Jack Givens

[uk78_rivals88018]

They would have beaten the 2012 team. We played tight and had a close game against UL, and faced a so-so Kansas team instead of an injured UNC team and allowed them to come back by deciding to just try and get Davis going offensively in the second half. Forget talent and think about team play. The USA Olympic team almost lost a game or more and every position had way more talent than college teams. And, one of those losses was to a so-so foreign team that just played better team ball on both ends of the court.

Before this thread there was another about one and dones and when you watch today's games passes are either leads to the post on a break, or to where a player is standing. Watch the 78 and even 98 team. They passed to spots before the player even was there on the perimeter or baseline. It was familiarity. Now, the one thing no one can answer is about 3 point shots and how that might have changed some dynamics. But, the 96 team were have beaten the 78 team because they were equally experienced and it wasn't a one and done team either. But these teams now are good but come on, you can watch and see there is a lot of growing for them all to do. As great as Davis was, he was not ready for physical players like Robey and Philips. Davis had difficulty against that Indiana center who was no great shakes. Lee by his Senior season would have spelled huge problems for MKG. Macy was way superior to Teague as a point guard. The bench was deep and Shidler could shoot the long ball and in fact until injured, I believe he might have been one of the best shooters Kentucky ever had.

 

[PaulRCollins]

The most important factor is the manner in which games are called today in my opinion. The old guys were great players with excellent shooting skills and great footwork and other fundamentals. A commentator called my attention to the difference in style of play by showing some video of a game involving Patrick Ewing at Georgetown. There was virtually no contact between the players on defense and offense even in the low post. We always tend to imagine these scenarios with the old guys competing in the current game against the youngsters. Before you write off the older players as non-competitive, perhaps we should consider whether the current players could compete against the old guys in a game with referees from the 70's. By the way, I was told by an ex-UL player (later high school coach) who competed against Frank Beard in pick up games that he would compete today at the highest levels--he was truly athletically gifted and far ahead of his peers in the same way that John Wall is gifted today.

 

[mjj_2K]

Last time I had any tiny amount of respect at all for rearview mirror syndrome was about four years ago. Someone started a post asking how John Wall's vertical compared to former players'. Old timers came out of the woodwork and the absolute uniform consensus was Wall was okay for today's weak standards but his vertical really sucked compared to the good old heroes of yesteryear. Most of those judgements were summary: the only real discussion was how much did Rex really jump higher than Wall. Did he really jump the full 8 inches higher? Or was that only exaggeration---did he really only jump 4 to 6 inches higher?

This seemed extreme to me. I got really interested in the ultimate answer. If there really were supermen lurking in the era immediately before my time as a fan, I wanted to know the full measure of their awesomeness. So I could properly revere them. No joke. I take being a fan seriously. Always have.

It took me a lot of digging, but I was eventually able to find official measurements of both Rex Chapman's and John Wall's vertical leaps. Measured both as high school seniors and college freshmen for both of them.

John Wall's official vertical was --minimum-- 4 inches higher than Rex Chapman's.

Combine that with all the superhuman stories I've heard about Pistol Pete Maravich and all the tape I've had the luxury of being able to watch on him personally from his slow, clumsy, palming, ridiculous volume shooting college and NBA careers? Screw all that old-time thinking.

Face it, college basketball athleticism, endurance, sharpshooting, and anything along those lines have all been increasing on a very steady pace since at least 1980 with no slowing down. I've personally witnessed about 30 years worth of those changes, and I'm no longer vaguely interested in throwing out what I know and have seen for some nostalgic sloppy thinker's wet fantasies. Team defenses have improved, too. Now if you want to tell me old-time teams made better use of ball screens and motion offenses than today's teams, I will listen to you. I will be smart enough to know it makes a difference that you had smaller, slower players with less reach and worse reflexes running those offenses. But I'll still listen to you. If you want to tell me any tales of basketball Achilles apart from that, piss off. You're a moron.

I'll give Goose that his teams could probably have beaten 12-13 and last year at least on a lot of nights. And if he's realistic he'll be happy with that. Any of Cal's other teams, and goodness gracious the '96 team, would have made his squads look stupid. Really really stupid. He's more than welcome to talk trash. But so am I. And I don't even have a dog in this fight. I just happen to like realism.

Love it. It's over the top, but basically right.

One of the best things you can say about it is this: 76 ABA Dunk contest. Famous for Dr J's FT line dunk (which not a lot of people can do even now), but beyond that, you now have 100 HS kids, every single year, who can outdo what those guys were doing. And back then, they were state of the art, elite of the elite.

 

[anon_q409idbs5m40a]

Always thought 78 was the best UK team I've seen. Most versatile. Run or half court. Deep. Athletic and tough. Experienced and smart. Good shooters and made Multiple defenses.

Exactly, and we may never appreciate how good they were due to the game being totally different back then.

 

[bthaunert]

I expect the older players thinking they would be able to compete with the latest Kentucky teams, but I don't know if it's the case or not. Watching older college basketball games, one thing you notice right away is the size wasn't there like today. When your post players are 6'5 and can't jump over a phone book, it just makes you wonder how any of those guys would be able to play defense on guys like Davis or Cousins. How would any guard play defense on a guy as quick as John Wall? I know they probably shot the ball better back then, but when you can jump like Davis or can fly like Wall, you don't have to shoot the ball like Steph Curry. Its interesting to think about, but if I'm putting my money on the line, I'm going with which team had Davis. We didn't even see the Davis that could score the ball so easily and the Brow still controlled the game while at Kentucky. No offense to Jack, who was a great player to watch play the game himself.

You do realize Kentucky had two starters that were 6'10" that year? We're not talking the 40's here. Guys like Magic Johnson and Larry Bird played college basketball in 1978.

 

[anon_q409idbs5m40a]

You do realize Kentucky had two starters that were 6'10" that year? We're not talking the 40's here. Guys like Magic Johnson and Larry Bird played college basketball in 1978.

For those that don't think the '78 team could've competed with quicker, more athletic teams, just remember what Arkansas had that year. Moncrief, Brewer and Delph were as good as anyone in the country and arguably the most athletic guard trio ever in college basketball. IMO, that was the best team the '78 champs played that season.

 

[bigbluelou]

I remember having these exact same conversations with family and friends in the late 70s and early 80s about how much bigger, stronger faster and more athletic the teams were than those from the 50s and 60s. We were confident the older teams couldn't compete.

Guess we'll be having the same comparisons thirty years from now when talking about the unathletic scrubs of today.

I do believe the overly physical, full-contact nature of the sport today would make a huge difference for the older guys. It was more graceful and fluid then whereas now it's more of a dogfight.

 

[Bluest Member]

I remember having these exact same conversations with family and friends in the late 70s and early 80s about how much bigger, stronger faster and more athletic the teams were than those from the 50s and 60s. We were confident the older teams couldn't compete.

Guess we'll be having the same comparisons thirty years from now when talking about the unathletic scrubs of today.

I do believe the overly physical, full-contact nature of the sport today would make a huge difference for the older guys. It was more graceful and fluid then whereas now it's more of a dogfight.

That's not totally accurate either, back in the day they never had Flagrant fouls for swinging elbows on rebounds and I've seen many bloody faces,there were some very physical games then too.The biggest difference was players stayed until they were Seniors and there were more experienced teams and they played solid fundamental basketball.