Laver's '62 GS was against amatuers. Both Laver's GS's were played on 2 surfaces, grass or clay. Finally, the depth top to bottom is simply not comparable to today's field. In a list of retired GOAT's Laver is certainly on it, as is Borg and Sampras, but Federer if he keeps up this pace is sure to end all arguments.
each generation has to take what they're dealt. while winning on an additional two hardcourts is admirable, im sure that those clay and grass courts different with the tournament as well. a slam's a slam. just the same, every era has depth. there may be a perception of lack of depth, but like what federer's doing, its because of a player's dominance. when you say one era is better than the other - its harder, more depth, more variety in surfaces - what you're really trying to compare is the game at different evolutionary stages. it's a fallacy to think an era won't improve upon the last certainly 20-30 years after Laver the game. also, it's illogical to say there's less depth from the sheer number of players aiming for titles. what's your basis for that? does feds era have more depth than sampras? and sampras over lendl? lendl over mcenroe? mcenroe over borg? borg over connors? when it comes down to it, you still have to go through the same number of people to win a slam.