Basketball skirt...err, I mean shorts

[Wes Craven]

I see you are referring to future top 10 pick and 7'2" Roy Hibbert in regard to the long shorts. I am sure it is easy to get shorts just right for a guy whop can dunk flat footed.

As for Iverson are you acting like his are short or something. Those are one inch away from you calling them coolots. Don't try and compare what Iverson is wearing to what Bird, Stockton and the rest used to wear.

I would hope three NBA Hall of Fmers could wear out some players at some also ran colleges. Put them on the floor with Kobe and LeBron and watch the freak show start. 

[TrojanHog]

a length that I believe is referred to by WOMEN as "T-length",



and best suited to a skirt to be worn with go-go boots.

Ok, the first line, I'm pretty ok that you know that, but the second line causes me to ask, why the *&*) do you know that?

[EastexHawg]

I see you are referring to future top 10 pick and 7'2" Roy Hibbert in regard to the long shorts. I am sure it is easy to get shorts just right for a guy whop can dunk flat footed.

As for Iverson are you acting like his are short or something. Those are one inch away from you calling them coolots. Don't try and compare what Iverson is wearing to what Bird, Stockton and the rest used to wear.

I would hope three NBA Hall of Fmers could wear out some players at some also ran colleges. Put them on the floor with Kobe and LeBron and watch the freak show start. 

Ummm...can you point out anywhere in this thread where someone has actually suggested wearing extremely short, form fitting shorts?

No, you cant...because no one has done it.

What I was pointing out in the photos was the PROGRESSION of shorts getting longer and longer.  Iverson's were just above his knee, while the Georgetown shorts this year come well below the knee.

What's next?  Floor length broomstick skirts?  Wedding-style dresses with trains?

"McGrady goes strong to the hole and slams it home...then trips over his Versace gown, which Penelope Cruz will borrow and wear to this year's Academy Awards!"

And FWIW...I'd like to see Kobe dominate Oscar Robertson, or Roy Hibbert school Wilt Chamberlain.  The youngsters better bring more than their I Dream of Jeannie parachute pants for those matchups.

[jkstock04]

Ummm...can you point out anywhere in this thread where someone has actually suggested wearing extremely short, form fitting shorts?

No, you cant...because no one has done it.

What I was pointing out in the photos was the PROGRESSION of shorts getting longer and longer.  Iverson's were just above his knee, while the Georgetown shorts this year come well below the knee.

What's next?  Floor length broomstick skirts?  Wedding-style dresses with trains?

"McGrady goes strong to the hole and slams it home...then trips over his Versace gown, which Penelope Cruz will borrow and wear to this year's Academy Awards!"

And FWIW...I'd like to see Kobe dominate Oscar Robertson, or Roy Hibbert school Wilt Chamberlain.  The youngsters better bring more than their I Dream of Jeannie parachute pants for those matchups.

Thats hilarious.  Funniest s**t I've heard all day.  +1

[hogchick26]

You old guys need to get over it. I do not want to see some 6'9" basketball player with a 10" Johnson wearing shorts so tight you could do a portrait of his piece. It is the same reason baggy jeans are worn they are more comfortable. Not to many people running around in wranglers anymore.

Those old time basketball shorts were ridiculous and yes gay. It isn't a race issue or a "ghetto" issue like most of you who know 2 black people would call it. It is mainly a youth issue. None of us want to look like Eddie in Christmas Vacation with his skin tight baby blue leisure suit with a 10" Dong flashing loud and proud.

The most onpoint response in this STUPID thread. How dare someone refer to this long short issue (which is stupid that it's even an issue) as "ghetto and gangsta". You listen to one rap song and you have all your generalizations down pat. Thank you, Wes, for speaking some sense. Sometimes, I forget that I live in an ignorant world, and then threads like this remind me of how little some people's minds have progressed.

[EastexHawg]

How dare someone refer to this long short issue (which is stupid that it's even an issue) as "ghetto and gangsta".

Okay. 

So, if you are so sure it didn't start with a bunch of guys trying to look like they came from the hood, would you care to explain from where it originated?

[valpocrusader]

You're just lucky you were on my team. Next time, it will be you getting the t-bagging. That way, you'll have a reason to go play catch with the girls.

Ha!  Let's see...bump up against a bunch of guys in an unorganized basketball game, or go play catch with some hot girls whom I can watch run after the ball.  I'll take the girls every time-especially the future Mrs. Valpocrusader I was throwing with.  You keep t-bagging those guys in your inch-below-the-knee gangsta shorts

[HogFaninMemphis]

People that live in glass houses . . .

Eastex that was us in the mid and late 90's too.  Remember how Kareem Reid had that same culotts look?

