Which statement is more absurd, "peak Djokovic at AO is better than peak Nadal at RG" or "Pete Sampras benefitted from a weak era"?

[am1899]

I take it you're not from the M1dwest?

Correct.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Bad take. I agree they’re not as good as regular wings but they still slap.

They’re alright but it should be a crime to order them if a place has actual wings lol. If I go to a function and they’re just there in my face ill eat and enjoy them, but pay for them?? Lol

…about as bad as ranch with wings. Heresy.

Thin ranch is everything with wings

 

[RS]

They’re alright but it should be a crime to order them if a place has actual wings lol. If I go to a function and they’re just there in my face ill eat and enjoy them, but pay for them?? Lol

Thin ranch is everything with wings

Nicest soda's in the US?

 

[am1899]

Thin ranch is everything with wings

Reported.

 

[JoshDragon]

Honestly, I find both statements to be absurd. But there are arguments for and against those statements:

"peak Djokovic at AO is better than peak Nadal at RG"
- Arguments for: hard court has much tougher competition than clay. There are almost no top 10 players on the ATP Tour who are clay court specialists. Also, Roger Federer on hard courts is a whole different player compared to on clay. He is the 2nd greatest hardcourt player of all time, as well as the 2nd most successful AO champion of all time. And peak Djokovic beat this guy in straight sets when they were both under 30 years old.
- Arguments against: Obviously, 14 > 10. And 112-3 > 89-8. Nuff said.

"Pete Sampras benefitted from a weak era"
- Arguments for: According to Ultimate Tennis Statistics, the number of Slams won adjusted by difficulty for Sampras is 13.53, which is 0.47 less than his actual title count. All of the Big Three have a difficulty level higher than their actual count. For reference, this is the link to the source: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=GrandSlamTitlesDifficultyAdjusted
- Arguments against: Sampras had to constantly battle through many All-Time-Great players or, at least, Grand Slam champions. Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek etc. were all his competitors at that time. And despite the competitiveness of the field, Sampras still managed to win 14 Grand Slam titles, including SEVEN Wimbledon titles against so many grass-court experts at that time.

But which statement sounds more absurd do you guys?

The 90s were not even close to a weak time in the game.

I think that's about as stupid of a comment as it gets.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The 90s were not even close to a weak time in the game.

I think that's about as stupid of a comment as it gets.

The 90's weren't a weak time for anything

 

[Clay lover]

I actually want to see who voted neither is absurd