Originally Posted by pc1
I think sometimes we get too much in technicalities. The Tournament of Champions and the Wimbledon Pro were super important tournaments and arguably the most important of the year. Were they Pro Majors? I don't think so. But the fact they were so prestigious is more important. I don't think the pros were into the idea that "I have to build up my majors count now." They were into winning big tournaments and winning money.
What was more important to the Pros in 1972, the WCT Championship or the French and Australian? I would think the WCT Championship. Rosewall won it over Laver that year. Some may argue that it was a small field but I would argue back that they earned it by playing so well over the course of the WCT circuit as the WTF tournament is now.
I would also argue that the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, while perhaps not a Pro Major was the biggest and most important tournament in the Old Pro Tour history.
This is another reason why I think it's so flawed to count majors as the most important criteria to determine the best player of all time.
Great points here. The "official" pro majors were often minor events.
While the 1967 Wimbledon was the most important pro tournament in the way it transitioned to open tennis, and showed Laver at his absolute peak form, I would suggest that the 1959 Forest Hills had a stronger field and showcased a number of greats at their prime. Hoad, Gonzales, a younger and better Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Anderson at his best, Cooper, Segura, Rose, Giammalva (who was a good player, and won a pro tournament that year at Tuscaloosa beating both Riggs and Budge).
Plus, the last TWO rounds were best-of-five sets, a tougher challenge than the semis in 1967, which featured a very deteriorated Hoad among the last four.