Shaq O'Neal vs Hakeem Olajuwon: Who is the greatest center in NBA history?

[hall of fame]

It's obviously between these two and nobody else is really close. Strong arguments can be made for either of them as they are both all-time legends and better than any center you'll ever see again.

Who is better out of these two?

[Duncan21formvp]

Shaq was more dominant overall.

[imlmf]

how did shaq fare against hakeem?

[iTruWarrior]

Actually the GOAT center is Kareem.

But I would take Hakeem's peak/prime over Shaq's. I would take Shaq's career over Hakeem's.

[hall of fame]

Actually the GOAT center is Kareem.

But I would take Hakeem's peak/prime over Shaq's. I would take Shaq's career over Hakeem's.
Kareem is the MOPE (most overrated player ever).

By the way, it's usually the opposite for Shaq/Hakeem. Most people prefer Shaq's peak but Hakeem's career.

[Bonez]

Wilt is the MOPE (most overrated player ever).




fixed

[hall of fame]

fixed
:applause: Bill Russell too. :applause:

[zay_24]

I agree with Wilt and russel being the most overrated players in NBA history.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

It's obviously between these two and nobody else is really close. Strong arguments can be made for either of them as they are both all-time legends and better than any center you'll ever see again.

Who is better out of these two?

you must be very young.

[Manute for Ever!]

Please explain why it is so obviously Shaq and Hakeem.

[go-lakers]

Yeah Kareem slightly over Shaq slightly over Hakeem. Shaq was more dominant in his prime but Hakeem was more complete and could shoot free throws.

[hall of fame]

Please explain why it is so obviously Shaq and Hakeem.
Please explain why it isn't.

[hall of fame]

Yeah Kareem slightly over Shaq slightly over Hakeem. Shaq was more dominant in his prime but Hakeem was more complete and could shoot free throws.Stop overrating Kareem. He was no better than Alonzo Mourning when it mattered and nowhere close to Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, etc.

1. Shaq/Hakeem
2. Hakeem/Shaq






3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 = the rest.

[kraze94]

What a horrible thread.

Whoever thinks that the 2 best Centers in NBA history are Hakeem and Shaq, and nobody comes close, knows nothing about the NBA or basketball in general.

[Manute for Ever!]

Please explain why it isn't.

Kareem, Wilt, Russell. Those guys are in the mix, too. Oh, that's right, they're from the past, they don't count. Silly me.

[hall of fame]

What a horrible thread.

Whoever thinks that the 2 best Centers in NBA history are Hakeem and Shaq, and nobody comes close, knows nothing about the NBA or basketball in general.
If you understand the NBA, you'll know why Kareem, Wilt, Russell, etc aren't even close to Hakeem and Shaq.

Lakers fans, stop overrating Kareem and start defending your true franchise GOAT center who gave you 3 consecutive titles.

Shaq >>> Kareem.

[momo]

Ignore this gimmick account asap peeps.

[hall of fame]

Kareem, Wilt, Russell. Those guys are in the mix, too. Oh, that's right, they're from the past, they don't count. Silly me.
Kareem played in a WEAK era for the first half of his career. The 70s was a WEAK era. Wilt and Russell played in a WEAK era for their entire career, so their accomplishments are worthless.

Shaq in the 60s/70s = 60 ppg, 35 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.

Hakeem in the 60s/70s = 50 ppg, 30 rpg, 10 apg, 8 spg, 12 bpg, 75 FG%.

[imdaman99]

I'm sorry but Shaq could have been. But he didn't stay in shape when he was on top. So he should be behind Hakeem.

[Manute for Ever!]

Kareem played in a WEAK era for the first half of his career. The 70s was a WEAK era. Wilt and Russell played in a WEAK era for their entire career, so their accomplishments are worthless.

Shaq in the 60s/70s = 60 ppg, 35 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.

Hakeem in the 60s/70s = 50 ppg, 30 rpg, 10 apg, 8 spg, 12 bpg, 75 FG%.

BULLS, kareem played the other half of his career in the 80's and fared pretty well, you know, the era most refer to as the most dominant? Kareem played well against both Wilt and Olajuwon during his career.

[hall of fame]

BULLS, kareem played the other half of his career in the 80's and fared pretty well, you know, the era most refer to as the most dominant? Kareem played well against both Wilt and Olajuwon.
Notice how Kareem averaged horrible numbers in the STRONG era aka the 80s. This is because he couldn't play well unless he was in a WEAK era against WEAK centers.

Kareem in a STRONG era < Pat Ewing, Zo Mourning.

Shaq + Hakeem in the 70s = combined averages of 90 ppg and 45 rpg.

[Manute for Ever!]

Notice how Kareem averaged horrible numbers in the STRONG era aka the 80s. This is because he couldn't play well unless he was in a WEAK era against WEAK centers.

Kareem in a STRONG era < Pat Ewing, Zo Mourning.

Shaq + Hakeem in the 70s = combined averages of 90 ppg and 45 rpg.

Horrible numbers the whole decade, or just when he was in his very late 30's-early 40's? Give it up, BULLS.

[Manute for Ever!]

Shaq + Hakeem in the 70s = combined averages of 90 ppg and 45 rpg.

You are kidding me? :roll:

[Burgz]

this is a stupid thread
if you want a good discussion, why do you narrow it down to choices, why not let us choose, and then form and argument???:confusedshrug:

[greymatter]

Please explain why it isn't.

What you're doing is parallel to how retarded creationists/not-so-intelligent designers do when they attack perceived "holes" in evolution while completely failing to realize that even were their arguments true (which they are in retardworld, but not in the land of reality), it fails to provide positive evidence in support of their position. You have failed to make any substantive argument to back your claim.

The onus is on you to prove a positive (your position), not asking someone to prove a negative.

[Big#50]

Shaq
Hakeem
DROB
Wilt
Kareem
Ewing
Artis Gilmore
Nate Thurmond
Walt Bellamy
Elvin Hayes

[BallPhunk]

Kareem is the MOPE (most overrated player ever).

By the way, it's usually the opposite for Shaq/Hakeem. Most people prefer Shaq's peak but Hakeem's career.


Someone help me out - I haven't been here that long but I know this cr@p sounds familiar. Who was/is this guy?

[Hammertime]

I think a Bulls player's name underneath the nickname might be a clue as to whose sock puppet this is.

[stephanieg]

Someone help me out - I haven't been here that long but I know this cr@p sounds familiar. Who was/is this guy?

KB24PAH or whatever his name is. He has like 5 different accounts.

[Big#50]

KB24PAH or whatever his name is. He has like 5 different accounts.
I was already accused of being one of them.

[stephanieg]

I was already accused of being one of them.

Actually he may be BULLS. But for all I know he's the PAH guy too. All these weirdos seem to have similar bizarre thoughts and mannerisms.

[Manute for Ever!]

Actually he may be BULLS. But for all I know he's the PAH guy too. All these weirdos seem to have similar bizarre thoughts and mannerisms.

I'm 99% certain it's BULLs/5 2 3 5/33 23/trash, etc.

[chains5000]

He's like a comic-book supervillain, always coming back from death.

[Toizumi]

I don't agree with this thread.
I know I'm not the first person to post this.. but some other players should defnitely be in this discussion. It's a tough call. there is no clear GOAT Center like there is at SG (Jordan) and PG (Magic).

Prime Shaq vs. Prime Hakeem ..wow. both were extremely dominant in their days. In a head to head matchup between 2000/2003 Shaq vs 94/96... Hakeem who knows what would happen... :confusedshrug:

[hall of fame]

What you're doing is parallel to how retarded creationists/not-so-intelligent designers do when they attack perceived "holes" in evolution while completely failing to realize that even were their arguments true (which they are in retardworld, but not in the land of reality), it fails to provide positive evidence in support of their position. You have failed to make any substantive argument to back your claim.

The onus is on you to prove a positive (your position), not asking someone to prove a negative.
Evolution has many holes. As someone with a PhD in both microbiology and biochemistry and as someone who studied biology for over 12 years, I can tell you that evolution is pure TRASH. It's nonsense that has been disproven over and over again by those who have bothered to study it. The theory of evolution = weak.

[hall of fame]

You are kidding me? :roll:
If Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg + 26 rpg + 10 bpg in the 60s, Shaq would average at least 60 ppg, 35 rpg, and 11 bpg and Hakeem would average 50 ppg, 30 rpg, 12 bpg as well.

Both of them were much better than Wilt.

[Meticode]

I can't pick one over the other, but why is it so obviously Shaq and Hakeem? Why no Abdul-Jabber?

[brandonman]

No need for me to share my thoughts :D

[hall of fame]

I can't pick one over the other, but why is it so obviously Shaq and Hakeem? Why no Abdul-Jabber?
Because Abdul-Jabbar played most of his career in the 70s, which was a WEAK era with unathletic midgets wearing short shorts and dribbling with their heads down, with poor shooting mechanics, no skill, etc.

People will tell you that Bill Russell, Kareem, and Wilt Chamberlain are the best centers ever, but they simply do not understand what STRONG competition in the NBA is. To these people, Kareem, Russell and Wilt would be dominant players in today's league.

Shaq, Hakeem = GOAT centers.

Ewing, Robinson > Kareem + Wilt.

[Manute for Ever!]

Evolution has many holes. As someone with a PhD in both microbiology and biochemistry and as someone who studied biology for over 12 years, I can tell you that evolution is pure TRASH. It's nonsense that has been disproven over and over again by those who have bothered to study it. The theory of evolution = weak.

So how do you find time to watch your full season NBA footage from the 60's?

[hall of fame]

So how do you find time to watch your full season NBA footage from the 60's?
You believe in evolution? :roll:

You probably believe that Russell, Wilt, West, Mikan, etc would benefit from "advances in medicine" or "better conditioning" in today's era. :oldlol:

Stop it! You're making me laugh!!!:oldlol: :roll:

[Cangri]

If Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg + 26 rpg + 10 bpg in the 60s, Shaq would average at least 60 ppg, 35 rpg, and 11 bpg and Hakeem would average 50 ppg, 30 rpg, 12 bpg as well.

Both of them were much better than Wilt.
I don't see how anyone can deny this.

[Psileas]

To add to what my friend BULLS said, I, being an astronaut and cosmologist for over 30 years now officially confirm to you that the whole "the earth is round" thing is a hoax supported by the dark forces of our governments which prepare the ground for the Antichrist. The earth is actually flat and the moon (where we've never been, either) is nothing but a hologram, projected by an alien race from the Aldebaran star system. It's the same race that terraformed the DNA of after 70's players and turned the new eras into strong ones.

(However their activity, having been at its apex in the 90's, has been reduced since then, which means that the 90's will remain forever the GOAT NBA era).

[Toizumi]

You believe in evolution? :roll:

You probably believe that Russell, Wilt, West, Mikan, etc would benefit from "advances in medicine" or "better conditioning" in today's era. :oldlol:

Stop it! You're making me laugh!!!:oldlol: :roll:

Russel was the best in his era and you can't be better than the best. Maybe he wouldve s*cked in todays game, but who cares? He achieved more than any player in the NBA ever... So what if Shaq couldve dominated him? they never matched up and never will. same with wilt.



If Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg + 26 rpg + 10 bpg in the 60s, Shaq would average at least 60 ppg, 35 rpg, and 11 bpg and Hakeem would average 50 ppg, 30 rpg, 12 bpg as well.

Both of them were much better than Wilt.

ok, so build me a timemachine to prove this. Wilt was one of a kind back then and nobody did what he did or could what he could do. In a head to head matchup Shaq or Hakeem mightve destroyed him, but then again maybe not! :confusedshrug: Wilt was big strong agile etc. dont underrate those oldschool ballers. And respect those era's.

[hall of fame]

I don't see how anyone can deny this.
Agreed.:applause:

[Psileas]

I don't see how anyone can deny this.

You don't see how anyone can deny some randomly picked numbers, with the only condition that has to be met for them being to be on purpose more impressive than Wilt's?

Hey, LeBron would average 40/15/10 in the 80's. Dwight, about 30/20/8 blocks. I don't think anyone can deny this, either.

[hall of fame]

Russel was the best in his era and you can't be better than the best. Maybe he wouldve s*cked in todays game, but who cares? He achieved more than any player in the NBA ever... So what if Shaq couldve dominated him? they never matched up and never will. same with wilt.




ok, so build me a timemachine to prove this. Wilt was one of a kind back then and nobody did what he did or could what he could do. In a head to head matchup Shaq or Hakeem mightve destroyed him, but then again maybe not! :confusedshrug: Wilt was big strong agile etc. dont underrate those oldschool ballers. And respect those era's.
Russell wouldn't even be a top 10 player in today's league. Think poor man's Dikembe Mutombo at best. Shaq would destroy Wilt and Russell.

Wilt was not one of a kind. Dwight Howard is a once-every-decade kind of athlete from the C position, and even he's not that amazing today (best center, but nothing compared to even Pat Ewing).

Wilt would be worse than Dwight today.

[Manute for Ever!]

Russell wouldn't even be a top 10 player in today's league. Think poor man's Dikembe Mutombo at best. Shaq would destroy Wilt and Russell.

Wilt was not one of a kind. Dwight Howard is a once-every-decade kind of athlete from the C position, and even he's not that amazing today (best center, but nothing compared to even Pat Ewing).

Wilt would be worse than Dwight today.


BASED ON WHAT?!?

[Toizumi]

BASED ON WHAT?!?


http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/classics_timemachine.jpg


this :violin:


they fail in so many ways...

[Floppy]

You believe in evolution? :roll:

You probably believe that Russell, Wilt, West, Mikan, etc would benefit from "advances in medicine" or "better conditioning" in today's era. :oldlol:

Stop it! You're making me laugh!!!:oldlol: :roll:

No they benefit from learning from their predecessors which is actually what is meant when you talk about evolution and basketball not evolution through natural selection you pea-brain.

[Manute for Ever!]

http://chawedrosin.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/classics_timemachine.jpg


this :violin:


they fail in so many ways...

:roll:
Wait until they allow Morlocks in the NBA.

[Manute for Ever!]

No they benefit from learning from their predecessors which is actually what is meant when you talk about evolution and basketball not evolution through natural selection you pea-brain.

Spot on.
Repped

[chains5000]

It's good to know that I'd have averaged 123ppg and 50rpg if I had played in the 1920s.
I wouldn't get any assists cause I'd never pass the ball to those midgets.:no:

[ronnymac]

Olajuwon. a better 2 way player.

[hall of fame]

No they benefit from learning from their predecessors which is actually what is meant when you talk about evolution and basketball not evolution through natural selection you pea-brain.
Because watching film of older players is "evolving"........ :roll:

Try again. He (like all of them) is talking about evolution aka Darwin's nonsense theory, not learning from players who played before you. How the hell does that even make sense? Evolution = learning from your predecessors. :oldlol:

[Floppy]

Because watching film of older players is "evolving"........ :roll:

Try again. He (like all of them) is talking about evolution aka Darwin's nonsense theory, not learning from players who played before you. How the hell does that even make sense? Evolution = learning from your predecessors. :oldlol:

Any 5 year old could comprehend that.

[ProfessorMurder]

You think that evolution is bullsh*t, and that Wilt/Bill/Kareem are overrated.

You should just go f*ck yourself. Or be shot in the head. Let me take a shot in the dark here... You voted McCain?

You're calling Dwight a once in a decade athlete... I'd take Usain Bolt any day over Dwight for overall best athlete. The dude was dogging it in the 100 and still crushed the world record, plus he's a 6'5" sprinter.

Wilt was an absolute monster. He was an all American track star, who broad jumper 22 feet, and high jumped 6'6". He scored 100 points in a game. He was incredible.

You can't compare a player from the past to today. You can only compare him to who he played with. Everybody in that era worked out the same, ate the same, lived the same. The only way to reasonably compare someone from the past to now, would be to have that person raised in the modern time. Which is impossible.

Someone saying Shaq would dominate is moot, because he adapted to playing now. If he played back in the 60's, we would be as dominant as he is today, but when compared to the players he's playing against. You won't just inflate stats when you put someone into the past. It doesn't make sense.

But I'm sure a "scientific mind" such as yourself would be able to understand this... HAHAHAHA! You've got problems if you really believe this sh*t man.

[hall of fame]

You think that evolution is bullsh*t, and that Wilt/Bill/Kareem are overrated.

You should just go f*ck yourself. Or be shot in the head. Let me take a shot in the dark here... You voted McCain?

You're calling Dwight a once in a decade athlete... I'd take Usain Bolt any day over Dwight for overall best athlete. The dude was dogging it in the 100 and still crushed the world record, plus he's a 6'5" sprinter.

Wilt was an absolute monster. He was an all American track star, who broad jumper 22 feet, and high jumped 6'6". He scored 100 points in a game. He was incredible.

You can't compare a player from the past to today. You can only compare him to who he played with. Everybody in that era worked out the same, ate the same, lived the same. The only way to reasonably compare someone from the past to now, would be to have that person raised in the modern time. Which is impossible.

Someone saying Shaq would dominate is moot, because he adapted to playing now. If he played back in the 60's, we would be as dominant as he is today, but when compared to the players he's playing against. You won't just inflate stats when you put someone into the past. It doesn't make sense.

But I'm sure a "scientific mind" such as yourself would be able to understand this... HAHAHAHA! You've got problems if you really believe this sh*t man.
Of course evolution is horse manure. Anyone who actually studies it knows it's nonsense. Evolution is simply a garbage theory that was made up by a depressed, suicidal, good for nothing bum better known as Charles Darwin. It's common knowledge that Darwin had serious issues as a kid. He's no different from the depressed teenagers today getting picked on in school. He obviously had a more creative mind to come up with this bull crap theory and get around 50% of the world to believe in it, but he's still nothing (just like you). I didn't vote, but you probably voted for Barack Nobama.

Hahahahaha at Usain Bolt. First off, don't bring up players who have nothing to do with the NBA. Secondly, Usain Bolt is overrated. If you don't think Dwight Howard is one of the greatest athletes in history, stop watching sports. He'd tear Wilt, Kareem and Russell to pieces if he ever played them.

And if you think Shaq wouldn't be the greatest player of the 60s and average 60/30/8/12 on over 75 FG%, please gtfo of here and try a new sport. Everyone knows the 60s was the WEAKEST era ever.

[ProfessorMurder]

Hahahahaha at Usain Bolt. First off, don't bring up players who have nothing to do with the NBA. Secondly, Usain Bolt is overrated. If you don't think Dwight Howard is one of the greatest athletes in history, stop watching sports. He'd tear Wilt, Kareem and Russell to pieces if he ever played them.

And if you think Shaq wouldn't be the greatest player of the 60s and average 60/30/8/12 on over 75 FG%, please gtfo of here and try a new sport. Everyone knows the 60s was the WEAKEST era ever.

I'm forced to assume you're joking about the whole evolution argument. Let me guess... Jesus went around burying dinosaur bones all over just to f*ck with people. Right?

You said Dwight is a once in a decade athlete. By using the term athlete instead of basketball player, I can bring up any other athlete I feel like. What has Dwight done athletically that others can't?

Bolt decimated 2 world records, while celebrating, and being far taller than sprinters should be. I don't see Dwight breaking any records, he's very muscular that's it. Dwight can't even make a free throw. I'd also take Ronaldinho over Dwight for best athlete of the decade.

Dwight/Shaq would not have been as big if they lived back then. Sure they would've been great... But they would be as dominant as they are today. They won't drop 60 a game.

People know a hell of a lot more about the body than they did back then. People eat better, work out more effectively, build better muscles. If Shaq/Dwight would've lived back then they wouldn't be like they are. Shaq would probably be about when he was in college.

[hall of fame]

I'm forced to assume you're joking about the whole evolution argument. Let me guess... Jesus went around burying dinosaur bones all over just to f*ck with people. Right?

You said Dwight is a once in a decade athlete. By using the term athlete instead of basketball player, I can bring up any other athlete I feel like. What has Dwight done athletically that others can't?

Bolt decimated 2 world records, while celebrating, and being far taller than sprinters should be. I don't see Dwight breaking any records, he's very muscular that's it. Dwight can't even make a free throw. I'd also take Ronaldinho over Dwight for best athlete of the decade.

Dwight/Shaq would not have been as big if they lived back then. Sure they would've been great... But they would be as dominant as they are today. They won't drop 60 a game.

People know a hell of a lot more about the body than they did back then. People eat better, work out more effectively, build better muscles. If Shaq/Dwight would've lived back then they wouldn't be like they are. Shaq would probably be about when he was in college.
Rotfl at you thinking dinosaurs are proof of human evolution. My suggestion would be to read Darwin's Origin of Species instead of pulling this nonsense straight out of your arse. Fossil records are not proof of human evolution. The only way to prove the theory of evolution would be for all humans to share identical amino acid sequences, which they do not. It is not possible. Evolution is therefore BS.

And yes, free throw shooting has everything to do with athleticism. Jose Calderon = best PG athlete in the league. :no: Ronaldinho is not an impressive athlete at all. Learn how to judge athleticism and then come back.

Nope. People knew back then exactly what they know now. They know what it takes to become a conditioned athlete. Today's players = way more athletic = way better than unathletic 60s scrubs.

[32jazz]

And yes, free throw shooting has everything to do with athleticism. Jose Calderon = best PG athlete in the league. :no: Ronaldinho is not an impressive athlete at all. Learn how to judge athleticism and then come back.

Nope. People knew back then exactly what they know now. They know what it takes to become a conditioned athlete. Today's players = way more athletic = way better than unathletic 60s scrubs.


Basketball players & Boxers ,for one, did not lift weights at that time as they thought it would take away from their mobility. No they do not know the same things & Bob Beamon/Ali/Wilt/Jim Brown laugh at fools/idiots/morons/ like you who think that athletes of the 60's were scrubs.

Why bother with you though because you can't possibly be that ignorant. I assume you are trying only to get this response that you are getting.

[ProfessorMurder]

I'm done arguing with this retard.

But just to say one more thing. Ronaldinho is a spectacular athlete. You do understand that soccer is the most physically taxing sport right?

[Simple Jack]

Kareem is the MOPE (most overrated player ever).

By the way, it's usually the opposite for Shaq/Hakeem. Most people prefer Shaq's peak but Hakeem's career.

Who would prefer that?

Shaq's career has more achievements than Hakeems. Hakeems prime was also relatively short.

[Simple Jack]

I'm done arguing with this retard.

But just to say one more thing. Ronaldinho is a spectacular athlete. You do understand that soccer is the most physically taxing sport right?

Boxing is, but soccer is probably after.

[Simple Jack]

Of course evolution is horse manure. Anyone who actually studies it knows it's nonsense. Evolution is simply a garbage theory that was made up by a depressed, suicidal, good for nothing bum better known as Charles Darwin. It's common knowledge that Darwin had serious issues as a kid. He's no different from the depressed teenagers today getting picked on in school. He obviously had a more creative mind to come up with this bull crap theory and get around 50% of the world to believe in it, but he's still nothing (just like you). I didn't vote, but you probably voted for Barack Nobama.

Hahahahaha at Usain Bolt. First off, don't bring up players who have nothing to do with the NBA. Secondly, Usain Bolt is overrated. If you don't think Dwight Howard is one of the greatest athletes in history, stop watching sports. He'd tear Wilt, Kareem and Russell to pieces if he ever played them.

And if you think Shaq wouldn't be the greatest player of the 60s and average 60/30/8/12 on over 75 FG%, please gtfo of here and try a new sport. Everyone knows the 60s was the WEAKEST era ever.


You're an idiot. I do agree, relatively speaking that it was a weak era, but you are taking it too far.

As for Evolution, just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's not proven. Evolution is a fact, and it's been proven. Do some research before you claim something that retarded.

[crisoner]

The greatest center ever is...............





http://www.lakersuniverse.com/pictures/kareem_abdul_jabbar_skyhook.jpg

[ProfessorMurder]

Boxing is, but soccer is probably after.

Okay that's true. Boxing is more physically taxing, you know getting your face smashed and all... But you do burn more calories in a soccer game than doing anything else. (That is a fact)

[LA_Showtime]

Kareem is the MOPE (most overrated player ever).

By the way, it's usually the opposite for Shaq/Hakeem. Most people prefer Shaq's peak but Hakeem's career.

HAHAHA when did this guy join ISH? I don't remember seeing this guy post but his Avy > PB's

[the even bigger black guy]

kblaze - please post your thing on why kareem has a case for GOAT over jordan. you did it brilliantly before

[Abraham Lincoln]

The greatest center ever is...............





http://www.lakersuniverse.com/pictures/kareem_abdul_jabbar_skyhook.jpg

Alas, thy all time great center be Wilton Norman Chamberlain, who be the superior of Jabbar.

http://jehingr.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/wilt-chamberlain-rim-action-photograph-c12874120jpeg.jpg

[Simple Jack]

Okay that's true. Boxing is more physically taxing, you know getting your face smashed and all... But you do burn more calories in a soccer game than doing anything else. (That is a fact)

Soccer burns in the 600 range calories per hour, while boxing burns in the 800's. I mean, your body is in survival mode after getting hit so it makes sense.

[Bigsmoke]

Hakeem because of his versatility. The man is even number 8 of all time in steals

[Bigsmoke]

do people in this thread know that the average hight for Centers back in the 60s was 6'6?

Wilt was 7'1

the game was in a faster pace from back in the day so their numbers were higher.

[ProfessorMurder]

Soccer burns in the 600 range calories per hour, while boxing burns in the 800's. I mean, your body is in survival mode after getting hit so it makes sense.

Okay, I just looked into it again. You're right. :cheers:

[bdreason]

Kareem
Hakeem
Shaq

[Simple Jack]

do people in this thread know that the average hight for Centers back in the 60s was 6'6?

Wilt was 7'1

the game was in a faster pace from back in the day so their numbers were higher.

Nice AV.

I don't think your stats are correct though.

[Abraham Lincoln]

do people in this thread know that the average hight for Centers back in the 60s was 6'6?

This be the mere type of thou mental infestation. Does thou not know who be the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Russell, Reed, and Beaty? Bill Russell be 6'10, yet be considered a small center then. Today's big man be smaller and inferior to thy 1960s big man. Thou shan't reply spreading the mere creedence of this nonsense as truth on what thou hasn't but no clue about. Alas here be some facts for thou misinformed soul.

Wilt vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Wilt simply was a more dominant player. He could pour on the offense to higher degrees than Kareem. Wilt is the greatest rebounder in history, and Kareem was a weak rebounder for his size. Wilt was a better passer, and I believe, a better defender. When Wilt was in his final 2 years, which corresponded with Kareem's 3rd and 4th year, Wilt was still making the first team all-defense over Kareem. None of this is a bag on Kareem, because I do believe Kareem is one of the 3 greatest centers in history, but he simply was no Wilt.

Some will try to bring up rings. This is a silly argument, since rings are a team achievement, but still, consider that during Kareem's first 10 years, he won 1 ring, and made the finals 3 times. When Wilt did this, fools call it "choking", but Kareem "didn't have the teammates." Frankly, if Kareem didn't have one of the 2 greatest point guards in history (Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson), then his teams did extremely poorly. In 1975 and 1976, Kareem led them to losing records. In 1977, they were higher-seeded and got swept by Bill Walton's Traiblazers. In 1978, they were finished 4th place in the 5 team Pacific Division. In 1979, they finished 3rd in the 6th team Pacific Division. Did he have teammates? Well, in 1979, he had Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, and Jamaal Wilkes. Is that talent? So in the 5 seasons without Magic and Oscar, they won only 1 division title, and never won a game past the conference semi-finals. In 1980, Magic Johnson joined the Lakers, and they started winning titles. When Kareem retired in 1989, the Lakers replaced him with Vlade Divac and won 6 MORE games. Food for thought.

So did Kareem win titles? No. The Lakers (and Bucks) won titles. One man teams do not win titles.

Kareem did play longer, but does this make Robert Parish better than Kareem? No. Also, Kareem played less minutes than Wilt. Who couldn't play more games when they are pacing themselves? Kareem played 20 seasons to Wilt's 14. However, if you take Wilt's min/game and turn them into the number of games Kareem played, Wilt played the equivalent of 18 seasons! And consider, in Wilt's final season, he set a record for field goal percentage (72.7%), led the league in rebounds, and was first team all-defense (over Kareem). Wilt retired while he was still a star in the league. When Kareem retired, he wasn't even beating out backup Mychal Thompson in minutes. Kareem was a starter by title-only. He also hacked off Lakers' GM Jerry West by coming to work out of shape, and giving what was considered a half-hearted effort. You can read about this in Kareem's book Kareem. You can also read Kareem try to justify his poor work habit.

So once you slice through the superficial rhetoric, it comes down to who was the most dominant player and the answer was Wilt. He could fill any role on a team. Kareem could not. If you needed someone to focus on defense and clean the glass, Kareem couldn't do it.

[32jazz]

Hakeem because of his versatility. The man is even number 8 of all time in steals

Steals/Blocks have only been kept officially since 73/74(?) so two decades of Players were excluded from those stats.

I have posted this before:

The average starting Center in '68 ,88 & 2008 was roughly 6'10 even with a couple of circus freaks playig today & Players having outright false/exaggerated heights listed today.

The only true noticeable height differences by position has been the SG especially(which were 6'3 in the 80's during MJ/Magic's heyday) & PG positions.

But why bother post the facts again:confusedshrug:

[artificial]

Hall of fame, or BULLS or whatever name you use, serious question to you:

I understand that you firmly believe that 60's < 70's < 80's < 90's

But from this thread I got that you also believe that 90's > 00's


So, according to this, you believe 90's are the "toughest" era of all, and won't be surpassed (or something among those lines)?

[hall of fame]

Kareem is not the GOAT. He isn't even close.

I'd like to hear one solid argument for Kareem being closer to GOAT than he is to MOPE (most overrated player ever).

[hall of fame]

Basketball players & Boxers ,for one, did not lift weights at that time as they thought it would take away from their mobility. No they do not know the same things & Bob Beamon/Ali/Wilt/Jim Brown laugh at fools/idiots/morons/ like you who think that athletes of the 60's were scrubs.

Why bother with you though because you can't possibly be that ignorant. I assume you are trying only to get this response that you are getting.
What separates hall of famer and NBA logo Jerry West from someone like J.J. Redick today? Nothing other than age. West would be as good as Redick in today's era.

Sadly, J.J. Redick would be the NBA logo if he played in the 60s instead of West.

[hall of fame]

This be the mere type of thou mental infestation. Does thou not know who be the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Russell, Reed, and Beaty? Bill Russell be 6'10, yet be considered a small center then. Today's big man be smaller and inferior to thy 1960s big man. Thou shan't reply spreading the mere creedence of this nonsense as truth on what thou hasn't but no clue about. Alas here be some facts for thou misinformed soul.

Wilt vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Wilt simply was a more dominant player. He could pour on the offense to higher degrees than Kareem. Wilt is the greatest rebounder in history, and Kareem was a weak rebounder for his size. Wilt was a better passer, and I believe, a better defender. When Wilt was in his final 2 years, which corresponded with Kareem's 3rd and 4th year, Wilt was still making the first team all-defense over Kareem. None of this is a bag on Kareem, because I do believe Kareem is one of the 3 greatest centers in history, but he simply was no Wilt.

Some will try to bring up rings. This is a silly argument, since rings are a team achievement, but still, consider that during Kareem's first 10 years, he won 1 ring, and made the finals 3 times. When Wilt did this, fools call it "choking", but Kareem "didn't have the teammates." Frankly, if Kareem didn't have one of the 2 greatest point guards in history (Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson), then his teams did extremely poorly. In 1975 and 1976, Kareem led them to losing records. In 1977, they were higher-seeded and got swept by Bill Walton's Traiblazers. In 1978, they were finished 4th place in the 5 team Pacific Division. In 1979, they finished 3rd in the 6th team Pacific Division. Did he have teammates? Well, in 1979, he had Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, and Jamaal Wilkes. Is that talent? So in the 5 seasons without Magic and Oscar, they won only 1 division title, and never won a game past the conference semi-finals. In 1980, Magic Johnson joined the Lakers, and they started winning titles. When Kareem retired in 1989, the Lakers replaced him with Vlade Divac and won 6 MORE games. Food for thought.

So did Kareem win titles? No. The Lakers (and Bucks) won titles. One man teams do not win titles.

Kareem did play longer, but does this make Robert Parish better than Kareem? No. Also, Kareem played less minutes than Wilt. Who couldn't play more games when they are pacing themselves? Kareem played 20 seasons to Wilt's 14. However, if you take Wilt's min/game and turn them into the number of games Kareem played, Wilt played the equivalent of 18 seasons! And consider, in Wilt's final season, he set a record for field goal percentage (72.7%), led the league in rebounds, and was first team all-defense (over Kareem). Wilt retired while he was still a star in the league. When Kareem retired, he wasn't even beating out backup Mychal Thompson in minutes. Kareem was a starter by title-only. He also hacked off Lakers' GM Jerry West by coming to work out of shape, and giving what was considered a half-hearted effort. You can read about this in Kareem's book Kareem. You can also read Kareem try to justify his poor work habit.

So once you slice through the superficial rhetoric, it comes down to who was the most dominant player and the answer was Wilt. He could fill any role on a team. Kareem could not. If you needed someone to focus on defense and clean the glass, Kareem couldn't do it.Zelmo Beatty, Nate Thurmond and Wes Unseld would all be scrubs in today's era. Dwight Howard would drop 40/20 on them with ease.

[32jazz]

Zelmo Beatty, Nate Thurmond and Wes Unseld would all be scrubs in today's era. Dwight Howard would drop 40/20 on them with ease.

My god. I actually responded to this f***.........:banghead:

[hall of fame]

My god. I actually responded to this f***.........:banghead:
You don't seem to realize that Unseld, Thurmond and Beatty were nothing but products of a WEAK era full of slow, unathletic and WEAK players.

Did you see the scrubs back then doing 360s, windmills, reverse layups or even tear drops? Didn't think so. You saw those scrubs dribbling while looking down at the ball and going off the wrong foot for layups.

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell's accomplishments are not to be taken seriously. Same with most of Kareem's.

Why isn't Bill Russell the greatest winner ever? Simply because he won those 11 titles in a WEAK era.

Jordan > all.

/thread.

[Psileas]

do people in this thread know that the average hight for Centers back in the 60s was 6'6?

No, because you can't know something which is patently and utterly false. At best you may just believe it, until you decide to educate yourself by doing some serious research.

[Floppy]

You don't seem to realize that Unseld, Thurmond and Beatty were nothing but products of a WEAK era full of slow, unathletic and WEAK players.

Did you see the scrubs back then doing 360s, windmills, reverse layups or even tear drops? Didn't think so. You saw those scrubs dribbling while looking down at the ball and going off the wrong foot for layups.

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell's accomplishments are not to be taken seriously. Same with most of Kareem's.

Why isn't Bill Russell the greatest winner ever? Simply because he won those 11 titles in a WEAK era.

Jordan > all.

/thread.

I'm curious how you explain all those players in the early eras being so **** compared to today's players.

Did god hate the 60s ?

[hall of fame]

I'm curious how you explain all those players in the early eras being so **** compared to today's players.

Did god hate the 60s ?
Well, you simply take a look at the 60s players and ask yourself if they look more like McDonald's burger flippers or true athletes.

You also watch footage of them play and laugh at how pathetically slow and unathletic they are. The average player in the 60s had around a 21 inch vertical leap. That's pretty pathetic considering that most teenagers can pull off around a 19-22 inch vertical without doing any programs at all.

The 60s was a sissy era for players like Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Wes Unseld and other hall of famers who'd be ear-picking bench warmers in today's league. :applause:

[Simple Jack]

You don't seem to realize that Unseld, Thurmond and Beatty were nothing but products of a WEAK era full of slow, unathletic and WEAK players.

Did you see the scrubs back then doing 360s, windmills, reverse layups or even tear drops? Didn't think so. You saw those scrubs dribbling while looking down at the ball and going off the wrong foot for layups.

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell's accomplishments are not to be taken seriously. Same with most of Kareem's.

Why isn't Bill Russell the greatest winner ever? Simply because he won those 11 titles in a WEAK era.

Jordan > all.

/thread.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5576/3440019737dbf9902ac2o.jpg


Unathletic huh?

[iggy>]

You don't seem to realize that Unseld, Thurmond and Beatty were nothing but products of a WEAK era full of slow, unathletic and WEAK players.

Did you see the scrubs back then doing 360s, windmills, reverse layups or even tear drops? Didn't think so. You saw those scrubs dribbling while looking down at the ball and going off the wrong foot for layups.

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell's accomplishments are not to be taken seriously. Same with most of Kareem's.

Why isn't Bill Russell the greatest winner ever? Simply because he won those 11 titles in a WEAK era.

Jordan > all.

/thread.
cousy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rose. BOOK IT!

[hall of fame]

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5576/3440019737dbf9902ac2o.jpg


Unathletic huh?
LOL!! :roll: Look at all those midget white guys who probably have 15 inch verticals!:roll: You think they'd be any better than Mark Madsen today?

[Floppy]

Well, you simply take a look at the 60s players and ask yourself if they look more like McDonald's burger flippers or true athletes.

You also watch footage of them play and laugh at how pathetically slow and unathletic they are. The average player in the 60s had around a 21 inch vertical leap. That's pretty pathetic considering that most teenagers can pull off around a 19-22 inch vertical without doing any programs at all.

The 60s was a sissy era for players like Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Wes Unseld and other hall of famers who'd be ear-picking bench warmers in today's league. :applause:

Again, how do you explain that?

[Simple Jack]

LOL!! :roll: Look at all those midget white guys who probably have 15 inch verticals!:roll: You think they'd be any better than Mark Madsen today?

I'm not talking about the white guys; I'm talking about the black guy nearly touching the top of the backboard.

[iggy>]

I'm not talking about the white guys; I'm talking about the black guy nearly touching the top of the backboard.
dont even waste your time on this loser, he only sees what he wants to see.

[hall of fame]

I'm not talking about the white guys; I'm talking about the black guy nearly touching the top of the backboard.
The 60s was a WEAK era. Defense didn't exist back then, which is the reason for these grossly inflated stats of 60s players.

Ex) Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/26 in his best year, but we all know he'd be nothing more than 15/9 on around 48% at best in today's game.

Ex) Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double (30+/10+/10+) one year, but we all know he'd be scratching his arse and waving a towel from the VERY END of a lottery team's bench today.

