Originally Posted by pc1
That's why the stuff about the majors, while important is perhaps bit overrated. What's more impressive, winning 5 top tier tournaments that aren't majors but have the best field or one major? I would think the former.
Federer has under 70 tournament victories in his career. Somehow I think accomplishments like Connors and Lendl being in the 140's plus a number of majors should count for something. It amazes me that in the Open Era, virtually every top number one has been called the GOAT by many at one point or another except for Lendl. I think it had a lot to do with the fact Lendl was not liked by the media.
Federer's 62 tournament titles include 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 year end championships. Most tennis analysts consider his achievements to be more remarkable than those of either Connors or Lendl.
The structure of today's game encourages players to be far more focused on winning big events than on piling up victories in Mickey Mouse tournaments. As such, you can't use number of tournaments won to compare players across generations.