A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?
Both Owens and Hayes were genetic freaks - WAY ahead of their times (as is Bolt today). Hayes could certainly sprint today and he'd still be a huge receiver threat in the pros. Owens wouldn't be in the league with Bolt or Gay, but yeah, he could hang. But they were head and shoulders (and torso) ahead of their peers.
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?
Both Owens and Hayes were genetic freaks - WAY ahead of their times (as is Bolt today). Hayes could certainly sprint today and he'd still be a huge receiver threat in the pros. Owens wouldn't be in the league with Bolt or Gay, but yeah, he could hang. But they were head and shoulders (and torso) ahead of their peers.
I knew I would get through to you eventually. You've used a good phrase - "genetic freak". The genetic freaks from the days of yore would be bigger, faster and stronger genetic freaks if they had been around today since they would have had the same generational advantages as today's athletes. For example, I don't think that Trindon Holliday would be able to beat Bob Hayes in the 100 meters if Hayes was around today, despite the fact that Holliday has run faster that Hayes's PR on numerous occasions. Similarly, Jim Brown was a genetic freak and if his clone were born today, he would be bigger than 6'2" - 232 and faster than 4.5s.
jazzcyclist wrote:I knew I would get through to you eventually. You've used a good phrase - "genetic freak". The genetic freaks from the days of yore would be bigger, faster and stronger genetic freaks if they had been around today since they would have had the same generational advantages as today's athletes. For example, I don't think that Trindon Holliday would be able to beat Bob Hayes in the 100 meters if Hayes was around today, despite the fact that Holliday has run faster that Hayes's PR on numerous occasions. Similarly, Jim Brown was a genetic freak and if his clone were born today, he would be bigger than 6'2" - 232 and faster than 4.5s.
I was never 'inaccessible'. Simple logic works every time! I agree that Hayes would beat Holliday (and Demps), but that's just because the tracks, shoes, and technical aspects of sprinting have improved. Jim Brown would still be 6'2, but he'd be 250 (more time in the weight room) and faster (same reason). He'd still be a premier back in the NFL, but mostly due to his superior 'vision', a vastly underrated 'talent' for RBs. The guy that recognizes where the holes are and how they are developing is a great asset.
jazzcyclist wrote:If one of today's teams had to go back into the 60's and play just one Sunday by the rules of that day, I think they would be in for a rude awakening despite their size, strength and speed advantage. Between, the stricter pass blocking rules and the defensive linemen wopping them up side the head, the offensive lineman would get called for holding or get their quarterback killed on every play. Furthermore, the receivers would struggle to get open with unrestricted bump-and-run coverage. If Belichick' Patriots only had a week to prepare, my money would be on Lombardi's Packers. Of course, the more games they played, the better they would become until their generational advantages tipped the scales in their favor.
You're bouncing all over the place. Do the current players have the size, strength and speed advantage or not. In some responses you couch your point by stating directly or implying that the players of yesteryear would have all the advantages of today's players and in others you declare that today's players are bigger and stronger, etc and the rules and toughness would even things out.
If your stating that yesterday's players placed in today's society would be the equal athletically of today's players I'd agree with you to some degree. If your stating that their abilities in their own times would remain the same then today's players would absolutely wipe the floor with the old guys.
Avante wrote:Would Tarkenton/Staubach out run todays backers....nope!
Why not? Michael Vick is doing the same thing today? Avante, the thing you keep overlooking is the fact that all of the advanatges you point to are generational, not evolutionary. In my hypothetical football games, the generational advantages are completely ignored, since I imagine how things might have been if a specific athlete was born at a different point in time. However, I do consider things like the size of the talent pool and evolution if those factors are relevant to the debate.
Here's a question for you and Marlow. How do you compare folks like Bob Hayes and Jess Owens to today's sprinters? Would they be able to compete with Tyson Gay, Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell if they had been born in the 1980's? I say yes for the same reasons that I say the old time football players would be able to compete, but you might have other ideas?
Jesse Owens was beaten many times in the 100. He was not all that as a sprinter....honest! You can actually make a case for Metcalfe being the better sprinter. Then there's Eulace Peacock. Owens was an amazing long jumper.
Bob Hayes competed against...
