1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

It is interesting. I haven't seen a good list for weight lifters. The women's 100 M definitely fits your argument a little better. The 90s and 2000s have the most top 30 or so entries, but FloJo has 1, 2, and 3

Men's 100m is different...it is completely dominated by times made after 2000. The first non 2000 or greater falls 34th on the list and occurred in 1999.

It is interesting to say the least. There seems to be big difference for American Football. Basketball doesn't seem to be growing so much taller as the taller being more skilled overall to their predecessors.

Has soccer/football seen any changes like this?


Obviously lot of money in those that have seen some big changes over 50 years.

Sent from my Lenovo B8000-F using Tapatalk

 

If they made the ball bigger in basketball but kept the hoop the same size it would make a difference wouldn't it?

Boxing gloves got rounder and bigger.

Can it just be coincidence that when precision and technique mattered less size mattered more?

 

You may have discussed this and my apologies if you did...

To the original post, if the 1949 fighters fought the 1999 fighters with the latter era's gloves, would that be a major advantage for the 1999 team? On the flip side would 1949 gloves make the difference for that team?

This is not a challenge, but trying to understand your position a little better, as I know the glove thing was mentioned previously.
Sent from my Lenovo B8000-F using Tapatalk

 

6-3
Charles, Walcott and LaStarza

 

Interesting theory. :good

 

I think the 1999 team struggle with smaller gloves because it would require more focus than they are used to. They cannot afford to waste so many shots in combination. Smaller gloves offer less defence. They might require more pace and less bulk.

Likewise, the old boys struggle to make the same impression with less shots. They have to work a whole lot more to be as precise. They might require more size and less precision.

Both teams are unfairly handicapped in each others era.

Fighters do adapt however.

 

lmao, no. Walcott is one of the trickiest fighters in history. Don't think yo watched him enough.

And if Byrd was filmed in the 1950's you would laugh him off the forum.

 

There was a Ted Talk recently where they measured the effects of modern athletic technology in running. They found that if Usain Bolt ran in the same conditions as Jesse Owens, or vice versa, Jesse is faster.


So that argument is not as strong as it would seem.

 

Ted Talk: Are Athletes really getting faster, stronger, better?

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epst...ly_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

 

Bryd was a good boxer. Can't you see that Walcott was too?

Why is it irrelevant that Walcott was tricky?

 

I may look out for that. I have trouble believing that Tinus Osendarp (I wiki'd this) who finished third and 0.2 of Owens' pace would be considered in the same category. That said it is probably an interesting piece.

Edit: I didn't notice you included a link. Will check it out.

Sent from my Lenovo B8000-F using Tapatalk