tennis means battles of attrition on the french clay or display of sublime skill on the lawns of wimbledon...........why are these boring hardcourts given 2 slams?
Because they are a balance between the two: aggressive big-hitters and those with good wheels can all get results on them so they are the most competitive.
you need to have both aggressive hitting and superb movement on clay and grass...........or else you will just be a sitting duck on the traditional surfaces...........tennis played on the traditional surfaces is the ultimate tennis, it demands everything if you want to succeed on it...........hardcourt tennis has artificial look..........it gets monotonous with too much tennis on those surfaces...........
Clay is by far the slowest surface, grass (should be) the fastest, hard courts should be the middle ground. You need aggressive hitting on grass, you can get by without great movement (ask Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman, Karlovic) and you can get by on clay without a whole lot of aggression (Coria, Monfils at RG this year, Albert Costa, Alex Corretja). Nadal may dominate clay and win on grass with aggressive hitting and superb movement, but he could get by on clay without much aggression and he could get by on proper grass without his great movement. Hard court tennis offers the balance between movement and aggression, both are necessary to succeed. Also, hard courts are easier maintain and more playable in bad weather: any rain at all makes grass unplayable and wet clay is horrible, on hard, you get the water off and go. Hard courts may be tougher on the body, which I suspect is the real reason you dislike them, but they offer the best balance between defensive and offensive players.