Originally Posted by The Dark Knight
That would work if you only wanted to name Federer as the greatestest of all time But that wouldn't really work for anyone else....because then you would have to also say according to your definition that Emerson was greater than Laver.
You would also have to say that Margaret court is better than Graf,Williams , Navratilova , evert.
Also you would have to say that laver Borg and Nadal are all equal.....and that Emerson was better than all three of them.
So I don't think your definition would really work. Do you?
It works for players after a certain time period, when conditions (full fields, etc.) are similar enough to rank each major win on equal footing.
A lot of people like to include longevity, but I've always been impressed with the players who were able to create their own eras, where they were clearly the best over a period of some years.
I would think a high major count, and dominating a period (at least a period of two years where you are the best) are minimum requirements.