Jack Dempsey v. Ike Ibeabuchi

Expert opinion from that time always trumps boxing fan opinions 90 years later.

 

It wont outrun a greyhound,saluki,or lurcher.

 

I'm kind of facepalming here on this reply as it's totally devoid of logic, and you seemingly aren't grasping the overriding concepts here. I'm not trying to be mean here, as I generally like your post Edward, but it's like you can't see the forest for the trees. For example, you ask whether I have any proof DB's were some of the fastest players in the NFL? Is this a rhetorical question? Of course they were, we don't need to see their 40 times, logically there can be no other way. The cover, by default, WR, who themselves are always some of, if not the fastest players. This has always been the case. You know this, so after we got that out of the way, explain how a man 40 pounds heavier, is running away from them? How does that not show what a transcendent athlete should Be? Not just fast but big and strong as well. That is the context I'm referring to in my post.

Now, again you totally miss the point In Re: Why aren't they dominating. How can you miss the fact that I'm talking about respective to their era. You are under the illusion that people with athletic talent in the 50's or 60's still viewed football or other sports as something they wanted to do. It was just the same, if you stood out and were gifted, you went towards sports most times. So were left with, generally the best kids who try to compete, and thus try and make it to the college or nfl. So working with that premise, and fewer teams, Brown competed against them, and dominated his contemporaries, laughably so. People who trained much the same, had the same equipment etc etc. Yet he dominated them. Now ask yourself, why then, are the guys from their own area exposed to the same methodology and supplements, not dominating? All these guys faster and this and that. You don't think it has to do with how people train or the equipment we have? You don't think somebody of Jim Brown's genetic makeup would be ever better in measurables? Of course he would. How do we know, well, that elephant in the room again, gifted athlete who DO separate themselves in their era. That is the proof of the possibilities no? Please don't insult me by naming dorsett and Jackson times lol... nobody is saying athletes aren't faster now, and especially handpicked ones. My analogy about the best rbs was too illustrate the best all time weren't the fastest in their day. For whatever reason fastest isn't in the cards for the best. Guess what though, Jim Brown was one of the fastest, strongest and never once missed a game. Not once, in a physical era, with cheapshots more abound. That's the point bud

 

Sombody extrapolated it from his 100m time. You have to understand, other than Bob Hayes and a few other guys, guys just werent that fast back then. Jim Brown raced a STILL ACTIVE hall of famer Franco Harris at 48 (Harris was 34), and well, you check it out.

[url]http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-19/sports/sp-8178_1_franco-harris[/url]

 

I think he would probably be one of the best backs in the league if not the best. I do agree that he most likely doesn't run for 1863 yards in 14 games and rip off those amazing seasons one after another. Then again it always depends on the team he is on and the O line.

 

AP and Jamaal Charles are W A Y faster than Brown. Both were legit 10.3 100 meter guys in high school. Brown was an 11.4 guy. There is a world of difference, at least in track speed.

 

Did they run the 100m in the same conditions? No.

AP might be slightly faster than Brown.
I would hope and assume so since he's 15lb lighter, not quite as powerful, and has tremendous speed on he field.

 

I'm glad I don't bother to make threads anymore.

 

That's massively faster, not slightly. That's the difference between a good female high school sprinter and a fantastic, top 3 national high school male sprinter. And the AP time was from HIGH SCHOOL while Brown's was from COLLEGE. Huge difference.

And as far as the difference between dirt and Mondo tracks, or me personally, it was about .2 over 100 meters, and that's accounting for my best on a Mondo being at altitude (which probably accounts for a tenth)...

 

I was thinking of average ranch dogs. Don't know how many greyhounds a typical jackrabbit is likely to run into. But, I also don't know if a greyhound catches a jackrabbit. Not a given as jackrabbits can reach 70km/h and maintain that over a long distance. Greyhounds are credited with the same speed. More to the point for a jackrabbit, their principle predator, coyotes, can reach and maintain a speed of 69km/h. I imagine jackrabbits are very thankful for that 1km/h difference.

