Is this sports generation blessed?

[kinboshi]

Anyone remember the 100m in the Commonwealth games when Wells and McFarlane both won the gold medal as they couldn't be split on the photo finish?

Just me then? 

[AndrewT]

I think the top players in each sport probably are the best ever, and not only because advances in training/technology and the greater number of hours training afforded by professionalism allow them to be better, but because these same advantages allow everyone else to be better as well.

Look at snooker. There haven't been any huge technological advantages in the sport in the past thirty years, yet when you watch old snooker footage from way back, the players were rubbish. Seeing a century break was a huge thing. Now players rattle them in with regularity, even ones who we would not consider as the absolute best players around. Considering that, for someone like Ronnie O'Sullivan to have his talent recognised as being extra special is a greater accolade than saying that Steve Davis was noticeably better than Kirk Stevens or Tony Knowles, because the players that Ronnie is better than are much better than Stevens or Knowles.

Instead of the top players having played since they were fourteen and practicing 4 hours a day, the top players now have been playing since they were seven and practice 7 or 8 hours a day - of course they're going to be better.

This is why people like Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are rightly lauded as being the best ever - they're far clear of everyone else today, when the general standard in their sport is higher than it's ever been.

Also, in most sports, you are directly competing against your contemporaries, so your challenge is tougher. Looking at athletics world records doesn't give a true indication of who is best because you are comparing someone who has all the advantages of today's advances in training/nutrition with people in the past who didn't - of course today's athletes will be quicker. Having a world record stand for a long time though, will enhance the reputation of whoever holds it, but that can only ever happen retrospectively. EDIT: I've essentially rewritten what the Baron said - should have read his properly first.

I'm a bit wary about including Michael Schumacher and Lance Armstrong in all this, because their achievements rely too much on outside factors (Ferrari mechanics and pharmaceutical experts) for their input to be properly evaluated.

[Acidmouse]

It's all relative..


short version of the above post

[TightEnd]

but....with reference to Schumacher...I saw evidence in several articles, where they had put he and his team mate in the same car one after the other and then showed the telemetry of the laps...Schumacher consistently stayed off the brakes longer, shaved a few hundredths here and there and the other fella could not get close to him.

Clearly if he had been stuck in a tractor all career then he would not even be mentioned in these conversations, but there is no doubting that he is right up there. Whether one coudl say he is above a Senna/Fangio I couldn't possibly say

[Geo the Sarge]

I think the top players in each sport probably are the best ever, and not only because advances in training/technology and the greater number of hours training afforded by professionalism allow them to be better, but because these same advantages allow everyone else to be better as well.

Look at snooker. There haven't been any huge technological advantages in the sport in the past thirty years, yet when you watch old snooker footage from way back, the players were rubbish. Seeing a century break was a huge thing. Now players rattle them in with regularity, even ones who we would not consider as the absolute best players around. Considering that, for someone like Ronnie O'Sullivan to have his talent recognised as being extra special is a greater accolade than saying that Steve Davis was noticeably better than Kirk Stevens or Tony Knowles, because the players that Ronnie is better than are much better than Stevens or Knowles.

Instead of the top players having played since they were fourteen and practicing 4 hours a day, the top players now have been playing since they were seven and practice 7 or 8 hours a day - of course they're going to be better.

This is why people like Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are rightly lauded as being the best ever - they're far clear of everyone else today, when the general standard in their sport is higher than it's ever been.

Also, in most sports, you are directly competing against your contemporaries, so your challenge is tougher. Looking at athletics world records doesn't give a true indication of who is best because you are comparing someone who has all the advantages of today's advances in training/nutrition with people in the past who didn't - of course today's athletes will be quicker. Having a world record stand for a long time though, will enhance the reputation of whoever holds it, but that can only ever happen retrospectively. EDIT: I've essentially rewritten what the Baron said - should have read his properly first.

I'm a bit wary about including Michael Schumacher and Lance Armstrong in all this, because their achievements rely too much on outside factors (Ferrari mechanics and pharmaceutical experts) for their input to be properly evaluated.

Interesting that you only mention the cycling and performance enhancing substances. This has been just as big a problem in Athletics and Swimming in recent years.

Am not saying that all Athletes and Swimmers use them, however it does put doubts in the mind as to the validity of some recent records.

Geo

[AndrewT]

Interesting that you only mention the cycling and performance enhancing substances. This has been just as big a problem in Athletics and Swimming in recent years.

Am not saying that all Athletes and Swimmers use them, however it does put doubts in the mind as to the validity of some recent records.

