Ganstaz003
Rookie
I mean, the proof is in the pudding, and we also have a fairly large sample size of that proof, proving that there is definitely a substantial difference between the two hardcourts in those two grand-slam events. Question is, just how substantial is that difference? Is the difference as big as the difference between Wimbledon's grass compared to Australian Open's hardcourt and US Open's hardcourt? If that's the case, shouldn't they just be considered different surfaces altogether, even if both slams are classified as 'hardcourt' slams? Shouldn't they be differentiated by 'fast hardcourt' and 'slow hardcourt' (or perhaps by some other sub-classification), instead of just 'hardcourt' to clear things up and make things more specific?
I mean, if both grand-slams were similar enough to be justifiably labelled the exact same surface, where winning one grand-slam event in either adds to overall hardcourt slam tally, then surely, there'd be no logical reason for why Novak Djokovic should have 6 more Australian Open titles than US Open titles and Nadal only having 1 Australian Open title in nearly 2 decades compared to 4 US Open titles. Only Federer has relatively an equal number of both, due to the most balanced game out of the others. Even Sampras has only two Australian Open titles compared to five US Open titles.
Now does anybody really think or believe if we had two Australian Open slams in a year, instead of just one, and the US Open at the end of the year was to be replaced by another Australian Open grand-slam, identical to the Australian Open in the beginning of the year, does anybody truly believe or think Djokovic would have only won 3 Australian Open titles in the Australian Open that takes place at the same time that the current US Open takes place? Don't you think he'd have roughly the same number of Australian Open titles at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the year? US Open evidently appears to be substantially different than Australian Open, so much so that it's unfair to conflate them both into one, and label the winner of either slam as the winner of the same 'TYPE' of slam (hardcourt) when they so clearly aren't.
I mean, if both grand-slams were similar enough to be justifiably labelled the exact same surface, where winning one grand-slam event in either adds to overall hardcourt slam tally, then surely, there'd be no logical reason for why Novak Djokovic should have 6 more Australian Open titles than US Open titles and Nadal only having 1 Australian Open title in nearly 2 decades compared to 4 US Open titles. Only Federer has relatively an equal number of both, due to the most balanced game out of the others. Even Sampras has only two Australian Open titles compared to five US Open titles.
Now does anybody really think or believe if we had two Australian Open slams in a year, instead of just one, and the US Open at the end of the year was to be replaced by another Australian Open grand-slam, identical to the Australian Open in the beginning of the year, does anybody truly believe or think Djokovic would have only won 3 Australian Open titles in the Australian Open that takes place at the same time that the current US Open takes place? Don't you think he'd have roughly the same number of Australian Open titles at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the year? US Open evidently appears to be substantially different than Australian Open, so much so that it's unfair to conflate them both into one, and label the winner of either slam as the winner of the same 'TYPE' of slam (hardcourt) when they so clearly aren't.