The page you are looking for does not exist.PS: Notice how there's NOTHING in the afformention quote about vert # or anything, just Russell dominating the assmatic "athletes" of his era.
Just remove the "." from the end of my previous link.
Here is the link again: http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/img/assets/18007/Griffin.pdf
And i say it again for the third time: what is your definition of athletecism?It makes me think your just DODGING the question. It would be best if you answer it so that we could GAUGE just how ACCURATE your silly and hasty claims really are. "Assmatic" athletes?
For HIS ERA. Put him in today's league and he's DEMOLISHED by the zone rules and such basketball wasn't nearly as complicated back then as it was now
Nope. The NCAA and the NBA made plenty of rule changes during his time designed to limit centers but Russell ADAPTED to those rules quickly. The foul lane was doubled in size during the 1956 NCAA but it still didnt stop Russell from leading his team undefeated en route to an NCAA 'ship. Russell is pretty good playing zone just look at his college record. Shooting centers in the NBA like Macauley and Willis Reed would not be able to drag him out into the perimeter.
Sounds exactly like what I was talking about. The Hawks never won a ship again and Russell won 11. That's some real nice management we have there.
Like i said earlier, its NOT a matter of "poor management", its a matter of lack of funds.
The NBA especially during Russell's early years are still STRUGGLING FOR SURVIVAL. The Hawks NEEDED a GATE ATTRACTION. F*ck whose thinking of basketball championships when the team itself is on the verge of financial collapse? The NBA started with 17 teams but by Russell's time it was down to only 8.
The St. Louis Hawks needed somebody TO SELL TICKETS which is something Ed Macauley could provide but NOT by Russell. And besides, Bob Petite has the rebounding department covered for the Hawks (IIRC, he has the 3rd highest career rebounding avg, behind only Wilt and Russell). Acquiring Cliff Hagen, another future Basketball HoF, is just plain icing into the mix.
The Hawks trading one Bill Russell for TWO Basketball Hall of Famers, especially if you factor in the social and market forces that are beyond the team's control is a sound and LOGICAL player trade.
You want an example of sucky management, go to the 80's and you'll find Golden State trading the rights for 2 Hall of Famers (Robert Parish and Kevin McHale) to Boston for a couple of nobodies (Joe Barry Carroll and Rickey Brown).
Where does it say that the league didn't suck? All I see is that it says the league actually started to get some athletes (see Russell and Chamberlain).
Here is the phrase again, NBA at 50 describe the Russell-era as "the greatest influx of talent that the League has ever seen."
The word "talent" as used here specifically refers to the QUALITY of the players that entered the League during Bill Russell's time especially when you put in context with what the rest of the narrator was saying in the documentary. This description coming from an NBA documentary DEBUNKS your claim that the Russell-era is one SUCKY era.
The word "talent" here is NOT SYNONIMOUS with player/athlete.
The only thing I see is it saying Russell's team could PROBABLY (which is over-exaggeration at it's finest, no way in hell Russell's teams even come within 40 against DEVRY) take A team in the NCAA. Which means bottom-of-barrell to me. Doesn't make sense that the Russell team could probably knock out a 1-10 ranked team but not a 16.
Nope. Its a FAVOURABLE comment alright and when the author made that " . . . . any team in the 2006 NCAA Tournament." comment, he's referring to your AVERAGE 2006 NCAA Tournament Division I basketball teams. Just update these guys with the rule changes and probably give them one of John Wooden's coaching guides and a couple of perks like maybe a gymnasium of their own to do practice and play home games, and they would fit in just fine in the modern era. The 1956 USF Dons' style of play was way ahead of its time.
http://usfdons.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/031406aab.html
"Woolpert's decision to use a game-long fullcourt press as an offensive tactic was a milestone in the history of basketball, paving the way for the UCLA teams of the 1960s and the Arkansas and Kentucky teams of more recent times.The full-court press led, in the era before the shot-clock and three-point shot, to USF's averaging 71 points per game while holding the opposition to 52. "
Watching games + common sense.
