"If bill russell"

[King Jane]

cut tha crap :facepalm

bill russell was tmac size playin center (:oldlol: ) against 6-6 unathletic white guys like bob "bounce pass" cousy and jerry "slick set shot" west. he wasnt even skilled he was just basically the first black guy on tha floor playin against lesser white guys before the game was even known how ta be played can we pls get back to threads discussing hoops TODAY. nothin billy "block shots" russell or pete "chest pass" maravich did would work today dat weak shit would be sent to tha third row :confusedshrug: :no:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvJIz6zbcjc/Tyh1pKNbRpI/AAAAAAAABI0/P4O7pBZVJQ8/s400/Sharp_2007_001_001617.jpg

guys who stock boxes at walmart today were willing teams to championships in tha 50s and 60s

[LAZERUSS]

cut tha crap :facepalm

bill russell was tmac size playin center (:oldlol: ) against 6-6 unathletic white guys like bob "bounce pass" cousy and jerry "slick set shot" west. he wasnt even skilled he was just basically the first black guy on tha floor playin against lesser white guys before the game was even known how ta be played can we pls get back to threads discussing hoops TODAY. nothin billy "block shots" russell or pete "chest pass" maravich did would work today dat weak shit would be sent to tha third row :confusedshrug: :no:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvJIz6zbcjc/Tyh1pKNbRpI/AAAAAAAABI0/P4O7pBZVJQ8/s400/Sharp_2007_001_001617.jpg

guys who stock boxes at walmart today were willing teams to championships in tha 50s and 60s

Agreed.

You would never a see a 37 year old white guy, playing 33 mpg, leading THIS era in apg. Nor would you see a 6-11 white guy leading the league in bpg in THIS era. And you certainly wouldn't see a 6-8 white guy with no vertical, leading the NBA in rebounding (and doing so in 35 mpg) in THIS era.

Nope, today's basketball players are light years better than those of the 60's.

[rhowen4]

Bob "bounce pass" Cousy :lol

[fpliii]

Definitely better and greater than your favorite player (unless it's MJ). :confusedshrug:

[Soundwave]

The OP lacks eloquence, but the truth is, he's not entirely wrong.

The NBA was not fully integrated in the 50s or even the 60s, most black players playing then even knew basically the unspoken rule of all the teams was no more than 3-4 blacks per team max. I think there was a fear of alienating fans so no team wanted to do that.

It was a majority white league and a lot of the players were given spots over black players simply because they were white and no one wanted to go over a set quota.

This is the St. Louis Hawks that the Celtics beat for 4 of their first 5 championships:

http://www.nasljerseys.com/ABA/Images/Hawks/Hawks%2057-58%20Home%20Team.jpg

Here's the 1961 Lakers:

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/lakers/season_photos/season_1960_1961.jpg

The NBA simply was a very different place in the 60s and even moreso in the 50s.

Russell and Wilt were the first black superstars the league had and their athleticism was simply head and shoulders above the average white player. There's just no two ways around that.

We're naive to what life was like in the 50s/60s ... it wasn't all rainbows and lollypops, hell consider that most of these white guys didn't even play basketball with black people growing up. How would they? You think white people just went off to black neighbourhoods to play basketball? Running into a player like Russell was a revelation to some of them for sure.

It's not like today where kids of every ethnicity hang out at the Y or local gym shooting hoops all day practising moves of players they see on TV all day.

It's not that they were just white, they were guys who had never played against players even remotely that athletic and big before.

[King Jane]

wilt "camp-in-the-paint"-berlain wont even make a roster today tha rules n tactics today wont allow him to play dat lumbering game let alone tha bigger stronger athletes den him dat now fill tha league... u cant be skinny an be a center today sorry but he would get broken in half his fragile legs wuld snap like twigs... dats why durant aint a center, wilt was durant minus, ya kno, skill to dribble n shoot

[Roundball_Rock]

The 60's were not fully integrated but the league also was not global in the 80's and 90's and that is not held against players from those periods. The NBA did not truly become a global league until the 2000's. The 2014 Spurs' rotation was majority foreign; the 1994 and 1984 Spurs did not have a single international player.

[kennethgriffin]

i got russell in my top 3 all time. arguable goat with kareem and jordan


what a player does in their respected era's is given nearly full credit

but what i will never admit is the seamless transition guys 50-60 years ago would make to todays nba according to older posters on this board


i like russell, wilt, west, baylor... but their games would take a major hit


when a 6-5 guy like baylor is averaging 20 rebounds. you know somethings wrong


bill russell in todays nba might have a big impact... but not nearly as great as he did in the 60's

he would be a terrific defensive player and average 12-13 rebounds at the power forward spot. but he would cost his team allot of points down low. he struggled scoring in the 60's.. imagine how badly he would struggle in an era with actual defensive systems


IMO wilt would be a 20/13 player today

a guy like bob cousy wouldnt even make a d-league roster though


big men can translate to todays game a bit easier due to the position not advancing as much. but any guard/ball handler/ outside player from the 60's would have a fard time beating out smush parker for a spot on some team overseas

the guard position is lightyears ahead of their day

[LAZERUSS]

wilt "camp-in-the-paint"-berlain wont even make a roster today the rules today wouldnt allow him to play his lumbering game let alone the bigger stronger athletes then him that now fill the league... u cant be skinny an be a center today sorry but he would get broken in half his fragile legs wuld snap like twigs

I want YOU to do a search on Wilt's STRENGTH. And then do another search on Shaq's STRENGTH. Sorry to tell you this, but Wilt was the STRONGER man. And to be honest, even Artis Gilmore was stronger than Shaq. You can ask Robert Parish, who faced both of them.

[Soundwave]

The 60's were not fully integrated but the league also was not global in the 80's and 90's and that is not held against players from those periods. The NBA did not truly become a global league until the 2000's. The 2014 Spurs' rotation was majority foreign; the 1994 and 1984 Spurs did not have a single international player.

It's not nearly the same thing and you know it. The best players are still by and large American and black. The main driver of the NBA style of play is still from these players. European players more or less fill out some supporting roles in the league, but the primary players are still by large American.

Not only that in the 60s, if you're a black player are you going to run down the court and dunk every time? No. You would probably get called a bunch of things I'm not going to repeat here, but that was a different time, I think black players back then wouldn't think of doing some of things guys do today.

If LeBron played in that era and dunked every time down the floor and snarled at opponents after dunking on them, I'm not even joking in saying he'd probably get death threats from stupid fans for making the white players look too bad.

Russell brought 11 titles to Boston and he still dealt with things like local people breaking his windows, breaking into his home and defecating on his bed (no joke), etc.

The 50s/60s is far different than people really want to acknowledge.

[GOBB]

Why do people compare eras and always want to argue today's is better than yesterday's? Retarded. Bill greatness is defined for his dominance in the era in which he played. Because you don't think he could back it in today's game doesn't change that. 50 years from now this era will be laughed at the same way you do bill Russell's.

[Soundwave]

Why do people compare eras and always want to argue today's is better than yesterday's? Retarded. Bill greatness is defined for his dominance in the era in which he played. Because you don't think he could back it in today's game doesn't change that. 50 years from now this era will be laughed at the same way you do bill Russell's.

Maybe, maybe not.

At some point I think the human body can only push itself so much physically that there's a levelling off process for a sport.

But maybe I'm wrong and in 50 years you'll have a 7'4 player who can dunk from the free throw line in a game and guys will have nano-injections that let them play into their 40s without a problem.

The game really hasn't evolved *that* much in the last 25 years, the last big "revolution" in the game IMO was the Pistons style of defence wins championships that put an end to the Lakers/Celtics free wheeling style of play. Most championship teams since then basically use that as their blue print (defence first).

Once it becomes a billion-dollar money making sport, then there really are no secrets anymore either. Teams all study each other down to the most minute details, all looking for any small edge they can get. There's no offence or strategy that really catches anyone off guard any more.

[fpliii]

The 50s/60s is far different than people really want to acknowledge.
As I've said before, and this is just my opinion, but the difference from the NBA from when I started watching in Shaq's rookie season to the present league is like night and day (went from a tiny fraction of the league being comprised of international players to nearly a quarter, illegal defense outlawed and Thibs' impact on D, the three being widely adapted and modern spacing theory coming into play). On the other hand, watching after the fact, games from the late 60s/early 70s have much more in common with games in the early/mid 80s IMO.

It would be one thing if Russell's impact tailed off when the league was integrated (went from a few black players to almost two-thirds of the league over the course of his career; the present NBA is ~70% black), but he was consistently dominant, from the late 50s to the late 60s.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's not nearly the same thing and you know it. The best players are still by and large American and black.

Yeah but full integration represented the first phase of expansion of the talent poll; the international expansion in the 21st century represented the second phase. Combined, the modern game has a much deeper talent pool than that in past eras. Yet, while people diminish 60's players due to playing prior to full integration no one follows the logic vis-a-vis modern players and give Duncan, Kobe, and LeBron a boost for thriving in a truly global era. It seems to me this again is largely agenda-driven with the idea of making the 80's and 90's the GOAT eras.

Yeah, the top players are predominantly American but you can't ignore that the Spurs' were majority international. That team simply would not have existed in the 90's and 80's. This has no significance? There also are premier international players, most notably Dirk and Nash, who won a combined 3 MVP's. Dirk was a top 5 player for several seasons. You are making it seem as if international players are simply playing 6th man roles.

If people want to diminish the 60's for a weaker talent pool they need to be intellectually consistent and acknowledge the 21st century NBA as being the pinnacle in terms of talent that we have seen. Yet people want to act as if the golden age of basketball ended in 1998.

[Bless Mathews]

Russell wouldn't start on half teams today.

[Soundwave]

As I've said before, and this is just my opinion, but the difference from the NBA from when I started watching in Shaq's rookie season to the present league is like night and day (went from a tiny fraction of the league being comprised of international players to nearly a quarter, illegal defense outlawed and Thibs' impact on D, the three being widely adapted and modern spacing theory coming into play). On the other hand, watching after the fact, games from the late 60s/early 70s have much more in common with games in the early/mid 80s IMO.

It would be one thing if Russell's impact tailed off when the league was integrated (went from a few black players to almost two-thirds of the league over the course of his career; the present NBA is ~70% black), but he was consistently dominant, from the late 50s to the late 60s.

The NBA was never 2/3rds black in the 60s period. Most teams were afraid to have more than 3-4 black players on the roster period back then even in the 60s. That would ease some by the late 60s and for that guys like Russell and Wilt deserve a lot of credit.

Not to mention what were the development resources like in the 40s/50s for black players? If you think it's anything like it is today with big business NCAA scholarships and access to tons of top flight coaching and all that, you're kidding yourself. A lot of these guys were growing up in abject poverty with rinky dink coaches. Black players weren't even allowed on the big college campuses back then.

It was a very, very different time due to socio-economic-political reasons that don't exist today.

I really don't think a game from 1993 is all that different from today. Thibodeau is not doing anything magically new that the Knicks of that time weren't doing (probably better actually). There is more 3 point shooting, but it's not like no one back then shot a 3 either, lol.

[CavaliersFTW]

The NBA was never 2/3rds black in the 60s period. Most teams were afraid to have more than 3-4 black players on the roster period back then even in the 60s.

Having an all-black starting 5 would've probably caused a huge melt down back then.

Not to mention what were the development resources like in the 40s/50s for black players? If you think it's anything like it is today with big business NCAA scholarships and access to tons of top flight coaching and all that, you're kidding yourself. A lot of these guys were growing up in abject poverty with rinky dink coaches. Black players weren't even allowed on the big college campuses back then.
The celtics in 1967 had an all-black starting five. Oops you fail.

[fpliii]

The NBA was never 2/3rds black in the 60s period. Most teams were afraid to have more than 3-4 black players on the roster period back then even in the 60s.

Having an all-black starting 5 would've probably caused a huge melt down back then.

Not to mention what were the development resources like in the 40s/50s for black players? If you think it's anything like it is today with big business NCAA scholarships and access to tons of top flight coaching and all that, you're kidding yourself. A lot of these guys were growing up in abject poverty with rinky dink coaches. Black players weren't even allowed on the big college campuses back then.
Here's the data:

http://i.imgur.com/dMF0pjz.png

In terms of % of players in the league, % of minutes played, % of shots taken, by the end of Russell's career and in the few years immediately following, the league was indeed approaching 2/3 black. Nothing to really dispute here.

Please provide a source on the bolded claim, thanks in advance.

Agree on development, but that's become a bigger issue in the past few decades as well, with AAU/prep-to-pros/one-and-done culture becoming bigger.

The difference between the end of Russell's career (late 60s) and the early/mid 80s isn't as substantial from watching the games as the difference between the early 90s and the present NBA.

[Soundwave]

The celtics in 1967 had an all-black starting five. Oops you fail.

Yeah got that wrong, but the fact is it was a controversial thing back then and most teams would not attempt to do it.

To ignore that there was a dramatically different set of rules back then when it came to things like that is just being naive.

The teams that the Celtics beat especially in the 50s/early 60s would get demolished if you put them in the modern NBA.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah got that wrong, but the fact is it was a controversial thing back then and most teams would not attempt to do it.

To ignore that there was a dramatically different set of rules back then when it came to things like that is just being naive.

The teams that the Celtics beat especially in the 50s/early 60s would get demolished if you put them in the modern NBA.
It was a time of change. And a lot changed from the start of the 1950's with the league's first black players rounding out rosters as role players to the end of the 1960's where the league was basically 2/3rds black as fpliii has put the actual research and time into to get the facts. You seem to not want to acknowledge this rapid change, or the fact that during this rapid change guys like Russell, West, Chamberlain, Robertson etc... the top tier talent on the planet basically, all had the same impact throughout it. The best players in the world in the 60's were still playing the same, whether the league was 1/3rd black or 2/3rds black.

[fpliii]

The celtics in 1967 had an all-black starting five. Oops you fail.
I just don't get it. The extent to which so many of these MJ guys go to discredit Russell is astounding. Nobody is saying Jordan can't be the best ever, I think he may very well be. But from watching tape after the fact (since again, I didn't start watching until the early 90s), the late 60s NBA resembles the early/mid 80s NBA more so than the early 90s NBA resembles the present NBA IMO.

I can get why Kobe/LeBron guys want to discredit Russell (in attempting to eliminate one more "roadblock" to prop their idol up), but nobody is contesting that Jordan is a strong GOAT candidate. :confusedshrug:

I'm probably just going to avoid any threads about historic NBA players on this board going forward unless it's a thread by you sharing new footage/mixes, or someone like PHILA sharing his research. Not worth the time.

[Soundwave]

I just don't get it. The extent to which so many of these MJ guys go to discredit Russell is astounding. Nobody is saying Jordan can't be the best ever, I think he may very well be. But from watching tape after the fact (since again, I didn't start watching until the early 90s), the late 60s NBA resembles the early/mid 80s NBA more so than the early 90s NBA resembles the present NBA IMO.

I can get why Kobe/LeBron guys want to discredit Russell (in attempting to eliminate one more "roadblock" to prop their idol up), but nobody is contesting that Jordan is a strong GOAT candidate. :confusedshrug:

I'm probably just going to avoid any threads about historic NBA players on this board going forward unless it's a thread by you sharing new footage/mixes, or someone like PHILA sharing his research. Not worth the time.

You're making your own agenda there, the fact is people don't want to have an honest discussion about basketball in the 50s/60s unless it suits what they think, and they're honestly pretty naive about what life was like back then.

The 50s/60s was a very different time, it's borderline stupidity to sit there and think "well it wasn't that different". No, dude, it was that different.

Even Russell, who you would think would be beloved in Boston for winning all those titles was the target of incredibly extreme amounts of hatred from his own fellow citizens.

[Roundball_Rock]

I really don't think a game from 1993 is all that different from today.

That ignores the league becoming one-fifth international in the 21st century...That also ignores three point shooting. In 1993 the average team attempted 8.95 three pointers a game, converting 3.01 (33.6%). In 2014 attempts jumped to 21.54 with 7.74 being converted (36.0%). How about for the league champions? The 93' Bulls made 244 three's all year; the 14' Spurs made 698 while shooting 39.7% versus the Bulls' 36.5%. The league leader in 3pa in 93' were the Suns with 13.35 per game. In 2014 the 93' Suns would be dead last in 3's. The league leader in 14', the Rockets, took 26.6 three's a game.

How about big men? In 1993 four of the top ten scorers were centers and all were elite players (Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq). In 2014 only the 10th place scorer was a center and he did it on a lousy team and was not even an all-star.

Today's game is global, perimeter oriented, and featured 3 pointers as a key part of the game.

Nutrition and training are good points--but those things, along with scouting, are more advanced today then in the past.


I just don't get it. The extent to which so many of these MJ guys go to discredit Russell is astounding.

Their argument always boils down to "rings as the man." Russell is the huge fly in that oinment because he has double the rings MJ has and was 11/12 in the Finals. Since Russell invalidates their "rings are the be all end all" (they dismiss some of KAJ's with the "rings as the man" qualifier) their best option is to diminish Russell and his era. The latter provides the side benefit of diminishing another strong GOAT candidate, Wilt, who was more dominant individually than anyone in history.

According to MJ stans the league peaked from 1980-1998 and has been in decline since. Very convenient. :oldlol:

[fpliii]

You're making your own agenda there, the fact is people don't want to have an honest discussion about basketball in the 50s/60s unless it suits what they think, and they're honestly pretty naive about what life was like back then.
Hey, not sure if you saw my previous post:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10335965&postcount=18

waiting on your specific response, thanks.

