would guys like Bob Cousy, Jerry West, John Havlicek etc be stars in today's league?

[STATUTORY]

Meaning if they were transplanted to today's league by time machine, so their athleticism, skill, attributes would be at the same level.
Basically are perimeter players in the 60s, 70s, 50s, as good as perimeter players in the league now. Serious question because I seen a lot of people on this site say they are and I just have difficult time understanding that.

[jstern]

On my limited knowledge, I think the NBA got a lot better from the late 50s to the late 60s, so I don't think someone like Bob Cousy would really survive. To me it's all about the mentality, so someone like Jerry West would be in the league, don't think he would be the best.

The way I like to see it is like this, Reggie Miller played against Bird, and Bird was much better, and an old Reggie Miller played in the 2000s and he was pretty good. If you want to compare eras, I think that's a good way to start. I just don't know many great players from the 70s to compare to Bird.

[DMAVS41]

Jerry West absolutely would be.

Havlicek would not be a superstar, but he would be considered probably the best 2nd option in the league.

Cousy would basically be Nash.

[Sterlingsucks]

Jerry West absolutely would be.

Havlicek would not be a superstar, but he would be considered probably the best 2nd option in the league.

Cousy would basically be Nash.

How the hell would he be Nash? He had no left hand ! He would get raped on the court by quicker guard...the other two would be studs. Jerry West was a baller and would consistantly give buckets to any 2 guard BUT he also played really good D is what people forget..Havlicek is just a basketball player just like Billy Cunningham, Dave Cowens etc. no matter what they/he would have got his on the court.

[DMAVS41]

How the hell would he be Nash? He had no left hand ! He would get raped on the court by quicker guard...the other two would be studs. Jerry West was a baller and would consistantly give buckets to any 2 guard BUT he also played really good D is what people forget..Havlicek is just a basketball player just like Billy Cunningham, Dave Cowens etc. no matter what they/he would have got his on the court.

Because Cousy would adapt to the new style of play. You really think there would be no adaptation.

Here's a hint, Nash would be called for a carry every single time he would make a move if he played back when Cousy did. So would Nash just suck? Of course not, Nash would adapt his game and flourish as a great player. Just like Cousy would in today's game.

[Toizumi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCP6mMMH2Q


In this interview Cousy says that what he was doing in his playing days.. is what all the 12 year olds are doing in schoolyards now.
What was revolutionary back then, behind the back dribbling, behind the back passes, 'fancy' dribbling, has really become a part of the game. Now keep in mind that kids these days are trained to work on those aspects in a different manner than they were back in those days (it made Cousy a legend). Training schedules nowadays are more strict, more focus on player's health etc. I don't see how he could be a star in todays league..
Still though, Cousy was SICK for his time and is one of the greatest pg's to ever play the game :bowdown:

[JtotheIzzo]

John Havlicek was one of the best athletes in the game when he played, so yes, he would still be a star.

Jerry West is a top 12 all time (at worst), so yes, he too would be a star.

Bob Cousy would struggle because the PG position has changed so much since his day.

[NortonMang]

Those guys couldn't play with Kobe, Lebron, Durant. In fact Kobe, Lebron, and Durant if they came from that era couldn't play in today's league either. There's been an evolution which makes it impossible for guys whose game was formed in another era to play today NBA. It took Dr. for there to be a Michael and it took Michael for there to be a Kobe etc. The way the game has evolved, the way it's played now, wasn't even in the imagination of those old time ballers.

[Lebron23]

Havlicek and West are going to be elite players in today's NBA. Bob Cousy needs to improve his shooting. He shot 37% from the field in his playing career. Nash is a superior player than Prime Bob Cousy. Steve is one of the best passers, and most efficient PG in NBA History.

[TheAnchorman]

Cousy was an amazing pioneer for his time, but he would struggle in today's league. This isn't a knock on his skill but the people are just bigger/stronger/faster, not to mention the defense is a lot better.

West would fare better because the guy was a hard-nosed dude and had unlimited range. If he can adjust and dribble with his left consistently he could be an All-Star.

And Havlicek? Definitely. The guy played a running game in the 60s with the Celtics and was known to have amazing durability. THe guy is an athlete, for sure, and would be the quintessential glue guy in today's league, definitely an All-Star at least.

[JtotheIzzo]

Those guys couldn't play with Kobe, Lebron, Durant. In fact Kobe, Lebron, and Durant if they came from that era couldn't play in today's league either. There's been an evolution which makes it impossible for guys whose game was formed in another era to play today NBA. It took Dr. for there to be a Michael and it took Michael for there to be a Kobe etc. The way the game has evolved, the way it's played now, wasn't even in the imagination of those old time ballers.

that is not how evolution works, unless you are discussing something like this:

http://primalmovers.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/evolution_of_man.jpg

[NortonMang]

that is not how evolution works, unless you are discussing something like this:

http://primalmovers.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/evolution_of_man.jpg\\

I think the guy in front is an enforcer for the Corleone crime family.

[Collie]

Havlicek averaged 46 mpg in his prime. 46! Is there anyone right now who could play 46 mpg? He was also an NFL draft pick, a track star and an overall outstanding athlete. Current Paul Pierce might be what modern Hondo would be, with better passing and stats due to increased playtime.

West was an exceptional shooter and was pretty athletic. He had spectacular fundamentals and was a monster defensively. He'd be effective with his jumper alone IMO. Probably a smaller and less athletic current Kobe with better passing.

Cousy is the one who I'd think would struggle a bit.

[NortonMang]

If you see a guy playing great in high school that doesn't mean he could do the same against better competition. It was a different game by fellas who hadn't the opportunity for a broader basketball vision which necessarily evolved over time.

[iamgine]

Meaning if they were transplanted to today's league by time machine, so their athleticism, skill, attributes would be at the same level.
Basically are perimeter players in the 60s, 70s, 50s, as good as perimeter players in the league now. Serious question because I seen a lot of people on this site say they are and I just have difficult time understanding that.
The game is quite different compared to back then. How can someone fresh off a time machine be any good at all? They would need to adapt their game to today's rules and style of play in order to be any good. And that would mean changing some of their skills and attributes.

[STATUTORY]

Havlicek averaged 46 mpg in his prime. 46! Is there anyone right now who could play 46 mpg? He was also an NFL draft pick, a track star and an overall outstanding athlete. Current Paul Pierce might be what modern Hondo would be, with better passing and stats due to increased playtime.

West was an exceptional shooter and was pretty athletic. He had spectacular fundamentals and was a monster defensively. He'd be effective with his jumper alone IMO. Probably a smaller and less athletic current Kobe with better passing.

Cousy is the one who I'd think would struggle a bit.

havelicek and west were athletic and skilled for their era. They never displayed the same level of ball handling and speed/quickness/hops as the average guard of today.

West was 6ft2 and 170 pounds.

[Collie]

havelicek and west were athletic and skilled for their era. They never displayed the same level of ball handling and speed/quickness/hops as the average guard of today.

West was 6ft2 and 170 pounds.

Havlicek wasn't blown away by a guy like David Thompson, who would be a top 10 athlete today, or even a young Dr J. He'd be alright. Current Pierce is roughly the same athletic level and he still scores 20 ppg.

Look at his highlights here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsYAICmVMHA

Doesn't seem that far off from a guy like say, Hedo Turkoglu, who averaged around 20 ppg once. Or even a young Peja.

West would be a PG today. Give current Jason Kidd a devastating jumper, and all the offensive tricks in the book, you'd get modern day Jerry West.

[gmoney9]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

[STATUTORY]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

have to agree with Cowherd here. Players now are just so much bigger, faster, stronger

Collie was comparing Havelicek's skills and athleticism to Peja and Hedo. the difference is that Hedo and Peja are 6ft9 and Havlicek is 6ft4

havlicek would have been a role player not a star in today's league imo

[LAClipsFan33]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

Cowherd is an idiot :lol

[LAClipsFan33]

There is not one thing Stephen Curry can do athletically that Jerry West couldn't do. Dude drops buckets on almost everybody

Luol Deng is no better of an athlete than Hondo. A little more size, but Hondo had way more smarts.

You'd think people would eventually learn watching a guy like John Stockton play his way into the Hall. Basketball is a skill game

[jstern]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

I notice this a lot, someone gives an opinion, and if it sounds good towards a person's agenda, they accept it as a fact.

Also, I'm looking at some records, and since the 50s the fastest guys have been under 10 seconds for the 100 metres dash, while the fastest women ever was 10.48, and that was in 1988. Back in the 80s.

Also you also have to consider that a white person has never ran the 100 metres dash under 10 seconds, and before the 50s I assume most sprinters were white. Nutrition gets better, but not to the point where it's going to create super humans, unless they're taking banned substances.

