- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,055
- Reaction Score
- 16,938
So dunking the ball is the reason big men are less skilled today than 20 or 30 years ago? Is that also the reason we see a lot less 7 foot power players in todays game?
Is this Bill Simmons being racist? Trying to even the playing field ?
When the dunk was banned in the past , Players took a lot more work at developing moves around the basket. Kareem's would have never developed the sky hook if dunking was allowed. So in some ways yes players would be more skilled. I understand why people like the dunk. It is a much more "look at me" society now. I would like to see more technical fouls for hanging onto the rim though.
Polycom we're not simple minded. This is like saying to your wife, "I think we should ban sex."
Its anarchy. I won't allow it.
I know you are but what am I?You guys are a funny bunch. Some of you are extremely simple minded.
In relation to UConn however I think it would be excellent for Amida to learn how to play in the post if he couldn't just catch the alley all day.
When the dunk was banned in the past , Players took a lot more work at developing moves around the basket. Kareem's would have never developed the sky hook if dunking was allowed. So in some ways yes players would be more skilled. I understand why people like the dunk. It is a much more "look at me" society now. I would like to see more technical fouls for hanging onto the rim though.
Yes, I've seen better people around the the basket than Bird. Lanier and McAdoo were before my time but I'm pretty sure there are guys that have been better around the rim than them. Were you serious about Tony Hanson and Toby Kimball?I'll go modern era for you guys. Larry Bird was not allowed to dunk in high school and the beginning of his college career is there anyone in today's game that has the moves around the basket he did? Bob Lanier? Bob McAdoo? on the college level Tony Hanson? Toby Kimball? Look I'm not against the dunk. That was a boneyard reading comprehension issue (surprise). The original poster just asked a question and I responded with my opinion. I said "So in some ways yes players would be more skilled". Not that I dislike the dunk. I have enjoyed UConn games before and after the dunk rule. So should I erase all my pre-dunk UConn memories? Some of those games were as exciting as the more recent games. Except for the Perno era, UConn Basketball wasn't as bad as some people here think. And I liked Perno as a player. I actually feel bad for him. He was a hero as a player and coaching didn't work out for him so he caught some guff from the fans. I admit that caused me concern when Ollie was hired. I'm glad history didn't repeat itself.
The popularity of dunking is related to a culture of selfies and social media? Really? Other than sounding like something an old curmudgeon might write in an op-ed column, is there anything to back that up?
![]()
Been done before. Didn't help then. See Alcindor, Lew.Listening to Bill Simmons podcast today, him and Chuck Klosterman brought up the idea of making big men better if they couldn't dunk in college. As a fan of basketball this would be wonderful, it would expose the athletes who can't shoot and it would force big men to actually learn how to play. It also may make the NBA better...
In relation to UConn however I think it would be excellent for Amida to learn how to play in the post if he couldn't just catch the alley all day.
Thoughts?
Hairs split. This thread is still ridiculous.Where did I say I didn't like dunks? I just said players were a lot more talented around the basket when there was no dunking. You can be athletic and have great moves around the basket without dunking. See Shabazz Napier
Chicks dig a big throw down. Layups, while fine and dandy, get you nothing. /end thread

Women's Basketball is a hobby, like Golf.How about banning Women's Basketball and other non-athletic sports such as NASCAR and baseball? Then there would be a lot more room on TV for real sports like NCAA football, NFL , NBA. NCAA men's basketball and some hunting shows sprinkled in. That would be a utopia.
Women's Basketball is a hobby, like Golf.

Its amazing that this discussion mostly devolved into a polarizing name-calling fest. It is a theoretical basketball question, not pending NCAA legislation you need to campaign against.
Because NDakotaHusky asked; The dunk was banned (after Alcindor's 1st yr on 'varsity') literally because Lew Alcindor was so good that IF he had been allowed to dunk in college UCLA would have won 3/3 championships with him MORE easily. There is almost no modern equivalent in the men's game unless we retroactively banned Christian Laettner for being a dick. I guess Breanna Stewart is on the verge of accomplishing dominance in the women's game, however I think it is more of a team thing than solely her dominance (Taurasi was probably more individually dominant, but I digress).
I like Devland's point about Bird and I think that's the best combo answer. Banning the dunk for all players would definitely make the game less fun and likely decrease scoring due to the missed bunnies like Mano said. That's the last thing the game needs right now. However, for any one individual with NBA aspirations it could be a skill-increasing move to not dunk and work on perfecting other moves around the basket. Brimah might not be the best example as a borderline NBA player, but if a very-skilled sure-fire NBA bound yet earth-bound (think Zach Randolph) college player decided not to dunk this could absolutely help that player better develop
Hard to do this though as you can't just play 90% and be effective at basketball, it requires full effort all the time. Still anyone who's played has likely tried shooting with their off-hand more in non-critical games, worked on driving to their weak side etc...
So I think conceptually it can be productive for an individual, but because it'd bring down entertainment and quality of play for 3,000 players to help maybe 6 of them at the NBA level it is nowhere near worth considering.
That is exactly why I picked Zach Randolph !?Have you ever actually watched Zach Randolph play? He's incredibly skilled around the basket, most of his shots are not dunks. Could you have picked a worse example to make your point - I don't think so. Let talk about Jahlil Okafor - he has incredible low post moves and skills - if he can do it, then what does dunking have to do with player development?

Its amazing that this discussion mostly devolved into a polarizing name-calling fest. It is a theoretical basketball question, not pending NCAA legislation you need to campaign against.
Because NDakotaHusky asked; The dunk was banned (after Alcindor's 1st yr on 'varsity') literally because Lew Alcindor was so good that IF he had been allowed to dunk in college UCLA would have won 3/3 championships with him MORE easily. There is almost no modern equivalent in the men's game unless we retroactively banned Christian Laettner for being a dick. I guess Breanna Stewart is on the verge of accomplishing dominance in the women's game, however I think it is more of a team thing than solely her dominance (Taurasi was probably more individually dominant, but I digress).
I like Devland's point about Bird and I think that's the best combo answer. Banning the dunk for all players would definitely make the game less fun and likely decrease scoring due to the missed bunnies like Mano said. That's the last thing the game needs right now. However, for any one individual with NBA aspirations it could be a skill-increasing move to not dunk and work on perfecting other moves around the basket. Brimah might not be the best example as a borderline NBA player, but if a very-skilled sure-fire NBA bound yet earth-bound (think Zach Randolph) college player decided not to dunk this could absolutely help that player better develop
Hard to do this though as you can't just play 90% and be effective at basketball, it requires full effort all the time. Still anyone who's played has likely tried shooting with their off-hand more in non-critical games, worked on driving to their weak side etc...
So I think conceptually it can be productive for an individual, but because it'd bring down entertainment and quality of play for 3,000 players to help maybe 6 of them at the NBA level it is nowhere near worth considering.