No agenda for me, it's just frustrating that there's a disconnect between what I'm watching and the perception of a few fanbases on this board.

I think you're a very good poster in general, but the second we get close to this Jordan/Russell conversation, I just feel like there's no common ground whatsoever. As I've said, just watching games from the late 60s/early 70s and early/mid 80s, there's not very much difference, at all (on the other hand, comparing the NBA from the early 90s to the present league, it looks like a different sport, for better or worse). I'm always looking to watch more games (waiting for some DVDs in the mail from someone on ihaveplanet.com at the moment), but I can't imagine that the reality is that far removed from what I'm getting from watching games.

[Soundwave]

It was a time of change. And a lot changed from the start of the 1950's with the league's first black players rounding out rosters as role players to the end of the 1960's where the league was basically 2/3rds black as fpliii has put the actual research and time into to get the facts. You seem to not want to acknowledge this rapid change, or the fact that during this rapid change guys like Russell, West, Chamberlain, Robertson etc... the top tier talent on the planet basically, all had the same impact throughout it. The best players in the world in the 60's were still playing the same, whether the league was 1/3rd black or 2/3rds black.

And those players by and large would get destroyed if they were put into the modern NBA.

Russell and Wilt really just introduced the concept of the athletic superstar to basketball and it would take while for the league to really properly adjust to that.

[Soundwave]

Hey, not sure if you saw my previous post:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10335965&postcount=18

waiting on your specific response, thanks.

No agenda for me, it's just frustrating that there's a disconnect between what I'm watching and the perception of a few fanbases on this board.

I think you're a very good poster in general, but the second we get close to this Jordan/Russell conversation, I just feel like there's no common ground whatsoever. As I've said, just watching games from the late 60s/early 70s and early/mid 80s, there's not very much difference, at all (on the other hand, comparing the NBA from the early 90s to the present league, it looks like a different sport, for better or worse). I'm always looking to watch more games (waiting for some DVDs in the mail from someone on ihaveplanet.com at the moment), but I can't imagine that the reality is that far removed from what I'm getting from watching games.

There was no official rule about the number of black players a team could have, but it was pretty widely felt among the black player's themselves that teams did not want more than a "quota" of 3-4 black guys per team:

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/10/31/2864981/63-years-ago-today-earl-lloyd-black-player-nba/

Does that really surprise you though? If it does, I think that's probably where the disconnect is, equating the 50s/60s to the post civil rights movement America is a monumental difference that just can't be glossed over so easily.

Yes by the tail end of the 60s the NBA had finally become more a merit based league, in part due to Wilt and Russell; you couldn't compete as an NBA team if you tried to send out a roster of white guys like the St. Louis Hawks, whom the Celtics beat for 4 of their first 5 titles. GMs finally got the message, but if we're being purely honest about this that means the majority of the 50s/60s was not a league free of racial politics that watered down the competition.

Russell/Wilt/Oscar changed the dynamics for everyone and then created a league going forward that was in conjunction with the civil rights movement free of racial bullsh*t at least to a reasonable degree. For that they deserve a statue more than Michael Jordan, but if we're just talking pure basketball terms then ignoring all these factors is the height of naivet

[CavaliersFTW]

And those players by and large would get destroyed if they were put into the modern NBA.

Russell and Wilt really just introduced the concept of the athletic superstar to basketball and it would take while for the league to really properly adjust to that.
I echo what those like Elgin Baylor and Oscar Robertson say. The game has not changed "that much" (as much as people like you believe). And that "a lot of players back then would still be good players today"... not just the superstars, not just the obvious names... I mean like I can watch a Lakers game and conclude even Rudy LaRusso displays quite obviously good enough physical tools and skills when watching film to be an NBA player today. I agree with fpliii in that when I watch the game back then, it isn't really that different from say, 1980's ball. It was of course a game of slightly different rules, trends and composition of athletes, and not everyone from then can translate to today's different set of rules and composition of athletes... but the inverse is also true, not everyone today can be transplanted to play that game and be expected to make it. Case in point, I highly doubt many of today's eras starting "bigs" like Joel Anthony or role playing spot up shooters who can't do much else but shoot would even make the eastern league back then let alone the NBA or ABA. Back then was a game where you had to be versatile, and if you were a big you had to face the likes of Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, etc so if you were crap you weren't going to be around for long.

[Soundwave]

I echo what those like Elgin Baylor and Oscar Robertson say. The game has not changed "that much" (as much as people like you believe). And that "a lot of players back then would still be good players today"... not just the superstars, not just the obvious names... I mean like I can watch a Lakers game and conclude even Rudy LaRusso displays quite obviously good enough physical tools and skills when watching film to be an NBA player today. I agree with fpliii in that when I watch the game back then, it isn't really that different from say, 1980's ball. It was of course a game of slightly different rules, trends and composition of athletes, and not everyone from then can translate to today's different set of rules and composition of athletes... but the inverse is also true, not everyone today can be transplanted to play that game and be expected to make it. Case in point, I highly doubt many of today's eras starting "bigs" like Joel Anthony or role playing spot up shooters who can't do much else but shoot would even make the eastern league back then let alone the NBA or ABA. Back then was a game where you had to be versatile, and if you were a big you had to face the likes of Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, etc so if you were crap you weren't going to be around for long.


You really honestly think that there are 11 players in this photo better than even Joel Anthony? That he wouldn't even make this team?

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/lakers/season_photos/season_1960_1961.jpg

And this is a team that made the NBA Finals in the 60s.

[CavaliersFTW]

You really honestly think that there are 11 players in this photo better than even Joel Anthony? That he wouldn't even make this team?

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/lakers/season_photos/season_1960_1961.jpg

And this is a team that made the NBA Finals in the 60s.
The Lakers in the early 60's were the team with the weakest center position in the league. Even so, of Felix and Krebs the two centers in that photograph Krebs is the only one that = the worthless minutes Anthony can give you. I can form my opinion having watched what little bits of Felix and Krebs exists on film. Felix is taller than Joel Anthony by about 4 inches, he's a better match against Wilt, and Russell any day of the week. BTW, they did not make it as "60's centers" either... neither would Anthony you are proving my point not taking away from it. Felix and Krebs were replaced by Wiley, Imhoff and Ellis. And those three are definitely better centers than Anthony. You have formed your opinion how, based on looking at the color of the skin of the majority of players in that single 1961 photograph? Am I right? How many of those faces do you even recognize as players? How much have you actually studied or watched of early 60's Lakers front-lines with Darrall Imhoff, Rudy LaRusso, Leroy Ellis, and Gene Wiley... Wiley and Ellis were 3 inches taller and could out jump and run circles around the uncoordinated 6 foot 7 inch stiff named Joel Anthony... LaRusso and Imhoff were skilled enough to actually be able to shoot and drive when fed the ball, and both could pass, Joel Anthony can't... He was a "defensive specialist" that couldn't actually play defense...

[Soundwave]

The Lakers in the early 60's were the team with the weakest center position in the league. Even so, of Felix and Krebs the two centers in that photograph Krebs is the only one that = the worthless minutes Anthony can give you. I can form my opinion having watched what little bits of Felix and Krebs exists on film. Felix is taller than Joel Anthony by about 4 inches, he's a better match against Wilt, and Russell any day of the week. BTW, they did not make it as "60's centers" either... neither would Anthony you are proving my point not taking away from it. Felix and Krebs were replaced by Wiley, Imhoff and Ellis. And those three are definitely better centers than Anthony. You have formed your opinion how, based on looking at the color of the skin of the majority of players in that single 1961 photograph? Am I right? How many of those faces do you even recognize as players? How much have you actually studied or watched of early 60's Lakers front-lines with Darrall Imhoff, Rudy LaRusso, Leroy Ellis, and Gene Wiley... Wiley and Ellis were 3 inches taller and could out jump and run circles around the uncoordinated 6 foot 7 inch stiff named Joel Anthony... LaRusso and Imhoff were skilled enough to actually be able to shoot and drive when fed the ball, and both could pass, Joel Anthony can't... He was a "defensive specialist" that couldn't actually play defense...

I'll just say I think you're reaching and I disagree.

Joel Anthony would make that team easily and he would make many NBA squads in the 60s without much fuss (barring the unspoken racial quota nonsense).

[CavaliersFTW]

I'll just say I think you're reaching and I disagree.

Joel Anthony would make that team easily.
http://youtu.be/ZWVi0EtJcZg?t=3m2s

nah - the "60's" lakers front line pieces were among the worst in that era... yet still quite visibly superior to Joel Anthony, and many other garbage front line players of todays small-ball era.

[Soundwave]

http://youtu.be/ZWVi0EtJcZg?t=3m2s

nah - the "60's" lakers front line pieces were among the worst in that era... yet still quite visibly superior to Joel Anthony, and many other garbage front line players of todays small-ball era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hY9VaOdei8

Yeah. I tend to think Joel Anthony could find a roster spot in the 60s. He'd probably be one of the more athletic players in the league at that.

