You say "let's debate," but everything that comes after that confirms quite the opposite.
You first declare what the other person says "completely off," and then you write your opinion and follow it by declaring the matter "case closed." In an earlier post, your advice was: "any questions see the signature," which promptly says "The Logo knows!!!"
These are all your own words. Therefore, debate? I doubt anyone who says those things is looking to debate
Perhaps, that is why even the title of your original topic post affirms a "conclusion" on your part. Debates usualy take place before a conclusion is declared.
I will entertain some of what you said for the rest of the people who happen to be interested in the topic, but again, for the two of us debate has ended before it ever started, since in your understanding, per your own words and affirmation, I am completely off, the case is closed, and most of all... "The Logo knows!!!" and anyone who doubts it should "see your signature.."
The following is for anyone else who actually is sincerely
open to debate:
"We can EASILY determine that Roger and Novak are superior to those players named above."
No we can't. How do we know that Djokovic is superior to Laver? to Borg? To Connors? How do we conclude that Federer is superior to Laver or Borg? One can only know how they did against the rest of the field during their times and compare their records against the rest of the field during their era.
"If you want to argue about era's though...."
No, I don't. The whole point of my post (which was missed obviously or else the "if you want to argue about" phrase would not have been used) was to precisely say that nobody can determine one era being weaker/stronger than the other. The 1974 list was given as an example to make a point (which was again, missed) which was to say that an argument could be made that it was stronger than any other.
"You think people aren't going to remember what is called the "Greatest Tennis Match Ever" of Rafa vs Fed at Wimby 2008. Or, as was pointed out earlier, the Fed - Rafa final at the 2009 Aussie Open Final??"
Not many people remember, Borg-Connors final from 1977, one of the finest Wimbledon finals ever (certainly people who have lived through the previous two and 2009 Aussie Open final will tell you that the 2009 Aus Open final pales in comparison). Because it was long ago. And yes, the same will arrive to Rafa-Fed of Aussie Open 2009. Even in the last 5-10 years we have had better Slam finals than the 2009 Aussie Open final.
Rafa vs. Fed at Wimbledon "the greatest match ever'? Yes many may have called it that, and for a few years after it was played, and less likely but still possible for a few more years, especially the younger generation... because they did not live through the Stan Smith vs. Ilie Nastase final in the finals of Wimbledon 1972, the Borg-Connors of 1977, the Borg-McEnroe finals of 1980 both at Wimbledon and at US Open, Ivan Lendl vs. J. McEnroe of 1984 in Paris, or Chang vs. Edberg in Paris in 1989. And those are just slam finals, in terms of "matches" I can include a dozen others, such as the the 1977 Borg-Gerulaitis semifinal, 1989 Chang vs. Lendl in Paris, 1996 ATP World Tour Champ. Becker vs. Sampras, 2001 Agassi-Rafter semi, .Some people on this board probably have never seen a portion of these people play live or on tape (or maybe both), and certainly have no emotional attachment to most of them like they may to Federer, Nadal, or DJokovic. Thus, in 20 years, when two fantastic players in the year 2034 are playing a great 5 set Major final, most of the tennis world at that time, half of whom will be fans of those two players and may have never seen Rafa or Federer or Djokovic play and heard their name only in occasional talks will be enthusiastically saying that they are watching "the greatest final ever" between their two favorite players.
"Even nowadays I hear about the Lendl - McEnroe Final in every argument about those two and it always comes down to Lendl's superior H2H in GS's."
I hang out people who are deeply involved in tennis and quite old too. I have not heard anybody say yet that they would consider Lendl ahead of McEnroe due to their head-to-head. In fact, many will argue that McEnroe stands ahead of Lendl in the historical debate (personally, I don't, but there are plenty who do). Never the head-to-head between the two has been a point of argument, nor has it been brought up.
Side note: With regards to the misuse of the term "Grand Slam" (see the end of the quote above --- "[...] comes down to Lendl's superior H2H in GS's." --- where "GS" stands for "Grand Slam")
It's not "Grand Slam"... It's "Majors" or "Slams," Lendl's & McEnroe's "Grand Slam" records are both zero, thus their head-to-head there would be 0-0. Laver is the last person to accomplish the Grand Slam in men's tennis. Unfortunately the rampant misuse of the term "Grand Slam" continues to spread. Bud Collins and many other tennis historians have expressed their dismay on this, but unfortunately, even some of the top commentators and payers fall into this error. For more see:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/933082-grand-slam-champion-vs-major-championhttp://2013.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/all-time.html