I'd be fidgeting in the box too if I was facing filthy/nasty major league pitching coming off a 15" high mound. All while wearing no forearm armor, no ankle/shin guard, no earflaps, no helmet, nothing. Just a loaded up, rock hard baseball coming at your head at around 85 MPH with nothing more than a wool baseball cap standing between you and permanent brain damage. (See Ray Chapman or Don Zimmer.)

And this for 12 grand a year.

I wonder how brave any of today's vastly superior hitters would perform under the same set of circumstances?

King,

Great column. I, too, was a scrawny, light-hitting Little League 2nd baseman, well into my adulthood I might add, no doubt swinging a bat way bigger than necessary or useful. I do not remember seeing Don Larsen, but I sure do remember Mickey and Duke. They were my earliest heros and I think that the huge piece of lumber they each carried added to my awe.

I do not remember the foot movement in the batter's box, but I do remember seeing Yogi hit balls in the dirt 297 feet, just inside the foul pole that was 296 feet from home plate in the old, old version of Yankee Stadium.

I, however, do remember being taught to keep my back foot planted, so the foot movement you describe was not part of the orthodoxy of the game. Maybe it was a privilege one earned when one could actually swing that tree limb fully around before the ball hit the catchers glove. I'll never know.

PLAYERS ARE MUCH BETTER TODAY

King, you might be the first person to ever agree with my conclusion that athletes today are far, far better than the athletes of years ago.

There are two ways of rating athletes (or anyone else) -- subjective opinions and objective facts. The facts show that athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, are trained for far longer and at much earlier ages, and the supply comes from all over the world as opposed to just from the USA. And that's just for starters.

Yet, if you talk to sports fans, most will tell you that today's athletes are far worse. They base their conclusions on opinions -- what they see or they think they see.

Frankly, my conclusion about this dichotomy is that sports fans are just plain stupid. There, I said it.

To listen to talk radio and hear hosts and callers ramble on and on about how in their day players never did this or that just confirms my conclusion. I keep thinking "yes they did."

I'm the same age you are and I also recall swinging bats at age 7 that were designed for grown men.

There was a lot of stupid thinking by those in charge. The dramatically higher potential revenues -- and losses -- in sports has led to more analysis, better techniques, better training, better conditioning, etc.

But the Neanderthals will respond that you're crazy, as one already has.

Thanks for your insightful commentary.

Shalom,

ZWrite

was subjected to a scientific study at his peak that showed him as way off the charts in things like reaction time, hand-to-eye coordination etc. Today he'd probably still be way up there but of course would have to be much better conditioned. On that note, I wonder just how much better bulked-up modern football players would be against an old-school team if they had to play both ways with no substitutions?

One problem with Mr. Kaufman's thesis is that many supposedly unconditioned hitters swinging those overweight bats often compiled extraordinary batting averages - Ruth, Dimaggio, Ted Williams, etc. So maybe it was the pitching after all. Or maybe just that comparisons like this always fall apart.

Great article. I think nostalgia often clouds the basic point that conditioning and the fulltime nature of the work makes today's professional atheletes simply better. Certainly equipment helps but I don't think to a significant degree. Let the outrage letters flow.

First off, I love these kinds of columns, King. They are great fodder for debate.

That being said, there is no question that today's athletes are better conditioned, better trained, and, well, just better athletes when judged against their counterparts of another age.

But give the Wright Brothers access to modern tools, materials and knowledge and it's likely they fly far sooner. Give George Washington's doctors the tools of modern medicine and he doesn't die of a head cold. Really, it's all apples and oranges.

Barring Einstein, human beings can only work within the limits of their times. And that certainly applies to athletes. As I pointed out a few years back in this column, and as Jeffrey Brown alluded to in the case of the Babe, Wilt Chamberlain would have been great today because he would have matured as a player playing the modern game. His physical capacities being beyond reproach, if he were to play modern basketball, he would have been forced to compete at this level. It would be the only level he knew.

Conversely, as Big Paulie pointed out, send a modern hitter up, unprotected, against Bob Feller pitching off a 15-inch mound, and maybe he's not so great a hitter. Not that his skills are diminished, but seeing as Feller had some wildness in him, out of pure fear.

Somehow, I think the Babe and Ty and Ted, given all the advantages of the modern game, would have feasted on the league-average middle reliever from 2008. After all, in the modern game, there are far more teams and far more players. And far more opportunity for mediocrity.

In 1956 the mound was higher than today which is a big advantage for the pitcher.

The ball in 1956 was made differently,was not as lively as todays ball.

Pitcher could still throw at or brushback hitters without worry,unlike todays pitchers who get a warning for pitching inside!

The strike zone was in 1956 was from the armpits to the top of the knee,not like todays small strike zone.

Watching a junk ball pitcher like Larsen on his best day is not a way to judge the quality of hitting or pitching in that era.

Perhaps todays hitters take better care of themselves then again there's more muscle pulls by far today than back then.We won't go into drugs like steroids.

My guess is that hitters from that era would flourish in todays hitter friendly game.