Harry Jerome Roger Sayers Trenton Jackson Mel Pender Gerry Ashworth Bernie Rivers Darel Newman John Moon Nate Adams Paul Drayton Richard Stebbins Enrique Figuerola
...only Jerome/Figuerola would be considered a great 100 sprinter. Not knocking Bullet Bob. He was a big and powerful as anyone sprinting today. He just wouldn't shine vs the quality of sprinter today like he did back in the day. I do however see him in the mix something I can't say about any of those others not even Jerome.Figuerola. Bullet Bob was head and shoulders above his USA competition.
Bob Hayes and Jim Brown are still talked about when the greats are discussed. They probably could compete vs any era, not that they'd dominate. Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.
Avante wrote:Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.
There's two different questions here. 1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing. 2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.
If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.
Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.
Avante wrote:Jimmy Brown is not running over these guys today like he did those guys back when. He is not blowing by these db's today like he did those db's. He was already big and and fast.
There's two different questions here. 1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing. 2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.
If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.
Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.
When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.
Avante wrote:When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.
Marlow wrote:1. If you time-traveled Jim Brown to today, let him work from pre-season camp on, he'd still be among the league leaders in rushing. 2. If you time-traveled him as a new-born to 1985 and saw him play today at 25, yeah, he'd be THE Man.
If you did the same to Hayes, plopped him intact into a fall 2010 work-out prior to the 2011 season, he'd be right behind Bolt and Gay. Have him born in 1985 and still a pro at 25? He'd be right on Bolt's butt, ahead of Gay.
That's what I've been saying all along.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like Marlow. He once was lost but now is found, Was blind, but now he sees.
Marlow wrote:Athletes today are not only better because of weight training, nutrition, and training techniques today, there's just lots more of them, raised from an earlier age to specialize in A sport.
Good points! Back in those days, not only did Hayes not have to compete against Caribbean and African sprinters, but the financial incentives in sports is so much greater today than it was in those days. The average NFL football salary was probably not significantly higher than the salary of the average American worker back in Jim Brown's day. Based on the total inflation of 590.23% in the American economy from 1965 to 2010, Jim Brown maximum salary of $75,000 would only be $442,672.50 today. However, the 2010 league minimum for a player with 7-9 years of experience is $760,000! So even with adjustments for inflation, Jim Brown, arguably the greatest player of all-times, made barely half of the league minimum when he played.
Avante wrote:When it comes to Jimmy Brown/Bob Hayes and Tommie Smith it's really hard to do anything disrespectful. They were totally...wow! Those three were just as physically gifted as anyone today, the thing is we can't say that about 95% of those they competed against. MOST....those oldies wouldn't make it today under and scenario/time machine. Jimmy Brown would still be a load, Hayes would still be one of the fastest in the league, Smith would still be...."The Jet" I don't think they would be as awe inspiring as they were however. The competition isn't the same.
I basically agree with this, but I would also add that very few of today's athletes are freaks. Certainly Michael Vick is a freak, but I don't think there's anything exceptional about Peyton Manning or Tom Brady other than they're a little bigger the quarterbacks of Staubach's era due to nutrition and medicine. Julius Peppers is also a freak, but how many of today's athletes fit in his category? 5%? 7%? 10%? The freaks from any era would have been freaks regardless of when they were born.
What's happening to the game I grew up with? I realize that the powers-that-be want to make the game safer and I agree 100% with players who have suffered a concussion being benched until they're cleared by doctors, but something's wrong when the NFL fines Golden Tate for a perfectly clean block. Keep in mind that the referees didn't call a penalty on him. Roger Goodell should just be honest and say they are outlawing hard hits, because if you put someone to sleep, he's going to fine you even if you use textbook form. Here's a link to the video:
jazzcyclist wrote:say they are outlawing hard hits
What do you think the penalty for "unnecessary roughness" is? There was no need for something vicious like that. All the blocker had to do was literally get in his way and the guy couldn't have made the tackle. You see that all the time in downfield blocks: guys just get in the way of would-be tacklers, so they can't catch the ball-carrier. The NFL is in its terminal stages if they can't rein in the injuries caused by head-hunters.
jazzcyclist wrote:say they are outlawing hard hits
What do you think the penalty for "unnecessary roughness" is? There was no need for something vicious like that. All the blocker had to do was literally get in his way and the guy couldn't have made the tackle. You see that all the time in downfield blocks: guys just get in the way of would-be tacklers, so they can't catch the ball-carrier. The NFL is in its terminal stages if they can't rein in the injuries caused by head-hunters.
You sound like someone who never played football, because what you preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees. You're taught to arrive at the scene of impact as fast as you can and to deliver the hit with extreme prejudice, not calibrate your speed based on what you feel is necessary to avoid injuring your target. To do what you ask, we might as well put flags on the players and take the helmets and pads off.
Furthermore, there was no head-hunting by Tate on that play, all the impact was delivered to the chest area, straight out of the textbooks. I actually agree with eliiniating the head-hunting, but that's not what happened on this play. I have a very strong hunch that Goodell wouldn't be throwing around these silly fines if he had ever played football at any level. I hope enough players get tired of these fines to drag him back to court so that he gets his hand slapped by a judge AGAIN before he totally ruins the game.
jazzcyclist wrote:what you're preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees.
Interestingly, this is exactly why I have zero interest in american football.
I don't watch the pros any more (unless I get a ticket to the Jags game) and my interest in college is due to old school ties. Any game where the idea is to hurt your opponent unnecessarily is not sport. Boxing is on its way out and MMA/UFC is one horrific death away from severe regulation (it'll happen soon).
jazzcyclist wrote:You sound like someone who never played football, because what you preaching goes against everything that's ingrained in football players from the time they're pewees. You're taught to arrive at the scene of impact as fast as you can and to deliver the hit with extreme prejudice, not calibrate your speed based on what you feel is necessary to avoid injuring your target. To do what you ask, we might as well put flags on the players and take the helmets and pads off.
My grandson's 7th grade football season is just about one third done and my observation is that they discourage "unnecessary roughness" right from the start of those football careers. They penalize even "clean" hits when delivered more harsh than necessary to tackle the ball-carrier.
As far as the helmets are concerned, I believe that the current helmet is a major contributing factors to injuries. It should be restructured (softened) to protect the head without being a deadly weapon.
Marlow wrote:Boxing is on its way out and MMA/UFC is one horrific death away from severe regulation (it'll happen soon).
Sorry to have to mention this here, but MMA is safer than pole vaulting. So with all due respect, Marlow, better be careful what you wish for. And professional MMA in the U.S. is rather heavily regulated as it is.
Marlow wrote:Boxing is on its way out and MMA/UFC is one horrific death away from severe regulation (it'll happen soon).
Sorry to have to mention this here, but MMA is safer than pole vaulting. So with all due respect, Marlow, better be careful what you wish for. And professional MMA in the U.S. is rather heavily regulated as it is.
Red herring - no one is trying to injure anyone in PVing. Cheerleading has more injuries than PVing. MMA is NOT safer than PVing, just because there have been PV deaths. MMA is a savage beat-down between consulting adults. As far as MMA regulation goes, the lack of protective padding and the fact that you can choke someone out, says all it needs to say.
That said, PVing has indeed been discontinued in some areas, as well it should be whenever unsafe conditions (or personnel) exist. I have 'cancelled' the event at away meets (when I withdraw my athletes, I ensure all athletes are stopped).
Marlow wrote:the fact that you can choke someone out, says all it needs to say.
So I assume you're also opposed to the Olympic sport of judo then?
Does the epithet of 'Olympic Sport' preclude criticism? If ckoking out your opponent is a viable tactic, yeah, I've got a problem with it. Is it something you'd recommend for your daughter? "Don't worry, honey, I'm sure she won't accidentally crush your trachea, even though that's kinda the object of the move."
[On the other hand, all three of my kids pole vaulted and now my 9-year-old grandson is doing it. Neither of my two sons ever wanted to try football. Not a word from my wife or me.]
Marlow wrote:even though that's kinda the object of the move."
No, it's not. The general difference is between air chokes (reducing air flow to the lungs) and blood chokes (reducing blood flow to the brain). Air chokes are the ones that pose the danger of injuring the trachea, while blood chokes are the ones that are used in MMA and judo.
I was once used in a judo demonstration to demonstrate a choke hold. I was strangled almost into unconsciousness by a local guy, Keith Remfry, who had won silver in the open division at the Montreal Games a month earlier. Most unpleasant and confirmed my decision that being a wussy high jumper was just fine. Ranked up there in unpleasantness with being pinned to the ground at the bottom of a ruck in rugby, being unable to protect my head or goolies with the opposition intent on a bit of afternoon GBH.
jazzcyclist wrote:..... I have a very strong hunch that Goodell wouldn't be throwing around these silly fines if he had ever played football at any level.....
<<of Buffalo, New York. He graduated from Bronxville High School where, as a three-sport star in football, basketball, and baseball, he captained all three teams as a senior and was named the school's athlete of the year.[5] Injuries kept him from playing college football.[6] ...>>
