There might not be 1 basis to measure who is the best but one could draw conclusion if several measures are considered. Today’s players are indeed faster and stronger than before because of more conditioning and training. I can say LD had put him more training time than previous greats. In general to conclude that today pros are faster and stronger than previous generations of pros is not a stretch or an exaggeration. Even if LD wore the old dragonfly shoes, he’ll still be faster and dive better than any pros decades ago. Previous pros play more for personal interest than today’s pros. There are more stakes and rewards to being a pro today. More reasons to train harder.
What if all of TXH’s, LYB’s, etc experience and knowledge were put into mo lding LD? Wouldn’t that enough to say LD is a super protégé of previous badminton greats? I know LD is not like the individual TXH or ZJH, but isn’t having the best features of them makes an even more superior player?
Like I said, there is no direct comparison. You chose and picked those points which are valid for your arguments, then its not valid an argument. Rackets and strings make equally a big difference, much less to note the courts, the attire, the shuttles available then. You honestly believe LD can play the way he plays given those equipment of "back then" ? You're seriously deluded in that idea or you're just trying to make a point for your argument without a sound basis.
Try taking a wooden racket that weighs in at about 200grams, wooden shaft, natural gut strings at 12-16lbs. Aeroplane shuttles of that era that's like the super cheap grade shuttles in the stores, today and try doing a 100% jump smash as you would do with a ArcSaber 10 or Mp99. Then let me know how well you fare. .... Or yah, don't forget the Double Happiness canvas shoes, and 'rugby grade' cotton top and bermuda shorts to go with the flow.
Then try playing the 'old' 15 points system. And let us know truthfully how it feels compared to the equipment you're using now.
Truth of the matter is that in badminton as in any sports, "greatness" is something which is defined by the social climate of the times. There is no clear benchmark. And also as in any sports, usually hard work will get you the most consistent results. But having worked with some of the most talented sports people I've seen in various sports, namely badminton and cycling as well as cross-country running, I can say 'talent' means as much as pure hard work at the very highest levels. Had a personal friend who at junior under-14 beat a certain (later to be World no. 1 ) Wong Choon Hann at a regional junior tournament. And he certainly had 'talent', as personified in the way he plays and approaches the game. Unfortunately circumstances prevailed and he gave up badminton for his studies.
LD is a talent, who with hard work has achieved a whole lot more than all his other peers of the current generation. However, its not always been clear whether he's been considered a 'naturally talented' player. Such players only come around once a decade or so. And in my eyes, he's not in that category. I would say he's a closer clone to Yang Yang. Athletic, determined and hardworking. But he certainly doesn't play the game as a 'natural' player would, certainly not 'the greatest'.
That being said, all the experience of the past masters amount to nothing if the player has not the ability to absorb it. Having these 'masters' to train him doesn't automatically make him a great player. Does having Liszt and Chopin being your piano teachers make you the best piano player too ? Not by a long shot...
To me, a great player is one who can lift the game to such scintillating heights, even the opponent much less the audience have nothing but grant utter respect and submit to the 'greatness'. One who brings a whole new dimension to the otherwise 'mundane'.
There will always be 'great ' and 'legends' once in a generation. But there will never be a 'greatest ever'.
