Speed and athleticism and speed.
And did I mention speed?
Speed is the reason why if you took almost any championship team in any sport and matched it against ancient predecessors, the more modern group would usually win. Belichick's Patriots would beat Lombardi's Packers. The athleticism of the Shaquille O'Neal-Ko-Me Bryant Lakers would beat Magic's version.
Watch tape of the old Celtics. While their basketball skills were exemplary, they were so much slower than today's players it's markedly noticeable. I watched an ESPN Classic game recently featuring the Celtics and it was like they were running knee-deep in tubs of goo.
You cannot overstate the speed difference between 2008 and the 1980s. Yes, even the 1980s.
Let's begin with Bird. In this game, Pierce would guard Bird and Bird would eat him alive. Because he's, well, Bird.
Pierce, however, on offense would reciprocate the beating. Bird might drop 40 but Pierce might score 30 to 35 points of his own on Bird. Pierce wouldn't be able to defend Bird and Bird wouldn't be able to defend the stronger Pierce. It'd be a wash.
Pierce may have the muscle tone of 14-year-old debutante, but he is quicker than most people give him credit. He's definitely quicker than Bird.
The next matchup is where the speed and athleticism difference would be far more visible. Garnett and McHale would face one another and Garnett would deliver a weapons-grade ass-kicking.
Garnett's speed would be the difference. You don't understand how quick Garnett is for his size until you see him in person. It's astounding.
McHale's only chance is that he could coax Garnett into foul trouble.
| |||||||||||||||||||
Allen on Johnson would've been a joke. Watching Allen guard Bryant in the NBA Finals gave me an entirely new appreciation for Allen's speed and defensive abilities. Allen was one of the biggest reasons why the best player in today's game struggled for much of the series.
If you want an example of the difference in athleticism, look at some of the old footage of Johnson's physique (not that there's anything wrong with doing that) and then compare him to Allen. If you think Allen is a finesse sissy who can only shoot jumpers, you're wrong.
Allen would've strangled Johnson on defense the way a fat kid gobbles birthday cake. Then Allen would score 25 on him. The speed difference would be huge.
Let's say, in my dream game, I bring Parish off the bench for Johnson so it's Bird, Parish and McHale (the original Big Three) versus Garnett, Pierce and Allen. I'd put Garnett on Parish and feel great about my chances. Parish is even slower than McHale.
I'd stick Pierce on McHale. Pierce might give up three inches and get posted up, but McHale would have an equally difficult time guarding Pierce. Bird would kill Allen offensively but Allen could take Bird off the dribble.
The current greats would have such a significant speed advantage it would compensate for their height disadvantage.
This is no disrespect to the Boston greats. I'm usually one who believes the past generation of athletes was more dedicated to their craft than the 21st century crop. I'll take Jim Brown over LaDainian Tomlinson or Bill Russell over almost any big man today outside of Tim Duncan.
I'm also a believer in evolution. The game has gotten markedly more aggressive and fast. It's a fact of life.
Unlock your lips from the buttocks of the notion that the old Celtics greats would outshine the new ones. Once upon the time, the old guys were the best. Now, there's a new trio in town.
Embrace the new. Embrace speed.
It'll kill you if you don't.
