Gervin " "I could get 30 or 40 every night real easy, these days"

handchecking rule has changed many times before it was taken away 90% in early 2000s. Post up rule especially. After 1992, two hands in the back was no longer allowed on the post up man. No more using your knee to get position in the post. No more shoving or clothesline in the paint. No hard fouls bodying someone. And so on:applause:

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]handchecking rule has changed many times before it was taken away 90% in early 2000s. Post up rule especially. [U]After 1992, two hands in the back was no longer allowed on the post up man[/U]. No more using your knee to get position in the post. No more shoving or clothesline in the paint. No hard fouls bodying someone. And so on:applause:[/QUOTE]


[B]True Pipp but on Barkley it was allowed in 93-94 :confusedshrug: Check it out[/B]

[B][COLOR="Blue"]"PUSHING is not part of basketball, which is why it has been more highly controlled"[/COLOR]

[B]2. If a player puts a hand on his/her opponent and leaves it there – IT IS A FOUL


3. If a player puts both hands on an opponent –IT IS A FOUL


5. If a player uses hands or forearms to guide or direct an opponent – IT IS A FOUL[/B]

[COLOR="Red"]PUSHING FROM BEHINED DOUBLE HANDED ON BARKLEY + GUIDING WITH HANDS, right here on EVRY PLAY:[/COLOR][/B]

[B]94 Play-Offs:

[U]Barkley`s 56 Points vs Webber-Sprewell-Mullin-Gatling[/U][/B]

[url]http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=cAdMW4Hi8yI[/url]

[B]a) 1st they put in a stocky Byron Houston: 6`6 ft/250 lbs...directly brought as a short stocky 6`6 breed to the Warrios to stop Barkley: No Result!

b) 2nd they put in Chris Gatling: 6`10 ft /220-240 lbs: No Result!

*Minutes 1.58 to 2.05 and *Minutes 5.09 to 5.13 = Real Handchecking

*Two Handed Handchecking and a Foul on Both Shots, No Foul Called on either of Chucks Both Realeases.

*Today a Foul even Before Chuck gets those Shot`s Off.

c) 3rd they put in Chris Webber: 6`9ft /245-255 lbs: No Result!

*Minute 6.14-6.19

*Not Just Double Handedchecking But[U] Two Handed Pushing[/U]!..No Foul Called![/B]

[QUOTE][B]NBA Rules History[/B]

[B]1978-79[/B]

[B]Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress[/B].


[B]1994-95[/B]

[B]Hand-checking eliminated from the end line in the backcourt to the opposite foul line.[/B][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]True Pipp but on Barkley it was allowed in 93-94 :confusedshrug: Check it out[/B][/QUOTE]

I meant officially. According to the rulebook.:applause:

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]I meant officially. According to the rulebook.:applause:[/QUOTE]

[B]:roll: :cheers: :applause:

Today`s players got it so easy compared to those legends :pimp: :violin: [/B]

[QUOTE][B]NBA Rules History[/B]

[B]1978-79[/B]

[B]Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through

[QUOTE=eliteballer]First of all...Barkley is not getting pushed by two hands on every play. Second, post play by it's nature is more physical because the players are bigger and more stationary.[/QUOTE]

[B]Yes he is. Look at the videos and Minutes

Physical Today? Todays Frontlines Are the Most Borring to Watch, the Game of today has been designed to create (undeservely hyped up ofcourse) more Jordan-Like Perimter Offensive 1 on 1 Drive to the Basket Players. Frontline`s can`t even touch each other anymore.[/B]

The Iceman could have scored 30-40 a night if he played during this era. Gervin was quick and smooth, plus he could handle the physical play, if current NBA players were tough enough. I am glad that I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Watching Ice play was unreal.

[QUOTE=Hotlantadude81][QUOTE=madmax]everything is evolving and improving,/QUOTE]

Yeah, America is getting better and better as time progresses..... Music is just getting better and better. Movies are just getting better and better.:lol[/QUOTE]

You just proved the point. The only two other topics you picked to relate to this, were choice topics.

Music and movies are about taste, thus some people will like todays movies, while others will like movies from the past. Sports are not. Sports are simply better now.

Look at the players from the 1960's for example. A majority of the stars even dribbled with their head down, dribble infront of themselves, didn't protect the ball well. Yes, they were legends of their time, but there is no way they could stand a chance in todays game.