Also, we're talking about difference such .3 of a second here, not a big percentage difference, especially when talking about a skilled sport as basketball. I think the average player is more athletic today, but not enough to the level that you guys assume, else everyone would be dunking from the 3 point line.

If you want to go by those number, 1968 and lets say Kobe's prime, it's only a 2% improvement. So by that we can say that players are 2% more athletic.

[G.O.A.T]

I notice this a lot, someone gives an opinion, and if it sounds good towards a person's agenda, they accept it as a fact.

Also, I'm looking at some records, and since the 50s the fastest guys have been under 10 seconds for the 100 metres dash, while the fastest women ever was 10.48, and that was in 1988. Back in the 80s.

Also you also have to consider that a white person has never ran the 100 metres dash under 10 seconds, and before the 50s I assume most sprinters were white. Nutrition gets better, but not to the point where it's going to create super humans, unless they're taking banned substances.

Also, we're talking about difference such .3 of a second here, not a big percentage difference, especially when talking about a skilled sport as basketball. I think the average player is more athletic today, but not enough to the level that you guys assume, else everyone would be dunking from the 3 point line.

Good job, nicely put.

[Kblaze8855]

West and Hondo I have no problem accepting as stars. They played many of the same people the 80s stars did. Ive seen Hondo nailing 15 foot high floaters over Kareem. He had plenty of modern skills and proved himself vs the same players Magic and Bird did.

Cousy? Dude literally had no jumper. not one he could go to on a regular basis. You dont just adapt and magically pull a jumper out of your ass. And if he was missing 65% of his shots on a team scoring 120 a game running all day he was either missing a gang of layups or virtually every midrange/outside shot he took. Im not taking a guy like that on my team if I can avoid it. Plus he was roughly the size I was when I was 14 plus like 10 pounds.

Cousy is where id draw the line. Not a modern star at all. Now...a bigman from his era?

Id have no trouble taking a good number of them. Bigmen do the same things tey always did. But Guards skills and expectations have changed. Cant just say what he would do given skills he didnt have. Thats not Cousy. Thats cousy plus skills If we just add skills toa guy you could say anyone could do anything.

I cant just judge him based on what he might be if he had Nashs jumper. He didnt. Ive seen him play several games. Guy had a 4 second release at times. With 2 hands. And people were just letting him shoot. He didnt even make most of his layups in the games I saw(granted...it wasnt many).

I see no reason to assume Cousy would start over a guy like Felton. He might run a team better. You dont lose instincts or...passing ability. But Dantoni isnt starting a guy with a worse jumper than Eric Snow.

Hes not playing major minutes on a good team I dont think. He isnt Jason Kidd. he isnt 6'3'' 200+ strong good in the post and fast as hell with outstanding man to man defense on anyone from AI to Kobe types. I dont see that he has much to make up for his lack of shooting. Not to a kidd extent.

[LAClipsFan33]

I notice this a lot, someone gives an opinion, and if it sounds good towards a person's agenda, they accept it as a fact.

Also, I'm looking at some records, and since the 50s the fastest guys have been under 10 seconds for the 100 metres dash, while the fastest women ever was 10.48, and that was in 1988. Back in the 80s.

Also you also have to consider that a white person has never ran the 100 metres dash under 10 seconds, and before the 50s I assume most sprinters were white. Nutrition gets better, but not to the point where it's going to create super humans, unless they're taking banned substances.

http://members.cox.net/kdrum/Menwomensports.htm

Yup. In 1940 the fastest man in the world was .3 seconds faster than any woman who has ever hit the track. The Time was 10.2

No woman other than Florence Griffith Joyner (10.49) has ever broke 10.6

The best sprinting high school boys of today break 10.6

Also since 1940 the record time for men has only increased by .62 seconds

[jstern]

http://members.cox.net/kdrum/Menwomensports.htm

Yup. In 1940 the fastest man in the world was .3 seconds faster than any woman who has ever hit the track. The Time was 10.2

No woman other than Florence Griffith Joyner (10.49) has ever broke 10.6

The best sprinting high school boys of today break 10.6

Also since 1940 the record time for men has only increased by .62 seconds
God, you have to go to 1940? I know you don't like to accept that it's so close, but like I said earlier, blacks didn't have the opportunities that they have today, and no white person has ever broken 10 seconds. If you have to go back to 1940, 71 years ago to try and prove your point, then might as well not post that info. That's a big difference from saying that the average female sprinter today is faster than the average male sprinter in the late 60s (who ran it under 10).

