Author Topic: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?  (Read 98939 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #210 on: September 29, 2011, 11:54:14 PM »

Offline greg_kite

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 851
  • Tommy Points: 71
You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up. 

Preach it man! TP!



If Jordan was born and played in the age of the 60s, he'd have horrible shooting too. His shot is a composition of those that went before him. He did not invent his smooth as silk jump shot - Just like Rome didn't invent what was taken from Greece.

True.  And let's not forget that Kareem came into the league when Wilt was still playing and the year after Russell retired.  Kareem was a star right away; however, if the late '60s-early '70s were the cakewalk that some are making them out to be, the Kareem of his late 30s that many on this board saw in a Lakers uniform should've been getting his butt handed to him by the "modern" players of the '80s.  However, that didn't happen at all. 

If Kareem could dominate in the time of Russell and the time of Jordan, I see no reason why Russell couldn't dominate in Jordan's time too. 

Russell was an entirely different player than Kareem, that's why he couldn't dominate.  Kareem had a post game and an unstoppable shot.  Russell was a low 40s shooter as a starting center.  He would be good but wouldn't suddenly become some dominant player.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #211 on: September 29, 2011, 11:57:01 PM »

Offline greg_kite

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 851
  • Tommy Points: 71
You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up.  

No. I'm talking about the 60's...like I said. Russells time...Not Kareems. Not Thurmonds, Unselds, or Cowens. Russells.  The whole discussion is about Jordan versus Russell. A player from the 90s, versus one from the 60's.  I don't see any reason to extend the discussion into a decade when neither player was playing.  The 70s were when the NBA grew and developed the most.  By the mid 70's, the league was drastically different than it was when Russell was playing.  I do however agree, that there is not much footage from the 60s.  Thats a point I've made myself, as I think it may have a lot to do with the glorification of the players from that period.

We'll never really know what jordan would do in the 1960s, or what Russell would do in the 90s. Both are hypotheticals that could never be proven.  What we do know, is how each measured up to their peers during their era, and what the NBA landscape looked like during each time in regards to player size and athleticism.  Jordan was better than almost all of his peers, at almost everything.  Russell was better than his peers on defense, and was extremely limited on offense.


It doesn't make sense to blame Russells inablity to shoot on his era, or to say that Jordan wouldn't have a good jumper back then either, as there were plenty of other players playing then, that could shoot.  Just not Russell. 

 The NBA in the 1990s was a more physical game than it was in the 60s. Whether thats a consequence of it being dominated by less physically capable players, or a result of less allowed physicality I dont know.  I just know that it makes the "level playing field" arguement (as it relates to the 60s and 90s) a poor defense. However, I like how you (intentionally or not) alluded to the fact that if any of those players had played in jordans era, they would have been shown up.


Also (even though as I explained, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand), Kareem didn't dominate during jordans era...he retired during Jordans era.


The revisionist history about the physicality of the game in the 60s compared to the 90s....When Stern had pretty much allowed the game to be turned into more of an exhibition of entertainment and show...Is astounding to me.  The activity in the paint during Russell's era was infinitely more intense.  One of the big reasons for the low shooting percentage and high rebound numbers.  There was less in the way of chippiness (Which is what I think you're mistaking for physicality) because virtually every team had an enforcer and the players policed themselves.  Players like Chamberlain, Russell, Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Luke Jackson, Oscar, Baylor, and Bellamy could have starred in any era.  Among many others.  They would have been far from shown up in Jordan's era.  Frankly, Jordan would have won a lot less had he had players of that caliber as opponents.   Jordan would have been a superstar in Russell's era....And probably would have been greater than he was in his own era.  With his work ethic, he'd have worked harder to gain an edge and would have succeeded without the help of the officials.  But he wouldn't have won 7 championships in Russell's era...Unless Russell wasn't there.

The level playing field a poor defense?  That argument makes me wonder what era you watched....If any.  The Byron Russell incident was far from an aberration where Jordan was concerned.  It stands out a little more because of the magnitude of the game and the time on the clock.  But like Jordan's flagrant hack on Malone just previous to the Russell pushoff, both happened in plain sight of the officials and was ignored.  No player got preferential treatment at all in Russell's era.  The officials didn't get every call right...Trust me...Red let them know every single time they didn't.

Jordan was indisputably a great, great player.  But to say he didn't have freedoms on the court beyond the rulebook exclusive to him would be ignoring the obvious.  In addition to being arguably the hardest worker and most fierce competitor of his era...Jordan pretty much traveled at will.  Was allowed to hack at will defensively.  Got plenty of rest defensively playing a one man zone.  The greatest player of his era, Jordan was helped along more by the league more than any player in NBA history short of the messiah.  Russell got no such help.  Russell dominated more.  Accomplished more.  Won more.
The subject of the topic is not who was more dominant or who won more, it's why is he better than MJ.  I just don't think he was better than Michael Jordan. 

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #212 on: September 30, 2011, 02:14:27 AM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
The revisionist history about the physicality of the game in the 60s compared to the 90s....When Stern had pretty much allowed the game to be turned into more of an exhibition of entertainment and show...Is astounding to me.  The activity in the paint during Russell's era was infinitely more intense.  One of the big reasons for the low shooting percentage and high rebound numbers.  There was less in the way of chippiness (Which is what I think you're mistaking for physicality) because virtually every team had an enforcer and the players policed themselves.  
Are you sure you aren't the one guilty of presenting a revisionist history?

The reason for rule changes that you blame on Stern is that the 90s was way too physical and the game was ugly and painful to watch.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #213 on: September 30, 2011, 08:07:24 AM »

Offline Bingbangbarros

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 148
  • Tommy Points: 6
You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up.  

No. I'm talking about the 60's...like I said. Russells time...Not Kareems. Not Thurmonds, Unselds, or Cowens. Russells.  The whole discussion is about Jordan versus Russell. A player from the 90s, versus one from the 60's.  I don't see any reason to extend the discussion into a decade when neither player was playing.  The 70s were when the NBA grew and developed the most.  By the mid 70's, the league was drastically different than it was when Russell was playing.  I do however agree, that there is not much footage from the 60s.  Thats a point I've made myself, as I think it may have a lot to do with the glorification of the players from that period.

We'll never really know what jordan would do in the 1960s, or what Russell would do in the 90s. Both are hypotheticals that could never be proven.  What we do know, is how each measured up to their peers during their era, and what the NBA landscape looked like during each time in regards to player size and athleticism.  Jordan was better than almost all of his peers, at almost everything.  Russell was better than his peers on defense, and was extremely limited on offense.


It doesn't make sense to blame Russells inablity to shoot on his era, or to say that Jordan wouldn't have a good jumper back then either, as there were plenty of other players playing then, that could shoot.  Just not Russell. 

 The NBA in the 1990s was a more physical game than it was in the 60s. Whether thats a consequence of it being dominated by less physically capable players, or a result of less allowed physicality I dont know.  I just know that it makes the "level playing field" arguement (as it relates to the 60s and 90s) a poor defense. However, I like how you (intentionally or not) alluded to the fact that if any of those players had played in jordans era, they would have been shown up.


Also (even though as I explained, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand), Kareem didn't dominate during jordans era...he retired during Jordans era.


The revisionist history about the physicality of the game in the 60s compared to the 90s....When Stern had pretty much allowed the game to be turned into more of an exhibition of entertainment and show...Is astounding to me.  The activity in the paint during Russell's era was infinitely more intense.  One of the big reasons for the low shooting percentage and high rebound numbers.  There was less in the way of chippiness (Which is what I think you're mistaking for physicality) because virtually every team had an enforcer and the players policed themselves.  Players like Chamberlain, Russell, Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Luke Jackson, Oscar, Baylor, and Bellamy could have starred in any era.  Among many others.  They would have been far from shown up in Jordan's era.  Frankly, Jordan would have won a lot less had he had players of that caliber as opponents.   Jordan would have been a superstar in Russell's era....And probably would have been greater than he was in his own era.  With his work ethic, he'd have worked harder to gain an edge and would have succeeded without the help of the officials.  But he wouldn't have won 7 championships in Russell's era...Unless Russell wasn't there.

The level playing field a poor defense?  That argument makes me wonder what era you watched....If any.  The Byron Russell incident was far from an aberration where Jordan was concerned.  It stands out a little more because of the magnitude of the game and the time on the clock.  But like Jordan's flagrant hack on Malone just previous to the Russell pushoff, both happened in plain sight of the officials and was ignored.  No player got preferential treatment at all in Russell's era.  The officials didn't get every call right...Trust me...Red let them know every single time they didn't.

