If Patrick Ewing played in the Russell/Wilt era

[Knicksfever2010]

with his physique/athleticism and competitiveness how great would he be viewed? I could see Ewing pushing Russell around like a schoolyard bully.

[Shepseskaf]

Ewing would get his, no matter what era he played in. An all-time great is an all-time great.

Its tough to compare players of different time periods because of the increases in strength and fitness. Ewing would have run rampant over the skinnier, less physical players of the Wilt/Russell times.

[L.Kizzle]

with his physique/athleticism and competitiveness how great would he be viewed? I could see Ewing pushing Russell around like a schoolyard bully.
Wilt didn't push Russell around and Wilt was bigger and stronger, so I doubt Pat would.

He'd be the 3rd or 4th best center in the league, battling with Willis Reed for that spot. He'd be ahead of Thurmond and Bellamy.

[bmd]

I think people inflate the skills of players from the past because of their mythical status. No way Ewing would have been 4th best. He would have dominated everybody in the league.

He would be doing things that the players back then didn't even know existed yet. He would be so technically superior.

[gengiskhan]

with his physique/athleticism and competitiveness how great would he be viewed? I could see Ewing pushing Russell around like a schoolyard bully.

Its hard to imagine such a complete center FAILED to win even one DPOY title in '90s or even 1 season MVP.

It still baffles me. D'Rob got 1. Hakeem got 1. Shaq got 1. Ewing got NONE despite playing on such great team as '90s NYK thanks to MJ.

But even if Ewing couldnt win season MVP, he FAILED to win a SINGLE DPOY on such great defensive minded team like 1992-1997 NYK.

Ewing is a SUPREME UNDERACHIEVER as the greatest HOYAS. Even Mourning has 2 DPOY titles.

Dunno what he would've accomplished against Wilt or Russell. They probably show ewing up too.

[Pushxx]

Wilt didn't push Russell around and Wilt was bigger and stronger, so I doubt Pat would.

He'd be the 3rd or 4th best center in the league, battling with Willis Reed for that spot. He'd be ahead of Thurmond and Bellamy.

Pretty much this.

[jongib369]

He would do great, but wouldn't be better than Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Kareem(was in wilt era) and a few others you could make arguments for.

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2hoidk3.jpg

[Whoah10115]

Ewing would be absolutely the 3rd best center. Kareem came in after Russell retired...why are we ranking them all?


Ewing is better than Thurmond. Ewing is better than Reed also.

[jongib369]

Ewing would be absolutely the 3rd best center. Kareem came in after Russell retired...why are we ranking them all?


Ewing is better than Thurmond. Ewing is better than Reed also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh90_lXqh5o

Considering how well he played Kareem and Wilt on defense I couldn't take Ewing over Thurmond.

[ProfessorMurder]

Ewing is a SUPREME UNDERACHIEVER as the greatest HOYAS. Even Mourning has 2 DPOY titles.

You can't hold him responsible for the media/coaches not voting for him. He anchored great defenses and was a premiere super star in a huge market.

He'd be the MVP and DPOY if he was putting up his 1990 stats today. Nobody in the league is averaging 20/10 and he did it 9 years straight against great centers while averaging just under 3 blocks.

[Psileas]

He would do great, but wouldn't be better than Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Kareem(was in wilt era) and a few others you could make arguments for.

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2hoidk3.jpg

Man, I'd love to see that 2/2/86 destruction. That's disgusting, and Kareem is almost 39 there!
Even at 40-almost 42, he still plays Ewing to a standstill and occassionally outplays him (1988-01-02). 1989 Ewing is only 1 year away from his statistical peak.

As for the question, it depends on the team he'd play for and his starting season, but individually and assuming he starts in 1960, he'd probably be a solid #3 in most seasons, since he was a better defender than Bellamy, a better offensive player than Thurmond and more durable than Reed. He has no case over Wilt or Kareem and not the intangibles of Russell.

[La Frescobaldi]

Patrick Ewing 6'10 240 lbs
Bill Russell 6'10 205
Kevin Garnett 6'11 210
Al Jefferson 6'10 240
Nikola Pekovic 6'11 285

Willis Reed 6'10 245
Reggie Harding 7-0 249
Mel Counts 7-0 230
Darrall Imhoff 6-10 220
Nate Thurmond 6'11 230
Wilt Chamberlain 7'1" 275
Erwin Mueller 6'8" 230

If he had been born in the 1930s he'd weigh probably 20 lbs less, since weight lifting wasn't a big deal until Wilt and a couple other guys showed what it could do for a player. But if you let it go at his listed weight, Patrick would be the right size to play in the '60s.

His offense would be exposed by Willis Reed & Nate Thurmond and he'd be destroyed by Russell or Chamberlain. Patrick was a great defender but he isn't at that level. Willis Reed tore up Kareem something fierce; he'd have little problems with Ewing.
Ewing would get a starting spot on the Bulls over Mueller, for sure the Royals would love to have him instead of Connie Dierking. Patrick was better than Zelmo Beatty over on the Hawks too, tho maybe not as strong. ZB was really powerful.
http://www.remembertheaba.com/tributematerial/PlayerMaterial/ZelmoBeaty/BeatyBlockIsselHookNice.jpg
Here's Z going after 6'9 235 Dan Issel, one of the all time great forwards.


