the pearl and zeke were two of my all time favorites and i have seen both play. monroe was the first player we tried to copy on the playground with his patented spin move-- it was soooo cool to us
here is how i am going to define "entertaining" for the sake of this thread:
who would i pay more to see?
i figure the more i would pay to see them play, the more entertaining they must be to me
therefore
i would pay more to see monroe-frazier because
i did not see enough of them when i was a kid and would like to see more. i followed the whole career of isiah/joe and enjoyed the bad boys of detroit. they gave me much hoop happiness. isiah's handle was just breathtaking at times
but curiousity regarding especially monroe. i would like to see the whole of his game and not just remember a few snapshots of his time with the 73 knicks
how great would it have been to see a 2 on 2 between them?!??!!
You're absolutely right, it would be great to see these two backcourts match up in a game (both 2 on 2 and on their teams, either the '70 or the '73 knicks vs the 88-89 or the 89-90 pistons).
But who's better?
Not only was Clyde Frazier strong and quick and fundamentally sound, he always played hard. He rebounded as fiercely as Jason Kidd does today from the point guard position, and defended guards even better. On another team, he could've had better numbers, but not in Holzman's system where the open man gets the ball. Earl the Pearl Monroe was a fantastic scorer, probably the most entertaining player of his time. Each game brought a new juke move out of that seemingly bottomless bag of spins and dribble tricks.
Isiah Thomas was the leader of the Bad Boys Pistons. Even though his range was limited (27% from 3 point land) he had a deadly pull up jumper and finished strong on fast breaks. His defense was more sneaky than fair, where he would step on the other guy's feet when they tried to jump up for a shot and even under-cut them. Dumars was always clutch and his defense was so fundamentally sound, to the point Michael Jordan credited him as the best defender he's faced.
I couldn't really say who would win in a 2 on 2 contest. Basically it would come down to who had the ball last.
Even though the 1970 Knicks was practically the most intelligent championship team (fantastic passing, guards posted and swung the ball to big guys firing from outside) and their outstanding defense generated enough offense to win, the 1988 Pistons' bottomless depth, tremendous perimeter firepower and skilled iso guys on top of their physical defense would prevail in a 7 game series. After all, the Knicks lacked pure speed, frontcourt size and physical guys off the bench.
Last edited by Gotterdammerung : 08-27-2007 at 04:24 AM.
Reason: sacrificed to the god of grammar
this is a tough call. there is almost no one I would take over Clyde but Isaiah would be one of the few I would consider. as for Pearl and Dumars, I would have to take Monroe. one of the underrated innovators of the game.
You're absolutely right, it would be great to see these two backcourts match up in a game (both 2 on 2 and on their teams, either the '70 or the '73 knicks vs the 88-89 or the 89-90 pistons).
But who's better?
Not only was Clyde Frazier strong and quick and fundamentally sound, he always played hard. He rebounded as fiercely as Jason Kidd does today from the point guard position, and defended guards even better. On another team, he could've had better numbers, but not in Holzman's system where the open man gets the ball. Earl the Pearl Monroe was a fantastic scorer, probably the most entertaining player of his time. Each game brought a new juke move out of that seemingly bottomless bag of spins and dribble tricks.
Isiah Thomas was the leader of the Bad Boys Pistons. Even though his range was limited (27% from 3 point land) he had a deadly pull up jumper and finished strong on fast breaks. His defense was more sneaky than fair, where he would step on the other guy's feet when they tried to jump up for a shot and even under-cut them. Dumars was always clutch and his defense was so fundamentally sound, to the point Michael Jordan credited him as the best defender he's faced.
I couldn't really say who would win in a 2 on 2 contest. Basically it would come down to who had the ball last.
Even though the 1970 Knicks was practically the most intelligent championship team (fantastic passing, guards posted and swung the ball to big guys firing from outside) and their outstanding defense generated enough offense to win, the 1988 Pistons' bottomless depth, tremendous perimeter firepower and skilled iso guys on top of their physical defense would prevail in a 7 game series. After all, the Knicks lacked pure speed, frontcourt size and physical guys off the bench.
man gottrdmmrg-- i wish you would post more and bring the level of insightful conversation up here at ish!
i had to really bracket the competitiveness/team thoughts out and i only focused on the "entertainment" aspect of the question
you are certainly right about the abilities of each of the players and their teams
what pushed me over the edge was really the fact that i only saw monroe and frazier as a little kid. if i saw more of them now, i would be able to better judge them.
i had been entertained by the bad boy team--- i very much cheered for them (except when they played the sonics, lakers and knicks) because i was mesmerized by isiah's supreme abilities.
i guess i want to be entertained more by the pearl and clyde
perhaps that '73 knicks vs '89 pistons could be another thread...
Monroe/Frazier vs Dumars/Thomas
It would be a stalemate
