I already gave you an explanation for him and will happily do it again:
Budge is highly elevated by his Grand Slam. Without it he would barely be top 20 all time, and might even be outside the top 20, and with it he is generally seen around 8th all time. The Grand Slam is bar none the most important achievement in tennis but Budge has not achieved enough to be at the very top even with the Grand Slam. Many think Vines was even the best player of that decade, not Budge, and Budge only came up to his level in 38-39 (yet Budge is ranked much higher than Vines by most, again the importance of the Grand Slam).
Laver though has easily achieved enough other great things:
-World #1 for 7 or 8 years straight, longer than Sampras and much longer than Federer.
-11 slams despite being barred from official slam tournaments for 5 years right in his prime from ages 24-29. Something Sampras, Federer, or Nadal would have likely never come close to accomplishing under the same conditions.
-144 tournament titles, far above the Open Era marks of Connors and Lendl, and about double those of Sampras, Federer, and Nadal.
-He actually achieved the Grand Slam more than once no matter how you look at it.
Laver could easily be called GOAT even without his Grand Slams, but with it, it slams the door completely shut on anyone else as there is other SERIOUS GOAT candidate who even achieved.
Hypocrite TMF is the last one who can accuse others of inconsistency. He gives Federer the Australian Open GOAT due to more finals than Agassi and Djokovic, but then gives Federer the U.S Open GOAT despite Sampras having 2 more finals than Federer has. He says Federer's longevity at Wimbledon (7 titles in 9 years/10 Wimledons) is a reason he is better than Sampras (7 titles in 7 years/8 Wimbledons) despite Sampras's greater dominance in a shorter period, but then says Sampras winning U.S Opens over 12 years/13 U.S Opens is an inferior achievement to Federer winning 5 in a row, but then making one more final, and never another one before or since.