When you figure the 10 team NBA of the mid-60s, yeah Patrick Ewing would have a starting spot on one of those teams. He wouldn't start ahead of Wilt, nor Russell, nor Willis, nor Nate Thurmond.

It would be real interesting to see him battle Leroy Ellis. Ellis is totally forgotten today but he was a real solid center, better than the bottom half of the centers Ewing played against in the 90s. Leroy had a good outside game, could actually box out Bill Russell at times, and ran the court like a deer.

People think those guys in the 60s were mediocre but that's because they didn't watch basketball in those days. Fact is, they were America's elite basketball players. All of them would find a starting job in the NBA, in any year, of any era.

[La Frescobaldi]

Ewing would be absolutely the 3rd best center. Kareem came in after Russell retired...why are we ranking them all?


Ewing is better than Thurmond. Ewing is better than Reed also.
No he isn't.

[willds09]

Ewing wud at least get a ring or two

[senelcoolidge]

If Ewing played in that era he would probably be the 2nd best center in the league behind Wilt.

[bmd]

Patrick Ewing 6'10 240 lbs
Bill Russell 6'10 205
Kevin Garnett 6'11 210
Al Jefferson 6'10 240
Nikola Pekovic 6'11 285

Willis Reed 6'10 245
Reggie Harding 7-0 249
Mel Counts 7-0 230
Darrall Imhoff 6-10 220
Nate Thurmond 6'11 230
Wilt Chamberlain 7'1" 275
Erwin Mueller 6'8" 230

If he had been born in the 1930s he'd weigh probably 20 lbs less, since weight lifting wasn't a big deal until Wilt and a couple other guys showed what it could do for a player. But if you let it go at his listed weight, Patrick would be the right size to play in the '60s.

His offense would be exposed by Willis Reed & Nate Thurmond and he'd be destroyed by Russell or Chamberlain. Patrick was a great defender but he isn't at that level. Willis Reed tore up Kareem something fierce; he'd have little problems with Ewing.
Ewing would get a starting spot on the Bulls over Mueller, for sure the Royals would love to have him instead of Connie Dierking. Patrick was better than Zelmo Beatty over on the Hawks too, tho maybe not as strong. ZB was really powerful.
http://www.remembertheaba.com/tributematerial/PlayerMaterial/ZelmoBeaty/BeatyBlockIsselHookNice.jpg
Here's Z going after 6'9 235 Dan Issel, one of the all time great forwards.


When you figure the 10 team NBA of the mid-60s, yeah Patrick Ewing would have a starting spot on one of those teams. He wouldn't start ahead of Wilt, nor Russell, nor Willis, nor Nate Thurmond.

It would be real interesting to see him battle Leroy Ellis. Ellis is totally forgotten today but he was a real solid center, better than the bottom half of the centers Ewing played against in the 90s. Leroy had a good outside game, could actually box out Bill Russell at times, and ran the court like a deer.

People think those guys in the 60s were mediocre but that's because they didn't watch basketball in those days. Fact is, they were America's elite basketball players. All of them would find a starting job in the NBA, in any year, of any era.1. Wilt was not 275 pounds in the Russell/Wilt era. That was late in his career.

2. Do you honestly think Wilt is better than the centers in the '90's? Back then, the NBA wasn't what it was in the '90's. Most people didn't work on their sport their whole lives in order to make a career out of it. By the time the '90's came around, WAY more people were playing basketball and making a career out of playing basketball. The '60's had a shallow talent pool.

3. Ewing had way more skills and technique in the '90's. He's had an extra 30 years of basketball knowledge that he was taught that they didn't have in the '60's. If you transplanted '90's Ewing and dropped him off into the 1960's, he would be technically superior. Just imagine how much football has progressed since the 1960's. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are so much more advanced in their knowledge than the QB's of the '60's. It's absurd to think the best players of the '60's are better than the best players in the '90's and '00's.

[Blue&Orange]

I think people inflate the skills of players from the past because of their mythical status. No way Ewing would have been 4th best. He would have dominated everybody in the league.

He would be doing things that the players back then didn't even know existed yet. He would be so technically superior.
I always thought this kinda of comparisons were based on the players being born on that era, not that somehow they travel through time.

[bmd]

Man, I'd love to see that 2/2/86 destruction. That's disgusting, and Kareem is almost 39 there!
Ewing played only 24 minutes compared to Kareem's 40 minutes. Which means half of the game Kareem was scoring against somebody else.

How do we know that Kareem didn't score all 40 on somebody else and scored 0 on Ewing?

We don't know that.

We'd have to watch the game to see if it was destruction or not. Although Ewing's FG% was pitiful.

[bmd]

I always thought this kinda of comparisons were based on the players being born on that era, not that somehow they travel through time.But that's even more ridiculous.

You'd have to be like "well, they didn't lift weights back then, so you'd have to figure Ewing would be 20 pounds lighter. Oh, and they didn't know about X, Y, Z, techniques back then, so Ewing wouldn't know about that."

By the time you get done with it, you have so many ridiculous hypotheticals that it makes no sense.

You can't just take Ewing's skills away from him and strip him down and then compare him. That makes no sense.

You can either compare them relative to the era they were playing in, or you can compare them straight up as they are. You can't throw in a bunch of hypotheticals about how good they would be if they grew up in that particular era. Makes no sense.

[L.Kizzle]

1. Wilt was not 275 pounds in the Russell/Wilt era. That was late in his career.

2. Do you honestly think Wilt is better than the centers in the '90's? Back then, the NBA wasn't what it was in the '90's. Most people didn't work on their sport their whole lives in order to make a career out of it. By the time the '90's came around, WAY more people were playing basketball and making a career out of playing basketball. The '60's had a shallow talent pool.

3. Ewing had way more skills and technique in the '90's. He's had an extra 30 years of basketball knowledge that he was taught that they didn't have in the '60's. If you transplanted '90's Ewing and dropped him off into the 1960's, he would be technically superior. Just imagine how much football has progressed since the 1960's. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are so much more advanced in their knowledge than the QB's of the '60's. It's absurd to think the best players of the '60's are better than the best players in the '90's and '00's.
Earlier in the thread a 40 year old Kareem drops 40 on a 22 year old Patrick Ewing. Those advanced skills and new technics Pat had learned sure did show old Kareem a thing or two didn't he, lol.

[PHILA]

1. Wilt was not 275 pounds in the Russell/Wilt era. That was late in his career.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=261350

Playing Weight:
258 - rookie
265 - 3rd season
292 - 5th season
275 - mid career
285 - mid-late career
300 - late career
320 - maximum (training camp of 5th season)

According to Wayne Embry, Wilt was physically pushed around as a rookie.



The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA - Wayne Embry

http://i.imgur.com/gykGc.png





By retirement he was roughly 315 lbs, which is the same weight he reported to Warriors camp at in '63. In this era with a far slower pace, he would likely maintain and play at 310+ lbs from his 4th year onward. After the first week or two of training camp he was down to 292 lbs.


Meriden Journal - Sep 6, 1963 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CqxIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xwANAAAAIBAJ&pg=3715,469887&dq)

http://i.imgur.com/9hHKU.png





http://i.imgur.com/F8ayu.png
http://i.imgur.com/7Nkzu.png
http://i.imgur.com/YRmNb.png

[bmd]

Earlier in the thread a 40 year old Kareem drops 40 on a 22 year old Patrick Ewing. Those advanced skills and new technics Pat had learned sure did show old Kareem a thing or two didn't he, lol.Umm... Kareem and Ewing were both playing in the same game. Clearly they both had the same knowledge.

[L.Kizzle]

Umm... Kareem and Ewing were both playing in the same game. Clearly they both had the same knowledge.
You stated Ewing had an extra 30 years on knowledge. Yet those years of knowledge did nothing for him as Kareem dominated him. Kareem is from the same era as Russell/Wilt and played all the way up to the Bird/Magic/Jordan era.

If Pat can't even dominate an aging Kareem in the mid 80s, what makes you think he can dominate Kareem and others 20/30 years earlier?

[Psileas]

Ewing played only 24 minutes compared to Kareem's 40 minutes. Which means half of the game Kareem was scoring against somebody else.

How do we know that Kareem didn't score all 40 on somebody else and scored 0 on Ewing?

We don't know that.

We'd have to watch the game to see if it was destruction or not. Although Ewing's FG% was pitiful.

First of all, because scoring 40 points in 16 minutes is completely unrealistic to expect and we'd definitely have heard about such an exploit, especially by a 39 y.o. Second, I've looked up the archives and never read anything close to Ewing holding Kareem scoreless. On the contrary, they mention that he faced foul problems, while not making any points about some crazy scoring run by Kareem, which means that he probaby balanced his scoring throughout the game, scoring his share of points on Ewing. Even if he only scored half of them on him, 20 in 24 minutes, this is already pretty bad. 3-17 FG's and 5 fouls in 24 minutes on Ewing's behalf spell more trouble...

[Whoah10115]

No he isn't.



He's actually tiers above. You've seen Nate more than I have but I've seen enough of Nate to know. First of all, Ewing is definitely more than 240 and he's taller than 6'10. He's 7'0 with shoes. Second, Ewing is simply better. He was athletic back in the late 80's and early 90's.


He's a better shot-blocker than Thurmond and a much better offensive player. He'd only rebound more in that era, and he would score more. His FG%, before his knees nearly gave out, ranged between 52-57%. He was great at the line. Defensively, he's a better anchor than Thurmond. Thurmond is a better 1v1 post defender, but he didn't affect team defense the way Ewing did.


Reed is not as good as Patrick. He's not even the better defender.

[La Frescobaldi]

1. Wilt was not 275 pounds in the Russell/Wilt era. That was late in his career.
Yes, he was, as a Sixer. He weighed 300+ as a Laker.

2. Do you honestly think Wilt is better than the centers in the '90's? Yes, absolutely. Wilt is the greatest Center of all time.
Back then, the NBA wasn't what it was in the '90's. Most people didn't work on their sport their whole lives in order to make a career out of it. By the time the '90's came around, WAY more people were playing basketball and making a career out of playing basketball. Correct. Skills have advanced, techniques and technology have grown, knowledge has expanded. People are the same - size, ability, brain power, human nature - has not changed since the ancient Greeks and, barring something like a radioactive event, probably never will.The '60's had a shallow talent pool. I could argue this point, but we can let it stand. The best players were in the NBA or on the Globetrotters.

