- VISA wrote:
- Wilt and russel ARE overrated, They played agasit shorter,white centers. And not to be racist but a white person playing center just isn't good...
Why do people in these days think the 60's era was weak era?
Back in 1980 where there 23 teams during the NBA's 35th anniversary when Russell was voted by basketball writers , experts and pundits as the Greatest Player of All Time, the argument that Russell played in a "weak era" because he played in an 8 team league or there were plenty of white guy back then etc. was NEVER brought up.
Maybe because it was a STUPID argument to begin with. Boohoo. Russell played in an era with white men a plenty. If this isnt one of the most prime examples of Black racism. Attributing basketball talent (on which athleticism plays but a small part) with race is stupid and embarrasing. For shame . . . . we're supposed to be better than this.
On Russell playing in a weak era . . . .
The level of competition in Russell's era in the 60's is exceptionally tougher. Why? Because the level of competition is dependent on the quality of players on the League NOT on the quantity. And during that time, the talent is concentrated into just 8-9 teams.
The top talent in the 90's are diluted into 30 teams which makes for weak competition.
The NCAA and NIT (when it still mattered) was concentrated in only 8-9 teams. The 24th pick of the 1st round today would be the final pick of the 3rd round in the 60's. Only the cream of the crop get to play in the NBA in the 60's. To cite an example, Russell would face off Wilt Chamberlain 8-9 times a season. When he is not fighting Wilt, he is fending off other Hall of Famers 8-9x again like Nate Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed etc. you get the drift. They have to work their butts off almost everytime.
In contrast, Shaq only facedoff with Ewing in the East 4x and faces-off with Hakeem and Robinson in the West 2x. The top centers spend most of their time fending off middling talent like Ilgauskas. Where is the challenge in that? You consider this a competitive era?
Russell and Wilt dueled 142x during a ten year period. Compared that to Bird and Magic who for close to eleven years, only dueled 37x. The top players in the 60's face an opponent worthy of his abilities MORE OFTEN.
During the 90's, there were 6 teams that were added into the League. Thats 72 slots for less talented players to fill. Players who wouldve been cutoff at training camp in the 80's got their chance in the 90's.
And oh, the average height of centers back then in the 60's is 6'10, the same as Russell's height. The sixties having 6'6 centers is an urban legend.
On Russell having great teammates . . . .
The Celtics are loaded with Hall of Famers because almost every other team in the League in the 60's are LOADED also with Hall of Famers.
Like i mentioned before, talent are concentrated in the 60's. Multiple Hall Of Famers are the norm unlike in the 90's were the top teams only got 1 or two Hall of Famers in the roster.
The St. Louis Hawks have:
Bob Petit
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin
Cliff Hagan
*Clyde Lovellete
and Lenny Wilkens in later years
San Francisco/ Philadelphia Warriors
Neil Johnston
Paul Azirin
Tom Gola
*Wilt
Nate Thurmond
Rick Barry
Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers
Red Kerr
Dolph Schayes
Hal Greer
Frank(?) Costello
Billy Cunningham
*Wilt
Minneapolis/LA Lakers
Vern Mikkelsen
Baylor
West
Gail Goodrich
Rochester Royals (Sac Kings)
Jack Twyman
Oscar Robertson
Jerry Lucas
To debunk the myth that Bill Russell only won championships because of his talented teammates . . . . .
The Celtics NEVER went to the NBA Finals before Russell even with Hall Of Famers like Coach Auerbach and players like Macauley, Cousy, Sharman, and Ramsey.
When Russell retired after the '69 season, the Celtics went down from 48 wins to 34 and they MISSED the Playoffs even with HoF's such as Havlicek, Sanders, Jo Jo White and Howell. A huge 14 game drop.
Russell has 5 rings w/o Cousy. He also has 5 rings
without Havlicek. He also has 2 rings without Red Auerbach as coach.
How many rings does Jordan have without Pippen and Phil Jackson? How come that Chicago only suffered a 2 point deficit in the Win-loss column when Jordan first retired in 1994? How come Pippen was able to lead a Jordan-less Bulls to the eastern Conference Finals?
This is what Wilt thinks whenever people say that Russell only won because of his HoF teammates:
"That team (the Celtics) wasn't so great until he got there. Once he got there, he (Bill Russell) was the piece that they were looking for. A lot of people have said to me, "Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!" NOT TRUE. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn't be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would (Bob) Cousy because I'd be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would've given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team NOT AS GOOD. I've always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn't get any better."
- Wilt Chamberlain - third paragaraph from, Q: Can you talk more about Bill?
http://www.nba.com/history/chamberlain_5…
Home 
NBA.com 
