Why did dominant super tall heavyweights only emerge relatively recently?

I am very interested in these matters.
It is true that Ryan *might* have the fastest pitch when you compensate for distance ball traveled.
Used to be 10' from the plate-sometimes AT the plate in older devices-now 10" from the mound.

But many more pitchers throw 100 MPH even compensating for that.
Which is completely logical; so many more people-population & drawing from all over the world-& training that measureably improves speed for many.
Including weights, flexibility, pliometrics/explosiveness, video analyses for ergonomic/kinetic efficiency...

However it is possible an extreme genetic outlier still threw or hit the furthest.
Nothing else though.
Certainly not strength, especially with so many effective PEDs.

By the way Babe Ruth may have hit the furthest.
This Historian wrote a book I read years ago.
He is insanely biased-did a book "The Year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs"-& does not recognize how much the quality of play & pitching has improved.
HOWEVER I have no reason to contest all the research & calculations he did.
[url]https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=baseballs+ultimate+power[/url]

Steve Dalkowski was a unique character who likely threw faster than ANYONE.
Many who played or managed in the Major Leagues testify about him.

But in almost all other cases the best technology, PEDs & a much wider range of folks striving means the average is higher, AND the very best are from recent times.

Your right as time passes we accumulate more knowledge and do improve at some things, chess for example.But things like sports are not so complicated that a dedicated person who could be smarter and with better genetics could not figure it out even better then now days.

 

As a (poor) runner all my life, I can attest that shoes can contribute for me approx 5% performance improvement, nike zoom v decent training shoes and we all know that modern synthetic tracks are way faster than gravel. I think the truth of the matter is, as it often is, is in between the two extremes. There are more faster runners now due to genetics, larger international pool, better competition, PEDS, learned coaching , video analysis, indeed faster running begets faster runnings as fast twitch paths learn and improve. However, the fastest men in the past, would certainly be competitive now if given these same facilities. Interesting to look at womens world athletic records, only in the mid to long distances is there a consistant improvement in performance, suggesting to me that in the speed and power events other factors were more important than the improvement that we would naturally expect.

 

Again, agreed. This is a reasonable, realistic, balanced and sensible view.

 

They have done studies on it, it’s in a documentary called “fast ball”. Nolan Ryan’s pitch was originally calculated out at 100 mph at the plate. Using mathematics they were able to calculate that Ryan’s pitch would be 108 mph near the hand the way they use the radar gun now days. Bob Feller was calculated out as the second hardest thrower all time. Steve Dalcowski there were no radar guns in his time but by accounts may have threw harder than Ryan.

Therefore a pitcher presently that they say throws a pitch 100 mph would be throwing about 8 mph slower on older radar guns in the 1990s. Lots of pitchers threw between 90 and 95 mph in the 1990s, most were in that range. The math is not exact but probably the guys pitching 93 or 94 would be 100 mph pitchers on the new radar guns, there were tons of guys throwing that speed.

A lot of the furthest home runs were a long time ago. Micky Mantle, Babe Ruth hit a lot of the furthest home runs.

Ted Williams hit a ball and they marked as a red seat in Fenway park . They told Mo Vaughn who was huge he could not believe it.

 

These guys were the physical exception for men that size of their times.. but during these unsuccessful periods for giant men, the “something else” that they lacked might just be more guys their own size to fight.

It was harder for giant men to develop technique whilst facing predominantly smaller opposition. They compromised conventional technique in order to catch smaller guys. Whereas if they were continuously facing off against more comparably sized opposition they could develop more conventionally.

They might develop proper whip and snap, full extension and leverage in their blows against men slow enough to tag.

For generations The technical quality and workrate of smaller men far surpassed that of the giant. So much so that giants rarely made the level required where they might even be able to use their size as an advantage against the best traditional sized heavyweights.

Until the sports science was there to improve the output of bigger men Those traditional sized guys wouldn’t let giants use weight against them at all. The limitations of previous super heavyweight sized men seem to me to be entirely due to a lack of modern training adavances and PEDs

 

Excellent debate so far.

To cover off on every impacting variable would take pages and pages of writing.

I’ll just throw in a few tidbits.

That dude that ran the 1904 marathon (very early mod. Olympics let’s add) in about 3 1/2 hours was “doped” in all the wrong ways - lol.

Side story to that race was the guy who originally came in first was later DQ’d because he actually hitched a ride in a car for part of the race.

Did that cheeky move qualify as modern sports science? Haha.

The 1904 time as reflection of the era might be deemed an aberration - just 8 years later, in 1912, the winner of the marathon ran it in about 2 1/2 hours I believe.

