Wilt the Stilt vs Shaq Daddy: Who

[Gotterdammerung]

Tough question, because it implies a simple answer, and neither center played the same game throughout their careers. Shaq started out weighing less than 300 lbs, but by the time he was winning titles with the Lakers, his weight ballooned to 380 lbs. As for Wilt, he went through three phases: the unstoppable scorer/rebounder during his first 6 years, then he became a point-center with the Sixers & led the league in assists, and finally, a defensive wizard with the Lakers.

Despite these wildly different variants, we still can make a strong comparison between the two most powerful and dominant bigmen in league history.

Physical attributes: Let

[ShaqAttack3234]

For all basketball purposes Shaq seemed more powerful. Not sure who could bench more, but it's important to note that Wilt even said when Shaq was a rookie that he wished he played like Shaq and opposing players thought Wilt let them off the hook by shooting fadeaways. Who knows if Wilt could've overpowered players like Shaq consistently, but he didn't, apparently due to a Goliath complex.

Ball handling? No contest it's Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwO-pJowU84#t=1m57s

As far as post moves? Shaq's jump hook, turnaround one-hander, spin move, drop step and up and under(which he usually finished with a power dunk) made him a more deadly offensive player despite the numbers. Not sure who was more athletic, but based on the footage available, Shaq was easily the more explosive player.

If you look at Wilt's playoff scoring average of 22.5 ppg for his career and his playoff FG% of 52.2% and then Shaq's of 24.5 ppg on 56.3% shooting this becomes clear.

As far as passing? Wilt in his later career may have been a bit better, but I wouldn't go by the numbers. Go watch some 60's footage and you'll see that big men also collected assists with a simple pass back to a perimeter player for a mid-range jumper that wasn't really contested that's how Russell also averaged around 6 per game.

The difference isn't nearly what the numbers suggest, but Wilt has the edge in rebounding.

Also important to note that the pace and minutes stars played in Wilt's era gives him a huge advantage in statistics. For example, the Warriors pace factor was 129.7 in 1962, Shaq's Lakers pace factor was generally in the low 90s.

And :roll: at acting like Shaq didn't try adjusting his style with Phoenix. When he was traded there he cut back his scoring to 13 ppg and was told to rebound, he did averaging 11 boards in under 30 mpg when he first went there and trying to be the outlet guy. The next year, Terry Porter wanted to feature Shaq more and he produced, but that style didn't work for Nash and Stoudemire.

[knickscity]

This has been argued before.

Wilt was dominant at his time.

Shaq was during his time.

Different time periods and opponents.

Not fair to compare.

[Gotterdammerung]

Why did I have a feeling that you would be the first to respond? :oldlol:
Thank you for ignoring all the other edges I pointed out (rebounding, defense, speed, etc.) as if they don't exist. :applause:


For all basketball purposes Shaq seemed more powerful. Not sure who could bench more, but it's important to note that Wilt even said when Shaq was a rookie that he wished he played like Shaq and opposing players thought Wilt let them off the hook by shooting fadeaways. Who knows if Wilt could've overpowered players like Shaq consistently, but he didn't, apparently due to a Goliath complex.
This is your only salient point. The rest is pure homerism. Very... very... very disappointed in you. :(



Ball handling? No contest it's Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwO-pJowU84#t=1m57s
A youtube link means nothing if Shaq turned the ball more than he assisted. :no:


As far as post moves? Shaq's jump hook, turnaround one-hander, spin move, drop step and up and under(which he usually finished with a power dunk) made him a more deadly offensive player despite the numbers. Not sure who was more athletic, but based on the footage available, Shaq was easily the more explosive player.
More explosive?

Speed: wilt
Quickness in jumping (rebounding, blocking): wilt
Better hands: wilt
Endurance: wilt
Spin Moves: Shaq.
Conclusion? Stop being a homer. :hammerhead:



If you look at Wilt's playoff scoring average of 22.5 ppg for his career and his playoff FG% of 52.2% and then Shaq's of 24.5 ppg on 56.3% shooting this becomes clear. :facepalm
Re-read my post, please. I'm not a blind Wilt homer like you are of Shaq. When you do, (SLOWER) then you'll see why this was not necessary to point out.


As far as passing? Wilt in his later career may have been a bit better, but I wouldn't go by the numbers. Go watch some 60's footage and you'll see that big men also collected assists with a simple pass back to a perimeter player for a mid-range jumper that wasn't really contested that's how Russell also averaged around 6 per game.
So? Doesn't mean the assist made the player score. And the fact that you don't admit how different assists are recorded today versus the 60s and the 70s clearly indicates your dishonest bias.


Also important to note that the pace and minutes stars played in Wilt's era gives him a huge advantage in statistics. For example, the Warriors pace factor was 129.7 in 1962, Shaq's Lakers pace factor was generally in the low 90s.
Pace factor is not the be-all and end-all. It only signifies the style of the game.


And :roll: at acting like Shaq didn't try adjusting his style with Phoenix. When he was traded there he cut back his scoring to 13 ppg and was told to rebound, he did averaging 11 boards in under 30 mpg when he first went there and trying to be the outlet guy. The next year, Terry Porter wanted to feature Shaq more and he produced, but that style didn't work for Nash and Stoudemire.
You gotta ask yourself why did they feature Shaq, instead of have him adjust to the climate? When they already had Nash and Stoudemire, and other speed players? Because.... [fill in the blank honestly] :rolleyes:

[Gotterdammerung]

Not fair to compare.:violin:
Yes, it is, when they are similar. Don't be a wussy.

This board lacks a search function, and I believe my OP is good enough for a thread of its own. We'll see.

At least an alternative 2 the usual Kobe/LeBron threads. :D

[ShaqAttack3234]

This is your only salient point. The rest is pure homerism. Very... very... very disappointed in you. :(

:cry:


A youtube link means nothing if Shaq turned the ball more than he assisted. :no:

Many of those were on 3 second violations and offensive fouls. As fra as Shaq in his prime, that wasn't the case.

And look at Shaq's best assist seasons and compare them to contemporaries like Duncan and Olajuwon's best as far as turnovers.

Shaq in 2000 3.8 apg, 2.8 TO
Shaq in 2001 3.7 apg, 2.9 TO

Olajuwon in his career high assist seasons(3.6 apg), he averaged 3.4 turnovers.

Duncan in 2002 3.7 apg, 3.2 TO
Duncan in 2003 3.9 apg, 3.1 TO

We have no idea what Wilt's turnover numbers would look like, but I'd bet they'd be quite high considering how much he had the ball. For example, in his 50 ppg season, he took almost 40 shots per game, when you have the ball that much, turnovers are inevitable.


More explosive?

Speed: wilt
Quickness in jumping (rebounding, blocking): wilt
Better hands: wilt
Endurance: wilt
Spin Moves: Shaq.
Conclusion? Stop being a homer. :hammerhead:

Speed? Shaq with the ball on the break. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE

And what I mean by more explosive is quick moves in the post, alley oops and powering through guys and dunking on them.

What does better hands have to do with explosiveness? :roll: And what does endurance have to do with explosiveness?


:facepalm
Re-read my post, please. I'm not a blind Wilt homer like you are of Shaq. When you do, (SLOWER) then you'll see why this was not necessary to point out.

Why would I re-read your post? All of the facts are in mine.


So? Doesn't mean the assist made the player score. And the fact that you don't admit how different assists are recorded today versus the 60s and the 70s clearly indicates your dishonest bias.

Later when I have time I'll break down these assists with examples. Look back at the assist numbers of the premiere centers back then. Duncan, Shaq, Daugherty, Divac, Sabonis ect. didn't need to average 5+ apg for me to know how good they were as passers.


Pace factor is not the be-all and end-all. It only signifies the style of the game.

Uh, when you got numerous guys averaging around 20 rpg and you got a guy like Wilt attempting nearly 40 shots per game, pace is a HUGE factor, particularly when a lot the arguments will be based on statss.


You gotta ask yourself why did they feature Shaq, instead of have him adjust to the climate? When they already had Nash and Stoudemire, and other speed players? Because.... [fill in the blank honestly] :rolleyes:

Maybe because Terry Porter is not a very good coach and that was proven when he got fired midseason and they went back to a faster pace, but Amare was injured within 2 or 3 games.

[jlauber]

We have covered this topic numerous times, but here we go again...

Offensive SKILLS...no question, Chamberlain.

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


[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70


Furthermore, take a look at the following footage. In it you will see Wilt hitting 15+ ft. JUMP SHOTS, sweeping HOOK SHOTS, his patented fadeaway, and his finger-roll...

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

As for SPEED...my god, Wilt was a SPRINTER in college...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

STRENTH...There are a TON of internet links which claim Wilt with 500 lb.+ bench presses, including eye-witness accounts. His feats of strength are well documented and are PLASTERED all over the internet. I could (and have) posted MANY of these links. There is no reason to do it again. It is generally accepted that Wilt was not only the strongest NBA player of his era, but among the strongest in the WORLD.

LEAPING...Here we go again. Wilt WON HIGH JUMP championships. He also was a member of the KU LONG JUMP and TRIPLE JUMP teams.

Back to offense. Wilt shot .540 over the course of his career and .522 in his post-season. Shaq shot .581 and .563. However, it must be noted that Wilt in his 14 seasons, played in leagues that averaged a low of .410 to a high of .456. Shaq played in leagues that averaged a low of .437 and a high of .473. Chamberlain consistently played in an much tougher defensive era. Players of the 60's shot much better in the 70's. In any case, you can add at least 20 points to Wilt's FG% to equalize eras.

Not only that, but Wilt not only faced TWELVE HOF centers in his career, he routinely faced them 6-10 times a year (or more.) In his scoring seasons he was facing a HOF center nearly 50% of the time.

ShaqAttack likes to point out ERA and PACE. However, Wilt's career was broken into three segments. One, his "scoring seasons", from 59-60 to 65-66. In those seven seasons, he averaged 40 ppg. Secondly, his "all-around" seasons, from 66-67 thru 68-69. In those years, he averaged about 23 ppg, but on well over 60% shooting. AND, he had the HIGH scoring games in each of those seasons, some by staggering amounts (52, 53, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68.) And, finally, his post-surgery seasons, from 69-70 thru 72-73 (his last season.) His offensive skill-set had diminished considerably by that time, but, when he used his power, he was still capable of 30+ point games.

Those three segments are important in the POST-SEASON for a variety of reasons. In his "scoring" seasons, which took place in his first seven seasons, he went to the post-season in only six (missing out on his monumental 62-63 season of 44.8 ppg.) He also faced the Celtics in five of those six seasons, including one post-season in the first round (and most of the rest in the second.) The botton line is that, he played 160 post-season games in his 14 season career, but only 52 of them were in his "scoring" seasons. Or less than ONE-THIRD. And, he faced a HOF center in 112 of those 160 games, including Russell in 49, and Thurmond in 17...two of the greatest defensive centers of all-time. All of which contributed to his 22 ppg post-season average, and .522 post-season FG%.

Shaq seldom faced a HOF center, and when he did, he had his problems...particularly against Robinson. I am not ripping Shaq here, but to compare his post-season numbers, many of which were complied against no-names, to what Wilt faced in the vast majority of his post-seasons, is simply not a fair comparison.


REBOUNDING. I don't think ANYONE would make a case for Shaq in this area. Wilt's CAREER average is DOUBLE that of Shaq. Furthemore, as well as Shaq rebounded in the post-season, Wilt STILL doubled him. No matter how much you factor in PACE, Chamberlain just crushes Shaq (and everyone else BTW.)

DEFENSE. Wilt was a two-time 1st team all-defensive player. And, that award was not started until late in his career. Shaq was among the best of his era, but here again, NO ONE would take him over Wilt. If you include Blocked Shots, the gap widens to a grand canyon-sized chasm. Wilt had SEASONS of over 10 bpg. He had multiple KNOWN games in the 20's.

But how about INDIVIDUAL defense. Many have erroneously labled Wilt a poor defender early in his career. How about this quote...

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


"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'" [1]

Wilt held Kareem, a CAREER .559 shooter to .464 in their 28 H2H meetings (while shooting about 53% himself.) In fact Kareem only had TEN games of over 50% against Wilt, out of 28, and MANY of the rest were AWFUL shooting games. Over the course of their last ten H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting.

Not only that, but there were several DOCUMENTED post-seasons series when Wilt held Russell well under 40%, and he held Thurmond to about about 36% shooting in their three H2H post-season series.


PASSING. Wilt WON an assist title, and came in THIRD in another season. Not only that, but he was a better outlet passer (just take a look at the 71-72 Lakers scoring average.)


I will say that Shaq was a more dominant interior player, which is also refllected in his higher FG%. Had Wilt played like Shaq, the NBA would have thrown the Record Book out. Shaq also had a "killer instinct", which Chamberlain did not.

Shaq was the most dominant player of his era, and Chamberlain was probably the most dominant player of all-time.

[Soundwave]

Shaq is the greatest "power" player in NBA history. Period.

The question is not who was the most dominant. Yeah Shaq was dominant, Kareem was dominant, Wilt was dominant.

The question is POWER.

And in that respect, it's all Shaq. Even Wilt when speaking about Shaq admitted that he never attacked the rim with the viciousness that Shaq does, he opted for more of a finesse game.

Most guys who are big tend to want to "apologize" for their size. Shaq never did that. He wanted to rip the rim off and take anyone in his way down with the backboard every single time.

I don't think the NBA has ever seen a player like that before, and I'm not sure when we'll see a player like that again.

[Fatal9]

Chamberlain consistently played in an much tougher defensive era.
:facepalm


In any case, you can add at least 20 points to Wilt's FG% to equalize eras.
:facepalm :facepalm

[triangleoffense]

Wilt is the better athlete, more skilled, better passer (only center to ever lead the league in assists), better defender and could out jump shaq as well. Shaq is notorious for his bad pick and roll D and even during his prime he was an above to above average pick and roll defender at best. This is one area that shaq never dominated in and I believe if he would have somehow lost some weight and moved around the screeners better that he would have 5-6 titles (1 or 2 more with the Lakers in 03/04).

Shaq is stronger, is more competitive, although just barely mainly due to him winning a couple more titles than Wilt. I also believe that Shaq was the better teammate since Wilt was a little ostracized in a way because of his freak appearance and stature, especially during his time period. This fact made Wilt a little unavailable to roommates and un-trusting of the public/media.

[Fatal9]

Shaq is notorious for his bad pick and roll D
Wilt was also a poor pick and roll defender, preferring instead to stay in the paint. In fact part of the reason the Lakers locked down the Celtics in game 7 at the end of the fourth quarter of the '69 finals (right after Wilt left) was because Mel Counts, the backup center, was actually defending screens and pick and rolls, something which Wilt apparently did not do. The announcer mentions it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYlq28YLWI&#t=7m45s

[Pointguard]

Shaq is the greatest "power" player in NBA history. Period.

The question is not who was the most dominant. Yeah Shaq was dominant, Kareem was dominant, Wilt was dominant.

The question is POWER.

And in that respect, it's all Shaq. Even Wilt when speaking about Shaq admitted that he never attacked the rim with the viciousness that Shaq does, he opted for more of a finesse game.

Most guys who are big tend to want to "apologize" for their size. Shaq never did that. He wanted to rip the rim off and take anyone in his way down with the backboard every single time.

I don't think the NBA has ever seen a player like that before, and I'm not sure when we'll see a player like that again.
When Wilt was scoring 40ppg and grabbing 24 bounds you think he was apologizing for his size. They hated him for being a giant and eventually he caught a complex. So we would be comparing young dominant Wilt with no complex against Shaq the Goliath.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:oldlol: at Wilt being more skilled than Shaq. Lets see him make a move off the dribble like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwO-pJowU84#t=1m57s Or make a post move like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLDXw5lC-LM

And one sweeping hook shot in a mix doesn't make it a consistent go to move. As far as finger rolls? :oldlol: I'll take a jump hook(much harder to block) or a power dunk over a finger roll that exposes the ball any time. Here's what Nate Thurmond said about the finger roll
Naw, naw. I'd block that almost every time.

And if Wilt's fadeaway was so good, then why did he shoot 51.1% in his scoring seasons and 50.5% in the playoffs in those seasons? I mean with all of the dunks and offensive rebounds he got, you'd think if his fadeaway was so deadly, he would've shot a higher percentage.

Later in his career from what I've seen, Wilt was a great defensive player and a passer, but his scoring is the most overrated aspect of his game. There's a reason why he couldn't win a title as the leading scorer in the playoffs.

[Fatal9]

Nate Thurmond: Naw, naw. I'd block that almost every time.

This seems to be true from all the recaps I've read of their games. Here's a game where Thurmond blocked eight of Wilt's shots, most were probably finger rolls:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jL0aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HkYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7074,2854049

It's a good shot to use against undersized centers though.

[ShaqAttack3234]

This seems to be true from all the recaps I've read of their games. Here's a game where Thurmond blocked eight of Wilt's shots, most were probably finger rolls:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jL0aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HkYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7074,2854049

It's a good shot to use against undersized centers though.

Russell sends back this "great" go to move here as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA#t=2m06s

[New York Knicks]

Teams averaged 70+ RPG in Wilt's era. So let's get that out of the way. Teams in the last several years averaged 40+ RPG.

[PHILA]

As far as passing? Wilt in his later career may have been a bit better, but I wouldn't go by the numbers.

He may have been a bit better?

What a shame. :facepalm



Go watch some 60's footage and you'll see that big men also collected assists with a simple pass back to a perimeter player for a mid-range jumper that wasn't really contested that's how Russell also averaged around 6 per game.

He did not enjoy nearly the same spacing O'Neal did as there was no 3 point line, there were players constantly cutting off him circa Walton with the Blazers. As for Bill Russell, he started at the top of the circle as a playmaker and believe it or not, Russell was actually an outstanding passer in the half court or in transition for the outlet. He had no trouble at all finding cutters, etc. For one who ******* about how underrated O'Neal and Jabbar's passing skills were, you are doing the same thing with the top 2 players in NBA history.

[Pointguard]

For all basketball purposes Shaq seemed more powerful. Not sure who could bench more, but it's important to note that Wilt even said when Shaq was a rookie that he wished he played like Shaq and opposing players thought Wilt let them off the hook by shooting fadeaways. Who knows if Wilt could've overpowered players like Shaq consistently, but he didn't, apparently due to a Goliath complex.
In all honesty if they let Wilt barrell over other players like they let Shaq, he would have had a 130 point game. Red Aurabauch had too much power over the league to let that happen.


Ball handling? No contest it's Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwO-pJowU84#t=1m57s This we don't know because of limited Wilt tapes. Sidebar: I read that Dwight Howard played the point in HS but now he dribbles like he's challenged. Go figure.


As far as post moves? Shaq's jump hook, turnaround one-hander, spin move, drop step and up and under(which he usually finished with a power dunk) made him a more deadly offensive player despite the numbers. Not sure who was more athletic, but based on the footage available, Shaq was easily the more explosive player.
Athletic we are talking about speed, jumping, agility, body stretch, flexibility, ability to do different things on the floor, explosion to jump quick (as in rebounds and block shots)coordination and endurance - All of which I give to Wilt. I give Shaq quickness with the ball going to the hoop and happy feet. Plus I give Shaq power of weight.

As far as scoring was concerned, Wilt had a Duncan backboard shot and a superior inside game. Shaq mainly powered his way in, to the point that contemporaries were saying that he had no skill. To score 50 ppg without the power game truely in effect, you have to be super resourceful. He had hook shots, dips, spins, fadeaways, pivot rotations, up and unders, jumpshot out to 17ft. If they told Shaq he couldn't bull doze his way in he would be a below average player. If Wilt was allowed to bulldoze he would have been a better player.


As far as passing? Wilt in his later career may have been a bit better, but I wouldn't go by the numbers. Go watch some 60's footage and you'll see that big men also collected assists with a simple pass back to a perimeter player for a mid-range jumper that wasn't really contested that's how Russell also averaged around 6 per game. but do factor in that those guys on some of Wilt's teams really, really coulnd't shoot. Below you will Wilt hitting side cutters and second cutters, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Knv-KbA8AQ


The difference isn't nearly what the numbers suggest, but Wilt has the edge in rebounding. Shaq didn't apply himself in that way. He simply didn't go after rebounds like Wilt did and definitely doesn't show the determination to get into good position. Wilt just wouldn't let guys like KG and Rodman get position like that all the time. Very different if Shaq was the man rebounding in his prime. He never was.


Also important to note that the pace and minutes stars played in Wilt's era gives him a huge advantage in statistics. For example, the Warriors pace factor was 129.7 in 1962, Shaq's Lakers pace factor was generally in the low 90s. No way could Shaq have maintained that pace. Which is why I say after half time Wilt is the more powerful player. Yet somehow Shaq couldn't multitask and go after blocks, rebounds or loose balls.

[PHILA]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5

Note the 2 fake passes at 4:30, where after following a power move to the basket, he draws 4 defenders leaving Billy C wide open in in front of them rim.




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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m14s

These videos will show that his assists did not come merely from passing the ball back out to an open shooter. That would actually be a better argument against O'Neal.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJACRMc-Qps

Bill Russell passing behind his head to a cutter at the 0:03 mark. :applause:

[PHILA]

Russell sends back this "great" go to move here as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA#t=2m06s
To any man with functional eyes, that was an obvious slam dunk attempt.

[ashlar]

Wilt was great in his time but prime shaq would shit on him so hard. PHILA is the shittiest gimmick on ISH.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:oldlol: at all of these arguments. Blaming the refs? Tommy Heinsohn mentioned how happy he was when Wilt would take the fadeaway because he was letting them off the hook. He didn't have Shaq's mentality, he admitted that in 1993.

And who said all of his passes came from passing to open shooters? I said that's how he got a lot of them. Anyone who thinks he's approaching those assist numbers in the 90's or 00's needs to take their heads out of their asses. In the limited 60's footage available, you can see them throw the ball into the post and throw it back to the shooter with horrible perimeter defense.

Wilt was a great passer later in his career(don't know about early, can't comment either way), and again, I'd probably give him an edge over Shaq, but assist numbers mean very little, particularly comparing across eras.

And :oldlol: at Wilt having a superior inside game to Shaq. The comedy in this thread is great. Nobody in NBA history had a great inside game than Shaq. Shaq's game was inside of 8-10 feet and nobody could stop him from getting that close and once he was, particularly if it was single coverage or a weak double team, it was over.

And if that was a dunk attempt by Wilt then I have to question why in the world he went up that weak, it looked like he was going up underhanded.

And Shaq was one of the best rebounders of his era, not as good as Wilt, but damn good in his own right. He outrebounded Duncan in 4 of the 5 playoff series they met, he outrebounded Garnett with KG at his peak and Shaq past his in 2004, he basically matched KG's 15.7 rpg with 15.3 of his own in the 2003 series, he crushed Mutombo on the boards in the 2001 finals and Mutombo led the league that year and he crushed another good rebounder Dale Davis on the boards in the 2000 finals. Shaq also outrebounded Olajuwon in the '95 finals.

As far as jumping ability, what do you base Wilt having a higher vertical on? In the footage available, I have yet to see him demonstrate more or even equal jumping ability in the footage available so that's just speculation.

[magnax1]

I'm not really sure calling Wilt a power center is a fair assessment of his game. Yeah, he was huge and could bully people in the post, but the key word is could. He didn't really play that way all that often, and he could be bated into playing a more finesse type game. Thats not to say he played like that all the time, but he definitely did when he got more then 3 fouls to quickly, because he was afraid he'd ruin his record of never fouling out.
Anyway, basically what I'm saying is that Shaq usually played a physically dominating game, where Wilt sort of played both. When Wilt did try to push someone around and just get to the basket, he was probably just as good though, maybe a bit more because he could score more efficiently from farther out.

[PHILA]

The '67 team from top to bottom in the 1980's with the lax assist rules could have seen Chamberlain averaging 10+ per ball game. This being he averaged 8 when the rules were much more strictly governed.


For instance, this pass from Chamberlain to the Big O would not count as an assist in the 60's, since O put the ball on the floor rather than going straight up with the shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m35s

[catch24]

I have Wilt ahead of Shaq all time. Who knows what would of happened if a Finals MVP was rewarded then. Maybe he'd of played better in the postseason lol.

[ZenMaster]

I'm not really sure calling Wilt a power center is a fair assessment of his game. Yeah, he was huge and could bully people in the post, but the key word is could. He didn't really play that way all that often, and he could be bated into playing a more finesse type game. Thats not to say he played like that all the time, but he definitely did when he got more then 3 fouls to quickly, because he was afraid he'd ruin his record of never fouling out.
Anyway, basically what I'm saying is that Shaq usually played a physically dominating game, where Wilt sort of played both. When Wilt did try to push someone around and just get to the basket, he was probably just as good though, maybe a bit more because he could score more efficiently from farther out.

Pretty much this.

Wilt said it himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW17rCSeWLo#t=04m50s

[PHILA]

And if that was a dunk attempt by Wilt then I have to question why in the world he went up that weak, it looked like he was going up underhanded.

Unfortunately few can palm the basketball like Chamberlain could as seen below.

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

Bill Russell made a terrific defensive play.

[jlauber]

Teams averaged 70+ RPG in Wilt's era. So let's get that out of the way. Teams in the last several years averaged 40+ RPG.

TEAM rebounds were counted in the team totals during Wilt's era. In fact, they were removed AFTER Wilt's last season. For instance, in Wilt's 66-67 season (24.2 rpg in 45 mpg), the 76ers averaged 62 rpg. In Wilt's 60-61 season the Warriors averaged 66 rpg (27.2 rpg in 47 mpg.) Wilt's pathetic 62-63 Warrior team "only" averaged 58 rpg, and Wilt had 24.6 rpg of them.

Even more inciredible, though, was Chamberlain's POST-SEASON rebounding. He had entire post-seasons of over 30 rpg, and he had series of as much as 32 (against Russell no less.) For example, in the 66-67 ECF's, and against Russell, Wilt had games of 32 rebounds, out of a TOTAL of 120; 36 rebounds out of a TOTAL of 128, and a staggering 41 out of a TOTAL of 134. BTW, in those three games, Russell had 15, 21, and 29 respectively.


Fatal9, of course, jumped in when I made the comment that defenses were much tougher in the Chamberlain era. I stated that the league averages during Wilt's 14 seasons went from a low of .410 to a high of .456. In addition, they slowly went up, but they had dips in the middle of the decade of the 60's. Meanwhile, in Shaq's career, the league average went from a low of .437 to a high of .473. HOWEVER, the 3 point shot was in full swing by that time, so the logical assumption has to be that those league averages in Shaq's era, which were already considerably higher than in Wilt's era, were even HIGHER still, when you factor in how much the 3 pt shot affected the league average.

Continuing...take a look at some of the great players of the 60's who also played into the 70's. Almost to a man their FG% went up in the 70's. And for the few that had higher FG% seasons in the 60's, it was almost universally in the late 60's, like 68-69 or 69-70. Here are some examples:

Rick Barry. He shot .439 in his 65-66 season, and .451 in his best scoring season in 66-67. In his 30 ppg season in 74-75 he shot .464, and he had FIVE seasons in the 70's that were better than his BEST NBA season in the 60's.

John Havlicek. His BEST season in the 60's was .445 (his rookie year BTW.) He had SEASONS of .399, .401, and .405 in the 60's. In the 70's, ALL NINE of his seasons were BETTER than his BEST season in the 60's, with a high of .464.

Elvin Hayes. True, he only played one season in the 60's, but he averaged 28.4 ppg on .447 shooting. In the decade of the 70's he EIGHT seasons that were better than his season in the 60's, with a high of .501 while scoring 23.7 ppg.

Walt Bellamy. He is an interesting pick. He came into the league as a highly efficient shooter. He averaged 31.6 ppg on .519 in his rookie season in 61-62. He consistently shot over 50% in his entire career. In his 67-68 he shot .541. But he would top that with a .545 in 71-72, and near the end of his career.

Jerry West. West is one of the players who did have his highest season in the 60's, with a .514 in 67-68, but his early seasons in that decade were .419, .445, and .464. He also had his second best season in the 70's, in 70-71 with a .497 mark.

Jerry Lucas. He was another oddity. In his rookie year in 63-64, he led the league at .527. However, he tapered off for a few seasons, with seasons of .453 and .459, and reached his peak in 68-69 at .551. However, he shot very well in the 70's, as well, with seasons of .513, .512, and .507. And he was almost exclusively a long range shooter in the 70's. In any case, his best season was in the LATE 60's.

Oscar Robertson. He was another player with his best season in the 60's, with a .518 in 62-63 (just a fantastic season BTW.) However, his second best season was late in his career, in 69-70, when shot .511. He also had his 4th best season in 70-71 with a .496.

I'm sure you can find many more examples, and probably some are the exception, but the evidence is OVERWHELMING that teams and players shot much better in the late 60's and even better into the 70's.

Then, take a look at the teams and players that went from the 70's into the 80's. HUGE jumps in FG%. There were TEAMS, even crappy ones, that were shooting over 50% in the 80's. ENTIRE leagues were shooting .490. Interesting, too, was that players like Dantley, Gilmore, and Gervin, who had played several seasons in the 70's, EXPLODED in the 80's, with HUGE FG% seasons. Clearly, there was NO defense played in the 80's.

Back to the 60's, though. Let's use Kareem as an example. He entered the league in 69-70 and shot .518 in his rookie year. He had a couple of seasons of .579, .577. and .574 in the 70's, and at his PEAK. He also had seasons in the 70's of .539, .529, and .513 in the middle of the 70's, and probably in his physical prime. Then came the 80's. In the first EIGHT seasons of the decade of the 80's, he shot .564, or BETTER. His career HIGH of .604 came in the 80's, and his second best season, at .599 came at age 37 in the mid-80's. He had FOUR seasons in the 80's that were better than his best in the 70's. His only two subpar seasons of the 80's came in his last two seasons, and at ages 40 and 41 (.532 and .475.)

Furthermore, and as I have stated many times now...Kareem STRUGGLED mightily against Thurmond and Wilt in their H2H meetings. In their three post-seasons in the early 70's, Thurmond held Kareem to series of .486, .405 (yes, .405!), and .428. He even outscored and outshot Kareem in the 71-72 playoffs. Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Wilt held Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H meetings. And Kareem only shot 50%, or better, in TEN of those 28 games. Not only that, but in the last four pivotal games of the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to a .414 FG%, and was swatting 5-6 skyhooks per game. In Wilt's last season, in 72-73, he outshot Kareem from the field in their six H2H games by a .637 to ,450 margin. Overall, in their last ten H2H meetings, Chamberlain held Kareem to .434 shooting.

Now, neither Wilt, nor Nate, were anywhere close to their primes, while Kareem was in his statistical PRIME in those years. Furthermore, Kareem did not face the great Bill Russell, either. One can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done toi Kareem.

All of which is made even more interesting, when you factor in that Kareem poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 on Hakeem in the 85-86 season. Here was a 39 year-old Kareem dominating an up-and-coming Olajuwon.

So, when you look at Wilt's early seasons, in which he was "only" shooting .510 to .540...he was doing so against MUCH stiffer defenses. His numbers against the LEAGUE AVERAGE were astonishing. Of course, in the PRIME of his career, in the mid-60's, he just CRUSHED the league average. In his 66-67 season, he shot .683, and beat out his nearest competitor, Bellamy, by a STILL record differential of .162 (Bellamy shot .521.) AND, he outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by an eye-popping .244 margin...which is second only to his 72-73 season, in which his .727 outshot the league average of .456 by an ungodly .271 differential (he also outshot his nearest competitor by .157 that season BTW.) Those marks are just SO FAR ahead of ANYONE else in NBA history.

So, keep all of that in mind when you look at these "efficiency" marks.

[Papaya Petee]

Lol I'm just here to see ShaqAttack destroy everyone else.

[Pointguard]

:oldlol: at all of these arguments. Blaming the refs? Tommy Heinsohn mentioned how happy he was when Wilt would take the fadeaway because he was letting them off the hook. He didn't have Shaq's mentality, he admitted that in 1993.
Great video. BUT Hey what gives? Shaq didn't get any better offensivley and Wilt said that improvement was the main point by which he would be better than him. nor did he distinguish himself scoring wise from the other top scorers in fact, a point guard and other centers outscored him. Wilt did dunk alot and I'm sure more than Shaq, but he did say he didn't have the mentality to keep at it and force the issue. But so what?

On the same token, Shaq doesn't have the mentality to physical ability to score like some of his contemporaries or 35ppg, 40ppg, 45ppg, 50ppg. Naaaaaa, we are talking scoring, we didn't say from where or how. If D Howard knew how to get the ball to the bottom of the net folks would be off of his back. We are talking makes and consistency. Wilt averaged 40ppg over 7 years. If Shaq scored 40 points that was an outstanding game for him. If Shaq got within 10 points that average in one year that was an outstanding year. Ohhh, I got some mentality arguments.


And who said all of his passes came from passing to open shooters? I said that's how he got a lot of them. Anyone who thinks he's approaching those assist numbers in the 90's or 00's needs to take their heads out of their asses. In the limited 60's footage available, you can see them throw the ball into the post and throw it back to the shooter with horrible perimeter defense. True! but still, in the end they shot worse than shooters today. With spacing demands either he gets the assist or scores more. His passing was very good. The basket makers weren't. It averages out.


And :oldlol: at Wilt having a superior inside game to Shaq. The comedy in this thread is great. Nobody in NBA history had a great inside game than Shaq. Shaq's game was inside of 8-10 feet and nobody could stop him from getting that close and once he was, particularly if it was single coverage or a weak double team, it was over.
Like I said, this is devoid of skill. Shaq's game was sheer force. And Wilt could have resorted to that and we sometimes see it but by his own admission he used other methods of attack. Wilt's game was still a post game and by far a more versatile, more accomplished and more consistent scorer when he made up his mind to be that. We are talking makes in the end.

[ZenMaster]

Great video. BUT Hey what gives? Shaq didn't get any better offensivley and Wilt said that improvement was the main point by which he would be better than him. nor did he distinguish himself scoring wise from the other top scorers in fact, a point guard and other centers outscored him. Wilt did dunk alot and I'm sure more than Shaq, but he did say he didn't have the mentality to keep at it and force the issue. But so what?

On the same token, Shaq doesn't have the mentality to physical ability to score like some of his contemporaries or 35ppg, 40ppg, 45ppg, 50ppg. Naaaaaa, we are talking scoring, we didn't say from where or how. If D Howard knew how to get the ball to the bottom of the net folks would be off of his back. We are talking makes and consistency. Wilt averaged 40ppg over 7 years. If Shaq scored 40 points that was an outstanding game for him. If Shaq got within 10 points that average in one year that was an outstanding year. Ohhh, I got some mentality arguments.
True! but still, in the end they shot worse than shooters today. With spacing demands either he gets the assist or scores more. His passing was very good. The basket makers weren't. It averages out.

Like I said, this is devoid of skill. Shaq's game was sheer force. And Wilt could have resorted to that and we sometimes see it but by his own admission he used other methods of attack. Wilt's game was still a post game and by far a more versatile, more accomplished and more consistent scorer when he made up his mind to be that. We are talking makes in the end.

Thread title ask who's the greatest power center...

[gts]

power wise, pound for pound shaq is the most powerful center to ever play the game.

first wilt was a marvelous athlete and had hops and speed and footwork, he really was amazing..

but power shaq wins i... how many times did we see shaq in his prime, explode for a slam dunk, not just a quick hop but explode towards the rim, wilt had a grace about him, shaq had violence....

i remember divac hanging on shaqs arm in one of the playoff games trying to draw a foul and shaq takes divac the ball everything to the hoop... amazing power...

[Poochymama]

Lol I'm just here to see ShaqAttack destroy everyone else.


He's been the most logical one here so far. People need to use some context when looking at Wilts stats. Overall, he was most likely a better player than Shaq, but using his super inflated stat padded box scores to prove that is silly.

Wilt would probably be more like a 30/17/4 guy in his prime in today's league.
Career average would probably be more like 26/15/4

Also, defense was not better in the 60's, the lower percentage back then is due to poor shooting, not excellent defense.

And finally, can we stop bringing up these stupid Wilt fairy tales(yes that's what they are). Eye witness accounts don't make them any more credible. Wilt did not bench press 500+ pounds. Having been into weight lifting for the majority of my life, I could maybe see 350 given Wilt's body type, but with those super long arms he'd need a 60+ inch chest to pull off a 500 pound bench. Guys with arms like Wilt's are absolutely HORRIBLE at bench press(doesn't mean they are weak, it just means their body type is terrible for that particular exercise).

Having seen both of these guys, Wilt is obviously the faster of the two, and honestly I never really saw Wilt jump that high, but if I had to put money on who the better jumper was I'd probably go with Wilt.

My verdict? Wilt was the better player, but not by nearly as much as the stats suggest.

[Gotterdammerung]

We have no idea what Wilt's turnover numbers would look like, but I'd bet they'd be quite high considering how much he had the ball. For example, in his 50 ppg season, he took almost 40 shots per game, when you have the ball that much, turnovers are inevitable.

Good point, that turnovers aren't necessarily mishandling the ball alone. Doesn't mean that Wilt turned the ball over as much as he assisted, just because Hakeem and Tim Duncan did. Remember, team defenses weren't allowed to double-team from anywhere as much as they are in Hakeem's and Duncan's time.


Speed? Shaq with the ball on the break. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE

Another youtube link. Does that mean Shaq had world class speed? No. he just hustled his butt downcourt. I'm dubbing you the youtube logician.


And what I mean by more explosive is quick moves in the post, alley oops and powering through guys and dunking on them.

That's actually due to the style of the game, what was expected, and what fires up the team & the crowd. Alley oops were rarely performed, for one thing, in the 60's.


What does better hands have to do with explosiveness? And what does endurance have to do with explosiveness?

Obviously, better hands or grip allow you to control the ball better in all facets, and having greater stamina allow you to be constinent ly athletic throughout, but don't let that force you into the sudden realization that athleticism isn't limited to Shaq's power-dunk game. :rolleyes:


Why would I re-read your post?
Because you repeated a point I made and you're acting like I never said it. :facepalm


All of the facts are in mine.

:banghead:

You mistake statistics for facts, or your opinions for facts. You know what I think of statistics, generally? Why I focused on analyzing the game, rather than straight up stats? The residue of stats is mostly superfluous, and something for sportswriters (or homers like you who couldn't discern what really happened during any given game) to hang their stories on.

True analysts of the game understand that the game itself is the only thing that matters. The living, moving moment of actual competition. The continuum of decisions made or skipped that influenced subsequent decisions and non-decisions. When the game's over, it's over. Numbers are after the fact, futile attempts to freeze time and predict the future. :facepalm

We can throw stats around, but the next level is the actual observation of the player, who they played, how they played versus certain opponents, styles, when they performed the best under adverse situations, and so forth.


Later when I have time I'll break down these assists with examples. Look back at the assist numbers of the premiere centers back then. Duncan, Shaq, Daugherty, Divac, Sabonis ect. didn't need to average 5+ apg for me to know how good they were as passers.

You also gotta put their game in the context of the era as well. When you do that, you'll stop worshipping stats like a homer, as if they transcend the time.


Uh, when you got numerous guys averaging around 20 rpg and you got a guy like Wilt attempting nearly 40 shots per game, pace is a HUGE factor, particularly when a lot the arguments will be based on statss.

Yes, but there's more to the game than stats. Pace factor clearly indicated the style of the game, but there were other factors that you must also include

[ShaqAttack3234]

Great video. BUT Hey what gives? Shaq didn't get any better offensivley and Wilt said that improvement was the main point by which he would be better than him. nor did he distinguish himself scoring wise from the other top scorers in fact, a point guard and other centers outscored him. Wilt did dunk alot and I'm sure more than Shaq, but he did say he didn't have the mentality to keep at it and force the issue. But so what?

:roll: Shaq didn't improve from his rookie year offensively? He averaged 23.4 ppg on 56.2% shooting that year. For the next 10 years, he never averaged under 26 ppg, shot as high as 59.9% and his assist numbers doubled while his turnovers decreased.

Shaq didn't distinguish himself as a scorer? :roll: He's one of only 4 players in NBA history to win a scoring title and championship in the same season. The others are Jordan, Kareem and Mikan. That shows those weren't empty stats.

He won 2 scoring titles and got to the finals both of those years, was top 2 in scoring 6 times, top 3 eight times and had an additional top 4 finish in '03 and not once in those years did the player who finished ahead of him in those years have a higher FG% or TS%. In fact, some of those years, the players who finished ahead of him weren't even close in FG% and TS%, he averaged 30.5 ppg on an insane 61.2% shooting in the '98 playoffs and had back to back 30+ championship runs. His 38 ppg in the 2000 finals is the most ever by a big man in the finals and I believe he has the second highest scoring average ever in a finals series for a big man with 36+ in '02, his '01 series(vs the DPOY and a top 5 defensive team) may be the 4th because the only other big man I remember with a higher scoring average in the finals is Kareem in '80.

And if that wasn't enough, his prime coincided with the slowest paced time of the shot clock era.



On the same token, Shaq doesn't have the mentality to physical ability to score like some of his contemporaries or 35ppg, 40ppg, 45ppg, 50ppg. Naaaaaa, we are talking scoring, we didn't say from where or how. If D Howard knew how to get the ball to the bottom of the net folks would be off of his back. We are talking makes and consistency. Wilt averaged 40ppg over 7 years. If Shaq scored 40 points that was an outstanding game for him. If Shaq got within 10 points that average in one year that was an outstanding year. Ohhh, I got some mentality arguments.
True! but still, in the end they shot worse than shooters today. With spacing demands either he gets the assist or scores more. His passing was very good. The basket makers weren't. It averages out.

Shaq wasn't playing in an era where he could get 30-40 shots per game. Nor was he playing the entire game, even in blowouts. For example, in 1962, Wilt had a 62 point game and 21 of them came in the 4th quarter. Now you may ask what's the problem, well I'll tell you. Wilt's team was trailing by 31 entering the quarter and Russell didn't even play in the final 5 minutes. I have numerous other examples if you wish to push the issue.

And Dwight Howard can get the ball in the bottom of the net. He just led the league in FG%, he's led his team in scoring 4 consecutive years, he averaged 20+ in the playoffs on 60% shooting while leading his team to the finals and he's average 20+ in 2 seasons on great efficiency.


Like I said, this is devoid of skill. Shaq's game was sheer force. And Wilt could have resorted to that and we sometimes see it but by his own admission he used other methods of attack. Wilt's game was still a post game and by far a more versatile, more accomplished and more consistent scorer when he made up his mind to be that. We are talking makes in the end.

More garbage just begging to be destroyed. Shaq wasn't skilled? Check out his footwork vs Robinson.

This is vs the 4 time DPOY(and the winner that year), a player who made the 9th out of his 10 all-star teams that year and a top 5 defensive team that year.

Great move- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKICLZfKMG0#t=0m10s

Similar move, but just as unstoppable the second time-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKICLZfKMG0#t=1m21s

Fantastic Olajuwon-esque move to freeze Mutombo- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKICLZfKMG0#t=2m07s

And that's just in the early part of 1 game, I could post many other great moves from this game and others, but I won't waste my time, instead, I'll let someone else do the talking.

Pete Newell, known as a big man guru, a man who coached against Wilt.


"People think it's all power with Shaq, but they're wrong," says 86-year-old Pete Newell, the big-man guru who coached against Wilt and who schooled Shaq at his offseason camp in the early '90s. "Here's what I've seen [O'Neal] do in one game: Bank off the glass. Little lob hook in the paint. Step-back move on the baseline. Quick spin move when he comes out on the other side to shoot. And a neat step-through move when he was doubled or tripled. You go over the history of centers and can you remember anyone, except maybe Hakeem Olajuwon, showing all that? And Hakeem didn't have the power game. I don't like to rate players according to who's best, but none of the great centers had Shaq's moves and counters, and none of them, including Wilt, had his strength."

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

But yeah, he's not skilled. :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Another youtube link. Does that mean Shaq had world class speed? No. he just hustled his butt downcourt. I'm dubbing you the youtube logician.

That's not nearly the only time Shaq outran everyone downcourt, and doing it with the ball is phenomenal for a center, much less a center as big as Shaq. And it's much, much better than you posting claims without footage to back it up.


Obviously, better hands or grip allow you to control the ball better in all facets, and having greater stamina allow you to be constinent ly athletic throughout, but don't let that force you into the sudden realization that athleticism isn't limited to Shaq's power-dunk game. :rolleyes:

Who said athleticism is limited to power dunks? What about quick spin moves and advanced footwork all at 7'1", 340? Moves, the caliber of which I've never seen from Wilt even highlight mixes were done by Shaq on a regular basis in his prime.


You mistake statistics for facts, or your opinions for facts. You know what I think of statistics, generally? Why I focused on analyzing the game, rather than straight up stats? The residue of stats is mostly superfluous, and something for sportswriters (or homers like you who couldn't discern what really happened during any given game) to hang their stories on.

