Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove
I want to understand your ranking and in order to do so I need more informations. If I find a weak spot in your reasoning, it could be useful to point it to you. You could either correct it, or show me that you have a good reason and convince me that the weak spot is in my reasoning. It happened before that I point something to be corrected by the answer. Of course, that presuppose that we are ready to change our mind with new informations/different angle of view of a same event.
I understand that it is not easy to rank Nadal if you haven't analyzed his resume yet.
And yes I think that it is a problem to claim that someone has won 23 majors, including amateur majors, without specifying that some of these majors should not be taken into account when we are comparing two player's resume.
Flash, I'm ready to learn. But I will not learn regarding the amateur majors. You can't omit them in a player's resume. Otherwise you could also omit some open era majors including maybe even a few Federer majors due to lack of strong opposition, f. i. the 2006 AO.