What type of basketball do you prefer. Personally, I prefer the old school type of play. Were theer were no outside shots, and were there wasnt as many flashy moves. I like a tough physical game, instead of the s*it we have today were evrything is a foul. Also the words team and defense actually mean something to old skool players.
Yeah, todays game has gotten pretty lame. Very pussied down.In the old days (60's-80's) you had to bring it and the refs let you play, but in the 1990's, Stern didn't wan't his precious Michael Jordan to get hurt so, he made the game all gay.
I like new school better because the league is at a much higher level nowadays than it used to be. It wasn't until about 1983 that there were teams that could be competitive today. I love watching old games but the reality is that the game has improved and no pre 1980 team could compete in today's league and the league is improving even faster now that there are so many new stars.
I like them both, but it's too gritty in old school for me. Football and Rugby are gritty games. Basketball could be like that, but it's not. I play new school basketball, so that's what I like better.
Damn I love it when people drive, make some circus layup after getting drilled for the and 1. Old school basketball is awesome, I love watching games on ESPN Classic, goes to show just how much the game has changed over the last 20-30 years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Dec 13 2006, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Damn I love it when people drive, make some circus layup after getting drilled for the and 1. Old school basketball is awesome, I love watching games on ESPN Classic, goes to show just how much the game has changed over the last 20-30 years.</div> I agree, I love old basketball...the great ball movement, team work, working to get an easier shot...Now it's all about the star getting the ball, guys standing around the 3PT line and three point bombs or driving to get a tick tack foul... :thumbdn1:
Wow BCB dont even get me started on the ticky tacky fouls. There are easily about 10-15 per game in the NBA so far this year. That is another discussion for another thread though.
I hate the new school fouls... I can be a bit more rough defensively and I hate it when a pussy calls fouls on me left and right. Just disgusting.OL' SKOOLZ!
Old school for sure. Whenever a game is on ESPN Classic I try to catch it. The ball movement, physical defense, not as many fouls and all that is way better to watch I think. Sure new school has more glamor, but the game was just more fun to watch because they didn't have any superstar treatment or weak fouls.
Oh man, Don't even get me started. New school basketball doesn't have ANYTHING on old school NBA. The game was just so smooth back then, It was simple but effective. Players were actually allowed to play tough defense without being called for a foul.
I think the biggest problem with 'new school' ball is the expansion teams. It's dilluted the talent and there are players, who don't have the all around skills you used to see, playing major minutes.For me, there was the old school 70's, 80's Then the Dark Ages (most of the 90's with it's 'emphasis on defence')then the new school (young rising stars, better offence than the 90's)some people mentioned the rougher D back in the day, but to all time top scoring teams come from the Nuggets in the early 80's and Wilt's Philly teams in the 60'sThe highest team scoring average after 1990 is the Nuggest at #23 on the list for the 90-91 Season.(source http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/...asonsearch.htm)so while it was somewhat rougher, it wasn't the pathetic defence that was displayed by those crappy Knicks teams in the 90's where their lack of talent was compensated by being rugby players.If we didn't have the Hornets, Magic, Heat, Raptors, Grizzlies and Bobcats I think we'd see a better style of play.just think of the quality players that are on those teams and imagine if there were paired up with some of the lesser teams. we'd have deeper benches and more talented role players which would lead to more scoring.The other big change has been the increased athletesism of the average NBA player.The increased athletesism has directly helped the defensive schemes rather than the offensive. In fact it has deteriorated the offensive game as more and more the player rely on their speed, heigth and strength rather than developing their basketball skills and IQ. You have SF's who are 6' 9" who can double in the post and recover back to the 3 pt line with little effort.Sure some players like Garnett and Kobe take their gifts and combine them with skill, but for the most part it's not happening.
The reality is that Pre-magic/bird the league had nothing on today's league. The league peaked in the late eighties, plateued in the 90s, and is going back up now. Within a couple of years it'll be at its highest level ever. I dislike old play because players didn't play defense but the very top teams (mainly the lakers, rockets, bulls, sixers, and celts) were fun to watch.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Dec 21 2006, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reality is that Pre-magic/bird the league had nothing on today's league. The league peaked in the late eighties, plateued in the 90s, and is going back up now. Within a couple of years it'll be at its highest level ever. I dislike old play because players didn't play defense but the very top teams (mainly the lakers, rockets, bulls, sixers, and celts) were fun to watch.</div>Why does everybody say that? I mean the 1970's were pretty bad, possibly the worst decade in NBA history next to the 1940's. But the NBA reached the level of "modern basketball" in 1962 and in the mid to late 60's you had a lot of great stars and a few great teams. You had Elgin Baylor dunking on people, Wilt was getting 58, 42 and 15 EVERY NIGHT, Jerry West was putting up 50 every night, the Celtics were rolling, the Lakers were getting rolled-over, the 76ers in 1967 were exceptional, Bill Russell was getting 15, 35 and 10 every night, Rick Barry was draining 30 footers, Big O was getting triple-doubles before they were "triple-doubles" I mean, it was good times. The league scoring average was around 115 points per game and peaked at 118 in 1962. Believe me, I used to watch Wilt and Russ go at it every Sunday morning on ABC, it was the sh*t. It was a time that is too often overlooked.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Dec 26 2006, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why does everybody say that? I mean the 1970's were pretty bad, possibly the worst decade in NBA history next to the 1940's. But the NBA reached the level of "modern basketball" in 1962 and in the mid to late 60's you had a lot of great stars and a few great teams. You had Elgin Baylor dunking on people, Wilt was getting 58, 42 and 15 EVERY NIGHT, Jerry West was putting up 50 every night, the Celtics were rolling, the Lakers were getting rolled-over, the 76ers in 1967 were exceptional, Bill Russell was getting 15, 35 and 10 every night, Rick Barry was draining 30 footers, Big O was getting triple-doubles before they were "triple-doubles" I mean, it was good times. The league scoring average was around 115 points per game and peaked at 118 in 1962. Believe me, I used to watch Wilt and Russ go at it every Sunday morning on ABC, it was the sh*t. It was a time that is too often overlooked.</div>I'll tell you why. First saying that west was getting 50 every night is a pretty huge exaggeration since he scored 50 four (regular season) times in his career. Obviously saying wilt was getting 58-42-15 and russell getting 15-35-10 are equally big exagerations. The magistrate appears to have a distorted perception of reality.It is actually the most overrated era in NBA history. Jerry West couldn't dribble with his left hand and scored on pump fakes (which everybody fell for those days). Wilt, Russell, Dukes, and Counts were the only guys 6'10 or above for most of the decade. Players got good stats because there was no defense and it was a run and gun game. The truth is that Wilt scoring 50 ppg was about the equivalent of 30 ppg today because there were so many more shots. 25 rpg wasn't as amazing as rodman's 18 because there were 75 misses by each team every night. A lot of innovation went on in that period but it was basically a period where the few innovators dominated the majority of the league which was short, slow, unathletic guys with nothing to add to teams.On a side note, I think Happy Hairston was extremely underrated. The guy wasn't a great player but he was an innovator.
Out of all the differencet generations my favorite is the 90's. I just enjoy watching games from that era.
I love fundamentally-sound, old-school basketball. It's the way basketball was originally meant to be played, in my eyes. It's easy to resist turning the channel while watching games on ESPN Classic.
I like new school basketball because that is what I've been growing up with, but I appreciate any type of basketball, even women's basketball.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nash @ Dec 30 2006, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I like late 90's basketball.</div>I absolutely hate your sig. :thumbdn1:
