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

[url]http://www.thegoodpoint.com/basketball/oct08/the-man-and-the-monument-how-george-gervin-became-champion-of-the-people.html[/url]

no.

30 probably, but not 40.

[QUOTE=brandonislegend]no.[/QUOTE]

in his prime he one of the all time great underrated scorers. IT is easier for individuals to score higher today and I believe him. 40 on a good night for him. 25-30 average:applause:

[B]George Gervin is one of the Greatest SGs ever by far a better scorer than Kobe could dream of being. This guy played in an era where handchecking existed, was 6`7, could leap, had major wingspan for his frame, could donate fundamentals to players of today and was fast quick like a gassel not to mention that after Jordan, he was probably the most difficult SG to stop when taking driving to the basket or taking a jumpshot frontwords. T

Some clips[/B]

[url]http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sU4HLdrWAsc[/url]

Is it true that Gervin once said his idea of teamwork was when a team mate passed him the ball?

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]in his prime he one of the all time great underrated scorers. [B]IT is easier for individuals to score higher today [/B]and I believe him. 40 on a good night for him. 25-30 average:applause:[/QUOTE]

complete f*cking rubbish

watch a game from the seventies, defenses were a JOKE.

His BS finger roll would get swatted to the mezzanine level everytime he drove to the hoop.

The old man needs to shut his wrinkly old trap.

[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]complete f*cking rubbish

watch a game from the seventies, defenses were a JOKE.

His BS finger roll would get swatted to the mezzanine level everytime he drove to the hoop.

The old man needs to shut his wrinkly old trap.[/QUOTE]

rubbish? i hate english accents and thats one of the man words in there vocabulary. that and wanker. rubbish and wanker?? get it? :lol

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]George Gervin is one of the Greatest SGs ever by far a better scorer than Kobe could dream of being. This guy played in an era where handchecking existed, was 6`7, could leap, had major wingspan for his frame, could donate fundamentals to players of today and was fast quick like a gassel not to mention that after Jordan, he was probably the most difficult SG to stop when taking driving to the basket or taking a jumpshot frontwords. T

Some clips[/B]

[url]http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sU4HLdrWAsc[/url][/QUOTE]

You have to be a god damn moron if you believe this crap.

[QUOTE=

[QUOTE=Loki]30 probably, but not 40.[/QUOTE]

Agree :cheers:

Well he average 32 a game in '82 so he probably would average 30 in todays league.
We aren't talking about some scrub here, this is one of the best scorers in history we're talking about.

[QUOTE=G-train]Well he average 32 a game in '82 so he probably would average 30 in todays league.
We aren't talking about some scrub here, this is one of the best scorers in history we're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Scoring 32 in the 80's is more like scoring 25 in todays league.
Why do people consistently over-look the pace of the game in the 80's?
Most teams in that era averaged over 100 PPG, today usually 1/3rd of the league does not.

[QUOTE=JtotheIzzo]complete f*cking rubbish

watch a game from the seventies, defenses were a JOKE.

His BS finger roll would get swatted to the mezzanine level everytime he drove to the hoop.

The old man needs to shut his wrinkly old trap.[/QUOTE]

yep cos he averaged 30 per just doing finger rolls.
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]You have to be a god damn moron if you believe this crap.[/QUOTE]

What exactly among the things he said is crap? Enlighten us, please.

Gervin was a better and more efficient scorer than pretty much anyone. People get excited about the scoring performances of Iverson or, in the older says Dominique, but Gervin was a more efficient and productive scorer than both-actually holds the 2nd best career point/minute ratio ever, behind only Jordan. He also holds a career NBA FG% of 51.1%, which is impressive for a guy his size, regardless of era.

It's also funny how the dude mentions the defense of the 70's, yet ignores that he had his 2 most productive seasons in the [B]80's [/B] and that he averaged 20+ as late as in 1985, at the age of 33 (and in only 29.0 mpg of playing time).

So, his finger-roll would be blocked every time he'd drive, huh...Is that why dwarves like Tony Parker and last year's Navarro are so rarely blocked when attempting their "BS"? Is that why Billups who gets up like 5 inches off the ground rarely has his shot swatted away? Gervin has a good 4-5 inches over all of them, has long arms and could jump higher, especially compared to the last two. So, maybe, before starting talking about the "00's supermen", you need to put some things into perspective and realize that players haven't become [B]that[/B] much better that quickly through time. Basketball isn't informatics, where a 3-year old technology is considered mainstream or even obsolete.

