Originally Posted by Time Violation
Sure... when Sampras was dominating because the courts were well suited to his game, that was fine, when Fed&co dominate because these courts are suitable to their game, then it's devaluation
Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's worth less - it's fine if you want to be a self-proclaimed judge&jury, but it's just a lot of hot air.
Dude, if you're not going to read what I am writing then there is no real point in discussing it.
Sampras played in an era when one surface was highly suited to his game (grass) two less so, and a fourth completely hostile to it (clay). Nowadays all surfaces pretty much suit all players. There are some differences but they are pretty minimal by comparison. Additionally the nature of the modern game (defensive-oriented) discourages upsets. It's a much better situation to be the top player in.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you were the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 80s or 90s, you were a contender for less titles in that period than if you are the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 2010s. That is going to result in the top players accumulating more slams.
I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.