Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

There's nothing circular about my position though. Today's NFL running backs are on average clearly significantly bigger than their predecessors. The difference between a 220lb average and a 201lb or 206lb average is no small thing. The fact that the 1950s NFL had 2-3 successful RBs each year who were the size of modern NFL backs doesn't change that. Those guys are outliers and focusing on them provides a very incomplete and misleading picture, as I demonstrated above.

Similarly, the fact that two extreme outliers, Bob Haynes (a 185-lb wide receiver) and Ollie Matson, won Olympic medals doesn't tell us much about average speed among elite players. Look at the rest of the running backs from the 50s and think about whether many of them were as fast as today's track stars. The guys I listed above would have smoked Jim Brown in a race, and he was considered fast in his day.

The average NFL running back today is an agile, explosive, musclebound 215-230 lb athlete with track star speed. Most of the '50s running backs would be too small and/or slow to make the league now. Conversely, I'd bet that dozens of the top modern running backs could have put up league-leading records in the 1950s, where they would have been both faster and stronger than most of the defenders.

 

I am not any viewpoint is wrong here as I'm just interesting in getting some different thoughts on this issue. It is a very complex question.

"much faster and more athletic"

There is an X factor, though, and that is skill. We can measure speed and size and perhaps strength, but skill is difficult to measure except in how everything ends up.

Here is a comparison of two 1950's halfbacks--Ollie Matson and Frank Gifford. There are a good comparison as they were born within three months of each other(Ollie in May, Frank in August, of 1930) and started their careers in the NFL in 1952. Matson played until 1966. Gifford until 1964.

On the face of it, by modern standards, Matson was the better athlete. He was bigger at 6' 2" and 220 to Frank's 6' 1" and 195. He was faster for certain, an Olympic medal winner. Frank had ordinary speed, I would say, for an NFL running back or receiver. So how do they compare?

Ollie played 171 games. Frank 136.
Rushing--Ollie had 5173 yards at a 4.4 yards per carry average. Frank 3609 yards at a 4.3 yards per carry average.
Receiving--Ollie had 3285 yards at a 14.8 yard per catch average. Frank 5434 yards at a 14.8 yards per catch average.
Ollie rushed for 40 touchdowns. Frank for 34. Ollie caught 23 touchdown passes. Frank caught 43. So Frank ended up with 77 TD's from scrimmage to Ollie's 63.
While Frank returned punts and kickoffs early in his career, and was decent, Ollie was the best of his time and had 9 TD's on kickoff and punt returns.
Each man had one odd TD. Frank on a pass interception. Ollie on a fumble.
So Frank ended up scoring 78 TD's and Ollie 73.
But halfbacks often passed back then. Ollie threw 15 passes and completed 5, none for touchdowns. Frank threw 63 passes and completed 29, of which 14 went for touchdowns.

Bottom line is I was a bit surprised when I looked at these stats as being old enough to remember the two players on the new Sunday games back then, I would have expected the flashy Matson to win out here, but for me he clearly doesn't. Why not? I would surmise a wider variety of skills for Gifford. He was probably a bit better at running pass routes. He might have had better hands for catching passes. He certainly was a better passer.

So the bottom line question--how do skills factor into athleticism? It might be hard to measure, but off results, it seems to often be critical.

 

And meanwhile Laveon Bell put up a pedestrian 4.60 40 yard dash and is the best back in the game (when he is playing). And All Time greats Jerry Rice and Larry Fitzgerald had similar 40 times in the 4.60 range.... Not that I entirely disagree with your point.

 

Fair enough, there will always be room for non-track stars with excellent skills (and other physical talents). For the record though I've read that Fitzgerald's supposed 4.63 40 time is fake news--I've seen his time listed as 4.48 instead.

And of course for every Jerry Rice, there are dozens of D1 WR stars who never make it in the NFL in large part because they're just a little too slow or too short to get open.

 

I reckon Mo Green was as obviously juiced as Linford “ the lunch box “ , Seamus.

Ben Johnson was pretty hot as well

I remember reading as a kid that the gun German sprinter Armin Harry was rumoured to be a devotee of amphetamine use in the work place ie the track. He was an incredibly quick starter.

I actually believe that every 100 meter sprint champion since Borzov in 1972 has been geared on some form of steroid or even HGH and EPO.

As far as female athletes go Flo Jo was pretty obvious in my opinion as were many Eastern Bloc females athletes in the 70s and 80s.

I doubt if anyone in the current NFL is as quick as Bob Hayes. That guy was incredibly quick.

