The more people diminish the achievements of the past greats, the less impressive the achievements of the current greats are imo.
If we have disclaimers, like surface, etc(1st hardcourt slam was only in 197
, so how impressive is it to call Federer the best ever? Guess that means the best ever means only the best ever since 1978. Not much to get excited about since its only a 28 year period. Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.
Tennis is the only sport that does this. Baseball has been played since the 1800s & Babe Ruth regularly tops all polls of past greats, current players, fans etc as who the best player of alltime was & he played primarily in the 20s. Imagine if they decided on 1978 as the starting point for historical discussions, it would be a joke.
Also, the only reason a hardcourt slam became a reality in 1978 was that the USTA wanted to pick a surface that favored Americans. They certainly weren't trying to contribute "all surface players" to the game.
Here's an impressive win from Laver on hardcourts. The 1969 South African Open. 64 player draw, best of 5 all rounds. Sounds pretty similar to a Grand Slam to me.
and keep in mind if its so easy, or "not good" to win all 4 slams in one year on only 2 surfaces, how come in the 60+ years that slams were played on only 2 surfaces, did this only happen 3 times?