for Federer? That way we can include those greatest of all time comments without vioalting NPOV.
Since this article is already quite long, I'm not sure adding match scores to the year's summary of activities is going to do anything except lengthen it.
I suggest the relevant sections just have a link to Federer's ATPTennis.com activity sheet. Noelle De Guzman 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way we can report this IP? The user keeps vandalizing the article by adding the nonsense lines "His occurs are based on spy methods, a Swiss group. The knowledge him the No. 1 did, was compiled by a Mannn of name Leo Klein." Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
People, seriously: DO NOT add copyrighted images or images with uncertain coyright status to this or any other articles. Wikipedia cannot carry does images and they will be removed from the articles and deleted from the database. This is not the first time the subject has been brought up on this article. Copyright violations will be removed on sight; images with uncertain status will be tagged as such, and come seven days, they too will be removed without further warning. Please, cooperate in keeping Wikipedia in compliance with the applicable legislation. Thanks, Redux 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jacoplane. I took the liberty of using one of the pictures for this entry. I hope you guys like the picture!! It's pretty good considering it's not copyrighted Stanley011 16:17, 28 February 2006 (EST)
Is there any way someone with better wikipedia skills than I can get a caption under the image? Something like: "Federer serving at the 2005 U.S. Open Final, which he won in 4 sets." Thanks! ~~ User:Stanley011.
Thanks Redux. Hopefully, we'll be able to get a higher quality and closer image some time soon ~~ user:Stanley011Good image user:Stanley011 -- 70.16.187.158 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC
There have been some reports out there that suggest that Roger might have this painful foot condition, but he denies this claim on his own website: [4]. Now, this denial should set the record straight, but the catch is the following: this response has been on his website for quite a while, and the reports of his plantar fasciitis have been more recent--is it possible that he developed it very recently, and just forgot to update his page? It is possible that he was responding to a question about "plantar fascitis" and not about "plantar fasciitis?" I prefer to not to interpret it like that, given that Roger is generally regarded as a charitable fellow. Stanley011 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps I was *incorrect* in labling this a controversy but please do not question my objectivity. I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks next time. Thanks. Stanley011 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted this section of text so that no confusion arises until a replacement has been inserted, perhaps someone can provide a chronological list of his injuries which again, are widely accepted and verifiable, Tor.
I formatted this section so it could be read better (with indentations). I also did some searching on Google for "Federer+plantar+fasciitis". Here is the NY Sun article Stanley mentioned [5] and the relevant section:
Unfortunately, that's the only relevant result that came up. Federer attributed his withdrawal from Montreal last year only to pain in his feet (as mentioned in this cached version of his website [6]), never naming it as "plantar fasciitis." I believe that Federer having plantar fasciitis is just speculation; the only places I've seen his foot pain being called as such have been on tennis message boards. -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, Im not sure why that would be "unfortunate". Also, when I did a search on google using those search terms I did not hit the Sun article...furthermore if one did hit it...the result that would come up would not be the excerpt that you cited above...as this excerpt is only available in the portion of the article that subscribers have access to, Tor.
The Tennis Channel website definitely mentioned that Federer withdrew from Masters Series Rome 2005 due to plantar fasciitis--I distinctly remember reading that at the time on the Tennis Channel website but I cannot find the site now. I'm going to go onto that site archive page and see what I can find. I am more than 100% sure it was there. So the NY Sun and the Tennis Channel have been the only respectable sources so far that I've seen associate Federer with that condition. I think it is perhaps at least worth mentioning in the article somehow, but I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask him directly, which given his approachibility can probably be done by an enterprising wikiphile Stanley011 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The website is [ [7]] but like I said before, I can't find the page where they wrote he had plantar fasciitis. It was around April or May 2005 Stanley011 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Noelle for finding this article. There was another write-up of sorts on http://www.thetennischannel.com, not a full-length article like this, but more of a caption that SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE WITHDREW FROM ROMA BECAUSE OF PLANTAR FASCIITIS. I am not imagining things; it was there, on the Tennis Channel website. Perhaps they Stalinistically purged it because it turned out to be wrong but it was DEFINITELY there; I stake my credibility as a person on it. Stanley011 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Noelle but I would like to know how you know Federer's website denial of having plantar fascitis (sic) came after the Tennis Masters Cup in Nov 2005. What information are you using to make that assessment? I remember seeing that response there for quite a while, I think even longer than a year--I'm almost, though not positively sure, that I saw that response there in the Summer of 2004, but this can be mistaken. Therefore, I would like to know how you know it was after TMC 2005. Thanks for following up on this. Stanley011 21:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What Plantar Fasciitis problem?...the one you are speculating on? Here are the facts/references (most of which Noelle has supplied) so far:
1. Sun Paper = Federer has PF
2. Sports Network Article = Federer has PF
3. Referenced Tennis Channel Page = Federer has Foot Inflammation
4. Cached version of Federer's Website News Release = "Pain in Feet"
5. Cached version of "Ask Roger" from Federer's Website = "Not the same problem as PF"
Now, I ask you, of the 5 references which do you feel are the more important in terms of answering the question. I would argue that the Tennis Channel and Roger's website carry more weight then the Sun and the "Sports Network".
I would argue that all these references do is point to the fact that again, the exact nature of his foot problem is not precisely known. When confronted with a set of conflicting information one does not simply flip a coin. Furthermore im sure one could find many such descrepencies....are we going to invest time in investigating all of them or are we going to stick to facts that are consistent and widely accepted? In this case, so far, more investigation is required in order to tip the scale one way or the other, Tor.
Tor., kindly note that two of the sources you deemed having "greater weight," the Tennis Channel one and the cached version of Federer's website news release one did not in fact deny that Federer had plantar fasciitis. Thus we only have on partial denial--Federer's Q and A section of his website, but as Noelle and I pointed out, that was posted there at the end of 2003, so things could have changed since then. As far as I'm concerned, silence is consent in these matters; if the news releaes and the tennis channel site did not insert the important note that Fed does not have PF, then they are consenting to the fact that he does because of the wide-spread circulation of the fact that he does in various news sources. I agree with you that more investigation is required: let's do it. Stanley011 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that everytime we come across conflicting information in the course of our research that we include a discussion of this conflict in the article? Based on this modus operandi we should include for example a discussion of the fact that in several established, respectable publications, it is stated that Roger's favorite vacation spot is Dubai, however, in several other such publications it states that his favorite vacation spot is the Swiss Alps. Are you suggesting that it is important to present this conflicting information to the reader so that he may decide for himself what Roger's favorite vacation spot is? I personally do not understand how this would benefit the reader of an Encyclopedia. A person does not read an encyclopedia to find discourses of, or compendiums on, conflicting information. There are other sources of information that specialise in this. In my opinion this is the difference between attempting to generate controversy and citing controversy that actually exists. If you are suggesting that an Encyclopedia is an appropriate place for attempting to generate controversy then please confirm this so that we can cut to the chase and discuss this. I will state flat out that I believe it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can provide references to substantiate its existence. Any speculation, conjecture, and presentation and analysis of conflicting information for the purpose of arriving at the truth so that it can be presented to the reader should be done right here on the discussion page where it belongs, not in the article, Tor.
Tor., let me lay out some premises that I think we can all agree on, and then let's work from there: 1) Federer has pulled out of numerous tournaments in his career because of foot pain. 2) Such withdrawals are a significant part of Federer's career, worthy of being mentioned in the article. 3) Several respectable sources have indicated that the cause of such pain was "plantar fasciitis" 4) Sevearal respectable sources have not specified the cause of such pain (note here how they do not actually conflict, as you say they do). 5) Federer denied having plantar fascitis (sic) on his personal website in late 2003, long before several of his more recent withdrawals due to "foot pain" You are framing the debate in such a way that any mention of the fact that respectable sources do not walk in lock stop on this matter is a "generation" of controversy. I agree with you that "it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can proivde references to substantiate its existence" but you fail to show how a simple mention that sources do not agree on this matter is generating or reporting on a non-notable controversy. I look forward to reading your reply. Regards, Stanley011 03:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think its clear above that my response was directed specifically at Redux so I'm not sure why you decided to respond, but, in the meantime I will remind you to look at your next to last sentence above, and notice how you have contradicted yourself. Near the beginning of this discussion, after I asked you to cite references and you could not cite any references other than your own opinion, you stated that you were incorrect to call this a controversy. In this sentence you state that you agree that only historical controversies should be discussed but you use the word "non-notable" to convey the idea that it is acceptable to cite conflicting sources for a "notable" controversy and that I have failed to show that this is not a "notable" controversy (even though you had previously agreed that it was not "notable"). Once again, who has taken "note" of this "controversy" besides you? If it is "notable", please cite the "notes" of other significant sources who have taken "note" of this "controversy" so that we can have confluence of "notable" and historical and thus deem this an objective observation so that it can be included, Tor
Please clarify:
Tor.
Hi Torvald. Thank you for your embrace of free and open debate, as you indicated in the first sentence of your second to last reply. To answer the questions you posed here, I will say: 1) He withdrew from Roma in 2005, Rotterdam in 2006, and pretty much every tournament after Wimbledon and until Cincinatti 2005 and came to Masters Cup Shanghai in 2005 bandaged up pretty well, which more than likely cost him the title. There have been many many others that I can't recall right now, but a simple google search will reveal the results 2) The following sources have specified PF: 1) The New York Sun and 2) The Tennis Channel website. 3) The following sources have not specified: Any source that mentioned Federer had foot pain but did not mention pf in the article, 4) His remarks were made in reference to the Shanghai 2003 Mastesr Cup tournament. I hope that helps. All the best, Stanley011 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Redux, thank you for clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. I also agree that this issue is generic in nature. However please note that my vacation spot analogy was not to suggest that the topic of Federer's ankle/foot/heel condition was not relevant (nowhere in this discussion have I disputed that), but rather was to address the important question of:
What viewpoints are relevant on this topic?
The NPOV rules state the following:
1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
The fact that a particular piece of information is verifiable does not mean that it is NPOV and relevant to include unless it is used to convey/support a viewpoint that is relevant/NPOV. The relevance and neutrality of this viewpoint must be tested using the conditions above.
As far as the possible viewpoints that I can identify in regards to this topic (please feel free to add others) along with my opinion as to the test results from above:
1. The topic is controversial
I think we can all agree that #3 above eliminates this viewpoint
2. Federer has PF
I believe this fails 1. and 2. and is thus eliminated by #3. The commonly accepted reference texts for the sport of Men's Professional tennis are publications such as Tennis Magazine, Tennis Week, Sports Illustrated, Sports Sections of Major Newspapers, ESPN Website, Fox Sports Website, Eurosport Website, Tennis channel Website, etc. By condition 1. above it should be easy to provide references from these publications. So far only a single reference has been provided from the above. Also note that this reference, which is from a New York Sun Newspaper Article (online edition), only mentions plantar fasciitis once, in passing, in the course of several long paragraphs. It is not discussed at any length nor is any reference given in the article for the origin of this statement. Furthermore, although the Sports page of the Sun is relevant, its status as a Major Newspaper such as the New York Times is dubious. By condition 2. above there should be prominent adherents to this viewpoint. No such adherents have been cited so far (ie, never have any ESPN commentators, BBC commentators, Eurosport commentators, Tennis Channel commentators, Tennis Columnists, Players, or other relevant figures in the community of Men's Professional tennis expressed this viewpoint)
3. Federer does not have PF
I believe this fails 1. and 2 and is thus eliminated by #3. Relative to condition 1. There is only one reference that specifically states that he does NOT have PF which is his personal website...this is not a reference publication as outlined in #2 above. Relative to condition 2. Although there may be one prominent adherent to this viewpoint...namely RF himself (assuming the statement on his website is correct). Condition 2 states adherents (plural) so technically this does not qualify.
4. Federer had a foot condition which caused him to withdraw from at least one tournament.
This is what I feel to be the only relevant viewpoint (at this time) as it relates to this topic as it can currently be substantiated by 1. and 2. above.
You will note from the NPOV guidlines that it states that even if it were true that he has (or does not have) PF and it were possible to somehow prove this (ie a fan asking him the question, a photographer snapping a photo of him at the podiatrist, or a single newspaper article stating that he does or does not)...this does not mean that the VIEWPOINT that he has (or does not have) PF can be included in a discussion of the topic of his heel/foot condition.
The fact that there is no widely held viewpoint that he has (or does not have) PF which can be demonstrated by citing references that conform to the conditions outlined above bars it from inclusion. This in my opinion, is precisely the difference between publications such as tabloids and encyclopedia's. Tabloids are free to present viewpoints that may or may not be true even though the viewpoints cannot be demonstrated to be relevant/NPOV as defined by the conditions in the NPOV guidelines.
I will add the following note. I was under the impression that we were moving towards a consensus on what to do on this topic when Stanley011 suggested that we research it further ("Lets do it"). My vote is to do that and once all of the references have been assembled we can resume discussion of exactly how to present this information in the article, Tor (not the inventor of the Linux Operating System which uses the X-Windows GUI invented at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussets, USA).
I have just contacted the New York Sun and have had a most interesting conversation with a representative in their Sports departement. I will post a synopsis of this conversation (as well as my response to Redux's comments) shortly, Tor. 4:45 PM EST 4/10/2006
Good work Tor. Stanley011 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, here is the synopsis of what happened this afternoon when I contacted the New York Sun Newspaper.
My first few attempts to reach the operator listed as "0" on the menu system resulted in getting rerouted to a recording asking to leave a message. After a few more attempts the operator answered and routed my call to the Sports Dept. The individual who answered the call initially seemed helpful and ready and willing to answer questions. I immediately explained the fact that his department had published an article which stated that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis and I stated the title of the article. He asked me who I was and I explained that I was just an individual engaged in a debate on the Wikipedia website and that the information presented in his article seemed to be the only reliable reference which states that RF has PF. I stated that this fact has lead to considerable discussion on message boards and in particular on the Wikipedia website where I was engaged in the debate. I asked him if he knew what Wikipedia was and he acknowledged that he did. Once again he asked me who I was and I reiterated that I was not with any organization but rather I was just an individual engaged in a debate where the information presented in his newspaper was very much at issue.
I proceeded to explain to him the fact that because PF is not a trivial injury such as a blister, the fact that his publication had stated that RF has the condition was very much a non-trivial statement and again, has generated considerable interest. I also explained that the article which was about an entirely different topic, only mentioned the PF one time. I cited the article's title and asked the individual if he was aware of the article and in particular the fact that the article has a statement that RF has PF. The individual acknowledged that he was familiar with the article and was in fact familiar with the particular statement in it that RF has PF.
I proceeded to ask him specifically what the origin of this statement was.
He stated that Roger Federer had stated, at the Rome 2005 Press Conference, that he was withdrawing from the tournament due to plantar fasciitis.
I immediately stopped him and told him that this was precisely the information that "we" required in order to arrive at some resolution in our debate. He asked me who is "we" and I reminded him that "we" simply referred to those of us engaged in the debate on Wikipedia. I explained to him that this was all "we" really need to know for the purposes of our debate.
I then restated his statement that his newspaper's statement that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis was based on the fact that Roger Federer had stated that he had plantar fasciitis at the Rome Press Conference. He then seemed to become irritated and stated that Roger Federer did not actually say that he had plantar fasciitis but rather only stated in the press conference that the withdrawal was due to a foot condition. He then stated that Roger Federer has been "wishy-washy" on the topic of his foot condition and that he was busy and did not have any more time to discuss the issue.
I asked the individual what his name was and he refused to divulge this information and seemed to become more irritated. I then explained that I only sought to understand what the basis for the statement in the article was at which point he hung up on me.
This is what happened during the conversation to the best of my recollection. I cannot say that it is verbatim (I did not record or take notes during the conversation). I know for example that on at least 2 occasions (after he recanted) the individual stated that he was busy and didnt have time to discuss the issue. Also he asked me at least 3 times who I was. Also he specifically pointed out that the Rome tournament was a Masters tournament. I responded that yes, it was the clay court tournament in Rome.
I am 100% positive that this individual initially stated that his newspaper's statement of RF's PF was specifically based on Roger stating that he specifically had plantar fasciitis at the Rome 2005 Press Conference. I am also 100% positive that he recanted this statement and stated that Roger Federer had only stated that he had a foot condition at the conference.
Please note that I was never able to confirm that the individual that I was speaking to in the Sports Department was the original author of the article Tom Perrotta. However the individual that I spoke to (who was an adult male and probably in his 30s) was completely prepared to discuss the issue and never suggested that the issue be forwarded to anybody else within the organization. Furthermore, it was clear that the individual was someone who was very familiar with the Newspaper's Sport section content as he was able to recollect the PF statement from the January article.
Now, where to go from here.
1. Don't take my word for it
2. Here is the number that I called for the New York Sun, 212-406-2000, I would recommend that everyone engaged in this debate call the New York Sun and ask the Sports Department to please provide a reference for the statement made in the article. Noelle, Redux, I assume you are familiar with Skype. The corporate office business hours are standard North American office hours (9-5 EST or 13:00-21:00 UTC)
3. After they have provided the reference, we can resume this discussion.
4. Feel free to reference my conversation which occurred at around 4:30 PM EST (20:30 UTC) 4/10/2006 and ask the individual about anything that I have stated above (note that I did not give him a name but in case you haven't guessed I am an adult male)
Tor
As I stated before, I remember seeing that The Tennis Channel website had specifically written that Federer withdrew from Roma due to PF, but I can no longer find that section in their archives, which strongly suggests that they removed it for some reason or other, my guess is because they came across conflicting information from a reliable source. It seems that the Sun received the information that Federer had PF from the fact that Federer mentioned he had "foot problems" or pain or whatever, and then put that together with the information in that now-removed Tennis Channel website page to make the claim that Federer has pf. Perhaps the way to verify would be to contact the Tennis Channel website, asking them what led them to first include the fact that Federer had PF, and then remove that specific section. It's a shame that the Sun rep. couldn't give you a specific reason why they stated he had PF (or did give you a specific reason but then recanted) but maybe contacting TTC would yield some results. I'd be willing to do it if others think it would be a fruitful next step Stanley011 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
Are you suggesting that we, as journalists, cannot question and debate the reliability of a source?...or for that matter even question the reliability of a single piece of information (or sentence) produced by a source? We cannot do this even though you have clearly stated above that it is precisely the reliability of the source which is the issue at hand and that you would like to hear the opinions of other Wikipedia users as to the assessment of the reliability of the source? Are we not allowed to investigate for the purpose of formulating this opinion? Are we not allowed to present the results of this investigation for the purpose of discussing the reliability of the source? Is this what you are suggesting...per se?
By this rationale, everything that is published by every possible source is absolutely sacred and cannot be questioned and therefore should be included.
In my opinion this has absolutely nothing to do with original research. Originial research has to do with the submission of facts into the encylopedia which are not acquired from other sources but rather are acquired through original research.
Questioning the reliability of a source has nothing to do with submitting original information into the encyclopedia. It only has to do with making a judgment as to whether or not the information (which was not acquired through original research) should be included.
Tor
It has occurred to me that a sizeable portion of the difference of opinion here could possibly be attributed to regional differences in reporting standards and ethics. Now, with that said, I cannot speak authoritatively on the standards and practices in use for other regions such as Brazil or Portugal. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia and that in the English speaking realm there are certain traditional journalistic standards which are widely accepted. For example, the principal that in order to express a viewpoint one has to cite multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources is very common (I believe the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines reflect this). I would argue that a single, marginally independent, marginally reliable, verifiable source is not viewed as sufficient by the aforementioned standards in use within the bulk of the English speaking world. Furthermore, this principal, that multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources are required is, in my opinion, more widely accepted now than ever before given the fact that with the advent of electronic communications it is much easier for misinformation to spread with the end result of some sources no longer being independent. The other tradition that is somewhat less specific is that one should always, whenever feasible, question the source of information and whenever possible attempt to verify it. Just because a publisher can afford to print a newspaper or set up a website does not mean that every shred of information generated is correct or does not contain errors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and in fact it is encouraged among responsible journalists (or anybody who is responsible for contributing information to a document that is used as a reference and will be read by others), Tor
If you write an article that ignores the NPOV guidelines I will delete it, Tor.
We can go round and round on this...and I assure you I could continue to dissect your arguments (much of what you have stated in your last several posts I have already dissected mentally but have not keyed in). Also, you can continue to insist that there is no element of journalism in the work that is done here...that is: integrity is irrelevant...which is fine by me...I can only voice my opinion (of course I can also delete what I feel is not NPOV). You have stated that a single sentence in a reputable publication is sufficient to establish that a commonly held viewpoint exists on a generalized subject (ie this sentence can be extrapolated to support the existence of a generalized, commonly held viewpoint) and that this is Wikipedia official policy. If that is the case I ask that you please provide some additional support for this statement as it will certainly factor in to my understanding of the NPOV guidelines.
Finally you will notice from your last statement above...you concluded with the following:
" all we need to do is write a NPOV paragraph about the situation, approaching all the existing, verifiable theories"
This in my opinion illustrates your lack of understanding of this matter.
There are no "verifiable theories".
None have ever been submitted in the course of this discussion.
Have you read the entire discussion?
Are you familiar with the references that have been submitted?
The (2) verifiable, contradictory statements that have been submitted are not
"theories".
They are statements.
Furthermore it is not the place of a Wikipedia researcher to construct theories
as this is precisely what original research is.
"Theories" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
We are not citing references for a Stephen Hawking article on Black Holes.
Tor
Redux, <sigh>, Did you just edit out your "theories" statement from the public record? Its gone as of 3:54 UTC 4/12/06 and the edit history of this page shows no user edits removing it. Tor 3:56 UTC 4/12/06
I am not being sarcastic. This is a very serious issue. You have not answered my question. Please answer my question. Yes or No will suffice. Did you delete the portion of text from your 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) post above that contains the word "theories"? Tor, 14:43 UTC 4/12/06
Redux, my sincere apologies. It appears that I made the error in removing the statement when I cut and pasted the portion of text in the heat of battle. Note that for much of this discussion this has been a 1 vs 3 debate and has required considerable effort on my part to maintain. And I must confess, that when you call a newspaper, and you talk to a representative who makes a statement and then immediately recants it...it does start to make you wonder if there isnt a conspiracy. But I can tell you sincerely that I have no desire to think of conspiracies existing on Wikipedia. Again, I apologize if my previous statements came across as accussations.
Also, please understand....when I called the Newspaper, it was in an effort to bring some closure to this matter. I can honestly tell you...I was relieved when the individual told me that the source of the information was from the Rome press conference, because I knew that this was a piece of information that we could probably verify. The transcript of the press conference for example might exist somewhere (perhaps on an Italian Web sight). So this phone call, which did not involve my computer at all, could have pointed to a source which existed on a Web site which could then be easily cited as a reference in the article...thereby bringing closure to this entire debate. The viewpoint that Roger Federer had Plantar Fasciitis would have been clearly established by not 1, but 2 reliable sources (with the second source being far more impressive in my opinion). So digging for facts doesnt always have to involve sitting at the computer..even for facts that could ultimately be referenced electronically.
I have not written a paragraph on this subject and inserted it into the article because I dont feel that there are enough references to substantiate any other commonly held viewpoint then the fact that he had some type of foot condition. In the realm of Men's Professional tennis, players have numerous minor nagging types of injuries in the course of their career. Also, due to the length of the ATP tour and the considerable number of tournaments, players withdraw from tournaments frequently for various reasons, many times as a result of minor injuries. Im not sure if they are really all that relevant in an encyclopedia article unless they are something chronic like PF which could be very relevant as it pertains to the players career. Please note that I used the word nagging before to describe my perception of what this injury was. I feel there is a very big difference between nagging and chronic with the latter being something that the player will definitely have for his entire career and the former being something that could pop up from time to time, but may go away permanently.
The issues of whether or not the condition is chronic and how debilitating it is are in my opinion the most important things that should be addressed in a paragraph discussing his foot condition. But I dont feel, that at the present time, there are enough references to establish any widely held viewpoint on these important issues.
My fundamental problem with including the viewpoint that Roger specifically has or had PF in an
article on his foot condition is the following:
At the present time, in order to do so, one has to take a single sentence, and cite it as a reference to substantiate that there is a common, widely held viewpoint. This just seems contrary to NPOV to me. The same thing would have to be done to present the opposing viewpoint. I just dont think this merits the inclusion of these viewpoints. I feel that more references are required.
It doesnt help of course that while we have been engaged in this debate he has won two hard court (tough on the feet) Masters tournaments (96 draw) back-to-back with apparently no foot problems whatsoever (that I am aware of). I checked the following site which further complicates the issue:
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/fact/thr_report.cfm?Thread_ID=144&topcategory=Foot
Which is by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and it suggests that the condition can be cured if treated early.
All this makes me wonder if any speculation at the present time should be on whether or not he HAD it rather then whether or not he HAS it. It also makes me wonder if, treated PF is really a chronic condition and if it is all that relevant to a players career. I have never heard of this condition before in the realm of Mens Pro Tennis (or anywhere else for that matter).
I would once again cast my vote, that we research this matter further in an attempt to acquire more references so that we can write a paragraph that can include the more general viewpoints on whether or not the condition (whatever it is) is chronic in nature and if possible the more specific viewpoints on exactly what the condition might be (eg plantar fasciitis). The discussion should have some references to Medical texts. The purpose of the paragraph would be to provide insight into what impact the condition could have on his career. Also, it would be very relevant to compile a precise list (with references) of the tournaments that he has had to withdraw from citing this condition as the cause.
