If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pro Basketball Talk)   Kareem says Oscar Robertson was better than Jordan or LeBron, despite never having his name on a line of shoes   (probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com) divider line 48
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

660 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Oct 2013 at 8:18 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-05 08:08:06 AM
Well, it was a different era but the Big O did  average a triple-double in 1961-62. Jordan didn't and LeBron hasn't done that. Also, the Big O played for some pretty bad teams early on. Also, he put with a lot of racism that neither of the other two had to deal with.

Tough call.
 
2013-10-05 08:22:46 AM
You try draging Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.
 
2013-10-05 08:29:09 AM
Maybe. Hard to compare. He could just have well been simply a very good player in todays league playing against the equivalent of mid major players.
 
2013-10-05 08:39:38 AM
Training and conditioning today are worlds above what they used to be and the average level of talent is greater.  LeBron would physically wear down either Michael or Oscar.  I don't think either of them could stop him from going to the rim whenever he wanted, especially in a long game.
 
2013-10-05 08:47:50 AM
None of those guys could touch

static.flickr.com
 
2013-10-05 08:51:52 AM
/Team nutters
 
2013-10-05 08:53:18 AM

Lost Thought 00: Maybe. Hard to compare. He could just have well been simply a very good player in todays league playing against the equivalent of mid major players.


I do think the level of competition tends to get discounted in these types of arguments. Plus just the culture surrounding how players grow up, are coached, how much they play, etc. I mean, these days even mediocre players like, say, Gerald Henderson, probably spent time in AAU programs since he was 12 or 13, playing against superior competition than they find at their high school/playground, a lot of them go to high schools that are basketball factories, the level of play in college (despite the one and done phenomenon) is arguably higher across the board than it's ever been.
 
2013-10-05 08:53:44 AM

Grote-Man: Well, it was a different era but the Big O did  average a triple-double in 1961-62. Jordan didn't and LeBron hasn't done that. Also, the Big O played for some pretty bad teams early on. Also, he put with a lot of racism that neither of the other two had to deal with.

Tough call.


And if you look at his stats, he came really damn close to doing it five years in a row.
 
2013-10-05 08:55:22 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Training and conditioning today are worlds above what they used to be and the average level of talent is greater.  LeBron would physically wear down either Michael or Oscar.  I don't think either of them could stop him from going to the rim whenever he wanted, especially in a long game.


Athletically LeBron is much stronger and faster than those guys.  They say todays stars couldn't hack it in the rougher and more physical NBA of years past.  I say today's stars would rip the heads off of teams like the Detroit "Badboys" and feast on their brains.

www.twodolla.org

Known as a fearsome tough guy 20 years ago.

www.bbbswillgrundy.org

Known as a bit of a pussy today.

Notice any difference in body mass?
 
2013-10-05 09:00:38 AM
These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.
 
2013-10-05 09:07:05 AM

bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.


Saturday Night Live covered the idea best with Sweet River Baines.  Modern players would set ridiculous records in the past.
 
2013-10-05 09:23:36 AM

bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.


If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.
 
2013-10-05 09:39:33 AM
 
2013-10-05 09:45:20 AM

vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.


Well I think most people would say that the growth in player talent is different in the four sports.
I have no doubt that Koufax could play today, I think Brown would be good -- but he never saw defenders as big and fast as today's. Meanwhile, I have a hard time imagining past era players in technical sports like hockey or basketball succeeding today. The sports are essentially un-recognizable from their 60s and 70s versions.
It's easiest to see comparing clips of hockey. Especially the goalies. I doubt anyone would argue that hall of fame goalie Terry Sawchuck would even make a minor league team.
 
2013-10-05 10:14:26 AM
sinbapointforward.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-05 10:18:03 AM
The Big O is a racist jerk.  He misremembers a high school parade in Indianapolis.  He thinks the whites boycotted it.  He's a bit angry.

That said, I put him at the top of the elite.  He could play in any era, like Jordan, Duncan, Magic, Kareem, etc...  And he'd just school the hell out of the current crop of "stars".
 
2013-10-05 10:18:37 AM

elguerodiablo: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Training and conditioning today are worlds above what they used to be and the average level of talent is greater.  LeBron would physically wear down either Michael or Oscar.  I don't think either of them could stop him from going to the rim whenever he wanted, especially in a long game.

