Team USA 2023 FIBA World Cup (Trae Watch)

[RedDawg#8]

The best players in the world come to play in the NBA. From every country. It is the highest level of basketball competition played on Earth.

Until this can be proven otherwise any argument against the claim of World Champion is merely a semantic argument.

You cannot find a single club team on this planet that doesn’t have NBA players on it’s roster that you truly believe would beat the NBA champion. If there was such a team out there Adam Silver would have found them and marketed an exhibition vs them. No such team or league exists.

Notice, that had nothing to do with being American or playing in the USA.

This isn’t a US born players vs. foreign born players debate. NBA scouts go all over the world to bring foreign talent back to the NBA. There is a higher concentration of elite international talent in the NBA than there is in the Olympics.

It’s that simple 

[shakes]

4 hours ago, RedDawg#8 said:

The best players in the world come to play in the NBA. From every country. It is the highest level of basketball competition played on Earth.

Until this can be proven otherwise any argument against the claim of World Champion is merely a semantic argument.

You cannot find a single club team on this planet that doesn’t have NBA players on it’s roster that you truly believe would beat the NBA champion. If there was such a team out there Adam Silver would have found them and marketed an exhibition vs them. No such team or league exists.

Notice, that had nothing to do with being American or playing in the USA.

This isn’t a US born players vs. foreign born players debate. NBA scouts go all over the world to bring foreign talent back to the NBA. There is a higher concentration of elite international talent in the NBA than there is in the Olympics.

It’s that simple 

you're right, your post is simple.  Simply moronic.

 

But you are right in that it is simple.

FACT:  You can't give yourself the designation of World Champ.  You can only EARN/WIN that title and the only way you can do that is by winning a tournament that is open to every team of your designation/class in the world.   No one has the right to assume they are world champs "just because".   Don't care what the eye test says would happen, facts are facts.  And the ONLY fact being circulated in this debate is the one I started this paragraph with.     

 

I can say this because unlike i would assume everyone who posts here I am actually a world champion in something.  Granted, it's very niche, but a world champ nonetheless.    And earned it by WINNING a tournament that was open to the entire world within the specific designation/class.    2013 Maccabi Games world champs in the Masters (old man) ice hockey division.  For that year and the 4 years that came after I could claim that I played on the greatest old man Jewish hockey team in the entire world....and it was supported by FACTS.

[Spud2nique]

15 hours ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Therefore, they are international by definition. For those semantics purists out there.

Canada ain’t the world no matter how much cap wants it to be.  

[shakes]

7 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Canada ain’t the world no matter how much cap wants it to be.  

also 2 countries ain't the world.

[AHF]

I see my challenge of naming any club team in the World that could compete in the NBA or naming the top players outside of the NBA still is ignored because some people don't want to acknowledge that the obvious truth is that the best players from every nation on Earth flock to the NBA.

As I previously mentioned, this semantic argument could be twisted to claim that the MLB champs aren't really the baseball champs of the US because there are independent minor league teams, high school teams, college teams, etc. that aren't eligible to win the title.  Since these teams literally can't compete against the Braves, et al. no matter how good they are, then it isn't a true competition of all the US teams.  Therefore, MLB shouldn't be making the claim for its champ being the champion even for the US.  Just as with the World Champ, argument it does make sense from a literal perspective.  But from a practical perspective, it is also the same. 

All the world's best players are in the NBA.  All the US's best players are in MLB.  The champs from the NBA are clearly the best basketball team in the world and the champs from MLB are clearly the best team in the US.  I wouldn't call either of them the "World Champions" but that is because I think it is enough to call them NBA or MLB champions as it is clear to everyone that these are the premier leagues in the world for those sports. 

(As an aside, I do think the best baseball teams outside of North America are closer to the best MLB teams than is the case for the NBA.  We've seen there are legit impact players in the Japan, etc. and in international play teams built around non-MLB talent perform much better than they do for non-NBA talent in international basketball.  While MLB still has the largest concentration of the best players, there is a more meaningful distinction between MLB champ and World Champ than there is with the NBA since it is more rare for elite basketball players to play anywhere other than the NBA.)

