Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

horry ticked some people off with these comments. what do you think about them? ARE today's athletes so much better than the athletes of just 20-25 years ago?



in horry's defense, he's been around a long time, and does know a thing or 2 about championships. still, his comments are a little . . . surpising to say the least.

todays athletes are more athletic. That is they are bigger, stronger, faster, have better technology and medicine for training and recovering from injury. This does not make them more skilled though.

but if skills are equal, doesn't that mean the advantage goes to bigger and stronger?

one thing that some of the older guys MAY have had that the new guys lack is more drive. less money back then, i think more played because they LOVED the sport. no pampering, not as much whining it seems. while not as 'strong' as today's athletes, i think it is very possible the older guys were . . . tougher, if that makes sense.

I could have sworn I posted in this thread already....

Originally posted by leonidas
but if skills are equal, doesn't that mean the advantage goes to bigger and stronger?

one thing that some of the older guys MAY have had that the new guys lack is more drive. less money back then, i think more played because they LOVED the sport. no pampering, not as much whining it seems. while not as 'strong' as today's athletes, i think it is very possible the older guys were . . . tougher, if that makes sense.

yea i get what you are saying, they were maybe stronger mentally. Im not saying skills are equal though. Some old timers had more skills some had less. The big difference I think is they had to rely on their pure skills more back then because they couldnt make up for it as much with pure athleticism like some people can now.

Originally posted by Lord Evolution
I could have sworn I posted in this thread already....



i mentioned the article in a different thread, but thought some might be interested in reading the actual article itself.

or it's the alzheimer's . . . i can never really, myself.

Originally posted by forumcrew
yea i get what you are saying, they were maybe stronger mentally. Im not saying skills are equal though. Some old timers had more skills some had less. The big difference I think is they had to rely on their pure skills more back then because they couldnt make up for it as much with pure athleticism like some people can now.

that actually makes some sense to me. it's an interesting point that i don't think i've heard before. i find it very hard to say whether horry is right or wrong. we get so accustomed to thinking the past was 'better' than the way things are now, and we idolize the great players so much that i think we lose perspective at times.

i won't go so far as to say the spurs would beat the lakers and celts of the 80s, but i think it would be a lot closer than most likely do.

The only thing that bugs me about that statement Horry made is by saying Gibson is doing stuff those guys in the past couldn't do.

Originally posted by leonidas
horry ticked some people off with these comments. what do you think about them? ARE today's athletes so much better than the athletes of just 20-25 years ago?



in horry's defense, he's been around a long time, and does know a thing or 2 about championships. still, his comments are a little . . . surpising to say the least.

I noticed how he never mentioned Mikey and the boys.

Originally posted by BobbyD
I noticed how he never mentioned Mikey and the boys.

neither did horry.

Originally posted by leonidas
neither did horry.

That's my point.

yeah, i found that odd as well. i think he was referring to the early 80s teams only?

Originally posted by leonidas
yeah, i found that odd as well. i think he was referring to the early 80s teams only?

Do you think he was afraid to make such a bold statement? And then have all of basketball world questioning his claim?

Depends on the athletes and the sport. You have John Madden saying that the '85 Bears could beat any of today's teams, and Terry Bradshaw issuing similar statements about his 70's Steelers teams. Then guys like Horry saying that there's a definite gap.

No doubt there's better training and enhancement drugs (don't kid yourselves kids) in all sports. But the numbers don't add up. Free throw percentages are at catastophic lows currently. Larry Bird's 3-point percentages pwn the crap out of most of today's elite bombers. Hell, we can still watch footage of a young Magic Johnson and be awed by his ball-handling and passing skills.

The NBA probably DOES have more individual talent. Ball handling, driving the lane, etc. But don't tell me that in the current offensive drought (yes, offense is another category lacking compared to a decade or two ago) in the NBA we have players that passed and shot as well as the great Laker or Celtic teams. The mid-range jumper has all but disappeared in the game...and even stars like Lebron are evidence of this.

Could the Spurs have beaten those teams? Sure. But they also would've been in for a dogfight.

...

As for other sports where steroids play a bigger role (baseball, football) it's harder to compare because there's a bigger gap in the athletes. A 60's football team would get steamrolled due to the sheer size of linemen these days, even if certain stars and skill players had the same skill levels. Lynn Swann, for example, could play today, but the Steel Curtain D-line would likely just be average....certainly not a dynasty-building, fear-inspiring war machine.

And it's hard to watch Babe Ruth swing a bat and imagine that he'd be putting up legendary numbers in today's game. Some, like Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente (probably the most "complete" players seen in the game until the modern era) could certainly play today. Same with pitchers. But a lot of them would get played off the field, pitchers and batters alike. Nolan Ryan could consistently hit high 90's throughout his career, and his breaking pitches broke as much as anyone's...so 80's player or not, the dude could deal. You can't argue with that kind of statistical dogma. But there's definitely been a trend toward bigger and faster, and the percentages of pitchers who can pitch into the 90's on the gun is a lot higher than it once was.

Well said, Digi.

Offensive drought? No. They actually play defense now, albeit still a small amount.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll


Offensive drought? No. They actually play defense now, albeit still a small amount.

