Athletes in Every Sport are Better

[dennyjones]

Sounds like so many other comparison threads we have like the Tiger era vs Jack era.    

[Phil McGleno]

19 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Any better baseball players today than Babe Ruth? Name one that could be the most dominant offensive player by far, a better than average outfielder. a great base runner and one of the best pitchers in the league all the while not getting hurt all of the time.

Bo Jackson

Deion Sanders

Dustin Johnson might be a better athlete than Babe Ruth-I would bet on it if there was actually a way to measure-but he chose golf.

We had a saying-Big fish in a small pond.

That right there is Babe Ruth.

[sheepdog]

Oh Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders were 1st class athletes but do you really think either one of them could do what Ruth did? Let me remind you, before he became the greatest offensive star of the game many considered him the best pitcher in it too.

 

Do you honestly think Deion of Bo would have been a Tom Brady caliber quarterback if given the chance?

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Oh Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders were 1st class athletes but do you really think either one of them could do what Ruth did? Let me remind you, before he became the greatest offensive star of the game many considered him the best pitcher in it too.

Furthermore, and yet again, the topic isn't about the outliers, or individuals. The topic, like the "field" one, is about ALL the players at the top level of the game.

Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders were much better athletes IMO than Babe Ruth. And it's not even close.

[sheepdog]

I love when people hold onto the idea that the players of the 50s or 70s or whatever were the best players, when in EVERY other "sport" - including the "sport" of solving Rubik's Cubes - players continually get better and better.

 

This is your statement, right? I'd say that Babe Ruth is considered a best player of a bygone era. Baseball is considered one of the EVERY other sports. You say players get better in EVERY other sport, I say Ruth is your exception.

 

You have to try and remember what you wrote earlier.👍

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, sheepdog said:

I love when people hold onto the idea that the players of the 50s or 70s or whatever were the best players, when in EVERY other "sport" - including the "sport" of solving Rubik's Cubes - players continually get better and better.

 

This is your statement, right? I'd say that Babe Ruth is considered a best player of a bygone era. Baseball is considered one of the EVERY other sports. You say players get better in EVERY other sport, I say Ruth is your exception.

 

You have to try and remember what you wrote earlier.👍

You have considerable reading comprehension issues. It is as if you don’t even read the OP or any of the discussions. You insert some arbitrary point or misquote what is said, then react to it.

it is so childish and tiring a routine. 

[sheepdog]

16 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

You have considerable reading comprehension issues. It is as if you don’t even read the OP or any of the discussions. You insert some arbitrary point or misquote what is said, then react to it.

it is so childish and tiring a routine. 

Maybe an ignore button would help you.

[Phil McGleno]

Even high school athletes are better now than they were when my kids were in high school. The QB in my son's class was a beanpole but he could throw a ball okay.

The kid that QBs the team now looks like a 25-year-old man -And he is the third best QB in the league, maybe fourth.

[David L Yskes]

i didnt read every post, but this is my 2cents....

in football, yes the player's today are better athletes vs the guys in the 70's and earlier.... yea there are always the guys who could play in any era...   i think the biggest difference would be some of the QB's, look at the ones who got smoked every sunday vs the QB's now, if you dont hit them in a moving area the size of a dinner plate, they call roughing the passer...   

in baseball, this is where I think a lot of the previous athletes where better...   i say this because Player's, played every game for the whole game and extra innings...  every sunday was double header's... pitcher's, pitched the whole game and even extra innings, no pitch counts....  and the talent pool was more condensed...with fewer teams,  no guaranteed contracts so guys played 100% all the time, because their jobs depended on it...  

with golfer's i think it's a wash....  give the guys like, Hogan, Jack, Arnold, Sneed, and the other player's the same equipment from we use today and they'd hit the ball just as far i think..   And same goes for giving modern player's old equipment, they just wouldn't hit the ball as far or as good..     plus modern course maintenance is better..   

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, David L Yskes said:

with golfer's i think it's a wash....  

It’s not. And it goes way beyond equipment.

[RussUK]

5 hours ago, David L Yskes said:

 

with golfer's i think it's a wash....  give the guys like, Hogan, Jack, Arnold, Sneed, and the other player's the same equipment from we use today and they'd hit the ball just as far i think..   .   

 

 

 

 

The guys above, in their prime. given modern clubs may have a chance of hitting it as far as some of the modern players on the odd shot but they still wouldnt be able to compete over 18 holes.  

The fitness of todays players is lightyears ahead of what Hogan & Co had. Todays players are working out to get better stamina and core strength. Modern nutrition also plays a huge part. Todays tour pro's have pretty structured and taylored diets and food plans.

Not sure what Hogan's diet would have been but pretty sure comlex carbs and proteins with measured calorie intake wouldn't have been at the top of his meal agenda.

[iacas]

It goes way beyond working out and equipment. There are more runners in the world. More women’s soccer players. More information. More knowledge. More of everything. That makes play at the highest levels way better.

[jsgolfer]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

It goes way beyond working out and equipment. There are more runners in the world. More women’s soccer players. More information. More knowledge. More of everything. That makes play at the highest levels way better.

This^^

In 1930 when Ben Hogan turned pro, the US population was 123,000,000, in 2010, the population was 310,000,000.  This just makes the pool of players larger, and with the money they can make now, there are just more and more athletes that are playing.  And 70 years down the road, I'm sure the players will be better as well.  You'll always have the great players, it's just that the rest of the players will continue to get better, as the pool of players keeps increasing.