I also give you my word that I will respect whatever consensus is arrived at here and that I will not alter any content that conforms to this consensus.
Tor.
Does the stats included in the table includes his ATP qualifying matches? If so, where can one find them? If not, probably a note should be made to that effect. Thanks.
Qualifying scores are usually not presented as relevant results for a player who is established on the main tour (its been a while since Roger has had to play qualies). There are other matches such as exhibition, team tennis, Challenger, etc that probably also fit in this category. However, the entire topic of entry (and qualifying) on the ATP tour is an interesting one which might be worthy of a unique article, Tor.
Famous matches does not necessarily translate to a 5-set match, a tournament finals match, or even a personal milestone. These matches are what fans remember long after. I couldn't comprehend why such matches as the one with Tommy Haas in the 2006 Australian Open became famous... If one would just reason out that because it is his 400th career win, then we might as well include his 300th, 200th, 100th and even 50th career win. If one would say that it is because he is seldom stretched to a 5th set in a match, then this particular match pales in comparison to the 5th set win over Nadal in the Miami final, or the 5th set loss to Safin in the previous year's Australian Open, and to Naldandian in the ATP Masters Cup. It didn't necessarily show anything special, like Federer's mental mettle (like him coming back from a tiebreak in the 3rd set in the Miami final against Nadal). The achievement because of winning the match (i.e. a milestone in career win, a "double" with respect to winning a previous tournament, or winning that tournament multiple times) does not necessarily translate to that match being famous. For example, his victory over Philippoussis for his first Wimbledon title is not that memorable. We remember Federer winning the title, but his opponent across the net, even the quality of the match is hardly remembered. I would have a better memory recalling his semifinal match against Roddick. The comment for the match is not even appropriate, "This was Federer's first Grand Slam final win, and the beginning of his dominance in men's tennis." It is true that it was his first Grand Slam, but it didn't marked his dominance, for Roddick dominated the rest of the year and ended as #1. It would be more proper to place the comment in association with his Masters Cup victory later on the same year, when he beat the reigning Australian, French and US Open champions.
I added Other Milestone Matches as a new section, incorporating matches from the famous Matches section and also adding the missing major tournaments. I also added Roger Federer's first ATP match and first ATP win, which I worked out from the ATP website- I thought that they were important milestones. I wasn't sure about whether the 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 Ljubicic match should be in the Famous Matches (I wouldn't have thought it compared to other matches such as the AO 2005 Safin match), or in the Milestones (It was not much of a milestone, compared to a Grand Slam win). I put it in milestones since it was the completion of the IW- Miami double double, a unique feat- however, by that note surely his 3rd straight Indian Wells victory, again a unique feat, should be in there as well? Anyway, I tried to divide them up fairly and adding sources for the more extended matches which I added. The Haas Match I included only by virtue of it being the 400th career win, as I agree that the 100th, 200th match win etc should be added, but without the other century milestones it seems out of place (which was why I added the ATP first match played and won). Hopefully someone can clarify whether they think that having a separate section for less thrilling, but notable, matches is a good idea. OSmeone 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The infobox was broken so I filled it in with Federer's career singles win-loss record (from his ATP page). The doubles w-l record isn't available per se on the ATP site but I manually counted his doubles results from here. Please feel free to check my arithmetic: I counted 101-66 but I might have gotten cross-eyed on something. :) -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is always a summary of the doubles record per player on their player profiles in ATP, under the Career Review section. Roger's record currently stands at 101-64. Joey80 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The following section seems to be original research and speculation. It also has no sources.
How should it be improved? Should it even be kept? Discuss. -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi i'm the original author of the text, and as you can see i've put it back. i can provide photographic evidence if necessary to support every claim i have made about the racket federer uses as opposed to the stock ncode tour 90. what i was referring to as speculatoin is whether the tour 90 pj and the ncode pj he used and currently uses respectfully are indeed the same racket. that i cannot unequivacobly prove. my purpose in writing this article is to prevent potential consumers into misinformedly buying a product without knowing that the real roger federe racket is unavailable to the public. --Nanonugget
This user has only added useless, and slightly offensive, comments to this article,such as: 'Roger is a very cocky tennis player, he thinks he is the king, eventually he always got beaten by Rafael Nadal on clay court.' How can they be blocked or preventing from adding to this article? I don't know much about that process, so could someone please help out? Thanks. OSmeone 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw that someone took down the australian open logo from the list of men's champions citiing unfair excessive use in a template. I know that this should be added to a template discussion, but I don't think that anyone actually checks them and the editors here have been very helpful. So should the logo be replaced, or should all the logos be removed from the template boxes> Thanks OSmeone 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that Federer's overall performance here deserves elaboration (though I'm not sure if this elaboration should be placed under the Milestone category or the general article). This marked the beginning of his dominance (though this might need some articles to fully be established). It included victory over Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi--the other reigning Grand Slam champions for the year. It saw him climb the rankings from #3 to #2 (his year-end ranking). And he defeated Nalbandian and Agassi for the first time in his professional career. Joey80 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just mention the final, then add something like, 'on the way to this title Federer defeated ... for the first time, marking a milestone in his professional career' or something. Feel free to do it, I was going to do so when I made the milestone section (which is where it should go, as it isn't that famous) because I believ all his majors should be noted. OSmeone 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that some editors (registered or unregistered) are too excited to find out what new record Federer has set. The performance timeline (specifically, win-loss record on some surface) is updated whenever he wins a match. Unfortunately, such an update may be incomplete (e.g. the editor might miss updated the career win-loss, current year's win-loss, or in the case of Grand Slams, the Grand Slam win-loss). In other words, such petty editing by adding "1" to the number wins or losses result to confusion and double counting. How about including a note that the timeline is current as of this time, or that it is updated only when his participation in the tournament or the tournament has concluded? Joey80 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This section has been repeatedly added by User:Classfriends and 58.186.33.101 and then deleted. the section is as follows:
LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER 2006
Ivo Minar, Fabrice Santoro, Marko Baghdatis, Tommy Haas, Gael Monfils, Denis Istomin, Florian Mayer, Max Mirnyi, Nikolay Davydenko, Nicolas Kiefer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Mohammed Al Ghareeb, Robin Vik, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Massu, Olivier Rochus, Richard Gasquet, Ivan Ljubicic, Paradorn Srichaphan, James Blake, Arnaud Clement, Dmitry Tursunov, David Ferrer, Alberto Martin, Benjamin Balleret, David Ferrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Juan Chela, Potito Starace, Radek Stepanek, Nicolas Almagro, David Nalbandian, Diego Hartfield, Alejandro Falla, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic, Rohan Bopanna.
I don't think that this section is necessary; anyone who wants to know who has been beaten by Federer can look on the ATP Website. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is why I sugest that this section should not be a part of the main article. OSmeone 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered this match while watching a replay of these players' match-up in last year's Wimbledon, although I am not well-informed about this Davis Cup match (i.e. didn't watch it, didn't follow it, etc.). What I remember though was Federer was leading 2 sets, then 5-3 in the third, before Hewitt came back and win it in 5. I am not sure though if this can be included in his significant matches (i.e. it is a significant one for Hewitt and for Australia, being a Davis Cup match--not to mention being his last win over Federer). In any case, I need your feedback if this should be included. Since this is a loss, then it will likely be placed as a memorable/milestone match in the page of the victor, not the loser. Then again, if the circumstances and quality of the match was superb, even for the side of the loser (e.g. Federer's loss to Safin in 2005 Australian Open, his loss to Nalbandian in 2005 Tennis Masters Cup--despite coming back in the fifth set, his loss to Nadal in 2006 French Open--although Federer was not quite himself there, the place of that match in history is unquestionable so that it should be placed even in the article of the loser), then that Davis Cup match can be included in this page.-- Joey80 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed 'New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year' to 'New Zealand People's Choice International Sportsperson of the Year' per discussion with User talk:Wallie (source [10]). I don't, however, know if this award is important enough to include. Ziggurat 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Who has time to do this? I suggest the site be edited after every game point. Juveboy 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Roger Federer is the greatest player alive. Fittingly, he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, and will win the most Grand Slam titles of all time. In 2007, he will become only the 3rd player in history to win the Grand Slam in a calender year. Roger Federer rules!
Amit 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just glanced around various tennis player pages, and there doesn't seem to be a standard format for displaying career results. The infobar helps with the peaks of a player's career, but there's a lot of huge lists, even for minor players like Andy Murray. I would start writing one, if I had the slightest idea how to. Could someone tackle this, or point me at the relevant help pages?
-- Shinydan 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the table formats used on this page (the table with the majors and TMS results and the table with a list of all career titles highlighted by stature) are the most visually appealing. OSmeone 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In the case an editor decides to include Roger's first round win in Wimbledon 2006 against Richard Gasquet, note that it was not just a milestone match in terms of earning the longest grass court winning streak, but also his 100th Grand Slam win. I'm not really sure how important his 100th Grand Slam win is--maybe it can be put into perspective (i.e. some players have their 100th win because of longevity, others because of their dominance). Also, note that he himself commented that his recent match against Mario Ancic was "incredible", though I still have to read some comments among tennis fans and experts how well that match stands out in terms of the quality (I wasn't able to watch the entire match due to the rain).-- Joey80 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roger Federer defeats Rafael Nadal for his 8th Grand Slam title, and his 4th consecutive Wimbledon title. Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in 4 sets. Roger Federer eyes his 9th Grand Slam title in August in New York City at the US Open. -- Amit
This victory (and score) is mentioned three times in the subsection "2006 and beyond" and one is a detailed, very POV-like description. Not good for an encyclopedic article.-- HJ 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In the past, I have contributed to sections like this in biographic articles of tennis players (I don't believe I did here, but I've done it in other articles). Since then, however, and in light of discussions held on unrelated topics, but which involved the nature of POV, I've come to understand that this listing of "famous matches", or "memorable matches", or however it is being called, is actually a POV-ridden section. Quite simply, in order to list a match as "famous", "memorable" or anything of the sort, we need at least one reputable source attributing this "status" to the match, or else this is a Wikipedia user's own interpretation of a match, which constitutes POV and original research, thus being inadmissible in our articles. It's simple: if anyone is to attribute a match the status of "famous", or "memorable", Wikipedia cannot be the primary source attributing this characteristic to the match, regardless of aspects such as the match's duration or score. We need external sources to be linked from the article, or I'm afraid the entries will need to be removed. Thank you, Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"As of July the 10th, 2006, Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 128 consecutive weeks. This is the third longest streak in history, surpassing the total of Pete Sampras (fourth), who held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98. Only Jimmy Connors (160 weeks) and Ivan Lendl (157 weeks) have had longer uninterrupted runs at the top." "he holds the fourth-longest consecutive stay in the World No. 1. Only Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl have had longer unbroken streaks at number one." Contradiction =) Doidimais Brasil 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
"He is the third player in the history of ATP Rankings to rank No. 1 every week during two calendar years (others: Connors and Lendl)." I think Federer doesn't reached this yet, during 2004 Roddick was no. 1 but at the year end Federer was nº. 1, so it leads us that until Federer reachs the year of 2006 in #1 that feature will not be completed.
Bproof
13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Or didn't you mean 2 consecutive calendar years? If so, maybe you're right
I just changed the years to 2005 and 2006. This is with the assumption that Roger is locked to finish all of 06 as the #1, which may or may not be the case. The record is pointless if it is merely that Roger is the 3rd person to have 104 straight weeks at #1 - jai
"Federer was born in Basel, Switzerland in the small city citation needed of Binningen, to Robert Federer and Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel properly, in suburban Münchenstein." On his official page and other biographies it is said he was born in Basel, and a list of Basel hospitals does not list Binningen as having an appropriate hospital. So where does the Binningen information come from? -- Railk 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Are these sections really necessary? It doesn't contribute to the overall article except in terms of lengthening it. These sections contain the venue, the opponent (with the accompanying flag) and the score in the final, which is exactly similar to the Titles section. Then again, I prefer the Titles section, with its color coded scheme and well as a summary table before detailing his title by tournament classification and surface. I understand that a Grand Slam singles finals section might be necessary, even though those matches are also contained in the titles section because of the importance of such titles (i.e. how many Grand Slam one has won is always included in the introductory paragraph of a tennis player's article, not to mention that in this case, there is an assertion that Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis player, hence, such a section complements and emphasizes that). Joey80 12:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I also second this. I think the "performance timeline" and titles section is more than enough; this page could definitely lose some length in favor of succinctness. Macbrother 01:08, 16 August (UTC)
I have a magazine which states that his favorite flavor is strawberry. I stated the interview in the references part. If anyone can reference it better than I did just ask and ill give any info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearingbreaker92 ( talk • contribs) .
