What would a prime Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy and Jerry West be in today's NBA?

[MavsSuperFan]

So many people here seem to believe that Wilt and Russell would be 2 of the best players in todays league (a ridiculous assertion).

How do you guys feel about Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy and Jerry West? white players from their generation that were considered great. Personally I have doubts these guys would make an NBA roster today. And yet we are supposed to believe that Wilt and Russell would be MVP candidates today?

Wilt's stats were accumulated against slow white players of the 1960s. You really think he avg's above 30 any time after 1980? Russell's teams were like almost all HOFers, no wonder he won the titles.

Look greatness is different from being better than someone. People here confuse being greater with being better.

Eg. George Mikan is greater than david robinson and patrick ewing. But obviously they are much better players than Mikan.

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist ever, but the average university physics professor today, has insights into theoretical physicals Newton never imagined. They also understand all of Newton's knowledge. They are better physicists than Newton, but are not greater.

Wilt and Russell are all time greats, but they would not be above avg into the modern NBA. Guys like ewing and robinson would have eaten them alive.

[BoutPractice]

At their peak...
Bob Pettit would be the top PF in the league and a top 10 player. (But he wouldn't have been better than peak Duncan, Dirk and KG) His game translates easily: he's 6-10 with shoes, offensively skilled with a nice midrange jumpshot, and is a great rebounder.

Jerry West would be the best SG in the league (but he would've been top 3 facing peak Kobe or peak Wade, it's a transitional era for these two positions). Once again, his game translates pretty well to today's game: he has a freakish wingspan ala Dwyane Wade, underrated athleticism, is one of the all-time masters of a shot perfect for contemporary basketball, the pull-up jumper, which he can get off against anyone due to his quick release, and is a great free throw shooter. In addition, he's a well rounded player who contributes in many other areas, such as passing, rebounding at the guard position and playing passing lanes.

Peak Bob Cousy would suffer the most, as there's great PG competition and he's a poor shooter. He would rack up tons of assists but would have a poor field goal percentage and lots of turnovers.

Then again, I don't know why I'm answering the post of someone who seriously argues that the average university physics professor is a better physicist than Newton.

[riseagainst]

So many people here seem to believe that Wilt and Russell would be 2 of the best players in todays league (a ridiculous assertion).

How do you guys feel about Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy and Jerry West? white players from their generation that were considered great. Personally I have doubts these guys would make an NBA roster today. And yet we are supposed to believe that Wilt and Russell would be MVP candidates today?

Wilt's stats were accumulated against slow white players of the 1960s. You really think he avg's above 30 any time after 1980? Russell's teams were like almost all HOFers, no wonder he won the titles.

Look greatness is different from being better than someone. People here confuse being greater with being better.

Eg. George Mikan is greater than david robinson and patrick ewing. But obviously they are much better players than Mikan.

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist ever, but the average university physics professor today, has insights into theoretical physicals Newton never imagined. They also understand all of Newton's knowledge. They are better physicists than Newton, but are not greater.

Wilt and Russell are all time greats, but they would not be above avg into the modern NBA. Guys like ewing and robinson would have eaten them alive.

you cannot compare 2 players from 2 different eras without leveling out their respective capacity of skills/athleticism.

Saying that the average professor today is just as smart as Newton is stupid. You are comparing knowledge accumulated over time, which is not intelligence. What you should compare are their mental capacities, aka IQs.

As for basketball, you need to compare their ability to master skills and basketball IQs. Doing dunks and running fast are more relevant to today's era than in the 60s and are more the result of training than what makes a player truly special. Can't penalize them for things they didn't have access to.

[raid09]

you cannot compare 2 players from 2 different eras without leveling out their respective capacity of skills/athleticism.

Saying that the average professor today is just as smart as Newton is stupid. You are comparing knowledge accumulated over time, which is not intelligence. What you should compare are their mental capacities, aka IQs.

