Originally Posted by Day Tripper
It amazes me how people on this forum cling to the past. Has anyone heard of evolution? There is no way any player from the 70's or 80's could foot it with the best players of today. The 90's maybe. Athletes today are stronger faster and have much greater stamina than previous genrations. The further back you go the larger this discrepancy becomes. Hoad, Laver, Tilden and Gonzales wouldn't stand a chance against Federer, Nadal or Djokovic - neither would McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg or Becker. Closer generations such as Agassi and Sampras stand a better chance.
The question of talent is a different one. it is fair enough to assert that Laver has more natural talent then Nadal. I believe he was more talented than Nadal - still I don't believe he could beats Nadal in a tennis match. Nadal would be too quick too strong and have too much stamina for him.
You can't beat evolution.
Well, we have to judge the greatness of players according to the standards of their own times. Otherwise, it would be unfair to older players just because they would hypothetically be beaten by modern players which better fitness regimes, training techniques, etc. Just because older players would lose to current players doesn't diminish their achievements.