Athletically LeBron is much stronger and faster than those guys.  They say todays stars couldn't hack it in the rougher and more physical NBA of years past.  I say today's stars would rip the heads off of teams like the Detroit "Badboys" and feast on their brains.

[www.twodolla.org image 390x280]

Known as a fearsome tough guy 20 years ago.

[www.bbbswillgrundy.org image 280x389]

Known as a bit of a pussy today.

Notice any difference in body mass?


Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.
 
2013-10-05 10:23:17 AM

Rozotorical: Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.


Kurt Rambis...birth control glasses and a nasty elbow.

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.
 
2013-10-05 10:26:41 AM

I_C_Weener: LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


The mid-range jumper is not an important part of today's game.  It was then because if you went inside, you better be prepared to get your teeth knocked in.  The game wasn't prettier then.  But it was tougher.  The 3 was more important then for the same reason...to get the defense out of the inside so you could drive without getting an arm like an oak across your face.  Now, you can drive and know that most of the time a foul will be called.
 
2013-10-05 10:32:36 AM

I_C_Weener: The Big O is a racist jerk.  He misremembers a high school parade in Indianapolis.  He thinks the whites boycotted it.  He's a bit angry.

That said, I put him at the top of the elite.  He could play in any era, like Jordan, Duncan, Magic, Kareem, etc...  And he'd just school the hell out of the current crop of "stars".


What are you talking about? They were not even allowed to hold the parade in the city limits because of the fear of large groups of black men celebrating. Indianapolis would see parade crowds of upwards of 50,000 people after highschool basketball championships. They wouldn't even give Crispus Attucks a celebration inside of the city. Yeah Oscar was a biter angry person, but he had damn good reason too.

He would play games where the entire crowd would pelt him with food and trash just for being black. I think calling him racist is just nonsense. Unless the south is a race that is. Oscar did hate southerners with good reason too.

But I agree on your assessment. Oscar was the complete package, he certainly would school the hell out of the current crop of stars.  He may not be better then Lebron or Micheal but if he isn't it would be an insanely close competition.
 
2013-10-05 10:37:34 AM

I_C_Weener: Rozotorical: Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.

Kurt Rambis...birth control glasses and a nasty elbow.

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


This.
 
2013-10-05 10:46:15 AM

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.

The mid-range jumper is not an important part of today's game.  It was then because if you went inside, you better be prepared to get your teeth knocked in.  The game wasn't prettier then.  But it was tougher.  The 3 was more important then for the same reason...to get the defense out of the inside so you could drive without getting an arm like an oak across your face.  Now, you can drive and know that most of the time a foul will be called.


Back in the day creating enough space just to drive to the basket to get that elbow in the face would have been hard enough. Defenders use to be alowed to keep their hands on a player. Today that is foul.
 
2013-10-05 10:55:35 AM

I_C_Weener: Rozotorical: Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.

Kurt Rambis...birth control glasses and a nasty elbow.

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


Exactly. Just a reminder, but this wasn't considered a flagrant foul (I'm not even sure they  had those back then).
 
2013-10-05 11:09:26 AM

carnifex2005: I_C_Weener: Rozotorical: Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.

Kurt Rambis...birth control glasses and a nasty elbow.

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.

Exactly. Just a reminder, but this wasn't considered a flagrant foul (I'm not even sure they  had those back then).


Behold the Bad Boys.
 
2013-10-05 11:26:34 AM
and that's why I don't think that Le Bron James would be a great player any other eras.
 
2013-10-05 11:29:09 AM

TeamEd: vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.

Well I think most people would say that the growth in player talent is different in the four sports.
I have no doubt that Koufax could play today, I think Brown would be good -- but he never saw defenders as big and fast as today's. Meanwhile, I have a hard time imagining past era players in technical sports like hockey or basketball succeeding today. The sports are essentially un-recognizable from their 60s and 70s versions.
It's easiest to see comparing clips of hockey. Especially the goalies. I doubt anyone would argue that hall of fame goalie Terry Sawchuck would even make a minor league team.


There has to be consideration given to players from the past that they didn't have access to the same training enhancements that today's players do. Brown would have been a beast regardless. I'm a hockey fan, but not a historian...I think Gordie Howe would have still been a star. If the skill set exists abd can be improved upon through training, etc...why would it be any different for the legends?
 
2013-10-05 11:36:24 AM

I_C_Weener: and that's why I don't think that Le Bron James would be a great player any other eras.