[TheNorthCydeRises]

9 hours ago, shakes said:

I can say this because unlike i would assume everyone who posts here I am actually a world champion in something.  Granted, it's very niche, but a world champ nonetheless.    And earned it by WINNING a tournament that was open to the entire world within the specific designation/class.    2013 Maccabi Games world champs in the Masters (old man) ice hockey division.  For that year and the 4 years that came after I could claim that I played on the greatest old man Jewish hockey team in the entire world....and it was supported by FACTS.

 

Let me find out that this is you, doing illegal hip checks at 1:26:02

 

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by TheNorthCydeRises

[shakes]

37 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Let me find out that this is you, doing illegal hip checks at 1:26:02

 

 

 

Ha, that’s awesome.  Didn’t know that was in YouTube.  that video is from last summer.  I played in 2013.  But, I am in that video.  I coached the team last summer so you can see the back of me behind the bench in the video.

 

Unfortunately I’m a better player than coach cause we lost the gold to Canada this past summer. 

[shakes]

43 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Let me find out that this is you, doing illegal hip checks at 1:26:02

 

 

And to answer your question the guy laying out the Israeli players at the blue line is an orthopedic surgeon from Philly.   And It wasn’t dirty, more like he just got in the guys way and the Israeli had his head down and ran right into him. But I might be a bit biased 

[RedDawg#8]

18 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

Canada ain’t the world no matter how much cap wants it to be.  

It’s international by definition 

[RedDawg#8]

If all the best international talent and competition flock to the NBA to get paid, then who’s left out there for them to play?

You want the top French players? NBA

What about from Greece? NBA

How about all of Eastern Europe? They in the NBA too

You know what, just play the entire continent of Africa head up…. no?…. wait… All of them are in the NBA? And they play for the Raptors , dang.

But, there’s NBA talent playing overseas too right? Yes, and they are dominating those league as if they were Lebron James lol

[Spud2nique]

46 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

It’s international by definition 

North America… (one continent)

Not the world. You need 6 more continents, ok 5… 

[shakes]

5 hours ago, RedDawg#8 said:

If all the best international talent and competition flock to the NBA to get paid, then who’s left out there for them to play?

You want the top French players? NBA

What about from Greece? NBA

How about all of Eastern Europe? They in the NBA too

You know what, just play the entire continent of Africa head up…. no?…. wait… All of them are in the NBA? And they play for the Raptors , dang.

But, there’s NBA talent playing overseas too right? Yes, and they are dominating those league as if they were Lebron James lol

and none of this changes the facts.   you still can't become world champs just by declaring yourself to be world champs.   Doesn't matter what you think or assume would happen.  You actually have to EARN that title.  And the ONLY way to earn that title is by winning a competition that is open to every team in the world of your designation.   

 

 

[AHF]

5 hours ago, RedDawg#8 said:

If all the best international talent and competition flock to the NBA to get paid, then who’s left out there for them to play?

You want the top French players? NBA

What about from Greece? NBA

How about all of Eastern Europe? They in the NBA too

You know what, just play the entire continent of Africa head up…. no?…. wait… All of them are in the NBA? And they play for the Raptors , dang.

But, there’s NBA talent playing overseas too right? Yes, and they are dominating those league as if they were Lebron James lol

[AHF]

1 minute ago, shakes said:

and none of this changes the facts.   you still can't become world champs just by declaring yourself to be world champs.   Doesn't matter what you think or assume would happen.  You actually have to EARN that title.  And the ONLY way to earn that title is by winning a competition that is open to every team in the world of your designation.   

 

 

It seems like at this point you have conceded there is no team that would be even theoretically competitive against the NBA champ and we are back to a discussion around how you define the term.

You are comfortable declaring teams "World Champions" with very significant "designations" limiting the pool of competitors such as limiting the pool to people of Jewish decent who are over 30 or 40 or whatever years old.  You are ok with competitions where not all interested parties get to compete such as the World Cup (Brazil could probably field 10 teams better than the worst entrant and the Brazil second team in a given year might actually win the Cup if it were truly open to everyone).  You are not ok with a world championship being affixed to a league where every eligible player in the world can participate like the NBA (i.e., every player above a certain age is eligible to play in the NBA and the best ones from around the World in fact do so).  Under none of these scenarios is the competition truly open to everyone in the world who wants to participate (I suspect your Masters Hockey competition didn't include NHL players for example and certainly didn't include players in their 20's; the NBA doesn't include college players; the Olympics historically did not include professional athletes, etc.).  On this topic, I think different people can reasonably have different definitions.  Your definition is fine and you should be very proud of your world championship.  But if someone claimed you weren't truly a "world champ" because you didn't beat the best players in the world i.e., that world champion means you win without designations limiting the pool of competitors, that would also be a valid view IMO.  There is no statutory definition we are working off of here.

[shakes]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

It seems like at this point you have conceded there is no team that would be even theoretically competitive against the NBA champ and we are back to a discussion around how you define the term.

You are comfortable declaring teams "World Champions" with very significant "designations" limiting the pool of competitors such as limiting the pool to people of Jewish decent who are over 30 or 40 or whatever years old.  You are ok with competitions where not all interested parties get to compete such as the World Cup (Brazil could probably field 10 teams better than the worst entrant and the Brazil second team in a given year might actually win the Cup if it were truly open to everyone).  You are not ok with a world championship being affixed to a league where every eligible player in the world can participate like the NBA (i.e., every player above a certain age is eligible to play in the NBA and the best ones from around the World in fact do so).  Under none of these scenarios is the competition truly open to everyone in the world who wants to participate (I suspect your Masters Hockey competition didn't include NHL players for example and certainly didn't include players in their 20's; the NBA doesn't include college players; the Olympics historically did not include professional athletes, etc.).  On this topic, I think different people can reasonably have different definitions.  Your definition is fine and you should be very proud of your world championship.  But if someone claimed you weren't truly a "world champ" because you didn't beat the best players in the world i.e., that world champion means you win without designations limiting the pool of competitors, that would also be a valid view IMO.  There is no statutory definition we are working off of here.

sorry, but you're 100% wrong.    And to top it off your liberal use of paragraphs is annoying.   My old eyes can't handle walls of text.

 

For the record, there were former NHL players in my competition.  But that doesn't matter.  We are true world champs of all the over 40 Jewish hockey teams in the world.  No one can take that away from us because we actually EARNED that distinction.

 

And you are wrong about the World Cup.  EVERYONE gets to compete.  First you have to make your national team, then you go to qualifying etc.   No one is told they can't compete in the competition.  Every single soccer player in Brazil gets to compete for a spot in the World Cup.   Who cares if there are good players who don't make it.  they weren't good enough to beat out the guys who made the national team so, therefore, they aren't good enough to compete for the world cup/championship.  

 

OTOH, no professional basketball teams outside the NBA are allowed to compete in the NBA playoffs.

 

There is no middle ground here, no compromise.  Literally everything you said is wrong and, quite frankly, really stupid.

[AHF]

27 minutes ago, shakes said:

sorry, but you're 100% wrong.    And to top it off your liberal use of paragraphs is annoying.   My old eyes can't handle walls of text.

 

For the record, there were former NHL players in my competition.  But that doesn't matter.  We are true world champs of all the over 40 Jewish hockey teams in the world.  No one can take that away from us because we actually EARNED that distinction.

 

And you are wrong about the World Cup.  EVERYONE gets to compete.  First you have to make your national team, then you go to qualifying etc.   No one is told they can't compete in the competition.  Every single soccer player in Brazil gets to compete for a spot in the World Cup.   Who cares if there are good players who don't make it.  they weren't good enough to beat out the guys who made the national team so, therefore, they aren't good enough to compete for the world cup/championship.  

 

OTOH, no professional basketball teams outside the NBA are allowed to compete in the NBA playoffs.

 

There is no middle ground here, no compromise.  Literally everything you said is wrong and, quite frankly, really stupid.

Again, you 100% have done nothing to dispute that there is any non-NBA team that would be even theoretically competitive against the NBA champ.

All of what you are saying boils down to "my definition is the only one I credit."  I am the world champion of everything if I draw the restrictions tightly enough and that is 100% legit per your approach.

If all your argument is "my definition is the only correct one" then that is a useless non-discussion.  

