Originally Posted by FedericRoma83
In the 30s amateur fields were a lot stronger than in the 60s.
After his 1938 Grand Slam Budge went to dominate the Pro circuit.
After his 1962 Grand Slam Laver was destroyed by both Rosewall (12-33) and Hoad (0-8 ).
We can also say that in 1938, Budge won the Grand Slam without having to worry about Vines, Perry, Nusslein and Tilden (professional players), as well as von Cramm (his biggest amateur rival, who was jailed by the Nazis).
The official majors, as designated by the ITF since 1924-1925, are the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Strength of the draw doesn't change the fact that they have officially been majors since then. The players who showed up and won the tournaments deserve full credit for doing so. Also, those who missed certain majors because of political disputes/bans/strikes etc. shouldn't have it held against them when we look at their career records. For example, Vilas deserves full credit for winning the 1977 French Open, but it shouldn't be held against Borg as a player that he played WTT and made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open. But Borg's decision still needs to be recognised as his personal decision, a choice that he made. For that reason, Vilas gets full credit for winning the French Open while Borg doesn't lose any credibility as a player for choosing WTT.
Multi-dimensional, dialectical thinking is required on issues like this. It isn't black and white.