Given the dramatic changes in tennis, isn't it foolish to compare players of different generations?

Question

For instance, the surface of Wimbledon plays differently than it did back in say, 1993.

If it was 1993, Nadal & Federer wouldn't have made it to the Wimbledon final. Serve & Volleyers like Edberg, Sampras, Becker, and Rafter (though he never won) would've dominated players like Nadal & Federer. If today's slower Wimbledon surface was used in the 1980s & 90s, Ivan Lendl would've added a few Wimbledon Championships to his list of achievements.

Also, players didn't use graphite (and later titanium) tennis rackets during the Borg/Stan Smith/Laver years.

Given all the changes, isn't unfair to say that Federer & Sampras are the greatest simply because they won the most majors? Had Sampras played on today's Wimbledon surface, he probably would've still won a few, but definitely NOT 7.

Do you agree? What's your opinion on cross generational comparisons?

Answer 1

I have only seen bits of a couple old matches on ESPN classic, and to me, the game seemed a lot slower in the old stuff.  It seemed more of a game of leisure instead of the long hard endurance and power match it is today.

Answer 2

Yeah, I guess I agree, but Federer did play Sampras in NY at that charity match and kicked his ***.

Federer is beautiful.

Answer 3

I agree that even a few years advances in technology, the sport and even techniques makes it truly impossible to compare generationally.  I like to think of track and field - look at pole vaulters, what a difference technology makes in something like that.  Events such as sprints often take into account the wind for the day or whether the event was done indoors or out and depending on these factors, an athlete may or may not recieve the record for that event.  There really is no good way to really compare across a generation.  You can't say that just b/c someone does not still hold a record that they were not a great athlete b/c obviously they were a great athlete of their time.  My dad has coached for years and years and often tells me, "If I had this particular athlete this year, we'd go to state, but at that time, everybody had a great 400 runner and he didn't even make it out of sectional."  

I think that we look at records and times and championships and say, now that was a great athlete b/c of...  We have some sort of "evidence" to say they were good.  In an argument about it you can say, "Well, s/he had this many championships under their belt and therefore that makes them the best."  But you can also look at an athlete (none are coming to my mind right now) that never won a championship or medal or set a record and still say that s/he was a great athlete because of his/her performances and the things they did well.  I don't think this is probably what you were looking for and I don't know much about tennis, but as a rule, it really is difficult to compare sports accomplishments of then and now.

Answer 4

yah, rackets changed over time also