I did pay attention to the username. My point was that, when things are subjective, there will always be arguments and that, without a stopwatch, the 100m would be subjective which would, no doubt, lead to people arguing the point. As already said, "better" is a subjective term when there is no definitive way to measure. The game in the past may have been more entertaining (again, subjective) but that doesn't mean that the players were "better". The fact that, in sports that can be definitively measured, records are constantly broken (with a few exceptions where 1. the competitors are now regarded as being massive drug cheats; 2. the sport has drastically changed, e.g. javelin; or 3. records were set at altitude) would strongly suggest that, in sports that cannot be definitively measured, the competitors would also be getting "better". There are obviously a few potential outliers, that's why I said "in general". If you have any evidence to the contrary that doesn't rely on opinion, feel free to present it.