How the hell is he supposed to win fast court slams if there aren't any fast court slams...What kinda argument is that. Based on his performance in the selct few tournaments like Cincinnati, indoor tournaments etc. and back when he was dominating US open when it was fast, we can tell he is one of the best of all time on faster courts. So definitely in the same league as Pete."Lol no" isn't exactly a counterargument to the argument that Fed isn't in the same fast court league as Pete due to the fact that Fed won 1 fast court slam compared to Pete's 12.
The "if not for Nadal Fed would have x RG" has been done and dispelled to death. If Fed lived in the 90s with gut and the clay court specialized tour, he would be lucky to make a single final, since he'd have to specialize for medium and fast if he wanted to win Wimbles and the Open with regularity.
Dispelled to death by who? You? No it hasn't. You take Nadal out and he would most definitely have 4 to 5 RG's. Borg also played without poly and won on grass and clay. Federer's all court game translates well across multiple surfaces. You have to be blind to not admit that he is in a different league on clay compared to Pete.