The information about major encounters is by your definition and your pick of matches. You can also use the 1970 Year End Masters, the Tennis Champions Classic of 1970, the 1969 US Pro, the 1968 Pacific Southwest, and a lot of other tournaments. By the way all the tournaments I mentioned in the last sentence had Laver defeating Rosewall.
I believe Laver is ahead in big matches by my subjective count by a very good margin. By your subjective count which I believe includes a
third place match for the WCT Championship in 1973 which I don't think should count. You have Rosewall ahead 10-7 in major matches.
I define big matches as high stakes matches not a third place match. Amazing how you ask about whether you should include the 1967 Wimbledon Pro which was arguably the most important tournament ever on the Old Pro Tour. It's a no brainer that it should be included. Laver won the 1967 Wimbledon Pro in straight sets by the way.
The 10-7 number you give is your number alone. It is not a stat but your opinion. My opinion is that Laver is clearly ahead in important matches.
Rosewall was never a dominant player like Tilden, Federer, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Djokovic and Nadal just to name a few. His best season was 1962 in which he was 52-7 against a field without Laver and Gonzalez. Rosewall never won 90% of his matches in any one year. To compare, Federer, Borg, Tilden, Lendl and Connors averaged over 90% for five consecutive years! McEnroe was close at 89.6% over five years. Rosewall's best five years in 75.1% which is hardly awesome. This means that during Rosewall's BEST FIVE YEARS he lost about one out of four times he played. This is not dominant or even close. By comparison Federer lost about one out of ten times he played. Tilden was ridiculous in that he lost about one out of fifty times he played in his peak five years. Rosewall's best year is not up to the level that Federer maintained for five years!
Beating a great player in straight sets in a few matches is hardly an example of dominance. Nadal has beaten Federer in majors in straights several times. Big deal. Sometimes players can beat other players in straight sets. Did you explain why peak Rosewall lost 19 of 24 matches to past peak Gonzalez in their 1960 head to head World Championship Tour?
The thing is that Rosewall was a great player. He was capable of beating anyone when they played with wood. He was extremely consistent and played at a very high level most of the time. And I am sure he could reach high peak levels in individual matches at times but so could non all time greats like Mecir, Henri Leconte, Frank Kovacs, Pat Cash who have beaten many an all time great in big tournaments. Leconte for example beat Ivan Lendl in straight sets at Wimbledon. Cash also beat Lendl in the final of Wimbledon in straight sets. Edberg who was a great player but imo not a GOAT candidate crushed Jim Courier in the final of the US Open in a match people still regard with awe today. Did Rosewall ever play at this level? Possibly but it means nothing.
Now I'm with you that I do believe that career accomplishments should be included but it doesn't mean everyone has to do that for their own criteria for all time top ten.