The Swamp

From the cycling discussion in the dead thread:

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:58 am So is cycling one of those rare sports where the older generations would probably be just as good as the current generations, if not better? Seems like given that their tech was worse, but they still had to ride up Alpe d'Huez or whatever else Category 1 climb on shittier roads that they may have had to be in better shape than today's riders.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:06 am It's an interesting question. The natural advancements over time in bike technology, gear, training, diet, doping, rest, research, etc. have certainly had an effect on the sport. Were the older generation doing more with less, and therefore better bikers?

Baseball is my first. Best players would still be the best players (minus the fact that it was not as much a global or diverse game back in the day).

Training, doping and gear are pretty much all you can point to for Track and Field/Distance running and swimming.

Shooting sports (Annie Oakley)

Funny that I just zoomed past the "better roads" part of your question. That's a potentially huge improvement. They still race Paris Roubaix over fucking cobblestones, so throw that one out, but roads have certainly improved over the years.

So many of the grand tours change their routes each year, and weather is obviously different from year to year, so comparing times from different years doesn't really help much in trying to answer the question.

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:18 am Baseball is my first. Best players would still be the best players (minus the fact that it was not as much a global or diverse game back in the day).

Training, doping and gear are pretty much all you can point to for Track and Field/Distance running and swimming.

Shooting sports (Annie Oakley)

I disagree pretty much completely on baseball.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:19 am Funny that I just zoomed past the "better roads" part of your question. That's a potentially huge improvement. They still race Paris Roubaix over fucking cobblestones, so throw that one out, but roads have certainly improved over the years.

So many of the grand tours change their routes each year, and weather is obviously different from year to year, so comparing times from different years doesn't really help much in trying to answer the question.

Right. The times are, if you could find similar stages throughout the years, probably better now. But put Eddie Mercyx on a modern bike and I don't think he loses much to the modern rider.

I think I should clarify...the old guys get the advantages of new equipment, but the athletic ability is the same, which means Babe Ruth isn't hitting the gym 4 hours a day in the offseason.

Yeah precision sports.

Snooker is one.
Cricket is one, players are getting worse.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:22 amI disagree pretty much completely on baseball.

Just 30 years ago, having three dudes who threw 93+ in your pen got a group nickname and national attention.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:30 am

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:22 amI disagree pretty much completely on baseball.

Just 30 years ago, having three dudes who threw 93+ in your pen got a group nickname and national attention.

And it was AWESOME.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:22 am

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:18 am Baseball is my first. Best players would still be the best players (minus the fact that it was not as much a global or diverse game back in the day).

Training, doping and gear are pretty much all you can point to for Track and Field/Distance running and swimming.

Shooting sports (Annie Oakley)

I disagree pretty much completely on baseball.

Co-sign. I don't think you could be more wrong about baseball.

It's not too hard to time things like the total climb time for a Tour climb that is used over and over again--even before Strava, people were doing that unofficially. And there was definitely not a progression towards faster and faster times; rather, a lot of things factored in, like weather, the difficulty and length of the overall stage, race tactics, amount of EPO use at the time, etc.

The most generation blind sport has to be jumping, including pole vault.

I have zero evidence to back this up, but maybe auto racing? That seems like a sport where preternatural physical gifts don't seem to be as important as hand-eye coordination and decision making.

Is the premise that the past athletes (or race car drivers) get time warped to now, so they have the current equipment but no assumed physical or training improvements? If that's the case, then for every single sport where physical condition matters, the answer is that they would get their asses beat.

I just have a hard time thinking that Ted Williams, Milt Pappas, Mays, Aaron, Ricky Henderson, etc would not continue to be great baseball players. High average batters is all about swing speed, hand eye, and getting to first fast. Brooks Robinson would still be a vacuum at 3rd base. Hell Steve Finley would still be crashing into walls as a solid defensive outfielder. Didn't Billy Beane make the point that 5-tool stars (which is what you are arguing) is a false measure of success?


Also going the other way, watch old videos of Gretzky and you realize how different defensive schemes and goal keeping style are in the NHL are these days. Makes Ovi's chase even more impressive to me.

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:49 am Is the premise that the past athletes (or race car drivers) get time warped to now, so they have the current equipment but no assumed physical or training improvements? If that's the case, then for every single sport where physical condition matters, the answer is that they would get their asses beat.

That was the point, yes, based on cycling. Now, you'd like to take doping out of the equation of course in terms of "training" improvements, but I think they would be just as good as their current counterparts other than that. Basically the picture of the rider Wlu posted in the dead thread looked just like most riders today.

