PDA

View Full Version : Why Do Us Fans Show So Much Hesitancy to Rank Current Players Above Past Legends???



ko8e24
11-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Whenever we talk about how current players level up to the all-time greats, a lot of NBA fans show the hesitancy to rank the current great players and future HOFs ahead of past legends. In fact, some people get so offended, they regard it as a SIN whenever a current player is regarded to be higher or even better than a past player.


For example, to this day, some people feel that guys like Hakeem, Baylor, Dr. J and Moses are still ahead of guys like Kobe, Shaq and Duncan in the all-time greatest list. Whenever someone tries to make a case for a current player to be above a past player, there is always some commotion and raucous, and the word "homerism" or "noobie" is thrown around. But what some of those past-supporters don't understand that yes, there is a possibility that a current great player can indeed be better than a past great player.


And when someone is compared to the likes of the top 6 in MJ, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Bird and Russell (like the way Charles Barkley put Kobe in the same breath as those guys the other week), there was a huge commotion and analysts and fans went crazy and thought it was absurd.


So I ask is, why do analysts, and us fans in general, show so much hesitancy to rank a current future HOF great ahead of a past great player?

Thoughts.

m26555
11-25-2010, 07:44 PM
For example, to this day, some people feel that guys like Hakeem, Baylor, Dr. J and Moses are still ahead of guys like Kobe and Shaq in the all-time greatest list. Whenever someone tries to make a case for a current player to be above a past player, there is always some commotion and raucous, and the word "homerism" or "noobie" is thrown around. But what some of those past-supporters don't understand that yes, there is a possibility that a current great player can indeed be better than a past great player.
Well, Olajuwon was simply a better all-around player than Shaq, and I don't even think it's that close. As far as the other players go, I don't see many people ranking Julius Erving and Elgin Baylor over Kobe, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone rank Moses Malone ahead of either Shaq or Kobe (as good as Moses was).

D1JM
11-25-2010, 07:44 PM
maybe because we should wait till he retires to fully grasp how great they were.

Raph12
11-25-2010, 07:47 PM
Comparing players of different eras is difficult for the avg fan to do, it takes a lot of calculating and thought to compare stats, circumstances, the environment, etc... between the two eras... It's better to just leave it alone, it's mostly subjective when you get into that type of conversation anyways.

llemon
11-25-2010, 07:47 PM
Why shouldn't fans and analysts state their opinions?

If some fans feel that some players from earlier NBA eras are better than some current players, why shouldn't they express those opinions?

ko8e24
11-25-2010, 07:49 PM
Why shouldn't fans and analysts state their opinions?

If some fans feel that some players from earlier NBA eras are better than some current players, why shouldn't they express those opinions?

I don't think you understoood what I was getting at. Some comparisons are so obvious, but some analysts and fans will always, almost 10 out of 10 times, choose the past legend over the current guy. They show hesitancy and feel it's a sign of disrespect to the past guy if they don't choose him over the current guy.

llemon
11-25-2010, 07:55 PM
I don't think you understoood what I was getting at. Some comparisons are so obvious, but some analysts and fans will always, almost 10 out of 10 times, choose the past legend over the current guy. They show hesitancy and feel it's a sign of disrespect to the past guy if they don't choose him over the current guy.

Did you just answer your own question?

ko8e24
11-25-2010, 07:59 PM
Did you just answer your own question?

Maybe so, but I want to hear opinions from other posters.

Mudvayne91
11-25-2010, 08:02 PM
I don't. It's proven athletes are bigger, stronger, faster now compared to years ago.

poleandreel
11-25-2010, 08:06 PM
My personal opinion is that many of the past generation players are better. The media of our generation likes to hype players to levels beyond their actual deserved level. There are many players who are excessively overrated. I personally think Kobe is the most overrated athlete ever. Almost every NBA fan will put Kobe ahead of Iverson even though Iverson was a more dominant player. But people of this generation can't think for themselves and simply ingest all of the spoon fed dogma that ESPN and the media spews out.

ink
11-25-2010, 08:07 PM
maybe because we should wait till he retires to fully grasp how great they were.

This.

dodie53
11-25-2010, 08:12 PM
maybe because we should wait till he retires to fully grasp how great they were.

i agree

lakers4sho
11-25-2010, 08:17 PM
My personal opinion is that many of the past generation players are better. The media of our generation likes to hype players to levels beyond their actual deserved level. There are many players who are excessively overrated. I personally think Kobe is the most overrated athlete ever. Almost every NBA fan will put Kobe ahead of Iverson even though Iverson was a more dominant player. But people of this generation can't think for themselves and simply ingest all of the spoon fed dogma that ESPN and the media spews out.

Where is Kobe now, and where is AI?

Kobe has a sound command of the fundamentals. Even though both are already robbed [ in whole, or in part ] of their athleticism, you can see which one has adjusted to such a loss and which one hasn't.

Also one is dedicated to winning, the other doesn't even want to practice.

Chacarron
11-25-2010, 08:21 PM
My personal opinion is that many of the past generation players are better. The media of our generation likes to hype players to levels beyond their actual deserved level. There are many players who are excessively overrated. I personally think Kobe is the most overrated athlete ever. Almost every NBA fan will put Kobe ahead of Iverson even though Iverson was a more dominant player. But people of this generation can't think for themselves and simply ingest all of the spoon fed dogma that ESPN and the media spews out.

You were doing good until the bold part.

poleandreel
11-25-2010, 08:23 PM
You were doing good until the bold part.

your a laker fan. I expect you to not understand

Chacarron
11-25-2010, 08:27 PM
your a laker fan. I expect you to not understand

What does being a Lakers fan have do with it?

poleandreel
11-25-2010, 08:35 PM
What does being a Lakers fan have do with it?

You would never think that Kobe is overrated.

Chacarron
11-25-2010, 08:38 PM
You would never think that Kobe is overrated.

I'm a Lakers fan, not a Kobe fan.

AddiX
11-25-2010, 08:40 PM
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that NBA fans who actually watched the game in the 90's and before remember how much better the game on the court was.

Today's NBA product is crap. When you look at these so called superstars and franchise players, who don't play D, can't hit free throws, can't shoot a mid range, no hook shot, its hard to give them the credit they maybe deserve.

Half the teams in the league are always in rebuilding mode. Most teams don't play defense until the 4th quarter. There is way to many young players in "development" taking up roster spots.

Now, if this just another Laker fan Kobe nut hugging thread. Yeah I put him with the top players ever. He doesn't know crap about leadership the way the other guys did, but talent wise and ability to win wise, yeah, hes up there.

Than again, he's never even came close to a ring without a dominate big man.

kArSoN RyDaH
11-25-2010, 08:41 PM
Mostly it's older posters. But it's for the same reasons that 20 years from now when some guy is making comparisons to Kobe Bryant that i quickly check them. lol. Players tend to grow on you. It's only normal.

goldenstater
11-25-2010, 08:41 PM
your a laker fan. I expect you to not understand

Ya I got to say I hate the Lakers with a passion and I don't not think iverson is better than Kobe and not even close to the most over rated player in history. With saying that I do think he is overrated in the way ( a lot, not all)Lakers fans try to compare him to Jordan cause he ain't Jordan period. But he is still an alltime great and is a BEAST! if he is overrated in any aspect of his game maybe maybe ( and this is just opinion ) its defense he cherry picks quite a bit but a lot of players do that.

JordansBulls
11-25-2010, 08:49 PM
I never understood the point of comparing current players to past players unless they were relatively close peak wise or career wise.

Kinglorious
11-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Probably because the '70s and '80s, and the '90s (of course... MJ) are still considered the Golden Age of Basketball. Don't get me wrong, players are still great these days, but the image of the NBA and it's players as a whole has changed some...

It's almost like asking why music sucks so much these days (that's my opinion, at least). :rolleyes:

It's all about fame and fortune nowadays. Naturally, players like MJ, Bird or Magic all became very famous men, not to mention stinkin' rich - but the way they went about it was different. None of them teased their team by not accepting a contract extension, only to go out and get a max contract with another team, *ahem* Amar'e... or accepting a huge pay increase only to suck *** in his first and only season with the Raptors, *ahem* Hedon't...

For the most part, those 3 HoF's were loyal to their teams. Bird: all 13 seasons with the Celtics. Magic: all 13 seasons and 1/2 of another - all with the Lakers. Mike was all over the place at one point, but he had his reasons...

What I'm trying to say - if your still with me, Dear Forum Reader, is that I don't respect some of the players as much as the "old timers." Guys just seem like they care more about the money more then hardnosed competition like it was before. Underachieving players can sit on the end of a bench, not playing, and still make 5.2 million a season or some damn thing. Doctors don't get that much - am I wrong? :confused:

I hope I made some sense out of all of that. :(

kArSoN RyDaH
11-25-2010, 09:12 PM
Probably because the '70s and '80s, and the '90s (of course... MJ) are still considered the Golden Age of Basketball. Don't get me wrong, players are still great these days, but the image of the NBA and it's players as a whole has changed some...

It's almost like asking why music sucks so much these days (that's my opinion, at least). :rolleyes:

It's all about fame and fortune nowadays. Naturally, players like MJ, Bird or Magic all became very famous men, not to mention stinkin' rich - but the way they went about it was different. None of them teased their team by not accepting a contract extension, only to go out an get a max contract with another team, *ahem* Amar'e... or accepting a huge pay increase only to suck *** in his first and only season with the Raptors, *ahem* Hedon't...

For the most part, those 3 HoF's were loyal to their teams. Bird: all 13 seasons with the Celtics. Magic: all 13 seasons and 1/2 of another - all with the Lakers. Mike was all over the place at one point, but he had his reasons...

What I'm trying to say - if your still with me, Dear Forum Reader, is that I don't respect some of the players as much as the "old timers." Guys just seem like they care more about the money more than hardnosed competition like it was before. Underachieving players can sit on the end of a bench, not playing, and still make 5.2 million a season or some damn thing. Doctors don't get that much - am I wrong? :confused:

I hope I made some sense out of all of that. :(

which is why Kobe belonged in the 80s and 90s.

TheWatcher34
11-25-2010, 09:29 PM
different era, different players, different archievements (to some extent). there's no point in making reference to 'former' players. all you can do is respect them for the reason that their names are still metioned...and the reason is they have helped to write basketball history.

ko8e24
11-25-2010, 09:34 PM
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that NBA fans who actually watched the game in the 90's and before remember how much better the game on the court was.

Today's NBA product is crap. When you look at these so called superstars and franchise players, who don't play D, can't hit free throws, can't shoot a mid range, no hook shot, its hard to give them the credit they maybe deserve.

Half the teams in the league are always in rebuilding mode. Most teams don't play defense until the 4th quarter. There is way to many young players in "development" taking up roster spots.

Now, if this just another Laker fan Kobe nut hugging thread. Yeah I put him with the top players ever. He doesn't know crap about leadership the way the other guys did, but talent wise and ability to win wise, yeah, hes up there.

Than again, he's never even came close to a ring without a dominate big man.

Totally agree with your post. And no, this is not a Kobe nut hugging thread.

bmanjones
11-25-2010, 09:38 PM
your a laker fan. I expect you to not understand

Im a sixers fan and Iverson was my favorite player of all time growing up.

But saying kobe is overated is ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as saying he is the most overated player ever , that is just unbelievable , i don't think your serious. (hope not)

rickshaw
11-25-2010, 09:48 PM
My personal opinion is that many of the past generation players are better. The media of our generation likes to hype players to levels beyond their actual deserved level. There are many players who are excessively overrated. I personally think Kobe is the most overrated athlete ever. Almost every NBA fan will put Kobe ahead of Iverson even though Iverson was a more dominant player. But people of this generation can't think for themselves and simply ingest all of the spoon fed dogma that ESPN and the media spews out.

Kobe is overrated at this point in his career but is a probable top 10 player of all time. and i hate the guy.

but i do agree alot of casual fans take espn's opinion as fact when most of the time they just say the best player in the league is the best player from the the team who wins the title.

Hindy27
11-25-2010, 10:11 PM
I don't. It's proven athletes are bigger, stronger, faster now compared to years ago.
This type of argument is just nonsense, the comparison is ridiculous.

If you took a bench player from today and just stuck them in the NBA in 60s or 70s they'd tear it up and look like a HOFer.
But if that player were born at the same time as the other players back then they'd only be at a similar athletic level. So they'd probably still be a bench player.

Likewise, if you transported Bill Russell into the future to play this season he'd be useless and would struggle to get any game time. Although if he was born only 20-25 years ago he'd have done all the same training as the others and developed like them as well and would be at a similar athletic level.

This needs to be taken into account when comparing, otherwise the NBA's best ever players would always be players that have played within the last 10 years.

The competition of their era needs to be thought of as well. Look at Dwight Howard, people talk about how 'great' he is, I've even seen some lunatics say they'd take prime Howard over prime Shaq. :facepalm: Howard would be an average-good centre in the 90s, he is a good rebounder and a decent defender but that's it. He stands out now because there aren't any great centres in the NBA right now. His career points average is low and for someone that is supposed to be a great defender his block average is pathetic compared to the centres of the 90s.

There is a natural progression in the evolution of all sports, they are always getting bigger, stronger and faster. Each generation watches the generation before them and copies their moves at a young age. Look at Hardaway's crossover, it was a big deal back when he was doing it but most players can do it now, it's just a standard move.
Like how the spin move is standard now, when people first started doing it they were probably considered a freak, but if you can't do a spin now you are useless.
Look at the weight room, I don't think Bill Russell cared about doing weights, but I'm sure he'd be doing plenty if he was part of this generation.

So IMO the 'bigger stronger faster' stuff should never enter the debate about player comparison, unless the compared players were playing in the same era.

td0tsfinest
11-25-2010, 10:34 PM
Comparing players of different eras is difficult for the avg fan to do, it takes a lot of calculating and thought to compare stats, circumstances, the environment, etc... between the two eras... It's better to just leave it alone, it's mostly subjective when you get into that type of conversation anyways.

I agree man. It's incredibly difficult to compare generations especially considering how vastly different the game was then to where it is now.

RollinDeep
11-25-2010, 11:37 PM
Probably because the '70s and '80s, and the '90s (of course... MJ) are still considered the Golden Age of Basketball. Don't get me wrong, players are still great these days, but the image of the NBA and it's players as a whole has changed some...

It's almost like asking why music sucks so much these days (that's my opinion, at least). :rolleyes:

It's all about fame and fortune nowadays. Naturally, players like MJ, Bird or Magic all became very famous men, not to mention stinkin' rich - but the way they went about it was different. None of them teased their team by not accepting a contract extension, only to go out and get a max contract with another team, *ahem* Amar'e... or accepting a huge pay increase only to suck *** in his first and only season with the Raptors, *ahem* Hedon't...

For the most part, those 3 HoF's were loyal to their teams. Bird: all 13 seasons with the Celtics. Magic: all 13 seasons and 1/2 of another - all with the Lakers. Mike was all over the place at one point, but he had his reasons...

What I'm trying to say - if your still with me, Dear Forum Reader, is that I don't respect some of the players as much as the "old timers." Guys just seem like they care more about the money more then hardnosed competition like it was before. Underachieving players can sit on the end of a bench, not playing, and still make 5.2 million a season or some damn thing. Doctors don't get that much - am I wrong? :confused:

I hope I made some sense out of all of that. :(

I actually wanted to pick out that part about music, which I agree with. But my reasoning for music at least is that it seems now everyone has an acoustic guitar and their own youtube page. It's just so much more accessible than before, that you get way more crap than you did before when it was harder to get your music out there. Now to find someone good, it takes alot more filtering than before.

Same reasoning doesn't apply to the NBA though.

Kobe- People love him or hate him, and haters are generally louder so that's where alot of the disrespect comes from. Plus, he's a step under MJ, and MJ defenders will throw hissy fits when Kobe's mentioned in the same sentence as their savior. Not like MJ ever needed someone to defend his name though.

Timmy- Often regarded as possibly the best PF ever, so he's compared favorably with old timers.

But it's hard to compare stats across eras, much like it is in football. Different tempos, different schemes, different reffering, all sorts of things affect. But comparisons is what drives sports debates, so we'll keep doing it forever even though there will almost never be consensus.

RollinDeep
11-25-2010, 11:39 PM
This type of argument is just nonsense, the comparison is ridiculous.

If you took a bench player from today and just stuck them in the NBA in 60s or 70s they'd tear it up and look like a HOFer.
But if that player were born at the same time as the other players back then they'd only be at a similar athletic level. So they'd probably still be a bench player.

Likewise, if you transported Bill Russell into the future to play this season he'd be useless and would struggle to get any game time. Although if he was born only 20-25 years ago he'd have done all the same training as the others and developed like them as well and would be at a similar athletic level.

This needs to be taken into account when comparing, otherwise the NBA's best ever players would always be players that have played within the last 10 years.

The competition of their era needs to be thought of as well. Look at Dwight Howard, people talk about how 'great' he is, I've even seen some lunatics say they'd take prime Howard over prime Shaq. :facepalm: Howard would be an average-good centre in the 90s, he is a good rebounder and a decent defender but that's it. He stands out now because there aren't any great centres in the NBA right now. His career points average is low and for someone that is supposed to be a great defender his block average is pathetic compared to the centres of the 90s.

There is a natural progression in the evolution of all sports, they are always getting bigger, stronger and faster. Each generation watches the generation before them and copies their moves at a young age. Look at Hardaway's crossover, it was a big deal back when he was doing it but most players can do it now, it's just a standard move.
Like how the spin move is standard now, when people first started doing it they were probably considered a freak, but if you can't do a spin now you are useless.
Look at the weight room, I don't think Bill Russell cared about doing weights, but I'm sure he'd be doing plenty if he was part of this generation.

So IMO the 'bigger stronger faster' stuff should never enter the debate about player comparison, unless the compared players were playing in the same era.

Best argument against the "bigger, stronger, faster theory".

The athletes are better, yes, but doesn't always apply to players. It really comes down to individual skill levels and work ethics. Great skill and work ethic transcend eras.

Bruno
11-26-2010, 12:09 AM
Because we should really wait until a player retires. It's unfair to that player, and to player of the past to try and judge and rank them accurately before their complete body of work is cemented.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone; it's just fun to ponder and discuss where the current greats rank; really we can never be sure until that given player retires.

