Jump to content
IGNORED

Athletes in Every Sport are Better


iacas
Note: This thread is 2081 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

Goalies went down low it the 1980s. It's the defense that has changed. Teams have developed this block the slot and block every shot.

Patrick Roy was the first goalie to really dedicate himself to the butterfly. He didn't invent it, and there were some goalies who used it even in the 70s to some extent, but most goalies were still very much playing a stand-up style in the 80s. 

He changed hockey more than any other player. Defense was big too, but didn't evolve nearly as fast as goaltending did, imo. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

Patrick Roy was the first goalie to really dedicate himself to the butterfly. He didn't invent it, and there were some goalies who used it even in the 70s to some extent, but most goalies were still very much playing a stand-up style in the 80s. 

He changed hockey more than any other player. Defense was big too, but didn't evolve nearly as fast as goaltending did, imo. 

No not really... The defense was more of a 2000s deal. But, now has 3 defenders below the dots, to the point where you have to get lucky with a point shot and tuck in a fat rebound, or get a really good forecheck established, but they just replace with forwards and until the defensemen can recover... You can't get a pass to the slot, you have to play dump and chase... Boring boring boring

What's in Shane's Bag?     

Ball: 2022 :callaway: Chrome Soft Triple Track Driver: :callaway:Paradym Triple Diamond 8° MCA Kai’li 70s FW: :callaway:Paradym Triple Diamond  H: :callaway: Apex Pro 21 20°I (3-PW) :callaway: Apex 21 UST Recoil 95 (3), Recoil 110 (4-PW). Wedges: :callaway: Jaws Raw 50°, 54°, 60° UST Recoil 110 Putter: :odyssey: Tri-Hot 5K Triple Wide 35”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Guys, again, this is not about any one or even the top few athletes.

Back to the topic, please.

:offtopic:

In general goalies are better these days. They're faster. They specialize as goalies from an earlier age. They have newer and advanced techniques. They're more flexible. They train and diet better. They're taller, with more range.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There's a few different dimensions to this argument.  One is whether the top 100 players going back in time would dominate the top 100 from the 1940s.  I agree that's true in basically every sport.  But that's not necessarily the definition of better.  Like, if you took the top 100 from the 1940s and brought them forward in time at age 5 to 1995.  How many of them would be in the top 100 today?  There I think the argument is weaker, as genetics don't change that quickly in 3 generations, so the innate talent surely hasn't changed much.

Except, you've got to think about both population size and attractiveness of sports.  The world population is somewhere between 2-3x bigger now than in 1940.  Now not every country is interested in every sport, but lets just grant that the total population of countries whose citizens are into a given sport is 2-3x bigger now.  Just on that argument you'd assume todays top 100 are mostly better than the top 100 70 years ago.

But there's another angle.  What's the attractiveness of sports as a profession that would drive someone to the extreme commitment needed to be one of the best 100 in the world?  You might think since potential earnings are so much larger now that the answer would be today, even furthering the effect of the population argument.  But maybe it's all relative.  This might apply less to golf, where not a lot of kids from really disadvantaged backgrounds are getting lots of time on the course to get good at an early age.  But consider something like baseball.  I know there's way more players now from pretty poor countries, so this might mess up the following argument.  But it seems at least possible that in the 1920s and 1930s a much higher percentage of Americans at least who had good innate baseball talent might have seen basically no good way out of a crappy life situation other than making it to the show.  What if that percentage was 5x bigger?  Then maybe there's actually more kids giving it everything they have, even with the population change, and then the only difference is in modern training/diet/health type stuff.  On that alone it seems less meaningful to call modern players "better", as to me that indicates something about innate talent as well as what a person has done to maximize results off that talent.  Though I take the point that modern players would beat old players with a time machine.

Matt

Mid-Weight Heavy Putter
Cleveland Tour Action 60˚
Cleveland CG15 54˚
Nike Vapor Pro Combo, 4i-GW
Titleist 585h 19˚
Tour Edge Exotics XCG 15˚ 3 Wood
Taylormade R7 Quad 9.5˚

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
48 minutes ago, mdl said:

There's a few different dimensions to this argument.  One is whether the top 100 players going back in time would dominate the top 100 from the 1940s.  I agree that's true in basically every sport.  But that's not necessarily the definition of better.  Like, if you took the top 100 from the 1940s and brought them forward in time at age 5 to 1995.  How many of them would be in the top 100 today?  There I think the argument is weaker, as genetics don't change that quickly in 3 generations, so the innate talent surely hasn't changed much.

