From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date: 18 DEC 92 10:24:15    

In article <1992Dec17.040840.15257@netcom.com>, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes...

>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...
> 
>>>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

If you really want to stick to this argument than I suggest that the 
91 Redskins are the best team of all time but until Jan 31.

>2) Montana and Lott still play.

Montana, right now, is not as good as Brett Favre.  In fact, Montana 
was probably never as strong, fast, and certainly not as big as Brett 
Favre is now.

(No, I'm not saying Favre is the best QB of all time.  I'm simply 
showing that your argument can be reduced to an absurdity.)

>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.

So, since these advancements continue, whichever team is the best *right 
now* is the best team ever, right?  My point is that your definition 
of "best team ever" is screwy.  The way most people take it to decide 
which team accomplished the most within the context in which they were 
playing.

The accomplishments of the Packers of the 60s (and I might add those 
of the Steelers of the 70s) are just as impressive as those of the 49ers 
of the 80s.

>>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.)

See above.

>>>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.

You want me to rebut dork and snapperhead?

I think that you're done a fine job of making yourself look foolish.  No 
need for me to add on.

JGH