Will there ever be another "Pistol" or Austin Carr or, Mount...or (Fill in the blank)

[lrsky]

Just the other night I was watching some youtube film of Dan Issel, Louie Dampier, then went to a youtube of Pistol Pete's collection of remarkable plays.
And, a little later i the evening, I happened to mention 'Pistol' to a girl I know, an IU fan...she's younger than me...mid forties...and she said....'Who?'
'Pistol Pete'...nothing.
'You know Pete Maravich...' nothing still.
So I said. (we were on the phone talking) go to youtube...
We then commenced to watch film of him, with her exclaiming loudly....
'Oh MY GOD!!! WHO IS THIS GUY????' I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS, HE'S INCREDIBLE!!!!'
That is the common reaction of, I would think many people who think as some of the younger folks do, that basketball was invented in 2003--or whatever year they personally discovered it.
As I watched the film, I was reminded of the 60's and 70's and all the remarkable scorers that that decade produced.
I wondered...will there ever be another Pistol, or Dan Issel...(44 and 34 points per game respectively). Austin Carr...Robertson...you name the player.
I suppose we could assume that, because there are more gifted players that they were not as fabulous as we thought...that is until we see Pistol scoring at will against the best athletes in the NBA...the full court underhand passes right into the arms of a breaking teammate. No look...look away, between defenders legs, behind his back...you name it, he did it.
One final thought on those players....Adrian Dantly was not tall...but he'd wade in among the big boys, and get his shot off...how did he do that???
Just wondering if, like Mark Twain, who rode in on Haley's Comet, then rode out 80 odd years later, if they are like that...never to be duplicated.
Any personal favorites? Other Pistol Fans.

Oh, and before UK played LSU...someone asked coach Rupp...'What do you plan to do with Pistol, coach?'
'Ohhhhhh, myyyyyyuahhh....'he drawled....why we'll just let Pete do what he doezzzzzzzahhh, and we'll just try to contain the other boyyyyzzzzzzuhhhh.'
Gotta love Rupp...no illusions.

Larry

[RP_McMurphy]

Definitely another Bill Walton.............Ole Miss has a couple candidates from news reports.

[rainman]

The Big O!!!

[billoliver40]

I'll guess no. Not in the one and done era. Durant could have been there. One of the kids from K-State.

I don't think we'll get the chance to see a guy like those. Not even another Bird.

Thanks NBA.

[Watchtower]

Maravich was the best offensive players I've ever seen in college and he wasn't bad in the NBA either. Before his final game against Issel in Lexington, one of the local TV stations filmed that morning's shoot around and Pete put on a trick shot show for the cameras. The one that stuck out in my mind was when he came in for a fast break layup, bounced the ball on the board and then the layup by having the ball come off the board and bounced it in off the top of his head.

I think he scored 60 on us and Issel had something like 50. We won, of course, but it was one of the most entertaining games I've seen.

[Rockober]

...mid forties and doesn't know who Pete is? Not debating but any fan of basketball that age would know who he was, at least know he played for the Celtics in his twilight years.

Pistol Pete was great. I would have loved to seen David Thompson in college when dunking was allowed. He was Michael Jordan before he got hooked on cocaine.

I loved watching the NBA in the 80's and 90's. I loved the ABA in the 70's.

[UKrally]

What do you have to do to reach immortality??? Pistol Pete was incredible, and so much fun to watch. What a gym rat he was...and what a creative spirit. Wow. And generally, 70s pro basketball was a flat-out funky, fun time to watch! Julius Irving comes to mind....

[lrsky]

Rockober,
It is a GIRL after all...that, and she was about 4 years old when he graduated from LSU.
But...the amazing thing was her reaction to some of the plays...it was visceral, in the same way people react to terrific plays during a game...even though some was what, thirty years old?
His scoring was just a small part of his arsenel...those passes...like I mentioned...the one in which he clears the rebound, spins and does what looks like an innoccuous underhand lob...THE LENGTH OF THE COURT...in perfect sync with the man breaking to the basket....wow.
Like I said...Haley's Comet???

Larry

[Realist]

I'd recommend the book Pistol: The Life of Pete Maravich by Mark Kriegel to any basketball fan. I was in junior high when he was playing in college and he and Dan Issel were my two favorite players. After reading the book I realized that it took a unique set of circumstances to produce a player like that. It was a combination of physical talent, a great coach for a father who taught him how to play, access to a gym for isolated practice, access to good competition to try out his moves, and a strained relationship with his dad that drove him to work incredibly hard to prove himself. After reading biographies of Maravich, Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy it became apparent that all of them had psychological issues that drove them to work a lot harder than their peers. With Maravich and Cousy it was their relationship with their fathers, with Russell it was race.

It's always possible that a similar set of circumstances could come together to produce another scoring machine but I wouldn't bet on it. AAU and the year round traveling squads have eliminated the isolated practice that was so important in Pete's development. He spent hours and hours alone in the gym working on his moves. Everything you see in those youtube videos had been practiced thousands of times. Today a kid with the physical talent of a Maravich would spend all of his time playing games and traveling around the country to tournaments and not nearly as much time on his skills. That's why so few great shooters come along anymore. They can score because they attack the glass and dunk. They don't spend the hours in the gym working on their jumpshots like Pete and Rick Mount did.

[lrsky]

Realist,
The took is actually titled, "Pistol" isn't it???
I read a book about the life of...and it was terrific...just terrific.
Pistol simply had a basketball in his hands 24/7...dribbling, trying things...practicing. His father, being the catalyst, then enabling him with a perpetual green light...to shoot any shot any time.
But, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% (to infinity) of us could practice forever and not do what he did...he was, for want of a less trite word, remarkable.
For those of you who don't know...when Pete died, unexpectedly at what, 42, and they did an autopsy...he was found to have a heart about half, yes, HALF the size of a normal heart.
One would automatically think the opposite was true...an athlete...like the Secretariat story...a heart twice normal size, explaining why he could run to Philadelphia without tiring.
Pete, if blessed with a full size heart....one can only wonder.

Great reccommendation Realist...I reccommend it too.
'Pistol'.

Larry

[bly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aDy8BqEuyE

[bly]

You always had to be ready when playing with Pistol, if you were not you might get a face full of leather.

[ProfJT]

Some of the greatest basketball moments of my life were being able to see the Pistol play in person. And to see both Issel and Pistol play on the same court, priceless.

[Will Lavender]

I'd recommend the book Pistol: The Life of Pete Maravich by Mark Kriegel to any basketball fan. I was in junior high when he was playing in college and he and Dan Issel were my two favorite players. After reading the book I realized that it took a unique set of circumstances to produce a player like that. It was a combination of physical talent, a great coach for a father who taught him how to play, access to a gym for isolated practice, access to good competition to try out his moves, and a strained relationship with his dad that drove him to work incredibly hard to prove himself. After reading biographies of Maravich, Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy it became apparent that all of them had psychological issues that drove them to work a lot harder than their peers. With Maravich and Cousy it was their relationship with their fathers, with Russell it was race.

Interesting. Reminds me of the Todd Marinovich documentary on ESPN.


It's always possible that a similar set of circumstances could come together to produce another scoring machine but I wouldn't bet on it. AAU and the year round traveling squads have eliminated the isolated practice that was so important in Pete's development. He spent hours and hours alone in the gym working on his moves. Everything you see in those youtube videos had been practiced thousands of times. Today a kid with the physical talent of a Maravich would spend all of his time playing games and traveling around the country to tournaments and not nearly as much time on his skills. That's why so few great shooters come along anymore. They can score because they attack the glass and dunk. They don't spend the hours in the gym working on their jumpshots like Pete and Rick Mount did.

Not sure I agree with this.

I see great shooters come along every year. Pistol Pete was obviously in a league of his own, but I think the AAU circuit--as many bad habits as they can create--does mimic the intensity of the game and put players in situations of pressure. This isn't to say individual instruction isn't important; but there's a world of difference between being alone in a gym and having to hit a shot with a 6'5" freak hanging all over you. AAU basketball also puts the best players against one another; for years, you could only get that in urban situations, at parks and the like. Now you can walk into a gym in June and see a bunch of the best high school players in America playing against one another. That's been a significant change in the game that's come along in the lsat 15-20 years, and I think it's why you're seeing so many freshman ready to play right out of high school.

The mid-range game has gone away, but I think that's a byproduct of the three point line. As far as the outside shot, I would argue that there are many more great shooters in the game now than there ever have been. I mean, when I was in high school 15 years ago, you didn't see big kids shooting the ball. Hardly ever. Now you see 6'10" players out there hitting three pointers regularly.

That's a dramatic change in the game (that has more to do with the Euro style than the AAU game) that has made it, at least to me, more interesting.

[lrsky]

One other side to my OP question was...why so many 'greats' in a seemingly short window of time...then a decline?
There was this meteoric (I'm hung up on the cosmos the past few days, lol) rise in talent, sort of starting with the Big O (who AVERAGED a TRIPPLE DOUBLE in the pros for what 4 years running)....carrying through to the Seventies.
I mean...put Pistol on the court today...who, no, WHO have you ever seen make passes like those in the clip???? Never before...or since.
Every young player should be required to watch this magician as part of their 'learning' experience, because, as you can see...his best plays, were NOT shooting, but passing...passing.
One reason, I love Larry Conley so much. Passing IS the lost art.

Larry

[lrsky]

Bly,
Thanks for posting the homage to Pistol...
Your 'face full of leather' quote made me remember.
I've referenced playing on the church league with Louie Dampier several times...a friend of mine coached him for years (on that league) before I joined.
He told me this story about Louie's team.
At one point, Ralph Beard, well into his fifties by then and a just out of the NBA, Louie were the backcourt for the team...and even though in his fifties, Mr. Beard was still a marvel...'my claim to fame' being that I coached two UK All Americans at the same time'...my friend would say.
Anyway, he said that...one interesting thing that (referencing passing) people didn't talk about as much about Louie, as he was such a great shooter, was his incredible passing. The Runts were the consummate passing team, he being one of the best. He said that the rest of the team was comprised of really good former college players...EVEN SO...not a game would go by, that one, two or even three guys would get hit square in the face with a bullitt pass from Louie...
'You couldn't lose line of sight with him for a nanosecond'...if you did, SMACK!! Right in the face.

Thanks for posting that Bly, and for reminding me of this Louie Dampier story!

Larry

[Realist]

Interesting. Reminds me of the Todd Marinovich documentary on ESPN.



Not sure I agree with this.

I see great shooters come along every year. Pistol Pete was obviously in a league of his own, but I think the AAU circuit--as many bad habits as they can create--does mimic the intensity of the game and put players in situations of pressure. This isn't to say individual instruction isn't important; but there's a world of difference between being alone in a gym and having to hit a shot with a 6'5" freak hanging all over you. AAU basketball also puts the best players against one another; for years, you could only get that in urban situations, at parks and the like. Now you can walk into a gym in June and see a bunch of the best high school players in America playing against one another. That's been a significant change in the game that's come along in the lsat 15-20 years, and I think it's why you're seeing so many freshman ready to play right out of high school.

The mid-range game has gone away, but I think that's a byproduct of the three point line. As far as the outside shot, I would argue that there are many more great shooters in the game now than there ever have been. I mean, when I was in high school 15 years ago, you didn't see big kids shooting the ball. Hardly ever. Now you see 6'10" players out there hitting three pointers regularly.

That's a dramatic change in the game (that has more to do with the Euro style than the AAU game) that has made it, at least to me, more interesting.

I disagree. You need a balance of isolation and competition. Today's players get the competition but not the isolation and practice on the skills it took to produce a player like Pete. There are a handful of players in today's game with similar backgrounds to Pete. The Curry brothers and Austin Rivers come to mind. They are all good but nowhere in Pete's league.

The data on free throw shooting don't support your assertion that shooting is better today and as far as I'm concerned free throw shooting is a good proxy for shooting in general. It's the one constant that holds up comparing different eras of basketball. On UK's 78 championship team the top 7 players all shot above 70% from the line. On today's team 3 of the top 7 are below 70% and Wiltjer is the only one close to Macy.

Regarding three point shooting. When I played a 20 footer for 2 points was a bad shot. A 20 footer for 3 points is a different thing. We didn't practice shots from that distance because our coaches yelled at us. It's possible that you're correct that there are more good long range shooters but it's definitely a product of the three point line. It's not a hard shot and there's a very strong correlation between free throws and three pointers. They actually practice it in their structured practices on their school teams which we certainly didn't do so you will see some improvement. However, I still will argue that if there was more balance between isolated skill practice and competition you wouldn't get amazing athletes like Teague, Jones, and Gilchrist with such awful shooting form.

