Hmm, I don't know about the validity of this comparison. These days, it's very difficult to get to #1 now without winning at least 1 major. But winning 1 major doesn't guarantee you #1. It depends how much competition one has for #1, or if there is a dominant player at #1 and also how many other lesser (below slam) tournaments are being won by you or the competitors.
Let's just take last year as a small example. 4 players had 1 major, but one player was number 1 for 35 weeks (Djokovic) and 1 other (Federer) was #1 for 17 weeks and Nadal and Murray did not make it to #1. Now a bulk of Djokovic's weeks at #1 until July, were due to him actually winning 3 majors in that period (Wimbledon 2011, US Open 2011, AO 2012). However Federer's 17 weeks were due to him winning only 1 major (Wimbledon 2012), but getting 8 other titles during that period including 4 masters and a Master's cup which are worth about 2.5 majors in points. So the point is, though it's difficult to get to #1 today without winning a major, other titles, especially masters, can also be beneficial in getting to or keeping one at #1.
Per your suggestion of 52 weeks at #1 = 1 major... I think that is high. It should be fewer weeks.
Jimmy Connors had 268 weeks at #1, which would be about 5 majors per given suggestion. He had 8 majors so about 33 wks/major.
Borg's 109 weeks at #1, about 2 majors, yet in reality he got 11 or about 10 weeks/major
Federer's 302 weeks is worth about 6 majors, but in reality he has 17 or about 18 weeks/major.
Wilander only had 20 weeks at #1, yet he won 7 majors or only 3 weeks/major.
Becker had 12 weeks at #1, yet won 6 majors, 2 weeks/major.
Rafter won 2 majors but only had 1 week at #1.
I guess I would just keep them as separate accomplishments rather than trying to equate them.