Would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no?
I wouldn’t know because there are other factors but I would say that nutrition wouldn’t be a limiting factor for them. And that’s the point because this is merely a probability system. The fact that nutrition does correlate directly to increased height is accepted as true.
Poor countries which have poor nutrition have a shorter population on average with richer countries which have better nutrition. But. Sometimes you get a tall human regardless. Maybe it’s 0.8% of the population. Now. Give that country better prenatal care, formula, better nutrition during developmental years. You might increase the percentage of those tall people in the population a couple percentage. Some percentage of those tall people will be athletic. That serves to increase the pool.
With globalization we have increased access. With economic advancement and industrialization we increased leisure allowing for more people to opt for sports. More importantly with leisure we allowed for more people to enjoy sports which increased the opportunity. This leads to specialization. Just because a human grows to 6’6” or whatever doesn’t mean they’re going to bulk up like a modern lineman either. They have to want to do that because it requires a huge caloric investment and lots of work to turn that into muscle.
Access increases the population of potential athletes and specialization allows them to tailor their bodies to an optimality. This is why when you look at 1940s football almost every position was the same build. More similar to rugby. Today you can guess who is the O-Lineman and who returns the punts. That’s because of specialization. This is true for swimmers and jockeys and NFLers … alll of them.
Nutrition plays its role by producing a larger pool of tall humans for sports where a large frame helps. We can talk about other factors also but I’m not aware of any others worth considering past these. None that I think would move the needle.
You should stop misrepresenting my statements. I’m not saying @1948_Swell_Robinson said this and that and he thinks this. It’s rude. I have to spend all my clicks correcting these ridiculous misrepresentations rather than actually discussing something.
In this particular case you’re arguing against a lot of expert opinion. It’s not my research and my data and my results forming my opinion. There’s a mountain of consensus here that I think you’re ignoring. I teach my kids to be stupid quietly. That means if you don’t know what you’re talking about you should be listening.
The food we eat has a lot to do with people being much bigger now, I'm not talking about making an effort to take in the proper protein to build muscle but the the steroids, preservatives and all the other stuff they put it in the food, that in my opinion has a lot to do with it.
If you look at the produce now the fruits and vegetables have doubled and tripled in size since the 70's and 80's
Obviously the training and knowledge is far greater now but the food is a huge factor in my opinion
Would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no?
I wouldn’t know because there are other factors but I would say that nutrition wouldn’t be a limiting factor for them. And that’s the point because this is merely a probability system. The fact that nutrition does correlate directly to increased height is accepted as true.
What is the biggest factor that would generate a group of elite athletes when comparing the athletes on the Mayflower to the athletes in Boston now? It is the sheer number more people in the area/country/world that will produce more bigger/better athletes that has nothing to do with nutrition(well not nothing unless an elite athlete isn't eating at all).
I'm not talking about Oliver twist eating a steak instead of a bowl of broth causing the average person to be a little taller over time.
A top three athlete from 1920 is not going to be a top three athlete from 2023 simply because nutrition is better. The fact that there are X more people in the population pool to draw from and X more people looking to play is going be the biggest determining factor on how many people will have large and electric muscles within a big body.
Those players are born. Elite athletes are born that way. Nutrition and training can only move the needle so much...and elite athletes since 1910 did train and eat good enough. All you need is protein, carbs, and fat.
So it isn't nutrition causing more Jalen Carters on the athletic field. He is a freak of nature. It is more people in the world generating more chances of creating freaks of natures.
The more people around the more elite athletes are born.
The top three American athletes from 1 million teenagers in 1910 is not going to be the top three athletes from a pool of 2 million teenagers in 2020 regardless of how much nutrition is added to them. The 2 million athlete pool is going to produce more Jalen Carters naturally. When you count the pool of another 2 million teenagers from other countries now supplying athletes the chances of an elite athlete grow even more.
So no, the previous generation elite doesn't automatically become elite in a future generation simply because there would be better nutrtion. They would still be overshadowed simply because there is far more competition and they would have no chance to dominate the current league as they did theirs.
Jim Brown would not be averaging the same yards per carry vs the bigger and faster defensive players now. Brown was already big and strong. He was born an elite athlete already and did eat his protein and carbs. Now there are simply more people born with that same elite athletic gene that are as strong and faster on the defensive side of the ball that he could not dominate the same
Would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no?
I wouldn’t know because there are other factors but I would say that nutrition wouldn’t be a limiting factor for them. And that’s the point because this is merely a probability system. The fact that nutrition does correlate directly to increased height is accepted as true.
What is the biggest factor that would generate a group of elite athletes when comparing the athletes on the Mayflower to the athletes in Boston now? It is the sheer number more people in the area/country/world that will produce more bigger/better athletes that has nothing to do with nutrition(well not nothing unless an elite athlete isn't eating at all).
I'm not talking about Oliver twist eating a steak instead of a bowl of broth causing the average person to be a little taller over time.
A top three athlete from 1920 is not going to be a top three athlete from 2023 simply because nutrition is better. The fact that there are X more people in the population pool to draw from and X more people looking to play is going be the biggest determining factor on how many people will have large and electric muscles within a big body.
Those players are born. Elite athletes are born that way. Nutrition and training can only move the needle so much...and elite athletes since 1910 did train and eat good enough. All you need is protein, carbs, and fat.
So it isn't nutrition causing more Jalen Carters on the athletic field. He is a freak of nature. It is more people in the world generating more chances of creating freaks of natures.
The more people around the more elite athletes are born.
The top three American athletes from 1 million teenagers in 1910 is not going to be the top three athletes from a pool of 2 million teenagers in 2020 regardless of how much nutrition is added to them. The 2 million athlete pool is going to produce more Jalen Carters naturally. When you count the pool of another 2 million teenagers from other countries now supplying athletes the chances of an elite athlete grow even more.
So no, the previous generation elite doesn't automatically become elite in a future generation simply because there would be better nutrtion. They would still be overshadowed simply because there is far more competition and they would have no chance to dominate the current league as they did theirs.
Jim Brown would not be averaging the same yards per carry vs the bigger and faster defensive players now. Brown was already big and strong. He was born an elite athlete already and did eat his protein and carbs. Now there are simply more people born with that same elite athletic gene that are as strong and faster on the defensive side of the ball that he could not dominate the same
It appears that you’re asserting that the most significant factor is the probability of genetic predisposition in the population increasing as the population increases. You are correct. This puts more bullets in the gun in a similar way that nutrition during development does. While you might see this as the most significant factor it isn’t.
There’s a field of science that studies this effect of “heritability”. This would perhaps speak to you as you will see that, at the individual level, a persons height is influenced by genetics by some 60-80 percent and nutrition 20-40 percent. At the individual level heritability is the most important thing. As you suggest you get more genetically gifted people - in terms of height. This isn’t that powerful when you consider a population.
I’m saying that in developed countries, nutrition for childhood development maximizes the genetic potential for height. This doesn’t consider selection or advanced hormones given during early development through puberty.
I can’t see this any other way than how it is and I’m not aware that this is a mystery. It’s been studied for over 100 years. In other words — we thought we knew until you said we didn’t.
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
Which era do you think will produce more athletes closer to Jim Brown athletically? It has nothing to do with nutrition. Elite athletes are born.
Like you said, just by probability there is going to be 2.7 times MORE elite African American athletes for Derrick Henry to compete against than Jim Brown did.
Then how many more elites coming from parents who purposely chose a mate that increased their chances of producing an off spring that would have physical attributes to be elite to increase their chances of being a pro? I know first hand of several people who did exactly that.
Now the training and nutrition part does play a factor(like i said it does a million times), but again, those factors having nothing to do with the competition pool growing where you can just say, "well an athlete now will benefit from better nutrtion and training and the best then will still be the best now." No.
Societal factors play a role too and that would only make it harder for Brown to compete because the money is making certain every athlete is taking a shot now.
Yes, I know that is only one segment of the population.
NFL/AFL had 24 teams in 1961
NFL has 32 teams now.
NFL doesn't really draw internationally. Other sports do(especially NBA and MLB).
So even if the number of jobs available grew in relation to the number of population(which it didn't in pro football), the top of the league in 2025 was better than the top of the league in 1961...and should be at least 2.7x more at the top(and even more when you consider mate choosing) so that Jim Brown would simply not be outdistancing his elite peers to the same degree as he did back then.
So again, that has nothing to do with nutrition.
Nutrition is playing a factor independent of that huge factor...and again, nutrition increase league wide means that league wide the talent grows closer to the top, and that means Brown doesn't run over people the same way he did then too for that factor.
Edited to add that in 1961 only 16% pro football was African Amercian. So there is that. That isn't hard to see how much of a factor that is too.
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
@bgr said:
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
@bgr said:
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
If we agree here we can move on.
Yes I would agree.
So then the next two factors are genetics and environment (nutrition and other factors). I say nutrition and other factors because nutrition is the largest environmental factor for a population. If you’re talking about an individual then there are other primary factors that operate at lower probabilities, like safety, which have a larger individual impact when they occur. Randomness.
Genetics is the largest individual factor at the individual level while nutrition during development flips to a limiting factor. This is because genetics impacts heritability much more than nutrition. If your parents are 6’ then it’s most likely you’ll be 6’. The impact of nutrition is between 2 and 4 centimeters. At the population level, if you look at the histogram of heights that 2 to 4 cm makes a bigger difference because it nudges the mean up. Do this over a few generations with science and selection and you see this.
@Maywood said: The game has evolved so much that the 1950's Browns would get murdered by this years Titans team let alone competing against Brady or Mahomes led teams
And I have said this before, if the players today had to play under the rules of the 1950's their play would be adversely affected. Holding, all the "hand play" with receivers/db's and the protection afforded QB's would make it much more physical game. My point was simple in that all the rule changes have been to the advantage of the offense and the QB position and yet some records established 70 years ago have not been surpassed.
I have been arguing for many years that the players of yesteryear were just as good as today.
the ONLY reasons players today are physically larger, faster, stronger is better nutrition/medical care/training techniques.
you bring the average 260 pound lineman from the 50s that were born in the 30s to be born in the late 90s/early 00s and those same guys would be the 330 pounders that are playing for the eagles today.
So the top 10 athletes in New York in the year 1750(if born in the year 2000) would be as good/big/strong as the top 10 athletes in New York in 2025 due to nutrition? No they wouldn't... and neither would the top 10 athletes from 1950.
Nutrition is a factor but only a small one to that question.
Nutrition is a small factor at the individual level but it does play an inflated role in the aggregate by increasing the number of healthy men who might consider playing football. In 1920 there was no need to add so much bulk so why would someone do that to play a silly game that would destroy their body and leave them destitute?
Well, they did exercise then and they did play football....and a lot of people watched them do it.
What do you think produces a 300 pound male that is agile and athletic? It isn't nutrition. Those are natural athletic freaks born from nature. You can feed someone as much as you want until they are 300 pounds, but that will just guarantee they will be slob...and not athletic.
It really has to do more with natural strength/size/ability arising from a higher population of human candidates in addition to the mating of male adults seeking female adults with physical qualities that when merged, produce better equipped offspring. That is how you get more humans being 330 pounds AND agile.
How many 300 pound agile athletes were on the Mayflower? Per your theory, do you really think that if you pumped the entire population of Mayflower men with modern nutrition/traiing that you would get the same amount of 300 pound agile athletes that are in Boston right now? No, you wouldn't.
Again, nutrition plays a role, but just a role....kinda of a role like Steve Kerr did on the Bulls.
Training plays a role too of course. When it is said above that those were the "ONLY" factors, it just wasn't accurate.
It is quite complex especially when you add societal/world factors too(which are even bigger than nutrtion)
I don’t think you understood what I said.
Yeah, I did. It just wasn't accurate.
I don’t think you did. This is what I said.
It has most to do with access and specialization. Nutrition helps greatly to increase the selection pool. If you look at the players from those early decades you might see what I observe regarding the lack of disparity among body types across all positions.
I can’t disagree that nutrition plays a factor because I agree with the data and it’s accepted by the scientific community.
You can do so much better if you just accept that you don’t know everything. I have. It’s nice. If you don’t know something just look it up.
The biased selection process you’re using to support your premise is hardly scientific. If one person eats the same thing another person did would they turn out the same anthropometrics? Do you need this answer?
Read your initial statement again and you see where you had inaccuracies. I bet if you looked again you can see them. Look from within.
No biased selection. I answered in this thread because it was stated that nutrition and science were the "ONLY" reasons and that is not accurate at all.
I ask again, would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no? What does your 'science' say to that question?
Since you can't or won't answer...or you realize that the answer really shows your 'science' doesn't have all the answers that you are pretending to have by saying 'science' and using words like 'aggregate' to make it look like those stances have to be correct...and they aren't.
So you see there are other major factors at play. I know that. I also know that there are more questions than answers...again, hence why I joined the topic when it was stated as "ONLY".
If there are 1 million teenage boys in 1910 and 2 million teenage boys in 2021, why would the top million boys from 1910 be as big/strong/good as the top million boys from 2021 just because they had the same nutrtion like you are saying? What about the next million boys from 2021? Where would they rank? Where do they fit? Those extra million all rank below the million from 1910??
I listed the primary factors which science has agreed upon based on the data that we have.
Access
And
Specialization
However. Nutrition is not a minor factor and there are others. I have provided research that supports the claim that nutrition plays a major role in human height. Further, they determine that you can estimate standard of living based on average height of a population.
With regard to sports though it’s mostly access and specialization.
