Originally Posted by Federer20042006
All I know is David Ferrer would never have gotten to #5 in the world (or #4) in the years Federer dominated.
The top 4 is obviously stronger than when Federer dominated, but after that, Federer's domination era takes a giant dump on the present in terms of depth, especially in the Top 20.
Of course he wouldn't have been able to be ranked so high; he isn't great on faster hard courts, and they weren't an endangered species back then.
I don't know about the rest of the top 20 though, will have to actually find out who they were to figure that one out.
Anyway the question is whether competition is tougher where:
a) the top 20 are all roughly as strong as each other but only one is GOAT material; or
b) the top 4 are GOAT material
For your average top 20, a) would be tougher, but players like Federer and Nadal may find b) tougher, IMO.