Nuvendil said:
They hadn't seen Shaq but they had seen Wilt who was faster, stronger, jumped higher, had a perimeter game, and had far, far more endurance. They hadn't seen Jordan but they had seen Elgin Baylor, the true father or Show Time. (Not saying he's better than Jordan but he was one heck of an inside player). They hadn't played Curry but they played West, the second or third best shooting guard of all time depending on who you ask, who had an outside shot and was basically a 2010s player born many decades early. Again, not saying he's exactly like Curry, he didn't have the same ball handling, just sayin. And as for physicality, the Celtics played in a league with NO flagrant fouls. The 60s was far, far, far, far, FAR more physical and rough and fast paced than todays league. Take a team from today and stick them on the court back then and most wouldn't be able to go the distance, they would be completely gassed by halfway through a series. The game has evolved a ton. Not every evolution has resulted in better play though, nor in better conditioning for players. The Celtics faced unstoppable offenses in their day and stopped them. Shoot, in 69 they faced a Lakers team with what is hands dlwn the most ridiculous big 3 ever leading it: West, Baylor, and Wilt. Not only were they arguably the number 1, 2, and 3 best players in the league in terms of individual skill, they are also top 5 all time in ther positions, Wilt and West being top 3 all time. You could stick that set in any era and they would make a team that would rock the world. But they got beat by the Celtics, who were at that point actually getting pretty old. And the reason is as I said: depth. No, none of the Celtics players back then are top 5 all time. Shoot, Russell is the only top 10. But the sheer numbers and team focused play make up for that. As for all those teams you mentioned, it would be a battle for all of them. It would also depend largely on whose rules they play by. If they play by 60s rules, I definitely give the edge to the Celtics. |
Meh don't buy it.
They'd be the smallest, least athletic team without access to video footage, advanced game planning, etc. etc. etc. They'd get wrecked.
Most sports are way better today than the 50s/60s ... that's just how it goes. Back then sports was kind of a half joke, most of the NBA guys had second jobs, basketball was a sport that had only been mainstream for like 20-30 years at that point, it wasn't like today where there a huge system you're put into from high school camps to high pressure college training then into the NBA. Bill Russell has said he hadn't even seen a basketball until he was like 14, lol.
None of those guys are actually the top 10 best players. Someone like David Robinson would be better than all of them. They're rated as great because they played in the 60s, not just a weaker era, but an era where basketball was played by maybe like 1/20th of the global population it is today, so the talent pool was much smaller to begin with, not to mention coaching, player development, etc.
They would get their asses handed to them too if they shot like 43% from the field like Russell did as a big, that wouldn't fly today at all. Bob Cousy never shot even over 40% once in his career, lol, he's suddenly going to shoot better being covered by 6'7 Scottie Pippen or 6'6 Klay Thompson? I don't think so.
