|
Post by digdugg on Aug 6, 2015 10:19:37 GMT -5
Imagine you and another guy have all of the greats lined up and they are all in their prime. You have first pick. Who would you really choose...answer honestly. You would be crazy not to pick Phil. Doesn't matter big or short court. He is just too hard to pass up. He sets just as well as any of the greats and his blocking, serving and attacking would be the difference. And for those that think the greats would just shoot around his block, Phil's peel defense is very good and would have been even more refined if he played big courts full time. All of the other greats are just that - great and they could all play and potentially dominate in today's AVP (in their primes). I just think Phil's physicality is the difference. And if you pretend that one of the greats is the the one with first pick (and take the "pride of era" out of the equation), I bet realistically all the greats listed (including Stoklos) would pick Phil. Can you imagine that team together? Wow, who would you serve...
|
|
|
Post by donnyb on Aug 20, 2015 9:11:15 GMT -5
I think Phil is the best. Here's a little take from Dodd
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 20, 2015 10:49:09 GMT -5
Imagine you and another guy have all of the greats lined up and they are all in their prime. You have first pick. Who would you really choose...answer honestly. You would be crazy not to pick Phil. Doesn't matter big or short court. He is just too hard to pass up. He sets just as well as any of the greats and his blocking, serving and attacking would be the difference. And for those that think the greats would just shoot around his block, Phil's peel defense is very good and would have been even more refined if he played big courts full time. All of the other greats are just that - great and they could all play and potentially dominate in today's AVP (in their primes). I just think Phil's physicality is the difference. And if you pretend that one of the greats is the the one with first pick (and take the "pride of era" out of the equation), I bet realistically all the greats listed (including Stoklos) would pick Phil. Can you imagine that team together? Wow, who would you serve... I like this question, but it made me think of another. For each era, if you could pair up two guys from any era, who would be the best? No Block Over - Karch/Rego, Chamales/Sinjin or Karch/Sinjin are my choices here, AJ is my sleeper here, never felt he was good enough digging hard hit balls straight up, but the jump serve would be the primary way to score if old rules were played now. Disqualified Randy and Phil because of the extreme ball control needed and neither passes well enough, although both setting the digs in that era would be something to see. Glory Days - I like Randy and Kent here. I think the best team of the era was KK/KS but adding Randy leaves the defense the same, improves blocking and serving, and makes transition deadlier. Modern Era - Phil/Sinjin would be awesome. How do you get the ball down against them? I would say maybe Phil/Rego or Phil/Chamales as well since Tom reportedly had amazing ball control, could dig anyone and is one of the best hitters of all time. Edge over Karch and Sinjin as Phil's partner based on size.
|
|
|
Post by digdugg on Aug 20, 2015 10:59:07 GMT -5
And if you pretend that one of the greats is the the one with first pick (and take the "pride of era" out of the equation), I bet realistically all the greats listed (including Stoklos) would pick Phil. Can you imagine that team together? Wow, who would you serve... I like this question, but it made me think of another. For each era, if you could pair up two guys from any era, who would be the best? No Block Over - Karch/Rego, Chamales/Sinjin or Karch/Sinjin are my choices here, AJ is my sleeper here, never felt he was good enough digging hard hit balls straight up, but the jump serve would be the primary way to score if old rules were played now. Disqualified Randy and Phil because of the extreme ball control needed and neither passes well enough, although both setting the digs in that era would be something to see. Glory Days - I like Randy and Kent here. I think the best team of the era was KK/KS but adding Randy leaves the defense the same, improves blocking and serving, and makes transition deadlier. Modern Era - Phil/Sinjin would be awesome. How do you get the ball down against them? I would say maybe Phil/Rego or Phil/Chamales as well since Tom reportedly had amazing ball control, could dig anyone and is one of the best hitters of all time. Edge over Karch and Sinjin as Phil's partner based on size. Dodd is in the originating question as one of the best ever with zero votes but I actually think that the era where he would be have been best suited for was no block over era - did he not do well in that era in his prime? Because he dug hard driven so well. I honestly cannot think of any reason why Phil would not have dominated the Glory Days era, particularly with any pick of partner as the question poses...his serving in that era would be ridiculous and block so imposing (relative to Glory Day attackers) that a defender like KK or Sinjin or any other on the list would be that much better...he would have forced Glory Day attackers to attack from off the net and that would have completely changed their respective games and effectiveness...
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 20, 2015 15:56:13 GMT -5
I played back in the day. Not only the Sinjin Karch era but also saw Larry Rundle Henry Bergman Ronny Lang Von Hagen Chamales Kilgour etc. anyhow there is no doubt in my mind that Phil is the most talented player of all time-an absolutely ridiculous skill set with incredible physicality. But there was a post earlier that alluded to Phil not always showing up mentally- and that would be the only negative. The mental toughness of Sinjin and Karch is probably unparalleled in our sport. Would those guys have found a wY to beat Phil even though he was more physically gifted? My heart says yes- but then I am probably suffering from old timers vision. Lol
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 20, 2015 16:55:38 GMT -5
I played back in the day. Not only the Sinjin Karch era but also saw Larry Rundle Henry Bergman Ronny Lang Von Hagen Chamales Kilgour etc. anyhow there is no doubt in my mind that Phil is the most talented player of all time-an absolutely ridiculous skill set with incredible physicality. But there was a post earlier that alluded to Phil not always showing up mentally- and that would be the only negative. The mental toughness of Sinjin and Karch is probably unparalleled in our sport. Would those guys have found a wY to beat Phil even though he was more physically gifted? My heart says yes- but then I am probably suffering from old timers vision. Lol It depends on the era. In the modern game mental lapses are minimized, you get to start over. Old School moreso and the old side out till dark days, even more so. Phil is very talented certainly, but is he really more physically gifted than guys like Whitmarsh or Powers? I would love to see Pat blocking on the short court.
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 20, 2015 22:16:38 GMT -5
Guest2 you always bring up such valid points. Pat Powers and Hov were phenomenal athletes. If I remember correctly Hov starred in football and basketball- like all city honors kind of thing. he was stronger quicker and had a better vertical then Phil. Powers hit ridiculously high and hard- I would venture he actually touched higher then Phil. Whitmarsh probably as good or a hair better blocker then Phil. All those guys had the physical chops to slow Phil down to some extent. And to win tournaments. But Phils setting and hitting range and serve set him in rarified air. Oh to have a "king of the Beach" tourney with all of these greats!!
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 21, 2015 9:52:44 GMT -5
I think you are right about Phil's other skills setting him apart. Especially the setting. If PP could have set (or Hov for that matter) add 20 wins to Hov and maybe 50 to the Peeper.
I wonder how Phil's jump serve would work on a big court. He, and a few others like Evandro, hit the ball very much straight or even downward, knowing they can rely on the let. On the big court with old rules, I wonder if Phil's jump serve does get more effective or if its different somehow.
That King of the Beach would have been amazing. Why doesnt the FIVB do a KOB?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 21, 2015 9:53:57 GMT -5
I played back in the day. Not only the Sinjin Karch era but also saw Larry Rundle Henry Bergman Ronny Lang Von Hagen Chamales Kilgour etc. anyhow there is no doubt in my mind that Phil is the most talented player of all time-an absolutely ridiculous skill set with incredible physicality. But there was a post earlier that alluded to Phil not always showing up mentally- and that would be the only negative. The mental toughness of Sinjin and Karch is probably unparalleled in our sport. Would those guys have found a wY to beat Phil even though he was more physically gifted? My heart says yes- but then I am probably suffering from old timers vision. Lol How was Kilgour? I never heard much about him on the beach
|
|
|
Post by digdugg on Aug 21, 2015 10:20:18 GMT -5
Hov starred in football and basketball- like all city honors kind of thing. he was stronger quicker and had a better vertical then Phil. Powers hit ridiculously high and hard- I would venture he actually touched higher then Phil. Whitmarsh probably as good or a hair better blocker then Phil. All those guys had the physical chops to slow Phil down to some extent. And to win tournaments. But Phils setting and hitting range and serve set him in rarified air. Oh to have a "king of the Beach" tourney with all of these greats!! Hov was an incredible athlete and would probably be a full time defender in today's game because of that athletism - he is only 6'4. I do not know much about Powers but do you really think he could touch higher than Phil at 6'5. Does anyone really think Whitmarsh was a better blocker than Phil? I thought everyone would agree that the one area undisputed about Phil would be he is bar none best at the net blocker of all time.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 21, 2015 10:27:46 GMT -5
Hov starred in football and basketball- like all city honors kind of thing. he was stronger quicker and had a better vertical then Phil. Powers hit ridiculously high and hard- I would venture he actually touched higher then Phil. Whitmarsh probably as good or a hair better blocker then Phil. All those guys had the physical chops to slow Phil down to some extent. And to win tournaments. But Phils setting and hitting range and serve set him in rarified air. Oh to have a "king of the Beach" tourney with all of these greats!! Hov was an incredible athlete and would probably be a full time defender in today's game because of that athletism - he is only 6'4. I do not know much about Powers but do you really think he could touch higher than Phil at 6'5. Does anyone really think Whitmarsh was a better blocker than Phil? I thought everyone would agree that the one area undisputed about Phil