|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 10, 2020 22:33:25 GMT
 I know basketball isn’t very popular on here. But back in the 80s I did follow the Celts. RIP Tommy Heinsohn! |
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Nov 11, 2020 14:44:52 GMT
I dont follow basketball now, did in the 80's when the Celtics were on the same channel as the Whalers here, he was a Boston sports icon. This is big news here, led all the newcasts last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Nov 11, 2020 15:21:05 GMT
Stopped following the NBA once Michael retired....
The 80’s were great with Bird & Magic....
Loved Tommy’s Celtics teams of the 70’s with Hondo, Jo Jo, and Cowens, just to name a few....
|
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Nov 12, 2020 1:27:41 GMT
That voice. Like he used Wray & Nephew for mouthwash and razor blades for a chaser.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 14:35:09 GMT
RIP for a Boston Sports Legend.
But I’ll never for the life of me understand what people ever saw in basketball. And that’s not even considering the woke mob hijacking of today.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 12, 2020 15:55:04 GMT
Stopped following the NBA once Michael retired.... The 80’s were great with Bird & Magic.... Loved Tommy’s Celtics teams of the 70’s with Hondo, Jo Jo, and Cowens, just to name a few.... There were about 15 years there where the NBA started to get fun. Bird and Magic got the titles and the press, but it was the Doctor that first made me want to watch, and that rolled over to getting attached to the Pistons as that team started to come together on the way to 2 championships (would have been 3if not for a horrible brain cramp by Rodman). Loved the way they played, and it was great watching them hold off the Jordan dynasty and end the Lakers era of Kareem and Magic. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 12, 2020 17:04:17 GMT
RIP for a Boston Sports Legend. But I’ll never for the life of me understand what people ever saw in basketball. And that’s not even considering the woke mob hijacking of today. You just don't like any sport that doesn't allow goaltending. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 12, 2020 19:26:45 GMT
Well, since sandog made this more open than just an obit for a legend....
I find basketball interesting and I'm surprised when hockey fans reject it outright. The only thing I can think is the direct TV time competition and the fact that they have more similarities with each other than with other major sports. 5 man units. Constant flow vs. start and stop. Players play both offense and defense. All players on the ice/floor can touch the puck/ball multiple times in each minute of play and have to be able to make plays. Blend of cycle/half court and off the rush/fast break offense. The biggest difference is that basketball is non-collision, and that's a big difference and part of the reason I'll watch hockey over basketball almost every time (Senators v Detroit or Lakers-Bucks, I just can't pick that hockey game).
The usual reasons I hear people saying they hate basketball seem kind of superficial when you think about them, and in some cases seem willfully dumb. Like the idea that you only need to watch the last 5 minutes, implying that they score so often, and so easily (no goalies) that the game is always in doubt in the last 5 minutes. Isn't that usually the hallmark of a good game in other sports? NHL had 535 one-goal games last year. Add games that ended with 2 goal margins because of an ENG and that accounts for more than half of the results, so how does that separate basketball from hockey? And how many NFL games come down to the last 4 minutes or a 2 minute drill where one of the elite QBs manufactures a late score to win or tie? The comment is usually made with the added spice that it doesn't matter if one team is up 30 at the half in the NBA; the game will still be in doubt in the final 5. That's such a strange criticism because it goes against the idea that they just go back and forth, scoring at will, because you can't make up huge deficits if playing defense and stopping your opponent aren't part of the game, and that kind of blaze back is one of the most exciting things in sport. Like, when the Pats came back from an historic deficit against the Falcons in the superbowl, that must have been the worst Superbowl ever for some because they don't think it's exciting for a team to roar back from the brink of defeat. Makes no sense in the abstract.
That that whole idea that it's crazy easy to score? 27 players made more than 50% of their shots last year, and half of those guys don't shoot from outside. The rest of the league and most of its best players shoot under 50% which means there's plenty of variability on every possession that ends in a shot for the score to vary widely.
There's plenty to dislike about the NBA game, I grant you that, but those things seem to go against the grain of what people say they don't like about basketball. For example, a Lakers-Cavaliers game is probably over by the first quarter, and the top teams win more than 7 of every 10 games. A team with two elite players and one sub-elite guy will beat most teams most nights, and the impact of those one or two elite players is greater than in any other sport - you can have an MVP QB and rush end in the NFL, but if you can't run the ball, or pass protect or cover or stop the run, you'll lose a lot of games. You can have a 50HR guy and a Cy Young starter, but the starter pitches about 5 times a month and if you don't protect the HR guy and have guys get on base, who cares? Hedman and Kucherov wouldn't have a ring if not for Point, McDonagh, Sergachev, and Vagisilievsky. I think that's a big reason fans of team sports dislike the NBA - the spotlight on a small group of elite players vs. the sport.
I'd also say the game is in a bit of a strange place for that reason. The Pistons are a great example here, and the Raptors last year. 1980-89, the only team other than the Celtics and the Lakers to win a title was the Sixers. Celtics were an all-star team led by an all-time Mt Rushmore type of player. Lakers ditto, with two Mt Rushmore candidates. Sixers weren't as deep in superstars but DrJ and Moses Malone are top tier hall of famers, and Cheeks was a super guard. The Pistons? Well, even Jordan said Isiah was maybe the second best point guard of all time behind Magic, but then.... Joe Dumars was solid but unspectacular. Vinnie Johnson could get hot but was a bench player. Laimbeer was dirt personified, but if he couldn't hit the three and play good D, he would have been out of the league in 4-5 years. Mahorn was intimidating but mostly a defender. Dantley and Aguirre were someone else's stars who fit Daly's half-court offense that controlled the pace against running teams and beat capable half-court teams like the Celtics by being better at it or, in the case of Boston, being younger. They were no all-star team but they played excellent strategic basketball. Same over decade later when they won two more titles playing Larry Brown's ball-movement offense and great D, but at the end of the 80s, they stuck out between three dynasties (Chicago's run came after) based on all-star teams as being more than the sum of their parts. I threw the Raps in here because they couldn't win in the playoffs, got Kahwai, won a title, lost Kahwai, couldn't win in the playoffs.
But I think that era kind of broke the game by showing how easily two great players can take over games. I remember the year after the Pistons won their last title, they were up against the Cavaliers and the Cavs basically fouled 40% FT shooter Ben Wallace and then had Lebron play one on one, or two or five with the whole Piston team and they just couldn't keep him from scoring. It was one guy. Refs who give a pass to stars didn't help, but there was no pretense of playing basketball - this was playgroung one on one and look how good this one guy is. If it was just one player who could do that - Lebron - then it's not a problem. But it's now Lebron, Kahwai, Yannis, Curry, Harden, Durant.... The only time it doesn't work is when they face each other. But it's been a long time since a team has won playing really good basketball as a team rather than grab two of those superstar individuals and putty over the rest of the lineup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 21:19:24 GMT
RIP for a Boston Sports Legend. But I’ll never for the life of me understand what people ever saw in basketball. And that’s not even considering the woke mob hijacking of today. You just don't like any sport that doesn't allow goaltending. LOL, I have no response. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 21:31:50 GMT
Well, since sandog made this more open than just an obit for a legend.... I find basketball interesting and I'm surprised when hockey fans reject it outright. The only thing I can think is the direct TV time competition and the fact that they have more similarities with each other than with other major sports. 5 man units. Constant flow vs. start and stop. Players play both offense and defense. All players on the ice/floor can touch the puck/ball multiple times in each minute of play and have to be able to make plays. Blend of cycle/half court and off the rush/fast break offense. The biggest difference is that basketball is non-collision, and that's a big difference and part of the reason I'll watch hockey over basketball almost every time (Senators v Detroit or Lakers-Bucks, I just can't pick that hockey game). The usual reasons I hear people saying they hate basketball seem kind of superficial when you think about them, and in some cases seem willfully dumb. Like the idea that you only need to watch the last 5 minutes, implying that they score so often, and so easily (no goalies) that the game is always in doubt in the last 