What a silly place. Science and aggregate. Embarrassing
I think you are correct and are also at the point where 1948 is either no longer listening to you or does not understand you.
@bgr said:
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
If we agree here we can move on.
Yes I would agree.
So then the next two factors are genetics and environment (nutrition and other factors). I say nutrition and other factors because nutrition is the largest environmental factor for a population. If you’re talking about an individual then there are other primary factors that operate at lower probabilities, like safety, which have a larger individual impact when they occur. Randomness.
Genetics is the largest individual factor at the individual level while nutrition during development flips to a limiting factor. This is because genetics impacts heritability much more than nutrition. If your parents are 6’ then it’s most likely you’ll be 6’. The impact of nutrition is between 2 and 4 centimeters. At the population level, if you look at the histogram of heights that 2 to 4 cm makes a bigger difference because it nudges the mean up. Do this over a few generations with science and selection and you see this.
This is not genetics.
Many factors with the population increase being the biggest one in terms of producing elite athletes and elite competition to dominate or not dominate....and bigger/faster elite athletes
When you add that international athletes became a major factor (especially in NBA and MLB) that pool grew even larger than anyone in 1960 or prior had to compete with
In the end @craig44 is wrong that given the same nutrition that the elite athletes of 1960 would do just as well and be just as big/fast as the elite athletes of 2020 and he is wrong as I'm not surprised as usual.
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
The NFL in 1961 only had 16% of their league as African American. In 2025 the NFL was over 50%.
So it is no wonder why it was easy for Jim Brown to dominate and why someone like Derrik Henry is better.
@bgr said:
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
If we agree here we can move on.
Yes I would agree.
So then the next two factors are genetics and environment (nutrition and other factors). I say nutrition and other factors because nutrition is the largest environmental factor for a population. If you’re talking about an individual then there are other primary factors that operate at lower probabilities, like safety, which have a larger individual impact when they occur. Randomness.
Genetics is the largest individual factor at the individual level while nutrition during development flips to a limiting factor. This is because genetics impacts heritability much more than nutrition. If your parents are 6’ then it’s most likely you’ll be 6’. The impact of nutrition is between 2 and 4 centimeters. At the population level, if you look at the histogram of heights that 2 to 4 cm makes a bigger difference because it nudges the mean up. Do this over a few generations with science and selection and you see this.
This is not genetics.
Many factors with the population increase being the biggest one in terms of producing elite athletes and elite competition to dominate or not dominate....and bigger/faster elite athletes
When you add that international athletes became a major factor (especially in NBA and MLB) that pool grew even larger than anyone in 1960 or prior had to compete with
In the end @craig44 is wrong that given the same nutrition that the elite athletes of 1960 would do just as well and be just as big/fast as the elite athletes of 2020 and he is wrong as I'm not surprised as usual.
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
The NFL in 1961 only had 16% of their league as African American. In 2025 the NFL was over 50%.
So it is no wonder why it was easy for Jim Brown to dominate and why someone like Derrik Henry is better.
I think the discussion of why we have larger individuals in football or other sports is separate from a discussion as to whether a particularly dominant player from a past era would have the same level of dominance if they were dropped into the game today.
Mixing these seems disingenuous. Whether Jim Brown would do as well today doesn’t tell me anything about why there are much larger linemen. Again, at the individual level, it’s impossible to assume what this outcome would be. Are we teleporting him in to today’s game? Are we assuming this as if he was born in 2000? My opinion is that past greats would have the opportunity to be great today but it would not be a guarantee that their skill is sufficient or that they could develop sufficient skill. Their physical dominance would be reduced generically by the other factors we have discussed. Whether Jim Brown was able to maintain his dominance would be subject to whether he was able to develop his stature and skill in a way that allows him to translate his performative delta to today’s game. Perhaps that’s interesting to hypothesize but I don’t know.
@perkdog said: Some of the stars would be fine like Otto, Brown ect but the depth of the rest of the team would get utterly run over in an ugly way.
Jim Brown didn't start playing in the NFL until 1957. The Browns string of NFL Championships ended in 1955 and along with the Head Coach there were 6 future HOF'ers on the roster. There were more than a few stars on the team and overall they shouldn't be dismissed so easily by an astute fan of the game. Neither should the rules, that's all I'm saying. If you watch much archived footage the way the players played during that era isn't so much because they weren't physically or mentally equipped to play better, they were constrained by the rules and by much tighter officiating,
I won't say a modern NFL team couldn't win in such a matchup, I'm only saying it wouldn't be the walkover you suppose it would be.
@bgr said:
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
If we agree here we can move on.
Yes I would agree.
So then the next two factors are genetics and environment (nutrition and other factors). I say nutrition and other factors because nutrition is the largest environmental factor for a population. If you’re talking about an individual then there are other primary factors that operate at lower probabilities, like safety, which have a larger individual impact when they occur. Randomness.
Genetics is the largest individual factor at the individual level while nutrition during development flips to a limiting factor. This is because genetics impacts heritability much more than nutrition. If your parents are 6’ then it’s most likely you’ll be 6’. The impact of nutrition is between 2 and 4 centimeters. At the population level, if you look at the histogram of heights that 2 to 4 cm makes a bigger difference because it nudges the mean up. Do this over a few generations with science and selection and you see this.
This is not genetics.
Many factors with the population increase being the biggest one in terms of producing elite athletes and elite competition to dominate or not dominate....and bigger/faster elite athletes
When you add that international athletes became a major factor (especially in NBA and MLB) that pool grew even larger than anyone in 1960 or prior had to compete with
In the end @craig44 is wrong that given the same nutrition that the elite athletes of 1960 would do just as well and be just as big/fast as the elite athletes of 2020 and he is wrong as I'm not surprised as usual.
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
The NFL in 1961 only had 16% of their league as African American. In 2025 the NFL was over 50%.
So it is no wonder why it was easy for Jim Brown to dominate and why someone like Derrik Henry is better.
I think the discussion of why we have larger individuals in football or other sports is separate from a discussion as to whether a particularly dominant player from a past era would have the same level of dominance if they were dropped into the game today.
Mixing these seems disingenuous. Whether Jim Brown would do as well today doesn’t tell me anything about why there are much larger linemen. Again, at the individual level, it’s impossible to assume what this outcome would be. Are we teleporting him in to today’s game? Are we assuming this as if he was born in 2000? My opinion is that past greats would have the opportunity to be great today but it would not be a guarantee that their skill is sufficient or that they could develop sufficient skill. Their physical dominance would be reduced generically by the other factors we have discussed. Whether Jim Brown was able to maintain his dominance would be subject to whether he was able to develop his stature and skill in a way that allows him to translate his performative delta to today’s game. Perhaps that’s interesting to hypothesize but I don’t know.
That's always been the whole point of the discussion on these boards and in sports in general....and I should have stated that better in regard to your discussion(of which is very informative in your info).