One final thought. Other than size why has there been such a big influx of Europeans into the NBA? My answer is that they are fundamentally sound. They do a better job of teaching and developing skill and don't go in as heavily for the AAU circuit. They have club teams and all of that but they have a better balance of skill practice and competition. As far as I'm concerned you should walk into a gym in June and see a kid working on shooting form and fundamentals not necessarily playing against other great high school players. There needs to be some time during the year to isolate and develop skills. It's just like with music, there's a time for practice and there's a time to perform. You need the proper balance.

[Realist]

Bly,
Thanks for posting the homage to Pistol...
Your 'face full of leather' quote made me remember.
I've referenced playing on the church league with Louie Dampier several times...a friend of mine coached him for years (on that league) before I joined.
He told me this story about Louie's team.
At one point, Ralph Beard, well into his fifties by then and a just out of the NBA, Louie were the backcourt for the team...and even though in his fifties, Mr. Beard was still a marvel...'my claim to fame' being that I coached two UK All Americans at the same time'...my friend would say.
Anyway, he said that...one interesting thing that (referencing passing) people didn't talk about as much about Louie, as he was such a great shooter, was his incredible passing. The Runts were the consummate passing team, he being one of the best. He said that the rest of the team was comprised of really good former college players...EVEN SO...not a game would go by, that one, two or even three guys would get hit square in the face with a bullitt pass from Louie...
'You couldn't lose line of sight with him for a nanosecond'...if you did, SMACK!! Right in the face.

Thanks for posting that Bly, and for reminding me of this Louie Dampier story!

Larry

I used to play a lot of pickup ball with Terry Mills (Cameron's dad for all of the young folks.....) and he NEVER made a fundamental mistake. He never "forgot" to block out. He never missed an easy shot. He always hit the guy he passed it to dead in stride. He also never took bad shots and was just about automatic when he did shoot.

[Will Lavender]

I disagree. You need a balance of isolation and competition. Today's players get the competition but not the isolation and practice on the skills it took to produce a player like Pete. There are a handful of players in today's game with similar backgrounds to Pete. The Curry brothers and Austin Rivers come to mind. They are all good but nowhere in Pete's league.

But Pete Marovich is an outlier. We might as well use Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan as an example of what one should do as far as practice. I do not disagree that practice--on one's own or in actual games--is incredibly important. But you do not become the player that Marovich was without a hellacious amount of God-given ability. Put a man in a room with a typewriter and let him write on his own for fiften years and he will not be Tolstoy. Put a guy in a gym and let him practice on his own for years, and he's not going to be Marovich. Pistol Petes are born.

I do agree with your point above that a kind of obsessive "gene" is responsible for a lot of these athletes becoming great. And I don't think it's just athletes. There's evidence that great artists are great because they obsess about it, turn their art around in their minds, think about it in almost manic, unflagging ways. This is maybe why a lot of artists turn to chemical dependence, why a lot of great businessmen become tyrants. There seems to be something of an innate drive that makes these people great--but it also seems to be a little dangerous, and maybe destructive for some of them.

I also agree that European players are probably more fundamental, but they also tend to be more physically soft.

[Rockober]

Kevin Durant looks to be the next "great" in my eyes. I would have hated to see his stats if he would have stayed at Texas for a few more years. A incredible scorer and if he can stay healthy, will be one of the best in NBA history when its all said and done.

Pistol could have played in any era thats for sure. Its a shame he wasn't in his prime during the Jordan, Majic, Dr. J, Bird years.

[Downes Van Zandt]

Kevin Durant looks to be the next "great" in my eyes. I would have hated to see his stats if he would have stayed at Texas for a few more years. A incredible scorer and if he can stay healthy, will be one of the best in NBA history when its all said and done.

Pistol could have played in any era thats for sure. Its a shame he wasn't in his prime during the Jordan, Majic, Dr. J, Bird years.

I enjoy watching Durant more than any other player in the NBA. I can't stand Steven A. Smith, but I'm going to quote him here because he hit the nail on the head the other day: "Kevin Durant is an elite player of the higest order." Couldn't agree more.

[Realist]

Kevin Durant looks to be the next "great" in my eyes. I would have hated to see his stats if he would have stayed at Texas for a few more years. A incredible scorer and if he can stay healthy, will be one of the best in NBA history when its all said and done.

Pistol could have played in any era thats for sure. Its a shame he wasn't in his prime during the Jordan, Majic, Dr. J, Bird years.

