Too often I see posts in which someone says something like the following statement: "Player X has Y number of slams, therefore he is the GOAT. Period. End of story." Here's one example from the General Pro Player Discussion: Is tennis history this simplistic? Can tennis greatness be reduced to a single total number? I do think it matters somewhat. And it is an important factor, but it is not the be all and end all. I call it a useful shorthand way of getting to the contenders, but that other factors must be considered to give a complete picture. I believe that the main flaw in the notion that total number of slams automatically equals GOAT status is the Professional Prohibition before 1968. As we all know, the world's best players were prohibited from playing in the slams then and thus could not add to their total number of slam wins. Do other factors count equally or more?