Could Yesterday's Players...Play Today?

[krichunaka]

"Cam" introduced a thread that asked who we think was the greatest player ever at our schools; and when "Tophat" posted a question in the same thread asking if yesterday's players could play today, I couldn't help but be reminded of a press conference held by then Governor Ronald Reagan, at which he listened as a member of the audience complained that Reagan and those of his day simply couldn't relate to "today's" (late sixties/early seventies) generation. The guy suggested that Reagon couldn't possibly understand the pressures of "today's" society, informing the Governor that 'we now have TVs and Computers,' and so many other technologically advanced instruments that Reagan knew nothing about. Reagan politely replied that, yes, the poor man was absolutely right, that his generation didn't have computers; but then continued that "we were simply much too busy... inventing them for you."

It's an Apples and Oranges comparison, then vs. now. Could today's players beat yesterday's players? Yes. In today's game. There are stark differences.

Weight Training: The late Al McGuire bemoaned that today's players - late seventies/early eighties - "can't shoot." He said that 'they're to sore from beating each other nearly to death, the result of weight training.' Yesterday's basketball players were actually part time basketball players. Their primary "interests" were taking care of things at home. Their weight training consisted of hauling hay, rocks and tobacco from the fields, chopping wood and milking cows, etc. Basketball practice then, as now, "officially" began in November, usually a couple to three weeks before the first game of the season. Basketball Camps? Never heard of em. Today's players literally practice and play year-round. Many of them play only basketball; some in fear that if they don't work with the basketball team all year, then they'll miss valuable playing time, that the game will pass them by.

Is Bigger Better? As a general rule today's players are bigger. Nutrition, aerobics and weight training were seldom mentioned then. With today's governmental approach to informing and assisting from pre-natal through adulthood, nearly all of today's children are bigger, and better nourished.

Style, the Biggest Difference: Players of yester-year were benched for such antics as dribbling between the legs, or dribbling or passing behind the back. If you watch yesterday's players today, with the deliberate passing, dribbling and ball handling, the 2-1-2 zone defense and so forth, they would certainly appear inferior. More significantly, "palming" or "carring" the ball resulted in turnovers. No one of today's generation should dare suspect that "different" means inferior.

Better Marksmanship? Bottom line: could yesterday's players shoot as well as today's? Well, at the risk of sounding sarcastic, they seldom missed open layups then. They used that thing behind the goal when up close. It used to be known as the "backboard." Today I think ya'll simply refer to it as (but seldom use) "the glass." It would be interesting to know if in fact, many single game, season and career scoring records set in the good ole days still stand at your favorite high school. Considering the fact that so many more shots are taken in today's faster paced game, one would naturally assume that most of those records would've been broken recently, especially considering today's three point basket.

Could yesterday's players, given today's nutrition and year-round conditioning and playing, compete with today's players? Cannot imagine why not.

The better question might be: Could today's players tolerate the unquestioned and absolute authority of yesterday's coaches and officiating?

[Edited by krichunaka on 4-1-03 4:58P]

 

[dog4life]

I seriously doubt if the players of "today" could play for the coaches of "yesterday".

[CoachSH]

That is a great point Dog4life. I think it would be very hard for a now day player to go through some of the hards times.

[0u812]

Do you really think that today's coaches are less demanding than the past with having to keep your kids in playing shape all year? I think not. Today's coaches and players are more skilled and knowledgeable of the game because of the past. Apples and Oranges!

[krichunaka]

There's no arguement as to today's "more demanding" approach to the game. Wish you'd have noticed the emphasis on the "year-round" approach to today's game. The obvious point (to most readers) was that indeed today's players could infact, defeat yesterday's players... "in today's game." Again, recall the "part time" approach of yester- year.

The game in and of itself has changed. Notice the remarks on "style," officiating and coaching techniques. The dribbling technique is much more liberal; players are allowed to handle the ball differently than before. Much more one on one offense and defense, faster paced, etc. I also pointed out that yesterday's play: the ball handling, shooting, defensive schemes, etc., would be somewhat boring to watch by today's generation. Again, "different" should NEVER be mistakenly equated to inferior.

The closing point questioned whether today's youth would tolerate yesterday's coaching. No implication was made to suggest that today's coaches lack in demanding top performance. Sorry I didn't better express my actual criticism of yesterday's coaches. If you weren't in school in those days, you wouldn't be expected to fully understand the absolute authority coaches and teachers held over players and sutdents alike; and in fact, many of today's coaches who coached in yesterday's game will readily admit that they are much more restricted as to exactly how they might handle any number of circumstances, specifically discipline.

[tophat]

I think apples and oranges is a good term to use on this thread. There are some players from the past who could have played todays game and some from today that could have played in the past by the old guide lines and coaches and officiating,etc. In the NBA, Tim Duncan can use the backboard from 17 feet or better, Jason Kidd plays a true point. How many of todays high school coaches would want Jimmy Braddock from Baylor on their team? What about Manigaut (I think that's how its said) the kid in New York in the Seventies?

[krichunaka]

I gave you a good mark, tophat, because first, it was you who prompted me to start this thread; and second, you were one of the few to fully realize that I wasn't necessarily picking either side of the "old vs new" argument, but rather, I was attempting to add contrast or reasoning as to why some of yesterday could or could not play today....or visa-versa.

[PantherGam]

They could play but not very well. Today's athletes are much more talented but not as committed. However, committed cannot overcome the vast talent. Just my opinion.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

I suppose you are talking about Earl "the Goat" Manigault?

 

 

He could play today...drugs, and poor grades kept him from becoming a star.

[tophat]

Thanks krichunaka. And yes I was talking about the "goat". I beleive there was a movie made about him and he was also mentioned in a book called "The City Game". I also think that if some kids could play at the college level for a coach like Bob Knight than they could play for most coaches in the past. Of course at that level you are trading skills for a scholarship, and I think Knight is an X's and O's genius.