BuzzerBeater Forums

I always have a tough time believing that these NBA stars from the 50s and 60s could excell today as they did then. The level of talent and athleticism in the game then compared to now is like apples and oranges. I honestly believe that if you put together an all star team from some point in the 60s and put them up against a team from today, the old timers would get embarrased. It's the old Babe Ruth debate. If hard drinking, hard partying, cigar smoking out of shape Ruth faced Halladay, Lee, Sabathia, Lincecum, etc....would he still be the legendary hitter he is considered to be?

I think many of these legendary players were great players who get better in tale as years go by.

Last edited by buzzerbeatme at 3/4/2011 3:17:29 AM

The other side of that argument has to be considered tho'.
And that is that those ol' timers would have the same benefits of advanced training that today's athlete has.

However, in general: I agree. As time goes by the tales get longer, I mean, there's no way some of that stuff about Wilt is true. I mean, there were probably only 19,975 women or so... and he merely exaggerated a bit.

Aaaaanyway...
Seeing as I've been waxing lyrical on Kareem, his training was considered to be ahead of his time. He actively trained both with weights and doing martial arts/yoga to keep himself supple. He meditated before every game to remove stress and outside distractions, and had his own chef prepare special meals for him, all with the aim of prolonging his health.
Worked pretty well.

Last edited by malice at 3/4/2011 3:48:32 AM

Woah there big boy. Relax. I never said he dunked it. I said dropped it in.

It created the offensive goal-tending rule; and it banned the inbound pass over the backboard, the dunk from the foul line in a free-throw attempt, and the "alley oop" (since made legal again). It also widened the three-second area.

That's from wikipedia, so it must be 100% true. And, while it says inbounds pass, it was also for field goal attempts.

You also are putting words into my mouth about Kareem. I never said he should be punished for anything. But clearly it was easier to win three straight NCAA titles at UCLA with John Wooden than it would have been for him to do so at USF. And clearly his total points record is as much a reflection of his amazing longevity as it is his scoring prowess (16th all time ppg). Much like his most fouls record is a reflection of his longevity and not his Laimbeerness.

To say Wilt never had "the drive" is just foolishness. And while Russell might not have had the talent as a scorer, he was a better athlete, defender, and shot blocker than Kareem ever hoped to be.

Last edited by somdetsfinest at 3/4/2011 11:00:15 AM

The other side of that argument has to be considered tho'.
And that is that those ol' timers would have the same benefits of advanced training that today's athlete has.

However, in general: I agree. As time goes by the tales get longer, I mean, there's no way some of that stuff about Wilt is true. I mean, there were probably only 19,975 women or so... and he merely exaggerated a bit.

Aaaaanyway...
Seeing as I've been waxing lyrical on Kareem, his training was considered to be ahead of his time. He actively trained both with weights and doing martial arts/yoga to keep himself supple. He meditated before every game to remove stress and outside distractions, and had his own chef prepare special meals for him, all with the aim of prolonging his health.
Worked pretty well.

Plus, he was great in the movie Airplane!

Woah there big boy. Relax. I never said he dunked it. I said dropped it in.

Completely relaxed! Just don't agree with you... at least, not completely. The caps were for emphasis (I wasn't yelling!). Sorry for any misunderstanding.
But perhaps you could chill a bit with the use of words like "foolishness" chief? I don't really like the implications there.

But anyway...
(haha... wiki - I get you!)
An "inbound pass from over the backboard" when applying as a shot wouldn't necessary mean a shot from directly above the backboard - it's generally applied as a simple shot (well... relative on the 'simple'!). The ability to do that would be inhuman. The top of a backboard is 13ft. Now, I've heard of guys touching the top of the backboard, but to be able to get a ball over the top of it would mean at least 15 ft. More, if you want to be able to actually see where you're shooting - as backboards weren't glass in those days.
And doing this would result in the very least some anecdotal evidence... and I've been able to find none.

Hehe... you're now putting words in my mouth! I didn't say "punish", I said "penalized" - and I was referring to your point on Kareem's longevity being the reason for his points total. Basically, I think that's unfair. As I pointed out, guy was a prolific scorer. To simply attribute it to longevity is unfair. Completely so. Actually... same with the fouls. Quite a few stories I've read on Kareem state that he was indeed a very physical player.
But no harm, no foul ('scuse the pun!).

On schools - I really think that it was irrelevant where Kareem played. You don't think he would have been the dominant player he was at a different school?

Saying Wilt never had the drive is foolishness? But I didn't say he didn't have drive, he just didn't have the drive that Kareem or Russell did. And that's true.
And to declare Russell a better athlete? On what basis? That's just as unfounded as... me declaring Kareem to have the better ability. Scoring-wise, true. But Russell's the superior defender.

Okay. Points taken, and I apologize for offending you with my vocabulary.
I say Russell was a better athlete because he ran a 49.6 440 and high jumped 6'9". I know all about Kareem's martial arts acumen, but I think Russell was a better all-round athlete.

Russell played at USF with KC Jones, so it wasn't exactly devoid of a supporting cast. Additionally, since when have smaller, Catholic universities not been able to compete in basketball?

Russell was great...but in any sport, when you have an 11 for 13 stretch, I think it may be more of an indication of lack of competition rather than greatness.

Wooden was great too...but would he have won 10 national titles in today college basketball environment?

Good points.

The lack of competition thing doesn't really fly with me as there was a guy named Chamberlain playing then, along with Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, ELgin Baylor, etc. Plus there were only 8 teams so there was very little dilution of talent. The difference was that nobody had ever played like Russell or Wilt up to that time.

Jordan won six in a row (with time off for baseball) and there was certainly plenty of competition.