Originally Posted by timnz
Actually I don't think I necessarily agree. Grass was a surface that every player was familar with in the 1960's and most players played on it frequently and because of that many many players developed styles that were effective of grass. Hence, the depth of grass talent was much much deeper than it is now. Hence, 3 out of 4 on Grass actually becomes a harder proposition because almost everybody is good on grass as opposed to today when it is merely a specialist surface.
You are entitled to your opinion. Grass is still grass, but three different surfaces is a huge distinction. The depth of hc today blows away the depth of grass in the 60s. I'm pretty sure if you take away the hc slam with only 2 surfaces, Nadal would win a lot more. Similar to Fed if there wasn't no slam on clay...he would win more. Just to show that having the 3rd surface makes it more challenging and hence win less.