The myth that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never played against players over 6'5

[Kane]

Honestly, I never understood this theory

The more teams you have, the more diluted the talent pool is

It's not that simple. The advances in training, coaching, sports science etc.

Basketball back than wasn't a quarter as popular as it is now and international players were unheard of.

There are way more teams now, but there is also a much larger talent pool to pick from today than back then.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

Honestly, I never understood this theory

The more teams you have, the more diluted the talent pool is

Except for the whole racist stuff... Not allowing all the best players in the league

Then the talent was literally split into 2 leagues for a stretch.

Then just the simple eye test of players in the 60s/70s vs the 80s.


Go look at Kareem's number pre-merger vs post-merger bruh

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

+

I'm surprised they weighed this much in the 80s

 

[UpAndComing]

It's not that simple. The advances in training, coaching, sports science etc.

Basketball back than wasn't a quarter as popular as it is now and international players were unheard of.

There are way more teams now, but there is also a much larger talent pool to pick from today than back then.

You can't really use training, coaching, sports science as an example. That's a weak argument. Because every player was on the same playing field. If Russell Westbrook or Lebron were in the 60s, they would be subjected to the same NBA experience those players went through. So say if training, coaching, sports science becomes even better 20 years from now, so we gonna look at Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Lebron differently like they aren't Top 10 type players?


And you really sure about the "larger talent pool" phenomenon you talking? Besides Cavs, Wizards, Raptors, Pistons, Bucks, Warriors, Spurs, Clippers, Blazers, which teams in the NBA currently actually have at least 2 all stars on their roster? Funny, cause that was common in the pre-1990s NBA

 

[Kane]

You can't really use training, coaching, sports science as an example. That's a weak argument. Because every player was on the same playing field. If Russell Westbrook or Lebron were in the 60s, they would be subjected to the same NBA experience those players went through. So say if training, coaching, sports science becomes even better 20 years from now, so we gonna look at Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Lebron differently like they aren't Top 10 type players?


And you really sure about the "larger talent pool" phenomenon you talking? Besides Cavs, Wizards, Raptors, Pistons, Bucks, Warriors, Spurs, Clippers, Blazers, which teams in the NBA currently actually have at least 2 all stars on their roster? Funny, cause that was common in the pre-1990s NBA

Aight breh, forget the sports science. At the end of the day, there are millions more people playing basketball from the playground level all the way to the pros in 2017 than in the 60s. That in and of itself means that there will be more elite high level ballplayers now than there were back in the day.

As far as the All-Star thing, there were 9 teams in the 1965-66 season, and there were 20 All-Stars named that year. Today there are 30 teams and there were 24 All-Stars this year. You do the math.

 

[UpAndComing]

Aight breh, forget the sports science. At the end of the day, there are millions more people playing basketball from the playground level all the way to the pros in 2017 than in the 60s. That in and of itself means that there will be more elite high level ballplayers now than there were back in the day.

As far as the All-Star thing, there were 9 teams in the 1965-66 season, and there were 20 All-Stars named that year. Today there are 30 teams and there were 24 All-Stars this year. You do the math.

1961-1962 - 9 teams (12 man roster times 9 teams, 108 total players)
1967-1968 - 12 teams (12 man roster times 12 teams, 144 total players)
1968-1969 - 14 teams (12 man roster times 12 teams, 168 total players)

20 all stars out of 144 and 168 players. Seems like small number was all stars compared to the entire players in the league. Looks like you can't do the math

 

[Serious]

Those "clowns" as you put it are only acting in retaliation because dumb muhfukkas who're stuck in the past, shyt on the talent/competition of today - all the time. It's comical and nauseating that folk are now acting like this narrative of putting past eras into perspective is somehow the norm on this board.

@Malta looking really quiet over there.

 

[Steezy]

Take my trolling seriously brehs

But to be clear those players were way inferior skill wise and athletically which was the point. Yall dikkriding a era where half the league wouldn't dribble with their head up

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Take 2017 Kyle Korver, a solid guy to have coming off your bench.

