If you could

[skyvue]

False.

Thanks for the insightful response.

Here's why it goes that way: In virtually any such discussion, fans of all ages are involved. Some older fans (though not all of them) may be inclined to go with the stars of their youth, but with very few exceptions (Babe Ruth comes to mind, but I don't think anyone in basketball has achieved his legendary status--Wayman may have that standing among OU fans, but not nationally, of course), why in the world would a younger fan lean toward a player he never saw play? They almost never do.

Lebron James is doing his thing right now. We remember amazing plays he made last week, last month, last year. A player from 20 or 30 years ago can't compete with that, certainly not if the group of fans being queried has a range of ages (and if that group features more people younger than, say, thirty than older, it's even more true).

Again, just read this thread: Alvin Adams had a great collegiate career and a terrific (and lengthy) run in the NBA and he was an afterthought at best in this discussion. Pledger got as much love in this thread as Adams did.

 

[bocabull]

Alvan Adams is too distant for most to remember. Of course he doesn't win any comparison with Blake regardless. Wayman wins the freshman comparison and loses from then on to Blake. Heck Adams and Tisdale played 25 pro seasons and combined for 1 all star appearance. Blake has played 5 NBA seasons and has 5 all star appearances.

As for Babe Ruth, he played in such a watered down segregated out of shape era with no specialist pitching. Barry Bonds was walked/HBP 241 times in 617 plate appearances at 39 years old. Ruth's highest was 174 in 697 PAs.

The point about giving extra credit to older players is relevant to guys who were stars in the past 25 years. But in the real world Carl Lewis couldn't hang with Usain Bolt, Steph Curry would run circles around John Stockton and Blake would posterize Wayman.

 

[Max Power]

Thanks for the insightful response.

Here's why it goes that way: In virtually any such discussion, fans of all ages are involved. Some older fans (though not all of them) may be inclined to go with the stars of their youth, but with very few exceptions (Babe Ruth comes to mind, but I don't think anyone in basketball has achieved his legendary status--Wayman may have that standing among OU fans, but not nationally, of course), why in the world would a younger fan lean toward a player he never saw play? They almost never do.

Lebron James is doing his thing right now. We remember amazing plays he made last week, last month, last year. A player from 20 or 30 years ago can't compete with that, certainly not if the fans being queried has a range of ages (and if that group features more people younger than, say, thirty than older, it's even more true).

Again, just read this thread: Alvin Adams had a great collegiate career and a terrific (and lengthy) run in the NBA and he was an afterthought at best in this discussion. Pledger got as much love in this thread as Adams did.

Pledger got as much love as Alvin because the op likes to post nonsensical things.

 

[Eielson]

Alvan Adams is too distant for most to remember. Of course he doesn't win any comparison with Blake regardless. Wayman wins the freshman comparison and loses from then on to Blake. Heck Adams and Tisdale played 25 pro seasons and combined for 1 all star appearance. Blake has played 5 NBA seasons and has 5 all star appearances.

As for Babe Ruth, he played in such a watered down segregated out of shape era with no specialist pitching. Barry Bonds was walked/HBP 241 times in 617 plate appearances at 39 years old. Ruth's highest was 174 in 697 PAs.

The point about giving extra credit to older players is relevant to guys who were stars in the past 25 years. But in the real world Carl Lewis couldn't hang with Usain Bolt, Steph Curry would run circles around John Stockton and Blake would posterize Wayman.

Pretty much dead on.

At some point, being old becomes a hindrance (unless you're one of the greatest of all-time and people still talk about you regularly...ex: Wilt, Big O). Even moreso, being a lanky white guy is as well. If Adams was black and looked like Wilt Chamberlain, he'd get a lot more respect. When all you've ever seen is the modern NBA, it's a lot easier to look at a guy like Wilt and imagine him dominating the competition than some dorky white guy. There are plenty of stars in the NBA that look like Wilt and the Big O today (or less impressive even), but how many that look like Adams?

Additionally, Lebron may get a lot of respect, but he's earned every bit of it, and his legacy as a player will continue to grow as his game declines (and eventually disappears). Many people will tell you that he's better than Kobe, but how many will touch the subject of Bird, Magic, Big O, etc? As he gets older, people are more willing to open the discussion, but you couldn't make those claims a few years ago without being mocked despite the fact that he had put up 30-7-7 type numbers for many consecutive years.

 

[sybarite]

Never thought much of Aristotle. Guy couldn't even work a hand calculator. Didn't even know the earth rotated around the sun.

You have to compare players to those of their times and conditions. Jim Thorpe was probably the greatest athlete that we have had during recorded history. He won the decathlon and pentathlon at the same olympics. He almost single-handedly gave pro football credibility. Even played pro baseball. Wonder what he would have been like as a soccer player? Yet, if you look at his times, I doubt he could win a county track meet in today's world. He was only about 6-0, 190, but he was considered huge and fast in his world. He was way ahead of anyone else of his time. Wonder what he would be like if he had today's training, diet, etc.?

