PDA

View Full Version : Wooden on Raising the Rim



CameronBornAndBred
12-13-2008, 04:42 AM
I didn't read the article, the link is not to the correct story. But I've read the same idea before and I think it's incredibly stupid. The rules of basketball are constantly being changed, so much so that from the time I started watching games in Cameron to now, it's an entirely different experience. I guess that's the point, but when the game is physically changed I start having reservations. I don't think anyone has much of a problem with the shot clock. I remember witnessing some serious snoozers in the distant past. I agree that the 3 point line was a good idea and a benefit to the game. But I don't really agree with it being pushed back, and I definitely don't agree with rim raising. Has baseball made their bats skinnier? Has soccer decreased the size of it's goals? Hell, tennis rackets got BIGGER (they shouldn't have). I'm sorry, but the game of basketball has not become so easy that we need to alter the dimensions of the court and height of the hoop. There are some incredibly gifted players that can make it LOOK easy, but they are the ones that make it fun to watch. It's also fun to watch the other team throw up a bunch of bricks. They aren't missing because the basket is too low.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. To the powers that be, don't go messing with the physical attributes of the game. Go invent a new sport instead.

doctorhook
12-13-2008, 08:20 AM
This controversy has been around awhile and was seriously discussed when Wilt and Kareem played. I always liked Bill Russell's response. He said if you are trying to make the game more fair for the shorter guys, you should lower the rim, not raise it. Doc

jlear
12-13-2008, 10:08 AM
link (http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/8926926/Wooden-says-he'd-like-to-raise-the-rims)

Olympic Fan
12-13-2008, 11:38 AM
This is a bad idea that's been around for a long time. I remember back in 1974, just before the great State-UCLA game in the semifinals, they played a Friday night demonstration game in the Greensboro Coliseum (Davidson was one of the teams ... not sure about the other) with 11-foot baskets.

The game was a mess and not much came out of it except a classic quote from Abe Lemons, who said, "Why don't we just cut a hole in the floor, then we'd all be running around giving Cadillacs to midgets?"

Keep in mind one thing when you hear this discussed -- the college men realistically couldn't change the height of their basket without a similar change in the NBA rules. Could you imagine how NBA dream prospects would feel about messing up their games by learning the game on a 10-foot basket, then playing a year with 11-foot baskets before returning to 10-foot baskets? How many would follow the path of Brandon Jennings and skip college altogether?

This ain't gonna happen.

ncexnyc
12-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Has baseball made their bats skinnier? Has soccer decreased the size of it's goals?

As a matter of fact the size of bats has drastically changed. Checkout some of the beasts they used in the early 20th century and compare them to the bats used today. They're also currently investigating the use of maple in the manufacture of bats as opposed to the traditional ash for safety reasons. From college on down the standard is the metal bat, however the pros still use wood. That's an adjustment players are forced to make when they make it to the big time.

Hockey is another sport that has drastically altered it's playing surface. The area behind the net and around the crease has been changed and they altered those lovely colored lines that ran across the rinks.

DisplacedBlueDevil
12-13-2008, 09:23 PM
I enjoyed the game much more when the emphasis was on team play, not slam dunks and 3 pointers. The ACC used to be the leader in finesse/skill basketball and teams used to run offenses - much more pleasing to the eye. It's like we've taken the Chicago symphony and turned it into American Idol (of course, we know which gets the better ratings :(). I almost (almost) enjoy watching girls/women play more today...

Let's bring back the skills of yore: 11', 24', widen by 10', lengthen by 20'.

JJ would still reign the 3.

mgtr
12-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Well, a collateral issue is raised here (along with the basket height). If we have an 11 foot rim, who, among either current or past players, could still dunk the basketball? I say Dwight Howard, for one. Probably not too many others.

RainingThrees
12-13-2008, 10:57 PM
I enjoyed the game much more when the emphasis was on team play, not slam dunks and 3 pointers. The ACC used to be the leader in finesse/skill basketball and teams used to run offenses - much more pleasing to the eye. It's like we've taken the Chicago symphony and turned it into American Idol (of course, we know which gets the better ratings :(). I almost (almost) enjoy watching girls/women play more today...

Let's bring back the skills of yore: 11', 24', widen by 10', lengthen by 20'.

JJ would still reign the 3.

Can the average female basketball player dunk? That puts an end to which is my favorite to watch. Unless there is a female equivalent to Kobe.

RainingThrees
12-13-2008, 10:57 PM
Well, a collateral issue is raised here (along with the basket height). If we have an 11 foot rim, who, among either current or past players, could still dunk the basketball? I say Dwight Howard, for one. Probably not too many others.

Not Shaq, too fat...

Cameron
12-13-2008, 11:59 PM
John Wooden is obviously a legend -- whether that's because of the ten titles, his obvious position as one of basketball's most influential figures, his All-American days at Purdue, or for the mere fact he may have been the best cheat sport has ever seen. But he's obviously off his rocker (literally, nowadays, I would assume).

