Who was the best point guard to play at UK?

[Bluest Member]

Youngsters showing ignorance,just like in the statement I made in my first post of this thread, you can't compare apples to oranges. Sure athletes have improved today just like technology.
If you gave athletes from yesteryear the same advantages as athletes have today they would be equal,just as if you took away the advantages of today's athletes and placed them in long ago they would be the same.
Trying to take away ones accomplishments because it was in a different era is totally ignorant,put in equal situations,a great athlete is a great athlete.Those guys in the 40's played multiple sports,to say they weren't tough is ignorant as well,and to say teams didn't play defense in the 70's and 80's is another ignorant statement.
I guess Michael Jordan,Wilt Chamberlain,Oscar Robertson,Larry Bird,Magic Johnson,and a thousand others couldn't compete today?
The thread asks who was the best point guard at Kentucky? If you take the body of works of all point guards during their time at Kentucky including stats regardless of era,then that is your answer.
Fact is I look at the game and wonder how it has went downhill,especially in the NBA,thy rush these kids to make millions so fast that many have lost fundamentals of the game,so you can jump high and jam the ball,whoopee,There is alot more to the game than that.
The new rules have helped more with offense and stopped the old ,bloody defense,these new pampered athletes would be broke down in no time.

 

[EvilMD]

nah I'm good.

You think so? What do you know about Beirut?

 

[3rex]

No. I watched a ton of basketball in the 80's, and I can unequivocally say that what passed for defense back then would be considered an absolute joke by today's standards.

You want to think that the players of your youth could jump 10 feet high and shoot lightning bolts out of their butts, go right ahead. But sorry, it makes you the one who's completely ignorant.

There was a reason that UK only scored 40 points against Georgetown in the 1984 FF. Some of it was pure choking, but A LOT of it was that Georgetown was a predecessor to something that's become very common today- a lineup full of superior athletes playing relentlessly intense defense. That's the way the game has gone, and that (along with changes in how the game is officiated) is the main reason that teams don't regularly score in the 90's any more. Only in your fantasy has there been some huge decline in skill in which, despite so many factors working against it, the players have somehow regressed.

Wow...hyperbole much? You seriously might want to be careful & not break your ankles coming down from this wild leap you've made....from me simply taking issue with the absurdity that defense was an afterthought in the 70s & 80s to "players of your youth could jump 10 feet high & shoot lightening bolts out of their butts..." I realize putting words into someone's mouth then responding to them as if they were actually said, as you did, can be a fun way to debate a topic but it's also a lazy & dishonest one.
You did it again with your "huge decline in skill...players have somehow regressed" rant...I never said, thought, or implied any of that. Drugs are not your friend, son. Be careful.
Finally, thanks for the Georgetown example,a fine example supporting my simple statement that defense was not an afterthought in the 80s...(hint: 1984 was in the 80s ) I always appreciate someone making my point for me!! 3-33 will forever etched in my mind.
Have a good day & try to stay off the pills...hallucinations can be even more dangerous on the jobsite than on message boards.

 

[GLR5555]

Today's college ball is a figment of teams 30 years ago. Those were grown ass men, not boys fielding most starting lineups. The younger generation has alot to learn.

 

[JPScott]

Also, from watching films of games from the 70's and 80's everyone looked slower to me, I believe the game was not as fast back in those days. Don't even get me started on what it looked like in the 40's and 50's.

This is one of my favorite misconceptions about the game of basketball. While people may like to think that today's game is fast, it actually isn't, at least in terms of possessions.

If anything today's college game continues to slow in pace (to historically low levels), which is the reason why rules are being implemented as we speak trying to improve it.

That's not to say there aren't valid reasons for the game pace slowing which has nothing to do with the caliber of athletes. For example as has been mentioned there is more of an emphasis on defense today, but then part of that is due to the fact that officials allow more physical play than they did in the past.

As far as the pace of play in the 40's and 50's and even before, I think people would be surprised at how fast the pace actually was. The problem was more that people couldn't shoot very well, but the pace itself was generally very high.

I think people look at the relatively low scores and assume that the game was played at a snail's pace, when that wasn't necessarily the case. For example, I didn't realize until researching the Southern Conference tournament in the 1920's that 40 minute games were typically played within 1 hour of time, including halftime and warmups. So there was essentially a running clock for much of the game. Hard to build up a lot of points under those circumstances.

 

[JPScott]

Did Beard and Ramsey win titles their freshman years?

Actually both Beard and Ramsey did win national titles in their first years.

Ralph Beard as a freshman sank the winning free throws vs. Rhode Island State in the NIT Championship game in 1946.

Frank Ramsey played at a time when freshmen were ineligible to play on the varsity, but he was a key member of the 1951 National Championship team as a sophomore.

PS, just a suggestion, you might actually look up information which is readily available and easy to find rather than asking simple questions, as that tends to undercut whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[UK90]

Better check the scores of games in those days,UK scored in the 90's and 100's more than they do today

In the early 70s nearly EVERYBODY did, not just UK, and the reason for that was purely about style of play, not their skill level compared to today.

The late 60s to early 70s was college basketball's run n gun soft-defense era. Which is why so many of the crazy stat scoring records came from that era, and why I tend to roll my eyes when people rave about the numbers of guys like Maravich, Issel, Mount, Carr, etc.--gee, think it's just a coincidence that all those guys with the craziest numbers played at the same time?

And, fwiw, UK did not score at that rate in the 80s. Our style of play became far more methodical and lower scoring as the Hall era progressed. And with a similar gradual change in the rest of college basketball as well (the change in trend largely began when those mid-70s IU teams showed you could dominate the game by focusing more on defense and running less).

 

[JohnnyGentle]

they occasionally put a lakers/celtics finals game or something from the 60s on nbatv

nobody guarded anything. not even in a game 7. it's absurd

 

[mj2k10]

In the early 70s nearly EVERYBODY did, not just UK, and the reason for that was purely about style of play, not their skill level compared to today.

The late 60s to early 70s was college basketball's run n gun soft-defense era. Which is why so many of the crazy stat scoring records came from that era, and why I tend to roll my eyes when people rave about the numbers of guys like Maravich, Issel, Mount, Carr, etc.--gee, think it's just a coincidence that all those guys with the craziest numbers played at the same time?

And, fwiw, UK did not score at that rate in the 80s. Our style of play became far more methodical and lower scoring as the Hall era progressed. And with a similar gradual change in the rest of college basketball as well (the change in trend largely began when those mid-70s IU teams that showed you could dominate the game by focusing more on defense and running less).

This is right, although I will add that the remnant of the running style that dominated the game until the late 70's really lasted until about the mid 90's. The late 70's/early 80's saw that style mixed with the dreadful 4 corners, so it was pretty common for teams to run, run, run, and then stall when they thought they had a big enough margin. And once the shotclock came in, there was a large surge in scoring (some of which was just added points for 3 pointers, but some of which was a faster tempo), but it proved to be brief. The last 20 years has seen scoring and tempo drop on a very consistent basis, which is what they're trying to address with the shorter shotclock.

Bob Knight's IU teams were a huge influence, but one name that never gets mentioned who I think was really important is Al McGuire. McGuire almost exclusively recruited inner-city kids, but what he did was put them in a much slower system (the antithesis of "streetball") and get them to buy into playing tough defense. His Marquette teams were playing games with scores in the 70's (without holding the ball) when everyone else was playing in the 90's.

 

[kyjeff1]

Ha. I like how you just insert some words in my mouth as if I said them, then respond to same words...sorta like having a conversation with yourself!

The poster you quoted was speaking of teams in the Macy era. That was late 70s, not 40's. You said "defense was an afterthought" in those years. That is dumb & untrue.

But, yeah, those teams from the 40's would go over the century mark routinely today...said no one ever.

Go back and read my original post where I talked about teams back then being slow. I ended that post with "don't even get me started with teams from the 40's, 50's and 60's". It looked to me like you were talking about tgat era and not the 70's but either way, I don't see how teams from the 70's could score 100 on teams from the modern era. That seems off to me. They weren't as athletic, they weren't as skilled and the game didn't even have a shot clock. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[kyjeff1]

Youngsters showing ignorance,just like in the statement I made in my first post of this thread, you can't compare apples to oranges. Sure athletes have improved today just like technology.
If you gave athletes from yesteryear the same advantages as athletes have today they would be equal,just as if you took away the advantages of today's athletes and placed them in long ago they would be the same.
Trying to take away ones accomplishments because it was in a different era is totally ignorant,put in equal situations,a great athlete is a great athlete.Those guys in the 40's played multiple sports,to say they weren't tough is ignorant as well,and to say teams didn't play defense in the 70's and 80's is another ignorant statement.
I guess Michael Jordan,Wilt Chamberlain,Oscar Robertson,Larry Bird,Magic Johnson,and a thousand others couldn't compete today?
The thread asks who was the best point guard at Kentucky? If you take the body of works of all point guards during their time at Kentucky including stats regardless of era,then that is your answer.
Fact is I look at the game and wonder how it has went downhill,especially in the NBA,thy rush these kids to make millions so fast that many have lost fundamentals of the game,so you can jump high and jam the ball,whoopee,There is alot more to the game than that.
The new rules have helped more with offense and stopped the old ,bloody defense,these new pampered athletes would be broke down in no time.

So you think that given the same training Beard and KM could be as athletic as Wall? Sorry, but no. Most guys that are considered great athletes today are nowhere near as great of an athlete as John Wall is. He's just a great athlete that is a game changer.
So tell me, why is it teams could score 90 or 100 points per game in the 70's but nobody can do it now with a shot clock? Even duke with all the three point shooting they possess every year can't get that. You can go ahead and keep on thinking that the game was so much better 40 years ago than it is today but you just look foolish. The game was one sided, they didn't D up the way they do now.

 

[Bluest Member]

I think Jon Scott disproved your allegations,obviously it's too hard to look at actual facts instead of using personal opinions

 

[Bluest Member]

 

[GLR5555]

Not sure you could name a player today more athletic than George Gervin or Wilt Chamberlain. Pete Maravich would make a fool of most PGs today.

 

[kyjeff1]

Wow...hyperbole much? You seriously might want to be careful & not break your ankles coming down from this wild leap you've made....from me simply taking issue with the absurdity that defense was an afterthought in the 70s & 80s to "players of your youth could jump 10 feet high & shoot lightening bolts out of their butts..." I realize putting words into someone's mouth then responding to them as if they were actually said, as you did, can be a fun way to debate a topic but it's also a lazy & dishonest one.
You did it again with your "huge decline in skill...players have somehow regressed" rant...I never said, thought, or implied any of that. Drugs are not your friend, son. Be careful.
Finally, thanks for the Georgetown example,a fine example supporting my simple statement that defense was not an afterthought in the 80s...(hint: 1984 was in the 80s ) I always appreciate someone making my point for me!! 3-33 will forever etched in my mind.
Have a good day & try to stay off the pills...hallucinations can be even more dangerous on the jobsite than on message boards.

Resorting to the 'you're on drugs' tactic is a sign you got nothing left to bring to the discussion. It's like posters that start talking about grammar, they are defeated and that's all they have left.

 

[kyjeff1]

This is one of my favorite misconceptions about the game of basketball. While people may like to think that today's game is fast, it actually isn't, at least in terms of possessions.

If anything today's college game continues to slow in pace (to historically low levels), which is the reason why rules are being implemented as we speak trying to improve it.

That's not to say there aren't valid reasons for the game pace slowing which has nothing to do with the caliber of athletes. For example as has been mentioned there is more of an emphasis on defense today, but then part of that is due to the fact that officials allow more physical play than they did in the past.

As far as the pace of play in the 40's and 50's and even before, I think people would be surprised at how fast the pace actually was. The problem was more that people couldn't shoot very well, but the pace itself was generally very high.

I think people look at the relatively low scores and assume that the game was played at a snail's pace, when that wasn't necessarily the case. For example, I didn't realize until researching the Southern Conference tournament in the 1920's that 40 minute games were typically played within 1 hour of time, including halftime and warmups. So there was essentially a running clock for much of the game. Hard to build up a lot of points under those circumstances.

You proved my point, defense these days is way more advanced and physical than in years past.
But also, the older generation loves to say that players in the 70's "were grown ass men" but you're saying the game is more physical now which is obvious to anyone that has a pair of eyes and isn't biased. Sorry but when I look at athletes from the 70's and compare them to now I see that tgere is no comparison. Most teams still have seniors on their roster, only a few teams are like UK. All cbb programs have a strength and conditioning program that is 10 times more advanced than anything they had in the 70's so a kid that spends four years in a modern era college training program for 3+ years is not weaker, slower or less of an athlete than a 22 year old from the 70's. Did they even have a strength and conditioning program or coach back then? But somehow a 22 year old athlete from the 70's is a grown ass man but our current 22 year olds are just kids? Right.

 

[mj2k10]

I think Jon Scott disproved your allegations,obviously it's too hard to look at actual facts instead of using personal opinions

Teams playing at a fast tempo and teams being composed of players who are fast are 2 completely separate things.

There's no question that teams used to play at a tempo that's almost inconceivable by today's standards. UK's 74-75 team (probably the last that really played the classic Rupp running style) averaged an absurd 77.8 FG attempts per game. The highest for any team in the country last season was 69 by VMI, who plays what is considered a gimmick style. No major conference team even averaged 65.

That has nothing to do with the athletes playing the game. The reality is that better athletes on the court actually often equates to a slower tempo game. Quicker, faster, stronger athletes on the floor means it's not easy to beat the defense down the court, and there aren't a lot of open shots to be found.

Combine that with a loosening of the standards for the level of physical contact defenders are allowed to make, and you end up with the college game we see today.

 

[kyjeff1]

Actually both Beard and Ramsey did win national titles in their first years.

Ralph Beard as a freshman sank the winning free throws vs. Rhode Island State in the NIT Championship game in 1946.

Frank Ramsey played at a time when freshmen were ineligible to play on the varsity, but he was a key member of the 1951 National Championship team as a sophomore.

PS, just a suggestion, you might actually look up information which is readily available and easy to find rather than asking simple questions, as that tends to undercut whatever point you're trying to make.

I didn't have time to look those stats up when I posted. either way, my point is valid, John Wall as a freshman did things that those guys couldn't do as seniors.

 

[kyjeff1]

they occasionally put a lakers/celtics finals game or something from the 60s on nbatv

nobody guarded anything. not even in a game 7. it's absurd

Oh really? But 3Rex and bluest member say that's not true, every athlete back then was just better and they shot better, and they jumped higher, and they ran faster, and they threw sky hooks in from mid court at will and candy canes tasted better, pillows were softer, women were hotter and and cars were faster. What you say can't possibly be true.

 

[kyjeff1]

Yeah, it's called lack of defensive pressure or intensity. Get a clue.

 

[kyjeff1]

Not sure you could name a player today more athletic than George Gervin or Wilt Chamberlain. Pete Maravich would make a fool of most PGs today.

Been a while since you actually watched "film" of any of those guys huh? They were simply much better athletes than everyone they were playing at tgat time. I've seen so many pictures of Wilt standing in the middle of a bunch of guys that came up to the bottom of his chest, how could he NOT dominate. You guys are sensationalizing these guys and thinking they are better than everyone that exists right now and it just isn't true.

 

[3rex]

Resorting to the 'you're on drugs' tactic is a sign you got nothing left to bring to the discussion. It's like posters that start talking about grammar, they are defeated and that's all they have left.

I'm sorry if that offends you but when posters just throw things out as if someone said them THEN actually generate a response to the same statement...it's seems a logical conclusion.

By the way, alluding to your recent post, where did anyone say or imply that teams from the 70s could put up 100 against today's teams?
I'll hang up & wait for your response.

 

[kyjeff1]

Teams playing at a fast tempo and teams being composed of players who are fast are 2 completely separate things.

There's no question that teams used to play at a tempo that's almost inconceivable by today's standards. UK's 74-75 team (probably the last that really played the classic Rupp running style) averaged an absurd 77.8 FG attempts per game. The highest for any team in the country last season was 69 by VMI, who plays what is considered a gimmick style. No major conference team even averaged 65.

That has nothing to do with the athletes playing the game. The reality is that better athletes on the court actually often equates to a slower tempo game. Quicker, faster, stronger athletes on the floor means it's not easy to beat the defense down the court, and there aren't a lot of open shots to be found.

Combine that with a loosening of the standards for the level of physical contact defenders are allowed to make, and you end up with the college game we see today.

If this post doesn't get them to understand than there's no use trying any longer. They are going to believe what they're going to believe. Poor guys.

 

[tapemaster8]

Do you know how many minutes he played in the 96 championship game?

Zero

 

[kyjeff1]

I'm sorry if that offends you but when posters just throw things out as if someone said them THEN actually generate a response to the same statement...it's seems a logical conclusion.

By the way, alluding to your recent post, where did anyone say or imply that teams from the 70s could put up 100 against today's teams?
I'll hang up & wait for your response.

Oh wow. Put two and two together. Seversl people in this thread continue to compare individual players and teams from the 70's to today and continue to allude to the thought that somehow everyone and everything was better back then. You're joking right?
Come to think of it, Candy canes might have actually tasted better back then.

