Usyk In The 1950's?

No, it's not the same because:

1. Cousy was never the best player in the world, while James is among the best players ever.
2. One on one play has nothing to do with basketball. A lot of inferior players would beat Cousy or Nash one on one, it doesn't make them better basketball players.

 

They were past prime, and what Usyk has done in 20 fights is unbelievable.

 

Depends what you’re talking about. Defensively? Leader? Rebounding? Team player? I’d say no. Lebron is the better passer scorer. Depends what you want in a star player. Both athletic freaks. Bill Russell and Wilt are really the only two guys then that I 100 percent believe would be top players today. Maybe Jerry West because he was built for this style of nba…but anyway this is a boxing forum lol

 

In those 20 fights how many were HOFers? That means something. Schedule means something. Activity means something. Usyk has accomplished a lot in 20 fights no doubt. That’s why we are even having a discussion about it

 

I'm no expert but I know plenty about Bill Russell and the basketball of his era. More, I suspect, than you know about James and his attributes.

If you don't think Russell's dominance on defense had a lot to do with the difference in competition, you're delusional. Wilt abused Russell when they played (check the stats--Russell was wholly incapable of guarding him), but Russell still gets credit because his team was so much more stacked than Wilt's. I think a bunch of the top centers and power forwards of recent decades would do the same.

If you can't tell that James would have been extraordinarily dominant defensively and offensively if put in a time machine to Russell's era, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I'm afraid you're wrong then. I've been watching and analyzing basketball games from various eras for years and I suspect that I've seen way more games than you could imagine.

This just proved that you don't know much about the 1960s era and that - indeed - you are not expert.

Let me say this straight - Wilt was an absolute monster. Even if Russell couldn't guard him, it wouldn't mean anything. He was 7'1 300 lbs all-time great physical freak with 7'8 wingspan and GOAT level of all-around athleticism. On top of that, he was very skilled player on both ends of the floor and you can't find more than very selected group of bigmen that could rival his impact.

To say that Wilt abused Russell is just wrong though. Celtics defense reduced Wilt's offensive production and impact noticeably for majority of his career. Russell was one of the best players ever at denying the ball and fronting opponents in the post. His hands were always active and he knew how to position himself better than anyone. He also limited Wilt's offensive rebound chances because he was also elite rebounder. It doesn't mean that Wilt didn't score his share of points on Russell or that Chamberlain couldn't outplay Russell h2h. They played total of 8 playoff series against each other and Russell outplayed Chamberlain at least in three of them (1960, 1966 and 1969). Some of them were reasonably close as well (1962 and 1968).

It's also not true that Russell won everything because of his stacked team. In 1964 for example, Celtics had no above average offensive player outside of Sam Jones. Every other Celtics player was mediocre scorer with poor efficiency and no creation ability. Yet Russell anchored them to the best defense in NBA history and carried this roster to dominant postseason run. Celtics in general weren't good offensive team and didn't have as much talent as some imply - especially after 1963.

Not to mention that Wilt lost two series against Celtics in which he arguably had better supporting cast than Russell - in 1968 (though the Sixers team was full of injuries) and 1969 with West and Baylor.

Of course James would be extraoridinary in any era, but he would never reach Russell's defensive impact. You may say "he's too big and too athletic for this era", but basketball doesn't work this way. Russell himself was taller and longer than James (two very important physical features on defense), but he's also far better in other aspects of basketball defense. Russell is much better shotblocker than James and the difference isn't created by era - you can watch footage and see things that James simply isn't capable of. Russell is also more fundamentally sound with his rotations and help defense, his timing was also notably better. He rarely made mistakes and usually read plays faster than other defenders. On top of that, he's also much more focused defender who didn't take possessions off on that end.

Russell was the ideal defender for any era - perfect size (6'10 without the shoes and 230 lbs at his peak), extremely fast and quick, elite vertical and second jump, extraoridinary awareness and excellent timing. He's like smarter, less agressive version of Hakeem Olajuwon on defensive end. I hope you won't suggest that James is as good as Hakeem on defense, because you'd lose this debate otherwise.

I say all of this while having James one spot higher on my all-time list than Russell, but it's mostly because of longevity - not because he's some kind of different tier of basketball player. He simply isn't.

 

Here are their regular season head-to-head stats. Would love to see their playoff stats.

https://stathead.com/tiny/PAGXr

Wilt: 29.9ppg, 28.1rpg
Russell: 14.2ppg, 22.9rpg

Looks like Wilt was pretty dominant to me, even if Russell and his stacked Celtics squad were more effective against him than lesser centers on lesser squads were.

I'm not convinced that Russell was 6'10 with no shoes, but that's not a hill I'm interested in dying on.

 

So fellas, I'm glad we've covered the shortcomings of basketball players in bygone eras, but how do we think Usyk gets on in the fifties?

 

Almost as well as LeBron James would have...

 

If your basketball analysis is limited to looking at boxscore stats, then I won't waste my time anymore.

Why are you not convinced? He was measured at 6'9.625 without the shoes in college. He was noticeably taller than someone like Dwight Howard as an old man.

 

The problem with Usyk in the 1950s is as a cruiserweight he would be far too small and weaker than the bigger guys in that division like Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, John Holman, James J Parker, Cleavland Williams, Mike Dejohn and Young Jack Johnson.

But since he was nearly as big as Larry Holmes when he challenged AJ, we now know Usyk would physically be able to handle the bigger guys in the division like Archie Moore and Bob Satterfield always could.

 

Stats aren't everything but they can be pretty illuminating. I've had lots of discussions about Wilt and Russell over the years, and it's amazing how many misconceptions there are out there about how well Russell handled him defensively—even among hardcore basketball fans. Stats certainly aren't the limit of m interest in the sport or my analysis though.

 

I think he would do well. Would love to see how he would do against Marciano, Walcott, Charles (ultimate chess match), Harold Johnson, Liston, Patterson, Archie Moore. These would all be decent contests. Hell even Satterfield Usyk would be interesting because Bobs never had a full fight.

 

If you like stats maybe you should look up Russell’s DWS and how it’s by FAR tbe. There was no stopping wilt he was basically shaq of his time. But you could make him less efficient which they did or turn him into a ball hog which he was.

 

Well, for now you haven't provided anything else other than "Russell's defense is overrated because Wilt scored on him". This kind of analysis would be laughed off in places I discuss about basketball.

How many Russell vs Wilt games have you seen by the way? Since I am a basketball collector focused on 1960s and 1970s footage, I've seen more from them than anyone who couldn't see them live. I'm sure that I have a lot of footage in my collection you've never seen.

So no, you don't seem to have much knowledge about the subject. I don't question your boxing knowledge, you likely know a lot more about this sport than me, but this kind of analysis in basketball is extremely, extremely crude.