Raise the rim to 11 feet? My goodness, what a lunatic. I've listened to him babble about this for years and it's still the most ridiculous thing I've heard concerning basketball rule change. I'm not even sure it warrants comment. The day it happens is probably the day I quit watching.

dukemomLA
12-14-2008, 02:29 AM
Any of us who discount what Wooden has to say.... are IMHO...stupid.

He is a legend and has done more for college BB than anyone. He's a lovely, humble and gracious man and does not speak 'off the cuff' or without forethought. He has always been judicious with his comments.

If he says "raise the rim" I for one am listening. If he says "back off the 3-pt line" I for one am listening. He's been in the past an amazing coach. In the present he is someone who follows the game daily and attends as many games as his health allows.

Whatever Wooden says, I give GREAT serious thought.

Olympic Fan
12-14-2008, 10:54 AM
Any of us who discount what Wooden has to say.... are IMHO...stupid.

He is a legend and has done more for college BB than anyone. He's a lovely, humble and gracious man and does not speak 'off the cuff' or without forethought. He has always been judicious with his comments.

If he says "raise the rim" I for one am listening. If he says "back off the 3-pt line" I for one am listening. He's been in the past an amazing coach. In the present he is someone who follows the game daily and attends as many games as his health allows.

Whatever Wooden says, I give GREAT serious thought.

And if Wooden says "Forget that you ever heard the name Sam Gilbert" I guess you're buying that too.

AtlDuke72
12-15-2008, 12:19 PM
And if Wooden says "Forget that you ever heard the name Sam Gilbert" I guess you're buying that too.

This non-sequitur is just uncalled for. John Wooden knows more about basketball than you could ever hope to know. I agree that if he thinks raising the rim would make for a better game it is worth looking at. Maybe 11 feet is too high. Maybe 101/2. How do you know until it is tried at some level? Kids play at lower heights and eventually get to 10 feet. I don't think it would work either but Coach Wooden knows a lot more than me.

AtlDuke72
12-15-2008, 12:32 PM
John Wooden is obviously a legend -- whether that's because of the ten titles, his obvious position as one of basketball's most influential figures, his All-American days at Purdue, or for the mere fact he may have been the best cheat sport has ever seen. But he's obviously off his rocker (literally, nowadays, I would assume).

Raise the rim to 11 feet? My goodness, what a lunatic. I've listened to him babble about this for years and it's still the most ridiculous thing I've heard concerning basketball rule change. I'm not even sure it warrants comment. The day it happens is probably the day I quit watching.

This is one of the most obnoxious and unwarranted posts in the history of DBR. To call John Wooden a cheat , "off his rocker" and a lunatic is just uncalled for. You should be ashamed.

greybeard
12-15-2008, 12:37 PM
Wooden was ambivolent on raising the rim. He said it might be worth trying. What he wasn't ambivolent about, and hasn't been for years, is dunking.

He thinks and has long thought that dunking is nothing but showmanship that detracts from skilled play underneath the basket and should be done away with. Finishing around the rim without the option of dunking, particularly for the bigs, separates individuals who are clever and creative from the dolts.

More importantly, it creates more clever, creative players; makes individuals grow in ways that they otherwise might not, in ways that no coach can "demand." Ordering a big guy who is near the basket to throw it down or sit down is not COACHING. It is BULLYING. It takes the game out of the player's hands; it takes the mind out of the player's game; and it leads inexorably to the type of physical play around the basket that is contrary to the rules as written, and therefore by definition impairs the integrity of the game.

It ain't just me who is saying this. It is Wooden, and on this he is crystal clear. Has been for years.

Wander
12-15-2008, 01:06 PM
Sometimes people who were leading experts in a sport decades ago have an inability to see how times have changed, and as a result their comments aren't really relevant anymore, or in some cases downright stupid.

The best example of this in college basketball is Billy Packer a few years ago ranting quite angrily about the mid-majors getting too many at-large bids compared to the ACC and whoever else. A few weeks later, two Missouri Valley teams are in the Sweet 16 and George Mason is in the Final Four. He showed a very genuine lack of understanding at where the sport of college basketball was at in 2006.

Or if you want a comparison with another coach, just turn on ESPN during college football season and watch Lou Holtz. It's sad really, but the dude often has absolutely no clue what he's talking about anymore.

allenmurray
12-15-2008, 03:07 PM
. . . enough with the beatification. His relationship with a booster who paid players and showered them with gifts is pretty well known. Even Bill Walton has written about it. By the standards of his day it was less problematic than by today's standards as the NCAA did very little in the way of enforcement. But it happened. If even a small portion of that kind of thing happened in a program under today's scrutiny Wooden would be bounced. UCLA was placed on probation almost immediately after Wooden's retirement. The NCAA was not going to investigate UCLA while their golden boy was coaching, but as soon as he stepped down the infractions that took place during the 70s, because of the very close ties of the players to a well known booster, led to the program being put on probation. Wooden claims to have not known anything about the relationship between players and Gilbert, but it seems clear from the comments of UCLA players that it was a case of Wooden choosing to look the other way. It is not to say he was not a great coach or a great man, but he is hardly flawless.


This is one of the most obnoxious and unwarranted posts in the history of DBR. To call John Wooden a cheat . . . is just uncalled for. You should be ashamed.


He is a legend and has done more for college BB than anyone. He's a lovely, humble and gracious man


This non-sequitur (my note - the mentioning of Gilbert)is just uncalled for.


Kids play at lower heights and eventually get to 10 feet. I don't think it would work either but Coach Wooden knows a lot more than me.

Kids play at lower heights because they lack the arm/upper body strength to develop proper shooting form with a 10 foot basket. If 6 or 7 year olds played on a 10 foot basket they would have to throw the ball rather than shoot it, and therefore develop bad habits and muscle memory. In most youth legues the rim is gradually raised from 8 to 10 feet, but it is rare for anyone over 11 years old to play on anything other than a 10 foot basket.

AtlDuke72
12-15-2008, 05:29 PM
. . . enough with the beatification. His relationship with a booster who paid players and showered them with gifts is pretty well known. Even Bill Walton has written about it. By the standards of his day it was less problematic than by today's standards as the NCAA did very little in the way of enforcement. But it happened. If even a small portion of that kind of thing happened in a program under today's scrutiny Wooden would be bounced. UCLA was placed on probation almost immediately after Wooden's retirement. The NCAA was not going to investigate UCLA while their golden boy was coaching, but as soon as he stepped down the infractions that took place during the 70s, because of the very close ties of the players to a well known booster, led to the program being put on probation. Wooden claims to have not known anything about the relationship between players and Gilbert, but it seems clear from the comments of UCLA players that it was a case of Wooden choosing to look the other way. It is not to say he was not a great coach or a great man, but he is hardly flawless.

The issue was whether changing the height of the basket, or eliminating dunking, would improve the game. Somehow allegations of recruiting violations got brought into the discussion along with statements that Coach Wooden was "off his rocker " and a lunatic. These comments are wrong for so many reasons. This is not "beatification" it is just just commen courtesy and respect for an elderly man admired by most of the country.




Kids play at lower heights because they lack the arm/upper body strength to develop proper shooting form with a 10 foot basket. If 6 or 7 year olds played on a 10 foot basket they would have to throw the ball rather than shoot it, and therefore develop bad habits and muscle memory. In most youth legues the rim is gradually raised from 8 to 10 feet, but it is rare for anyone over 11 years old to play on anything other than a 10 foot basket.

Calling Coach Wooden a lunatic and saying he is 'off his rocker" is wrong for so many reasons. Having respect for the man is not "beatification" - it is common courtesy and respect for an elderly man who has deserved it. If you can't see that I have nothing mort to say to you.

The point of my statement about kids shooting to a lower basket is that the players can learn to shoot to a different height. Doing away with dunking , or limiting it to the truly exceptional player, might make the game more entertaining.

greybeard
12-15-2008, 06:42 PM
. Kids play at lower heights because they lack the arm/upper body strength to develop proper shooting form with a 10 foot basket.

Picking nits here, but I doubt very much that it is an issue of arm strength. Shooting involves the transfer of energy from the ground, through a series of excelerates to the release point, which is set off by pronation of the hand and the ball rolling up a changing incline off the finger tips. The problem for younger kids is that this machine that the hand forms with the forearm is too pliant; the bones that form the wrist are too gelatenous, and therefore the lever that multiplies the force being applied to the ball by all else that took place does not get multiplied when the levers that comprise the shooting machine are made of soft stuff. Once the wrist bones firm up, the machine works, and the same undermuscled kid has no trouble shooting on a basket of regular height.

Playing with the smaller and much lighter ball is a very good thing, as are the lower rims.

Higher rims for big people I don't think is a good idea. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the dunk (you think!)

Wooden it seems to me knowlingly broke the rules, stupid as they were (are), he had to have known. Big deal. The guy won multiple championships with teams that were not on paper better than any of a number of competitors; his teams just played the game better. That, it seems to me, is Wooden's enduring legacy, that and the fact that he was an outstanding educator. So his guys dressed nice. Who cares.

And, the Walton and Alcindar teams that were better than everyone else, well, no one believes that those two guys went to UCLA because of the favors that alum could provide them. No one believes that there wasn't a guy like him or two or 20 associated with every major program back then, do they?

dukelifer
12-16-2008, 12:07 PM
Picking nits here, but I doubt very much that it is an issue of arm strength. Shooting involves the transfer of energy from the ground, through a series of excelerates to the release point, which is set off by pronation of the hand and the ball rolling up a changing incline off the finger tips. The problem for younger kids is that this machine that the hand forms with the forearm is too pliant; the bones that form the wrist are too gelatenous, and therefore the lever that multiplies the force being applied to the ball by all else that took place does not get multiplied when the levers that comprise the shooting machine are made of soft stuff. Once the wrist bones firm up, the machine works, and the same undermuscled kid has no trouble shooting on a basket of regular height.

Playing with the smaller and much lighter ball is a very good thing, as are the lower rims.

Higher rims for big people I don't think is a good idea. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the dunk (you think!)

Wooden it seems to me knowlingly broke the rules, stupid as they were (are), he had to have known. Big deal. The guy won multiple championships with teams that were not on paper better than any of a number of competitors; his teams just played the game better. That, it seems to me, is Wooden's enduring legacy, that and the fact that he was an outstanding educator. So his guys dressed nice. Who cares.

And, the Walton and Alcindar teams that were better than everyone else, well, no one believes that those two guys went to UCLA because of the favors that alum could provide them. No one believes that there wasn't a guy like him or two or 20 associated with every major program back then, do they?
It would be great if basketball was uniform at all levels- same rules-same distance of the three point line- same width of the lane - same time played etc. The fact that you play one game in high school- another in college- another in the pros and another in the Olympics makes no sense. Maybe if everyone played the same game at every level- players would have one set of fundamentals to learn and the game would be better for it.

rsvman
12-16-2008, 12:53 PM
The game of basketball as I knew it when I was a kid is pretty much gone. The major changes that led to its demise were the shot clock and the 3-point shot. IMHO, the 3-point shot has affected the game more than has the shot clock.

It's too easy to make 3 points. It should, theoretically at least, be half again as hard to make 3 points as it is to make 2 points, but it's not. Most teams average somewhere around 45-50% shooting from 2-point land and around 35-40% from three-point land, making it so that shooting a lot of 3-pointers makes mathematic sense.

In turn, defenses have to spread out more to make the 3-point shot harder. The end result is the "drive-and-dish" style of play that dominates college basketball today (i.e., break down the outside defender, drive toward the basket, and then throw the ball back OUTSIDE to the spot-up 3-point shooter). This strategy is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the way the game was taught and played when I was a kid. The idea was to get as close to the basket as possible and then shoot; maximize the shooting percentages by getting close to the basket. The flip side of that coin was that defenses were mostly aimed at preventing the shorter shots, forcing the other team to take a lower percentage shot.

Wow. That was more rambling than I had anticipated. Sorry about that.

As for the topic of the thread, I think raising the rim to 11 feet would have made a lot more sense if we had stuck with the old rules; in other words, if there were no 3-point line, coaches would have continued to recruit tall guys over good shooters, and the average height of the players would probably be considerably greater than it currently is. The way the game is currently played I think raising the rim makes absolutely no sense.

dukelifer
12-16-2008, 01:21 PM
The game of basketball as I knew it when I was a kid is pretty much gone. The major changes that led to its demise were the shot clock and the 3-point shot. IMHO, the 3-point shot has affected the game more than has the shot clock.

It's too easy to make 3 points. It should, theoretically at least, be half again as hard to make 3 points as it is to make 2 points, but it's not. Most teams average somewhere around 45-50% shooting from 2-point land and around 35-40% from three-point land, making it so that shooting a lot of 3-pointers makes mathematic sense.

In turn, defenses have to spread out more to make the 3-point shot harder. The end result is the "drive-and-dish" style of play that dominates college basketball today (i.e., break down the outside defender, drive toward the basket, and then throw the ball back OUTSIDE to the spot-up 3-point shooter). This strategy is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to the way the game was taught and played when I was a kid. The idea was to get as close to the basket as possible and then shoot; maximize the shooting percentages by getting close to the basket. The flip side of that coin was that defenses were mostly aimed at preventing the shorter shots, forcing the other team to take a lower percentage shot.

Wow. That was more rambling than I had anticipated. Sorry about that.

As for the topic of the thread, I think raising the rim to 11 feet would have made a lot more sense if we had stuck with the old rules; in other words, if there were no 3-point line, coaches would have continued to recruit tall guys over good shooters, and the average height of the players would probably be considerably greater than it currently is. The way the game is currently played I think raising the rim makes absolutely no sense.

This shows the evolution of the sport. If defenses are designed to stop the inside play- then better shooters are selected for. When better shooters start to pull the D outside, the inside gets easier again and so you want players who are inside/outside types. The emergence of a shot clock also changed the game a lot. I am not sure you can really stop the evolution of a game, though. The creation of the 3 was, I suppose, intended to punish the zone- or perhaps reward what is a more difficult shot- or maybe just to allow greater parity in the sport. The three does bring excitement to the game- but I agree that the shot is somewhat overused in college.

Daniel Damico
12-16-2008, 01:56 PM
One of the reasons someone would even suggest the moving the rim is that we continue to physically evolve. The average is much bigger and more athletic than those of the past - not to say that there were not greats that would not be great now, because they would - but the average player is better and can jump higher.

With Wilt and Russell, the only real competition they had was each other, because there were not as many 7 footers in the league.

Moving the 3 pt line back is not to adjust to skill level, but to allow for more driving to the basketball and stretching out of zones.

I know that other sports have tweaked their rules, but this would be a complete changing of the game. The skill level would drop for years until the kids who learned the game on 11ft finally got to college. It will not and should not happen!

Wooden likes to think back to the day when the dunk was unique and not everyone could do it. He is legend, but he is wrong.


Daniel

Double the Post (http://doublethepost.wordpress.com)

DBFAN
12-16-2008, 02:30 PM
changing the size of baseball bats is not even close to being relevant with changing the height of the rim. It would be comparable if baseball decided to push the center field wall back to 500 feet, or if they pushed the pitchers mound back to 80 feet. I find the whole thing just silly, if they were to happen, you would have to have PG's that are 6'5 or bigger to be able to get in the lane, thus we will start eliminating players even more from playing in the NBA. Just think none of us would have seen Spudd Webb win a dunk contest if the rims were that tall already.

allenmurray
12-16-2008, 03:39 PM
Calling Coach Wooden a lunatic and saying he is 'off his rocker" is wrong for so many reasons. .

I assumed that cameronbornandbred (who I have met on a few occassions and who I know to be anything but disrepsectful of others) saying wooden was a lunatic and off his rocker was hyperbole regarding the rim change. I figured it was calling Wooden a cheat that got folks so incensed. While by the standards of his day "looking the other way" was a given, by today's standards his relationship with a booster who was showering players with gifts and money would have gotten him bounced quickly.

allenmurray
12-16-2008, 03:41 PM
Picking nits here, but I doubt very much that it is an issue of arm strength. Shooting involves the transfer of energy from the ground, through a series of excelerates to the release point, which is set off by pronation of the hand and the ball rolling up a changing incline off the finger tips. The problem for younger kids is that this machine that the hand forms with the forearm is too pliant; the bones that form the wrist are too gelatenous, and therefore the lever that multiplies the force being applied to the ball by all else that took place does not get multiplied when the levers that comprise the shooting machine are made of soft stuff. Once the wrist bones firm up, the machine works, and the same undermuscled kid has no trouble shooting on a basket of regular height.


You may be technically correct, but it is the same point. Standard baskets cause young children to develop bad shooting form - a habit that can be hard to unlearn.

allenmurray
12-16-2008, 04:11 PM
Picking nits here, but I doubt very much that it is an issue of arm strength. Shooting involves the transfer of energy from the ground, through a series of excelerates to the release point, which is set off by pronation of the hand and the ball rolling up a changing incline off the finger tips. The problem for younger kids is that this machine that the hand forms with the forearm is too pliant; the bones that form the wrist are too gelatenous, and therefore the lever that multiplies the force being applied to the ball by all else that took place does not get multiplied when the levers that comprise the shooting machine are made of soft stuff. Once the wrist bones firm up, the machine works, and the same undermuscled kid has no trouble shooting on a basket of regular height.

Playing with the smaller and much lighter ball is a very good thing, as are the lower rims.

Higher rims for big people I don't think is a good idea. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with the dunk (you think!)

Wooden it seems to me knowlingly broke the rules, stupid as they were (are), he had to have known. Big deal. The guy won multiple championships with teams that were not on paper better than any of a number of competitors; his teams just played the game better. That, it seems to me, is Wooden's enduring legacy, that and the fact that he was an outstanding educator. So his guys dressed nice. Who cares.

And, the Walton and Alcindar teams that were better than everyone else, well, no one believes that those two guys went to UCLA because of the favors that alum could provide them. No one believes that there wasn't a guy like him or two or 20 associated with every major program back then, do they?


In many ways I agree. I have incredibly high regard for Wooden, as an educator, as a coach, and as a gentleman.

For the most part he simply did things the way they were done then (although "lesser" programs were investigated and his was not - at least not until after he left. He was the golden boy, and the NCAA turned a blind eye to many problems at UCLA that were as serious as problems that were investigated at other schools). However, the attitude that Wooden was as pure as the driven snow, and that he represents some golden age of college sports when everybody did everything right, is simply not true. It is a case of "things were better in the good old days".

tele
12-17-2008, 12:23 PM
The Wooden and the UCLA legacy grew along with the NCAA, at a time when the NIT was a major competitor. During the UCLA dynasty the NIT was often a better tournament, unless you were a UCLA fan.

I would like to see the dunk prohibited again, at least at the high school and college levels. A dunk is clearly offensive goal tending. Or, if the rules continue to allow dunking then go to the international rules and allow the ball to be touched in the cylinder, both on offense and defense.

ncexnyc
12-17-2008, 12:42 PM
changing the size of baseball bats is not even close to being relevant with changing the height of the rim. It would be comparable if baseball decided to push the center field wall back to 500 feet, or if they pushed the pitchers mound back to 80 feet. I find the whole thing just silly, if they were to happen, you would have to have PG's that are 6'5 or bigger to be able to get in the lane, thus we will start eliminating players even more from playing in the NBA. Just think none of us would have seen Spudd Webb win a dunk contest if the rims were that tall already.Bat size is quite relevant to the evolution of the game of baseball.If you don't believe it just take a look at batting averages and homeruns. As for moving a centerfield wall back to 500 ft, the original Yankee Stadium was 490 ft to dead center. The dimensions of a major league team's home field is set by the team itself. Moving the mound back to 80 feet, is a drastic change as it would be 20 feet further back. I don't see that being anything similar to raising the rim 1 ft.
Baseball lowered the height of the pitchers mound by several inches (believe it was the later 60's)and that had a major effect on the game, as can be seen by ERA's.

Kedsy
12-17-2008, 01:17 PM
Can the average female basketball player dunk? That puts an end to which is my favorite to watch. Unless there is a female equivalent to Kobe.


He thinks and has long thought that dunking is nothing but showmanship that detracts from skilled play underneath the basket and should be done away with. Finishing around the rim without the option of dunking, particularly for the bigs, separates individuals who are clever and creative from the dolts.

I strongly disagree with both of these positions. First of all, why would players' ability to dunk detract from the watchability of a well-played basketball game. The game is beautiful, with or without dunks. If all you want is athleticism and stunts, stick with Barnum and Bailey.

Having said that, I don't see the other side, either. A dunk is not mere "showmanship." It is the highest percentage shot. A guy who can catch in traffic and go up and dunk is not a "dolt," but rather someone who is increasing his team's efficiency and ability to score inside. No matter how "clever and creative," a contested layup has a significantly worse chance of going in than a dunk. There can't possibly be anything wrong with dunking in that situation if you can.

Lulu
12-17-2008, 06:46 PM
...looks like my previous post didn't survive somehow.

In any case, does anyone think that the relatively low height of the rim (compared to skill/talent/ease of dunking) is part of what has made the game so rough these days? Is that better?

I also think the 3-pointer was a FAR bigger change to the game. So unless you're one of those who also thinks that was the worst thing that's even happened to the game, and no game should change from its point of inception, then I just don't understand such stoic objection to raising the rim.

The point is that "unstoppable" players ruin a sport. If they start to become a permanent fixture then you either make the game more difficult for them, allow more aggressive defense, or sit back and try to enjoy the new game.

All that said, I'm not for raising the rims. Not yet, anyway.

greybeard
12-17-2008, 08:56 PM
I strongly disagree with both of these positions. First of all, why would players' ability to dunk detract from the watchability of a well-played basketball game. The game is beautiful, with or without dunks. If all you want is athleticism and stunts, stick with Barnum and Bailey.

Having said that, I don't see the other side, either. A dunk is not mere "showmanship." It is the highest percentage shot. A guy who can catch in traffic and go up and dunk is not a "dolt," but rather someone who is increasing his team's efficiency and ability to score inside. No matter how "clever and creative," a contested layup has a significantly worse chance of going in than a dunk. There can't possibly be anything wrong with dunking in that situation if you can.

If you can't make a layup in creative ways and are playing on a high level there is something wrong. What is wrong is that the player who needs to dunk to finish lacks skill, creativity (unless you count these dunk contest things), touch, footwork, I could go on. On the other side, it makes perhaps the best play in basketball, the defensive rejection of a big trying to score inside largely a thing of history. Watching Russell on defense was the best part of watching the Celtics. Aside from Wilt, who actually dunked it a far less percentage of the time than most bigs today, there were few who dunked when play was being contested. The game was elegant and creative at the rim.

Many dunkers violate the rules when they dunk, are not called for it, and that cheapens the game. Many, many bigs shuffle to gather themselves before going up with a rebound. If they had to lay it in, they'd in all likelihood have to put it on the floor once, maybe fake, and do something creative to score many put backs. Now all they need to do is walk.

OR, and this is my favorite one, they can pull down the rim so the ball actually goes in instead of ending up at half court.

Then there are the guys who in order to dunk on the move have to hang on the rim or they'd miss or fall on their heads. Ugly, ugly play that is illegal.

These plays are routine and they cheapin the game, in my opinion.

They also in my opinion are the reason for Bobby-ball defense inside, that would be anything short of mayheem to keep a big from catching it in position and maintaining sufficient balance to shuffle his feet and then dunk it.

If you did away with the dunk, there would be less pressure on refs and leagues to ignore the rules and not permit all this pushing and shoving in and near the lane, which has to be a foul on somebody but is never called. So, you have these guys playing half around, drapped all over the offensive player and impeding his ability to even move to the ball. All because of the dunk.

Finally, most dunks are ugly, and involve displays by guys swinging on the rim which slows down the play and makes me think |I'm watching some poor man's version of the high bar. If I wanted to watch gymnastics I'd move to Russia.

They should outlaw dunks, call the game according to the rules, and bring some elan and skill back to the fine arts of playing the pivot and defending the pivot. Pivot players used tobe the most skilled on the court. No one can say that any longer. Guys who could finish on the break, those who could penetrate the defense and take on a guy who could swat a shot away, and succeed, were terrific to watch. It is ironic that the play involving the good Doctor that is most played, is in a big commercial of his, involves just such a finish, not a dunk. And, what is Michael's most astounding finish, the one when he changed hands in the air against LA; angain a layup. I rest my case.

Cameron
12-18-2008, 10:24 AM
This is one of the most obnoxious and unwarranted posts in the history of DBR. To call John Wooden a cheat , "off his rocker" and a lunatic is just uncalled for. You should be ashamed

Please step of that elevated ledge you seem to be standing on. As another posted pointed out, the cheating that went on during the Wooden era has been well documented. Read Bill Walton's book, he basically gives the confession.

Yes, John Wooden was great, but he's not my Lord and I will not bow to him just because he won some championships. Believe it or not, the great Wizard of Westwood can earn criticism, too.

Smile, buddy:) It will be all right.

Cameron
12-18-2008, 10:36 AM
Any of us who discount what Wooden has to say.... are IMHO...stupid.

Whatever Wooden says, I give GREAT serious thought.

If John Wooden postulated Duke would win more games in March if it played all of its games without taking a dribble, you wouldn't question it?

I know that's a stretch, but I am merely pointing out how ridiculous some of you are being here in regards to the "Almighty One."

AtlDuke72
12-18-2008, 11:20 AM
Please step of that elevated ledge you seem to be standing on. As another posted pointed out, the cheating that went on during the Wooden era has been well documented. Read Bill Walton's book, he basically gives the confession.

Yes, John Wooden was great, but he's not my Lord and I will not bow to him just because he won some championships. Believe it or not, the great Wizard of Westwood can earn criticism, too.

Smile, buddy:) It will be all right.

Disagreeing with him is one thing - calling him a lunatic and off his rocker is another. Sorry you can't see the difference. As I said, I have nothing more to say to you.

Kedsy
12-18-2008, 11:30 AM
Many dunkers violate the rules when they dunk, are not called for it, and that cheapens the game. Many, many bigs shuffle to gather themselves before going up with a rebound. If they had to lay it in, they'd in all likelihood have to put it on the floor once, maybe fake, and do something creative to score many put backs. Now all they need to do is walk.

I would submit that if dunkers violate the rules then the logical answer is to have the rules enforced, not to outlaw the dunk.


If you can't make a layup in creative ways and are playing on a high level there is something wrong. What is wrong is that the player who needs to dunk to finish lacks skill, creativity (unless you count these dunk contest things), touch, footwork, I could go on.

Why do you believe that a player who dunks did it because he "needs" to dunk? Your conclusion does not follow from the facts. Everyone who is able to dunk (legally, of course) will make a higher percentage of his dunks than his layups. Why risk a miss if you can avoid it? A legal dunk in the right circumstances is a smart play. Dunking is not always the appropriate play, but instead of assuming that a player who dunks "lacks skill" or "creativity," I would suggest that a player who can dunk but chooses not to do it in the appropriate circumstance is either unintelligent or not thinking.


It is ironic that the play involving the good Doctor that is most played, is in a big commercial of his, involves just such a finish, not a dunk. And, what is Michael's most astounding finish, the one when he changed hands in the air against LA; angain a layup. I rest my case.

Those were great plays. I appreciate great plays whether they're dunks or layups or assists or defensive stops or backdoor cuts. I'm not sure why your appreciation of great plays applies to some kinds but not others, or why you'd say that because great players made great plays without dunking that dunking should be outlawed. You may rest your case, but your argument does not follow logically.


Finally, most dunks are ugly, and involve displays by guys swinging on the rim which slows down the play and makes me think |I'm watching some poor man's version of the high bar. If I wanted to watch gymnastics I'd move to Russia.

Well, personally, I thought Gerald Henderson's alley-oop dunk off the inbounds play last night was a thing of beauty. Not ugly in the slightest. If you can't appreciate breathtaking athletic plays and all you want is pretty footwork, why not try the ballet?

allenmurray
12-18-2008, 12:13 PM
Disagreeing with him is one thing - calling him a lunatic and off his rocker is another. Sorry you can't see the difference. As I said, I have nothing more to say to you.

How about calling him a cheat. I see you left it out. Does thatmean you are okay with that one?

ncexnyc
12-18-2008, 12:23 PM
It's very unfortunate so many people view the world as either black or white, with no room for shades of grey.

Not everything is as simple as it seems.

Olympic Fan
12-18-2008, 12:48 PM
The Wooden and the UCLA legacy grew along with the NCAA, at a time when the NIT was a major competitor. During the UCLA dynasty the NIT was often a better tournament, unless you were a UCLA fan.


Not to hijack this thread, but I have to respond to the NIT comment.

If you mean that the NIT was a more competitive and therefore a more interesting tournament in the era when UCLA was winning the NCAA every year (actually, 10 of 12 years between 1964 and 1975), fine ...

But your comment that that the NIT was a major competitor to the NCAA event during this era is simply wrong. But it's an attitude that I hear a lot -- that the NIT was as good or as important or better than the NCAA Tournament "in those days"

Well, there were years in the 1940s when the NIT rivaled the NCAA Tournament and a few years late in that decade when the NIT and NCAA were set up so that teams could play in both, so they were fairly equal.

But all that changed in 1951 when the NCAA expanded from eight to 16 teams and mandated that every conference champion play in the NCAA Tournament. The very next year, the first point-shaving scandals -- all centered around New York gambers and Madison Square Garden -- exploded. The response of most major conferences was to shun the NIT -- even for their second-place teams. That's why the ACC banned the NIT for its runnerups for years.

From the early 1950s on, there was no competition between the two tournaments -- the NIT made do with the NCAA leftovers ... although because the NCAA Tournament was a lot smaller than it is today, those leftovers were a juicier than today's crumbs.

There was one small exception to that rule -- in 1970, Marquette's Al McGuire didn't like his NCAA pairing (there was no seeding in those days) and elected to in the NIT instead. He won it with Dean Meminger and company.

But that was a minor blip -- and Marquette was "just" the No. 8 team in the country that year (the ease of their NIT triumph should say something about the watered-down NIT field). The top seven ranked teams all played in the NCAA. After McGuire's protest, the NCAA changed the rules to make teams selected for the NCAA play it it.

But that's just a bit of trivia -- the point is that starting in 1951-52, there is no comparison between the NIT and NCAA ... the latter was clearly the superior tournament. The NIT was better than it is today back when the NCAA was taking 16 or 24 or 32 teams -- but it was always (after 1951) inferior to the NCAA Tournament of its day.

AtlDuke72
12-18-2008, 01:12 PM
How about calling him a cheat. I see you left it out. Does thatmean you are okay with that one?

Since I don't know the facts, and I doubt that you do either, I can't comment on the the Sam Gilbert issue one way or the other.

I think calling Coach Wooden a cheat based on what is known is also way over the top , inappropriate and offensive. I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Olympic Fan
12-18-2008, 02:06 PM
Since I don't know the facts, and I doubt that you do either, I can't comment on the the Sam Gilbert issue one way or the other.

I think calling Coach Wooden a cheat based on what is known is also way over the top , inappropriate and offensive. I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself.

For a good summary of the Sam Gilbert connection to UCLA, try this story by Dan Wetzel:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=dw-uclalegacy040206&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Look, I was the first one in this thread to mention Sam Gilbert. I brought it up to counter the deification of Wooden by some posters. I'm not sure it's fair to call him a cheater, but it's equally wrong-headed to suggest that he was simon pure.

We KNOW that Gilbert was paying the players on Wooden's championship teams. We KNOW that Wooden knew about it (and his only response was to say "I don't like it"). We KNOW that Gilbert, who also used his construction business to launder drug money, was later censured by the NCAA and forced to sever his connections to the UCLA program -- but only after Wooden's retirement.

Does that make Wooden a cheater? Does the fact that after 15 years of moderate success at UCLA that he only started winning championships when Gilbert started buying him players mean that he's a basketball genius?

Cheater might be a bit strong, but it's hardly "over the top and inappropriate."

greybeard
12-18-2008, 02:12 PM
You may be technically correct, but it is the same point. Standard baskets cause young children to develop bad shooting form - a habit that can be hard to unlearn.

Regular sized basket balls too. I said I was picking nits. Thanks for making an extremely valuable point.

Cameron
12-18-2008, 02:40 PM
As I said, I have nothing more to say to you.



I think calling Coach Wooden a cheat based on what is known is also way over the top , inappropriate and offensive. I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself.

And as I said, step of your high horse. Childish and pointless.

BTW, the "off his rocker" remark was said in jest. Nothing was meant by it. Obviously he's not a lunatic -- him suggesting the rim be raised by a foot, however, is, in fact, insane.

FireOgilvie
12-18-2008, 02:50 PM
And as I said, step of your high horse. Childish and pointless.

BTW, the "off his rocker" remark was said in jest. Nothing was meant by it. Obviously he's not a lunatic -- him suggesting the rim be raised by a foot, however, is, in fact, insane.

It's obvious that some people did not read the actual article. Wooden said he would not want to raise the basket by a foot. "Not a full foot. That would be too much." He also came across as quite sane.

DisplacedBlueDevil
12-20-2008, 06:41 PM
For a comedic look at the play that caused the "raise the rim" controvery in the '70's, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIKcIjbhsHE

IMO, this play is as equally fun to watch whether the ball is dunked or not. David Thompson would take your breath away when he was on the receiving end of this play during the NCAA's dunking Prohibition era.

As for Coach Wooden, he certainly wasn't enriching himself if didn't report the aforementioned transgressions. There are assistant coaches today being paid way more than he was (relatively speaking).