Why do people say Athletes today are better

[juju151111]

Whats this based on? Since when does the human race evolve so rapidly so fast? The only thing that changes since the 60s is perimeter play and junpshooting bigs. The other differences is made by rule changes, pace etc.... Kareem,Wilt,Rodman, etc.... would all still dominate today.

[LosBulls]

http://i.gyazo.com/66e6493c270f418bb1a86aef02352a64.png

[juju151111]

http://i.gyazo.com/66e6493c270f418bb1a86aef02352a64.png
So people got more fat? What does that have to do with athletes:wtf:

[HomieWeMajor]

Everything is better now. The world back in the day wasn't even in colour. Go and watch old videos everything was in black and white. :oldlol: Who am I gonna suck in with this one doe ?

[Im Still Ballin]

Agreed. The athletic potential of players today is no different than the last 30-40 years. Training methods, science and nutrition, and PEDs have advanced in leaps and bounds. Not to mention that todays NBA rules benefit perimeter players who are naturally more athletic than larger frontcourt players that dominated the league prior to 2005 when hand-checking was eliminated. Just take a look at what Stu Jackson had to say about it;

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

[ralph_i_el]

The sport is pulling from a much larger pool of people.

If you don't understand how that would impact the quality of play, you're an idiot.

[Rose'sACL]

So people got more fat? What does that have to do with athletes:wtf:
people are also taller now.

[FKAri]

The sport is pulling from a much larger pool of people.

If you don't understand how that would impact the quality of play, you're an idiot.

Also more money involved = steaks are higher than ever.

[ralph_i_el]

Also more money involved = steaks are higher than ever.
I agree 100%. The stakes are higher, and the steaks are more delicious.

[juju151111]

The sport is pulling from a much larger pool of people.

If you don't understand how that would impact the quality of play, you're an idiot.
I agree with that. Which is why I said Perimeter play and Jumpshooting bigs because of the wider pool. The back down big would still dominate in the same fashion has in the 60s through. Which is why Wilt could compete with Kareem. Kareem then competed with Hakeem and Shaq competed with Dwight Howard. The late 50s and early 60s guards were not that good I feel. They could could only dribble with one hand and wasn't too athletic. The tapes I have watched of then doesn't impress me in the slightest.Late 60s and 70s th perimeter play got better and better. European big man greatly influenced the league and so did exciting wing players. Barley anyone today who has a post game other then the grizzzles. Gasol brothers wouldn't even be in the top 5 post players in the 90s. The Athlete hasn't changed through.

[Showtime80']

What's the benefit of having a larger talent pool when the game is being learned the wrong way?!? What do you prefer, a talent pool of 10 million people focusing on learning fundamentals, skills and IQ OR 100 million people trying to be Michael Jordan! Such a large talent pool today and still NO TEAM today has the skill level or could even hang with 1980's champions!!!

Another analogy is Brazil, a country COMPLETELY devoted to one sport and has had a population explosion in the last 30 years and they still can't find a national soccer team as good as the one from 1970!

[juju151111]

Karl Malone in his twilight shut down Prime Tim Duncan in 04 when he guarded him. Karl Malone was playing since the late 80s. Mj was playing with against Paul piece,tmac,Kobe,KG,Ray Allen etc.. at his advance age with injuries and he still looked good.

[FKAri]

I agree 100%. The stakes are higher, and the steaks are more delicious.

wow i didnt even catch that :roll:

[juju151111]

What's the benefit of having a larger talent pool when the game is being learned the wrong way?!? What do you prefer, a talent pool of 10 million people focusing on learning fundamentals, skills and IQ OR 100 million people trying to be Michael Jordan! Such a large talent pool today and still NO TEAM today has the skill level or could even hang with 1980's champions!!!

Another analogy is Brazil, a country COMPLETELY devoted to one sport and has had a population explosion in the last 30 years and they still can't find a national soccer team as good as the one from 1970!
Know you are just going overboard. Teams today can hang with 80s team. Depends on the matchups and coach etc...

[FKAri]

Another analogy is Brazil, a country COMPLETELY devoted to one sport and has had a population explosion in the last 30 years and they still can't find a national soccer team as good as the one from 1970!

They bleed talent at an unprecedented rate to European clubs. This dilutes their domestic club completion which further hinders local talent from developing.

[Rose'sACL]

What's the benefit of having a larger talent pool when the game is being learned the wrong way?!? What do you prefer, a talent pool of 10 million people focusing on learning fundamentals, skills and IQ OR 100 million people trying to be Michael Jordan! Such a large talent pool today and still NO TEAM today has the skill level or could even hang with 1980's champions!!!

Another analogy is Brazil, a country COMPLETELY devoted to one sport and has had a population explosion in the last 30 years and they still can't find a national soccer team as good as the one from 1970!
also, the fact that in 1970, not as many people and countries tried hard in any sports. Soccer was popular but there wasn't as much money.
a lot of talent doesn't make it through because they don't think the money is worth it.
Stop cherry-picking stats. go ask any experienced soccer expert and they will tell you that soccer is at another level now compared to the 70s.

[Showtime80']

Then what happened from 1994 to 2002? More money, more countries, more at stake, European teams were bleeding Brazil's domestic league and still they went to 3 straight World Cups winning two?!?

Could it be that this is just a generational thing and not a talent pool factor?!? The Brazil 60's generation was better than the 70's and 80's while the 90's guys were better than the 2000's until now!

The problem with the NBA is that it still hasn't produced a generation of players and teams like those of 80's even when considering talent pool growth! Take a look at the top 10 players in MVP voting in 1987 and compare them to this year, it's not EVEN CLOSE in favor of the 80's!

[ralph_i_el]

Then what happened from 1994 to 2002? More money, more countries, more at stake, European teams were bleeding Brazil's domestic league and still they went to 3 straight World Cups winning two?!?

Could it be that this is just a generational thing and not a talent pool factor?!? The Brazil 60's generation was better than the 70's and 80's while the 90's guys were better than the 2000's until now!

The problem with the NBA is that it still hasn't produced a generation of players and teams like those of 80's even when considering talent pool growth! Take a look at the top 10 players in MVP voting in 1987 and compare them to this year, it's not EVEN CLOSE in favor of the 80's!

or the league is deeper, so the top stars don't look as good comparatively (aka what is actually happening)

[Rose'sACL]

Then what happened from 1994 to 2002? More money, more countries, more at stake, European teams were bleeding Brazil's domestic league and still they went to 3 straight World Cups winning two?!?

Could it be that this is just a generational thing and not a talent pool factor?!? The Brazil 60's generation was better than the 70's and 80's while the 90's guys were better than the 2000's until now!

The problem with the NBA is that it still hasn't produced a generation of players and teams like those of 80's even when considering talent pool growth! Take a look at the top 10 players in MVP voting in 1987 and compare them to this year, it's not EVEN CLOSE in favor of the 80's!
2000s were better talent wise than the 90s.

players that make top 10 all time list of most basketball fans(peaks determine the decade players belong to):
80s: bird, magic, kareem
90s: Jordan , Hakeem
00s: kobe, Shaq, Duncan, LeBron.

[Showtime80']

Dude, go top 20 players in 1987 and it becomes even more lopsided in favor of that decade! And we're talking decades here, if you put LeBron in the 00's you can definitely put Hakeem and Michael in the 80's as they spent basically the same amount of time in that decade as LeBron, not their fault they didn't play in the modern pathetic East!

I'm talking about Present NBA versus 1987 and I realize the comparison is VERY tough for the modern league

[juju151111]

2000s were better talent wise than the 90s.

players that make top 10 all time list of most basketball fans(peaks determine the decade players belong to):
80s: bird, magic, kareem
90s: Jordan , Hakeem
00s: kobe, Shaq, Duncan, LeBron.
Bro Shaq was drafted in 92. He is apart of both eras.

[Rose'sACL]

Dude, go top 20 players in 1987 and it becomes even more lopsided in favor of that decade! And we're talking decades here, if you put LeBron in the 00's you can definitely put Hakeem and Michael in the 80's as they spent basically the same amount of time in that decade as LeBron, not their fault they didn't play in the modern pathetic East!

I'm talking about Present NBA versus 1987 and I realize the comparison is VERY tough for the modern league
we also can't compare given the pace was way more in the 80s which made stats look better than they should.
Magic would be rated a lot lower if he played in today's times while bird would move a little up.
people put magic in their top 5 regularly when i think that Duncan, Shaq, LeBron and kobe are/were better players than magic. You would have videos like ones with harden's bad defense made about magic. i swear you grandpas act like no one other than you watched the 80s.

[Rose'sACL]

Bro Shaq was drafted in 92. He is apart of both eras.
his peak came in the 00s.

[NDaATL]

also, the fact that in 1970, not as many people and countries tried hard in any sports. Soccer was popular but there wasn't as much money.
a lot of talent doesn't make it through because they don't think the money is worth it.

This is exactly the difference (in addition to better training, equipment, supplements, etc). How good would LeBron be if he had to go work on a farm in the offseason to pay the bills.

If you knew as a professional athlete you'd make 50K per year, what percentage of current players would be in the NBA?

[Micku]

his peak came in the 00s.

If you are just talking about peaks, then you should take Kareem out the 80s list since his peak was in the 70s. I would say LeBron's peak is in the 10s.

And Shaq played more in the 90s than LeBron did in the 00s yet he's in the 00s in your list. Do you consider LeBron being at his peak in 09 then?


Everything is better now. The world back in the day wasn't even in colour. Go and watch old videos everything was in black and white. :oldlol: Who am I gonna suck in with this one doe ?

This right here tho. Thread should've ended with this.

[Rose'sACL]

If you are just talking about peaks, then you should take Kareem out the 80s list since his peak was in the 70s. I would say LeBron's peak is in the 10s.

And Shaq played more in the 90s than LeBron did in the 00s yet he's in the 00s in your list. Do you consider LeBron being at his peak in 09 then?



This right here tho. Thread should've ended with this.
lebron's peak started in 2009. Even if you put shaq in both decades, 90s is still short on top 10 players compared to 00s.
Even if i am a little wrong, i still have proven that 00s was not some weak era like the idiot OP wants us to believe. it was at least better than the 90s overall.
also, on the other points. world is in the best condition and that is just because of internet. anyone who has a cheap internet connection can gain knowledge of pretty much any subject from anywhere in the world. that alone is more valuable than anything else we have ever had.

[Showtime80']

Here comes insidehoops "NBA is a one on one league" Magic and his 80's Lakers teams would murder the current soft no post playing league even more so than in the 80's!

Magic, a 6'9 player, strong, quick, greatest court vision of all time, great work ethic, one of the highest basketball IQ's ever!!! Steph Curry who is not even in the same stratosphere as Magic, Moses, Bird or Jordan was just named MVP of the 2015 NBA, let that sink in!

[juju151111]

his peak came in the 00s.
Who gives a crap? He played like 7 years in the 90s.

[inclinerator]

Then what happened from 1994 to 2002? More money, more countries, more at stake, European teams were bleeding Brazil's domestic league and still they went to 3 straight World Cups winning two?!?

Could it be that this is just a generational thing and not a talent pool factor?!? The Brazil 60's generation was better than the 70's and 80's while the 90's guys were better than the 2000's until now!

The problem with the NBA is that it still hasn't produced a generation of players and teams like those of 80's even when considering talent pool growth! Take a look at the top 10 players in MVP voting in 1987 and compare them to this year, it's not EVEN CLOSE in favor of the 80's!
read the talent code

[ralph_i_el]

Here comes insidehoops "NBA is a one on one league" Magic and his 80's Lakers teams would murder the current soft no post playing league even more so than in the 80's!

Magic, a 6'9 player, strong, quick, greatest court vision of all time, great work ethic, one of the highest basketball IQ's ever!!! Steph Curry who is not even in the same stratosphere as Magic, Moses, Bird or Jordan was just named MVP of the 2015 NBA, let that sink in!

just because you say this doesn't make it true.

[Hit_Em]

Way more black people in professional sports and black people are more athletic than white people.

[Quickening]

Go look at athletic records, 100m, 200m etc... see how many were set 30 years ago

[KiiiiNG]

its simple

nutrition and training got better..

what.. we as a race evolved and got more/less athletic or something?

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Go look at athletic records, 100m, 200m etc... see how many were set 30 years ago

Andddd that's thread, people.

[LAZERUSS]

Go look at athletic records, 100m, 200m etc... see how many were set 30 years ago

BUT, how about this...

the world record in the 100m was set in 2009.

The world record in the 200m was also set in 2009.

The world record in the long jump was set in 1992.

What has happened in the last few years?


Oh, and how about swimming records?


Most, but not all, of the records below were established by swimmers wearing bodysuits or suits made of polyurethane or other non-textile materials allowed in the race pool from February 2008 until December 2009.[citation needed] On the eve of the 2009 FINA World Championships in Rome, the international governing body for five Olympic aquatic sports voted to ban the use of bodysuits and all suits made of non-textile materials starting 1 January 2010.


Now, for a REAL perspective on these "records"...

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

Bolt BARELY edges out....Jesse Owens in a 100m race.

[LAZERUSS]

Today's NBA players are more skilled...


wait....


In the 58-59 season the entire NBA shot .756 from the FT line.

Just THIS season.... how about .... .750 from the line.


Next...

[juju151111]

BUT, how about this...

the world record in the 100m was set in 2009.

The world record in the 200m was also set in 2009.

The world record in the long jump was set in 1992.

What has happened in the last few years?


Oh, and how about swimming records?




Now, for a REAL perspective on these "records"...

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

Bolt BARELY edges out....Jesse Owens in a 100m race.
Agreed I think your a Wilt wanker, but humans do not evolve over 40/50 years.

[LAZERUSS]

The "athletic" Kevin Love...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7TnbhJr8iY

[LAZERUSS]

I guess horses are WORSE today than they were YEARS ago...

http://www.horsehats.com/horse-racing-records.html

Hell, Secretariat STILL holds a record...some 42 years later.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://i.gyazo.com/66e6493c270f418bb1a86aef02352a64.png
Obesity.

[CavaliersFTW]

Go look at athletic records, 100m, 200m etc... see how many were set 30 years ago
Go look at Track and Field surfaces. Shoes. Speedsuits. PEDS. How they all keep getting better being that they are examples of technology.

The raw athletes themselves on the other hand, being made of the same mixes of DNA...

[juju151111]

The only thing I see made a significant difference is perimeter play from the late 50s and early 60s. They were not that good. The great bigs were already good through.

[CavaliersFTW]

The only thing I see made a significant difference is perimeter play from the late 50s and early 60s. They were not that good. The great bigs were already good through.
They played under different rules. Both the bigs, and guards. Still, once you understand some of the rule changes, I don't think they look all that different.

You honestly think today's perimeter players look all that different than this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDP1xGBdDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWNAKxZPpIA

*EDIT* I see you specified early 60's and 50's.

Still, I think rule changes account for most of it. You didn't see shake and bake dribbling until guys like Archie Clark came along but that still doesn't mean the ball was any easier to steal from him than it was from say, Bob Cousy.

[LAZERUSS]

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg

[juju151111]

They played under different rules. Both the bigs, and guards. Still, once you understand some of the rule changes, I don't think they look all that different.

You honestly think today's perimeter players look all that different than this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDP1xGBdDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWNAKxZPpIA

*EDIT* I see you specified early 60's and 50's.

Still, I think rule changes account for most of it. You didn't see shake and bake dribbling until guys like Archie Clark came along but that still doesn't mean the ball was any easier to steal from him than it was from say, Bob Cousy.
Bro I do understand the rule changes and I watch the tape. They got better with time. I have watched a lot of games that is provided. They just didn't impress me. That's the position I think mostly benefit with time. They were not has athletic and their dribbling skills were not good. Neither was the defense.

[LAZERUSS]

Look at this clown from the 50's...

http://www.unsportsmanlike.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/steve-nash-carries-a-man-purse.jpg

[dubeta]

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg

He essentially averaged the same ppg as Finals Wilt in that series. Funny how LeBrons worst is equivalent to Wilts average.

[juju151111]

They played under different rules. Both the bigs, and guards. Still, once you understand some of the rule changes, I don't think they look all that different.

You honestly think today's perimeter players look all that different than this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDP1xGBdDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWNAKxZPpIA

*EDIT* I see you specified early 60's and 50's.

Still, I think rule changes account for most of it. You didn't see shake and bake dribbling until guys like Archie Clark came along but that still doesn't mean the ball was any easier to steal from him than it was from say, Bob Cousy.
It was mostly because the game was knew and not every one saw has a career yet. I said 50s and early 60s.. They started getting better late 60s and 70s.

[LAZERUSS]

He essentially averaged the same ppg as Finals Wilt in that series. Funny how LeBrons worst is equivalent to Wilts average.

Well, if Wilt would have been guarded by a 6-0 Barea, instead of a 6-10 world class athlete...

[CavaliersFTW]

Bro I do understand the rule changes and I watch the tape. They got better with time. I have watched a lot of games that is provided. They just didn't impress me. That's the position I think mostly benefit with time. They were not has athletic and their dribbling skills were not good. Neither was the defense.
One could come around and counter that their defense was really good. It depends on who you watch.

Do you ever focus on KC Jones playing defense? Jerry West? Walt Frazier? Even guys like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

Some of their handles look legitimately good too, given the rules. The 50's players shots look particularly different, because for a while the fundamentals were taught differently. There were push shots and set shots taught along side jump shots. Today, those aren't really taught. Today I see fans all the time call them "ugly jumpers" but they aren't even supposed to be jumpers/jump shots. There were specific guidelines taught to players back then when to use what type of shot and they actually make a lot of sense, even today. Some of the players on the early 50's team film (specifically forwards) do seem to lack a handling refinement (even given the rules) you'd expect to see from players today. But I at least can see they still had talent/size and used what they had well - passing after two dribbles for example instead of forcing it and overdribbling.

[dubeta]

Well, if Wilt would have been guarded by a 6-0 Barea, instead of a 6-10 world class athlete...

Great, now show me all the plays were LeBron was guarded 1 on 1 by Barea

[LAZERUSS]

Great, now show me all the plays were LeBron was guarded 1 on 1 by Barea

Watch the entire series and get back to me.

Lebron was HELPLESS when defended by Barea.

[juju151111]

One could come around and counter that their defense was really good. It depends on who you watch.

Do you ever focus on KC Jones playing defense? Jerry West? Walt Frazier? Even guys like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

Some of their handles look legitimately good too, given the rules. The 50's players shots look particularly different, because for a while the fundamentals were taught differently. There were push shots and set shots taught along side jump shots. Today, those aren't really taught. Today I see fans all the time call them "ugly jumpers" but they aren't even supposed to be jumpers/jump shots. There were specific guidelines taught to players back then when to use what type of shot and they actually make a lot of sense, even today. Some of the players on the early 50's team film (specifically forwards) do seem to lack a handling refinement (even given the rules) you'd expect to see from players today. But I at least can see they still had talent/size and used what they had well - passing after two dribbles for example instead of forcing it and overdribbling.
I have already seen that. I'm subscribe to your page. I agree they have more fundamental game through.

[LAZERUSS]

Great, now show me all the plays were LeBron was guarded 1 on 1 by Barea

Here is just on small sample...

http://grantland.com/features/nba-finals-game-6-retro-diary/

[QUOTE]6:42: Just wanted to commemorate this moment: Miami down three, gets a rebound and gets the ball to LeBron on the right side of the key, with J.J. Barea defending him one-on-one

[Lensanity]

http://i.gyazo.com/66e6493c270f418bb1a86aef02352a64.png

Horrible and flawed argument

1. Obesit rates have skyrocketed since then. This is a fact.

2. The percentage of men that lift weights on a regular basis is probably 5 times what it was in the 60's, plus they have modern day supplements.

[CavaliersFTW]

I have already seen that. I'm subscribe to your page. I agree they have more fundamental game through.
Fair enough, just trying to present some of what I uploaded.

I hope to get a lot more film up of guards/forwards from that era. I spent a lot of time trying to get film of Wilt, and a few of the centers he played against up. It made people reconsider both his abilities, and his competitions. But I feel like many people are still sort of unaware that there were really great guards and forwards back then too, defensively, ball handlers, scorers, the combination of all 3 etc back then. I mean great, not just good.

In a small league, you have to remember all it takes is a few great players playing 35-40 minutes a game represents a big portion of the league/that era. And that Butch Komives guy isn't even one of those great players he'd be the guy rounding out the leagues guards.

I need to get more footage up of the shake and bake guys, ball handling wizards far visually superior to West and Oscar, like Guy Rodgers, Walt Hazzard, Archie Clark, and the defensive specialists in Frazier and KC Jones (West was great here too but most people know that already).

And even a lot of those guys who played vanilla can be seen in documentary films busting out a globetrotter-esq dribble from time to time. I think a lot of guards back then actually did practice really difficult dribbling drills but toned that type of playground move play down. It was hotdogging back then. Players in the league did not really like the way Pistol Pete for example, played. To embarrass someone was considered bad form.

Take for instance KC Jones, mostly known for his defense, doing a legit behind the back crossover against Nauls than getting stripped by Richie Guerin in the very early 1960's in this clip. He goes behind the back like he'd done it a thousand times - though this is the only clip I'm aware of of him doing it:
https://youtu.be/zKWh8Ht7dn0?t=27s

We don't get to see that kind of play because there's no regular season/exhibition game footage of ANY 50's or early 60's players. We see half a dozen playoff games/fragments. Hardly a fair look at the "league" back then.

[LAZERUSS]

Great, now show me all the plays were LeBron was guarded 1 on 1 by Barea

http://thesportspost.com/blogs/view/lebron-james-nba-finals-history


In this series, Dallas designed a defense specifically to slow down LeBron, but it’s not like he was consistently double- or triple-teamed like Jordan playing the Bad Boy Pistons. He could’ve gotten shots up at almost any time, especially along the perimeter. For big stretches during this game, by either holes in the Dallas zone or through unfortunate switches, LeBron ended up covered by J.J. Barea.

Barea is a point guard, listed at six feet, generously. He weighs 180 pounds soaking wet and looks to only be 5'10" on a good day. He’s one of the worst defenders in basketball. Yet it never occurred to LeBron James that, you know, he was LeBron James. He could post him up in his sleep. Either he gets an open look or he gets fouled. Easy, right? Nope, Barea stifled LeBron in their limited engagements. Dallas won the series that night. LeBron went on TV and made an ass of himself. As a LeBron hater, life couldn’t be better.


Read more at http://thesportspost.com/blogs/view/lebron-james-nba-finals-history#7yd47Y26WG2ecV0V.99


Chamberlain would have smashed every scoring record in Finals history had he had the good fortune to have a 5-10 JJ Barea defending him.

[dubeta]

Fair enough, just trying to present some of what I uploaded.

I hope to get a lot more film up of guards/forwards from that era. I spent a lot of time trying to get film of Wilt, and a few of the centers he played against up. It made people reconsider both his abilities, and his competitions. But I feel like many people are still sort of unaware that there were really great guards and forwards back then too, defensively, ball handlers, scorers, the combination of all 3 etc back then. I mean great, not just good.

In a small league, you have to remember all it takes is a few great players playing 35-40 minutes a game represents a big portion of the league/that era. And that Butch Komives guy isn't even one of those great players he'd be the guy rounding out the leagues guards.

I need to get more footage up of the shake and bake guys, ball handling wizards far visually superior to West and Oscar, like Guy Rodgers, Walt Hazzard, Archie Clark, and the defensive specialists in Frazier and KC Jones (West was great here too but most people know that already).

And even a lot of those guys who played vanilla can be seen in documentary films busting out a globetrotter-esq dribble from time to time. I think a lot of guards back then actually did practice really difficult dribbling drills but toned that type of playground move play down. It was hotdogging back then. Players in the league did not really like the way Pistol Pete for example, played. To embarrass someone was considered bad form.

Take for instance KC Jones, mostly known for his defense, doing a legit behind the back crossover against Nauls than getting stripped by Richie Guerin in the very early 1960's in this clip. He goes behind the back like he'd done it a thousand times - though this is the only clip I'm aware of of him doing it:
https://youtu.be/zKWh8Ht7dn0?t=27s

We don't get to see that kind of play because there's no regular season/exhibition game footage of ANY 50's or early 60's players. We see half a dozen playoff games/fragments. Hardly a fair look at the "league" back then.

Show me clips of the 5 most athletic wings of the 60's, and we'll compare it to the 5 most athletic players of the 2010's. If your hypothesis is right, they will generally be at the same level athletically. Just post the Youtubes or gifs of the 5 greatest wing athletes playing in the 60's

[LAZERUSS]

Show me clips of the 5 most athletic wings of the 60's, and we'll compare it to the 5 most athletic players of the 2010's. If your hypothesis is right, they will generally be at the same level athletically. Just post the Youtubes or gifs of the 5 greatest wing athletes playing in the 60's

How about this footage of a 6-7 guy who has led the league in rebounding, and just a year ago, averaged 26 ppg and 12 rpg...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7TnbhJr8iY

[Euroleague]

http://i.gyazo.com/66e6493c270f418bb1a86aef02352a64.png

Evidently, the average IQ drops proportionality as the average weight increases.

[hawksdogsbraves]

If you can't actually comprehend the differences in the human form over the past 50 years, whether it be from genetics, training, nutrition, or whatever, then you're a certified idiot.

http://cdn2.content.compendiumblog.com/uploads/user/458939f4-fe08-4dbc-b271-efca0f5a2682/ccb8f6d6-3464-4afb-a432-56c623a7b437/Image/0ec2765d3e46f2a3d661413a873b9ad4/fitted_line__time_versus_year.jpg

[Euroleague]

people are also taller now.

Not in USA. Americans have been getting shorter, because they are getting poorer and poorer and they have worse and worse health and nutrition.

That's a fact and has been documented over and over.

The whole "people are getting taller in US" claim that is always made is complete and total bullshit. Americans have been getting shorter for quite some time.

And any source saying otherwise is a complete bullshit fiction, no matter where it comes from.

[CavaliersFTW]

Show me clips of the 5 most athletic wings of the 60's, and we'll compare it to the 5 most athletic players of the 2010's. If your hypothesis is right, they will generally be at the same level athletically. Just post the Youtubes or gifs of the 5 greatest wing athletes playing in the 60's
Less than a fraction of some of the greatest wing athletes of that era exists on film.

Connie Hawkins, Gus Johnson, Johnny Green? Freak. Athletes. Hardly anything exists of them on film. Throw in guys like Julius Erving, maybe Dave Bing or Billy Cunningham.

You would not mistake any of those guys for anything other than freak athletes if you saw them in a pick up game against modern freak athlete wings. It'd be a legitimate game of high flying dunks.

[LAZERUSS]

If you can't actually comprehend the differences in the human form over the past 50 years, whether it be from genetics, training, nutrition, or whatever, then you're a certified idiot.

http://cdn2.content.compendiumblog.com/uploads/user/458939f4-fe08-4dbc-b271-efca0f5a2682/ccb8f6d6-3464-4afb-a432-56c623a7b437/Image/0ec2765d3e46f2a3d661413a873b9ad4/fitted_line__time_versus_year.jpg

I already responded to this, but...

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_b etter_stronger#t-56886

Again, Bolt, who might be hold records for years to come, would have barely edged Jesse Owens in a 100m race had the two had the same advantages.

And obviously, Owens would be blowing by most sprinters of today.

[CavaliersFTW]

If you can't actually comprehend the differences in the human form over the past 50 years, whether it be from genetics, training, nutrition, or whatever, then you're a certified idiot.

http://cdn2.content.compendiumblog.com/uploads/user/458939f4-fe08-4dbc-b271-efca0f5a2682/ccb8f6d6-3464-4afb-a432-56c623a7b437/Image/0ec2765d3e46f2a3d661413a873b9ad4/fitted_line__time_versus_year.jpg
You never ran Track and Field, did you. I swear none of you who try and post linear comparisons of raw times know a damn thing about the difference a simple change in track texture does to times. Athletes ran on freaking Cinder Tracks well into the 1960's. Cinder Tracks OBLITERATE times compared to modern Tracks. Add in shoes? PEDs? Jesus. :oldlol:

[hawksdogsbraves]

Not in USA. Americans have been getting shorter, because they are getting poorer and poorer and they have worse and worse health and nutrition.

That's a fact and has been documented over and over.

The whole "people are getting taller in US" claim that is always made is complete and total bullshit. Americans have been getting shorter for quite some time.

And any source saying otherwise is a complete bullshit fiction, no matter where it comes from.

People aren't just going to keep growing forever you idiot. Once nutrition and health gets good enough do you think people will just grow until they're 8 feet tall?

The enormous hispanic immigrant influx in America accounts for the decrease in height.

Classic Euroleague, knows less about anthropology than he does about basketball, and that's saying something :oldlol:

[Euroleague]

Go look at athletic records, 100m, 200m etc... see how many were set 30 years ago

30 years is a ridiculous sample size to make a claim that people are "more athletic now than they used to be".

If you did not have an IQ below 50 you would know that you would need a sample size of more like 3,000 years at least.

My god, some people in this forum are incredibly stupid.

:biggums:

:facepalm

[Euroleague]

Way more black people in professional sports and black people are more athletic than white people.

Always good to see how threads like this bring out the racists in the forum.

[Euroleague]

People aren't just going to keep growing forever you idiot. Once nutrition and health gets good enough do you think people will just grow until they're 8 feet tall?

The enormous hispanic immigrant influx in America accounts for the decrease in height.

Classic Euroleague, knows less about anthropology than he does about basketball, and that's saying something :oldlol:

Nice to see that you are an idiot, a troll, a liar, and also a racist and a xenophobe.

Thanks for playing.

[hawksdogsbraves]

You never ran Track and Field, did you. I swear none of you who try and post linear comparisons of raw times know a damn thing about the difference a simple change in track texture does to times. Athletes ran on freaking Cinder Tracks well into the 1960's. Cinder Tracks OBLITERATE times compared to modern Tracks. Add in shoes? PEDs? Jesus. :oldlol:

Who cares about the 60's? In 1988 Carl Lewis was a full .3 seconds behind the current Olympic record. PED's were not only in use but probably MORE prevalent due to less restrictive testing. The Gold Medal winner that year was STRIPPED of the title once he was caught and he was still slower than Bolt in 2012.

Your only argument left is 'shoes'.

[hawksdogsbraves]

Nice to see that you are an idiot, a troll, a liar, and also a racist and a xenophobe.

Thanks for playing.

Sounds like the same adjectives one might apply to a delusional hick in a trailer park in Arkansas :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Who cares about the 60's? In 1988 Carl Lewis was a full .3 seconds behind the current Olympic record. PED's were not only in use but probably MORE prevalent due to less restrictive testing. The Gold Medal winner that year was STRIPPED of the title once he was caught and he was still slower than Bolt in 2012.

Your only argument left is 'shoes'.
There are outliers in any era. Bolt is an outlier. As no one else in this era is close to him either.

Bolt does not prove "humans got better" Bolt proves by the disparity between him and the next best at the present time that he's a pretty solid outlier in the field of running - historically speaking. Just like Bob Beamon, Carl Lewis, and Mike Powell are with jumping. Those guys competed decades ago, yet no one today can even sniff where their asses touched on a long jump pit. Long jump by the way, outside of likely PED use, is one of the few events where the variables have not changed drastically since the late 1960's. Though I suspect if they start messing with the launch boards or landing pits that might change too in the future and we'll suddenly see increased jump distances... which ignoramuses like yourself would credit to the athletes.

There is no evidence to suggest PED use in Olympic running events is any lower today than it was in 1988.

You don't understand the sport of Track and Field. Please remove yourself from this discussion with your linear charts it's insulting to talk to you about runners when you don't even understand how the event competitions have changed over the years. There is no linear comparison to be had here.

[LAZERUSS]

There are outliers in any era. Bolt is an outlier. As no one else in this era is close to him either.

Bolt does not prove "humans got better" Bolt proves by the disparity between him and the next best at the present time that he's a pretty solid outlier in the field of running - historically speaking.

There is no evidence to suggest PED use in Olympic running events is any lower today than it was in 1988.

You don't understand the sport of Track and Field. Please remove yourself from this competition it's insulting to talk to you about runners when you don't even understand how the event competitions have changed over the years. There is no linear comparison to be had here.


Most swimming records were set in 2009. Why?

BTW, Bolt's 100m and 200m were also set in 2009. Obviously TODAY's sprinters are slower.

[LAZERUSS]

I suspect that Darrell Green, Willie Gault, and Hershel Walker...all over the age of 50...would be among the fastest players in the NFL... TODAY.

[ralph_i_el]

Not in USA. Americans have been getting shorter, because they are getting poorer and poorer and they have worse and worse health and nutrition.

That's a fact and has been documented over and over.

The whole "people are getting taller in US" claim that is always made is complete and total bullshit. Americans have been getting shorter for quite some time.

And any source saying otherwise is a complete bullshit fiction, no matter where it comes from.


White and black Americans are getting taller. The genetic makeup of the country is changing as more Hispanic/Asian/Arabs come to the country.

[ralph_i_el]

Most swimming records were set in 2009. Why?

BTW, Bolt's 100m and 200m were also set in 2009. Obviously TODAY's sprinters are slower.

Because around 2009/10 they banned the ****ing lazer swimsuits that made everyone faster:facepalm suck 2 *****, no, 3!

Source: I was a competitive swim coach at the time.

[LAZERUSS]

Because around 2009/10 they banned the ****ing lazer swimsuits that made everyone faster:facepalm suck 2 *****, no, 3!

Source: I was a competitive swim coach at the time.

I actually covered this earlier in this topic...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11317927&postcount=35

[ThickassGlasses]

I suspect that Darrell Green, Willie Gault, and Hershel Walker...all over the age of 50...would be among the fastest players in the NFL... TODAY.

You'd be wrong.


Its even more prominent in Football than Basketball, but the raw numbers and your eyes tell you people have definitely gotten more athletic.

It only makes sense with better training technologies, methods, PED's, and more organized strength and conditioning programs from below the HS level. Your "elite of the elite" guys will still be similar but the average to good athlete is far superior now than 30+ years ago.

[LAZERUSS]

You'd be wrong.


Its even more prominent in Football than Basketball, but the raw numbers and your eyes tell you people have definitely gotten more athletic.

It only makes sense with better training technologies, methods, PED's, and more organized strength and conditioning programs from below the HS level. Your "elite of the elite" guys will still be similar but the average to good athlete is far superior now than 30+ years ago.

That's why guys like Wes Welker and Julian Edelman have been so successful.

[ralph_i_el]

That's why guys like Wes Welker and Julian Edelman have been so successful.
We're talking trends and all you have are individual examples.

You don't think there were more Welkers and Edelman's back in the day than there are now?

[LAZERUSS]

We're talking trends and all you have are individual examples.

You don't think there were more Welkers and Edelman's back in the day than there are now?

When it comes to SKILL and SPEED...NO.

You can argue size and bulk all you want, but you can't tell me that a 30 year old Tiki Barner was a better running back than a prime OJ, Dickerson, Brown, Allen, Walker, Jackson, E. Smith, etc. The list is almost endless.

[kshutts1]

I still can't believe there is any debate here.

Today's players have the benefit of knowing how the 50's players played... even if today's players don't realize it. From the inception of basketball, every single good player has paved the way for the next generation. We saw what worked for Cousy, so the next PG takes what he saw and tries to improve it.

The span of 50-75 years, which is the essential age of organized, professional basketball, is not that long in terms of humans evolving. However, considering it's LITERALLY the entire time the sport has been played professionally, it is fair to say that the players, and the way the game is played, has evolved dramatically.

Within the confines of basketball, the players should look better, more talented, more athletic.

Within the confines of the human race, there is no measureable change. The only real change is in the shrinking size of the world due to technology. Larger talent base, more exposure, etc.

I honestly don't see what's so hard to grasp about any of this.

[kshutts1]

When it comes to SKILL and SPEED...NO.

You can argue size and bulk all you want, but you can't tell me that a 30 year old Tiki Barner was a better running back than a prime OJ, Dickerson, Brown, Allen, Walker, Jackson, E. Smith, etc. The list is almost endless.
I don't know football that well, so can you please explain why you compared Tiki, rather than LT, to the all time greats?

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know football that well, so can you please explain why you compared Tiki, rather than LT, to the all time greats?

Tiki Barber, at age 30, and just a few years ago, rushed for 1800 yards.

The man was 5-10, 200 lbs, and at his peak, ran a 4.4 40. None of those characteristics explain how he could do so.

[LAZERUSS]

How does being more athletic explain a Kevin Love?

Or a 6-5 1/2 Charles Barkley winning a rpg title?

Or a 6-7 Dennis Rodman winning seven rebounding titles in an era that had Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq?

Or a 6-10, 245 lb. Moses Malone, who could barely dunk, and with no more than 15 ft range, just abusing much taller, stronger, and more athletic centers?

Or a 6-5 Adrian Dantley being one of the greatest post-up players in NBA history?

Or a 6-6 Wes Unseld being in the HOF as a center? (Or a 6-6 Chuck Hayes starting as a center in the NBA just a couple of years ago)?

Or a 6-0 CP3 being one of the best players in the world? Or a 6-1 "Tiny" Archibald putting up a 34 ppg 11 apg season?


And how come Shaq couldn't win a rebounding title?

And how come a 7-4 350 lb Priest Lauderdale couldn't make the NBA?

How come an athletic freak like James White was a complete bust in the NBA?


You can go right down the line...and in ALL sports.

How could a scrawny Greg Maddux, with no more than a 90 mph fastball, have an ERA of 1.56 smack in the middle of the "steroid era?"

How could a Marcus Allen, considerably smaller, and much slower than Hershel Walker...have been a much greater running back?

How a Jerry Rice, with a no more than a 4.6 40, and not a physical beast, be the greatest receiver in NFL history?


How come?

[ralph_i_el]

How does being more athletic explain a Kevin Love?

Or a 6-5 1/2 Charles Barkley winning a rpg title?

Or a 6-7 Dennis Rodman winning seven rebounding titles in an era that had Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq?

Or a 6-10, 245 lb. Moses Malone, who could barely dunk, and with no more than 15 ft range, just abusing much taller, stronger, and more athletic centers?

Or a 6-5 Adrian Dantley being one of the greatest post-up players in NBA history?

Or a 6-6 Wes Unseld being in the HOF as a center? (Or a 6-6 Chuck Hayes starting as a center in the NBA just a couple of years ago)?

Or a 6-0 CP3 being one of the best players in the world? Or a 6-1 "Tiny" Archibald putting up a 34 ppg 11 apg season?


And how come Shaq couldn't win a rebounding title?

And how come a 7-4 350 lb Priest Lauderdale couldn't make the NBA?

How come an athletic freak like James White was a complete bust in the NBA?


You can go right down the line...and in ALL sports.

How could a scrawny Greg Maddux, with no more than a 90 mph fastball, have an ERA of 1.56 smack in the middle of the "steroid era?"

How could a Marcus Allen, considerably smaller, and much slower than Hershel Walker...have been a much greater running back?

How a Jerry Rice, with a no more than a 4.6 40, and not a physical beast, be the greatest receiver in NFL history?


How come?


Because sports are more than just athleticism. That doesn't mean athleticism isn't important, and it doesn't mean players today aren't bigger/stronger/faster on AVERAGE.

Bring up past beasts all you want, but they played against players pulled from a far smaller pool of talent.

[Showtime80']

If this so called " evolution" both from a technical standpoint and athletic wise really did take place we would see a league full of Magics, Birds, Kareem's, Jordans or Shaqs! Fact is the top ten players at this very moment are not as strong as they were 30 years ago.

Another point to make, college basketball also has a larger talent pool to choose from, how come they also pale in comparison to the 1979-92 period? Is it a coincidence that the NBA's and NCAA's best periods in their history happened simultaneously? I think not

[BigNBAfan]

We're also 2 inches taller on average too

[Manila]

athletes back in the day had Bruce Jenner. Evolution of athetes are true.

[ralph_i_el]

If this so called " evolution" both from a technical standpoint and athletic wise really did take place we would see a league full of Magics, Birds, Kareem's, Jordans or Shaqs! Fact is the top ten players at this very moment are not as strong as they were 30 years ago.

Another point to make, college basketball also has a larger talent pool to choose from, how come they also pale in comparison to the 1979-92 period? Is it a coincidence that the NBA's and NCAA's best periods in their history happened simultaneously? I think not

Because college players go to the pros sooner if they're good (how dumb can you be not to see that?).

If the league has a bigger talent pool, the AVERAGE player is better, so stars don't look as good by comparison. This is not a tough concept to understand.

How good a player looks is very dependent on the level of competition, which is why Adam Morrison can look like Larry Bird in the summer league and Otto Porter can look like Durant (both of these things happened in the last 2 summer leagues). I'm not good at basketball, but against a bunch of skinny high schoolers at the gym I hit the lane like LeBron lol.

If the league was full of magics, birds, and Jordan's....none of them would look like magic, bird, or mj

I'm being trolled, aren't I? :facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

Because college players go to the pros sooner if they're good (how dumb can you be not to see that?).

If the league has a bigger talent pool, the AVERAGE player is better, so stars don't look as good by comparison. This is not a tough concept to understand.

How good a player looks is very dependent on the level of competition, which is why Adam Morrison can look like Larry Bird in the summer league and Otto Porter can look like Durant (both of these things happened in the last 2 summer leagues). I'm not good at basketball, but against a bunch of skinny high schoolers at the gym I hit the lane like LeBron lol.

If the league was full of magics, birds, and Jordan's....none of them would look like magic, bird, or mj

I'm being trolled, aren't I? :facepalm
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[ralph_i_el]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Imagine if magic, bird, and MJ player in the league which all the sudden had 40% more pro level players (with the same balance of stars/role players/scrubs) for teams to sign. They wouldn't look as good. That's a fact.


Same reason why I disregard baseball players pre-integration.

[CavaliersFTW]

Imagine if magic, bird, and MJ player in the league which all the sudden had 40% more pro level players for teams to sign. They wouldn't look as good. That's a fact.

Same reason why I disregard baseball players pre-integration.
Now imagine the league doubling in size.

No. That's an assumption.

Proudly stating you disregard something shows lack of respect, which says a lot about you.

[ralph_i_el]

Now imagine the league doubling in size.

No. That's an assumption.

Proudly stating you disregard something shows lack of respect, and says a lot about you.

When 2/5 all time baseball goats are black, how can you really compare players who didn't have to compete with blacks or (for the most part)Hispanic players?

If there are many more basketball players, there will be many more quality basketball players. That means less shitty players will make the league, and the average player will be better. How can you argue against that?

You really want to tell me that now that the game is global, with a much larger population base, more money involved, and more serious ball for kids....the average player will be WORSE?

Pure delusion.

I watch all those classic NBA games on nbatv....and these are supposed to be the BEST games from those eras....and the level of play is noticeably lower in my eyes.

[Rose'sACL]

More money = more people willing to spend time and money to train and become a pro in that sport.

How do people not get this?

On top of this, there is almost no racism now against black athletes.

It is the same with any job. If a new sector opens up and pays good money, people will study subjects related to that sector and train to get jobs in that sector.

[Showtime80']

Now you're comparing the 80's NBA to baseball pre integration?!? Jesus Christ!

Like I said before, it doesn't matter how large the talent pool is if the players to choose from are not being developed as good as before. Not the 80's fault that players came into the league A LOT MORE developed and mature 30 years ago thus making the product of better quality. You seriously don't think the early entry of these modern players hasn't affected the quality of the game. Take a look all the rule changes the league has made to help offenses since the mid 90's for example, none of that extreme tinkering went on since the inception of the shot clock!

You seriously think Harden, Curry and dumb as a rock Westbrook would be top 5 players in 1987?!? Take away the three pointer and put in the 80's rules and see how average these guys become. Michael, Magic and Larry were the best in the TOUGHEST era of basketball before all the rule changes to help offenses and players still were being developed to focus in SKILLS, FUNDAMENTALS AND IQ instead of focusing on athleticism.

Look at what Tim Duncan has done the las 19 years to this ultra "modern and sophisticated" joke of a league and he would be considered inferior athletically even to guys like Kareem, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon or Robinson guys who's prime was between 20 to 30 years ago!

Tim Duncan is an example of what the 80's fundamentally sound superstars would fare in this DUMB AS A ROCK NBA. They would dominate!

[ralph_i_el]

Now you're comparing the 80's NBA to baseball pre integration?!? Jesus Christ!

Like I said before, it doesn't matter how large the talent pool is if the players to choose from are not being developed as good as before. Not the 80's fault that players came into the league A LOT MORE developed and mature 30 years ago thus making the product of better quality. You seriously don't think the early entry of these modern players hasn't affected the quality of the game. Take a look all the rule changes the league has made to help offenses since the mid 90's for example, none of that extreme tinkering went on since the inception of the shot clock!

You seriously think Harden, Curry and dumb as a rock Westbrook would be top 5 players in 1987?!? Take away the three pointer and put in the 80's rules and see how average these guys become. Michael, Magic and Larry were the best in the TOUGHEST era of basketball before all the rule changes to help offenses and players still were being developed to focus in SKILLS, FUNDAMENTALS AND IQ instead of focusing on athleticism.

Look at what Tim Duncan has done the las 19 years to this ultra "modern and sophisticated" joke of a league and he would be considered inferior athletically even to guys like Kareem, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon or Robinson guys who's prime was between 20 to 30 years ago!

Tim Duncan is an example of what the 80's fundamentally sound superstars would fare in this DUMB AS A ROCK NBA. They would dominate!

If the league is a joke now you might as well quit watching. Harden and Westbrook aren't top 5 IMO. CP3>Both

Your TimmyD example is inconsequential. A big man who always makes the right play dominates in any era regardless.

[Showtime80']

I just watched game 7 of the 1988 WCF between the Lakers and Mavs and the level and quality of play is light years of what you have now!

8 to 9 all-star caliber players at all time on the floor and still playing team basketball, no wasted time on the shot clock, fast breaks, great post play, physical defense, solid mid range game, timely 3 point shooting resulting from INSIDE DOUBLE TEAMING, coaches letting players play, true pass first floor generals generals... Etc

Watched when you have the chance and see what the GOLDEN AGE was all about! Believe me that phrase will NEVER be used in describing the present era, not now, 10, 20 or 30 years from now!

[Showtime80']

The combination of SKILL, FUNDAMENTALS and overall basketball intelligence that Michael, Magic and Larry would obliterate any competition in any era as well.

Today's NBA may be more athletic on average but it has gotten worst at the qualities mentioned above and that makes it a worst product. In an ironic way I blame the marketing of Jordan, Magic and Larry for the deterioration of the product more than anything else (specially Michael) and focusing on the flash of basketball instead of the substance. Sadly Pandora's box is wide open and there is NOW WAT of going back

[ralph_i_el]

I just watched game 7 of the 1988 WCF between the Lakers and Mavs and the level and quality of play is light years of what you have now!

8 to 9 all-star caliber players at all time on the floor and still playing team basketball, no wasted time on the shot clock, fast breaks, great post play, physical defense, solid mid range game, timely 3 point shooting resulting from INSIDE DOUBLE TEAMING, coaches letting players play, true pass first floor generals generals... Etc

Watched when you have the chance and see what the GOLDEN AGE was all about! Believe me that phrase will NEVER be used in describing the present era, not now, 10, 20 or 30 years from now!

Unlike the 80's, today will never be described as a "no defense era"

Today's league:

Deeper
More athletic
Better shooters
Better handles
Better defensive effort and strategy

[Badazzwriter]

Everything is better now. The world back in the day wasn't even in colour. Go and watch old videos everything was in black and white. :oldlol: Who am I gonna suck in with this one doe ?
:lol

[juju151111]

Unlike the 80's, today will never be described as a "no defense era"

Today's league:

Deeper
More athletic
Better shooters
Better handles
Better defensive effort and strategy
Humans don't evolve over 40-50 years. They were not more athletic:wtf:

[Showtime80']

The 80's NBA had:

Greatest offensive era
More physical play
Greatest collection of transcendent superstars
Better basic fundamentals and skills
Smaller league with better team
Transcendent Rivalries


Again when all else fails, your league is as good as your best players, today's putrid collection doesn't hold a candle to Magic, Michael, Larry, Isiah, Dominique, Hakeem and Dr J. That was like the 60's rock and roll with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Hendrix. Today's Jay Z and Kanye crap generation doesn't even come close!

[Rose'sACL]

The 80's NBA had:

Greatest offensive era
More physical play
Greatest collection of transcendent superstars
Better basic fundamentals and skills
Smaller league with better team
Transcendent Rivalries


Again when all else fails, your league is as good as your best players, today's putrid collection doesn't hold a candle to Magic, Michael, Larry, Isiah, Dominique, Hakeem and Dr J. That was like the 60's rock and roll with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Hendrix. Today's Jay Z and Kanye crap generation doesn't even come close!
That is certainly not true. 00s had Duncan, Kobe, shaq, wade,kg and dirk. So 00s had great offensive players plus defense is way way better than the 80s.
Can't talk about 10s because it is only half way through.who knows how Durant, Westbrook, curry, AD etc will be thought of in a few years.

[sd3035]

When 2/5 all time baseball goats are black, how can you really compare players who didn't have to compete with blacks or (for the most part)Hispanic players?

If there are many more basketball players, there will be many more quality basketball players. That means less shitty players will make the league, and the average player will be better. How can you argue against that?

You really want to tell me that now that the game is global, with a much larger population base, more money involved, and more serious ball for kids....the average player will be WORSE?

Pure delusion.

I watch all those classic NBA games on nbatv....and these are supposed to be the BEST games from those eras....and the level of play is noticeably lower in my eyes.


https://i.imgur.com/8dNJV.jpg

[funnystuff]

Humans don't evolve over 40-50 years. They were not more athletic:wtf:
This is baffling. :facepalm


Maybe humans themselves don't evolve but guess what? Diet regimens do, exercise regimens do, health studies get more in depth and more significant each year which all equates to being able to achieve BETTER ATHLETICISM.

[hahaitme]

Whats this based on? Since when does the human race evolve so rapidly so fast? The only thing that changes since the 60s is perimeter play and junpshooting bigs. The other differences is made by rule changes, pace etc.... Kareem,Wilt,Rodman, etc.... would all still dominate today.

- Technology (to help studies, recovery techniques, training techniques)
- Diet knowledge
- Drugs, there's really no debate about this one. Steroid/GH's have improved so much since the 60's
- Technique improvements from looking at previous athletes and studying them
- Number of participants as the population increases
- More incentive/money provided for athletes/larger sponsorships = more participants also. People also don't have to work 2 jobs while playing in the NBA

Humans haven't evolved but our technology has. Think about the fact that you made this thread by typing into a computer in your bedroom and people from other countries are reading it on their phones while they're on the way to work.

Also:
http://i.imgur.com/bMaUjAd.jpg

[hahaitme]

Horrible and flawed argument

1. Obesit rates have skyrocketed since then. This is a fact.

2. The percentage of men that lift weights on a regular basis is probably 5 times what it was in the 60's, plus they have modern day supplements.

This is so contradictory. The thread is asking why people think athletes are better today. Modern day supplements and more frequent participation is one of the reasons, you just said it yourself lol

[sd3035]

- Technology (to help studies, recovery techniques, training techniques)
- Diet knowledge
- Drugs, there's really no debate about this one. Steroid/GH's have improved so much since the 60's
- Technique improvements from looking at previous athletes and studying them
- Number of participants as the population increases
- More incentive/money provided for athletes/larger sponsorships = more participants also. People also don't have to work 2 jobs while playing in the NBA

Humans haven't evolved but our technology has. Think about the fact that you made this thread by typing into a computer in your bedroom and people from other countries are reading it on their phones while they're on the way to work.

Also:
http://i.imgur.com/bMaUjAd.jpg

I think that technology and knowledge has allowed high level athletes to reach levels which were previously unattainable, thus evolving, but the average computer nerd is no more athletic than previous generations of wimpy nerds

Another factor which can't be ignored is the consumption of excessive hormones in much of our food, causing us to becomes larger than ever. However, This may soon reverse due to the growing backlash.

The population graph also illustrates the tremendous increase in people, creating a much larger pool of athletes

[Round Mound]

Not this again.:facepalm :rolleyes:

[AussieG]

How do you get 8 pages out of such a simple thing? It's out there and plain for all to see, don't need charts and graphs and long debates.

What's better today? Everything.

[oarabbus]

I think that technology and knowledge has allowed high level athletes to reach levels which were previously unattainable, thus evolving, but the average computer nerd is no more athletic than previous generations of wimpy nerds

Another factor which can't be ignored is the consumption of excessive hormones in much of our food, causing us to becomes larger than ever. However, This may soon reverse due to the growing backlash.

The population graph also illustrates the tremendous increase in people, creating a much larger pool of athletes


There you go. Larger pool of athletes -> more top level athletes -> today is better.

[rmt]

Added to all mentioned above is just increased knowledge. For example, had Novak Djokovic been born in the 70s, he would never have discovered he had a gluten allergy/sensitivity and removed gluten from his diet. He would never have been able to eliminate a substance that so affected his stamina - never reached #1 in the world or win multiple Grand Slams.

Spurs players wear compression (like what diabetics use) socks when they travel on airplanes. They help reduce swelling, etc. - kinda like how they ice knees when some sits on the bench during the game.

[DCL]

if you told some track heads that a human being could possibly run 9.58s in 100m and 19.19s in 200m during carl lewis's era, they would had all told you to lay down the crack pipe.

then comes usain bolt.

[LAZERUSS]

There you go. Larger pool of athletes -> more top level athletes -> today is better.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

How does that explain a 37 year old Steve Nash leading the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg?

Or a 6-8 Kevin Love, who can barely dunk, running away with a rpg title just a few years ago, and just last year averaging 26 ppg and 12 rpg?

Or a 6-11 stumble-bum in Andrew Bogut, leading the league in bpg just a couple of years ago?

How does a 39 year old Duncan, with zero leaping ability, hang a 26-11 game in the playoffs?

The best center in today's NBA is arguably the 6-9 1/2 Demarcus Cousins...who has a max vertical of 27.5". The man averaged a 24-13 just this past year, and in only 34 mpg. How is that possible?

Watch footage of the 6-9 Zach Randolph, and then of the 6-9 Willis Reed. If you didn't know any better, you would think they were the same player. Reed's best season was 21-15. Randolph's best season was 24-10, and achieved just a few years ago. Are you going to tell me that a '69 Reed couldn't put up those SAME numbers...TODAY?

How about a peak Kareem, at a full 7-2, playing 35 career H2H games against a full-time 6-11 Nate Thurmond, and with a high game of 34 points (and only five 30+ point games), and on a .447 FG%. And yet a 38-39 Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick, averaged 32 ppg on a .630 FG% in ten straight games, with highs of 40, 43, and 46 points, against a 22-23 year old Hakeem. And then a 40 year old Kareem outscored a 24 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's, and outshot him by a .567 to .403 margin. Hell, a 39 year old Kareem carpet-bombed Patrick Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting (and Ewing scored 9 points on 3-17 shooting.)

And speaking of Hakeem. He won a rpg title in at age 26. Yet, in his H2H's with a washed up 33 year old Moses Malone in that same season, he was outrebounded. Oh, and a 35-36 year old Artis Gilmore, in ten straight H2H's against Hakeem, not only outscored him, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%.


Explain how a HOFer Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 and weighed 230 lbs, and who had a vertical the equal of MJ's...was a career 17-13 player...playing mostly in the 60's? Why wasn't he putting up 30-20 seasons against such inferior competition?

Skill? How do explain the NBA shooting .756 from the line in the 58-59 season, and .773 from the line in the 73-74 season, and yet only shooting .750 from the line in this past season?

How do explain virtually every GOOD-to-GREAT NBA player, that had careers of 10+ seasons, playing just as well against their peers late in their careers, as they did early in their careers? Wouldn't the "better competition" eat them alive later in their careers?

How did a 6-10, 245 lb Moses Malone, who could barely dunk, and with range of no more than 15 ft, just slaughter a near-prime Kareem in their career H2H's? Oh, and again, a shell-of-his-physical-peak Kareem just crushing Hakeem? Are you going to tell me that THAT Moses would NOT be a DOMINANT center TODAY, when a Cousins can put up 24-13 in 34 mpg?


The 66-67 Lakers. Had a near-prime Baylor, and a prime West, who averaged 27 and 29 ppg. They had HOFer Gail Goodrich on the bench. They had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg the very next season. They had Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard), who would average 24 ppg the very next season. They had Rudy LaRusso, who would average 21 ppg the very next season. They had a 6-10 center who averaged 10-13. They had two other full seven-footers, including Mel Counts who had 20 ft range. Must have just dominated the NBA that year right? How about a 36-45 record?


How about the skill of DeAndre Jordan? He is so horrific, that the Clippers don't even have any designed plays for him, and the man literally cannot shoot from 5 ft away. Yet, at 6-9 1/2, and with a 31" vertical, he averaged 12 ppg on a .710 FG%. How is that possible?


World wide population? Aside from a handful of players...Dirk, Manu, and then Hakeem and Duncan, both of whom developed their games in the U.S....very few truly GREAT players. Where are the European MJ's, Shaq's, and Magic's?

And speaking of Magic...years ago Pat Riley envisioned a full team of Magic's. A team of 6-8+ players who could everything that Magic could do. Guess what? There hasn't been a single Magic since the original retired.


The REALITY is...aside from a few rules changes (most notably th 24 second clock, and the 3pt line) the game is played essentially the same exact way it was over 100 years ago. The same size court, hoop, and dimensions. The same number of players. The same basic game of shooting, passing, dribbling, rebounding, and playing defense.

The average starting center in Wilt's '62 season... a shade over 6-10. The average starting center in TODAY's NBA...about 6-11 (and even that is deceptive, since players are measured in shoes today.)


And where are all of these talented 7-2+ players that the world should be flooding the NBA with? Shouldn't we have 7-5 Magic's running all over the court today? Players with 45" verticals, and shooting from all over the floor?

How does a 6-0 CP3 dominate game today? How does a 5-10 Barea not only make an NBA roster, but goes on to make a fool out of a 6-8 260 lb Lebron in the 2011 Finals? How does a 6-8 James White be a complete bust in the NBA, and yet a 6-8 Kevin Love put up a 26-12 season? How does a 7-4 350 lb Priest Lauderdale not make an NBA roster, and yet a 6-6 Chuck Hayes, with zero range, was a starting center just a couple of years ago?

How come a 7-3 Swede Halbrook, or a 7-2 Tom Burleson, or a 7-4 Steve Turner, all relatively skilled big men in college in the 50's and 60's...either be ordinary, or barely make an impact in the NBA, or flat not even make the NBA...in the 60's and 70's?


How does a 6-11 backup to Bill Walton, go on to lead an NBA that averaged 46 rpg per team, at 15 rpg, and in 36 mpg? How does a 6-5 Barkley lead the NBA in rpg in the late 80's? How does a 6-8 Rodman run away with multiple rpg titles in leagues that had Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq?

I'm sorry to tell you, but there is virtually zero evidence that the players of today are any better than those of 50 years ago. ZERO.

[ILLsmak]

It's not evolution, it's science. Science has gone way further. Now, I also think science is ignoring the side effects. Look at all meds, the treatment of cancer, etc. So say from the time people know you are gonna be a baller they give you x supplements and you exercise this way. That part has evolved.

I think the negative effect is that people are shorter and get injured more. Now, you can say with athleticism you don't need true seven footers and they got phased out, but those two things are most glaring.

Science is going in maybe where they shouldn't be, they are doing what is almost genetic engineering so that's the evolution you see. As I said though, no telling that it's a good decision long term. We'll know eventually that we ****ed up, thinking we knew what exact things a person needed to reach his athletic peak, and its like oh wait... we ****ed up his (whatever.)

Everyone should see the difference between now and the 60s. Look at technology not evolution. And whether its a mistake, it does show gains in raw athleticism. Imagine if wilt was guided from puberty and supplemented and injected, etc.

-Smak

[Rose'sACL]

It's not evolution, it's science. Science has gone way further. Now, I also think science is ignoring the side effects. Look at all meds, the treatment of cancer, etc. So say from the time people know you are gonna be a baller they give you x supplements and you exercise this way. That part has evolved.

I think the negative effect is that people are shorter and get injured more. Now, you can say with athleticism you don't need true seven footers and they got phased out, but those two things are most glaring.

Science is going in maybe where they shouldn't be, they are doing what is almost genetic engineering so that's the evolution you see. As I said though, no telling that it's a good decision long term. We'll know eventually that we ****ed up, thinking we knew what exact things a person needed to reach his athletic peak, and its like oh wait... we ****ed up his (whatever.)

Everyone should see the difference between now and the 60s. Look at technology not evolution. And whether its a mistake, it does show gains in raw athleticism. Imagine if wilt was guided from puberty and supplemented and injected, etc.

-Smak
you are ignoring another fact which is that more people are willing to dedicate themselves to become a pro these days because of so much money and way less racism.
So much money makes it much more likely that average player in the league is better now. Superstar have made good money in the past but it is the average players who have benefited them most by not worrying about money after retirement.

[aj1987]

How much ever you want to hype up your boyfriends era, it was GARBAGE. The '60's were vastly inferior to today's basketball.

If you think Love can "barely" dunk, you're a ****ing imbecile, who hasn't watched basketball aside from your boyfriend's highlights.

tl;dr - Wilt's the GOAT choker and would be a borderline All-Star at best today.

Deal with it.

[ILLsmak]

you are ignoring another fact which is that more people are willing to dedicate themselves to become a pro these days because of so much money and way less racism.
So much money makes it much more likely that average player in the league is better now. Superstar have made good money in the past but it is the average players who have benefited them most by not worrying about money after retirement.

Not really because that ties into it. That's why people would do such a thing as "sell their soul" at age ten and do whatever people tell them.

It also has arguably affected the product. Like dude posted life expectancy, but what about life quality?

Dudes want x vert or x ppg or a good crossover. So they can get paid, few are playing to win above all.

Or let's say business. The end goal of all business now is to make money. The product suffers. That the quality will improve in such a situation is a logical fallacy. Since advertising exists, maybe its too much of a leap for most people but I can compare that to juicing. It does help, and it helps certain guys a lot, but as a whole it stunts the product, something is missing along the line. It's like they did a study on bball and said ok we need this many dunks each game, this many posters per year, etc.

Kind of off topic, but the point is yes people are absolutely more raw athletic now. They are more dedicated but many with tunnel vision. They are selling us cheap thrills instead of bball so that athleticism is essential.

-Smak

[Rose'sACL]

Not really because that ties into it. That's why people would do such a thing as "sell their soul" at age ten and do whatever people tell them.

It also has arguably affected the product. Like dude posted life expectancy, but what about life quality?

Dudes want x vert or x ppg or a good crossover. So they can get paid, few are playing to win above all.

Or let's say business. The end goal of all business now is to make money. The product suffers. That the quality will improve in such a situation is a logical fallacy. Since advertising exists, maybe its too much of a leap for most people but I can compare that to juicing. It does help, and it helps certain guys a lot, but as a whole it stunts the product, something is missing along the line. It's like they did a study on bball and said ok we need this many dunks each game, this many posters per year, etc.

Kind of off topic, but the point is yes people are absolutely more raw athletic now. They are more dedicated but many with tunnel vision. They are selling us cheap thrills instead of bball so that athleticism is essential.

-Smak
life's Quality has improved tremendously.

[ILLsmak]

life's Quality has improved tremendously.

I don't agree. People are fat, poor, and unhappy.

-Smak

[juju151111]

This is baffling. :facepalm


Maybe humans themselves don't evolve but guess what? Diet regimens do, exercise regimens do, health studies get more in depth and more significant each year which all equates to being able to achieve BETTER ATHLETICISM.
Agreed technology and health has gone up. Most of the swimming records were broken because of science. Humans are not more athletic today.

[juju151111]

I don't agree. People are fat, poor, and unhappy.

-Smak
It has. We live longer even I'd were poor.

[ralph_i_el]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

How does that explain a 37 year old Steve Nash leading the league in apg, and in only 33 mpg?

Or a 6-8 Kevin Love, who can barely dunk, running away with a rpg title just a few years ago, and just last year averaging 26 ppg and 12 rpg?

Or a 6-11 stumble-bum in Andrew Bogut, leading the league in bpg just a couple of years ago?

How does a 39 year old Duncan, with zero leaping ability, hang a 26-11 game in the playoffs?

The best center in today's NBA is arguably the 6-9 1/2 Demarcus Cousins...who has a max vertical of 27.5". The man averaged a 24-13 just this past year, and in only 34 mpg. How is that possible?

Watch footage of the 6-9 Zach Randolph, and then of the 6-9 Willis Reed. If you didn't know any better, you would think they were the same player. Reed's best season was 21-15. Randolph's best season was 24-10, and achieved just a few years ago. Are you going to tell me that a '69 Reed couldn't put up those SAME numbers...TODAY?

How about a peak Kareem, at a full 7-2, playing 35 career H2H games against a full-time 6-11 Nate Thurmond, and with a high game of 34 points (and only five 30+ point games), and on a .447 FG%. And yet a 38-39 Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick, averaged 32 ppg on a .630 FG% in ten straight games, with highs of 40, 43, and 46 points, against a 22-23 year old Hakeem. And then a 40 year old Kareem outscored a 24 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's, and outshot him by a .567 to .403 margin. Hell, a 39 year old Kareem carpet-bombed Patrick Ewing with a 40 point game, on 15-22 shooting (and Ewing scored 9 points on 3-17 shooting.)

And speaking of Hakeem. He won a rpg title in at age 26. Yet, in his H2H's with a washed up 33 year old Moses Malone in that same season, he was outrebounded. Oh, and a 35-36 year old Artis Gilmore, in ten straight H2H's against Hakeem, not only outscored him, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%.


Explain how a HOFer Gus Johnson, who was 6-6 and weighed 230 lbs, and who had a vertical the equal of MJ's...was a career 17-13 player...playing mostly in the 60's? Why wasn't he putting up 30-20 seasons against such inferior competition?

Skill? How do explain the NBA shooting .756 from the line in the 58-59 season, and .773 from the line in the 73-74 season, and yet only shooting .750 from the line in this past season?

How do explain virtually every GOOD-to-GREAT NBA player, that had careers of 10+ seasons, playing just as well against their peers late in their careers, as they did early in their careers? Wouldn't the "better competition" eat them alive later in their careers?

How did a 6-10, 245 lb Moses Malone, who could barely dunk, and with range of no more than 15 ft, just slaughter a near-prime Kareem in their career H2H's? Oh, and again, a shell-of-his-physical-peak Kareem just crushing Hakeem? Are you going to tell me that THAT Moses would NOT be a DOMINANT center TODAY, when a Cousins can put up 24-13 in 34 mpg?


The 66-67 Lakers. Had a near-prime Baylor, and a prime West, who averaged 27 and 29 ppg. They had HOFer Gail Goodrich on the bench. They had Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg the very next season. They had Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard), who would average 24 ppg the very next season. They had Rudy LaRusso, who would average 21 ppg the very next season. They had a 6-10 center who averaged 10-13. They had two other full seven-footers, including Mel Counts who had 20 ft range. Must have just dominated the NBA that year right? How about a 36-45 record?


How about the skill of DeAndre Jordan? He is so horrific, that the Clippers don't even have any designed plays for him, and the man literally cannot shoot from 5 ft away. Yet, at 6-9 1/2, and with a 31" vertical, he averaged 12 ppg on a .710 FG%. How is that possible?


World wide population? Aside from a handful of players...Dirk, Manu, and then Hakeem and Duncan, both of whom developed their games in the U.S....very few truly GREAT players. Where are the European MJ's, Shaq's, and Magic's?

And speaking of Magic...years ago Pat Riley envisioned a full team of Magic's. A team of 6-8+ players who could everything that Magic could do. Guess what? There hasn't been a single Magic since the original retired.


The REALITY is...aside from a few rules changes (most notably th 24 second clock, and the 3pt line) the game is played essentially the same exact way it was over 100 years ago. The same size court, hoop, and dimensions. The same number of players. The same basic game of shooting, passing, dribbling, rebounding, and playing defense.

The average starting center in Wilt's '62 season... a shade over 6-10. The average starting center in TODAY's NBA...about 6-11 (and even that is deceptive, since players are measured in shoes today.)


And where are all of these talented 7-2+ players that the world should be flooding the NBA with? Shouldn't we have 7-5 Magic's running all over the court today? Players with 45" verticals, and shooting from all over the floor?

How does a 6-0 CP3 dominate game today? How does a 5-10 Barea not only make an NBA roster, but goes on to make a fool out of a 6-8 260 lb Lebron in the 2011 Finals? How does a 6-8 James White be a complete bust in the NBA, and yet a 6-8 Kevin Love put up a 26-12 season? How does a 7-4 350 lb Priest Lauderdale not make an NBA roster, and yet a 6-6 Chuck Hayes, with zero range, was a starting center just a couple of years ago?

How come a 7-3 Swede Halbrook, or a 7-2 Tom Burleson, or a 7-4 Steve Turner, all relatively skilled big men in college in the 50's and 60's...either be ordinary, or barely make an impact in the NBA, or flat not even make the NBA...in the 60's and 70's?


How does a 6-11 backup to Bill Walton, go on to lead an NBA that averaged 46 rpg per team, at 15 rpg, and in 36 mpg? How does a 6-5 Barkley lead the NBA in rpg in the late 80's? How does a 6-8 Rodman run away with multiple rpg titles in leagues that had Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq?

I'm sorry to tell you, but there is virtually zero evidence that the players of today are any better than those of 50 years ago. ZERO.

Laz gets spanked so he serves up the anecdotal copypasta!

Your example for skill is ft%:roll:

You have to understand that the best rebounders are often shorter than 6'10" right? historically? Because stouter bigs can box out much more easily....

your examples contradict themselves. You give a bunch of examples of relatively unathletic guys succeeding, then you're like "But how did Barkley and Rodman win rebounding titles"....because, mother****er, they were freak athletes :facepalm

Chuck Hayes was only a starter because of injury, and his only redeeming skills are D and getting the ball out of his own hands on offense :roll:


"DeAndre Jordan is only 6'9" waaaaaahhh" No, he came into the league almost 6'10" barefoot....but what's important is his 7'6" WINGSPAN (AKA freak status)


All of your examples of older players faced less competition at every level of basketball. Ball is now seen as a possible career at an early age for a lot of kids. More people in America play it, and the population in America has grown. It's gone from an American sport to one that's played all over the world. How could this NOT increase the quality of competition?

How a player looks on the court is relative to the players they face. I'm not saying stars of yesteryear couldn't play today, I'm just saying that they were big fish in a relatively smaller pond


I don't agree. People are fat, poor, and unhappy.

-Smak

Naw, that's just you. :roll:

[aj1987]

I don't agree. People are fat, poor, and unhappy.

-Smak
:biggums:

Not gonna disagree with the fat part, but the other two are just nonsense. Do some research. Life expectancy is up, the quality of life is higher, etc..

Also, you do realize that becoming fat is almost always related to increasing wealth, right?

Except for the political correctness, the SJW's, and libtards, the current era >>>.

[Sarcastic]

Quality of life hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. Yea it's improved since the beginning of the 1900's, but not much since WWII.

Nutrition, training, and specialization has improved in the past 30 years, but not that much to make a huge distinction between a 1980s athlete and an athlete of today.

[LAZERUSS]

Laz gets spanked so he serves up the anecdotal copypasta!

Your example for skill is ft%:roll:

You have to understand that the best rebounders are often shorter than 6'10" right? historically? Because stouter bigs can box out much more easily....

your examples contradict themselves. You give a bunch of examples of relatively unathletic guys succeeding, then you're like "But how did Barkley and Rodman win rebounding titles"....because, mother****er, they were freak athletes :facepalm

Chuck Hayes was only a starter because of injury, and his only redeeming skills are D and getting the ball out of his own hands on offense :roll:


"DeAndre Jordan is only 6'9" waaaaaahhh" No, he came into the league almost 6'10" barefoot....but what's important is his 7'6" WINGSPAN (AKA freak status)


All of your examples of older players faced less competition at every level of basketball. Ball is now seen as a possible career at an early age for a lot of kids. More people in America play it, and the population in America has grown. It's gone from an American sport to one that's played all over the world. How could this NOT increase the quality of competition?

How a player looks on the court is relative to the players they face. I'm not saying stars of yesteryear couldn't play today, I'm just saying that they were big fish in a relatively smaller pond



Naw, that's just you. :roll:

1. FT shooting isn't a skill? In any case, with all these "advancements" in technology, training, coaching, supplements, analytics, etc...how come players today shoot FTs WORSE, than those of 55 years ago?

2. Best rebounders are often 6-10 and above, as well. Numerous examples, but what is your point? That the 6-9 and smaller players of today are better rebounders than anyone from previous era's? Care to explain Kevin Love then?

3. Barkley and Rodman were no more "freakin athletes" than Gus Johnson, Dr. J, Elgin Baylor, and so many others from previous eras. How come Barkley and Rodman were able to dominate in THEIR era's? Were Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, and Robinson less "freakish?"

4. So are saying that Chuck Hayes was basically worthless, then, right? No obvious basketball skills, nor exceptional athleticism, nor even average height for a center. Then, how did he START in the NBA just a COUPLE OF YEARS AGO????? How could a worthless POS be a STARTER in the CURRENT era? Where are the super star centers that we should have with the "world-wide population boom and explosion of talent?"And do you honestly believe he would be a better center than say, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Artis Gilmore, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Moses Malone, Kareem, and Chamberlain...all of whom were playing in the 70's...and over 40 years ago.

5. D Jordan has virtually ZERO offensive skills. NONE. How does a player like that not only make an NBA roster, but also be among the best centers in the league? Again...would you take DJ over ANY of the centers I just listed from the 70's. And give me your reasoning if you do.

6. How about this...compare Pete Maravich, who was playing college ball in the 60's...to Ricky Rubio. In your HONEST opinion, who was better?

7. Again...take ANY YEAR in NBA history...ANY one. And I will give you examples of players from the previous season, and who had been in the league for a number of years, who put up nearly identical numbers. Example...1979-80. Bird and Magic came into the league. The MVP? A player who had started in the league in 1969 (Kareem.) The leading rebounder...and this will surprise you...the 6-11 Swen Nater, who backed up Bill Walton at UCLA in the early 70's. BTW, Moses Malone finished 2nd, and Moses would continue to dominate that area throughout the 80's. The leading scorer? The Top-FIVE scorers all came from the 70's. Most all of them would be still be a force in the 80's. The leading FG% shooter? All top-5 came from the 70's, and again, they would be among the leaders for the first half of the decade of the 80's.

Again, pick ANY season. And I will show you the greats from not only that season, but the year before...being JUST as dominant. Why? Wouldn't these modern athletic marvels just overwhelm players who had been in the league for 10-15+ years?

Go ahead. Give me your explanations...

[Sarcastic]

if you told some track heads that a human being could possibly run 9.58s in 100m and 19.19s in 200m during carl lewis's era, they would had all told you to lay down the crack pipe.

then comes usain bolt.


Meanwhile Sotomayor's high jump record still holds from the same era, as does Powell's long jump record. Aside from Bolt, the 100m dashers are relatively the same as what Ben Johnson was doing with roids (most are on roids today as well).

[Rose'sACL]

Quality of life hasn't changed much in the past 30 years. Yea it's improved since the beginning of the 1900's, but not much since WWII.

Nutrition, training, and specialization has improved in the past 30 years, but not that much to make a huge distinction between a 1980s athlete and an athlete of today.
Participation in sports on a serious level has increased tremendously.
Less racism and more money = more people willing to spend all of their time to become a pro athlete.

[Sarcastic]

Participation in sports on a serious level has increased tremendously.
Less racism and more money = more people willing to spend all of their time to become a pro athlete.

Just makes for an increased rate of failure for most people as the size of leagues has not grown much. The top talent gets noticed at a young age most of the time.

The NBA has gotten more white in the past 20 years. Are you suggesting whites make the league more athletic?

[Rose'sACL]

Just makes for an increased rate of failure for most people as the size of leagues has not grown much. The top talent gets noticed at a young age most of the time.

The NBA has gotten more white in the past 20 years. Are you suggesting whites make the league more athletic?
I guess only stars and superstars make up the league then. Spurs last year proved how important more participation(bigger talent pool) is and here you are talking only about top tier talent.

[swagga]

Not really because that ties into it. That's why people would do such a thing as "sell their soul" at age ten and do whatever people tell them.

It also has arguably affected the product. Like dude posted life expectancy, but what about life quality?

Dudes want x vert or x ppg or a good crossover. So they can get paid, few are playing to win above all.

Or let's say business. The end goal of all business now is to make money. The product suffers. That the quality will improve in such a situation is a logical fallacy. Since advertising exists, maybe its too much of a leap for most people but I can compare that to juicing. It does help, and it helps certain guys a lot, but as a whole it stunts the product, something is missing along the line. It's like they did a study on bball and said ok we need this many dunks each game, this many posters per year, etc.

Kind of off topic, but the point is yes people are absolutely more raw athletic now. They are more dedicated but many with tunnel vision. They are selling us cheap thrills instead of bball so that athleticism is essential.

-Smak

:applause:
btw, this is exactly what showtime'80 is trying to say, he just couldn't point it out like this.

I'll do this for basketball but it's easy to translate to other team sports. IDGAF about random sports like jumping. There are always outliers and using outliers in averaging arguments (such as this one) is trolling... hear that jordan/wilt stans?

Changes (+ = better, -= worse)
because of technology:
(+) people can analyze every move, dunk, play, etc,
(+) people can see older players and throughly analyze their games and moves
(+) people can talk to/troll each other on message boards, where some might really know something.
(-) but reason is required to filter troll posts like cuckftw or lazaruss.
(+) technology is everywhere, on your tv/phone/pc/fridge -> kids that are 6 can analyze currys 3pt off the hop or cp3s passing.
(-) because tech is everywhere everybody sees harden's contact initiation skills
(+) we get to hear 98594389 analysts (-) we get to hear 98594389^3287832 trolls and idiots
(+) we get channels like bbalbreakdown
(+) analytics and their exposure, e.g. kobe is not quite that clutch, westbrook isn't so good based on team analytics, (-) PER as the be all end all.
(+) better nutrition
(+) better PEDs
(-) PEDs are tested => no more hardcore roiding
(+) good nutrition and training advice is easy to find
(+) better shoes

because of bigger market and pop growth:
(+) more people -> more chances for talented kids to exist kids
(+) more money in all basketball development -> more chances kids play
(+) players are marketed aggressively -> more chances kids play because it is cool
(-) the league is a product and the majority of players are more interested in their stats and brand than winning => team basketball isn't the norm unfortunately.
(-) low iq people learn to play like their idols -> rose/westbrook and other low iq players. a great decrease in the quality of amateur and pickup basketball imo, where teamwork >>> skills.
(-) media hype of low skill high athleticism players
(-) refs protect some players too much (since jordan tbh)
(+) scrub players have financial security

because of internationalisation:
(+) larger talent pool
(+) good moves from other sports (like soccer) got into basketball (eurostep, soccer screns used in the elevator play, etc)
(-) bad moves from other sports are becoming the norm (flopping)

because of rules changes
(+) 3pter and the space-and-pace game, team efficiency oriented basketball
(-) less centers develop an inside game
(+) less goon moves (olynyk , smith, etc are children compared to previous era) -> players are better protected
(+) defenses can switch/double/shade better
(+) bigs that don't develop the inside game learn instead perimeter skills, making switching on defense easier and providing spacing for the offense.


Conclusions:
1. on average players are much more skilled and trained today. They are also more athletic due to all technological progresses like nutrition, training, medicine and bigger market incentive (scrubs have financial security, money in kids basketball). They are also much more selfcentered with all the media on their *****.

2. Defenses are clearly superior. Offenses are better on well coached teams.

3. Coaches back then didn't have the resources of today's coaches (video analysis, analytics, analyzation of past eras). Today's pop/carlisle/stevens would absolutely destroy 90s Phil or 60s Auerbach.

4. Playing with todays rules, great modern teams (spurs, 09 lakers, 12 heat) would wreck the 80s because of superior coaching, better defensive mechanisms, usage of the 3ball and excellent movement. The difference in efficiency (O & D) would be too much for all but the most stacked teams. These teams are also much more tested by an increasingly number of diverse styles in league (better defensive, smallball, chuckerball and rebounding, motion offense). Teams at the top are better across all sports, because they are much more tested.

5. Outside the well coached teams (a few), the overall quality of the game is significantly lower than in the 80s because the players learned to play for stats and spotlight not to win.

6. Rule abusing (harden, kd) , monkeyballing (rose, westbrook) and stat watching (rondo, lebron) keep many players from playing better basketball.

[ralph_i_el]

1. FT shooting isn't a skill? In any case, with all these "advancements" in technology, training, coaching, supplements, analytics, etc...how come players today shoot FTs WORSE, than those of 55 years ago?

2. Best rebounders are often 6-10 and above, as well. Numerous examples, but what is your point? That the 6-9 and smaller players of today are better rebounders than anyone from previous era's? Care to explain Kevin Love then?

3. Barkley and Rodman were no more "freakin athletes" than Gus Johnson, Dr. J, Elgin Baylor, and so many others from previous eras. How come Barkley and Rodman were able to dominate in THEIR era's? Were Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, and Robinson less "freakish?"

4. So are saying that Chuck Hayes was basically worthless, then, right? No obvious basketball skills, nor exceptional athleticism, nor even average height for a center. Then, how did he START in the NBA just a COUPLE OF YEARS AGO????? How could a worthless POS be a STARTER in the CURRENT era? Where are the super star centers that we should have with the "world-wide population boom and explosion of talent?"And do you honestly believe he would be a better center than say, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Artis Gilmore, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Moses Malone, Kareem, and Chamberlain...all of whom were playing in the 70's...and over 40 years ago.

5. D Jordan has virtually ZERO offensive skills. NONE. How does a player like that not only make an NBA roster, but also be among the best centers in the league? Again...would you take DJ over ANY of the centers I just listed from the 70's. And give me your reasoning if you do.

6. How about this...compare Pete Maravich, who was playing college ball in the 60's...to Ricky Rubio. In your HONEST opinion, who was better?

7. Again...take ANY YEAR in NBA history...ANY one. And I will give you examples of players from the previous season, and who had been in the league for a number of years, who put up nearly identical numbers. Example...1979-80. Bird and Magic came into the league. The MVP? A player who had started in the league in 1969 (Kareem.) The leading rebounder...and this will surprise you...the 6-11 Swen Nater, who backed up Bill Walton at UCLA in the early 70's. BTW, Moses Malone finished 2nd, and Moses would continue to dominate that area throughout the 80's. The leading scorer? The Top-FIVE scorers all came from the 70's. Most all of them would be still be a force in the 80's. The leading FG% shooter? All top-5 came from the 70's, and again, they would be among the leaders for the first half of the decade of the 80's.

Again, pick ANY season. And I will show you the greats from not only that season, but the year before...being JUST as dominant. Why? Wouldn't these modern athletic marvels just overwhelm players who had been in the league for 10-15+ years?

Go ahead. Give me your explanations...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&type=advanced&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&birth_state=&college_id=&is_active=&debut_yr_nba_start=&debut_yr_nba_end=&debut_yr_aba_start=&debut_yr_aba_end=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&award=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct

^All seasons where players played 20+ mpg, sorted by TRB%. Check the heights on the top-30 seasons

Chuck Hayes started because 7'6" Yao was hurt

Why are we comparing Maravich to Rubio? That comparison was never smart, and Rubio is an average starter.


The whole "league leaders were players from the 70's" paragraph is easy to explain...why wouldn't they be leading the league in their primes?:wtf:

D. Jordan is a rebounder and defender. I don't understand what you're getting at? He has freak athleticism and length. All he does on offense is finish plays. He's not an all-star player even :wtf: He shoots 70% because every shot he takes is a dunk or hook within 5 ft

You act like I'm saying that all the sudden in the late 80's a ton of freaks just dropped into the league. Basketball's player base increased gradually over the years, so obviously the effects of such would be gradual as well.

At no point am I saying that every player today is better than every player from early eras. You want me to make that argument so you can disregard all of my logical points. No ****ing duh Bob Macadoo and Nate Thurmond are better than Chuck Hayes :facepalm

Where are the super star centers? Keep in mind that we have a 5-second back to the basket rule that was put in place to curb these star centers of past eras, plus defenses are freer to play zone. The designation of "center" has changed to describe defensive big men, whereas many offensive bigs are now considered 4's instead of 5's. We have Cousins, AD, LMA, Dwight, Love, BG, TD (big man who always makes the right play is a star in any era), the Gasol bros, Al Horford, and a whole host of athletic freaks who are on the court to defend the paint and get rebounds. Past the stars, we have a ton of depth at big man. Guys like Gortat, Bosh, Al Jefferson, Nik Vuc, Drummond, Chandler, Greg Monroe, Derrick Favors....and I'm taking these guys from ONE season, while you have the luxury of picking guys who were good in different years for your examples.

a tiny decrease in FT efficiency is nothing to base an argument on. If anything, that's because these days guys who can't shoot ft's get hacked and sent to the line way more.

[CavaliersFTW]

When 2/5 all time baseball goats are black, how can you really compare players who didn't have to compete with blacks or (for the most part)Hispanic players?

If there are many more basketball players, there will be many more quality basketball players. That means less shitty players will make the league, and the average player will be better. How can you argue against that?

You really want to tell me that now that the game is global, with a much larger population base, more money involved, and more serious ball for kids....the average player will be WORSE?

Pure delusion.

I watch all those classic NBA games on nbatv....and these are supposed to be the BEST games from those eras....and the level of play is noticeably lower in my eyes.
Baseball today is closer to "pre-integration" numbers of blacks than it was in the 1980's. At one time the league was 20-22% black, now it's 8 or 9% black and sharply declining. In recent years we've had world series where not a single black player was on either team.

By your logic this era should be discounted too I guess.

Prior to the 1980's the NBA games played on NBAtv are a completely random lucky dozen or so examples that survived being wiped from broadcast studio's. You're not looking at the best games.

You've got a very disrespectful point of view towards history, and a questionable understanding of sports if you can't appreciate athletes/athletics of different eras and identify that they had different rules and styles, but still visibly great competition. Take note of MLB pre-integration and take note black professional leagues existed back then and learn the history of those players too, don't be dismissive and act holier-than-thou that makes you look like a piece of shit. The biological template that makes up great athletes, timing/size/strength/coordination, is very much the same as it was even 3,000 years ago let alone 30 or 40 years ago. Population is higher so you can say "ah yes, more to choose from!" true. But leagues are expanding and sports are expanding and taking away athletes that have opportunities to play other sports just as much. The population pool has doubled from the 1960's for example, but the league has tripled in size. And there are more opportunities for athletes to play other sports, or play basketball overseas, etc.

You can't stick to your justification of being dismissive, just spend 30 seconds trying to challenge it and find reasons why it doesn't make sense and you quickly find it isn't solid. You should appreciate and be able to admire athletics from all generations.

[sd3035]

Baseball today is closer to "pre-integration" numbers of blacks than it was in the 1980's. At one time the league was 20-22% black, now it's 8 or 9% black and sharply declining. In recent years we've had world series where not a single black player was on either team.

By your logic this era should be discounted too I guess.

Prior to the 1980's the NBA games played on NBAtv are a completely random lucky dozen or so examples that survived being wiped from broadcast studio's. You're not looking at the best games.

You've got a very disrespectful point of view towards history, and a questionable understanding of sports if you can't appreciate athletes/athletics of different eras and identify that they had different rules and styles, but still visibly great competition. Take note of MLB pre-integration and take note black professional leagues existed back then and learn the history of those players too, don't be dismissive and act holier-than-thou that makes you look like a piece of shit. The biological template that makes up great athletes, timing/size/strength/coordination, is very much the same as it was even 3,000 years ago let alone 30 or 40 years ago. Population is higher so you can say "ah yes, more to choose from!" true. But leagues are expanding and sports are expanding and taking away athletes that have opportunities to play other sports just as much. The population pool has doubled from the 1960's for example, but the league has tripled in size. And there are more opportunities for athletes to play other sports, or play basketball overseas, etc.

You can't stick to your justification of being dismissive, just spend 30 seconds trying to challenge it and find reasons why it doesn't make sense and you quickly find it isn't solid. You should appreciate and be able to admire athletics from all generations.

https://i.imgur.com/vkUmUwB.gif

[CavaliersFTW]

https://i.imgur.com/vkUmUwB.gif
http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEyLzA0LzI1LzA5XzI2XzI4XzkxMV9maWxlCnAJdGh1bW IJODUweDg1MD4KZQlqcGc/96afaf83.jpg

[ralph_i_el]

Baseball today is closer to "pre-integration" numbers of blacks than it was in the 1980's. At one time the league was 20-22% black, now it's 8 or 9% black and sharply declining. In recent years we've had world series where not a single black player was on either team.


They're all to busy making basketball better than it was in previous eras:roll:

I'm not saying that blacks are any better at baseball, I'm just saying that not allowing a significant portion of possible players to even play creates a league in which everyone who IS allowed to play looks marginally better.

And having a league with way more people to choose from makes everyone look marginally worse.

Don't act like I don't appreciate players from other eras. You can go look back and find what I've said about Wilt/Bird and other guys when folks on here talk about how they wouldn't be stars today. Obviously Wilt would be a star. I just don't think he'd score more than 30ppg or get more that 14-15 RPG at his peak. Obviously Bird would be a star...etc etc....

I'm just saying that these guys wouldn't dominate to the level they did in their own era.

[SpanishACB]

Whats this based on? Since when does the human race evolve so rapidly so fast? The only thing that changes since the 60s is perimeter play and junpshooting bigs. The other differences is made by rule changes, pace etc.... Kareem,Wilt,Rodman, etc.... would all still dominate today.

100 years ago a 40 year old was an old man ready to die

better life quality, better food regimes, better trainning techniques, better medical and most importantly, more information.

we don't evolve as fast, those things do

and whilst we will never know since there's just too many factors, those people you mention would most likely dominate just as well under today's better techniques

[Sarcastic]

They're all to busy making basketball better than it was in previous eras:roll:

I'm not saying that blacks are any better at baseball, I'm just saying that not allowing a significant portion of possible players to even play creates a league in which everyone who IS allowed to play looks marginally better.

And having a league with way more people to choose from makes everyone look marginally worse.

Don't act like I don't appreciate players from other eras. You can go look back and find what I've said about Wilt/Bird and other guys when folks on here talk about how they wouldn't be stars today. Obviously Wilt would be a star. I just don't think he'd score more than 30ppg or get more that 14-15 RPG at his peak. Obviously Bird would be a star...etc etc....

I'm just saying that these guys wouldn't dominate to the level they did in their own era.

NBA is more white/Euro than it's ever been in the last 50 years :roll:


Try again to pull more crap out of your ass.

[ralph_i_el]

NBA is more white/Euro than it's ever been in the last 50 years :roll:


Try again to pull more crap out of your ass.

:wtf: and?
when I said "They're all too busy making basketball better than it was in previous eras" I was being sarcastic....something I'd assume you understand...


but yeah, we have lots of Euro players....who come from countries that barely even played basketball 40-50 years ago....demonstrating the impact of an increased player base. If basketball hadn't gained popularity in those countries, those players roster spots would be held by less talented players instead....

[kshutts1]

One factor that people seem to be overlooking is the specialization of the players in the league.

I feel like, and I could be way wrong so someone with more historical knowledge than I have please correct, that the players today are less well-rounded, but better at their strengths.

Lazerus, I think, "picked on" Deandre as being one of the best centers in this era and asking if others wouldn't be better...
Deandre Jordan fills his particular role of shot blocker, rebounder, and alley-oop man better than all but maybe 5 or 10 players in the history of the league could have. I've got Robinson, Wilt, Russell as definites.

Guards and forwards of "yesteryear" were asked to do more different things. Now we have people whose sole job is to shoot (Korver), rebound/d (Jordan), create for others (Rubio, Rondo), etc.

More specialization yields different players. In my opinion, it breeds chemistry IF the right fits can be found.

[ralph_i_el]

One factor that people seem to be overlooking is the specialization of the players in the league.

I feel like, and I could be way wrong so someone with more historical knowledge than I have please correct, that the players today are less well-rounded, but better at their strengths.

Lazerus, I think, "picked on" Deandre as being one of the best centers in this era and asking if others wouldn't be better...
Deandre Jordan fills his particular role of shot blocker, rebounder, and alley-oop man better than all but maybe 5 or 10 players in the history of the league could have. I've got Robinson, Wilt, Russell as definites.

Guards and forwards of "yesteryear" were asked to do more different things. Now we have people whose sole job is to shoot (Korver), rebound/d (Jordan), create for others (Rubio, Rondo), etc.

More specialization yields different players. In my opinion, it breeds chemistry IF the right fits can be found.

I agree with this^ as the game has become a big business, business ideas have influenced team construction and player development. I could see how that could lead to some players be less well-rounded.

[Dr.J4ever]

Ralph I-e wiping the floor :applause:

Don't think there's any doubt athletes, in general, are better today, but we can all acknowledge too that basketball, baseball, or football isn't entirely about athleticism either.

There are legends in every era that stand out, and no one should disrespect them.

The games today stand on their shoulders. Maybe we can all agree on that.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Whats this based on? Since when does the human race evolve so rapidly so fast? The only thing that changes since the 60s is perimeter play and junpshooting bigs. The other differences is made by rule changes, pace etc.... Kareem,Wilt,Rodman, etc.... would all still dominate today.


The NBA bigs and pfs today have no back to the basket post up game whatsoever.

[FKAri]

LAZERUSS and CavaliersFTW getting bodied.

The game is played at a higher level than ever before. How can one argue against this unless you pulled the short straw in a debate class.

[LAZERUSS]

:wtf: and?
when I said "They're all too busy making basketball better than it was in previous eras" I was being sarcastic....something I'd assume you understand...


but yeah, we have lots of Euro players....who come from countries that barely even played basketball 40-50 years ago....demonstrating the impact of an increased player base. If basketball hadn't gained popularity in those countries, those players roster spots would be held by less talented players instead....

Aside from a fragile Yao, how many players has the world's largest populated country given the NBA?

I believe India just provided the NBA with a 7-5 bust who played one game.

True, the rest of the world has given us Dirk, Nash, and a handful of other truly great players, and another handful of second tier players like the Gasols, Manu, and a few others. And even Duncan and Hakeem had their games developed in the U.S.

But, the REALITY is...these "Euros" that take up roster slots could easily be replaced by American talent. Most of them are average players at best.

Furthermore, while the world has many more "average" players than those of previous eras, they are nothing more than average. AND, the "average" players of previous eras would be just as "average" today.

Maybe 40-50 years from now that will change. But let's not over-rate the TRUE impact. Where are the MJ's, the Shaq's, and the Magic's? Shouldn't this world-wide population explosion be flooding NBA rosters with 7-5 wing players with 45" verticals, and 7-0 "Magics" running the point?

[MiseryCityTexas]

^^^^Hakeem is a foreigner, but he repped his United States citizenship hardcore playing for Team USA (aka so-called Dream Team 3).

[Euroleague]

White and black Americans are getting taller. The genetic makeup of the country is changing as more Hispanic/Asian/Arabs come to the country.

Except that they are not. Stop lying. They are getting shorter. And the only things claiming they are getting taller are made up fake propaganda.

Every single actual scientific study says they are getting shorter, due to poor nutrition caused by much lower standards of living.

[funnystuff]

Agreed technology and health has gone up. Most of the swimming records were broken because of science. Humans are not more athletic today.
Yes, they are.

[juju151111]

100 years ago a 40 year old was an old man ready to die

better life quality, better food regimes, better trainning techniques, better medical and most importantly, more information.

we don't evolve as fast, those things do

and whilst we will never know since there's just too many factors, those people you mention would most likely dominate just as well under today's better techniques
I agree with the better health. Lmao at players like Wilt,Hakeem, and Rodman not dominating.
Kareem played against Wilt in early 70s and Wilt more then held his own has a broken down way past his prime man. Kareem did the same thing to Hakeem has a broken down old man. Hakeem did it to Shaq and Shaw destroyed the super athletic New era Dwight Howard. Better techniques:lol :roll: Prime Hakeem is better then every center in the league today.

[Euroleague]

Aside from a fragile Yao, how many players has the world's largest populated country given the NBA?

I believe India just provided the NBA with a 7-5 bust who played one game.

True, the rest of the world has given us Dirk, Nash, and a handful of other truly great players, and another handful of second tier players like the Gasols, Manu, and a few others. And even Duncan and Hakeem had their games developed in the U.S.

But, the REALITY is...these "Euros" that take up roster slots could easily be replaced by American talent. Most of them are average players at best.

Furthermore, while the world has many more "average" players than those of previous eras, they are nothing more than average. AND, the "average" players of previous eras would be just as "average" today.

Maybe 40-50 years from now that will change. But let's not over-rate the TRUE impact. Where are the MJ's, the Shaq's, and the Magic's? Shouldn't this world-wide population explosion be flooding NBA rosters with 7-5 wing players with 45" verticals, and 7-0 "Magics" running the point?

And there are 500+ players in Europe, comprised of Europeans, Americans, and players from elsewhere who could easily replace the players in the NBA with no problem. If it was not for the fact that people in the USA were such morons and believed that NBA marketing was true.

People like you are retarded. The NBA is no better than the Euroleague, and in fact, the NBA only has about 1-2 good teams in any given year, and the best teams in Europe would destroy most NBA teams easily.

But people like you are so easily blinded by NBA gimmick marketing that you can't even figure that out.

People like you really are beyond freaking dumb as hell.

Just STFU already.

[ShawkFactory]

And there are 500+ players in Europe, comprised of Europeans, Americans, and players from elsewhere who could easily replace the players in the NBA with no problem. If it was not for the fact that people in the USA were such morons and believed that NBA marketing was true.

People like you are retarded. The NBA is no better than the Euroleague, and in fact, the NBA only has about 1-2 good teams in any given year, and the best teams in Europe would destroy most NBA teams easily.

But people like you are so easily blinded by NBA gimmick marketing that you can't even figure that out.

People like you really are beyond freaking dumb as hell.

Just STFU already.
I'm almost embarrassed that there was a point in time where I couldn't tell if you were trolling or not :lol

[LAZERUSS]

And there are 500+ players in Europe, comprised of Europeans, Americans, and players from elsewhere who could easily replace the players in the NBA with no problem. If it was not for the fact that people in the USA were such morons and believed that NBA marketing was true.

People like you are retarded. The NBA is no better than the Euroleague, and in fact, the NBA only has about 1-2 good teams in any given year, and the best teams in Europe would destroy most NBA teams easily.

But people like you are so easily blinded by NBA gimmick marketing that you can't even figure that out.

People like you really are beyond freaking dumb as hell.

Just STFU already.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Give me a list of your "Euros" that would be stars in today's NBA.

[ralph_i_el]

Aside from a fragile Yao, how many players has the world's largest populated country given the NBA?

I believe India just provided the NBA with a 7-5 bust who played one game.

True, the rest of the world has given us Dirk, Nash, and a handful of other truly great players, and another handful of second tier players like the Gasols, Manu, and a few others. And even Duncan and Hakeem had their games developed in the U.S.

But, the REALITY is...these "Euros" that take up roster slots could easily be replaced by American talent. Most of them are average players at best.

Furthermore, while the world has many more "average" players than those of previous eras, they are nothing more than average. AND, the "average" players of previous eras would be just as "average" today.

Maybe 40-50 years from now that will change. But let's not over-rate the TRUE impact. Where are the MJ's, the Shaq's, and the Magic's? Shouldn't this world-wide population explosion be flooding NBA rosters with 7-5 wing players with 45" verticals, and 7-0 "Magics" running the point?


Because the average Indian and Chinese man is like 5'5" compared to ~5'10" for american and euro whites and blacks. They may have a lot of people, but very few fall into the NBA height range.

[LemonMan]

Why don't you guys ask the important questions and compare any modern team in the post-handcheck era, to Chicago in their prime, Lakers in their prime, Detroit Knicks etc. Can you guys come up with a modern team that would outclass the old teams in their era and in this new one

[LemonMan]

And there are 500+ players in Europe, comprised of Europeans, Americans, and players from elsewhere who could easily replace the players in the NBA with no problem. If it was not for the fact that people in the USA were such morons and believed that NBA marketing was true.

People like you are retarded. The NBA is no better than the Euroleague, and in fact, the NBA only has about 1-2 good teams in any given year, and the best teams in Europe would destroy most NBA teams easily.

But people like you are so easily blinded by NBA gimmick marketing that you can't even figure that out.

People like you really are beyond freaking dumb as hell.

Just STFU already.
:eek: I really don't understand what logic you use and how you come to your conclusions. The scary part is, you've maintained this stance for years now and still don't get it. NBA>Euro

[oarabbus]

The old era was better!!!!! Carl Lewis >>>> Usain Bolt!!!!!

[LAZERUSS]

And there are 500+ players in Europe, comprised of Europeans, Americans, and players from elsewhere who could easily replace the players in the NBA with no problem. If it was not for the fact that people in the USA were such morons and believed that NBA marketing was true.

People like you are retarded. The NBA is no better than the Euroleague, and in fact, the NBA only has about 1-2 good teams in any given year, and the best teams in Europe would destroy most NBA teams easily.

But people like you are so easily blinded by NBA gimmick marketing that you can't even figure that out.

People like you really are beyond freaking dumb as hell.

Just STFU already.

Now, here is YOUR list of these so-called "greats" in Europe...


Originally Posted by Euroleague

http://www.euroleague.net/news/i/5xtj7vjfuokfw7g8


2014-2015 All-Euroleague First Team

Vassilis Spanoulis - 7th selection (most in history)
Milos Teodosic - 4th selection
Nemanja Bjelica - 1st selection
Felipe Reyes - 1st selection
Boban Marjanovic - 1st selection

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


2014-2015 All-Euroleague Second Team

Nando de Colo - 1st selection
Andrew Goudelock - 1st selection
Rudy Fernandez - 3rd selection
Devin Smith - 1st selection
Ante Tomic - 3rd selection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTrzF6Vel_E


Of course, the players that the NBA general managers named as "the best players in Europe", in the NBA GM survey, Dario Saric and Mario Hezonja, are nowhere to be found on the list. As basically happens every single year when the NBA GMs name their "best players in Europe" absurd and ridiculous joke list.

Just a quick glance...and I see Spanoulis' name on the list.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The man was a complete bust in his brief appearance in the NBA.

[ralph_i_el]

I actually agree with Euroleague, to a degree. Plenty of guys are only in the NBA because of potential, or are end of the bench scrubs. Plenty of guys in Europe RIGHT NOW could replace NBA players and have as much or more impact. Not 500....because that's every player and he's just obviously trolling.