Greg Lemond talked about this in his book, which I own and like to reread from time to time. He even talks about how some of his contemporaries might have been more competitive with him if they'd learned to raise their saddles a bit, but that he was glad they hadn't made this discovery!
I think it's fair to say that, as in many sports, over the years and with the increase in scientific study of the human body in action, we've learned to take better advantage of what our bodies can do. It's one of my constant quandries over the winter, when I continue to ride but ride much less than in the nice weather - to keep my saddle where it is or to lower it. It always feels better lower in the winter because, I assume, keeping it higher requires muscular adaptation of some sort. This winter I kept all my saddles at their in-season positions and I seem to be surviving it alright.
Sometimes there is progress, and while Grant Peterson and others may argue that the more stretched out, more bent over position of modern riders is favoring performance over comfort, it's nice that each of us has a choice.
Steve "would that I had longer and straighter legs" Freides
Charles Andrews wrote, in part:
>
> I'm wondering if the racers in the middle years of the last century actually
> used what we might consider an incorrect configuration: saddle too *low*;
> legs not nearly fully extended on the down-stroke. I seem to see a lot of
> this in photos of hill-climbs: the riders appear to have lowered their
> saddles for some reason, and their legs are not extended to the extent we'd
> regard as correct... so that if those riders had set their bikes up for
> full leg-extension, their steeds would look a lot more like Merckx's bike in
> 1969 or '70.