I don’t think anyone has necessarily pushed old conditions , environment and apparatus as the be all and end all answer to things.

Rather, I more often read/hear mod. training, nutrition and peds being deemed the greatest part to the answer if not the only answer - with old school conditions/environment and apparatus being forgotten or ignored as contributing factors also.

Bannister himself said that he believed mod. tracks shaved off considerable time - and Ron Clarke also agreed with this.

As to De Grasse’s run - if his “loss” in time wasn’t so significant as to be converted into an improbable equal and opposite “gain” for Owens we might take it on board as a reasonably fair approach to equivalence.

Obviously, there are other variables in play - one possible variable that has already been cited is De Grasse not being used to the old track and shoes.

 

Thanks man, but you are telling me things I know, not responding to my very specific corrections.
I am familiar with this & more-such as "fastball".
There is also the slight distinction of when the timing is done crossing the plate not 10' out-Bob Feller & Dalkowski get a bit more of a jump because of it.

NEVERTHELESS the average speed has increased.
Many more men throw 100 MPH-& of course I mean with CORRECTED, real speeds.
Even just in this era where we use the "fast" gun, the average FB went from 90 to 92 to last I saw 93.8 MPH.

OF COURSE this would happen.
Again, many more people trying, due to population & the places & nations recruited or playing baseball.
Video analyses & specific training of technique, fast twitch fibers/explosiveness, weights-they SHOW how guys increase their speeds.

Again, I am saying that even WITH these things, I can think of no other physical endeavor besides throwing or hitting where an extreme genetic outlier might STILL throw or hit the furthest.
In running & even more so strength, no chance.
In the case of the former, some of this is due to better CONDITIONS & equipment, like tracks & running shoes & starting blocks & even attire.
For strength & muscle mass, improvement would have been made even absent (more, improved ones + "stacking" them) PEDs-but that made it increase dramatically.

But please save me time & trouble by responding to what I say-you are not noticing it & treating me as if a general person on the other side.
For example, did you check out the hyperlink I sent?
I do not think you have investigated the specifics of these matters nearly as much as I have.

Historian Bill Jenkinson-perhaps order the book, it is very entertaining-convincingly shows that Ruth, not Mantle (& he puts Jimmy Foxx at #2) hit further than anyone EVER.
He is both crazily biased in favor of how well Ruth would do in neutral conditions, (I can discuss his other book to prove this) AND makes an excellent case that somehow-even with relatively primitive bats & average slower FBs, he hit further than ANYONE.

So much of what you say is correct.
But it is

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

The realistic, reasonable and balanced view is that improved equipment, attire and conditions are, in the main, one of a number, rather than the only, contributors towards improved athletic records and performance. That's why all but 1 poster that has commented have reached that conclusion.

 

Yes thanks, & I edited my post to provide a bit more detail.
I told him the single areas, throwing (for distance would apply also, if not using a heavy weight) & hitting where the very best could plausibly be an Old Timer.
Even in these endeavors the average professional has improved, but these functions are much less amenable to dramatic improvement, so a genetic freak like Steve Dalkowski might very well be say the fastest hurler ever.

But these are rare exceptions relevant to a couple very specific skills.
But I gave him all I can; he was on to something in baseball, but it does not even apply to the typical athlete in that sport.
An no other (endurance, speed or strength) athlete from the past is at all likely to be the GOAT.

To many advantages today in more improvable areas for so many people.

 

I agree.

Unfortunately, some people just can't be reasoned with, even in the face of overwhelming reason.

I didn't realise until this thread that equipment and conditions had, had such an impact in improved athletic records. A poster claimed they did, I did some research, found he was likely right, and I changed my view. I learned somthing, I added to my knowledge. I suspect, that for whatever reason, that same poster has an agenda (perhaps to convince himself, as much as anything) that improved conditions are the only reason athletic records have improved & will search for information to support that view, ignoring everything that doesn't.

Even if we ignore potential improvements in technique, training, sports science, video analysis, nutrition and legal supplements, then - 1) Higher population means outliers in terms of extreme althetic capability are a statistical invitability; and 2) PEDs, as you know, the PE stands for performance enhancing. They enhance peformance. Logic would dictate that the risks to the athletes taking them, in terms of possible bans and to their long term health, means that the enhancement to performance is substantial - alone would make it obvious to any person who is open minded on the subject, that improved conditions and equipment aren't the only contributors to improved athletic performance and records, in the main.

