Bill Russell described George Mikan weighing 280lbs when they first met (~1953-54):

[Nezty]

There are online dating sites for that type of stuff. Please keep that crap of ISH. This is a family-friendly website.

Why you assuming that kindda stuff? you probably in to that kindda stuff. I'm asking because I highly doubt you watched any bit of ball in that era.

[CavaliersFTW]

You know a lot about basketball but weight training you don't. There is no way he bulks up to 300.

As good as Mikan was, he looked pretty slow footed. Unless there are video to prove me wrong.

Pic of Dwight with a camera with no better focal-length lens technology than 1950's:


Pic of Dwight with 600mm zoom lens that did not exist in the 1950's

Short zoom (left) = 50's style lenses. Higher zoom (right) = closer to sports photography lenses of the modern era - but sports phography lenses actually fill out even more than this:



Thus, you can't compare photographs of 50's players to modern players. A 50's player who was as bulky or wide bodied as a modern player or perhaps even MORE so is NOT going to appear the same way as a player today will appear on the court given the crude 35mm handheld journalists cameras of the 50s vs the 30,000 dollar telephoto cameras that the NBA and Media now uses which have actually been designed to make players look huge. For marketing reasons it is no mistake that Camera lenses used today are specifically intended to fill out players to make them look as huge and alien as possible. HOWEVER, look at pics of players taken with point and shoot cameras with the zoom turned off. Suddenly they look human again, and dare I say, not much more impressive than that 280lb "Insurance Salesmen" Mikan

The incredible "Bulk" of players in modern sports photography is an illusion.

[jongib369]

Pic of Dwight with a camera with no better focal-length lens technology than 1950's:


Pic of Dwight with 600mm zoom lens that did not exist in the 1950's

Short zoom (left) = 50's style lenses. Higher zoom (right) = closer to sports photography lenses of the modern era - but sports phography lenses actually fill out even more than this:



Thus, you can't compare photographs of 50's players to modern players. A 50's player who was as bulky or wide bodied as a modern player or perhaps even MORE so is NOT going to appear the same way as a player today will appear on the court given the crude 35mm handheld journalists cameras of the 50s vs the 30,000 dollar telephoto cameras that the NBA and Media now uses which have actually been designed to make players look huge. For marketing reasons it is no mistake that Camera lenses used today are specifically intended to fill out players to make them look as huge and alien as possible. HOWEVER, look at pics of players taken with point and shoot cameras with the zoom turned off. Suddenly they look human again, and dare I say, not much more impressive than that 280lb "Insurance Salesmen" Mikan

The incredible "Bulk" of players in modern sports photography is an illusion.

Bob Cousy

Short zoom (left) = 50's style lenses. Higher zoom (right)

[CavaliersFTW]

Bob Cousy

Short zoom (left) = 50's style lenses. Higher zoom (right)

[TheTenth]

I don't think Mikan is one of the stars of the early era that could translate. Him (along with nearly every other star) saw significant decreases in their stats after the implementation of the shot clock.

I did some t-tests a while back and found that all the HoFers in 1954/55 and all stars in 1954 saw decreases in FG%, PPG and Points Per 36 Minutes in adjusted statistics at a 10% alpha level while their MPG and Fouls Per 36 did not see statistically significant drops.

Mikan in fact was being made less effective over his career due to a variety of factors:
A. Merger of NBL/BAA
B. Widening of 3 second lane
C. 24 second shot clock

^ Also someone linked the globetrotters article, but wasn't the tallest globetrotter 6'6? It's not quite the same comparison to him playing in the 60s.

The player that I think may have actually benefited the most in the modern game (pure speculation obviously) would be Jim Pollard; however he is never talked about. I've seen claims of him having a 42 inch vertical, not sure how accurate they though.

[jongib369]

http://redsarmy.com/wp-content/uploa.../bob-cousy.jpg

VS


http://wfiles.brothersoft.com/s/sylv...-1400x1050.jpg



http://oi43.tinypic.com/2n8q8zr.jpg

VS

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...ke-d36vcu3.jpg

Damn those 50's lenses and Sterns agenda to prop up todays players. I think I'm onto something big here....Cousy unmasked?

[Haymaker]

So Russell took Mikan to a weight meter that day and asked him to step on it?

[jongib369]

I don't think Mikan is one of the stars of the early era that could translate. Him (along with nearly every other star) saw significant decreases in their stats after the implementation of the shot clock.

I did some t-tests a while back and found that all the HoFers in 1954/55 and all stars in 1954 saw decreases in FG%, PPG and Points Per 36 Minutes in adjusted statistics at a 10% alpha level while their MPG and Fouls Per 36 did not see statistically significant drops.

Mikan in fact was being made less effective over his career due to a variety of factors:
A. Merger of NBL/BAA
B. Widening of 3 second lane
C. 24 second shot clock

^ Also someone linked the globetrotters article, but wasn't the tallest globetrotter 6'6? It's not quite the same comparison to him playing in the 60s.

The player that I think may have actually benefited the most in the modern game (pure speculation obviously) would be Jim Pollard; however he is never talked about. I've seen claims of him having a 42 inch vertical, not sure how accurate they though.

This isn't saying much but

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAuQLyeB9mM


6'9 (today would be listed as 6'11) 235 rookie height and weight


only listing 2 seasons each

Wilt- 31PPG First 2 seasons 17 games total

Clyde 21PPG 8th-9th season




Russell 18 PPG 21 total games 1957-58 1960-61

Clyde 20PPG


I'm sure Mikan could play if Clyde wasn't completely mopped by those 2

[CavaliersFTW]

So Russell took Mikan to a weight meter that day and asked him to step on it?

In 40 years when the info of today that is so easily accessible to us right now becomes "rare" and someone interviews a very old Tim Duncan and Timmy says "When I went up against Shaq on _____ occasion he was about 360 at the time" and they comb through old internet articles and only manage to find Shaq's rookie weigh in of "only" 303lbs I'm sure they'll say the same thing your saying.

Fact is unless a player was drafted fat he will typically get bigger from their rookie season. Be it from fat, muscle, or w/e. How did he figure Mikan was 280? I don't know, maybe it was common knowledge back then - printed on a pamphlet or something. Maybe that was what his weight was being advertised at the time. Take it with a grain of Salt, but I have little reason to doubt Mikan could have started at 245 and balooned 280 by the time he was on his way out of the league.

[TheTenth]

I'm sure Mikan could play if Clyde wasn't completely mopped by those 2

That's not quite sound reasoning. Clyde was only backup to Mikan because 53/54 was his rookie season and even then that's not fair because the game still suited Mikan; allowing him time to jog up the court to get into his post position. Remember once the shot clock came into action, it wasn't just Mikan who suddenly became mortal, but nearly every player; especially ones like Ed Macauley and Arnie Risen who suddenly became much worse players. In the adjusted stats I did for them; Macauley went from a .600 to .500 shooter from 54 to 55.

Besides Lovellette was much different than Mikan in terms of style. Mikan was a low post bruiser while Lovellette was more of a long set/jump shot player with some hooks inside from what I have read. I'm guessing Lovellette was also in better shape than Mikan; although I could be totally wrong.

[LongLiveTheKing]

He's 245
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...mikange01.html

[Marchesk]

I respect the work you've put into showcasing the 60s players on Youtube, but you've had to make quite a few excuses for why the game back then doesn't pass the eyeball test in comparison to the game today. You've mentioned dribbling rules, to shoes, to the court, quality of the video, lack of video, and now quality of camera.

I'm torn between thinking some of the best in the 60s had the game to translate to the modern era, and thinking that there's no way the game was at the level being played now. Even looking at video from the 80s makes me question the game then, somewhat.

Two thing stand out to me today: defense and athleticism. They seem to be off the charts in comparison to bygone eras. Now of course there have always been exceptional athletes, and it's hard to deny that a genuine 7'1" guy with the athleticism, strength and stamina of Wilt couldn't transition into being a force today, but I'm not so sure with most of the other players. Russell was clearly athletic enough. West looks like he has the closest thing to a modern offensive game from that era. Baylor was probably athletic enough. Gus Johnson was quite the athlete. So maybe a dozen players from that era, with the majority being bigs.

Mikan, though? I really wonder about his athleticism. We've seen how stiff white guys do in the modern NBA. However, if you're big enough with some skill, you can get by. So maybe.

Edit: must people post pics larger than the typical screen size? Sheesh.

[jongib369]

He's 245
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...mikange01.html

Rookie Weight

[boozehound]

pretty sure drummond weights about this.

[Round Mound]

Too bad he didn't play against those guys on a daily basis.

A majority of the league back then were weak. You just happened to name-drop all the Hall of Famers.

He was usually up against some bums. Irving beat his ass before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svHk8Zntc5g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlrdR5JsExI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQMhnYL5GJM



Now STFU