this is like when people tried to say wnba players (back when people knew the wnba existed) were more fundamentally sound than nba players. basically they just meant they were less athletic and thus more of their game seemed to be based on fundamental things. this of course ignored the fact nba players are better at every single thing there is than wnba players and just because they can jump and dunk doesn't suddenly make their dribbling, layups, passing and other mundane things worse. just because duncan has fewer fancy moves doesn't mean he gets more credit than hakeem, who obviously was able to do the easy moves well or he wouldn't have been able to do the difficult moves as well as he did.
No, it's because Tim moves his feet within the rules of basketball more that makes him more fundamentally sound. Again, Hakeem's footwork was more dazzling and mesmerizing, but he tended to get away with some steps. Was it not Rudy T and CD who were in charge that gave out those contracts? Go ahead and list all the nice individual stats about Francis, cause that's about all we can say about him. He was simply the wrong player to build around.
How do you bring up women's basketball to a conversation about 2 all time great NBA players? Your argument is kinda weak considering Duncan's accomplishments. I am talking about just looking at Duncan's footwork and comparing his to Hakeem's. While Duncan's footwork was not as fast or quick as Hakeem's, I give him the slight nod because he did it more within the rules of basketball, thus more fundamentally sound.
"fundamentals" only consist of footwork (where i'd say it's a draw)? or it also includes some other things?
I was specifically talking about footwork. You can apply "fundamentals" to any skill. Spoken like a true person who ran out of steam on his argument, lol. Sure, we'll agree to disagree, that's cool.
No problem. I get worked up when we talk about Dream, because he doesn't get the respect he deserves. Damn it, I know I'm biased because I'm a Rockets fan, but look at the videos!! He was unbelievable and yet he consistently is compared to players that were not on his level. and I'm stepping off the soap box.....
That's pretty hard to say. Tim has only known one coach in his NBA career and had the luxury to settle into Pop's way of basketball, and therefore he would seem more team oriented. One thing I remember Hakeem was kinda bad at the beginning is passing out of double teams, I remember him trying to fight through double teams and still scoring. I get sucked into the Battier/Artest defensive comparison when thinking about Tim and Hakeem. Battier/Duncan were more about mastering the basic fundamentals, Artest/Hakeem was more about athletic prowess. (this has nothing to do with women's basketball, btw)
I don't get why people always say stuff like this... like Hakeem only had a few great years. The fact is, Dream went "bananas" on the entire league his whole career.
I can see your point. Hakeem did become a better passer out of the post as his career matured. I think because he didn't have to rely on just basic fundamentals it made him better. he had the ability to take it to the next level on either end. Duncan just stays mr consistent, not a bad thing at all, but you can't rely on him to go crazy and destroy say a david robinson. So, fundamentals are part of a package of skills, of which Hakeems package is way bigger.
Do you know how we got the #1 pick in 84 to get Hakeem, despite having Sampson already on the team? (and it was more then just winning the coin flip)
Hakeem got away with a lot of travels? Those of you who are saying this, have you ever seen Hakeem play besides youtube? Hakeem's footwork was as fundamentally sound as there can be. Just because he moves faster than Duncan, and uses more counter-moves doesn't mean he traveled a lot. In fact, some of his moves were so quick, he was called for traveling only to be shown on replay that it was a legal move.
the dream, are you kidding me? he was better on both ends of the court. more athletic, and quicker. size about the same.
A good read by Rosen. Rosen can be a little out there sometimes but he knows basketball and generally makes good points. I disagree with his assertion that Duncan has better footwork and low post moves than Hakeem had. Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything else he stated. It's nice to see an old school type of analyst like that giving props to Hakeem and saying he was the better player. P.S. Can we please move the "fundamentally sound" semantics debate elsewhere?
I agree CHI. Hakeem trumps Duncan period. On fundamentals and athleticism. Some people feel because Duncan relies on basic moves that he is a more sound player than Hakeem, yet Hakeem had more moves than Duncan could dream about. So, that means to have more complex moves, you had to have a fundamental basis to base these moves off of.
um, no we can't. this is a forum discussion on Dream vs Duncan and we are debating the authors stance. seems relevant to me.
