I think in sports you have this thing where the sport has evolved enough to where competitively it has fully established a core, it has found its identity, and a measuring stick can be established. No way in hell I would say William Renshaw is as good as his 7 Wimbledon titles make him out to be (especially considering the rules of the championship match back in those days), or that whiskey drinking between sets Jack Crawford can be compared to a modern day athlete, or that the 200 “titles” Rod Laver won are relevant to the way the modern game is played and the amount of events pros enter today. Whatever it was for its time, great, props to it, but modern day tennis is a different animal. Athletically at least, it’s no contest. Add to that uniformity of the tour too.
With Federer in tennis, at least hopefully we all are cool with calling him the greatest in the Open Era. If you don’t agree with that, well I am sorry but you are just wrong and oblivious to facts. Now is Federer the best ever? I think so (especially since I think Open Era>>>Pre Open Era) and frankly he’s the best candidate for that, just as Michael Jordan is the greatest candidate for best basketball player (I see them as a similar figure actually, more on that I delve upon below). The sport has evolved, is more competitive, more established, grander. Fed came, he saw, he conquered and we all have proof and undisputable numbers (plus footage). There are no myths or history essays, no hypothetical scenarios here, no amateur vs pro dilemmas, plus his career isn’t even done and already he’s the most legitimate example of tennis success and GOAThood, or at least as close as you can get to it (wow moment: you have to add up Nadal, Djokovic and Murray’s slam counts to equal that of Federer).
A lot of haters are clinging on to H2H debates vs one particular player, but Nadal still couldn’t win the war vs Fed despite winning key individual battles (see titles, see #1 rankings, see records for Fed vs those achieved by Nadal), and that’s with the favorable match up and playing Fed on his favorite surface, while not making finals on Fed’s best surfaces during Fed’s prime.
There are some people here saying how Fed didn’t win all 4 majors in one year, which is nitpicking at one particular measure of greatness that Budge and Laver achieved rather than seeing the whole spectrum with Fed (find a record they didn’t achieve that Fed has and turn that argument around). Take Michael Jordan for example. He didn’t average a triple double over the course of a season (Robertson), didn’t score a 100 point game (Chamberlain), trails in NBA titles count (Russell) and MVPs (Jabaar) but is still the greatest ever right? But Fed didn’t win 4 majors in one year so Laver>>>Federer? Get real. The definition of a complete player, with magic on the court, spectacular plays, people’s champion, individual records that will stand the test of time, establishing the measuring stick for all to follow, while having the most majors and most of the important records that matter during the contemporary epoch of tennis. Fed’s the GOAT.