Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near
Anyway, I definitely don't see my reasoning as being unreasonable at all in the way that Datacipher seems to be implying it is. All of these things hold relevance and some aspects may hold rather significant relevance.
Well you are entitled to reason as you please, but I find it....unfathomable. There are millions MILLIONS of factors that go into winning a slam, on and OFF court. Even if we reduce the millions of off court reasons, we are left with innumerable on court reasons, opponents, draw, strategy, fitness.....if we eliminate all of those, and only think of strokes...well the forehand still wouldn't be at the top of the list. To say that this is a relevent factor in judging Federer's forehand as superior to Lendl's.....well...wow...
Would you judge Edberg's serve as superior to Stich or Krajicek? Would you judge Federer's serve as superior to Ivanisevic's? Would you judge Federer's volleys as superior to Mcenroe's? Is Sampras fitter than Lendl?
Slams won is REALLY not a relevent factor on which to base any of these judgments. In the case of many of strokes (while posters nominations seem limited to slam winners), it is quite possible, and in many cases, likely, that some journeymen are in fact in the top 5.
I believe that you are looking at an area of comparison (slams won), which happens to coinicide with your opinon in the comparison of interest (forehand) and have irrationally decided to use the former to support the latter. I'd also suggest that your other self-directed suggestion (that you need to see some more of Lendl's forehand) would be far more fruitful in making your judgement!