There's NOT A SPORT on Earth where players are better 20 years ago then now.

[TAZORAC]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

[KG215]

Welp, you've done it, you've managed to create maybe the most ignorant, dumbest thread of the summer. And given the state of NBA board these days, that's really quite an accomplishment.

[TAZORAC]

Welp, you've done it, you've managed to create maybe the most ignorant, dumbest thread of the summer. And given the state of NBA board these days, that's really quite an accomplishment.

So it's ignorant to say that there's not a sport where players are better now then 30 years ago? It's called SCIENCE and COMMON SENSE.

[KG215]

So it's ignorant to say that there's not a sport where players are better now then 30 years ago? It's called SCIENCE and COMMON SENSE.
Is it 20 or 30 years ago? If you're going to present an argument as absurd as this one, staying consistent will really help.

[PickernRoller]

Just updated my all-time shit poster list.

[Sarcastic]

TAZORAC has invented a time machine and will soon prove his theory :bowdown:

[AngelEyes]

Squash players were much better 20 years ago, no question about it.

[MavsSuperFan]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

In general I agree with you, except when it comes to sports with more of an emphasis on skill. I agree that for sports where pure athleticism is the only determinant things will get better with time. Why the fastest runner today is the fastest ever and also ditto for fastest swimmer/cycler/etc, strongest man, longest thrower, highest jumper, longest jumper, etc.

The NFL for example is (IMO) more determined by base athleticism (strength, speed, quickness, endurance, etc), then a sport like tennis which has a huge skill component. In tennis if power and athleticism was the biggest factor, Roddick would have much more successful.

To answer your question I would say that 20 years ago Boxing was far better than it is now. Especially the heavyweight division. Boxing in the 1990s was awesome.

The NBA has a significant skill component. Its why a guy like Larry Bird was as successful as he was. I think the biggest deterioration in skill from 20 years ago has been post play. We just don't have a back to the basket player like Hakeem nowadays.

Edit: also we have yet to see a baseball player hit over 0.400 since ted williams. Anyone that has played baseball will tell you how much skill/hand eye coordination it takes it hit a baseball.

[Psycho]

In tennis if power and athleticism was the biggest factor, Roddick would have much more successful.

Edit: also we have yet to see a baseball player hit over 0.400 since ted williams. Anyone that has played baseball will tell you how much skill/hand eye coordination it takes it hit a baseball.

The thing about Roddick is just wrong. Remove it from your argument. The baseball batting averages can be attributed to improved pitching.

Your theory (and other points)have some promise, but do you think skilled players just come around randomly, or is there a reason why players (specifically basketball) are less skilled today?

[Eric Cartman]

Find me a player the caliber of Babe Ruth I dare you motherfuvker

[PickernRoller]

Find me a player the caliber of Babe Ruth I dare you pickernroller

Puig.........just got a double, and a homer today....

Yeah we can say Babe Ruth is done.

[AngelEyes]

Puig.........and then some.

****er has been in the big league's for a month, chill out. It's also only a matter of time until his name is on some list.

[PickernRoller]

****er has been in the big league's for a month, chill out. It's also only a matter of time until his name is on some list.

He's already:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_06_30_phimlb_lanmlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=la

2nd best rookie debut month in history behind DiMaggio.

Solo hit, Doubled and Homered today to start the month. Talk about an impact player - Dodgers are rolling; win-losses % since he got here are off the chart.

Yes fellas, Vote Puig.

[iamgine]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.
Your premise has potential but your arguments are idiotic.

[AngelEyes]

He's already:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_06_30_phimlb_lanmlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=la

2nd best rookie debut month in history behind DiMaggio.

Solo hit, Doubled and Homered today to start the month. Talk about an impact player - Dodgers are rolling; win-losses since he got here off the chart.

Yes fellas, Vote Puig.

Small sample size, means very little. Baseball is a game of longevity. Also, why am I supposed to believe this guy is clean?

[PickernRoller]

Small sample size, means very little. Baseball is a game of longevity. Also, why am I supposed to believe this guy is clean?

Cause everyone that's not is supposed to suck?

Just enjoy:

http://wapc.mlb.com/lad/play/?content_id=28546691&topic_id=32862096&c_id=la

The monster games keep on piling......plus he ain't a 30 year old needing the buff. Last I checked, everyone is checked.

[Straight_Ballin]

I rember my first beer. Drink enough and you might convince yourself that today's league isn't made up of floppy, whiny little bitches.

[AngelEyes]

Cause everyone that's not is supposed to suck?

Just enjoy:

http://wapc.mlb.com/lad/play/?content_id=28546691&topic_id=32862096&c_id=la

The month keeps on going......plus he ain't a 30 year old needing the buff.

Dude's a monster. 6'3" 245 lb at only 22. I'm suspicious of any player who looks like they wrestle cattle in their spare time. Nevertheless I am enjoying his dominance right now.

[AngelEyes]

I rember my first beer. Drink enough and you might convince yourself that today's league isn't made up of floppy, whiny little bitches.

It's just getting worse and worse. In a few years they'll be wearing skimpy costumes and giving out championship belts.

[PickernRoller]

Dude's a monster. 6'3" 245 lb at only 22. I'm suspicious of any player who looks like they wrestle cattle in their spare time. Nevertheless I am enjoying his dominance right now.

