Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="connie, post: 3103757, member: 7882"] With all respect, I [I]think [/I]you have it backwards. That a team from today could beat a 40's team is not the premise; it is the [I]conclusion[/I]. The [I]premise [/I]is that under circumstances of competition over time, with increased pools of available talent, developments and improvements in training, technique, nutrition, strategy, technologies, etc., athletic performance will improve over time. I think the premise is sound theoretically [I]and [/I]is demonstrated historically. From the premise one can conclude that today's athletes are "better" at their sport than those of, say, 80 years ago. This is true in every single sport (running, jumping, swimming, skating, skiing, lifting, etc.) that measures performance by reference to some absolute (time, distance, height, weight, etc.) So far as I am aware, there is no exception. In any case, that something is not "provable" does not mean a reasonable argument cannot be convincingly made in support of a proposition. Outside of the hard sciences, very little is literally "provable" in the strict sense of the word. But that does not prevent us from weighing the merit of propositions in light of the evidence and the application of reason. True, we will never be able to "prove" that the 1899 Cleveland Spiders could beat the 2018 Boston Red Sox in a 7-game series. But it would be a defeatism of reason to suggest that it is exceedingly likely. The question is "why"? My post attempted to address that. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,410

Messages: 4,394,912

Members: 10,208

Latest member: jskwrite