3. Ewing had way more skills and technique in the '90's. He's had an extra 30 years of basketball knowledge that he was taught that they didn't have in the '60's. As I pointed out. If he'd been born in the 1930s he wouldn't have lifted weights, for example. How would a stick thin Patrick Ewing have fared in the NBA? If you transplanted '90's Ewing and dropped him off into the 1960's, he would be technically superior. Just imagine how much football has progressed since the 1960's. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are so much more advanced in their knowledge than the QB's of the '60's. It's absurd to think the best players of the '60's are better than the best players in the '90's and '00's.
It's not absurd at all. Lots and lots of guys in the 60s started playing basketball in grade school, and lots of guys in the 90s started playing in junior high. A great many centers to this day don't play serious basketball until they suddenly grow much taller. Andrew Bynum is only 1 example

Looks like we completely disagree on this subject.
Naturally if you transported Earl Monroe to 1994, you'd have to change his knowledge, and you'd have to pour film of the last 30 years into his head.

An interesting comparison, outside of basketball, is those guys that were in the Civil War. How many men today could go straight off to a barracks ground , get issued a 14 lb. rifle, strap 60 lbs on their back, and march 10 miles their first day in the army? Very, very few. I would doubt 5 in a 100,000 could do that today. Does that mean today's men are weaker than they were 150 years ago? Sure it does. The ability is still there today, but the technique, the years of work, the skills, the knowledge... is not.

[La Frescobaldi]

He's actually tiers above. You've seen Nate more than I have but I've seen enough of Nate to know. First of all, Ewing is definitely more than 240 and he's taller than 6'10. He's 7'0 with shoes. Second, Ewing is simply better. He was athletic back in the late 80's and early 90's.


He's a better shot-blocker than Thurmond and a much better offensive player. He'd only rebound more in that era, and he would score more. His FG%, before his knees nearly gave out, ranged between 52-57%. He was great at the line. Defensively, he's a better anchor than Thurmond. Thurmond is a better 1v1 post defender, but he didn't affect team defense the way Ewing did.


Reed is not as good as Patrick. He's not even the better defender.

If you want to measure Patrick in shoes and add 2 inches to his draft height, then add 2 inches to Nate and make him 7'1. Yeah Patrick Ewing is one of the greats, I watched his whole career. He never had close to the basketball insights that Nate Thurmond had. Sure he watched film by the hundreds of hours, and he had coaches that learned how to play basketball by competing against Nate Thurmond. It's an absurdity to think Ewing's abilities are the greater. He had the advantage of time, that's all.
That's like some guy taking an M1 tank back to the Revolutionary War. Sure he'd be a better warrior than anybody of the day. Comparing ability is not the same thing as comparing technique.

[CavaliersFTW]

1. Wilt was not 275 pounds in the Russell/Wilt era. That was late in his career.

2. Do you honestly think Wilt is better than the centers in the '90's? Back then, the NBA wasn't what it was in the '90's. Most people didn't work on their sport their whole lives in order to make a career out of it. By the time the '90's came around, WAY more people were playing basketball and making a career out of playing basketball. The '60's had a shallow talent pool.

3. Ewing had way more skills and technique in the '90's. He's had an extra 30 years of basketball knowledge that he was taught that they didn't have in the '60's. If you transplanted '90's Ewing and dropped him off into the 1960's, he would be technically superior. Just imagine how much football has progressed since the 1960's. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are so much more advanced in their knowledge than the QB's of the '60's. It's absurd to think the best players of the '60's are better than the best players in the '90's and '00's.
Wilt was 292lbs from 1964 onwards and he was a 258lb rookie - so actually the overwhelming majority of his career against "Russell" was played at 275lbs and up. Wilt was over 300lbs as a Laker "after the Bill Russell era" and actually if I'm being totally honest, he weighed 320lbs coming IN to the 1964 season before he shed pounds to get to his playing weight so he was already packing on well over 300lbs in the off seasons in the early to mid 60's.

[ProfessorMurder]

As I pointed out. If he'd been born in the 1930s he wouldn't have lifted weights, for example. How would a stick thin Patrick Ewing have fared in the NBA?

Ewing in college was as big or bigger than Bill Russell, just not as toned.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1003/pat.ewing.georgetown.years/images/patrick-ewing.001308693.jpg

http://blog.sfgate.com/thebigevent/files/2012/03/bill-russell-600x433.jpg

And yeah, they lifted weights back in the 60s so Ewing would bulk up at a professional level too.

[CavaliersFTW]

He's actually tiers above. You've seen Nate more than I have but I've seen enough of Nate to know. First of all, Ewing is definitely more than 240 and he's taller than 6'10. He's 7'0 with shoes. Second, Ewing is simply better. He was athletic back in the late 80's and early 90's.


He's a better shot-blocker than Thurmond and a much better offensive player. He'd only rebound more in that era, and he would score more. His FG%, before his knees nearly gave out, ranged between 52-57%. He was great at the line. Defensively, he's a better anchor than Thurmond. Thurmond is a better 1v1 post defender, but he didn't affect team defense the way Ewing did.


