Talk:Grand Prix Super Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

results order[edit]

It's good to see the new article up and running. Most articles (and I've been told all should) start from oldest results to newest results. I could flip it but I figured since you put the hard work into it I'd leave it for you. :-) plus there might be minor errors the crop up if I did it that you'd be better prepared to fix. Cheers on the hard work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi thanks for the kind comments I take your point about editorial prefered format but I have no idea how to flip into the correct sequence, I am a bit confused as I was following the layout for the current ATP World Tour Masters 1000 which is listing 2011 back to 1990 so I picked up from 1989 back to 1970 . and most tournament articles (individual 1000 series events) are doing the same. However there are others that are showing the way you have suggested. I am still learning a lot here I have no problem if you know how to do it if you think that would look better . As for possible mistakes I decided to make a push to complete it as I am off work at the moment. I wont have much time from next week if anything goes wrong. If you can deveote the time to it ok if not can we put it on hold (for now)? --Navops47 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is incorrect for the early years. You have made up you own list. In 1970 you mixed up wct,grand prix and other events (philadelphia, johannesburg, sydney and monte carlo) which are not part of either series. in 1970 monte carlo should not be there.Paris , stockholm and hamburg had better fields.In 1971 sydney should not be there; its a minor event with no top ten players; nor should monte carlo be there in 1971; stockholm, san franciso and washington had better fields.

You imply that you taken the second tier of grand prix events below slams , but you have not done so. Intsead you have included events that were not part of the grand prix or wct series in 1970 or 1971 and made up your list which is purely aribatary. don't rely on the atp database for an accurate list of grand prix events; its wrong.

jeffrey neave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.10 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Dispute[edit]

