If Jordan played in 60's, is he still one of the GOAT candidates?

[alexandreben]

just a quick thought, had Michael Jordan played in the 60's with Jerry Sloan in the Bulls from 1966-67 season, and then retired at around 1980, would he still be regarded as one of the GOAT candidates or even THE GOAT??

[OldSchoolBBall]

just a quick thought, had Michael Jordan played in the 60's with Jerry Sloan in the Bulls from 1966-67 season, and then retired at around 1980, would he still be regarded as one of the GOAT candidates or even THE GOAT??

Why not? Kareem's dominance came roughly in that same time period, and he's a GOAT candidate. Jordan would have destroyed the late 60's and 70's. Destroyed.

[jlauber]

We will never know, of course, but one thing is for sure...he would not have been able to CARRY the ball back then. Palming and traveling were actually illegal back then. And I have said this before, too... Shaq would have fouled out on offensive fouls far more often back then, as well.

[DMAVS41]

We will never know, of course, but one thing is for sure...he would not have been able to CARRY the ball back then. Palming and traveling were actually illegal back then. And I have said this before, too... Shaq would have fouled out on offensive fouls far more often back then, as well.

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

[Kblaze8855]

He wouldnt be considered at nearly the rate he is now. Has nothing to do with what he would do back then. He might well put up 55/18/6 on 55% shooting. But much like Wilt his own numbers and visual dominance of his peers would work against him. He would be so dominant as to have everyone now discredit him due to lack of people to slow him. People would post highlights of him giving say...the Celtics...77 points...and laugh at Hondo, Kc Jones, and company getting blown by and shot over as if they were not perfectly good defenders. And dont let him play a team of all or mostly whites and go off and have it posted on youtube. Idiots today would be laughing their asses off about how he couldnt do it vs Lebron or someone like that.

Jordan made long armed, athletic, and tall guys look like trash. Imagine a picture of Cousy stuck with Jordan on a switch and MJ is posting this guy up:



Current ISH would have a field day and drop Jordan to 11th all time just off the one image. There would be topics asking "Kobes 81, Wilts, 100, or Jordan 106" and answers would be along the lines of "The one vs people who are good at basketball".

MJ would be a joke to so many people just off being too good.

[Juges8932]

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

1st point- yes, they were awful compared to players of today. However, a point that can be brought up is that that is to be expected. Then game of basketball, just like with everything else (technology, etc), is an evolving game. Of course those players aren't going to be better than those of today. They are the building blocks upon which the game has been built and transformed into the game we see today.

MJ, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc would not have been the players they were/are without players before them to mold their game upon and improve. However, you take prime MJ, Kobe, Wade, or LeBron and put them in those 60s seasons, and yes, they would demolish them. That's why you have those exceptions, like Wilt, who put up stats that will never be seen again, because he was one of those rare exceptions that was just on another level athletically.

But that, of course, is not to say that greats from the 60s would be shit in today's game, assuming that they would have had other players to benefit from like these guys. They would also benefit from improved technology (diets, supplements, work outs, shoes, etc). However, you take those guys from the 60s as they were and put them in today's game- they would not be what they were (Jerry West being top 4 SG all time).

Yes, if Jordan had grown up in the 60s, he would not be the same player he was in the 80s and 90s. Of course his game would be different, because he wouldn't have had the benefits that those 60s players did not.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Are you talking about circa '85-98 MJ and dumping him in the 60's or him growing up in the 40's and playing his pro ball in the 60's? If it's the latter then he wouldn't be the same player. Training and nutrition methods were drastically different and he wouldn't have the inspiration from Erving or David Thompson (check the HoF speech; without DT, theres no "air" between his name). Hell, Kobe, Wade and LBJ would have drastically different games.

[DMAVS41]

1st point- yes, they were awful compared to players of today. However, a point that can be brought up is that that is to be expected. Then game of basketball, just like with everything else (technology, etc), is an evolving game. Of course those players aren't going to be better than those of today. They are the building blocks upon which the game has been built and transformed into the game we see today.

MJ, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, etc would not have been the players they were/are without players before them to mold their game upon and improve. However, you take prime MJ, Kobe, Wade, or LeBron and put them in those 60s seasons, and yes, they would demolish them. That's why you have those exceptions, like Wilt, who put up stats that will never be seen again, because he was one of those rare exceptions that was just on another level athletically.

But that, of course, is not to say that greats from the 60s would be shit in today's game, assuming that they would have had other players to benefit from like these guys. They would also benefit from improved technology (diets, supplements, work outs, shoes, etc). However, you take those guys from the 60s as they were and put them in today's game- they would not be what they were (Jerry West being top 4 SG all time).

Yes, if Jordan had grown up in the 60s, he would not be the same player he was in the 80s and 90s. Of course his game would be different, because he wouldn't have had the benefits that those 60s players did not.