In short, Brown dominated a smaller number of, and weaker number of, pool of humans compared to Henry.
Does that make Henry better? Most likely but not guaranteed. Does that make Henry's dominance more impressive? Absolutely yes, IMO.
It is kind of like Craig dominating at a local Elementary School basketball league and saying he is as good as Lebron because his stats are better.
@Maywood said: @perkdog said: Some of the stars would be fine like Otto, Brown ect but the depth of the rest of the team would get utterly run over in an ugly way.
Jim Brown didn't start playing in the NFL until 1957. The Browns string of NFL Championships ended in 1955 and along with the Head Coach there were 6 future HOF'ers on the roster. There were more than a few stars on the team and overall they shouldn't be dismissed so easily by an astute fan of the game. Neither should the rules, that's all I'm saying. If you watch much archived footage the way the players played during that era isn't so much because they weren't physically or mentally equipped to play better, they were constrained by the rules and by much tighter officiating,
I won't say a modern NFL team couldn't win in such a matchup, I'm only saying it wouldn't be the walkover you suppose it would be.
I've watched alot of available 1950's football, unfortunately there really isn't a lot of material out there though.
Your saying the refs were tighter with the officiating???
I'm not sure how that's possible, how many dropped balls were catches because the ref was guessing??!
You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect if anything today's players are constricted by tighter officiating and they put all these rules in place because the players are so much bigger and faster, if you let these guys play 1950's football style then players would be getting killed lol
I hope you understand I'm not talking about "Toughness" because the 1950's game was way tougher to the point of it being barbaric, look up a fella by the name of "Hardy Brown" the guy was a straight up menace and there were plenty other maniacs playing back then
@perkdog said:
You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect if anything today's players are constricted by tighter officiating and they put all these rules in place because the players are so much bigger and faster, if you let these guys play 1950's football style then players would be getting killed lol
Even with the rule changes concussions are still a big issue. Imagine letting 320 pounders running 4.5 40s being allowed to go out and head hunt. You would have to be insane to let your child play football if they still had the 1950s rules today
@perkdog said:
You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect if anything today's players are constricted by tighter officiating and they put all these rules in place because the players are so much bigger and faster, if you let these guys play 1950's football style then players would be getting killed lol
Even with the rule changes concussions are still a big issue. Imagine letting 320 pounders running 4.5 40s being allowed to go out and head hunt. You would have to be insane to let your child play football if they still had the 1950s rules today
It is simply ridiculous to assert elite athletes in the 60s were not getting proper nutrition as children (ie the only time nutrition impacts height).
The 6-2 230 lb lineman in 1960 wasn’t some nutrition starved runt as a child that with just a few more veggies and fruits would have been 6-6 and 335 lbs.
Sports already preselects for the fastest, strongest, biggest whereas generic data on average height of an American doesn’t.
The biggest difference is the pool of athletes has expanded and includes more Africa Americans. Additionally, the identification of potential athletes and how best to maximize that potential is light years better than 60 years ago.
We are far better at getting close to peak athletic potential now through training, sports medicine and nutrition. Every time Craig44 brings up this topic, he fails to realize that most of the stars of yesteryear managed to get close to their peak potential and that is why they dominated in their time. Transporting them to 2025 wouldn’t have the transformative impact he believes for the majority of them.
@perkdog said: You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect
Are you helping me or what?? Watch the way these players today whine/moan/bitch/complain when a jersey gets tugged and it isn't called, can you imagine what they'd do if they got clothes-lined?? They'd have a heart attack complaining!!
The Browns had a player in the 60's named Erich Barnes, a DB. He made guys like Vontaze Burfict look like a pussycat. His signature move was dealt to anyone who had the balls to come across the middle when he was in the area. He didn't just hit them above the shoulders, he WRAPPED and the helmet would usually pop off into the air. When he do it at Cleveland Muny Stadium the fans went crazy and chanted his name, "Erich, Erich, Erich" as the dust settled.
Don't forget, the face mask wasn't standard on helmets until the late 1950's. Otto Graham got clocked once and required 15 stitches!! Imagine a modern day QB absent a face mask getting clocked in the face. Sorry about your luck, no rule to protect you there. The biggest rule changes today protect the QB's. No intentional ground if you can get the ball into no mans land as far as it gets past the line of scrimmage. Sorry I hit you above the numbers and below the knees, no rules to protect that.
The players today are without question bigger, but are they badder?? What would guys do today if they had to go back and work on the family farm after Christmas?? They'd probably be pretty pissed, but hey, everything is different now. Most people under the age of 60 probably have never seen a clothes line in their backyard to know where the term came from!! I have hung clothes on a clothes line and been hung out to dry by a clothes line on a tackle. Guess what, no complaints, that's just how we played growing up.
@fergie23 said:
It is simply ridiculous to assert elite athletes in the 60s were not getting proper nutrition as children (ie the only time nutrition impacts height).
Did anyone assert this? Everything that follows is balanced on this loose brick.
The 6-2 230 lb lineman in 1960 wasn’t some nutrition starved runt as a child that with just a few more veggies and fruits would have been 6-6 and 335 lbs.
Sports already preselects for the fastest, strongest, biggest whereas generic data on average height of an American doesn’t.
The biggest difference is the pool of athletes has expanded and includes more Africa Americans. Additionally, the identification of potential athletes and how best to maximize that potential is light years better than 60 years ago.
We are far better at getting close to peak athletic potential now through training, sports medicine and nutrition. Every time Craig44 brings up this topic, he fails to realize that most of the stars of yesteryear managed to get close to their peak potential and that is why they dominated in their time. Transporting them to 2025 wouldn’t have the transformative impact he believes for the majority of them.
@Maywood said: @perkdog said: You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect
Are you helping me or what?? Watch the way these players today whine/moan/bitch/complain when a jersey gets tugged and it isn't called, can you imagine what they'd do if they got clothes-lined?? They'd have a heart attack complaining!!
The Browns had a player in the 60's named Erich Barnes, a DB. He made guys like Vontaze Burfict look like a pussycat. His signature move was dealt to anyone who had the balls to come across the middle when he was in the area. He didn't just hit them above the shoulders, he WRAPPED and the helmet would usually pop off into the air. When he do it at Cleveland Muny Stadium the fans went crazy and chanted his name, "Erich, Erich, Erich" as the dust settled.
Don't forget, the face mask wasn't standard on helmets until the late 1950's. Otto Graham got clocked once and required 15 stitches!! Imagine a modern day QB absent a face mask getting clocked in the face. Sorry about your luck, no rule to protect you there. The biggest rule changes today protect the QB's. No intentional ground if you can get the ball into no mans land as far as it gets past the line of scrimmage. Sorry I hit you above the numbers and below the knees, no rules to protect that.
