How Do You Define 'Strong Era'

[hoodjem]

How Do You Define 'Strong Era'?

Is it a larger number of great players at the same time (as indicated by multiple-slam winners competing against each other)?

Is it one or maybe two many-slam winners who dominate and keep all others out of the slam record books?

Is it some other way?

[BTURNER]

I refuse to even play the game in such broad terms. while I may describe an era as especially strong in terms of as specific surface 9clay court era or grass) , region (european tennis or Amrican) or style ( S/v or baseline) , I do not subscribe to the notion that tennis does anything but go forward, with only the briefest of declines ( a yer or two at the longest) while adjustments to new technology or rules or another external factor. yes, that means todays women's tennis is not a weak field, just weak in certain narrow specific skills. and No, Sampras did not have a weaker era than Federer or Vice Versa. .
the moment

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

How Do You Define 'Strong Era'?

Is it a larger number of great players at the same time (as indicated by multiple-slam winners competing against each other)?

Is it one or maybe two many-slam winners who dominate and keep all others out of the slam record books?

Is it some other way?

I think the definition of a Strong Era is a high level of competition in that particular era.

You can judge it in so many different ways that it's hard to define. For example many may consider the 1970's a strong era because their are so many Hall of Famers playing in that era. Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Newcombe, Connors, Vilas, Nastase, Ashe, Smith, Orantes, Gimeno, Emerson among others played in that era. However not all of them were at their peaks at the same time. Laver for example was still very strong in the early 1970's but declined later. Borg was excellent in the early 1970's but he was not nearly at the level he reached later. You can also argue that perhaps the 1970's was NOT a strong era and the only reason that their are so many Hall of Famers is that enough time has passed for them to be inducted in the Hall of Fame.

Some may look at the players in an era and complain that the players had many stroke weaknesses and therefore the era was weak.

I personally would define it as a high level of play, especially among the top players.

Here's a question for everyone and I think it may have been asked already but I'll ask it again---What period of time would you say is the strongest era in tennis history?

[jrepac]

This is tough because it is defined when looking backwards, isn't it? Hall of Fame players usually become such after they retire

This is one of the reasons why I don't feel inclined to jump on the "Fed is God" bandwagon....just don't feel his competition has been top notch, aside from Nadal. But, that is not Fed's fault, obviously.

Taking a wild swing at this, I'd say it is defined by "3 or more players who tend to surpass all others, each who have won more than one GS title, and who are simultaneously vying for GS titles and having a shot at winning them" It is amongst this GROUP of players that the GS titles reside/are won over that era.

So, basically, you are looking at a time frame when there are realistically several guys in contention for a GS, all of whom who at least occasionally beat each other....late 70's, early 80's, early 90's, I think fall into this classification. Perhaps early 70's too, but a lot of the pre-open era greats were aging/approaching retirement at that stage.

I think 2010 could be the emergence of a strong era, if Del Potro continues to perform, Murray steps up, Nadal gets well and Djokovic remembers how to win. Those 3, plus perhaps a lingering Roddick and a Fed who may(?) be winding down could make things very exciting.

[mental midget]

no such thing, it's an artificial construct that makes for a good debate, and a tool for fans to bolster their individual points of view, which are typically biased towards whatever era they happened to 'come of age' in.

there are no absolutes in tennis, it's entirely relative.

[Rabbit]

Even then, there is a problem with looking back. If an era is so totally dominated, as Federer's is, then there will be less Hall of Famers because Federer is/was so dominant. And, just because he is dominant does that mean his era was any less competitive? It is easy to argue both sides of this.

I really think that in a global sport, such as tennis, the level of competition is a constant. Now, it can be skewed in one direction or another, but by and large, you're getting the best the world has to offer at that time. When I say skewed, there have been periods when the QF's and up were the most competitive and there have been times when the competition was, for lack of a better term, in a state of parity. That is to say that one player so dominated the era as to make the rest of the field look equal but substantially below the guy on top. I think that is the case now as was the case when Tilden was on top and to some degree Borg.

As far as a GOAT, I've arrived at the conclusion that any champion from any era would do well against his peers regardless of when they played given equal conditions/equipment. So, Tilden would be in the top ten today and Federer would be in the top ten in the 20s.

