Again, you are incorrect, as it was the Grand Slam that was the zenith alone. No one packaged his other achievements with that, as it stands alone, the same reason there was a swell to hail Graf as the GOAT the moment she won the Grand Slam--long before her career was finished (where she would win more majors, but as noted, the label did not wait). Figure it out.
please it was laver's whole body of work , not just the 69 GS ....
no one sane called graf the GOAT after she had won the 88 slam ...
she still had to win a lot of majors after that ...
still quite a few put navratilova above her ...
Re: Borg and Federer and Budge -- criticizing Budge's amateur Grand Slam (an attempt to reduce the importance of the GS) does not help your argument, as Laver won it in the Open Era, so the point--the distinguishing marker of the GOAT--still stands. Borg and Federer were not talented/dominant enough to touch that.
I'm not reducing the importance of the GS. budge was the #1 the year he went to pros unlike laver who was dominated by rosewall and hoad in 63 after his amateur slam ....
very few call budge the GOAT ....that's because the GS by itself isn't enough to make one GOAT although it is a contributing factor.
borg in 79/80 itself was being called the GOAT by many over laver though he didn't win the GS ....
and obviously far more call federer the GOAT.
As I've explained before, one needs to look at the totality of a player's career, not just one year.
The GS shows total dominance over the field over the course of a year, right ?
well what about 5 consecutive majors at two different venues ? does that not show total dominance over 2 venues in majors over a period of five years ?
you need to stop with your narrow vision and stop yapping only about the grand slam.
you had the pro-amateur split from the 30s till the advent of the open era ....... the surfaces/conditions change over time. The importance of some events changes over time, eg. the Davis Cup, the AO in the early 70s to early 80s to what it is now etc etc ... you need to evaluate a player looking in the context of that era. Not use one single criteria.
Court: her supreme achievement has always been far and above the whole of Martina's career, but to be blunt, the former's views on gays had more to do with politically motivated shoving of Court aside than the actual tennis record in latter years (particularly in comparison to Martina). That anyone would dare rank Martina--on her best day never capable of winning the Grand Slam--over Court screams of one motivating factor. This is not a new point, either.
no, that is not the only reason. That wouldn't be reason enough for many who are not prejudiced.
The other reasons are :
court's AOs were won in depleted fields, so her major count is a bit inflated.
she under-performed at wimbledon , the most major event of tennis, though she was widely regarded as the best grass courter of her generation ....navratilova and graf excelled far more there ....
