...and in no surprise, you cannot explain why Laver has held that distinction for decades. Again, without the GS, he would never have earned that distinction.
This is bright-as-the-sun fact those of your ilk cannot admit to, for the very acknowledgement of its value automatically means Federer is not in the GOAT discussion.
I am not doing this post in response to you, per se, because I know you will ignore the parts of my statement which do not fit your agenda. However, for the reasonable posters on this forum, I will offer the following explanation:
- Laver was generally considered the GOAT
(note: generally, as some still considered Tilden or Budge to be GOAT - for the latter, notably Jack Kramer, who held the opinion that Budge was GOAT for many decades, until in his twilight years, he changed his opinion to Federer), because he had the best overall resume of all players. He achieved the following:
- Domination of the amateur ranks (6 majors from 1960-62, including the amateur CYGS, which although a fine achievement, cannot be held up that highly due to the lack of the best players on that circuit and thus cannot really be considered a "true" CYGS)
- Transition to the pro ranks where, after a year of playing second fiddle to Rosewall, he dominated from 1965-1967.
- Dominance in the early Open Era, notably in his CYGS year of 1969, the only true CYGS achieved by a male in the Open Era.
When compared to all previous greats, Laver's resume is slightly more impressive;
- Tilden never won the FO and played in a generally weaker era.
- Budge, despite his amateur slam in 1938, didn't put up the numbers (arguably didn't have a chance to due to WWII).
- Gonzales never won a clay major.
- Rosewall never won Wimbledon.
Laver's dominance of the amateur, then pro circuits, and topped off by his 1969 CYGS, made his career the greatest to date.
Note that the key words here are "topped off". It was never a pre-requisite for the GOAT to have achieved the CYGS, which after all is only one year of utter dominance. It just so happened that this achievement, combined with his previous career, was enough to lift Laver, in many's eyes, just above the previous greats.
During the Open Era, a number of great players came along (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras) of whom none managed to win all four slams during their career, other than Agassi, who is far removed from any GOAT status due to his extreme inconsistency and lack of dominance. None of these men could quite match Laver -
although Sampras set so many records in the Open Era, he came very close in many's eyes (indeed, some did rank him above Laver). It was only his lack of an FO title that kept Laver's place secure.
Federer has played his entire career in the Open Era; he broke most of the important existing records in the sport (most majors, most weeks at No 1, consecutive finals/semis/quarters), and managed to win all four majors in his career. The
only thing he did not achieve, which Laver did, was the CYGS. The
only reason he did not achieve this, in both 2006 and 2007, was the fact that
he faced the indisputable best single-surface player in history in the FO final, a man who has won 95% of his matches in that slam without even being pushed to five sets.
The only thing Laver has over Federer is the CYGS. I am not diminishing Laver in any way when I say that, if a man achieves a CYGS in a "Nadal not competing at the FO" year, we cannot take it for granted that he would achieve the CYGS in a "Nadal competing at the FO" year.
The flaw in your theory - and I'm not sure if it's trolling or sheer pig-headedness, is that you think because Laver won the CYGS in 1969, he proved that he could, by definition, do it in any era (i.e. even competing against Nadal).
OK, I'm done on this - THUNDERVOLLEY, feel free to reply with your usual poetically-tinged nonsense and call me a 'Federer fringe' member. I think most reasonable people here understand my case.
