BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,779
- Reaction score
- 15,474
fixedsaid with the same confidence as people saying that the United States would win every World Cup if only we put our best athletes on the soccer field
fixedsaid with the same confidence as people saying that the United States would win every World Cup if only we put our best athletes on the soccer field
i don't know man, kareem and bill walton were bad dudesUConn absolutely dog walks those UCLA teams. Hell Wake dog walks those teams.
For their erai don't know man, kareem and bill walton were bad dudes
Wrong thread, but you will never not convince me this is also true, if we started our best athletes in soccer academies at 5 years old or whatever other countries do. I'm sure you're about to lecture me on how Lebron and Tyreke Hill wouldn't have had the mental fortitude or foot-eye coordination for soccer, though.said with the same confidence as people saying that the United States would win every World Cup if only we put our best athletes on the football pitch
I don't understand why people get defensive about the idea that athletes today are simply better at their sport than they were 50+ years ago. Shouldn't progress be a good thing?If we're really going to compare eras, this is going to get tricky. But I have to assume this UConn team would skull-drag 1972 UCLA. The level of athlete is just of a different caliber, and we have elite 3 point shooters (UConn has a few) these days. Not to mention better conditioning, nutrition, etc.
I think they would be better, but still not as good. And this assumes they are, in fact, worse than players today, which supports the argument that this UConn team would beat them.Sure, but it's also silly to assume that those players wouldn't also be better in today's environment.
I assume everyone thinks previous athletes would be better if they had access to today's resources, of course.Sure, but it's also silly to assume that those players wouldn't also be better in today's environment.
Interestingly, it does appear that one consequence of the transfer portal era is that a lot of teams are better than they were a few years ago. You have kids going to smaller programs and developing into high-major talent and then transferring to a major program where they play for a year or two as older, more experienced players - allowing major programs to essentially consolidate more talent - and more experienced talent. The high level programs are able to recruit really good players out of HS and then supplement their roster with really high level layers from lower level programs that have developed to a high major level.I think DV7's point basically boils down to "college basketball teams aren't as good as they use to be in general".
I don't think that is true. Actually I think with the transfer portal stuff teams are better. It is really hard to win by having a bunch of freshman burger boys now. You need experience, because teams have gotten better.
Generally modern athletes are certainly better - more skilled, healthier, more athletic. But certain players are generational talent and would be good to great in any era. If you watch tape of Kareem (Lew) I think it is easy to see that he would compare favorably to Edey, for instance.i don't know man, kareem and bill walton were bad dudes