But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical.