Using this as a barometer is as retarded as it comes.
Unless you're 12 you should know that everything in life is relative. And so is the case in sports as well.
Back then tennis was reaching it's first boom so to speak, popularity wise, tennis-wise (IMO) and in other areas as well. Because of this whole idea that everyone that plays these days is a mug and everything was nice and rosey in the 80's people look at that era as the best to have ever been, by far.
It's not like that, not everyone raved about it, not everyone liked the endless rallies between Wilander and Lendl, or Berasategui and Bruguera. Or no one mentions the days when you had some guys that just couldn't put a serve back in court just because the guy on the other side was named Edberg although he was serving as hard as Rochus but placing it better.
The difference back then was that no player was gaining the kind of aura Djokovic has now of invincibility, because the calendar was not that build that way, tennis was not played in a way that would facilitate that.
The slams were more spread out withing the top players back then but their tennis was hardly anything so far out in quality that you would deem the era as the best that would ever be.
People hardly like to face the truth but if you would actually sit down and compare a guy like Wilander with a guy like Simon from nowadays I would guarantee you that a lot of similarities would be found, in everything.
Was Courier that great?...Put his beloved forehand next to what Soderling can crap out on that side and I won't be seeing you open your mouth about tennis for awhile.
There was a myth about tennis back then, because you only had some weekly magazines and some tournaments every year where you could talk and see the sport.
It's now changed in a world of non stop tennis and armchair analysts giving out free insight on what era is best without having a fucking clue or some sort of dim perspective on how this sport evolved over the decades.
I'm gonna judge the players from now on how thick their thighs were at their peak, considering of course that McDonalds was not as popular back then and that dumbbells were of poor quality.
Oh I see, you mean this one. I replied saying I wasn't sure it was serious, just because the ending clearly isn't.
If you actually read this you'll see the content is at odds with the belligerent tone. Of course we shouldn't look back with rose-tinted spectacles. We can all agree on that. And yes, in the 1980s it was very difficult to return Edberg's serve, but I think this had something to do with string technology, no? Even today a lot of people find it hard to return Federer's serve, which isn't exactly a bullet. As for the rest, I'm not sure how Courier & Bruguera are relevant to the 1980s, & yes, there are similarities between Wilander & Simon. Er, & that's kind of it.
Incidentally, I ought to add on this general point about comparing eras that I do have some very relevant experience, namely that I have actually played tennis with wooden & graphite racquets
. The overwhelming feeling on moving from wood to graphite was, "I never realised this game could be so easy
." A wooden racquet was very heavy & unwieldy, had hardly any sweet spot at all, & it was all but impossible to hit a clean groundstroke with it. Anybody tempted to deride the pace of the game in past eras really should try hitting with one.