Are todays athletes better than athletes of old? (Including FCS players)

[Twentysix]

https://youtu.be/8COaMKbNrX0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

The broad argument this video is making certainly applies to FCS football today.

Basically the answer is yes, but its barely any different. Nearly all difference can be accounted for by considering technological changes, including workouts/medicine/nutrition/clothing/playing surfaces/scouting/awareness/etc.

This video is awesome, and maybe it belongs in the lounge or something. But, since the argument works perfectly with FCS football also I figured it would get better viewership and fcs based discussion in this section.

(Former players are gonna love this xdrunkyx)

[RichH2]

That was fun. Better athletes? No. Bigger,faster, stronger and better conditioned. Now players work out year round. Training and conditioning is now science not folklore. Back in the early 60s, at least at our level, football was a 4 month sport.My off season workout was hauling beer kegs at a local distributor. Better football players? Probably given today's coaching. Fundamental tho seem to have been lost to athleticism in many respects.Tackling being the prime example.

[Bisonoline]

That was fun. Better athletes? No. Bigger,faster, stronger and better conditioned. Now players work out year round. Training and conditioning is now science not folklore. Back in the early 60s, at least at our level, football was a 4 month sport.My off season workout was hauling beer kegs at a local distributor. Better football players? Probably given today's coaching. Fundamental tho seem to have been lost to athleticism in many respects.Tackling being the prime example.

Yep we worked out on our own. Plus conditioning was part of practice during the regular season. When I hear players whine about preseason I laugh. The don't do 2 to 3 practices a day for 10 days to 2 weeks. Now that's a grind.

[Redbird 4th & short]

great video .. thanks for posting.

I only wish he would have talked some about "agility" related advances in sports like basketball and football. I think this is where "true" athleticism, as opposed to "raw" athleticism, comes into play. Just watch a basketball game in the Jordan and post-Jordan era versus pre-Jordan ... off the charts more athletic in 1990's versus 1970's. I think the agility advances apply most in sports like football, basketball, tennis, etc .. where coordinating footwork in all directions is critical. That's just teaching and training you muscles to do things never done that way before. Although I'm sure the presenter could explain circles around me some of those mitgating factors.

Otherwise, very well presented arguments about how technology/equipment, nutrition, and body types can and do account for a good portion of the athletic advancements/records over the decades. Putting Jesse Owens on today's tracks versus what he ran on ... typically cinder, not the synthetic surfaces designed to optimize traction.

So the simplified answer is .. yes, athletes are clearly better than they used to be, just not nearly as much it would appear.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Bigger - faster - stronger ??

Yes

[DFW HOYA]

In sports where size and speed matter (football, basketball, tennis), it's a different environment from the 1950's or 1960's.

In baseball, not as much. You could transport 1968 Bob Gibson into 2018 and he'd still dominate the league.

[Houndawg]

Bigger - faster - stronger ??

Yes

yes but....

I think the results are mostly training related because when I check out the times that the high school track teams are running they aren't any faster than they were in the 70s. My high school mile relay team would compete very well today

[Redbird 4th & short]

yes but....

I think the results are mostly training related because when I check out the times that the high school track teams are running they aren't any faster than they were in the 70s. My high school mile relay team would compete very well today

Not sure how true that is in general, but I used to be much more involved in offseason strength/speed/conditioning program for my kids HS football program as a serious volunteer. The proliferation of good, average, and bad conditioning programs is off the charts. And it is getting harder and harder for the average HS athlete (or parent cutting checks) to decipher which ones actually work ... lot of pretenders out there taking people's money for unproven ideas or outright gimmicks. Much less HS programs where teachers are also coaches with very limited budgets.

That said, the presenter is talking about higher levels of athletic performance ... olympic, world, professional level .. those people and organizations have far more knowledge, means, and budget to to improve chances of picking one that actually is proven to get better results .. not 100% fool proof, but certainly have paid professionals leading the way .. not a HS history teacher trying to make an extra $3,000 stipend.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

yes but....

I think the results are mostly training related because when I check out the times that the high school track teams are running they aren't any faster than they were in the 70s. My high school mile relay team would compete very well today


At my local high school here, all the school records are from the last 10 years.

