Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
You are right. I like Pete but he overhyped his slam record WAY too much. That was never that impressive a record. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and possibly a few others, would all have more slams than even Federer currently has, let alone Sampras, had Open Era tennis been around then. His most impressive records were always his 7 Wimbledons (which he still shares, and IMO his 7 in 8 years is more impressive than Federer's 7 in 10) and his 6 straight year end #1st, along with his fabulous U.S Open record including 5 titles, 8 finals, and which showed amazing longevity at the event with 12 years spread of his first and last titles. However by building up his not that astounding slam mark so much, he indeed has rendered himself irrelevant by Federer breaking it. Federer meanwhile is overhyped and too easily coronated in GOAT debates due to not only his current player status, but thanks to Pete's overvaluing of his own slam mark. Federer has Pete to thank for much of his over the top GOAT coronation these days, LOL!
Pure speculation and apples to oranges in the extreme. For example, if Open Era tennis had existed in, say, the 30s, how many majors would Laver have won from '60-'62, competing against the best pros?