So you think a guy like nash or stockton or mark price were significantly better than bob cousy?

[jlauber]

Good points.

One thing I want to get across to people on here though:

Players can adapt to their surroundings and others. I'm so sick of hearing that older generation players were awful. People constantly laugh at old videos and how they dribbled and moved...etc. That is how the game was played back then. It was different. Different does not mean worse or better. It means different.

Jordan would have had to change his game of course. He would have to not carry the ball and he would have adjust his moves to so he wouldn't be called for traveling. Which of course he could have done.

I heard someone the other day say that Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good today. What? The players have not changed that much in 20 years. The game is just different now. Bird might be even better today, we just don't know. It would all be about how he would adapt to the current game.

And vice versa. You might find that some players today would actually be worse playing 40 years ago based on how the game was played and their inability to adapt.

Sorry for the rant, but basketball is basketball and players are players. So sick of this era BS that pretends that Wilt and Russell played against scrubs. Simply not true at all.

GREAT POST!!!

I have said it before, but the differences between the GREAT players, in ANY major sport, from the 60's to today, are not nearly as dramatic as the "ESPN Generation" would lead us to believe. And, basketball is more dependant on SKILLS than pure athletic ability, as well.

In any case, I was listening to the Dan Patrick show last week, and he had Mitch Williams on. They were discussing Aroldis Chapman with his purported 105 MPH velocity. Williams said that the baseball has used TWO different guns in the last 40 years, or so, and that Chapman's 105 would be the equivalent to about 98-99 on the guns that measured Nolan Ryan. In fact, Williams said that Ryan would be throwing 106 or more, in the NINTH inning of games using the current gun.

I have also mentioned Barry Bonds, at his PED-enhanced best, with his longest HR being measured at 490 ft. Just google the 5-11 180 lb Mickey Mantle, and you will find a PLETHORA of 500 ft, HR's, and he hit arguably the longest HRs in baseball history.

And for those that marvel at Chris Johnson's speed in the current NFL, he was NOWHERE near as fast as Darrell Green, or Hershel Walker, or Bo Jackson. And the fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time? "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who played some 40-50 years ago. He ran a 10.0 meters in the 60's (and can you imagine what he would have run with the advanatges that current sprinters have with shoes, surface, training, medicine, and technology?)

And I'm sure there are many here who are tired of reading this, but a 38 year-old Kareem was able to CRUSH Hakeem and Ewing in tyhe 85-86 season. My god, he averaged 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 shooting against Hakeem in FIVE H2H games that season. And he was just a shell of what he had been in his phyiscal prime, as well. He could barely get six rpg at that time, and yet he could pour in 40+ point games against Hakeem and Ewing. And we know that Hakeem was considered the best center for much of the 90's.

And yet, Kareem STRUGGLED mightily against the likes of little known Nate Thurmond. In 61 H2H meetings between the two, Kareem never scored 40 points, and had games of under 20. He also seldom shot even 50% against him, and had MANY games in the low 40's and even some in the 30 percent range against Thurmond.

And Wilt, in the 70-71 playoffs, and just a year removed from major knee surgery...and WELL PAST his dominant best, battled a statistically prime Kareem to a statistical draw. And, by nearly all acoounts, Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 71-72 WCF's, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four pivotal games.) In their one meeting before Wilt shredded his knee in 1969, Chamberlain just BURIED Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. Furthermore, a PRIME Chamberlain, in the mid-60's, had a 45 point game against Thurmond, and in fact, DOMINATED him in EVERY area of the game.

So, how can anyone HONESTLY believe that Wilt would not be a dominant center in TODAY's NBA? The man was 7-1, 275-300 lbs, with enormous strength, amazing leaping ability, sprinter's speed, and was exceptionally SKILLED. In fact, early in his career, he scored MANY of his points from 10-15 ft. And let's get real here. The CURRENT NBA is the WORST period of centers in NBA history. It has gotten so bad, that some teams don't even play a center. Wilt was erroneously believed to have faced 6-6 centers (totally untrue), while the current NBA has 6-7 Ben Wallace and 6-6 Chuck Hayes...in addition to a slew of inept clods who would not have made NBA rosters in the 60's and 70's. Wilt might not average 50-25 in today's NBA, but a PRIME Wilt would be FAR better than a 25-14 guy.

[Rnbizzle]

No he isn't, Jordan right now is the goat because the people who remember the Jordan era are still into basketball right now, and nostalgia will increasingly strengthen Jordan's case.

The GOAT/Top 10 all time lists are made up from 2 things;

1. Nostalgia
2. Stats

And both change the actual story.

