RealGM

There must be better examples than this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f665HWWalf8

...but it'll do, especially since it's not slow-mo and captures Russell and Wilt (among others) at their peak. Imagine today's playoff games filmed EXACTLY like that, from those angles, in grainy black and white. Imagine the players wearing short shorts. Imagine there's no 3 point line. Imagine the refs will actually call every minute instance of travelling, but not every ticky-tack foul.

(p.s. did Russell have the worst FT form I've ever seen? )

That opening possession may be the worst defensive pressure on the PG I've ever seen at the professional level.

Well, I think #1 things were a little different before the 3 point line re: pressuring the PG and #2 as with some other YouTube clips from the 60's it's from the last several minutes of a Finals game in a more fast-paced era so we can assume the guys (except Russ and Wilt) were fatigued.

no one played D

Rasheeed!!! wrote:no one played D

I've been saying that for so long. But everyone just assumes that defense played today is the worst ever. That's not even close. Today's defense is the best ever.

It makes me mad when people here brings in a 60's player and calls him the best in today's league. They have no idea that back then, most guards could barely dribble with the off hand, there was no defensive pressure, the game was terribly sloppy, and the players aren't nearly as skilled.

I think the first part of that will better illustrate how crappy the NBA in the 60s really was
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt5bXeTT ... re=related
lol I think every middle school playground in the country could provide better basketball talent.

If you compare 1960s stuff with 2000s stuff, many people confuse "better" with "greater".

I am sure that Elgin Baylor would be outjumped by Vince Carter today. Still, he is LOADS greater than Vince.

I am sure that Jim Thorpe would be a scrub in decathlon today. Still, he is the decathlon GOAT.

I am sure that many people today know more about math than Pythagoras. Still, he is the maths GOAT.

It is a pretty myopic approach to diss performances of the past just based on today's yardsticks. I am pretty sure that guys like Sam Jones, Bill Russell, John Havlicek or Red Auerbach would also be "better" if everyone was paid 10 million bucks (realistic figures for ALL of them), had 1st class treatment all they way and had the nutrition and knowledge of today.

Point forward wrote:If you compare 1960s stuff with 2000s stuff, many people confuse "better" with "greater".

I am sure that Elgin Baylor would be outjumped by Vince Carter today. Still, he is LOADS greater than Vince.

I am sure that Jim Thorpe would be a scrub in decathlon today. Still, he is the decathlon GOAT.

I am sure that many people today know more about math than Pythagoras. Still, he is the maths GOAT.

It is a pretty myopic approach to diss performances of the past just based on today's yardsticks. I am pretty sure that guys like Sam Jones, Bill Russell, John Havlicek or Red Auerbach would also be "better" if everyone was paid 10 million bucks (realistic figures for ALL of them), had 1st class treatment all they way and had the nutrition and knowledge of today.

No one is dissing their performances in the best but people here say that those players are better than today's which is mind bogglingly stupid.

Just some facts from that decade:

-Average salary: 30000 bucks
-Average travelling: second class in trains, rarely the plane
-Average lodging: three-star motel with a bed for 6-footers
-It was not considered good to lift weights, because it destroyed your shooting touch
-It was not considered good to use your energy for defense (exception: Celtics)
-It was not considered good to dunk, b/c it was showboating
-It was not considered appropriate for guards to post up or slash
-Black players like Russell were still racially discriminated

Patterns wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


No one is dissing their performances in the best but people here say that those players are better than today's which is mind bogglingly stupid.

I can live with that opinion. I am also a huge Pele fan, but if you see him play, you REALLY see how soccer has developed since the 1950s and 1960s.

Patterns wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


I've been saying that for so long. But everyone just assumes that defense played today is the worst ever. That's not even close. Today's defense is the best ever.

It makes me mad when people here brings in a 60's player and calls him the best in today's league. They have no idea that back then, most guards could barely dribble with the off hand, there was no defensive pressure, the game was terribly sloppy, and the players aren't nearly as skilled.

Yeah, I don't even know why I ****ing bothered.

Most guards could dribble with their off hand but because they WEREN'T ALLOWED TO CARRY THE BALL WHENEVER THEY PLEASED they usually dribbled with their dominant hand and actually if you look at today's players SO DO THEY. If you saw "no" defensive pressure in that footage THEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN **** LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE. The game was sloppy? Oh right because PLAYERS TODAY NEVER MISS SHOTS AND NEVER TURN THE BALL OVER, especially NOT WHEN IT'S A GAME THAT INVOLVES THE BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, no there definitely hasn't been basketball that sloppy in these 2008 playoffs. Players back then didn't spin/crossover (er, travel) as often and they played a DIFFERENT STYLE of up-and-down basketball that didn't focus as much on maximizing each possession SO NATURALLY THAT MEANS THEY WEREN'T NEARLY AS SKILLED.

Sorry mods, please lock this thread, only god knows why I thought people would bring anything other than their pre-conceptions and mis-conceptions to the table.

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah, I don't even know why I ****ing bothered.

Most guards could dribble with their off hand but because they WEREN'T ALLOWED TO CARRY THE BALL WHENEVER THEY PLEASED they usually dribbled with their dominant hand and actually if you look at today's players SO DO THEY. If you saw "no" defensive pressure in that footage THEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN **** LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE. The game was sloppy? Oh right because PLAYERS TODAY NEVER MISS SHOTS AND NEVER TURN THE BALL OVER, especially NOT WHEN IT'S A GAME THAT INVOLVES THE BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, no there definitely hasn't been basketball that sloppy in these 2008 playoffs. Players back then didn't spin/crossover (er, travel) as often and they played a DIFFERENT STYLE of up-and-down basketball that didn't focus as much on maximizing each possession SO NATURALLY THAT MEANS THEY WEREN'T NEARLY AS SKILLED.

Sorry mods, please lock this thread, only god knows why I thought people would bring anything other than their pre-conceptions and mis-conceptions to the table.

what the hell is wrong with you dude? relax...lmao.

i don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over things that don't matter...like a message boarder's opinion of your favorite decade of basketball.

having watched as much old footage as i possibly could find, i'd have to share the opinion that today's basketball is a lot better. don't have a stroke if you disagree, it's just my opinion.

It's one thing to say today's basketball is better.
It's another thing to offer (Please Use More Appropriate Word) reasons why, like Patterns did.

wigglestrue wrote:It's one thing to say today's basketball is better.
It's another thing to offer (Please Use More Appropriate Word) reasons why, like Patterns did.

Patterns wrote:

It makes me mad when people here brings in a 60's player and calls him the best in today's league.

Been saying this for quite some time whenever then and now comparisons come up. The stars stood on top of average joes. No disrespect to Wilt or Russell, but they are no better than any of the other great big men including ones from this era. Look at the years they dominated statistically, there were only a handful of players in the league over 6'9 that played meaningful minutes. But that's for another topic......

But on topic that footage shows how far the game has come, and I'm glad to see this era live instead of that one. Nice to see legends in action though.[/b]

Exactly how has the game come far? Today: Fewer possessions, more of a focus on maximizing each possession, more intense defense on every play, much less saving/pacing oneself, more liberties when dribbling, a myriad little moves coined over a few decades, more explosive leaping. The game has evolved, for sure. Evolution doesn't necessarily equate to progress or lead to supremacy, though. Do you really think any decent player plucked from today could thrive like a champ in the 60's? Maybe they'd go off the first couple of games after stepping out of the time machine, but soon enough they'd collapse from exhaustion. Playing fast-paced and up-and-down, rarely facing a scrub, getting fouled hard when hard contact was far more common...that takes a lot out of an athlete. Just imagine how a player might look like after a whole season of that, in the last few minutes of a Finals game...might even look a little sloppy.

Also, please realize that heights back then were different. That's the 28,937th somebody on the PC board has had to point that out. Had they been measured in their shoes like today's players, there were significantly more than a handful of 6'9" or taller players, and many of them were good, Hall of Famers even. Let's take 1964. Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas, Bellamy, Pettit, Thurmond. That's 6 HOFers 6'9" or taller. Then there was Embry, Kerr, Ray Scott, Len Chappell. Decent-to-good players who played more-than-meaningful minutes that year, all of them 6'9" or taller.

wigglestrue wrote:Exactly how has the game come far? Today: Fewer possessions, more of a focus on maximizing each possession, more intense defense on every play, much less saving/pacing oneself, more liberties when dribbling, a myriad little moves coined over a few decades, more explosive leaping. The game has evolved, for sure. Evolution doesn't necessarily equate to progress or lead to supremacy, though. Do you really think any decent player plucked from today could thrive like a champ in the 60's? Maybe they'd go off the first couple of games after stepping out of the time machine, but soon enough they'd collapse from exhaustion. Playing fast-paced and up-and-down, rarely facing a scrub, getting fouled hard when hard contact was far more common...that takes a lot out of an athlete. Just imagine how a player might look like after a whole season of that, in the last few minutes of a Finals game...might even look a little sloppy.