True analysts of the game understand that the game itself is the only thing that matters. The living, moving moment of actual competition. The continuum of decisions made or skipped that influenced subsequent decisions and non-decisions. When the game's over, it's over. Numbers are after the fact, futile attempts to freeze time and predict the future. :facepalm

:roll: I've watched all of the game footage available of Wilt and the footage makes him look A LOT worse compared to the stats. I posted a thread with detailed analysis of the '67 game that's available and posted his strengths and weaknesses in the video, not just one or the other.



We can throw stats around, but the next level is the actual observation of the player, who they played, how they played versus certain opponents, styles, when they performed the best under adverse situations, and so forth.

Under adverse situations? You mean the playoffs? Well, we know who wins there, the guy with 4 rings(and no, I'm not just basing my argument on rings)


You also gotta put their game in the context of the era as well. When you do that, you'll stop worshipping stats like a homer, as if they transcend the time.

:roll: Yet you're the one bringing up assist/turnover stats.


Yes, but there's more to the game than stats. Pace factor clearly indicated the style of the game, but there were other factors that you must also include – 3 pointers, talent pool, level of competition, rules, coaching tendencies, & so forth. That's why I don't think pace factor is a transcendental statistic that easily translates the stats of one player in one era into another's. Unless they're in the same time period, pace factor is practically useless – unless you're a shaq fan fighting a lost cause. :lol:

:oldlol: I didn't try estimating what Wilt's stats would look like, I'm saying that those using stats to argue for Wilt have to factor in several things which helped players put up better stats back then.


No, there's more to it, but I'm afraid you don't have the courage to admit it. :violin:

Nope, he played 2 different styles when each coach asked him to play each style.

[Rendezvous32]

In a Power Scale from 1-10.

Shaq's power level was a 9, while Wilt's power level was 9,000,000

[PHILA]

In a Power Scale from 1-10.

Shaq's power level was a 9, while Wilt's power level was 9,000,000
Is Aaron Brooks still a racist for not passing enough to Yao?

[Rendezvous32]

Is Aaron Brooks still a racist for not passing enough to Yao?
:oldlol: Hilarious, I'm on your side and you are calling me out for something I said two years ago.

[jlauber]

Using the OP, I concede that Shaq was more of a POWER center. And I don't diminish Shaq for that, either. If anything, IMHO, Jackson should have taken advantage of Shaq's power MORE than he did.

And, while even Wilt admitted that he didn't use his massive strength and power to near the advantage that Shaq did, it must be noted that, IMHO, the NBA would never have allowed it either. The league was constantly putting in rules in an attempt to prevent Wilt from making a complete mockery of the game.


Also, defense was not better in the 60's, the lower percentage back then is due to poor shooting, not excellent defense.

So, almost every player in the league IMPROVED, some dramatically, in their shooting? My god, Thurmond had seasons of .395 and Reed had seasons of .432 in the mid-60's. I mentioned Havlicek, as well. Seasons of .399, .402, and .405 in the early to mid-60's, and then some eight seasons better than his BEST year in the 60's, in the 70's and in years past his prime. And why could Kareem shoot nearly 60% in the 80's, including some monster games against Hakeem, and yet have years of .539, .529, .518, and .513 in his PRIME? AND, then shoot MUCH worse against the likes of Wilt and Thurmond... even as low as .405??? C'mon. In Wilt's "scoring" seasons the NBA shot .410, .415, .426, .441, .433, and .433...and even in his other year's the league shot around .440 to .450. You can't tell me that virtually EVERY player became much better shooters throughout their careers, even at the tail-end of them.

Of course, aside from the fact that Wilt was shooting much more from the outside, he still shot anywhere from .506 to .540. Those were his worst seasons (other than his rookie year, in which he shot .461 in a league that shot .410.) Those percentages compare favorably with Olajuwon and Robinson's BEST seasons...and Wilt was shooting the ball far more often. And NO ONE could come close to Wilt in his "efficient" seasons, even without era or pace. And when you include league average...he simply blows everyone else completelty away.

On top of all of that, Wilt was seldom played one-on-one. Even the great Bill Russell had to have help...

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

"In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."


Once again, I have been one of Shaq's biggest supporters on this forum. IMHO, at his peak, he was CLEARLY the best player of his era (sorry Duncan, Robinson, Garnett, Olajuwon, and Kobe.) And, at his best, he was nearly the equal of Wilt. In some aspects, he was superior. But, overall, I just don't see the total impact that Wilt had on the game.

[gts]

:oldlol: Hilarious, I'm on your side and you are calling me out for something I said two years ago.
RG, i think he's actually trying to engage folks with real discussion... something you'd know nothing about but should probably think about trying once in your life before you die

[PHILA]

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=W40Y3RI9



* 2:53 mark one can see him offensive rebound then

*Note the power move at 0:25 with the finger roll (which may have went in had he enjoyed the luxury of playing on a stable basket with modern rims as opposed to the Boston Garden upper deck fans moving the basket by shaking the guide wire as an opponent shot). This is without the other luxury of using his shoulder as a hammer to gain an advantage.





"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Shaq is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."

-1999




The Spokesman-Review - May 12, 1997 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qrQpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jPEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6610,2712911&dq)

'Figuratively speaking, Shaquille O'Neal said he used to look up to Wilt Chamberlain. Not any more. O'Neal was apprised of comments Chamberlain made about him last week on ESPN's "Up Close," and responded with some harsh words of his own.

"Wilt Chamberlain was a great player," O'Neal said, "Give him his respect. But Wilt Chamberlain can kiss my ass."

The former Lakers center, appearing on the show to promote his new book, said Bullets center Gheorge Muresan may have more to offer as a player than O'Neal.

"As they call fouls today," Chamberlain said, "Shaq gets away with what I consider murder. I mean, I would think when you dip your shoulder and run over the top of the guy, and the foul is called on the guy who's laying on the floor, you're getting away with something. So Shaq is allowed to score some points that maybe he wouldn't (otherwise) get."

"But if you made it a straight-up situation, and gave the same rules and regulations to Shaq that you give to Gheorge Muresan.... Muresan has a better touch around the basket, he can score more points."

O'Neal said he didn't see the show, but when asked if he had, he replied: "Was Wilt doggin' me again?"

"I'd average 85 on Wilt, then and now," O'Neal said. "I thought certain people were mentors. I'm glad I know who my real friends are."



*Yeah. The referees.'






I've watched all of the game footage available of Wilt and the footage makes him look A LOT worse compared to the stats. I posted a thread with detailed analysis of the '67 game that's available and posted his strengths and weaknesses in the video, not just one or the other.

What about quick spin moves and advanced footwork all at 7'1", 340? Moves, the caliber of which I've never seen from Wilt even highlight mixes were done by Shaq on a regular basis in his prime.




The entire team was lethargic in that 2nd half. Of course had they played great the NBA wouldn't have released it. From such a brief sample anyone can look unimpressive in the pivot by your apparent standards like this fat stiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVS5bcBIqs#t=4m50s) or this skinny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=1m55s) twig.

Chamberlain's baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd89mkHoy4#t=0m26s) move that many attribute to Shaq was at least as good. His finger roll shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m8s) was the best in league history from the position and while his footwork was exceptional if need be, performing moves that I have never seen from any other great center, even a nice fake move (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpS5fq4GVo#t=0m19s) never before seen from most other top post players as well as a fake pass quick baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8#t=0m21s). O'Neal indeed was quicker on his feet at his size and Jabbar more graceful as his step move into the hooking motion is more aesthetically pleasing to most people than Wilt Chamberlain's footwork. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m47s) what appears to be a rebound drop step into the middle with a fake pass and lay-in. He also had the best power one-dribble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=3m35s) move in NBA dribble.


Was Pat Ewing a better offensive big man the Wilt or Kareem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOpaODzRfY#t=2m10s

Or perhaps Hakeem Olajuwon?


I understand the fascination with post moves and what not as well as the ranking players based on the assumption of how great they'd be today. A nice thought indeed, but a player can only be judged against his own competition. What makes today's league the standard? It may be worst in NBA history as far as pivot play is concerned. Ten years ago when folks were bitching about the lack of great centers against Shaq I don't think they ever dreamed it would get this bad.

[Poochymama]

Once again, I have been one of Shaq's biggest supporters on this forum. IMHO, at his peak, he was CLEARLY the best player of his era (sorry Duncan, Robinson, Garnett, Olajuwon, and Kobe.) And, at his best, he was nearly the equal of Wilt. In some aspects, he was superior. But, overall, I just don't see the total impact that Wilt had on the game.

I do agree that Wilt, overall, was a better player than Shaq, but not by much(as the stats would suggest). I think we are somewhat in agreement about this.

However, even though I was quite young when Wilt was playing, and I didn't get to see all of his games, from what I remember and videos I have seen, the shooting techniques back then were a notch below what they are now. You saw WAY more missed shots(often the shooter was wide open). It is odd that % for many players increased over the years, but I think that has more to do with the league expanding so much(because of guys like Wilt/Russell), and the knowledge of shooting/scoring techniques that comes with said expansion.

While the elite players of the 60s seemed just as good as the elite players of today, the average players were noticeably worse. Ball handling skills were atrocious, most people could only dribble with one hand, athleticism was quite a bit worse, and there were just a LOT of terrible shooters who seemed to miss wide open shots. Watching Wilt play seemed like watching a superstar play with a bunch of College kids. Take any modern superstar(Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron) and drop them into the 1960's league and they'll most likely produce Wilt like numbers. Drop Wilt in todays league and his numbers would drop significantly, he'd probably produce very similar numbers to a guy like Shaq(probably about equal in scoring, but a bit better in everything else), but he certainly wouldn't be scoring 50 points a game.

[jlauber]

Shaq wasn't playing in an era where he could get 30-40 shots per game. Nor was he playing the entire game, even in blowouts. For example, in 1962, Wilt had a 62 point game and 21 of them came in the 4th quarter. Now you may ask what's the problem, well I'll tell you. Wilt's team was trailing by 31 entering the quarter and Russell didn't even play in the final 5 minutes. I have numerous other examples if you wish to push the issue.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200003060LAC.html

How about playing 45 minutes in a 123-103 rout of the hapless Clippers. In the process he hung a 61 point, 23 rebound game on the likes of Olawakandi and Chilcutt. Meanwhile, Wilt scores 41 points against Russell in three quarters, and down by 31 points (in game in which he shot 27-45 BTW). He finishes with 62 in a nine point loss.

I guess running up stats against two of the worst centers of the 00's, in a complete blowout, LATE in the season, is NOT "stats-padding"?

Just another double-standard...

[ILLsmak]

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234
Why would I re-read your post? All of the facts are in mine.
[/QUOTE]

loooooool.

On forums everywhere people forget about Shaq and how good he was. I didn't somehow become a Shaq fan because I am in love with Shaq's sex appeal... it was his style as a basketball player.

I mean, you can probably search my post history and find more that I said about Shaq... I've come up with all angles, but nobody really wanted to bend or listen.

The truth is the truth... pulling out someone like Wilt and comparing him to Shaq is a pretty huge compliment, but you are doing it because you want to discredit Shaq... which makes no sense.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200003060LAC.html

How about playing 45 minutes in a 123-103 rout of the hapless Clippers. In the process he hung a 61 point, 23 rebound game on the likes of Olawakandi and Chilcutt. Meanwhile, Wilt scores 41 points against Russell in three quarters, and down by 31 points (in game in which he shot 27-45 BTW). He finishes with 62 in a nine point loss.

I guess running up stats against two of the worst centers of the 00's, in a complete blowout, LATE in the season, is NOT "stats-padding"?

Just another double-standard...

^ Double post...

That was Shaq's birthday... lol.

-Smak

[PHILA]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200003060LAC.html

How about playing 45 minutes in a 123-103 rout of the hapless Clippers. In the process he hung a 61 point, 23 rebound game on the likes of Olawakandi and Chilcutt. Meanwhile, Wilt scores 41 points against Russell in three quarters, and down by 31 points (in game in which he shot 27-45 BTW). He finishes with 62 in a nine point loss.

I guess running up stats against two of the worst centers of the 00's, in a complete blowout, LATE in the season, is NOT "stats-padding"?

Just another double-standard...
Russell did not play the last 5 minutes of that game due to his 6 fouls, a mighty fine and convenient exclusion from ShaqAttack3432's original comment.

And to correct him again, the Celtics were up 27, not 31 at the end of the 3rd. Unfortunately, we don't know what the score was when Russell fouled out, but helping his team cut a 27 point deficit that they fell into due to foul trouble early in the game (another convenient exclusion) to a single digit loss, one would think there had to have been some positive effort given on Chamberlain's part.

Unless of course Chamberlain was expected to kneel on his shin guards on the creaky Boston parquet floor whenever his team was losing big and beg his coach to sit down for the remainder of the game. At least we are no longer using facial appearance and hair style as a criteria to rank defensive men or the common player at the time. :facepalm

[PHILA]

Wilt would probably be more like a 30/17/4 guy in his prime in today's league.

My verdict? Wilt was the better player, but not by nearly as much as the stats suggest.
Now this we can agree on somewhat. Of course O'Neal and Chamberlain would be perhaps the best matchup to see.




'Wilt's got massive upper body strength to go with huge wingspan. Players with a low C of gravity--Wayne Embry, Zelmo Beaty, Wes Unseld--were the type of player that gave Wilt the most trouble when he was younger. As Wilt got older, he packed weight on below the belt. When he was rehabbing his torn knee ligament(s) in 1970, he realized that he had lost some of his quickness and speed. But he compensated for it by adding lower body muscle--lots of sand volleyball and combination strength/stretching exercises that people thought were crazy at the time. Now, we'd say he increased core strength. In the 3-4 years before his knee injury Wilt played at around 265-280. Afterwards, he was 290-315. All the extra weight was lower body muscle.

And here's the thing...I still don't think he was ever as strong as Shaq in lower body strength. Or ever could be. Shaq's weight and strength was/is low. He would have really given the young (pre-1965 or so) Wilt problems. And even when he was fat (which was often) Shaq had good quickness, even if he had a lot less explosiveness. It would have been great to see both the 1966-1969 Wilt and the post injury Wilt go up against the peak version of Shaq. 1966-69 Wilt had good lower body strength and elite/unique quickness and agility for a guy of that size. 1970 and later Wilt was almost--but not quite--as strong as Shaq down low, and was about the same level in agility and quickness. But Wilt always had an advantage in upper body strength and explosiveness. So, different types of strength.

As to the smarts/skills/etc., you have to go with Wilt. It's a no-brainer. Put it this way. In 1961, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to score like no other center--or player--has done before." So Wilt scored more than any player in history, and his team set a franchise record for wins and missed out on the finals because of a controversial call in Game 7 of the conference finals (thank you, Mendy Rudolph!). Five years later, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to do what no C has done before--become the focal point of the offense, and be a premier passer; a point center." So Wilt was a top 3 assist man in the league, and the team set a league record for victories and won a title. Five years after that, Wilt's coach told him, on a high octane running team, "Only take high percentage shots, make sharp outlet passes, and be the best defensive player in the league." Wilt did all that, the team set a league record for victories and won a title. And in all of the years, and years in between, Wilt led the league in rebounding and minutes played virtually every season.

I don't know of any other great player who has been asked to change his game so completely for his team. I do know that Wilt did it, and it was always successful. That says something about his broad skillset, basketball IQ, and ability to do what is necessary...you didn't need to build a team around Wilt. Wilt was multi-skilled enough to build his skillset around the team and coaching plan. Other great players may have been able to do this...but Wilt was the only one who definitively did, and was a top 3-5 player every time.'

[PHILA]

Hall of Famer Dolph Schayes earned selection to the NBA’s 50 Greatest Players List and played against Wilt Chamberlain for several years before coaching him with the Philadelphia 76ers. Who would he take first in a hypothetical draft—Wilt Chamberlain at his best or Shaquille O’Neal at his best? Schayes replies, "The Wilt Chamberlain of the latter years is who I would pick, merely because he was an unstoppable inside player—a much better rebounder than Shaq, a better shot blocker than Shaq and I think he was a better team guy with the guys on the team than Shaq. It was the Wilt who was the all-around player, the passing Wilt. They are both haunted by their poor foul shooting. In Shaq’s case—if he and Wilt had to play against each other—one of Wilt’s great records would have been broken and that record is never having fouled out of a game. I think that if Wilt had to play Shaq--the physical Shaq going to the basket and all that and Wilt accepting the challenge of trying to stop him—Wilt would have fouled out of games. Wilt never fouled out against the Celtics because Russell was not the offensive threat that Shaq is. As far as Shaq is concerned, there is a good Shaq and a bad Shaq. There is a Shaq that I think sometimes doesn’t compete 100% as he should—that’s the bad Shaq. The good Shaq that competes 100% would have given Wilt a lot of trouble offensively. Shaq, when he wants to be an offensive weapon, is one of the greatest in the history of the game and would dominate and would force even Wilt into foul trouble. So who’s the better of the two? In my opinion I would say Wilt."

Schayes adds, "The early Wilt I would not take (over Shaq). He took a lot of fadeaway jump shots, which was a very poor selection. I think he did that because Wilt, being a very proud person, a very egotistical person--nobody becomes great unless they have a big ego—felt that he wasn’t a complete basketball player unless he had more of a game than just dunking and being around the basket. He was constantly criticized for not being a complete player—'All you do is dunk.' So he said to himself, 'I’m going to prove that I can shoot as well as anybody.' That’s why he took those stupid, foolish, idiotic fadeaway jump shots—to prove to somebody, mostly himself, that he could play besides just being a big guy. When he took that shot I would tear my hair out (as his coach) and say, 'Oh my God,' because it put him off balance, he couldn’t rebound his own shot and his man was able to take off and get layups because he was off balance."

Schayes' fellow Hall of Famer and Top 50 selection Oscar Robertson also prefers Wilt to Shaq: "You have to take Wilt. He once averaged 50 points a game and he averaged 24-plus rebounds per game and he (had seasons in which he) averaged 5-7 assists. As dominant as Shaq is with the players he is playing against, Wilt was just awesome. Shaq is an aggressive player who uses his weight and strength to overpower people. Wilt had power but he also had the finger roll and the bank shot--Wilt had a more complete game in the pivot."

Dr. Jack Ramsay was the General Manager of Chamberlain’s 1967 Philadelphia 76ers team that set an NBA record for wins in a season and ended Boston’s eight year stranglehold on the NBA title. So he would choose Wilt, right? As Lee Corso would say, not so fast my friend. Ramsay offers this scouting report: "Wilt was an amazing player. I would say it's hard to predict how they would fare against each other. Wilt was a little taller, rangier, a great shot blocker--much more of a shot blocker than Shaq." Why was Wilt a better shot blocker? Ramsay explains, "His length. Longer than Shaq, long arms. Great timing for the ball. They didn't keep stats at that time for blocked shots. I was writing a piece about defense in general and I wanted to find out how many shots Chamberlain and Russell blocked--Russell was even better. So I called Boston and they said they didn't have any clips and they didn't keep any stats of that. I called Harvey (Pollack) and Harvey said, 'We don't have anything for a whole season, but every so often I would have one of our stat guys keep blocks. I know for a fact that there were a couple games when Wilt had 25 blocks." Keep in mind that the NBA has only officially recorded blocked shots since 1973-74 and the official NBA record is 17, set by Elmore Smith.

[PHILA]

[I]Ramsay notes that Chamberlain was ahead of his time with his emphasis on strength training. Was Chamberlain stronger than Shaq in terms of basketball, not necessarily bench press strength, but in terms of holding his position, backing somebody down, using the strength in a basketball sense? Ramsay said, "I think probably Shaq (is stronger), because of his body mass. He is so wide and thick--and very quick footed, has great command of his feet. You'll see every so often, some of his spin moves--they're lightning quick. I don't think Wilt had that. Wilt was more methodical, worked the ball and the finger roll, back into the basket. It's hard to say how it would've come out, but it would've been a great matchup."

What about Wilt

[Pointguard]

Thread title ask who's the greatest power center...

Help me out... power to get rebounds, power to score, power to block shots, power to change their game... or who is Shaq?

[jlauber]

Russell did not play the last 5 minutes of that game due to his 6 fouls, a mighty fine and convenient exclusion from ShaqAttack3432's original comment.

And to correct him again, the Celtics were up 27, not 31 at the end of the 3rd. Unfortunately, we don't know what the score was when Russell fouled out, but helping his team cut a 27 point deficit that they fell into due to foul trouble early in the game (another convenient exclusion) to a single digit loss, one would think there had to have been some positive effort given on Chamberlain's part.

Unless of course Chamberlain was expected to kneel on his shin guards on the creaky Boston parquet floor whenever his team was losing big and beg his coach to sit down for the remainder of the game. At least we are no longer ranking old school players by their facial appearance and hairstyle. :facepalm

Wilt had a 78-43 game in an OT loss to the Lakers in the 61-62 season, too.

And, take a look at his 62-63 H2H games against Russell. In nine games, he averaged 38 ppg (to Russell's 14). FIVE of those nine games were close games, and of the other four, Wilt's team won one of them.

Here are the games...

1. Boston wins 127-109. Wilt puts up a 45-27 game. Russell has a 12-26 game.

2. Boston wins 116-113. Wilt with a 43-32 game. Russell with an 8-30 game.

3. Boston wins 108-102. Wilt 32-27, Russell 11-16

4. Boston wins 135-120 but it is in OT. Wilt 23-31, Russell 10-33

5. Boston wins 118-112. Wilt 45-31. Russell 16-36.

6. Boston wins 125-111. Wilt 50-17. Russell 23-21.

7. Boston wins 118-112. Wilt 31-27. Russell 6-28.

8. Boston wins 135-118. Wilt 40-38. Russell 25-38.

9. SF wins 128-112. Wilt 34-30. Russell 20-22.

Now, we don't know what the scores were going into the 4th quarters, but in any case, Wilt never gave up...despite the fact that Russell's Celtics enjoyed an 8-1 edge in HOFers.

[Pointguard]

:roll: Shaq didn't improve from his rookie year offensively? He averaged 23.4 ppg on 56.2% shooting that year. For the next 10 years, he never averaged under 26 ppg, shot as high as 59.9% and his assist numbers doubled while his turnovers decreased.
LOL, why are you rolling your head??? His scoring repertoire did not improve. All he did was was use his strength. He might have increased his range from 5.5 feet to six??? Then your head is rolling and you bring up some real embarrasing numbers in a Wilt conversation. LOL,


Shaq didn't distinguish himself as a scorer? :roll: He's one of only 4 players in NBA history to win a scoring title and championship in the same season. The others are Jordan, Kareem and Mikan. That shows those weren't empty stats. Iverson averaged more. Robinson averaged more. Tmac was averaging more. MJ was in a different league. He has no scoring records.


He won 2 scoring titles and got to the finals both of those years, was top 2 in scoring 6 times, top 3 eight times and had an additional top 4 finish in '03 and not once in those years did the player who finished ahead of him in those years have a higher FG% or TS%. In fact, some of those years, the players who finished ahead of him weren't even close in FG% and TS%, he averaged 30.5 ppg on an insane 61.2% shooting in the '98 playoffs and had back to back 30+ championship runs. His 38 ppg in the 2000 finals is the most ever by a big man in the finals and I believe he has the second highest scoring average ever in a finals series for a big man with 36+ in '02, his '01 series(vs the DPOY and a top 5 defensive team) may be the 4th because the only other big man I remember with a higher scoring average in the finals is Kareem in '80.

And if that wasn't enough, his prime coincided with the slowest paced time of the shot clock era. That means little because other players were usually outscoring him. Plus Shaq has played with more supertalents than anybody in the sport. Certainly more than anybody in the current era. In 15 years out of his 17 years the guy has had phenomenal talent on his team. He is supposed to flourish. If he was left on the Tim Duncan and the Kevin Garnett islands his numbers fall of tremendously.



Shaq wasn't playing in an era where he could get 30-40 shots per game. Nor was he playing the entire game, even in blowouts. For example, in 1962, Wilt had a 62 point game and 21 of them came in the 4th quarter. Now you may ask what's the problem, well I'll tell you. Wilt's team was trailing by 31 entering the quarter and Russell didn't even play in the final 5 minutes. I have numerous other examples if you wish to push the issue.
Wilt didn't need to come out games. He didn't needed to be preserved like Shaq. That was just a quality about him. He stayed that way for a long time. It was a faster paced game with much more activity than now and yet he played more minutes. He would be called an Iron Man today.


And Dwight Howard can get the ball in the bottom of the net. He just led the league in FG%, he's led his team in scoring 4 consecutive years, he averaged 20+ in the playoffs on 60% shooting while leading his team to the finals and he's average 20+ in 2 seasons on great efficiency. ahhh, another skilless big man that would flourish with some skill and big man moves. I like him but if he worked on his game beyond 7 feet he would be a superstar. These pure power games are very limited. I like speed, Amare if he was healthy would have averaged more than either one. Or good low post moves like Duncan and Hakeem are more dependable against good defenses.



More garbage just begging to be destroyed. Shaq wasn't skilled? Check out his footwork vs Robinson.

This is vs the 4 time DPOY(and the winner that year), a player who made the 9th out of his 10 all-star teams that year and a top 5 defensive team that year. Love it when the destroyer comes out! Didn't I just say that I gave Shaq the happy feet skill??? Are you arguing with yourself or me?



But yeah, he's not skilled. :facepalm
Come on destroyer, you gots to come better than that. Who had the better shooting skill? Blocking skill? Rebounding skill? Passing skill? After block skills? all around center skills? picking up girls skill? LOL. Its a laaaandsliiiide

[ShaqAttack3234]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200003060LAC.html

How about playing 45 minutes in a 123-103 rout of the hapless Clippers. In the process he hung a 61 point, 23 rebound game on the likes of Olawakandi and Chilcutt. Meanwhile, Wilt scores 41 points against Russell in three quarters, and down by 31 points (in game in which he shot 27-45 BTW). He finishes with 62 in a nine point loss.

I guess running up stats against two of the worst centers of the 00's, in a complete blowout, LATE in the season, is NOT "stats-padding"?

Just another double-standard...

Shaq didn't make a habit of statpadding in blowouts. It was a 12 point game entering in the 4th, Shaq was piling up the points so they left him in for a bit, he didn't finish the game iirc. It was his birthday and he had a chance at a very special game.

Look at game 1 of the 2000 finals. It's a 6 point game entering the 4th, Shaq then goes off in the 4th and scores 12 points and scores or assists on every basket of the first 9 minutes of the quarter aside from 2 Rick Fox jumpers(which his presence helped) and he has 43 points, 19 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 blocks. But the lead had stretched from 6 to 17 and he sat down with 3 minutes remaining rather than going for 50/20.

Do I even need to bring up the recaps from the '62 EDF when articles would say things like "he got most of his points after the game was no longer an issue"

[Pointguard]

'Wilt's got massive upper body strength to go with huge wingspan. Players with a low C of gravity--Wayne Embry, Zelmo Beaty, Wes Unseld--were the type of player that gave Wilt the most trouble when he was younger. As Wilt got older, he packed weight on below the belt. When he was rehabbing his torn knee ligament(s) in 1970, he realized that he had lost some of his quickness and speed. But he compensated for it by adding lower body muscle--lots of sand volleyball and combination strength/stretching exercises that people thought were crazy at the time. Now, we'd say he increased core strength. In the 3-4 years before his knee injury Wilt played at around 265-280. Afterwards, he was 290-315. All the extra weight was lower body muscle.

And here's the thing...I still don't think he was ever as strong as Shaq in lower body strength. Or ever could be. Shaq's weight and strength was/is low. He would have really given the young (pre-1965 or so) Wilt problems. And even when he was fat (which was often) Shaq had good quickness, even if he had a lot less explosiveness. It would have been great to see both the 1966-1969 Wilt and the post injury Wilt go up against the peak version of Shaq. 1966-69 Wilt had good lower body strength and elite/unique quickness and agility for a guy of that size. 1970 and later Wilt was almost--but not quite--as strong as Shaq down low, and was about the same level in agility and quickness. But Wilt always had an advantage in upper body strength and explosiveness. So, different types of strength.

As to the smarts/skills/etc., you have to go with Wilt. It's a no-brainer. Put it this way. In 1961, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to score like no other center--or player--has done before." So Wilt scored more than any player in history, and his team set a franchise record for wins and missed out on the finals because of a controversial call in Game 7 of the conference finals (thank you, Mendy Rudolph!). Five years later, Wilt's coach told him, "I want you to do what no C has done before--become the focal point of the offense, and be a premier passer; a point center." So Wilt was a top 3 assist man in the league, and the team set a league record for victories and won a title. Five years after that, Wilt's coach told him, on a high octane running team, "Only take high percentage shots, make sharp outlet passes, and be the best defensive player in the league." Wilt did all that, the team set a league record for victories and won a title. And in all of the years, and years in between, Wilt led the league in rebounding and minutes played virtually every season.

I don't know of any other great player who has been asked to change his game so completely for his team. I do know that Wilt did it, and it was always successful. That says something about his broad skillset, basketball IQ, and ability to do what is necessary...you didn't need to build a team around Wilt. Wilt was multi-skilled enough to build his skillset around the team and coaching plan. Other great players may have been able to do this...but Wilt was the only one who definitively did, and was a top 3-5 player every time.'
[/I]
Great Post

[jlauber]

Shaq didn't make a habit of statpadding in blowouts. It was a 12 point game entering in the 4th, Shaq was piling up the points so they left him in for a bit, he didn't finish the game iirc. It was his birthday and he had a chance at a very special game.

Look at game 1 of the 2000 finals. It's a 6 point game entering the 4th, Shaq then goes off in the 4th and scores 12 points and scores or assists on every basket of the first 9 minutes of the quarter aside from 2 Rick Fox jumpers(which his presence helped) and he has 43 points, 19 rebounds, 4 assists and 3 blocks. But the lead had stretched from 6 to 17 and he sat down with 3 minutes remaining rather than going for 50/20.

Do I even need to bring up the recaps from the '62 EDF when articles would say things like "he got most of his points after the game was no longer an issue"

I just pointed out the 62-63 H2H's between Russell and Wilt. We don't know the scores going into the 4th quarters, but FIVE of the nine were very close games at the end. And Wilt CRUSHED Russell in almost every game.

I could, of course, point out some other post-season series between the two, in which Chamberlain just buried Russell, as well. In any case, Russell was usually playing 48 minutes against Wilt, no matter the score.

Look, I get so tired of these "stats-padding" accusations. Wilt AVERAGED 45 mpg in his CAREER, which included about seven seasons in which Wilt didn't even try to lead the league in scoring. Furthermore, Chamberlain AVERAGED 47.2 mpg in his 160 CAREER playoff games. Those stats certainly didn't count.

And, how about Kareem in the '71-72 season, in which he led the league in mpg, at 44.2, and scoring, at 34.8 ppg, on a team that went 63-19, and won their games by an AVERAGE margin of +11.1?

Chamberlain consistently played "iron man" minutes his ENTIRE career.

[PistolPete]

Wilt would dominate Shaq. Wilt was a tad bit better free throw shooter and he would expose Shaq easily. Would have been great to see those two play together. R.I.P. Wilt the Stilt

[PHILA]

Do I even need to bring up the recaps from the '62 EDF when articles would say things like "he got most of his points after the game was no longer an issue"

Was "Mr Clutch" stat padding in the 5th game of the '69 Finals as the Lakers had a double digit lead at the end of the 3rd & were up nearly 20 points in the 4th while Butch inexplicably left him in the game. http://forums.realgm.com/boards/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif Someone as scrutinized under a microscope as Wilt was (and still is) will have perceived flaws held against him that are consistently excused for others. Was Abdul-Jabbar stat padding when he played 47 minutes in a 117-106 loss to the Warriors in the first game of the '73 playoffs or when he played 47 minutes in a 93-72 victory over the Lakers in the first game of the '72 playoffs (a game that the Bucks led by 26 after 3 quarters and as much as 31 early in the 4th)? Or a '73-74 regular season victory during which he played 46 minutes (with the flu) in a game against the then 9-16 Rockets (who finished 30-52) who were trailing the Bucks by 16 at the half and never came within single digits the rest of the way? No he likely was not. Point being not to rely on biased news paper articles, as there is no way to determine the momentum shifts and runs during any given point in the game. What might the Warriors strategy have been offensively? What impact did early foul trouble have for either team? Would they foolishly attempt to have Wilt taking 40 shots a game like he did in the regular season hoping that one man could beat the greatest dynasty in sports history?

In the '62 series against Boston Coach Frank McGuire had moved Wilt up the top of the key (high post) to expand their offensive options as opposed to being too predictable against Russell, forcing him to play more conservative defense. Not only was Wilt scoring more frequently than he did in the regular season and still out scoring Russell, the Warriors starters were out scoring the Celtics starters. But the C's 3 key bench players (K.C, Ramsey, Loscy) brutalized the Warriors bench by an even bigger margin. Who is to say Wilt gave up on any hope of winning the game with his late game scoring. Or perhaps "heroic attempts" as I'm sure it would be called for any other player in history not named Wilt.

As noted in the video below even Globe columnist Bob Ryan refers to this as "Boston mythology".

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=W40Y3RI9

[PHILA]

Great Post
Actually it is a post from another forum poster RealGM's TruLAFan (if I'm not mistaken).

[ShaqAttack3234]

LOL, why are you rolling your head??? His scoring repertoire did not improve. All he did was was use his strength. He might have increased his range from 5.5 feet to six??? Then your head is rolling and you bring up some real embarrasing numbers in a Wilt conversation. LOL,

:facepalm Shaq's touch got better and so did his footwork, hence his HUGE increase in scoring from his rookie year. The turnaround one-handed jumper became a bigger part of his game as his career progressed and of course, he became a much better passer, but of course, you probably didn't watch prime Shaq otherwise you wouldn't say he didn't improve offensively after his rookie year.


Iverson averaged more. Robinson averaged more. Tmac was averaging more. MJ was in a different league. He has no scoring records. That means little because other players were usually outscoring him. Plus Shaq has played with more supertalents than anybody in the sport. Certainly more than anybody in the current era. In 15 years out of his 17 years the guy has had phenomenal talent on his team. He is supposed to flourish. If he was left on the Tim Duncan and the Kevin Garnett islands his numbers fall of tremendously.

How many shots did Iverson take? What about T-Mac? Shaq was never a selfish player on the court, he was playing on better teams than those guys, yet he was consistently in the top 3 in scoring throughout his prime and nobody has led the league in FG% more than Shaq.

Shaq had Penny play great for 2 years and Kobe emerged in 2000 and then emerged as a superstar in 2001 and he did have Wade for a few years, but please, don't bring up supporting casts.

On his title teams, Shaq didn't have particularly good 3rd options and you know what his record was during the 3peat without Kobe? 25-6. And guess what? His scoring average and FG% both improved in that time.

Wilt had far more stacked teams with the Sixers and Lakers. My god, look at the Sixers. Hal Greer(10 time all-star), Chet Walker(7 time all-star), Billy Cunningham(4 time all star coming off the bench and a player who was 2nd in MVP voting in '69) and Luke Jackson(all-star) all on the same team at or near their primes for several seasons. Then with the Lakers he had West and Baylor and when Baylor was done, another hall of famer Gail Goodrich stepped into his place.



Wilt didn't need to come out games. He didn't needed to be preserved like Shaq. That was just a quality about him. He stayed that way for a long time. It was a faster paced game with much more activity than now and yet he played more minutes. He would be called an Iron Man today.

Most stars played far more minutes back then, look at Oscar, Russell, Baylor ect. Hell, Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one year.

I guess players had better stamina in general back then. :facepalm No, in reality, stars don't play as much now because there's more money invested in them and teams take precautions to avoid injuries.


ahhh, another skilless big man that would flourish with some skill and big man moves. I like him but if he worked on his game beyond 7 feet he would be a superstar. These pure power games are very limited. I like speed, Amare if he was healthy would have averaged more than either one. Or good low post moves like Duncan and Hakeem are more dependable against good defenses.

When did I say Howard was as good as Hakeem or Duncan? :confusedshrug: And Howard already is a superstar whether you like it or not, and no, he's not skilless, skilless players can't average 20 ppg on 60% shooting, particularly in the playoffs.


Come on destroyer, you gots to come better than that. Who had the better shooting skill? Blocking skill? Rebounding skill? Passing skill? After block skills? all around center skills? picking up girls skill? LOL. Its a laaaandsliiiide

Shooting? I'll take Shaq within 8-10 feet, that one-handed turnaround jumper and jump hook were damn near automatic in his prime. Don't know how well he could shoot outside of that because he never tried, why would he? Why would a 7'1", 340 pound athletic freak shoot 12-15 footers when he could get higher percentage shots? Ah, shot selection and aggressiveness, those are other things Shaq has over Wilt. As far as 12-15 footers? I see no reason why Shaq couldn't shoot them as well or better than Wilt, afterall, he was a marginally better free throw shooter.


Passing skills? Pretty damn close, though I'll give Wilt a slight edge later in his career. Rebounding and shot blocking Wilt has the edge, but offensively? Shaq was easily more skilled

[DatWasNashty]

ShaqAttack3234 is taking dumps on these Wilt Chamberlain fanatics. :bowdown:

[Fatal9]

The Spokesman-Review - May 12, 1997 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qrQpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jPEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6610,2712911&dq)

'Figuratively speaking, Shaquille O'Neal said he used to look up to Wilt Chamberlain. Not any more. O'Neal was apprised of comments Chamberlain made about him last week on ESPN's "Up Close," and responded with some harsh words of his own.

"Wilt Chamberlain was a great player," O'Neal said, "Give him his respect. But Wilt Chamberlain can kiss my ass."

The former Lakers center, appearing on the show to promote his new book, said Bullets center Gheorge Muresan may have more to offer as a player than O'Neal.

"As they call fouls today," Chamberlain said, "Shaq gets away with what I consider murder. I mean, I would think when you dip your shoulder and run over the top of the guy, and the foul is called on the guy who's laying on the floor, you're getting away with something. So Shaq is allowed to score some points that maybe he wouldn't (otherwise) get."

"But if you made it a straight-up situation, and gave the same rules and regulations to Shaq that you give to Gheorge Muresan.... Muresan has a better touch around the basket, he can score more points."

O'Neal said he didn't see the show, but when asked if he had, he replied: "Was Wilt doggin' me again?"


And you think this article or argument has any sort of credibility? :facepalm

[jlauber]

Shooting? I'll take Shaq within 8-10 feet, that one-handed turnaround jumper and jump hook were damn near automatic in his prime. Don't know how well he could shoot outside of that because he never tried, why would he? Why would a 7'1", 340 pound athletic freak shoot 12-15 footers when he could get higher percentage shots? Ah, shot selection and aggressiveness, those are other things Shaq has over Wilt. As far as 12-15 footers? I see no reason why Shaq couldn't shoot them as well or better than Wilt, afterall, he was a marginally better free throw shooter.


FT shooting has very little to do with range. My god, Bruce Bowen LED the NBA in 3 pt shooting one season, at .441...and in that SAME season he shot .404 from the FT line (yes .404 from the free throw line!)

None other than Red Holzman, a HOF coach, claimed that Wilt came into the league with a good outside shot. How many coaches have made that claim about Shaq? The FACT was, and you can see it clearly in the MANY highlights, Wilt had exceptional range with both a JUMP SHOT, and a FADEAWAY bank shot (probably as good as Duncan ever was.)

And, if we are basing all of this on just how each player dominated their PEERS...it is NO CONTEST. Chamberlain won scoring titles by nearly 20 ppg (+19.8) He won rebounding titles by five a game. He won FG% titles by margins of .162 and .157. He even led the league in assists.

Shaq holds a slight edge in FG% titles, at 10-9, BUT, it must be pointed out that he has played 18 seasons, and Wilt only played in 14. Not only that, but Wilt led the league in his LAST TWO seasons, including setting a record of .727 that will never be broken. So there was a good chance that had Wilt played longer, he would have more FG% titles.

Chamberlain holds a 7-2 edge in scoring titles.

And, Wilt holds an 11-0 margin in rebounding titles.

Even in passing, Wilt has an assist title, and came in third in another season.

Defense? Wilt holds a 2-0 edge in first-team all-defense awards, and had that award been given out in his entire career, it would be a few more.

Blocked shots. Wilt had seasons of double-digit blocks, and games in the 20's.

In terms of statistical domination...I just don't see a case AT ALL, for Shaq.

[Poochymama]

FT shooting has very little to do with range. My god, Bruce Bowen LED the NBA in 3 pt shooting one season, at .441...and in that SAME season he shot .404 from the FT line (yes .404 from the free throw line!)

None other than Red Holzman, a HOF coach, claimed that Wilt came into the league with a good outside shot. How many coaches have made that claim about Shaq? The FACT was, and you can see it clearly in the MANY highlights, Wilt had exceptional range with both a JUMP SHOT, and a FADEAWAY bank shot (probably as good as Duncan ever was.)

And, if we are basing all of this on just how each player dominated their PEERS...it is NO CONTEST. Chamberlain won scoring titles by nearly 20 ppg (+19.8) He won rebounding titles by five a game. He won FG% titles by margins of .162 and .157. He even led the league in assists.

Shaq holds a slight edge in FG% titles, at 10-9, BUT, it must be pointed out that he has played 18 seasons, and Wilt only played in 14. Not only that, but Wilt led the league in his LAST TWO seasons, including setting a record of .727 that will never be broken. So there was a good chance that had Wilt played longer, he would have more FG% titles.

Chamberlain holds a 7-2 edge in scoring titles.

And, Wilt holds an 11-0 margin in rebounding titles.

Even in passing, Wilt has an assist title, and came in third in another season.

Defense? Wilt holds a 2-0 edge in first-team all-defense awards, and had that award been given out in his entire career, it would be a few more.

Blocked shots. Wilt had seasons of double-digit blocks, and games in the 20's.

In terms of statistical domination...I just don't see a case AT ALL, for Shaq.

Again, you have to look at Wilt's stats in context, otherwise they're useless.

[ShaqAttack3234]

FT shooting has very little to do with range. My god, Bruce Bowen LED the NBA in 3 pt shooting one season, at .441...and in that SAME season he shot .404 from the FT line (yes .404 from the free throw line!)

None other than Red Holzman, a HOF coach, claimed that Wilt came into the league with a good outside shot. How many coaches have made that claim about Shaq? The FACT was, and you can see it clearly in the MANY highlights, Wilt had exceptional range with both a JUMP SHOT, and a FADEAWAY bank shot (probably as good as Duncan ever was.)

And, if we are basing all of this on just how each player dominated their PEERS...it is NO CONTEST. Chamberlain won scoring titles by nearly 20 ppg (+19.8) He won rebounding titles by five a game. He won FG% titles by margins of .162 and .157. He even led the league in assists.

Shaq holds a slight edge in FG% titles, at 10-9, BUT, it must be pointed out that he has played 18 seasons, and Wilt only played in 14. Not only that, but Wilt led the league in his LAST TWO seasons, including setting a record of .727 that will never be broken. So there was a good chance that had Wilt played longer, he would have more FG% titles.

Chamberlain holds a 7-2 edge in scoring titles.

And, Wilt holds an 11-0 margin in rebounding titles.

Even in passing, Wilt has an assist title, and came in third in another season.

Defense? Wilt holds a 2-0 edge in first-team all-defense awards, and had that award been given out in his entire career, it would be a few more.

Blocked shots. Wilt had seasons of double-digit blocks, and games in the 20's.

In terms of statistical domination...I just don't see a case AT ALL, for Shaq.

Give Shaq 35-40 shots per game and see what happens.

[jlauber]

Again, you have to look at Wilt's stats in context, otherwise they're useless.

What are you taking about? I was talking about domination of PEERS. I just made the comment that Wilt won scoring titles, not by 1-2 ppg, as Shaq did in his two, but by margins of near 20 ppg (and another at 10)! He won rebounding titles by five per game (and Shaq did not win ANY rebound titles BTW.) He won FG% titles by .162 and .157. Shaq's largest margin was .052.

Wilt is way ahead in scoring titles, at 7-2. He crushes Shaq in rebounding titles, 11-0. He edges him in passing titles, 1-0 (and a third in another season.) He leads in first-team all-defensive player awards, 2-0 (and had the award been around his entire career, it would have been more.) The only area in which Shaq has an edge is in FG% titles, and that is only 10-9 (and had Wilt played 18 seasons there was a good chance he would have won more.)

[ZenMaster]

None other than Red Holzman, a HOF coach, claimed that Wilt came into the league with a good outside shot. How many coaches have made that claim about Shaq? The FACT was, and you can see it clearly in the MANY highlights, Wilt had exceptional range with both a JUMP SHOT, and a FADEAWAY bank shot (probably as good as Duncan ever was.)



1) "claimed that Wilt came INTO the league with a good outside shot"

What happened to his shot later on, why did he lose it?

2) Fact was that Wilt had a good jump shot because you saw him hit some shots in highlight videos? I thought he only came into the league with a good outside shot? How long did he sustain this superb jump shot for?
Because you're making it sound like he had a good jump shot throughout his career. Oh and a couple of shots hit in highlight videos are hardly evidence that he had a great out side shot.

3) I'm pretty sure Duncan shoots in the 30's on his iso bank shot, I've seen people refer to this.

4) I've also seen you say that Wilt had a great sky hook with long range and then refer to the hook he fires off from the baseline in most of his highlight videos.

