Why this hate for older players?

Point forward · Post #1 » by **Point forward** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:22 am

One thing I find strange about RGM is how regularly and casually older players get dissed. Cousy, Oscar, West, Wilt etc are always hounded by ppl who say that "they were so unathletic",
"the league was so weak", and the classic "they would not make the league today". I love bball, but I like many other sports. Why this pathological hate for older players? Look how strange comparable statements seem.

"Rod Laver cannot play a backhand to save his life, he would not make the ATP. Mardy Fish >>>> Laver"

"LOL Jim Thorpe is a small unathletic weakling, he would be scrubbing floors today."

"Muhammad Ali would be a third stringer today, look, he is too light and does not defend at all."

"Mark Spitz's gold medals are worthless, back then all were badly trained amateurs. ROFL. Lochte wipes the floor with him."

"Wayne Gretzky played in a time when the NHL was slow and static. He is so skinny, he would be a bench warmer today."

"LOL Nadia Comaneci won gold with elements which are performed by 8 year olds today. She would so badly suck today."

"Pele would be killed today. He is too small and light and would be useless under today's rules. Freddy Adu would kick Pele's butt."

"ROFL at Eric Heiden's gold medals, look at his pathetic competition. Chad Hedrick would lap him 5 times in the 10km, Heiden is a snail."

Why all this disrespect? Why are bball fans so aggressive when it comes to older players? I am curious.

shawngoat23 · Post #2 » by **shawngoat23** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:38 am

More so than anything else, the NBA game has evolved to favor the superstar, from more generous treatment by officials to rules changes which favor isolation. Also, more than any other sport, basketball has a street culture that encourages more flair, something that was lacking in the older days.

You'll rarely hear a baseball fan claim that Babe Ruth would have been a scrub or a football fan claiming that Walter Payton would be backing up Cedric Benson.

Duiz · Post #3 » by **Duiz** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:45 am

Rod Laver did kinda suck... Lleyton Hewitt would make him cream his pants with a signature lawnmower move.

G35 · Post #4 » by **G35** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:17 pm

Well to be fair it goes both ways.

None of the players playing now will ever be as great as players in the past. Wilt would be the best player in the league. Russell would be DPOY of the league every year. Oscar would get a triple double with his eyes closed. Jerry West would own anybody nowadays.

Players nowadays only use their athleticism and have ZERO bball IQ. The current players have crap for fundamentals, they just show up to the games and just run around dunking the ball. Players nowadays are only look better now because they have access to the latest training techniques, better equipment, better shoes.

So it goes both ways. It's rare for someone to be able to appreciate players from different generations and even rarer to give a fair comparison. People are just naturally partial to what they grew up on.......

The Main Event · Post #5 » by **The Main Event** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:46 pm

U forgot to mention that i said that i could beat Bob Cousy one on one. His left was horrendous. haha. I think that everything is relative to it's time and it's ridiculous that we compare players of the past to the players of today. A guy like Jerry West very well could have been as athletic as say Kobe, but back then, he never would have trained to be a ferocious dunker. It's all relative.

BubbaTee · Post #6 » by **BubbaTee** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:50 pm

Since when do you have to be super athletic to play basketball? Nash probably can't even touch rim. I don't envision Jamison or Rip entering any dunk contests in the near future, either.

Wilt and Russell were both world-class high jumpers, anyways. Pulling the unathletic card on them is just factually incorrect.

tracey_nice · Post #7 » by **tracey_nice** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:05 pm

Nash can't even touch rim? Are you kidding me?

Point forward · Post #8 » by **Point forward** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:34 pm

The Main Event wrote:U forgot to mention that i said that i could beat Bob Cousy one on one. His left was horrendous.

FYI, Cousy was ambidextrous.

But this thread is not aimed at anyone specific, it just seems general consensus on RGM that older = worse. That just puzzles me. The soccer Euro 2008 e.g. was the best tourney ever and I still think that Di Stefano, Charlton or even a guy like Breitner are light years better than Xavi, the tournament MVP.

bballmaniac27 · Post #9 » by **bballmaniac27** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:46 pm

BubbaTee wrote:Since when do you have to be super athletic to play basketball? Nash probably can't even touch rim. I don't envision Jamison or Rip entering any dunk contests in the near future, either.

Wilt and Russell were both world-class high jumpers, anyways. Pulling the unathletic card on them is just factually incorrect.

lol, get out of here man. Nash is a good athlete.... just because he's not the most explosive player or the highest leaper doesn't mean he's unathletic. And yes, Steve Nash can touch the rim lol....

SmoothKobra · Post #10 » by **SmoothKobra** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:35 pm

BubbaTee wrote:Since when do you have to be super athletic to play basketball? Nash probably can't even touch rim. I don't envision Jamison or Rip entering any dunk contests in the near future, either.

Wilt and Russell were both world-class high jumpers, anyways. Pulling the unathletic card on them is just factually incorrect.

I bet you that Nash could tomahawk if he wanted to.

Harry10 · Post #11 » by **Harry10** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:44 pm

the talent pool in the past was alot smaller than it is today, so when you see the inflated numbers of some of the elite players in the past, you can't really take them seriously.

the majority of the compeition for the older players where just smaller and slower and physically weaker.

Egg Nog · Post #12 » by **Egg Nog** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:45 pm

This thread reminds me of that topic some moron started a while back...

"Would Elgin Baylor be a starter in today's league?"

CzBoobie · Post #13 » by **CzBoobie** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:01 pm

BubbaTee wrote:Since when do you have to be super athletic to play basketball? Nash probably can't even touch rim. I don't envision Jamison or Rip entering any dunk contests in the near future, either.

Wilt and Russell were both world-class high jumpers, anyways. Pulling the unathletic card on them is just factually incorrect.

lol, even moderately athletic 13-year old can touch the rim, let alone profesionall basketball player who is 6-3...

Blame Rasho · Post #14 » by **Blame Rasho** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:23 pm

Why, because people are stupid...

Ali would still be the best heavyweight if he was in his prime

Brown would still be the best running back if he was in his prime

Koufax would be one of the best pitchers if he was in his prime.

Post #15 » by **CellarDoor** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 pm

It's a stigma that goes both ways, there are many, many reasons for it. For the older generation: things seem more impressive when you FIRST see them, so seeing someone like Russell, KAJ, Big O is much more impressive and makes a larger impression than seeing someone do the same thing with a different method in today's game. For the younger generation, all there is to go on is statistics, and when you see the astronomical stats of the 60s its easy to write everyone off because no matter how many pace adjusted stats a person throws their way, there's no way to quantify that big of a change in the game.

The right answer is that it's simply impossible to really tell. Players in the 60s didn't have all these methods of bulking up or improving their speed, so what did they do? They worked on their skills. The could fundamentally bitch slap most players in the league today. Why is that? Are players today less intelligent? Not necessarily, they just have all sorts of other avenues for improvement and to impress someone: athletics. Todays weight training programs are so advanced and we know so much more about diets that all but a select few of the old players would get physically owned.

To summarize, I think it is a fundamental lack of respect for any way but the way they prefer that makes a fan hold older (or newer) players in higher regard.

Brandon-Clyde · Post #16 » by **Brandon-Clyde** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:32 pm

[quote][/qby Harry10 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:44 am

the talent pool in the past was alot smaller than it is today, so when you see the inflated numbers of some of the elite players in the past, you can't really take them seriously.

the majority of the compeition for the older players where just smaller and slower and physically weaker.

uote]

Yes it was smaller but it was also spread over a lot fewer teams meaning that the average talent on each team was possibly just as good as today.Look at some of the players today who not only manage to stay in the league but get playing time,players like Dampier,Gadzuric,Milicic,Larry Hughes etc.I'm certain you can name others.Travel is also a lot easier now than then as well and that took its own toll on wear and tear

abcdef · Post #17 » by **abcdef** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:34 pm

Harry10 wrote:the talent pool in the past was alot smaller than it is today, so when you see the inflated numbers of some of the elite players in the past, you can't really take them seriously.

the majority of the compeition for the older players where just smaller and slower and physically weaker.

Yeah, there were also 9-10 teams in the league in the 60's, not the 30 we have today.

Your argument fails.

Warspite · Post #18 » by **Warspite** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:17 pm

Baseball glorifies and worships its past. Whats the biggest thrill of the AllStar game? Its the HOFers walking out and being honored.

The NFL ignores its players and worships the TEAMS. The NFL is famous for throwing away its legends and cutting/tradeing them instead of allowing them to leave gracefully.

Tennis and golf are so differant because of equipment that they have become differant games. Tiger couldnt shoot within 20 strokes of par with Ben Hogans clubs. Conners cant play his game with the ball speeds and raquet sizes of today.

I enjoy watching todays NBA players a bit more than when I grew up because of the better ball movement and less ISO play. I however can take the time to appreciate the subtle differances in the game and to appreciate greatness. Basketball IMHO is easy to get a basic understanding of and very difficult to master.

Why todays young fans 14-24 yrs old dont appreciate the past or honor it is a broader/deeper discussion that translates past basketball and into everything in society.

If the NBA brought out its legends at major functions and had more tributes to its former teams and players to educate its youth I believe it would change. Baseball which is such a slow game allows stories of the past and gives the time to announcers to honor former greats will always be the sport that honors the past. The NBA needs to do more than just have 2 Hofers throw up the cermonial opening toss.

I watched a program on NBA TV (which I believe is the best $5per month I have ever spent) about Mikan and MN Lakers. I believe NBA TV is trying to help and its rebroadcasts of games is invaluable. Watching every NBA Allstar game from 1962-2008 back to back allows you to learn the evolution of the sport.

writerman · Post #19 » by **writerman** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:43 pm

It's spelled I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E -- on the parts of too many younger posters here who seem to think the whole world came into being the instant they were popped outta their mommas.

Forest · Post #20 » by **Forest** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:36 pm

it doesn't matter whether you are younger or 50 years old and for some reason posting on realgm. Older people always tend to have this passion for the past. And younger people are always claimed to be ignorant. It is just a cycle.

But like someone said on realgm, look at how world records fall in the olympics. Athletes are just simply better today. Some of the world records just get destroyed from only 4 years ago. Training is improved, and people get paid way more money to do nothing but play sports. Especially in Basketball. Even Wilts salary of 250,000 in the 1960s is dwarfed by the standard MLE player. And yes I took into account the purchasing power. So the competition and talent pool has increased for that reason alone.