Personally, I think the answer should be straightforward. In every sporting
> event where the performance is measured against an objective standard: as in
> running, or weight lifting, it is clear that if the best athletes of 50
> years ago were to find him/herself competing against the also rans of today,
> they'd lose. Think about the 4 minute mile being something rare and
> special. Or, think about Vince's Green Bay Packers lines facing the lines
> of today.
>
> I'd guess that if the 1930 Yankees were magically transported just before
> opening day, that they would be in the cellar of any division they were in.
> Yes of course but that would be magic. My point is that this comparison is nonsense
>in the strict sense of the word. Lets take some non-magical possibilities. The 30
>Yankees are born 20-30 years ago, grow up in america within our cultural system and
>are assembled as a team. How would they do? Are you really arguing that independent
>of training etc that humans have changed their basic athletic ability? But there are
>too many variables even in thought experiment to make it meaningful. Would the same
>players bring the same character to the game? Would Ruth have been greater because he
>would have taken better care of himself or would he already be dead or out of the
>league because of drug abuse, AIDS or horrible press associated with private antics?
>I would suggest that these are simply impossible questions to answer. As I said
>before about Darwin "If Ruth were alive today he would a) be over 100 years old b)
>someone other than Ruth with his talent. The correct answer is that if!
!
Ruth were alive today he would be
dead. I think you can compare athletes to each other within a generation but not
across this much time.
