Originally Posted by kiki
To be able to compare one needs a wide range and vision and be able to relatiise concepts.You cannot translate the same metrics of the, say, 1950īs or 60īs, even the 70īs and 80īs ( where WCT and Masters were head and shoulders above AO ) to the tennis played from 1990 onwards.
By the same taken, somebody could easily claim that, because of the vast technology and means, the US army of the XXI century is the greatest of all time.It is not if we use the correct focus.I am not saying that it is not, but we need to put things in context.
people still litens to the classical music and classical rock great compositors of bands.or admires the classic painters and reads the classic writters, from Shakespeare to Garcia Marquez.
Greatness should be a concept that stays and is not easiliy beaten up by the need to assert superiority of one context over the other.
Agreed. You have different priorities, many changes in conditions, and of course you have different players when you compare eras. You and I are on the same page here. Let's look at Nascar as a example though I know the bare minimum about that racing sport. Dale Earnhardt Sr., Richard Petty, and A.J. Foyt are legendary drivers. Now, try telling Nascar fans that say Jimmie Johnson is a much greater driver because it's so much tougher to compete now. I mean, look how he's driving more quickly and faster with the latest cars..he's greater right? Wrong. Not necessarily at all. Tennis players may be driving "faster cars" these days, but that does not automatically render them "greater". There are way too many 3.5's out there hitting with the latest frames and thinking that a 5.0 could take out Tilden, Gonzalez, etc..