I guess then you’d consider Andre Agassi to be a greater player than Federer? He has won all the majors and the olympics?
Yet he was never as dominant as Federer…
"How can one be considered “the greatest” (Francois’ characterization of Federer) if one can’t win, as yet, one of the four premier tennis tournaments in the world? "
By having one’s total record looked at in comparison to everyone else. His record speaks for itself. The fact that a few people have been able to win each of the 4 Grand Slams once does not overcome Federer’s ability to win eveything else so many times. There are 5 guys who have won the career Grand Slam. Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, and Andre Agassi. Only Laver and Emerson have more Grand Slam titles than Federer, and neither was as dominant in his time.
Not to mention that the density was nowhere what it is now (and Laver first slam was done before the open era, as an amateur)…
during these times, most very good players would go through the first 3-4 matches of a grand slam tournament with scores like 6-1, 6-2, 6-0…very much like (still) many of the women’s first matches.