[VIDEO] Oscar Robertson Highlights - THE LEGEND IN HIS PRIME

But, he was a good defender, pass the ball really well, and I played through the 60s and 70s. Remember, he's only one example.

They do not stack up to other great centers, but they are still better than most marginal to slightly above average players. There's no way someone like Dalembert and Cato would suddenly be a Hall of Fame player in the 60s or 70s, when they are only marginal in the modern NBA.

What about basketball IQ, passing skills/court vision, offensive prowess, physical contact, conditioning, and not everyone was a horrible shooter?

What about Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Wes Unseld, or Kareem Abdul Jabbar, all had size and were the most skilled big men at the time? Wilt in his career played against nine hall of fame centers. Moreover, you have heard players from the 60s-90s say the strongest players they've seen have been Shaq, Gilmore, and Wilt.

Another thing, that you aren't really focusing on are the actual measurments of these players athletically speak.

Like I said earlier, today's big men are not very skilled or are only good on one side of the ball. Bellamy, Wilt, Unseld, Walton, and Russell were among the assists leaders on their team (no lower 2 or 3, many times), sometimes being the team's leader in assists. I know some of those players in particular, Russell, Unseld, Bellamy, Walton and Wilt were floor general and actually dictated the team's offense, like point guard (though often times from the post). If any coach tried to do that with these Dalembert or Cato types. You'd fired, immediately.



Right now in the NBA, you'd be hard press to find a player that was as skilled offensively as he was defensively as Wes Unseld.

 

I'm not, but you cannot dismissed some of their abilities, especially passing ability. Shorter, wider, but he still bigger than most NBA shooting guards and point guards. He wasn't exactly a pudgy player, though a physical specimen for his position and yes he also played in post. Even now, he'd be considered a fairly big guard and probably very strong for most guards to handle. The only guards I see right now giving him a run for his money is Kobe and maybe Wade for shooting guards. Point guards, no one.




Most ordinary players do not almost average 10 assists for their careers. You can talk about pace all you want to, but disregard that assists were judged entirely different in the 60s and much harder to pile up on.

We can disregard that these players had actual skill sets and BB IQ that made them great. Like, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, and others, his skills translate well to a modern game, because it's completely based on athleticism. There are players in today's game who are fine to good players, and the athleticism wouldn't have been any more special or less special 20 or 30 years ago.

 

He's only one example, but he's a great example of how the era creates the perception that he's a star based primarily on his numbers. By best estimates, he'd be a borderline all-star today in his best seasons due to his horrible efficiency on offense (in reality he would probably be a defensive specialist who wouldn't be allowed to shoot the ball 20 times a game by any coach who wanted to keep his job). He has a lifetime PER of 16.5. Even though you perceive him as "great" - it's not great. It's not even really good.

They're playing the modern evolution of the style of defense that Bill Russell pioneered, while being bigger and stronger against 6-3 guys in Chuck Taylors. Of course they would be dominant.

The early 60's were among the worst shooting years on record, and it wasn't remotely physical, which is why guys like Wilt and Bill were thought of as visionaries. Passing I guess I'll give you because pace was so high and you had to pass quickly, but again, even if you were to give these guys a "boost" due to assists being harder to get, overall they don't really outpace today's players that much.

What about Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning and Moses Malone and Ron Artest? There's been strong men all along, and "back in the day" yarns about how strong so and so was are common in any era. Not really any easy way to tell.

Go back and read the article I linked to about Walt Bellamy - if you were a coach and described hiim as your team's "floor general" you'd be fired immediately. Please stop posting about him, he's the Scott Skiles 30 assist game of NBA centers. He posted 2 huge seasons on two AWFUL Chicago Zephyr teams during the high point of the cheap stats era.

The reason why players now are more specialized is because the league is a lot more difficult than it was back then. It's a pretty simple equation. There's a few hundred players in the NBA, but there's billions more people on the planet now than there were then, and the incentives to play basketball are vastly higher. It's like being successful in Texas High School 1A vs. 5A. Sure, there's probably some good players in 1A schools, but overall the chances of you finding great players amongst the 100 in a 1A school vs. the 1000's in a 5A school is much lower.

 

So going against less athletic players, their athleticism wouldn't have been any more or less special.

The only answer for that is just no. wrong.

 

I for one don't like to compare era's that are 20 years or older to one another.

As others have stated times have changed and so have the players...

Just as Big O would have a difficult time playing in this era... Other players in this era would have a difficult time in that era.

You guys only saw partial high lights and not an entire game... Today's game is very nice and polite and I will leave it at that.

And for those speaking on the white and black thing.. Again the times were different and so was the culture...

Big O was the MJ in his time and you can't take that away from him..

T_Man

 

Heh, of all the "back-n-the-day" myths, the fact that players were meaner and dirtier and tougher despite giving up 90 jillion points a game and being practically allergic to contact is my favorite.

 

i absolutely love your argument. Great read.

 

I'm early 30's. I like to think when I'm in my early 60's - fingers crossed - I'll be able to watch basketball then and be able to logically and smartly compare players against different eras.