80.200.221.128 reversed the timeline here and on other pages, placeing more recent years on the right. Someone says it is more intuitive this way, but I disagree. Most timelines I have seen had recent years on the right, and I think this should not have been changed, especially if we consider the Agassi timeline. However I have not reverted yet, but want to see some opinion from others. There is also a new earnings table with the number of different titles, but it is redundant, the titles are in the timeline. The yearly earnings could also be placed in the timeline, but I think it is unnecessary and unimportant. I will remove the table if there is no good objection. Scineram 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I too think that its rather strange to have the timeline "go backwards." The Sampras page goes forward, and I think that should be the standard. The timeline should be like a real timeline, following forward chronological order from left to right. It really is more intuitive--how many timelines have you seen where the more recent dates are to the left of the older dates? I think its just keeping to classic timeline form to have it moving ---> this way, rather than <---- this way. -- Flute138 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this:
"Recently during a match at the Pilot Pen Open in New Haven, Connecticut, Federer yelled, "S**T!" so loud that everyone at the stadium and anyone watching the match on television could hear. This rare outburst drew several chuckles, and Federer quickly apologized and was not penalized for the rare outburst."
from the trivia section. Federer doesn't play the Pilot Pen, there was no citation, and I couldn't verify it online with a quick google check, so I assume this was about another player or made up. - Jai
The event in question actually occured at Toronto (Rogers Master)...but anyway, I really don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia anyway...-- Flute138 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Trivia could have it, and a link to youtube video. XD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BIe35skSU Scineram 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Your apology for flying off the handle and unthinkingly accusing me of vandalism is accepted - this time. Don't let it ever happen again. Tennis expert 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
He clearly will be number 1 for many, many months to come, even if he never plays again and/or dies in that timeframe. Might as well just extrapolate and say he will be first until at least X date, Y amount of weeks. etc. Ernham 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I did this math. See the "Federer breaks 160..." section below. Added it to the article but someone seems to have deleted it without giving any reason.
Someone has changed the entries in the performance timeline. Was this intentional vandalism or just a failure? Could someone change it back?
On the French version of this article, they have highlight International Series tournaments differently to the International Series Gold tournaments, which are slightly more prestigious. Do you think that it would be a good idea to do so here? OSmeone 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Source: atptennis.com, rankings pages, calendar pages and tournament profile pages.
As of Nov 13, 2006 Federer is 8120, Nadal is 4270. He has already won one match in the Master's Cup and so his minimum for that event is 100. Nadal's maximum is 650 (he lost one match).
Even if Federer wins nothing and doesn't even play any further matches, and Nadal plays and wins everything on the ATP calendar (Doha, Sydney, Australian Open, Marseille, Memphis), Nadal can't catch Federer through Feb 26, 2007.
Federer: 8120 + 100 (Master's Cup) - 250 (Doha) - 1000 (Australian Open) = 6470.
Nadal: 4270 + 650 (Master's Cup)+ 250-20 (Doha replaces Stockholm in best 5 other) + 175-55 (Sydney replaces Queen's Club in best 5 other) + 1000 (Australian Open) + 200-90 (Marseille replaces Marseille 06) + 250-175 (Memphis replaces Sydney in best 5 other) = 6455.
So as of Monday Feb 26 when Dubai starts, Federer will still be ahead of Nadal. His streak will be 161 weeks by then, beating Connors' world record of 160 weeks.
I am surprised. Roger Federer does not deserve this utmost respect! He is a downful sin to man kind. He his rood, arrogant, and dumb once he loses. When he wins, however, he loves to brag and find faults to blame on the other opponent. 67.86.24.40 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a section titled above as an expansion of trivia section to include the list of players that have got a bagel set from Roger Federer. It is now removed ironically with the comment that it is a trivial section! Can you explain why? It has the potential to expand as Roger is giving bagel sets to just about every player he now meets.
I'm going to try to resolve this here, there's no reason to engage in an edit war. The dispute is whether it should say "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 2-6, 6-3, 3-6", or "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 6-2, 3-6, 6-3." I'll explain why the first option is the correct one. The primary subject in the sentence is Federer, therefore it would be incorrect to say that the first set was 6-2 because that would mean Federer won the first set, which of course did not happen. Here you can find a source which agrees with my argument: [12] Dionyseus 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are currently 2 separate "Trivia" section on this page, one before the match lists and one at the end. Also, what is meant under the first trivia section by "In 1999, Federer became the youngest player (18 years, 4 months) in the ATP ranking's year end top 100." Youngest how? 18 years shouldn't be the youngest to reach top 100 in ATP rankings.
Concerning this line: Along with Justine Henin-Hardenne who lost the women's final of the U.S. Open, it was the first time in the history of tennis that both a man and a woman had reached all four Grand Slam singles finals within a calendar year.
Shouldn't it be explicitly pointed out that it was the same man and the same woman who made it to the finals of all four majors? Not just a man and a woman?
This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
September 2006-January 2007
Like I have mentioned on the talk pages of other articles regarding big name tennis players, everyone agrees that the header should not descend into a list of streaks, statistics, and random achievements. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting one or two major career attributes unique to a particular player. Why is okay for "repetitious trivia" about Sampras's long and impressive stay at number one and his Wimbledon record to be kept in his article's header, but similar information ought to be deleted from Federer's? Just because something is repeated deep within an article does not mean it is not valuable enough to include in the header. Federer has piled up a mound of eye-popping stats and statistics; not every one should be at the top of the page. But a couple of unique ones do deserve inclusion in the header, and I am putting them back in. BrandoPolo 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted "He became the first player to win Grand Slam events (Wimbledon & US Open) the year after having won three Grand Slam events in the same year." from trivia as Roy Emerson (64/65), Lew Hoad (56/57) and Fred Perry (34/35) acchieved that before. 84wb 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this initial record cited in this article is incorrect. As far as I can tell, Boris Becker was ranked 65th in the world year end in 1985 at 18 years, 1 month.
Jakewvulaw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)==Criticism?==
I think people too often praise Federer for what he's accomplished and never really do anything other than praise. Shouldn't there be a criticism part as well? One of the older players definitely had some stuff to say about Federer, about how Federer's competition isn't really up to par (and I think it was Ivanisevic, though I'm probably wrong); not to mention Mary Carillo has even stated in live broadcasts that all Federer does is play baseliners since no one comes to net much anymore. Even during the US Open final this year, Roddick didn't come up to net that much, and when he did, it often failed. Also, Haas has made statements negating Federer a bit.
Basically, is there anywhere or anyway we can add in something to add in a "criticism" part?
Unless there is any official criticism that is cited, I don't think we should.
Should we add something about the current rivalry between Federer and Nadal? I scanned the article and couldn't find a section on it. Akshayaj 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wilson's advertisement has reappeared in the players page. I have removed it. Inventingfacts
Contrary to popular belief, Federer plays with a racquet with a "paint job" to make it look as though he uses the n6.1 Tour. It is believed that he might use a custom mold of a racquet similiar to the n6.1, but he seems to have a wider string pattern. "Paint jobs" are rather common in tennis, and the sponsor, of course, markets the supposed racquet as the one the player uses. Lleyton Hewitt does not use the RDX500, and Safin does not use the Liquid Metal Prestige (infact, nearly all pros that "seem" to use the Liquid Metal Prestige, do not). A modification to present the facts to the reader would be appropriate, but if this is not possible, the page will not self destruct. :p There are several threads about this at [1]. Any person(s) interested in investing time to research the topic beyond my knowledge would be greatly appreciated for the article. I would gladly do so, but I think that my approach would be rather skeptical, and I do not have adequate Wikipedia experience. Thank you for reading!
Hi, some time ago i wrote an article explaining this, the section dealing withteh paint job was removed unwisely by an editor. i have put it back however. thank you for your concern. --Nanonugget
Yes, I'm a member of Talk Tennis I saw your thread. This is quite outrageous and should be handled as necessary. To the moderator removing, could you please refute your deletes?
Why was this allowed to be included: "Roger Federer officially uses the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90 tennis racquet. This is the first tennis racquet to utilize nanotechnology, which according to Wilson's promotional literature is twice as strong and twice as stable as traditional racquets, yielding 22% more power, as well as added control and a greater life span." Has the proof of this appeared in a comparative industry survey or scientific journal? Why are no details provided about the claims? Isn't this just an advertisement by a manufacturer? Has an article substantiating these claims appeared in a trusted source like a newspaper or racquet industry publications? If so, where are the references? In the absence of any proof, this is just marketing material and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.48.120 ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks, Noelle and Redux. If no one names the source, please remove it as you have suggested. I am not familiar with the protocols.
Hey you guys, Nanonugget/chiru here. I hope you're talking about the stuff thats currently there. as far as the first paragraph is concerned, i don't think you need a citation for any of that information except for the wilson promo stuff, i hope thats all thats required. as far as teh second paragraph. thats from the nate ferguson interview, adn i'm not quite sure how to cite that. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/priority1.html thats the link if you'd like to do it yourself, or tell me how either way its find with me. the players racket stuff, well thats from a combination of http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Features/9908NateFerguson.html where ferguson talks about how using a heavy players racket is an indication of skill in regards to sampras. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/catthumbs.html?CREF=160 this classifies it as a player's racket according to common industrial classification. I'm not sure if any further citation is needed, most of this stuff, as I said, may not be in CNN or Time Magazine, but its perfectly true, verifiable, and unless you accept such sources, you're going to have to remove the entire equipment section, as well as basically any subjective look at federer, in terms of his playing style, famous matches, the possibility of him being the GOAT. etc.
Yes, I was talking only about the Wilson promo stuff. That one needs to be deleted if not substantiated.
Time to remove the promotional material?
Hi. I'm sorry but this article is looking a lot like a news page, which is kind of not the point. For instance, when it states: "Federer is currently at the top of the ATP Tour rank", that's news because it reflect the state of affairs in late 2003/early 2004, but the article is supposed to be around for a long time, and sometime in the near future Federer will no longer be the world nº1. Perhaps that sort of observation should go as a note in the "career" section of the article, and even so it would have to be reworded to read something like: "as of 2004 Federer is the nº1 player" — and once he loses that condition, it would have to be altered to something like "he was the nº1 player between January 2004 and – let's say – March 2005". Furthermore, it would be nice to have more biographic information heading the article. Regards, Redux 21:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, he's still #1. Feeeshboy 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
True, but they still shouldn't put it. It's biased. What about Sampras or Agassi? Dyna 12:30 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I put the NPOV dispute template because someone has dedicated himself to decribe Federer as...well, short of a machine, as this person practically says ("Federer is not a machine"). So, we need to keep a close eye on this one. For Zaheen:Arguably the greatest player ever" is ok in my opinion. Arguably means that it can be argued, + I use that word a lot of times in the articles I write. Antonio Mental Case Martin 15:09 25 JAN 2005 (MST)...rainy day in Arizona ..hehe
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2003/wimbledon/news/2003/07/04/roddick_problems_ap/
Zaheen 01:35, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
User:203.177.51.219 10:53, 27 January 2005 (UTC)
CHIRU I GOT UR BACK
What racquet Roger Federer acually uses is a custom racquet combining the traits of the Wilson Pro Staff Tour 90 and the Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 Original 85. The racquet that Wilson Sporting Goods claims Federer uses is the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90. Roger does not use this racquer, sorry to break it to you.
The racquet the Federer uses has a 88 inch head. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 90 inch head and the Pro Staff 6.0 Original (which Federer grew up using and is the racquet Pete Sampras used throughtout his career) is a 85 inch head. The width of Federer's racquet's beam is 16.5 mm (like the old China made 6.0 Orginal, but only the China version, which Federer used). The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 17 mm beam. The handle area of his racquet is the one on the 6.0 Original is not like the one on the nSix-One Tour 90.
Other specs about his racquet is that the shape of his handle is different from the one on the nSix-One Tour 90. His handles are custom molded by Nate Ferguson. The custom racquet weighs in at 357g while the nSix-One Tour 90 (the one Wilson claims he uses) weighs in at 352g. Also the paint pattern on the custom Federer racquet is slightly different from the one on nSix-One Tour 90. The balance on his racquet is dead even while the nSix-One Tour is 9pts head light. The nSix-One Tour 90 has a 16x19 string pattern. The custom Federer racquet also has a 16x19 pattern but the spacing between the grommets (and therefore the strings) is different. The sweetsport area on his racquet is more open.
Now his accessories. The grip Federer uses is leather. It is either Wilson Leather Grip or (what I think is right...) the Fairway Leather Grip. The Fairway is a legendary grip that is discontinued. It is the highest quality leather grip and Federer grew up using it. Now the overgrip he uses is Wilson Pro Overgirp (thats the white one). He also uses Babolat Elastocross 2 string savers. The strings he uses are Wilson Natural Gut 16 and Luxilon Big Banger ALU-Power Rough 16L. He strings the Wilson Gut on the mains (the up and down strings) and the Luxilon on the crosses (side to side), dispite popular belief that he uses Luxilon mains and git crosses (he doesn't). The Wilson Natural Gut is the same thing as Babolat Natural Gut. Babolat is the top maker in gut and Wilson Gut is just the same thing repackaged. Wilson buys their gut from Babolat. Federer used to use Babolat Gut until Wilson paid him to use their gut (which is the same). And Federer uses "power pads" (these are not sold by Wilson and are generic). They are leather pads on the bottom grommets. You put them in while striging and they used to use power pads all the time in the wooden racquet days. It serves the same purpose as a vibration dampener. Also the grip on Federer's racquet is short because he uses a one-handed backhand (so the extra grip won't bother him).
