What is your sliding scale for which major titles count more than others? Is it weighted? Based on what?Imo Fed won a bunch of his titles against far lesser opponents at the start of his career.
Do you do the same for AFL premierships? Do some count more than others? Like Hawthorn beating interstate sides 3 years in a row. Those flags count for less than Geelong beating Collingwood/St Kilda. Right?
Flags are flags. Majors are majors. Winning is what counts. Not some parallel measurement of how good the opponents were.
To blithely attribute Federer's dominance to "inferior opponents" is ridiculous. The standard of his tennis in those years was insane.
Major titles are the only metric that matters.Djokovic has always had to content against Fed & Nadal & even other high calibre players like Murray for all of his.
However, if you want to start weighting titles, you could argue that Djokovic is cashing in when his challengers are still older players rather than guys 23-28 who should by now be pushing him out.
I think Djokovic is going to end up with so many majors that there's no argument either way. It won't be a matter of opinion.