How does the bolded part dispute or support the "probabilistic" argument? It's completely tangential and has no relevance. All he's saying that it's more likely for 1 guy to be an exception rather than a whole bunch.
This is what he said:
From a probabilistic standpoint, it is far more likely to have one top player who is an overtalented outlier than 5 top players who are undertalented outliers.
My point was that the historical samples render this argument moot. The '80s are a good example. And the words "overtalented" and "undertalented" are dubious terms. The sole top player is "overtalented" because he is presumably above his competition by a large margin, while the 5 top players are "undertalented" because they're close to one another and there's no clear winner. But it may well be that the "undertalented" quintet or at least a couple of their members are in fact better than than the "overtalented" lone ranger in terms of actual playing level. Would Sampras or Federer have won as many majors as they have during the '80s? Possible, but not likely IMO. In that case "overtalented" may be a misnomer. Circular reasoning right there. Also McEnroe is considered by many the most talented player ever to pick up a tennis racquet, but he still won fewer majors than, among others, Lendl who wouldn't make the top of most experts' talent lists. But is Lendl a lesser "outlier" than McEnroe? I think not.
Again, what you claim is possible, but highly improbable. Fed being extra-ordinarily talented and his competition being world-class are independent of one another. So it's more likely that Fed's extra-ordinarily talented in isolation, rather than his entire competition not being world-class as well.
The two being independent of one another doesn't necessarily make the former more likely. Suppose we have one Usain Bolt but the rest of the field can barely finish a 100m race in 10 seconds. In this case I think it fair to say these sprinters aren't world-class. Of course this is an extreme example, but that's what many fans and commentators feel about Federer's earlier competition, just to a less extreme degree. And the very words "talent" and "world-class" make this judgment subjective.
How do their slam records reinforce this view? Please elaborate. If the total reward is a constant, and if one guy keeps winning a bulk of it, it will leave the rest poorer...
I was referring mainly to the consistency of Fed's early competition at the Slams. With a few exceptions (Roddick and Nadal at the FO come immediately to mind), not many of Fed's early top competitors consistently went deep in the majors. Now does that mean these players were not world-class? No, not necessarily, but it does reinforce the view that Fed had little to do with the title drought of his fellow top players.
And of course that doesn't prove in any way that they're "weaker" than their predecessors. Like I said this is a judgment call.
No actually experts agree with the notion that the level of tennis gets better with the passage of time. Lendl does; Laver does; Johnny mac does; Pete sampras himself says tennis is played at a higher level now. You may prefer the older style of play, but there's no disputing that players today are better tennis players. It's not about giving current players an "unfair advantage for something they didn't achieve themselves" - it's just the truth.
These are just a few high-profile names. There are many trainers, coaches and other insiders who believe the effects of the "advanced" racquets, training, nutrition and the like are exaggerated for PR purposes. I know one such coach in real life. It's not a matter of preferring an older style of play.
Has the "level of tennis" increased substantially since the days of William Renshaw? Yeah, most likely. But since the 1980s or the '90s? Certainly debatable. Heck, if anything the volleying skills have dropped sharply over the past few years (and no, this isn't simply due to the amount of topspin these days). And even Laver said not too long ago, in a rare display of self-confidence, that he'd give himself a chance against anyone with a wood racquet (his opponent also holding a woodie, of course).
The top guns at any given time maximized their potential for winning based on whatever they had access to. As training methods and technology improved, the bar was raised. This is not to suggest that the older players wouldn't have achieved similar levels if they had access to the things that newer players do.
See above. And that last sentence is one of the reasons why I maintain that today's players aren't "better" than yesterday's. What really makes one player better than another is (realized) talent, and gauging it will always be subjective to a degree.
Having said that, I completely agree with you that comparing generations is an absurd exercise.
OK.