Even Rome fell my friend.
Well to be fair, you could say it took Rome some 2300 years to truly fall (to the Turks), and if you wish to be extra-
romantic about it, remnants leading into what became the Russian Empire until 1917, quite a long time. And I don't see the Catholic Church falling any time soon either.
Some forces just seem to stay relevant for virtually ever~
--
Can someone being that much better than everyone else hurt the game competitively?
When the guy is by all applicable measures a fine person to be a "face" of our game.... I don't think so.
Anyone care about Tennis here? I do, it's one of the only physical sports I have particular interest in and I love it a lot as it's analogous to fighting games in just about every way. I emphatically enjoy watching and discussing top level tennis with other Smashers too. It's a sport defined heavily by not only physicality but of
technique and
reaction speed, strategy being necessary to cover gaps, in particular first serve speeds tend to require reading to return (hence serve always giving someone a major advantage, much like counterpicks are meant to).
Either way though the game would not be as interesting today (in my and seemingly most tennis fan's opinion) if not for one particular player,
Roger Federer. No joke and you may actually agree this isn't hyperbole, but this man saved this game and pushed it forward more than it has at likely
any time in it's history.
He's been top 8 in the world since late 2002, and has been voted as fan favourite for every year during this. He outstrips every local player at any event he attends in popularity significantly and this is virtually unheard of in a generally patriotism inferred sport. World #1 for 302 weeks, 237 of them consecutively, holds like every relevant record and still appears in grand slams grand finals today, some 17 years since his pro appearance.
"In an era of specialists, you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist, or a hard court specialist... or you're Roger Federer." - Jim Conners (another world champion) about his capabilities.
Federer dominated for so long and forced almost an entire generation of tennis players to retire who were once seen as
top 20 players (a rather close knit bunch at the time and
most of the time). But emerging from the flames have been the likes of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, superhumans that are essentially the only players to challenge him in head to head results; Nadal dominantly so, and another dominant player in Andy Murray forming what is termed
The Big Four. It took almost half a decade but eventually players caught up to his skill level, suddenly new names to argue they were
the greatest tennis player in history, some call this the
Golden Age of Tennis and yeah, it's pretty great =)
(skip to 6:40 after the beginning if you don't want to watch the highlight reel)
In short, a great player ahead of the rest in sport gives every aspiring competitor something to strive towards and is usually what creates (eventually) the highest level of play we'll ever see for it. His impact on the game's growth is exceptionally positive especially when we have the dynamic of patches shaking up balance continually in a way that could be destabilising (it is in some's view). I don't think it's really fair to say ZeRo is Federer-tier though. Either way, more players are gearing up as consistent top-end placers like Nairo, Ramin, ESAM and Dabuz and that's also great for the game that there are many threats striving to be
the one...
something something let it not be esam something