Reed is not as good as Patrick. He's not even the better defender.
Not so sure you know enough about Thurmond to be saying what he was or wasn't better at Ewing than. I'd give the offensive edge to Ewing, but the defensive edge to Thurmond, from what I've seen and read. And I mean "team defense" included. Thurmond was not just a 1 on 1 post defender, he was what Alex Hannum describes as a "between Russell and Chamberlain" defender, and he was referring to Nate's mobility and ability to roam out of the key farther than Wilt could (but not quite as far as Russell) to give hell to guys farther out than the key, so he was not just bullying centers. Also there are quotes of teammates describing other teams forwards and guards wanting to know where Nate was before shooting so that he didn't come out of nowhere and block their shots and disrupt plays outside the paint too

[Whoah10115]

Not so sure you know enough about Thurmond to be saying what he was or wasn't better at Ewing than. I'd give the offensive edge to Ewing, but the defensive edge to Thurmond, from what I've seen and read. And I mean "team defense" included. Thurmond was not just a 1 on 1 post defender, he was what Alex Hannum describes as a "between Russell and Chamberlain" defender, and he was referring to Nate's mobility and ability to roam out of the key farther than Wilt could (but not quite as far as Russell) to give hell to guys farther out than the key, so he was not just bullying centers. Also there are quotes of teammates describing other teams forwards and guards wanting to know where Nate was before shooting so that he didn't come out of nowhere and block their shots and disrupt plays outside the paint too



I didn't say Thurmond wasn't the better overall defender, much less that he was only a 1v1 post defender. I said Ewing was a better anchor and overall rim protector than Thurmond was. Thurmond was better overall, but Ewing was an easier to defensive piece to build around, as anchoring a team defense was his greatest defensive strength.

[La Frescobaldi]

I didn't say Thurmond wasn't the better overall defender, much less that he was only a 1v1 post defender. I said Ewing was a better anchor and overall rim protector than Thurmond was. Thurmond was better overall, but Ewing was an easier to defensive piece to build around, as anchoring a team defense was his greatest defensive strength.
those are techniques my friend. Imponderable.
I'm not certain Patrick was a better rim protector than Nate was. Nate had a very serious vertical, and he scared a lot of great scorers with his high flying defense. It's close though. Ewing is one of the greats, no question about it. He'd stand his ground and get his licks in, on anybody.

[bmd]

Looks like we completely disagree on this subject.
Naturally if you transported Earl Monroe to 1994, you'd have to change his knowledge, and you'd have to pour film of the last 30 years into his head.

An interesting comparison, outside of basketball, is those guys that were in the Civil War. How many men today could go straight off to a barracks ground , get issued a 14 lb. rifle, strap 60 lbs on their back, and march 10 miles their first day in the army? Very, very few. I would doubt 5 in a 100,000 could do that today. Does that mean today's men are weaker than they were 150 years ago? Sure it does. The ability is still there today, but the technique, the years of work, the skills, the knowledge... is not.Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.

So not only are the best athletes playing sports for a living today, but the population is so much larger today than in the '60's.

So what you have now is a much, much richer talent pool than in the 1960's. It isn't even close. Which means better athletes, and better players.

Secondly, everything else today is much better. Players play so much more basketball today growing up than they did in the past. Kids play pick up games all day, play on teams all through school, outside of school, etc. all against the best players from all over the country. They go to basketball camps, they have private trainers, etc.

Coaching is more advanced, techniques have evolved, strength training has evolved, etc.

The athletes competing today are the best of the best, and they have more knowledge than they had in the '60's. It's not even a comparison.

Could you imagine Hakeem Olajuwon working all of his post moves against the competition in the 1960's?

Or LeBron James playing back then?

Or what about Vince Carter? Do you know how amazed people back then would be to see Vince Carter do some of the dunks he did in the 2000 slam dunk contest? If Vince Carter got in a time machine and played in the 1960's, he would be hailed as the greatest player ever.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.

So not only are the best athletes playing sports for a living today, but the population is so much larger today than in the '60's.

So what you have now is a much, much richer talent pool than in the 1960's. It isn't even close. Which means better athletes, and better players.

Secondly, everything else today is much better. Players play so much more basketball today growing up than they did in the past. Kids play pick up games all day, play on teams all through school, outside of school, etc. all against the best players from all over the country. They go to basketball camps, they have private trainers, etc.

Coaching is more advanced, techniques have evolved, strength training has evolved, etc.

The athletes competing today are the best of the best, and they have more knowledge than they had in the '60's. It's not even a comparison.

Could you imagine Hakeem Olajuwon working all of his post moves against the competition in the 1960's?

Or LeBron James playing back then?

Or what about Vince Carter? Do you know how amazed people back then would be to see Vince Carter do some of the dunks he did in the 2000 slam dunk contest? If Vince Carter got in a time machine and played in the 1960's, he would be hailed as the greatest player ever.
Gus Johnson was dunking from the free throw line in games and shattered 3 backboards back then, nobody hailed him as the "greatest of all time". If Vince was doing what he did back then some players would hold him in high esteem for his athleticism while others would call him out for hotdogging. Fans who went out to watch games at an arena would be ooh'd and ahhh'd for a few plays in the span of the game, and would go home and talk about it, and 40 years later someone would try to tell you how athletic he was and you would say "HAHAHA, NOPE SHOW ME FILM. TODAY'S PLAYERS >>> "

[L.Kizzle]

Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.

So not only are the best athletes playing sports for a living today, but the population is so much larger today than in the '60's.

So what you have now is a much, much richer talent pool than in the 1960's. It isn't even close. Which means better athletes, and better players.

Secondly, everything else today is much better. Players play so much more basketball today growing up than they did in the past. Kids play pick up games all day, play on teams all through school, outside of school, etc. all against the best players from all over the country. They go to basketball camps, they have private trainers, etc.

