Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=Niquesports]With the possible exception of D Howard and Yao Russ would be a starting C in todays weak C day. I look at the Sorry C in todays game most are so soft you got players like Tony parker going to the basket with no fear of a hard foul. You got big stiff C shooting 3 pointers instead of banging in the paint. I laugh when people say Russ and Wilt counldn't play today yao is 7'6 and he shoots fade aways Shaq is like 40 and he still might be the best C in the league[/QUOTE]

Hmm... I'm not really commenting on today's game. Its an anomaly of werid rules driven by non-basketball agendas. I still don't think Russell starts though. Not at 215 and 6'9" at center. I more mean the peak of the NBA in the 90's. Today's game hasn't proven itself yet and is a weak era too. Its improving steadily though. I'm still not srue what I think fo the 00's. Its a transition era for sure. In that regard its pretty comparable to the 70s.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Yes, the league has come a LONG way since the days when unathletic white guys were stars...

Wait... a short, skinny, white, unathletic Canadian winning not one but 2 MVPs, back to back? :wtf:

Because, as history has taught us, if you're not super athletic you won't do well in the modern NBA ::cough, Larry Bird, cough Tim Duncan, cough 7 championships 5 finals MVPs 5 regular season MVPs... cough::[/QUOTE]

Since when was coordination, speed, coordination at speed, durability and endurance not athletic traits? If Wilt had Dirk's skills he could hack an MVP today too. But he doesn't, so...

[QUOTE=Psileas]Extra footage for the dude who's claimed like 150 times up to now that they played basketball with soccer balls back then (did the US even know what soccer was before the 50's?). Note that these pics aren't even from West's-Russell's-Wilt's era. They are taken before these guys were even [B]born[/B]:

[url]http://theinvisibleagent.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/teamtechhighbasketball1920.jpg[/url]

(taken in 1920)

[url]http://images.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.departments.dsu.edu/dsuarchives/images/Sports/Mens%2520Basketball%2520Team1986-87%2520cropped%2520small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.departments.dsu.edu/dsuarchives/histcalendar.htm&usg=__JrnQJkbV3ZkHWgnZNNef_B-9_ic=&h=1425&w=600&sz=104&hl=el&start=26&um=1&tbnid=uiCaVVxSwAG9JM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=63&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbasketball%2B1920%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Del%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1[/url]

(go to 1908 and check even the women's team)

[url]http://images.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/progress/jb_progress_basketball_1_e.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/progress/jb_progress_basketball_1_e.html&usg=__Fy5KwS6JOVG9-JKbTc0XRIzJjYc=&h=398&w=304&sz=17&hl=el&start=31&um=1&tbnid=yX-_l8c95rdWYM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbasketball%2B1920%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Del%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1[/url]

(pic belongs to the 1890-1913 section)

[url]http://home.moravian.edu/public/arch/images/MBB1920-1921.jpg[/url]

(1921)

To anyone who knows anything about soccer, the NON-similarity to soccer balls, especially in terms of size, is obvious.[/QUOTE]

A soccer ball painted brown is still a soccer ball. From Wikipedia:

Development of equipment and technique

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball#Development_of_equipment_and_technique"]Basketball was originally played with a soccer ball. The first balls made specifically for basketball were brown, and it was only in the late 1950s that Tony Hinkle, searching for a ball that would be more visible to players and spectators alike, introduced the orange ball that is now in common use. Dribbling was not part of the original game except for the "bounce pass" to teammates. Passing the ball was the primary means of ball movement. Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.[/URL]

Sorry, try again.

[QUOTE=A.M.G.]
And as for Dirk and Nash, yeah, there are a very few white stars, but not even close to what there was back pre-70's.[/QUOTE]

I think the difference is that skill wise Dirk/Nash are just about flawless. There's almost no one with Nash's shooting zone percentages. Dirk is the same. And that's only considering one skill. Nash's passing/dribbling ability is insane and that's before you consider the speed at which he does it.

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]You don't think this may have anything at all do with how they measured players then (without shoes) vs now (+ the exaggerated heights) and sometimes apparently not even updating their college measurements/weights back then.[/QUOTE]

Uh, lots of people are still listed barefoot and shoes don't add that much. Its incorrect to assume that every player from that era is 2 inches taller in comparison to today. And what about the average weight going way up without speed going down but up as well? Measurement changes to height, which are not universal at all, don't change that.

[QUOTE=halffttime]damn, didnt know the skills were that bad back then.. so many shots not even close to going in.. :rolleyes:

if only i was born in that era, with the skills i have now, id be HOF..[/QUOTE]

I know huh? Its pretty amazing to watch those guys and realize that with your game you could probably make the NBA. I'm 6'2" and not blessed with the crazy fast twitch muscles and have known since HS there was no shot.

What I find amusing is how people just ignore how much jumping changes the game. When a guy can jump and kiss the rim its not even the same sport. I don't think many of the guys who are so offended have ever really played against a guy who can throw down on them. It goes like this:

You try to play hard.

The guy dunks on your head 3 times in a row and jumps from way outside the key to grab boards you can't box him out for.

You realize that you're being toyed with and the more you try the more he's going to stop playing and decimate you.

You test the theory and try harder.

He reverse dunks on you and throws in a pump for effect. After he comes down he gives you a wink and says confidently 'all day' as he jogs past not even breaking a sweat.

You call your buddy to help double team him. He dunks on both of you or dishes to his buddy for the open lay up.

That's actually a nice player. If they're not nice, after dunking on you for the 8'th time in a row going "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!" or some shiz you realize how incredible people who can make the pros today really are because this dude is only 6'3" and you're playing in the local YMCA in a tiny city and you have to relegate yourself to a league where you can compete.

This is how ball works today.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]You know, I'm not trolling for a response. I'm sick and tired of me saying something like "Young Shaq was the most athletic big of all time" and then some other guy coming and trolling what I'm saying with some horse crap about how Wilt Chamberlain was a great arm wrestler and got lots of points and boards against players who couldn't jump or dribble and smoked butts during games. Its just BS.

You're a serious poster? Explain to me how in the 40's when that era started playing basketball (with soccer balls) the world population was three times smaller and bball was only popular in the states and then only played by a small proportion of the people. Today ball is international, the second largest and fastest growing sport in the world. So explain to me how you think taking the few hundred best players from a talent pool 1000's of times smaller and who have inferior training techniques and time to dedicate to the game can possibly produce a group of players at the same athletic level?

If we took two groups of random players in any sport, one was 100 and the other was 100,000, and we took the 10 best from each group and your wife's life depended on you betting on the winner, you're telling me you put the money of the best 10 from 1000? If you're serious, answer that and make me understand how it works.

Joking right? Hayes retired in 1981 long before the peak of the NBA which was absolutely 10 years later in the very late 80's and very early 90's. So did Enseld before the best rebounders in history were even drafted. Kareem was a great player but his career was winding down just as the best bigs of all time were young young players. After 81 Kareem was still in his prime and pulled down less then 8 boards for the rest of his career. A far cry from the 17 he pulled down in his hey day and weak era.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

[B]Kareem pulled down 6-7 boards per game at ages 35-40 and playing only 28-33 Minutes Per Game..

Then Again...his Lakers had Enough Rebounders even on the Deep Bench...Magic hismelf, Worthy, Rambis, Thompson, McAdoo, Ac.Green..they alli took part of that Showtime Team with the Greatest Passing and Fastbreak IQ Ever.

