grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Some very unpopular (but possibly legitimate) true or false, state your opinion and justify it. (1) Bill Russell, at 6'9" and 215 lbs, would get tossed around like a ragdoll in the paint in today's NBA, and wouldn't have ability to step out and hit the J. (2) Babe Ruth's homerun numbers were inflated by the short right field fence at Yankee stadium during the 1920s. If he played today, he's a 30 homerun type guy, at best. (3) Muhamaad Ali would be too small to contend with today's two-headed heavyweight champion, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko. He'd be giving up 40 pounds to both (remember, "Big George" Foreman weighed in at 220 for the rumble in the jungle, about 3.5 lbs more than Ali), and wouldn't be able to take the power shots or handle the "fight at a distance" tactics of Wladimir. (4) Joe Montana was a fine passer for his day, but could never stay upright in today's NFL. (5) Ricky Watters had a better NFL career than Gayle Sayers. (6) Jay Schroder was a better quarterback than Doug Williams. So was Brad Johnson. (7) Herschel Walker was a more talented running back than Emmit Smith. (8) Jim Thome is a greater power hitter than Micky Mantle. (9) Jesse Owens couldn't compete with Usain Bolt, or Tyson Gay for that matter. (10) Lance Alworth would struggle to make an NFL roster today. So, let's hear why you think these statements are false (or maybe true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 ok ill bite. 1. bill russel - i wouldnt say he'd get tossed around like a ragdoll, but he definitely wouldnt be an allstar. the way the game is played now is too fast, its evolved to much. i doubt he would start. 2. babe ruth - tough to say. a good hitter's eye is something that is pretty much unteachable. id say he's a high 30s hr hitter. but not as famed as before, especially since he didnt have to play against black people. 3. ali - i think he'd be alright. he just moved so quickly and effortlessly 4. montana - if in his prime, he would do well in today's nfl 5. ricky watters -williams had a really underappreciated career, dont know enough about gale sayer's career 6. brad johnson- better than doug williams 7. herschel walker - yes, more talented, but not as durable as emmit 8. thome- possibily a better power hitter. mantle is overrated 9. jesse owens - no chance he would make it 10. lance alworth?? it goes to say though, that given time and utilization of modern training techniques, most of the best players from the past would be just as good today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Lance Alworth was an all time great wide receiver with the Chargers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Ahh I see. Hmmm. ---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 12:00 AM ---------- These arguments don't work. You cannot put players from the past into today's era without giving them today's equipment, training, supplements and standards. You think Wayne Gretzky if he played today would be that lanky 190 pound frame? Nope, he'd have much better technology and training. The human body has not evolved in the last century. That's a process that takes slightly longer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (1) Bill Russell, at 6'9" and 215 lbs, would get tossed around like a ragdoll in the paint in today's NBA, and wouldn't have ability to step out and hit the J. (2) Babe Ruth's homerun numbers were inflated by the short right field fence at Yankee stadium during the 1920s. If he played today, he's a 30 homerun type guy, at best. (3) Muhamaad Ali would be too small to contend with today's two-headed heavyweight champion, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko. He'd be giving up 40 pounds to both (remember, "Big George" Foreman weighed in at 220 for the rumble in the jungle, about 3.5 lbs more than Ali), and wouldn't be able to take the power shots or handle the "fight at a distance" tactics of Wladimir. arguments about size are meaningless. yes of course the populace at large has gotten bigger and stronger as nutrition and sport and medical science has improved, and as supplements have been taken full advantage of. the fact remains that they were absolute outliers and studs of their era -- they were in the top 0.0001% of physical specimens. in all likelihood, if they had benefited from the same benefits of modern conditioning and diets and medical care, they may very well still have found themselves as physical outliers even by modern standards. (4) Joe Montana was a fine passer for his day, but could never stay upright in today's NFL. don't understand. there are no pocket passers today? what? (5) Ricky Watters had a better NFL career than Gayle Sayers. truth (6) Jay Schroder was a better quarterback than Doug Williams. So was Brad Johnson. nope, no way. doug williams was an underrated superstar in Tampa Bay for years. nobody knows it because the teams were terrible. by the time he got to us, he was over the hill, but in his prime he was better than both those guys. (7) Herschel Walker was a more talented running back than Emmit Smith. i guess i agree with that. in their primes for one season, i'd take walker. but you could also certainly argue that posessing longevity at running back is itself an impressive talent. *cough* portis *cough* (8) Jim Thome is a greater power hitter than Micky Mantle. don't know baseball, certainly not that era. (9) Jesse Owens couldn't compete with Usain Bolt, or Tyson Gay for that matter. again with the timeframe argument. i dont' get it at all. if Jesse Owens had benefited from modern technology, he would probably have been just as fast. it's not like human DNA has changed, just the training methods and