The first citation in this article appears to have been incorrectly used. The tennis article that appears on the referenced page does not use the term Championship Series in its text; this appears to have been borrowed from an article about the 1986 NBA Finals below it. Totalinarian (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, that source cannot be used to support the name Championship Series in this article. Actually, in another source from 1986 there is talk about Grand Prix Super Series Tour : [1], and there seems to have been a Regular Series besides it. Here is another 1982 source talking about Borg playing only seven of the 29 Super Series Grand Prix tournaments: [2] MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that matches what my sources say. From what information I do have, the Grand Prix started in 1970 with three categories of tournament: A - the majors (Grand Slams), 1 - a mix of big and small tournaments, and 2 - likewise. Between 1971 and 1973 this changed to a four tier system, with AA (French Open, US Open and Wimbledon), A (Australian Open and other big tournaments), B and C. In 1974 TC (Triple Crown - the French Open, US Open and Wimbledon) became the top tier, with the other tiers promoted by one grade (A became AA etc.). In 1975 the classification beneath TC changed to a star rating allocating up to five stars to a tournament. In 1977 a six-star rating was introduced and the Australian Open - after it was moved from January to December - joined the new Grand Slam category. In 1979 the star rating was abolished - and this is where it can become confusing. My source indicates that there were two tiers of tournament beneath the Grand Slams - those offering US$175,000 or more and those offering more than US$50,000. It also implies that the former tier was indeed known as the Super Series, and it would be a fair assumption - admittedly, that is all it is - that the other tier was known as the Regular Series. When Nabisco took over sponsorship of the Grand Prix in 1985 there were five different categories (semi-colons indicating separate categories): Grand Slams; "other two-week tournaments" (Lipton International Players Championships); Super Series, Doubles Series, Tournament of Champions (WCT Tournament of Champions) and London Doubles (WCT World Doubles Championships); Open Week Series (uncertain about this, but presumably tournaments played on clay in the fortnight before Wimbledon, for example) and the Regular Series. This formation was then retained until the end of the Grand Prix in 1989. Totalinarian (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh...and my sources also indicate that there were up to forty different Grand Prix points categories in 1989 compared to three in 1970. Totalinarian (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If you make this gnews search: [3] then in second place you find a source from Atlanta Journal, April 28, 1985. Quoting: "The Grand Prix has a "Super Series," a "Regular Series", a "Doubles Series" ... Now it is Nabisco Grand Prix, celebrating a connection with those wonderful ..."
It is pay per view, so that's all we can see, but it confirms the existence of a "Regular Series" at that time.
I cannot find the term "Championships Series", so it looks like we will have to rename this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I also noticed that the creator of this article, Navops47, initially used "Super Series" throughout the page , e.g. see diff: [4].
Maybe he can tell us why he changed everything. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That would be helpful. The one problem with renaming is finding the right title - perhaps Grand Prix Super Series (tennis) or Grand Prix Tennis Super Series (the latter sounds a bit clumsy for my liking). From there the chronology of this tier can be established. Totalinarian (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It does look like a change is needed... but to what? There appear to be dozens of terms thrown around and we are not actually sure what was the most popular at the time. The bigger tournament names as a conglomerate seem to have changed from year to year. This article says there were 4 grades in 1975 and 6 grades in 1976... with I would guess the 5 star and 4 star events being this article's "Championship Series." Until we do some thorough investigating this current title is as good as anything else. I would think we don't want to have to change it over and over. In 1970 there were 20 total tournaments, in 1971 there were 31 men's and 18 women's events. In 1972 there were 33 men's and 31 women's events. But the categories are a bit elusive in how many and what the exact names were. Super Series is not what they were called every year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi the original article I created was indeed called Grand Prix Tennis Super Series events I changed to Championships series because within the Super Series there were mandatory events numbering 9-12 at various periods that players had to play for contractual terms and these were refered to as the championship series circuit (sub group) within the super series. I thought I referenced that correctly however the article is not set in stone it was created to provide pre-1990 parity for players records now we can discuss whether certain tournaments should be in there or not or re-jigged a bit and again I must state that I asked for assistance in compiling this article back in April this year and the only users to give me any feedback were Fyunk(click), 03md and Gap9551--Navops47 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the purpose of this article is a very good one, but because the many naming changes there is a problem with naming this article. I think we should look at the articles we already have. There is Grand Prix tennis circuit and World Championship Tennis, and both already try to explain the complicated history of the men's tennis tours in the 70s and 80s. So we can be short about that history in the article here, and just wikilink to these two articles.
Basically the article here is mainly a list of tournaments by year. We can avoid the problem of naming changes by using a more generic name like List of Grand Prix tournaments (tennis) or List of Grand Prix tournaments by year (tennis). In the lede we can explain that the criterion for inclusion is to be one of the "big 9" tournaments, also known as "Super Series" or <other name that has been used for it>. We have then solved the naming problems. Inside the article I would try to rename each yearly section to the actual name it had in that year. So "1987 Grand Prix Championship Series" would become "1987 Super Series", and in doing so the naming history would become clearly visible as well (= more accurate article). For the years 1982-1984, when the WTC tournaments had withdrawn from the Grand Prix, we can still include them (for reason of continuity and parity for player records), but explain the situation in a note. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed the earliest reference to an elite super series I found is here The Lakeland Ledger Newspaper 03/24/1977
