Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[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.

[bbcard1]

I think the thing about baseball is that it is plausible or even likely that the best players or the early game (Wagner, Ruth, Johnson, Speaker, etc) would likely be stars today. I remember being a "fly on the wall" with a group of pro football players from the 1950s talking about whether they could compete with the teams of the mid-to-late 80s. There was a bunch of "we were double tough and we'd give them a scrap" Then finally one said, "The would kill us." Their running backs are as big as our lineman were." What's more, today's DLs are unimaginatively huge, strong and run faster than Jim Brown.

[Lorewalker]

One thing that could be said is that those who played the game and even excelled in it before even the 1960s and 1970s, played because they loved the game. Sure it was a paycheck and a business to sell tickets but most players really seemed to love the game.

I will likely catch shit for this but I am not one of those who believe that some of the very best pre war players would be as great if they played today. The game is so different that I am not certain it is fair to compare the eras even with the analysis/stats that we have.

[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."

[Misunderestimated]

Back to the OP ---> These dates seem relevant (I may be off I didn't double check the years)...

American baseball has been celebrating its history since Spaulding helped promote the Doubleday creation myth in the early 20th century... The HOF first started to induct players in 1936 (I think).

Hockey -- a largely Canadian sport at the outset -- struggled to fund its HOF and started inductions in the late 1950's as I recall.,

The NFL HOF started in 1963 (I think)
College football has its HOF too.

Basketball's HOF (which is NOT an "NBA or Professionally Basketball HOF or even an American basketball HOF) began choosing its greats in 1959 -- the building opened in the late 60's. Basketball's HOF is very different from the baseball HOF in the ways in which it honors its past. You can get it more than once. John Wooden is a HOFer as a player and coach. The Olympic teams from 1992 etc are inducted as a team and many of them are also individual inductees (Bird, Jordan , Magic etc). Women's greats are included as are Harlem Globetrotters who never played in the NBA like Meadowlark Lemon.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Depends who you talk to of course, English fans have their favourites and will argue till they are blue in the face that their players are better. Plus it's so hard to compare across eras when the game was very different back then.

Still, Tom Finney (1946-60) was regarded by many as the best player in the world during his era, while Dixie Dean's 60 goals in 1927-28 was considered a Ruthian achievement.

My Mount Rushmore is still Pele, Maradona, Messi, & Brazilian Ronaldo - but there are lots of players from all eras just below that threshold.

[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