As for the "nCode" nanotechnology. It's not real. Wilson's definition of nCode is "When a racquet is nCoded nano-sized silicone oxide crystals permeate the voids between the carbon fibers". What is silicone oxide? It doesn't exist. Wilson acually spelled it wrong. What they meant was silicon oxide (aka silica). What's that then? It's sand. Basically they grind sand into nano-sized bits and throw some into the resin matrix. And it doesn't do anything but kill the feedback of the frame (which is a very bad thing).
The composition of the nSix-One Tour is "10% nCoded Hyper Carbon / 70% nCoded High Modulus Graphite / 20% Kevlar". What I think it Federer uses is "80% Graphite 20% Kevlar" which is the composition of the 6.0 Original. Federer grew up with the 6.0 and would not want to change it. The reason I believe that Federer's racquet is not "nCoded" is because Federer's game (which is extremely string) requires maximum feel for the ball. nCode would just take that away from him. And the 6.0 Original composition is known to give great feel.
But don't go asking WIlson to admit that Federer doesn't use a nSIx-One Tour 90. They WILL NOT admit it. Frankly no one really cares because no one really knows. They've been using old racquets painted as new racquets for a long time (these are called "paintjobs", remember that). If you want to know more players using painjobs, go ask around. If you want to sue Wilson, go ahead (but it's a rather stupid thing to do). But if you win, make sure to give me some of the dough because I told you first (this only applies if I acually did tell you first).
I moved the below here as no copyrighted source was found. Is the text familiar to anyone here? -- Infrogmation 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i belive federer is the greatest player ever to live he is simply magnificent
I'm told by people (and I agree :p) that I look a lot like this guy, but I don't suppose that's interesting information, since I'm no celebrity :-) Wouter Lievens 13:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One of my checks says 302. Can you confirm or quote source? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2003/30/Sport_2fFederer Ram (FedererMagic) 20:04, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
Is Roger just Swiss, or since his mother is South African, and he spends a great deal of time there, should he be listed as: Swiss-South African? WikiDon 22:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The size of this article has passed the limit of normal Wikipedia managability. The Roger's "stats" will most likely need to be moved to a separate article. Thoughts? WikiDon 11:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Roger Federer#Career and Roger Federer#Records and trivia can be merged? It's basically the same information anyway, and will help shorten the article by simply stating how many times Federer has defended a certain title. Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 15:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales himself came over to this article and removed the image that used to be here, he then proceded to delete the image from the servers. He did that, as explained by him on the summary in the Deletion log, because the copyright holders of that image (or someone who represented them) contacted him directly to complain about the image being used here. People, please do not upload copyrighted images, they cannot be used on Wikipedia. I realize there's a lot of newcomers who contribute to this article, so I wanted to explain here why the image was removed and why it cannot be reinserted — as well as that other images with similar copyrights status also cannot be used. In the case of this particular image that was just removed by Jimbo, if it resurfaces on this article again, I'm sorry but I will delete it again on sight, so please don't do it (don't re-upload it, and certainly don't post it on this or any other article). Regards, Redux 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
So the article on Roger Federer's style of play was deleted? To me, it's that depth of information in the articles that make wikipedia so valuable. As someone who started watching some tennis and wondered why everyone seemed to be speaking this guy's name in such hushed tones, the style piece was a lot more illuminating than a page of tournament stats. User:71.192.242.135 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone recently added the following text concerning Federer's playing style to the article. Since it isn't NPOV I commented it out and suggested a rewrite. I figured it would be relevant to place it here. I don't know exactly what to do with it either, since the style article was deleted.
Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since I'm an anonymous contributor, it would seem my opinion doesn't matter...in case I'm wrong though, and somebody considers what I say, here's my stance. I'm pretty sure the majority of Wikipedia readers aren't members who contribute quality content. They're readers. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and by its very nature geared toward the reader, it's their opinions that matter. I visited this article for the sole purpose of reading about Federer's style, and was sorely disappointed to see it was not addressed, when style IS addressed for other notable players. If the readers want to read about a player's style, who are you to deny them on the basis of nobody showing up to vote on it?
I also agree that there has to be some discussion of playing style. This should be included for every player's article. There are unique aspects of each players games which are undisputed facts...ie Fabrice Santoro hits with two hands off both sides. This discussion must be included. The paragraph above is of course too generic...that does not mean that a more analytical and objective discussion cannot be created, Tor.
Here is a sample discussion I have created, please comment.
Federer has an all-court playing style and is known for being able to hit virtually all of the fundamental shots with exceptional proficiency. He has stated that the one shot he would like to improve his proficiency in is the dropshot. Like many modern players he uses a semi-western grip for his forehand. He has a one-handed backhand from which he tends to hit fairly equal amounts of topspin and slice. His serve is known for being difficult to read due to the fact that he is able to disguise its delivery by maintaining a consistent ball toss placement. His first serve delivery speed is typically in the 125 MPH range, with his second serve typically being a heavy kicking delivery. His footwork and court coverage are exceptional and he is considered to be one of the fastest movers in the game. Perhaps the most unique part of Federers game is his tactical ability to effectively implement different strategies for the differing opponents by synthesizing a style of play using his arsenal of shots which is precisely the style of play most difficult for his opponent to counter. This spectrum of game styles ranges from pure baseline to pure serve-and-volley with many styles in between, Tor.
Added a section for playing style, containing some of the info from here. I actually come to wikipedia for all players looking for info on thier playing style... perhaps this could eventually become its own overall subtitle. Anys, hope this doesn't cause an upset... just trying to get the playing style ball rolling. Knowsitallnot 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Federer was never the youngest ever in top 100 (and neither was Gasquet, for that matter). Youngest since official rankings started in 1973 was Aaron Krickstein, who finished 1983 at #94 at age 16y 4m. I edited the ATP page regarding this as well.
It was listed in his career match statistics that his 2005 record for carpet is 0-0. Note that the surface for the Tennis Masters Cup is Taraflex (Carpet) -- refer to the ATP website. That's why a player (was it Ljubicic?) compared the surface to the one used in the Paris Masters (carpet). Which means that he is actually 4-1 in carpet this season. This also means that his winning streak in hardcourt is still active, because it was not even at stake in the tournament in the first place.
Some places seem to list it as hardcourt... strange...
In the past day or two, IP address 165.123.150.62 has added statements about Federer being one of the greatest players of all time. I reverted the first change because the statement was unsupported by sources. 165.123.150.62 then made two revisions about the "greatest of all time" tag, the latter adding a qualifier to the statement by stating John McEnroe and Rod Laver as the source of that assessment. [2] The last revision by the IP address reverted to the version I had earlier reverted the article to. [3]
I think statements about "greatest of all time" tend to make the article not NPOV, especially since it's only been five years since Federer began playing on the pro tour. Noelle De Guzman 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In this matter, if it is wideley accepted that McEnroe and Laver have said this, it would be acceptable to state the fact that they have made these statements. We are not calling Federer the greatest, Laver and McEnroe are. I personally cannot provide written references as to McEnroe and Laver stating this however I do recall Laver commenting somewhere about either Federer being the greatest or having the potential to be the greatest. If Laver did say this and a specific reference can be cited (ie he said it on an ESPN broadcast during a particular match) then I believe it should be included because Laver is widely regarded as one of, if not, the greatest players of all time and his opinion in the matter is relevant, Tor.
why not have a section on "notable quotes" for Federer? That way we can include those greatest of all time comments without vioalting NPOV.
Since this article is already quite long, I'm not sure adding match scores to the year's summary of activities is going to do anything except lengthen it.
I suggest the relevant sections just have a link to Federer's ATPTennis.com activity sheet. Noelle De Guzman 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way we can report this IP? The user keeps vandalizing the article by adding the nonsense lines "His occurs are based on spy methods, a Swiss group. The knowledge him the No. 1 did, was compiled by a Mannn of name Leo Klein." Noelle De Guzman 10:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
People, seriously: DO NOT add copyrighted images or images with uncertain coyright status to this or any other articles. Wikipedia cannot carry does images and they will be removed from the articles and deleted from the database. This is not the first time the subject has been brought up on this article. Copyright violations will be removed on sight; images with uncertain status will be tagged as such, and come seven days, they too will be removed without further warning. Please, cooperate in keeping Wikipedia in compliance with the applicable legislation. Thanks, Redux 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jacoplane. I took the liberty of using one of the pictures for this entry. I hope you guys like the picture!! It's pretty good considering it's not copyrighted Stanley011 16:17, 28 February 2006 (EST)
Is there any way someone with better wikipedia skills than I can get a caption under the image? Something like: "Federer serving at the 2005 U.S. Open Final, which he won in 4 sets." Thanks! ~~ User:Stanley011.
Thanks Redux. Hopefully, we'll be able to get a higher quality and closer image some time soon ~~ user:Stanley011Good image user:Stanley011 -- 70.16.187.158 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC
There have been some reports out there that suggest that Roger might have this painful foot condition, but he denies this claim on his own website: [4]. Now, this denial should set the record straight, but the catch is the following: this response has been on his website for quite a while, and the reports of his plantar fasciitis have been more recent--is it possible that he developed it very recently, and just forgot to update his page? It is possible that he was responding to a question about "plantar fascitis" and not about "plantar fasciitis?" I prefer to not to interpret it like that, given that Roger is generally regarded as a charitable fellow. Stanley011 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps I was *incorrect* in labling this a controversy but please do not question my objectivity. I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks next time. Thanks. Stanley011 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted this section of text so that no confusion arises until a replacement has been inserted, perhaps someone can provide a chronological list of his injuries which again, are widely accepted and verifiable, Tor.
I formatted this section so it could be read better (with indentations). I also did some searching on Google for "Federer+plantar+fasciitis". Here is the NY Sun article Stanley mentioned [5] and the relevant section:
Unfortunately, that's the only relevant result that came up. Federer attributed his withdrawal from Montreal last year only to pain in his feet (as mentioned in this cached version of his website [6]), never naming it as "plantar fasciitis." I believe that Federer having plantar fasciitis is just speculation; the only places I've seen his foot pain being called as such have been on tennis message boards. -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 01:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, Im not sure why that would be "unfortunate". Also, when I did a search on google using those search terms I did not hit the Sun article...furthermore if one did hit it...the result that would come up would not be the excerpt that you cited above...as this excerpt is only available in the portion of the article that subscribers have access to, Tor.
The Tennis Channel website definitely mentioned that Federer withdrew from Masters Series Rome 2005 due to plantar fasciitis--I distinctly remember reading that at the time on the Tennis Channel website but I cannot find the site now. I'm going to go onto that site archive page and see what I can find. I am more than 100% sure it was there. So the NY Sun and the Tennis Channel have been the only respectable sources so far that I've seen associate Federer with that condition. I think it is perhaps at least worth mentioning in the article somehow, but I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask him directly, which given his approachibility can probably be done by an enterprising wikiphile Stanley011 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The website is [ [7]] but like I said before, I can't find the page where they wrote he had plantar fasciitis. It was around April or May 2005 Stanley011 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Noelle for finding this article. There was another write-up of sorts on http://www.thetennischannel.com, not a full-length article like this, but more of a caption that SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE WITHDREW FROM ROMA BECAUSE OF PLANTAR FASCIITIS. I am not imagining things; it was there, on the Tennis Channel website. Perhaps they Stalinistically purged it because it turned out to be wrong but it was DEFINITELY there; I stake my credibility as a person on it. Stanley011 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Noelle but I would like to know how you know Federer's website denial of having plantar fascitis (sic) came after the Tennis Masters Cup in Nov 2005. What information are you using to make that assessment? I remember seeing that response there for quite a while, I think even longer than a year--I'm almost, though not positively sure, that I saw that response there in the Summer of 2004, but this can be mistaken. Therefore, I would like to know how you know it was after TMC 2005. Thanks for following up on this. Stanley011 21:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What Plantar Fasciitis problem?...the one you are speculating on? Here are the facts/references (most of which Noelle has supplied) so far:
1. Sun Paper = Federer has PF
2. Sports Network Article = Federer has PF
3. Referenced Tennis Channel Page = Federer has Foot Inflammation
4. Cached version of Federer's Website News Release = "Pain in Feet"
5. Cached version of "Ask Roger" from Federer's Website = "Not the same problem as PF"
Now, I ask you, of the 5 references which do you feel are the more important in terms of answering the question. I would argue that the Tennis Channel and Roger's website carry more weight then the Sun and the "Sports Network".
I would argue that all these references do is point to the fact that again, the exact nature of his foot problem is not precisely known. When confronted with a set of conflicting information one does not simply flip a coin. Furthermore im sure one could find many such descrepencies....are we going to invest time in investigating all of them or are we going to stick to facts that are consistent and widely accepted? In this case, so far, more investigation is required in order to tip the scale one way or the other, Tor.
Tor., kindly note that two of the sources you deemed having "greater weight," the Tennis Channel one and the cached version of Federer's website news release one did not in fact deny that Federer had plantar fasciitis. Thus we only have on partial denial--Federer's Q and A section of his website, but as Noelle and I pointed out, that was posted there at the end of 2003, so things could have changed since then. As far as I'm concerned, silence is consent in these matters; if the news releaes and the tennis channel site did not insert the important note that Fed does not have PF, then they are consenting to the fact that he does because of the wide-spread circulation of the fact that he does in various news sources. I agree with you that more investigation is required: let's do it. Stanley011 03:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that everytime we come across conflicting information in the course of our research that we include a discussion of this conflict in the article? Based on this modus operandi we should include for example a discussion of the fact that in several established, respectable publications, it is stated that Roger's favorite vacation spot is Dubai, however, in several other such publications it states that his favorite vacation spot is the Swiss Alps. Are you suggesting that it is important to present this conflicting information to the reader so that he may decide for himself what Roger's favorite vacation spot is? I personally do not understand how this would benefit the reader of an Encyclopedia. A person does not read an encyclopedia to find discourses of, or compendiums on, conflicting information. There are other sources of information that specialise in this. In my opinion this is the difference between attempting to generate controversy and citing controversy that actually exists. If you are suggesting that an Encyclopedia is an appropriate place for attempting to generate controversy then please confirm this so that we can cut to the chase and discuss this. I will state flat out that I believe it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can provide references to substantiate its existence. Any speculation, conjecture, and presentation and analysis of conflicting information for the purpose of arriving at the truth so that it can be presented to the reader should be done right here on the discussion page where it belongs, not in the article, Tor.
Tor., let me lay out some premises that I think we can all agree on, and then let's work from there: 1) Federer has pulled out of numerous tournaments in his career because of foot pain. 2) Such withdrawals are a significant part of Federer's career, worthy of being mentioned in the article. 3) Several respectable sources have indicated that the cause of such pain was "plantar fasciitis" 4) Sevearal respectable sources have not specified the cause of such pain (note here how they do not actually conflict, as you say they do). 5) Federer denied having plantar fascitis (sic) on his personal website in late 2003, long before several of his more recent withdrawals due to "foot pain" You are framing the debate in such a way that any mention of the fact that respectable sources do not walk in lock stop on this matter is a "generation" of controversy. I agree with you that "it is only appropriate to cite conflicting information for the purpose of discussing a *controversy that is historical* in nature, that is, a controversy that is widely accepted and for which one can proivde references to substantiate its existence" but you fail to show how a simple mention that sources do not agree on this matter is generating or reporting on a non-notable controversy. I look forward to reading your reply. Regards, Stanley011 03:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think its clear above that my response was directed specifically at Redux so I'm not sure why you decided to respond, but, in the meantime I will remind you to look at your next to last sentence above, and notice how you have contradicted yourself. Near the beginning of this discussion, after I asked you to cite references and you could not cite any references other than your own opinion, you stated that you were incorrect to call this a controversy. In this sentence you state that you agree that only historical controversies should be discussed but you use the word "non-notable" to convey the idea that it is acceptable to cite conflicting sources for a "notable" controversy and that I have failed to show that this is not a "notable" controversy (even though you had previously agreed that it was not "notable"). Once again, who has taken "note" of this "controversy" besides you? If it is "notable", please cite the "notes" of other significant sources who have taken "note" of this "controversy" so that we can have confluence of "notable" and historical and thus deem this an objective observation so that it can be included, Tor
Please clarify:
Tor.
Hi Torvald. Thank you for your embrace of free and open debate, as you indicated in the first sentence of your second to last reply. To answer the questions you posed here, I will say: 1) He withdrew from Roma in 2005, Rotterdam in 2006, and pretty much every tournament after Wimbledon and until Cincinatti 2005 and came to Masters Cup Shanghai in 2005 bandaged up pretty well, which more than likely cost him the title. There have been many many others that I can't recall right now, but a simple google search will reveal the results 2) The following sources have specified PF: 1) The New York Sun and 2) The Tennis Channel website. 3) The following sources have not specified: Any source that mentioned Federer had foot pain but did not mention pf in the article, 4) His remarks were made in reference to the Shanghai 2003 Mastesr Cup tournament. I hope that helps. All the best, Stanley011 17:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Redux, thank you for clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. I also agree that this issue is generic in nature. However please note that my vacation spot analogy was not to suggest that the topic of Federer's ankle/foot/heel condition was not relevant (nowhere in this discussion have I disputed that), but rather was to address the important question of:
What viewpoints are relevant on this topic?
The NPOV rules state the following:
1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
The fact that a particular piece of information is verifiable does not mean that it is NPOV and relevant to include unless it is used to convey/support a viewpoint that is relevant/NPOV. The relevance and neutrality of this viewpoint must be tested using the conditions above.
As far as the possible viewpoints that I can identify in regards to this topic (please feel free to add others) along with my opinion as to the test results from above:
1. The topic is controversial
I think we can all agree that #3 above eliminates this viewpoint
2. Federer has PF
I believe this fails 1. and 2. and is thus eliminated by #3. The commonly accepted reference texts for the sport of Men's Professional tennis are publications such as Tennis Magazine, Tennis Week, Sports Illustrated, Sports Sections of Major Newspapers, ESPN Website, Fox Sports Website, Eurosport Website, Tennis channel Website, etc. By condition 1. above it should be easy to provide references from these publications. So far only a single reference has been provided from the above. Also note that this reference, which is from a New York Sun Newspaper Article (online edition), only mentions plantar fasciitis once, in passing, in the course of several long paragraphs. It is not discussed at any length nor is any reference given in the article for the origin of this statement. Furthermore, although the Sports page of the Sun is relevant, its status as a Major Newspaper such as the New York Times is dubious. By condition 2. above there should be prominent adherents to this viewpoint. No such adherents have been cited so far (ie, never have any ESPN commentators, BBC commentators, Eurosport commentators, Tennis Channel commentators, Tennis Columnists, Players, or other relevant figures in the community of Men's Professional tennis expressed this viewpoint)
3. Federer does not have PF
I believe this fails 1. and 2 and is thus eliminated by #3. Relative to condition 1. There is only one reference that specifically states that he does NOT have PF which is his personal website...this is not a reference publication as outlined in #2 above. Relative to condition 2. Although there may be one prominent adherent to this viewpoint...namely RF himself (assuming the statement on his website is correct). Condition 2 states adherents (plural) so technically this does not qualify.
4. Federer had a foot condition which caused him to withdraw from at least one tournament.
This is what I feel to be the only relevant viewpoint (at this time) as it relates to this topic as it can currently be substantiated by 1. and 2. above.
You will note from the NPOV guidlines that it states that even if it were true that he has (or does not have) PF and it were possible to somehow prove this (ie a fan asking him the question, a photographer snapping a photo of him at the podiatrist, or a single newspaper article stating that he does or does not)...this does not mean that the VIEWPOINT that he has (or does not have) PF can be included in a discussion of the topic of his heel/foot condition.
The fact that there is no widely held viewpoint that he has (or does not have) PF which can be demonstrated by citing references that conform to the conditions outlined above bars it from inclusion. This in my opinion, is precisely the difference between publications such as tabloids and encyclopedia's. Tabloids are free to present viewpoints that may or may not be true even though the viewpoints cannot be demonstrated to be relevant/NPOV as defined by the conditions in the NPOV guidelines.
I will add the following note. I was under the impression that we were moving towards a consensus on what to do on this topic when Stanley011 suggested that we research it further ("Lets do it"). My vote is to do that and once all of the references have been assembled we can resume discussion of exactly how to present this information in the article, Tor (not the inventor of the Linux Operating System which uses the X-Windows GUI invented at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussets, USA).
I have just contacted the New York Sun and have had a most interesting conversation with a representative in their Sports departement. I will post a synopsis of this conversation (as well as my response to Redux's comments) shortly, Tor. 4:45 PM EST 4/10/2006
Good work Tor. Stanley011 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, here is the synopsis of what happened this afternoon when I contacted the New York Sun Newspaper.
My first few attempts to reach the operator listed as "0" on the menu system resulted in getting rerouted to a recording asking to leave a message. After a few more attempts the operator answered and routed my call to the Sports Dept. The individual who answered the call initially seemed helpful and ready and willing to answer questions. I immediately explained the fact that his department had published an article which stated that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis and I stated the title of the article. He asked me who I was and I explained that I was just an individual engaged in a debate on the Wikipedia website and that the information presented in his article seemed to be the only reliable reference which states that RF has PF. I stated that this fact has lead to considerable discussion on message boards and in particular on the Wikipedia website where I was engaged in the debate. I asked him if he knew what Wikipedia was and he acknowledged that he did. Once again he asked me who I was and I reiterated that I was not with any organization but rather I was just an individual engaged in a debate where the information presented in his newspaper was very much at issue.
I proceeded to explain to him the fact that because PF is not a trivial injury such as a blister, the fact that his publication had stated that RF has the condition was very much a non-trivial statement and again, has generated considerable interest. I also explained that the article which was about an entirely different topic, only mentioned the PF one time. I cited the article's title and asked the individual if he was aware of the article and in particular the fact that the article has a statement that RF has PF. The individual acknowledged that he was familiar with the article and was in fact familiar with the particular statement in it that RF has PF.
I proceeded to ask him specifically what the origin of this statement was.
He stated that Roger Federer had stated, at the Rome 2005 Press Conference, that he was withdrawing from the tournament due to plantar fasciitis.
I immediately stopped him and told him that this was precisely the information that "we" required in order to arrive at some resolution in our debate. He asked me who is "we" and I reminded him that "we" simply referred to those of us engaged in the debate on Wikipedia. I explained to him that this was all "we" really need to know for the purposes of our debate.
I then restated his statement that his newspaper's statement that Roger Federer has plantar fasciitis was based on the fact that Roger Federer had stated that he had plantar fasciitis at the Rome Press Conference. He then seemed to become irritated and stated that Roger Federer did not actually say that he had plantar fasciitis but rather only stated in the press conference that the withdrawal was due to a foot condition. He then stated that Roger Federer has been "wishy-washy" on the topic of his foot condition and that he was busy and did not have any more time to discuss the issue.
I asked the individual what his name was and he refused to divulge this information and seemed to become more irritated. I then explained that I only sought to understand what the basis for the statement in the article was at which point he hung up on me.
This is what happened during the conversation to the best of my recollection. I cannot say that it is verbatim (I did not record or take notes during the conversation). I know for example that on at least 2 occasions (after he recanted) the individual stated that he was busy and didnt have time to discuss the issue. Also he asked me at least 3 times who I was. Also he specifically pointed out that the Rome tournament was a Masters tournament. I responded that yes, it was the clay court tournament in Rome.
I am 100% positive that this individual initially stated that his newspaper's statement of RF's PF was specifically based on Roger stating that he specifically had plantar fasciitis at the Rome 2005 Press Conference. I am also 100% positive that he recanted this statement and stated that Roger Federer had only stated that he had a foot condition at the conference.
Please note that I was never able to confirm that the individual that I was speaking to in the Sports Department was the original author of the article Tom Perrotta. However the individual that I spoke to (who was an adult male and probably in his 30s) was completely prepared to discuss the issue and never suggested that the issue be forwarded to anybody else within the organization. Furthermore, it was clear that the individual was someone who was very familiar with the Newspaper's Sport section content as he was able to recollect the PF statement from the January article.
Now, where to go from here.
1. Don't take my word for it
2. Here is the number that I called for the New York Sun, 212-406-2000, I would recommend that everyone engaged in this debate call the New York Sun and ask the Sports Department to please provide a reference for the statement made in the article. Noelle, Redux, I assume you are familiar with Skype. The corporate office business hours are standard North American office hours (9-5 EST or 13:00-21:00 UTC)
3. After they have provided the reference, we can resume this discussion.
4. Feel free to reference my conversation which occurred at around 4:30 PM EST (20:30 UTC) 4/10/2006 and ask the individual about anything that I have stated above (note that I did not give him a name but in case you haven't guessed I am an adult male)
Tor
As I stated before, I remember seeing that The Tennis Channel website had specifically written that Federer withdrew from Roma due to PF, but I can no longer find that section in their archives, which strongly suggests that they removed it for some reason or other, my guess is because they came across conflicting information from a reliable source. It seems that the Sun received the information that Federer had PF from the fact that Federer mentioned he had "foot problems" or pain or whatever, and then put that together with the information in that now-removed Tennis Channel website page to make the claim that Federer has pf. Perhaps the way to verify would be to contact the Tennis Channel website, asking them what led them to first include the fact that Federer had PF, and then remove that specific section. It's a shame that the Sun rep. couldn't give you a specific reason why they stated he had PF (or did give you a specific reason but then recanted) but maybe contacting TTC would yield some results. I'd be willing to do it if others think it would be a fruitful next step Stanley011 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC).
