Originally Posted by pc1
Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.
And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.
Had Fed was in the same position, I agree he would turned pro intstead of sticking around with the amateurs.
On the bolded part, Federer have been dominating against the whole field. Had the field was spit into two circuits, I think Fed would have won a lot, maybe even more majors. Let say Nadal was playing in the amateur like Emerson did, he would win many more majors himself. But this is alll speculating and we don't know for sure.
Tier1(goat): Federer; Tier 1.5: Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Borg;
Tier 2: Lendl, Connors, Rosewall; Tier 2.5: McEnroe, Agassi