5 minutes. Isn't that usually the hallmark of a good game in other sports? NHL had 535 one-goal games last year. Add games that ended with 2 goal margins because of an ENG and that accounts for more than half of the results, so how does that separate basketball from hockey? And how many NFL games come down to the last 4 minutes or a 2 minute drill where one of the elite QBs manufactures a late score to win or tie? The comment is usually made with the added spice that it doesn't matter if one team is up 30 at the half in the NBA; the game will still be in doubt in the final 5. That's such a strange criticism because it goes against the idea that they just go back and forth, scoring at will, because you can't make up huge deficits if playing defense and stopping your opponent aren't part of the game, and that kind of blaze back is one of the most exciting things in sport. Like, when the Pats came back from an historic deficit against the Falcons in the superbowl, that must have been the worst Superbowl ever for some because they don't think it's exciting for a team to roar back from the brink of defeat. Makes no sense in the abstract. That that whole idea that it's crazy easy to score? 27 players made more than 50% of their shots last year, and half of those guys don't shoot from outside. The rest of the league and most of its best players shoot under 50% which means there's plenty of variability on every possession that ends in a shot for the score to vary widely. There's plenty to dislike about the NBA game, I grant you that, but those things seem to go against the grain of what people say they don't like about basketball. For example, a Lakers-Cavaliers game is probably over by the first quarter, and the top teams win more than 7 of every 10 games. A team with two elite players and one sub-elite guy will beat most teams most nights, and the impact of those one or two elite players is greater than in any other sport - you can have an MVP QB and rush end in the NFL, but if you can't run the ball, or pass protect or cover or stop the run, you'll lose a lot of games. You can have a 50HR guy and a Cy Young starter, but the starter pitches about 5 times a month and if you don't protect the HR guy and have guys get on base, who cares? Hedman and Kucherov wouldn't have a ring if not for Point, McDonagh, Sergachev, and Vagisilievsky. I think that's a big reason fans of team sports dislike the NBA - the spotlight on a small group of elite players vs. the sport. I'd also say the game is in a bit of a strange place for that reason. The Pistons are a great example here, and the Raptors last year. 1980-89, the only team other than the Celtics and the Lakers to win a title was the Sixers. Celtics were an all-star team led by an all-time Mt Rushmore type of player. Lakers ditto, with two Mt Rushmore candidates. Sixers weren't as deep in superstars but DrJ and Moses Malone are top tier hall of famers, and Cheeks was a super guard. The Pistons? Well, even Jordan said Isiah was maybe the second best point guard of all time behind Magic, but then.... Joe Dumars was solid but unspectacular. Vinnie Johnson could get hot but was a bench player. Laimbeer was dirt personified, but if he couldn't hit the three and play good D, he would have been out of the league in 4-5 years. Mahorn was intimidating but mostly a defender. Dantley and Aguirre were someone else's stars who fit Daly's half-court offense that controlled the pace against running teams and beat capable half-court teams like the Celtics by being better at it or, in the case of Boston, being younger. They were no all-star team but they played excellent strategic basketball. Same over decade later when they won two more titles playing Larry Brown's ball-movement offense and great D, but at the end of the 80s, they stuck out between three dynasties (Chicago's run came after) based on all-star teams as being more than the sum of their parts. I threw the Raps in here because they couldn't win in the playoffs, got Kahwai, won a title, lost Kahwai, couldn't win in the playoffs. But I think that era kind of broke the game by showing how easily two great players can take over games. I remember the year after the Pistons won their last title, they were up against the Cavaliers and the Cavs basically fouled 40% FT shooter Ben Wallace and then had Lebron play one on one, or two or five with the whole Piston team and they just couldn't keep him from scoring. It was one guy. Refs who give a pass to stars didn't help, but there was no pretense of playing basketball - this was playgroung one on one and look how good this one guy is. If it was just one player who could do that - Lebron - then it's not a problem. But it's now Lebron, Kahwai, Yannis, Curry, Harden, Durant.... The only time it doesn't work is when they face each other. But it's been a long time since a team has won playing really good basketball as a team rather than grab two of those superstar individuals and putty over the rest of the lineup. Book, this veritable wall of text is a superb example