Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I wonder how much of the difference you perceive is a function of the quality of the video image. I've seen chunks of that game and others from that era, and it always strikes me that things are so blurry, distant, and herky-jerky that it's very hard to get a feel for what's going on. I would agree that today's players are better conditioned and schooled, and therefore would be "better" on average than players from prior eras (though I'm not sure when the dividing line should be drawn), but maybe not so much better as you might think. Tennis gives some interesting examples of the video angle to this sort of debate. In the early '80s, broadcast quality went through a major transformation. It's amazing to watch, say, Connors vs Borg ca. 1977 vs ca 1982. They look like completely different players in the later matches. Some of this is because they were actually better, but some of it is just a function of viewers actually being able to see the ball.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
