# Talk:Bob Cousy

Holy Cross College was in the Boston area where Cousy would later play pro ball. He came a long at a time when many popularly considered college teams better than pro teams. Cousy and the Celtics would dispell that myth often in exhibitions against his alma mater and other schools.
Boston's Red Auerbach did not want Cousy. He was hoping for Chicago scorer Max Zaslofsky, who ended up a New York Knick. Cousy quickly proved himself as a cutting-edge ballhandler and passer. Auerbach included Cousy in every foreign service tour he made, of which there were many 1955-1965. Cousy was even involved after his NBA career concluded. Such was the esteem Auerbach came to have for Cousy.
Cousy was one of several players Auerbach took from folding teams. Ed Macauley ( St.Louis ), and Bill Sharmann ( Washington ), were two others. Folding teams made the Celtics contenders.
Cousy was an essential star for the NBA by the mid-1950s. He sold plenty of tickets in Boston and elsewhere with his dribbling wizardry and fancy passes. George Mikan was the only other 1950s player who matched him in appeal.
Cousy likely had more assists than he was credited for. Rules were much stricter in his day than they are today. Rules for NBA assists were liberalized in 1968. Given that Cousy was the man with the ball nearly every time down for the Celtics, it's likely he had perhaps 2-4 more assists per game than he got credit for. He also had far fewer turnovers than NBA point guards today. Defensively, he was also a top guy in steals, a stat not kept in his day.
Cousy occasionally sat out Celtics practices just as Bill Russell often did. But Cousy enjoyed practice, so declined to sit nearly as often as Russell, a limited offensive player, did.
He did a terrible job in Cincinnati as coach, no question. He ran that former rival into the ground. But hey, no one's perfect.(Except for pie, which is definetly perfect.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerjets11 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

An anonymous user added the following to this article: At the age of 73, Cousy repeatedly took Donn Mendoza to the hole in a classic one-on-one battle. Cousy took advantage of the much younger and slower Mendoza by driving to his right on every play. Cousy won the contest 21-2.
I am reverting these changes because I believe this is a joke.  I've watched every Celtics game in the past 19 years; I'm pretty sure they would have mentioned if Bob Cousy was going one on one with anyone in his advanced age! Also, there are zero hits on the web about this; most citations for "Donn Mendoza" refer to a high-school principal in Illinois.
Eric-Albert 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the article and went for the GAC. Onomatopoeia 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am failing this article because it is very POV and requires substantial rephrasing to remove hyperbole and hagiographic tendencies

"Little Bob"
Lead should probably not discuss his height and ethnicity at the front. The key achievements followed by a historical evolution overview should be what is there.
"the rough East Side" more factual terms are required
"After his cab-driving father had saved $500, he moved his family to Queens, New York, and when Cousy Jr. was 13, learned a new sport, basketball and was "immediately hooked"." - jerky sentences
Use of POV adjectives like "famously" multiple times
Other examples "famously snubbed" "utopian salary"
Commentary "It was a matter of time before both Auerbach and Brown ate crow." and so forth
"But beyond statistics and awards, Cousy amazed the crowds with his array of flashy street basketball moves, wowing them with his uncanny dribbling and introducing a hitherto unseen blend of jaw-dropping no-look passes, behind-the-back feeds or quarterback-like half-court fastbreak launche"
Please tone down this article. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the principal editor of this article, but here's my comments on the feedback

changed.
where should it be discussed then? it seems rather harmless to have it in the lead.
unable to comment -- don't come from that part of the world.
changed.
to be accurate at the point of the review "famously" was used just twice. i've removed the first "famous", but the second instance is indeed a well-documented event. perhaps we could borrow the reference from wikipedia entry on Auerbach.
suggestions for adjectival alternatives? a little colour does not hurt; an alternative off the top of my head (say "astronomical") conveys the exact message (and effect).
changed.
but that's what really happened. it's not hyperbolic when you describe art as they are. it is referenced after all; so perhaps part of the problem may be solved if we expressly attribute it to the relevant writer in the text itself. Chensiyuan 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The tone of the article must remain encyclopedic. A little colour may be good, but it needs to stay a very little colour. And in this case, the problem is not colour, but objectivity. How do you intend to verify that the salary was astronomical, or utopian? These are very subjective terms. I am persuaded that most of the problems are very easily addressable as they are style-related. What the article needs right now is a good copyedit by experienced users that don't know the article well. If you go to the sports workgroup or the WP biography, you should find people willing to do that. After that, I'd either return to GAC, or spend some time ar PR. As for the last point, you definitely need quotation marks to use that kind of language. uncanny, jaw-dropping, quarterback-like and flashy are not exactly encyclopedic nor objective, verifiable terms. --SidiLemine 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Along with Chensiyuan, I copyedited the article to be less flamboyant. I hope it is good enough now, pun intended. —Onomatopoeia 08:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tone after a small copyedit is now ok. I'm happy to say that the issues from last time are now rectified.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article. Chensiyuan 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend to use better sources, half of them are from basketball-reference, while somewhat reliable, it's a stats site. There are a good number of books written about Cousy out there, including this one, check in Google Books for others, an article like this should not be depentent on only web sources. I won't comment on the GA review. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy which states that books are superior sources to websites? Or even if not, that a variety of sources (i.e. type) be used? This issue had arisen before in another GA I was working on, but I can't find anything which suggests so. I stand corrected, but as far as I can tell, the cornerstones are really verifiability and reliability. If the information that needs attribution is a statistic, then websites like b-ref and nba.com must be fine. Of course, vis-a-vis more personal aspects of his life, books (or even newspapers, magazines) will be handy, but acquisition is not without cost. Chensiyuan 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I bought the book in amazon. It will likely come in a week, that book should bring it to featured standard, which I'm willing to help. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's great to know then. Chensiyuan 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
re:cost, I have found in the past that Google Books is a great tool for FACs, as it offers extracts from the books.--SidiLemine 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I got the book a few weeks ago but I rarely have time, I could work on some of the article when I do. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I picked up the book from my university library, and I plan on bringing this article to FA. There are some sections that could use definite expansion. Hopefully, the end product will be ~45KB perhaps and more thoroughly sourced? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is he considered from there? He was born in New York City and grew up there. Enigma msg! 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

20.0 points, 5.5 rebounds and 8.6 assissts in 57'-58' and 58'-59' seasons? is it possible? SHIMONSHA (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bob Cousy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article is very good, currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is good, an 8/10.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

According to the 1940 census, on April 6 the family already OWNED a house -- worth $3500 -- at 189-25 116th Road - and rented out 2 apartments, plus had a lodger in their living quarters--JimWae (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this image while looking for something else. Could be used here. I don't know enough about how to add pics to wikipedia and don't have time to learn at the moment: https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/8280424029/in/set-72157627162316303
50.171.187.173 (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)DK

There is an RfC at WP:NBA that is relevant to this article. See here. Ladtrack (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)