Reply With Quote
so is Wilt Chokerlain the only guy old people hang their dusty fedora on when talking about old athletic players? I guess you could use Dr. J but then again even a career scrub like Gerald Green is more athletic than he is tbh
You'd think with all this amazing nutritional science we'd have at least one 7 footer in the NBA with half the athleticism of Wilt.
I'd give Dwert the label of half as athletic, but calling him 6'10" is charity.
so is Wilt Chokerlain the only guy old people hang their dusty fedora on when talking about old athletic players? I guess you could use Dr. J but then again even a career scrub like Gerald Green is more athletic than he is tbh
The Sporting News article from the 50's says that Wilt had a 25 inch vertical..pretty unimpressive, tbh..
I also question whether his metrics results were exaggerated, as he was probably viewed as a circus act at the time, tbh..hyperbole to attract people to buy tickets to come watch Wilt in a time where it was difficult for s to be liked by the White public..
A lot of lies surrounding Wilt IMO..that Sporting News article gave us his real, accurate vertical..
I already knew you were going to go that route tbh. That's why I called out your association with "molecular nutritionists" and you saying you don't drink your sugar.And in all of that you do not discuss the science of nutrition. This is especially delicious in light of you claiming that I cannot talk about it.
Milk is good, milk is bad, carbs are good carbs are bad. Saccharine causes cancer, no it doesn't it reduces caloric intake, no it effects metabolism. There are so many conflicting reports out there coming from the 'science' of nutrition. Add into that the impact of advertising and all I can do is smh.
The vast majority of it doesn't deal with the actual metabolizing of things and deals with overarching guesses using ty categorization. That is the very definition of soft science. Most of psychology uses the same approach.
andHH playing your fluffer.
Bluster is not compelling.
This statement actually perfectly sums up my thoughts on it...
But that's the same reason why what you were writing earlier was meaningless. If the vast majority of nutrition "research" is bunk, why quote your association with molecular nutritionists w/o touting their research achievements? By your line of thought, of course I'm going to think they're most likely quacks since the vast majority of em ain't worth a damn.The vast majority of it doesn't deal with the actual metabolizing of things and deals with overarching guesses using ty categorization. That is the very definition of soft science. Most of psychology uses the same approach.
The "drink my sugars part" also plays into the "overarching guesses using ty categorization." The actual science of nutrition doesn't change every couple years. What changes is what the media focuses on based on ty studies done to get more research grants/dollars. (Or studies directly funded by whatever interest group would benefit from it.) Saying you don't drink your sugars is boiling down nutrition to the same media-speak that is generated from what you think is the soft part of the science. This same media talk happens all the damn time with every other scientific field because of compe ion for research grants, but I don't see you decrying the field of pharmacology because cancer is cured 10 times a year.
Good studies do get done, but it turns out you have to look at the research parameters to see if it's worth a damn. It's really hard to do good research which is why most of what you see/hear about sucks.
and tbh this is the difference between steroids/nutrition of Wilt's era and steroids/nutrition today...
vs
vs
^^ anybody that possesses even the slightest knowledge of training/lifting is aware of the advancements in every facet of the field, tbh..
Fuzzy is an intelligent person(typical, arrogant intellectual that lacks social skills), but he doesn't seem like the type that has ever stepped into the weight room..
Honestly, it's beyond stupid to think 60's players are more athletix are even close to today's athletes..
How anyone would waste time arguing with someone who thinks like that is beyond me tbh..no offense to Harlem, jimbo and the other smart guys..
But it's just beyond re ed to think a 20 inch vert guy is more or as athletic as Deandre..Deandree would bully 60's s...
If DeAndre played in the 60s he wouldn't be the athlete he is today.
And considering he is a ty player with 0 skills, without his athleticism and that he basketball IQ is nonexistent, then HE would be bullied in the 60s
I think that's the point...
Today's players are infinitely more athletic...
Sorry but you do not even cite anything. And for someone who claims a lack of social skills in others you sure do lack introspection. Most of your schticks are nothing more than antisocial behavior.
And yet Wilt was bigger, faster, and stronger than today's athletes by objective measurements.
It's great to have story time though.
Wilt would be a bench player playing garbage minutes in today's NBA but most likely he would be playing overseas in some scrub league.
And in all of that you don't have anything constructive beyond to say that steroids are better nowadays. I won't disagree with you there. Pharmacology is good science. The solubility of carbohydrates is important and has nothing to do with ty categorization. I am talking about the '5 food groups' and the like.I already knew you were going to go that route tbh. That's why I called out your association with "molecular nutritionists" and you saying you don't drink your sugar.
This statement actually perfectly sums up my thoughts on it...
But that's the same reason why what you were writing earlier was meaningless. If the vast majority of nutrition "research" is bunk, why quote your association with molecular nutritionists w/o touting their research achievements? By your line of thought, of course I'm going to think they're most likely quacks since the vast majority of em ain't worth a damn.
The "drink my sugars part" also plays into the "overarching guesses using ty categorization." The actual science of nutrition doesn't change every couple years. What changes is what the media focuses on based on ty studies done to get more research grants/dollars. (Or studies directly funded by whatever interest group would benefit from it.) Saying you don't drink your sugars is boiling down nutrition to the same media-speak that is generated from what you think is the soft part of the science. This same media talk happens all the damn time with every other scientific field because of compe ion for research grants, but I don't see you decrying the field of pharmacology because cancer is cured 10 times a year.
Good studies do get done, but it turns out you have to look at the research parameters to see if it's worth a damn. It's really hard to do good research which is why most of what you see/hear about sucks.
and tbh this is the difference between steroids/nutrition of Wilt's era and steroids/nutrition today...
vs
vs
You sure do buy into advertising.
advertising?
Like Kawhi being more than a role playeradvertising?
Yeah advertising seeing that he is using verbage used on much of the packaging you find at GNC and the like. Whey is still what it is.advertising?
What I find amusing is the irony of jimbo's avatar in light of it.
But their BB IQ is kinda ....
And the NBA has changed the rules to make it easier for them on the offensive end tbh
You want me to prove the validity of an entire scientific field?
Just a hint though, you might not want to open up with "So yeah disregarding all that nutrient metabolic functions bull , what the do y'all do? It's that 5 food group stuff right?"
So you bluster in the place of articulation. You cannot do it.You want me to prove the validity of an entire scientific field?
Just a hint though, you might not want to open up with "So yeah disregarding all that nutrient metabolic functions bull , what the do y'all do? It's that 5 food group stuff right?"
I might not be able to do it, but I know someone who's an expert on nutrition that can. He made an appearance earlier on in this thread... You don't get that built w/o knowing how to fully utilize every nutrient that your body enters.
Simmons explained in The Book of Basketball that the era from 1984 to today consist of the modern NBA -- that is, if you pit the 1984 Celtics against the 2014 Spurs or the 1985 Lakers with the 2010 Lakers, we will get a pretty good match-up
I just finished Chris Nolan's The Prestige. Another classic, of course. Just like with the sports "new age>old school" shtick I'd have to say Nolan is also the greatest movie director of all time. It's just that much more impressive in today's age to come up with original concepts and turn em into classics, especially when everything's been done before.
Last edited by AlexJones; 11-13-2014 at 01:49 AM.
smh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
.jpg)
