Golden State Warriors' superstar Stephen Curry has done almost everything there is to do on an NBA floor, and is subsequently viewed as one of the all-time greats who's changed the game forever.
Yet despite his historical impact, not everyone is convinced of Curry's legacy. In a recent episode of Gil's Arena, former Warrior and 3x All-Star Gilbert Arenas added to his list of controversial takes by claiming Curry is not a "generational talent."
The suggestion that Golden State Warriors' superstar Stephen Curry isn't a generational talent does a complete injustice to his legacy
Arenas aimed to explain his comments by stating, "generational means you can't mimic it," while describing the likes of LeBron James, Victor Wembanyama and Magic Johnson as players who fit the criteria.
However, that definition seems to only identify the combination of athletic physical traits rather than skill. While it may appear far easier to have Curry's shooting skill than James' combination of height, strength, speed and power, that doesn't mean that anyone will be able to mimic the two-time MVP.
Curry has led the league in three-point makes in eight of the last 12 seasons -- are we going to see that kind of dominance ever again? Will anyone ever prove capable of surpassing his record of all-time three-point makes that currently sits at 3,747? It's highly unlikely.
If an entire generation tries to mimic you, what does that say about your impact on the league? Not one player has been able to replicate it, despite nine years having now passed since Curry won his first MVP.
Arena's definition isn't a bad one -- a generational talent should be viewed as someone who cannot be mimicked. Yet his suggestion that Curry doesn't fit that mould is an egregious error that's simply wrong. Just because it's more realistic for the everyday person to be 6'3", doesn't mean that anyone can reach Curry's level of three-point shooting brilliance.