Kareem Reid then went on to play on streetball games on TV.
That shows what kind of people wear their shorts like that.
These guys are supposed to be student-athletes, not gangstas.

[passinghog]

You want the best players to play for the Razorbacks, you let them wear their shorts however they want. If fans think they can dictate how players wear their uniform, they are fooling themselves. If players feel more comfortable wearing longer, better looking shorts, then why should we try to regulate how they dress?
A 2 page thread on something thats not going to change, nor do we as fans have any control over. Fans trying to dictate how players dress or wear the uniform?...that leads to a coach leaving and going to a job where such petty issues are not magnified and the focus is more on winning and getting the best players, regardless of how they look.

[wooo]

[hogchick26]

Okay. 

So, if you are so sure it didn't start with a bunch of guys trying to look like they came from the hood, would you care to explain from where it originated?

No, I want you to tell me what you know about the hood. You seem to be an expert. I really don't want to say what your ideas are screaming to me, but let's just say, they are a bit "dated". It's a style of shorts. Period. I don't think a bunch of african american men, not thugs, or gangstas, that you so beautifully put it, had a meeting and decided to wear longer shorts because it made them look like they're from the hood. Pretty sure guys who play basketball don't want their nutts to hang out, but you seem to enjoy that style of short. I bet you like to see their muscles glisten when they jump, and maybe, just maybe, you may get a little ball slippage.

I can't stop laughing. I hope you're not a teacher, and I hope that you don't spread your stereotypes to impressionable children. Trying to look like they're from the hood...ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! HAHAHAHA!!

[Ahenso]

It depends on what generation you are from. I prefer longer shorts

[EastexHawg]

No, I want you to tell me what you know about the hood. You seem to be an expert. I really don't want to say what your ideas are screaming to me, but let's just say, they are a bit "dated". It's a style of shorts. Period. I don't think a bunch of african american men, not thugs, or gangstas, that you so beautifully put it, had a meeting and decided to wear longer shorts because it made them look like they're from the hood. Pretty sure guys who play basketball don't want their nutts to hang out, but you seem to enjoy that style of short. I bet you like to see their muscles glisten when they jump, and maybe, just maybe, you may get a little ball slippage.

I can't stop laughing. I hope you're not a teacher, and I hope that you don't spread your stereotypes to impressionable children. Trying to look like they're from the hood...ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! HAHAHAHA!!

Your post is entertaining to say the least...and utter and complete BS to say the most.

Please, oh wise one and mind reader, go through my posts and point out where I called anyone...EVEN ONCE...a thug or a gangsta.

Or did you just make that up, too...kind of like the "African American men getting together and having a meeting."

I guess I can see why you are trying to put words in someone else's mouth, since you can't or won't come up with an answer as to where the long, baggy culotte "short" look originated.  Did the "style of short, period" just appear in a puff of smoke one day, or did someone invent them?

BTW, speaking of "experts"...those in this thread who are so indignant that anyone would think the man skirts these guys are wearing look ridiculous and gay seem to be experts on men's genitals, what they tend to hang out of or protrude from, and where to look to see them.

LOL.

[El Puerco]

Our guys can wear a G-string, thong, banana-hammock for all I care...So long as we win.  In fact, I prefer it.  Ok, that sounds gay.

[Wes Craven]

Ummm...can you point out anywhere in this thread where someone has actually suggested wearing extremely short, form fitting shorts?

No, you cant...because no one has done it.

What I was pointing out in the photos was the PROGRESSION of shorts getting longer and longer.  Iverson's were just above his knee, while the Georgetown shorts this year come well below the knee.

What's next?  Floor length broomstick skirts?  Wedding-style dresses with trains?

"McGrady goes strong to the hole and slams it home...then trips over his Versace gown, which Penelope Cruz will borrow and wear to this year's Academy Awards!"

And FWIW...I'd like to see Kobe dominate Oscar Robertson, or Roy Hibbert school Wilt Chamberlain.  The youngsters better bring more than their I Dream of Jeannie parachute pants for those matchups.

I hope you are joking about this statement. Kobe Bryant or LeBron James would make Oscar " I played with a bunch of slow guys with flat tops" Robertson look ridiculous. You are arguing a losing point. Robertson was 6'5" and 210 lbs. LeBron James is 6'8" 260 lb. monster who would D-E-S-T-R-O-Y Robertson. As for Kobe, he already has over 21,000 career points and is half way through his career. "The Big O" totaled just over 26,000 in his entire career.

I am sure you are the same guy who argues with this generation about how Dick Butkus, who would be lucky to run a 4.8, would dominate the way he used to back "in the day". Get back to the coffee shop. You want NONE of this.