The drugs problem is in any sport where there is little or no actual skill - where the best person is the quickest/strongest/has the most stamina.

[AndrewT]

but....with reference to Schumacher...I saw evidence in several articles, where they had put he and his team mate in the same car one after the other and then showed the telemetry of the laps...Schumacher consistently stayed off the brakes longer, shaved a few hundredths here and there and the other fella could not get close to him.

Clearly if he had been stuck in a tractor all career then he would not even be mentioned in these conversations, but there is no doubting that he is right up there. Whether one coudl say he is above a Senna/Fangio I couldn't possibly say

I'm not denying that Schumacher is not the best driver of the past ten years or so, but exactly how much better was his car than the other cars? Were Fangio/Senna's cars better than everyone else's by a greater or lesser margin?

We just don't know, which makes direct comparision even harder than for other sports.

[kinboshi]

I think the top players in each sport probably are the best ever, and not only because advances in training/technology and the greater number of hours training afforded by professionalism allow them to be better, but because these same advantages allow everyone else to be better as well.

Look at snooker. There haven't been any huge technological advantages in the sport in the past thirty years, yet when you watch old snooker footage from way back, the players were rubbish. Seeing a century break was a huge thing. Now players rattle them in with regularity, even ones who we would not consider as the absolute best players around. Considering that, for someone like Ronnie O'Sullivan to have his talent recognised as being extra special is a greater accolade than saying that Steve Davis was noticeably better than Kirk Stevens or Tony Knowles, because the players that Ronnie is better than are much better than Stevens or Knowles.

Instead of the top players having played since they were fourteen and practicing 4 hours a day, the top players now have been playing since they were seven and practice 7 or 8 hours a day - of course they're going to be better.

This is why people like Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are rightly lauded as being the best ever - they're far clear of everyone else today, when the general standard in their sport is higher than it's ever been.

Also, in most sports, you are directly competing against your contemporaries, so your challenge is tougher. Looking at athletics world records doesn't give a true indication of who is best because you are comparing someone who has all the advantages of today's advances in training/nutrition with people in the past who didn't - of course today's athletes will be quicker. Having a world record stand for a long time though, will enhance the reputation of whoever holds it, but that can only ever happen retrospectively. EDIT: I've essentially rewritten what the Baron said - should have read his properly first.

I'm a bit wary about including Michael Schumacher and Lance Armstrong in all this, because their achievements rely too much on outside factors (Ferrari mechanics and pharmaceutical experts) for their input to be properly evaluated.

Interesting that you only mention the cycling and performance enhancing substances. This has been just as big a problem in Athletics and Swimming in recent years.

Am not saying that all Athletes and Swimmers use them, however it does put doubts in the mind as to the validity of some recent records.

Geo

Athletics is at the forefront of drugs testing - but they're always playing catch-up (much like Roger Black running after Michael Johnson) and are one step behind.

Other sports are light-years behind the testing done in athletics.  As Andrew has stated, as athletics is all about faster, higher, stronger - so the benefits from drug taking are directly relevant.  However, with the current state of professional sport across the board I'm sure that many (most) sports are riddled with drug cheats.  Maybe the organisations behind these sports can't (or don't want to) catch the cheats?

There are certainly some dubious records.  For example. the Chinese athlete who broke the 10,000m record by 40-odd seconds, but hasn't been able to get anywhere near this in other races since.  I'm sure there's going to be a fair amount of controversy at the Beijing Olympics - in all events not just athletics.

There are also the athletes who are very much against drug-cheats, and are vocal about it.  Paula Radcliffe is one, and it is a shame that the whole of athletics is often tarred by the same brush when there are people like Paula who have achieved outstanding records and wins.

 

[The Baron]

Good post.

I'm sure athletics is rife with drugs cheats. Even some "all time greats" are dubious for me. Maurice Greene is one very suspect guy for me.

One season he's America's number 2 sprinter and getting beaten in the Olympics quite convincingly, the next he's built like Arnie and running 9.86 to win the World Championships. Add Christie, Montgomery, Jones, Thannou and Gatlin into the mix and we're struggling for a decent 100m sprinter who didn't cheat in recent years.

[kinboshi]

The 100m is the most obvious candidate for drug cheats.  The difference between medals is a hundredth of a second, and there is also the huge bonuses these runners get for breaking records.  Looking at the recent crop of 100m runners, it is difficult to pull out any who are definitely clean, and that's sad.  I'd like to think that Frankie Fredericks never cheated - but who knows?

