Hall of Fame
LOL. The benefit of having actually lived and witnessed tennis in the 1960s and 1970s means I also witnessed tennis in the 1990s ... so possibly in a much better position to compare players and eras than you are because you weren't even a twinkle in your Mama's eye in the 1970s.None of what you said refutes anything I said. You are clearly going down the nostalgia road. I have nostalgia for the 90s, yet do you read any posts from me where I glorify the 90s? No.
So if anyone can be objective it is me. But you see nothing is more objective than Statistics, even more so significant statistics.
Laver has two GRAND SLAMS. Objective Fact!
The grass courts of the different Majors in the 1960s played a lot more differently than the HCs of today do. Objective Fact.
You can glorify the 1990s all you like. No male player achieved the GRAND SLAM in the 1990s. Objective Fact.
Ooooh look .... a small headed wooden racquet with Natural Gut strings. Have you every played with one of those? Modern equipment makes young players look like absolute titans. Put a small headed wooden racquet strung with natty gut in their hands and see how the go.
The skill sets were so different in the 60s and 70s. An elite player had to actually know how to play tennis. These days the sport is mostly about athleticism and movement. Make it to the ball, and most players will hit a decent return shot. Certainly not so in the "Olden Days".
BTW, here is some subjective talk .. if Laver had not turned Pro when he did, he probably would have won at least another 12 Majors, and likely to have won at least one more GRAND SLAM possibly two more. If that had happened, he would be untouchable now, if he isn't already. Who is going to match his feat in the future? Many say no one will, Greatest of All Time afaic.