<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 26 2007, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^Exactly, that's what I've been trying to say this whole time, maybe they'll listen to you.</div>And what I'm trying to say is the because they lacked such facilities, exposure, and training they weren't as good at the game of basketball and therefore if you took them unaltered to today's game they'd get their asses handed to them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And what I'm trying to say is the because they lacked such facilities, exposure, and training they weren't as good at the game of basketball and therefore if you took them unaltered to today's game they'd get their asses handed to them.</div>That's stupid. Don't say that crap. They had what todays players lack, Balls. And if they were backed into a corner, they'd probably just start taking cheap shots...sportsmanship be damned.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 26 2007, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's stupid. Don't say that crap. They had what todays players lack, Balls. And if they were backed into a corner, they'd probably just start taking cheap shots...sportsmanship be damned.</div>And players today have what they lacked: Skill and athleticism at basketball. I don't care how much balls you have, if the guy you're going against can shoot better, dribble better, pass better, jump higher, run faster, and is taller, they're probably going to be a better player than you.
Players back then had skills. What are you talking about? This is what I hate, you guys act like todays players are miles ahead of the players 40 years ago. Come on, them old dudes could play, they may not be as fast or may not jump as high, but the gap isn't as huge as you make it out to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 26 2007, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Players back then had skills. What are you talking about? This is what I hate, you guys act like todays players are miles ahead of the players 40 years ago. Come on, them old dudes could play, they may not be as fast or may not jump as high, but the gap isn't as huge as you make it out to be.</div>I guess there are two huge fissures that I can't get past:Ballhandling: There are centers today who can dribble better than Jerry West, and he was considered a ballhandling luminary. Nobody prior to Pistol Pete was creative with the dribble, which is one of the only two means of locomotion for the ball. Every single guard in the league today can dribble better than every single guard in the league prior to pistol pete.Shooting: The shooting back then in every facet was demonstrably worse. Of course there were a couple Bill Sharmans and Jerry Wests, but for the most part shooting back then was at much less of a premium than launching a shot.Just like Louis Armstrong was great for his time but would be blown away by jazz today, the players back then were essential for the evolution of the game, and because of them the game evolved to new heights that weren't dreamt of before. Bob Cousy and Pistol Pete innovated on the dribble, and others took it to a completely new level. Joe Fulks innovated on the jumper, and others after him did it better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ballhandling: There are centers today who can dribble better than Jerry West, and he was considered a ballhandling luminary. Nobody prior to Pistol Pete was creative with the dribble, which is one of the only two means of locomotion for the ball. Every single guard in the league today can dribble better than every single guard in the league prior to pistol pete.Shooting: The shooting back then in every facet was demonstrably worse. Of course there were a couple Bill Sharmans and Jerry Wests, but for the most part shooting back then was at much less of a premium than launching a shot.</div>I wouldn't say dribbling wasn't good then, it got the job done, players just weren't flashy. And shooting, well, in those days, teams revolved around their centers. Also, there was no 3-point arc which left players with no reason to shoot outside of 18 feet.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Just like Louis Armstrong was great for his time but would be blown away by jazz today, the players back then were essential for the evolution of the game.</div>I think jazz today sucks. However, you make a good point. I think Miles and Dizzy would blow away Armstrong on the horn just like Charlie Parker and John Coltrane made every other Sax player before them sound like sh*t. However, without Armstrongs innovations how much of the things wouldn't exist or would need to be rediscovered later? Just like ball players, Elgin Baylor may not be as athletic or as skilled as Michael Jordan but without him, the game wouldn't be nearly as exiting. And Jordan wouldn't have as many influences to build from.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think jazz today sucks. However, you make a good point. I think Miles and Dizzy would blow away Armstrong on the horn just like Charlie Parker and John Coltrane made every other Sax player before them sound like sh*t. However, without Armstrongs innovations how much of the things wouldn't exist or would need to be rediscovered later? Just like ball players, Elgin Baylor may not be as athletic or as skilled as Michael Jordan but without him, the game wouldn't be nearly as exiting. And Jordan wouldn't have as many influences to build from.</div>Yeah, I believe that without Wilt, Oscar, Cousy, etc the game wouldn't be close to the level it is at today just as jazz wouldn't be the same without Armstrong, but that doesn't change that their current counterparts have more technical ability because of the fact that they had these greats to copy and improve on.I agree jazz today is a lot worse than it was before all the greats started dropping like flies in a span of years. Now there are just thousands of clonetranes who copy Trane note for not but have no soul and we have to listen to all of these people who seem to have learned to play from Arturo Sandoval (IE people with mad chops and no soul whatsoever).<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't say dribbling wasn't good then, it got the job done, players just weren't flashy. And shooting, well, in those days, teams revolved around their centers. Also, there was no 3-point arc which left players with no reason to shoot outside of 18 feet.</div>I'll have to take your word for it, but from the few games I've seen back then (and loads of anecdotal evidence from people around back then) Jerry West could barely dribble with his left hand. And players had no reason to shoot outside 18 feet which is why they weren't as good at shooting long range, but it doesn't change the fact that they weren't as good at shooting long range. Just like the lack of training facilities, it gives rationalle as to why they weren't as good at various facets, but doesn't make up for them.