As for basketball, you need to compare their ability to master skills and basketball IQs. Doing dunks and running fast are more relevant to today's era than in the 60s and are more the result of training than what makes a player truly special. Can't penalize them for things they didn't have access to.

Well said. These guys were essentially discovering the game of basketball.

It's akin to looking at computer programmers in the mid 50's and saying, "Well shit! Those old guys were clearly less intelligent - they were still using punch cards on their computers. Our contemporaries invented the internet!"

[Pushxx]

You didn't know, but humans have undergone serious evolutionary advances in 50 years. Imagine 2050. We're gonna have 3 arms with 60 inch verts.

Just because Russell and Wilt were two of the most athletic players ever who were building the foundations of basketball doesn't mean they'd be better than JaVale McGee.

jk...

[Marchesk]

Well said. These guys were essentially discovering the game of basketball.

That's a bit of a stretch, as basketball was invented in the late 19th century. But, there was clearly a transition in the game from the 50s to the 70s.


It's akin to looking at computer programmers in the mid 50's and saying, "Well shit! Those old guys were clearly less intelligent - they were still using punch cards on their computers. Our contemporaries invented the internet!"

What they did actually impresses me more. They were programming on bare metal with extremely limited computing power and memory. They had to invent everything they needed. And it's not like they had books, help docs or online material they could refer to. So yeah, good point.

However, the internet goes back to the 60s. Actually, a lot of computing advances were pioneered back then or earlier. There was this conference of computer scientists that's called the Mother of all Demos which occurred in 1968 in San Fran. Douglas Engelbert demonstrated a mouse device, hypertext, video conferencing, word processing, and some of the features you see on Google docs (now Google drive). I've seen videos of the conference, and his stuff is way ahead of it's day, but of course primitive compared to what we have now. But the ideas were there. What he did inspired Xerox Parc, which later inspired the likes of Bil Gates and Steve Jobs.

[Owl]

Q1) Does it matter? Even slightly? Why?
Q2) Is there any way of knowing who is right or is it going to be meaningless between those who like, respect old players and those who don't?
Q3) How exactly are they going to be transported here? Or in other hypotheses how are present players going to go back to the 60s? Will they have different childhoods, nutrition and training? Will players going back in time suffer more racism?

And two sub-questions, though they're basically adjuncts to q1.
Is a players greatness diminished if we decide they wouldn't be as good today? and
To what end are we having this discussion? Is the purpose to see if specific players benefitted from innovations such as the shot clock, the influence of racial quotas (i.e. a point of some possible interest) or is it, as OP seems to suggest, about knocking legends of the game.

Dominance is what matters. If you want to punish older era players on GOAT lists there are some reasonable grounds on which you might justify doing so. But this sort of, "wouldn't Bob Pettit be rubbish today" ... well it seems a bit, pointless.

Oh and Cousy and West weren't the same generation. They played 3 overlapping seasons (plus one abbortive comeback for 7 games, 34 minutes). They were the same generation like Moses Malone and Shaquille O'Neal are.

[Marchesk]

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist ever, but the average university physics professor today, has insights into theoretical physicals Newton never imagined. They also understand all of Newton's knowledge. They are better physicists than Newton, but are not greater.

They have more knowledge, but if you brought prime Newton here in a time machine, and once he adjusted (that would be some culture shock), he would drop like 40 an 15 on these weak professors today ...

Newton would have the capacity to do more with the knowledge than university professors. Assuming that he could adjust to modern life. Just like Wilt would be able to do more with today's training, nutrition, stats and other advantages than most basketball players. Except that the transition would be a bit easier on Wilt, lol.

[Psileas]

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist ever, but the average university physics professor today, has insights into theoretical physicals Newton never imagined. They also understand all of Newton's knowledge. They are better physicists than Newton, but are not greater.

