Why were the old giants bad?

You sound triggered. They weighed less. If I pointed out Shaq’s weight at his fattest, it would be a pretty big number.

The nonfat number that Google spits out is 324.

 

You compare their college weights to modern players listed weights, which makes no sense. I am not triggered, I don't like when people talk about things they have no idea about.

Wilt weighed 280-300 lbs in his prime. Russell weighed 235 lbs in 1969. These guys weren't undersized by modern standards.

Shaq is retired for over 10 years, are you aware of that?

By the way, Shaq weighed more than 325 lbs during his best years, you're not aware of that either.

 

I think it's as fair as cross-era comparison can be. Otherwise, we can say that 1930s HW boxers were bigger than in 1970s because Carnera was the champion at some point.

 

I’m just showing you that the difference still exists regardless of what number I use. I can ask Google or ask Wikipedia or NBA.com. The modern era players come out heavier in general and usually taller too.

 

1. Are you dense or what? I said you like 5 times that teams used college weights back in the 1960s, so you can't compare numbers like apples to apples.

2. Again, averages:

1969: 6'5.9"; 206 lbs
2022: 6'6.2"; 214 lbs

8 lbs of a difference is likely smaller than a standard deviation between listed and real weights. 0.3" inches of difference is nothing.

 

He's slow, has very poor defense, doesn't utilize his full height to his advantage, paws with his jab, lacks fighting spirit, sometimes take a few rounds to warm up (late starter). He has several issues, and whether he was tall or short he'd still be a fairly mediocre boxer with those qualities.

 

If those are indeed the averages for those 2 years then it's strange that people keep exaggerating acting as if the majority of old school NBA players were 5'11 plumbers and milk men with no athleticism or fundamentals.

Hardly any difference at all. 8 lbs wouldn't be some sort of huge advantage in any sport, and 0.3 inches is basically nothing.

 

I think it's caused by two main things:

1. People mistake 1960s basketball with 1940s basketball, because all of the clips we have are B&W. I know that for boxing history fans it's insane, but most basketball fans don't know much about pre-1980 NBA history. Basketball players were indeed significantly smaller in the 1940s and even though they were quite tall already in the 1950s, there was still noticeable gap.

2. People watch Wilt highlights and conclude that he's way bigger than the rest, so he should have played against midgets... except that Wilt would have been a giant in any era. He was legit 7'1 man with extremely long arms.

 

Football has certainly exploded in weights, at least at certain positions. Lineman for certain. tight ends. Quarterbacks. Josh Allan or Cam Newton would have been close to the biggest man on the field back in the fifties. Running backs, defensive backs, and wide receivers are probably about the same size on the whole.

I think baseball players are much bigger also.

Basketball is probably the exception in weight because scads of extra muscle and weight might hinder critical jumping ability and flexibility. So I can easily accept that the weights have not exploded.

 

Yeah, a lot of muscles isn't beneficial in basketball. In most sports it is, that's why you see a rapid increase of weight during steroids era. Basketball players were also slightly heavier two decades ago, but it had more to do with the style of play than actual shift in training.

 

Where are you getting these averages?

 

1. It's not just basketball or boxing, people have this size fetish and agenda against anything pre "modern era" automatically dismissing anything that doesn't have today's flash and excitement. People will similarly dismiss old weight lifters or NFL players as if they would get destroyed by modern high schoolers. Hence why you get fanatical posters like moneytheman or white bomber who simply look at the birth date of an athlete and thats all they need to know for a vs discussion or legacy comparison. The more they talk, the more obvious their ignorance is.

2. Wilt could probably score close to 100 points today given how quickly fouls are called just for breathing on people. And yes, he'd be tall and huge even by today's standards. I don't know why these people are kidding themselves acting as if Wilts existence is confirmation his era had mostly short, unathletic players. By the way, NoNeck just likes to argue even when you show irrefutable evidence so good luck with that, his ego won't allow him to take an L gracefully. If you post averages from official sources the conversation should have ended.

 

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.