[hogchick26]

Your post is entertaining to say the least...and utter and complete BS to say the most.

Please, oh wise one and mind reader, go through my posts and point out where I called anyone...EVEN ONCE...a thug or a gangsta.

Or did you just make that up, too...kind of like the "African American men getting together and having a meeting."

I guess I can see why you are trying to put words in someone else's mouth, since you can't or won't come up with an answer as to where the long, baggy culotte "short" look originated.  Did the "style of short, period" just appear in a puff of smoke one day, or did someone invent them?

BTW, speaking of "experts"...those in this thread who are so indignant that anyone would think the man skirts these guys are wearing look ridiculous and gay seem to be experts on men's genitals, what they tend to hang out of or protrude from, and where to look to see them.

LOL.

I apologize for lumping you with another poster. You did not use the reference gangsta or thug, but you did say that the shorts are used as an attempt to appear from the "hood". So to attempt to answer your original question; All things begin with a culture. The long shorts came from an urban culture style. Not the hood. Those two words "urban" and "hood", they not synominous(sp). That is why it angers me that people have no problem make a generalization such "an urban lifestyle must be a hood or poor, welfare lifestyle.

To be honest, I don't notice the long shorts because I'm watching the game. Unless, the ball is getting tangled his crotch everytime he dribbles between his legs, I really don't care what length the players shorts are. Number 2 seed Georgetown don't seem to have a problem, so why should we.

[EastexHawg]

I hope you are joking about this statement. Kobe Bryant or LeBron James would make Oscar " I played with a bunch of slow guys with flat tops" Robertson look ridiculous. You are arguing a losing point. Robertson was 6'5" and 210 lbs. LeBron James is 6'8" 260 lb. monster who would D-E-S-T-R-O-Y Robertson. As for Kobe, he already has over 21,000 career points and is half way through his career. "The Big O" totaled just over 26,000 in his entire career.

You know, you are right.  Kobe probably would beat Oscar Robertson.  In fact, if they played a game of one on one I would guess that Kobe might beat him something like 15-11.

After all...The Big O is probably what, close to 70 years old?

Congratulations.  You are probably the only basketball "expert" in history to have the utter audacity...and ignorance...to try to denigrate the basketball career of Oscar Robertson. 

LMAO.

[Wes Craven]

You know, you are right.  Kobe probably would beat Oscar Robertson.  In fact, if they played a game of one on one I would guess that Kobe might beat him something like 15-11.

After all...The Big O is probably what, close to 70 years old?

Congratulations.  You are probably the only basketball "expert" in history to have the utter audacity...and ignorance...to try to denigrate the basketball career of Oscar Robertson.


LMAO.

You are talking about different eras. Players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before right now with the emergence in the last two decades of elite level training and sports performance centers. It is the same reason that in the 60's you had linemen weighing 260 in the NFL. NONE of them could play in today's NFL. Now basketball isn't quite as bad because size isn't that much differnt but if you believe that the speed of the game is not immensely faster then you my old friend are sorely mistaken. Below is a quote on John Woodens teams during the same time Robertson was playing in the pros. It goes to show what a joke it was that any team won 38 NCAA tourney games in a row and 10 titles in 11 years. There are far more players with much more talent playing the game today. Not even mentining the emergence of the foreign players who were non existent when Robertson was playing. How good would the league be without Nowitzki, Nash, Gasol, Ginobli, Ming and the legions of other super talented foreign born players?

"During this streak of 7 straight championships, the Bruins won 38 straight NCAA Tournament games."

[EastexHawg]

Kobe Bryant or LeBron James would make Oscar " I played with a bunch of slow guys with flat tops" Robertson look ridiculous. You are arguing a losing point. Robertson was 6'5" and 210 lbs.

By the way...how big was Michael Jordan?

And how many "monsters", whether they weighed 260 pounds or 460 pounds, made him "look ridiculous".

Wait...don't tell me.  Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe would D-E-S-T-R-O-Y him, too.  After all...using your masterfully crafted logic, since they are BIGGER than he was, and since they were born about the time he was breaking into the NBA, that means they must be BETTER, TOO!

[Wes Craven]

By the way...how big was Michael Jordan?

And how many "monsters", whether they weighed 260 pounds or 460 pounds, made him "look ridiculous".

Wait...don't tell me.  Dirk Nowitzki and Kobe would D-E-S-T-R-O-Y him, too.  After all...using your masterfully crafted logic, since they are BIGGER than he was, and since they were born about the time he was breaking into the NBA, that means they must be BETTER, TOO!

