If you really think Ronaldo and Messi are considered better players than George Best, Pele and Maradona then you don't know what you're talking about. Any time you ask someone who the greatest players ever are they will mention those names, not Messi and Ronaldo, that's just recency bias, not because the sport has evolved and has better players.
First of all, you have some good points and I appreciate your answer.
Back to soccer... people can be very nostalgic about the past.
Yes, I do believe a team formed from the top 11 players in 2022 will beat a team formed from the top 11 players in 1970, 1980.
I do believe that todays soccer clubs or nationals would beat the past ones.
And, by the way, I do appreciate more the old soccer and the old soccer players, although I don't watch soccer anymore, but used to. I didn't catch that period, but I've seen videos, it was more entertaining and players actually played for the love of the game.
But things have changed.
I do believe Maradona wouldn't be able to do today what he did in the past because tactics have improved and soccer players are better ar it.
He would still be a great player, of course. But not like he used to be. Tactics have changed a lot. Players are better at it.... there is more talent pool because the world population is bigger and because there are a lot of money invested in soccer. Not to mention Africa. How many top african players were there in the 60s or 70s? You had Europe and South America.
Not every sport evolves like this though.
The sports where a lot of money were invested evolved, though.
Also, the sports where individual records matter evolved.
You're right, but that's records based on single moment accomplishments, and not a whole sport evolving to a point where everyone is better than everyone from the past.
We can take the top 10/20/50 and compare their records.
Look at powerlifting, for example.
Look at olympic lifting.
The first 100 top swimmers from 2022 would easily win vs the top 100 of the 1980s.
And so on...
Tennis players are rich as are most sport stars but again this has nothing to do with people being better at sports, that's just to do with the economy surrounding sports.
And economy = more money > more talent pool & more resources invested in training methods, nutrition, tactics and so on...
Back to boxing - I'm asking you again, do you think today's boxers easily beat people like SRR and Hagler?
No, not easily, of course.
It depends on the fighters' style and other factors, but it would be competitive.
I am not much of a boxing lover although I do watch fights, but I've noticed this nostalgia on this forum (and not only) especially regarding Ali.
Every time someone says that a current boxer might be the best ever, someone brings some boxer from the 60s. Like that guy would destroy todays boxers... I am not saying someone from the 60s/70s would easily lose, I am saying it would be competitive.
Is it so weird to believe that Usyk or Fury could KO Ali?
And my question would: ok, why didn't evolved? What happened?
Why are the 60s and 70s boxers better than the present ones?
Tougher generation?
@Xoleth also you have Izzy in your picture i see. Do you watch kickboxing? Because kickboxing hasn't evolved in years and the best kickboxers ever are Hoost, Schilt, Aerts, Buakaw and so on. Nobody today can be mentioned in a discussion for greatest ever except arguably Petro, and the HW division can't hold a candle to its glory days.
Do you think in 20 years kickboxing will suddenly evolve and people will be better than ever? That's not how it works.
Kickboxing hasn't evolved because nobody invested in it.
It's a dead sport.
But boxing is the opposite. It grew, it draws money.
Why do you think some kickboxers moved to MMA? Because they weren't paid in KB.
