tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:06:10
From: topspin
Subject: Era comparisons
Taking these clusters

Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver

Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg

Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi

Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal

where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...

?




 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:48:38
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 8:15=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:44=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 4:00=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > As I said before...
>
> > > The subdivisions (era, generations) are not only arbitrary but do not
> > > comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a player jointly
> > > reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a timeline of
> > > continuance and the players he faces, until that timeline ends, ARE
> > > EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he must play
> > > and defeat them to progress...
>
> > I think it is useful to preserve the terms "generation" and "era" to
> > refer to the five- and 10-year periods by which tennis progress is
> > customarily measured. I would not, for example, place Agassi and
> > Federer in the same generation despite the fact that they provided
> > significant competition to each other for a period of several years. I
> > agree with your more important point, however, that competition must
> > be accepted and evaluated wherever it is found, and certainly should
> > not be arbitarily limited to a player's own generation, or even his
> > era. That's one of the reasons I focus on when players launched (made
> > their first slam final) rather than when they were born.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> The only thing I would add though is that a player can *launch* on his
> favorite surface but
> still be a couple of years away from *launching* on other surfaces.
>
> That was clearly the case with Nadal, imo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My mistake. There was only a 1 year gap before he got to the Wimby
final.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:15:00
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 4:44=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:00=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > As I said before...
>
> > The subdivisions (era, generations) are not only arbitrary but do not
> > comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a player jointly
> > reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a timeline of
> > continuance and the players he faces, until that timeline ends, ARE
> > EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he must play
> > and defeat them to progress...
>
> I think it is useful to preserve the terms "generation" and "era" to
> refer to the five- and 10-year periods by which tennis progress is
> customarily measured. I would not, for example, place Agassi and
> Federer in the same generation despite the fact that they provided
> significant competition to each other for a period of several years. I
> agree with your more important point, however, that competition must
> be accepted and evaluated wherever it is found, and certainly should
> not be arbitarily limited to a player's own generation, or even his
> era. That's one of the reasons I focus on when players launched (made
> their first slam final) rather than when they were born.
>
> Joe Ramirez

The only thing I would add though is that a player can *launch* on his
favorite surface but
still be a couple of years away from *launching* on other surfaces.

That was clearly the case with Nadal, imo.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 15:13:34
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 6:06=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Taking these clusters
>
> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>
> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>
> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>
> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
> ?

Dopey post, WTF is the point?


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 14:18:21
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On 15 Jan, 21:44, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:00=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > As I said before...
>
> > The subdivisions (era, generations) are not only arbitrary but do not
> > comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a player jointly
> > reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a timeline of
> > continuance and the players he faces, until that timeline ends, ARE
> > EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he must play
> > and defeat them to progress...
>
> I think it is useful to preserve the terms "generation" and "era" to
> refer to the five- and 10-year periods by which tennis progress is
> customarily measured. I would not, for example, place Agassi and
> Federer in the same generation despite the fact that they provided
> significant competition to each other for a period of several years. I
> agree with your more important point, however, that competition must
> be accepted and evaluated wherever it is found, and certainly should
> not be arbitarily limited to a player's own generation, or even his
> era. That's one of the reasons I focus on when players launched (made
> their first slam final) rather than when they were born.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Amen to both of you (of course). As an aside it is astonishing how
Rosewall and Connors alone provide a quality check between nearly 4
decades of tennis.


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 13:44:31
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 4:00=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:

> As I said before...
>
> The subdivisions (era, generations) are not only arbitrary but do not
> comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a player jointly
> reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a timeline of
> continuance and the players he faces, until that timeline ends, ARE
> EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he must play
> and defeat them to progress...

I think it is useful to preserve the terms "generation" and "era" to
refer to the five- and 10-year periods by which tennis progress is
customarily measured. I would not, for example, place Agassi and
Federer in the same generation despite the fact that they provided
significant competition to each other for a period of several years. I
agree with your more important point, however, that competition must
be accepted and evaluated wherever it is found, and certainly should
not be arbitarily limited to a player's own generation, or even his
era. That's one of the reasons I focus on when players launched (made
their first slam final) rather than when they were born.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 13:00:29
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 4:06=A0am, topspin <goolagong...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Taking these clusters
>
> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>
> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>
> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>
> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
> ?

As I said before...

The subdivisions (era, generations) are not only arbitrary but do not
comport with reality IN THE SENSE THAT from the time a player jointly
reaches maturation and distinction in slams he begins a timeline of
continuance and the players he faces, until that timeline ends, ARE
EFFECTIVELY HIS GENERATION, his foes, his peers IN THAT he must play
and defeat them to progress...

And a player faces a mixture of players at various stages of their
relative career stages (nearing, at, or moving from peak abilities)
just as the player in question moves through his stages and so it goes
from the beginning of that time line till the end... what really
matters is the players ability to perform and win over a prolonged
period of time and/or at a distinctive rate of success in relation to
ones competition... and it is over the totality of a career defined by
slam greatness that comes the full measure of ability realized as
singular merit and accomplishment...

That is TRUE for all players of all eras no matter what point in
tennis history you wish to inspect and evaluate... the beginning of a
players peak might get the end of a great era, move through a more
normative one and end within the dawning of another... or that order
might be reversed/mixed... BUT... play at the elite level long enough,
as Sampras and Federer and Laver and Connors and Agassi and McEnroe
did and you will inevitably face an almost equal mixture of elite
talent or SOMETHING fairly close to it... and that's why micro
dividing a champions timeline, while an interesting exercise, is a
parallexing distortion of analytic perception... it can fool the mind
into drawing erroneous estimations that the more historically minded
avoid...

Only against the full measure of a players timeline can one even
attempt to identify anything like reasonable conclusions to do with
merit...


P


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:51:05
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Jan 15, 9:40=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >> topspin wrote:
> >>> Taking these clusters
>
> >>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
> >> Emerson
>
> >>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
> >>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
> >> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>
> >>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
> >> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>
> >>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
> >>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
> >>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
> >>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
> >>> ?
> >> How about 20's and 30's...
>
> >> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>
> > Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
> > Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
> > history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>
> Yes, I meant Brugnon.
> I see Cochet is missing as well.

No one is missing. He's not trying to list the greatest player cohorts
of all time; rather, he's trying to demonstrate the essential
equivalence (or something along those lines) of disparate eras by
naming cross-era players who competed very successfully in both.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:48:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:40 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> topspin wrote:
>>>>> Taking these clusters
>>>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>>>> Emerson
>>>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>>>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>>>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>>>> ?
>>>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>>> Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
>>> Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
>>> history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>> Yes, I meant Brugnon.
>> I see Cochet is missing as well.
>
> No one is missing. He's not trying to list the greatest player cohorts
> of all time; rather, he's trying to demonstrate the essential
> equivalence (or something along those lines) of disparate eras by
> naming cross-era players who competed very successfully in both.
>
> Joe Ramirez


I think it's pretty clear Sampras was ridiculously successful all the
way through his career, from youngest ever USO champ to winning a slam
in his very last match. Can't beat that.



   
Date: 16 Jan 2009 10:58:47
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:48:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 9:40 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> topspin wrote:
>>>>>> Taking these clusters
>>>>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>>>>> Emerson
>>>>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>>>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>>>>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>>>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>>>>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>>>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>>>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>>>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>>>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>>>>> ?
>>>>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>>>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>>>> Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
>>>> Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
>>>> history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>>> Yes, I meant Brugnon.
>>> I see Cochet is missing as well.
>>
>> No one is missing. He's not trying to list the greatest player cohorts
>> of all time; rather, he's trying to demonstrate the essential
>> equivalence (or something along those lines) of disparate eras by
>> naming cross-era players who competed very successfully in both.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>I think it's pretty clear Sampras was ridiculously successful all the
>way through his career, from youngest ever USO champ to winning a slam
>in his very last match. Can't beat that.


oh wait ! i thought he was washed up and off peak and losing
everything for years on end. no ? so then Federer 1 Sampras 0 does
reflect superiority at the world championshsips. I knew it !


