i totally understand the need to define who is the greatest of all times, but surely every reasonable poster has to agree to do so is impossible, unless some criteria is defined and then it's a matter of cheking qhe numbers. even then it would be a matter of consensus, not necessarily about finding the TRUTH (if it exists).
we cannot compare eras. tennis was a different sport back then. there are so many things to consider. the mentality was different, the field was different, tennis was not a global sport, like today, with so many pros from so many different places, the training was different, the materials are allways changing, the press was different, the money was different, the brands were different, so on and so on.
one can say: everyone, in each era, plays under the same conditions, so its fair.
i think this is a wrong argument. some things are not easy to ignore. for example, today's game rewards bigger guys (but not to big). laver would be very small for todays criteria, he would be blown off court. a guy like ferrer has the path blocked for the biggest spots in the sport because of his height.
i am not saying laver would not be a great player if he played today. i am saying one cannot be sure. if we look at the videos from back in the days, we see the serve had somewhat of a different importance. look at the laver roswell game at roland garros: if someone today served like that he would not stand a chance.
funny enough, we dont have much black players playing tennis today, maybe because its not well paid (comparing), but its like when basketball was divided. its just not fair.
just this should be enough to stop us making silly comparisons and projections.
one thing is sure: if today's players with todays equipment played against past players with past equipment, today's players would destroy the ancient ones.
BUT WHY? why has the game evolved/changed? if it was so great back then, with so many goat contenders playing? the change has to do with the materials, only?
probably the biggest changes came with the increase in number of players, which create a faster pace of evolving.
and that is why one cannot compare eras. what made the game more athtletic, fast and strong is also what makes almost impossible for todays guys to have the kind of relaxed domain over the tour the ancient guys had.
to suggest someone from the 60's or 70's would have something like 25 majors is to say it all: imagine someone today wining those kind of numbers. actually federer could have if he was able to beat nadal at the french, but then no one else in the era would have double digits, which is what some posters are suggesting