Reply With Quote
So the players today are bigger, taller and stronger yet the game is going away from the post in favor of jumpshooting.
I guess s must be getting dumber as well and can't learn simple post moves.
The idea that past players with their past peak conditions would dominante today's league is probably what OP is arguing against...
So the players today are bigger, taller and stronger yet the game is going away from the post in favor of jumpshooting.
I guess s must be getting dumber as well and can't learn simple post moves.
Those two don't contradict each other.
I found this funny but I agree.
Dumb.
Basketball is a skilled sport. I don't think you learn skill from plyometrics. Id agree athletic players from today can probably out run and out jump classic era players, but in today's nba the best players aren't always highly athletic. It's still a skill league.
Ps, learn to write less KL. It's a true life skill. Modern writers have it easy with their computers. It doesn't make them better writers. Writing is still a skills game.
This is exactly what I'm saying. People think these 80's teams could compete with modern teams. The talent pool was small, sports science in America wasn't nearly as developed, training that affects basketball, and when it was, one of it's first uses was used on Jordan, to help him transform his body and beat your team in '90.
There probably was a Lebron out there, I acknowledged this, they didn't have access to these training techniques.
What players are doing now, the difficulty of the game has increased overall, among the entire NBA. That is due to everything I covered, factors affecting popularity, the overall talent pool, new era athletic players on all rosters with great size from top to bottom thanks to new training methods. Size/Agility has a huge impact on the game. It's devolved in some aspects, but overall many of these modern teams would smash the old teams of the late 80's because at every position they are physically superior.
In 1989 a 25 year old man named Tim Grover read an article in a newspaper about how Jordan struggled with the Piston's physicality. Jordan was too small, he lacked the size and overall explosiveness to beat these teams. Grover had studied eastern bloc methods and figured out how to apply these exercises in order to help a basketball player, as well as help him gain mass/strength through proper rest and technique/exercises. Despite Grover not having any previous experience whatsoever training a professional athlete, he took Jordan's game to new levels.
Proper training, rest, technique, allowed Jordan to maximize his workouts, workouts tailored for basketball "muscles". It added weight, more overall explosiveness, through this he became the ATG because he was now able to create more separation through bodily contact with his increased size/agility.
Now these techniques are well known and applied everywhere, that's just the very beginning of how the NBA improved throughout the years.
lol, do you know why they aren't learning post moves? Because they're dunking on kids in the 7th grade, from a young age they abandon the fundamentals and rely on their athleticism/size because they dominate with it among physically inferior players. How did all these players get this athleticism? Eastern training bloc methods, the same way Jordan got his, the guy they are trying to emulate lmfao.
Players aren't getting taller, they're becoming heavier, stronger, and agile through proper training, like MJ/Pippen did. That's why there are so many 6'9 240+lb PF's in the league, 6'3 200lb guards, 230lb SF's, explosive and strong at every position.
The game is also evolving, strategy, coaching, is all getting better, spacing and ball movement is incredibly important.
Ever heard of "NBA size"? You need to develop physically in order to compete in the NBA, you need enough size/strength/explosiveness, it is now gained through bloc training.
Where's your evidence for that claim? You have none. As I've stated numerous times, Olympic records for events that are centered on those athletic traits have pretty much stagnated over the past 50-60 years.
And like I told you in our past discussion on this topic, your friend's time would not qualify him to be a World Class sprinter in any era. Even the marks set in 1896 were far superior to your friend's time.
Pretty sure AaronY knows what plyometrics are.
The game isn't getting better. The game is getting to be more popular and the NBA is finding ways to market itself. The betterment of the game isn't a style or anything of the sort. The game is only as good as it's entertainment value. If you like monkey ball, it doesn't get any better than the prime Clippers. If you like ball movement and fluid game play, you'll like the 2014 Spurs. The game is just a game, and teams should get more proficient over time. It's not chess, it's not even 100 years old so it should be improving still. Airplanes are improving as well.
Old sports can do anything
I don't deny that. I deny your hyperbolic claims that we've seen some kind of magical and exponential growth in athleticism since the introduction of modern training methods. We haven't (primarily because exponential growth, even in technology [aside from Intel's efforts to self-fulfill Moore's Law by just wantonly cramming more transistors on a chip], doesn't happen). Athletic "evolution" has been only marginally incremental. For example, the 100M World Record in 1906 was 10.6 seconds. In 109 years, with all our technology, growing knowledge of sports science and medicine, use of PEDs, improved sprinting techniques, we've only managed to improve on that time by 1.02 seconds. When you consider that in a "growth" context, it's unimpressive. Just imagine if humanity improved on the Wright Brothers first flight by only 10%. Sure, modern athletes will have an athletic edge over their past counterparts, but not the kind of edge where a past player "wouldn't be able to get his shot off." Bird, Gervin, Alex English, etc would still be capable of dropping 30 on Leonard. They wouldn't do it as efficiently, probably, but they wouldn't be reduced to scrubs like you seem to be implying. Same thing with Wilt and Russell on the rebounding side of things.
I don't disagree with your claim. I disagree with the overstatement of your claim. There's zero evidence to support it, and Tim Grover anecdotes don't count.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 02-08-2015 at 07:34 PM.
Oh, and player size isn't significantly larger overall than it was in 1986, and has been trending downward over the past decade (which makes sense, since the game got faster and more perimeter oriented since the rule changes):
Last edited by midnightpulp; 02-08-2015 at 07:53 PM.
Oh, and player size isn't significantly larger overall than is was in 1986, and has been trending downward over the past decade (which makes sense, since the game got faster and more perimeter oriented since the rule changes):
They're explosive!
The problem is that op is taking one variable, a purported advance in training, and ignoring others like rule changes, growth in popularity, higher salary, growth in the amount of teams, foreign player introduction, and changes in player development, to name a few.
It seems like we've debated this before a few times too.
You ignored what I said, those Olympic sports primarily have to do with technique, the act of throwing requires technique, the act of running, jumping, swimming, these are all based around technique. I'm strong as but I can't throw a football to save my life, because I don't have proper technique. Furthermore these sports have been around for thousands of years perfecting these techniques/training methods, it's had a very large talent pool as well compared to bball. Having a large selection of athletes itself improves the NBA as a whole.
Furthermore none of those sports have bodily contact. These training methods would have the most affect on sports that do, such as the NFL/NBA, which they did. Sports where players make an attempt to physically push each other out of the way. You can observe with your own eyes player are bigger, more agile, explosive, in both sports. Everything you've ever learned about weight training and proper rest is the result of these studies, it's common knowledge know, wasn't back then.
Btw, I highly doubt that 1906 record was legit. I believe they used to hand time many of these races, as our technology increased we started getting far more accurate results. That's why we always hear NFL guys saying they've got a 4.1 40, always turns out to be way slower. Most high schools just hand time their guys as well, always come up with some ridiculous result.
I actually covered everything you just said in an earlier post lol.
Taller
I agree with you. What I disagree with is your overstatement, like your claim that a past NBA player wouldn't get his shot off and that today's players are significantly more athletic. Nothing supports that claim. And invoking eye-tests is not hard evidence.
I can easily argue just the same that the lack of measurement accuracy undermined 100M times for the worse. We have no way of knowing either way, and just have to go with the data we do have.Btw, I highly doubt that 1906 record was legit. I believe they used to hand time many of these races, as our technology increased we started getting far more accurate results. That's why we always hear NFL guys saying they've got a 4.1 40, always turns out to be way slower. Most high schools just hand time their guys as well, always come up with some ridiculous result.
Yes, players are getting smaller, but they're getting more compact thanks to these training methods, they're building lean muscle, fast twitch muscle fibers, with size. You're starting to see more combo guards, 6'4 200+lbs, more 6'9 250lb guys like the Raps today, agile enough to guard Leonard and neutralize his ability to create separation offensively through bodily contact (exactly what I'm talking about). You're starting to see less guys like 260lb Illgauskus, 250lb Gooden, 280lb Curry etc.Oh, and player size isn't significantly larger overall than it was in 1986, and has been trending downward over the past decade (which makes sense, since the game got faster and more perimeter oriented since the rule changes):
Two bodies of equal weight are not the same if they are achieved through different methods of training. Dragic is 190lbs, Bledsoe is 190lbs, are they the same physically? no. Guys have different body structures, different genetics, different muscles they've built through these workouts. If you are doing these workouts you are trying to build muscle/strength without gaining bulk, fast twitch muscle fibers, which these workouts help greatly.
You will add size while adding explosiveness and agility. Most PG's these days are stupid explosive, Parker can't even get his shot off against most of them because he's too small physically just like most old NBA players and has lost his speed. He used bodily separation against Napier, 170lbs, he couldn't use it today against Lowry, and we see the result. This is how many old NBA players would fare.
I'm not sure how often these weights are updated either. Players are increasing in size at a far more rapid rate with proper exercise/recovery, Leonard is still listed at his rookie weight, Diaw is listed at 250 (lmao bs), etc.
Eye test is evidence when it's a combo of agility/size, you can see how fast they move, you can see the muscles they have developed from these exercises and how it benefits them. I can tell you Calvin Johnson is a more athletic than many guys of the past based on his size/agility lol.
It depends on what your definition of athleticism is, flexibility, balance, agility/size/strength, reaction time, explosiveness, hand eye coordination, shifting feet, moving laterally, I consider all these things athletic. Not jumping high and dunking, those are two different things. Size and agility is very important in the NBA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
