30+ years ago, I entered in a lot of competitions. Dog obedience, foot racing, stock car racing, shooting, etc.
In racing, I raced in several series. The rules were that the winner of a given series could not race that series, the following year, so I usually raced alternate years. Over the years, I accumulated a lot of wins, but also set some time records. This was fine, for the first few years, but eventually presented a problem: I couldn't break my records. So, the pace slowed to a stop. 3 years, I equalled my records to the thousandth of a second.
Since that time, some rules have changed, making it nearly impossible to run those times. Because of the old rules, I never raced some of my contemporaries, being that we sat out alternate years. I could not afford to run in a touring series, so I ran all local races. They could not get a touring contract, so always ended up back in the local series.
The question came up, who among us was the best? I have no interest in going back to race them, since they have run those races in the last 30+ years, and I have not. I think it is fair to compare results from those years. We ran the same series, on the same tracks, with the same rules, during the same years--just not on the track at the same time. In fact, there were heat races, which is why times were so important. The others seem to disagree. Of course, I think it's in my best interest to let my records stand. I could not beat them then, and now no one can beat them. I hardly think it's fair for me to race against people who have remained in racing, when I have not. I kindof put auto racing behind me. Not only have I changed, the rules changed, the cars changed, and the tracks changed. I might not even be competitive.
Which is fair?
