If you just look at teams throughout the league, theres almost no team with no sense of hope. Almost all teams are competitive or have young talent thats super talented. Some years ago there were many teams that were just abysmal. This season as i look at the leagiue, almost every team will compete on any given night. I've been watching the NBA since 1999, and 12-13 has to be one of the most intriguing seasons i can think of.
Are we in an NBA Golden Era?
- Thread starter jcwkings
- Start date
No, I think you don't have nearly the quality of dominating big men of yesteryear - Wilt, Kareem, Walton, Hakim and others. They just don't exist to the same degree today. And I don't think even the other superstars that we currently have - LBJ, Wade, Durant et al - compare to the Oscar Robertson's, Jerry West, Magic, Bird, Jordan, et al.
You don't have to like Lebron but he is up there with the all time greats. Dude absolutely does it all. Kobe is up there too. Wade is second tier and Durant is still too young to say.
We're in an age of super teams. Where high profile players get together in big markets and try to win championships. Maybe some day we'll look back and think of how cool it was to see all these great players playing with each other. Maybe we'll look back and call them a bunch of pansies because they couldn't go out there and win a championship on their own. I'm going with the latter. I think we're watching a tainted product full of crybabies that demand to be traded because they aren't surrounded with the talent they think they should be surrounded with and they can't adapt to make the players around them better. So they cry and cry until they hit free agency or get traded to LA, NY, Boston, Miami or Chicago. If you can't win with your own team, then shack up with a bunch of other guys that can't either and form a super team. It's irritating and makes me love the underdogs even more.
We're in an age of super teams. Where high profile players get together in big markets and try to win championships. Maybe some day we'll look back and think of how cool it was to see all these great players playing with each other. Maybe we'll look back and call them a bunch of pansies because they couldn't go out there and win a championship on their own. I'm going with the latter. I think we're watching a tainted product full of crybabies that demand to be traded because they aren't surrounded with the talent they think they should be surrounded with and they can't adapt to make the players around them better. So they cry and cry until they hit free agency or get traded to LA, NY, Boston, Miami or Chicago. If you can't win with your own team, then shack up with a bunch of other guys that can't either and form a super team. It's irritating and makes me love the underdogs even more.
nah. certainly not a golden era. the economy is still in recovery, and with professional sports leagues locking out their players every five years or so to move millions of dollars around in a restructuring of collective bargaining agreements, as well as the popularity of the "superteam" around the nba, cynicism has never run more rampant amongst fanbases. people still watch, of course. people still pay rather exorbitant prices to attend professional sporting events. people still buy the related merchandise. but there's a begrudging element to it all. its hard to describe this as a "golden era" of any kind. lebron james is not the global, uniting force (and brand) that michael jordan was (and still is). even if they gel quickly in the coming weeks, the "new look lakers" (who the eff came up with that phrase, by the way? i HATE hearing it in every nba ad rolled out for this season) don't have nearly the same entertainment value that the great showtime lakers did, or even the entertainment value that the shaq-and-kobe dynasty had...
it helps when you have inter-conference and cross-conference counterpoints to create strong narratives in professional sports. your "golden eras" tend to be born inside of those narratives. the old lakers/celtics rivalry was one for the ages. even the lakers/kings rivalry of the early 2000's was more compelling than just about any "rivalry" being bandied about in 2012. for example, the heat/celtics "rivalry" of recent vintage feels manufactured most of the time, like people are reaching for something that's hardly there, because that's what sports fans crave. the eastern conference has not been very strong in the last decade, so those two teams became rivals by way of attrition rather than through the natural course of competition. lebron james has spent his career competing against himself, his own limitations, and the structure of the teams he's belonged to, rather than the pressure of another team's greatness. it's not like he had a kobe bryant and a shaquille o'neal consistently in his way, as the kings did during their best years. it's a shame, really. you'd like to believe that the nba's most gifted contemporary athlete would have a better narrative attached to his championship legacy. but, in the nba's present landscape, it was kinduva foregone conclusion that lebron james, dwayne wade, and chris bosh would eventually win a title together. not much spark to it when we all knew it would happen, and when there was little in the way of challenge to keep miami from getting there...
and kingster's also right: the quality of big men around the league has sunk in recent years. at the level of talent, demarcus cousins may already be a top-5 center in the nba by virtue of the competition. hard to have a golden era when the nba's power forward and center positions are this weak, overall. things have gotten so bad, in fact, that the league actually felt it was appropriate to eliminate the center position from the all-star ballot, altogether. now, voters will be casting their all-star votes for "frontcourt" players as a general category. but the league's been at its strongest, competitively speaking, when there are a wide array of talented big men dominating the game. this is the era of the little guy, and its just not nearly as interesting. demarcus cousins is actually one of the most interesting prospects across the entire nba, because if he matures accordingly, there's no reason why he couldn't be the league's most dominant big man for a decade...
