Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD
I can't love this more Frank.
I agree, we can't mince facts and romanticize that eras are compatable in any direction. While I can easily surmise that Ruth would likely be average or possibly below in todays world with the skills he had at his peak. Who knows what he would be if the same person were born on 1994 and lived a life used to today's speeds and training?
We can guess that Trout could have been a god with his current abilities in 1928, who would he have been afforded the same training and health regimen of Ruth?
Same for all sports, if I place Gretzky in the checking of the 50's can he weather to score? Could Lebron handle the violence of the 80's defense? It can be argued that Jordan could not as he could not win a championship until the officiating changed.
Era's cannot be compared front or back, so it seems like a waste to try but it happens every night in sports bars around the country as the night goes on.
We should enjoy each for what they were and be able to appreciate the past and the present as each is incomparable.
|
Isn't 500 feet the same today as it was back in Ruth's time? Tell me something - how is it that given today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, how is it that 500+ foot big league game homers are still exceedingly rare, but in 1921 Ruth hit one in every American League park his played? For anyone to say Ruth was anything even close to an average ballplayer of ANY era is to close one's mind to all evidence and deny the truth . . . that he was an absolute freak!