Soft Bones
Who would win this naval battle, the high tech Arleigh Burke class destroyers of today, with their sophisticated missiles, radar, and ability to see an engage an enemy over the horizon, OR your great grandfather’s Navy of World War Two, which had to slug its way in close quarters across two oceans with bombs, shells, bullets, and planes?
The new, state of the art destroyers would win, you’d say. The technological advantages are too much to overcome. Of course, that’s true on the face of it, but suppose this became part of the question: what if the crewmen on the Arleigh Burkes didn’t know how to operate all the fancy equipment?
That would change things. In fact, that would be worrisome, since part of our national security relies on the idea of these destroyers patrolling off the coasts of North Korea and China, ready to counter any ill-conceived attacks or missile launches.
In 2017, two of these ships were involved in fatal collisions with commercial freighters. The USS FITZGERALD lost seven sailors off Japan, and the USS JOHN S. MCCAIN lost 10 off Singapore.
Subsequent investigations showed that these ships - two of the supposedly most formidable pieces of hardware in the American inventory - had no business being out at sea, out in the open or certainly not in busy shipping lanes. In the case of the undermanned FITZGERALD, their preparations in port were woefully inadequate. Sailors spent too little time in their actual jobs. They were busy with more basic chores: chipping, sanding, painting - all to fight rust, as well as fixing engines and generators that were seemingly in constant disrepair. Consequently, they were badly deficient in skills like navigation, ship handling, radar, and manning the digitally driven combat information center. The MCCAIN relied on an automated navigation and propulsion control system the Navy ‘considered a triumph of technology and thrift,’ according to ProPublica. The report goes on to say, ‘The Integrated Bridge and Navigation System, or IBNS, as it was known, was no technical marvel. It was a welter of buttons, gauges, and software that, poorly understood and not surprisingly misused, helped guide 10 sailors to their deaths.’
Navy ships must prove themselves combat ready to be certified for deployment. The validity of this process was called into question in 2017.
Consider the sides in my hypothetical battle: the crews of ships with wonky mechanical and electrical systems, who in one case could neither work the radar well enough to see ships near them nor fire the weapons on board - and in the other case, couldn’t even drive the ship. They would be taking on men hardened by sailing in all weathers and manning battle stations as they engaged enemies on sea, land, and air for months, if not years. The FITZGERALD and MCCAIN would be sunk within minutes.
This is my metaphor for an essay in the vein of ‘They don’t make ‘em like they used to,’ particularly in regard to young athletes. However, it’s occurred to me that i don’t have any empirical evidence for any of the rants I want to rave, so I should instead pose a central question and flesh out what else i don’t know, the better to guide future research.
How do today’s young athletes compare to those of previous decades?
Broadly, we know that the statistics on health and vitality depict a steady decline: we are experiencing record levels of obesity, depression, and diabetes.
Still, records continue to be broken in the sports world, which would indicate that things are moving onward and upward.
Then again, coaches would seem to have their work cut out for them: many high school football teams spend the entire summer training, in the weight room and on the field, in an effort to make up for years of inadequate childhood play. Former NFL lineman (and now head of Power Athlete Training) John Welbourn has remarked that many young linemen at the high school and college level ‘look like they’ve never lifted weights.’ He’s also described instances when he’s provided impromptu skills instruction and been surprised by profound deficits in agility.
So, which is it? Are today’s athletes better or worse than their predecessors? Who’d win a special Super Bowl between the 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers and today’s Los Angeles Rams?
The progress in a few areas are almost reason enough to be optimistic about today’s youth. Most significantly, women’s sports have come a long way in my lifetime, as the federal law known as Title Nine banned sex based discrimination in higher education and created a massive increase in women’s sports participation. Which came first, college girls venturing onto playing fields or parents and communities starting developmental programs throughout the country? The answer in this case has been Yes. Generations of female athletes have risen through the ranks, and a standard of excellence has long been established in every sport. As I’ve written elsewhere, the domination of US Women in international soccer is the result of the head start America had in this process.
The sheer amount of knowledge on strength, speed, and agility, as well as injury prevention and treatment has the potential to revolutionize training. It already has, of course, but the evolving science and expertise on the field hold even greater promise. Interestingly, a recent podcast explained how many strength coaches are arriving independently at the idea of concurrent and conjugate training, the approach introduced by Louie Simmons of Westside Barbell. Programming for coaches is available commercially or academically, making effective training possible for just about all athletes.