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:51 am I just have a hard time thinking that Ted Williams, Milt Pappas, Mays, Aaron, Ricky Henderson, etc would not continue to be great baseball players. High average batters is all about swing speed, hand eye, and getting to first fast. Brooks Robinson would still be a vacuum at 3rd base. Hell Steve Finley would still be crashing into walls as a solid defensive outfielder. Didn't Billy Beane make the point that 5-tool stars (which is what you are arguing) is a false measure of success?


Also going the other way, watch old videos of Gretzky and you realize how different defensive schemes and goal keeping style are in the NHL are these days. Makes Ovi's chase even more impressive to me.

I think the Mays/Aaron era and later is when the argument gets closer, for sure.

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:51 am I just have a hard time thinking that Ted Williams, Milt Pappas, Mays, Aaron, Ricky Henderson, etc would not continue to be great baseball players. High average batters is all about swing speed, hand eye, and getting to first fast. Brooks Robinson would still be a vacuum at 3rd base. Hell Steve Finley would still be crashing into walls as a solid defensive outfielder. Didn't Billy Beane make the point that 5-tool stars (which is what you are arguing) is a false measure of success?

Wait... Milt Pappas? Is that a reference to Frank Robinson?

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:51 am I just have a hard time thinking that Ted Williams, Milt Pappas, Mays, Aaron, Ricky Henderson, etc would not continue to be great baseball players. High average batters is all about swing speed, hand eye, and getting to first fast. Brooks Robinson would still be a vacuum at 3rd base. Hell Steve Finley would still be crashing into walls as a solid defensive outfielder. Didn't Billy Beane make the point that 5-tool stars (which is what you are arguing) is a false measure of success?


Also going the other way, watch old videos of Gretzky and you realize how different defensive schemes and goal keeping style are in the NHL are these days. Makes Ovi's chase even more impressive to me.

There's something to this as well that I think we're missing and that's are you dropping older players into today's game or did they come up through today's game.

I think if you drop Ted Williams into Game 3 of the 2019 ALCS 100 times, he doesn't bat .200. If he builds his career from scratch in the 2000s, now you've got a debate. Training advances and the like.

The NHL is the absolute worst as far as this goes IMO. Gretzky isn't even a top line player in today's NHL.

Ted Williams would be absolutely floored by modern velo and breaking stuff. I don't think the splitter even existed in his day.

Although I bet guys like Bob Watson or Jim Wynn or Jose Cruz or Bill Doran or Tony Eusebio or Derek Bell would probably thrive today.

Because they'd know what pitch is coming.

By "generation blind" I do mean what sports have changed the least, I suppose. So yes, those athletes don't get the benefit of added training, they are dropped in to the game as is. Rickey Henderson was physically ready to play today, probably. Babe Ruth wasn't.

I imagine golf has to be up there in terms of equipment tech outpacing physical gains, right? Like I'm sure it helps to be in great shape, but it doesn't preclude someone from being a top golfer.

Yeah, Jack Nicklaus tied for 6th at the 1998 Masters

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:14 am Yeah, Jack Nicklaus tied for 6th at the 1998 Masters

Didn’t Tom Watson also have a put to win the British Open in like 2008?

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:25 am Yeah precision sports.

Snooker is one.
Cricket is one, players are getting worse.

I bet archery was better back in times when that was you way of fighting and eating
Darts

but I bet that is not the case with Chess. Chess training must now be super different.

Also I was wondering about Bowling and figured that would be easy to determine (professional average over time)....but conditions and materials.
https://www.bowlingball.com/wordpress/a ... -editorial

UFC! Bruce Lee today would kick everyone's ass right?

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:20 am UFC! Bruce Lee today would kick everyone's ass right?

No way...Not sure if you are joking but I think UFC has evolved into a very technical style that is different from other martial arts. More like how Hockey defensive schemes have evolved.

But what about Boxing? Rules have not changed much. Would Ali still float like a butterfly and sting like a bee? Or Rocky (either the real or the fake one). Jack Johnson (not the surf rock singer)

I thought of Ali as an example. I can't imagine him not being a great boxer today, though he'd likely have to be a Cruiserweight.

Johnny Carwash wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:34 am I thought of Ali as an example. I can't imagine him not being a great boxer today, though he'd likely have to be a Cruiserweight.

I vaguely recall George Foreman, or some other 1970s great, opining that prime Lennox Lewis would have easily beaten Ali and anyone else from that era because of his size/reach advantage and technical proficiency.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:00 am
The NHL is the absolute worst as far as this goes IMO. Gretzky isn't even a top line player in today's NHL.

How dare you disrespect 99, you fuckin' donkey.