Bruce Jenner's 1976 gold medal decathlon times and distances. Jenner wouldn't place now and in some events is way off the standard.

Training? Yes

[Milktruck74]

I've seen this before. In College, I was bigger, stronger and faster than my father ever was..... My dad was an all pro. Played from 1967-1982. As a DL, he was one of the biggest men in the NFL at the time....he was a monster....6'8" and 285 pounds.... Yep, he was one of the five biggest men in the entire NFL, and today he wouldn't be in the top 15 on ANY team, let alone the league. Now, he never lifted a weight in his life....Strength training was for guys that were headed to the beach.....HE would easily be 325-350 or more in today's environment, so he would have been in that upper group again, but as our nutrition changes and our understanding of strenght and conditioning change, athletes change.

Oh, and I was not good enough or fast enough to ever play in the NFL....big and strong enough, probably.

[cx500d]

I've seen this before. In College, I was bigger, stronger and faster than my father ever was..... My dad was an all pro. Played from 1967-1982. As a DL, he was one of the biggest men in the NFL at the time....he was a monster....6'8" and 285 pounds.... Yep, he was one of the five biggest men in the entire NFL, and today he wouldn't be in the top 15 on ANY team, let alone the league. Now, he never lifted a weight in his life....Strength training was for guys that were headed to the beach.....HE would easily be 325-350 or more in today's environment, so he would have been in that upper group again, but as our nutrition changes and our understanding of strenght and conditioning change, athletes change.

Oh, and I was not good enough or fast enough to ever play in the NFL....big and strong enough, probably.
Hmmm. To early to be ed too tall Jones...

[UAalum72]

In sports where size and speed matter (football, basketball, tennis), it's a different environment from the 1950's or 1960's.

In baseball, not as much. You could transport 1968 Bob Gibson into 2018 and he'd still dominate the league.
Not so sure about that. He'd still be good, but even 25 years ago the average MLB fastball was about 87-89 mph, now it's 94-95. And after Gibson's best year they lowered the mound from 15 inches to ten. There are just more good pitchers because the US population is more than 60% larger, and that applies to the high end of the bell curve as well as the total. (yes, there are also 25% more MLB teams now, too.)

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Yes.

But the old-timers have the modern players beat on endurance. They played both ways.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Not so sure about that. He'd still be good, but even 25 years ago the average MLB fastball was about 87-89 mph, now it's 94-95. And after Gibson's best year they lowered the mound from 15 inches to ten. There are just more good pitchers because the US population is more than 60% larger, and that applies to the high end of the bell curve as well as the total. (yes, there are also 25% more MLB teams now, too.)
baseball has so many variables ... changing strike zones, evolving baseball with how tight they wind it or the seams which just changed a couple years ago, already mention mound height, even saber-metrics and the like that has more players swinging to improve OPS (on base % + slugging %) has led to more home runs and strike outs, but lower batting average and on base.

So speaking of Bob Gibson, and the change in mound heitgh ... Gibson's best year by far was 1968. Here is perspective on how much that year stood out .. not just for Bob Gibson but for entire MLB.

- 1968 season ... he had 1.12 ERA, 13 shutouts, .853 WHIP ratio
- career average .. he had 2.91 ERA, 4 shutouts, 1.188 WHIP ratio

So well over double the ERA, about one-third the shutouts, and 40% higher WHIP ratio

Now compare 1968 for all pitchers over the years ... click link below and scroll down to 1968, and look at the years before and after 1968 ... by far the best year for pitchers ever:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml

I think virtually every pitching stat was best ever for MLB in 1968 ... even for that era, even bigger differences compared to now. Here is key stats comparing 1968 to 2018:

- OPS: .639 to .750
- HR Rate: .61 to 1.15 .. nearly double
- Bat Avg: .237 to .248
- Runs per game: 3.42 to 4.44
- Sacrifice Hits: .46 to .17 ... one-third what it used to be in 1968, a year dominated by pitchers
- Strikeouts: 5.89 to 8.45

1968 was a very unusual season ... hitters were at a considerable disadvantage, even compared to the all years from say 1965 to 1971.