Jordan was indisputably a great, great player.  But to say he didn't have freedoms on the court beyond the rulebook exclusive to him would be ignoring the obvious.  In addition to being arguably the hardest worker and most fierce competitor of his era...Jordan pretty much traveled at will.  Was allowed to hack at will defensively.  Got plenty of rest defensively playing a one man zone.  The greatest player of his era, Jordan was helped along more by the league more than any player in NBA history short of the messiah.  Russell got no such help.  Russell dominated more.  Accomplished more.  Won more.
The subject of the topic is not who was more dominant or who won more, it's why is he better than MJ.  I just don't think he was better than Michael Jordan. 
Or Kareem, or Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson, KG, Duncan, and countless others. And to say that Jordan wouldn't have have won all those championships in Russel's era. Well, you can't make that assumption without knowing who his teammates are. By the way Russel recieves so much credit for the titles yet had the most talented teams basically every year.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #214 on: September 30, 2011, 09:04:25 AM »

Offline CelticsFanNC

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 572
  • Tommy Points: 74
  I'm so split on this topic.

On one hand  I have always maintained that they play the games to win them not to see which individual can score the most points or have the most highlights on ESPN.  This is why Russel has to rank ahead of Chamberlain regardless of Chamberlains' unbelievable statistics.  With that being the case no one approaches Russell because he was the best player on by far the most NBA title teams.

  On the other hand I have been following the NBA for over 4 decades and I know for a fact that some eras were tougher and more competitive then other eras so NBA titles might not in every case be the best measure of a players greatness.   Each NBA title is NOT created equal.  I feel very strongly that Magic Johnson's 5 titles during the 80's were a whole lot tougher earned then the 6 Jordan won in the 90's because expansion among other things watered down the entire product.

 A title during the 70's doesn't weigh as much to me as one during other eras because the product was watered down by a rival league taking away many of the best players.  A title during the 80's to me was the toughest to earn during my lifetime because the teams at the top were stacked with HOFers/all-stars.  Also the best teams of the 80's shared the ball at a level rarely seen in the professional game due to the example set by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson.  Jordan's one of five offensive arsenal wouldn't have gotten it done a decade earlier against stacked teams looking for the best possible shot no matter whom was taking it.

  Due to not being born early enough to have seen Bill Russell's dominance it's very hard for me to say whom I believe  was the greater force on an NBA court.  I respect defense a whole lot more then individual scoring because I believe defense is all about effort.  If the effort is there then the defense will always be at a high level.  With scorers, even amazing ones like Jordan there are nights when your shots just aren't falling no matter how much effort you are putting into it.

  In my lifetime of following the NBA I'd at least rank Magic Johnson ahead of Jordan due to winning almost as much in a much tougher era while also being able to beat you in more ways due to a tremendously well developed all around skill set.  
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 09:21:59 AM by CelticsFanNC »

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #215 on: September 30, 2011, 10:52:09 AM »

Offline dtrader

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 730
  • Tommy Points: 42
You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up.  

No. I'm talking about the 60's...like I said. Russells time...Not Kareems. Not Thurmonds, Unselds, or Cowens. Russells.  The whole discussion is about Jordan versus Russell. A player from the 90s, versus one from the 60's.  I don't see any reason to extend the discussion into a decade when neither player was playing.  The 70s were when the NBA grew and developed the most.  By the mid 70's, the league was drastically different than it was when Russell was playing.  I do however agree, that there is not much footage from the 60s.  Thats a point I've made myself, as I think it may have a lot to do with the glorification of the players from that period.

We'll never really know what jordan would do in the 1960s, or what Russell would do in the 90s. Both are hypotheticals that could never be proven.  What we do know, is how each measured up to their peers during their era, and what the NBA landscape looked like during each time in regards to player size and athleticism.  Jordan was better than almost all of his peers, at almost everything.  Russell was better than his peers on defense, and was extremely limited on offense.


It doesn't make sense to blame Russells inablity to shoot on his era, or to say that Jordan wouldn't have a good jumper back then either, as there were plenty of other players playing then, that could shoot.  Just not Russell.  

 The NBA in the 1990s was a more physical game than it was in the 60s. Whether thats a consequence of it being dominated by less physically capable players, or a result of less allowed physicality I dont know.  I just know that it makes the "level playing field" arguement (as it relates to the 60s and 90s) a poor defense. However, I like how you (intentionally or not) alluded to the fact that if any of those players had played in jordans era, they would have been shown up.


Also (even though as I explained, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand), Kareem didn't dominate during jordans era...he retired during Jordans era.


The revisionist history about the physicality of the game in the 60s compared to the 90s....When Stern had pretty much allowed the game to be turned into more of an exhibition of entertainment and show...Is astounding to me.  The activity in the paint during Russell's era was infinitely more intense.  One of the big reasons for the low shooting percentage and high rebound numbers.  There was less in the way of chippiness (Which is what I think you're mistaking for physicality) because virtually every team had an enforcer and the players policed themselves.  Players like Chamberlain, Russell, Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Luke Jackson, Oscar, Baylor, and Bellamy could have starred in any era.  Among many others.  They would have been far from shown up in Jordan's era.  Frankly, Jordan would have won a lot less had he had players of that caliber as opponents.   Jordan would have been a superstar in Russell's era....And probably would have been greater than he was in his own era.  With his work ethic, he'd have worked harder to gain an edge and would have succeeded without the help of the officials.  But he wouldn't have won 7 championships in Russell's era...Unless Russell wasn't there.

The level playing field a poor defense?  That argument makes me wonder what era you watched....If any.  The Byron Russell incident was far from an aberration where Jordan was concerned.  It stands out a little more because of the magnitude of the game and the time on the clock.  But like Jordan's flagrant hack on Malone just previous to the Russell pushoff, both happened in plain sight of the officials and was ignored.  No player got preferential treatment at all in Russell's era.  The officials didn't get every call right...Trust me...Red let them know every single time they didn't.

Jordan was indisputably a great, great player.  But to say he didn't have freedoms on the court beyond the rulebook exclusive to him would be ignoring the obvious.  In addition to being arguably the hardest worker and most fierce competitor of his era...Jordan pretty much traveled at will.  Was allowed to hack at will defensively.  Got plenty of rest defensively playing a one man zone until he felt the need to lock down his man.  The greatest player of his era, Jordan was helped along by the league more than any player in NBA history short of the messiah.  Russell got no such help.  Russell dominated more.  Accomplished more.  Won more.




Russells era was from 56 to 69.  I don’t know how old you are, but you claim to have seen roughly a dozen games during the 60s.  You didn’t say how many (if any) you saw in the 50s.  How can you possibly say after having seen only 12 games over a decade, and admitting that theres scant video available, that no players got preferential treatment?  Theres absolutely no way for you to know that.  Also, When I say physicality, I am not talking about hacking…I am talking about the overall level of physical contact between the players inside and outside of the paint.

Stating the instances where Jordan got the benefit of the calls, doesn’t speak to the essence of my argument at all.  I myself stated that Jordan got more than his share.  I’m saying that the level playing field argument doesn’t hold up because the overall level of physicality (inside the post and extending to the wings) was so much less in the 60s, that whatever  benefit Jordan was given, still left him receiving more contact than players in the 60s routinely faced. 

You’re talking about revisionist history, but to be revisionist, you have to be denying a commonly held history.  I have never heard anywhere, that the 60s were generally known for physical basketball. I certainly have never seen any evidence to support that stance.  As far as the era having higher rebound numbers, and lower field goal percentages, I would say that speaks more to the inferior athleticism of the era, than to the effects of physical play.  If you compare a league dominated by shorter, less athletic (ie capable of dunking) players,  versus a league dominated by large highly athletic (ie dunking all the time) players, you would expect the league with the smaller players to have a somewhat lower field goal percentage because a higher percentage would be actual shots and not dunks.  Additionally, if you are looking at the stats  of the few players noted in this discussion  it isn’t exactly a representative sample, as the players mentioned here were essentially giants compared to the rest of the leagues players. Obviously if you’re one of  4 abnormally tall players in a league, you will get more rebounds than a player would get in a league where the heights were more even (ie Jordans era).

On top of that, as someone already said, things like who won more, accomplished more, changed the league more etc. shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion.  This is who is the better player, not who is the best teammate, best winner, or most accomplished. Just which one of these two individuals was the best at the game.  I've already said (and I think most people on the board would agree), that Russell would win any of those other comparisons hands down....but thats not this debate.




Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #216 on: September 30, 2011, 11:13:34 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
On the subject of physical eras - after thinking about the debate between the two eras I must say that Jordan's era was rather difficult as far as physicality.

Just Laimbeer alone took a year or two away from both Bird and Jordan. I can understand physical play, but that man went overboard sometimes.

