The Real Reason Why We Shouldn't Compare Eras in Sports

It is perfectly natural for all sports fans to compare players to one another from different eras. Many fans will say that players from today are likely to be more athletic than players from the first half of the 20th century. While I will agree with that to a point, that is far too subjective to compare. However, the players from the past were tougher than the ones today, and they had to be. They also seldom used strength training in the first half of the 20th century, but some were still able to have productive and long careers despite that.

I hear the same argument all the time about how players of yesterday would never be able to make it in today's sports. But on the flip-side, I hardly ever hear someone saying that players of today would have been able to play in the early days of sports. What should be noted is that while players are typically bigger, stronger, and faster in most cases today, they have the benefit of strength training in the off-season. Basically, they work year round in their respective sport to stay in shape while also improving their overall skills. Most fans assume that players of today would be able to play at the same level or higher in the past. Or can they?

Players of today make considerably more money than the players of the past. Players also have the benefit of the rules being altered as well as the advent of free agency that has helped make their lives easier. The reserve clause in sports in the old days didn't give the players many rights on the field and the freedom to play where they chose.

Why is it that many fans make the point that players of today would be able to flourish in the past? The main reason is the physical nature of many athletes today, and the way they are able to train year round. What is often missed by those same fans is what the players in the early days in the 20th century had to endure.

The athletes of the past would have had a better chance of raising their level of play in our current sports today. Why? Economics. The economics of sports were far different than they are today. The fact that many of those players were seriously affected by war time, The Great Depression, the severe droughts, and disease epidemics that nearly crippled the job market and benefits for many people. Plus, the majority of athletes in those days were not so fortunate to spend their off-seasons staying in shape and improving their skills. They had to pick up jobs or run a business to make ends meet which deteriorated their skills over time. They also did not benefit from the advanced medical technology that players receive today which allows them to extend careers rather than being forced to retire too soon.

The economy in the United States has a serious impact on all sports. The fact remains that war time, The Great Depression, and all of the other things that crippled the job market would have made life tough for any player of that time. It is extremely unfair to judge one player being better than another just based on changes in eras of sports with rules and off-season training. Today's players wouldn't be getting escalated salaries like they are now to help them out off the field. Many of them would have likely been called in for duty during war time to serve their country which we all know what the end result could have been with them. Players of today would basically have to endure the same living conditions and standards of athletes in the past.

Because of inflation and the huge growth of the economy over the last half of the 20th century, players were not so reliant on having to work in the off-season to make a living. That said, I think players of yesterday could have possibly flourished in today's sports. They would have had the advanced medicines, more income, free agency, and the ability to train year round to improve their game. The athletes of today are very fortunate to have all of those things in their favor because of the sacrifice of past players.

This not an argument in comparing one player in an era to another because it is always subjective. It is fun to debate about players from past and present, but many tend to overlook the economic impact in making their argument stick. So could players with their current skill levels play in the past generation of sports? Could yesterday's athletes make it in today's sports? I think skill level would definitely favor today's players. But the economics would make this impossible to say. Skill level, game rules, and changes have impacted sports as we know it. But the real reason why we can't compare one era to another is not because of how the games and athletes have changed. It is because of how the economy has drastically changed in our history. Economics is the reason why players of today may have actually struggled in the past, and possibly favored past players in today's game. But then again, that is subjective as well, and the economy should never be overlooked in debating one era of players and sports to another.