Edit: I thought you were the one who said that women today were faster, and were trying to defend it by going back to 1940. My bad.

[STATUTORY]

http://members.cox.net/kdrum/Menwomensports.htm

Yup. In 1940 the fastest man in the world was .3 seconds faster than any woman who has ever hit the track. The Time was 10.2

No woman other than Florence Griffith Joyner (10.49) has ever broke 10.6

The best sprinting high school boys of today break 10.6

Also since 1940 the record time for men has only increased by .62 seconds

you are right the improvement in sprint speed has not gone up by that much. the difference is that in the 60s, 70s, the NBA was not the premiere destination for athletes the way it is now. Basketball was not as ubiquitous hence the pool of candidates for NBA players was smaller and selective excluded many blacks, to which the game was not available.

[LAClipsFan33]

God, you have to go to 1940? I know you don't like to accept that it's so close, but like I said earlier, blacks didn't have the opportunities that they have today, and no white person has ever broken 10 seconds. If you have to go back to 1940, 71 years ago to try and prove your point, then might as well not post that info. That's a big difference from saying that the average female sprinter today is faster than the average male sprinter in the late 60s (who ran it under 10).

Edit: I thought you were the one who said that women today were faster, and were trying to defend it by going back to 1940. My bad.

I agree. Things haven't changed that much. I think people put to much on how athletic they perceive players to be today. They are a little more impressive, but not by much. I am especially annoyed when people talk about how much more awesome the players are today compared to a time as recent as the 80's or especially the 90's

Nah it's cool man. I was saying that history tells us that women aren't that fast lol

[LAClipsFan33]

you are right the improvement in sprint speed has not gone up by that much. the difference is that in the 60s, 70s, the NBA was not the premiere destination for athletes the way it is now. Basketball was not as ubiquitous hence the pool of candidates for NBA players was smaller and selective excluded many blacks, to which the game was not available.

60's it was hard for blacks to get in

In the 70's...the athletes were elite

[Clippersfan86]

Maybe my thread should of pushed it out to 70's and up vs 50's-70's. I think my dates on the history of basketball and flood of black players allowed to play was off a decade or two.

[jstern]

I agree. Things haven't changed that much. I think people put to much on how athletic they perceive players to be today. They are a little more impressive, but not by much. I am especially annoyed when people talk about how much more awesome the players are today compared to a time as recent as the 80's or especially the 90's

Nah it's cool man. I was saying that history tells us that women aren't that fast lol

Yeah, me too, especially when talking about the 90s. Like in 2005 you would hear a young kid who loves Kobe saying that Kobe plays in a much more athlectic era than Jordan in the 90s. They don't realize how short of a time 5 years is, much less 10 years.

I think it's just the way people perceive anything before their time. Even myself, when I was younger I saw Wilt Chamberlain lifting weight, and honestly my reaction was like, "They had weights at time?" Like logically I knew that of course they had them, but in a sense for some reason you a kid kind of reacts like that. (Honestly I was like 26, not a kid, I just turned 29).

Or when I was even younger like 9, I would look at this picture of me as a baby in this place called 3rd avenue, and I would go "Wow, 3rd avenue existed such a long time ago." Just 8 years. And you just don't lose that mentality of being a kid and seeing such a short span of time as being really long over night , or as a teen, it takes a few years of being an adult and thinking back to past events.

[KevinNYC]

Also you also have to consider that a white person has never ran the 100 metres dash under 10 seconds
A French guy did it last year. Christophe Lemaitre



If you want to go by those number, 1968 and lets say Kobe's prime, it's only a 2% improvement. So by that we can say that players are 2% more athletic.

But you also have to take into account the number of basketball players now and then. The pool of talent is drawing on is, what, ten or 20 times larger than when Bob Cousy was drafted? This would tend to push up the athleticism of the average player because the cream of the crop is being selected at all positions and there's no spot to hide someone who's not very athletic. I don't know how you measure that, but I think the effect would be greater than 2%

[OhNoTimNoSho]

No, they wouldnt even be bench players, the NBA has advanced light years since those days, Jerry West maybe would be a bench player at best. Cousy and Havlicek wouldnt be starters on good college teams, no amount of work and dedication would give them athletic ability.

