More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

More impressive: Jordan's 6 or Russell's 11?

1) Jordan
8
38%
2) Russell
13
61%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby LTLakerFan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:46 pm

Jordan. The Celtics were stacked with much less overall competition than what the Bulls faced, and they always had just enough or more than enough to get by the Lakers and Chamberlain's teams.
LTLakerFan

 
Posts: 6484
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:25 pm

Juronimo wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


Yeah, the Pistons beat the Lakers in 1989 with Jabbar (granted Magic and Scott were injured) but that same Pistons team took a healthy Showtime Lakers to 7 games in the Finals and had Isiah not been hurt, they might've won that series and possibly had a 3 peat. And MJ's Bulls dominated those same Pistons. But I get it, the agenda here is the discredit MJ at all costs.


No one is discrediting MJ.

What is happening is you're on a campaign to discredit Russell at all costs and cherry picking arguments to make your point. Some of us disagree with that, even though we're Laker fans and most of us hate the team Russell played for. Fact is he deserves the respect he gets, the respect you refuse to give him due to your agenda.

Also you're incorrect about MJ dominating the Pistons. They didn't get past the Pistons until '91. Before then they lost to them 2 years in a row.


I'm not on any campaign. I am honestly more impressed with MJ's 6 rings over Russell's 11 and I gave the reasons why. But anyways, I can definitely see why others would disagree. I mean it's so much easier to be more impressed with 11 versus 6.

As for your Pistons comment, I just assumed that it was accepted knowledge that MJ had struggled to get over the hump against Detroit for several years before finally dethroning them.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:35 pm

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote: ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.


"Steve Kerr" and "defense" in the same sentence? So you are on record saying that Pippen could score as easily as MJ and that Kerr was a defensive jaggernaut? I mean anyone with any common knowledge of basketball would know without a shadow of a doubt that both statements are 100% false. But hey, keep calling me ignorant, it's kind of amusing.


LMAO. So you highlighted what I said as to prove something but all you did was prove that you are trolling. In the very sentence you highlighted I said "and the rest" were a defensive juggernaut. Yes, the Chicago Bulls TEAM was considered a defensive juggernaut. As usual you took one portion and ran with it foolishly without any real thought or understanding of the time, the team or the abilities of any of them. And funny enough you say "keep calling me ignorant" when you were the one that said it in the first place. What really is amusing is that all you are doing is proving what everyone has been saying in this thread and that is 1) you are a troll. 2) you have no idea what you are talking about past what you can look up. 3) you can't defend your point so you revert back to junior highschool banter. Whenever you really have a point I'll be interested to see it as of yet I have seen nothing from you but nonsense.


MJ, Pip and Grant were what made them a defensive jaggernaut in the first 3 peat while MJ, Pip, Rodman and Harper are what made them such in the 2nd 3 peat. Kerr had nothing to do with any of their defensive dominance. The guy was nothing but a spot up shooter. Nothing more. He doesn't belong in any sentence regarding defense. So yeah, when I see that, I had to respond. Maybe you should clarify your posts.

so what you are saying is that my point was right and you had nothing to argue so you jumped on the name "Kerr" in order to try and distort the point being made. The post I made was clear that MJ's TEAM (see post for several references to that word) was a defensive juggernaut. Again, you have no point and really you seem to not know what you are talking about. As Roo has stated I have yet to see you actually defend a point with anything of substance. All this back and forth about defense and then you simply agree in a, how did you say to juranimo, Oh "in an indirect way" agree with my statement. Sorry but maybe you need help with your own clarifications.


Just wondering, are you and Roo somehow related cause both of you annoy the heck out of me for some reason. Everyone else i'm cool with. They might disagree with me but they keep it constructive and I also do the same. But you two, man, you guys just do something to me. I guess it's the constant degrading and personal attacks. But anyways, no more responding to you.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:12 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Just wondering, are you and Roo somehow related cause both of you annoy the heck out of me for some reason. Everyone else i'm cool with. They might disagree with me but they keep it constructive and I also do the same. But you two, man, you guys just do something to me. I guess it's the constant degrading and personal attacks. But anyways, no more responding to you.


:man10: You ask a question and then say "no more responding to you." OK that is awesome. No Roo and I are often on opposite sides of discussions which means you are unable to validate your point to two different type of posters. Maybe you should try actually defending your points instead of this nonsense. Is it strange that this entire post failed to actually respond to the post I made. I'll take being related to Roo if it means that we both point out the hypocritical nature of your post. I am sure you'll add more to your "list". :man10:
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30734
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby LTLakerFan on Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:26 pm

Where's Rodney King when you need him for a hilarious line to quell a major civil disturbance of which he was a main part of the original cause. :man10: R.I.P.
LTLakerFan

 
Posts: 6484
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:01 pm

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Just wondering, are you and Roo somehow related cause both of you annoy the heck out of me for some reason. Everyone else i'm cool with. They might disagree with me but they keep it constructive and I also do the same. But you two, man, you guys just do something to me. I guess it's the constant degrading and personal attacks. But anyways, no more responding to you.


:man10: You ask a question and then say "no more responding to you." OK that is awesome. No Roo and I are often on opposite sides of discussions which means you are unable to validate your point to two different type of posters. Maybe you should try actually defending your points instead of this nonsense. Is it strange that this entire post failed to actually respond to the post I made. I'll take being related to Roo if it means that we both point out the hypocritical nature of your post. I am sure you'll add more to your "list". :man10:


Amen Brother Puffy........

The list will include anyone who actually lived during the era's he is tearing down and has a real perspective not rooted in fantasy stats and Sports Center analysis.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby V.V.V.V.V. on Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:07 pm

Not to jump on the side of the Pistons, but if you watched the series of the Pistons vs the Bulls, the first two times the Pistons beat the Bulls bu literally beating them up and punking them. The only way a team does that is if the refs let them do it. When the Bulls beat the Pistons in 91, the Pistons weren't allowed to play that kind of defense, and it changed the outcome of the series. That IMO is why they refused to shake hands at the end of the series, because they felt like they were shafted, not because they were bad sports.

If they were allowed to play defense the way they did the last few years, they would have probably beaten the Bulls in 91.
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
V.V.V.V.V.

 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Hollywood

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:59 pm

V.V.V.V.V. wrote:Not to jump on the side of the Pistons, but if you watched the series of the Pistons vs the Bulls, the first two times the Pistons beat the Bulls bu literally beating them up and punking them. The only way a team does that is if the refs let them do it. When the Bulls beat the Pistons in 91, the Pistons weren't allowed to play that kind of defense, and it changed the outcome of the series. That IMO is why they refused to shake hands at the end of the series, because they felt like they were shafted, not because they were bad sports.

If they were allowed to play defense the way they did the last few years, they would have probably beaten the Bulls in 91.


I disagree. There was no major rule change from 1990 to 1991. The Bulls were just the better team. The Pistons had gone to 3 straight finals and were going for a fourth straight finals appearance, which is something only the Celtics did in the mid 80's. The Pistons had already peaked while the Bulls, under PJ, were begining to peak. It was just their time. They had 11 more wins than the Pistons that year in the regular season. I mean if the series went 7 close games, your argument might hold but they got bounced in 5. No dynasty stays on top forever. The Pistons had an incredible run from 88-90 (1 game from winning a 3 peat) but it was the Bulls' time in 1991.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:45 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
V.V.V.V.V. wrote:Not to jump on the side of the Pistons, but if you watched the series of the Pistons vs the Bulls, the first two times the Pistons beat the Bulls bu literally beating them up and punking them. The only way a team does that is if the refs let them do it. When the Bulls beat the Pistons in 91, the Pistons weren't allowed to play that kind of defense, and it changed the outcome of the series. That IMO is why they refused to shake hands at the end of the series, because they felt like they were shafted, not because they were bad sports.

If they were allowed to play defense the way they did the last few years, they would have probably beaten the Bulls in 91.


I disagree. There was no major rule change from 1990 to 1991. The Bulls were just the better team. The Pistons had gone to 3 straight finals and were going for a fourth straight finals appearance, which is something only the Celtics did in the mid 80's. The Pistons had already peaked while the Bulls, under PJ, were begining to peak. It was just their time. They had 11 more wins than the Pistons that year in the regular season. I mean if the series went 7 close games, your argument might hold but they got bounced in 5. No dynasty stays on top forever. The Pistons had an incredible run from 88-90 (1 game from winning a 3 peat) but it was the Bulls' time in 1991.


I know I have been put on the "I Hate ROO" list so the response won't be to me but I can't help calling out the rediculousness of your post.

V made a very valid point about the Pistons not being able to play their brand of defense. You dismiss that by claiming they were working on going to their 4th Finals. How the hell does that have to matter? That is like saying the Lakers not being able to use Shaq in the paint is a nothing thing. Not being able to utilize your strength is a HUGE thing. Additionally the Bulls winning 11 more games means what? so what. That also has nothing to do with the fact the Pistons weren't allowed to play the Bulls the way the Pistons played ball. Now maybe the Bulls were just better but to just spew a few numbers, taint the history to fit your view and ignore what the poster actually stated doesn't make you right. So much fun reading your responses.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30734
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:16 am

^^the "I HATE ROO" list…. wow. how many members do we have again?….. :man10:
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby V.V.V.V.V. on Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:55 pm

Just for the record, I don't hate ya Roos. :man12:

Being of a conspiracy-minded disposition, I tend to think that referees have a lot to do with a series. Especially during the David Stern era. MJ played the same in 89 and 90 as he did in 91. Phil was essentially the same. But in 91 the refs miraculously didn't let the Pistons get away with the Jordan Rules. And not surprisingly it drastically changed the outcome of the series. And yes I remember they were swept, hence my claim that something drastic changed that year.
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
V.V.V.V.V.

 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Hollywood

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:01 pm

V's got my back...... :jam2:
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:15 pm

Rooscooter wrote:^^the "I HATE ROO" list…. wow. how many members do we have again?….. :man10:

I think it is just you and I :jam2:
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30734
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:10 pm

The notion that the 1991 Bulls beat the Pistons primarily because of the refs is a pretty weak argument. That's a very subjective argument with no factual basis. But here's why the 1991 Bulls beat the Pistons:

1) The Bulls swept them. If the series was a close 7 games, the argument that the refs impacted the series might hold more water. But it wasn't close. There is not one team in the history of the NBA that were swept that can make the claim that they were better than the team that swept them. Sweeps happen for a reason. That's what's great about the NBA. You have 7 games to determine who the better team is and 95% of the time, the better team wins. There is no freakish, one and done games like other sports.

2) No team stays on top forver. The Pistons had gone to 3 striaght Finals and were going for a 4th straight Finals appearance in 1991. Only the mid-80's Celtics accomplished that in the modern era. Needless to say, it's hard for a reason. Teams peak and then start to decline. It is envitable for every dynasty. The superstars get old and the rest of the league catches up. For a recent example, look at the Kobe Lakers. They peaked in 2008-09 when Kobe, Gasol and Odom were in their primes. And the difference between that team and the 2010-11 team is night and day as all of them aged a few more years and slowed down just enough for the rest of the league to catch up. Now a layman would look at these teams on paper and say, "That was the same team". But anyone following the situation knows that's not the case. Teams peak and decline. That was the situation with the Pistons.

3) Adding to point 2, the Bulls did the opposite and they started to peak. MJ, Pip and Grant were in their mid to late 20's and were in their primes. They had played together for a few years and had grown more comfortable playing with each other. So you have one team on the decline and one team moving up.

4) Jordan Rules. What was it? Sure, part of it was beating MJ up everytime he got to the hole but it was primarily about focusing their attention on him. When he had the ball, throw two guys at him. And it worked like a charm in MJ's earlier years because MJ didn't play the game the right way. He had not yet learned to play like a true superstar. Enter the Zen master. He finally convinced MJ that he had to play a more team oriented role. Attract the double and spot the open teammate. So now the Jordan Rule wasn't as effective because MJ was making Detroit pay for overextending their defense, something he didn't do in his younger day. There are different levels of superstars. There are the great individual talents like Melo, McGrady and Dominique, etc. who can score but can't elevate the level of their teammates and others who can elevate the level of their teammates. They give the team exactly what it needs, when it needs it. Sometimes defer, sometimes take over offensively. MJ was a great individual talent earlier in his career but became a true superstar once PJ convinced him to change up his style. If you read the book "Jordan Rules" and several of PJ's books, you know what i mean.

5) Bulls won 10 more regular season games than Detroit in 1991. Now, this isn't the be all, end all but it's another indicator that one team was on the rise while another was on the decline.

6) There was no major rule change from 1990 to 1991 that would adversely affect Detroit's defense (based on my recollection on top of my head). Hard fouls and all that nasty stuff were still allowed in 1991. Much different from today's league where anything is a technical. But again, even if the refs were somewhat lenient in favor of MJ's Bulls in that series, it doesn't hold much water because the Bulls so thoroughly dominated Detroit. It was just their time.

I laid out my reasons on why the 1991 Bulls beat the Pistons and it's NOT because of the refs. That's my argument and i'm sticking to it and i really don't have anything more to add to this topic. I am fully expecting some layman response by some of you and that's fine, I'm used to it.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby V.V.V.V.V. on Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:14 am

Just watched game 1 of the ECF 1991. The first few minutes Lambeer was pulled from the game, frustrated that he couldn't "play defense". Rodman gets T'd up trying to punk Jordan, and Isiah gets a foul on a jump ball with Jordan. The Bulls on the other hand, get half a dozen "clean strips" in the first half, leading to fast break points. It still looks to me that the tables were turned this series with respect to calls. And this is game one, which is typically one of the "fairest" called games of a series.

You raise some good points, which I won't dispute, but I still claim that the refereeing changed the tone of the series that year. Obviously the Bulls played well, but the red carpet was rolled out for them.
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
V.V.V.V.V.

 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Hollywood

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Congo Cash on Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:43 pm

Damn, just when I thought the LeBron lovefest is bad this is even worse, the 90's were really bad... No point of trying to reason with him, he is already convinced since minute 1...
- insert signature here -
User avatar
Congo Cash

 
Posts: 4532
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Philippines

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:39 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:You're ignoring the talent pool factor. It's like saying I have to compete against a bunch of 5th grade basketball players in a tournament to play one on one. Just because there are a few good players in that group and I beat them doesn't make it impressive. Level of comp is EVERYTHING. I know that's an extreme example but i'm trying to stress the importance of talent pool and level of comp. The 60's just didn't have the all encompassing talent pool the NBA has experienced in recent decades. Now that doesn't mean there can't be any great talent in a smaller talent pool as the 60's might be the greatest era ever for individual superstar talent. But the bigger the talent pool, the more likely the better the competition will be. By the time Jordan started winning rings, teams were already scouting for international talent. I would say the league really started to scout for international talent in the late 80's. That's when you started seeing guys like Petrovic, Sarinas, etc. playing in the league. And after the Dream Team in 1992, the game really took off internationally.


well if you're going to talk about talent pool
80s > 90s
jordan didn't win in the 80s
guys he beat up on in the 90s were basically 30 by then

both russell and jordan benefitted from expansion teams, which obviously dilute the league. it takes time before that talent pool becomes saturated with talent. the beginning of any expansion always worsens the league before it gets better.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:45 am

What was Russell's Per......
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby V.V.V.V.V. on Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:44 pm

You could argue that the current East has two legitimate teams and essentially a bunch of remaining expansion teams. The league has always had a few good teams, and lots of bad teams. Most FOs don't know how to run a team, so there's always mediocrity.

As for the few good teams, Russell had to guard Wilt every year in the playoffs. That's no small feat. That was Wilt in his prime.
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
V.V.V.V.V.

 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Hollywood

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:41 pm

there's insufficient data to calculate PER of russell's era
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby John3:16 on Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:15 pm

halekulani wrote:there's insufficient data to calculate PER of russell's era


The only PER I know of for Russell is 11 rings / 13 years. Pretty efficient if you ask me.
:man10:
Image
User avatar
John3:16
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31870
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Anywhere but LD after a loss.

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:19 am

i certainly wouldn't disagree with that

i would agree with the sentiment that the league in general does improve as time goes on, and i don't believe in sports regressing in skill and talent.

the argument here between jordan and russell is basically circular and simply depends on preference imo.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:01 pm

^^I disagree on part of your point. Talent is innate and doesn't change. Developing talent is different. I also disagree that skill is better now. The late 70's to the mid 90's the fundamentals of the game were much better than they are now. From ball handling to shooting free throws to understanding the team game to knowing how to play defense.... it's all worst to no better now.

Athleticism is up because there is a premium on that currently. Those guys were around back in the day but if they didn't have the rest of the game they didn't find their way on to teams.

The only thing I think that is significantly different is the pool of population to draw upon. There are 320 Million people in the country today..... there were about 145 Million in the mid 70's Add in the European's and it's a much deeper pool of players (145 Million vs half a Billion). Players didn't jump from High School to the pros or the "one and done" stuff we see now.... that adds even more players to the pool eligible to play vs yesteryear.

The proof that there is little difference in the skill and talent is evident when you look at it from that perspective as well. in 74 there were 28 Professional Basketball Teams.... now there are 30. If we are to believe that the players today are vastly different in skill and talent the linear progression would suggest that everyone in the league be better than the best single player of that era. After all it was being 336 of 145 Million and today it's 420 of 500 Million. I'd say that that you would have a difficult case proving that the 3rd best player in the game today is better than the best player then......

I'd say the game has peaked actually in terms of the mix of talent/fundamentals/understanding of the game. The influx of young guys and the emphasis on stats and athleticism has overcome the need for basic fundamentals and knowledge of the game. The league is full of guys who have been ruined by the marketing machine and the fact that they are in the league at 19 years old.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby halekulani on Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:30 pm

i didn't say they were vastly better
i just said they were better

talent does not change but you can develop talent? dude pick a side.

and who on earth decided it was going to be a linear progression?

how are the skills less developed? you didn't have traveling teams and basketball camps back then like you do now. the workout regimens, training, therapy, and diet are all much more advanced. if you think training doesn't make a difference look at the track and field records. training makes a HUGE difference. i guess tenths of a second doesn't matter to you, but it would translate to a great advantage on the court. more guys partied rather than stayed focused like jordan. now instead of competing against one guy treating his body like a temple, everyone in the league is doing the same. THAT is why the generations get better and better. they have a model of what to do and build upon the successful people before them. instead of one guy following a blueprint, you have 20, if not 200.

the late 70s to the mid 90s are a completely different game than today. people argue they played more 'defense' back then. the rules today make you actually play with your feet and not with your hands. if you let a defensive player of today grab and hold, they would be MUCH more effective because they already know how to use their feet. i guess you could say they don't play good defense with regards to this year specifically and so many teams tanking, but the elite teams all have excellent defenses. as far as fundamentals go, they are different than before. guys that stood out like mark price who were one of the first to regularly show off how he could split the double...you can probably name 10 guys off the top of your head who can do that now. the fundamentals changed because the game changed. look at how much of the game was isolation and transition. the game now is not the same with a high emphasis on pick and rolls, loops, etc. back to the basket men are coveted (ie. al jeff, bynum) but you can get by on a stretch 4 (ie. bosh).

i don't know why you think a sport would stop evolving. the rules have changed, which change the emphasis on fundamentals and bball theory/knowledge. just because players today play differently from before doesn't mean they lack knowledge. just look at the spurs. not only are they one of the most consistent performing teams, you can clearly see the evolution in their basketball theory and approach to winning. it is unequivocal evidence.

i agree that players should enter the league at later ages because i don't think they should be paid millions to be trained on the job rather than being nba ready but that's an entirely different discussion.
User avatar
halekulani

 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:06 pm

halekulani wrote:i didn't say they were vastly better
i just said they were better

talent does not change but you can develop talent? dude pick a side.


Did you read this after you wrote it?

People are born with talent..... nothing leads me to believe that someone born in 1950 has less natural talent than someone born in 1985.

I said developing that talent is different today..... Is English not your first language? This is one of a number of times you have not gotten the content right and then gone on a 1/4 page post basically saying exactly what I was saying.

What I said is that if it were all "developing skill" then there would be a linear progression... which there hasn't been any such thing. In fact, with the sheer number of available players there is little progression at all and in some areas regression.

As for not having basketball camps...... you need to know of what you speak before you speak. I went to 4 basketball and 2 football camps between my JR and SR years in High School....... and that was 1980...... and no, we didn't work out or take care of our bodies or anything..... we just ate Twinkies and drank Coke between pick up games in our short shorts and tube socks..... :man10: We'd have been so much better with "Jordan's" and black footies.....

You act as if all the stuff they do now was invented in 2000 or something..... Training hard has always been part of the game. Hell today's players would call for a Union meeting at 3 in a rows on the road like they had in the 70's and 80's. Those games were faster paced and teams ran all night. They played 82 games in a season 4 weeks shorter then.

What's changed since then is PED's and their acceptance by the players...... in the "old days" you had "juice" which was harsh stuff that you couldn't do all the time and was basically a black market commodity... today you have "clinics" outside the country that will put you on a regime of HGH and steroids along with duping agents to get through the joke tests that they give. It's big business now and my guess is that most of the top players are using something.

Getting in a gym and practicing and running, lifting and training hasn't changed much at all...... well..... there is Tybo
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23033
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

PreviousNext

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.