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 17:06:54
From: TT
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:40 am, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> topspin wrote:
>>>>> Taking these clusters
>>>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>>>> Emerson
>>>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>>>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>>>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>>>> ?
>>>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>>> Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
>>> Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
>>> history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>> Yes, I meant Brugnon.
>> I see Cochet is missing as well.
>
> No one is missing. He's not trying to list the greatest player cohorts
> of all time; rather, he's trying to demonstrate the essential
> equivalence (or something along those lines) of disparate eras by
> naming cross-era players who competed very successfully in both.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Ah I see. Overlaps. Why not say so in the presentation then... :)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:36:31
From:
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
> How about 20's and 30's...
>
> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...

Who's Brunot? Do you mean Brugnon? He was actually a doubles player.

Cochet should be the fourth name





 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 06:06:20
From: topspin
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On 15 Jan, 14:02, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> topspin wrote:
> > Taking these clusters
>
> > Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>
> Emerson
>
>
>
> > Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
> > Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>
> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>
>
>
> > Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>
> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>
>
>
> > where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
> > under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
> > current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
> > 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
> > ?
>
> How about 20's and 30's...
>
> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

It is not a list. The important names are Rosewall, Connors, and
Agassi to a lesser extent.


  
Date: 16 Jan 2009 20:43:36
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
topspin wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 14:02, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> topspin wrote:
>>> Taking these clusters
>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>> Emerson
>>
>>
>>
>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>
>>
>>
>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>> ?
>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>
>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>>
>> --
>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> It is not a list. The important names are Rosewall, Connors, and
> Agassi to a lesser extent.


You mean important to you - of no consequence to anyone else.



 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
topspin wrote:
> Taking these clusters
>
> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver

Emerson

>
> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi

McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander

>
> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal

If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.

>
> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
> ?

How about 20's and 30's...

Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:35:40
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>topspin wrote:
>> Taking these clusters
>>
>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>
>Emerson
>
>>
>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>
>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>
>McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>
>>
>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>
>If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>
>>
>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>
>> ?
>
>How about 20's and 30's...
>
>Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge

Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.



   
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:40:57
From: TT
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> topspin wrote:
>>> Taking these clusters
>>>
>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>> Emerson
>>
>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>>
>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>
>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>
>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>>
>>> ?
>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>
>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>
> Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
> Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
> history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>

Yes, I meant Brugnon.
I see Cochet is missing as well.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 15 Jan 2009 16:41:46
From: TT
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
TT wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:02:15 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> topspin wrote:
>>>> Taking these clusters
>>>>
>>>> Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>>> Emerson
>>>
>>>> Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>>>>
>>>> Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>>> McEnroe, Becker, Lendl, Wilander
>>>
>>>> Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>>> If that's the list for 90's and 2000's it's very short.
>>>
>>>> where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>>>> under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>>>> current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>>>> 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>> How about 20's and 30's...
>>>
>>> Tilden-Lacoste-Borotra-Brunot...Perry-Crawford-Budge
>>
>> Brunot? Do you mean Jacques Brugnon, one of The Four Musketeers?
>> Brunot doesn't say anything to me, but I am not that good with tennis
>> history, maybe Wikipedia knows better.
>>
>
> Yes, I meant Brugnon.
> I see Cochet is missing as well.
>

...Unless Tilden passes for a musketeer?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 15 Jan 2009 12:16:19
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Era comparisons
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:06:10 -0800 (PST), topspin
<goolagongfan@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Taking these clusters
>
>Kramer v Gonzales v Rosewall v Laver
>
>Connors v Rosewall v Newcombe v Borg
>
>Connors v Edberg v Sampras v Agassi
>
>Sampras v Agassi v Federer v Nadal
>
>where is the playing evidence that at the highest level, and playing
>under the same conditions, there is a difference in the ability of
>current players as opposed to those from 50 years ago, 40 years ago,
>30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago...
>
>?


case closed. whisper is an asshole.