Who was the best perimeter athlete in the 60s?

[Psileas]

Yeah, troll, we already know it: Today's medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment > 60's ones. Nothing more. Actual human athleticism has not significantly changed for millenia now - and I'm not even sure it has even gone upwards.
Btw, Jackie Jackson and Earl Manigault, though not NBA players, were playing in the 60's. Imagine these 2 beasting with today's equipment.

[fpliii]

Yeah, troll, we already know it: Today's medicine, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment > 60's ones. Nothing more. Actual human athleticism has not significantly changed for millenia now - and I'm not even sure it has even gone upwards.
Btw, Jackie Jackson and Earl Manigault, though not NBA players, were playing in the 60's. Imagine these 2 beasting with today's equipment.

I do think improved nutrition, living conditions have led to athletic improvement over the centuries, but man hasn't evolved in the past 50 years (by the mid-late 60s, the league was mostly black, so the segregated excuse doesn't follow). On topic, I think generational players (and generational athletes) have popped up at similar frequencies in that span.

[Psileas]

There's something called EVOLUTION!! Baylor, Hawkins, and Gus were EASILY ahead of their time in the 60's. Gus with those two foot hops at that size was SICK!! Now once u got to Dr. J and Thompson, u are getting to guys who put a lot of the style that we see today. In terms of layups, Doc was doing shit guys today don't do often with those mitts. For a guy 6'4, Thompson was EASILY doing shit on par with guys today. So don't sleep on the contributions on the guys in the 60's and 70's. They are the godfathers and i ALWAYS show love to the original skywalkers!!

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

[Kblaze8855]

It's a 100% legitimate question that I see you're refusing to answer. How somebody could watch that video and the ones i posted and actually think that there isn't a MASSIVE difference in the athleticism, is beyond me.

This is not a troll thread. Why is everyone who thinks that the 60s was a weak era called a troll? it's an opinion. Just because it's different than yours doesn't make it a troll thread.

I am 100% open to changing my opinion if somebody shows me footage of athletic plays being made by 60s players that compare with LeBron/Kobe/Wade/MJ/Carter/Tmac.

Of course its a troll thread. For one...you do this type of thing all the time. This is at least the third one lately...

Second....you make absurd requests and confuse it with making a valid point.

There are entire NBA finals lost footage wise.

Things that happened all the time...have no video evidence. You know Wilt has 200+ 40 point games...without ONE of them being saved(beyond the 62 ASG)?

You come in here comparing a clip or three of a random good 60s athlete who played when 99% of your career was seen only by people in attendance....to modern players who have every dribble of their career recorded?

You ask...how does that brief sample of largely post injury Gus Johnson doing random things like winning jump balls compare to Lebron James highlights? When you know...every shot Lebron has taken since he was 16 is recorded in HD?

The **** is wrong with you?

Wilt Chamberlain is a 7'1'' barefoot Big 8 high jump champ who long jumped 22 feet in his spare time.

Because you have never seen him do a windmill it invalidates his status as an athlete? Ive seen Jamal Magloire do a 360. Wilt could have been out there putting on a show...but why?

At the time.....many plays now praised...were considered being a poor sport.

And even if they were not....you would never see it.

The most famous players of that era rarely have 20 minutes of footage. Trust me...I have more NBA footage than you would believe.

And that 20 minutes...is usually slow motion news footage, documentary footage(also slow motion), and promo videos for the following season that generally features as many smiling white players in business casual attire as they can get because they arent selling athletic ability....

The black guys are not the feature. Dunks and blocks are not a feature. Fans barely got excited by a dunk in the 50s and 60s. It was just another basket for the most part. There is a video called the Tall Men of Baltimore on the 60s Bullets...and Gus Johnson is hardly even in it. The teams best player...

60s sport film makers were not out there looking for what we would call spectacular plays to cut a clip that will hold you through commercials.

They were making documentaries backed with classical music and full of footage of guys in suits and women in dresses cheering politely from the sidelines.

You are on here asking to see shit...nobody cared about at the time.

And use the lack of that footage to suggest that guys with track backgrounds that prove their athletic ability...guys who made clearly athletic plays without the flair modern players add that they were not allowed....and guys with no motivation to show off....are not great athletes.