As we've said throughout the thread, due to advances athletes are running faster and faster.  But there is a point for the 100m that will reach the limits of what is humanly possible.  Will we ever see someone run a 9 second 100m?  To break the record in 10-20 years time it might require something 'unnatural'.

Beyond the actual athletes taking drugs, what about parents taking drugs to affect their unborn baby to help produce an 'athlete'.  Who's to say that people aren't using gene-manipulation techniques to 'breed' super-fast runners?  It's not really science fiction stuff, it's just taking what the East Germans did to the next level - and using the latest technologies available.

If scientists are able to 'create' people with certain physical attributes such as ridiculously long legs and super-fast twitching muscles, etc., would these genetically-modified athletes be banned from competing?

[Nakor]

I think the top players in each sport probably are the best ever, and not only because advances in training/technology and the greater number of hours training afforded by professionalism allow them to be better, but because these same advantages allow everyone else to be better as well.

Look at snooker. There haven't been any huge technological advantages in the sport in the past thirty years, yet when you watch old snooker footage from way back, the players were rubbish. Seeing a century break was a huge thing. Now players rattle them in with regularity, even ones who we would not consider as the absolute best players around.

Great Thread

I would say there have been massive technological advances in Snooker compared with 30 years ago.
The manufacture of tables to start with, no multi piece slate bases, laser machined rails and cushions, advanced synthetic cloth, precision tooling of pockets and angles.  Thats without looking at cues and balls, tips, practice environment etc.  All of this helps provide a more precise playing area and makes the game easier thus giving the modern player an advantage over his peer from 30 years ago.  I can't think of any sport that is so pure it has not benefited from technology.

As for Drugs and genetics arguments somebody has already mentioned the legal bodies are always playing catch up, and it is ruining sport especially field sports, I don't think anyone will ever break the 100 metres record and be free of suspicion, just as if somebody manages to take off 30 seconds from their PB in a 10k walk race at a local club, drugs and roids are rife people will always wonder - and for me that is why the beauty of sport diminishes with age, because we all get more cynical, there is more evidence to help you not believe.

We are lucky, I have seen Warne spin a ball, Rossi ride a bike (a true legend), Johnson win the 200 metres and even Zidane take a free kick these people are the future they will hook our kids in, they will inspire the next generation, but lets just hope they inspire them to greatness not inspire them to win at all costs and cheat the system.

[kinboshi]

Unfortunately, children growing up and aspiring to be the next world champ in whichever sport are seeing the cheats prosper.

Look at Milan last night.  Not really punishment for a team found guilty of systematic corruption (which helped them qualify for the Champions League in the first place).  The Italians in that team are also members of the current world champions.  Now it might not be the individual players involved in the corruption - but the old adage of 'cheats never prosper' is obviously nonsense in this case.

Nakor mentioned Shane Warne.  Undoubtedly the best bowler of all-time (in my book anyway), but also found guilty of taking banned substances.  Even the greats are tarnished - but often we look away and implicitly condone it.

[The Baron]

Hellmuth Vs Chan Vs Brunson Vs Ungar....

Comparable?

[Royal Flush]

The first 3 are, they are all playing at the top level today, the latter was a degenerate gambler/drug addict who ran hot. Still a class player, but i would put him alongside the likes of TJ.

[Sark79]

Valentino Rossi ,  greatest rider of all time.

  Another rider on 2 wheels called Nicolas Voullioz won 10 world DH mtb titles in twelve seasons competing ( 1995 onwards ), he is so talented at sport, he switched to rally driving and won the French rally championship soon after. He will be in the World Rally Championship next year and he is only 29 years old,  he has already dominated one sport and he will most likely do it with rallying as well.

Sebastian Loeb, possibly the most complete rally driver of all time.

I like Senna more,  he was my hero since I was a tiny kid.  However,  Schumacher is better all round.  Ok,  Senna had as tough competition while competing ( Mansell, Prost, Patrese, Rosberg, Piquet, etc, etc ) . But, Schumacher's career overlapped two era's in many ways, not only did he compete against many of these guys.... he also had to compete against Hakkinen at his peak and also Villeneauve.  JV comes under a lot of criticism now, but how many other drivers have the chance this weekend to get the triple crown of the f1 world title, Indy 500 and the Le Mans 24hrs.  JV could possibly do that this weekend at Le Mans for Team Peugeot. Only Graham Hill has done that.   Schumacher's first two titles in 94 and 95 were achieved in a Benneton which technically was inferior to Hill's Williams .  Over this period Schumacher had a few handy team mates who were destroyed by him in exactly the same car.  He is truly awesome.