I've been reading the recents complaints on this board about the slowed grass at Wimby. OK assuming Fed does indeed win more slams than Pete, and wins at least 1 French, I'm sure many would say that he wouldn't have won so much if the grass was left the way it was before 2002. Fed did grow up on clay, and is the best on fast hard courts so far, but he will always be measured by a different measuring stick compared to Edberg, Borg, Becker, Agassi, and Sampras because of the green-clay perception of Wimbledon. It's kinda unfair for Fed because it wasn't his call. He wouldn't have the opportunity to prove that he could win so much W titles in fast grass, like Pete did. When people attributed to him the GOAT status, many will demand a footnote saying that it was on slow grass that he won his grass-courts slams, unlike the past champs. What do you guys think?