Sure... it's ok to be suspicious. The Cuban league however checks for HGH and if you wanna enter the MLB you're checked too. I don't think scouts have been dosing him slowly through his development so......

[Sarcastic]

If athleticism and strength were important in baseball, then how did Greg Maddox and Pedro Martinez dominate the 1990's steroid era?

[TonyMontana]

Your theory (and other points)have some promise, but do you think skilled players just come around randomly, or is there a reason why players (specifically basketball) are less skilled today?

Because scouts arn't concerned with players skills at the youth level.

I've seen some good ****ing players over my years playing, guys with NBA caliber skills.

But the number one thing scouts look for are things you can't teach.

HEIGHT
WINGSPAN
ATHLETISICM

You can have all the skills you want. You could be the greatest shooter in the history of the world, but if your a 5'10 white guy with average athleticism and a poor wingspan you will never get your shot at the NBA.

I've seen guys that can barely hit the backboard when taking shots get looked at by multiple scouts just because they can get their head above the rim.

Scouts are always banking that these raw athletes will be able to pick up the skills later. They are correct in a sense that theres a higher chance the raw athlete learns the correct skills, than the chances of the highly skilled getting that raw athleticism.

[AngelEyes]

If athleticism and strength were important in baseball, then how did Greg Maddox and Pedro Martinez dominate the 1990's steroid era?

Pitching is less reliant on athleticism and strength. Although, body strength is important, hence why Pedro was always breaking down.

[lilblingy]

Pele > Messi

[Sarcastic]

Kevin Love

[brain drain]

Pele > Messi
LOL, soccer is one of those examples where you can easily see how the game has evolved. Just look at some video clips from the 70s, it's like they played in slow motion. 80s and 90s were still comparatively slow plus tactically the teams hadn't yet learned / were just starting to learn how to make the playing field smaller by moving the team according to the placement of the ball. Then you've got the kind of passing game and pressing that Barca introduced and recently the counter pressing of teams like Dortmund and Bayern.
I can't think of any team before 2008/2009 Barca that would have a chance against 2013 Bayern for instance.

[LEFT4DEAD]

LOL, soccer is one of those examples where you can easily see how the game has evolved. Just look at some video clips from the 70s, it's like they played in slow motion. 80s and 90s were still comparatively slow plus tactically the teams hadn't yet learned / were just starting to learn how to make the playing field smaller by moving the team according to the placement of the ball. Then you've got the kind of passing game and pressing that Barca introduced and recently the counter pressing of teams like Dortmund and Bayern.
I can't think of any team before 2008/2009 Barca that would have a chance against 2013 Bayern for instance.
I dont know if you are kidding or what. AC Milan from end 80's and early 90's would demolish any team in the history of that game, including last year's Bayern and that Barcelona team. It was unfair how good they were. Real Madrid from early 00's would beat them too probably.

Also, in basketball, game has not changed since end of 80's I would say. Before that? Yeah, I would say in early 80's and before that the game was not on the same level as today.
But if you think that 25 years are long enough for physical attributes of people to evolve, you are delusional.

[brain drain]

I dont know if you are kidding or what. AC Milan from end 80's and early 90's would demolish any team in the history of that game, including last year's Bayern and that Barcelona team. It was unfair how good they were. Real Madrid from early 00's would beat them too probably.
Lol no way. Just watch some of those games. Slow and tactically completely inflexible in comparison to todays teams.

And the "Galactico" Madrid is one of the most overrated teams ever. For all their big name stars, they only once managed to win the CL, barely beating Leverkusen. And that was it. Damn little to show for all those big names.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Lol no way. Just watch some of those games. Slow and tactically completely inflexible in comparison to todays teams.
I was the biggest fan of that team, and I have watched almost every game, in UCL at least. Nobody knew what is tactic before Arrigo Sacchi. Today's top teams are just copying it. Try to find yourself a documentary about that team if you were too young to see them. In that movie a lot of famous coaches who are coaching today's top teams are saying that their rolemodel were AC Milan.

And haven't those Galacticos beat Valencia in 2000 too?

[Rubio2Gasol]

Yet there are many sports on earth where the teams of 20 years ago are better than those today. Team's aren't a sum of their individual parts - players can get better - teams can get worse.

[brain drain]

I was the biggest fan of that team, and I have watched almost every game, in UCL at least. Nobody knew what is tactic before Arrigo Sacchi. Today's top teams are just copying it. Try to find yourself a documentary about that team if you were too young to see them. In that movie a lot of famous coaches who are coaching today's top teams are saying that their rolemodel were AC Milan.

Lol, that's like when today's politicians say they're inspired by Abraham Lincoln. Sure, Sacchis Milan was a milestone in tactical development (althought your claim that before Sacchi nobody even knew what tactics was is completely absurd there was plenty of tactics before, ever heard of catenaccio for example?).
But the game has moved on. If you tried to do Sacchis 4 4 2 today, you wouldn't have much success anymore, todays teams need much more tactical flexibility.


And haven't those Galacticos beat Valencia in 2000 too?
No, 2000 was pre-Galactic, the Galactico era started with the signing of Figo in the summer of 2000 and then Zidane in the summer of 2001.