The average university physics professor has no insights that Newton couldn't imagine. And it doesn't matter that they understand Newton's knowledge (which isn't accurate, either, since Newton was an all-around talented scientist, he didn't specialize in one field like today's scientists do), since this knowledge is acquired by copying others.
Newton was an all-time level mind, he was greater AND "better" than the vast majority of physicists.
Better meaning that he could do more than the others when having the same things at his disposal.
Greater meaning that he did do more than the others.

Today's scientists have more studying material and that's it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Are people here really saying Newton knows anything about E=MC2, string theory, subatomic particles, etc.

Even what he is famous for gravity, we have recently learned a lot more about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtBaloIlcao/TrMKa8PcoOI/AAAAAAAAE0g/Nn4fQoJ8dN4/s320/Underneath-The-Fabric-of-Space-Time-Earth-Gravity-Moon-World-Curtain-Dimensions-Different-Light-Outer-Galaxy-Universe.jpg

http://natureofgravity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/slide52.gif

We now have a theory of why the plants orbit the sun and why the moon orbits earth.

obviously Newton is a genius, my point was only that being greater is not the same as being better.

I stick to my point that Mikan was greater than Ewing and robinson. Obviously Mikan would have gotten crushed by them.

Pettit, Cousy and West would not have been superstars today, they would be lucky to make an NBA roster.

Wilt and Russell would be average big men.

[Kblaze8855]

Ewing would eat Wilt alive based on what?

I believe Wilt had 25/20 first time he played Kareem. Kareem had numbers too but he didnt outplay Wilt. And wilt was on a repair knee, 300 pounds, and on his way down. Kareem was probably 22 and as athletic as he would ever be.

Kareem played Ewing the first time I think he had like 25/8 and the next time....he gave him 40 something and Ewing went I think 3-15 or maybe worse than that.

Kareem was like 37 or 38.

Wilt can play young Kareem as an equal...old Kareem was all NBA first team over Ewing.

But Ewing is a lock to eat a better version of Wilt than Kareem ever played alive.......

[WillC]

So let me get this straight. You think that Jerry West - one of the greatest shooters in basketball history, a phenomenal ball-hawk and defender, very good passer, and one of the most determined and rugged guards imaginable - wouldn't be able to play in today's NBA.... even though Steve Kerr won 5 championships in the 1990s/2000s? Even though JJ Redick is a solid player in today's NBA?

Right.

[CavaliersFTW]

Are people here really saying Newton knows anything about E=MC2, string theory, subatomic particles, etc.

Even what he is famous for gravity, we have recently learned a lot more about.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CtBaloIlcao/TrMKa8PcoOI/AAAAAAAAE0g/Nn4fQoJ8dN4/s320/Underneath-The-Fabric-of-Space-Time-Earth-Gravity-Moon-World-Curtain-Dimensions-Different-Light-Outer-Galaxy-Universe.jpg

http://natureofgravity.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/slide52.gif

We now have a theory of why the plants orbit the sun and why the moon orbits earth.

obviously Newton is a genius, my point was only that being greater is not the same as being better.

I stick to my point that Mikan was greater than Ewing and robinson. Obviously Mikan would have gotten crushed by them.

Pettit, Cousy and West would not have been superstars today, they would be lucky to make an NBA roster.

Wilt and Russell would be average big men.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nope.gif

[branslowski]

Bob Petit would be ball boy in All-star game.

Bob Cousy would be a bench player in the D-League.

West would be a solid 6th man in the league.

[WillC]

I hope people take the time to read this quote from Hall of Famer Ed Macauley:

Ed Macauley:

[MavsSuperFan]

Bob Petit would be ball boy in All-star game.

Bob Cousy would be a bench player in the D-League.

West would be a solid 6th man in the league.

I wouldnt go this far but you are closer than the people arguing they would be all stars.

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2012/12/24/vaults.gif

Athletes get better over time.

People probably would have thought mckayla maroney was a witch or something lol

[CavaliersFTW]

I wouldnt go this far but you are closer than the people arguing they would be all stars.

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2012/12/24/vaults.gif

Equipment gets better over time.
Fixed. Especially in your example.

