It never gets old for you being an oversensitive head huh?
Cool list.
The only correllation between all those players is that they are all VERY coordinated. There are plenty on that list who were not incredibly athletic. But they are ALL coordinated.
Unfortunately it doesnt help your argument about athleticism.
I agree completely. Strategy and such have become so advanced since the days of guys like Wilt and such that people know how to contain them more. I dont think some of these idiots understand that. Oh well.
Not oversensitive in the least. But, apparently you like to view me as a head because you obsess over trying to ride me.
And I guess the answer to my question is a no.
It wasn't due to athleticism that Magic was able to play point guard. It was due to his vision and passing skill. On defense, he generally didn't guard the opposing point guard, especially if they were really quick. That's why he needed a guy like Michael Cooper and even Byron Scott to an extent who were guards that could defend small, quick guards while Magic would guard 2-guards and small forwards.
And, as has been said, while Magic was definitely athletic compared to the average man even a man his size, he wasn't an athletic marvel like Dominique or LeBron James or Josh Smith.
What helped Magic get so many steals was in great part the style those Lakers teams played. First of all, they had Kareem manning the paint which allowed the perimeter guys to take more gambles for steals. Secondly, the Showtime Lakers played at a very quick pace. The 1980-81 Lakers team averaged around 112 defensive possessions a game. By comparison, the 2004-05 Cavaliers averaged approximately 93 possessions a game. 19 more possessions for Magic to get steals a game.
Magic was such a great player because of his combination of size and skill. While athletic, he wasn't a jaw-dropping, world class athlete.
Perhaps you could help me out by showing how this list helps with your assertion.
Are you saying Rick Barry, Don Buse, Ron Lee, M.L. Carr, Magic, Rickey Green, Alvin Robertson, John Stockton, Nate McMillan, Gary Payton, Mookie Blaylock and Chris Paul led the league in steals because they were athletic?
These players are all cat quick. Magic is cat quick. Magic is also 6' 9", making him the most uniquely athletic basketball player of all time.
Worst.
Reasoning.
Ever.
Did you not notice that Magis's steals per game in 1981 was the third highest of all time? That's before his injury.
Barry very athletic, just because he's a white guy doesn't mean he's not athletic. He's got four kids who played basketball too.
Ron Lee was cat quick.
Buse was cat quick.
Carr was cat quick.
Green cat quick.
Payton & Blaylock were cat quick
Chris Paul very athletic, but not very tall.
Overall athleticism does not consist only of quickness.
Rick Barry, Ron Lee, M.L. Carr, Rickey Green, Alvin Robertson, John Stockton, Nate McMillan, Gary Payton are not cat quick. They are quick, but nothing extraordinary for an NBA player.
Besides, being quick is all but one component of being athletic.
being athletic in basketball has to do with your athletic skill and quickness in relationship to your height.
If any of the above mentioned players were 6' 9", they's be elite athletic NBA players.
Barry at 6' 6" was the closest, and he was an alltime great. Barry did not have point guard skills either.
So he had a lot of kids. Dolph Schays has a son who plays in the NBA too, was he athletic?
Barry wasn’t even that quick, and he couldn’t really jump that well. He was however, very coordinated and works very hard.
Ron Lee played the game with wreckless abandon, he hustles, was a decent athlete, but I wouldn’t call him overly quick.
Don Buse was great defensively, but he was no way cat quick.
Carr? Are you serious?
Sidney Green was smart, he was quick, even for an NBA guard, but cat-quick?
Payton had great hands, moves laterally very well, relatively quick.
Blaylock was quick.
Chris Paul has great body control and timing, but no, he is not overly athletic at all.
If quickness was your definition of athletic, that would disqualify Magic Johnson in and of itself.
So I suppose Shawn Kemp, Kevin Garnett, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain should all be at the top of your list.
And skill is skill, it has little to do with athleticism. Duncan has a lot of athletic skills (swimming and basketball), but I wouldn’t call him athletic (at this point in his career). Larry Bird had an incredible amount of athletic skills, but he wasn’t athletic.
And Barry being an all-time great has nothing to do with athleticism, it was because he was dedicated to the game of basketball and worked hard at it.
And I don’t get the point guard skills part either.
LOL...he has has a giant blue ox named Babe.
If any of these players were 7 footers, they would be # 1 draft picks, first in the draft. Magic was 6' 9" and he was # 1.
That's the wonder of Magic. There's never been another player in history even remotely close to Magic's skill and athleticism for his size. Not even Michael Jordan, only 6' 6" was a legitimate point guard.
Dude, take away "skill."
The topic is "athleticism." Not combination of size, skill, and athleticism.
And, there have been plenty of players at 6'9" that have had better athleticism than Magic. Just not the "skill."
LeBron is a better athlete than Magic ever was. Josh Smith is a better athlete than Magic was. Heck, Stromile Swift and Darius Miles are better athletes than Magic was. It wasn't Magic's athleticism that stood out or made him the player he was. It was his skill.
Still didn't make any of them athletic.
And what does Magic being #1 and 6'9" has to do with him being athletic? Are you saying the taller you are and the higher you are being drafted directly relates to how athletic you are?
Derrick Rose was drafted ahead of Beasley.
Bogut was drafted ahead of Marvin Williams
, Yao Ming was 7'6" and a #1 pick, does that make him the most athletic player in the history of the league?
Duncan? Olowokandi?
Magic was unique, he played point being a big guy, he was drafted high, he was an NBA legend, but none of them proves that he is athletic. It's like saying Mercedes are reliable cars because they are expensive.
LeBron is not a better basketball athlete than Magic. LeBron can't play point guard. He's got backup shooting guard skills at best.
Nor is Lebron as quick as Magic.
Lebron is stronger than Magic, but strength is not that important of a basketball skill compared to quickness.
So Lebron is not a better basketball athlete than Magic because he doesn't have the PG skills?
Unless you're arguing that skills = athleticism, that doesn't make sense.
When did strength become associated with skills and not athleticism?
Lebron is a better football athlete than Magic.
Magic is a better basketball athlete than Lebron. Lebron is one of the greatest basketball athletes of all time, but he's no Magic.
what
the
Your posts get more and more delusional.
Also, you might be the only person who thinks Magic is faster than LeBron.
Lay off the drugs.
Most NBA GMs and players say LeBron is probably the quickest player in the league baseline to baseline. And, LeBron has the ability to play point guard. He just doesn't because his team is so godawful they need him as a primary scorer. Magic didn't have that problem with teammates like Kareem and Worthy.
LeBron didn't play point guard and he still was 8th in the league in assists and the primary ball handler on the team. Imagine if his team didn't require him to score so much. LeBron is more than capable of playing point guard if the Cavs asked him to do it.
And, strength is not a skill. And, quickness is not a skill. Those are athletic talents or gifts, not skill. And, again, quickness is not the only thing to gauge athleticism. Strength, agility, jumping ability, balance, explosion, hand-eye coordination are all aspects of athleticism. You keep going back to an argument that is solely based on quickness and having point guard skills (which has very little to do with overall athleticism).
The definition of athletic probably needs to be revisited.
Most people would say athletic means how high you can jump, how strong you are, how coordinated you are, how quick you are, how fast you are, and how much endurance you have.
There are a couple other factors that should be added in. One is reaction time. Another is the speed at which you process information (not the same thing). Another factor is build and center of gravity.
I think these should be included in athleticism because they are just as much a part of athletic performance as the other, standard definitions. An "athlete" with poor marks in these abilities is known as a "stiff". People might draft him high on potential, but the reality is he never had potential, he is just tall-strong-fast-whatever.
Look at Jason Kidd. He doesn't change games because of his "athleticism", although he had plenty in his time. He just sees more, and faster, than everyone else.
Look at Nash. Without his incredible reflexes, balance, and "cpu" speed, he would not be a top player. He might not even be an NBA player. Yet these don't show up on standard tests or a decathalon (though he would probably do fine at that too).
I realize most people do not include neurological factors into athleticism, but they are a dominant difference-maker between the stiff and the player, the starter and the star.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
