View Single Post
Old 10-29-2012, 07:18 PM   #48
Prisoner of Birth
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,810

Originally Posted by ARFED View Post
Something that trully wonders me is how in such a small window of time (10 to 15 years) emerged numerous goat contenders (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, etc), at least according to some posters here. So we have to believe that in a sport that has a history of over 150 years, the majority of the greatest players were from the 50`s and 60`s. Yes, this sounds pretty logical if you ask me. Even more logical taking into account how much has "decreased" the number of players worldwide in the last 50 years....gimme a break, would you? For the record, i do believe that the best from any era would find the way to excel on any other era, but this "all things from the past were better" kind of reasoning is getting beyond ridiculous. You won`t win a debate against a 5 year old with this crap
The only reason they're all held up on a pedestal is because they had longevity (in a much less athletic sport than now) and because each of them has a ton of Grand Slams and/or pro-Slams (thanks to split fields with limited competition).

Last edited by Prisoner of Birth; 10-29-2012 at 07:21 PM.
Prisoner of Birth is offline   Reply With Quote