I don't think the argument gets weaker, and I don't think it's about genetics.

Let's imagine that in the 1940s, the top 100 players of football (NFL style) were 1% of the football playing population.

Nowadays they may be 0.01% of that population. There's a good chance a lot of those 1940s players wouldn't even play for a D3 college football program. Or start on their high school team.

It's a numbers game, pure and simple. Additionally, it's about better training, better understanding, better science, etc. The average height of an NBA player has increased since the 1940s. Not necessarily because we've gotten taller as a species, but a tiny bit of that and mostly just a numbers game: taller players are better, given exactly otherwise similar skill sets.

https://shutupandjam.net/nba-ncaa-stats/ht-by-pos/

50 minutes ago, mdl said:

Except, you've got to think about both population size and attractiveness of sports.  The world population is somewhere between 2-3x bigger now than in 1940.  Now not every country is interested in every sport, but lets just grant that the total population of countries whose citizens are into a given sport is 2-3x bigger now.  Just on that argument you'd assume todays top 100 are mostly better than the top 100 70 years ago.

Yep. There you go.

  • Upvote 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
14 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Patrick Roy was the first goalie to really dedicate himself to the butterfly. He didn't invent it, and there were some goalies who used it even in the 70s to some extent, but most goalies were still very much playing a stand-up style in the 80s. 

He changed hockey more than any other player. Defense was big too, but didn't evolve nearly as fast as goaltending did, imo. 

I just remember that he was the first goalie to look bigger than the net to me. How do you score on that??:-P

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

12 hours ago, iacas said:

It's a numbers game, pure and simple. Additionally, it's about better training, better understanding, better science, etc. The average height of an NBA player has increased since the 1940s. Not necessarily because we've gotten taller as a species, but a tiny bit of that and mostly just a numbers game: taller players are better, given exactly otherwise similar skill sets.

I was hoping most everyone was thinking in these terms and not that the species has "evolved" into better athletes in just one generation. I think there are other factors as well.

I think there may have been a large segment of the world's population in past generations that weren't given a chance to compete. MLB now searches the world for talent more than they did in the past. I assume this is the case for other major sports in the way of foreign athletes competing in the NCAA as well as leagues in other continents such as European basketball and Japanese and Dominican baseball.

I also believe that when the "bar" is set by previous generations and it has a positive effect on future athletes. Tony Hawke was the first to pull off a "900" on the skateboard. It's still a tough trick that few can accomplish, but there is a 10 y/o who can now do it and a 12 y/o who can accomplish a 1080...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080_(skateboarding).

I also have another opinion that is hopefully on topic. I think athletics is not all about strength and speed. All other things being equal, yes they trump slower and weaker. But I've read a lot of posts from those who look at the physique of pro golfers and question their athleticism. I don't get that. There are pro fighters - especially in the lighter weights - who might not stand out in a crowd as being exceptional athletes. They might look thin or not have defined muscles, but in addition to above average speed and strength, they have instincts and attributes such as balance or reaction times that few others possess. 

I'm talking out of my ass on this because I'm not very knowledgable, but It bothers me sometimes when pro and college sports scouts go by the numbers as much as they do. Obviously, they are professionals and know what the hell they're doing. But I wonder how many Mike Singletarys or Tom Bradys or Tim Lincecums chose a different career path because a college scout disregarded some of those intangibles in lieu of other metrics.

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
18 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

There are pro fighters - especially in the lighter weights - who might not stand out in a crowd as being exceptional athletes.

I have to disagree. They may not look big (how big can a guy look at 126lbs?) but you're not going to see them on the street and think they eat donuts and watch tv all day. They still look like they spend a good amount of time at the gym, even if you don't recognize them as world-class athletes.

28 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I'm talking out of my ass on this because I'm not very knowledgable, but It bothers me sometimes when pro and college sports scouts go by the numbers as much as they do.

I think it's more the fans and journalists who focus on results. Scouts go to see athletes in person because they're looking at things you can't find in a stat line.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

14 minutes ago, billchao said:

I think it's more the fans and journalists who focus on results. Scouts go to see athletes in person because they're looking at things you can't find in a stat line.