Wilt was pretty athletic. He might be better today than he was then, given that they know more about bringing out your athletic ability.

I don't know that I care that much about numbers. I still regard Jimmy Harris and Steve Davis as the best OU quarterbacks because they did what a QB is supposed to do. They each won two national titles. They had one loss between the two of them.

Now, exactly which players helped OU to a national title? That is the goal. How much do you advance the program by helping to build it, or did you win a title? That is against others of your own era.

 

[bocabull]

What's you're saying is that the most recent of science, athletics and society in general is superior to past versions. This is accurate. Evolution is a relay race, the previous generations running their leg and passing the baton to the next generation who takes it faster and further. It's awesome.

 

[skyvue]

Many people will tell you that he's better than Kobe, but how many will touch the subject of Bird, Magic, Big O, etc?

I've heard many fans and commentators do just that; I've heard several suggest he just might be the best of all time (not many are ready to be definitive in stating as much just yet, but they're warming up to the idea).

Anyway, nothing you or boca said refutes my point (if anything, you support it): Current and recent players have a leg up in "best of" polls and hypothetical questions like the one posed in this thread. Saying, as boca did, that they deserve to be ranked above past players doesn't negate my point either.

 

[Eielson]

I've heard many fans and commentators do just that; I've heard several suggest he just might be the best of all time (not many are ready to be definitive in stating as much just yet, but they're warming up to the idea).

Exactly. They're warming up to the idea...but he's declining as a player. Thanks for supporting my point.

Anyway, nothing you or boca said refutes my point (if anything, you support it): Current and recent players have a leg up in "best of" polls and hypothetical questions like the one posed in this thread. Saying, as boca did, that they deserve to be ranked above past players doesn't negate my point either.

First off, if they're higher on all-time charts because they're better players, that doesn't support your point. The fact is, though, that they're not higher on the all-time charts.

The game of basketball, and essentially every other sport as well, is improving as time goes on. Basketball players have improved over time for several reasons, and you'd have to be racist to ignore it, but let's pretend that we're all obnoxiously racist and don't think that players have improved over the last 50 years. If you make a list of the top 10 NBA players of all-time, how many played at or near their prime from 1965-1990? How many from 1990-2015? If, as you claim, current players have an unfair advantage, more than 5 of that top 10 will be players from 1990-2015, correct? What if you made a list of the top 25 players?

Will any of those lists be dominated by modern players?

No.

 

[sybarite]

What's you're saying is that the most recent of science, athletics and society in general is superior to past versions. This is accurate. Evolution is a relay race, the previous generations running their leg and passing the baton to the next generation who takes it faster and further. It's awesome.

Unless you have control over breeding, evolution doesn't work that rapidly. But, in the past one hundred years, we now have a far superior diet (sufficient rather than insufficient food), training that often receives coaching as early as the second grade, and techniques that we have found worked. I don't know if there was a weight room associated with sports in the fifties. You got stronger by running, pushups, etc. At a track meet, not everyone would have track shoes. I have several track medals, and I have never had a pair of track shoes.

Conditions have changed more than people. The kid who was big-boned in 1950 would have exercised weight off. Now, he gets in the weight room and is 300 instead of 190. Kids are trained in track in specific events as early as the fourth grade.

 

[WaymanFan]

All you did was prove how much better the game is today which is the same reason Blake Griffin is and from his sophomore year forward was superior to Wayman. Michael Jordan dominated that era because he was a freak athlete. Now the freak athletes are everywhere. This is why Blake is such a stud. He's a big freak athlete. Blake is bigger than Karl Malone with the athleticism of Clyde Drexler. Do you really want to compare John Stockton & Mark Price with Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook and Derrick Rose?

Yes, I'll take Jordan, Drexler and Stockton over Rose, Curry and Westbrook - and win 99 times out of 100. I'll also take Ewing, Olajuwon and Tisdale vs. Blake Griffin, Tyler Hansbrough and Kevin Love...and win 99 times out of 100. We can play this game all day, and the best of the '80s will keep winning every game since it's not debatable which era was better. By the time Blake Griffin was done with his sophomore year, the only two guys in the country who were comparable as college players were Tyler Hansbrough and Stephen Curry.