Coaching is more advanced, techniques have evolved, strength training has evolved, etc.

The athletes competing today are the best of the best, and they have more knowledge than they had in the '60's. It's not even a comparison.

Could you imagine Hakeem Olajuwon working all of his post moves against the competition in the 1960's?

Or LeBron James playing back then?

Or what about Vince Carter? Do you know how amazed people back then would be to see Vince Carter do some of the dunks he did in the 2000 slam dunk contest? If Vince Carter got in a time machine and played in the 1960's, he would be hailed as the greatest player ever.
How would Hakeem show off his post moves back then is they didn't exist like you stated?


How would LeBron play in the 60s when you said all the best athletes didn't play sports? LeBron would probably be a bassist for Earth, Wind and Fire if he was born in 1944, right.


Vince wouldn't be dunking back in 1961, because no one hardly dunked? Why would he be dunking? He's get clotheslined by Bill Sharman for showboating.

[bmd]

How would Hakeem show off his post moves back then is they didn't exist like you stated?


How would LeBron play in the 60s when you said all the best athletes didn't play sports? LeBron would probably be a bassist for Earth, Wind and Fire if he was born in 1944, right.


Vince wouldn't be dunking back in 1961, because no one hardly dunked? Why would he be dunking? He's get clotheslined by Bill Sharman for showboating.I'm not talking about them growing up during that time. I'm saying if you had a time machine and dropped off prime Hakeem, LeBron, and Vince back in the '60's, with all of their skills they had in their prime, they would dominate.

[HardwoodLegend]

If Patrick Ewing played in the Russell/Wilt era, the more honest refs of the time would have exposed his lack of fundamentals and called him out on his constant traveling.

10th ranked center at best.

[L.Kizzle]

I'm not talking about them growing up during that time. I'm saying if you had a time machine and dropped off prime Hakeem, LeBron, and Vince back in the '60's, with all of their skills they had in their prime, they would dominate.
They'd dominate as much as Pettit, Baylor and Robertson did at the same time.

The best players transcend time periods.

Russell/Wilt/West/Baylor/Pettit/Robertson were the best of their time, leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else.

It's no different then the era with Shaq/Duncan/Kobe/Garnett, ect were leaps ahead of everyone else in that era.

[La Frescobaldi]

Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.

So not only are the best athletes playing sports for a living today, but the population is so much larger today than in the '60's.

So what you have now is a much, much richer talent pool than in the 1960's. It isn't even close. Which means better athletes, and better players.

Secondly, everything else today is much better. Players play so much more basketball today growing up than they did in the past. Kids play pick up games all day, play on teams all through school, outside of school, etc. all against the best players from all over the country. They go to basketball camps, they have private trainers, etc.

Coaching is more advanced, techniques have evolved, strength training has evolved, etc.

The athletes competing today are the best of the best, and they have more knowledge than they had in the '60's. It's not even a comparison.

Could you imagine Hakeem Olajuwon working all of his post moves against the competition in the 1960's?

Or LeBron James playing back then?

Or what about Vince Carter? Do you know how amazed people back then would be to see Vince Carter do some of the dunks he did in the 2000 slam dunk contest? If Vince Carter got in a time machine and played in the 1960's, he would be hailed as the greatest player ever.

Absolutely valid points; statistically you would think there can be no answer to it. But in fact, I have to reject nearly all of it.

Why does the tiny country of Montenegro, with a population of a few hundred thousand people, have 2 starting centers in the NBA today? What are the odds that such a miniscule place would have the tallest people in the world per capita? Here we have an entire world of 5 billion people - yet 2 of 30 starting centers in the world's greatest basketball league hail from a place most people have never heard of.

It's always fascinated me that so many brilliant people were thrown onto the world's stage in the 1960s. Why did that generation produce such greatness? In music, Jimi Hendrix, and the Beatles, the Allman Brothers, Eric Clapton and all the rest? Incomparable giants of sports - basketball alone had Russell, West, Chamberlain, Monroe, Reed, Frazier, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Unseld, Alcinder, Maravich.... amazing strides in technology, civil rights, medicine, politics, nationally and globally..... invented lasers and went to the moon.

It was a Renaissance that has happened a few times in all of man's history.

Directly to the point though, it's a fallacy to say kids are active in sports more now than they were then. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Nowadays people spend hours and weeks in front of computers, not out on the field or the court. In the 60s, 70s, 80s, you couldn't find a tennis court that wasn't filled and people standing around the courts waiting to play - nowadays it's difficult to find anyone who plays at all, and courts stand empty. Basketball courts go for weeks without a ball bouncing on them in many parks; baseball diamonds are drowning in weeds. Obesity is an enormous problem (pun intended....) I read somewhere that as much as 60% of America is overweight. Better diet? That's a laugh. Companies openly use steroids to bulk up their food products, inject water in meat to sell by weight, use fertilizer rather than allow land to lay fallow, feed cattle steroids to produce more milk......

No, really, "the pool is larger" is only true to a certain point.

[julizaver]

He would do great, but wouldn't be better than Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Kareem(was in wilt era) and a few others you could make arguments for.

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2hoidk3.jpg

That's says it all. Kareem starting his career in 1969 faced all of the great centers with the exception of Russell who played from 1960 till early 2000s - so he could be used as bridge between different generations. The fact that much younger Hakeem, Ewing were not able to outplayed him even in his 40s sums it all.
The only players who were able to contend him (to some extent of course) or dominate him in some games were Wilt and Nate. All the others were outplayed by Kareem. He was better than Walton, Reed, Hayes, Lanier, Bellamy, Unseld ...

In my opinion Ewing will be rated right after Thurmond, behind Wilt and Russell and on par with Bellamy.

[L.Kizzle]

That's says it all. Kareem starting his career in 1969 faced all of the great centers with the exception of Russell who played from 1960 till early 2000s - so he could be used as bridge between different generations. The fact that much younger Hakeem, Ewing were not able to outplayed him even in his 40s sums it all.
The only players who were able to contend him (to some extent of course) or dominate him in some games were Wilt and Nate. All the others were outplayed by Kareem. He was better than Walton, Reed, Hayes, Lanier, Bellamy, Unseld ...

In my opinion Ewing will be rated right after Thurmond, behind Wilt and Russell and on par with Bellamy.
He's much better than Bellamy. Bellamy may be one of the more overrated players ever.

[ThaRegul8r]

Directly to the point though, it's a fallacy to say kids are active in sports more now than they were then. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Nowadays people spend hours and weeks in front of computers, not out on the field or the court. In the 60s, 70s, 80s, you couldn't find a tennis court that wasn't filled and people standing around the courts waiting to play - nowadays it's difficult to find anyone who plays at all, and courts stand empty. Basketball courts go for weeks without a ball bouncing on them in many parks; baseball diamonds are drowning in weeds. Obesity is an enormous problem (pun intended....) I read somewhere that as much as 60% of America is overweight.

I regularly see a report in the news or some article in a magazine about the obesity epidemic, and politicans have spoken about getting kids out and exercising. I recall a commercial in which an athlete (I don't recall whether it was an NBA player or not) was talking about the need to get kids active instead of playing video games. I regularly see commercials about getting at least 30 minutes of exercise a day. So, as you've pointed out, the assertion that kids are more active now is patently false. It has no basis in fact. Which goes to demonstrate how falsehoods are stated for the purpose of furthering agendas.

[bmd]

I regularly see a report in the news or some article in a magazine about the obesity epidemic, and politicans have spoken about getting kids out and exercising. I recall a commercial in which an athlete (I don't recall whether it was an NBA player or not) was talking about the need to get kids active instead of playing video games. I regularly see commercials about getting at least 30 minutes of exercise a day. So, as you've pointed out, the assertion that kids are more active now is patently false. It has no basis in fact. Which goes to demonstrate how falsehoods are stated for the purpose of furthering agendas.That's all good and well... but I never said that kids are more active today.

I said that basketball players today grow up playing more basketball than they did in the '60's.

There wasn't AAU in the '60's. They didn't have personal instructors like they do now. Basketball players from a very young age are playing organized basketball today.

That is my point.

[CavaliersFTW]

That's all good and well... but I never said that kids are more active today.

I said that basketball players today grow up playing more basketball than they did in the '60's.

There wasn't AAU in the '60's. They didn't have personal instructors like they do now. Basketball players from a very young age are playing organized basketball today.

That is my point.
It still isn't true though, watch documentaries on guys like Connie Hawkins Jerry West or Pete Maravich and listen to them talk about how they grew up playing organized basketball. I know it must seem like the stone age to you but even back then kids were growing up playing organized basketball. Basketball was already very popular in the 50's and 60's. It had been around for like 70 years at that point and there were Pro leagues, the Globetrotters, and of course "Cager" college ball for kids to look forward too. When Pro games were on TV the one or two times a week they got air time everyone saw them too, as there were like 3 channels being broadcast back then.

[bmd]

It still isn't true though, watch documentaries on guys like Connie Hawkins Jerry West or Pete Maravich and listen to them talk about how they grew up playing organized basketball. I know it must seem like the stone age to you but even back then kids were growing up playing organized basketball. Basketball was already very popular in the 50's and 60's. It had been around for like 70 years at that point and there were Pro leagues, the Globetrotters, and of course "Cager" college ball for kids to look forward too. When Pro games were on TV the one or two times a week they got air time everyone saw them too, as there were like 3 channels being broadcast back then.If basketball in the 60's was as good as you say it was, Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points in a game, and he wouldn't have had as many 70 point games as he did, if any.

And as far as organized basketball goes, you named 3 people. The majority were not playing ball like kids do today. All of these NBA players today have known each other for years because they've played against each other in tournaments around the country growing up.

[Blue&Orange]

But that's even more ridiculous.

You'd have to be like "well, they didn't lift weights back then, so you'd have to figure Ewing would be 20 pounds lighter. Oh, and they didn't know about X, Y, Z, techniques back then, so Ewing wouldn't know about that."

By the time you get done with it, you have so many ridiculous hypotheticals that it makes no sense.

You can't just take Ewing's skills away from him and strip him down and then compare him. That makes no sense.

You can either compare them relative to the era they were playing in, or you can compare them straight up as they are. You can't throw in a bunch of hypotheticals about how good they would be if they grew up in that particular era. Makes no sense.
I love how you're worried about adding hypotheticals to something that itself it's a hypothetical scenario.

Yes time travel makes more sense, let's put Ewing 1994 on a time travel machine.