I cringed at seeing Larry on the floor in one game as a result of a Laimbeer takedown, and Michael was often a target of his, too.

Thank you, Robert Parish. ;D.

McHale took down Rambis in that one game, but Kevin was no where near Laimbeer's level, as far as physicality.

Those 90's Knicks teams did hack jobs on Michael, too.

I still think that Russell's era was a bit tougher physical-wise, but thanks to  the late 80's and 90's DET Teams and 90's Knicks Jordan went through a lot, too.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #217 on: September 30, 2011, 11:47:24 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
The game was much harder on fights in the Stern era.   I think there were some pretty hardcore fights before Stern.  The Kermit Washington pumch was in 77.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgqUZ1IAA_8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL1FB139CF3602E15D

Kareem broke Kurt Benson's jaw in 77 too.

Quote
Sunday, July 3, 2011Notable Brawls in NBA History
19FEB59 - ONONDAGA COUNTY WAR MEMORIAL COLISEUM; SYRACUSE, NY
SYRACUSE NATIONALS VS. BOSTON CELTICS
Altercation - After an evening of verbal sparring, Sid Borgia [NBA Official] slugged Eli Roth, a Syracuse fan who had come down to courtside to confront him. Early in the fourth quarter Bill Russell [BOS] punched George Dempsey [SYR] in retaliation for a hard foul and both teams’ benches emptied during the ensuing melee. With about a minute remaining in the game Tom Heinsohn [BOS] and Dolph Schayes [SYR] engaged in another brawl and Borgia was struck by Heinsohn as he attempted to break up the fight. Paul Seymour [SYR Coach] then rushed Heinsohn during the altercation when Heinsohn knocked down Bob Hopkins [SYR]. Following the game Heinsohn and Gene Conley [BOS] tussled with Syracuse fans before the police restored order.
Penalties - n/a


1APR62 - BOSTON GARDEN; BOSTON, MA
PHILADELPHIA WARRIORS VS. BOSTON CELTICS
Altercation - Following a collision involving Wilt Chamberlain [PHW] and Sam Jones [BOS], heated words were exchanged and Jones grabbed a photographer’s stool and used it to keep Chamberlain at bay. Shortly thereafter a fistfight broke out between Carl Braun [BOS] and Guy Rodgers [PHW] and both benches emptied and several spectators came onto the court. When the situation finally settled down Jim Loscutoff [BOS] charged Rodgers [PHW], who he felt had tripped him during the brawl and the fight escalated again. Tom Heinsohn [BOS], who had an altercation with Ted Luckenbill [PHW] was the only player ejected from the game.
Penalties - Tom Heinsohn [BOS], Sam Jones [BOS], Jim Loscutoff [BOS], Ted Luckenbill [PHW] and Guy Rodgers [PHW] are fined $50 each.


18OCT66 - MADISON SQUARE GARDEN; NEW YORK, NY
WILLIS REED VS. LOS ANGELES LAKERS
Altercation - After an elbow by Willis Reed [NYK] to the head of Rudy LaRusso [LAL], LaRusso retaliated by taking a swing at Reed. In the brawl that ensued Reed took on LaRusso, John Block [LAL] (who came out of the fight with a broken nose) and Darrall Imhoff [LAL] (who suffered a cut over his left eye). Reed and LaRusso were the only players ejected from the game.
Penalties - Willis Reed was given "a small fine."


5JAN73 - PORTLAND MEMORIAL COLISEUM; PORTLAND, OR
PHILADELPHIA 76ERS VS. PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
Altercation - With 5:14 remaining in the game LaRue Martin [POR] scuffled with Dale Schlueter [PHI] and Mike Price [PHI] under the Philadelphia basket. Martin and Schlueter went to the floor as Terry Dischinger [POR] and Bob Davis [POR] joined in the fracas. Davis then began kicking Schlueter in the head, and John Q. Trapp (who was under suspension by Philadelphia) came in and bear-hugged Davis. Jack McCloskey [POR coach] restrained Schlueter, who was now up and trying to get at Davis. in the meantime, Dischinger and Price were yelling at each other, and after Dischinger pushed him, Price punched Dischinger in the mouth, loosening three of his teeth and cutting his hand in the process. Davis (requiring 14 stitches in his hand), Dischinger and Schlueter all found themselves going to the hospital for follow up care.
Penalties - Bob Davis [POR], Terry Dischinger [POR], LaRue Martin [POR], Mike Price [PHI] and Dale Schlueter [PHI] are fined $100 each.