The 2000 Madrid was a pretty normal European top team, roughly on the same Level as Manchester and Bayern at that time. Good, but nothing special.

Then they started their big signings, with the curious result that they were special, but not overly good.

[HeddaGambler]

I was the biggest fan of that team, and I have watched almost every game, in UCL at least. Nobody knew what is tactic before Arrigo Sacchi. Today's top teams are just copying it. Try to find yourself a documentary about that team if you were too young to see them. In that movie a lot of famous coaches who are coaching today's top teams are saying that their rolemodel were AC Milan.

And haven't those Galacticos beat Valencia in 2000 too?

Sacchi is a legend and many of his teams` triumphs come from his tactical knowledge. In those days, all the flairy teams played extremely naively and did not pay attentino to tactics and organizing. That is why our national team in Norway could be a force in the 90`s, since we had a coach that was (and is) a terrific organizer. The other teams had way better players than us, but we outsmarted them.

Today every team emphasises tactics, organizing and defense. Everything goes much faster, and the players are more often than not in near perfect physical shape. There is no way that any team from the 80s or 90s could compete against today`s top teams. I`m not even sure that the top 80s team would survive in the the Premier League. Can you imagine how often Franco Baresi would be sent off with the faster pace and stricter rules?

As for Pele, he would be destroyed if he was transfered from his peak to today`s game. But, if he grew up today, he would have every chance of being a fantastic player. Everyone is in part a product of their environment, and the better and more competetive a sport is, the better the individual players get.

[HYJ]

Boxing :confusedshrug:

[Poetry]

But if you think that 25 years are long enough for physical attributes of people to evolve, you are delusional.

The most rapid genetic evolutionary change occurred around 3,000 to 11,000 years ago among the Tibetans and the Han Chinese.

Scientist say the archeological evidence doesn't match up to the more recent date of 3000 years, since there are signs that the Tibetans have lived on the Tibetan Plateau for 11,000 years and hence couldn't have split from the Han 3,000 years ago, it would have had to have been thousands of years earlier.

But let's say it was 3000 years ago, that's still a really long span of time, and 3000 years is considered unusually fast in term of evolutionary change.

25 years would be an impossibility.

"This is the fastest genetic change ever observed in humans," says Rasmus Nielsen, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, who led the statistical analysis."


So let's put this evolution thing to rest.

[Rubio2Gasol]

@Braindead (apt name)

I don't even have the time. Barca revolutionized nothing, invented nothing. Michels,Cruyff,Santana and Sacchi were practicing anything you think Barca evidently long before you began watching football.

2. Conditions were different - for example football weight, pitch condition, and the fact that back in the day defenders were actually allowed to defend and attackers weren't coddled.

3.Watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xy07we_holland-vs-brazil-1974-tactical-analysis_sport#from=embediframe

I don't have the time or patience to explain everything - but this should be enough for you to shut up about things you know nothing about.

[HeddaGambler]

The most rapid genetic evolutionary change occurred around 3,000 to 11,000 years ago among the Tibetans and the Han Chinese.

Scientist say the archeological evidence doesn't match up to the more recent date of 3000 years, since there are signs that the Tibetans have lived on the Tibetan Plateau for 11,000 years and hence couldn't have split from the Han 3,000 years ago, it would have had to have been thousands of years earlier.

But let's say it was 3000 years ago, that's still a really long span of time, and 3000 years is considered unusually fast in term of evolutionary change.

25 years would be an impossibility.

"This is the fastest genetic change ever observed in humans," says Rasmus Nielsen, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, who led the statistical analysis."


So let's put this evolution thing to rest.

The games and the attitudes toward them have evolved a whole lot, though. In the 80s and 90s, soccer players could be overweight, alcholic and drug addicted, while still being on top of their game. I really cannot see that happening on a large scale today.

[iDunkOreo]

Golfers. Imagine if Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson got to use these new drivers and clubs that currents golfers use.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Baresi wouldn't survive in the Premeir league? ****ing Chelsea can win the Champions League but the team that played the greatest defensive football I've ever seen - not this sit back or high pressing with spaces all over the damn place would not be able to compete against todays top teams?

Even with the offside rule?

Jesus Christ.

The ****ing Premeir League too - that league has less actual tactics than my local 5th division league in Spain.

[HeddaGambler]

Baresi wouldn't survive in the Premeir league? ****ing Chelsea can win the Champions League but the team that played the greatest defensive football I've ever seen - not this sit back or high pressing with spaces all over the damn place would not be able to compete against todays top teams?

Even with the offside rule?

Jesus Christ.

The ****ing Premeir League too - that league has less actual tactics than my local 5th division league in Spain.

I`m not disputing that the discussed AC Milan were one of the greatest defensive teams ever. They most certainly were. But that was against the teams of their time. Have a look at the Serie A games in the 80s and watch how insanely slow the tempo is compared to today`s game. I`m pretty sure that a team like Wigan or Stoke would caus that team a whole lot of trouble.

Regarding Baresi, he was very much a product of his time. With the much stricter rules that are being applied today, he would have been sent off a lot for professional fouls. In those days, a professional foul was just a free kick or maybe a yellow card. Today you get sent off for many of them. Baresi used a lot of tricks to cover up for his lack of pace that would never have worked today.

