Like I said , as far as # of titles go, its an apples and oranges comparison. Quite a few more smaller titles, split fields making it easier to win titles. something which fail to acknowledge. And like I said , because of the GS and him winning the most important HC events . But it wasn't the highest level. Like I said, borg of 79-80, mac of 84, federer of 04-06 and djokovic of 11 were higher. It'd be like if federer won the GS in 2007, if he had beaten nadal at RG. It wasn't his highest level, but just being good and clutch enough to take all the 4. the bold part is BS. federer has every shot in the book that Laver had and even more. Laver had no weaknesses ? umm. how about blowing hot and cold , even in his prime years ? you see federer getting upset by drysdale in a GS at his prime ( like Laver did in 68 ?). I don't. He didn't. Serve was good , but not elite. He wasn't arguably the greatest athlete to step on a tennis court. Only you seem to think that. That would be Borg. yeah, maybe because umm, he was 4 years older than Laver . Rosewall's career in majors after 69 blows Laver's out of the water. Just because Laver failed and cared less about Wimbledon/USO after 69 does not make them less prestigious/important at that time.