I know Wilt was a great player, but you're overdoing it a lot by judging from his highlight videos.

[Poochymama]

What are you taking about? I was talking about domination of PEERS. I just made the comment that Wilt won scoring titles, not by 1-2 ppg, as Shaq did in his two, but by margins of near 20 ppg (and another at 10)! He won rebounding titles by five per game (and Shaq did not win ANY rebound titles BTW.) He won FG% titles by .162 and .157. Shaq's largest margin was .052.

Wilt is way ahead in scoring titles, at 7-2. He crushes Shaq in rebounding titles, 11-0. He edges him in passing titles, 1-0 (and a third in another season.) He leads in first-team all-defensive player awards, 2-0 (and had the award been around his entire career, it would have been more.) The only area in which Shaq has an edge is in FG% titles, and that is only 10-9 (and had Wilt played 18 seasons there was a good chance he would have won more.)

He would most likely still have most of those titles. But he sure wouldn't be winning scoring titles by a 20 point margin, that's what I was referring to.

[ShaqAttack3234]

What are you taking about? I was talking about domination of PEERS. I just made the comment that Wilt won scoring titles, not by 1-2 ppg, as Shaq did in his two, but by margins of near 20 ppg (and another at 10)! He won rebounding titles by five per game (and Shaq did not win ANY rebound titles BTW.) He won FG% titles by .162 and .157. Shaq's largest margin was .052.

Wilt is way ahead in scoring titles, at 7-2. He crushes Shaq in rebounding titles, 11-0. He edges him in passing titles, 1-0 (and a third in another season.) He leads in first-team all-defensive player awards, 2-0 (and had the award been around his entire career, it would have been more.) The only area in which Shaq has an edge is in FG% titles, and that is only 10-9 (and had Wilt played 18 seasons there was a good chance he would have won more.)

Wilt was also peerless in shot attempts with 32.1 in '60, 31.1 in '61, 39.5 in '62, 34.6 in '63, 28.7 in '64, 28.5 in '65 and 25.3 in '66.

As far as I remember, Shaq NEVER led the league in FGA or came particularly close to leading the league in FGA, not to mention, there were a lot more players in Shaq's era which makes it harder to lead the league.

[Fatal9]

Give Shaq 35-40 shots per game and see what happens.
I'd be more interested in seeing Shaq in a league where only 2-3 rotation players (ie who played 20 mpg or more) in the entire league were over 6'9 (like in much of the early 60s). Lets also look at Shaq's block numbers in a league where perimeter players have laughable athletic ability. Or how about his rebounding in a setting where there's nearly 150 rebounds a game and he doesn't have to deal with athletic forwards on the boards. Apparently Shaq's FG% will do down because perimeter players at the time took quick crappy shots in transition (ever see the hook shots they're throwing from 15 feet?) or because the average player was less offensively skilled. That's not the reason for the low FG% or anything, it must be the elite 60s defense. Not like we're all blind and can't see the hours and hours of footage. If the 60s were the best era defensively (lol!!), then the 50s must have been even better because of the lower league wide FG%.

[jlauber]

1) "claimed that Wilt came INTO the league with a good outside shot"

What happened to his shot later on, why did he lose it?

2) Fact was that Wilt had a good jump shot because you saw him hit some shots in highlight videos? I thought he only came into the league with a good outside shot? How long did he sustain this superb jump shot for?
Because you're making it sound like he had a good jump shot throughout his career. Oh and a couple of shots hit in highlight videos are hardly evidence that he had a great out side shot.

3) I'm pretty sure Duncan shoots in the 30's on his iso bank shot, I've seen people refer to this.

4) I've also seen you say that Wilt had a great sky hook with long range and then refer to the hook he fires off from the baseline in most of his highlight videos.

I know Wilt was a great player, but you're overdoing it a lot by judging from his highlight videos.

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


[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70


And you are right... a few highlights doesn't necessarily mean that Wilt was a good outside shooter. However, a FEW highlights are all we have. I have said it many times now, but it would sure be great of the NBA could release some actual games in the first ten years of Wilt's career. We might see something special in one of his 109 30-30 games' or one of his 55 40-30 games; or one of his five 50-40 games. Maybe we would get a better idea with his 78-43 game. Or maybe his 43 point game on 18-18 shooting. Or perhaps his 66 point game, (late in his career BTW) in which he made 29-35 shots. How about one of his six 70 point games? Or one his 32 60 point games? Perhaps one of his 118 50 point games.

[jlauber]

I'd be more interested in seeing Shaq in a league where only 2-3 rotation players (ie who played 20 mpg or more) in the entire league were over 6'9 (like in much of the early 60s). Lets also look at Shaq's block numbers in a league where perimeter players have laughable athletic ability. Or how about his rebounding in a setting where there's nearly 150 rebounds a game and he doesn't have to deal with athletic forwards on the boards. Apparently Shaq's FG% will do down because perimeter players at the time took quick crappy shots in transition (ever see the hook shots they're throwing from 15 feet?) or because the average player was less offensively skilled. That's not the reason for the low FG% or anything, it must be the elite 60s defense. Not like we're all blind and can't see the hours and hours of footage. If the 60s were the best era defensively (lol!!), then the 50s must have been even better because of the lower league wide FG%.

Would Shaq have even been seven-foot tall in the 60's? And do we know that Wilt would only have been 7-1 300 lbs had he been born when Shaq was? And, how do we know that Shaq would have fared better against TWELVE HOF centers, instead of the 3-4 that he faced (and only 2-4 times per year)? And, how would Wilt have done had he had the opportunity to face a stumbling clod about 80% of the time in the 00's?

Can you imagine a "modern" Wilt...probably about 7-4, and 350 lbs, and with all the benefits of modern technology. A Wilt that could high jump 7-6, and bench press well over 600 lbs. and run a 4.2 40?


As far as defense goes, Kareem couldn't shoot anywhere near 50% against Wilt or Thurmond, and both of them were well past their primes. Yet, he could average nearly 60% in the 80's, and in years he was so bad physically that he could barely get 7 rpg.

[jlauber]

Wilt was also peerless in shot attempts with 32.1 in '60, 31.1 in '61, 39.5 in '62, 34.6 in '63, 28.7 in '64, 28.5 in '65 and 25.3 in '66.

As far as I remember, Shaq NEVER led the league in FGA or came particularly close to leading the league in FGA, not to mention, there were a lot more players in Shaq's era which makes it harder to lead the league.


AND, Wilt was the ONLY one, too. Why was that? And here again, the rest of the ENTIRE NBA knew it too. Do you think they just LET him shoot 35 times a game. Wilt could get his shot. And no one, or no teams, could stop him. He was swarmed by opposing defenses, and yet he not only shot, he shot WAY over the LEAGUE AVERAGE.

[ZenMaster]

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



And you are right... a few highlights doesn't necessarily mean that Wilt was a good outside shooter. However, a FEW highlights are all we have. I have said it many times now, but it would sure be great of the NBA could release some actual games in the first ten years of Wilt's career. We might see something special in one of his 109 30-30 games' or one of his 55 40-30 games; or one of his five 50-40 games. Maybe we would get a better idea with his 78-43 game. Or maybe his 43 point game on 18-18 shooting. Or perhaps his 66 point game, (late in his career BTW) in which he made 29-35 shots. How about one of his six 70 point games? Or one his 32 60 point games? Perhaps one of his 118 50 point games.

You listing up some of his games has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

And just because there isn't more footage available doesn't make it right to use the little there is, and make assumptions about his ability to do certain moves consistently.
I could probably find a clip with Chuck Hayes making a jump shot, doesn't make him a good shooter.

Wilt shot 54% for his career, he was dominant inside so I have to assume he's a 60%+ scorer around the rim(and it should be in the high 60's), so he'd have to clank off some misses in other areas for his % to end at 54.

You have a quote from Holzman saying he came into the league with a good jump shot. No one has said that Wilt was a consistent jump shooter throughout his career.

There is nothing that points to the fact that he was a good jump shooter, it's the opposite(horrible form on FT's for example).

[ZenMaster]

Would Shaq have even been seven-foot tall in the 60's? And do we know that Wilt would only have been 7-1 300 lbs had he been born when Shaq was? And, how do we know that Shaq would have fared better against TWELVE HOF centers, instead of the 3-4 that he faced (and only 2-4 times per year)? And, how would Wilt have done had he had the opportunity to face a stumbling clod about 80% of the time in the 00's?

Can you imagine a "modern" Wilt...probably about 7-4, and 350 lbs, and with all the benefits of modern technology. A Wilt that could high jump 7-6, and bench press well over 600 lbs. and run a 4.2 40?


As far as defense goes, Kareem couldn't shoot anywhere near 50% against Wilt or Thurmond, and both of them were well past their primes. Yet, he could average nearly 60% in the 80's, and in years he was so bad physically that he could barely get 7 rpg.

Kareem's FG% in 71, 72, 77 and 79 is well on par with his FG% in the 80s. But in the 80's he took fewer shots and the 3pt line was instated. This means he shot higher percentage shots along with the obvious better spacing it provided for big men that came with a 3pt line.

If you do the math you'll see that his FG% in the 70's was pretty close to his % in the 80's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Would Shaq have even been seven-foot tall in the 60's? And do we know that Wilt would only have been 7-1 300 lbs had he been born when Shaq was? And, how do we know that Shaq would have fared better against TWELVE HOF centers, instead of the 3-4 that he faced (and only 2-4 times per year)? And, how would Wilt have done had he had the opportunity to face a stumbling clod about 80% of the time in the 00's?

What "hall of fame" centers would have been able to guard Shaq then?

Russell? Sorry, but at 6'9" and maybe 240, no way. Tom Heinsohn mentioned Wilt letting them off the hook with fadeaways, this wouldn't be the case with Shaq because he always used his strength and look at Shaq vs one of the best defensive players of all time in Alonzo Mourning who is as tall as Russell, a lot stronger and he has a 7'6" wingspan. Shaq averaged over 30 ppg for his career vs Mourning and easily outplayed him in every other category and that was with Mourning playing on some excellent defensive teams with Miami and team defensive strategies the likes of which Wilt never saw.

[Gotterdammerung]

ShaqAttack3234, one day, when you grow up and grow out of your man-love, you'll look back at this and wonder. Then again, perhaps I am being excessively optimistic.


That's not nearly the only time Shaq outran everyone downcourt, and doing it with the ball is phenomenal for a center, much less a center as big as Shaq. And it's much, much better than you posting claims without footage to back it up.
No, it's just footage of Shaq hustling his butt downcourt. Doesn't mean he's a fast center, or among the fastest centers. If you think one single footage of him running downcourt is enough proof that Shaq was fast, then nobody can help you.

I don't need to post (non-existent) footage to justify my claim that Wilt was a world class speedster. That's like asking you if you've stopped beating your girlfriend/wife.:oldlol:


Who said athleticism is limited to power dunks? What about quick spin moves and advanced footwork all at 7'1", 340? Moves, the caliber of which I've never seen from Wilt even highlight mixes were done by Shaq on a regular basis in his prime.

Dumb. Please re-read my OP. Stop pretending that I'm a blind homer like you who can't credit anything to anyone else except his pet favorite. And for the record, Wilt isn't even my favorite player.


:roll: I've watched all of the game footage available of Wilt and the footage makes him look A LOT worse compared to the stats. I posted a thread with detailed analysis of the '67 game that's available and posted his strengths and weaknesses in the video, not just one or the other.

Yes, you did, and you're being completely dishonest here again. Had I picked out a weak game where Shaq got beat by a better team, and picked him apart as if that was his best game, then I would be called out by Shaq homers like you. Gee. :no:


Under adverse situations? You mean the playoffs? Well, we know who wins there, the guy with 4 rings(and no, I'm not just basing my argument on rings)

Only homers think their favorite players win rings. Teams do, for your information, but I guess I shouldn't bother. :rolleyes:


:roll: Yet you're the one bringing up assist/turnover stats.
:facepalm
Again, you're being dishonest. You are saying that you have the facts on your side.

Once again, assists were recorded differently, and much more charitably in today's time than in the 60's. That you neither can grasp the possibility the game was different nor can understand how stats were recorded differently is not my problem.


:oldlol: I didn't try estimating what Wilt's stats would look like, I'm saying that those using stats to argue for Wilt have to factor in several things which helped players put up better stats back then.

And here you're waving only one factor. Cut the BS. :violin:


Nope, he played 2 different styles when each coach asked him to play each style.

Dishonest. Then again, I should not waste my time with homers. :sleeping

[Gotterdammerung]

Russell did not play the last 5 minutes of that game due to his 6 fouls, a mighty fine and convenient exclusion from ShaqAttack3432's original comment.

I thought I was the only one to detect his blatant dishonesty. Glad to see that I'm not alone. :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, it's just footage of Shaq hustling his butt downcourt. Doesn't mean he's a fast center, or among the fastest centers. If you think one single footage of him running downcourt is enough proof that Shaq was fast, then nobody can help you.

If you don't think prime Shaq was one of the fastest centers then there's no point continuing this debate because you clearly didn't watch prime Shaq.


I don't need to post (non-existent) footage to justify my claim that Wilt was a world class speedster. That's like asking you if you've stopped beating your girlfriend/wife.:oldlol:

Hmm, so I bring evidence, you bring nothing but assumptions and personal attacks.


Dumb. Please re-read my OP. Stop pretending that I'm a blind homer like you who can't credit anything to anyone else except his pet favorite. And for the record, Wilt isn't even my favorite player.

The majority of my posts, topics I create and games I post on youtube have nothing to do with Shaq.


Yes, you did, and you're being completely dishonest here again. Had I picked out a weak game where Shaq got beat by a better team, and picked him apart as if that was his best game, then I would be called out by Shaq homers like you. Gee. :no:

What can I go by other than the footage available?


Only homers think their favorite players win rings. Teams do, for your information, but I guess I shouldn't bother. :rolleyes:

Shaq won championships by stepping up his game in the playoffs, the same can't be said for Wilt more often than not, that's why he has half as many titles, and he had plenty of his talent, but often came up small in big games, even in series his team was favored in('68, '69), his play generally declined from the regular season to the playoffs.


Once again, assists were recorded differently, and much more charitably in today's time than in the 60's. That you neither can grasp the possibility the game was different nor can understand how stats were recorded differently is not my problem.

They were recorded differently, but the style of play favored big men's assist numbers in that time compared to today's NBA.

Well, you've proven to be completely worthless as a poster. I've destroyed every "point" you've tried to make.

[Gotterdammerung]

If you don't think prime Shaq was one of the fastest centers then there's no point continuing this debate because you clearly didn't watch prime Shaq.

Actually, I did watch Shaq play

[Gotterdammerung]

Ah, came across this quote by Neal Walk, the Phoenix Suns center, on Wilt:


Wilt hardly ever played as strong as he could have. He never shouldered his way into a defender like Shaq does these days. That was the only reason why I could guard Wilt and stay in the game. On the other end, I could go out and shoot from seventeen or eighteen feet and Wilt would just let me go. Or else I'd cut across the lane and Hawk (Connie Hawkins) would get me the ball so I could toss up my lefty hook. There was also an unspoken understanding between me and Wilt - that if he really wanted to shut the lights out on me (or on anybody else), he would do it.

On a certain wrestling sequence while rebounding in a December game in 1971:
I boxed Wilt out and reached back to wrap an arm around him to try and hold him there. Wilt's response was to smack me to the floor like I was made of straw.

For your information, Neal Walk was a tough rebounder with a soft shooting touch. The '71 Suns were a physical team who shoved the Lakers around and nearly broke their winning streak.

Oh, but of course, they're all assumptions, according to the genius Shaqattack! :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Did you not see the quote from Pete Newell who coached against Wilt and was known as a big man expert and thought Shaq was better?

And another.


"I've never seen a better player in my life," 76ers coach Larry Brown said.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/finals/2001-06-15-shaq-mvp.htm

[Psileas]

Within less than a day, a(nother) thread of Wilt vs Shaq has reached 7 pages. There are too many things to comment about, so I'd rather respond to the question:

Who was the greatest power center ever? Give the title to Shaq. He built his whole career on power game, eventually learning a few good moves, just for the cases his strength couldn't be applied to the maximum. Wilt could have a much better case if he had completely gone against the rules of his era and his morals and tried to simply overpower his opponents, leaving his finesse moves just for blowout games. Wilt has probably the GOAT combination of using both skills and power in his career, he just didn't apply himself enough to one of these two fields to be the GOAT. Much like Jordan, who is considered the GOAT by most, despite not being the greatest winner ever nor the greatest statistical force ever. In seasons like 1957 in college, he'd take multiple shots from 12-15 feet, bring down the ball and refrain from dunking (BTW, here's some new great footage of Wilt in college. Ironically, this is also footage from a loss-the tradition of depicting Wilt as a loser continues in college-but Wilt scores a lot, in a game that ended with the poor score of 56-54: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhH_fPBWShQ). Then, in 1969, we'd read that Wilt, in his 66-point game against the Suns, had 22 dunks, which is twice as many as Shaq's highest number I've ever seen (I think he had about 11 dunks in his 53-pointer against Minnesota).

So, yeah, Shaq may really be the GOAT power center, and when Howard's career is over, he'll also be among the best ever (of course, when talking about the best finesse centers, Howard will be closer to #400 ever). Much like Stockton, for some, is the best "pure PG". Doesn't make them the best overall in their positions.

[jlauber]

What "hall of fame" centers would have been able to guard Shaq then?

Russell? Sorry, but at 6'9" and maybe 240, no way. Tom Heinsohn mentioned Wilt letting them off the hook with fadeaways, this wouldn't be the case with Shaq because he always used his strength and look at Shaq vs one of the best defensive players of all time in Alonzo Mourning who is as tall as Russell, a lot stronger and he has a 7'6" wingspan. Shaq averaged over 30 ppg for his career vs Mourning and easily outplayed him in every other category and that was with Mourning playing on some excellent defensive teams with Miami and team defensive strategies the likes of which Wilt never saw.

First of all, you are making the MISTAKEN assumption that the centers of the 60's were uncoordinated twigs. How big was Olajuwon? He was 6-10, 250 lbs. Ben Wallace was 6-7 250 lbs. My god the clod Eddie Curry was 6-11 285, and Shaq certainly didn't put up unworldly numbers on him (Wilt would STILL be scoring on that stumbling boob.) Bellamy was 6-11 245, Thurmond was 6-11 245 (and you have seen the pics...he was built like a monster), Embry was 6-8 255, Luke Jackson was 6-9 270, Boerwinkle was 7-0 270, Kareem got to 260. Gilmore was 7-2 and probably around 290 at his peak.

Secondly, I have shown footage of Shaq just getting away with manslaughter against Motumbo in the '01 Finals. In Wilt's era, Shaq would have fouled out within the first five minutes (just as MJ would have been repeatedly called for traveling.)

Finally...even Heinsohn said it. It was never Russell vs. Chamberlain...it was the CELTICS vs Wilt. And they POUNDED Wilt. They would have done the same to Shaq.

I get so tired of reading these comments like the 60's were a bunch of inept "skippies." And no one here has explained to me why the league FG% was so low in the 60's..except to say those players couldn't shoot. Yeah right...that is why Sharman was shooting .932 in 59-60 from the FT line. Or Jerry West was shooting nearly 50% late in his career and .419 in 61-62. Havlicek must have been awful in the 60's, with seasons of .405, .402, and .399...and then suddenly someone showed him how to shoot in the 70's. Almost every player who crossed both decades shot better in the 70's, and certainly in the late 60's. Why?

Wilt's .506 to .540 season, when he was averaing 33.5 to 50.4 ppg were simply astounding when you factor in that the league averages were in the .430's (or much lower.) He was shooting well over 50% with much of his offense from 12-15 ft. Robinson and Olajuwon didn't shoot any better in leagues with higher FG% shooting (and even higher if you take into account the 3pt shot.)


Kareem's FG% in 71, 72, 77 and 79 is well on par with his FG% in the 80s. But in the 80's he took fewer shots and the 3pt line was instated. This means he shot higher percentage shots along with the obvious better spacing it provided for big men that came with a 3pt line.

If you do the math you'll see that his FG% in the 70's was pretty close to his % in the 80's.

Not close at all. You conveniently left out Kareem' seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513 in the 70's. In his first EIGHT years of the decade of the 80's, Kareem shot .564 or better. He had FOUR seasons in the 80's, better than his BEST season in the 70's. This despite the fact that he was well past his physical peak (just look at his AWFUL rebounding numbers in the 80's...hell Magic was outrebounding him for cryingoutloud.) Yet, Kareem could easily pour in a 40 point game against Hakeem in the mid-80's. BUT, against Wilt and Thurmond, he as struggling to shoot 45%, with series as low as .405???!!!And both of those guys were nearing the ends of their careers, too.

And one more time, we can SPECULATE all we want about the "what-if's." IF Shaq played in the 60's he would do this or that. Take the great players from the 60's, magically transport them to the 00's, give them all the benefits of modern technology, things like nutrition, training, coaching, medicine, "supplements", etc,...and to a man, they would be bigger, more athletic, and more skilled than they were in the 60's. And that is even before "genetics."

Hell, I can SPECULATE too. Had Wilt been born around the time Shaq was born, and with all the advantages Shaq had in his era...and he might have been 7-4, 350 lbs. His high-jump, with all the benefits of training and TECHNIQUE, would probably have been well over seven-feet. We know that he was pushing somewhere around 500 lbs on the bench...so naturally, that would increase with training, nutrition, medicine, supplements, TECHNIQUE, etc...so he would probably be easily doing over 600 lbs. He was also a sprinter in college with something along the lines of a 4.4 40. Well, that would come down, too. Maybe 4.25?

Now, can you imagine a taller, bigger, stronger, faster, and an even MORE athletic and skilled Wilt in TODAY's game? The NBA would still be coming up with RULES to try to stop him. Who knows, maybe the half-court line would be the equivalent of the lane. And he would STILL find a way to score 40 ppg.

[ShaqAttack3234]

First of all, you are making the MISTAKEN assumption that the centers of the 60's were uncoordinated twigs. How big was Olajuwon? He was 6-10, 250 lbs. Ben Wallace was 6-7 250 lbs. My god the clod Eddie Curry was 6-11 285, and Shaq certainly didn't put up unworldly numbers on him (Wilt would STILL be scoring on that stumbling boob.) Bellamy was 6-11 245, Thurmond was 6-11 245 (and you have seen the pics...he was built like a monster), Embry was 6-8 255, Luke Jackson was 6-9 270, Boerwinkle was 7-0 270, Kareem got to 260. Gilmore was 7-2 and probably around 290 at his peak.

