Is Shaq the strongest in the NBA, history?

[JoseChinga]

Without reading the first page much, are we talking strongest in the weight room or strongest on the court (eg: posting up, defensive low post, ect ect?)

If we're talking strongest pound for pound then Big Ben for me. Apparently in his prime that dude could bench between 450-470.

This is dumb.

Benching heavy weight just means you have strong pectoral muscles.

A more accurate measure of full body strength is a squat or deadlift, or any standard olympic or dynamic life.

[Kabookalu]

People seem to be confusing being chiseled with strength. Tim Duncan in his prime was considered to be one of the strongest big men in the league, after Shaq obviously, and he looks more of a twig than Lakers Wilt. In big men play what's more important to strength is the lower body. That's why Chuck Hayes has always played excellent defense on much bigger and stronger guys than him; his thighs are like tree trunks.

[Roscoe Sheed]

ralph sampson squatting 500lbs doesnt seem crazy at all...look at those legs

There is no way Ralph Sampson squatted a full range of motion 500 pounds. Squats are not meant for tall guys- especially 7 footers. In fact, tall guys are at a disadvantage for all lifts because of the distance they have to move the weight

[Run DLC]

Artest is stronger than Dwight Howard.

[djay]

I always crack up laughing when people talk about the 60s players as if they are god-like athlete. It is simply mind-bogging to me people still have this belief despite seeing their game on video.

People take modern athletes for granted because we are used to seeing this speed and strength. There is a thing in economy called the Law of Diminishing Return. What happens today is that the evolution of the game forces modern basketball athlete to achieve the peak of human potential as far speed, agility, quickness, strength, etc.. to the point where every top athletes reach the speed/strength so incredible that there's nothing to be impressed of anymore. Back then, the game was new so if you have a few super athlete playing at incredible level, the observers, which never witness it before, would have that surprising element. They then exaggerated that player achievement to the point of legendary, myth. This is a common phenomenon in almost all fields and sports.

If you put a Lebron, Rose, Shaq in those era. They would simply kill those athletes purely from their raw talent alone. Too quick, fast, agile, and strong.

[Run DLC]

Corey Maggatte is more ripped than LeBron.

[Kabookalu]

I always crack up laughing when people talk about the 60s players as if they are god-like athlete. It is simply mind-bogging to me people still have this belief despite seeing their game on video.

People take modern athletes for granted because we are used to seeing this speed and strength. There is a thing in economy called the Law of Diminishing Return. What happens today is that the evolution of the game forces modern basketball athlete to achieve the peak of human potential as far speed, agility, quickness, strength, etc.. to the point where every top athletes reach the speed/strength so incredible that there's nothing to be impressed of anymore. Back then, the game was new so if you have a few super athlete playing at incredible level, the observers, which never witness it before, would have that surprising element. They then exaggerated that player achievement to the point of legendary, myth. This is a common phenomenon in almost all fields and sports.

If you put a Lebron, Rose, Shaq in those era. They would simply kill those athletes purely from their raw talent alone. Too quick, fast, agile, and strong.

Your thinking is at such an elementary level. They would kill in that era, as they're killing it in the era they were born in. Their talent is transcedent. There's players back then that would not make the cut in today's league, and there's players today that would not be able to handle the unpampered nature of everyday life as well as the faster pace of the game.

[djay]

I always crack up laughing when people talk about the 60s players as if they are god-like athlete. It is simply mind-bogging to me people still have this belief despite seeing their game on video.

People take modern athletes for granted because we are used to seeing this speed and strength. There is a thing in economy called the Law of Diminishing Return. What happens today is that the evolution of the game forces modern basketball athlete to achieve the peak of human potential as far speed, agility, quickness, strength, etc.. to the point where every top athletes reach the speed/strength so incredible that there's nothing to be impressed of anymore. Back then, the game was new so if you have a few super athlete playing at incredible level, the observers, which never witness it before, would have that surprising element. They then exaggerated that player achievement to the point of legendary, myth. This is a common phenomenon in almost all fields and sports.

If you put a Lebron, Rose, Shaq in those era. They would simply kill those athletes purely from their raw talent alone. Too quick, fast, agile, and strong.

Your thinking is at such an elementary level. They would kill in that era, as they're killing it in the era they were born in. Their talent is transcedent. There's players back then that would not make the cut in today's league, and there's players today that would not be able to handle the unpampered nature of everyday life as well as the faster pace of the game.

faster pace of the game? It looks to me like they play in slow motion.

Maybe, just maybe, they play fast pace because there's no defense?

[Kabookalu]

faster pace of the game? It looks to me like they play in slow motion.

Maybe, just maybe, they play fast pace because there's no defense?

