I distinctly remember there being a lot of talk at the time among various tennis commentators and broadcasters that Sampras was arguably the greatest ever after surpassing Emerson's record that year but tbh looking back I'm not too sure why. The other day I was having a discussion with another poster in the General Pro Player forum about Laver's career and how much a player would need to win in order to be considered greater than him and he replied "probably around 20 Slams". If this is the case then why did so many people believe Pete was the GOAT when he "only" had 13 Slams and hadn't even won all 4? Was it simply because he'd just won the sport's holy grail for a seventh time or did the American sports media get more than a little carried away? I certainly recall Laver's name being mentioned a lot back then but if 19/20 majors is the benchmark to be regarded as the greatest ever, it does seem rather strange that Sampras was thought to be above him despite having so fewer major titles.