Views from the international media on the Golden age

First topic message reminder :

I always thought I witnessed the “Golden Age” of men’s tennis growing up in the 1980s. I watched Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl rack up tournament wins and volley the number one ranking back-and-forth. These tennis legends won more tournaments than any other three men on the planet in the Open era. Connors led the way with 109 titles. But I was wrong. The Golden Age of tennis is right now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/06/08/federer-nadal-and-djokovic-represent-golden-age-of-mens-tennis/

This article is some months old but it covers the themes I have been discussing online now for a great many years. It seems that your truely was one of the first and most vocal proponents of this concept and even this terminology which journalists from across the globe are using to describe our current crop of tennis champions. And interesting read and recap from Forbes. The media reviews are in and they are incredibly positive on the modern game this is another of many facts that cut against the narrative of a dying game waiting only for federer to leave before it collapses. I believe that we will witness more and more special matches and more great accomplishments from this generation to the point where it leaves any questioning of my long championed thesis to rest, except by those multitude who can never accept defeat. It is a shame that so many have talked themselves out of actually enjoying the wonderful tennis and champions that we have been gifted with.

bogbrush wrote:

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:You lot need f*cking shooting for the prolonging of such an annoying subject which you have sh*gged to death and now desecrating the memory by shatting on it's grave!

Well said, LK. Golden era, GOATs, my-player-bigger-than-the-best-ever.

The inability to enjoy what is right in front of our noses and prove it better than what is a monotonic sequence of improvements, rather tragic to ignore it.

Agreed. Can we therefore have some discipline on the forum so that articles like this don't get posted OR there has to be a concerted effort by ALL members to boycott them.

It's all very well everyone agreeing with this sentioment but ineffective if it just carries on.

Ill make you a deal when people stop talking down today's game, calling for radical changes with no evidence of a crisis, then I will stop. How typical of BB to try to basically censor the opinion. So I don't agree with the sentiment if you don't like the thread you have no right to hijack it that includes you LK.

Nore Staat wrote:Independent of the Golden Era Debate

a) Did Rafael Nadael beat Roger Federer when Roger Federer was in his prime?
b) Did Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal when Rafael Nadal was in his prime?
c) Did Andy Murray beat Novak Djokovic when Novak Djokovic was in his prime?

Bonus questions for ten
d) In what way was Hewitt a better player than David Ferrer?
e) In what way is David Ferrer a better player than Hewitt?

a) yes of course
b) yes of course
c) yes of course

d) Hewitt is a better volleyer, other than that can't think of much, maybe give lleyton the head backhand wise as well.
e) can't really think of any would rate hewitt as better than ferrer or his equal in most areas, maybe fitness and durability I would give the nod to ferrer.

socal1976 wrote:can't really think of any would rate hewitt as better than ferrer or his equal in most areas, maybe fitness and durability I would give the nod to ferrer.

So why did the media go crazy over Hewitt at the time he was world No. 1? Maybe the media are given to a bit of hyperbole, and we shouldn't believe everything we read?

Hewitt of 2000/2001 would crush Ferrer.

Where was Davíd when during those years?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:can't really think of any would rate hewitt as better than ferrer or his equal in most areas, maybe fitness and durability I would give the nod to ferrer.

So why did the media go crazy over Hewitt at the time he was world No. 1? Maybe the media are given to a bit of hyperbole, and we shouldn't believe everything we read?

Because he was the youngest 1 in history at the time, and then completely dissappeared from the scene a couple of years later due to injury. The media has a right to go crazy over the youngest #1 in history Julius, but he never panned out because of injury problems, and also when he was healthier he didn't exactly burn it up against the new boys.

It is just funny to me how the unsupported allegations of people who demand radical changes to the game based on no evidence of need other than their ability to read future tea leaves can take it so personal when actual citations are brought in disputting their own non-supported allegations. Personally, after hearing BB rant on about economics and politics nothing makes me want to radically alter the game I love based on his views of what should or shouldn't be. And frankly that is all the fast court moaners have ever produced to support their desire for a federization of all the racquets, strings, courts, and balls immediately.

It's funny to me how people dismiss the media's view of how good Hewitt was, by calling him 'no-shot' Hewitt, but then say it must be a golden era because the media say so.

What have slow courts given to us apart from the top 4 dominating every year? With faster courts, more chances of upsets, less predictability, less time spent watching moonballing rallies.

Being from US I thought you would like the game to be played a bit quicker?

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's funny to me how people dismiss the media's view of how good Hewitt was, by calling him 'no-shot' Hewitt, but then say it must be a golden era because the media say so.

No the media saying so is one part of multifaceted argument. Let me put it to you this way the fast cour moaners have produced nothing but their own assertions that the game is in trouble and needs change. I at least did the due dilligence to find voices outside of the echo chamber of 606v2 to discuss the opinions. Only thing the tea leave readers have ever produced for their position of federizing the conditions is their own biases and opinions.


So is the media always wrong Julius? Where do you get your news then Julius? By the way this isn't one article, anyone who doesn't believe me about the groundswell of literally dozens if not hundreds of media critics calling this a golden age just google the term golden age of mens tennis and see what you get. I could have put two dozen articles of the same nature up on the same topic. I tell you what in a dispute between the credibility of the media and the credibility of BB, I will take the credibility of the much maligned media every single day of the week and twice on sunday. Despite their biases and mistakes I have more than enough reason to trust their opinion over a certain poster on this site. Especially, when I see the dozens of other respected voices saying the same thing. Let me see journalists and their assertions or the assertions of a guy who wants to disband the police and courts and make it illegal to own property, hmmm Ill take the media please.

OK guys, I don't know what side of the debate I am on.

However I have noticed people saying that the media like calling eras 'golden' to hype it up. Can we have an article pre 2008 that hails the era as 'golden.'


This will be interesting

I typed in 'Golden Era Tennis 2003' into google:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=golden+era+tennis+2003&rls=com.microsoft:en-GB:%7Breferrer:source?%7D&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GF

That to me is not dispositive IMBL, you can always find critics for or against we are talking about the overrall large numbers of golden era articles. I am sure you could find some crazy out there online who thinks anything, we have a few on this very website who hold the most bizarre unsupported notions on tennis and on other matters. The weight or consensus of journalists is that the tennis is great now, I don't remember it being the case in the early 2000s or frankly I don't hear the same argument being made for the WTA today. So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up by the same people who make it their hobby to pull things out of their dirty places and demand that you agree with it despite their lack of any objective evidence.

socal1976 wrote:So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up...

...by you, since no-one has said that.

socal1976 wrote:That to me is not dispositive IMBL, you can always find critics for or against we are talking about the overrall large numbers of golden era articles. I am sure you could find some crazy out there online who thinks anything, we have a few on this very website who hold the most bizarre unsupported notions on tennis and on other matter.

So we shouldn't take notice of what we read.

socal1976 wrote: The weight or consensus of journalists is that the tennis is great now, I don't remember it being the case in the early 2000s or frankly I don't hear the same argument being made for the WTA today. So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up by the same people who make it their hobby to pull things out of their dirty places and demand that you agree with it despite their lack of any objective evidence.

Oh, hang on, we should.

One cannot base a Golden Age on conditions. Conditions and technology have moved on. The elite level tennis players of today have never before been so professional in their approach, so fit, so quick to recover, so strong, so focussed. Looking back a few years and the players look incredibly lethargic and effeminate when playing a fifth set compared to the elite players of today.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up...

...by you, since no-one has said that.

Why don't you actually read the comments people made about how the media pumps everything up because that is their job, IC and BB said the exact thing. That nothing special about this era the media is just selling. So if they don't believe what they are selling then they are lying Julius. Again the world doesn't revolve around you Julius despite what you tell yourself in the mirror, other people are making that exact assertion. Please read the thread and then tell me if you hold the same mistaken belief exhibited by this post.

