Why I will always dislike Jim Brown...

[superpunk]

Actually, if you put any of those modern players back in that era they would be called for palming, carrying, and traveling on nearly every play. And they would foul out of every game if they played the way they do now by the rules back then.

On the other hand, let Elgin Baylor play under today's rules and he would average 50 points a game easily! The guy was the most amazing athlete I have ever seen play! Give him an extra step or two on his way to the hoop, let him carry the ball and push off like Jordan did and he would drop 70 on everyone.

You can't compare eras, it is a different game now.

Nostalgia turns superstars into demi-gods. I think there are plenty of players from today's game that would destroy back then, when sub-athletic whitey's dominated the floor. I think players can adjust to how the game is being called pretty easily.

Either way, the era that Robertson and Chamberlain dominated was basically the equivalent to the "juiced-ball" era today. Scoring was outrageous, noone could shoot for percentage, rebounds were abundant. Just some perspective on what they accomplished statistically.

 

[THUMPER]

Nostalgia turns superstars into demi-gods. I think there are plenty of players from today's game that would destroy back then, when sub-athletic whitey's dominated the floor. I think players can adjust to how the game is being called pretty easily.

Either way, the era that Robertson and Chamberlain dominated was basically the equivalent to the "juiced-ball" era today. Scoring was outrageous, noone could shoot for percentage, rebounds were abundant. Just some perspective on what they accomplished statistically.

One of the dumbest posts I've ever read from you.

You obviously are too young to have watched some of those "sub athletic whiteys" like Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Jerry Lucas, Lenny Wilkens, John Havlicek, or Rick Barry play.

The game is different, that's all.

One last thing, racial comments go both ways. Just sayin zall.

 

[superpunk]

One of the dumbest posts I've ever read from you.

You obviously are too young to have watched some of those "sub athletic whiteys" like Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Jerry Lucas, Lenny Wilkens, John Havlicek, or Rick Barry play.

The game is different, that's all.

Look, I get it - you're old, and noone could ever top the stars of your youth.

But don't pretend like trying to drive the lane in an 8-team league filled with white guys who can't jump made the game so much more difficult than it is today. Drop Kobe, LeBron, Kidd, Nash, Paul, Stoudemire, Shaq, etc back in that era and it would be unreal what they would do to that competition.

Lenny Wilkens =\= white.

 

[Chief]

Duane Thomas had so much talent it was ridiculous.

I don't know how much Jim Brown is to blame for Duane's problems in the 1970s, but I know I've never liked Brown. He tries to come across as this sage, patriarch who somehow knows more about everything than everybody else, but that's not the case.

As for Duane, he's a different cat. I've talked to him quite a bit on two different occasions and he's a kind person who is just .... different. He's not the same guy he was in the early 1970s. He was humbled through all that.

I don't think Jim Brown knows what the word humility means.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

Duane Thomas was obviously nervous which is why Jim Brown interjected and tried to help him out. Jim Brown didn't say anything to put Thomas down. Some people are just shy in front of the media and Jim Brown sensed that so he did his best to get Thomas out of there. This was not an incident of him hogging the spotlight. I think you were truly reaching with this particular
example.

I don't agree with everything Jim Brown says but I do like how he has called out Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to use their money and power to help clean up neighborhoods and be more active in social issues. I agree that everyone has a right to live their life the way they see fit but I like how Jim Brown had the courage to call these two out since the media is too afraid to ever do that.\

Yes, Jim Brown is arrogant and I can't stand that about him.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

One of the dumbest posts I've ever read from you.

You obviously are too young to have watched some of those "sub athletic whiteys" like Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Jerry Lucas, Lenny Wilkens, John Havlicek, or Rick Barry play.

The game is different, that's all.

One last thing, racial comments go both ways. Just sayin zall.

Lenny Wilkens was white?

And I completely disagree with your post. You really think a guy like Bill Walton would dominate today...LOL Yeah, it was a different game back then, a much weaker one in which "sub athletic whiteys" like Rick Barry and Bill Walton could play. Those guys wouldn't even be starters in todays league

 

[Kilyin]

league filled with white guys who can't jump

...disagrees

 

[Kangaroo]

Yeah, I was about to mention that he's also widely considered to be the greatest lacrosse player ever. Can you imagine staring down JB as he ran at you with a stick in his hands? Scarrrrrrrrrrrrrry! I'd just run the other way. :laugh2:

There where different rules in Lacrosse when Jim Played back then you could pin the stick to your chest to keep the ball in the stick you can not do that any more which is why you see the cradle on players have improved.

In fact Jim Brown held the NCAA scoring title in LaCrosse until the 80's when the Gait brothers came around

(yes I played Lacrosse and I learned in freakin Texas of all places )

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I guess someone forgot to tell the NBA MVPs of the last three years that they shouldn't be any good these days...

 

[superpunk]

I guess someone forgot to tell the NBA MVPs of the last three years that they shouldn't be any good these days...

Someone need to help you find the point, because you completely missed it.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

What was it, then?

 

[superpunk]

What was it, then?

That players from today could more than hang with players from the 50s and 60s. The fact that they'd have to keep from palming the ball isn't going to change the fact that the current athleticism league-wide can't even come close to being matched by the watered down, predominantly white and less athletic competition that Robertson and Chamberlain got to play against in an 8 team league where they were just so physically superior to their counterparts that they couldn't help but dominate.

I really shouldn't have had to explain that.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yes, that's a good comparison. I guess that's why Jordan and Bird were so impressive to me as well because they were about average size in comparison to their competition and dominated.

you don't get the point he's making

Wilt was just so big, and so fast, that he dominated over the smaller, slower players of his era

his skills and body-type would allow him to survive, and thrive, against any decade of players, that's how physically imposing he was

hell, the NBA instituted the rim-rule for free throw shots, that you have to wait until the ball touches the rim and comes off before you can rebound it, because he would always dunk his own missed free throws

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That players from today could more than hang with players from the 50s and 60s. The fact that they'd have to keep from palming the ball isn't going to change the fact that the current athleticism league-wide can't even come close to being matched by the watered down, predominantly white and less athletic competition that Robertson and Chamberlain got to play against in an 8 team league where they were just so physically superior to their counterparts that they couldn't help but dominate.

I really shouldn't have had to explain that.

I guess I'm just slow.

But it depends on who you're talking about. The great players of today would be great then, too -- of course. In almost every case, great players from any era would still be great in any other era. But it's going too far to act like nobody could play back then and that even the "pretty good" guys of today would dominate back then.

Just saying... I bet if you saw a Nash or a John Stockton or a Dirk from a 1960s grainy old film making plays, you'd assume they were only dominating because their competition was against other unathletic whiteys (or whatever the term was). Not true -- they obviously dominate(d) in today's era.

And besides, it's not like some of the guys in this conversation played against all white guys anyway. We're not talking about retrieving-the-ball-from-the-peach-basket days.

 

[superpunk]

I guess I'm just slow.

But it depends on who you're talking about. The great players of today would be great then, too -- of course. In almost every case, great players from any era would still be great in any other era. But it's going too far to act like nobody could play back then and that even the "pretty good" guys of today would dominate back then.

The talent was far less, you've gotta think that. Not only were black men not getting a fair shake from colleges and the NBA, but there was no international market. There was noone as athletic as Dirk Nowitzki at that size (foreign), regardless of race. Not even close. Now you have Howard, Stoudemire, Bosh, Duncan, the list of big guys who can move, shoot, post up goes on and on.

In the 50s and 60s? It wasn't even close to being like that. If you had alot of athleticism, or were just a physical specimen like the guys mentioned, you could dominate your competition.

Just saying... I bet if you saw a Nash or a John Stockton or a Dirk from a 1960s grainy old film making plays, you'd assume they were only dominating because their competition was against other unathletic whiteys (or whatever the term was). Not true -- they obviously dominate(d) in today's era.

Dominant players would be dominant in any era. The difference in talent in what players are going up against today though, is night and day from top to bottom. Thumpers notion that guys like Kobe or Iverson couldn't hang back in the "glory days" because they can't take that extra step or palm the ball is nonsense.

And besides, it's not like some of the guys in this conversation played against all white guys anyway. We're not talking about retrieving-the-ball-from-the-peach-basket days.

There's the 1961-62 Celtics. See many team photos like that nowadays?

 

[Angus]

Not even close.

Emmitt, Walter and Barry were all better than that old dried up punk. And I'm not just talkin' rushing yards either. Emmitt was the greatest ever IMO, and yes, I'm biased toward him. I'll tell ya this to, if Gayle Sayers had played longer he to would've been better than Brown IMO.

I have never liked Jim Brown's personality, but he was the greatest running back I ever saw perform, I believe, including those you mentioned.

Just the truth as I see it.

 

[Angus]

That logic doesn't really make sense. Every decade the competition gets bigger, stronger, and faster. Jim was facing the best of the best in his time just like Emmitt faced the best of the best of his time. Brown couldn't help how superior he was to the competition.

In Brown's era there were fewer NFL teams and the league was not watered down. Moreover, a lot of the sissy rules of today weren't in force then.

 

[DallasEast]

Is there a time limit placed on greatness?

Jim Brown was one of the greatest football players of all-time.

Emmitt Smith was one of the greatest football players of all-time.

Enter the counter-arguments...

"Jim Brown wasn't so great because he stood x-feet taller, was y-pounds heaver, was z-seconds faster than his peers."

"Emmitt Smith was great because he wasn't too short or had a better weight ratio and didn't have blazing speed in comparison to his peers"?



Football is football, people. If the players were or are great, it's irrelevant as to which decade they actually played in. To say otherwise is to valid someone's future claim that... say... twenty years or so from today... that Emmitt Smith WASN'T all that because blah, blah, blah.

Nuts. That's crazy stupid. Jim Brown was great. Emmitt Smith was great. Great players, regardless of sport or era, was, are and will forever be great. sheesh.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q8cxAp2am0&feature=related

Can someone explain what Jimmy Brown is doing there?

I think I can.

He knew Thomas had as much ability as he had. Brown was always an ego maniac and I truly believe he submarined Thomas' career out of jealousy. He certainly didn't provide sage wisdom and leadership. And how terribly disrespectful was it of him to cut off the interview as is Thomas was a puppet under his control?

Jim Brown was an all american in track lacross and football was Thomas an all american in those sports ? If not he didn't have Jim Browns ability. I don't see why he would be jealous

 

[Kangaroo]

Is there a time limit placed on greatness?

Jim Brown was one of the greatest football players of all-time.

Emmitt Smith was one of the greatest football players of all-time.

Enter the counter-arguments...

"Jim Brown wasn't so great because he stood x-feet taller, was y-pounds heaver, was z-seconds faster than his peers."

"Emmitt Smith was great because he wasn't too short or had a better weight ratio and didn't have blazing speed in comparison to his peers"?



Football is football, people. If the players were or are great, it's irrelevant as to which decade they actually played in. To say otherwise is to valid someone's future claim that... say... twenty years or so from today... that Emmitt Smith WASN'T all that because blah, blah, blah.

Nuts. That's crazy stupid. Jim Brown was great. Emmitt Smith was great. Great players, regardless of sport or era, was, are and will forever be great. sheesh.

Thank you you are measure by what you do against the peers of your generation and rules of the game. People forget equipment; rules change along with the players so the only thing we can measure is how great they where when they played and what they did at that time.