Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

I do know more, becuase I'm aware of stuff that was figured out decades ago, like the difference between aerobic developement and peaking. Somehow these guys seem unaware of this stuff. This stuff is the basics for sports where conditioning is nearly everything.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

This wasn't a change overnight, they didn't change the rules on a whim, a lot of it was from the cold war mentality of state sponsored athletes, and the slow loss of the "amateur values" that came from the 1800's. The rules became less enforced overtime, it's mentioned in a Herb Elliot interveiw back in, I think, the 60's. The line of how much expenses are allowed etc. is arbitrary, and to how much they'll turn a blind eye. Hell the errosion goes all the way back to the germany olympics in 1936 when Germany thought winning a lot would be a symbol of their supperiority

You don't think a bunch of amateurs competing in sports with little in the way of history, or monetry incentive, where the athletes tend to move on at a young age after a short career is going to lead to slow improvement in methods? I don't see why you wouldn't expect improvement over time in amateur sport, the contention is that because boxing has always been professional, things would be improved nearer their max much faster. Basically the pros will try to get as good as possible, people not being payed will only match their peers and previous generations. In general the early amateurs didn't do nearly as much training as modern athletes or pro athletes (e.g. boxers) of the same period, and often used bizzaire methods.
Plus there were a lot of changes to equipment over time

 

Sometimes it's better to try to actually understand the other poster's position, and keep your conclusions tentative, rather than jumping into the forum in constant debate mode.

 

The phrase is always "moot point", but of course even given better conditions & equipment, training, nutrition, science, a bigger competitive pool etc...Makes athletes better in more recent times.

 

Most of the sports focused on, such as swimming, you can train for one thing as you are not competing directly with anyone else but with the clock. But the most popular sports have other athletes playing defense. Reacting to what they do is critical. My point is that specialized training creates a gain w/o a loss. In sports in which there is a balance between stamina, speed, agility, and strength this might not be true. Working to max one asset might weaken another asset. I don't think that is as much of a danger in a pure clock or weight type sport.

For example, Joe DiMaggio. If he did modern weight training, I assume he would be heavier and stronger, But in his own day he hit 361 home runs and only struck out 369 times. (Ted Williams also relatively rarely struck out) He made contact consistently. Would a gain in strength be worth a possible loss of quickness and flexibility which allowed him to almost always make contact?

Another thing, about DiMaggio. Other players mentioned what a great "jump on the ball" he got. He quickly realized when the ball left the bat where it would be going. So observers like Whitey Ford comment that he easily caught flys that you didn't think he could get to at all. Just another skill which can't be measured.

So my bottom line is I really doubt the argument that stars who stood out so much in their own eras like Williams, DiMaggio, Brown, and Chamberlain would be ordinary if brought into the modern world with a time machine unless they had the advantage of modern training.

Also, is anyone certain someone like Brown didn't do weight training? I have read that Ali and Brown were friends and often did roadwork together and trained in the same gym when in the same city. This would have to be during Brown's off-season. Teams didn't organize off-season training, but some individuals had been into weight training as far back as the 1920's.

That said, I do think on average athletes have improved.

*just an aside, I have seen an interview with Buster Crabbe in which he mentioned that while he tried to swim every day, he only trained intensively for two weeks prior to the 1932 Olympics in which he won the 400 meter freestyle.

**I also recall a comment on this thread about how male swimmers in the 1920's had bodies which looked like girls. Well, this would be Johnny Weissmuller and Buster Crabbe. My. Tarzan and Flash Gordon looked like girls? Oh, the shame of it all.

 

just on Johnny Weissmuller, there is a clip from a German TV show back in the 1970's in which Weissmuller and his wife are being interviewed, and Weissmuller is holding a rather playful chimp which is pulling on his hair. Suddenly the chimp reaches over and jerks off the wife's wig. Weissmuller later comments that he was glad he didn't need to wear a rug.

 

Plyometrics have come up a few times, what plyometrics actually help with boxing?