Are you mental. Please tell me you aren't putting Oscar Robertson in the same category as Michael Jordan. Oscar Robertson couldn't sniff His Airness' jock strap. You must be the President of the Big O Fan Club. The fact is that athletes today are much bigger, stronger and faster than they were 40 years ago. Guys in the NFL in the 60's had second jobs for god's sake. Every strength number and speed record is substantially better than it was 40 years ago. Let go of the past, go put your Johhny U jersey on and lace up you black high top Pony's and cozy up to a nice version of Dean Smith's four corners where scores were 10-6 at halftime. Out.

[AND5_RAZORBACK]

Those nutters we had to wear back in the day were sooooo comfortable,
don't you think. I still have nightmares after seeing pics from back then.
                                                And5

[Baconator]

Enjoy

That Jimmy Chitwood was one of the all time greats.

[EastexHawg]

Yeah, Michael Jordan was the greatest...and he was the greatest whether he was wearing shorter shorts at North Carolina or during his early Bulls days, or longer shorts near the end of his career.  He would still be the greatest if he was wearing the capri pants of today, too.

So, back to the original argument of those who love watching men play basketball in skirts...the big, baggy, long skorts have nothing to do with making players faster, more mobile, or better.  They are worn as a fashion statement, not because it is easier to move around and play in them.

As for the "players today are much better" argument...

You know, depending on which version of science or religion you believe, man has been around somewhere between several thousand and several million years.  He built the Colosseum and the Pyramids before the birth of Christ.  He crossed the ocean, settled this land, and founded what is still the greatest nation on earth hundreds of years ago. 

French impressionist painters had such hand to eye coordination, such precision, that they created works of art consisting of the most minute brush strokes and details in the 1800s...treasures that are still admired by millions today.

Man built the Statue of Liberty in the late 1890s, erected the Eiffel Tower, invented the airplane over a hundred years ago, detonated the atomic bomb in the 1940s, and sent astronauts into space and eventually to the moon in the 1960s.

And yet, according to most twenty to thirty-something "historians" today, we never had anyone proficient enough to bounce a freaking ball or shoot it through a hoop until...oh, about 1998.

LOL.

[hogsanity]

Yeah, Michael Jordan was the greatest...and he was the greatest whether he was wearing shorter shorts at North Carolina or during his early Bulls days, or longer shorts near the end of his career.  He would still be the greatest if he was wearing the capri pants of today, too.

So, back to the original argument of those who love watching men play basketball in skirts...the big, baggy, long skorts have nothing to do with making players faster, more mobile, or better.  They are worn as a fashion statement, not because it is easier to move around and play in them.

As for the "players today are much better" argument...

You know, depending on which version of science or religion you believe, man has been around somewhere between several thousand and several million years.  He built the Colosseum and the Pyramids before the birth of Christ.  He crossed the ocean, settled this land, and founded what is still the greatest nation on earth hundreds of years ago. 

French impressionist painters had such hand to eye coordination, such precision, that they created works of art consisting of the most minute brush strokes and details in the 1800s...treasures that are still admired by millions today.

Man built the Statue of Liberty in the late 1890s, erected the Eiffel Tower, invented the airplane over a hundred years ago, detonated the atomic bomb in the 1940s, and sent astronauts into space and eventually to the moon in the 1960s.

And yet, according to most twenty to thirty-something "historians" today, we never had anyone proficient enough to bounce a freaking ball or shoot it through a hoop until...oh, about 1998.

LOL.

The ref just stopped this fight. 

Now, tell us how you REALLY feel.

That was great, abso-freaking-lutely great.

[Wes Craven]

Yeah, Michael Jordan was the greatest...and he was the greatest whether he was wearing shorter shorts at North Carolina or during his early Bulls days, or longer shorts near the end of his career.  He would still be the greatest if he was wearing the capri pants of today, too.

So, back to the original argument of those who love watching men play basketball in skirts...the big, baggy, long skorts have nothing to do with making players faster, more mobile, or better.  They are worn as a fashion statement, not because it is easier to move around and play in them.

As for the "players today are much better" argument...

You know, depending on which version of science or religion you believe, man has been around somewhere between several thousand and several million years.  He built the Colosseum and the Pyramids before the birth of Christ.  He crossed the ocean, settled this land, and founded what is still the greatest nation on earth hundreds of years ago. 

French impressionist painters had such hand to eye coordination, such precision, that they created works of art consisting of the most minute brush strokes and details in the 1800s...treasures that are still admired by millions today.

Man built the Statue of Liberty in the late 1890s, erected the Eiffel Tower, invented the airplane over a hundred years ago, detonated the atomic bomb in the 1940s, and sent astronauts into space and eventually to the moon in the 1960s.

And yet, according to most twenty to thirty-something "historians" today, we never had anyone proficient enough to bounce a freaking ball or shoot it through a hoop until...oh, about 1998.

