Comparing Laver's $5-per-win amateur era with the multi-billion industry it is now...
Makes sense.
They all won all 4 slams. Djokovic won all 4 in a row. The calendar is an arbitrary thing, how Laver won 4 in a row is the same as Djokovic.
In fact, less so. Laver won on two different surfaces, and without playing 28 bestof5 matches.
Read up tennis history. It is educational.
Silly Person!
If the REAL GRAND SLAM is such an arbitrary thing ... then how come no Male player has been able to achieve it since Laver did?
As for the History comment, I don't need to read up on anything. I was alive during that era.
Laver did not win on two different surfaces ... He won on 4 different surfaces.
If you were alive in the 1960's, especially if you lived in Australia, you would understand that the Natural Grass Surfaces of Wimbledon, Westside Tennis Club - Forest Hills and Milton Queensland (and then later on Kooyong TC Melbourne) played completely differently.
The three sanitised dumbed down surfaces of the modern era basically play the same. Only Roland Garros is the stand out now. (One of the main reasons why Federer has been unable to conquer than venue!)
So perhaps, you stick to your HISTORY BOOKS which were written some time after some of us actually witnessed the events that you can only dream about.
Meanwhile the current Greats revere Laver. Federer even promoted a new tournament in Laver's name. I wonder why that is?