Who was the best perimeter athlete in the 60s?

[stalkerforlife]

Lebron.

[LAZERUSS]

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

Let me ask you this...

How many "Shaq's" have we seen since the original was at his peak? And how come the Sim Bhullar's of this world are complete busts?

How many MJ's are running around in not only the NBA, but in Europe and in our colleges?

You see the skill-sets of the centers of this era...how many Hakeem's are playing in the world right now?

Years ago Pat Riley envisioned an entire team of "Magics"...give me ONE "Magic", in the entire world since.

Kareem's? Moses'? Bird's? Dirk's? Lebron's? Durant's? Hell, Bruce Bowen's? Shouldn't these guys be filling the playgrounds?

Oh, and where are all the "Wilt's"...7-1+, 7-8 wingspans, 280-310 lbs, 40" verticals, 500 lb bench presses, sprinters and high jumpers in college, and able to play 48 mpg for entire seasons?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

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.

Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

[bukowski81]

Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

WOW you are so smart

[LAZERUSS]

Of course, it's not directly linearly better. having more teams does increase the supply of spots available but 1/3 the roster spots doesn't account for the fact that the league is like 30x more popular now than it was in the 60s.

As for the part about kids these days not playing the most effective brand of basketball and instead playing what is most aesthetically pleasing - the opposite is true. The development of talent at young age has become infinitely better and more systematic nowadays.

Yep...that is why a Tyler Hansborough can win a CPOY...

...and later on we find out that he can't shoot, dribble, rebound, pass, or play defense in the NBA.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Let me ask you this...

How many "Shaq's" have we seen since the original was at his peak? And how come the Sim Bhullar's of this world are complete busts?

How many MJ's are running around in not only the NBA, but in Europe and in our colleges?

You see the skill-sets of the centers of this era...how many Hakeem's are playing in the world right now?

Years ago Pat Riley envisioned an entire team of "Magics"...give me ONE "Magic", in the entire world since.

Kareem's? Moses'? Bird's? Dirk's? Lebron's? Durant's? Hell, Bruce Bowen's? Shouldn't these guys be filling the playgrounds?

Oh, and where are all the "Wilt's"...7-1+, 7-8 wingspans, 40" verticals, 500 lb bench presses, sprinters and high jumpers in college, and able to play 48 mpg for entire seasons?

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. What i'm saying is basically this: Today there are like 3x more roster spots available than the 60s....but the amount of people trying to become NBA players is like infinitely higher than it was then...does that mean that NBA today is better proportionate to the additional amount of people that wanna be NBA players thanin the 60s? No of course not. There are other variables, but no doubt the increased competition has led to a talent increase in the league.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Yep...that is why a Tyler Hansborough can win a CPOY...

...and later on we find out that he can't shoot, dribble, rebound, pass, or play defense in the NBA.

College basketball has fallen of a cliff due to 1 and dones.

[LAZERUSS]

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. What i'm saying is basically this: Today there are like 3x more roster spots available than the 60s....but the amount of people trying to become NBA players is like infinitely higher than it was then...does that mean that NBA today is better proportionate to the additional amount of people that wanna be NBA players thanin the 60s? No of course not. There are other variables, but no doubt the increased competition has led to a talent increase in the league.

I don't see it. Players don't even shoot FTs better today, than they did in 1959. Furthermore, players like DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond can't shoot from 3-4 feet from the basket, and yet they are among the best centers in the world. Watch footage of Russell, ... as poor a shooter as he was, he was considerably more skilled, and had a considerably better range than those two.

I watch Ricky Rubio STARTING in TODAY's NBA, and am amazed at the fact that he is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Go to YouTube and search for Pete Maravich...and with a straight face, tell me that Rubio is a better player.

I could go right down the list. How did a 6-8 230 Rodman win SEVEN rebounding titles as recently as the 90's? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO in a row as recently as a decade ago? BTW, Wallace couldn't hit the rim from 2 feet away, either.

Shouldn't TODAY's basketball players, supposedly better trained, all be shooting 90% from the FT line? And ALL of them have 3pt range?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I don't see it. Players don't even shoot FTs better today, than they did in 1959. Furthermore, players like DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond can't shoot from 3-4 feet from the basket, and yet they are among the best centers in the world. Watch footage of Russell, ... as poor a shooter as he was, he was considerably more skilled, and had a considerably better range than those two.

I watch Ricky Rubio STARTING in TODAY's NBA, and am amazed at the fact that he is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Go to YouTube and search for Pete Maravich...and with a straight face, tell me that Rubio is a better player.

I could go right down the list. How did a 6-8 230 Rodman win SEVEN rebounding titles as recently as the 90's? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO in a row as recently as a decade ago? BTW, Wallace couldn't hit the rim from 2 feet away, either.

Shouldn't TODAY's basketball players, supposedly better trained, all be shooting 90% from the FT line? And ALL of them have 3pt range?

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?

[fpliii]

Round - Apologies if I came off as dismissive before, but this type conversation is rarely productive IMO.

If we're going to have this discussion, let me ask you a question, just so we can get on the same page. LAZ, and others participating in this thread, feel free to answer as well.

Who do you think have been all of the legitimate generational talents in the history of the league, as far as their ability to dominate in today's game is concerned? Can you please name them chronologically, in your opinion?

I'm leaving the definitions of "legitimate generational talent" and "ability to dominate" intentionally ambiguous so we can get an idea of where everybody stands.

[fpliii]

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?

They counted it as 3 (so if a guy went 1 for 3, both misses would count). I did some research on the topic awhile back: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/view...=344&t=1277741 (had a thread on here as well, but I can't seem to find it).

[LAZERUSS]

I find it interesting the you use 1959 since this is a topic about the 60s when ft% was never as high it is right now.

BTW, how did they count FTAs for the 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 instances? If the person took 3 did they count it as 3 FTA or 2?

Go to the 70's then, when leagues were shooting a HIGHER FT% than they do today.

And, yes, EVERY FT counted. That is why Chamberlain's EFFECTIVE FT% was probably considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%.

[VeeCee15]

Basketball was not even popular in the 60s hence the LACK of talent.
No everyone and their moms wanted to play basketball back in the day and it wasn't a sure way to make $$$.

Lack of interest from public, results in lack of interests from people wanting to play etc. What happened was that the TALENT pool was low. The BEST athletes of the 60s DID NOT play basketball.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Chronologically:

Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
LeBron

Dominance level if you used a time machine:

Shaq
Jordan
Kareem
LeBron
Hakeem
Bird
Duncan
Magic
Wilt/Russell

Dwyane Wade and Kevin Garnett are 2 players who in their best seasons were extremely close to LeBron and Duncan respectively, so i wouldn't mind including them. But Wade has had injuries and KG hasn't been as good in the PS. it's tough to say really with these arbitrary labels.

I think athletic big men like Russell/Wilt (and thurmond) would actually be very good players today, but Russell isn't winning close to 10 rings and Wilt isn't scoring close to 50 ppg.

[LAZERUSS]

Basketball was not even popular in the 60s hence the LACK of talent.
No everyone and their moms wanted to play basketball back in the day and it wasn't a sure way to make $$$.

Lack of interest from public, results in lack of interests from people wanting to play etc. What happened was that the TALENT pool was low. The BEST athletes of the 60s DID NOT play basketball.

How great an "athlete" was Larry Bird? Or Dennis Rodman?

How about Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio?

BTW, THE best ATHLETE in the WORLD was playing basketball in the 60's. And many considered him the STRONGEST, as well.