I think it simply has more to do with more people playing sports, than it does with a change in physical assets...
I think it simply has more to do with more people playing sports, than it does with a change in physical assets...
Yep, that is why there are fewer whites in todays game....Its all about athleticism and not tough D. I prefer 80's basketball as well....college and NBA. back before everyone in college that was good is 1 and done.....College basketball today is only about recruiting. Thats why I love the Bob Knight teams...He never went after the top kids regularly.
This is what I believe to be true. Over the last 50 or so years humans haven't immensely evolved. You have a larger pool of players to choose from and since the 60's or 70's or 80's we have adopted towards looking for that specialized athlete. With that said it does contribute towards a different playing environment. It's no longer the average looking guy who can play it's lets find us the 7 footer who can run and jump like he's 6'5. If you back through more recent times when certain Olympic records are broken it almost always coincides with a change in technology. Weather in swimming its the advent kick turn or in track its the synthetic surface or cylinder blocks, or lighter shoes.
The white # is the same but the only reason for that is because it is now being drawn from all over the world rather than just the US. Obviously elite athleticism is at a real premium now. It isn't a coincidence that besides Kevin Love there isn't 1 other American born white star in the game anymore (and even he the jury is still out on how good he is...has some major flaws) when previous generations had several white all-stars. Jim Paxson made the All-Star game in 1984, he wouldn't be able to play in todays NBA.
Comparing Player X then to Player Y from now isn't even really the issue to me. The main point is that in aggregate players are better now. If you took every team from now and played every team from 1985, it wouldn't be close. That is really the main point and the issue that the pro-80s crowd is just completely wrong on. I mean just watch the videos I posted with a little bit of objectivity, they have no agenda or narration. They are just NBA finals games from those era's. And that is with teams being much more stacked then relative to the overall league. The average teams now would kill the average teams then.
I respect everyone's opinion on here and it's always friendly debate Pats.
The "Sports-Illiterate" comment was about the first U.S. Men's Basketball Team beating any other team now & since then assembled.
Maybe "Basketball-Illiterate" would have better suited, even though that could still be taken wrong.
My argument is that if players are so much better today, then how is it these scrubs these days couldn't compete with that team.
Other than LeBron & Durant, who else could stand up to that team?
Chris Paul?
Dwight Howard?
Carmelo Anthony?
LOL Give me a break guys.
None of these guys come close to players on that roster and in my personal opinion, it's 100% evidence that players aren't any better.
As an example, every star player in the league at the time was considered bigger, faster, stronger, quicker, and more athletic than Larry Bird & John Stockton.
Funny none of the things mentioned above stopped Bird from being one of the greatest ever, and Stockton being the NBA's all time assist & steals leader.
As mentioned earlier, I think we are just seeing more & more people playing sports these days because they see a possible future as in free college or career.
But EVEN IF players are bigger, stronger, quicker, etc..... Does that REALLY make them better?!?
@hache
Yes by and large major athletic advantages would lead to better results on the field/court. Not saying that pertains to any specific debate about a hypothetical game but I think we can safely say that. You seem to be unclear on that.
Why is John Stockton better than Chris Paul? Because you say so?
Maybe if you valued elite athleticism more then you never would've liked Kevin Love over Anthony Davis. Just saying there might be some player metrics you are undervaluing.
Yes by and large major athletic advantages would lead to better results on the field/court. Not saying that pertains to any specific debate about a hypothetical game but I think we can safely say that. You seem to be unclear on that.
Why is John Stockton better than Chris Paul? Because you say so?
Maybe if you valued elite athleticism more then you never would've liked Kevin Love over Anthony Davis. Just saying there might be some player metrics you are undervaluing.
Wow Bourn!.....Zit was right, it was all about the Dirk agenda for you.
Dallas is the first team I can recall with that huge offensive line and it was like are these guys the same species as the rest of us? Now every team is pretty much like that though. BBall it is open to some interpretation and the naked eye could convince themselves a comparable team from 1985 would beat a team now but football? Cmon, the HGH is way better now.
Dallas is the first team I can recall with that huge offensive line and it was like are these guys the same species as the rest of us? Now every team is pretty much like that though. BBall it is open to some interpretation and the naked eye could convince themselves a comparable team from 1985 would beat a team now but football? Cmon, the HGH is way better now.