80's and 90's definately could. Though once again for wing players, I don't think their FG% would be as high as it was back in the 80's and 90's due to the defense forcing more jumpshots.

[QUOTE]Look at the players from the 1960's for example. A majority of the stars even dribbled with their head down, dribble infront of themselves, didn't protect the ball well. Yes, they were legends of their time, but there is no way they could stand a chance in todays game.[/QUOTE]

That's the usual argument against old-timers, but answer this simple question: Do you believe that these players would still dribble with their head down if they played today? Do you believe Dolph Schayes would shoot set shots? Or that players would follow the practice techniques of their era? Even if they were "transported in time" (an argument that I've repeatedly showed that it sucks big time), do you think that most of those players would be incapable of adapting? Would Bob Cousy or Slater Martin find it [B]that[/B] difficult to perform things that even untalented guys can do, it they needed to do it?
Similarly, would you still use a computer of the capacity of yours if you lived in 2100? Would Napoleon still use musketeers if he was a 20th century general? And the examples go on.

BTW, that's not to say that the average player of the 60's was as good as the player of the 00's. But that's not what greatness is all about. The exact fact that sports [B]evolve [/B]is proof of that. If they didn't, then yes, that would prove that 00's players are greater than 60's ones.
I'm sure that in 2050 players will be better than the 2000's players, as well. They'll be more athletic, there will be more players with LeBron's natural gifts, there will be many PF's dribbling and shooting like Dirk and there will be many centers as "good" as Hakeem. So, for old-time deniers, it seems that, if basketball exists for significantly more than their lifespan, they'll miss the greatest players ever, regardless of who they did see playing.

BTW, since you give so much weight to sport evolution, why did you say that the best era of NBA ever was the late 80's-early 90's and not today?

has anybody in this thread played in the NBA? NO??? so stfu!!!! the man has been there, he knows what he's talking about

[QUOTE=Psileas]
I'm sure that in 2050 players will be better than the 2000's players, as well. They'll be more athletic, there will be more players with LeBron's natural gifts, there will be many PF's dribbling and shooting like Dirk and there will be many centers as "good" as Hakeem.[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

Does the phrase diminishing returns mean anything to you?

This won't happen unless we start genetically engineering players in a lab.

[QUOTE]Does the phrase diminishing returns mean anything to you?

This won't happen unless we start genetically engineering players in a lab.[/QUOTE]

Do you doubt it may happen some day, as well (the lab thing)?

It's still a matter of discussion whether we've reached the apex of human body capabilities under all medical circumstances, and most disagree that we have. Not always was it believed even among scientists that a human could run 100 m. in 9.65 or less (which is a realistic figure of what Bolt would run under normal consequences, without this "celebration" thing). The era when records won't be able to fall at a satisfying rate (which, as Bolt and Phelps showed, didn't arrive yet) will either signal the death of many sports or the (legal) brink of something medical which would be considered illegal or immoral by previous standards. And knowing that sports' business recognises only the color of money, I would bet on the second.

BTW, I'm not even talking only about athleticism. I'm talking about certain skills in general. Yes, I'm sure there will be more big guys doing things that only 1-2 do today and no-one did in the 80's. In the same way, that modern PG's dribble the ball visibly better even than the PG's of the 60's or even 80's/90's. And yes, the best of them all will be able to do more things than the best of today.

I'm glad I stopped posting in this forum.

yet you're posting in it right now :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE=XxNeXuSxX]I'm glad I stopped posting in this forum.[/QUOTE]

agree. NBA Forum is a piece of ****, besides the good sane posters like psileas, etc..

[QUOTE=plowking][QUOTE=Hotlantadude81]

You just proved the point. The only two other topics you picked to relate to this, were choice topics.

Music and movies are about taste, thus some people will like todays movies, while others will like movies from the past. Sports are not. Sports are simply better now.

Look at the players from the 1960's for example. A majority of the stars even dribbled with their head down, dribble infront of themselves, didn't protect the ball well. Yes, they were legends of their time, but there is no way they could stand a chance in todays game.

80's and 90's definately could. Though once again for wing players, I don't think their FG% would be as high as it was back in the 80's and 90's due to the defense forcing more jumpshots.[/QUOTE]


I'm not going to argue about 60's players that much. However, I will say that I do believe a player like GG could average in the high 20's. As I said, Joe Johnson averaged 25PPG two years ago and he's not overly athletic and doesn't have much ability to break down his man off the dribble.

The players now can barely beat some of the euro teams. I watch games and I'm not impressed by this so called great defense that people claim is being played now. The NBA has lots of terrible defensive teams. You have GS, Atlanta, Phx, NY, Denver, Memphis, Sac Town, Indy and several others that aren't really good defensive teams.

Off the top of my head, the only teams I would say that are truly really good defensive teams are: SA, Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Houston. You might can include Philly and NO if you want to.


dfdhfdhfdfhdd from Russia seems to be able play with today's NBA players, but Jerry West couldn't? Not buying it. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if a number of NBA players now would even get beat by WNBA players in shooting contests. I think today's players are more flawed that some people here are letting on.

On top of it all, considering the NBA is struggling to maintain a fan base I think most people aren't finding that the NBA is getting better and better as you suggest. But anyway, I'm about to be moving so I got to get some rest because I got a busy weekend ahead.

[QUOTE]dfdhfdhfdfhdd from Russia seems to be able play with today's NBA players, but Jerry West couldn't? Not buying it.[/QUOTE]

That statement doesn't make any sense. What does being from Russia have to do with it? A white guy from Russia is no different than a white guy from the US.

[QUOTE=Psileas]That's the usual argument against old-timers, but answer this simple question: Do you believe that these players would still dribble with their head down if they played today? Do you believe Dolph Schayes would shoot set shots? Or that players would follow the practice techniques of their era? Even if they were "transported in time" (an argument that I've repeatedly showed that it sucks big time), do you think that most of those players would be incapable of adapting? Would Bob Cousy or Slater Martin find it [B]that[/B] difficult to perform things that even untalented guys can do, it they needed to do it?
Similarly, would you still use a computer of the capacity of yours if you lived in 2100? Would Napoleon still use musketeers if he was a 20th century general? And the examples go on.[/QUOTE]


No, of course not. I believe the players would be up to that of normal NBA level. Though the question is more of, if this player, with his skillset was placed in this era... Not "if this player was in this era and had modified training and advanced technology", etc.
Players in the 60's would not be able to compete with their skillset from back then. Of course with training in todays game, they would be up to todays standard and the great players would be great today.

That's the main point I argue with you about in our historic Shaq vs Wilt conversations. Wilt would need to refine his game and expand his skillset. I know you say Wilt has a variety of moves, though the execution would not be up to par of Shaq moves. Though without doubt, if Wilt had the training and what not that regular players have today, he would be a great.

Also I said that the 80's and 90's were probably the best, but I meant more in an entertainment purpose though due to the fact that the game was more free flowing and players were able to display their skills.
Todays game is a lot of stop-start basketball, which has led most fans to lose interest.

[QUOTE=plowking]No, of course not. I believe the players would be up to that of normal NBA level. Though the question is more of, if this player, with his skillset was placed in this era... Not "if this player was in this era and had modified training and advanced technology", etc.
Players in the 60's would not be able to compete with their skillset from back then. Of course with training in todays game, they would be up to todays standard and the great players would be great today.

That's the main point I argue with you about in our historic Shaq vs Wilt conversations. Wilt would need to refine his game and expand his skillset. I know you say Wilt has a variety of moves, though the execution would not be up to par of Shaq moves. Though without doubt, if Wilt had the training and what not that regular players have today, he would be a great.

[COLOR="Blue"]Also I said that the 80's and 90's were probably the best, but I meant more in an entertainment purpose though due to the fact that the game was more free flowing and players were able to display their skills.
Todays game is a lot of stop-start basketball, which has led most fans to lose interest[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

[B][COLOR="blue"]Wrong todays game is boring because we where used to seeing Real Defense :Handchecking was common, no easly Lay ups, Physical Play in the Paint, Most Players had more NAtural Talent, Passing Game and Ball Movement (Reason why more Up Tempo in the 80s, Reason why a 36 year old Magic came and schooled the NBA playing as a Sub in 96), Fundamentals, B-Ball IQ, Winning was as Important and Sometimes more than the Money etc. All things that were a feutre of the nba in the 80s and 90s. People must learn to understand that. There are many people complaining about this not just me or some others in ISH but many...[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=plowking]
Also I said that the 80's and 90's were probably the best, but I meant more in an entertainment purpose though due to the fact that the game was more free flowing and players were able to display their skills.
Todays game is a lot of stop-start basketball, which has led most fans to lose interest.[/QUOTE]

you have it backwards

[QUOTE]That's the main point I argue with you about in our historic Shaq vs Wilt conversations. [B]Wilt would need to refine his game and expand his skillset.[/B] I know you say Wilt has a variety of moves, though the execution would not be up to par of Shaq moves. Though without doubt, if Wilt had the training and what not that regular players have today, he would be a great.[/QUOTE]

And that's a point I disagree about. I don't find any reason of why he should try to refine it even more. On the contrary, young Wilt seemed to play too gently at times, with all the fancy fade-aways and bank shots. He was still unblockable and, honestly, I don't believe many could seriously challenge it even today (after all, we know that, apart from the dunk/close lay-up, Shaq's mini-hook was his second most unstoppable shot, and he didn't take it from the height and with the angle Wilt took his own shots).

That would make Wilt exciting, but in order to raise his effectiveness, he would need to make his game more brutal, except if his coaches remained happy with the "Hakeem style" instead of the "Shaq style".

[QUOTE=Psileas]And that's a point I disagree about. I don't find any reason of why he should try to refine it even more. On the contrary, young Wilt seemed to play too gently at times, with all the fancy fade-aways and bank shots. He was still unblockable and, honestly, I don't believe many could seriously challenge it even today (after all, we know that, apart from the dunk/close lay-up, Shaq's mini-hook was his second most unstoppable shot, and he didn't take it from the height and with the angle Wilt took his own shots).

That would make Wilt exciting, but in order to raise his effectiveness, he would need to make his game more brutal, except if his coaches remained happy with the "Hakeem style" instead of the "Shaq style".[/QUOTE]

Wilt also used the finger-roll over a lot of smaller defenders. Wilt had some very good moves that would hold up in todays game, though he also got points from very weak moves.

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]you have it backwards[/QUOTE]


So you are saying the 80's and 90's were stop-start? Yes, because that would be interesting... :rolleyes:
You are contradicting your belief that 80's/90's were the better era if you disagree with that statement. There was more contact allowed which allowed for a more free flowing game. Where am I wrong in that?

[QUOTE=eliteballer]That statement doesn't make any sense. What does being from Russia have to do with it? A white guy from Russia is no different than a white guy from the US.[/QUOTE]

This USA teams are barely beating unknowns. It's no secret that the USA teams have struggled with these euro teams in large part because of fundamentals. I just find it laughable that the NBA players struggle against these guys, but guys from the 60's couldn't compete with today's NBA players.

But fine, you say the same about somebody like Mike Miller who is a 16-18PPG scorer. He isn't all that and a bag of chips either.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B][COLOR="blue"]Wrong todays game is boring because we where used to seeing Real Defense :Handchecking was common, no easly Lay ups, Physical Play in the Paint, Most Players had more NAtural Talent, Passing Game and Ball Movement (Reason why more Up Tempo in the 80s, Reason why a 36 year old Magic came and schooled the NBA playing as a Sub in 96), Fundamentals, B-Ball IQ, Winning was as Important and Sometimes more than the Money etc. All things that were a feutre of the nba in the 80s and 90s. People must learn to understand that. There are many people complaining about this not just me or some others in ISH but many...[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]

Well, and players personalities also. I can't think of ONE NBA player that I truly truly root for despite being a basketball fan. I don't find Wade, LJ, Duncan and others to be very interesting.

Gervin is just talking smack, but he could definitely average 30 today. It is easier to get to the rim/ft line now and the no hand check rule especially benefits someone who is skinny and can get pushed around.

I was pretty young when Gervin was playing but he was definitely a scoring machine.

He could probably average around 30 ppg every night, but would his team be any good? This is just another reason why athletes in general are considered stupid.

ive never understood the handcheck rule in full. the rule is in the grey area alot of the time. i thought you could use an arm bar?? i see guys still doing it and not getting called for it. i do that and use my fingertips to keep my guy in check my my backs turned towards them, so is that a foul??

[QUOTE=plowking]So you are saying the 80's and 90's were stop-start? Yes, because that would be interesting... :rolleyes:
You are contradicting your belief that 80's/90's were the better era if you disagree with that statement. There was more contact allowed which allowed for a more free flowing game. Where am I wrong in that?[/QUOTE]

never mind I misunderstand you:applause: