Bill Russell College Days [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

jlauber

04-25-2010, 11:34 AM

Of course, much like Wilt, Russell dominated 6-6 white centers, especially in college...

http://www.usfdons.com/trads/russell_years.html

"Then, no sooner had the game begun than USF captain Jerry Mullen, who had spearheaded the scoring attack against Utah the night before with 24 points, sprained an ankle. Four minutes later, USF trainer Vince Briare had Mullen taped and back in the game. In the meantime, with Mullen out, Oregon State had sagged its defense around Bill Russell, not only with the 7'3" Swede Halbrook, but also with the 7'0" Phil Shadoin, virtually ignoring forward Stan Buchanan. In response to his teammates' urging to shoot from long range, Buchanan drilled consecutive twenty footers, forcing the Beavers to adjust their strategy and play all the USF players straight up.

What followed is one of the most incredible games in NCAA annals. Darrell Wilson of the Chronicle reported: "The game's big men--7'3" Swede Halbrook and 6'10" Bill Russell from USF--fought it out around the backboard in a leap-for-leap battle in a higher area than most basketball fans have ever witnessed."

USF, with a late surge, eked out a 30-27 lead at the half, and they did so without a single field goal from the injured Jerry Mullen.

In the second half, USF pulled ahead by as many as ten points and led by eight points with less than two minutes to play, but Oregon State battled back to close the game to 57-55 with thirteen seconds remaining. USF quickly called time-out. At the end of the time-out a bizarre incident resulted in a USF foul. K.C. Jones, running and looking back toward the bench while returning to the court, inadvertently crashed into an Oregon State player. Although time was out, he was called for a foul, and since time was out, the foul was considered a technical foul. Oregon State would get not only a free throw but also possession of the ball. The Oregon State player made the free throw, closing the gap to one point, and the Beavers would now inbound at halfcourt with a chance to win the game.

With the crowd of 11,200 on its feet, one of Oregon State's best shooters, Ron Robins, fired a shot from the corner that bounced off the front of the rim, but Swede Halbrook snared the rebound high over his head. From behind Halbrook, K.C. Jones stripped the ball from the giant's towering arms. But the theft, with seven seconds remaining, was ruled a jump ball. In the '50s, the two players involved in the held ball had to jump against each other--in this case the 6'1" Jones against the 7'3" Halbrook--in the free throw circle nearest the Oregon State basket. Such a mismatch and such a floor advantage are some of the reasons for the rule change many years later which eliminated most jump balls in favor of alternating possessions. But the rule change also eliminates the kind of David-and-Goliath battle which ensued in 1955. It was up to the much smaller Jones to do something to stop Halbrook from tipping the ball either directly toward the basket or to an open teammate. Accounts vary. Some say Jones outjumped Halbrook; some say he deflected the ball as Halbrook tipped it; some say he got away with tipping it on the way up. However it happened, the ball flew into the waiting hands of teammate Hal Perry, who doubled over and protected it until the game ended a few seconds later. "

qazxsw

04-25-2010, 11:35 AM

check him here :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2gRSTofDsk (http://buzz.igg.com/game_event_develop.php?m_id=12884259&g_id=20&act_id=3&url=tof.igg.com%2F)

Simple Jack

04-25-2010, 04:58 PM

^ you called it Nique

The idiots never stop

Russel's offensive game was sub-par. Don't give me that "he didn't need to shit". His teams would have dominated all their title runs had she played as good of D as he did, in addition to shooting over 55%. Rings aren't enough (even 11) to disregard that his offensive game was weak.

Care to dispute that the "average" players in the league were MUCH worse back then than now?

Giving Russell his rightful spot on an all-time list should be enough credit considering what he did in his era. All sports get better though. You think Harry Greb would beat Hopkins? You are out of your mind.

Simple Jack

04-25-2010, 05:01 PM

ShaqAttack3234

04-25-2010, 05:11 PM

I was being semi-facetious...but clearly Russell was a much better offensive player than MANY of the centers in the NBA today. Howard has been able to dominate a WEAK class of centers. Shaq, is WAY past his peak...and is STILL among the top-10 (maybe even top-5 centers) playing today. Gasol is basically a PF, and a very good one (as is Nowitzke.) And Bynum would be a middle of the pack center in the early 70's...at BEST. He can barely jump, and has no shot over eight feet. He is a classic example of what Chamberlain would do to this league. Wilt was taller, bigger, much stronger, faster, able to leap WAY above him,...and was far more skilled. Same with Howard. There is not an area physically, or in terms of skill, in which Howard was even close to Wilt.

Gasol is really a power forward/center hybrid, he has the post game to play center, he's 7'1" and 260 and he can block shots and rebound. He played a good amount of center in Memphis and due to Bynum's injuries, he was primarily a center his first 2 seasons in LA.

And once again, I disagree that Howard has no physical advantages over Wilt. I think that Howard jumps higher than any center in NBA history and I think aside from prime David Robinson, he's among the fastest as well. As far as skills, Chamberlain was superior to Howard, except for maybe Howard's left hand which is technically his off hand as an NBA player, but he's naturally left-handed. Chamberlain certainly was stronger, though.

IMHO, and at the very LEAST, Wilt would be a 35-18 .600 guy in today's game.

The most I could see Wilt averaging in the late 90's/early 00's is if we put him in his scoring prime, 28/15/3/3 on 55% shooting. Or if we took '67/'68 Wilt, 22/15-16/4/4 on 60% shooting, actually maybe 5 assists per game depending on the system. Not sure how the elimination of the old illegal defense rules post-01/02 would factor in.

L.A. Jazz

04-25-2010, 05:25 PM

it's so tough to read arguments about how many points a 60's player would get today. we dont know what modern training would do to Wilt. Let's pretend he was born in 1985. then he would never had his giant complex and would use his strength like Shaq did. their would be other starplayers and he wouldnt go for records instead of winning with his team. i dont know, you dont know.
(for example, KAJ wouldnt shoot his sky hook if he was born in 1985. he trained it to perfection, because he was not allowed to dunk in college, if i remember correctly)

alexandreben

04-25-2010, 05:38 PM

Not sure how the elimination of the old illegal defense rules post-01/02 would factor in.
With the illegal defense rule, Wilt can dominate the game easier, however, even in the post 01-02 season, Wilt still can dominate the game, no doubt about it.

ShaqAttack3234

04-25-2010, 06:08 PM

With the illegal defense rule, Wilt can dominate the game easier, however, even in the post 01-02 season, Wilt still can dominate the game, no doubt about it.

I do wonder how much the rule changes in 2001-2002 really impacted big men. I mean look at Shaq the 2 previous seasons.

2000- 29.7 ppg, 3.8 apg, 57.4 FG%, 2.8 TO, 21.1 FGA 40 mpg, age 27-28
2001- 28.7 ppg, 3.7 apg, 57.2 FG%, 2.9 TO, 19.2 FGA, 39.5 mpg, age 28-29

Then after the rule changes

2002- 27.2 ppg, 3 apg, 57.9 FG%, 2.6 TO, 18.3 FGA 36.1 mpg, age 29-30
2003- 27.5 ppg, 3.1 apg, 57.4 FG%, 2.9 TO, 18.1 FGA, 37.8 mpg age 30-31

Offensively, the only difference is that he was playing less minutes which is to be expected because he had gained weight and he had been playing in the league for 10-11 years. Per minute and per shot, he was as effective offensively, so I'm not sure how much of an effect the illegal defense rule changes would have on the top big men.

Also, look at Tim Duncan

2000- 23.2 ppg, 3.2 apg, 49 FG%, 3.3 TO, 17.3 FGA, 38.9 mpg, age 23-24
2001- 22.2 ppg, 3 apg, 49.9 FG%, 3 TO, 17.1 FGA, 38.7 mpg, age 24-25

2002- 25.5 ppg, 3.7 apg, 50.8 FG%, 3.2 TO, 18.3 FGA, 40.6 mpg, age 25-26
2003- 23.3 ppg, 3.9 apg, 51.3 FG%, 3.1 TO, 17.2 FGA, 39.3 mpg, age 26-27
2004- 22.3 ppg, 3.1 apg, 50.1 FG%, 2.7 TO, 17.1 FGA, 36.6 mpg, age 27-28

As you can see, Duncan actually became more productive offensively after the rule changes, althoguh part of that can be attributed to him reaching an age where players generally peak.

Regardless, I question how much of an impact these rule changes really had on dominant post players. A dominant big man is a dominant big man regardless and historically very few teams have had an aswer for those type of players.

Edit: and some players have giant complexes regardless of when they were born. Look at Kevin Garnett for example. Most people claim he's 7 feet, but he insists on being listed as 6'11". Flip Saunders even use to call him 6'13" and I remember both Stephon Marbury and Reggie Miller claiming he's 7'2". Garnett will only admit to being 6'11 3/4" and look at how he reacts when Craig Sager calls him a 7 footer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRIm4_yvocc

G.O.A.T

04-25-2010, 06:41 PM

Russel's offensive game was sub-par. Don't give me that "he didn't need to shit". His teams would have dominated all their title runs had she played as good of D as he did, in addition to shooting over 55%. Rings aren't enough (even 11) to disregard that his offensive game was weak.

Arguably the greatest passing center of all-time

Probably never finished then lower than 2nd in offensive rebounds and shot consistently above the league average in FG% while scoring 15-20 ppg.

That's not weak offense. At worst that's slightly above average offense.

This is a guy who scored 30 multiple times in game sevens. A guy whose scoring went up the more the pressure went up. And a guy whose team never ran a play for him to score except an alley-oop.

Nobody should dispute that sports and athletes evolve, but to value a player based on evolved standards misses the point. You can't spell Russell's name and have never seen him play a full game. Yet you evaluate his offense as weak...this is my gripe.

jlauber

04-25-2010, 07:25 PM

When Howard dunks on a 12 ft rim, I'll START to compare his leaping ability to Chamberlain's. Too many observers have seen Chamberlain's leaping ability to claim that Howard can match him. Just watching a 35 year old, 300 lb. Wilt easily blocking Kareem's sky-hooks is good enough for me.

As for scoring, Wilt, from the mid-60's to the late 60's was easily capable of scoring 40-50 ppg, grab 25-30 rpg, and shoot .600+. He was BY FAR the greatest rebounder (Rodman's post-season at 9.9 rpg compared to Chamberlain's 24.5 rpg...with MANY OVER that is all you need to know.)

Chamberlain was scoring 50 ppg in his THIRD season. He was at his PEAK from the mid-60's to the late 60's. His 67-68 season, which was not as statistically impressive as his 66-67 season, was still a great example. He averaged 24.3 ppg on .595 shooting, with 8.3 apg, and 23.8 rpg (which was nearly FIVE better than the runner-up BTW.) While he continued to concentrate on passing, he still had time to send messages to the rest of the league, that if he was so inclined, he would put up a HUGE game...as evidenced by games of 52, 53, 53, and 68.

If Shaq was scoing 30 ppg, I see no reason why Chamberlain would not have, either...particularly with so few top centers at the time. In the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Chamberlain faced the likes Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Beatty among others, 8-9 times a year. Shaq was facing Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, and Olajuwon, 2-4 times a year (and Ewing and Olajuwon were over-the-hill by 99-00)..and even then, injuries reduced those H2H's as well.

Wilt could get his shots from 10-15 ft...which was something that Shaq could not do, either. He was getting the ball some 60 times per game in the mid-to-late 60's...so he could easily have put up 30 shots per game then, and in 99-00.

I have used Shaq's Finals as an example before...he was scoring 38, 36, and 33 ppg (againsy Motumbo no less.) Here again, I see no reason why a much fitter and more athletic Wilt, who could easily play 48 mpg, would not be scoring 35 ppg.

And, I have considered Shaq the actual best rebounder, at his peak, of his generation. Rodman dominated in an era of 7-2 centers who could not get 8 rpg. BUT, in the playoffs, it was Shaq who was outrebounding most everyone he faced (including Motumbo...who led the league rebounding the same year that Shaq treated him like a step-child in the Finals.)

Here again, though, those who claim that the pace of the game would limit Wilt's rebounding...

First of all, RODMAN averaged nearly 19 rpg one season. If a 6-8 225 lb Rodman could do that, then a 7-1 (or taller) high-jump champ with 500 lb bench press strength, and who DID dominate EVERY center he faced...would SURELY have gotten that many. Secondly, while Rodman was no more than ordinary in the post-season (9.9 rpg), Wilt was even BETTER in the post-season (up to 24.5 rpg from 22.9 during the regular season.) Not only that, but Chamberlain had post-seasons of over 30 rpg. And finally, and one more time...

IMHO, Shaq's greatest post-season rebounding game was in game two of the 99-00 Finals. He grabbed 24 rebounds, in 46 minutes, out of a total of 125 rebounds in that game. While Wilt had MANY better games, the one that stands out to me, was in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. In that game, at age 35, and playing with two badly swollen wrists (and on a surgically repaired knee) Chamberlain pulled down 29 rebounds, in 47 minutes, out of a total of 106. He nearly outrebounded the entire Knick team, as well, which finished with 39.

So, for anyone to believe that Jordan would outscore Wilt...sorry, but here are some interesting comparisons. In MJ's highest scoring season, 86-87, he averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting, in a league that averaged 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In Wilt's greatest scoring season (but when he was nowhere near his PRIME), Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg, on .506 shooting, in a league that averaged 119 ppg on .426 shooting. Simply put, no matter how you slice it, Wilt was a FAR more dominant scorer.

So, if MJ were averaging 37 ppg in 86-87, a 61-62 Wilt would probably have easily have averaged 40 ppg. You can argue that MJ was only in his 3rd season as well...but in any case, Wilt COULD have easily have scored far more in the mid-60's than what he did. IMHO, he was a much better all-around player from 66-69, and had he been asked to CARRY an offense, he would have been a 40-50 ppg scorer then.

I have already mentioned it in another thread, but a PRIME Chamberlain was putting up 45 point games on a prime Thurmond in the mid-60's. He was putting up 58 point games on Reed. He had a 62 point game against Russell, and in the 65-66 ECF game five he put up a 46-34 game on him, as well. He had TWO 60+ games against Bellamy.

I will acknowledge that Kareem was capable of 40 ppg as well. In the 71-72 season Fatal pointed out that Kareem averaged over 40 ppg against several top centers, including Wilt (although against the entire league it was "only" 34.8 ppg.) BUT, both Wilt and Thurmond held him way down in FG%, and by the 72-73 season, Kareem was struggling to score 30 against a well-past his prime Wilt (and once again, he shot something like 45% in the process.)

In any case, the fact that Kareem could average 40 ppg against Olajuwon in the 85-86 season, and at well past his prime, is all I need to know. Kareem was dominating a center who would go on to be the best center of the 90's...and he did so well into his 30's. Does anyone actually believe that a PRIME Wilt who just CRUSHED his opposing centers, would not have abused Olajuwon even more?

In terms of physical ability, there is just too much evidence that credits Wilt with something along the lines of at LEAST a 42" vertical leap, and something around a 500 lb bench press. And both of those figures are VERY conservative, BTW (the internet is filled with links of well over a 48" vertical, and a bench press as high as 550 lbs.)

In any case, as I have said MANY times, Wilt was a champion high-jumper, a competitive long jumper (as well as a triple-jumper too), a sprinter, a 440 man, an 880 man, a marathoner, a shot-putter, an avid weight-lifter who was UNIVERALLY accepted as the strongest basketball player of his era (and maybe the strongest athlete in any professional team sport, in the world, at the time.) So, until someone credits Dwight Howard with anything close to that resume...let's be realistic...Wilt DWARFED him athletically. AND, Wilt was also FAR more skilled. Here again, I have posted footage of Wilt's shooting skills, and his shot-blocking ability...and Howard doesn't come close in either category. The bottom line...Wilt was bigger, taller, stronger,faster, able to leap higher...and was much more skilled.

Now, does anyone really think a 35-18 .600 season in the late 90's or early 00's is being unrealistic?

Simple Jack

04-25-2010, 07:47 PM

Arguably the greatest passing center of all-time

Probably never finished then lower than 2nd in offensive rebounds and shot consistently above the league average in FG% while scoring 15-20 ppg.

That's not weak offense. At worst that's slightly above average offense.

This is a guy who scored 30 multiple times in game sevens. A guy whose scoring went up the more the pressure went up. And a guy whose team never ran a play for him to score except an alley-oop.

Nobody should dispute that sports and athletes evolve, but to value a player based on evolved standards misses the point. You can't spell Russell's name and have never seen him play a full game. Yet you evaluate his offense as weak...this is my gripe.

Where did I compare him to evolved standards? In fact, I said he deserves his credit on an all-time list because of how he played in his own era.

Furthermore, I've watched plenty of Russell footage.

There is so many conclusions you have drawn in this post that seriously undermine your argument. Your assumptions are flawed too.

Simple Jack

04-25-2010, 07:49 PM

First of all, RODMAN averaged nearly 19 rpg one season. If a 6-8 225 lb Rodman could do that, then a 7-1 (or taller) high-jump champ with 500 lb bench press strength, and who DID dominate EVERY center he faced...would SURELY have gotten that many.

:no: That's not a good argument. Anyone here take Formal Logic in school?

alexandreben

04-25-2010, 08:00 PM

[QUOTE=jlauber]How good an ATHLETE was Russell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Besides basketball, Russell represented USF in track and field events. He competed in the 440 yard (402 m) race, which he could complete in 49.6 seconds.[14] He also participated in the high jump; Track & Field News ranked him as the seventh-best high jumper in the world in 1956. That year, Russell won high jump titles at the Central California AAU meet, the Pacific AAU meet, and the West Coast Relays. [B]One of his highest jumps occurred at the West Coast Relays, where he achieved a mark of 6 feet 9

ShaqAttack3234

04-25-2010, 08:34 PM

When Howard dunks on a 12 ft rim, I'll START to compare his leaping ability to Chamberlain's.

When some proof of this actually surfaces, then I'll consider Chamberlain a comparable athlete to Howard.

If Shaq was scoing 30 ppg, I see no reason why Chamberlain would not have, either...particularly with so few top centers at the time. In the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Chamberlain faced the likes Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Beatty among others, 8-9 times a year. Shaq was facing Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, and Olajuwon, 2-4 times a year (and Ewing and Olajuwon were over-the-hill by 99-00)..and even then, injuries reduced those H2H's as well.z

Don't forget Duncan who Shaq often matched up with, Sabonis was extremely strong and skilled, Divac was a skilled quality center, Mutombo is one of the greatest defensive players of all time ect. these guys easily cleared the 7' mark. Shaq had good competition in the 2000 season, he just made everyone else look bad in comparison.

I see a reason why Chamberlain couldn't match Shaq's scoring season in the same era. For 1, I've seen nothing to suggest Wilt was stronger than Shaq, I've seen nothing to suggest he was explosive athletically ON a basketball court, I've seen nothing to suggest he had as good moves or footwork and finally, I've seen nothing to suggest he was as tough physically(by Wilt's own admission he didn't play as physical as he should have).

Wilt could get his shots from 10-15 ft...which was something that Shaq could not do, either. He was getting the ball some 60 times per game in the mid-to-late 60's...so he could easily have put up 30 shots per game then, and in 99-00.

Show me actual game footage of Wilt hitting 15 footers(not highlight mixes because I could show you highlight mixes of Shaq doing all sorts of things he normally doesn't do). No way does Wilt get anywhere NEAR 30 shots per game in 2000. The game was far too slow and big men have a harder time getting a high volume of shots up, that's why in the modern era we've seen guys like Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Dominique ect. get up easily the most shots. That's because they can hit perimeter shots and create off the dribble from the perimeter where they won't be doubled as much as a big man in the post.

I have used Shaq's Finals as an example before...he was scoring 38, 36, and 33 ppg (againsy Motumbo no less.) Here again, I see no reason why a much fitter and more athletic Wilt, who could easily play 48 mpg, would not be scoring 35 ppg.

First of all, if you're going to claim Wilt is more athletic, show some actual video footage to back that up. And no, over an 82 game season, nobody, much less a big man would be playing anywhere near 48 minutes in recent years.)

Here again, though, those who claim that the pace of the game would limit Wilt's rebounding...

First of all, RODMAN averaged nearly 19 rpg one season. If a 6-8 225 lb Rodman could do that, then a 7-1 (or taller) high-jump champ with 500 lb bench press strength, and who DID dominate EVERY center he faced...would SURELY have gotten that many. Secondly, while Rodman was no more than ordinary in the post-season (9.9 rpg), Wilt was even BETTER in the post-season (up to 24.5 rpg from 22.9 during the regular season.) Not only that, but Chamberlain had post-seasons of over 30 rpg. And finally, and one more time...

Who cares what Rodman did? Wilt isn't Rodman.
IMHO, Shaq's greatest post-season rebounding game was in game two of the 99-00 Finals. He grabbed 24 rebounds, in 46 minutes, out of a total of 125 rebounds in that game. While Wilt had MANY better games, the one that stands out to me, was in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. In that game, at age 35, and playing with two badly swollen wrists (and on a surgically repaired knee) Chamberlain pulled down 29 rebounds, in 47 minutes, out of a total of 106. He nearly outrebounded the entire Knick team, as well, which finished with 39.

So, for anyone to believe that Jordan would outscore Wilt...sorry, but here are some interesting comparisons. In MJ's highest scoring season, 86-87, he averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting, in a league that averaged 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In Wilt's greatest scoring season (but when he was nowhere near his PRIME), Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg, on .506 shooting, in a league that averaged 119 ppg on .426 shooting. Simply put, no matter how you slice it, Wilt was a FAR more dominant scorer.

Wilt needed 39.5 shots per game and 17 free throws per game to average that much. Jordan needed 27.8 shots per game and 11.5 free throws per game. Jordan was more efficient as a GUARD.

So, if MJ were averaging 37 ppg in 86-87, a 61-62 Wilt would probably have easily have averaged 40 ppg. You can argue that MJ was only in his 3rd season as well...but in any case, Wilt COULD have easily have scored far more in the mid-60's than what he did. IMHO, he was a much better all-around player from 66-69, and had he been asked to CARRY an offense, he would have been a 40-50 ppg scorer then.

This is extremely flawed logic, Rodman grabbed X amount of rebounds so Wilt would average more, Jordan scored X amount of points so Wilt would score more.)

In terms of physical ability, there is just too much evidence that credits Wilt with something along the lines of at LEAST a 42" vertical leap, and something around a 500 lb bench press. And both of those figures are VERY conservative, BTW (the internet is filled with links of well over a 48" vertical, and a bench press as high as 550 lbs.)

No, there's actual very little evidence to suggest those are facts. In fact, if you tried to make this case in a court of law, you'd be well short on evidence. A lot of these ridiculous claims come from Wilt himself. And if Wilt even had a 42" vertical leap, his head would be 8" over the rim which woudl mean his mouth would be at or above the rim. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Now, does anyone really think a 35-18 .600 season in the late 90's or early 00's is being unrealistic?

Yes, considering Shaq peaked at 30/14 on 57.4% shooting and I've seen no footage that suggests Wilt was as good of a scorer, much less better.

G.O.A.T

04-25-2010, 09:58 PM

Where did I compare him to evolved standards? In fact, I said he deserves his credit on an all-time list because of how he played in his own era.

Furthermore, I've watched plenty of Russell footage.

There is so many conclusions you have drawn in this post that seriously undermine your argument. Your assumptions are flawed too.

I made not one assumption nor did I draw any conclusions that are anything by facts.

Please explain what you mean...

You said Kevin Durant is a better player, Russell is a five-time MVP and 11-time Champion, there is no argument to support your position.

jlauber

04-25-2010, 10:52 PM

When some proof of this actually surfaces, then I'll consider Chamberlain a comparable athlete to Howard.

z

Don't forget Duncan who Shaq often matched up with, Sabonis was extremely strong and skilled, Divac was a skilled quality center, Mutombo is one of the greatest defensive players of all time ect. these guys easily cleared the 7' mark. Shaq had good competition in the 2000 season, he just made everyone else look bad in comparison.

I see a reason why Chamberlain couldn't match Shaq's scoring season in the same era. For 1, I've seen nothing to suggest Wilt was stronger than Shaq, I've seen nothing to suggest he was explosive athletically ON a basketball court, I've seen nothing to suggest he had as good moves or footwork and finally, I've seen nothing to suggest he was as tough physically(by Wilt's own admission he didn't play as physical as he should have).

Show me actual game footage of Wilt hitting 15 footers(not highlight mixes because I could show you highlight mixes of Shaq doing all sorts of things he normally doesn't do). No way does Wilt get anywhere NEAR 30 shots per game in 2000. The game was far too slow and big men have a harder time getting a high volume of shots up, that's why in the modern era we've seen guys like Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Dominique ect. get up easily the most shots. That's because they can hit perimeter shots and create off the dribble from the perimeter where they won't be doubled as much as a big man in the post.

First of all, if you're going to claim Wilt is more athletic, show some actual video footage to back that up. And no, over an 82 game season, nobody, much less a big man would be playing anywhere near 48 minutes in recent years.)

Who cares what Rodman did? Wilt isn't Rodman.
IMHO, Shaq's greatest post-season rebounding game was in game two of the 99-00 Finals. He grabbed 24 rebounds, in 46 minutes, out of a total of 125 rebounds in that game. While Wilt had MANY better games, the one that stands out to me, was in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. In that game, at age 35, and playing with two badly swollen wrists (and on a surgically repaired knee) Chamberlain pulled down 29 rebounds, in 47 minutes, out of a total of 106. He nearly outrebounded the entire Knick team, as well, which finished with 39.

Wilt needed 39.5 shots per game and 17 free throws per game to average that much. Jordan needed 27.8 shots per game and 11.5 free throws per game. Jordan was more efficient as a GUARD.

This is extremely flawed logic, Rodman grabbed X amount of rebounds so Wilt would average more, Jordan scored X amount of points so Wilt would score more.)

No, there's actual very little evidence to suggest those are facts. In fact, if you tried to make this case in a court of law, you'd be well short on evidence. A lot of these ridiculous claims come from Wilt himself. And if Wilt even had a 42" vertical leap, his head would be 8" over the rim which woudl mean his mouth would be at or above the rim. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes, considering Shaq peaked at 30/14 on 57.4% shooting and I've seen no footage that suggests Wilt was as good of a scorer, much less better.

Regarding video footage, Wilt is at a Hude disadvantage, since there is so little of his GREAT games available. Still, the FACTS speak for themselves. HIGH JUMP CHAMP, a long jump of over 22 ft (and the world record was somewhere around 25 ft at the time), sprinter, 440 yard, 880 yard, marathoner, shot putter...and weight lifter. AND, using your logic, there would be very little evidence to suggest who won the Civil War. There are several eye-witness accounts of Wilt's feats. AND, you will probably not find ONE player, or member of the media that would claim that ANYONE else who played in Wilt's era jumped higer, or was stronger. So while you find it hard to believe that Wilt had a vertical of 48" and benched 500 lbs, I find it rather convincing that there are NO legitimate eye-witness accounts of him doing anything less. You can come back with an argument that many believe Elvis to be alive, but you and I both know that there are MANY MORE who KNOW that he is dead. You simply can't find anyone that knew Wilt, or played with, or against, Wilt, or who coached him, or against him, or members of the media that covered him at the time...that would DISPUTE any of those claims. And yes, EYE-WITNESS accounts stand in a court of law BTW.

As far as Wilt highlights...yes there are a TON of him hitting 10-15 ft bank shots, turn around jump shots, jump shots, and even a couple of hook shots. Given the FACT that the man made over 12,000 baskets in his career (not counting the post-season), I would contend that those highlights, many of which were in the early to mid-60's were VERY indicative of his offense.

As far as Shaq's strength, there are links on the internet that have Ben Wallace with a more powerful bench-press (460 lbs to Shaq's REPORTED 440...although I have never seen ANY footage of Shaq coming close to that figure.) Of course, bench-press is just one area. Shaq was very powerful...but here again, there are MANY accounts of Chamberlain's physical strength that go beyond a bench press...and MOST of them are NOT by him, but other eye-witnesses (here again...MANY.)

And, YOUR opinion that Wilt would NOT get 30 shots a game...that is YOUR opinion. As for Jordan being a more efficient scorer...Wilt shot a HIGHER FG%, AND made MORE FTs in that 61-62 season, than Jordan did in 86-87. NO WAY was Jordan more efficient. AND, when you get to Wilt's mid-60's, when he was shooting over .600 for a period of at least three years (and probably over .600 for the entire second half of his career), well, Wilt, in his PRIME, even taking 25 shots a game, would have scored nearly 40 ppg.

In terms of rebounding...Chamberlain CRUSHED his opponents. The same cannot be said for ANY other player in NBA history. Rodman was the best rebounder of his era...in an era of 7-2 centers struggling to get 8 rpg...BUT, in the post-season, he was not nearly as good as the best centers of his era. IMHO, Shaq was, at his peak, the best. BUT, his best post-season was 15.4 ppg. Wilt had post-seasons of 28, 29, 30...and series of 32. Including the post-season, and even accounting for pace, Wilt was FAR better than ANY player of ANY era. AND, the FACT was, there were probably only a handful of post-season games, in which Wilt was outrebounded by an opposing center. Bill Russell is arguably the game's second greatest rebounder, and in his 142 H2H games against Wilt, he was outrebounded by Chamberlain, 92-42-8...and overall, by FIVE rebounds a game. AND, in the post-season, Wilt outrebounded him in EVERY post-season series.

The BEST argument for Wilt's dominance, though, is in transitory comparisons. Wilt, in his PRIME, CRUSHED the likes of Thurmond, Reed, and even Russell in terms of statistical domination. And even at ages 35-36, the general consensus is that he held his own against a PRIME Kareem (who also struggled against a Thurmond, that Chamberlain pounded in the mid-60's.) And, as we all know by now, Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, averaged 42 ppg against a young Hakeem in the the 85-86 season. Hakeem went on to be the best center of the 90's. And while I do agree that Shaq was better, in his prime, the fact was, Shaq NEVER outplayed Hakeem to the extent that an aged Kareem did. And, as far as Howard...virtually no intelligent observer would rate him over either Shaq, at his peak, or Olajuwon, at his. All of which takes us back to Wilt. In his PRIME, he was unstoppable. And even well past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, he was holding a prime Kareem to over 100 points less on his FG%, and was routinely blocking over five of his sky-hooks PER GAME. And, of course, he generally outrebounded Kareem, as well. One can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have accomplished against a PRIME Kareem. I any case, even at 36 years of age, and after major surgery, Wilt was stronger and more athletic than a PRIME Kareem.

One more time...when Howard comes up with anything CLOSE to the resume that Chamberlain's physical history has illustrated, then I will BEGIN to include him in discussions of all-around athleticism. The FACT was/is...Howard is not even CLOSE to Wilt in ANY physical ability...including vertical leap.

magnax1

04-25-2010, 10:57 PM

The game actually looks waaaaay smoother then I expected. The hookshots are hilarious though. I like to shoot the hookshot, but I want to know how people came to the conclusion that it is better then a jumpshot from long range. Kareem could shoot it from far away like that, but I don't its anywhere near as efficient as a jumpshot

jlauber

04-25-2010, 11:04 PM

Wilt's high jump reached 6'6", and Russell's is 6'9"?!

That means Russell outjumps Wilt?? How good is the source?

Russell did high-jump higher...but Wilt was at least 4" taller ( I contend that Russell was about 6-10, and Chamberlain was over 7-2...no matter what you have read.) And Wilt's wingspan was measured at 92" during the Cosell interview with him and Ali. So, while Russell may have had a slight edge in a vertical leap, Wilt had a height and reach advantage that gave him an overall edge over Russell.

BOTH were superb ATHLETES, but Wilt partcipated in even more track events. Given the fact that Wilt was unable to devote his time, full time, to ANY of his events, and it just makes his track accomplishments all the more remarkable. He won a Big-7 High-jump championship with ver poor technique (while most jumpers were sprinting down a ramp before their leaps, Wilt would take 3 steps and then jump.) CLEARLY, had Wilt decided to specialize in any of those events, and he would have been MUCH better at them.

ShaqAttack3234

04-25-2010, 11:37 PM

Regarding video footage, Wilt is at a Hude disadvantage, since there is so little of his GREAT games available. Still, the FACTS speak for themselves. HIGH JUMP CHAMP, a long jump of over 22 ft (and the world record was somewhere around 25 ft at the time), sprinter, 440 yard, 880 yard, marathoner, shot putter...and weight lifter. AND, using your logic, there would be very little evidence to suggest who won the Civil War. There are several eye-witness accounts of Wilt's feats. AND, you will probably not find ONE player, or member of the media that would claim that ANYONE else who played in Wilt's era jumped higer, or was stronger. So while you find it hard to believe that Wilt had a vertical of 48" and benched 500 lbs, I find it rather convincing that there are NO legitimate eye-witness accounts of him doing anything less. You can come back with an argument that many believe Elvis to be alive, but you and I both know that there are MANY MORE who KNOW that he is dead. You simply can't find anyone that knew Wilt, or played with, or against, Wilt, or who coached him, or against him, or members of the media that covered him at the time...that would DISPUTE any of those claims. And yes, EYE-WITNESS accounts stand in a court of law BTW.

There are no witnesses that say they saw Wilt's vertical leap measured and all you have are statements like X body builder could bench X amount and he said Wilt was the strongest person he knew. The vertical leap claims and 12 foot dunk claims come from only Wilt. This is the same guy who claimed a mountain lion jumped on his back and he threw it off by the tail.

As far as Wilt highlights...yes there are a TON of him hitting 10-15 ft bank shots, turn around jump shots, jump shots, and even a couple of hook shots. Given the FACT that the man made over 12,000 baskets in his career (not counting the post-season), I would contend that those highlights, many of which were in the early to mid-60's were VERY indicative of his offense.

Those are just highlights, they don't tell us how consistent he was with those shots. Shaq made a faceup 10-12 foot jumper in game 1 of the 2000 finals, doesn't mean that was a regular part of his arsenal or a consistent shot for him. The highlights don't include all of the shots he missed. That's why actual unedited game footage is a much better way to judge players.

As far as Shaq's strength, there are links on the internet that have Ben Wallace with a more powerful bench-press (460 lbs to Shaq's REPORTED 440...although I have never seen ANY footage of Shaq coming close to that figure.) Of course, bench-press is just one area. Shaq was very powerful...but here again, there are MANY accounts of Chamberlain's physical strength that go beyond a bench press...and MOST of them are NOT by him, but other eye-witnesses (here again...MANY.)

Shaq's reported bench press is actually 465, atleast I've seen reports of him benching that much. But enough about bench press, just look at how he's overpowered guys like 7'2", 265 Mutombo, 7'0", 280+ pound Greg Oden, 7'3", 300+ pound Arvydas Sabonis, 7'1", 270 pound David Robinson ect. And I have footage of him making each of those players look weak.

And, YOUR opinion that Wilt would NOT get 30 shots a game...that is YOUR opinion. As for Jordan being a more efficient scorer...Wilt shot a HIGHER FG%, AND made MORE FTs in that 61-62 season, than Jordan did in 86-87. NO WAY was Jordan more efficient. AND, when you get to Wilt's mid-60's, when he was shooting over .600 for a period of at least three years (and probably over .600 for the entire second half of his career), well, Wilt, in his PRIME, even taking 25 shots a game, would have scored nearly 40 ppg.

And it's YOUR opinion that he would get 30 shots per game, but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for Wilt or any player getting that many shots in the past 20-30 years. And yes, Jordan was more efficient, he averaged 37.1 ppg on 27.8 shots and 11.5 free throw attempts while Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg on 39.5 shots and 17 free throw attempts. So Jordan used roughly 33.55 possessions to score 37.1 ppg, that's roughly 1.1 points per field goal and free throw, a little over, actually, more like 1.106. Wilt, on the otherhand used 48 possessions to score 50.4 ppg, that's exactly 1.05 points per field goal and free throw.

Keep in mind that Jordan was much more efficient the following season when he averaged 35 ppg.

In terms of rebounding...Chamberlain CRUSHED his opponents. The same cannot be said for ANY other player in NBA history. Rodman was the best rebounder of his era...in an era of 7-2 centers struggling to get 8 rpg...BUT, in the post-season, he was not nearly as good as the best centers of his era. IMHO, Shaq was, at his peak, the best. BUT, his best post-season was 15.4 ppg. Wilt had post-seasons of 28, 29, 30...and series of 32. Including the post-season, and even accounting for pace, Wilt was FAR better than ANY player of ANY era. AND, the FACT was, there were probably only a handful of post-season games, in which Wilt was outrebounded by an opposing center. Bill Russell is arguably the game's second greatest rebounder, and in his 142 H2H games against Wilt, he was outrebounded by Chamberlain, 92-42-8...and overall, by FIVE rebounds a game. AND, in the post-season, Wilt outrebounded him in EVERY post-season series.

I've never claimed that Wilt wasn't a better rebounder than Shaq or the best rebounder of his era(though Russell is close). But nobody in Rodman's era was anywhere close to 18+ rpg like Rodman. The top 3 rebounders of all time in no order IMO are Rodman, Wilt and Moses Malone with Russell right in the conversation.

The BEST argument for Wilt's dominance, though, is in transitory comparisons. Wilt, in his PRIME, CRUSHED the likes of Thurmond, Reed, and even Russell in terms of statistical domination. And even at ages 35-36, the general consensus is that he held his own against a PRIME Kareem (who also struggled against a Thurmond, that Chamberlain pounded in the mid-60's.) And, as we all know by now, Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, averaged 42 ppg against a young Hakeem in the the 85-86 season. Hakeem went on to be the best center of the 90's. And while I do agree that Shaq was better, in his prime, the fact was, Shaq NEVER outplayed Hakeem to the extent that an aged Kareem did. And, as far as Howard...virtually no intelligent observer would rate him over either Shaq, at his peak, or Olajuwon, at his. All of which takes us back to Wilt. In his PRIME, he was unstoppable. And even well past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, he was holding a prime Kareem to over 100 points less on his FG%, and was routinely blocking over five of his sky-hooks PER GAME. And, of course, he generally outrebounded Kareem, as well. One can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have accomplished against a PRIME Kareem. I any case, even at 36 years of age, and after major surgery, Wilt was stronger and more athletic than a PRIME Kareem.

I've acknowledged that Wilt was a beast defensively in the second half of his career, but what I'm not sold on is that he was ever a better offensive player than Shaq or Kareem in their primes. I mean, his scoring wasn't particularly impressive at his peak in the 1967 finals so it's not like he dominated Thurmond at both ends.

One more time...when Howard comes up with anything CLOSE to the resume that Chamberlain's physical history has illustrated, then I will BEGIN to include him in discussions of all-around athleticism. The FACT was/is...Howard is not even CLOSE to Wilt in ANY physical ability...including vertical leap.

Howard's standing reach was measured at 9'3.5" and here he proves that he can touch 12'6" while dunking a basketball with one hand and placing a sticker with the other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNK6VaBXeY

That puts his vertical at a MINIMUM 38.5" and that's assuming he was jumping as high as he possibly could there which is doubtful considering he was also placing a sticker and dunking.

Here's Shaq head around rim level on his 28th birthday despite weighing 340 pounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0sYKghh8ao Nevermind the fact that at the 1992 pre-draft camp, Shaq recorded a 36" vertical. http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=1992&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=

Give me video footage of Wilt jumping that high or any verified vertical leap measurements.

Simple Jack

04-26-2010, 12:46 AM

I made not one assumption nor did I draw any conclusions that are anything by facts.

Please explain what you mean...

You said Kevin Durant is a better player, Russell is a five-time MVP and 11-time Champion, there is no argument to support your position.

"but" facts you mean?

Nearly all of your post is what I mean.

My point and an example...

Have you heard people call Hakeem the GOAT center? We all have. Those same people wouldn't put Hakeem number 2 or 3 on an all-time list though because it's 2 different things. One is about accomplishments (team accomplishments playing a heavy role) and one is considering how good of an individual player the person in question is.

jlauber

04-26-2010, 03:33 AM

There are no witnesses that say they saw Wilt's vertical leap measured and all you have are statements like X body builder could bench X amount and he said Wilt was the strongest person he knew. The vertical leap claims and 12 foot dunk claims come from only Wilt. This is the same guy who claimed a mountain lion jumped on his back and he threw it off by the tail.

Those are just highlights, they don't tell us how consistent he was with those shots. Shaq made a faceup 10-12 foot jumper in game 1 of the 2000 finals, doesn't mean that was a regular part of his arsenal or a consistent shot for him. The highlights don't include all of the shots he missed. That's why actual unedited game footage is a much better way to judge players.

Shaq's reported bench press is actually 465, atleast I've seen reports of him benching that much. But enough about bench press, just look at how he's overpowered guys like 7'2", 265 Mutombo, 7'0", 280+ pound Greg Oden, 7'3", 300+ pound Arvydas Sabonis, 7'1", 270 pound David Robinson ect. And I have footage of him making each of those players look weak.

And it's YOUR opinion that he would get 30 shots per game, but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for Wilt or any player getting that many shots in the past 20-30 years. And yes, Jordan was more efficient, he averaged 37.1 ppg on 27.8 shots and 11.5 free throw attempts while Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg on 39.5 shots and 17 free throw attempts. So Jordan used roughly 33.55 possessions to score 37.1 ppg, that's roughly 1.1 points per field goal and free throw, a little over, actually, more like 1.106. Wilt, on the otherhand used 48 possessions to score 50.4 ppg, that's exactly 1.05 points per field goal and free throw.

Keep in mind that Jordan was much more efficient the following season when he averaged 35 ppg.

I've never claimed that Wilt wasn't a better rebounder than Shaq or the best rebounder of his era(though Russell is close). But nobody in Rodman's era was anywhere close to 18+ rpg like Rodman. The top 3 rebounders of all time in no order IMO are Rodman, Wilt and Moses Malone with Russell right in the conversation.

I've acknowledged that Wilt was a beast defensively in the second half of his career, but what I'm not sold on is that he was ever a better offensive player than Shaq or Kareem in their primes. I mean, his scoring wasn't particularly impressive at his peak in the 1967 finals so it's not like he dominated Thurmond at both ends.

Howard's standing reach was measured at 9'3.5" and here he proves that he can touch 12'6" while dunking a basketball with one hand and placing a sticker with the other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCNK6VaBXeY

That puts his vertical at a MINIMUM 38.5" and that's assuming he was jumping as high as he possibly could there which is doubtful considering he was also placing a sticker and dunking.

Give me video footage of Wilt jumping that high or any verified vertical leap measurements.

I can, and have, produce two EYE-WITNESS accounts from RESPECTED sources that have Wilt touching the top of the backboard (Sonny Hill), and with a vertical leap of at LEAST 42" (George Kisida.). I won't take the time to find the VIDEO of Sonny Hill making that comment, but if I HAD to produce it, I could. Here are the links...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

"Legends abound of the truly great leapers who could touch the top of the board. Almost always the feat involves money-claims that the player could grab a dollar bill off the top of the board, or could pluck off a quarter and leave two dimes and a nickel change ... "I defy anyone to say they took change off the top of the backboard," Chamberlain said. "I could. Someone would put a quarter up and I'd snatch it down. I've heard stories about Jackie Jackson doing it, but I've never seen anyone (but himself) come close." Sonny Hill, a Philadelphia leaping legend of the '60s, backs Wilt, saying, "The only man that's been to the top, that's Wilt. I asked Kareem if he ever did, and he could jump a little bit. He told me, `Sonny, no.'"

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/22/sports/sp-dwyre22/2

Kiseda cites Chamberlain's incredible athleticism.

"I saw him palm a bowling ball," he says. "I also saw him go up for a jump ball against K.C. Jones and tip it in. I saw him standing in a hospital gown, in a room with a high ceiling, and jump at least 42 inches straight up and palm the ceiling."

Regarding Chamberlain's 500+ lb. bench press, no, I can't produce video footage of his maximum bench press, but maybe YOU can produce Shaq benching 465 lbs?

I can give you an EYE-WITNESS account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs., though, AND, at age 59!

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/chat.htm

This is the transcript from Wilt's online interview from MSNBC

Subject:
From:
Host:
Date: NBA legend Wilt Chamberlain 4-18-97
Chris Donohue (MSNBC)
MSNBC
Mon Nov 24 11:58

"Host Chris_MSNBC2 says:
M3 says:
Question for Wilt...watched you bench press about 465 lbs like it was a match stick at the Stanford gym when you were working out there for some reason...how much can you still push up?

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:
Well, probably I can push up a little more than that right now, because I was bench pressing some great weights. I was a shot-putter and lifting weights was a great joy to me. I liked to show off, I don't do that anymore, but I could probably bench press more than 465 pounds now."

Here is a link to an SI article written in 1964, in which the author mentions Wilt with a 400 lb. press...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075691/2/index.htm

"They like him and his perpetual-motion supporting cast, and they like winning. About the only people not happy are the Warriors' opponents. The St. Louis Hawks' 6-foot-9, 240-pound Zelmo Beaty, for example, found out recently that he can no longer take Chamberlain's great strength for granted. Unable to slow Wilt down with conventional maltreatment, Beaty tried to yank his shorts off. Chamberlain, who can press 400 pounds without breathing hard, makes it a point to control his temper, primarily because he is genuinely afraid he might kill somebody. Beaty's unethical yank, however, was too much. Wilt flicked an arm, and Beaty flew across the floor like a man shot out of a cannon. Referee Mendy Rudolph rushed over to him and said: "For God's sake, stay down, man. Don't even twitch a muscle." Beaty didn't twitch, and he is still active in the NBA."

Here is a link that mentions Wilt with a 500 lb bench press, AND, mentions Shaq with a 450 lb. bench press...

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/stop-understimating-ufc-fighters-strength-because-body-shape-745999/index6.html

"I appreciate your comments. Remember, however, that long limbs do not mean you can't bench press excellent poundages. Wilt Chamberlain, the 7' 2" skinny elite basketball player had very poor mechanical advantages for the bench press. His chest was flat, and his arms were skinny and really long! Nonetheless, he was able to bench press 500 lbs! Nobody would believe this by looking at him. His bench press figures have been verified and are widely known. You can find documentation of it on the web. He just happened to have freakishly dense muscles, and excellent genetics when it came to all the other factors that result in brute strength.

Shaq O' Neil, however, can "only" bench press 450 lbs even though he has much thicker arms, more overall mass, shorter arms and a thicker chest. Shaq has to compensate for not being as gifted as Wilt in some areas.

If you are at a very high level in some areas, you can compensate for a weak area. To be the VERY best, however, you need to be elite in ALL AREAS. That is why Wilt could never bench press 700 lbs without support gear. For that, he would have needed better leverages, shorter arms, and a bigger chest."

AND, as YOU well know, there are a TON of links out there crediting Wilt with up to a 550 lb. bench press. There are even several links which claims that Wilt benched 500 lbs while working out with Arnold Schwartzenegger.

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/didyaknow.htm

"Wilt used to lift weights with Arnold Shwartzenegger and Wilt got his bench press up to 500 pounds."

Now, whether that is true, I don't know, but we do know that they made a movie together in 1982, so it is very likely that they worked out together, as well. And while I have not read anything by Arnold confirming it Wilt's 500 lb. bench press, I have never read anything by him disputing it, either. So, there will be those that at least claim that he did have a 500 lb bench press while working out with Arnold.

And, regarding stories of Wilt's strength, there are a TON out there, and MANY of them are eye-witness accounts of Wilt doing something incredible. I am not going to waste the time posting them, though. Just google Wilt's strength, and you will find a HOST of them.

Getting back to video footage...

Wilt gets short-changed in the Wilt-Shaq or Wilt-Howard debates. While so much video footage is available on Shaq and Howard, there is very little, (but more-and-more is becoming available) of Chamberlain.

BUT, we do KNOW that Shaq had ONE 60 point game (61 to be exact.) We also KNOW that Chamberlain had 32 of them, which two more than the rest of the entire NBA players who have EVER played the game...COMBINED! Where are those videos? My god, when SI ran an article in 1969 claiming that Wilt could no long score, he put up a 60 and a 66 point game, within a few days of each other. AND in that 66 point game, Chamberlain shot an incredible 29-35 from the floor. Where is the 50-35 playoff game that Wilt hung on Russell? Where is the last period of game six of the '72 WCF's when Chamberlain dominated Kareem down the stretch? Where is his 18-18 game? Where is the video footage of Wilt grabbing 55 rebounds against Russell, or getting 41 rebounds against Russell in the playoffs? He had 34 games of at LEAST 30 rebounds, just against Russell alone. He also had 17 games of at least a 40-30 game...against RUSSELL. The FACT is, Chamberlain must have had literally HUNDREDS of STAGGERING games that we do not have ANY footage of.

In terms of athleticism...one more time...HIGH JUMP CHAMPION, long jump particpant, as well, as triple jump, 4x100 yard sprinter, 440 yard runner, 880 yard runner, marathoner, and well known weight lifter. He was also offered a LEGITMATE contract to play for the KC Chiefs, and was considered an All-Pro prospect by none other than Hank Stram. He also had TWO LEGITIMATE title offers to box Ali. AND in the interview of Ali and Chamberlain, Howard Cosell mentions that Wilt may be the strongest man in the world. Has anyone ever made that claim about Shaq or Howard?

Rebounding? Not even close. Chamberlain CRUSHED EVERYONE he faced. Rodman may have had some "mini stat" records, (and those came in an era of the weakest rebounding centers in NBA history BTW), BUT, in the post-season, he was not even good, but rather AVERAGE, at best. Meanwhile, Chamberlain had post-season RECORDS, as well as entire post-seasons of 28, 29, and 30 rpg. He even POUNDED Russell in one series by a staggering 32-23 margin per game. No matter how you disect those numbers, Wilt comes out WAY ahead of Rodman.

And, as I have shown...using Kareem as a "Bridge", and we can see that Chamberlain's dominance in the 60's would HAVE to give the conclusion that he would have dominated EVERYONE in the 00's.

jlauber

04-26-2010, 03:48 AM

And yes, Jordan was more efficient, he averaged 37.1 ppg on 27.8 shots and 11.5 free throw attempts while Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg on 39.5 shots and 17 free throw attempts. So Jordan used roughly 33.55 possessions to score 37.1 ppg, that's roughly 1.1 points per field goal and free throw, a little over, actually, more like 1.106. Wilt, on the otherhand used 48 possessions to score 50.4 ppg, that's exactly 1.05 points per field goal and free throw.

Keep in mind that Jordan was much more efficient the following season when he averaged 35 ppg.

C'MON...

Wilt scored 50 ppg, and shot .506 from the floor, in an era of 119 ppg games AND in a league that shot .426. Jordan scored 37.1 ppg in a league that averaged 110 ppg and shot .482. And don't tell me that that means that the players of the 80's were more skilled than those of the 60's, either...because that same arguemnt works against the players of the 90's and 00's (Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg on .450 shooting, in a league that averaged 98 ppg and shot .454.)

As, yes, go ahead and use MJ's 88-89 season. In Chamberlain's 66-67 season he averaged 24 ppg on 14 FG per game. Give Wilt 28 shots that season, and he makes 18 FGs, or 36 ppg, just on his FG shooting (not to mention that Wilt was already going 5-11 from the FT line that season...double those attempts, too, and you come up with a 46 ppg season.) Could he have maintained that rate? Probably not, but while Jordan was shooting .535 in a league that shot .477 in 88-89, Wilt was shooting .683 in a league that collectively shot .441 in 66-67. And once again, and as even YOU have agreed with...FT% is not nearly as important as FTs MADE. I'll take Shaq's 18-39 game over anyone with a 4-5 game, any day. And clearly, of course, I would take Wilt's 28-32 game over nearly EVERY FT game in NBA history. In any case, in Wilt's 61-62 season, he MADE MORE FTs than ANY of Jordan's BEST seasons.

dough

04-26-2010, 03:51 AM

^ you called it Nique

The idiots never stop
Good stuff. I'm crying actually.

Real Men Wear Green

04-26-2010, 04:17 AM

dough

04-26-2010, 04:21 AM

If you put Russell in Howard's position in Orlando he wouldn't score so many points because he wasn't a great scorer, that wasn't his game, but with a running team he could be as effective as he was for the Cs, no way would he do worse than K-Mart did for the Nets. He was a great athlete and he ran hard. A big that does that in an uptempo system with a good pg will get his share of points.
Russell would set up loads of plays though. MUCH better in passing out of the post and setting up teammates. Actually he was really good at that. And seeing as how little Howard has been featured in set plays, the Magic might be better on offense with Russell, although he wouldnt score as many points.

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 04:39 AM

alexandreben

04-26-2010, 05:32 AM

JLauber, forget stats, it's pointless comparing stats from such different eras. Just look at Chamberlain's scoring average and efficiency when he was taking a much more comparable number of shots to Jordan in '63, '64 and '65. Regarding Kobe's 35 ppg season, forget the league average for shooting and points. The shooting % was way down because of all of the 3s guys were shooting and that was also the season that the league really enforced the handchecking rules, which resulted in an explosion in perimeter player's scoring. Not to mention that Kobe was less efficient than Jordan inboth of Jordan's 35+ ppg seasons by any measure.

And many of those articles just claim Wilt could bench a certain amount, throw out any of them that doesn't have a direct quote. Regarding the 42" vertical claim, first of all, that would mean he could jump as high as Jordan. Second of all, the guy just said he saw him palm of a ceiling, it didn't specify how high the ceiling was. That's just one guy's estimate, Wilt's vertical wasn't measured. I've seen sources that place Wilt's vertical at 24", doesn't mean that's true either.

Show me some actual footage of Wilt displaying the type of athleticism you claim he had. Stories don't interest me much, they're often exaggerated greatly as years go by.

How did Rodman play in an era of weak rebounders? He played against Barkley, O'Neal, Olajuwon, Mutombo, Ewing, Robinson, Oakley ect. ALL in their primes.
Efficiency:

I think the PER can somehow tell who is more efficient, the following is the top ten:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html
NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER Season Tm
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.84 1962-63 SFW
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.76 1961-62 PHW
3. Michael Jordan* 31.71 1987-88 CHI
4. LeBron James 31.67 2008-09 CLE
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.64 1963-64 SFW
6. Michael Jordan* 31.63 1990-91 CHI
7. Michael Jordan* 31.19 1989-90 CHI
8. Michael Jordan* 31.14 1988-89 CHI
9. LeBron James 31.10 2009-10 CLE
10. David Robinson* 30.66 1993-94 SAS

PER
Player Efficiency Rating (available since the 1951-52 season); PER is a rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." Please see the article Calculating PER for more information. Also see VAA and VAR.

-------------------------------
Rebounding:

Due to the era difference, we try to use varies of data analysis to compare players from different eras.
TRB%: According to my calculation that Rodman's TRB% is always higher than Wilt, even in Wilt's 61-62 season, his TRB% is around 17.1%~18.1%.

TRB percentage: Because Rodman's minutes play is so shrink compare to Wilt, so, Wilt's TRB percentage(17% or 18%) is much higher than Rodman or Shaq(14% or 15%).

G.O.A.T

04-26-2010, 05:36 AM

"but" facts you mean?

Nearly all of your post is what I mean.

My point and an example...

I was worried at this point, because I was still confused then...

Have you heard people call Hakeem the GOAT center?

No

We all have.

Now I knew this was trouble.

Those same people wouldn't put Hakeem number 2 or 3 on an all-time list though because it's 2 different things.

Who are these people?

One is about accomplishments (team accomplishments playing a heavy role) and one is considering how good of an individual player the person in question is.

But the game itself is about fitting individual talents into a team concept, there is no need to rank them separately.

Your comment that Durant is better makes no sense no matter how you lay it out. He clearly is a better shooter than Russell ever was. We can see this skill and quantify it statistically and both suggest Durant is better. This is not true with any other aspect of the game.

G.O.A.T

04-26-2010, 05:40 AM

Efficiency:

I think the PER can somehow tell who is more efficient, the following is the top ten:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html
NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER Season Tm
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.84 1962-63 SFW
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.76 1961-62 PHW
3. Michael Jordan* 31.71 1987-88 CHI
4. LeBron James 31.67 2008-09 CLE
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.64 1963-64 SFW
6. Michael Jordan* 31.63 1990-91 CHI
7. Michael Jordan* 31.19 1989-90 CHI
8. Michael Jordan* 31.14 1988-89 CHI
9. LeBron James 31.10 2009-10 CLE
10. David Robinson* 30.66 1993-94 SAS

PER
Player Efficiency Rating (available since the 1951-52 season); PER is a rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." Please see the article Calculating PER for more information. Also see VAA and VAR.

-------------------------------
Rebounding:

Due to the era difference, we try to use varies of data analysis to compare players from different eras.
TRB%: According to my calculation that Rodman's TRB% is always higher than Wilt, even in Wilt's 61-62 season, his TRB% is around 17.1%~18.1%.

TRB percentage: Because Rodman's minutes play is so shrink compare to Wilt, so, Wilt's TRB percentage(17% or 18%) is much higher than Rodman or Shaq(14% or 15%).

Correct me if I'm wrong but PER doesn't take into account steals, blocks or turnovers fro players prior to 1975. That seriously hurts Wilt and Russell in this department. My guess is Wilt would have the top 10 seasons all-time if it did.

I love advanced stats, but their just as flawed when comparing players from different eras I believe.

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 05:55 AM

Efficiency:

I think the PER can somehow tell who is more efficient, the following is the top ten:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html
NBA/ABA
Rank Player PER Season Tm
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.84 1962-63 SFW
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.76 1961-62 PHW
3. Michael Jordan* 31.71 1987-88 CHI
4. LeBron James 31.67 2008-09 CLE
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.64 1963-64 SFW
6. Michael Jordan* 31.63 1990-91 CHI
7. Michael Jordan* 31.19 1989-90 CHI
8. Michael Jordan* 31.14 1988-89 CHI
9. LeBron James 31.10 2009-10 CLE
10. David Robinson* 30.66 1993-94 SAS

PER
Player Efficiency Rating (available since the 1951-52 season); PER is a rating developed by ESPN.com columnist John Hollinger. In John's words, "The PER sums up all a player's positive accomplishments, subtracts the negative accomplishments, and returns a per-minute rating of a player's performance." Please see the article Calculating PER for more information. Also see VAA and VAR.

-------------------------------
Rebounding:

Due to the era difference, we try to use varies of data analysis to compare players from different eras.
TRB%: According to my calculation that Rodman's TRB% is always higher than Wilt, even in Wilt's 61-62 season, his TRB% is around 17.1%~18.1%.

TRB percentage: Because Rodman's minutes play is so shrink compare to Wilt, so, Wilt's TRB percentage(17% or 18%) is much higher than Rodman or Shaq(14% or 15%).

PER is a garbage stat, IMO. I never pay much attention to that stuff.

alexandreben

04-26-2010, 06:47 AM

PER is a garbage stat, IMO. I never pay much attention to that stuff.
I'd love to see your arguments explain to me how com PER is a garbage?

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 06:55 AM

I'd love to see your arguments explain to me how com PER is a garbage?

It's just a bunch of stats mixed together with subjective values of each category. For example, according to PER, in the playoffs, Shaq was better in the 1998 playoffs than he was in the 2000. There's no need for crap like PER. Just look at ppg, rpg, apg, bpg, FG%, mpg ect. individually.

Abraham Lincoln

04-26-2010, 07:48 AM

As one can see at 0:34 Chamberlain overpowers Thurmond on the offensive glass, without shoving him in the back. You can also catch a glimpse right after of his "sub-par footwork" and "easily contestable shot".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLsXWNLCF0

He also had the top control of the basketball in one hand of any player in NBA history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48...ick-kaml_sport (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) (Two fake passes at 4:30 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRjFYwF_RQ#t=2m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=4m44s

And many of those articles just claim Wilt could bench a certain amount, throw out any of them that doesn't have a direct quote.

USA Today - Nov 11, 2002 (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/2002-11-11-bryant-cover_x.htm)

Indeed, since there is no footage of it, I refuse to believe that a 6'5 200 lb shooting guard named after a steak could once press 300 lbs. The same amount of weight that his 7'1 285 lb current starting center mate could press during his ever so short 'peak'. The same man who some here had the audacity to not only declare talented on an all time level (as well as superior to D. Howard), but believed he would give Chamberlain any sort of difficulty at all in the pivot.

At least the 'stiff dunking over 6'2 midgets' talk has died down a bit.

Show me some actual footage of Wilt displaying the type of athleticism you claim he had. Stories don't interest me much, they're often exaggerated greatly as years go by.

Indeed, Chamberlain was a mere hype machine with the tales being exaggerated well over half a century ago. There is little that can come from deliberately asking one to provide specific footage that has not been released.

It may do no good, but here are some animated gifs (http://photobucket.com/images/wilt%20chamberlain/?page=16&userinit=true&source=homepage).

Toldeo Blade - Nov 28, 1956 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=340UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7302,4611332&dq)

'It seems Wilt has an unorthodox method of shooting free throws. The big guy takes aim at the basket from several feet behind the line. Then he takes about three giant steps, leaves his feet before reaching the line, and stuffs the ball through the hoop.

Under the old rule, it was perfectly legal as Wilt never touched the floor before letting go of the ball. In addition his percentage was fantastic.

"Why, he would have had a free throw percentage of 100," said [Tex] Winter. "He never missed."

Incidentally the rules committee did not mention Chamberlain by name as a reason for the change. The rule change was made, according to the committee, "to prevent freak activity."'

Mar 24, 1956 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mjQaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7154,1845932&dq)

'The proposed new rule hits at such towering performers as San Francisco's Bill Russell and Wilt (The Stilt) Chamberlain of Kansas.'

For much of his career Chamberlain did not have the luxury of completing a lob pass in one mid-air motion as Auerbach would call it 'offensive goal tending.'

Today they'd call it an alley-oop as noted by Sonny Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM).

Sports Illustrated - March 2, 1964 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075691/2/index.htm)

'The St. Louis Hawks' 6-foot-9, 240-pound Zelmo Beaty, for example, found out recently that he can no longer take Chamberlain's great strength for granted. Unable to slow Wilt down with conventional maltreatment, Beaty tried to yank his shorts off. Chamberlain, who can press 400 pounds without breathing hard, makes it a point to control his temper, primarily because he is genuinely afraid he might kill somebody. Beaty's unethical yank, however, was too much. Wilt flicked an arm, and Beaty flew across the floor like a man shot out of a cannon. Referee Mendy Rudolph rushed over to him and said: "For God's sake, stay down, man. Don't even twitch a muscle." Beaty didn't twitch, and he is still active in the NBA.'

The Evening Independent - Sep 15, 1966 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_dkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7163,2399606&dq)

'Chamberlain, like Brown, is a great athlete and seriously considered becoming a fighter a year and a half ago. Wilt and Jimmy have competed againsy each other in foot races and tests of strength.

"I'd rather fight Clay than Wilt," Brown said. "Chamberlain's too big and he's too strong, but I'm no fighter. I'm saving whatever fighting I've got to do for the Dirty Dozen."'

St. Petersburg Times - Feb 25, 1969 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gPoNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7049,3815406&dq)

'Wilt Chamberlain is probably the first giant in history to be able to break 50 seconds in the 440, win a Big Eight high-jump title and be able to set a pick. In fact, he may not be a true giant. Medicine has taken the mystery out of gigantism. Most giants of the past were physical weaklings. Some were 90 percent legs. Wilt Chamberlain, by common consent, is the world's strongest man.'

He was even stronger during his later years in life.

http://i43.tinypic.com/11icsox.gif

The Miami News - Nov 7, 1962 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1XYyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,2425147&dq)

'He can clean and jerk a 375 lb weight.'

Clean and Jerk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sA-lEbrgak)

(Note this was skinny Wilt Chamberlain circa '62.)

There are multiple other sources citing his wingspan reach at 101 inches (8'4).

'He has a wing-spread so wide that if the wind were right he could probably fly - 101 inches from fingertip to fingertip.'

In this apparent publicity stunt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Xjt-1Zvwo#t=5m50s) he is measured in a suit and not against a flat surface. Note the camera angle makes it impossible to determine his proper posture. Ali is measured at 78 inches on the show, yet his listed reach is 80 here (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Muhammad-Ali), and 79 here (http://i41.tinypic.com/mkbtl3.jpg). O'Neal's wingspan (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=5) is 7'7, and Chamberlain's reach (http://i40.tinypic.com/9qg4cl.jpg) & length (http://i43.tinypic.com/jg02eo.gif) did indeed exceed Shaq's. 101 inches is likely the proper measurement.

http://www.corbismotion.com/wicker/clip/503C396_043.do

Here is his standing reach (http://i43.tinypic.com/2wdrsrc.jpg) as a 6'11 school boy in flat Converse shoes.

Abraham Lincoln

04-26-2010, 07:48 AM

Of course, none of the above could have a semblance of truth. All were fictitious accounts printed back then to boost Chamberlain's popularity as they are now. As noted by this forum's administrator, Wilt Chamberlain was actually a short, fat midget with no coordination.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129861

jlauber

04-26-2010, 10:28 AM

Abe,

I wonder how all of what you just posted, along with the eye-witness accounts, would hold up in a "court of law."

JLauber, forget stats, it's pointless comparing stats from such different eras.

Yes, they are pointless. You say that Wilt would not get 30 shots in today's game, yet he was the only guy getting as many as 40 in HIS era. You say that Rodman could 19 rpg in his era, but no way Wilt could...even though Wilt was CRUSHING EVERY single center he faced. You say that Eaton could get nearly six blocks per game in his era, but no way Wilt could...despite having seasons in which EDUCATED guesses by one the most respected statistician in all of sports states that Wilt was getting over 10.

And many of those articles just claim Wilt could bench a certain amount, throw out any of them that doesn't have a direct quote. Regarding the 42" vertical claim, first of all, that would mean he could jump as high as Jordan. Second of all, the guy just said he saw him palm of a ceiling, it didn't specify how high the ceiling was. That's just one guy's estimate, Wilt's vertical wasn't measured. I've seen sources that place Wilt's vertical at 24", doesn't mean that's true either.

Show me some actual footage of Wilt displaying the type of athleticism you claim he had. Stories don't interest me much, they're often exaggerated greatly as years go by.

So, if we don't have video footage, then it NEVER happened. Guess we can throw ANY record before the 80's then. We may have some footage of Maris hitting 61 HRs, or Ruth hitting 60, but I'm sure we don't have all of them. Same with Wilt's 100 point game, and 50 ppg season.

Regarding Wilt jumping "as high as Jordan"...ACTUALLY, he could jump HIGHER. PLEASE, where are the HIGH-JUMP championships MJ won in college? How about Jordan with a 22 ft. long jump? Unless I see actual VIDEO FOOTAGE, I simply can't accept the fact that Jordan could outjump Wilt. Same with Shaq. Give me FOOTAGE of him clearing a 6'-6" bar, or long jumping over 22 ft. And until I see FOOTAGE of Shaq bench-pressing 465 lbs, I won't believe it.

As Abe pointed out...where did all of these supposed "myth" about Wilt come from ? Just Wilt? Sorry, but there are a TON of stories out there about Wilt's legendary physical prowess, that were NOT started by Wilt. And how come NO ONE else is mentioned in ANY conversation about who was the strongest, or highest leaper during the Chamberlain era? YET, we have SEVERAL even claiming Wilt as the strongest man in the world. How many times have you read an article claiming Shaq as the strongest man in the world?

And why would Wilt's coach hang up a 12 ft. basket, in the WILT ERA? And how come there are SO MANY links claiming that Wilt dunked on it? And why would the NBA ban the dunking of FTs, in the WILT ERA? And, if it were physically impossible, why bother?

Why is there so MANY tales of Chamberlain's "mythical" feats? Why not Bob Lanier (I guess he had a size 22 shoe), or Artis Gilmore (who I have read was benching 455 lbs), or so many other players. You might find an article here-or-there, but nothing CLOSE to the TONS that exist about Chamberlain.

And, ONE MORE TIME, where are those that played with, or against Wilt, or who coached him, or against him, or those in the media that covered him, or those that knew him...where are those of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them, that DISPUTE these claims? We basically have dozens, if not hundreds of links citing some spectacular physical feat by Wilt, and very little, if any, DISPUTING them (except those of the curent generation who just can't believe them...but never actually saw him play.)

As for his records, in which he holds the LION'S SHARE...how come it was ONLY Wilt that was setting them? Geez, Kobe had a game for the ages when he scored 81 points, and it is still 20% less than Wilt's high game. And you won't find a Rodman game with 40+ rebounds, but you will find 15 with Wilt's name next to them. And why was ONLY Wilt setting those records when he played. How come no one else was coming close to 50, or even 40 ppg seasons? Kareem, as great as he was, never came close. Same with rebounds...why does Wilt have the top seasonS? Not one, but SEVERAL. And for those that claim find fault with Wilt's FG% marks (which is ridiculous), how come NO ONE else has come close?

If it were so easy, why hasn't anyone else had a 100 pt. game; or a 50 ppg season, or a 55 rebound game; or a 27 rpg season; or a .727 FG% season; or 35 straight made FGAs; or a reported 25 blocks in a game; or a TRIPLE-DOUBLE-TRIPLE game (22-25-21); or so many other marks (some 130 records), that ONLY Wilt accomplished?

alwaysunny

04-26-2010, 11:38 AM

Regarding Wilt jumping "as high as Jordan"...ACTUALLY, he could jump HIGHER. PLEASE, where are the HIGH-JUMP championships MJ won in college? How about Jordan with a 22 ft. long jump? Unless I see actual VIDEO FOOTAGE, I simply can't accept the fact that Jordan could outjump Wilt. Same with Shaq. Give me FOOTAGE of him clearing a 6'-6" bar, or long jumping over 22 ft. And until I see FOOTAGE of Shaq bench-pressing 465 lbs, I won't believe it.

Wouldn't height be a major advantage in long/high jump? Just because Wilt can high jump better than Jordan doesn't mean his vertical would be automatically higher does it?

G.O.A.T

04-26-2010, 11:57 AM

Shaqattack will not be changing his mind.

He is very stuburn in this stance as he is in his stance that Tim Duncan is a center, not a power forward.

You can provide all the evidence you want, his mind will not change until he is ready to change it.

Some people will argue anything despite the evidence you put in front of them.

alexandreben

04-26-2010, 01:17 PM

Wilt's reach is 92", please, not 101"

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 01:41 PM

Indeed, since there is no footage of it, I refuse to believe that a 6'5 200 lb shooting guard named after a steak could once press 300 lbs.

When did I say Kobe could bench as much as articles claimed? Besides, at the time of that article, Kobe was 6'5" and 225 lbs., not much of a stretch to picture him benching 300. However, when I hear ridiculous stories of a 7'1", 240-250 lbs. Wilt benching 550 at Kansas, I tend to think it's BS.

Yes, they are pointless. You say that Wilt would not get 30 shots in today's game, yet he was the only guy getting as many as 40 in HIS era. You say that Rodman could 19 rpg in his era, but no way Wilt could...even though Wilt was CRUSHING EVERY single center he faced. You say that Eaton could get nearly six blocks per game in his era, but no way Wilt could...despite having seasons in which EDUCATED guesses by one the most respected statistician in all of sports states that Wilt was getting over 10.

I never said Eaton could get 6+ bpg in the 00's with pace slowing down from the 80's, defensive 3 second violatons ect. Nobody even averaged 4 in the 2000, but I did estimate prime 1967 Wilt as getting 4 bpg in the 2000's. Eaton was also a shot blocking specialist too which skews the numbers. Personally, I believe Olajuwon to have been as good, if not better as a shot blocker, but his numbers don't compare to Eaton's, partially for that reason.

Wilt is right up there in the conversation for greatest shot blocker ever, in fact, I think he may have been the greatest, but I simply don't see him, or anyone else for that matter getting nearly six a game in this era. The fact that I estimated Wilt as averaging more than Mourning, Mutombo, O'Neal, Duncan, Howard or Wallace(and by a full block per game over Shaq, Duncan and Howard's 2000s peaks) shows how highly I regard his shot blocking ability.

First of all, there were a lot more guys getting around 30 shots or more in Wilt's era, to name a few....

Elgin Baylor took 33.1 shots per game in the 1962 season, he also had 2 more seasons where he took more shots than Jordan, Kobe or Iverson ever did. Rick Barry took 28.7 shots and 27.7 shots per game 2 seasons, while in the former season, he averaged 35.6 ppg, he averaged 30.6 in the latter, much less efficient than Jordan yet he was shooting more and then consider that Jordan was known as a big ball hog early. Elvin Hayes took 27 shots per game and averaged just 28.4 ppg. Jack Tyman averaged 27.5 shots per game in 1960.....you get my point. There were so many more possessions that it was easier to get shots up.

And compare Wilt in some prime years when he still had a scorer mindset and compare his efficiency to Shaq's in 2000, 2001, 1994 and 1995.

Shaq
1994- 29.3 ppg, 59.9 FG%, 55.4 FT%, 19.6 FGA, 10.5 FTA
1995- 29.3 ppg, 58.3 FG%, 53.3 FT%, 20.2 FGA, 10.8 FTA
2000- 29.7 ppg, 57.4 FG%, 52.4 FT%, 21.1 FGA, 10.4 FTA
2001- 28.7 ppg, 57.2 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA

Wilt(post lane widening)
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 12.1 FTA
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54.0 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 12.4 FTA

Here you can see Wilt's numbers during the one time in his career that he was getting a somewhat comparable amount of shots.

Wilt at an age where most players peak was scoring roughly 4-6 more ppg than prime Shaq, but look at how much higher Shaq's FG% and how many more shots he needed to do it.

Is my statement that Shaq was the better scorer such a crazy statement? It's not exactly an insult, nor is saying Kareem was a better scorer. I'll be the first to admit that Wilt(second half of his career) was a better rebounder and defender than either, and a better rebounder for the duration of his career.

So, if we don't have video footage, then it NEVER happened. Guess we can throw ANY record before the 80's then. We may have some footage of Maris hitting 61 HRs, or Ruth hitting 60, but I'm sure we don't have all of them. Same with Wilt's 100 point game, and 50 ppg season.

How you think that's even a good analogy is mindblowing to me. You're comparing stories that nobody cares that much about to cherished records like home runs and scoring records that official statistician recorded in 2 major sports? Really?

Regarding Wilt jumping "as high as Jordan"...ACTUALLY, he could jump HIGHER. PLEASE, where are the HIGH-JUMP championships MJ won in college? How about Jordan with a 22 ft. long jump? Unless I see actual VIDEO FOOTAGE, I simply can't accept the fact that Jordan could outjump Wilt. Same with Shaq. Give me FOOTAGE of him clearing a 6'-6" bar, or long jumping over 22 ft. And until I see FOOTAGE of Shaq bench-pressing 465 lbs, I won't believe it.

Picture Wilt or any other NBA player's chin at rim level and what I'm saying should be obvious.

Forget what Shaq can bench, I don't care what he can bench. Based on what we've seen players do on the court, he seems to be the strongest player ever and I'm not the only one who thinks so, Pete Newell who was a renowned big man guru for what? 50 years? He coached against Wilt and coached Shaq and said Shaq was the strongest player ever and had the best moves he's ever seen from a power player. As far as strength....

Shaq making 7'3", 300+ pound Sabonis look weak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKLmrmAg84

Shaq lifts 7'2", 265 Mutombo off the ground by simply backing into him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vma7PlO6kFI

Shaq completely overpowers 7'0", 285 pound Greg Oden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntsS9lRnkIg&feature=related

If Wilt possessed superior strength, then he sure didn't show it on the basketball court. Whether that be his mindset or whatever, it makes his strength trivial at best compared to Shaq's when comparing their attributes as basketball players. And even if Wilt could bench press more than Shaq, which is definitely possible(though believing he could bench 550 at Kansas is asinine), that doesn't necessarily mean he's a stronger player. You'd expect Shaq who at 7'1" had an ideal playing weight of 340 to be stronger than Wilt who was the same height and had an ideal weight of 275.

As Abe pointed out...where did all of these supposed "myth" about Wilt come from ? Just Wilt? Sorry, but there are a TON of stories out there about Wilt's legendary physical prowess, that were NOT started by Wilt. And how come NO ONE else is mentioned in ANY conversation about who was the strongest, or highest leaper during the Chamberlain era? YET, we have SEVERAL even claiming Wilt as the strongest man in the world. How many times have you read an article claiming Shaq as the strongest man in the world?

Shaq is an era with far more media footage and he's still playing so myths aren't yet created, plus with all of the media coverage, it's easier to tell what's fact and what's fiction.

And why would Wilt's coach hang up a 12 ft. basket, in the WILT ERA? And how come there are SO MANY links claiming that Wilt dunked on it? And why would the NBA ban the dunking of FTs, in the WILT ERA? And, if it were physically impossible, why bother?

Wilt SAID he dunked on a 12 foot basket. When you come up with multiple witnesses who actually said "I witnessed Wilt dunk on a 12 foot basket" then I'll consider it.

Why is there so MANY tales of Chamberlain's "mythical" feats? Why not Bob Lanier (I guess he had a size 22 shoe), or Artis Gilmore (who I have read was benching 455 lbs), or so many other players. You might find an article here-or-there, but nothing CLOSE to the TONS that exist about Chamberlain.

Because there's even less footage of Wilt's era, he was a much better player than those guys and he talked a bigger game.

And, ONE MORE TIME, where are those that played with, or against Wilt, or who coached him, or against him, or those in the media that covered him, or those that knew him...where are those of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them, that DISPUTE these claims? We basically have dozens, if not hundreds of links citing some spectacular physical feat by Wilt, and very little, if any, DISPUTING them (except those of the curent generation who just can't believe them...but never actually saw him play.)

You honestly think that former players don't have anything better to do with their time than dispute Wilt's claims about his vertical leap or his bench press?

As for his records, in which he holds the LION'S SHARE...how come it was ONLY Wilt that was setting them? Geez, Kobe had a game for the ages when he scored 81 points, and it is still 20% less than Wilt's high game. And you won't find a Rodman game with 40+ rebounds, but you will find 15 with Wilt's name next to them. And why was ONLY Wilt setting those records when he played. How come no one else was coming close to 50, or even 40 ppg seasons? Kareem, as great as he was, never came close. Same with rebounds...why does Wilt have the top seasonS?

Well, for one, compare Kobe's shot attempts in his 81 point game and Wilt's in his 100. Also, compare the rebounding numbers from the 60's to the 90's. Going by that, you must also believe that Elgin Baylor was a better rebounder than Dennis Rodman.

If it were so easy, why hasn't anyone else had a 100 pt. game; or a 50 ppg season, or a 55 rebound game; or a 27 rpg season; or a .727 FG% season; or 35 straight made FGAs; or a reported 25 blocks in a game; or a TRIPLE-DOUBLE-TRIPLE game (22-25-21); or so many other marks (some 130 records), that ONLY Wilt accomplished?

Who the hell said it was easy? Not me, I've said numerous times that I think Wilt was the best player of his era, but I'm also not a fan of comparing stats across eras. To me, it's pointless. I have no problem with anyone claiming Wilt to be the greatest player ever. I can see arguments for that. What I do have a problem with is when people state opinions as facts, like Wilt was the strongest player ever or could jump the highest. There's no way to prove this. If this is your opinion fine, but to avoid these arguments why not just write, "I believe Wilt was the strongest ever or could jump the highest" instead of acting like they were facts.

Shaqattack will not be changing his mind.

He is very stuburn in this stance as he is in his stance that Tim Duncan is a center, not a power forward.

You can provide all the evidence you want, his mind will not change until he is ready to change it.

Some people will argue anything despite the evidence you put in front of them.

Funny you mention the PF/C thing because Bill Russell, one of the greatest players and centers ever and among the smartest players ever agrees with me on that, so do a number of ex-players and analysts. Except a lot of people aren't as **** as I am about some little things. In reality, a lot of people agree and disagree with me on that and you could make an argument for either side. So what's the problem?

Regarding my stance on Wilt, I think he was a phenomenal talent and one of the most gifted players to play. His shot blocking ability is astonishing, as is his rebounding footage and he was passing as well as any center when he was a Laker. He was clearly athletic, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize him. For example, I did notice he had a bad habit of bringing the ball down low and I don't think the finger roll is a great move because it exposes the ball. I honestly didn't see his footwork or moves as good as Kareem's or Shaq's. That's my opinion, there's no right or wrong answer. I just don't like people stating their opinions as facts.

Simple Jack

04-26-2010, 03:18 PM

I was worried at this point, because I was still confused then...

No

Now I knew this was trouble.

Who are these people?

But the game itself is about fitting individual talents into a team concept, there is no need to rank them separately.

Your comment that Durant is better makes no sense no matter how you lay it out. He clearly is a better shooter than Russell ever was. We can see this skill and quantify it statistically and both suggest Durant is better. This is not true with any other aspect of the game.

You never heard anyone call Hakeem the GOAT center? There's plenty of posts on it here. Threads too.

Take my point of Harry Greb for reference. He's ranked one of the all-time greats in boxing; higher on an all-time list than someone like Hopkins. Hopkins however, if matched against Greb would absolutely destroy him. The reason Greb is higher is because of what he did IN HIS ERA, not because he is a better boxer. Understand?

Same goes for basketball. An all-time list, the higher up you go, has a direct correlation with rings, which aren't the only, and quite frankly an overrated aspect, of ranking a player. You hear people saying they'd take prime Barkley over Duncan despite the gap we would see on an all-time list.

Again, ranking a player is done by how he did in his era, not how he would do across eras.

G.O.A.T

04-26-2010, 03:43 PM

You never heard anyone call Hakeem the GOAT center? There's plenty of posts on it here. Threads too.

I must have them all on ignore and with good reason. There is nbo argument for Hakeem. Kareem before him and Shaq after him dwarfed his accomplishments. But regardless, I get your point.

Take my point of Harry Greb for reference. He's ranked one of the all-time greats in boxing; higher on an all-time list than someone like Hopkins. Hopkins however, if matched against Greb would absolutely destroy him. The reason Greb is higher is because of what he did IN HIS ERA, not because he is a better boxer. Understand?

I get what you're saying, but the way I'd look at it: Greb is a higher because he's a better boxer, he's a better boxer because of what he did in his era.

I see no point in projecting a hypothetical match that would necessitate a time-machine. If Hopkins were placed under the same technological restrictions as Greb, he'd not have become the boxer he is.

Same goes for basketball. An all-time list, the higher up you go, has a direct correlation with rings, which aren't the only, and quite frankly an overrated aspect, of ranking a player.

I don't think there is a single more important factor in measuring the greatest players as rings as the teams best player. It is the one goal and responsibility all great players share.

Beyond being the #1 option, I think being #2 is also significant but nearly as much as being #1. After that, i.e Robery Horry's seven rings, KC Jones eight, John Sally's five etc., they matter, but not as much as the players overall ability to excel in their role. (Stats, accolades etc.)

You hear people saying they'd take prime Barkley over Duncan despite the gap we would see on an all-time list.

Again, ranking a player is done by how he did in his era, not how he would do across eras.

We're really not that far apart, except I don't think today's players are better, simply evolved. For example in the 1950's if you wanted to play you had to be able to fight. (and usually be white, but we'll ignore that for the purposes of this point) A player like Carmelo Anthony or Paul Pierce who are very skilled, but cowards and ******* (in basketball terms), they'd get their ass kicked so much (literally) that they'd never make it in the league. But the game has evolved and now being able to fight is not an essential skill. But being able to jump is, whereas in 1950, you didn't need to. Is one way better than the other? Each era will inevitably cling to their way but evolution comes from necessity. Still it also is born out of the fruit of fore bearers labors. So which is more significant? Rather than answer the question, I apply Occams Razor. What I know is true I trust, what I don't know I try to find out more about, but never assume my hypothesizes or theories correct.

Thanks for continuing to help me understand your point, it's been a pleasant surprise.

G.O.A.T

04-26-2010, 03:53 PM

Funny you mention the PF/C thing because Bill Russell, one of the greatest players and centers ever and among the smartest players ever agrees with me on that, so do a number of ex-players and analysts. Except a lot of people aren't as **** as I am about some little things. In reality, a lot of people agree and disagree with me on that and you could make an argument for either side. So what's the problem?

No problem. I don't think there is any doubt that he plays as much if not more of a traditional center role than PF, but he is listed as a PF by the NBA and the Spurs organization and always has been. That's the reason I call him a PF. I've never disagreed with you're opinions of his game and it's mold, I just don't understand why his classification matters so much to you, that was my point.

Regarding my stance on Wilt, I think he was a phenomenal talent and one of the most gifted players to play. His shot blocking ability is astonishing, as is his rebounding footage and he was passing as well as any center when he was a Laker. He was clearly athletic, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize him. For example, I did notice he had a bad habit of bringing the ball down low and I don't think the finger roll is a great move because it exposes the ball. I honestly didn't see his footwork or moves as good as Kareem's or Shaq's. That's my opinion, there's no right or wrong answer. I just don't like people stating their opinions as facts.

Again, your logic is fine, and I don't think we disagree on much, I just choose to trust first hand accounts that go uncontested whereas you choose to be skeptical.

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 04:16 PM

Again, your logic is fine, and I don't think we disagree on much, I just choose to trust first hand accounts that go uncontested whereas you choose to be skeptical.

Well, when something sounds hard to believe I tend to take it with a grain of salt, particularly since legends seem to grow as time passes. As far as first hand accounts, well, I have asked my father about the NBA in the 60's He remembers it quite well(he's almost 60). He even remembers his Oscar Robertson model sneakers, he was a fan of Willis Reed, John Havlicek and Wilt Chamberlain. When I asked him about Wilt in comparison to Shaq, he didn't seem to give one the edge over the other.

alexandreben

04-26-2010, 04:53 PM

And compare Wilt in some prime years when he still had a scorer mindset and compare his efficiency to Shaq's in 2000, 2001, 1994 and 1995.

Shaq
1994- 29.3 ppg, 59.9 FG%, 55.4 FT%, 19.6 FGA, 10.5 FTA
1995- 29.3 ppg, 58.3 FG%, 53.3 FT%, 20.2 FGA, 10.8 FTA
2000- 29.7 ppg, 57.4 FG%, 52.4 FT%, 21.1 FGA, 10.4 FTA
2001- 28.7 ppg, 57.2 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA

Wilt(post lane widening)
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 12.1 FTA
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54.0 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 12.4 FTA

Here you can see Wilt's numbers during the one time in his career that he was getting a somewhat comparable amount of shots.

Wilt at an age where most players peak was scoring roughly 4-6 more ppg than prime Shaq, but look at how much higher Shaq's FG% and how many more shots he needed to do it.

Is my statement that Shaq was the better scorer such a crazy statement? It's not exactly an insult, nor is saying Kareem was a better scorer. I'll be the first to admit that Wilt(second half of his career) was a better rebounder and defender than either, and a better rebounder for the duration of his career.

IMO, I doubt that lane widening limits or affects Wilt's scoring ability, compare the data before lane widen and after:

1964- 36.9 ppg, 52.4 FG%, 53.1 FT%, 28.7 FGA, 12.7 FTA
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 12.1 FTA
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54.0 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 12.4 FTA

Therefore, you might want to count Wilt's 50 ppg season when you compare with Shaq or Kareem.

The only reason that Shaq's high FG% is his incomplete offense skills(using Wilt's words), hence, if Shaq choose outside shooting or fadaway like Olajuwon or Wilt, Shaq's FG% defenitely will drop significently. Wilt had been cricized by dunking in the lane, and then cricized for shooting fadeway or finger roll... and then after being in the middle, Wilt chose to be a complete offense player.

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 05:25 PM

IMO, I doubt that lane widening limits or affects Wilt's scoring ability, compare the data before lane widen and after:

1964- 36.9 ppg, 52.4 FG%, 53.1 FT%, 28.7 FGA, 12.7 FTA
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 12.1 FTA
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54.0 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 12.4 FTA

Therefore, you might want to count Wilt's 50 ppg season when you compare with Shaq or Kareem.

The only reason that Shaq's high FG% is his incomplete offense skills(using Wilt's words), hence, if Shaq choose outside shooting or fadaway like Olajuwon or Wilt, Shaq's FG% defenitely will drop significently. Wilt had been cricized by dunking in the lane, and then cricized for shooting fadeway or finger roll... and then after being in the middle, Wilt chose to be a complete offense player.

Shaq was as complete as he needed to be, aside from free throw shooting. He had moves that were good from out to about 8-10 feet(and who could stop him from being that close?). Those one-handed turnaround jumpers and jump hooks were very effective and almost never blocked, then he had the drop step, spin moves, fakes and up and unders which often helped him get in close enough for dunks. Not to mention all of the lob passes he could catch that few could get to and like Wilt, he was excellent at scoring off of offensive rebounds, though Wilt was the better rebounder, IMO.

If Wilt could have been getting that close his entire career and getting shots up at a great volume close to the rim then he should have. If anything, that would indicate not having his priorities in place or a lack of a basketball IQ(more likely the former).

And lets not act like Wilt was taking guys off the dribble or shooting pull up jumpers, 18-20 footers ect. like Olajuwon. Olajuwon was a pure finesse player. Shaq and Wilt were power players. Wilt may have taken more 12 footers than Shaq, but he was mostly a power player as well, atleast based on the footage I've seen of him from '64, '67, '70, '71 and '72.

Regarding the 50 ppg season, I didn't compare it because we haven't seen Shaq or Kareem in a situation to get anywhere near 30 shots, much less 40. So we can't really compare.

Abraham Lincoln

04-26-2010, 06:19 PM

Besides, at the time of that article, Kobe was 6'5" and 225 lbs.

Say the article didn't list his weight.

How many would know that Chamberlain in '65, weighed more (301 lbs (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_YIwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lUQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,4738422&dq)), than he did in '70 (285 lbs (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OvwNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1XsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6158,5724360&dq))? Not to say that the added weight was necessarily a positive.

The Day - Sep 13, 1975 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JusgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3HEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1640,2268220&dq)

Ocala Star-Banner - Sep 17, 1975 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_R8TAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lAUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6593,3084647&dq)

'As inconspicuously as possible for a 7-foot-1-inch impressario, Wilt Chamberlain had stopped by the New York Knicks office for a quick social hello Friday and now he was waiting for an elevator that would take him upstairs to the Madison Square Garden arena floor. When the elevator door opened, Wilt stepped back as two husky workmen struggled to wheel a heavily loaded dolly into the corridor. On the dolly were 10 big cartons of envelopes.

For perhaps a minute the workmen pushed and pulled, trying to get the wheel of the dolly across the uneven slit between the elevator and the floor. Huffing and puffing, they finally dropped their hands in frustration. "You look," Wilt said, "like you need a little help." His massive arms unencumbered by a chocolate sleeveless shirt, he reached down, grabbed the rope attached to the dolly and lifted the load into the corridor as if it had been a baby in a stroller. Wilt smiled, entered the elevator and the doors closed.

"I never saw anything like that," one of the workers said. "These cartons each weigh about 80 pounds. This is an 800-pound load."

That's the approximate weight of four Knick teammates. And if Wilt were to join the Knicks for the approaching National Basketball Association season, he believes he would lift the team into contention with the Boston Celtics for the Atlantic Division title.'

ShaqAttack3234

04-26-2010, 06:42 PM

Say the article didn't list his weight.

Yeah it did.

[QUOTE]His more serious outlook on his personal life has carried over to basketball. Bryant is more dedicated, hungry and determined than ever. One look at his new physique

Abraham Lincoln

04-26-2010, 06:49 PM

Yeah it did.
Indeed it did, however the key here was your imagination.

On the subject of Wilt's weight, he was also 290 pounds at training camp prior to the 1963-1964 season.
Most likely his prime playing weight.

jlauber

04-26-2010, 11:13 PM

Regarding FACTS, why is so hard to believe a 7-1 (or taller) man who won a Big-7 High-Jump championship (FACT), and basically did it part-time (just ONE of about 6-7 track events he was competing in, as well as playing basketball), having a 48" vertical, especially when someone like Jordan, who was NOT CLOSE to the ATHLETE that Wilt was, is credited with a 44" vertical? BUT, even if Wilt was "only" at LEAST 42", of which there are eye-witness accounts, he would still have been dunking on a 12 ft, rim, and he would be easily touching the top of the backboard (of which, there is another eye-witness account)?

Shaq
1994- 29.3 ppg, 59.9 FG%, 55.4 FT%, 19.6 FGA, 10.5 FTA
1995- 29.3 ppg, 58.3 FG%, 53.3 FT%, 20.2 FGA, 10.8 FTA
2000- 29.7 ppg, 57.4 FG%, 52.4 FT%, 21.1 FGA, 10.4 FTA
2001- 28.7 ppg, 57.2 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA

Wilt(post lane widening)
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51.0 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 12.1 FTA
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54.0 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 12.4 FTA

What about 66-67, when Wilt scored 24.1 ppg with a .683 FG%, or even a "drop-off" season, like 67-68 when he averaged 24.3 ppg on .595 shooting? AND, we will never know what Wilt would have done in 69-70, but he started out that season at 32.2 ppg (and only three rusty, part-time, games at the end of the season brought it down to 27.3) would have ended up at. I also don't know what his FG% was at the time of the injury...he ended up at "only" .568 (down from his .583 the season before), but I suspect those last three games hurt him quite a bit. In that ninth game, when he pulled up lame, he had scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting.

But, what really upsets me when someone brings up Wilt's offense from 66-67 thru 68-69, they almost automatically assume that he was no longer capable of scoring (even SI ran that article which basically claimed as much.) BUT, when Wilt set his mind to it, he could EXPLODE. In the 66-67 season he had the NBA high of 58. In the 67-68 season he had games of 52, 53, 53, and an NBA high of 68. And, once again, after that SI article ran, Chamberlain had games of 60 and 66 (on 29-35 shooting, which is just another UNBELIEVEABLE accomplishment.) Not only that, but over the course of 17 straight games, he TERRORIZED the NBA. He even pounded Russell with a 35 point game during that streak. And all of that came later in the season in which he was averaging 17-18 ppg up to that point.

IMHO, Wilt would easily have been a 40-50 ppg scorer in 66-67 season had he been asked to CARRY an offense. That he did not do does not mean he could not do it. The question would have been, what would Wilt have shot from the floor? We'll never know, but in his BIG games, in the mid-60's on, he almost always shot a phenomenal percentage. As I have mentioned before, he had THREE perfect games that year, with three HIGHEST in NBA history (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) IMHO, a 40 ppg season on over .600 would have been a REALISTIC achievement. And to be honest, he was at his PEAK around that time, so a 50-55 ppg season would have been a possibility.

The other argument that just blows my mind is that Wilt could not score 40 ppg in the Jordan era...even though MJ averaged 37. Why? Why could not Wilt, who was virtually UNSTOPPABLE in the 60's, not be able to score more than a player who was NOWHERE NEAR as efficient. And don't give me that point-per-possession nonsense, either. Wilt was shooting .683 in a season in which the NBA averaged .441. Jordan, in his highest scoring season, shot .482 against a league average of .480. Even in his 88-89 season, he still only shot .535 against a league average of .477. My god, in the 80's there were TEAMs shooting over 50%. If there are those that use pace against Wilt, then I will argue LEAGUE AVERAGE against Jordan. If Wilt were shooting .683 in a league at .441, what would he have done against a league average of .480 or even .477 (or 490 as in the 84-85 season)? .750?????

Then, there are those that claim Rodman as the greatest rebounder ever. Rodman had a season at 18.7 rpg. Why would Wilt, who CRUSHED every center (and player) of his era, not do the same to the inept clods that Rodman did it against? Here again, Rodman, with these "mini stat" records, was no more than ordinary in the post-season. Chamberlain had post-seasons that more than DOUBLED Rodman's. Not only that, but in terms of CAREER post-season rebounding, Wilt was 2 1/2 times greater (25 rpg to 10 for Rodman.) So why would Wilt not be MORE dominant than Rodman?

Blocked shots? Once again, if a clod like Eaton could get nearly six a game, why wouldn't a FAR greater shot-blocker like Wilt, get MORE. The FACT was, Chamberlain ABUSED Eaton in the 80's, and in his mid-40's at the time. Here again, there are those WELL-RESPECTED in the history of the NBA that had Chamberlain with a CAREER average estimate of double-digit blocks. And who knows what Wilt's PEAK season was like? Maybe 15 bpg????

Finally....VIDEO FOOTAGE. There is simply only a small sample of what Wilt accomplished in his career. Once again, where are his 32 60+ point games? Where is his 25 block shot game? Where is his 24 40+ point games just against Russell (and his 50-35 playoff win against Russell?) How about Wilt's 15 40+ rebound games (seven of which were against Russell)? Where is Wilt's 18-18 (or even 16-16) game? or his 66 point game on 29-35 shooting? Where is Wilt's 22-25-21 game? Or his 24-32-13-12 playoff game? Where is his 17 40-30 games against Russell? Where is 45 point game against Thurmond? His 38 rebound Final's game against Thurmond? How about his 58 point game against Reed? Or his 52 point game against Reed? How about one of the TWO 60+ games against Bellamy? How about the 4th quarter of game six against Kareem in the 71-72 WCF's? How about his 45-27 game in game six of the 69-70 Finals...and on one good leg? The list is endless...but maybe if we had even a handful of those games...maybe even a non-believer would HAVE to accept Wilt's OVERWHELMING DOMINATION. NO other player, in the HISTORY of the NBA, has ever DOMINATED his peers, like Wilt.

Not only that, but, ONE MORE TIME...when an aged Kareem averages 42 ppg against Hakeem in the mid-80's...what does that tell you about the caliber of player that Wilt was in the 60's, and at his PEAK? Wilt was generally being regarded as outplaying a PRIME Kareem, at 11 years older, and on a surgically repaired knee. Not only that, but Kareem struggled against Thurmond, who Chamberlain dominated in the 60's (and 70's BTW.)

Of course I had the benefit of actually WATCHING Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq, in their PRIMES...and IMHO, Wilt was better than either, in EVERY CATEGORY.

ShaqAttack3234

04-27-2010, 12:10 AM

jlauber

04-27-2010, 01:14 AM

:rolleyes:

Most likely his efficiency would have dropped had Wilt tried another high scoring season in '67, I mean what was so different about his offensive game compared to '66 when he was shooting at a higher volume and averaged 33.5 ppg, but again, he did it on 54% shooting. When you're looking to score more, you can't pick your spots as much for putbacks, open dunks ect. which are all much higher percentage shots than post moves, which I'm sure Wilt was attempting much more of the previous season in '66.

What blows my mind is this "logic". "Jordan could average 37 so Wilt could average 40". Nevermind the fact that they're different players with different skillsets and forget the fact that perimeter players shoot from farther away and aren't doubled as much so they can get up a higher volume of shots. You mind telling me why Jordan's scoring numbers rose so much in the playoffs and Wilt's dropped so much? Go look at the numbers and post them. You love bringing up Rodman's postseason scoring numbers, so why not compare Jordan and Wilt's playoff scoring averages?

That's your opinion and you're entitled it. Can't say I watched Wilt other than games available, but based on that, I disagree.

Regarding Wilt's "playoff drop" in scoring...how does 33 ppg and 26 rpg for his first six playoff seasons (out of seven total) sound? And of course, Wilt was going against Bill Russell in FIVE of them, and usually in the second round (or even sooner.) How did MJ do against the Pistons in 88-89 and 89-90 (and before you bring up ONE 46 point game...keep mind that Wilt had 50 point game against Russell (as well as several 40 point post-season games.)

Yes, Wilt's playoff scoring dropped after the 65-66 season, just as his regular season scoring did. But, keep in mind, that in the final game of the ECF's, and against Russell, he put up a 46-34 game. Do you honestly believe that after that season, that he could no longer put up huge games (as he did on several occassions in the regular season every season in the decade of the 60's)?

Regarding MJ as NOWHERE CLOSE to Wilt in ATHLETIC ability...here again, Wilt was a STAND-OUT track star in the high-jump, the long-jump, the 4x100 yard, the 440 yard, the 880 yard, and the shot-put. Suffice to say, MJ was NONE of those. And, while MJ dabbled in a mediocre minor league baseball career (and had he not been MJ he would have been cut long before he quit)...Wilt was being offered a LEGITIMATE PRO Football contract. Oh, and BTW, he was offered TWO LEGITIMATE heavyweight boxing title bouts. Not to mention that there are articles which claim Wilt was a world-class volleyball player. On top of all of that there were those that claimed Wilt was among the strongest men in the world in the late 60's. So, YES, Jordan could not hold a candle to Chamberlain in terms of athleticism.

As for number of shots...can you honestly tell me that Shaq was INCAPABLE of 30 shots a game? How about Olajuwon in the 94-95 AGAINST Shaq? THREE games of 30...out of four games. And I am reasonably certain that I could find at LEAST several 30+ FGA games for Shaq in the post-season. Why is that important? Because he was CAPABLE of doing it. It WAS accomplished. And Chamberlain did not need to be within a few feet of the basket to score. He had the bankshot that would have put Duncan's to shame (and he was taller, MUCH quicker, and of course, much stronger.) Wilt had turn-around jumpers, and even sweeping hook shots. He could easily start his offense from 15+ feet.

Continuing...Shaq had Finals in which he averaged 38, 36, and 33 (and that was against Motumbo, who was considered the best defensive center of his generation...although IMHO, he was not close to Russell or Thurmond.) Why could Shaq put up nearly 40 ppg in a post-season series, and only 30 in the regular season? And why could Shaq average 33 against the DPOY, and only 29 in the regular season? The FACT was, Shaq, and playing against mostly inept clods SHOULD have averaged FAR more in the regular season.

Once again, using Chamberlain's FG% against the LEAGUE AVERAGE...ok, take his lat big scoring season, 65-66. He averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting in a league that averaged 116 ppg on .433 shooting. In MJ's 86-87 season, he averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting in a league that averaged 110 ppg and shot .480. Move Wilt into that season, and while his shot attempts would fall (some), his FG% would SKY-ROCKET...which would result in MORE FG's MADE. BY my best estimate, he would have shot at LEAST .600. And, then give him MJ's 28 shots per game, on 60% shooting, instead of the 25 that he actually took, and he would have easily topped 40 ppg. AND, I don't consider Wilt's 65-66 season as even remotely close to his overall dominance of his 66-67 season.

The Rodman comparisons are a pure joke. Wilt dominated EVERYBODY. In another thread someone commented on Moses Malone outrebounding Kareem, and saying that Kareem was 35 at the time. Wilt, averaged 19.2 rpg at that age, and 18.6 rpg the next year (his last), AND, how about Chamberlain in the post-season at age 36? 22.5 rpg!!!!!

Once again, Rodman was grabbing rebounds against the WORST rebounding centers (well, until the last couple of years anyway) of all-time. While Wilt would have had less rebounds available to rebound, he would have had FAR less competition for them as well. In any case, if Rodman, who was no more than ordinary in the post-season, had a season of nearly 19 rpg, I see virtually NO reason why Wilt would not have had MORE, who CRUSHED ALL of his opposing centers...ESPECIALLY in the post-season. While Rodman had very few 20+ rebound games in the post-season, Wilt AVERAGED 24.5 in his 160 CAREER post-season games. The FACT was, a game of "only" 20 rebounds in the post-season, was a RARITY for Chamberlain (who NEVER had a post-season of under 20 rpg...and had post-seasons of over 30.)

I am not diminishing Kareem or Shaq here. I am merely pointing out the FACTS. Wilt was a MUCH better scorer, a MUCH better shooter (true, both had higher career FG% marks...but at his PEAK, he DWARFED their best seasons)...and at his PEAK, he had MUCH better range), a FAR better rebounder, and was CLEARLY a better defender. My god, Wilt was voted first team all-defense in his LAST TWO seasons (and most certainly would have been DPOY in 71-72, and probably in 72-73.) Chamberlain in the mid-60's, and particularly in the 66-67 season BURIED his opposing centers. Not only that, but he was a better passer, as well (including the outlet...in which his 71-72 season may have been the best ever by a center.) How many assist titles did Kareem or Shaq win? How many third place finishes?

I just don't see ONE area (alright...I will give Kareem a solid edge in FT shooting) in which Shaq or Kareem were better,... and in fact, they were probably well behind Wilt in virtually all of them.

jlauber

04-27-2010, 02:49 AM

As one can see at 0:34 Chamberlain overpowers Thurmond on the offensive glass, without shoving him in the back. You can also catch a glimpse right after of his "sub-par footwork" and "easily contestable shot".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLsXWNLCF0

He also had the top control of the basketball in one hand of any player in NBA history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48...ick-kaml_sport (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) (Two fake passes at 4:30 mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTRjFYwF_RQ#t=2m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=4m44s

USA Today - Nov 11, 2002 (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/2002-11-11-bryant-cover_x.htm)

Indeed, since there is no footage of it, I refuse to believe that a 6'5 200 lb shooting guard named after a steak could once press 300 lbs. The same amount of weight that his 7'1 285 lb current starting center mate could press during his ever so short 'peak'. The same man who some here had the audacity to not only declare talented on an all time level (as well as superior to D. Howard), but believed he would give Chamberlain any sort of difficulty at all in the pivot.

At least the 'stiff dunking over 6'2 midgets' talk has died down a bit.

Indeed, Chamberlain was a mere hype machine with the tales being exaggerated well over half a century ago. There is little that can come from deliberately asking one to provide specific footage that has not been released.

It may do no good, but here are some animated gifs (http://photobucket.com/images/wilt%20chamberlain/?page=16&userinit=true&source=homepage).

Toldeo Blade - Nov 28, 1956 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=340UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wAAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7302,4611332&dq)

'It seems Wilt has an unorthodox method of shooting free throws. The big guy takes aim at the basket from several feet behind the line. Then he takes about three giant steps, leaves his feet before reaching the line, and stuffs the ball through the hoop.

Under the old rule, it was perfectly legal as Wilt never touched the floor before letting go of the ball. In addition his percentage was fantastic.

"Why, he would have had a free throw percentage of 100," said [Tex] Winter. "He never missed."

Incidentally the rules committee did not mention Chamberlain by name as a reason for the change. The rule change was made, according to the committee, "to prevent freak activity."'

Mar 24, 1956 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mjQaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7154,1845932&dq)

'The proposed new rule hits at such towering performers as San Francisco's Bill Russell and Wilt (The Stilt) Chamberlain of Kansas.'

For much of his career Chamberlain did not have the luxury of completing a lob pass in one mid-air motion as Auerbach would call it 'offensive goal tending.'

Today they'd call it an alley-oop as noted by Sonny Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM).

Sports Illustrated - March 2, 1964 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075691/2/index.htm)

'The St. Louis Hawks' 6-foot-9, 240-pound Zelmo Beaty, for example, found out recently that he can no longer take Chamberlain's great strength for granted. Unable to slow Wilt down with conventional maltreatment, Beaty tried to yank his shorts off. Chamberlain, who can press 400 pounds without breathing hard, makes it a point to control his temper, primarily because he is genuinely afraid he might kill somebody. Beaty's unethical yank, however, was too much. Wilt flicked an arm, and Beaty flew across the floor like a man shot out of a cannon. Referee Mendy Rudolph rushed over to him and said: "For God's sake, stay down, man. Don't even twitch a muscle." Beaty didn't twitch, and he is still active in the NBA.'

The Evening Independent - Sep 15, 1966 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_dkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7163,2399606&dq)

'Chamberlain, like Brown, is a great athlete and seriously considered becoming a fighter a year and a half ago. Wilt and Jimmy have competed againsy each other in foot races and tests of strength.

"I'd rather fight Clay than Wilt," Brown said. "Chamberlain's too big and he's too strong, but I'm no fighter. I'm saving whatever fighting I've got to do for the Dirty Dozen."'

St. Petersburg Times - Feb 25, 1969 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gPoNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7049,3815406&dq)

'Wilt Chamberlain is probably the first giant in history to be able to break 50 seconds in the 440, win a Big Eight high-jump title and be able to set a pick. In fact, he may not be a true giant. Medicine has taken the mystery out of gigantism. Most giants of the past were physical weaklings. Some were 90 percent legs. Wilt Chamberlain, by common consent, is the world's strongest man.'

He was even stronger during his later years in life.

http://i43.tinypic.com/11icsox.gif

The Miami News - Nov 7, 1962 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1XYyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,2425147&dq)

'He can clean and jerk a 375 lb weight.'

Clean and Jerk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sA-lEbrgak)

(Note this was skinny Wilt Chamberlain circa '62.)

There are multiple other sources citing his wingspan reach at 101 inches (8'4).

'He has a wing-spread so wide that if the wind were right he could probably fly - 101 inches from fingertip to fingertip.'

In this apparent publicity stunt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Xjt-1Zvwo#t=5m50s) he is measured in a suit and not against a flat surface. Note the camera angle makes it impossible to determine his proper posture. Ali is measured at 78 inches on the show, yet his listed reach is 80 here (http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Muhammad-Ali), and 79 here (http://i41.tinypic.com/mkbtl3.jpg). O'Neal's wingspan (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=5) is 7'7, and Chamberlain's reach (http://i40.tinypic.com/9qg4cl.jpg) & length (http://i43.tinypic.com/jg02eo.gif) did indeed exceed Shaq's. 101 inches is likely the proper measurement.

http://www.corbismotion.com/wicker/clip/503C396_043.do

Here is his standing reach (http://i43.tinypic.com/2wdrsrc.jpg) as a 6'11 school boy in flat Converse shoes.

THIS may very well have been the best post EVER on Wilt. Those videos were just fascinating.

One thing that I have noticed, though...Wilt seldom, if ever, is going all out. He accomplishes fantastic physical feats more by accident, than effort.

And, once again, I just wish we had video footage of at least SOME of the literally HUNDREDS of staggering statisical games that Wilt had. One of the most amazing stats that I have read on Chamberlain, was the fact that he had 34 30-30 just against Russell (and 17 40-30 games.) That was against the greatest defensive player in NBA history. I have never found any evidence, or even best estimates, of just how many 30-30 games Wilt had in his career, but given the fact that he played in over 1000 regular season games, and another 160 post-season games...he may very well have been in the HUNDREDS with 30-30 games. All of which would then beg the question....who is second, and with how many? My best guess would be either Bob Pettite or Bill Russell, and I seriously doubt that either had even ten. How about 40-30 games? Once again, Wilt had 17, just against Russell. I couldn't even fathom a guess as to how many he had in his career...but a conservative estimate would have to something approaching 50. As for who is next...the best question would probably be...did ANYONE else EVER have a 40-30 game????

How about some interesting comparisons on efficiency? In Shaq's top season, he averaged 17.8 ppg on .609 shooting in a league that shot .459. How about Kareem? In his best season, he averaged 23.3 ppg on .604 shooting in a league that shot .481. How about Wilt? Well, his 72-73 season was at 13.2 ppg on .727 shooting in a league that shot .456. But, how about his 66-67 season? 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting in a league that shot .441.

Continuing...how about FG% differential over the next closest competitor? Amazingly, Kareem only led the NBA in FG%, ONE time. In his 76-77 season he shot .579, which was slightly better than runner-up Mitch Kupchak, who was at .572, or .007.

Shaq has led the NBA in FG% a record TEN times (Wilt is next at NINE.) Shaq's largest differntial was in 2001-2002, when he shot .579, and the next best was at .527, or .052.

How about Wilt? One would think that his 72-73 season, in which he shot .727 would be the record for differential. It was certainly the second best, as his nearest competitor shot .570, which was a .157 differential. However, his 66-67 season is THE record, when he shot .683, and the next guy was at .521...or an eye-popping .162 differential.

Just some more interesting FACTS regarding Chamberlain's staggering statistical domination of the NBA record book.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 03:42 AM

I must have them all on ignore and with good reason. There is nbo argument for Hakeem. Kareem before him and Shaq after him dwarfed his accomplishments. But regardless, I get your point.

I get what you're saying, but the way I'd look at it: Greb is a higher because he's a better boxer, he's a better boxer because of what he did in his era.

I see no point in projecting a hypothetical match that would necessitate a time-machine. If Hopkins were placed under the same technological restrictions as Greb, he'd not have become the boxer he is.

I don't think there is a single more important factor in measuring the greatest players as rings as the teams best player. It is the one goal and responsibility all great players share.

Beyond being the #1 option, I think being #2 is also significant but nearly as much as being #1. After that, i.e Robery Horry's seven rings, KC Jones eight, John Sally's five etc., they matter, but not as much as the players overall ability to excel in their role. (Stats, accolades etc.)

We're really not that far apart, except I don't think today's players are better, simply evolved. For example in the 1950's if you wanted to play you had to be able to fight. (and usually be white, but we'll ignore that for the purposes of this point) A player like Carmelo Anthony or Paul Pierce who are very skilled, but cowards and ******* (in basketball terms), they'd get their ass kicked so much (literally) that they'd never make it in the league. But the game has evolved and now being able to fight is not an essential skill. But being able to jump is, whereas in 1950, you didn't need to. Is one way better than the other? Each era will inevitably cling to their way but evolution comes from necessity. Still it also is born out of the fruit of fore bearers labors. So which is more significant? Rather than answer the question, I apply Occams Razor. What I know is true I trust, what I don't know I try to find out more about, but never assume my hypothesizes or theories correct.

Thanks for continuing to help me understand your point, it's been a pleasant surprise.

The point is, no one in their right mind thinks Greb would beat Hopkins. He's not nearly as fast, or strong, and his style is primitive.

Compare this with the example we are discussing. Russell and Durant. The sport has evolved since the 60's and if we are judging across eras, I see Durant as a better player than Russell. Like you said, we have no way of doing this and thus rank these players based on what they did in their era. I mean, we don't question is Russell would have won 11 rings today even if the answer is yes or no because that doesn't factor in to how we rank these players. We look only at what they did when they played, and THAT'S IT.

I think you get my point.

Edit: If you agree with the rings assessment, do you think Billups is better than Chris Paul or Deron Williams? Or Wade better than LeBron?

julizaver

04-27-2010, 05:09 AM

I already post it my opinion that Russell is better rebounder and defender than Russell in another thread, but to compare Wilt with Rodman is not fair - to both. Wilt was true center, why Rodman was always a PF and very rare he was used as center. To send Rodman guarding a high scoring Wilt will be suicide for his team and coach. Rodman lack that quickness and shot blocking ability (timing and leaping) of Russell to disturb Wilt's shots. Anyway under the boards it will be like that - Wilt will just get his rebounds he used to, and Rodman will get some, but not from Wilt's - at is a sistuation with Russell (he was regulary outrebounded by Wilt - and sometimes by great margin). There will be no real competition in that considering the fact, that unlike Russell who was closed to Wilt, in the modern game it will be Wilt battling another center, and Rodman trying to reach for position, but not real head to head match up with Wilt.

G.O.A.T

04-27-2010, 05:49 AM

The point is, no one in their right mind thinks Greb would beat Hopkins. He's not nearly as fast, or strong, and his style is primitive.

Compare this with the example we are discussing. Russell and Durant. The sport has evolved since the 60's and if we are judging across eras, I see Durant as a better player than Russell. Like you said, we have no way of doing this and thus rank these players based on what they did in their era. I mean, we don't question is Russell would have won 11 rings today even if the answer is yes or no because that doesn't factor in to how we rank these players. We look only at what they did when they played, and THAT'S IT.

I think you get my point.

Edit: If you agree with the rings assessment, do you think Billups is better than Chris Paul or Deron Williams? Or Wade better than LeBron?

I completely understand. Where we part is in our definition of "better basketball player" To me it doesn't matter who shoots a higher percentage, blocks the most shots, who's shot is prettier, who has the most complete skill set etc. None of that matters. It's about how you use your skills to defeat (or help your team defeat) the opponents put in front of you.

So I would never say Kevin Durant is a better basketball player than Bill Russell. At least until he has enough rings for one hand. I understand what you mean though, Durant is about Bill's height and has more refined skills than most of the guards in Russell's and for that matter his own era. Whereas Russell couldn't make a twenty-footer, for Durant it's practically a lay-up. Kevin in almost 40% better at the line. Everything about him is "smoother" than Russell. He is an evolved basketball player, but to me, not a better one.

Where I compare them is in their ability to defeat their competition by elevating their teammates and themselves and doing what is needed. For example Durant grabbing 19 rebounds vs. the Lakers front line of Gasol, Bynum, Odom, while he struggled with his shot. To me that's more significant than any 35 point scoring game because it's not his expected contribution. It's something positive he's done for his team, that his opponent was not expecting to have to counteract. Best example of this in my lifetime. Game one of the 1992 Finals.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.streetlevel.com/media/2010/02/the-shrug.jpg
That series was over, Jordan had defeated them mentally. A towering and physical front line with depth for Portland, prepared to protect the paint and punish the games best driver. A 27% three-point shooter goes 6 for 10 from deep on his way to 40 in a route and the Blazers never knew what hit them.

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

The last questions:

Until this season I had Lebron just ahead of Wade. Until the MVP season (2009) I had Wade ahead of Lebron. I am operating on the assumption Lebron will win a title at some point, but if not, the argument becomes interesting.

As for the PG's. Billups is ahead of both in terms of who has had the better career, but Williams and Paul are currently playing at a higher level.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 02:40 PM

I completely understand. Where we part is in our definition of "better basketball player" To me it doesn't matter who shoots a higher percentage, blocks the most shots, who's shot is prettier, who has the most complete skill set etc. None of that matters. It's about how you use your skills to defeat (or help your team defeat) the opponents put in front of you.

So I would never say Kevin Durant is a better basketball player than Bill Russell. At least until he has enough rings for one hand. I understand what you mean though, Durant is about Bill's height and has more refined skills than most of the guards in Russell's and for that matter his own era. Whereas Russell couldn't make a twenty-footer, for Durant it's practically a lay-up. Kevin in almost 40% better at the line. Everything about him is "smoother" than Russell. He is an evolved basketball player, but to me, not a better one.

Where I compare them is in their ability to defeat their competition by elevating their teammates and themselves and doing what is needed. For example Durant grabbing 19 rebounds vs. the Lakers front line of Gasol, Bynum, Odom, while he struggled with his shot. To me that's more significant than any 35 point scoring game because it's not his expected contribution. It's something positive he's done for his team, that his opponent was not expecting to have to counteract. Best example of this in my lifetime. Game one of the 1992 Finals.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.streetlevel.com/media/2010/02/the-shrug.jpg
That series was over, Jordan had defeated them mentally. A towering and physical front line with depth for Portland, prepared to protect the paint and punish the games best driver. A 27% three-point shooter goes 6 for 10 from deep on his way to 40 in a route and the Blazers never knew what hit them.

