I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:
What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical. But it is entirely possible I could be misunderstanding your point, and apologies if that is the case.
Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf. Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.
How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.
)
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's. Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.
Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?
Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.