Originally Posted by TomT
Yes, I think this would be fun to watch.
I agree that the great players of the past would also be among the top players today, but I think the dominant players of today are just a bit bigger and stronger than, and as quick and fast as, their predecessors. So I would give the edge to the current era players.
I agree, and I think this is one of the main reasons why players didn't generally hit the ball as hard in the wood racket era (harder swing = increased chance of hitting outside the sweet spot), and why stroke technique was a little different in the wood racket era.
The weight of the wooden rackets plus a higher of percentage of one-handed backhands produced, generally I think, a more pronounced difference in the size of a player's arms in the wood racket era, imo.
As I mentioned, I think that the likes of Roger, Rafa, and Novak would, had they been born in the wood racket era, have dominated. Just because they're a little bigger and stronger, and at least as quick and fast as the great wood racket players.
But maybe an argument could be made that the current greats aren't as quick and fast as the wood racket greats.
Anyway, I enjoyed your comments.
Always hard to say. Pancho Gonzalez was actually bigger than Roger, Rafa and Djokovic and he was perhaps as great an athlete as anyone, possibly greater than anyone. Remember also that player born in that era would be different so if they were born in that era they probably wouldn't be as bigger or as strong. Different health standards. Different nutrition. Different training techniques.
John McEnroe played in the wood era and just a few years ago he almost defeated Andy Roddick during a WTT match, and McEnroe was over 50.