Bruno
11-26-2010, 12:13 AM
Probably because the '70s and '80s, and the '90s (of course... MJ) are still considered the Golden Age of Basketball. Don't get me wrong, players are still great these days, but the image of the NBA and it's players as a whole has changed some...


The 70's is NOT considered the golden age of the NBA. The league was in the tank and fan/t.v. rankings where dismal. Magic and Bird made the NBA what it is today, and MJ was able to continue to ride upon what they started because of his star power and because of how marketable he was.

The 2000's were a better decade for basketball than the 70's were.

ewing
11-26-2010, 01:42 AM
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that NBA fans who actually watched the game in the 90's and before remember how much better the game on the court was.

Today's NBA product is crap. When you look at these so called superstars and franchise players, who don't play D, can't hit free throws, can't shoot a mid range, no hook shot, its hard to give them the credit they maybe deserve.

Half the teams in the league are always in rebuilding mode. Most teams don't play defense until the 4th quarter. There is way to many young players in "development" taking up roster spots.

Now, if this just another Laker fan Kobe nut hugging thread. Yeah I put him with the top players ever. He doesn't know crap about leadership the way the other guys did, but talent wise and ability to win wise, yeah, hes up there.

Than again, he's never even came close to a ring without a dominate big man.


I agree with everything in your post except the Kobe leadership thing. Leadership is guiding your team to victory. Kobe does this. Kobe's guys dont take plays off. They play to their strenghts. The usally maintain poise. I'm not just talking about Odom, Fish, and Gasol either. It Kobe's Lakers and he leads them pretty sucessfully. Now being his teammate doesn't sound like a dream like being Magic's teammate but it about results.

Hawkeye15
11-26-2010, 01:48 AM
we should wait until a modern players retires to evaluate them. But sports evolve period. Someone who thinks the players now wouldn't have been more dominant than the players 40 years ago refuse to accept that athletes get bigger, stronger, and better

Send 2004 KG back to 1973. Lets see how that works

The Final Boss
11-26-2010, 02:06 AM
Lol @ the guy who said iverson is better than Kobe. Even the turkey I'm eating laughed @ you...

Korman12
11-26-2010, 02:43 AM
This question doesn't just exist for basketball - people don't like/don't compare past players in football/baseball/hockey too.

I think, to an extent, that there's always some past positive light spinned on players of the past. As people, we cling to the past's peaks (hell, we do it with movies, music, TV and other things too) and get the idea that it will never get better than it was. Some people will think that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will never be as good as Staubach and Bart Starr. Some will think that Pujols and Ichiro will never be as good as Gerhig and Cobb. But in reality they're all really close, if not better.

A lot of it is being able to accept that things change, and with it comes different players who are better in different ways.

niketas
11-26-2010, 10:20 AM
Additonally to the mentioned "we should wait until a modern players retires to evaluate them" is it even harder to compare players since the NBA rules and referee calls have been adjusted to favor scorers a lot more than in the past.

It seems to me the defender is not allowed to do anything as to walk away when the star player is driving to the basket -> protectiveness of star players
e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNKWXDxbz_A

I've got no stats to back it up but it seems that in the 80s and 90s it has not been this way ..
Well thats a bit of a reason why I would rate some great players of the past over todays stars.

Off topic: Putting the outstretched arms under the arms of the defender just to get the foul makes me doubt the direction the games takes. (Yes, I'm talking about you KD although it's not your fault)

JasonJohnHorn
11-26-2010, 10:46 AM
They only current players who I would rank in the top five at their positions of all time is Duncan and Kobe. LBJ likely as well, but this season has been a stinker for him so far, and if he were to put up numbers like this the rest of his career, well... it would be disapointing. I wouldnt even rank Shaq top five (Chamberlain, Russell, Hakeem, Kareem and Robinson are all players I would consider better than Shaq).

Part of the reason people dont always want to rank current players above legneds is because they A: havent accomplished as much because they are still in the midst of their career. B: People dont know where the rest of one's career will take them. T-Mac could have been ranked among the best at his position, and perhaps Vince Carter as well; certainly Grant Hill. But injuries, and bad situations, and bad attitudes and bad luck have soured many potentially great careers.

Shaq, Kobe and Dunac are all repeat champions with 4+ rings. Each has put up enough consistent stats, and have won enough to warrant top-5 placement at their respective positions, but other than that, nobody in the leauge has achieved what they have. Garnett's defence and rebounding may warrant a high ranking, and Nash and Kidd may rank high at their positions, but each of these players, as great as they are, remain lacking in some areas.

