The Limits of Human Performance and GOAT Arguments

Discussion in 'Sports' started by kidbourbon, Jul 21, 2015.

  1. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    I thought this article in the Economist was pretty interesting.

    We're about done getting faster and throwing balls harder, but we're getting better at tennis, among others.

    http://www.economist.com/news/inter...are-better-their-predecessors-working-out-how

    It's not that long. Worth a read.


     
  2. hatvol96

    hatvol96 Well-Known Member

    That isn't accounting for racket technology. If you are telling me guys like Laver and McEnroe couldn't play with the guys today, I'll have to disagree.
     
  3. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    I think they are accounting for racquet technology indirectly. They are defining greatness in terms of how much better is a player than the rest of the field. And at every step along the players have been playing against opponents using racquets of similar technology. So the technologies cancel each other out and should therefore be a non-issue.

    The only counter to that might be that the new technology essentially amounted to a sport that was essentially a different sport than the one they were playing before. I think that argument's a stretch. It works on the fringes but the game is still about hitting a tennis ball with a bed of strings and over a net and into a defined area. It's always gonna essentially boil to down to (a) hitting the ball exactly where you want it to go, and (b) getting to more balls to keep points alive.
     
  4. rbroyles

    rbroyles Chieftain

    I can see where Laver, Ashe, Conners, et al may not be as strong of competitors today if somehow they could be transported in time to the presentt from their playing days. However, if they were among today's players , having gone through the same paths of development and training, I have no doubt they would rank pretty well where they did when they were playing.
     

Share This Page