Originally Posted by pc1
I will give you that statistically Federer is better in the majors but the better dominance comment doesn't pan out. If Federer is more dominant, why is his lifetime winning percentage slightly lower than Connors at 81.55 to 81.76? If Federer is more dominant he certainly doesn't prove it on the court? And Connors' career was longer and he had his big decline period already.
You also have to factor in which type of event they played. Suppose a player A is equally gifted as a player B, but player A plays on all ATP250 while player B plays on all Master Series. Guess who's is likey have a better winning percentage? More likely player A since small events aren't competitive as the bigger events(MS) where all the top players compete. Connors played a lot of small events and many are in the states, so it makes it easier for him.