20 years from now - Jordan, Kobe, Lebron: Best ever.
frankhardy
Posts: 8,098 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I'm going to make a prediction in order to start a discussion. It is my opinion that in 20 years (maybe sooner), the best to ever lace up sneakers will be (1) Michael Jordan, (2) Kobe Bryant, (3) Lebron James. Also, the three will be so close, it will be hard to put them in any kind of order. In other words, the argument will not be which three are the best, but the argument will be which order to put them in.
Forget the older guys. Forget about big centers that towered over much, much smaller players and piled on stats. Forget about players that played against competition that was wasn't near what the competition is today. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James would have absolutely demolished the NBA in the early days.
Michael Jordan - just think about how great he would have been had he not missed seasons in 1993-94, the first half of 1994-95, 1998-99, and 1999-00. He would have left the game as the all time leading scorer in history. He already has the leading average.
Kobe Bryant - last year was not his last championship. He will probably win another this year, and who knows how many more. If he plays until his late 30's, he will probably leave the game as the all time leading scorer, passing Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Lebron James - who knows how great he will become. This is already his 7th season, and he is only 24 years old (25 on Dec 30th). The man is a freakin' beast. Do you guys realize that he is the size of Karl Malone, with the quickness of Michael Jordan, and has a vertical leap that is higher than Kobe Bryants? Yes, higher than Kobe Bryant's.
Please, if I'm wrong, tell me. Someone please make a case that anyone else will be in the top three. I will find it hard to believe.
Forget the older guys. Forget about big centers that towered over much, much smaller players and piled on stats. Forget about players that played against competition that was wasn't near what the competition is today. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James would have absolutely demolished the NBA in the early days.
Michael Jordan - just think about how great he would have been had he not missed seasons in 1993-94, the first half of 1994-95, 1998-99, and 1999-00. He would have left the game as the all time leading scorer in history. He already has the leading average.
Kobe Bryant - last year was not his last championship. He will probably win another this year, and who knows how many more. If he plays until his late 30's, he will probably leave the game as the all time leading scorer, passing Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Lebron James - who knows how great he will become. This is already his 7th season, and he is only 24 years old (25 on Dec 30th). The man is a freakin' beast. Do you guys realize that he is the size of Karl Malone, with the quickness of Michael Jordan, and has a vertical leap that is higher than Kobe Bryants? Yes, higher than Kobe Bryant's.
Please, if I'm wrong, tell me. Someone please make a case that anyone else will be in the top three. I will find it hard to believe.
Shane
0
Comments
I think you may be right, though I don't know if Lebron can surpass Bird and Magic.
You are right about the old time centers.
<< <i>Frankhardy,
I think you may be right, though I don't know if Lebron can surpass Bird and Magic.
You are right about the old time centers. >>
Maybe Bird, but Magic is still very, very underrated (which is weird considering he was a Laker). So far as I know he's the only player who could have probably started at all five positions. If it hadn't been for the HIV fiasco I think his legacy would have been different.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Lebron isn't even a consideration at this point until he wins MULTIPLE championships.
Who knows how many titles the Bulls would have won if Mike hadn't taken time out to play baseball. I don't know WHAT he was thinking!
Anyway Michael was the best is the best.....no one could or can take over a game like him. Gravity didn't affect him and he could change directions in mid air!
If you don't believe me....just watch a highlight film of him!
<< <i>honestly it will be tough to top bird and magic, two of the most gifted, unselfish team players i have ever seen; both could have easily had more gaudy stats (as if they werent impressive enough) >>
I kind of agree.
Bird and Magic are the equal of Jordan offensively. They just could not hold a candle to him defensively, and that is the only thing that separates those three.
I do believe Lebron James could play all five positions back in the 1980's if the situation warranted it.
Bird and Magic were great, I just don't think (when it's all said and done) that they come up to Jodan, Kobe, and Lebron.
