I'm British, I don't follow US sports, so I can't answer the above examples.
But no, I don't think it's especially important in terms of tennis majors, sorry.
Are you talking about the likes of Rosewall/Gonzales etc. because if so, I account for their pro achievements in my ranking. But that would be titles
, not percentages.
What nonsense. In his best 5 year spell (1993-97), he won 9 slams. This is more than the entire careers of Connors and Lendl.
I never denied Fed > Sampras.
Sampras, because he played in a much tougher era.
And also, please stop using hypotheticals ("he probably would have done this") as a way to boost someone's status. What happened, happened and we cannot award people phantom majors.
It's the same thing with Borg: let's say he had chosen never to play the US Open. People here would be writing that he undoubtedly would have won a few of them (or more), but we all know he didn't. Also, if he had chosen to play the Australian, he may have been physically burnt out by the middle of the season and thus may have lost some of those epically close matches at Wimbledon which he was renowned for winning. We simply don't know.
No, it's not.
You're basically saying it's better to dominate for a few years and burn out, rather than pace your career better, win over a longer period of time against many different generations and end up with better numbers.
Fact is, he demanded to play fewer tournaments because he couldn't hack playing a full season any longer. Whether the authorities were right or wrong not to accede to his demand is a matter for debate. However, it's fair to say he was no longer in top shape to dominate majors, certainly psychologically.