You started some bullshit topic a while back asking who the great athletes were in the 60s...who were not superstars. Suggesting of course that the only athletic players were the few stars. I point out that a role player on the Warriors won the ****ing Olympic gold medal in the high jump....

And you of course ignore the obvious lesson....that there were countless good athletes you just dont know anything about...because you are ignorant in general about the subject matter.

And that is what makes these topics troll topics. You have no genuine interest in learning anything.

You assume you know...support it with idiotic statements....and then repeat it later.

If you want to talk about the pioneers of the game...learn something about them.

If you want to talk shit and start arguments with one word topics to provoke a response you will do nothing but smear your clown facepaint all over....do it elsewhere.

Nobody is telling you to like the 60s...hell...even respect it.

I am telling you...stop making stupid topics on the subject.

If you want to hate...educate yourself enough to hate from a rational position.

[bizil]

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

Well said! It's more about the style that evolves over the generations. Actual vertical and speed is different from that. Baylor, Gus, and Hawkins HAD THE ATHLETIC ABILITY on par with the guys today. It goes without saying that Doc and Thompson do too. And MJ, Nique, and Drexler in the mid 80's on up EASILY do shit guys today can't do consistently IN GAMES!! For me, its EASILY harder to pull off those great dunks in games than in a dunk contest. The guys who can do both great are the best dunkers of all time. It took Vince Carter in my opinion to take the TOTAL DUNK CROWN from the guys whose careers started in the 70's and 80's. For those that don't get it, THE TOTAL DUNK CROWN entails:

- Great dunks in games in traffic as well in the open court uncontested
- Putting in work in the dunk contest
- Longevity doing those feats
- Revolutionizing dunking for your time period

That's why the Mt. Rushmore of dunkers is Vince, MJ, Nique, and Doc. Honorable mention are the guys like Kemp, Thompson, Drexler, Blake, T-Mac, etc. And I also gotta have the guys like Hawkins, Baylor, and Gus I gotta have in my honorable mentions too for bringing it to the league PERIOD!

[3ball]

the athleticism of most teams back then was in the vicinity of say, jose barea and an old jason kidd as the guards, and an old shawn marion and dirk nowitski at the forwards....

maybe with boris diaw coming off the bench.

Old Shawn Marion has done more impressive athletic things than i saw in that video. And honestly so has Manu Ginobli, who you call unathletic.

that's the only disagreements you have?... those are slight... you basically agree with me - the athleticism was about the same as the mavs and spurs.
.

[deja vu]

Kblaze with another thread shutdown.

[3ball]

"Style" is an important word here. People confuse 2 things:

1) "Style" with athleticism, incorrectly assuming that a player who manages to pull off the toughest dunks is necessarily more athletic than the player who hasn't - and actually hasn't even thought of trying them. Take a modern slam dunk contest and, realistically, its average dunk is technically harder than the average dunk of the 80's contests. Does this necessarily make the average "modern" dunker more athletic than older ones? Nope.

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

this might be the smartest post i've seen on this topic.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

There are entire NBA finals lost footage wise.

Things that happened all the time...have no video evidence. You know Wilt has 200+ 40 point games...without ONE of them being saved(beyond the 62 ASG)?

You come in here comparing a clip or three of a random good 60s athlete who played when 99% of your career was seen only by people in attendance....to modern players who have every dribble of their career recorded?

You ask...how does that brief sample of largely post injury Gus Johnson doing random things like winning jump balls compare to Lebron James highlights? When you know...every shot Lebron has taken since he was 16 is recorded in HD?

First off, I'm not asking for a 20 minute video full of dunks/amazing plays...i'm asking for a couple of plays of shit you see on a daily basis today in the nba..Secondly, if it really is true that there is little/no footage of impressive plays - then why do some people act like these players (who they've never seen play or do anything impressive) would dominate today?

Wilt Chamberlain is a 7'1'' barefoot Big 8 high jump champ who long jumped 22 feet in his spare time.

Because you have never seen him do a windmill it invalidates his status as an athlete? Ive seen Jamal Magloire do a 360. Wilt could have been out there putting on a show...but why?

I never said he wasn't a great athlete. I said that the players he was playing against overwhelmingly weren't.

[PsychoBe]

those gus johnson highlights

definitely the bran before the bran. amazing how short a memory most players/analysts have in regards to past players.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

2) Athleticism potential with athleticism shown. Every human has a genetic ceiling to its athleticism. Due to the progress of sports medicine, today's players come closer to their own limits/ceiling than the 60's players did. But potential-wise, 60's athletes don't miss a bit.

The argument isn't/never was: that human beings have evolved so over the last 50 years that it makes the 60s a weak era....The argument is that there are so many more kids that grow up wanting to play in the NBA now than in the 50s/60s that the increased competition has lead to a better product.

Which is why I wouldn't really say the 60s were a weak era for a sport like say...boxing. but football/basketball?! it's night and day

[Kblaze8855]

First off, I'm not asking for a 20 minute video full of dunks/amazing plays...i'm asking for a couple of plays of shit you see on a daily basis today in the nba..Secondly, if it really is true that there is little/no footage of impressive plays - then why do some people act like these players (who they've never seen play or do anything impressive) would dominate today?



I never said he wasn't a great athlete. I said that the players he was playing against overwhelmingly weren't.

You dont know anything about anyone youre talking about.

So your idea of "impressive" means nothing to me.

Your opinion on this issue couldnt be less valued. You have never shown a speck of evidence you even care about the subject matter beyond hating.

And when all anyone has to say about a subject is hating...and they do it in multiple topics...in repetitive fashion...classic trolling.

Note for the record...that ive not actually stopped you. But im not gonna pretend I dont know what you are.

Im just giving you a little room to adjust. As I said..hate all you like...if you can do so reasonably.

And some dumb question you dont actually care about followed by a one word post....is not reasonable.

[LAZERUSS]

those gus johnson highlights

definitely the bran before the bran. amazing how short a memory most players/analysts have in regards to past players.

You know what is even more amazing?

Gus Johnson was a career 17-13 player, with one 20 ppg season, and one 17 rpg. He finished in the MVP voting ONE time, and came in SIXTH.

And look at his smooth jump shots in that footage...even 15+ feet.

Now, maybe someone can tell us why a 6-6 230 lb beast of a man, with MJ's vertical, wouldn't routinely be hanging 30-20 seasons against the "shorter, weaker, slower" players of the 60's?

[LAZERUSS]

Perimeter "athlete?"

How about John Havlicek, who was given a tryout by the Cleveland Browns, and who could run the floor all game long? He was running players into the ground at the end of his career in the late 70's.

[Psileas]

The argument is that there are so many more kids that grow up wanting to play in the NBA now than in the 50s/60s that the increased competition has lead to a better product.

Rather, a different product. First of all, the NBA has 30 teams now, not 8-10, so comparing straightly the numbers of kids wanting to play basketball now (or, rather, in the 80's-00's) compared to then is flat-out wrong.
Second, the NBA isn't about playing the best brand of basketball any longer, it's about playing the basketball that appeals more to the crowds, mostly the new generation. It's still the best basketball league, because the Americans' interest about basketball is flat out bigger than most of the other countries, they have a bigger population than any other country not named China/India, and they have better genetics and medicine than most countries. How can it not be? But it's not any longer as far ahead as someone would expect from an ultra-advanced product.
The reason so many kids want to play there is exactly because the NBA, more than ever before in history, promotes the type of basketball that the casual fans love: Athleticism over brains, dunks over shooting, ball-hogging over passing, randomness over strategy. Had the league evolved/been evolving as much as some of you make it seem, we would have been seeing nowadays teams that play much better than the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls and, yes, Wilt's Sixers or Lakers. We would also be seeing the 50-year old Spurs' roster being crushed repeatedly, unable to keep up with the most athletic teams in the league. Oh, and the rest of the world would not be able to catch up to the degree it did.
It goes beyond basketball. E.g, how many people care about music today compared to the 18th century? Way more, right? Yet, I'm still waiting for the next Beethoven. But who cares about him when the musical industry has taken over? Is this what you'd call a turn for the better? If you don't mind, I'll still take Beethoven.
Just because the number of people wanting to participate in something increases, it doesn't necessarily improve its quality. Not everything is for everyone, so, instead, quality has to start taking a back seat, and be replaced by what casual people mostly want to see. They don't want to see the Spurs, they want to see dunks. They don't want Beethoven, they want Bieber. They don't want "best scenario" movies, they want "best optical effects" movies. And so on. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by people's choices, I'm not convinced by the supposed boom of competition and will continue to make fun of the ones talking about weak eras without any kind of context.