but I have trolled a lot of newspaper articles and I think there is an earlier reference I'll keep looking --Navops47 (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There is also a reference here http://news.google.com/newspapers to three tiers of status existing within the Grand Prix tour in 1977 again I have seen an earlier reference to this --Navops47 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There will be some other problems to solve. Until 1977 WCT and Grand Prix were separate. The tournaments in the 1972 section are mostly WCT tournaments and not Grand Prix. See 1972 WCT circuit and 1972 Grand Prix (tennis) (mostly empty). So we should rename that section to something like "1972 Grand Prix and WCT". This being the case, a better name for the article would be something like: List of Grand Prix and WCT tournaments by year (tennis) MakeSense64 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's true but Borg for example competed on both tours as did other players and the balance we have strike is which events were considered top tier for each year when both tours were seperate between 1970-76 those listed in the article for WCT and Grand Prix were the top tier events of that particular tour and the top tier WCT events were absorbed by the Grand Prix by 1978, so we either have a seperate WCT article and Grand Prix article in that case. Anyway at least were discussing best way forward--Navops47 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree; it's nice to know that this topic has been so hotly debated. I use World of Tennis books as my sources; these indicate that any tournaments of at least A status in 1973, AA status in 1974 and 1975, four-star status from 1976 to 1978 and offering US$150,000 in 1979 should be classified as part of what became the Super Series (if we persist in using this term as my sources do). I disagree with merging the Grand Prix and WCT articles together; the only times we could do so are the period from 1977 to 1981 when the two tours merged and the period from 1985 to 1989 when WCT was reabsorbed by the Grand Prix, and even then the articles should retain the Grand Prix title. I should apologise for not aiding Navops; I must not have felt that I had enough information then to provide factually accurate feedback. Totalinarian (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In further, I will see what I can do about adding to the relatively empty Grand Prix pages, and from there we can modify this page further. Totalinarian (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree the Grand Prix tour seasons pages really do need finishing --Navops47 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If you have access to the World of Tennis books it will help us greatly to improve this article, starting with replacing "xxxx Championsips Series" with the real name(s) it had in each of the year sections. I am not proposing to merge the Grand Prix and WCT articles. We have to develop them just like the "xxxx ATP World Tour" articles, and also need more "xxxx WCT circuit" articles (only 1972 and 1973 exist, the rest are red linked). Once that is done, the article here can be made into a List article for the purpose of parity of stats. Here we list the main tournaments, regardless whether they belonged to Grand Prix or WCT, because players like Borg played on both tours. So this is the only way to create player stats lists that represent the whole tennis season in 70s and 80s. I believe that was the main idea behind the article here. If we look at [5] we find all tournaments (and draws) for years since 1968. There is always "WCT" next to the name of the tournament if it was part of WCT tour. So we can do the same in the article here.
We better add the relevant World of Tennis book to the references for each year article, because right now most of our year articles have only a few sources. Google book search turns up these books, but unfortunately no look inside them. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
For the years 1970-77 I have added "WCT" next to the tournaments , where appropriate according to ATP site. I don't know if more of these tournaments were WTC. The situation seemed to change from year to year. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
WCT added is not problem but the top of the article already states that it is consisting of tournaments from both tours. the US Pro Indoor Philadelphia is the only 3 WCT top tier events in the whole list. Certainly from 1977 the elite term as proposed earlier and infact the one I was originally going to use was Grand Prix Super Series but as also said there were anything from nine to twelve mandatory top tier events within the Super Series at various points that players were contractually obliged to play. I feel to get this right we need to discuss each section year by year tournament by tournament so if anybody feels that a tournament in that list should not be there we can discuss this and offer/propose alternatives if necessary, Criteria to consider when doing this would be Ranking Points available, Field Strength/Size, Prize Money available. --Navops47 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
And yes I agree with MakeSense64 player parity pre-1990 is the whole concept behind the article --Navops47 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Boston and Monte Carlo are also marked as WCT in some of these early years. Maybe Totalinarian can confirm this from World of Tennis for these years. From 1978 onwards we can leave it as is, with possible exceptions in 1982-84 period. Overall there are not too many tournaments that were clearly WCT, so we can probably use "Super Series" in the name, just explaining that in the pre 1980 years, the tournaments are from A Status or AA Status, and a few from WCT, for what was to become the "Super Series" tournaments. If we mark the exceptions clearly, and explain in the lede, then we will have no problems with the factual accuracy on that point. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
We can also update this template Template:ATP Masters Series, to resolve the red links by wikilinking to the proper section in the article here. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes sorry I forgot to add Boston and Monte Carlo which were WCT events for a short period then back to Grand Prix and agree its the period 1970-1977 that needs closer attention and agree again re:-template link in but there is also a lot work there to bring them up to the same standard as those post 1990.--Navops47 (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1981 Monte Carlo[edit]