of the fact that no sheer volume of words can make someone like something they don’t, even if those words accuse one of being “willfully dumb.” I hate the game. I hated it as a kid. It bores me to tears. I’m not remotely interested enough to care about your logic why I should like it. That sounds vaguely familiar to Europeans trying to explain to me why I should give a flying fuck about soccer. I don’t like it when kids play it, when collegians play it, when girls play it, or when LeBron’s woke mob plays it. I wouldn’t shoot baskets in my driveway if I was offered an hourly bribe. I did shoot street hockey balls into a fold up net in my driveway from approximately 1967-1979. And the most significant point to me is, my big brother, whom I idolized, was as much a Celtics fan as he was a Bruins fan. Still didn’t care. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 13, 2020 1:23:07 GMT
Stopped following the NBA once Michael retired.... The 80’s were great with Bird & Magic.... Loved Tommy’s Celtics teams of the 70’s with Hondo, Jo Jo, and Cowens, just to name a few.... There were about 15 years there where the NBA started to get fun. Bird and Magic got the titles and the press, but it was the Doctor that first made me want to watch, and that rolled over to getting attached to the Pistons as that team started to come together on the way to 2 championships (would have been 3if not for a horrible brain cramp by Rodman). Loved the way they played, and it was great watching them hold off the Jordan dynasty and end the Lakers era of Kareem and Magic. The 80s showed how great the game can be. Now the way the game is played shows how bloody awful it could be. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 13, 2020 17:32:29 GMT
Book, this veritable wall of text is a superb example of the fact that no sheer volume of words can make someone like something they don’t, even if those words accuse one of being “willfully dumb.” I hate the game. I hated it as a kid. It bores me to tears. I’m not remotely interested enough to care about your logic why I should like it. That sounds vaguely familiar to Europeans trying to explain to me why I should give a flying fuck about soccer. I don’t like it when kids play it, when collegians play it, when girls play it, or when LeBron’s woke mob plays it. I wouldn’t shoot baskets in my driveway if I was offered an hourly bribe. I did shoot street hockey balls into a fold up net in my driveway from approximately 1967-1979. And the most significant point to me is, my big brother, whom I idolized, was as much a Celtics fan as he was a Bruins fan. Still didn’t care. "Mr. Bookachev...tear down that wall!" Hey, I have no interest in trying to convince you to like basketball. To each their own. Just explaining why I find it odd that hockey fans seem to have such a pointed aversion to the game. And I was deliberately generic about the "wilfully dumb" rationales I often hear when I have the basketball conversation with hockey fans because I don't think it's dumb to dislike basketball, and I don't even think it's dumb to dislike it (or hate it) for no reason other than the fact that you do. I can totally respect that. To me, that's NASCAR. Why in the fuck do I want to watch a bunch of cars going around an oval for two hours? If it didn't sound like the inside of Kel's gut after the shrimp table, I'd think it was like Bob Ross painting and it was a way to have a really good nap. Formula 1 I can almost get because every road course is different, but not NASCAR. It's like commuting without a good stereo in your car. Point of that comment was that the usual reasons people give for disliking basketball make no sense even if you've never watched a basketball game. |
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Nov 13, 2020 17:40:04 GMT
And the last 5 minutes is always a foul fest. Boring. I don’t know how I was ever able to watch that shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2020 23:30:10 GMT
Book, this veritable wall of text is a superb example of the fact that no sheer volume of words can make someone like something they don’t, even if those words accuse one of being “willfully dumb.” I hate the game. I hated it as a kid. It bores me to tears. I’m not remotely interested enough to care about your logic why I should like it. That sounds vaguely familiar to Europeans trying to explain to me why I should give a flying fuck about soccer. I don’t like it when kids play it, when collegians play it, when girls play it, or when LeBron’s woke mob plays it. I wouldn’t shoot baskets in my driveway if I was offered an hourly bribe. I did shoot street hockey balls into a fold up net in my driveway from approximately 1967-1979. And the most significant point to me is, my big brother, whom I idolized, was as much a Celtics fan as he was a Bruins fan. Still didn’t care. "Mr. Bookachev...tear down that wall!" Hey, I have no interest in trying to convince you to like basketball. To each their own. Just explaining why I find it odd that hockey fans seem to have such a pointed aversion to the game. And I was deliberately generic about the "wilfully dumb" rationales I often hear when I have the basketball conversation with hockey fans because I don't think it's dumb to dislike basketball, and I don't even think it's dumb to dislike it (or hate it) for no reason other than the fact that you do. I can totally respect that. To me, that's NASCAR. Why in the fuck do I want to watch a bunch of cars going around an oval for two hours? If it didn't sound like the inside of Kel's gut after the shrimp table, I'd think it was like Bob Ross painting and it was a way to have a really good nap. Formula 1 I can almost get because every road course is different, but not NASCAR. It's like commuting without a good stereo in your car. Point of that comment was that the usual reasons people give for disliking basketball make no sense even if you've never watched a basketball game. I’ve actually learned to enjoy Formula 1. I still don’t understand it very well, which is annoying because the real aficionados are very proud of explaining all the nuances, but it gives me and the wife an excuse to travel to some cool locations and enjoy a fun weekend out. Or it used to, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Nov 13, 2020 23:36:48 GMT
"Mr. Bookachev...tear down that wall!" Hey, I have no interest in trying to convince you to like basketball. To each their own. Just explaining why I find it odd that hockey fans seem to have such a pointed aversion to the game. And I was deliberately generic about the "wilfully dumb" rationales I often hear when I have the basketball conversation with hockey fans because I don't think it's dumb to dislike basketball, and I don't even think it's dumb to dislike it (or hate it) for no reason other than the fact that you do. I can totally respect that. To me, that's NASCAR. Why in the fuck do I want to watch a bunch of cars going around an oval for two hours? If it didn't sound like the inside of Kel's gut after the shrimp table, I'd think it was like Bob Ross painting and it was a way to have a really good nap. Formula 1 I can almost get because every road course is different, but not NASCAR. It's like commuting without a good stereo in your car. Point of that comment was that the usual reasons people give for disliking basketball make no sense even if you've never watched a basketball game. I’ve actually learned to enjoy Formula 1. I still don’t understand it very well, which is annoying because the real aficionados are very proud of explaining all the nuances, but it gives me and the wife an excuse to travel to some cool locations and enjoy a fun weekend out. Or it used to, anyway. I don't get lacrosse. First off, why doesn't the goalie have different equipment? That seems weird. Kicking the crap out of baseball among kids though. I can't watch soccer either. |
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 14, 2020 15:14:35 GMT
Lacrosse is fun to play but boring as hell to watch.
NASCAR lame as hell on TV. Allot a fun live.
|
|
|
|
Post by shuperman on Nov 14, 2020 15:37:04 GMT
80s basketball will never be duplicated. Watching how soft todays nba is terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Nov 14, 2020 16:16:35 GMT
80s basketball will never be duplicated. Watching how soft todays nba is terrible. Yep, not sure how a 6 foot 10 guy drives to the net, gets slapped on the wrist and acts likes he's been shot. Remember that meme of Lebron getting carried off the court with cramps and Greg Campbell blocking a shot while still on the ice with a broken leg? I'm sure someone here can find it. |
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Nov 15, 2020 3:07:48 GMT
What's happened to heavyweight boxing? I used to be a big fan but haven't been for years. Why did it dry up and seemingly be overtaken by other boxing divisions and, later, its stagnant state appear to help usher in sports like UFC? Actually, the middleweight division of the 80's had some glamour to it with Tommy Hearns, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, a favorite, Aaron Pryor, who was another favorite, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benítez, Macho Comacho and Julio Cesear Chavez. I can remember that 10 year or so span of the mid-60's to mid-70's when the division was stacked with the likes of Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Kenny Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ernie Terrell, Oscar "Ringo" Bonavena, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner and Jimmy Young.
Just prior to this group, the heavyweights had Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Ingemar Johnansson, Henry Cooper, Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley. We can put Cassius Clay in there. And, these are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. Probably forgot some, too. Was the division eventually paralyzed because the Klitschkos refused to fight each other? Are less people becoming involved in boxing and turning their attention elsewhere?
