Submit a Story!
Get the BallHype iPhone App
Robert Horry: Spurs Would Beat Larry's Celtics and Magic's Lakers
Robert Horry: Spurs Would Beat Larry's Celtics and Magic's Lakers
Yup, Robert Horry said it, the Spurs could beat those dominant teams from the 80s. He says there are things today's players can do that wasn't being done back then. Is he crazy? Could the Spurs take the 80s Lakers and Celtics?
9 Comments
  • Exick Exick
    +1
    In the same interview, he said that the 2001 Lakers were better. So maybe a more interesting question is, who would win between the 2001 Lakers and the 2007 Spurs?
    Posted 6/14/2007 respond (flag)
  • Googly Googly
    +5
    What a shame to see someone hitting the crack pipe during the Finals.
    Posted 6/14/2007 respond (flag)
  • RedBaron RedBaron
    +1

    Yeah, somebody's taking the "dynasty" label a bit too far.

    The Lakers had 3 of "50 Greatest" (Kareem, Magic, Worthy), a damn fine SG (Scott), an all-NBA defender (Cooper), and depending on the year, a former MVP winner (McAdoo) or the best rebounding virgin in the history of the league (Green).

    I think the Celtics were pretty good as well.

    Posted 6/14/2007 respond (flag)
  • stoeten stoeten
    +1

    Horry is bang on, I'm pretty sure. Current coaching, training, and nutrition are leaps and bounds ahead of even 20 years ago. Players are stronger, faster, more athletic, and just better in general. Watch some of those games on ESPN Classic. There's some sloppy basketball going on.

     It's a shame, though, that he said it, because you just can't realistically compare across eras like that without taking something away from the older players. Relative to their peers, Magic, Bird and Kareem were monumentally more talented. They're deservedly some of the all-time greats, and those are unquestionably some of the greatest teams ever.  I think the Spurs would kill them.

    Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
  • Mantlemurcer Mantlemurcer
    +2
    The Spurs couldn't handle the Celtics or Lakers.  Don't kid yourself.  Duncan is the only Spur that would be a starter on the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s.
    Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
  • Jason Jason
    +2

    It's a difficult debate to settle, and it would be tough to find a level playing field even if we had time travel.

    If today's Spurs were sent back to the 80's, they'd have an awful time adjusting to the tight short shorts.  Also, no hand-check calls would neutralize a lot of Parker's quickness.

    On the other hand, if the 80's dynasties traveled to present time, they'd have to adapt to zone defenses and the increased media scrutiny.  No way would Bird and McHale be able to smoke someone under the table without pictures and/or video leaking out.

    Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
  • Larry Brown Sports Larry Brown Sports
    +1
    I dunno, the more I see of the Spurs team, the more I'm convinced of how good they are.  They play some killer defense.
    Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
  • BrightSideoftheSun BrightSideoftheSun
    +1
    Or is it that they play some "killer" defense?  Is it really defense when they're allowed to mug the guy?
    Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
    • Woody Woody
      +1
      Suns fans are still bitter!  If I had just witnessed the Spurs cake walk through the past few weeks, I might feel the same way though.  They lost more games to the Suns than they did to the Jazz and Cavs combined.
      Posted 6/15/2007 respond (flag)
Blog Reactions

THE BIG THREE
You Been Blinded - Now in Dazzling HD — ... Robert Horry says 2007 Spurs better than 80s Lakers, Celtics. Courtesy of Larry Brown Sports

The Sad Tale Of The 1994 Expos, Robert Horry's Smoking Crack and The Mustache Ride Is Closed
The Feed — ... Robert Horry's challenging the Celtics and the Lakers of the 80's. While they'd probably lose, either one of those teams would put up more of a fight, right now, than the Cavs. In their primes? Horry might have gotten some screws knocked loose when he ran into Steve Nash. (Larry Brown Sports)

Related Content
Teams That Always Need To Be Good
justcallmejuice.blogspot.com 6/14/2007 — As we found out earlier this week, no one is watching the NBA Finals. Game 1 was the lowest rated Game 1 in history and Game 2 was beaten by The Sopranos to remain . While the numbers were still better than the NHL's abysmal numbers, no one outside ...
More’s merry for workouts: C’s sour on select viewings
celtics.bostonherald.com 6/14/2007 — s merry for workouts: C s sour on select viewings By Mark Murphy Boston Herald Sports Reporter Thursday, June 14, 2007 - Updated: 05:11 AM EST D anny Ainge, Doc Rivers and the rest of the Celtics [ team stats ] talent-evaluation crew will be in ...
Spurs: Great Dynasty...or the Greatest Dynasty?
danshanoff.com 6/14/2007 — Just kidding, of course... but am I? Certainly, this Spurs team can't be ranked ahead of Jordan's Bulls*, but can they be ranked No. 2 just behind -- and ahead of such dynasties as the 1980s Lakers, 1980s Celtics or 2000s Lakers? I say yes... As ...
Why The Spurs Are NOT A Dynasty
winningtheturnoverbattle.blogspot.com 6/15/2007 — Simply put, the Spurs should not be called a dynasty, and here are the reasons why. No repeats, Lakers 3-Peat, '99 being cheap, lack of regular season dominance, and the simple fact that they have won less than half of the titles during their current run. Don't be deceived, big daddy media is just feeding you the best story, even if it cheapens the real dynasties of the past.
Spurs better than '80s Celtics or Lakers? No way
valentinesviews.blogspot.com 6/15/2007 — Now that the San Antonio Spurs have dispatched the Cleveland LeBrons in four mostly non-competitive games to sweep the NBA Finals and win their fourth title in 9 seasons, the question becomes where do the Spurs rank among the great NBA teams? Are they better than the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s? Robert Horry thinks so. I think not.