Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Jedi/Sith Hybrid
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been giving a fair amount of thought lately to the words, "pure shooter", "pure slasher" and the like and I think I've come up with a pretty good measure of who's really "pure" at something....

In my opinion, if someone is a "pure shooter", he should be able to take over a game or give you a monster performance by taking mainly jumpshots. So if I say that Ray Allen is a better pure shooter than Kobe Bryant, it would mean that in a shootout between the two, Ray Ray would be much more likely to come out on top. The same goes with the term "pure slasher", as in someone who can change the course of a game by driving to the rim at will, aka Iverson, Wade etc. Do you guys agree ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
I have always though that "pure" shooting was shooting removed of all other factors. Measuring the best pure shooter would therefore mean that you strip away things like ability to get open or create your own shot, shot selection etc - basically leave the accuracy on open shots. Therefore, the most pure shot would obviously be the free throw. However, it is certainly possible to drill free throws and be very accurate, yet not be a great shooter from elsewhere, so it is not the only measure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Dirk Nowitzki. Enough said.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
LuckyAC said:
I have always though that "pure" shooting was shooting removed of all other factors. Measuring the best pure shooter would therefore mean that you strip away things like ability to get open or create your own shot, shot selection etc - basically leave the accuracy on open shots. Therefore, the most pure shot would obviously be the free throw. However, it is certainly possible to drill free throws and be very accurate, yet not be a great shooter from elsewhere, so it is not the only measure.
Yeah, i think this definition is way better than the OP's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,128 Posts
Max Payne said:
I've been giving a fair amount of thought lately to the words, "pure shooter", "pure slasher" and the like and I think I've come up with a pretty good measure of who's really "pure" at something....

In my opinion, if someone is a "pure shooter", he should be able to take over a game or give you a monster performance by taking mainly jumpshots. So if I say that Ray Allen is a better pure shooter than Kobe Bryant, it would mean that in a shootout between the two, Ray Ray would be much more likely to come out on top. The same goes with the term "pure slasher", as in someone who can change the course of a game by driving to the rim at will, aka Iverson, Wade etc. Do you guys agree ?
I like it. I expect it to be in the next edition of the OED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,165 Posts
Max Payne said:
I've been giving a fair amount of thought lately to the words, "pure shooter", "pure slasher" and the like and I think I've come up with a pretty good measure of who's really "pure" at something....

In my opinion, if someone is a "pure shooter", he should be able to take over a game or give you a monster performance by taking mainly jumpshots. So if I say that Ray Allen is a better pure shooter than Kobe Bryant, it would mean that in a shootout between the two, Ray Ray would be much more likely to come out on top. The same goes with the term "pure slasher", as in someone who can change the course of a game by driving to the rim at will, aka Iverson, Wade etc. Do you guys agree ?
I'd go with LuckyAC's definition also.
"pure" should be used to caracterize a player who excells in ONE facet of the game, and pretty much nothing else.

For instance: John Paxson and Steve Kerr were "pure" shooters. they didn't rebound or pass. Their job was to shoot the ball whenever possible.

Shaq is a "pure" post player (unlike, say, KG and Duncan): he is absolutely innefective playing away from the rim.

Stockton was a "pure" PG, etc., etc.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a player should be able to dominate the game.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,620 Posts
PauloCatarino said:
I'd go with LuckyAC's definition also.
"pure" should be used to caracterize a player who excells in ONE facet of the game, and pretty much nothing else.

For instance: John Paxson and Steve Kerr were "pure" shooters. they didn't rebound or pass. Their job was to shoot the ball whenever possible.

Shaq is a "pure" post player (unlike, say, KG and Duncan): he is absolutely innefective playing away from the rim.

Stockton was a "pure" PG, etc., etc.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a player should be able to dominate the game.
And Kobe is a "pure" baller!

lol, i had to say it.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,472 Posts
I don't think "pure shooter" has to mean that's all they can do, to me it simply means a shot that's beautiful in form and consistently accurate. Ray Allen has a pure shot. Dirk Nowitzki has a pure shot. So do Peja Stojokovic and Allan Houston. Guys with pure shots who can also do other things are rare and valuable. Guys who have pure shots and can do little else, like Wesley Person or Steve Kerr, are useful role-players.

For a more general definition of "pure," in basketball terms, I like both Max Payne's and LuckyAC's definitions, for different usages. I like Max Payne's definition when pure is used for "pure shooter," "pure slasher," "pure passer," etc. I like LuckyAC's definition when pure is used for "pure shooting," "pure slashing, "pure passing," etc.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top