 

I have coursing hounds and have kept and run them for 50 years .Greyhounds are the fastest of dogs but lack stamina ,here in the UK they are crossed with Salukis to give them more staying power.

 

Right, but nobody is saying athletes today aren't faster than during Brown's time, my point is, using today's supplements, training and equipment, brown would likely be as fast or faster. Genetics to me seem to make this obvious imo. If Brown were playing today, then he'd be exposed to all the modern advances we currently have, and be training in such methods. The AP example works in the sense that AP embodies both power and speed just like Jim Brown did in his day, but not so much Charles. AP also dominated his era, just not for as long and as consistently as Brown dominated his.

 

I'll try again to explain my position. Brown? After the Super Bowl there was a lot of discussion of the greatest all time NFL players. My list, and by the way the consensus list of the commentators, was Tom Brady, Jimmy Brown, Jerry Rice, and Lawrence Taylor (put in alphabetical order) as the main competitors for the title of the NFL's all time greatest player. For me Jimmy Brown was the all-time outstanding running back in comparison to the pool of talent he competed against in his own time.

But that pool of talent isn't a match for the pool of talent today. Modern players are faster on the average, with speed a priority all along the football ladder from the colleges to the pros. And modern players are clearly bigger and I must say much bigger. The New York Giant defensive backfield of 1958 averaged about 188 lbs. Several times it has been said that backfields haven't changed, but they have. I haven't looked it up, but I would be surprised if any modern NFL backfield AVERAGED 188 lbs. Types like Kam Chanceller at 6' 3" and 225 lbs. are not uncommon. And with the lines and backers the difference is really gross. The weights of the 2016 New England linebackers at 265, 260, and 255 compared to the 1958 Giants average of 218 with only Huff at 230 above 218 pretty much tells the tale.

Now about Brown and speed. My point was just because he could outrun some of the little backs of his era he would outrun the "little" backs of the modern era is just not convincing to me. And he did not outrun everyone in his own era. The 65 yard touchdown in the last game of the 1958 season in which he sprinted past the Giant backs shows his speed at its best, but many other times he was in fact caught. The first times I saw him was on TV back in 1956 against Army. He broke into the clear but was run down by Army defensive backs before reaching the end zone. There is a 47 minute highlight film over on you tube. In one run against the Eagles he is in the clear but #21 for the Eagles closes a lot of ground quickly and catches him, although Brown still bulls his way into the end zone. On another run he is run down by Mel Renfro of the Cowboys. He was very fast for a big fullback, but I don't get the impression watching him that he was as fast as Adrian Peterson. Even more importantly, Peterson seems to accelerate faster, perhaps more critical in football than sheer straight ahead speed.

So what really impresses about Brown. Not so much speed, although he wasn't slow, but his power and balance. He just breaks so many tackles and keeps going. And when they hit and have him he still gets an extra four or five yards more often than not. And he was rather elusive, a running back skill not quite the same as speed. It is dependent more on the ability to quickly cut and change direction.

Just on speed, why is the NFL so much faster today? Well its feeder is the colleges, and the colleges didn't simply recruit everyone back then. There was a lot of outright discrimination against African-Americans and Hispanics. Many of the colleges would simply not accept nor play against African-Americans. What impact would removing African-Americans from defenses have on modern NFL teams? To ask the question is to answer it.

Back to Brown, you have an excellent point that he is certainly big enough and good enough to be outstanding today. He is bigger than Peterson. My take is that the increased talent pool bringing in bigger and faster athletes would probably cause Brown to be somewhat less overwhelming today than he was back in the stone age when I was first watching him.

Of course, this conclusion is just speculation and opinion.

 

"today's supplements, training, and equipment"

This one I'll pass on. (although it wasn't directed at me anyway) I think I can get a handle on the historical Brown that I saw in the day and can still see on film, but this "alternate" Brown is beyond me.