As far as the thread question goes, yep in my opinion athletes have gotten faster and stronger on the whole since about 1980 due to shared knowledge regarding sports science.

Cheers all, there are some really interesting perspectives on the thread.

 

Soccer is kind of mixed. A guy like Cristiano Ronaldo is bigger than the average player of the past, but Lionel Messi is smaller. Positions where size is advantageous (goalkeeper and central defense) tend to have bigger players now, but other positions where size has less importance vary. The average player of today is faster than the average player of the past though. As far as skills, it's hard to say. The elites like Pele certainly were better than pretty much anyone now, but on the average I don't think there's any sort of significant advance or decline in skills. Better groundskeeping and better equipment have actually made noticeable differences.

 

It's also worth noting that the game itself has predisposed itself away from smaller backs because conditioning isn't as important as it used to be.

Thanks to longer game length, players only playing one way, and more frequent substitutions, more RB's can come in heavier. The league wants to distill size and explosiveness above all other qualities because those are the attributes that sell best. Those factors are also how 300 plus pound athletes are routine, whereas they were unheard of even up to the '80s.

It's interesting to note there's about 11 minutes of whistle to whistle football played in a game that takes over three hours to finish. Players only play one way, so that's actually about five minutes. And that's assuming RB's are three down backs who play every series-most aren't. Modern backs don't have the workload of the old timers and have much more rest in a game (ignoring the elephant in the room of PED's). I'd venture to say in a faster paced game with fewer substitutions, we'd see fewer big backs.

 

Fun fact: there was never a sprinter to run a sub 10 second 100m dash until 1968, which is after steroids found their way into Olympic track. I agree with you that they (and other PED's) have been the cost of doing business for a long time.

 

Of course athletes are getting bigger better stronger-though some of it is through drugging up.
And rule changes encourage power at the expense of endurance.
Though PEDs mean that the best in that realm are often juiced.
I am not gonna smear everyone as juiced absent evidence.
Bolt for example may be just a genetic outlier & his length works.

An exaggeration that 300 pound athletes were unknown even up to the 80's.
Though then you had many guys that size, some lean.

Also the 22 lb. difference in running backs described above is NOT enormous.
Especially above 200 lbs. Why we have HWs fighting each other at even much larger gaps & sometimes the smaller man wins. But it is significant.
Everything else Rock said checks out.

 

I dont see the strait rt hand to the body anymore.
I dont see consistent great jabbers anymore or guys that hook off the jab or even know how to on a consistent basis.
I don't see guys that seem to know how to really cut the ring off anymore.
I dont see alot of really good ring generals anymore.
I see more out of shape Heavyweights than I do in shape ones.
All this modern conditioning seems to produce fighters that are sucking in major air by the 8th rd and being spent by the championship rds let alone 15 rds.
Sorry I don't see it at all.

I also haven't seen any linebackers better than L.T or Dick Butkus for that matter and Ken Dryden is still the best goalie I ever saw too for what worth.

I'm not trying to go all nostalgia here. I just dont know if the guys today have the same work ethic or maybe it's the devotion to learning there craft. I dont know what it is but they may be bigger as in other sports and in the HW division but not better.
BTW regarding today's HW's if the conditioning techniques are so much better why does it seem 90% of these guys are fat. Just plain fat.

 

I think part of it is just that today's heavyweights are older. Many on this forum believe that Ali was past his best against Frazier at age 29. Ditto Frazier against Foreman at what, 29 or 30?

The proper comparison group for the current crop of heavyweights are the chubbier versions of Frazier, Ali, Jack Johnson, etc in their mid-30s. Our society is overweight and undisciplined, but it hasn't had quite as much of an effect as it's generally alleged, IMO.

 

There have been a ton of changes in tracks and equipment so it's hard to say. Most of the sprint records were also done at altitude which shaves a fair bit of time off.

Another big difference was the increase in professionalism. Past athletes were banned from competing over accusations of professionalism, including the legendary Paavo Nurmi

 

Sounds about right. Don't think he carried sugar in his pockets. He had a son who was decent if memory serves.

LeMaitre doesn't seem juiced. Frankly, he looks soft.

 

Interesting Bud, and I appreciate the info. I have no clue, and maybe I'm naïve, but I always thought his 84 Olympic run was juice free... and I hope that is true dammit!!

 

I'll only disagree here on Schilt being the best... IMO it's clearly Hoost. Hoost fought the better competition imo. Plus, the guy he got Steamrolled by... Also steamrolled other K-1 guys and Pride (MMA) guys as well. It can happen, especially when your that big and strong and just barrel in leaving caution to the wind.