Tyus Jones vs Bob Cousy

[One_and_Done]

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

Do you genuinely believe that there were no geniuses among "cavemen"? Seriously?

Not to mention that Cousy was born way later than Einstein, he's alive and yet he's the one compared to a caveman. Would you say that to Cousy with a straight face? Are you 15 or what?

One of us should be incredulous at the last post they read, but it's not you. Someone discovering something first doesn't make them the smartest in that field, because the level of genius required to do 2 things in a specific field is often completely different. Stone age people who learned to hack clay out of walls were the 'first' miners. It does not make them equal in intelligence to the guys who figured out how to make steel or refine petroleum, or create artificial diamonds.

Yes, I would tell Cousy to his face that I don't think he could cut it in today's league. Hopefully Cousy is self aware enough to know this, I'd honestly be worried about him if he thought otherwise. I also know it does nothing to lessen the great achievements he had, or the legacy he left in the league. Cousy can be a great hall of famer, and beloved Celtic legend, while still not cutting it in today's league.

[70sFan]

One of us should be incredulous at the last post they read, but it's not you. Someone discovering something first doesn't make them the smartest in that field, because the level of genius required to do 2 things in a specific field is often completely different. Stone age people who learned to hack clay out of walls were the 'first' miners. It does not make them equal in intelligence to the guys who figured out how to make steel or refine petroleum, or create artificial diamonds.

I'm not talking about someone discovering something first, although I have no idea why you think the early discoveries don't require massive amount of intelligence. I asked if you truly believe that there were no geniuses among cavemen, so please answer the question.

[One_and_Done]

One of us should be incredulous at the last post they read, but it's not you. Someone discovering something first doesn't make them the smartest in that field, because the level of genius required to do 2 things in a specific field is often completely different. Stone age people who learned to hack clay out of walls were the 'first' miners. It does not make them equal in intelligence to the guys who figured out how to make steel or refine petroleum, or create artificial diamonds.

I'm not talking about someone discovering something first, although I have no idea why you think the early discoveries don't require massive amount of intelligence. I asked if you truly believe that there were no geniuses among cavemen, so please answer the question.

I mean, genius comes in many forms. You can be a genius at skipping stones across a lake for instance, and doubtless such genius rock throwers existed during the tens of thousands of years of human pre-history. I don't see how it matters though, because that genius doesn't translate to anything useful today. There was no caveman you could teleport into our time who would be able to be a genius physicist today because of his skill throwing stones, and when you're talking about having them raised from childhood to be a totally different person then it's too speculative.

That's where we end up with old timers like Cousy. They would suck if we transported them into the modern era, and it's too speculative to imagine their entire life and upbringing differently so they grew into a different person with a different skill set. The only fair way to assess them is based off what they actually could do, whether it's throwing a stone real good, or outplaying the plumbers from an embryonic league. Neither is impressive today.

[Zadeh]

Watch on YouTube

for who thinks todays athletes better than yesterdays, especially teenagers who never wants to learn rules and history of the game.

[70sFan]

I mean, genius comes in many forms. You can be a genius at skipping stones across a lake for instance, and doubtless such genius rock throwers existed during the tens of thousands of years of human pre-history. I don't see how it matters though, because that genius doesn't translate to anything useful today. There was no caveman you could teleport into our time who would be able to be a genius physicist today because of his skill throwing stones, and when you're talking about having them raised from childhood to be a totally different person then it's too speculative.

That's where we end up with old timers like Cousy. They would suck if we transported them into the modern era, and it's too speculative to imagine their entire life and upbringing differently so they grew into a different person with a different skill set. The only fair way to assess them is based off what they actually could do, whether it's throwing a stone real good, or outplaying the plumbers from an embryonic league. Neither is impressive today.

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

[One_and_Done]

I mean, genius comes in many forms. You can be a genius at skipping stones across a lake for instance, and doubtless such genius rock throwers existed during the tens of thousands of years of human pre-history. I don't see how it matters though, because that genius doesn't translate to anything useful today. There was no caveman you could teleport into our time who would be able to be a genius physicist today because of his skill throwing stones, and when you're talking about having them raised from childhood to be a totally different person then it's too speculative.

That's where we end up with old timers like Cousy. They would suck if we transported them into the modern era, and it's too speculative to imagine their entire life and upbringing differently so they grew into a different person with a different skill set. The only fair way to assess them is based off what they actually could do, whether it's throwing a stone real good, or outplaying the plumbers from an embryonic league. Neither is impressive today.

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

[maradro]

I mean, genius comes in many forms. You can be a genius at skipping stones across a lake for instance, and doubtless such genius rock throwers existed during the tens of thousands of years of human pre-history. I don't see how it matters though, because that genius doesn't translate to anything useful today. There was no caveman you could teleport into our time who would be able to be a genius physicist today because of his skill throwing stones, and when you're talking about having them raised from childhood to be a totally different person then it's too speculative.

That's where we end up with old timers like Cousy. They would suck if we transported them into the modern era, and it's too speculative to imagine their entire life and upbringing differently so they grew into a different person with a different skill set. The only fair way to assess them is based off what they actually could do, whether it's throwing a stone real good, or outplaying the plumbers from an embryonic league. Neither is impressive today.

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

You have no problem speculating the other way though.. if it's an even comparison they are at least playing on the same rules / sneakers / ball right? So why do you assume this Jones can do step back 3 pointers when he has never used those sneakers, ball, and the court doesn't even have a 3 pt line? If given time to acclimate he could probably still be good, even a star back then.. but straight in a game, with a ball and sneakers he's never used? Good chance he gets injured and can't even finish the game much less be a shooting god.

Your average just graduated astronomer, if teleported to 5000 years back to England they wouldn't be able to design Stonehenge (with all of its astrological alignments, proportions etc) much less build it, unless you sent them with a computer, gps, telescope, and so on.

That's exactly why (reasonable) people don't compare across eras and consider contextual impact

[70sFan]

I mean, genius comes in many forms. You can be a genius at skipping stones across a lake for instance, and doubtless such genius rock throwers existed during the tens of thousands of years of human pre-history. I don't see how it matters though, because that genius doesn't translate to anything useful today. There was no caveman you could teleport into our time who would be able to be a genius physicist today because of his skill throwing stones, and when you're talking about having them raised from childhood to be a totally different person then it's too speculative.

That's where we end up with old timers like Cousy. They would suck if we transported them into the modern era, and it's too speculative to imagine their entire life and upbringing differently so they grew into a different person with a different skill set. The only fair way to assess them is based off what they actually could do, whether it's throwing a stone real good, or outplaying the plumbers from an embryonic league. Neither is impressive today.

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

Cousy would need a few months to adjust to modern rules and for understanding modern schemes and concepts. After that, he'd have no problem playing modern basketball. Maybe he wouldn't reach NBA (maybe he would), but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't notice a difference between him and other players.

Caveman child would be able to learn how to read the same way we do.

Your hypothetical are fair, but if someone thinks someone like Cousy would be able to learn new things, that's too much. Very selective argumentation and horribly inconsistent I'm afraid.

[One_and_Done]

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

You have no problem speculating the other way though.. if it's an even comparison they are at least playing on the same rules / sneakers / ball right? So why do you assume this Jones can do step back 3 pointers when he has never used those sneakers, ball, and the court doesn't even have a 3 pt line? If given time to acclimate he could probably still be good, even a star back then.. but straight in a game, with a ball and sneakers he's never used? Good chance he gets injured and can't even finish the game much less be a shooting god.

Your average just graduated astronomer, if teleported to 5000 years back to England they wouldn't be able to design Stonehenge (with all of its astrological alignments, proportions etc) much less build it, unless you sent them with a computer, gps, telescope, and so on.

That's exactly why (reasonable) people don't compare across eras and consider contextual impact

The barriers on Tyus are all easily overcome. Wow, adapting to new shoes. How will he manage. I also generally compare players operating at the highest level, which is a modern setting, not how will these guys play on ashpalt next to a volcano. But here it's irrelevant, as Jones would maybe be considered the GOAT in the 50s & 60s.

