No comparison to today. Agassi was in his prime until 2004 and performed better in a stronger era (stronger than 98-00). His numbers, everything about his career points towards this.
So Agassi wasn't in his prime when he won Wimbledon to you in '92? Of course he was in his PRIME to you when he was at his PEAK in '95. That is his best performance out of everything, so that is why it is his peak. Even Sampras was in his prime until 2000, and the same people who were beating Agassi regularly (Hewitt, Safin) were dismantling Sampras. Even as a teenager during '99 Queens 18 year old Hewitt almost beat Sampras, the final set went to a tiebreak that Sampras just squeezed out of. Are you going to tell me Sampras wasn't in his prime at the time?
Just face it, Agassi played Hewitt during one of his prime stretches (99-03 or 04) and was behind in the H2H against him after 2001. That isn't due to Agassi being worse, it is because Hewitt got much better. Agassi did get worse in 2004, that much I agree with, but to say the insane things you have (that Agassi only had a 4 year prime out of his 20 year career) shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Agassi was a slowed down version of himself in 03-05 that he was from 99-01. But even then he was still superior to the likes of far less talented players like Hewitt, Roddick,. Years like 1999 he was a big favorite to win on all surfaces that year when he made his comeback by reaching the finals or winning The french, Wimbledon, USO, and making the finals of the YEC. Agassi of 2003 wasn't doing that. :?
Hewitt beating late career Sampras at a non-slam event is not a huge revelation as Sampras usually didn't take non slams seriously (especially late in his career). 2000 was not Pete's prime anymore either. 1999 was the end of Pete's prime. Some will argue even 1998.
I look at level, court, movement, and what they are accomplishing to determine "prime". And the fact is, Agassi was nowhere near in 2003 what he was from 1999-2001.
The weakness of the field at the time enabled Agassi probably helped Agassi to stay relevant longer than he should have been once he began slowing down and with a bad back.
Anyways, Never head of a 33-35 year old in their "prime" in tennis either (at least in the last 30-40 years) ROFLMAO.
Early-mid 30s is generally when players begin to transition from the sport and onto retirement much less say they are at "prime level"
Fed can stay on near the top I'm sure for a few more years because its looking to be as bleak as ever for the future of men's tennis how no one in their 20s has stepped up yet.
Thus why old Brokeback million miles on his body Nadal, Past Peak Joker, old man Fed stay relevant still. Their talent helps of course, but that shouldn't offset their bodies slowing and breaking down nor what SHOULD Be alot depth and talent coming up in the field.
People don't talk about the weakness of the men's field from this new generation of players (Raonic, Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Young etc) for no reason