But then I think back to just late 80's / early 90's ball, and frankly have a hard time comparing players of today to those guys. Is Russell Westbrook Kevin Johnson's equal? Better, worse?

 

So is this what my grandchildren will do to the stars of today? Belittle them? Dismiss their accomplishments? Marginalize them? Tell all and sundry that the game was so different in the early 21st Century that the stats from "back then" are meaningless? That they were a bunch of midgets, except for a few exceptions? Will they use measurements that measured a far different game in order to "prove" their points? Is this what I have to look forward to, if I live that long?

Has it really become so boring around here that we are reduced to this? Evidently.

 

Or you can tell your grandchildren how amazing Steve Jobs was and how they wouldn't be using whatever gadgets they are using if not for that guy. And then they will say, "Steve Jobs couldn't have held a candle to ...." And then they'll laugh at how dumb Jobs looked in those 2D pictures.

 

That's because you're comparing the modern era to the modern era - of course it's a more difficult comparison.

Compare it to the pre-modern era when two handed set shots were the norm and the talent pool was exponentially smaller...it might be hard to compare WestBrook to Johnson, but it's really not that difficult to see Westbrook and Johnson vandalizing the slower less athletic players of the early 60's.

 

So basicallly what you're sayign is that if the 2012 kings played the 62 Royals, and if the 2012 kings were barefoot, they'd still be taller, heavier, stronger and faster?

****ing DeMarcus Cousins is taller barefoot than Bill Russell in Shoes. Please contemplate that for as second. The only "unique trait" the legends of the 60's had was playing in a small pond against a bunch of guys who went to different lunch counters and had the vertical leap of Dolph Schayes (an all-star center in 1962, at 6-7 [IN SHOES] 195 [ALSO IN SHOES].


Does anybody with half a ******* brain not think that Samuel Dalembert wouldn't devour Dolph Schayes and his 38% (THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT) FG% for breakfast and sh-t him out by noon? And that's just journeyman like Dalembert. Dwight Howard or basically any decent center from about 1975+ would take Dolph Schayes and make him into a ****ing galley slave, much like Hakeem did to his bigger, stronger son Danny in the 90's. GTFOOH with that silliness.

 

Link?Neutral source? or purely ipse dixit/circular, like most of your argument (players back then SAID they were awesome/therefore they are....)The fact that Demarcus cousins isn't today considered tall enough to truly play center, and that Bill Russell played next to 6-7 "power forwards" like Tommy Heinsohn and 6-5 Jim Loscutoff (but I'm sure he was quick!) kind of destroys your argument anyway.

Remember of course that this is the dynasty team of the NBA at the time. And they are getting physically overpowered by a lowly kings team of today that is stronger, heavier, and faster (since they didn't grow up in western PA coal mines).

Ah...the wonders of segregation.

Question for you - What was Bill Russell's max high jump back then and how does it compare to the current world record (8 feet)...what would he be ranked in the world today, and why do you think his inferiority would be limited to the track?

EDIT: I looked it up. He was a 6-9 high jumper. It takes minimum 7-feet to be considered world class today. And if you want to actually be among the very top, you have to be around 8 feet.

Again, I repeat, since the standard of competion (as one would naturally expect) has gotten much higher since the amount of participants has expanded drastically, vis-a-vis the limited number of world class spots - why do you absolutely insist that the opposite is true for basketball? Thus far you have presented nothing, other than the barefoot heights of the 2012 Sacramento Kings.

Need I say more at this point?

 

Where's the term "barefoot" in here? Please, I did a control F . I didn't find "Bare" "foot" or "shoes"anywhere. This is the heart of your objection to modern players...and you have done extensive research on it.

PLease support this claim

If that's the interview your'e referring to, it doesn't mention this "bare feeet" thing at all, and you are lying or mistaken.

But that's not the relevant issue...in fact it underscores my point. We're not transporting Bill Russell into today, we're figuring out what a modern athlete would do in the archaic prehistoric era of worse athletes using inferior technique.

What do you think a world class high jumper would clear today if transported back to the 50's? Answer: They'd clear around 7 feet (using a fosbury flop) and instantly be the best high jumper on the planet.

What do you think then that Dwyane Wade woudl do if transported back to the early 60's and had to go against the leading lights of the era, such as "Pitchin' Paul" Arzin? YOu'd think he'd do a two-handed set shot? OR that he'd brutalize them with crossovers to the basket?

 

Hahaha, no actually the real answer is that you can't find any reference/records to "in shoes" vs. "barefoot" measurement (despite your insistence otherwise) prior to teh 90's becaue nobody ****ing cared about it and it really doesn't matter.

No matter how many platform shoes you strap on to 60's big men, I don't think the average 6-5 power forward of the day would have been too effective in 6-inch stillettos.

In fact this argument is so ****ing incredibly stupid, combining that with your freshly minted user ID am beginnign to think I'm getting trollled. And I think I know by who; the same assclown who went on and on at a time about Malick Badiane's barefoot measurements in practically....Dynastic terms. well played, brah. A new tactic, and a new role. Onward, into a glorious old future after the collapse of the Euro. So...congrats.