But luka survives, i don't think he's more athletic than bird was really is he? Maybe stronger cause he's a blob lol. He would likely be better on offense now with the improved spacing and shooting more 3s but worse on defense
There's always a spot on the court for a shooter, especially a tall shooter, but would he end up falling into a Kevin Love/Ryan Anderson type role? It's hard to say. However, it's not hard to say when it comes to guys from much longer ago during the infancy of the league. It's kind of like how I'll flat out say Babe Ruth and Satchel Paige would be AA fodder in the MLB today.....but Nolan Ryan and Rickey Henderson? Now that's harder to say for sure.
Yeah the FVV/Sengun PnR was tremendously successful for us but we stretched it out to its limits. Teams had it figured out by mid season. We need other efficient plays as second and third option. The PnR can be our primary play but we need our first instinct to be to attack in transition before the defense is set.
Bob Beamon still holds the Olympic Long Jump record. Ali would be the champ today just as he was in the 1960s. Pele would be an international star just as he was in the 1960s. Jack Nicklaus would win a few tournaments. Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, and Willie Mays would be All-Stars. And yes, Wilt Chamberlain would be a very wealthy man's Giannis in today's NBA. There are several studies looking at this and the general consensus is that clothes, track surface, starting blocks, and shoes make up most of the difference between eras. For instance, one study took into account that Jesse Owens had no blocks, bad shoes, and ran on a cinder track. Adjusted for modern conditions--where track surfaces are designed specifically to increase human performance, Owens would be at least close to Bolt. And Owens was 80 years ago, not the 1980s. That's an opinion, not a truth. And a really bad opinion at that. The certainty with you spew your terrible opinions is something to behold. Satchel started a MLB game in 1965 and threw three scoreless innings--at age 59. Yeah, Earl reportedly had 4.6 speed but RBs aren't just running free for 40 yards. He had patience and quickness, suddenness, extreme violence, and incredible strength--and not many ran down prime Earl. Not only would he make it in the NFL today, he'd be a bad ass. Think about Earl in a modern offense where the passing game prevents the D from putting 8 guys in the box. Earl would have gaudy numbers. And the notion that Bird wouldn't be great in today's game is just laughable. All this begs the question: where is your cutoff? For basketball, is Kobe's athleticism now so common place that he would just barely be able to make a team? What about Jordan and Dream and Drexler? What about Dr J? Connie Hawkins? How far back must you go before today's average NBA players are significantly more athletic than the best of a previous era?
I kind of expected some boomer takes pushing back on the obvious that people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster over the years.... those who want to hold on to the delusion that athletes were just as good 60 years ago as they are today. I'm sorry my guy, it's just the facts. You ask where the cutoff is, it largely depends on the sport. This entire thing calls for a much longer response than I have time for now, but the quick answer is that I think Kobe would struggle in a highly efficient era such as today. MJ probably spends the time to fix his 3 point shot so he'd be fine. I've already been over Larry. As to how far you have to go back for average players to be on par or more athletic than the most athletic in a former era..... when Michael Jordan dunked from the foul line it was considered the most amazingly athletic thing ever at the time..... years later Chase Buddinger does the same and people yawn... and now he's a volleyball player. The standards increased pretty dramatically since then.
I never understand what "athletic" means, does it mean just, who can run the fastest on a running track, lift the most weight, jump the highest vs. a clock or the earth's gravity, or whose brain can get their body parts to move in the sequence they need to move to get to the spots they need to be in before anybody else to either get or release basketballs at the optimal point. If it's the first thing, sure the guys with the measurable numbers win, if it's the second thing then it's the basketball guys that win.
Correct. Earl at Ut was pretty close, but was a one sport guy. Dion Sanders was pretty great at 2 sports.I do think Bo is the run away on this topic.
So now you're talking differences in eras instead of athletic ability? Not sure how it could be the most amazing feat ever when Dr. J (the accolades given to Jordan at the time were because he matched Dr. J) and Wilt had already done it and others were surely able to do it if they had tried (or if there had been dunk contests). Just because dunking from around the free throw line only became a "thing" after Jordan doesn't make it a measure of athleticism over the ages and it certainly doesn't mean that some people before Jordan were incapable of it. You're all over the place with this stuff. You can say with a straight face that Oleksandr Usyk is faster than Ali? He's not. You think he's bigger than Ali? He's not. You think he would treat prime Ali as some scrub tune-up before a title match with Tyson Fury? No. Prime Ali would own today's heavyweight division.
There's more than one variable when talking about if a player from a past era could play today... so yeah, I talk about more than one variable when asked if they could play today. Again, I've heard the boomer takes before, you want to believe that the athletes you idolized would measure up today despite the obvious fact they wouldn't. What was believed to be strong or fast in 1960 is still strong and fast for the average person today... but it's no longer all that strong or fast for professional athletes today. One issue that complicates this is that people back then were naive or dumb enough to believe obvious lies... like when Wilt claimed he could bench 600 pounds when he was playing... despite the fact that the official world record when he retired in 1973 was only 580 lbs. That's really the disconnect here, people like you talk about athletes of the past the same way people would talk about Paul Bunyan or John Henry.... so yeah, compared to the complete BS of the myth, athletes of today can't hang... but when we talk about reality, the myths crumble.
I think it shouldn't be lost on anyone that the same generation that fully embraced outright bullshido in the martial arts world is the same who tell us about the insane feats of their childhood sports heroes.... Sorry but a lot of you guys are just marks. Even if Anderson Silva once said Steven Seagal taught him everything he knows.... we realize that's total bullshit right? No one is actually dumb enough to believe that, right? Frank Dux didn't really win "The Kumite" even though the movie claimed it was a true story. Bruce Lee wasn't actually an amazing fighter... any more than Jackie Chan or Sylvester Stallone are... they are all just actors.
The only right answer. It is not even close to any other athlete in any sports. Pele had all the crazy strength, skill, dribbles, shooting etc that the "nowadays GOATs" does... but ****ing 60 years ago! This, by kicking a leather ball with leather boots that would get drenched by sweat and rain and weight like the triple.