Again you're just showing your age. Or rather you're probably just a troll account because you're reiterating intelligent arguments used in debates in the past, except dumbed down to the vocabulary and mannerisms of a troll. To say they played no defense would be to oversimplify it. They played less defense on the nature of the running style the 60's was, although seeing as how the Suns were able to hang around as on the better half of the DRTG rankings with Nash and Stoudemire being horrible defenders for a lot of years, to play in a running game is almost defense in itself. The game has slowed down, but it doesn't make it superior; it just means it changed.

[tsherkin]

with Nash and Stoudemire being horrible defenders

Amare, yes. Nash was not a horrible defender. Mediocre, yes, not horrible.

The game has slowed down, but it doesn't make it superior; it just means it changed.

Defense WAS legitimately worse in the 60s. It was conceptually behind, it took Russell/Auerbach and then copy-cat evolution for things to change. Shot-blocking was a novel, gripping difference, and likewise the full measure of integrated help defense.

Of course, that's the nature of anything, right? Evolution over time. But their post defense was bad a lot, way less organized, etc. There's a reason that defense changed a lot in the late 90s/early 2000s, and that was an evolutionary process.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Roscoe Sheed]

It should also be mentioned that if the guys from the '60s were placed into the present they would benefit from modern nutrition and training and would therefore be better than they were back then

[Kabookalu]

Amare, yes. Nash was not a horrible defender. Mediocre, yes, not horrible.

Yeah, I was just thinking solely man defense, but Nash at least always knew where to be.

Defense WAS legitimately worse in the 60s. It was conceptually behind, it took Russell/Auerbach and then copy-cat evolution for things to change. Shot-blocking was a novel, gripping difference, and likewise the full measure of integrated help defense.

Of course, that's the nature of anything, right? Evolution over time. But their post defense was bad a lot, way less organized, etc. There's a reason that defense changed a lot in the late 90s/early 2000s, and that was an evolutionary process.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

I just realized I sort of contradicted myself in my post, bleh wrote that before going to bed. By that last statement I was trying to say that because our two eras are very different, you can't judge the 60's using measures of today's standards. People see stylistic differences and automatically assume it was a horrible brand of basketball.

[anuroc]

At LSU Shaq played with another freak athlete: Stanley Roberts. It's a shame he didn't choose his options in life wisely because he should have had a much better NBA career.

[djay]

faster pace of the game? It looks to me like they play in slow motion.

Maybe, just maybe, they play fast pace because there's no defense?

Again you're just showing your age. Or rather you're probably just a troll account because you're reiterating intelligent arguments used in debates in the past, except dumbed down to the vocabulary and mannerisms of a troll. To say they played no defense would be to oversimplify it. They played less defense on the nature of the running style the 60's was, although seeing as how the Suns were able to hang around as on the better half of the DRTG rankings with Nash and Stoudemire being horrible defenders for a lot of years, to play in a running game is almost defense in itself. The game has slowed down, but it doesn't make it superior; it just means it changed.

Watch the tape. Defense was horrible. Rotation and help defense were almost non-existence. The moment a player drove down the line, there was little 2nd/3rd man help. Also please don't put any statistical measurement to observe the 60s. It was a joke of how guys can put up such huge number. It was simply a factor of poor basketball. The game wasn't really developed. It was new. Comparing modern basketball vs those era are such a joke I don't even want to argue with. Just watch the video and see how poor it is. Even a college player nowadays can attack the weak defense and make a killing harassing the ball handler.

[Kabookalu]

Watch the tape. Defense was horrible. Rotation and help defense were almost non-existence. The moment a player drove down the line, there was little 2nd/3rd man help. Also please don't put any statistical measurement to observe the 60s. It was a joke of how guys can put up such huge number. It was simply a factor of poor basketball. The game wasn't really developed. It was new. Comparing modern basketball vs those era are such a joke I don't even want to argue with. Just watch the video and see how poor it is. Even a college player nowadays can attack the weak defense and make a killing harassing the ball handler.

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you're comparing stylistic differences to derate the 60's. And the 50's was when basketball truly started, so while it was still relatively new, it wasn't just getting off on its own legs. Perimeter play was not a focus in that day at all, and there's a good reason for that. Stricter ball handling rules made it harder for players to dribble, refs having worse judgment on when to call an offensive foul (as in they called it more often than they should have), no 3 point line, etc. This is like believing the 90's was worse because of the less sophisticated defenses (outside of the Jordan rules) compared to today's league. To an extent I would concede that it was, because this era allows for great structural defenses, but it's not as simple that sophisticated defenses were allowed into play, and then assuming that man defense stayed the same.

There's always an equilibrium that balances itself out through rule changes. The league favored big men in the 60's and restricted perimeter play, and vice versa. Dwyane Wade and LeBron James would at first salivate at the sight of the 60's, then they realize they can't dribble as they did, barrel into people inside the paint, and they wouldn't get favoritism. Of course I'm not saying defense isn't worse back then, but the change of rules made it so that a demand for better defense was necessary as a result of making way for better perimeter play. Some players would suffer through the changes if moved from their respective eras. I don't believe Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman would survive in any aside from their own. Then there are players today that would find to too difficult to cope with the 60's. Compared to today the defense does look worse, but you're also failing to put things into context.