0/10
 
2013-10-05 12:04:33 PM

I_C_Weener: Rozotorical: Yeah Laimbeer wasn't even close to the strongest or the biggest of his own era let alone on his own team. He was simply the nastiest.

There is no one in the league today even close to his level of belligerent truculent bad-ass-ness. He is still hated by his peers 30 years later, not just disliked but irrational hatred.

 Don't kid yourself today's stars are largely pussy cats.  Dwight would have no idea how to handle teams like the Knicks, the Celtics, The 76'ers. Let alone the Bad Boys. He would go to the locker room and just shake halfway through the first quarter.

  Teams wanted to fight back in the day. Dirty Players wanted to hurt people reveled in cracking skulls, breaking ankles, knocking out teeth.

  Teams hug each other before the games in today's league. They farking like each other. It's disgusting.

Kurt Rambis...birth control glasses and a nasty elbow.

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


Alright, I agree that the game was tougher 20 years ago, Rick Mahorn would kill just about anybody in the league right now, but LeBron would be a great player in any era. He's a once in a lifetime physical freak. He's Karl Malone's body with Magic Johnson's skill set, not to mention the smartest player in the league. It's ridiculous. And the reason the game has changed is because Shaq was so dominant they changed the rules. Don't forget that, before Shaq, no zone in the NBA.
 
2013-10-05 12:04:57 PM

elguerodiablo: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Training and conditioning today are worlds above what they used to be and the average level of talent is greater.  LeBron would physically wear down either Michael or Oscar.  I don't think either of them could stop him from going to the rim whenever he wanted, especially in a long game.

Athletically LeBron is much stronger and faster than those guys.  They say todays stars couldn't hack it in the rougher and more physical NBA of years past.  I say today's stars would rip the heads off of teams like the Detroit "Badboys" and feast on their brains.

[www.twodolla.org image 390x280]

Known as a fearsome tough guy 20 years ago.

[www.bbbswillgrundy.org image 280x389]

Known as a bit of a pussy today.

Notice any difference in body mass?


Wouldn't matter.  He would have backed off if confronted maintaining his big pussy status.  You can build youself up, but if you don't take a swing, it doesn't matter.  Some people are fighters.  Some aren't.  Shaq was a fighter.  Dwight isn't.  LeBron isn't.  Plus considering how much they whine about how unfairly fans treat them now, imagine them living with fans from the 60s and 70s.
 
2013-10-05 12:16:00 PM

vdawg: TeamEd: vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.

Well I think most people would say that the growth in player talent is different in the four sports.
I have no doubt that Koufax could play today, I think Brown would be good -- but he never saw defenders as big and fast as today's. Meanwhile, I have a hard time imagining past era players in technical sports like hockey or basketball succeeding today. The sports are essentially un-recognizable from their 60s and 70s versions.
It's easiest to see comparing clips of hockey. Especially the goalies. I doubt anyone would argue that hall of fame goalie Terry Sawchuck would even make a minor league team.

There has to be consideration given to players from the past that they didn't have access to the same training enhancements that today's players do. Brown would have been a beast regardless. I'm a hockey fan, but not a historian...I think Gordie Howe would have still been a star. If the skill set exists abd can be improved upon through training, etc...why would it be any different for the legends?


Sure. If that's the terms of the hypothetical. I always figured it was "what happens if we teleport Oscar from his prime and give him a season today."
 
2013-10-05 12:22:32 PM

I_C_Weener: LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


Players would adjust. Just because LeBron/etc came up in a league that doesn't tolerate physical play, doesn't mean they couldn't play physical if the rules allowed for it.
 
2013-10-05 12:33:47 PM

vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.


I think the talent pool overall is probably about the same. There are more teams now of course, but back then there were fewer kids that had the opportunity to get to that level as well.

Back in the 50's you might have kids that would average 25-30 a game for 3 years (no freshmen on varsity) of high school, graduate, then the next day start work at the tire factory or on their old man's farm. Colleges recruited and gave scholarships for kids to play, sure, but certainly not at the level where kids are getting noticed out of Anchorage or Garden City KS or whatever. Plus as I said before, programs like AAU and the like certainly give kids more time to play competitively and overall increase the number of quality players that end up "making it".
 
2013-10-05 12:37:29 PM

TeamEd: vdawg: TeamEd: vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.

