Just got done watching a 2 hour documentary on Oscar Robertson:

[CavaliersFTW]

I suggest any hoops historian consider purchasing and watching this 2 hour documentary on Oscar Robertson. Incredible basketball player, and incredible person.

http://www.bigovideo.com/

Lots of interesting facts about Oscar were presented in the documentary that I've never heard before and there are interviews in there from a whole range of athletes and figures vouching for his greatness explaining how he played and/or just telling stories about him.

One such fact I did not know about Oscar was that he was a also a stellar Track and Field athlete (city champ and Indiana state finalist high-jumper his HS senior year) which puts him in the same company as Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Connie Hawkins and Gus Johnson who I've come to learn were all elite track and field athletes (more specifically all of them were accomplished high-jumpers).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Qg3_pHfC4qE/UmCpqMrTQUI/AAAAAAAAEvU/7TecpHWz1vs/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25202.jpghttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6nc5VnMaOas/UmCppwDF-dI/AAAAAAAAEvQ/GnCJFKkxcSU/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25201.jpg

[Pushxx]

Dude, humans were inferior back then. It was a whole 40 years ago!!!!!

Kidding, but yeah...Oscar was skilled as hell.

[NumberSix]

Fcuk outta here. They didn't even have PEDs.


#garbage

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Bobby Jones owned the North Carolina high jump record in high school for decades, I believe. Nate Robinson was a big time track and field guy as well. I think Doug Christie too. Probably a lot of others.

[pudman13]

Does the video spend a lot of time discussing his lawsuit re: the ABA/NBA merger?

[Psileas]

I suggest any hoops historian consider purchasing and watching this 2 hour documentary on Oscar Robertson. Incredible basketball player, and incredible person.

http://www.bigovideo.com/

Lots of interesting facts about Oscar were presented in the documentary that I've never heard before and there are interviews in there from a whole range of athletes and figures vouching for his greatness explaining how he played and/or just telling stories about him.

One such fact I did not know about Oscar was that he was a also a stellar Track and Field athlete (city champ and Indiana state finalist high-jumper his HS senior year) which puts him in the same company as Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Connie Hawkins and Gus Johnson who I've come to learn were all elite track and field athletes (more specifically all of them were accomplished high-jumpers).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Qg3_pHfC4qE/UmCpqMrTQUI/AAAAAAAAEvU/7TecpHWz1vs/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25202.jpghttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6nc5VnMaOas/UmCppwDF-dI/AAAAAAAAEvQ/GnCJFKkxcSU/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25201.jpg

Is he jumping with street clothes on in that second pic?

[jongib369]

I suggest any hoops historian consider purchasing and watching this 2 hour documentary on Oscar Robertson. Incredible basketball player, and incredible person.

http://www.bigovideo.com/

Lots of interesting facts about Oscar were presented in the documentary that I've never heard before and there are interviews in there from a whole range of athletes and figures vouching for his greatness explaining how he played and/or just telling stories about him.

One such fact I did not know about Oscar was that he was a also a stellar Track and Field athlete (city champ and Indiana state finalist high-jumper his HS senior year) which puts him in the same company as Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Connie Hawkins and Gus Johnson who I've come to learn were all elite track and field athletes (more specifically all of them were accomplished high-jumpers).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Qg3_pHfC4qE/UmCpqMrTQUI/AAAAAAAAEvU/7TecpHWz1vs/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25202.jpghttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6nc5VnMaOas/UmCppwDF-dI/AAAAAAAAEvQ/GnCJFKkxcSU/s400/Oscar%2520HJ%25201.jpg
Know what he was jumping?

[WorldWarriors]

He doesn't get enough credit when mentioning the all time greats imo. I know very little about him. I know more about Connie Hawkins, lol. Is this doc on Netflix?

[IncarceratedBob]

Anyone who says Oscar wasn't a GREAT player is deluded. But especially compared to the players of today he's not really that GOOD. Basketball has evolved so much since he played that it's not fair to compare him to players like Nash, Curry, CP3,etc. Let's just stick to talking about his accomplishments and not bring up his actual talent/skill because that simply doesn't stack up with the players of today

[90sgoat]

David Stern and the NBA jewed him because of his union activism, pretty much destroyed his legacy.

[ArbitraryWater]

He doesn't get enough credit when mentioning the all time greats imo. I know very little about him. I know more about Connie Hawkins, lol. Is this doc on Netflix?

lol?

[red1]

Let's just be honest. I am not saying this to talk shit I just want to be sincere. Basketball in the 60s just wasn't the same sport. He was a competitor, no doubt about it but that doesn't mean that he would be equally competitive today. Modern era starts from the mid-70's. And that is the absolute earliest. Personally I feel that it starts from the mid 80's.

