Originally Posted by kiki
We are obsessed with comparing players exclusively record against record thus need to homogenyse records and titles.Not at all, tennis must be always put in the context of each time.If there were 5 majors ( 3 slams + 2 YEC 9 in the 70īs and 80īs ( and 6 again after the AO regained its prestige), then letīs leave it like that.Letīs find a way to compare records but always within the context of an era.
itīs a bit like world powers.2 for the whole Cold War, one for a decade or so and 5-6 for the next decades...shall we have to cut them into 2 just to make a comparative to, say, Cold Wra?...or shall we just relativise things and put them in their right context?
The problem is that players of different eras, rightly or wrongly, are always compared to each other. This metric, how many majors they won, will always be used to compare them (rightly or wrongly). If you give the 70s and 80s extra majors it will cause huge problems in comparing, not just to the players of today, but to the greats of previous decades, like Laver and Budge.
And you can even set aside the problem of inter-era comparisons. I'm not even that big on inter-era comparisons. Let's set it aside completely. There is still a huge problem here: tennis fans will often not know what they are saying to each other. If I hear that X player has Y number of majors, and the number is something radically different from what I usually see, then I will have a whole set of questions. I will be asking, "Are you counting 3 majors per year? or 4? or 5? or 6?" That's hardly an acceptable range of uncertainty. If major-counting can be that flexible, I can assure you, I will ignore any major-count I see, unless I know what's being included in it.