[brain drain]

@Braindead (apt name)

I don't even have the time. Barca revolutionized nothing, invented nothing. Michels,Cruyff,Santana and Sacchi were practicing anything you think Barca evidently long before you began watching football.

That's ridiculous. Sure some elements were used here and there, but not at the same level and in the same combination.


2. Conditions were different - for example football weight, pitch condition, and the fact that back in the day defenders were actually allowed to defend and attackers weren't coddled.
Yeah sure, the tough man argument. Surely we would all watch much better football if we had more guys like van Bommel, Vinnie Jones etc. Not.


3.Watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xy07we_holland-vs-brazil-1974-tactical-analysis_sport#from=embediframe

I don't have the time or patience to explain everything - but this should be enough for you to shut up about things you know nothing about.

Great. What I see is pressing done horribly wrong (by todays standards), running towards the ball with uncoordinated groups of players, do you see how often 5 or 6 guys from one team end up in one place with no opposing player between them? - trying that today would be absolute suicide, two or three quick passes and the opposing team plays 5 against 2 in front of your own goal. But back then the Hummels-type defenders hardly existed so they could get away with it.

[LastEpisode]

What about Muhammad Ali and the foursome of Duran, Haggler, Hearns and Leonard..

[PickernRoller]

So far we have covered:

Basketball.
Baseball.
Soccer.
Golf.
Boxing.

Might have to consider taking OP out of my all time shit poster list.

[Crafty]

Football, or soccer for most of you

[tomtucker]

Cause everyone that's not is supposed to suck?

Just enjoy:

http://wapc.mlb.com/lad/play/?content_id=28546691&topic_id=32862096&c_id=la

The monster games keep on piling......plus he ain't a 30 year old needing the buff. Last I checked, everyone is checked.

number 66.........he is a hockey fan too......:oldlol: ..........good, so now the dodgers have the highest payroll, and this guy is the only one that is any good.......:wtf: :oldlol:

[PickernRoller]

number 66.........he is a hockey fan too......:oldlol: ..........good, so now the dodgers have the highest payroll, and this guy is the only one that is any good.......:wtf: :oldlol:

For how shitty they have been, since he got there the franchise has done.........wait wait for it....... a 180. This time is right :lol

------------
Is the hate supposed to mean something? They've been producing lately - all of them. Anyway Cubans don't watch hockey. Anything but, winter sports.

[BoutPractice]

Basketball is a game of skill, not just athleticism. By skill I don't mean the ability to show off with flashy moves but the ability to use your moves in a game context - a fundamental bank shot by Tim Duncan that actually goes in is always preferable to a series of behind the back and between the legs dribbles from Iverson culminating in a missed pullup jumper.

A lot of this era's top players are nothing special athletically. Just this year, 37 old Tim Duncan was the best center in the league and Roy Hibbert was looking unstoppable against the Miami Heat. Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce were still remarkably effective a year ago or so. Teams focus their gameplan on trying to stop Kevin Love, Zach Randolph, and Al Jefferson... Guys like Chauncey Billups were MVP contenders 6, 7 years ago... The list goes on.

And it's not just offense. Some of the best defenders of the past decade include Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier. Forwards in the league find it incomparably tougher to score against Udonis Haslem or Chuck Hayes than against Amare Stoudemire.

Meanwhile, are all the really athletic players dominant? Just ask yourself, what happened to Darius Miles? Gerald Green? Danthay Jones or whatever you misspell his name? There are tons of athletic scrubs in the league.

The fact that many of today's stars aren't athletic is the crucial point in the discussion, in my opinion. Indeed, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain are clearly more athletic than Duncan or Nowitzki, making it very difficult, even impossible, to argue that the game progresses because players are more athletic.

Yet you can be almost certain that an ignorant bunch in the future will use today's stars's lack of athleticism against them. "Duncan couldn't play in this era, he's just a stiff", "Paul Pierce won a FMVP, weak era!", etc. You'll hear all of this, I can guarantee.

So it's not the body. Still, you might say, "even if basketball is a game of skills, skills are much better in the era since I started watching the league than in the era before that". But are they? Are all the current stars more skilled than stars from the past?

Contrast LeBron and Jordan, or Larry Bird... The clips you're using today to discredit LeBron's post game - you know the ones - don't you think that fans in a couple of decades will dig them up to argue that LeBron couldn't do anything in their era?

Be honest with yourself. Are you prepared to say you're more impressed by Westbrook's ability to read the defense than John Stockton's ? Will you ever say: "Dwight post game is so much more advanced than Hakeem's, he would simply destroy him"?

Many current bigs are incapable of passing the ball. Every year we draft centers who can't do ANYTHING - projects, we call them. We draft point guards who can't pass. Shooting guards who can't shoot. Tweener forwards who clearly should be SFs, but can't because they just aren't skilled enough. And yet we're supposed to believe that today's players are all so much more skilled than players from the past...

So it's not skills either. What is it, then, that makes today's players so much better?

(And yes, I guess this is more of a blog post than anything else, but whatever)

[ILLsmak]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

Golf, maybe? Tennis? There's no doubt players are more athletic, but I think when people say better they mean more skilled. And it's true, the guys back in the day had a lot more fundamental skill. It comes down to the path they took to the NBA opposed to now.