I thought page 1 had some interesting references to how tough the competition was a few years ago, including direct quotes on the subject from Federer. But the what does he know about the standard of tennis then?

As for economics, socal, you (as always) completely miss the point. I'm tired trying to explain things in Janet & John Green Book I mode, you'll have to read around the subject, but as a tip think about whether what I write was restricted to economics or was really about liberty. And feel free to point my errors in defining money and the unsound contractual basis of land ownership, if you can find any.

Edit: on the off-topic thread of course.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up...

...by you, since no-one has said that.

Why don't you actually read the comments people made about how the media pumps everything up because that is their job, IC and BB said the exact thing. That nothing special about this era the media is just selling. So if they don't believe what they are selling then they are lying Julius. Again the world doesn't revolve around you Julius despite what you tell yourself in the mirror, other people are making that exact assertion. Please read the thread and then tell me if you hold the same mistaken belief exhibited by this post.

Read your own post. You've just offered no statement to contradict the post you're... er..... contradicting.

And wtf are you on about suggesting people talk to the mirror? It's weird.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:That to me is not dispositive IMBL, you can always find critics for or against we are talking about the overrall large numbers of golden era articles. I am sure you could find some crazy out there online who thinks anything, we have a few on this very website who hold the most bizarre unsupported notions on tennis and on other matter.

So we shouldn't take notice of what we read.

socal1976 wrote: The weight or consensus of journalists is that the tennis is great now, I don't remember it being the case in the early 2000s or frankly I don't hear the same argument being made for the WTA today. So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up by the same people who make it their hobby to pull things out of their dirty places and demand that you agree with it despite their lack of any objective evidence.

Oh, hang on, we should.

Oh wait BB fails to understand gradations and relative arguments. Yes you can find a nut online to say anything and post it, you are a prime example. The second part of what I talk about is spoken in plain english the weight or consensus of media opinion, which like in Iraq can be wrong, but on many issues is right. Now the fact is that the consensus media opinion and critical opinion is that we have golden age. You can find some nut who will post anything online, I have even heard of people calling for the banning of money and home ownership. So again BB, you fail to realize that not everything is black and white, a mistake that you make often frankly.

bogbrush wrote:I thought page 1 had some interesting references to how tough the competition was a few years ago, including direct quotes on the subject from Federer. But the what does he know about the standard of tennis then?

As for economics, socal, you (as always) completely miss the point. I'm tired trying to explain things in Janet & John Green Book I mode, you'll have to read around the subject, but as a tip think about whether what I write was restricted to economics or was really about liberty. And feel free to point my errors in defining money and the unsound contractual basis of land ownership, if you can find any.

Edit: on the off-topic thread of course.

No i understand people who believe the political things you do, they are dead wrong by the weight of history and facts and they refuse to accept it. Sound familiar anyone? Ill pick that topic up with you there for those interested last shot on this thread.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up...

...by you, since no-one has said that.

Why don't you actually read the comments people made about how the media pumps everything up because that is their job, IC and BB said the exact thing. That nothing special about this era the media is just selling. So if they don't believe what they are selling then they are lying Julius. Again the world doesn't revolve around you Julius despite what you tell yourself in the mirror, other people are making that exact assertion. Please read the thread and then tell me if you hold the same mistaken belief exhibited by this post.

I can't find any posts that claim the media says that every era is a golden era. If I've missed them, please point them out. If they're not there, then you have misrepresented what other people are saying.

It is extraordinarily presumptious of you to tell me what I think. Fortunately it is of little concern to me.

Nore Staat wrote:One cannot base a Golden Age on conditions. Conditions and technology have moved on. The elite level tennis players of today have never before been so professional in their approach, so fit, so quick to recover, so strong, so focussed. Looking back a few years and the players look incredibly lethargic and effeminate when playing a fifth set compared to the elite players of today.

Yeah could you picture sampras playing in one of these fifth setters in humidity, he might of have vommitted in the first set. The fitness and speed is a whole different gear than what we have seen in the game ever before. Effeminate may be a bit much there but I will chalk that up to your comedic flair a good post Nore.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:So this nonsense that the media says every era is golden is just nonsense made up...

