Does Greatness Travel

[customhouseregular]

I was pondering the other day on the greats of the past and wondering how they would fare if they were at their peak today.

Given modern machinery and technical advances, modern track preparation and the spread of international speedway, would Fundin, Briggs and Mauger still win 15 world titles between them?.

Going back a little further would Moore, Williams and Young still be World-beaters?.

How about going back to the beginning?. If van Praag, Milne and Wilkinson could return to the track would they become World Champions?.

 

?

?

 

[norbold]

Who knows, chr, who knows?

[customhouseregular]

Who knows, chr, who knows?

I do love to muse though!.

[norbold]

I can't help thinking the greats of any period would be great in any other. It's something about them as individuals, their skill, their dedication, their ruthlessness, their determination, whatever the track preparation or equipment or technical advances.

Edited December 17, 2014 by norbold

[The White Knight]

Honestly I would love to think that some of them would be able to come back and compete with the best we have today. I believe that some of those mentioned could certainly do so, along with the late great Peter Craven. I happen to think that they could have been World Champions in any age.

 

Nothing, of course, can ever be proved but I really do believe that.

 

Great Thread chr. :approve:

[stratton]

Great riders would compete in any era, would Joe Davis compete now at snooker?would Dempsey compete in boxing? a big yes for me.If anything these guys did not have the advantages sportsmen have now.

[The White Knight]

Great riders would compete in any era, would Joe Davis compete now at snooker?would Dempsey compete in boxing? a big yes for me.If anything these guys did not have the advantages sportsmen have now.

Good point sidney - had they done so they would have been even better.

 

I wonder how the 'Wizard of Balance' would have done on a 'lay down' engine?

[Bruiser McHuge]

I think it's impossible to judge..but I do think that if you were good enough to reach the top of your era then you would be good enough to reach the top of another era...that's all you can base it on really..you can only be the best around at your time but the fact you were the best of your time shows you were good.

[E I Addio]

I can't help thinking the greats of any period would be great in any other. It's something about them as individuals, their skill, their dedication, their ruthlessness, their determination, whatever the track preparation or equipment or technical advances.

I like to think that as well, but I wonder if physical characteristics come into it. With Briggo it was sheer physical strength that enabled him to grow the bike around but I am not sure he would cope with the technicalities of a lay-down any more than Gtreg Hancock would cope with a short stroke J.A.P throwing him all over the place. We have to appreciate them of their era, although thinking about it for this thread I kind of feel that Fundin's iron will would force him to the top in any era. Interesting topic though

[customhouseregular]

Thanks for your post E I Addio...nice to get feedback.

[mickthemuppet]

The answer is very easy. The champions of nearly all sports are far superior today than in the past. If you want to compare different eras you need a common denominator for instance

Snooker Joe Davis was worls champion for about 25 years yet he was in his 40's before he made a 100 break. Neil Robertson made 100 last season.

 

Athletics. Just look at the times achieved today compared to yesteryear

Darts The averages in Darts competiton are getting higher every year

Tennis- Just look at the Wimbledon tennis finals from the 1970's .Today would be classed as a local tennis club match

Boxing -Possibly harder in the old days but diet and training far better today

Football/Rugby- Fitness much greater today

Even sports like Ten Pin Bowling-Go back 40 years a 300 game was a great event today they have 3 x 300 games

Cricket- The worlds highest score in Test Matches keeps gong up

[The White Knight]

The answer is very easy. The champions of nearly all sports are far superior today than in the past. If you want to compare different eras you need a common denominator for instance

Snooker Joe Davis was worls champion for about 25 years yet he was in his 40's before he made a 100 break. Neil Robertson made 100 last season.

