UrsaMajor;842843272 said:
SFCity:
Now you're doing it--comparing a single athlete to another single athlete;
So you are allowed to use one player to make a general argument, but I am not allowed to respond to your argument by selecting a different player to make an equal argument for my side?
Quote:
I disagree that decathlon necessarily should be the benchmark. True, it defines the best "all-around athlete" in T&F, but it involves individuals who must sacrifice performance in one event in order to compete in 10. My point regarding swimming (and the same holds true for T&F) is that at the high school level, records have fallen to the point where today's average high school swimmer/runner would have qualified for Olympic Trials in 1960 in many events. The current high school mile record would have been the world record until 1966. The high school record holder today wins the 100 meters in the Olympics in every Olympic Games until 1976. I could go on, but hopefully you get my point.
I chose to use the decathlon as an example, because it is a measure of some of the athletic qualities needed to play modern basketball: running for speed, running for endurance, jumping high, jumping forward, and making movements using great force and agility. It is just like basketball, in the sense that the athlete who wants to excel as a player has to learn to excel in several different types of athletic movements, and can't just concentrate on one athletic skill or event to achieve a record time, height, or distance for that event. If a basketball player only has one athletic talent or skill, he is not likely going to be a good basketball player. If a decathlete wants to win a decathlon, he has to compete well in all or several events.
Quote:
Actually, I think it is the opposite of what you say, SFCity. I certainly agree that Wilt was as good an athlete as you'll ever see at his size.
For the record, I didn't say this at all. What I remember saying was that Wilt was a better or much better center than any center playing today. I expect that maybe someone might come along who is a better center, but it hasn't happened yet.
Quote:
Where the real difference is, in my view, is in the average. In part, this is because of demographics. With a population nearly twice that of the 60's, athletes are the best from a much larger pool. The improvements in diet, training, etc. lead to more individuals being better at their sports. There is also something that in psychology is known as the Flynn phenomenon. For reasons that are not at all understood, average IQ (and average physical prowess as well) has been steadily increasing, at least in the States.
Well, now I am confused. You say that you were talking about elite players, but now you are talking about average players. Which is it? See my response to Concord Tom on demographics. There is a 78% larger pool of Americans, but there are 98% more D1 basketball teams. The percentage of Americans playing D1 basketball today is exactly the same as it was in 1960, after correcting for foreign-born players. The difference is even more drastic in the NBA. There were 8 NBA teams in 1960, and there are 30 NBA teams today. What this means is just what it says, more population, more players, not necessarily better players, elite or average. There is no logic in saying that because there are more people, that the basketball players will somehow get better, is there? I can buy some of the other reasons, but I would quibble on diet, anyway. I've listened to interviews of Cal players and when the subject turns to food, what I hear is cheeseburgers and pizzas, not kale or broccoli. I have a cousin who was just voted the best athlete in his high school, and his sister is ranked nationally in the 200 meter run, and they both live on junk food.
Quote:
.........I reject your dismissal of swimming as a special case because it involves water. I would submit that most sports--if not all--involve specialized skills and muscle groups. As I noted above, track and field has shown similar improvements and--most importantly--not just at the top.
I just said I'd rather use the decathlon. I did not mean to belittle swimming as a sport. I have great respect for swimmers and their records, and for any swimmer such as yourself. I was such an awful swimmer, I could barely pass the simple test to swim the length of a pool in order to graduate from high school. I had severe asthma as a child, and never could learn how to breathe properly in the water. Swimming is a terrific sport. I would give anything to have learned to swim adequately.
Quote:
A couple more minor points: your sophistry in saying that my sentence about athletes today necessarily meant "all athletes" is, frankly, beneath you. You know full well that is not what I meant. This is an internet forum, not a court of law. If you want to parse sentences, go right ahead, but I expect more from you.
Ha! That is a good one. Reminded me of some great literature:
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll:
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all."
I'm sorry if you took offense to my post. You write "today's athletes are much better," and then tell me I should have known that you meant something different elite athletes. I am a simple man, not a mind reader. How am I supposed to know what you meant, other than from the words you wrote? If you meant "today's ELITE athletes are better," then why not write that? Basketball "players," or "athletes" to me means, and will always mean, both Jaylen Brown and Jeff Powers. Both are players, and both are athletes, aren't they?
I am having a similar discussion with Concord Tom here, where he wrote, "the average athlete today is better." When I mentioned players like Thurman and Powers, et al, he responded that what he said was that today's "elite athletes are better." I guess he expected me to know that when he wrote "average" athlete, he meant "elite athletes". Well, average does not mean elite. And Tom's definition of "elite" is different from yours, I'll bet. If we all are not willing to take the time to actually write what we mean, then we have all wasted a lot of time here. Please don't expect me to be a mind reader. Just say what you mean. I am sure if we had this discussion in person, instead of electronically, we could both explain our points better and understand each other better. So many people misunderstand and even get offended by the written word in blogs or in e-mails, written in haste or not carefully. It is one great failing of modern society becoming dependent on electronic messages for communication, IMO.