Kareem whom at ages 39 to 41 faced Hakeem at ages 24 to 27 in a total of 13 games (missing stats from the 1985-86 season, Kareem at age 38!) achieved the following vs a 24 and 27 year Old Hakeem!!!:

[U][COLOR="Orange"]Kareem (ages 39-41: Passed His Physical and Game Prime)[/COLOR] vs [COLOR="DarkRed"]Hakeem (ages 24-27: Total Physical Prime, Reaching his Game Prime):[/COLOR][/U]

[COLOR="Orange"]Kareem: 15.2 PPG (10.8 FGA PG) on [SIZE="4"]56.7 FG%![/SIZE] , 5.8 RPG, 1.4 BPG, 0.5 SPG, 2.2 TOV and 2.8 Personal Fouls[U][SIZE="4"]IN ONLY 28.4 MINUTE PER GAME[/SIZE][/U][/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Hakeem: 21.8 PPG (18.3 FGA PG) on [U][SIZE="3"]47.5 FG% (LOWERED HIS FG%)[/SIZE][/U] , 11.9 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.6 TOV and 4.0 Personal Fouls in 37.8 MPG[/COLOR][/B]

[B]Hakeem was Less Effective Offensively on an Aging (Way, Way.....Passed Both Physical and Game Prime) [SIZE="4"]39-41 Year Old Kareem[/SIZE]

Hakeem might have had Better Foot-Work, Cooler Fakes and Superior Floor Defender than Kareem but Kareem`s B-Ball IQ, Passing, Prime Rebounding, FG% And Overall Skill Set Was Superior. In his Prime Probably his Shot Blocking Capacity. Also lets remember a 70s Kareem and in his Lew AlCindor days...was way More Potent, Fater, Agil and had a Superior Leap than the one we can see in vid in the 80s.

Here We Go:[/B]

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/jGTsl9YIheGbzstQ5c2mlHnlOrghXqGPw5qz9-D1Neo_/lewalcindor1967.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://content.cdlib.org/dynaxml/data/13030/bc/hb8w1009bc/files/hb8w1009bc-FID5.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Jjqv_F4iq48/R9wVkhyO0wI/AAAAAAAACug/k8Pf27PICLg/s200/Lew+Alcindor.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.achievement.org/achievers/woo0/large/woo0-062.jpg[/IMG]

[B]And Wilt was more than fine playing against a Total Physically Prime and Edging Game Prime Kareem :confusedshrug:

[U][COLOR="Orange"]Kareem ages: 22-25 (Total Physical Prime, Entering Game Prime)[/COLOR] vs [COLOR="Blue"]Wilt ages 33-36 (After his 1971 injury, Passed His Physical Prime and Passed his Game Prime)[/COLOR] [/U]

[U][COLOR="Orange"]Kareem ages: 22-25 (Total Physical Prime, Entering Game Prime)[/COLOR][/U]

[COLOR="Black"][U]Seasons 1969-70 to 1972-73:[/U][/COLOR]

[COLOR="Orange"]MPG: 42.6

31.4 PPG (shot 55.6% FG), 15.8 RPG, 4.2 APG and 3.1 Personal Fouls[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Black"][U]Play-Offs 1969-70 to 1972-73:[/U][/COLOR]

[COLOR="Orange"]MPG: 44.3

28.7 PPG (shot 49.1% FG), 17.1 RPG, 3.6 APG and 3.2 Personal Fouls[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Blue"][U]Wilt ages: 33-36 (Passed Physical Prime, Passed his Game Prime)[/U][/COLOR]

[U][COLOR="Blue"]Seasons 1969-70 to 1972-73:[/COLOR][/U]

[COLOR="Red"]MPG:47.6 (Playing Longer at that Ages!)[/COLOR]

16.7 PPG ([COLOR="red"]shot 61.3% FG = Shot Way More Effective[/COLOR]) , [COLOR="red"]18.7 RPG (Superior Rebounder) [/COLOR], [COLOR="red"]4.2 APG (Same as Jabbar)[/COLOR] and [COLOR="red"]1.7 Personal Fouls (Lesser Fouls Commited and PLAYING LONGER!)[/COLOR]

[U][COLOR="blue"]Play-Offs 1969-70 to 1972-73:[/COLOR][/U]

[COLOR="red"]MPG: 46.9 (Playing Longer at those Ages!) [/COLOR]

16.4 PPG ([COLOR="red"]shot 52.8% FG = Still Shot More Effective!). [/COLOR]21.6 RPG ([COLOR="red"]Superior Rebounder[/COLOR]), [COLOR="red"]3.9 APG (Out Assited Kareem)[/COLOR] and [COLOR="red"]2.7 Personal Fouls (Lesser Fouls Commited and PLAYING LONGER!)[/COLOR][/B]

[B]Lets Remember Wilt wasn`t the Focal Scorer Anymore...He Came as a Role Player his Last Seasons...same way as Barkley did in the Rockets etc..[/B]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]You're wrong and I'm right because I rehash [COLOR="Red"]players stats[/COLOR] in [COLOR="Cyan"]wild[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrchid"]and [/COLOR][COLOR="Lime"]crazy [/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]colors[/COLOR]! and use [SIZE="4"]mammoth [/SIZE][SIZE="5"]crazy [/SIZE][SIZE="5"]font sizes [/SIZE]to hide the fact that I'm the [SIZE="7"][COLOR="DarkOrange"]biggest [/COLOR][COLOR="Yellow"]fanboy [/COLOR][COLOR="Magenta"]homer[/COLOR][/SIZE] on an internet forum that's nearly totally comprised of fanboy homers.

Look at this, I'll prove I'm right by posting a bunch of grainy pics promoting players that aren't alive or haven't played in 20-50 years.
[/quote]

Whatever SC... nobody takes you seriously and I'm not either. Yammering on about nothing I said and posting pics of players scoring on weak defenses means crap all to me or anyone else. Lots of my favorites retired as well... you don't have to hate on new players to keep the old ones alive. Their time has past. Get over it.

[QUOTE=32jazz]Damn!!!! Be careful Pippen.

The glare from the pasty "White unathletic' skin of this team nearly blinded me:oldlol: Maybe that's why they swept MJ & the Bulls in '86?:confusedshrug: The glare from their skin blinded Jordan?:rolleyes:

Thank you Pip. Now place the 66 team with John Thompson/Russell/ Sam & K.C Jones,etc...... side by side. Proof of the'unathletic White guys' of the 60's.:rolleyes:

According to Psileas Williams was released mid season so that team only had three Black Players(DJ/Parish/Vincent) & one(Sam Vincent) only played less than 10 minutes per game.[/QUOTE]

Why are you making it about skin colour? Its not that there were white or black people playing on a team, its that a group of super talented athletes were disadvantaged to the point where for part of that era they wern't even really allowed to play and didn't have the resources to train due to civil rights. Its that the competition in the league was weaker, not that one celtics team was more black. Thats just racist.

ie: as someone pointed out earlier in some way to try and say the era was stronger, go figure, that rucker park playground legend, The Goat, could grab a dollar bill off the top of the backboard but the NBA wouldn't let him play.

honestly how many people here were actually alive when Wilt was playing:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Let's be honest here, all you people trying to take away from past legends... if guys like Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant (and every other skinny, white, unathletic, etc player who have DOMINATED this era/decade) had played anywhere from the 60s-90s, you'd be doing the same thing you're trying to do to Wilt, Russell, etc.

"Tim Duncan was so slow and couldn't jump, he'd be a backup at best in today's league"

"Yeah Iverson scored a lot in his era but he was only 5'11 165 lbs!!! he wouldn't even be a D-3 player today, he's too small to even play PG, how would he play SG against all the athletic freaks out there today?!"

"Dirk and Nash were slow, unathletic white players who dominated before the league was majority black. They'd get dominated in today's league"

See where I'm getting at? Show some ****ing respect.[/QUOTE]



I think at some points it tends to come around to being young and not having the ability, or perhaps the maturity to see the world from outside of your bubble.


Hmm...maybe more of a maturity issue...some younger fans here seem to understand quite a bit.

:rolleyes: [QUOTE=indiefan23]




Joking right? Hayes retired in 1981 long before the peak of the NBA which was absolutely 10 years later in the very late 80's and very early 90's. So did Enseld before the best rebounders in history were even drafted. Kareem was a great player but his career was winding down just as the best bigs of all time were young young players. After 81 Kareem was still in his prime and pulled down less then 8 boards for the rest of his career. A far cry from the 17 he pulled down in his hey day and weak era.[/QUOTE]

If you really believe Players before the early 90's are basically irrelevant/inferior there really is nothing else to discuss. Why waste your time on such inferior Players:confusedshrug:

I have no problem with your retardation ,but your lmited grasp of the facts are annoying.
First of all Elvin Hayes retired in 1984 (at an advaced age) & was still a great Player(NBA All star in the 60's ,70's & 80's)

Wes Unseld was a top three rebounder in the league in the 60's,70's & 80's right alongside the poor rebounding HOF'er Moses Malone:rolleyes:



Kareem only won one(1) Rebounding title his entire career (76) & was always a lesser rebounder(even at his prime) than Wilt & Wes Unseld who were far superior Rebounders. So what makes you think he would be any better at rebounding at an advanced age in the 80's:confusedshrug: (The man was in his late 30's by then for god sakes. Even at his peak Kareem was outrebounded for YEARS by an aging hobbled Wilt & 6'7 Unseld in the early 70's)

WE bring up race because certain idiots on the ISH never fail to mention that Wilt dominated 'unathletic White guys' of the 60's which is an offensive & utterly untrue myth. Why the F***k am I explaining aything to you:confusedshrug:

I can't read or respond to your nonsense/ignorance/idiocy. Just glad your nonsense is confined to this silly thread.

You've trolled & got your rise. Now get your napkin,clean your hands & wipe down the keyboards.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Let's be honest here, all you people trying to take away from past legends... if guys like Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant (and every other skinny, white, unathletic, etc player who have DOMINATED this era/decade) had played anywhere from the 60s-90s, you'd be doing the same thing you're trying to do to Wilt, Russell, etc.

"Tim Duncan was so slow and couldn't jump, he'd be a backup at best in today's league"

"Yeah Iverson scored a lot in his era but he was only 5'11 165 lbs!!! he wouldn't even be a D-3 player today, he's too small to even play PG, how would he play SG against all the athletic freaks out there today?!"

"Dirk and Nash were slow, unathletic white players who dominated before the league was majority black. They'd get dominated in today's league"

See where I'm getting at? Show some ****ing respect.[/QUOTE]

Uh, I'm not young. Why do you assume ignorance? I'm not ignorance and you're not showing any respect to anybody, including your favorite old school players, for saying so. You're not entitled to respect just because you perceive some sort of age difference so show some yourself.

Now, you watch people play from those games. And I've watched lots of them.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvI_iTbgTwU"]If Bob Cousy was doing this:[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWvH2l1-_dQ"]

Jerry West had to check and be defended by other guards doing this:[/URL]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWvH2l1-_dQ[/url]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j01q8A6pqps"]
3 time all defensive team bigs (Bill Russell) was getting owned on like this:[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaucITrlBn8&feature=related"]if Wilt hit game winning shots like this on a regular basis[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yYRx0XK4A"]
or any 7'1" center did this or anything like it in any fractional regard:
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxbaDVBtkI&feature=related"]If DPOY candidate 7 footers were getting owned by Sam Jones like this[/URL]

if there was anyone who could actually play like that then people wouldn't downplay anything at all. But no one did play like that because players from that era just were not that good. That kind of play didn't really exist until Dr. J and even then he wasn't as good as this and even IF he was, that kind of talent was totally scattered throughout the league. If we looked back to those games and saw players doing those things no one would say anything and people suggesting as much would get ripped for it. If any of the players you listed did go back their dominance would be so intense and extreme. Iverson could average triple doubles. Its unreal.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVtr2t7SvFE"]Instead, we look back at those games and they're not like we rememberd them. They're like this
[/URL]

Almost 0 contact. Its like everyone has a little pocket of space 2 feet around them and defenders politely stay out of it.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE#t40s"]And if you can find one clip even remotely coming close to this[/url]

I'll fly to wherever you live and eat your crusty underwear.

And explain please to me how Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant are not athletic? That's retarded.

[QUOTE=32jazz]:rolleyes:

If you really believe Players before the early 90's are basically irrelevant/inferior there really is nothing else to discuss. Why waste your time on such inferior Players:confusedshrug: [/quote]

Early 90's? Naw, thats just the peak. Competition picked up big time in the late 70's and continued getting better. Pre 1980? I think the league is pretty frekin weak. By the 84 draft it was getting a lot stronger and after it in like, 86 - 93 (give or take) was a period of strength that has not been matched before or after.

[quote]I have no problem with your retardation ,but your lmited grasp of the facts are annoying.
First of all Elvin Hayes retired in 1984 (at an advaced age) & was still a great Player(NBA All star in the 60's ,70's & 80's)
Wes Unseld was a top three rebounder in the league in the 60's,70's & 80's right alongside the poor rebounding HOF'er Moses Malone:rolleyes:[/quote]

Elvin Hayes in 1982 got 7.6 boards. in 81 Unseld had 10 boards. Thats a far cry from the 18/game they used to get. And it was before Ralph Sampson, David Robinson, Olajuwon, Rodman, Barkley, Mutumbo, Ewing, Webber, Sabonis, Willis, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Oakley, Buck Williams, Malone and many others I forget off hand were drafted. Not to mention all the other bigs who could board but were role players. Those were just stars. Because you pulled down 10 or 7 boards in 1982 does not mean you played in the 80's on the same level as someone like Larry Bird who played in the 80's against most of those guys. Is that retarded of me to say?

[quote]
Kareem only won one(1) Rebounding title his entire career (76) & was always a lesser rebounder(even at his prime) than Wilt & Wes Unseld who were far superior Rebounders. So what makes you think he would be any better at rebounding at an advanced age in the 80's:confusedshrug: (The man was in his late 30's by then for god sakes. Even at his peak Kareem was outrebounded for YEARS by an aging hobbled Wilt & 6'7 Unseld in the early 70's)[/quote]

Uh, cuz lots of people pulled down 15+ boards in the 70's. There were some decent players and then a bunch of scrubs who should not have even been in the league. Kareem never had elite boards in the 80's. His best season was 7.6 in 80-81 with the weakest pool of bigs in the entire decade. Kareem never got hurt and was still in his prime then too. As the talent got better every year and caught up with him he was getting like, 4 boards a game. So I'm not sure how that indicates anything.

[quote]WE bring up race because certain idiots on the ISH never fail to mention that Wilt dominated 'unathletic White guys' of the 60's which is an offensive & utterly untrue myth. Why the F***k am I explaining aything to you:confusedshrug:[/quote]

Well, black people do play this game better then the white ones on average. Thats not racist: its a fact. Black people were still trying to drink at the water fountain when Russell started playing. Black people were more into boxing for the generation of players we are talking about as well. I think its pretty valid to assume it took a while for things to change. I don't think its a skin colour argument but just a competition argument. I don't really think its a myth. In the 50's they had race limits on how many black people could play for god's sake... just cuz that rule gets erased does not mean its equal footing suddenly.

[quote]I can't read or respond to your nonsense/ignorance/idiocy. Just glad your nonsense is confined to this silly thread.

You've trolled & got your rise. Now get your napkin,clean your hands & wipe down the keyboards.[/QUOTE]

What have I trolled? I'm in this thread cuz people trolled mine with this 50's 60's 70's era garbage. I don't see the nonsense either. I think claiming that a league of guys who can't jump more then a foot or two, don't play defense, don't box out on free throws and don't box out centers when they just sit in the paint on defense are weak. The players didn't even all play full time and smoked during games. How can you possibly suggest I don't have any valid points?

[QUOTE=oh the horror]I think at some points it tends to come around to being young and not having the ability, or perhaps the maturity to see the world from outside of your bubble.

Hmm...maybe more of a maturity issue...some younger fans here seem to understand quite a bit.[/QUOTE]

Um, I'm not young and am being quite reasonable. Do you watch games from the 50's stars and think "Those guys have the same abilities as MJ, Magic, Bird, Lebron, Kobe and Shaq." Do you watch the bench players and thing "Those guys have the same abilities as Robert Horry, Jamario Moon, Kevin McHale, Dennis Rodman and Lattrell Spreewell." Do you?

I don't so if you do tell me what I'm missing. There is nothing more or less mature then that.

And for the record the "you have to have watched it" argument does not work. Unless you're one of the few 10's of thousands who were in boston for the finals and went to the games, I've watched the same games you did and in the exact same way. Unless you think that the NBA finals, conference finals et al are poor choices to exhibit the quality of the league. Enlighten me if I'm in the dark.

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]Yes but the problem is even then some people on this site (more than you may think) would also consider even the 1980s to be a "weak era", if you believe it or not. Again, just like the 1960s, it is a matter of ignoring what they don't care to know.[/QUOTE]

I would agree to an extent. The early 80s were weak compared to the mid-late 80's early 90's. The Lakers/Celtics/Bulls/Knicks were just powerhouse teams. Most of the best players in the 70's were retired or retiring, or in their last couple productive years by the end of the 70's/early 80's. There was a very large improvement when the ABA merged in 76, maybe a slight dip at the very end of the decade and things started exponentially started improving every season. For a while it seemed like every draft was bound to have at least a few significant stars. Then by the mid to late 90's that same group of players started slowing down to reset the cycle. I hope the next era actually turns out to be better then the 90's. Huge ball fan.

[QUOTE]A soccer ball painted brown is still a soccer ball. From Wikipedia:

Development of equipment and technique

Basketball was originally played with a soccer ball. The first balls made specifically for basketball were brown, and it was only in the late 1950s that Tony Hinkle, searching for a ball that would be more visible to players and spectators alike, introduced the orange ball that is now in common use. Dribbling was not part of the original game except for the "bounce pass" to teammates. Passing the ball was the primary means of ball movement. Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.

Sorry, try again.[/QUOTE]

The only thing it's said is that basketball [B]in its very first stages [/B]was played with a soccer ball. Then it mentions the brown balls, [B]made specifically for basketball[/B], AND THEN, in the late '50s, about the orange ball used today. Basketball firstly played by West and Russell in the late 40's-early 50's as kids was NOT in its first stages and therefore NOT played with a soccer ball. If your whole argument is about the ball being brown and having laces, that's a far cry from being a soccer ball.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_(ball[/url])

[QUOTE]In early December 1891, the chairman of the physical education department at the School for Christian Workers (now Springfield College) in Springfield, Massachusetts, instructed physical education teacher James Naismith, known to many as the inventor of basketball, to invent a new game to entertain the school's athletes in the winter season. Naismith assembled his class of 18 young men, appointed captains of two nine-player teams, [B]and set in motion the first ever basketball game, played with a soccer ball and two peach baskets tacked to either end of the gymnasium.[/B] The first purpose-built basketballs were made from panels of leather stitched together with a rubber bladder inside. A cloth lining was added to the leather for support and uniformity (identity). [B]A molded version of the early basketball was invented in 1942.[/B][/QUOTE]

What do we get here? That the [B]first basketball game ever[/B], in 1891, was played with a soccer ball and that 4 years after Jerry West was born, molded basketball balls already started existing.

[url]http://images.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blackfives.com/blog_pics/early_basketball.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blackfivesblog.com/%3Ftag%3D1930s&usg=__zN5Fo3kW0gaUMKy2IG3y_Ws8ZYs=&h=296&w=300&sz=162&hl=el&start=13&um=1&tbnid=se9QyHV1EI2F3M:&tbnh=114&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbasketball%2Bball%2B1930%26hl%3Del%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1[/url]

Read what the ball writes on it. If it was a soccer ball, it wouldn't.

Read also the passage:

[QUOTE]Did you know that [B]early basketballs [/B]had laces? They had to be unlaced, pumped up, tested, and re-laced repeatedly until the air pressure of the rubber bladder inside was just right.

[B]These balls evolved to include external air pump holes, but the laces remained until the 1930s, when laceless designs were first introduced.[/B][/QUOTE]

Where are all the soccer ball references again? :confusedshrug: The only difference mentioned is the laces, which were removed in the late 30's/early 40's, depending on source. Nothing about size, weight and other properties that points to a soccer ball. It doesn't even mention the word "soccer" at all, because, even back then that soccer thing had become whole decades old.

Let's use Shaq as the dominant centre for the last decade (sorry giantgonzolez, and Tim Duncan is PF).

People say Wilt would suck today, well, let's see how each geneation's best centre compares to each other at different points in their career, rookie season and final season. I wont include blocks because stats haven't always been kept for them :

[B][U]1959/60 [/U]

Wilt Chamberlain (Rookie)[/B]
Age: 23
[B]PPG:[/B]37.6
[B]RPG:[/B]27.0
[B]AST:[/B]2.3

[B]Bill Russell[/B]
Age: 25
[B]PPG:[/B] 18.2
[B]RPG:[/B] 24.0
[B]AST:[/B] 3.7
_________________________________________________

[B][U]1968/69[/U][/B]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]
Age: 32
[B]PPG:[/B] 20.5
[B]RPG:[/B] 21.1
[B]AST:[/B] 4.5

[B]Bill Russell (Final Season)[/B]
Age: 34
[B]PPG:[/B] 9.9
[B]RPG:[/B] 19.3
[B]AST:[/B] 4.9
______________________________________________

[B][U]1969/70[/U][/B]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]*
Age: 33
[B]PPG:[/B] 27.3
[B]RPG:[/B] 18.4
[B]AST:[/B] 4.1

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Rookie)[/B]
Age: 22
[B]PPG:[/B] 28.8
[B]RPG:[/B] 14.5
[B]AST:[/B] 4.1

*Chamberlain only played in 12 games due to injury
________________________________________________

[B][U]1970/71[/U][/B]*

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]
Age: 34
[B]PPG:[/B] 20.7
[B]RPG:[/B] 18.2
[B]AST:[/B] 4.3

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/B]
Age: 23
[B]PPG:[/B] 31.7
[B]RPG:[/B] 16.0
[B]AST:[/B] 3.3

*First full season head to head
___________________________________________

[B][U]1972/73[/U][/B]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain (Final Season)[/B]
Age: 36
[B]PPG:[/B] 13.2
[B]RPG:[/B] 18.6
[B]AST:[/B] 4.5

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/B]
Age: 25
[B]PPG:[/B] 30.2
[B]RPG:[/B] 16.1
[B]AST:[/B] 5.0
_________________________________________

[B][U]1977/78[/U][/B]

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/B]
Age: 30
[B]PPG:[/B] 25.8
[B]RPG:[/B] 12.9
[B]AST:[/B] 4.3

[B]Moses Malone (First NBA Season)[/B]
Age: 22
[B]PPG:[/B] 19.4
[B]RPG:[/B] 15.0
[B]AST:[/B] 0.5
_________________________________________

[B][U]1984/85[/U][/B]

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/B]
Age: 37
[B]PPG:[/B] 22.0
[B]RPG:[/B] 7.9
[B]AST:[/B] 3.2

[B]Moses Malone[/B]
Age: 29
[B]PPG:[/B] 24.6
[B]RPG:[/B] 13.1
[B]AST:[/B] 1.6

[B]Hakeem Olajuwon (Rookie)[/B]
Age: 22
[B]PPG:[/B] 20.6
[B]RPG:[/B] 11.9
[B]AST:[/B] 1.4
_____________________________________________
[B][U]1988/89[/U][/B]

[B]Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Final Season)[/B]
Age: 41
[B]PPG:[/B] 10.1
[B]RPG:[/B] 4.5
[B]AST:[/B]1.0

[B]Moses Malone[/B]
Age: 33
[B]PPG:[/B] 20.2
[B]RPG:[/B] 11.8
[B]AST:[/B] 1.4

[B]Hakeem Olajuwon[/B]
Age: 26
[B]PPG:[/B] 24.8
[B]RPG:[/B] 14.0
[B]AST:[/B] 2.9
_________________________________________

[B][U]1992/93[/U][/B]

[B]Moses Malone[/B]*
Age: 37
[B]PPG:[/B] 4.5
[B]RPG:[/B] 4.2
[B]AST:[/B] 0.6

[B]Hakeem Olajuwon[/B]
Age: 30
[B]PPG:[/B] 26.1
[B]RPG:[/B] 13.0
[B]AST:[/B] 3.0

[B]Shaquille O'Neal (Rookie)[/B]
Age: 20
[B]PPG:[/B] 23.4
[B]RPG:[/B] 13.9
[B]AST:[/B] 1.9

*Moses Malone played in only 11 games due to injury
_________________________________________________

[B][U]1994/95[/U][/B]

[B]Moses Malone (Final Season)[/B]*
Age: 39
[B]PPG:[/B] 2.9
[B]RPG:[/B] 2.7
[B]AST:[/B] 0.4

[B]Hakeem Olajuwon[/B]
Age: 32
[B]PPG:[/B] 27.8
[B]RPG:[/B] 11.9
[B]AST:[/B] 3.6

[B]Shaquille O'Neal[/B]
Age: 22
[B]PPG:[/B] 29.3
[B]RPG:[/B] 11.4
[B]AST:[/B] 2.7

*Moses Malone played in only 17 games due to injury
__________________________________________________

[B][U]2001/02[/U][/B]

[B]Hakeem Olajuwon (Final Season)[/B]
Age: 39
[B]PPG:[/B] 7.1
[B]RPG:[/B] 6.0
[B]AST:[/B] 1.1

[B]Shaquille O'Neal[/B]
Age: 29
[B]PPG:[/B] 27.2
[B]RPG:[/B] 10.7
[B]AST:[/B] 3.0
___________________________________________

So, Wilt played against Russell and Kareem. Kareem played Moses and Olajuwon. Olajuwon played Shaq. From these numbers, you could acertain that a great big man is a great big man in any era.

[QUOTE]Elvin Hayes in 1982 got 7.6 boards. in 81 Unseld had 10 boards. Thats a far cry from the 18/game they used to get. [/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see Mr "I blame you for calling 39.9 year old Kareem a 40 year old" still has issues with factual numbers. To set you straight, Hayes averaged [B]9.1[/B] rebounds in 1982, along with 16.1 points, and this happened at the age of 36. He was an all-star up to 1980 (age 34), while, you know, Magic and Bird were there. He averaged 12.9/7.6 at 37, when Bird and Magic had long become established superstars and Moses Malone was the MVP.
Unseld grabbed 10.7 rebounds in his last season, at 35, playing 32.3 minutes, for a rate which was about 87% of the rate of his single best year, not an impressive slip.

[QUOTE]And it was before Ralph Sampson, David Robinson, Olajuwon, Rodman, Barkley, Mutumbo, Ewing, Webber, Sabonis, Willis, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Oakley, Buck Williams, Malone and many others I forget off hand were drafted. Not to mention all the other bigs who could board but were role players. Those were just stars.[/QUOTE]

They already had enough bigs to face. It's funny how you pad the 80's-00's by mentioning players who had their primes in different periods and some of them almost never faced each other: What does Sabonis have to do with Laimbeer and Mahorn? What does Sampson have to do with players who had their prime in the 90's? Sampson was a human wreck, barely an NBA player, when Robinson was a rookie.

Let alone that many of these players were just tough and hard-working fighters (maybe marginal all-stars for once or twice at their best), not valid stars who were feared for their talent. Oakley, Buck Williams (who, btw, was very prolific even when Hayes was playing), Willis, Mahorn, these guys don't belong to the same category with Robinson, Ewing or Hakeem. Nobody ever said "oh my, how am I going to stop Oakley from torching me?".

[QUOTE]Uh, cuz lots of people pulled down 15+ boards in the 70's. There were some decent players and then a bunch of scrubs who should not have even been in the league. Kareem never had elite boards in the 80's. His best season was 7.6 in 80-81 with the weakest pool of bigs in the entire decade. Kareem never got hurt and was still in his prime then too. As the talent got better every year and caught up with him he was getting like, 4 boards a game. So I'm not sure how that indicates anything.[/QUOTE]

Right troll, try 10.3 in 1981 and 8.7 in 1982. Kareem never grabbed exactly 7.6 rebounds. LOL at talent catching up with him at 41-42. I guess he should feel embarassed averaging 10.1/4.5 in 22.9 minutes at an age when most former players have become 50+ lbs fatter due to excessive sitting and beer drinking and are only able to play basketball at a decent level in 10-minute pickup games against actors/rappers or in leagues like the Swiss one.

[quote]What do we get here? That the [B]first basketball game ever[/B], in 1891, was played with a soccer ball and that 4 years after Jerry West was born, molded basketball balls already started existing.[/quote]

Yep, and I'm sure he had access to the latest in sports technology too.

[quote]If your whole argument is about the ball being brown and having laces, that's a far cry from being a soccer ball.[/quote]

Its also a far cry from being a basketball.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Then it mentions the brown balls, made specifically for basketball, AND THEN, in the late '50s, about the orange ball used today.[/quote]

You left out: [B]Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.[/B]

FAIL!

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]
So, Wilt played against Russell and Kareem. Kareem played Moses and Olajuwon. Olajuwon played Shaq. From these numbers, you could acertain that a great big man is a great big man in any era.[/QUOTE]

Common, we both love Manute. Don't be dumb.

1. I've never said Wilt would suck. He's one of the few players who looks like would be effective. As for a lot of the other players in the league, well lots of them would never come close to the NBA and would have problems making a lot of high school teams.

2. I can find players who played each other all the way back to Naismith: it doesn't mean they can hang with Shaq and Olajuwon. The 70's were a weak era and thats why people who were 6'5" almost averaged 40 ppg and 20 rpg.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Ahh, I see Mr "I blame you for calling 39.9 year old Kareem a 40 year old" still has issues with factual numbers.[quote]

It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.

I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By refusing to accept their flaws you highlight them instead and bring it to the forefront of who they were. You

F
A
I
L

[QUOTE=Psileas]Ahh, I see Mr "I blame you for calling 39.9 year old Kareem a 40 year old" still has issues with factual numbers.[quote]

It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.

I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were.

Improving the game is their legacy as they were the one's to improve it's quality in their own playing days. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By reusing to accept their flaws you highlight them and make the case look worse cuz you falsify stats to improve the case.

You could say "yea, Jerry West wasn't the most athletic guy and Kareem/Wilt sure didn't have a lot of other guys to compete against them, but its because they were so much better that everyone else raised their game to their level and we have the league we have today."

And I'd say "Yea I totally agree. You can't overstate the importance of doing something first. Its one of the best things about sports. Even though Michael Jordan took Dr. J and extended his style way past anything he ever did or accomplished, MJ always knows in his heart and acknowledged he'd never be the same player if Erving hadn't had his career first." Cuz thats how I and just about every single other person who's rational about the 50-70's era and see's it's flaws thinks.

Instead you go around posting pictures of old teams and laughing at people with other people who were fans of that era for being so stupid and young and saying things like "you had to have watched it" as if it erases the fact that no one is jumping over 2 feet when we've watched the exact same games you have on better TVs. Or are you going to claim the tube tv's in the 50's 60's were better too? How about the telegraph?

You

F
A
I
L

Wilt and russell played in a league where the standard was dog****. the 69 finals showed the lakers vs celtics, 2 best teams, and its like watching ymca ball.All these
people bringing up the odd example of nash, iverson etc, if you threw them in to that clip it would look like michael jordan playing with 2 year olds.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Why are you making it about skin colour? Its not that there were white or black people playing on a team, its that a group of super talented athletes were disadvantaged to the point where for part of that era they wern't even really allowed to play and didn't have the resources to train due to civil rights. Its that the competition in the league was weaker, not that one celtics team was more black. Thats just racist.

ie: as someone pointed out earlier in some way to try and say the era was stronger, go figure, that rucker park playground legend, The Goat, could grab a dollar bill off the top of the backboard but the NBA wouldn't let him play.[/QUOTE]


ITs sad that in the year 2009 with an African American president we still have ignorant people. I hope young man your under 20. Blacks have played and at a high level from the very begining. The Goat didnt play in the NBa because of a live style he chose like many other players in inner city playgrounds around the country. Also grabing a dollar bill off a backboard doesn't mean a player can play under a whistle and within a team concept running plays and playing without the ball.When young people get on and say silly things like a weak era I wonder how weak is this era when kids can come right out of high school and become impact players like in todays game.

This is what a soccer ball looks like in the old basketball days:


[IMG]http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/englishballold.jpg[/IMG]

You can see the evolution of the soccer ball here.

[url]http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm[/url]


Now can you see the similarities between a soccer ball at that time to a basketball? It is obvious they played basketball with a soccer ball and made changes to it as the game evolves. But even the old improved basketballs were definitely closer to the old soccer balls than a modern day basketball.

[QUOTE=db23]All this bickering, throwing stats around, heights etc, JUST WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO, ANYONE THAT CANT TELL HOW LOUSY THE STANDARD WAS BACK THEN BY WATCHING NO MORE THAN 2 MINUTES OF THE FOOTAGE NEEDS TO DELETE THEIR ACCOUNT.That standard is worse than current college ball, Adam Morrison and JJ Reddick were stars in current college ball, so anyone who thinks players from 60's NBA would translate to todays NBA needs to reconsider.[/QUOTE]


i think a gigantic DUH needs to go out to all of these "players from previous eras wouldnt be crap in this era" arguments. that's the case for the vast majority of ANY athlete from ANY sport from a much earlier era - especially in the beginning phases of a sport - you think babe ruth would stand a chance against today's pitchers?

Have NFL players always been this fast, athletic and generally HUGE?

why do you think world records are constantly being broken in the olympics?

Etc etc etc..

They may not be able to succeed in today's leagues but they set the precedent of the time - in 50 years, we may look back at Lebron or Kobe and think "man...they just wouldnt make it in today's league, look at how weak their game is compared to know - only need to watch 2 minutes to know" does that mean that right now what they are doing is any less impressive or important NOW? of course not. so please, stop.

[QUOTE]Yep, and I'm sure he had access to the latest in sports technology too.[/QUOTE]

And I'm sure that all the great talents in the history of the game, including talents of today, had instant access to the latest of technology now. Every kid in the ghettos of N.Y, Chicago, Detroit, etc, learned basketball with official NBA balls and $200 shoes...
That's not even the point. The point is that you claimed players like West grew up playing basketball with soccer balls, which is false.

[QUOTE]Its also a far cry from being a basketball.[/QUOTE]

At least you agreed for once that you were wrong. It was much closer to being a basketball ball than a soccer ball.

[QUOTE]You left out: Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball[/url]

[QUOTE]Dribbling was not part of the original game, but [B]was introduced in 1901.[/B] At the time, a player could only bounce the ball once, and could not shoot after he had dribbled. [B]The definition of dribbling became the "continuous passage of the ball" in 1909, allowing more than one bounce, and a player who had dribbled was then allowed to shoot.[/B][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMwAJlCIIJw[/url]

That's from 1947.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRO1jCPrzg&feature=PlayList&p=E65C0FAAA9715D5E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13[/url]

That's from 1949.

The game was more static and dribbling rules were different in its early stages, but dribbling existed way before the 50's. Players like Cousy didn't learn how to dribble in the 50's, as NBA players...
Plus, no-one said that balls were of great quality. But, after the first years, they weren't soccer balls, that's for sure.

[QUOTE]It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.[/QUOTE]

It [B]was[/B] 39.9 and 40--actually the main discussion was about 38.9 and 39, but it's still the same point. Kareem became 39 a few days after the 1986 regular season ended and the playoffs began. In case you haven't encountered this before, when players celebrate their birthdays during a season, people don't subtract the stats they posted in that season before their birthday. Some even round up or down their ages.
Even going by your standards, it won't even help your case. Remember, we were discussing old Hakeem and old Kareem. After Hakeem turned 39, his scoring averages fell even more, to 6.1 ppg and 5.6 ppg in the playoffs. When Kareem started his 1987 campaign, he was older than Hakeem ever was as a player.



[QUOTE]I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were.
Improving the game is their legacy as they were the one's to improve it's quality in their own playing days. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By reusing to accept their flaws you highlight them and make the case look worse cuz you falsify stats to improve the case.[/QUOTE]

"I lie about stats", says the guy who did exactly that in his previous posts about Hayes and '81 Kareem. OK.
I fully acknowledge the greatness of everyone. What you forget is that the thing about greatness is that people who have it are able to adapt to their era. Cousy today wouldn't dribble like he did. Schayes wouldn't shoot like he did. Would they be equally successful now as they were back then? That's an assumption. But if you judge the "greatest players of all time", you have to do it either by comparing people vs people of their own era or, at worst, you can do it by estimating what older people would achieve with today's means. [B]Not[/B] what older people would achieve today with the means of [B]their own era[/B], because you're comparing people, not technology.
Similarly, what you can't understand is that because players played in a certain way during a certain era, this reflected their whole natural talent and athleticism. You never saw West dunk in the very limited footage you watched, so you assumed that he couldn't do it. You never saw a certain player crossover, so you assume he couldn't do it, and so on. Would you also bet that a player like Jordan or Erving couldn't dunk between their legs because they never did it? If there was only as much footage available for Magic or Bird as for 60's players, would you bet that they couldn't dunk (because they rarely did)? Or that an "ancient" 1920 player would be unable to learn how to dribble in today's fashion?

[QUOTE]You could say "yea, Jerry West wasn't the most athletic guy and Kareem/Wilt sure didn't have a lot of other guys to compete against them, but its because they were so much better that everyone else raised their game to their level and we have the league we have today."[/QUOTE]

And you could say the same thing for everyone who's ever played the game as an excuse. We know who Jerry West and Kareem faced. We know how good they were, especially compared to the means of their era. We know both that West was athletic and that Kareem faced a lot of great opponents. And we know that, while the game involved, it didn't do so in such a way to suddenly make Kareem or West look typical or even bad. Players didn't all of a sudden turn into supermen. Jordan started his career in 1985. It's been 24 years since then. Basketball evolved since then. But the question is, how much? Do we have many Jordans today? Many with his talent and athleticism?

[QUOTE]And I'd say "Yea I totally agree. [B]You can't overstate the importance of doing something first[/B]. Its one of the best things about sports. Even though Michael Jordan took Dr. J and extended his style way past anything he ever did or accomplished, MJ always knows in his heart and acknowledged he'd never be the same player if Erving hadn't had his career first." Cuz thats how I and just about every single other person who's rational about the 50-70's era and see's it's flaws thinks.[/QUOTE]

You already saw Jerry West doing a crossover and the only thing you did was you dismiss it as "bad looking". Zero praise for someone starting (along with Oscar) something way before Hardaway. You saw Wilt running like a guard and you pretended that it's nothing special and compared it to Oden's and a scrub's personal best. You seriously expect me to believe that you have such morals? You have already proved otherwise.

[QUOTE]Instead you go around posting pictures of old teams and laughing at people with other people who were fans of that era for being so stupid and young and saying things like "you had to have watched it" as if it erases the fact that no one is jumping over 2 feet when we've watched the exact same games you have on better TVs. Or are you going to claim the tube tv's in the 50's 60's were better too? How about the telegraph?[/QUOTE]

Again, you were the first to start calling names and spit inaccuracies about West not being athletic, Wilt not being so good compared to today's players, mentioned things that never happened and wrong figures and you expect me to be like "oh, yes, you have a point about Kareem's competition being stiffs"?

[QUOTE]You

F
A
I
L[/QUOTE]

I don't care about your personal motos and ambitions. Keep them for yourself.

Wilt would average about the same as Prime Mutombo in todays league, maybe a fraction less.

[QUOTE=Pinkhearts]This is what a soccer ball looks like in the old basketball days:


[IMG]http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/englishballold.jpg[/IMG]

You can see the evolution of the soccer ball here.

[url]http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm[/url]


Now can you see the similarities between a soccer ball at that time to a basketball? It is obvious they played basketball with a soccer ball and made changes to it as the game evolves. But even the old improved basketballs were definitely closer to the old soccer balls than a modern day basketball.[/QUOTE]

Take out the stitches and paint this ball orange and it suddenly looks a lot like a basketball ball. That's zero proof that those balls were soccer balls.

[QUOTE]2. I can find players who played each other all the way back to Naismith: it doesn't mean they can hang with Shaq and Olajuwon. The 70's were a weak era and thats why people who were 6'5" almost averaged 40 ppg and 20 rpg.[/QUOTE]

Just for fun, another wrong stat pull out by indiefan23. It has become as common as sand in the beach.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Just for fun, another wrong stat pull out by indiefan23. It has become as common as sand in the beach.[/QUOTE]

I didn't even bother ask him what 6'5 player averaged 40 ppg & 20 rpg.:rolleyes: Just too stupid to acknowledge.

But he points to an aging Kareem(who was 32/33 by 1980) & his falling rebound numbers of the late 80's to prove the 70's was a 'weak era' since Kareem dominated.

Kareem was hardly among the best five rebounders at his absolute peak against those so called 'weak Players' of the 1970's:rolleyes:


Top Rebounds per game(High rebound numbers are because of faster Pace of game & not ability of players):
1970
*Wilt -18.4- Injured most of season(Knee) but would have won it again
1)Hayes 16.9
2)Unseld 16.7
3)Kareem 14.5

1971
1) Wilt 18.6(on a ruined knee:pimp: barbarically repaired by todays standard)
2)Unseld-16.9
3)Hayes-16.6
4)Kareem -16

1972
1)Wilt-19.2
2)Unseld- 17.6
3)kareem-16

1973
1)Wilt-18.6
2)Thurmond-17.1
3)Cowens-16.2
4)Kareem-16.1

1974
1)Hayes-18.1
2)Cowens-15.7
3)McAdoo-15.1
4)Kareem

1975
1)Unseld-14.8
2)Cowens-14.1
3)Lachey-14.2
4)McAdoo-14.1
5)Kareem

1976
1)Kareem-16.9

1977
1)Walton-14.4
2)Kareem-13.3
3)Malone-13.1
4)Gilmore-13.0


1978
1)Truck Robinson-15.7
2)Malone-15.0
3)Cowens
4)Hayes
6)Gilmore-13.1
7)Kareem

1979
1)Malone
2)Kelley
3)Kareem
4)Gilmore-

Kareem could only muster about 4 top three RPG's finish & one(1) rebounding title at his absolute peak in the so called 'weak' 1970's:rolleyes: Wilt especially, & others used to criticize Kareem's relatively weak rebounding(compared to all time greats like Wilt). So to point out the rebounding numbers of a 'relatively weak'(historically speaking) rebounder like Kareem in the late 80's when he was in his late 30's & retired at 41 or 42 years of age is ludicrous. But I am preaching to the choir.

[QUOTE=32jazz]I didn't even bother ask him what 6'5 player averaged 40 ppg & 20 rpg.:rolleyes: Just too stupid to acknowledge.

