Originally Posted by Talker
There are a lot of people who don't like to crown Federer the GOAT.
Sampras was one person who had the slams to challenge Federer, Laver wasn't a good argument and still isn't.
Laver was looked at playing in a time and field where the game has changed too much and the players look levels below the level of today and in Sampras's time, so Sampras was the best argument.
When Federer passed up most of the areas that was used to challenge him then Sampras fell by the wayside but there was a void left.
Laver was the only one left, the problem is what it has always been.
The game has changed and the players at the top now are light years ahead of players in Laver's time.
There are no arguments but mostly what ifs and this is the only thing that can be used for Laver now.
Just go through past posts, you'll see that many arguments are about theoreticals that Laver might have won 20 slams or the players were so good then and other maybe's.
Look at the old clips, how many OMG shots do you see by Laver who others at that time couldn't do?
Talker, You underrate Laver a lot. For instance Laver had a few shots in his repertoire that no other player had, not even Rosewall.