From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:08:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.210331.18665@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.205834.11739@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes...

>>Another case of what happens when one tries to substitute caffiene
>>for valium...

>Hmmm, if I were grading humor I'd give you a C-.

Better than I'd give you on several subjects.

>>John, if you could relax for a moment, let me play devil's advocate for
>>a moment.  The Niners' period of dominance was roughly 20-25 years later
>>than the Packers'.  In that interval, players have become bigger, faster
>>and quicker, and stronger.  (I confess to not having statistics to back
>>this up, but I think it's generally recognized.)  Training regimens have
>>become much stiffer.  The game has become much more complex and more is
>>demanded mentally of the players.  And because of the longer season,
>>more endurance is needed.  Finally, a case could be made that the level
>>of competition is higher.

>Well, in that case Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott are not the best ever 
>players at their positions because players today are much bigger, 
>stronger, and faster than they were in the 80s.  And the game is even 
>more mentally demanding now than it was then.

1) the distinctions are magnified when comparing teams

2) Montana and Lott still play.

3) If you disagree that the caliber of professional athletics has advanced
   in the last 25 years, you're on drugs (but not valium).  One need only
   look at the advances in track, field and weightlifting for evidence.
   Why believe that football hasn't been affected as well.

>In fact, I'll bet the '92 Cowboys could beat the - shoot! When did the 
>49ers win their 1st Superbowl - '82 49ers.

I hope you weren't expecting a disagreement.  It's quite possible that
the '92 Bowboys could top the '81 Niners.  (The '82 version would be
a cinch.)

>>Personal team allegiances aside, I think it's quite supportable that
>>a modern "dynasty" team would be better than a latter-day counterpart.
>>We'll never know, of course, but it's an interesting mental exercise
>>to consider taking the 1989 Niners back in time 25 years and letting
>>them play 10 games against the Pack.  For the reasons mentioned in
>>the above paragraph, I'd expect the Niners to win the majority.

>You'd expect, huh.  Well, that's just fine.  I suspect you have 
>nothing to base your opinion on and thats *exactly* why I think it's 
>an insult to say that the 80s 49ers are better than the 60s Packers.

Can you read for content?  Do you DENY that athletes of today are
better than those of 25 years ago?  Why should football be exempted?
Why do you respond with a non sequitor like comparing today's Bowboys
with the '81 Niners?  Why am I wasting my time in a battle of wits
with an unarmed opponent?

>I'm perfectly willing to settle for the teams being declared 2 of the 
>best ever.  But I won't except anything saying the 49ers are *the* 
>best ever.

You're perfectly willing to settle, huh.  Well, that's just fine.  I 
suspect you have nothing to base your opinion on and thats *exactly* why I 
think you're a biased, shallow-minded, overly nostalgic dork.

In case that was over your head:  I'm rubber and you're glue; everything
bounces off me and sticks to you.  Neener neener.

Rebut that, snapperhead.

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro