How is Bill russel Top 3 Center of all time?

[juju151111]

:confusedshrug: He isn't on shaq,kareem, The dream,Wilt, and moses level.

[Trash]

How? Good question.

The answer is because people like to pretend they have a clue about this game when they really don't.

Anyone who's watched ball for 15+ years can tell you that Bill Russell has a case for being the most overrated player of the last 50 years.

I can say that Bill Russell would be no better than Marcus Camby if he played in today's league.

[juju151111]

How? Good question.

The answer is because people like to pretend they have a clue about this game when they really don't.

Anyone who's watched ball for 15+ years can tell you that Bill Russell has a case for being the most overrated player of the last 50 years.

I can say that Bill Russell would be no better than Marcus Camby if he played in today's league.
I would say more like Ben wallace in his prime.

[Godfather]

I would say more like Ben wallace in his prime.

An example of Bill in this era four years ago would be Ben Wallace with 4 HOF and with the average all star having the skill of Kareem Rush.

[iamgine]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"

[iTruWarrior]

First, some basic questions -
Q: What should be the primary responsibility of a center?
A: Defense, controlling the flow of offense and defense in the paint. Rebounding, blocking shots, forcing team to stay out of the lane, win games.

Bill Russell did all of this. Yes, we all know he wasn't a great shooter. Nobody was back then. Dolph Schayes shot below 40% fourteen times in his fifteen year career, and he's in the hall of fame. Russell's presence forced teams to rethink their game plan. He blocked shots the right way, the way that ignites the fast break, where he was one of the master big men at such.

I have never really understood why he gets brushed under the rug so often. His height? Then why is he still #2 all time in rebounds, and probably will be for a long while because nobody can approach 20k in boards? His shooting? You win me more rings than fingers, and help most of your roster have HOF careers, you can shoot as mediocre as you want. What more should he have done, exactly? He won personal accolades, team accolades, really, what more should he have done? Most dominant ever? Maybe not in critics eyes because Wilt averaged 28 points and 28 rebounds against him, but Bill Russell won games. Won championships. More than Shaq & Kareem combined.

What more did he have to do?

[juju151111]

An example of Bill in this era four years ago would be Ben Wallace with 4 HOF and with the average all star having the skill of Kareem Rush.
I did my studying and watched all the 60s classics gms has i could. They dribbled with one freaking hand and are slow has ****. The celtics PG was a beast tho.lol He made some crazy no look passes.

[Showtime]

I guess we should all just ignore the intangibles that don't show up on a boxscore, such as team leadership (and coaching while playing, literally), unselfishness, constitution and mental fortitude (imagine today's ***** athletes in the racist 60's. They couldn't handle it), etc.

What Russell did was the most important thing for that team. He controlled the paint, and was possibly the best shot blocker ever (but they didn't record those stats back then). Rebounding the basketball is incredibly important. On defense, it limits the scoring chances of the opposition, while sparking the offense by the fastbreak (Russell was a great passer that ignited the Celtic's transition game). On offense, he wasn't just a Ben Wallace type who had no offensive ability. He could score (as shown when he was the team's second leading scorer), but he didn't need to because he was surrounded by other players who could fill that role. Cousy, Hondo, Jones (both), all could spread out the offensive load while Russell could control the game in the post.

If you look at the impact a prime Mutombo and Wallace had, and then imagine a better player overall who was a better passer, scorer, team leader, and winner, and you have a player that nobody should call overrated.

[PistolPete]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"

What about the other 11 guys on the team??

[raptorfan_dr07]

I guess we should all just ignore the intangibles that don't show up on a boxscore, such as team leadership (and coaching while playing, literally), unselfishness, constitution and mental fortitude (imagine today's ***** athletes in the racist 60's. They couldn't handle it), etc.

What Russell did was the most important thing for that team. He controlled the paint, and was possibly the best shot blocker ever (but they didn't record those stats back then). Rebounding the basketball is incredibly important. On defense, it limits the scoring chances of the opposition, while sparking the offense by the fastbreak (Russell was a great passer that ignited the Celtic's transition game). On offense, he wasn't just a Ben Wallace type who had no offensive ability. He could score (as shown when he was the team's second leading scorer), but he didn't need to because he was surrounded by other players who could fill that role. Cousy, Hondo, Jones (both), all could spread out the offensive load while Russell could control the game in the post.

If you look at the impact a prime Mutombo and Wallace had, and then imagine a better player overall who was a better passer, scorer, team leader, and winner, and you have a player that nobody should call overrated.

:applause: :applause:

[Showtime]

:applause: :applause:
People talk about Bill as if he wasn't relevant on offense. He was arguably their most important offensive player with how he started the break and controlled the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K69q26LGnZc&feature=related

[oh the horror]

People talk about Bill as if he wasn't relevant on offense. He was arguably their most important offensive player with how he started the break and controlled the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K69q26LGnZc&feature=related



Which is an intangible aspect of the game, that most pee wee fans dont know about, nor do they care to know about, or acknowledge.

[gxL]

hi first post! bill russell may have played in a weak era, but rings are rings, and 11 rings are more than anyone have

[Go Getter]

If I have to tell you then you don't need to post on a basketball MB.

[Go Getter]

Which is an intangible aspect of the game, that most pee wee fans dont know about, nor do they care to know about, or acknowledge.


Thank you

[xtn5021]

Dude was a true "Player Coach". And let's not forget about the rings...

[oh the horror]

We've entered the era of the "stat fan" that lives and dies by the stats as far as how great a player was. They' dont care to acknowledge other areas of the game, human psyche, and other aspects that make someone a great leader, a great team mate, dominating, and intimidating.


There are ballers in the league now, that are massively talented, yet still STINK as a player on a team.

[Bigsmoke]

yea i doubt if he would go against Tim Duncan and still win 11 rings

[EllEffEll]

We can tell it to you, but we just can't understand it for you.

[RoseCity07]

I don't think I'm the first one to say this but Oden looks like Bill Russell's brother. lol.

[Thunderstruck]

I waiting for this board to actually start talking about basketball instead of incessantly making threads calling players they never saw play overrated over and over again, among many annoying topics that dominate this message board.

[juju151111]

I guess we should all just ignore the intangibles that don't show up on a boxscore, such as team leadership (and coaching while playing, literally), unselfishness, constitution and mental fortitude (imagine today's ***** athletes in the racist 60's. They couldn't handle it), etc.

What Russell did was the most important thing for that team. He controlled the paint, and was possibly the best shot blocker ever (but they didn't record those stats back then). Rebounding the basketball is incredibly important. On defense, it limits the scoring chances of the opposition, while sparking the offense by the fastbreak (Russell was a great passer that ignited the Celtic's transition game). On offense, he wasn't just a Ben Wallace type who had no offensive ability. He could score (as shown when he was the team's second leading scorer), but he didn't need to because he was surrounded by other players who could fill that role. Cousy, Hondo, Jones (both), all could spread out the offensive load while Russell could control the game in the post.

If you look at the impact a prime Mutombo and Wallace had, and then imagine a better player overall who was a better passer, scorer, team leader, and winner, and you have a player that nobody should call overrated.
I said he was a bit overfated because people say he better then the players i listed which is BS.

[juju151111]

If I have to tell you then you don't need to post on a basketball MB.
Enlighten me oh great one.:ohwell:

[MD23]

I love how people are always like Iverson,Tmac,Lebron etc aint nuffin cos they havnt won a ring. Then we have a thread suggesting the greatest winner of all time is overated cummon now. He won 11 rings thats insane what more could he have done but win.

[97 bulls]

What about the other 11 guys on the team??
he has enough rings for each

[lolwut]

why do a bunch of people who were born in the 80's pretend to understand how important Bill Russell was?

[Dasher]

Bill's FG% would increase in today's era of open lanes that are the result of 3 point arc induced spacing and defensive 3 seconds.

[zay_24]

Bill Russel wouldnt be a top3 center in todays league

[Showtime]

I said he was a bit overfated because people say he better then the players i listed which is BS.
I think he's better than Shaq. Shaq, because of his selfishness and ego, has the potential to sink a franchise, which is why his stops have been relatively short. I also think Shaq gets more hype because of his dominance when he was winning championships once the competition in the post diminished. I would choose Bill over Shaq every time because of that.

Moses Malone? How is he superior to Russell?

Wilt? Wilt's greatest opponent was Russell. Despite giving up a few inches in height and some weight, Russell would out rebound Wilt and Russell got the best of Wilt several times, and he won. Wilt was possibly the greatest center ever, but whenever they matched up, Russell wasn't dominated.

[Showtime]

why do a bunch of people who were born in the 80's pretend to understand how important Bill Russell was?
I, for one, respect the history of the game and research the past eras that I didn't get a chance to see. I hear what people who were a part of that time said about players, I read what some people write about it, I watch what I can, and that's why I can form an opinion. That's one thing I dislike about modern fans: they form opinions without any first hand experience, but they do so without even looking into the topic and taking advantage of the resources of others who did.

[oh the horror]

We can tell it to you, but we just can't understand it for you.



Bingo.

[LJJ]

We can tell it to you, but we just can't understand it for you.

:oldlol:

I'm gonna make that one of my catchphrases.

[juju151111]

I think he's better than Shaq. Shaq, because of his selfishness and ego, has the potential to sink a franchise, which is why his stops have been relatively short. I also think Shaq gets more hype because of his dominance when he was winning championships once the competition in the post diminished. I would choose Bill over Shaq every time because of that.

Moses Malone? How is he superior to Russell?

Wilt? Wilt's greatest opponent was Russell. Despite giving up a few inches in height and some weight, Russell would out rebound Wilt and Russell got the best of Wilt several times, and he won. Wilt was possibly the greatest center ever, but whenever they matched up, Russell wasn't dominated.
Sighh why are you talking about off court stuff. Even when shaq and kobe was arguing he still passed it to him when doubled.Go look in 03 or 04.You would take russel over shaq because shaq is more dominant?:confusedshrug: Say wat?? Wilt avg something like 30 20 on him. He routinely outplayed him, but his team loss. Mosses would kill russel

[oh the horror]

There are two types of fans. The fan that looks into other aspects of the game, and then there is the fan that swears by the stat sheets.

[juju151111]

I, for one, respect the history of the game and research the past eras that I didn't get a chance to see. I hear what people who were a part of that time said about players, I read what some people write about it, I watch what I can, and that's why I can form an opinion. That's one thing I dislike about modern fans: they form opinions without any first hand experience, but they do so without even looking into the topic and taking advantage of the resources of others who did.
I did the samething. I watched many 60s Celtics gms whenever they are on nbatv( Which is alot especially last year with the celtics in the finals.) and bill russell is noting special IMHO. If i would judge them by todays standards the guards were slow and thrash. They dribbled with one hand and didn't make any movements i don't see bench players like Jordan farmar do. I respect the gm because Russell was great for BB, but don't give me this BS that russell would dominate centers like shaq and blk 2x has fast/athletic has those guys.He prime Ben wallace with passing skills at best.

[Showtime]

Sighh why are you talking about off court stuff.

I'm talking about how a player impacts his team, and when talking about how a team leader LEADS his team, both on and off the court, then that matters. Bill was a better leader both on and off the court, and Shaq was actually a liability to destroy a franchise. That matters.


Even when shaq and kobe was arguing he still passed it to him when doubled.

Eh? What does this have to do with anything? Shaq passed to Penny. He passed to Kobe. He passed to Wade. It doesn't change my point because I'm not talking about Shaq not passing.


Go look in 03 or 04.

I don't have to, because I watched those years.


You would take russel over shaq because shaq is more dominant?

No, I was making the point that the reputation of Shaq's dominance came with his days with LA, and the time when he was dominating the most and winning rings was a time after his competition in the post diminished greatly.


Wilt avg something like 30 20 on him. He routinely outplayed him, but his team loss.

lol boxscore fans. I said Bill wasn't dominated, which he wasn't, because he held his own. He put up a fight in the post, and as I said, often out rebounded him and limited him offensively.


Mosses would kill russel

With a gun, probably.

[Showtime]

If i would judge them by todays standards...

That's your problem right there. Nobody said to judge him by today's standards, and doing so is severely flawed.


I respect the gm because Russell was great for BB, but don't give me this BS that russell would dominate centers like shaq and blk 2x has fast/athletic has those guys.

Who said that? I sure didn't. You are creating arguments that aren't being presented. Russell didn't play against Shaq, so I'm not talking about that as a 1 on 1 matchup. I'm talking about how each player played in their respective eras, considering their opponents and impact. If you want to choose Shaq, well, that's your opinion. But I have my own view that is based on solid points.


He prime Ben wallace with passing skills at best.
Well, I disagree, and so do many who watched him. I would go into the many important differences between the two players, but there wouldn't be a point because if you can't see them now, you won't understand them even if somebody pointed them out.

[KobeRules24]

This is my opinion, Bill Russell is the most overrated player in the history of the league.

[juju151111]

I'm talking about how a player impacts his team, and when talking about how a team leader LEADS his team, both on and off the court, then that matters. Bill was a better leader both on and off the court, and Shaq was actually a liability to destroy a franchise. That matters.



Eh? What does this have to do with anything? Shaq passed to Penny. He passed to Kobe. He passed to Wade. It doesn't change my point because I'm not talking about Shaq not passing.



I don't have to, because I watched those years.



No, I was making the point that the reputation of Shaq's dominance came with his days with LA, and the time when he was dominating the most and winning rings was a time after his competition in the post diminished greatly.



lol boxscore fans. I said Bill wasn't dominated, which he wasn't, because he held his own. He put up a fight in the post, and as I said, often out rebounded him and limited him offensively.



With a gun, probably.
Shaq wasn't trying to destroy anything. He just speaks his mind and does his Job.LOL shaq was dominated before he even came to LA. He even put up Great stats against the dream, but he was young and had alot of TO when they doubled him. Other then TO he was beasting and shooting a higher %.Teams win chips not a player. I watch the gm and use boxscore which is the best way IMHO.

[juju151111]

That's your problem right there. Nobody said to judge him by today's standards, and doing so is severely flawed.



Who said that? I sure didn't. You are creating arguments that aren't being presented. Russell didn't play against Shaq, so I'm not talking about that as a 1 on 1 matchup. I'm talking about how each player played in their respective eras, considering their opponents and impact. If you want to choose Shaq, well, that's your opinion. But I have my own view that is based on solid points.


Well, I disagree, and so do many who watched him. I would go into the many important differences between the two players, but there wouldn't be a point because if you can't see them now, you won't understand them even if somebody pointed them out.
I know its flawed in certain ways, but when i see Ish members say Bill is better then players like the dream it pisses me off. They use the same argument 11 rings>all.

[Solid Snake]

I've said 7 other times, and I'll say it 12 more times, players/events that took place before the 70's don't COUNT. You shouldn't even have to ask why.

[indiefan23]

First, some basic questions -
Q: What should be the primary responsibility of a center?
A: Defense, controlling the flow of offense and defense in the paint. Rebounding, blocking shots, forcing team to stay out of the lane, win games.

Bill Russell did all of this. Yes, we all know he wasn't a great shooter. Nobody was back then. Dolph Schayes shot below 40% fourteen times in his fifteen year career, and he's in the hall of fame. Russell's presence forced teams to rethink their game plan. He blocked shots the right way, the way that ignites the fast break, where he was one of the master big men at such.

I have never really understood why he gets brushed under the rug so often. His height? Then why is he still #2 all time in rebounds, and probably will be for a long while because nobody can approach 20k in boards? His shooting? You win me more rings than fingers, and help most of your roster have HOF careers, you can shoot as mediocre as you want. What more should he have done, exactly? He won personal accolades, team accolades, really, what more should he have done? Most dominant ever? Maybe not in critics eyes because Wilt averaged 28 points and 28 rebounds against him, but Bill Russell won games. Won championships. More than Shaq & Kareem combined.

What more did he have to do?

I respect the guy, but you have to think about guys like Wilt and Russel. Hoop was a fledgling sport then. Bill Simmons once said that only MJ and Russel had that same quality of intensity and desire to win so I think he deserves credit for being a great player within an era.

But I can tell you this. Ball is played by 100's of millions more people then when Bill Russel played. The talent pool players come from is so much larger. When Russel played there was no 3 point shot spreading the floor. He was a great big dude instead of a power forward today, guys were not insanely athletic either. Had he had to play Shaq and Dwight Howard he's not going to have his 20 board averages anymore or his huge blocked shots. He'd also foul out in the first half trying to guard someone like Wade or Iverson.

I mean, come on, in Russel's era the 'double team' had not even been invented yet. They were not even playing 'real' basketball with strategy and defensive sets. It was more like really great pick up ball.

Think about it... today's highschool players would dominate that era's league. At 6'2" I could play small forward. So give him his credit. Its due. But the game has evolved past the point where he could compete.

[L.Kizzle]

This is my opinion, Bill Russell is the most overrated player in the history of the league.
I agree, overrated. A guy who only won 11 titles in 13 season, overrated. Now if he would have won 13 or at least 12, than I'd give him some props.

[indiefan23]

I guess we should all just ignore the intangibles that don't show up on a boxscore, such as team leadership (and coaching while playing, literally), unselfishness, constitution and mental fortitude (imagine today's ***** athletes in the racist 60's. They couldn't handle it), etc.

What Russell did was the most important thing for that team. He controlled the paint, and was possibly the best shot blocker ever (but they didn't record those stats back then). Rebounding the basketball is incredibly important. On defense, it limits the scoring chances of the opposition, while sparking the offense by the fastbreak (Russell was a great passer that ignited the Celtic's transition game). On offense, he wasn't just a Ben Wallace type who had no offensive ability. He could score (as shown when he was the team's second leading scorer), but he didn't need to because he was surrounded by other players who could fill that role. Cousy, Hondo, Jones (both), all could spread out the offensive load while Russell could control the game in the post.

If you look at the impact a prime Mutombo and Wallace had, and then imagine a better player overall who was a better passer, scorer, team leader, and winner, and you have a player that nobody should call overrated.

Dude... players in that league could not cross over dribble. 50% of the shots put up then would be pinned to the backboard today. Come on. How can you compare that to Mutumbo?

[indiefan23]

why do a bunch of people who were born in the 80's pretend to understand how important Bill Russell was?

I don't think anyone has said he was not important. I think what is being said is that in today's NBA there are like, 20 players on 30 teams that can't dunk. What do you think the number was when Bill Russel played? Do you think he could stop Shaq and Dwight Howard and Yao? Or would his 215 pounds (what I weigh) be destroyed?

[oh the horror]

I've said 7 other times, and I'll say it 12 more times, players/events that took place before the 70's don't COUNT. You shouldn't even have to ask why.


Nah, im going to ask why, because I cant grasp how you could think that. Give me a solid reason to why they dont count?

[indiefan23]

I agree, overrated. A guy who only won 11 titles in 13 season, overrated. Now if he would have won 13 or at least 12, than I'd give him some props.

No one is slamming Russel. I mean, grow up?

Look, he's got his rings. Because he's got more then anyone people like you say 'oh, he's the best.'

Put it this way, if Jordan and Pippen got into a time machine and were on any team in the NBA at that point, Bill Russel has 0 championships. That's all people are saying. Seriously, forcing a player left was a used defensive strategy then.

So if you're saying all time, and Hakeem played against Jordan and Pippen how can you say Russel is better? He padded his stats by being in a weak, weak era of ball. Now, if Russel got in a time machine, where would he be? He could not even play center. Way, way too small. Maybe he's be a 4. And most likely he'd be a role player on the bench. Its just the talent pool has grown. Basketball is now world wide.

Man, the irony! Laker fans are the new old school celtic fans.

[indiefan23]

Nah, im going to ask why, because I cant grasp how you could think that. Give me a solid reason to why they dont count?

The fact that a 215 lb 6-9 guy averaged 20 boards over 13 seasons does not count? What don't you grasp? Under your logic everyone playing ball has forgotten how to rebound properly since the 60's? I mean

BE

SERIOUS

[oh the horror]

The fact that a 215 lb 6-9 guy averaged 20 boards over 13 seasons does not count? What don't you grasp? Under your logic everyone playing ball has forgotten how to rebound properly since the 60's? I mean

BE

SERIOUS


Dude, wtf are you talking about? Is english your first language?


I adressed him, not "counting" anything before the 70s.


To me, those players paved the way for the 70s, to 80s, to 90s, and to today. We simply cannot just "not count" them because they didnt perform the way we KNOW basketball today. Thats foolish.


So do we just erase any history we dont deem fit enough for our perspectives today? I wanted him to explain that.


So what ARE YOU talking about?!

[indiefan23]

Who said that? I sure didn't. You are creating arguments that aren't being presented. Russell didn't play against Shaq, so I'm not talking about that as a 1 on 1 matchup. I'm talking about how each player played in their respective eras, considering their opponents and impact. If you want to choose Shaq, well, that's your opinion. But I have my own view that is based on solid points.


So you're point is that if you totally ignore russell's PLAY then he's a top 3 PLAYER at the 5?

Cuz when I say one player is greater then another it means they are better at PLAYING the game. Watch. MJ > Kobe > Paul Shirley > Me. No one on the less then side can really compete with people on the greater then side. Thats how greater then works.

So in saying that BR is top 3, all time, you're saying Hakeem, Moses, Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Robinson, Ewing, Dwight etc, you're saying some massive list of players like that are lesser, and not as good as BR.

And you're just absolutely factually wrong. Unless you're talking about something other then his playing. And if we are not talking about his playing, then I'm greater then Bill Russel cuz I can program a web page way better then he can.

[indiefan23]

Dude, wtf are you talking about? Is english your first language?


I adressed him, not "counting" anything before the 70s.


To me, those players paved the way for the 70s, to 80s, to 90s, and to today. We simply cannot just "not count" them because they didnt perform the way we KNOW basketball today. Thats foolish.


So do we just erase any history we dont deem fit enough for our perspectives today? I wanted him to explain that.


So what ARE YOU talking about?!

Well, its like this. Props to Russel and his stacked team for winning a lot in his era.

Unfortunately for all time arguments you have to compare eras, and his era stank.

If I play on a team of jr high kids I will dominate them and my stats will be padded to the sky because the competition is weak.

Bill Russel did a great job and cool for him, he gets lots of props, but his stats ARE padded, and that includes the rings. Jr. High is about right. Only the freaks can dunk and everyone is still learning how to play the game. Sorry, but its the truth. They hadn't invented teh double team. The shot clock was newish. Its just not real basketball. It was, but its not anymore. And if I'm making top 3 lists, I'm only including people who played the most competitive levels. Its only sensible unless you want to start including some d-league champions as the best because they dominated the d-league.

[Psileas]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake
I've said 7 other times, and I'll say it 12 more times, players/events that took place before the 70's don't COUNT. You shouldn't even have to ask why.

Even better, I propose that anything that happened before 2000 shouldn't count. The real NBA's history started with John Amaechi's millenium basket, period. Anyone who disagrees is a fool who should be kicked in the mouth.

[oh the horror]

Im sorry, but I dont respect a "fan" of any sport, that doesnt respect the people, or the history of that respective sport. To understand what makes the game (or any game) great today, you have to understand what made the game great yesterday.


To say you dont count the past, because it isnt competitive like todays game is the most foolish thing ive ever heard, or read in my entire life.

[oh the horror]

and wait...wtf is "competitive ball" then?


You'd swear Bill played with 13 year olds or something. Their level of play, compared to today is IRRELEVANT!!


Thats like saying, the science of the 1920s shouldnt count because it isnt as advanced of the sciences of today.



That argument makes NO sense.

[Psileas]

Well, its like this. Props to Russel and his stacked team for winning a lot in his era.

Unfortunately for all time arguments you have to compare eras, and his era stank.

If I play on a team of jr high kids I will dominate them and my stats will be padded to the sky because the competition is weak.

This is pretty irrelevant with Russell and his era.


Bill Russel did a great job and cool for him, he gets lots of props, but his stats ARE padded, and that includes the rings. Jr. High is about right. Only the freaks can dunk and everyone is still learning how to play the game.

Typical, very typical mistake. The vast majority of players could dunk. Hell, almost all the early 50's Lakers' players (all white) could dunk, except I think Slater Martin, who was 5'9-5'10. Refraining from dunking is completely different than not dunking. Do you know how many dunks you'd watch in the 1968-69 NCAA? About zero. You know why? Because the league prohibited the dunk to limit the dominance of Lew Alcindor. Howewer, someone with no knowledge of NCAA history would easily make the mistake after watching a random game to deduce that "players couldn't dunk".

As for everyone "still learning how to play the game", let me remind you that basketball was already 70+ years old in the 60's. It wasn't a sport played only by a few fraternities neither had it just been imported by a foreign country. Players in the 60's were a lot closer to today's players in just about everything than players from the 20's.


Sorry, but its the truth. They hadn't invented teh double team.

Again, completely wrong. Wilt was routinely double and triple-teammed. In his 100-point game, the Knicks even threw all their 5 players on him in the final minutes to avoid humiliation.


The shot clock was newish. Its just not real basketball. It was, but its not anymore.

Then I guess we should also discredit all eras up to the late 80's. After all, in the 80's, the 3-point shot was still newish. We can also discredit the 90's, as well, because there were no zone defenses allowed.


And if I'm making top 3 lists, I'm only including people who played the most competitive levels. Its only sensible unless you want to start including some d-league champions as the best because they dominated the d-league.

Competition =/= style of play, period. That's like saying that Alexander wasn't among the greatest generals ever, because even his best competitors still battled with spears, archers and war elephants.

[oh the horror]

Is anyone reading this? He compared players in the 60s, to children in Jr High? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

[L.Kizzle]

LOL at this thread, just terrible. What next, How is Jerry West a top 3 SG of all time?

[Showtime]

So you're point is that if you totally ignore russell's PLAY then he's a top 3 PLAYER at the 5?

LOL WTF are you talking about? Russell, Wilt, KAJ = top 3 centers IMO, based upon the players they were. I didn't say to disregard their play. I simply wasn't going to disregard everything not on a box score. It's the same way I feel how Duncan > Shaq. It's not just about numbers.


Cuz when I say one player is greater then another it means they are better at PLAYING the game. Watch. MJ > Kobe > Paul Shirley > Me. No one on the less then side can really compete with people on the greater then side. Thats how greater then works.

That's right. That's how it works. But "playing the game" means more than what's on a boxscore, and some fans can't grasp that. Shaq and Russell's impact on the success of their teams was comparable, despite whatever differences there were in their games.


So in saying that BR is top 3, all time, you're saying Hakeem, Moses, Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Robinson, Ewing, Dwight etc, you're saying some massive list of players like that are lesser, and not as good as BR.

I'm saying that Russell is a top 3 center of all time, yes. And did you just throw Yao's name into this? Wow, stop posting please.


And you're just absolutely factually wrong. Unless you're talking about something other then his playing. And if we are not talking about his playing, then I'm greater then Bill Russel cuz I can program a web page way better then he can.
Sorry if I recognize what a player's impact is on the game and his team, and how he plays rather than just looking at boxscores. If I saw the game like you, I would think Zach Randolph is a superior player than Pau Gasol.

[Showtime]

Shaq wasn't trying to destroy anything.

Did I ****ing say his goal was to sink teams? No, I said that because of the type of guy he is, that happens. When that impacts stuff on the court, whether on purpose or not, it matters. I consider something that limits the amount of time he plays on a team to be a serious issue.


LOL shaq was dominated before he even came to LA. He even put up Great stats against the dream, but he was young and had alot of TO when they doubled him. Other then TO he was beasting and shooting a higher %.Teams win chips not a player. I watch the gm and use boxscore which is the best way IMHO.
Perhaps you didn't watch enough. Shaq with the Magic was a beast, no doubt. But you apparently missed my point about his reputation now. I said that the primary basis of his reputation as one of the most dominating centers ever was his play as a Laker. Everybody uses that era of his career as the primary example of how dominating Shaq was, and it just so happens that during that time, when he won 3 straight and put up the best numbers of his career, was a time where his competition in the league had already faded away and he was smashing guys like Dale Davis and Aaron Williams in the finals. As the beast player he was in Orlando, he was swept in the finals by Hakeem and was sent home by Jordan before he left.

[tedloc]

the guy has more rings than fingers... that's why.

[juju151111]

LOL WTF are you talking about? Russell, Wilt, KAJ = top 3 centers IMO, based upon the players they were. I didn't say to disregard their play. I simply wasn't going to disregard everything not on a box score. It's the same way I feel how Duncan > Shaq. It's not just about numbers.



That's right. That's how it works. But "playing the game" means more than what's on a boxscore, and some fans can't grasp that. Shaq and Russell's impact on the success of their teams was comparable, despite whatever differences there were in their games.



I'm saying that Russell is a top 3 center of all time, yes. And did you just throw Yao's name into this? Wow, stop posting please.


Sorry if I recognize what a player's impact is on the game and his team, and how he plays rather than just looking at boxscores. If I saw the game like you, I would think Zach Randolph is a superior player than Pau Gasol.
Your making no sense. How is he a top 3 center if They are better then him. I watch the gms too and BR isn't on The dreams level at all. Explain how Dream>BR=BR is top 3? lol also how is duncan better then shaq. I would say they were equal.

[juju151111]

Did I ****ing say his goal was to sink teams? No, I said that because of the type of guy he is, that happens. When that impacts stuff on the court, whether on purpose or not, it matters. I consider something that limits the amount of time he plays on a team to be a serious issue.


Perhaps you didn't watch enough. Shaq with the Magic was a beast, no doubt. But you apparently missed my point about his reputation now. I said that the primary basis of his reputation as one of the most dominating centers ever was his play as a Laker. Everybody uses that era of his career as the primary example of how dominating Shaq was, and it just so happens that during that time, when he won 3 straight and put up the best numbers of his career, was a time where his competition in the league had already faded away and he was smashing guys like Dale Davis and Aaron Williams in the finals. As the beast player he was in Orlando, he was swept in the finals by Hakeem and was sent home by Jordan before he left.
The nba is a business so him getting traded means noting. We are talking about his body of work not how many teams he played for.Shaq played against the dream and put up great numbers and played against MT mutumbo (4 DPOTY) and killed him. He also played against Drod/ducan and won too. Shaq was dominant since his rookie season.

[indiefan23]

Is anyone reading this? He compared players in the 60s, to children in Jr High? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

What I compared was the difference between players in the 60's NBA and Jordan as the difference between 'me' and Jr. High kids.

I think its pretty accurate. We'd both dominate them because our skills were in such a different league. I beat a Jr. High kid 10-1 yesterday without trying. Jordan vs the average 60's player would be the same story.

As a side note, 'forcing someone left' WAS a used strategy in the 60's NBA. Now, that stops working at the HS level. That is to say, players at the HS level are way above the 60's era NBA players. HS Lebron would be league MVP and probably not lose a game in the 60's unless he got totally lazy. Are you really disputing this? Really?

[indiefan23]

As the beast player he was in Orlando, he was swept in the finals by Hakeem and was sent home by Jordan before he left.


Ha, yea, except that if Russel played against Dream or Jordan he would be swept for his career. This is worse then Kobe arguments. Seriously, I'm shocked. I always felt Celtics fans were a little more intelligent then their counterparts. Bird, Cousy, Russel, McHale were all super smart players so I guess I thought they were. Dear lord.

[juju151111]

Ha, yea, except that if Russel played against Dream or Jordan he would be swept for his career. This is worse then Kobe arguments. Seriously, I'm shocked. I always felt Celtics fans were a little more intelligent then their counterparts. Bird, Cousy, Russel, McHale were all super smart players so I guess I thought they were. Dear lord.
wth i never said that.

[indiefan23]

Im sorry, but I dont respect a "fan" of any sport, that doesnt respect the people, or the history of that respective sport. To understand what makes the game (or any game) great today, you have to understand what made the game great yesterday.


To say you dont count the past, because it isnt competitive like todays game is the most foolish thing ive ever heard, or read in my entire life.

Yo, I agree with you totally!

Watch this... seriously, everyone should do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWpkqI6P3w

At the 3 second mark, the ginger with the bar-stache, he's absolutely one of the best players of all time. He dominated his era like non other as the footage shows. The problem is no one respects the history of the game and what made the game great then.

[indiefan23]

I guess we should all just ignore the intangibles that don't show up on a boxscore, such as team leadership (and coaching while playing, literally), unselfishness, constitution and mental fortitude (imagine today's ***** athletes in the racist 60's. They couldn't handle it), etc.

That's awesome. If you pick your intangibles that count you can make any player awesome. Like, if I pick naps before games Stacy Augmon has gotta be top 10.

So if you're considering the intangibles why are you not considering the competition intangible. Does the competition not factor into who wins those rings?

[iamgine]

Galileo & Newton would be an idiot by today's standard. They don't even know what internet & TV is. If we lived in the 1600, we'd be the smartest people on earth.


They are great because of what they achieved, not because they can beat today's players.

[Showtime]

The nba is a business so him getting traded means noting.

Jesus, do you honestly think he was traded from LA and from Miami purely because of economics? He wasn't getting along in LA, and when he was in the last year of his deal, he wanted an outrageous deal because he thought he was worth the money. This, despite being out of shape and taking regular season games off for the past few years, and the previous two were losses to the Spurs and the disappointing loss to the Pistons. His ego got in the way, and his attitude was a major factor in why he was traded to the Heat. The money was part of the problem because Shaq's attitude made it part of the problem.

Then when he wasn't winning in Miami, he complained about teammates, ripped his coach and his team, and quit on his team, and basically burned any bridges he might have had with that franchise. That's why he was traded to the Suns.

If you honestly think it was his 20 mil a year contract, and not how he was acting and his approach by always putting himself above the team, then we have nothing left to discuss on the topic. Money wouldn't have been an issue in LA if he wasn't the ego driven player he is, and in Miami, the money wouldn't matter if he acted differently and had a different attitude.


We are talking about his body of work not how many teams he played for.

And when the type of person impacts stuff that goes on on THE COURT, it matters. How is this not sinking in? Are you honestly saying that not spending more seasons in LA with Kobe and dedicating himself to the team concept wouldn't change anything about WINNING and his body of work? Are you honestly saying that being a guy who has a relatively small window on a team because he's bound to do something stupid if he's not happy has no effect on his team and career? IT MATTERS if who he is limits his time with a team, and effects winning because he puts himself first.


Shaq played against the dream and put up great numbers and played against MT mutumbo (4 DPOTY) and killed him. He also played against Drod/ducan and won too. Shaq was dominant since his rookie season.

Apparently you aren't comprehending the point I'm trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying. It's obvious you just aren't grasping anything.

[oh the horror]

Galileo & Newton would be an idiot by today's standard. They don't even know what internet & TV is. If we lived in the 1600, we'd be the smartest people on earth.





Absolutely. Im going to travel back in time now, and play in the 1960s NBA, be the greatest player ever, and then im going to come up with the theory of relativity.

[Psileas]

As a side note, 'forcing someone left' WAS a used strategy in the 60's NBA. Now, that stops working at the HS level. That is to say, players at the HS level are way above the 60's era NBA players. HS Lebron would be league MVP and probably not lose a game in the 60's unless he got totally lazy. Are you really disputing this? Really?

Yeah, Jerry West didn't crossover (at least with today's style, though he did drive while quickly switching hands and sides and though today's crossover would get whistled all the time in the 60's), while nowadays even some 12-year olds do it, so this must mean that these 12-year olds are above Jerry West, right? The same Jerry West who, past his prime, in the early 70's, faced and beat players who extended their careers to the 80's and were slowed down only by advancing age. Same goes with Havlicek, Robertson, not to mention centers. This must also mean that West would be unable to use such a dribble, even if he were tought about it.


Absolutely. Im going to travel back in time now, and play in the 1960s NBA, be the greatest player ever, and then im going to come up with the theory of relativity.

Good choice. I'll travel back to about 200 BC and I'll teach what Jesus tought. And though I won't be able to replicate all his feats (miracles, etc), I'll bring today's technology to that era. That will be considered miraculous, anyway. Oh, and I'll also invent basketball. Naismith who? Dr. James will have to find another job. And soccer will tell me how my @ss tastes. :D

[oh the horror]

Apparently highschool players from our era, can dunk on Russell

[juju151111]

Jesus, do you honestly think he was traded from LA and from Miami purely because of economics? He wasn't getting along in LA, and when he was in the last year of his deal, he wanted an outrageous deal because he thought he was worth the money. This, despite being out of shape and taking regular season games off for the past few years, and the previous two were losses to the Spurs and the disappointing loss to the Pistons. His ego got in the way, and his attitude was a major factor in why he was traded to the Heat. The money was part of the problem because Shaq's attitude made it part of the problem.

Then when he wasn't winning in Miami, he complained about teammates, ripped his coach and his team, and quit on his team, and basically burned any bridges he might have had with that franchise. That's why he was traded to the Suns.

If you honestly think it was his 20 mil a year contract, and not how he was acting and his approach by always putting himself above the team, then we have nothing left to discuss on the topic. Money wouldn't have been an issue in LA if he wasn't the ego driven player he is, and in Miami, the money wouldn't matter if he acted differently and had a different attitude.



And when the type of person impacts stuff that goes on on THE COURT, it matters. How is this not sinking in? Are you honestly saying that not spending more seasons in LA with Kobe and dedicating himself to the team concept wouldn't change anything about WINNING and his body of work? Are you honestly saying that being a guy who has a relatively small window on a team because he's bound to do something stupid if he's not happy has no effect on his team and career? IT MATTERS if who he is limits his time with a team, and effects winning because he puts himself first.



Apparently you aren't comprehending the point I'm trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying. It's obvious you just aren't grasping anything.
Shaq teams have noting to do with this. Get through your head. We are talking about there body of work. I don't care how he was acting because he is the only Center in the modern era with 4 rings. I do comprehend wat your saying. Your trying to downplay his accomplishments by saying the League was thrash ( at the C position ) when he won his titles. I was pointing out that he was always dominate and that he went through Duncan, drod, and MT to win the chip.

[indiefan23]

Galileo & Newton would be an idiot by today's standard. They don't even know what internet & TV is. If we lived in the 1600, we'd be the smartest people on earth.


They are great because of what they achieved, not because they can beat today's players.

I don't think that's a very valid comparison. And aside from that, you are dead wrong. Those two changed the world and that's why they're great. Bill Russel is great because he changed the game with dominance.

But if you were to say "Who, all time, understands how the world works the best" Stephen Hawking would destroy many millenia of scientists. Its not even close because the previous era's of science's understanding was blatantly inferior to the ones after it.

Greatest does not mean achievement. If the question is 'who's the most achieved center' then BR is top 3 for sure. He's got 11 rings. But the question is who is the best at the game. Unfortunately for Newton I know his models are wrong, I know why relativity is better and I would own his ass at 'any' science fair in the world. If I grew up when he did I would not. But fact is I grew up now, am better educated then he is and am a better scientist then he was because my knowledge is better then his. Its that simple and the same logic applies to Russell. Except that I could never beat Russel one on one. I could probably beat Naismith to a pulp though, which is closer in time to Hawking/Netwon, so maybe it does hold true.

[indiefan23]

wth i never said that.

You kind of did. You're trying to say Russel is great and Shaq was not in comparison to him because Shaq got swept by Hakeem. Hakeem IS one of the top 3 centers of all time. If Russel had competition like Dream he would not have 11 rings. If he had to take on Dream's rockets he probably would not have any and this conversation would be moot. I mean, if any NBA championship team, or probably any NBA team in general, went back to the 60's they would go undefeated. The average height of centers in 1967 was 6'8". Yao is almost a foot taller then that average, which means there were probably some 6'5' guys Russel was destorying. Can you imagine what Yao would do to 6'5" centers? Can you imagine what Dwight's size, power and speed would do to them? Its just non-competition like this whole thread.

[indiefan23]

Shaq teams have noting to do with this. Get through your head. We are talking about there body of work. I don't care how he was acting because he is the only Center in the modern era with 4 rings. I do comprehend wat your saying. Your trying to downplay his accomplishments by saying the League was thrash ( at the C position ) when he won his titles. I was pointing out that he was always dominate and that he went through Duncan, drod, and MT to win the chip.

I somewhat agree with you but he didn't really dominate Duncan like you said. The Spurs killed LA one year and Duncan got hurt right before the playoffs. I'd say Shaq was lucky Hakeem got old too cuz the guy has a point: he could not handle Dream. No one could.

[Niquesports]

How? Good question.

The answer is because people like to pretend they have a clue about this game when they really don't.

Anyone who's watched ball for 15+ years can tell you that Bill Russell has a case for being the most overrated player of the last 50 years.

I can say that Bill Russell would be no better than Marcus Camby if he played in today's league.


I would say anyone that has only watched the game for less than 25 years has very little knowledge of the game Bill played and when i see people calling a GOAT that would have to rank him over Bill as most overrated. Name another player in any sport that was the central figuare on 11 title teams then call him a Marcus Camby.

[indiefan23]

Good choice. I'll travel back to about 200 BC and I'll teach what Jesus tought. And though I won't be able to replicate all his feats (miracles, etc), I'll bring today's technology to that era. That will be considered miraculous, anyway.

No machine needed... you can do it today. See Hubbard, L. Ron. ;0

[Niquesports]

What I compared was the difference between players in the 60's NBA and Jordan as the difference between 'me' and Jr. High kids.

I think its pretty accurate. We'd both dominate them because our skills were in such a different league. I beat a Jr. High kid 10-1 yesterday without trying. Jordan vs the average 60's player would be the same story.

As a side note, 'forcing someone left' WAS a used strategy in the 60's NBA. Now, that stops working at the HS level. That is to say, players at the HS level are way above the 60's era NBA players. HS Lebron would be league MVP and probably not lose a game in the 60's unless he got totally lazy. Are you really disputing this? Really?


This is the craziest silly way of looking at things. If Jordan grew up in the 50's under the same circumstances as Russ,Elgin oscar he would not have been the same player that is was in the 90's for the most part understanding racial issues and teams quota systmes Jordan may have just been another Harlem Globe Trotter.

[indiefan23]

Apparently highschool players from our era, can dunk on Russell

You seriously think Bron, Amare, Dwight and Kobe could NOT dunk on him? Get freaking real. Lebron averaged 25,6,6 in his first year out of HS. HS Bron would have easily been the MVP every season he played in the 60's. He was the same height as Russel except heavier. Stronger. Way faster. Way bigger hops. Could shoot and could guard EVERY single player except maybe Wilt/Kareem. And thats maybe.

[indiefan23]

This is the craziest silly way of looking at things. If Jordan grew up in the 50's under the same circumstances as Russ,Elgin oscar he would not have been the same player that is was in the 90's for the most part understanding racial issues and teams quota systmes Jordan may have just been another Harlem Globe Trotter.

Best player is a measure of skills and talents, not rings. No? Its obtuse to not think so. If two players play, the best player will typically win. If BR played Shaq in his prime he would never win.

Bill Russel was great because everyone else sucked in comparison to him. So did Jordan along the same logic. Except everyone who sucked in comparison was a career league MVP compared to their counterpart in the 60's. So you're just wrong.

[iamgine]

I don't think that's a very valid comparison. And aside from that, you are dead wrong. Those two changed the world and that's why they're great. Bill Russel is great because he changed the game with dominance.

But if you were to say "Who, all time, understands how the world works the best" Stephen Hawking would destroy many millenia of scientists. Its not even close because the previous era's of science's understanding was blatantly inferior to the ones after it.

Greatest does not mean achievement. If the question is 'who's the most achieved center' then BR is top 3 for sure. He's got 11 rings. But the question is who is the best at the game. Unfortunately for Newton I know his models are wrong, I know why relativity is better and I would own his ass at 'any' science fair in the world. If I grew up when he did I would not. But fact is I grew up now, am better educated then he is and am a better scientist then he was because my knowledge is better then his. Its that simple and the same logic applies to Russell. Except that I could never beat Russel one on one. I could probably beat Naismith to a pulp though, which is closer in time to Hawking/Netwon, so maybe it does hold true.
Changing the world is not achievement? Their achievement made them great.


Achievement does not only = rings. for example, Barkley/Malone has no ring but he had achieved a lot to be seen as one of the top.

Of course it's true.

[Niquesports]

You kind of did. You're trying to say Russel is great and Shaq was not in comparison to him because Shaq got swept by Hakeem. Hakeem IS one of the top 3 centers of all time. If Russel had competition like Dream he would not have 11 rings. If he had to take on Dream's rockets he probably would not have any and this conversation would be moot. I mean, if any NBA championship team, or probably any NBA team in general, went back to the 60's they would go undefeated. The average height of centers in 1967 was 6'8". Yao is almost a foot taller then that average, which means there were probably some 6'5' guys Russel was destorying. Can you imagine what Yao would do to 6'5" centers? Can you imagine what Dwight's size, power and speed would do to them? Its just non-competition like this whole thread.
IF BR only had competition like Dream he would have had 13 rings.How many HOF did the Rockerts have again compared to Russ Celtics ????????? THe only difference is back in the 60's the 6'5 centers had heart and would punk Yao like he gets in todays game but worst cause the refs wouldn't call it . LEt me see Dwight 's size speed and power reminds me of a guy name Wilt that Russ's teams always beat.

[Niquesports]

Best player is a measure of skills and talents, not rings. No? Its obtuse to not think so. Bill Russel was great because everyone else sucked in comparison to him. So did Jordan along the same logic. Except everyone who sucked in comparison was a career league MVP in the 60's. So you're just wrong.


Let me see Elgin,West,Oscar Wilt were all better than any player Jordan faced during his title runs so i guess these guys would be career league MVP's in the 90's also.

[Psileas]

I don't think that's a very valid comparison. And aside from that, you are dead wrong. Those two changed the world and that's why they're great. Bill Russel is great because he changed the game with dominance.

But if you were to say "Who, all time, understands how the world works the best" Stephen Hawking would destroy many millenia of scientists. Its not even close because the previous era's of science's understanding was blatantly inferior to the ones after it.

Greatest does not mean achievement. If the question is 'who's the most achieved center' then BR is top 3 for sure. He's got 11 rings. But the question is who is the best at the game. Unfortunately for Newton I know his models are wrong, I know why relativity is better and I would own his ass at 'any' science fair in the world. If I grew up when he did I would not. But fact is I grew up now, am better educated then he is and am a better scientist then he was because my knowledge is better then his. Its that simple and the same logic applies to Russell. Except that I could never beat Russel one on one. I could probably beat Naismith to a pulp though, which is closer in time to Hawking/Netwon, so maybe it does hold true.

Greatness DOES mean achievement. Achievement and contribution to evolution. There's never been any serious "who's the most achieved (whatever)". You'll almost nowhere see Newton being called "one of the most achieved scientists". Anyone is talking about greatness and mean achievements. Search about the greatest at any field with some history and you'll find people from all eras of the history of this field.

The think you're trying to argue with Newton and yourself does not equal greatness (or smartness), it is nothing more than taking advantage of your more advanced era. If things were so simple to define greatness, then

1) Dr Naismith and every inventor in general would have no place in their own inventions' history, since they invented them at their simplest forms. Obviously I (and most others) don't accept this logic. I'll take the innovator over the average copycat any day of the week. If you invent the first TV, you're an innovator. If you invent the 1,000,000th TV, you're nothing but another manufacturer.

2) the only people who will achieve the highest level of greatness are the people who will exist when technology is at its highest point in human history. If this was true, no-one with a high ego would care to make anything generally useful at their field, since they'd know beforehand that after a couple of generations (or even less) they won't be considered anything special and their greatness won't be recognised.

[Niquesports]

You seriously think Bron, Amare, Dwight and Kobe could NOT dunk on him? Get freaking real. Lebron averaged 25,6,6 in his first year out of HS. HS Bron would have easily been the MVP every season he played in the 60's. He was the same height as Russel except heavier. Stronger. Way faster. Way bigger hops. Could shoot and could guard EVERY single player except maybe Wilt/Kareem. And thats maybe.


Im sure so did many kids coming out of HS in the last 10 years but the biggest thing your missing and it shows in your lack of knowledge and understanding of the game he didnt have or nave have the basketball IQ or leadership Russ had which lead to 11 rings. When someone comes close to that then talkyou see real players of the game know its not "HOPS" height or strenght that makes a player its heart and game IQ.

[zay_24]

Centers I would take over Russel:

Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
Hakeen
Moses
Duncan
Bynum
Dwight
Ewing
Robinson
Yao
Al Jefferson
Alonzo
many more...

[Tainted Sword]

Russell can have all the rings he wants, I

[Psileas]

The average height of centers in 1967 was 6'8". Yao is almost a foot taller then that average, which means there were probably some 6'5' guys Russel was destorying. Can you imagine what Yao would do to 6'5" centers? Can you imagine what Dwight's size, power and speed would do to them? Its just non-competition like this whole thread.

I was more than 95% sure that you are among the ones who never did any height research about this era and you just reproduced this urban legend about "6'5 centers". Literally, this particular "school of thought" must have their own mystical, prohibited sources, because it's astonishing how many people of the same logic believe things that have been busted to no end by actual sources.

Myth, meet reality:

http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html

The average player height in '67 was 6'6. The only 6 players in the whole league who played (and only partially) the center position and were below 6'9 were the following:

Bob Ferry--6'8
George Wilson--6'8
Erwin Mueller--6'8
Bumper Tormohlen--6'8
Wayne Embry--6'8

Yes, no center below 6'8 and definitely no one even close to 6'5, as you'd hope to see.
Note also that not only weren't these players pure centers, but also that none of them played any significant role for their teams. All of them were either considered scrubs or past their primes.

[juju151111]

You kind of did. You're trying to say Russel is great and Shaq was not in comparison to him because Shaq got swept by Hakeem. Hakeem IS one of the top 3 centers of all time. If Russel had competition like Dream he would not have 11 rings. If he had to take on Dream's rockets he probably would not have any and this conversation would be moot. I mean, if any NBA championship team, or probably any NBA team in general, went back to the 60's they would go undefeated. The average height of centers in 1967 was 6'8". Yao is almost a foot taller then that average, which means there were probably some 6'5' guys Russel was destorying. Can you imagine what Yao would do to 6'5" centers? Can you imagine what Dwight's size, power and speed would do to them? Its just non-competition like this whole thread.
NO that was showtime quote, but my name came up above. I agree with you.

[juju151111]

This is the craziest silly way of looking at things. If Jordan grew up in the 50's under the same circumstances as Russ,Elgin oscar he would not have been the same player that is was in the 90's for the most part understanding racial issues and teams quota systmes Jordan may have just been another Harlem Globe Trotter.
Wrong MJ was already naturallu athletic from his birth. He would still have the same drive to win. MJ stats in the 60s would be so inflated its not even funny.

[juju151111]

Let me see Elgin,West,Oscar Wilt were all better than any player Jordan faced during his title runs so i guess these guys would be career league MVP's in the 90's also.
Elgin is better then Magic johnson,Karl malone?? hmm no. Wilt stats are inflated has hell. 50 ppg and 28rpg . That **** ain't happing today.

[juju151111]

Centers I would take over Russel:

Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
Hakeen
Moses
Duncan
Bynum
Dwight
Ewing
Robinson
Yao
Al Jefferson
Alonzo
many more...
:cheers: Finally someone understands. Bynum doesn't belong .

[L.Kizzle]

Centers I would take over Russel:

Wilt
Shaq
Kareem
Hakeen
Moses
Duncan
Bynum
Dwight
Ewing
Robinson
Yao
Al Jefferson
Alonzo
many more...
ok

[steve]

Wrong MJ was already naturallu athletic from his birth. He would still have the same drive to win. MJ stats in the 60s would be so inflated its not even funny.
Yeah, I heard that Jordan was so athletic from birth that his parents were getting offers to race him in Mexico.

[juju151111]

Yeah, I heard that Jordan was so athletic from birth that his parents were getting offers to race him in Mexico.
yep He was dunking at 5 years old.

[Mdog1]

11 rings is why he is one of the GOATs.

[Trash]

Alonzo Mourning > Bill Russell.

Russell isn't even top 7.

[Trash]

I own this board.

[Duncan21formvp]

How? Good question.

The answer is because people like to pretend they have a clue about this game when they really don't.

Anyone who's watched ball for 15+ years can tell you that Bill Russell has a case for being the most overrated player of the last 50 years.

I can say that Bill Russell would be no better than Marcus Camby if he played in today's league.
:wtf:

[iTruWarrior]

#1 in winning rings and winning

#2 in rebounds of all-time

[discconnected]

Ur crazy man, Wilt, Shaq, etc aren`t even close to being on Russells level.

What makes Bill Russell the TOP center of all-time.

Rebounding, Team Work, and dedication.

oh and 10 championships in 11 years...

[iTruWarrior]

Ur crazy man, Wilt, Shaq, etc aren`t even close to being on Russells level.

What makes Bill Russell the TOP center of all-time.

Rebounding, Team Work, and dedication.

oh and 10 championships in 11 years...
I agree but it was 11 championships in 13 years.

[Showtime]

Shaq teams have noting to do with this. Get through your head. We are talking about there body of work.

You are a moron if you can't comprehend how Shaq's attitude effects things on the court, and how he limited his BODY OF WORK. You seem to only want to talk about what they did, and I'm talking about the kind of players they were and their impact on a team. We are on two different levels, and because of this, I will no longer continue this discussion with you.

[indiefan23]

I would say anyone that has only watched the game for less than 25 years has very little knowledge of the game Bill played and when i see people calling a GOAT that would have to rank him over Bill as most overrated. Name another player in any sport that was the central figuare on 11 title teams then call him a Marcus Camby.

Ok, easy question. If Camby went back in time and played Russel, do you think he gets 20 boards? Or do you think Camby does?

[juju151111]

You are a moron if you can't comprehend how Shaq's attitude effects things on the court, and how he limited his BODY OF WORK. You seem to only want to talk about what they did, and I'm talking about the kind of players they were and their impact on a team. We are on two different levels, and because of this, I will no longer continue this discussion with you.
LOL I am taking about the type of players they were too. I am talking about who is better while your concerning your self with the amount of teams he played for. Who cares if he limited his body of work because he argued with kobe? Shaq still is the better player. Yes you should give up.

[indiefan23]

Changing the world is not achievement? Their achievement made them great.


Achievement does not only = rings. for example, Barkley/Malone has no ring but he had achieved a lot to be seen as one of the top.

Of course it's true.

Well, if the topic was about the top 3 centers to relatively dominate their own particular era then Russell is obviously on the top of my list. The problem is that is about the top (meaning most talented) players of all time at the 5, and Russell is not even in the top 10. You don't measure being the best by how many rings you have. And I don't count padded stats. Like it or not, Bill Russell's stats are padded by the weakness of his era and that's why he's plainly not the best. He's the best of his era maybe (though Wilt had no team, so prolly not), just not all time. The game he played is not even real basketball.

Which always cracks me up when they've got someone like BR in an NBA PR session with Shaq or Duncan and he's giving them tips and advice on how to play. Then that player respectfully makes some comment about how its so helpful to learn from one of the greatest of all time. Bill Russell may or may not know more about the game then I do, but I can tell you this, he didn't learn it from pro experience because he didn't play it.

1. He started playing 2 years after the shot clock was introduced. Teams/Coaches strategy was still based on holding/stalling the ball and 'not' scoring. Trying to score a lot of points was new and players really didn't know how to go about it. Teams and players constantly rushed shots and didn't really play withing much of an 'offense'.

2. The double team had not been 'invented'. And since players/teams/coaches were still learning how you go about scoring, how you go about playing defense was obviously even further behind as it had to wait for people to learn how to score lots of points. I've always wondered how BR is constantly called one of the best defenders in history when he played the weakest offensive players in history.

Artest can shut down Kobe half the time. Nash can shut down me 90% of the time. But Artest IS the better defender. Its just logic.

3. Players were small, nonathletic, and screw it, white. Not all white, but remember how a bunch of you have brought up quotas and racism in basketball and all that? Great for BR for overcoming. Its totally awesome! But the fact remains that this FURTHER REDUCED THE TALENT POOL! Its a great story but you're just restating another way BR's stats were padded.

4. Just watch the games. Go ahead, you tube any 50-60's era game and watch. Look at Big O highlights where the announcer is talking about him hitting shots under intense defense and acknowledge that we call those open shots in today's game.

If anyone thinks those Celtics win titles playing even a college team today you're out of your green mind. To be the best, in any era, you have to be the better player of anyone in that era. BR arguably was the best in his era. But when you say all-time its not his era anymore. Its all time so you have to do these little what ifs. And when you do, and you're honest, Rill Russell loses every one of them.

Its not his fault guys. Honest. He IS great. He was the starting point for how every center plays defense in this league and deserves, and gets, lots of props. Its fans like some people on this thread that are slagging his character trying to find rationalizations around the fact that he is just a way less talented player then those playing today. Ahead of his time but by 10 years, not 20, 30, 40 or 50.

Pioneers always face this. They start something, contribute to it's base, and then are overtaken. Watch Tony Hawk and tell me that Team Zepher is on his level. They're not. He owes something to the Z-Boys for starting it all but he is and forever will be the wildly more talented skateboarder. Same with ball.

I'm out.

[indiefan23]

IF BR only had competition like Dream he would have had 13 rings.How many HOF did the Rockerts have again compared to Russ Celtics ????????? THe only difference is back in the 60's the 6'5 centers had heart and would punk Yao like he gets in todays game but worst cause the refs wouldn't call it . LEt me see Dwight 's size speed and power reminds me of a guy name Wilt that Russ's teams always beat.

Wilt could not move like Dwight. I'd love to see BR 'try' to attempt any of the dunks/moves Dwight does. No effing way.

Wilt also played half a foot to a foot over nearly the entire league against watered down competition. His best 'skill' was being way taller and bigger then everyone else and had he had real competition would not have his gaudy numbers. He averaged 50 points because the lane was so small he could lean over the top where his defenders literally could not reach and drop it in the bucket.

[indiefan23]

I was more than 95% sure that you are among the ones who never did any height research about this era and you just reproduced this urban legend about "6'5 centers". Literally, this particular "school of thought" must have their own mystical, prohibited sources, because it's astonishing how many people of the same logic believe things that have been busted to no end by actual sources.

Myth, meet reality:

http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html

The average player height in '67 was 6'6. The only 6 players in the whole league who played (and only partially) the center position and were below 6'9 were the following:

Bob Ferry--6'8
George Wilson--6'8
Erwin Mueller--6'8
Bumper Tormohlen--6'8
Wayne Embry--6'8

Yes, no center below 6'8 and definitely no one even close to 6'5, as you'd hope to see.
Note also that not only weren't these players pure centers, but also that none of them played any significant role for their teams. All of them were either considered scrubs or past their primes.

Not sure how saying the average height is shorter then what I said it was helps you... except that Bill Russel started playing in 1956. And like, George Yardley led his team in scoring. And was their starting center. And was 6-5. He played against small dudes man. Just a fact.

[indiefan23]

You are a moron if you can't comprehend how Shaq's attitude effects things on the court, and how he limited his BODY OF WORK. You seem to only want to talk about what they did, and I'm talking about the kind of players they were and their impact on a team. We are on two different levels, and because of this, I will no longer continue this discussion with you.

Shaq took 3 separate teams built around him to the finals and won with two of them. He only missed the playoffs this year and his rookie season. I hated those Laker teams but you've got to give him credit. No one has done that and he is insanely dominant. He produces winning wherever he goes. The only reason people slam his attitude is because he's 1. dumb, but most athletes are so it must be 2. he's bloody well right about himself and it makes people jealous and angry with him.

Lots of players have been able to win. How many have been able to rebuild and win? I can't think of one, much less rebuild twice and win titles. I've only just considered this, but I think that puts him way closer to MJ then I would like to admit. His prime was like, 12 years, and that is crazy.

[Showtime]

LOL I am taking about the type of players they were too. I am talking about who is better while your concerning your self with the amount of teams he played for. Who cares if he limited his body of work because he argued with kobe? Shaq still is the better player. Yes you should give up.
If you don't care about how a player can impact his team (negatively or positively), and how that matters in regards to success and winning and legacy, then there's nothing more to discuss.


Shaq took 3 separate teams built around him to the finals and won with two of them. He only missed the playoffs this year and his rookie season. I hated those Laker teams but you've got to give him credit.

I'm not withholding credit. I'm simply pointing out why Russell was the better player.


No one has done that and he is insanely dominant. He produces winning wherever he goes. The only reason people slam his attitude is because he's 1. dumb, but most athletes are so it must be 2. he's bloody well right about himself and it makes people jealous and angry with him.

I slam his attitude because it prevented him from becoming possibly GOAT. I slam his attitude because despite his great success, it could have been much, much more, which is what Russell was able to do.


Lots of players have been able to win. How many have been able to rebuild and win? I can't think of one, much less rebuild twice and win titles. I've only just considered this, but I think that puts him way closer to MJ then I would like to admit. His prime was like, 12 years, and that is crazy.

Considering the time when he was actually winning titles, and the state of the post players of that time, it's no surprise that he was able to win. I'm not trying to discredit everything he did, but if you have a relatively healthy Shaq paired with a superstar perimeter player, in that time with virtually no competition up front, you are going to win. Who was Shaq's greatest opponent when he was winning titles? Mutombo. Again, I'm not saying Shaq is not a great player, but he wasn't winning championships before all the great centers were past their primes. He was a top center who was winning, but wasn't getting over the proverbial hump.

[Bush4Ever]

He produces winning wherever he goes.

Lots of players have been able to win. How many have been able to rebuild and win? I can't think of one, much less rebuild twice and win titles. I've only just considered this, but I think that puts him way closer to MJ then I would like to admit. His prime was like, 12 years, and that is crazy.

Since this thread is about Russell, I'd point out that the Celtics were ringless before his arrival, and tumbled off out of the playoffs entirely when he left.

I also think that we need to tease apart Shaq's "rebuilding". There is no question whatsoever that Shaq leads to winning to a non-trivial degree, but upon closer inspection....

A. The Magic missed the playoffs his rookie year, and only took off when Penny began to come into his own. Prior to Penny coming into his own, his tally was one missed playoff, and one playoff getting swept out of the first round.

B. The Lakers were a 53 win team before his arrivial. In the few years before Kobe, they won 5-7 games more over the course of the regular season, but flamed out towards the middle rounds of the playoffs. Not until Kobe came into his own did they really shoot forward.

C. Shaq (although on the downside of his career) has led the Suns to pretty much nothing, although I don't think that should really count against his legacy that much.


Now, I would fully admit that Kobe, Penny, and Wade's development was made MUCH easier because of Shaq, but the rebuilding--> title process was carried in part by the wings he played with.

[Horatio33]

Wilt avg something like 30 20 on him. He routinely outplayed him, but his team loss.

Lets say thats what wilt averaged that on russell. wilt averaged 50 and 25 so bill russell obviously had an effect to hold him 20 points under his average

[Horatio33]

Seriously, forcing a player left was a used defensive strategy then.


its a used defensive strategy now.

i saw a video of when the bulls beat the pistons in the 91 conf finals and the pistons assistant coach screaming at rodman on the last shot of a game saying "he (Jordan) likes to go right, he LIKES TO GO RIGHT!"

the coach was basically saying, send him left.

[Psileas]

Ok, easy question. If Camby went back in time and played Russel, do you think he gets 20 boards? Or do you think Camby does?

Since Russell could average 20+ boards against Wilt, who was light years ahead of Camby as a player, he sure as hell could do it against Camby.


Well, if the topic was about the top 3 centers to relatively dominate their own particular era then Russell is obviously on the top of my list. The problem is that is about the top (meaning most talented) players of all time at the 5, and Russell is not even in the top 10. You don't measure being the best by how many rings you have. And I don't count padded stats. Like it or not, Bill Russell's stats are padded by the weakness of his era and that's why he's plainly not the best. He's the best of his era maybe (though Wilt had no team, so prolly not), just not all time. The game he played is not even real basketball.

You're bubbling about "not true basketball" and "era weaknesses" and yet you're the exact same person who thought that the average center in '67 was 6'8 and that some centers were even 6'5. You were off. This tells me that you'll need much harder evidence to convince someone that the era was weak. If I just wanted to speculate without proving anything, I could easily say that Russell played in the strongest era ever.


Which always cracks me up when they've got someone like BR in an NBA PR session with Shaq or Duncan and he's giving them tips and advice on how to play. Then that player respectfully makes some comment about how its so helpful to learn from one of the greatest of all time. Bill Russell may or may not know more about the game then I do, but I can tell you this, he didn't learn it from pro experience because he didn't play it.

You didn't play it, either. So, you'd better not give advice to others, either.


1. He started playing 2 years after the shot clock was introduced. Teams/Coaches strategy was still based on holding/stalling the ball and 'not' scoring. Trying to score a lot of points was new and players really didn't know how to go about it. Teams and players constantly rushed shots and didn't really play withing much of an 'offense'.

The league average was almost 100 ppg before Russell even came to the league. BTW, what kind of "advantage" do you think this gave to Russell, anyway? Whatever your reason, Russell was dominant up to '69, when teams not only had adjusted to the shot clock, but they had already established scoring records in the early 60's and had already started bringing their pace down in the late 60's.
And, like I said before, going by the logic that "basketball with today's rules = the only real basketball", let's also discredit all eras up to the late 80's, as well, since the 3-pointer was either not existant or not widely used. Let's even discredit the 90's, for still disallowing zones, as well as the whole history of NCAA, which still uses the 35'' clock (and didn't even use a shot clock up to the 80's, iirc).


2. The double team had not been 'invented'. And since players/teams/coaches were still learning how you go about scoring, how you go about playing defense was obviously even further behind as it had to wait for people to learn how to score lots of points. I've always wondered how BR is constantly called one of the best defenders in history when he played the weakest offensive players in history.

Artest can shut down Kobe half the time. Nash can shut down me 90% of the time. But Artest IS the better defender. Its just logic.

Weakest offensive players in history like Wilt, Bellamy, Willis Reed or blocking the path for players like Baylor, Oscar and West? It's also funny how teams scored a lot in the early 60's and you think that the era's stats were inflated, yet supposedly played the "weakest offensive players in history".


3. Players were small, nonathletic, and screw it, white. Not all white, but remember how a bunch of you have brought up quotas and racism in basketball and all that? Great for BR for overcoming. Its totally awesome! But the fact remains that this FURTHER REDUCED THE TALENT POOL! Its a great story but you're just restating another way BR's stats were padded.

Sorry, Russell was dominant from '57 to '69, when black players had increased considerably. Not to mention that in the 60's, a lot of these mediocre white players weren't given big minutes of play.


4. Just watch the games. Go ahead, you tube any 50-60's era game and watch. Look at Big O highlights where the announcer is talking about him hitting shots under intense defense and acknowledge that we call those open shots in today's game.

I've also seen players like Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and LeBron taking a lot of open shots, I see rules bending in order to favor superstar guards' scoring, I see a certain player being called "D-Whistle", I've seen Kobe dismantling the Raptors in 2006 and, despite this, the Raptors using one player on him at almost every single possession, etc. You saw these things too, but you convincingly ignored them, because you have accepted beforehand that "your era"="strong era" and "previous eras"="weak", so whatever happens now is, in your mind, "justified".


If anyone thinks those Celtics win titles playing even a college team today you're out of your green mind. To be the best, in any era, you have to be the better player of anyone in that era. BR arguably was the best in his era. But when you say all-time its not his era anymore. Its all time so you have to do these little what ifs. And when you do, and you're honest, Rill Russell loses every one of them.

When we're talking about "all-time", there's a certain thing called "era adjustment". No-one is gullible enough to assume, not only that there can be something called "traveling in time", but also that someone traveling in time wouldn't do anything to adjust in the new era. That's as gullible as believing that 60's stats are the exact equivalent to 2000's stats. And no, a college team doesn't beat the Celtics.



Its not his fault guys. Honest. He IS great. He was the starting point for how every center plays defense in this league and deserves, and gets, lots of props. Its fans like some people on this thread that are slagging his character trying to find rationalizations around the fact that he is just a way less talented player then those playing today. Ahead of his time but by 10 years, not 20, 30, 40 or 50.

If he was ahead of his time only by 10 years, how come he dominated throughout his whole career, which spanned more than 1 decade?


Wilt could not move like Dwight. I'd love to see BR 'try' to attempt any of the dunks/moves Dwight does. No effing way.

Lol, yeah, putting a Superman cap and making a spectacular layup (which got 50's!) is the ultimate evidence of athleticism. Let's see Howard compete at a nearly Olympic level as a high jump athlete like Russell did. As for Howard's "moves", that's ironic. Howard still has zero range outside 10 feet and his trademark move is, hmmm, the dunk...Keep Howard at 10 feet from the basket and you've got a huge advantage.
Evidence at http://www.nba.com/hotspots/

Let's also see Howard compete at 100 m, 200 m, 400 m, long jumping, high jumping and putting the shot as a high schooler, armwrestle some of the strongest men of his era, bench press 500 lbs, dunk from the FT line, dunk at 12 feet, play competitively volleyball at 40, run marathons and bench press 465 at 60, like Wilt did, then we can talk.

And here's a sample of how Wilt could move, and with 50's technology, nutrition and medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA&feature=channel_page

I'll take him over Howard.

[Psileas]

Not sure how saying the average height is shorter then what I said it was helps you... except that Bill Russel started playing in 1956. And like, George Yardley led his team in scoring. And was their starting center. And was 6-5. He played against small dudes man. Just a fact.

Are you serious? You said that the average height of the centers of '67 was 6'8 and also that there were some 6'5 ones. I said (and showed) that only the 5 shortest (kind of) centers in the league were 6'8 and all the others were taller. I did exactly the opposite of what you told.
And please, stop talking about things you don't know. The Pistons' starting center, even at Russell's rookie season, was Larry Foust, who was 6'9 barefoot. Yardley was as much a center as Durant or Stojakovic are.

[Bush4Ever]

I would also point out that the way height was measured was different in the 60s. In the 60s, measurement was taken without shoes on while today it is taken with shoes on, which overall can probably account for a difference of two inches in favor of the current era.

[indiefan23]

its a used defensive strategy now.

i saw a video of when the bulls beat the pistons in the 91 conf finals and the pistons assistant coach screaming at rodman on the last shot of a game saying "he (Jordan) likes to go right, he LIKES TO GO RIGHT!"

the coach was basically saying, send him left.

Oh my god. That's ridiculous. That was telling them to anticipate him going right more then left so be ready for it.

The report back then read CAN'T go left. Forcing a player left will hurt a player's offense in Jr. High because at that level players can't really play and are still learning how to dribble. It stops making any significant difference after that.

At the pro level anyone who's job it is to handle the ball can drive left or right. "Forcing them left" means over playing the offensive player's dominant side and makes your defense weaker because you are out of position to stay in front of them. If you 'forced Jordan left' he would cross you over and blow by you for a easy lay in or enormous dunk on your head. Jordan made posters out of people who forced him left.

[Cangri]

IMO he really isn't on the level of guys like Shaq or Kareem in a h2h basis. But his accomplishments can't be ignored. ATG isn't just about the skillset, it's also about what did you accomplished on your own era.

[juju151111]

If you don't care about how a player can impact his team (negatively or positively), and how that matters in regards to success and winning and legacy, then there's nothing more to discuss.



I'm not withholding credit. I'm simply pointing out why Russell was the better player.



I slam his attitude because it prevented him from becoming possibly GOAT. I slam his attitude because despite his great success, it could have been much, much more, which is what Russell was able to do.



Considering the time when he was actually winning titles, and the state of the post players of that time, it's no surprise that he was able to win. I'm not trying to discredit everything he did, but if you have a relatively healthy Shaq paired with a superstar perimeter player, in that time with virtually no competition up front, you are going to win. Who was Shaq's greatest opponent when he was winning titles? Mutombo. Again, I'm not saying Shaq is not a great player, but he wasn't winning championships before all the great centers were past their primes. He was a top center who was winning, but wasn't getting over the proverbial hump.
I am talking about who is better not how much rings they got. Shaq affected his team positively anyways.The only Center who stopped him (if you call avging 28ppg on58% stopping) was The Dream. The rest was MJ doing not Ewing,rod etc..

[indiefan23]

Prepare for ownage.


A. The Magic missed the playoffs his rookie year, and only took off when Penny began to come into his own. Prior to Penny coming into his own, his tally was one missed playoff, and one playoff getting swept out of the first round.

Before Shaq arrived the Magic won 21 games. Shaq's rookie year he had 24 points and 14 boards a game and 3.5 blocks. It got them to 500. The east was stonger then the west at this point remember. Their offense went from 25'th out of 27 to 13'th. Their defense went from 25'th to 11'th. Yea, they lost in the first round by it was by the Pacers who were the best team in the East. They narrowly lost the east finals to NYC in a 7 game series. Penny played that year BTW, you're forgetting. They won 50 games with Shaq going for 30/13/3.

The next year Orlando did great and made the finals. Shaq got done by Dream because good as Shaq was Dream was the best player in the world short of a retired Jordan and playing center better then anyone had ever played it in history. Now, while its true that this coincides with Penny doing better cuz it did. But its not why. Shaq came into his own, got his turnovers down and started to dominate. Thats why when Shaq was outplayed in the finals they lost. I'd also say that it coincided with finally putting a decent 4 to play with Shaq in Horace Grant.


B. The Lakers were a 53 win team before his arrivial. In the few years before Kobe, they won 5-7 games more over the course of the regular season, but flamed out towards the middle rounds of the playoffs. Not until Kobe came into his own did they really shoot forward.


Please. The Laker's were Shaq's team. They won because Shaq could get them past the west powers. With an average center Webber, Sabonis and Sheed would have pulverized the Lakers. Kobe scored points on that team because he consistently had open lanes as he was playing off shaq's double teams.



C. Shaq (although on the downside of his career) has led the Suns to pretty much nothing, although I don't think that should really count against his legacy that much.


D. Shaq goes to Miami and should have made the finals one year but Wade got hurt in game 6 of the east finals. Then won a title the next year.


Now, I would fully admit that Kobe, Penny, and Wade's development was made MUCH easier because of Shaq, but the rebuilding--> title process was carried in part by the wings he played with.

The wings were built around Shaq. You could put any decent 2 guard around Shaq and he would do great. They did the same thing in Houston around Dream and won 2 straight. Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you don't think those teams were built around Shaq. Without him all Penny's stats went down and he did nothing but first round exits.

Shaq went to LA, had another team built around him with him being the unquestioned focus and the next year lost to the best team in the west and 2'nd best in the NBA, the Jazz. Then made the west finals. 4 years after showing up he made the finals with his 2'nd team.

Whats Kobe done without Shaq too? Squat, thats what. Kobe missed the playoffs and got booted in the first round a few times because he just didn't know how to win without big. He got Pau and made the finals but then lost again because Pau ain't Shaq and couldn't overwhelm the celtics inside. Without the post dominance to draw the defense in, Kobe was left on the outside jacking forced 3's.

The lakers era when they won rings was one dominated totally by bigs. These are just facts about what happened which should be accepted.

[indiefan23]

Since Russell could average 20+ boards against Wilt, who was light years ahead of Camby as a player, he sure as hell could do it against Camby.

He was light years ahead of Marcus Camby? Marcus Camby owns the paint against players like Dwayne Wade every night. You show me one Wilt rejection against a d-wade type move and I'll give you my salary. Wilt's stats are way ahead of Camby's but thats because they are padded against guards who could barely dribble and Bill Russell even more so. I'm 6'2" tall and with my knowledge/skills I could have played in pro ball in BR's era. I was cut from my small town Canadian highschool team. Think about it.


You're bubbling about "not true basketball" and "era weaknesses" and yet you're the exact same person who thought that the average center in '67 was 6'8 and that some centers were even 6'5. You were off. This tells me that you'll need much harder evidence to convince someone that the era was weak. If I just wanted to speculate without proving anything, I could easily say that Russell played in the strongest era ever.

Uh, yea, I estimated. Kill me. 1. the actual average height was lower, 6'6" so I'm not sure what your point is. The pool of centers were even smaller and weaker then I wildly imagined? 2. I said there were 6'5" centers in Russell's era. And there were. The starting center of the fort wayne pistons was 6'5" and scored 20 points a game. I checked the you know, 8 or so teams playing at that time, and they mostly ranged from 6'5" to 6'9". There might have been one guy who was 6'10. I think the game is different when your guards are 6'9", have 44 inch verticals, can dunk and know how to cross over, don't you think? I mean, do I 'really' have to prove this to you with stats? You could say he played in the strongest era but we both know you're wrong. We both know my statement that it was the weakest era of basketball in the shot clock era.


You didn't play it, either. So, you'd better not give advice to others, either.

None of us play pro ball dude. You don't have to play in the 50's and 60's to know it was weak. But know what? I have played a proper zone defense. And I have executed a pick and roll. And when Russell played he hadn't. If I time machined back I could be the best coach in the world and its just fact. God, they didn't even set screens for Jerry West. How can you compare these two times?


The league average was almost 100 ppg before Russell even came to the league. BTW, what kind of "advantage" do you think this gave to Russell, anyway? Whatever your reason, Russell was dominant up to '69, when teams not only had adjusted to the shot clock, but they had already established scoring records in the early 60's and had already started bringing their pace down in the late 60's.
And, like I said before, going by the logic that "basketball with today's rules = the only real basketball", let's also discredit all eras up to the late 80's, as well, since the 3-pointer was either not existant or not widely used.

I do discredit them. The 3 opens and spaces the floor creating a wildly diverse array of strategy. It reduces the effectiveness of size in the game because a good shooter can score more from outside nullifying the size advantage inside. The rules today make it easier then ever for small players to score making it harder then ever for centers to defend them even making a rule that they have to move out of the key after 3 seconds on defense.

Having to guard the shooters far away from the hoop spreads defenses out creating opens lanes making it easier to score on bigger players and harder for bigs position themselves to successfully grab rebounds and block shots. This is why centers before the 3-point line all have PADDED STATS.


Let's even discredit the 90's, for still disallowing zones, as well as the whole history of NCAA, which still uses the 35'' clock (and didn't even use a shot clock up to the 80's, iirc).

I'm with you on the NCAA. But in the 90's there were zone defenses. Don't be silly. Illegal defense was rarely called and it didn't prevent you from playing all sorts of zone... matchup zone was mostly totally okay for instance. The rule didn't get rid of double or triple teams, traps or pressure, and was eventually erased when the NBA admitted Illegal Defense was a phantom rule and didn't really change the game much anyway.


Weakest offensive players in history like Wilt, Bellamy, Willis Reed or blocking the path for players like Baylor, Oscar and West? It's also funny how teams scored a lot in the early 60's and you think that the era's stats were inflated, yet supposedly played the "weakest offensive players in history".

Watch ESPN classic and watch Jerry West dribble in the finals. That was the finals. Now, those players you mentioned, they are mostly 70's players or overlapped a little and then their careers took off in the 70's. That is not BR's era. BR played just after they invented the shot clock.

The 70's era however might have been even weaker. Its hard to say. While players WERE learning how to jump, dribble and shoot pretty well by then the league over the course of 10 years 66-76 went from 9 teams to 22. That's like 2.5 times the number of players drastically watering down the talent in the league. People knew it, its why the NBA almost folded. Then Magic and Bird came. Things looked good. Then the 83 draft happened injecting a crop of players more talented then anything anyone had ever seen pre-sometime-in-the-70's. Athletically they could do things no one could do before and the league took off in a revolution.


Sorry, Russell was dominant from '57 to '69, when black players had increased considerably. Not to mention that in the 60's, a lot of these mediocre white players weren't given big minutes of play.

Heh, yea, and racism is over cuz Obama is elected. It was still weak.


I've also seen players like Jordan and Magic and Bird and Kobe and LeBron taking a lot of open shots, I see rules bending in order to favor superstar guards' scoring, I see a certain player being called "D-Whistle", I've seen Kobe dismantling the Raptors in 2006 and, despite this, the Raptors using one player on him at almost every single possession, etc. You saw these things too, but you convincingly ignored them, because you have accepted beforehand that "your era"="strong era" and "previous eras"="weak", so whatever happens now is, in your mind, "justified".

Somewhat, but notice something? Everything you mentioned makes it easier for guards and subsequently harder for bigs. It doesn't really matter though because players today can jump 43 inches in the air from just inside the free throw line and tomahawk the ball down on a 6'9" guy's head and players in the 50's and 60's really could not. Players today can literally jump OVER Bill Russell with ease to score, much less, block his shots and grab his boards.


When we're talking about "all-time", there's a certain thing called "era adjustment". No-one is gullible enough to assume, not only that there can be something called "traveling in time", but also that someone traveling in time wouldn't do anything to adjust in the new era. That's as gullible as believing that 60's stats are the exact equivalent to 2000's stats. And no, a college team doesn't beat the Celtics.

Come ON! You think the Celtics could have handled the Fab Five? Or the Gators?

Noah - 6/11
Horford - 6/10
Brewer - 6/9
Speights 6/10

Half the players on the Gators were taller and bigger then Russell. You think because of team leadership and toughness he can stop that much size when every one of them can jump higher and run faster then he can?


Lol, yeah, putting a Superman cap and making a spectacular layup (which got 50's!) is the ultimate evidence of athleticism.

He jumped from the free throw line and was so high he could throw it down through the hoop. His chest was at the rim. BR could never do that in his lilfe. Other then that he threw it up off the back of the backboard, caught it and reverse windmilled it while looking through the glass at him dunking. Or how about his dunk off theside of the backbaord last year? Or I don't know, do youthink Russel can dunk on a 12' rim with total ease?


Let's see Howard compete at a nearly Olympic level as a high jump athlete like Russell did.

Umm... okay... Howard a 7 feet has a 40 inch vertical. I'm pretty sure he would make out okay if he slimmed off the nearly 40 pounds he has on Russell and competed.


Let's also see Howard compete at 100 m, 200 m, 400 m, long jumping, high jumping and putting the shot as a high schooler, armwrestle some of the strongest men of his era, bench press 500 lbs dunk from the FT line, dunk at 12 feet, play competitively volleyball at 40, run marathons and bench press 465 at 60, like Wilt did, then we can talk.

Uh, well, we are talking about BR, and we are talking about 'basketball'. I mean, are you really trying to convince me a ball player is great because he can arm wrestle?

Did you not realize that two of the things you've listed Dwight Howard did in dunk contests? You even slammed him dunking from the foul line earlier in your post and Dwight hit 12' like it was cake. I'm pretty sure Howard's 40 inch verticle


And here's a sample of how Wilt could move, and with 50's technology, nutrition and medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA&feature=channel_page

I'll take him over Howard.

Seriously, against weak competition. Against athleates today Wilt would not beat the guards down the floor. I mean, if Howard trained for those sports I'm sure he could do well. He's a freakishly talented athlete.

Either way, Wilt is still not that great. The world record is like, 8.1 feet, which is almsot like a foot and a half over 6/6. The record shut put is like, 20 feet more then he threw. The record long jump is almost 10 feet more then his longest. God, even women have out performed him today so I'm not sure why you think nothing has changed. Wilt was great, ahead of his time, but because of that the game was way, way too easy for him. He doesn't have 50/20's in today's NBA and he didn't once they changed the rule taht didn't anticipate a player being so tall they could just drop it in the hoop or swat every shot onit's way down.

He was dominant but he didn't have anyone to face him. I mean, come on,look at this thread. He got owned by a guy who was 215 and 6'9". It shows you something.

[indiefan23]

Here is the correct answer:

He's not.

But he is deserving of so much respect that sensationalists get it twisted.

Wow! What honesty. Exactly, Bill Russell is not top 3 at all, and probably not top 10. But he pioneered the game so when he gets old he gets his props. The same way Jordan once said that he couldn't hang with the Dr. or Big O when he would have gutted their brains for breakfast. Its respect which I'm cool with Russell getting. I thought the NBA naming finals MVP after him was just ultra classy. Why not... did you see the guy when he interviewed Duncan? He was almost crying I think.

[Niquesports]

Best player is a measure of skills and talents, not rings. No? Its obtuse to not think so. If two players play, the best player will typically win. If BR played Shaq in his prime he would never win.

Bill Russel was great because everyone else sucked in comparison to him. So did Jordan along the same logic. Except everyone who sucked in comparison was a career league MVP compared to their counterpart in the 60's. So you're just wrong.


You couldn't be futher wrong. Russ played Wilt many times and most would say Wilt was the more "talented" player however Russ won most of the time leading his team with leadership and basketball IQ over stats IF Shaq had the basketball IQ ,comitment to winning and leadership Russ had he would have at least 10 rings too bad those are the areas Shaq suffers.

[Niquesports]

Wilt could not move like Dwight. I'd love to see BR 'try' to attempt any of the dunks/moves Dwight does. No effing way.

Wilt also played half a foot to a foot over nearly the entire league against watered down competition. His best 'skill' was being way taller and bigger then everyone else and had he had real competition would not have his gaudy numbers. He averaged 50 points because the lane was so small he could lean over the top where his defenders literally could not reach and drop it in the bucket.


This shows your lack of knowledge of Basketball!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOu say Wilt couldn't do the dunk moves that Dwight can neither can larry Bird or Magic but Id take both over Dwight and Nate Robinson or any other "DUNKER" you want to name. There was not one 6'2 center in the game in the 60's you problly could not name 3 without looking it up that played against Russ.I guess thats why Kobe and LBJ and Wade have there gaudy numbers if you touch them a foul is called.

[Psileas]

He was light years ahead of Marcus Camby? Marcus Camby owns the paint against players like Dwayne Wade every night. You show me one Wilt rejection against a d-wade type move and I'll give you my salary. Wilt's stats are way ahead of Camby's but thats because they are padded against guards who could barely dribble and Bill Russell even more so.

You want Wade? I'll give you Gus Johnson:

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html


"The greatest play I've ever seen was one of the last games of the 1966-67 season and were playing Baltimore. We [Philadelphia] were going for the best record in NBA history. There was a play earlier in the game where Gus Johnson had dunked one over Wilt. Gus was a very strong player. I weighed 220 pounds, and with one hand Gus could push me out of the lane. The man was a physical specimen [6-foot-6, 230 pounds], all muscle. He loved to dunk and was a very colorful player. When he slammed it on Wilt, he really threw it down, and you could tell that Wilt didn't like it one bit.
Later in the game, Gus was out on the fast break, and the only man between him and the basket was Wilt. He was goin to dunk on Wilt--again. Gus cupped the ball and took off--he had a perfect angle for a slam. Wilt went up and with one hand he grabbed the ball--cleanly! Then he took the ball and shoved it right back into Gus, drilling Gus into the floor with the basketball.
Gus was flattened and they carried him out. It turned out that Gus Johnson was the only player in NBA history to suffer a dislocated shoulder from a blocked shot."

BTW, your (let's say better) opposition isn't an indicator that you're better as well, as long as you don't dominate at the same degree. And Camby's dominance doesn't even approach Wilt's.


I'm 6'2" tall and with my knowledge/skills I could have played in pro ball in BR's era. I was cut from my small town Canadian highschool team. Think about it.

And, like I said, if I took your wonderous but non-existant time machine, I'd invent basketball before Naismith, and at its present form. So, I guess this makes me greater than Naismith.
Too bad people grow up in eras and don't get transported in time...



Uh, yea, I estimated. Kill me. 1. the actual average height was lower, 6'6" so I'm not sure what your point is. The pool of centers were even smaller and weaker then I wildly imagined? 2. I said there were 6'5" centers in Russell's era. And there were. The starting center of the fort wayne pistons was 6'5" and scored 20 points a game. I checked the you know, 8 or so teams playing at that time, and they mostly ranged from 6'5" to 6'9". There might have been one guy who was 6'10. I think the game is different when your guards are 6'9", have 44 inch verticals, can dunk and know how to cross over, don't you think? I mean, do I 'really' have to prove this to you with stats? You could say he played in the strongest era but we both know you're wrong. We both know my statement that it was the weakest era of basketball in the shot clock era.

1. You estimated wrong. All people with your type of thinking estimate wrong. That's not a coincidence.
2. There was not a single 6'5 center in Russell's era (let alone many) and I challenge you to find these links you're talking about. Even the oldest Pistons squad in Russell's era started with Larry Foust, who was 6'9. The only Piston who averaged 20+ ppg was George Yardley and he wasn't anything close to a center. He was a forward and even played guard for a while.
3. How many real guards today are 6'9? Zero. The tallest players who sometimes play as guards are Durant, Diaw and Stojakovic, and none of them is a pure guard.
4. Crossing over (and a lot of today's dribbling) is useless in the 60's, because it's considered palming violation. Great dribbling is a tool, but it's overrated, anyway. Most And-1 guards are crazy dribblers and great athletes, but the possibilities of most of them for a career at a good league would be thin. Put an And-1 team against a mediocre Euroleague team and most often they'll get crushed. Pete Maravich was a great dribbler and showman by all standards, who could do all the things modern PG's do, plus he was pretty fast. Yet, in the early 70's, old, slowed down Jerry West was still considered better as a player, not to mention that Maravich was disliked for being a "hot dog" guy. You know, the players that now youngsters admire for their flash and try to copy were considered an example for avoidance back then. For this type of players, you can thank both Pistol and the ABA, which gave more basis to spectacle and dunking, without being a better league than the "traditional" and "fundamental" NBA.
5. Today's players have more athletic abilities, it's no secret, but it's no wonder, either. Better training and nutrition. The general improvement of players is based more on coaches, doctors, trainers and DVD sellers than the natural talent of the players themselves.


None of us play pro ball dude. You don't have to play in the 50's and 60's to know it was weak. But know what? I have played a proper zone defense. And I have executed a pick and roll. And when Russell played he hadn't. If I time machined back I could be the best coach in the world and its just fact. God, they didn't even set screens for Jerry West. How can you compare these two times?

If think think that Russell never faced a zone (which was very common in the NCAA) or that the pick and roll was non-existant (I won't even mention screens), you probably saw as much 60's basketball as BULLS did: A few Youtube shorts here and there. Pick and roll is among the oldest plays in basketball. Screens? You should ask Wes Unseld and Wilt Chamberlain (West's contemporaries) if they knew what a screen was. That would be something like asking Dwight Howard if he knows what a rebound is.


I do discredit them. The 3 opens and spaces the floor creating a wildly diverse array of strategy. It reduces the effectiveness of size in the game because a good shooter can score more from outside nullifying the size advantage inside. The rules today make it easier then ever for small players to score making it harder then ever for centers to defend them even making a rule that they have to move out of the key after 3 seconds on defense.

Having to guard the shooters far away from the hoop spreads defenses out creating opens lanes making it easier to score on bigger players and harder for bigs position themselves to successfully grab rebounds and block shots. This is why centers before the 3-point line all have PADDED STATS.

The first time all these rules were at force together was in like 2005. So, you'll have to discredit all the centers' stats up to then.
However, some of the benefits of the 3-pointer also benefit centers instead of the opposite. Kicking the ball outside, establishing position more easily, being double-teammed less often and having less opposition around you to fight for rebounds are things that helped centers after the 80's pad their numbers, as well.


Watch ESPN classic and watch Jerry West dribble in the finals. That was the finals. Now, those players you mentioned, they are mostly 70's players or overlapped a little and then their careers took off in the 70's. That is not BR's era. BR played just after they invented the shot clock.

None of the players I had mentioned was mainly a 70's player. Willis Reed was the youngest and he retired in '74.
Watch the 80's Finals between the Celtics and Lakers and look at Dennis Johnson. Then compare him to Jerry West's dribbling and speed at 4:30-4:40 here and tell me with a straight face that West would have a problem playing while DJ didn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqoLCRQq55Y


The 70's era however might have been even weaker. Its hard to say. While players WERE learning how to jump, dribble and shoot pretty well by then the league over the course of 10 years 66-76 went from 9 teams to 22. That's like 2.5 times the number of players drastically watering down the talent in the league. People knew it, its why the NBA almost folded. Then Magic and Bird came. Things looked good. Then the 83 draft happened injecting a crop of players more talented then anything anyone had ever seen pre-sometime-in-the-70's. Athletically they could do things no one could do before and the league took off in a revolution.

Magic and Bird were two all-time greats who helped raising the already increasing ratings and attendances. In the late 70's, general interest went a bit down, mainly because the best teams were teams that not a lot of fans cared about, much like the seasons when the Spurs were winning titles. The supposed danger of folding is an overexaggerated story that was cultivated by some whowanted to make a point of how important Magic and Bird were. Every time an all-time great leaves the game, we're hearing the same story. This trick had been used since the earlier days of the NBA, then
came Magic-Bird, whose retirements led people to say that the NBA will never live more glory days, then the 2 retirements of Jordan again made people say that the NBA was in high danger, now the future but not very distant retirement of Shaq makes already some say that the NBA will never be the same. Yet, the NBA always manages to survive.
You said the interest was drastically going down? The ratings of the '77 Finals (the first I know we have data about) were actually higher even than the ratings of the '84 Finals (and all the previous ones). The ratings of the NBA Finals of '80 and '81 weren't better than the ratings of '78 and '79. You want attentances? Since the early 60's, they had constantly been increasing, without the help of Magic and Bird.
As for the draft of '83, it was a typical draft which inserted some good/great players, like Drexler, Sampson, Scott and some flops. Overall, it was nothing really special. The '84 draft was great, but it's well-known that some drafts are good, some not so, some were great and some sucked. Every era had drafts from all categories.

[Psileas]

Heh, yea, and racism is over cuz Obama is elected. It was still weak.

So, we have to wait till the league gets to be 100% black? Because then, it's still weak. As a matter of fact, there were/are a lot of white players who can play basketball at a very high level. Some of them don't even play in the NBA.


Somewhat, but notice something? Everything you mentioned makes it easier for guards and subsequently harder for bigs. It doesn't really matter though because players today can jump 43 inches in the air from just inside the free throw line and tomahawk the ball down on a 6'9" guy's head and players in the 50's and 60's really could not. Players today can literally jump OVER Bill Russell with ease to score, much less, block his shots and grab his boards.

The thing you're doing wrong is that you only mention the plays that would make the highlight reels. As athletic as today's players are, I still didn't see many of them jumping over and dunking on even a 37-year old, post surgery, Alonzo Mourning or on 40-year old Mutombo. I also don't see the old and unathletic players of the Spurs getting dominated and dunked on by much more athletic teams like the Nuggets and the Blazers, neither did the peripheral players of the '08 Celtics (most of which were veterans and overall not very athletic) get humiliated by beasts like LeBron and Kobe. Kirk Hinrich is maybe one of the least athletic players of the league, yet Wade never wants to face him on defense. And to give a slighly older example, how athletic was Dumars when he was guarding as well as almost anyone super athletes like Jordan and Drexler?


Come ON! You think the Celtics could have handled the Fab Five? Or the Gators?

Noah - 6/11
Horford - 6/10
Brewer - 6/9
Speights 6/10

Half the players on the Gators were taller and bigger then Russell. You think because of team leadership and toughness he can stop that much size when every one of them can jump higher and run faster then he can?

There were many teams in Russell's era taller than the Celtics. Do you think that made a difference to them? The '64 Warriors had Wilt at 7'1 barefoot and Nate Thurmond at 6'11 together. Yes, this guy on the right (http://images.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unc.edu/~bretd/natethurmond1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.unc.edu/~bretd/quicktalkbignate.htm&usg=__q_Ht6Go4a3VjXlH6mdHPXF-4QvE=&h=306&w=210&sz=89&hl=el&start=8&um=1&tbnid=4Wf6Rz0dY4pEtM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnate%2Bthurmond%26hl%3Del%26sa%3DN%26 um%3D1) wasn't even a center in that team. Do you know what happened in the Finals? 4-1 happened.


He jumped from the free throw line and was so high he could throw it down through the hoop. His chest was at the rim. BR could never do that in his lilfe. Other then that he threw it up off the back of the backboard, caught it and reverse windmilled it while looking through the glass at him dunking. Or how about his dunk off theside of the backbaord last year? Or I don't know, do youthink Russel can dunk on a 12' rim with total ease?

Jumped from the FT line? Chest at the rim? Dunked at 12'? Where did you see all these fantasies?

Show me one pic or video which shows these things. Here, I'll help you a bit:

http://images.google.gr/images?hl=el&q=dwight%20howard%20dunk&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Also, when was it confirmed by any trusted source that the basket was at 12 feet? Because it sure as hell didn't seem to be that high. Please. Just a couple of seasons earlier he jumped with full force to stick a sticker at 12'6 and now you think that he managed to easily reach almost that high with a clearly lighter jump and with both his hands extended (and not even fully extended)?


Umm... okay... Howard a 7 feet has a 40 inch vertical. I'm pretty sure he would make out okay if he slimmed off the nearly 40 pounds he has on Russell and competed.

Maybe, if he had the technique needed for a sport like high jumping. I never denied that Howard is really athletic. However, he's not 7 feet tall.


Uh, well, we are talking about BR, and we are talking about 'basketball'. I mean, are you really trying to convince me a ball player is great because he can arm wrestle?

Did you not realize that two of the things you've listed Dwight Howard did in dunk contests? You even slammed him dunking from the foul line earlier in your post and Dwight hit 12' like it was cake. I'm pretty sure Howard's 40 inch verticle

Yes, we're talking about basketball, but for some reason you still mention slam dunk contests (which have no position in an actual basketball game) and you put a lot of stock in pure athleticism. Arm strength is a part of it. Maybe not the most important one, but it's still one.


Either way, Wilt is still not that great. The world record is like, 8.1 feet, which is almsot like a foot and a half over 6/6. The record shut put is like, 20 feet more then he threw. The record long jump is almost 10 feet more then his longest. God, even women have out performed him today so I'm not sure why you think nothing has changed.

Lol, you're comparing his athletic feats (most of which he did as a high schooler or at college at the late 50's, mind you) to the current world records of each sport? There aren't many athletic players going that way. How much can Shaq bench press? 465, according to some sources. Many powerlifters can do this, so this must mean that Shaq's upper body isn't that strong, since he's way below the World Record...What matters is, how many athletes from Wilt's era could do all these things combined? How many athletes even today can do these things combined, especially with the conditions of the late 50's (you know, with 50's shoes, soil terrain, 50's high jumping style)? I bet no-one at his height.



Wilt was great, ahead of his time, but because of that the game was way, way too easy for him.

I can discredit anyone with the same logic. Not Wilt's fault that he was so good that the game came easy to him (and actually tried to "protect" itself by altering some of its rules to become harder for him).


He doesn't have 50/20's in today's NBA and he didn't once they changed the rule taht didn't anticipate a player being so tall they could just drop it in the hoop or swat every shot onit's way down.

What rule are you talking about? Make yourself clear. The last major rule that they changed for him was the widening of the lane from 12 feet to 16 in 1964, and this didn't stop him from winning more scoring titles. A reason Wilt wasn't deterred by this widening was because he was already taking a lot of shots from corners outside the lane.


He was dominant but he didn't have anyone to face him. I mean, come on,look at this thread. He got owned by a guy who was 215 and 6'9". It shows you something.

Russell was as tall as Olajuwon (6'9-6'9.5 barefoot) and was 215 at college (NBA players' weights usually weren't updated). And he never "owned" Wilt. He just reduced his volume scoring and shooting efficiency to more "mortal" levels.

[juju151111]

You want Wade? I'll give you Gus Johnson:

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html



BTW, your (let's say better) opposition isn't an indicator that you're better as well, as long as you don't dominate at the same degree. And Camby's dominance doesn't even approach Wilt's.



And, like I said, if I took your wonderous but non-existant time machine, I'd invent basketball before Naismith, and at its present form. So, I guess this makes me greater than Naismith.
Too bad people grow up in eras and don't get transported in time...




1. You estimated wrong. All people with your type of thinking estimate wrong. That's not a coincidence.
2. There was not a single 6'5 center in Russell's era (let alone many) and I challenge you to find these links you're talking about. Even the oldest Pistons squad in Russell's era started with Larry Foust, who was 6'9. The only Piston who averaged 20+ ppg was George Yardley and he wasn't anything close to a center. He was a forward and even played guard for a while.
3. How many real guards today are 6'9? Zero. The tallest players who sometimes play as guards are Durant, Diaw and Stojakovic, and none of them is a pure guard.
4. Crossing over (and a lot of today's dribbling) is useless in the 60's, because it's considered palming violation. Great dribbling is a tool, but it's overrated, anyway. Most And-1 guards are crazy dribblers and great athletes, but the possibilities of most of them for a career at a good league would be thin. Put an And-1 team against a mediocre Euroleague team and most often they'll get crushed. Pete Maravich was a great dribbler and showman by all standards, who could do all the things modern PG's do, plus he was pretty fast. Yet, in the early 70's, old, slowed down Jerry West was still considered better as a player, not to mention that Maravich was disliked for being a "hot dog" guy. You know, the players that now youngsters admire for their flash and try to copy were considered an example for avoidance back then. For this type of players, you can thank both Pistol and the ABA, which gave more basis to spectacle and dunking, without being a better league than the "traditional" and "fundamental" NBA.
5. Today's players have more athletic abilities, it's no secret, but it's no wonder, either. Better training and nutrition. The general improvement of players is based more on coaches, doctors, trainers and DVD sellers than the natural talent of the players themselves.



If think think that Russell never faced a zone (which was very common in the NCAA) or that the pick and roll was non-existant (I won't even mention screens), you probably saw as much 60's basketball as BULLS did: A few Youtube shorts here and there. Pick and roll is among the oldest plays in basketball. Screens? You should ask Wes Unseld and Wilt Chamberlain (West's contemporaries) if they knew what a screen was. That would be something like asking Dwight Howard if he knows what a rebound is.



The first time all these rules were at force together was in like 2005. So, you'll have to discredit all the centers' stats up to then.
However, some of the benefits of the 3-pointer also benefit centers instead of the opposite. Kicking the ball outside, establishing position more easily, being double-teammed less often and having less opposition around you to fight for rebounds are things that helped centers after the 80's pad their numbers, as well.



None of the players I had mentioned was mainly a 70's player. Willis Reed was the youngest and he retired in '74.
Watch the 80's Finals between the Celtics and Lakers and look at Dennis Johnson. Then compare him to Jerry West's dribbling and speed at 4:30-4:40 here and tell me with a straight face that West would have a problem playing while DJ didn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqoLCRQq55Y



Magic and Bird were two all-time greats who helped raising the already increasing ratings and attendances. In the late 70's, general interest went a bit down, mainly because the best teams were teams that not a lot of fans cared about, much like the seasons when the Spurs were winning titles. The supposed danger of folding is an overexaggerated story that was cultivated by some whowanted to make a point of how important Magic and Bird were. Every time an all-time great leaves the game, we're hearing the same story. This trick had been used since the earlier days of the NBA, then
came Magic-Bird, whose retirements led people to say that the NBA will never live more glory days, then the 2 retirements of Jordan again made people say that the NBA was in high danger, now the future but not very distant retirement of Shaq makes already some say that the NBA will never be the same. Yet, the NBA always manages to survive.
You said the interest was drastically going down? The ratings of the '77 Finals (the first I know we have data about) were actually higher even than the ratings of the '84 Finals (and all the previous ones). The ratings of the NBA Finals of '80 and '81 weren't better than the ratings of '78 and '79. You want attentances? Since the early 60's, they had constantly been increasing, without the help of Magic and Bird.
As for the draft of '83, it was a typical draft which inserted some good/great players, like Drexler, Sampson, Scott and some flops. Overall, it was nothing really special. The '84 draft was great, but it's well-known that some drafts are good, some not so, some were great and some sucked. Every era had drafts from all categories.
Who is this gus johnston your comparing to dwade and i agree with most things, but put jerry west in todays gm and he won't make a starting lineup. His speed/dribbling is noting i have not seen from bench players like jason terry.

[Al Thornton]

The numbers tell the truth.
He's the second best rebounder of all time. He has 11 rings.
Those of you comparing him to Ben Wallace and Marcus Camby :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: . I don't think either of them ever averaged 24 rebounds in a season.
He's the best defensive player of all time thats why.

[indiefan23]

This shows your lack of knowledge of Basketball!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOu say Wilt couldn't do the dunk moves that Dwight can neither can larry Bird or Magic but Id take both over Dwight and Nate Robinson or any other "DUNKER" you want to name.

My knowledge is poor because I gave an example of Dwight's amazing athleticism and how Wilt never had to face ANYONE like that and it inflated his stats cuz there was no competition? How does that work? You're the one who's trying to say being .5 - 1 foot taller and 50 - 100 pounds heavier is not that significant a difference, Wilt earned the best stats in history and they aren't padded. I'll tell you this: if Wild didn't have 50 point seasons, 20 board averages and a 100 point game he would NOT be considered the best ever or waht ever BS people say by anyone. And if he played today he would not get those stats so you're just wrong.

And its pretty easy to pick the already finished and established careers of two of the best three ballers of all time over a kid who's 23 and not even in his prime yet.

You're still full of crap though. As if Dwight Howard's 14 boards, 20 points, 3 blocks and 9 20/20 games are worthless because he can throw down.


There was not one 6'2 center in the game in the 60's

Nor did I say there was. Your point?


you problly could not name 3 without looking it up that played against Russ.I guess thats why Kobe and LBJ and Wade have there gaudy numbers if you touch them a foul is called.

Yes, in comparison to the 90's. In comparison to the 60's everyone played with 3 feet of open room and you'd get a call for almost 'nothing'. Dude, they didn't even box people out on the blocks. Come the hell on already.

[sodapop]

WTF! Bill Russell is #1, period. Not two or three. First, you cannot compare yesterday's NBA with today's. Let's be frank and honest... NBA players today are weak minded and too soft. The late 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, basketball players were knocking teeth, slammed on the hard wood, blood stains on the jerseys, busted lips, black eyes, splintered legs, broken toes and vicious fans screaming, throwing glass bottles and fist fights in the lobby. Especially during the NBA integration period. St. Louis Hawk games were legendary for hostile fans. Bill Russell was dominating the game during this time. Two decades of dominance, Bill Russell has 11 Championships rings and 5 finals MVP. Lets take away the fragrant fouls - all petty fouls all together, bring back the old NBA rules and let's see if any player of today can handle four rounds of tough basketball? Remember, the 88/89 Detroit Pistons - bad boy era, were the last of the last tough teams to win a championship. During the Bulls, Jordan era, the NBA soften up and the players became do nothings for somethings. Wilt and Russell prime could dominate the game today, period. Charles Barkley once said, today players are weak! They cannot take a hit.

[Lakers13]

You gotta respect the rings. Talent alone I'd put the three Laker great centers in front of him ( KaJ, Wilt, and Shaq) But the fact he owned Wilt during their epic battles (win wise) makes him at least a debatable #2 or #3.

[Dro]

I read this whole thread and the arguments against Russell can't be serious......I think Serious and others won this argument......

[indiefan23]

You want Wade? I'll give you Gus Johnson:

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html


Uh... well...

GJ: 16/12/2.5 .440
DW: 25/4.3/6.7

Nice boards by GJ, but then again at 6'6" you're a power forward in the 60's, not a guard like wade is at 6'4". You have to be kidding me to say these players are comparable.



BTW, your (let's say better) opposition isn't an indicator that you're better as well, as long as you don't dominate at the same degree. And Camby's dominance doesn't even approach Wilt's.

Wilt's dominance does not approach mine because I beat 4 children at once in a game the other day. Your competition means everything, duh.


And, like I said, if I took your wonderous but non-existant time machine, I'd invent basketball before Naismith, and at its present form. So, I guess this makes me greater than Naismith.
Too bad people grow up in eras and don't get transported in time...


I bet it would make you a better player then he was. Listen to your logic. What matters is domination not competition. Its such garbage. Wilt never beat 4 players at once so I'm better then him cuz what matters is dominance. Holy crap. Women's players would have dominated the league Russell played in. Its not that he was bad, he was good, but his numbers are grossly inflated. And while his heart is great and everything, size 'does' count towards part of the good. As for Wilt you can just look at his stats and see them collapse when other players who are closer to his size enter the league.

Its all just so ridiculously obvious. Wilt had a huge size advantage over everyone but the guy just lacked basketball skills. Could he shoot a jumper? No. How was his turnaround? What turnaround?

And christ, for all his freakishly above average size at center compared to his peers he still only shot around 50% for most of his career. If he's the best center ever you tell me exactly why against guys way smaller then him he can't have a better FG % then Eddy Freaking Curry.



1. You estimated wrong. All people with your type of thinking estimate wrong. That's not a coincidence.

Wait, estimated the height in 67 wrong... all people with 'my type of thinking' estimate wrong? I estimated 6'8", 2 inches taller then the actual average height, meaning Wilt had it even easier then I thought.

[qutoe]
2. There was not a single 6'5 center in Russell's era (let alone many) and I challenge you to find these links you're talking about. Even the oldest Pistons squad in Russell's era started with Larry Foust, who was 6'9. The only Piston who averaged 20+ ppg was George Yardley and he wasn't anything close to a center. He was a forward and even played guard for a while.
[/quote]

Funny how he led his team in points/boards and is listed as a center isn't it? I mean, when your 'guards' can step in and play center does that not tell you something about the weakness of the era?



3. How many real guards today are 6'9? Zero. The tallest players who sometimes play as guards are Durant, Diaw and Stojakovic, and none of them is a pure guard.


T-Mac, Magic, Bron is only a 3 defensively, Joe Alexander, billy owens. I don't get how being able to play multiple positions (more talented) helps your argument though. Dirk can hit the 3 and he's 7 foot.


4. Crossing over (and a lot of today's dribbling) is useless in the 60's, because it's considered palming violation.

Ha, a cross over is not a carry. People just didn't know how to do it before cuz they could barely dribble with both hands.

Here, look at the rules changes and find me whne it changed.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

A cross over occurs when the ball is 'out' of your hands so how is palming going to be called? Theres no rule that says you can't bounce the ball off the floor to the other hand and there never has been.


Great dribbling is a tool, but it's overrated, anyway. Most And-1 guards are crazy dribblers and great athletes, but the possibilities of most of them for a career at a good league would be thin. Put an And-1 team against a mediocre Euroleague team and most often they'll get crushed. Pete Maravich was a great dribbler and showman by all standards, who could do all the things modern PG's do, plus he was pretty fast. Yet, in the early 70's, old, slowed down Jerry West was still considered better as a player, not to mention that Maravich was disliked for being a "hot dog" guy. You know, the players that now youngsters admire for their flash and try to copy were considered an example for avoidance back then. For this type of players, you can thank both Pistol and the ABA, which gave more basis to spectacle and dunking, without being a better league than the "traditional" and "fundamental" NBA.

Yea, dribbleing is not that much of a skill. Its only the most fundamental action you perform while playing. And 1? And 1 is not pro ball and those guys are playing a different game totally. its about winning the show as much as the game and they're entertaining as hell but its playground ball.

In the NBA having a good handle makes all the difference in the world. It's what keeps crazy quick defenders from stealing the ball and lets you get by them to score. If you don't have someone who can handle the ball you won't win games. Its that simple.



5. Today's players have more athletic abilities, it's no secret, but it's no wonder, either. Better training and nutrition. The general improvement of players is based more on coaches, doctors, trainers and DVD sellers than the natural talent of the players themselves.


'Nutrition'? Oh come on. Please dude. Shaq ate a club sandwich every day of his life for 20 years. Yes they do have better training, but like I've been saying that's what makes them, wait for it, better players!!!!


If think think that Russell never faced a zone (which was very common in the NCAA) or that the pick and roll was non-existant (I won't even mention screens), you probably saw as much 60's basketball as BULLS did: A few Youtube shorts here and there. Pick and roll is among the oldest plays in basketball. Screens? You should ask Wes Unseld and Wilt Chamberlain (West's contemporaries) if they knew what a screen was. That would be something like asking Dwight Howard if he knows what a rebound is.

Well, I watched a wack of ESPN classic so I've seen whole games from the best teams. The classic ones you know, and most plays involve getting down the floor quickly and pulling up in front of the non-existent/disorganized man to man D and shooting over a guy who was never in position to block you in the first place.

You can watch the whole fourth of the final game in 1969 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE&feature=related

You watch and tell me when you see a pick 'n roll. I watched the first clip of the quarter and did see a couple screens by BR but honestly defenders could easily get around them. You can see people setting a pick actually get out of the way of the defender a bunch of times.

Look at the 1:30 mark in this clip of that quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWhRNU-59K0&feature=related

Russell sets a pick but its so weak the defender can easily jump and alter the shot for a miss.


The first time all these rules were at force together was in like 2005. So, you'll have to discredit all the centers' stats up to then.

Uh, they're not that much different. They make it easier to score and harder to defend. You can look at stats from before and after and see the change in things like blocks et al.



Watch the 80's Finals between the Celtics and Lakers and look at Dennis Johnson. Then compare him to Jerry West's dribbling and speed at 4:30-4:40 here and tell me with a straight face that West would have a problem playing while DJ didn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqoLCRQq55Y


Umm... yes? Whats fast about that? Go compare to some TJ Ford clips and you'll see speed. Jerry West could shoot. I don't think he wouldn't make the league but he'd not be a star. He'd be a bench player. Sides, the watermark for when the league went to another level was after Jordan's draft class. Then things took off.


Magic and Bird were two all-time greats who helped raising the already increasing ratings and attendances. In the late 70's, general interest went a bit down, mainly because the best teams were teams that not a lot of fans cared about, much like the seasons when the Spurs were winning titles.

Or because they watered team down over the past 10 years going from 9 teams to 24. I don't care about finals attendances. It was a watered down non-competitive league.


As for the draft of '83, it was a typical draft which inserted some good/great players, like Drexler, Sampson, Scott and some flops. Overall, it was nothing really special. The '84 draft was great, but it's well-known that some drafts are good, some not so, some were great and some sucked. Every era had drafts from all categories.

You're so full of crap. You tell me the last draft that produced the best of all time, the highest scoring average leader, the #2 points scorer in history, the number 1 steals, the number 1 assists leader, the number one blocks leader. Yea, really average. Why don't you show me another draft that owns every single important category huh? Save rebounds cuz there was these guys who were stronger then everyone else who padded their stats. Uh, yea.

It sucks for you, I know, you were obviously a big fan and to see the players you watched get so out done has to suck., but it WAS a weak era. Its not something people are making up. And now you're resorting to saying the best draft of all time was not really that significant, just an ebb and flow of regularity.

[indiefan23]

I read this whole thread and the arguments against Russell can't be serious......I think Serious and others won this argument......

What? Dude, how can you be serious?

Do you deney that the NBA is more competitive now then it was then? People who were 6'5" played center. There were no crossovers. Players could not dunk. Worldwide the number of people who play basketball has increased literally 1000's of times increasing the talent pool like never before. Training and 'nutrition' have improved so dramatically that its a billion dollar industry. Players used to smoke freaking butts on the bench. They barely ran screens or plays in the finals.

If you don't deny that basketball has become a much, much, much more competitive sport then how can you possibly claim Bill Russell has any place being top 3?

I'm going to ask you some questions and you give me the answer.

Me: Is Calvin Murphy a better scorer then Bird and Jordan? Yes becasue he has the 4'th highest NCAA scoring average of all time. Bird is 17'th and Jordan is not even in the top 20.

You: that does not count because the level of competition in the NCAA is so much lower then the NBA. And depending on what conference you play in you could be facing people at your position much smaller/less developed then you are creating a mismatch for every single game you play inflating your stats and success.

Me: Uh, I guess you're right. Does that also mean that Malik Rose is not a better rebounder then Ralph Sampson?

You: Duh!

I see your point now. When we remove the context of the time/place I played it means we have to compare my play in that context to the entire universe of players and their contexts.

Damn, this crazy guy on 'inside hoops' had me convinced that I was the best player in history because I beat 5 children by 5 points in a game to 10. He said dominance counted towards greatness and who you were dominating did not matter so much.

You: Well, you should have known that was wrong. Just watch yourself play sometime and you'll tell from the video that players like MJ, Lebron, Wade, Hakeem, Shaq are way better then you are Indiefan23. You and those children are not even athletic enough to dunk, let alone stop someone like Wade from dunking.

You're way less trained, knowledgeable and coached then someone like MJ or Shaq. Don't cry, you still beat a team of children who can't match up with you and will lose 99.9% of the time. If you're playing children I'll always say you're the best but if you had to play the real best players in history you just would not have the same results.