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 15, 2020 4:17:25 GMT
What's happened to heavyweight boxing? I used to be a big fan but haven't been for years. Why did it dry up and seemingly be overtaken by other boxing divisions and, later, its stagnant state appear to help usher in sports like UFC? Actually, the middleweight division of the 80's had some glamour to it with Tommy Hearns, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, a favorite, Aaron Pryor, who was another favorite, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benítez, Macho Comacho and Julio Cesear Chavez. I can remember that 10 year or so span of the mid-60's to mid-70's when the division was stacked with the likes of Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Kenny Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ernie Terrell, Oscar "Ringo" Bonavena, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner and Jimmy Young. Just prior to this group, the heavyweights had Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Ingemar Johnansson, Henry Cooper, Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley. We can put Cassius Clay in there. And, these are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. Probably forgot some, too. Was the division eventually paralyzed because the Klitschkos refused to fight each other? Are less people becoming involved in boxing and turning their attention elsewhere? What do you guys think? 1. There were two Europeans as champions for many years. So North Americans lost interest. 2. Last real great heavyweight rivalry was Holyfield vs. Bowe. 3. Don fucking King! |
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Nov 16, 2020 4:33:30 GMT
What's happened to heavyweight boxing? I used to be a big fan but haven't been for years. Why did it dry up and seemingly be overtaken by other boxing divisions and, later, its stagnant state appear to help usher in sports like UFC? Actually, the middleweight division of the 80's had some glamour to it with Tommy Hearns, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, a favorite, Aaron Pryor, who was another favorite, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benítez, Macho Comacho and Julio Cesear Chavez. I can remember that 10 year or so span of the mid-60's to mid-70's when the division was stacked with the likes of Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Kenny Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ernie Terrell, Oscar "Ringo" Bonavena, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner and Jimmy Young. Just prior to this group, the heavyweights had Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Ingemar Johnansson, Henry Cooper, Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley. We can put Cassius Clay in there. And, these are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. Probably forgot some, too. Was the division eventually paralyzed because the Klitschkos refused to fight each other? Are less people becoming involved in boxing and turning their attention elsewhere? What do you guys think? 1. There were two Europeans as champions for many years. So North Americans lost interest. 2. Last real great heavyweight rivalry was Holyfield vs. Bowe. 3. Don fucking King! Don King. How the once mighty have fallen. I'd forgotten how many times Bowe and Holyfield fought. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 16, 2020 14:08:56 GMT
80s basketball will never be duplicated. Watching how soft todays nba is terrible. Yep, not sure how a 6 foot 10 guy drives to the net, gets slapped on the wrist and acts likes he's been shot. Remember that meme of Lebron getting carried off the court with cramps and Greg Campbell blocking a shot while still on the ice with a broken leg? I'm sure someone here can find it. It was Paul Pierce, not Lebron. Made it that much more salient that it was a Celtic compared to a Bruin. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 16, 2020 15:00:22 GMT
What's happened to heavyweight boxing? I used to be a big fan but haven't been for years. Why did it dry up and seemingly be overtaken by other boxing divisions and, later, its stagnant state appear to help usher in sports like UFC? Actually, the middleweight division of the 80's had some glamour to it with Tommy Hearns, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, a favorite, Aaron Pryor, who was another favorite, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benítez, Macho Comacho and Julio Cesear Chavez. I can remember that 10 year or so span of the mid-60's to mid-70's when the division was stacked with the likes of Ali, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Kenny Norton, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ernie Terrell, Oscar "Ringo" Bonavena, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner and Jimmy Young. Just prior to this group, the heavyweights had Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Ingemar Johnansson, Henry Cooper, Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley. We can put Cassius Clay in there. And, these are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. Probably forgot some, too. Was the division eventually paralyzed because the Klitschkos refused to fight each other? Are less people becoming involved in boxing and turning their attention elsewhere? What do you guys think? Ezzard Charles...man, I haven't tapped into that part of my brain in a long time. I think the division was in trouble before the Klitschkos, frankly, because if it hadn't been, I don't know that either Klitschko would have been a champion. In some ways, the Tyson era killed it...but it wasn't even really about Tyson. What was great about the pre-Clay and Clay/Ali eras was that the title was genuinely at risk of changing hands in so many of the big