View Single Post
Old 12-09-2012, 12:17 AM   #130
Sabratha
Legend
 
Sabratha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _skunk_ View Post
Disagree completely, every era is harsh, probably the era of feeder/nadal is the weakest one considering that apart those 2 the rest, before djoko and murray raise, wasn't really a serious danger.

Players like federer and nadal exist now because 30 years ago existed people like Borg, connors, lendl etc etc. People that at their time they were the best because they we're bringing to tennis something new or something more than the others setting standards and inspiring players of the future generations like us, including the big champions of the tour.
You can't compare champions of different eras, of course the actual ones are stronger, that is due because of course 30 years more of history much more money around therefore much more involvement of professionalism.
That's why they're better. You don't know how a player from an era in the 80s would do against somebody now, because that isn't feasible. That is not something that we can predict, we can speculate and speculate, but that won't determine a true outcome.

Players of the past are of course inferior to players of the present, technology and advanced training methods do matter and do count. Withdrawing that statement because you believe that it isn't a good base for a comparison is also not feasible. Players like Borg, Connors and the like would pale in comparison to Federer and Nadal simply because they're more advanced and have had better ways to train. Pit them against each other in their primes and they would fall short to the "greats" of this era.
__________________
"I rest my case. Federer needs to win 28 slams, twice more than Nadal to be in the same conversation with Sampras." A famous quote from helloworld.
Sabratha is offline   Reply With Quote