CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2001 US Open – Mixed doubles

2001 tennis event results

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 3, 2026
Entity authorityQ3037645 ↗
Source-derived summary

Arantxa Sánchez Vicario and Jared Palmer were the defending champions, but lost in the quarterfinals to Ai Sugiyama and Ellis Ferreira.

Rennae Stubbs and Todd Woodbridge won the title by defeating Lisa Raymond and Leander Paes 6–4, 5–7, [11–9] in the final.

This was the first US Open to introduce a super tie-break in lieu of the final tie-break set.

Editorial summary

“2001 US Open – Mixed doubles” enters the record as 2001 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Mixed, doubles and tennis can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current 60-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Mixed, doubles and tennis.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2001 US Open – Mixed doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Mixed, doubles and tennis provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3037645. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “2001 US Open – Mixed doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2001 US Open – Mixed doubles primary sources, 2001 US Open – Mixed doubles archive and Mixed research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2001 US Open – Mixed doubles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2001 US Open – Mixed doubles” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.