Who would win between athletes of today and yesterday?

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

The Tiger and Jack major competition got me thinking...

Who wins in the following sports - athletes of today or yesterday (lets say 1960s/70s era vs. 2015)? My initial thoughts:

NFL - current teams would dominate every game
College Football - current teams would dominate every game
NBA - current teams would win most games
College basketball - edge to current teams but much closer than NBA
MLB - edge to current teams
NHL - edge to current teams, but possibly more of a push
PGA (given equal technology) - push
Soccer (let's say top national teams worldwide) - current teams would win easily
Tennis (given equal technology) - edge to current players
Auto racing (if cars were equal) - push
Boxing - push

Your thoughts? Other sports?

 

[tommynole3476]

Not sure about all the sports listed, but I'll chime in on the football, basketball, and baseball variants.

Today's athlete would absolutely crush the prior eras'.

In basketball and baseball, prior eras might take a game out of a seven game series because of strategy or the randomness of baseball, but the other four wins would be annihilations.

Looking more specifically at baseball, there are certain pitches that didn't really even exist back then, or weren't as widely used, like the splitter and circle change.

Football on both levels would be more like FSU playing a bad FCS team, the sheer size difference alone would be impossible to overcome.

 

[SeaPA]

In the vast majority of sports - especially those that heavily emphasize physical advantages - current players would destroy those from 40-60 years ago. The differences in size & speed would be massive.

The one that would really interest me is if you could drop a star golfer from one era into another era, with him playing the game with the technology from the time to which he's transported. I think an old days player would adapt far to today's technology than would a current player adapt to old equipment. It truly has completely changed the way the game is played. Most guys today don't concern themselves with learning how to shape shots, and only worry about fairway/rough on courses with extreme conditions.

 

[Spearchucker87]

College basketball - edge to current teams but much closer than NBA

Your thoughts? Other sports?

Seem like the strongest and best college ball would have been when the best HS players tended to stay in school 2-3 years. I'm not sure when that kind of quality peaked, but probably at least 20 years ago. Guys like Jordan and Shaq and Patrick Ewing staying at least 3 years would never happen in the 2000s.

 

[DanC78]

Id like to see how the Bulls, Jazz, Pistons, Lakers, Celtics of the 80s and 90s would fare against today's best teams.

I like the old school guys over today's teams.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Id like to see how the Bulls, Jazz, Pistons, Lakers, Celtics of the 80s and 90s would fare against today's best teams.

I like the old school guys over today's teams.

Magic was assessing this year's Golden State team, and said they would have been unable to handle the Celtics front line of Parish, McHale and Bird (and would have had trouble with the frontlines of Chicago and LA as well).

He also thought those old Laker teams that got out running on the break so well would have given them fits.

A team that had trouble putting away Lebron with almost no help around him, I think they'd have had trouble beating Michael with the weapons he had around him.

 

[seminoledq]

I disagree with a push in boxing. This is one of the sports where I think the athletes from the past have an advantage. I think they were tougher, hungrier and could take more punishment that the fighters today.

 

[F4Gary]

Older racing cars were much harder to drive. Older race car drivers would fare well against today's drivers.

I think you would have to give the older athletes about 6 months to adapt to today's technology, drugs , and workout facilities.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Older racing cars were much harder to drive. Older race car drivers would fare well against today's drivers.

I think you would have to give the older athletes about 6 months to adapt to today's technology, drugs , and workout facilities.

Good point.
There's a pucker factor as well...I was watching a documentary on the beginnings of F1 racing and those guys had a pretty decent shot at getting killed every time they got into the car. There were some gruesome wrecks in the 60s and 70s.

 

[NDallasRuss]

I think that you'd see the most pronounced disparity in football. Looking at the 1970 NFL all-pro team, the offensive tackles are each 280#, the guards and center are ~250#. The defensive ends and tackles are mostly 250-260#. I think that a game between the 1970 all-pro team and the 2014 all pro team would be a massacre and the 2014 team would win by 40+ points - if they didn't call the game before it got that bad. Too many advances in player size, strength and speed for it to remain competitive.

Even if the referees still allowed head-slapping, eye-gouging, etc. like they had in the 70s, could you imagine Ndamakong Suh head-slapping a 250# guard? He might actually kill someone.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

I think that you'd see the most pronounced disparity in football. Looking at the 1970 NFL all-pro team, the offensive tackles are each 280#, the guards and center are ~250#. The defensive ends and tackles are mostly 250-260#. I think that a game between the 1970 all-pro team and the 2014 all pro team would be a massacre and the 2014 team would win by 40+ points - if they didn't call the game before it got that bad. Too many advances in player size, strength and speed for it to remain competitive.

Even if the referees still allowed head-slapping, eye-gouging, etc. like they had in the 70s, could you imagine Ndamakong Suh head-slapping a 250# guard? He might actually kill someone.

of course, if the 70s team could "Joe-Theisman" the QB, they'd have a chance.

on a similar note, regarding womens sports, i saw that the US womens national soccer team lost 8-2 to the mens' Under 17 team.

 

[divinnole]

Many pro FB `players from the 70s and early 80s had to work in the offseason to make a living. The nutrition programs of today give the modern athlete a huge advantage as well as the year round training they have today. Plus the huge difference in size would widen the gap even more

I do think the basketball teams of the late 80s and 90s could and would beat todays teams, especially if the rules on traveling and carrying the ball were enforced like they were then. NO way the Cavs or Warriors would have beat either the Celtics or Lakers of those days.

The technology in golf has really changed the game. Watching the US open I could not believe the distances some of those guys were hitting the ball. I was an extremely athletic very big man (6'6" 260lbs when I was in shape) and if God ever gave me a unique ability it was to take a stick and a ball and hit it a helluva long way. Didn't matter if the game was golf BB or softball I could crush it. 15 yrs ago I hit a small head taylor made driver and routinely hit 340yd drives. I can't count the number of long drive contest I won. At that time the top driving pros averaged about 290yds. Now everyone hits drives 320+ yards, 9irons from 175yrds. I remember watching Fred Couples, one of the longer hitters in his day hit a 9 iron on the 135 yrd par 17 at TPC. So if today's golfer has an advantage it is in the equipment as much as talent.

 

[billanole]

The disparity in equipment, nutrition, higher level training, etc... make this an unequal comparison across the board.
Play by the rules and with the equipment from the earlier period, give the player of today a year's worth of yesteryear and the earlier player a year's worth of today concerning training and nutrition, and I pick the older players almost without question.