Well I think most people would say that the growth in player talent is different in the four sports.
I have no doubt that Koufax could play today, I think Brown would be good -- but he never saw defenders as big and fast as today's. Meanwhile, I have a hard time imagining past era players in technical sports like hockey or basketball succeeding today. The sports are essentially un-recognizable from their 60s and 70s versions.
It's easiest to see comparing clips of hockey. Especially the goalies. I doubt anyone would argue that hall of fame goalie Terry Sawchuck would even make a minor league team.

There has to be consideration given to players from the past that they didn't have access to the same training enhancements that today's players do. Brown would have been a beast regardless. I'm a hockey fan, but not a historian...I think Gordie Howe would have still been a star. If the skill set exists abd can be improved upon through training, etc...why would it be any different for the legends?

Sure. If that's the terms of the hypothetical. I always figured it was "what happens if we teleport Oscar from his prime and give him a season today."


And therein lies the problem with comparing eras. Players are bigger and stronger today, I can't deny that. I also happen to believe that because of expansion, there are guys on teams that wouldn't cut the mustard back then.

I can't really see Brandon Weeden quarterbacking the Packers during the 60's. But, I can definitely see LeBron dominating then like he does now. It's a crazy argument, fun, but crazy.
 
2013-10-05 02:00:02 PM

jayhawk88: I_C_Weener: LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.

Players would adjust. Just because LeBron/etc came up in a league that doesn't tolerate physical play, doesn't mean they couldn't play physical if the rules allowed for it.


Nah there were plenty of non physical players in the 80's and 90's just not on championship teams.

Guys like Lebron and Duncan would still be just as dominate, but Bosh would have been out of the league. Pau Gasol and Brook Lopez would be fighting to get any play time.

Reggie, Reggie, Reggie Evans would have been happy as a prized enforcer.

Different players would simply be excelling in different roles as the majority of role players would make rosters for specific jobs.

 Now the Big O I honestly believe would be one of a handful of players that would dominate during any era of basketball. His biggest weakness was simply a horrible attitude, something that was tolerated much less when he played then any time later.

Elgin Baylor would be a great example of a player who would be a fish out of water in any other era.

**Lebron and Dwight would still be known as pussies in any era of basketball teams would just hire a bad ass to protect them.
 
2013-10-05 02:36:50 PM

I_C_Weener: The Big O is a racist jerk.  He misremembers a high school parade in Indianapolis.  He thinks the whites boycotted it.  He's a bit angry.

That said, I put him at the top of the elite.  He could play in any era, like Jordan, Duncan, Magic, Kareem, etc...  And he'd just school the hell out of the current crop of "stars".


in his home town indy, he was front man for a white run construction company, so it could get minority setasides for city construction projects.

but he didnt kill a guy, like marvin harrison.

/stalemate
 
2013-10-05 02:46:56 PM

Rozotorical: Nah there were plenty of non physical players in the 80's and 90's just not on championship teams.

Guys like Lebron and Duncan would still be just as dominate, but Bosh would have been out of the league. Pau Gasol and Brook Lopez would be fighting to get any play time.


You do recall that the Rockets won back to back titles in '94-95 right? Depending on your viewpoint the lack of Jordan had a little something to do with this, but it was still the era of the Riley's Knicks, Horace Grant and Shaq on the Magic, the Reggie Miller Pacers teams that went toe-to-toe with the Knicks, etc.

Heck in '93-94, 20 teams averaged 100+ a game. You know how many did that last year? 11. People just remember the Bulls/Knicks/Pistons/Pacers and think every game was like that, but that's just not the case.
 
2013-10-05 03:43:23 PM
TFA: "But he [Robertson] also played in an era when the pace of the game was much faster..."

This I don't get at all. While my memory of 1960s-70s NBA is fast-paced, all the clips I look at today suggest to me it's now a quicker, more "slashing" kind of game.

/Old School guy who remembers when fouls were called for putting hands on the guy you're guarding; traveling; "turning it over" dribbling; and so on. It is indeed a whole different game now, where (as before) the best players maximize their advantage within the present "rules"--and enforcement of same.
 
2013-10-05 03:56:55 PM

vdawg: TeamEd: vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.

Well I think most people would say that the growth in player talent is different in the four sports.
I have no doubt that Koufax could play today, I think Brown would be good -- but he never saw defenders as big and fast as today's. Meanwhile, I have a hard time imagining past era players in technical sports like hockey or basketball succeeding today. The sports are essentially un-recognizable from their 60s and 70s versions.
It's easiest to see comparing clips of hockey. Especially the goalies. I doubt anyone would argue that hall of fame goalie Terry Sawchuck would even make a minor league team.

There has to be consideration given to players from the past that they didn't have access to the same training enhancements that today's players do. Brown would have been a beast regardless. I'm a hockey fan, but not a historian...I think Gordie Howe would have still been a star. If the skill set exists abd can be improved upon through training, etc...why would it be any different for the legends?


To expound on the hockey analogy: when I was growing up the best NBA teams had an enforcer whose job was to protect the star/scorer. It was usually a forward or center. Names like Maurice Lucas and Artis Gilmore come to mind.
 
2013-10-05 04:21:14 PM

GrizzledVeteran: TFA: "But he [Robertson] also played in an era when the pace of the game was much faster..."

This I don't get at all. While my memory of 1960s-70s NBA is fast-paced, all the clips I look at today suggest to me it's now a quicker, more "slashing" kind of game.

/Old School guy who remembers when fouls were called for putting hands on the guy you're guarding; traveling; "turning it over" dribbling; and so on. It is indeed a whole different game now, where (as before) the best players maximize their advantage within the present "rules"--and enforcement of same.


When they say fast paced, they mean that the 60's and 70's teams chucked the ball with no abandon. From Yahoo...

"In the 60's teams back then took an average of almost 115 shots per game and made around 40%. Teams today take about 80 shots and make close to 47%. So in the 60's you usually had 138 chance to rebound and today about 85 chances. Meaning you had many more chances to rebounds in the 60's. You also had more chances to score and amass other stats."
 
2013-10-05 05:47:15 PM

jayhawk88: Rozotorical: Nah there were plenty of non physical players in the 80's and 90's just not on championship teams.

Guys like Lebron and Duncan would still be just as dominate, but Bosh would have been out of the league. Pau Gasol and Brook Lopez would be fighting to get any play time.

You do recall that the Rockets won back to back titles in '94-95 right? Depending on your viewpoint the lack of Jordan had a little something to do with this, but it was still the era of the Riley's Knicks, Horace Grant and Shaq on the Magic, the Reggie Miller Pacers teams that went toe-to-toe with the Knicks, etc.

Heck in '93-94, 20 teams averaged 100+ a game. You know how many did that last year? 11. People just remember the Bulls/Knicks/Pistons/Pacers and think every game was like that, but that's just not the case.


??????????

What does PPG have to do with physical play?

For the 5 years the Bad Boys were dominate they averaged well over a 100 PPG every season.

Look you put a body on Chris Bosh and the dude falls apart.  I think that is well established.

Now on the rockets are you telling me that Otis Thorpe wasn't a physical player? The Dream could bang with the best of them even if his skills were better suited to facing the basket then a traditional center.
 
2013-10-05 06:17:13 PM

TheSwissNavy: I_C_Weener: The Big O is a racist jerk.  He misremembers a high school parade in Indianapolis.  He thinks the whites boycotted it.  He's a bit angry.

That said, I put him at the top of the elite.  He could play in any era, like Jordan, Duncan, Magic, Kareem, etc...  And he'd just school the hell out of the current crop of "stars".

in his home town indy, he was front man for a white run construction company, so it could get minority setasides for city construction projects.

but he didnt kill a guy, like marvin harrison.

/stalemate


That was never proven.  Of course, I won't ever wear my 88 again because of that.  He's a real gangster.  Not like those others that pretend.  He's a freaking psychotic thug.
 
2013-10-05 06:19:50 PM

GrizzledVeteran: TFA: "But he [Robertson] also played in an era when the pace of the game was much faster..."

This I don't get at all. While my memory of 1960s-70s NBA is fast-paced, all the clips I look at today suggest to me it's now a quicker, more "slashing" kind of game.

/Old School guy who remembers when fouls were called for putting hands on the guy you're guarding; traveling; "turning it over" dribbling; and so on. It is indeed a whole different game now, where (as before) the best players maximize their advantage within the present "rules"--and enforcement of same.


Name a single player in the history of that game that could average a triple double FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON in any era.  The Big O.  Not Jordan, Magic, LeBron, Barkley, Kareem, Bird, not Wilt.

It wasn't the speed of the game that made it possible for him to rebound and assist and score.
 
2013-10-05 06:47:02 PM

I_C_Weener: GrizzledVeteran: TFA: "But he [Robertson] also played in an era when the pace of the game was much faster..."

This I don't get at all. While my memory of 1960s-70s NBA is fast-paced, all the clips I look at today suggest to me it's now a quicker, more "slashing" kind of game.

/Old School guy who remembers when fouls were called for putting hands on the guy you're guarding; traveling; "turning it over" dribbling; and so on. It is indeed a whole different game now, where (as before) the best players maximize their advantage within the present "rules"--and enforcement of same.

Name a single player in the history of that game that could average a triple double FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON in any era.  The Big O.  Not Jordan, Magic, LeBron, Barkley, Kareem, Bird, not Wilt.

It wasn't the speed of the game that made it possible for him to rebound and assist and score.


That could do it in any era?

I mean one person did it. But damn if it wasn't close for Magic pulling it off a couple of seasons.  He was just a shade below a triple double at 18.6/9.6/9.5 in his third year in the league.
 
2013-10-05 09:04:48 PM

vdawg: bborchar: These comparisons are always pointless because you simply can't compare different eras.

If anything, I think the argument for players in the past is that there were fewer teams back then. Is it possible that expansion (in all sports) has watered down the talent pool?

Do folks really think that Koufax and Mantle would have been average players today? Or Jim Brown would have been a 3 yard per carry guy?

I think they would have been just as good now as they were then.


You've nailed it. Without expansion (in any sport) there are lots of people playing today who would be asking 'paper or plastic'/'do you want fries with that?' or busting their ass on a construction job to make a living.
 
2013-10-05 09:48:20 PM
I_C_Weener:

Today's players, the stars, get by on a game that likes athletics but couldn't handle bumps.

LBJ looks for a foul before he goes to the basket.  He'splaying the rules, not the game.  Shaq would not dominate in this era, but in the 90s was perfect because he could bulldoze through the physical play. Today's best players would not survive a playoff game from the 90s against the Pacers, Knicks, Pistons, Jazz or Supersonics, Phoenix or Chicago.


Shaq would farking murder the bad boys.  Can you imagine a monster like Shaq committing the same fouls the Bad Boys did?  He'd end some of those motherfarkers' careers left and right.
 
2013-10-05 11:12:26 PM
I loved watching Jim Brown play. The man was fearless, I honestly don't remember him once giving up on a run and stepping out of bounds to avoid a hit; he regularly ran through people. Yes, players are significantly bigger and faster today - But if JB played today AND had access to today's conditioning... oh my. He was A Force of Nature then, I can't imagine a 'new, improved' modern version.

The old school baseball players - it's hard imagining them in a modern environment. Many of the superstars had real issues with alcohol, and certainly had none of today's conditioning regimen and/or access to modern medical care. Again, moving them to modern times AND all that entails... I think players like the Mick could still be Gods and have the potential to play many more seasons than they did in their era.  That being said, it's quite possible modern media exposure would destroy many of them...

As for basketball: O was a God. Russell: a God. Rules of the game were changed because of Wilt and Shaq because they so dramatically altered the balance. I can't imagine them struggling at any era. Lol, and Michael... he was a mean, stubborn SoB who hated to lose. Hated it. That kind of mental strength seems to do well whatever era; yes incredible talent helps, but sheer freaking will... determined to not only win but to utterly destroy you mentally and physically every time he stepped onto the court.
 
2013-10-06 08:14:33 AM
I hated watching the bullshiat antics of the Detroit bad boys, and it was satisfying to see the Bulls rise above that crap and bury those clowns eventually. I think the Superfans said it best for everybody who got tired of watching Laimbeer's pasty no-talent ass.

I had to watch the playoffs from my living room this year / so I picked a fight with my color tv / Hi, I'm Bill Laimbeer!
 
2013-10-06 10:44:12 AM

Tio_Holtzmann: I hated watching the bullshiat antics of the Detroit bad boys, and it was satisfying to see the Bulls rise above that crap and bury those clowns eventually. I think the Superfans said it best for everybody who got tired of watching Laimbeer's pasty no-talent ass.

I had to watch the playoffs from my living room this year / so I picked a fight with my color tv / Hi, I'm Bill Laimbeer!


You mean the Bulls and David Stern
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report