Originally Posted by n_huffhines
Why do you think that's fair? Do you have any justification, or it just sounds good?
They never fight anybody outside of the top 10.
I think I may have misinterpreted what you were asking when I wrote the above response. Let me try this again.
You question is: why do I think it is fair to assume that the 10-50 fighters do not deviate substantially from generation to generation? Am I understanding that right?
Because this is essentially akin to saying; "I'll tell you what, these minor league baseball players these days, they just ain't what they used to be".
I mean, how in the heck would that happen? With fighters, the 10-50 are the middle of the bell curve. The only way that the quality of those guys is going to be either appreciably better or worse from generation to generation is as a result of either a massive increase or decrease in the number of young people going into the sport.
So, if it turns out that baseball participation in the little leagues and up through middle school is 50% less now than it was was 30 years ago, then you would see a consequent general decline in the quality of play of minor league baseball players. This would make perfect sense because some percentage among the pool of kids that played another sport instead baseball are better athletes than the kids that played baseball. And because that better athlete isn't playing, a worse athlete has to fill that spot in the minor leagues.
But in the absent of general increase of decrease in participation in the sport at the youth level, I can't come up with anything that would explain why your average fighters would be different from era to era.