Whether how tough it is to compare players from different generations, obviously, there’s a tremendous bias against the current players on this forum. When the players in the past did not play the kind of game the current player are doing right now, they get a free pass simply b/c the argument is about today’s players have the advantage with new equipment and technologies. Therefore, anything a modern players did better than the old school, it’s get written off. E.g. serve, footwork, speed, pace, power, etc. BUT, when players like Laver, Rosewall or Gonzalez did something better(statistically) than today, it’s all good. There’s nothing to argue simply b/c they were playing inferior equipments. This is all hogwash! For example, using past players winning more single titles is a testament of their superiority or durability is wrong. The players today are more prone for injury b/c of game is more physically demanding. Plus, most tourneys are hard court which takes a lot more beating on the body. Another example is the ability to hit passing shot. Yep, today’s have better racquet, so no matter how skillful they can hit passing shot, it’s means little or nothing when comparing to Laver and company. Yet, I even heard that today’s players doesn’t qualify for the debate about the greatest passing shot. Why? Because today’s players don’t serve and volley, so their skill cannot be measure, therefore current players aren’t as good. I found that odd b/c when I use the same argument about ‘best tennis movement of all time’. The current era are playing at a much faster pace, where players are force to run much more, and must be a great court coverage to be the best. The previous generations was playing at a much slower pace, pressure is less apply on running, therefore they weren’t being tested, so how good they can cover the court are unknown. What do I get out of that argument? SARCASM left and right by member from the old school!