He might have the goals, but his passing would still be top tier.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:59 am

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:00 am
The NHL is the absolute worst as far as this goes IMO. Gretzky isn't even a top line player in today's NHL.

How dare you disrespect 99, you fuckin' donkey.

He might have the goals, but his passing would still be top tier.

Gretzky wasn’t ever up to par physically with his peers. It was his vision, instinct and precision passing. So subsequent advances for strength and speed are largely irrelevant to him.

That brings up an issue on these hypothetical discussions. Guys like Gretzky greatly influenced the play of subsequent players (would Crosby be Crosby without Gretzky to emulate?). So, how do you account for that when comparing different generations? It’s like saying such-and-such rock band is better than the Beatles, without noting that they were greatly influenced by the Beatles.

And, obviously if you put older generation football/hockey/basketball players in a current situation, they’d train better (and quit smoking during games!). So, are we comparing what they could and would be today or just what they were? Completely different answers.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:59 am

BSF21 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:00 am
The NHL is the absolute worst as far as this goes IMO. Gretzky isn't even a top line player in today's NHL.

How dare you disrespect 99, you fuckin' donkey.

He might have the goals, but his passing would still be top tier.

Sad, sad, sad. You'd be drawn and quartered if you made that comment north of the 49th parallel.

Boxing would fit this bill. The heavyweights may be 40 pounds heavier than they were back in the day, but I have a feeling Hagler would beat Alvarez.

Also - and I know that nobody other than me watches it - sumo wrestling.

Baseball players used to work JOBS in the off season. Now there is no off season.

The Gretzky point is interesting. The more comparable one is Luc Robitaille. Too small and too slow even by 80s standards, picked nearly last in the draft. Never even picked for a full Canada team. Somehow scored 668 goals.

My point on Gretzky was not if he was great or not, but how the strategy, technique and scheme of the game has changed. Lacrosse, Football, and basketball have evolved significantly. Even going back to cycling, the team tactics used today are very different than the older generation. That is why I keep going back to baseball. It has changed but not to the extent of other sports. What makes a great baseball player is probably very similar to the earlier years.

Would an old sailor be as competitive as the younger ones on a similar boat? I know big boat sailing is a big focus about athletes working the rigging.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:11 am I imagine golf has to be up there in terms of equipment tech outpacing physical gains, right? Like I'm sure it helps to be in great shape, but it doesn't preclude someone from being a top golfer.

Golf is perhaps the sport with the most generational blindness. If I'm understanding this correctly. I mean, yeah, there are corrective clubs out there now that can help minimize your slice, but the bottom line is still the same: if you have the muscle memory to repeat the same, perfect golf swing 99 times out of 100 while simultaneously have a short game that allows you to attack the pin in half the holes per round, you're going to make money regardless of the clubs in your hands.


Oh and putting. That's important too.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:11 am I imagine golf has to be up there in terms of equipment tech outpacing physical gains, right? Like I'm sure it helps to be in great shape, but it doesn't preclude someone from being a top golfer.

Golf is perhaps the sport with the most generational blindness. If I'm understanding this correctly. I mean, yeah, there are corrective clubs out there now that can help minimize your slice, but the bottom line is still the same: if you have the muscle memory to repeat the same, perfect golf swing 99 times out of 100 while simultaneously have a short game that allows you to attack the pin in half the holes per round, you're going to make money regardless of the clubs in your hands.


Oh and putting. That's important too.

I will take Curling over golf for generational blindness.

Golf is defintely one I missed. Sabo pointed it out to me via IM but is too busy watching birds or some shit to post.

When you see the swings of some of the old guys, they'd probably still hold up once they got used to balls that are worth a damn.

wlu_lax6 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:21 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:11 am I imagine golf has to be up there in terms of equipment tech outpacing physical gains, right? Like I'm sure it helps to be in great shape, but it doesn't preclude someone from being a top golfer.

Golf is perhaps the sport with the most generational blindness. If I'm understanding this correctly. I mean, yeah, there are corrective clubs out there now that can help minimize your slice, but the bottom line is still the same: if you have the muscle memory to repeat the same, perfect golf swing 99 times out of 100 while simultaneously have a short game that allows you to attack the pin in half the holes per round, you're going to make money regardless of the clubs in your hands.


Oh and putting. That's important too.

I will take Curling over golf for generational blindness.

That's fair. Do they still play hoop rolling? Cuz that's got to be the all-timey-ist sport of all time, no?

Gretzky used to cheat up-ice in his day. Removal of the two-line pass rule means he would have 200 goals (175 of which would be breakaways). Also the lack of hooking, holding, etc would result in even more chances.