...by you, since no-one has said that.

Why don't you actually read the comments people made about how the media pumps everything up because that is their job, IC and BB said the exact thing. That nothing special about this era the media is just selling. So if they don't believe what they are selling then they are lying Julius. Again the world doesn't revolve around you Julius despite what you tell yourself in the mirror, other people are making that exact assertion. Please read the thread and then tell me if you hold the same mistaken belief exhibited by this post.

I can't find any posts that claim the media says that every era is a golden era. If I've missed them, please point them out. If they're not there, then you have misrepresented what other people are saying.

It is extraordinarily presumptious of you to tell me what I think. Fortunately it is of little concern to me.

I didn't quote anyone so I don't have to produce the exact terminology, that is the jist of what they were saying. The media sells every era that is their job and these comments are somehow mere puffery and salesmanship. If I put it in quotes that is one thing, Craig mentioned the same exact point I made. Why exactly is no one calling the last few years of WTA a golden era? Because it isn't and most, not all but most people in the media do value their credibility. And unlike the arguments made by BB and IC not every report can be chalked up to just media pumping up a product for sales. They can get just the same exact or more sales and attention for negative coverage on a subject.

So you can say people say things but so long as you do not use quotes it doesn't matter if that's what they really said?

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:One cannot base a Golden Age on conditions. Conditions and technology have moved on. The elite level tennis players of today have never before been so professional in their approach, so fit, so quick to recover, so strong, so focussed. Looking back a few years and the players look incredibly lethargic and effeminate when playing a fifth set compared to the elite players of today.

Yeah could you picture sampras playing in one of these fifth setters in humidity, he might of have vommitted in the first set. The fitness and speed is a whole different gear than what we have seen in the game ever before. Effeminate may be a bit much there but I will chalk that up to your comedic flair a good post Nore.

Right, so it's a Golden Era for really long matches that players can survive. How thrilling.

bogbrush wrote:So you can say people say things but so long as you do not use quotes it doesn't matter if that's what they really said?

Wrong I gave a very accurate portrayal of what you said. The basic jist is simple that the media is just selling copy and they talk up whatever flavor of the month to sell. Contrary to your constant lies that I claimed that Djoko would have won if not for Foggy, is that what passes for an accurate portrayal of someone's position? In your mind I am sure but the deeper view I get of your mind the more disturbing it is frankly.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So you can say people say things but so long as you do not use quotes it doesn't matter if that's what they really said?

Wrong I gave a very accurate portrayal of what you said. The basic jist is simple that the media is just selling copy and they talk up whatever flavor of the month to sell. Contrary to your constant lies that I claimed that Djoko would have won if not for Foggy, is that what passes for an accurate portrayal of someone's position? In your mind I am sure but the deeper view I get of your mind the more disturbing it is frankly.

I just mock the idea that it was a handicap. You try ever so hard to tread really close to claiming it was such an awful andicap but always remember to throw in the assertion that Federer may still have won, but - oh dear - what a handicap it was for poor Novak!

What a dreadful disappointment it must have been when every Federer fan on here disclaimed the absurd idea that Federer was handicapped by his recent bye before losing to Berdych.

Socal I think what BB et others are trying to say is that the media try to hype something up only when they see the opportunity.

Now the media know that the majority of the public and fans will mainly be interested in the top few players and 'big guns.' The superstars attract the main-stream fans, that is a fact.

When the media see that there are a certain numbers of superstars they try and create a story- build hype. If it's Federer vs Nadal, they say Fedal rivalry is best of all time. When there is a dominant Top 4, they focus on the fact the era is golden as there are four superstars.

Now this doesn't mean that the media are always wrong- far from it. Fedal may be the greatest rivalry of all time etc. but the point is the media will report this even if it is not the case.
The media grasping on a situation is normally quite indicative of something- that there are star players at the top of the game.
However the mainstream media will fail to recognise that talent beneath the superstars is important too, they don't recognise that strength in depth is a necessary part of any era as this is not the focus of mainstream fans.

