Does anyone else get tired of people saying the old time athletes are better???

I think they just take into consideration their character too much, at least with basketball. Nowadays these guys mostly look like money hungry babies.

However, basketball is more difficult, if you don't carry the ball. Guys like Lebron, Rose, Paul, etc. would be less effective at driving, if they dribbled like Stockton or Cousy. They may still prove to be better, but not as much.

 

The counter argument is..

Are you 12 years old? =/

jk.. yes but equally annoying are the little kids the stars today were better than the stars of the 90s.. ie Jordan, Hakeem.

 

Baseball is more of a skilled game than basketball so athleticism doesn't play as big a role I don't feel. Great pitchers like Bob Feller for example would still be great today.

 

You have some points, and I think that when you are going back 50+ years so much has changed that it's hard to compare between those eras, especially in baseball. However, as much as I hated the Jazz with Stockton and Malone, you are way off to say Derrick Rose and Deron Williams were better than Stockton. It wasn't that long ago that he played and neither of those guys could shoot or pass like him. He didn't have superior athleticism but that only makes it more impressive that he played at the level he did. I couldn't stand the guy when he went against the Rockets in the 90s but I still respected his game because he was that good.

 

i agree with kubi. stockton was a smart pg who always knew what to do with the ball. just because rose can facialize stockton and nash doesnt mean he will be better.

two words: james white...kobe was last in the hs dunk contest.

lebron is good not just because of his size, strength, and athletic abilitiy....he plays smart and makes every one around him better

 

I think the truly elite athletes of the past probably still would have been elite today, especially with the advances in training and sports medicine. However, the rest of the field's caught up, so the "average" player today is much better than the "average" player of 50 years ago, and so the stats posted by the elite players have fallen closer to pack.

But I think if Babe Ruth had been born in the 1980s, he'd probably be hitting 45-50 HRs a year with an OPS over 1.000, but he probably wouldn't put up the obscene numbers he did in the early 20s. Ted Williams would probably still be the best hitter in baseball, but probably wouldn't consistently have a 3-1 BB/K ratio or hit .400. Wilt would probably still win scoring and rebounding titles, but wouldn't average 50/25.

I think the great players, the truly great players, would be great in any era.

 

You're right, but you'll most likely do the same thing in 50 years. If you really think otherwise you're probably just as clueless as the people you chastise now.

 

Old time baseball from the past half century is much more translatable to today than NBA. (No NFL?)

NBA, without a doubt the Charlotte Bobcats today the worst team EVER would beat Bill Russell's Celtics. Not afraid to say DJ Augustin is more athletic and skilled than Bob Cousy.

MLB, a little different. Old pitchers can make the case that they would stack up alright. Starting pitchers then were more durable, pitched more innings on shorter rest, in times of worse medical treatments. Bob Feller was throwing 100 mph in the '40s.

Still talking 50 years ago, but Ted Williams actually crossed over from the old era in the "modern" era. In his last season at age 41 he was probably still the best hitter in the game, as good or better than Mickey Mantle in his prime.

 

Yeah thats what I was gonna arrive at. The truly great talents can be transcendant, top 3 players from past decades 60s and back.

More recent example, post retirement old and overweight Magic Johnson came back after 5 years, and was still schooling the athletic Latrell Sprewell youngsters.

But the rest of the field, the average to bottom fillers now would be ELITE transported to past eras.

 

I think current players in the NBA are more athletic but less skilled than compared with previous decades. Just look at field goal percentage.

 

We all like to hate on Kobe, say how all the old greats were better, but in 20 years everybody will be talking about him like he was Jordanesque.

 

Stockton carried the ball at times too, just like all of his contemporaries. Carrying got big in that era. But, even without carrying these guys' handles are far more advanced than the days of Cousy, along with every other aspect of the game. Those old guys would look like they were on ice skates trying to defend the guards of today. A lot of that has to do with fitness and sports science, though. Guys don't eat like crap and smoke like they did in those days. They also have trainers that can develop a specialized work out just for them.

Also, those past era guys didn't have as much money on the table and as much media attention. We just assume they had better character, we really just don't know them as well as we do. We never got to hear all the dumb comments they could have made in the time before or after games. And, It's easier to not be worried about money when the average player doesn't make much less than a star.

Size and athleticism affects defense more than offense.

IMO people generally get better over the years in terms of talent,skill, and athleticism. But, that goes more for comparing current players to those from the 50's. Still, it's a waste of time to compare players from different eras. No one knows how a player would fare if they grew up with access to the same training technology. Only then could you compare their competitive natures.

 

Yes. In basketball, the game was maturing a lot up through the 70s to ealry '80s. I think as far as finding and developing talent, they've mostly plateaued as a mature industry. So, you can probably compare players across time more easily. But, those guys with rep from the growth decades, they look better than they'd really be because of the weakness in the competition.

 

my todays better be better than my yesterdays

(why can't people see circles?)

 

FG% were lowest in the 50s and 60s, followed by 70s. That's one overrated flaw of today's NBA players, they are not actually that much worse than 80s and 90s. Most of all, compared to 50s-80s, there's alot more emphasis on defense and shooting efficiency now.

 

Who does that? That's funny!

Sincerely,

Spoiler

 

If the athletes of today were to be magically transported back in time to the 1930s (or whatever time) and they were allowed to keep all the advantages of their time, they probably would dominate. The more interesting question would be to consider this in reverse: what if the pitchers of the 1930s had access to the advanced surgeries of today like Tommy John surgery, etc?

 

Pitchers don't throw than they threw 30 years ago it's one thing I think is limited by the human body.