...and if there were slams played on snow, Norway would have a multi slam winner.
It is what it is. Rafa knew about the slam distribution when he developed as a player. He & Uncle T chose to develop Rafas game for clay, thats on them.
If you go down that road you could also argue clay has...
All Big3 would of course win more without the others around.
I dont have the time to check, but i think Federer was stopped more by Big3 than the other way around. So it makes sense that Fed would be "the winner", Nadal alone has cost him nearly 10 slams.
Well they did. Big4 all played their best tennis in their 20s. Federer 2004-2010. Nadal 2008-2013. Djokovic 2011-2016. Murray has barely played post 30. Nadals 3 best seasons he was 22, 24 and 27. Federer 2004-2007 he was 23-26y. Djokovic was 24 in 2011 and 27/28 2015/2016.
I think its easy to get blinded by the age of the last slam winners, which of course is irrelevant to when players peak.
Big4 peaked and won most of their slams in their 20s. Because they are ATGs and the LostGen suck, they still win slams. But it doesnt change the fact that they peaked in...