Which decade of W&M football produced the MOST William & Mary Legends? We dug DEEP, analyzing nearly 100 YEARS of Tribe football history to get to the answer.

Are you surprised by the result? LET'S GO TRIBE

Article: https://wmsportsblog.com/2021/02/19/whic...m-legends/

1960s...has to be a mistake

No contest...the 1940s.

Two great four year teams. Old Southern Conference championships (SC with Duke, UNC, Maryland, etc.) Plus players galore...

Buster Ramsey, Harvey "Stud" Johnson, Marvin Bass, Glenn Knox, Al Vandeweghe, Johnny "The Kid" Korczowski, Knox Ramsey, "Flyin" Jack Cloud,
Harry Caughron,, Bob Steckroth, Tommy Thompson, Lou Hoitsma, Jack McDowell, Vito Ragazzo, Buddy Lex, George Hughes, Lou Creekmur,
"Jumping" Jack Bruce, Jackie Freeman, Stan Magdziak.

Our only two College Football Hall of Fame players...Ramsey and Cloud and an NFL HOF player, Creekmur in that decade.

A great coach, Carl Voyles, 1940-42.

Two bowl games, two Top Twenty teams, the only football number to be retired by W&M (Ramsey's #20), national big-time schedule.

Hard to top that decade. Nothing even close,

Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(02-19-2021 06:50 AM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  No contest...the 1940s.

Two great four year teams. Old Southern Conference championships (SC with Duke, UNC, Maryland, etc.) Plus players galore...

Buster Ramsey, Harvey "Stud" Johnson, Marvin Bass, Glenn Knox, Al Vandeweghe, Johnny "The Kid" Korczowski, Knox Ramsey, "Flyin" Jack Cloud,
Harry Caughron,, Bob Steckroth, Tommy Thompson, Lou Hoitsma, Jack McDowell, Vito Ragazzo, Buddy Lex, George Hughes, Lou Creekmur,
"Jumping" Jack Bruce, Jackie Freeman, Stan Magdziak.

Our only two College Football Hall of Fame players...Ramsey and Cloud and an NFL HOF player, Creekmur in that decade.

A great coach, Carl Voyles, 1940-42.

Two bowl games, two Top Twenty teams, the only football number to be retired by W&M (Ramsey's #20), national big-time schedule.

Hard to top that decade. Nothing even close,

+1000000

A few notable omissions.
1960s - Bob Soleau (one of the best Tribe linemen of all time and a first team All American); Bob Gadkowski (HOF)
1970s - Tommy Rozantz (not part of the Laycock passing era teams, but two time Hon. Mention AA and before FCS); Paul Scolaro (HOF, two sport athlete)
1990s - Josh Byer (another first team AA)

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Everything is relative. Back then, all of the other national teams featured comparable athletes and yet some of those teams were deemed deserving of national rankings and others weren't. We beat Oklahoma on the road and we beat Oklahoma State (then Ok A&M) in a bowl game and barely lost to Arkansas in another bowl game (and there were a whole lot less bowl games back then). We were definitely part of the national conversation in football -- something that is highly unlikely to ever happen again. We had a much better national reputation than UVa or VPI back then. I believe that we didn't lose a single game against in-state competition in the whole decade of the '40s. So, no contest on which decade was the best.

(02-19-2021 01:19 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Everything is relative. Back then, all of the other national teams featured comparable athletes and yet some of those teams were deemed deserving of national rankings and others weren't. We beat Oklahoma on the road and we beat Oklahoma State (then Ok A&M) in a bowl game and barely lost to Arkansas in another bowl game (and there were a whole lot less bowl games back then). We were definitely part of the national conversation in football -- something that is highly unlikely to ever happen again. We had a much better national reputation than UVa or VPI back then. I believe that we didn't lose a single game against in-state competition in the whole decade of the '40s. So, no contest on which decade was the best.

I think you are missing the point.

*intentionally ignoring the point

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Players also played the entire game, offense and defense, during this period. So a 210lb offensive lineman was likely playing the defensive line or maybe even linebacker as well. Their skin color is really irrelevant.

