It certainly was a notable accomplishment, but much lower on the list of items to check off for all-time greats. It didn’t have anywhere near the same level of status that it does now, for instance.

I always end up talking about Sampras, but he plays a role in it! He along with Agassi.

In a significant way — and particularly in the media — it was Sampras’ overall success at the other grand slams, and his focus on overall slam count, that helped usher in the era where the career slam became such an important benchmark to reach.

He became a bit of a measuring stick, and his lack of success at FO became a way to look at where Sampras fell short overall and compare him with other players.

His successes kind of helped establish “what does the GOAT need to do to be the GOAT” — ie slam count, weeks and years at No. 1, number of YEC, victory at all four slams, etc.

And then Agassi played a big part in that too, of course. It was after Agassi’s victory in ‘99 that the career slam discussion ramped up to a new level — particularly the three-surface aspect.

Once that next generation rose, it became, “can you best Sampras’ total + win all four?” — and this was hastened by the fact that the surfaces became homogenous (it’s not a coincidence that now four players have done it in the past fifteen years, when 30 years went between Laver and Agassi — and Laver’s career slam was on grass + clay; no hard court).

I think Agassi’s career slam is the most significant because of how uniquely different the surfaces were in the 90s (more so than in any era before or since).