Top 5 C (in no order) Russell. Chamberlain. Kareem. Hakeem. Robinson.
Top 5 PG (INO) Stockton. Cousy. Magic. Thomas. Mark Jackson
Top 5 SG (INO) Jordan. Drexler. West. Bryant. Gervin
Top 5 PF (INO) Duncan. Malone. Baylor. Petite. (and anybody from Hayes, to Barkely to Garnett for the last spot).
Top 5 SF (INO) Robertson. Bird. Dr. J. Havlicek and for the last spot, anybody from Nique' to Barry, to LBJ to Worthy, Pippen and Pierce depending on how LBJ's career ends

Of all those players i put up there, there are few in the nba today who could hope to unseat any of those players form the top-five at their respective positions.

Guys that could finish in top five
Durant (who is a knee or ankle injury away from being the next T-mac, and could very easily end up resting in the shadow of Nique' and Gervin even if he contunies to put up stats like he does now, if his team never truly contends).

LBJ (obvious reason, though if this season is any indication of the kind of number he will be putting up for the rest of his career....?????)

Shaq (I wouldnt put him in the top five, but I would be hard pressed to argue with anybody who disagreed- there is a legit arguement for him)

Kobe (even if he retired today, he would retire as the second best shooting guard of all tme)

Duncan (his impact is beoynd stats, but his 4 rings and on court impact will have him among the best at his position, even if he never puts up the kind of scoring numbers that Malone and Baylor posted).

Wade (a great player, and easily already has an arguement to be in the top ten at his position... but again... depending on his output for the rest of his career, he could be sitting behind guys like Gervin, or ahead of guys like Drexler).

So... basically there are too many question marks for most current players, and the older players have a bigger pool of players to choose from and have already accomplished more than most current players could hope for.

barreleffact
11-26-2010, 10:52 AM
heart and passion. most players these days are soft and cant take criticism. old school players played in a tougher time physically too

also for me its peaks. noone had a problem saying shaq was historic nor calling tim duncan the best pf. people still argue if kg could be up there with tim. but what point guards have touched magics success, or sg's to rival jordans accolades, or bird for sf's? none. at the end of the day people will give players just dues eventually. but they have to earn it, and kobe is one of the few that can go toe to toe historically but who else?

netsgiantsyanks
11-26-2010, 11:07 AM
Lol @ the guy who said iverson is better than Kobe. Even the turkey I'm eating laughed @ you...

:laugh2:

KingsPhillies
11-26-2010, 11:42 AM
In my opinion, some of you take your analysis a bit far in relation to this topic. Which is fine, if that's how you want to justify your decision. At least you can back-up your point of view with a valid argument, which I respect.

But for a lot of us it is relatively simple. We're just waiting until these current greats on active rosters retire, so that way we have the full spectrum of their careers available for comparison. It's more out of respect for everyone. It's not fair to these current guys if we compare them to all-time greats when they haven't finished carving out their legacy in the annals of the sport. The past legends have their entire careers for us to scrutinize and pass judgment on, as well as the subsequent years of glorification after their careers are over. Somewhere during that time they become a "legend", which puts them on an entire different level than active players. It's simply not fair to either party to make definitive comparisons.

Here's an example: David Robinson didn't win Championships until towards the end of his career. And while he still would have been an all-time great regardless, having won those Championships did change his legacy. If we had been trying to make comparisons between him and another legendary big man years prior to that, I'm sure him not having a ring would have come up in that discussion. Before winning it all, I may not have ranked him ahead of, let's say, Robert Parish. But now that I can compare their complete statistics and accomplishments, personally, I would rank The Admiral over Parish all-time.

Kinglorious
11-26-2010, 04:27 PM
The 70's is NOT considered the golden age of the NBA. The league was in the tank and fan/t.v. rankings where dismal. Magic and Bird made the NBA what it is today, and MJ was able to continue to ride upon what they started because of his star power and because of how marketable he was.

The 2000's were a better decade for basketball than the 70's were.

Thanks for the reply, but you didn't understand my post - clearly. I consider the '70s to be part of the Golden Age because of the hardnosed competiton, not how marketable, or lack thereof it was. Just because we weren't watching as much as today doesn't change any of that. All basketball is about now is money and flare and popularity. Would "The Decision" have happened in the '70s? Even the grandson of the Creator (yes, capital C) said that "The Decision" and how LeBron went about doing it was "not basketball."

IDB Josh M
11-26-2010, 05:16 PM
I'm so glad this didn't turn into a Kobe bryant love/hate thread.

In my opinion, the great players deserve to be compared with the great players of the past, because we will never ever see them play against one another. I know, its different eras, but it would be a basketball player's dream to see Bill Russell in his prime go up against Kareem. It would be great to see Jerry West go up against Michael Jordan.