I see where this rained out final between Connors and Vilas now has them both credited with a win. This is incorrect. They both should be credited with being finalists - not winners. There was no winner that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talkcontribs) 23:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 DoneBloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Disagree, concept of shared title is a valid argument. --Lucio Garcia 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talkcontribs)

London and Canada (Toronto/Montreal)[edit]

It seems that these events via'd for status. What is interesting is that on this page - in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 London is not listed as one of this page but in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics#Tournament_winners it has London instead of Canada in those years. I think London was a bigger event in those days. So this page is wrong. and small>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talkcontribs) 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please compare this page with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics#Tournament_winners

This later page has a different set of tournament for the 'Championship Series'. I tend to think it is correct rather than the page we are on.

WCT Tournaments[edit]

Since we have now determined that the Grand Prix and WCT were two separate entities between 1970 and 1977 and between 1982 and 1984, does this not justify removing WCT tournaments from those years? It seems unlikely that the ILTF (later the ITF) would recognise the tournaments of their bitter rivals in their Championship Series.

PS The term Championship Series is still being used with a reference that has been proven to be incorrectly cited! Totalinarian (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi it's been a while since I have been in I see the debate about my original article still soldiers on :) to be honest the purpose of that article was to provide parity for pre-1990 tour events that were of similar status to the 1000 series today. I see nothing wrong with renaming that article (that encompasses) both tours the top players competed regularly on both ofthem selecting those prestigious events in which to compete, and in some cases they mandatory. Therefore the process for final outcome should be renaming it, deciding which events go in based on that tours tier basis. The Grand Prix went from 6 tiers to 4 tiers to 3 Tiers so its a process of selection the same with WCT. If I had more time I would start it again but but I don't. --Navops47 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Grand Prix Super Series (Elite Group)[edit]

OK I'm still looking for that reference to "Championship Series" When I first drafted the article I was exploring within the Super Series tournaments the elite group (most prize money and points) and indeed called it the Grand Prix Super Series Events. The Grand Prix Super Series first started it appears in 1978 see here GP Super Series. There did exist an elite group within that series see here http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/02/sports/tennis-council-modifies-tour where it states " The 12 major tournaments would include the four Grand Slam events - Wimbledon and the Australian, French and United States opens -and two classes of elite events: 14 World Series tournaments with total prize money of $1 million each, and 13 Super Series events. The top players could choose from among these" but I believe based on prize money and points prestigious events did exist on the tour 1970 through out as in Tennis.com writer Peter Bodo's article here Tennis.com in it he states "events like Monte Carlo and Rome were just as prestigious then as they are today" Thiose event just happened to be Championship events previous names. As I mentioned before renaming it no problem could possibly be called Grand Prix Super Series events (elite group) nobody it seems is willing to go through year by year deciding which of those events were elite in the original article I attempted to do that and I think I came pretty close. --Navops47 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I get the gist of your message. We have already discussed the criteria that would warrant a tournament's inclusion in the Super Series above; any tournament given a Grand Prix rating of Group 1 in 1970, A in 1973, AA in 1974 and 1975, four stars from 1976 to 1977 and offering (for example) at least US$150,000 in prize money in 1978. WCT tournaments do not qualify for inclusion in this article except between 1978 and 1981 and between 1985 and 1989 because they were not part of the Grand Prix. I'm not even sure whether they would have been part of the Super Series when they were part of the Grand Prix anyway, but I can't determine that. "Events like Monte Carlo and Rome were just as prestigious then as they are today", but they were not always part of the Grand Prix.
We do not have to decide which tournaments were elite because we know which ones were. Here are the tournaments (described by their ATP locations) which qualified for Super Series status between 1973 and 1982 as indicated by World of Tennis annuals:
1973: Australian Open, Rome, Washington, Louisville, Montreal/Toronto, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Madrid, Tehran, Stockholm, Johannesburg
1974: Rome, Nottingham, Washington, Louisville, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tehran, Stockholm, Johannesburg
1975: Hamburg, Rome, Nottingham, Washington, Louisville, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sydney, Tehran, Stockholm, Tokyo, Johannesburg
1976: Rome, Washington, Louisville, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Woodlands (ATP Doubles), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tehran, Sydney, Stockholm, Wembley, Johannesburg
1977: Palm Springs, Memphis, Johannesburg (March), Los Angeles, Hamburg, Rome, Washington, Indianapolis, North Conway, Columbus, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, San Francisco, Tehran, Sydney Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Johannesburg (November)
1978: Birmingham WCT, Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, St. Louis WCT, Palm Springs, Memphis, Milan, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo WCT, Houston WCT, Las Vegas (April), World Doubles WCT, Dallas WCT, Hamburg, Rome, Birmingham, Washington, Louisville, North Conway, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Woodlands (ATP Doubles), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg
1979: World Doubles WCT, Birmingham WCT, Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, St. Louis WCT, Rancho Mirage, Memphis, New Orleans, Milan, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Houston WCT, Las Vegas, World Doubles WCT, Dallas WCT, Hamburg, Rome, Washington, Louisville, North Conway, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Cincinnati, Woodlands (ATP Doubles), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg
1980: World Doubles WCT, Birmingham WCT, Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, St. Louis WCT, Rancho Mirage, Memphis, Milan, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Houston WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Sao Paolo, Forest Hills WCT, Hamburg, Rome, Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Boston, Cincinnati, Sawgrass Doubles, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg
1981: World Doubles WCT, Monterrey WCT, Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, La Quinta, Memphis, Salisbury WCT, Milan, Frankfurt, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Houston WCT, Las Vegas, World Doubles WCT, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Hamburg, Rome, Boston, Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Cincinnati, Sawgrass Doubles, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg
1982: Philadelphia, Memphis, La Quinta, Monterrey, Brussels, Milan, Frankfurt, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Los Angeles (April), Madrid, Hamburg, Rome, Boston, Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, Montreal/Toronto, Cincinnati, Sawgrass Doubles, Los Angeles (September), San Francisco, Barcelona, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Stockholm, Wembley, Johannesburg