I think you're probably right on this and I stand corrected. But I do know there are baseball coaches who won't seriously consider pitchers under a certain height.

They use the metrics from combines and such because data and experience tells them those are common among performers. They look at agility drills (football) because those tell them something else. But you have to admit, there are other intangibles that those combines do not measure. Those people who are average at combines but possess other qualities may be outliers and are not worth the time or gamble of a college or pro team who has limited recourses, but they do exist. 

15 minutes ago, billchao said:

I have to disagree. They may not look big (how big can a guy look at 126lbs?) but you're not going to see them on the street and think they eat donuts and watch tv all day. They still look like they spend a good amount of time at the gym, even if you don't recognize them as world-class athletes.

Yep, we disagree. I'm not talking about out of shape guys with beer guts. There are a lot of 20-30 year olds who work out and look like world-class athletes but are not. Hell, at that age I had a six pack and very little body fat to go along with very little athletic ability.

Not all athletes look out of the ordinary and not all exceptionally fit individuals are athletes. 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Yep, we disagree. I'm not talking about out of shape guys with beer guts. There are a lot of 20-30 year olds who work out and look like world-class athletes but are not.

Then your definition of a crowd is far different than mine. The average crowd has more out of shape guys with beer guts than 20 something's who work out.

7 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Not all athletes look out of the ordinary and not all exceptionally fit individuals are athletes. 

By that standard, very few professional athletes would stand out at all.

Anyway this is all OT and partially my fault, so my apologies. PM me or start another thread if you're interested in continuing this discussion.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, billchao said:

Then your definition of a crowd is far different than mine. The average crowd has more out of shape guys with beer guts than 20 something's who work out.

By that standard, very few professional athletes would stand out at all.

Anyway this is all OT and partially my fault, so my apologies. PM me or start another thread if you're interested in continuing this discussion.

My fault Billl. Sorry. I suppose a simple “I agree with the OP” would have sufficed.;-)

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Comparing athletes from the 50's and 70's to now is like comparing apples and oranges. Athletes now have much better diets. and personnel  conditioning coaches , some even have tier own chefs to cook for them. We know far more about health now than we did then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


29 minutes ago, The Hook Meister said:

Comparing athletes from the 50's and 70's to now is like comparing apples and oranges. Athletes now have much better diets. and personnel  conditioning coaches , some even have tier own chefs to cook for them. We know far more about health now than we did then.

Yup...we know more know about strength, power, and speed than we have ever before. And the generations after us will likely build upon that even further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 minutes ago, PoundPuppy said:

Pro athletes may be better but amateur golfers don't seem to be making much progress in the last 50~75 years, in spite of advancements in balls and clubs and more well maintained courses.

Why do you say that. Tougher strengths of field makes it tougher to differentiate yourself as elite. 

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
37 minutes ago, PoundPuppy said:

Pro athletes may be better but amateur golfers don't seem to be making much progress in the last 50~75 years, in spite of advancements in balls and clubs and more well maintained courses.

False.

 

Post #42 in that topic is recent.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Why do you say that. Tougher strengths of field makes it tougher to differentiate yourself as elite. 

 

I was referring to amateur golfers when I said: " Pro athletes may be better but amateur golfers don't seem to be making much progress in the last 50~75 years, in spite of advancements in balls and clubs and more well maintained courses".

Regardless of the competition  you still golf against par and from what I hear, the average amateur golfing score has not kept pace relative to the pros.  Here is a quote from Golfweek magazine:  "...

Average Score

As the game has grown, golf technology has also grown by leaps and bounds. Improved club designs, larger and more accurate drivers and even the invention of new clubs, especially hybrids, seemingly have made the game easier to play. And yet, the average score for an amateur golfer still hovers around the 100-stroke mark from year to year."

 

And this from https://golfblogger.com/what_percentage_of_golfers_shoot_under_100/

According to the National Golf Foundation, the average golf score remains where it has been for decades: 100. This, in spite of all the innovations in club and ball design and instruction. The USGA says that the average golf handicap for men is 16.1, and is 29.2 for women.

 

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

False.

 

Post #42 in that topic is recent.