[QUOTE=

[QUOTE=G-train]okay, so you dont think George Gervin would average 30 points a game in todays league?

yes/no?[/QUOTE]

He can easily do that if he plays for a team with no offense.

[QUOTE=Psileas]What exactly among the things he said is crap? Enlighten us, please.

Gervin was a better and more efficient scorer than pretty much anyone. People get excited about the scoring performances of Iverson or, in the older says Dominique, but Gervin was a more efficient and productive scorer than both-actually holds the 2nd best career point/minute ratio ever, behind only Jordan. He also holds a career NBA FG% of 51.1%, which is impressive for a guy his size, regardless of era.

It's also funny how the dude mentions the defense of the 70's, yet ignores that he had his 2 most productive seasons in the [B]80's [/B] and that he averaged 20+ as late as in 1985, at the age of 33 (and in only 29.0 mpg of playing time).

So, his finger-roll would be blocked every time he'd drive, huh...Is that why dwarves like Tony Parker and last year's Navarro are so rarely blocked when attempting their "BS"? Is that why Billups who gets up like 5 inches off the ground rarely has his shot swatted away? Gervin has a good 4-5 inches over all of them, has long arms and could jump higher, especially compared to the last two. So, maybe, before starting talking about the "00's supermen", you need to put some things into perspective and realize that players haven't become [B]that[/B] much better that quickly through time. Basketball isn't informatics, where a 3-year old technology is considered mainstream or even obsolete.[/QUOTE]

The little fact about Kobe "could only dream of" was a little over the top, wouldn't you say Mr. Basketball analysis.

No one said that Gervin wasn't one of the greatest scorer, try to look at the other guys post first before making your comments.

[QUOTE=G-train]okay, so you dont think George Gervin would average 30 points a game in todays league?

yes/no?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he is one of the best scorer to ever play.
But saying statements like "Kobe could only dream of being as good as him" is a little far fetched considering what Kobe has achieved in his days as a scorer.

There are too many people who don't pay the previous NBA eras enough respect. I think from reading this forum that that's pretty clear. One should always respect the history of the game.

But it also goes both ways - sometimes, not enough respect is given to the current league.

Regardless of whether or not he could actually drop 30/40, it's not a classy thing to say, especially considering the way he casually said "yeah, 30 or 40 real easy" - he's essentially devaluing the achievements of current players and implying that they're some kind of second-rate players.

Now is that not disrespecting the game just as much as those people who call previous eras 'weak'?

Is it not enough for people to just pay respect to all eras of the game? It annoys me that some people feel a need to put down other eras in order to make themselves look better.

[QUOTE]Scoring 32 in the 80's is more like scoring 25 in todays league.
Why do people consistently over-look the pace of the game in the 80's?
Most teams in that era averaged over 100 PPG, today usually 1/3rd of the league does not.[/QUOTE]

Your conversion is off. No era was ever 28% (=32/25) more productive than today's. Actually, the 1980 season was only 9.4% more productive than today's era, so Gervin having 32 ppg would translate to 29 ppg in around 37 mpg, which would rank #1 last season in terms of productivity per minute.

So there you have it. Pace was faster, but not that much faster.

[QUOTE]The little fact about Kobe "could only dream of" was a little over the top, wouldn't you say Mr. Basketball analysis.

No one said that Gervin wasn't one of the greatest scorer, try to look at the other guys post first before making your comments.[/QUOTE]

Then maybe, mr.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Then maybe, mr.

He needs to just shut up and look for his AARP card, and KNOW the number before he calls in.

[QUOTE]You're a smart plug, considering his entire post was "bolded".
But yeah I should have been more clear about what I was quoting, my bad.
Point remains, I was merely commenting on his inaccurate comparison to Kobe then Gervin actually being one of the most prolific scorers of all-time.

I just don't see what warrants that guy to make such a statement in regards to a player that has averaged 35 PPG in the modern era. Pretty absurd.[/QUOTE]

I agree about the Kobe hyperbole. Kobe, after all, is a player whom "Sir Charles" doesn't like, anyway and it's well-known he's biased against him.

And I had forgotten that he bolds his own messages. Partially because when I quote messages, I never bother to copy the exact same type of the writer's style. If he writes in green, I won't bother to quote his text in green, as well. I didn't use the "bold" thing for sarcasm reasons.

Basketball is the only sport where the previous generation is considered better then the current generation. This is ridiculous first of all. People actually think the game has gone backwards and that players are becoming worse?

