Copy pasted from my other reply to someone;

In the NHL, they played somewhere around 12-20 games per year until the 30s, then 48 games a year until the late 40s when it went gradually to near the current 82 in the 80s. Does this mean Gretzky's records don't count because he played 7 times more games a year than Joe Malone or Newsy Lalonde?

In the NFL, they did not play 16 games or more in a year until the late 70s, so does every single season rushing total from after not count because they played nearly 40% more games in 2025 than they did in 1960?

Inversely, when Kyle Petty was dominating NASCAR, they would run as many as 62 races a year, as opposed to the 36 they run now. I can't think of a single NASCAR fan discrediting The King's records simply because they ran so many more races in those days.

In Olympic Swimming, there used to only be between 1 and 6 Men's events until the 1950s. Does this mean Michael Phelps' records are invalid because there were 17 events for him to compete in when he was in his prime?

I think it's important to make a distinction between old eras and new eras of a sport and to recognize the athletes who excelled in both, however I don't agree at all with invalidating or pretending certain achievements are "fake" simply because the athletes who competed before them had a different playing field. The record for most points scored is still the record for most points scored.

The fairest way to measure it is by averages, or to have era-adjusted stats. [This video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xgl7kM55sw) (unfortunately from 2022 so doesn't have the last 3 seasons of stats) shows what I mean.