I'm questioning how many people have actually watched matches of the players from that era. Not highlights. Not statistics. But watched the matches, and understand the tennis of that era. And not just the 1 or 2 top guys (Laver, etc). 1 or 2 guys doesn't make "the strongest era".
All of these Tilden experts. How much have you seen him play? What do you know about his opponents?
Most people responding are not even 30 years old and I really doubt if any single one of them knows anything more about Laver than some highlight reel film and some statistics. To me, that isn't much of an argument to proclaim that he played in the strongest era.
Anyway, of course you can't compare era's. But it's even worse when you compare them without knowing too much about them. All I'm reading is that people don't really like the tennis played today, so in an attempt to dismiss it, they are reminising about the "good old days"......which they now nothing about. My guess is that if these people were around back then, they would be thinking that Laver was only good because it was a "weak era".
This is a fair post. All I can say is that I have seen extensive highlights & several whole matches from a range of players in the 1960s & 1970s, & as far as I can tell, the game then was slower paced but more deft, a difference largely attributable to the difference in racquet technology. If you compare the best player then to the best player of the current era, even without alliowing for difference in racquets
, there's not much in the serve or return, or indeed movement. Federer's forehand is way better, Laver's backhand looks about the same as Fed's even with a wooden racquet, & Federer has never got anywhere near Laver's springing agility at the net. Allow for the fact that Laver was using a racquet that made the game about 10 times more difficult & you are brave indeed to assert Laver couldn't have hacked it today.