[AAAA]

The 90s was a 'stronger era' for Chang, Agassi, Stich and Courier than it was for Sampras even though they all played most of their tennis in the 90s.

[urban]

There were some periods, when 6-8 really great players were competing at the top. I mean 6 players of the class of top 20-25 all time, near their prime. The 30s, the late 50s at the pros, around 1970, and the late 80s. Take for example the late 50s at the pros, say the Forest Hills round robins in 1957 or 58. You had Pancho Gonzalez at his peak, Lew Hoad at his peak (although always unpredictable), Frank Sedgman and Tony Trabert near their peak, Pancho Segura still going strong, Ken Rosewall approaching his prime years, but very dangerous. All these players were technical sound, athletically strong, battle tough and very clever. Put in players like Cooper and Anderson, and you had a very strong cast.

[akv89]

Competition is not really indicative of the strength of an era because it is a measure of how strong players are in comparison to others in their own era, not players from another era. Competition would be the same if there were a bunch of great players playing at the same time, or a bunch of mediocre players playing at the same time.
The most objective way of looking at things would be to look purely at the quality of tennis being played by the top players. However, even that might be slightly biased because of changes in technology that make it easier to hit the ball harder and still keep the ball in the court.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by akv89

Competition is not really indicative of the strength of an era because it is a measure of how strong players are in comparison to others in their own era, not players from another era. Competition would be the same if there were a bunch of great players playing at the same time, or a bunch of mediocre players playing at the same time.
The most objective way of looking at things would be to look purely at the quality of tennis being played by the top players. However, even that might be slightly biased because of changes in technology that make it easier to hit the ball harder and still keep the ball in the court.

Great one. That's why the "weak-era" argument that is so prevalent among fed-detractors is so fallacious.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Even then, there is a problem with looking back. If an era is so totally dominated, as Federer's is, then there will be less Hall of Famers because Federer is/was so dominant. And, just because he is dominant does that mean his era was any less competitive? It is easy to argue both sides of this.

It is very tough to say, and to some extent becomes a bit subjective. Fed is obviously highly skilled and has had a dominant run. Arguably, perhaps the skill set is lacking in his opponents??? (e.g., the spirit is willing but the body is weak?)....Nadal is the only guy who has been able to get in there and take it to him regularly, not including the recent Del Potro triumph. Many of us have watched the sport for many, many years; putting nostalgia aside, I just don't think Fed has had "hall of fame" competition [again, Nadal not included]. I'm not a Fed detractor, I just think some of these guys just were not ready to beat him on the big stage, for whatever the reason. When you read off the list of those he has beaten in the GS events, you don't say "WOW"...but you are certainly impressed by the quantity and consistency of his performance.

[tennisdad65]

Strong Era:
*******s - The era which includes Federer
Samprastards - Any era which does not include Federer

[Borgforever]

Strength of era is usually decided upon the number of strong, consistent top contenders.

Look at 1978 -- how many tourneys did Jimbo win that year? Consistently great? 1989 and 1990 are other years. 1982. You can go on and on.

Pre-2000 the surfaces were much more diverse creating pure surface-specialists and that divide supplied the different surfaces with rested, peaking specialists in every different season since many coasted during the other seasons and ultimately saved themselves, extreme example Solomon on grass.

There's usually a clique of serious contenders for a years top spot who all have great, consistent results. If one analyzes these specific players and note their characteristics as in that they have great clutch, impressive results against their rivals for the top spot and rarely, if ever, loses to anyone beneath them.

Players ranked 5 and lower usually lack serious clutch and has other clear problems with their game and are more patchy.

Consistently great performers year after year after year in the absolute elite is key...

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

How Do You Define 'Strong Era'?
Is it a larger number of great players at the same time (as indicated by multiple-slam winners competing against each other)?
Is it one or maybe two many-slam winners who dominate and keep all others out of the slam record books?

I think it's easiest to define a strong era by saying what it isn't, rather than what it is.

Having one or two players who win everything isn't a strong era - it's women's tennis.

[Joe Pike]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

I think it's easiest to define a strong era by saying what it isn't, rather than what it is.

Having one or two players who win everything isn't a strong era - it's women's tennis.

At present everybody beats everybody in women's tennis - strong era.
In 2002 Serena won everything - weak era.

[Swissv2]

Funny how people's minds work.

