Ok now I do remember our initial conversation. My response, and still held belief, is that the reason there are more woman who can win slams today, than men, is only because there is no single woman playing at a dominant level, the Serena of 2002 of 2003, Venus of 2001 or 2003, and possably even Henin of 2003-early 2004, in my opinion would dominate in a year like this year, probably winning 3 of the 4 slams. However no woman is currently playing at that level for any substained length of time, thus the top group are more evenly matched, and more balanced in their chances of winning major events. If it were not for Federer Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal, Safin, and Agassi would all have reasonable chances to win any slam, except for Roddick or Agassi at the French, and Nadal or Agassi at Wimbledon. Also Roddick, Hewitt, and Agassi do regularly reach late rounds of non-clay events, atleast 70% of the time, Nadal is still unpredicatable in his showings on non-clay surfaces, very dangerous yet very vurnerable all at once, and Safin is Safin.
That being said that argument would have more grounds this year than had it been last year. Atleast with Henin, Clijsters, Venus, and Serena splitting the 4 slams, Sharapova reaching 3 semis, and Davenport reaching 2 finals; the quality argument is more valid than last year where you had Myskina win a grand slam, Dementieva with a worse serve than she has now reach 2 slam finals, Saurez reach French semis and Wimbledon quarters back to back, and Zuluaga and Schnyder reach a slam semifinal at the same slam.