-Smak

[HeddaGambler]

So it's not skills either. What is it, then, that makes today's players so much better?

(And yes, I guess this is more of a blog post than anything else, but whatever)

Great post. To answer you last question, it is much more about the attitude towards the game, modern technology and the development in nutritional research. Athletes today take much better care of their bodies than they used to do, meaning that they can perform better over a longer period of time. In today`s game, every play is filmed from several angles, giving players, scouts and coaches much better opportunity to prepare for an opponent than earlier. Plays and tactical variantons can be studied for extended periods of time, and the advancement of stats have provided coaches, GMs and players with tools to develop more efficient strategies.

[brain drain]

Tennis? There's no doubt players are more athletic, but I think when people say better they mean more skilled. And it's true, the guys back in the day had a lot more fundamental skill.

More fundamental skills than Roger Federer when he was at the top of his game? Who?

[brain drain]

Great post. To answer you last question, it is much more about the attitude towards the game, modern technology and the development in nutritional research. Athletes today take much better care of their bodies than they used to do, meaning that they can perform better over a longer period of time. In today`s game, every play is filmed from several angles, giving players, scouts and coaches much better opportunity to prepare for an opponent than earlier. Plays and tactical variantons can be studied for extended periods of time, and the advancement of stats have provided coaches, GMs and players with tools to develop more efficient strategies.


I'd say it's about the optimisation of everything - youth scouting and development, technical & tactical training, conditioning, nutrition etc etc.

Especially in soccer, 20 or 30 years ago, it was enough to be very good at some aspect and you could neglect other aspects and still compete at the highest level (for example offensive players who didn't even try to defend, technically gifted players who drank (Gazza) and smoked (Cruyff) or hardly worked out (Socrates, but he also drank and smoked), or were plain fat (Maradona)). You could be technically gifted but slow, you also could be technically inept but fast and strong and still be a top player.

That kind of stuff would't be possible today.

I must admit that to some degree, I miss those times because they were more entertaining. Guys like Gazza or my personal favourite Wolfram Wuttke just hardly exist anymore and they made for much better stories than today's fully focused crop of players. But it's pretty obvious that today's players are simply better at playing football.

[K Xerxes]

The fact that a well past his prime 37 year old Tim Duncan is currently seen as the best center in the game says it all really.

The game has evolved into a more perimeter-orientated one, but Miami won in spite of not having a competent center, not because they played small ball.

The big man is inherently greater than the guard - they simply have more impact on interior defense and take more high percentage shots if they are skilled enough.

[deja vu]

Boxing :confusedshrug:
This.

Ali >>>

[K Xerxes]

Golf, maybe? Tennis? There's no doubt players are more athletic, but I think when people say better they mean more skilled. And it's true, the guys back in the day had a lot more fundamental skill. It comes down to the path they took to the NBA opposed to now.

-Smak

How?

Back then, the game was mostly about serve and volleys. Now it is far more predicated on how good you are on the baseline - players will simply hit passing shots all the time if you play that style. Match up the average player today against back then, and it's quite clear who would come out on top.

But that's not only about increased athleticism. Watch Djokovic, Nadal and Murray play each other and you'll see just how punishingly deep they hit the ball pretty much all the time.

Djokovic's best attribute is his ability to get to seemingly 'ungettable' balls and return them deep into your court. That's skill + athleticism.

But the most skilled player of all time? Federer. At his best, he is practically unbeatable (except against Nadal on clay). His shot was the most precise, and he had the greatest variety in his game (great server, baseline stroke and volley).

[INDI]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

Boxing

[Alan]

Pole vault, Sergey Bubka's record 6.14m stands untouched since 1994.

[HeddaGambler]

Pole vault, Sergey Bubka's record 6.14m stands untouched since 1994.

Well nobody will beat FloJo`s 100m record either...

[Asukal]

I can't believe kids today are far more ignorant and stupid than kids from my time or before that. :facepalm :roll:

[Doctor Rivers]

Well nobody will beat FloJo`s 100m record either...

she was on PEDs

[Mr Exlax]

To the OP: I feel like players are bigger, faster and stronger now at every position besides the Center position. I can't say that they're "better" than previous players. Players 20 years ago were more fundamentally sound. They were more skilled than the guys we have now. I can't say that they're "better" either though.

[miles berg]

The dumbest topic in history folks.

[lakers_forever]

A great post that shows OP's theory is BS:


The more I have begun to think about it, I am beginning to fully subscribe to the theory that truly great players from earlier eras would be still be great in the future, regardless of their league being weaker in general (aka 60's compared to today).

The way that I can best describe this is to create a chain of players from 1962 up until today, and IMO it creates a fairly startling result.

Wilt to Kareem- Wilt was still making first team defense over Kareem in his last year or two, still outrebounding him, his offense which he was sacrificing is of course well documented, and he had more double digit block games than any of us can imagine.
Do yourself a favor and read these quotes:
http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html
So after all of those quotes , if '72 Kareem was still better than '72 Wilt, it is safe to say that '62 Wilt is at least = (or IMO >) Kareem.

Then we chain it up to:
Kareem to Hakeem:

As I wrote today in another thread, Kareem was effective into his 40's where Hakeem's effectiveness declinded rapidly in his '30's.
Look at their head to head's from '86-'87 for example, where you had an almost 40 year old Kareem OUTSCORE the 24 year old Hakeem overall in their 4 meetings.
The season before, Kareem averaged 26 A GAME in his late '30's in the playoffs.
Kareem averaged the equal to Hakeem per game when he was age 38 and Hakeem was 24. And 2 more points per 36 minutes. (At the same age, Hakeem was essentially almost reduced to a single digit per game scorer.)
You can only imagine facing Kareem in 1977 rather than 1987.
Kareem was at least the equal (and IMO>) Hakeem.

Hakeem to Shaq:
We all know what Hakeem did to Shaq when they met in the finals. Although it wasn't quite prime Shaq, it is safe to say that Hakeem could hold his own against Shaq in other forms if he was able to do what he did in the mid '90's.
Hakeem is close to the equal (some say better, some worse, I say fairly even) to Shaq.

Then we move to Shaq vs. anyone today...
Can anyone compare to Shaq today. Dwight is the closest, but c'mon...crickets....Shaq was :bowdown: .


Therefore, by this measure if the equation reads Prime Wilt at least = Kareem > Hakeem = Shaq > Anyone today it speaks very highly to Wilt and the theory that a great player back then could be great in any era.
Once again, this is not based on speculation, BUT HEAD TO HEAD PERFORMANCE OVER TIME.

It works the same way if you go Oscar, Doctor J., Mike, Kobe, Lebron, etc. in succession...

You see, some on this board will tell you that 25 years time is like going from the Cretaceous period to the Jurassic period. It's a joke. I mean, the league gets more quality players as time goes on, (not neccesarily who play better), but humans don't advance physically as much as some claim in 20 years. '88 Mike would still destroy almost all athletically today, and Wilt would still run like a deer and jump like one too.

Hopefully through these head to head chains, it makes comparing players a bit more realistic and gives more respect to true legends like Wilt, Russell, Oscar, etc..:bowdown:

The same theory applies to soccer and Pele IMO.

Pele was the best player in the world in the 1970 World Cup. Rivellino was also a part of that Brazilian NT and was a world class player. Rivellino remained a world class player untill 1979. Rivellino was the star of the Brazil NT even with the great Zico as his teammate. The same Zico who battled Maradona and Platini for best player in the 80's. Maradona was a star untill the late 80's/early 90's when Romario was already one of the best players in the world (the same Romario who was stil world class playing in the same era of Ronaldo and Zidade).

Hell, you don't even need to add Rivellino there, since Pele won a title in the first half of 1974 in Brazil and was still considered the best brazilian player. He retired for football (only to come back years later to play in the U.S). Guess who was named best player in Brazil in the second half in 1974? Yes, Zico (who had begun his professional career the year before). The same guy who battled Maradona. I wonder if football magically evolved in the 6 months or one year? :hammerhead:

So the soccer chain:

Pele
Zico (alreadhy playing while Pele was still considered the best in Brazil)
Maradona (Zico's rival for best player in the 80's - Maradona won obviously)
Romario (one of the best players in the world while Maradona was still Maradona)
Ronaldo (the best player in the world while Romario was still one of the best players in the world).

[lakers_forever]

Pole vault, Sergey Bubka's record 6.14m stands untouched since 1994.

Jesse Owens's mark in the long jump in the 1930's would have won the bronze medal in last years Olympics. Ralph Boston's mark in 1961 would have won the gold medal. Now imagine what those guys would do with current trainning and diet. :bowdown:

[Duderonomy]

Pro wrestling http://www.thecanadianconnection.biz/images/Magazines/Large/1993/1993FebInsideWrestling.jpg

[ralph_i_el]

Find me a player the caliber of Babe Ruth I dare you motherfuvker

Ruth only had to face white pitchers man there's no telling how he'd fare in an integrated league.

Willie Mays is the GOAT :D

[Knicksfever2010]

What about golf ?

[Kblaze8855]

Plenty of players today are visibly shaken by physical play. But they are just gonna shrug it off when Dennis Rodman shoves them into the upright and gets away with it?

Many would produce more due to more posessions but they would be no more effective.

[SpanishACB]

It happens in all sports, it's called nostalgia.

There's also those that like retro because they want to appear lectured. Ignore the snobs.

[Shade8780]

Pro wrestling
That isn't a sport.

[Jasi]

The same theory applies to soccer and Pele IMO.

Pele was the best player in the world in the 1970 World Cup. Rivellino was also a part of that Brazilian NT and was a world class player. Rivellino remained a world class player untill 1979. Rivellino was the star of the Brazil NT even with the great Zico as his teammate. The same Zico who battled Maradona and Platini for best player in the 80's. Maradona was a star untill the late 80's/early 90's when Romario was already one of the best players in the world (the same Romario who was stil world class playing in the same era of Ronaldo and Zidade).

Hell, you don't even need to add Rivellino there, since Pele won a title in the first half of 1974 in Brazil and was still considered the best brazilian player. He retired for football (only to come back years later to play in the U.S). Guess who was named best player in Brazil in the second half in 1974? Yes, Zico (who had begun his professional career the year before). The same guy who battled Maradona. I wonder if football magically evolved in the 6 months or one year? :hammerhead:

So the soccer chain:

Pele
Zico (alreadhy playing while Pele was still considered the best in Brazil)
Maradona (Zico's rival for best player in the 80's - Maradona won obviously)
Romario (one of the best players in the world while Maradona was still Maradona)
Ronaldo (the best player in the world while Romario was still one of the best players in the world).

