Didn't mean to insult you personally, however it seems to me that emphasizing the importance of Majors started during the Sampras era and his efforts to overcome Emerson.
Federer and many of his fans rode that train hard. I do think, right or wrong the Majors have become the focal points of the tennis calender, much to the ATP’s chagrin.
If the Majors all weigh the same ( though i understand you disagree) then Slam total is a major factor.
On a side note, you mentioned in another thread how the top 3 French players in the post Open Era were Yannick Noah, Jo willfried Tsonga & Guy Forget. I considered posting that of all the top French players, Forget has the weakest Slam resume. His other stats IMO dont seem so overwhelming to negate that Cedric Pioline & Henri Leconte have far stronger career Slam stats. Forget had 2 Master titles to their 1 , so theres that. Its a matter of perception but that you de emphasize the Majors, and it seems some specifically ( the French) , doesnt mean that those who do take them into account are Slam obsessed to the point of ignoring everything else. 250 tournaments have their place i concede.
Weeks at Number 1 is a factor, but again, since tennis is on a sliding calender point system, ending the year #1 , even if you didn't have the most weeks that year, doesn’t negate you had the most points accumulated for that particular year. Tomatoe, tomato, and so forth.
Nadal13, like many Rafa fans, myself included, are enjoying Rafa at this point having the most Slams at 22. If that’s taking a “partisan” stance, i guess some of us plead guilty. However it seems the arguably perjorative “Slam obsessed” was aimed at a Nadal fan when , again, the irony isn't lost there.
I don't begrudge you or other Rafa fans for enjoying Rafa having the most Slams - it is an amazing accomplishment, whether it holds or not. That's not what I'm talking about. And that comment wasn't aimed at a "Nadal fan" - it was at Kieran, and we're golden (ask him). I'm sure he wasn't offended. It was a bit of ribbing, and he took it in stride.
I find hyper-partisan fandom annoying and irrational, regardless of which player is the object of affection. As I mentioned to Moxie, I used to go at it with one Fed fanatic who thought I was a secret Rafa or Novak fan because I tried to approach Roger objectively, and was pointing out that Novak's record was becoming hard to deny as superior.
Oh, and I weigh the majors now of equal value. Certainly, Wimbledon is special in terms of historicity, but it is not harder or easier to win than the other Slams, and doesn't hold greater value, at least in the Open Era. The only exception to different weight imo (in the Open Era), is the AO pre mid-80s. Take a look at those fields that Kriek beat in the early 80s - they are easier than most ATP 500s today.
As far as rankings are concerned, what you point out is why I give weeks much greater value than year-end number one. In some ways, rankings are even more indicative of overall dominance and greatness than Slams, because they take into account everything. They highlight how a guy like Stan Wawrinka was a "limited great" - great in choice spots, but would tail off after the big moments. Andy Murray - also with 3 Slams - deservedly ranks much higher on all-time lists.
But your mention of rankings is a good example of why we can't just focus on just the cherry on top, the #1, but also need to look at #2, #3, top 5, etc. If #1 was all that mattered, we'd be faced with the idea that Djokovic was almost twice as good as Rafa - which is obviously absurd. I mean, if you have one player who had a five-year span in which he ranked 10, 1, 27, 48, and 92, and another who ranked 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, I think we can safely say that the latter player was probably better during that stretch, regardless of almost any other factor.
Similarly, ignoring Slam finalists...I mean, it is quite a feat to reach a Slam final, regardless of whether you win or not. That's why the ATP awards 2000 points for a win, 1200 for the runner up. Meaning, the ATP sees reaching a Slam Final as more valuable than anything other than winning it, or winning the YEC. One player went 7-0 and won when it mattered most, and should be lauded for it, but the other went 6-1, and may even have lost that final by a hair. History remembers the "W," not so much the runner-up...when the difference between the two might not be all that much.
In other words, when we talk about assessing and comparing players - their greatness - we need to look at more than just Slam hardware in their trophy case.
I know I'm going on too long, but here's one more analogy. Let's say you have a list of ranked criteria in dating someone (aside from the inaneness of such an approach to dating, but I don't want to get into that). Let's say your top priority is looks, then sense of humor, then intelligence, then height, then career, and on and on. A person might get an A grade in looks, but if you stop there, you miss the total picture of who they are, and whether or not they'd be a good match. If the top five factors of two people rate A, C, C-, D, D, and the other B, A, A, B+, B, who is going to be the better match for you? Maybe the first for a one-nighter, but who are you going to end up laughing with more, enjoying watching Netflix? Building a life with? Etc.
In that regard, Slam titles are the "top priority" - there is no doubt about that, but have to be weighed with a lot of other factors. Or to put it another way, Ilie Nastase was a much better player than Jan Kodes; and Vitas Gerulaitis was better than Johan Kriek, etc etc.
