You tell me your idea of eras and then we can talk.I am not the one making claims about eras so I don't have anything I need to define.
You tell me your idea of eras and then we can talk.I am not the one making claims about eras so I don't have anything I need to define.
I already have several times. You just don't like the answer. You are using a term of art and convenience that does not have firm boundaries or meaning. You can't use a term that is not an objective measurement of time such as ,for example, 'decades'. You cannot manipulate a decade to include what you want and exclude what you don't. Notice the 1950's does not have a players name as its defining characteristic. That's because once you start putting players names on these measurements, you are taking control of the data, rather than the data controling you. At every stage of this process, we would taking Dan Lobb's opinions out of the process.You tell me your idea of eras and then we can talk.
Well, if you are uncomfortable with using the term "era", then I would recommend that you do not use it, that is your own choice.I already have several times. You just don't like the answer. You are using a term of art and convenience that does not have firm boundaries or meaning. You can't use a term that is not an objective measurement of time such as ,for example, 'decades'. You cannot manipulate a decade to include what you want and exclude what you don't. Notice the 1950's does not have a players name as its defining characteristic. That's because once you start putting players names on these measurements, you are taking control of the data, rather than the data controling you. At every stage of this process, we would taking Dan Lobb's opinions out of the process.
Now with that, I probably won't be contributing to the development of a process that I just don't believe in.
. That's what I have been asking you to do so that you can begin to objectively measure the quality of these eras of yours. Share your definition. The next step is for you tell us what criteria you are using to determine the relative strength/ weakness of these eras.Well, if you are uncomfortable with using the term "era", then I would recommend that you do not use it, that is your own choice.
However, the term "era" is frequently used in tennis history, as you can see from reading this forum, and it works when defined appropriately for most people. I suggest that you stay away from the term "era" and allow the rest of us to use it as we see fit.
That depends upon which criteria you believe are important. If it is strictly a matter of tennis organization, then most historians talk about "pre-open era" as opposed to "open era". Rod Laver in 2012 distinguished between open era and pre-open era in his ranking of the greatest players. Laver had a separate ranking list for each of the two eras.. That's what I have been asking you to do so that you can begin to objectively measure the quality of these eras of yours. Share your definition. The next step is for you tell us what criteria you are using to determine the relative strength/ weakness of these eras.
How do you distinguish between good eras and bad eras?
we are actually getting somewhere. The last player to win a slam with a wood racket was Evert in 1983 RG. There weren't any top 10-20 players that I know of that still played with wood past that date. That's a long way's away from 1990. Why the 2016 cut-off?That depends upon which criteria you believe are important. If it is strictly a matter of tennis organization, then most historians talk about "pre-open era" as opposed to "open era". Rod Laver in 2012 distinguished between open era and pre-open era in his ranking of the greatest players. Laver had a separate ranking list for each of the two eras.
You could choose other criteria to establish eras, depending upon which criteria you believe are important.
Since you are obviously very interested in this subject, I would also point out the division into eras made by the most prominent historical Canadian tennis player, Bob Bedard. In a 2016 interview, Bedard divided tennis history into three periods
1) pre-WWII
2) post WWII until about 1990 (corresponding roughly to racquet technology change)
3) recent 1990-2016
Bedard named the three greatest players as being the top of each era, namely 1) Tilden 2) Hoad 3) Sampras
Bedard himself had played against Tilden and Hoad, although I am not sure that he ever traded strokes with Sampras.
Bedard and Laver are only two experts who have established eras in which to rank players, many other examples could be cited.
That was the year when the Bedard interview was given. I presume that Bedard would not change things since then.we are actually getting somewhere. The last player to win a slam with a wood racket was Evert in 1983 RG. There weren't any top 10-20 players that I know of that still played with wood past that date. That's a long way's away from 1990. Why the 2016 cut-off?
I am trying to get your standards not Bedard's, because you are the person making the claim about 'weak' eras right now. You divide tennis into your preferred eras, but make them equal, so that we are not comparing 4 cups of sugar with 2 cups of sugar while we measure sweetness.That was the year when the Bedard interview was given. I presume that Bedard would not change things since then.
But I suspect that the real cutoff of about 1990s had to do with the increase in the size of racquet heads which changed the game.
There is no sense in talking about strength of eras until we reach some agreement on what the term "eras" actually means, and that requires seeing what sort of consensus exists in the experts in their discussion of eras.I am trying to get your standards not Bedard's, because you are the person making the claim about 'weak' eras right now. You divide tennis into your preferred eras, but make them equal, so that we are not comparing 4 cups of sugar with 2 cups of sugar while we measure sweetness.
I don't think there's an argument that modern players would not be as dynamic with many decades-old obsolete equipment. Everyone should agree that that's true. But this is where the comparison should end. The physicality and speed of modern tennis is light years beyond what it was in the wooden racquet era. It's also greater than it was 25 years ago, albeit much more incrementally. You simply cannot perform time travel and create these theoretical scenarios with 1950s/60s, etc. players using modern equipment and vice versa.There are many more quotes along these lines on this forum.
No, it does not necessarily follow that athletes from previous eras were less athletic or strong than today. In fact, in tennis it takes less strength and athleticism to wield the current racquets.I don't think there's an argument that modern players would not be as dynamic with many decades-old obsolete equipment. Everyone should agree that that's true. But this is where the comparison should end. The physicality and speed of modern tennis is light years beyond what it was in the wooden racquet era. It's also greater than it was 25 years ago, albeit much more incrementally. You simply cannot perform time travel and create these theoretical scenarios with 1950s/60s, etc. players using modern equipment and vice versa.
Clearly, you're partial to the past. There's nothing wrong with that. I am too, albeit more of the 1990s. But you have to be realistic and reasonable. The game and athletics evolve. It doesn't mean that past champions weren't incredible. It doesn't necessarily mean that modern players are technically more sound. All we can really do is compare people within their generations against their peers.
I am not interested in your 'experts'. I am only interested in your expertise. Please do not refer to them, when they are not the ones making claims in this thread. YOU ARE. You need to define the term because you are the one who is making assertions about it.There is no sense in talking about strength of eras until we reach some agreement on what the term "eras" actually means, and that requires seeing what sort of consensus exists in the experts in their discussion of eras.
I mentioned two experts above, Laver and Bedard, both outstanding players who played against most of the greats in in the game.
Laver makes the break at 1968, choosing the pre-open era and the open era as the divides.
Bedard looks at the style and equipment of the game and divides at 1945 (the serve and volley style predominated shortly after WWII until about 2000), and again at the 1990s, when the larger racquets and baseline style of play became the current norm.
If you take Bedard's division of eras, then I would suggest that the post-WWII era from about 1945 to 1990 was a stronger era than today, with more outstanding players in the fields in most decades.
There will always be some outliers, but yes, in general, athletes are continually pushing the envelope. It's impossible to objectively compare people who are many many decades or more apart.No, it does not necessarily follow that athletes from previous eras were less athletic or strong than today. In fact, in tennis it takes less strength and athleticism to wield the current racquets.
Were Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle less athletic and lesser hitters than today's players? Most experts would say that these older greats would be at least as successful in today's game, and they still rank near the top of all-time great lists. The same is true for tennis.
Did I not just indicate one possible era delineation for you? It is right there in black and white. I find nothing wrong with those divisions given by Bedard, whose expertise is above anyone I have seen on the subject, as he played against the best players.I am not interested in your 'experts'. I am only interested in your expertise. Please do not refer to them, when they are not the ones making claims in this thread. YOU ARE. You need to define the term because you are the one who is making assertions about it.
1. Tell us what an era is, and how long one lasts?
2.Tell us how you know when one era ended and another started.
3. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative strength of an era
4. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative weakness of an era.
Thank-you for not referring to your 'experts' again. Nothing they say can answer these questions for you. Thank you, Dan, for not dodging these questions. Thank-you, Dan, for doing hard work all on your own. I know you can think this through.
It is not just baseball where the historic great athletes like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle are generally considered by baseball experts to be superior to the great athletes of today, but also the other major sports.There will always be some outliers, but yes, in general, athletes are continually pushing the envelope. It's impossible to objectively compare people who are many many decades or more apart.
Yes, Mantle and particularly Ruth were surely less athletic and less physically fit than the extreme majority of today's MLB players. There's no question that they put up historic numbers for any era. Were they "lesser hitters" than today's players? No, I don't think that can be said at all. But again, I'm not sure how to truly evaluate that. Baseball has its own set of intricacies that set it aside from other team sports.