I'll post a list of the World of Tennis indicated Super Series tournaments between 1984 and 1989 in due course. Totalinarian (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed tag[edit]

I re-added the 'disputed' tag to this article which was recently removed. The issues with this article have been largely discussed above but several are still outstanding including the naming of the article and sections, the lack of clearly defined inclusion criteria, the number of tournaments included in this category and the inclusion (or exclusion) of certain tournaments in the yearly lists. I like the intent of the article (creating a historic overview of the most important tennis tournaments below the category of Majors) and appreciate the considerable effort that went into it but without solving the mentioned issues it may amount to original research which would render it unencyclopedic.--Wolbo (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Looks like we have a rough consensus that the proposed title is preferable to the current one. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)



Grand Prix Championship SeriesGrand Prix Super Series – To the best of my knowledge there are no reliable sources to indicate that the name "Championship Series" was ever used to identify the top tier of Grand Prix tennis tournaments below the Grand Slams (and the year-end Masters). From 1982 through 1989 the term "Super Series" is used in the World of Tennis yearbooks to officially designate this tier of tournaments. The term itself is used as early as early as 1977 (1). While the term "Super Series" does not cover the entire Grand Prix period from 1970 – 1989, as Totalinarian mentions different designations were used during the 1970s, it at least covers a significant part and is therefore a better name than the current one which shows no usage at all. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Wolbo (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment if this title "Grand Prix Championship Series" isn't used for tennis, can it be redirected to the disambiguation page Grand Prix (disambiguation) ? As I've seen people call the ISU Grand Prix series (ice skating) that, and the Formula One race car series as that also. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment I have no problem if you wish to change the name as I have stated in previous feedback on this talk page I orginally called it super series but I did read an interview which I never found again from Bjorn Borg that when he was being pressured to play 10 elite super series tournaments he wanted to only play in what he called championship series events. There did exist different tiers of these events just like today as per my referenece in January 2012 the orginal purpose of the article was to provide parity for pre-1990 players in referencing higher tier events after the Majors similar to the ATP 1000 Series events of today they did exist then in terms of higher prize money more points and in some cases of only the top 32 players being able to compete in those selected tournaments I originally asked for assistance on tennis project talk page prior to producing it and I got feed back from three members as long as the article reflects an elite group of non Major's and Yr End Champs tournaments during the GP tour Im fine with that we may have to re-look at which tournaments qualified for that status please refer to and re-read the links I have provided previously about this.--Navops47 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
One more comment calling them 500 series events is not acceptable because that effectively means there were no top tier events similar to the 1000 series however Grand Prix Elite Group Series I think sounds better please read this newspaper report in June 1977 which mentions 3 Tier groups after the Majors for where I coming from http://news.google.com/newspapers/grandprix tennis top tier tournaments--Navops47 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is from the Paris Newspaper in January 1982. "PTC denies Borg's request for exemption NEW YORK (AP) — Sweden's Bjorn Borg, a six- time French Open winner and five-time champion at Wimbledon, will have to qualify for both tournaments unless he agrees to play in at least three more Grand Prix events, the Men's International Pro Tennis Council has ruled. Borg has signed up to play in only seven of 29 "Super Series" *Grand Prix tournaments. He must play in at least 10 of the richest events. The Pro Council, which administers the Grand Prix circuit, announced its decision at a news conference Friday. Borg, who dominated men's tennis from 1978 until he lost to John McEnroe in the finals at Wimbledon last year, asked that he be given an exemption because he is in the midst of a five-month layoff. "Due to the personality of Bjorn, his past and his fantastic record, we considered this request at length," said Philippe Chatricr, president of the Pro Council. "We deeply regret he cannot meet the minimum requirement, but we cannot have two sets of rules, one for Bjorn and one for the rest of the field. The Council, which administers the Grand Prix, will notify Borg of its decision by letter. The superstar will then have 10 days to comply with the rules, If he doesn't, Borg will have to play in the qualifying tournament in any event he enters. Marshall Mapper, administrator of the Council, said that should he qualify, he would be seeded in the tournament according to his ranking. Borg, ranked fourth in the world, currently is playing ice hockey in Malmo, Sweden. Borg has signed up to play tournaments in Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Hamburg, Toronto, Cincinnati, London and Tokyo. He also will play three of the Grand Slam events — Wimbledon and the French and U.S. Opens. But those three Grand Slam events do not count toward the 10 tournament rule. The fourth Grand Slam event, the Australian Open, does count toward the 10 tournament requirement". link here: http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/16848876/--Navops47 (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Giving it one last relist. I'll drop a note at the tennis project. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak support I don't know too much about tennis during this period but I had a search on the ATP website for both 'Grand Prix Super Series' and 'Grand Prix Championship Series'. Neither search really returns anything of note. Clearly, this set of tournaments hasn't had a consistent name that has been used, although clearly Super Series was the more common name in more recent years (see 1, 2, 3 and 4). Hence, I'm tempted to agree with the move but I don't know if it would be better to have a more general title such as 'Tennis Grand Prix Series' or something similar.
Weak Support I tend to agree with the above. I watch hundreds of matches in the time period but my remembrance is that it was inconsistent in its naming. We aren't supposed to make things up so we have to go with a sourced title, even if it's a weak one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'll support the move providing purpose of the article is not compromised and that is clearly stated in the intoduction, these were highest level events after the Majors and YE's , the difficulty now is naming it "Super Series" came in in 1978 and we have "group 1, group 2, A, AA, 5 star, 6 star" from 1970 to 1977. I like "Tennis Grand Prix Series" but I believe we need to add (Top Tier) which covers all of these tier names and differentiate's these tournaments from others one last word thanks to Wolbo for doing a lot of remidial work already and making the GP tour articles look very nice--Navops47 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Seconded... we do not want to diminish the importance of these events which often were more important than the YE's (which were split between 2 rival groups). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
On refelection the term Grand Prix should come first my preference would be either Grand Prix Tennis Top Tier Series or Grand Prix Tennis Series (Top Tier) I don't think the article should be called Super Series because that links to ATP 500. I have added sources for 6 star, super series, and tier prestige references in the introduction I can't find newspaper sources as yet for the others AA and so on.--Navops47 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue with using the term "Top Tier" in the article title is that it is factually incorrect. The tournaments that are the subject of this article formed the second tier below the Grand Slams. From 1970 until 1976 the France Open, Wimbledon and US Open formed the top tier of the Grand Prix circuit and this group was known under various names (1970–1971: A , 1972–1973: AA and 1974–1976 TC or Triple Crown). From 1978 onward the Australian Open was added and the top category was renamed to "Grand Slams". As mentioned in the RM request the term "Super Series" is an official designation used in the World of Tennis yearbooks for these tournaments which is why to me it is the most logical and correct name for the article. We can simply change the current redirect to the ATP World Tour 500 series which doesn't make much sense anyway. My only issue with using the name "Super Series" is that the term was not used for the whole period 1970–1989 but, depending on where exactly you draw the line, covers half or slightly more than half of the period. This may not be perfect but it is no different from the article ATP Masters Series which describes the period 1990–2008. In fact it is better because the tier was only called "ATP Masters Series" from 2005 to 2008, less than 25% of the period which that article covers.--Wolbo (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed but the lead in introduction needs modifying to refelect the feedback comments I don't know how to move it you obviously do so go ahead.--Navops47 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Navops47, to avoid conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions initiators of an RM as well as editors who have voted on it should never close it. An admin or uninvolved editor will take care of closing it and move the article if consensus stays like it is. Apart from the article name there are still other issues as you and other editors have commented but I am sure we can address those. --Wolbo (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.