Reply With Quote
My analogy is perfectly fine and totally applicable.... who you'd compare Carl Lewis in modern era ? Jimmy Vicaut ?dumb
Wilt was and still is the most physically gifted athlete to play any American professional team sport. He makes Shaq look small. Schwarzenegger attested to Wilts weight lifting ability being better than his on the set of Conan the Barbarian. And when you include his unbelievable numbers you can see he knows how to play b-ball too. Dwight cant play b-ball as much as he is athletic and strong and is way smaller than Wilt.
Also not taken into account is that yes, modern medicine has made athletes stronger and faster but on the downside, fundamentals have decreased so that balances things out.
As for Russell having more success, he is more of a team player. In the championship against Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylors Laker team a team that had the more talent, Russell said that they are going to run their asses off because that will make the game "less about talent and more about will". That tells you how much more of a team player and thinker Russell was. Wilts teams in Philly never touched the ball, thats why Russell got the upper hand. You never knew how good Wilts teammates were.
My analogy is perfectly fine and totally applicable.... who you'd compare Carl Lewis in modern era ? Jimmy Vicaut ?
Russell would be a better Ben Wallace defensively with Kevin Love's outlet passing to start breaks in today's NBA. So no I don't think he'd quite be a franchise player but I think he would be a perennial allstar and DPOY winner. He had good size, he was an amazing athlete, and he was a real student of the game like Rodman but minus the cancerous at ude. Any NBA GM would give his left nut for a player and leader like Russell. I know I'd take him over Gasol in a second, I think the 2017 Spurs would have an amazing shot to win a le with him at the five.
Yes, I would. Because that's an easy metric to be defined. Carl Lewis was GOHT (Greatest of his time). But GOAT stands for Greatest of All-Time. Keep your "Dumb" and put it on a sticker for your shirt.My analogy is perfectly fine and totally applicable.... who you'd compare Carl Lewis in modern era ? Jimmy Vicaut ?
I can see that.
You could not be more wrong. Russell, in addition to leading his college team to two NCAA championships, also competed for their Track & Field team. He ran the 440 and was a high jumper. Track & Field News ranked him as the seventh-best high jumper in the world in 1956. He was supremely athletic.
The 7th best high jumper in 1956 is probably like the 408th best high jumper in 2017. Also, seventh best only when he was possibly the tallest of the lot?
Yup. Called it.
I ain't even gonna blame you for thinking that. One to three posters have about 50-100 alts; and that's on ST, tbh. But I ain't one for what it's worth.
yeah so Russel was greatest of his time, MJ of his time... MJ would be I guess an above average SG nowadays or some ... your statement just contradicts your OP. List your top 20 of nowadays and each era then dumb
: Please tell me you're just desperate and that you actually don't ascribe to such egregious leaps in logic.
dat pathetic come back
Not a comeback, tbh. Simply a response. Many would argue that 90's players are better than the players of today; in any event, those particular eras are not night and day. Nor could you point to an individual player that surpasses Jordan unless you're a Lebron slurper.dat pathetic come back
Assuming the data you're relaying is right, then that is correct. I think you should learn the basic definition of Greatest Of All-Time.
You can't possibly argue that the 7th best high jumper and best college basketball player in the world was "not athletic." Would you also say that Jesse Owens was unathletic because his four Olympic Gold medal times wouldn't win medals today? That's a pretty silly way of looking at it.
I invite to do the same.
Your thread is stupid, your arguments are stupid, everything you write is stupid. pain and simple
I let yoy with your take about Vicaut being higher than Carl Lewis in your greatest of all time list
let us proceed... i waste enough of my time
I'm not arguing that, though. Russell was athletic in his time and would certainly be considered athletic in our time as well. Would he remain dominant is the question? I wouldn't think so. I stop short of ruling it out is all. And I would call Jessie Owens not especially impressive or "GOAT" based on today's standards. That's exactly what I'm saying. Nor would I call Jim Brown GOAT when I don't know that he'd even be a top ten RB in today's game. I think it's "silly" to believe in machinations of glory.
Havin' a good cry, bro?
Well, at least when it comes to the 400M. If I recall correctly, he's the guy that broke the record. What he did is ultimately greater in a very measurable way. If you want to make the argument of medical science, not having the same advantages, etc, then I guess you could. But I just look at it what level they reached regardless of era.
That's exactly what you were arguing earlier.
So, in your mind there's not a difference between athletic and supremely athletic?
Dwight Howard was a Top 40 pick (41 technically) in 2011 before he was exposed in LA and Houston. Wilt would've been exposed in modern times, too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