[WorldWarriors]

lol?

LOL I'm not sure why that maybe funny.

[senelcoolidge]

Know what he was jumping?

Probably a couple feet. The angle makes it look like it's high. J/K.
Anybody seen "Something to Cheer about: Oscar Robertson and the Cripus Attucks Tigers"? I tempted to buy that dvd..only $20.

[jongib369]

Let's just be honest. I am not saying this to talk shit I just want to be sincere. Basketball in the 60s just wasn't the same sport. He was a competitor, no doubt about it but that doesn't mean that he would be equally competitive today. Modern era starts from the mid-70's. And that is the absolute earliest. Personally I feel that it starts from the mid 80's.
You do realize a lot of those 60's/70's players played quite well against guys who played into the 90s, right?

[red1]

You do realize a lot of those 60's/70's players played quite well against guys who played into the 90s, right?
Absolutely. Kareem for example would have been GOAT in any era. That doesn't mean that the average player in the 60's or 70's would be competitive today. In fact they wouldn't

[jongib369]

Absolutely. Kareem for example would have been GOAT in any era. That doesn't mean that the average player in the 60's or 70's would be competitive today. In fact they wouldn't
What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIA

https://youtu.be/m4_Hgsnncc0

[red1]

What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIA

https://youtu.be/m4_Hgsnncc0
Hey bro. I am posting from my phone so I won't watch those videos due to not wasting data. No troll. Be real with yourself though. Do you actually feel that the league hasn't improved massively in the last few decades?

[Showtime80']

Thank you jongib!!! People in this site think comparing players of the 60's to now is like comparing Roman athletes BC times to Usain Bolt for God's sake! Human evolution doesn't work that fast!

Kareem played against some of the top dogs from the 60's and some of those guys still gave him the business like Wilt and Thurmond. He also still layed the smackdown on youngsters like Hakeem and Ewing when he was 40 years old, those guys schooled a young athletically primed Shaq in the 1990's!!! And Shaq would go on to dominate the first half of the 2000's!!!!

See where I'm getting with this, the only thing the modern players have on those guys from the 60's is technique, steroids and pampered surroundings, that's it! Let Usain Bolt go back and race Jesse Owens in 1936 without PED's, modern equipment and tracks and see if his 9.58 WR doesn't come back down a little closer to Jesse's 10.3.

[jongib369]

Hey bro. I am posting from my phone so I won't watch those videos due to not wasting data. No troll. Be real with yourself though. Do you actually feel that the league hasn't improved massively in the last few decades?
In ways, but not to the level that 80% of the league in the 60's/70s wouldn't make the league today like you seem to be asserting. I think those players given the looser rules of today wouldn't take much time to adjust, some might take longer. Would all of them make it though? No

Idk how old you are but I'm 24, turning 25 the 21st this month....Maybe I'm being delusional but I don't feel all that old :lol...25 years before I was born it was 1966. Wilt had yet to win his first title dethroning Russell

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/13/e0/10/13e0103cf5d3ab66e189c74fcfee3162.jpg

[jongib369]

Thank you jongib!!! People in this site think comparing players of the 60's to now is like comparing Roman athletes BC times to Usain Bolt for God's sake! Human evolution doesn't work that fast!

Kareem played against some of the top dogs from the 60's and some of those guys still gave him the business like Wilt and Thurmond. He also still layed the smackdown on youngsters like Hakeem and Ewing when he was 40 years old, those guys schooled a young athletically primed Shaq in the 1990's!!! And Shaq would go on to dominate the first half of the 2000's!!!!

See where I'm getting with this, the only thing the modern players have on those guys from the 60's is technique, steroids and pampered surroundings, that's it! Let Usain Bolt go back and race Jesse Owens in 1936 without PED's, modern equipment and tracks and see if his 9.58 WR doesn't come back down a little closer to Jesse's 10.3.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/if3ouq.jpg

http://oi66.tinypic.com/30dh3de.jpg

http://oi67.tinypic.com/v58n7n.jpg

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/40/73/17/8631286/5/920x920.jpg

http://oi63.tinypic.com/2vw8px5.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/2012/history/features/04/09/season-of-giants-bill-russell/russell-chamberlain.jpg

http://exnba.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/kareem-vs-wilt.jpg

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/Hakeem%20Olajuwon/VS/Abdul-Jabbar/-.jpg

http://oi47.tinypic.com/e12liw.jpg

http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/2009+NBA+All+Star+Game+AlezgUXHSdOl.jpg

[red1]

In ways, but not to the level that 80% of the league in the 60's/70s wouldn't make the league today like you seem to be asserting. I think those players given the looser rules of today wouldn't take much time to adjust, some might take longer. Would all of them make it though? No

Idk how old you are but I'm 24, turning 25 the 21st this month....Maybe I'm being delusional but I don't feel all that old :lol...25 years before I was born it was 1966. Wilt had yet to win his first title dethroning Russell

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/13/e0/10/13e0103cf5d3ab66e189c74fcfee3162.jpg
I'm 26 bro and I know for a fact that the league has improved in most ways. All people are biased towards their own era. Ranking players that played in the 60s is like talking about a different sport. I won't say 80% but I will say that most of the guys from that era would struggle to make in today's league. Not because they weren't good in their era but because the talent pool and overall level of competition is much higher today.

