Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap
Has the size of the ball varied in your examples?
|
In the case of golf, I believe it has. The equipment alone has changed drastically over the past 20-30 years. Is it fair to say Jack Nicklaus isn't as good as Tiger, because he never hit it as far, or played on the same-sized courses as Tiger?
The only true comparisons are against the competition each one faces, not against different eras. Jack's record against his contemporaries speaks for itself; we can only speculate how Jack would play against Tiger if they were both in their prime at the same time and both using the same equipment on the same courses. So, can we say Jack's record of major victories is "better" or "worse" than Tiger's, because the equipment was different? Or is the number of victories what is important? Jack had his victories against his competition; Tiger's victories were against a different set of competitors, with different equipment, and on many different courses. Is golf exactly the same now as it was then?
UCLA's record was impressive, because it came against their contemporaries. UConn's record is equally as impressive. Are they exactly the same? No. But a victory against your current competition is a way to measure "success", and both UCLA and UConn have had great success in their own right the sport of basketball. Speaking strictly in numbers, UConn now has more consecutive basketball victories than UCLA. I don't know if that makes them "better", but it does mean they have more consecutive victories.