Can you compare players in different eras?

Nation,

I posted a link to our inital off season training video, and your feedback was appreciated.

One of the best posts was a link to a 1989 documentary of Ken Dobyns and the New York team of 1989. Sadly, it's probably a better documentary than anything we have in this era. But... I don't want to talk about ultimate broadcast journalism right now.

Ken Dobyns at Potlach 2002
Source: Potlach

What I want to talk about is the aura of great players from the past. You see the link Gavin posted and it is true that Kenny Dobyns was a great player in his time. However, the debate remains

• Would he be great in today's era?

DJ was quick to point out how great Ken D was, and what an athlete he was. But was it relative to his competition? Could a small man dominate now that the 6'5 athletes are creeping into the game. Would Ken Dobyns even get picked for a top team?

Economist J.C. Bradbury tackles the issue as it pertains to baseball. There are a myriad of reasons why you can't compare:

• Human evolution (we're getting bigger people)
  
• Training methods
• Number of teams and level of competition
• Equipment and medical factors

Due to these reasons, the relative newness of the sport, and the lack of footage/data of the sport, it's very hard to compare. I don't think it would do justice to make a comparison.

Above all else, it seems that Dobyns had intangibles that would still play well today. He seemed like a pitbull with great fitness. He was super passionate about a game that had less respect from the outside world that it does today (imagine that!).

And the craziest thing? All those athletes we have now will be replaced with guys as tall or taller, as muscular or more, more skilled and faster. The George Mikans of Ultimate will be eliminated.

What do you think?

• Can we make comparisons of players past and present?
• If so, do you think the stars of the past would be as successful? Who?