Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

Better athletes in the sense that proper training should give them more strength, stamina, and power than their predecessors, on average.

I'm not talking about their "natural" athleticism.

 

Interesting but why did you stop at #6, after 225lb Cesare? The top 10 from 1958 also would have included:
187lb Wiliie Galimore
191lb Lenny Moore
201lb Billy Ray Barnes
200lb Johnny Olszewski (t)
220lb Ollie Matson

The top 10 from 2017 also would have included:
228lb Leonard Fournette
212lb Frank Gore (who's almost certainly heavier than that)
225lb CJ Anderson
228lb Ezekiel Elliot

The full top 10 list would have brought down the 1958 average (to around 206) and increased the 2017 average (to around 221). To put this additional information into perspective: 6 of the top 10 running backs of 1958 weighed 201lbs or less, while the smallest top-10 running back in 2017 was 210lbs.

And the gap would be even bigger if we included the other 2017 starting running backs, who were mostly 220+, with several over 230 (including 247lb Derrick Henry). Also worth mentioning that many of today's running backs bulk up when they hit the league, through weight training and nutritional regimens, so they're listed stats are probably outdated and inaccurate. For example, I just noticed that Marshawn Lynch is still listed at 215... As far as I can tell, only 1 running back in the entire top 30 was listed at under 200lbs for 2017.

But re: the question posted in the original post, I think that the size difference of NFL running backs, though nontrivial, probably pales in comparison to the advances in speed, skills, and strength/explosiveness though.

 

Doesn't necessarily lead to that but there is every reason to believe that the best natural athletes are more likely to find their way to the NFL or, especially, NBA, in the 21st century than in the mid-20th century. These sports are far, far more lucrative and prestigious than they were 60 years ago and there's a much better feeder system (little league, AAU and college, etc.).

 

I think track and field will show the most positive evolution in technique because it is measured against absolute standards. It is clear you jumped higher or longer, or threw the shot farther using this or that new technique, so those that follow will adopt this superior technique.

In other sports, including boxing, this is not all that clear. What is the best technique if facing a much taller man? I would say bobbing and weaving, as they did in the old days. But you don't see that technique much these days.

The bottom line is we think "experts" should be able to see and judge the best technique. But I recall quotes from very respected college football coaches in the old days to the effect that "when you throw a pass, one of three things will happen, and two of them are bad." It took years to get rid of the four yards and a cloud of dust mindset.

 

What do Lewis, Christie and Powell have in common?

Hint: It starts with a G... and ends with an EAR.

Your point would be better with Tommie Smith.

 

Was Lewis on the "Gear" ?

 

Fair enough and a good post. But, let's look at the NFL rushing champions of the 1950's and from 2010-2017

1950-----Marion Motley (6' 1" 232)
1951-----Eddie Price (5' 11" 190)
1952-----Dan Towler (6' 2" 225)
1953,54-----Joe Perry (6' 0" 200)
1955-----Alan Ameche (6' 1" 220)
1956-----Rick Casares (6' 2" 225)
1957,58, 59-----Jim Brown (6' 2" 230)

2010-----Arian Foster (6' 1" 227)
2011-----Maurice Jones-Drew (5' 8" 205)
2012,15-----Adrian Peterson (6-1 220)
2013-----LaSean McCoy (5' 11" 210)
2014-----DeMarco Murray (6' 1" 220)
2016-----Ezekial Elliott (6' 0" 228)
2017-----Kareem Hunt (5' 11" 216)

the 1950's guys average out to 217.4 lbs. The 2010's guys average out to 218 lbs. Seven men in both.

I would also point out that more of the bigger fellows were soon out there. Cookie Gilcrist led the AFL in rushing in 1962 and 1964. Cookie is listed at 6' 3" and 251 lbs. Jim Nance another two time AFL rushing leader is listed at 6' 1" and 235 lbs.

*just an aside. The runner up to Eddie Price in 1951 was Rob Goode at 6' 4" and 222 lbs. If Goode had gained 21 more yards to win the title, he would have raised the 1950's group to 222 lbs.

I agree that there were also more small running backs in the old days, but that is I think due to using two runners all the time, or even a full house backfield. Some of these runners were primarily scat backs and pass receivers. Lenny Moore is a good example. In 1958 he rushed for 598 yards. But he caught passes for 938 yards.

 

"I think that the size difference of NFL running backs, though, nontrivial, probably pales in comparison to the advances in speed, skills, and strength/explosiveness though."

