More impressive....Meeks' 54 or Issel's 53?
- Thread starter EvilMD
- Start date
Meeks had his coach tell him to stop shooting...
If either player were really playing against defense, they wouldn't have scored 50+. Meeks were shooting his rhythmic shot on every single one.
I still liked Davis's 28 points outburst against Vanderbilt better. Importance, against good defense, efficiency, and doing so with multitude of different way.
That's enough for me to give the edge to Issel. Issel had range to the present 3 point line so can you imagine how many he might have scored if the 3 point line existed for him? Plus, you can argue with the rebound numbers and difference in FT's. Still, major accomplishment by both players and both should receive tremendous recognition for what they did.
Issel did it against much weaker competition and in an era when scoring was up. Guys like Johnny Neumann and Pete Maravich AVERAGED over 40 points in that era in the SEC. (I was at a game in 1971 when Johnny Neumann scored 46 on Kentucky -- and the Cats still won by nearly 40. It was the most points ever scored by UK in Memorial Coliseum.)
The night Issel scored 53 Kentucky scored 120 and beat Ole Miss by 35 -- not a defensive struggle. Hell, in a game that same year, Issel scored 51 at LSU -- and Maravich still outscored him by 13 points!
Meeks did it against a ranked Tennessee team on their court in a game in which Kentucky was a clear underdog. If he got 3-points for lots of his shots, in fairness Issel got lots of lay-ups that were not all that contested.
Issel was clearly the better player and deserves his place at the top of UK's list of greats. But Meeks' game was more impressive.
The night Issel scored 53 Kentucky scored 120 and beat Ole Miss by 35 -- not a defensive struggle. Hell, in a game that same year, Issel scored 51 at LSU -- and Maravich still outscored him by 13 points!
Meeks did it against a ranked Tennessee team on their court in a game in which Kentucky was a clear underdog. If he got 3-points for lots of his shots, in fairness Issel got lots of lay-ups that were not all that contested.
Issel was clearly the better player and deserves his place at the top of UK's list of greats. But Meeks' game was more impressive.
Last edited:
Very well-written view. I lean toward Issel but this is a good write-up for those who prefer Meeks' performance. I lean toward Issel simply because of the rebounds and because he had to make more shots. Meeks was like Kobe on a hot night. Issel was like Bird. Pardon the obvious race comparisons.
^^Only dude in the world who likes 28pts vs 54pts. Come on man. I get a boner just watching Jodie look at Bobby Maze and say "fiddy"
.
Watching Meeks play was the only highlight of that disaster of a season (and watching Patterson play as well). Id go with Meeks.
Issel was double-teamed a lot, too. Plus, check how many rebounds Dan had in that game. Not close. Big Dan wins.
After the game he called him selfish (putting this mild at best) and was for sure on him during the game.
I'm sure that happened vs. ND too.
Tough to compare the two, in my opinion. I think in Issel's day, some defenses were coached to let the big dog run. Rupp did that same thing with Pistol Pete on a few occasions. How that came to happen in the Meeks' game is still a mystery to me. Its almost like TN decided to let him run loose thinking that Kentucky wouldn't run the offense through him exclusively. Man, did that backfire.
All in all, I'd give the nod to Issel. I think the overall contribution he made to the game was bigger in terms of rebounds, defense, etc.
All in all, I'd give the nod to Issel. I think the overall contribution he made to the game was bigger in terms of rebounds, defense, etc.
I'm the one who posted the Meeks video a couple of weeks ago. As I was watching it, I started thinking 'this guy is SO dominant scoring 54 points, how in the world did Wilt Chamberlain score 100?' Then I thought 'and how did those guys score so much back then without a three pointer to help them get there?' Think about Pistol Pete.
My favorite was Cliff Hagan's 51 early 50's in Memorial. He scored 17 goals and 17 free throws. On one jump ball at UK's free throw line, Hagan just threw the ball in the goal. Hagan wasn't very big but he was a player. He and Ramsey may have the best combo that I witnessed.
Meeks. Tennessee tried to guard him with every single player they had. I will always remember JP Prince shaking his head on the bench after he tried to guard him. Jodi was lighting it up from DEEP.
![[smoke]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/smokin.r191677.gif "Cool [smoke]")
I was on the UK Bench at the Issel game(Student Manager) Issel was unstoppable and Ole Miss had no real center.Issel had 4 fouls and really charged at the 5 minute mark,,The Referee Old Lou Bello looked at Rupp and then at Ole Miss and slyly called blocking.Cob Jarvis (Ole Miss Coach) cussed up a storm ,but to no avail.Issel was a special player..Meeks had a great night Kudos to him He deserves the glory but The Horse did it for 3 years,,Big Dan is the bell ringer for me..
Last edited:
The main part of the answer is that they took a ton of shots, at a level that's inconceivable in today's game. It was the main style of play for a huge chunk of college and pro teams from the mid/late 50's through the mid/late 70's. No futzing around in the halfcourt, just run run run and shoot shoot shoot. Even in the halfcourt, quick shots were the norm. UK in 69-70 averaged 79 FG attempts per game. I challenge you to find the last game where UK took that many shots. I doubt it's ever happened with Cal as coach, or Clyde, and if it happened under Tubby, it was a fluke.
In Issel's senior year, someone on the opposition scored at least 30 points in 11 different games, including 4 monster games by Maravich and Austin Carr (55 and 64 for Maravich, 43 and 52 for Carr). In the season Meeks put up 53, 5 opposing players scored at least 30, with a high of 33 (Nick Calathes). Just a totally different game, with vastly fewer total shots taken, and no guys at the level of Maravich and Carr (or Issel) in the college game, because all those type of players were already in the NBA.
Just to put some numbers behind this, below are the number of games UK has shot 79 or more FGA per game since 1980.
Date Opponent UK_FGA
3/9/1980 Florida State 82
12/31/1984 Kansas 79
12/6/1989 Tennessee Tech 90
12/23/1989 SW Louisiana 103
12/27/1989 North Carolina 83
1/6/1990 Vanderbilt 82
1/13/1990 Louisiana State 81
2/15/1990 Louisiana State 83
1/23/1991 Florida 80
1/26/1991 Alabama 80
2/5/1991 Louisiana State 96
2/16/1991 Mississippi 81
12/5/1992 Georgia Tech 82
12/19/1992 Morehead 85
11/26/1994 Tennessee-Martin 82
1/1/1995 Louisville 82
1/4/1995 Auburn 79
2/14/1995 Mississippi State 80
3/10/1995 Auburn 81
12/19/1995 Marshall 80
12/27/1995 Rider 80
1/3/1996 South Carolina 82
1/16/1996 Louisiana State 81
3/9/1996 Arkansas 83
3/21/1996 Utah 83
11/16/2001 Marshall 82
12/15/2001 Kentucky State 82
1/2/2002 Tulane 79
12/30/2002 Tennessee State 81
3/5/2003 Vanderbilt 82
It's happened 30 times, mostly under Pitino and none since 2003.
Actually the idea that today's game is up-and-down while in the old times the game was 'slow' is one of the biggest misconceptions people have about basketball.
Unfortunately there's no reliable stats on this but from what I've seen, the game pace of games even in the 1920's and 1930's was extremely fast. The problem (and the reason why scoring was so low) during those times was that teams couldn't shoot (in some part due to the allowance of rough defense among other reasons), along with the fact that there was a running clock for much of the game, so the scores weren't really indicative of the true pace.
Below is a chart showing the historic field goal attempts per game since the late '40s. (I have other charts showing possessions per game but it only goes back to the early '70s due to a lack of stats.)
While I'll gladly concede that today's athletes are better than ever, the actual product on the court, at least in terms of game pace is about the slowest it's ever been in history.
