Here's a post that, frankly, amazed me. And again. The second post convinced me that the author was serious (and not being facetious). It was almost as if the author of these posts was saying the old Marx Brothers line: "Don't confuse the issue with facts." I have long thought that boiling tennis history down to one single statistic would be overly simplistic, because tennis history is way too complicated for that. One good reason is the Pro-AM split which prevented the world's best players form even entering the slam tournaments. Another reason would be that before 1970 or so no one was really counting up totals, particularly the players. In this regard there is that famous statement by Laver, that once he asked Emerson (his oft doubles partner) if he knew how many "majors" he had won, and Emmo said he had no idea. I am not suggesting that slams are unimportant or don't matter. I am merely saying that the total of these is not the single and sole statistic that counts. Am I wrong here? Do you think figuring out the best in the history of the game is about more than the slams count total? If so, please post why.