So I would say that the main-stream media stories are indicative of a trend (as a whole), but they certainly don't paint the whole story- often cherry picking certain attributes of an era to make it seem better. However it can be argued that if there is nothing to cherry pick, then there is nothing to hype- like in the WTA at the moment.

My portrayal of your position was about 100 times more accurate than your portrayal of my position. Yes of course except that fedsfan before the match said she was quite concerned with the layoff. Of course after your hysterical fit on that I doubt anyone would make that argument. Just like you tried to censor this debate with failed wit and hostility by quote organizing a boycott which you yourself violated.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal I think what BB et others are trying to say is that the media try to hype something up only when they see the opportunity.

Now the media know that the majority of the public and fans will mainly be interested in the top few players and 'big guns.' The superstars attract the main-stream fans, that is a fact.

When the media see that there are a certain numbers of superstars they try and create a story- build hype. If it's Federer vs Nadal, they say Fedal rivalry is best of all time. When there is a dominant Top 4, they focus on the fact the era is golden as there are four superstars.

Now this doesn't mean that the media are always wrong- far from it. Fedal may be the greatest rivalry of all time etc. but the point is the media will report this even if it is not the case.
The media grasping on a situation is normally quite indicative of something- that there are star players at the top of the game.
However the mainstream media will fail to recognise that talent beneath the superstars is important too, they don't recognise that strength in depth is a necessary part of any era as this is not the focus of mainstream fans.

So I would say that the main-stream media stories are indicative of a trend (as a whole), but they certainly don't paint the whole story- often cherry picking certain attributes of an era to make it seem better. However it can be argued that if there is nothing to cherry pick, then there is nothing to hype- like in the WTA at the moment.

Fair post but this isn't what they are trying to say. And nobody claimed that this media report is the sole basis of any argument, however if people actually do the google search that I did, even when you put 2003 all the golden generation and golden age references by in large part discuss this period in positive terms with that type of terminology.

Here is my narrower point to prove my argument with posting this article. The point is this despite the echo chamber of slow court moaners on this website the consensus and weight of the critical reviews is that this period is particularly strong. Now you can very logically argue that consensus media opinion is wrong. I myseld hold opinions that the consensus media opinion doesn't hold. But what you can't do logically and honestly is come out and simply state that this isn't the consensus media opinion when it is. And you can't come out and just make a non-argument that "oh this just salesmanship" and these people don't really believe everything they are saying they are just hyping a product. If that is the case why haven't we heard about the golden age of Wozniacki and Azarenka?

If anyone of them actually made a well reasoned rebuttal of your nature I would argue with it and say it is wrong, but at least I would feel that they fairly argued it. I want to know how it is that these fast court proponents know that the media members making these statements are just doing a sales job and don't believe what they are writting? If they agreed with them I am sure then said media member would in their eyes be much more credible. So is the media lying now about the golden age and telling the truth if they happen to agree with your fixated biases?

Boycott? Do you understand the word?

Laverfan suggested these silly threads end, I agreed. Otherwise I like you doing them so I can mock you.
Fognini is a gift that's still giving, even 18 months after the event.

Now Amrit has "fixated biases", and that after a response beginning "Fair post"

Are you trying hard to see if you can offend everyone on the forum or does it just come naturally?

bogbrush wrote:Now Amrit has "fixated biases", and that after a response beginning "Fair post"

Are you trying hard to see if you can offend everyone on the forum or does it just come naturally?

BB, are you criticising my post?

I agreed with you and said that the media cherry-pick attributes in the current era that they can hype up...


I don't understand what you're saying here.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Now Amrit has "fixated biases", and that after a response beginning "Fair post"

Are you trying hard to see if you can offend everyone on the forum or does it just come naturally?

BB, are you criticising my post

I agreed with you and said that the media cherry-pick attributes in the current era that they can hype up

I don't understand what you're saying here.

No, I'm agreeing with you.