• If there were 10 different Grand Slam Winners playing on the ATP Tour right now, we would call it an (inconsistent era), due to no single person being guaranteed to win a Grand Slam
• BUT, if there were 10 different Grand Slam Winners playing on the ATP Tour currently, we would call it a (strong era) due to there being so much "competition".

Yet,

• When one person has a great chance of winning a Grand Slam, the rest of the field is called WEAK.
• When the rest of the field all have chances to win a Grand Slam, everyone is called WEAK
• When a person wins consistently, he is called LUCKY and the rest of the field called WEAK
• When a person doesn't win consistently, he is called WEAK

[akv89]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

Strength of era is usually decided upon the number of strong, consistent top contenders.

Look at 1978 -- how many tourneys did Jimbo win that year? Consistently great? 1989 and 1990 are other years. 1982. You can go on and on.

Pre-2000 the surfaces were much more diverse creating pure surface-specialists and that divide supplied the different surfaces with rested, peaking specialists in every different season since many coasted during the other seasons and ultimately saved themselves, extreme example Solomon on grass.

There's usually a clique of serious contenders for a years top spot who all have great, consistent results. If one analyzes these specific players and note their characteristics as in that they have great clutch, impressive results against their rivals for the top spot and rarely, if ever, loses to anyone beneath them.

Players ranked 5 and lower usually lack serious clutch and has other clear problems with their game and are more patchy.

Consistently great performers year after year after year in the absolute elite is key...

I think this is a step in the right direction. But then you have to define what does it mean to be consistently great? And how many players need to be consistently great for an era to be considered strong?

Your definition is a top-heavy way of looking at what makes up the strength of an era. What I mean by that is that you're giving more weight to the results of players at the very top of the game. This would mean that if there were 4-5 good players in a field where everybody else is mediocre, then that era would be considered stronger than if there were 4-5 good players playing against a field of others that are almost as good, because the the top players in the latter era are more susceptible to upsets.

[President of Serve/Volley]

Strong era would be 1990-1996...

[pc1]

The term Strong Era is of course subject to debate and often cannot truly be said until years later and even then it can be debated.

A lot of it can be subjective of course also. We can look at a great player and pick on a few weaknesses. For example as great a player as Stefan Edberg was we can pick on the fact that people thought he had an ugly and relatively weak forehand. Jimmy Connors was great but he had a relatively weak serve.

I think we also have to look at how long a people consistently wins and is considered a great player. A Jimmy Connors around 1978 is clearly at or near his peak and he was a top factor in every major he entered for many years afterwards defeating players into the 1990's. Clearly Connors helped to make the late 1970's a stronger era. You can say McEnroe in the late 1970's won for a long time as did Borg, Vilas, Tanner, Ashe, Gerulaitis and others. Does it make the late 1970's a strong era? Who knows? I do know that average record of any player in any era would be a consistent fifty percent winning percentage.

So by logic we would have to say that we have to have a lot of excellent players who are near the top or at least can challenge the top to make a strong era. Does for example a Miloslav Mecir, who for a short time was about as gifted a player as you can get qualify to help make it a strong era? I would think so despite the fact he didn't last long. At his best I think he was better than for example a Brad Gilbert who lasted longer and had perhaps a better career.

Right now I think we had the potential to have a Strong Era with Federer, Nadal, Murray, Del Potro, Djokovic and a number of others who can challenge in any major but we will have to see. So far only Nadal has been able to defeat Federer in majors consistently.

I think we all enjoy it when we feel that there are a number of awesome players playing at one time at the top levels of tennis. It's exciting to see them play in the later rounds and finals instead of the same old final matchups. I think a lot of people were bored in the 1980's with Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova playing in every final.

Again, here's another question? Was the Evert-Navratilova dominance in the 1980's due to the fact it was a weak era or was it that Evert and Navratilova level of play unusually high that allowed them to win all the time? Maybe the rest of the field was just as good relatively speaking as in the past.

So what is better? An era with twenty very good players at the top but none that are great or an era with eight super players at the top and the next twelve of much lower quality than in the first example. From a viewing standpoint I prefer the latter since I enjoy watching a battle of titans instead of a battle of very good.

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by President of Serve/Volley

Strong era would be 1990-1996...

What, precisely, made this period so strong?