5 hours ago, David L Yskes said:

in baseball, this is where I think a lot of the previous athletes where better...   i say this because Player's, played every game for the whole game and extra innings...  every sunday was double header's... pitcher's, pitched the whole game and even extra innings, no pitch counts....  and the talent pool was more condensed...with fewer teams,  no guaranteed contracts so guys played 100% all the time, because their jobs depended on it...  

As for Babe Ruth, he was the best player of his era and one of the greats of all-time, no slight on him.  But I would say it is actually the opposite, that playing back in the day made the players not as good.  If a pitcher is going an entire game, he's got a better chance of his arm wearing out, than a modern day relief pitcher who throws 100 mph and comes in for a particular batter (Lefty-Lefty match-ups as an example).  And having the talent pool condensed would also lead me in the opposite direction from your opinion.  I'm going to guess that back in 1930, there were lots of good players that didn't play professional sports because they made more money elsewhere or had to work the farm or whatever.  So the players of that era didn't play against the best players all of the time.  Most athletes back in the day had to work another job, as professional sports didn't pay that well.  

6 hours ago, David L Yskes said:

in football, yes the player's today are better athletes vs the guys in the 70's and earlier.... yea there are always the guys who could play in any era...   i think the biggest difference would be some of the QB's, look at the ones who got smoked every sunday vs the QB's now, if you dont hit them in a moving area the size of a dinner plate, they call roughing the passer...   

What does this have to do with OP?  They get smoked every Sunday because the lineman and linebackers are just bigger, faster, stronger.  There are always athletes that would transcend an era here or there, but overall the players are just better now.

6 hours ago, David L Yskes said:

iwith golfer's i think it's a wash....  give the guys like, Hogan, Jack, Arnold, Sneed, and the other player's the same equipment from we use today and they'd hit the ball just as far i think..   And same goes for giving modern player's old equipment, they just wouldn't hit the ball as far or as good..     plus modern course maintenance is better..   

As others have noted, Hogan, Arnie, Jack and others are the outliers, they probably would be better with modern equipment, diet, etc, but there are just more better players in the field.  That's the whole crux of this.  There are more people playing at high levels, which means there are more better players overall.  It's really that simple.  

[Piz]

On a related note: there are some things that appear to have limits.  That Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Steve Dalkowski, etc...could throw as hard as some of today's fastest pitchers/bowlers does not mean athletes haven't improved, dramatically, over the last 30, 60, or 90 years.  

[saevel25]

40 minutes ago, Piz said:

On a related note: there are some things that appear to have limits.  That Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Steve Dalkowski, etc...could throw as hard as some of today's fastest pitchers/bowlers does not mean athletes haven't improved, dramatically, over the last 30, 60, or 90 years.  

Yep, and there are more pictchers today who throw above 95 mph than ever before.

Quote

"It's unbelievable the number of guys who throw 95," Yankees lefty CC Sabathia said. "You've got [a lefty relieving a lefty] and both of them throwing 95. It wasn't like that when I first came up."

 

[BaconNEggs]

Babe Ruth is an icon and no doubt an all-time great. But relevant to this discussion, he played in the pre-integration era. The league was 99.9% white. The MLB is now closer to 55% white. There was a massive talent pool excluded from the game. 

There's a good chart of the fastest mile run times by year, that very clearly slopes down over time, and I suspect it's fairly indicative of overall skill levels of athletes in general over time (inverse). Everything about athletics has gotten better: nutrition, equipment, knowledge, etc.. Add to that deeper talent pools and voila. 

I'm always going to be skeptical if someone says the best person at a particular physical activity lived 100 years ago. Seems like misguided nostalgia, or a desire for some mythical hero who was just that special, that even with 100 years of athletic progress, he's still the best. It's just not likely.  

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Babe Ruth is an icon and no doubt an all-time great. But relevant to this discussion, he played in the pre-integration era. The league was 99.9% white. The MLB is now closer to 55% white. There was a massive talent pool excluded from the game. 

There's a good chart of the fastest mile run times by year, that very clearly slopes down over time, and I suspect it's fairly indicative of overall skill levels of athletes in general over time (inverse). Everything about athletics has gotten better: nutrition, equipment, knowledge, etc.. Add to that deeper talent pools and voila. 

I'm always going to be skeptical if someone says the best person at a particular physical activity lived 100 years ago. Seems like misguided nostalgia, or a desire for some mythical hero who was just that special, that even with 100 years of athletic progress, he's still the best. It's just not likely.  

Come on man! Old Tom Morris would have crushed Tiger and Jack in their primes! His beard was way better!

[Lihu]

23 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

Babe Ruth is an icon and no doubt an all-time great. But relevant to this discussion, he played in the pre-integration era. The league was 99.9% white. The MLB is now closer to 55% white. There was a massive talent pool excluded from the game. 

There's a good chart of the fastest mile run times by year, that very clearly slopes down over time, and I suspect it's fairly indicative of overall skill levels of athletes in general over time (inverse). Everything about athletics has gotten better: nutrition, equipment, knowledge, etc.. Add to that deeper talent pools and voila. 

I'm always going to be skeptical if someone says the best person at a particular physical activity lived 100 years ago. Seems like misguided nostalgia, or a desire for some mythical hero who was just that special, that even with 100 years of athletic progress, he's still the best. It's just not likely.  

Skeptical? The first thing that comes to my mind is “challenged “. 🤪

 

 

9 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Come on man! Old Tom Morris would have crushed Tiger and Jack in their primes! His beard was way better!

Exactly what I think!

 

 

 

Joking... 😁