So is schoey but people don't take him seriously, even though between his rants he is often right.

I think you show a massive lack of understanding of life in general and Rugby League in particular. I would say you are 1/100 to have never played at any sort of level..

Please do not confuse having a fat bloke in a mask as your avatar with having any intelligence or worth...self importance is of course excluded...

Clearly you never watched the game that far back or have much knowledge of that era as you'll find that there were plenty of 15 stone second rowers that were upwardly mobile, in fact one of Hull's all time try scorers was a 2nd row from the 20s who was 15+ stone.
In the 50/60s we had a fair few 17stone props. Yes size has increased in the backs but conversely so has their lack of agility, it's the somewhat 'smaller' backs that can jink their way around.

What you will find with forwards of old is that will put themselves/their bodies about a lot more than their modern counterparts, half the forwards in modern rugby run the ball in like a bunch of half hearted fannies and tackle as if they are made of biscuit. I'd say the top forwards of yesteryear would do just fine and backs like Andy Gregory whom has more heart and grit than any back in the game since he stopped playing would be sensational (sorry for the Stevoism) in SL. Burrow is probably the most comparable in the grit dept of modern backs. Gregs had speed off the mark, was a superb passer, had guile, could kick, was a strong tackler and he was facking hard as nails..I didn't particularly like him as an individual but as a player you cannot fail to see he is one of those stand outs that would make the grade in any era.

You and many before you make the classic mistake of thinking it is all about size.. it isn't. It has never just being about crash bang wallop, it's a thinking man's game and one that needs the mentality to overcome your opposition no matter what they look like size wise or what their reputation. You destroy/attack/dismantle the mind-set or out-think your opposition as much as you out-do them physically, hence why you can have blow outs between what on paper are evenly matched teams. You break the mind/spirit and it matters not how strong/fit you are, great players from any era you choose would succeed in any other era you chose to supplant them in because they have it within them to do so.

Because as the saying goes "Class is permanent" - comparing Gregory to Smith is nonsense is like comparing Glen Lazarus to Ian Kirke.

So can you answer the question? Or does you amazing knowledge of rugby league, obviously gained from playing for GB v Australia not allow you to back up your opinions? I think you need to improve your self-awareness, there are plenty of free courses and tests you can take to help you with that. Because someone who apparently understands life in general so well would realise that in life you often have to back up your opinions with either facts or some reasoning. What you then do is present your reasons and people debate them.

However if you choose not to do so then people might just come to the conclusion that you can't actually back it up, especially if you then resort to unnecessary personal abuse just because someone has the nerve to disagree with your unsupported claim. In that situation you run the risk of being described as an arrogant, patronising pillock.

I haven't compared Smith to Gregory in terms of equating them. Just asking why people think he would be so far ahead, to use their own terms, "in a different Galaxy" & "have skills the current England halves could only dream of".

Considering the game is very very different, especially for a halfback, compared to Gregory's day I'm asking why people think Gregory would necessarily fit in/work in a modern team at halfback and definitely why he would be somehow on a level well beyond the current players.

I'm not saying in the slightest that Gregory or any other top player wouldn't have made it today, but as I said in my reply to Voltaire that he couldn't be d to reply to, I think some top players from the past would've made it today and some wouldn't and vice versa for the current top players.

Can't agree with that. I loved Davies (I asume you don't mean Jonathan Edwards or Shaun Edwards) but Johns had everything a RL half back needs, physically not the quickest but his kicking, vision, and speed of thought were as good as any half I've seen play the game. At his best a privilidge to watch.

Andy Gregory is the best British halfback I’ve seen in over 30 years. His ability to control a game with his passing, kicking and running was light years ahead of any other British player I’ve seen since. . It’s no coincidence that some of our best performances at international level came when he was in the team. Wally Lewis rated him as the best English player he ever came up against.

Only Johns and Sterling eclipse him IMO.

I’ve no doubt that if he had access to modern training methods he’s be as dominant now as he was back then.

You're mainly wrong I'm afraid.

Bit stiff to start with but a few games in he was brilliant. Considers some of the games played at Wakefield amongst his best. You're right about his team mates or most of them but some got it - he was the making of Nigel Bell that's for certain. Bloke is a genuine legend at BV along with Ray Price who did similar in a very different way.

Andrew Johns is a genius, he shaped the modern game of how halves play. His vision was better than anybody else that I've seen. Freddie Fitler was a proper stand off, strong, good passer, had a decent short kick and a great awareness. Cameron Smith in a different way is brilliant, he is exceptionally consistent. Doesn't miss tackles, never a bad pass and punishes teams with his kicking. Smith isn't in the same class of the above, but would complete 100 of his 100 attempts at a skill (Except goal kicks, as seen on Saturday!)

Andrew Farrell was a complete player, competent kicker, good passing game and a tough as they come. Sculthorpe was as good as him also. What Mike Gregory lacked behind these two in skill, he made up for in heart, and was a real leader too.

Meninga was unplayable at times, size strength and pace. Davies was crafty and lighting quick, and had a good rugby brain.

Tough to say who was the best, but in my opinion Johns sneaks it, what he couldn't do, wasn't worth learning.

Yes, like Boxing Day 1983 when a then-relatively unknown Kiwi named Gary Freeman (fresh from Kent Invicta) ran rings round (an admittedly hung-over) Wally Lewis for Castleford against Wakefield.

Because great players are largely reliant on their individual skill sets - Gregory is no different. Natural ability never goes away regardless of era. Great players often remain at the top for ten years the game changes massively in that time but they seem to find a way of coping.