Me: Heh, yea, you're right. Oh well, I'm free this weekend because that ruins my plans. I was going to win 1000 - 1 without missing a lay up/shot in a game against no one. Damn... I was going to be the best scorer in history!

You: lifes a ***** huh... lets go drink some reality beer.

Me: gulp!

[indiefan23]

WTF! Bill Russell is #1, period. Not two or three. First, you cannot compare yesterday's NBA with today's. Let's be frank and honest... NBA players today are weak minded and too soft. The late 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, basketball players were knocking teeth, slammed on the hard wood, blood stains on the jerseys, busted lips, black eyes, splintered legs, broken toes and vicious fans screaming, throwing glass bottles and fist fights in the lobby. Especially during the NBA integration period. St. Louis Hawk games were legendary for hostile fans. Bill Russell was dominating the game during this time. Two decades of dominance, Bill Russell has 11 Championships rings and 5 finals MVP. Lets take away the fragrant fouls - all petty fouls all together, bring back the old NBA rules and let's see if any player of today can handle four rounds of tough basketball? Remember, the 88/89 Detroit Pistons - bad boy era, were the last of the last tough teams to win a championship. During the Bulls, Jordan era, the NBA soften up and the players became do nothings for somethings. Wilt and Russell prime could dominate the game today, period. Charles Barkley once said, today players are weak! They cannot take a hit.

This is the most moronic thing I've ever heard a human being say. They didn't have flagrant fouls before because they barely fouled at all. Half the league couldn't dunk. If a 6'9" guy played center today he would be owned. Do you know what its like to play post against someone a foot shorter then you are? Its cake, that's what. C A K E. When I have a major size advantage on someone I can shoot something close to 80% and get the same percentage of rebounds because of the mismatch.

Defenses got way tighter in the 90's. Its a fact. You don't know your history at all.

[Showtime]

If a 6'9" guy played center today he would be owned. Do you know what its like to play post against someone a foot shorter then you are? Its cake, that's what. C A K E.

Ben Wallace, Charles Barkley, and Dennis Rodman would disagree with you.

[iamgine]

Well, if the topic was about the top 3 centers to relatively dominate their own particular era then Russell is obviously on the top of my list. The problem is that is about the top (meaning most talented) players of all time at the 5, and Russell is not even in the top 10. You don't measure being the best by how many rings you have. And I don't count padded stats. Like it or not, Bill Russell's stats are padded by the weakness of his era and that's why he's plainly not the best. He's the best of his era maybe (though Wilt had no team, so prolly not), just not all time. The game he played is not even real basketball.

Which always cracks me up when they've got someone like BR in an NBA PR session with Shaq or Duncan and he's giving them tips and advice on how to play. Then that player respectfully makes some comment about how its so helpful to learn from one of the greatest of all time. Bill Russell may or may not know more about the game then I do, but I can tell you this, he didn't learn it from pro experience because he didn't play it.

1. He started playing 2 years after the shot clock was introduced. Teams/Coaches strategy was still based on holding/stalling the ball and 'not' scoring. Trying to score a lot of points was new and players really didn't know how to go about it. Teams and players constantly rushed shots and didn't really play withing much of an 'offense'.

2. The double team had not been 'invented'. And since players/teams/coaches were still learning how you go about scoring, how you go about playing defense was obviously even further behind as it had to wait for people to learn how to score lots of points. I've always wondered how BR is constantly called one of the best defenders in history when he played the weakest offensive players in history.

Artest can shut down Kobe half the time. Nash can shut down me 90% of the time. But Artest IS the better defender. Its just logic.

3. Players were small, nonathletic, and screw it, white. Not all white, but remember how a bunch of you have brought up quotas and racism in basketball and all that? Great for BR for overcoming. Its totally awesome! But the fact remains that this FURTHER REDUCED THE TALENT POOL! Its a great story but you're just restating another way BR's stats were padded.

4. Just watch the games. Go ahead, you tube any 50-60's era game and watch. Look at Big O highlights where the announcer is talking about him hitting shots under intense defense and acknowledge that we call those open shots in today's game.

If anyone thinks those Celtics win titles playing even a college team today you're out of your green mind. To be the best, in any era, you have to be the better player of anyone in that era. BR arguably was the best in his era. But when you say all-time its not his era anymore. Its all time so you have to do these little what ifs. And when you do, and you're honest, Rill Russell loses every one of them.

Its not his fault guys. Honest. He IS great. He was the starting point for how every center plays defense in this league and deserves, and gets, lots of props. Its fans like some people on this thread that are slagging his character trying to find rationalizations around the fact that he is just a way less talented player then those playing today.Ahead of his time but by 10 years, not 20, 30, 40 or 50.

Pioneers always face this. They start something, contribute to it's base, and then are overtaken. Watch Tony Hawk and tell me that Team Zepher is on his level. They're not. He owes something to the Z-Boys for starting it all but he is and forever will be the wildly more talented skateboarder. Same with ball.

I'm out.
lol dude you are missing the point completely. Calling someone the greatest is based on achievement and impact.

Just because Galileo/newton would be an idiot today, doesn't mean they aren't one of the greatest scientist of all time.
Just because MLK probably will not have much impact if he live today, doesn't mean he's not one of the greatest African American of all time.
Just because Mozart/Beethoven would most likely not be very popular nor relevant if they live today, doesn't change the fact that they are two of the greatest composer.
Just because Henry Greb would probably be KOed by a lowly boxer today, doesn't mean he isn't one of the top 50 boxer of all time.

[Sir Charles]

1-Wilt
2-Kareem
3-4-Hakeem
3-4-Shaq
5-Sabonis (Prime Peek)
6-D-Robinson
7-Moses
8-Ewing
9-Artis Gilmore
10-Russell

Then its...between

Walton (Prime Peek)
Bob Lanier
Nate Thurmond
Dave Cowens
Robert Parish
Alonzo Mourning
Willis Reed
Robert Parish
Wes Unseld

And we will see later on if Dwight and Yao make it right in the Top 20


Don`t get me wrong Bill Russel was the Best All Around Defender in his era, he invented Shot Bocking Timing and Positioning and The Boxing Out skill, was an amazing Passer, Superb Hustle Rebounder, Court visionaire and one of the players with most Fundamentals, great fast break iniciator and very few had his will to win. That said anyone must agree that would have suffered alot Offensively if he would have played in the superior both physical-athletic and skill wise 70s-80s and 90s Players with his weak post game. That and his weight and height facing 7`0 and 245 lbs centers that not only where more athletic than he but also way more skilled offensively

Russell would probably play FC like Elvin Hayes, Tim Duncan etc ore like a Less Offensive but Superior Passing Alonzo Mourning Bill ...A the FC his defensive impact, rebounding, passing, creating and speed for recieving passes would be great but at the Center Spot against guys like the ones i will mentioned...he would suffer.

Wilt in this era in his 10-12 Prime years would be a 25-35 PPG (50-55), 12-18 RPG, 3-5 APG, 2-4 BPG man

Russel in this era in his 10-12 Prime years would be a 10-15 PPG( 45-50%) 10-16 RPG, 4-6 APG, 1-3 BPG man...

:no: More
:no: So Much Lesser

[indiefan23]

The thing you're doing wrong is that you only mention the plays that would make the highlight reels. As athletic as today's players are, I still didn't see many of them jumping over and dunking on even a 37-year old, post surgery, Alonzo Mourning or on 40-year old Mutombo. I also don't see the old and unathletic players of the Spurs getting dominated and dunked on by much more athletic teams like the Nuggets and the Blazers, neither did the peripheral players of the '08 Celtics (most of which were veterans and overall not very athletic) get humiliated by beasts like LeBron and Kobe.

You obviously are not watching much basketball then. ;0 Lebron killed the Celtics last year. They would have lost but PJ Brown played out of his mind for a few minutes. Kobe didn't dominate them because he sucks phat lemons.


There were many teams in Russell's era taller than the Celtics. Do you think that made a difference to them? The '64 Warriors had Wilt at 7'1

Uh, that's what, 8 year's into Russell's career. So in his prime on a team loaded with hall of famers that had been playing together for that whole time vs. a team that had gotten Wilt mid-season and Nate who was in his second year in the league. Tough match up. Yawn.


Jumped from the FT line? Chest at the rim? Dunked at 12'? Where did you see all these fantasies?[

Show me one pic or video which shows these things. Here, I'll help you a bit:

In the dunk contest.

free throw line
http://graneyandthepig.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/dwighthoward1.jpg

Chest rim: sorry its a couple inches off. I dunno, I'd say getting your head above the rim and being able to kiss the thing counts. Excuse my 2 inch hyperbole.

http://www.dwight-howard.com/Images/2007NBASlamDunkStickerDunk.jpg

http://images.google.gr/images?hl=el&q=dwight%20howard%20dunk&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi


Also, when was it confirmed by any trusted source that the basket was at 12 feet?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aHnbJc7lwfLs/610x.jpg

An nba net is 18" long. Because the camera is level with and closer to the regulation net it's going to cut some angle of the view off and make the net/distances further away look smaller. You can tell because the hoop actually looks smaller then the closer one but they're the same size. So if its lower then 12' then its lower by like, an inch, two at most. Dwight knows he can dunk 12... why would he shave off 2 inches to be exposed on? Notice how there has been 0 proof out that he faked the 12' dunk? You don't think someone would figure that out with elementary physics and own him in the media?


Because it sure as hell didn't seem to be that high. Please. Just a couple of seasons earlier he jumped with full force to stick a sticker at 12'6 and now you think that he managed to easily reach almost that high with a clearly lighter jump and with both his hands extended (and not even fully extended)?


Well, half a foot over the rim is quite a bit of space... certainly enough to dunk.



Maybe, if he had the technique needed for a sport like high jumping. I never denied that Howard is really athletic. However, he's not 7 feet tall.

Yes, we're talking about basketball, but for some reason you still mention slam dunk contests (which have no position in an actual basketball game) and you put a lot of stock in pure athleticism. Arm strength is a part of it. Maybe not the most important one, but it's still one.
[quote]

But they are an indicator of his athleticism.

[quote]Lol, you're comparing his athletic feats (most of which he did as a high schooler or at college at the late 50's, mind you) to the current world records of each sport? There aren't many athletic players going that way. How much can Shaq bench press? 465, according to some sources. Many powerlifters can do this, so this must mean that Shaq's upper body isn't that strong, since he's way below the World Record...What matters is, how many athletes from Wilt's era could do all these things combined?


You said he did them at an olympic level not me. He's no where near an olympic track athlete.


How many athletes even today can do these things combined, especially with the conditions of the late 50's (you know, with 50's shoes, soil terrain, 50's high jumping style)? I bet no-one at his height.


Uh, Dwight Howard? Carl Lewis?



I can discredit anyone with the same logic. Not Wilt's fault that he was so good that the game came easy to him (and actually tried to "protect" itself by altering some of its rules to become harder for him).


So you're admitting finally that Wilt's stats are padded? He got to play for some time without the rules they made for him. No one after him did.


Russell was as tall as Olajuwon (6'9-6'9.5 barefoot) and was 215 at college (NBA players' weights usually weren't updated). And he never "owned" Wilt. He just reduced his volume scoring and shooting efficiency to more "mortal" levels.

Ha, Olajuwon is 7 feet tall, not 6'9". I mean, this is getting boring. You state a bunch of 'facts' and reminisce about how Wilt/Russell dominated the weakest era of modern basketball when no one was playing the game in general and no one at all was close to their level. This is why elementary schools don't allow highschoolers to compete on their teams right?

I take your 'facts' and plug them into google and they show you to be dead wrong. There is another way to do this: you could look stuff up yourself and stop making statements so ludicrously misinformed. Just such sillyness.

Hey, you want to call him the most dominant ever go ahead. They both dominated to a degree no one else has. You want to say best ever though you're full of stinky cuz they played against crappy players who wouldn't make the NBA today and would probably be cut from college teams. Its not an insult to them, they didn't have their own experiences to learn from and build from and that's obvious. But its obvious that they could not compete as the players they were then with the players today. Theres 1000's of times moe people playing ball in the world now. Its just not the same and some superior toughness/heart/attitude you're going to bring up does not negate that or that theres plenty of Duncan types who aren't weak. Its just such garbage.

[Sir Charles]

Hakeem was more like 6`10 1/2 not even close to 7`0 ft and just below 6`11
Patrick Ewing was 6`11 not 7`0 ft
Duncan is 6`11 1/2 ft
Garnett is around 7`0 ft (although his contexture is like that of a typical 6`7, 6`8 thin and agil SF)
Walton is the other case around: more like 7`1 1/2 ft than 6`11 ft!
Kareem actually closer to 7`3 than 7`2 ft....
Barkley closer to 6`4 3/4 ft and 6`5 than 6`6ft
Magic closer to 6`7 1/2 or 6`8 ft than 6`9 ft (his wide body, muscules and natural strength was as if he was a PF though...even though he never exploded his weight training because he liked to play PG...more than Forward)
Rodman closer to 6`6 1/2 ft than 6`8ft

Go look at the tapes-games...compare their heights to players next to them and you will see

[indiefan23]

lol dude you are missing the point completely. Calling someone the greatest is based on achievement and impact.

Just because Galileo/newton would be an idiot today, doesn't mean they aren't one of the greatest scientist of all time.
Just because MLK probably will not have much impact if he live today, doesn't mean he's not one of the greatest African American of all time.
Just because Mozart/Beethoven would most likely not be very popular nor relevant if they live today, doesn't change the fact that they are two of the greatest composer.
Just because Henry Greb would probably be KOed by a lowly boxer today, doesn't mean he isn't one of the top 50 boxer of all time.

Reading is based on recognizing words, knowing their definitions and applying them to thoughts and ideas. The thread is about who's the 'best' not the greatest. In sports 'greatness' is defined by achievement. But 'best' is determined by competition. When you speculate on who would win a competition between 50's players and 90's players the 90's players are so much more advanced. Russell created things but players today are just way more skilled. There's been 40-50 years of advancement and billions invested in how to play better,

I'll never be a greater scientist then Newton but Newton will never have a better understanding about the world then I do. I simply have a 'better' understanding.

If you measure what he achieved in advancing knowledge he's great. If you measure how much he knows and compare it today he's below average or mediocre at best. The same follows for Russell and Chamberlin. The difference is you admit Newton would be an idiot where these guys think he'd still be just as cutting edge as he was back then. Dude claimed Russell would dominate the 90's same as they did before and its just crap. He's not grabbing 20 boards a game.

Sides, if Wilt was 'so' unstoppable why is he like, below Eddy Curry in FG% when he was so obviously better and bigger then every other player in the league? Eddy Curry's stats beat your's and you're the best all time? It just does not add up.

[Simple Jack]

WTF! Bill Russell is #1, period. Not two or three. First, you cannot compare yesterday's NBA with today's. Let's be frank and honest... NBA players today are weak minded and too soft. The late 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, basketball players were knocking teeth, slammed on the hard wood, blood stains on the jerseys, busted lips, black eyes, splintered legs, broken toes and vicious fans screaming, throwing glass bottles and fist fights in the lobby. Especially during the NBA integration period. St. Louis Hawk games were legendary for hostile fans. Bill Russell was dominating the game during this time. Two decades of dominance, Bill Russell has 11 Championships rings and 5 finals MVP. Lets take away the fragrant fouls - all petty fouls all together, bring back the old NBA rules and let's see if any player of today can handle four rounds of tough basketball? Remember, the 88/89 Detroit Pistons - bad boy era, were the last of the last tough teams to win a championship. During the Bulls, Jordan era, the NBA soften up and the players became do nothings for somethings. Wilt and Russell prime could dominate the game today, period. Charles Barkley once said, today players are weak! They cannot take a hit.

He never won a Finals MVP.

[Simple Jack]

lol dude you are missing the point completely. Calling someone the greatest is based on achievement and impact.

Just because Galileo/newton would be an idiot today, doesn't mean they aren't one of the greatest scientist of all time.
Just because MLK probably will not have much impact if he live today, doesn't mean he's not one of the greatest African American of all time.
Just because Mozart/Beethoven would most likely not be very popular nor relevant if they live today, doesn't change the fact that they are two of the greatest composer.
Just because Henry Greb would probably be KOed by a lowly boxer today, doesn't mean he isn't one of the top 50 boxer of all time.

It's Harry Greb.


Anyway, Charles, you're ridiculous for taking Sabonis over Moses and the other players mentioned. He was a great center for sure, but not better than those you mentioned after him.


Back to the point...


Players should be measured by their achievements and dominance within their own era. Since any other information is based upon an assumption and hypothetical situations, we must rank players (when talking about an all-time list) on how well they played in their own era. Arguing across eras is stupid and no one is going to win, logically speaking.

With that being said, Russell is for sure a top 5 center of all time, arguably the greatest. The same case can be made for Wilt.

[indiefan23]

Hakeem was more like 6`10 1/2 not even close to 7`0 ft and just below 6`11
Patrick Ewing was 6`11 not 7`0 ft
Duncan is 6`11 1/2 ft
Garnett is around 7`0 ft (although his contexture is like that of a typical 6`7, 6`8 thin and agil SF)
Walton is the other case around: more like 7`1 1/2 ft than 6`11 ft!
Kareem actually closer to 7`3 than 7`2 ft....
Barkley closer to 6`4 3/4 ft and 6`5 than 6`6ft
Magic closer to 6`7 1/2 or 6`8 ft than 6`9 ft (his wide body, muscules and natural strength was as if he was a PF though...even though he never exploded his weight training because he liked to play PG...more than Forward)
Rodman closer to 6`6 1/2 ft than 6`8ft

Go look at the tapes-games...compare their heights to players next to them and you will see

Thats silly... how they look beside eachother has to do with posture. Dream was a 7 footer dude.

[indiefan23]

It's Harry Greb.


Anyway, Charles, you're ridiculous for taking Sabonis over Moses and the other players mentioned. He was a great center for sure, but not better than those you mentioned after him.


Sabonis started his career after his prime ended. Had he played on the same schedule as everyone else tehres some superstars who would not have rings or as many.




Players should be measured by their achievements and dominance within their own era. Since any other information is based upon an assumption and hypothetical situations, we must rank players (when talking about an all-time list) on how well they played in their own era.

Arguing across eras is stupid and no one is going to win, logically speaking.

Any ranking of players is based on assumptions and hypotheticals. Do you count championships more then stats or do you factor in who their teammates were? That's an assumption and when ranking players it always involved hypothetical. What if Wilt had Russell's team?

Claiming comparisons involving hypotheticals/assumptions negates all comparisons, not comparing eras. Its a weak cop out because you don't want to admit the sport you followed when you were young has evolved and the standards have elevated making the past heroics seem so... ordinary.

Want to know why? Loads of players from the 50's and 60's are less talented then high school players today and that directly factored into their ridiculous production. Its too bad but your childhood hero in today's league with 100's of millions more people playing ball in the world would suck. Its just a fact. He was still great in his era but if you remove the 'in his era' tag they will just not be the same. All this obviousness.

[Simple Jack]

Sabonis started his career after his prime ended. Had he played on the same schedule as everyone else tehres some superstars who would not have rings or as many.




Any ranking of players is based on assumptions and hypotheticals. Do you count championships more then stats or do you factor in who their teammates were? That's an assumption and when ranking players it always involved hypothetical. What if Wilt had Russell's team?


Again, we are ranking Sabonis on what he did when he played correct? Not some dream world where you have him magically joining the NBA in his prime and taking away rings from other superstars.

Comparing two players who played against each other is not an assumption. An assumption is taking a player from the 60's and claiming his dominance or lack thereof as fact as you have done countless times in this thread.

I'm assuming you think me saying LeBron is better than Mark Madsen is hypothetical? There is a clear distinction between your logic and mine.

What if Wilt had Russel's team? Since when was this the standard in ranking a player? I don't think anyone who has half a brain takes that into consideration when ranking a player, especially on an all-time list.


Claiming comparisons involving hypotheticals/assumptions negates all comparisons, not comparing eras. Its a weak cop out because you don't want to admit the sport you followed when you were young has evolved and the standards have elevated making the past heroics seem so... ordinary.

Now this is a perfect example of an assumption, and just how easily it makes you look stupid.

I agree completely that sports evolve. Not all (heavyweight division in boxing), but most yes. That's not the point though. The point is we are not comparing how players would do across eras because there's no comparison to make. There's no proof, no way of knowing and you are simply relying on assumptions that hold no weight. Rather, we are looking at what they did in their own era. As long as someone doesn't claim that Wilt (or any old-era player (especially pre 70's) would be a 50 point stud in the leagues of the future and takes his achievements with consideration of his performance only his own era, there's no need for an argument.


Want to know why? Loads of players from the 50's and 60's are less talented then high school players today and that directly factored into their ridiculous production. Its too bad but your childhood hero in today's league with 100's of millions more people playing ball in the world would suck. Its just a fact. He was still great in his era but if you remove the 'in his era' tag they will just not be the same. All this obviousness.

How old are you man? Honestly. It's rather entertaining how you put words in my mouth then reply to it. When did I ever say Wilt was my childhood hero or that I think he can put up the same stats today? :hammerhead:

[Simple Jack]

Thats silly... how they look beside eachother has to do with posture. Dream was a 7 footer dude.


Hakeem Olajuwon measured 6'10 1/4" at the 1984 pre-draft camp (barefoot). 7 foot with shoes on, sure.

[indiefan23]

Ben Wallace, Charles Barkley, and Dennis Rodman would disagree with you.

Heh, sure, but 2 of them are 4's, not 5's, none of them dominated the league at all, did they, and Rodman 'only' played for boards and didn't have anything close to Wilt/Russell's career stats even though he was out rebounding the entire league for 7 straight years and focused on it entirely.

Wallace was a great defender but the Pistons really could not stop bigs till Sheed (athletic freak) came in to guard the Shaqs and help Wallace. Together they won one title from a sulking dysfunctional Laker's team.

With a team built around them as the centerpiece what do they do? They don't win 11 titles I can tell you that. Charles in PHX was the closest thing to that (except it was not really built around him at all, it was a team team type thing) and that team was decimated in the finals as their undersized bigs could not stop Jordan from getting to the hole.

ie: those undersized players in the 90's could in no way be considered top all time 5's which is EXACTLY my point. The closest you get is Ben Wallace who hell, he's not even top 20 or 30 all time, is he? Is he among the top 50 centers all time? I'm honestly not sure where he fits. But astute as someone else already pointed out, Ben Wallace is probably the ceiling for Russell today super solid specialist/role player on a championship team.

[indiefan23]

Again, we are ranking Sabonis on what he did when he played correct? Not some dream world where you have him magically joining the NBA in his prime and taking away rings from other superstars.

Comparing two players who played against each other is not an assumption. An assumption is taking a player from the 60's and claiming his dominance or lack thereof as fact as you have done countless times in this thread.


No, my misguided friend. What you need to do is go to university and learn to think. Something not being clear is not a reason to ignore it. Or, perhaps you're from the states and we have you to thank for the previous 8 years of presidential hell, who knows?

You're making an assumption too: that if you ignore strength of era and compare players souly on achievement with no context as to what their achievements happen the result truly reflects who's best. That's an assumption in itself and you're calling me stupid for making mine. And I have not made an assumption at all.

Its a rational judgment of truth based on empirical evidence of player performance, as well as the law of averages which is weighted heavily, enormously so, in favor of players being better today as more as 100's of millions more people people play the game.

You don't seem to understand the concept of 'context' very well at all, do you. Things happen inside contexts and that context dramatically affects the results of what that thing is. I'm saying that BR/Wilt played in a weak era and it inflated his stats which are the primary reason people claim they are the best.

Here is an example in how retarded your assumption is. In the 1920's a person sets a record for rowing down a river. 50 years later due to the ice caps melting the river flows faster now and his record gets broken 10. Now, you say that era does not count, achievement does. With your 'logic' the guy in 1920 is not as good a rower as the person in 1970 because he achieved so much less.

If someone points out to you that the 1970 person is actually not as good a rower, the 1920 person was better but the river was faster making them perform better you say its irrelevant because you can't compare eras, just achievement.

I'm sorry but this is 'stupid' my friend. And since you have admitted the river is faster now with:

As long as someone doesn't claim that Wilt (or any old-era player (especially pre 70's) would be a 50 point stud in the leagues of the future and takes his achievements with consideration of his performance only his own era, there's no need for an argument.

I've got to conclude two things. 1. you don't get thinking. and 2. You don't know how to read. Thats what all the russel guys have been saying on here. He'd still be best all time had he played today and still dominate the league.

[qutoe]
I'm assuming you think me saying LeBron is better than Mark Madsen is hypothetical? There is a clear distinction between your logic and mine.
[/quote]

Which is an oversimplification. There is no distinction and you're not using logic. There's an enormous list of intangibles that produce results and you're just picking the ones you like out of a hat for the sake of simplicity. Sports are subjective and you refuse to admit it.

Here's a law of sports. Beating inferior competition is easier then beating superior competition.


What if Wilt had Russel's team? Since when was this the standard in ranking a player? I don't think anyone who has half a brain takes that into consideration when ranking a player, especially on an all-time list.


When has there been any standard for ranking a player? Christ, get over yourself. There are many ways to evaluate who's better and in what way.


Now this is a perfect example of an assumption, and just how easily it makes you look stupid.

I agree completely that sports evolve. Not all (heavyweight division in boxing), but most yes. That's not the point though. The point is we are not comparing how players would do across eras because there's no comparison to make. There's no proof, no way of knowing and you are simply relying on assumptions that hold no weight. Rather, we are looking at what they did in their own era.

Umm... no, that's what you're doing. Discussion of sports never has 'proof' because people win for many different reasons and they're all subjective... things with 'proof' really aren't worth discussing much because there's nothing to talk about since it's proven anyway. Things that are proven are things like 1+1=2.

I've got to do this again.

As long as someone doesn't claim that Wilt (or any old-era player (especially pre 70's) would be a 50 point stud in the leagues of the future and takes his achievements with consideration of his performance only his own era, there's no need for an argument.

That's EXACTLY what people in this thread have been claiming. That they'd still dominate the league today like they used to. And how is



How old are you man? Honestly. It's rather entertaining how you put words in my mouth then reply to it. When did I ever say Wilt was my childhood hero or that I think he can put up the same stats today? :hammerhead:

Eh, I guess I got you mixed up with the other guy. Point is if you're going to compare him to a player today his stats go down in this era and there's nothing left to make him the 'best ever' (especially Wilt) without those stats. Meanwhile these guys have been hawking stats the whole time when stats are era based.

Yet you've said that the Rusell side is clearly correct, making you a simple hypocrite.

[godofgods]

Russell would own Charles Barkley every which way.

[stephanieg]

indiefan23:

The question which leaps to the forefront is what did you think of Kareem? Was he a stat padding scrub who didn't play "real basketball" or was he something in between? This is tricky because he battled both '60s relics such as Wilt and modern day players in the '80s who also went on to do well in the '90s, doing so even late in his career despite his advanced age and diminished speed. And I can't think of anyone besides Wilt who blocked Kareem's sky hook multiple times. And this was after the devastating knee injury which caused him to miss an entire season.

As far as your questions regarding Wilt's skills, he had a wide variety of hooks, leaners, jumpers, bankers, and even fall aways. You can see it in old highlights when he was putting up 40 and 50 a game or whatever. He had surprising range, but so did Shaq too when he was in Orlando. Wilt was a stick man in his younger days and was just freakishly fast/agile for someone that big. He slowed down as he put on more and more weight as he aged and then he began to ditch anything out of maybe 8 feet. You can see this in his old full LA playoff games from the early '70s. That's when he set FG% records. You can also see he's a more than competent passer.

As far as Russell, I do not believe he is a top 5 all time center either. The ones ahead of him bring the rebounding, defense, if not the passing (some do, some don't), but they all also bring dominant, efficient volume scoring on top of that. I still like Bill of course. Understandably, big men who defend/rebound but have limited offense are always brushed aside, despite their obvious impact on winning. But...Russell is a lot better on offense than Big Ben. I mean, come on now. At least say Mutombo, to save some face. Russell has 40 point playoff games games to his credit. What's Big Ben's career high? Like 25? He looks nervous initiating moves more than 2 feet from the basket.

I don't think I would want to put Bill on Shaq or Kareem in a series, so I do believe he may play PF today in certain matchups, but Duncan gets away with playing C all year long right now. In fact, it seems like nowadays centers are actually smaller than usual. So many tweeners playing nowadays. But yeah, as you can see below a 75 year old Bill Russell is as big as KG, a dominant rebounder/defender in his own right. They have similar builds, actually. They see eye to eye.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/3441485114_ddcaa5ccc5_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/3011411790_e3e0aa3fee.jpg


It's true Wilt (scoring), Russell (rebounds), or Oscar (everything) wouldn't post similar numbers today and there's a very good reason:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3350918267_62e5acbff4_o.jpg

[Meticode]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"

When I see this picture I always think of a tall black leprechaun. :oldlol:

"Steal me shillings! I dare you!"

[sodapop]

This is the most moronic thing I've ever heard a human being say. They didn't have flagrant fouls before because they barely fouled at all. Half the league couldn't dunk. If a 6'9" guy played center today he would be owned. Do you know what its like to play post against someone a foot shorter then you are? Its cake, that's what. C A K E. When I have a major size advantage on someone I can shoot something close to 80% and get the same percentage of rebounds because of the mismatch.

Defenses got way tighter in the 90's. Its a fact. You don't know your history at all.

Dude, you should check yourself before calling someone a moron. Your comment is a tad bit ignorant. Umm, you don't know your history. Besides, you probably never watched any of the great teams play in the 80's? Every true NBA fan know today's NBA is soft compared to the old. Fragrant fouls today were regular fouls back then. Secondly, defense got weaker in the 90's. Don't say ignorant stuff my friend! Thirdly, the reason why you don't see many legends dunking the ball?

A. dunking was a taboo, wasn't really allowed in the 50's & early 60's. Many players in the league back then could dunk.
B. It was risky to dunk back then. You could seriously get hurt trying to attempt a dunk - someone would slam you down onto the hard wood.

Fourth, have you ever heard of a guy named Earl Manigault, A.K.A The Goat? He was the best dunker of all time. He could snatch a dime off the top of the backboard. This was in the mid 60's. How about David "Big Daddy D" Lattin? He was known for his low post defense and powerful dunks - Texas Western NCAA Champion 1966.
The NBA / NCAA back then were very strict about drafting fancy style players. The style of basketball we enjoy today was not popular back then. In the streets, yes, very popular. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson and many others had to choose between street & pro style of basketball. Players today don't have this problem. The league is more open minded today. You can bring up stats, size & shooting % until you're blue in the face! Keep in mind, if it wasn't for the older players breaking down walls, you wouldn't have a Dr. J, Michael Jordan or a LeBron James. There wouldn't be any slam dunking in the NBA.

[Psileas]

Uh... well...

GJ: 16/12/2.5 .440
DW: 25/4.3/6.7

Nice boards by GJ, but then again at 6'6" you're a power forward in the 60's, not a guard like wade is at 6'4". You have to be kidding me to say these players are comparable.

Stats are completely irrelevant. Camby wasn't guarding Wade, either. In case you forgot, we were talking about centers owning the paint against strong and explosive opponents. Gus Johnson was both strong and explosive, and Wilt in a certain play, after getting dunked on, blocked the crap out of a second dunk attempt, sending him out injured. THAT is a dominance statement.


Wilt's dominance does not approach mine because I beat 4 children at once in a game the other day. Your competition means everything, duh.

Awful analogy. Not only were Wilt's opponents vastly closer to Camby's ones (especially now with the quality center deflation of the league, Wilt actually faced better competition), Wilt actually dominated, destroyed, humiliated them in his prime and played them as an equal past his prime, while Camby is just outplaying most of them (usually not even the good ones) and nothing more.


I bet it would make you a better player then he was. Listen to your logic. What matters is domination not competition. Its such garbage. Wilt never beat 4 players at once so I'm better then him cuz what matters is dominance. Holy crap. Women's players would have dominated the league Russell played in. Its not that he was bad, he was good, but his numbers are grossly inflated. And while his heart is great and everything, size 'does' count towards part of the good. As for Wilt you can just look at his stats and see them collapse when other players who are closer to his size enter the league.

What matters is domination and competition from your peers in your own era. Any other time machine stuff is assumptions. No-one judges greatness according to what someone would do if he was time-transported now. People prefer actuality to "ifs". And given the fact that in Wilt's time centers were usually more dominant in their leagues than centers now, he faced analogically better competition playing on the equal terms of the same era. It's not as if he faced weaklings, either, as you claim. A lot of them are HOF'ers, a lot of them played in later ("strong", according to you) eras and did more than well against later opponents. Oh, and none of them was 6'5, btw.


Its all just so ridiculously obvious. Wilt had a huge size advantage over everyone but the guy just lacked basketball skills. Could he shoot a jumper? No. How was his turnaround? What turnaround?

Dude, what you just said is a tasteless JOKE. You just know nothing about Wilt. Here, take a video full of Wilt turnarounds, fade-aways, finger-rolls, jump shots, bank shots, etc. I'd like to see you try to spin this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM&feature=channel_page

Wilt had no skills. What's coming next, "Wilt couldn't dunk"?


And christ, for all his freakishly above average size at center compared to his peers he still only shot around 50% for most of his career. If he's the best center ever you tell me exactly why against guys way smaller then him he can't have a better FG % then Eddy Freaking Curry.

All I have to say is watch the above video to see what his game consisted of and then read about why he played like this. I've explained this over and over, I'm not going to lose time to explain it once more, especially when I'm talking to someone who doesn't seem to care.


Wait, estimated the height in 67 wrong... all people with 'my type of thinking' estimate wrong? I estimated 6'8", 2 inches taller then the actual average height, meaning Wilt had it even easier then I thought.

You estimated that the average center was 6'8'', while actually the average player was 6'6'' and the average center was taller than 6'8'', since only the 4 shortest (kind of) centers in the league were 6'8.


Funny how he led his team in points/boards and is listed as a center isn't it? I mean, when your 'guards' can step in and play center does that not tell you something about the weakness of the era?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/y/yardlge01.html

Position: Forward-Guard

Yes, he led his team in rebounding. So did Pippen for the '95 Bulls and he wasn't a center.


T-Mac, Magic, Bron is only a 3 defensively, Joe Alexander, billy owens. I don't get how being able to play multiple positions (more talented) helps your argument though. Dirk can hit the 3 and he's 7 foot.

T-Mac played a lot forward, LeBron even more, Magic played at a different era, Alexander is listed at 6'8 and a forward, Owens was 6'8, not a pure guard and played in the 90's.


Ha, a cross over is not a carry. People just didn't know how to do it before cuz they could barely dribble with both hands.

Here, look at the rules changes and find me whne it changed.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

A cross over occurs when the ball is 'out' of your hands so how is palming going to be called? Theres no rule that says you can't bounce the ball off the floor to the other hand and there never has been.

The ball had to be under your hand as you dribbled all the time, so any crossover which wouldn't be executed this way would be illegal. There wasn't any sudden rule change, but the refs had to become more elastic as time went by, so they started allowing things they wouldn't. Certain players like Magic palmed the ball a lot, Patrick Ewing travelled a lot. If a 60's player tried to play like Ewing offensively, with his little extra step, that would be travelling. It still is, but most refs ignore it nowadays. BTW, Oscar Robertson was among the first players who did a crossover.


Yea, dribbleing is not that much of a skill. Its only the most fundamental action you perform while playing. And 1? And 1 is not pro ball and those guys are playing a different game totally. its about winning the show as much as the game and they're entertaining as hell but its playground ball.

In the NBA having a good handle makes all the difference in the world. It's what keeps crazy quick defenders from stealing the ball and lets you get by them to score. If you don't have someone who can handle the ball you won't win games. Its that simple.

Ask people about the greatest dribblers ever, and Jason Williams will be the one whose name emerges, not Stockton or Magic. Who were the greater and more fundamental players between them?


Well, I watched a wack of ESPN classic so I've seen whole games from the best teams. The classic ones you know, and most plays involve getting down the floor quickly and pulling up in front of the non-existent/disorganized man to man D and shooting over a guy who was never in position to block you in the first place.

You can watch the whole fourth of the final game in 1969 here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9e...eature=related

You watch and tell me when you see a pick 'n roll. I watched the first clip of the quarter and did see a couple screens by BR but honestly defenders could easily get around them. You can see people setting a pick actually get out of the way of the defender a bunch of times.

Look at the 1:30 mark in this clip of that quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWhRN...eature=related

Russell sets a pick but its so weak the defender can easily jump and alter the shot for a miss.

I don't need Youtube to know whether screens existed. I've seen screens by Wilt and Unseld which caused their opponent get off his balance.
Pick and rolls? Again, ask Wilt and Goodrich. They saw each other with eyes closed. Among other plays, Wilt would often receive a pass out of the paint, then pass it behind his back to either cutting Goodrich or West.


Umm... yes? Whats fast about that? Go compare to some TJ Ford clips and you'll see speed. Jerry West could shoot. I don't think he wouldn't make the league but he'd not be a star. He'd be a bench player. Sides, the watermark for when the league went to another level was after Jordan's draft class. Then things took off.

Take a TJ Ford running the floor video and put it side to side to West's video and Ford won't be an easy winner. I've seen Devin Harris setting a supposed record for the fastest 3/4's of the court and I didn't see something out of this world, either.
BTW, this is just some fast break finished by West. I'm not saying that this is the fastest he could do.

West would be a bench player? Playing in the same league with "athletes" like 2-time MVP Steve Nash and Finals' MVP-All Star Chauncey Billups? What does Billups have over West? Speed? Shot? Passing? Defense? Nothing of this kind. Or is Nash anywhere near the scorer, stealer or defender that West was?

However, the main point I was making is that if Dennis Johnson in the 80's and Mark "turtle" Jackson in the 90's-00's had no problem playing the point, there's absolutely no reason to say that West would.


Or because they watered team down over the past 10 years going from 9 teams to 24. I don't care about finals attendances. It was a watered down non-competitive league.

Although I agree that the 60's-early 70's were more competitive than the late 70's, you made no point whatsoever to show it was "non-competitive". You know, Magic and Bird also won their first titles in these "non-competitive" leagues.


You're so full of crap. You tell me the last draft that produced the best of all time, the highest scoring average leader, the #2 points scorer in history, the number 1 steals, the number 1 assists leader, the number one blocks leader. Yea, really average. Why don't you show me another draft that owns every single important category huh? Save rebounds cuz there was these guys who were stronger then everyone else who padded their stats. Uh, yea.

:oldlol: You fool, you were the one who mentioned the '83 draft which produced nothing of the above and I'm the one who's saying crap? I even added that the next draft was the great one, and you completely ignored it, claiming that I called that mediocre.


It sucks for you, I know, you were obviously a big fan and to see the players you watched get so out done has to suck., but it WAS a weak era. Its not something people are making up. And now you're resorting to saying the best draft of all time was not really that significant, just an ebb and flow of regularity.

There are people who realize that weak era is not what the ESPN generation was brainwashed to believe. I couldn't care less about the opinions of people who think that "Wilt had no basketball skills". And sorry to break it to you, but my generation is the one of Magic, Bird and Jordan, not Wilt or Russell. But, unlike most of the others who don't see beyond their noses, I cared to study and learn about them.

[Psileas]

You obviously are not watching much basketball then. ;0 Lebron killed the Celtics last year. They would have lost but PJ Brown played out of his mind for a few minutes. Kobe didn't dominate them because he sucks phat lemons.

The same LeBron who shot 55-155 FG in that series and averaged 5.3 TO's? Yeah, I'm impressed...Where was my mind and I didn't notice all this "dominance"...

Kobe, one of the best player of this generation, sucks? Oh, I got it, weak era. :cheers:


Uh, that's what, 8 year's into Russell's career. So in his prime on a team loaded with hall of famers that had been playing together for that whole time vs. a team that had gotten Wilt mid-season and Nate who was in his second year in the league. Tough match up. Yawn.

Wrong season (and facts) and wrong way to argue against the fact that Russell's team still was undersized.


In the dunk contest.

free throw line
http://graneyandthepig.files.wordpre...ghthoward1.jpg

Chest rim: sorry its a couple inches off. I dunno, I'd say getting your head above the rim and being able to kiss the thing counts. Excuse my 2 inch hyperbole.

http://www.dwight-howard.com/Images/...tickerDunk.jpg

http://images.google.gr/images?hl=el...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3c8EaxsxQ
Freeze the video at 0:11. That's not stepping from the FT line.

2) First of all, it's not a 2-inch hyperbole. The mouth of an average man above 6 months old is not 2 inches from the chest. Second, this wasn't a kiss-the rim dunk. Third, although he has executed a kiss-the rim dunk, he did it while bending his head backwards in the air, which of course brings the mouth closer than actually kissing the rim while jumping and keeping your hand straight up. And this of course increases the distance from the chest even more.


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...lwfLs/610x.jpg

An nba net is 18" long. Because the camera is level with and closer to the regulation net it's going to cut some angle of the view off and make the net/distances further away look smaller. You can tell because the hoop actually looks smaller then the closer one but they're the same size. So if its lower then 12' then its lower by like, an inch, two at most. Dwight knows he can dunk 12... why would he shave off 2 inches to be exposed on? Notice how there has been 0 proof out that he faked the 12' dunk? You don't think someone would figure that out with elementary physics and own him in the media?

1) The camera seems to be placed somewhere between the level of the 2 baskets.
2) Here's the video of the dunks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH88qfUTotY Look at the rims and the nets at 1:18 (or in whichever part of the video you want to). Regardless of the angle they use, it seems like the tall basket's net is actually shorter than the other (even when compared to the lower part of their backboards), even when the camera is closer to the tall basket.
3) Still at 1:18, try to do the following: Draw a parallel of the lower part of the "tall" backboard and compare its height to the normal. If the basket is at 12 feet, the backboard should be 2 feet taller, as well. Knowing that the top of the normal backboard is at 13 feet, this seems highly unlikely. Seems like 11'6 to me.


Well, half a foot over the rim is quite a bit of space... certainly enough to dunk.

In order to easily dunk like Dwight did, you have to put your hand at least 5 inches above the rim. He seemed to do so, i.e, that with both hands extended (but not fully) and with not even his whole leg strength, he could still touch at least 12'5. Compared to what he did in 2007, I find this very hard to believe.


But they are an indicator of his athleticism.

Then don't complain when I'm talking about arm strength, either.


You said he did them at an olympic level not me. He's no where near an olympic track athlete.

No, I said Bill Russell high jumped at an Olympic level, which he did (he was a candidate for the Olympic team). But that's still not a good argument. Decathletes can't reach Olympic levels to each of their sports, either. It's the combination which makes their (and Wilt's) performances impressive.


Uh, Dwight Howard? Carl Lewis?

Howard is not 7'1, (plus there's no documented evidence for anything among them) and Carl Lewis, though arguably the greatest athlete ever (and obviously faster and with a bigger leap), would certainly not match his strength, so he still wouldn't beat him at all fields.


So you're admitting finally that Wilt's stats are padded? He got to play for some time without the rules they made for him. No one after him did.

The point is that not a single rule made for Wilt significantly cut down his stats. His own coaches (when they told him to stop scoring so much) did 10 times a better job. Wilt was still winning scoring titles and dominating when all the rules had been fixed for him.


Ha, Olajuwon is 7 feet tall, not 6'9". I mean, this is getting boring.

Olajuwon wasn't his stated height, that's well-known. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_is_hakeem_olajuwon

There's a photo of Hakeem with 7'2 Jabbar next to him and Kareem is clearly more than 2 inches taller. Hell, in an NBA special in '95 Olajuwon stood next to Russell and McHale and he was as tall as them, because Russell had made the point that players in his era were measured in their bare feet and that actually he would be listed at Hakeem's height if he played in the 80's-90's.


You state a bunch of 'facts' and reminisce about how Wilt/Russell dominated the weakest era of modern basketball when no one was playing the game in general and no one at all was close to their level. This is why elementary schools don't allow highschoolers to compete on their teams right?

I ignore childish responses like this.


I take your 'facts' and plug them into google and they show you to be dead wrong. There is another way to do this: you could look stuff up yourself and stop making statements so ludicrously misinformed. Just such sillyness.

Which of my facts did Google show to be wrong? I'm curious. At least, I showed you some of your own mistakes. Do bear in mind that even Google itself will admit that it doens't have an archive for everything. Actually, a lot of the things you'll read in books or watch on TV, you'll never find in Google or Youtube, because they are too specific. Want to learn what Bill Russell's vertical jump was? Good luck searching Google, you will find zero results, and this doesn't mean that Russell didn't have a vertical jump...


Hey, you want to call him the most dominant ever go ahead. They both dominated to a degree no one else has. You want to say best ever though you're full of stinky cuz they played against crappy players who wouldn't make the NBA today and would probably be cut from college teams. Its not an insult to them, they didn't have their own experiences to learn from and build from and that's obvious. But its obvious that they could not compete as the players they were then with the players today. Theres 1000's of times moe people playing ball in the world now. Its just not the same and some superior toughness/heart/attitude you're going to bring up does not negate that or that theres plenty of Duncan types who aren't weak. Its just such garbage.

This conclusion is a bunch of random things, and I don't feel like writing 3 more pages about why a lot of these are wrong.

[ScolaFan]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"


Exactly!!


How? good lord. :wtf:

[Simple Jack]

No, my misguided friend. What you need to do is go to university and learn to think. Something not being clear is not a reason to ignore it. Or, perhaps you're from the states and we have you to thank for the previous 8 years of presidential hell, who knows?

You're making an assumption too: that if you ignore strength of era and compare players souly on achievement with no context as to what their achievements happen the result truly reflects who's best. That's an assumption in itself and you're calling me stupid for making mine. And I have not made an assumption at all.

Its a rational judgment of truth based on empirical evidence of player performance, as well as the law of averages which is weighted heavily, enormously so, in favor of players being better today as more as 100's of millions more people people play the game.

You don't seem to understand the concept of 'context' very well at all, do you. Things happen inside contexts and that context dramatically affects the results of what that thing is. I'm saying that BR/Wilt played in a weak era and it inflated his stats which are the primary reason people claim they are the best.

Here is an example in how retarded your assumption is. In the 1920's a person sets a record for rowing down a river. 50 years later due to the ice caps melting the river flows faster now and his record gets broken 10. Now, you say that era does not count, achievement does. With your 'logic' the guy in 1920 is not as good a rower as the person in 1970 because he achieved so much less.

If someone points out to you that the 1970 person is actually not as good a rower, the 1920 person was better but the river was faster making them perform better you say its irrelevant because you can't compare eras, just achievement.

I'm sorry but this is 'stupid' my friend. And since you have admitted the river is faster now with:

As long as someone doesn't claim that Wilt (or any old-era player (especially pre 70's) would be a 50 point stud in the leagues of the future and takes his achievements with consideration of his performance only his own era, there's no need for an argument.

I've got to conclude two things. 1. you don't get thinking. and 2. You don't know how to read. Thats what all the russel guys have been saying on here. He'd still be best all time had he played today and still dominate the league.



I'm assuming you think me saying LeBron is better than Mark Madsen is hypothetical? There is a clear distinction between your logic and mine.


Which is an oversimplification. There is no distinction and you're not using logic. There's an enormous list of intangibles that produce results and you're just picking the ones you like out of a hat for the sake of simplicity. Sports are subjective and you refuse to admit it.

Here's a law of sports. Beating inferior competition is easier then beating superior competition.



When has there been any standard for ranking a player? Christ, get over yourself. There are many ways to evaluate who's better and in what way.



Umm... no, that's what you're doing. Discussion of sports never has 'proof' because people win for many different reasons and they're all subjective... things with 'proof' really aren't worth discussing much because there's nothing to talk about since it's proven anyway. Things that are proven are things like 1+1=2.

I've got to do this again.

As long as someone doesn't claim that Wilt (or any old-era player (especially pre 70's) would be a 50 point stud in the leagues of the future and takes his achievements with consideration of his performance only his own era, there's no need for an argument.

That's EXACTLY what people in this thread have been claiming. That they'd still dominate the league today like they used to. And how is



Eh, I guess I got you mixed up with the other guy. Point is if you're going to compare him to a player today his stats go down in this era and there's nothing left to make him the 'best ever' (especially Wilt) without those stats. Meanwhile these guys have been hawking stats the whole time when stats are era based.

Yet you've said that the Rusell side is clearly correct, making you a simple hypocrite.

Wow. You just spent an hour I'm assuming writing this post, responding to something I have never said, and to logic I didn't use. Can you teach me how to do that? Put words in someones mouth, assume their position, then go off on a tangent about how they are hypocrites?
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[SRZ66]

it is pretty amazing how people overate this guy. he definitely was good for his time, has a gaggle of rings and is quite the gentleman. however, he would not be anything special today. ben wallace basically. however, ben wallace is much stronger, so that is probably a stretch. i probably wouldn't hesistate to say ben wallace has more offensive ability as well. honeslty though, look at the clowns he was blocking shots off of back in the day. every clip is of him blocking some 6'2 white goofball who wouldn't make a high school varsity team in today's era. idk, its just ridiculous how people say he'd average 15 rebounds and 6 blocks or whatever is today's league. that simply wouldn't happen. he is not strong enough to own the paint like the league leader dwight howard

[jbot]

his advantage was playing in the era that he did i would say, but there's no point in really comparing them.

dude has what, 11 rings though? that's crazy.

[Alpha Wolf]

it is pretty amazing how people overate this guy. he definitely was good for his time, has a gaggle of rings and is quite the gentleman. however, he would not be anything special today. ben wallace basically. however, ben wallace is much stronger, so that is probably a stretch. i probably wouldn't hesistate to say ben wallace has more offensive ability as well. honeslty though, look at the clowns he was blocking shots off of back in the day. every clip is of him blocking some 6'2 white goofball who wouldn't make a high school varsity team in today's era. idk, its just ridiculous how people say he'd average 15 rebounds and 6 blocks or whatever is today's league. that simply wouldn't happen. he is not strong enough to own the paint like the league leader dwight howard



http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/Bill_Russell__From_ESPN_Website_.jpg

:roll::oldlol:




:applause:

so damn true




in today's league Bill Russell = much less athletic Marcus Camby

[Scott Pippen]

it is pretty amazing how people overate this guy. he definitely was good for his time, has a gaggle of rings and is quite the gentleman. however, he would not be anything special today. ben wallace basically. however, ben wallace is much stronger, so that is probably a stretch. i probably wouldn't hesistate to say ben wallace has more offensive ability as well. Ben with more offensive ability than Russell? Of course Ben is one of the best defender we have seen, but still not as good as the innovator. And there is more to offense than just trying to score in a 1-1 position. He has even said many teammates missed him on the offensive end more than the defensive end, for his great outlet passes, and great defensive blocked shots leading to offense. He has blocked some of Wilt Chamberlain's shots man to man. Many guys missed open layups looking for him. Please let this not be a perfect example of disregarding things that you don't care to learn. We must understand how the game was played at the time, what their physical abilities were, and most importantly learn to distinguish their physical abilites from what they actually did out there. 80% of Insidehoops fans it seems are incapable of doing this even with today's players, never mind Russell.


honeslty though, look at the clowns he was blocking shots off of back in the day. every clip is of him blocking some 6'2 white goofball who wouldn't make a high school varsity team in today's era.
This is 1960s basketball, not 1890s basketball.

[sodapop]

it is pretty amazing how people overate this guy. he definitely was good for his time, has a gaggle of rings and is quite the gentleman. however, he would not be anything special today. ben wallace basically. however, ben wallace is much stronger, so that is probably a stretch. i probably wouldn't hesistate to say ben wallace has more offensive ability as well. honeslty though, look at the clowns he was blocking shots off of back in the day. every clip is of him blocking some 6'2 white goofball who wouldn't make a high school varsity team in today's era. idk, its just ridiculous how people say he'd average 15 rebounds and 6 blocks or whatever is today's league. that simply wouldn't happen. he is not strong enough to own the paint like the league leader dwight howard

Once again, I'll repeat what I said to Indiefan23. I quote -

Dude, you should check yourself before calling someone a moron. Your comment is a tad bit ignorant. Umm, you don't know your history. Besides, you probably never watched any of the great teams play in the 80's? Every true NBA fan know today's NBA is soft compared to the old. Fragrant fouls today were regular fouls back then. Secondly, defense got weaker in the 90's. Don't say ignorant stuff my friend! Thirdly, the reason why you don't see many legends dunking the ball?

A. dunking was a taboo, wasn't really allowed in the 50's & early 60's. Many players in the league back then could dunk.
B. It was risky to dunk back then. You could seriously get hurt trying to attempt a dunk - someone would slam you down onto the hard wood.

Fourth, have you ever heard of a guy named Earl Manigault, A.K.A The Goat? He was the best dunker of all time. He could snatch a dime off the top of the backboard. This was in the mid 60's. How about David "Big Daddy D" Lattin? He was known for his low post defense and powerful dunks - Texas Western NCAA Champion 1966.
The NBA / NCAA back then were very strict about drafting fancy style players. The style of basketball we enjoy today was not popular back then. In the streets, yes, very popular. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson and many others had to choose between street & pro style of basketball. Players today don't have this problem. The league is more open minded today. You can bring up stats, size & shooting % until you're blue in the face! Keep in mind, if it wasn't for the older players breaking down walls, you wouldn't have a Dr. J, Michael Jordan or a LeBron James. There wouldn't be any slam dunking in the NBA. THE END OF QUOTE......:banana:


You cannot compare legends / innovators to trail walkers (someone who follows someone else footsteps). PLUS.... you haven't include legends from the ABA & BAA league to this debate? The ABA had amazing talent and it was raw! Dr. J was slamming on everybody before he entered the NBA. There were many players back then who could dominate the game today. Because it's 2009 doesn't mean things changed or got better. The root will always be raw & natural.

[Scott Pippen]

^ :applause:

[Simple Jack]

Once again, I'll repeat what I said to Indiefan23. I quote -

Dude, you should check yourself before calling someone a moron. Your comment is a tad bit ignorant. Umm, you don't know your history. Besides, you probably never watched any of the great teams play in the 80's? Every true NBA fan know today's NBA is soft compared to the old. Fragrant fouls today were regular fouls back then. Secondly, defense got weaker in the 90's. Don't say ignorant stuff my friend! Thirdly, the reason why you don't see many legends dunking the ball?

A. dunking was a taboo, wasn't really allowed in the 50's & early 60's. Many players in the league back then could dunk.
B. It was risky to dunk back then. You could seriously get hurt trying to attempt a dunk - someone would slam you down onto the hard wood.

Fourth, have you ever heard of a guy named Earl Manigault, A.K.A The Goat? He was the best dunker of all time. He could snatch a dime off the top of the backboard. This was in the mid 60's. How about David "Big Daddy D" Lattin? He was known for his low post defense and powerful dunks - Texas Western NCAA Champion 1966.
The NBA / NCAA back then were very strict about drafting fancy style players. The style of basketball we enjoy today was not popular back then. In the streets, yes, very popular. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson and many others had to choose between street & pro style of basketball. Players today don't have this problem. The league is more open minded today. You can bring up stats, size & shooting % until you're blue in the face! Keep in mind, if it wasn't for the older players breaking down walls, you wouldn't have a Dr. J, Michael Jordan or a LeBron James. There wouldn't be any slam dunking in the NBA. THE END OF QUOTE......:banana:


You cannot compare legends / innovators to trail walkers (someone who follows someone else footsteps). PLUS.... you haven't include legends from the ABA & BAA league to this debate? The ABA had amazing talent and it was raw! Dr. J was slamming on everybody before he entered the NBA. There were many players back then who could dominate the game today. Because it's 2009 doesn't mean things changed or got better. The root will always be raw & natural.

I disagree. I don't think its to the extent some of the other people in this thread have stated but sports most definitely have gotten better and people have gotten more athletic. You're completely discrediting the importance of time and technology in sports. Defensive/Offensive strategies, nutrition, training techniques have all improved over the years, and naturally you expect athletes to follow suit.

Again, this doesn't discredit what Bill, Wilt, Oscar, etc. did in their own time. That is how you rank players and I don't think I can say it any clearer. Determining how a player from 40 years ago would do now is based on what if's and assumptions; you take what they did in their era and that's how you rank them.

Indiefan, consider this buddy. If we didn't know who Dirk was and he played in the 60's, what do you think he would average? I'm assuming 50 24 isn't something you think is out of reach for Dirk playing in that era? What would we say about him now? He isn't good because he played with small white boys and wouldn't average those ridiculous stats now. You see where I'm going with this...

On a side note, I think Wilt's game would transition a lot better than any other player back then as he is STILL an athletic freak by today's standards. I mean the guy played 48 minutes a game in an insanely fast paced era; that alone should give you an idea of how well conditioned and athletic this guy actually was.

[indiefan23]

indiefan23:

The question which leaps to the forefront is what did you think of Kareem? Was he a stat padding scrub who didn't play "real basketball" or was he something in between? This is tricky because he battled both '60s relics such as Wilt and modern day players in the '80s who also went on to do well in the '90s, doing so even late in his career despite his advanced age and diminished speed. And I can't think of anyone besides Wilt who blocked Kareem's sky hook multiple times. And this was after the devastating knee injury which caused him to miss an entire season.

You know, this is maybe the first response to anything I've said that's like, serious in any way. Kareem is a great player to consider because he spans so much time at a high level. I think honestly he's showing that what I've said was correct.

Now, part of this was due to Kareem getting older but you can see Kareem's numbers steadily decline after the ABA/NBA merger, especially in the stats that size matters most. This is the 'talent watershed' for the league because its when the league stopped expanding, incorporated the best players from the ABA and talent started to accumulate. In the one year after the merger his boards went down almost 4 from 17 to 13 and down almost a whole block from 4 to 3. Both stats continuously declined as players got better and as he broke down. Its tough to tell when one of these factors became the predominant force however. Its a great example of how the competition affects your ability to achieve though.

As a side note: I really respect Kareem's durability, but he's over-rated for scoring the most points and boards and all that. The guy played at least 3-5 seasons way past his prime and mostly padding stats. Props to him, but lots of players don't want to play at a reduced level and retire. If everyone played till they just couldn't make the team anymore his records would have fallen a long time ago.


As far as your questions regarding Wilt's skills, he had a wide variety of hooks, leaners, jumpers, bankers, and even fall aways. You can see it in old highlights when he was putting up 40 and 50 a game or whatever. He had surprising range, but so did Shaq too when he was in Orlando.

I don't see that honestly. Both these guys are power moves inside. Outside the key what do they shoot? Both guys could not hit a jumper. And if Wilt could it begs the question why don't I see that when I watch a full finals game on ESPN classic?

To Wilt's credit I do believe that he was the first player who could have hacked it in today's league. His complete individual domination of the NBA says something. Its hard to say what his ceiling today would be. I'm guessing a little under Shaq is his ceiling ceiling (if you follow)? Not to say he 'would' be Shaq, but that's the highest he could go. Which is pretty high IMHO. I would say Dikembe Mutumbo is a more likely ceiling for him though. Wilt's the first player who could be a force today or in the 90's though. Russell probably would not suck but this discussion is totally laughable if he doesn't play with what, 8 hall of famers?


As far as Russell, I do not believe he is a top 5 all time center either. The ones ahead of him bring the rebounding, defense, if not the passing (some do, some don't), but they all also bring dominant, efficient volume scoring on top of that. I still like Bill of course. Understandably, big men who defend/rebound but have limited offense are always brushed aside, despite their obvious impact on winning. But...Russell is a lot better on offense than Big Ben. I mean, come on now. At least say Mutombo, to save some face. Russell has 40 point playoff games games to his credit. What's Big Ben's career high? Like 25? He looks nervous initiating moves more than 2 feet from the basket.

Yea, but Big Ben is trying to score on people who are way taller and mobile then he is. He's a 6'9" center who's not a super fantastic athlete making him very undersized. Against his era BR can score 40 points. But in the modern league BR would be Ben Wallace. At least at the center position. You also have to consider how much more energy it takes to play center today. They didn't really bang back in the day and barely boxed out.


I don't think I would want to put Bill on Shaq or Kareem in a series, so I do believe he may play PF today in certain matchups, but Duncan gets away with playing C all year long right now.

Thats cuz TD has always been a center. Sure they start him at PF but he's a center. That he's the 'best PF in history' is kind of lame because that's not what he plays. When he came in the league they'd start Robinson at C so they played TD at the 4. When he left they didn't change anything. I can tell you: Elson/Oberto were not the Spurs starting centers on championship teams.


In fact, it seems like nowadays centers are actually smaller than usual. So many tweeners playing nowadays. But yeah, as you can see below a 75 year old Bill Russell is as big as KG, a dominant rebounder/defender in his own right. They have similar builds, actually. They see eye to eye.

You've gotta be careful specifically which days you're referring to. In the past few years there have been a plethora of rule changes making it easy to score and making 'big' post players less effective. You'll notice a jump in Camby's stats towards the end of his career which has been assisted by these rules. Bigs lke Bosh play great but would not be able to hack it in the 90's without some more size.

Similar builds to KG however KG is 6'11", not 6'9". Pictures are really poor indicators of these kinds of things especially when people are talking to eachohter. Also KG is a physicial freak. A freak!!! He can dribble between his legs and hit a 3 pointers. Russel could not do that.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/3011411790_e3e0aa3fee.jpg

It's true Wilt (scoring), Russell (rebounds), or Oscar (everything) wouldn't post similar numbers today and there's a very good reason:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3460/3350918267_62e5acbff4_o.jpg[/QUOTE]

Yep. That's the thing ya know? Basketball has become more scientific over the years. Instead of running down, making two passes and someone forcing a shot team's play within structured offenses against calculated defenses based upon statistically mined data. Winning at sports is done with millions of dollars fine tuning everything that can possibly be tuned. Things like heart and everything still count but at this level its been negated by many other things like raw athleticism and money being thrown into training etc.

That and no one ever wants to address the most basic argument that I pur forward. when Russell started in the NBA was not even 10 years old (and you have to include the BAA for that). In 1927 the NACB was formed to oppose a campaign to remove dribbling from the sport. So you've got to wonder: exactly how many people in the world were playing when Billy picked up his first 'soccer ball' and shot some hoops? Yea, cuz when Russell started playing they still used freaking soccer balls.

Anyway, when Bill was growing up, there were about 2 billion people on the planet. Of those two billion only a small portion of the 120 million in the US actually played, and a smaller proportion of those played any kind of organized fashion simply because the sport was so new. So lets guesstimate? Maybe there were 100's of thousands playing ball? Maybe a couple million? Today 100's and 100's of millions play. Basketball is the number 2 international sport and the fastest growing sport in the world. Not to mention that average size and height of humans increases. Also not to mention that at that time the best athletes would be drawn to sports like baseball and boxing and other sports that were way more popular at the time. I mean, Lacross was more popular then basketball!!!

So it just kind of goes totally against the law of averages totally. You take the smallest pool of people playing basketball from one country in the history of professional basketball and a player emerges from that pool as great. Then there rapid expansion to the point that theres probably 1000's of times more people playing, 100's more leagues, a massive promotional professional league and the sport has a truly global dominance to the point where its being played in villages in Asia. Anyway, after all that expansion you re sample the pool and take a few hundred guys from it... and people on here have been trying to tell me that nope, the best was the guy taken from the pool 1000's of times less who played with soccer balls.

Heh, sorry to elaborate so much, but its just ridiculous. Bill Russell might be Ben Wallace today but its more likely then not that he comes off the bench. Because of Wilt's sheer dominance it seems he was a total freak and would could start. I think what we have to remember is that there are plenty of guys who can play in the D-League. There's plenty of people who can really play in leagues way below the D-League some of those guys with retired numbers in the rafters... kudos to them, they had lots of success, but some of them would be d-leaguers today. If the pool of talent shrank 1000's of times it would be the other way around. Its just the reality of the game's progression.

[indiefan23]

Indiefan, consider this buddy. If we didn't know who Dirk was and he played in the 60's, what do you think he would average? I'm assuming 50 24 isn't something you think is out of reach for Dirk playing in that era? What would we say about him now? He isn't good because he played with small white boys and wouldn't average those ridiculous stats now. You see where I'm going with this...

I think it would be more honestly. Dirk is the most skilled footer of all time. If he absolutely overwhelmed the opposition like Wilt did I'd give him more credit. You agree here...



On a side note, I think Wilt's game would transition a lot better than any other player back then as he is STILL an athletic freak by today's standards. I mean the guy played 48 minutes a game in an insanely fast paced era; that alone should give you an idea of how well conditioned and athletic this guy actually was.

But I absolutely would question Dirk's stats compared to his era of weakness. The fact that Wilt got 50 a game shows how weak it was. Anyway, the second part of it is like this. If I threw on ESPN Classic and saw Dirk moving the same way he is today and hitting NBA 3's scoring 75 PPG as he could just shoot over every one and hit 80% I'd probably be more willing to accept he'd be a great player today. But you watch ESPN Classic and you see the best players in the world at that time in the finals and they don't set screens. And when they do they're so weak you see ultra slow players just walk around them. BR got lots of boards but when he started people didn't really know how to box out. The fundamentals had not really even been created yet.

Like I said, people were still playing with soccer balls when BR started in the NBA. Its just so beyond comparison.

[indiefan23]

Dude, you should check yourself before calling someone a moron. Your comment is a tad bit ignorant. Umm, you don't know your history. Besides, you probably never watched any of the great teams play in the 80's? Every true NBA fan know today's NBA is soft compared to the old. Fragrant fouls today were regular fouls back then. Secondly, defense got weaker in the 90's. Don't say ignorant stuff my friend! Thirdly, the reason why you don't see many legends dunking the ball?

Yea, or, they couldn't jump high enough.

Now, you ARE a moron. You said defense got weaker in the 90's. Which is crap cuz everyone knows teams ran more in the 80's... but for the sake of wasting time...

Season GP FG% 3P% FT% TRb Ast PF Stl Trn Blk Pnts
1980-81 - 82.0 .491 .245 .751 43.5 25.5 25.1 9.00 18.7 5.32 110.1
1981-82 - 82.0 .497 .262 .746 43.5 25.2 26.2 8.54 17.7 5.37 108.6
1982-83 - 82.0 .492 .238 .740 42.6 25.9 25.6 8.89 19.1 5.60 108.5
1983-84 - 82.0 .499 .250 .760 41.2 26.2 25.8 8.50 17.9 5.30 110.3
1984-85 - 82.0 .499 .282 .764 43.5 26.3 24.9 8.55 17.9 5.32 110.8
1985-86 - 82.0 .495 .282 .756 43.6 26.0 25.2 8.79 17.8 5.26 110.2
1986-87 - 82.0 .480 .301 .763 44.0 26.0 24.5 8.62 17.0 5.52 109.9
1987-88 - 82.0 .480 .316 .766 43.4 25.8 24.1 8.51 16.7 5.39 108.2
1988-89 - 82.0 .477 .323 .768 43.9 25.5 23.7 9.09 17.2 5.34 109.2
1989-90 - 82.0 .476 .335 .764 43.1 24.9 23.3 8.52 16.1 5.06 107.0
1990-91 - 82.0 .474 .320 .765 43.3 24.7 23.2 8.59 16.0 5.26 106.3
1991-92 - 82.0 .472 .331 .759 43.7 24.5 22.2 8.65 15.5 5.51 105.3
1992-93 - 82.0 .473 .337 .755 43.1 24.7 23.2 8.55 15.9 5.22 105.3
1993-94 - 82.0 .466 .333 .734 43.0 24.4 22.2 8.88 16.0 5.23 101.5
1994-95 - 82.0 .466 .359 .736 41.6 23.4 23.5 8.28 16.0 5.16 101.4
1995-96 - 82.0 .462 .367 .740 41.3 22.7 23.0 7.98 15.8 5.06 99.5
1996-97 - 82.0 .455 .360 .738 41.1 22.0 22.1 8.20 15.7 4.91 96.9
1997-98 - 82.0 .450 .346 .737 41.5 22.0 22.4 8.39 15.5 5.07 95.6
1998-99 - 50.0 .437 .339 .728 41.7 20.7 22.2 8.35 15.3 4.96 91.6
1999-00 - 82.0 .449 .353 .750 42.9 22.3 23.3 7.94 15.5 5.17 97.5
2000-01 - 82.0 .443 .354 .748 42.5 21.8 22.3 7.80 14.8 5.30 94.8

Notice that number on the end? Thats PPG and it drops almost 20 freaking points in the 90's. Notice that number with the period in front of it by the 82? That's FG%. It peaks at almost 50% in the 80's and dips to 43% in the 90's. Why's that? Because defense was undeniably the focus and way tighter. Are you done or do you want to be owned more? More? Ok...


A. dunking was a taboo, wasn't really allowed in the 50's & early 60's. Many players in the league back then could dunk.
B. It was risky to dunk back then. You could seriously get hurt trying to attempt a dunk - someone would slam you down onto the hard wood.

Yea, or they couldn't get up there.


Fourth, have you ever heard of a guy named Earl Manigault, A.K.A The Goat? He was the best dunker of all time. He could snatch a dime off the top of the backboard. This was in the mid 60's. How about David "Big Daddy D" Lattin? He was known for his low post defense and powerful dunks - Texas Western NCAA Champion 1966.
The NBA / NCAA back then were very strict about drafting fancy style players. The style of basketball we enjoy today was not popular back then. In the streets, yes, very popular. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson and many others had to choose between street & pro style of basketball. Players today don't have this problem. The league is more open minded today.

Okay, so you're telling me as part of your argument that BR is awesome that the league specifically and intentionally barred the most athletic, fastest and skilled players of his era from the league? Does that not diminish Russell even more?

Yes, I've heard of your playground legend. Street ball is cool but I still say Vince is the best dunker of all time.


You can bring up stats, size & shooting % until you're blue in the face! Keep in mind, if it wasn't for the older players breaking down walls, you wouldn't have a Dr. J, Michael Jordan or a LeBron James. There wouldn't be any slam dunking in the NBA.

Ah, I've never said they didn't pioneer the league. I've never said they didn't deserve respect. I just say their acomplishments were inflated and without them theres no way anyone puts them on this list.

[t-rex]

Bill Russell was so dominate he won his last title as "player coach" beating the Lakers in the NBA finals who had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor in the prime of their careers.

I think because Russell wasn't a prolific scorer, some think he was overrated. But Russell new how to win.



http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Basketball/Russell/Bill_Russell_SI_mid.jpg

This says it all. The greatest team player on the greatest team! Take that Wilt!

[Simple Jack]

I think it would be more honestly. Dirk is the most skilled footer of all time. If he absolutely overwhelmed the opposition like Wilt did I'd give him more credit. You agree here...



But I absolutely would question Dirk's stats compared to his era of weakness. The fact that Wilt got 50 a game shows how weak it was. Anyway, the second part of it is like this. If I threw on ESPN Classic and saw Dirk moving the same way he is today and hitting NBA 3's scoring 75 PPG as he could just shoot over every one and hit 80% I'd probably be more willing to accept he'd be a great player today. But you watch ESPN Classic and you see the best players in the world at that time in the finals and they don't set screens. And when they do they're so weak you see ultra slow players just walk around them. BR got lots of boards but when he started people didn't really know how to box out. The fundamentals had not really even been created yet.

Like I said, people were still playing with soccer balls when BR started in the NBA. Its just so beyond comparison.


What more do you expect? You realistically think Dirk would shoot 80% which is around his free throw average, in FG%?

You do realize Wilt was on another level athletically from someone like Dirk yet you give no acknowledgment of this in any of your posts. Wilt literally did whatever he wanted, when he wanted when he played, and I wouldn't expect anything more than what Wilt did, even from a player today.

[sodapop]

Yea, or, they couldn't jump high enough.

Now, you ARE a moron. You said defense got weaker in the 90's. Which is crap cuz everyone knows teams ran more in the 80's... but for the sake of wasting time...

Season GP FG% 3P% FT% TRb Ast PF Stl Trn Blk Pnts
1980-81 - 82.0 .491 .245 .751 43.5 25.5 25.1 9.00 18.7 5.32 110.1
1981-82 - 82.0 .497 .262 .746 43.5 25.2 26.2 8.54 17.7 5.37 108.6
1982-83 - 82.0 .492 .238 .740 42.6 25.9 25.6 8.89 19.1 5.60 108.5
1983-84 - 82.0 .499 .250 .760 41.2 26.2 25.8 8.50 17.9 5.30 110.3
1984-85 - 82.0 .499 .282 .764 43.5 26.3 24.9 8.55 17.9 5.32 110.8
1985-86 - 82.0 .495 .282 .756 43.6 26.0 25.2 8.79 17.8 5.26 110.2
1986-87 - 82.0 .480 .301 .763 44.0 26.0 24.5 8.62 17.0 5.52 109.9
1987-88 - 82.0 .480 .316 .766 43.4 25.8 24.1 8.51 16.7 5.39 108.2
1988-89 - 82.0 .477 .323 .768 43.9 25.5 23.7 9.09 17.2 5.34 109.2
1989-90 - 82.0 .476 .335 .764 43.1 24.9 23.3 8.52 16.1 5.06 107.0
1990-91 - 82.0 .474 .320 .765 43.3 24.7 23.2 8.59 16.0 5.26 106.3
1991-92 - 82.0 .472 .331 .759 43.7 24.5 22.2 8.65 15.5 5.51 105.3
1992-93 - 82.0 .473 .337 .755 43.1 24.7 23.2 8.55 15.9 5.22 105.3
1993-94 - 82.0 .466 .333 .734 43.0 24.4 22.2 8.88 16.0 5.23 101.5
1994-95 - 82.0 .466 .359 .736 41.6 23.4 23.5 8.28 16.0 5.16 101.4
1995-96 - 82.0 .462 .367 .740 41.3 22.7 23.0 7.98 15.8 5.06 99.5
1996-97 - 82.0 .455 .360 .738 41.1 22.0 22.1 8.20 15.7 4.91 96.9
1997-98 - 82.0 .450 .346 .737 41.5 22.0 22.4 8.39 15.5 5.07 95.6
1998-99 - 50.0 .437 .339 .728 41.7 20.7 22.2 8.35 15.3 4.96 91.6
1999-00 - 82.0 .449 .353 .750 42.9 22.3 23.3 7.94 15.5 5.17 97.5
2000-01 - 82.0 .443 .354 .748 42.5 21.8 22.3 7.80 14.8 5.30 94.8

Notice that number on the end? Thats PPG and it drops almost 20 freaking points in the 90's. Notice that number with the period in front of it by the 82? That's FG%. It peaks at almost 50% in the 80's and dips to 43% in the 90's. Why's that? Because defense was undeniably the focus and way tighter. Are you done or do you want to be owned more? More? Ok...



Yea, or they couldn't get up there.



Okay, so you're telling me as part of your argument that BR is awesome that the league specifically and intentionally barred the most athletic, fastest and skilled players of his era from the league? Does that not diminish Russell even more?

Yes, I've heard of your playground legend. Street ball is cool but I still say Vince is the best dunker of all time.



Ah, I've never said they didn't pioneer the league. I've never said they didn't deserve respect. I just say their acomplishments were inflated and without them theres no way anyone puts them on this list.


Dude, only you can understand your pointless logic. Having a conversation with yourself, lying to yourself, forcing lies upon yourself doesn't mean your jibbers are actual facts. I don't mind if you think inside the box, google your information, believe everything ESPN, Slam & Dime tells you. I already know you're a young character, MTV degenerate who think he can debate against others who're way more intelligent about basketball than you. I remember CBS, NBC broadcast games, waiting for the week to end to check out a game. I think I know a little bit about basketball. I'm not saying I know everything. However, I know not to leave out the full picture. You can't make your claim with only half. You had the BAA, ABA and the NBA. There were many talented players in all three leagues. It's impossible to compare. Like I said before, you can bring up stats, size, shooting % until your face turns blue, I don't care. I know, you know, you cannot compare the NBA players of today with the NBA players of the past with stats. The game was totally different. Too me, the game was more physical back then. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would agree. This basketball debate is bigger than any stat you can bring up, make up or think up. Bill Russell was a bigger figure than any player playing in the game today. He only made one 45 record recording and did not have his own brand of shoe. Bill represented basketball, the black athlete, the voice of black youth and the voice of the Civil Rights movement. Bill Russell was smooth as the sound of Motown - what is in the groove that counts! I had a similar debate about boxing. A young degenerate told me Muhammad Ali wouldn't be nothing in today's boxing. It's fine to be young and proud of your present day athletic hero. Please don't over do it! Just be thankful the NBA changed it's ways. No more drafting one black person per team, no more strict rules about how to play the game and no more BS, period. We can sit here and debate about Bill Russell for the next century. Hell, this debate will continue for decades to come. That should be enough proof, Bill Russell was somebody, a amazing player and a pure NBA legend. If Bill Russell wasn't, we would not be here posting comments about him.:pimp:

[indiefan23]

What more do you expect? You realistically think Dirk would shoot 80% which is around his free throw average, in FG%?


Well, Dirk can post up at the free throw line and knock them down easily. Sooooo... with no back down rule, the lane narrower, people guarding him 6'9", the fact that his shot is impossible to block without fouling him and the fact that to get position during that time you just had to amble into the paint, yea, why not say thats his ceiling??? Dirk would be the best player in history if he went back. So if Wilt can score 50 a game for a year I don't see how its that far a stretch that someone who could hit his free throws and has better all around skills then any player in the league and was taller then every player in the league could bang off 75 PPG. On missed FT's alone he'd get up to what 60 at least?


You do realize Wilt was on another level athletically from someone like Dirk yet you give no acknowledgment of this in any of your posts. Wilt literally did whatever he wanted, when he wanted when he played, and I wouldn't expect anything more than what Wilt did, even from a player today.

Was he? He was then maybe. Wilt was big and strong. Sure, and bigger and stronger then most people in the league when he played but are you 'sure' about that? Have you not noticed: almost no one in the NBA is not an athletic freak. To be a freak today you have to be a freak among freaks. So I'm not sure if Wilt is just automatically stronger then everyone in the NBA because it sure seems to be the assumption you're working off of. I do know Wilt thought he was the greatest athlete in history himself. I do wonder how many of your 'facts' were stories he told... you know, like he slept with over 20,000 women. Which is patently impossible.

Anyway his basketball skills were weak. That's why he led the league historically in all-time missed free throws. In athletics I consider more then size and strength. Wilt's movement up the court just looks awkward in comparison to Dirk who's fluid. I'd say Dirk, the most talented 7 footer of all time and can score from anywhere on the court was on another level athletically then Wilt who didn't take time to hone his skills and relied on close range dunks and lay ins.

[JtotheIzzo]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"


end thread

[indiefan23]

Dude, only you can understand your pointless logic. Having a conversation with yourself, lying to yourself, forcing lies upon yourself doesn't mean your jibbers are actual facts. I don't mind if you think inside the box, google your information, believe everything ESPN, Slam & Dime tells you. I already know you're a young character, MTV degenerate who think he can debate against others who're way more intelligent about basketball than you.

Heh! Good Ad Hominem, I was wondering when you would make your presence felt. Ad Hominem means 'attack the person' and is a logical fallacy. When someone's argument is weakening they attack the credibility of their opponent rather then the things he says.

For the record I'm not young, never got MTV cuz I'm not American and am quite intelligent. You lose on all 3 counts there. It doesn't matter if I was though cuz my points are the same no matter who I am and they're strong. Exactly what am I distorting again?



I remember CBS, NBC broadcast games, waiting for the week to end to check out a game. I think I know a little bit about basketball. I'm not saying I know everything. However, I know not to leave out the full picture. You can't make your claim with only half. You had the BAA, ABA and the NBA. There were many talented players in all three leagues. It's impossible to compare. Like I said before, you can bring up stats, size, shooting % until your face turns blue, I don't care. I know, you know, you cannot compare the NBA players of today with the NBA players of the past with stats.

We agree on that. The pioneering stars' stats are inflated because people didn't know how to play basketball and were massively inferior athletes relative to now.


The game was totally different. Too me, the game was more physical back then.

Good freaking lord. Please. This is asinine.

You watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfm2iABxl_A&feature=PlayList&p=584472FFD74010D9&index=0&playnext=1

And find me anything in comparison to it from then. What a joke.


I'm pretty sure a lot of people would agree. This basketball debate is bigger than any stat you can bring up, make up or think up. Bill Russell was a bigger figure than any player playing in the game today. He only made one 45 record recording and did not have his own brand of shoe. Bill represented basketball, the black athlete, the voice of black youth and the voice of the Civil Rights movement. Bill Russell was smooth as the sound of Motown - what is in the groove that counts!

Heh, or maybe Joe Louis did huh? As if BR would have turned down a shoe deal if he had the chance. Come on already. Again this him being 'smooth as motown' has poo all to do with how good a ball player he was in relation to today's players. Shaq dancing with the Jabberwokeez has no bearing on wether he's better then Bill Russell even though BR could never pull it off.


I had a similar debate about boxing. A young degenerate told me Muhammad Ali wouldn't be nothing in today's boxing.

Well no you didn't. This is nothing like your debate. I'm not young. I'm for sure not a uh, 'degenerate', and that comparison is ridiculous for merely one fact. In the 50's boxing was a massively larger sport then it is today so it makes sense that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer to ever live. Those Foreman/Ali fights will never be duplicated. I guess it is a similar debate though because you were on my side providing a rational analysis of how boxing was stronger in that era. Funny: you don't think Tyson was greater then Ali? In Tyson's era he was champion for longer and had more accolades.


It's fine to be young and proud of your present day athletic hero. Please don't over do it!

You mean like, be so blinded by your man love you say players who played with soccer balls when the sport was in it's infancy compare to people who can kiss the rim and say they're just as athletic as 5'6" people who can win slam dunk contests? Wouldn't want to be CRAZY there now.


Just be thankful the NBA changed it's ways. No more drafting one black person per team, no more strict rules about how to play the game and no more BS, period. We can sit here and debate about Bill Russell for the next century. Hell, this debate will continue for decades to come. That should be enough proof, Bill Russell was somebody, a amazing player and a pure NBA legend.

I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed have they? You don't have to have been better then players in today's era to be any of those things. I said I thought it was really classy to name the MVP award after Bill Russell even.

[Psileas]

Anyway his basketball skills were weak. That's why he led the league historically in all-time missed free throws. In athletics I consider more then size and strength. Wilt's movement up the court just looks awkward in comparison to Dirk who's fluid. I'd say Dirk, the most talented 7 footer of all time and can score from anywhere on the court was on another level athletically then Wilt who didn't take time to hone his skills and relied on close range dunks and lay ins.

Good job completely ignoring the video I put that proves you wrong...

Again, here are some plays of Wilt, showing some of his talent, doing things that nobody did before and very few since:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUdDoxjmZdQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&feature=channel_page

Dirk has the following 2 things over Wilt: Overall shooting and dribbling (you know, possibly the only things that Kobe may have over Jordan, as well). Guess what: He also has these 2 things over any center to have ever played the game. Does this mean that he's more talented than any of them? Or that you'd pick Dirk in the position of any other center? He's not even a center, to begin with. He's a 7-footer, doing some things that no 7 footer has done, but the combination of the things Wilt has (and some other centers have) over Dirk is more impressive. How great a defender is the Talented Mr. Nowitzki? Shot blocker? Passer? How great is his leadership? His rebounding? How much does his presence deter opponents from coming close to the basket? How about his FG%? I remember you blaiming young Wilt for not shooting Shaq-like percentages, but Dirk actually shots even lower (yes, even if you take out threes), despite being a better shooter and despite also having a very clear size advantage over any of his opponents.

[sodapop]

Heh! Good Ad Hominem, I was wondering when you would make your presence felt. Ad Hominem means 'attack the person' and is a logical fallacy. When someone's argument is weakening they attack the credibility of their opponent rather then the things he says.

:lol Ummm, who's arguing? I'm on the attack? HA HA HA HA HA!!! Dude, I already put you on mute. The mute button was activated on you three post ago. I'm not bothered nor care what you say. You're a great tool to use for entertainment while I'm bored. Besides, before you receive credibility, you must earn it first. I'm sorry to say, you're not there yet. HA HA!!

For the record I'm not young, never got MTV cuz I'm not American and am quite intelligent. You lose on all 3 counts there. It doesn't matter if I was though cuz my points are the same no matter who I am and they're strong. Exactly what am I distorting again?

For the record, you ARE a young, MTV degenerate. Also, MTV is broadcast world wide. You can not hide the facts, money.. Reading your post proves YOU are a young-yin. Stop kidding yourself......



We agree on that. The pioneering stars' stats are inflated because people didn't know how to play basketball and were massively inferior athletes relative to now.

:sleeping How dumb can you get? If I ever need a clown, you're hired!


Good freaking lord. Please. This is asinine.

You watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfm2iABxl_A&feature=PlayList&p=584472FFD74010D9&index=0&playnext=1

And find me anything in comparison to it from then. What a joke.

:confusedshrug:



Heh, or maybe Joe Louis did huh? As if BR would have turned down a shoe deal if he had the chance. Come on already. Again this him being 'smooth as motown' has poo all to do with how good a ball player he was in relation to today's players. Shaq dancing with the Jabberwokeez has no bearing on wether he's better then Bill Russell even though BR could never pull it off.

:violin: This guy is the funniest thing yet! His mind is living in more boxes than a bum in NYC...



Well no you didn't. This is nothing like your debate. I'm not young. I'm for sure not a uh, 'degenerate', and that comparison is ridiculous for merely one fact. In the 50's boxing was a massively larger sport then it is today so it makes sense that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer to ever live. Those Foreman/Ali fights will never be duplicated. I guess it is a similar debate though because you were on my side providing a rational analysis of how boxing was stronger in that era. Funny: you don't think Tyson was greater then Ali? In Tyson's era he was champion for longer and had more accolades.

Still barking? I'm still waiting for your so called intelligent suggestions, ideas or any hardcore facts to back up your claim? Every reply you had made does not hold water. You're still thinking inside the box, repeating the same boring, average crap you hear from a average sports fan. Anybody can say what you say and bring up the same boring stats & information. Tell me something I don't know? I gave you a rare history lesson and I got nothing from you except the same average crap. I can get the same answers you're providing from any person off the street - average.. You don't have the basketball knowledge or I.Q. to continue this debate about Bill Russell. 1990's basketball is far back you can go. This thread is far beyond your capability. You shouldn't waste your remaining brain cells on a topic you can't comprehend. I advise you to search for a easier task, a more suitable, simple thread. This thread is about Bill Russell top three Centers of all time - legendary centers from the BAA, NBA, ABA, the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's to current time. There are many centers to choose from. This thread is not for you. You should move on.....................


You mean like, be so blinded by your man love you say players who played with soccer balls when the sport was in it's infancy compare to people who can kiss the rim and say they're just as athletic as 5'6" people who can win slam dunk contests? Wouldn't want to be CRAZY there now.

Once again, you're not making your claim.



I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed have they? You don't have to have been better then players in today's era to be any of those things. I said I thought it was really classy to name the MVP award after Bill Russell even.

:sleeping wake me whenever you have something interesting, important to say. Young bucks are always the ones who bark the loudest and nothing concrete to say. Come back to this thread whenever you have a true fact to back up what you're saying. HA HA HA HA!!!

