Baron Davis on Appreciating the Current Era

[DavidSterned]

There was an interview with Ronnie Coleman about the greatest body builder ever and he said it was Arnold. And he justified it...some with a leading question, that if Arnold had Ronnie's coaches and other help, that he'd have been just as big or bigger and would have looked better. And I think that's such an amazing way of looking at these things. Now flat out, Ronnie was just wrong. Arnold wouldn't have been as big as Ronnie imo, he just wasn't built like that. But it shows the understanding and importance of the progression we make in all areas at getting better. For some reasons we so often want to dismiss "standing on the back of giants" as the foundation of being human.

So while we can say perhaps Wilt would be the best ever if he stood on the back's of today's giants. He didn't and as such he wasn't. And I don't understand why such a simple reality is hard for people to say. It's not a knock on the past but as complement for them being those giants. But to ignore this, is just sad.

I have no problem with people coming to a whole range of player comparison opinions, as long as they understand all this stuff. I only take strong exception when someone is talking era comparison and it seems like they're ignorant of the era-related differences, or how the evolution of sports works.

If someone wants to say Steph Curry is better than Jerry West because he looks more skilled dribbling the ball, I roll my eyes. If they like Steph Curry because they believe- relative to era- Steph's shooting gravity impacts winning way more than anything Jerry West was doing at the time, I agree with them!

The thing is Curry is almost certainly a more skilled ball handler and shooter. He's also stronger and faster.

I'd have no problem if you took the opposite and say yes but relative to era West was more an outlier. But in a magic time machine discussion where West joined the league at 22 and played today. he'd struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants. Curry would need time to adapt to rules but the skills he has would instantly translate and leave him above his 60's peers.

So I too would be fine with either choice but I feel far too many want to ignore that player's today are better, just flat out. And the reasons are just how humans improve at anything.

Curry in 1965 would be called for traveling/carrying left and right and while his shooting prowess would matter and translate to a large extent, his overall value would still shift significantly without a 3 point line.

And given his ankle issues early in his career, I doubt he'd even get out of the 60s in one piece playing in high tops with some crude tape slapped on. It's a world of difference from the world class treatments available to these guys now.

[dhsilv2]

I have no problem with people coming to a whole range of player comparison opinions, as long as they understand all this stuff. I only take strong exception when someone is talking era comparison and it seems like they're ignorant of the era-related differences, or how the evolution of sports works.

If someone wants to say Steph Curry is better than Jerry West because he looks more skilled dribbling the ball, I roll my eyes. If they like Steph Curry because they believe- relative to era- Steph's shooting gravity impacts winning way more than anything Jerry West was doing at the time, I agree with them!

The thing is Curry is almost certainly a more skilled ball handler and shooter. He's also stronger and faster.

I'd have no problem if you took the opposite and say yes but relative to era West was more an outlier. But in a magic time machine discussion where West joined the league at 22 and played today. he'd struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants. Curry would need time to adapt to rules but the skills he has would instantly translate and leave him above his 60's peers.

So I too would be fine with either choice but I feel far too many want to ignore that player's today are better, just flat out. And the reasons are just how humans improve at anything.

Curry in 1965 would be called for traveling/carrying left and right and while his shooting prowess would matter and translate to a large extent, his overall value would still shift significantly without a 3 point line.

And given his ankle issues early in his career, I doubt he'd even get out of the 60s in one piece playing in high tops with some crude tape slapped on. It's a world of difference from the world class treatments available to these guys now.

I clearly stated he'd need a small time to adapt to rules changes. Why do people just ignore what is said?

Now you might be right about the ankle stuff, but Curry also learned how to correct this through strength training. That would translate to the 60's, even if gym's weren't what they are today. And again that's my point. We know better how to train to protect our bodies today too. But sure, maybe injuries are a factor. I'll grant you that as it's fair, but it misses the bigger point which is how players are built on the backs of giants.

[cupcakesnake]

The thing is Curry is almost certainly a more skilled ball handler and shooter. He's also stronger and faster.

