Top 7 Reasons Breaking Sports Records is B.S.
August 10th, 2007 by Kavan WolfeThe big news in sports in the last few days has been Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s epic home run record: 755 career home runs.
(For anyone who’s unfamiliar with baseball, a guy called the pitcher throws a hard round ball that this other guy, the batter, tries to hit with a big piece of wood. The best the batter can do is hit the ball clean out of the field, an event called a home run. It’s similar to a six in cricket.)
Bonds’ new record has largely been marred by allegations of steroid use, which Bonds firmly denies. The fact is, whether or not Bonds took steroids is largely irrelevant; the whole idea of breaking a long-held record in any sport is preposterous. Here are seven reasons breaking old sports records doesn’t really mean anything.
1. Equipment has changed
Pick your sport. Be it baseball bats, golf clubs, or hockey sticks, the equipment of today is far different than what was used 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Babe Ruth swung a veritable ax handle compared to the bats of today. And don’t get me started on the advantages afforded by that armor that Bonds wears.
2. Rules have changed
Baseball, like many other sports, is subject to near yearly rule revision. For instance, the strike zone is far different now than in past. Try hitting 750 homers when you have to swing at everything from your ankles to your neck!
One of the most aggravating examples of this is in Olympic power lifting. The “Clean and Jerk” was so named because the lifter had to project the bar cleanly from the ground to his shoulders, i.e., without touching any other part of his body along the way. This meant the lifter had to bend his or her arms, which reduced the energy transfer between the lifter’s body and the bar. Now, the bar is permitted to touch the hips, so the lifter can maintain straight arms, and thus can lift more weight. The new lifter never really beat the old records, because they were performing a different lift!
3. Training Methods have Advanced
Aerobic and Anaerobic training have come a long way in the last hundred years. We know far more now about the relative effectiveness of different exercises and routines. Besides personal trainers, the modern athlete has physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors and even orthopedic surgeons to keep him or her healthy and rehab injuries. More specialized training equipment is available, not to mention the advances in computerized swing analysis. Hank Aaron didn’t have a computer to analyze readings of his swing and tell him how to optimize his power output.
4. Diet has changed
Barry bonds has Vector, protein shakes, and mineral supplements with Major League Baseball’s blessing, regardless of whether or not he took illegal performance enhancers. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs on cigars, beer, and hot dogs. (Thanks to JG for this point.)
5. Opponents have changed
This may be stating the obvious, but the pitchers faced by todays batters are significantly different from the pitchers of old. Two major drivers of this difference are 1) the pitchers have access to all the same advantages as other athletes and 2) there are more teams now, so an individual batter will see the best pitchers less often.
In any team sport, advances in technology may affect offense and defense asymetrically. If technology improvements favor offense, then scoring X points in the past was presumably more difficult than scoring X points today.
6. Playing fields have changed
If the size of fields have changed, in any sport, it changes the game. At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s harder to hit balls out of a bigger field. The introduction of astroturf has also changed baseball among other sports.
7. Norms have changed
There was a time when a pitcher was expected to pitch a complete game. Now, teams routinely have a pool of relief pitchers, an eighth inning specialist and a closer. This means less at-bats against tired pitchers. While other examples exist, I’ll leave it for now; perhaps interested readers might suggest other sports norms in the comments.
Conclusion
Based on this analysis, I conclude that the whole concept of Bonds breaking Aaron’s record, or Aaron breaking Ruth’s record, is as absurd as arguing who was a better player, Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretsky. The game has changed. I’m not saying whether it’s easier or harder to hit a home run now than in past, just that the game is so different that quibbling about the relative achievements of players from different eras is just bullshit.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
One interesting way to compare 2 different eras is to look at the differences between a player’s performance and his peers. In 1921, Babe Ruth hit 59 home runs. No one else hit more that 24. That’s like someone hitting 150 home runs today. If the Babe played today, he’d be working on his third thousand.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Interesting argument, but I don’t think it holds throughout sports. What about track? One mile is still one mile. Sure, training methods have advanced there too, but I think this is one of the major flaws of your argument. The advancement of training methods surely helps people break records, but it’s not as though every baseball player today is going to hit 755 home runs or every runner going to run a 4:00 mile as a result of the better training.
Breaking records will not settle the question of who the better player is/was, as we’ll never know what Ruth would have done in today’s game. But the record is still a standard with meaning.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I like to say this every time someone spouts off about babe ruth, he never played against some of the best pitchers of that era cause he never batted against some phenomonal black pitchers.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
[…] Top 7 Reasons Breaking Sports Records is B.S. The big news in sports in the last few days has been Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s epic home run record: 755 […] […]
August 11th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Also, going with #3, up untill the 80s, weight lifting was FROWNED DOWN UPON in baseball because the thought process was that if they were all musclebound, they would not be flexible enough to swing hard and the like.
Players back then were wayyyyyyy thinner, watch a tape of any old game and you will see.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:55 am
I always find it hilarious whenever ESPN ranks the best NFL teams of all time and they put Lombardi’s Packers or the ‘72 Dolphins ahead of recent winners like the 2002 Buccaneers. Watch the old highlights of the Dallas Cowboys defensive line that Bart Starr had to run over to win the NFC/NFL championship game and go to the first Super Bowl. They were built like a D-3 college team.
You are right on point; it is bullshit to compare today’s billion-dollar sports corporation to the guys in the past who basically did it for fun.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:12 am
The modern athlete is better if for no other reason than it’s become a lucrative industry. In Ruth’s day, baseball was much more of a “gentleman’s contest” and the drug of choice for athletes wasn’t designer steroids, it was alcohol. Also, in Ruth’s day, and before, if you hit a ball and it bounced over the fence, that was considered a home run. Today, it’s a ground rule double. But, I’m getting off subject here. The point is, money is the driving force behind it. Let’s say I’m an athlete in the 1920s-late 1960s. I might be a beloved public figure and all, but the paychecks aren’t exactly what they should be. And there’s no pension fund, nothing for me to retire on. In the NFL today, you have to play four years in the league to draw pension (however, the average NFL career is only 3 years, ouch). So, I might decide to do something else. But once the millions started to roll in, and I’ve got a enough athletic ability to make it, I can turn it into a career more profitable than being a doctor, journalist, musician, writer etc. And since it really is a market dominated by competition (in professional sports, you must win), I have to maintain my status through training, drugs and other stuff. Baseball is defined by its eras. This is the tail-end of the steroid era. Records were meant to be broken. My last comment is that all of these people enraged by the thought of their children looking up to people who “cheat” to get ahead is what’s really bullshit about the situation. They should thank steroids. They saved baseball. 1994. Strike year. No World Series and shitty replacement players. The next year nobody cared. The Yankees, America’s sweethearts, win a Series two years later. America cares a little more. 1998. Home run contest. America falls in love again. Until all the talk of Andro, HGH and “The Cream” and “The Clear” comes up. But people still attend the games. I think all substance should be legal in baseball. It makes things more interesting. I could write a fucking book on all the things wrong with baseball (including six teams in the N.L. Central, but only 4 in the A.L. West) but I’ll stop here. Who cares? It’s just a game. So enjoy it for what it is: a game.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:26 am
[…] is preposterous. Here are seven reasons breaking old sports records doesnt really mean anything.read more | digg […]