As for tennis, you're focusing far too much on the racquets. Players from the distant past may have swung a heavier, less aerodynamic racquet, but in turn they also didn't have to react nearly as quickly, move nearly as quickly nor play the ferocity nor length of points compared to players of more recent times. It's not even close.
No "expert" can more effectively argue that someone who excelled 70 years ago can be time traveled to 2023 and defeat Alcaraz. An "all-time great list" is simply a subjective and fun exercise for fans and media. It has no bearing on who would win a theoretical matchup or who was "better."
Yes, I'm aware that we've gone over all of this in another thread. I'm well aware of such consensus regarding Brown, Sayers, Payton, Williams, Ruth, Mantle, etc. But again, these lists are mostly made as a fun exercise for fans and media. There are too many objective and subjective factors at play and too many team-based factors in a sport like football to truly compare individual skill position players.It is not just baseball where the historic great athletes like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle are generally considered by baseball experts to be superior to the great athletes of today, but also the other major sports.
In football, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers are often regarded as the two greatest running backs of all time, and they played in the 1950s and 1960s.
Let me refer you to a special thread which I started and ended on this subject "The Second Golden Age of Sports", click on "Search" and type this title in for threads, we discussed this subject in great detail.
Clearly my opinion is just that, and is highly subjective. But I tend to think that depth and competition-wise, men's tennis has very much passed its peak and has been on the downward trajectory. I would strongly disagree with any notion that there is more depth in the ATP top 100 in 2023, than there was 30 years ago in 1993 or 20 years ago in 2003 for example, but others might think I'm talking absolute nonsense there and have the complete opposite view.
I just find it difficult to square the notion that there is better depth in men's tennis nowadays, when the money on offer in the sport continues to trail further and further behind what male athletes can earn in team sports, compared to previous eras when tennis was far more lucrative relative to team sports, and a more 'glamourous' career option. Most athletes in team sports would have loved to have earned what the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Lendl etc. earned from playing in just a few invitationals. I mean wasn't Borg's annual prize money in 1979 and 1980 for example, higher than the annual salaries of any players in the NBA, NFL, Serie A, English First Division etc. at the time? His prize money just from winning the Pepsi Grand Slam in 1980, exceeded the average salaries in the MLB and NFL at the time.
But the money on offer in the major leagues in team sports, not just for the best of the best, but also for the players earning the median or even minimum salaries, has really exploded over the past few decades (at a far greater rate than inflation), making it more difficult for individual sports such as tennis to compete. It's said that for tennis players to make a good living from a singles career, they need to establish themselves in the top 100 to ensure that they have direct entry into grand slam main draws. But the lowest earners in the NBA are raking in more than USD 1 million per year, and in the MLB more than USD 700k per year (I know next to nothing about baseball but I think that there are more than 800 players in the MLB for perspective). A huge number of football players outside the top 5 European leagues (including around 130 or so in the English 2nd tier league which itself is far removed from the glitz and glamour of the Premier League) earn the equivalent of USD 1 million or more per year etc. Clearly tennis, in which so many players fail to break even with another sizeable chunk of ones that do still not really earning big bucks, is going to suffer in comparison.
When Agassi's dad pushed him to take up tennis in the 70s, the sport went through it's boom both in the US and globally (though his dad said that if he could do it again he'd push him towards baseball or golf instead). And likewise when the likes of Federer and Nadal were growing up, that was when tennis had benefitted from that global boom (Federer witnessed the huge matches between Becker and Edberg amongst others), and before or at the early stages of the huge increase in prize money in football the 90s compared to the 80s. I've felt that if Nadal was born in 1996 instead of 1986, with the major European leagues including La Liga (and Barcelona and Real Madrid) becoming more and more popular and way more glamourous, the European Cup -> Champions League switch established with the Champions League then expanding and becoming more of a huge deal, it's highly likely that he would have chosen football over tennis.
Year | Tennis players | Population | Percentage |
1974 | 34 million | 213 million | c. 16% |
2014 | 18 million | 320 million | c. 5.5% |
I’ll help you out. There are only 3 slam winners between the ages of 21-35 on tour, and none of them have won multiple slams. Can you name another time in the last 40 years where something even similar happened?What the hell do you think determines what an era 'is', and when one era ends and the next one starts. If you don't know that, you can't tell tell which matches were played, which players played or what events or organised during any given era You can't possibly know whether one is weak or strong if you can't even figure out what happened during one.
