Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove
I agree with both your points: 1) The Grand Slam is an awesome feat, but it requires a bit of luck to win it. Winning a very large number of titles, especially of majors, is also an awesome feat (which require probably some luck as well in some of the wins); 2) The H2H is not really interesting because it is already taken into account into the main titles count: All defeat that Rosewall suffered to Laver (especially in the later stage of tournaments) are as many titles less for him. Counting the H2H corresponds thus to count some defeat twice.
However, your majors titles count is unfair to Laver because he didn't competed in them until 1963 (2?). That means a lot of major. When Laver became a pro, he needed roughly one year to become successful (BobbyOne will correct me if I'm wrong). That suggest that, while he needed adaptation to win on the pro tour, he was an excellent player already. Who know if he wouldn't have taken some of Rosewall's Wembley and French pro if he had turned pro earlier?
It doesn't seems so clear to me that Rosewall is that much a better GOAT candidate than Laver!
Yes, Flash, Laver did not compete in the pro ranks through 1962. On the other hand they usually count Laver's first GS and his many amateur titles as a Rod's plus.
It's a fact that Laver was not an early developer as Rosewall was (and also not as late a champion as Rosewall was). Therefore I'm not sure if an earlier pro Laver would have taken pro majors from Muscles.
Prisoner did not count the amount of tournaments won. I would add it.
Laver's a t least 200 wins are awesome and a big plus in his record.
On the other hand we should consider that Rosewall turned pro earlier than Laver did (therefore more amateur wins for the Rocket) and that in Rosewall's pro career there seldom were years with many pro events while Laver in his prime was lucky that in those years there were many pro tournaments. But still Laver would be the all-time tournaments winner in any case.