I don't understand why most of the threads on this forum are full of this fallacy. Those of you who engage it, please explain it to me. There is no way anybody can know whether Federer is better than Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. We can't know if Chang would beat Nadal on clay or any of this nonsense. All we can do is talk about how good a player was in his own era. So much changes from decade to decade. Technology, particular good/bad matchups, surface conditions, balance of events on tour, changes in coaching/strategy/tactics/athletic training science, etc. All that can be measured is how one played against the opponents they were given. This GOAT stuff(and all related activities) is completely speculation and can never be demonstrated. Why can't we just enjoy the champions the sport has had and leave it at that?