(02-19-2021 08:57 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Players also played the entire game, offense and defense, during this period. So a 210lb offensive lineman was likely playing the defensive line or maybe even linebacker as well. Their skin color is really irrelevant.

Tell that to the millions of black kids who didn't have an opportunity to attend college, let alone participate in anything or any sport involving white kids. The level of football talent skyrocketed when skin color was no longer an overt prohibitive factor. Remove black athletes from ANY current college roster and tell me how good that team would be. It's never too late to clear your mind of diseased beliefs & biases.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(02-19-2021 09:06 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 08:57 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Players also played the entire game, offense and defense, during this period. So a 210lb offensive lineman was likely playing the defensive line or maybe even linebacker as well. Their skin color is really irrelevant.

Tell that to the millions of black kids who didn't have an opportunity to attend college, let alone participate in anything or any sport involving white kids. The level of football talent skyrocketed when skin color was no longer an overt prohibitive factor. Remove black athletes from ANY current college roster and tell me how good that team would be. It's never too late to clear your mind of deceased beliefs & biases.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

My point was only about records and stats, not any comment on social environments or norms of the period. You can deflect the insults if you want, bringing that into the discussion was unnecessary. A stat is measurable and objective, it’s not subjective to time or skin color.

I think reasonable readers will agree with my response. That said, I'm not interested in extending this unnecessary derailment from the topic. Have a great weekend.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(02-19-2021 01:27 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 01:19 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-19-2021 07:32 AM)Tribal Wrote:  Undefeated in the 2020s. No other decade can claim that.

I generally discount football stats & records prior to the mid-60s. It wasn't the same game with all white rosters and 210 lb OL.

Everything is relative. Back then, all of the other national teams featured comparable athletes and yet some of those teams were deemed deserving of national rankings and others weren't. We beat Oklahoma on the road and we beat Oklahoma State (then Ok A&M) in a bowl game and barely lost to Arkansas in another bowl game (and there were a whole lot less bowl games back then). We were definitely part of the national conversation in football -- something that is highly unlikely to ever happen again. We had a much better national reputation than UVa or VPI back then. I believe that we didn't lose a single game against in-state competition in the whole decade of the '40s. So, no contest on which decade was the best.

I think you are missing the point.

(02-19-2021 01:43 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  *intentionally ignoring the point

Not missing or ignoring the point. The point appears to be that all stats and records achieved before integration should be viewed with an asterisk. Of course, if everybody thought that way then tell me why everybody (everybody, including the entire black community) was so excited and thought that it was a big deal when Henry Aaron broke Babe Ruth's Home Run record. Obviously it was because the stats and records were viewed as valid and so it was hugely noteworthy when the record was broken. (All Ruth's records were set in the era before integration).

Anyway, you missed my point which was about the actual question -- which decade produced the most top, noteworthy athletes. My point was that for a whole decade (the '40s) W&M did better than it ever had before, did better than it ever did afterwards until now, and probably better than it ever will again. It couldn't have done that as a team unless it had really superior players (and the write-up details the college and pro hall of famers). It wasn't the best decade of football because it had bums on the team, now was it? I could see having to take the effort to explain what should be obvious to the JMU reader (who, by saying that I "intentionally" ignored the point appears to be calling me a racist) but I am surprised that I had to explain it to a W&M fan (Tribe32 is one of the most knowledgable fans on the board).

I cannot believe a W&M fan needs this explained: The black community cheered Hank because he was given a chance to swim in the deep end surrounded by racists, a place no black man tread before. It had zero to do with beating the fat drunk racist's record. To my point, the previous record (with white vs white and ONLY white vs white) was shattered by one of the first black athletes to play in the bigs. Great, the 1940s W&M and West Point teams were the best those programs ever had...I still put a huge asterisk on that decade because any mid level program over the past 50 years would've smoked our 1946 W&M team. Our current team would crush a 1940s W&M team. Period. But, 40 players on our current roster wouldn't even have the chance to compete.

Sorry to hurt feelings, but that's a fact.

By the way, that WW2 era produced many of my heros. I'm fond of history and know that time in history very well, but that doesn't change the cold hard truth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(02-19-2021 11:54 PM)Tribal Wrote:  I cannot believe a W&M fan needs this explained: The black community cheered Hank because he was given a chance to swim in the deep end surrounded by racists, a place no black man tread before. It had zero to do with beating the fat drunk racist's record. To my point, the previous record (with white vs white and ONLY white vs white) was shattered by one of the first black athletes to play in the bigs. Great, the 1940s W&M and West Point teams were the best those programs ever had...I still put a huge asterisk on that decade because any mid level program over the past 50 years would've smoked our 1946 W&M team. Our current team would crush a 1940s W&M team. Period.

Sorry to hurt feelings, but that's a fact.

By the way, that WW2 era produced many of my heros. I'm fond of history and know that time in history very well, but that doesn't change the cold hard truth.

Your statement about our current team smoking those '40s teams is impossible to prove and is clearly not a "fact". You may be right but you cannot say that it is a fact. That's a fact.

1970 Ali could smoke me in a boxing match but that's not a fact because I can't prove it.

This is fun but has become nonsensical so let's just enjoy WMSB's work and call it a day.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(02-20-2021 12:28 AM)Tribal Wrote:  1970 Ali could smoke me in a boxing match but that's not a fact because I can't prove it.

This is fun but has become nonsensical so let's just enjoy WMSB's work and call it a day.

Okay -- after I point out that you were the one who put the damper on the intent of the original discussion (which was a pretty straightforward question about comparing decades) by bringing race into it and dissing all eras before integration. There are plenty of us who can despise racism and who can celebrate athletes of any color (especially those athletes whose colors are green and gold) but who are also capable of taking a hypothetical question at face value and not impugning people of previous "unenlightened" eras.

Also, a better Ali analogy --- more consistent with what is being argued --- would be if you said '70 Ali was better than '20s Dempsey or '40s Marciano. If you said that it was a fact that he would beat them then I would say maybe but you couldn't prove it either way so it is not a fact. Those earlier era fighters might have won, just as the earlier era Indians might have beaten the current Tribe.

By the way, from previous posts, I have pegged you as someone who attended W&M in the early '90s. If so, that means you were born circa 1968-1970. Which means that you probably never even saw a live Ali fight in his prime. You probably never even saw Henry Aaron live (even on TV) and even if you did it was when you were a young kid and he was well past his prime. (Insert a sideways Lloyd Bentsen/Dan Quayle joke here; oh wait, that is probably before your time, too.).

I think it's possible to both despise the awful bigotry that prevailed in college football in prior decades and also fairly judge the teams and players that W&M put on the field in those eras in that context. Of course, today's athletes - on the whole - are faster, stronger, bigger, etc. But, I think the point of this discussion is just what it says -- which decade produced the most legends.

I tend to agree with WMSB's ranking regarding the "most" legends. But I think the 40s produced the greatest legends. It's tough to argue with HOF pedigrees.

(02-20-2021 06:36 AM)Marshall Wythe Wrote:  I think it's possible to both despise the awful bigotry that prevailed in college football in prior decades and also fairly judge the teams and players that W&M put on the field in those eras in that context. Of course, today's athletes - on the whole - are faster, stronger, bigger, etc. But, I think the point of this discussion is just what it says -- which decade produced the most legends.

I tend to agree with WMSB's ranking regarding the "most" legends. But I think the 40s produced the greatest legends. It's tough to argue with HOF pedigrees.

The other elephant in the room about the 50s and prior is the two way player model and how the game was played. That simple change in the 60s and beyond creates 22 starters whereas you had 11-15 in the earlier eras. Splitting the ends out and using the forward pass as a weapon made it very difficult for players to play both ways due to fatigue, at least the backs and linebackers.

I hope we can all agree that we would have a very different list of names on the list in the 60s and before if our school was integrated. There were still very few black athletes on the team in the 70s.

BTW, part of the reason that the linemen were 210 pounds was because nobody lifted weights and half of the players smoked. Things change over a 75 year period.