[Deleted by user.]

Just on old basketball versus new, I thought the 1969 was much faster paced than the modern game. Lots of fast breaks and getting the ball up quicker with a lot more movement without the ball.

I wonder if the three-point line isn't hurting the game. Just a thought from an old geezer who remembers the game before three-pointers.

 

Weight does matter. Basketball is very physical. Light guys get hurt easily on a basketball court and suffer on defense.

Kobe was an example of a guy who was skinny but out on an ideal amount of weight.

 

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba-height/

 

Players has got lighter on average during last 20 years. Basketball now needs more mobility and quickness than ever before. Of course strength matters, but far less than in most sports.

 

That's true, the game was much faster back then. I like both eras, although I think 1970s was more fun to watch from rules perspective.

 

At a glance, it looks like the differences are greater for PF and center than for PG, since size matters more for those positions.

It would be useful to compare all star teams bc there are more nba players now than back then and it dilutes things for modern guys.

 

That's not true, the difference between average 2020s center and average 1960s center is within half of inch.

I don't see why it would change anything. Teams don't have a lot of undersized players on their bench today. Talent pool is bigger now, even taking into account bigger league.

 

Being an exclusive boxing fan I don’t know the first thing about basketball. But I do find the issue of the relative sizes of the players interesting.

Do you guys think the weight of the athletes in that sport has changed too and do you see any link to the creation of the Superheavyweight boxers and the evolution of basketball players?

 

In the early 60s, centers averaged about 230 and in recent years they average about 245-255. That is a significant difference, although height increased a lot in the last years of the 50s to put it within an inch or two of today’s average.

 

The old Giants were bad because they had no running game, a mediocre quarterback and a leaky defense. Come to think of it, that is much like the current Giants.

 

So if the smaller guys are hindering themselves in trying to size up or at least approximate themselves to if not equal their more natural SHW sizes counterparts, should they just go with a reasonable but not overdone bulk?

We all could see that Usyk was in perfect balance, still very agile and fast at 6’3” 221 lbs vs Joshua, and highly successful even though he was dropping virtually 20 lbs to his opponent and about 3” in height.

Of course there were less SHWs in the past but perhaps there were a greater number of engagements involving true natural size differences - meaning the smaller guy didn’t try to bulk up - with a fair degree of success given their speed, agility etc and their own ideal P4P qualities fully maintained.

No hard and fast conclusions, just some points to consider.

 

Sure, but we compare college weights here, which I remind you 10th time here.

Not within an inch or two, but within half of inch.

 

So what you are saying is by the late 1950s there were giant athletes in one sport but not in another?

There already was enough Giant sized athletes to dominate other sports outside of boxing?

why did it take so long for athletes of giant proportions to take over HW boxing when athletes that size were already dominant elsewhere?

Seems to be clear as day to me that boxing was waiting for “advances” in training before athletes that size could become more relevant in boxing.

has there been an improvement in the giant sized athletes in that sport?

 

Cuts both ways.

 

The NBA had tall guys who were bean poles back then. Maybe being a bean pole isn't conducive to heavyweight boxing.