60s NBA vs Current Euroleague

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Who you got?

[Fire Colangelo]

Probably 60s NBA.

6" white americans > 6" white euros


jk about the last part

[IncarceratedBob]

So many advances in the past 60 years. Teams from the 60s would struggle against college teams, but they'd dominate Euroleague

[LAZERUSS]

Who you got?

How about this...

put Kevin Love, Steve Nash, Andrew Bogut, and Ricky Rubio in the 60's, and do they actually perform any better then, than they do today?

How many rpg titles for Love? How many apg titles for Nash? How many bpg titles for Bogut? And does Rubio shoot even worse in the 60's than he does today?

[LAZERUSS]

And we know you have zero respect for players of the 60's, so how about the 70's?

Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo, Dr. J, Barry, Walton, Gilmore, Archibald, Hayes, Frazier, Maravich, Moses, and Kareem.

Would the NBA of today just relegate them to the YMCA?


How about the 80's?

Moses, Magic, Bird, MJ, Hakeem, Dantley, Barkley, Worthy, McHale, Dr. J, K. Malone, Stockton, Ewing, and even an old Kareem.

Bench-warmers today?


The 90's?

MJ, K. Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Hakeem, Ewing, D. Robinson, Rodman, Shaq?

Role players today?

[Im Still Ballin]

Euroleague would wipe the floor with those janitors

[deja vu]

Euroleague players would have destroyed 60s players. C'mon now... How many former Euroleague players are thriving in the NBA now?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

How about this...

put Kevin Love, Steve Nash, Andrew Bogut, and Ricky Rubio in the 60's, and do they actually perform any better then, than they do today?

How many rpg titles for Love? How many apg titles for Nash? How many bpg titles for Bogut? And does Rubio shoot even worse in the 60's than he does today?
Why do you just list white players and pretend like they're unathletic? None of those guys except maybe Kevin Love are particularly unathletic.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Would love to know who in the Euroleague is better than Wilt, Baylor, West, Oscar, Russ, Sam Jones, Kareem (in college), etc.

[bdreason]

I'll take the league with Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, and John Havlicek.

[Marchesk]

Why do you just list white players and pretend like they're unathletic? None of those guys except maybe Kevin Love are particularly unathletic.

Yeah, but Nash isn't winning a single MVP in the 60s. Oscar averaged nearly a 30 pt tripple double his first 7 years in the league, and got one MVP out of it. The next perimiter player to get an MVP was Dr J, even though Baylor and West were putting up Kobe/Lebron/Barkley type numbers.

Love is good, but what makes him special in the 60s? He's not Thurmond's size. He's not the physical beast Gus Johnson was. He's not a rim protector like Russell or Wilt. There would be no 3pt line for him.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Yeah, but Nash isn't winning a single MVP in the 60s. Oscar averaged nearly a 30 pt tripple double his first 7 years in the league, and got one MVP out of it. The next perimiter player to get an MVP was Dr J, even though Baylor and West were putting up Kobe/Lebron/Barkley type numbers.
Pace.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

To answer my own post: I think if you took the best from each 60s NBA >> but average player?? I'll take Euroleague

[Marchesk]

Pace.

Sure, doesn't change the fact that Nash would not win an MVP in the 60s, and Love would not be one of the elite bigs.

Lebron and Kobe are different matter, of course.

[LAZERUSS]

Why do you just list white players and pretend like they're unathletic? None of those guys except maybe Kevin Love are particularly unathletic.

Do they dominate in the 60's?

Are you going tell me with a straight face that Bogut is going to lead the NBA in bpg? That Love is going to lead the NBA in rpg? That Nash is going to play 45 mpg and lead the NBA in apg? That Rubio is somehow going to be a better shooter than the joke that he is today?

Do you think the 6-5 220 lb Oscar would struggle against either Rubio, or Nash? How about the 6-4 Walt Frazier, or 6-5 Pistol Pete? Keep in mind that that was their bare-foot height, as well (I believe Oscar was a shade under 6-5.)

Do you think Bogut is going to be a force against Thurmond, Russell, or Wilt?

That Love is going to outrebound Gus Johnson or Jerry Lucas, much less guys like Russell, Thurmond, or Wilt?

CP vs West?

Rubio vs. Maravich?

Cousins vs. Wilt?

Love vs Lucas?

Nash vs. Oscar?

Bogut vs, Thurmond?

Hell, let's throw Kareem in there as well, since he came into the NBA in 1969.

Any center today vs. Kareem?

Yep...the players of today would just slaughter those guys, right?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Asukal]

I'm sure Wilt will find a way to choke in the big games. :oldlol:

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

People just think 60's players are scrubs because they watch old highlight reels and their handles look suspect, not realizing that if 60's dribbling violations were enforced today, every possession somebody would get called for palming.

Its like casual tennis fans watching a Laver vs. Rosewall match on ESPN Classic and scoffing at the lack of power the old players possessed on their serves and groundstrokes, disregarding the seismic changes made in racquet technology. I mean, a guy like McEnroe, playing with the modern graphite racquets and poly strings, actually serves faster today, at 55, than he did in prime! Pretty remarkable.

Anyways, a little off topic but Im just pointing out how modern day fans of virtually all sports like to ignore context.

RMOR, you vacillate between being a quality poster and being a troll. What's with you mang?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Sure, doesn't change the fact that Nash would not win an MVP in the 60s, and Love would not be one of the elite bigs.

Lebron and Kobe are different matter, of course.

Do you consider Jerry Lucas an elite big?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Nash and love definitely do have games more suited to the 3pt line era...but they would still have been great players in the 60s

[Marchesk]

Do you consider Jerry Lucas an elite big?

I don't know. I'm fine with Love and Nash being all-stars back then. I mean who knows, what teams do they get put on and what's their role?

Thing is that Cousy and Jones were HOFers winning a bunch of rings, but Russell got the MVPs (when Wilt wasn't).

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Do they dominate in the 60's?

Are you going tell me with a straight face that Bogut is going to lead the NBA in bpg? That Love is going to lead the NBA in rpg? That Nash is going to play 45 mpg and lead the NBA in apg? That Rubio is somehow going to be a better shooter than the joke that he is today?

Do you think the 6-5 220 lb Oscar would struggle against either Rubio, or Nash? How about the 6-4 Walt Frazier, or 6-5 Pistol Pete? Keep in mind that that was their bare-foot height, as well (I believe Oscar was a shade under 6-5.)

Do you think Bogut is going to be a force against Thurmond, Russell, or Wilt?

That Love is going to outrebound Gus Johnson or Jerry Lucas, much less guys like Russell, Thurmond, or Wilt?

CP vs West?

Rubio vs. Maravich?

Cousins vs. Wilt?

Love vs Lucas?

Nash vs. Oscar?

Bogut vs, Thurmond?

Hell, let's throw Kareem in there as well, since he came into the NBA in 1969.

Any center today vs. Kareem?

Yep...the players of today would just slaughter those guys, right?

:roll: :roll: :roll:
You're comparing an average PG today - Ricky Rubio to one of the best guards of his era in Pistol Pete and you're asking me why the 60s were a weak era?

I've already said many times the best of the best big men in the 60s: Wilt, Russell, etc. would all be great players today. The guard play and the average player in general was much worse.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I don't know. I'm fine with Love and Nash being all-stars back then. I mean who knows, what teams do they get put on and what's their role?

Thing is that Cousy and Jones were HOFers winning a bunch of rings, but Russell was splitting the MVP with Wilt.
If Cousy is a HOFer in that era - so is Nash...easily.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm sure Wilt will find a way to choke in the big games. :oldlol:

Yeah...probably only going to routinely hang 30-27-5-8 games on today's Euroleague players, like he did on guys like Russell in the post-season, instead of the 40-25-5-8 games that he would have in his regular seasons.

And yes, Wilt would probably hang 40-50+ point games in his biggest playoff games, just like he did against his peers in the 60's, as well. But let's get real here, so what? MJ had his highest scoring playoff game in a loss, too, and in fact, he led his team down the toilet in a sweeping loss, too.

That was the kind of "choker" that Chamberlain was in the 60's.

Can you imagine THAT Wilt having to battle the studs from the Euroleague?

[Im Still Ballin]

I could beat up Cousy with my bare hands

[Im Still Ballin]

I'd make Cousy go snoozy.

[deja vu]

Sure, doesn't change the fact that Nash would not win an MVP in the 60s, and Love would not be one of the elite bigs.

Lebron and Kobe are different matter, of course.
Nash's assists would be something like 20 per game, considering the pace. So yeah he'd be an MVP candidate in the 60s.

[LAZERUSS]

You're comparing an average PG today - Ricky Rubio to one of the best guards of his era in Pistol Pete and you're asking me why the 60s were a weak era?

I've already said many times the best of the best big men in the 60s: Wilt, Russell, etc. would all be great players today. The guard play and the average player in general was much worse.

NO ONE, at the time, claimed that Maravich was even remotely in West's, Oscar's, or even Frazier's class. And don't forget that Tiny Archibald was putting up 34-11 seasons in the 70's, and in the same league that had Oscar, West, Goodrich, Maravich, Frazier, Monroe, etc...

If you are trying to tell me that Rubio was even a fraction of the player that all of the above were, you are a complete joke.

[Marchesk]

If Cousy is a HOFer in that era - so is Nash...easily.

I'm fine with that. Both are all-time greats.

As to the average 60s player, particularly the guards, I can't answer to that. I do believe there is some improvement in level of play over time as the population expands and the game becomes more popular with better technology to support player development. And you have players learning from the previous generation at a young age, which copied the generation before it and so forth.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

NO ONE, at the time, claimed that Maravich was even remotely in West's, Oscar's, or even Frazier's class. And don't forget that Tiny Archibald was putting up 34-11 seasons in the 70's, and in the same league that had Oscar, West, Goodrich, Maravich, Frazier, Monroe, etc...

If you are trying to tell me that Rubio was even a fraction of the player that all of the above were, you are a complete joke.
Where did I say that? I simply pointed out that you're comparing one of the most celebrated players of his era to Ricky freaking Rubio...who might not even be a top 15 PG right now.

[Marchesk]

Nash's assists would be something like 20 per game, considering the pace. So yeah he'd be an MVP candidate in the 60s.

I don't know about that. Assists are the one stat that isn't really infated by pace back then, because the rules were stricter in what counted as an assist. Someone would need to post the league or team average assist number. It has been posted on here before, and it's not a much different than today, if I remember correctly.

[LAZERUSS]

Nash's assists would be something like 20 per game, considering the pace. So yeah he'd be an MVP candidate in the 60s.


So a skinny Nash, whose career HIGH season was 35 mpg, would be able to put up 20 apg seasons in an NBA in which it was considerably more DIFFICULT to record an assist?

How about this...I would argue that if Oscar were told that the all-time seasonal apg record was 14.5, that he could EASILY have surpassed that mark by sacrificing his scoring.

[Marchesk]

BTW, where is Euroleague?

[LAZERUSS]

I could beat up Cousy with my bare hands

How about CP3 then?

Or Nash?

If you could beat up Cousy with your bare hands, you should be able to beat those guys with your hands tied behind your back.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I find it unbelievable that people can't admit that the average player today is significantly better than 60s when nobody really gave a crap about basketball...flashforward to 2015 kids are being recruited to play at 10 freaking years old...

It's like if Lacrosse 50 years from now was as big as the NBA is now...would people seriously think that today's players were better than the players playing then?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Another ignorant and dumb ass thread... :facepalm

[deja vu]

I don't know about that. Assists are the one stat that isn't really infated by pace back then, because the rules were stricter in what counted as an assist. Someone would need to post the league or team average assist number. It has been posted on here before, and it's not a much different than today, if I remember correctly.
Okay then. Not 20 apg but I think Nash would still lead the league in assists.

[LAZERUSS]

I find it unbelievable that people can't admit that the average player today is significantly better than 60s when nobody really gave a crap about basketball...flashforward to 2015 kids are being recruited to play at 10 freaking years old...

It's like if Lacrosse 50 years from now was as big as the NBA is now...would people seriously think that today's players were better than the players playing then?

Again...

If a 37 year old Nash, playing 33 mpg, can lead the current NBA in apg, what would make you think that the best guards of the 60's would be any worse?

Or a 6-8 Love, who can barely dunk, be the among the best rebounders today (hell, he RAN AWAY with the rpg title a few years ago, and in only 36 mpgO), but the best rebounders of the 60's would struggle today?

And yes, Rubio, who is arguably the worst shooter in NBA history, can START in today's NBA, but the best guards of the 60's would be crap today?

Or the 6-0 (or less) CP3 be among the best PGs in today's NBA, but a 6-1 Tiny Archibald would be mediocre today?

That a 6-11 Bogut can be considered an elite center today, but guys like the 6-11 Bellamy, or 6-10 (world-class leaping) Russell, or 6-11 Thurmond, or 7-2 Kareem, or 7-1 Chamberlain...would struggle today?

SMH. :facepalm

[ShawkFactory]

Again...

If a 37 year old Nash, playing 33 mpg, can lead the current NBA in apg, what would make you think that the best guards of the 60's would be any worse?

Or a 6-8 Love, who can barely dunk, be the among the best rebounders today (hell, he RAN AWAY with the rpg title a few years ago, and in only 36 mpgO), but the best rebounders of the 60's would struggle today?

And yes, Rubio, who is arguably the worst shooter in NBA history, can START in today's NBA, but the best guards of the 60's would be crap today?

Or the 6-0 (or less) CP3 be among the best PGs in today's NBA, but a 6-1 Tiny Archibald would be mediocre today?

That a 6-11 Bogut can be considered an elite center today, but guys like the 6-11 Bellamy, or 6-10 (world-class leaping) Russell, or 6-11 Thurmond, or 7-2 Kareem, or 7-1 Chamberlain...would struggle today?

SMH. :facepalm
None of this is remotely close to what he said..

[LAZERUSS]

I find it unbelievable that people can't admit that the average player today is significantly better than 60s when nobody really gave a crap about basketball...flashforward to 2015 kids are being recruited to play at 10 freaking years old...

It's like if Lacrosse 50 years from now was as big as the NBA is now...would people seriously think that today's players were better than the players playing then?

I could not care less about Lacrosse, but are you going to tell me that there are better ATHLETES playting Lacrosse today, than Jim Brown?

And I suppose Bo Jackson, who was playing football back in the 80's, couldn't make an NFL roster today, either (and yet a Tiki Barber could rush for 1600 yards just a few years ago)?

[Im Still Ballin]

How about CP3 then?

Or Nash?

If you could beat up Cousy with your bare hands, you should be able to beat those guys with your hands tied behind your back.
Have you seen Cousy's frame?

Sickeningly similar to a prepubescent boy. I'd make him call me daddy.

[LAZERUSS]

Have you seen Cousy's frame?

Sickeningly similar to a prepubescent boy. I'd make him call me daddy.

http://cdn.nextimpulsesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Steve-Nash.jpeg

No way THIS guy could ever play in the current NBA, right?

[Im Still Ballin]

Are you kidding me? Steve is ****ing jacked. It's the shallow depth of field and low camera angle. Camera trickery...

Steve is ripped to the bone

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Again...

If a 37 year old Nash, playing 33 mpg, can lead the current NBA in apg, what would make you think that the best guards of the 60's would be any worse?

Watching tape. I can't believe how somebody could watch Bob Cousy tape and say he's as good as Steve Nash


Or a 6-8 Love, who can barely dunk, be the among the best rebounders today (hell, he RAN AWAY with the rpg title a few years ago, and in only 36 mpgO), but the best rebounders of the 60's would struggle today?

He did this on a fast paced team not playing defense ie contesting shots. And i've said several times big men would translate.


And yes, Rubio, who is arguably the worst shooter in NBA history, can START in today's NBA, but the best guards of the 60's would be crap today?
He shoots similar %s to Bob Cousy....And he's an average PG today. Nothing special


Or the 6-0 (or less) CP3 be among the best PGs in today's NBA, but a 6-1 Tiny Archibald would be mediocre today?

Archibald played in the 70s/80s. Secondly Chris Paul had to compete against millions of 5 11 kids growing up wanting to play in the NBA....Tiny Archibald didn't...I'm not saying he would suck today just that higher competition and superior cultivation of talent from a young age has overall led to a better product.


That a 6-11 Bogut can be considered an elite center today, but guys like the 6-11 Bellamy, or 6-10 (world-class leaping) Russell, or 6-11 Thurmond, or 7-2 Kareem, or 7-1 Chamberlain...would struggle today?

SMH. :facepalm

Already addressed. Big men would translate.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I could not care less about Lacrosse, but are you going to tell me that there are better ATHLETES playting Lacrosse today, than Jim Brown?

And I suppose Bo Jackson, who was playing football back in the 80's, couldn't make an NFL roster today, either (and yet a Tiki Barber could rush for 1600 yards just a few years ago)?

When did i ever say anything about every single player from back then sucking? And btw Bo Jackson has become extremely overrated. Adrian Peterson has similar (better iirc) 100m times than him.

[LAZERUSS]

Zach Randolph? Willis Reed was Randolph long before Zach was.

Kevin Love? Jerry Lucas was Love long before Kevin was.

DeMarcus Cousins? Bob Lanier was Cousins long before DeMarcus was.

Ricky Rubio? Hell, Pistol Pete was better at every facet of the game. It would be a disgrace to compare the two.

CP3? Tiny Archibald was CP3 long before Chris was.

DeAndre Jordan? Artis Gilmore was a bigger, stronger, more athletic, and much more skilled Jordan, long before DeAndre was.

How about the 6-6 Chuck Hayes (actually 6-5 1/2)? Guy STARTED games at CENTER just a few years ago. Now seriously, who would take...Hayes, or the 6-7 Wes Unseld?

Anthony Davis? Bob McAdoo was Davis long before Davis was.

I could go on, but you get the idea...

[ShawkFactory]

Zach Randolph? Willis Reed was Randolph long before Zach was.

Kevin Love? Jerry Lucas was Love long before Kevin was.

DeMarcus Cousins? Bob Lanier was Cousins long before DeMarcus was.

Ricky Rubio? Hell, Pistol Pete was better at every facet of the game. It would be a disgrace to compare the two.

CP3? Tiny Archibald was CP3 long before Chris was.

DeAndre Jordan? Artis Gilmore was a bigger, stronger, more athletic, and much more skilled Jordan, long before DeAndre was.

How about the 6-6 Chuck Hayes (actually 6-5 1/2)? Guy STARTED games at CENTER just a few years ago. Now seriously, who would take...Hayes, or the 6-7 Wes Unseld?

Anthony Davis? Bob McAdoo was Davis long before Davis was.

I could go on, but you get the idea...
I don't think you do.

[Im Still Ballin]

But who was Lebron?

...

Exactly

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Zach Randolph? Willis Reed was Randolph long before Zach was.

Kevin Love? Jerry Lucas was Love long before Kevin was.

DeMarcus Cousins? Bob Lanier was Cousins long before DeMarcus was.

Ricky Rubio? Hell, Pistol Pete was better at every facet of the game. It would be a disgrace to compare the two.

CP3? Tiny Archibald was CP3 long before Chris was.

DeAndre Jordan? Artis Gilmore was a bigger, stronger, more athletic, and much more skilled Jordan, long before DeAndre was.

How about the 6-6 Chuck Hayes (actually 6-5 1/2)? Guy STARTED games at CENTER just a few years ago. Now seriously, who would take...Hayes, or the 6-7 Wes Unseld?

Anthony Davis? Bob McAdoo was Davis long before Davis was.

I could go on, but you get the idea...

Why do you keep rambling on like a senile old man about stuff that has nothing to do with what I said?

[LAZERUSS]

When did i ever say anything about every single player from back then sucking? And btw Bo Jackson has become extremely overrated. Adrian Peterson has similar (better iirc) 100m times than him.

A slightly faster time (10.26 to 10.39.) So what? So are you suggesting that a prime Bo could rush for 2000 yards in TODAY's NFL, then? Because, yes, I would agree with you.

Oh, and how about Hershel Walker's 100 meter times? 10.10. And he was every bit as big as Peterson.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Wind-aided, a slightly faster time (10.33 to 10.39.) So what? So are you suggesting that a prime Bo could rush for 2000 yards in TODAY's NFL, then? Because, yes, I would agree with you.

Oh, and how about Hershel Walker's 100 meter times? 10.10. And he was every bit as big as Peterson.

Adrian is a much better football player than either of those 2. I was just pointing out Bo's overrated athleticism.

[LAZERUSS]

But who was Lebron?

...

Exactly


And who IS Wilt, or Kareem?

[Im Still Ballin]

And who IS Wilt, or Kareem?
Javale Mcgee and Hassan Whiteside.

[Marchesk]

Javale Mcgee and Hassan Whiteside.

According to Euroleague, there are many such players in that league. Anyway, shouldn't we be debating Oscar vs a time traveled Spanoulis?

[LAZERUSS]

Javale Mcgee and Hassan Whiteside.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The 6-11 McGee and the 6-10 1/2 Whiteside.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

According to Euroleague, there are many such players in that league. Anyway, shouldn't we be debating Oscar vs a time traveled Spanoulis?

You mean the "NBA" Spanoulis, who averaged 2.7 ppg on a .319 FG% in his 31 career games?

[Marchesk]

You mean the "NBA" Spanoulis, who averaged 2.7 ppg on a .319 FG% in his 31 career games?

Who else are they going to send back in time, Giannis?

[LAZERUSS]

Who else are they going to send back in time, Giannis?

Well, we KNOW how an old, washed up McAdoo did over in Europe.

But we are supposed to believe that the Euroleague today would dominate the 60's?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Fire Colangelo]

How about this...

put Kevin Love, Steve Nash, Andrew Bogut, and Ricky Rubio in the 60's, and do they actually perform any better then, than they do today?

How many rpg titles for Love? How many apg titles for Nash? How many bpg titles for Bogut? And does Rubio shoot even worse in the 60's than he does today?

You have some weird obsession with Nash. I have no doubt Nash would be one of the best point guards behind only Oscar in the 60s.

You keep saying assists are harder to net in the 60s, while there may be some truth to that, you never mention the difference in pace. To put it in perspective, Nash played in D'Antoni's "7 seconds or less" offense that had a pace of 95-96, while Cousy played on teams with a pace of 125+ his whole career. I have no doubt Steve Nash (who has way better handles, court vision, etc) would average just as many, if not more assists in the 60s. Nash could shoot from anywhere from the floor as well.

Also, do you seriously doubt Nash could play 40+ minutes a game? Do you seriously think Bob Cousy, who was on an ad for ciggarattes had better endurance than Steve Nash? The only reason Bob Cousy, or any players from the 60s averaged 40+ minutes was because talent was so paper thin back then that you'd see a huge drop in production from the reserves.

Not to mention pace, along with shitty shooting in the 60s pretty much inflated rebounding stats all around. I don't see why Kevin Love can't average 20+ rebounds in a league with a pace rating of 125+ and 41% FG when he averaged 15 rebounds in a league with a pace of 92 and 46% FG.

[LAZERUSS]

You have some weird obsession with Nash. I have no doubt Nash would be one of the best point guards behind only Oscar in the 60s.

You keep saying assists are harder to net in the 60s, while there may be some truth to that, you never mention the difference in pace. To put it in perspective, Nash played in D'Antoni's "7 seconds or less" offense that had a pace of 95-96, while Cousy played on teams with a pace of 125+ his whole career. I have no doubt Steve Nash (who has way better handles, court vision, etc) would average just as many, if not more assists in the 60s. Nash could shoot from anywhere from the floor as well.

Also, do you seriously doubt Nash could play 40+ minutes a game? Do you seriously think Bob Cousy, who was on an ad for ciggarattes had better endurance than Steve Nash? The only reason Bob Cousy, or any players from the 60s averaged 40+ minutes was because talent was so paper thin back then that you'd see a huge drop in production from the reserves.

Not to mention pace, along with shitty shooting in the 60s pretty much inflated rebounding stats all around. I don't see why Kevin Love can't average 20+ rebounds in a league with a pace rating of 125+ and 41% FG when he averaged 15 rebounds in a league with a pace of 92 and 46% FG.

I don't have an "obsession" with Nash. It is just that the "anti-60's" posters seem to believe that today's NBA players are somehow far more advanced than those of the 60's.

Would Nash have been great in the 60's? Oh, of course. But players like Oscar, West, Goodrich, Archibald, Frazier, Monroe, and Maravich would be great today, as well.

Jerry Lucas was almost exactly the same height, weight, and skill-level that Love is today. And he recorded two 20+ rpg seasons (one of four players in NBA history to do so.) So, yes, Love would likely be among the best rebounders of the 60's, as well. But, like Lucas, he wouldn't be outrebounding Russell or Wilt. And, put him H2H with Wilt (like a 31 year old Lucas was against a 35 year old Wilt in the '72 Finals), and Chamberlain would slaughter Love.

The reality is...there is nothing truly exceptional about today's NBA in comparison with the 60's. Much less today's Euroleague.

I don't see "seven-foot Magics" filling today's NBA rosters. Do you? Hell, I haven't seen another Magic since the original retired.

[LAZERUSS]

And one more time...

Here is a list of my Top-15 players of all-time...

Wilt
MJ
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Lebron
Bird
Dr. J (if you include his ABA years)
Moses
Hakeem
Oscar
West

And yes, you can interchange some of them.

And players like West, Hondo, Pettit, D-Rob, Dirk, Baylor, KG, Barry, and other's that I apologize for neglecting at the moment...

all great.

Take a close look. Players from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's and even the current NBA (and there will be others like Durant, Davis, etc.)

The greats would be great in any era.

[Fire Colangelo]

I don't have an "obsession" with Nash. It is just that the "anti-60's" posters seem to believe that today's NBA players are somehow far more advanced than those of the 60's.

Would Nash have been great in the 60's? Oh, of course. But players like Oscar, West, Goodrich, Archibald, Frazier, Monroe, and Maravich would be great today, as well.

Jerry Lucas was almost exactly the same height, weight, and skill-level that Love is today. And he recorded two 20+ rpg seasons (one of four players in NBA history to do so.) So, yes, Love would likely be among the best rebounders of the 60's, as well. But, like Lucas, he wouldn't be outrebounding Russell or Wilt. And, put him H2H with Wilt (like a 31 year old Lucas was against a 35 year old Wilt in the '72 Finals), and Chamberlain would slaughter Love.

The reality is...there is nothing truly exceptional about today's NBA in comparison with the 60's. Much less today's Euroleague.

I don't see "seven-foot Magics" filling today's NBA rosters. Do you? Hell, I haven't seen another Magic since the original retired.

Half of the players you listed, namely Archibald, Fraizer, Goodrich, Monroe, Maravich didn't play, or barely played in the 60s.....

I think Love is a better player in Lucas, at least offensively.... and probably will age better as well.

[LAZERUSS]

Half of the players you listed, namely Archibald, Fraizer, Goodrich, Monroe, Maravich didn't play, or barely played in the 60s.....

I think Love is a better player in Lucas, at least offensively.... and probably will age better as well.

Archibald and Maravich...albeit, they were playing in the early 70's, and played college ball in the 60's (as did players like Dr. J, Gilmore, Lanier, Cowens, and McAdoo.) The rest were playing in the NBA in the 60's (and most were stars in the 60's.)

And the "Wilt-bashers" almost always forget that he was a dominant scorer even into the late 60's. In his 68-69 season, he hung two 60+ point games. And he was leading the NBA in ppg at the beginning of the 69-70 season (32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%), when he shredded his knee. Keep in mind that Kareem was a rookie that season (28.8 ppg on a .518 FG%.)

And do you honestly think that players like Thurmond, Reed, and slightly later, like Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo, and Gilmore, wouldn't be stars in today's NBA (much less Wilt and Kareem)?

And yet we continue to get these same ridiculous topics here almost daily, in which the players of the 60's (and 70's) are portrayed as short, white, nerdy, uncoordinated, stumble-bums, who were incapable of dribbling, picking rebounds off the floor, and firing bricks at peach baskets.

[Fire Colangelo]

Archibald and Maravich...albeit, they were playing in the early 70's, and played college ball in the 60's (as did players like Dr. J, Gilmore, Lanier, Cowens, and McAdoo.) The rest were playing in the NBA in the 60's (and most were stars in the 60's.)

And the "Wilt-bashers" almost always forget that he was a dominant scorer even into the late 60's. In his 68-69 season, he hung two 60+ point games. And he was leading the NBA in ppg at the beginning of the 69-70 season (32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%), when he shredded his knee. Keep in mind that Kareem was a rookie that season (28.8 ppg on a .518 FG%.)

And do you honestly think that players like Thurmond, Reed, and slightly later, like Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo, and Gilmore, wouldn't be stars in today's NBA (much less Wilt and Kareem)?

And yet we continue to get these same ridiculous topics here almost daily, in which the players of the 60's (and 70's) are portrayed as short, white, nerdy, uncoordinated, stumble-bums, who were incapable of dribbling, picking rebounds off the floor, and firing bricks at peach baskets.

I think Wilt would be great regardless of which era he plays in, I've never said otherwise.

Thurmond, Reed, etc would be stars in today's league, seeing how horrible today's big men are, but their stats would probably drop a little due to slower pace.

Bob Cousy however, I just can't see being a star in today's league.

Again, I'm separating the 60s and the 70s. The 70s in general played a much higher level of basketball than the 60s.

[Round Mound]

60s NBA by far... :confusedshrug:

[DatAsh]

Nash is a much better version of Cousy.

Nobody in the current league would be better than Wilt though, only guy in history I'd bet on outshining Wilt would be Jordan.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

And one more time...

Here is a list of my Top-15 players of all-time...

Wilt
MJ
Magic
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Lebron
Bird
Dr. J (if you include his ABA years)
Moses
Hakeem
Oscar
West

And yes, you can interchange some of them.

And players like West, Hondo, Pettit, D-Rob, Dirk, Baylor, KG, Barry, and other's that I apologize for neglecting at the moment...

all great.

Take a close look. Players from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's and even the current NBA (and there will be others like Durant, Davis, etc.)

The greats would be great in any era.

I never really denied this...Most greats from the 60s would be great...the big men for sure..the guard/perimeter play on the other hand looks awful on film

Do you honestly think Elgin Baylor is close to as good as LeBron James?