The average size of centers is easily bigger and bulkier and team defenses are worlds better. The only defenders in that era I could see having some success guarding Shaq(provided they were on a good defensive team who double teamed well) are Wilt(Lakers era), Artis Gilmore and maybe Nate Thurmond.


Secondly, I have shown footage of Shaq just getting away with manslaughter against Motumbo in the '01 Finals. In Wilt's era, Shaq would have fouled out within the first five minutes (just as MJ would have been repeatedly called for traveling.)

More excuses, it evens out because if they called a defender for every foul on Shaq then they'd probably foul out just as quick.


Finally...even Heinsohn said it. It was never Russell vs. Chamberlain...it was the CELTICS vs Wilt. And they POUNDED Wilt. They would have done the same to Shaq.

:oldlol: And Shaq didn't get double teamed and fouled hard?


I get so tired of reading these comments like the 60's were a bunch of inept "skippies." And no one here has explained to me why the league FG% was so low in the 60's..except to say those players couldn't shoot. Yeah right...that is why Sharman was shooting .932 in 59-60 from the FT line. Or Jerry West was shooting nearly 50% late in his career and .419 in 61-62. Havlicek must have been awful in the 60's, with seasons of .405, .402, and .399...and then suddenly someone showed him how to shoot in the 70's. Almost every player who crossed both decades shot better in the 70's, and certainly in the late 60's. Why?

West was a rookie in '62, Havlicek got more playing time and continued to improve as most players do when they get older and get an opportunity to shine.

[CambyLandCan]

It's hilarious how some people have no clue what they are talking about. That being said in this thread, I give credit to ShaqAttack for attempting to back up his point with stats, games, and accomplishments. All I ever see PHILA do is post articles and post pictures of Wilt Chamberlain. What the **** kind of evidence is that? :oldlol:

[jlauber]

It's hilarious how some people have no clue what they are talking about. That being said in this thread, I give credit to ShaqAttack for attempting to back up his point with stats, games, and accomplishments. All I ever see PHILA do is post articles and post pictures of Wilt Chamberlain. What the **** kind of evidence is that? :oldlol:

What STATS do you want? The FACTS are...Wilt dominated his PEERS FAR MORE than Shaq did his.

Here we go again...

The only statistical area where Shaq beat Wilt, was in FG% titles, and that was by a slim 10-9 margin. Furthermore, Shaq has played 18 seasons, while Wilt retired after 14. BTW, Wilt not only led the league in FG% in his last two seasons, he set a record of .727 that will probably never be broken in his LAST season. The logical assumption has to be that had Wilt played 18 seasons, he would have probably won even more. In any case, back to "domination" of PEERS. Wilt won FG% titles by HUGE margins. In Shaq's BEST season, he won by a .053 margin. Wilt had seasons where he beat out his nearest competitor by differentials of .162 and .157. Wilt also had seasons where he outshot the league average by margins of .244 and .271. Shaq can't come close to those either.

How about scoring? Wilt holds a 7-2 edge. Not only that, but while Shaq was ekeing out scoring titles by 1-2 ppg, Chamberlain had seasons where he outscored his nearest competitor by +19.8 ppg (yes, nearly 20 ppg), and even 10 ppg.

Rebounding? This is really laughable. Chamberlain holds an 11-0 "edge" in titles. He won rebounding titles by five per game, and he was even more dominant in the post-season.

Passing? Wilt won an assist title for cryingoutloud, and came in third in another season. Give me Shaq's best season.

Defense? Wilt holds a 2-0 edge in first-team all-defense...and had the award existed in Wilt's entire career, it would be an even bigger differential. Not only that, but Chamberlain shot-blocking was arguably the best in the history of the game.

Now...you want more?

[ShaqAttack3234]

What STATS do you want? The FACTS are...Wilt dominated his PEERS FAR MORE than Shaq did his.

Here we go again...

The only statistical area where Shaq beat Wilt, was in FG% titles, and that was by a slim 10-9 margin. Furthermore, Shaq has played 18 seasons, while Wilt retired after 14. BTW, Wilt not only led the league in FG% in his last two seasons, he set a record of .727 that will probably never be broken in his LAST season. The logical assumption has to be that had Wilt played 18 seasons, he would have probably won even more. In any case, back to "domination" of PEERS. Wilt won FG% titles by HUGE margins. In Shaq's BEST season, he won by a .053 margin. Wilt had seasons where he beat out his nearest competitor by differentials of .162 and .157. Wilt also had seasons where he outshot the league average by margins of .244 and .271. Shaq can't come close to those either.

How about scoring? Wilt holds a 7-2 edge. Not only that, but while Shaq was ekeing out scoring titles by 1-2 ppg, Chamberlain had seasons where he outscored his nearest competitor by +19.8 ppg (yes, nearly 20 ppg), and even 10 ppg.

Rebounding? This is really laughable. Chamberlain holds an 11-0 "edge" in titles. He won rebounding titles by five per game, and he was even more dominant in the post-season.

Passing? Wilt won an assist title for cryingoutloud, and came in third in another season. Give me Shaq's best season.

Defense? Wilt holds a 2-0 edge in first-team all-defense...and had the award existed in Wilt's entire career, it would be an even bigger differential. Not only that, but Chamberlain shot-blocking was arguably the best in the history of the game.

Now...you want more?

And yet for all of those inflated stats, he won 2 titles, none as the leading scorer in the playoffs, in his prime, he averaged 45 ppg.....on a 31-49 team that missed the playoffs and the Warriors were 11-33 before they traded him 2 years later which shows how deceptive stats(particularly from that era) are.

I didn't see Shaq blowing any 3-1 series leads with a favored team and homecourt. Nor did I see him shooting 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line with a chance to clinch or 8 points the following year in the finals with a chance to clinch.

I also didn't see Shaq's offensive numbers dramatically drop in the postseason.

And no, FG% isn't the only category Shaq has an advantage in, look at their playoff scoring averages, Shaq in more games and more seasons has maintained a higher scorer average in the playoffs on superior efficiency, and if Wilt's regular season scoring numbers were that much better and they fell to being easily worse in the playoffs, then what does that tell you about Wilt as a postseason performer?

If you're going by stats without putting them into context then Walt Bellamy was better as a rookie than Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson ect. ever were.

[jlauber]

And yet for all of those inflated stats, he won 2 titles, none as the leading scorer in the playoffs, in his prime, he averaged 45 ppg.....on a 31-49 team that missed the playoffs and the Warriors were 11-33 before they traded him 2 years later which shows how deceptive stats(particularly from that era) are.

I didn't see Shaq blowing any 3-1 series leads with a favored team and homecourt. Nor did I see him shooting 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line with a chance to clinch or 8 points the following year in the finals with a chance to clinch.

I also didn't see Shaq's offensive numbers dramatically drop in the postseason.

And no, FG% isn't the only category Shaq has an advantage in, look at their playoff scoring averages, Shaq in more games and more seasons has maintained a higher scorer average in the playoffs on superior efficiency, and if Wilt's regular season scoring numbers were that much better and they fell to being easily worse in the playoffs, then what does that tell you about Wilt as a postseason performer?

If you're going by stats without putting them into context then Walt Bellamy was better as a rookie than Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson ect. ever were.

Here we go again. For all of Shaq's "success" in the post-season, SIX of his TEAMS, several of which were favored (even heavily favored) were SWEPT. And had Kobe not hit a miracle shot in the '04 Finals (again with a heavily-favored Laker team), and it would have been SEVEN.

Shaq alos played on a 41-41 team in his rookie year, while Wilt took a last place team to a 49-26 record in his very first year. Shaq was also sitting on an 8-25 Miami team when he was traded. And no player did more on a losing team in NBA HISTORY, than Wilt did on that 62-63 team. Furthermore no one has ever taken a 40-40 team as far as Wilt did in the 64-65 post-season...within ONE point, in a game seven of beating the 62-18 Celtics at their PEAK.

Wilt averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg in his scoring seasons in his first seven years in the league...and BLEW AWAY the league average in FG%. Furthermore, he came within NINE points of winning FOUR more titles. And while Shaq was being SWEPT by a HOF center who had a much worse team in '95, Wilt was outplaying EVERY HOF center he faced. And he faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post-season games.

And he only had 52 of those 160 games in his "scoring" seasons. Furthermore, his rebounding went up...dramatically, especially in BIG games. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMs were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in which he played.

Shaq had an awful playoff series against the Jazz in the late 90's, where he scored 22 ppg on .486 shooting against the likes of Ostertag, and while watching his team, with a near identical record, get blown away, 4-1.

So, don't give me these lame post-season comparisons. Wilt seldom had the luxury of facing a non-HOF center, and when he did, he CRUSHED them. In the '64 playoffs against the Hawks, he averaged 38.6 ppg with 23 rpg, on .521 shooting. And he followed that up with a 29-27 .590 series against Russell. In the '67 playoffs against the Royals, he put up a 28-26-11 .612 series. And keep in mind, those league shot much worse than what Shaq's leagues did.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Here we go again. For all of Shaq's "success" in the post-season, SIX of his TEAMS, several of which were favored (even heavily favored) were SWEPT. And had Kobe not hit a miracle shot in the '04 Finals (again with a heavily-favored Laker team), and it would have been SEVEN.

First of all, if not for Kobe and the rest of the Lakers outside of Shaq playing horrendous basketball in the 2004 finals, they would have never been in position to be swept, you ****ing tool.

And his teammates were as bad or worse when they were swept in '98 when Shaq averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting in the conference finals(efficiency Wilt can only dream of in a 30 ppg playoff series).

In 1995? Shaq had all but gift wrapped a game 1 victory when his teammate(a 70% FT shooter) missed FOUR straight and Penny Hardaway made a poor defensive play giving Kenny Smith a look at a 3.


Shaq alos played on a 41-41 team in his rookie year, while Wilt took a last place team to a 49-26 record in his very first year. Shaq was also sitting on an 8-25 Miami team when he was traded. And no player did more on a losing team in NBA HISTORY, than Wilt did on that 62-63 team. Furthermore no one has ever taken a 40-40 team as far as Wilt did in the 64-65 post-season...within ONE point, in a game seven of beating the 62-18 Celtics at their PEAK.

:oldlol: Shaq wasn't in his prime or remotely close in 2008, unlike Wilt in '63 and '65.


Wilt averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg in his scoring seasons in his first seven years in the league...and BLEW AWAY the league average in FG%. Furthermore, he came within NINE points of winning FOUR more titles. And while Shaq was being SWEPT by a HOF center who had a much worse team in '95, Wilt was outplaying EVERY HOF center he faced. And he faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post-season games.

:oldlol: Excuses, I don't care about him almost winning titles, Shaq won twice as many, that's not a coincidence. And Olajuwon's team did not play much worse in '95, Drexler was pretty much Penny's equal and Houston's role players came through in the clutch unlike Shaq's, one of whom cost them a game, homecourt and momentum with the worst choke job in NBA history.


Shaq had an awful playoff series against the Jazz in the late 90's, where he scored 22 ppg on .486 shooting against the likes of Ostertag, and while watching his team, with a near identical record, get blown away, 4-1.

And then he scored at will the next season to the tune of 32 ppg on 56% shooting.


So, don't give me these lame post-season comparisons. Wilt seldom had the luxury of facing a non-HOF center, and when he did, he CRUSHED them. In the '64 playoffs against the Hawks, he averaged 38.6 ppg with 23 rpg, on .521 shooting. And he followed that up with a 29-27 .590 series against Russell. In the '67 playoffs against the Royals, he put up a 28-26-11 .612 series. And keep in mind, those league shot much worse than what Shaq's leagues did.

What exactly does the league average have to do with anything? Wilt was scoring in the post and off of offensive rebounds(which there were more of).

And :oldlol: at this "HOF center" crap, Shaq didn't have the luxuary of playing in arguably the worst defensive era ever with centers much less bulky. Instead, he played in the toughest defensive era in NBA history.

I'm done arguing with you. Keep making excuses for Wilt's failures. He has half as many titles as Shaq with more than enough talent and a lower postseason scoring average on inferior efficiency despite huge advantages in terms of being in an era that was easier to put up monster stats.

Any coincidence that all of the 20 rpg seasons are in the 60's? Any coincidence that the greatest statistical seasons(without being put into context) are all in the 60's?

[jlauber]

First of all, if not for Kobe and the rest of the Lakers outside of Shaq playing horrendous basketball in the 2004 finals, they would have never been in position to be swept, you ****ing tool.

And his teammates were as bad or worse when they were swept in '98 when Shaq averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting in the conference finals(efficiency Wilt can only dream of in a 30 ppg playoff series).

In 1995? Shaq had all but gift wrapped a game 1 victory when his teammate(a 70% FT shooter) missed FOUR straight and Penny Hardaway made a poor defensive play giving Kenny Smith a look at a 3.



:oldlol: Shaq wasn't in his prime or remotely close in 2008, unlike Wilt in '63 and '65.



:oldlol: Excuses, I don't care about him almost winning titles, Shaq won twice as many, that's not a coincidence. And Olajuwon's team did not play much worse in '95, Drexler was pretty much Penny's equal and Houston's role players came through in the clutch unlike Shaq's, one of whom cost them a game, homecourt and momentum with the worst choke job in NBA history.



And then he scored at will the next season to the tune of 32 ppg on 56% shooting.



What exactly does the league average have to do with anything? Wilt was scoring in the post and off of offensive rebounds(which there were more of).

And :oldlol: at this "HOF center" crap, Shaq didn't have the luxuary of playing in arguably the worst defensive era ever with centers much less bulky. Instead, he played in the toughest defensive era in NBA history.

I'm done arguing with you. Keep making excuses for Wilt's failures. He has half as many titles as Shaq with more than enough talent and a lower postseason scoring average on inferior efficiency despite huge advantages in terms of being in an era that was easier to put up monster stats.

Any coincidence that all of the 20 rpg seasons are in the 60's? Any coincidence that the greatest statistical seasons(without being put into context) are all in the 60's?

Keep making excuses??? Just what was this last post of your's?????

Chamberlain DOMINATED his PEERs FAR MORE than Shaq. That is the bottom line. You can argue TEAM success all you want. Shaq had more "failures" in that regard than Wilt did. Getting SWEPT six times, and nearly a SEVENTH...several with favored teams.

I can give you "excuses" until the cows come home regarding Wilt. Had Havlicek not stolen the ball in the '65 ECF's, we might have witnessed the greatest upset in NBA post-season history. Had Johnny Egan not lost the ball in game four of the '69 Finals, LA goes on to win that series, 4-1. Had the Celtics not hit two "miracle" shots in that series, LA still wins. Had Van Breda Kolf not been coaching that Laker team, they win that series. Had the officials not handed the Knicks game five in the '70 Finals (and this was acknowledged by a NY TIMES writer BTW), Wilt's HUGE game six would have carried LA to a stunning upset of the heavily-favored Knicks. Had Sam Jones not hit a controversial shot at the buzzer in game seven of the '62 ECF's, Wilt, and his heavy underdog Warriors might very well have won that series. Had West not been injured in the '73 Final, LA, which lost four close games, might have won yet another title. Had West and Baylor both not been injured in the '71 WCF's, LA might have beaten the heavily-favored Bucks. Had Cunningham not missed the entire '68 ECF's, and had Jackson not been injured in game five of that series, and the Sixers probably repeat their 4-1 blowout of Boston from the previous year.

So, using that logic, Wilt COULD have, and probably SHOULD have been on title teams in '62, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '73...or, as many as SEVEN more rings in addition to the two that he had. That is just how CLOSE Wilt was.

[Psileas]

And yet for all of those inflated stats, he won 2 titles, none as the leading scorer in the playoffs, in his prime, he averaged 45 ppg.....on a 31-49 team that missed the playoffs and the Warriors were 11-33 before they traded him 2 years later which shows how deceptive stats(particularly from that era) are.

And yet Shaq was the one who missed the playoffs while playing with a 2-time MVP, plus Amare, J-Rich and an old but healthy Grant Hill.


I didn't see Shaq blowing any 3-1 series leads with a favored team and homecourt.

You almost did, a peak Shaq in 2000, and the fact that the Lakers managed to pull off the victory wasn't mainly because of him.

Also, you never saw Shaq leading his team to a 4-3 victory while being behind 3-1 or sweep the opponent team without HCA, let alone do this in successive series. Or Wilt's team getting swept 6 times.


Nor did I see him shooting 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line with a chance to clinch or 8 points the following year in the finals with a chance to clinch.

Don't worry, Shaq had his playoff moments, as well:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605130ATL.html (btw, who the heck guarded him that game? Grant Long? Laettner?).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200404170LAL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405230MIN.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805160UTA.html

OTOH, I don't remember Wilt having a playoff game like this (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200606110DAL.html) at any stage, let alone at 34, when he was still a 20 ppg scorer like Shaq. Or, again, Wilt at 34 finishing a series with only 1 game with 10 rebounds or more (and I won't even mention this postseason, when Shaq went without a single double digit rebounding game in 11 efforts, although I'm pretty sure Wilt would still grab 10+ in almost all his games at the age of 38). Or Wilt at the age of 33 finish a playoff series with a total of 1 steal and 3 blocks.
There are so many things to nitpick, if you want to.

[jlauber]

And yet Shaq was the one who missed the playoffs while playing with a 2-time MVP, plus Amare, J-Rich and an old but healthy Grant Hill.



You almost did, a peak Shaq in 2000, and the fact that the Lakers managed to pull off the victory wasn't mainly because of him.

Also, you never saw Shaq leading his team to a 4-3 victory while being behind 3-1 or sweep the opponent team without HCA, let alone do this in successive series. Or Wilt's team getting swept 6 times.



Don't worry, Shaq had his playoff moments, as well:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605130ATL.html (btw, who the heck guarded him that game? Grant Long? Laettner?).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200404170LAL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405230MIN.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805160UTA.html

OTOH, I don't remember Wilt having a playoff game like this (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200606110DAL.html) at any stage, let alone at 34, when he was still a 20 ppg scorer like Shaq. Or, again, Wilt at 34 finishing a series with only 1 game with 10 rebounds or more (and I won't even mention this postseason, when Shaq went without a single double digit rebounding game in 11 efforts, although I'm pretty sure Wilt would still grab 10+ in almost all his games at the age of 38). Or Wilt at the age of 33 finish a playoff series with a total of 1 steal and 3 blocks.
There are so many things to nitpick, if you want to.

Not only that, but did Shaq ever take a team that was a heavy under-dog to anything close to a title? Hell no. He couldn't even lead several heavy favorites to titles.

Chamberlain never had an embarrasing playoff series like Shaq did against a stiff like Ostertag, while his team was shredded 4-1. Or when he did finally outplay Ostertag the next season, his 61-21 Laker team was swept by the 62-20 Jazz.

I could go on for hours on this topic. BUT, once again, the bottom line was that Wilt was FAR MORE DOMINANT against his PEERS than Shaq was against his. Including the post-season, when Wilt was outshot ONE time in 29 post-series seasons, and NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them. And he heavily outscored his opposing centers in the vast majority of them.

As far as regular season stats go...Wilt OWNS the RECORD BOOK. Anyone care to compare Shaq with Wilt in that regard?

[ShaqAttack3234]

And yet Shaq was the one who missed the playoffs while playing with a 2-time MVP, plus Amare, J-Rich and an old but healthy Grant Hill.

Amare missed what? 30 games. And when he was on the court, he was not only not scoring as well as he usually did, but not rebounding as well or blocking shots as well(and it's not like he usually excelled in those areas).

And that was Shaq's 17th season, Wilt wasn't even in the league for 17 seasons, he retired after 14 and yet Shaq was still an all-star, had some huge games and his team went a respectable 46-36.


You almost did, a peak Shaq in 2000, and the fact that the Lakers managed to pull off the victory wasn't mainly because of him.

Also, you never saw Shaq leading his team to a 4-3 victory while being behind 3-1 or sweep the opponent team without HCA, let alone do this in successive series. Or Wilt's team getting swept 6 ]times.

Once again....almost. :roll: Wilt fans favorite word. You fail to mention that Shaq came up big in that 4th quarter and with a chance to clinch in gane 5, Shaq had a 31/21 game on 60% shooting yet Kobe and Rice combined for 21 points on 5 for 21 shooting and 7 turnovers combined compared to 5 combined assists.


Don't worry, Shaq had his playoff moments, as well:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605130ATL.html (btw, who the heck guarded him that game? Grant Long? Laettner?).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200404170LAL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405230MIN.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199805160UTA.html

OTOH, I don't remember Wilt having a playoff game like this (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200606110DAL.html) at any stage, let alone at 34, when he was still a 20 ppg scorer like Shaq. Or, again, Wilt at 34 finishing a series with only 1 game with 10 rebounds or more (and I won't even mention this postseason, when Shaq went without a single double digit rebounding game in 11 efforts, although I'm pretty sure Wilt would still grab 10+ in almost all his games at the age of 38). Or Wilt at the age of 33 finish a playoff series with a total of 1 steal and 3 blocks.
There are so many things to nitpick, if you want to.

None of those were as bad as 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line and not only did Shaq not choke away any of those series, he won all of them except '98.

Face it, Shaq was more of a winner than Wilt.

And I just saw JLauber's comment about Shaq only going 41-41 in his rookie year. :roll: The team improved by 21 games after he joined, that's more than Wilt's team improved his rookie season.

[jlauber]

Amare missed what? 30 games. And when he was on the court, he was not only not scoring as well as he usually did, but not rebounding as well or blocking shots as well(and it's not like he usually excelled in those areas).

And that was Shaq's 17th season, Wilt wasn't even in the league for 17 seasons, he retired after 14 and yet Shaq was still an all-star, had some huge games and his team went a respectable 46-36.



Once again....almost. :roll: Wilt fans favorite word. You fail to mention that Shaq came up big in that 4th quarter and with a chance to clinch in gane 5, Shaq had a 31/21 game on 60% shooting yet Kobe and Rice combined for 21 points on 5 for 21 shooting and 7 turnovers combined compared to 5 combined assists.



None of those were as bad as 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line and not only did Shaq not choke away any of those series, he won all of them except '98.

Face it, Shaq was more of a winner than Wilt.

And I just saw JLauber's comment about Shaq only going 41-41 in his rookie year. :roll: The team improved by 21 games after he joined, that's more than Wilt's team improved his rookie season.

Shaq was 34 when posted that famous 5 pt. 6 rebound game on 2-5 shooting in the Finals...against none other than the great Erik Dampier. Just another embarrassment to add to his MANY post-season FAILURES. Wilt at 35 was winning Finals MVP awards, and in his last season, at age 36 he was grabbing 22.5 rpg in the 17 post-season games against the likes of Thurmond and Reed.

[jlauber]

I'll give Shaq a kudos in his '01 Finals against Motumbo, although to be honest, he got away with murder.