I was writing to socal about why he was being aggressive towards your post.

Sorry if that was ambiguous.

Now I understand BB, thanks for clearing it up

No I wasn't being hostile to amiritia, I think you have reading comprehension problem BB; the hostility was clearly directed at you any 6th grader reading my post could understand that hence why I was talking about slow court proponents in that paragraph. But you are exactly the type of weakling who looks for his friends to jump in. Do you need any help from others is that why you are trying to dishonestly portray my last post as an attack on amiritia?

Dont worry IMBL, I know that I sometimes need a translator to understand his posts. But fortunately he does us all a favor and usually keeps them short enough where even he can't confuse the topic.

Sounds like this thread has run its course...

Anyway, on the this 'media' topic, I think we have to analyse what the media are saying, we can pick up quite a lot.

Now I don't think we should just blindly believe what the majority of the media say as 'the truth'; and also I don't think we should just dismiss everything they say as false.

Analysis of the media shows that their main theme is 'golden era'- with the 4 top guys being the 4 main components.
Now the mainstream public- i.e. in BBC SPORT the people who send in texts which appear on the commentary, only follow the top few players.
Bob from Brighton can send in to the BBC 'What an era! We are so lucky to have 4 incredible guys!'
It's this what the media picks up on, they try and focus on the audience as wide as possible- by talking about the superstars they can relate both the main-stream and hardcore fans, or so they hope.

Now I am not denying that at the moment there are 4 brilliant guys who have been there for quite some time, the fact is the media have only picked up ammunition because it exists. They don't make up player names.

However if we can look more closely we can see they are omitting another side of the story. The strength in depth, or the lack of it, is rarely covered by main-stream media. This lack exists (beneath the top 4) but it isn't attractive for the media to cover. Also conditions are becoming more and more homogenised in the last few years, but rather then talk about this it is better for the media to focus on the players- the champions who can play at a similar level all year without needing to hugely adjust to surface changes.

A strong top 4 era doesn't mean the era is strong as a whole. There is no player under 19 ranked above 400 for a start...this has never happened before.

lydian wrote:A strong 4 era doesn't mean the era is strong as a whole.

I agree with you

lydian wrote:
There is no player under 19 ranked above 400 for a start...this has never happened before.

The average age of top players will go up as conditions slows down... but players will eventually break in the top 400 etc. just after some time.

That doesnt quite figure. Conditions had slowed down (circa 2001-2004) remarkably before Nadal, Djokovic, Murray were breaking through,..they were ranked within top 75 by 18 and half years. Talent usually finds the way...are you telling me if there was another Nadal or Djokovic type player emerging now they couldn't get within top 400 by similar age...never mind top 75?

Lydian, could the ATP cap on matches youngsters now have, influence this?

Here is my response to IMBL's well argued but in my opinion wrong critique

1. Let me ask you a question if there are 4 very consistent players greedily winning everything IMBL isn't that going to automatically lessen the perceived stature of the remaining players in the field? Its not just one guy or two guys that these lower ranked guys can hope to get to the final without seeing one or the other. Now for a player ranked number 5 in the world he could very well have to beat Nadal, Fed, and Djoko in some order to win a slam. Berdy this year had to beat Fed, Murray, and Djoko to win the USO. How many 1 slam or 2 slam winners from the past would jump through this hurdle. Its not just their dominance but their consistency that is killing the second and third 4, and the fact that now its more than just fed and nadal there are 4 guys that they can't really beat.

2. IMBL you do what a great many people do when they talk about depth, they make the mistake of believing that great depth is what makes winning slams hard. No actually it isn't, it isn't the first week that decides the champion it quarter, semi and final and in that scenario by definition a top heavy draw is harder to get by than an era of parity. You don't have to play the entire top 30 en masse but the chances are that in a legendary top heavy period that you will have to beat two possibly 3 all time greats in a row over 5 sets, that is just an impossible longshot for 99.9 percent of the guys who have ever played on the ATP tour, if it happens I will be stunned. A top heavy tour is by definition harder to win slams in than an era of parity. See johansson, gaudio, korda, moya, roddick, ferrero etc.