So from 1968 to 1969 with league imposing 10" limit on mound height instead of 15" limit

- runs jumped from 3.42 to 4.07 .. 19% increase in runs scored by lower mounf from 15" to 10" max
- batting avg jumped from .237 to .248
- home run rate jumped from .61 to .80 ... 31% increase in home runs

The stupid thing was, there was no minimum height rule .. so teams would adjust the mound height at home to whatever their starting pitcher wanted. Gibson took full advantage ... though I don't know why his numbers prior to 1968 we just good, not scary good.

Sorry for tanget .. but way to many variables in baseball. And I didn't mention steroids, amphetiamines, or corked bats once.

[Milktruck74]

Hmmm. To early to be ed too tall Jones...


That's the basic era....Most people remember him for 35 years of broadcasting and not 13 yrs of playing. He did Color for the the SWC before it dissolved, and then did the SEC game of the week with JP/Raycom for about 15 years.

[kperk014]

At my local high school here, all the school records are from the last 10 years.

Bruce Jenner's 1976 gold medal decathlon times and distances. Jenner wouldn't place now and in some events is way off the standard.

Training? Yes

I agree. If you put today's player in the 1970s, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is now because he wouldn't have access to hardly ANYTHING he does today. And can you imagine some of those '70s monsters in basketball and football if they had all the high tech weight training, nutrition and medical procedures they do now. Guys like Moses Malone, Daryl Dawkins, Artis Gilmore, Wes Unseld with good knees, Dr J, Georg McGinnis Too Tall Jones, Harvey Martin, Mean Joe Green, Joe Namath, Kenny Stabler, Jack Lambert, Ben Davidson, to name a few. In those days, a minor knee surgery would cut a player's ability in half if not end his career.

[Panther88]

Yes.

But the old-timers have the modern players beat on endurance. They played both ways.

This. Plus, I think most were naturally strong/fast due to doing work-cross-training. The hay haulers. Pulp wood haulers. Rabbit chasers. lol Also, it was more common for athletes during the olden days who were great at a a lot of sports vs focusing/concentrating on simply one sport to hone their craft.

One of the best QBs I'd ever met in college was Bucky Richardson. For you youngers, google him. For us elderings, he has a special place in our heart because he was a LBer @ QB. Forget the pitch and catch flamboyancy; it was all about the power hitting 5yds and a cloud of dust! :D

[FormerPokeCenter]

Kids today, generally, mature faster than kids of a generation ago...I think it's probably got a lot to do with the hormones that we inject into livestock to make them grow and mature faster. I'll concede that kids are bigger. I won't concede that they're stronger or that they're faster and let's not even talk about mental toughness and work ethic....

[Twentysix]

Kids today, generally, mature faster than kids of a generation ago...I think it's probably got a lot to do with the hormones that we inject into livestock to make them grow and mature faster. I'll concede that kids are bigger. I won't concede that they're stronger or that they're faster and let's not even talk about mental toughness and work ethic....

You should watch the video.

[FormerPokeCenter]

I draw upon anecdotal experiences. I played on a team that had a 10.28 100 meter dash guy at QB, and a 10.35 at tailback and a 10.7 guy at fullback, along with a couple of 10.7- 10.8 guys at the wide receiver positions. We had offensive and defensive linemen who ran sub 4.6 in the 40 and we had a lot of guys benching over 400 and a couple close to 600.

I don't know of a single FCS team in 2018 that can actually match that...and if any FBS teams can, you can count them on one hand...

The kids are demonstrably bigger....but I'm not seeing the commensurate gains in speed and strength, proportionately, with the obvious gains in size.

[walliver]

The athletes have gotten bigger and faster and stronger, but the games have a changed a lot also.

If a basketball game was played today with 1970's rules and refs, both teams would foul out before halftime.
Play a football game with 1970's rules and refs, there would be no offense because holding would occur on every play.
In basketball, horses like Shaquille replaced stringbean letharios like Wilt the Stilt.
In football, the athletes have become so fast and big and strong, that the games has become increasingly dangerous - especially at the NFL level.

To me the most glaring example of the increase in athlete size occurs on senior day when an athlete towers over his father who played at the same level when he was younger.

[BadlandsGrizFan]

In sports where size and speed matter (football, basketball, tennis), it's a different environment from the 1950's or 1960's.

