Mudholian
16 Mar 2001, 17:22
Well since the great man is suitably farewelled it might be ok to ask now- Why do sporting performances of the past exceed by far current performances? The champions of the past are so far above their peers that it makes today's performances by a few stars seem very even by comparison.
In the Don's case, Professor Charles Davies argued that according to the curve of normal distribution, Bradman's performance was so extraordinary that it ranked in the top, not one million, not one billion, but top 10 billion. Now that is so far in excess of the normal curve of ability that it seems impossible, since if we waited for the end of the world as we know it another Bradman would not appear.
However, Davies' appears to have no measure of standard deviation. It compares the averages of Bradman's best performed contemporaries. But the range of ability was far greater in Bradman's era. Bowlers at first grade level ranged from the very good to the bloody awful as did batsmen. The playing field is much more level these days and much more expansive.
In the US, where baseball statistical analysis is an of an academic obsession, the fact has been clearly established according to sound statistical analysis. Batting and pitching performances are increasingly dispersed the further back one looks.
This relates to how a country like Australia could excel, in the post war era, far above what one would expect of a population of 8 million. Once other countries had regained some normality and the proportion of young males increased, more people were competing for more elite sporting positions. Australia's performances, say, in tennis, began to appear merely average.
Extraordinary feats will remain rooted in the past. Look at those old memorable grand finals. You'll see legends doing things that today are run of the mill, you'll see marks of the century- "Jesulenko!!!" that now happen once a week.
While certain individuals these days come close, such as Lockett, on the whole, the days of the sporting freak, like the Don, are over.
Mud
In the Don's case, Professor Charles Davies argued that according to the curve of normal distribution, Bradman's performance was so extraordinary that it ranked in the top, not one million, not one billion, but top 10 billion. Now that is so far in excess of the normal curve of ability that it seems impossible, since if we waited for the end of the world as we know it another Bradman would not appear.
However, Davies' appears to have no measure of standard deviation. It compares the averages of Bradman's best performed contemporaries. But the range of ability was far greater in Bradman's era. Bowlers at first grade level ranged from the very good to the bloody awful as did batsmen. The playing field is much more level these days and much more expansive.
In the US, where baseball statistical analysis is an of an academic obsession, the fact has been clearly established according to sound statistical analysis. Batting and pitching performances are increasingly dispersed the further back one looks.
This relates to how a country like Australia could excel, in the post war era, far above what one would expect of a population of 8 million. Once other countries had regained some normality and the proportion of young males increased, more people were competing for more elite sporting positions. Australia's performances, say, in tennis, began to appear merely average.
Extraordinary feats will remain rooted in the past. Look at those old memorable grand finals. You'll see legends doing things that today are run of the mill, you'll see marks of the century- "Jesulenko!!!" that now happen once a week.
While certain individuals these days come close, such as Lockett, on the whole, the days of the sporting freak, like the Don, are over.
Mud