Peace is never an option when Stephen A. Smith blurts out his opinions. The veteran analyst might still dwell in the past when icons and legends like Michael Jordan graced the parquet floor. But hey, the generation has changed, and so has the gameplay and style. Among the revolutionaries, one name that shines the brightest is Stephen Curry’s. However, it looks like SAS has a story to tell the world.

On Wednesday, the Baby-Faced Assassin created history. He recorded 52/10/8 vs. the Memphis Grizzlies. Steph surpasses LeBron James in 50+ point games record. However, his namesake once had a HOFer come up to him. He narrated on First Take: “I had a Hall of Famer come up to me and said to me saying, Steph Curry would not have averaged more than 17 points a game. … In our era, we would’ve hurt him.'” This statement triggered a series of debates among the fans and experts of the game.

Meanwhile, SAS’s colleague, Jay Williams, took to his X handle to call out the 57-year-old vet for his narration. Williams made a simple request: “C’mon. Name names or don’t bring it to the table.” The analyst further stated that Stephen Curry “broke basketball.” Simply put, the 37-year-old Golden State Warriors legend has changed the game like never before.

Who in the yesteryear was making those insane 3-points shots? No one. It was considered a lazy move when a player didn’t put much effort into making it to the paint. Squabble up! Now, coming back to Stephen A. Smith and his claims, well, we don’t have the power of time travelling. So, unfortunately, it’s impossible to go back in time and check how many points Curry would score. Besides, the debate has just begun!

What is the true meaning behind Stephen A. Smith’s claims? How did others react to it?

Stephen A. Smith is close friends with MJ. He has seen the fierce games that unfolded in the 80s and 90s, and therefore, easy layups and the concept of three-point games might not be particularly enticing for the veteran. Besides, when Steph Curry walked into the league in 2009, he was called “weak and skinny”, the boy with weak ankles from Davidson. Little did the world know then that what they were about to witness was going to be otherworldly.

Continuing his story, Smith said: “The game was exponentially more physical than it is now. Remember when he came into the league with the ankle injury? He never would have recovered from that with us. We’d have made sure they tripped him every chance they got.” Old-school players weren’t just battling opponents; they were battling the brutal era itself. No hand-checking, less physicality—today’s game feels easier in their eyes. They don’t deny that talent has evolved, but they remember how harshly they were judged. All they want is acknowledgment.

However, Molly Qerim disagrees with Stephen A.’s thoughts. She feels that there is a lot more conversation about the past generation than the current one. “I think it’s hurting the NBA and the conversation. We don’t do this in any other sport,” Qerim confronted SAS. However, Stephen A. Smith disagrees (when has he ever agreed?). He says that the comparison of eras is a common phenomenon in sports. “We always do it, no matter what sport it is. The NBA feels that way. The players feel that way…if a standard of greatness has been established and somebody’s comparing you to that greatness, we’re saying you’re great.” 

The debate rages on, but one thing is clear—Steph Curry didn’t just play the game; he reshaped it. Yet, the ghosts of the past still whisper, questioning his dominance in a different era. Stephen A. Smith fuels the fire, but Jay Williams isn’t buying the barbershop talk. And so, the argument lives on, caught between nostalgia and revolution.