Good response by Cousy. Reddick used him as the basis of his argument to remove players of prior eras from “Top” lists in favor of the modern era.
Basing opinions on tangibles like speed, explosiveness, strength, height, length, etc. is losing the plot. They factor into the picture, but they are secondary to the intangibles.
If how good players are is based on combine measurements, then the players with the best combine measurements are the best; it’s a fallacy. Luka wouldn’t be one of the 3 best players in the NBA today. Al would be a non factor, unable to defend a player like Giannis, who has all the tangible advantages over him.
For a boxing analogy, people think Mike Tyson is the greatest heavyweight ever. He has an excellent blend of aggressiveness, explosiveness, speed, and power combined with a great physique and intimidating attitude; when Tyson, himself, proclaims the greatness of Ali and Foreman (even the old version) in a hypothetical head to head. People brush it off as if he’s just being humble/modest, but there’s more to it than that. When people understand that is when they’ll get the plot.