diets, etc. (10) Lance Alworth would struggle to make an NFL roster today. see above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 arguments about size are meaningless. yes of course the populace at large has gotten bigger and stronger as nutrition and sport and medical science has improved, and as supplements have been taken full advantage of. the fact remains that they were absolute outliers and studs of their era -- they were in the top 0.0001% of physical specimens. in all likelihood, if they had benefited from the same benefits of modern conditioning and diets and medical care, they may very well still have found themselves as physical outliers even by modern standards.don't understand. there are no pocket passers today? what? truth nope, no way. doug williams was an underrated superstar in Tampa Bay for years. nobody knows it because the teams were terrible. by the time he got to us, he was over the hill, but in his prime he was better than both those guys. i guess i agree with that. in their primes for one season, i'd take walker. but you could also certainly argue that posessing longevity at running back is itself an impressive talent. *cough* portis *cough* don't know baseball, certainly not that era. again with the timeframe argument. i dont' get it at all. if Jesse Owens had benefited from modern technology, he would probably have been just as fast. it's not like human DNA has changed, just the training methods and diets, etc. see above. You do realize these aren't arguments I'm making, right? I assume for the sake of this exercise that these athletes would have to compete "as is," (without the benefit of modern training methods) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Babe Ruth in 2011 = Adam Dunn/Prince Fielder/any other overweight power hitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 You do realize these aren't arguments I'm making, right? I assume for the sake of this exercise that these athletes would have to compete "as is," (without the benefit of modern training methods) Which makes the whole argument itself pointless. Ok, and the first Greek Olympians wouldn't win now...this is like saying Alexander the Great's iconic troops would lose to the 1940's American Army...of course. Where's the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Which makes the whole argument itself pointless. Ok, and the first Greek Olympians wouldn't win now...this is like saying Alexander the Great's iconic troops would lose to the 1940's American Army...of course. Where's the argument? You're free to step out of the thread then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I completely agree with Sticks. It's hard to ignore the raw talent of all time greats, as they inspired the athletes you're comparing them to. I'd love to see the athletes of yesteryear get all the refined training and nutrition that today's athletes have at their disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 You do realize these aren't arguments I'm making, right? I assume for the sake of this exercise that these athletes would have to compete "as is," (without the benefit of modern training methods) then i completely fail to see the point. if modern athletes had to grow up with and compete with the nutrition and meds of the 1930's they would be smaller and slower as well. what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaRonDontLikeUgly Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Some very unpopular (but possibly legitimate) true or false, state your opinion and justify it.(1) Bill Russell, at 6'9" and 215 lbs, would get tossed around like a ragdoll in the paint in today's NBA, and wouldn't have ability to step out and hit the J. (2) Babe Ruth's homerun numbers were inflated by the short right field fence at Yankee stadium during the 1920s. If he played today, he's a 30 homerun type guy, at best. (3) Muhamaad Ali would be too small to contend with today's two-headed heavyweight champion, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko. He'd be giving up 40 pounds to both (remember, "Big George" Foreman weighed in at 220 for the rumble in the jungle, about 3.5 lbs more than Ali), and wouldn't be able to take the power shots or handle the "fight at a distance" tactics of Wladimir. (4) Joe Montana was a fine passer for his day, but could never stay upright in today's NFL. (5) Ricky Watters had a better NFL career than Gayle Sayers. (6) Jay Schroder was a better quarterback than Doug Williams. So was Brad Johnson. (7) Herschel Walker was a more talented running back than Emmit Smith. (8) Jim Thome is a greater power hitter than Micky Mantle. (9) Jesse Owens couldn't compete with Usain Bolt, or Tyson Gay for that matter. (10) Lance Alworth would struggle to make an NFL roster today. So, let's hear why you think these statements are false (or maybe true). I can only comment on a few of these with confidence.... 1.) True 2.) Possibly, but the baseballs were also covered in all kinds of weird **** back then. Can't take too much away from the Babe. 3.) False. Muhammed Ali was a technician with incredible endurance who probably wouldn't knock out the Klitschkos- but he would outbox the **** out of them. I will add to the debate and say that a young and focused Mike Tyson under the tutelage of Cus D'amato was the most dangerous and unstoppable boxer in the history of the sport. 4.) During his prime, Montana would still be a Top 10 QB in the league right now. 5.) Probably. 6.) Never watched Jay.... I agree with Brad though. 7.) More athletic, yes. More talented, absolutely not. 8.) I don't know. 9.) Of course not, humans continue to evolve. Not to mention equipment/training advancements help everyone. 