[lakers_forever]

I wouldnt go this far but you are closer than the people arguing they would be all stars.

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2012/12/24/vaults.gif

Athletes get better over time.

People probably would have thought mckayla maroney was a witch or something lol

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.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sigh :facepalm

Fine go ahead guys keep living in denial

The GOAT NBA player played in the 60s :rolleyes:

Pettit, West and Cousy would be allstars today:rolleyes:

[CavaliersFTW]

Sigh :facepalm

Fine go ahead guys keep living in denial

The GOAT NBA player played in the 60s :rolleyes:

Pettit, West and Cousy would be allstars today:rolleyes:
Wilt being the GOAT is of course debatable, with any of the other GOAT candidates from w/e era because criteria and favortism is of course going to be different from person to person. But Cousy West and Pettit did prove to have the physical and mental tools to be elite basketball players. These include everything from basic pre-requisits of work ethic, to abnormal height, length, coordination and peripheral vision. They were gifted athletes, not necessarily in the mold of explosive leapers - but there's a lot more that goes into being an all-star/superstar level player than jumping ability.

[LAZERUSS]

Better question...

What would a 6-8 Kevin Love, a 37 year old Steve Nash, and the 6-11 Andrew Bogut have averaged in the 60's?

A Love who ran away with the rpg title in 2010-11, and in only 35 mpg. Or the Nash who led the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg in 2010-11. Or the fragile Bogut, who led the league in blocks in 2010-2011.

Does anyone here really believe those three guys would have come close to leading the league in the 60's?

[Psileas]

Sigh :facepalm

Fine go ahead guys keep living in denial

The GOAT NBA player played in the 60s :rolleyes:

Pettit, West and Cousy would be allstars today:rolleyes:

You yourself admitted that "greatest" and "best" are two different things, but now it seems that, in your mind, it's not only impossible for the "best" to have played in the 60's, but also the "greatest". Nope, no agenda here...:rolleyes:

[AintNoSunshine]

brian scalabrine，chris quinn and coby karl？




jk

[G-Funk]

all equal or better than Ginobli, Nash n Dirk

[SuperPippen]

West would be an All-Star today, easily.

[TheReal Kendall]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7181659136/hD89011F4/

[OldSkoolball#52]

Pettit, Cousy and West would not have been superstars today, they would be lucky to make an NBA roster.



Strictly because they're white?


I suppose if Nash and Ginobili played in 1960 and were studs, you'd assume they'd be scrubs in the modern era?

[deja vu]

Steroids get better over time.
FTFY

[MavsSuperFan]

Better question...

What would a 6-8 Kevin Love, a 37 year old Steve Nash, and the 6-11 Andrew Bogut have averaged in the 60's?

A Love who ran away with the rpg title in 2010-11, and in only 35 mpg. Or the Nash who led the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg in 2010-11. Or the fragile Bogut, who led the league in blocks in 2010-2011.

Does anyone here really believe those three guys would have come close to leading the league in the 60's?

Kevin love in the 60s would have averaged 40 ppg and 20 rebounds.

Prime Nash would be considered the GOAT if he played in the 60s.

[MavsSuperFan]

Strictly because they're white?


I suppose if Nash and Ginobili played in 1960 and were studs, you'd assume they'd be scrubs in the modern era?

I am only using them because I am showing how ridiculous it is to say wilt and russell would be the best players in the NBA after the 1980s.
These were great players during wilt and russell's time. These great players would have trouble making a roster today.

[MavsSuperFan]

You yourself admitted that "greatest" and "best" are two different things, but now it seems that, in your mind, it's not only impossible for the "best" to have played in the 60's, but also the "greatest". Nope, no agenda here...:rolleyes:

When people here say GOAT they typically are referring to the best in the sense that they would draft that guy first before any others. Ya of course I have an agenda. Everyone who makes a topic has an agenda. Thats what a forum is about. I want to talk about how ridiculous it is not to factor in the low level of competition when people put russell and wilt ahead of guys like MJ, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc.

