Like I said earlier, this is a dubious record. It's well known that Connors played everything back in the 70s just to make money. I bet Connors doesn't have as many "big" titles in his whole career as Fed has at 25 yo.
I guess you don't consider 5 US Opens(open era record) & 2 Wimbledons to count as "big titles?"
I know you were only born in 1976, but you should do some research before coming to such a conclusion.
Pro tennis was very different in the 70s, very disorganized with its governing bodies, politics, etc.
Connors actually didn't play that many events during his prime years, like a Davydenko or Robredo does today or a Vilas did in the past
His schedule was about quality, not quantity. His win % was great, from 1973 to 1979 he won 73 events, averaging 8 wins a year for 7 years(which Federer is certainly capable of) Connors only played around 18 events a year then.
The rest of his 109 titles were acquired just by the fact that he played for so long at a high level, winning his last title in 1989.
And even if was playing only for money(which he wasn't as you can see by his schedule), I wouldn't blame him, prize money was only starting to become big then, you would be a fool not to chase dollars. Players couldn't afford to
be "fatigued" like Federer has been twice this year. If a top player in the 70s actually said that publicly, they would have been considered less than a man by the rest of the tour.
The 3 most important events in those days were the US Open, Wimbledon, & the WCT Dallas event. The Australian was a non-event & the French wasn't highly regarded either(even by the French, attendance was so poor in the early 70s)
There were no "masters series," but there were many big money events that attracted the best players. Probably most watched match of 1975(not just in the US) was a winner take all million dollar match in Las Vegas between Newcombe & Connors. It wasn't just an exhibition(you can see that it got the cover of SI) but significant in many tennis analysts' minds in determing who the best player in the world was at the time.
The standards of all time greats are constantly changing, it seems absurd to put down players of the past because they didn't get a chance to play the Masters Series(only created in 1990) Why not put down todays players for not playing the now non-existent Dallas WCT event while you're at it?
It was as big an event as was possible in the 70s for prestige, etc. And most fans today have no clue of it.
Newcombe (a 7 time slam winner) called his 1975 Dallas win the biggest win of his career.