Is it harder to win a french open now with super Rafa on the prowl or when we had a great parity of clay courters? In the words of the legendary french general Napolean "in war it isn't about the men, it is about the man" And when he said "the man" he meant the big bosses the chief. That is how all eras have been judged in the past and that is how this era is being judged and favorably I might add. Every era is determined by the strength of the best handful of players who decides who gets to lift the biggest trophies. Nobody cares 3 years down the line if the St. Petersburg open winner or world #17 was strong or not, that is because it doesn't matter that much.

Yes but we don't know just how good the top 4 are vs other era....they may be fantastic and nobody can challenge them, or the opposition may be poor and they go unchallenged. How do you prove which is which?

Don't think that would be a factor IMBL...talent finds a way through. It isn't doing now.

Nore Staat wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:... the media will still call that era the golden era, its afterall their business.

No-one is saying it is a strong era in the women's game, so I am not 100% certain of this forever strong era media sales theorem.

When did somebody care about WTA ? , to compare it now with ATP to sort an example is completely irrelevant.

Inspite of having 22 slams, Steffi is never rated above Federer, so giving a WTA example for ATP simply make no sense.

I do think WTA and ATP converging in terms of identikit players being pumped out with 1 dimensional games. One of the reasons I feel youngsters aren't breaking through now on male side.

lydian wrote:Yes but we don't know just how good the top 4 are vs other era....they may be fantastic and nobody can challenge them, or the opposition may be poor and they go unchallenged. How do you prove which is which?

Don't think that would be a factor IMBL...talent finds a way through. It isn't doing now.

You can go back and look at court coverage and court speed in the fifth sets towards the end of tournaments - as a means to assess relative fitness and stamina levels. Todays elite tennis players are better athletes.

lydian wrote:Yes but we don't know just how good the top 4 are vs other era....they may be fantastic and nobody can challenge them, or the opposition may be poor and they go unchallenged. How do you prove which is which?

Don't think that would be a factor IMBL...talent finds a way through. It isn't doing now.

Easy why don't we look at he objective accomplishments and the game of the next 4 players after the top 4 and see if they are somehow deficient when compared to other second tier top tenners of the past. And i don't mean go and cherry pick an impressive top ten from the past and compare todays 5-10 guys to. Lets look at the average of what they have accomplished and compare them to lets say what other second tier guys accomplished. I think you will find that despite the difficulty of dealing with the top 4 that all of the second tier player are at the least average in objective accomplishments and win percentage when compared to other top tenners of the second tier THE AVERAGE AT LEAST. I mean is Henman that much better than Del PO or Berdy or Tsonga? Or lets say Pat cash for example? Cash was good second tier man from the 80s he was the quintessential dangerous floater is he better than Del PO?

invisiblecoolers wrote:... When did somebody care about WTA ? ....

Good impression of a misogynist.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Fair enough so how would you rate it then? The media talk of golden era aside I mean as golden is just a paraphrase they bandy about.

For me eras are periods that contain great players who will still be talked about in years to come. This current era contains players like that as did the late 70's to early 80's (Borg, McEnroe and Connors) and the early to late 90's (Sampras, Agassi, Courier). Early 2000's - sorry but that era doesn't come into that category for me.

By your comparison,

IN early 90's till 1993 start [90,91,92],
Sampras won 1 slam
Agassi won 1 slam
Courier won 3 slams

Total slams end of their career - 14+8+4 = 26

In comparison 2006,2007,2008

Federer won - 7 slams [total 12]
Nadal won - 4 slams [total 5]
Djokovic won 1 slam

Still ongoing - 17+11+5 =33

12 current slams > 5 current slams
33 career slams > 26 career slams

So 2006-2008 era was much stronger than 90-93 era

Even if you 2000-2003 era, consisted of Agassi, Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, all won more slams than the respective 90's era champs you quoted.

So quoting a era golden even in terms of names still doesn't say early 90's was a golden era.