powerangle
Legend
Did it ever occur to you that I was doing the same thing. Do you even read before commenting? Go back and read the post I quoted. Do not take words out of context. Just how your example is justified, So is mine
Clearly you haven't read my other posts (or chose to ignore it as you can't refute them).
I cited your "100-0" fallacy since in your OPENING post, you stated that slams are just as important as H2H (which means they are equal). So if they are equal, then 1 slam must equal one match in the H2H ratio, correct?
So a 17-15 slam lead carries the same weight as a 17-15 H2H lead, in your logic. And a 100-0 slam lead carries the same weight as a 100-0 H2H lead, as well.
But in effect, you were only merely pointing out that H2H means something (which I'm not arguing) because a 100-0 H2H lead should outweigh the 17-15 slam gap...which it obviously does....but that does NOT prove your opening post's statement that H2H are just as important as slams. If they were "just as important" then all you need is a 17-15 lead in H2H to bridge the 2 slam gap.
All your posts have been proving, is that H2H also carries weight in the "greatness" debate...which I am not disagreeing with. But your 100-0 H2H example does NOTHING to prove that the H2H is equal to slams in weight (because you used it to offset a 2 slam gap, not a 100 slam gap). If slams and H2H are equal, then the ratio of slams and H2H must be 1 to 1. 10 slams equal a 10 match lead in H2H (which is bizarre).
The fact that Nadal is 21-10 against Federer, if Nadal can get to 15 slams, he may be considered greater...I can buy that. But that does NOT show that slams are equal to h2h (which is your opening post's statement). Federer has to lead Nadal 21-10 in slams as well (since Nadal leads 21-10 in H2H), for your "H2H are as important as slams" to hold any water.
The fact that the debate of greatness is starting now that Nadal is 4 short of Federer means that H2H carries significance. But notice the slam gap is at 4...while the H2H gap is at 11. If it takes an 11-match lead to "possibly" offset a 4 slam gap, then it really goes to show that each slam is still more important than a match in the H2H.....and so therefore, slams are more important than H2H (which disproves your opening post). Heck, you were even using 15 slams versus 17 slams. So apparently an 11 match lead is needed to offset a 2 slam gap........yeah I'm sorry but that does NOT show that slams and H2H are exactly equal.