It is impossible to discuss something when some of your don't even recognize this era is stronger and more homogeneous than 50 years ago. Different times but cycling grew a lot since the 90s and thanks god everyone has the opportunity to be professional now.
Merckx is the GOAT due to his palmares being way bigger than Pogacar but it is obvious he won what he won due to be a cyclist in the 70s. Nowadays he would probably not achieve half of his wins and probably not win a single GT since he wasn't the best climber.
How can you claim that this era is stronger when a ski jumper turns into cycling in his mid 20s and becomes a multiple GT winner?
You have more riders and more nations competing, that's true, but that's not a proof for a stronger era.
Riders turning to cycling from other sports and starting to win, however, makes you ask how strong the era actually is?
(both of these are legit questions)
And then you can bring the argument that riders nowadays can't compete in GTs and cobbled classics (except for Pogacar) and you can conclude, based on everything above, that today's era is actually weak in competition.
See how twisted can the "weak era" argument can be and how it can work in both directions?