To your question I think the answer is : NO , NO MAJORS 4 every year .
In the 50s there were the majors but were worth more than the World Tours .
1960-1967 4 slam amateurs are funny chickens and majors do not have the caliber of slam now , many tournaments have almost equal importance .
The French Pro until 1977 is not a real slam and Australia is barely a master1000 .
The Masters WCT is not never been to the level of the slam .
IMO only the GP Masters 1977-1985 is comparable to a slam .
So the real four major events did not exist in substance .
In tournaments that of LEVEL 1 :
FEDERER 17
NADAL & SAMPRAS 14
LENDL 13 ( 8 + 5 Masters GP )
BORG 11 ( 9 + 2 Slam Masters GP ) .. no RG 1974-75
MCENROE 10 ( 7 + 3 )
CONNORS 8 ( 7 + 1 ) .. no Australian Open 74
...
LAVER 5
ROSEWALL 3 ... no Australian Open 1971
GONZALES & KRAMER ZERO .
Obviously a ranking so no sense.
Reasoning only on tournament LEVEL 1 is incorrect , because clearly incomplete ( Laver , Pancho and others are disadvantaged )
IMO is correct to attribute importance to tournaments of LEVEL 2 or LEVEL 3 .
The problem becomes the LEVEL 2 .
At present there is only the LEVEL 2 to the ATP Finals , so the current champions have only one tournament !
While the Master 1000 ( LEVEL 3 ) are badly undervalued .
For example, I prefer Indian Wells or Cincinnati , Rome or Miami than the Finals .
I adapt to the fact that the Finals are LEVEL 2 but the Masters 1000 are , I repeat , undervalued .
If you make a comparison with the others champions, the current champions excel in tournaments LEVEL 1 , but suffers in LEVEL 2 & LEVEL.
Being able to sum only the Finals Federer sum 6 , while Nadal zero when other champions have numbers of securities LEVEL 2 very high .
Why in the LEVEL 2 should be pigeonholed all the major events , but not as prestigious as the slam Open ( Masters WCT , Philadelphia , Los Angeles , the majors Pro ... )
