Before the NBA was fully integrated, I don't see how the records of that earlier era can even be considered comparable to the modern era. Let's face it, during the first 25 years of the NBA, it was about as colorful as the PGA. There is simply no comparison between the teams on the floor back then and those we have seen in the past 30 years. It is an issue which is hardly ever discussed, but which should be. Am I the only guy who watches the old game films and sees teams that might not make the final four of college ball today? I have a real problem with the kudos given to that era, when no one wants to talk about the league's dirty little secret of those bad old days. Until Russell and Chamberlain came on the scene, it was a joke. And the bad treatment they both received because of race has been well documented. I'd like to hear other opinions on the subject. ------------------
I have to agree with that. I don't think that any team before 1965 or so would win 15 games in this NBA. ------------------ Protrolls.com! Soon to be ProPorn.com!
Before you start thinking that Cousy or some of the players back then could not hang with the players of today consider the big picture. The entire sports scene was diferent. Todays players begin training year around at a very early age. If a young kid today is found to have exceptional tallent in a sport he is very often picked out in little league or poq warner football. Inner city schools in the east compete for high school basketball players. There is pressure from a very early age for many kids to learn to compete and train all year. We are now much more educated in nutrition and ways of training. Todays athletes even as early as Jr. High and younger in some cases are on engineered diets and a very strict training rutines. In the 50's you played a sport during that season. You did not train year around for any one perticular sport. Not even pro athletes in Footballl, Baseball or Basketball trained year around for their sport. They almost always had second jobs in the off season and in some cases second jobs during the season. There were no big enorsements back then. Many athletes retired early to begin other careers. Every hear of Bobby Jones? Many people say he was a better golfer the Jack Nickalus or Tiger Woods but he retired in his early 30's to start his law practice and take care of his family. At what age do you think Bob Cousy really started getting serious about basketball or started competing against top of the line compitition? Imagine if he had all of the benifits of todays athletes. He would be bigger, stronger, faster and function just as well under pressure today as he did back then. If Bob Cousy had been raised in todays sports world he would be superior to what he was in the 50s. And yes he would be a great NBA player IMO. ------------------ [This message has been edited by crash5179 (edited June 16, 2001).]
That doesn't change anything. It's still like comparing NBA records and CBA records. ------------------ Protrolls.com! RITQAIOCLHTPFOTFWBPTD
Cousy or no other player in the 50's can be held accountable for their compitition. Cousy or some of the others may or may not have been dominant in this era, we will never no. And therefor we most go on what we do know and that is that Cousy, Sam Jones, George Mikan and other greats were dominant in their era. Those players must be graded on their actuall performance and not what their performance might have been today. If you want to make assumptions then lets just say it would not take many fore arms to the jaw of Allen Iverson from Arnie Risen or Bill Russell to keep him out of the lane and make him nothing more than a jump shooter. ------------------
The point I'm trying to make is that Bill Russel played in an era of weak competition, and should not be considered a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon. ------------------ Protrolls.com! RITQAIOCLHTPFOTFWBPTD
Weak compitition compared to what? In 40 years someone is going to tell you that Dream could not play competitively against the players of their generation. I feel certain that you will defend Dream as valliantly then as BobFinn defends Russell today. Russell was a great player and should be recognized as one of the all time greats. He was dominant against the best of his era. Having said that I still think Dream was better. ------------------
Weak competition? It was the strongest it's ever been. The league was undiluted by expansion as it is now. There were no Vancouver Grizzlies or Chicago Bulls you could beat up on, knowing you were going to go into that game and get a W. I've been lurking on this board for a while, and it seems as if everyone here is SEVERELY underestimating the greatness of Bill Russell... THE REGULATOR "I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!" ------------------
I've heard this argument before about the expansion leading to weaker teams than in the old, old days. It is just not true. Back in those days, when Wilt and Russell were about the only black players, the talent pool was white American guys, drawn exclusively from a US population about half of what it is now. And because the pay was so lousy, professional sports did not draw the athletes the way it does now. And now, we draw upon players from all over the world. Dream. Mutombo. Duncan. Sabonis. Divac. Nowitzki. Just to name a few. Take the current NBA, remove all the black and foreign born players, and you have the NBA in 1960. Matt Geigers and Brent Prices. There is just no comparison is the quality which prevails now versus then. No dunks. No crossover dribbles. No flash. No alley oops. And the same is true of MLB. ------------------
Expansion caused the talent to be spread out more thinly. With less teams, the talent is more concentrated. Stiffs who are in the league now would be out of a job. You'd have only the best of the best playing. Also, there's less emphasis on fundamentals nowadays on individual one-on-one play. You mention dunks, flash, andd alley-oops, but that's ALL that everyone is concerned about now. Also, with kids coming directly into the league from high school bypassing college, it lowers the overall quality of the league as they have to then learn how to play in the league on the fly. Look at Tim Duncan. He finished college and was All-NBA First Team immediately upon coming into the league. He was able to play in the league immediately, and was the best player in the league in only his second season, winning an NBA championship (Karl Malone winning MVP was a farce, but Duncan won the MVP that mattered most). You think Kobe Bryant wouldn't have benefitting by playing in college? Just some points to think about. ------------------ THE REGULATOR "I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"
You know what cracks me up? Those films of Cousy dribbling out the clock. The guy had no left hand. He dribbled like he was learning how to dribble. The guy couldn't make a club today. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
The talent pool today is at least ten times the size it was 40 years ago, and it is better. Players are drawn from all over the world. The number of teams has only increased by a factor of less than four. Expansion temporarily lessens the impact of the talent pool, but the population from which the talent is drawn keeps increasing. The Balkans, Germany, China, and others now contribute players. The athletes today are taller, bigger, stronger, faster, and better. Sure, many of them lack the solid fundamentals they would have if they had played four years in college, but the overall play of the league is light years ahead of what it was when George Mikan was getting his kudos. None of the players you mention would have been playing 40 years ago because of their race. No doubt players would benefit from more college ball, but Kobe was better the day he entered the NBA than were the vast majority of players in the league in the 1950s. ------------------
The same holds true for every sport. In the 50's NFL offensive linemen weighed 250 lbs compared to the 330 lbs of today. Babe Ruth was a fat big who could barely run around the bases. BUT - The athletes of today have built themselves up from the foundation layed by those who came before them. Jordan had Dr.J for inspiration, Dr.J had Connie Hawkins, who did Connie Hawkins have? The players of today are better. But they enter with an advantage. For example, the paintings of Monet, Renoir, and Degas are far more intresting and complex than anything Rembrandt ever did, but because the impressionists directly trace their style from the foundations layed by Rembrandt, he is considered equal or greater than those who followed. ------------------