The players today are without question bigger, but are they badder?? What would guys do today if they had to go back and work on the family farm after Christmas?? They'd probably be pretty pissed, but hey, everything is different now. Most people under the age of 60 probably have never seen a clothes line in their backyard to know where the term came from!! I have hung clothes on a clothes line and been hung out to dry by a clothes line on a tackle. Guess what, no complaints, that's just how we played growing up.
I was referring to your point about the players in the 50's were restricted by rules, not sure if I mistook what you were saying or not idk
Players complain because they want a flag to help them, they are not crying because it's too rough I mean please.
If guys today played with the same brutality like they did in the 50's there would be more injuries and owners wouldn't put up with it because they have so much money invested in it.
Vontez Burfict would have literally killed people if there were no rules, literally killed people.
It's simple Math, you put the most elite high school team and put them against the most elite college team and that's what you would get if a 1950's team played in today's game.
I'm not sure how anyone can say otherwise, it's baffling to me
To. your point about today's players and are they "Badder" that's got too many variables to it but it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing, as my previous post stated I'm not talking about "Tougher" I'm talking from a heads up athletic standpoint about any 1950's team against a team of today and my stance is today's teams would obliterate any 1950's team
Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh and the rest of those guys were Phenominal and if they were born in 1980 they would probably still be HOF 'ers but being born in 1920 they wouldn't stand a chance
Again it's an unrealistic and unfair comparison but that's the topic we are discussing and I stand by my argument
We still have a clothes line in my mothers yard and backyard football when I was a kid was a game without rules lol
Dont believe me. look it up for yourselves. there is a reason people in general and athletes in specific are taller, bigger, stronger etc. than we have been before: Healthcare, disease prevention, nutrition, advanced training techniques, the quality of life that athletes can train 12 months out of the year. 100 years ago, athletes did not have the knowledge or the lifestyle afforded someone like Lebron James who has personal chefs, massage therapists, elite athletic trainers, etc. many athletes were working jobs during the off season to make ends meet. not to mention all of the suppliments, both legal and illegal.
"Bottom line," says William Leonard, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University in Illinois, "the major drivers behind increased adult stature are improved nutrition, health, and in general a better quality of life."
this is the common thread when you research why humans are larger, faster and stronger than they were just 50 or 100 years ago. it is not because we are a better and more advanced human, it is all the other advantages.
why do you think humans in the third world are so slight compared to the average human in the first world? there is a MUCH larger talent pool to pull from in the continent of africa than there is here in america. why do you think they are not producing 330 pound linemen who can run a 4.8 40? population of United States, about 340MM, population of Africa about 1.4 Billion. shouldnt they be able to produce about 100 or more teams worth of professional football players? you know, 330 pounders and the like?
so much of the equation is nutrition, healthcare, advanced training, PED etc. it is what the science says.
I imagine that by the 2050s when they name the ten best QBs in history probably seven of them have not been drafted yet. In fact some may not be born yet. Only old timers on the list would be Graham at #1, Brady at #2, and maybe Mahomes somewhere near # 10.
@Brick said:
I imagine that by the 2050s when they name the ten best QBs in history probably seven of them have not been drafted yet. In fact some may not be born yet. Only old timers on the list would be Graham at #1, Brady at #2, and maybe Mahomes somewhere near # 10.
Or Brady Graham and Mahomes might not crack the top 10 by then
Most NFL fans today respond “Otto who?” when his name is mentioned because they really have no sense of NFL History. That’s pretty much the same for all Sports except MLB which tends to honor the game and players of the past to a greater degree. It seems the collective memory of the NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA, etc. starts to peter out around 30 years.
By the time we reach the decade of the 2050’s Tom Brady will be in his mid-70’s if he’s still alive and to most fans he’ll be a footnote in the annals of the NFL, a very sad fact. Time waits for no man so unless we make some profound statement in life we are soon forgotten. Heck, by the 2050’s the NFL may no longer exist.
@Maywood said:
Most NFL fans today respond “Otto who?” when his name is mentioned because they really have no sense of NFL History. That’s pretty much the same for all Sports except MLB which tends to honor the game and players of the past to a greater degree. It seems the collective memory of the NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA, etc. starts to peter out around 30 years.
By the time we reach the decade of the 2050’s Tom Brady will be in his mid-70’s if he’s still alive and to most fans he’ll be a footnote in the annals of the NFL, a very sad fact. Time waits for no man so unless we make some profound statement in life we are soon forgotten. Heck, by the 2050’s the NFL may no longer exist.
Lotsa truth to this post
I'd be willing to guess most elementary aged kids probably high school kids now have never heard of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron let alone Otto Graham or Bart Starr
One of the big problems with the NFL promoting old time players is the numbers just dont stand the test of time. Fouts and Marino are like the only two QBs whose numbers have held up.
MLB does a terrible job promoting the current stars but a great job when it comes to players of the past. They have the advantage though that a lot of the records of the past will never be broken. Without a major change in style of play were never going to see a .400 hitter, 300 inning pitcher, no one is touching CY Youngs win or loss records or innings pitched, Babe Ruth was out homering entire teams at one point and that wont happen again etc.
Theres a very good chance that 20 years from now the record books are going to look very different. Brady will probably hold up over time simply because he played so long and guys are going to stay in college longer now that they can make millions in college instead of riding the bench for a year or two in the NFL.
An 18 game season is probably on the way too which will really skew the numbers. You really have to do separate out the 16 game seasons and the longer ones now which the NFL doesnt do a good job of promoting. Just like with baseball now that the base paths are shorter that should be a separate record book
There have been plenty of major rule changes over time in all of the sports. I don't see any value or reason to have different record books because we would need way more than 2 which is the point that makes the point.
I suppose part of the fun is that you can twist the numbers around any which way to support whatever argument you want to make about who was better than whom. I think there's more value in those discussions than there is in any abstract simplification we could make with some arbitrary bifurcation of eras based on this rule change or that.
You also can't discount past stars based on their records alone. Guys who were head-and-shoulders above the rest of the league had no reason to continue to push to improve further. Had there been more competition what might the outcome have been. These things are impossible to know, fun to contemplate, and, sometimes, frustrating to debate.
Multiple record books would be fine by me. Acuna stealing 73 bases with shorter base paths, new pick off and pitch clock rules, and the oven mit is significantly easier than it would have been 5 years ago. 80 goals in the NHL is not the same as before goalie pads were made smaller, the two line pass was illegal, the no play zones didnt exist and the crease was bigger. 5000 passing yards in a 17 or 18 game season isnt going to be the same as a 16 game season.
Eli Manning is 11th on the passing list, yet he was a fringe top 10 QB at best compared to his peers and was never a top 5 NFL QB other than leading the league in INTs 3 times.
Records have to be considered against the peers and the different rules. Eli shouldnt even be in the discussion of the 11th best QB of all time but the records will say some one that was an average QB during their playing time is there if you dont draw lines with records to account for peer performance and rule changes
Comments
@bgr team Mayflower....can't answer the simple question.