But this doesn't really work.

You have:
Pele > Zico < Maradona.
At this point you have to stop because you can't infer anything about Pele vs Maradona.


But it actually does not work even if you have a chain of all ">="s.

Even if you have Wilt = Kareem > Hakeem = Shaq, you have to assume transitivity in the comparison in order to say that Wilt > Shaq.
And we all know that transitivity doesn't apply in sports.

[FKAri]

I agree that the sport, especially from a tactical point of view has changed enormously. The average player base has also improved. Yes. The average NBA player in 2013 > average NBA player in 1993. It's not that he's more talented, he's simply better equipped, better trained and is able to give a better performance.

Now naturally, scouting techniques should also improve over time but in basketball's case I'm afraid they have not. They might've even gotten worse. And although I stated earlier that the training level in the NBA is superior today to what it once was, I think the skills development of college, high school, and younger players is similar or worse to what it once.


Plenty of players today are visibly shaken by physical play. But they are just gonna shrug it off when Dennis Rodman shoves them into the upright and gets away with it?

I guess Rodman was "visibily shaken" himself when he was doing all that flopping.



Now soccer has improved drastically as a sport in the last 20 years as well. But Im too tired to write about that too. But I will say this. It is alot harder to compare players across eras in soccer so imo it should be avoided.

[lakers_forever]

But this doesn't really work.

You have:
Pele > Zico < Maradona.
At this point you have to stop because you can't infer anything about Pele vs Maradona.


But it actually does not work even if you have a chain of all ">="s.

Even if you have Wilt = Kareem > Hakeem = Shaq, you have to assume transitivity in the comparison in order to say that Wilt > Shaq.
And we all know that transitivity doesn't apply in sports.

You can't use it to say as a fact who was better between Pele or Maradona, but it gives us a great perspective regarding players from different eras. If Pele was the best playing in the same time as one of the best 80's player like Zico, it's perfectly reasonable to assume Pele would also be a great player in the 80's/early 90's (Maradona's reign).

Same with Wilt. If old Kareem could dominate Olajuwon sometimes and old Wilt could still battle with Kareem, we can't use it to say as a fact that Wilt > Olajuwon, but it's also perfectly reasonable to assume Wilt would be a great player in the 80's/ early 90's.

[NumberSix]

Ruth only had to face white pitchers man there's no telling how he'd fare in an integrated league.

Willie Mays is the GOAT :D
Yeah. Because white pitchers are historically crappy. :rolleyes:

That's like saying Lawrence Taylor's career doesn't count because he played against white QB's.

[Sarcastic]

Javier Sotomayor is still the only person who ever cleared 8 feet in the high jump. He did it in 1989.

[brain drain]

You can't use it to say as a fact who was better between Pele or Maradona, but it gives us a great perspective. If Pele was the best playing in the same time as one of the best 80's player like Zico, it's perfectly reasonable to assume Pele would also be a great player in the 80's/early 90's (Maradona's reign).

Same with Wilt. If old Kareem could dominate Olajuwon sometimes and old Wilt could still battle with Kareem, we can't use it to say as a fact that Wilt > Olajuwon, but it's also perfectly reasonable to assume Wilt would be a great player in the 80's/ early 90's.

That logic is completely flawed. To give you an extreme example, Gerd M

[lakers_forever]

[QUOTE=brain drain]That logic is completely flawed. To give you an extreme example, Gerd M

[brain drain]

Of course the game keeps changing. But the really great players, the geniuses of the sport, they adapt (like you said yourself). You don't think football changed from 1958 (Pele's first WC title) to 1970? It did, a lot, yet Pele was still the best. Same with Wilt Chamberlain.

I don't see any logical reason to not believe guys like Pele or Wilt could dominate in any era. And I think the chain theory and the fact that they remained among the best in sports that changed so much, helps us assume that in a reasonable way.

Who knows? All you really know is they were great in their time, but I'm hesitant to assume that they'd automatically be all time greats today.

Look at this "best of Pele dribblings" tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953rOfQ8Y0w

There's nothing in there that really wows me if I compare it to todays players.
You certainly couldn't transplant him into todays game just like that and expect him to be great or even just good at a top level.
Yeah sure, he might be a great player today if he had been born in 1985 and gone through today's youth academies. But it's also absolutely possible that the specific advantage he had in the 60s and early 70s wouldn't exist in todays game.

[lakers_forever]

Who knows? All you really know is they were great in their time, but I'm hesitant to assume that they'd automatically be all time greats today.

Look at this "best of Pele dribblings" tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953rOfQ8Y0w

There's nothing in there that really wows me if I compare it to todays players.
You certainly couldn't transplant him into todays game just like that and expect him to be great or even just good at a top level.
Yeah sure, he might be a great player today if he had been born in 1985 and gone through today's youth academies. But it's also absolutely possible that the specific advantage he had in the 60s and early 70s wouldn't exist in todays game.

I respect your opinion, but I respectably disagree.