This can all be taught at the many sports performance centers that have sprung up around the country. This is a burgeoning industry geared toward injury prevention and preparation for ‘serious’ athletes who intend to play varsity high school and college sports. In the best possible light, these centers help kids develop strength, skill, and confidence. In the worst, they play upon the fears of neurotic parents seeking to give their kids every advantage.
I remain to be convinced that every single one of these places is providing effective programming, but the competition is probably fierce enough that they’re doing some good.
Perhaps thus far I’ve proven only that enhanced opportunities exist. If the numbers show that athletes are by and large weaker than in years past, then they’re not seizing these advantages.
A government colleague of ours is a top Army general with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and a number of significant commands at stateside installations. He was involved in enrolling the first women in Ranger School - and before you ask, he had absolutely no compunctions about it. Having seen two decades of combat and a force strained by a demanding operational tempo, he didn’t care about any of the political debates of the day. He would take talent that was black, white, gay, straight, male or female. He needed anyone who could get the job done.
‘It’s actually not hard to get people in shape for Ranger training,’ he said, ‘in terms of endurance for all the long ruck-marches and so on. We can work up to it. The real problem is bone density. We lose way too many people to stress fractures.’
Bone density comes from running, jumping, falling, rolling, and generally crashing around, which hardens the bones with an infinite number of tiny shocks in a lifetime of normal play. (Barbell training also does a great deal for the bones.)
The problem is way worse than it used to be, according to this old Ranger. The broader talent pool, even the upper tier from which the Rangers draw, has softer bones than in years past.
Couple this with another astonishing statistic: 70% of today’s high school aged kids are ineligible for military service for three reasons: obesity, lacking a high school diploma, or having a criminal record. 80 years ago, their great-grandfathers fought their way across Europe and the Pacific to save the world from tyranny, but the vast majority of our kids lack the physical, mental, or moral capacity to do the same.
Years ago, when I was coaching CrossFit, I was presented with a nine year old girl who had never done a forward roll, could not swim, and one day while hanging from a pull up bar was terrified of the six inch drop to the ground. She had never climbed or jumped off a jungle gym.
This is supposed to be a piece on what I don’t know.
It would appear this generation is softer boned, flabbier, and weaker than those of 40 or 50 years ago. I wonder what the statistics are concerning time spent in outdoor play and sports participation.
If the internet and the sports pages are any indication, there are plenty of young, talented swimmers, lacrosse, hockey, baseball, and basketball players - you name it - boxers, and jiu jitsu competitors out there. I wonder what percentage of the population they represent.
Then, as far as non-athletes go, since I fit into that category as a kid, I still find it hard to believe that such a large percentage of kids are sitting at home playing video games or doing nothing. They’re not compelled go out to the park or some nearby school field and play something? Shoot some hoops or toss a football? How about as they grow older? How can such a wide swath of the young population not want to get in shape, lift weights, or be awesome somehow just out of vanity?
Suppose it were possible to track athletes. How do the Ninth Graders of this era compare to those of 50 years ago? Think of the kids trying out for freshman football and the possible differences in size, speed, strength, and obesity.
How many of these kids have prescriptions for which they must visit the school nurse at lunchtime?
It would be easier to make the size, strength and speed comparisons at the 12th Grade mark. College coaches might even have a sense of the trends over time. This is not just for football. Swim coaches, for example, might know of how many record setters or collegiate level fast kids are walking in the door each year. Women’s sports are so well established now that while they might not go back 50 years, they go 30, so coaches can make the same comparisons.
Let’s assume for a moment that the college coaches are doing just fine. Plenty of fast and strong tennis, soccer, and football players - etcetera - are coming through the door. If this is a smaller but more highly motivated segment of the general population, then how did they get this way? What kind of coaching, club sports, and parental support did they have?
If they trained at a sport performance center, what was the training focus? Some of these places have kids running around cones in the pursuit of athleticism, and some have them lifting heavy weights and getting dangerous. Which works best?
Of course getting any of these answers would as impossible as witnessing some old vs. new naval battles or Super Bowls between champions past and present.
