Originally Posted by Federer20042006
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.
Your post makes no sense. The only reason the French Open was so important for Federer's (and Sampras's) legacy was because it is on Clay and winning it would prove Federer's (and Sampras's) credentials on Clay, which is a very important Tennis surface. The Olympics holds no such weight. For instance, Federer played his Olympic matches on Grass (2012) and Hard (2008, 2004, 2000). Federer has nothing
to prove on those surfaces, considering he's won 7 Wimbledons (grass) and 9 USO+AOs (Hard). The Olympics would've been the definition of a bonus for him, mainly because it doesn't always happen on the same surface (even though USO and AO are on Hards, they play very differently so, again, they're both very significant). Federer has won Grand Slams on each of the surface all his Olympic matches were played on so, really, how is it a weakness that he didn't win the Gold Medal in Olympic Singles?