Originally Posted by
bundabergdevil
I don't think so. I took your post as an opportunity to lean on a point I made earlier in this thread. I'm in the camp that the average competitor in any sport is better, stronger, faster, more fit, has more endurance, better fed, better trained, etc than his/her predecessors. I'm also in the camp that the average generational talent is better, stronger, faster, etc than the generational talents that came before him/her. It's obvious in sports like weightlifting, sprints, swimming, long distance running, etc that are based on time and strength. Feats once thought impossible continue to be broken, barriers surpassed, records demolished. So, yeah, I'm in favor of recency bias!
I think the same is true in team sports but it's just tougher to quantify the difference. Folks usually are with me up until I say things like the MJ Chicago Bulls would struggle to win championships in today's NBA --- or, guys like Lebron and Curry, all else staying the same, would destroy the past leagues more than they already do in the modern NBA. I think the Redeem Team would beat the Dream Team and it wouldn't be all that close. JJ Redick made the point in one of his podcasts that he LAUGHS at how bad 90s defenses were compared to modern defenses. They didn't know what the right reads were, the smart decision in a given situation, etc.
TL;DR: Count me in the camp that the old guys can be considered great but of course they're not the best, today's players are better because the first iPhone might have some nostalgic value but, well, progress.