[WillC]

Better question...

What would a 6-8 Kevin Love, a 37 year old Steve Nash, and the 6-11 Andrew Bogut have averaged in the 60's?

A Love who ran away with the rpg title in 2010-11, and in only 35 mpg. Or the Nash who led the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg in 2010-11. Or the fragile Bogut, who led the league in blocks in 2010-2011.

Does anyone here really believe those three guys would have come close to leading the league in the 60's?

This needs to be re-quoted every time someone questions the talent of white players from the 1960s.

Great post :applause:

[WillC]

Kevin love in the 60s would have averaged 40 ppg and 20 rebounds.

Hmm, interesting. So still not as good as Wilt. So you agree that Wilt would be a dominant force in the NBA today? Since Kevin Love is an All-Star and Olympic gold medal winner.

[Psileas]

When people here say GOAT they typically are referring to the best in the sense that they would draft that guy first before any others.

Then, why bother to make a distinction since you are unwilling yourself to use it?


Ya of course I have an agenda. Everyone who makes a topic has an agenda. Thats what a forum is about.

No, a forum is not necessarily a place where you voice your opinion just with the intention to defend it to death.


I want to talk about how ridiculous it is not to factor in the low level of competition when people put russell and wilt ahead of guys like MJ, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc.

You'll get nowhere unless you provide irrefutable evidence.

[MavsSuperFan]

Hmm, interesting. So still not as good as Wilt. So you agree that Wilt would be a dominant force in the NBA today? Since Kevin Love is an All-Star and Olympic gold medal winner.

40 ppg and 20 rpg are the minimum love would average for the decade. If you want to argue that Wilt would be a rich man's love any time after the 1980s then I accept that. I consider love extremely overrated. He gets stats but rarely seems to impact his team. His stats are extremely empty.

I dont hate wilt and russell, just annoying seeing people here rate them above magic, bird, hakeem, shaq, lebron, kobe, etc. I have even seen people rate them above mj. If you want to say they are greater, in the sense that Mikan was great, fine, but people here argue they would be mvps today.

[WillC]

40 ppg and 20 rpg are the minimum love would average for the decade. If you want to argue that Wilt would be a rich man's love any time after the 1980s then I accept that. I consider love extremely overrated. He gets stats but rarely seems to impact his team. His stats are extremely empty.

I dont hate wilt and russell, just annoying seeing people here rate them above magic, bird, hakeem, shaq, lebron, kobe, etc. I have even seen people rate them above mj. If you want to say they are greater, in the sense that Mikan was great, fine, but people here argue they would be mvps today.

If you put Wilt in a time machine and spat him out on an NBA court today, he'd probably struggle because of the change in rules and tactics.

However, he has all the attributes to dominate today if he was born into this era, i.e. if he had time to adjust to the modern game.

The comparisons to Javale McGee are flawed; on paper, McGee should dominate any era because of his size and athleticism, but the reality is that he doesn't have a basketball brain.

An ageing Wilt proved to be a suitable match for a young upstart Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor at the time), who used to outplay Hakeem Olajuwon, who himself outplayed Shaquille O'Neal.

Obviously the above paragraph over simplifies things, but it gives you an idea of the type of ability that Wilt Chamberlain possessed.

I have 100% confidence that, if he played today, Wilt Chamberlain would be the best defensive big man in the NBA. Would he average 50ppg? Of course not. The game has changed since he put up those numbers. Could he average 20ppg? Well if David Lee can do it, then yes, I believe Wilt Chamberlain can too.

I also believe Wilt Chamberlain would also lead the league in rebounds per game and blocks per game. After all, if Kevin Love can get 15rpg, then so can Wilt Chamberlain. He'd be the strongest center in the league while retaining his athleticism which other big men (such as Roy Hibbert and Marc Gasol) lack.

So averages of 22ppg (on .550 FG%), 15rpg, 3apg and 4bpg don't seem out of the question.

