To improve in any field, you basically have three options to choose from: Reference existing work and instruction, philosophize about ways to intentionally desi

To improve in any field, you basically have three options to choose from: Reference existing work and instruction, philosophize about ways to intentionally design a new concept, or iterate within your existing processes often towards a specific goal. On all fronts, you can find ways in which we are better at doing those things than in previous eras: more source material and access to formal instruction, more access to high-level conversations and criticisms, better venues for practice and iteration. To the extent that young people can do increasingly amazing things and raise the bar, they are still limited in every era, in that their best efforts are primarily a reflection of the environment, vs. an extension of the environment. The 10-year-old can achieve a 900 not just because there is inspiration but because broader support also existed - the parents are OK with this kid vert skating on a regular basis, and he can access a ramp in order to practice. In contrast, the pool skaters of the 1970's had to trespass on the property of strangers to have a shot at skateboarding for an hour or two, if they were lucky. But they had a strong in-group culture that made them persist despite large barriers, which eventually led to unmatched skills and a level of commercial success as performers. But as stars, they in turn had to lay a lot of the groundwork for future success stories like Tony Hawk; there was no framework or playbook to draw from of "how does one have a career in skateboarding" at that point, and indeed, that side of things has continued to evolve today with the advent of social media: if a kid did a 900 20 or 30 years ago, it might have gone unrecorded and had no impact on his external life. It's easy to see the technical achievement, less so the human factors surrounding and supporting it.