We seem to have a disagreement among "experts".  Who could have imagined THAT happening?  :-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 2 weeks later...
  • Moderator

A bit off topic, tricky line, but musicians are kind of athletes.

Quote

A new level of technical excellence is expected of emerging pianists. I see it not just on the concert circuit but also at conservatories and colleges. In recent years, at recitals and chamber music programs at the Juilliard School and elsewhere, particularly with contemporary-music ensembles, I have repeatedly been struck by the sheer level of instrumental expertise that seems a given.

The pianist Jerome Lowenthal, a longtime faculty member at Juilliard, said in a recent telephone interview from California that a phenomenon is absolutely taking place. He observes it in his own studio.

When the 1996 movie “Shine,” about the mentally ill pianist David Helfgott, raised curiosity about Rachmaninoff’s Third Piano Concerto, Mr. Lowenthal was asked by reporters whether this piece was as formidably difficult as the movie had suggested. He said that he had two answers: “One was that this piece truly is terribly hard. Two was that all my 16-year-old students were playing it.”

Quote

Listen to 1920s and ’30s recordings of the pianist Alfred Cortot, immensely respected in his day. He would probably not be admitted to Juilliard now. Despite the refinement and élan in his playing, his recording of Chopin’s 24 études from the early 1930s is, by today’s standards, littered with clinkers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/arts/music/yuja-wang-and-kirill-gerstein-lead-a-new-piano-generation.html

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2081 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Meanwhile, another old Tour Edge guy switches to Callaway for this season. I have a different problem, course dependent set-ups. What I’m wondering is if @dragonsmhas the 8 iron set 5-PW, AW, GW or just 5-PW, GW. Because the PW is 42°, AW 47°, and GW 52°. Because that could potentially be a gap there. The 5-iron to 6-iron length jump is 5/8” instead of 1/2” so you should be careful of that.    @WUTiger the problem most people have with 3-woods is they don’t play them far enough back into their stance. And they usually don’t have enough loft and the shaft is too long. So 3HL, 4 or 5-wood is probably better for most golfers. I do the “Frankenwood” approach. I have both the 3+ and 5 woods. I typically will either add two degrees to the 3+ on 6600 yards or longer courses, or take a degree off the 5-wood on shorter courses than 6300 or so, and use the 5-wood shaft for both. I don’t usually find a situation where I need both the 3 and 5 wood on a course. I don’t play from 7000 yards it’s no fun. Edit: I mostly agree with @WUTiger on the gapping, although a lot of the newer even fixed hosel fairway woods are made better than what we had when we were playing the old Exotics XRails.
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟦 🟧⬛🟧🟧🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧 par is good after a double bogey yesterday.
    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
    • Generally speaking, extended warranties are a terrible deal and should almost always be avoided. They are a huge profit center for the companies that offer them, which should tell you almost everything you need to know about how much value most consumers get when purchasing them.  This is correct, and the old adage applies - only buy insurance when you can't afford the loss. This usually doesn't apply to most consumer goods.  To your second question, no I don't believe the offer is fair. They are replacing it, but it is not being replaced at "no cost to you". Since the amount being disputed (over $500) is non-trivial, I would probably push the issue. Don't waste your time on the phone with a customer service agent or a supervisor. They have probably given you all they have the authority to do. Rather, I would look at the terms of your agreement and specifically legal disputes. The odds are you probably agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. The agreement will outline what steps need to be followed, but it will probably look something like this.  1. Mail the Nordic Track legal department outlining your dispute and indicate you are not satisfied with the resolution offered.  2. Open up a case with the AAA (American Arbitration Association), along with the required documentation. 3. Wait about 4-5 weeks for a case to be opened - at which point someone from Nordic Track's legal department will offer to give you the new model at no cost to you.  They certainly don't want to spend the time and energy to fight you over $500. 4. Enjoy your new Nordic Track at no cost to you. I recently entered binding arbitration against a fairly large and well known company that screwed me over and refused to make it right. In my demand letter, I made a pretty sizeable request that included compensation for my time and frustration. Once it hit their legal department, they cut me a check - no questions asked. It was far cheaper to settle with me than to send their legal team to defend them in the arbitration.
    • I never thought of looking at it on multiple purchases like you said.  Yes, the extended may help me on 1 or 2 items but not the other 5 or 6.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...