 

[3rex]

Been a while since you actually watched "film" of any of those guys huh? They were simply much better athletes than everyone they were playing at tgat time. I've seen so many pictures of Wilt standing in the middle of a bunch of guys that came up to the bottom of his chest, how could he NOT dominate. You guys are sensationalizing these guys and thinking they are better than everyone that exists right now and it just isn't true.

Keep watching that film & looking at those pictures jeff. I can't say it leads to a very informed take, but it does lead to entertaining ones. If you've never seen any basketball from those days, it's ok, just admit it.

 

[3rex]

Oh wow. Put two and two together. Seversl people in this thread continue to compare individual players and teams from the 70's to today and continue to allude to the thought that somehow everyone and everything was better back then. You're joking right?
Come to think of it, Candy canes might have actually tasted better back then.

Ok thought so. You can't. Just wanted to make sure.

 

[tapemaster8]

Macy's senior year would be the only one that is comparable. Even then the only thing Macy has on him is that he is more efficient from the floor and turns it over less.

When U K needed points Kyle would score 30.when assists were needed he would get them. At the free throw line he was the coolest ever and I have the DVDs to prove it. Defense was average but he worked at it!

 

[mj2k10]

When U K needed points Kyle would score 30.when assists were needed he would get them. At the free throw line he was the coolest ever and I have the DVDs to prove it. Defense was average but he worked at it!

Then why did he score 6 points on 3/9 shooting when UK lost (in Rupp, as the 1 seed) to Duke in the 1980 Sweet 16?

Some people want to forget just how great John Wall was because he played like crap in his final college game. Well, that was Macy's final college game.

 

[Hoskins91]

Not sure you could name a player today more athletic than George Gervin or Wilt Chamberlain. Pete Maravich would make a fool of most PGs today.

There are specific examples of freaks who would likely be great even today, but it isn't debatable that the average athleticism of basketball players is definitely higher now than it was in the 60's and 70's. Part of that is modern advantages not available then, but it's also because the pool of available talent is much bigger. Those aren't great examples either. You picked three guys who were notoriously bad team mates and were always out to just get theirs.

 

[kyjeff1]

Ok thought so. You can't. Just wanted to make sure.

No, what's actually happening is you can't comprehend what's being said in this thread. Oh well, I guess you can go back to organizing your 8 track tapes and records.

 

[kyjeff1]

When U K needed points Kyle would score 30.when assists were needed he would get them. At the free throw line he was the coolest ever and I have the DVDs to prove it. Defense was average but he worked at it!

Kyle Macy's defense wasn't the only defense that was below par back then. If teams were able to routinely score 100 ppg I can see how KM could get you a bucket or an assist at will.

 

[3rex]

Kyle Macy's defense wasn't the only defense that was below par back then. If teams were able to routinely score 100 ppg I can see how KM could get you a bucket or an assist at will.

good job running down an all-time UK great & National Champion. You just be proud.

Who you plan to bash next? Jack Givens? Dan Issel? Jamal Mashburn?

 

[JohnnyGentle]

Not sure you could name a player today more athletic than George Gervin or Wilt Chamberlain. Pete Maravich would make a fool of most PGs today.

gervin would be a below average athlete by current nba wing standards

deandre jordan is more explosive than wilt, with a similar inability to make free throws

maravich wasn't even that good in his own era. he couldn't make a roster today

 

[GLR5555]

gervin would be a below average athlete by current nba wing standards

deandre jordan is more explosive than wilt, with a similar inability to make free throws

maravich wasn't even that good in his own era. he couldn't make a roster today

 

[JohnnyGentle]

oh look the guy who thinks george gervin was as athletic as lebron is laughing at me

that's not annoying at all

jordan dunks with the lettering on his chest even with the rim. no candy ass finger rolls like wilt

 

[3rex]

maravich wasn't even that good in his own era. he couldn't make a roster today

Early entry for dumbest thing posted on the internet today.

I like its chances for holding up though. Congrats!!

 

[JohnnyGentle]

yeah a guy who made his teams worse and stood out for not defending in that era would be even better today

he'd totally lock westbrook or wall up. zero doubt in my mind

 

[GLR5555]

Mom always told me not to get into a battle of wits with the unarmed. Saying Deandre Jordan > Wilt Chamberlain....lol You need to stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[ZenCatFan73]

These types of debates go south fast.