Its a given. We all watch games and use common sense. Im looking for something more substantial proof to convince me that a modern player like Darius Miles is better than Bill Russell. Because common sense and watching games says that just isnt happening.
Here you even admit that you have to hinder the modern guys to give the old timers a chance.
Only if you take it out of CONTEXT. I believe i have a more in depth explanation for that somewhat later in my current and previous post.
Why? So you're telling me in order for Russell to be better then Kobe you have to LESSER Kobe and IMPROVE Russell? . . . . I mean Jordan's my favorite player but even I'll admit in about 50 or so years he probably won't be top 10 best (hell he'd likely agree with this inference as would pretty much anyone not named Oscar Robertson). That's just the brakes.
What i said was this:
"If youre putting modern players in the 60's you have to FACTOR OUT alot of these accumulated knowledge and modern benefits."
Right after my example about Kobe and dunks. I have this little statement which you seem to have missed or (deliberately?) OMMITTED: Russell in the 60's however needs no updating or handicapping.
My point is NOT to Less Kobe While Improve Russell in the 60's. Its to LESS Kobe while Russell remains the SAME in the 60's.
Seriously why do you insist of comparing players OUT OF CONTEXT of their TIME?
Also, i wouldnt compare Jordan (or any player for that matter) with any player 50 years into the future without updating them on current basketball developments at that time. And at the same time, I wouldnt pit any future player into Jordan's 90's era without stripping away the rules, coach's conditioning, training, techniques and perks that were not present during Jordan's time.
So Kobe dominates with lay-ups, quickness, superior defense, and would probably be THE premier jump shooter in the L (with the way his jumpshooting style is).
The closest i have in mind if i put Kobe within the context of 60's NBA basketball would be Elgin Baylor with a slightly better perimeter game. Lay-ups, yes, as well as on on the quickness part. The defense part is a no because in Russell's time, the importance of defense is lost to most teams in the League, except in the Boston Celtics. Kobe would be conditioned by his coach to shoot and forget defense. Barring his use of fadeaways which are not yet invented at that time, Kobe wouldjust be a decent perimeter shooter.
BTW: Jules wouldn't really be below average players as he was pretty much built like the average 2 in today's league and would actually benefit from the current guard favored rules unlike Russell who has to deal with the Center-cockblocking Shaq stopping rules of today (that's assuming he makes the Center position with his skinny ass).
Julius would still need updating though with the rule changes and the style of play. He would probably even gain a few pounds to his benefit with current coaches stressing the importance of weight training. And i've already said it earlier, its not like Russell hasnt faced rule changes designed to limit a center's effectiveness.
Which is exactly why they are better.PS:
Nice graph. I bet you get that High jump graph in Wiki. Did you also read whats written below it.
It is said there that the Fosbury flop is currently the most effective high jumping technique in the world. It is also said there that the Fosbury flop is possible to do ONLY BECAUSE of the raised, softer landing areas that were in used then. It wasnt possible to execute in the old sawdust landing pits being used before without BREAKING your neck.
During Russell's time as a high jumper in the mid 1950's, both the Fosbury flop and the rubber landing mats were not yet invented. Russell, Dumas and other high jumpers of that era still uses SAWDUST to break their landing. The most effective jumping technique back then is still the Straddle jump that allows you to land safely on the sawdust without breaking your neck. Hell Russell doesnt even know how the execute the Straddle jump and still relies on a much older and less effective high jumping technique, the Western roll (and yet he still wins track meets).
Teach some of these old Straddle high jumpers in the mid 50's and mid 60's the Fosbury flop and provide them with a rubber mat to land on,just like in modern times, and you will see their performance improve and be on par with the performance with modern high jumpers.
Remove the knowledge of the Fosbury flop from the modern high jumper, as well as replace the soft rubber landing mat with sawdust and they would be forced to use Straddle jumps which in turn you would get you high jump performances similar to that of the high jumpers in the mid 50's and mid 60's.
Context, context, context. Put things within the context of their time. Thanks again for providing me the chance to illustrate my point.