Dwight Howard in the 60s = 48.5 ppg, 33.8 rpg, 8 apg, 12 bpg, 77 FG%

LeBron James in the 60s = 55 ppg, 25 rpg, 15 apg, 68 FG%

Shaq in the 60s = 60 ppg, 30 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.

[Toizumi]

The 60s was a WEAK era. Defense didn't exist back then, which is the reason for these grossly inflated stats of 60s players.

Ex) Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/26 in his best year, but we all know he'd be nothing more than 15/9 on around 48% at best in today's game.

Ex) Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double (30+/10+/10+) one year, but we all know he'd be scratching his arse and waving a towel from the VERY END of a lottery team's bench today.

Dwight Howard in the 60s = 48.5 ppg, 33.8 rpg, 8 apg, 12 bpg, 77 FG%

LeBron James in the 60s = 55 ppg, 25 rpg, 15 apg, 68 FG%

Shaq in the 60s = 60 ppg, 30 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.

Great post. Looks like you've really done a lot of research!! Thanks for posting those stats, I was looking for those. :applause:
My yet to be born son averaged 50.000.000 PPG, 68 RPG, 78 APG, 99FG% in the 1991 season:rockon: Just thought you would like to know that.

http://www.epicproxies.com/images/die_in_a_fire.jpg

[phoenix18]

The 60s was a WEAK era. Defense didn't exist back then, which is the reason for these grossly inflated stats of 60s players.

Ex) Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/26 in his best year, but we all know he'd be nothing more than 15/9 on around 48% at best in today's game.

Ex) Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double (30+/10+/10+) one year, but we all know he'd be scratching his arse and waving a towel from the VERY END of a lottery team's bench today.

Dwight Howard in the 60s = 48.5 ppg, 33.8 rpg, 8 apg, 12 bpg, 77 FG%

LeBron James in the 60s = 55 ppg, 25 rpg, 15 apg, 68 FG%

Shaq in the 60s = 60 ppg, 30 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.
:applause: That was amazing. The fact that you actually took the effort to type that in and waste all of our time. Oscar Robertson would wipe the floor with 99.9999999% of the players today. Wilt too. Without Oscar there would be no lebron,no AI, no Kobe, no MJ! He invented the Head Fake and Fadeaway and his anti-trust suit against the NBA paved the way for free agency so that the Big O for the NBA you have today.

[NuggetsFan]

The 60s was a WEAK era. Defense didn't exist back then, which is the reason for these grossly inflated stats of 60s players.

Ex) Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/26 in his best year, but we all know he'd be nothing more than 15/9 on around 48% at best in today's game.

Ex) Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double (30+/10+/10+) one year, but we all know he'd be scratching his arse and waving a towel from the VERY END of a lottery team's bench today.

Dwight Howard in the 60s = 48.5 ppg, 33.8 rpg, 8 apg, 12 bpg, 77 FG%

LeBron James in the 60s = 55 ppg, 25 rpg, 15 apg, 68 FG%

Shaq in the 60s = 60 ppg, 30 rpg, 8 apg, 80 FG%.

That's quite the theory you got there:banghead:

[hall of fame]

:applause: That was amazing. The fact that you actually took the effort to type that in and waste all of our time. Oscar Robertson would wipe the floor with 99.9999999% of the players today. Wilt too. Without Oscar there would be no lebron,no AI, no Kobe, no MJ! He invented the Head Fake and Fadeaway and his anti-trust suit against the NBA paved the way for free agency so that the Big O for the NBA you have today.
Incorrect. Oscar Robertson in today's league would be a slightly worse version of Rafer Alston.

Yao > Wilt.

[Bush4Ever]

That's quite the theory you got there:banghead:

Indeed. No way Lebron averages 55 ppg. Maybe 52-53, but 55? Laughable.

[Bush4Ever]

Incorrect. Oscar Robertson in today's league would be a slightly worse version of Rafer Alston.

Yao > Wilt.

The fact that you compare the epitome of a no-frills guard with someone who is only famous for his streetball frills shows a gap in your knowledge.

And by the way, merely stating something isn't a legitimate argument.

[hall of fame]

The fact that you compare the epitome of a no-frills guard with someone who is only famous for his streetball frills shows a gap in your knowledge.

And by the way, merely stating something isn't a legitimate argument.
Oscar was very unathletic. He couldn't jump more than 20 inches off the ground, was very slow-footed, and was pretty soft.

Chris Paul > Oscar Robertson.

Hell, Steve Nash right now > Oscar Robertson.

[hall of fame]

Indeed. No way Lebron averages 55 ppg. Maybe 52-53, but 55? Laughable.
If Wilt averaged 50, LeBron would easily average at least 55.

LeBron James > PRIME Wilt Chamberlain.

[phoenix18]

Incorrect. Oscar Robertson in today's league would be a slightly worse version of Rafer Alston.

Yao > Wilt.
So your telling me a guy that invented the move that Nba players today make their living off of today wouldnt be great?:hammerhead:

[phoenix18]

Oscar was very unathletic. He couldn't jump more than 20 inches off the ground, was very slow-footed, and was pretty soft.

Chris Paul > Oscar Robertson.

Hell, Steve Nash right now > Oscar Robertson.
:violin: I feel your pain. Going through life with only a couple of brain cells must be tough.

[hall of fame]

What makes you think Oscar invented anything? I own full season footage of the man, and let me tell you that he was nothing more than a stat-padding ball hog. If anything, he was everything today's players SHOULDN'T be.

[Bush4Ever]

Oscar was very unathletic. He couldn't jump more than 20 inches off the ground


Oh yeah....clearly.

http://www.lalanternadelpopolo.it/Basket%20NBA%20-%20Campioni%20Oscar%20Robertson.jpg

[phoenix18]

Youtube. Oscar has been shooting fadeaways long before anyone else .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc

[hall of fame]

And what does that picture prove? Nothing. I could easily take a picture of Todd McCullough, Greg Ostertag or any other fatty going up for a rebound and make it look like he was some all-world freak of nature.

Oscar Robertson was not a good athlete at all.

[Toizumi]

Incorrect. Oscar Robertson in today's league would be a slightly worse version of Rafer Alston.

Yao > Wilt.

Ok this proves it, you're playing us..
good to know you werent serious about all this.

[Bush4Ever]

And what does that picture prove? Nothing. I could easily take a picture of Todd McCullough, Greg Ostertag or any other fatty going up for a rebound and make it look like he was some all-world freak of nature.

Oscar Robertson was not a good athlete at all.

You claimed he couldn't get more than 20 inches off the ground.

That picture directly disproves that statement.

Unless you are trolling, you don't have a right to your own facts. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[Toizumi]

And what does that picture prove? Nothing. I could easily take a picture of Todd McCullough, Greg Ostertag or any other fatty going up for a rebound and make it look like he was some all-world freak of nature.
Oscar Robertson was not a good athlete at all.

http://www.utball.com/photos/ostertag/ostertag10.jpg

:rockon:

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

What makes you think Oscar invented anything? I own full season footage of the man, and let me tell you that he was nothing more than a stat-padding ball hog. If anything, he was everything today's players SHOULDN'T be.

you mean....like... a walking, talking triple-double ???

[Bush4Ever]

you mean....like... a walking, talking triple-double ???

Averaged it over the first 5 years of his career, I think (or close to it).

Additionally, he was a sharpshooter, shooting 48-50 percent from the floor during a time where the league averages were about 43-44 percent. By contrast, Lebron this year shot 49 percent with a league average of 46 percent.

[hall of fame]

You claimed he couldn't get more than 20 inches off the ground.

That picture directly disproves that statement.

Unless you are trolling, you don't have a right to your own facts. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
And I still believe he couldn't get more than 20 in. off the ground.

That picture was obviously photoshopped or changed in some other way.

If you watch footage of Oscar Robertson, you'd notice how unathletic he was for a superstar PG.

You see any unathletic superstars today? If yes, have they ever won jack in this league?

[hall of fame]

Averaged it over the first 5 years of his career, I think (or close to it).

Additionally, he was a sharpshooter, shooting 48-50 percent from the floor during a time where the league averages were about 43-44 percent. By contrast, Lebron this year shot 49 percent with a league average of 46 percent.
And what does that prove? That Oscar played in a WEAK era with poor competition.

LeBron plays is a strong era with good shooters. LeBron would shoot over 70% in the 60s.

[Bush4Ever]

And I still believe he couldn't get more than 20 in. off the ground.

That picture was obviously photoshopped or changed in some other way.

If you watch footage of Oscar Robertson, you'd notice how unathletic he was for a superstar PG.

You see any unathletic superstars today? If yes, have they ever won jack in this league?

Hilarious dodge with the photoshop comment. That picture is an iconic picture of Oscar Robertson. It has been seen thousands of times.

I've watched footage. He was athletic enough to use his amazing fundamentals effectively, which is what his game was based around.

[Bush4Ever]

And what does that prove? That Oscar played in a WEAK era with poor competition.

LeBron plays is a strong era with good shooters. LeBron would shoot over 70% in the 60s.


It proves Oscar was an amazing sharpshooter and all-around player.

And again, merely stating something isn't a valid argument.

We've recently seen a 40+ year old with bad knees and a crap team play at an all-star level. Do you think a prime Oscar was that much less athletic than a 40 year old Jordan?

[hall of fame]

It proves Oscar was an amazing sharpshooter and all-around player.

And again, merely stating something isn't a valid argument.

We've recently seen a 40+ year old with bad knees and a crap team play at an all-star level. Do you think a prime Oscar was that much less athletic than a 40 year old Jordan?
After watching footage of Oscar Robertson, I find it safe to say that he was far less athletic than Jason Kidd. Comparing him to Jordan in any way is simply an insult to #23.

Jason Kidd was better than Oscar Robertson at every aspect of basketball.

