Is Kareem's legacy hurt by the NBA's popularity boom in the 80s?

[Notitlesince73]

Most people on this site agree KAJ is one of the 2 or 3 best players ever, 4th at worst. But most people aren't on this site. Kareem dominated the 70s. I mean, what else can you call it when someone wins half the MVPs in a decade.

He was also a great defender in his prime, as shown by his double digit all defense teams.

Lastly, he was an excellent rebounder, as shown by him avg 14.5 Rebounds per game in the 70s.

But here is the thing. Nobody watched basketball in the 70s. Basketball didn't become popular till the bird-magic era. By then, Kareem wasn't a good defender, couldn't rebound, and wasn't the best player on his team.

Because of this, nobody remembers the KAJ that was dominating the decade, they remember the old, bald, goggle wearing center who could score, but struggled in other aspects of his game.

I hope i have made sense, because my question is, do you think the memory of how good Kareem is by non die hard is affected by him still being good, but no longer dominant, by the time basketball became popular?

[TheBigVeto]

Most people on this site agree KAJ is one of the 2 or 3 best players ever, 4th at worst. But most people aren't on this site. Kareem dominated the 70s. I mean, what else can you call it when someone wins half the MVPs in a decade.

He was also a great defender in his prime, as shown by his double digit all defense teams.

Lastly, he was an excellent rebounder, as shown by him avg 14.5 Rebounds per game in the 70s.

But here is the thing. Nobody watched basketball in the 70s. Basketball didn't become popular till the bird-magic era. By then, Kareem wasn't a good defender, couldn't rebound, and wasn't the best player on his team.

Because of this, nobody remembers the KAJ that was dominating the decade, they remember the old, bald, goggle wearing center who could score, but struggled in other aspects of his game.

I hope i have made sense, because my question is, do you think the memory of how good Kareem is by non die hard is affected by him still being good, but no longer dominant, by the time basketball became popular?

It's all Magic's fault. He took all the credit for the Lakers' success in the 80's even though Kareem was responsible for most of it.

Ranking Magic above Kareem is just like ranking Brian Scalabrine over Michael Jordan. It just doesn't make sense and it's totally stupid.

[jongib369]

yes to a degree but the fact that he was able to prove himself as an old fart helped a lot. To me players like wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, Oscar Robertson etc etc legacies were hurt more. Die hards know the players for what they were, but a lot of people just cant get past time bias.

Bridge players really say a lot about yesteryear's game...Dolph Schayes is a testament to the guys in the late 40s and 50s producing well in the early 60's. The style was WAY different and the rules were WAY different/stricter BUT stars can ball in any era..there human beings not robots they adjust....Wilt is a bridge of the late 50s and 60s into the 70s...BEASTING it out even with a completely different role. with highs of 66 and and either 64 or 60 as late as 1969. Kareem, the link from the late 60s, 70s into the 80s almost 90s. being the "less hurt" bridge of all of them. Am I saying Mikan would tear apart the league? Hell no. But why he couldn't be effective with modern training and some adjustments is within reason...the dude has the PURE fundamental low post game, a LOT of heart and played HARD... he would be listed as a 7 footer or at least 6'11...and also considering he weighed 245, probably weighing around 260 today with modern weight training...they didnt do a lot of that in the early 40s 50s....would he be the best center? the HELL if I know..one of the top potentially? IMO yes.



Kareem and Wilt on the other hand...they would make the current crop of centers there bitch...idk how else to put it. whose going to give them trouble beyond Dwight and Andrew? who they will only face 2 to 4 times a year...when someone like Wilt went up against guys like bill Russell sometimes 8 or even more times a year!!

I looked up the games a while ago, have no idea what the exact numbers are...

but adding the total amount of games of Wilt going against Russell (143) and Kareem (28 in 4 years) was more games Shaq did against his top 5 to 8 (possibly more) competition in over a decade...thats not including a hos tof others like Walt Bellamy, nate thurmond, wes unseld ETC...think of that...Wilt went against 2 GOAT centers more than shaq did potentially 8+ of his other top piers....How many games did David Robinson and Ewing have against eachother? I think 13 off the top of my head... people need to put things into perspective...and look past when the NBA got popular....Because of that, a lot of guys will never be respected like they should...and just wait, oneday people will be shitting on shaqs competition...saying Lebron couldnt ball, kobe would be a scrub etc...The stans will deny it but it WILL happen...people are already saying Jordan wouldnt do as much! LOL

While I think the die hard/ intelligent fans will see that Jordan would not only be able to ball today...but YES...IM SORRY for putting yahwehBe down, but Jordan would be better all around...As a die hard, Id give my left nut to see


Jordan-Kobe-West go at it

West- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8rjREaql2U&feature=plcp

Oscar-Magic-Kidd go at it

Oscar-RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ee2Ag5GeMQ&feature=plcp

Lebron-Pippen-Baylor go at it

Baylor- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3btloSB6-b4&feature=plcp

Shaq-Wilt-Kareem go at it

Wilt & Kareem- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL46YUxHFOE

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes it did, the footage of Kareem in the 70's shows an incredibly mobile athletic freak second only to Wilt and Shaq that is >>>>>>> than the Kareem in the 80's. Unfortunately 70's basketball doesn't exist to most fans because widespread coverage of the NBA only began in the 80's.

[jongib369]

Yes it did, the footage of Kareem in the 70's shows an incredibly mobile athletic freak second only to Wilt and Shaq that is >>>>>>> than the Kareem in the 80's. Unfortunately 70's basketball doesn't exist to most fans because widespread coverage of the NBA only began in the 80's.

More athletic than Admiral?


Also how are the Wilt Chamberlain superman and Bill Russells vids going?

[CavaliersFTW]

More athletic than Admiral?


Also how are the Wilt Chamberlain superman and Bill Russells vids going?

From what I can see, knowing that he's almost 2 inches taller in his barefeet and seeing his athleticism from his mid 20's on to the fact that he was able to play into his 40's gives him a case as a better physical specimen than Admiral. Even if not strictly athletically - talent wise he was definitely the more potent of the two.

The vids will be finished when they're finished. Could be 2 days, 2 months, 2 years - I don't know I work on many vids at one time and don't have dead lines

[Horatio33]

I don't think he is that fondly remembered as he was shy and introverted and could be rude to interviewers and also to fans who wanted autographs.

[ThaRegul8r]

Ranking Magic above Kareem is just like ranking Brian Scalabrine over Michael Jordan. It just doesn't make sense and it's totally stupid.

I have to say... this is the first time I've ever seen Magic Johnson equated to Brian Scalabrine before.

[Punpun]

The best comparisons are the most outrageous one. But while Kareem is #2, Magic is top 5 all-time.

[G.O.A.T]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

[fpliii]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

What are your thoughts on how to weight/penalize for the ABA years (if at all)?

[Bigsmoke]

[guy]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

Can you elaborate more? I've heard things like he was a poor leader that didn't really inspire others around him nor did he really care to.

[dunksby]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

You are alone cause you are so dumb even the stupid majority would not agree with you.

[G.O.A.T]

What are your thoughts on how to weight/penalize for the ABA years (if at all)?

No weight or penalty, I just try to put it into context by understanding as much as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of each league. Now, having done years of research, I view it a lot like the AL/NL pre-inter-league play. Two different leagues, players who occasionally jump from one to the other, with slightly different rules playing the same basic game.

The ABA got very strong around 1971-72. Probably was comparable to the NBA in terms of overall talent. If not then, then by 1974 once Wilt and West were gone, the leagues were pretty damn even. Kareem won the 1976 MVP despite his team missing the playoffs (only time this has happened) Meanwhile in the ABA, Julius Erving had arguably the best year of his career en route to another title. Had both leagues given away one MVP, the Doctor takes it easily, but because the leagues were separate Kareem got another MVP by simply being that much better than everyone else in the NBA.

This is different than a year like 1974 (Doctor's J other GOAT ABA season) when Kareem led the Bucks to 59 wins and a few plays from a title. Kareem's dominance on an individual and team level in an NBA that included big men like Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Bob Lanier is very impressive. The ABA's best big men at the time were Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, Billy Paultz and Swen Nater. Guys like Mel Daniels and Zelmo Beaty were well past their prime but still productive. However overall the NBA's crop of centers were bigger and better. So even though Kareem and the Bucks lost the title to the Celtics year, I'm not sure Doc leading the Nets to an ABA title is a significantly greater achievement during that season.

The players who led their teams to titles in the ABA are as follows:

Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Zelmo Beaty, George McGinnis, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving.

Of those guys only Erving could have done it in the NBA (and even he came up short post-merger) Maybe Hawkin's if his career wasn't interrupted, but I'm not convinced. The rest of the guys would need to find themselves on a very deep, balanced team to be a contender. You don't see tje same level of players leading teams to NBA title's during that era. Those guys were Kareem, Wilt, Willis Reed, Cowens, Frazier, Rick Barry etc. All top-35 guys all-time still and elite players in any era. I think the reason for this discrepancy is two fold:

1) The ABA's style of play and rules didn't favor the big man as much as the NBA's thus smaller, more athletic centers (Daniels, Hawkins, Beaty, McGinnis) could be offensive and defensive anchors.

2) The lack of true Big Man depth in the ABA opened the door for more perimeter oriented teams to win, much like in the modern NBA.