Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth
What people don't realize is that the difference between 18 and 19 is a lot more than the difference between, say, 7 and 8. 17 Grand Slams is insanity. 18 Slams would be insanityX2. It's not a big deal for a player who has won 2 or 3 Slams to wins a 3rd or 4th. But for a player who had won 17 Slams to win an 18th or 19th one is all the more staggering, because they're in uncharted territory as it is and they're likely not in their 20s anymore. Saying, "17 or 18 or 19, what's the difference, he already has the record," is craziness, plain and simple. 99% of pro players would kill to win that one Slam.
Yeah, until someone comes along and breaks the slam record. If someone is going to get to 18, there's a good chance they're going to get to 19. No count is ever safe. Records are made to be broken.
However, if a player wins the career Grand Slam and Olympic gold in singles...nobody can ever take that away from him. You can only win everything once...once.
Basically, this is the same as arguing that Federer would have preferred to end with 15 non-French Open majors over 14 with a French Open. Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.
Otherwise, just looking at both of their strengths - on faster courts - they're basically even, with a slight edge to Sampras in the faster slams.