Why do people compare eras and compare Nicklaus and Woods as sport getting better is a myth?

Seeing as Carl ran 19.75 for 200m (should have been less as Lewis slowed down metres from the line when running 19.75 when was only 22 in 1983) and 9.86 secs for the 100m. Therefore Lewis was actually ahead of Michael Johnson when the 200m is concerned as Johnson never really conquered or mastered this distance as he never bettered Lewis' 19.75 until his mid 20s before crusading towards his 19.32 secs in his 29th year in 1996. If Lewis had not been concentrating on the 100m and long jump then you would think that Lewis would have went much lower than 19.75 and would have been the record holder for that event until Johnson ran 19.32 as Lewis would have went lower than Mennea's altitude record of 19.72 and, Marsh's 19.73 (although Marsh could have went lower to be fair) Johnson's 19.66 seconds. And as we know Lewis ran 9.86 seconds for the 100 - at 30 years of age - which lasted until 1994. So I don't go along with this theory of sport getting better as Lewis was competing in the same era as Johnson and was the 100m record holder and non altitude record holder during that time as Johnson should have been running faster times in the late 1980s as Johnson would have been in is early 20s in the late 1990s. And Lewis was also a phenomenal long jumper as we all know. And Butch Reynolds ran 43.29 seconds for the 400m in 1988 - during lewis' geneation - whereas Michael Johnson never ran his wold record of 43.18 seconds until 1999 (over 10 years later). Okay records and times are normally broken at some point but that is life as it would look pretty strange if everything stayed stagnant lol. For example someone could arrive in a sport at age 20 whil winning things in the early 1980s and would still be beating people in the 1990s as they would still only be in their early 30s. And someone could come along at 20 in the early 1970s but would still be competing and beating people - the people who would go on to beat people in the 1990s lol - in the 1980s as they would still only be in their early 30s. Therefore sport being revolutionized with every generation is just a myth as some people are just better than other people in certain eras. Besides you would have to confess tat all the greats would undoubtedly adapt to any era - past, present or future - if you could somehow put them there as class is permanent. Another example is the golfer Jack Nicklaus as he finished 30 shots ahead of Greg Norman and Nick Faldo when he was 37 years old at the 1977 Open Championship at Turnberry (Nicklaus lost by one stroke to Tom Watson who shot a record 268) when Norman and Faldo were in their 20s. Faldo went on to shoot 18 under in the 1990 Open Championship whereas Norman holds the low aggregate record for the Open as he shot 267 in 1993. So if Nicklaus could beat Norman and Faldo by 30 shots in a Major then he would have been capable of beating Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy by 30 shots in a Major as well. In fact Nicklaus was still beating all the young guns in majors as he won the 1986 U.S. Masters at age 46 in 1986! Jack has als shot 17 under par 271 at the U.S. Masters, 8 under par 272 at the U.S. Open, 11 under par 269 at the Open Championship (as mentioned) and 6 under par 274 at the U.S.P.G.A.. Another example is George Foreman as he would have stil only been in his early 30s in the eraly 1980s if he never had his Damascus Road experience and retired at 28 in 1977 and yet he lost miserably to the 32 year old Muhammad Ali in 1974 when Foreman was only 25. So Foreman would have been in te same era as Lewis and Lewis was still the best at one point during Johnson's era; it goes in cycles. 42 year old Foreman went the distance with Holyfield and won back title when he was 45 against Moorer.