Thanks for the great video. Really, nothing there that wows you? The first minute already "wowed" a lot. :bowdown:

[sportjames23]

Welp, you've done it, you've managed to create maybe the most ignorant, dumbest thread of the summer. And given the state of NBA board these days, that's really quite an accomplishment.


Seriously. Where the hell do these fools come from?

[K Xerxes]

Just a point, Brazilian Ronaldo in his early career pre injury is the best football player I've ever seen. That combination of speed, skill and finishing was frightening. Better than Pele imo, who I feel is quite overrated anyway (arguable that he he wasn't even the best player on hus Brazillian teams - Garrincha could have been)

Football has evolved in almost all areas from the late 50s to now, that's for sure.

Messi is heading that way. C Ronaldo is still an awesome player, and Zidane controlled games like no one in history omo.

[brain drain]

Just a point, Brazilian Ronaldo in his early career pre injury is the best football player I've ever seen. That combination of speed, skill and finishing was frightening.

Yep, Ronaldo Fenomeno was completely unreal.

And he's also a good comparison. Look at this Ronaldo video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVueW6X7TM0
And compare it to the Pele video I posted above. How can anybody safely say that Pele could've reached that level of skill and speed had he been born 30 years later?

[7_cody]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

I was with you until you brought up Bird and Magic. Bird and Magic would hold their own against LeBron.

I was thinking more like Pistol Pete, or earlier.

[The Choken One]

But their legacies most certainly are.

And yes, a player like MJ, KAJ or Magc would still dominate te NBA today, not to mention countless others.

[lakeshow1]

There's alot of foolish talk by mental midgets and media puppets stating that the NBA was better 20-30 years ago :lol, there's not a sport played today where players are overall better 20-30 years ago when they are now.

If you had a guy like Paul George who isn't even a top 5 player today, and put him in the NBA in say 1992, he'd be an even better player with guys who are overall physically inferior. Lebron would be EVEN MORE dominate.

Imagine a guy with the physical tools of Lebron James playing against the likes of 190 pound 1980s Jordan, or Larry "turtle" Bird, or Magic "stiff, no jump shot" Johnson? It would be like a man playing with boys, which hell it's even like that now.

Tell that to Marvin Haggler, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard.

[lakeshow1]

Basketball is a game of skill, not just athleticism. By skill I don't mean the ability to show off with flashy moves but the ability to use your moves in a game context - a fundamental bank shot by Tim Duncan that actually goes in is always preferable to a series of behind the back and between the legs dribbles from Iverson culminating in a missed pullup jumper.

A lot of this era's top players are nothing special athletically. Just this year, 37 old Tim Duncan was the best center in the league and Roy Hibbert was looking unstoppable against the Miami Heat. Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce were still remarkably effective a year ago or so. Teams focus their gameplan on trying to stop Kevin Love, Zach Randolph, and Al Jefferson... Guys like Chauncey Billups were MVP contenders 6, 7 years ago... The list goes on.

And it's not just offense. Some of the best defenders of the past decade include Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier. Forwards in the league find it incomparably tougher to score against Udonis Haslem or Chuck Hayes than against Amare Stoudemire.

Meanwhile, are all the really athletic players dominant? Just ask yourself, what happened to Darius Miles? Gerald Green? Danthay Jones or whatever you misspell his name? There are tons of athletic scrubs in the league.

The fact that many of today's stars aren't athletic is the crucial point in the discussion, in my opinion. Indeed, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain are clearly more athletic than Duncan or Nowitzki, making it very difficult, even impossible, to argue that the game progresses because players are more athletic.

Yet you can be almost certain that an ignorant bunch in the future will use today's stars's lack of athleticism against them. "Duncan couldn't play in this era, he's just a stiff", "Paul Pierce won a FMVP, weak era!", etc. You'll hear all of this, I can guarantee.

So it's not the body. Still, you might say, "even if basketball is a game of skills, skills are much better in the era since I started watching the league than in the era before that". But are they? Are all the current stars more skilled than stars from the past?

Contrast LeBron and Jordan, or Larry Bird... The clips you're using today to discredit LeBron's post game - you know the ones - don't you think that fans in a couple of decades will dig them up to argue that LeBron couldn't do anything in their era?

Be honest with yourself. Are you prepared to say you're more impressed by Westbrook's ability to read the defense than John Stockton's ? Will you ever say: "Dwight post game is so much more advanced than Hakeem's, he would simply destroy him"?

Many current bigs are incapable of passing the ball. Every year we draft centers who can't do ANYTHING - projects, we call them. We draft point guards who can't pass. Shooting guards who can't shoot. Tweener forwards who clearly should be SFs, but can't because they just aren't skilled enough. And yet we're supposed to believe that today's players are all so much more skilled than players from the past...

So it's not skills either. What is it, then, that makes today's players so much better?

(And yes, I guess this is more of a blog post than anything else, but whatever)

Great post. If the OP had seen a tape of Tim Duncan playing in the 80s, he would have almost surely said he was not athletic, too awkward, etc. to play in today's game. Yet he is dominant.

And if you give the guys in the 80s (in an sport) the PEDs guys take today, you have something that looks very similar.

[Legends66NBA7]

I don't think Cricket has advanced that much.