According to this book immediately after his team won the 1964 NFL championship Brown sent the coach’s wife a congratulatory telegraph, thanking her for allowing her husband to coach the team so well. That doesn’t sound very prickish to me.
Well, in a sense I agree, but you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. If we were talking about Gale Sayers I’d agree 100%. I think he’d have been a MVP today just as he was back then. He succeeded mostly on skill and speed, things which translate pretty well to todays game. Brown however was a guy who lived and died with physical dominance, an edge which wouldn’t have existed today.
Does the fact that you are a Bears fan cloud your vision in this argument?
I’m guessing you hated Brown back in the day, and you still do. Just my guess mind you.
So who was faster, Sayers or Brown? Do we have any proof for this?
I continue to believe that you can’t make these comparisons based on physicality alone. Guys of all sizes succeed in the NFL. Yes, today’s players are on the average larger, so is the average American in general–does that mean we are all better than the athletes of 30 years ago? We have grown up in a completely different society, especially in relation to sports. If we can’t put Jim Brown into today’s mold, and give him the same advantages that today’s players have, then we can’t make a logical comparison at all.
I would like to see some of Brown’s contemporaries answer this same question. I’m sure they would have a very interesting perspective.
Jim Brown was the greatest running back of his time.
That is really the end of the story. Can you say that Bolt is not the fastest of all time?
No, but would he have been the fastest without the advantages of today…tracks, shoes, training knowledge, nutrition, motivation, etc? He would not have been the fastest!
It’s really silly to say that Jim Brown would be exactly the same if he was born in 1970 rather than 1936? How can any sane person say that?
To say that Wilt Chamberlain would not be the best now is something you cannot debate. Wilt was unreal for what he could do in his day. So was Jim Brown or Dick Butkus. Sure LBs of today are faster. They should be!!!
Are cars faster? I mean common c’mon come on man!!!
It is fun to talk about it though.
…but 9 years later?
Ok, this thread is a million years old, but Omniscient is still around, so I’ll point out that his argument doesn’t really hold water (though his conclusion may or may not be correct), because his premises turn out to be false.
First off, the differences is size you claim seem to be overstated. Link.
Well, no. Leaving aside that we simply don’t have 40 times for early-60s players, in the modern NFL, the average 40-yard dash times of rookies at the combine are 4.74 for OLBs and 4.80 for ILBs. Granted the times for players that are actually drafted and make their teams will skew somewhat faster, but, OTOH, those players will never be that fast again, and even the best of them will be significantly slower by the time they’re into their late 20s.
We don’t have a chart for the weights of DBs in the first link above, but from the information we can gather, the difference between now and then isn’t as large as you claim.
Never saw a DB who was anywhere near 200 pounds? The four starting DBs for the 1961 Giants were 183, 185, 201, and 202 pounds (three of them were either 6’1" or 6’2"). Bears: 185, 186, 189, 206. For the last-place Redskins, it’s a little unclear who all their starters were, but the three who are listed as such were all 195, and they had guys who were 205 and 210, and no DB was below 190.
These are not cherry-picked teams: they’re literally the only three I looked at. Today’s DBs are probably a little bigger on average … but just a little. Again, picking just one team, the 2014 Giants four starters are 186, 201, 202, and 213; as mostly seemed to be the case for 1961 DBs, they’re all between 6’0" and 6’2". The modern Browns are 182, 190, 205, and 206 (though they’re all slightly under 6’). Etc.
So there’s just not a big difference in terms of how big the secondaries have gotten. (From the charts in the first link, LBs have grown by an average of about 10 pounds in the last 50 years; that’s more significant, but also not exactly a world-changer). This makes sense, since secondaries now have relatively more pass-defense responsibilities and relatively less run-stopping duties. There are plenty of lousy tacklers in modern secondaries who are starters because they’re good at pass coverage; I would guess that wasn’t nearly as true in 1961.
If that were so, given the huge, yawning gap in production and efficiency between Jim Brown and every other RB of his era, we should expect a pronounced difference between Brown’s size and that of nearly every other RB he played against, but that’s not really the case. Jim Brown was listed at 6’2", 232 lb. Now, I will point out that, browsing the rushing leader boards from Brown’s era, I don’t see any other successful rushers who were heavier than Brown, so I certainly wouldn’t dispute that his size was a significant factor in his edge over others. However, he was far from the only comparably big man at the position. Remember, the size of RBs then was actually about the same as the size of RBs today, so most of these guys were over 205, and a large minority were in the 215-220 area.
Among the guys who show up on the rushing leader boards: Rick Casares was 6’2", 226. Nick Pietrosante was 6’2", 225. Ditto Joe Marconi. Alex Webster: 6’3" 225. Phil King, 6’4" 223. Bill Brown, 5’11" 228.
Etc. These guys were starters, and some of them had very good careers, but they were uniformly blown away by Jim Brown all out of proportion to the slight difference in size.
One final note. Undoubtedly the best size/speed combination at RB over at least the last 20 years or so was Brandon Jacobs. At 6’4", 256 pounds, he had a 40-time at the combine of 4.56 seconds, which was actually above average for the position. This was a guy who actually possessed the massive advantage in bulk that you attribute to Brown. That is, he literally was 50 pounds heavier than most of the CBs and Safeties who tried to tackle him. And, indeed, for a few years he was one of the better RBs in the league. But he was never one of the best, and his effectiveness didn’t last long (health is a skill, too). It takes a lot more than size & speed (let alone just size) to be a good Running Back (let alone a great one). To be as great as he was, Jim Brown must have other elite skills.
Punted off to the Game Room.
Roger Bannister became the first runner to break the 4-minute mile when Brown was 18 years old. Now, high school kids break the 4-minute mark all the time. That’s how much faster they are than in Brown’s time.
iswydt
Running back is a great mystery. Emmitt Smith wasn’t any faster than Jim Brown, smaller, not near as mean, but his record will never be broken. Barry Sanders wasn’t big or fast, Franco Harris had no gifts at all compared to Brown. I have a feeling if Brown played in a later era he would have been Lawrence Taylor. Still, it’s funny to watch Blazing Saddles and think Alex Karras was once considered a very big man. And all that farting around the campfire…
Well, that’s true. After all, Wayne Gretzky was small, Willie Mays wasn’t even 5’10", John McEnroe was more physically akin to most of the paying audience than to many of his opponents, and Allen Iverson always looked like one of the real player’s little brothers had stolen a uniform and run onto the court. For athletes, physical intelligence is as important as strength and speed.
But that’s kind of a shot against Jim Brown translating into today’s game, because his dominance was largely BECAUSE of his physical superiority. He was not the brilliant, sixth-sense tackle-avoider Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders were. In an environment where his opponents catch up to him in speed and strength, I suspect he’s just not the same player.
What makes you think his opponents catch up? If Jim Brown was bigger and faster than everyone at 6’2"/225 without modern nutrition/sports science, he’d presumably be bigger and faster than everyone with them.
I think a bigger issue is that the NFL that Brown played in doesn’t exist anymore. You can’t make the playoffs running the ball 60% of the time because your opponent will be scoring touchdowns while you kick field goals. Can he pass protect? He did catch more than 40 passes in two seasons so presumably he was a semi-decent receiver.
But Jim Brown would still be 6’2", and while he could be a bit stronger, he can’t be THAT much stronger. There is a limit as to how strong and fast a human being can be. What made Brown special is that he was 20 years ahead of him time in his relative speed and strength. Even if you give him the advantages of time, there’s not as much room for him to be bigger and stronger and faster now. Omniscient does a nice job of putting this into some theoretical numbers. Brown goes from being, say, an 85/100 to being a 91/100. Everyone else goes from being a 65/100 to an 88/100.
This is visible in almost all sports. The difference between the best and the average is less than it used to be in a lot of ways.
Pro sports 40-50 years ago just wasn’t what it is today. In those days the understanding of training and strength and stuff just wasn’t even close to today. As it happens Brown was near the top of how strong and fast a person can be, but his opponents were not. Brown, today, could be better, but his opponents would be WAY better.
This just isn’t true - as of 2009only 4 American high school boys had broken the 4 minute mile.