fights, and you were pretty sure that the winner was going to be a worthy champion (Leon Spinks exception applies). By the end of Ali's prime (and beyond when we still fought), they were already needling Larry Holmes that he wasn't of that class because he didn't have to fight anybody, and when he declined, it wasn't like there was an "heir". Tubbs, Page, Burbick et al were all credible heavyweights but no one remembers them in the same way they even remember Norton, who was probably at the bottom rung of the greats of the previous era. So there was a malaise after decades of exciting, big event fights, and so many of those fights were legendary, long bouts. Tyson brought back the "event" but in a different way - you were waiting to see how quickly he'd destroy his opponents. That got tired quickly because it was clear there weren't any real challengers. It was the Holmes dilemma. And I would argue we haven't really seen that concentration of talent in the heavyweight division since, but I'm biased because I'm one of those guys who used to be a lock to buy the venue pay-per-view tickets and now I couldn't tell you a damn thing about Tyson Fury. The other things I think have hurt boxing in general have been more pronounced for the heavyweights because there are just fewer guys with the genetics to fight heavyweight, and if they're that big and athletic, there are other ways to go. The fragmentation of the governance got stupid in the 80s; the whole need to unite the belts has limited appeal. Pay-per-view kicked in large, so younger viewers didn't get to see the fights a week later on Wide World of Sports the way we used to. Or on national broadcasts live. The UFC in its original incarnations started up as a pay per view animal and was surprising competition. And Ali's dementia and CTE science really came forward, probably encouraging the kids who might have become heavyweight boxers to look at other hobbies. Like any sport would have been, I think boxing was hurt by the lack of access and interest from youth. I watch the sports I played the most as a kid and still play as an adult. They taught us the rudiments of boxing in phys ed. Side note: I love that Tyson has re-purposed on of his great quotes - everyone has a plan until he gets punched in the face - as social media has made you all way too comfortable disrespecting people on the internet without the risk of getting punched in the face. |
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Nov 17, 2020 0:44:19 GMT
I played alot of basketball in junior high and highschool, played on the school teams and really enjoyed it. I was into the sport, liked the NBA & even the ABA, Dr J, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin and the like, was a big Abdul-Jabbar fan and enjoyed the Laker/Celt rivalry. After graduating and getting into my working life i lost touch with basketball and didn't miss it. When i did take the time to watch i noticed the rampant travelling that wasn't called all in the name of highlight reel dunks and it turned me off.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 17, 2020 17:59:40 GMT
I played alot of basketball in junior high and highschool, played on the school teams and really enjoyed it. I was into the sport, liked the NBA & even the ABA, Dr J, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin and the like, was a big Abdul-Jabbar fan and enjoyed the Laker/Celt rivalry. After graduating and getting into my working life i lost touch with basketball and didn't miss it. When i did take the time to watch i noticed the rampant travelling that wasn't called all in the name of highlight reel dunks and it turned me off. Yeah, two things here... 1. At the time of the merger, basketball wasn't really that big as far as I remember. It was that Bird/Magic/Jordan era that really carried it forward, but Bird and Magic being the apostles for when Jordan really drove the league's marketing. They made a conscious decision under Stern that the money was in the players and marketing the stars, and the game needed to accommodate the creation of even bigger stars to make more money. And it worked. They blew up. For every fan like me and you who resents the way the game has gone, there are 100 kids with disposable income and no expenses ready to by NBA merch and go to games and be eyeballs for advertisers. 2. They've created a new problem after 20 years that even goofy money won't solve. Story in the news lately is Harden won't sign a $50M/year extension with Houston because he wants to force a trade to Brooklyn to play with Irving and Durant and chase a title. Just like Anthony Davis did. Just like many others will. Their stars have realized they have so much say now that they will get their money and whatever else they're looking for, because even small market teams make money off the TV deals etc. just by being in the league, and the league makes more money for them when the Finals is the Lakers and Knicks or Celtics or maybe the Nets, so they aren't hurt financially by the league having coastal superteams. The league is basically revolving around maybe 4-5 franchises that have cornered the market on elite players. LeBron will always win because top players want to play with him and win rather than against him. And I can't understand that, really, because I my thinking on championships has always been shaped by boxing. To be the best, you gotta beat the best. Not force a trade to play second fiddle/sidekick/heckleandjeckyl with the best. My current lack of interest in the NBA has more to do with the season than an individual game. I'll watch a game between a couple of decent teams on a quiet night with nothing else on and I'm between NetFlix series. But I won't follow the season enough to put that game in context really. I'm barely even a casual fan now. |
|