I have much respect for Michael Bryant, but as I can attest to with my debates with him about Wilt a few months ago, there is one thing he can't get over- Evolution.Aside from the HUGE strength, speed and skill disparity between players of the past and present, there is another facet that you have to look at- coaching and general knowledge of the game. People always make a big deal about how the oldies were so fundemental and such, but players of today are much more suited to play the game of basketball than player of the '50's and '60's were. Players of today have leagues like AAU, amazing schools who practice night and day, totally new coaching styles and techniques, tons of video technology, etc... Coaches of today are far more equipped to stop an opposing star than they were back then. It is just a far more advanced league now than back then.To get back to the strength, speed and skill difference, Pestilence did a great job of explaining it. Back then, weightlifting was extremely rare, speed training started and ended with regular sprints, etc... Now you have guys like Ben wallace putting up 460lbs on the bench, Nate Robinson squatting 500lbs+, players like VC with their 45 inch vertical jump, a 6'6'' SG like Michael Jordan running a 4.3 40 yard dash, etc... LeBron, at around 6'8'' 240lbs, is bigger, much stronger, and far more athletic than Bill Russel ever was. As Pestilence said, he would also be the fastest player in the league (and one of top jumpshooter, by far best slasher, one of best passers, etc..). If teams still can't guard Shaq today, despite so many advance sin strength, speed, coaching, and the rest, then how would they fare in the '50's/'60's? Not too well, especially considering most centers were only around 6'9'', 220lbs and bench press even worse (don't say Shaq is just a fat, unathletic guy, either...he has a 32 inch vertical leap, and in Orlando/LA was also pretty quick for such a monster).As for Oscar, he is underrated. Not so much because people don't rank him as highly as players like Magic Johnson, but because the average person has no idea who he is, but do know those other legends.
I still don't think ots fair to compare players from different eras by trying to see how they would have played against each other. Things change over time, such as fitness and coaching and thats just natural progression. You have to compare how a players does against his peers in his own time.I gave the Carl Lewis example on another thread. Another one would be Pele. Most people would call him the greatest footballer ever and there wouldn't be much argument. However, if he were to have played in todays game he wouldn't be more than a club player, nothing special. Other players would be faster and better organised, but that doesn't mean he isn't the GOAT.
Robertson is one of the best overall players in the history of the NBA, and defiently is forgotten by most. Whether its the fact that he didnt play in the media age, wasnt a hugely popular player, or that the city he played in wasnt very big, I really dont know why he is forgotten alot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrBigShot_23 @ Apr 30 2007, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Robertson is one of the best overall players in the history of the NBA, and defiently is forgotten by most. Whether its the fact that he didnt play in the media age, wasnt a hugely popular player, or that the city he played in wasnt very big, I really dont know why he is forgotten alot.</div>Part of the reason he's forgotten is that he didn't win any rings and nobody liked him. He was and always has been a real ***hole who his teammates despised as a person, and he didn't win any championships until he was old and no longer a superstar. The two ways you get remembered are being talked up by the people from your age (who wouldn't because they hated him) or winning rings as a #1 guy, which he didn't do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Part of the reason he's forgotten is that he didn't win any rings and nobody liked him.</div>He was mean, but he did get a ring in 1971 win the Bucks (credit Kareem all you want, but Robertson put them over the top).<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I have much respect for Michael Bryant</div>Really? I figured after all those heated Wilt debates you and I had, that you'd hate me. Well, I have to say, likewise...But, players today have all these awesome resources that you brought up but, how would they do without all of them? I'm just saying that the fact that in the 50's basketball was just a job for most of the players (of course the NBA wasn't even as good as the NCAA in the 50's) but it modernized in the mid 60's, and the players broke a lot of barriers. But you can't take the fact that they lacked the training that today's players have and hold that against them, they did some pretty remarkable stuff without it. You say LeBron would be so great if he played back then, but you're forgetting that he would have to play that style of basketball, not todays. And he wouldn't have all the modern advantages either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 30 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He was mean, but he did get a ring in 1971 win the Bucks (credit Kareem all you want, but Robertson put them over the top).</div>yeah, I forgot to write "didn't win any rings as the #1 guy", my bad
