- Jun 20, 2013
We've been 'round and 'round on this when it comes to comparing athletes of different generations.Not disputing that, just saying that there's a world of difference in the athletic standards for both periods.
You can't penalize a player for the era he played in. If Baugh was born in 1984 instead of 1914, he would be downing creatine and electrolytes after practice, not cigarettes and booze. He would be spending the offseason at API in Arizona, not at the racetrack. And if Brady played back then, while I'm sure he would be dedicated, he would not have access to the modern training/nutrition available in the 21st century.
People make the same mistake when talking about how Bird would fare in today's NBA, because athleticism11!! If Bird was born 30 years later and showed elite talent at a young age, he would be provided the latest methods in athlete performance, putting him on par with today's players. Wilt would look like Shaq. Oscar would look like Westbrook. Cousy would look like Nash. Reverse the situation and put today's athletes in the 50s or 60s, and they would not have the speed/power measurables they do now.
Of course athletes are more explosive these days, in every sport. To control for that, I think it's more useful to compare the great ones to their peers at the time.
Edit: Not trying to pick on you specifically, Roddy, as you're a good poster. You just touched a nerve. Back to delicious tears