Jack Dempsey v. Ike Ibeabuchi

I don't know. But he wouldn't need to. Dempsey may not have been a defensive genius but I'm pretty sure he'd duck and slip more shots than Tua did.

 

Well, I checked on Brown as a track athlete. I don't know how accurate the info is as it was on a blog, but he seems to have competed in the AAU decathlons in 1954 and 1955 (at 18 & 19). He finished sixth. He is described as best at the discus and shot put. They give his time in the 100 meters as 11.4, which would not be elite speed in the modern NFL.

I checked the roster of the 1958 New York Giants, considered the best defensive team of the era, to compare with Brown. Brown is listed as 6' 2" and 230 lbs.
Here is the Giants defense he was running against--
line---
Jim Katcavage-----230 lbs.
Andy Robustelli-----230 lbs.
Rosey Grier-----listed at 275, probably over 300 lbs.
D-ck Modzelewski--250 lbs.
linebackers---
Sam Huff-----230 lbs.
Cliff Livingston-----218 lbs.
Harland Svare-----214 lbs.
Bill Svoboda-----210 lbs.
backs----
Ed Hughes-----188 lbs.
Jimmy Patton-----183 lbs.
Emlen Tunnell-----187 lbs.
Carl Kavilivacz-----188 lbs.
Lindon Crow-----195 lbs.
Remember this was the best defense in the NFL. Note that Brown was bigger (and much bigger) than six of the Giants, and as big as three others. Only the two tackles are really heavier, Modzelewski by about 20 lbs. Grier is the only man much bigger than Brown. Only Grier at 6' 5" and Katcavage & Livingston at 6' 3" were taller than Brown's 6' 2".
It is a lot different for running backs in the modern NFL.
I agree that Brown would probably not be nearly as outstanding in the modern NFL, although probably he would still be a top player. I think the same is true of Chamberlain in basketball. Nothing like averaging 50 points a game in the modern NBA.

 

"skinny middleweight"

Fair point.

 

T&F equipment has changed considerably since the 1960's, improving run speeds.

How much bigger was Barry Sanders than the defenses he was smoking?

 

Also, DBs haven't changed much in size.
Neither have HBs.

By the way, what about the fact that Jim Brown would also enjoy a bigger O-line in modern football?

 

The Chamberlain analogy works, and one I thought I had written earlier. I don't know how many points he's average, but I honestly believe it would be dominate. Maybe not 50 points dominate, but as crazy as it sounds, it could be close. The reason I say this is, today we have rules to benefit the offensive player. Vastly more than there was during Chamberlain. We have rules like Illegal defense, that would help Chamberlain incredibly. When he played he'd often be triple or quadruple teamed. That wouldn't be allowed in today's game. We have the no hand checking rule, having played basketball from Junior high to community college, I can attest to how much of a difference this can make. It's almost night and day how you can play and disrupt someone game with it, and it was prevalent in Chamberlain's era, and he still dominated. Chamberlain was subjected to vast amounts of punishment (what would be considered flagrant fouls today) in his day, that wouldn't be allowed now. Chamberlain had the size, the speed, the strength to compete in any era and would dominate today with ease (considering the lack of good big men). I wouldn't hesitate to say he'd easily average over 35 a game imo. Now back to the Brown argument.

These players that you talk about that would dominate his Brown's era, why aren't they dominating their own era? The answer is easy, they are transcendent athletes. With the evolution of equipment, medicine and technology, they've become bigger and faster, yet most don't dominate or separate themselves in their respective era. That is what speaks volumes here. You take a 20 year old brown, send him in a time machine to compete today, he'd be working out with today's trainers with today's equipment. What do you think happens then with his already extraordinary got given talents? We saw what he did in his own era, when they all had the same equipment and medicine, he dominated; why, because of his God given talent and physical make up, but that was only able to progress x-amount because of the training techniques of the day. Once he steps off that plain, he still has the God given talent and ability, but now is training with pros and modern medicine and supplements. What happens then? He somehow can't get better or stronger or faster? Of course he would, and conclusively so. Again, and I'd still like an explanation... why is it that all the RB's considered to be the best, MOST of whom played 30 or more years after Brown... why didn't they have the speed to be a track athlete or star? They were exposed to their same equipment and regime of the day to become the best NFL RB, but still didn't separate themselves or their body to the level Brown did during his time. Why is that? Why was it that much smaller men in his time, could never catch him even though he weighted 30 or 40 pounds more? We go back to the "special" almost unbelievable specimen I seem to come back to. I'm going to respond to morbius post above, so I'll cite some more stuff then.

 

We do seem to be on the same page. I completely agree with your summation.

Of course, if we judge a man in his own time against the field he competed with, I would rate Brown among the top five NFL all-time greats.

 

His 11.4 time was in the 100 meter dash in the decathlon, which would translate to around 10.5 or 10.6 100 yard dash time. A very good number considering this is in the 60's. Further, Bobby Mitchel a collegiate champion in the hurdles joined the Brown and ran against Brown, Brown won. He won, and probably weighted 40 more pounds than Mitchell. You have to remember, he wasn't a T&F specialist, that wasn't his main focus nor what he trained in. He was a Freshman and Soph when he competed against older athletes and still did as well as he did as a side sport. That speaks volumes about his athletic prowess. You listed the weights of the Giants team, but imo, missed the elephant in the room. Watch the videos of him competing against those Giants teams. Then, like now, DB's were considered some of the fastest men on the field. They often weighted 30 or 40 pounds less than him. It wasn't just a matter of him plowing over everyone, he also outran them. How do you explain that? You act like in the videos you see of him, he's never outrunning anybody he's only plowing through everybody. That just isn't so. He was not only bigger than them, he was faster and stronger than them. That is what speaks volumes here.

 

At 16 yes he was.

 

That's a pretty weak breakdown.
I'm not sure how you can watch Brown highlights and think that he couldn't outrun modern linebackers. You can measure his speed against the yardage on the field, there is a constant. And is clearly blazing the field while carrying extraordinary strength.

How do you know he would be slower than average? That sounds rediculous. If your basis is a 100m he did using obsolete technology, then you need a new basis. It's common knowledge now that 1960's T&F equipment produces worse results.

You are also leaving out his agility, his tenacity, his durability, his vision and IQ. He played rough, mean, and always dealt more damage than he received. And not a chance in hell that he would be only "above average in strength." Have you seen Jim Brown play? He would stiff arm guys to the ground, while 3 other people were wrestling to tackle him.

Also wasn't he never injured? That takes God like strength to play the way he did, as long as he did, while remaining healthy for 9 years.

https://streamable.com/xhttj

This content is protected

 

As a Brit can we get back to Boxing?