Originally Posted by kiki
(Vines may have won the then called Pro majors but Kodes faced like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced so that counterbalances the former)
This is more nonsense, but the really interesting point is how this argument collapses on itself. If Kodes faced "like 3 times the level of competition Vines faced," simply because he played in the 1970s, then Kodes also faced at least 3 times the competition that Don Budge did.
And as I said to you days ago, if you place quality of competition so high as a criteria, then that completely devalues Budge's Grand Slam, because Budge's competition in 1938 was, in fact, poorer than what Vines faced. In other words, according to you Kodes is on the level of Budge, because Kodes won 3 majors, while Budge won 6, but Kodes' competition was "3 times" greater than what Budge faced. At least 3 times, maybe more.
I mean, isn't that how you've been arguing? Don't you just drop great names from the 70s (even if Kodes never beat them), and throw them into the pot as Kodes' competition. Okay, so let's do that with Budge. Kodes, according to you, played in the great era of Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Borg.
Which of Budge's opponents in 1938 would you like to stack against that list?
I'm sorry, but you've called Budge a GOAT candidate, yet according to your arguments Kodes comes out at least as great as Budge, maybe even greater.
This is so bizarre.