Old Celtic Game last eve on ESPN Classic

Watched the end of the 1967, 4th game of the east finals vs Phlly last eve. Sorry I never posted that it was on, on here but it was well into the 4th quarter when I stummbled on it. Wilt vs Rus, Classic, C's won at the end but Philly went on to take the series and the Championship that season. Saw Siggy Sam KC Howell Nellie Embry Hondo and Russ all play down the stretch. With Russ blocking a dunk attempt by Wilt.

Some of the old rules.....backcourt one shot fouls, 3 foul shots to make 2 (which Russell needed in the final minute) and Mendy Rudolph making basically all the calls arms flailing all over, and many seemed a bit poor yet NO player on either team appeared to question his call. Appeared the other ref just walked around with a whistle in his mouth. Shot clocks located on the floor in the right hand corner on the offensive end.

Near the end with the C's up 3, Sam went in for an uncontested layup and Matt Goukas grabbed him as he was going up, wasn't a hard foul but both benches emptied and lots of milling around.

Have to keep watch if they show it again, it seemed that it was the original ABC feed with the original announcers. It was in celebration of Black History month.

beat

I watched the whole game and really enjoyed it. Being that my Celtic love started in the early 70's this was my first sustained look at a 60's era Celt game. I Kept wondering if Sam or Rosie was in attendance. A few things struck me about the game/era, one, how the officials for the most part let the players play, and two, the tightness of the rims! I have a new appreciation for the great shooters and scorers of the 60's. To be able to put up numbers on rims that tight and unforgiving was truly amazing. Watching that game for me made me think of the folly of comparing eras and players through the use of stats only. FG percentages does not always tell the story, guys playing then would have a much higher FG % if they played today and todays players would have a much lower # if they played back then. For a student of todays game to say that, for instance, Chris Bosh is a better player/shooter/scorer than Billy Cunningham based on certain #'s not the least being FG % would be ridiculous but to often that is the basis of an argument put forth by todays so called experts. Back to the game itself, Havlicek and Sam were deadly, it seemed that wherever the ball was #17 was also, the man was everywhere! Watching Russell play a whole game was a new and rare treat for me. The defense on Wilt and his shotblocking was unbelievable, I kept telling myself that this was the "old" Russell, I could only imagine what he must have been like in his prime. Sam, Rosie and the rest of you old timers , I am so jealous of you guys because you all have been able to enjoy Celtic greatness from the start.

willy

I wished I had watched the whole thing but you are correct there is no point in comparing eras. Good players would basically be good anytime. They would adapt.

Thing I noticed also was both teams getting the ball up the court be it after a make or a miss. Both teams looked to get an advantage on the offensive end and get it quickly. NO one walked the ball across the time (10 second) line.

I've checked ESPN classics shedule thru the end of the month and the game is not listed again but there is something on Bill Russell this weekend.

beat

beat

I skimmed through the board like I ussually do last nite,you gotta let us know when good SHIT like that is happening brother,I would have loved to seen that game.I have a Russell playoff game on tape from 64-65 Russell vs the twin towers Wilt and Thurmond,Russell has such a unique fast effortless jump/leap that is impossible not to notice and Tommy,Havlicek went off too in that game......seeing that game is as good as any I've ever seen.

cow

will jr

I know how you feel,I saw the tail end of Russell with my dad in the late late 60's,but I was too young to understand or remember what I saw.Then to see the great Bill Russell in a game vs Wilt was truly amazing,his help defense was sick!!he far exceeded my expectations as a defender and rebounder and could easily play in this era.The way he would swoop in on the boards and clear it and get the ball out so fast is something you don't see today.

cow

Cow

As I mentioned in my first post, there were only about 15 minutes of the broadcast left when I happened to stumble on it. By the time i would have gooten the computer on and posted there would have been very little to watch. Sorry.

ESPN Classic Channell is not located anywhere near the other ESPN channels on Direct TV and I have no clue why.

beat

Will,

Yes, I was at that game 4 (in Boston) and also game 2 (in Boston) and game 5 (the "Boston is Dead" last game in Philly.

Think about this. You really enjoyed the way they played. Yet the Celtics were arguably weaker that season than at any other time in the Russell era—not in terms of personnel but because they were in a greater period of transition than at any other time since Russell had joined the team:

1. Russell was in his first season of learning how to coach and play simultaneously. At age 33, he had played all 81 regular season games, averaging 41 minutes per game (no comment about era-to-era comparisons).

