Yes, the tennis majority. The history books. Read a little, and you'll see.
Here's just one quick example, from Peter Bodo:
"Now that the first major of the year is over, the field of candidates who have a shot at completing a Grand Slam -- not a Serena Slam, not a Martina Slam, nor any other kind of Sham Slam -- has been narrowed down to two individuals. That's right. It's the first day of February and just two people, Roger Federer and Serena Williams, have a chance to complete the mission that stands at the apex of athletic achievement in our time -- right up there with a perfect NFL season, or a pitcher throwing a perfect game … in the seventh game of the World Series."
A terrific French website, histoiredutennis.com, is devoted to the "Legend of the Grand Slam."
I have a great many books written over the past fifty years or so, and they all regard the Grand Slam as the highest achievement in the game of tennis. You can try all you want to argue with the establishment, but sports are in large part about glory and tradition and prestige - and the Grand Slam has many decades of history behind it. The vast majority of tennis observers would agree with me, that the true Grand Slam is 'greater' than any non-calendar streak.
Does Bodo go into any great detail as to why he feels this way?
His analogy to pitching a perfect game in the seventh game of the world series surprises me. After all, pitching well enough to win is actually all that matters. That's like saying that playing a perfect set (ironically a feat not hyped up much in the media for reasons unexplained) is the apex of athletic accomplishment, despite the fact that one can still dominate a set while giving up a few points (or hits if you will).
But, regardless of what Mr. Bodo says (I admit to not having read any of his books), I would like to know from you why you consider the grand slam to be the pre-eminent accomplishment without appeal to authority or reference to words like 'benchmark' (manufactured standards). In terms of sheer athletic excellence, what makes the grand slam pre-eminent and more indicative of greatness than aspects such as long-term success or consistent dominance over a period of three-to-five years?
You see, I think we don't have as much a difference in philosophy as a different way of looking at what is greatness. You seem to associate greatness with a certain spirit of the game - an unseen, ghostly aura (which explains why you laud Wimbledon as more special than the other slams). To you, there's a certain divine excellence associated with the Slam, much like with Wimbledon. You see it as almost holy, from what I can tell. Perhaps somewhat fatalistic almost. In fact, in one of your posts you mention the word 'dream' in reference to the slam, which says a lot about the way you think.
I am more of a raw, pragmatic thinker. I don't believe in unseen forces, aura and divinity. To me there is no guiding hand. There are the two players, the ball, the rackets, the surfaces and the weather conditions. These factors combine to create the outcome. I do not believe that Wimbledon, in all its glory, is divine but a tournament like any other, except that by virtue of the wealth of its draws and the effort that players put into winning it, it demands respect - but, in my view, not moreso than other majors with draws as good or better.
I see the grand slam (the so-called apex of tennis excellence) as a cash cow for the media and the golden goose of those who practice sports as religion (seeing it as historical art, rather than physical). The pragmatic thinker in me sees that no grand slam is alike - the dreamer sees them all as the gold standard, alike. I see each one as an individual case for criticism, such as Laver's first slam accomplished as an amateur or Don Budge's grand slam accomplished against such tennis greats as Roderick Menzel and Gene Mako.
To the tennis dreamer, it doesn't matter what Budge did once he turned professional in 1939 as he stopped playing in grand slams. To a tennis dreamer, it doesn't matter whether each of the four grand slams had consistently wealthy draws across the board. A tennis dreamer, in fact, isn't interested in draws it all. What he is interested in is the manufactured golden standard, once uttred and since celebrated - even by some knowledgeable individuals. The gold standard of the slam - regardless of facts, regardless of draws, regardless of surfaces, regardless of amateur or pro competition. Regardless of all that, the slam is the gold standard.
I find this kind of thinking befuddling. I will try my best to respect it even though I perceive it as unintelligent.