Best player All-Time for the 1960s environment

[MyUniBroDavis]

LeBron is the closest physically to Maurice Stokes among 1960s players, not to Baylor or Russell.

LeBron is a freak because he's way bigger than your typical 6'7-6'8 forward (let's be real, he's not 6'9 barefoot), but it's not true that the league didn't have players around that height back then. I doubt James would play a center role in the 1960s, centers were still taller than him and banging inside on defense would hurt his overall game.

Thinking he is closer to 6ft7 than 6ft9 is hilarious when he’s measured 6ft8.5 barefoot lol

I didn't say he is, but there are various reports about James height. Some of them put him at 6'7.5. Based on everything we know, I think calling him 6'8 barefoot is fair. He was shorter even than old Bill Russell when they met after all.

Reports in highschool? Everyone knows he got taller since he was 17. He was measured at 6ft8.5 barefoot, so he’s 6ft8.5 barefoot lol. Doubting nba measurements now, and holding 50-60 year old newspaper reports as holy grail measurements sounds strange

comparing him to your typical 6ft7-6ft8 and saying there’s no way he’s 6ft9 pretty obviously implies that he is closer to 6ft7 lol

[penbeast0]

LeBron is the closest physically to Maurice Stokes among 1960s players, not to Baylor or Russell.

LeBron is a freak because he's way bigger than your typical 6'7-6'8 forward (let's be real, he's not 6'9 barefoot), but it's not true that the league didn't have players around that height back then. I doubt James would play a center role in the 1960s, centers were still taller than him and banging inside on defense would hurt his overall game.

Stokes was 50s not 60s. I would say the best comp for LeBron is Connie Hawkins for the length, leaping ability, passing ability, defense, etc. though I think LeBron is physically stronger a la Baylor. And remember that Baylor, Hawkins, Gus Johnson, all the great leaper/dunkers of the era, played a lot in the post rather than starting outside and going downhill all the time. The big men of that era were pretty much all 6-9 or above (remember they measured in socks and used college weight so most were bigger than listed).

As for LeBron being Russell, he's played in this era and hasn't matched great modern shotblockers like Hakeem (best post-3 comp to Russell with similar long slim build with powerful legs though an inch or so shorter) or Turner (or even Ibaka). Just because LeBron is a truly great player and amazing physical specimen doesn't mean he does every single thing at an ATG level.

[70sFan]

Thinking he is closer to 6ft7 than 6ft9 is hilarious when he’s measured 6ft8.5 barefoot lol

I didn't say he is, but there are various reports about James height. Some of them put him at 6'7.5. Based on everything we know, I think calling him 6'8 barefoot is fair. He was shorter even than old Bill Russell when they met after all.

Reports in highschool? Everyone knows he got taller since he was 17. He was measured at 6ft8.5 barefoot, so he’s 6ft8.5 barefoot lol. Doubting nba measurements now, and holding 50-60 year old newspaper reports as holy grail measurements sounds strange

comparing him to your typical 6ft7-6ft8 and saying there’s no way he’s 6ft9 pretty obviously implies that he is closer to 6ft7 lol

No, reports from his NBA years.

Who holds 50-60 year old reports as "holy grail me measurements"?

[eminence]

Russell in his 80s was still clearly taller than LeBron in person. One of those measurements - Russell (6'10) or LeBron (6'9) is off by some margin.

[MyUniBroDavis]

You could maybe argue that Russell was 6ft10.5 or 6ft11 when he was younger based off his height being a tad shorter than Dwight and a tad taller than bron and people losing 2 inches on average, that’s some extrapolation though and photo measurements had people saying rookie zion was like 6ft8 lol, saying lebron is closer to 6ft7 is hilarious though

Don’t think it matters much either way lol

[70sFan]

saying lebron is closer to 6ft7 is hilarious though

Thankfully nobody said that.

[Doctor MJ]

????????????

When paint/rim protection meant more due to no 3 pt line.

Again...

Well on one hand there is the confirmation bias inherent in this question - Bill Russell because he dominated it.

A large contributor of Russell's dominance was his physique (6'10, 215-220lbs, 7'4 wingspan) elite athleticism, leadership and IQ etc - we know it all.

Now let's consider Lebron James 6'9 240-50 lbs, 7' wingspan) one of the most intelligent, athletic and well rounded players to step foot on the court. If we propose Russell's abilities stand out across era, then conversely Lebron would be absolutely filthy in the 1960s.

That's coming from a Celtics fan with not a lot of time for Lebron...

Lebron James's physical profile is far closer to Bill Russell, than any non-big in the 60's.

This is now the second-time you've replied to a post making this point and just ignored it for some reason. Are you under the impression Lebron wouldn't be a vastly more impactful rim-protector in the 60's than he is now?

So, I don't think the data shows what you're taking it to.

The important thing about Russell's measures is not his height or his weight but his reach. Of the data you give, wingspan tells part of that story, there we see 4 inch separation. The idea that that is "close" is just not true, and the fact that this is where the separation between the two comes to fruition is significant.

In a nutshell: Something keeping LeBron from being a different class of defenders, is the fact that his arms are merely long for his height - well above typical - instead of extremely long for his height.

[penbeast0]

Lebron James's physical profile is far closer to Bill Russell, than any non-big in the 60's.

This is now the second-time you've replied to a post making this point and just ignored it for some reason. Are you under the impression Lebron wouldn't be a vastly more impactful rim-protector in the 60's than he is now?

It depends on what you call a "non-big." If you are calling Connie Hawkins, Elgin Baylor, or Gus Johnson bigs, then you are correct. They would be the most similar in terms of physical skills and playstyle and, to some degree also, body type. LeBron would probably have grown up as a 4 like Hawkins to take advantage of his abilities.

Russell was longer, with greater reach as pointed out, and less burly through the chest. Today he'd probably be listed at 6'11 like Hakeem was (Russell was a bit taller than Hakeem but probably less than an inch difference).

[JimmyFromNz]

It seems we can debate the finer measurement points of players that's fine.

Though to me there really isn't a historical comparison for Lebron's combination of all of these alongside other athletic factors.

I do like the Maurice Stokes reference with the limited footage and anecdotal reflections (let's be careful with those) available to us. But again, simply shades.

Can we pick characteristics of previous players that mirror Lebron. Yep absolutely, height, build, leaping ability, explosiveness, open court speed (doubtful), first step. In combination? Unlikely, as those are some of the fundamental building blocks of an athlete this board has pegged as the greatest player of all time in the current top 100 project.

Nevertheless as mentioned we're all living in a hypothetical scenario. So not a point I'll labour any further.

[tsherkin]

Having a player grow up as a different player to nerf them is how you know they're too good for where you're rating them.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here.