Pete never was able to play at the same level after his knee injury. Some other players I always thought would have been amazing if they hadn't had to deal with so many injuries were Bowie, Sampson, Walton, and Sebonis. Interesting that all of them were big men.

[ukbob]

Never.

I saw Pistol in person and thought Rick Mount was the best shooter I had ever seen.

Just too much differences in coaching styles these days to allow one player to dominate scoring these days. Can't win many games anymore.

[lribookend]

Rick Mount was incredible. But I think of Ronnie Lyons, Louie Dampier, Jim Master, Kyle Macy Troy Mckinley at UK and Johnny Neumann at Ole Miss, Tony White at UT, and some of the Vandy shooters, as well as many others before the 3 shot rule was invoked.I wonder how many more points they would have scored under today's rules..... Mike Casey would also have benefited. When the three point shot was first implemented, I thought the game would morph into teams with one or two big guys underneath, and 3 guards who could hit the 3 from outside. It was naive and overly simplistic. But even today, two tall and athletic inside players along with three gunslingers from long range would be tough to beat.

Larry
Kelly Tripuka was a tough, tough inside player for ND, as was Ernie Grunfeld at ut. But there have been so many great SEC players. ....dominique Wilkins, Chuck person, Charles Barkley, The Florida NC teams, all had some excellent inside players. I thought that three point shooters would gravitate to the big schools. But instead, some of the shorter, 3-point shooters have gone to programs Like Belarmie in Lousiville.

[kynut]

Never.

I saw Pistol in person and thought Rick Mount was the best shooter I had ever seen.

Just too much differences in coaching styles these days to allow one player to dominate scoring these days. Can't win many games anymore.

I too got to see Pete play a couple of times. He was a true showman. He was also the perfect example of one man teams not being successful......Pete would get 50 and they'd still lose. I thought Notre Dames Austin Carr was the second best scorer I've seen in person, but he too was an example of a one man team not being successful.

kynut

[Blue Heaven]

Kevin Durant looks to be the next "great" in my eyes. I would have hated to see his stats if he would have stayed at Texas for a few more years. A incredible scorer and if he can stay healthy, will be one of the best in NBA history when its all said and done.


Absolutely! There is not a better player in the NBA right now IMO.

I'm so glad I got to grow up watching The "heyday" of the NBA. I consider it a privilige that I got to watch Majic, Bird, MJ, Barkley, Olojuwon (best big man I've ever seen), Isiah, etc., etc..

The thing I admired about Jordan was that he came into the league as a gun. He was a gun his first few years in the league. He worked hard to be a team player and he wound up being one of the best all around players in the game. Unlike, I don't know, Dominique Wilkins!

[Watchtower]

I too got to see Pete play a couple of times. He was a true showman. He was also the perfect example of one man teams not being successful......Pete would get 50 and they'd still lose. I thought Notre Dames Austin Carr was the second best scorer I've seen in person, but he too was an example of a one man team not being successful.

kynut

I've often wondered what would happen if Pete had played for Rupp (who told him he should play for his father and enjoy the experience). Rupp was a strict fundamentalist who would not tolerate letting a player do his own thing. Then again, he gave Issel the green light his senior year. While Pete could score anytime he wanted to, the thing that impressed most was his passing. Could you imagine what Pete could've done under Cal's system? "Oh my!" (as Dick Enberg was fond of saying).

[West Coast Cat]

One word.....parity.

The greats of that era stuck out because there were a handful of them that were leagues ahead of the rest of their peers. Few could match them or slow them down. I don't think it was because there were so much better than today's player but there were just few other contemporaries on their level. They just stood out.

Today, there are so many good players that no one player is going to average such numbers. There is far better balance on teams and the opposing teams are good enough and balanced enough to not let a single player dominate to that extent.

Take out the "trick" plays that would get most players benched and Pete wasn't any better than a dozen current NBA players. The passes may look fancy and slick when they get there, highlight material for sure, but how many times to they not get to the right spot and are just forgotten about.

[freethrow]

I think there will be others. Due to the level of athlete and much better defense that they will be facing in today's game they may not appear as dominate as they would have, say 40 years ago. But, super talented guy's will continue to come as long as the game of basketball is played. Which will probably be forever, thank goodness. I'm sure looking forward to seeing them play. Hopefully all of them for UK :)