First time I saw that quote it was credited to Ty Cobb.So is that quote.
Dumbest thing I’ve read in a LONG time.The question raises a question. If you just transplanted a team from the past to today, they would have no chance. Not Jordan, not the Big Red Machine, not even the 76 Hoosiers. Athletes today are just so much better, athletically. But, if you took the players of the older team and somehow had them born in the same time frame as today's athletes so they had the same training opportunities, then I think they would represent themselves very well. I think a fit Babe Ruth would still be one heck of a hitter, though maybe not 714 fit. MJ would be the best or one of the two or three best.
Or take one of today's teams and put them back in the 80s and watch them get the snot knocked out of them by the Pistons.The question raises a question. If you just transplanted a team from the past to today, they would have no chance. Not Jordan, not the Big Red Machine, not even the 76 Hoosiers. Athletes today are just so much better, athletically. But, if you took the players of the older team and somehow had them born in the same time frame as today's athletes so they had the same training opportunities, then I think they would represent themselves very well. I think a fit Babe Ruth would still be one heck of a hitter, though maybe not 714 fit. MJ would be the best or one of the two or three best.
You don't read your own posts?Dumbest thing I’ve read in a LONG time.
Damn you I literally hit reply to type that exact response and you beat me to it.You don't read your own posts?
You don’t think 1991 jordan would be the best player in the nba today?The question raises a question. If you just transplanted a team from the past to today, they would have no chance. Not Jordan, not the Big Red Machine, not even the 76 Hoosiers. Athletes today are just so much better, athletically. But, if you took the players of the older team and somehow had them born in the same time frame as today's athletes so they had the same training opportunities, then I think they would represent themselves very well. I think a fit Babe Ruth would still be one heck of a hitter, though maybe not 714 fit. MJ would be the best or one of the two or three best.
It's nice to think MJ would be the exception, but honestly, probably not. It's most likely that there are 30-50 players in the NBA right now who are better than MJ. That's just the nature of sports and development over time.You don’t think 1991 jordan would be the best player in the nba today?
I’m not sure I believe that. I don’t knowIt's nice to think MJ would be the exception, but honestly, probably not. It's most likely that there are 30-50 players in the NBA right now who are better than MJ. That's just the nature of sports and development over time.
No.It's nice to think MJ would be the exception, but honestly, probably not. It's most likely that there are 30-50 players in the NBA right now who are better than MJ. That's just the nature of sports and development over time.
It's how it is with every sport. Jack in his prime couldn't compete with Tiger. And Jack was the best there ever was. The standards and levels of training and development just continue to reach for new heights, people from the past just can't keep up.I’m not sure I believe that. I don’t know
🐂 💩It's how it is with every sport. Jack in his prime couldn't compete with Tiger. And Jack was the best there ever was. The standards and levels of training and development just continue to reach for new heights, people from the past just can't keep up.
It's true. It's like how you were great in your time, but today, you could never compete with Willdog. No offense. Just saying time to retire.
I don’t think enough time has passed. I think Jordan would dominateIt's how it is with every sport. Jack in his prime couldn't compete with Tiger. And Jack was the best there ever was. The standards and levels of training and development just continue to reach for new heights, people from the past just can't keep up.
I think you're nostalgic to a fault. I guess we'll never know, which is the beauty of this argument.I don’t think enough time has passed. I think Jordan would dominate
He might be, 1991 isn't THAT long ago. But look at track or swimming. How many world records from those eras exist today? In the 100m dash the 1992 WR was 9.96. All 8 runners in the 2024 Olympic finals beat that time. Men's marathon WR in 92 was 2:13:23, in the 24 Olympics 48 runners beat or tied that.You don’t think 1991 jordan would be the best player in the nba today?
I see it all the time with Edson arantes do nascimento. Whether he’s better than Messi. No chance. Different world. But how about Diego Armando maradona. Now that looks closer. Temporal. I think with Jordan it’s even closerI think you're nostalgic to a fault. I guess we'll never know, which is the beauty of this argument.
And was mean. Your first sentence is dispositive to me in this debateHe might be, 1991 isn't THAT long ago. But look at track or swimming. How many world records from those eras exist today? In the 100m dash the 1992 WR was 9.96. All 8 runners in the 2024 Olympic finals beat that time. Men's marathon WR in 92 was 2:13:23, in the 24 Olympics 48 runners beat or tied that.
As great as Michael Phelps was, I do not believe he owns any records. Spitz would not even qualify. His best 100 free was 51.22. Today's women's WR is 45.16. Think about that, she would beat Spitz by 6 full seconds. Heck, it looks like the men's record in 91 was Biondi at 48.42. That is 3 seconds slower than the women today. At that time the women's was 51.71.
Field events are the same way. But there are rare exceptions, the hammer throw record has been around since the 80s. You can see below, the vast majority are in the last 10 years. I have no doubt Jordan would be great. Maybe the greatest, maybe not. One advantage he would have over the Europeans in the NBA, he played defense.
With today's rules on hand checking and defense, Jordan would be unstoppable going to the rim. And he'd still be the best defender in the league who is not a freakish center.It's how it is with every sport. Jack in his prime couldn't compete with Tiger. And Jack was the best there ever was. The standards and levels of training and development just continue to reach for new heights, people from the past just can't keep up.
At basketball? Terrible.How good would Pele be today?
Wrong. Give Jack the same equipment and it’s a fair fightIt's how it is with every sport. Jack in his prime couldn't compete with Tiger. And Jack was the best there ever was. The standards and levels of training and development just continue to reach for new heights, people from the past just can't keep up.
Yes, but I compared athletic measurements to 1991, athletes today generally are MUCH better than in 1991 at the elite level.And was mean. Your first sentence is dispositive to me in this debate
It’s a question that comes up with my crew often and I think it comes down to time as you sort of agree with. For me 90s is probably still in play. Sort of case by case.Yes, but I compared athletic measurements to 1991, athletes today generally are MUCH better than in 1991 at the elite level.
I was thinking about this today in context of Bob Gibson who I think was the most dominant team athlete I have seen. A huge part of that was his meanness. But he also was physically better, and that advantage would be gone.
That is true for MJ, the biggest single reason anyone rates him above a Bird is how much more athletic MJ was. Against the players today, that would be gone. A lot of players at his position would be at least as athletic. He would still have his brains and meanness, but being mean only goes so far. No one thinks of Rodman or Laimbeer as the greatest and both would break as many of your bones as it took to stop you.
A little out of my depth but I do think it’s a case by case. I think Jordan would dominate today. I think bill Russell would get destroyed.Yes, but I compared athletic measurements to 1991, athletes today generally are MUCH better than in 1991 at the elite level.
I was thinking about this today in context of Bob Gibson who I think was the most dominant team athlete I have seen. A huge part of that was his meanness. But he also was physically better, and that advantage would be gone.
That is true for MJ, the biggest single reason anyone rates him above a Bird is how much more athletic MJ was. Against the players today, that would be gone. A lot of players at his position would be at least as athletic. He would still have his brains and meanness, but being mean only goes so far. No one thinks of Rodman or Laimbeer as the greatest and both would break as many of your bones as it took to stop you.
I don't think so. Players today have a physical advantage Jack never had, and never could.Wrong. Give Jack the same equipment and it’s a fair fight
It’s a question that comes up with my crew often and I think it comes down to time as you sort of agree with. For me 90s is probably still in play. Sort of case by case.
The mental is to the physical as 4 is to 1.Yes, but I compared athletic measurements to 1991, athletes today generally are MUCH better than in 1991 at the elite level.
I was thinking about this today in context of Bob Gibson who I think was the most dominant team athlete I have seen. A huge part of that was his meanness. But he also was physically better, and that advantage would be gone.
That is true for MJ, the biggest single reason anyone rates him above a Bird is how much more athletic MJ was. Against the players today, that would be gone. A lot of players at his position would be at least as athletic. He would still have his brains and meanness, but being mean only goes so far. No one thinks of Rodman or Laimbeer as the greatest and both would break as many of your bones as it took to stop you.
If we enter an age of Wembys at every position, some as quick as MJ, then no, he wouldn't be doing that.The mental is to the physical as 4 is to 1.
Even if the athletic advantage was negated, MJ would be winning titles. Particularly in an era when super teams are regularly put together.
We have objective data to compare. Jordan was 6'6", had a 48" vertical and a 4.3 40 time (!). Are there a lot of guards today with that ability, quick enough to defend him, and tall enough to challenge him?Yes, but I compared athletic measurements to 1991, athletes today generally are MUCH better than in 1991 at the elite level.
I was thinking about this today in context of Bob Gibson who I think was the most dominant team athlete I have seen. A huge part of that was his meanness. But he also was physically better, and that advantage would be gone.
That is true for MJ, the biggest single reason anyone rates him above a Bird is how much more athletic MJ was. Against the players today, that would be gone. A lot of players at his position would be at least as athletic. He would still have his brains and meanness, but being mean only goes so far. No one thinks of Rodman or Laimbeer as the greatest and both would break as many of your bones as it took to stop you.
Kudos for trying to fight the good fight, Marvin, but the Cooler needs to be renamed "Old Men Waxing Poetic About the Good Old Days When They Were Young(er)". This is the 2nd "get off my lawn" thread this week!He might be, 1991 isn't THAT long ago. But look at track or swimming. How many world records from those eras exist today? In the 100m dash the 1992 WR was 9.96. All 8 runners in the 2024 Olympic finals beat that time. Men's marathon WR in 92 was 2:13:23, in the 24 Olympics 48 runners beat or tied that.
As great as Michael Phelps was, I do not believe he owns any records. Spitz would not even qualify. His best 100 free was 51.22. Today's women's WR is 45.16. Think about that, she would beat Spitz by 6 full seconds. Heck, it looks like the men's record in 91 was Biondi at 48.42. That is 3 seconds slower than the women today. At that time the women's was 51.71.
Field events are the same way. But there are rare exceptions, the hammer throw record has been around since the 80s. You can see below, the vast majority are in the last 10 years. I have no doubt Jordan would be great. Maybe the greatest, maybe not. One advantage he would have over the Europeans in the NBA, he played defense.
You guys must just be trolling now.Kudos for trying to fight the good fight, Marvin, but the Cooler needs to be renamed "Old Men Waxing Poetic About the Good Old Days When They Were Young(er)". This is the 2nd "get off my lawn" thread this week!
Jordan's biggest assets as a rookie were his speed, size, quick twitch, and jumping ability. I am skeptical that any of those things would be extraordinary in today's NBA. And I am nearly certain that Jordan wouldn't have been able to keep his many vices out of the social media microscope of today's climate. Hall of Famer or Jontay Porter? 🤣
No.It's most likely that there are 30-50 players in the NBA right now who are better than MJ.
Never. I'm just honestly not sure MJ could handle Austin Reaves' smoke.You guys must just be trolling now.
We have objective data to compare. Jordan was 6'6", had a 48" vertical and a 4.3 40 time (!). Are there a lot of guards today with that ability, quick enough to defend him, and tall enough to challenge him?
Jordan and Chamberlain in their prime would dominate today. Bird and Erving would school the pretenders today.In comparing the videos, it appears to be a tie between MJ and LeBron. That said, in a couple of them LeBron had a breakaway and MJ was trying to get ahead of someone. In other words, Lebron may not have been full speed. Even if he was, LeBron is much larger/stronger. To be as fast as MJ but much more powerful is important. If LeBron wanted to back his way down there is little MJ could do.
You aren't even a boomer and are showing the boomer, "Everything in my day is clearly superior" bias. Though there is an intangible MJ has over LeBron that may make a difference. I think he was a better team player. Part of that may have been Phil's zen, part might be LeBron appears more self centered by moving teams so often.