PDA

View Full Version : The 1960's squad vs The 2000's squad, who wins in 7?



JordansBulls
08-03-2008, 09:56 AM
I thought this was an interesting thread

60's
C - Wilt Chamberlain/Willis Reed
PF - Bill Russell/Dave Debusschere/Jerry Lucas
SF - Elgin Baylor/John Havlicek
SG - Jerry West/Hal Greer/Sam Jones
PG - Oscar Robertson/Walt Frazier/Lenny Wilkens


00's
C - Shaquille O'neal/Yao Ming
PF - Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett/Dirk Nowitzki
SF - LeBron James/Paul Pierce
SG - Kobe Bryant/Dwyane Wade/Tracy Mcgrady
PG - Jason Kidd/Steve Nash/Allen Iverson



People say the 60's was a weak time period and a lot of people who watched the 60's say that the 00's is a weak time period because players are weaker and can't take the physical contact.
So I ask you, which team would you take in a 7 game series?

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-03-2008, 11:50 AM
Wow, good question. I dont know. Those teams look pretty even. I would go with the home team.

cambovenzi
08-03-2008, 02:56 PM
the old guys wouldnt match up physically, or skill-wise.
2000's in a walk.

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 04:23 PM
4 out of the 5 starters are in favor of the 60s, while Lebron vs. Elgin is a wash. This clearly isn't fair.

cambovenzi
08-03-2008, 04:44 PM
4 out of the 5 starters are in favor of the 60s, while Lebron vs. Elgin is a wash. This clearly isn't fair.

statistically, maybe.
but skill-wise, its not close IMO.
bigger, faster, stronger, better.

GregOden#1
08-03-2008, 04:55 PM
statistically, maybe.
but skill-wise, its not close IMO.
bigger, faster, stronger, better.

You're right, its not close. The 60s are substantially better.

You dont see a difference until you go past the 5th string guys.

lakers4sho
08-03-2008, 09:43 PM
Aside from Wilt, Russell, and Oscar (PGs), the other guys are undersized for their position. And '00s bench is better than 60's IMO. I have to go with the 2000s All-Stars.

SportsFan1988
08-04-2008, 01:04 AM
I don't think it is fair to compare the players who played in the 80's or lower because of the way they played and also trained....completely different style from then to now. Anyways, I'll take today's team over the 60's squad.

bagwell368
08-04-2008, 01:17 AM
Let's see:

Willis Reed will get posted up every time he's on the floor. He'll have to play PF, and Bill Russell goes to C IMO.

60's win at Center when Russell is moved.

00's win easily at PF over the 60's with Reed as a PF (size, strength, skill, speed) advantage. And Reed gets posted unmercifully by TD and KG (Dirk only sees floor in blowouts - or is removed for Ben Wallace)

Baylor is probably unguardable by James or PP. Hondo isn't up to those guys in strength, but he was a lot smarter. Edge: 60's bring in an defensive ace to deal with Baylor and that will help.

00's win easily at SG because they are bigger and faster and better shooters. Jones and Greer would both be isolated and posted ad nauseum.

Oscar blows away the 00's PG's. But Frazier and Wilkins move in cement compared to the 00's. Even.

Dunno, its close in spots, and I'd vote for different personal. Of course our decade isn't over which is an advantage for the 60's.

I'd ditch Yao for Dwight Howard or the 99-00 Mutombo. An '03-04 Ben Wallace is more useful then the over rated Dirk. 05-06 Billups is someone to consider over McGrady since McGrady is more of a 3 then a 2.

Play this game with other decades and I can't see any decade touching the 80's.

cambovenzi
08-04-2008, 01:06 PM
You're right, its not close. The 60s are substantially better.
not really. players in sports get better as time goes on.
you might think the names are better. or that those players were better compared to their era. but the newer player's game is much more advanced, and they are better athletes.


You dont see a difference until you go past the 5th string guys.

what? explain please.

JordansBulls
08-04-2008, 01:17 PM
statistically, maybe.
but skill-wise, its not close IMO.
bigger, faster, stronger, better.

WTH. What does skill have to do with anything if the other guys are better statiscally?

Skills don't mean anything if the results produced are not strong statistically.

GregOden#1
08-04-2008, 01:21 PM
not really. players in sports get better as time goes on.
you might think the names are better. or that those players were better compared to their era. but the newer player's game is much more advanced, and they are better athletes.

That makes no sense. How do athletes get better with time other than with new advances in technology. They dont, they arent more athletically gifted and they sure as hell arent harder workers, so why does it matter?



what? explain please.

The 5th best point guard today is better than the 5th best point guard of the 60s, because of population and popularity differences. But the 60s was an 8 team league, the 5th best PG of the 60s is a below average starter, while today he is likely an allstar.

conway429
08-04-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't think you can really compare the eras, because not many of us remember the 60's players. Alot of people are going to say the 2000s because they're the current stars of today. But will anyone really be talking about Tracy McGrady 40-50 years from now? It's easy to underestimate the impact of players like Wilt, Russell, Baylor and Oscar.
I picked the 60's cause I like to kick it old school.

madiaz3
08-04-2008, 01:45 PM
WTH. What does skill have to do with anything if the other guys are better statiscally?

Skills don't mean anything if the results produced are not strong statistically.

Now you know how DodgersandLakers made those posts accounting for pace and speed and the overall stats for the whole league of the 80s? Well take that to the 60's are you're bound to find even more discrepancies.