Who was the best perimeter athlete in the 60s?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Title.

[fpliii]

Gus Johnson maybe?

[3ball]

Title.
not sure - i would imagine their athleticism was better than the euros who spanked lebron's team of the best athletes in the NBA in 2004 and 2006 and held lebron to 11 ppg.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Gus Johnson maybe?
Any clips of him dunking or doing something athletic?

[Trollsmasher]

there was no perimeter back then

[fpliii]

Any clips of him dunking or doing something athletic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchAeIUAZco

[RoundMoundOfReb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchAeIUAZco
Okay, serious question:

Watch that clip.

Then watch these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2qVkjss9Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8eqg-tGb3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_X0I_pk8YI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UruofXufVuo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHG1g8IFbQk

And tell me if you seriously believe that they are comparable.

[bizil]

I would say it's Baylor at first and then eventually Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins as the decade went on. My sleeper would be Billy Cunnigham who was up there among the most athletic.

[Droid101]

Okay, serious question:

Watch that clip.

Then watch these:

How about no? Your agenda was obvious on your first post. GTFO with that weak shit.

[fpliii]

Okay, serious question:
:lol Didn't realize it was a troll thread, I'll see myself out.

[3ball]

not sure - i would imagine their athleticism was better than the euros who spanked lebron's team of the best athletes in the NBA in 2004 and 2006 and held lebron to 11 ppg.



the athleticism of most teams back then was in the vicinity of say, jose barea and an old jason kidd as the guards, and an old shawn marion and dirk nowitski at the forwards....

maybe with boris diaw coming off the bench.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It's a 100% legitimate question that I see you're refusing to answer. How somebody could watch that video and the ones i posted and actually think that there isn't a MASSIVE difference in the athleticism, is beyond me.

This is not a troll thread. Why is everyone who thinks that the 60s was a weak era called a troll? it's an opinion. Just because it's different than yours doesn't make it a troll thread.

I am 100% open to changing my opinion if somebody shows me footage of athletic plays being made by 60s players that compare with LeBron/Kobe/Wade/MJ/Carter/Tmac.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

the athleticism of most teams back then was in the vicinity of say, jose barea and an old jason kidd as the guards, and an old shawn marion and dirk nowitski at the forwards....

maybe with boris diaw coming off the bench.
Old Shawn Marion has done more impressive athletic things than i saw in that video. And honestly so has Manu Ginobli, who you call unathletic.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I would say it's Baylor at first and then eventually Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins as the decade went on. My sleeper would be Billy Cunnigham who was up there among the most athletic.

I watched that whole 25 minute video Cavsftw made of Baylor - not impressed.

[bizil]

There's something called EVOLUTION!! Baylor, Hawkins, and Gus were EASILY ahead of their time in the 60's. Gus with those two foot hops at that size was SICK!! Now once u got to Dr. J and Thompson, u are getting to guys who put a lot of the style that we see today. In terms of layups, Doc was doing shit guys today don't do often with those mitts. For a guy 6'4, Thompson was EASILY doing shit on par with guys today. So don't sleep on the contributions on the guys in the 60's and 70's. They are the godfathers and i ALWAYS show love to the original skywalkers!!

[Psileas]

Yeah, troll, we already know it: Today's medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment > 60's ones. Nothing more. Actual human athleticism has not significantly changed for millenia now - and I'm not even sure it has even gone upwards.
Btw, Jackie Jackson and Earl Manigault, though not NBA players, were playing in the 60's. Imagine these 2 beasting with today's equipment. :eek:

[fpliii]

Yeah, troll, we already know it: Today's medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment > 60's ones. Nothing more. Actual human athleticism has not significantly changed for millenia now - and I'm not even sure it has even gone upwards.
Btw, Jackie Jackson and Earl Manigault, though not NBA players, were playing in the 60's. Imagine these 2 beasting with today's equipment. :eek:
I do think improved nutrition, living conditions have led to athletic improvement over the centuries, but man hasn't evolved in the past 50 years (by the mid-late 60s, the league was mostly black, so the segregated excuse doesn't follow). On topic, I think generational players (and generational athletes) have popped up at similar frequencies in that span.

[Psileas]

There's something called EVOLUTION!! Baylor, Hawkins, and Gus were EASILY ahead of their time in the 60's. Gus with those two foot hops at that size was SICK!! Now once u got to Dr. J and Thompson, u are getting to guys who put a lot of the style that we see today. In terms of layups, Doc was doing shit guys today don't do often with those mitts. For a guy 6'4, Thompson was EASILY doing shit on par with guys today. So don't sleep on the contributions on the guys in the 60's and 70's. They are the godfathers and i ALWAYS show love to the original skywalkers!!

