If mere ratings determine greatest and strongest, why idolize Petrosian so much? This would mean there are a hundred players around today that are better than him.
And why place Petrosian above Fischer, Daniel? His rating is more than 100 points lower and Fischer beat him in two matches with a combined score of 9.5-3.5. That's a crush.
Some GM players were great not because they were better than modern players, but because they were geniuses for their time. I like Petrosian a lot because if his style of play, not because of how he matches up to modern players. I also do believe that many modern players such as Kramnik, Topalov, Anand, and Karpov could take on or even beat some of the great masters from earlier on. One of these days, someone like Topalov will be referred to in the same sentences as other "old" masters.
Maybe saying that Petrosian was better than Fischer was not the right way to say it. What I meant was that I liked Petrosian's games better, and that overall I believe that his play was extremely sound. Even though Fischer beat him in one match, that doesn't mean that his game was totally off. Many people disregard Petrosian simply because Fischer played in the same time period. I don't see how people could forget the Petrosian-Spassky matches (even though Spassky eventually won) or the way Petrosian was crushing everyone right-left-and-center after Botvinnik. Fischer's play was much more dynamic, and in fact I seem to play with a more aggressive style myself, but Petrosian will always be one of my favorite players.
Ratings can not be an accurate guide as historical ratings are only accurate. Comparing generations of greats from various sporting activities is fun but always subjective! Also match play which was much more common years ago is different than tournament play. Also the number of tournaments, the ability and ease of information changes everything. I remember in the 90's Bareev was #4 in the World but had never won a major invitation only event.