Also, please realize that heights back then were different. That's the 28,937th somebody on the PC board has had to point that out. Had they been measured in their shoes like today's players, there were significantly more than a handful of 6'9" or taller players, and many of them were good, Hall of Famers even. Let's take 1964. Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas, Bellamy, Pettit, Thurmond. That's 6 HOFers 6'9" or taller. Then there was Embry, Kerr, Ray Scott, Len Chappell. Decent-to-good players who played more-than-meaningful minutes that year, all of them 6'9" or taller.

Today's players are FAR more conditioned than players in the 60's. Today's players can play for longer, with more productivity because they're in elite shape. Today's NBA has the best athletes in the world.

Patterns wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




Today's players are FAR more conditioned than players in the 60's. Today's players can play for longer, with more productivity because they're in elite shape. Today's NBA has the best athletes in the world.

Not only did the best players in the 60's average significantly more minutes per game, they did it while playing at a significantly faster pace. Basketball is fundamentally an aerobic sport, not a ******* bodybuilding contest. This isn't a question of which generation is generally superior to which. It's a question of different contexts. For some reason baseball fans can grasp a concept like that, and by comparison basketball fans (like you anyway) don't get it.

wigglestrue wrote:Do you really think any decent player plucked from today could thrive like a champ in the 60's? Maybe they'd go off the first couple of games after stepping out of the time machine, but soon enough they'd collapse from exhaustion. Playing fast-paced and up-and-down, rarely facing a scrub, getting fouled hard when hard contact was far more common...that takes a lot out of an athlete. Just imagine how a player might look like after a whole season of that, in the last few minutes of a Finals game...might even look a little sloppy.

Are you serious? They would step out the time machine and drop 90 on the old school, lol. That defense can not stop a Kobe or a Lebron. I wish I could watch that game.

wigglestrue wrote:Let's take 1964. Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas, Bellamy, Pettit, Thurmond. That's 6 HOFers 6'9" or taller.

Try 61-62 and the rest of the 60s. And being 6'9 or taller is a helluva lot different than playing against 7 footers almost every night.

wigglestrue wrote:For some reason baseball fans can grasp a concept like that, and by comparison basketball fans (like you anyway) don't get it.

Baseball and basketball are two entirely different sports, with different physical demands. You're comparing peas and potatoes here dude.

Sdot thadon wrote: Are you serious? They would step out the time machine and drop 90 on the old school, lol. That defense can not stop a Kobe or a Lebron. I wish I could watch that game.

You know what would be awesome? If you could read. You seem to be able to type, I don't see what's so much harder about reading. Just scan the words on the screen and sound them out. Note the bolded part. Cool?

Do you really think any decent player plucked from today could thrive like a champ in the 60's?

Unless you're illiterate, you'll notice that I used the words "any decent player", as opposed to something like "one of the 2-3 best players in the game". (Think of a merely decent player, I'm guessing you can. Anthony Parker, maybe?) If I'd said the latter, then yes you'd be correct in pointing out that Kobe or LeBron, stepping directly out of a time machine, could probably score 90. Mind you, Wilt scored 100 one night. And at the other end of the spectrum, Kobe scored 81 last season.

Try 61-62 and the rest of the 60s. And being 6'9 or taller is a helluva lot different than playing against 7 footers almost every night.

61-62? Okay: Wilt, Russell, Bellamy, Pettit, Embry, Kerr, Scott, Dukes, Boozer, not to mention guys like Howell, Heinsohn, and LaRusso who were probably a hair under 6'9". The rest of the 60's? Like, later on? Hmmm: Wilt, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Pettit, Lucas, Reed, Beaty, and the occasional one-two year wonders just like we have today. As for 7 footers, are we talking about good 7 footers or just 7 footers? Legit 7 footers or almost 7 footers? Let's stick with good, legit 7 footers. 61-62 had Wilt, Bellamy, Dukes. That's 3 teams out of 9, 33% of the league. Who do we have today: Duncan, Garnett, Chandler, Ilgauskas, Shaq, Bogut, Kaman, Yao, Dirk...ummm...Haywood? Dampier? There are 30 teams today. It's about the same percentage of good, legit 7 footers. Feel like continuing to get owned or are you through?