Bernie Williams has 22 postseason homers
Babe Ruth has 15 postseason homers
By your logic, Bernie Williams is better because you wouldn’t take into account that Ruth didn’t have wildcard nor the ALCS back then. The same situation applies to Rod Laver who was not allowed to compete his 5 best years.

But lets do it this way…lets apply the same rules to Federer, since his career isn’t over we’ll only remove his best 3 years, not 5 years. When you have Federer playing by the rules Laver had to play by…Fed would only have 7 major wins.

I hope you’re not one of those guys who considers Ali the best…cause his best years he couldn’t compete. Who knows, he might have lost every fight in that time.

Plus the argument that Federer has done this recently with Nadal out… well that’s sports. A little luck is needed along the way to become great and the great ones take advantage of it. If that argument of Nadal and Federer is sound then why didn’t Phil win the majors Tiger missed last year? Phil is known by many as the 2nd best golfer in the world……

Laver titles:
1960 x1
1961 x1
1962 won grand slam
63-67 not allowed to compete in these events, yet was #1 by a mile
1968 x1
1969 won grand slam

Think about that, in 5 years he won 11 major events. But in his 5 best
years he wasn’t allowed in those events but easily would have won another
11 if not more. How many singles wins does Federer have? 60? Laver has 3x that.

Wiki:
Laver won a record 184 singles titles. He also holds the record for most titles won in a single year during the amateur era (22 in 1962),[16] during the touring pro era (19 in 1967),[17] and during the open era (18 in 1969).[18] After turning professional in 1963, Laver won the U.S. Pro Championships five times and the Wembley Pro Championship four times between 1964 and 1967 (plus two more times in 1969 and 1970 when the event was known as the “British Covered Court Championships”). In 1967, Laver won a “Professional Grand Slam” by winning all four of the major professional tournaments: the U.S. Pro Championships, the Wembley Pro Championships, the French Pro Championship, and the Wimbledon Pro.

To judge Federer and Nadal by last year’s results is no more fair than to judge Rafa by how he did against Roger in 2005 or 2006. Roger won three majors in 2004, 2006, and 2007 and 2 majors in 2005, when he had a record of 82-5, and 2009 thusfar. People point out that Roger is only number two on clay. Agreed. However, Rafa is one of the top two clay players of all time, up there with Borg. Nobody points out that Rafa hasn’t done much of anything at the US Open. His record there of one semifinal in his career is similar to Sampras’ record at the French. He only won two majors last year and didn’t even make the finals at the other two, yet everyone raves. Roger did better than that four times, and maybe will do it again this year if he makes the semis at the US Open.
One of the reasons Roger’s record is so bad head to head with Nadal is that Rafa has not consistently reached finals on the faster surfaces, such as the US Open. Roger has won five straight US Opens, and not once was Rafa good enough to be his finals opponent.

Finally, making 21 semifinals in a row at the four majors is the Federer record that is much more impressive than even the fifteen majors. That means that for over five years, the man has been in serious contention in every major, regardless of injuries, illnesses, or running into a super hot player. To show you how outrageous this is, the second most consecutive semis reached in majors is ten, by Ivan Lendl. Tiger Woods, the god of golf, hasn’t been anywhere near as consistent in the majors as Roger has. That is why Roger should be considered number one all time.