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.
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 You're generalizing based on an outdated and, really, infrequent mentality.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.
You may have a point about Roddick. But Murray lost only once to Federer or Sampras in Wimbledon, which was this year.
Agassi lost easily to Sampras in 99', yes. But he took him to 5 sets in 93' being injured and coming back from two sets down IIRC.
I do not believe in major results without context, what I meant is that in other surfaces there are other important tournaments, in grass Wimbledon is pretty much the only big thing. Yes, Queen's is a nice tournament, Halle too, but there are not M1000.