View Single Post
Old 11-02-2010, 09:26 AM   #53
ThaRegul8r
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,110
Default The Unknown Take

Four days ago, I posted a link to a post I’d written regarding Chamberlain’s competition I’d copied from another post I’d written where I was in a debate with someone who said Chamberlain had no competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Believe it, or not, but I had never read that take before. I say that because I have echoed so much of what you posted here...without having ever read your view.

Having said that, though, I have now saved that link.

Great stuff!

For YEARS I’ve heard posters repeat that line, so finally, I had enough. I didn’t resort to making statements of unverified accuracy. No. I did research and posted the results. Anyone can look at those facts and check it for themselves and then see if these oft-repeated statements hold any truth to them.

See, that’s the beauty of TRUTH. That’s the wonderful thing about FACTS. You can’t argue against FACTS, because if you do, you end up looking like a fool. And you thereby expose your ignorance, and show that you’re not interested in the truth, just in your agenda.

I’ve referred people back to that post when the issue of Wilt’s competition would rise, and I suppose that I should actually save it elsewhere, because it’s dated January 2008, and as of now it’s nine pages away from the end of the archive, meaning by the beginning of the year it’ll be pushed out of the archives and lost forever, going the way of the many other posts I’ve made through the years.

Now, continuing from the last post, I expressed confusion over a double standard. I also am curious about something else. It’s a question I’ve had for a while, but recent events have caused me to raise this question.

I shared a take which I expressed elsewhere, several years ago. It is, to my knowledge, the oldest currently accessible post that I have written on a basketball message board which shows a stance I had on an issue. I am still consistent with that position today.

Others, however, have not been consistent, but have varied wildly through the years. In fact, certain positions might come as downright shocking today if people were aware of it. I myself find it fascinating observing how a person’s take on something can drastically change to the point that it’s unrecognizable.

For instance:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.” – July 22, 2005



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“I know that this is getting away from the original post some, but most people tend to diminish Wilt's accomplishments because he was so much bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than his opposing centers. And it is true, that when Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, it was Russell at 6-9 and Bellamy at 6-11, and the rest were pretty much 6-8 or 6-9 "stiffs." – January 24, 2006



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“Wilt's competition in that 61-62 season was not stellar. Basically only Russell and Bellamy were anywhere near his ability...and neither could approach him in terms of statistical domination.” – May 5, 2007



Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”



I myself find it downright MIND-BOGGLING that you could make such statements and yet no one had the sense enough to call attention to this disparity between this and what you would later say. It’s like there must have been no analytical thinkers. It never even OCCURRED to anyone that there was a discrepancy between the above statements and statements like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“Centers of the 60's and 70's, so many in the HOF BTW, [had] size, athletic ability and certainly the skills of today's centers.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“Look, if you want to believe that today's CENTERS, almost all of which YOU have NEVER heard of, are better than the GREATS from the 60's, 70's, and 80's...go right ahead.”

First your take is that modern players “far superior” to players of the past, and then you do a complete 180 with no one thinking anything of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“I am getting sick-and-tired of the assertion of the quality of players he faced.” – November 9, 2008

I find this statement downright baffling considering you were guilty of disparaging them yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“the athletes are better today, no question”

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“My personal opinion on athletics today is that, yes, today's athletes are generally bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, and better fed than those of 20 years ago or more.” – August 30, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“You say today's big men are bigger, more athletic, and more skilled. Yes, they are slightly bigger. More athletic? Prove it.” – November 9, 2008

Two days later:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“The arguement that today's players and athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, better fed, have better equipment, better medical care, and yes, even better illegal performance enhancers, is indisputeable.”

Wait... first your demand for proof that modern athletes are more athletic than in the past, then two days later you say it’s indisputable? What? So vacillating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“The players of today are generally, and probably considerably, bigger, stronger, faster than previous eras (obviously the further back you go, the bigger the differences.)”

Can’t even stay consistent for a couple of days. Speaking of consistency, though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
“There is no doubt in my mind that Wilt would be an all-star player today. I certainly wouldn't expect him to score 50 ppg, or grab 27 rpg...but perhaps 30 and 18, in his prime, would have been possible...which would place him above all the centers of today. I think someone on this forum said, or read something to the effect, that Wilt was a cross between Garnett and Shaq. That would be worth about $40 mil a year today.

How many other basketball players could you say that about? Perhaps Russell would be another Ben Wallace, albeit a better passer...but that is not saying much. Sure, West, Robertson, and maybe a handful of others would be good players today, but all-stars?”

WOW.



Let me reiterate: Russell would be “another Ben Wallace with better passing, which isn’t saying much,” (a sentiment which you have expressed on NUMEROUS occasions in the past) and West, Robertson and maybe a handful of others “would be good players today, but all stars?” You are on RECORD as stating that some of the greatest players ever to have played the game would be good, but you question whether they would be all stars in the modern era. This is only a slight step up from the people who claim they would be benchwarmers today. Except, of course, Wilt, who would not only be an all star, but the best center in the league.

Defend Wilt to the hilt but throw his contemporaries under the bus.



You should APOLOGIZE to people like PHILA, who fights against this, and has been CONSISTENT for every post I’ve read of his. At the same time I was DEFENDING Wilt and the competition he played against against people who bashed them on various forums across the internet, lo and behold, jlauber is ON RECORD as being AMONG that number—yet paradoxically still praising Wilt, somehow not grasping the inherent contradiction in stating that while Wilt was the best, it’s doubtful as to whether anyone else of that era would be an all star in the modern game. Perpetrating THE VERY STEREOTYPE that I made a point to officially debunk 2 5/6 years ago in that post I linked to what I’d been hearing for YEARS by actually giving an in-depth look and providing FACTS. I’ve been CONSISTENT. I have NEVER ONCE at any point in life disparaged the players of the past, but have tried to educate people who don’t know as much about the men who paved the way for the game today.

I think of Wilt fans such as Judd Vance (Air Judden), who put together what is to this day the best Wilt site I’ve ever seen—which every Wilt fan I have ever seen has referred to at some point or other, and he NEVER made any statements like those you’re ON RECORD as making.

I told you my agenda is truth. I will remind you that you “challenged” me to provide examples of some of your statements. So I decided to throw in a bonus and go the extra mile. I think I and some others would be very interested in hearing your “explanation” of your unknown take. As I said in the first of these posts, I found very curious your choice of word “deceit.”

Of course, it must be obvious that you must not have said any of that either Wait, wait, I know... some KID hacked into your account, STOLE your identity and made those statements. That must also be the explanation for why you did indeed say that Wilt had four 50-point games against Russell in ’61-62. It wasn’t really YOU.

ThaRegul8r is offline   Reply With Quote