Kareem played 10 seasons in the 70's and 8 in the 80's OMGOSHWTFBBQSAUCE BIGGGGGG DIFFERENCE.
Since when?
So they played in the same era but did not play in the same era? IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW SHIFT 1 SHIFT 1
But if you actually took a look at the players from the 80's instead of talking out the ass you'd see that they're mostly the same size. Sure you don't have any 380 lb monsters in the 80s but I doubt you'll have any 380 lb monsters in 2010s.
Which is exactly why scoring has gone down/defense has become key?
By rate of rebound, you adjust the Celtics team rebound number to match the average current league number his number is around 8ish you set it to the highest (which I think is the Suns) and it's around 11ish. And this is ignoring the fact that he's a good 40 lbs lighter then the average current league's Centers.
It was not Shaq's rookie year. It was towards the end of 1996 (Shaq was a rookie in 1992-93 incase you didn't know). This again shows you don't know jack shit.
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
-okkkkkkk.........dont know where that came from. and yeah, it does make a big diff, because while Kareem came into the league early 70's, jordan and the other guys came into the league mid 80's, yes concentrate on the word "MID" so, if your not academically challenged enough to figure this out, you'd agree with me that jordan and the other guys came into the league about 15 years after kareem did. so, thats equivalent to hmmmm....lets see now...saying michael jordan is in the same era as K-mart, because K-mart came in at 2000. do you get it now, or are you still lost?
(sigh) once again, im not talking about height or weight, im talking about athelticsm and quickness and strength. yes...i know 80's guys are about the same height and weight, but im talking about strength. guys these days are a lot stronger.
you just mentioned TEAM rebound #, but im talking about Russell's #'s. Just admit it, before you make more of a fool out of yourself, and just say that you dont know what Russell would be today, because you dont have a time machine that would bring Russell to the future and you dont have the evidence to convince anyone here.
__________________ Beware of my shadow.
Last edited by RecSpecs110 on Sep 19th, 2006 at 01:16 AM
im now down to begging for pre-season to start. i just to see something of basketball sort. first game i can see is october 11. in about 22 days. (sigh)
yea, i got tired. i was only joking when i said i would countdown everyday. true, this argument has gone for a really long time. wonder what he's thinking to say back at me.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yup I botched that one my fault. But any top 50 list with Bill Walton and a 3rd year Shaq over 'Nique = garbage.
Um Mike did play in the same era as K-Mart . So what you are saying is that Kareem played in the same era as Mike and them but didn't?
So the guys back then were about the same height, weight and build but at the same time somehow magically "a lot" stronger?
Which is inflated because of the crappy era he played in.
I've said it once and I'll say it again
0-0-0-0
A little thing called rate of rebound look it up.
First I don't even recall you asking a first and second time but it's whatever.
Athletecism
ath‧let‧ic /æθˈlɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ath-let-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2. of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4. for athletics: an athletic field.
5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic (def. 2), pyknic (def. 1).
The only real rule to changes made towards Centers was the goaltending and ball holding trash because the athletes (the league in general) back then sucked. OMGOSH TOUGH STUFF!
Not that tough if your competition is garbage. Put Shaq on a high school (even College) team and they're unbeaten no matter what rules (outside of maybe a no-Shaq rule) you make up.
I know, he wouldn't even be guarding them.
Which in turn leads to poor management.
Because as said earlier, the management sucked, the athletes sucked, the competition sucked, the league in general just sucked.
That was about as logical as trading Shaq and GP (TWO basketball hall of famers well future HoF's) for Amare Stoudemire.
Yup there was poor management in the 80, 90s and even now. The only difference is is that the overall management is on a whole nother level (nowadays you have an all-star calibur player on every team, except the newly created Bobcats, whereas back then it was only about 3 teams with anyone worth a squirrel fart).
Which means the league finally started to get some athletes instead of the 6'10 guys of years past that couldn't even dunk the bleeping ball (the key is the word influx and the lack of the word level).
Um it pretty much is as up until the 70's the play style was pretty much the same. Oh and it's pretty obvious that someone 6'10 that can dunk is more talented then someone 6'10 who can't dunk.
So what you are saying that they could beat any team in the NCAA but not any team in the NCAA?
Fit just fine with a winless record.
You do realise that 10 years could be considered way ahead of it's time and still be 40 years ago.
Check the level of competition and Russell's play style and point out one thing that Russell could do that Miles couldn't do better (keep in mind they weigh the same but Miles probably has a little more strength thanks to being a little shorter thus giving him more mass). I mean we already know by just viewing film that Miles is the better:
Shooter (you do not know how hilarious that is for me to type every time I do)
Athlete
Ballhandler
Scorer DEFENDER
and has a better knowledge of the game (mostly thanks to playing in a later era)
Passer
Maybe even rebounder
Because that's how good they were. You can't magically make them better because an average joe nowadays blows them out the water. You just have to take the L and move on.
AKA making the player better then he was.
.
AKA making the player worse then he is.
And defender. And rebounder. And ballhandler.
Kinda like how Kobe is conditioned to shoot more and forget about defense now yet still is one of the premier defenders in the L.
Even without the fadeaway Kobe is a hangtime shooter. Which means the "athletes" of that time would still have a tough time contesting the shot because they don't have the ups.
There really isn't that many rules that ould hinder him outside of maybe lack of hand-checking (which wasn't really that stressed in his time).
FUN FACT:
Julius Earving only weighed 10 lbs less then Bill Russell
Which is exactly why average athletes from now > superstar athletes from then.
Wow, simply wow, you are truly one of a kind. Not only do you not make any sense while making a complete fool out of yourself, you contradict yourself about a thousand times.
i first say that the guys today have a better knowledge of the game than the 80's guys, because they play in a later era, which you deny and say "no, jordan, bird, 'nique, etc. all have a better knowledge than the guys these days." then here, you say "Miles has a better knowledge of the game than russell, because he plays in a later era." Wow, how low can you go? (literally)
No, the guys were not the same build back then. i never said that. i said the guys today are a lot more muscular, because they focus on weight training a lot more these days. this proves that you also make things up and lie. yep, you are getting more and more credible and convincable by the second. (cough...cough)
again with the "name one thing russell can do that miles cant," my response again...everything.
Um...what kind of crack are you using now? jordan isnt in the same era as martin. jordan was in the same era as bird, 'nique, stockton, isiah thomas, etc. lol at you for saying that.
__________________ Beware of my shadow.
Last edited by RecSpecs110 on Sep 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Here is the link again for those who want to check on Russ' high jump prowess. IIRC, he was ranked #7 in the world in high jump and was suppose to join the US Olympic High Jump team.
To cap it up , Russell has a vertical leap of 48 inches (compare that to 52" for Wilt, 38" for Shaq, and 43" for Vince). Have i also mentioned that he's ambidextrous?
You say so and so is teh suck but you never really back up your claims with anything. FYI, the foul lane was doubled (from 6' to 12') in size during the 1956 NCAA specifically to LIMIT Russell's presence in the paint.
Nah. Russell and the 1956 USF Dons are just doing something REVOLUTIONARY. Its called tough Defense. Shaq is good but his LSU Tigers were NOT UNBEATEN. IIRC, they didnt even make it to the Final Four.
?
What does this mean? Russell shouldnt even be guarding the likes of Ed macauley and Reed? Why not? Theyre both HoF.
Lack of funds does not begat poor management. In fact, lack of funds forces management to be creative and to be effecient.
Have i mentioned that a racially outspoken african-american like Russell would generate negative publicity for the St.Loius Hawks since they are in a racially insensitive town (at least in those days)? Have i mentioned that a St.Louis native and hometown hero like Macauley would provide the Hawks with the ideal gate-attraction that they need? Again whose thinking of basketball championships when the team itself is on the verge of financial collapse?
Have i mentioned that during the NBA's early years, an era devoid of TV and merchandising deals, the market for pro-basketball was very small? That despite the efforts of players willing to play w/o getting a salary, and team owners and journalists conniving together to publicize the games, most arenas remain barely half-full. There is just simply little fan interest during those early years.
There is actually a term for people like you:
Chronological Snobbery: The logical fallacy that something from an earlier time -- be it thinking, art, science, or sport -- is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present.
Usage example: Some people assume that today's NBA players are stronger, faster, and more talented than players from the 60s, 70s, and even 80s. That's a clear example of Chronological Snobbery.
Me i just call it shortsighted.
Nope. Racial and financial considerations dictated the trade between Russell and Ed Macauley (and Cliff Hagen). Nothing like the trade you suggested.
This is what you call Chronological snobbery. Woot. Woot.
When people put things out of context, they are prone to make big, sweeping MISTAKES like this. Today dunks are considered kewl but during the 60's, the high-flying game of today was considered arrogant and classless. Coaches discourage it during Russell's era.
Going back to my previous statement so that the others might know what we are talking about, the NBA at 50 documentary's statement that the Russell era "the greatest influx of talent that the League has ever seen." DEBUNKS this particular chrono snub's claim that during the 60's "the athletes sucked, the competition sucked, the league in general just sucked."
Please do tell as to who's this 6'10'' that couldnt DUNK?
Nope im referring that they could beat your AVERAGE 2006 NCAA Tournament Division I basketball teams.
Im sure they could win. They just need the updates i suggested earlier.
Shooter - yeah Russ' suck in the perimeter but since he's supposed to be the man in the post, its no big deal.
Athlete - Russell takes this. I've already explained why 60's guys just doesnt dunk alot which is why people are quick to assume that they are "not" athletic.
Ballhandler - Yeah sure lets give this one to Miles.
Scorer - Russell=15.1; Miles=10.6
DEFENDER - LOWEST estimate for Russell's blocks is 5; Miles=1.1
Passer - Russ=4.3; Miles=2.0
Rebounder - This is so in Russell's bag (22.5).
"and has a better knowledge of the game (mostly thanks to playing in a later era)"
And it is this KNOWLEDGE that we are trying to balance out when we compare players from two different eras. This knowledge BLURS and is independent of the player skills which is what we are comparing. Modern players have the LUXURY of learning/acquiring knowledge from the mistakes of the past which allows them to select the most effective way of playing. This puts old-timers in a DISADVANTAGE that has nothing to do with their SKILL level. The only way to accurately compare the skill of two players from different eras is to assign EQUAL level of knowledge of the game. In other words putting things into CONTEXT. This means updating old timers to modern basketball concepts, perks and rules while modern players remains unchange IF the perspective chosen is the modern era (Imagine Russell, Wilt and Baylor growing up watching Jordan and 'Nique with their showtime dunks? How would they do today?). If the perspective is the old timer's era, say the 60's, then ALL basketball concepts, perks, and rules that are not present in the 60's have to be FACTORED OUT from the modern player while the 60's player remains UNCHANGED (Imagine Kobe and Vince growing up watching Mikan and Schayes doing . . . . set shots?! How would they do in the 60's?).
All of these are answered in my previous answer: "and has a better knowledge of the game (mostly thanks to playing in a later era)". hopefully its short enough for you to read and understand.
Nope. Unless he's part of the Celtics, Kobe would be a pathetic defender. For one, most coaches of the era dont indoctrinate a defensive mentality on their players. Most steals were more of a matter of luck rather than skill. Second, most coaches of the era have, in retrospect, a flawed concept of defense. They instructed their players to NEVER LEAVE THEIR FEET when an opponent shot the ball. Jumping up after a shot was considered a defensive mistake. Their defensive mentality still revolves around the set shot. Putting things into context with the era, Kobe would be a decent rebounder and ballhandler for his height. But nothing extraordinary.
As a jump shooter, i wouldnt put him with the elites of the time like Azirin or Sharman because these guys are that ones that set the fundamentals of the jump shot. Kobe's jumpshot would probably look crude but yeah he's probably above average in this department.
And oh, Bill Russell's shot blocking hastened the adoption of the jump shot in the NBA.
Fun Fact: Julius also doesnt throw up in almost every game like Russell. How could anyone gain weight if you puke out your lunch before every game?
Do you even read or are you feigning ignorance? The High Jump example shows just how modern technology (rubber landing mats) and newly developed jumping techniques (Fosbury flop) IMPROVES a modern athlete's performance which is why your graph shows a marked increase in performance, while low tech apparatuses (SAWDUST) and old jumping techniques (Straddle) HINDERS the athlete from attaining his full potential (danger of breaking one's neck). It doesnt mean that ALL high jumpers today would automatically jump higher than those during Russell's time.The difference in the technology and techniques available when youre comparing two high jumpers - hell any athlete - from different eras DISTORTS the actual SKILL-LEVEL of the athletes.
Taking advantage of the most modern equipment and the latest developments in the sport, allows a modern player to better achieve his full skill potential hence a BETTER PERFORMANCE compared to a player from an older-era who has outdated equipment and immersed in outdated concepts.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 18th, 2006 11:51 PM
once again, im not talking about height or weight, im talking about athelticsm and quickness and strength. yes...i know 80's guys are about the same height and weight, but im talking about strength. guys these days are a lot stronger.
. So what you are saying is that Kareem played in the same era as Mike and them but didn't?
