Originally Posted by Limpinhitter
Laver has proven that he can, and did, win on any surface, at any venue, over the best players in the world, for an extended period of time. The fact is, the pro majors that Laver won when he was ineligable to play in the 4 amature majors, were more important and more impressive than the amature majors because he prevailed over the higher quality competition, and he did it on every surface.
I can also easily say Fed could have won multiple CYGS had there was an oppotunity for him to compete only on grass
I think we should just hold on to what players have actually accomplished and stop adding(or subtracting) their wins by assuming if this and that had occurred.
All we know is winning slam on 3 difference surfaces is harder than 2 surfaces. Ok?