2. Bailey Howell had joined the Celtics and spent the season getting integrated into the starting lineup, essentially replacing Don Nelson and Willie Naulls who had replaced the retired Heinsohn the previous season.

3. Larry Siegfried was in the process of taking over PG duties from KC Jones, who would retire after that 76ers series.

In short, after years and years of relative continuity and very gradual change, as hall of famer after hall of famer retired, that 1966-67 season saw the Celtics hit the perfect storm of upheaval and change. And I’m not overlooking the fact that Philly had a very good team, with Wilt arguably playing the smartest of his career.

I wrote about attending the final game of that series in the jourmal I compiled about the 1969 playoffs. In case anyone is interested and hasn’t seen the complete journal (it’s in the forum with “Sam’s Writings” in the title), I’ve copied it below. My disclaimer for the day: Remember that this was written 42 years ago, and the writing may be somewhat sophomoric.

********

Many people view certain objects and monuments as consistent sources of inspiration: mountains, bodies of water, the flag, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, etc. These artifacts have one thing in common—they are inanimate. When one thinks about it, how many of today’s enduring inspirations are human beings? A war hero may occasion an outpouring of emotion; a singer may momentarily bring tears to the eyes. But these are usually transitory events, and I believe it is the sustained impact of a catalyst that really defines its value.

The Celtics represent the only organized group of human beings that I have ever found to be an unwavering source of inspiration. I recall trying to explain this to a friend who replied, “Sure, they give you inspiration. They win all the time.”

But it goes far deeper than that. One of my proudest and most memorable Celtic moments was occasioned by a Celtics defeat by Philadelphia in 1967, ending the only playoff series lost by the C’s in the entire decade of the 1960s.

It was the fifth game of the Eastern Division championship finals, with the 76ers leading three games to one. I happened to be near Philadelphia on business (not entirely by chance) and surrendered my wallet to a scalper out of last-minute desperation.

Convention Hall was filled to capacity with Philadelphia fans—and me. Tension reached fever pitch as the Celtics jumped to a 16-point lead by halftime. But Philadelphia surged back and completely overwhelmed the Celts in the second half to win the game and series handily.

I was seated beneath one basket in a row of temporary folding chairs that were connected in sections of four. There was no mistaking my Boston sentiments, as I was nearly the only person in the gym who had something to yell about during the early stages of the game.

When the outcome became inevitable, the fans all around me began yelling, “Boston is dead. Boston is dead,” while tossing my section of seats up and down in tempo with the chant. The only problem was that I was still in my seat; and it became more than a little uncomfortable, to say nothing of the difficulty I had in scoring the game on my program.

About this time, I noticed two things on the court. First, the Celtics never even began to quit. Larry Siegfried and John Havlicek, in particular, were diving for loose balls as though their lives depended on it—even when they were far behind with 30 seconds left in the game. Second, as each Celtic left the game, he went over to congratulate the Philadelphia players.

It is easy to pass off these actions as simply good sportsmanship, which they certainly were. However, consider the situation. The proud Celtics were seeing the end of their consecutive world championship skein at eight. Every year, the pressure had become a little greater to maintain the streak. This team would forever bear the stigma of being the one that could not quite do the job.

In the face of this devastation, they were champions in defeat as they had been in so many victories. When the game ended, I watched Sam Jones warmly clasp Hal Greer’s hand. That handshake said a great deal; and it prompted me to turn to my closest chair-shaking tormentor, stick out my hand, and say, “Looks like the better team won.” This accomplished three things:

1. It followed the example set by Sam and the other Celtics.

2. It left my neighbor looking silly, with his ample mouth hanging wide open.

3. It was far less dangerous than any other option that came to mind.

I drove all night to reach home before the team. Purchasing the largest bottle of champagne I could locate at 9:00 a.m., I left it on the doorstep of Sam Jones (who lived in my town, but whom I had never met at that point) with a note reading, “TO A REAL CHAMPION.”

So, while all the winning has obviously played a key role in my affection for the Celtics, there is an intangible—call it style if you will—that is far more important. A friend (a Knickerbocker fan) may have expressed it best when he grudgingly said, “The Celtics may not always win the championship, but you know they’ll always play like champs and conduct themselves like champs.

**************

The 1969 championship game will always rank as my #1 Celtics memory, and the first championship game was heartstopping and produced an amazing new thrill. But that Philly game probably meant more, in terms of shaping my values as a person, than any other Celtics moment.

Sam

Thanks Sam, I love reading your accounts of some of the great games and players that you were witness too. While watching the game it did dawn on me (first) that this was the 68-13 record holding until the Bulls came along title winning Sixer team, that thought of course led me to the fact that this was also the end of 8 in a row. I wondered what it must have felt like for the Celtic players and fans to see it end. Your account of game 5 above has now shed some light on that for me. Even with all the transition that came about that year, it still took the team that was once voted the greatest in NBA history to take us down!

willjr wrote:While watching the game it did dawn on me (first) that this was the 68-13 record holding until the Bulls came along title winning Sixer team

Actually, the Sixers held the regular-season record until the 1971-72 Lakers, who (with one extra regular-season game) went 69-13. The 1995-96 Bulls went 72-10.

Thanks Sam,
I always get a kick out of reading your personal account of that era of Celtic basketball. For me it was all in black and white or on the radio, out in LA.

Me too Sam even though I lived through it too. I ate, drank and slept the Boston Celtics back then, much to the chagrin of my family at times. (Like the Easter dinner I didn't go to because the Celtics were in the playoffs!)

They were great times back then, great, great players to watch and root for. The game has changed so much since then, but, I haven't. I am still as devoted to this team as I was to the 60's teams. As I have said so many times, I loved Havlicek and I feel that I root for Ray the same way. They were/are such great teammates and basketball players.

Yes, they were great times, just think you will look back on this era of Celtics and say that you "remember when". Always think Green~~~

Will,

The label applied to that Philly team always bothered me, because—with all the "greatest this" and "greatest that" tossed around, greatest team is the only one that matters to me. Because it's all about the team.

But I could make an argument for any Celtics team from 1958-59 to 1964-65 as being the greatest ever. The fact that there are seven Celtics candidates means each one takes best-ever "votes" from others (sort of like an independent candidate cutting into the tally for both the republican and the democratic candidates). Even team members couldn't agree which Celtics team was the best. Havlicek picks 1962-63 (8 future hall-of-famers plus Sanders and Loscutoff). Russell picks 1964-65 ("only" five hall-of-famers plus Sanders, Naulls and Siggy, but every one of them in his prime (ranging from age 24 to age 32—and arguably the best defensive Celtics team of all-time with the ability to put Russ, Sanders, Havlick, KC, and either Sam or Siggy on the floor simultaneously).

Philly beat a Celtics team that was weakened from the aforementioned combination of disruptive factors plus the fact that the Celtics had lost (to retirement) five hall-of-famers in the previous six seasons. I probably should have mentioned the cumulative effect of that attrition as another element of the "perfect storm" to which I alluded earlier.

Moreover, the Celtics, despite losing in 1967, regrouped and beat basically the same Sixer team with basically the same Celtics team the following season on their way to championship #10.

The 1966-67 Sixers team was unequivocally NOT the greatest team of all-time. Those 76ers were very good, thanks very largely to the surprisingly inspired play of Wilt. Good enough to take advantage of a one-year retooling of the Celtics. But it's absolutely laughable to consider the one-hit-wonders of Philly the best team of all-time.

And you're right about the tight rims, which were bolted directly into the backboard with no "give" at all. I have quotes from Bill Sharman commenting on those tight rims years later and wishing he could have played with the far more forgiving rims of today. When people compare the shooting percentages of then and now, they fail to take into account either the tight rims of yesteryear or the frantic pace at which they played back then.

Even the backboards, supported with guy wires (yup, Russell's guy wires) running to the balcony (at least at Boston Garden) were literally very shaky. I personally saw the balcony continually bouncing up and down at least a couple of inches when the crowd got agitated (which was often), and only focusing on the excitement of the game overcame my concern that the whole thing was going to go at any time. There were many occasions when players of that era had at least a slightly moving target to shoot for. I call them the "primitive years," and they really were.

And, as I've posted before, there are many videos available from those years, and the prices are not at all bad. As I've posted elsewhere, just email:
edagwit@aol.com and ask what he has on the Russell Celtics. The best video I've ever seen was Game 5 of the Eastern Finals against the Royals. (I forget the year—somewhere about 1964-66). I believe it's called "The Final Game"—a misnomer because it was a semi. But it's a great, great video.

Sam