It's not a trick question, I'm not anti-plyo, and if someone can explain how they help I'll happilly concede this.
One armed throws would probably my go to explosive movement, I'm not sure that exactly counts as plyo though, part of the problem is "plyometrics" are a bit vague and undefined. I don't see much need for reactive explosive movements (e.g. depth jumps) if that's what they mean. I'd think they'd be better spend that effort working on punching mechanics.

Speaking of depth jumps, it's funny how the same group that says running is bad for your knees has no problem with them, running a few miles is apparently too much stress, but dropping down from a metre in the air isn't

 

Okay, but that can't be reconciled with the fact that Amateurism as you call it, or lack there of, is only a recent event. When things were still predominantly amateurs, they were still far surpassing the amateur that came before them by significant margins. Further, you seem to underestimate the competitive nature of people. People competing in the Olympics didn't train less because they weren't making money doing it. Boxers weren't training harder because there was more money in it. There has always, and will always be an immense desire to call yourself the best in the world or try and be the best in the world. In swimming you're going against a clock and other racers. But you damn sure were practicing as hard as you could to break that record to get that gold medal. I reject any notion that this was good enough to have people motivated enough to train extensively and very hard.

 

Did you even read my posts?
Progress was slower
Amateurism didn't go away suddenly it was a shift over years.

You can say that from your armchair but it's wrong, their training has been documented. Runners etc. in the past did less training, fit it around jobs etc. Paavo Nurmi himself commented that the training later generations did was much harder, and the training itself proved it. People in the 20's weren't doing 100mile weeks.
The training for boxers, if anything, has gotten easier.

 

Could you direct me to modern outlines of training for modern boxers that we're using as comparison points? Aside from Holyfield, whose workout I already posted.

 

I've seen stuff before, but a lot of the time it's going from comments in interviews etc. rather than anything comprehensive. In truth it's hard to know how true it all is, as you often find out the extent of training after they retire, I guess they don't want to help the competition.

In truth that probably implied more certainty than justified, I'll just say old pro boxers trained extremely hard, and not less than what you see in modern athletes, that isn't the case in historically amateur sports.

 

I think I missed this message. A few things: Just about everything you say about Jim Brown applies to most of the top 20-30 running backs in the NFL today. They are fast, strong, skilled, and agile. There has been a real difference over time and it's not just "ideological." If you disagree ask yourself--how many very fast 215lb+ running backs were around in Brown's day? Or even 200-205lb speedsters like Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson?

People rave about Brown's combination of size and speed all the time, especially relative to the defensive players he went up against in his day. He was often bigger and stronger than linebackers (and some defensive linemen) and faster than the secondary. None of those things would be true in today's NFL. It's much, much harder to run over or past a fast, athletic 250-lb linebacker than a slower, stiffer 225lb one. Ditto re: 270-290lb defensive ends.

Today's NFL receivers are also more athletic than their predecessors. Over the past decade or so, there have been tons of strong, fast, agile, skilled 6'2+/210+ guys who would have been physical marvels in Brown's era. For every Antonio Brown or Desean Jackson, there are multiple AJ Green, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomases, any one of who would have been literally unguardable in the 1950s NFL. Not to mention the 6'5, 250lb+ tight ends who are just as fast and skilled as most of the receivers of Brown's day.

 

Then it's very clear to me you haven't competed competitively in most any sport with how you're talking things. People very much take pride in calling themselves the "fastest 100m freestyler in the world" or winning an Olympic Gold Medal. You act as though college football players would try harder if they were paid... as if being the best college football team isn't enough. As if they don't take great pride in their school and want to see them succeed. Have you ever seen college athletes train, athletes that aren't getting paid professionally? if you had, you'd soon realize they train just fine and just as hard. What's more, then and now, people also know that if they do well enough as an amateur, they can build off that in many ways... whether that be endorsements or getting pro contracts. They aren't going half-ass and then thinking.. I'll really try once I get paid... that's a laughable theory quite frankly and shows just how little competitive experience you much truly have in real life. That sounds harsh, and it's not meant to be, it's just an apparent fact with how you're talking about sports and competition.

 

With college football isn't a lot of it about getting in the NFL? Plus keeping your scholarship.

Like I said it doesn't matter what ideas you come up with in your armchair, we know the training they did, and it was a lot less.