Not really. He won his first in 2011, when Federer was 29.
- Federer at 29-37 was still far better than any player he faced before Nadal in the modern era. Even when Nadal came along it was only 1 huge rival. Pretty much evidenced by the fact that technology, training techniques, physicality/fitness has all increased in tennis yet 37 year old Federer is still head and shoulders above anyone not named Nadal or Djokovic. Don't buy they suggestion that Federer was past him prime by 29 just because he didn't win many grand slams for a lengthy period, he simply faced a better opponent(s) in that time. Like now Djokovic is 32 which is a fair bit older than 29 and still apparently in his prime because he has won the last 4/5 slams. Yet 37 y.o. Federer was still able to outplay him for most of the match...
- Nadal was still in his prime from 2011 onwards besides the injury riddled periods - basically cancels everyone else's chance to win RG every year as well lol. Only 1 year older than Djoker but started his peak earlier. Djokovic has even beaten him once at RG which Federer has still not managed.
- Even a prime Murray I daresay would beat Sampras and Agassi.
- The modern day top end player has very few weaknesses and comparatively players' perceived/possible weaknesses at the net are nothing near the weaknesses players in the past would have in other areas (e.g. shit backhand, poor from the baseline, lack of power, lack of mobility, weak serve, poor at net). In the past you could win slams with significant or more technical deficiencies in your game. Even a player like Tsonga who has never won a slam is more complete than most of the players in the past IMO (but perhaps lacking in mentality also).
So to win his entire 16 slams in this era with 3 huge rivals or at least against 2 legends is probably the hardest to do. If Djokovic didn't exist Federer, Nadal and Murray would've split at least 14 out of Djokovic's 16 grandslams IMO e.g. Federer 24, Nadal 23, Murray 7.