He is right too. Rodman would drive Bosh crazy and he would be a non factor.

He is right too. Rodman would drive Bosh crazy and he would be a non factor.

I am a little surprised to see Rodman say the Heat had more talent.

Jordan Pippen Rodman Harper Kukoc

Lebron Bosh Wade Allen Birdman

I think the Bulls win on that one too

He would also get in LeBron's head, either by trash talking or fouling him hard the first time he drove to the hoop.

Phil Jackson vs. Erik Spoelstra

Yeah, I think the era from when Magic and Bird came into the league up until around the last Bulls championship was a golden age. But I think the 60s when you had Russell and Wilt and Bellamy and Baylor and Robertson, etc. was a golden age too. So it really doesn't have anything to do with athletes getting better in general, right?

Who or what are you responding to? Bernstein doesn't post here.

It's not that I disagree with Dennis, but I'm not sure how that could be the case. Aren't athletes better than ever now? Did humans reach their peak of evolution, training, and drugging in the 90s? We know Dick Butkus, Deacon Jones, Dolph Schayes, and George Mikan couldn't compete today. Are we headed back to those days of tiny, crippled athletes?

Phil Jackson vs. Erik Spoelstra

Horace Grant and Cartwright would get Bosh out of his game too. That was a scary frontcourt tandem defensively.

Those Piston teams of the late 80s vs the current Heat would be interesting. If we are playing by rules in place during that time.

I quoted the wrong post JORR. Sorry. This is what I was replying to:




Bernstein ain't here, man.

Yeah, it'd be interesting until Wade and Bosh were put in the ambulence mid first quarter of Game 1

bernstein isn't the only guy who thinks people were feeble forty years ago. There are plenty of guys on this board that share that viewpoint.

Rodman is right in that the teams were better and certainly deeper in the 80s and 90s. But he's wrong to say LeBron would be an "average" player. That's just as absurd as saying Jerry Lucas couldn't play today.

I think we're too close to the '40s, '50s, and '60s to notice substantial differences between body types and sizes. The conversation about player ability across generations too often neglects to account for how we're socialized into particular sports. I think how athletes are exposed to the sport from an early age also plays a role in determining the skill sets they're able to develop. Who knows what LeBron would be like if he grew up in the '60s as opposed to the '90s? You're not born with a crossover dribble and a couple spin moves, you get that from watching those moves on TV, or if you're privileged enough to have a really good coach who won't pigeon hole you into certain positions based on your size. Would LeBron or someone like Durant be as perimeter savvy as they are without constant exposure to those types of moves via modern, 24 hour highlight shows and infotainment?

In my own experience, the guys I tried to pattern my game after were the ones making all the headlines on TV: Iverson, Carter, Kobe, McGrady, etc. It didn't matter that I had the size of a typical PF in adolescence, I didn't really care. I just knew I wanted to play like those guys on TV, so I became this awkward perimeter player with no post skills even though I technically had the size to play in the post at the time. To put it another way, who is to say those guys in earlier eras weren't able to do some of the stuff players do now? That they weren't jumping over seven footers and dunking the ball doesn't mean they couldn't. It's more about imagination while you're developing, and a big part of your on-the-court imagination depends on what kind of players/moves/athletic feats you're exposed to.

these debates always remind me of "who would win in a battle? wolverine or batman?"

Wolverine. Duh.