26MAY77 - THE SPECTRUM; PHILADELPHIA, PA
PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS VS. PHILADELPHIA 76ERS
Altercation - With 4:52 remaining to play in the second game of the NBA Championship Series an incident occurred when Darryl Dawkins [PHIL] wrestled a rebound away from Bob Gross [POR], who was thrown to the floor in the process. When the players got back to their feet they exchanged heated words and Dawkins took a swing at Gross but struck Doug Collins [PHI], who had stepped in as a peacemaker, instead, cutting him above his right eye (a cut which would require four stitches). Maurice Lucas [POR] then came up and struck Dawkins from behind and the benches emptied. In the brawl that followed fans filed onto the court and one took a punch at a Portland player, but was pulled away by Jack McMahon [PHI assistant coach]. Dawkins and Lucas were both ejected, with Dawkins going on to trash the Sixers’ locker room.
Penalties - Darryl Dawkins [PHI] and Maurice Lucas [POR] are each fined $2,500.


9DEC77 - THE FORUM; INGLEWOOD, CA
HOUSTON ROCKETS VS. LOS ANGELES LAKERS
Altercation - Early in the third quarter Kevin Kunnert [HOU] and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar [LAL] got into an altercation with Kunnert and Abdul-Jabbar pushing and elbowing each other. Abdul-Jabbar’s teammate Kermit Washington [LAL] then held up Kunnert by grabbing his shorts as he headed up the court. Kunnert then swung his elbow to break freak and connected with Washington. Abdul-Jabbar reacted by grabbing Kunnert from behind pinning his arms in the process and Washington hit Kunnert with a flurry of punches. Washington then turned and struck Rudy Tomjanovich [HOU] in the face as he ran toward the conflict, and Tomjanovich fell to the floor immediately, hitting the back of his head on the floor. Tomjanovich suffered a dislodged skull, cerebral concussion and severe facial fractures (including a broken jaw and nose). Washington was ejected from the game and Tomjanovich would up in the intensive care unit and was sidelined for five months.
Penalties - Kermit Washington [LAL] is fined $10,000 and suspended 60 games.


24APR83 - BOSTON GARDEN; BOSTON, MA
ATLANTA HAWKS VS. BOSTON CELTICS
Altercation - Began in the third quarter of game three of the NBA Eastern Conference Semifinal when Tree Rollins [ATL] struck Danny Ainge [BOS] in the head with an elbow. Ainge then tackled Rollins and the benches emptied with Rollins biting Ainge’s finger at the bottom of the pileup with Ainge needing stitches to close the bite wound.
Penalties - Tree Rollins [ATL] is fined $5,000 and suspended five games; Danny Ainge [BOS] is fined $1,000; Nate Archibald [BOS], Rickey Brown [ATL], Quinn Buckner [BOS], ML Carr [BOS], Keith Edmonson [ATL], Scott Hastings [ATL], George Johnson [ATL], Wes Matthews [ATL], Kevin McHale [BOS], Tom McMillen [ATL], Rick Robey [BOS], Randy Smith [ATL], Scott Wedman [BOS] and Dominique Wilkins [ATL] were fined $150 each for leaving the bench area during the fight for a total of $8,100 in fines.

http://apbrbasketball.blogspot.com/2011/07/most-notable-brawls-in-nba-history.html

The league was always physical.  People always jockey for an edge or position.   I read Tommy would pull down on him to get a charge call back in the day.  I know he and Johnny Kerr fought too.  If anything Stern made the game less physical.  There will always be dirty players and post play is inherently dirty in any era.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #218 on: January 15, 2012, 09:31:49 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
I found some very interesting points here. Sorry if I brought this old topic from the grave, but I really want to share this.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100623221036AAWyiTP

Quote
Russell is an awesome rebounder averaging 22rpg, a suprisingly good ball handler for a big man since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass downcourt and start the fastbreak, and of course a great defender.

 He is also a great passer; he consistently ranks in the top 10 assists and thats beyond what you would expect from a center.
Quote
To wit, Russell is an awesome rebounder, an awesome defender, a great passer and ball handler especially for someone of his size and position, and a decent scorer

. . . . . and people still call him as having no all around game? Magic has a career average of less than 20PPG, but no one is using that an excuse to discredit his "all around game".
Quote
The level of competition in Russell's era in the 60's is exceptionally tougher. Why?