But he points to an aging Kareem(who was 32/33 by 1980) & his falling rebound numbers of the late 80's to prove the 70's was a 'weak era' since Kareem dominated.

Kareem was hardly among the best five rebounders at his absolute peak against those so called 'weak Players' of the 1970's:rolleyes:


Top Rebounds per game(High rebound numbers are because of faster Pace of game & not ability of players):
1970
*Wilt -18.4- Injured most of season(Knee) but would have won it again
1)Hayes 16.9
2)Unseld 16.7
3)Kareem 14.5

1971
1) Wilt 18.6(on a ruined knee:pimp: barbarically repaired by todays standard)
2)Unseld-16.9
3)Hayes-16.6
4)Kareem -16

1972
1)Wilt-19.2
2)Unseld- 17.6
3)kareem-16

1973
1)Wilt-18.6
2)Thurmond-17.1
3)Cowens-16.2
4)Kareem-16.1

1974
1)Hayes-18.1
2)Cowens-15.7
3)McAdoo-15.1
4)Kareem

1975
1)Unseld-14.8
2)Cowens-14.1
3)Lachey-14.2
4)McAdoo-14.1
5)Kareem

1976
1)Kareem-16.9

1977
1)Walton-14.4
2)Kareem-13.3
3)Malone-13.1
4)Gilmore-13.0


1978
1)Truck Robinson-15.7
2)Malone-15.0
3)Cowens
4)Hayes
6)Gilmore-13.1
7)Kareem

1979
1)Malone
2)Kelley
3)Kareem
4)Gilmore-

Kareem could only muster about 4 top three RPG's finish & one(1) rebounding title at his absolute peak in the so called 'weak' 1970's:rolleyes: Wilt especially, & others used to criticize Kareem's relatively weak rebounding(compared to all time greats like Wilt). So to point out the rebounding numbers of a 'relatively weak'(historically speaking) rebounder like Kareem in the late 80's when he was in his late 30's & retired at 41 or 42 years of age is ludicrous. But I am preaching to the choir.[/QUOTE]

What makes this discussion even the more silly is hearing people talking about the 70's and 60's being weak at center when you look at how weak todays Centers are. With the exception of D Howard is there any other dominating intimitating center today NO!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Niquesports]What makes this discussion even the more silly is hearing people talking about the 70's and 60's being weak at center when you look at how weak todays Centers are. With the exception of D Howard is there any other dominating intimitating center today NO!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Big men of the 60's/70's like Nate Thurmond,Artis Gilmore,Bob Lanier,Willis Reed,etc.... would be easily among the top/more dominant Centers today (not to even mention Wilt & Kareem).

Because big men today do not want to play,nor can they can play, the 'back to the basket' traditional Center position(not glamorus enough) as these fundamentally sound big men of yore.

Tim Duncan is the last great 'back to the basket' big man & he is considered 'boring'/not glamorous' by most(the reason young players don't want to play in that manner anymore). His fundamental play is more in line with what the great big men of the 60's & 70's did & Duncan is not nearly as athletic as most of those guys. Yet people seriously believe they could't play today.

Could you imagine these same people would be criticizing the 'unathletic' Tim Duncan & swearing that he could not play with Shaq/Howard or today's big men if he had played in the 1970's. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=32jazz]Big men of the 60's/70's like Nate Thurmond,Artis Gilmore,Bob Lanier,Willis Reed,etc.... would be easily among the top/more dominant Centers today (not to even mention Wilt & Kareem).

Because big men today do not want to play,nor can they can play, the 'back to the basket' traditional Center position(not glamorus enough) as these fundamentally sound big men of yore.

Tim Duncan is the last great 'back to the basket' big man & he is considered 'boring'/not glamorous' by most(the reason young players don't want to play in that manner anymore). His fundamental play is more in line with what the great big men of the 60's & 70's did & Duncan is not nearly as athletic as most of those guys. Yet people seriously believe they could't play today.

Could you imagine these same people would be criticizing the 'unathletic' Tim Duncan & swearing that he could not play with Shaq/Howard or today's big men if he had played in the 1970's. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Agreed even players like Unseld and Cowens would be starters for many teams. IF people think the Rondo foul was hard they should have seen a hard dave cowens foul or if they think the D howard elbow was rough play they should have seen a Unseld pick when was the last time anyone seen Yao give a hard foul or solid jaw shaking pick Im still waiting

[QUOTE=Niquesports]ITs sad that in the year 2009 with an African American president we still have ignorant people. I hope young man your under 20. Blacks have played and at a high level from the very begining. The Goat didnt play in the NBa because of a live style he chose like many other players in inner city playgrounds around the country. Also grabing a dollar bill off a backboard doesn't mean a player can play under a whistle and within a team concept running plays and playing without the ball.When young people get on and say silly things like a weak era I wonder how weak is this era when kids can come right out of high school and become impact players like in todays game.[/QUOTE]

Heh, I'm not young and I'm wondering who the ignorant one when you refer to your life being screwed up eating government cheese in the ghetto as a 'choice'.

Yea, KG could hold his own because the Western Conference bigs in 1996 cuz guys like Webber, Malone, Shaq, Dream, Robinson, Mutombo, Barkley... they were weak and sucked so hard. Good thing you are here to set me straight.

[QUOTE=32jazz]
Could you imagine these same people would be criticizing the 'unathletic' Tim Duncan & swearing that he could not play with Shaq/Howard or today's big men if he had played in the 1970's. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

If Duncan played in the 70's he would have out scored and out boarded Chamberlain. It would have been full on domination. My god you guys. Do you really see Tim Duncan level players when you watch that 1967 finals game?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]If Duncan played in the 70's he would have out scored and out boarded Chamberlain. It would have been full on domination. My god you guys. Do you really see Tim Duncan level players when you watch that 1967 finals game?[/QUOTE]

In Wilt's final season in the league, when he was 35-36, his rebound rate was the same as Tim Duncan's career high ...

[QUOTE=Pinkhearts]This is what a soccer ball looks like in the old basketball days:


[IMG]http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/englishballold.jpg[/IMG]

You can see the evolution of the soccer ball here.

[url]http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm[/url]


Now can you see the similarities between a soccer ball at that time to a basketball? It is obvious they played basketball with a soccer ball and made changes to it as the game evolves. But even the old improved basketballs were definitely closer to the old soccer balls than a modern day basketball.[/QUOTE]

Pinkhearts, you've confused me. I made a point about how players used soccer balls in the 40's when guys like Jerry West would have started playing. But I was wrong because they took soccer balls, put different seams on them and painted them brown. Now, you still couldn't really dribble it because it wasn't actually round until the 50's and I'm doubtfull that a young Jerry West had access to the latest sports 'technology' with everyone being poor and a freakin war on soo... I made this point.

How is it you read what I said and understood what I meant? Like, I've said the same things to other people and they fire back at me as if I'm stupid saying "OH NO! THEY CALLED THEM BASKETBALLS THEN TOO!" This is obviously right because I'm far too young and stupid to be able to even tell when someone is slow from watching multiple full games of them playing sports. Apparently black and white video tends to 'slow down' over time because as the intelligent wisemen here have stated you had to have watched these things in the 50's when the black and white images moved much faster.

Anyway, didn't you know they 'called' them basketballs then? God you must be 15 and stupid.