Hoopster, I agree with you most of the time. I do agree that Jordan was better defensively than Bird or Magic. But to say that they were equal with Jordan OFFENSIVELY? No, way, Jose. Yes, they were great, but Jordan was in another world offensively.
Lebron will win multiple championships. He's only 25, and already willed his way to one NBA Finals.
Yes, I know it all!
Shane
I can't quantify it, and I agree Jordan was in another world offensively, but Bird and Magic, IMO were in the other world too.
Bird and Magic could both do it from the outside(bird better of course, and Magic got good at it later in his career). Both could also post extremely well. Both could go to the basket(obviously Magic more). Jordan could do all that too, and do it a little better(except he didn't have the shooting accuracy of Bird from the outside).
I think that Bird and Magic were a little better than MJ in passing and working within an offense. In my opinion, that is enough to close the edge Jordan had on them offensively in other areas, and make them equals offensively.
I am a big fan of Jordan, and he is better than Bird and Magic, but if he was better offensively, it wasn't by much. It really is his defensive prowess that really sets them three apart.
However, who is the most valuable player to the NBA?
I would suggest that Dr. J may well qualify as the most valuable. Not because of his stats, his one championship. his MVP awards, etc.
He is arguably the most valuable becase when he joined the NBA in the 1976-77 season through the NBA-ABA merger, he saved the league from folding financially. His star power was undeniable. People started going to NBA games just to watch him play. The image problems of pro basketball as a bunch of druggies hurt big time. Three seasons later Bird and Magic arrived in the league and started the ascent of the league to where it is now. However, if not for Dr. J the league may not have survived until the 1979-80 season.
<< <i>The players named in this thread are great, no doubt, arguably the greatest.
However, who is the most valuable player to the NBA?
I would suggest that Dr. J may well qualify as the most valuable. Not because of his stats, his one championship. his MVP awards, etc.
I agree with the DR,until Jordan came along.I hate to admit it but kobe is getting closer,
but lebron no ring does not even belong in a converstion about best ever with no ring,and
might not get one if he runs to N.Y. for the $.IMO Jordan is and always will be best of all-time.
You have to remember back in the 80's-90's,they played DEFENSE,hard fouls,lots of pushing-shoving
that would get a player thrown out today.
J.R.
Needs'
1972 Football-9's high#'s
1965 Football-8's
1958 Topps FB-7-8
If you really want to learn about basketball, I highly suggest Bill Simmons' fantastic basketball book. 700 pages but felt like 100. His easy going tone and unfailingly thorough analysis will open your eyes, especially since you seem unable or unwilling to give credit to basketball players from previous eras.
<< <i>To suggest that Kobe should be in the same sentence with Jordan, let alone compared to him, is laughable. Equally laughable to suggest that Bill Russell shouldn't be in your conversation of the best ever. Equally laughable that you, like so many others, fall into the trap of 'if I didn't see them play they couldn't be any good'.
If you really want to learn about basketball, I highly suggest Bill Simmons' fantastic basketball book. 700 pages but felt like 100. His easy going tone and unfailingly thorough analysis will open your eyes, especially since you seem unable or unwilling to give credit to basketball players from previous eras. >>
I don't understand how comparing Kobe to Jordan is laughable. Could you explain?
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
But back to the discussion. Lebron is a heck of an athletic player. He has the ability to do a little bit (well a lot) of everything. He's never going to be in the same kind of offensive category as Jordan. Sure, he may score a lot of points but nobody will ever have him down as one of the best shooters of all-time. He is good at creating shots of the drive and has improved quite a bit as a spot shooter since entering the league. But when asked to name some of the best "shooters" of all-time, most wont put him in the top 10 ever. Jordan could easily be on some peoples list, especially if the list were of clutch shooters. Lebron is a good creator, but was there really many, if any, better than Jordan? And all this is from a Pistons fan that never really liked Jordan, but came to appreciate what he was doing. I think Lebron is going to be in the same category as players like Oscar Robertson by the end of his career. Great all-around player with amazing ability. Could have easily been one of the best ever, but he's usually not at the tip of most peoples tongue when they name their top 5.
As for my number 2 player, I have to lean towards another player that HG eluded to, Bill Russell. His dominance wasn't simply about size. The guy was amazingly agile for a taller guy. He was a good offensive player, but was probably the best defender ever. He is possibly the only player to change entire games on the defensive side of the ball. Simply an amazing player.
In the end, I might have Lebron in my top 10 list when his career is done. Time will tell. But he's no there now. As for Kobe, it's tough to say. I'd have him around #5. Somewhere ahead of Magic and behind Bird.
<< <i>To suggest that Kobe should be in the same sentence with Jordan, let alone compared to him, is laughable. Equally laughable to suggest that Bill Russell shouldn't be in your conversation of the best ever. Equally laughable that you, like so many others, fall into the trap of 'if I didn't see them play they couldn't be any good'.
If you really want to learn about basketball, I highly suggest Bill Simmons' fantastic basketball book. 700 pages but felt like 100. His easy going tone and unfailingly thorough analysis will open your eyes, especially since you seem unable or unwilling to give credit to basketball players from previous eras. >>
I hate to do this. Don't take this wrong. I really am a nice guy.
I didn't see him play a live game, but yes, I have seen enough highlights and I know enough about basketball to have an educated opinion. Yes, Bill Russell won a bunch of championships. Yes, he is a Hall of Famer. Yes, he was a great player (in his time).
I am not talking about championships. Championships are partly due to your teammates and due to your competition at the time.
For the umpteenth time, I am talking about sheer talent. Bill Russell was 6'9" and he towered over everybody else. Today, there are guys 6'9" playing shooting guard and small forward, not center. Could Bill Russell handle the ball? No. Could Bill Russell hit a 15 foot jumper? No. Could Bill Russell hit a three? That, my friend is laughable to even think about it. Did Bill Russel ever take the ball on the wing, drive to the basket and dunk on somebody, or "make a play"? I doubt it very seriously.
What did Bill Russell do? He rebounded (over guys that were smaller than him). He worked around the basket. He played defense. Yes, he was great (in his time), and yes he won a bunch of championships. But if you put Bill Russell in today's game WITH HIS SKILL SET, (I may get laughed off the boards), but I don't even think he would be an All Star. His skill set would not allow him to compete like he did back then because the game and the players have evolved SO MUCH.
However, Jordan, Kobe, and Lebron would ABSOLUTELY DOMINATE the NBA back then. They WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO with a 6'8" Lebron James talking the ball the length of the court, driving to the basketball, and dunking over guys like Bill Russell. Again, Bill Russell was 6'9" and 215lbs. He played a stationary center position. Lebron James is only 1 inch shorter, 25 lbs heavier, can run like a cheetah, can fly like a bird, and he is as strong as an ox. I would absolutely love to see Bill Russell face Lebron James in an NBA game. That, my friend, would be laughable.
The same goes for Jordan and Kobe. They would absolutely dominate the NBA back then.
I am the biggest Jordan fan there ever was (until his HOF speech, but that is another issue). But Kobe is quickly approaching Jordan in his ability. I would give the nod to Jordan as the greatest of all time, but Kobe and Lebron, in 20 years will be considered close.
Talent, and physical ability. Keep that in mind.
Shane
<< <i>
<< <i>To suggest that Kobe should be in the same sentence with Jordan, let alone compared to him, is laughable. Equally laughable to suggest that Bill Russell shouldn't be in your conversation of the best ever. Equally laughable that you, like so many others, fall into the trap of 'if I didn't see them play they couldn't be any good'.
If you really want to learn about basketball, I highly suggest Bill Simmons' fantastic basketball book. 700 pages but felt like 100. His easy going tone and unfailingly thorough analysis will open your eyes, especially since you seem unable or unwilling to give credit to basketball players from previous eras. >>
I hate to do this. Don't take this wrong. I really am a nice guy.
I didn't see him play a live game, but yes, I have seen enough highlights and I know enough about basketball to have an educated opinion. Yes, Bill Russell won a bunch of championships. Yes, he is a Hall of Famer. Yes, he was a great player (in his time).
I am not talking about championships. Championships are partly due to your teammates and due to your competition at the time.
For the umpteenth time, I am talking about sheer talent. Bill Russell was 6'9" and he towered over everybody else. Today, there are guys 6'9" playing shooting guard and small forward, not center. Could Bill Russell handle the ball? No. Could Bill Russell hit a 15 foot jumper? No. Could Bill Russell hit a three? That, my friend is laughable to even think about it. Did Bill Russel ever take the ball on the wing, drive to the basket and dunk on somebody, or "make a play"? I doubt it very seriously.
What did Bill Russell do? He rebounded (over guys that were smaller than him). He worked around the basket. He played defense. Yes, he was great (in his time), and yes he won a bunch of championships. But if you put Bill Russell in today's game WITH HIS SKILL SET, (I may get laughed off the boards), but I don't even think he would be an All Star. His skill set would not allow him to compete like he did back then because the game and the players have evolved SO MUCH.
However, Jordan, Kobe, and Lebron would ABSOLUTELY DOMINATE the NBA back then. They WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO with a 6'8" Lebron James talking the ball the length of the court, driving to the basketball, and dunking over guys like Bill Russell. Again, Bill Russell was 6'9" and 215lbs. He played a stationary center position. Lebron James is only 1 inch shorter, 25 lbs heavier, can run like a cheetah, can fly like a bird, and he is as strong as an ox. I would absolutely love to see Bill Russell face Lebron James in an NBA game. That, my friend, would be laughable.
The same goes for Jordan and Kobe. They would absolutely dominate the NBA back then.
I am the biggest Jordan fan there ever was (until his HOF speech, but that is another issue). But Kobe is quickly approaching Jordan in his ability. I would give the nod to Jordan as the greatest of all time, but Kobe and Lebron, in 20 years will be considered close.
Talent, and physical ability. Keep that in mind. >>
You cannot speak of the games evolution without taking that fact into consideration. The game has evolved. Had Russell played today, how can it not be considered that me might not be more muscular, had a permiter game (which wasn't even part of the NBA then) or even been a more dominant offensive presence than he already was? You see, this is why it's impossible to compare eras. The game has evolved. So to that fact, you cannot say a guy that does something today could have done the same things then. The rules were different. Conditioning was different. Sets were different. A ton of things were different. Players are more athletic now, but half of the guys today cannot even hit a free throw or a ten foot jumper. Please consider that by arguing the games evolution, you have to also take the mere fact that every aspect of the game has evolved. It's the same in football, baseball or hockey. Guys are simply bigger, stronger and faster. Guys get to practice more with methods that have been proven more effective over time. There's too much that has changed in the game to simply say you can throw a player of todays era into the past and somehow get an accurate depiction of what he could have done. Russell was as dominant of a player as there was to play in ANY era. Could he have dominated today? Probably not with the skill set he had then. But if he was given the opportunity to benefit from all of the conditioning and other knowledge players have today, how can you argue that it's not possible he could have? So again, Russell was arguably the most dominant player in ANY era. So was Jordan. Kobe is debateable. Lebron needs time to establish that fact.
Shane
<< <i>At this point to say Lebron James belongs in the same category as Michael Jordan and arguing who's the All-time best is ridiculous and way premature. >>
It is my PREDICTION that IN 20 YEARS Lebron James WILL BE in the top three. Is that so ridiculous?
Shane
I do not know who would win, but I will predict that the games would be very competitive. The players from the past would not let their own egos get trashed by today's stud athletes. They would rise up, mentally, physically, psycholocigally, etc. and compete for all that they are worth. I would like to see these games played. I remember how studly the superstar basketball players were from the 60's, 70's and 80's were. They would give today's players some serious competition, just like I am sure the players from the 50's on back would do. Superstars from any era have too much pride and ego to not rise up and compete against the best.
This argument, putting 3 current players in the discussion of the all time best is nothing more than someone who doesn't understand the game and only looking at what's right in front of them.
As far as why Kobe shouldn't be mentioned (nor should anyone, for that matter) in the same sentence as Jordan? If you have to ask that question then you really, REALLY don't understand basketball at all. Jordan was impossible to defend. His numbers were transcendent. He was (and is) so far ahead of anyone else in terms of skills, athleticism, you name is, Jordan was without peer. It's not a slight at Kobe, but to suggest he or anyone else will ever approach Jordan's skill, his desire to win, is to discredit the man.
<< <i>
<< <i>At this point to say Lebron James belongs in the same category as Michael Jordan and arguing who's the All-time best is ridiculous and way premature. >>
It is my PREDICTION that IN 20 YEARS Lebron James WILL BE in the top three. Is that so ridiculous? >>
What's ridiculous (or, at least, what could be considered ridiculous) is the idea that somehow the best three players in the history of the game would have played either the 2 or the 3. This suggests either a) that the best players naturally gravitate towards these positions, or b) that players who man these positions are typically overrated. I vote for 'b'. Why do you think any of these three are better than Stockton? Or Malone? Or Hakeem or Jabbar? Sure, they may be-- but on what grounds do you make this assertion?
I think it's odd that not a single center, power forward or point guard would make this list, despite the fact that solid 5's and 1's are probably the hardest positions to fill on an NBA roster. The possible bias towards 2's and 3's may not exist, but it should at least be addressed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>At this point to say Lebron James belongs in the same category as Michael Jordan and arguing who's the All-time best is ridiculous and way premature. >>
It is my PREDICTION that IN 20 YEARS Lebron James WILL BE in the top three. Is that so ridiculous? >>
What's ridiculous (or, at least, what could be considered ridiculous) is the idea that somehow the best three players in the history of the game would have played either the 2 or the 3. This suggests either a) that the best players naturally gravitate towards these positions, or b) that players who man these positions are typically overrated. I vote for 'b'. Why do you think any of these three are better than Stockton? Or Malone? Or Hakeem or Jabbar? Sure, they may be-- but on what grounds do you make this assertion?
I think it's odd that not a single center, power forward or point guard would make this list, despite the fact that solid 5's and 1's are probably the hardest positions to fill on an NBA roster. The possible bias towards 2's and 3's may not exist, but it should at least be addressed. >>
Boo,
I've never thought of it that way, but here are my thoughts. A shooting guard and a small forward would be average height (not too small and not too big that they are immobile). Therefore, a shooting guard or small forward can conceivable "do it all". A player like Jordan, Kobe, or Lebron can shoot, rebound, pass, dribble, jump, dunk, etc, etc. A point guard would not have that ability and neither would a big man. That is, I think what sets apart Lebron James. I'm not saying he is better than Jordan or Kobe, but Lebron James is as big as most power forwards, yet he can do it all on the court.
HGenesis,
To say that that I don't understand basketball is totally unfounded. I played on a team from the 2nd grade until I was a senior in 1993 (I am 34). I averaged 25 points per game over my four years of high school (26 points per game as a freshman). I had an offer to play at a small college, but elected to stay home. I played in leagues after high school. I coached high school basketball for 3 years. I can hit 95% from the free throw line TODAY. I can hit 40% from behind the 3 point line TODAY. I could dunk a basketball as a senior as a 5'11" white kid, though adding 40 pounds makes that impossible today. I have watched the NBA since I was a kid. I have studied film. I have watched many, many highlights from all decades. I feel I have a grasp on who has talent and who doesn't.