[Showtime80']

What's so great about having a larger talent pool when the modern players are learning the game the wrong AAU way?!?

Give me a smaller talent pool to choose from where players are strong in fundamentals, basic nuances, IQ and overall development like they were in the 80's. Brazil is larger and richer than it has ever been in their history and they still can't produce a national team as good as the one in 1970 or 1982!

When you shift a paradigm like the NBA did after the Michael Jordan phenomenon to ATHLETICISM OVER EVERYTHING you ALTER the basic way the game its learned and played.

And I'm sorry but the COMPETITION aspect in the modern NBA is about the worst it has ever been where all the superstars are twitter BFF's and are ready to jump teams at the drop of a hat to join their buddies and there are NO RIVALRIES!!!!

Call me when the modern game can produce a rivalry like the 80s' Celtics-Sixers, Lakers-Celtics, Pistons-Celtics, Lakers-Pistons or Pistons-Bulls!

[Kblaze8855]

If you moved Steph to the 60s and we had 10 minutes of shitty slow motion footage of a skinny guy who looks 15 100% of the people hating on Oscar would be saying he couldnt be a star today. The arguments are never about the ability of the players...skill by skill. Mostly because the people talking dont know shit about the players in question.

Oscars detractors cant speak with any knowledge about his entry passing, pullup jumper, strength, or basketball IQ. They dont judge him or most of his peers by ability...because they dont know anything specific. They tell you....the era was this or that. As if that means everyone was this or that.

Fact is....if I put Michael Jordan into say....the CBA....no matter how dominant...people wouldnt say he was the best basketball player ever. Because they would judge his opponents and consider his dominance irrelevant. But here is the problem....

Hes the same player.

If Jordan never came to the NBA....went to europe instead....he may be just as good...but you wouldnt accept it.

If Bird played in europe....worse? No. But he would be seen as a slow unathletic good passing shooter who couldnt hack it in the NBA. Is he worse? No. You are just ignorant of his ability because you dont judge him by skill...you glance at circumstances and write him off. You need to see him play people you respect...to judge him. But that doesnt make him worse at basketball. At worst it makes him unproven....but the talent is what it is.

And really....people dont know much about the talent of these people. Wilt was roy Hibberts height but moving like this:








http://giant.gfycat.com/UnrealisticTallGeese.gif





*not in the nba for the record for those about to point out the small players*






And a great many people have convinced themselves he couldnt be anything noteworthy today because they consider his competition poor(not knowing shit about them either).

Really...if you base your opinion on how good someone is...on how good you think their opponents are...I dont think I even value your opinion. If you cant tall me about his game....why talk about how good he is or isnt?

Even if the league is somehow worse...if you dont know his game...you dont know shit. A worse league can justify giving his accomplishments less weight relative to modern players....but if you cant tell me specifics about why hes bad or good at basketball I dont know that I need your opinion in the first place.


If this is Curry...or Lin....or Etwaun moore on him...these shots dont go in?





https://giant.gfycat.com/LiveSlimyKitten.gif





Of course not.

The problem is...he played such a different game. And different doesnt mean worse....it just means different. Clearly Steph minus a 3 point line....cant play his game. It would be illogical. Doesnt mean hes worse....it means he would have to play differently. You adjust to the situation you are placed in. Oscar wouldnt take a 10 footer when he could get 8. He wouldnt use more energy than he had to. He was a 6'5'' high jumper who has like 2 dunks on camera in his career and im not sure he ever dunked in a game. He didnt see the reason to use the energy. He was all about staying consistent...every game...every minute. He was skilled of course. He shot better from the FT line than Kobe(not by much but he did). He lived off contested midrange jumpers and post play.

But the league isnt built on that anymore. It wouldnt make him worse....it would make him less suited for today. But how suited you are to a certain set of rules and style doesnt determine your ability.

His skill...his work ethic...his basketball IQ...tenacity. That determines his good he is at basketball. How good he would be today is a matter of circumstances. Not talent. He put his life into developing a style of game that we dont ask for as often. Of course hes less suited to this league. He wasnt trying to play our game.

Not being as suited to a style you were not asked to play doesnt make you worse. It makes you different. We cant judge his talent relative to modern players when he isnt asked to do what they do. How many modern points could make a living scoring 30 a game often guarded by small and power forwards in the post?

Doesnt make them worse.

It makes them different.

[red1]

What's so great about having a larger talent pool when the modern players are learning the game the wrong AAU way?!?

Give me a smaller talent pool to choose from where players are strong in fundamentals, basic nuances, IQ and overall development like they were in the 80's. Brazil is larger and richer than it has ever been in their history and they still can't produce a national team as good as the one in 1970 or 1982!

When you shift a paradigm like the NBA did after the Michael Jordan phenomenon to ATHLETICISM OVER EVERYTHING you ALTER the basic way the game its learned and played.

And I'm sorry but the COMPETITION aspect in the modern NBA is about the worst it has ever been where all the superstars are twitter BFF's and are ready to jump teams at the drop of a hat to join their buddies and there are NO RIVALRIES!!!!

Call me when the modern game can produce a rivalry like the 80s' Celtics-Sixers, Lakers-Celtics, Pistons-Celtics, Lakers-Pistons or Pistons-Bulls!
At this point you are just being difficult. Smaller talent pool? Brazil national team? Rivalries?

Real talk if you put the warriors in the 70s or 80s they would absolutely demolish your favorite team and light them up for 150.

[Kblaze8855]

At this point you are just being difficult. Smaller talent pool? Brazil national team? Rivalries?

Real talk if you put the warriors in the 70s or 80s they would absolutely demolish your favorite team and light them up for 150.


You know that you thinking that isnt evidence of it being true right?

You have no idea what their offense would even look like in the 70s. Really. Why would they play the way they do now without a 3 point line?

Is Steve Kerr an idiot? He gonna have Klay and Steph taking 28 foot 2 pointers at 40% while Kareem is making 60% of his sky hooks?

They would literally have to rebuild their offense from the ground up and you act like you know how effective it would be.

Teams are built for the times they play in.

[red1]

You know that you thinking that isnt evidence of it being true right?
That might be an exaggeration in terms of the numbers because who would know. Regarding the outcome though - if they are calling it the way they call it now I truly feel the warriors would light up any team from any era.

[bukowski81]

If you moved Steph to the 60s and we had 10 minutes of shitty slow motion footage of a skinny guy who looks 15 100% of the people hating on Oscar would be saying he couldnt be a star today. The arguments are never about the ability of the players...skill by skill. Mostly because the people talking dont know shit about the players in question.

Oscars detractors cant speak with any knowledge about his entry passing, pullup jumper, strength, or basketball IQ. They dont judge him or most of his peers by ability...because they dont know anything specific. They tell you....the era was this or that. As if that means everyone was this or that.

Fact is....if I put Michael Jordan into say....the CBA....no matter how dominant...people wouldnt say he was the best basketball player ever. Because they would judge his opponents and consider his dominance irrelevant. But here is the problem....

Hes the same player.

If Jordan never came to the NBA....went to europe instead....he may be just as good...but you wouldnt accept it.

If Bird played in europe....worse? No. But he would be seen as a slow unathletic good passing shooter who couldnt hack it in the NBA. Is he worse? No. You are just ignorant of his ability because you dont judge him by skill...you glance at circumstances and write him off. You need to see him play people you respect...to judge him. But that doesnt make him worse at basketball. At worst it makes him unproven....but the talent is what it is.

And really....people dont know much about the talent of these people. Wilt was roy Hibberts height but moving like this:








http://giant.gfycat.com/UnrealisticTallGeese.gif





*not in the nba for the record for those about to point out the small players*






And a great many people have convinced themselves he couldnt be anything noteworthy today because they consider his competition poor(not knowing shit about them either).

Really...if you base your opinion on how good someone is...on how good you think their opponents are...I dont think I even value your opinion. If you cant tall me about his game....why talk about how good he is or isnt?

Even if the league is somehow worse...if you dont know his game...you dont know shit. A worse league can justify giving his accomplishments less weight relative to modern players....but if you cant tell me specifics about why hes bad or good at basketball I dont know that I need your opinion in the first place.


If this is Curry...or Lin....or Etwaun moore on him...these shots dont go in?





https://giant.gfycat.com/LiveSlimyKitten.gif





Of course not.

The problem is...he played such a different game. And different doesnt mean worse....it just means different. Clearly Steph minus a 3 point line....cant play his game. It would be illogical. Doesnt mean hes worse....it means he would have to play differently. You adjust to the situation you are placed in. Oscar wouldnt take a 10 footer when he could get 8. He wouldnt use more energy than he had to. He was a 6'5'' high jumper who has like 2 dunks on camera in his career and im not sure he ever dunked in a game. He didnt see the reason to use the energy. He was all about staying consistent...every game...every minute. He was skilled of course. He shot better from the FT line than Kobe(not by much but he did). He lived off contested midrange jumpers and post play.

But the league isnt built on that anymore. It wouldnt make him worse....it would make him less suited for today. But how suited you are to a certain set of rules and style doesnt determine your ability.

His skill...his work ethic...his basketball IQ...tenacity. That determines his good he is at basketball. How good he would be today is a matter of circumstances. Not talent. He put his life into developing a style of game that we dont ask for as often. Of course hes less suited to this league. He wasnt trying to play our game.

Not being as suited to a style you were not asked to play doesnt make you worse. It makes you different. We cant judge his talent relative to modern players when he isnt asked to do what they do. How many modern points could make a living scoring 30 a game often guarded by small and power forwards in the post?

Doesnt make them worse.

It makes them different.

Good post. Many people doesnt seem to grasp that the eras thing applies both ways. If Curry, Lebron, Duncan or whoever played in the 60s he wouldnt be the same players they are today.

[Showtime80']

The Warriors lost two games and averaged 100 ppg against last years Cavs, who are one of the WORST FINALS TEAMS IN HISTORY! What the hell are they going to do against the 80's Lakers, Pistons, Sixers or Celtics!

You needed multiple hall of famers, strong inside play and physicality to win titles! The Warriors have none of that!

They rule over today's crap league, nothing more nothing less!

[red1]

But the league isnt built on that anymore. It wouldnt make him worse....it would make him less suited for today. But how suited you are to a certain set of rules and style doesnt determine your ability.

His skill...his work ethic...his basketball IQ...tenacity. That determines his good he is at basketball. How good he would be today is a matter of circumstances. Not talent. He put his life into developing a style of game that we dont ask for as often. Of course hes less suited to this league. He wasnt trying to play our game.

Exactly. Was different enough to literally be considered a different sport. Most of the GOATs have qualities that transfer to any era. I won't act like I watched basketball in the 60s or 70s or even the 80s for that matter but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate and see value in players from the past.

Ranking them and comparing them to modern players is mostly slanted disadvantageously against players from the past for a different reasons. Mainly because the massive gap in talent pool has led to an increase in athleticism and size and because of changes in the actual rules of the game as well. I feel like trying to rank players from the 60s and 70s is futile. Appreciate? Yes. Rank and compare to modern players? Not realistic.

[Kblaze8855]

That might be an exaggeration in terms of the numbers because who would know. Regarding the outcome though - if they are calling it the way they call it now I truly feel the warriors would light up any team from any era.

Why would they be calling it like they call it now? Isnt that a built in advantage to the Warriors? What makes one eras more fair to use than another? would it be....unfair...to have 1948 rules with a thin lane? If so...why? Players who grew up with a 3 point line only got to the NBA in like 1998. Most of basketball history was played very differently.

The warriors have wins recently where if their 3s....were 2s...they score 85 points. So of course...they have to play a TOTALLY different game. Totally different. It just doesnt make sense to shoot from 25 feet when 10 feet is the same. The teams with a gang of dominant interior players would have a natural advantage. Which is why bigmen led all the title teams for decades.

The spacing doesnt work when teams dont fear the 3.

Why even guard Steph at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?

They would still be great....but we cant say what they would be exactly because the 3....and resulting spacing and open lanes...is what makes them so unstoppable.

As I said...they rebuild the offense from the ground up. And how can you honestly say you know how it turns out?

When there is more value in a layup than a 25 footer....is Steph more valuable than Doctor J?

It would be a whole different game.

[red1]

Why would they be calling it like they call it now? Isnt that a built in advantage to the Warriors?

Which again doesnt account for the 3 pointers. They have wins this season where if their 3s....were 2s...they score 85 points. So of course...they have to play a TOTALLY different game. Totally different. It just doesnt make sense to shoot from 25 feet when 10 feet is the same. The teams would a gang of dominant interior players would have a natural advantage.

The spacing doesnt work when teams dont fear the 3.

Why even guard Step at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?

They would still be great....but we cant say what they would be exactly because the 3....and resulting spacing and open lanes...is what makes them so unstoppable.

As I said...they rebuild the offense from the ground up. And how can you honestly say you know how it turns out?

When there is more value in a layup than a 25 footer....is Steph more valuable than Doctor J?

It would be a whole different game.
I agree but that is what we are discussing, no? Who knows if they repeat as champions. I think they will. There is no arguing that they have amplified an existing trend of basing the teams half-court offense around 3s.

If the warriors played any of the all-time great teams including the 80s celtics and lakers and the 90s bulls their strategy would be succesful. They have two elite shooters and a very solid cast around them that are all bought in. Anyone who claims that strategy wouldn't work is only kidding themselves and that is the point I am making.

[bdreason]

Hey bro. I am posting from my phone so I won't watch those videos due to not wasting data. No troll. Be real with yourself though. Do you actually feel that the league hasn't improved massively in the last few decades?


Is Harden better than Jordan? It's been 20 years since MJ dominated the league. Surely the "evolution" of the sport means that modern SG's are better than SG's from 20 years ago.

[red1]

Is Harden better than Jordan? It's been 20 years since MJ dominated the league. Surely the "evolution" of the sport means that modern SG's are better than SG's from 20 years ago.
I mean generally speaking. Jordan and harden are exceptions and no I don't think harden is anything particularly special all-time and I am not saying that MJ isn't the GOAT. Harden is certainly top 10 now, no argument otherwise. However, the average level of talent has CERTAINLY improved from previous eras, especially the 60s and 70s.

[bdreason]

Why even guard Steph at 25 feet if its no more if he makes it than if he makes a pullup jumper in the lane?




Actually, they've done the math, and even if you count Curry's Three's as Two's, there are still only a handful of players in the history of the sport that match his offensive efficiency.

In other words, even if there was no 3-point line, teams could not afford to just let Curry shoot open 30-footers. Teams in every era would have to guard him 40 feet from the hoop.

[bdreason]

I mean generally speaking. Jordan and harden are exceptions and no I don't think harden is anything particularly special all-time and I am not saying that MJ isn't the GOAT. Harden is certainly top 10 now, no argument otherwise. However, the average level of talent has CERTAINLY improved from previous eras, especially the 60s and 70s.


The average player is definitely more talented/devloped in the modern NBA, but Oscar Robertson wasn't an average player. Great players transcend eras, and Oscar would be a complete stud, even in the modern era.

[red1]

The average player is definitely more talented/devloped in the modern NBA, but Oscar Robertson wasn't an average player. Great players transcend eras, and Oscar would be a complete stud, even in the modern era.
I believe that. Talent and heart will create success regardless and that applies to everything in life, not just sports.

[Marchesk]

Actually, they've done the math, and even if you count Curry's Three's as Two's, there are still only a handful of players in the history of the sport that match his offensive efficiency.

In other words, even if there was no 3-point line, teams could not afford to just let Curry shoot open 30-footers. Teams in every era would have to guard him 40 feet from the hoop.

Curry's percentage from three point range is 46.5%. His average drops by five points without the three. I'm not seeing why teams would need to guard him 30 feet out from the hoop. It's just a long two with worse percentage.

[Showtime80']

Make a top five list of every position from 1988 and compare it to 2016 and 88 blows today's league out of the water in ALL POSITIONS!!!

C: Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, Parish and Daugherty
PF: Barkley, Malone, McHale, Williams, McDaniel
SF: Bird, Wilkins, English, Aguirre, Worthy, CHambers
SG: Jordan, Drexler, Dumars, Scott, Ainge
PG: Johnson, Isiah, Stockton, Lever, Price

When comparing to 2016 is like going backwards in EVOLUTION!

[CavaliersFTW]

Red1 has never been a rational poster about the history of the sport.

He only ever does what Kblaze pointed out in his first post in this thread. "Not good because competition."

Zero specific knowledge about any players themselves - competition or otherwise. All just a generalization. What a worthless person to try and talk about the games history with.

Fan:
"Hey but how about that shake and bake by Archie Clark!"

Red1:
"Who? Weak competition. Curry would light that era up with 150"

[Rake2204]

What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIAI had never heard of Mike Riordan before watching that video clip. Smooth looking player and I'm glad videos like this exist.

Also, CavaliersFTW, I've been meaning to say, I dig the individual Pistons highlights you've uploaded. I think I've mostly just seen ones from a 1969 matchup with the Bucks but even then, it's one of the few consumable forms of video media that provides a glimpse to the Pistons from that era (Eddie Miles, Jimmy Walker, etc).

If you come across any more Pistons footage, if you find the time, by all means continue sharing. Or hook me up with the footage if you have bigger fish to fry and I'll break it down and upload myself.

[red1]

Red1 has never been a rational poster about the history of the sport.

He only ever does what Kblaze pointed out in his first post in this thread. "Not good because competition."

Zero specific knowledge about any players themselves - competition or otherwise. All just a generalization. What a worthless person to try and talk about the games history with.

Fan:
"Hey but how about that shake and bake by Archie Clark!"

Red1:
"Who? Weak competition. Curry would light that era up with 150"
I'm definitely rational. Saying that the league improved from the 60s is a rational statement. I am not saying that players weren't good at their craft 50 years ago. I am saying that the average level of athleticism and raw ability has increased because more people see it as a viable career option. Thus an increase in talent level. Common sense my bro.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm definitely rational. Saying that the league improved from the 60s is a rational statement. I am not saying that players weren't good at their craft 50 years ago. I am saying that the average level of athleticism and raw ability has increased because more people see it as a viable career option. Thus an increase in talent level. Common sense my bro.
What kind of shots did Nate Thurmond take - what's in his bag of tricks?

How about Tom Boerwinkle?

What does their defensive and rebounding sphere look like on the floor?

What is Jim Fox good at as a center?

How far out is Mel Counts a threat when he's on the floor?

What kind of a defender is Butch Komives?

What kind of a ball handler and athlete is Fred Carter?

You don't know anything about these players. You keep saying "era". But really, the era is the SMALL collection of athletes with names and individual ability. There's only like 100 to 150 guys in the league at any given time in that "era" it isn't like today with 400+ that interchange with 100 constantly in and out of the D-League.. Surely you should know about how they all perform as individuals if you're going to throw them all under the bus with broad sweeping generalizations.

[CavaliersFTW]

I had never heard of Mike Riordan before watching that video clip. Smooth looking player and I'm glad videos like this exist.

Also, CavaliersFTW, I've been meaning to say, I dig the individual Pistons highlights you've uploaded. I think I've mostly just seen ones from a 1969 matchup with the Bucks but even then, it's one of the few consumable forms of video media that provides a glimpse to the Pistons from that era (Eddie Miles, Jimmy Walker, etc).

If you come across any more Pistons footage, if you find the time, by all means continue sharing. Or hook me up with the footage if you have bigger fish to fry and I'll break it down and upload myself.
I'm desperate to get my hands on a 1967 Pistons vs Knicks game that exists in entirety. When I do, I will post it. Prime Dave Bing in it :cheers:

[Duffy Pratt]

What do you think of these average players? Wouldn't even make the bench?

https://youtu.be/iWNAKxZPpIA

https://youtu.be/m4_Hgsnncc0

Riordan was considerably below average when he played on that Knicks team he was lighting up in that video. The 70s Knicks had Riordan who went on to be a star with the Bullets, Don May who went from averaging 2 points a game to over 20 the next year for Buffalo, and Cazzie Russell off the bench. The team also had Frazier, Debusschere, Reed, and Bradley, all hall of famers, and all would be good to great players now.

The factors that have changed between then and now are simply the following: 1) money, which may draw more people to the sport but its debatable, 2) worldwide exposure, which increases the talent pool, 3) expansion, which dilutes the talent pool, 4) less time spent in college, which probably decreases fundamentals. Everything else basically has to do with rules and changes in the culture.

[warriorfan]

What kind of shots did Nate Thurmond take - what's in his bag of tricks?

How about Tom Boerwinkle?

What does their defensive and rebounding sphere look like on the floor?

What is Jim Fox good at as a center?

How far out is Mel Counts a threat when he's on the floor?

What kind of a defender is Butch Komives?

What kind of a ball handler is Fred Carter?

In 20 years I could imagine a disheveled CavsFTW walking along the streets yelling aimlessly about Mel Counts, Fred Carter, and Butch Komives.

[jongib369]

I'm desperate to get my hands on a 1967 Pistons vs Knicks game that exists in entirety. When I do, I will post it. Prime Dave Bing in it :cheers:
How'd you hear about that?

[red1]

What kind of shots did Nate Thurmond take - what's in his bag of tricks?

How about Tom Boerwinkle?

What does their defensive and rebounding sphere look like on the floor?

What is Jim Fox good at as a center?

How far out is Mel Counts a threat when he's on the floor?

What kind of a defender is Butch Komives?

What kind of a ball handler and athlete is Fred Carter?

You don't know anything about these players. You keep saying "era". But really, the era is the SMALL collection of athletes with names and individual ability. There's only like 100 to 150 guys in the league at any given time in that "era" it isn't like today with 400+ that interchange with 100 constantly in and out of the D-League.. Surely you should know about how they all perform as individuals if you're going to throw them all under the bus with broad sweeping generalizations.
To be honest I actually don't know that much about that era. I can answer a few of your questions off the top of my head and can answer the rest in two seconds using google.

What I do know is the sport called basketball. And one thing I know in particular is the fact that you can't guard players that have a great jumpshot that can shoot with ease off the dribble. Guarding a team that shares the ball with skill and intelligence? There is no guarding that. Thus I know that the warriors would light up your favorite team from that era.

No offence.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Something I notice when watching old clips is how shit at dribbling majority of them were. Post all the Pistol Pete footage you want but most of these guys just couldn't dribble at the level of today

That clip that was posted earlier in this thread of Mike Riordan go watch it and watch that ****ing dribbling, it is laughably bad. We are talking about a time where majority of the league didn't even have a cross-over in their repertoire

[CavaliersFTW]

How'd you hear about that?
I've seen 3 or 4 short plays from it.

It circulates in peoples private collections. As far as I know it's the "full game" however, many of the claimed "full games" that circulate still aren't full. They're like 95% complete which makes it impossible to make "full game" highlights so I'll have to wait and see.

You know that Hawks Suns Christmas game where I shared Pistol Pete and Connie Hawkins from? Yeah, there's like 10 points from one team and 5 from the other missing from that game on film in the 4th quarter. I only realized it when I started counting the stats for players and it wasn't lining up with their point totals. Frustrating to hit road blocks like that - now I'm hesitant to put up the rest of the players "highlights" because we're missing an unknown number of their rebounds, assists, and for some players a few field goals and free throws.

[CavaliersFTW]

Something I notice when watching old clips is how shit at dribbling majority of them were. Post all the Pistol Pete footage you want but most of these guys just couldn't dribble at the level of today

That clip that was posted earlier in this thread of Mike Riordan go watch it and watch that ****ing dribbling, it is laughably bad. We are talking about a time where majority of the league didn't even have a cross-over in their repertoire
At one time Refs didn't like when you carried the basketball. It is a rule you know. Just sort of fell out of fashion to call it, and that expanded the versatility and fluidity with which people could handle the ball. Just like how this season it is out of style to call all the illegal screens set for Curry to free him up - it changes how easy it looks for him to move around.

Mike Riordan was never known for strong ball handling by the way. Archie Clark, the Bullets other guard, was.

[Duffy Pratt]

I had never heard of Mike Riordan before watching that video clip. Smooth looking player and I'm glad videos like this exist.
.

Riordan came into the league with the Knicks. His main purpose on the Knicks was to give Frazier or Barnett a breather, and to use some "give-up" fouls towards the end of the half when the team was not yet in the penalty. He was a crowd favorite for his hustle, but with the Knicks he was seen by fans as relatively unskilled and not a scorer.

That all changed when he went to the Bullets, and it was clear that like some other guys on the Knicks, it was not that he was unskilled, but that there was no reason to give him the opportunities, given the high level of the rest of the team. Even at Baltimore, however, he was known more as a defensive specialist than as an offensive threat.

In today's league, Riordan would be a better Dellavadova on defense, with a true midrange game on offense. And I don't know if there was ever a tougher player than him, unless it was Unseld on his own team.

I'm glad that videos like that exist as well.

It also looks like Riordan might be singlehandedly be responsible for flopping, even though I never saw him flop in a game:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2008/5/29/541671/flopping-blame-it-on-mike

[senelcoolidge]

I ordered 10 copies and plan to give them out at the basketball courts.

[Rake2204]

Riordan came into the league with the Knicks. His main purpose on the Knicks was to give Frazier or Barnett a breather, and to use some "give-up" fouls towards the end of the half when the team was not yet in the penalty. He was a crowd favorite for his hustle, but with the Knicks he was seen by fans as relatively unskilled and not a scorer.

That all changed when he went to the Bullets, and it was clear that like some other guys on the Knicks, it was not that he was unskilled, but that there was no reason to give him the opportunities, given the high level of the rest of the team. Even at Baltimore, however, he was known more as a defensive specialist than as an offensive threat.

In today's league, Riordan would be a better Dellavadova on defense, with a true midrange game on offense. And I don't know if there was ever a tougher player than him, unless it was Unseld on his own team.

I'm glad that videos like that exist as well.

It also looks like Riordan might be singlehandedly be responsible for flopping, even though I never saw him flop in a game:

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2008/5/29/541671/flopping-blame-it-on-mikeI appreciate the knowledge. I'm kind of surprised not to have heard of him considering his spot with the Knicks in the early 70's, though I guess he dipped out relatively early on in the process (and was probably easily lost among the shuffle).

Otherwise, I'm pretty rough on Bullets history outside the big guns (Unseld, Chanier, Dandridge) so it's fun to learn.


I'm desperate to get my hands on a 1967 Pistons vs Knicks game that exists in entirety. When I do, I will post it. Prime Dave Bing in it :cheers:That would be outstanding. Perhaps some Ray Scott, too. Or even Reggie Harding.

Generally speaking, are games from around 1960 generally impossible to come by? I'd reckon as such, but I've always been a little curious about George Yardley.