Better Accomplishment?

Question

What's a better accomplishment in your opinion and explain why:

Winning a Slam on one surface 4 times, non consecutively.

Or winning 3 of the 4 Slams, but only once each and not all in the same year.

Answer 1

I think it depends on the surface.

If you won 4 times on Clay (French) or grass (Wimbledon), you'd for sure go down as one of the best player on that surface of all time, which has happened to Henin and Venus. But if you win the U.S. Open or Australian Open 4 times, it's not as impressive because it's just hard courts.

If you win on 3 of the 4 surfaces (especially clay, grass and hard courts) then I think the player would be respected as they have been able to win on different surfaces such as Federer and Henin, again. haha

Answer 2

3 of the 4, it just shows more variety I think.  

Answer 3

3 of the 4 slams

cos that shows the variety in your game and moreover winning the us open 4 times non consecutive is just not as good as winning any 3 slams

obviously winning wimbledon 4 times would be a good achievement but i will go for 3 out of 4 slams.

Answer 4

3 of the 4

because it proves you have equal ability on different surfaces

and that you are an all around accomplished champion.

personally I would settle for being runner up the either of the options

I love tennis but would love to be better

Answer 5

3 of 4 slams is maybe better. I think of Agassi who win everything. He is the best ever.

Answer 6

it really depends.. but i think if u won each slam or atleast 3 out 4 different surfaces that is better because it shows your completeness...

but if u won over and over on a speciality surface like clay or grass then that says alot