So now we've gone from "Murray would've matched Becker and Edberg if not for the Big 3" (a popular fallacy
that refuses to die) to "YEC = Olympics" and "Murray is another Agassi in a previous era." Just when you thought this "discussion" couldn't get more quixotic....
On to housekeeping:
Consistency and going deep again and again should count for something and in that measure Murray has it all over Wawrinka and Courier
I value consistency/longevity myself which is why I rate Murray over Wawrinka and about equal to Courier even though I think those two had a higher overall peak. But you didn't just say Murray is better than either of these guys, but rather that he's closer to Edberg and Becker because he would've achieved a lot more if not for the Big 3. Not only is this specious to begin with (check the above link) your comparison simply does not pass commonsense muster, hence my earlier dissertation.
Now I still remember you hyping up Ferrer's '13 FO run by pointing out, with some justification, that the guy had yet to lose a set. And Ferru was indeed on something of a historic roll, ultimately winning 65.2% of his games
for the tournament. One would be forgiven to think the if-not-for-the-Big-3 logic does apply here... until/unless he found out that David won 59.0% for the whole CC season. That's still a good number, but far from dominant and indeed not even his career best (see below). I know you're not one of those ignorant teenyboppers but if you had trouble predicting the result of a single player/event maybe you should think twice before making such a bold comparison regarding two certified ATGs and a lower-tier one from two different eras?
Late 80s and 90s, Davis Cup held much more prestige than Olympics. Look at the field that participated in Davis Cup. And Becker was a major force winning the title for West Germany two times (almost single handedly). He had a record of 38-3 and two of his losses were quite a shock coming to an unknown Spaniard.
Becker's record in Davis Cup dwarfs whatever Murray achieved at Olympics.
Not only that, I'd argue even the YEC held more prestige back in those days. Not just because of the best-of-5 finals, but because there was more recognition that this was a major leg of the tour, with a different surface (carpet) and more last-minute scrambling as the pre-2000 non-mandatory format made it possible to play just enough events to hold onto a ranking. I still remember the '08 YEC where they had trouble finding a replacement for Nadal and had to settle all the way down on Stepanek 'cause nobody else wanted to interrupt his vacation. Hard to envision that happening in the '80s or '90s.
I omitted the French b/c there's no way a version of Murray born in 1970 is winning the French Open from 1990-1995. Under his current timeline, Murray didn't even win a clay title until 2015 and had one top 10 win on clay before 2015. An argument that 1970 Murray wins the French from 1990-1995 would lose validity.
And, in terms of 1990-1995 fields vs. the fields Murray faced, I'm not saying they're stronger than the fields Murray faced in his current timelines. I'm saying that Murray would be hard pressed to win Majors in the 18 tournaments I posted. The UO 1994 field is probably the second weakest of the eighteen, and, even then, Murray would be a big underdog against Agassi and easily could have lost against Stich who was playing great that tournament but just sucked against Agassi.
You're talking to a kid that badly needs a crash course in elementary logic, no need to respond to his comical gotcha about your well-considered omission of the FO draws.
Of course anyone who touts Murray as any sort of elite clay-courter undone by circumstances beyond his control is not to be taken seriously. As I've noted his best CC GW% came at in '15, not '16 when he won 58.8%. Not a bad outing by any means, but nowhere near enough to confirm him as a strong would-be contender in previous eras where dangerous floaters at RG were a dime a dozen.
And I mean that almost literally. Forget about actual FO champs as most of 'em topped 60%
or came close at least once in their career. Rather let's look at the best seasons of non-champs who reached at least one QF or higher at RG in their career, with their % of games won (sans DC and including TBs) in parentheses that are comparable to Murray's*:
1993 - Sampras** (60.3%
or 60.8% sans Atlanta on green clay)
1994 - Sampras** (60.1%
), Berasategui (58.1%
1997 - Corretja (59.9%
1998 - Rios (60.8%
1999 - Norman (58.7%
2000 - Corretja (59.8%
), Norman (58.9%
2003 - Coria (64.0%
2004 - Coria (61.9%
2005 - Coria** (58.5%
2006 - Davydenko (59.4%
2007 - Ferrer (58.5%
2008 - del Potro (59.4%
), Davydenko (58.9%
2009 - Gonzalez (59.1%
), Davydenko (59.0%
2010 - Ferrer (59.6%
2011 - Ferrer (61.4%
), del Potro (60.6%
2012 - Ferrer (61.0%
2013 - Ferrer (59.0%
2014 - Nishikori (58.8%
2015 - Murray (60.4%
), Ferrer (59.2%
), Nishikori (58.9%
2016 - Murray (58.8%
2017 - Cilic (59.9%
), Thiem (58.6%
2020 - Sinner (58.1%
*I'm listing only CC seasons with at least 100 service or return games. Stretching this rule a bit would've meant including Monfils who won 58.2%
in '16. Nalbandian's 58.3%
in '01 is a useless stat as he didn't play a single tour-level match during the regular CC season.)
**As I've noted elsewhere the World Team Cup was an exhibition in all but name, hence the omission of WTC stats for 1993-94 Sampras and 2005 Coria.
FYI that list is probably not exhaustive as I mostly focused on the question of who made the 60% Club
and didn't look too closely at some of the other contenders who I knew were out. And you can see that apart from Delpo's one-off in '11
Ferrer is the only one besides the Big 3 who managed to break the 60% ceiling after '04, and there's a reason for that... because the remaining members all hail from the pre-Fedal era!
So Murray would have to deal with more world-class dirtballers in the '90s and yet you expect him to do better at RG? Forget about winning RG, he'd do well to make just one final vs. that field.
P.S. on 5/15/21: Edited the %s with TBs and added '20 Sinner.
2009 Murray lost to Gonzo: 6-3, 3-6, 6-0, 6-4 in the QF, w/Gonzo winning 56% of the points. A version of Murray who lost 56% of the points to Gonzo and ate a bagel is getting crushed by peak Courier in 1992 if Murray were born in 1970.
Indeed, Courier is such a terrible overachiever that despite him being a set away from winning three straight RGs, he might well lose to a guy who won one set in his lone RG final. His peak wins and dominance are nothing but a product of feeble competition and a renowned claycourt beast like GOATray would show him where it's really at.
No, no, no, you don't understand. The guy who won the highest % of games in a CC season since '91 except Nadal, and whose 67.5% at '92 RG is topped only by five iterations of Rafa, '86 Lendl and '93 Bruguera in the modern era, would somehow tremble before an opponent who could just barely crack the 60% ceiling only once. Never mind which of these two would win the topspin battle or dictate the majority of their rallies with his FH.