Originally Posted by Mustard
The Tournament of Champions (1956-1959) was just as big an event, as was the Wimbledon Pro of 1967.
Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967, anyway.
Actually, I think that the point we have been trying to make, despite some distractions, is that the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, and the 1967 Wimbledon were not merely the EQUIVALENT of the established pro majors, but were significantly SUPERIOR to them. That, I believe, is the point.
A marked SUPERIORITY, which the established pro majors, for a number of reasons, could not hope to emulate.
Then, does it make any sense whatsoever NOT to include these super-tournaments among the pro majors? Obviously, the amswer must be "NO"!