Again, this shouldn't diminish athletic achievements of previous eras. Greatness of athletes should always be judged relative to the era in which they competed. Comparisons across vastly different eras are best limited to the greatness acheived in their respective eras. The Boeing 737 is clearly superior to the world's first successful motor operated plane, but that doesn't do anything to diminsh the achievements of the Wrights brothers.....

 

Thanks I might look into that book one day, I am pretty interested in baseball and sports in general. I have studied Babe Ruth’s swing on video for many hrs , he has some pretty awesome hitting mechanics. I rank him the best hitter all time but Ted Williams is close he has a great swing.

It would not surprise me if the avg speed on fastballs has gotten a little higher they have the radar gun on every pitch and don’t throw as often or as many pitches as they used to.

You say many more people are trying to be a pro ball player or pro in sports which accounts for more talented pool. That makes perfect sense because the population is much higher now. But a lot of people now are more sedentary and less active now using electronic devices. When I was a kid we had road hockey, baseball games and basketball going on every road, field and court. Now young kids are not into that as much .

You mention weight lifters are better now days. But weight lifting was not popular at all and way more of a niche sport than it is now.

I am not saying that there is not some of the best all time in sports playing now but it’s not a particularly strong time period imo. That’s why a lot more athletes are able to be more dominant years past prime now.

Even myself I played my old sport a bit at a local club after a 20 year dangerously unhealthy hiatus At age 47 I was dominating 20 year olds.I was thinking of taking a run at the provincial championship after 3 moths back training it was mind boggling and a little embarrassing even, but tore my calf. You would think with all the video and information sharing things would have leveled things up but no lol.

 

OK some of the things you say are TRUE, but you should kisten to Mr. Price above & consider adjusting some of your opinions.

It is correct that the average person in many at least Western nations-& our diet & sedentary lifetstyle is contaminating the health of other nations-is on average worse in terms of health & fitness.
That is totally distinct from what the top athletes can achieve.
Even IF they used the precise same conditions + equipment.

Also the average professional athlete IS better than in the past.
There can be eras that are a little stronger or weaker-but the trend is upward.
Boxing is something which relies on skills that in some cases become less pronounced, or a tough life & frequent fights hone...
But you also need to factor in training, nutrition & other advances.
Including CHEATING, i.e. PEDs.

So even if the average HW say was more skilled mid-century, the average SIZE (& training to take advantage of & ad to that functionally) means that even in a neutral rule set, the average HW today is better in absolute terms.

There was enough of a critical mass of weightlifters-certainly starting from the 1980's-that IF things had not improved, sole guys would have records still from then & before.
But just the efficacy of damned PEDs means that the best from the old days cannot compete.

You have it backwards with dominating late in a career.
Advances in training & PEDs means the older athlete can at least mitigate the decline of getting older.
So those in their late 30's & beyond are MUCH better than years past.
So reconsider thinking that this is a sign that everyone stinks today.

It is not maybe the average pitcher is faster today.
It is NOT because pitchers throw much less.
Men in the old days did record their fastest pitches when totally fresh.
It is only that this & hitting may well be areas where the very rare genetic freaks-like a Bob Feller, naturally superb mechanics, functional strength developed on a farm) could throw as hard or more than anyone.

I've long seen the Ruth swing videos-he was an incredible natural talent.
He found the best way to hit hard & well intuitively, & with too-heavy bats discouraging bat speed.
But the average player & pitcher (including constant fresh, highly trained relief pitcher) is fairly dramatically better than during his career, 1914-1935,

You & Greg Price-just Google Steve Dalkowski & be amazed.
Relatively small. Low intelligence. Alcoholic. Never playe in the Big Leagues.
Likely the fastest ever.

 

Nolan Ryan was no Sid Finch, that’s for sure.

 

Darwin said it would be like this!

 

This. The cruiserweight division unfortunately split the heavyweight division in half, which has resulted in the heavyweight division having less competition, so big men have a much easier time becoming a heavyweight champion and having multiple world titles available is also another factor. In the past big men 6'3" and over not only had to fight other men their size, but also had to deal with smaller heavyweights that not only tended to be very experienced, but were also lightning fast, so less big men reached the top.

Currently the heavyweight division has a shortage of smaller fighters that are in shape, have good ring experience, good mobility, good hand speed, and good management. When Joshua faced a smaller fighter that had all of the above working for them he didn’t look very dominant at all and got beat twice.

Fury himself didn't look invincible and was made to look clumsy against Cunningham, who likely would've performed better at heavyweight with better management and joining the division at an earlier age. That said Fury to his credit changed tactics and found a way to win.

The Fury-Usyk fight will be interesting. Hopefully the fight gets made sooner than later, since without an undisputed champion we still don't know who the best current heavyweight is.