As chimbu notes, the configuration makes a huge difference. With wing mounted engines and fan cascades (e.g. Lauda), the reverser efflux effectively destroys nearly all the lift on that wing and it drops like a rock. Very, very difficult to control.
In the aftermath of Lauda, I was involved in some wind tunnel testing of a 'clean' wing with a reverser deployed. Before we started the test, the Aero S&C guy was arrogantly proclaiming that the scenario was readily controllable and he was willing to go on a flight test to prove it by deploying a reverser at max Climb power. As the testing proceeded and he started looking at the data, he started getting really quiet, and by the time we finished up 10 days later he wasn't saying much of anything.
Cosmo, when you say 'classic', is it safe to assume you're talking 737-3/4/500? To me the 737-100/200 is the true classic, although the people that work 737 tend to refer to the -3/4/5 as 'classic' and -1/2 as 'Jurassic'
.
There was one crash of a 737-200 due to a T/R deployment - Cranbrook. During landing in a snowstorm, a snowplow appeared of the snow, they stowed the reversers and took off. Unfortunately one reverser didn't completely stow and lock before they took off - when air/ground removed hydraulic pressure after liftoff the aero forces caused the reverser to re-deploy at ~300 ft. and it was uncontrollable. Although the -200 had clamshell reversers, they were behind the wing - I doubt the -3/4/500 with fan cascades in front of the wing would be any better.
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-275 C-FPWC Cranbrook Airport, BC (YXC)
I wouldn't put too much faith in the simulator responses to a T/R deployment during takeoff (or even during flight) - such a scenario is far too dangerous to test so it's all based on analysis. One of the things that came out of that post Lauda wind tunnel testing was that the simulator response to an in-flight deployment wasn't even close - reality was far worse than the simulator.