Not a chance. I don't think we'll see 17 beaten in any of our lifetimes. It's a number that's situated almost on the threshold between the possible and the impossible. For that number to have been possible, it required at least 4 years of utter dominance, together with extremely unusual longevity and an almost exclusive - or at least very rare - ability to remain healthy and injury-free. If you think about it, it's mind-boggling (and that's why even Nadal, who got closer, and Djokovic, who's so dominant right now, are still an arm's length behind Federer): this would mean a 17-year-long career (let's say from ages 17 to 34) with one Slam every season, knowing full well that there's always the possibility of being injured and that you're very unlikely to win when you're 17-20 or 31-34. Alternatively, it would mean that you're in the restrict group of people that win more than one Slam per year and do this for an extended period of time. Even if you win two every year, you'd need to do that for a sustained 9 years to beat the record by one Slam. It's my contention that Federer was fortunate enough to be the right man at the right time, and that it will take centuries (not decades) for this record to be beaten. Many of you will say "yeah, but look at Sampras' 14, overtaken barely 10 years later". But I think you fail to acknowledge the huge difference between 14 and 17, the former being within the realm of the "quite possible" and the latter belonging in the realm of the "almost impossible".