So did Jordan, Magic, Kareem. Hell, Wilt did too....he led the league in blocks a ridiculous number of times. But they also managed to win games that were more interesting than 75-70.

The Spurs play defense. But the league is in an offensive drought. Big difference between the two. Average scores aren't all due to defensive adaptations.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So did Jordan, Magic, Kareem. Hell, Wilt did too....he led the league in blocks a ridiculous number of times. But they also managed to win games that were more interesting than 75-70.

The Spurs play defense. But the league is in an offensive drought. Big difference between the two. Average scores aren't all due to defensive adaptations.

In general. In old games you can see where they just don't play defense right and it leaves the other man wide open. Blocks is not what I'm talking about; just basic defense which was lacking back then surprisingly.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
In general. In old games you can see where they just don't play defense right and it leaves the other man wide open. Blocks is not what I'm talking about; just basic defense which was lacking back then surprisingly.

Perhaps, but it does nothing to allay my assessment that team offense has still taken a dive, in terms of passing, shooting skill, and selflessness. I'm not refuting that the NBA has progressed in many ways over the years, with defense being a likely candidate, but the game as a whole hasn't progressed to the point where today's teams would simply curbstomp those of 20-25 years ago. Far from it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll


Offensive drought? No. They actually play defense now, albeit still a small amount.

Leave out the Spurs, Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Ben Wallace, and tell me who the hell plays defense?

i actually agree with BOTH of you. the nba DOES have a much greater emphasis on defense -- far greater than those laker's teams emphasized, and even the celts.

i also don't think the gap in a series would be as great as some do, and i could see the spurs taking a series from either one.

baseball is almost impossible to compare. you have the mound being lowered, parks getting smaller, (how many more HR's would mantle have hit if the dimensions at yankee stadium had NOT been nearly 500' in a couple parts??) specialization of both pitching and defense (as well as offense in the AL in the form of the DH). then on top of that we have the steroid disaster that is inflating numbers like crazy. could the 1927 yankees win a world series today?? hard to imagine, but it's a HELL of a lot more possible than saying a football or bastketball team of even FORTY years ago could possibly compete with today's teams.

Why is everyone forgetting all of the recent rule changes when comparing all this stuff?

I mention that stuff all the time seeing as I hate the NBA's ban on defense around the perimeter *coughpayton>nashcough*.

Man, you ****ing hate Nash dont ya.....


Yesh, thank god he didnt win the MVP this year......

While athleticism can help in the debate on which team would win, it wouldnt help on this one. The Spurs rely heavily on talent and experience. Look at their team. It definitely does not rely on athleticism like the Suns or Dallas. A lot of their players are old veterans. Not to mention their stars, like Duncan and Ginobli are not known for athleticism. Duncan is good because of his fundamental grasp of the game and Ginobli because of his toughness.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Man, you ****ing hate Nash dont ya.....


Yesh, thank god he didnt win the MVP this year......

Its more that I hate the anti-defense rule changes that shot Nash up from barely an all-star to MVP in one season.

Originally posted by Myth
Its more that I hate the anti-defense rule changes that shot Nash up from barely an all-star to MVP in one season.

Add to that the fact that they never, EVER call carrying (Nash, Wade, Lebron are just a few) anymore, the bullshit offense fouls (Shaq isn't slower, he can't back down without them screaming foul; he elbowed Mutumbo in the eye many times in the 2001 Finals and Mutumbo was the one getting the foul called on him!), the flopping (Ginobli is tough? Get the **** outta here), so on and so forth...

It's not even the same damn sport

Originally posted by chithappens
Add to that the fact that they never, EVER call carrying (Nash, Wade, Lebron are just a few) anymore, the bullshit offense fouls (Shaq isn't slower, he can't back down without them screaming foul; he elbowed Mutumbo in the eye many times in the 2001 Finals and Mutumbo was the one getting the foul called on him!), the flopping (Ginobli is tough? Get the **** outta here), so on and so forth...

It's not even the same damn sport

This is new?
Bill Lambier used to flop all the time, so did John Stockton. Besides Flopping doesn't mean your not tough, it means your smart enough to use the rules to reduce your opponents possessions. Flopping isn't new they been doing it a while now. I'll agree about the offensive fouls but I think people are polishing a turd when they reminisce about the "good old days". They think about their favorite games and forget that the majority of the games not played by Micheal Jordan didn't look all that special.

Get to carrying the ball, get to the zone, get to forgotten fundamentals... you are leaving out a lot.

carrying IS awful. no one was allowed to carry more often or take more steps than jordan in his prime. it was sickening. i think jordan, more than anyone, was responsible for the whole 'superstars get special ref treatment' in games.

it would be interesting to see some of the current teams and superstars FORCED to play by the more 'old school' rules.

Originally posted by leonidas
horry ticked some people off with these comments. what do you think about them? ARE today's athletes so much better than the athletes of just 20-25 years ago?



in horry's defense, he's been around a long time, and does know a thing or 2 about championships. still, his comments are a little . . . surpising to say the least.

I'd say he knows a thing or 7 about championships, actually.