10.) I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 ok ill bite.1. bill russel - Would still be fantastic. Remember, the Bill Russel of today would still use the training regimines and techniques of day. He'd still have the grit, coordination, and eye of yesterday. 2. babe ruth - It's arguable that baseball was better back then. Smaller league. More compression of talent. Ruth was a good pitcher as well as a great hitter. I think he'd do okay. I doubt he'd be Babe Ruth, but I think he'd be a power hitter that everyone would want on his team and away from their women. 3. ali - You might be right here. The size might make a big difference. Ali might not be able to overcome this. 4. montana - If Brees and Brady can do it in today's NFL then Montana would still be great. 5. ricky watters -Seyers injuries really cut short his career. So, you're probably right here. 6. brad johnson v D Williams- Not if you're comparing Superbowl performances Doug wasn't a world beater at qb. Heck, even in '87, Gibbs couldn't make up his mind who his starter was, but for that one night Doug Williams was one of the best qbs to ever put on a helmet. 9. jesse owens - again with today's nutrician, training and equipment I see no reason why Jesse wouldn't kill it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 it goes to say though, that given time and utilization of modern training techniques, most of the best players from the past would be just as good today. That's it in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 then i completely fail to see the point. if modern athletes had to grow up with and compete with the nutrition and meds of the 1930's they would be smaller and slower as well. what is your point? Maybe the point is that it's futile to make definitive statements comparing athletes across generations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Maybe the OP is just trying to have some Friday fun?? Man, tough crowd. Star Wars explosions wouldn't really happen in real space either...but how fun would that type of movie be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Maybe the OP is just trying to have some Friday fun?? Man, tough crowd.Star Wars explosions wouldn't really happen in real space either...but how fun would that type of movie be? I think you've pretty hit the nail on the head here.... I'm not suggesting that any of these things are necessarily true. I just find the arguments interesting, i.e. would Babe Ruth, given the abilities he had in his prime (yes, without modern training methods, be capable of hitting 60 homeruns? How would a Bill Russell fare, with the body frame he possessed in his prime? etc. Figured a few might get pissed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Seems like a bunch of people just weren't in the mood and came in to suck the fun right out of the thread...good luck to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Maybe the OP is just trying to have some Friday fun?? Man, tough crowd.Star Wars explosions wouldn't really happen in real space either...but how fun would that type of movie be? wait a sec. heat + fuel + oxygen inside starship = explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 it's not fun because it's a nonsense comparison. might as well ask something like "would emmit smith have had as much yardage if he had been forced to not wear a helmet?" or "would darrell green have been faster if he'd been born with 3 legs?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 it's not fun because it's a nonsense comparison. might as well ask something like "would emmit smith have had as much yardage if he had been forced to not wear a helmet?" or "would darrell green have been faster if he'd been born with 3 legs?" And with that, I ask that the MODs close this thread. It appears that Mr. Greenspan does not believe this topic is worthy of discussion. My next thread shall be titled "Why republicans should die, therefore allowing democrats to rule the earth. Duh...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 hey man if you don't want opinions don't make threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsTime Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (2) Babe Ruth's homerun numbers were inflated by the short right field fence at Yankee stadium during the 1920s. If he played today, he's a 30 homerun type guy, at best False. Babe Ruth hit a home run in every possible ballpark during eleven different seasons for the Major League record. His closest competition is Hank Aaron who hit home runs in every possible ballpark during nine seasons. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr2.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 hey man if you don't want opinions don't make threads. I value your opinion, and I want you to participate. Just for you, let's alter the original question a bit. Taking aside the "A was better than B" statements, take statements 1-4, and tell me how you think these athletes would fare if they stepped into a time machine from their era, landed in our era, and were immediately entered into the starting lineup of there respective sports. For example, Babe Ruth at 23, steps into a time machine, and is now sitting in the Orioles clubhouse on opening day. What type of season does he have, statistically, competing against athletes who have the benefit of modren training techniquies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 You may have touched a nerve with some of your provocative examples, but I think the thread can be salvaged. I do think that sometimes people diminish the accomplishments of prior-generation players by using similar arguments... "Yeah, but he would just be mediocre in today's game" ... which I think is unfair... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.