[QUOTE=plowking]People actually think the game has gone backwards and that players are becoming worse?[/QUOTE]

Yes. yes they do. Flashier doesn't mean better.

Kobe >>>>> Gayrvin

the old/retired dudes always think they were better than the young/current dudes. nothing to see here, just another old man who doesn't like how the game has changed.

I hear this bull**** like he would score 30 ppg or even 40, wtf he would even make the ****ing NBA!

i see the ice man at the golf course from time to time. he still looks to be in great shape.

bet he's still got the shooting touch too.

Actually, the point of the article (for anyone who cared to read) wasn't even what the thread title says. The real point is that Gervin was one of the underrated superstars of his days and that he'd be viewed differently if he played in today's era, when high scoring individual performances got so much exposure. That's what he says himself:

[QUOTE]"When I played, the media wasn't as involved, the technology wasn't there," said Gervin. "If the world had a chance to see a lot of the guys - like myself - in this era, we would probably be looked at differently."[/QUOTE]

Whether you agree or not with his estimations of how good he'd be today, that's one thing. But you can't disagree with this quote. It's pretty obvious, really. Today, all of his good moves would be caught on camera, there would be Youtube videos here and there, young fans would be talking about him more. Most 70's and 80's players usually needed to win at least a championship as the #1 men or be complete showmen like Maravich or combine showmanship with drug problems or issues with the league, like D.Thompson or Connie Hawkins to even hope that their bio/career would be caught by a documentary, making them known to future generations. Gervin never won the title, wasn't a 100% showman and his drug problems came too late and never became such a big issue for him. That meant that he'd get no exposure. We don't need documentaries now to know about even second-rate stars, like Ginobili or Redd, let alone the top guns.

[QUOTE=AllenIverson3]I hear this bull**** like he would score 30 ppg or even 40, wtf he would even make the ****ing NBA![/QUOTE]

Well, he is 56 years old, so you're probably right.

Keep telling it like it is, Psileas :cheers:

[QUOTE]I hear this bull**** like he would score 30 ppg or even 40, wtf he would even make the ****ing NBA![/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Yes. yes they do. Flashier doesn't mean better.[/QUOTE]

Actually I'd say previous generations were flashier. The game has improved, there is no way that you think the 60's, 70's and 80's are better then todays basketball. Late 80's and 90's is probably the strongest point of basketball, though even now, defenders are better then they were before.

It's not THAT easy to score 30 or 40 every night, so I don't believe it.

i grew up watching the iceman and he was a serious scoring machine.

in fact, i really liked the run and gun offense that san anton had in the late 70s/early 80s. they were a very entertaining team to watch and once they picked up artis gilmore, they had a very effective low post game too (although i liked mike mitchell in the post too). if a couple of playoff series games 7 went their way, that spurs team easily could have been champs

i wouldnt bet against gervin getting thirty a game (40 is a stretch but i think he was just speaking in hyperbole) if he were in his prime and playing in 2008. he got most of his points off of mid range jumpers so the changes in current rules hoops would be to his advantage as a scorer.

the one thing that would be very different for ice would be the size of the guards these days. ice used to be able to effectively isolate his man who was generally 3-7 inches shorter than he was. being a 6-7 guard was a big advantage for ice. most clubs these days could put a taller guard on him which i believe would make gervin have to work harder at scoring. but if i were his coach, i would just run him off of more screens to more easily free him up

one thing is for sure though: he is a legit hall of famer. the folks here at ish who didnt have a chance to see him play would know differently if you had seen him as many years as i did, he would flourish in any era because of his great jumper and aiblity to score-- every era looks for those kind of guys

[QUOTE=plowking]Basketball is the only sport where the previous generation is considered better then the current generation. This is ridiculous first of all. People actually think the game has gone backwards and that players are becoming worse?[/QUOTE]

not always worse players, but it is the way the game is being played. Much easier to score now for wing players. Hard for centers. That is purpose of zone defense. Do you really think Shaquille declined THAT FAST?

Physical talent level is up, but fundamental IQ's and basketball skill combine with NBA rule changes in my opinion the true game is not what is used to be. Still great, but not the same.

[QUOTE=Scott Pippen]not always worse players, but it is the way the game is being played. Much easier to score now for wing players. Hard for centers. That is purpose of zone defense. Do you really think Shaquille declined THAT FAST?

Physical talent level is up, but fundamental IQ's and basketball skill combine with NBA rule changes in my opinion the true game is not what is used to be. Still great, but not the same.[/QUOTE]

He really didn't decline that fast. Look at his numbers. There was a slow and steady drop.