[MigrainePatrol]

Pekovic is way overlooked. This guy is virtually the real life Zangief come to life right out of the Street Fighter games. When you grow up in a tough country probably doing heavy farming labor then strength training as a leisure activity you are one heck of a beast. I think some of the Eastern Block Slavic types that know nothing but heavy labor most of their life are the strongest physical people in the world.

[Roscoe Sheed]

Pekovic is way overlooked. This guy is virtually the real life Zangief come to life right out of the Street Fighter games. When you grow up in a tough country probably doing heavy farming labor then strength training as a leisure activity you are one heck of a beast. I think some of the Eastern Block Slavic types that know nothing but heavy labor most of their life are the strongest physical people in the world.

True. Minnesota is going to be quite tough this season, especially if Kirilenko plays up to his ability and Roy recovers. Pekovic is no joke and obviously Love can play. However, they will miss Rubio

[djay]

Watch the tape. Defense was horrible. Rotation and help defense were almost non-existence. The moment a player drove down the line, there was little 2nd/3rd man help. Also please don't put any statistical measurement to observe the 60s. It was a joke of how guys can put up such huge number. It was simply a factor of poor basketball. The game wasn't really developed. It was new. Comparing modern basketball vs those era are such a joke I don't even want to argue with. Just watch the video and see how poor it is. Even a college player nowadays can attack the weak defense and make a killing harassing the ball handler.

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you're comparing stylistic differences to derate the 60's. And the 50's was when basketball truly started, so while it was still relatively new, it wasn't just getting off on its own legs. Perimeter play was not a focus in that day at all, and there's a good reason for that. Stricter ball handling rules made it harder for players to dribble, refs having worse judgment on when to call an offensive foul (as in they called it more often than they should have), no 3 point line, etc. This is like believing the 90's was worse because of the less sophisticated defenses (outside of the Jordan rules) compared to today's league. To an extent I would concede that it was, because this era allows for great structural defenses, but it's not as simple that sophisticated defenses were allowed into play, and then assuming that man defense stayed the same.

There's always an equilibrium that balances itself out through rule changes. The league favored big men in the 60's and restricted perimeter play, and vice versa. Dwyane Wade and LeBron James would at first salivate at the sight of the 60's, then they realize they can't dribble as they did, barrel into people inside the paint, and they wouldn't get favoritism. Of course I'm not saying defense isn't worse back then, but the change of rules made it so that a demand for better defense was necessary as a result of making way for better perimeter play. Some players would suffer through the changes if moved from their respective eras. I don't believe Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman would survive in any aside from their own. Then there are players today that would find to too difficult to cope with the 60's. Compared to today the defense does look worse, but you're also failing to put things into context.

What rules in the 60s that made it hard for modern player to dribble? Be specific as I don't find any rule that make it harder for the like of Lebron, Kobe, Wade to dominate that weak era of defense. Their explosiveness will cause hell in those era. The speed, agility, strength, ball handler are anything I see from that 60s era.

It's laughable to claim Lebron/Wade wouldn't get a lot of calls back then when Elgin Baylor/Oscar Robertson free throw attempt are in the double digit.

3pt line actually reduce today efg%. Today efg% was 7% higher than in the 60s without the 3pt line. While the game favored big man but it doesn't mean perimeter players can't dominated, as proven by Oscar, West, Baylor. And these guys don't have the kind of ball handler and athleticism that Lebron/Wade possess.

[Kabookalu]

What rules in the 60s that made it hard for modern player to dribble? Be specific as I don't find any rule that make it harder for the like of Lebron, Kobe, Wade to dominate that weak era of defense. Their explosiveness will cause hell in those era. The speed, agility, strength, ball handler are anything I see from that 60s era.

It's laughable to claim Lebron/Wade wouldn't get a lot of calls back then when Elgin Baylor/Oscar Robertson free throw attempt are in the double digit.

3pt line actually reduce today efg%. Today efg% was 7% higher than in the 60s without the 3pt line. While the game favored big man but it doesn't mean perimeter players can't dominated, as proven by Oscar, West, Baylor. And these guys don't have the kind of ball handler and athleticism that Lebron/Wade possess.

There's a reason why players look like they're dribbling with stiff hands in the 60's; what constituted as a carry was much different than what it is today. And I never said LeBron/Wade/Kobe wouldn't dominate that era. If you remember I said those are the kinds of talents who are transcendent that would beast in any time period because of their superstar mentality and passion for the game, however how they play the game would have to change. Baylor and Oscar had inside games, not just outside ones, and LeBron/Wade/Kobe would probably end up halfing their inside/outside game too to better conform to the half court game. Although that would not be a problem for them.