Were the 1960s Boston Celtics better than the 2010s Golden State Warriors?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Were the 1960s Boston Celtics better than the 2010s Golden State Warriors?". Your opponent's style: Socratic Philosopher

ok ill start so i think when you take deep into the 1960's celtics they have to be a better dynatsy they won 9 of the 10 titles in the 60s and they actually had a solid competiton having the best point guard before magic johnson with oscar robertsion the best shooter at that time with jerry west the best scorer and 2nd best defender at that timew ith wilt chamberlain the best rebounder at that time with bob petit all these people winning 9 out fht e10 champions shows the dominance which checks the list for a perfect dynatsy the warriors never had this domiance ever so give a argument for why the warriors couldd be better

You're conflating "era dominance" with "actual competition," and that's your fatal mistake. Those nine titles came against a watered-down league with eight teams, no shot clock until mid-60s, and rosters so thin Oscar and Jerry West were basically playing against bench players. The Warriors faced the Spurs, Heat, Thunder, and Cavaliers, peak talent stacked into a 30-team league. Beating weak competition 9 times doesn't prove superiority, it proves the Celtics had weak competition. Why should dominance over expansion-era opponents count more than dominance over elite modern teams?

a watered down league but they sitll had some insane comp having the best shooter at that time with jerry west the best point guard till magic johnson with oscar robertsion the best rebounder scorer and possibly the best center of all time with wilt chamberlain the best power foward at that time with jack twyman also ahving people like bob pettit nate thurmond who was going relative to wilt chamberlain in the conference finals so it was waterted down but in their era that was their skill level like take for example bronny james would probably beat jerry west in todays nba because theirs a greater skill level but that doesnt make you better all time would you put bronny james higher then jerry west all time? so give the justification for the era being watered down matters since its a era of their skill leve.

Your Bronny analogy destroys your own argument. You're right that skill level evolves, but that's exactly why era adjustments cut against the Celtics. Wilt couldn't guard a modern stretch five. Oscar couldn't handle full-court pressure defenses. Jerry West never faced zone schemes or three-point specialists. The Warriors' dominance required beating opponents who were fundamentally better at basketball than anyone from the 60s, era-adjusted or not. You can't simultaneously claim "they played the best of their era" AND "era doesn't matter." Pick one.

so your completely ignoring what i said the skill level evolves but they doesnt matter because these people the 1960s celtics were in a era with people in their skill which they are still ranked highly all time because skill doesnt matter because that wouldnt be fair bronny james would be ranked high on that case but hes doing horrible rn its how you do in a era of your skill firepower in your era and dominance in your era and the celtics checks all those boxes firepower lets go over who they had i had the best two way player with john havlicek i had the best floor general with bob cousy i had the best clutch player with sam jones i had the best player and best defender at that time with bill russell and firepower is confirmed if they won over all the teams all that time dominance they won 9 out of the 10 championships in the 1960s so they dominated the 60s them not facing people of the 2010s skills doesnt matter because 1: we dont know how they would do in the 2010s because 2 different skill levels 2 different eras which are 50 years away from eachother some are dead or just extremey old and lets go over the warriors in the checklists dominance maybe they 2 peated but they lost to a 2016 cavs with a guy in lebron james woh was the best player with a guy in kyrie irving who was the 2nd best point guard also the fact that 2015-2018 a 3 year gap thats the only years they peaked and won the other years they lost until the 2020s which is a completely different era from what were talking about so can you give a actual argument instead of repeating that skill matters.

Stop hiding behind "we can't compare eras." You just ranked Russell, West, Oscar, and Wilt as all-timers despite era differences, proving cross-era comparison works when you want it to. The Warriors won three titles in four years against actual Hall of Famers while inventing the modern three-point game. The Celtics won nine against depleted rosters. You're not measuring dominance fairly, you're measuring era-specific dominance. Which one actually matters for who's the better dynasty?

nine depleted rosters? we had people like jerry west elign baylor averaging 25 points a game getting to the finals half of times we HAD The best season of all time with wilt chamberlians 1962 season where he averaged 50 points a game we had oscar robertsions 30 10 and 10 season wes unselds insane defensive season bob pettits 29 points and 19 rebounds a game season and you think they are depleted? and "actual hall of famers" the celtics played against alot of hall of famers im measuring era-specific dominance ecause its different skill levels which we dont go over when talking about the greatest the checklist domiance firepower in their era of skill and the celtics checks all of those boxes like i said in my last message and i took into depth your still just shadowboxing can you actually give a justification for why the greatest all time is all abotu skill currently.

You're proving my point for me. Wilt averaged 50 on defenses that couldn't jump, no three-point line, hand-checking allowed. Oscar's 30-10-10 happened against zone defenses nobody runs anymore. West and Baylor losing half their Finals runs shows the gap, not proves dominance. The Warriors faced defenders who could actually move laterally and contest shots without fouling. You keep listing individual stats without acknowledging the defensive revolution between eras. Why should raw scoring numbers from the 60s count the same as modern efficiency against elite wing defenses?

defenses that couldnt jump WE HAD BOB PETTIT AVERAGING 21 REBOUNDSA GAME WES UNSELD AVERAGING 17 REBOUNDS A GAME AND BILL RUSSELL VAVERAGING 23 REBOUNDS A GAME like i said its IN THEIR ERA OF SKILL wee can just conclude your just repeating what you said not giving a actual justififcation on why skill mattesr just saying stuff atp give the conclusioon

You're measuring rebounding volume, not defensive impact. More rebounds in the 60s meant worse shooting percentages and slower pace, not better defense. The Warriors' three-peat proved dominance against the most competitive era in basketball history. You demand I justify why skill matters, but you won't answer this: if the Celtics traveled to 2017, what's their record against the Warriors? That's the only comparison that matters. You can't answer it, so you hide behind "different eras."