New Interviews Added to the Site!

Have read many interviews that were enjoyable for me; from a guy perhaps not as read some others, selected quotes Keith Kinderman, December 15, 2003 interview, serve to agree with what I have felt for a good while –

“I’ve heard (Sid) Gillman say this and I’ve heard (Al) Davis say this. There weren’t enough quality players in the country to put 22 men on 20 rosters to play the level of football that was expected of them. I see that today. Now they have 32 teams. Now it is a bit diluted. The talent pool is diluted today, in my opinion.”

– ditto; the “there’s no doubt about it, the players today are better than they were yesteryear because they’re bigger, stronger & faster” = rubbish. Better at what – eating? Taking PED’s? Sure they’re better – of course it follows that is why all the records of yesteryear’s players have been obliterated by the ‘super dooper players’ of today all sports, right?

NFL: highest ypc average in a season 8.44 Beattie Feathers 1934 ~ most ints in a season 14 Dick ‘Night Train’ Lane 1952 ~ most yards passing in a game 554 by Norm Van Brocklin 1951; MLB: the last .400 hitter Ted Williams .406 in 1941 ~ longest hitting streak Joe DiMaggio 56 games 1941 ~ Cy Young 511 pitching wins; NBA: Wilt Chamberlain’s 100 point game (as well another 70 NBA records he alone still owns); the list is endless/be plenty more where those came from.

The games are watered down today compared yesteryear, hundreds of players today NFL would not even have been on teams yesteryear, when true ‘creme de la creme’ existed. ‘More’ will never equate ‘best’, bigger will never equate ‘better’ on it’s face, be it population or performance, regardless claims a voodoo science.

If bigger/faster/stronger = better, it follows smaller/slower/weaker must go the way dinosaurs, survival of the fittest… such ‘logic’ is so much piffle, terms records.

Hilarious to me that a Barry Bonds – if you believe he partook of PED’s (and I for one do believe he did) – could not despite that advantage better Babe Ruth as a home run hitter. In the same # of at bats, Ruth hit 714 home runs…Bonds could only manage 619. That matter, Hank Aaron (who I revere) could only manage 493 home runs in the same # of at bats.

The claim MLB players didn’t face minorities earlier 1900’s and thus would have ‘matter of fact’ had their success reduced due the inclusion minorities, is but subjective speculation/opine; arguments opposed could thus also be made. Who is to say minority players thence would be great or even average/perhaps less once they faced a regular diet MLB hitters, pitchers? Can’t have it both ways, such an argument. Rules too have changed among other variables; what can be compared is though all other aspects aside: ‘what did player X do compared player Z in a similar # of opportunities’? All other arguments are moot.

There are always differences/advantages & disadvantages era to era, but in the end they’re a wash. Mano y mano, same # of opportunities, the ‘better’ players (based results in lieu media hype) many cases still yesteryear’s, untouched by modern ‘evolution’ game & players.

As a Chiefs fan, also find it hilarious a modern day player (Jamaal Charles) is even mentioned in the same breath as a Jim Brown by the media/fandom. A 5.6 ypc average on but 1,043 carries makes Charles ‘better’ than Brown who ended at 5.2 on (oh by the way) 2,359 carries, or more than twice as many chances? Let’s see how Charles fares when/if he totes the ball another 1,300+ times by the end his career.

Or that a Mark McGwire who (got by with a little helP from his friEnDS) hit 583 home runs with a 10.6 at bat to home run ratio must be a better home run hitter than Ruth who hit 714 home runs but only an 11.8 ratio? No mention of McGwire’s self-admitted PED use, nor that he ended his career physically broken & running on fumes while still a distant 131 home runs behind Ruth. Yup, players today be ‘better’ alright.

“They say the players are so much bigger and so much faster. Alworth ran a 4.3 40. They say about the size. I can point you to some of these 400-pound linemen today that have 125-pounds of fat on them. We had Ernie Ladd, 6’9”, 325-pounds… he was built just like I was as a running back. He had no fat on him.”

– exactly… preach on Kinderman

“There are a lot of bellies hanging over the belts today. 120-pounds of fat on them. I don’t think they are any better today. Of course I’m prejudiced, but I don’t think they are any better today. I think, as a matter of fact, they are not playing to the level that we played. Comparing the players then and now, I’d say we loved the game a little bit more than they do.”

– much as I appreciated the AFL/the time that was decade 1960-1969, as well other sports thence, you never know what you have till it’s gone.

Soapbox relinquished, rant fini.