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

[Kblaze8855]

It's a 100% legitimate question that I see you're refusing to answer. How somebody could watch that video and the ones i posted and actually think that there isn't a MASSIVE difference in the athleticism, is beyond me.

This is not a troll thread. Why is everyone who thinks that the 60s was a weak era called a troll? it's an opinion. Just because it's different than yours doesn't make it a troll thread.

I am 100% open to changing my opinion if somebody shows me footage of athletic plays being made by 60s players that compare with LeBron/Kobe/Wade/MJ/Carter/Tmac.


Of course its a troll thread. For one...you do this type of thing all the time. This is at least the third one lately...

Second....you make absurd requests and confuse it with making a valid point.

There are entire NBA finals lost footage wise.

Things that happened all the time...have no video evidence. You know Wilt has 200+ 40 point games...without ONE of them being saved(beyond the 62 ASG)?

You come in here comparing a clip or three of a random good 60s athlete who played when 99% of your career was seen only by people in attendance....to modern players who have every dribble of their career recorded?

You ask...how does that brief sample of largely post injury Gus Johnson doing random things like winning jump balls compare to Lebron James highlights? When you know...every shot Lebron has taken since he was 16 is recorded in HD?

The **** is wrong with you?

Wilt Chamberlain is a 7'1'' barefoot Big 8 high jump champ who long jumped 22 feet in his spare time.

Because you have never seen him do a windmill it invalidates his status as an athlete? Ive seen Jamal Magloire do a 360. Wilt could have been out there putting on a show...but why?

At the time.....many plays now praised...were considered being a poor sport.

And even if they were not....you would never see it.

The most famous players of that era rarely have 20 minutes of footage. Trust me...I have more NBA footage than you would believe.

And that 20 minutes...is usually slow motion news footage, documentary footage(also slow motion), and promo videos for the following season that generally features as many smiling white players in business casual attire as they can get because they arent selling athletic ability....

The black guys are not the feature. Dunks and blocks are not a feature. Fans barely got excited by a dunk in the 50s and 60s. It was just another basket for the most part. There is a video called the Tall Men of Baltimore on the 60s Bullets...and Gus Johnson is hardly even in it. The teams best player...

60s sport film makers were not out there looking for what we would call spectacular plays to cut a clip that will hold you through commercials.

They were making documentaries backed with classical music and full of footage of guys in suits and women in dresses cheering politely from the sidelines.

You are on here asking to see shit...nobody cared about at the time.

And use the lack of that footage to suggest that guys with track backgrounds that prove their athletic ability...guys who made clearly athletic plays without the flair modern players add that they were not allowed....and guys with no motivation to show off....are not great athletes.

You started some bullshit topic a while back asking who the great athletes were in the 60s...who were not superstars. Suggesting of course that the only athletic players were the few stars. I point out that a role player on the Warriors won the ****ing Olympic gold medal in the high jump....

And you of course ignore the obvious lesson....that there were countless good athletes you just dont know anything about...because you are ignorant in general about the subject matter.

And that is what makes these topics troll topics. You have no genuine interest in learning anything.

You assume you know...support it with idiotic statements....and then repeat it later.

If you want to talk about the pioneers of the game...learn something about them.

If you want to talk shit and start arguments with one word topics to provoke a response you will do nothing but smear your clown facepaint all over....do it elsewhere.

Nobody is telling you to like the 60s...hell...even respect it.

I am telling you...stop making stupid topics on the subject.

If you want to hate...educate yourself enough to hate from a rational position.

[bizil]

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

Well said! It's more about the style that evolves over the generations. Actual vertical and speed is different from that. Baylor, Gus, and Hawkins HAD THE ATHLETIC ABILITY on par with the guys today. It goes without saying that Doc and Thompson do too. And MJ, Nique, and Drexler in the mid 80's on up EASILY do shit guys today can't do consistently IN GAMES!! For me, its EASILY harder to pull off those great dunks in games than in a dunk contest. The guys who can do both great are the best dunkers of all time. It took Vince Carter in my opinion to take the TOTAL DUNK CROWN from the guys whose careers started in the 70's and 80's. For those that don't get it, THE TOTAL DUNK CROWN entails:

- Great dunks in games in traffic as well in the open court uncontested
- Putting in work in the dunk contest
- Longevity doing those feats
- Revolutionizing dunking for your time period

That's why the Mt. Rushmore of dunkers is Vince, MJ, Nique, and Doc. Honorable mention are the guys like Kemp, Thompson, Drexler, Blake, T-Mac, etc. And I also gotta have the guys like Hawkins, Baylor, and Gus I gotta have in my honorable mentions too for bringing it to the league PERIOD!

[3ball]

the athleticism of most teams back then was in the vicinity of say, jose barea and an old jason kidd as the guards, and an old shawn marion and dirk nowitski at the forwards....

maybe with boris diaw coming off the bench.



Old Shawn Marion has done more impressive athletic things than i saw in that video. And honestly so has Manu Ginobli, who you call unathletic.
that's the only disagreements you have?... those are slight... you basically agree with me - the athleticism was about the same as the mavs and spurs.
.

[deja vu]

Kblaze with another thread shutdown. :bowdown:

[3ball]

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.
this might be the smartest post i've seen on this topic.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

There are entire NBA finals lost footage wise.

Things that happened all the time...have no video evidence. You know Wilt has 200+ 40 point games...without ONE of them being saved(beyond the 62 ASG)?

You come in here comparing a clip or three of a random good 60s athlete who played when 99% of your career was seen only by people in attendance....to modern players who have every dribble of their career recorded?

You ask...how does that brief sample of largely post injury Gus Johnson doing random things like winning jump balls compare to Lebron James highlights? When you know...every shot Lebron has taken since he was 16 is recorded in HD?


First off, I'm not asking for a 20 minute video full of dunks/amazing plays...i'm asking for a couple of plays of shit you see on a daily basis today in the nba..Secondly, if it really is true that there is little/no footage of impressive plays - then why do some people act like these players (who they've never seen play or do anything impressive) would dominate today?


Wilt Chamberlain is a 7'1'' barefoot Big 8 high jump champ who long jumped 22 feet in his spare time.

Because you have never seen him do a windmill it invalidates his status as an athlete? Ive seen Jamal Magloire do a 360. Wilt could have been out there putting on a show...but why?


I never said he wasn't a great athlete. I said that the players he was playing against overwhelmingly weren't.

[PsychoBe]

those gus johnson highlights :applause:

definitely the bran before the bran. amazing how short a memory most players/analysts have in regards to past players.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

The argument isn't/never was: that human beings have evolved so over the last 50 years that it makes the 60s a weak era....The argument is that there are so many more kids that grow up wanting to play in the NBA now than in the 50s/60s that the increased competition has lead to a better product.

Which is why I wouldn't really say the 60s were a weak era for a sport like say...boxing. but football/basketball?! it's night and day

[Kblaze8855]

First off, I'm not asking for a 20 minute video full of dunks/amazing plays...i'm asking for a couple of plays of shit you see on a daily basis today in the nba..Secondly, if it really is true that there is little/no footage of impressive plays - then why do some people act like these players (who they've never seen play or do anything impressive) would dominate today?



I never said he wasn't a great athlete. I said that the players he was playing against overwhelmingly weren't.


You dont know anything about anyone youre talking about.

So your idea of "impressive" means nothing to me.

Your opinion on this issue couldnt be less valued. You have never shown a speck of evidence you even care about the subject matter beyond hating.

And when all anyone has to say about a subject is hating...and they do it in multiple topics...in repetitive fashion...classic trolling.

Note for the record...that ive not actually stopped you. But im not gonna pretend I dont know what you are.

Im just giving you a little room to adjust. As I said..hate all you like...if you can do so reasonably.

And some dumb question you dont actually care about followed by a one word post....is not reasonable.

[LAZERUSS]

those gus johnson highlights :applause:

definitely the bran before the bran. amazing how short a memory most players/analysts have in regards to past players.

You know what is even more amazing?

Gus Johnson was a career 17-13 player, with one 20 ppg season, and one 17 rpg. He finished in the MVP voting ONE time, and came in SIXTH.

And look at his smooth jump shots in that footage...even 15+ feet.

Now, maybe someone can tell us why a 6-6 230 lb beast of a man, with MJ's vertical, wouldn't routinely be hanging 30-20 seasons against the "shorter, weaker, slower" players of the 60's?

[LAZERUSS]

Perimeter "athlete?"

How about John Havlicek, who was given a tryout by the Cleveland Browns, and who could run the floor all game long? He was running players into the ground at the end of his career in the late 70's.

[Psileas]

The argument is that there are so many more kids that grow up wanting to play in the NBA now than in the 50s/60s that the increased competition has lead to a better product.

Rather, a different product. First of all, the NBA has 30 teams now, not 8-10, so comparing straightly the numbers of kids wanting to play basketball now (or, rather, in the 80's-00's) compared to then is flat-out wrong.
Second, the NBA isn't about playing the best brand of basketball any longer, it's about playing the basketball that appeals more to the crowds, mostly the new generation. It's still the best basketball league, because the Americans' interest about basketball is flat out bigger than most of the other countries, they have a bigger population than any other country not named China/India, and they have better genetics and medicine than most countries. How can it not be? But it's not any longer as far ahead as someone would expect from an ultra-advanced product.
The reason so many kids want to play there is exactly because the NBA, more than ever before in history, promotes the type of basketball that the casual fans love: Athleticism over brains, dunks over shooting, ball-hogging over passing, randomness over strategy. Had the league evolved/been evolving as much as some of you make it seem, we would have been seeing nowadays teams that play much better than the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls and, yes, Wilt's Sixers or Lakers. We would also be seeing the 50-year old Spurs' roster being crushed repeatedly, unable to keep up with the most athletic teams in the league. Oh, and the rest of the world would not be able to catch up to the degree it did.
It goes beyond basketball. E.g, how many people care about music today compared to the 18th century? Way more, right? Yet, I'm still waiting for the next Beethoven. But who cares about him when the musical industry has taken over? Is this what you'd call a turn for the better? If you don't mind, I'll still take Beethoven.
Just because the number of people wanting to participate in something increases, it doesn't necessarily improve its quality. Not everything is for everyone, so, instead, quality has to start taking a back seat, and be replaced by what casual people mostly want to see. They don't want to see the Spurs, they want to see dunks. They don't want Beethoven, they want Bieber. They don't want "best scenario" movies, they want "best optical effects" movies. And so on. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by people's choices, I'm not convinced by the supposed boom of competition and will continue to make fun of the ones talking about weak eras without any kind of context.

[stalkerforlife]

Lebron.

[LAZERUSS]

The argument isn't/never was: that human beings have evolved so over the last 50 years that it makes the 60s a weak era....The argument is that there are so many more kids that grow up wanting to play in the NBA now than in the 50s/60s that the increased competition has lead to a better product.

Which is why I wouldn't really say the 60s were a weak era for a sport like say...boxing. but football/basketball?! it's night and day

Let me ask you this...

How many "Shaq's" have we seen since the original was at his peak? And how come the Sim Bhullar's of this world are complete busts?

How many MJ's are running around in not only the NBA, but in Europe and in our colleges?

You see the skill-sets of the centers of this era...how many Hakeem's are playing in the world right now?

Years ago Pat Riley envisioned an entire team of "Magics"...give me ONE "Magic", in the entire world since.

Kareem's? Moses'? Bird's? Dirk's? Lebron's? Durant's? Hell, Bruce Bowen's? Shouldn't these guys be filling the playgrounds?

Oh, and where are all the "Wilt's"...7-1+, 7-8 wingspans, 280-310 lbs, 40" verticals, 500 lb bench presses, sprinters and high jumpers in college, and able to play 48 mpg for entire seasons?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Rather, a different product. First of all, the NBA has 30 teams now, not 8-10, so comparing straightly the numbers of kids wanting to play basketball now (or, rather, in the 80's-00's) compared to then is flat-out wrong.


Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

[bukowski81]

Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

WOW you are so smart

[LAZERUSS]

Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

Yep...that is why a Tyler Hansborough can win a CPOY...

...and later on we find out that he can't shoot, dribble, rebound, pass, or play defense in the NBA.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Let me ask you this...

How many "Shaq's" have we seen since the original was at his peak? And how come the Sim Bhullar's of this world are complete busts?

How many MJ's are running around in not only the NBA, but in Europe and in our colleges?

You see the skill-sets of the centers of this era...how many Hakeem's are playing in the world right now?

Years ago Pat Riley envisioned an entire team of "Magics"...give me ONE "Magic", in the entire world since.

Kareem's? Moses'? Bird's? Dirk's? Lebron's? Durant's? Hell, Bruce Bowen's? Shouldn't these guys be filling the playgrounds?

Oh, and where are all the "Wilt's"...7-1+, 7-8 wingspans, 40" verticals, 500 lb bench presses, sprinters and high jumpers in college, and able to play 48 mpg for entire seasons?

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. What i'm saying is basically this: Today there are like 3x more roster spots available than the 60s....but the amount of people trying to become NBA players is like infinitely higher than it was then...does that mean that NBA today is better proportionate to the additional amount of people that wanna be NBA players thanin the 60s? No of course not. There are other variables, but no doubt the increased competition has led to a talent increase in the league.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Yep...that is why a Tyler Hansborough can win a CPOY...

...and later on we find out that he can't shoot, dribble, rebound, pass, or play defense in the NBA.

College basketball has fallen of a cliff due to 1 and dones.

[LAZERUSS]

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. What i'm saying is basically this: Today there are like 3x more roster spots available than the 60s....but the amount of people trying to become NBA players is like infinitely higher than it was then...does that mean that NBA today is better proportionate to the additional amount of people that wanna be NBA players thanin the 60s? No of course not. There are other variables, but no doubt the increased competition has led to a talent increase in the league.

I don't see it. Players don't even shoot FTs better today, than they did in 1959. Furthermore, players like DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond can't shoot from 3-4 feet from the basket, and yet they are among the best centers in the world. Watch footage of Russell, ... as poor a shooter as he was, he was considerably more skilled, and had a considerably better range than those two.

I watch Ricky Rubio STARTING in TODAY's NBA, and am amazed at the fact that he is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Go to YouTube and search for Pete Maravich...and with a straight face, tell me that Rubio is a better player.

I could go right down the list. How did a 6-8 230 Rodman win SEVEN rebounding titles as recently as the 90's? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO in a row as recently as a decade ago? BTW, Wallace couldn't hit the rim from 2 feet away, either.

Shouldn't TODAY's basketball players, supposedly better trained, all be shooting 90% from the FT line? And ALL of them have 3pt range?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I don't see it. Players don't even shoot FTs better today, than they did in 1959. Furthermore, players like DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond can't shoot from 3-4 feet from the basket, and yet they are among the best centers in the world. Watch footage of Russell, ... as poor a shooter as he was, he was considerably more skilled, and had a considerably better range than those two.

I watch Ricky Rubio STARTING in TODAY's NBA, and am amazed at the fact that he is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Go to YouTube and search for Pete Maravich...and with a straight face, tell me that Rubio is a better player.

I could go right down the list. How did a 6-8 230 Rodman win SEVEN rebounding titles as recently as the 90's? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO in a row as recently as a decade ago? BTW, Wallace couldn't hit the rim from 2 feet away, either.

Shouldn't TODAY's basketball players, supposedly better trained, all be shooting 90% from the FT line? And ALL of them have 3pt range?

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?

[fpliii]

Round - Apologies if I came off as dismissive before, but this type conversation is rarely productive IMO.

If we're going to have this discussion, let me ask you a question, just so we can get on the same page. LAZ, and others participating in this thread, feel free to answer as well.

Who do you think have been all of the legitimate generational talents in the history of the league, as far as their ability to dominate in today's game is concerned? Can you please name them chronologically, in your opinion?

I'm leaving the definitions of "legitimate generational talent" and "ability to dominate" intentionally ambiguous so we can get an idea of where everybody stands.

[fpliii]

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?
They counted it as 3 (so if a guy went 1 for 3, both misses would count). I did some research on the topic awhile back: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1277741 (had a thread on here as well, but I can't seem to find it).

[LAZERUSS]

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?

Go to the 70's then, when leagues were shooting a HIGHER FT% than they do today.

And, yes, EVERY FT counted. That is why Chamberlain's EFFECTIVE FT% was probably considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%.

[VeeCee15]

Basketball was not even popular in the 60s hence the LACK of talent.
No everyone and their moms wanted to play basketball back in the day and it wasn't a sure way to make $$$.

Lack of interest from public, results in lack of interests from people wanting to play etc. What happened was that the TALENT pool was low. The BEST athletes of the 60s DID NOT play basketball.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Chronologically:

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
LeBron

Dominance level if you used a time machine:

Shaq
Jordan
Kareem
LeBron
Hakeem
Bird
Duncan
Magic
Wilt/Russell

Dwyane Wade and Kevin Garnett are 2 players who in their best seasons were extremely close to LeBron and Duncan respectively, so i wouldn't mind including them. But Wade has had injuries and KG hasn't been as good in the PS. it's tough to say really with these arbitrary labels.

I think athletic big men like Russell/Wilt (and thurmond) would actually be very good players today, but Russell isn't winning close to 10 rings and Wilt isn't scoring close to 50 ppg.

[LAZERUSS]

Basketball was not even popular in the 60s hence the LACK of talent.
No everyone and their moms wanted to play basketball back in the day and it wasn't a sure way to make $$$.

Lack of interest from public, results in lack of interests from people wanting to play etc. What happened was that the TALENT pool was low. The BEST athletes of the 60s DID NOT play basketball.

How great an "athlete" was Larry Bird? Or Dennis Rodman?

How about Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio?

BTW, THE best ATHLETE in the WORLD was playing basketball in the 60's. And many considered him the STRONGEST, as well.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Basketball was not even popular in the 60s hence the LACK of talent.
No everyone and their moms wanted to play basketball back in the day and it wasn't a sure way to make $$$.

Lack of interest from public, results in lack of interests from people wanting to play etc. What happened was that the TALENT pool was low. The BEST athletes of the 60s DID NOT play basketball.

This is very true. Especially true for shorter players which is why the wing/guard talent looks so suspect/weak. Big guys like Wilt/Russell would probably still gravitate towards basketball.

[fpliii]

Chronologically:

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
LeBron

Thanks, this is the list I wanted. Looking forward to seeing LAZ's as well (again, just looking for a listing of players chronologically who are viewed as generational talents).

Didn't want the dominance list. Not looking for player rankings, just trying to see what qualifies as a generational talent for both you and LAZ (and anyone else interested in answering).


I think athletic big men like Russell/Wilt (and thurmond) would actually be very good players today, but Russell isn't winning close to 10 rings and Wilt isn't scoring close to 50 ppg.
To be fair though, I don't think those are arguments made very often in serious discussion. From RealGM for example, Russell is rated where he is because of his defensive impact/athleticism/intelligence, and Wilt is rated where he is because of his two-way ability, and how well it came together when he had a teammates of a solid talent level/fit.

Russell wouldn't win 11 today, nobody would. But he'd win as much as anybody placed in his position.

Wilt wouldn't score 50 a game, nobody would. That particular season was an outlier, because it was contrived by the owner, GM, coach, Wilt, and his teammates. He was a dominant scorer, but you have to take that number out of the picture.

[LAZERUSS]

Round - Apologies if I came off as dismissive before, but this type conversation is rarely productive IMO.

If we're going to have this discussion, let me ask you a question, just so we can get on the same page. LAZ, and others participating in this thread, feel free to answer as well.

Who do you think have been all of the legitimate generational talents in the history of the league, as far as their ability to dominate in today's game is concerned? Can you please name them chronologically, in your opinion?

I'm leaving the definitions of "legitimate generational talent" and "ability to dominate" intentionally ambiguous so we can get an idea of where everybody stands.

If Ben Wallace could win two rebounding titles, and four DPOY's, then certainly a taller, more athletic, and more skilled Russell could easily have done the same.

If Kevin Love could run away with a rpg title, then surely a much bigger, stronger, longer, taller, and much more athletic Wilt would be blowing the league away today in that stat.

If Cousins can average a 23-12 in today's NBA, then a peak Kareem would easily average a 30-15.

If Chris Paul can average 11 apg in a league in which they are far easier to come by, then a peak Oscar, who was also much bigger, and more skilled, would easily lead the league today?

If a 6-11 stumblebum like Andrew Bogut can win a bpg title, then Wilt and Russell would be winning them by several bpg.

If Tyson Chandler can win FG% titles by landslide margins in today's NBA, then a peak Chamberlain, scoring much more, would be shooting in the 75-80% range.

Players like Moses, Kareem, Tiny, Pistol, McAdoo, West, Oscar, Gilmore, Lucas, Barry...all would be among the best players in today's NBA.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

If Ben Wallace could win two rebounding titles, and four DPOY's, then certainly a taller, more athletic, and more skilled Russell could easily have done the same.

If Kevin Love could run away with a rpg title, then surely a much bigger, stronger, longer, taller, and much more athletic Wilt would be blowing the league away today in that stat.

If Cousins can average a 23-12 in today's NBA, then a peak Kareem would easily average a 30-15.

If Chris Paul can average 11 apg in a league in which they are far easier to come by, then a peak Oscar, who was also much bigger, and more skilled, would easily lead the league today?

If a 6-11 stumblebum like Andrew Bogut can win a bpg title, then Wilt and Russell would be winning them by several bpg.

If Tyson Chandler can win FG% titles by landslide margins in today's NBA, then a peak Chamberlain, scoring much more, would be shooting in the 75-80% range.

Players like Moses, Kareem, Tiny, Pistol, McAdoo, West, Oscar, Gilmore, Lucas, Barry...all would be among the best players in today's NBA.
apg right now is almost the same as the 60s.

[3ball]

in today's game, players shoot poorly from mid-range - only about 30-40%.

for this reason, players avoid these shots - they are only a small proportion of most players' shot allocation... and fortunately, it is POSSIBLE to avoid the shots because the 3-point line provides another option while giving the floor spacing for better at-rim looks.

but if today's player was transported back to the 60's, they would be forced to shoot a large proportion of mid-range shots, because there was no 3-point line.

so the shooting efficiency of today's players would be reduced to the same percentages players shot in the 60's.... just food for thought in this discussion.

[oarabbus]

Perimeter "athlete?"

How about John Havlicek, who was given a tryout by the Cleveland Browns, and who could run the floor all game long? He was running players into the ground at the end of his career in the late 70's.


:bowdown: Havlicek :bowdown: gets no respect today, should be in everyone's top 20 at worst

[LAZERUSS]

How great an "athlete" was Larry Bird? Or Dennis Rodman?

How about Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio?

BTW, THE best ATHLETE in the WORLD was playing basketball in the 60's. And many considered him the STRONGEST, as well.

Just to clarify...

Larry Bird was a GREAT athlete. As was Rodman, and as are Love and Rubio.

I am just as guilty as so many other's here when it comes to the term of "athletic", which typically evokes views of a Gerald Green or a Vince Carter.

Having watched much of Bird's career...the man was a marvel. He could run-up-and-down the floor, and without even breaking into a sweat. If there was ever a player who was born to play basketball, it was Bird. Not that he didn't work at it, though. He spent hours upon hours practicing, even late in his career.

So anytime anyone just throws his name out there as some kind of an example of "unathletic"...nothing could be further from the truth.

[3ball]

Larry Bird was a GREAT athlete. As was Rodman, and as are Love and Rubio.

I am just as guilty as so many other's here when it comes to the term of "athletic", which typically evokes views of a Gerald Green or a Vince Carter.


are you lumping rodman in the same athletic class as bird, love and rubio?

i think you meant to lump him with vince and green... and i don't think it is disputable that rodman was easily a better overall athlete than vince - quicker overall, quicker leaper/off his feet, quicker 0-60, faster, stronger, did i say quicker, better stamina...

vince in particular was slow given his hops, had a slow first step, and he was slow off his feet - he really had to gather himself.

[3ball]

for players with truly elite skill levels, athleticism matters very little.

for example, dirk is so immensely skilled as a scorer, that his skill more than offsets his athleticism deficit.... ditto for Pierce... ditto for Bird, and Bird added a passing aspect to those elite skills.

which brings us to elgin baylor... elgin had the same elite skill that allows pierce, dirk and bird to not need athleticism, but elgin was in a different class athletically - he was incredibly quick with an athletic, shifty style, and a stronger, firmer body that could get 20 rebounds per game... his barkley-like strength doesn't fully come through on the grainy tape.

by all indications, elgin was at least a material step up from pierce.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Yeah, troll, we already know it: Today's medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment > 60's ones. Nothing more. Actual human athleticism has not significantly changed for millenia now - and I'm not even sure it has even gone upwards.
Btw, Jackie Jackson and Earl Manigault, though not NBA players, were playing in the 60's. Imagine these 2 beasting with today's equipment. :eek:

^This

Plus, there's like only 1% of Gus Johnson's career footage on film... And "showboating" was frowned upon.
MUCH different nowadays.

Now go troll somewhere else, ignorant child...

[Lebronxrings]

you're delusional if you think old timers could compete in todays nba. Many wouldn't have made my old high school team.

[LAZERUSS]

you're delusional if you think old timers could compete in todays nba. Many wouldn't have made my old high school team.

Ok, let's start a list, and you tell us when we arrive at the players who could "compete" with today's NBA.

Russell
Oscar
Baylor
Wilt
West
Thurmond
Reed
Bellamy
Lucas
Frazier
Barry
Hawkins
Monroe
Kareem
Archibald
McAdoo
Lanier
Cowens
Hayes
Maravich
Walton
Gervin
Dantley
Dr. J
Moses
Gilmore
Worthy
Bird
Magic
McHale
Isiah
MJ
Dominque
Rodman
Hakeem
Ewing
Robinson
Pippen
Shaq

I'm sure we could add dozens more, but let's start there...

Go ahead...

[La Frescobaldi]

in today's game, players shoot poorly from mid-range - only about 30-40%.

for this reason, players avoid these shots - they are only a small proportion of most players' shot allocation... and fortunately, it is POSSIBLE to avoid the shots because the 3-point line provides another option while giving the floor spacing for better at-rim looks.

but if today's player was transported back to the 60's, they would be forced to shoot a large proportion of mid-range shots, because there was no 3-point line.

so the shooting efficiency of today's players would be reduced to the same percentages players shot in the 60's.... just food for thought in this discussion.
30-40% is very fine quality mid-range shooting in any era, man. Only great / elite level players get to 44-48% with mid-range shot selection, and it's always been that way. This is seldom accounted for in comparing pre-three players with post-three eras.

[kshutts1]

Of course its a troll thread. For one...you do this type of thing all the time. This is at least the third one lately...

Second....you make absurd requests and confuse it with making a valid point.

There are entire NBA finals lost footage wise.

Things that happened all the time...have no video evidence. You know Wilt has 200+ 40 point games...without ONE of them being saved(beyond the 62 ASG)?

You come in here comparing a clip or three of a random good 60s athlete who played when 99% of your career was seen only by people in attendance....to modern players who have every dribble of their career recorded?

You ask...how does that brief sample of largely post injury Gus Johnson doing random things like winning jump balls compare to Lebron James highlights? When you know...every shot Lebron has taken since he was 16 is recorded in HD?

The **** is wrong with you?

Wilt Chamberlain is a 7'1'' barefoot Big 8 high jump champ who long jumped 22 feet in his spare time.

Because you have never seen him do a windmill it invalidates his status as an athlete? Ive seen Jamal Magloire do a 360. Wilt could have been out there putting on a show...but why?

At the time.....many plays now praised...were considered being a poor sport.

And even if they were not....you would never see it.

The most famous players of that era rarely have 20 minutes of footage. Trust me...I have more NBA footage than you would believe.

And that 20 minutes...is usually slow motion news footage, documentary footage(also slow motion), and promo videos for the following season that generally features as many smiling white players in business casual attire as they can get because they arent selling athletic ability....

The black guys are not the feature. Dunks and blocks are not a feature. Fans barely got excited by a dunk in the 50s and 60s. It was just another basket for the most part. There is a video called the Tall Men of Baltimore on the 60s Bullets...and Gus Johnson is hardly even in it. The teams best player...

60s sport film makers were not out there looking for what we would call spectacular plays to cut a clip that will hold you through commercials.

They were making documentaries backed with classical music and full of footage of guys in suits and women in dresses cheering politely from the sidelines.

You are on here asking to see shit...nobody cared about at the time.

And use the lack of that footage to suggest that guys with track backgrounds that prove their athletic ability...guys who made clearly athletic plays without the flair modern players add that they were not allowed....and guys with no motivation to show off....are not great athletes.

You started some bullshit topic a while back asking who the great athletes were in the 60s...who were not superstars. Suggesting of course that the only athletic players were the few stars. I point out that a role player on the Warriors won the ****ing Olympic gold medal in the high jump....

And you of course ignore the obvious lesson....that there were countless good athletes you just dont know anything about...because you are ignorant in general about the subject matter.

And that is what makes these topics troll topics. You have no genuine interest in learning anything.

You assume you know...support it with idiotic statements....and then repeat it later.

If you want to talk about the pioneers of the game...learn something about them.

If you want to talk shit and start arguments with one word topics to provoke a response you will do nothing but smear your clown facepaint all over....do it elsewhere.

Nobody is telling you to like the 60s...hell...even respect it.

I am telling you...stop making stupid topics on the subject.

If you want to hate...educate yourself enough to hate from a rational position.
This post messed up my lift routine. Couldn't stop reading it. Normal heart-rate by the time I was done. :rockon: :cheers:

[3ball]

:facepalm :facepalm

[3ball]

30-40% is very fine quality mid-range shooting in any era, man. Only great / elite level players get to 44-48% with mid-range shot selection, and it's always been that way. This is seldom accounted for in comparing pre-three players with post-three eras.
missing the point as usual.. no one is arguing which era shoots better from mid-range - we agree that everyone shoots low mid-range percentages.

the point is that players today don't take many mid-range shots - they avoid them actually - but they would HAVE to take these lower percentage shots in the 60's because there was no 3-point line to shoot 3's or provide spacing for open at-rim looks...

if today's players went back and played in the 60s', their shooting percentages would come down, since they would be taking a much higher proportion of lower percentage mid-range shots..

get it?
.

[La Frescobaldi]

missing the point as usual.. no one is arguing which era shoots better from mid-range - we agree that everyone shoots low mid-range percentages.

the point is that players today don't take many mid-range shots - they avoid them actually - but they would HAVE to take these lower percentage shots in the 60's because there was no 3-point line to shoot 3's or provide spacing for open at-rim looks...

if today's players went back and played in the 60s', their shooting percentages would come down, since they would be taking a much higher proportion of lower percentage mid-range shots..

get it?
.

Thanks buddy. I can read. Did I comment on that? If I disagreed with it you'd have known why. My point is, those are normal % in any era - not poor, or weak, or anything else.
get it?