LOL.

You are making apoint based around what groups of men did or what someone's hand eye coordination took care of. We are talking individual athletes. You can go on with your diatribes about pyramids, french painters and the colisuem all you want but none of that has anything to do with the FACT that athletes today are BIGGER, FASTER and STRONGER statistically. PURE FACT.

Here is a fun fact for you.

Bullet Bob Hayes was the 100 meter world record holder in 1964 with a time of 10.0 flat. If he had run in last year's 100 meter World Championship he would have finished 4th.

You are right though. These last 40 years athletes haven't improved much. We don't even want to get in to strength numbers. They are an absolute joke.

[EastexHawg]

Here is a fun fact for you.

Bullet Bob Hayes was the 100 meter world record holder in 1964 with a time of 10.0 flat. If he had run in last year's 100 meter World Championship he would have finished 4th.

You are right though. These last 40 years athletes haven't improved much. We don't even want to get in to strength numbers. They are an absolute joke.

I bet it was those damn tight, short shorts he was wearing that slowed Bullet Bob down.  If he had been wearing Allen Iverson-like culottes, like all the top athletes wear for increased comfort, speed, and mobility these days, he might have run a 9.2!

Oh, wait.  As someone already pointed out in this thread, athletes who depend on quickness and speed to make the difference between winning and losing...Olympic sprinters, swimmers, speed skaters, alpine skiiers, etc...don't wear skorts or capri pants.  They were skin tight clothing or even tights.

What are they thinking?

As for who lifted the most weight...are we talking about power lifting or basketball?  I thought we were talking about guys shooting a ball through a hoop, not lifting the motor out of a 1970 GTO.

Here is a "fun little stat" for you.  What is the one statistical category that offers the best, most constant glimpse at a player's ability to put a leather ball through a standard sized hoop...one in which the parameters (size of the ball, size of the goal, height of the goal, distance of the shot) have not changed in decades...and one that does not depend on the size, quickness, or abilities of defenders to influence the success of the attempt?

Free throw shooting.

So...how do you explain that the top free throw shooter of all time is Mark Price, who played from 1986 to 1998?  Better yet, how is it possible...given that today's players are so much bigger, better, and more skilled...that the only other player in NBA history to shoot 90% or better from the free throw line is Rick Barry, who started his career in 1965?

Going down the list, I see that another member of the top five all-time is Calvin Murphy, drafted in 1970.  Further down, ahead of all but two current players in 11th place, is Bill Sharman...who was born in 1926 and played the majority of his career in the 1950s.

Isn't the most basic aspect of playing basketball the ability to put the ball in the basket? 

So how does the fact that a guy who was born before Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs outshot all but two current players fit into your theory of present greatness/past ineptitude?

[Wes Craven]

Eastex you get more reidiculous by the minute. You literallly just said that since the most basic function of basketball was to put the ball through the hoop that Free Throw Percentage was the measuring stick for greatness. Based on that logic here are the best 5 players in the NBA this year. Not one of those guys is in the top 5 players in the league.

Chauncey Billups DET .912
Caron Butler WAS .912
Ben Gordon CHI .909
Ray Allen BOS .907
Jerry Stackhouse DAL .902

It is obvious I am arguing with someone who played during the flat top and chuck taylor converse era or maybe not even at all. If you think size, strength and speed don't matter in basketball then ask the guy who is trying to stop Iverson's crossvover, LeBron's drive to the hole or Kobe's fade away how he just for some reason can't seem to stop those guys. If you hurry you can probably catch a rerun of Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith. Golly gee whiz Beav.

[EastexHawg]

Eastex you get more reidiculous by the minute. You literallly just said that since the most basic function of basketball was to put the ball through the hoop that Free Throw Percentage was the measuring stick for greatness. Based on that logic here are the best 5 players in the NBA this year. Not one of those guys is in the top 5 players in the league.

Chauncey Billups DET .912
Caron Butler WAS .912
Ben Gordon CHI .909
Ray Allen BOS .907
Jerry Stackhouse DAL .902

It is obvious I am arguing with someone who played during the flat top and chuck taylor converse era or maybe not even at all. If you think size, strength and speed don't matter in basketball then ask the guy who is trying to stop Iverson's crossvover, LeBron's drive to the hole or Kobe's fade away how he just for some reason can't seem to stop those guys. If you hurry you can probably catch a rerun of Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith. Golly gee whiz Beav.

And it is obvious that I am arguing with someone who:

A.  Suffers from severe reading comprehension issues; and

B.  Keeps changing his argument when each of his points is shot full of holes.

I never said free throw shooting is "the measuring stick for greatness."  But of course, you know that.  I merely asked you how, given your inane theory that players from previous decades can't possibly be compared to anyone born since 1980, you explain that a balding guy who started his NBA career a year or two after that new group called the Beatles debuted on the Ed Sullivan Show (Rick Barry) was able to put the ball through the basket at a higher rate of frequency than your current day heroes.

