Lets say Federer has 17 slams and Nadal ends up with 15 slams. And their h2h is 100-0 in favour of Nadal. Do you still call Federer "Greatest"?
See two can play this game.
You're not even following your own "logic". In your original post, you mention that h2h is JUST AS important as slams. So if that's the case, I can play that game also.
If you want to bring up 100-0 in favor of Nadal (against Federer), since it's an extreme example...then I will bring this up: What if Federer had a 100-0 lead in slam titles (Fed has 100 slams, Nadal has 0)?? Who's greater then?
It's so clear you have bias when you bring up 15 versus 17 (for slams) but then go ahead and use an extreme example of a 100-0 h2h stat.
If they are truly equal, then use the same freaking numbers. 17 versus 15 in slams, and 17 versus 15 in H2H.
So then let me ask you, who is greater between player A and player B if player A has 17 slams and 15-17 h2h against player B (who has 15 slams)??
Player A has two more slam titles, and one match short of an equal H2H (it would stand at 16-16 if he had won one more of their encounters).
I think most people would say player A is slightly greater. And therefore, slams carry more weight than H2H.
This doesn't mean H2H isn't important. It is. But to say they are worth exactly the same, and then use an example of 15-17 slams and 100-0 H2h clearly show that even you have to use that extreme an example to make a "point". Btw...you haven't provided any examples from "experts" to say they are worth exactly the same...you only provided examples where they said that H2H is important. But I am still waiting for the quote where they state they are worth exactly equal to each other.
Case closed. This has nothing to do with Federer and Nadal btw...just going by the fallacy of your logic (slams being exactly equal to H2H).