I think those numbers would have him in contention for the MVP award year-in year-out.

Can I ask what part of that you disagree with?

It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Kblaze8855]

Id really like you to explain a few things about this....

Bird/magic faced acceptable competition.

When Elvin Hayes puts up 25/15 losing in the 1969 playoffs as Wilt and Russell take their teams to the finals hes bad opposition. When hes in his 30s and putting up 23/11 in the same league as Bird/magic hes now good? What was he at 23 if hes acceptable at 33? Hes in the finals a month before Bird and Magic arrive doing al lstar numbers. Its fine for Bird and Magic to win i na league with hayes as a star bigman but with Wilt and russell....beating a younger better hayes...hayes isnt acceptable.

Wilt can play Kareem as an equal...when Wilt is off a knee injuy and in his 30s...while Kareem is in his prime.

That isnt enough competition.

Same guy at 37 and 38 drops 40 on centers still in the NBA in 2003....

Thats fine. Magic, Bird, and Jordan get credit for accomplishments in the league with him.

Kareem is all nba first team over guys in the league in the 2000s...when hes 37 but Wilt plays him to a standstill when hes 23...

Wilt gets no credit.

Wilt leading great teams while tiny Archibald is doing numbers....doesnt count.

Tiny is the team captian and still an all star way past his prime on Birds celtics. Wins a ring.

Birds ring counts. Tiny counts in his 30s.

In his prime hes reason to consider Wilts deeds less impressive.

Bob Lanier can be worse than Wilt for 4 years of his prime most productive years. Wilt is considered better. But Bob can put up 21/11 in the same league as Bird/Magic and be having games of 21/10 to Birds 17/10 in a series where hes in his 30s and Birds team gets swept?

Bob 10 years past his peak can still put double doubles on Birds era and help knock him out of the playoffs but at the top of his game Wilt is all nba over him, all d first team, and leading his team to the finals.

We really assuming the old Lanier who was still an all star on the Bucks when Bird had a title and Magic was winning his second....wasnt BETTER in his prime vs Wilt?

Did he learn to play at 30?


Why is it virtually everyone great from the 60s and 70s who were not too old to play in Bird/Magics era were still great in it?

If its as simple as newer = better.....why were so many old players outplaying guys who played into the 90s?

Really...

Explain why Bob Lanier is nothing when he plays Wilt but good competition as an all star bigman at 33 vs Bird and Magic. How does wilt give 32 points, 34 rebounds, and 12 blocks to the prime version of a 6'11'' 260 pound guy who was still an all star in the 80s in his 30s?

I just want that basketball lesson. Teach me.

What did Bob Lanier learn in his 30s to make him better than he was when Wilt was better than him in the 70s?

[Legends66NBA7]

Jerry West would definitely a transcend in this era. He's got the skillset and can always improve/adapt currently.

Bob Pettit, I believe, was the first player to introduce weight training methods to other NBA players. Correct me if I am wrong, I think he bulked up to something like 265 pounds.

Bob Cousy, probably didn't have the most skill of the 3 and I don't know how well he would transcend.

Best case in this scenario is all 3 would have to be born in the mid-late 80's and develop their skills along the way.

[CavaliersFTW]

Jerry West would definitely a transcend in this era. He's got the skillset and can always improve/adapt currently.

Bob Pettit, I believe, was the first player to introduce weight training methods to other NBA players. Correct me if I am wrong, I think he bulked up to something like 265 pounds.

Bob Cousy, probably didn't have the most skill of the 3 and I don't know how well he would transcend.

Best case in this scenario is all 3 would have to be born in the mid-late 80's and develop their skills along the way.
I don't understand these Bob Cousy criticisms at all. From the footage, Bob Cousy quite clearly had THE MOST "skills" or rather, natural gifts of court vision, handles, and penetrating ability mixed with the least amount of bland 1950's-60's-70's discipline most players displayed from that era because he was attempting the dazzling types of plays that we as fans LOVE to watch today, and that commentators go apeshit over.