Unfortunately for Wayman, he finished as runner-up to the National Player of the Year as a sophomore and junior because when Michael Jordan left for the NBA, Wayman still had Patrick Ewing (and not Tyler Hansbrough) waiting in the wings. Had Wayman played his senior year, he would have had guys like Brad Daugherty, Len Bias, David Robinson, Danny Manning, and Steve Alford to compete with. Had Blake played two more years, his competition would have been the likes of John Wall, Evan Turner and Jimmer Fredette. I think Fredette was the 2011 Naismith Award winner...not sure he would have been a top 100 college basketball player 30 years earlier. Playing with watered-down competition certainly helped him.

 

[KBaden145]

The way I look at it...
Wayman had the greatest career in OU men's basketball history. Blake had the greatest season in OU men's basketball history. Wayman was better as FR and Blake was better as a SO. Wayman was better offensively and defensively but Blake was a superior rebounder. I tend to favor Wayman because he's my favorite but you can't deny they were both once in a generation type players for a program like OU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KBaden145]

For me, the restriction I would work with is limiting the choice to Kruger-era players...

I agree with your response. I'll give guard, wing, and post options for this...

G - I'd take Sam Grooms to help solidify our backup PG duties.

W - I'd go with Cam Clark for some added mid-range game and size on the wing knowing fully he played as a stretch 4 his SR season.

Post - Nearly impossible to go with anyone other than Roe here. Toughness and leadership personified. I'd take a Roe Osby on my squad every year and be ecstatic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eielson]

Unless you have control over breeding, evolution doesn't work that rapidly.

I don't think he was referring to genetic evolution.

But, in the past one hundred years, we now have a far superior diet (sufficient rather than insufficient food), training that often receives coaching as early as the second grade, and techniques that we have found worked. I don't know if there was a weight room associated with sports in the fifties. You got stronger by running, pushups, etc. At a track meet, not everyone would have track shoes. I have several track medals, and I have never had a pair of track shoes.

Conditions have changed more than people. The kid who was big-boned in 1950 would have exercised weight off. Now, he gets in the weight room and is 300 instead of 190. Kids are trained in track in specific events as early as the fourth grade.

The argument being made will depend on what years you're referring to (1950 vs 2015 is different than 1990 vs. 2015). Over time, though, basketball players have come a long ways, and although you're right about superior training, there are other reasons as well. The game is available to not only a larger percentage of the population, but also a larger population in general. Basketball is spreading to other countries, and there are more Americans to choose from (the American population has more than doubled since 1950). Additionally, with all this technology that is shrinking the globe, it's much easier to spot the genetic freak, and with all the money involved, less will slip through the cracks. When you have 5X times as many players to choose from, it may not get 5X better, but a large increase in talent is almost inevitable.

 

[Eielson]

I agree with your response. I'll give guard, wing, and post options for this...

G - I'd take Sam Grooms to help solidify our backup PG duties.

W - I'd go with Cam Clark for some added mid-range game and size on the wing knowing fully he played as a stretch 4 his SR season.

Post - Nearly impossible to go with anyone other than Roe here. Toughness and leadership personified. I'd take a Roe Osby on my squad every year and be ecstatic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With that restriction, I love Cam Clark, as we could desperately use some half-court offense. If we don't get that from one of our new guys, or Woodard, we're bound for more of those 5-minute droughts that will ultimately doom us in the tournament.

Osby is the guy, though. He'd improve the half-court offense as well, is at more of a position of need, and is just a better player in general.

 

[bgrch1350]

Yes, I'll take Jordan, Drexler and Stockton over Rose, Curry and Westbrook - and win 99 times out of 100. I'll also take Ewing, Olajuwon and Tisdale vs. Blake Griffin, Tyler Hansbrough and Kevin Love...and win 99 times out of 100. We can play this game all day, and the best of the '80s will keep winning every game since it's not debatable which era was better. By the time Blake Griffin was done with his sophomore year, the only two guys in the country who were comparable as college players were Tyler Hansbrough and Stephen Curry.

Unfortunately for Wayman, he finished as runner-up to the National Player of the Year as a sophomore and junior because when Michael Jordan left for the NBA, Wayman still had Patrick Ewing (and not Tyler Hansbrough) waiting in the wings. Had Wayman played his senior year, he would have had guys like Brad Daugherty, Len Bias, David Robinson, Danny Manning, and Steve Alford to compete with. Had Blake played two more years, his competition would have been the likes of John Wall, Evan Turner and Jimmer Fredette. I think Fredette was the 2011 Naismith Award winner...not sure he would have been a top 100 college basketball player 30 years earlier. Playing with watered-down competition certainly helped him.

I'm sorry...but Hansbrough, Love, and Griffin would destroy Ewing, Olujuwon, and Tisdale.

You have a 2 POY and Love who took his team to the final 4 his freshman year. And Love has been able to shoot 3's from back in the day.

 

[bocabull]

Yes, I'll take Jordan, Drexler and Stockton over Rose, Curry and Westbrook - and win 99 times out of 100. I'll also take Ewing, Olajuwon and Tisdale vs. Blake Griffin, Tyler Hansbrough and Kevin Love...and win 99 times out of 100.

