Why can't the old timers just admit that Gervin's awkward ass wouldn't be as great in today's league? He couldn't shoot 3's, wouldn't be able to guard Top 10 SF's, players are more athletic and stronger, you won't be facing Mike Dunleavy and Aaron Gray every night, there's zones, etc.
Name me some top tier defenders this dude had to face...
Why does the article need to explicitly tell it? It's already implied...Otherwise, why mention it..If 30 players can jump 29 and above, why even mention something as ordinary as jumping over 29?
You don't see modern media making a big deal out of a no name player jumping over 40's..
oh yeah, find me three players that can do these in the 60's to the 70's...spend the hour doing that.
You're being a bit hyperbolic again, and seem to be equating advancements in human athletic ability (enhanced through training, sports medicine, etc) to the advancements in other technologies (computing, communications, etc), where they advance exponentially.
In reality, human athletic ability has advanced very, very slowly.
For example, the 100m World Record in 1911 was 10.5 seconds. Today, it's 9.58 seconds. All the sports medicine, technology, in depth analysis of strategy, equipment, and nutrition advancements over the past 103 years have only contributed to a 10% increase in human speed. And as I said, other world records like the high jump and long jump have stagnated. , no long jumper in the 2012 Olympics could even come close to the mark set in 1968.
The reason basketball looks so much more "athletic" today is because of specific rule changes that have been implemented to speed the game up and open up offense, better cameras that broadcast at smoother frame rates, and the advancements in strategy and fundamentals you've mentioned.
Athletically, players today aren't much more athletic than players of the 70s. Are they more athletic? Sure. But only marginally so.
Do you know how big of a difference 10.5 to 9.5 is? That's not a marginal difference, that's a significant difference.
That's almost 10 meters..
I used to run the 100 at 11.7..If I am off a second against the best runner in the past and here I am arguing with you in spurstalk about it..That's gotta be a big deal.
Midnightpulp with the goods per par
Game wasn't played above the rim back then. Dunking and showboating were considered "classless." But then once dunking was acceptable, you had Dr. J dunking from the FT line, Darryl Dawkins shattering back boards, and David Thompson posterizing people a few years later.
And yes, the "art" of dunking has advanced, but not due to any massive increase in athleticism.
Hey you morons, if there was a 6'7" guard in the NBA draft who had the skills of George Gervin, he'd be a surefire # 1 overall pick in most seasons unless there was a dominating big man.
A 10% increase over a hundred years is not that rapid of a progression, especially when you consider all those "amazing" sports medicine and nutritional advancements. Maybe if was 10% in a year.
And FWIW, that's before black people ran the 100m.
why do you continue using 10% as if it even matters..a player who jumps even a few inches lower, runs at 0.5 meters slower can be the difference between making it to the league or not making it..really if we go by your numbers, Gervin won't be even able to make it to the pros..probably not even college ball.
Beli is a fuking scrub in any era yoU
ing .
He wouldn't even be in the draft because no college team would pick a player that can't even dribble well enough.
How would today's players dowiyh no 3point shot. Defenses can pack the paint aND MIddle easier. Harder toscOre<br type="_moz">
100% of the league would get called for carrying. And travelling.
Go home bruh, you drunk
70's defense...
I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...
I'm using that particular figure as an example of how slowly athleticism "evolves."
In this case, speed has advanced only .10% per year. And as far as other traits, primarily jumping, they haven't advanced at all in over 40 years.
If you want to champion overall strategy, better fundamentals, and the like as the reason players today are better than players of 40 years ago, that's fine and somewhat provable through watching video (we can see how dribbling, shooting mechanics, footwork, etc have become better).
On the other hand, arguing that great players from the 70s couldn't make it today because of inferior athleticism doesn't pass scrutiny. Players today aren't naturally more athletic. Human beings don't evolve like technology. The advancements in sports science have only been responsible for a very marginal-to-zero (see: jumping) increase in athleticism over the past 50-100 years. Would Gervin struggle if he was plucked directly from 1978 and thrown against Kawhi Leonard the next day? Probably (and I'd say not because of lack of athleticism, but because of the changes in the game). But 2012 Kawhi Leonard would also struggle against 2014 Kawhi Leonard. And just like Leonard underwent strength training, a complete tear down and reworking of his shot, and further learned the nuances of the game under Gregg Popovich and experienced veterans, Gervin could similarly progress and evolve (probably quickly) to be a great player in today's game. We see players all the time who couldn't finish with their left hand adding it to their offensive arsenal the very next year. Or they couldn't shoot the 3. And here they are the next season knocking them down.
The reason I think Gervin is a better player than Parker is because he was just naturally a better basketball player. If he was born in 1982, he's a better player today than Tony.
I can't prove it and the reverse can't be proven, either.
All I do know for a stone cold fact is that Gervin was an MVP caliber player in his era, while Tony has typically stayed in that 2nd tier of stars.
And that's the only fair way to compare the two.
Were you alive during the 70's? Im gonna bet the answer is definitely no70's defense...
I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...
But offensive schemes are also much better. Worlds better. If anything advanced the most over the NBA's history, it's offense.70's defense...
I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...
38 year old Tim Duncan, for instance, wouldn't average 14 points per game in an iso-oriented, sloppy, pull up and shoot 70's style offense (don't read that as he wouldn't average 14 points in the 70's But if Pop got inspired by watching old Denver Nuggets games and suddenly decided to run that offense, 38 year old Duncan would likely struggle).
I don't think we're arguing about athletic evolution. The human body can only advance so much..The point is that, the 70's were composed of players that were 0.5 slower, 2 inches shorter, jumps 3 inches lower. These are small numbers for the average joe, but is a significant number in pro sports.
What argument do you have that Gervin is naturally a better basketball player? Tony grew up in a era where basketball has become a world sports with more exposure...Another factor I may add. A factor why players are so much better nowadys..
Todays talent pool is a million times bigger than before because of media exposure, advancement in sports academia, video availability. In fact, it's a credit to all the players today..Making it to the pro now is a million times harder because jumping 40 inches, shooting 50 straight baskets, running 11 in a 100 doesn't make you an instant pro. If my track buddy lived in the 70's with his 10.98 record, he will instantly be scouted for a US run for potential...But the talent pool nowadys killed his chances.. and now he's seating at bank opening new accounts for people.
Tony Parker is faster, competes in a tougher era, made it to the pro's against a much larger talent pool and at 6'2 can dunk the ball.
Sure, Gervin might have influenced the organization in a bigger scale..But if we're talking about purely on who is the better player...It's not even close.
Where's your proof for the bolded?
I know human beings overall didn't jump 3 inches lower 40 years ago (as shown by the progression, or lack there of, in the high jump, triple jump and long jump world records)
100m times were indeed a half second slower.
Height? I don't have figures from the 1970's, but from 1986 to 2008, the average height actually declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_lea...ing_experience
Not to nit-pick, but a 10.98 100 time wouldn't even be compe ive 100 years ago. They were running faster 100 times in 1891Todays talent pool is a million times bigger than before because of media exposure, advancement in sports academia, video availability. In fact, it's a credit to all the players today..Making it to the pro now is a million times harder because jumping 40 inches, shooting 50 straight baskets, running 11 in a 100 doesn't make you an instant pro. If my track buddy lived in the 70's with his 10.98 record, he will instantly be scouted for a US run for potential...But the talent pool nowadys killed his chances.. and now he's seating at bank opening new accounts for people.
Tony Parker is faster, competes in a tougher era, made it to the pro's against a much larger talent pool and at 6'2 can dunk the ball.
Sure, Gervin might have influenced the organization in a bigger scale..But if we're talking about purely on who is the better player...It's not even close..
My argument for Gervin being naturally more gifted at the game is because he didn't have many shoulders of giants to stand on like today's players do. He was one of the innovators that actively evolved the game. He invented/popularized the floater, was a dynamic finisher, and could score from pretty much anywhere on the court. The fact that Gervin learned the game as effectively as he did (and this is a credit to all great players from that era) without the aid of SportVu tracking, videotape, armies of coaches tweaking his game, and other such luxuries is a testament to his ability.
If you want to compare the players in a vacuum (2014 Tony Parker vs. 1978 George Gervin), then of course Gervin loses that battle. But to compare them so simplistically undermines Gervin's talent and is unfair to him.
A more interesting comparison would be: 25 year old George Gervin after he spent 5 years being developed from the age of 20 by the Spurs (who went back in time and nabbed him). You might invoke inferior athleticism, but since we know modern humans aren't "naturally" more athletic than humans of 40 years ago, we can extrapolate that 5 years under a modern sports program would improve Gervin's athleticism and also his skill set. And if you think the later isn't possible, Kawhi's skillset was beyond limited when the Spurs drafted him. Also, he's not very athletic. But yet, the Spurs have made him into an all-star level player. 1978 George Gervin was more skilled offensively than even today's Kawhi. You don't think Gervin could improve under those conditions into a great (better than Tony) player?
Maybe you don't. But I think he can.
kryst. This guy is 9.
George Gervin would never even be a franchise player if he played in today's NBA. Tony Parker is way better than Vince Carter as a player and career-wise, and yet Carter is miles ahead of Gervin.
midnightpulp, taking a deuce all over apoplectic_9.
LOL, the only other 6'7" plus guards in NBA history with equal skills are Drexler and Magic. You could stretch it and include Reggie Miller and Reggie Theus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
