| |
BGonline.org Forums
Sports -- OT
Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Sunday, 5 June 2011, at 11:11 p.m.
I know it is impossible to compare, but it is always entertaining to discuss (argue?).
Training regimens and techniques have improved and have been refined so much throughout the years that it is difficult to compare athletes within sports trans-generationally. The money in many sports allows today's athletes much more freedom and independence to become full-time professional athletes. The knowledge of diet, workout regimens, supplements, and (dare I say?) performance enhancing drugs have all rendered significant impact to various sports.
Nonetheless, a few comments. One quasi-constant measure of comparison is an athlete's performance in a sport in comparison to his peers. The foremost example of this is the hitting prowess of Babe Ruth. No one among his peers was even close -- at least on one occasion, and perhaps more (I didn't re-research today), he had more home runs in his season than any other TEAM !!
The largest impact is observed in golf and racquet sports and the evolution (some would say improvement) of equipment with time. In golf, the balls, clubs, shafts, etc. have vastly improved over the decades providing far more distance and control with similar effort -- thus, providing 'better' performance. Today's racquets -- tennis and racquetball, to my knowledge -- dwarf in size those of previous eras. Further, the frames, strings, etc. also provide more control, forgiveness, and consistency. To my knowledge the balls themselves have not significantly changed. Tennis court surfaces have changed dramatically.
So, the question is, how would today's stars compare with the stars of old if they had to play with the old style equipment? or, conversely, how would the stars of old compare with today's stars if they had access to the new equipment? Doubtlessly, the foremost competitors could/would adapt over time to the available equipment. However, it would be interesting to watch Phil or Tiger try to play golf with small-headed drivers on hickory shafts w/ a dead (in comparison to today) ball. Similarly, Bobby Jones, Jack, Arnie, Trevino, Hogan, Nelson, and others might find the use of today's equipment considerably easier than what they used. Courses have been made longer to compensate, to a degree, to the equipment, but I think the masters of old were much more talented strikers of the ball -- they had to be because of the equipment they used.
Similarly, such a comparison exists in tennis. The modern game is much faster but the equipment is much better to accommodate the speed. How would a Laver or Rosewall compare to a Borg, a McEnroe, a Lendl, or a Connors? How would either of those generations' stars compare to a Sampras, Nadal, or Federer? Very difficult to say -- an entirely different game.
Too many years ago I played a considerable amount of racquetball -- and was reasonably good on a local/regional level. My quickness enabled me to do quite well. Fifteen years ago or so, as I approached my middle forties, I had a young engineer employee who thought he was a good racquetball player. He challenged me to a match. Despite the fact that I hadn't played regularly in ten-fifteen years or better, I accepted. I dug out my old Ektelon racquet, some old shoes, old style gym shorts, and met him at the gym. He had all the latest gear -- racquet, shoes, clothes, etc. He ragged me quite a bit about the racquet -- his must have had a surface area three times the size of mine and had extended reach in comparison. He didn't score a point in two games. Then, for grins, we traded racquets. He still didn't score a point in two more games -- though I had some bit of trouble adjusting to the much larger racquet, he could almost not even hit the ball with the small racquet (said he thought he was playing handball while I was playing racquetball). I'm sure all players adapt and evolve with the contemporary equipment in all sports; however, I think the equipment improvements have allowed 'better' performance by being more consistent and more forgiving.
One area of direct comparison is in track, where no equipment is used and only the human body is utilized. We, obviously, see continuously improving records throughout the decades; though those have and ultimately will approach limits. We can attribute much to training, diet, drugs, etc.; however, I feel there is a significant psychological factor in play as well. Once Bannister broke the four-minute mile or whomever first ran 100 meters under 10 seconds, others knew it could be done and worked from there. That psychology is constantly in play in the improvement of track records. I know it is rarely run, but I know at one time Bob Hayes held the 'world record' in the 'flying' 100 meters (or was it yards?) -- something like 7.7 seconds. Others tried but no one could touch it for years. I think the diet, strength training, etc. has much more significant impact to sprinter's starts than their top in speeds -- Hayes (and Carl Lewis) may remain the fastest men of all time. We'll never know but it is interesting to speculate.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.