In baseball, not as much. You could transport 1968 Bob Gibson into 2018 and he'd still dominate the league.

a 100mph fastball is a 100mph fastball no matter what decade your in.

[Silenoz]

I mean, it's obviously yes. Why else are half the Olympic records broken every four years?

[Silenoz]

Yes.

But the old-timers have the modern players beat on endurance. They played both ways.
I guarantee you could put almost any modern player on one of those old-timey teams, and he would not only be able to play both ways, but he'd dominate the entire time.

[Twentysix]

I mean, it's obviously yes. Why else are half the Olympic records broken every four years?It's pretty neat that the video answers this.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[FormerPokeCenter]

LOL!

[Redbird 4th & short]

I draw upon anecdotal experiences. I played on a team that had a 10.28 100 meter dash guy at QB, and a 10.35 at tailback and a 10.7 guy at fullback, along with a couple of 10.7- 10.8 guys at the wide receiver positions. We had offensive and defensive linemen who ran sub 4.6 in the 40 and we had a lot of guys benching over 400 and a couple close to 600.

I don't know of a single FCS team in 2018 that can actually match that...and if any FBS teams can, you can count them on one hand...

The kids are demonstrably bigger....but I'm not seeing the commensurate gains in speed and strength, proportionately, with the obvious gains in size.

Curious, what year and level of football you are referring to ? Then how were those times determined .. hand or electronic ? Most hand times coming out of HS today or colleges in old days were BS. Somebody did a study with a bunch of data. you wouldn't believe how big a % of kids forty times from HS got considerably worse by time they got to NFL combines where they measure for real. Not to mention, the smapling of players were the best of the best who played college and were getting looked at by NFL ... and it was a lot of BS coming out of HS with coaches using hand timers trying to get their players noticed.

Found this on a NCSA track recruiting website talking about what colleges are looking for in scholarship athletes. Every guy you mentioned would have been able to get a D-I track scholly and set records at D-II and below levels. And you had OL and DL that could apparently run with Tre Roberson.

Seriously dude ?

100m time rages below for scholarship kids: https://www.athleticscholarships.net/trackandfieldscholarships.htm



NCAA DI
NCAA DII
NCAA DIII
NAIA




10.13-10.90
10.44-11.20
10.65-11.40
10.68-11.30

[Redbird 4th & short]

Curious, what year and level of football you are referring to ? Then how were those times determined .. hand or electronic ? Most hand times coming out of HS today or colleges in old days were BS. Somebody did a study with a bunch of data. you wouldn't believe how big a % of kids forty times from HS got considerably worse by time they got to NFL combines where they measure for real. Not to mention, the smapling of players were the best of the best who played college and were getting looked at by NFL ... and it was a lot of BS coming out of HS with coaches using hand timers trying to get their players noticed.

Found this on a NCSA track recruiting website talking about what colleges are looking for in scholarship athletes. Every guy you mentioned would have been able to get a D-I track scholly and set records at D-II and below levels. And you had OL and DL that could apparently run with Tre Roberson.

Seriously dude ?

100m time rages below for scholarship kids: https://www.athleticscholarships.net/trackandfieldscholarships.htm



NCAA DI
NCAA DII
NCAA DIII
NAIA




10.13-10.90
10.44-11.20
10.65-11.40
10.68-11.30




Big 10 Championship in 100m this past year:



1.
SO
Waseem Williams (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=11241361)

10.10a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/r8ij4g1cXiNg0ppUj)
Purdue (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21274)


2.
SR
Duan Asemota (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=10919213)

10.22a (1.2) PR (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/8RikpDjsKiV41KDsv)
Ohio State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21230)


3.
FR
Eric Harrison (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=12603328)

10.28a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/P8igWqXHaiN3kwnHl)
Ohio State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21230)


4.
JR
Devin Quinn (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=9101578)

10.28a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/P8igWqXHailAKvlCl)
Illinois (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=20966)


5.
SR
Xavier Smith (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=8977874)

10.36a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/q5imY8eSmiAwwRDHN)
Penn State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21255)


6.
SR
Zack Bazile (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=8429793)

10.43a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/NVimJ8XSQiBVvVPfd)
Ohio State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21230)


7.
SR
Malik Moffett (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=9102391)

10.48a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/R3iqBnrsqiWp6jBU8)
Penn State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21255)


8.
FR
William Henderson (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=12617963)

10.49a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/gBiNdpxiNiZrdNyFA)
Penn State (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=21255)


9.
SR
Molefi Maat (http://www.anygivensaturday.../Athlete.aspx?AID=8428354)

10.56a (1.2) (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/result/x8iVQ5eTeiL08q5FN)
Illinois (http://www.anygivensaturday.../School.aspx?SchoolID=20966)

[lucchesicourt]

Here's another argument: when I was young there wasn't all this technology around (60's). So, there were more people involved in sports (at least for men). Thus, you had more people participating in sports. This left a larger sample of players to choose from. Today, there are fewer playing sports. Why? Schools have dropped the number of teams each school participates in due to limitation placed on schools because of Title 9. So, you have a smaller pool size you need to find quality players.. So, do you have a group of players who are better than those of the 60's sure. Do you have a smaller group of athletes to choose from? Yes. So, I am willing to bet, that if the schools of the 60's had to choose from today's group of athletes available, that they would be about the same. Why? If the pool shrinks- which it has, you are missing many quality players because the number of schools participating has decreased. The better athletes were spread out more in the 60's than today's athletes, as today's athletes have fewer schools to choose from. Thus, the overall talent at today's schools is greater, but if you were to spread these athletes over all the schools of the 60's the talent would be much more diffused, and the overall talent would be decreased because of the shear numbers of decreased participation of today's students. That is not to say, that it is highly probable, if participation was the same as today as it was in the 60's, the overall talent would be definitely better today.

[Twentysix]

Here's another argument: when I was young there wasn't all this technology around (60's). So, there were more people involved in sports (at least for men). Thus, you had more people participating in sports. This left a larger sample of players to choose from. Today, there are fewer playing sports. Why? Schools have dropped the number of teams each school participates in due to limitation placed on schools because of Title 9. So, you have a smaller pool size you need to find quality players.. So, do you have a group of players who are better than those of the 60's sure. Do you have a smaller group of athletes to choose from? Yes. So, I am willing to bet, that if the schools of the 60's had to choose from today's group of athletes available, that they would be about the same. Why? If the pool shrinks- which it has, you are missing many quality players because the number of schools participating has decreased. The better athletes were spread out more in the 60's than today's athletes, as today's athletes have fewer schools to choose from. Thus, the overall talent at today's schools is greater, but if you were to spread these athletes over all the schools of the 60's the talent would be much more diffused, and the overall talent would be decreased because of the shear numbers of decreased participation of today's students. That is not to say, that it is highly probable, if participation was the same as today as it was in the 60's, the overall talent would be definitely better today.There are quite literally twice as many people in the US now then there was in 1960. Even if sports participation was half as much now, there would still be more participants now in raw numbers.

http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/PDF/Participation%20Survey%20History%20Book.pdf

How population change affects athletes at the top levels is one of the focuses of the video in the original post of this thread.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Silenoz]

It's pretty neat that the video answers this.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I post from work dammit

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

The athletes have gotten bigger and faster and stronger, but the games have a changed a lot also.

If a basketball game was played today with 1970's rules and refs, both teams would foul out before halftime.
Play a football game with 1970's rules and refs, there would be no offense because holding would occur on every play.
In basketball, horses like Shaquille replaced stringbean letharios like Wilt the Stilt.
In football, the athletes have become so fast and big and strong, that the games has become increasingly dangerous - especially at the NFL level.

To me the most glaring example of the increase in athlete size occurs on senior day when an athlete towers over his father who played at the same level when he was younger.


Wilt changed the NBA game.

IMO, he is the best NBA player of all time. Ahead of Jordan, Russell, Kareem, LeBron....

[UAalum72]

Wilt mostly played at 275 to up to 300 lbs. No stringbean, and i don’t know what being a lothario has to do with anything.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Wilt mostly played at 275 to up to 300 lbs. No stringbean, and i don’t know what being a lothario has to do with anything.


His early career (Global Trotters) he was pretty skinny but ya, he did add a lot of weight.

[kperk014]

I guarantee you could put almost any modern player on one of those old-timey teams, and he would not only be able to play both ways, but he'd dominate the entire time.

No he wouldn't because he wouldn't be trained to be a pro from birth the way they are now. Through the 60s, 70s and into the 80s, sports were NOT an all consuming thing. Kids had chores to do, they got part time jobs in their early teens, they hauled hay, they worked in the fields, they picked cotton, hoed potatoes, they washed cars, they ate potted meat sandwiches (whether they liked them or not), not porterhouse steaks, they did chin-ups on the playground equipment, not pumping iron in a Gold's Gym. Yeah, put today's spoiled rat in the 70s with his attitude problems and he would be a 140 pound wimp, kicked off the team after the first week.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I played a lot of sports growing up .. a lot, thru college. I'm not going to kid myself into thinking we were all harder working and better athletes than now. If you listened to video with open mind, you would have heard that athletes are clearly better now. But the explanation has mostly to do with better equipment, surfaces, diet, training, and most significantly better body types built to have more success. That is why you see bigger, taller kids doing amazing things .. because the science behind the better training has identified ideal body types for certain sports and positions/activities within those sports.

But make zero mistake ... athletes today are getting bigger, stronger, and faster as every decade goes by. Some of it is training, some of it is equipment, but much of it is bidy types. And as basketball and football players keep getting bigger and faster, and track & field and swim records continue to get broken ... let's not kid ourselves into remembering the good old days with very selective memories and let our minds play tricks on ourselves. I know I worked very hard, much harder than most. But I also know I played with a lot of people who didn't. So spare me this whole today's kids don't work hard ... most are just like us .. some do, some don't. The ones that do work hard ... they are bigger, stronger, faster than my generation was .. I have zero doubt.

[PAllen]

No one has ever been more athletic than Jim Thorpe. More specialized? Sure, but not a better athlete.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

No one has ever been more athletic than Jim Thorpe. More specialized? Sure, but not a better athlete.


During his time, yep, he was the best.

[Bisonoline]

Wilt changed the NBA game.

IMO, he is the best NBA player of all time. Ahead of Jordan, Russell, Kareem, LeBron....

George Mikan was the first real big man to change the game.

[kperk014]

I played a lot of sports growing up .. a lot, thru college. I'm not going to kid myself into thinking we were all harder working and better athletes than now. If you listened to video with open mind, you would have heard that athletes are clearly better now. But the explanation has mostly to do with better equipment, surfaces, diet, training, and most significantly better body types built to have more success. That is why you see bigger, taller kids doing amazing things .. because the science behind the better training has identified ideal body types for certain sports and positions/activities within those sports.

But make zero mistake ... athletes today are getting bigger, stronger, and faster as every decade goes by. Some of it is training, some of it is equipment, but much of it is bidy types. And as basketball and football players keep getting bigger and faster, and track & field and swim records continue to get broken ... let's not kid ourselves into remembering the good old days with very selective memories and let our minds play tricks on ourselves. I know I worked very hard, much harder than most. But I also know I played with a lot of people who didn't. So spare me this whole today's kids don't work hard ... most are just like us .. some do, some don't. The ones that do work hard ... they are bigger, stronger, faster than my generation was .. I have zero doubt.

But let's not make the mistake of thinking it wasn't effected by lack of modern techniques. In the 70s, Alabama, Auburn and dozens of other teams had 6-5 to 6-8 linemen but rarely weighed more than 250-255. They had the frames for it but coaches back in the day did NOT want to see one ounce of fat on their players. All you have to do is remember Mike Ditka hated fat and Buddy Ryan kept the Refrigerator off the field a lot because he detested fat (except his own). In the mid-70s, Bear Bryant had an offensive lineman who was 6-10 310 and definitely had room for another 30 pounds at least. But he rarely played because Bryant wanted speed and quickness at every position and huge guys aren't either. When you see where a 310 pounder ran a 4.9 40, that's fine. He may also run it for a while in the first half and a while in the second half. By then he's pretty much stationary. Watch some games on ESPN Classic. You'll see offensive linemen and defensive tackles making plays 40 yards down field. You won't see any of today's artificials more than 10 yards down field by the second half, unless they happen to have gotten the ball which seems to give them a burst of energy. They are getting bigger but without the help of modern ways, they wouldn't be any better. Now they are hell on wheels at video games which they spend practically all of their spare time on. Don't kid yourself, that's what they do.

PS: Since the beginning of the '90s, basketball players becoming noticeably shorter. In the '70s and '80s, every NBA team had 5 or 6 players taller than 6'11". You don't see that anymore.

[Little Stevie]

today's players-not even close.
But take a great player from 80's time warp to 2018 and he will be improved.
Much more emphasis today. Wish I had it.

[Redbird 4th & short]

But let's not make the mistake of thinking it wasn't effected by lack of modern techniques. In the 70s, Alabama, Auburn and dozens of other teams had 6-5 to 6-8 linemen but rarely weighed more than 250-255. They had the frames for it but coaches back in the day did NOT want to see one ounce of fat on their players. All you have to do is remember Mike Ditka hated fat and Buddy Ryan kept the Refrigerator off the field a lot because he detested fat (except his own). In the mid-70s, Bear Bryant had an offensive lineman who was 6-10 310 and definitely had room for another 30 pounds at least. But he rarely played because Bryant wanted speed and quickness at every position and huge guys aren't either. When you see where a 310 pounder ran a 4.9 40, that's fine. He may also run it for a while in the first half and a while in the second half. By then he's pretty much stationary. Watch some games on ESPN Classic. You'll see offensive linemen and defensive tackles making plays 40 yards down field. You won't see any of today's artificials more than 10 yards down field by the second half, unless they happen to have gotten the ball which seems to give them a burst of energy. They are getting bigger but without the help of modern ways, they wouldn't be any better. Now they are hell on wheels at video games which they spend practically all of their spare time on. Don't kid yourself, that's what they do.

PS: Since the beginning of the '90s, basketball players becoming noticeably shorter. In the '70s and '80s, every NBA team had 5 or 6 players taller than 6'11". You don't see that anymore.

agree the basketball game has changed to far less emphasis on "traditional" Center position. But that is entirely because the game's focused has shifted to better, taller, faster athletes at the 4 other positions. You don't see that many good 7' centers any more ... but you see a lot more 6'10 to 7'0 stretch power forwards, and 6'6" to 6'9" small forwards, who are better athletes and shooters. Kvein Durant is a small forward and lies about his height ... he says he's 6'9", except he's really just under 7'0" .. playing small forward. Its a body type thing related to how the pace and emphasis of the game has changed... traditional Centers would just get in the way of today's game. But it has nothing to do with Centers getting smaller or getting worse.. there's just no market for a traditional center at NBA level, particularly with 24 second shot clock. So it's what the original video said oon this thread .. it's about changes in our recognition of and development of certain body types. And in the NBA, it's about the pace of game and 24 second shot clock .. game has evolved around that and will keep evolving. Houston figured out formula for gving Golden State all they could handle .. watch teams like Houston, who went for quicker physical athletes to combat Golden State, and closed the gap in how much they frustrated Golden State.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Wilt mostly played at 275 to up to 300 lbs. No stringbean, and i don’t know what being a lothario has to do with anything.

.......WILT WAS 70%.....LEGS.............BRAWK!

[Serpentor]

I'd say yes... but, it's because of decades of trial and error that the old athletes put in that modern ones get to benefit from. Also, I'd argue that modern sports has vastly improved the specialization of athletes and therefore gets the most out of them, whereas in the past the best players were expected to be jack-of-all-trades and carry the rest of the team to victory.

[MR. CHICKEN]

......NO...........DUH ZEEBS/UMPS/REFS.......ARE WORSE................OLDER....AN' IN NEED UH LASERIN'...................BROCCO!

[PAllen]

......NO...........DUH ZEEBS/UMPS/REFS.......ARE WORSE................OLDER....AN' IN NEED UH LASERIN'...................BROCCO!

A lot of truth to that.

[Redbird 4th & short]

As dominant as Wilt was, his combination of athleticism (amazing) and basketball skills (average) were much like Dwight Howard. Although Wilt learned to be a willing passer by his middle years .. there were couple years with Philly where he averaged 8 assists. He got double teamed so much, he had no choice but to learn to use his teammates more.