Originally Posted by yobore
That argument is complete nostalgia and ignorance. Federer would dominate any era of tennis probably the further back you go the more dominant he would be. The pace has quickened continuously and the talent pool has grown continuously for tennis. Just because Federer hasn't let anyone win tournaments doesn't mean they're not good, it just means he's better.
There is no consistency of good players in Tennis.
Federer is freakin good, but the level of competition of back in the day is not the same.
Players like Blake, Roddick, Hewitt, etc remain inconsistent. We have one time wonders that reach the finals and then are never heard of again. Nadal is probably the only one that can challenge Federer and play him very well, but unless they are on clay, Federer usually has the advantage.
No doubt though, Federer is still dominant over every other player in tennis as of right now, and just because he didn't play in a more competitive era doesn't mean his accomplishments are crap. He has won consistently and hasn't shown any signs of slowing down.