Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?
There aren't that many players in MEN's tennis that has been #1 without winning at least 1 slam.
Many more that has won slams or been in slam finals without ever being close to #1 aren't there?
#1 is actually a better "quality" guarantee. Harder to fluke #1 as the system works, than to fluke slams like the infamous one slam wonders who sometimes haven't even been in the top3 even
So I guess even in GOAT debate #1 should be seen as more difficult. Got a harder time seeing someone passing Federers weeks at nr1 than passing federers 17 slams.
slams you only need to be awesome for 4 tournaments a year. To hold #1 you need to be awesome all season. So in theory #1 has more prestige to it