Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

What sticks out is that it depends on position. The increase is not across the board, and certainly not the same percentage across the board. Here are some average weights grabbed here and there and obviously not complete as being complete would be way too tedious.

RB--1938 (194.44)-1965 (213.54)-2013 (211.17)
WR--1941 (206.82)-1943 (209.71)-1988 (181.28)-2012 (204.12)
DB--1937 (195)-1966 (199.48)-2012 (198.17)

LB--1950 (226.75)-1960 (229.43)-1966 (235.67)-2013 (243.64)

OL--1936 (212)-1956 (245.88)-1965 (250.59)-2013 (310.00)
DL--1937 (210)-1961 (261)-1979 (254.53)-1991 (285.19)-2013 (286.43)

So the "increase" in running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs is marginal or nonexistent, at least since the 1960's.

Linebackers have gotten bigger, but the increase is not overwhelming since the 1960's.

Offensive and defensive linemen have exploded in size, being much heavier. Offensive linemen are about 50% heavier, a truly immense variation.

I didn't study the Q-backs, but I know they have gotten much bigger. Ditto fullbacks, but many of the modern ones are mainly blockers. Tight end is a modern position which has produced really big guys, but interestingly running pass routes against the same sized defensive backs as decades ago.

 

"You seem to be shifting the focus of your argument"

I plead guilty. I am learning things in the discussion and from doing research and so my position is evolving. For example, I was surprised to see that the 1965 Packers were just as large at linebacker and defensive back as the 2017 Eagles. I thought they would be smaller. I had no idea that on most plays the actual average of the Packer defense compares with the Eagles, because of the Eagles using more defensive backs.

On Brown, I started emphasizing size and speed, but it is becoming obvious to me that there are other factors which might be more important. Reznick lists them above. In his own day Brown was as big as the average linebacker. Today he would only be nearly as big as the average linebacker. He would be relatively smaller against modern defensive linemen, but about the same relative size against defensive backs. Would any of that matter? I really don't know. The bottom line for me is that he is still the biggest really great running back there has been. The bigger good running backs, Motley, Csonka, Riggins, might be able to match or best him in strength, and possibly with Motley or Riggins even in speed, but are not close in elusiveness.

Matson--okay, but as I pointed out in a previous post, despite his combination of speed and size, he was not statistically the best halfback of the 1950's. Gifford was. Brown was by a mile the statistically best running back of his era.

 

Some thoughts... There is no denying that heavyweights have gotten bigger. I would say this is due to shorter fights, better nutrition and medical care, the acceptance of more forms of strength training and recruitment across a greater spectrum.

But the contention that athletes from other sports have gotten faster doesn't play well, IMO. Sure there is more specialized speed training in all sports but give me a Bobby Morrow or Bob Hayes or Jesse Owens and you get as fast a human as you can really get...

 

Which leads to the obvious question of what "as good a boxer as you can really get" looks like physically.

The trend in all combat sports seems to be larger and larger guys, and if anything the trend is accelerating. At some point the square/cube law presumably comes into effect, but short of that...

 

Speed is much determined by genetics, so improvements to it haven't been great. The only big thing is stuff like plyometrics allowing you to get back to your genetic explosiveness with muscle gained from weight training. Plyo is totally basardised by most people "doing" it. It all has to be carefully done and the focus is rate of force production, whereas most people's idea is to jump in the air and raise their feet as high as possible and then wriggle on top of the box. And there's only really much point doing it if you've put on muscle, the soviets got people to a double bodyweight squat before even starting a progression of depth jumps.

But even all that, and "possibly" PEDs have gotten at best marginal improvements in sprinting. Like you said Jess Owens could compete at the top level still, the time differences are nearly all in the surface according to biomechanical analysis people have done.

 

I don't think there's one answer. It's easy to imagine that both being more on the endurance or explosive side could be more advantageous in different fights.

Hell sprinting is a far more simple sport in it's physical demands, it's not clear what the ideal is. A lot of people thought someone Bolt's height would be too tall to be a great sprinter, that turned out to be wrong.

I mean for heavyweights, all else being equal, I agree size is an advantage, but so many of the really big guys get such health issues from it, being taller ages you quicker etc. and they are generally slower.

Then look at someone like Rocky, sure as hell no the ideal, but sure as hell worked.

 

Yeah and it should be pretty obvious by this point in the thread but his size, and therefore his power, were much bigger assets in his day than they would be today. What makes you think that he had better balance or grit than the many 215-245lb running backs in today's NFL? Or that either were more important than his speed (in conjunction with his size)? And I think it's easier for a power running back to be durable when the defensive lineman and linebackers hurling themselves at him are mostly his size or only slightly bigger than him.

Welcome back.

 

Yeah, the very fastest athletes of the past are probably just as fast as most of today's fastest athletes. But outliers like Bob Hayes weren't really representative of the overall field.

 

If there's any correspondence between those sports and boxing, that would suggest that guys like Jack Sharkey or Max Schmeling would still be elite today. But then, I don't think you were the one who brought up running speed in the first place.

 

I don't think there would be much correspondence though.

 

Sure but back in the day linebackers and bballer's weren't going to Don Beebe's Speed Camp to work on their 40 times. Skills are highly compartmentalized now... and the money is so much, that increasing every metric of one's ability = $$$$.

 

For the record, are there any measurable physical qualities that the old school camp believes are always helpful for boxing, all else being equal?

 

Sure, combine 40 times might inflate the speed gap (if we had reliable 40 times from 60s athletes) but the guys who put up incredible 40 times were generally speed demons in high school and college, right? Don Beebe isn't a magician. He's not going to turn Mike Ditka into Vernon Davis or Dick Butkus into Patrick Willis.

 

This can be interpreted a few ways.

Are you saying that the gains in 40 times don't carry over into actual playing ability and quickness on the field? That they are "teaching to the test", so to speak?

Or are you saying that the 40 times DO carry over into improved performance, and that our ability to load up improvements in a bunch of specialized areas adds up to a major cumulative advantage?

Or something else?

 

Most of them would probably agree on the same physical qualities as the rest of us, with the caveat that all else is seldom equal.