> Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top
> champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad
> his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each
> other, goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger?
> However, viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of
> disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite
> conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout
> champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium. Parity tends to suppress
> extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He
> has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have
> expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.