Originally Posted by abmk
just because conditions are same for everyone doesn't mean a particular type of player doesn't enjoy the advantage .....
Illogical. The anti-Laver argument is based on the false surface theory; Laver was on the same playing field as his contemporaries, thus winning goes back to the talent of the man playing. Laver was that man far and above the rest. You also conveniently ignored the Graf situation--she won her Grand Slam in the era of 4 different surfaces, so are you going to say she had an advantage on all four? For your sake, you should not, as all of her opponents were playing on the same surfaces
. The difference is in the overwhelming talent of the GS winner--surface does not matter.
concentrated dominance means dominance over the tour overall, at all events .....
get this : the tennis world does not revolve around the calendar GS ......
That's your woefully incorrect fan desire--not recognized history. You have no explanation (or flat out dodge) why players such as Laver and Graf are considered the GOAT over the course of decades--and it has nothing to do with majors count, either.
Winning the Grand Slam is
concentrated dominance at the sport's biggest events--the majors. Federer, Hingis, Wilander and Serena all won three in a season, but none were good enough to show supreme dominance over the season's majors. Try and try again, but you will never be able to spin this into an advantage for Federer.
He did not have what it takes to win the Grand Slam in his so-named "prime," and considering his age at present, it is unlikely he ever reach the level required to do it moving forward.