Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[indiefan23]

It's pretty much a given that the next generation of basketball fans will call Tim Duncan overrated and say he wouldn't be a top 3 player in their era.

I don't think so... when you watch Duncan play shaq its pure competition. That being said Duncan won his titles in the weakest modern era, so maybe they will and I'll have to accept they're a little right, but when you watch Spurs games they don't look anything like the 60's games. The game grew dramatically since then and that growth has leveled off a bit.

Seriously, Tim Duncan does not play in an era where a 6'5" player can almost put up a 40/20 season twice. Its a totally valid. Cept he played vs lots of other great players and greats at his position. Wilt... well, people bring up Walt Bellamy, Walter Dukes, and the fact that a 6'9" 215 pound dude beat him a bunch of times. Ball was in it's infancy then and Wilt was just a man among boys. It inflated his stats the same way when I play kids. These are facts. I dunno why its so hard to accept it.

[indiefan23]

4 mvps? 2 rings? diddnt win much? STFU

Heh, he only won by accepting a lesser role on a team established as someone else's. You STFU.

[indiefan23]

I want to have sex with Wilt Chamberlain 20,000 times

Charles, posting a bunch of pics is totally useless. You think the guy is superhuman, he's not. He was the next step in basketball's evolution, that pure fact, but there have been multiple steps taken since then. Who cares about 90's nutrition and work out programs. Yes players training was worse in the 60's. When you train better it makes you a better athlete. Modern training is better therefore today's people are better athletes.

You list all this stuff thinking you're making his look awesome. These are all my points for why he's over rated: a guy does not have 50 PPG seasons when the competition and defense does not suck. Wilt was more dominant then anyone in history, but that domination is a knock against his skill because it shows how weak the comp was, not a indicator of anything superior.

[indiefan23]

You clearly don't know boxing but that's a whole different discussion.

Sure is, but since Foreman had a decent/competitive career when he was fat and 40, I'm going to guess he knocks Tommy Morrison flat on his back when he's in his prime.


Where do you plan on putting up these vast stats and personal accolades? The NBA always drafted the best of the best and it remains a professional sport, not a pick-up game in your local gym. You act like Wilt and Russell weren't insanely conditioned athletes.

1. No, they didn't. That's why when the ABA merged half the allstar team came from a non-NBA league.

2. It doesn't matter where my accolades stand because that's stipulation you made: strength of era does not count. Since the 1960's leauge is totally different then the 90's one, that translates to strength of league does not count.


Edit: For one you are begging the question. Also, your entire argument is based on a questionable and falsifiable assumption; oh look, there's another logical fallacy.

I'm begging the question? Are you serious? Begging the question is when your conclusion is contained in your premise. Here is my argument.

P: Achievement in hoop is done in relation to competition.
P: Achievement over stronger competition is more difficult.
P: Successful completion of more difficult tasks is a greater achievement then less difficult tasks.

90's players had considerably stronger competition then Wilt.

therefore: Modern player's achievements were more difficult and thus greater in comparison to Wilt's.

You show me which part of that argument is invalid and where any begging the question exists. It does not. I know how to make a real argument and its a solid one.

Here is your's Simple Jack.

P: There's only one way to rank players across eras.
P: To compare based on anything but achievements in their own era requires assumptions.
P: Stating that an achievement (eg: winning the title) is the same across all eras is not an assumption.

Assumptions are stupid.

Therefore: There's only one way to rank players across eras.

One of the most ironic things about logic and philosophy is that I dunno, 50%, 75% of the time, someone who accuses you of committing a fallacy is actually committing that same one themselves. I'd suggest you not bring up logic if you don't really know how to use it to your advantage. I can tell you don't: you make no distinction between truth and validity. My argument is totally valid. I'm quite certain the statements are true. Would you like to try again?


Axiomic? Really?

Yes, really, you can't make an argument without making some assumptions, they are called axioms, things which are self-evident. Axioms are axiomatic. Or are you really down to pointing out my typos now?