What about Bjorn Borg? You saw him play. He must have been a Genius?
I did see Borg once at Forest Hills, and he was the most boring great player I ever saw. The only time he was worth watching was at Wimbledon or playing Connors and McEnroe. Your description of Rosewall is not only evil but incredibly stupid. Assuming that list is true, the fact is, Ken played all these great players and perhaps Lew and Poncho at their best were harder for him to beat than Laver. Overall, Laver does have the better H-H, but not in the biggest matches. In the Pro Slams and Open Era biggest matches, Rosewall has the edge especially when you add in the 71-72 WCT finals after Rod won the 69 Grand Slam. Also, Rosewall was nearly 34 when the open era began, Laver was 29.
Again, we are talking about a players accomplishemets in the era they played in, not whether the older players were better than today's top players. With today's equipment and playing conditions: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Hoad would be very tough competiton for today's top players whether you want to beleive it or not. Another fact is that between 04-07 Federer played in a weak era, until Nadal began to own him. I am not saying that Nadal is a better player than Federer, but Rafa is a bad match up for Roger both psysically and mentally.