Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by kiki

In which world can be imagined Becker inferior to Djokovic?

Were you asleep for 2011?

[kiki]

What is the right number of elite players to define tough or weak era?
If it is 4, then 1981 or 1991
If it is 7 then 1958 and 1971
If it is 10 then 1985 and 1995
Of course 1971 and 1981 can be mentioned for the best top 15 ever

Weakest eras are 20's, 40' s and amateur 60's and of course 2003-2007
The 30's would be in the middle

[NatF]

2003-2007 wasn't that bad, only 2006 was particularly weak.

None of what you posted above actually amounts to Becker being a superior player to Djokovic anyway.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

In which world can be imagined Becker inferior to Djokovic?

here's a clue , its called world of reality ...

djoker > becker on slow HC
djoker > becker on fast HC outdoors
djoker > becker on clay

becker > djoker on grass
becker > djoker indoors

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NatF

2003-2007 wasn't that bad, only 2006 was particularly weak.

None of what you posted above actually amounts to Becker being a superior player to Djokovic anyway.

Only Federer and Nadal
2008-2012 is better, more or less like 1930's

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

here's a clue , its called world of reality ...

djoker > becker on slow HC
djoker > becker on fast HC outdoors
djoker > becker on clay

becker > djoker on grass
becker > djoker indoors

There were much less HC tourneys in Becker and heavier competition

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by kiki

What is the right number of elite players to define tough or weak era?
If it is 4, then 1981 or 1991
If it is 7 then 1958 and 1971
If it is 10 then 1985 and 1995
Of course 1971 and 1981 can be mentioned for the best top 15 ever

Weakest eras are 20's, 40' s and amateur 60's and of course 2003-2007
The 30's would be in the middle

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'' field of 2007: prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Yes, yo do have a point. Weak eras exist after all....

[TMF]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'': prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Yes, yo do have a point. Weak eras exist after all....

Deep down kiki knows the 60s were very weak and he's just trolling. With split fields and very few athletes competing, there's no comparison to the new millenium. Laver, Agassi, Lendl....all have conceded that the depth/competition is higher than their respective era.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Only Federer and Nadal
2008-2012 is better, more or less like 1930's

Peak Roddick, Saffin, Hewitt, Old Agassi etc...are better players than anyone outside the top 4 today. Even better than anyone outside Federer and Nadal from 08-10 IMO.

Nadal was injured in 09, Djokovic also declined from his 07 and 08 standards in 09/10...particularly in 10. Federer played badly for most of the year in 2010 as well.

So yeah only 2011 to 2012 have been particularly strong.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'' field of 2007: prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Yes, yo do have a point. Weak eras exist after all....

I am not trolling I give am opinion but I forgot many posters don' t know what a democracy us
Never had the 60 as a top era, read my post
But from 1968 or 1969 it was extremely tough and look at the records of the top 10 or 15 compared to pale and uncompetitive 2002-2007
You know that I have a very strong case here

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Deep down kiki knows the 60s were very weak and he's just trolling. With split fields and very few athletes competing, there's no comparison to the new millenium. Laver, Agassi, Lendl....all have conceded that the depth/competition is higher than their respective era.

I always meant at the top 10-20 which is what defines tough, medium or weak
At the bottom level, yes, there are many more players now and it looks like end if 70-beginning 80 if we talk about good and massive journeymen

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NatF

Peak Roddick, Saffin, Hewitt, Old Agassi etc...are better players than anyone outside the top 4 today. Even better than anyone outside Federer and Nadal from 08-10 IMO.

Nadal was injured in 09, Djokovic also declined from his 07 and 08 standards in 09/10...particularly in 10. Federer played badly for most of the year in 2010 as well.

So yeah only 2011 to 2012 have been particularly strong.

Hewitt could compare to Murray, Rodduck to Potro and Safin to Djokovic so it looks more oe less sumilar

[kiki]

The three best eras are late 50 - pros and top ams joint-, early 70 and early to middle 80
Nothing can even dream of being close in terms of toughness, depth of great champions, variety of styles, class,beauty and passion

[kiki]

Onlt Federer and in a few matches Safin had the raw talent to knock at the door and ask those era players let them play with them

[kiki]

Only Federer and in a few matches Safin had the raw talent to knock at the door and ask those era players let them play with them

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

There were much less HC tourneys in Becker and heavier competition

becker's competition was a bit better. That's about it.

Even in the most important HC tourney's , AO & USO, becker's performance is significantly inferior to that of djokovic.

the below is not gonna change & is reality . You know it.

djoker > becker on slow HC
djoker > becker on fast HC outdoors
djoker > becker on clay

becker > djoker on grass
becker > djoker indoors

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by kiki

Only Federer and in a few matches Safin had the raw talent to knock at the door and ask those era players let them play with them

In a democracy a man has only one voice though

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Only Federer and in a few matches Safin had the raw talent to knock at the door and ask those era players let them play with them

hewitt would a nightmare for SnVers when dialed in. roddick with his serve & FH would be a threat in any era ..

nalbandian was highly talented as well and would've done well in any era , like mecir, rios.

old agassi was also playing well & would've done so in any other era as well ...

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by kiki

The three best eras are late 50 - pros and top ams joint-, early 70 and early to middle 80
Nothing can even dream of being close in terms of toughness, depth of great champions, variety of styles, class,beauty and passion

So the field at the top in 1980 composed of prime Borg, past his prime Connors, youngs Mac and Lendl would wipe the floor with prime Fed, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick and prime Safin. Or would blow off the court prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, past his prime Fed and prime Murray. Nice conclusion there...

Nostalgia must be torturing you. Perhaps in 30 years from now i will be the one schooling the youngsters about weak and strong eras, or educating someone on the super-duper-human abilities of Tipsarevic.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by ARFED

So the field at the top in 1980 composed of prime Borg, past his prime Connors, youngs Mac and Lendl would wipe the floor with prime Fed, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick and prime Safin. Or would blow off the court prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, past his prime Fed and prime Murray. Nice conclusion there...

Nostalgia must be torturing you. Perhaps in 30 years from now i will be the one schooling the youngsters about weak and strong eras, or educating someone on the super-duper-human abilities of Tipsarevic.

Tipsarevic nearly beated top players on several occasions. You shouldn't look down on him. By the way, I don't think that Tisparevic is a testimony to the depths of the field.