mxmx
Hall of Fame
Do we need better quality players? Probably. But how will one measure quality when the yardsticks (big 3) are gone?
Surely when they are gone the person(s) at the top will seem like they're playing great?
Let's take Hewitt as an example. When he was no 1, what in particular qualified him as being a weak no 1? What gave us that perception? All pro's are great to some degree. To be the best of the weak field still means you need to be quite good.
Do we not (perhaps) need better *personalities* who stand out more?
When a prodigy with a coolish sounding name comes along, and perhaps even good looking or likeable...does that not influence *our perception* of their abilities and also our perception regarding enjoyment of watching them play?
Hingis was good looking, had the name "Martina", played great and was a teenage prodigy. That was appealing. Not only her game, but also a mixture of ingredients that helped things along. Someone like Wozniaki (not to pick on her) I found to be boring...why I'm not sure.
Surely when they are gone the person(s) at the top will seem like they're playing great?
Let's take Hewitt as an example. When he was no 1, what in particular qualified him as being a weak no 1? What gave us that perception? All pro's are great to some degree. To be the best of the weak field still means you need to be quite good.
Do we not (perhaps) need better *personalities* who stand out more?
When a prodigy with a coolish sounding name comes along, and perhaps even good looking or likeable...does that not influence *our perception* of their abilities and also our perception regarding enjoyment of watching them play?
Hingis was good looking, had the name "Martina", played great and was a teenage prodigy. That was appealing. Not only her game, but also a mixture of ingredients that helped things along. Someone like Wozniaki (not to pick on her) I found to be boring...why I'm not sure.