Hard to compare in some ways because there were far fewer NFL games in the old days. 12 teams played 12 games each. Now 32 teams play 16 games each. So it figures there are more long passes and runs, but how does the average come out:

1958 (top rushing averages yards per carry)
Lenny Moore-----7.3
Bobby Mitchell---6.2
Joe Perry---------6.1
Jim Brown--------5.9
John Olszewski---5.2
Jon Arnett--------5.1
Willie Galimore---4.8
Joe Marconi-------4.8
Alan Ameche------4.6
Tobin Rote---------4.6

2017
Alvin Kamara-----6.1
Cam Newton------5.4
Dion Lewis--------5.0
Kareem Hunt-----4.9
Mark Ingram------4.9
Kayan Drake------4.8
Alfred Morris------4.8
Todd Gurley-------4.7
Alex Collins--------4.6
4 tied at -----------4.4

I conclude there is no evidence here that modern runners are more explosive.

As for speed, several old-timers were track stars. Bobby Mitchell for one. Willie Galimore for another. Ollie Matson at 6' 2" and 220 won Olympic silver and bronze medals in 1952. The 1960's player Bob Hayes was actually the Olympic gold medalist in the 1964 100 meter run. Going for fast guys in the NFL is nothing exactly new.

 

It's interesting that several of the 1950s rushing leaders were as heavy as modern big men, but it's also potentially misleading. We get far more meaningful information if we look at the field of rushers in a given year instead of a single data point from that year. For example, Motley, the lead 1950 rusher was 232lbs. But the rest of the top 10 weighed: 175, 185, 190, 200, 219, 200, 190, 198, and 222. That's a 201lb average for that year.

In 2016, Elliot was listed at 228 (4 pounds less than Motley) but the rest of the top 10 weighed: 224, 220, 223, 225, 210, 224, 247, 206, and 220. That's a 223lb average for that year. That's an enormous difference, and we miss it completely if we only look at the single lead rusher of a given year. The more data we have about the field in a given year, the more clear the significant size differences become.

But again, this pales in comparison to the huge gap in speed and, imo, skills and overall athleticism. Today's 220lb running backs are generally much faster and more athletic than their predecessors.

 

I've never heard of yards per carry being used as a measure for speed. I'd bet that a lot of today's giant running backs put up numbers that would have made them track stars in earlier eras. A bunch of the top 200-230lb NFL running backs of recent years were state champion track stars in high school (like Peterson, Ezekiel Elliot, Kareem Hunt, Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Leonard Fournette, etc.) and have insane 40 yard dash times at the NFL combines.

 

This post presupposes that the best athletes play in the NBA. It is certainly lucrative, but I would think soccer is also lucrative as the World's most popular sport. Why then don't these great tall men stand out in soccer.

I don't know anything about soccer but I looked up some physical stats for the 2018 world cup. The heaviest player on any team was 215 lbs. The tallest 6' 5".

France won the world cup (I hope I am correct here, as it would be very embarrassing if I were not). The average height of a French player was 5' 10.2"--the average weight 176 lbs.

So where are the giants who dominate these other sports? Soccer rewards athleticism above size, so we end up again with rather ordinary, although probably slightly bigger than the general population, participants who look physically much like decathlon champions.

 

The larger size of modern players is an optical illusion, caused by them being closer to us than the athletes of yesteryear.

 

He pissed hot 3 times around the time of the 88 trials and it was covered up until the mid oughts. The smart opinion is that it is only the tip of the iceberg with Lewis. That aside, he's the greatest long jumper in history and a dandy chap.

Linford Christie is in the running as the most obviously juiced male athlete in history.

 

All of this is more evidence that boxing rewards size above athleticism, just like other combat sports do.

Judo GOAT heavyweight is arguably Teddy Riner, 6'8", 309 pounds. (Or perhaps Douillet, at 6'5" and 276 lbs.) Karelin is probably the Greco-Roman wrestling GOAT at 6'4", 286 pounds. Semmy Schilt, much to the chagrin of many kickboxing fans who view him as a clumsy oaf, is the most successful K-1 champion of all time, at 6'11" and 287 lbs. (If not, it's Hoost, who's Joe Louis sized. Except that he got steamrolled by a totally unskilled, 6'5" former football player who weighed close to 400 lbs...)

Boxing champs are actually pretty small by the standards of other combat sports. Maybe the delay in modern training methods has just slowed down the advance of the giants, and we're now reaching our natural point.

 

"I've never heard of yards per carry being used as a measure of speed"

It seems it would be a measure of speed and power (and elusiveness, which is probably a different if possibly related talent. But I have seen guys who seem elusive, but weren't fast--a young Paul Hornung)

"some of these guys were track stars in high school"

Nothing new there. And guys like Ollie Matson & Bob Hayes were Olympic medal winners.

This does seem a bit of a circular argument. They are bigger and faster because they are believed to be bigger and faster, but when you examine the actual sizes, yes the average might have gone up, but Jim Brown would not be small at all today. It is not like boxing in which there is a huge gap between heavyweights of the 1950's and 1960's and today. The running backs of the 1950's and 1960's compare. There might be a small increase in average size, but it is not like we are talking two different worlds.

And it is hard to believe that there are a lot of guys running around the NFL today who are faster than Bob Hayes was.