Re: LARRY V. ANTOINE

[Matt Healy <mhealy@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>]

>This is comparing apples to oranges, isn't it?  They are two entirely
>different types of players.  Larry was not athletically gifted, he
>worked harder to get that good than most.  His work ethic is what got
>him there.  Antoine is blessed with athleticism.  We all know many
>players who have had the potential to be far better than they turned out
>to be, but didn't have the desire or work ethic.

We can easily speculate that a certain player is going to be as good as
Larry Bird when all is said and done.   I just hope people understand what
they are saying when they propose that, and how unlikely it will be true,
no matter who we are talking about.  To even consider Walker to be
approaching the dream of being on the same level as Bird, is forgetting
Larry Bird.  It reminds me of an article I read in 1987 (SI, I believe), in
which they were honoring Bird as the greatest basketball player of all
time, hands down.  And they asked him how it felt to be so widely
considered so.  He didn't seem to care, as you might expect, and he said he
thought people too easily forgot how great some of the players from
previous eras were.  He also predicted that in 10-15 years, nobody would
think of him as that great, either.  I'm not accusing anyone on this list
of that, but I think this has come to pass.  In today's MTV kind of NBA,
I'll bet a significant percentage of NBA fans think Larry Johnson is a
better player than Larry Bird.  Also, I think Larry Bird was a very good
athlete.  Maybe not able to do some of the things that many equate with
athleticism, but most of what he did, and just playing in the NBA at all,
required exceptional athletic ability.  I think it is mostly a worn out
stereotype that Bird (and any white player) get by with smarts and work
ethic because they have no inherent athletic ability.


Matt