would be he is bar none best at the net blocker of all time. Without seeing these guys next to each other its hard to say who is how much shorter than who else. In theory Stoklos and Hov were the same height and Powers was an inch taller, but if I had to bet I would say Stoklos was taller than Hov and Powers two inches taller than either. I think Powers was 6'6 (so three inches shorter than Phil) Also arm length comes in a lot so its hard to say, but Powers could really get up in his prime. Someone who has spent a lot of time closer to these guys could say better but athlete heights are notoriously unreliable. Dwight Howard for example is barely 6'8 and Kareem was a lot closer to 7 4 than 7'0. I do think there is a good chance Whitty was a comparable blocker to Phil. Its hard to say though because most of the time you saw Whit play it was on a real beach and Phil wasn't. Also Phil is blocking on a smaller court with less lateral movement etc. required. I think Phil is better but I think the difference is not that great.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Aug 21, 2015 10:32:25 GMT -5
I played back in the day. Not only the Sinjin Karch era but also saw Larry Rundle Henry Bergman Ronny Lang Von Hagen Chamales Kilgour etc. anyhow there is no doubt in my mind that Phil is the most talented player of all time-an absolutely ridiculous skill set with incredible physicality. But there was a post earlier that alluded to Phil not always showing up mentally- and that would be the only negative. The mental toughness of Sinjin and Karch is probably unparalleled in our sport. Would those guys have found a wY to beat Phil even though he was more physically gifted? My heart says yes- but then I am probably suffering from old timers vision. Lol It depends on the era. In the modern game mental lapses are minimized, you get to start over. Old School moreso and the old side out till dark days, even more so. Phil is very talented certainly, but is he really more physically gifted than guys like Whitmarsh or Powers? I would love to see Pat blocking on the short court. I disagree with this. In today's game, lose 1 real point and you can lose the set. In Serve to score, you lose 1 point and after 21 side-outs you are still only down 1-0. Same with passing/serve receive. If you have a bad pass today, to here you aren't getting a decent set you have such a smaller area to put the ball away. In the old days, (especially before antennas), you could still take a good hard swing or put a shot in an area that simply couldn't be covered.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 21, 2015 10:44:30 GMT -5
It depends on the era. In the modern game mental lapses are minimized, you get to start over. Old School moreso and the old side out till dark days, even more so. Phil is very talented certainly, but is he really more physically gifted than guys like Whitmarsh or Powers? I would love to see Pat blocking on the short court. I disagree with this. In today's game, lose 1 real point and you can lose the set. In Serve to score, you lose 1 point and after 21 side-outs you are still only down 1-0. Same with passing/serve receive. If you have a bad pass today, to here you aren't getting a decent set you have such a smaller area to put the ball away. In the old days, (especially before antennas), you could still take a good hard swing or put a shot in an area that simply couldn't be covered. I think there are points on both sides, but looking at the whole picture I think the old game required much more continuous focus. Take good side/bad side for example. In the old days you switched to the bad side with a brisk wind and you had to make a great play to get one or two points. Against a top team, scoring one point on the bad side could be a good switch. As time went on, siding out etc. it got harder and harder. Now you side out three times and the pressure is off and you're back on the good side. Say you have a bad run. In the old game you could call time out, which got you a few seconds. Now you get time outs, more frequent side switches, breaks after games. The other option, which many teams exercise is simply to quit and try again in the next game. The fight back essentially becomes irrelevant. Also in terms of keeping your concentration the new school requires a very short time.
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 21, 2015 10:58:49 GMT -5
In response to dig dug regarding Kilgour. He was a 6'3 lefty maybe a little taller with an incredibly heavy arm and big hops. He was a great indoor player who was one of the first Americans to play over in Italy. His game was comparable to Steve Timmons- decent ball control great hitter heavy heavy ball- would have consistently have finished top 4 in opens if he played more sand-absolutely legit athlete
|
|
|
Post by digdugg on Aug 21, 2015 11:17:43 GMT -5
This argument seems to default in part on the premise that new school players would struggle in the old school game (ball control, focus etc.) but there are intricacies of the new school game that I think would actually enhance the effectiveness of new school players in the old school game that are never raised. To be effective in the short court, depending on the player, you need to be able to hit an extreme short cut shot and deep over the line shot. You must also be able to hit high deep angle and work the blockers including hit high hard at their hands as well as hit hard line. In other words, less room to work with has refined the accuracy by which today's players must have to hit and shoot to very specific spots so offensive attack control has become necessary to be effective. On a much larger court, there would be much more court for a defender to cover - new school players would have a field day hitting to these opened up offensive scoring areas (and have the offensive attack control to do so)....just a thought...
|
|