- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Could Jim Thorpe have played professional sports if he was 25 today?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:17 am to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:17 am to Big Scrub TX
Not only did he win the gold for pentathlon and decathlon, Thorpe won eight of the 15 individual events comprising the pentathlon and decathlon.
1
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:28 am to TigerintheNO
Thorpe was around 6-foot-1 and 200 pounds. Given access to today's nutrition and training methods he could likely hold his own.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:23 am to JoePepitone
He possibly looked so good back then because of the level of competition he faced. Put him among today's field of athletes he would fizzle out fast. (assuming you take the 20's Thorpe). In all honesty he is no greater than your average athlete today.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:26 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
In all honesty he is no greater than your average athlete today.
And you have no way of knowing this.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:29 am to FightinTigersDammit
Well lets take a look of the competition he faced in in football and baseball. No blacks in either and no Hispanics pitching junk balls in baseball. Do we know his 40? No, but we do know that today's athlete is stronger and faster than those of a 90-100 years ago. Just saying
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:36 pm to MontyFranklyn
No blacks, so he wasn't any good? Really?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:38 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Reading about what Jim Thorpe did is pretty amazing. He didn't seem to have a good work ethic but he was good at virtually everything. I truly believe that today's athletes are better than those of the past (on average) and have my doubts about how well legends would stack up against them.
If Thorpe grew up today playing against today's athletes he would probably be bigger, faster, stronger than he was at the time. So, probably so.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:42 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
He possibly looked so good back then because of the level of competition he faced. Put him among today's field of athletes he would fizzle out fast. (assuming you take the 20's Thorpe).
Increased competition, increased level of proficiency. That's how athletes progress. Thorpe was a competitor, he would be a much better athlete if born 20 years ago.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 12:58 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:Well looking at how influx of minorities in every professional sport but hockey has changed the dynamics of the games, it is safe to assume that if he faced the competition of blacks he wouldn't have looked so good. For instance before blacks played in the majors everyone thought that the Babe was the greatest player ever, now everyone thinks Hank or Barry Bonds is. Same with football. Before blacks it was some random guy, now its Ray Lewis or whomever. Just saying
No blacks, so he wasn't any good? Really?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:11 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Would he have been able to make any waves in professional sports today?
Yes. He was the best all around athlete of the last century. With today's technology, he would likely be even better.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:24 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Well lets take a look of the competition he faced in in football and baseball. No blacks in either and no Hispanics pitching junk balls in baseball. Do we know his 40? No, but we do know that today's athlete is stronger and faster than those of a 90-100 years ago. Just saying
This is a HORRIBLE post... You must be like 14 or something that THINKS he knows something about sports... But your post says otherwise.....
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:40 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Just saying
Well, stop it.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:41 pm to kywildcatfanone
It seems that there are two different things being discusses on this thread:
1) How great an athlete would Jim Thorpe be today if he was born 25 years ago and had the benefit of modern medicine, nutrition and training for his entire life?
2) How great an athlete would a 25-year-old Jim Thorpe be if he was transported as he was through time to 2014?
1) How great an athlete would Jim Thorpe be today if he was born 25 years ago and had the benefit of modern medicine, nutrition and training for his entire life?
2) How great an athlete would a 25-year-old Jim Thorpe be if he was transported as he was through time to 2014?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:48 pm to Powerman
quote:No, but in addition to training and nutrition, the population is much larger today than 100 years ago.
It's not like the human species has evolved into some super athlete species in a matter of under 100 years
Also, more people are playing sports today than in the past. The "top athletes" in the 1940's might not have actually been the best athletes around because sports were not as popular then. There could have been some amazing athletes who did not compete in anything. It's much less likely that an amazing athlete will not be discovered today.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:50 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:Even if you think it's racist, it's a good point.
No blacks, so he wasn't any good? Really?
Look at how blacks dominate athletic events where running, jumping, speed, agility, etc. are required.
How would he have stacked up if he competed against blacks back then?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 1:59 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Also, more people are playing sports today than in the past. The "top athletes" in the 1940's might not have actually been the best athletes around because sports were not as popular then. There could have been some amazing athletes who did not compete in anything. It's much less likely that an amazing athlete will not be discovered today.
The NFL and the NBA weren't as popular in the 1940's as they were today, but MLB, boxing and track & field were more popular than they are today, and college football was as popular as it is today. In the 1920's, the USC-Notre Dame football series regularly drew over 100,000 fans and Knute Rockne was every bit as popular as Bear Bryant and Nick Saban, if not more popular.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:01 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
For instance before blacks played in the majors everyone thought that the Babe was the greatest player ever, now everyone thinks Hank or Barry Bonds is.
Plenty of people still think Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball ever. I'd be willing to bet more people think he's the best than think Bonds is the best.
Hell, you could probably find as many people who think Griffey is better than Bonds.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Even if you think it's racist, it's a good point.
I don't think it's racist, I think it's stupid.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:04 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Even if you think it's racist, it's a good point.
Look at how blacks dominate athletic events where running, jumping, speed, agility, etc. are required.
How would he have stacked up if he competed against blacks back then?
Baseball and basketball are two different cases with regard to race. Blacks make up more than 70% of the NBA, but they have never made up a majority of MLB and their peak was 27% in 1975. Also, since 1947 when Jackie Robinson played his first MLB game, Whites have continued to win the lion's share of the MVP and Cy Young awards.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 2:28 pm to trackfan
quote:You are talking about attendance. Things are way different now. First of all, showing up at an event was the only way you could see it in the 1920's. There is TV now.
The NFL and the NBA weren't as popular in the 1940's as they were today, but MLB, boxing and track & field were more popular than they are today, and college football was as popular as it is today. In the 1920's, the USC-Notre Dame football series regularly drew over 100,000 fans and Knute Rockne was every bit as popular as Bear Bryant and Nick Saban, if not more popular.
And college football was not as popular as it is today. Sure, USC and Notre Dame may have drawn 100,000... but there are a ton of colleges around the country that draw 80,000 - 100,000+ every single week of the college football season. Plus games are watched on TV by millions.
But I'm not even talking about attendance.
I'm talking about participation. There are so many more young people competing in sports today compared to 100 years ago. It's not even close.
There were people not even that long ago who made peanuts playing sports for a living. It wasn't a preferred lifestyle.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News