Jack Dempsey v. Ike Ibeabuchi

Sounds like a fun hobby.

 

I wouldn't say it would be beyond you, because you are already saying he wouldn't be as dominate, thus you've envisioned him in today's era and concluded he wouldn't dominate at much. So by proxy then, you would've seemingly already factored in that, if Brown was dumped into today's era, at let's say right out of college; he'd be around 22 or so and instantly he'd be training with professional coaches, modern equipment, with modern supplements. How could you look at a premise like that, and go, well sure he's dumped into today's era, but he's still training like he did back in the day? That makes zero sense, and there is no logical sound progression there. If he's dumped into Today's era, he would instantly get to training camp and the training would begin. How could there be any other way? To me, if Jim Brown was able to dominate his contemporaries so much, who had exposure to the same equipment he did, and you compare him with people you claim are "faster than him in their 40 times", yet those same games aren't dominating their era, what conclusion can we draw? To me, it seem clear that modern training, supplements and equipment account for the faster times and bigger men. There was no combine to focus on and get better at to test all these measurables. He was simply genetically better than most everybody else he played against from a football perspective. He stood out, and convincing so, and would do so again in today's era imo.

 

Well it was, but it's now illegal to course hares and foxes in the UK you can still chase rabbits with a dog however,very strange.

 

Just an ignorant question. I thought the rabbit dogs chase in races is mechanical?

 

This content is protected

 

Where we disagree is that you ignore the expansion of the talent pool.

You also seem to imply that speed can be trained. I certainly think one can improve his speed through training, but I doubt one could train a man with second-rate speed into a guy with first-level speed. I just don't think so. I think the fast guys stand out as faster right from the start.

One issue I would raise. Perhaps Nature gave Brown the perfect running back body. He had to keep it in shape, but I think he did. My question is could tampering with it with supplements possibly backfire? Could he simply add too much muscle which could slow him down or hurt his balance or elusiveness? Just a thought.

Bottom line--I think the main reason there is so much more speed in the modern NFL is a much wider talent pool to draw on and a concentration on getting players who are fast. I don't think if we brought the Giant defensive backfield of 1958 back today they would suddenly become a lot faster. My take is that they would be slow compared to modern backfields even with modern training.

Back in my day, Mike Ditka at 6' 2" was the outstanding tight end. Are there any 6' 2" tight ends in the modern NFL? Modern teams are full of tight ends 6' 5" or 6' 6" or 6' 7" or even taller. At almost any position a guy who would have been viewed as huge at that position is now smallish. And this includes and perhaps is mainly about height. I might be dense, but what training method increases height?

 

I won't even address what training methods would produce height, as that deserves no response. I'll try and forget you ask that question. I even specified when talking about Brown or player like Wilt, they undoubtedly HAD the physical body to compete in today's era. If Brown didn't have the body, that would hinder his chances on what he could become. When he already does have a RB body, then we have a blank canvas to work on, and we can extrapolate from there.

You then imply speed can be trained (which it undoubtedly can), but then you say, I don't know how much of it can be trained. Okay, but then you make a correlation, between fast guys are fast right from the start. Right, hence in point when Jim Brown ran track and field. He was fast, he did stand out, just as you like to "see". More talent pools don't make guys faster, that is about as weird a correlation as one could draw. Modern medicine, training methodology and equipment improvements over the last 30 or 40 years have made guys faster. Take track for example, guys are becoming faster because there is some huge increase in the talent pool, it's increased because of the improvements in training and technology. The exact same reason guys are faster now than they were before. It has nothing to do with more people, thus people become faster, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

Plus that odd theory completely ignores the obvious point of, there were less people in the U.S. (world in general), and yet, as I said earlier, the best of the best usually rise to the top. With much fewer teams, and much fewer spots available, you invariably got the best of the best. Which is exactly why a ratio is better suited when discussing this for that very reason.

It's unquestionably to me that if Brown was around today, and around modern techniques and equipment and supplements, he would undoubtedly be faster and stronger than he was in his time. There can be no logical conclusion you could otherwise draw. So when you keep repeating his 100 METER time, and comparing it with modern times, and how much slower it is, I start to think you aren't looking at the totality of what would be the finished product. He wouldn't become bulkier and slower, he'd become stronger, and yet leaner from a body fat perspective, and faster.

 

Don't many sprinters slow down in college?
Brown was competing in the decathlon when he ran the 11.4, while also playing Lacrosse and Football during his college years.

On footage, he is often outrunning and shredding secondary backs who ran the 100m in under 10 seconds.

Devin Hester ran a 10.62 in college. Does he seem slower than AP? Not to me.
Chris Johnson and AP's 100m times are from their HS days. I imagine that if they got faster, we would know about it.

Unless you know of AP beating his high school time?

 

Andre De Grasse ran an 11 on a dirt track.
Afterwords saying "I never felt so tired. [The tracks, the shoes] makes a really really big difference."

 

That was on a baseball diamond, not the kind of track Owens ran on. I ran an 11.1 100m on a dirt track. De Grasse would lap me in a real 100m.

 

Not unless they stop sprinting. Most sprinters peak now in their 30's.

To my knowledge, he never played against a single DB who broke 10.4 let alone 10. I will say that Brown had "football speed" which is different than track speed.

Nowadays, most super elite level football players don't continue a track career in college. They miss spring training and the it really requires a body type change in the weight room. Warrick Dunn did both but Michael Bennett didn't really try. Devon Allen tried for a minute to do it but kept getting injured.

 

We already disproved the silly notion that De Grasse didn't run on hard packed the dirt. The man conducting the experiment specifically refers to it as such.

Kevin also conveniently left out the HD version of that clip that was posted right after showing Owens kicking up dirt into the air and leaving deep foot prints on the Olympic track.

Then again dishonesty is his middle name.