Originally Posted by egn
Where I will agree with you winning a pro major is not the same as winning an open era major at the time I feel the amateur majors were much further off.
And that brings up a difficult question: what if the pro majors were more difficult to win than the amateur majors? What if we don't even go that far, and we just say, for the sake of argument, that the pro majors and amateur majors were comparable in difficulty.
They why would we count the amateur majors among a player's "biggest" titles (for example, Laver's 1962 Australian title), and not count his pro majors?
I agree with you and John123 that a pro major, and an amateur major, are not the same as an Open Era major. But why count the amateur majors and not the pro, especially if the pro events had the best players in the world?