Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[Snapolit1]

I had a lot of exposure to hockey in the 70s. Back then hockey players generally looked like guys recruited from a nearby gas station, many of them smoked, and few if any of them looked like they spent a whole lot of time in the gym. Guys today are beasts. Massive studs. Different game and no comparison to the physicality of the players.

One look at star basketball players from the 50s and clear they wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's NBA.

Football players today among the best athletes in existence (other than the really obese guys).

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

This.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I had a lot of exposure to hockey in the 70s. Back then hockey players generally looked like guys recruited from a nearby gas station, many of them smoked, and few if any of them looked like they spent a whole lot of time in the gym. Guys today are beasts. Massive studs. Different game and no comparison to the physicality of the players.

One look at star basketball players from the 50s and clear they wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's NBA.

Football players today among the best athletes in existence (other than the really obese guys).

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

I have news for you. Gordie Howe would have kicked anybody in the NHL today back into last week. At age 15 he could take 85 pound cement sack's and hold one in each hand at arms length and not drop them. His dad won a few bets on that but you try it. He never touched a weight in his life. Imagine if he did.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

I have news for you. Gordie Howe would have kicked anybody in the NHL today back into last week. At age 15 he could take 85 pound cement sack's and hold one in each hand at arms length and not drop them. His dad won a few bets on that but you try it. He never touched a weight in his life. Imagine if he did.

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

Wow, that is just not true. You can be in great shape and not an amazing athlete and vice versa. Ruth was overweight or fat most of his career.

In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.

Nutrition and size has changed a lot though, and many early ballplayers in all of these sports were 5’6” and 150 lbs.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Wow, that is just not true. You can be in great shape and not an amazing athlete and vice versa. Ruth was overweight or fat most of his career.



In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.



Nutrition and size has changed a lot though, and many early ballplayers in all of these sports were 5’6” and 150 lbs.

You may want to do more research on Ruth if you are going to claim he was overweight most of his career and not just base it off images from the tail end of his career.

[G1911]

Ruth was pretty much always overweight. He was obese in his late career, but he was overweight long before he hit obese.

[packs]

Wasn’t Ruth’s poor conditioning always a point of contention in the press and with his managers? How else does a guy become known for the bellyache heard around the world? That was in 1925.

[Snapolit1]

Delete. ..

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ruth was pretty much always overweight. He was obese in his late career, but he was overweight long before he hit obese.

Lot of Ruth's career he was like 210-225. Hardly massive by todays standards. Personally speaking.

[Yoda]

Track and Field: Jessie Owens

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You may want to do more research on Ruth if you are going to claim he was overweight most of his career and not just base it off images from the tail end of his career.

You mean like read the biography on him i just finished that went season by season on his career?

[Ray Van]

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

A very (American) myopic pov from the OP in my opinion. You referenced serious fans so I can tell you yes, serious soccer fans know pre-war names. Most general soccer fans start with Pele in the late 1950's and go from there. But serious fans can talk your ear off about great prewar players from all different countries. From England alone, Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews are well known, while Derby County fans still sing about Steve Bloomer.

As mentioned by others, the timing of the development of the game plays a huge role and benefits baseball over other sports. While soccer was also developed in the 1800's, it wasn't until the first World Cup in 1930 that things really started moving internationally, but that's still pre-WWII.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

A very (American) myopic pov from the OP in my opinion. You referenced serious fans so I can tell you yes, serious soccer fans know pre-war names. Most general soccer fans start with Pele in the late 1950's and go from there. But serious fans can talk your ear off about great prewar players from all different countries. From England alone, Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews are well known, while Derby County fans still sing about Steve Bloomer.

As mentioned by others, the timing of the development of the game plays a huge role and benefits baseball over other sports. While soccer was also developed in the 1800's, it wasn't until the first World Cup in 1930 that things really started moving internationally, but that's still pre-WWII.

Point taken, but are English fans arguing that Dean and Matthews and Bloomer are on a par or better than Pele, Maradona, Messi, etc."

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Tabe

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

I get that but they did use Americans back then in northern states, and it’s a big stretch to say that the US population is the pool today….maybe 3-4 states and a few other pockets. Europe does help a lot today to even it out, especially Russia/Sweden/Finland.

And I made a mistake, only 15 players on a team back in the 20-30’s at most, maybe fewer in the 20’s (don’t have my programs handy). The best players would still be the best players. The depth in the league is a problem today, most teams have little skill on the bottom half/two thirds of the roster even if the guys are in better shape and can skate.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

I get that but they did use Americans back then in northern states, and it’s a big stretch to say that the US population is the pool today….maybe 3-4 states and a few other pockets. Europe does help a lot today to even it out, especially Russia/Sweden/Finland.

And I made a mistake, only 15 players on a team back in the 20-30’s at most, maybe fewer in the 20’s (don’t have my programs handy). The best players would still be the best players. The depth in the league is a problem today, most teams have little skill on the bottom half/two thirds of the roster even if the guys are in better shape and can skate.

In the 59/60 season, for example, there were 4 Americans in the entire league plus 2 Europeans. That's counting entire rosters, so 30+ guys per team, nearly 200 total.

The best players would still be the best but it's absolutely undeniable that the overall talent level - even with era adjustments - is significantly higher now.

The bottom half of the league is far more skilled than it's ever been. The unskilled cementheads of the past simply don't exist anymore.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

"I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out."

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.



Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...



- endurance

- strength

- power

- speed

- agility

- flexibility

- durability

- nerve

- hand-eye coordination

- analytic aptitude



Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.



Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.



There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).



https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Well, sure. Playing a game on skates adds a level of difficulty no other sport can match. It still amazes me that they used to play without helmets. Or masks.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk