Every I watch something like ESPN's "Who's Number One?" and the analysts compare teams of the past to teams of today, they heavily favor the old school, yet they are some of the first people to hail a player as one of the greatest. It doesn't seem to fit. Not that I lack appreciation for the past, but we need to remain to the players that are here now, and the ones that are contributing to the evolution of the game.
well the rules of today make basketball much easier. it was harder for Jerry West to score 50 points than it is for Kobe, because back in West's day there was no three point-line, hand checking was allowed, the calls didn't favor certain players like they do today, there was no charge zone; but dispite all that players than shot better than they do now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jan 12 2007, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well the rules of today make basketball much easier. it was harder for Jerry West to score 50 points than it is for Kobe, because back in West's day there was no three point-line, hand checking was allowed, the calls didn't favor certain players like they do today, there was no charge zone; but dispite all that players than shot better than they do now.</div>I don't think ican agree with that last one. The art of shooting has really evolved. from that time. Honestly when I see West or Maravich shoot, I wonder "What the hell is that?"The game may have gotten easier for guards, but for big men it's gotten harder. there is the three-second rule (thanks Wilt), goaltending (thanks Wilt), and a farther free throw line have not helped the big men at all.So why do we love these guys so much if we're just going to continuously compare them to the past and realize that it's not their fault when they were born?
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">Ehh.. I think it's unfair to compare players of today's era with players from the past because players in the past couldn't score as easily as players can these days and there wasn't much competition. I mean, I used to be all into the "Wilt-Chamberlain-was-and-always-will-be-the-greatest-of-all-time" hype, but now I've settled down and realized that he could score easily because he was dunking on little white guys who were almost two feet shorter than him... Nothing impressive there. However, it's impressive that Wilt scored because back in the day, it was much harder to score. These days, Kobe can take the ball in and hope for a foul or whatnot or just wait 'till someone finds him wide open at the 3-Pt line. Players from the old era had a harder time scoring because they could get fouled and the referees wouldn't think, "Oh, hey! He's Elgin Baylor! These fans came here to watch him score. I better blow the whistle and let him get two freethrows." Things have changed, young'ns... Things done changed.</span>
On average players now are much better athletes, which is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that they can do things old school players couldn't. However, players now tend to rely too much on their athleticism, which results in them not developing certain skills like a mid-range jumpshot. Teams today also don't play together nearly as well as they used too, which could also be because of the high roster turnover. It's a disservice to lump every old school player into one category. The 50's and 60's had very little defense with a lot of fastbreaks and high scoring. Wilt and Russell were able to get so many boards because there were a lot more shots. the Celtics won so many championships because they were one of the few teams that could play good defense. In the 70's and 80's there was still plenty of scoring with great team play, but the players themselves started to become the athletes we're used to today. The fastbreak was still common and scoring was still pretty high.In the late 80's and early 90's we saw a different type of basketball develop. The defense played by teams like the Bad Boy Pistons and Pat Riley's Knicks slowed the game down considerably. They played very rough and physical. In the Knicks case it was becaused they lacked many offensive weapons that were needed to play an open court style. During the 90's scoring went down a great deal, and the burden of scoring went on the team's best couple players. Fastbreaks didn't happen nearly as much, and isolation turned into the dominant offensive style of play.The rules that've been put in place now don't allow for the physical defense the Knicks and Pistons played. As we all saw with Dwayne Wade in last year's Finals, All-Star players are almost untouchable. Yet, scoring isn't up that much from ten years ago when there weren't any rule changes. To me that shows that there is less talent then there used to be. This could be caused in part by the increase of teams in the league. More teams equals a worse average player. I think the biggest problem with NBA players right now is that many of them have trouble with the team concept. For their entire careers they've been "The Man" on their high school and college teams, and now all of a sudden they have to play a supporting role. That's a huge adjustment to make, and many just can't do it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jan 13 2007, 04:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well the rules of today make basketball much easier. it was harder for Jerry West to score 50 points than it is for Kobe, because back in West's day there was no three point-line, hand checking was allowed, the calls didn't favor certain players like they do today, there was no charge zone; but dispite all that players than shot better than they do now.</div>I don't know what your talking about. Kobe is handchecked alot. I've seen it with my own eyes. He isn't like wade who gets touch calls on the perimeter early on in games and so the defense has to soften up.Also the game kobe plays, the handchecking rules means nothing to him.
There's 3 main reasons I like old school bettermore physical/not as easy to draw foulsdefense existedthe dominant post big man was a lot more common
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jan 12 2007, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>defense existed</div>wrong. try again<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>well the rules of today make basketball much easier. it was harder for Jerry West to score 50 points than it is for Kobe, because back in West's day there was no three point-line, hand checking was allowed, the calls didn't favor certain players like they do today, there was no charge zone; but dispite all that players than shot better than they do now.</div>That was more than counterbalanced by the change in pace.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Jan 12 2007, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>wrong. try againThat was more than counterbalanced by the change in pace.</div>There was sure as hell more defense back then than there is now...
To pack this in a nutshell, it was the way the game was meant to be played -- the rules were interpreted to be that way because the game was suppose to stay that way; but of course, it changed. Give me old school over new school.
It's complicated, but it definately goes both ways. It seems there was a lot more class in the old games. Players had stronger fundamentals and there was less bitching at the refs, fighting, and of course no 3-point shots. But players now are stronger, more athletic, more freakish haha, and overall just absolute monsters compared to the players 20 or 30 years ago. I think the game today is definately more exciting but all the old timers/basketball purists think the game has gotten worse with the dunking, lenient traveling, giving superstars calls, and thinks of that sort.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jan 12 2007, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There was sure as hell more defense back then than there is now...</div>that's why players who were inferior athletes, inferior shooters, and inferior ballhandlers with more restrictive rules were scoring 120 ppg?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jan 12 2007, 07:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There was sure as hell more defense back then than there is now...</div><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">If you consider goal tending to be a defensive stop, I suppose you're right.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jan 12 2007, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's 3 main reasons I like old school bettermore physical/not as easy to draw foulsdefense existedthe dominant post big man was a lot more common</div>The older game had to be more physical. Considering there werent as many big men around, when one team had a size disadvantage, they had to make it up by physical play. Defense didnt exist what so ever. On almost every game film I have seen from old school games, it is a run and gun style offense where a shot is taken within the first 10 seconds of the possession. Teams scored so many ppg that its not even funny.The dominant post man was alot more common because you would go up agaisnt teams with a 6 foot 8 center. If there were 5 very good centers in the league, there would be 15 garbage centers who were very undersized. The players were much physically weaker so it was easier for the bigger men to score.