Shane
<< <i>
HGenesis,
To say that that I don't understand basketball is totally unfounded. I played on a team from the 2nd grade until I was a senior in 1993 (I am 34). I averaged 25 points per game over my four years of high school (26 points per game as a freshman). I had an offer to play at a small college, but elected to stay home. I played in leagues after high school. I coached high school basketball for 3 years. I can hit 95% from the free throw line TODAY. I can hit 40% from behind the 3 point line TODAY. I could dunk a basketball as a senior as a 5'11" white kid, though adding 40 pounds makes that impossible today. I have watched the NBA since I was a kid. I have studied film. I have watched many, many highlights from all decades. I feel I have a grasp on who has talent and who doesn't. >>
Not to diminish your playing career, but who cares? Honestly, it has no bearing on this conversation. You readily admit you never watched Russell, or any of the all-time greats play a game, just watched 'highlights', so how in any way, shape, or form are we supposed to take your position that 3 players from 86 on are the greatest ever? To sit there, without having first-hand knowledge, and pass down judgment that these 3 are going to be the best is an exercise in futility. You cannot possibly make that claim without having watched the all-time greats, and no, watching 'highlights' doesn't count.
So please, stop with the 'I know it all!' posts. It's obvious you don't. And no, posting your childhood basketball resume doesn't make you any more credible a witness.
geez.
<< <i>speaking of know it all posters.
geez. >>
This guy has been around for years. He's known best as Axtell. He loves to throw venom at everyone
from Mother Teresa to Jesus Christ, and everyone inbetween. Play with him as you will, because he won't be around for long.
<< <i>
<< <i>
HGenesis,
To say that that I don't understand basketball is totally unfounded. I played on a team from the 2nd grade until I was a senior in 1993 (I am 34). I averaged 25 points per game over my four years of high school (26 points per game as a freshman). I had an offer to play at a small college, but elected to stay home. I played in leagues after high school. I coached high school basketball for 3 years. I can hit 95% from the free throw line TODAY. I can hit 40% from behind the 3 point line TODAY. I could dunk a basketball as a senior as a 5'11" white kid, though adding 40 pounds makes that impossible today. I have watched the NBA since I was a kid. I have studied film. I have watched many, many highlights from all decades. I feel I have a grasp on who has talent and who doesn't. >>
Not to diminish your playing career, but who cares? Honestly, it has no bearing on this conversation. You readily admit you never watched Russell, or any of the all-time greats play a game, just watched 'highlights', so how in any way, shape, or form are we supposed to take your position that 3 players from 86 on are the greatest ever? To sit there, without having first-hand knowledge, and pass down judgment that these 3 are going to be the best is an exercise in futility. You cannot possibly make that claim without having watched the all-time greats, and no, watching 'highlights' doesn't count.
So please, stop with the 'I know it all!' posts. It's obvious you don't. And no, posting your childhood basketball resume doesn't make you any more credible a witness. >>
When I say "I know it all", I was totally kidding and being sarcastic. The only reason I stated the facts surrounding my basketball career (which was way more than "childhood", by the way) was to show that I wasn't some couch potato fan. You accused me of not knowing anything about basketball. I was proving otherwise. Yes, you can tell a lot (not everything, but a lot) about someone's playing ability by watching highlights. I can tell that Bob Cousey couldn't go to his left. He dribbled right handed most of the time.
I can tell that Bill Russell couldn't shoot the basketball past 5 feet. Are you telling me he could? What was his free throw percentage? I will tell you. It was 56%. FIFTY SIX FREAKIN PERCENT!. Now tell me that Bill Russell could shoot the basketball. I can shoot 56% left handed with my eyes closed. What was his field goal percentage? Well, you would think that since he is one of the greatest of all time, that it would be way up there considering he was a big man and played close to the basket. Heck, Shaq can't hit the broad side of the barn, but he shoots nearly 60% from the field. Do you know what Bill Russell shot from the field as a big man towering over all of his opponents (except Wilt)? He shot a whopping 44% from the field for his career. Do you know what his BEST year from the field was? It was 46%. That is sad. Yes, Bill Russell was a terrific defensive player against smaller players and even Wilt. He was also a terrific team player and was on many championship teams. But to say that he is the greatest individual player to ever play is absolutely ridiculous.
