Originally Posted by pc1
It's not a question of marketing but great timing also. Laver was the best player in the world when the Open Era started and even at that point considered one of the greatest if not the greatest that ever lived by many experts. Laver in the first opportunity to win the Open Grand Slam won all four majors in 1969 to accomplish this great feat. Television was beginning to make tennis a far more popular sport and Laver was really the first superstar of the Open Era.
But marketing had nothing to do with Laver's greatness. Marketing does not win you an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam. When you do that it's a sign of great dominance. But the timing allowed Laver to become the main focus of the beginning of the Open Era.
If Pancho Gonzalez was able to play in an Open Era it is very possible that he would have won the Open Grand Slam and this is the case with Rosewall.
Laver won at least 200 tournaments in his career. Marketing does not allow you to do that. Talent and skill plus competitive zeal allowed Laver to do that.
Rosewall was a super player, perhaps the GOAT but I do think Laver should be ranked slightly above Rosewall.
pc1, I agree. I would find it fair to rank both players equal and reasonable to rank them ahead of all other GOAT candidates.