Does unearthing Old Footage do more Harm than Good for older eras?

[catch24]

I've seen great stuff from the Wilt Chamberlain Archive, PHILA, etc., and I can appreciate the time that goes into editing and uploading footage...

But I've also seen really unimpressive basketball to the point that its...cringe worthy.

Wilt's post game, from the footage that has recently been found, has looked pretty underwhelming tbh. Guy looks stiff, immobile, and reckless in the way he goes about scoring. The defense from that era is what really gets to me, though. I have respect for all basketball, in any era, but the full games that were posted here... are hard to watch. The defense almost looks non-existent.

Do you guys think the more footage that gets unearthed actually exposes these players, and gives them notoriety instead?

[kennethgriffin]

the only good piece of old footage i ever saw was bill russell taking it full court for a fancy layup with little or no resistance from the defense

[swagga]

I've seen great stuff from the Wilt Chamberlain Archive, PHILA, etc., and I can appreciate the time that goes into editing and uploading footage...

But I've also seen really unimpressive basketball to the point that its...cringe worthy.

Wilt's post game, from the footage that has recently been found, has looked pretty underwhelming tbh. Guy looks stiff, immobile, and reckless in the way he goes about scoring. The defense from that era is what really gets to me, though. I have respect for all basketball, in any era, but the full games that were posted here... are hard to watch. The defense almost looks non-existent.

Do you guys think the more footage that gets unearthed actually exposes these players, and gives them notoriety instead?

video exposes the 50s and 60s for what they were, high pace rec league basketball.

imo video really exposes the 70s and 80s lax defenses. People keep saying the game was physical, but the players barely defended each other outside of 5ft from the hoop. That's was not a physical game, it's just a game of cheap shots. And i'm talking about finals games too.

Imo video really shows the progression of the league:
It made me respect jerry west A LOT. A true pioneer of the modern game.
On the other hand it made me see wilt as an athlete not as a basketball player.
It made me see that the 80s had little real defenses outside of camping the lane.
It made me understand that the difficulties with scoring in the 90s were not because of lack of talent but because of real defensive schemes that led to late shot clock isos.
It made me understand that the modern space and pace game is ultra efficient, even if it lacks post action and is thus IMO less pretty.
It makes me understand that players change their skill emphasis according to the most efficient type of ball of that era.
It made me understand that some players which were successfull in a rec style game would not have the skills to adapt to a space and pace game.
Video shows the difference between the short 3p line and the normal 3p line, so when trolls like 3ball come with 3pter% you can easily call them out for skewing comparisons.

Video, as any non-cherry picked evidence, is great!

Bonus, it also enables me to troll the living shit out of the 60s in other threads.:lol

[swagga]

lol some idiot 1 starred an objective thread.

[HOoopCityJones]

lol some idiot 1 starred an objective thread.

Probably Laz or CavsFTW.

They'll start posting Essays in a bit.

[kshutts1]

I've seen great stuff from the Wilt Chamberlain Archive, PHILA, etc., and I can appreciate the time that goes into editing and uploading footage...

But I've also seen really unimpressive basketball to the point that its...cringe worthy.

Wilt's post game, from the footage that has recently been found, has looked pretty underwhelming tbh. Guy looks stiff, immobile, and reckless in the way he goes about scoring. The defense from that era is what really gets to me, though. I have respect for all basketball, in any era, but the full games that were posted here... are hard to watch. The defense almost looks non-existent.

Do you guys think the more footage that gets unearthed actually exposes these players, and gives them notoriety instead?
It only "exposes" them to individuals that can't appreciate the beginnings of basketball.

Most of us posters that appreciate basketball heritage understand its limitations. We recognize that those players are not as skilled or athletic as the players of today.

...But we also recognize that we have the product that we do today, because of those from the past.

Is Cousy the best ball-handler and passer ever? Most likely not. But he's certainly the first one to be known for it, to make it famous.

Is Doc the best dunker ever? Most likely not, but again, he's the one that made it famous and main-stream and popular.

Is Curry the best 3p shooter ever? Right now, yes. In 20 years? Most likely not. But we, of this generation, will still look fondly at Curry and what he accomplished.

This is no different. Their hard work, and abilities, were second-to-none in their time, in their era. And because of them, we can learn from their mistakes, we can improve upon their tools, their techniques. That does not diminish them, nor what they have accomplished.