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

[One_and_Done]

Then you basically assume that people from previous eras would be unable to learn anything today, which is silly. A smart caveman would be able to learn a lot of things and probably surpass many people know in a specific field (assuming he'd be young enough to learn everything). Rookie Cousy would learn a lot of things very quickly, because he was talented basketball player.

Of course if you take rookie Cousy and wouldn't dare him to learn anything, then he wouldn't make the league... but the same thing would be true with any player from the past - including rookie LeBron who have never seen schemes with similar complexity.

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

Cousy would need a few months to adjust to modern rules and for understanding modern schemes and concepts. After that, he'd have no problem playing modern basketball. Maybe he wouldn't reach NBA (maybe he would), but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't notice a difference between him and other players.

Caveman child would be able to learn how to read the same way we do.

Your hypothetical are fair, but if someone thinks someone like Cousy would be able to learn new things, that's too much. Very selective argumentation and horribly inconsistent I'm afraid.

To make your caveman analogy work, you have to regress them to a child. That's the problem here. You're not saying the caveman could learn physics, you're saying if we found a baby caveman and raised it completely differently in our time then they might be able to be a physicist. Maybe, but it's entirely speculative, and the same is true of Cousy. At that point he's no longer Bob Cousy. It would be like arguing a random guy could become an NBA player in a fictionalised version of their life where they get really good at bball.

[70sFan]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

Sorry but this is just stupid. You basically admit that previous generation had lesser potential to learn new things, which means without any euphemisms that you believe previous generations were dumber, less inteligent and physically less capable.

Do you have even a brief of evidence to support that?

[70sFan]

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

Cousy would need a few months to adjust to modern rules and for understanding modern schemes and concepts. After that, he'd have no problem playing modern basketball. Maybe he wouldn't reach NBA (maybe he would), but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't notice a difference between him and other players.

Caveman child would be able to learn how to read the same way we do.

Your hypothetical are fair, but if someone thinks someone like Cousy would be able to learn new things, that's too much. Very selective argumentation and horribly inconsistent I'm afraid.

To make your caveman analogy work, you have to regress them to a child. That's the problem here. You're not saying the caveman could learn physics, you're saying if we found a baby caveman and raised it completely differently in our time then they might be able to be a physicist. Maybe, but it's entirely speculative, and the same is true of Cousy. At that point he's no longer Bob Cousy. It would be like arguing a random guy could become an NBA player in a fictionalised version of their life where they get really good at bball.

So what age would be appropriate for your hypothetical?

Are you aware that your caveman analogy is destroyed here, because basically no adult raised in Western civilization would last more than a few days in "caveman" times.

[One_and_Done]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

Sorry but this is just stupid. You basically admit that previous generation had lesser potential to learn new things, which means without any euphemisms that you believe previous generations were dumber, less inteligent and physically less capable.

Do you have even a brief of evidence to support that?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Though certainly a caveman who has never read a book will make a poor physicist.

[One_and_Done]

Cousy would need a few months to adjust to modern rules and for understanding modern schemes and concepts. After that, he'd have no problem playing modern basketball. Maybe he wouldn't reach NBA (maybe he would), but I'm 100% sure you wouldn't notice a difference between him and other players.

Caveman child would be able to learn how to read the same way we do.

Your hypothetical are fair, but if someone thinks someone like Cousy would be able to learn new things, that's too much. Very selective argumentation and horribly inconsistent I'm afraid.

To make your caveman analogy work, you have to regress them to a child. That's the problem here. You're not saying the caveman could learn physics, you're saying if we found a baby caveman and raised it completely differently in our time then they might be able to be a physicist. Maybe, but it's entirely speculative, and the same is true of Cousy. At that point he's no longer Bob Cousy. It would be like arguing a random guy could become an NBA player in a fictionalised version of their life where they get really good at bball.

So what age would be appropriate for your hypothetical?

Are you aware that your caveman analogy is destroyed here, because basically no adult raised in Western civilization would last more than a few days in "caveman" times.

If I was asking who was the physically stronger between a modern scientist and a caveman this would be a great response. Don't worry my guy, I'm sure Cousy could chew Tobacco better than Tyus.

