I was watching ESPN at the gym today and caught a glimpse of a graphic listing Stanford women's basketball player Jane Appel scoring 46 points again Iowa State, the third most of all time for the women's tournament. That's pretty cool you say, but I say wait right there. This graphic had her point total compared to those in both tournaments, men and women.
Why do I find a problem with that? Do I hate women's sports? No and no. I just don't see how you can compare men and women's basketball. One is not better than the other; they are simply two different sports. Sure Candace Parker would destroy me in a game of basketball. But how would she do against Blake Griffin? Both are incredible athletes who play different sports.
This got me thinking even further. Why do people try to argue who the best football/ baseball/ basketball/ or golf star of all time is? These arguments go round and round, mainly because those we're talking about can't compete against each other in their primes. However there is one factor that is often over looked: sports change. The most obvious case is football. Players are bigger, faster, stronger than ever before. This a great testament to the emphasis on strength, speed and quickness training. But it also has to do with advances in nutrition and sports medicine. This carries over into all sports. In 1965, when Jack Nicklaus won his first Masters I'm pretty sure he wasn't hitting the weights like Tiger does.
However these are not the only changes. Let's continue with golf. Today players have advances like metal drivers and hybrid clubs. Golf has adjusted accordingly; they moved the tees back at Augusta a few times. In basketball there have been numerous rule changes to protect the players. When MJ was driving to the basket in his prime he was getting beat up a lot more than Lebron is today. Even looking at the sports I am most familiar with, swimming and lacrosse, you can see how much things have changed. In swimming coaches spend hours figuring out the best way to perform a stroke, a start, a turn. Not to mention that these new suits that add buoyancy, stability, and whisk water away add an advantage that is out of this world. In lacrosse new materials and designs have made sticks, pads, helmets lighter, and increased movement and visibility.
But the biggest complaint comes in baseball. People complain that steroids have tainted the numbers so they can't be compared to the days of yore. Well how about the fact that MLB keeps balls in climate controlled rooms as long as possible and they change balls practically every at bat? What about the fact that African-American players didn't play until 1947? What about the proliferation of the maple bat? What about the simple fact that pretty much everyone was juicing from the late 90s through 2003? Don't the changes in the game mean it's a different game than the one Babe played?
My only point here is that while these comparisons may be a fun argument with your friends or an entertaining piece on Sportscenter, they don't really hold water. I think we should just appreciate more of what these guys and gals are doing on a nightly basis compared to those around them, not the ghosts of the past.