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

The last questions:

Until this season I had Lebron just ahead of Wade. Until the MVP season (2009) I had Wade ahead of Lebron. I am operating on the assumption Lebron will win a title at some point, but if not, the argument becomes interesting.

As for the PG's. Billups is ahead of both in terms of who has had the better career, but Williams and Paul are currently playing at a higher level.

Understood. That last part is kind of my point. Despite Billups having the ring over them two (which makes his career more accomplished and thus moving him higher on an all-time list), I don't think anyone would say Billups is the better player. Kind of my Durant/Russell thing.

As you have seen though, I mean no disrespect to Russell nor am I trying to insult the game. I had to explain myself since I was being regarded as a "espn baby who just started watching yesterday" earlier in the thread haha.

Good discussion though. I was having trouble following your logic but I think I got it now.
:cheers:

Niquesports

04-27-2010, 03:29 PM

Understood. That last part is kind of my point. Despite Billups having the ring over them two (which makes his career more accomplished and thus moving him higher on an all-time list), I don't think anyone would say Billups is the better player. Kind of my Durant/Russell thing.

As you have seen though, I mean no disrespect to Russell nor am I trying to insult the game. I had to explain myself since I was being regarded as a "espn baby who just started watching yesterday" earlier in the thread haha.

Good discussion though. I was having trouble following your logic but I think I got it now.
:cheers:

Durant being from the DC area of course I cheer for him,however 1 Great season doesnt make a player Great. IF that was the case Dominique Wilkins,Bob McaDoo,George Gervin,David Thompson,Adrian Dantley Bill Walton aand Allen Iverson would all be in the discussion as the GOAT. Not knocking Durant but to even compare him to Russell is a smack in the face to the history of basketball. When he does this for 5 or more years then lets talk about him.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 03:40 PM

Durant being from the DC area of course I cheer for him,however 1 Great season doesnt make a player Great. IF that was the case Dominique Wilkins,Bob McaDoo,George Gervin,David Thompson,Adrian Dantley Bill Walton aand Allen Iverson would all be in the discussion as the GOAT. Not knocking Durant but to even compare him to Russell is a smack in the face to the history of basketball. When he does this for 5 or more years then lets talk about him.

I'm not talking about his career you clown. I said this already. I'm talking about Durant right now, the way he is currently playing; which has been phenomenal this season.

Niquesports

04-27-2010, 03:51 PM

I'm not talking about his career you clown. I said this already. I'm talking about Durant right now, the way he is currently playing; which has been phenomenal this season.

YOu clown and all I said is that there has been many phenomenal one years look at TIny he lead the league in scoring and assist. Sure Durant is looking great but so have others. He's playing on a young team and has the Green light. When you look at how many other players in the past have had pheomenal seasons what Durant is doing is just another one season show. Clown

ShaqAttack3234

04-27-2010, 04:00 PM

Regarding Wilt's "playoff drop" in scoring...how does 33 ppg and 26 rpg for his first six playoff seasons (out of seven total) sound? And of course, Wilt was going against Bill Russell in FIVE of them, and usually in the second round (or even sooner.) How did MJ do against the Pistons in 88-89 and 89-90 (and before you bring up ONE 46 point game...keep mind that Wilt had 50 point game against Russell (as well as several 40 point post-season games.)

Yes, and it was A LOT easier to score 50 in Wilt's era.

Yes, Wilt's playoff scoring dropped after the 65-66 season, just as his regular season scoring did. But, keep in mind, that in the final game of the ECF's, and against Russell, he put up a 46-34 game. Do you honestly believe that after that season, that he could no longer put up huge games (as he did on several occassions in the regular season every season in the decade of the 60's)?

Obviously he could still put up big numbers, what I'm saying is you have to view these numbers in the right perspective next to Wilt's.

Regarding MJ as NOWHERE CLOSE to Wilt in ATHLETIC ability...here again, Wilt was a STAND-OUT track star in the high-jump, the long-jump, the 4x100 yard, the 440 yard, the 880 yard, and the shot-put. Suffice to say, MJ was NONE of those. And, while MJ dabbled in a mediocre minor league baseball career (and had he not been MJ he would have been cut long before he quit)...Wilt was being offered a LEGITIMATE PRO Football contract. Oh, and BTW, he was offered TWO LEGITIMATE heavyweight boxing title bouts. Not to mention that there are articles which claim Wilt was a world-class volleyball player. On top of all of that there were those that claimed Wilt was among the strongest men in the world in the late 60's. So, YES, Jordan could not hold a candle to Chamberlain in terms of athleticism.
:roll: :oldlol: :roll:

Ok, go watch some footage of Jordan. Go look at him hanging in the air, switching hands on layups, dunking on numerous taller players ect. If you honestly think Wilt could jump higher than Jordan than there's really no point debating any further.

Yes, Wilt could get his chin at rim level........it was so easy for him to get his head at rim level that in all of the footage of Wilt, he never got his head at rim level, not even when he was fully extended going for blocks.

And yes, athletes have regressed in the last 40-50 years. Wilt and Russell are the only big men to have 40"+ verticals and Wilt and Gus Johnson are the only guys to touch the top of the backboard. The unathletic stiffs of the past 30 years simply can't compare. Athleres just keep regressing, in 20 years, we'll see a league where nobody can even dunk.

As for number of shots...can you honestly tell me that Shaq was INCAPABLE of 30 shots a game? How about Olajuwon in the 94-95 AGAINST Shaq? THREE games of 30...out of four games. And I am reasonably certain that I could find at LEAST several 30+ FGA games for Shaq in the post-season. Why is that important? Because he was CAPABLE of doing it. It WAS accomplished. And Chamberlain did not need to be within a few feet of the basket to score. He had the bankshot that would have put Duncan's to shame (and he was taller, MUCH quicker, and of course, much stronger.) Wilt had turn-around jumpers, and even sweeping hook shots. He could easily start his offense from 15+ feet.

I've never seen Wilt attempt a sweeping hook in game footage which tells me that wasn't a regular go to move. I've only seen in it highlight mixes. His go to moves are cited as a fadeaway(which didn't seem good outside of 10-12 feet) and a finger roll which exposed the ball. I'll take Shaq's drop step, turnaround one-handed jumpers, jump hooks and spin moves over any of those moves. Much less Kareem's sky hook, turnaround jumper and spin moves.

:oldlol: Several 30+ FGA games proves Shaq could do that for an entire season? Did you even watch Shaq in his prime? The game was played at such a slow pace that teams were averaging in the low 90s are far as possessions per game. I believe Wilt's Warrior's in 1962 averaged 126-130 possessions per game. Do you see the difference? Not to mention that when Shaq got it going, he was often double and triple teamed making as well as fouled, making it extremely hard in such a slow paced game to get 30+ FGA, much less every game. He'd be taking field goal attempts on 30% of his team's possessions, never mind free throws and passing out and double teams as well as the fact that Shaq sat on the bench an average of 8 minutes per game despite being among the league leaders in minutes.

Continuing...Shaq had Finals in which he averaged 38, 36, and 33 (and that was against Motumbo, who was considered the best defensive center of his generation...although IMHO, he was not close to Russell or Thurmond.) Why could Shaq put up nearly 40 ppg in a post-season series, and only 30 in the regular season? And why could Shaq average 33 against the DPOY, and only 29 in the regular season? The FACT was, Shaq, and playing against mostly inept clods SHOULD have averaged FAR more in the regular season.

Finals series are a hell of a lot different, those cover 15 games total. Vs Indiana, he had to carry the team because Kobe had just 1 good game and basically missed 2 while Rice was trash, Harper and Green weren't scorers ect. Vs Philly, the Lakers only had 2 scoring options because their duo was so good, but Kobe shot under 42% vs Philly so again, Shaq had to carry the load. Vs New Jersey, they just didn't have the defenders so despite having size, Shaq took full advantage of the mismatch.

Inept? Shaq played against some of the greatest defensive teams and greatest defensive centers of all time and in his era, almost every team had a legit 7 footer, many of whom were close to or over 300 pounds. And he didn't face much single coverage, but instead of forcing shots, Shaq made his teammates better. He was winning championships averaging 29-30 a game in the regular season and 30-31 per game in the playoffs. He was scoring enough, hell, he led the league in scoring and finished 2nd and 3rd several other times.

Once again, using Chamberlain's FG% against the LEAGUE AVERAGE...ok, take his lat big scoring season, 65-66. He averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting in a league that averaged 116 ppg on .433 shooting. In MJ's 86-87 season, he averaged 37 ppg on .482 shooting in a league that averaged 110 ppg and shot .480. Move Wilt into that season, and while his shot attempts would fall (some), his FG% would SKY-ROCKET...which would result in MORE FG's MADE. BY my best estimate, he would have shot at LEAST .600. And, then give him MJ's 28 shots per game, on 60% shooting, instead of the 25 that he actually took, and he would have easily topped 40 ppg. AND, I don't consider Wilt's 65-66 season as even remotely close to his overall dominance of his 66-67 season.

Why are you comparing Jordan's FG% to a centers? Even if you are, Wilt's FG%, never matched Jordan's mark in 1988 in a 35 ppg season. Hell, Wilt's most efficient 30+ ppg season 54%, as a guard Jordan matched that, nevermind the fact that he was an 85% free throw shooter.

I am not diminishing Kareem or Shaq here. I am merely pointing out the FACTS. Wilt was a MUCH better scorer, a MUCH better shooter (true, both had higher career FG% marks...but at his PEAK, he DWARFED their best seasons)...and at his PEAK, he had MUCH better range), a FAR better rebounder, and was CLEARLY a better defender. My god, Wilt was voted first team all-defense in his LAST TWO seasons (and most certainly would have been DPOY in 71-72, and probably in 72-73.) Chamberlain in the mid-60's, and particularly in the 66-67 season BURIED his opposing centers. Not only that, but he was a better passer, as well (including the outlet...in which his 71-72 season may have been the best ever by a center.) How many assist titles did Kareem or Shaq win? How many third place finishes?

:oldlol: So now Wilt had better range than Kareem? Look at their moves, look at their shot attempts, FG% in their high scoring seasons ect. Kareem and Shaq were better scorers. Wilt just didn't have the footwork or moves they did. Pete Newell agreed with me so what I'm saying is not crazy. You may disagree, and that's fine, but after viewing all of the available footage of Wilt, I have yet to see anything to change my mind. I realize that not much footage is available(and that's a shame) but until I see footage disputing my opinion then I'll stick to it.

Look at 1962 Wilt in the playoffs. That was Wilt's career high season in scoring. Wilt played less playoff games than Shaq and averaged something like 35 ppg on 46-47% shooting. Shaq averaged 31 ppg on 57% shooting, the following year, he averaged 30+ on 56% shooting, in 1998 he averaged 30.5 ppg on 61% shooting in the playoffs. Wilt's scoring dropped against the tougher defenses of the playoffs while Shaq's scoring rose.

When you consider their FG% in those playoffs, Shaq was a MUCH better scorer in the playoffs.

Just look at the minutes Wilt and other stars in his era were allowed to play vs the last 20-25 years, just looked at how many more possessions were available....that's why Wilt scored more.

Wilt was not superhuman. He's a top 5 player in NBA history, but he had his flaws.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 04:06 PM

YOu clown and all I said is that there has been many phenomenal one years look at TIny he lead the league in scoring and assist. Sure Durant is looking great but so have others. He's playing on a young team and has the Green light. When you look at how many other players in the past have had pheomenal seasons what Durant is doing is just another one season show. Clown

What Durant has done this year has put him amongst all-time greats in some departments for a single season. And again, I'm talking about Durant THIS YEAR, as in the way he has played the past 82 games as compared to Russel's game.

Your logic would entail the following:

Player A has put up 15 5 5 and has won 2 titles throughout his career.

Player B comes into the league, has played well, then breaks out for a 30 6 6 year.

Player A is better than player B and player B can't even be compared to player A? No; player B, when using this season as a comparison, has played better than player A. If you want to compare who is a better player, I'd tell you player A had the better career, but B is currently playing better, hence my conclusion.

Niquesports

04-27-2010, 04:13 PM

What Durant has done this year has put him amongst all-time greats in some departments for a single season. And again, I'm talking about Durant THIS YEAR, as in the way he has played the past 82 games as compared to Russel's game.

Your logic would entail the following:

Player A has put up 15 5 5 and has won 2 titles throughout his career.

Player B comes into the league, has played well, then breaks out for a 30 6 6 year.

Player A is better than player B and player B can't even be compared to player A? No; player B, when using this season as a comparison, has played better than player A. If you want to compare who is a better player, I'd tell you player A had the better career, but B is currently playing better, hence my conclusion.

So in your logic Dale Ellis had an all time great season in 89 when he avg 27ppg
or how about Dominique in 88 when he avg 30.7ppg lets not stop there how about Adrian Dantley in 84 he had 30.6 ppg and the all time one season great year of Mark Aguirre in 84 also whit his 29.5.. My point is Durrant season this year was special but nothing Great many others have had just as good 1 year perfromances

G.O.A.T

04-27-2010, 04:15 PM

Player A is better than player B and player B can't even be compared to player A? No; player B, when using this season as a comparison, has played better than player A. If you want to compare who is a better player, I'd tell you player A had the better career, but B is currently playing better, hence my conclusion.

No, no, no. That's not how that works.

Russell was the best player on eleven championship teams, even if he averaged 2-1-1, if he was the undisputed best player on those teams he is unquestionably a better player than Durant, even if Durant averaged 75-50-25 this year.

The game is about winning and losing, not stats.

I get your logic, I don't think you're crazy or ignorant or anything other than someone with a different perspective. I just don't share the conclusion you do.

alexandreben

04-27-2010, 04:53 PM

Shaq was as complete as he needed to be, aside from free throw shooting. He had moves that were good from out to about 8-10 feet(and who could stop him from being that close?). Those one-handed turnaround jumpers and jump hooks were very effective and almost never blocked, then he had the drop step, spin moves, fakes and up and unders which often helped him get in close enough for dunks. Not to mention all of the lob passes he could catch that few could get to and like Wilt, he was excellent at scoring off of offensive rebounds, though Wilt was the better rebounder, IMO.

If Wilt could have been getting that close his entire career and getting shots up at a great volume close to the rim then he should have. If anything, that would indicate not having his priorities in place or a lack of a basketball IQ(more likely the former).

And lets not act like Wilt was taking guys off the dribble or shooting pull up jumpers, 18-20 footers ect. like Olajuwon. Olajuwon was a pure finesse player. Shaq and Wilt were power players. Wilt may have taken more 12 footers than Shaq, but he was mostly a power player as well, atleast based on the footage I've seen of him from '64, '67, '70, '71 and '72.

Regarding the 50 ppg season, I didn't compare it because we haven't seen Shaq or Kareem in a situation to get anywhere near 30 shots, much less 40. So we can't really compare.
Shaq has a lot of offense weapons compare with Howard, but compare with Olajuwon and Wilt? Not even close... not to mention Shaq didn't use many different types of offensive, while Wilt and Olajuwon chose to use more offensive weapons, again, you have weapons is one thing, whether to use it or not is another...

I, too, agree that Wilt is much better rebounder than Shaq. No doubt about it.

So, you compare two players base on what? If it's not lane widening, but FGA??!! MJ has some seasons that averaged 28 FGA, is that mean you automatically ignore that season when compare with some players who had 18 FGA(e.g. Kobe)? I don't get the logic, no offense, but IMO we can't simply just ignore a player's stats just because he has more FGA in a certain season. If we do so, his career average will drop significently.

alexandreben

04-27-2010, 06:19 PM

Yes, and it was A LOT easier to score 50 in Wilt's era.

Look at 1962 Wilt in the playoffs. That was Wilt's career high season in scoring. Wilt played less playoff games than Shaq and averaged something like 35 ppg on 46-47% shooting.

If it was A LOT easier to score 50 in Wilt's era, why there's only Wilt could do that? in the season of 61-62, Wilt top score 50 ppg, while the second was only 30+ ppg. A LOT easier? I doubt that..

Top Scorer Points Per Game(1961-1962)

1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 50.4
2. Walt Bellamy*-CHP 31.6
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 31.1
4. Jerry West*-LAL 30.8
5. Oscar Robertson*-CIN 30.8

Looking at stats, Shaq's scoring stats also dropped(compare with his regular season) in playoffs,

Regular Playoffs
Season TRB PTS PTS TRB
1992-93 13.9 23.4
1993-94 13.2 29.3 20.7 13.3
1994-95 11.4 29.3 25.7 11.9
1995-96 11.0 26.6 25.8 10.0
1996-97 12.5 26.2 26.9 10.6
1997-98 11.4 28.3 30.5 10.2
1998-99 10.7 26.3 26.6 11.6
1999-00 13.6 29.7 30.7 15.4
2000-01 12.7 28.7 30.4 15.4
2001-02 10.7 27.2 28.5 12.6
2002-03 11.1 27.5 27.0 14.8
2003-04 11.5 21.5 21.5 13.2
2004-05 10.4 22.9 19.4 7.8
2005-06 9.2 20.0 18.4 9.8
2006-07 7.4 17.3 18.8 8.5
2007-08 9.1 13.6 15.2 9.2
2008-09 8.4 17.8
2009-10 6.7 12.0 8.0 5.8
Career 11.0 24.1 24.9 11.9

At the mean time, regarding to Wilt's playoffs stats' shrink(from 50 ppg shrinked to 35 ppg in playoffs) in 1962, I got the same question, how come Wilt's stats dropped 15 pts? even Shaq's stats biggest drop was 1993-94 season, Shaq "only" dropped 9 pts in the playoffs, but compare with Wilt's 15 pts' shrink, wow... and I am sorry I didn't saw you post it here, and somehow I open another thread here:
Why Wilt Chamberlain's scoring stats shrinked that much in the playoffs? (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171997)

Wilt's playoffs' stats already dropped to 37 ppg facing NATS in the first round, my best guess it's not Wilt's scoring ability issue, it's some other issues... what do you guys think about it?

ShaqAttack3234

04-27-2010, 07:01 PM

If it was A LOT easier to score 50 in Wilt's era, why there's only Wilt could do that? in the season of 61-62, Wilt top score 50 ppg, while the second was only 30+ ppg. A LOT easier? I doubt that..

Top Scorer Points Per Game(1961-1962)

1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 50.4
2. Walt Bellamy*-CHP 31.6
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 31.1
4. Jerry West*-LAL 30.8
5. Oscar Robertson*-CIN 30.8

Looking at stats, Shaq's scoring stats also dropped(compare with his regular season) in playoffs,

Regular Playoffs
Season TRB PTS PTS TRB
1992-93 13.9 23.4
1993-94 13.2 29.3 20.7 13.3
1994-95 11.4 29.3 25.7 11.9
1995-96 11.0 26.6 25.8 10.0
1996-97 12.5 26.2 26.9 10.6
1997-98 11.4 28.3 30.5 10.2
1998-99 10.7 26.3 26.6 11.6
1999-00 13.6 29.7 30.7 15.4
2000-01 12.7 28.7 30.4 15.4
2001-02 10.7 27.2 28.5 12.6
2002-03 11.1 27.5 27.0 14.8
2003-04 11.5 21.5 21.5 13.2
2004-05 10.4 22.9 19.4 7.8
2005-06 9.2 20.0 18.4 9.8
2006-07 7.4 17.3 18.8 8.5
2007-08 9.1 13.6 15.2 9.2
2008-09 8.4 17.8
2009-10 6.7 12.0 8.0 5.8
Career 11.0 24.1 24.9 11.9

At the mean time, regarding to Wilt's playoffs stats' shrink(from 50 ppg shrinked to 35 ppg in playoffs) in 1962, I got the same question, how come Wilt's stats dropped 15 pts? even Shaq's stats biggest drop was 1993-94 season, Shaq "only" dropped 9 pts in the playoffs, but compare with Wilt's 15 pts' shrink, wow... and I am sorry I didn't saw you post it here, and somehow I open another thread here:
Why Wilt Chamberlain's scoring stats shrinked that much in the playoffs? (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171997)

Wilt's playoffs' stats already dropped to 37 ppg facing NATS in the first round, my best guess it's not Wilt's scoring ability issue, it's some other issues... what do you guys think about it?

Elgin Baylor averaged 38 ppg on 33 shots per game in 1962 as well. Players were simply getting up more shots. Jack Tyman averaged 27.5 shots per game in 1960. the pace of the game and the minutes that players were allowed to play gave them far more shot attempts.

Regarding his drop in 1962, there's 2 reasons. One, it's much harder to score vs playoff defense and playoff intensity, 2, Wilt wasn't known as a great big game performer(relative to his regular season numbers). Which isn't to say Wilt didn't have some great playoff games.

Shaq has a lot of offense weapons compare with Howard, but compare with Olajuwon and Wilt? Not even close... not to mention Shaq didn't use many different types of offensive, while Wilt and Olajuwon chose to use more offensive weapons, again, you have weapons is one thing, whether to use it or not is another...

Olajuwon had far more offensive weapons than either Shaq or Wilt, but he didn't have the power game they did, he wasn't as good of an offensive rebounder as either and he wasn't as good of a passer as either.

You have it opposite, Wilt didn't have near the versatility Olajuwon did and neither did Shaq. But Wilt didn't have the footwork or moves that Shaq did. None of his moves were as unstoppable as Shaq's jump hook, drop step and one-handed turnaround.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 07:11 PM

No, no, no. That's not how that works.

Russell was the best player on eleven championship teams, even if he averaged 2-1-1, if he was the undisputed best player on those teams he is unquestionably a better player than Durant, even if Durant averaged 75-50-25 this year.

The game is about winning and losing, not stats.

I get your logic, I don't think you're crazy or ignorant or anything other than someone with a different perspective. I just don't share the conclusion you do.

It is about winning; but it doesn't mean thats the sole aspect we consider when ranking players. You are making it out to be something an individual can just go out and do if he's great; it's simply not true. Rings are very situational and must be taken in context.

If that were the case, then Russell is far and away the GOAT.

And again, you are mixing up careers with current play.

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 07:13 PM

So in your logic Dale Ellis had an all time great season in 89 when he avg 27ppg
or how about Dominique in 88 when he avg 30.7ppg lets not stop there how about Adrian Dantley in 84 he had 30.6 ppg and the all time one season great year of Mark Aguirre in 84 also whit his 29.5.. My point is Durrant season this year was special but nothing Great many others have had just as good 1 year perfromances

Accounting for pace; yes.

And if you wanted to compare Dantley in 84 (Durant this year) to another player; you certainly could. Considering the comparison is about how he played currently, which is Durants play this year, and NOT careers. Why is this hard to understand?

Simple Jack

04-27-2010, 07:17 PM

alexandreben

04-27-2010, 09:16 PM

Elgin Baylor averaged 38 ppg on 33 shots per game in 1962 as well. Players were simply getting up more shots. Jack Tyman averaged 27.5 shots per game in 1960. the pace of the game and the minutes that players were allowed to play gave them far more shot attempts.

Regarding his drop in 1962, there's 2 reasons. One, it's much harder to score vs playoff defense and playoff intensity, 2, Wilt wasn't known as a great big game performer(relative to his regular season numbers). Which isn't to say Wilt didn't have some great playoff games.

Olajuwon had far more offensive weapons than either Shaq or Wilt, but he didn't have the power game they did, he wasn't as good of an offensive rebounder as either and he wasn't as good of a passer as either.

You have it opposite, Wilt didn't have near the versatility Olajuwon did and neither did Shaq. But Wilt didn't have the footwork or moves that Shaq did. None of his moves were as unstoppable as Shaq's jump hook, drop step and one-handed turnaround.

Baylor's short limited games in 1962 made him out of the scoring list, even if it counts, Wilt still outscored him by 12 pts margin! Did Michael Jordan outscored the second scorer by 12 pts margin???? If 50 pts is "A LOT" easier to get, how come only Wilt could do it???

Regarding to footwork, Olajuwon definetely the best ever, Kevin McHale the second, Shaq's footwork?? not even close!! Shaq's footwork is just "back down to the paint with his power and weight(which could be an offensive foul in Wilt's era by the way) then simply spin". Wilt's footwork is not bad either, I saw almost all the vid

ShaqAttack3234

04-27-2010, 10:22 PM

Baylor's short limited games in 1962 made him out of the scoring list, even if it counts, Wilt still outscored him by 12 pts margin! Did Michael Jordan outscored the second scorer by 12 pts margin???? If 50 pts is "A LOT" easier to get, how come only Wilt could do it???

If Baylor had enough points to qualify then it counts, not to mention that he had another 35 ppg season. I never said it was easy either, obviously it wasn't, but it was much easier in an era where guys like Jack Tyman, who nobody knows today could get 27.5 shots per game in a season.

[QUOTE]Regarding to footwork, Olajuwon definetely the best ever, Kevin McHale the second, Shaq's footwork?? not even close!! Shaq's footwork is just "back down to the paint with his power and weight(which could be an offensive foul in Wilt's era by the way) then simply spin". Wilt's footwork is not bad either, I saw almost all the vid

jlauber

04-27-2010, 11:10 PM

I get so tired of rehashing the same points, but since ShaqAttack is going to do it, so will I.

Rick Barry, one of the greatest players in NBA history...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCJ/is_7_31/ai_n6189410/

"There is no question that Shaq has the bulk. He is by far the most dominating physical presence the game has ever seen. But sheer size does not a great player make. I'll take Wilt over Shaq any day for athleticism, strength, finesse, and overall effectiveness as a center."

And, if you read the entire article, he basically rates Wilt over Shaq in almost every category, and some by HUGE margins.

Regarding Baylor's performance...he did NOT play in NEARLY enough games to qualify. Wilt OFFICIALLY won the scoring title by 19 ppg...the most one-sided margin NBA history.

Regarding Jordan being compared to Wilt in LEAPING ABILITY...YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS HIS HEAD EXAMINED. MJ never won ANY track events in college, much less a HIGH-JUMP championship. NOR, is there ONE reported dunk by Jordan on a 12 ft, rim. NOR, have I ever seen an EYE-WITNESS account of Jordan (or video footage, either) of touching the top of the backboard. NOR did Jordan's college coach set up a 12 ft. NOR did MJ have a RULE aimed strictly at HIM to ban the dunking of FTs (which, yes, he could...albeit with a running start...while Wilt is the ONLY KNOWN NBA player to have accomplished it withOUT benefit of a running start.

The REAL shame is that we never got to see Jordan drive the lane on Wilt...I seriously doubt he would have scored, much less dunked.

Regarding Wilt's "low" FG%...yes, like his 65-66 season of .540...in a league that shot .433. Of course, that was one of Wilt's WORST seasons in that regard. His 66-67 season of .683 was the single GREATEST DIFFERENTIAL margin in NBA history...and completely ANNIHILATED ANY season that Shaq, or Kareem, EVER had. And his 72-73 season was nearly as dominant.

Regarding Shaq and his double-and triple teams....true....BUT, Wilt was SWARMED his ENTIRE NBA career. Tom Heinsohn made the comment that it was not Russell vs. Wilt...it was the Celtics vs. Wilt. Not only that, but they ABUSED Chamberlain.

Regarding his post-season play....did Shaq ever average 37.0 in a post-season? True, Shaq had a 38 ppg Finals, against the typical clods that manned the pivot in his era...Rik Smits, a career 7 rpg center who probably couldn't dunk. Meanwhile Wilt was facing the likes of Russell, and averaging a 34-29 series on him. Or Thurmond, or Kareem, or Reed, or Bellamy...ALL in the HOF. Had Chamberlain's last-place roster been able to score three more points in game seven of the 61-62 ECF's...I suspect that Wilt would have put up a 50 ppg Finals. He averaged 51.5 ppg against the Lakers that season, including THREE 60+ games (and a MONUMENTAL 78-43 game.)

And how many 50 point post-season games did Shaq, or even Kareem, have? Wilt had FOUR, including a MONSTROUS 50-35 game against RUSSELL.

And this RIDICULOUS assertion that Wilt wouldn't get 30 shots in the modern era. You cite ONE other player, playing PART-TIME, in Wilt's era, that took over 30 shots a game...and he wasn't a center. YET, Wilt could average 40. Why? Because he could score from 15+ feet, and could score against a triple-team, and he was much quicker than virtually every player in the league when he played. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY CENTER in NBA history to get 30 shots a game. Case in point, in Walt Bellamy's 61-62 season, he averaged 31.6 ppg, on 23.7 FGA per game. How is it that Wilt could get nearly 40 shots per game...while only Bellamy could get in the 20's, out of the other NBA centers? And Baylor only did it part-time in one season. So, NO, it was not routine for players to get 30 shots per game back then. When one factors in the pace of the game, MJ was probably a much bigger ball hog, especially in his career, than Wilt ever was. Still, ONLY Wilt could get shots WHENEVER he WANTED to. One more time...all you need to know about Wilt's ability to score was in that 68-69 season...when SI ran the article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. TWO games of 60 and 66 (and on 29-35 shooting BTW...give me a game in which Shaq came close to THAT...much less a game of 18-18.)

Shaq only scoring 30 ppg in his best season was a joke. He was CAPABLE of 35-40, as evidenced by his post-season numbers. He SHOULD have averaged that easily during the regular season. Geez, Olajuwon was able to get THREE games of 30 shots against HIM, in only FOUR games, in the 94-95 Finals. DON'T TELL ME that Wilt could NOT get 30+. RIDICULOUS! And playing against the MANY seven-footers that were getting outrebounded by 6-3 guards in the Shaq era...and probably many could not dunk...Wilt would have had a FIELD day against them.

I don't care if you want to believe what so MANY others have seen. Evidently, in your eyes, there was no way to get a criminal conviction unless there was video footage. You might find an occasional article on Shaq's strength...but you will find HUNDREDS of articles on Wilt's. Not only that, but there are MANY of them that claim Wilt was not only the strongest player in the NBA (and NO ONE ELSE is EVER mentioned during his career), there are those that claim he was among the strongest in the WORLD. But, of course, since we don't have video footage...it never happened, right? Just like virtually nearly every RECORD-BREAKING performance Wilt had in his career. All propaganda.

And, while the general CONSENSUS was that Wilt outplayed Kareem, despite being near the end of his career, and on a surgically repaired knee, and despite Kareem being outplayed by Nate Thurmond (a player that Wilt had some huge games against in the 60's, including a 45 point game, and a Finals game of 38 rebounds) ...and despite Kareem thoroughly blowing up Olajuwon in the mid-80's...and despite Olajuwon at least playing Shaq to a draw in the 94-95 Finals (some, including Shaq, himself, said that Olajuwon outplayed him...although I don't)...and despite Shaq brutalizing the inept dorks of the 00's (there was even an article in SI claiming the demise the NBA center)...

Not only that, but you have none other than Larry Brown witnessing a game in which Wilt took over against the likes of Magic and Marques Johnson...and in his 40's at the time. Or Kiki Van de Wege witnessing Wilt CRUSH a 7-4 Mark Eaton...and Wilt was well into his 40's at the time.

well, you can draw your own conclusions...but as the great Oscar Robertson once said..."The Record Book does not lie."

alexandreben

04-27-2010, 11:28 PM

If Baylor had enough points to qualify then it counts, not to mention that he had another 35 ppg season. I never said it was easy either, obviously it wasn't, but it was much easier in an era where guys like Jack Tyman, who nobody knows today could get 27.5 shots per game in a season.

Here's what Pete Newell had to say about this...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jack_mccallum/news/2002/06/12/insider/

When has Wilt showed a move like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLDXw5lC-LM

Wilt didn't have moves as good as Shaq's jump hook, one-handed jumper or drop step. Finger roll? I wouldn't want Shaq shooting a shot like that, it exposes the ball. Fadeaway? From what I've seen of Wilt's fadeaway, it didn't seem that good.

Shaq's footwork is so underrated it's ridiculous, but Pete Newell knew that.

Like I said, even if Baylor's season counts, there's still a 12 pts margin compare with Wilt's 50 pgg. You see the point?

It's much easier to find Shaq's footage than Wilt's, one day, we'll see more vid

alexandreben

04-27-2010, 11:41 PM

Kiki Van de Wege witnessing Wilt CRUSH a 7-4 Mark Eaton...and Wilt was well into his 40's at the time.

With respect, Wilt was 50 years old at that time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw#t=02m11s

ShaqAttack3234

04-27-2010, 11:46 PM

I get so tired of rehashing the same points, but since ShaqAttack is going to do it, so will I.

Rick Barry, one of the greatest players in NBA history...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCJ/is_7_31/ai_n6189410/

"There is no question that Shaq has the bulk. He is by far the most dominating physical presence the game has ever seen. But sheer size does not a great player make. I'll take Wilt over Shaq any day for athleticism, strength, finesse, and overall effectiveness as a center."

And, if you read the entire article, he basically rates Wilt over Shaq in almost every category, and some by HUGE margins.

That's fine and that's opinion, but Pete Newell disagreed. I tend to side with him, particulaly because he's known as a big man expert. Plus, Rick Barry has trashed the modern era numerous times so it wouldn't be surprised if he has an agenda.

Regarding Baylor's performance...he did NOT play in NEARLY enough games to qualify. Wilt OFFICIALLY won the scoring title by 19 ppg...the most one-sided margin NBA history.

Regardless, it was obvious that Baylor wasn't going to drop below 35 ppg.

Regarding Jordan being compared to Wilt in LEAPING ABILITY...YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS HIS HEAD EXAMINED. MJ never won ANY track events in college, much less a HIGH-JUMP championship. NOR, is there ONE reported dunk by Jordan on a 12 ft, rim. NOR, have I ever seen an EYE-WITNESS account of Jordan (or video footage, either) of touching the top of the backboard. NOR did Jordan's college coach set up a 12 ft. NOR did MJ have a RULE aimed strictly at HIM to ban the dunking of FTs (which, yes, he could...albeit with a running start...while Wilt is the ONLY KNOWN NBA player to have accomplished it withOUT benefit of a running start.

Except there are videos proving Jordan's athleticism. Ok....I need my head examined because I don't believe Wilt could get his chin at rim level. :roll: Believing Wllt could jump that high is worse than believing in The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Did Jordan ever show a real interest in track like Wilt? No, so why compare? Compare their leaping ability on the court and Wilt is not close.

The REAL shame is that we never got to see Jordan drive the lane on Wilt...I seriously doubt he would have scored, much less dunked.

Regarding Wilt's "low" FG%...yes, like his 65-66 season of .540...in a league that shot .433. Of course, that was one of Wilt's WORST seasons in that regard. His 66-67 season of .683 was the single GREATEST DIFFERENTIAL margin in NBA history...and completely ANNIHILATED ANY season that Shaq, or Kareem, EVER had. And his 72-73 season was nearly as dominant.

The difference was that later in Wilt's career, he wasn't creating his own shot as much or looking to score the same way which is why his FG% skyrocketed.

Regarding his post-season play....did Shaq ever average 37.0 in a post-season? True, Shaq had a 38 ppg Finals, against the typical clods that manned the pivot in his era...Rik Smits, a career 7 rpg center who probably couldn't dunk.

:oldlol: Rik Smits was known as the dunking dutchman. Wilt averaged 37 ppg in a postseason that he played 3 games in. Half as many games as Shaq's 38 ppg finals series.) And Wilt shot 47% in those 3 games which proves how many more shots were available in that era.

And how many 50 point post-season games did Shaq, or even Kareem, have?

How many fewer shots did they have than Wilt? they sure as hell didn't get enough shots to average 35 ppg on 47% shooting in the playoffs.

And this RIDICULOUS assertion that Wilt wouldn't get 30 shots in the modern era. You cite ONE other player, playing PART-TIME, in Wilt's era, that took over 30 shots a game...and he wasn't a center. YET, Wilt could average 40. Why? Because he could score from 15+ feet, and could score against a triple-team, and he was much quicker than virtually every player in the league when he played. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY CENTER in NBA history to get 30 shots a game.

Once again, in 2000, Shaq's Lakers averaged 93.3 possessions per game, Wilt's Warriors in 1962 averaged 129.7. Wilt averaged 48.5 mpg and Shaq averaged 40. Nobody plays the entire game now or has for the last 35 years. It's obvious Wilt isn't playing much more than 40 mpg in this era. And if his team hd 30 fewer possessions, then yeah, there's no way he gets anywhere close.

Per 40 minutes, Wilt averaged 32.6 shots per game in 1962, you don't think that with 36.4 fewer possessions that he'll drop below 30 shots per game? :oldlol:

Shaq only scoring 30 ppg in his best season was a joke. He was CAPABLE of 35-40, as evidenced by his post-season numbers. He SHOULD have averaged that easily during the regular season. Geez, Olajuwon was able to get THREE games of 30 shots against HIM, in only FOUR games, in the 94-95 Finals. DON'T TELL ME that Wilt could NOT get 30+. RIDICULOUS! And playing against the MANY seven-footers that were getting outrebounded by 6-3 guards in the Shaq era...and probably many could not dunk...Wilt would have had a FIELD day against them.

It's obvious you have no understanding of the modern NBA.

well, you can draw your own conclusions...but as the great Oscar Robertson once said..."The Record Book does not lie."

It may not lie, but it sure as hell is misleading when comparing 60's stats to 00's stats.

alexandreben

04-28-2010, 12:08 AM

Two interesting points:

Commanding by Steve Nash, Phonix Suns' paces were higher than the rest of other teams in the league...

Regardless modern NBA, actually, no one played 48 minutes even in Wilt's era but himself(48.5 minutes)

And last but not least, more paces doesn't mean that Shaq's FGA is gonna boost up to the roof, Wilt earned that stats of scoring and rebounds by playing around 10 or 15 minutes more than Shaq or Rodman, according to Shaq's weight, it's very hard to play those minutes, the heavier he is the slower he will be, hence, easier to be drawed foul... and of course plus the illness due to Shaq's titanic weight...

ShaqAttack3234

04-28-2010, 12:14 AM

Two interesting points:

Commanding by Steve Nash, Phonix Suns' paces were higher than the rest of other teams in the league...

Regardless modern NBA, actually, no one played 48 minutes even in Wilt's era but himself(48.5 minutes)

Yeah, but others were playing many more minutes than stars play today such as Tiny Archibald who averaged 46 mpg one season, Russell was up there as well, don't feel like going through all of the numbers, but look at most stars minutes back then. They were playing many more minutes on average.

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 12:28 AM

Wilt's reach is 92", please, not 101"
Indeed it startled me a bit too at first, however it is more believable than him getting 50 inches off the ground. Apparently Robert Cherry's book listed his wingspan at 7'2. The '67 show "measured" it at 7'6 with a suit. Shaq who IMO was not nearly as long and couldn't extend himself quite like Chamberlain could was measured with a span at 7'7 at the pre draft camp. Chamberlain's reach from many sources prior to 1975 (including the video) is the only thing I have found to be inconsistent. I have seen everything from 7'2 to 8'4.

On another note, Dolph Schayes has said (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-24-2005/featured_1) that Chamberlain could dead lift 625. As we know the dead lift is the proper measure of power and strength as opposed to the shoulder or bench press.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 03:08 AM

I find it fascinating that Wilt played against the likes of Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Hayes, Unseld, Lucas, Lanier, Kerr, Cowens, Russell, Kareem...and even Gilmore...and dominated them all (yes...take a look at the numbers of Wilt vs. Kareem in their 1969 game...and before Wilt was injured. Even after he was regarded as to having outplayed him.)

In his career, Chamberlain won scoring titles by the largest margins in NBA history. He won FG% titles by the largest margins in NBA history. He outrebounded EVERYBODY, and many by HUGE margins. He was the only center to lead the league in assists. In the 60's he CRUSHED even the BEST HOF centers.

He SHATTERED records, too. Before Wilt arrived, the highest scoring average was 29 ppg. After he left it was 37 ppg. In between, Wilt had a seven-year scoring spree in which he averaged nearly 40 ppg...COMBINED. He obviously has the highest scoring games, but how about some of these scoring records...SIX of the TOTAL of the TEN 70+ point games in NBA history. Or 32 games of over 60 points, which is two more than all of the rest of all of the NBA players who have ever played the game...COMBINED! He also had the HIGH game for EVERY season in the decade of the 60's...even when his shooting dropped. Scoring streaks? He had TWO 14 games streaks of 40+ points, and averaged 54 ppg in each of them. He also had a FIVE game streak of averaging 70 ppg! He scored 30+ points in 65 straight games. He had a FULL SEASON in which he never scored LESS than 26...and 109 straight games of 25+.

Before Wilt joined the NBA, the rebounding record was 23 rpg. He had SEVERAL seasons above that, and TWO above 27. He still holds virtually every major regular season rebounding record. And while he is slightly behind the great Bill Russell in post-season rebounds per game, he outrebounded him in EVERY H2H post-season series, and that includes a 41 rebound game, which is a post-season record. Speaking of Russell, who is by far and away the second highest ranked rebounder in NBA history, Wilt outrebounded him 92-42-8 in 142 H2H battles, and by FIVE per game, for the entire 142 games. He outrebounded him in 40+ rebound games by 7-1, and in 35+ rebound games by a 23-4 margin. Speaking of 40+ rebound games, Wilt has 15 of them, which is two more than the rest of all of those who have ever played in the NBA...COMBINED! Wilt never had a post-season in which he averaged less than 20 rpg, and he had post-seasons of over 30 rpg. In his last season, Chamberlain led the NBA rebounding for his 11th time, by nearly two per game (and he had a season, BTW, in which he won the rebounding title by nearly FIVE per game...against the likes of Russell, Thurmond, and Lucas.) And in Chamberlain's final post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg, at age 36. AFTER Wilt left the game, the best mark was Rodman's 18.7 rpg. In between, he DOMINATED rebounding like NO ONE else in the history of the game...and NO ONE has come close, since.

Before Wilt's rookie season, the NBA record for FG% in a season was .490. Wilt won the FG% title, NINE times (in a 14 season career...and had he not been injured in the 69-70 season, he would probably have won a tenth...all of which is second to Shaq's ten in his 18 year career.) Once again, he SHATTERED the FG% record...not once, but FIVE different times. He has the TWO highest seasons, and by a HUGE margin, and THREE of the top-five of all-time. He was shooting .683 in a league that averaged .441, and by a record differential over the next runner-up of .162 (.683 to .521.) His .727 shooting game in a league that averaged .456, and by a differential of .157 over the next guy (.570.) He was outshooting the league average by over .100 almost every season he played, and he had seasons over 200 points better than the league average. And, with all of those FG% records, no one has come close to challenging them since. Not only that, but one has to wonder what kind of marks he would have set in the decade of the 80's, when the entire NBA was averaging close to .50%. Needless to say, an educated estimate would be something along the lines of .750 to even .800! Only Shaq has more FG% titles, and in a career with four more seasons, (and once again, had Wilt not been injured in 69-70, he would have won it again.) The bottom line, Wilt SHATTERED all FG% marks that existed before he arrived...and NO ONE has come CLOSE since he retired.

There is no telling how many shots Wilt blocked in his career, but by the most educated of guesses, it was over TEN per game...once again...for his career. He is also believed to have the most blocks in a game, with at least 25, and he has another 23 that was documented. AND, by the most educated guesses, he blocked the most shots in NBA history...and maybe by a staggering margin. He was alos voted first-team all-defense in his last two seasons, and had the award existed before 1969 (he retired in 1973), he probably would have been first-team at least a couple more (although Russell would surely have won more.) And, in the 66-67 season, he held Russell to 10 ppg and a .358 FG%, and then Thurmond to 14 ppg on .343 shooting. If Russell were the greatest defensive center ever, Chamberlain most assuredly would have to be second.

Once again...he accomplished all of these MONUMENTAL records against Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Hayes, Unseld, Kerr, Lanier, Cowens, Gilmore, Russell, and Kareem. AND, using Kareem as a "bridge", we witnessed Kareem OVERWHELMING Olajuwon, and as the oldest player in the league at the time. And Hakeem was generally regarded as the best center of the 90's, and in his prime, he battled Shaq to a draw. Clearly Shaq was the best center of the 00's. And if Howard is the best today, and once again, using Kareem as the bridge...and Howard would have been no more than a middle-of-the pack centers against the MANY great centers that Wilt faced. Wilt dominated a generation of centers in the 60's that included Thurmond, who outplayed Kareem (as did an 11 year older, and way past his prime Wilt), who outplayed all the centers of the 70's, and even into the mid-80's, and who dominated an Olajuwon, who outplayed a Shaq, who was clearly the best center of the current generation. Using a LOGICAL conclusion...Wilt would be the best today, just as he was in the 60's (although no one dominated a TEAM game like Russell.)

Physically...despite the lack of video footage, the general consensus is that Wilt was the strongest, highest leaping player in NBA history. And, early in his career, at least, he may very well have been the fastest ever, too. Clearly, no other player has come close to the MANY accounts of strength or leaping that Wilt accomplished. AND, NO other player spawned more RULE changes, either....none of which had much of an effect (except the banning of the dunking of FTs...can you imagine what his FT% would have been had they allowed that?????)

After all of that (and there is so much more BTW), how can anyone else even be mentioned in the same breath...unless of course, you want to argue Russell's 11 rings...which is also a MONUMENTAL achievement that will never be equaled again.

ShaqAttack3234

04-28-2010, 03:30 AM

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 03:45 AM

On another note, Dolph Schayes has said (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-24-2005/featured_1) that Chamberlain could dead lift 625. As we know the dead lift is the proper measure of power and strength as opposed to the shoulder or bench press.

My mistake for skimming carelessly as that wasn't a Dolph quote. Unconfirmed 625 as of now. However I would believe it.

The Evening Independent - Jan 6, 1967 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TSMoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S1cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,911381&dq)

"I'd bet you $1,000 I could lift 1,000 pounds," the 76ers singular 7-1 center said. " I have hand-wrestled two men at the same time and beat them. And there's nothing I'd like to do better than play pro football."

jlauber

04-28-2010, 03:56 AM

Howard wouldn't be a middle of the pack center in the 60's. Not saying he's as good as Wilt or would be, but he's setting records right now himself, he's the most athletic center I've ever seen, he led his team to the finals at just 23 and he already has a great chance to win a title this season at 24 years old.

I wouldn't say Wilt dominated Thurmond either, atleast not in the finals. He averaged 17.7 ppg(5th on his team) on 56% shooting in the 1967 finals.

Wilt had several 30+ games against Thurmond in the mid-60's, when he was shooting more often, including a 45 point game that was recently posted here. As for not "dominating" Thurmond...he put up a 38 rebound game in one game. he outrebounded him in the series (albeit only 28.5 to 26.7), outscored him 17.5 to 14.3 and outshot him by a staggering .560 to .343 margin. And from the numbers that Julizaver posted, Wilt outrebounded Thurmond in every H2H post-season, including a 22-16 edge in his last post-season in 72-73.

Wilt was scoring 40, 50, and even 60 point games against Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, and Russell, in the mid-60's. He heavily outplayed Kareem in their first game, and before Chamberlain's injury...outscoring him 25-23, outrebounding him 25-20, and outshooting him 9-14 to 9-21. And remember, that was in a period in Wilt's career when he had dramatically cut back his shooting. Even after his injury, in the 70-71 playoffs, Wilt basically battled Kareem to a statistical draw...and in fact, after leaving the floor in the last game of that series, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

As for Howard...PLEASE...you are comparing his play against the absolute WORST class of centers in NBA HISTORY (Shaq is only a shell, and Duncan is well past his prime)...against the likes of Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Gilmore, Hayes, Unseld, Russell, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem, and Wilt, who not only faced each other, they played against each other for 6-10 games, or MORE, each season. Put Howard up against those guys on a nightly basis, and he would fare far worse.

As for the most athletic...my god, he doesn't compare to Chamberlain. Wilt was taller, bigger, much stronger, faster, could easily outjump him...and was far more skilled. When I see Howard dunking on a 12 ft rim, or touching the top of the backboard, or winning a high-jump title, or participating in the long jump, or the triple jump, or running a leg in a 4x100, or being among the fastest in the nation in the 440 or 880, or among the best shot-putters, or when he is considered an All-Pro football player, or offered a shot at the heavyweight boxing title, or be considered a world-class volleyball player, or be listed among the strongest men in the WORLD...then we can start an intelligent conversation comparing Howard (or MJ) with Wilt's athleticism.

ShaqAttack3234

04-28-2010, 04:08 AM

As for Howard...PLEASE...you are comparing his play against the absolute WORST class of centers in NBA HISTORY (Shaq is only a shell, and Duncan is well past his prime)...against the likes of Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Gilmore, Hayes, Unseld, Russell, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem, and Wilt, who not only faced each other, they played against each other for 6-10 games, or MORE, each season. Put Howard up against those guys on a nightly basis, and he would fare far worse.

Willis Reed was what? A 6'8"-6'9" jumpshooting center who was an inferior rebounder and shot blocker to Howard? Cowens also didn't have the interior game to match Howard. What exactly did Bob Lanier win? What exactly makes guys like him and Bellamy superior to Howard? Gilmore didn't do anything as the franchise player and couldn't even get to the finals with a prime George Gervin. Thurmond never averaged 22 ppg and never shot 45% in one of his 20+ ppg seasons. Howard is the superior scorer and probably as good of a rebounder, although Thurmond clearly was the better post defender.

Unseld? :roll: Howard would destroy him.

Out of those players, I'd only take Chamberlain, Jabbar and Russell over

As for the most athletic...my god, he doesn't compare to Chamberlain. Wilt was taller, bigger, much stronger, faster, could easily outjump him...and was far more skilled. When I see Howard dunking on a 12 ft rim, or touching the top of the backboard, or winning a high-jump title, or participating in the long jump, or the triple jump, or running a leg in a 4x100, or being among the fastest in the nation in the 440 or 880, or among the best shot-putters, or when he is considered an All-Pro football player, or offered a shot at the heavyweight boxing title, or be considered a world-class volleyball player, or be listed among the strongest men in the WORLD...then we can start an intelligent conversation comparing Howard (or MJ) with Wilt's athleticism.

So Howard not being interested in track makes him less athletic than Wilt? :roll: Nice logic. Did you SEE Wilt dunking on a 12 foot basket? Howard actually asked the NBA to raise the rim to 12 feet for the dunk contest in 2008. He proved in the 2007 dunk contest that he could touch 12'6" while placing a sticker with his left hand and dunking a basketball with his right so it's not that hard to imagine Dwight dunking on a 12 foot basket

jlauber

04-28-2010, 04:09 AM

My mistake for skimming carelessly as that wasn't a Dolph quote. Unconfirmed 625 as of now. However I would believe it.

The Evening Independent - Jan 6, 1967 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TSMoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S1cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2229,911381&dq)

"I'd bet you $1,000 I could lift 1,000 pounds," the 76ers singular 7-1 center said. " I have hand-wrestled two men at the same time and beat them. And there's nothing I'd like to do better than play pro football."

Abe that figure of 625 lbs was by Gary Pomerantz...who RESEARCHED much of his BOOK on Wilt's staggering 100 point game. Here again, I would tend to consider him a reliable source. But your post of Wilt doing a 375 clean-and-jerk at probably around 260 lbs was just as impressive. The SI article in 1964 with Wilt EASILY benching 400 lbs is also a strong resource. And the fact was, Wilt was MUCH stronger by the late 60's and into the early 70's (and beyond.) Cherry quotes a well-known weight lifter, who was benching over 500 lbs as claiming that Wilt was the strongest man he ever met. He did not mention Wilt's max, but the logical assumption HAS to be that Chamberlain was doing MORE than 500 lbs.

And, of course, Howard Cosell introduced Chamberlain, as probably the strongest man in the world in his Ali-Wilt interview. There have been some other sources that claim as much, too. Remember too, that the entire Steeler O-Line in the early 70's were benching 500 lbs...and I believe the heaviest player was around 270...AND, none of them were ever mentioned among the strongest in the world. Whether Wilt ACTUALLY was the strongest, or not, to be considered AMONG the strongest is all I need to know.

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 04:20 AM

Abe that figure of 625 lbs was by Gary Pomerantz...who RESEARCHED much of his BOOK on Wilt's staggering 100 point game

Very well then. I ought to pay closer attention next time. :cheers:

A fine interview with the author on ESPN a few years ago.

http://vimeo.com/7176898

jlauber

04-28-2010, 04:20 AM

Willis Reed was what? A 6'8"-6'9" jumpshooting center who was an inferior rebounder and shot blocker to Howard? Cowens also didn't have the interior game to match Howard. What exactly did Bob Lanier win? What exactly makes guys like him and Bellamy superior to Howard? Gilmore didn't do anything as the franchise player and couldn't even get to the finals with a prime George Gervin. Thurmond never averaged 22 ppg and never shot 45% in one of his 20+ ppg seasons. Howard is the superior scorer and probably as good of a rebounder, although Thurmond clearly was the better post defender.

Unseld? :roll: Howard would destroy him.

Out of those players, I'd only take Chamberlain, Jabbar and Russell over

So Howard not being interested in track makes him less athletic than Wilt? :roll: Nice logic. Did you SEE Wilt dunking on a 12 foot basket? Howard actually asked the NBA to raise the rim to 12 feet for the dunk contest in 2008. He proved in the 2007 dunk contest that he could touch 12'6" while placing a sticker with his left hand and dunking a basketball with his right so it's not that hard to imagine Dwight dunking on a 12 foot basket

Most all of those centers I mentioned were FAR more skilled than Howard. True, aside from Thurmond Russell, and Wilt, none were as athletic...but they could all score from 20 ft. As for Unseld...you are badly mistaken. MAYBE Howard would slightly outplay him...I don't know, but Unseld was not only skilled, he had TREE-TRUNKS for legs, and probably weighed 250 in his prime...all at 6-7. Even Shaq would have a hard time moving that guy...and Howard would not budge him.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/unseld_summary.html

"As a player, Wes Unseld seemed to have been chiseled from a block of granite, with a stoic demeanor and an iron resolve to win. A 6-7 bull of a center, he forged his reputation on relentless rebounding, bone-jarring picks, and laser-beam outlet passes. He did all the unspectacular things that led to glamorous victories. He was the league's MVP and Rookie of the Year in 1968-69 and a five-time NBA All-Star who captained the Baltimore and Washington Bullets to four NBA Finals appearances in the 1970s and to a championship in 1977-78. "

Once again, though, COMPARE THEIR COMPETITION to what Howard has played against. Most all of those I listed are in the HOF (only Gilmore is not...and he SHOULD be)...while Howard has played against a shell Shaq, and an over-the-hill Duncan...and basically little else. I wonder just how many HOF centers Howard will have played against by the time he retires? At this point...and accounting for the fact that Shaq and Duncan are nowhere near their primes...he has probably played against...ZERO. He does have a ways to go, of course, but IMHO, IF he ever does face a true HOFer, he will probably be getting crushed by him.

ShaqAttack3234

04-28-2010, 04:29 AM

Most all of those centers I mentioned were FAR more skilled than Howard. True, aside from Thurmond Russell, and Wilt, none were as athletic...but they could all score from 20 ft. As for Unseld...you are badly mistaken. MAYBE Howard would slightly outplay him...I don't know, but Unseld was not only skilled, he had TREE-TRUNKS for legs, and probably weighed 250 in his prime...all at 6-7. Even Shaq would have a hard time moving that guy...and Howard would not budge him.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/unseld_summary.html

"As a player, Wes Unseld seemed to have been chiseled from a block of granite, with a stoic demeanor and an iron resolve to win. A 6-7 bull of a center, he forged his reputation on relentless rebounding, bone-jarring picks, and laser-beam outlet passes. He did all the unspectacular things that led to glamorous victories. He was the league's MVP and Rookie of the Year in 1968-69 and a five-time NBA All-Star who captained the Baltimore and Washington Bullets to four NBA Finals appearances in the 1970s and to a championship in 1977-78. "

Once again, though, COMPARE THEIR COMPETITION to what Howard has played against. Most all of those I listed are in the HOF (only Gilmore is not...and he SHOULD be)...while Howard has played against a shell Shaq, and an over-the-hill Duncan...and basically little else. I wonder just how many HOF centers Howard will have played against by the time he retires? At this point...and accounting for the fact that Shaq and Duncan are nowhere near their primes...he has probably played against...ZERO. He does have a ways to go, of course, but IMHO, IF he ever does face a true HOFer, he will probably be getting crushed by him.

Yeah, Unseld was so skilled that he averaged 10.8 ppg for his career and never averaged 1 block in any season. Howard weighs what 275? 280? So how does Unseld weighing 250 mean anything? I don't care if centers can score outside. Howard gets the job done in the paint which is what I prefer in a center.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 04:40 AM

Did you SEE Wilt dunking on a 12 foot basket?

Nope. Nor did I see him win the Big-7 High-Jump championship; nor long jump nearly 23 ft. (when the world record was around 25); nor his 100 pt game, nor his 55 rebound game; nor his 50-35 game against Russell, ...

nor did I see Bob Beamon long jump 29'2" in 1968, which is still only TWO-INCHES shorter than the world record; nor did I see Bob Hayes run a 9.1 100 yd dash or his 10.0 100 meters, which are STILL faster than any other NFL player who has ever played; nor did I see any of Mantle's tape-measure HRs (some of which were actually measured) MANY of which were over 500 ft (some are even listed at over 600 ft...while Barry Bonds longest HR was "only" 490 ft; nor did I see Bo Jackson run a 4.12 40 at the NFL combine;...

and back to Wilt...nor did I see his 500+ bench press; nor his dunking a FT with only a three-step start; nor did I see Wilt touch the top of the backboard; ...

YET, there are those that did witness all of that...and there are MANY sources on the internet that claim as much.

One more time, just because we don't have VIDEO FOOTAGE, does NOT mean it did not occur. Using your logic, there should never have ever been a conviction in a crime that did not have video footage...nor should we believe ANYTHING in all of the HISTORY books in the libraries of the world.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 04:44 AM

Yeah, Unseld was so skilled that he averaged 10.8 ppg for his career and never averaged 1 block in any season. Howard weighs what 275? 280? So how does Unseld weighing 250 mean anything? I don't care if centers can score outside. Howard gets the job done in the paint which is what I prefer in a center.

The question is, though...would he have gotten the job done against the slew of HOF centers that played in the 60's and 70's...instead of the many clowns masquerading as centers in today's NBA?

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 04:44 AM

Another fine piece on Fox Sports, couple of rare clips from the '67/'68 season I have never seen, notably at the 1:39 mark & 3:58 mark.

http://vimeo.com/7176964

ShaqAttack3234

04-28-2010, 05:06 AM

Nope. Nor did I see him win the Big-7 High-Jump championship; nor long jump nearly 23 ft. (when the world record was around 25); nor his 100 pt game, nor his 55 rebound game; nor his 50-35 game against Russell, ...

nor did I see Bob Beamon long jump 29'2" in 1968, which is still only TWO-INCHES shorter than the world record; nor did I see Bob Hayes run a 9.1 100 yd dash or his 10.0 100 meters, which are STILL faster than any other NFL player who has ever played; nor did I see any of Mantle's tape-measure HRs (some of which were actually measured) MANY of which were over 500 ft (some are even listed at over 600 ft...while Barry Bonds longest HR was "only" 490 ft; nor did I see Bo Jackson run a 4.12 40 at the NFL combine;...

and back to Wilt...nor did I see his 500+ bench press; nor his dunking a FT with only a three-step start; nor did I see Wilt touch the top of the backboard; ...

YET, there are those that did witness all of that...and there are MANY sources on the internet that claim as much.

One more time, just because we don't have VIDEO FOOTAGE, does NOT mean it did not occur. Using your logic, there should never have ever been a conviction in a crime that did not have video footage...nor should we believe ANYTHING in all of the HISTORY books in the libraries of the world.

Nobody actually witnessed Wilt dunking on a 12 foot basket, or atleast if they did, you didn't provide an actual witness for that. And why would you need to see Howard dunking on one if you didn't see Wilt? We did see Howard touching 12'6" and that almost certainly wasn't the highest he could touch considering he was multitasking while doing it. I'm not saying he could definitely dunk on a 12 foot basket, but if he couldn't, then why would he ask the league to put one up for the dunk contest?

And comparing myths like dunking on a 12 foot basket, bench pressing 550 at Kansas, having a 48" vertical, touching the top of the backboard is hardly comparable to the officially documented records you cited in this post.

And the question is, would these guys claiming to see Wilt touch the top of the backboard actually claim that if they were under oath in a court of law? It's harmless to exaggerate and make up stories like these, but if they had to tell the truth, I'd bet a lot would retract some of their statements.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 05:19 AM

Another fine piece on Fox Sports, couple of rare clips from the '67/'68 season I have never seen, notably at the 1:39 mark & 3:58 mark.

http://vimeo.com/7176964

I love watching clips of Chamberlain, and even Russell, and comparing them to guys like Bynum. I am a Laker fan, but if Bynum is considered among the better centers in today's NBA, what has the league become? I marvel at Wilt effortlessly skying 12+ feet to block shots, even at age 36, while a young, prime Bynum struggles to dunk the ball, and has virtually no offensive game from beyond five feet.

Don't get me wrong, there are many outstanding players in the NBA today (not a lot of GREAT one's, though)...obviously Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and then the next level like Durant and Anthony. There is also the truly skilled big men like Gasol and Nowitzki. And of course, Shaq and Duncan a few years ago were among the best ever. But, the NBA center position has become a joke. Wilt was often labeled as playing against 6-6 centers (he NEVER faced ONE BTW...and 6-7 Unseld was a HOFer), while in today's NBA we have 6-7 Ben Wallace and 6-6 Chuck Hayes. Go up and down the rosters of the NBA...where are even "average" NBA centers? I mean centers that would compare with even the weak class that existed a few years ago (Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem, Duncan, Ewing, Mourning...out of a league of 29 teams.)

I remember the late 80's and early 90's which had the tallest centers in NBA history...and horribly WEAK rebounders at the center position. Now we have less athletic, smaller, and much less skilled centers. I also remember all the hype surrounding Greg Oden. He was supposedly one of the most heavily-recruited high school centers in history...all from a player who averaged something like a 15-10 CAREER. My god, Wilt and Kareem probably never had a game that BAD in their high school careers. Kareem would probably still be a better player, RIGHT NOW...and Wilt, in his 50's, was in better shape, and would have abused Oden.

Makes you wonder what the NBA will be like in a few years...maybe 3 forwards and two guards, or the other way around. The next generation of kids will be asking us...what was a center? And what happened to them?

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 05:22 AM

under oath in a court of law?

Not necessarily "proof".

Prescott Evening Courier - Dec 13, 1955 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JOoKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BVADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6097,1789541&dq)

'In his colorful and highly successful coaching career at the University of Kansas, Dr. Phog Allen has come up with many radical proposals intended to improve the game of basketball. The one recommendation that readily comes to mind is the suggestion that the baskets be raised from 12 to 15 feet from the floor to overcome the edge enjoyed by exceptionally tall players. At the moment, however Coach Allen isn't pressing that point too vigorously.

If Coach Allen did wish to present a clinching argument in favor of raising the baskets he would only have to look at his freshman squad and put the finger on one Wilton Chamberlain. Wilt the Stilt, as Chamberlain has been called, is a 7-foot-plus growing boy. He has no trouble at all "dunking" the ball into the 12-foot baskets and might even come close to doing the same at the 15-foot height. Many coaches call Chamberlain the greatest basketball player in the country - right now and at this stage of his development.'

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 05:26 AM

My god, Wilt and Kareem probably never had a game that BAD in their high school careers.

Indeed Chamberlain & Jabbar as 18 year olds would be amongst the very top of the NBA today. Undoubtedly two of the great high school prospects in basketball history.

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 05:32 AM

jlauber

04-28-2010, 05:48 AM

Nobody actually witnessed Wilt dunking on a 12 foot basket, or atleast if they did, you didn't provide an actual witness for that. And why would you need to see Howard dunking on one if you didn't see Wilt? We did see Howard touching 12'6" and that almost certainly wasn't the highest he could touch considering he was multitasking while doing it. I'm not saying he could definitely dunk on a 12 foot basket, but if he couldn't, then why would he ask the league to put one up for the dunk contest?

And comparing myths like dunking on a 12 foot basket, bench pressing 550 at Kansas, having a 48" vertical, touching the top of the backboard is hardly comparable to the officially documented records you cited in this post.

And the question is, would these guys claiming to see Wilt touch the top of the backboard actually claim that if they were under oath in a court of law? It's harmless to exaggerate and make up stories like these, but if they had to tell the truth, I'd bet a lot would retract some of their statements.

Yep...ALL of the MANY links that are plastered across the internet...ALL are myths. Of course, you have to also ask yourself...why would so many of those that played with or against Wilt...why would they bother to fabricate these stories? And why is it that virtually no one DISPUTES them? And remember, there were those that disliked Chamberlain. Don't you think that at least SOMEONE would come forth and say something along the lines, of say, "I worked out with Wilt, and all he could max was 350 lbs?" Or "I watched a jumping contest between Wilt and "x" and "x" outjumped him?" Or at the very least, you would think that someone would have witnessed Wilt attempting to touch the top of the backboard, and coming up short?

And just like ALL of the MANY STAGGERING RECORDS that Wilt holds...how come it was ONLY Wilt that was accomplishing these amazing physical feats. Why was Wilt considered by at least some very well respected members of the media and sports world, among the strongest men in the world (and some even said he might have been the strongest?)

I mean...there are so MANY EXTRAORDINARY stories...

like Larry Brown witnessing Chamberlain dominating a game that featured Magic Johnson...and he was in his mid-40's at the time. Or Chamberlain dislocating 6-6 235 lb Gus Johnson's shoulder on a dunk attempt. Or Wilt not only blocking a dunk, at the rim, by Walt Bellamy, but the force knocked Bellamy past the foul line. Or Wilt breaking up a melee, and picking up 220 lb men like a man picking up babies by their diapers. Or Wilt nearly dunking the ball AND 6-5 225 lb. Jon McGlocklin along with it, and not even being aware of it. Or Wilt easily tapping down a ball stuck up high in a guide-wire, and at age 37, and in a suit-and-tie...that no one else on the Conquistadors could reach, including 6-11 "Jumpin" Caldwell Jones. Or the force of a Wilt dunk causing the ball to bounce over a 15 ft fence and roll well down the street. Or a Wilt dunk breaking the toe of Johnny Kerr, who has been quoted on record as substantiating the fact. Or 6-11 250 lb. Bob Lanier stating that Wilt "picked me up and moved my like a cup of coffee." Or in Cherry's book, Cherry quotes a long time acquaintence of Wilt saying that "Wilt curled 110 lb, dumb-bells like you-or-I picked up a telephone." Or a world-class volleyball player stating that Wilt picked up a 240 lb man and easily threw him over a volleyball net.

Those are just a few "myths"...many of them first-hand accounts...that are littered all over the media and internet.

But, the real question is...WHY? Why would so MANY go out of there way to fabricate all of these "myths?" And why ONLY Wilt? Why do we not read amazing physical accomplishments of Kareem or Russell (although he WAS a world-class high-jumper)? Where are all the stories of Kareem picking up 600 lbs, or benching 500 lbs, or touching the top of the backboard? He was certainly among the greatest basketball players ever...but NOTHING close to Wilt in terms of physical feats. WHY?

jlauber

04-28-2010, 05:58 AM

Not necessarily "proof".

Prescott Evening Courier - Dec 13, 1955 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JOoKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BVADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6097,1789541&dq)

'In his colorful and highly successful coaching career at the University of Kansas, Dr. Phog Allen has come up with many radical proposals intended to improve the game of basketball. The one recommendation that readily comes to mind is the suggestion that the baskets be raised from 12 to 15 feet from the floor to overcome the edge enjoyed by exceptionally tall players. At the moment, however Coach Allen isn't pressing that point too vigorously.

If Coach Allen did wish to present a clinching argument in favor of raising the baskets he would only have to look at his freshman squad and put the finger on one Wilton Chamberlain. Wilt the Stilt, as Chamberlain has been called, is a 7-foot-plus growing boy. He has no trouble at all "dunking" the ball into the 12-foot baskets and might even come close to doing the same at the 15-foot height. Many coaches call Chamberlain the greatest basketball player in the country - right now and at this stage of his development.'

Abe...

You are amazing! I never thought I would ever encounter anyone that could rival my research on Chamberlain, but I tip my cap to you, as well Julizaver, Psileas, and several other's here.

:cheers:

In any case, WHY would anyone just WASTE their time coming up with all these "myths" if there was nothing behind them? If someone came out tomorrow, and said that Kevin Garnett was the most powerful man in the NBA, don't you think there would be some, if not MANY, that would contest that? YET, virtually no one DISPUTES the MANY "myths" that exist about Chamberlain.

Fatal9

04-28-2010, 06:04 AM

jlauber

04-28-2010, 06:15 AM

Not too many could contest a play as seen at the 2:22 mark. Might he have slammed the ball down if not for fear of breaking Russell's hand, anticipating the shot block attempt?

http://vimeo.com/7176964

This has been posted before, but it is worth a repeat showing. Take a look at the 2:04 mark...and in slow motion. Wilt's hand has to be at least 12 ft up on tghat block. And remember, he was 34 at the time, and a year removed from major knee surgery. Not only that, but it is a straight up leap...not a running start...and it is EFFORTLESS.

And look at the outlet pass at the 3:10 mark

And the no look-behind-the pass at the 4:30 mark

And look at the slow motion footage of a play at the 6:00 mark

All of that in just an AVERAGE game for Wilt...and certainly not even close to the MANY MONUMENTAL games that are NOT available.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 06:39 AM

some of these are the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on here.

Walt Bellamy as a 22 year old rookie averaged 32/19 in his first season in '62 and never put up the same numbers again in his career. When the pace slowed down in the late 60s and early 70s, he never even averaged as much as 20 ppg or 15 rpg again, even though he was at an age where most centers enjoy their prime. You gotta wonder how many great centers are great because of the stats they had the opportunity to put up in an era with wild statistical anomalies. Their stats jump out because of the era, but had they come along even 10 years later and put up 20/10 instead of 30/20...are they really the HOF caliber centers that they are remembered as? And say what you want about the current state of centers but Wilt wouldn't have the same edge physically today he had against the center crop in his scoring seasons from '60-'65. Picture someone like Tyson Chandler getting to run the floor, grab rebounds over less athletic forwards/centers than today....can you say multiple 20/20 seasons at least? Maybe even a HOFer because of the statistical inflation?

And I'm sorry, did you really just say Wilt had a greater touch from 10 feet out than Kareem? Wilt is one of the worst FT shooters in history, pretty odd for a man with such a nice touch out from 15 feet no? Wilt hasn't come CLOSE to having 30+ppg seasons at the efficiency of Kareem. We don't have that much footage of Kareem from the 70s either. Only 4 or 5 games from his first 8 seasons, but even with a small sample size, his offensive arsenal appears clearly superior to not only Wilt's, but probably any center who has ever played. He had turnaround jumpshots, the skyhook from anywhere inside 15 feet, the spin moves, the floaters etc. And yet a guy who seemingly got tons of points off offensive rebounds and transition, while barely being able to make FTs, could never manage to put up a better FG% than Kareem when asked to score from the post (and keep in mind Kareem almost exclusively relied on finesse moves) has a better touch from 10/15 feet out? Laughable.

I don't know what your logic is in pointing to his FG%. The fact is Wilt's TS% in his scoring seasons makes him the most inefficient center out of the entire group of the greatest scoring centers (Shaq, Kareem and even perimeter oriented ones like Olajuwon, Robinson and Ewing). Wilt needed more possessions per point than ALL of them to score 30+ ppg. Anyone can lead the league in FG% if all their role on offense is to be a finisher. Hell Eddy Curry was led the league in FG% multiple times, so is he a great efficient post scorer too? I don't know what league wide FG% has anything to do with anything as much as it does with the league being more offensively challenged and the perimeter guys having horrible shot selection (watch 5 minutes of a 60s game and you'll see perimeter players running up the court as fast as possible to take the first bad shot available). Kareem came less than a decade later and had no trouble putting up some of the most efficient scoring seasons in history, while the league wide FG% rose only about 2-3% from early 60s.

:oldlol: at Gus Johnson touching the top of the back board. At 6'6 he would need a near 60 inch vertical to perform that feat, but let me guess, we have eye witnesses from the 60s of him doing that? Same with David Thompson, we have eye witnesses of him jumping 70 inches to grab quarters of the top of the backboard. This sounds very believable and logical :oldlol:. And I absolutely cracked up at the claim that Wilt has a vertical as good or better than Jordan's...how far up his ass do you have to be to believe something like that?

What happened to this superior Kareem in the mid-70's? Suddenly shooting .513 from the field (of course, he was barely at 45% against Wilt in their career H2H's...and Wilt was WAY past his prime.) Wilt was putting up 60 point games in his season's in which he was shooting .600 from the field. At his PEAK, from the mid-60's on, Wilt was routinely putting up HUGE games on STAGGERING shooting (15-15, 16-16, 18-18, even 29-35 in his 66 point game.)

Wilt shot .520 in the early half of his career, taking MANY shots from 15 ft. While that FG% may be less than Kareem, in his best scoring seasons, it was still as good, or better than David Robinson or Tim Duncan, in their best seasons. But, once again, Kareem dropped off pretty dramatically in the 70's. Not only that, but Wilt's BEST FG% seasons DWARF Kareem' and Shaq's. And when comparing against the LEAGUE AVERAGE, he was WAY ahead of Shaq or Kareem. Had Wilt had the luxury of playing in the 80's, and in his prime, and using the LEAGUE AVERAGE (since some of you use PACE against Wilt), he would probably have SCORED MORE, on LESS shots, simply because he would be shooting .750 or higher. Take his 33.5 ppg season in which he shot .540, in a league that shot .433, and put him in the mid-80's, in a league that shot .490...and what he he have shot? At LEAST .600! And what would his 24.1 ppg season in 66-67 with a FG% of .683, in a league that shot .441, have been like in 1984-85? 30 ppg on .750-.800 shooting???

Regarding your claim that the offense was worse in the 60's ...ok...then the offense in the 00's has also been worse than the 80's, Using YOUR logic, the only great offensive players played in the 80's. And your ridiculous assertion that Kareem was more efficient in the 80's. Take Kareem's BEST scoring season in the 80's, 80-81. He averaged 26.2 ppg on .574 shooting, in a league that shot .486. How does that COME CLOSE to Wilt averaging 24.1 ppg, on .683 shooting, in a league that shot .441??????

Wilt had 15 ft jump shot range, 15 ft bank shot range, 10-12 ft hook shot range...along with a wide variety of turn-around jump shots, and finger rolls. AND he DOMINATED the opposing centers of the 60's, like Thurmond, whom he even outscored 45-13 in one game, and grabbed 38 rebounds in another. Both Wilt and Thurmond, at the very least, played Kareem to statistical draws in their H2H playoff series...and as I pointed out, in the one game that Wilt faced Kareem, in 1969, and before his injury, he statistically outplayed him by a good margin (outscoring him, outrebounding him, outblocking him, and crushing him in shooting.) . While Kareem was not yet in his prime, at the time, Wilt was past his, and had significantly reduced his offense even then.

In any case...Wilt was CAPABLE of a 60 point game, even past his prime. And no one came close to his EFFICIENCY in many of those 60+ point games, either. Let's see anyone post a better 60+ game than Wilt's 66 point game, in a season in which he was averaging 18 ppg at the time, and past his prime...and on 29-35 shooting.

Regarding Wilt's 40 shots per game in 61-62...and of course, NO ONE else came close after that...how about Kareem against Wilt in the early 70s. He had MANY games of over 30 shots, and (games with over 20 misses BTW.) Clearly Kareem COULD have shot more, just as Shaq COULD have. Of course, who knows how much less their FG% would have been though.

Regarding Jordan or Howard's athleticism vs Wilt...I have covered that 100 times here...NEITHER COULD COME CLOSE.

Fatal9

04-28-2010, 06:41 AM

Not too many could contest a play as seen at the 2:22 mark. Might he have slammed the ball down if not for fear of breaking Russell's hand, anticipating the shot block attempt?

http://vimeo.com/7176964
at 3:13...I wonder how many points Wilt scored that way in the early 60s...just catching lobs over stiffs on every inbound play under the basket. that was amazingly pathetic. I can see why Simmons after watching a full game of Wilt's from 1962 wrote this:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2dmcgnn.jpg

Fatal9

04-28-2010, 06:48 AM

And what would his 24.1 ppg season in 66-67 with a FG% of .683, in a league that shot .441, have been like in 1984-85? 30 ppg on .750-.800 shooting???
:roll:

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 07:06 AM

julizaver

04-28-2010, 07:25 AM

It was a clip from Kansas. One can see player #33 in the lower right corner. No player wore that number for the Philadelphia Warriors, San Francisco Warriors, or Philadelphia 76ers during Chamberlain's NBA career. Bill Simmons has proven to be liar in his book, as he intentionally lists Billy Cunningham's rookie season to be 1967, in a sad attempt to portray the #1 team in NBA history as an overrated bunch.

OK, that info can prove two things - if true there is Wilt games recorded in early 60's (as I point several times here) - if not Bill Simmons is a liar.

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 09:21 AM

OK, that info can prove two things - if true there is Wilt games recorded in early 60's (as I point several times here) - if not Bill Simmons is a liar.
Indeed I do believe that there are Warriors games recorded from those years. What I doubt is that Simmons has actually seen this 78 point game (or others).

Abraham Lincoln

04-28-2010, 09:22 AM

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

The Lakers featuring Jerry West as well as Elgin at his best take on what was perhaps the most talented Celtics team of that era on paper. Note the visible difference in Bill Russell during his peak years as opposed to the single half footage we have available from '67 or '69. He has effectively shut the basket down.

alexandreben

04-28-2010, 09:23 AM

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Like I said, even if Baylor's season counts, there's still a 12 pts margin compare with Wilt's 50 pgg. You see the point?

It's much easier to find Shaq's footage than Wilt's, one day, we'll see more vid

alexandreben

04-28-2010, 10:07 AM

Regarding to the issue of "Wilt touches top of the backboard", I got a question, do you think who can jump higher? check out the vid

jlauber

04-28-2010, 11:32 AM

I am constantly amazed at the EXCUSES that SOME use to diminish what Wilt accomplished, including his physical feats.

Wilt was "inefficient" when he scored 40 ppg during his first seven SEASONS, because he shot .520 or so. He also benefitted from "pace." He had NO competition. He played against 6-6 centers. Same with his rebounding. Pace, competition, the "poor offense" of the era...ect., ect. Those eye-popping FG% seasons? All because he could no longer score, and when he did, it was strictly on point blank dunks with no defender around. Blocked shots. Well, here again, look at who Wilt played against...nothing but 6-6 white uncoordinated, skinny, nerds who couldn't tie their shoes.

Yep, you could transport someone as mediocre as Tyson Chandler back to the 60's and he would be a 20-20 guy. This from the same poster who believes that Kareem, would dominate in TODAY's game. The same poster that gave us Kareem's numbers against Olajuwon. Makes perfect sense to me. Kareem couldn't shoot 45% against Wilt, who was WAY past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, but he would dominate today...YET, a stiff from today's era, of which the majority of centers playing today are...would easily be a 20-20 player back in the 60's.

Those are pretty much the same arguments I have heard for so MANY other great athletes of the 60's and 70's. Put OJ, who was a world-class sprinter in the 60's...into the 00's, and he would be too slow. Bob Hayes? Might be able to outrun the water boy, but that is about it. You can carry those arguments into the 80's, then, as well. Deion Sanders, Bo Jackson, Hershel Walker, Darrell Green...put them in TODAY's NFL, and they would be over-run by the offensive linemen of today. In fact, using that logic, and little Barry Sanders, who played over 10 years ago would be nothing more than a third-down back today. In baseball, those 550 ft. HRs that Mantle was hitting back then would nothing more than pop-outs to second base today. Reggie Jackson's All-Star game HR? That was physically impossible. Why? Because Barry Bonds never hit a ball that far. Nolan Ryan throwing 101 MPH in the eighth inning of a game after 162 pitches...physically impossible. And doing it for 27 years. No way? Once again, physically impossible. Why? Because today's top pitchers can only throw 6 innings every 5-6 days, and then, they blow out their arms after five seasons. Just no way Ryan could be throwing 98 MPH at age 46. Pure "myths."

Wilt, a 7-1 champion high-jumper, as well as an elite long-jumper...dunking on a 12 ft rim that mysteriously surfaced during his stay at Kansas? Or dunking from the FT line...and then the NBA banning that practice? Physically impossible, but the NBA decided to waste the time to create the rule anyway...and yet, there is no rule against the dunking of a 3pt attempt.

Oh, and when Kareem's FG% drops down to as low as .513 in the PRIME of his career, there is no mention as to why. And, of course, Kareem (and Shaq), in their most efficient seasons, never come CLOSE to Wilt's .727, or even his .683, or even his .649 seasons...AND with TWO of those occurring during the SAME TIME that Kareem played...I guess that eliminates Wilt's "competition" from that equation. Kareem's best FG% season was in a year in which he averaged 23 ppg. Shaq's best FG% season occurred in a season that he averaged 18 ppg. Meanwhile, Wilt's SECOND best season was in a year in which he averaged 24 ppg...and was LIGHT YEARS ahead of either of Kareem's or Shaq's.

And of course, PACE is used against Wilt, but not LEAGUE AVERAGE. Kareem gets credit for having his best "efficiency" seasons in the 80's, which was true...but they also occurred in an era of nearly 50% league-wide shooting. In fact, Kareem only led the NBA in shooting, ONE time. AND, he only led the league in scoring TWO times. Meanwhile, in Wilt's best seasons in terms of efficiency, he was TWO HUNDRED-PLUS points ahead of the league average in FG%. And he led the NBA in FG% NINE times, including his last two seasons that he played AGAINST Kareem. He also led the NBA in scoring SEVEN times...and in most of them, NO ONE else was even CLOSE.

Rebounding. Here again...PACE, right. Forget the WELL-KNOWN FACT that Wilt outrebounded EVERYBODY...including Kareem (and at well past his prime!) For those who claim Rodman was the greatest ever, they fail to acknowledge that Wilt won ELEVEN rebound titles to his seven. They fail to accept the fact that he did so against the greatest rebounding centers in NBA history. They also fail to mention the FACT that Rodman was nothing more than ORDINARY in the post-season, while Wilt put up STAGGERING numbers in post-season that completely BLOW AWAY the PACE theory. While Rodman couldn't averaged double-digit rebounds in the post-season, Chamberlain had a post-season average of TWO-AND-HALF TIMES as high. Sorry, but the pace of play was NOT 2 1/2 times more in the 60's and 70's than it was in the Rodman era. In fact Wilt had post seasons of 30 rpg!

Blocked shots. All you need to know is that Wilt probably averaged FIVE blocks PER GAME against Kareem, ALONE. Wilt was routinely blocking over 10 shots per gamed, on AVERAGE, and had games in the 20's. Take his DOCUMENTED 23 block game in the late 60's for instance...sorry, but the PACE of play would have reduced that game to something like 17 in today's game. AND, if he did indeed average 10+ blocks per game, as estimated by Pollack, in his CAREER, he probably had SEASONS way over that. Maybe 12 or more per game. PACE? Ok, then Wilt "only" blocks 7-8 shots per game today.

As for Wilt's "competition...Wilt CRUSHED the likes of Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier, Lucas, Kerr, and at least statistically dominated Russell (who was and is still almost universally considered the greatest defensive player of all-time.) AND, in his only game between himself and Kareem, palyed before his injury, he heavily outplayed Kareem (outscored him, outrebounded him, outblocked him, and torched him in shooting.) Even post-surgery, in the 70-71 playoffs he basically battled Kareem to a statistical draw. And, once again, don't forget Thurmond in this "competition" who not only outscored Kareem in their H2H post-season battles, but held him to barely over 40% shooting. The SAME Thurmond that a PRIME Wilt POUNDED in the mid-60's and who heavily outplayed him into even the 70's.

Not only that, but this ridiculous "6-6" center nonsense must be put to rest. The AVERAGE starting center in Wilt's 61-62 season was 6-10. By 1970 it was 6-11. How about in 2010...7-0. TWO INCHES. And Wilt played against numerous seven-footers, including 7-3 Swede Holbrook...AND he outplayed or dominated Kareem (and even 7-2 Gilmore in their limited H2H battle.) The FACT was, AND ONE MORE TIME...Wilt played against Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Kerr, Lovellette, Thurmond, Lanier, Lucas, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, Russell, and Kareem, and he outplayed or DOMINATED them all...and ALL are in the HOF (as well as Gilmore...who should be)!!!!! Once again, how may HOFers will Howard have faced when he retires? A washed up Shaq (who is, sadly, still among the best in the game), and a Duncan who is well past his prime. And I don't see any other HOF candidate centers on the near horizon, either.

Could Wilt get 30 shots in today's game? Well, since he was the ONLY player, playing FULLTIME in his era, that even got 30, and given the fact that there was only ONE other center, before Kareem, who even got 20 (Bellamy), why would he NOT be able to get 30+ today. Clearly, he could start his offense from 15 ft, he was quicker than even Olajuwon, he was able to OUTJUMP ANYONE else in his era, and probably EVER, and was probably the strongest player who ever played the game...well, 30 shots would not be a reach at all. Once again, Kareem, himself probably averaged close to 30 shots per game against Wilt (many of them misses or blocked BTW), and Olajuwon was able to average nearly 30 shots per game against O'Neal in their championship series, alone (three of out of four games with 30 shots), ...and even Shaq himself had post-season games of 30+...so there is simply no reason that Wilt would not have easily gotten 30 per game today...or at the very least, in the MJ era. And given the fact that he would not be facing a HOF center on a nightly basis (in fact, very rarely), who knows how many points per game he would have scored.

In any case, Wilt was probably taller than the average center today (I really believe he was over 7-2 BTW), bigger, MUCH stronger, able to leap MUCH higher, was faster, and was far more skilled. If Jordan was able to average 37 ppg in '87, and if Rodman was able to to average 18.7 rpg in '92, and if Eaton was able to average 5.6 bpg in '85, and if Shaq was able to shoot .599 in '00 (and Howard with his LIMITED skills at .612 in 2010), then Wilt would be SURPASSING them all. Why? Because he did ALL of that, and WAY more when ACTUALLY played. Yes, he WAS that great.

lolSmileyFace

04-28-2010, 11:33 AM

Coast to coast in five dribbles. He stopped his dribble at what, 28 feet?

yah i know right

jlauber

04-28-2010, 11:35 AM

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Regarding to the issue of "Wilt touches top of the backboard", I got a question, do you think who can jump higher? check out the vid

alexandreben

04-28-2010, 12:16 PM

Chamberlain...EASILY! Sampson had very SHORT arms...and he was NOWHERE near the athlete that Wilt was. Wilt, in his FINAL season, and at age 36 was jumping much higher. Hell, Wilt easily outjumped Gilmore, AND Kareem, and both of them have photos with their heads at rim level. One can only wonder Wilt was CAPABLE of in the mid-60's, and in his PRIME. As it was, he was he was EFFORTLESSLY blocking shots at 12 feet.

That's exactly my point, we don't have footage to proof that Wilt can touch the top of the backboard, but with some other players photo or footage (e.g. Sampson), we can assume how high can Wilt touch with his long arms.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 12:31 PM

That's exactly my point, we don't have footage to proof that Wilt can touch the top of the backboard, but with some other players photo or footage (e.g. Sampson), we can assume how high can Wilt touch with his long arms.

Not sure what constitutes "proof." We do have some RESPECTED EYE-WITNESS accounts. We also have some pretty interesting "circumstantial evidence." We even have a RESPECTED EYE-WITNESS account that gave Wilt a MINIMUM vertical of at LEAST 42".

One, we KNOW that Wilt was at LEAST 7-1 (I suspect 7-2 or taller), with a KNOWN wing-span of at least 92", and a standing reach of 9' 6".

We also KNOW that Chamberlain was a HIGH-JUMP champ, and an elite long-jumper (and triple-jumper as well)...and those were achieved part-time and with relatively poor technique.

We KNOW that Wilt routinely blocked 7-2 (or taller...I suspect 7-3) Kareem's unblockable "sky-hook." We KNOW that Wilt routinely OUTJUMPED Kareem, and even 7-2 Artis Gilmore (who most definitely appeared shorter than Wilt BTW)...both of whom have photos with their heads at rim level. And, of course, Wilt outjumped those guys at age 36, and on a surgically repaired knee, and at 300 lbs. What would have a PRIME Wilt, at say around 28, and at 275 lbs, on two healthy knees, have done? Or, carrying that even further...how about a 22 year-old Wilt, and at around 250 lbs? And how about the fact that Wilty routinely outjumped 6-10 Bill Russell, who himself, was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper. Interesting too, that Russell was one-inch shorter than Dwight Howard, and probably a significantly better leaper.