Or are you actually trying to say that the most basic of all basketball skills is not shooting the ball through the hoop?  If so, it wouldn't surprise me after reading your previous arguments.  You probably also think that winning the long drive competition is a more important aspect of golf than putting the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, too.

"Sure Jack Nicklaus shot 271 at Augusta in 1966, using steel shafted clubs, persimmon headed woods, and a balata ball that no ten year old would consider using today...a record that has only been broken by one stroke in the ensuing 42 years, by players using space age shafts, titanium headed woods, and a ball that flies an average of 50-70 yards farther and 80% truer...but you can't seriously think that your 5'11', 185 pound Golden Bear could compete with a MONSTER like 6'3", 220 pound Ernie Els, can you.  Ha!  You get more "reidiculous" by the minute!"

BTW, did you ever even see Oscar Robertson play?  You do know that he is the only player in NBA history to AVERAGE a triple double for an entire season, don't you?  You have at least READ that he not only averaged over 30 points per season six times, but also led the league in assists eight times, haven't you?

Red Auerbach called The Big O the greatest basketball player he ever saw.  I realize he can't compare to you as a basketball expert...after all, he only won what, 13 NBA titles as a head coach, and saw every player from every era, from George Mikan to Elgin Baylor to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to Michael Jordan to Kobe Bryant...but I guess he IS entitled to his opinion nonetheless...

http://www.nba.com/kings/history/oscar_robertson_hall.html

[NuttinItUp]

Who wears short shorts?






(PS what is the fascination with short shorts in this thread? Do some of you guys need to admit something?)

[pcrouch3809]

If I were a coach, I would have old school 70's shorts ordered and make the team wear them for any game in which they either played or practiced lazy before.  It would sure keep the guys with egos playing hard.   

[Wes Craven]

Must have forgotten to include that since 1966 the course has added over 500 yards and changed the difficulty from Putt Putt to Pro. Of course, I am sure you know more than this ESPN writer.

"This Augusta certainly is not the old Augusta, the one that for decades was listed at 6,925 yards from the tournament tees, the one where all the emerald turf was of fairway height, the one that always seemed to foster birdies and excitement instead of bogeys and dread. This Augusta dictates rather than invites off the tee and measures 7,445 yards, 520 yards longer than when Woods won his first green jacket by 12 strokes in 1997."

Give Tiger one maybe two more years and he will have passed the great Golden Bear in major championships at the ripe old age of 31. I guess his incredible physique and intense training regiment which he so avidly talks about has nothing to do with that though.

I can't imagine why world records are broken year after year in speed and strength because according to you athletes back in the day were better.

Again, Oscar Robertson dominated in an era when black people had only been playing the league for 10 years. When foreign born players were non existent. I am sure having guys like Nowitzki, Nash, Ming, Ginobli, Parker and Gasol wouldn't make any difference. Give it up buddy. Facts are Facts. Watching old games is like watching women's basketball. A bunch of two handed chest passes and guys who look like robots. Old football films look like they are being run in 3/4 speed. Athletes were just slower. You can't duspute that. ANY coach who coached in both eras would validate that.

Take a look at 6'8" 260 lbs.

[EastexHawg]

Must have forgotten to include that since 1966 the course has added over 500 yards and changed the difficulty from Putt Putt to Pro. Of course, I am sure you know more than this ESPN writer.

"...This Augusta dictates rather than invites off the tee and measures 7,445 yards, 520 yards longer than when Woods won his first green jacket by 12 strokes in 1997."

Okay, so what's your point?  The year that Tiger broke Nicklaus' four round scoring record by one stroke was...1997...when according to your own article, the course was 520 yards shorter, the same distance it played when Nicklaus set the record using equipment that won't be found in any golf bag today unless it is in a museum.

How have the winning scores been looking lately, Mr. Expert?

Hint:  Zach Johnson WON last year with a four round total of one over par.  Tiger shot three over.

Oh, and as for Nicklaus and whether or not he could compete with today's players...not only did he win six Masters, but he finished SIXTH at 5 under par in 1998...ahead of Tiger, Mickelson, and his final round playing partner Ernie Els...at the freaking age of 58, hobbling around on a hip so bad that it had to be surgically replaced a few months later.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Again, Oscar Robertson dominated in an era when black people had only been playing the league for 10 years. When foreign born players were non existent. I am sure having guys like Nowitzki, Nash, Ming, Ginobli, Parker and Gasol wouldn't make any difference. Give it up buddy. Facts are Facts.