[LAClipsFan33]

Yeah, me too, especially when talking about the 90s. Like in 2005 you would hear a young kid who loves Kobe saying that Kobe plays in a much more athlectic era than Jordan in the 90s. They don't realize how short of a time 5 years is, much less 10 years.

I think it's just the way people perceive anything before their time. Even myself, when I was younger I saw Wilt Chamberlain lifting weight, and honestly my reaction was like, "They had weights at time?" Like logically I knew that of course though they did, but in a sense for some reason you ask those questions.

Or when I was even younger like 9, I would look at this picture of me as a baby in this place called 3rd avenue, and I would go "Wow, 3rd avenue existed such a long time ago." Just 8 years. And you just don't lose that mentality of being a kid and seeing such a short span of time as being really long over night , or as a teen, it takes a few years of being an adult and thinking back to past events.

Very true. People also tend to forget about players. They'll talk about how long and athletic players are now and forget that Orlando Woolridge was that player. Then they'll look back like "Damn I forgot they had guys like that back then".

[Harison]

All superstars from the past would do just fine today. Sure, they would need some time to adjust to new rules, etc., but I have no doubt they'll survive. Anyone saying someone like Russell would be bench player today makes me :banghead:

[KevinNYC]

Cousy and Havlicek wouldnt be starters on good college teams, no amount of work and dedication would give them athletic ability.

Spoken, by someone who doesn't know their games.
Havlicek would be like Rip Hamilton's prime. Run, run, run all day long.

[LAClipsFan33]

No, they wouldnt even be bench players, the NBA has advanced light years since those days, Jerry West maybe would be a bench player at best. Cousy and Havlicek wouldnt be starters on good college teams, no amount of work and dedication would give them athletic ability.

LOL. So misinformed...

[jstern]

A French guy did it last year. Christophe Lemaitre



But you also have to take into account the number of basketball players now and then. The pool of talent is drawing on is, what, ten or 20 times larger than when Bob Cousy was drafted? This would tend to push up the athleticism of the average player because the cream of the crop is being selected at all positions and there's no spot to hide someone who's not very athletic. I don't know how you measure that, but I think the effect would be greater than 2%

Interesting new, that it was finally broken.

About your second point, you could also say the same thing about sprinting in those days. It's all relative, and the population was smaller back then. I do take into account that there are more black players, and they are in general more athletic. Like I said earlier, I think basketball really improved skill wise from the the late 50s to the late 60s, but I'm really no expert. Also have to take into account different rules, like dribbling rules that made them less free. They wouldn't have those today. (Seeing Bob Cousey dribble today might seem funny, but it actually took a lot of skills to dribble that way.)



Very true. People also tend to forget about players. They'll talk about how long and athletic players are now and forget that Orlando Woolridge was that player. Then they'll look back like "Damn I forgot they had guys like that back then".


Yeah, that happens to me to. Bottom line, nothing is really new.

[STATUTORY]

60's it was hard for blacks to get in

In the 70's...the athletes were elite

somewhere in the 70s the athletes became close to modern times, in early 70s it still wasn't there. There was an average of 6 white players on every team in the 70s, now that number is close to be 2 or 3.

but that's just the athleticism dimension. the level of skills for perimeter player has been elevated to a new level.

[jlip]

Yes.
See how easy that was.

[TheAnchorman]

somewhere in the 70s the athletes became close to modern times, in early 70s it still wasn't there. There was an average of 6 white players on every team in the 70s, now that number is close to be 2 or 3.

but that's just the athleticism dimension. the level of skills for perimeter player has been elevated to a new level.
IMO the modern NBA athlete emerged after the NBA/ABA merger. The '76 Celtics, the last champion before the merger had subpar athleticism and was made up of lots of hustle/grit/energy guys without that much hops. People like Dr. J and David Thompson came from the ABA and brought their high-flying styles, causing a big shift in the way the game was played.

[G.O.A.T]

Yes.
See how easy that was.

I do think Cousy struggles at first in the time machine scenario. It's been 50 years since he played, and his career started pre-shot clock and integration.

However, Weast and Hondo would probably be better in an era where the court is more spread out and their is a premium of perimeter defense.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

LOL. So misinformed...
Bet you can't prove me wrong

[LAClipsFan33]

Bet you can't prove me wrong

Bet you can't prove yourself right

[PHILA]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

Wow. :wtf:

[OldSchoolBBall]

havelicek and west were athletic and skilled for their era. They never displayed the same level of ball handling and speed/quickness/hops as the average guard of today.

West was 6ft2 and 170 pounds.

West would list at 6'4" today. He was 6'2.5" without shoes, and today they measure in shoes and round up to the nearest inch.

[Kiddlovesnets]

lol another epic fail thread...
:facepalm

[DKLaker]

How the hell would he be Nash? He had no left hand ! He would get raped on the court by quicker guard...the other two would be studs. Jerry West was a baller and would consistantly give buckets to any 2 guard BUT he also played really good D is what people forget..Havlicek is just a basketball player just like Billy Cunningham, Dave Cowens etc. no matter what they/he would have got his on the court.

You beat me to it......lol. :applause:

[Fatal9]

Cousy had some of the funniest anklebreakers.

http://oi33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[STATUTORY]

Cousy had some of the funniest anklebreakers.

http://oi33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

:applause: :roll:
bumping this for the :oldlol: . Cousy would not be able to play in college level if he was brought to today.

Jerry west and havelicek also do not have the most fluid dribble compared to today's players.

[jstern]

:applause: :roll:
bumping this for the :oldlol: . Cousy would not be able to play in college level if he was brought to today.

Jerry west and havelicek also do not have the most fluid dribble compared to today's players.

The thing is that if you put Steve Nash back in the 50s, send him back in time, he would also have to dribble that way. I don't even know how to call that type of dribbling, straight up and down, no turning the hand to the side, else it would be a carry. I think it forces them to run also, since it would be more comfortable running when dribbling that way than walking down the court.

[knickswin]

There is no way Bob Cousy could play in today's NBA. Look at his handles, they're awful. Look at his jumper, it looks like he's passing for an alley-oop.

I don't think most guards had the handles, athleticism, or skills to play today.

Some of the big men could. Kareem without a doubt, probably Wilt but he wouldn't dominate, Bill Russell could but he'd look like Kendrick Perkins on offense.

[jlauber]

Cowherd was talking about this, said a player like Maya Moore and Candace Parker could play than because they are just as athletic.. The fast sprinter back in those days is slower then the fastest woman today in sports

I am supposed to believe that the best women in the world today could play basketball in the NBA in the 60's??????

Cowherd needs to study his NBA history. The players in the 60's weren't shooting set-shots at peach baskets. They had gifted athletes, just as we have today.

Am I supposed to believe that women could hang with say Elgin Baylor, who was 6-5, 225 lbs. and could grab 19 rpg in a league in which the starting centers were over 6-10? Or that a woman could guard Gus Johnson, who at 6-6, 235 lbs, shattered THREE backboards? Or a woman could guard Oscar, who was 6-5 220 lbs? Or a woman could outrebound 6-8 230 lb. Jerry Lucas? Or a woman could keep up with Hal Greer, who was one of the fastest players in the league? Or 6-7 "Kangaroo Kid" Billy Cunningham? Would the best women score against 6-4 Walt Frazier?

How about this...how many women have you seen dunk with a leap from the FT line? Well, would you believe a 6-4 WHITE guy, playing in the 40's and 50's was doing just that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pollard


In the NBA, Pollard was considered one of the best forwards in the 1940s and 1950s, and was known for his leaping ability[1] (Pollard would occasionally dunk from the free throw line during warmups[2]) earning him the nickname "The Kangaroo Kid".



Is there a woman today who is a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (as well as a competitor in the 440) with as high a standing reach as Kareem...like Bill Russell? Is there a woman who could physically stand up to 6-11 245 lb. Nate Thurmond, who had an enormous wing-span?

There were a TON of 6-10 to 7-0 footers back in the 60's, too. Swede Holbrook was 7-3. Tom Boerwinkle was 7-0 260 lbs. Mel Counts, Hank Finkle, and Walter Dukes were all seven-footers. Then there were players like HOFer 6-11 Walt Bellamy, 6-11 Leroy Ellis, and 6-11 Walt Wesley. And, of course, add a good inch to each of them when measured by today's standards. And, BTW, Kareem, who came into the NBA in 1969, was probably taller than his listed 7-2.

Willis Reed was 6-9 235. Wayne Embry was 6-8 250. Luke Jackson was 6-9 260. And players like Havlicek and West could run up-and-down the court at full speed for 48 minutes. And does anyone think that today's women would be as good as Rick Barry? Or shoot as well as Jon McGlocklin? Or be as athletic as Connie Hawkins? Maya Moore at 6-0 170 DUNKING? Well, 5-9 Calvin Murphy was doing it.