[swagga]

It only "exposes" them to individuals that can't appreciate the beginnings of basketball.

Most of us posters that appreciate basketball heritage understand its limitations. We recognize that those players are not as skilled or athletic as the players of today.

...But we also recognize that we have the product that we do today, because of those from the past.

Is Cousy the best ball-handler and passer ever? Most likely not. But he's certainly the first one to be known for it, to make it famous.

Is Doc the best dunker ever? Most likely not, but again, he's the one that made it famous and main-stream and popular.

Is Curry the best 3p shooter ever? Right now, yes. In 20 years? Most likely not. But we, of this generation, will still look fondly at Curry and what he accomplished.

This is no different. Their hard work, and abilities, were second-to-none in their time, in their era. And because of them, we can learn from their mistakes, we can improve upon their tools, their techniques. That does not diminish them, nor what they have accomplished.

most people on this board understand this, the trolling has another reason.

[catch24]

It only "exposes" them to individuals that can't appreciate the beginnings of basketball.

Most of us posters that appreciate basketball heritage understand its limitations. We recognize that those players are not as skilled or athletic as the players of today.

...But we also recognize that we have the product that we do today, because of those from the past.

Is Cousy the best ball-handler and passer ever? Most likely not. But he's certainly the first one to be known for it, to make it famous.

Is Doc the best dunker ever? Most likely not, but again, he's the one that made it famous and main-stream and popular.

Is Curry the best 3p shooter ever? Right now, yes. In 20 years? Most likely not. But we, of this generation, will still look fondly at Curry and what he accomplished.

This is no different. Their hard work, and abilities, were second-to-none in their time, in their era. And because of them, we can learn from their mistakes, we can improve upon their tools, their techniques. That does not diminish them, nor what they have accomplished.

All of this goes without saying though.

My OP was more or less directed at the audience who think past players would all be the SAME today...or better.

Like, there was nothing in those Wilt videos I watched to suggest he would hold a candle to Peak Shaq or Hakeem. Elgin Baylor or Oscar Robertson, and their being "just as good" as Jordan, Kobe, LeBron and Durant (even without the palm violation; look at their shooting releases and difference in footwork).

I'm just not seeing it.

I do agree that Jerry West looks pretty good on film. Of all the players I watched, him and his pull up jumper would have probably translated well.

[DonDadda59]

It definitely hurts the Wilt mythologists' cause. You hear/read all these extraordinary, superhuman feats he was supposedly capable of, then you see actual game footage of him... :whatever:

[feyki]

I like Elgin Baylor videos. I think Elgin best show player in 1960's basketball .

I love Bob Pettit's plays cause I'm a Dirk fan and they are have same styles.

[sdot_thadon]

Pretty good question op. It does, and it doesn't. Depending on what you want to prove with it. You have to understand dribbling rules being more rigid and skill wise being less adept at it makes a huge aesthetic difference off top. Defenses were worse, cheap shots were thrown and role players now are more skilled than role players then. To be more specific bench players. But you also see the guys in the lab who made the moves we see everyone and their mom do in the modern league. That was the most eye opening thing for me, to see crossovers, eurosteps, fadeaways, etc. Those guys were imaginative and molded the product we have now. Can't ever forget where you came from.

[aquaadverse]

All of this goes without saying though.

My OP was more or less directed at the audience who think past players would all be the SAME today...or better.

Like, there was nothing in those Wilt videos I watched to suggest he would hold a candle to Peak Shaq or Hakeem. Elgin Baylor or Oscar Robertson, and their being "just as good" as Jordan, Kobe, LeBron and Durant (even without the palm violation; look at their shooting releases and difference in footwork).

I'm just not seeing it.

I do agree that Jerry West looks pretty good on film. Of all the players I watched, him and his pull up jumper would have probably translated well.

Yeah, but the inverse is also valid.Take today's players, give them the same situation of no year round training, nutritional focus, no 3 point line, no AAU competition, different rules etc... Would they still be performing at the same level at the same age ? Can't answer that hypothetical. That's the problem with trying to compare players of different eras. All you can do is judge player's dominance against the competition of the era.

[j3lademaster]

Harm of course. Articles and testimonials of that era are insanely exaggerated when comparing to the film.

It's like how myths of ancient times started: stories get passed down generation to generation, and every time it's told someone adds a little extra sprinkle of something else and boom; you have the story of Heracles, Achilles, Beowulf, Odysseus, Cuchulain etc. It wasn't that different for the 60's era of NBA. Wilt once dunked so hard the ball came down and broke someone's foot? He dunk a bowling ball or am I missing something?

That being said based on film I am convinced Wilt and Bill Russell will be top 5 stars today, I just don't think they'd be 20 rpg, 8-10 bpg monsters like their stats, articles or player testimonials will suggest. Physical ability-wise, Wilt is GOAT-debatable to me. I really can't name any other player who can get high enough to block(or goaltend, not trying to get into a discussion about semantics) KAJ's skyhook. Dude's got to be up there.

Have a hard time imagining any non C's making it today without growing up with the game in the modern era though.

[j3lademaster]

It only "exposes" them to individuals that can't appreciate the beginnings of basketball.

Most of us posters that appreciate basketball heritage understand its limitations. We recognize that those players are not as skilled or athletic as the players of today.

...But we also recognize that we have the product that we do today, because of those from the past.

Is Cousy the best ball-handler and passer ever? Most likely not. But he's certainly the first one to be known for it, to make it famous.

Is Doc the best dunker ever? Most likely not, but again, he's the one that made it famous and main-stream and popular.

Is Curry the best 3p shooter ever? Right now, yes. In 20 years? Most likely not. But we, of this generation, will still look fondly at Curry and what he accomplished.

This is no different. Their hard work, and abilities, were second-to-none in their time, in their era. And because of them, we can learn from their mistakes, we can improve upon their tools, their techniques. That does not diminish them, nor what they have accomplished.I think a lot of people respect the pioneer aspect of Cousy, Big O etc. It's when, for example, threads such as 'How much would Wilt average today' get made and the vast majority of objective fans give him still insane (just not 60's level of gaudy) stat predictions of like 24/16/4/4 and his stans get mad at a suggestion of any statline below like 35/18. I mean, has anyone even done 30/15 since the mid 80's? I can't just believe Wilt would be the best today... I have to believe he's the best by that much? That's where most of the 60's trolling comes from imo.

[Psileas]

It depends on 1) what is unearthed and 2) what the target group is. Overall, I think it does more good than harm, although, the bigger the delay, the more the possibilities that the basketball of that era will look alienated from the "present situation".

1) Most of the players from that era used to have so limited footage available that it couldn't cover even their most basic basketball and athletic skills and it gave fans very limited (and therefore, wrong) perceptions. In the 90's, all we were seeing was Russell giving some random blocks, old, heavy Wilt as a Laker, a few random jump shots by Oscar or West, etc. You couldn't find any footage of Nate Thurmond or Walt Bellamy to save your life. Hell, I know that there were early NBA Live games that were giving, e.g, Bellamy zero dunking ability - he literally never dunked, because that's how limited of a perception the creators of the best NBA game of the era themselves had about certain players.
When footage of Russell running fast breaks and jumping from close to the FT line, Wilt blocking shots close to the top of the backboard and shooting perfect fade-aways, West running like crazy, then suddenly stopping dead on his trucks to shoot a lightening quick jump shot or pestering people defensively with his long arms, Oscar's body while rebounding taking a pose of a martial artist's, Cousy making Jason Williams-like passes, a lot of people's eyes opened. When some of Wilt's 50+ point games or some of his great playoff performances or some of Oscar's humongous triple-doubles, etc, are unearthed, more people's eyes will open.

2) Are these videos targeted to actual fans or to people with an agenda? Like I said, lots of people admitted that new footage gave them a new respect for older players. On the other hand, you have typical trolls and cowards who, after getting their crap destroyed left and right, continuously move the goal posts to make it seem like their crap was legit talk. Some of them may still wait for Wilt to jump 50 inches or to shutter some backboards to "prove his strength". Is this the kind of people we should care to inform? Hell, no.

[DCL]

you have to appreciate things only for that era, but that's it. you can't expect everything to be equal to modern times. the game has evolved.

most of the basketball in black and white were still in primitive "experimental" stage. something as basic as shooting a basketball -- there was no right or wrong way back then. if the ball went through the basket, it was the "right" way. but there was no emphasis on mechanics nor form. and that's because all the players simply made up their own styles. they didn't have basketball summer camps nor tv when they were growing up.

today is a bit different. we have a model of what works and what doesn't, and many things that we've figured out are being taught to grade school kids. those guys in the past didn't have that. so if they look funny or awkward to you, that's because they developed their own ways very differently and probably on their own. in black and white footage of the nba, almost everyone shot the ball differently. today, most shooters look roughly pretty similar with slight variations. but most of the releases of good shooters are pretty "textbook" and "fundamentally solid" looking, and that's because they've been taught all this things since day 1. the old-old guys had none of that knowledge when they were developing.

