So we have all these threads where everyone calls one era stronger than another. So what actually makes one era better than another? Second where does an era break off and start. There are a lot of discrepancies. Like I guess if you want to do open era you start around 70 since 69 was probably the end of an era. So how does it go.. I figure roughly 70-75 is one era..but it was still to sparatic Then I guess you have 76-81 roughly The rest of the eigthies are alone their own era you could say However I run into problems as we get closer 90-92 seems to short to be an era but 90-99 seems way too long and things get worse as 00-03 just had nobody defining and then you get 04-now...which can be its own era. So out of curiousity what are the eras for all of you? ------------------------------- What is a strong era? Is an era strong if it has two men dominating..or is it strong if it has multiple threats? What makes an era stronger. Like was 76-81 stronger than 82-89? How does on consider the strength of an era. I noticed alot like to point out overall career performace, but courier 92 was dominating but his overall career came up with 4 slams, but that is as a factor. So is strength of an era determined by simply who played hot in a period of time. Like is a stable top 10 or a changing top 10 stronger? Which shows better players? I noticed this to be a hueg factor and I want everyones opinion. Like you take the 5 finals opponents of Federer and Borg of their wimbledon streak. Borg had Nastase, Connors (2x), Tanner and McEnroe. Federer had Philiopous, Roddick (2x), Nadal (2x). Tanner and Philipous line up evenly, career was but here is the thing should a player be judged on overall career or how they were doing in a specific year. Nadal and McEnroe career wise are probably giong to line up. But what is your overall factor in strength? I personally prefer to look at the years more than career and how well they were playing that specific year. Even if they are a one year wonder it does play into fact in an era. Say in 2006 Fed tanked it and never had another slam ever..(don't kill me Fed fans.) He would not be up for GOAT but his 2004 and 2005 seasons would be defining for the era. So should an era be looked into more than overall achievements and looked at as who had a good year.