Are you suggesting that we, as journalists, cannot question and debate the reliability of a source?...or for that matter even question the reliability of a single piece of information (or sentence) produced by a source? We cannot do this even though you have clearly stated above that it is precisely the reliability of the source which is the issue at hand and that you would like to hear the opinions of other Wikipedia users as to the assessment of the reliability of the source? Are we not allowed to investigate for the purpose of formulating this opinion? Are we not allowed to present the results of this investigation for the purpose of discussing the reliability of the source? Is this what you are suggesting...per se?
By this rationale, everything that is published by every possible source is absolutely sacred and cannot be questioned and therefore should be included.
In my opinion this has absolutely nothing to do with original research. Originial research has to do with the submission of facts into the encylopedia which are not acquired from other sources but rather are acquired through original research.
Questioning the reliability of a source has nothing to do with submitting original information into the encyclopedia. It only has to do with making a judgment as to whether or not the information (which was not acquired through original research) should be included.
Tor
It has occurred to me that a sizeable portion of the difference of opinion here could possibly be attributed to regional differences in reporting standards and ethics. Now, with that said, I cannot speak authoritatively on the standards and practices in use for other regions such as Brazil or Portugal. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia and that in the English speaking realm there are certain traditional journalistic standards which are widely accepted. For example, the principal that in order to express a viewpoint one has to cite multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources is very common (I believe the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines reflect this). I would argue that a single, marginally independent, marginally reliable, verifiable source is not viewed as sufficient by the aforementioned standards in use within the bulk of the English speaking world. Furthermore, this principal, that multiple, independent, reliable, verifiable sources are required is, in my opinion, more widely accepted now than ever before given the fact that with the advent of electronic communications it is much easier for misinformation to spread with the end result of some sources no longer being independent. The other tradition that is somewhat less specific is that one should always, whenever feasible, question the source of information and whenever possible attempt to verify it. Just because a publisher can afford to print a newspaper or set up a website does not mean that every shred of information generated is correct or does not contain errors. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and in fact it is encouraged among responsible journalists (or anybody who is responsible for contributing information to a document that is used as a reference and will be read by others), Tor
If you write an article that ignores the NPOV guidelines I will delete it, Tor.
We can go round and round on this...and I assure you I could continue to dissect your arguments (much of what you have stated in your last several posts I have already dissected mentally but have not keyed in). Also, you can continue to insist that there is no element of journalism in the work that is done here...that is: integrity is irrelevant...which is fine by me...I can only voice my opinion (of course I can also delete what I feel is not NPOV). You have stated that a single sentence in a reputable publication is sufficient to establish that a commonly held viewpoint exists on a generalized subject (ie this sentence can be extrapolated to support the existence of a generalized, commonly held viewpoint) and that this is Wikipedia official policy. If that is the case I ask that you please provide some additional support for this statement as it will certainly factor in to my understanding of the NPOV guidelines.
Finally you will notice from your last statement above...you concluded with the following:
" all we need to do is write a NPOV paragraph about the situation, approaching all the existing, verifiable theories"
This in my opinion illustrates your lack of understanding of this matter.
There are no "verifiable theories".
None have ever been submitted in the course of this discussion.
Have you read the entire discussion?
Are you familiar with the references that have been submitted?
The (2) verifiable, contradictory statements that have been submitted are not
"theories".
They are statements.
Furthermore it is not the place of a Wikipedia researcher to construct theories
as this is precisely what original research is.
"Theories" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
We are not citing references for a Stephen Hawking article on Black Holes.
Tor
Redux, <sigh>, Did you just edit out your "theories" statement from the public record? Its gone as of 3:54 UTC 4/12/06 and the edit history of this page shows no user edits removing it. Tor 3:56 UTC 4/12/06
I am not being sarcastic. This is a very serious issue. You have not answered my question. Please answer my question. Yes or No will suffice. Did you delete the portion of text from your 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) post above that contains the word "theories"? Tor, 14:43 UTC 4/12/06
Redux, my sincere apologies. It appears that I made the error in removing the statement when I cut and pasted the portion of text in the heat of battle. Note that for much of this discussion this has been a 1 vs 3 debate and has required considerable effort on my part to maintain. And I must confess, that when you call a newspaper, and you talk to a representative who makes a statement and then immediately recants it...it does start to make you wonder if there isnt a conspiracy. But I can tell you sincerely that I have no desire to think of conspiracies existing on Wikipedia. Again, I apologize if my previous statements came across as accussations.
Also, please understand....when I called the Newspaper, it was in an effort to bring some closure to this matter. I can honestly tell you...I was relieved when the individual told me that the source of the information was from the Rome press conference, because I knew that this was a piece of information that we could probably verify. The transcript of the press conference for example might exist somewhere (perhaps on an Italian Web sight). So this phone call, which did not involve my computer at all, could have pointed to a source which existed on a Web site which could then be easily cited as a reference in the article...thereby bringing closure to this entire debate. The viewpoint that Roger Federer had Plantar Fasciitis would have been clearly established by not 1, but 2 reliable sources (with the second source being far more impressive in my opinion). So digging for facts doesnt always have to involve sitting at the computer..even for facts that could ultimately be referenced electronically.
I have not written a paragraph on this subject and inserted it into the article because I dont feel that there are enough references to substantiate any other commonly held viewpoint then the fact that he had some type of foot condition. In the realm of Men's Professional tennis, players have numerous minor nagging types of injuries in the course of their career. Also, due to the length of the ATP tour and the considerable number of tournaments, players withdraw from tournaments frequently for various reasons, many times as a result of minor injuries. Im not sure if they are really all that relevant in an encyclopedia article unless they are something chronic like PF which could be very relevant as it pertains to the players career. Please note that I used the word nagging before to describe my perception of what this injury was. I feel there is a very big difference between nagging and chronic with the latter being something that the player will definitely have for his entire career and the former being something that could pop up from time to time, but may go away permanently.
The issues of whether or not the condition is chronic and how debilitating it is are in my opinion the most important things that should be addressed in a paragraph discussing his foot condition. But I dont feel, that at the present time, there are enough references to establish any widely held viewpoint on these important issues.
My fundamental problem with including the viewpoint that Roger specifically has or had PF in an
article on his foot condition is the following:
At the present time, in order to do so, one has to take a single sentence, and cite it as a reference to substantiate that there is a common, widely held viewpoint. This just seems contrary to NPOV to me. The same thing would have to be done to present the opposing viewpoint. I just dont think this merits the inclusion of these viewpoints. I feel that more references are required.
It doesnt help of course that while we have been engaged in this debate he has won two hard court (tough on the feet) Masters tournaments (96 draw) back-to-back with apparently no foot problems whatsoever (that I am aware of). I checked the following site which further complicates the issue:
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/fact/thr_report.cfm?Thread_ID=144&topcategory=Foot
Which is by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and it suggests that the condition can be cured if treated early.
All this makes me wonder if any speculation at the present time should be on whether or not he HAD it rather then whether or not he HAS it. It also makes me wonder if, treated PF is really a chronic condition and if it is all that relevant to a players career. I have never heard of this condition before in the realm of Mens Pro Tennis (or anywhere else for that matter).
I would once again cast my vote, that we research this matter further in an attempt to acquire more references so that we can write a paragraph that can include the more general viewpoints on whether or not the condition (whatever it is) is chronic in nature and if possible the more specific viewpoints on exactly what the condition might be (eg plantar fasciitis). The discussion should have some references to Medical texts. The purpose of the paragraph would be to provide insight into what impact the condition could have on his career. Also, it would be very relevant to compile a precise list (with references) of the tournaments that he has had to withdraw from citing this condition as the cause.
I also give you my word that I will respect whatever consensus is arrived at here and that I will not alter any content that conforms to this consensus.
Tor.
Does the stats included in the table includes his ATP qualifying matches? If so, where can one find them? If not, probably a note should be made to that effect. Thanks.
Qualifying scores are usually not presented as relevant results for a player who is established on the main tour (its been a while since Roger has had to play qualies). There are other matches such as exhibition, team tennis, Challenger, etc that probably also fit in this category. However, the entire topic of entry (and qualifying) on the ATP tour is an interesting one which might be worthy of a unique article, Tor.
Famous matches does not necessarily translate to a 5-set match, a tournament finals match, or even a personal milestone. These matches are what fans remember long after. I couldn't comprehend why such matches as the one with Tommy Haas in the 2006 Australian Open became famous... If one would just reason out that because it is his 400th career win, then we might as well include his 300th, 200th, 100th and even 50th career win. If one would say that it is because he is seldom stretched to a 5th set in a match, then this particular match pales in comparison to the 5th set win over Nadal in the Miami final, or the 5th set loss to Safin in the previous year's Australian Open, and to Naldandian in the ATP Masters Cup. It didn't necessarily show anything special, like Federer's mental mettle (like him coming back from a tiebreak in the 3rd set in the Miami final against Nadal). The achievement because of winning the match (i.e. a milestone in career win, a "double" with respect to winning a previous tournament, or winning that tournament multiple times) does not necessarily translate to that match being famous. For example, his victory over Philippoussis for his first Wimbledon title is not that memorable. We remember Federer winning the title, but his opponent across the net, even the quality of the match is hardly remembered. I would have a better memory recalling his semifinal match against Roddick. The comment for the match is not even appropriate, "This was Federer's first Grand Slam final win, and the beginning of his dominance in men's tennis." It is true that it was his first Grand Slam, but it didn't marked his dominance, for Roddick dominated the rest of the year and ended as #1. It would be more proper to place the comment in association with his Masters Cup victory later on the same year, when he beat the reigning Australian, French and US Open champions.
I added Other Milestone Matches as a new section, incorporating matches from the famous Matches section and also adding the missing major tournaments. I also added Roger Federer's first ATP match and first ATP win, which I worked out from the ATP website- I thought that they were important milestones. I wasn't sure about whether the 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 Ljubicic match should be in the Famous Matches (I wouldn't have thought it compared to other matches such as the AO 2005 Safin match), or in the Milestones (It was not much of a milestone, compared to a Grand Slam win). I put it in milestones since it was the completion of the IW- Miami double double, a unique feat- however, by that note surely his 3rd straight Indian Wells victory, again a unique feat, should be in there as well? Anyway, I tried to divide them up fairly and adding sources for the more extended matches which I added. The Haas Match I included only by virtue of it being the 400th career win, as I agree that the 100th, 200th match win etc should be added, but without the other century milestones it seems out of place (which was why I added the ATP first match played and won). Hopefully someone can clarify whether they think that having a separate section for less thrilling, but notable, matches is a good idea. OSmeone 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The infobox was broken so I filled it in with Federer's career singles win-loss record (from his ATP page). The doubles w-l record isn't available per se on the ATP site but I manually counted his doubles results from here. Please feel free to check my arithmetic: I counted 101-66 but I might have gotten cross-eyed on something. :) -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is always a summary of the doubles record per player on their player profiles in ATP, under the Career Review section. Roger's record currently stands at 101-64. Joey80 07:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The following section seems to be original research and speculation. It also has no sources.
