I would say this is an example of false reasoning.
It is similar to "Slam Bias." Slam bias is when one states that only the winners of a slam can be the no. 1 player for a given year, and it does not matter what other tournaments a person may have won, because the only thing that matters is winning one of the slams.
I firmly believe that I can accept that Wimbledon is the greatest tournament in tennis and that THE GOAT may never have won Wimbledon.
Please allow me to illustrate with a hypothetical scenario:
What if a player wins every slam but Wimbledon for ten years in a row and wins 8 Masters 1000 tournaments each year over the same ten years? That person would have 30 slams and 80 masters 1000 trophies. And that person would be the no. 1 ranked player for every one of those ten years (520 weeks at world no. 1 [?]). Maybe that player's match record over those ten years would be 90-1 every single year.
You cannot say that winning or not winning a single tournament trumps absolutely everything else.
Would that player be the GOAT? In my book, yes.
hoodjem, Even though your example is an extreme one, I generally agree.