Kobe Bryant deserves to be compared to Michael Jordan, because he's good. That's no insult Jordan. If you compared a lousy shooting guard to jordan, then that would be an insult. If you make the comparison with Kobe and MJ, you still have to conclude that Jordan is better. Even Kobe will say that Jordan is the better player, then cuss you out for making the comparison he's sick of.

Its okay to make the comparison, just be reasonable, and not vote with your heart.

KnicksorBust
11-26-2010, 06:38 PM
Because we should really wait until a player retires. It's unfair to that player, and to player of the past to try and judge and rank them accurately before their complete body of work is cemented.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone; it's just fun to ponder and discuss where the current greats rank; really we can never be sure until that given player retires.

That's definately part of it but to be honest I actually don't even see this bias that the OP is talking about. On a case by case there are legitimate reasons to rank some players higher and some players lower. I don't see anyone being drastically underrated because they are a current player. There are 3 current players who everyone knows that would crack most lists of "Top 10 Greatest Players of All-Time."

Bruno
11-26-2010, 07:27 PM
Thanks for the reply, but you didn't understand my post - clearly. I consider the '70s to be part of the Golden Age because of the hardnosed competiton, not how marketable, or lack thereof it was. Just because we weren't watching as much as today doesn't change any of that. All basketball is about now is money and flare and popularity. Would "The Decision" have happened in the '70s? Even the grandson of the Creator (yes, capital C) said that "The Decision" and how LeBron went about doing it was "not basketball."

What?


That's definately part of it but to be honest I actually don't even see this bias that the OP is talking about. On a case by case there are legitimate reasons to rank some players higher and some players lower. I don't see anyone being drastically underrated because they are a current player. There are 3 current players who everyone knows that would crack most lists of "Top 10 Greatest Players of All-Time."

Agreed. Generally you'll hear that, especially amongst people under 35. Even my pops who's in his late 60's would agree that Shaq, Kobe and Duncan are top ten, and his favorite player ever is The Big O.

Matrix3132
11-26-2010, 10:39 PM
Thanks for the reply, but you didn't understand my post - clearly. I consider the '70s to be part of the Golden Age because of the hardnosed competiton, not how marketable, or lack thereof it was. Just because we weren't watching as much as today doesn't change any of that. All basketball is about now is money and flare and popularity. Would "The Decision" have happened in the '70s? Even the grandson of the Creator (yes, capital C) said that "The Decision" and how LeBron went about doing it was "not basketball."

Agreed, popularity doesn't make the actual game better/worse, it just means more people are watching. Unfortunately, I think the 2000's might go down as the era of the soft fouls and hand checks where stars shot excessive amounts of free throws and where the overbearing rules blocked good defenders from being able to challenge the modern stars as others did previously.

pd1dish
11-26-2010, 10:53 PM
for me, its because the game is so much more soft than it used to be. IMO, i dont think the current players would have a prayer playing with the old timers. they wouldnt be able to handle the contact that was rarely called for a foul. now that same contact gets at the very least a foul call and sometimes a flagrant foul.

Kinglorious
11-26-2010, 11:33 PM
What?

Oh, for cryin' out loud-- the dude's grandfather was James Naismith-- perhaps you've heard of him? He created basketball, thats why I said Creator with a capital C because I see him as a god.

Anyway, his grandson said that LeBron's decision in July was "not basketball" and the dude would know what basketball is and isn't. And that **** certainly wasn't basketball in any sense of the word. Understand now?

Mac Vicious
11-27-2010, 12:12 AM
To compare this generation of basketball to the past is just silly.
Here is the reasons the game has changed.

-We watch rich boys who are spoiled and cry for fouls.
-They were watching men who loved the game
-They played for pride
-Our guys play for a pay check
-They were not afraid to get hurt
-They didn't play for a flashy play, our guys only play for the flash
-They had catchy names that made sense such as clyde the glyde, Air Jordan, etc etc
-We have stars
-They had Jordan, Bird, Magic, Ewing, and other greats

They paved the way for this spoiled society we call the NBA, NFL, MLB

Kinglorious
11-27-2010, 12:21 AM
To compare this generation of basketball to the past is just silly.
Here is the reasons the game has changed.

-We watch rich boys who are spoiled and cry for fouls. -They were watching men who loved the game
-They played for pride
-Our guys play for a pay check-They were not afraid to get hurt
-They didn't play for a flashy play, our guys only play for the flash
-They had catchy names that made sense such as clyde the glyde, Air Jordan, etc etc
-We have stars
-They had Jordan, Bird, Magic, Ewing, and other greats

They paved the way for this spoiled society we call the NBA, NFL, MLB

This. And especially all of that, which I bolded. Thank you.

Mac Vicious
11-27-2010, 12:23 AM
By the way Jordan is the greatest of all time and Wilt would have scored 100 easy with the D we see now days

king4day
11-27-2010, 03:31 AM
It's because most of us haven't seen them play, plain and simple.

