|
|
Posted by iwannabesedated
Posted by Bubbles
Posted by iwannabesedated
Posted by bjj1605
I don't buy for one minute the idea that the best fighters of today are better than the best fighters of the past. Overall, there's more of them, sure. But that's only true because this is a growing sport.
Quite simply, there are limits to the human body and what we can accomplish athletically. To think that sports will forever "progress" so that future athletes are always better than past athletes is ridiculous, in my opinion.
I'm actually taking a political psychology class right now and we just read a great article from a neuroscience journal about "hindsight bias" and how its a feature of the way the human brain incorporates new information (by overriding the old information.)
Turns out hindsight bias is common in every realm of human thinking but is almost always wrong.
I'll take todays athletes over historic athletes, especially baseball, Because some of the all-time greats didn't play against Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. So while my argument wasn't necessarily against athleticism between old timers and new school..Just more of a competition thing. A lot of the old school guys also smoked,drank and were physically not to appealing..So to answer my own question....NO babe ruth couldn't hit a Pedro Slider.
but a Babe Ruth or Sandy Kofax skillset in today's athlete would be just as dominant imo.
Nope that's incorrect.
How do you figure? Historic guys in todays game would train just like guys do today and they would succeed. Why you ask? Because they were the hardest workers then, and they would be today. Hard work and god given talent will always win in any era!
Ad: Mixup - New by FanDuel. A casual daily fantasy sports game
|