The facts were, there were a PLETHORA of 6-8"+ 220+ lb males ATHLETES playing in the BASKETBALL in the 60's...and only a SMALL percentage made it to the NBA.

And yet I am supposed to beliieve that 6-4 175 lb. Candace Parker and 6-0 170 lb. Maya Moore would have made an NBA roster in the 60's? Yeah right.

[pudman13]

You know who seems like the most unlikely star in NBA history to me? Gail Goodrich. He played in a much more athletic era than, say, Cousy, and managed to average 20+ points 6 times, including 25+ twice. We've had some great players who were built similarly (Price, Stockton and Nash come to mind), but none who played the shooting guard position or scored as much as him. I really don't know much about him--he always seems to be in the shadow of Jerry West. Maybe he was an athletic freak like Havlicek, or maybe he was an obsessive practice-10-hours-a-day guy like Maravich or Ernie D. I just don't know.

Sorry to compare him to only white guys; actually a pretty good comparison would also be Tiny Archibald, who was also a lefty and was even smaller, but again Tiny was a point guard not a shooting guard.

[CavaliersFTW]

Cousy made passes and plays that 90% of today's point guards can't make. Showing a (slow motion mind you) clip of him dribbling resulting in a guy tripping means what exactly? Would a slow motion gif of Lebron flopping encapsulate this era?

[Kblaze8855]

Nah. Ive seen Cousy himself say in 1974 that the points of that time were doing things he couldnt. He was a poineer. But he wast doing anything most college points cant do now. And I bet he would tell you so himself.

[inclinerator]

they would be star ballboys

[Psileas]

What if time machines didn't exist and people were born and grew up in certain eras? I know, it's hard to imagine a world without the everyday use of time machines, but let's just make some effort to assume otherwise...




On a more serious note, humans are adaptable beings. If you have the talent, the will and the means, you will succeed, be it in 1980 or 2013 or 2400. Say Jerry West is "transported" today, plays 1 game and only scores 8 points, would this be evidence that he'd be a scrub? Would Jordan's first game (6-17 fg) be evidence that he'd be a bricklayer if it also was his last one?
Would a full season's struggle cut it? How about Steve Nash in his first season? How about Clyde Drexler or Scottie Pippen, even Karl Malone? Not exactly superstar materials at first glance, right? Yet, look how they evolved. What reason would prevent us from believing that someone like West would be able to do the same, even if he faced early struggles (which he actually did in real life, back in the early 1960-61 season)?

[outbreak]

if they grew up in this era then they would likely still be stars as they would have grown up with the modern game

[CavaliersFTW]

Nah. Ive seen Cousy himself say in 1974 that the points of that time were doing things he couldnt. He was a poineer. But he wast doing anything most college points cant do now. And I bet he would tell you so himself.
I can see why Cousy would say that, Cousy couldn't do several of the stand-out things the crop of 1974 guards like Frazier, Archibald, Monroe, etc were doing because a lot of them were either greater defenders and/or much more skilled and polished shooters than he was. What most seperates him from them strictly from the skillset he posessed back then would be his poorer shooting relative to those guards - he never mastered a jump shot, he came into the league when people were still okay with guards shooting set shots from the perimeter. But the plays he was making in the open court - specifically with the aid of the the exceptionally good peripheral vision he had from what I can tell are not routine college point-level. I disagree with that generalization - all the clips I see of him show a player with a special kind of open court vision, like Magic. I think his natural instincts and talents in open court situations were elite then and were what made him special, and that ability that stood out in his game back then would still stand out and be an elite asset today. To be clear, I recognize his deficincies in skill but I believe under different conditions from a young age - he could still build his game up to an elite level.

You may also recall he has pointed out before that he was also a 'freak' with long arms big hands and exceptionally good peripheral vision that helped him play the game on a talent level greater than most other contemporaries and those things he had appear to be more pronounced in him than they do 'most college points'. To be at the NBA level you have to be a combination of more competitive and physically/intellectually gifted than everyone else. He had more of those 3 things than the 15 million or so youths that grew up in his own era playing the game. So I tend to think if he were brought up in a modern program he wouldn't just fizzle out at the college level. That's just my opinion, I respect your input on the subject though.

[sodapop]

Since today's league is soft, a no physical contact league, I believe all NBA players before 1993 would have an easier shot at becoming a star player in today's NBA.