King P
11-27-2010, 03:42 AM
Most people are attached to they generation/era they came up in. However, I have a hard time ranking some of the very old basketball players to the new guys.

To think guys like Bob Cousy (who pretty much dribbled with one hand) wouldnt get constantly pipped by someone like Derrick Rose, CP3, or D-Will I mean c'mon now. Those guys are too quick, too fast and too athletic to sit there and watch a dude dribble with one hand all the time, and u dont think they would fly right by him when he's on defense?

I pay respect to the careers that players like Cousy had and i'm sure he influenced many basketball players over his time and i'm not trying bash him because he's a all-time great. You can throw his great stats out there all u want but who could he realistically guard in todays game? Or dominate on offense with dribbling one handed?

A 6-1 PG who not only dribbled with majority one hand, he also shot 30% FG wise. That ain't even acceptable in todays game. He didnt even have not one season where he cracked 40% as a shooter, every season he shot in the 30's. All of us know for a fact if u shoot like that, you're not cracking no starting lineup year in and year out.

King P
11-27-2010, 03:45 AM
I just fail to believe that players who currently average 16 or 17 ppg in todays NBA game couldn't average 25 + ppg in the 1930's - 1970's

Lamar Odom is nowhere near a Hall of Fame caliber player, but who could have realistically guarded him in those days? He is 6'10, grew up as a PG , played PG in college, now plays Forward and some Center, and still can handle the rock like a wing player

You can't tell me Lamar Odom couldnt get to the rim anytime he wanted to if he was playing back in those ERAs.

Look how many 6'8 and 6'9 players there are in todays game that look average and that are superior athletic, you mean to tell me they wouldnt have dominated back then?

If I'm wrong for thinking that way, then cool I'm down for a debate, but that's just my honest opinion.

Hindy27
11-27-2010, 04:32 AM
I just fail to believe that players who currently average 16 or 17 ppg in todays NBA game couldn't average 25 + ppg in the 1930's - 1970's

Lamar Odom is nowhere near a Hall of Fame caliber player, but who could have realistically guarded him in those days? He is 6'10, grew up as a PG , played PG in college, now plays Forward and some Center, and still can handle the rock like a wing player

You can't tell me Lamar Odom couldnt get to the rim anytime he wanted to if he was playing back in those ERAs.

Look how many 6'8 and 6'9 players there are in todays game that look average and that are superior athletic, you mean to tell me they wouldnt have dominated back then?

If I'm wrong for thinking that way, then cool I'm down for a debate, but that's just my honest opinion.
This is the type of crap I was talking about when I last posted in this thread.

If you transported a 2010 Odom back 40 years of course he'd dominate, it would be stupid to think he wouldn't. Hell most bench players from 2010 would look like superstars if they were transported back there too.

But that's a stupid way to compare players from different eras because the players of present time would always be better. They have better training, better diets and have been watching players and learning plays that guys from 40 years ago wouldn't have seen.

If you want to compare Odom to players of back then you need to think of him being born at the same time of those in that era. He wouldn't have the skill level he has now and his athletic ability would be lower too. An average player now would be an average player in any era, like the greats would be great in any era.
Don't get me wrong, there was quick players back then and some strong players too. The players of today have learned how to use their speed and strength better through better overall techniques and training. The game has evolved and so the players evolve.

A 2010 Dwight Howard would dominate a 60s Bill Russell, but only because Russell wouldn't know half the moves Howard would have in his arsenal and couldn't compete athletically.
Although, if Russell was born at the same time as Howard and went through the same development he'd be a lot better athletically than he was in the old days and would be prepared for whatever Howard threw at him. So a 2010 Russell would be able to compete with the 2010 Howard. Who'd be better is anyone's guess, but it'd be a closer game than the 2010 Howard v 1960s Russell.

It is so hard to compare different eras, but to just talk about the athleticism of current players being so great they'd make the greats players of yesteryear look average is ignorant.

It's the same with all sports, the competitors develop through time.
Look at tennis, people have been crapping on about Federer being the GOAT but his record is nothing compared to Rod Laver. Sure send Federer back there and he'd smash Laver in straight sets.

But look at the records.......
Federer has won 16 grand slams but never won all 4 in the one year.
Laver has only won 11 grand slams but he won all 4 in '62 then wasn't allowed to play in them from '63-'68, due to being professional. He then won all 4 again in 1969.
Federer has more slams but how many would he have if he had to miss 5 years of competing at his peak? likewise how many would Laver have if he was able to compete in '63-'68?
So in my mind Laver is the obvious GOAT of tennis, even though Federer would beat him in straight sets if he transported back to Laver's time.