[dunksby]

He wouldnt be considered at nearly the rate he is now. Has nothing to do with what he would do back then. He might well put up 55/18/6 on 55% shooting. But much like Wilt his own numbers and visual dominance of his peers would work against him. He would be so dominant as to have everyone now discredit him due to lack of people to slow him. People would post highlights of him giving say...the Celtics...77 points...and laugh at Hondo, Kc Jones, and company getting blown by and shot over as if they were not perfectly good defenders. And dont let him play a team of all or mostly whites and go off and have it posted on youtube. Idiots today would be laughing their asses off about how he couldnt do it vs Lebron or someone like that.

Jordan made long armed, athletic, and tall guys look like trash. Imagine a picture of Cousy stuck with Jordan on a switch and MJ is posting this guy up:



Current ISH would have a field day and drop Jordan to 11th all time just off the one image. There would be topics asking "Kobes 81, Wilts, 100, or Jordan 106" and answers would be along the lines of "The one vs people who are good at basketball".

MJ would be a joke to so many people just off being too good.

Im not trying to start this whole thing over again, but the fact that you yourself admit that he would put up ridiculous numbers means that 60s basketball can not be compared to Jordan's era or later competitiveness wise.

[jlauber]

Are you talking about circa '85-98 MJ and dumping him in the 60's or him growing up in the 40's and playing his pro ball in the 60's? If it's the latter then he wouldn't be the same player. Training and nutrition methods were drastically different and he wouldn't have the inspiration from Erving or David Thompson (check the HoF speech; without DT, theres no "air" between his name). Hell, Kobe, Wade and LBJ would have drastically different games.

Another great post. An MJ growing up in the 40's may never have even made an NBA roster. Hell, he was cut from his high school team for cryingoutloud. And, how about genetics. Would a Shaq, born in 1940, have been 7-1 350 lbs? I have long maintained that he would have been around 6-11, and given what was known about weight training and nutrition at the time, he may very well have been a flabby 300+.

Furthermore, there were great ATHLETES in the NBA in the 60's and 70's. Gus Johnson was 6-6 235 lbs, and could leap out of the building. He was on record as having smashed three backboards. Connie Hawkins had perhaps the longest arms and biggest hands of anyone who has ever played the game. He was doing wind-mill dunks in the 60's. David Thompson claimed that he could touch the top of the backboard (something that witnesses said that Wilt could do BTW...and some even said that Russell could accomplish.) Baylor was a SKILLED leaper who put up a 34-19 season. West had LONG arms, and could easily get as high as 11' 6" on his jumps. Oscar was 6-5 and 225 lbs. and was a nightmare for defenders, much like Magic would be in the 80's. Too big and strong for the smaller defenders, and too explosive for the bigger ones. Dr. J was making "Jordan-type" dunks LONG before MJ did them. Russell was a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS leaper, with a long wingspan. Take a look at some of the photos of Thurmond. He was a BEAST, and reportedly had a higher reach than Chamberlain (who had a 7' 8" wingspan himself BTW.)

Jerry Lucas was a Kevin Love some 40-50 years ago. Jon McGlocklin was a BIGGER Steve Kerr 40 years ago. Gilmore was 7-2 30-40 years ago, and much like Motumbo.

And, once again, give all of those players the benefits of modern technology, as well as the genetics of this generation, and how much bigger and better would they be today?

[PHILA]

No he isn't, Jordan right now is the goat because the people who remember the Jordan era are still into basketball right now, and nostalgia will increasingly strengthen Jordan's case.

The GOAT/Top 10 all time lists are made up from 2 things;

1. Nostalgia
2. Stats

And both change the actual story.

Don't forget the bigotry most fans are blessed with in formulating such ranks.

[97 bulls]

So from reading some of the posts in here jordan wouldn't dominate the 60 era the way he did the era he played in? I don't believe that

[jlauber]

Another point that is seldom discussed regarding the 60's...

Take a look at the lower FG% of that period, and particularly the early 60's. Why? For one thing, teams played in COLD and BREEZY arenas. I have said it before, but anyone that has played basketball outdoors, will attest to the increased difficulty of shooting in frigid or windy conditions. Secondly, and this is HUGE, the BALL was NOT uniform until the late 60's. Here again, I recall playing in games in the 60's and 70's, in which the ball was different in the pre-game shoot-arounds. Some were heavier, some were bald, and some were even LOP-SIDED. There was footage of Wilt on YouTube (I won't take the time to find it now, in which he was palming two balls, and they were both worn out and bald.) And finally, the SCHEDULING was BRUTAL back then. In Wilt's 61-62 season, in which he averaged 48.5 mpg, he not only played in MANY B2B games, he had SIX separate strings of THREE games in a row, another separate run of THREE 4-in-a-rows, and even another separate run of FIVE games in FIVE nights (and none of the home games were B2B either.)