Soo if its not a precise period of years, then tell me what delineates one era from another?
That does not help me out at all. Because I don't know if era strength/weakness = depth or dominance, or some mixture or combination of both those often contradictory attributes one of which you are referencing above. I know that in these era quality debates around here, we read some pretty self serving arguments depending on what a given preferred champion was 'dominating' in! A strong era looks like what Budge or Laver played in or Borg, or Connors if that's your cup of tea. If strength = depth when is too much dept too much depth? If strength = dominance by a few, when is too few players dominating too few or too long of domination too long?I’ll help you out. There are only 3 slam winners between the ages of 21-35 on tour, and none of them have won multiple slams. Can you name another time in the last 40 years where something even similar happened?
Hmmm. I think more in terms of generations of players than eras, and each generation is roughly 5 years. I suppose eras could be 5 years too; what each generations peak years are supposed to be. We can evaluate relative strength and weaknesses of eras by evaluating the best players in those eras and their relative level at that time.That does not help me out at all.
Let me refer you to questions that will!
1. Tell us what an era is, and how long one lasts?
2.Tell us how you know when one era ended and another started.
3. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative strength of an era
4. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative weakness of an era.
Slams won by players age 21-34 at the end of each era:Hmmm. I think more in terms of generations of players than eras, and each generation is roughly 5 years. I suppose eras could be 5 years too; what each generations peak years are supposed to be. We can evaluate relative strength and weaknesses of eras by evaluating the best players in those eras and their relative level at that time.
For the last 30 years i would say
93-97: sampras dominating at his peak, agassi near his best for a couple years, becker past his peak but still playing well. Courier relevant in the beginning of this era, brugera and muster the best players on clay. Chang, ivanisevic and some others relevant
98-02: transitional period, sampras and agassi past their peaks still the best players. Rafter plays well, guga the best on clay. Break through of young safin and hewitt.
03-07: federer dominates at his peak. Roddick, hewitt safin at their peak and agassi also a contender on hard courts. Ferrero had a good 2003. Young nadal dominates clay and makes 2 wimbledon finals.
08-12: nadal at his peak, past peak federer still very good. Djokovic #3 from 08-10, and breaks through big time in 2011. At his peak in the later parts of this period. Murray del potro also contenders.
13-17: Djokovic firmly in his prime, nadal in the later parts of his prime but still does well at french open and us open. Wawrinka and murray do pretty well. Cilic sneaks in a slam. Fed still a contender and wins 2 majors in djokovic’s down period in 2017. Despite being in his 30s.
2018-present: Djokovic and nadal dominate despite being in their mid 30s. Rise of young alcaraz in the last 2 years. Fed a contender in the early portion, medvedev might be the 3rd best in this era. Thiem sneaks in a slam.
You can see from the last 2 eras that there were no players born from 1989-2002 that stood out thus allowing prime and past prime nadal and Djokovic to still dominate.
And that has to be the worst possible way to define these periods from the perspective of objectivity. You are using the names of one, two or three players to define the entire tour of players underneath them. That's how we get these subjective arguments that the 'sampras era' is stronger era than the 'McEnroe era' or the 'McEnroe era' is stronger than the 'Laver era' - and its the names that fuels the divisions and the nature of the arguments. If there is a lot of dominance in a few names, everyone asks where the depth was? If you have a broad swathe of champions representing a lot of depth, everyone asks where the dominance was! Try doing this without a single human name, making sure these periods of time are exactly the same length and try looking at all the top 20 or 15 or 10 players rather than just the few at the very top because we really should not define quality of the entire professional tour by a few people. Remember also that a professional tennis tour season has a lot of a lot more than 4 events during its progression.Hmmm. I think more in terms of generations of players than eras, and each generation is roughly 5 years. I suppose eras could be 5 years too; what each generations peak years are supposed to be. We can evaluate relative strength and weaknesses of eras by evaluating the best players in those eras and their relative level at that time.
For the last 30 years i would say
93-97: sampras dominating at his peak, agassi near his best for a couple years, becker past his peak but still playing well. Courier relevant in the beginning of this era, brugera and muster the best players on clay. Chang, ivanisevic and some others relevant
98-02: transitional period, sampras and agassi past their peaks still the best players. Rafter plays well, guga the best on clay. Break through of young safin and hewitt.
03-07: federer dominates at his peak. Roddick, hewitt safin at their peak and agassi also a contender on hard courts. Ferrero had a good 2003. Young nadal dominates clay and makes 2 wimbledon finals.
08-12: nadal at his peak, past peak federer still very good. Djokovic #3 from 08-10, and breaks through big time in 2011. At his peak in the later parts of this period. Murray del potro also contenders.
13-17: Djokovic firmly in his prime, nadal in the later parts of his prime but still does well at french open and us open. Wawrinka and murray do pretty well. Cilic sneaks in a slam. Fed still a contender and wins 2 majors in djokovic’s down period in 2017. Despite being in his 30s.
2018-present: Djokovic and nadal dominate despite being in their mid 30s. Rise of young alcaraz in the last 2 years. Fed a contender in the early portion, medvedev might be the 3rd best in this era. Thiem sneaks in a slam.
You can see from the last 2 eras that there were no players born from 1989-2002 that stood out thus allowing prime and past prime nadal and Djokovic to still dominate.
One distinguishing feature of the last 20 years is the absence of new young champions. That has NEVER happened in the past, there was always fresh super talent emerging from the younger generations of players. We do not see that today. Perhaps Alcarez will be a new star player, but that remains to be seen. That is one measure of of a truly weak era.That does not help me out at all. Because I don't know if era strength/weakness = depth or dominance, or some mixture or combination of both those often contradictory attributes one of which you are referencing above. I know that in these era quality debates around here, we read some pretty self serving arguments depending on what a given preferred champion was 'dominating' in! A strong era looks like what Budge or Laver played in or Borg, or Connors if that's your cup of tea. If strength = depth when is too much dept too much depth? If strength = dominance by a few, when is too few players dominating too few or too long of domination too long?
Let me refer you to questions that will!
1. Tell us what an era is, and how long one lasts?
2.Tell us how you know when one era ended and another started.
3. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative strength of an era
4. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative weakness of an era.
How the hell are you objectively measuring all this? If there is some preferred balance of depth and dominance to this last 40 years as your post suggests, what is its ratio of depth to dominance look like so we can duplicate it?
He has 2 grand slams, so he qualifies as a new emerging talent. Prior to Alcaraz the young generation was underwhelming but the era was saved from being a farce by the existence of the big 3 as competitors.One distinguishing feature of the last 20 years is the absence of new young champions. That has NEVER happened in the past, there was always fresh super talent emerging from the younger generations of players. We do not see that today. Perhaps Alcarez will be a new star player, but that remains to be seen. That is one measure of of a truly weak era.
The dominance of the Big Three for twenty years was an indication of weak generations of younger players.He has 2 grand slams, so he qualifies as a new emerging talent. Prior to Alcaraz the young generation was underwhelming but the era was saved from being a farce by the existence of the big 3 as competitors.
I've actually mentioned this elsewhere. The argument seems to be that in the old days the sport was the preserve of USA/Australia/UK/France, whereas nowadays you're seeing breakout talent from e.g. Poland (Radwanska/Swiatek/Hurkacz), Greece (Tsitsipas/Sakkari), or Serbia (Ivanovic/Djokovic). More participating nations = a bigger talent pool.
However, it works both ways. According to this World Tennis Magazine article, the number of Americans playing tennis "from time to time" was as follows:
Year Tennis players Population Percentage 1974 34 million 213 million c. 16% 2014 18 million 320 million c. 5.5%
If those numbers are accurate, the USA's talent pool is now one third the size it was during the 1970s' heyday, proportionately speaking. That would certainly explain their lack of success at the top end, where Connors/McEnroe were followed by Courier/Sampras/Agassi, who were followed by Roddick, who was followed by...nobody of consequence. Further, I'd argue that with the resources and infrastructure already existing in the USA, their talent pool was more productive in terms of converting raw young hopefuls into successful professionals. More rich parents, less need to travel far in search of coaches, facilities, competitions, etc. I have a hard time believing that all these emerging tennis nations are making up that much of a deficit.
So while I'm not going to be a Luddite insisting that tennis was definitely better in the old days, I'm also going to dispute any blithe declaration that "progress is inevitable, the sport always evolves", etc etc etc.
Well said.The dominance of the Big Three for twenty years was an indication of weak generations of younger players.
Well said.
I can entertain the case for this argument. It has some merit. But I don't know if it's necessarily fair to demean other terrific players of the past 20 years simply because of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's unique greatness. As @BTURNER alluded to, it's not prudent to define an entire generation based upon a handful of players. ATP Tour depth in recent years has probably never been higher. Players ranked in the bottom half of the top 100 or even outside of the top 100 are often factors at the ATP level. I'm not sure of the mental strength of some of the recent younger top guys like Sinner, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Rublev, etc., but I feel like there have been plenty of very good opponents for the Big Three. To me, it's more about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being the most complete tennis players ever more so than it's about others being "weak."Well said.
I don't know about that. I picked a random player from the 1980s/1990s: Nicolas Pereira. He was ranked around the 80-120 range during his career in the 1980s/1990s, peaking at #74. He won titles on clay and grass. He beat Edberg at Queen's Club in 1989, Becker in Doha in 1996, and Muster in Miami in 1996. He took both Lendl and Agassi to five sets at Wimbledon.I can entertain the case for this argument. It has some merit. But I don't know if it's necessarily fair to demean other terrific players of the past 20 years simply because of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's unique greatness. As @BTURNER alluded to, it's not prudent to define an entire generation based upon a handful of players. ATP Tour depth in recent years has probably never been higher. Players ranked in the bottom half of the top 100 or even outside of the top 100 are often factors at the ATP level. I'm not sure of the mental strength of some of the recent younger top guys like Sinner, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Rublev, etc., but I feel like there have been plenty of very good opponents for the Big Three. To me, it's more about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being the most complete tennis players ever more so than it's about others being "weak."
Fact is historically most majors and other big titles are won by the top 5ish players of the era. So i’m focusing on how good the best players were and how old they areAnd that has to be the worst possible way to define these periods from the perspective of objectivity. You are using the names of one, two or three players to define the entire tour of players underneath them. That's how we get these subjective arguments that the 'sampras era' is stronger era than the 'McEnroe era' or the 'McEnroe era' is stronger than the 'Laver era' - and its the names that fuels the divisions and the nature of the arguments. If there is a lot of dominance in a few names, everyone asks where the depth was? If you have a broad swathe of champions representing a lot of depth, everyone asks where the dominance was! Try doing this without a single human name, making sure these periods of time are exactly the same length and try looking at all the top 20 or 15 or 10 players rather than just the few at the very top because we really should not define quality of the entire professional tour by a few people. Remember also that a professional tennis tour season has a lot of a lot more than 4 events during its progression.
Don't find what you like and shine a light on it as an example of what strong eras should look like. Find your ideal standards in the abstract, and apply them to your eras. You may be surprised at how different that all is.
I remember Pereira and his upset of Muster in Miami in 1996. We can cherry pick more outlier examples, but I highly doubt the majority of informed tennis people would state that ATP Tour depth was better 30-40 years ago than it has been in the past decade. Former players, coaches, TV analysts, etc. who are mostly impartial and have been around for a long time will almost unanimously confirm this. Lower-ranked players are increasingly more professional, fitter, more consistent, more powerful, etc. than they were two or more decades ago. Make no mistake, there have always been upsets in big tournaments. Twenty-five-30 years ago, surface speed variation and player stylistic variation created an environment of parity throughout the season with certain players and styles peaking at different stages of the season.I don't know about that. I picked a random player from the 1980s/1990s: Nicolas Pereira. He was ranked around the 80-120 range during his career in the 1980s/1990s, peaking at #74. He won titles on clay and grass. He beat Edberg at Queen's Club in 1989, Becker in Doha in 1996, and Muster in Miami in 1996. He took both Lendl and Agassi to five sets at Wimbledon.
Then I looked at the live rankings and, when I checked, Grégoire Barrère was #74. He's 29 and actually got as high as #49 in the rankings earlier this year, i.e., 25 spots higher than Pereira got. He's won no titles and hasn't even made a final. I don't see any wins that approach Pereira's wins over Edberg/Becker/Muster, and I don't see any Major matches where he pushed a top player like Pereira did with Agassi and Lendl.
But that doesn't really fit with Pereira, though. His best surface was clay, but he won a grass title, had his three big wins on grass/hard, and pushed Lendl and Agassi to five sets on grass.I remember Pereira and his upset of Muster in Miami in 1996. We can cherry pick more outlier examples, but I highly doubt the majority of informed tennis people would state that ATP Tour depth was better 30-40 years ago than it has been in the past decade. Former players, coaches, TV analysts, etc. who are mostly impartial and have been around for a long time will almost unanimously confirm this. Lower-ranked players are increasingly more professional, fitter, more consistent, more powerful, etc. than they were two or more decades ago. Make no mistake, there have always been upsets in big tournaments. Twenty-five-30 years ago, surface speed variation and player stylistic variation created an environment of parity throughout the season with certain players and styles peaking at different stages of the season.
Sure, but I'm talking about the overall landscape, not just Pereira. I'm not sure how we're coming up with these randomized checks or what this is supposed to tell us haha.But that doesn't really fit with Pereira, though. His best surface was clay, but he won a grass title, had his three big wins on grass/hard, and pushed Lendl and Agassi to five sets on grass.
I decided to pick a random number outside the top 100: 109.
In the 1990s, Carsten Arriens reached a career high of #109. He beat Enqvist at the French Open and Kucera at the U.S. Open. He also won a title, beating Corretja in the Guarujá, Brazil final in 1992 on hard courts.
The current #109 is Zsombor Piros, who hasn't accomplished much but is only 23.
Going up 2 spots, 31 year-old Constant Lestienne is #107 in the live rankings. He's been as high as #48, i.e., 61 spots higher than Arriens ever got. He's won no titles and made no finals, and I'm not aware of any wins as big as Arriens's wins over Corretja, Kucera, and Enqvist.
I feel like these are pretty fringe Seles positions you're presenting.That Seles was the future certain guaranteed GOAT and ensured atleast 40 slams and atleast 10 Wimbledons without the stabbing. Or atleast what her bizarre cult following of fans, some who are on exhibit on a site like this all believe. That every future player she struggled with was only due to the stabbing, and the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Henin, and anyone else you can name would have obviously been as easy for her as Mary Joe Fernandez had the stabbing not occured. That Graf was an easy opponent for her and would have remained so forever without the stabbing, when even at her peak she lost 3 of 5 matches to one of the worst versions of Graf, who at one point lost 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, and lost a slam semi final to Sanchez 6-2, 6-0. That somehow even with Monica's dad long, slow death of cancer she also would have remained fully peak this period, only ever getting better, no slump periods at all, something that no player in history including Navratilova or Graf have come anywhere near experiencing, but magically Seles with a couple serious off court issues (even without the stabbing) was going to be only one in history to have. And lastly despite her obvious lack of athleticsm, and the sound evidence that exists of her actual playing, post stabbing or not, she was magically destined for great longevity, without the stabbing, much better than even a far better like Graf experienced, and atleast as much as a far better athlete who was a late bloomer like Navratilova experienced.
I feel like these are pretty fringe Seles positions you're presenting.
-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles won have would 40+ Majors or 10+ Wimbledons w/out the stabbing. I might be the biggest Seles fan on here, and you're more than doubling what I think her final Major/Wimbledon totals would have been w/out the stabbing.-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles wouldn't have struggled against the like of the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, and Henin w/out the stabbing. My own belief is that Seles wouldn't have seriously struggled w/anyone other than Graf from 1993-1996 w/out the stabbing and that things would have then gotten a lot tougher from 1997-2002.-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Graf wasn't a tough opponent for Seles. The claim I do see (and make) is that Seles had gone 3-1 against Graf in Majors from 1990-1993 and seemed to be making specific improvements in her game that would have helped her against Graf at the time of the stabbing.-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles never would have slumped or been impacted by off-court issues. That's what would have been required for her to achieve 40+ Majors, but, again, I don't see anyone making anything close to that claim.-I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles would have had magical longevity w/out the stabbing. The claim I do see (and make) is that Seles was competitive through 2002, when she made the Australian Open SF and lost a tight three setter to Hingis. This leads me (and others) to think that Seles would have been competitive in Majors from 1990-2002, with a good deal of growth in her game b/c she was barely 19 when she was stabbed, and with the ebbs and flows that all players have.
You wrote: "That Seles was the future certain guaranteed GOAT and ensured atleast 40 slams and atleast 10 Wimbledons without the stabbing. Or atleast what her bizarre cult following of fans, some who are on exhibit on a site like this all believe."No, you are saying those aren't things YOU have said. Make no mistake, there are many Seles fans who say those things and often. Trust me when I say I am not creative enough to make that stuff up, so obviously that I was able to list it all pretty much confirms it.