[90sgoat]

Watching video has made me appreciate the legends a lot more, because I don't think they would be these untouchable players, but because you can see what kind of player they would be today.

Bill Russel for example, I have no doubt would be DPOY and MVP candidate many years. Is he really different from Marc Gasol? Just better.

Jerry West is an absolute beast, great shooting touch, great bball IQ, nice handle and playmaking and I think he would be incredibly popular today with his smooth game and the rules tailor made for him. White guy dropping 30+ points, he would be the face of the league, even more than Bird.

Oscar was the first big do it all guard. He wasn't Lebron, he wasn't Magic, I think he was more like Dwayne Wade actually, with a great mid range game and he penetrated a lot. Also a 30-6-6 or more kind of player. But he would play shooting guard in the 90s. Combo point guard today.

Some players are underrated because of the rules of their era. Someone like Dennis Johnson of the Celtics would be a flashy guard today. Isaiah would be an absolute dominating force with these modern rules. Likely MVP. The Doc would be a fan favorite in all eras, a sort of Vince Carter without the injuries.

The things that are negative with the old stuff is the lack of standard fundamentals. Everyone seems to have their own shooting technique and this persisted until the mid 80s (see Magic). Today everyone shoots exactly like Ray Allen. The defense seems pretty bad, but it's also a fast game, you can understand how the game is played.

[DCL]

Today everyone shoots exactly like Ray Allen.

his form is like the perfection of the textbook shot, as we know today.

[3ball]

Examples of contested shots in transition:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-26-2015/ez5sdS.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-26-2015/SUOk8X.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-26-2015/brRKaJ.gif


Wilt's post game looked pretty underwhelming tbh. Guy looks stiff, immobile, and reckless in the way he goes about scoring.



I understand what you're saying, but when you look at footage from the 50's and 60's, pay attention mostly to the raw athleticism of guys like Wilt and Russell... The NBA was just invented in like 1948, and all the footwork that would come later hadn't been invented yet (and most of it was ILLEGAL, which is actually the primary reason guys didn't use it back then)... You MUST assume that if Wilt played today with that goat size, physique, strength, and nimbleness, that he would easily have the same footwork as today's bigs - i.e. al jefferson, shaq, etc...

Btw, if you want to compare Wilt to someone physically - look at Dwight howard - Wilt was bow-legged like Dwight, which gives you an impression of how athletic Wilt was - GUYS THAT BIG AREN'T BOW-LEGGED.. Dwight and Wilt were, and we know pre-injury Dwight was an all-time athlete.. Wilt was too, only he was much bigger than Dwight.

Btw, regarding the defense - the lane was SMALLER back then (it was tiny - the NBA increased the size of the paint several times later on to make the game easier) and there was no 3-point line - all 10 players congregated around the tiny paint area, which made shots more contested - players had to pull-up for more midrange jumpers because the paint was often too clogged for anyone to even CONSIDER OR ATTEMPT penetration - again, look at the footage and notice how all 10 player crowded the paint, which often prevented guys from even considering penetration..

Pace was faster, because there was no need to slow the game down and run offense to get good 3-point looks - remember, the reason you run offense is to get open looks... But guys were accustomed to taking contested 2-pointers as a standard, so less offense needed to be ran.. Guys could run-and-gun taking contested 2-pointer after contested 2-pointer without slowing the game down to run offense...

Also, the transition opportunities WERE STILL CONTESTED SHOTS - defenders didn't have to worry about transition 3's, so they ran to the PAINT in transition - when you look at footage all the way into the 90's (when 3-pointers still weren't used that much), transition layups were frequently still very contested because transition defenders sprinted directly to the painted area (see gifs above as examples - Elgin faces a congested paint in transition - this was the way 2-pointer basketball is played - there's no need to run offense to get open 3-point looks, so guys could run-and-gun and take contested 2-pointer after contested 2-pointer - the higher level of contest resulting from players willing to settle for contested 2's resulted in lower FG% back then).