Originally Posted by urban
As immature as the Greek Culture pre Christ, the Renaissance, or the era of Enlightment.
I am not professor about the age of enlightenment but I can tell you that we have many valuable sources like books, documents, memories, to know exactly what is the age of enlightenment and how did it affect to the world history. But we do not have sources good enough to tell our grandson that Mr Gonzales and Mr Laver were the undisputed world best player for 8 long years and Mr Bill Tiden one time served 163 mph with a wood racket. We do not know where to put Laver 1962's grand slam in tennis history because while it looks great, Laver won it as an amateur. It was great, or it really was? Where should we put it in? Should we count it? I guess not. But why so many people here say every day that Laver won 2 grand slam, something Federer can not do? Why 2? Why 1962 count? I dont get it. Should Federer count his Wimbledon in 1998? I know and you know too, he was a junior back then, but if Laver can count his 1992 as an amateur, why Federer can not count his 1998 as a junior? There is no difference between two situations, no?