Would the top five athletes on the Mayflower, if born in 2002, be as good as the top five athletes in Boston today? Yes or no?
I wouldn’t know because there are other factors but I would say that nutrition wouldn’t be a limiting factor for them. And that’s the point because this is merely a probability system. The fact that nutrition does correlate directly to increased height is accepted as true.
Poor countries which have poor nutrition have a shorter population on average with richer countries which have better nutrition. But. Sometimes you get a tall human regardless. Maybe it’s 0.8% of the population. Now. Give that country better prenatal care, formula, better nutrition during developmental years. You might increase the percentage of those tall people in the population a couple percentage. Some percentage of those tall people will be athletic. That serves to increase the pool.
With globalization we have increased access. With economic advancement and industrialization we increased leisure allowing for more people to opt for sports. More importantly with leisure we allowed for more people to enjoy sports which increased the opportunity. This leads to specialization. Just because a human grows to 6’6” or whatever doesn’t mean they’re going to bulk up like a modern lineman either. They have to want to do that because it requires a huge caloric investment and lots of work to turn that into muscle.
Access increases the population of potential athletes and specialization allows them to tailor their bodies to an optimality. This is why when you look at 1940s football almost every position was the same build. More similar to rugby. Today you can guess who is the O-Lineman and who returns the punts. That’s because of specialization. This is true for swimmers and jockeys and NFLers … alll of them.
Nutrition plays its role by producing a larger pool of tall humans for sports where a large frame helps. We can talk about other factors also but I’m not aware of any others worth considering past these. None that I think would move the needle.
You should stop misrepresenting my statements. I’m not saying @1948_Swell_Robinson said this and that and he thinks this. It’s rude. I have to spend all my clicks correcting these ridiculous misrepresentations rather than actually discussing something.
In this particular case you’re arguing against a lot of expert opinion. It’s not my research and my data and my results forming my opinion. There’s a mountain of consensus here that I think you’re ignoring. I teach my kids to be stupid quietly. That means if you don’t know what you’re talking about you should be listening.
The food we eat has a lot to do with people being much bigger now, I'm not talking about making an effort to take in the proper protein to build muscle but the the steroids, preservatives and all the other stuff they put it in the food, that in my opinion has a lot to do with it.
If you look at the produce now the fruits and vegetables have doubled and tripled in size since the 70's and 80's
Obviously the training and knowledge is far greater now but the food is a huge factor in my opinion
What is the biggest factor that would generate a group of elite athletes when comparing the athletes on the Mayflower to the athletes in Boston now? It is the sheer number more people in the area/country/world that will produce more bigger/better athletes that has nothing to do with nutrition(well not nothing unless an elite athlete isn't eating at all).
I'm not talking about Oliver twist eating a steak instead of a bowl of broth causing the average person to be a little taller over time.
A top three athlete from 1920 is not going to be a top three athlete from 2023 simply because nutrition is better. The fact that there are X more people in the population pool to draw from and X more people looking to play is going be the biggest determining factor on how many people will have large and electric muscles within a big body.
Those players are born. Elite athletes are born that way. Nutrition and training can only move the needle so much...and elite athletes since 1910 did train and eat good enough. All you need is protein, carbs, and fat.
So it isn't nutrition causing more Jalen Carters on the athletic field. He is a freak of nature. It is more people in the world generating more chances of creating freaks of natures.
The more people around the more elite athletes are born.
The top three American athletes from 1 million teenagers in 1910 is not going to be the top three athletes from a pool of 2 million teenagers in 2020 regardless of how much nutrition is added to them. The 2 million athlete pool is going to produce more Jalen Carters naturally. When you count the pool of another 2 million teenagers from other countries now supplying athletes the chances of an elite athlete grow even more.
So no, the previous generation elite doesn't automatically become elite in a future generation simply because there would be better nutrtion. They would still be overshadowed simply because there is far more competition and they would have no chance to dominate the current league as they did theirs.
Jim Brown would not be averaging the same yards per carry vs the bigger and faster defensive players now. Brown was already big and strong. He was born an elite athlete already and did eat his protein and carbs. Now there are simply more people born with that same elite athletic gene that are as strong and faster on the defensive side of the ball that he could not dominate the same
It appears that you’re asserting that the most significant factor is the probability of genetic predisposition in the population increasing as the population increases. You are correct. This puts more bullets in the gun in a similar way that nutrition during development does. While you might see this as the most significant factor it isn’t.
There’s a field of science that studies this effect of “heritability”. This would perhaps speak to you as you will see that, at the individual level, a persons height is influenced by genetics by some 60-80 percent and nutrition 20-40 percent. At the individual level heritability is the most important thing. As you suggest you get more genetically gifted people - in terms of height. This isn’t that powerful when you consider a population.
I’m saying that in developed countries, nutrition for childhood development maximizes the genetic potential for height. This doesn’t consider selection or advanced hormones given during early development through puberty.
I can’t see this any other way than how it is and I’m not aware that this is a mystery. It’s been studied for over 100 years. In other words — we thought we knew until you said we didn’t.
@bgr for example,
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
Which era do you think will produce more athletes closer to Jim Brown athletically? It has nothing to do with nutrition. Elite athletes are born.
Like you said, just by probability there is going to be 2.7 times MORE elite African American athletes for Derrick Henry to compete against than Jim Brown did.
Then how many more elites coming from parents who purposely chose a mate that increased their chances of producing an off spring that would have physical attributes to be elite to increase their chances of being a pro? I know first hand of several people who did exactly that.
Now the training and nutrition part does play a factor(like i said it does a million times), but again, those factors having nothing to do with the competition pool growing where you can just say, "well an athlete now will benefit from better nutrtion and training and the best then will still be the best now." No.
Societal factors play a role too and that would only make it harder for Brown to compete because the money is making certain every athlete is taking a shot now.
Yes, I know that is only one segment of the population.
NFL/AFL had 24 teams in 1961
NFL has 32 teams now.
NFL doesn't really draw internationally. Other sports do(especially NBA and MLB).
So even if the number of jobs available grew in relation to the number of population(which it didn't in pro football), the top of the league in 2025 was better than the top of the league in 1961...and should be at least 2.7x more at the top(and even more when you consider mate choosing) so that Jim Brown would simply not be outdistancing his elite peers to the same degree as he did back then.
So again, that has nothing to do with nutrition.
Nutrition is playing a factor independent of that huge factor...and again, nutrition increase league wide means that league wide the talent grows closer to the top, and that means Brown doesn't run over people the same way he did then too for that factor.
Edited to add that in 1961 only 16% pro football was African Amercian. So there is that. That isn't hard to see how much of a factor that is too.
So it seems like we’re in agreement that access and selection are the most prominent factors. Before we move on I would like to know if you agree here.
Access meaning more people in the pool. This can include access from globalization as well as access from larger population subsets.