Hey, don't tell me.  Write to ESPN or Sports Illustrated and tell them that Red Auerbach obviously didn't know what he was talking about.  YOU know better, given that...excuse me, tell us again...what exactly ARE your basketball expert credentials?

I'm sure whoever reads your arguments will think exactly the same thing that almost everyone who was born before 1985 who is reading this thread thinks.

LMAO!!!

[Wes Craven]

Okay, so what's your point?  The year that Tiger broke Nicklaus' four round scoring record by one stroke was...1997...when according to your own article, the course was 520 yards shorter, the same distance it played when Nicklaus set the record using equipment that won't be found in any golf bag today unless it is in a museum.

How have the winning scores been looking lately, Mr. Expert?

Hint:  Zach Johnson WON last year with a four round total of one over par.  Tiger shot three over.

Oh, and as for Nicklaus and whether or not he could compete with today's players...not only did he win six Masters, but he finished SIXTH at 5 under par in 1998...ahead of Tiger, Mickelson, and his final round playing partner Ernie Els...at the freaking age of 58, hobbling around on a hip so bad that it had to be surgically replaced a few months later.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Hey, don't tell me.  Write to ESPN or Sports Illustrated and tell them that Red Auerbach obviously didn't know what he was talking about.  YOU know better, given that...excuse me, tell us again...what exactly ARE your basketball expert credentials?

I'm sure whoever reads your arguments will think exactly the same thing that almost everyone who was born before 1985 who is reading this thread thinks.

LMAO!!!

Guess you skipped the part about the course being made much more difficult not just added length. Not fairways as wide as the ocean and greens with the slope of a basketball court.

As for basketball do you really believe that ole Red isn't going to try and pimp the players from his era. I hope you really don't believe Robertson could hold Kobe or LeBron under 50. Furthermore, I see you still have no answer for the influence that foreign born players have had on the NBA.

I'm sure whoever reads your arguments will think exactly the same thing that almost everyone who was born before 1985 who is reading this thread thinks.

LMAO!!!

What that you all born before 1980 are old and stubborn and can't come to the realization that your boyhood heroes were really slow unathletic guys who happened to be pioneers of sport so they are viewed as gods by your generation? Continue arguing basketball because the football argument is an evern worse one for you. It is a complete joke and tragedy to ever compare the teams like the '70 Steelers to the Cowboys of the 90's or the '72 Dolphins to the Patriots Dynasty. All you have to know is tha the average offensive lineman for the '72 Dolphins weighed 253 lbs. End of argument.

[hogblade]

Rick Barry never gets his shots off in today's era and he Rick self-admittedly wasn't near the athelete his son Brent was. Take a look at Barry's sons. None of them are close to being stars in today's NBA

[hogsanity]

For those who think yesterday's players could not adapt or compet in todays game, could todays players adapt to the way the game was played?  Take the NBA.  Could players today adapt to a time when TRAVELING was actually called?  Or when no 3pt line existed?  Or to the doznes of other differences in the way the games were played? 

The hardest thing is sports is comparing one era to another.

As to the original question posed in this thread, the baggy skorts( sorry, but what they wear are not shorts ) became popular with the mainstreaming of hip hop.

[EastexHawg]

Guess you skipped the part about the course being made much more difficult not just added length. Not fairways as wide as the ocean and greens with the slope of a basketball court.

And I guess you skipped the part about the equipment Nicklaus was using in 1965.  But I guess EVERYONE these days who wants to shoot four low rounds in a tournament goes out and buys persimmon headed woods with steel shafts, irons with no square grooves and a sweet spot the size of a BB, and McGregor Tourney golf balls...

As for how easy the course was back then...

Yeah, it was a piece of cake!  That's why Nicklaus' 17 under par score of 271 won the tournament by nine strokes, and was at least five shots lower than any other winning score of the previous ten years (and at least nine strokes lower than all the rest).  Before 1965, the Masters scoring record was 274 (-14) by Ben Hogan, shot in the year that he won the Masters, U.S. Open, British Open, and would have been the prohibitive favorite to win the Grand Slam if the PGA had not started before the British Open ended, making it impossible for Hogan to play both.  Arnold Palmer shot 276 one year at the height of his career.  No one else in Masters history (32 years) had ever shot lower than nine under par 279, eight shots higher than Jack's total.

Dang, I see what you mean.  It was a regular pitch and putt course in those days!

As for the course being so much flatter in those days...and I'm trying not to laugh now...can you cite some sort of geologic reference material that corroborates your theory?  Because the Augusta I know about is extremely hilly, much moreso than is obvious on TV.  Dang, for it to have been transformed from a plain with the "slope of a basketball court" to steep hills in 43 years is amazing.  That sort of plate tectonics and lift normally takes millions of years. 