it helps when you have inter-conference and cross-conference counterpoints to create strong narratives in professional sports. your "golden eras" tend to be born inside of those narratives. the old lakers/celtics rivalry was one for the ages. even the lakers/kings rivalry of the early 2000's was more compelling than just about any "rivalry" being bandied about in 2012. for example, the heat/celtics "rivalry" of recent vintage feels manufactured most of the time, like people are reaching for something that's hardly there, because that's what sports fans crave. the eastern conference has not been very strong in the last decade, so those two teams became rivals by way of attrition rather than through the natural course of competition. lebron james has spent his career competing against himself, his own limitations, and the structure of the teams he's belonged to, rather than the pressure of another team's greatness. it's not like he had a kobe bryant and a shaquille o'neal consistently in his way, as the kings did during their best years. it's a shame, really. you'd like to believe that the nba's most gifted contemporary athlete would have a better narrative attached to his championship legacy. but, in the nba's present landscape, it was kinduva foregone conclusion that lebron james, dwayne wade, and chris bosh would eventually win a title together. not much spark to it when we all knew it would happen, and when there was little in the way of challenge to keep miami from getting there...
and kingster's also right: the quality of big men around the league has sunk in recent years. at the level of talent, demarcus cousins may already be a top-5 center in the nba by virtue of the competition. hard to have a golden era when the nba's power forward and center positions are this weak, overall. things have gotten so bad, in fact, that the league actually felt it was appropriate to eliminate the center position from the all-star ballot, altogether. now, voters will be casting their all-star votes for "frontcourt" players as a general category. but the league's been at its strongest, competitively speaking, when there are a wide array of talented big men dominating the game. this is the era of the little guy, and its just not nearly as interesting. demarcus cousins is actually one of the most interesting prospects across the entire nba, because if he matures accordingly, there's no reason why he couldn't be the league's most dominant big man for a decade...
Last edited:
Well, I've been watching NBA basketball since 1955, and I've blessed to have seen some of the greatest players of all time. I think the difference between now and some of the great players then, is that then, there were more of them. And at times many were on the same team. Magic had James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bryon Scott, Bob McAdoo, Michael Cooper, and Jamaal Wilkes in 1984. They had 6 player averaging in double figures.
The 1965 Celtics had Bill Russell, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Don Nelson. And yes, Don Nelson was very good player. They had 6 players average in double figures. In 1972 the Lakers had Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Elgin Baylor, and Happy Hairston, with 6 in double figures.
In 1984 the Celtics had Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Cedrick Maxwell, with 6 in double figures.
In 1988 the Pistons had Adrian Dantley, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguire, Vinnie Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, and Dennis Rodman, with 6 in double figures.
In 1993 the Rockets had Hakeem Olajuwon, Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, and Sam Cassell, with 5 in double figures.
In 1980 the 76'ers had Julius Irving, Darryl Dawkins, Bobby Jones, Andrew Toney, Doug Collins, Lionel Hollins and Maurice Cheeks, with 6 in double figures.
1978, the Trailblazers had Bill Walton, Maurice Lucas, Lionel Hollins, Lloyd Neal and Dave Twardzik, with 7 in double figures.
I could go on and on. A lot of these great teams overlapped. Think about this. In 1972 you had playing in the NBA at the same time, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Dave Cowens and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
You could go through every position that year and find the same thing. Guys like Walt Frazier, Pearl Monroe, Pistol Pete Marivich, etc. I think the top talent level today pales by comparison to some other era's. But then its a subjective subject.
The 1965 Celtics had Bill Russell, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Don Nelson. And yes, Don Nelson was very good player. They had 6 players average in double figures. In 1972 the Lakers had Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Elgin Baylor, and Happy Hairston, with 6 in double figures.
In 1984 the Celtics had Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Cedrick Maxwell, with 6 in double figures.
In 1988 the Pistons had Adrian Dantley, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguire, Vinnie Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, and Dennis Rodman, with 6 in double figures.
In 1993 the Rockets had Hakeem Olajuwon, Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, and Sam Cassell, with 5 in double figures.
In 1980 the 76'ers had Julius Irving, Darryl Dawkins, Bobby Jones, Andrew Toney, Doug Collins, Lionel Hollins and Maurice Cheeks, with 6 in double figures.
1978, the Trailblazers had Bill Walton, Maurice Lucas, Lionel Hollins, Lloyd Neal and Dave Twardzik, with 7 in double figures.
I could go on and on. A lot of these great teams overlapped. Think about this. In 1972 you had playing in the NBA at the same time, Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Dave Cowens and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
You could go through every position that year and find the same thing. Guys like Walt Frazier, Pearl Monroe, Pistol Pete Marivich, etc. I think the top talent level today pales by comparison to some other era's. But then its a subjective subject.
Last edited: