Originally Posted by Dan Lobb
The problem with the old pro era is deciding on the appropriate "measuring unit".
Some tournaments which are touted as "majors" were not really major major, and I would even include in that list the 1951 US Pro at Forest Hills, because Kramer dropped out before the final.
The absence of only one or two pros could damage the importance of a top tournament, simply because there were usually only a few top pros at any one time.
I would suggest picking a rotating choice of top event for each year, each one the peak event of the pro calendar, featuring the top two or more contenders.
There is usually one event each year where the top guy emerges and plays the best tennis of the year with all the chips down.
1948--- US Pro (Kramer)
1949--- Wembley (Kramer)
1950--- Philadelphia (Gonzales)
1951--- Philadelphia (Kramer)
1952--- Wembley (Gonzales)
1953--- Wembley (Sedgman)
1954--- MSG (Gonzales)
1955--- Slazenger (Gonzales)
1956--- Wembley (Gonzales)
1957--- Forest Hills (Gonzales)
1958--- Kooyong (Hoad)
1959--- Forest Hills (Hoad)
1960--- Kooyong (Hoad)
1961--- Wembley (Rosewall)
1962--- Wembley (Rosewall)
1963--- Forest Hills (Rosewall)
1964--- Wembley (Laver)
1965--- Longwood (Rosewall)
1966--- Longwood (Laver)
1967--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1968--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1969--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1970--- Wimbledon (Newcombe)
1971--- Wimbledon (Newcombe)
1972--- Wimbledon (Smith)
1973--- Forest Hills (Newcombe)
After 1973, you could simply go with the Wimbledon champ.
These were essentially the world championship events, and the rest of the tennis season were merely gravy on the potatoes.
You might call this approach to tennis ranking "The High Noon at Centre Court" method.
This is where tennis reaches its greatest drama, two men squaring off for supremacy, like two grizzlies fighting for turf.