 

Athletics. Just look at the times achieved today compared to yesteryear

Darts The averages in Darts competiton are getting higher every year

Tennis- Just look at the Wimbledon tennis finals from the 1970's .Today would be classed as a local tennis club match

Boxing -Possibly harder in the old days but diet and training far better today

Football/Rugby- Fitness much greater today

Even sports like Ten Pin Bowling-Go back 40 years a 300 game was a great event today they have 3 x 300 games

Cricket- The worlds highest score in Test Matches keeps gong up

Aye - on prepared pitches in India etc. :nono:

[norbold]

The answer is very easy. The champions of nearly all sports are far superior today than in the past. If you want to compare different eras you need a common denominator for instance

Snooker Joe Davis was worls champion for about 25 years yet he was in his 40's before he made a 100 break. Neil Robertson made 100 last season.

 

Athletics. Just look at the times achieved today compared to yesteryear

Darts The averages in Darts competiton are getting higher every year

Tennis- Just look at the Wimbledon tennis finals from the 1970's .Today would be classed as a local tennis club match

Boxing -Possibly harder in the old days but diet and training far better today

Football/Rugby- Fitness much greater today

Even sports like Ten Pin Bowling-Go back 40 years a 300 game was a great event today they have 3 x 300 games

Cricket- The worlds highest score in Test Matches keeps gong up

That's not an easy answer at all. Of course, records will go on being broken, though you haven't mentioned Don Bradman's Test match record, however, as you say yourself about boxing, football and rugby for example, the fitness levels and training are much greater today. Transpose those old champions to today's regimes and what would they achieve? That's the point of the question.

Edited December 20, 2014 by norbold

[coventry1963]

Some years ago I asked the late Jack Parker the same question (Jack was friends with my grandfather as a young man and was a family friend) when he was visiting my parents home in Rugby. Jack's view ( after the obligatory tongue in cheek reply that he would have been "the champion" in any era) was that any of the real champions from any era would have succeeded in any other. He said that it was attitude, determination and the will to succeed as well as the necessary natural ability that created a champion. He thought that any of those previous champions would have adapted to the fitness and technical developments necessary in any era to get to, or near to, the top. He also thought that Mauger, Olsen, Briggs et al would certainly have been at the very top in his own era.

[fatface]

Interesting discussion. Of the top riders I have seen, I think Tony Rickardsson and Bruce Penhall could have cut it in any era, be it the relative disadvantages of the past or advantages of the present. Both brilliant motorcyclists who could do the lot.

 

I also agree with an earlier poster that standards in all sports rise. But I also think that's not necessarily a good thing for all sports.

 

Snooker is a good example, I used to quite enjoy it when a century was a real thing of note. Now it's pretty hum drum. And as soon as one guy gets a chance, most of the time he wins the game. As a contest, it's less tactical and therefore less interesting. I also think golf and rugby league are other sports where the finesse and creativity has been overtaken by sheer power due to fitness and technology. Does it make them a better spectacle? For me, no.

 

Football I would say is better. Old matches can look really pedestrian in retrospect. As for whether the spectacle of speedway has increased as riders and technology has improved, well I'll take a rare seat on the fence on that one and say sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[stratton]

Interesting discussion. Of the top riders I have seen, I think Tony Rickardsson and Bruce Penhall could have cut it in any era, be it the relative disadvantages of the past or advantages of the present. Both brilliant motorcyclists who could do the lot.

I also agree with an earlier poster that standards in all sports rise. But I also think that's not necessarily a good thing for all sports.

Snooker is a good example, I used to quite enjoy it when a century was a real thing of note. Now it's pretty hum drum. And as soon as one guy gets a chance, most of the time he wins the game. As a contest, it's less tactical and therefore less interesting. I also think golf and rugby league are other sports where the finesse and creativity has been overtaken by sheer power due to fitness and technology. Does it make them a better spectacle? For me, no.

Football I would say is better. Old matches can look really pedestrian in retrospect. As for whether the spectacle of speedway has increased as riders and technology has improved, well I'll take a rare seat on the fence on that one and say sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Would you say that great Brazil side of 1970 was pedestrian? the Busby Babes also the Charlton/Best/Law teams and the great Liverpool teams.I don't enjoy football as much now less individuals in my book, every team years ago had a star player even the struggling sides.