I'm not necessarily saying it was, but I remember when I first started watching cricket around the end of their dominant period, being a bit soft and thinking "it's good, it's successful, but somehow it isn't cricket". If you look at the next great team that followed them, the Border/Taylor/Waugh Australia dynasty, they clearly had an intensity to them and took the art of sledging to a new level.
There's a subtle difference though - if you watch some of the bowling from West Indies sides of the 1970s and 1980s, it's quite apparent IMO that they were either a) deliberately looking to hit people or b) at the very least, use the very real danger of serious injury to create an advantage. Protective equipment was nowhere near as effective as it became in the 1990s and there are some absolute horror deliveries on YouTube that could not be rivalled in scale or volume by any other side in history.
It makes 'bodyline' look like a trip to the theme park and I can't believe that there wasn't the real intent to cause injury or seriously increase the fear of it. Carribean pitches were frequently an absolute disgrace that loaded the dice in favour of fast, intimidating and potentially dangerous bowling.
They were undeniably a great side who put all opposition to the sword over a 15 year period - no argument with that. The diminishing quality of their fast bowlers had a great deal to do with WI's decline in test cricket, but then I also think the change in rules on bouncers and improvements in protective gear took a great deal of the intimidation factor away from them as well.
So how much of West Indies' dominant period in Test Cricket owed intself to physical intimidation? Very interested to hear your thoughts.