At the rate the earth's crust must be buckling to accomplish the changes you claim have taken place since the 1960s, one of those hills outside Augusta may reach Mt. Everest proportions within our lifetimes!

[EastexHawg]

double post

[Albert Einswine]

And I guess you skipped the part about the equipment Nicklaus was using in 1965.  But I guess EVERYONE these days who wants to shoot four low rounds in a tournament goes out and buys persimmon headed woods with steel shafts, irons with no square grooves and a sweet spot the size of a BB, and McGregor Tourney golf balls...

As for how easy the course was back then...

Yeah, it was a piece of cake!  That's why Nicklaus' 17 under par score of 271 won the tournament by nine strokes, and was at least five shots lower than any other winning score of the previous ten years (and at least nine strokes lower than all the rest).  Before 1965, the Masters scoring record was 274 (-14) by Ben Hogan, shot in the year that he won the Masters, U.S. Open, British Open, and would have been the prohibitive favorite to win the Grand Slam if the PGA had not started before the British Open ended, making it impossible for Hogan to play both.  Arnold Palmer shot 276 one year at the height of his career.  No one else in Masters history (32 years) had ever shot lower than nine under par 279, eight shots higher than Jack's total.

Dang, I see what you mean.  It was a regular pitch and putt course in those days!

As for the course being so much flatter in those days...and I'm trying not to laugh now...can you cite some sort of geologic reference material that corroborates your theory?  Because the Augusta I know about is extremely hilly, much moreso than is obvious on TV.  Dang, for it to have been transformed from a plain with the "slope of a basketball court" to steep hills in 43 years is amazing.  That sort of plate tectonics and lift normally takes millions of years. 

At the rate the earth's crust must be buckling to accomplish the changes you claim have taken place since the 1960s, one of those hills outside Augusta may reach Mt. Everest proportions within our lifetimes!

Nice work, Eastex!

I wouldn't have expected less.

[Wes Craven]

Nice work, Eastex!

I wouldn't have expected less.

Maybe you two can get a room later on tonight.

[oldfart]

getting back on the original topic (isnt it amazing how these threads seem to wander all over creation??). In the 1960's when i was in grad school at florida there was a little school called Mount Dora Bible School, dont know if it is still in existence, but they were a "powerhouse" basketball team in their division, which was I think the smallest classification in Florida at that time, for both boys and girls teams. The guys wore what were basically warmup pants to play in, the girls wore cullottes.  And both were perennial state tournament teams.

[mlloyd4]

Some things never change.
It's okay to want to look, sound, or act cool.
On the field, on the court, or where ever.
Even if you are too old to know what cool is anymore. 
Don't worry, the kids know if you don't.

Above the knees = gay
Below the knees = cool

[JawsTheme]

Being a 23yo I can tell ya it's all for looks. It's the majority black, hip hop, rap culture influencing young ballers of today.

The NBA has rules against this. I believe it's a quarter inch above the bottom of the knee, but they always break this rule by an inch or so.

These college guys are lying through their weed stained teeth if they say it's for comfort or anything of the sort. It's for looks. The headbands, armbands... rubber bands... all that crap is for show along with the long shorts.

It's just what's "hip" now a days. Unless you have long hair you have no reason for a headband. If you wanna say something about forehead sweat, then you don't play ball obviously. You sweat over, through and under the headband, it doesn't make any difference.

I wear my shorts right at my knee no lower, I am white you know.

[primetimeswine]

dont know if its been stated but i think Tarks' UNLV team may have been the first team to style with the long shorts, for sure one of the first

[Wes Craven]

Being a 23yo I can tell ya it's all for looks. It's the majority black, hip hop, rap culture influencing young ballers of today.

The NBA has rules against this. I believe it's a quarter inch above the bottom of the knee, but they always break this rule by an inch or so.

These college guys are lying through their weed stained teeth if they say it's for comfort or anything of the sort. It's for looks. The headbands, armbands... rubber bands... all that crap is for show along with the long shorts.

It's just what's "hip" now a days. Unless you have long hair you have no reason for a headband. If you wanna say something about forehead sweat, then you don't play ball obviously. You sweat over, through and under the headband, it doesn't make any difference.

I wear my shorts right at my knee no lower, I am white you know.

Thank you for your opinion guy who starred in Deliverance. You need to get out more. If you don't think wearing a headband helps hold sweat you have lost your mind. There is nothing wrong with looking good if it doesn't effect your game. Get out of the 60's.

[Jazorback]

better than the high and tight with the sack hangin out.unless you like those things.