Specialization. meaning more people choose to play sports for whatever reason. Usually an economic factor. And those people condition their bodies for advantage. Here I’m not conflating nutrition during growth I’m just talking about musculoskeletal development and a caloric economy.
If we agree here we can move on.
Yes I would agree.
So then the next two factors are genetics and environment (nutrition and other factors). I say nutrition and other factors because nutrition is the largest environmental factor for a population. If you’re talking about an individual then there are other primary factors that operate at lower probabilities, like safety, which have a larger individual impact when they occur. Randomness.
Genetics is the largest individual factor at the individual level while nutrition during development flips to a limiting factor. This is because genetics impacts heritability much more than nutrition. If your parents are 6’ then it’s most likely you’ll be 6’. The impact of nutrition is between 2 and 4 centimeters. At the population level, if you look at the histogram of heights that 2 to 4 cm makes a bigger difference because it nudges the mean up. Do this over a few generations with science and selection and you see this.
This is not genetics.
I think you are correct and are also at the point where 1948 is either no longer listening to you or does not understand you.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Many factors with the population increase being the biggest one in terms of producing elite athletes and elite competition to dominate or not dominate....and bigger/faster elite athletes
When you add that international athletes became a major factor (especially in NBA and MLB) that pool grew even larger than anyone in 1960 or prior had to compete with
In the end @craig44 is wrong that given the same nutrition that the elite athletes of 1960 would do just as well and be just as big/fast as the elite athletes of 2020 and he is wrong as I'm not surprised as usual.
In 1961 there were appx 18 million African American citizens in the US.
In 2025 there are appx 49 million African American citizens in the US.
The NFL in 1961 only had 16% of their league as African American. In 2025 the NFL was over 50%.
So it is no wonder why it was easy for Jim Brown to dominate and why someone like Derrik Henry is better.
I think the discussion of why we have larger individuals in football or other sports is separate from a discussion as to whether a particularly dominant player from a past era would have the same level of dominance if they were dropped into the game today.
Mixing these seems disingenuous. Whether Jim Brown would do as well today doesn’t tell me anything about why there are much larger linemen. Again, at the individual level, it’s impossible to assume what this outcome would be. Are we teleporting him in to today’s game? Are we assuming this as if he was born in 2000? My opinion is that past greats would have the opportunity to be great today but it would not be a guarantee that their skill is sufficient or that they could develop sufficient skill. Their physical dominance would be reduced generically by the other factors we have discussed. Whether Jim Brown was able to maintain his dominance would be subject to whether he was able to develop his stature and skill in a way that allows him to translate his performative delta to today’s game. Perhaps that’s interesting to hypothesize but I don’t know.
@perkdog said: Some of the stars would be fine like Otto, Brown ect but the depth of the rest of the team would get utterly run over in an ugly way.
Jim Brown didn't start playing in the NFL until 1957. The Browns string of NFL Championships ended in 1955 and along with the Head Coach there were 6 future HOF'ers on the roster. There were more than a few stars on the team and overall they shouldn't be dismissed so easily by an astute fan of the game. Neither should the rules, that's all I'm saying. If you watch much archived footage the way the players played during that era isn't so much because they weren't physically or mentally equipped to play better, they were constrained by the rules and by much tighter officiating,
I won't say a modern NFL team couldn't win in such a matchup, I'm only saying it wouldn't be the walkover you suppose it would be.
That's always been the whole point of the discussion on these boards and in sports in general....and I should have stated that better in regard to your discussion(of which is very informative in your info).
In short, Brown dominated a smaller number of, and weaker number of, pool of humans compared to Henry.
Does that make Henry better? Most likely but not guaranteed. Does that make Henry's dominance more impressive? Absolutely yes, IMO.
It is kind of like Craig dominating at a local Elementary School basketball league and saying he is as good as Lebron because his stats are better.
I've watched alot of available 1950's football, unfortunately there really isn't a lot of material out there though.
Your saying the refs were tighter with the officiating???
I'm not sure how that's possible, how many dropped balls were catches because the ref was guessing??!
You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect if anything today's players are constricted by tighter officiating and they put all these rules in place because the players are so much bigger and faster, if you let these guys play 1950's football style then players would be getting killed lol
@perkdog
hey ya perkdog...
Dick NightTrain Lane was a Clothesline Stud...
Sorry...No Flannel...
My End Zone Pylons 🔌🏈 there make it All Legit & Legal...🤣😂🙃
@Maywood
I hope you understand I'm not talking about "Toughness" because the 1950's game was way tougher to the point of it being barbaric, look up a fella by the name of "Hardy Brown" the guy was a straight up menace and there were plenty other maniacs playing back then
@perkdog
Brother you just took me to school today...
I did not know about Hardy Brown...
Oh Yeah... He's An Old School Stud!!!
Even with the rule changes concussions are still a big issue. Imagine letting 320 pounders running 4.5 40s being allowed to go out and head hunt. You would have to be insane to let your child play football if they still had the 1950s rules today
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Facts lol
Let's Wrap Him...
From over on the Insta...
Nice & Old School...🏈🏈🏈
https://www.instagram.com/throwbacksportvideos/reel/DBPye7atePc/?locale=en-SG
It is simply ridiculous to assert elite athletes in the 60s were not getting proper nutrition as children (ie the only time nutrition impacts height).
The 6-2 230 lb lineman in 1960 wasn’t some nutrition starved runt as a child that with just a few more veggies and fruits would have been 6-6 and 335 lbs.
Sports already preselects for the fastest, strongest, biggest whereas generic data on average height of an American doesn’t.
The biggest difference is the pool of athletes has expanded and includes more Africa Americans. Additionally, the identification of potential athletes and how best to maximize that potential is light years better than 60 years ago.
We are far better at getting close to peak athletic potential now through training, sports medicine and nutrition. Every time Craig44 brings up this topic, he fails to realize that most of the stars of yesteryear managed to get close to their peak potential and that is why they dominated in their time. Transporting them to 2025 wouldn’t have the transformative impact he believes for the majority of them.
Robb
@perkdog said: You could straight up clothes line guys and pile on guys once they were down ect
Are you helping me or what?? Watch the way these players today whine/moan/bitch/complain when a jersey gets tugged and it isn't called, can you imagine what they'd do if they got clothes-lined?? They'd have a heart attack complaining!!
The Browns had a player in the 60's named Erich Barnes, a DB. He made guys like Vontaze Burfict look like a pussycat. His signature move was dealt to anyone who had the balls to come across the middle when he was in the area. He didn't just hit them above the shoulders, he WRAPPED and the helmet would usually pop off into the air. When he do it at Cleveland Muny Stadium the fans went crazy and chanted his name, "Erich, Erich, Erich" as the dust settled.