Shane
and who is Axtell?
<< <i>It would be very interesting to waive a magic wand and have the top basketball players (or players from any other sport) over the past 100 years appear in one place and have them all be the same age (say 25-30 years old). Separate the players into teams according to the decades that each played at their highest level. (i.e., Kobe and LeBron the decade of 2001-2010; MJ 1991-2000; Magic and Bird 1981-1990; Dr. J and Kareem 1971-1980; Wilt Chamberlin, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell 1961-1970; George Mikan 1951-1960; and on back). Then have these teams of superstar players practice for 1-2 months to get into top physical condition. The have these teams play each other for a regular season, followed by playoffs.
I do not know who would win, but I will predict that the games would be very competitive. The players from the past would not let their own egos get trashed by today's stud athletes. They would rise up, mentally, physically, psycholocigally, etc. and compete for all that they are worth. I would like to see these games played. I remember how studly the superstar basketball players were from the 60's, 70's and 80's were. They would give today's players some serious competition, just like I am sure the players from the 50's on back would do. Superstars from any era have too much pride and ego to not rise up and compete against the best. >>
I would love to see this as well. My heart tells me that the older superstars would compete, but I just don't think that is the case. I don't think Unitas and Berry could compete with Manning and Wayne, or Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson could compete with Pedro Martinez and Albert Pujols. I just think athletes are quite a big bigger, stronger, faster, just plain better now. That is my guess.
I am fairly confident that Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell would get trounced by Kobe and Lebron in a 2 on 2. Or Kobe and (10 years ago) Shaq. That is just my guess.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
<< <i>
<< <i>It would be very interesting to waive a magic wand and have the top basketball players (or players from any other sport) over the past 100 years appear in one place and have them all be the same age (say 25-30 years old). Separate the players into teams according to the decades that each played at their highest level. (i.e., Kobe and LeBron the decade of 2001-2010; MJ 1991-2000; Magic and Bird 1981-1990; Dr. J and Kareem 1971-1980; Wilt Chamberlin, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell 1961-1970; George Mikan 1951-1960; and on back). Then have these teams of superstar players practice for 1-2 months to get into top physical condition. The have these teams play each other for a regular season, followed by playoffs.
I do not know who would win, but I will predict that the games would be very competitive. The players from the past would not let their own egos get trashed by today's stud athletes. They would rise up, mentally, physically, psycholocigally, etc. and compete for all that they are worth. I would like to see these games played. I remember how studly the superstar basketball players were from the 60's, 70's and 80's were. They would give today's players some serious competition, just like I am sure the players from the 50's on back would do. Superstars from any era have too much pride and ego to not rise up and compete against the best. >>
I would love to see this as well. My heart tells me that the older superstars would compete, but I just don't think that is the case. I don't think Unitas and Berry could compete with Manning and Wayne, or Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson could compete with Pedro Martinez and Albert Pujols. I just think athletes are quite a big bigger, stronger, faster, just plain better now. That is my guess.
I am fairly confident that Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell would get trounced by Kobe and Lebron in a 2 on 2. Or Kobe and (10 years ago) Shaq. That is just my guess. >>
I could not agree more. Although, I think in baseball, the older players would come closer to competing than in the other sports.
Shane
<< <i>For the umpteenth time, I am talking about sheer talent. Bill Russell was 6'9" and he towered over everybody else. Today, there are guys 6'9" playing shooting guard and small forward, not center. Could Bill Russell handle the ball? No. Could Bill Russell hit a 15 foot jumper? No. Could Bill Russell hit a three? That, my friend is laughable to even think about it. Did Bill Russel ever take the ball on the wing, drive to the basket and dunk on somebody, or "make a play"? I doubt it very seriously. >>
Shane,
These types of threads are always my favorites. I love basketball and have played all my life even at my now advanced age of 48. Physically the players today are far and away better that those in the 1950s to 1970s. But with that being said, I think the game today is worse than what I consider the golden age of basketball, which was the early 1980s with Larry and Magic and Show Tme. This lasted until the Pistons won with the Bad Boys and games played in the 70 and 80 point range became far too common. As a 76er fan, the late 1980s and early 1990s were the worst. It was pass the ball to Barkley and clear out, wait for the double team and pass out or drive and draw the foul. That was the worst basketball to watch after seeing the Lakers, Celtics and other teams in the early 1980s.