In questions like this I'm always biased toward the modern. My reason is that there are two very real trends which our more nostalgic fans have to ignore:
- Absent famine, disease, or a similar bottleneck, athletes improve over time. That's true even when all other things remain equal. After Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile, a slew of other guys did it with increasing frequency until it was hardly even an accomplishment, and guys were beating Bannister's time, all without anything really changing in the sport. But in basketball nearly 50 years after Issel played, no one can say that all other things have remained equal. The country's population has sharply increased. Athletes are imported from other countries at a much higher rate. Nutrition and especially sports nutrition have improved. Sports medicine has become a monolith after being only in its infancy in the 70s. Basketball has skyrocketed in popularity, so comparable numbers of athletes are selected from the top of a much larger overall pool.
- At the same time, memories tend to become more glorified as they become further removed in time. I first realized how severe this effect was when we had a discussion here circa 2010 about who had the higher vertical leap: John Wall or Rex Chapman. The very strong consensus among those who had witnessed both athletes was that while Wall had a decent vertical, it was significantly shorter than Mr. Chapman's. It was difficult for me to unearth the real measured vertical numbers for both those kids in college. But eventually (and after that thread had died out) I did find the officially measurement for Chapman's vertical leap in high school and college. And it was nowhere near Wall's. I mean, it was nice "also ran" numbers, but it was something like four inches shorter. FOUR INCHES. And again, the very strong consensus among eye-witnesses here had been that Chapman was clearly superior.
I didn't challenge you- I'm not that dumb
Great info, and pretty much what I expected. I figured it happened a few times under Tubby, and knew it happened relatively often with Pitino.
As for the general trend of fewer shots, I think a lot of it is an unintended consequence of the shot clock. Prior to the shot clock, you had no idea how long you might have to try to defend. Since the shot clock, it's been 45, 35, and now 30 seconds. If you're a coach who wants to control tempo, you know that all you have to do is cut-off transition, then get your players to focus for a limited amount of time. And defenses prior to the shot clock were soft. Coaches figured they couldn't challenge every shot, so they mainly focused on stopping the easiest shots. If you were a coach who was willing to let your players take 12-20 foot jumpers (as Adolph Rupp very much was), those shots were there for the taking, pretty much any time you wanted them. Now, a lot of defenses contest everything.
The shot clock also, in a perverse kind of way, discourages the transition game. Prior to the clock, if you wanted to play uptempo, you had to consistently beat the opponent down the floor. With a clock, you know that the game can only be played so slowly, and that you're going to keep getting the ball back after a limited amount of time.
There's also the physical aspect of the game. Athletes are stronger and faster. That doesn't make them any more skilled on the offensive end of the floor, but it does make them far more likely to be able to play strong defense. Which encourages coaches to play a certain style. If the talent that's available is mediocre on offense, but potentially great on D, it just makes sense to focus on the D.
Last edited:
Actually the idea that today's game is up-and-down while in the old times the game was 'slow' is one of the biggest misconceptions people have about basketball.
Unfortunately there's no reliable stats on this but from what I've seen, the game pace of games even in the 1920's and 1930's was extremely fast. The problem (and the reason why scoring was so low) during those times was that teams couldn't shoot (in some part due to the allowance of rough defense among other reasons), along with the fact that there was a running clock for much of the game, so the scores weren't really indicative of the true pace.
Below is a chart showing the historic field goal attempts per game since the late '40s. (I have other charts showing possessions per game but it only goes back to the early '70s due to a lack of stats.)
While I'll gladly concede that today's athletes are better than ever, the actual product on the court, at least in terms of game pace is about the slowest it's ever been in history.
Good stuff JP, but hard to imagine the game is slower than ever. I will say though there is probably one huge outlier in the stats for decades in that UNC basicially played high school keepaway for years.
Today's game is dependent on getting off a shot prior to the shot clock expiring instead of pushing the tempo to the max.
Issel for sure. As noted, there was no three point line and Issel was deadly from that distance. No telling how many he would have scored that night or in his career with the three point line. All defenses were double teaming him at the least so he actually had very few uncontested shots. Issel was an incredible talent night after night. As far as Maravich outscoring him, well Maravich was just Maravich.......................... Sporting news had it right.
Similar threads
