vcsgrizzfan wrote:In a 15 year stretch, Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and captained a Gold medal Olympic team. Not bad.
I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Check the method from Bedrock, 'cause I rock your head to bed
vcsgrizzfan wrote:In a 15 year stretch, Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and captained a Gold medal Olympic team. Not bad.
I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Russell's era ended in 1969, with him leading his team to a championship.
How many players in the NBA had part time jobs in 1969?
vcsgrizzfan wrote:In a 15 year stretch, Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and captained a Gold medal Olympic team. Not bad.
I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Even if true (it's mostly not), what is your point? The conditions were the same for everyone, creating an equalizing effect.
Do you say things like Russell > Jordan because in his day he had to ride the bus to games while Jordan flew private?
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:In a 15 year stretch, Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and captained a Gold medal Olympic team. Not bad.
I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Russell's era ended in 1969, with him leading his team to a championship.
How many players in the NBA had part time jobs in 1969?
Pizza Delivery guy by day.
Shooting guard for the Boston Celtics by night.
Last edited by PhutureDynasty on Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AtiliusRegulus wrote:I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Russell's era ended in 1969, with him leading his team to a championship.
How many players in the NBA had part time jobs in 1969?
AtiliusRegulus wrote:I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
Russell's era ended in 1969, with him leading his team to a championship.
How many players in the NBA had part time jobs in 1969?
Didn't Russell coach the team as well?
Pretty impressive.
Yes sir, he coached the 68 and 69 championship squads.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:In a 15 year stretch, Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles, 11 NBA titles and captained a Gold medal Olympic team. Not bad.
I am tired of these people bringing up athletes from an era when the competitiveness of sports and the development of the league wasn't anything to brag about.
Most of the athletes during the Russell era had to take part time jobs during the off season to supplement their incomes.
These guys weren't true professional athletes.
If anything that made them more competitive. They didn't make the money that these guys get nowadays. You had to play for pride. Now it's obvious that there are many players who play for the multi millions that they are guaranteed to make.
It's cliche and its bullshit and agenda based. Every "that era (pick any one) was weak" argument always is.
I've yet to hear or see an explanation for why the 90s were weak. Have you?
-Weaker defensively
-Talent diluted by expansion
-Weaker talent pool when compared to the 00's
-It was easier for players (particularity post players) to put up points
Not that the 90's were weak but they are weaker when compared to today's game. This really isn't debatable.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
It's cliche and its bullshit and agenda based. Every "that era (pick any one) was weak" argument always is.
I've yet to hear or see an explanation for why the 90s were weak. Have you?
-Weaker defensively
-Talent diluted by expansion
-Weaker talent pool when compared to the 00's
-It was easier for players (particularity post players) to put up points
Not that the 90's were weak but they are weaker when compared to today's game. This really isn't debatable.
That is laughable and that isn't really debatable.
Havlicekstealsit wrote:Anyone who claims something "really isn't debatable" has some serious attention craving issues.
Or they just don't want to get into an argument with somebody who has actual facts compared to the BS that they spew out. They used to do that a lot on the old ESPN boards.
Havlicekstealsit wrote:Anyone who claims something "really isn't debatable" has some serious attention craving issues.
Or they just don't want to get into an argument with somebody who has actual facts compared to the BS that they spew out. They used to do that a lot on the old ESPN boards.
Yeah, that too.
I AM TRIUMPHANT!
MY ANSWERS (while completely debatable) ARE RIGHT!
Havlicekstealsit wrote:Anyone who claims something "really isn't debatable" has some serious attention craving issues.
Or they just don't want to get into an argument with somebody who has actual facts compared to the BS that they spew out. They used to do that a lot on the old ESPN boards.
Yeah, that too.
I AM TRIUMPHANT!
MY ANSWERS (while completely debatable) ARE RIGHT!
Yep. You can put out fact after fact and all they will do is repeat the same stuff over and over and over again which for the most part is just their opinion without even thinking about it at first.
I have never seen a good argument as to why the 90's should be considered a stronger era.
You can keep claiming that one could make such a case but until "one" shows up you have nothing. Or you could actually, you know, type something of substance and address the posts I laid out for you instead of jerking each other off.
y2ktors wrote:
I've yet to hear or see an explanation for why the 90s were weak. Have you?
-Weaker defensively
-Talent diluted by expansion
-Weaker talent pool when compared to the 00's
-It was easier for players (particularity post players) to put up points
Not that the 90's were weak but they are weaker when compared to today's game. This really isn't debatable.
That is laughable and that isn't really debatable.
Great counterpoints, you added a lot to the discussion. Way to go.
l3bron wrote:I have never seen a good argument as to why the 90's should be considered a stronger era.
You can keep claiming that one could make such a case but until "one" shows up you have nothing. Or you could actually, you know, type something of substance and address the posts I laid out for you instead of jerking each other off.
Your call.
Weird because I never seen an argument that shows the 90s were the weakest era in NBA history. I mean the 2 highest rated NBA finals happened in the decade in 93 and 98 and NBA TV not that long ago had a week or so dedicated to the entire 93 playoffs basically so the 90s was doing something right.
l3bron wrote:I have never seen a good argument as to why the 90's should be considered a stronger era.
You can keep claiming that one could make such a case but until "one" shows up you have nothing. Or you could actually, you know, type something of substance and address the posts I laid out for you instead of jerking each other off.
Your call.
Weird because I never seen an argument that shows the 90s were the weakest era in NBA history. I mean the 2 highest rated NBA finals happened in the decade in 93 and 98 and NBA TV not that long ago had a week or so dedicated to the entire 93 playoffs basically so the 90s was doing something right.
>Strawman
>Argumentum ad populum
Get that **** out of here. I'm not responding to that trash.
l3bron wrote:
-Weaker defensively
-Talent diluted by expansion
-Weaker talent pool when compared to the 00's
-It was easier for players (particularity post players) to put up points[/b]
Not that the 90's were weak but they are weaker when compared to today's game. This really isn't debatable.
That is laughable and that isn't really debatable.
Great counterpoints, you added a lot to the discussion. Way to go.
What's to argue when all that stuff was just plain dumb.
l3bron wrote:I have never seen a good argument as to why the 90's should be considered a stronger era.
You can keep claiming that one could make such a case but until "one" shows up you have nothing. Or you could actually, you know, type something of substance and address the posts I laid out for you instead of jerking each other off.
Your call.
Weird because I never seen an argument that shows the 90s were the weakest era in NBA history. I mean the 2 highest rated NBA finals happened in the decade in 93 and 98 and NBA TV not that long ago had a week or so dedicated to the entire 93 playoffs basically so the 90s was doing something right.
>Strawman
>Argumentum ad populum
Get that **** out of here. I'm not responding to that trash.
Is English your 3rd language? You seem to have an incredibly difficult time comprehending what I'm actually arguing. A 6th grader could've figured out what I mean in regards to the 90's.
I mean the 2 highest rated NBA finals happened in the decade in 93 and 98 and NBA TV not that long ago had a week or so dedicated to the entire 93 playoffs basically so the 90s was doing something right.