One assertion of yours which I must take exception to is that Russell towered over the players in his time. This is not true. There were players in 1956 and 1957 when Russell came into the league like, Johnny "Red" Kerr, Neil Johnston, Maurice Stokes, Ray Felix, Charlie Share, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Wayne Embry and Walter Dukes who ranged from 6'8" to 7 feet tall. Later he played against Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond. So Russell was actually average to a bit below average in height and weight for being a center.
Another thing to keep in mind is that he had to go up against great players more often that today's players do because the league had far fewer teams. Imagine having to go against Embry, Lovellette and Pettit and Wilt 10-12 times per year. Every team had Hall of Fame players.
I agree that Russell did not have the all the skills that today's players have but, then again, it was a different era. I'm 6'5" and played High School ball in the 70s. Since I went to a small HS I was the biggest kid and played center. I had no guard skills because I did not need them, or the coach didn't teach me. Along the same lines, the positions in Russell's time were more well-defined than they are now leading to players having much more specific skills.
So while the players today have the greater physical skills they have the lesser basketball skills and I believe that's where the players of the past have the edge.
Walt
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>
<< <i>For the umpteenth time, I am talking about sheer talent. Bill Russell was 6'9" and he towered over everybody else. Today, there are guys 6'9" playing shooting guard and small forward, not center. Could Bill Russell handle the ball? No. Could Bill Russell hit a 15 foot jumper? No. Could Bill Russell hit a three? That, my friend is laughable to even think about it. Did Bill Russel ever take the ball on the wing, drive to the basket and dunk on somebody, or "make a play"? I doubt it very seriously. >>
Shane,
These types of threads are always my favorites. I love basketball and have played all my life even at my now advanced age of 48. Physically the players today are far and away better that those in the 1950s to 1970s. But with that being said, I think the game today is worse than what I consider the golden age of basketball, which was the early 1980s with Larry and Magic and Show Tme. This lasted until the Pistons won with the Bad Boys and games played in the 70 and 80 point range became far too common. As a 76er fan, the late 1980s and early 1990s were the worst. It was pass the ball to Barkley and clear out, wait for the double team and pass out or drive and draw the foul. That was the worst basketball to watch after seeing the Lakers, Celtics and other teams in the early 1980s.
One assertion of yours which I must take exception to is that Russell towered over the players in his time. This is not true. There were players in 1956 and 1957 when Russell came into the league like, Johnny "Red" Kerr, Neil Johnston, Maurice Stokes, Ray Felix, Charlie Share, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Wayne Embry and Walter Dukes who ranged from 6'8" to 7 feet tall. Later he played against Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond. So Russell was actually average to a bit below average in height and weight for being a center.
Another thing to keep in mind is that he had to go up against great players more often that today's players do because the league had far fewer teams. Imagine having to go against Embry, Lovellette and Pettit and Wilt 10-12 times per year. Every team had Hall of Fame players.
I agree that Russell did not have the all the skills that today's players have but, then again, it was a different era. I'm 6'5" and played High School ball in the 70s. Since I went to a small HS I was the biggest kid and played center. I had no guard skills because I did not need them, or the coach didn't teach me. Along the same lines, the positions in Russell's time were more well-defined than they are now leading to players having much more specific skills.
So while the players today have the greater physical skills they have the lesser basketball skills and I believe that's where the players of the past have the edge.
Walt >>
Walt,
Point taken on height. However, Bill Russell still could not do the things on the basketball court that Jordan, Kobe, and Lebron can do.
Shane