Yes it is.However,it is also hard to achieve 18 consecutive slam semifinals(Sampras had only about 3 consecutive),to hold number one spot for consecutive 237 weeks(the closest player who got to that was Connors with 160 consecutive weeks),to win 5 Wimbledons in a row(Sampras best was 3 and then 4 in a row),to win 5 USOs in a row(Sampras managed to win 2 USOs in a row),to be the only male player ever to have won 5 consecutive slams at 2 different slams(5 USOs and 5 Wimbledons),to have won 3 slams in a year on 3 occasions(Sampras never had a 3 slam year in his whole tennis career),to reach all 4 slam finals in a year on 2 occasions(Sampras reached 3 slam finals in '95 but other than that didn't come close) etc.
Sure Sampras will have some records over Fed but the reverse is also true-Fed has some records over Sampras and achieved some things Sampras never could(although whether his fans on this forum will ever admit that is a different matter entirely).
Then by your definition Sampras isn't a true GOAT either as he never dominated one decade but rather he dominated 6 years(although '98 was hardly a domination IMO,one could argue that Fed's 2008 was better/comparable).6 years is not close to being a full decade,it's slightly over half of the decade.
Murray and Djokovic are 6 years younger than Fed while Nadal is 5 years younger but no,neither one of them play a carbon copy of Fed's game,all of their games are quite different.
Funny and here I thought that having 13 slams by the age of 27 actually is greatness.So it seems that only what you achieve after the age of 27,28(an age at which most all-time greats decline)matters? I disagree as I tend to look at a player's whole career not chose a period that best suits my argument.