But, had Wilt had the good fortune to have faced clods like Smits (a 7-4 geek that couldn't grab 7 rpg in his career), or 6-10 Dale Davis who couldn't score for his life, or Todd Mccullough, who couldn't tie his shoes...jeezus...50 ppg with 30 rpg and 75% shooting seem within reach.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Winning the finals isn't a playoff failure, moron. Wilt is the worst playoff performer out of any of the top 10 players, and it's not even close. Look up Kareem, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Olajuwon, Kobe, Duncan, Russell and of course Shaq's playoff careers and this will be apparent.

Wilt in the 2000 and 2002 finals? Not even 30 ppg and probably not 50% shooting either. He'd be in for a wake up call with his limited footwork and arsenal in the toughest defensive era, and of course, Wilt's scoring was known to drop dramatically in the postseason.

[jlauber]

Winning the finals isn't a playoff failure, moron. Wilt is the worst playoff performer out of any of the top 10 players, and it's not even close. Look up Kareem, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Olajuwon, Kobe, Duncan, Russell and of course Shaq's playoff careers and this will be apparent.

NO Wilt TEAMS, which were OUTGUNNED in EVERY post-season, were failures. He was BRILLIANT and DOMINATING in almost every one of them. IN fact, he was NEVER outplayed by an opposing center over the course of a post-season series...although I will give Russell, who is probably the greatest defensive center of all-time (and quite possibly the greatest CENTER of all-time) a TON of credit. Wilt CARRIED MEDIOCRE teams to within inches of titles. Shaq lost with heavily-favored teams, and even watched those teams get SWEPT.

Using your RIDICULOUS logic, Michael Jordan is one of the biggest LOSERS of all-time, as well. FIVE losing teams. Must have been HIS fault in EVERY one of them, too...just like Wilt, right?

BTW, Hakeem only won two rings, too, and he was so good that he played on EIGHT teams that were eliminated in the first round. Kareem was on his way to ONE ring in his career (thanks to Oscar)...until MAGIC CARRIED LA to FIVE titles in nine seasons. We have covered all of this. Bird was hardly great in the post-season (.472 in an era of 48% league wide shooting...and a deplorable .455 in his five Finals.) Duncan watched two of his playoff teams, with better records, get battered 8-1 by the Lakers (and particularly Kobe) in the early 00's...and then watched Kobe TORCH his Spurs teams in the late 00's.

[Psileas]

Amare missed what? 30 games. And when he was on the court, he was not only not scoring as well as he usually did, but not rebounding as well or blocking shots as well(and it's not like he usually excelled in those areas).

I don't see you mention anything about Wilt's teammates' numerous missed games or weaknesses back in 1963, and Amare by himself, for all his weaknesses, was better than Rodgers, Mescherry or whoever else played with Wilt that season. And that's only Amare, without moving on to Nash...


And that was Shaq's 17th season, Wilt wasn't even in the league for 17 seasons, he retired after 14 and yet Shaq was still an all-star, had some huge games and his team went a respectable 46-36.

Shaq at 2008 was 35-36, an age when Wilt was playing. Wilt didn't have the rules' luxury of playing in the league at the ages of 20-22, else he'd easily have done so.


Once again....almost. :roll: Wilt fans favorite word. You fail to mention that Shaq came up big in that 4th quarter and with a chance to clinch in gane 5, Shaq had a 31/21 game on 60% shooting yet Kobe and Rice combined for 21 points on 5 for 21 shooting and 7 turnovers combined compared to 5 combined assists.

Almost or completely, it's still a sign of a weakness that Shaq's team showed against a team worse that Russell's Celtics. That's peak, 2000 Shaq, 67-15 Lakers, going like a train to the Finals (although the Kings had already brought them to the limit), yet only a miracle saved them in Game 7. Had the Blazers had the mentality of '68 Celtics, the chances that the Lakers would win are much less.
Shaq fans have their huge share of games when they ignored what Wilt's teammates did in his "damning" games-with the exception of 1968 ECD G6, when they never fail to mention Greer's 40 points.


None of those were as bad as 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line and not only did Shaq not choke away any of those series, he won all of them except '98.

None were as bad? I beg to disagree. At least, Wilt grabbed 27 rebounds in that Game 6. In the game vs Atlanta that I showed, Shaq had 8 rebounds against an opponent without a real starting center and had a teammate post a 29/20 game, on 14-17 FG's. In the game vs Utah, he had 19/8/0/0/0, on 16 FGA, 16 FTA, 7 TO's, 4 fouls and the Lakers lost by 35. No way will I pick this game over Wilt's.
Yes, he won most of these series. If he had managed to lose a series to a way inferior Atlanta or Houston or Minnesota, something would be seriously wrong...


Face it, Shaq was more of a winner than Wilt.

Russell was more of a winner than anyone ever, and I still don't see many rank him as the GOAT.

[Pointguard]

:facepalm Shaq's touch got better and so did his footwork, hence his HUGE increase in scoring from his rookie year. The turnaround one-handed jumper became a bigger part of his game as his career progressed and of course, he became a much better passer, but of course, you probably didn't watch prime Shaq otherwise you wouldn't say he didn't improve offensively after his rookie year.

What changed about his game? He was featured more. He used his good foot work to get close to the basket. His range didn't increase. There was that barrel you over baby hook. Help me out?


How many shots did Iverson take? What about T-Mac? Shaq was never a selfish player on the court, he was playing on better teams than those guys, yet he was consistently in the top 3 in scoring throughout his prime and nobody has led the league in FG% more than Shaq. His shots were 5 ft and in. Nobody in the league took as many shots at point blank range. FG% should be a gimme. I never said the guy was a slouch. He was indeed a beast down there. But he should have distinguished himself moreso. The FG % separation I think, should have been a little higher. To much his credit he did know when to pass.


Shaq had Penny play great for 2 years and Kobe emerged in 2000 and then emerged as a superstar in 2001 and he did have Wade for a few years, but please, don't bring up supporting casts. Shaq is only rivaled by Kobe and Russell when talking about phenomenal talent around thim in their careers. Shaq had 2 with a solid Penny, 6 with a solid Kobe, 3 with Wade, 1 with Lebron, 1 with Nash and Amare. Give and take 12 years with the best talents in the game. In a league where great talents hardly ever pair up at all. Duncan might have had a top talent with him once but he definitely won it all as much as Shaq. Funny but Duncan's game was a lot like Wilt's - not as much scoring inside tho.


On his title teams, Shaq didn't have particularly good 3rd options and you know what his record was during the 3peat without Kobe? 25-6. And guess what? His scoring average and FG% both improved in that time. You speak BLASPHEMY ON THESE BOARDS!!!!


Wilt had far more stacked teams with the Sixers and Lakers. My god, look at the Sixers. Hal Greer(10 time all-star), Chet Walker(7 time all-star), Billy Cunningham(4 time all star coming off the bench and a player who was 2nd in MVP voting in '69) and Luke Jackson(all-star) all on the same team at or near their primes for several seasons. Then with the Lakers he had West and Baylor and when Baylor was done, another hall of famer Gail Goodrich stepped into his place.
Yea, but there were other teams at that time that had equal talent. It wasn't power game Wilt either. Nor was he loosing three years to every one he won either.


Most stars played far more minutes back then, look at Oscar, Russell, Baylor ect. Hell, Tiny Archibald played 46 mpg one year.

I guess players had better stamina in general back then. :facepalm We're talking Shaq and Wilt. And nooooo way do I think Shaq had Wilt's stamina. At 47 years old Wilt had more stamina than Shaq. At no point in Shaq's life do I think he could or will run a 50 mile marathon. Nor was Shaq at Wilt's activity level.


When did I say Howard was as good as Hakeem or Duncan? :confusedshrug: And Howard already is a superstar whether you like it or not, and no, he's not skilless, skilless players can't average 20 ppg on 60% shooting, particularly in the playoffs. If Howard had Hakeem or Duncan scoring skills people wouldn't be talking about Shaq now. Howard gets his points on his physical gifts not so much his skills. Howard is faster, quicker or stronger than anybody he faces. He is as atheltic a center as there is. Compared to skilled centers, Howard looks skillless. He doesn't know how to hold the ball, is bad on reading defenses, doesn't have a go to shot, his shooting is bad, his post moves are unrefined, his footwork could be better. If he was more skilled with the ball he would be among the best ever like Shaq if either had developed their skills.


Shooting? I'll take Shaq within 8-10 feet, that one-handed turnaround jumper and jump hook were damn near automatic in his prime. Don't know how well he could shoot outside of that because he never tried, why would he? Why would a 7'1", 340 pound athletic freak shoot 12-15 footers when he could get higher percentage shots? Because it would have opened up other things for him. The more you have the more you can do. The defense knew to meet Shaq at the rim. Shaq was susceptible to being double teamed down low. If he had another dimension he's more a potent scoring machine. Maybe his shooting percentage dips a point but you opened up a whole new world to score in.


Ah, shot selection and aggressiveness, those are other things Shaq has over Wilt. As far as 12-15 footers? I see no reason why Shaq couldn't shoot them as well or better than Wilt, afterall, he was a marginally better free throw shooter. Ahhh, Lazy he just never developed it. A scoring machine versus a goliath. Read David and Goliath again. Wilt was dominant from Shaq's range and he doubled the area in which he could score. He was more effective from more points on the floors. He was more versatile in his attack. He had incredible knack for scoring prolifically and in different ways. Shaq knew how to get close to the basket and score but that was it.

[Psileas]

Winning the finals isn't a playoff failure, moron. Wilt is the worst playoff performer out of any of the top 10 players, and it's not even close. Look up Kareem, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Olajuwon, Kobe, Duncan, Russell and of course Shaq's playoff careers and this will be apparent.

I'll take Wilt's playoff performances over Kobe's, Bird's and (yikes!) Russell's without much guilt and won't feel really uncomfortable when comparing them to Hakeem's and Shaq's.

When people triumphingly post newspaper clips of Russell managing to outplay Wilt for some halves of a series or managing to hold prime Wilt to "only" 30 points (regardless of what Russell did himself offensively) or when they post Russell's finals' numbers against the 60's Lakers in the Finals, as an example of him stepping up when it matters, it shows who the better performer really was between them. Maybe not the clutcher, but the overall better.

Bird had a lot of playoff failures and games when he didn't step up when it mattered, but his titles overshadow them (even though he didn't perform great in all of them either, like the 7th Finals' Game in 1984) and the fact that his Finals' loses came to Magic's Lakers somehow manage to give some of the glory to Bird, as well (it's that Magic-Bird connection that never seperates them).

Kobe had a great run in these 3 years, but he has already posted more than enough failures/not dominant enough series to consider him a greater playoff performer. Their all-around game by itself is not really close.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't see you mention anything about Wilt's teammates' numerous missed games or weaknesses back in 1963, and Amare by himself, for all his weaknesses, was better than Rodgers, Mescherry or whoever else played with Wilt that season. And that's only Amare, without moving on to Nash...

:oldlol: at you comparing prime Wilt to 36/37 year old Shaq in his 17th season and how is a 46-36 record even similar to a 31-49 record.


Shaq at 2008 was 35-36, an age when Wilt was playing. Wilt didn't have the rules' luxury of playing in the league at the ages of 20-22, else he'd easily have done so.

So, that's still extra years of wear and tear from long NBA seasons and again, how is a well past his prime Shaq comparable to Wilt in his prime?


Almost or completely, it's still a sign of a weakness that Shaq's team showed against a team worse that Russell's Celtics. That's peak, 2000 Shaq, 67-15 Lakers, going like a train to the Finals (although the Kings had already brought them to the limit), yet only a miracle saved them in Game 7. Had the Blazers had the mentality of '68 Celtics, the chances that the Lakers would win are much less.
Shaq fans have their huge share of games when they ignored what Wilt's teammates did in his "damning" games-with the exception of 1968 ECD G6, when they never fail to mention Greer's 40 points.

What about West throughout the 1969 finals with a legendary performance.


None were as bad? I beg to disagree. At least, Wilt grabbed 27 rebounds in that Game 6. In the game vs Atlanta that I showed, Shaq had 8 rebounds against an opponent without a real starting center and had a teammate post a 29/20 game, on 14-17 FG's. In the game vs Utah, he had 19/8/0/0/0, on 16 FGA, 16 FTA, 7 TO's, 4 fouls and the Lakers lost by 35. No way will I pick this game over Wilt's.

Wilt not only took more shot attempts than points, but more FTA in the same game, and yes, Greer's efficient 40 points are huge because of the outcome of the series. Shaq's game vs Utah was NOT worse than Wilt's, Wilt had a teammate go off for 40, Shaq had Rick Fox go off for 15 and the rest of the team embarrass themselves.


Yes, he won most of these series. If he had managed to lose a series to a way inferior Atlanta or Houston or Minnesota, something would be seriously wrong...

But he didn't, so having a bad game here or there means very little because they won all 3 series and Shaq played well throughout them, iirc with the exception of Houston.


Russell was more of a winner than anyone ever, and I still don't see many rank him as the GOAT.

The reason I don't rank Russell higher is because of his offensive skills, though after seeing the recaps from the '62 EDF, I have a newfound respect for him.

And to PointGuard, no, I wouldn't want Shaq shooting 12-15 foot jumpers, the double teams open up the game for his teammates anyway, plus the closer Shaq plays to the rim, the more he wears down front lines, the more consistent he'll be, the more he'll get teams in foul trouble, control the pace and get the other team into the penalty early ect.

And no, Shaq's game wasn't within 5 feet, it was 10 feet and in and you ask what he developed since his rookie year? His footwork continued to improve, he became a much, much better passer, better at reading defenses, his jump hook got better, he developed better counters and that one-handed turnaround jumper became a great go to move. In general he shot more jump hooks in Orlando and less of those turnarounds.

[jlauber]

I'll take Wilt's playoff performances over Kobe's, Bird's and (yikes!) Russell's without much guilt and won't feel really uncomfortable when comparing them to Hakeem's and Shaq's.

When people triumphingly post newspaper clips of Russell managing to outplay Wilt for some halves of a series or managing to hold prime Wilt to "only" 30 points (regardless of what Russell did himself offensively) or when they post Russell's finals' numbers against the 60's Lakers in the Finals, as an example of him stepping up when it matters, it shows who the better performer really was between them. Maybe not the clutcher, but the overall better.

Bird had a lot of playoff failures and games when he didn't step up when it mattered, but his titles overshadow them (even though he didn't perform great in all of them either, like the 7th Finals' Game in 1984) and the fact that his Finals' loses came to Magic's Lakers somehow manage to give some of the glory to Bird, as well (it's that Magic-Bird connection that never seperates them).

Kobe had a great run in these 3 years, but he has already posted more than enough failures/not dominant enough series to consider him a greater playoff performer. Their all-around game by itself is not really close.

Not only that but Wilt's game seven's are sensational... 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 (the highest by ANY "great" player in NBA HISTORY)...and in NINE games. And that does not include a 56-35 performance in a game five of a best of five series. And, how did Wilt fare against Russell in game seven's? He outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 to 13.2, he outrebounded him, per game, 28.5 to 24.5, and he shot an eye-popping .652 in those four games. I could not find all of Russell's FG% in those four series, but in the two that I did, he shot .391.

Bird was FLOP in a FINALS that his TEAM WON, in '81 (he shot a PATHETIC .419 in that series.) He was 1-2 against MAGIC, and it SHOULD have been 0-3. He was AWFUL in some of his later post-season series, and Michael Cooper routinely held him to horrible shooting performances. He also had a "memorable" game seven of 6-18 shooting. Find me ONE game seven like that from Wilt.

Olajuwon was embarrassed by Shaq in the late 90's, and his teams were easily eliminated in EIGHT FIRST-ROUNDS. In one of his title years, MJ did not play either.

Kareem had several PUTRID SERIES and GAMES in the post-season. He was outplayed by an aged Thurmond in 71-72, and then watched Thurmond carry a 47-35 team over his 60-22 Bucks the very next year. In those two post-seasons against Thurmond, Kareem shot an abysmal .405 and .428. Chamberlain dominated him in the 71-72 WCF's as well (and I have documented the MANY takes on that series BTW.) Kareem was outplayed by a 6-9 white center in a game seven of the Finals. He was crushed by Mose in '83, and held to .462 by Malone in '81 in a league that shot over 48%. In fact, there were SEVERAL post-seasons in which Kareem shot much worse than the league average. He had a god-awful game in game five of the '84 Finals (7-25 shooting.) He was HORRIBLE in game seven of the '88 Finals ( 2-7 for FOUR points.) I could go on for hours, too, but he had MANY more miserable games and series than Wilt.

Shaq had a post-season in which he was AWFUL against Ostertag. He had a Finals game, at age 34, in which he scored 5 points on 2-5 shooting with 6 rebounds. Wilt probably never had a half in his entire post-season career with only six rebounds, and he averaged OVER that in his POST-SEASON QUARTERS in his CAREER. Not only that, but Shaq witnessed SIX teams get SWEPT and some were with heavily-favored teams. Meanwhile, Wilt came within an eye-lash of FIVE titles (and as many as SEVEN.)

MJ even had some god-awful Finals in terms of shooting (.419.) And he played on FIVE losing teams in his career, including one with the league's leading rebounder.

Magic had very few poor games, but he had did have a 5-14 game seven, and a poor series in '82. He also came back after missing 45 games just before the playoffs in '81, and played horribly. It was no coincidence that Kareem couldn't overcome Magic's poor play, and LA lost to the 40-42 Rockets. Obviously LA could win without great efforts from Kareem (see '87 and '88), but they could not win without Magic dominating in the post-season. They could even win a pivotal game six championship game withOUT Kareem, but, of course, MAGIC had to play one of the greatest post-season games in NBA history to do it.

Wilt NEVER played as poorly as Shaq did in some of his post-seasons, and in fact, Wilt was never outplayed in ANY of his 29 post-season series. And, in the vast majority of them, he CRUSHED his opposing center, whether it was in a win or a loss.

[Psileas]

at you comparing prime Wilt to 36/37 year old Shaq in his 17th season and how is a 46-36 record even similar to a 31-49 record.

No, I don't compare them, but if some people are to make unjust claims like Wilt's '63 season being a failure because of practically having bad teammates, I'll have no problem doing something similar for Shaq: Blame him for losing the playoffs while out of his prime.
BTW, Wilt never stopped getting blamed for losses, regardless of whether he was or he wasn't in his prime. Maybe it's his fault that he was an MVP candidate even late on in his career, while Shaq wasn't. Makes it more convenient to assume that the last seasons of Shaq didn't exist...


So, that's still extra years of wear and tear from long NBA seasons and again, how is a well past his prime Shaq comparable to Wilt in his prime?

People compare irrelevant things all the time. You mentioned how Shaq never blew a 3-1 lead, although he nearly did so against a worse team than the Celtics. Others claim that Shaq in Wilt's era would dominate more and still depict a player grown up with modern technology. Others (including you) point out how he has more titles.

You want to make a fairer case? No problem. After all, Wilt had more team success late in his career than early. Compare Wilt's 1969-73 runs to Shaq's at their respective ages.


What about West throughout the 1969 finals with a legendary performance.

I'm talking about legitimately bad games on Wilt's part. You're obviously talking about Game 7, and I don't find anything to blame Wilt for. Maybe only for not having taken over coaching the team in those final minutes and returning to the game himself, since it was evident that his coach would not bring him back.



Wilt not only took more shot attempts than points, but more FTA in the same game, and yes, Greer's efficient 40 points are huge because of the outcome of the series. Shaq's game vs Utah was NOT worse than Wilt's, Wilt had a teammate go off for 40, Shaq had Rick Fox go off for 15 and the rest of the team embarrass themselves.

In all the games I showed, Shaq shoots a big number of FG's and FT's (I didn't look only for games when Shaq took many shots) and while the analogy of points slighly favors Shaq, Wilt grabbed far more rebounds. Whether you consider if some of his teammates had a great game or not, I posted cases for each. Horace Grant in that 29-20 game I showed was the equivalent of Hal Greer's 40-pointer.



But he didn't, so having a bad game here or there means very little because they won all 3 series and Shaq played well throughout them, iirc with the exception of Houston.

See, Wilt and Shaq had bad games in their own way. You mentioned a game when Wilt had 20 pts on 21 FGA's and 23 FTA's. Shaq had some playoff games with comparable inefficiencies. Wilt's game was more important. On the other hand, Shaq had a 5 point-6 rebound game in the Finals that Wilt never had in any series. That combination of stats and team game vs Utah was also bad, and this was a losing series. If somebody wants to find stinking combinations, he will. Wilt never "achieved" some of Shaq's negative "accomplishments" in the playoffs and vice-versa.
If winning a series is what ultimately matters to you when comparing playoff performances, you may stick to Russell (and Shaq and Kareem) over Wilt. They aren't bad choices, but I check for more things than this, so I don't always agree with these results.

[Soundwave]

All this bickering is fine and all ... but Shaq is still the greatest POWER player.

Wilt's game translated into the modern NBA would be more comparable to David Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53lwRhU4fs

There's honestly never been a player in the NBA like Shaq. People assume Wilt played like that, but his game again was probably more like David Robinson, who played a very different style from Shaq.

Shaq is, like him, love him, or hate him ... one of a kind.

[ShaqAttack3234]

As far as Wilt outplaying every center........

Game 1 Boston won 117-89 Headline: "Wilt held in check"
"Russell, a picture of coordinated movement rising to the Chamberlain challenge held Wilt to 12 points in the first half. Chamberlain wound up high scorer with 33 points only after the issue was no longer in doubt." - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5sEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4RAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4551,2545126&dq=wilt+chamberlain+33+with+33+points+only+after+t he+issue+was+no+longer+in+doubt&hl=en

Game 3- Boston won 129-114 Headline: Russell Outplays Wilt, Celtics Take 2-1 Edge
"Bill Russell stole Wilt Chamberlain's thunder." "Russell outscored and outrebounded scoring king Chamberlain in the crucial first half after being outplayed Wilt in Philadelphia Tuesday night. Though the 7-2 Chamberlain wound up leading all scorers with 35, most of them came too late for the visitors. Russell tallied 21 points to Wilt's 13 in the opening half and grabbed 14 rebounds to Chamberlain's 11. The big Celt finished up with 31 points. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jKEtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hNEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1920,5116330&dq=wilt+chamberlain+35+russell+31&hl=en

Game 5- Boston won 119-104
"Bill Russell put the clamps on Wilt Chamberlain." "Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and outrebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision.- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z4pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TGYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2976,2892610&dq=11+points+and+was+out+rebounded+11-9+by+his+tormentor+in+the+crucial+first&hl=en

Game 6 Philly won 109-99
"Wilt Chamberlain finished high for the Warriors with 32, but he was completely overshadowed in the first half by Meschery and Arizin. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=K_IqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6YkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2059,448692&dq=wilt+chamberlain+finished+high+for+the+warriors +with+32+points&hl=en But, but, but.....he had no help! :cry:

Game 7 Boston won
Wilt had 22 points(season low) and 21 rebounds while Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds, Wilt's teammate Tom Meschery led all scorers with 32 points. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-SERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6499,996218&dq=wilt+chamberlain+21+points+22+rebounds&hl=en

Granted, Wilt dominated Russell in game 2 outscoring him 42-9 and outrebounding him 37-20 and he outplayed him in game 4 as well with 41 points and 34 rebounds, but Russell still had 31 points.

