Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

No you haven’t “proven” anything. Modern training methods combined with superior footwear contributed to this. You can’t say for certain that bannister et al wouldn’t have been capable of shaving seconds off their times. Now I think globalization and just a higher pop count suggests on a level playing field El Guerrouj would have beaten those guys but the clock alone is not proof of anything.

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

Agreed, your mother in law doesn't sound too bright.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Agreed, your mother in law doesn't sound too bright.

Yeah and you don’t sound too bright either. The other factor here is PEDs. And did you notice the 400 meter hurdle record in the Olympics? Track surfaces have changed over time with technology. Stick to arguing about baseball. You obviously know nothing about track and field. And using the term “proof” in subjective arguments is proof of your own lack of intelligence.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Yeah and you don’t sound too bright either. The other factor here is PEDs. And did you notice the 400 meter hurdle record in the Olympics? Track surfaces have changed over time with technology. Stick to arguing about baseball. You obviously know nothing about track and field. And using the term “proof” in subjective arguments is proof of your own lack of intelligence.

How many Olympic records from 1910, or even 1950, still stand?

[Kutcher55]

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

You make some good points and the same can be said of baseball, when you look at the color barrier holding truly great players out of the Majors during a guy like Grove's career. Now we have players participating from all races and many countries. I'm not saying there weren't great players in the past; in this discussion about left handed pitchers, my vote goes to Grove first, Spahn second. Both were done over 55 years ago.

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

My point was that athletes today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, with better training and diet. If track shoes make a big difference, how about weight lifting? I'm not familiar with it so I'm asking, what were the top lifters hoisting in 1910 vs. 1950 vs. now? I wouldn't think equipment would be much of an issue there.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You make some good points and the same can be said of baseball, when you look at the color barrier holding truly great players out of the Majors during a guy like Grove's career. Now we have players participating from all races and many countries. I'm not saying there weren't great players in the past; in this discussion about left handed pitchers, my vote goes to Grove first, Spahn second. Both were done over 55 years ago.

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

My point was that athletes today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, with better training and diet. If track shoes make a big difference, how about weight lifting? I'm not familiar with it so I'm asking, what were the top lifters hoisting in 1910 vs. 1950 vs. now? I wouldn't think equipment would be much of an issue there.

Yes I agree athletes are stronger and faster than they used to be. It is true in golf as well, due to tech improvements in golf equipment and golf balls. So you can’t compare scores although it’s hard to dispute Tiger’s 97 Masters was the greatest performance of all time on that golf course. Because he won by 12 shots.

I think the most objective way is to compare relative dominance in one’s era but as you noted it doesn’t account for greater inclusion of races and nationalities, not to mention population growth. Based on that I suppose you can argue the best athletes today are more elite than the best athletes of yesteryear. Which is why best ever debates are pointless nonetheless reasonably entertaining ways of killing time.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

Of course not. Equipment has changed significantly over the years. And course layouts are not static.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

Re globalization: Abebe Bikila. 1960, I think? Kip Keino by the mid 60s. It's not new.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Re globalization: Abebe Bikila. 1960, I think? Kip Keino by the mid 60s. It's not new.

It has proliferated at a considerably slower pace than you are asserting with this comment. Up until 1988, an African had never won the Boston Marathon. Competition has increased dramatically since the time of Roger Bannister, which was my point. It has also increased dramatically since the 1960s.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

Actually a lot of animals have drastically changed in her lifetime. Not evolution but selective breeding. Especially the ones we eat for dinner.