Originally Posted by hoodjem
Let's invert the logic: is it so good that it trumps other considerations?
Agassi has one, and Lendl or Connors do not. All have 8 slams. Is Agassi greater than Lendl or Connors (simply because Agassi has the career slam)?
No criterion trumps every other consideration. Connors and Lendl have both other accomplishment that put them ahead (and by a good margin to me) of Agassi.But his career slams is an impressive feat in itself which deserve to be recognized.
Should we not mention Connors and Lendl consistency (especially at the USO) because it doesn't trump other players impressive accomplishments?