I'll buck the trend. I don't think today's top players are any better than the top players of the 2010's, 2000's, 90's, 80's, 70's, and probably further back.
You can connect players across small generation gaps. For example, Buddy hall was probably the top player in the 70's. Earl in the 80's. Do you think one was better than the other? Or one knew a single shot the other did not? Then you make that same connection between Earl of the 80's, and Archer of the 90's. Then Archer of the 90's, and Busty of the 2000's. Then Busty of the 2000's, and Shane of the 2010's. Then Shane of the 2010's, and Filler of today.
Now, that forms a "connection" between Buddy Hall of the 70's, and Filler of today. If you transplanted a 1975 Buddy Hall to today, and gave him 1 month of daily play to get used to the new equipment, the match would be a dead pickem. Same if you transplanted Filler into 1975.
IMO
You can connect players across small generation gaps. For example, Buddy hall was probably the top player in the 70's. Earl in the 80's. Do you think one was better than the other? Or one knew a single shot the other did not? Then you make that same connection between Earl of the 80's, and Archer of the 90's. Then Archer of the 90's, and Busty of the 2000's. Then Busty of the 2000's, and Shane of the 2010's. Then Shane of the 2010's, and Filler of today.
Now, that forms a "connection" between Buddy Hall of the 70's, and Filler of today. If you transplanted a 1975 Buddy Hall to today, and gave him 1 month of daily play to get used to the new equipment, the match would be a dead pickem. Same if you transplanted Filler into 1975.
IMO