Anthropomorphic Measurement of NBA bigmen 60s/70s vs Modern NBA era

Bwink, Drop the trolling act for 2s, I have yet to directly address one of your "points" as you didn't do it either. Man to man, eyes to eyes, can you write you aren't trying to troll me ? I shan't believe you.

[QUOTE=Punpun]Bwink, Drop the trolling act for 2s, I have yet to directly address one of your "points" as you didn't do it either. Man to man, eyes to eyes, can you write you aren't trying to troll me ? I shan't believe you.[/QUOTE]

you shant believe what exactly?? :confusedshrug:

Everything stated is FACTUAL....point out what is not factual.

:coleman:

Thankyou. That freaking routine. You should sell it to Skip and SAS.

:yaohappy:

[QUOTE=Punpun]Thankyou. That freaking routine. You should sell it to Skip and SAS.

:yaohappy:[/QUOTE]


You didn't answer my question.

What did you not see as factual?

:biggums:

an

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I also found the use of the word curious. It didn't seem that he actually knew what the word meant.[/QUOTE]
Are you guys kidding? That word is absolutely being used correctly and yes I understand what it means. Type Anthropomorphic measurements in google and tell me what kinds of things come up.

Do you dudes drive around in 1960s Studebakers as well?


Every once in a while these threads are cool, but got damn, do you dudes only talk about the 60s and 70s, we get it people were vastly superior 40 and 50 years ago.

[QUOTE=abuC]Do you dudes drive around in 1960s Studebakers as well?


Every once in a while these threads are cool, but got damn, do you dudes only talk about the 60s and 70s, we get it people were vastly superior 40 and 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]

You don't get it

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]You don't get it[/QUOTE]


No, actually I do get it, every single week there's a new "Wilt" thread or some thread showcasing that not everyone in the 60s was a stiff. Big deal, the cream rises to the top, the median then and now is not the same and your posts never point that out. The "average" athlete then and now are not comparable, but keep pushing your agenda.

[QUOTE=abuC]No, actually I do get it, every single week there's a new "Wilt" thread or some thread showcasing that not everyone in the 60s was a stiff. Big deal, the cream rises to the top, the median then and now is not the same and your posts never point that out. [B]The "average" athlete then and now are not comparable[/B], but keep pushing your agenda.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8-obhfBnB4[/url]

U sure? :lol

[QUOTE=abuC]No, actually I do get it, every single week there's a new "Wilt" thread or some thread showcasing that not everyone in the 60s was a stiff. Big deal, the cream rises to the top, the median then and now is not the same and your posts never point that out. [/QUOTE]

There are lots and lots of posters who actually still don't get it. And no, there are better purposes for some of these threads. Once in a while, there's some new footage becoming available for actual Wilt/retro fans, so, no, not everything revolves around idiots and know-nothings who won't recognise simple things - we'll still have a good sleep.
If "the cream rises to the top, the median then and now is not the same" was the only thing that mattered, there would be no reason to keep the NBA's recorded history at all.

[QUOTE]Are you guys kidding? That word is absolutely being used correctly and yes I understand what it means. Type Anthropomorphic measurements in google and tell me what kinds of things come up.[/QUOTE]

I've also seen the word used in measurement context, but I'll argue that "anthropometric" is more correct.

It depends on the type of measurement, though: A foot is both an anthropometric and an anthropomorphic measurement, because it's also a part of the human body. A cm is only anthropometric.

OP doesn't seem to know what anthropomorphic means.

i do believe NBA has much more athletes right now than back in 60's to early 70's. however the difference between mid 80's to now is probably very slim.

And at the end of the day it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. IMO, there were more tough guys back then.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Put peak Bob Hayes or Jimmy Hines in 00's, give them the best nutrition, medicine, medical technology (to prevent and overcome injuries), with much better techniques and training that have been learned in the last 50 years, with better and lighter shoes, and MUCH better track surfaces...and does anyone think they would still be running 9.95's?[/QUOTE]

i would guess they would run 9.8 ish. but no way in hell they will run 9.58 and be near the record. and i don't think nutrition helps that much. it's not like they were starved.

talent level will always rise if the money is there and population continues to grow.