1. Subtract four inches of height.

2. Make him half as athletic.

3. Take away his ability to dribble left-handed.

4. Make his right-handed dribbling half as good.

5. Take away his shot and replace it with some ugly rec league shot that go in 2/3 as much.

6. Take away everything he knows about off-ball movement.

7. Take away everything he knows about defense and half his defensive effort.

8. Give him a sinus problem so he wheezes on the court.


You now have Paul Arizin, an All-star forward averaging 22ppg in 1962. Arizin made 10 All-star teams in a ten-year career, finished top-five in MVP voting three times including #2 in 1956, made the Hall of Fame easy, and got on the NBA's 1996 "50 Greatest Players Ever" list.


So basically, if Kyle Korver had a short brother with a health issue who never played organized basketball, he would have been an NBA legend in the 1960s.

That's how much more dominant a 2017 bench player is compared to a 1962 star.


Watch the video and tell me one lie I said.

 

[The Fire]

I'm surprised they weighed this much in the 80s

didn't really have the benefit of advanced training and diet programs. NBA players ate and trained like shyt until the 2000s

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Not true. His game wouldn't translate well to the game back then. Conversely, Russell and Wilt's respective playing styles wouldn't translate well to today's game.

You have to judge each individual played based on the era he played in.

Name ONE thing someone in that era could do that Westbrook couldn't. Westbrook would be unanimous MVP every year in that era except for racists and guys who didn't like his "attitude".

Honestly, I never understood this theory

The more teams you have, the more diluted the talent pool is

The talent pool is at least ten times bigger. Professional bball was new back then, and baseball, football, and boxing were a lot more popular. Most White guys didn't play basketball, most Black guys weren't allowed, and there wasn't anyone international at all.

Now the talent pool on all sides is WAY bigger. Bball is the 1st or 2nd option for literally every up and coming athlete with the requisite height and athleticism.

And you really sure about the "larger talent pool" phenomenon you talking? Besides Cavs, Wizards, Raptors, Pistons, Bucks, Warriors, Spurs, Clippers, Blazers, which teams in the NBA currently actually have at least 2 all stars on their roster? Funny, cause that was common in the pre-1990s NBA

Bro, you just named 9 teams and there's only 24 all stars. How the hell you going to get more teams then that with multiple all stars? Name ONE year pre-1990 where more than 9 teams had multiple all-stars.

And it says nothing about the quality of play. Freaking Delly would have ben an all star in the 1960s and an MVP candidate in the 1950s.

 

[DarrynCobretti]

+

It's not that simple. The advances in training, coaching, sports science etc.

Basketball back than wasn't a quarter as popular as it is now and international players were unheard of.

There are way more teams now, but there is also a much larger talent pool to pick from today than back then.

These posts above contain indisputable facts and is the reality. In fact only on the coli have I heard anyone even attempt to deny/argue with these facts, offline in the real world ask anyone who has played ball or coached at any level and they'll basically the mention every single thing the above posts noted.

The size, athleticism, skill, larger talent pool(via a larger, more diverse global population) and the evolution of the biomechanics in the sport is so different now compared to back then that the disparity is extraordinarily massive. Like the colossal gap is similar to how if you took the fastest track male sprinters in Wilt's era(and earlier) and had them race against the fastest female sprinters on earth right now, you'd see how embarrassed the fastest men sprinters of that era would be just to stand next to women capable of running side by side with them and likely out-lifting them in the weight room. Another example, imagine Babe Ruth attempting to even try out for a minor league baseball team in this era, he'd get laughed at and escorted off the field let alone even being capable of trying out for a professional baseball team.

Bottom-line, the the advancement of nutritional science and all of these technological advancements in the medical field is as understated as the skill level improvement and the focus on the AAU level that centers around versatility and 'positionless' basketball now.

 

[gluvnast]

PERSPECTIVE.....

 

[Malta]

@Malta looking really quiet over there.

Wilt was an all-time great, but he needs to be left in his era Would he be a great player today? Sure since 7'2 280lbs + athletic doesn't grow on trees , but he wouldn't be putting up 50ppg, his playoffs numbers are a better window into the type of player he really was, nobody really points out how big of a gap there was between his regular season performances, and his playoffs.

 

[hayesc0]

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"


Look what we have here

To me the rediculious pacing from that era has more to do with wilts scoring records than anything.