First we have to dismiss the myth propagated by Mugraytards that all slams are legitimate. This is obviously untrue, as the essence of tennis history was the controversy over legitimate slams. After all, the Open Era began because the best players weren't playing the slams and a bunch of amateurs were winning. I'm pretty sure if Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were forbidden from playing the AO and Mugray won, it wouldn't be very controvertial that it was an illegitimate slam.
OK so that's pre-open era. What about open era? The Australian Open has had multiple illegitimate winners because it wasn't important. I think everyone would agree that 1972 Wimbledon was illegitimate. Various other circumstances have been argued to cause illegitimacy throughout tennis history: weather, fixing, terrible officiating and player/organization conflicts, etc. What we can say is that the concept of an illegitimate slam is not only correct, it is an essential part of what tennis is today. That Mugraytards deny this is more than ignorance I'm afraid to say, it goes back to a fundamental distaste for the game of tennis and a fear that Mugray will be exposed as a fraudulent winner in a controversial USO arguably as bad as the FO and W of 1972. That the players didn't strike after the USO Mugray debacle shows what a serious problem there is in tennis and the danger Mugray represents.
Whoever draws you in the 2013 ACC will have a very hard time to say the least, strong stuff here.