Stephen Curry thought he was paying the game of basketball a compliment. Instead, he lit the match for one of the hottest debates in sports talk: is today’s NBA truly the most skilled era in league history, or just the flashiest? When Curry told TODAY that he believes this generation of players represents the “most skilled era of basketball history,” Fox Sports’ analysts were quick to fire back, and they didn’t hold back on the Warriors star.

The baby-faced assassin, entering his 17th season, framed his point around the concept of evolution. “I was told by a wise man when I was getting into the league, you want to leave the league in a better place than when you found it,” he said. “I think just the way that you see the skill-level right now, the way that the range has kind of taken over, guys shooting threes all over the court, but just from one through five all the way down the roster, I think this is the most skilled era of basketball history.” To Curry, the evidence is everywhere.

From guards pulling up from 30 feet to bigs who can now handle and pass like wings, the league looks different from when he debuted in 2009. His own stats back up the longevity of his claim with 24.5 points per game last season, 39.7 percent from three, and 70 games played at age 37. He’s not slowing down, and he believes his influence is part of why the bar has been raised. But that argument didn’t fly on Fox Sports’ The Odd Couple.

Analysts Rob and Kelvin argued that while the highlight reels have gotten prettier, the essence of the game has slipped. “I don’t buy it,” one voice said bluntly. “This is the personal trainer era. Yeah, you might have a step-back better than somebody now, but you know what they had better? They knew how to win. They knew how to play within a system.” That pushback wasn’t just about nostalgia. It was about substance.

The critique pointed out that spacing, rule changes, and the inability to physically guard players have inflated the perception of skill. “The reason he’s had success is because of the rule changes,” the hosts said. “Spacing, the idea that you can’t defend anybody, touch anybody — that makes for an easier game.” Then came the line that is going to stick for ages to come: “If you think Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been a hell of a three-point shooter, you have no idea of the skill.” It’s rare for Curry to wade into big-picture commentary about the sport he helped reshape.

Usually, he lets his game do the talking. But his declaration touches the core of how we measure eras. Are today’s players more “skilled” because they dribble between cones and drain logo threes, or were past legends more “skilled” because they mastered team execution and fundamentals under brutal conditions? Think about Curry’s contract and place in the league.

Stephen Curry, the skill debate, and what it really means

Curry is owed $55.8 million this season, part of the four-year, $215.4 million extension he signed in 2021, which made him the first player to sign two contracts worth more than $200M. He later added a one-year, $62.6 million extension in 2024 that secures him through 2026-27 in Golden State. His game created an economy of shooting specialists, spacing-heavy offenses, and development pipelines designed to mimic his style.

Teams are literally paying billions in TV rights with $75 billion across new deals, largely because stars like Curry turned shot-making into theater. Yet the counterargument is equally sharp. The Fox crew argued the league is watered down, with “six teams full of players who probably aren’t NBA players.” They pointed to past guards like Baron Davis, Steve Francis, and Allen Iverson as examples of players whose impact went beyond personal trainers and mixtape moves.

“I don’t watch better basketball than I did in previous years or eras,” one analyst said. “I watch guys, and I’m confused sometimes. Do you not see the open man? Did you not see the back cut?” The irony is that Curry himself is an outlier, maybe the biggest of them all. He changed shot selection across the sport.

He made kids believe in pull-up threes before layups. And he’s still producing at an elite level nearly two decades in. That’s not watered down, that’s excellence. But the tension is, Curry’s legacy depends on this being the “most skilled” era. His revolution only means something if it elevated the game, not just changed it. The backlash suggests some aren’t ready to give him that credit. Instead, they chalk it up to rules and referees, not genius. For younger players, though, Curry’s statement sets a marker.

If this is indeed the most skilled era, contracts for wings and guards will continue to balloon. Shooting will remain the premium. And stylistic versatility, being able to do a little of everything, will define the next generation of stars. For veterans and historians, though, it raises the question: if today’s basketball is so much more skilled, why do so many complain about the product? Curry might not care about the debate.

He’s too busy preparing for another season with Golden State, still chasing relevancy in a loaded Western Conference. But when he speaks about the state of the game, the ripple effect is immediate. And as long as he keeps making logo threes look routine, the argument over “most skilled” isn’t going anywhere. Because if Stephen Curry’s right, then he hasn’t just left the league better. He’s left it forever changed.