Being all dramatic/going postal style about it isn't going to prove your points. I don't see what is so difficult to follow. Roger has undoubtedly had the most colllapses compared to any of them. He is generally considered a good amount more talented as well. Right now 20 is tremendous because it is more than anyone else, but it ceases to be tremendous if 1 or 2 of his peers passes it up. Not really much different than the concept of value of money and inflation, except that of course usually happens over a longer period of time. At one point $20,000 per year would have you living like a king...
You seem hell bent on comparing his resume to previous eras where careers were half as long and there was much greater variety in surfaces and playing styles. So in theory if he finishes with the 2nd or 3rd most majors in his era how is 20 majors "fucking insane?" Is 28 MS events currently "fucking insane?"
And as for competition arguments I totally agree that Djokovic and Nadal had it much easier in their 30's but I'd also agree with the frequent argument that Federer had it easier in his early-mid 20's than those two. If anything it evened out.
You clearly moved the goal posts on consistency. Roger in his prime was ridiculously consistent and more dominant than the others by a good measure. But yet he is at risk of getting passed up in large part due to the aforementioned disastrous 7 year period between AO 2010-AO2017. That wasn't just strong competition by the way, it is a period marred with losses against a bunch of nobodies as Roger only made 5 major finals and barely was making 50% of semis in that period. Of course a lot of them were complete collapses which goes back to the fact that those mental disasters simply don't happen to the other top guys. Thus the underachieving.
Moved what goal posts? Consistency is consistency. There's very little subjective about it, and I hate to break it to you, but again, you CANNOT act like he's an old man whose opponents should be embarrassed for losing to him (you literally said that about Djokovic and Nadal) then be all dramatic about whatever "inconsistency" you perceive when the guy is pushing 40. That he's doing what he's doing at this age insane. He's had a couple of disappointing years in his career but so did Nadal and Djokovic. It's normal as they struggle to first adapt to age or suffer from injuries. There is literally zero metric by which Federer lacks consistency. ZERO.
I'm moving the goal post? You literally just said Fed had a disastrous 7 year period between 2010 and 2017. We're talking about consistency here. During that time he was constantly competing for majors so what the fuck are you talking about? In fact in 2010 and 2012 he won majors. Reached finals in 2011, 2014 and 2015. Now is that great by Roger's standards? Of course not. But anyone looking at someone in his 30's during that stretch who was constantly a top 3 player in the world and thinking he was inconsistent is utterly out of their minds.
Also LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at me being dramatic about this when you're the guy who said this:
" I'd say it'd make his major total completely insignificant."
A yes, 20 slams are completely insignificant but I'm being dramatic.
Fed fans have lost the plot worse than Federer in a fifth set of a Wimbledon final.