I'd have no problem if you took the opposite and say yes but relative to era West was more an outlier. But in a magic time machine discussion where West joined the league at 22 and played today. he'd struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants. Curry would need time to adapt to rules but the skills he has would instantly translate and leave him above his 60's peers.

So I too would be fine with either choice but I feel far too many want to ignore that player's today are better, just flat out. And the reasons are just how humans improve at anything.

I have Curry over West all-time. This was just an example.

I do not agree that Curry is stronger than West was. Relative to era or not.

I'm a bit lost on the strength thing my guy. Curry's added a solid 20-30 pounds of muscle mass since even entering the league. West was skin and bones. Relative to era West might have been stronger but Curry would rag doll West. We barely understood strength training in the 60's at the body builder level. We have high school boy football player who are stronger today than the NFL pros of that era.

I need you to take a few minutes out of your day to go look at pictures of Jerry West's thighs

He was 6'4.5" with a 6'9" wingspan, guy averaged 16rpg in college. In terms of basketball strength, that core strength, Jerry West was a beast.

Yes Curry has packed on plenty of muscle to keep his late prime going strong. I'm not underestimating Curry's strength but I think West is naturally built with a way stronger base, which is more functionally important for basketball.

I forgot to respond to one thing from your earlier comment about the magic time machine. Yes, West would struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants, but I think modern players would have a different kind of struggle (maybe not equal but not nothing.) Steph would have to re-learn how to dribble in a way with zero ball manipulation. One hand on top of the ball, pounding down. It would be completely foreign to him. On top of that, he'd have to re-engineer a lot of moves to deal with the lack of traction on the courts, as well as deal with playing/living/social conditions that would feel medieval to him. I think the player from the future would still have an easier time changing eras, but I don't think it would be easy at all.

[DavidSterned]

The thing is Curry is almost certainly a more skilled ball handler and shooter. He's also stronger and faster.

I'd have no problem if you took the opposite and say yes but relative to era West was more an outlier. But in a magic time machine discussion where West joined the league at 22 and played today. he'd struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants. Curry would need time to adapt to rules but the skills he has would instantly translate and leave him above his 60's peers.

So I too would be fine with either choice but I feel far too many want to ignore that player's today are better, just flat out. And the reasons are just how humans improve at anything.

Curry in 1965 would be called for traveling/carrying left and right and while his shooting prowess would matter and translate to a large extent, his overall value would still shift significantly without a 3 point line.

And given his ankle issues early in his career, I doubt he'd even get out of the 60s in one piece playing in high tops with some crude tape slapped on. It's a world of difference from the world class treatments available to these guys now.

I clearly stated he'd need a small time to adapt to rules changes. Why do people just ignore what is said?

Now you might be right about the ankle stuff, but Curry also learned how to correct this through strength training. That would translate to the 60's, even if gym's weren't what they are today. And again that's my point. We know better how to train to protect our bodies today too. But sure, maybe injuries are a factor. I'll grant you that as it's fair, but it misses the bigger point which is how players are built on the backs of giants.

Probably because your "small time to adjust" is a gross understatement.

Given the extent of the officiating changes he'd have to completely reconfigure his ball handling to survive back then. Not sure if you realize how much time it would take a guy to reconfigure learned movements as innate as their go-to ball handling moves, those that he's crafted continuously since he was a kid. The amount of learned muscle memory there is tremendous after a certain point, and to unlearn it would be equally tremendous. It's not some minor learning curve situation.

That's why these arguments are so silly because the way I see it the fish-out-of-water scenario works pretty effectively both ways.

[dhsilv2]

I have Curry over West all-time. This was just an example.

I do not agree that Curry is stronger than West was. Relative to era or not.

I'm a bit lost on the strength thing my guy. Curry's added a solid 20-30 pounds of muscle mass since even entering the league. West was skin and bones. Relative to era West might have been stronger but Curry would rag doll West. We barely understood strength training in the 60's at the body builder level. We have high school boy football player who are stronger today than the NFL pros of that era.

I need you to take a few minutes out of your day to go look at pictures of Jerry West's thighs

He was 6'4.5" with a 6'9" wingspan, guy averaged 16rpg in college. In terms of basketball strength, that core strength, Jerry West was a beast.

Yes Curry has packed on plenty of muscle to keep his late prime going strong. I'm not underestimating Curry's strength but I think West is naturally built with a way stronger base, which is more functionally important for basketball.

I forgot to respond to one thing from your earlier comment about the magic time machine. Yes, West would struggle because he didn't get to build on the backs of giants, but I think modern players would have a different kind of struggle (maybe not equal but not nothing.) Steph would have to re-learn how to dribble in a way with zero ball manipulation. One hand on top of the ball, pounding down. It would be completely foreign to him. On top of that, he'd have to re-engineer a lot of moves to deal with the lack of traction on the courts, as well as deal with playing/living/social conditions that would feel medieval to him. I think the player from the future would still have an easier time changing eras, but I don't think it would be easy at all.

I think we agree and I thought I addressed that Curry would need to adjust. Maybe I undersold it, but I think overall it's something you'd see a player adapt to in 1-2 years fairly well.

As for west, I'm pretty sure I'm the kind on this forum of legs make a man a man, and all that fancy upperbody stuff is for idiots

Now you made two different points so lets address. The first I agree with. West has a better foundation to build. 100% agree. But he didn't and I guess you can argue that weight training would translate and Curry's a crap example as he clearly didn't maximize it before his NBA days. So if that's where you went...we'll just have to agree I guess

But in terms of who's actually stronger in the case that Curry goes back in time with his current knowledge, well he's just getting strong than everyone his size to 20% bigger with modern training. No, he's not getting stronger than Wilt or Thurmond or guys like that. But he's pass them

As for legs...I dunno man. I think Curry's legs are pretty solid for the nba, I can't find a good shot without pads and what not, but I think his quads compare and I think his hamstrings look much more developed which likely means his posterior chain is going to give him much more structural stability to power through guys.

Also I was a bit joking about jerry being skin and bones, I've many times said he'd actually translate defensively well to any era, he's got such an amazing wingspan with a 6'4.5 height which is likely close enough to MJ's. So by all means, I have nothing but respect for the Logo's physical tools to translate well to any era...but he'd need to transfer at 16 or so not 22 to max it out.

Spoiler:

[dhsilv2]

Curry in 1965 would be called for traveling/carrying left and right and while his shooting prowess would matter and translate to a large extent, his overall value would still shift significantly without a 3 point line.

And given his ankle issues early in his career, I doubt he'd even get out of the 60s in one piece playing in high tops with some crude tape slapped on. It's a world of difference from the world class treatments available to these guys now.

I clearly stated he'd need a small time to adapt to rules changes. Why do people just ignore what is said?

Now you might be right about the ankle stuff, but Curry also learned how to correct this through strength training. That would translate to the 60's, even if gym's weren't what they are today. And again that's my point. We know better how to train to protect our bodies today too. But sure, maybe injuries are a factor. I'll grant you that as it's fair, but it misses the bigger point which is how players are built on the backs of giants.

Probably because your "small time to adjust" is a gross understatement.

Given the extent of the officiating changes he'd have to completely reconfigure his ball handling to survive back then. Not sure if you realize how much time it would take a guy to reconfigure learned movements as innate as their go-to ball handling moves, those that he's crafted continuously since he was a kid. The amount of learned muscle memory there is tremendous after a certain point, and to unlearn it would be equally tremendous. It's not some minor learning curve situation.

That's why these arguments are so silly because the way I see it the fish-out-of-water scenario works pretty effectively both ways.

Curry's eye hand coordination is some of the best stuff we've ever seen. He isn't just great, he's perhaps the best in nba history. He is the most exceptional example and the guy who'd most quickly be able to retool that of anyone ever. This is very much playing to what Curry would do best.