“NBA Legend Drops a Shocking Truth Bomb: Is Steph Curry Really the Greatest of All Time?”

In the ever-evolving world of basketball, few topics ignite as much debate as the question: Would Steph Curry, the golden child of the modern NBA, have thrived in the rough-and-tumble eras of the past? Recently, Stephen A. Smith stirred the pot on “First Take” by quoting a Hall of Famer who boldly claimed Curry would struggle to average more than 17 points per game if pitted against the legends from yesteryear. Imagine that! In an age where bruising physicality and street-smart tactics ruled the hardwood, could the finesse-centric Curry’s prolific shooting and ankle-breaking handles have withstood the trials of a game that wasn’t just about what you could do with the ball but how well you could take a body check? It’s a provocative question that fuels endless speculation among fans and analysts alike. While we’ll never know how Curry would have fared in those bygone days, one thing’s for certain: he stands tall as one of today’s greatest, redefining the art of basketball. So, grab your popcorn, because the debate on past versus present in the NBA is as heated and thrilling as a playoff game! Let’s dive deeper into this captivating discussion that explores the intersections of eras, playing styles, and perhaps, a bit of nostalgia!

Would Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors have survived in past eras of the NBA?

It is a question that many basketball fans ask, even though there will obviously never be a definitive answer.

Speaking on “First Take,” Stephen A. Smith spoke about a conversation he recently had with a Hall of Famer about Curry playing in the past decades of the league.

“I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and said to me, ‘Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game. … In our era, we would’ve hurt him,’” Smith said, via NBACentral.

"I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and said to me, 'Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game. … In our era, we would've hurt him.'"

– Stephen A. Smith

( @FirstTake )

pic.twitter.com/OEfzelwVzC

— NBACentral (@TheDunkCentral) April 2, 2025

Smith said this claim about Curry isn’t a dig at his talent, but rather the physical nature of the NBA of yesteryear.

Things were different decades ago, and the players were willing to rough one another up and weren’t afraid of a fight.

In fact, they would take advantage of the injuries of a player.

Smith said that Curry’s bad ankle would have been messed with by other players if he were a star in previous decades.

There is no doubt that Curry is one of the best players in the league right now, but he may have had a harder time in the past.

Of course, we will never know how accurate this statement is, but it will continue the debate and comparison between the past and present NBA and how things have changed.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter because Curry is still a dominant basketball figure today, and speculation about how he would have performed years before his birth doesn’t change that.

The post NBA Hall of Famer Makes A Bold Claim About Steph Curry appeared first on The Cold Wire.