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hY9VaOdei8

Yeah. I tend to think Joel Anthony could find a roster spot in the 60s. He'd probably be one of the more athletic players in the league at that.
:facepalm

If I made a mix of Lakers centers in the early 60's, it would blow those 'highlights' away. They could actually shoot. Joel Anthony can dunk, wow, so could every player over 6 foot 4 in the NBA even in the 1960's.

[NumberSix]

Why do people compare eras and always want to argue today's is better than yesterday's? Retarded. Bill greatness is defined for his dominance in the era in which he played. Because you don't think he could back it in today's game doesn't change that. 50 years from now this era will be laughed at the same way you do bill Russell's.
Because Bill DID NOT dominate the era. The Celtics did. Wilt was the dominant individual of the era. Boston was the dominant team.

Prime Russell was about as good as 2014 Duncan. Arguably the best player on the team, but not some kind of "carrying the team on his back" player.

[Soundwave]

:facepalm

If I made a mix of Lakers centers in the early 60's, it would blow those 'highlights' away.

lol ok, sure. I'll just say I disagree.

By the way Anthony blocks Carmelo like 3 or 4 times in that video, that's a guy who would easily average 30+ in the 60s.

To say a player like that couldn't even make the NBA in the 60s is absurd.

Please find me footage of an "average" 1960s player dunking on like 3 players like Anthony does here (two of whom are taller than him by the looks of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hY9VaOdei8#t=28.

Should be easy since in the 60s apparently anyone could do it.

[CavaliersFTW]

lol ok, sure. I'll just say I disagree.

By the way Anthony blocks Carmelo like 3 or 4 times in that video, that's a guy who would easily average 30+ in the 60s.

To say a player like that couldn't even make the NBA in the 60s is absurd.

Please find me footage of an "average" 1960s player dunking on like 3 players like Anthony does here (two of whom are taller than him by the looks of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hY9VaOdei8.

Should be easy since in the 60s apparently anyone could do it.
His highlights are weakside blocks... that's literally it. His dunk over "3 defenders" was a backdoor play, nobody was in front of him, aka the defense was too late.

Can Joel Anthony shoot? Can he drive? Can he pass? Can he post up? Can he create anything really?

He has stone hands... no shooting touch or feel for the basketball whatsoever. He's the epitome of a 1 dimensional player. The link I provided demonstrates, with the coach narrating, strengths from a random 1965 season game that those Lakers centers had that are important to the game of basketball that Joel Anthony's career highlights made by a fan can't even reveal.

[Soundwave]

His highlights are weakside blocks... that's literally it

Can Joel Anthony shoot? Can he drive? Can he pass?

He has stone hands... no shooting touch or feel for the basketball whatsoever. He's the epitome of a 1 dimensional player. The link I provided demonstrates, with the coach narrating, strengths from a random 1965 season game that those Lakers centers had that are important to the game of basketball that Joel Anthony's career highlights made by a fan can't even reveal.

His ugly shooting form would fit right in with some of the weird shooting styles of the 60s.

[fpliii]

Because Bill DID NOT dominate the era. The Celtics did. Wilt was the dominant individual of the era. Boston was the dominant team.

Prime Russell was about as good as 2014 Duncan. Arguably the best player on the team, but not some kind of "carrying the team on his back" player.
Just repeating this over and over won't make it so.

Look at the Celtics offenses and defenses over the years:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10335822&postcount=36

Where's the steep climb/drop off from his teammates entering the league? Where's the dominant offense (since his teammates were dominant offensive talents)?

There is none of either. The Celtics went as Russell went, and you're just trying to bait here. I have nobody to blame but myself for responding to you, waste of my time.

[CavaliersFTW]

His ugly shooting form would fit right in with some of the weird shooting styles of the 60s.
His lack of shooting touch wouldn't however. This era has odd shooters too, Shawn Marion? Shooting touch and effectiveness = / = shooting form.

[Soundwave]

His lack of shooting touch wouldn't however. This era has odd shooters too, Shawn Marion? Shooting touch and effectiveness = / = shooting form.

Yeah Shawn Marion and who else? Every third player in the 60s has some weird shooting form that would be coached out of them by the time they got to high school in the modern game.

[G.O.A.T]

Why does it matter if the game has changed or to what degree?

Things always change, but we are talking about Greatness not Potential. Potential comes and goes, it is temporary, Greatness is permanent.

We measure greatness against the standards of it's time. Not against the standards of a modern or future time.


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

The Wright Brothers are not marginalized because they didn't build a stealth bomber or DC-10 and could not have in a weak era for aviation.

Alexander the Great's strategy and armies are not written off because today he'd fall against the Canadian Army. (if they have one)

We do not discount Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe because John Glenn circumnavigated it from space.

Should I stop listening to the Beatles or Mose Allison or Wilson Pickett because my brother and his band (many other too) can play their music just as good or better because?

We have not replaced the presidents on Mt. Rushmore with modern more relatable faces.

The invention of the wheel is still more important than the invention of the car.


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

Every time these discussions break out of here the point gets missed.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks Russell would do in any other era.

It doesn't matter if you think players are taller today (they are not btw, and that can be researched very easily) or more athletic or more skilled (they are those things)

Sports are about competition and you can't compete against something that doesn't exist, like say standards of today in 1957 and a half.


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

I'm old, but not that old, still I have to say the opinions of what I presume are largely 20-somethings and teens are very distressing. The lack of critical thinking skills, the lack of wanting to learn and instead needed to tell is troubling as well.

Constantly people debate without even a basic understanding of the era or what went on then. They've read or heard a half day of schools worth of information and cherry picked the pieces they can mold into fodder to support their preconceived notions.

They'll get a fact or two wrong and just move along like it is merely a bump in their road to validation, a foregone conclusion as their mind would have it.

Even if you do think Russell wouldn't be any good in this era, don't you at least want to understand why he was SO great in his? And isn't there any part of your brain mature enough to think maybe, just maybe it's not because he was the only black guy, or the only tall guy or the only athletic guy?

Why was Babe Ruth so great, Jesse Owens, Muhammad Ali?

I don't know, I'll shut up now.

[Soundwave]

Why does it matter if the game has changed or to what degree?

Things always change, but we are talking about Greatness not Potential. Potential comes and goes, it is temporary, Greatness is permanent.

We measure greatness against the standards of it's time. Not against the standards of a modern or future time.


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

The Wright Brothers are not marginalized because they didn't build a stealth bomber or DC-10 and could not have in a weak era for aviation.

Alexander the Great's strategy and armies are not written off because today he'd fall against the Canadian Army. (if they have one)

We do not discount Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe because John Glenn circumnavigated it from space.

Should I stop listening to the Beatles or Mose Allison or Wilson Pickett because my brother and his band (many other too) can play their music just as good or better because?

We have not replaced the presidents on Mt. Rushmore with modern more relatable faces.

The invention of the wheel is still more important than the invention of the car.


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

Every time these discussions break out of here the point gets missed.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks Russell would do in any other era.

It doesn't matter if you think players are taller today (they are not btw, and that can be researched very easily) or more athletic or more skilled (they are those things)

Sports are about competition and you can't compete against something that doesn't exist, like say standards of today in 1957 and a half.


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


Does anyone try to argue that Alexander the Great's army could beat a modern army or was the better army though?

I'm more than happy to give Russell and Wilt their due, in a way they deserve it more than any other player as they basically set the foundation for the modern NBA.

But when people try to outright deny any real change has happened or can't put into context the era they played in, that's where I disagree.

[G.O.A.T]

Does anyone try to argue that Alexander the Great's army could beat a modern army or was the better army though?

No but historians still rank him the greatest general of all-time. Again, that's the point. Not what you or anyone else thinks he'd do today.

[CavaliersFTW]

jesus you guys are now talking about armies from thousands of years ago to now? We're talking about basketball players from the 1960's to now... I mean these 60's players are still alive today, working as GM's and consultants for teams. There's a huge ****ing difference between what we are discussing and these historical analogies you guys always tend to use. Only the athletes, some rules and some styles of play have changed then from now... some equipment too like the quality of shoes, and training... these are all miniscule however compared to the comparisons you guys try to make, it's still basketball... it's still very much the same game.

[Soundwave]

No but historians still rank him the greatest general of all-time. Again, that's the point. Not what you or anyone else thinks he'd do today.

That's fine, but by the same token I don't think it's unfair to say that Russell wouldn't be anywhere close to as effective today nor would his Celtics teams win any championships in the modern era.

And the Wilt vs Russell thing is its own debate.

[Soundwave]

jesus you guys are now talking about armies from thousands of years ago to now? We're talking about basketball players from the 1960's to now... there's a huge ****ing difference. Only rules and styles of play have changed... some equipment too like the quality of shoes, and training... it's still basketball... it's still very much the same game.

Uh no, not just the rules and styles of play.

The players are bigger, stronger, and far more athletic today.

Basketball is a billion-dollar industry today where players are developed from teens on up to big money college programs. If you have any real talent at all, you are noticed very quickly and then developed professionally from a much younger age.

The talent pool for basketball, driven by global marketing, internet, etc. is multitudes of times larger than the 1940s/50s. More kids play and more seriously want to play at the higher level.

The strategies, coaching, player development, player training, have changed dramatically since the 60s.

The guard play in particular from the 60s has radically changed thanks to the contribution of ABA players like Dr. J, George Gervin, etc. who set the stage for Michael Jordan who became basketball's first global icon.

That on top of just the natural evolution of the game and the massive changes resulting from the civil rights movement and the improvement in the quality of life for most African American households, allowing more and more kids to seriously entertain the idea of wanting to be a pro athlete and actually having access to facilities and coaching to achieve their goals.

[CavaliersFTW]

Uh no, not just the rules and styles of play.

The players are bigger, stronger, and far more athletic today.

Basketball is a billion-dollar industry today where players are developed from teens on up to big money college programs.

The talent pool for basketball, driven by global marketing, internet, etc. is multitudes of times larger than the 1940s/50s.

The strategies, coaching, player development, player training, have changed dramatically since the 60s.

The guard play in particular from the 60s has radically changed thanks to the contribution of ABA players like Dr. J, George Gervin, etc. who set the stage for Michael Jordan who became basketball's first global icon.

That on top of just the natural evolution of the game and the massive changes resulting from the civil rights movement and the improvement in the quality of life for most African American households, allowing more and more kids to seriously entertain the idea of wanting to be a pro athlete and actually having access to facilities and coaching to achieve their goals.
Name one player today who's far bigger and stronger and more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain. Just one.

[Soundwave]

Name one player today who's far bigger and stronger and more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain. Just one.

And how many Wilt's played in the 1960s?

There are 4-5 guys from the 60s who really have what would be considered great athleticism in the modern sense, part of the reason why they blew away a league that was predominantly white and only slowly integrated over the course of about 20 years from the first black player being allowed to play.

There are plenty of freakishly strong NBA players today too, but in part because they are lifting weights in a bodybuilding fashion by the time they are in high school and taking supplements up the ying yang that didn't exist 30-40 years ago.

[fpliii]

And how many Wilt's played in the 1960s?

There are 4-5 guys from the 60s who really have what would be considered great athleticism in the modern sense, part of the reason why they blew away a league that was predominantly white and only slowly integrated over the course of about 20 years from the first black player being allowed to play.
Jesus christ, I'm getting legitimately pissed now. You've been shown the numbers demonstrating the huge spike in black players in the late 50s/early 60s transforming the NBA from a 90% white league to a 2/3+ black league by the time Russell/Oscar/Wilt were done, yet you have the balls to say it was "slowly integrated"? What the ****.

[Soundwave]

Jesus christ, I'm getting legitimately pissed now. You've been shown the numbers demonstrating the huge spike in black players in the late 50s/early 60s transforming the NBA from a 90% white league to a 2/3+ black league by the time Russell/Oscar/Wilt were done, yet you have the balls to say it was "slowly integrated"? What the ****.

The first black player in the NBA was in 1950.

The first black superstar is Russell in 1958.

The first black starting five is 1964.

For most of the 50s/60s the league is predominantly white, with blacks only becoming the majority towards the tail end of the 60s and really this is only because Wilt/Russell are so much better than everyone else that the other teams eventually had no choice but to go away from predominantly white lineups. You simply could not compete.

And the black players encounter massive amounts of racism in the 60s, even Russell who had people break into his home and literally take a sh*t in his bed. (gee, that must've made tons of black kids want to play in the NBA).

"Overnight" process my ass. That's basically 20 years.

Not to mention at this time black people aren't even allowed on most major NCAA college campuses and blacks and whites don't play basketball together growing up. There's a seperate Y for blacks, high schools/colleges are not integrated widely either.

There's certainly many white dudes in the NBA circa 1963 who grew up never having seen or played against a guy anywhere near as athletic as Russell or Wilt ... how would they have? it's no wonder they were getting their shots slapped back in their face all day. They'd never played against anyone that athletic.

[CavaliersFTW]

And how many Wilt's played in the 1960s?

There are 4-5 guys from the 60s who really have what would be considered great athleticism in the modern sense, part of the reason why they blew away a league that was predominantly white and only slowly integrated over the course of about 20 years from the first black player being allowed to play.
You have such a skewed understanding of what actually happened through NBA history and how it all happened... the players who dominated the game say, in the mid or late 50's never became less dominant during the civil rights movement and it's impact on the NBA... any more so than the players of say, the 90's, became less dominant during the transition period adopting europeans and significant rule changes such as no-hand checking... the greatest players and the greatest talents on the planet are not and have never been that far apart in what they could do. There aren't points in time where players from one era are simply cutting their teeth on week "older generation" style players, from any other era. There are no era boundaries. There are no times when any top tier all-time talent would suddenly reach a point that they are no longer considered a top tier all-time talent. Not as far back as I've studied the game at least, which is back to about the very late 1950's.

[fpliii]

The first black player in the NBA was in 1950.

The first black superstar is Russell in 1958.

The first black starting five is 1964.

For most of the 50s/60s the league is predominantly white, with blacks only becoming the majority towards the tail end of the 60s and really this is only because Wilt/Russell are so much better than everyone else that the other teams eventually had no choice but to go away from predominantly white lineups. You simply could not compete.

And the black players encounter massive amounts of racism in the 60s, even Russell who had people break into his home and literally take a sh*t in his bed. (gee, that must've made tons of black kids want to play in the NBA).

"Overnight" process my ass.

Not to mention at this time black people aren't even allowed on most major NCAA college campuses and blacks and whites don't play basketball together growing up. There's a seperate Y for blacks, high schools/colleges are not integrated widely either.
Repeating this over and over won't change what actually happened, in terms of the numbers. Use any metric you want

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=fpliii]Repeating this over and over won't change what actually happened, in terms of the numbers. Use any metric you want

[G.O.A.T]

jesus you guys are now talking about armies from thousands of years ago to now? We're talking about basketball players from the 1960's to now... I mean these 60's players are still alive today, working as GM's and consultants for teams. There's a huge ****ing difference between what we are discussing and these historical analogies you guys always tend to use. Only the athletes, some rules and some styles of play have changed then from now... some equipment too like the quality of shoes, and training... these are all miniscule however compared to the comparisons you guys try to make, it's still basketball... it's still very much the same game.

My point was that even with thousands of years of change, greatness is still greatness. Thus a couple generations is surely not enough time to ignore greatness.

[Soundwave]

Repeating this over and over won't change what actually happened, in terms of the numbers. Use any metric you want—percentage of players in the league, percentage of games played, percentage of minutes played, percentage of shots taken—it will paint the same picture:

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

Two things are unquestionable:

1) The league was integrated by the late 60s.
2) Wilt, Russell, and Oscar were still having dominant seasons, though the integration period.

They're all-time greats, and would dominate had they been in the league 20 years later. Whether they'd dominate today is up for debate, but considering that the changes in the league from the late 60s/early 70s to the early/mid 80s are smaller than those from the early 90s to the present league, I'd give them as much of a shot as I do the Magics, Birds, Dr. J's, etc.

That chart really doesn't disprove any of my points. Firstly that it was a gradual process.

The league was majority white for most of the Celtics titles. AFTER their run was done yes, but by then they had already cleaned up. 4 of their first 5 titles came against these guys:

http://www.nasljerseys.com/ABA/Images/Hawks/Hawks%2057-58%20Home%20Team.jpg

Not only that, the development of black talent in America was in the (no pun intended) dark ages then, blacks didn't have access to integrated schools by and large until the end of the 60s and certainly nothing even resembling today's development system and NCAA div 1 coaching/development.

The talent pool was ridiculously limited and over inflated with white dudes who grew up playing against other white dudes all their lives.

You put players like that against big athletic players like a Wilt or Russell and of course they are predictably going to get their asses handed to them.

[CavaliersFTW]

That chart really doesn't disprove any of my points. Firstly that it was a gradual process.

The league was majority white for most of the Celtics titles. AFTER their run was done yes, but by then they had already cleaned up.

Not only that, the development of black talent in America was in the (no pun intended) dark ages then, blacks didn't have access to integrated schools by and large until the end of the 60s.

The talent pool was ridiculously limited and over inflated with white dudes who grew up playing against other white dudes all their lives.

You put players like that against big athletic players like a Wilt or Russell and of course they are predictably going to get their asses handed to them.
How about putting the Magic Johnson and some showtime Lakers against a 50 year old Wilt and a bunch of UCLA freshman players in the 1980's? What would the outcome predictably be then?

[G.O.A.T]

That chart really doesn't disprove any of my points.

Actually it shits all over all of them and shows you were 100% wrong.


The league was majority white for most of the Celtics titles. AFTER their run was done yes, but by then they had already cleaned up.

Can you not read or do you think others can't?


Not only that, the development of black talent in America was in the (no pun intended) dark ages then, blacks didn't have access to integrated schools by and large until the end of the 60s.

Oh really, because that's not what the truth says.


The talent pool was ridiculously limited and over inflated with white dudes who grew up playing against other white dudes all their lives.

Another comment that makes you look really uninformed. The best white players in the country and the best black players in the country were playing against each other since the 1920's.


You put players like that against big athletic players like a Wilt or Russell and of course they are predictably going to get their asses handed to them.

Three Steps:

Get a Library card, read some books, sound less stupid.

[Soundwave]

Actually it shits all over all of them and shows you were 100% wrong.



Can you not read or do you think others can't?



Oh really, because that's not what the truth says.



Another comment that makes you look really uninformed. The best white players in the country and the best black players in the country were playing against each other since the 1920's.



Three Steps:

Get a Library card, read some books, sound less stupid.

Bordering on the name calling I see that always proves a point.

The best white and black players were playing against each other since the 1920s, yet the NBA didn't even allow black players until the 1950s and black people weren't even allowed on college campuses until the 60s.

That makes a ton of sense.

[Soundwave]

How about putting the Magic Johnson and some showtime Lakers against a 50 year old Wilt and a bunch of UCLA freshman players in the 1980's? What would the outcome predictably be then?

I've never said Wilt wasn't a great player, in fact I think he was probably far better than Russell.

That said it doesn't change what the 60s was as an era in my (and many other people's) minds.

There is truth to the assertion that the 60s was a whiter, less athletic, smaller league than subsequent decades/eras. And the "lol, young'un you don't know yer history" (as if anyone on this board grew up in the 60s) attempts to always downplay those facts is tiresome.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bordering on the name calling I see that always proves a point.

The best white and black players were playing against each other since the 1920s, yet the NBA didn't even allow black players until the 1950s and black people weren't even allowed on college campuses until the 60s.

That makes a ton of sense.
The "NBA" didn't even exist until 1946... the league integrated almost immediately as far as its own timescale goes, it actually was ahead of the civil rights curve in how quickly it integrated. And basketball has been around in various forms since the 1890's, and teams were often race, or ethnicity-built. Barnstorming semi-pro teams of Irish vs Italians, vs blacks etc. Why do you think there is a Boston "Celtics" team? It is rooted in how teams used to be built.

Also NBA scouts scouted everywhere. There were prominant black players playing on white campuses in the 1950's (Wilt, Robertson, Russell, Baylor are the most prominent names) but how do you suppose players like Willis Reed were drafted? He played for grambling, which was a "black"school... why didn't they overlook him? Because the scouts were everywhere... the NBA wanted the best players on the planet, period. NBA team scouts went wherever they needed to go to get them.

I suggest you watch:

"on the shoulders of giants" and "black magic" documentaries on blacks and early basketball (predating the NBA), and their eventual impact on the early and present NBA.

[Soundwave]

The "NBA" didn't even exist until 1946... the league integrated almost immediately as far as its own timescale goes, it actually was ahead of the civil rights curve in how quickly it integrated. And basketball has been around in various forms since the 1890's, and teams were often race, or ethnicity-built. Barnstorming semi-pro teams of Irish vs Italians, vs blacks etc. Why do you think there is a Boston "Celtics" team? It is rooted in how teams used to be built.

Also NBA scouts scouted everywhere. There were prominant black players playing on white campuses in the 1950's (Wilt, Robertson, Russell, Baylor are the most prominent names) but how do you suppose players like Willis Reed were drafted? He played for grambling, which was a "black"school... why didn't they overlook him? Because the scouts were everywhere... the NBA wanted the best players on the planet, period. NBA team scouts went wherever they needed to go to get them.

I suggest you watch:

"on the shoulders of giants" and "black magic" documentaries on blacks and early basketball, and their impact on the NBA.

The way you guys make it seem is like the NBA integrated in 1950 and it was all good after that (even though it would take almost 18 years for the league to be majority black) and everyone was cool, etc. etc. I think that's just laughably glossing over what things were actually like at that time.

The fact that it took so long and that things like a black starting five are notable achievements shows there was resistance.

Even a player like Russell, who should have been beloved in Boston was the target of many ugly racist incidents ... if the best black player in the game is being degraded like that, how many guys looked at that and said "f*ck that NBA nonsense". More than a few I would imagine, if LeBron James existed in the 60s and look at that and said "no thanks, I'm going to choose a different profession" I can't say I'd blame him per se.

This isn't the 80s/90s where black pro athletes basically live the life of a rockstar with monster pay cheques and adulation everywhere they go. The incentive to even want to play in the NBA was far less than it is today. Today if you have talent and the only thing keeping you from a pro career is some hard work, you're generally looked at as an idiot for passing that up even if basketball isn't your main love. The pay day is too big to ignore.

[Psileas]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.

[CavaliersFTW]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.
:applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

The way you guys make it seem is like the NBA integrated in 1950 and it was all good after that (even though it would take almost 18 years for the league to be majority black) and everyone was cool, etc. etc. I think that's just laughably glossing over what things were actually like at that time.

The fact that it took so long and that things like a black starting five are notable achievements shows there was resistance.

Even a player like Russell, who should have been beloved in Boston was the target of many ugly racist incidents ... if the best black player in the game is being degraded like that, how many guys looked at that and said "f*ck that NBA nonsense". More than a few I would imagine, if LeBron James existed in the 60s and look at that and said "no thanks, I'm going to choose a different profession" I can't say I'd blame him per se.

This isn't the 80s/90s where black pro athletes basically live the life of a rockstar with monster pay cheques and adulation everywhere they go. The incentive to even want to play in the NBA was far less than it is today. Today if you have talent and the only thing keeping you from a pro career is some hard work, you're generally looked at as an idiot for passing that up even if basketball isn't your main love. The pay day is too big to ignore.
We haven't glossed over anything ...nor have we made incorrect broad sweeping generalizations. Which is what you've been exposed as doing.

[Soundwave]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.

I will also add I think it's a crime that Russell didn't have a statue in Boston until like 2013. For shame Boston.

[CavaliersFTW]

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.
You've been ethered pretty badly here... we've shown that the "whiteness" of the league does not appear to effect the competitiveness of the superstars of that era, AND that the "whiteness" of that league was not nearly as predominant as you had initially tried to suggest. How badly are you trying to get exposed here, I mean you are still pushing this agenda?

[Soundwave]

You've been ethered pretty badly here... we've shown that the "whiteness" of the league does not appear to effect the competitiveness of the superstars of that era, AND that the "whiteness" of that league was not nearly as predominant as you had initially tried to suggest. How badly are you trying to get exposed here, I mean you are still pushing this agenda?

Just because you want some one to be ethered because you're threatened by their arguement doesn't make it so.

The 50s/60s was a predominantly white league for the majority of the time the Celtics won their titles.

Argue against that if you want, but you can't.

The fact that it took 18 years for the NBA to be "fully integrated" is pretty pathetic in my mind anyway. That's not something to be proud of.

[fpliii]

Just because you want some one to be ethered because you're threatened by their arguement doesn't make it so.

The 60s was a predominantly white league for the majority of the time the Celtics won their titles.

Argue against that if you want, but you can't.

The fact that it took 18 years for the NBA to be "fully integrated" is pretty pathetic in my mind anyway. That's not something to be proud of.
Not as pathetic as the fact that it took nearly twice as long for the three pointer to be fully embraced as a weapon.

Seriously though dude, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. No disrespect intended. I respect your opinion but don't see it the same way.

[Psileas]

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made ever since is due to PED's, roids and the rest of chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.


Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.


I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.

No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.

[jlip]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

[CavaliersFTW]

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made hence is due to PED's, roids and the rest chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.



So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.



No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.
Again, great post

[Soundwave]

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made ever since is due to PED's, roids and the rest of chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.



So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.



No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.


I actually said I don't think there will be as big of a difference in athleticism in the future because there are limits to how far the human body can develop without aid of drug/technological implants which would likely be illegal.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're harping on here.

Kobe is a religious user of many modern supplements, the Lakers keep tubs of creatine and other things for him, that's probably helped prolong his career to a degree too.

For the Celtics, I'm referring to Russell's Celtics only. They did win pretty much all their titles in a majority white league.

[Roundball_Rock]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140226022017/nba/images/0/0e/L_(1).jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_celtics1986.jpg
4 black players, 8 white ones

http://www.nba.com/media/encyclopedia/1969Celtics_375_060320.jpg
8 black players, 4 white ones

Which decade is which? :lol

[Soundwave]

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_celtics1986.jpg
4 black players, 8 white ones

http://www.nba.com/media/encyclopedia/1969Celtics_375_060320.jpg
8 black players, 4 white ones

Which decade is which? :lol

You might have a point if by the 80s the NBA wasn't almost 80% black. That meant that even the white players in the game had to tailor their entire game to playing against that type of competition.

The 80s Celtics were the extreme exception to the rule for a basketball team in the 80s, in the 60s, it wouldn't even be notable for a team to look like that, it was considered normal.

[jlip]

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140226022017/nba/images/0/0e/L_(1).jpg


http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_celtics1986.jpg
4 black players, 8 white ones

http://www.nba.com/media/encyclopedia/1969Celtics_375_060320.jpg
8 black players, 4 white ones

Which decade is which? :lol

:lol Thanks

[fpliii]

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140226022017/nba/images/0/0e/L_(1).jpg
OT - How tall was Walton? :wtf:

Jesus christ, he looks noticeably taller than the Chief there (and towers over McHale), who from my understanding was a true seven footer. Could be a weird angle, but damn.

[CavaliersFTW]

OT - How tall was Walton? :wtf:

Jesus christ, he looks noticeably taller than the Chief there (and towers over McHale), who from my understanding was a true seven footer. Could be a weird angle, but damn.
I believe he really was 6-11, I believe everyone else's height from that era is what should fall under scrutiny.

*EDIT*... I've been looking through more pics... he might actually be pulling a Bill Russell (who was "6-9" ...but really 6-9 and 5/8ths)... Walton looks like he could be a legit 7 footer, or at the very least 6-11 and a lot of change.

[Prometheus]

cut tha crap :facepalm

bill russell was tmac size playin center (:oldlol: ) against 6-6 unathletic white guys like bob "bounce pass" cousy and jerry "slick set shot" west. he wasnt even skilled he was just basically the first black guy on tha floor playin against lesser white guys before the game was even known how ta be played can we pls get back to threads discussing hoops TODAY. nothin billy "block shots" russell or pete "chest pass" maravich did would work today dat weak shit would be sent to tha third row :confusedshrug: :no:

guys who stock boxes at walmart today were willing teams to championships in tha 50s and 60s

I'm just here to tell you that I hate you for making a mockery of the English language and using words like "tha", "ta", and "dat". It's one thing to use slang when you're speaking, but when you type out words incorrectly to resemble the way you talk (especially when you're not even shortening the word) then you should not be allowed to use the internet. And nobody cares what your dumb, uneducated mind has to say about legendary athletes from the formative years of their respective sports.

[Soundwave]

Some of the best players of the 21st century:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/teamsites/images/legacy/suns/nash_0506mvp_index.jpg

http://theassociation.blogs.com/the_association/images/2007/05/16/fulljgetty74143984gj002_dirk_nowitz.jpg

https://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/yao-ming-houston-rockets.jpg

There were no international superstars in previous eras, outside of Hakeem.

... who's arguably better than all three of those guys.

Besides there was no political issue keeping Canadians out of the NBA like ever, there could've been a Canadian superstar in 1958, there was no real barrier against it.

[fpliii]

I believe he really was 6-11, I believe everyone else's height from that era is what should fall under scrutiny.

*EDIT*... I've been looking through more pics... he might actually be pulling a Bill Russell (who was "6-9" ...but really 6-9 and 5/8ths)... Walton looks like he could be a legit 7 footer, or at the very least 6-11 and a lot of change.
Do we have any pre-draft stuff on him and Parish? Or any good photos for gauging this?

[CavaliersFTW]

Do we have any pre-draft stuff on him and Parish? Or any good photos for gauging this?
I've uncovered no draft data or revealing information about actual measurements on either of them unfortunately.

[fpliii]

I've uncovered no draft data or revealing information about actual measurements on either of them unfortunately.
I'll see if I can find anything in old newspaper archives (I think there's some Portland paper on Google News). Too bad I don't have access to the LA Times anymore, might've been something from Walton's college days (Parish would be tough, we already dumped archives from the Oakland Tribune, but I don't remember seeing anything about his height.

What are the best photographs we have for either guy? Was Parish a legit 7 footer? Do you think it's just an angle, or was Walton definitely taller?

[Roundball_Rock]

... who's arguably better than all three of those guys.

Besides there was no political issue keeping Canadians out of the NBA like ever, there could've been a Canadian superstar in 1958, there was no real barrier against it.

It wasn't politics. It was basketball was not globalized. NBA scouts were not looking at international players, and there was less interest in the game before the Dream Team inspired many kids around the globe to play basketball (including Dirk). The 21st century has the deepest talent pool the NBA has ever had. You don't have to be just one of the best in one country but one of the best in the world to make a NBA roster these days. As I have noted, the majority of the Spurs' rotation in 2014 was foreign. In 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had a grand total of 0 international players. If these players were not in the NBA their rosters spots would have been filled by players who are in the D-League or scrubs who did not get drafted after college and stopped playing. That=a weaker league in terms of talent.

The trend gained steam in the 90's but did not fully hit until the 2000's when the NBA jumped from 6-7% foreign-born to around 20%. The second most consequential foreign player of the 90's was Kukoc, who never made an all-star team. A decade later foreign players would win 3 MVP's and Yao, had he been healthy, may have won one at some point as well.

[LAZERUSS]

I have said it many times before, but the best basketball players in the world, were playing in the NBA in the 60's (and even before.)

The main reason the NBA (and other major sports, as well) didn't have a higher percentage of Black players was quite simple: COLLEGES weren't churning them out. Much of it was socio-economic, not racism per se. Most here probably wouldn't remember the famous starting five from Texas Western in '66. They were supposedly the first NCAA college to start five Black players. And they beat an all-white Kentucky team in the Finals.

BUT, there were many Black college stars even in the 50's. Russell's '56 Dons started three (Russell, KC Jones, and Hal Perry.) UCLA would start three in '67, two of whom were sophs (Alcindor, Allen, and junior Mike Warren.) And to be honest, the '66 Bruin freshmen team was actually the best team in the country that year. They just weren't allowed to play at "varsity" level (and not because of the Black players), but because of the rules at the time.

As for the NBA, with the rare exception, such as Connie Hawkins, who was wrongfully banned, not for being Black, but for supposedly being involved in a "point-shaving" scandal (and never proven), the best Black players were playing in the NBA. And why not? If you wanted to win, you had an Oscar, or Russell, or Baylor, or Wilt.

Did racism exist in the 60's? Of course it did. And of course players like Oscar and Russell were affected by it. But the owners wanted to win, and the best way to win, was to have the best players ...Black or white. And supposedly there were "quotas" as well. But again, the best Black players were starting, and if there were "quotas", it probably only affected the marginal players.

As for Russell and Wilt's domination...as has already been mentioned, they were dominating ALL of their peers, Black or white. A near-prime Chamberlain easily outplayed rookie Alcindor in there only H2H before Wilt shredded his knee. And a prime Wilt was far more dominant against players like Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, and Walt Bellamy, than a prime Kareem would be a few years later.

And a 34 year old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem in the majority of their ten '71 H2H's.

And by now everyone here knows that an aging Thurmond, whom a prime Chamberlain just murdered, was outplaying a PEAK Kareem in the '72 playoffs. He outscored and outshot Kareem in that season, and in fact, held Kareem, who had averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%, to 22.8 ppg on a .405 FG%. And if that was not enough, a full-time Thurmond battled a prime-to-peak Kareem in nearly 40 H2H games...and Kareem had a TOTAL of five 30+ point games against him, with a high game of 34. Oh, and in the course of those H2H's, he held KAJ to a .447 FG%.

Fast forward to the '85 and '86 seasons. A 38-39 year old Kareem, now a physical shell of what he had been in his prime, faced a young Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games. And in those ten straight games, Kareem averaged 32 ppg on an almost unfathomable .621 FG%. Included were three games of 40+, with a high of 46 (which came in only 37 minutes, and on 21-30 shooting.)

And Hakeem would go to finish 4th in the MVP balloting in that '86 season, as well. And everyone here should know that Hakeem was arguably the best center in the league in the early 90's, and gave Shaq all he could ask for in the '95 Finals.


And it wasn't just Kareem, either. In these discussions, I always ask the posters who claim that the current era players are much better, as to when this began to occur. Many will answer 1980, when Bird and Magic arrived. And yet, the first four MVPs of the 80's, were all players who had played in the 70's, and virtually none of them had any better seasons in the late 70's, than they did in the early 80's. Same with the scoring, rebounding, and FG% champions. ALL were players who had played in the 70's, and most were winning their statistical titles into the mid '80's, and some with considerably better seasons in the 80's.

And the reality is, you can go back to ANY year in NBA history, and I can guarantee you that there were players from just the year before, who were every bit as great in each year.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

As for skills, how come the FT% in '59 was EXACTLY the same as in this past year? And how come there were seasons even as far back as the 70's in which the league shot a considerably higher percentage? With all of this modern training and technology, wouldn't you expect FT's to be almost as automatic as PATs in football?

And the reality is...take a look at two of the best centers in the current NBA: DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond. Neither one have any plays set up for them, and neither one can shoot from more than five feet away. Nor do they have any post moves.

And of course, we have seen examples to counter the race theory, as well. Again, a 37 year old Nash, and only playing 33 mpg, easily won an apg title a couple of years ago. In that same season, an injury-plagued 6-11 Andrew Bogut led the NBA in bpg. And again, in that same season, a 6-8 Kevin Love, playing 35 mpg, ran away with the rpg title. How could this possibly happen in the "modern" NBA? And how is Ricky Rubio even playing in the NBA? The man is a career .381 shooter, in an era of .500 eFG%'s.

And speaking of Rubio and Love...how about Pistol Pete and Jerry Lucas? Maravich was doing things with a ball in college in the 60's, that hasn't been duplicated since. He was better at everything than Rubio, and was a MUCH better shooter and scorer (not to mention that he was taller and more athletic.) And Lucas was Love long before Kevin Love was. And he had as much range, if not moreso.

The reality is, there is nothing being done on the court today, that wasn't be accomplished 50+ years ago. Nothing. Furthermore, aside from the 24 second clock, which was enacted in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot, which the NBA adopted in the late 70's (and which was used by the ABA in the 60's)...the game is essentially being played the same way as it was when it was invented in the 1890's. Yes, there have been many minor rules changes, and almost all of those long before the current NBA, but overall, the game is being played the same way as it was in the 1890's. It is still played with the same size and diameter rim, with the same court dimensions, and with roughly the same ball, and with the same amount of players.

And really, it is a SIMPLE game. It comes down to shooting, rebounding, passing, and playing defense. Little kids have been playing this game for decades. And while the technical nature of the game has changed in each decade, as it does in all sports, there is no question that the majority of the players of each decade would have easily adapted to whatever changes were made. This is not "rocket science." It it were, the majority of players in the NBA would not be playing.

And Cavsfan has blown these "height" arguments away. The reality, is the players of today are only marginally taller than those of even 50 years ago. In fact, if you account for the obvious "exaggerations" with the way height has been measured since the 80's, it is probably a near wash. And the centers of today, are on average, maybe an inch taller than those in the 60's.

And here is a question for you: How many 7-3+ players have led the NBA in rebounding? The correct answer is... ZERO. How many 7-2+ players have led the NBA in rebounding? TWO, and for a total of THREE seasons (Mutombo twice, and Kareem once.) If you want to include Artis Gilmore from his ABA years, that would be one more.

Take away Wilt and his eleven rebounding titles, and how many legitimate seven-footers have led the NBA in rebounding (and again, legitimate...Hakeem was a borderline 6-10)? You can add Robinson, and his one rebounding title, to the list of 7-2 players. Again, aside from Wilt, and the legitimate seven-footers who have won rebounding titles is miniscule. BTW, look up the name of Priest Lauderdale. The man was 7-4 and 350 lbs, and even bigger than Shaq/ How many seasons did he play in the NBA?

Then, ask yourself this? How can a 6-8 225 lb Rodman run away with multiple rebounding titles in leagues with Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, and a plethora of "seven-footers" (many of whom aren't BTW)? Or how could a 6-7 Ben Wallace (yes, a legit 6-7) win TWO rebounding titles? Or even a 6-5 Charles Barkley win one?

And how could players like Allen Iverson, or Tiny Archibald lead the league in scoring?

Athleticism? How great have Gerald Green and James White have been? Green is a career 9.8 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.0 apg, .427 player. And White? He not only hasn't done anything, he has struggled to make NBA rosters. The NBA has been littered with "athletes" throughout the years... many of whom couldn't shoot, dribble, rebound, pass, or play defense.

And yet players like Nash, or John Stockton, or Mark Price have been super-stars. I will never say that Larry Bird wasn't "athletic" because the reality was, he was running up-and-down the court for 40+ minutes without even breathing hard, but he wouldn't win any sprinting, or high-jumping contests, either.

Finally...with all of this so-called "population boom", how come we have had only had ONE Shaq? Where are all of the other super athletic 7-1 350 lb players? Where are the Hakeems? Where are the Jordan's? The Bird's? Pat Riley said that one day he envisioned a team of Magic's...we haven't had one since. How about the Moses Malone's...a 6-10 245 lb player who was nowhere near the strongest, or most athletic player of his era, and yet he dominated it more than any other player did. Where are the Kareem's, and with that deadly "sky hook"? Where are the Pistol Pete's? And where have the other "Wilt's" been...a near 7-2 man, with enormous strength, athleticism, stamina, and skills?

If you want to argue that today's players benefit from better training, or nutrition, or "supplements", or equipment (shoes and surfaces, etc.), or better medical technology, I won't argue. BUT, give the players of previous eras the same benefits, and they would all be better, as well.

Overall, are the players of today better than those of 50 years ago. Perhaps so, but only marginally. The best players of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, would be great in the current era, too.

[Soundwave]

Continued...
The reality is, there is nothing being done on the court today, that wasn't be accomplished 50+ years ago. Nothing. Furthermore, aside from the 24 second clock, which was enacted in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot, which the NBA adopted in the late 70's (and which was used by the ABA in the 60's)...the game is essentially being played the same way as it was when it was invented in the 1890's. Yes, there have been many minor rules changes, and almost all of those long before the current NBA, but overall, the game is being played the same way as it was in the 1890's. It is still played with the same size and diameter rim, with the same court dimensions, and with roughly the same ball, and with the same amount of players.


Well the reality is that some people agree with that, some people disagree. There's no consensus answer. Especially the bit about the game being essentially the same as it was in the 1890s.

I think *all* the major pro sports are very different from where they were 50 years ago.

You look at hockey, football, baseball, or basketball ... there's a large improvement in skill and size of the average player in all four of them.

Into the 80s, sports became just not competition, it became a huge lucrative business with millions of dollars at stake, and that ramped up how players are trained from their formative/younger stages right on up to the pro level.

Something's do get better with time, but the evolution of the game has slowed down now because you do hit the limits of what the human body can do even with all the modern training techniques. But by and large I think the average athlete in any of the 4 major pro sports is simply a better athlete to begin with than the average player from 50 years ago.

[WillC]

OT - How tall was Walton? :wtf:

Jesus christ, he looks noticeably taller than the Chief there (and towers over McHale), who from my understanding was a true seven footer. Could be a weird angle, but damn.

In his Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons mentions that Bill Walton was 7'2" but didn't like to be known as a seven footer.

That is backed up by articles in Sports Illustrated and the New York Times.

For example, this quote is from the New York Times:

"Walton was 7-2, at least, but didn't enjoy the stigma that went along with it. Asked that year why he looked so much taller than Olajuwon when he was supposed to be one inch smaller, Walton said, rather testily, 'The floor's warped.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/08/sports/on-pro-basketball-feet-of-dancer-touch-of-surgeon-and-a-shot-too.html

[CavaliersFTW]

In his Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons mentions that Bill Walton was 7'2" but didn't like to be known as a seven footer.

That is backed up by articles in Sports Illustrated and the New York Times.

For example, this quote is from the New York Times:

"Walton was 7-2, at least, but didn't enjoy the stigma that went along with it. Asked that year why he looked so much taller than Olajuwon when he was supposed to be one inch smaller, Walton said, rather testily, 'The floor's warped.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/08/sports/on-pro-basketball-feet-of-dancer-touch-of-surgeon-and-a-shot-too.html
I'd say in shoes, it's possible. He's not as tall as Kareem though, and Kareem is slightly under 7-2 without shoes. But in shoes, it's possible.

[WillC]

I think 7'2" might be an exaggeration, but 7' seems legit.

http://www.thetallestman.com/whoisthetallest/download/file.php?id=3621

[BoutPractice]

The race card is the weakest argument you could possibly throw at the 60s...

The dominance of the 80s Celtics, and the now well worn Love/Nash/Rubio jlauber counterargument should have killed it a long time ago.

As recently as 3 years ago, the champion 2011 Mavs had 5 white players in their 12 man rotation. Last year the Timberwolves had 9 white players out of 12.

Second weakest argument is the height card, as it's been shown time and time again that the centers of that era actually had to play against insanely strong 7 footers (or close) that would terrify any player today, from Wilt to Nate, on a regular basis.

[SHABBA]

League history should really begin in, say, the early to mid '70s. Maybe even later. Before that should not be considered.

[BoutPractice]

League history should really begin in, say, the early to mid '70s. Maybe even later. Before that should not be considered.
Because? What is your argument? What gives you the right to say that?

Do people just get to decide that world history starts somewhere in 1658 or some other random date?

[juju151111]

You really honestly think that there are 11 players in this photo better than even Joel Anthony? That he wouldn't even make this team?

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/lakers/season_photos/season_1960_1961.jpg

And this is a team that made the NBA Finals in the 60s.
Almost none of those players could dribble with their left hand and barely move .