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 30 2007, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Really? I figured after all those heated Wilt debates you and I had, that you'd hate me. Well, I have to say, likewise...But, players today have all these awesome resources that you brought up but, how would they do without all of them? I'm just saying that the fact that in the 50's basketball was just a job for most of the players (of course the NBA wasn't even as good as the NCAA in the 50's) but it modernized in the mid 60's, and the players broke a lot of barriers. But you can't take the fact that they lacked the training that today's players have and hold that against them, they did some pretty remarkable stuff without it. You say LeBron would be so great if he played back then, but you're forgetting that he would have to play that style of basketball, not todays. And he wouldn't have all the modern advantages either.</div>I respect anyone who goes on for pages and pages with me in a debate and puts up a good arguement. Again, this is assuming you took LeBron of now and plopped him into the NBA of the '50's/'60's. If you erase all fo the training he has had, experience, and all of that, then he'd be a totally different player and no one can possibly tell what he would be like. Same with Wilt, we can't assume what he would turn out as in terms of playing style if he grew up in this era. He could turn out to be an Amare Stoudemire, a Shaq, or an Okur...it is impossible to tell. But because of the advancements of this era, from skill to strength to pure knowledge, it is fair to say Wilt wouldn't dominate anywhere near the level he was at in the '60's. And when you take everything into consideration, there is no reason to believe LeBron wouldn't domiante in Wilt's era. He'd be FAR more athletic, strong, skilled and knowledgable than 99% of the players from that era, and for that time would have the body of a center (about same height as Bill Russell, but 20lbs heavier). He'd have the body to take the punishment, and all the skill and physical attributes to totally take over.
<span style="font-family:Arial">I wouldn't say Oscar Robertson is forgotten, he does often get overlooked at times. Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier, Maurice Stokes, Andrew Toney, Reggie Theus, Mark Aguirre, Dennis Johnson, the list could go on forever. Those guys are forgotten in my opinion.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Again, this is assuming you took LeBron of now and plopped him into the NBA of the '50's/'60's. If you erase all fo the training he has had, experience, and all of that, then he'd be a totally different player and no one can possibly tell what he would be like. Same with Wilt, we can't assume what he would turn out as in terms of playing style if he grew up in this era. He could turn out to be an Amare Stoudemire, a Shaq, or an Okur...it is impossible to tell. But because of the advancements of this era, from skill to strength to pure knowledge, it is fair to say Wilt wouldn't dominate anywhere near the level he was at in the '60's. And when you take everything into consideration, there is no reason to believe LeBron wouldn't domiante in Wilt's era. He'd be FAR more athletic, strong, skilled and knowledgable than 99% of the players from that era, and for that time would have the body of a center (about same height as Bill Russell, but 20lbs heavier). He'd have the body to take the punishment, and all the skill and physical attributes to totally take over.</div>I'm not going to argue about the 1950's. The game was still a bit underdeveloped then. It really came into its own around the early to mid sixties like 1964-65. So, okay, if LBJ went into a time machine with his Nikes and all the learned experiences and the accumulated knowledge of the game and modern training back to 1964 he would have an advantage and would be the best player in the league (no worst then top 3 at least). That's fine, I've always debated your theories on how the bigs from that era would do in todays. So, we agree about LeBron. Wilt, Russ, Kareem (that is, 1971 Kareem) and the other bigs from about 1966-1974, I have to say would have a pretty good time today. Call me crazy, but todays centers are mostly undersized and are about equal in strength, albeit a bit more toned (I'll give you faster). What does it for me is the rule changes and the slowed down pace, I think those factors would hand those players an advantage. It's still hell in the paint but, compared to the paint 35 years ago, the paint these days is like spending the night with Emmy Rossum. It would most likely be easier for them. I know this isn't really what we were talking about but, I just wanted to make my stance more clear.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Apr 30 2007, 11:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">I wouldn't say Oscar Robertson is forgotten, he does often get overlooked at times. Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier, Maurice Stokes, Andrew Toney, Reggie Theus, Mark Aguirre, Dennis Johnson, the list could go on forever. Those guys are forgotten in my opinion.</span></div> But none of those players come to close to where Robertson is considered all-time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ May 2 2007, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But none of those players come to close to where Robertson is considered all-time.</div>yeah, but the point is that he IS considered all time, and not forgotten.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 2 2007, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>yeah, but the point is that he IS considered all time, and not forgotten.</div> He's just as forgotten by fans/media right now as the ones Tony listed.
