Well, let's compare 1985 with 2011. The year-end top 10 in 1985 was
1 Ivan Lendl
2 John McEnroe
3 Mats Wilander
4 Jimmy Connors
5 Stefan Edberg
6 Boris Becker
7 Yannick Noah
8 Anders Jarryd
9 Miloslav Mecir
10 Kevin Curren
Of these, Lendl eventually won 8 slams (+11 finals), McEnroe 7 (+4), Wilander 7 (+4), Connors 8 (+7), Edberg 6 (+5), Becker 6 (+4), Noah 1 (+0). Mecir & Curren both made 2 slam finals, Jarryd 1 semi (but won 8 doubles slams). So 7 slam winners, 2 other finalists, & a total of 43 slams (82 slam finals overall).
Of the current top 10, Djokovic has 4 slams (+2), Nadal 10 (+4), Federer 16 (+7). So far so good. But there are no other slam winners. Murray has 3 finals, Ferrer 0 (2 semis), Soderling 2, Fish 0 (no semis), Monfils 0 (1 semi? or 2?), Berdych 1, Tsonga 1. 3 slam winners, 4 other finalists, & a total of 30 slams (50 finals overall). Maybe they'll catch up. But I don't see Federer, Nadal, Ferrer, Sod, Fish, Monfils, or Berdych adding significantly to these totals, & I don't think Djoker & Tsonga are going to do it alone.
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.