Because the level of competition is dependent on the quality of players on the League NOT on the quantity.

And during that time, the talent is concentrated into just 8-9 teams.

The top talent in the 90's are diluted into 30 teams which makes for weak competition.
Quote
The 24th pick of the 1st round today would be the final pick of the 3rd round in the 60's.
Only the cream of the crop get to play in the NBA in the 60's.
To cite an example, Russell would face off Wilt Chamberlain 8-9 times a season.
When he is not fighting Wilt, he is fending off other Hall of Famers 8-9x again like Nate Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed etc. you get the drift.
Quote
During the 90's, there were 6 teams that were added into the League.
Thats 72 slots for less talented players to fill.
Players who wouldve been cutoff at training camp in the 80's got their chance in the 90's.
Quote
Russell and Wilt dueled 142x during a ten year period.

Compared that to Bird and Magic who for close to eleven years, only dueled 37x.
Quote
And oh, the average height of centers back then in the 60's is 6'10, the same as Russell's height.
The sixties having 6'6 centers is an urban legend.
Quote
The Celtics are loaded with Hall of Famers because almost every other team in the League in the 60's are LOADED also with Hall of Famers.
The St. Louis Hawks have:
Bob Petit
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin
Cliff Hagan
*Clyde Lovellete
and Lenny Wilkens in later years

San Francisco/ Philadelphia Warriors
Neil Johnston
Paul Azirin
Tom Gola
*Wilt
Nate Thurmond
Rick Barry

Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers
Red Kerr
Dolph Schayes
Hal Greer
Frank(?) Costello
Billy Cunningham
*Wilt

Minneapolis/LA Lakers
Vern Mikkelsen
Baylor
West
Gail Goodrich

Rochester Royals (Sac Kings)
Jack Twyman
Oscar Robertson
Jerry Lucas
Quote
The Celtics NEVER went to the NBA Finals before Russell even with Hall Of Famers like Coach Auerbach and players like Macauley, Cousy, Sharman, and Ramsey.
Quote
Back in '69, Russell took himself out for 5 games because of an injury and the Celtics lost 5 straight even with HoF's Sam Jones, Havlicek, Satch Sanders, and Bailey Howell.

When Russell retired after the '69 season, the Celtics went down from 48 wins to 34 and they MISSED the Playoffs even with HoF's such as Havlicek, Sanders, Jo Jo White and Howell. A huge 14 game drop.
Quote
Russell has 5 rings w/o Cousy. He also has 5 rings
without Havlicek. He also has 2 rings without Red Auerbach as coach.

How many rings does Jordan have without Pippen and Phil Jackson?

How come that Chicago only suffered a 2 point deficit in the Win-loss column when Jordan first retired in 1994?

How come Pippen was able to lead a Jordan-less Bulls to the eastern Conference Finals?
I like Marcus Smart

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #219 on: February 26, 2012, 08:02:40 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7156
  • Tommy Points: 843
MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 08:42:08 PM by tenn_smoothie »
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #220 on: February 26, 2012, 09:36:55 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34516
  • Tommy Points: 1597
MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.
They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #221 on: February 26, 2012, 09:57:06 PM »

Offline Master Po

  • Author and
  • CelticsBlog Relic
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2277
  • Tommy Points: 242
  • The Man behind the Curtain
Because he is Bill Russell and he is a Celtic....next question

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #222 on: February 26, 2012, 10:02:13 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.
They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

  Detroit did age that fast. They won 9 less games in 90-91 than they year before and weren't close to the same team.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #223 on: February 26, 2012, 11:07:18 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.
They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

  Detroit did age that fast. They won 9 less games in 90-91 than they year before and weren't close to the same team.


Though the 91 Pistons had the same core, they were plagued by injuries. Mark Aguirre only played 13 games in the regular season, Isiah Thomas played around 40 games, and only relied on their defense to win a championship. They were 24th in offense during '91, while they were somewhat higher last year.
I like Marcus Smart

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #224 on: February 26, 2012, 11:16:35 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
 If the 90's weren't watered down by expansion then why is it the only era in NBA history were one guy dominating the basketball was capable of winning multiple NBA titles?  

  There was this era in the 1960s where 11 titles were won by a single team, creating the greatest winner in all of sports and establishing the first dynasty of the greatest basketball team on Earth.
I like Marcus Smart