When I see Bob Pettit and Jerry West footage in my archive I think "wow, these guys have remarkable consistency effort and discipline".... but rarely are any of their individual plays anything I'd consider remarkable on their own. It isn't until you see a collection of their plays strewn together that you can see and appreciate their consistency. However, when I see Bob Cousy footage in my archive I think "HOLY SHIT how did he even see that guy/make that pass!?". Unlike West or Pettit Cousy can wow you with just individual plays. As such his talents stand out the most to me right away. I don't get how anyone can conclude he had less skills, or less gifts, or tools or w/e unless maybe they haven't seen enough footage. His stats analysis is one thing - maybe people are jumping to the conclusion he had less skill based on his shooting % or something, but from footage IMO he clearly was a more gifted penetrator, handler and passer than say, Jerry West. Shooting wasn't his bag, but if it needed to be for him to switch era's why is Rondo still in this league? I think maybe Cousy needs a mix in the future.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't know about Cousy. Be hard to take a non athlete point who learned the game before the teaching of the jumper. Especially one who admitted he wasn't a willing defender.

[bizil]

Ewing would eat Wilt alive based on what?

I believe Wilt had 25/20 first time he played Kareem. Kareem had numbers too but he didnt outplay Wilt. And wilt was on a repair knee, 300 pounds, and on his way down. Kareem was probably 22 and as athletic as he would ever be.

Kareem played Ewing the first time I think he had like 25/8 and the next time....he gave him 40 something and Ewing went I think 3-15 or maybe worse than that.

Kareem was like 37 or 38.

Wilt can play young Kareem as an equal...old Kareem was all NBA first team over Ewing.

But Ewing is a lock to eat a better version of Wilt than Kareem ever played alive.......

Great points! The thing is generations overlap some. Kareem played against Wilt, Gilmore, Reed, Cowens, etc. But then he ran into Moses, Sikma and other great centers later in the 70's. And hell he ran into Hakeem and Ewing later. In each phase, Kareem was still a great player at different points in his career. So Wilt I see EASILY being a dominant force against guys in the 80's at his peak. I feel the tougher question is for PG's, SG's, and SF's. Some guys are so great that they would be great in any era. That's a fact! U also gotta realize if you put Big O, West, Baylor, Russell, and Wilt in this era that they would have the advantages of today. That's why it's hard often times to compare eras.

[Psileas]

Great points! The thing is generations overlap some. Kareem played against Wilt, Gilmore, Reed, Cowens, etc. But then he ran into Moses, Sikma and other great centers later in the 70's. And hell he ran into Hakeem and Ewing later. In each phase, Kareem was still a great player at different points in his career. So Wilt I see EASILY being a dominant force against guys in the 80's at his peak. I feel the tougher question is for PG's, SG's, and SF's. Some guys are so great that they would be great in any era. That's a fact! U also gotta realize if you put Big O, West, Baylor, Russell, and Wilt in this era that they would have the advantages of today. That's why it's hard often times to compare eras.

People love so much to ignore this. Their ultimate scenario is a player being transported in time and play maybe only 1 game, then returning in his time. As if, say, young Jordan didn't struggle in his first couple of games either of his career or of his comebacks. As if Russell didn't face his share of difficulties in his own very early stages. So, imagine Jordan retiring after a couple of games, people would claim that "nah, he was OK, but not all-time great material".
I've seen people doubting Havlicek could play today, then I asked them whether they thought the same way about Dr.J, they refused, then I pointed out that they faced each other and that Erving credited Havlicek for his defense, and Havlicek was at the end of his career...

[LAZERUSS]

People love so much to ignore this. Their ultimate scenario is a player being transported in time and play maybe only 1 game, then returning in his time. As if, say, young Jordan didn't struggle in his first couple of games either of his career or of his comebacks. As if Russell didn't face his share of difficulties in his own very early stages. So, imagine Jordan retiring after a couple of games, people would claim that "nah, he was OK, but not all-time great material".
I've seen people doubting Havlicek could play today, then I asked them whether they thought the same way about Dr.J, they refused, then I pointed out that they faced each other and that Erving credited Havlicek for his defense, and Havlicek was at the end of his career...

And I would also add a question...just what has changed so much in the game in the last 50+ years? The object is still to shoot the ball in the basket, to prevent your opponent from shooting the ball in the basket, to go after the rebounds, and to pass the ball to a shooter for an easier basket.

This is not rocket science. Jerry West had what has often been considered the most perfect jump-shot, and he was shooting it in college in the late 50's. Meanwhile Shawn Marion has as goofy a shot as there has ever been. And Bruce Bowen led the NBA in 3pt FG% (.443) in the same year that he shot .406 from the FT line.

And speaking of FT shooting... in the 58-59 season, the NBA collectively shot .756 from the line. In the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771 from the line. Just last year... .753.

Watch the play of Pete Maravich, who was scoring 44 ppg in college in the 60's. How many players, including Steve Nash, can even come close to what he was doing with a basketball some 40+ years ago. And he didn't have the luxury of unlimited steps and "palming" the ball on every dribble, either.

Gus Johnson, David Thompson, and Dr. J were doing soaring dunks 40-50 years ago. And please, is there such a thing as a "perfect" dunk?

And I get sick-and-tired of reading about the "size" of the players (which has changed very little in the last 50 years BTW.) A 6-10 Russell was dominating taller players in the 60's. A 6-10 Moses was abusing taller players in the 70's and 80's. A 6-10 Hakeem was outplaying taller players in the 90's. And a 6-10 Howard has been considered the best center in the league for several years now. What has changed there?

The game was invented over 100 years ago. And the basics are still pretty much the same. The same size court, hoop, and ball, with the same number of players. And the objectives have remained the same since. To put the ball in the basket, and to prevent your opponent from doing so.

[Marchesk]

When people here say GOAT they typically are referring to the best in the sense that they would draft that guy first before any others. Ya of course I have an agenda. Everyone who makes a topic has an agenda. Thats what a forum is about. I want to talk about how ridiculous it is not to factor in the low level of competition when people put russell and wilt ahead of guys like MJ, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc.

People should NOT be using that as the criteria for GOAT. GOAT should be based on your career accomplishments, period. We can't put guys in time machines and have them play in different eras. There's simply no way to take out all the variables and say, "Well if Jordan didn't have Pippen or Phil", or if "Wilt had played on the Celtics". It's fun to entertain hypotheticals, but we'll never really know.

The only objective way to make a GOAT list is to just look at what players did. Your competition is who your competition was. Why hold that against a player or team?

[pudman13]

You didn't know, but humans have undergone serious evolutionary advances in 50 years. Imagine 2050. We're gonna have 3 arms with 60 inch verts.

Just because Russell and Wilt were two of the most athletic players ever who were building the foundations of basketball doesn't mean they'd be better than JaVale McGee.

jk...

Don't you think that if they reached peak age in this generation they'd also have the kind of conditioning of modern athletes and the same kind of skills training? That's not to mention that even in their day with inferior sneakers these two were every bit as athletic as today's players.

[pudman13]

Watch the play of Pete Maravich, who was scoring 44 ppg in college in the 60's. How many players, including Steve Nash, can even come close to what he was doing with a basketball some 40+ years ago. And he didn't have the luxury of unlimited steps and "palming" the ball on every dribble, either.

Indeed--maybe the better question would be how good Lebron James or Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade would be if they had to play by the rules of the 60s and 70s.

[Legends66NBA7]

Don't you think that if they reached peak age in this generation they'd also have the kind of conditioning of modern athletes and the same kind of skills training? That's not to mention that even in their day with inferior sneakers these two were every bit as athletic as today's players.

The white text indicates he was being sarcastic.