Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth
OMG, this is
I'll play this game.
Let's consider Federer's 2 worst surfaces and Nadal's 2 worst surfaces.
Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)
Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4
8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal
Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me