[Alpha Wolf]

Old timers be talking about them scrubs from the 50's and 60's.

I listen and when there done i start doing this :oldlol:


http://www.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0304/nba_dime7_268.jpg


fu*k outta here with that ya old ass farts :oldlol:

[sodapop]

Here's a few pics. This is where I'm coming from. You cannot debate this thread topic if you DO NOT know your past. Many players played the game. History, knowledge is key..............

http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/cool.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/hoopstwo.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/nice.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/real.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/skillstwo.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/teamsecond.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/teamtwo.jpg

[sodapop]

Here's another pic! This man, Earl "The Goat" Manigault was the best slam dunker of all time! Before Dr. J, before Jordan, before Vince Carter and before LeBron James. Name one player today who can snatch a dime from the top of the backboard? This man was known for completely dunking over, OVER, 7'2 Kareem Abdul Jabbar. This was in the mid 60's! Manigault cousin was an excellent dunker in the mid 50's. Anyway, enough said! Enjoy the picture..

http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/goat2.bmp

[sodapop]

Old timers be talking about them scrubs from the 50's and 60's.

I listen and when there done i start doing this :oldlol:


http://www.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0304/nba_dime7_268.jpg


fu*k outta here with that ya old ass farts :oldlol:

:lol
If you want to turn this into a race issue? I'll pick my five all WHITE starters! I haven't included my bench choices yet....

Bill Walton (1977 Blazers) C
George Mikan ( 1952 Minnesota Lakers) F -the guy in your picture....
Larry Bird (1981 Celtics) F
Bob Cousy (1962 Celtics) or Jerry West (1969 Lakers) G
Pistol Pete Maravich (1974 New Orleans Jazz) G

I think my all white squad would have a chance or come very close in winning the NBA title in 2009.

[Simple Jack]

Well, Dirk can post up at the free throw line and knock them down easily. Sooooo... with no back down rule, the lane narrower, people guarding him 6'9", the fact that his shot is impossible to block without fouling him and the fact that to get position during that time you just had to amble into the paint, yea, why not say thats his ceiling??? Dirk would be the best player in history if he went back. So if Wilt can score 50 a game for a year I don't see how its that far a stretch that someone who could hit his free throws and has better all around skills then any player in the league and was taller then every player in the league could bang off 75 PPG. On missed FT's alone he'd get up to what 60 at least?



Was he? He was then maybe. Wilt was big and strong. Sure, and bigger and stronger then most people in the league when he played but are you 'sure' about that? Have you not noticed: almost no one in the NBA is not an athletic freak. To be a freak today you have to be a freak among freaks. So I'm not sure if Wilt is just automatically stronger then everyone in the NBA because it sure seems to be the assumption you're working off of. I do know Wilt thought he was the greatest athlete in history himself. I do wonder how many of your 'facts' were stories he told... you know, like he slept with over 20,000 women. Which is patently impossible.

Anyway his basketball skills were weak. That's why he led the league historically in all-time missed free throws. In athletics I consider more then size and strength. Wilt's movement up the court just looks awkward in comparison to Dirk who's fluid. I'd say Dirk, the most talented 7 footer of all time and can score from anywhere on the court was on another level athletically then Wilt who didn't take time to hone his skills and relied on close range dunks and lay ins.


It's not an assumption. I'm convinced you've read nothing on Wilt nor have you seem him play. He set track records that still haven't been broken today.

You do realize for Dirk to shoot 80% (which is tough enough to do NOT being guarded at all during practice) in a game with actual defenders (remember, just like Wilt, he would be getting triple teams), you don't think he'd have to play around 48 minutes a game? Do you realistically think Dirk can keep up with that pace for 48 minutes a game on a nightly basis?

The simple fact that you consider Dirk the best 7 footer says enough about you. I'll go along with your claim about Hakeem being 7 foot. Dirk is better than him? Dirk is better than Kareem? Really?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Simple Jack]

Heh! Good Ad Hominem, I was wondering when you would make your presence felt. Ad Hominem means 'attack the person' and is a logical fallacy. When someone's argument is weakening they attack the credibility of their opponent rather then the things he says.

Haha my man.

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.

Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

Begging the question: where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

Pragmatic Fallacy

False Dilemma



Do me a favor and see if you can come up with an opinion without using one of these smart guy.

[Niquesports]

Wrong MJ was already naturallu athletic from his birth. He would still have the same drive to win. MJ stats in the 60s would be so inflated its not even funny.


He was so gifted from birth that he got cut from a small town high school team.Are you talking about the "drive" that Russ had that help him win 2 NCAA titles and 11 NBa titles

[indiefan23]

It's not an assumption. I'm convinced you've read nothing on Wilt nor have you seem him play. He set track records that still haven't been broken today.

Hmm... again you're wrong about me. I've read and watched plenty. He was a freak, sure, but against competition that obviously couldn't compete with him. If we sent back another player who had much better basketball skills then he did and his size why wouldn't he do better? He has track records that would never have been set had the competition been better. That's the whole point.


You do realize for Dirk to shoot 80% (which is tough enough to do NOT being guarded at all during practice)

You have no idea how good players today are, do you? I guess that's just it. In practice with Gilbert Arenas screaming in his face Deshawn Freaking Stevenson hit like, 79 out of 100 shots from 3. Arenas made more shooting from the college 3 with one hand. Roger Mason Jr. made 80. Thats a bench player who in the BR era would be a HOF allstar all time great. Its just such crap.


in a game with actual defenders (remember, just like Wilt, he would be getting triple teams), you don't think he'd have to play around 48 minutes a game? Do you realistically think Dirk can keep up with that pace for 48 minutes a game on a nightly basis?

Hmm... since Dirk at half-speed is way better then 99% of the league, uh, yes. Of course he could keep up. Unlike Wilt Dirk can hit from 30 feet away at a huge clip so to 'triple team' him you'd have to do it at the 3 point line. Since he's taller then everyone else that means wide open passes to someone inside means they absolutely can't triple team him.


The simple fact that you consider Dirk the best 7 footer says enough about you. I'll go along with your claim about Hakeem being 7 foot. Dirk is better than him? Dirk is better than Kareem? Really?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

He's got more skills. Dream is awesome but he can't do the things Dirk can. Dream was a center, and IMHO, the best to ever play. Dirk could play center but also can play 3-4 other positions depending on who's on the floor.

[indiefan23]

Haha my man.

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.

Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

Begging the question: where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

Pragmatic Fallacy

False Dilemma

Do me a favor and see if you can come up with an opinion without using one of these smart guy.[/QUOTE]

I've done none of those. Notice how you have not pointed any of them out but just make blanket statements?

Face the truth. You're whole argument has boiled down to 'you're a stupid young kid who knows nothing' which is not true. If you've got to cowardly avoid my points and attack me instead of them I've already won. The 50's players would not even make the NBA. Some of them wouldn't make some high school teams.

I mean, one of your actual arguments is that the NBA actively refused entry to the most gifted athletes. To the point when they asked Kareem who the best was he said someone who'd never even played an NBA minute. Its such a joke. A weak league that I could totally play in at 6'2". I couldn't even sniff the socks of the NBA today. Go to bed already.

[indiefan23]

:sleeping wake me whenever you have something interesting, important to say. Young bucks are always the ones who bark the loudest and nothing concrete to say. Come back to this thread whenever you have a true fact to back up what you're saying. HA HA HA HA!!!

Heh, another coward? I love how theres these guys who think a sport has not progressed while theres 1000 TIMES more people playing. Then when it's pointed out and they realize they're wrong they try to save face by insinuating the reason they're quitting is because they're 'bored' or some other weak excuse. Cool... run away with your tail between your legs. I shant miss you!

[indiefan23]

Here's another pic! This man, Earl "The Goat" Manigault was the best slam dunker of all time! Before Dr. J, before Jordan, before Vince Carter and before LeBron James. Name one player today who can snatch a dime from the top of the backboard? This man was known for completely dunking over, OVER, 7'2 Kareem Abdul Jabbar. This was in the mid 60's! Manigault cousin was an excellent dunker in the mid 50's. Anyway, enough said! Enjoy the picture..

http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/goat2.bmp

Awesome, so your argument that you're so 'bored' of is that BR played against the best competition yet they didn't even let the best players in the NBA. What BS.

[indiefan23]

Good job completely ignoring the video I put that proves you wrong...

Again, here are some plays of Wilt, showing some of his talent, doing things that nobody did before and very few since:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUdDoxjmZdQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&feature=channel_page

Dirk has the following 2 things over Wilt: Overall shooting and dribbling (you know, possibly the only things that Kobe may have over Jordan, as well). Guess what: He also has these 2 things over any center to have ever played the game. Does this mean that he's more talented than any of them? Or that you'd pick Dirk in the position of any other center? He's not even a center, to begin with. He's a 7-footer, doing some things that no 7 footer has done, but the combination of the things Wilt has (and some other centers have) over Dirk is more impressive. How great a defender is the Talented Mr. Nowitzki? Shot blocker? Passer? How great is his leadership? His rebounding? How much does his presence deter opponents from coming close to the basket? How about his FG%? I remember you blaiming young Wilt for not shooting Shaq-like percentages, but Dirk actually shots even lower (yes, even if you take out threes), despite being a better shooter and despite also having a very clear size advantage over any of his opponents.

Uh, so I can make a highlight reel of any player making every shot of every kind. If Wilt was a shooter he would not miss more free throws then any player in league history so just shut up. If Dirk was playing against people who were weak in a watered down league (9 to 24 teams in 10 years) he would dominate too. Its such a joke.

[indiefan23]

Here's a few pics. This is where I'm coming from. You cannot debate this thread topic if you DO NOT know your past. Many players played the game. History, knowledge is key..............

http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/cool.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/hoopstwo.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/nice.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/real.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/skillstwo.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/teamsecond.jpg
http://www.dropfiles.net//files/63/teamtwo.jpg

Uh, so now you're saying that because there were a lot of players who used to play its right? And we don't know cuz they existed or something?

[indiefan23]

:lol
If you want to turn this into a race issue? I'll pick my five all WHITE starters! I haven't included my bench choices yet....

Bill Walton (1977 Blazers) C
George Mikan ( 1952 Minnesota Lakers) F -the guy in your picture....
Larry Bird (1981 Celtics) F
Bob Cousy (1962 Celtics) or Jerry West (1969 Lakers) G
Pistol Pete Maravich (1974 New Orleans Jazz) G

I think my all white squad would have a chance or come very close in winning the NBA title in 2009.

Uh, why do you think thats a black/white thing? If anything, its a look at the massivly unathletic looking guy with glasses who dominated an era. Would he be able to make a bench now? Maybe not...

[Psileas]

Uh, so I can make a highlight reel of any player making every shot of every kind. If Wilt was a shooter he would not miss more free throws then any player in league history so just shut up. If Dirk was playing against people who were weak in a watered down league (9 to 24 teams in 10 years) he would dominate too. Its such a joke.

What you fail to realize is that this isn't a highlight reel. This isn't the collection of the 20 longest baskets Wilt made in his career. This is a collection of baskets from the very limited (at least for now) online archive of Wilt's games. Once again, your ignorance about young Wilt's game is telling. Read some sources from his own era and you'll see that he did the things you watch in these videos all the time.

As for the second thing, if Wilt was playing against such people and in a watered down league himself, you'd have a point. If anything, the league got more watered down after he left, when the ABA reached its highest point and when a few more teams were introduced in the NBA. The mid/late 70's are considered inferior to Wilt's years, quality-wise.
Wilt's opponents were weaker than him. This doesn't make them weak in general. Whether he played in the 60's or in the 70's against players like Bob Lanier and Wes Unseld, Wilt was always widely considered the strongest active player.
After all, Dirk also has a very clear physical advantage compared to most of his personal opponent forwards, as well: He's either bigger + stronger or faster + quicker. When he jumps to shoot, he's never concerned about having his shot blocked. Only prime Garnett in the 2000's had a better overall physical package among his personal opponents. He still doesn't dominate as much.

[BlazersDozen]

I hate how people say that if blocks were recorded when Bill Russell played then he would have averaged the most. I mean, seriously? The guy was 6'9" and to put a picture in your mind...was Travis Outlaw playing center. Same weight and height. Also when people say, "Bill Russell got about 4-5 blocks per game" it just reminds me of how much people exagerate things. We've all been there, thinking back to Jordan, we don't remember the misses and if FG% wasn't recorded then we would swear he shot 75% for his career.

[Psileas]

I hate how people say that if blocks were recorded when Bill Russell played then he would have averaged the most. I mean, seriously? The guy was 6'9" and to put a picture in your mind...was Travis Outlaw playing center. Same weight and height. Also when people say, "Bill Russell got about 4-5 blocks per game" it just reminds me of how much people exagerate things. We've all been there, thinking back to Jordan, we don't remember the misses and if FG% wasn't recorded then we would swear he shot 75% for his career.

If no stats were kept at all, I'm sure you'd say the same about stories of Wilt or Russell grabbing 20+ rpg for their whole careers, Wilt having 40+ ppg seasons, Oscar averaging a 30-point triple-double, etc. No difference there. Nobody knows how many shots Wilt or Russell blocked but the fact is, I've collected as many sources from the era as I could and, judging from the numbers, even after a small number deflation, I definitely believe that both easily averaged 5+ blocks per game. Actually, there was an online source (in Google Archives) from '73 which was talking about Wilt's blocked shots in 1973 (his last season). They had credited him with 272 in his first 47 games and a later edition gave him 392 after 70. Of course, this number never officially appeared next to his other stats, since blocked shots only became official the next season.

[AirJordan23]

I hate how people say that if blocks were recorded when Bill Russell played then he would have averaged the most. I mean, seriously? The guy was 6'9" and to put a picture in your mind...was Travis Outlaw playing center. Same weight and height. Also when people say, "Bill Russell got about 4-5 blocks per game" it just reminds me of how much people exagerate things. We've all been there, thinking back to Jordan, we don't remember the misses and if FG% wasn't recorded then we would swear he shot 75% for his career.
He was 6'9" barefoot, back then height wasn't measured the way it is today. He was about the same as Dwight is now.

I don't have much idea about Russell as I've only seen a few games but in today's league he'd put up Mourning/Ben Wallace type DEFENSIVE numbers. Around 14 boards a game, 3-4 blocks. He'd control the paint, intimidating presence, would alter shots. Great leadership and all that. His understanding of the game seemed superb. Offensively, he'd be around 14 PPG along with 4 APG. Bill Russell was a great passer, his court vision for a big was great. His passing was great in the Celtics transition game. Not to mention he was the ultimate winner, 11 rings speak for it.

[indiefan23]

What you fail to realize is that this isn't a highlight reel. This isn't the collection of the 20 longest baskets Wilt made in his career. This is a collection of baskets from the very limited (at least for now) online archive of Wilt's games.

Oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't know Wilt NEVER missed shots! Okay. I remember watching this game a few weeks ago, I think it might have been the NBA finals, and Wilt never made any shots like that. Must have been an off night I guess.

Sheesh.


As for the second thing, if Wilt was playing against such people and in a watered down league himself, you'd have a point. If anything, the league got more watered down after he left, when the ABA reached its highest point and when a few more teams were introduced in the NBA. The mid/late 70's are considered inferior to Wilt's years, quality-wise.

I think quality was brutal in the 50's. Started improving slightly in the 60's. Actually started getting way better in the 70's as players became much more athletic and skilled but was watered down. And then in the 80's was the influx of stupid ridiculous talent that has set a pretty high water mark. In the very late 90's early 00's quality dipped down to those pre-1985'ish levels and has spiked back up again with the 03/08 super drafts. Happy to say. For all those reasons I find it hard to take pre 1980? (arbitrary year), maybe pre 1984 ball too seriously. The league was forming and had yet to reach that saturation point of people playing ball at every level in every country that we have now keeping things consistant. Talent is really just pidgeon hole theroy.


Wilt's opponents were weaker than him. This doesn't make them weak in general. Whether he played in the 60's or in the 70's against players like Bob Lanier and Wes Unseld, Wilt was always
widely considered the strongest active player.
After all, Dirk also has a very clear physical advantage compared to most of his personal opponent forwards, as well: He's either bigger + stronger or faster + quicker. When he jumps to shoot, he's never concerned about having his shot blocked. Only prime Garnett in the 2000's had a better overall physical package among his personal opponents. He still doesn't dominate as much.

Clear, but not other worldly. Wilt could do things at his size that no one had ever dreamed. Also the sophistication the game is played at today. Its just not the same. Millions upon millions go into every conceivable aspect of the game now. If you take anything, say scouting and the advent of databases, it DESTROYS how a team would prepare to shut you down. I mean, 50 points a game is cool and I can score 50 in a game playing against children and thats kind of how wilt spent most of his career. Not that they were all chldren, but they were mostly.

I'm in Taiwan right now and since theres no one to play with at the local hoop me and some of the other people who actually know how to play will take a couple of kids on our team and try to play. I'm not a lot better then him, but I am, and I'm also a whole lot bigger. Even though he's not that much worse then I am in that kind of game I can dominate him cuz its just easier to make mismatches happen and overpower the kids. (overpower means 'reach over them.' ;0) Its good fun but I think its really telling in how it was back then.

People and teams were still learning the game as they played it and no one was really playing much defense at all and not in an organized fashion. The pace was ridiculously fast. Its easy to see where the misconceptions over blowing Wilt's greatness come from.

[BlazersDozen]

He was 6'9" barefoot, back then height wasn't measured the way it is today. He was about the same as Dwight is now.

I don't have much idea about Russell as I've only seen a few games but in today's league he'd put up Mourning/Ben Wallace type DEFENSIVE numbers. Around 14 boards a game, 3-4 blocks. He'd control the paint, intimidating presence, would alter shots. Great leadership and all that. His understanding of the game seemed superb. Offensively, he'd be around 14 PPG along with 4 APG. Bill Russell was a great passer, his court vision for a big was great. His passing was great in the Celtics transition game. Not to mention he was the ultimate winner, 11 rings speak for it.

:lol

He was a 215 pound center. He would be dominated today.

[Psileas]

Oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't know Wilt NEVER missed shots! Okay. I remember watching this game a few weeks ago, I think it might have been the NBA finals, and Wilt never made any shots like that. Must have been an off night I guess.

Sheesh.

Oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't know that posting just typical made baskets of a certain player creates a "highlight reel".


I think quality was brutal in the 50's. Started improving slightly in the 60's. Actually started getting way better in the 70's as players became much more athletic and skilled but was watered down. And then in the 80's was the influx of stupid ridiculous talent that has set a pretty high water mark. In the very late 90's early 00's quality dipped down to those pre-1985'ish levels and has spiked back up again with the 03/08 super drafts. Happy to say. For all those reasons I find it hard to take pre 1980? (arbitrary year), maybe pre 1984 ball too seriously. The league was forming and had yet to reach that saturation point of people playing ball at every level in every country that we have now keeping things consistant. Talent is really just pidgeon hole theroy.

The biggest comparative increase of talent when it comes purely to the NBA happened during the late 50's and early 60's, when the league started accepting more than 1-2 black players per team, moving to a whole new level. In the mid-60's, a solid nucleus of talent had been condensed in 9 teams. Take the '66 league for example. Its worst team, the 22-60 Pistons still had a young DeBusschere (voted among the 50 GOAT in '97) and a few good players like Eddie Miles and Ray Scott.
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/sdrock/KojisSDR.jpg
Do you know who this white guy is? He's a player who played for the same weak Pistons and was just one of their average players. Being athletic by itself could not anymore make the difference.

Moving a bit further, how about a decent team? Take the '66 Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas, Adrian Smith, Happy Hairston, Wayne Embry, Jack Twyman were altogether in the same team, and they only played 56% ball. Hairston, btw, was the starting PF for the '72 Lakers that won 69 games and even during his last season, in '75, he was still among the best rebounders in the league.

As for which eras I'll take seriously: If a lot of the players of era X manage to perform at a competitive level during the era X+1, and era X+1 is generally considered serious by default (if such an era can exist), then I'll consider X serious, as well. Simple as that. I have heard people calling eras before 1970 or 1980 or 1985 weak, yet, a high percentage of the players of the "weak" era continued performing fine during the "non weak" era and this included players in the middle of their careers or even some veterans with no room for personal improvement. Do you know when this percentage of players with successful transitions was lower? You guessed it: In the 50's, not in the 70's or 80's. That's why I don't consider the 50's particularly strong, either.


Clear, but not other worldly. Wilt could do things at his size that no one had ever dreamed.

Yes, and what exactly is there to blame him about?


Also the sophistication the game is played at today. Its just not the same. Millions upon millions go into every conceivable aspect of the game now. If you take anything, say scouting and the advent of databases, it DESTROYS how a team would prepare to shut you down. I mean, 50 points a game is cool and I can score 50 in a game playing against children and thats kind of how wilt spent most of his career. Not that they were all chldren, but they were mostly.

I'm in Taiwan right now and since theres no one to play with at the local hoop me and some of the other people who actually know how to play will take a couple of kids on our team and try to play. I'm not a lot better then him, but I am, and I'm also a whole lot bigger. Even though he's not that much worse then I am in that kind of game I can dominate him cuz its just easier to make mismatches happen and overpower the kids. (overpower means 'reach over them.' ;0) Its good fun but I think its really telling in how it was back then.

People and teams were still learning the game as they played it and no one was really playing much defense at all and not in an organized fashion. The pace was ridiculously fast. Its easy to see where the misconceptions over blowing Wilt's greatness come from.

Of course the sophistication is different today. Do you remember when I said that basketball's development is primarily of the coaches and trainers? If you took today's young generation, with their current bodies and natural talent and planted them in the 50's, do you think that the teams they'd form would still be playing like they will in 2020? No. Whose responsibility will be primarily be? Their own or their coaches' and trainers'?
As for the second thing, I still don't know why you keep talking about children, as if Wilt was averaging 200 ppg on 85% FG. The average center of his era wasn't much smaller than today's average center and it's not as if today's centers need to be stellar talents to survive. Brad Miller is a player who looks like a complete carbon copy of some of the white centers you're mocking. Even in his prime, he had close to zero athleticism, quickness, not impressive strength, average but not overwhelming size. Talent? Not top notch, either. Literally, if you took a kid who's new to basketball and showed him Miller in a black & white, bad quality photo and told him that's he's a basketball player, he'd probably say "oh, since he was a basketball player he's one of those prehistoric 60's white guys!". If you showed him the way he plays, with his passing and his mid-range shooting that would convince him even more. If the very same player played in Wilt's time, he'd be considered one of the "kids" you're talking about. Yet, this is one of the most solid centers of the 2000's. Think of it.
Pace was faster, I'll give you that, but also Wilt was a center. True, he was really fast, but even he usually got the ball after having previously established some position (not necessarily really close to the basket).

[Psileas]

:lol

He was a 215 pound center. He would be dominated today.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/malonmo01.html

(hint: notice the official weight).

[BlazersDozen]

Ok? And I checked on other sites and they have Russell between 215 and 220 while the other sites have Malone at 260.

You can't tell me that Bill Russell, who was a super skinny guy his entire career was anywhere near the size he would need to be to not be dominated as a center in todays NBA.

Edit:

Here you go...fresh from NBA.com

http://www.nba.com/history/players/russell_summary.html

[catzhernandez]

http://my.nba.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/5800018841-5700032108-5800288878-5800034956/%2Fmedia%2FRussell14xxx_627.jpg
"Here's how son!"
:bowdown:

[BlazersDozen]

Do you think Oden is compared to Russell just based off looks?

And I don't mean looks when Russell was younger...if you dye Bill's hair black again then he would look just like a skinny Greg Oden.

[Psileas]

Ok? And I checked on other sites and they have Russell between 215 and 220 while the other sites have Malone at 260.

You can't tell me that Bill Russell, who was a super skinny guy his entire career was anywhere near the size he would need to be to not be dominated as a center in todays NBA.

Edit:

Here you go...fresh from NBA.com

http://www.nba.com/history/players/russell_summary.html

My point is that what you may post as the official number may very well not be the correct one. If you want a tougher example, Artis Gilmore is listed at 240 lbs by almost every source, including nba.com, since his college weight wasn't updated, much like Russell's.
Russell never was heavy, however. Even for his own era, he wasn't really big. He was much more about quickness, reflexes and good positioning than body weight. Which of course meant that, unlike what you'd expect, he wasn't getting dominated. Much like a young Hakeem, also lighter than most centers of the league, but much more athletic as well, also wasn't getting dominated.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

My point is that what you may post as the official number may very well not be the correct one. If you want a tougher example, Artis Gilmore is listed at 240 lbs by almost every source, including nba.com, since his college weight wasn't updated, much like Russell's.
Russell never was heavy, however. Even for his own era, he wasn't really big. He was much more about quickness, reflexes and good positioning than body weight. Which of course meant that, unlike what you'd expect, he wasn't getting dominated. Much like a young Hakeem, also lighter than most centers of the league, but much more athletic as well, also wasn't getting dominated.

imo, russell would be a quality center today, but maybe an even better PF.
of course, he would need to develop the 15-ft jumper...but he would be solid regardless.

[utahjazzrock]

What about the other 11 guys on the team??
There were different players for each of his 11 rings.

[Showtime]

*sigh* there are still morons out there who judge former players on what they think they could do in today's league.

[Niquesports]

Ok, easy question. If Camby went back in time and played Russel, do you think he gets 20 boards? Or do you think Camby does?


IF its after the mid point of the season Camby would be HURT

[adamcz]

I haven't had time to read this thread, but I do have some opinions about comparing players across eras. First of all, you have to think about their stats in relation to the trends of their decade. How many possessions per game were there? By what % did they out produce their peers for each stat, and how good would those peers be in today's game?

For instance, I've heard some people say that Oscar Robertson could still put up a triple double today, but they don't understand the math behind that statement. Because of the pace that today's game is played at, he would have to substantially increase his scoring efficiency to Michael Jordan levels, while also increasing his assists per possession. It just doesn't sound plausible.

Back to Bill Russel - he won a lot of his rings in an era with way fewer teams. Does being the best team out of nine total teams carry the same prestige as being the best team out of 30 total? Do rebounds accumulated in an era where every team had more than one 10+ rpg guy count the same as today? It's really hard to compare, and I think you have to bring math and logic to the table.

For what it's worth, I think Tim Duncan put in a time machine would dominate that era.

[Niquesports]

This is the most moronic thing I've ever heard a human being say. They didn't have flagrant fouls before because they barely fouled at all. Half the league couldn't dunk. If a 6'9" guy played center today he would be owned. Do you know what its like to play post against someone a foot shorter then you are? Its cake, that's what. C A K E. When I have a major size advantage on someone I can shoot something close to 80% and get the same percentage of rebounds because of the mismatch.

Defenses got way tighter in the 90's. Its a fact. You don't know your history at all.

How tall is Ben Wallace ???? Isnt he like ahhhhhhhh 6'9 on a good day and did he ever win a DPOY once?????????? So size isnt as big a factor as you want it to be look at Z with the Cavs hes 7'3 but plays like he's 6'8 Dirk is 7'00 and shoots fade away jump shots

[sodapop]

Indiefan23 likes to:rant any chance the f*cker gets! First, he said NOBODY could dunk the ball back in the day. He was proved WRONG! Secondly, he said Bill Russell had it easy in his time and he couldn't compete in our time. Once again, he was proved WRONG! The more I read his comments, the more I :lol ! Why go through all the trouble fighting the facts, Indiefan23? Bill Russell is a legend, one of the top 3 best centers of all-times and a true sportsmen. You can compare stats, compare height, weight, whatever you like. You cannot erase 11 championship rings... Name any NBA center in history who has 11 or more championship rings? O.K.? I already know what you're going to say next? Here's the average response: Bill didn't have much competition? Here's something to think about? There were great players playing in the NBA while Michael Jordan dominated the game. There were great players playing while Magic Johnson & Larry Bird dominated the game. Every decade had someone or some team dominating the game. When you compare the past to the present NBA, you cannot compare. Just imagine if Bill Russell had our technology & training of the present during his prime and he transfer from a time machine to the present? How many teams do you think would offer Bill a NBA contract? Good centers are hard to find. Yes, Bill is 6'9, 220 lbs.. With the new technology & training programs, Bill would be stronger, faster and built bigger. His height wouldn't matter. He would still dominate. PLUS, Bill's basketball I.Q. is compared to none. Other words, he would have a strong physical and mental game. Indiefan23, continue your wishful thinking and entertain us further:hammertime: Your clown job still stands. My neighbor's child is having her six year old birthday party soon. I'll put in a good word for you. I'm sure you'll get the job with no problem.

[Niquesports]

Uh, so I can make a highlight reel of any player making every shot of every kind. If Wilt was a shooter he would not miss more free throws then any player in league history so just shut up. If Dirk was playing against people who were weak in a watered down league (9 to 24 teams in 10 years) he would dominate too. Its such a joke.


Well Dirk is playing in a league now where the Top 5 of the top players in the league came stright out of HS isnt that watered down. He's still not a dominate player.

[Niquesports]

:lol

He was a 215 pound center. He would be dominated today.


Who would dominate him because of Size in today game but Shaq. Dirk shoots jumpers fade away jumpers at that. Yao shoots jumpers , all the other C but D Howard would play behind Russ

[JJ81]

Success