pc1
G.O.A.T.
I believe that perhaps we tend to look at the Old Pro Tour from fairly modern eyes. Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro were generally important Pro Events but I don't believe you can call it a Major like we call the French Open or Wimbledon now. McCauley at the end of his book has a record section called the Past Results of the Three Major Pro Events. I think in this case major is the same as important but not "a MAJOR" along the lines of the current majors of today. Laver for example according to McCauley in 1965 won the first BIG EVENT of the season by winning the US Pro Indoor Champs over Gonzalez. Gonzalez had beaten Rosewall in the semifinals to meet Laver in the final. That was a major event also.
I believe there were a lot of major aka important Old Pro Tour events but they cannot be categorized as MAJORS in the way we call the Classic Majors of today. There were huge important tournaments that were major tournaments like the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, the Tournament of Champions in the 1950s, the US Pro Indoor Champs among others. Some of these tournaments can easily be argue to be more important than Wembley, the US Pro or the French Pro. We cannot be rigid in our approach to looking at the Old Pro Tour.
Perhaps some like @krosero and @Dan Lobb, @NatF, and others could give their input here.
I believe there were a lot of major aka important Old Pro Tour events but they cannot be categorized as MAJORS in the way we call the Classic Majors of today. There were huge important tournaments that were major tournaments like the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, the Tournament of Champions in the 1950s, the US Pro Indoor Champs among others. Some of these tournaments can easily be argue to be more important than Wembley, the US Pro or the French Pro. We cannot be rigid in our approach to looking at the Old Pro Tour.
Perhaps some like @krosero and @Dan Lobb, @NatF, and others could give their input here.
Last edited: