60s Dream Team vs 2010s

[Marchesk]

Playing 60s rules, which means no 3pt line, crowded interior, dribbling rule enforced as specified in rule book, travelling enforced, higher pace.

Who wins? Oh and modern dream team has no time to adjust. They're thrown into a best of 7.

Motivation: Half of Real GM thinks the 67 all-star team would get destroyed by 2015 all-star team playing modern rules with 3pt line. No adjustment period allowed. And I have to wait 60 days to post after registering.

What I'd love to see is Hondo running James into the ground, and Russell doing the same for any modern era big.

[Fire Colangelo]

I would love to see Curry run circles.... literally around Bob Cousy.

[AnaheimLakers24]

60s would get laughed off the court

[Marchesk]

I would love to see Curry run circles.... literally around Bob Cousy.

Cousy can come in when Oscar and West need a spell. It's shameful to think what Oscar would do to Curry in the post.

http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/oscar-robertson-cincinnati.jpg

[ClipperRevival]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/allstar/NBA_1967.html

I am not going to give an opinion on this thread but the 1967 All Star roster was simply insane. Tons of true all time greats.

[senelcoolidge]

With 60's legit basketball rules the 2010 players would turn the ball every time..they would need time to adjust. The lack of fundamentals would hurt them badly inside. I'm not sure who would be on the 60's team..am assuming

Oscar
West
Baylor
Pettit
Wilt

Hondo
Cousy
Thurmond
Russell
Jerry Lucas
Hal Greer

That team would beat anyone especially with real basketball rules : 60's rules. Lebron travels all the time and can't play off the ball like a real SF. No 3pt'ers..so mid range jumpers would be tough for modern players. The 60's team is superior inside in all regards.

[swagga]

lol these people are killing me, 60s rules :lol

10s would beat them WITHOUT dribbling the ball. that's how big the shooting difference is.
You run a team with lebron '12/durant '13/curry '15/cp3/davis'15/howard and they'll bury that team with shooting, coming off screens. No dribbles taken at all.

They'll straight up outscore the 60s team, no matter what they do. The 10s team shots the 3 at a better rate than the 60s team shoots layups.

Y'all nigggas trippin in this thread :roll:

[Dbrog]

lol these people are killing me, 60s rules :lol

10s would beat them WITHOUT dribbling the ball. that's how big the shooting difference is.
You run a team with lebron '12/durant '13/curry '15/cp3/davis'15/howard and they'll bury that team with shooting, coming off screens. No dribbles taken at all.

They'll straight up outscore the 60s team, no matter what they do. The 10s team shots the 3 at a better rate than the 60s team shoots layups.

Y'all nigggas trippin in this thread :roll:

I don't think this is true since shooting 3s with 60s rules will only get you 2 pts.

'67 allstars (best of) vs 2015? 60s wins easily man. Realize all the contact that was allowed back then too. Harden (among others) would be flopping all over the place and Dwight would be getting knocked on his ass by Thurmond with no whistle. 2015 allstars would literally be in tears!

Oscar/West
Barry/Hondo
Baylor/Debusschere
Thurmond/Reed (or Lucas for that matter)
Russell/Wilt

Come on....

[swagga]

I don't think this is true since shooting 3s with 60s rules will only get you 2 pts.

'67 allstars (best of) vs 2015? 60s wins easily man. Realize all the contact that was allowed back then too. Harden (among others) would be flopping all over the place and Dwight would be getting knocked on his ass by Thurmond with no whistle. 2015 allstars would literally be in tears!

Oscar/West
Barry/Hondo
Baylor/Debusschere
Thurmond/Reed (or Lucas for that matter)
Russell/Wilt

Come on....

basketball without a 3p shot is hot garbage tbh. All this shit about people being knocked on their ass should just tell you that you have no skill/athletic/tactical related argument, and in a game of basketball skill/athleticism/tactics wins. This ain't the UFC so gtfo with all the goonery, being overly physical just means you admit you're an inferior player.

if you take it no 3p shot and physical game you'd probably roll with a:
lebron PG
durant SG
melo SF
Ibaka PF
howard C

which is as physical as it gets tbh. They'd just bomb from deep and defend with crazy length. They got enough size to rebound equally. Easy win, no dribbling.

[senelcoolidge]

basketball without a 3p shot is hot garbage tbh. All this shit about people being knocked on their ass should just tell you that you have no skill/athletic/tactical related argument, and in a game of basketball skill/athleticism/tactics wins. This ain't the UFC so gtfo with all the goonery, being overly physical just means you admit you're an inferior player.

if you take it no 3p shot and physical game you'd probably roll with a:
lebron PG
durant SG
melo SF
Ibaka PF
howard C

which is as physical as it gets tbh. They'd just bomb from 3 and defend with crazy length. They got enough size to rebound equally. Easy win, no dribbling.

There are no 3's do you get that. So you would take long 2's sure go ahead. While the other team get's 2's closer to the basket which which is more efficient. They were also used to shooting mid range jumpers not long distance 3's so the mid range shot would not be an issue with them. Even the big men like Wilt, Thurmond, had mid range shots. Lucas had 3pt range. No flopping, that's something today's players would have to adjust to as well. Flopping is a no call or even a technical. You have to dribble with your hand on top of the ball, no palming the ball, that's a quick turnover. You can't tell me that Thurmond, Russell, Wilt, Oscar and others could not match today's players athleticism. As soft as today's players are they would not like the physical style of the 60's.

[Dbrog]

which is as physical as it gets tbh. They'd just bomb from 3 and defend with crazy length. They got enough size to rebound equally. Easy win, no dribbling.

I agree the game now is about tactics and finesse. Back then, it was a battle of wills! Even so, the team you listed above (without the 3) would get beasted on. Bron would definitely get stripped by West (some of fastest hands ever by all accounts) and probably would have a difficult time posting Oscar (since we know Bron's post skills :oldlol: ). Durant would dominate Barry, then again, Barry would dominate Durant. Similar players tbh in terms of ease of scoring. Melo and Baylor would be an interesting matchup. Baylor is basically 60s bron so I'm guessing the match would go as such.

Then however you have the bigs...the paint. Ibaka is raped. I don't know what else to say. Raped. Dwight would be able to grab some boards but we already know how he gets when frustrated (hooray fouling out!). He gets dominated by Russ and Wilt and likely has to sit very early which opens an even bigger hole in the pain. I honestly don't see a possible way the 2015s could win. Btw, I find it funny you think these 60s players were so unskilled. They had significantly better fundamentals than today and we've seen how that manifests (Duncan/Love)

Edit: If you really think no dribbling would happen, how do you explain Jerry West still doing well vs Frazier? Frazier is a much better perimeter defender than anyone you listed.

[Stu Jackson]

60s is going too far back second half of 70s to today you can get good matches

basketball was still a game for sissies in the 60s everyone liked boxing hockey and baseball

a lot of careers were probably wasted because of low pays and exposure and i bet a lot of top talent never made it into the league because of it

[Dbrog]

60s is going too far back second half of 70s to today you can get good matches

basketball was still a game for sissies in the 60s everyone liked boxing hockey and baseball

a lot of careers were probably wasted because of low pays and exposure and i bet a lot of top talent never made it into the league because of it

You do realize a late 70s allstar team would be significantly worse right? Have you studied anything about that era?

[Stu Jackson]

You do realize a late 70s allstar team would be significantly worse right? Have you studied anything about that era?
i was a kid then and saw it happen the talent was definitely better

top stars look better when the rank & file are worse

not only would the depth on a 60s dream team suffer but the top 60s guys arent as good as they looked because they stood out so far above the rank & file

[ClipperRevival]

60s is going too far back second half of 70s to today you can get good matches

basketball was still a game for sissies in the 60s everyone liked boxing hockey and baseball

a lot of careers were probably wasted because of low pays and exposure and i bet a lot of top talent never made it into the league because of it

Greatness is greatness. You can't choose what era you are born in. The 60's had some seriously great superstars. I agree the talent pool was pretty weak but still, there were some great superstars.

[Stu Jackson]

Greatness is greatness. You can't choose what era you are born in. The 60's had some seriously great superstars. I agree the talent pool was pretty weak but still, there were some great superstars.
you cant help it but you cant deny the superstars looked better because the mid levels stars and rank & file were playing other sports

if you watch games on espn classic you can see flashes from the top players but without competition from the second and third tiers the true superstars suffer for it

[Psileas]

i was a kid then and saw it happen the talent was definitely better

top stars look better when the rank & file are worse

not only would the depth on a 60s dream team suffer but the top 60s guys arent as good as they looked because they stood out so far above the rank & file

What exact part of a 60's Dream Team is going to suffer compared to a 75-79 Team?

[Stu Jackson]

What exact part of a 60's Dream Team is going to suffer compared to a 75-79 Team?
the bench if you put a starting 5 of wilt chamberlain bill russell elgin baylor oscar robertson jerry west that will be good enough to play with anybody. after that the 70s will catch up with gervins and bobby joneses and lucases and wilkeses who will fill out spots 6-12 on the roster

when a dream team played in the olympics stars dont get 40 minutes not because they cant play those minutes but because thats not how you play a fiba game

also the legend of the 60s players is partly due to looking better than the rank & file there was no second or third tier that could compete with the nba after the merger

[ClipperRevival]

you cant help it but you cant deny the superstars looked better because the mid levels stars and rank & file were playing other sports

if you watch games on espn classic you can see flashes from the top players but without competition from the second and third tiers the true superstars suffer for it

Yes, as I stated before, the talent pool was weak. And the game was still learning to crawl during that era, so the game wasn't as advanced. But like I said, you can't help when you are born. Greatness is greatness. And the 60's had some serious all time great talent.

[Psileas]

the bench if you put a starting 5 of wilt chamberlain bill russell elgin baylor oscar robertson jerry west that will be good enough to play with anybody. after that the 70s will catch up with gervins and bobby joneses and lucases and wilkeses who will fill out spots 6-12 on the roster

when a dream team played in the olympics stars dont get 40 minutes not because they cant play those minutes but because thats not how you play a fiba game

also the legend of the 60s players is partly due to looking better than the rank & file there was no second or third tier that could compete with the nba after the merger

No, they really aren't: First of all, my 60's starting 5 may have only 1 center, with either Wilt or Russell coming off the bench: So, Wilt and Russell may split time playing at their natural positions instead of having Russell play as a PF: Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, Wilt/Russell and then Frazier, S.Jones, Barry, Lucas, Russell/Wilt, Thurmond off the bench provide competition for a battle till the end.

70's had clearly more teams than the 60's, so having less 2nd and 3rd tier competition doesn't really mean much here. Not many 60's players were exactly random bench fillers, which is why most of them had normal length of careers instead of short bursts and quick fades. Lots of seemingly "random" bench players of the 60's would go on in the 70's with no trouble at all.

[Stu Jackson]

No, they really aren't: First of all, my 60's starting 5 may have only 1 center, with either Wilt or Russell coming off the bench: So, Wilt and Russell may split time playing at their natural positions instead of having Russell play as a PF: Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, Wilt/Russell and then Frazier, S.Jones, Barry, Lucas, Russell/Wilt off the bench provide competition for a battle till the end.

70's had clearly more teams than the 60's, so having less 2nd and 3rd tier competition doesn't really mean much here. Not many 60's players were exactly random bench fillers, which is why most of them had normal length of careers instead of short bursts and quick fades. Lots of seemingly "random" bench players of the 60's would go on in the 70's with no trouble at all.
but i said before our perceptions of how good the top guys were are inflated by playing weaker second and third tier stars

pettit and frazier werent in their primes at the same time and might not have been in the league at the same time. pettit also was not a natural athlete and picked up the game in high school and changed his position in the pros

you mention bench players but having two leagues meant there were more spots and weaker competition

those havlicek cowens celtics teams won so many games because talent was spread out

the pistol
dj

gervin
skywalker

dr j
bobby jones
wilkes

elvin hayes
maurice lucas

jabbar
bill walton
moses

that is a deep team

[Dbrog]

i was a kid then and saw it happen the talent was definitely better

top stars look better when the rank & file are worse

not only would the depth on a 60s dream team suffer but the top 60s guys arent as good as they looked because they stood out so far above the rank & file

With all due respect, you seem to either have a hazy memory or are just lying. 70s had the expansion of the league and thus easier matchups for the stars more consistently. There were only 12 teams in the league in '67 as opposed to the 22 in '77. You weren't facing top 15 players every night in the 70s. This is the reason depth didn't matter as much in the 60s and DEFINITELY doesn't matter if you have a '67 allstar team. I listed the depth chart and there literally are no depth issues. Combine this with the fact that they were used to playing abnormally large minutes per game (compared to now) and in shitty conditions. These dudes weren't standing out against "rank and file," they were standing out against stars.

[swagga]

do you people actually PLAY basketball? you do realize that a 60s team is extremely uncomfortable defending long shots? long shots which if left open are drilled by guys like durant/12 lebron/ curry/etc at a ridiculous rate.

On the other hand basketball is still physical these days, it's not goonish anymore but still physical.

Imo you people need to get out more and play the damn game. With any set of rules the 10s win. Lmao wilt reliable jumper, fcking dwight howard is more reliable at the ft line, y'all people living in another universe tbh :biggums:

[Dbrog]

do you people actually PLAY basketball? you do realize that a 60s team is extremely uncomfortable defending long shots? long shots which if left open are drilled by guys like durant/12 lebron/ curry/etc at a ridiculous rate.

On the other hand basketball is still physical these days, it's not goonish anymore but still physical.

Imo you people need to get out more and play the damn game. With any set of rules the 10s win. Lmao wilt reliable jumper, fcking dwight howard is more reliable at the ft line, y'all people living in another universe tbh :biggums:

One of Wilt's trademark shots was a fadaway from the post :facepalm
lol @ implying West and Barry can't shoot at the level of players today. Oscar too (just from midrange...think prime Wade)

[Stu Jackson]

With all due respect, you seem to either have a hazy memory or are just lying. 70s had the expansion of the league and thus easier matchups for the stars more consistently. There were only 12 teams in the league in '67 as opposed to the 22 in '77. You weren't facing top 15 players every night in the 70s. This is the reason depth didn't matter as much in the 60s and DEFINITELY doesn't matter if you have a '67 allstar team. I listed the depth chart and there literally are no depth issues. Combine this with the fact that they were used to playing abnormally large minutes per game (compared to now) and in shitty conditions. These dudes weren't standing out against "rank and file," they were standing out against stars.
basketball wasnt a top 3 sport in the 60s when the playground legends of hawkins and pearl and even baylor and robertson came earlier it inspired kids

nobody cared in the 60s about basketball on a pro level and i mean nobody

you said 1967 but i guarantee by the time of the merger there were significantly more african american players

[Psileas]

but i said before our perceptions of how good the top guys were are inflated by playing weaker second and third tier stars

pettit and frazier werent in their primes at the same time and might not have been in the league at the same time. pettit also was not a natural athlete and picked up the game in high school and changed his position in the pros

you mention bench players but having two leagues meant there were more spots and weaker competition

those havlicek cowens celtics teams won so many games because talent was spread out

the pistol
dj

gervin
skywalker

dr j
bobby jones
wilkes

elvin hayes
maurice lucas

jabbar
bill walton
moses

that is a deep team

These guys were looking good even when playing against each other. Wilt was scoring big vs anyone. Oscar had volumous triple doubles vs the best guards of his era, Thurmond was giving everyone fits defensively, including the 70's greatest player, etc.
Concerning Frazier, the title was "60s Dream Team vs 10s", so I suppose I can pick any 60's player I want at any 60's condition I want. 1969 Frazier is already pretty good, although you may argue Wilkens, who was at his peak in the late 60's. Btw, I forgot to mention Havlicek before, he was also entering his prime in the late 60's.
Pettit was deemed weak and unathletic for his own era, as well, when he entered the league. I view him as a player who dominated by using his brain a lot, so I don't worry too much about his lack of athleticism.

[Dbrog]

basketball wasnt a top 3 sport in the 60s when the playground legends of hawkins and pearl and even baylor and robertson came earlier it inspired kids

nobody cared in the 60s about basketball on a pro level and i mean nobody

you said 1967 but i guarantee by the time of the merger there were significantly more african american players

Yes because you have to be black to be a star in the NBA :rolleyes:

Again, you like to ignore my point of 60s players facing top15 players every single night (or even GOAT candidates!) and still shining. Psileas has now brought up this point as well.

You simply had easier matchups more often in the 70s. I'm not sure how this is disputable.

[Stu Jackson]

Yes because you have to be black to be a star in the NBA :rolleyes:

Again, you like to ignore my point of 60s players facing top15 players every single night (or even GOAT candidates!) and still shining. Psileas has now brought up this point as well.

You simply had easier matchups more often in the 70s. I'm not sure how this is disputable.
you dont have to be african american but until there are enough in the league that in years after there arent noticeably more its a factor

facing top 15 players mean nothing if the second and third tiers are not there, it means aside from the other 3-4 superstars in a year you are constantly going against rank & file

[Euroleague]

I'd rather see a team from mid 80s to late 80s.

[Dbrog]

you dont have to be african american but until there are enough in the league that in years after there arent noticeably more its a factor

facing top 15 players mean nothing if the second and third tiers are not there, it means aside from the other 3-4 superstars in a year you are constantly going against rank & file

It actually does. I already discussed this in previous posts (see post #22)

[Stu Jackson]

It actually does. I already discussed this in previous posts (see post #22)
you dont seem to understand

after the superstars, which are a wash comparing players 5-15 maybe even 5-30 would go to the merged league nba of the late 70s

watch some of the games they played great ball then

the rank & file arent as good as the rest of the all stars from 10 years later

[Dbrog]

you dont seem to understand

after the superstars, which are a wash comparing players 5-15 maybe even 5-30 would go to the merged league nba of the late 70s

watch some of the games they played great ball then

the rank & file arent as good as the rest of the all stars from 10 years later

in the 60s many of the role players didn't matter as much since they had stars to carry them. Russ had Hondo, Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, and even players like Howell who isn't ever mentioned and was a perennial 20ppg dude for years. Then of course you have people like Cunningham, Happy Hairston, Embry, Bridges, Beaty, Lou Hudson, etc etc. They didn't lead many teams (maybe exception Cunningham), but they were damn good players. They woulda made the merger for sure. Most teams starting lineups were pretty damn good and the bad teams were a breath of fresh air when you've been facing stacked team after stacked team. 60s were brutal man. I don't see how these players can be regarded as rank and file. Again remember, many of them played near 40 minutes per game. You really arguing about the 8 minutes they didn't play?

[Stu Jackson]

in the 60s many of the role players didn't matter as much since they had stars to carry them. Russ had Hondo, Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, and even players like Howell who isn't ever mentioned and was a perennial 20ppg dude for years. Then of course you have people like Cunningham, Happy Hairston, Embry, Bridges, Beaty, Lou Hudson, etc etc. They didn't lead many teams (maybe exception Cunningham), but they were damn good players. They woulda made the merger for sure. Most teams starting lineups were pretty damn good and the bad teams were a breath of fresh air when you've been facing stacked team after stacked team. 60s were brutal man. I don't see how these players can be regarded as rank and file. Again remember, many of them played near 40 minutes per game. You really arguing about the 8 minutes they didn't play?
those bit players wouldnt be stars 5 or 10 years later in a complete league

the superstars are not rank & file. the guys after them are because they would not be top 30 after the merger

i cant view rank & file as all timers

[TheBigVeto]

60s will win easy.