Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
That argument is a fallacious one. Human beings do not evolve over a few decades; the tools they have to work with did. You cannot take athletes out of historical context and compare them across eras because training, medicine and nutrition have evolved so dramatically over the decades. In 1924 it was frowned upon to allow professional coaches to train Olympic athletes and the athletes were not full time athletes. Medical techniques were primitive and nutritional concepts were laughably wrong. Today, elite athletes do nothing but train and have access to a coterie of professional trainers, consultants and coaches. Strip Bolt of all of the advances of the last 70-80 years and see where he is; he might very well be the fastest man alive but I do not think that he would have blown by Jessie Owens Secretariat style.
|
I think this is the absolute truth and reality of the matter. But like everything else in life it's in degrees. Look at old school boxers Jack Dempsey train like a beast and believe in it . He ate well with a lot of protein. I have no doubt that Dempsey would still be a world class champion today . Even with the same training and technics.
The Olympics do not put asterisks when the record is broke 5year from now. There is no statement saying well he train better. Or due to modern advance in sports science he won the gold. They keep the times and records for this reason. So we can compare and know who is the best. Not so we can say well if this or that. Whatever the reason is evolution , food,training,water quietly etc. the fact is the current record hold is better.