Since Kidd was never more than a 15/8/10 on 39% kind of player, Oscar would be a 7/4/3 on 35% type of player in today's game. Pretty much scrub numbers.

[EllEffEll]

And I still believe he couldn't get more than 20 in. off the ground.

That picture was obviously photoshopped or changed in some other way.

If you watch footage of Oscar Robertson, you'd notice how unathletic he was for a superstar PG.

I don't have to watch footage of Oscar, I saw him play in person.


You see any unathletic superstars today? If yes, have they ever won jack in this league?

Since you asked, does the name 'Tim Duncan' ring any bells?

[Sir Charles]

Notice how Kareem averaged horrible numbers in the STRONG era aka the 80s. This is because he couldn't play well unless he was in a WEAK era against WEAK centers.

Kareem in a STRONG era < Pat Ewing, Zo Mourning.

Shaq + Hakeem in the 70s = combined averages of 90 ppg and 45 rpg.

This is insulting....:banghead:

Notice how Kareem`s numbers in the 80s decrease do age dumb fu-ck! Kareem played WAY PASSED HIS PRIME in the 80s and he pretty much did incredible against a Prime Hakeen and Ewing despite being an aged 37 to 41 year old Man vs Hakeem and a 38 to 41 Year Old Man vs Ewing!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem at ages 39 to 41 faced Hakeem at ages 24 to 27 in a total of 13 games (missing stats from the 1984-85/1985-86 seasons, Kareem at age 36-38! so expect Kareem`s averages to increase if we had those stats) achieved the following vs a 24 and 27 year Prime Old Hakeem!:

Kareem (ages 39-41: Passed His Physical, Game and EVERYTHING Prime) vs Hakeem (ages 24-27: Total Physical Prime, Reaching his Game Prime):

Kareem: 15.2 PPG (10.8 FGA PG) on 56.7 FG%! , 5.8 RPG, 1.4 BPG, 0.5 SPG, 2.2 TOV and 2.8 Personal Fouls PGIN ONLY 28.4 MINUTE PER GAME

Hakeem: 21.8 PPG (18.3 FGA PG) on 47.5 FG% (LOWERED HIS FG%) , 11.9 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.6 TOV PG and 4.0 Personal Fouls PG in 37.8 MPG


[B]Hakeem was Less Effective Offensively on an Aging (Way, Way.....Passed Both Physical and Game Prime) 39-41 Year Old Kareem...remember Kareem was actually 7`3 and had incredible wingspam!

Hakeem might have had Better Foot-Work and Agility, Cooler Fakes and Was the Superior Floor Defender (All Around Defender) than Kareem but

-Kareem`s B-Ball IQ
-Kareem`s Polished Offensive Game/Game Creating
-Passing /Court Vision
-Effecitiveness FG% /Yes He Was a Better Scorer!)

And Overall Offensive Game: Scoring Efficiency/Passing/Game Creating Skills Where Way Superior to Hakeem`s.:confusedshrug:

-His Prime Rebounding Was also Better and In his Prime his Shot Blocking Capacity was Better or Very Close to Hakeem`s.

[BallersTalk]

Kareem is the GOAT. /endthread

[Abraham Lincoln]

Kareem is the GOAT. /endthread


This be the mere type of thou mental infestation. Thou shan't reply spreading the mere creedence of this nonsense as truth on what thou be mistaken about. Alas here be some facts for thou misinformed soul.

Wilt Chamberlain vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:

Wilt simply was a more dominant player. He could pour on the offense to higher degrees than Kareem. Wilt is the greatest rebounder in history, and Kareem was a weak rebounder for his size. Wilt was a better passer, and I believe, a better defender. When Wilt was in his final 2 years, which corresponded with Kareem's 3rd and 4th year, Wilt was still making the first team all-defense over Kareem. None of this is a bag on Kareem, because I do believe Kareem is one of the 3 greatest centers in history, but he simply was no Wilt.

Some will try to bring up rings. This is a silly argument, since rings are a team achievement, but still, consider that during Kareem's first 10 years, he won 1 ring, and made the finals 3 times. When Wilt did this, fools call it "choking", but Kareem "didn't have the teammates." Frankly, if Kareem didn't have one of the 2 greatest point guards in history (Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson), then his teams did extremely poorly. In 1975 and 1976, Kareem led them to losing records. In 1977, they were higher-seeded and got swept by Bill Walton's Traiblazers. In 1978, they were finished 4th place in the 5 team Pacific Division. In 1979, they finished 3rd in the 6th team Pacific Division. Did he have teammates? Well, in 1979, he had Norm Nixon, Adrian Dantley, and Jamaal Wilkes. Is that talent? So in the 5 seasons without Magic and Oscar, they won only 1 division title, and never won a game past the conference semi-finals. In 1980, Magic Johnson joined the Lakers, and they started winning titles. When Kareem retired in 1989, the Lakers replaced him with Vlade Divac and won 6 MORE games. Food for thought.

So did Kareem win titles? No. The Lakers (and Bucks) won titles. One man teams do not win titles.

Kareem did play longer, but does this make Robert Parish better than Kareem? No. Also, Kareem played less minutes than Wilt. Who couldn't play more games when they are pacing themselves? Kareem played 20 seasons to Wilt's 14. However, if you take Wilt's min/game and turn them into the number of games Kareem played, Wilt played the equivalent of 18 seasons! And consider, in Wilt's final season, he set a record for field goal percentage (72.7%), led the league in rebounds, and was first team all-defense (over Kareem). Wilt retired while he was still a star in the league. When Kareem retired, he wasn't even beating out backup Mychal Thompson in minutes. Kareem was a starter by title-only. He also hacked off Lakers' GM Jerry West by coming to work out of shape, and giving what was considered a half-hearted effort. You can read about this in Kareem's book Kareem. You can also read Kareem try to justify his poor work habit.

So once you slice through the superficial rhetoric, it comes down to who was the most dominant player and the answer was Wilt. He could fill any role on a team. Kareem could not. If you needed someone to focus on defense and clean the glass, Kareem couldn't do it.

[32jazz]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]This is insulting....:banghead:

Notice how Kareem`s numbers in the 80s decrease do age dumb fu-ck! Kareem played WAY PASSED HIS PRIME in the 80s and he pretty much did incredible against a Prime Hakeen and Ewing despite being an aged 37 to 41 year old Man vs Hakeem and a 38 to 41 Year Old Man vs Ewing!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem at ages 39 to 41 faced Hakeem at ages 24 to 27 in a total of 13 games (missing stats from the 1984-85/1985-86 seasons, Kareem at age 36-38! so expect Kareem`s averages to increase if we had those stats) achieved the following vs a 24 and 27 year Prime Old Hakeem!:

Kareem (ages 39-41: Passed His Physical, Game and EVERYTHING Prime) vs Hakeem (ages 24-27: Total Physical Prime, Reaching his Game Prime):

Kareem: 15.2 PPG (10.8 FGA PG) on 56.7 FG%! , 5.8 RPG, 1.4 BPG, 0.5 SPG, 2.2 TOV and 2.8 Personal Fouls PGIN ONLY 28.4 MINUTE PER GAME

Hakeem: 21.8 PPG (18.3 FGA PG) on 47.5 FG% (LOWERED HIS FG%) , 11.9 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.6 TOV PG and 4.0 Personal Fouls PG in 37.8 MPG


[B]Hakeem was Less Effective Offensively on an Aging (Way, Way.....Passed Both Physical and Game Prime) 39-41 Year Old Kareem...remember Kareem was actually 7`3 and had incredible wingspam!

Hakeem might have had Better Foot-Work and Agility, Cooler Fakes and Was the Superior Floor Defender (All Around Defender) than Kareem but

-Kareem`s B-Ball IQ
-Kareem`s Polished Offensive Game/Game Creating
-Passing /Court Vision
-Effecitiveness FG% /Yes He Was a Better Scorer!)

And Overall Offensive Game: Scoring Efficiency/Passing/Game Creating Skills Where Way Superior to Hakeem`s.:confusedshrug:

-His Prime Rebounding Was also Better and In his Prime his Shot Blocking Capacity was Better or Very Close to Hakeem`s.

[hall of fame]

If you think Kareem is the GOAT of anything except checkers, you simply do not understand much about basketball.

Is Kareem > Jordan?

Of course not. How can this be true when Kareem was hardly any better than other HOFers at his own position like Zo Mourning, Pat Ewing, David Robinson, Shaq O'Neal, Dream Olajuwon, and Mo Malone? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Did Kareem ever win even 4 titles as the man? No. He rode Magic's coattails to 3 of them.

Did Kareem ever play in a WEAK era? Yes he did... the entire 70s stunk.

Did Kareem ever dominate the way Jordan did? Of course not. Kareem wore goggles and dominated a sissy era that wasn't physical or athletic at all aka the 1970s.

Did Kareem have Jordan's athleticism. Nope. Jordan is one of the top 3 athletes ever. Iverson, Carter, Webb, LeBron, etc - these are the guys who are comparable athletically.

Was Kareem beaten like a drum whenever he played Hakeem and Mo Malone? Yes he was.

Could the Chicago Bulls have won 6 titles if you replaced Jordan with Kareem? Hell no. They probably wouldn't even have won a single title. Kareem would just get dominated by Hakeem, Zo and Ewing and lose in the second round.

Jordan > Kareem.

/thread.

[hall of fame]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]This is insulting....:banghead:

Notice how Kareem`s numbers in the 80s decrease do age dumb fu-ck! Kareem played WAY PASSED HIS PRIME in the 80s and he pretty much did incredible against a Prime Hakeen and Ewing despite being an aged 37 to 41 year old Man vs Hakeem and a 38 to 41 Year Old Man vs Ewing!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem at ages 39 to 41 faced Hakeem at ages 24 to 27 in a total of 13 games (missing stats from the 1984-85/1985-86 seasons, Kareem at age 36-38! so expect Kareem`s averages to increase if we had those stats) achieved the following vs a 24 and 27 year Prime Old Hakeem!:

Kareem (ages 39-41: Passed His Physical, Game and EVERYTHING Prime) vs Hakeem (ages 24-27: Total Physical Prime, Reaching his Game Prime):

Kareem: 15.2 PPG (10.8 FGA PG) on 56.7 FG%! , 5.8 RPG, 1.4 BPG, 0.5 SPG, 2.2 TOV and 2.8 Personal Fouls PGIN ONLY 28.4 MINUTE PER GAME

Hakeem: 21.8 PPG (18.3 FGA PG) on 47.5 FG% (LOWERED HIS FG%) , 11.9 RPG, 2.5 SPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.6 TOV PG and 4.0 Personal Fouls PG in 37.8 MPG


[B]Hakeem was Less Effective Offensively on an Aging (Way, Way.....Passed Both Physical and Game Prime) 39-41 Year Old Kareem...remember Kareem was actually 7`3 and had incredible wingspam!

Hakeem might have had Better Foot-Work and Agility, Cooler Fakes and Was the Superior Floor Defender (All Around Defender) than Kareem but

-Kareem`s B-Ball IQ
-Kareem`s Polished Offensive Game/Game Creating
-Passing /Court Vision
-Effecitiveness FG% /Yes He Was a Better Scorer!)

And Overall Offensive Game: Scoring Efficiency/Passing/Game Creating Skills Where Way Superior to Hakeem`s.:confusedshrug:

-His Prime Rebounding Was also Better and In his Prime his Shot Blocking Capacity was Better or Very Close to Hakeem`s.

[Big#50]

You don't seem to realize that Unseld, Thurmond and Beatty were nothing but products of a WEAK era full of slow, unathletic and WEAK players.

Did you see the scrubs back then doing 360s, windmills, reverse layups or even tear drops? Didn't think so. You saw those scrubs dribbling while looking down at the ball and going off the wrong foot for layups.

Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell's accomplishments are not to be taken seriously. Same with most of Kareem's.

Why isn't Bill Russell the greatest winner ever? Simply because he won those 11 titles in a WEAK era.

Jordan > all.

/thread.
Lebron>Jordan
Jordan beat Hornacek wow

[hall of fame]

Lebron>Jordan
Jordan beat Hornacek wow
Tony Parker >>> LeBron. Parker outplayed him in the Finals when it mattered.

Paul Pierce >>> LeBron. Pierce dropped 40 on him in Game 7 and won the series.

Jordan is the greatest player anyone on this forum has seen and ever will see. You or they disagree? Then learn basketball!:oldlol: :applause:

[miniharrison37]

Hakeen Olajuwon for his shooting skills, and more agile

[ukplayer4]

damn, this guy is back again.


hi BULLS/5 2 3 5/33 23




Jordan is the greatest player anyone on this forum has seen and ever will see. You or they disagree? Then learn basketball


is the only remotley logical thing your ever said.

[Sir Charles]

Why do you bring up Kareem's accomplishments from the wussy girl era better known as the 1970s? Do you not realize that the 70s is the third weakest era ever after the 50s and 60s? Your accomplishments are not to be taken seriously if you played in a WEAK era like Kareem did as a Milwaukee Buck. Jordan could have averaged 50/15/12/10/8 on 65% in the 70s.

The 70s was as good or even better than the 2000s and 90s era (the 80s tops every era) and way more physical than the 90s. It was in the 90s era when it all began: a puss game with no contact, soften up the handchecking rules, 3 second rule for big men, the Stern help on Jordan (and his fellow wanabees started to appear etc)..helping the perimter game and in the 2000s it has become even more pathetic when today whe have THE WEAKEST ERA OF CENTERS EVER!

If Jordan would have been in a team with another SCORING THREAT that was a Superstar he would not have been allowed to Shoot that much and Jordan in the 90s never faced A GREAT OFFENSIVE FRONTLINE (just GREAT DEFENSIVE FRONTLINES, Never Could Beat the Rockets for example whom had BOTH)...while in the 80s and 70s Kareem faced BOTH GREAT DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE FRONTLINES scoring at an incredible FG% all his career even when he was a grandpa

*That doesn`t mean Jordan isn`t great at all but Kareem was as great and even more dominating than Jordan.

Kareem Offered the Inside and Outside Game, Had a Post Game, Great Jump Shot and Bank Shot, Unstoppable Hook Shot, Sily Fundamentals, Rebounds, Assits, Game Creation= Him WIlt, Walton and Sabonis are the Greatest Passing Centers Ever!, FT Shooting, Clutch Shooting, Defense, Top Shot Blocker etc...

If you think Kareem is the GOAT of anything except checkers, you simply do not understand much about basketball.


Nope I don`t think that...Wilt is the GOAT Center, then Kareem.

Is Kareem > Jordan?

Of course not. How can this be true when Kareem was hardly any better than other HOFers at his own position like Zo Mourning, Pat Ewing, David Robinson, Shaq O'Neal, Dream Olajuwon, and Mo Malone? Yeah, that's what I thought.

I just prooved to you that he stood his ground at agesd 37-41 against A PRIME HAKEEM/SMAPSON and EWING :confusedshrug:

Did Kareem ever win even 4 titles as the man? No. He rode Magic's coattails to 3 of them.

Yes he did in 1980 He Was The Best Player on that Laker Team despite the Great Performance by Rookie Magic

In Fact he had the Higher PER than Any Other Laker in the Play-Offs the following Years:

1980
1981
1983
1984

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_yearly_p.html

Yearly Playoffs Leaders Player Efficiency Rating

1980 NBA Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 27.91

He was also The Lakers Best Player in the Finals OVERALL in the 1980, 1983, 1984 and 1985 Finals!

*1982 Finals Arguable..

1980 Finals:

Kareem: 33.4 PPG (54.9% FG / 80.8% FG), 13.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 4.6 BPG, 0.6 SPG, 4.2 TOV PG and 4.0 PF PG

Magic: 21.5 PPG (57.3% FG / 87.5% FT) 8.7 RPG, 11.2 APG, 0.3 BPG, 2.7 SPG,5.0 TOV PG and 2.8 PF PG

1982 Finals

Kareem (35.3 MPG): 18 PPG (53.1% FG / 53.7% FT), 7.7 RPG, 3.8 APG, 3.2 BPG, 1.3 SPG, 2.7 TOV PG and 3.5 PF PG

Magic (41.7 MPG): 16.2 PPG (53.3% FG / 84.6% FT) 10 RPG, 8.0 APG, 0.3 BPG, 2.5 SGP, 4.3 TOV PG and 3.8 PF PG

1983 Finals:

Kareem (38.8 MPG): 23.5 PPG (55.2% FG /76.9% FT ), 7.5 RPG, 3.0 APG, 2.3 BPG, 0.8 SPG, 3.5 TOV PG and 4.0 PF PG

Magic (44.8 MPG): 19.0 PPG (40.3% FG / 82.9% FT) 7.8 RPG, 12.5 APG, 0.4BPG, 1.8 SGP, 6.0 TOV PG and 4.0 PF PG

1984 Finals

Kareem (38.9 MPG): 26.6 PPG (48.1% FG /67.9% FT ), 7.4 RPG, 5.3 APG, 2.1 BPG, 1.7 SPG, 3.0 TOV PG and 3.9 PF PG

Magic (44.8 MPG): 18.5 PPG (56.0% FG / 82.9% FT) 7.7 RPG, 13.6 APG, 0.9BPG, 2.0 SGP, 4.4 TOV PG and 3.3 PF PG

1985 Finals:

Kareem (35.5 MPG): 25.7 PPG (60.4% FG / 76.9% FT), 7.9 RPG, 5.2 APG, 1.5 BPG, 1.0 SPG, 2.8 TOV PG and 4.5 PF PG

Magic (39.2 MPG): 18.3 PPG (49.4% FG / 87.1% FT), 6.8 RPG, 14 APG, 0.0 BPG, 2.2 SPG, 3.3 TOV and 4.0 PF PG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What can be said?

Kareem was More Polished, More Fundamental and Turned the Ball Alot Less, Usually More Efficient and DIFFERENTLY FROM MAGIC:

Kareem Played ON BOTH ENDS of the Floor: OFFENSE and DEFENSE

Magic was Never a Great Defender. Bird was a Way Better Defender too!: confusedshrug:

From the 1985-86 Season it was Magic`s Turn to be the Number One Player for the Lakers Oh well: ohwell: ofcourse Kareem was already 36 years Old What do You Expect?!!! :banghead:

What did Magic face as Great Competitions at the PG in the Finals?

Backcourt: Cheeks, DJ, Ainge, Aging Archibald :rolleyes:

What did Kareem Face as Great Competition in the Center Spot and Yes Frontline in the Finals (because a Center has to Guard more)?

Moses Malone: The Best Center of the Early-Mid 80s. A Top 5 Center of the Late 80s
Robert Parish: A Top 3 Center of the Early-Mid80s. A Top 6 Center of the Late 80s
Daryl Dawkins: Monster. A Shaq before Shaq
Caldwell Jones: Great Defender and Solid Rebounder
Kevin McHale: The Best PF of the Early 80s and Top 3 PF of the Mid-Late 80s
Larry Bird: The Best Small Forward of the Whole 80s
James Worthy: A Top 3 PF/SF of the Early 80s and Mid-Late 80s
Doctor J: A Top 3 Small Forward of the Early 80s
Maxwell: One of the Best Scoring PFs of All Time

And...THE ROCKET TWIN TOCKERS: Composed of Top 3-5 PF of the Early 80s and a The Best Center in the NBA beyond 1985-86....

:hammerhead:

By the way Magic never won a Championship without the participation of Kareem

And never faced the Amount of Competition Kareem faced in the Center Spot or Frontline Overall

:confusedshrug:

Don`t give me the Big 0 thing...Big 0 wasn`t in his prime when Kareem played with him.:rolleyes:

While Magic was in his total Prime when he played with Kareem and Kareem wasn`t And Magic wasn`t able to Win Shi****t without Kareem while Facing Weaker Competition at the PG Spot than Kareem ever Faced at the Center and Frontline Overall

:confusedshrug:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Kareem ever play in a WEAK era? Yes he did... the entire 70s stunk.

Wrong the 70s era Was Even Deeper than the 90s and a Great Era of Centers even Better than the 2000s

Healthy Walton Best Game Creating Center of the 70s and Top Defender, Wilt still Dominating the Defensive End and Rebounding-Creating-Passing, Artis Gilmore a 7`2 280 lbs Center that was a Maniac Rebounder and the Most Efficietn Score Inside with Shaq and Wilt. Monster Defenders and Rebounders in Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier, Unseld etc..

Did Kareem ever dominate the way Jordan did? Of course not. Kareem wore goggles and dominated a sissy era that wasn't physical or athletic at all aka the 1970s.

Kareem Dominated the Whole League since he entered the NBA at age 22 till he was about 35

Player Efficiency Rating

1969-70 NBA 22.5 (2)
1970-71 NBA 29.0 (1)
1971-72 NBA 29.9 (1)
1972-73 NBA 28.5 (1)
1973-74 NBA 24.4 (2)
1974-75 NBA 26.4 (1)
1975-76 NBA 27.2 (1)
1976-77 NBA 27.8 (1)
1977-78 NBA 29.2 (1)
1978-79 NBA 25.5 (1)
1979-80 NBA 25.3 (2)
1980-81 NBA 25.5 (1)
1981-82 NBA 23.4 (5)
1982-83 NBA 23.6 (4)
1983-84 NBA 21.3 (10)
1984-85 NBA 22.9 (5)
1985-86 NBA 22.7 (6)

In fact, If you took Kareem`s Prime Years ages 22-32 he probably has the Highest or Second Highest EFF, PER and Statistical +/- of All Time :confusedshrug:



Did Kareem have Jordan's athleticism. Nope. Jordan is one of the top 3 athletes ever. Iverson, Carter, Webb, LeBron, etc - these are the guys who are comparable athletically.

[B]Did Jordan have Kareem

[Sir Charles]

Lebron>Jordan
Jordan beat Hornacek wow

33-34 Year Old Unathletic White Boy Hornacek, 34-35 Year Old Unathletic White Boy Stockton and 33-34 Year Old Karl Malone (ALL PASSED THEIR PRIMES) + Unathletic White Unathletic Ostertag

Schooled (4-1) AND SWEPT! (4-0)

PRIME SHAQ
PRIME ELDEN CAMBELL
PRIME EDDIE JONES
PRIME NICK VAN EXCEL
PRIME RICK FOX
PRIME HORRY
PRIME FISHER
Active JEROME KERSEY
YOUNG BRYANT

HOW?

Answer for you KID!

BARKLEY:

"They Can Run, they Can Jump...They Can Dunk...

But..So Can A Dear....They Don`t Know How To Play the Game"

:hammerhead: :banghead: :hammerhead: :sleeping :violin:

Seriously...There Should be en Age Limit to Post :rolleyes:

[hall of fame]

The 70s was as good or even better than the 2000s and 90s era (the 80s tops every era) and way more physical than the 90s. It was in the 90s era when it all began: a puss game with no contact, soften up the handchecking rules, 3 second rule for big men, the Stern help on Jordan (and his fellow wanabees started to appear etc)..helping the perimter game and in the 2000s it has become even more pathetic when today whe have THE WEAKEST ERA OF CENTERS EVER!
The 70s was 10x weaker than the 90s. If the 80s was by far the greatest, why did the 90s have the greatest combination of athleticism + skill and the best 2-way players ever?

90s = greatest athletes = Kemp, Malone, Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Drexler, Rider, Miner, Iverson, etc.

90s dominant 2-way superstars = Payton, Jordan, Pippen, Kemp, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Zo.

80s = unathletic defensive sissies. Bird = unathletic + bad defender, Magic = unathletic + bad defender, Mo Malone = unathletic, Kareem = unathletic + bad defender, etc.

70s was the worst era ever for centers. Today's centers >>>> 70s centers. Rik Smits in the 70s > Nate Thurmond.

[Duncan21formvp]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[hall of fame]

:roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Isn't it awesome? You and I = unstoppable team. It's gonna be just like the old days. Just wait a few more days and we'll own this sh*t like we used to!:applause:

[Sir Charles]

The 70s was 10x weaker than the 90s. If the 80s was by far the greatest, why did the 90s have the greatest combination of athleticism + skill and the best 2-way players ever?

Who said that the 70s was Weaker than the 90s? The Early and Mid 70s as Good as the 90s...The Late 70s is Weaker...


90s = greatest athletes = Kemp, Malone, Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Drexler, Rider, Miner, Iverson, etc.

Malone wasn`t athletic in the Leaping Sense...He Was Fast (not Quick), VERY STRONG and VERY POTENT.

90s dominant 2-way superstars = Payton, Jordan, Pippen, Kemp, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Zo.

80s = unathletic defensive sissies. Bird = unathletic + bad defender, Magic = unathletic + bad defender, Mo Malone = unathletic, Kareem = unathletic + bad defender, etc.

Bird Unathletic? Leaping Wise Yes. Potent Wise Yes

But STRONG AS AN OX and Faster than Your Average 6`9er...:hammerhead:

ALSO MORE SKILLED, MORE INTELLIENT, MORE FUNDEMANTALLY SOUND, BETTER PASSER, BETTER REBOUNDER, BETTER GAME CREATOR etc than All the Forwards than any Small Forward Today :violin:

Bad Defender? :no: Not Great...but Definetly Not Bad..Superior Defensive Rating than Bryant!

He Went to 5 NBA Finals, Won 3 and Beat the Best Running-Passing-Skilled Team of All Time in 1984 :confusedshrug:

Moses Malone? Unathletic? :no: Not Quite...Not the Highest Leaper...BUT

ONE OF THE STRONGEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME :confusedshrug:
ONE OF THE MOST AGRESSIVE AND RELENTLESS PLAYERS OFALL TIME:confusedshrug:

Kareem Bad Defender? Unathletic? :roll:

Go Check Out Kareem in the 70s. Kareem was agil, Great Shot Blocker, Great Rebounder (not better than Wilt or Moset...Better than Hakeem and Ewing)

The Best Passing Center with Wilt-Walton-Sabonis and

THE MOST OFFENSIVELY SKILLED FUNDEMENTALLY SOUND CENTER OF ALL TIME :confusedshrug:

70s was the worst era ever for centers. Today's centers >>>> 70s centers. Rik Smits in the 70s > Nate Thurmond

70s Centers > 2000s Centers other than Shaq

2000s is the Weakest Era of Centers of All TIme Skillwise (Passing Wise, Offensive Wise, B-Ball IQ Wise)

[hall of fame]

No part of the 70s was even comparable to the worst part of the 90s. The 70s wasn't even professional basketball. It was just a bunch of unathletic sissy girls who would find themselves handing players gatorade in today's era. Scrubs like John Havlicek and Dave Cowens would have a better chance finding a job delivering pizzas than they would as NBA players in today's league. The 70s was more like the WNBA.

Also, you can't call Karl Malone unathletic and at the same time defend Bird and Moses.

Finally, today's era is only weak compared to the 80s and 90s. The 70s was f'ing GARBAGE just like the 50s and 60s. You'll eventually have to understand that we do not take the achievements of 50s/60s/70s players seriously. We compare them to modern players as they were and laugh at how much worse they are at everything - running, jumping, shooting, dribbling, passing, etc.

00s > 70s.

[Sir Charles]

No part of the 70s was even comparable to the worst part of the 90s. The 70s wasn't even professional basketball. It was just a bunch of unathletic sissy girls who would find themselves handing players gatorade in today's era. Scrubs like John Havlicek and Dave Cowens would have a better chance finding a job delivering pizzas than they would as NBA players in today's league. The 70s was more like the WNBA.

Sissies? 70s was even more physical than the 80s :hammerhead:

Most of 70s Players where Fundamentally Sound than the ones we have seen in the 2000s...Havlicek and Cowens scrubs? HaHa its probably because they are white and they are not agil black looking :confusedshrug: :rolleyes:

Also, you can't call Karl Malone unathletic and at the same time defend Bird and Moses.

I did nto call Malone unathletic...but he wasn`t a Leaper...so in terms of today highschool thug playground mentallity...we wasn`t really athletic..We Fast-Potentn and Strong

Same with Bird we wasn`t Potent or Fast but he was Quick, Strong as an Ox above all SMARTER, MORE SKILLED, MORE COORDINATED, HIGHER B-BALL IQ, COURT VISION, PASSING GAME etc etc than ALL PLAYERS OF TODAY, ALL!:confusedshrug:

Moses was one of the Strongest Players of All Time :confusedshrug:

Finally, today's era is only weak compared to the 80s and 90s. The 70s was f'ing GARBAGE just like the 50s and 60s. You'll eventually have to understand that we do not take the achievements of 50s/60s/70s players seriously. We compare them to modern players as they were and laugh at how much worse they are at everything - running, jumping, shooting, dribbling, passing, etc.

00s > 70s.

2000s > are Better than the 70s at the PG and SG spots
2000s = 1970s at the SF and PF spots
1970s WAY WAY ABOVE > the 2000s at the CF and C spots..

Overall Fundamentally Sound Players, B-Ball IQed Players, Passin Game, Intelligence of Role Players 1970s > 2000s by Miles too