How should it be improved? Should it even be kept? Discuss. -- Noelle De Guzman ( talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi i'm the original author of the text, and as you can see i've put it back. i can provide photographic evidence if necessary to support every claim i have made about the racket federer uses as opposed to the stock ncode tour 90. what i was referring to as speculatoin is whether the tour 90 pj and the ncode pj he used and currently uses respectfully are indeed the same racket. that i cannot unequivacobly prove. my purpose in writing this article is to prevent potential consumers into misinformedly buying a product without knowing that the real roger federe racket is unavailable to the public. --Nanonugget
This user has only added useless, and slightly offensive, comments to this article,such as: 'Roger is a very cocky tennis player, he thinks he is the king, eventually he always got beaten by Rafael Nadal on clay court.' How can they be blocked or preventing from adding to this article? I don't know much about that process, so could someone please help out? Thanks. OSmeone 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw that someone took down the australian open logo from the list of men's champions citiing unfair excessive use in a template. I know that this should be added to a template discussion, but I don't think that anyone actually checks them and the editors here have been very helpful. So should the logo be replaced, or should all the logos be removed from the template boxes> Thanks OSmeone 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that Federer's overall performance here deserves elaboration (though I'm not sure if this elaboration should be placed under the Milestone category or the general article). This marked the beginning of his dominance (though this might need some articles to fully be established). It included victory over Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi--the other reigning Grand Slam champions for the year. It saw him climb the rankings from #3 to #2 (his year-end ranking). And he defeated Nalbandian and Agassi for the first time in his professional career. Joey80 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just mention the final, then add something like, 'on the way to this title Federer defeated ... for the first time, marking a milestone in his professional career' or something. Feel free to do it, I was going to do so when I made the milestone section (which is where it should go, as it isn't that famous) because I believ all his majors should be noted. OSmeone 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that some editors (registered or unregistered) are too excited to find out what new record Federer has set. The performance timeline (specifically, win-loss record on some surface) is updated whenever he wins a match. Unfortunately, such an update may be incomplete (e.g. the editor might miss updated the career win-loss, current year's win-loss, or in the case of Grand Slams, the Grand Slam win-loss). In other words, such petty editing by adding "1" to the number wins or losses result to confusion and double counting. How about including a note that the timeline is current as of this time, or that it is updated only when his participation in the tournament or the tournament has concluded? Joey80 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This section has been repeatedly added by User:Classfriends and 58.186.33.101 and then deleted. the section is as follows:
LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER 2006
Ivo Minar, Fabrice Santoro, Marko Baghdatis, Tommy Haas, Gael Monfils, Denis Istomin, Florian Mayer, Max Mirnyi, Nikolay Davydenko, Nicolas Kiefer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Mohammed Al Ghareeb, Robin Vik, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Massu, Olivier Rochus, Richard Gasquet, Ivan Ljubicic, Paradorn Srichaphan, James Blake, Arnaud Clement, Dmitry Tursunov, David Ferrer, Alberto Martin, Benjamin Balleret, David Ferrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Juan Chela, Potito Starace, Radek Stepanek, Nicolas Almagro, David Nalbandian, Diego Hartfield, Alejandro Falla, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic, Rohan Bopanna.
I don't think that this section is necessary; anyone who wants to know who has been beaten by Federer can look on the ATP Website. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is why I sugest that this section should not be a part of the main article. OSmeone 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered this match while watching a replay of these players' match-up in last year's Wimbledon, although I am not well-informed about this Davis Cup match (i.e. didn't watch it, didn't follow it, etc.). What I remember though was Federer was leading 2 sets, then 5-3 in the third, before Hewitt came back and win it in 5. I am not sure though if this can be included in his significant matches (i.e. it is a significant one for Hewitt and for Australia, being a Davis Cup match--not to mention being his last win over Federer). In any case, I need your feedback if this should be included. Since this is a loss, then it will likely be placed as a memorable/milestone match in the page of the victor, not the loser. Then again, if the circumstances and quality of the match was superb, even for the side of the loser (e.g. Federer's loss to Safin in 2005 Australian Open, his loss to Nalbandian in 2005 Tennis Masters Cup--despite coming back in the fifth set, his loss to Nadal in 2006 French Open--although Federer was not quite himself there, the place of that match in history is unquestionable so that it should be placed even in the article of the loser), then that Davis Cup match can be included in this page.-- Joey80 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed 'New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year' to 'New Zealand People's Choice International Sportsperson of the Year' per discussion with User talk:Wallie (source [10]). I don't, however, know if this award is important enough to include. Ziggurat 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Who has time to do this? I suggest the site be edited after every game point. Juveboy 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Roger Federer is the greatest player alive. Fittingly, he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, and will win the most Grand Slam titles of all time. In 2007, he will become only the 3rd player in history to win the Grand Slam in a calender year. Roger Federer rules!
Amit 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just glanced around various tennis player pages, and there doesn't seem to be a standard format for displaying career results. The infobar helps with the peaks of a player's career, but there's a lot of huge lists, even for minor players like Andy Murray. I would start writing one, if I had the slightest idea how to. Could someone tackle this, or point me at the relevant help pages?
-- Shinydan 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the table formats used on this page (the table with the majors and TMS results and the table with a list of all career titles highlighted by stature) are the most visually appealing. OSmeone 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
In the case an editor decides to include Roger's first round win in Wimbledon 2006 against Richard Gasquet, note that it was not just a milestone match in terms of earning the longest grass court winning streak, but also his 100th Grand Slam win. I'm not really sure how important his 100th Grand Slam win is--maybe it can be put into perspective (i.e. some players have their 100th win because of longevity, others because of their dominance). Also, note that he himself commented that his recent match against Mario Ancic was "incredible", though I still have to read some comments among tennis fans and experts how well that match stands out in terms of the quality (I wasn't able to watch the entire match due to the rain).-- Joey80 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Roger Federer defeats Rafael Nadal for his 8th Grand Slam title, and his 4th consecutive Wimbledon title. Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in 4 sets. Roger Federer eyes his 9th Grand Slam title in August in New York City at the US Open. -- Amit
This victory (and score) is mentioned three times in the subsection "2006 and beyond" and one is a detailed, very POV-like description. Not good for an encyclopedic article.-- HJ 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In the past, I have contributed to sections like this in biographic articles of tennis players (I don't believe I did here, but I've done it in other articles). Since then, however, and in light of discussions held on unrelated topics, but which involved the nature of POV, I've come to understand that this listing of "famous matches", or "memorable matches", or however it is being called, is actually a POV-ridden section. Quite simply, in order to list a match as "famous", "memorable" or anything of the sort, we need at least one reputable source attributing this "status" to the match, or else this is a Wikipedia user's own interpretation of a match, which constitutes POV and original research, thus being inadmissible in our articles. It's simple: if anyone is to attribute a match the status of "famous", or "memorable", Wikipedia cannot be the primary source attributing this characteristic to the match, regardless of aspects such as the match's duration or score. We need external sources to be linked from the article, or I'm afraid the entries will need to be removed. Thank you, Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"As of July the 10th, 2006, Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 128 consecutive weeks. This is the third longest streak in history, surpassing the total of Pete Sampras (fourth), who held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98. Only Jimmy Connors (160 weeks) and Ivan Lendl (157 weeks) have had longer uninterrupted runs at the top." "he holds the fourth-longest consecutive stay in the World No. 1. Only Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl have had longer unbroken streaks at number one." Contradiction =) Doidimais Brasil 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
"He is the third player in the history of ATP Rankings to rank No. 1 every week during two calendar years (others: Connors and Lendl)." I think Federer doesn't reached this yet, during 2004 Roddick was no. 1 but at the year end Federer was nº. 1, so it leads us that until Federer reachs the year of 2006 in #1 that feature will not be completed.
Bproof
13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Or didn't you mean 2 consecutive calendar years? If so, maybe you're right
I just changed the years to 2005 and 2006. This is with the assumption that Roger is locked to finish all of 06 as the #1, which may or may not be the case. The record is pointless if it is merely that Roger is the 3rd person to have 104 straight weeks at #1 - jai
"Federer was born in Basel, Switzerland in the small city citation needed of Binningen, to Robert Federer and Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel properly, in suburban Münchenstein." On his official page and other biographies it is said he was born in Basel, and a list of Basel hospitals does not list Binningen as having an appropriate hospital. So where does the Binningen information come from? -- Railk 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Are these sections really necessary? It doesn't contribute to the overall article except in terms of lengthening it. These sections contain the venue, the opponent (with the accompanying flag) and the score in the final, which is exactly similar to the Titles section. Then again, I prefer the Titles section, with its color coded scheme and well as a summary table before detailing his title by tournament classification and surface. I understand that a Grand Slam singles finals section might be necessary, even though those matches are also contained in the titles section because of the importance of such titles (i.e. how many Grand Slam one has won is always included in the introductory paragraph of a tennis player's article, not to mention that in this case, there is an assertion that Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis player, hence, such a section complements and emphasizes that). Joey80 12:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I also second this. I think the "performance timeline" and titles section is more than enough; this page could definitely lose some length in favor of succinctness. Macbrother 01:08, 16 August (UTC)
I have a magazine which states that his favorite flavor is strawberry. I stated the interview in the references part. If anyone can reference it better than I did just ask and ill give any info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearingbreaker92 ( talk • contribs) .
80.200.221.128 reversed the timeline here and on other pages, placeing more recent years on the right. Someone says it is more intuitive this way, but I disagree. Most timelines I have seen had recent years on the right, and I think this should not have been changed, especially if we consider the Agassi timeline. However I have not reverted yet, but want to see some opinion from others. There is also a new earnings table with the number of different titles, but it is redundant, the titles are in the timeline. The yearly earnings could also be placed in the timeline, but I think it is unnecessary and unimportant. I will remove the table if there is no good objection. Scineram 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I too think that its rather strange to have the timeline "go backwards." The Sampras page goes forward, and I think that should be the standard. The timeline should be like a real timeline, following forward chronological order from left to right. It really is more intuitive--how many timelines have you seen where the more recent dates are to the left of the older dates? I think its just keeping to classic timeline form to have it moving ---> this way, rather than <---- this way. -- Flute138 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this:
"Recently during a match at the Pilot Pen Open in New Haven, Connecticut, Federer yelled, "S**T!" so loud that everyone at the stadium and anyone watching the match on television could hear. This rare outburst drew several chuckles, and Federer quickly apologized and was not penalized for the rare outburst."
from the trivia section. Federer doesn't play the Pilot Pen, there was no citation, and I couldn't verify it online with a quick google check, so I assume this was about another player or made up. - Jai
The event in question actually occured at Toronto (Rogers Master)...but anyway, I really don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia anyway...-- Flute138 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Trivia could have it, and a link to youtube video. XD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BIe35skSU Scineram 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Your apology for flying off the handle and unthinkingly accusing me of vandalism is accepted - this time. Don't let it ever happen again. Tennis expert 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
He clearly will be number 1 for many, many months to come, even if he never plays again and/or dies in that timeframe. Might as well just extrapolate and say he will be first until at least X date, Y amount of weeks. etc. Ernham 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I did this math. See the "Federer breaks 160..." section below. Added it to the article but someone seems to have deleted it without giving any reason.
Someone has changed the entries in the performance timeline. Was this intentional vandalism or just a failure? Could someone change it back?
On the French version of this article, they have highlight International Series tournaments differently to the International Series Gold tournaments, which are slightly more prestigious. Do you think that it would be a good idea to do so here? OSmeone 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Source: atptennis.com, rankings pages, calendar pages and tournament profile pages.
As of Nov 13, 2006 Federer is 8120, Nadal is 4270. He has already won one match in the Master's Cup and so his minimum for that event is 100. Nadal's maximum is 650 (he lost one match).
Even if Federer wins nothing and doesn't even play any further matches, and Nadal plays and wins everything on the ATP calendar (Doha, Sydney, Australian Open, Marseille, Memphis), Nadal can't catch Federer through Feb 26, 2007.
Federer: 8120 + 100 (Master's Cup) - 250 (Doha) - 1000 (Australian Open) = 6470.
Nadal: 4270 + 650 (Master's Cup)+ 250-20 (Doha replaces Stockholm in best 5 other) + 175-55 (Sydney replaces Queen's Club in best 5 other) + 1000 (Australian Open) + 200-90 (Marseille replaces Marseille 06) + 250-175 (Memphis replaces Sydney in best 5 other) = 6455.
So as of Monday Feb 26 when Dubai starts, Federer will still be ahead of Nadal. His streak will be 161 weeks by then, beating Connors' world record of 160 weeks.
I am surprised. Roger Federer does not deserve this utmost respect! He is a downful sin to man kind. He his rood, arrogant, and dumb once he loses. When he wins, however, he loves to brag and find faults to blame on the other opponent. 67.86.24.40 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a section titled above as an expansion of trivia section to include the list of players that have got a bagel set from Roger Federer. It is now removed ironically with the comment that it is a trivial section! Can you explain why? It has the potential to expand as Roger is giving bagel sets to just about every player he now meets.
I'm going to try to resolve this here, there's no reason to engage in an edit war. The dispute is whether it should say "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 2-6, 6-3, 3-6", or "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 6-2, 3-6, 6-3." I'll explain why the first option is the correct one. The primary subject in the sentence is Federer, therefore it would be incorrect to say that the first set was 6-2 because that would mean Federer won the first set, which of course did not happen. Here you can find a source which agrees with my argument: [12] Dionyseus 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are currently 2 separate "Trivia" section on this page, one before the match lists and one at the end. Also, what is meant under the first trivia section by "In 1999, Federer became the youngest player (18 years, 4 months) in the ATP ranking's year end top 100." Youngest how? 18 years shouldn't be the youngest to reach top 100 in ATP rankings.
Concerning this line: Along with Justine Henin-Hardenne who lost the women's final of the U.S. Open, it was the first time in the history of tennis that both a man and a woman had reached all four Grand Slam singles finals within a calendar year.
Shouldn't it be explicitly pointed out that it was the same man and the same woman who made it to the finals of all four majors? Not just a man and a woman?
This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)