Know what? Since time travelling is allowed, before you putted Ewing on a time travel machine, i'v sent Hakeem with a lot of ped's like 3 years ago, now Russel and Wilt are even more skilled and stronger. Now what?

[Tking714]

Only thing Ewing has over Wilt and Russell is a jumper.

[Whoah10115]

If Patrick Ewing played in the Russell/Wilt era, the more honest refs of the time would have exposed his lack of fundamentals and called him out on his constant traveling.

10th ranked center at best.


8th. That's all.

[L.Kizzle]

If basketball in the 60's was as good as you say it was, Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points in a game, and he wouldn't have had as many 70 point games as he did, if any.

And as far as organized basketball goes, you named 3 people. The majority were not playing ball like kids do today. All of these NBA players today have known each other for years because they've played against each other in tournaments around the country growing up.
Stop it. Earl Monroe played in leagues when he was younger and their was AAU teams back in the 60s. The Rucker leagues in NYC were not exacly And 1 type of leagues. It was real shit. Bill Russell started playin at a young age, unlike guys like Akeem, Duncan, Bynum who started around 15-17 years old. More ball was being played 50 years ago then today.

[SilkkTheShocker]

An old, broken-down Ewing outplayed prime Zo in the playoffs. Think of what prime Ewing would do to Russell and Wilt :oldlol: Ewing would be the one with 11 rings.

[L.Kizzle]

An old, broken-down Ewing outplayed prime Zo in the playoffs. Think of what prime Ewing would do to Russell and Wilt :oldlol: Ewing would be the one with 11 rings.
Well and old Kareem outplayed a younger Pat. So we have Kareem >>> Pat >> Zo. And old Wlt kept young Kareem in check, so now its Wilt > Kareem >>> Pat >> Zo.

[La Frescobaldi]

If basketball in the 60's was as good as you say it was, Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points in a game, and he wouldn't have had as many 70 point games as he did, if any.

And as far as organized basketball goes, you named 3 people. The majority were not playing ball like kids do today. All of these NBA players today have known each other for years because they've played against each other in tournaments around the country growing up.

Ah, yes.
This post, I suspect, is the real point that you are trying to make. If you will pardon me, I will paraphrase it:

How could anybody dominate a sport the way Wilt Chamberlain did? It's simply not possible; therefore, there must be an excuse, some outside factor that allowed that to happen. No man could ever do such a thing.

Well I can tell you that people have been trying to find an excuse for Wilt Chamberlain since I was a grade schooler. Even today - FIFTY YEARS LATER - internet bulletin boards are absolutely filled with posts mocking Chamberlain for his accomplishments. It's almost frantic, the desperate attempts you see, over and over.

This whole thread is dedicated to Patrick Ewing stepping through some magical doorway to 1967 and tearing up the NBA. Well, as I commented earlier, I would think he'd be a starting NBA center all right, on some of the teams. And I'd bet a great deal of money that Chamberlain would just hand him his head on a nightly basis.

Bill Russell stood on the court at the Top 50 ceremony in 1996 and told the reporters there, that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time. You can say Bill was being kind to a friend, or he was using some bragging rights, or something else. But if you do, you clearly never watched Bill Russell because at least in public, that man is absolutely not like that. He was as coldly, bluntly realistic as any player I ever saw.

Brother, I'll just let it go at this; Chamberlain really was that good.

[guy]

I tend to agree more with bmd. Valid points are made about how inactive kids are today due to obesity and the more distractions advanced technology brings, but that doesn't change the fact that the talent pool is alot larger today, which in theory should result in greater talent because of the increased competition. Shit, if it wasn't for advanced technology, how many foreign kids in the most random countries that are playing today would have even heard of basketball? And by the way, obesity and technology applies more to the last 10-15 years. That wouldn't really apply to the NBA players of 80s, 90s, and even some of the 00s, so that wouldn't apply to someone like Patrick Ewing, but the significantly larger talent pool he was part of would apply.

Ewing grew up in Jamaica, Hakeem grew up in Nigeria, Duncan grew up in the Virgin Islands, Nash grew up in Canada, and Dirk grew up in Germany. Would they have even picked up a basketball if they were born 30-40 years earlier living in the same situation? And that means that there were probably alot more human beings then there were in later years that had the potential to be a great NBA player that were never utilized.

[Nezty]

Who cares about the what ifs, he didn't so just leave it at that. No one can determine whether someone would do good or bad in a certain era, It's stupid and pointless.

[nycelt84]

Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.


Like who? Going back to the 1910's the best athletes in this country played or attempted to play pro sports.

[Round Mound]

Patrick Would Do Fine In That Era But His Rebounding Would Lower. He Wasn`t a Great Rebounder Despite He Had Alot of Help Rebounding Wise in NY. He Would Be a Great Scorer but Not Rebounder, Passer or Play Maker.

He Would Be Onstoppable 1 on 1 Around 5-8 Ft Away from the Basket. Ewing Had One of the Best Post Back to the Basket Games Ever and His Shooting Touch Even Farther Away from The Rim Was Legendary. He Would Definetly Be A 25pt-9rb-3blk Player. He Would Be in The Top 5 Best Centers in the Game cause the 60s and 70s had Way Better Centers than the 80s, 90s and the 00s. Won`t even bother with the 10s Centers there is 3 Legit Good Centers Only.