View Single Post
Old 05-12-2012, 08:08 AM   #785
krosero
Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,357
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki View Post
Because you win majors - no mather how many they are- in the context of your era, then we should pick up the true greats of each era and compare them besed ALWAYS on their dominance of an era.Not just a matter of counting this and that major and then use them to compare inter eras players ( as you said, it wouldn´t be unfair, but it would be also very unfair not to count WCT/Masters for 1970-1989).Because, era´s strengths are so different that winning 5 majors in a very strong era may be harder to achieve than 10 in a weak era.
Giving the players of the 70s and 80s six majors per year instantly gives that era the appearance of being strong; and it will be seen as favoritism for that era, or favoritism for the players of that era. Because that's exactly what happens if you give that era 6 majors per year: the players of that era will gain an instant edge in major count over the players of ALL other eras.

I'm not just talking about Federer and Nadal here. I'm saying that if McEnroe, Borg, Connors and Lendl are all given 6 opportunities per year to win majors, then those players instantly appear greater in relation to Laver and Rosewall than they really were. Laver, after all, had 4 opportunities per year, at most, to win majors; in his pro years he has only 3 per year. McEnroe, meanwhile, gets 6 chances per year. Instantly you see the problem: McEnroe with 15 majors becomes a near-equal to Laver (who is usually given 18 majors, I think?).

You mention strong and weak eras. If that is the justification for giving the 70s and 80s more majors -- ie, to reward the players of that era with greater major count, in order to reflect the strong era they played in -- then other eras must appear as weak: including Federer's era and Laver's era.

That's a systemic problem that drops the value of all eras outside of the 70s and 80s: and a systemic problem can't be solved merely by saying, well, we know Laver was a great player, and so there's no problem, his era is still strong. The problem here is systemic: numbers are being inflated in favor of certain players, so everyone else takes a hit.
krosero is offline   Reply With Quote