Don't forget, the face mask wasn't standard on helmets until the late 1950's. Otto Graham got clocked once and required 15 stitches!! Imagine a modern day QB absent a face mask getting clocked in the face. Sorry about your luck, no rule to protect you there. The biggest rule changes today protect the QB's. No intentional ground if you can get the ball into no mans land as far as it gets past the line of scrimmage. Sorry I hit you above the numbers and below the knees, no rules to protect that.
The players today are without question bigger, but are they badder?? What would guys do today if they had to go back and work on the family farm after Christmas?? They'd probably be pretty pissed, but hey, everything is different now. Most people under the age of 60 probably have never seen a clothes line in their backyard to know where the term came from!! I have hung clothes on a clothes line and been hung out to dry by a clothes line on a tackle. Guess what, no complaints, that's just how we played growing up.
Did anyone assert this? Everything that follows is balanced on this loose brick.
I was referring to your point about the players in the 50's were restricted by rules, not sure if I mistook what you were saying or not idk
Players complain because they want a flag to help them, they are not crying because it's too rough I mean please.
If guys today played with the same brutality like they did in the 50's there would be more injuries and owners wouldn't put up with it because they have so much money invested in it.
Vontez Burfict would have literally killed people if there were no rules, literally killed people.
It's simple Math, you put the most elite high school team and put them against the most elite college team and that's what you would get if a 1950's team played in today's game.
I'm not sure how anyone can say otherwise, it's baffling to me
To. your point about today's players and are they "Badder" that's got too many variables to it but it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing, as my previous post stated I'm not talking about "Tougher" I'm talking from a heads up athletic standpoint about any 1950's team against a team of today and my stance is today's teams would obliterate any 1950's team
Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh and the rest of those guys were Phenominal and if they were born in 1980 they would probably still be HOF 'ers but being born in 1920 they wouldn't stand a chance
Again it's an unrealistic and unfair comparison but that's the topic we are discussing and I stand by my argument
We still have a clothes line in my mothers yard and backyard football when I was a kid was a game without rules lol
Dont believe me. look it up for yourselves. there is a reason people in general and athletes in specific are taller, bigger, stronger etc. than we have been before: Healthcare, disease prevention, nutrition, advanced training techniques, the quality of life that athletes can train 12 months out of the year. 100 years ago, athletes did not have the knowledge or the lifestyle afforded someone like Lebron James who has personal chefs, massage therapists, elite athletic trainers, etc. many athletes were working jobs during the off season to make ends meet. not to mention all of the suppliments, both legal and illegal.
"Bottom line," says William Leonard, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University in Illinois, "the major drivers behind increased adult stature are improved nutrition, health, and in general a better quality of life."
this is the common thread when you research why humans are larger, faster and stronger than they were just 50 or 100 years ago. it is not because we are a better and more advanced human, it is all the other advantages.
why do you think humans in the third world are so slight compared to the average human in the first world? there is a MUCH larger talent pool to pull from in the continent of africa than there is here in america. why do you think they are not producing 330 pound linemen who can run a 4.8 40? population of United States, about 340MM, population of Africa about 1.4 Billion. shouldnt they be able to produce about 100 or more teams worth of professional football players? you know, 330 pounders and the like?
so much of the equation is nutrition, healthcare, advanced training, PED etc. it is what the science says.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I imagine that by the 2050s when they name the ten best QBs in history probably seven of them have not been drafted yet. In fact some may not be born yet. Only old timers on the list would be Graham at #1, Brady at #2, and maybe Mahomes somewhere near # 10.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Or Brady Graham and Mahomes might not crack the top 10 by then
The beauty of sports is anything is possible
Most NFL fans today respond “Otto who?” when his name is mentioned because they really have no sense of NFL History. That’s pretty much the same for all Sports except MLB which tends to honor the game and players of the past to a greater degree. It seems the collective memory of the NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA, etc. starts to peter out around 30 years.
By the time we reach the decade of the 2050’s Tom Brady will be in his mid-70’s if he’s still alive and to most fans he’ll be a footnote in the annals of the NFL, a very sad fact. Time waits for no man so unless we make some profound statement in life we are soon forgotten. Heck, by the 2050’s the NFL may no longer exist.
Lotsa truth to this post
I'd be willing to guess most elementary aged kids probably high school kids now have never heard of Willie Mays or Hank Aaron let alone Otto Graham or Bart Starr
One of the big problems with the NFL promoting old time players is the numbers just dont stand the test of time. Fouts and Marino are like the only two QBs whose numbers have held up.
MLB does a terrible job promoting the current stars but a great job when it comes to players of the past. They have the advantage though that a lot of the records of the past will never be broken. Without a major change in style of play were never going to see a .400 hitter, 300 inning pitcher, no one is touching CY Youngs win or loss records or innings pitched, Babe Ruth was out homering entire teams at one point and that wont happen again etc.
Theres a very good chance that 20 years from now the record books are going to look very different. Brady will probably hold up over time simply because he played so long and guys are going to stay in college longer now that they can make millions in college instead of riding the bench for a year or two in the NFL.
An 18 game season is probably on the way too which will really skew the numbers. You really have to do separate out the 16 game seasons and the longer ones now which the NFL doesnt do a good job of promoting. Just like with baseball now that the base paths are shorter that should be a separate record book
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
There have been plenty of major rule changes over time in all of the sports. I don't see any value or reason to have different record books because we would need way more than 2 which is the point that makes the point.
I suppose part of the fun is that you can twist the numbers around any which way to support whatever argument you want to make about who was better than whom. I think there's more value in those discussions than there is in any abstract simplification we could make with some arbitrary bifurcation of eras based on this rule change or that.
You also can't discount past stars based on their records alone. Guys who were head-and-shoulders above the rest of the league had no reason to continue to push to improve further. Had there been more competition what might the outcome have been. These things are impossible to know, fun to contemplate, and, sometimes, frustrating to debate.
it will regress to the mean soon enough if you are crediting nutrition and healthcare etc.
Now that the US and the rest of the world are in decline any gains in sport performance will only come from rule changes.
All the future players will be born from a scrotum and womb full of microplastics, glued to a screen 18 hous a day with a vape in each hand
Multiple record books would be fine by me. Acuna stealing 73 bases with shorter base paths, new pick off and pitch clock rules, and the oven mit is significantly easier than it would have been 5 years ago. 80 goals in the NHL is not the same as before goalie pads were made smaller, the two line pass was illegal, the no play zones didnt exist and the crease was bigger. 5000 passing yards in a 17 or 18 game season isnt going to be the same as a 16 game season.
Eli Manning is 11th on the passing list, yet he was a fringe top 10 QB at best compared to his peers and was never a top 5 NFL QB other than leading the league in INTs 3 times.
Records have to be considered against the peers and the different rules. Eli shouldnt even be in the discussion of the 11th best QB of all time but the records will say some one that was an average QB during their playing time is there if you dont draw lines with records to account for peer performance and rule changes
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007