You have a PG (Stockton) SG (Jordan) SF (Drexler). The players from a Blakes era would be combos (Westbrook) (Curry) SF (Durant). Jordan might be the best but we have no idea. He didn't win his first title until 28. Curry will win his first at 27. Durant/Westbrook are just 26 and already made a finals at 23. Drexler trying to guard Durant & Stockton trying to guard Curry is laughable. Westbrook would more than hold his own vs Jordan.

The bigs would be Malone, Ewing, Olajuwan against Blake, Cousins, Love. Let's not kid ourselves that Wayman is as good as any of those guys. Blakes crew would win because Blake is the most athletic of the 6 and Love has the best range. Cousins is better than Ewing too.

 

[WaymanFan]

I'm sorry...but Hansbrough, Love, and Griffin would destroy Ewing, Olujuwon, and Tisdale.

You have a 2 POY and Love who took his team to the final 4 his freshman year. And Love has been able to shoot 3's from back in the day.

Ewing and Olajuwon are two of the top 6-7 centers in the history of basketball...so it would be very difficult for any team with Tyler Hansbrough to win even 1 out of 100 games. Your POY argument holds no water because of inferior competition. Hansbrough would have never been an All-American 25 years earlier.

 

[WaymanFan]

You have a PG (Stockton) SG (Jordan) SF (Drexler). The players from a Blakes era would be combos (Westbrook) (Curry) SF (Durant). Jordan might be the best but we have no idea. He didn't win his first title until 28. Curry will win his first at 27. Durant/Westbrook are just 26 and already made a finals at 23. Drexler trying to guard Durant & Stockton trying to guard Curry is laughable. Westbrook would more than hold his own vs Jordan.

The bigs would be Malone, Ewing, Olajuwan against Blake, Cousins, Love. Let's not kid ourselves that Wayman is as good as any of those guys. Blakes crew would win because Blake is the most athletic of the 6 and Love has the best range. Cousins is better than Ewing too.

Boca, here is the problem with your argument. Kevin Durant was already in the NBA when Blake Griffin started his career and Demarcus Cousins was still in high school. Had guys like Durant played 3-4 years of college ball, that would obviously raise the competition level and make it harder for the likes of Blake Griffin to win the National POY. Again, his top competition was Tyler Hansbrough, a guy who never would have been an All-American during the Tisdale era with the likes of Sampson, Olajuwon, Ewing and Malone (4 guys in the NBA HOF).

 

[jmizzy4ou]

I'm sorry...but Hansbrough, Love, and Griffin would destroy Ewing, Olujuwon, and Tisdale.

You have a 2 POY and Love who took his team to the final 4 his freshman year. And Love has been able to shoot 3's from back in the day.

The 3 youngsters would get absolutely destroyed in the paint. Wayman would score 50 with any of the 3 you listed guarding him. Blake would have an advantage on the perimeter, but Ewing is one of the best help defenders/rim protectors ever. The Dream would absolutely kill all 3 down low. Better go back and watch a young Shaq trying to guard the Dream......


Also, I agree athletes are far superior today as far as speed, strength, leaping ability, etc go due to advances in science. But, I still see top players of this era who can't dribble with their off hand, can't make a wide open jumper, and have no clue what any type of pass other than a one handed no look pass is....

I can appreciate the modern game, and I love the fast pace/athleticism, but I also understand how older basketball purist get frustrated watching guys who can leap out of the gym, but can't dribble with their off hand, and can't cross over dribble without carrying the basketball.

The game has changed, and some see it for the better, others not so much.... I just love hoops.

 

[jmizzy4ou]

Ewing and Olajuwon are two of the top 6-7 centers in the history of basketball...so it would be very difficult for any team with Tyler Hansbrough to win even 1 out of 100 games. Your POY argument holds no water because of inferior competition. Hansbrough would have never been an All-American 25 years earlier.

I also think some of the younger posters who didn't watch the 80's era of hoops can't appreciate how much more physical the game was back then. I can honestly say I never saw top players like MJ, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Ewing, etc flop. The fouls called today when players try to guard LBJ, Durant, etc wouldn't have been called as much in the 80's. Big men could absolutely kill each other with few ever fouling out.

I guarantee you guys like LBJ would not have had free runs to the basket against the Pistons, Celtics, Bulls, etc. Also, there were not many designated stoppers on defense like we see today, but teams played better help defense. Most top teams today have one designated guy to guard the best scorer on opposing teams. 80's era teams used more of a help defense concept, with an emphasis on knocking the heck out of anyone who dared attack the rim.....

Just a different game, which makes debates like these fun things to do, with nothing being settled or proven.