Originally Posted by stringertom
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this "evolution" issue bcoz we have no Marty McFly/Back to the Future Delorean to transport Muzza to the 60's nor Laver to the new millenium. Suffice to say, were Laver born in the postwar era, scientific studies have shown he would be 2-4 cm taller (likewise Murray would be that much shorter). As to strength, have you ever seen pictures of Laver and his "lobster-like" appendage hanging from his left shoulder? The guy had blacksmith forearms! Fitness? Again, an evolutionary argument. Give Laver the earnings potential Murray enjoys and I'm sure a dietary/exercise team would have surrounded him? Equipment? Laver could do things with an 80-inch wood frame Murray can't even dream of?
Want me to go on? Laver>>>>>>>>Murray in a laugher, probably with a bagel and a breadstick!
That's silly. Why can't you just accept that players today are faster and stronger than those of the 60s and 70s? The former just could not compete with the firepower of today's players. It's no shame to admit that. Laver was the undisputed great of his era but he firmly belongs to that era and nowhere else. If peak Laver was transported from his era to the present and faced Murray (or any other top player) he would barely be able to get his racquet on any of his serves! Laver himself would be the first to admit that.
The comparison is just pointless.