It would mean less, but it's not like there would be an asterisk next to that major in the record books...
I really don't see why people care so much about specific majors won. When you're talking about who's the GOAT, sure, surface matters. But the question is were you great on the surface, not whether you won Roland Garros. The fact is, Roger ISN'T great on the surface (he's very good). If he becomes great, it doesn't matter who he beats. Borg was an excellend hardcourter...it doesn't really matter that he didn't win the USO. He proved it in other places. Winning a specific major vs. not winning a specific major can come down to what you ate for breakfast, or the weather. It doesn't make or break a career.
[\Quote]
its kinda relative to sit there and say federer is very good on the red dirt, yet borg is somehow great on the hardcourt. Roger has managed to claw into many many master series clay court final and take many shields, losing to the "barometer" over the past 5 years. Borg had some solid wins over mcenroe, ashe, connors, vitas on the hardcourt, but again never converted in teh USO. I would say both are relative to each other when it comes to each's second surface