I just don't see how you can't see that someone could use a definition of world champ that requires that to be a world champ everyone in the world must be eligible.  Otherwise, I can be the world champion of everything where my "designation" is Hispanic 32 year old teachers from Chippoway county.  Everyone gets to compete.  I would earn that within the context of that designation.  The whole point is there is no official definition and people can different views on this.

Assuming your definition and premises, I agree with your conclusion but still contend it is a distinction without a difference for the purpose of identifying the best team in the world because it is purely hypothetical.  But other people can legitimately have a different definition for World Champ.

Use the 1980 Olympics for example.  The Gold Medal team would declare themselves the World Champions by virtue of their Olympic title.  Another person could say they clearly aren't the World Champions because all the best players are not allowed to compete because they are professionals.  Another might accept "designation" of amateurs only but say the gold medal winner wasn't legit since the US was not able to compete during the boycott since the games were held in the USSR.  All of these perspectives have some legitimacy.  To declare any of them 100% wrong is to sink back to the argument that "only my definition of this undefined term is legit."  I can't buy into that.

[shakes]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

Again, you 100% have done nothing to dispute that there is any non-NBA team that would be even theoretically competitive against the NBA champ.

Don't need disprove or dispute your "what if" hypothetical argument.   I work with facts, not hypothetical theories.   No non-NBA team is eligible to compete for the NBA title, hence by the same logic that determines that water is wet the NBA can not claim to crown a world champ.

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

All of what you are saying boils down to "my definition is the only one I credit."  I am the world champion of everything if I draw the restrictions tightly enough and that is 100% legit per your approach.

If all your argument is "my definition is the only correct one" then that is a useless non-discussion.  

 

my definition IS the only correct one.  Just like there is only one answer to 1+1.  It's really that simple.

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

I just don't see how you can't see that someone could use a definition of world champ that requires that to be a world champ everyone in the world must be eligible.  Otherwise, I can be the world champion of everything where my "designation" is Hispanic 32 year old teachers from Chippoway county.  Everyone gets to compete.  I would earn that within the context of that designation.  The whole point is there is no official definition and people can different views on this.

No, you can not claim to be world champ for being the best hispanic 32 year old teacher from Chippowa county.  That is not a world competition.  It is not open to the world. It is only open to hispanics from Chppoway county.   If there is a bigger competition to determine the best 32year old or 30+ year old Hispanic teacher and you qualify for that competition by winning the Chippoway regional and then you go on to win the next level and so on until you eventually beat all the 30+ hispanic teachers in the world then yes, you will be able to claim that you are the world champ in that category.

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

Assuming your definition and premises, I agree with your conclusion but still contend it is a distinction without a difference for the purpose of identifying the best team in the world because it is purely hypothetical.  But other people can legitimately have a different definition for World Champ.

No they can not.  This is where you are dead wrong.  And honestly, your view is insulting to anyone who actually won a world championship.  That's why the USA sprinter opened his mouth in the first place, as a TRUE world champ he was offended that others are claiming the monikor without truly earning it.

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

Use the 1980 Olympics for example.  The Gold Medal team would declare themselves the World Champions by virtue of their Olympic title.  Another person could say they clearly aren't the World Champions because all the best players are not allowed to compete because they are professionals.  Another might accept "designation" of amateurs only but say the gold medal winner wasn't legit since the US was not able to compete during the boycott since the games were held in the USSR.  All of these perspectives have some legitimacy.  To declare any of them 100% wrong is to sink back to the argument that "only my definition of this undefined term is legit."  I can't buy into that.

1980 Olympics are not world champs.  They are Olympic champs.  They can't even claim to be the world champs of amateur hockey because the tournament was flawed in that there were several pros playing for USSR.  In fact, their entire team was professional.    Once the Olympics went to a best on best format they were able to claim world champ status.  

[JayBirdHawk]

Meanwhile:

 

We got Not Bogi instead of Hot Bogi....1/13 ftom 3 I think.

[AHF]

 

2 hours ago, shakes said:

 

my definition IS the only correct one.  Just like there is only one answer to 1+1.  It's really that simple.

 

1980 Olympics are not world champs.  They are Olympic champs.  They can't even claim to be the world champs of amateur hockey because the tournament was flawed in that there were several pros playing for USSR.  In fact, their entire team was professional.    Once the Olympics went to a best on best format they were able to claim world champ status.  

I'll admit that I raise an eyebrow to myself that you think a competition of "old man" eligible Jewish-only players is sufficiently global to quality as world champions but that Olympic champions aren't world champs.  I will go further and say that a reasonable person's definition of "world champion" could say that a competition limited to "whites only" is too narrow to truly quality as a true "world" championship let alone a competition limited only to Jewish people. 

I don't mean this in a way to denigrate your achievement.  Kudos to your team in a sincere way.  I wish my soccer team could play at that level and we aren't that good even at the local level!  

Just fully disagree with you that:

(1) It is irrelevant as to whether there is even a hypothetical argument that any team not in the NBA could win for purposes of declaring a team the best in the world (not world champions since I've granted that definition is subjective and can be more narrow).

(2) The definition of world champion is clearly defined.  You have your own subjective definition.  Others have different definitions and there is no objective standard.  "World champion" is not a term of art.

Example:

Wiki Definition:

Quote

A world championship is generally an international competition open to elite competitors from around the world, representing their nations, and winning such an event will be considered the highest or near highest achievement in the sport, game, or ability.

Is the old man Jewish hockey tournament the "highest or near highest achievement" in hockey? Clearly not.  So it doesn't meet wiki's definition and we don't need to get into whether participation being limited to particular age groups and ethnicity meets this standard.  The NBA also fails here by virtue of it not truly being an international competition (by my reading of that phrase at least).  Under this definition, there simply are no world champions in basketball since the "highest or near highest achievement in the sport" is not an international competition (IMO, it is obvious that the best players don't consider the FIBA world championships to be the highest achievement in the sport as they frequently choose not to participate - ).

Law Insider Definition:

Quote

World Champion means a champion recognized by the Association.

Here the old man Jewish hockey tournament qualifies.  As does the NBA championship.  The Association putting on each of the championship tournaments recognizes their champs as the world champs and therefore fits the definition.

Collins Dictionary Definition:

Quote

someone who has won a competition open to people throughout the whole world

This one requires some interpretation for both old man Jewish hockey and the NBA.  This one doesn't require an international competition, just a competition (which clearly both your hockey tournament and the NBA playoffs are) which is open to people throughout the world. 

The NBA is open to people over 18 throughout the world.  The fact that the teams comprised of these international players are situated in the US and Canada seems like the main objection although I don't see a strong argument on this basis using this definition although this is less troubling under this definition than the first one.  The age requirements are a potential argument here that it isn't truly "open" since players who don't meet this requirement (like high school LeBron James or 18 yo Victor Wembanyama) cannot compete.

Your hockey tournament is open to teams made up only of older Jewish players.  Teams are by nation and open to all nations of the world (I am assuming this last point from your comments).  Are "people throughout the world" really able to participate if all younger players and all non-Jewish people are excluded?  Clearly there are people in every nation who don't meet the age requirement.  The Jewish only requirement is problematic.  81% of Jews are from two countries:  the US and Israel.  The remaining 19% of world wide Jews are spread in varying proportions as extreme minorities of the total population. 

So this raises a question for me as to whether something is truly open to people around the world.  For example, there are estimates of the Jewish population in China of 2,500.

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/about/communities/CN

This is a competition closed to 99.999825% of China's population.  So it is really open to people in China?   This is unclear to me. 

There are nations with either no Jews or so few Jews that they might not even be eligible to fill out a roster with eligible players (example: wiki says there is 1 Jew in the Faulklands, 12 in Montenegro, 11 in the Virgin Islands, etc.)

The Collins definition doesn't say "all people" but you've already said there is some level that you must meet to truly qualify.  We appear to be pretty de minimus for a lot of countries so I'm going to say this is open to interpretation.

 

In short, these definitions are very different one to the other and if you got a dozen people to give you their take on it you'd probably get a dozen different answers.  

[Spud2nique]

40 minutes ago, AHF said:

"old man" eligible Jewish-only players is sufficiently global to quality as world champions

tf y’all talkin about?