It is also interesting that a 12 ft. rim surfaced at Wilt's college, while he was playing there...and even articles claiming that he dunked on it as far back as 1955. We also have the NBA banning the dunking of FTs, at the same time Wilt was reportedly doing just that.

Finally, we have internet links that claim Wilt with vertical leaps of over 50"...and Wilt himself stated that he was at 48". We also do not have ANY LEGITIMATE eye-witness account that has EVER DISPUTED those claims. Clearly, having played against HUNDREDS of NBA players, and having been covered by perhaps HUNDREDS in the media, and having HUNDREDS of acquaintences...well, why do we not have ONE that DISPUTED those claims?

G.O.A.T

04-28-2010, 12:46 PM

^ You got to give this argument up, at least with theses parties.

No sense in trying to change the minds of those who do not want to change.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 12:56 PM

at 3:13...I wonder how many points Wilt scored that way in the early 60s...just catching lobs over stiffs on every inbound play under the basket. that was amazingly pathetic. I can see why Simmons after watching a full game of Wilt's from 1962 wrote this:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2dmcgnn.jpg

Interesting that Simmons does not mention Wilt's 50-35 playoff game AGAINST his own GOAT, Bill Russell. Or the 62 point game by Wilt, on 27-45 shooting, against Russell. Or the 17 career 40-30 games that Wilt posted against Russell (and FOUR of them came in the post-season.) Or the 34 30-30 games that Wilt hung on Russell. Or the FIVE 50+ point games that Wilt put up against Russell. Or the 24 40 point games that Wilt slapped on Russell. Or the SEVEN Career 40+ rebound games that Chamberlain had...again, just against Russell. Or the 23 35+ rebound games that Chamberlain had on...you guessed it...Russell.

Or the 45 point game against Thurmond (who scored 13 against Wilt.) Or the 58 and 52 point games Wilt hung on Reed. Or the TWO 60+ point games Chamberlain drilled Bellamy with.

Yep...Wilt was only dunking on 6-6 helpless white centers. Of course, Simmons also fails to explain why it was ONLY Wilt that had those 32 60 point games (out of an NBA TOTAL of 62), or that ONLY Wilt had SIX of the 10 70+ games in NBA history. Or that ONLY Wilt had 15 of the 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history. Or that ONLY Wilt has the THREE highest "perfect games" in NBA history (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) Or that ONLY Wilt was the only center to ever lead the NBA in assists. Or that Wilt posted a .727 FG% SEASON in an era of centers like Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, and Kareem. Or that ONLY Wilt could average a 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, .683 FG% SEASON against the likes of Russell, Beatty, Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond, in a NINE team league, and playing NINE games against each.

Yep...Simmons was right....

jlauber

04-28-2010, 01:00 PM

^ You got to give this argument up, at least with theses parties.

No sense in trying to change the minds of those who do not want to change.

Sadly, I know. I suspect that there are those who would argue that 2+2=4, simply because THEIR math comes up with something different.

alexandreben

04-28-2010, 01:06 PM

Not sure what constitutes "proof." We do have some RESPECTED EYE-WITNESS accounts. We also have some pretty interesting "circumstantial evidence." We even have a RESPECTED EYE-WITNESS account that gave Wilt a MINIMUM vertical of at LEAST 42".

One, we KNOW that Wilt was at LEAST 7-1 (I suspect 7-2 or taller), with a KNOWN wing-span of at least 92", and a standing reach of 9' 6".

We also KNOW that Chamberlain was a HIGH-JUMP champ, and an elite long-jumper (and triple-jumper as well)...and those were achieved part-time and with relatively poor technique.

We KNOW that Wilt routinely blocked 7-2 (or taller...I suspect 7-3) Kareem's unblockable "sky-hook." We KNOW that Wilt routinely OUTJUMPED Kareem, and even 7-2 Artis Gilmore (who most definitely appeared shorter than Wilt BTW)...both of whom have photos with their heads at rim level. And, of course, Wilt outjumped those guys at age 36, and on a surgically repaired knee, and at 300 lbs. What would have a PRIME Wilt, at say around 28, and at 275 lbs, on two healthy knees, have done? Or, carrying that even further...how about a 22 year-old Wilt, and at around 250 lbs? And how about the fact that Wilty routinely outjumped 6-10 Bill Russell, who himself, was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper. Interesting too, that Russell was one-inch shorter than Dwight Howard, and probably a significantly better leaper.

It is also interesting that a 12 ft. rim surfaced at Wilt's college, while he was playing there...and even articles claiming that he dunked on it as far back as 1955. We also have the NBA banning the dunking of FTs, at the same time Wilt was reportedly doing just that.

Finally, we have internet links that claim Wilt with vertical leaps of over 50"...and Wilt himself stated that he was at 48". We also do not have ANY LEGITIMATE eye-witness account that has EVER DISPUTED those claims. Clearly, having played against HUNDREDS of NBA players, and having been covered by perhaps HUNDREDS in the media, and having HUNDREDS of acquaintences...well, why do we not have ONE that DISPUTED those claims?
The point is everyone has his own logic, you can't force everyone to think through your logic, chacun ses go

jlauber

04-28-2010, 01:35 PM

Regarding ShaqAttack and Fatal9's points of view...

I DO have the utmost of respect for their opinions. They have been two of the most valuable contributors here.

And I have ALWAYS been on record as saying that Kareem and Shaq, were two of the top-four most INDIVDUALLY dominant players in NBA history (along with MJ and Wilt, of course.) In fact, IMHO, they SHOULD have been even more dominant.

And, since the OP was about Russell...one more time...the GREATEST TEAM basketball player...EVER, and ultimately, the GREATEST player ever. I do have to say that this footage, along with some other's posted here, has really opened up my eyes regarding Russell's offense. And, I actually witnessed him play MANY times. This, plus the other video footage of Russell's overall IMPACT on the game...and I just can't argue with those that claim him at #1 all-time.

jlauber

04-28-2010, 02:56 PM

I forgot to post the actual link before...so here it is again, a Bulls-Lakers playoff game in 1971.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tt13a6b_uA&feature=PlayList&p=7253DD5F78253441&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=15

Take a look at Wilt's block, in slow motion, at around the 2:20 mark (and if you miss it, it is replayed again. His hand must be somwhere near the 12 ft. mark, and his head is nearly at rim level.

Keep in mind...

1. Wilt does the leap without benefit of a running start.
2. Wilt is 34 years old at the time.
3. Wilt was just one year removed from major knee surgery.
4. Wilt was probably nearly 300 lbs at the time.

And finally, much like almost all of the footage that does exist on Wilt (and probably like much of his career), it does not look like Wilt is going all out. In fact, take a look at this footage of his blocks...most all of them are just effortless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

Now, having made those first four points...what would a Wilt, anywhere between ages 22-28, at somewhere between 250-280 lbs, with two healthy legs, and with a full running start, really be capable of?

Abraham Lincoln

04-29-2010, 08:04 AM

http://i41.tinypic.com/b96ltx.jpg

alexandreben

04-29-2010, 08:40 AM

http://i41.tinypic.com/b96ltx.jpg
Abraham Lincoln, this is great source! Thank you so much! And I post my thought in another thread imaging that it's a pity Russell never battle with Jabbar, but I assume their matchup could be something like Thurmond v.s. Jabbar.

DarkSephiroth

04-29-2010, 12:10 PM

Amazing how this became a Wilt thread. XD

Well, I've watched a bunch of Wilt videos, talked to people who had seen him play (for short periods, of course) and have read all 10 pages of this thread.

It appears that there is a slight misunderstanding between the people who view current players as "Better" and the ones who view the past players as "Better". I will respectfully call them the "Old-School" and "New-School" guys, respectively.

The Old-School guys seem to have an extremist viewpoint towards the 60's and 70's. They hold that the greatest players in that era would undoubtedly dominate the current NBA at the same rate they did in the past, had they been raised in current times. Unfortunately, this is just not possible. Basketball as a game has evolved, and there are millions more people playing basketball and far less boundaries to overcome to become a great player now. Add that to standard human development and technological increases in training, and I think it has leveled the playing field. I believe all the development that is preached these days actually makes more of a difference for the average NBA player than anything. Thus, since the Average NBA player is playing at a far higher level than the Average NBA player of the past, the standouts are able to stand out less than they did in the past. I do not think that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would dominate the league today the same way they did in their eras. I do think they would still be amongst the best players in the league if not the best, but that the level of domination they displayed in their era is simply just not possible in this day and age. There is no way to average 50 points in today’s NBA.

The New-School guys seem to have the opposite extremist viewpoint. They seem to think that guys like Chamberlain and Russell's fame were a product of a weak era with a bunch of White guys wobbling around on the basketball court. They say that new age players are better than old school guys because they can do more. This is also untrue. Chamberlain and Russell stood out so much because they were great basketball players. They would stand out in any era, regardless of the competition, because they were simply great. Both these guys were amazing, and with today's technology and development, they would be different and better basketball players. They would probably dominate the league in any era... although the numbers and effect would not be quite as ridiculous as it was back then. The New-School guys have trouble viewing the New-and-Improved type Wilt that would have existed with today’s training and opportunities, so they think that Wilt would not be able to dominate in today’s league. This couldn’t be more untrue.

Now, I would like to address some short points stated by some people throughout this thread.
1. "Wilt's Jumping Ability--> 50 Inch Vertical."
-There is a lot of heresay and talk about how amazingly high Wilt Chamberlain jumped. I personally consider him an amazing athlete all around. But I have to say, there is absolutely no way he had a 50 inch vertical. No guy who is 7 feet tall has had, or will ever have a 50 inch vertical. It's just not possible at that size. I have watched multiple clips of Wilt. In all these videos that I have watched carefully, his hand at its highest usually reaches around the top of the square when he is blocking a shot. At most, his vertical leap was probably around 40 inches, and that's generous. Even at 40 inches, he would have been able to literally dunk his head into the rim if he wanted to. I don't think that is possible. =D I don't think people understand how ridiculous a 7-footer with a 50-inch vertical would be.... anyone who thinks Wilt had a 50-inch vertical is a bit blinded by some impressive storytelling…. and there is no way his actual vertical was higher than Michael Jordan’s. He could probably touch higher on a backboard, but off the ground that would be ridiculous. If a 7-footer had Jordan’s vertical, he would be able to be doing like through the legs 360 dunks from the free throw line, given enough coordination. It’s just not possible.

2. "Russell would have averaged 20 PPG in today's Centerless NBA."
-I also believe this to be untrue. Russell didn't average 20 PPG in his era because he didn't need to. Could he have? Probably, but we’ll never know. Fact is, he just wasn't that type of guy, and I don't see him averaging 20 PPG in today's NBA if he didn't even do it in his era. Sure, Centers are weak right now, but the average level of an NBA player now is so much higher than it was in the past, that is just that much harder to dominate. I think Russell, mentally, was one of the smartest basketball players of all time. I think he would dominate the league today, but he wouldn’t do it by scoring 20 PPG. He would probably do it by averaging somewhere around 19 Rebounds and 5-6 Blocks per game. But I really don’t see Russell averaging 20 PPG in today’s Centerless NBA.

3. "The most Wilt would average in this era would be 28/15/3/3 on 55% shooting."
-This is an unfair comparison, but I think that Wilt would be a far superior player than he was with today’s training. I think that he would dominate today’s league if he had today’s training methods and his physical abilities. To say he would only average 28 PPG in his best season I think is selling him a bit short. Playing against better competition his entire life combined with new methods of today’s eras would have made Wilt even more of a beast than he was in his day. 28 / 15 is really selling him short, a prime Wilt would be able to pull off more than that in his best seasons.

4. "Russell had a weak offensive game and would never be able to do anything in today’s game."
-I have to disagree with this, I think Russell’s offense was actually exceptional. He was the type of center that everyone would want to play with, because he drew attention and then found a better shot for his team-mates. If he were trained with today’s arts with his mentality, he would have looked a lot better than he did in his era. I mean, look at a guy like Arvydas Sabonis and the passes he was making out of the post at 36 years old. I think Russell would have been even better than Sabonis at that, and whatever team he was playing for would benefit from that as well as his amazing defense and rebounding, all of which lead to more offense. Every offensive rebound is another possession, every defensive rebound starts a possession, and Russell’s blocks started fastbreak possessions. I think Russell’s offensive impact was greatly underrated. Maybe nobody else in history has had more of a positive impact on his team’s offense.

5. "Jordan would outscore Wilt"
-This is one point where we all will have to agree to disagree. There is no way of knowing which one of these great athletes would be better. Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain are arguably the greatest basketball players of all time. They did not play in the same era, but each one dominated their era like none had done before them. Both of them deserve the respect they garner.

6. "Shaq was able to dominate because he played against a slew of weak centers."
-This is a ridiculous statement. The seemingly weak centers of the current era appear weak because the average level of NBA players has gone up so much due to basketball being far more commercialized and popular now. Way more people play and watch basketball than ever before, more money is spent on basketball than ever before, so obviously the people who play basketball at a high level are playing at a higher level than ever before. This brings me back to a few things I have experienced in my lifetime. I have personally played basketball with a handful of ex-NBA players. Just a few weeks ago, I saw former NBA player Sean Rooks playing in a recreational league against one of my friends. In the NBA, he was a perennial NBA benchriding scrub who appeared talentless and did nothing except clog the paint. In the game last week, a 40 year old Sean Rooks was handling the ball cleanly like a guard, and shooting beautiful outside jumpers. So, obviously Sean Rooks had some skills that he was never able to show in the NBA, and I attribute it to the fact that the average NBA player is just so good in today’s era that it’s harder to be great. Shaq dominated for one reason: because he was great. It doesn’t matter what era or against who he was playing, Shaq dominated because he was a great player, one of the best centers of all time.

7. "Wilt is nothing but a hype machine with tales being exaggerated well over half a century ago."
-I believe there is some hype and exaggeration regarding Wilt Chamberlain. But I also believe that these stories have some sort of concrete basis behind them, because if he weren’t amazing, people wouldn’t have been talking about it so often. I do believe the numbers are exaggerated, just as happens with word of mouth and storytelling, but this doesn’t take away from the fact that Wilt was an amazing athlete, regardless. As stated previously, I do not believe that he could have had a 50 inch vertical…. And a 500 lb. bench press sounds a little much to me, considering the world record was not set to 500 lbs. until December 1953, about 10 years before Wilt’s prime. But I do believe that he was probably pressing well over 400 pounds.

Lastly, I believe that Wilt gets disrespected a lot for by people saying he played in a weak era. This causes his supporters to have a chip on their shoulder, and defend him to the grave, sometimes to a fault. This is the fault of both the people accusing the weak era of inflating Wilt’s legacy, and the people who feel they have to aggressively defend him. If everyone took a more mellow viewpoint and agreed to meet in the middle, this discussion would probably be a little bit more civilized and logical.

alwaysunny

04-29-2010, 12:26 PM

QFMFT :bowdown:

if you guys are done discussing Russell's college career, just close this thread.

but still, in before someone comes back to defend Wilt

G.O.A.T

04-29-2010, 12:26 PM

^ Holy shit

where did you come from.

Great post. I think you're spot on and objective in your analysis.

As usual the truth is somewhere between where each extreme would have you believe it is.

I'm not ready to dispute Wilt's 50" vertical (because he himself claimed it and many others have affirmed it) but like you, I find it highly unbelieve and suspect it while not impossible, very unlikely.

My argument is and has always been it's foolish to compare players by projecting assumed impact of their era. The beauty of sports is in the equity of each man or woman as governed by the rules of the game. Taking into account the evolution of the game and it's athletes erodes that equity and the beauty of sports as a timeless pastime.

ShaqAttack3234

04-29-2010, 04:18 PM

28/15/3/3 definitely isn't selling Wilt short for his more offensive-minded prime. That would be one of the greatest statistical seasons a big man has had the last 30 years. 15 rpg is more than any of the great centers of the 90's or 00's had and Olajuwon never averaged a full 28 ppg. For his more team-oriented prime like '67 or '68, I think he would have averaged more lik 22/16/4/4 on 58-60% shooting.

And 19 rpg? 5-6 bpg for Russell? Come on, he'd have to improve his rebounding rate from his 60's prime to reach that with how many fewer rebounds are available due to the pace today. 5-6 bpg is hard to picture consider nobody, not even Shaq, Mourning or Mutombo have averaged in the 2000's. Duncan and Howard haven't had a season with a full 3 bpg. Defensive 3 second violations and the slower pace make it harder to block shots. 5+ bpg hasn't been done since the 80's and I think only Mark Eaton did it in the early 80's when the pace was much faster.

jlauber

04-29-2010, 11:32 PM

First of all, while I have seen a video in which Wilt claims he had a 50", in most of his own accounts, he claims between a 46-48". And, as I have mentioned, we actually have TWO respected opinions, and a TON of links, which seem to substantiate at least a 42". And, one more time...we are talking about a gifted athlete here, who was a part-time high-jump champion, and an elite long-jumper and triple-jumper (along with being a competitive sprinter, 440, and 880 man.) Clearly, he was the most amazing seven-foot athlete EVER.

Once again, I have seen many of his videos in which he is clearly blocking shots at the 12 ft level...and the majority of them are in the latter stages of his career. I posted that Bulls playoff game in '71 in which Wilt's hand is at least at the 12 ft area. And, he started that block from a stand-still, and not a running start. He was also 34 years old, and nearly 300 lbs, and was playing on one reconstructed knee, while the other was arthritic.

We also know that Wilt was outjumping 7-2 Kareem and 7-2 Gilmore, both of them probably at their peak in terms of leaping ability. The question is, how high would a younger, healthier, lighter Wilt, and with a running start, get to?

Regarding his strength...here again, there are eye-witness accounts of 400+ bench-presses, and well before he was at his peak strength. There is even an eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs at age 59. AND, he was so widely regarded in terms of strength, that there were well-respected opinions claiming that he might have been the strongest man in the world.

Just google Wilt's vertical leap, or his bench press...staggering page-after-page of links claiming a 48+" vertical leap, and in some, claiming that no one has ever jumped higher. And page-after-page giving Wilt a 500+ lb bench-press. In any case, no one else, in the Chamberlain-era was ever proclaimed the strongest man in the NBA.

And, as I have pointed out many times, while we see all of these claims of incredible physical feats, we find virtually no reputable opinion that disputes them.

As for these 28-15 ..550 claims, or even 22-16 .600...while they would make him ONE of the greatest players of the last 20-25 years, they would diminish what he actually accomplished, in his prime, and against a slew of HOF centers.

My point has been this. Wilt's numbers could have been all over the board, just as they were when he actually played. But, what would have a PRIME Wilt been capable of, being asked to CARRY a team?

First of all, those that use his 50 ppg as an example...they need to realize that Wilt was only in his THIRD season, and nowhere as physically dominant, or as skilled as he would be by the mid-to-late 60's. Secondly, while his FG% during the first half of his career was somwhere around .520 or so, the peers of his era were shooting .430. Why is that important? Because LEAGUE AVERAGE IS relevant. Why did Wilt put up such "low" FG% seasons? Well, why did many players in the 80's shoot over 50%? THere were TEAMs shooting 50% in the 80's. And, yet, in the 90's and 00's, the league average dropped back down dramatically. What happened. Were the player of the 80's the best shooters ever? Or was defense played differently???? In Wilt's first seven seasons, the defenses clogged the lanes, and collapsed on him. There is a boat-load of videos and photos in which Wilt is just swarmed. Naturally, and with his skill-set, he was taking a variety of 10-15 ft shots. To be honest, compare Wilt's .520 with that of Duncan and Robinson, and he was just as good, if not better, than they were in their BEST seasons...and he was doing so on 30+ shots per game, and against defenses solely intent on stopping him. Remember, Wilt's TEAMS in his first seven years were basically last-place rosters that HE elevated to serious competitors. You could compare Wilt's early teams with those that OJ played with in Buffalo in his first three seasons. Simpson was just an ordinary back until he was surrounded with a quality offensive line. And even without benefit of a passing attack, and defenses still primed to stop him, he had arguably the greatest five-year run in professional football history. Wilt was essentially in the same situation, but for seven years...and yet he CARRIED his teams to the edge of beating the greatest dynasty in professional sports history.

It is no surprise, then, that as the mid-60's came around, and Wilt was eventually paired with quality rosters, that his FG% shot up dramatically..in fact to levels that have never been approached since...all in a league in which shooting was still in the .440-450 range league-wide. Not only that, but Wilt was stronger, more experienced, and more SKILLED.

Take a closer look at his scoring in the last half of his career. It went from 33.5 ppg in his last "scoring" season, down to 24.1 ppg the very next year...and basiclly leveled off for a few years, then finally dropped significantly in his last two seasons (albeit, with eye-popping FG%'s.) Did he suddenly lose his ability to score from his last game of the 65-66, a 46-34 playoff game against Russell, to where he was only averaging 13.9 ppg in the 68-69 post-season? If that were the case, how come at the beginning of the 69-70 season, and with his coach's urging, did he jump out to a 32.2 ppg average in his first nine games? The FACT was, Wilt was CAPABLE of HUGE games, even late in his career. However, for a variety of reasons, most notably because of quality teammates, he cut back his shooting.

But as I have pointed out many times...when he felt compelled to prove that he could still score, he would put up MONSTROUS games. FIVE 60+ point games after his last "scoring season", and several 50+ point games, as well. He had the high game in each season in the decade of the 60's.

The fact was, Chamberlain was a 40+ point scorer in each of the last three seasons of the 60's...despite only averaging 23. IMHO, he could have averaged 50 ppg, or more, in his 66-67 season. Certainly a 40 ppg on over .600 shooting would have been a very realistic figure...and once again, in a league that shot .441.

So, back to my original point. Take a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-68, into the 00's, and ask him to CARRY a team, and there is simply no way he "only" averages 28 ppg. Not if Shaq were averaging 30 in his best season. IMHO, Wilt, and asked to score, would be in the 35+ range..especially in an era of the weakest crop of centers in NBA history. And, put a PRIME Wilt in the 80's, when the league was shooting nearly 50%, and ask him to score, and he would have been a 40 ppg scorer. He would have been shooting slightly less, perhaps, but still 25-30 shots per game..and at an even more staggering percentage...maybe well over .700. Let's face reality...if an much less efficient Jordan were scoring 37 ppg, then a Wilt, asked to score, would have easily topped that figure.

Rebounding? Here again...if Rodman were getting 19 rpg in the early 90's...why would anyone dispute Wilt, in his PRIME, averaging 20 or more? The FACT was, Wilt CRUSHED the players of his era...and even more incredibly,...in the post-season, Chamberlain became a MONSTER. Meanwhile Rodman shrank down to no more than ordinary in the biggest stage.

And I'm sorry, those that believe that Howard is a better leaper are not accepting the MANY facts and accounts that claim Wilt was a higher leaper. Wilt was a 7-1 champion high-jumper...6-11 Howard was not. In addition to his edge in leaping abilty,...a PRIME Wilt was taller, bigger, stronger, faster...and even more importantly, MUCH more SKILLED. If Howard were getting 14 rpg in his best season, well, Wilt would, with the most educated guesses, have gotten considerably more. How many more? IMHO, probably 17-18.

Blocked shots? I'll agree SLIGHTLY with ShaqAttack. Wilt would not have averaged 10 bpg, and maybe not 8 bpg. But, when he was blocking FIVE of KAREEM's shots, PER GAME, I just have to believe that he would have been WAY AHEAD of ANYONE in today's game...and well over eight in Eaton's best season.

Therefore, my best, and perhaps, conservative estimate...a PRIME Wilt, and asked to CARRY a team, in today's game...35-18 .600. In the 80's, 40-20 .700.

Yes, there will be those that scoff at those numbers...just as those that actually witnessed Wilt could not believe what he accomplished when he actually played. He was SO FAR AHEAD of his peers, that was it was laughable. I just posted his 40-30 games...55 regular season games of 40-30...and the rest of the ENTIRE NBA COMBINED...6 . He holds 130 records, or more, many of which will never be approached, much less surpassed. Not only that, but he holds the next highest mark(s) in many of them, as well.

And, using Kareem as "the Bridge"...Chamberlain would have dominated Olajuwon and Shaq as well. Once again, Kareem slapped Olajuwon silly in the mid 80's. So those that claim today's centers are better than what they were 40-50 years ago...well, it is just not true.

ShaqAttack3234

04-30-2010, 01:29 AM

So, back to my original point. Take a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-68, into the 00's, and ask him to CARRY a team, and there is simply no way he "only" averages 28 ppg. Not if Shaq were averaging 30 in his best season. IMHO, Wilt, and asked to score, would be in the 35+ range..especially in an era of the weakest crop of centers in NBA history.

You see that's the problem, you say, well player x did this so Wilt would do more which completely undermines the more recent players skill sets. I have seen nothing to suggest that Wilt's offensive skill set was superior to Shaq's. So I disagree with your logic. In fact, in my opinion, Shaq's offensive skill set and physical skills were superior to Wilt's.

And 2000 wasn't weak for big men, 2010? Yes, 2010 is weak, but in 2000, the league didn't just have stiffs at the center position.

Abraham Lincoln

04-30-2010, 01:37 AM

Abraham Lincoln, this is great source! Thank you so much! And I post my thought in another thread imaging that it's a pity Russell never battle with Jabbar, but I assume their matchup could be something like Thurmond v.s. Jabbar.
Indeed the key would be positioning as noted above, rather than merely relying on leap & length to contest the shot as most others did. Thurmond's defensive footwork was indeed superior as demonstrated here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w03Iq2WvZnE) (3:58 mark) for the key would be to force Jabbar away from his comfort zone as to get him to expose the basketball on the way up.

The art of shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTzaVKdvs7E) blocking with Bill Russell.

julizaver

04-30-2010, 08:07 AM

Indeed the key would be positioning as noted above, rather than merely relying on leap & length to contest the shot as most others did. Thurmond's defensive footwork was indeed superior as demonstrated here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w03Iq2WvZnE) (3:58 mark) for the key would be to force Jabbar away from his comfort zone as to get him to expose the basketball on the way up.

The art of shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTzaVKdvs7E) blocking with Bill Russell.

Although it is a thraed about Russell, in Thurmonds greatest game against Chamberlain he blocked 8 of his shots (12 blocks for the game) and have huge "unofficial" tripple-double with more than 20 points, 20+ rebounds and 12 blocks.
That's why some experts said tha he was best defensive center between 1968 and 1970. He was able to outplay in some games even the prime Kareem, despite the history of injuries, which robbed some of his glory and he remain forever in the shadow of Wilt and Russell.

Abraham Lincoln

04-30-2010, 08:24 AM

Indeed, not to neglect his official quadruple double as well in his first regular season game with the Bulls. The first official quad-double in NBA history.

22 points, 14 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks.

ShaqAttack3234

04-30-2010, 08:36 AM

Abraham Lincoln

05-03-2010, 04:55 AM

I believe he was past his prime then as well.
33 years old.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/thurmond_741018.html

Don’t get me wrong: I’m truly honored. It’s certainly a rare accomplishment. It took 12 years before the feat was ever accomplished again, and only three guys have posted a quadruple-double since I had mine.

But you know and I know and any good basketball fan knows that there were plenty of quadruple-doubles back in the 1960s. When I first came into the league, I played alongside with Wilt Chamberlain, and there were nights he and I were playing volleyball out there on the floor, blocking shots, deflecting passes, tipping rebounds. So it’s fairly obvious that Wilt had plenty of chances to get double figures in four categories; think about after he was traded from the San Francisco Warriors back to Philadelphia—Wilt led the league in assists with the 76ers! Or what about his move to the Los Angeles Lakers, when he was less a scorer and more a complementary player?

Bill Russell could also fill the stat sheet and was a threat for a quadruple-double on a nightly basis. He was a great shot-blocker and passer, besides being a tremendous overall defender.

And hey, don’t forget about me. You think I never had a quadruple-double before 1973-74, when the NBA first started recording blocks and steals? Let me put it this way: I had 12 blocks in my quadruple-double game, and it was my 12th year in the league. That’s with two bad knees and more than 30,000 minutes pounding NBA floors, night after night. You bet I had plenty of quadruple-doubles before 1974.

I’m not trying to brag, but there were games where it was ridiculous the number of shots I blocked. When I was young, there were nights when guys couldn’t come close to getting shots off on me. Only Russell could have blocked more in his career.

I’d really like to know where I stand with blocks for my entire career. When you look at the list of career blocked shots leaders today, Russell and I are nowhere to be found. Quite frankly, that list is filled with pretenders to the title, all because the NBA didn’t record blocks for any of Bill’s and the majority of my career. Sure, I could put up points, but my game was really defense, so I’m a little disappointed that most of my blocks were never recorded.

Another guy people don’t often think much about in terms of quadruple-doubles is Mr. Triple-Double himself, Oscar Robertson. I’m sure the Big O had games of 10 or more steals.

Twelve years into my career, you might not have expected me to still be a force in the game. But the year before I was traded to Chicago, I was playing almost 40 minutes per game, and I averaged 13.0 points, 14.2 rebounds, and 2.9 blocks.

We had a great group of guys on the team, and that helped me ease into things. We had two terrific starting forwards, in Bob Love and Chet Walker. Why Chet isn’t in the Hall of Fame, I’ll never know, and Bob, he could play on both ends. Nobody credits his defense, but Butterbean Bob guarded Rick Barry as well as anybody. Bob and Chet’s skills really complemented each other, too.