The thing with Elo is that it isn't a measure of the level of the player at all. It is the measure of the top ranked players beaten by that player.
Djokovic having highest Elo ever is simply the reflection of Lew's personal favourite Top 10 wins. Djoker beat more higher ranked players in 2015 hence better ratings than Fed 2006. Elo is simply an exchange rating system. You beat an opponent he loses points.. you gain some. The higher ELO rated the opponent you beat the more points you gain. Doesn't take in account the level of those
higher ranked players and definitely not the whole field. It is a flawed system in more ways than one.
It's a rating exchange system through winning and losing matches. So when Djoker skipped the second half of '17 he lost no Elo points.. didn't gain any either ofcourse. So there's your Elo.
Beating someone like Fed(who himself was a higher rated Elo player) multiple times throughout 2015 helped Djoker's Elo ratings rise massively. Djoker owned Mury. That helped too. So Elo ratings of a top player will always be high when the field will be top heavy and the rest of field(>10) will be ****.
And as
@Red Rick said it doesn't adapt well and quickly, the reason I pointed above.
Hence all the inconsistencies you guys have been pointing out throughout this thread.
Elo very elegantly does what the weak era theorists do. It puts competition above achievements.
There is no point in fighting with Lew. Half of you are playing Cricket. The other half playing football. It's not the same game. Everyone has different measures which plays well into their agenda.
Everyone is like a broken record.