Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Jul 20, 2012 0:55:20 GMT -5
I made no such statement. I should have pointed out that Cleveland won 57 games and tied for the second best record in the NBA that year. They were an elite team, and Craig Ehlo was their best defender; or at least he considered the best option to guard the best player in the world at the most important moment of the year. I think that speaks for itself, with no knee-jerk race-reactions necessary. Ehlo didn't D Jordan because he was there best defender. He checked Jordan because Ron Harper was too valuable offensively to waste fouls on Jordan. Also the athletes of today arent better than the athletes of 20 yrs ago. LeBron is a freak but no one else is an mouth dropping specimen. Laettner was better than any big in the L today.......... It was the final play of the game. They weren't protecting Harper. Fwiw I just watched it and Harper was checking Pippen as he ball was inbounded. C'mon with the Laettner comment. That's just silly. |
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Jul 20, 2012 1:02:18 GMT -5
That's your opinion. Howard took a team to the NBA finals at age 23 all but singlehandedly. That's how old Ewing was when he graduated from Gtown. Howard is pretty legit. |
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Jul 20, 2012 1:03:49 GMT -5
This is the most insane post ever. It's like saying Wilt would average 3 and 2 in today's NBA. Stick figures? Dwight wishes he could carry the Mailman's jock. Nah, he's right. Jesse Owen and Jim Thorpe were just average athletes too, since they went against stiffs way back when. You clearly lack either reading comprehension, critical thinking, or both. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,924
|
Post by Filo on Jul 20, 2012 6:42:37 GMT -5
Nah, he's right. Jesse Owen and Jim Thorpe were just average athletes too, since they went against stiffs way back when. You clearly lack either reading comprehension, critical thinking, or both. OK, maybe not average athletes but they wouldn't stand a chance today. Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing that the best athletes in any sport from 20 years ago would stand a chance against the best today. |
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,662
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 20, 2012 7:52:21 GMT -5
You can argue the athleticism thing all day long. The athletes today SHOULD be better athletically. Society has changed a bit so that all these guys do is play a sport (Kentucky, Syracuse, UConn, etc.). You think Ewing's life would have looked a little different if he played today? He'd likely have gone to Kentucky because he certainly didn't need to stay in college to be a superstar in the NBA. Anyway..... the athletes today overall may be better. At the elite level, it's a little more murky. I'd give a slight edge to today's players on the whole. That said, the Dream Team players were better basketball players and it's not close. I'd take a guy like Pippen over Melo every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Ewing or Dwight? Ewing please. Why? Because he was a basketball player who could hit an open jumper. He knows how to play basketball. If it were weightlifting or windsprints? Howard.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jul 20, 2012 8:09:31 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing that the best athletes in any sport from 20 years ago would stand a chance against the best today. Do you really believe that statement? Perhaps you should take time and review who was playing 20 yrs ago. A really small sample: Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Isaiah Thomas, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Dominique Wilkins..... and the list could go on and on. I understand that issues such as training methods and understanding of nutrition and diet improve with time. That said, the best from 20 years ago would have no trouble competing with the best from today, IMO. |
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Jul 20, 2012 9:16:21 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have a really hard time believing that the best athletes in any sport from 20 years ago would stand a chance against the best today. Do you really believe that statement? Perhaps you should take time and review who was playing 20 yrs ago. A really small sample: Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo, Isaiah Thomas, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Dominique Wilkins..... and the list could go on and on. I understand that issues such as training methods and understanding of nutrition and diet improve with time. That said, the best from 20 years ago would have no trouble competing with the best from today, IMO. Fair enough. I chose my words poorly in saying that they "wouldn't stand a chance". That's an exaggeration. But the main point I was trying to make is that today's players are the product of a system where talented is culled from a much deeper pool. Domestic talent is identified and groomed from a young age, and countless international players have access to the game that they would not have had they been born 20 years earlier. I don't think anyone would argue that this expansion of the talent pool would by definition create a deeper, more athletic league top to bottom, even after you account for better training, nutrition, etc.. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the best players today are definitively better than those of 20 years ago, but it stands to reason. It makes more sense to me than the position that basketball talent peaked 20 years ago. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,890
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 20, 2012 9:43:42 GMT -5
These argumetns tend to lose steam as comparisons are made across eras where the game was played differently. How would the current team fare against a 1965-era "dream team" (Russell, Chamberlain, Baylor, Robertson, West, Bellamy, Hawkins, Havlicek, Lucas, Pettit, etc.)? Depends on the style of play.
It's human nature to assume that today is always better than yesterday. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. The great players can dominate in any era (Jim Brown is still the greatest pro footballer ever, whether it was 1964 or 2012) but games change and so do the expectations. Jeremy Lin wouldn't have got on the floor of the Garden with the 1970 Knicks, but now he's paid more than that entire team did.
Baseball remains the only sport where comparisons are realistic because neither the size of player, the rules of the game, nor the technology has materially changed over the decades. You want a discussion: who is the best shortstop of all time? (Honus Wagner. Next question.)
|
|
biggmanu
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 672
|
Post by biggmanu on Jul 20, 2012 9:46:52 GMT -5
1. Can this board ever have a thoughtful conversation without people taking jabs at people's reading comprehension. I understand people get heated sometimes. But jabbing at someone's ability to read is childish and annoying for other readers. Plus it's a stupid insult...if they can read than it goes against the spirit of your insult and if they can't read i'm sure they wouldn't get it anyway.
2. The best argument is the one Jordan made: You learned from us, we didn't learn from you. I don't think Howard would be nearly as good today if it wasn't for Ewings guidance and teaching. They are both freaks in terms of the body's God gave them there's no arguing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by NTAMM on Jul 21, 2012 13:18:42 GMT -5
One would expect Kobe to say that the present US Olympic team is better than the "Dream Team." As a competitor, it would be foolish and defeating for Kobe to have the mindset that the 1992 US Olympic team was better. Where Kobe is off is in his rationale as to why the 2012 team is better than was the 1992 team.
When one considers the center positions, the 1992 wins hands down. Even with a Dwight Howard and Andrew Bynum on the team, the center position would have been dominated by the 1992 team. David Robinson and Patrick Ewing were freakishly athletic centers in the prime of their careers. Actually, in his prime, David Robinson was an all-around better athlete than Dwight Howard and the most athletic center of his era. Robinson had a big upper body, was extremely muscular and agile. Ewing had an even bigger upper body than Robinson and played a more physical game. Neither had the upper body that Howard possesses; yet, Howard was not that much bigger than Ewing or Robinson.
But, unlike Howard, both Ewing and Robinson were skilled offensive players and had well-developed post games. They could also step away from the basket and consistently knock down the mid-range jumpers. After eight seasons in the NBA, Howard still remains underdeveloped in terms of his offensive skills. Ewing and Robinson were also very good to great defenders. In 1992, Dwight Howard would have been no better than the fifth best center in the NBA -- behind Robinson, Ewing, Smits, Daugherty, and Olajuwon. (The centers are listed in no particular order.) In 1992, Howard would have been a more athletic version of Mark Easton.
The 2012 team would be at their best if Howard and the second-best center in the NBA, Andrew Bynum, were on the team. But, neither are on the team; Tyson Chandler is. There is a big drop off from Howard and Bynum to Chandler. Chandler is a great athletic and a very good defender. But, Chandler has no post up game and struggles to make shots outside of lay-ups and dunks. (Interestingly, what hurt Chandler's development was that Big John quit coaching two years too early. Chandler publicly stated that had JTII been coaching, he would gone to wherever Big John was the coach.)
At the power forward position, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley were in their prime. They would have no peer on the 2012 team. Of the present NBA players, only Tim Duncan, as a power forward, has a resume that matches or exceeds that Malone or Barkley. But, Tim Duncan is way past his prime and not on the 2012 team. LaMarcus Aldridge is up-and-coming. Yet, he too is not on the 2012 team.
With the Jordan and Drexler at the shooting guard positions, the 1992 team would win. It would be no contest. Jordan was the most lethal offensive player of that era. He was also a lock-down defender. Even if Kobe could match up with Jordan offensively, Kobe has not been a lock-down defender for three or four years. Clyde Drexler played on a small market team and was always overshadowed by Jordan. But, Drexler was second-best two-guard in the world, during Jordan's first three championship runs and was always in the discussion for most valuable (NBA) player. In his prime Kobe was better than Drexler. However, no other present two-guard matches Drexler's productivity. It is noteworthy that Drexler is considered one of the top 50 NBA players of all time. Outside of Kobe, only Dwayne Wade approaches Drexler's excellence. But, again, Wade is not on the 2012 team.
At the small forward position, the 2012 team would have the advantage. Durant, Anthony, and James would be better than Bird, Mullins, and Pippen. In 1992, Bird was near retirement and Mullins was a good scorer, but, at best, was an average defender. But, with Pippen it was different. Pippen could score and was also a lock-down defender. At small forward, Pippen would have presented problems for the 2012 team. Consequently, the advantage the 2012 team would have at the position is not a pronounced as it would first seem.
The only position where the 2012 team would have a clear advantage is at point guard. Westbrook, Paul, and Williams would be superior to Magic and Stockton at the point guard. That advantage would be removed if Isaiah Thomas AND Terry Porter were added to the 1992 team.
At most of the positions, the 1992 team had athletes that would match up with the athletes on the 2012; but, the 1992 team generally had the superior basketball players.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 23, 2012 10:04:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure why this is even a debate. Everyone knows that Tony Mandarich was the greatest NFL lineman that ever lived. And Kwame Brown is on the fast train to the Hall of Fame.  Physical prowess is great, but it means nothing as to how good a player you can or will be. There is a certain matter of fundamental skill. And there is no way that the current crop of NBA All Stars are more skilled than their predecessors of a generation ago. That is ridiculously silly. (I am not necessarily saying they are less skilled either, even though I personally believe that's the case, with a few exceptions) You need more evidence that eras mean nothing? Everyone knows that Christian Bale would beat the ever living crap out of Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney (probably collectively). On the other hand, Christopher Reeve would make Brandon Routh his little bitch. And George Reeves could probably take the both of them. ;D |
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jul 23, 2012 10:32:45 GMT -5
There is no significant difference in size or athleticism in 20 years. More weight-training and HGH/steroids today, but basketball is not a weight-lifting contest. There were big, athletic players back in the day, Darryl Dawkins for example, who never lived up to their "potential" because they were consistenly outplayed by the players with better skills, footwork, etc. From the time they were in college, plenty of people said Bird was too slow and Barkley too small to be effective in the NBA at their positions and yet they beat quicker and taller players game after game and year after year. Back when most good players spent 4 years in college, they entered the league with a lot more skills, especially on the defensive end.
The 1990 Pistons would break Tyson Chandler in half just for kicks.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jul 23, 2012 10:46:12 GMT -5
And going back even further, there is nobody in the NBA today who could stop Pete Maravich or Dr. J. or Kareem in their primes.
A mid-70s team of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Elvin Hayes, Julius Erving, George McGinnis, David Thompson, Rick Barry, George Gervin, Pete Maravich, Tiny Archibald, and another point guard, say, Jo Jo White or Calvin Murphy or Slick Watts would beat the 2012 team in a series.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jul 23, 2012 12:31:13 GMT -5
And going back even further, there is nobody in the NBA today who could stop Pete Maravich or Dr. J. or Kareem in their primes. A mid-70s team of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Elvin Hayes, Julius Erving, George McGinnis, David Thompson, Rick Barry, George Gervin, Pete Maravich, Tiny Archibald, and another point guard, say, Jo Jo White or Calvin Murphy or Slick Watts would beat the 2012 team in a series. I was with you right up until you put Slick Watts on the list! |
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,470
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 23, 2012 12:56:34 GMT -5
And going back even further, there is nobody in the NBA today who could stop Pete Maravich or Dr. J. or Kareem in their primes. A mid-70s team of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Elvin Hayes, Julius Erving, George McGinnis, David Thompson, Rick Barry, George Gervin, Pete Maravich, Tiny Archibald, and another point guard, say, Jo Jo White or Calvin Murphy or Slick Watts would beat the 2012 team in a series. I was with you right up until you put Slick Watts on the list! Yeah, I agree with that. Also agree with NTAMM, except for putting Howard behind Brad Daugherty and Rik Smits. |
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jul 23, 2012 13:34:45 GMT -5
One elbow by Barkley to Lebron's nose and LBJ's two head bands would fall off and he would mentally crumble.
MJ would own Fake MJ (Kobe).
Mentally it's men vs boys. 3-4 year college educated guys vs high school kids and one and dones.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jul 23, 2012 15:29:30 GMT -5
Mentally it's men vs boys. 3-4 year college educated guys vs high school kids and one and dones. Bingo. |
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 23, 2012 16:28:18 GMT -5
How do guys get tougher in college than in pros? Was college really that tough? I remember it pretty fondly but perhaps I'm blocking out how it hardened me up.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jul 23, 2012 18:25:57 GMT -5
Different Eras:
1991 NBA Draft: 1. Larry Johnson (sr) 2. Kenny Anderson (so) 3. Billy Owens (jr) 4. Dikembe Mutombo (sr) 5. Steve Smith (sr)
1992 NBA Draft: 1. Shaquille O'Neal (jr) 2. Alonzo Mourning (sr) 3. Christian Laettner (sr) 4. Jimmy Jackson (jr) LaPhonso Ellis (sr)
2011 NBA Draft: 1. Kyrie Irving (fr) 2. Derrick Williams (so) 3. Enes Kanter (ineligible fr) 4. Tristan Thompson (fr) 5. Jonas Valanciunas (Lithuania)
2012 NBA Draft: 1. Anthony Davis (fr) 2. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (fr) 3. Bradley Beal (fr) 4. Dion Waiters (so) 5. Thomas Robinson (jr)
Edit to add: I think a team of the 1991-1992 top 5 picks might beat the 2011-2012 top 5s TODAY even with the old guys retired and with bad knees.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,470
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 23, 2012 20:45:08 GMT -5
One elbow by Barkley to Lebron's nose and LBJ's two head bands would fall off and he would mentally crumble. MJ would own Fake MJ (Kobe). Mentally it's men vs boys. 3-4 year college educated guys vs high school kids and one and dones. Kobe's not MJ, and he's past his prime. So yes, 1992 MJ would dominate 2012 Kobe. But if the implication of your comment is that Kobe is soft in any way, you're way off base. And I don't think the 3/4 years of college toughens players up argument holds any water for the really top players. Did KG lack toughness? Kobe? Derrick Rose, if he were healthy? I'm not buying it. That said, I'm still of the view that 1992 mops the floor with 2012. Anyone who thinks that Tyson Chandler, who can't hit a shot outside three feet, would dominate Ewing and Robinson is smoking something. |
|
