now the number of majors is pretty much seen as the gold standard for all time lists. however there where a lot more small tournaments there (for example conners won a lot more overall tournaments than fed or pete, although a lot of them have been micky mouse events- but they still cost a lot of energy you cannot use in slams). also the AO where often skipped (less chances to win majors) and on top of that there was the pro/am division which cost some players a lot of slams. I'm pretty sure that someone would have won 20+ majors in history if all players in history would have focussed on slams and other large tournaments like the players of the last 15+ years did. I'm not saying laver or maybe borg with 20 slams would be the undisputed GOAT as the quality of game certainly raised but using number of slams against them without context might be unfair. what do you think?