Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.
Which experts? I have already extolled the virtues of some of the better posters here, but they hardly qualify. I'd need a source.
Besides, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Laver wins a Slam event, it comes at the expense of Rosewall winning one, and vice versa. If you're not counting the majors they already have in the bank before becoming pros, you're creating a situation in which no
major comes easily. I don't a scenario in which ALL of them end up with 18+ major wins. You're also discounting the possibility of upsets by other players who would have been around at the time, such as Ashe, who won right away after the start of the Open Era, Newcombe, who proved his worth as a post-Amateur Era pro, winning 5 major titles after the start of the Open Era.