[70sFan]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

Sorry but this is just stupid. You basically admit that previous generation had lesser potential to learn new things, which means without any euphemisms that you believe previous generations were dumber, less inteligent and physically less capable.

Do you have even a brief of evidence to support that?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Though certainly a caveman who has never read a book will make a poor physicist.

You keep saying it all the time, by admitting that you don't believe any player from a whole generation would be able to become successful in today's league even after necessary time to adjust.

What do you know about physicists by the way? Do you know them from movies? Do you know any personally?

[One_and_Done]

Sorry but this is just stupid. You basically admit that previous generation had lesser potential to learn new things, which means without any euphemisms that you believe previous generations were dumber, less inteligent and physically less capable.

Do you have even a brief of evidence to support that?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Though certainly a caveman who has never read a book will make a poor physicist.

You keep saying it all the time, by admitting that you don't believe any player from a whole generation would be able to become successful in today's league even after necessary time to adjust.

What do you know about physicists by the way? Do you know them from movies? Do you know any personally?

Time to adjust is training camp and an offseason, not "imagine they were born in this time and lived a completely different life".

I also have Kareem top 3 all time, as you know, so it's a false premise anyway.

[70sFan]

I didn't say anything of the sort. Though certainly a caveman who has never read a book will make a poor physicist.

You keep saying it all the time, by admitting that you don't believe any player from a whole generation would be able to become successful in today's league even after necessary time to adjust.

What do you know about physicists by the way? Do you know them from movies? Do you know any personally?

Time to adjust is training camp and an offseason, not "imagine they were born in this time and lived a completely different life".

I also have Kareem top 3 all time, as you know, so it's a false premise anyway.

It's not false, you simply don't think of Kareem as 1960s player. You think players he struggled against sucked.

Give top players from the 1960s a season or two to learn modern game and they'd be fine, some of them would even become stars because talent was always there.

[One_and_Done]

You keep saying it all the time, by admitting that you don't believe any player from a whole generation would be able to become successful in today's league even after necessary time to adjust.

What do you know about physicists by the way? Do you know them from movies? Do you know any personally?

Time to adjust is training camp and an offseason, not "imagine they were born in this time and lived a completely different life".

I also have Kareem top 3 all time, as you know, so it's a false premise anyway.

It's not false, you simply don't think of Kareem as 1960s player. You think players he struggled against sucked.

Give top players from the 1960s a season or two to learn modern game and they'd be fine, some of them would even become stars because talent was always there.

Yeh i disagree, and frankly reality disagrees. How many players with a shot as broken as Cousy had have gone on to become solid shooters? It's astronomically unlikely.

[70sFan]

Time to adjust is training camp and an offseason, not "imagine they were born in this time and lived a completely different life".

I also have Kareem top 3 all time, as you know, so it's a false premise anyway.

It's not false, you simply don't think of Kareem as 1960s player. You think players he struggled against sucked.

Give top players from the 1960s a season or two to learn modern game and they'd be fine, some of them would even become stars because talent was always there.

Yeh i disagree, and frankly reality disagrees. How many players with a shot as broken as Cousy had have gone on to become solid shooters? It's astronomically unlikely.

We have plenty of examples of players starting to play basketball at the age of 16-18 and becoming quality NBA players. Do you suggest that African guys who never touched basketball before 16 have more basketball skills than Bob Cousy?

[tsherkin]

except he wasn't.

But definitively, he was. Sure, you can look at other weak scorers at the point and say he was better than them, but that still doesn't say much when that was a below-league-average option all across the board. That was a tactical error on part of the coaches for continuing to run with that, but that doesn't change that Cousy wasn't a good volume scoring choice. It just means they hadn't recognized how to properly evaluate such at that time in the league... which was like 70 years ago. So, unsurprising.

you're left with a guy leading the league in assists every season,

Irrelevant to my remark about scoring, and something which I did also address in my post.

Poor efficiency for point guards was a product of the time for a variety of reasons and does not equate to him not being a good scorer. Just take the L

But there's no L, you're wrong. Your entire point of comparison is "other guys at his position were worse," which is true, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a good scoring choice. They were just less effective scoring choices.