So?? Agassi faced Becker, Ivanisevic and McEnore. 3 Wimbledon champions. He also defeated other great grass-court players like Rafter and Krajicek at Wimbledon.
So none of those guys are Sampras or Federer, arguably the two greatest grass courters of all time. I don't care how great Becker, washed out
Mcenroe, or Ivanisevic (who, in turn, was countlessly thwarted by Sampras on grass) are, they're not Sampras or Federer.
The point, if you really don't get it, is that limiting the conversation to "No Wimbledon = no great" is to ignore key context. Agassi and Djokovic might not have had Wimbledon titles had they faced Sampras or Federer respectively, the latter of whom Roddick frequently dealt with and Murray fell short against. I say might, but Sampras' schooling of a resurgent Agassi during his great
'99 and Olderer's experienced win over Djokovic this year are more than supportive.
And Wimbledon is the only grass tournament that matters. There's not a single M1000 on grass and, of course, another slam on grass. You may say that Djokovic is a better clay-courter than Costa or Gaudio despite not winning Roland Garros because he has countless M1000 wins and finals there. But Wimbledon is pretty much the only big thing that is played on grass (unfortunately)
First, no. You're generalizing based on an outdated and, really, infrequent mentality. Players for a long time have invested in tournaments like Queen's, and those who didn't back then were a minority.
Secondly, you make that point as though neither Roddick or Murray have stats at Wimbledon
worth mentioning when one was a relatively frequent finalist and the other hasn't missed the semis in four years.
Finally, if you believe in major results without context, as inferred by several people in this thread, then guys like Gaudio and Costa are superior to Djokovic on clay. Your inflation of Djokovic's few Masters doesn't change the fact that he'd trade all of them for a win.
All this, and we haven't even started on tennis, which is just as important as the results.