So it seems like Wilt was outplayed by Russell, I mean consider how much each was expected to score for their team, consider that Russell basically match Wilt's scoring in atleast 3 games, he was regarded as the superior defender at the time and in all probability, he average more assists.

Whether you want to call it stat-padding or not, his points were not timely in games 1, 3 and 5.

Just goes to show how deceptive stats can be.

[jlauber]

All this bickering is fine and all ... but Shaq is still the greatest POWER player.

Wilt's game translated into the modern NBA would be more comparable to David Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53lwRhU4fs

There's honestly never been a player in the NBA like Shaq. People assume Wilt played like that, but his game again was probably more like David Robinson, who played a very different style from Shaq.

Shaq is, like him, love him, or hate him ... one of a kind.

Many folks were take being compared to Robinson as a compliment. It is a complete SLAP in Wilt's face. Chamberlain was much bigger, much stronger, faster, able to leap higher, and very close to as skilled in terms of range. After the range comparsion, Wilt BLOWS Robinson away. In Wilt's "scoring" seasons, years in which he shot much more from the outside, he still put Robinson-type FG%, on MANY more attempts. Do you think Robinson would have shot .528 with 35 FGAs a game? Hell no. AND, Robinson played in an era of considerably higher league average FG% as well...and then it goes up even moreso when you consider that he was playing in 3pt shooting leagues (unlike Wilt.) Of course, when we start comparing "efficient" seasons, ONCE AGAIN, Wilt just BLOWS Robinson, AND EVERYONE else AWAY. Chamberlain was winning FG% titles by margins of .162 and outshooting the league average by an astounding .271.

Robinson won ONE rebounding title, and at a weak 13.0 rpg. In the playoffs his high was 14.1 rpg. Chamberlain won ELEVEN rebounding titles, some by as much as FIVE per game. He had regular seasons of over 27 rpg, and post-seasons of over 30 rpg. Even taking PACE into account, Chamberlain just CRUSHES Robinson.

Passing? Robinson had a season at 4.8 apg and a career 2.5. Chamberlain WON assist titles at nearly 9 apg (and had entire post-seasons of over 9 apg.) He averaged 4.5 apg for his CAREER.

Defense. I'll cut Robinson some slack here, as he was the best defensive center of his era. BUT, he won four first-teams in his 14 year career. Had that award existed for Wilt's entire career he probably would have at least equaled it. Furthermore, Robinson's best season in blocks was at 4.5 amd he averaged 3.0 in his career. Wilt would have been embarrassed with those totals, even factoring in PACE. My god, Wilt had SEASONS of over 10, and games in the 20's.

Post-season? My god, Robinson shot .479 in his post-season career, in leagues that shot much higher than Wilt's. He had post-seasons of .373, .411, and .425 (or even worse than Kareem's awful post-seasons.) He averaged 18 ppg and 10.6 rpg...both not close to Wilt. And, he was outplayed in several post-seasons...some by huge margins. Wilt not only outplayed his opposing centers in the post-season, he usually CRUSHED them.

Wilt was a ONE OF A KIND...and he would have ACCIDENTLY abused Robinson without any effort. Had he played with Shaq's mentality, they would have carried him off in a body-bag.

[Soundwave]

David Robinson is not some skinny lithe 7 footer ... the dude is probably one of the most ripped players to ever play in the NBA ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2760996851_1fe1510cb9.jpg

And he's the same height as Wilt. Lets not get it twisted either DRob was a phenomenal athlete ... guy could run and jump comparable to SG/SF.

But I'm saying in terms of PLAYING STYLE ... Wilt's style of play is not like Shaq's.

Even Wilt himself admitted that.

Shaq's game is pretty much a pure power game. There's never been a center in the NBA that really played that style.

[jlauber]

As far as Wilt outplaying every center........

Game 1 Boston won 117-89 Headline: "Wilt held in check"
"Russell, a picture of coordinated movement rising to the Chamberlain challenge held Wilt to 12 points in the first half. Chamberlain wound up high scorer with 33 points only after the issue was no longer in doubt." - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5sEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4RAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4551,2545126&dq=wilt+chamberlain+33+with+33+points+only+after+t he+issue+was+no+longer+in+doubt&hl=en

Game 3- Boston won 129-114 Headline: Russell Outplays Wilt, Celtics Take 2-1 Edge
"Bill Russell stole Wilt Chamberlain's thunder." "Russell outscored and outrebounded scoring king Chamberlain in the crucial first half after being outplayed Wilt in Philadelphia Tuesday night. Though the 7-2 Chamberlain wound up leading all scorers with 35, most of them came too late for the visitors. Russell tallied 21 points to Wilt's 13 in the opening half and grabbed 14 rebounds to Chamberlain's 11. The big Celt finished up with 31 points. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jKEtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hNEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1920,5116330&dq=wilt+chamberlain+35+russell+31&hl=en

Game 5- Boston won 119-104
"Bill Russell put the clamps on Wilt Chamberlain." "Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and outrebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision.- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z4pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TGYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2976,2892610&dq=11+points+and+was+out+rebounded+11-9+by+his+tormentor+in+the+crucial+first&hl=en

Game 6 Philly won 109-99
"Wilt Chamberlain finished high for the Warriors with 32, but he was completely overshadowed in the first half by Meschery and Arizin. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=K_IqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6YkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2059,448692&dq=wilt+chamberlain+finished+high+for+the+warriors +with+32+points&hl=en But, but, but.....he had no help! :cry:

Game 7 Boston won
Wilt had 22 points(season low) and 21 rebounds while Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds, Wilt's teammate Tom Meschery led all scorers with 32 points. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-SERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6499,996218&dq=wilt+chamberlain+21+points+22+rebounds&hl=en

Granted, Wilt dominated Russell in game 2 outscoring him 42-9 and outrebounding him 37-20 and he outplayed him in game 4 as well with 41 points and 34 rebounds, but Russell still had 31 points.

So it seems like Wilt was outplayed by Russell, I mean consider how much each was expected to score for their team, consider that Russell basically match Wilt's scoring in atleast 3 games, he was regarded as the superior defender at the time and in all probability, he average more assists.

Whether you want to call it stat-padding or not, his points were not timely in games 1, 3 and 5.

Just goes to show how deceptive stats can be.

Back to this CRAP again? Give me a breakdown of EVERY H2H post-season game between the two then? My god, posting HALVES of games to diminish Wilt is ridiculous. BTW, in those 61-62 ECF's, how many HOF teammates did Russell have compared to Wilt. AND, BTW, how about Heinsohn stating that it was NOT Russell vs. Wilt, but rather the CELTICS vs. Wilt?

Finally, Russell was a far greater center than Olajuwon, Robinson, or Ewing...especially in defense and rebounding. So, it was certainly no disgrace for Wilt to be outplayed in HALVES of games, and against FAR superior personnel, by a center that many consider the GOAT.

[jlauber]

David Robinson is not some skinny lithe 7 footer ... the dude is probably one of the most ripped players to ever play in the NBA ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2760996851_1fe1510cb9.jpg

And he's the same height as Wilt. Lets not get it twisted either DRob was a phenomenal athlete ... guy could run and jump comparable to SG/SF.

But I'm saying in terms of PLAYING STYLE ... Wilt's style of play is not like Shaq's.

Even Wilt himself admitted that.

Shaq's game is pretty much a pure power game. There's never been a center in the NBA that really played that style.

I'll give you the same speech I gave ShaqAttack...

Wilt holds a 7-1 edge in scoring titles over Robinson, and while DRob barely (and I mean barely) won his, Chamberlain won scoring titles by 20 ppg.

How about FG% titles. Chamberlain holds a 9-0 career edge. And his BEST FG% seasons DWARF virtually ANYONE ELSE who has ever played the game.

Passing titles? Wilt 1-0, and in another season he finsihed third.

Rebounding titles. LAUGHABLE! Wilt holds an 11-1 margin, and he ran away with rebounding titles, while Robinson barely won his lone title.

In the post-season Chamberlain was FAR MORE dominant.

[Soundwave]

I'll give you the same speech I gave ShaqAttack...

Wilt holds a 7-1 edge in scoring titles over Robinson, and while DRob barely (and I mean barely) won his, Chamberlain won scoring titles by 20 ppg.

How about FG% titles. Chamberlain holds a 9-0 career edge. And his BEST FG% seasons DWARF virtually ANYONE ELSE who has ever played the game.

Passing titles? Wilt 1-0, and in another season he finsihed third.

Rebounding titles. LAUGHABLE! Wilt holds an 11-1 margin, and he ran away with rebounding titles, while Robinson barely won his lone title.

In the post-season Chamberlain was FAR MORE dominant.


That's nice and all, but the question is who is the better POWER player.

If you want to debate who's the better center overall, that's a different can of worms.

I'm saying Chamberlain's style of play is more like David Robinson. If you transposed him into the modern NBA that would be more like how he played.

Shaq is totally a different beast altogether, he plays a style that no other center in NBA history has ever played. Pretty much a pure 100% power game. So to me if you're asking who's the greatest POWER center in NBA history, it's Shaq.

[Yung D-Will]

jlauber And Shaqattack should go on espn and have a Shaq versus Wilt debate lmao

[jlauber]

jlauber And Shaqattack should go on espn and have a Shaq versus Wilt debate lmao

I would RELISH it.

[jlauber]

That's nice and all, but the question is who is the better POWER player.

If you want to debate who's the better center overall, that's a different can of worms.

I'm saying Chamberlain's style of play is more like David Robinson. If you transposed him into the modern NBA that would be more like how he played.

Shaq is totally a different beast altogether, he plays a style that no other center in NBA history has ever played. Pretty much a pure 100% power game. So to me if you're asking who's the greatest POWER center in NBA history, it's Shaq.

I'll agree that Shaq PLAYED with more power (not necessarily that he WAS more powerful.) I just don't think the NBA would have allowed Wilt to abuse his peers, though.

[Soundwave]

I'll agree that Shaq PLAYED with more power (not necessarily that he WAS more powerful.) I just don't think the NBA would have allowed Wilt to abuse his peers, though.

I think Shaq is the most powerful pure big man in the NBA ... but that's just my take.

He rag dolled David Robinson ... I mean this is probably illegal in some states:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53lwRhU4fs

Sweet jeebus.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Back to this CRAP again? Give me a breakdown of EVERY H2H post-season game between the two then? My god, posting HALVES of games to diminish Wilt is ridiculous. BTW, in those 61-62 ECF's, how many HOF teammates did Russell have compared to Wilt. AND, BTW, how about Heinsohn stating that it was NOT Russell vs. Wilt, but rather the CELTICS vs. Wilt?

Finally, Russell was a far greater center than Olajuwon, Robinson, or Ewing...especially in defense and rebounding. So, it was certainly no disgrace for Wilt to be outplayed in HALVES of games, and against FAR superior personnel, by a center that many consider the GOAT.

My god, you're biased. I didn't exclude his final numbers, I quoted the articles directly which emphasized the first halves because according to them, that's when the games were decided.

You claimed you started watching basketball in '64, correct? So neither of us watched this series, if we're going to try to determine who was better that series, wouldn't recaps written when the series was taking place be the most accurate way to do so?

If the momentum is established in the first half, then that has to be mentioned. For example, in game 2 of the '95 finals, Olajuwon schooled Shaq in the first half and Houston opened up a big lead, despite Orlando cutting the lead to like 8 or 9 with a decent amount of time remaining, Houston had established the momentum and Orlando was playing catch up, so despite Shaq finishing with a better statline, it's clear who won the matchup in that game and it was Hakeem Olajuwon. No double standard with me, it's just how it is.

And you notice, I haven't once brought up a series Wilt won as a "failure"? Nor have I brought up the '64 or '65 playoff series, I've brought up series where Wilt clearly underperformed by his standards and they lost, but more so series they could've won.

[jlauber]

My god, you're biased. I didn't exclude his final numbers, I quoted the articles directly which emphasized the first halves because according to them, that's when the games were decided.

You claimed you started watching basketball in '64, correct? So neither of us watched this series, if we're going to try to determine who was better that series, wouldn't recaps written when the series was taking place be the most accurate way to do so?

If the momentum is established in the first half, then that has to be mentioned. For example, in game 2 of the '95 finals, Olajuwon schooled Shaq in the first half and Houston opened up a big lead, despite Orlando cutting the lead to like 8 or 9 with a decent amount of time remaining, Houston had established the momentum and Orlando was playing catch up, so despite Shaq finishing with a better statline, it's clear who won the matchup in that game and it was Hakeem Olajuwon. No double standard with me, it's just how it is.

And you notice, I haven't once brought up a series Wilt won as a "failure"? Nor have I brought up the '64 or '65 playoff series, I've brought up series where Wilt clearly underperformed by his standards and they lost, but more so series they could've won.

Good points. I ALWAYS respect your opinions BTW. I just don't always agree with them.

And I agreed with you about the OP. Shaq played with more power than Wilt did.

[ZenMaster]

Jlauber I have two questions for you.

1) If you have been watching basketball since 64, why are you always referring to youtube clips when it comes to Wilt's shooting range?

2) When you point out that players who played in the 60's shot better in the 70's, and players in the 70's shot better in the 80's etc, you claim that it's because of better defense right?
Well how about the advancement of offensive skills? The game has evolved each decade, players adding more moves, coaches getting better systems etc?
Also there are intangibles like better basketballs being developed that are easier to handle than the balls before.

These questions are not meant in an aggressive tone at all, and I'm especially curious about what you think about my second question.

[Gotterdammerung]

And I agreed with you about the OP. Shaq played with more power than Wilt did.

Oh, for the record, nowhere did I state that Wilt played with more "power," i.e., that is use his strength at every opportunity, than Shaq did.

That I concluded Wilt to be the better power center doesn't mean he played w/ more power in particular, despite being better in almost every phase of the game.

In a future thread I will analyze how the greatest teams in NBA history would perform when playing each other, when I find the time.

[Pointguard]

All this bickering is fine and all ... but Shaq is still the greatest POWER player.

Wilt's game translated into the modern NBA would be more comparable to David Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53lwRhU4fs

There's honestly never been a player in the NBA like Shaq. People assume Wilt played like that, but his game again was probably more like David Robinson, who played a very different style from Shaq.

Shaq is, like him, love him, or hate him ... one of a kind.

No offense Soundwave but nobody doubts that. Its like going to a message board and asking is the sky blue? If you seen Shaq that was his game. Wilt would be the only question mark but if you read these boards not one Wilt expert says Wilt is more Powerful. If you say Power Center that means a whole different thing. Power describes center. Does Shaq have a power centers block game or is that a power rebound game???

Shaq used his power to score. He didn't use it to block out for rebounds. He didn't use it in any other way.

[PHILA]

As far as Wilt outplaying every center........

Game 1 Boston won 117-89 Headline: "Wilt held in check"
"Russell, a picture of coordinated movement rising to the Chamberlain challenge held Wilt to 12 points in the first half. Chamberlain wound up high scorer with 33 points only after the issue was no longer in doubt." - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5sEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4RAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4551,2545126&dq=wilt+chamberlain+33+with+33+points+only+after+t he+issue+was+no+longer+in+doubt&hl=en

Game 3- Boston won 129-114 Headline: Russell Outplays Wilt, Celtics Take 2-1 Edge
"Bill Russell stole Wilt Chamberlain's thunder." "Russell outscored and outrebounded scoring king Chamberlain in the crucial first half after being outplayed Wilt in Philadelphia Tuesday night. Though the 7-2 Chamberlain wound up leading all scorers with 35, most of them came too late for the visitors. Russell tallied 21 points to Wilt's 13 in the opening half and grabbed 14 rebounds to Chamberlain's 11. The big Celt finished up with 31 points. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jKEtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hNEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1920,5116330&dq=wilt+chamberlain+35+russell+31&hl=en

Game 5- Boston won 119-104
"Bill Russell put the clamps on Wilt Chamberlain." "Russell scored 29 points to Chamberlain's 30. Bill blanketed Wilt so well that the NBA scoring king had only four of 13 field goal tries, 11 points and outrebounded 11-9 by his tormentor in the first half. Russell also contributed numerous blocked shots and assists to the decision.- http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9z4pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TGYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2976,2892610&dq=11+points+and+was+out+rebounded+11-9+by+his+tormentor+in+the+crucial+first&hl=en

Game 6 Philly won 109-99
"Wilt Chamberlain finished high for the Warriors with 32, but he was completely overshadowed in the first half by Meschery and Arizin. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=K_IqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6YkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2059,448692&dq=wilt+chamberlain+finished+high+for+the+warriors +with+32+points&hl=en But, but, but.....he had no help! :cry:

Game 7 Boston won
Wilt had 22 points(season low) and 21 rebounds while Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds, Wilt's teammate Tom Meschery led all scorers with 32 points. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-SERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6499,996218&dq=wilt+chamberlain+21+points+22+rebounds&hl=en

Granted, Wilt dominated Russell in game 2 outscoring him 42-9 and outrebounding him 37-20 and he outplayed him in game 4 as well with 41 points and 34 rebounds, but Russell still had 31 points.

So it seems like Wilt was outplayed by Russell, I mean consider how much each was expected to score for their team, consider that Russell basically match Wilt's scoring in atleast 3 games, he was regarded as the superior defender at the time and in all probability, he average more assists.

Whether you want to call it stat-padding or not, his points were not timely in games 1, 3 and 5.

Just goes to show how deceptive stats can be.



Was "Mr Clutch" stat padding in the 5th game of the '69 Finals as the Lakers had a double digit lead at the end of the 3rd & were up nearly 20 points in the 4th while Butch inexplicably left him in the game. Someone as scrutinized under a microscope as Wilt was (and still is) will have perceived flaws held against him that are consistently excused for others. Was Abdul-Jabbar stat padding when he played 47 minutes in a 117-106 loss to the Warriors in the first game of the '73 playoffs or when he played 47 minutes in a 93-72 victory over the Lakers in the first game of the '72 playoffs (a game that the Bucks led by 26 after 3 quarters and as much as 31 early in the 4th)? Or a '73-74 regular season victory during which he played 46 minutes (with the flu) in a game against the then 9-16 Rockets (who finished 30-52) who were trailing the Bucks by 16 at the half and never came within single digits the rest of the way? No he likely was not. Point being not to rely on biased news paper articles, as there is no way to determine the momentum shifts and runs during any given point in the game. What might the Warriors strategy have been offensively? What impact did early foul trouble have for either team? Would they foolishly attempt to have Wilt taking 40 shots a game like he did in the regular season hoping that one man could beat the greatest dynasty in sports history?

In the '62 series against Boston Coach Frank McGuire had moved Wilt up the top of the key (high post) to expand their offensive options as opposed to being too predictable against Russell, forcing him to play more conservative defense. Not only was Wilt scoring more frequently than he did in the regular season and still out scoring Russell, the Warriors starters were out scoring the Celtics starters. But the C's 3 key bench players (K.C, Ramsey, Loscy) brutalized the Warriors bench by an even bigger margin. Who is to say Wilt gave up on any hope of winning the game with his late game scoring. Or perhaps "heroic attempts" as I'm sure it would be called for any other player in history not named Wilt.

As noted in the video below even Globe columnist Bob Ryan refers to this as "Boston mythology".

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=W40Y3RI9



Is he expected to get down on his knees at halftime and beg the coach to sit him down so that 40 years later a young bigot on an internet forum would not be able to get as excited and criticize him as easily? :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Is he expected to get down on his knees at halftime and beg the coach to sit him down so that 40 years later a young bigot on an internet forum would not be able to get as excited and criticize him as easily? :facepalm

Bigot? What the hell? :roll:

[PHILA]

*a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

[ShaqAttack3234]

*a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Oh, the irony. :roll:

[Poochymama]

.50 ppg with 30 rpg and 75% shooting seem within reach.
:facepalm Wow, usually you're somewhat reasonable, if you honestly believe Wilt would put up those numbers in Shaq's time, wow.

Wilt couldn't even put up those numbers in the 60's, which was a MUCH weaker era, than the era Shaq played in.

I really hope that was just one of those things you say when you get mad, surely you don't honestly believe that, if so you just lost a lot of credibility.

[Poochymama]

jlauber And Shaqattack should go on espn and have a Shaq versus Wilt debate lmao

Shaqattack is bringing up some really good points.

[jlauber]

Jlauber I have two questions for you.

1) If you have been watching basketball since 64, why are you always referring to youtube clips when it comes to Wilt's shooting range?

2) When you point out that players who played in the 60's shot better in the 70's, and players in the 70's shot better in the 80's etc, you claim that it's because of better defense right?
Well how about the advancement of offensive skills? The game has evolved each decade, players adding more moves, coaches getting better systems etc?
Also there are intangibles like better basketballs being developed that are easier to handle than the balls before.

These questions are not meant in an aggressive tone at all, and I'm especially curious about what you think about my second question.

Actually, the poorer shooting in the EARLY 60's has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. Abe (PHILA) posted a quote from Wilt about some of the CONDITIONS of the early 60's. Uneven flooring, cold arenas, and even breezes in some of them. Your argument on the basketball, itself, is as good as any. In any case, that is why I always consider it an important factor when comparing shooting across eras.

As far as defense is concerned, I do get a laugh out of those that claim that it was non-existant in the 60's. If anything, the lanes were much more compacted, and while everyone points to Wilt's FGAs, the fact was, it was still a much more perimeter-oriented game. Look at the scorers of the 60's. West and Oscar had multiple 30+ ppg seasons. Dave Bing led the NBA one year. Rick Barry was more of a balanced scorer, but he was a very good outside shooter. Baylor was more of a slasher, but he had a decent mid-range game.

The only real scorers from the center position were Wilt and Bellamy. Reed was basically a PF for most of the 60's, and even when he was a center he was more of a 15 ft shooter. Lucas was a PF for most of his career (and an emergency center later in his career), but he had unbelieveable range. Thurmond was a decent offensive player, but I really wouldn't call him a scorer. And Russell, despite what many believe here, was actually a very accomplished offensive player. He generally played on teams with multiple scoring options, so he was seldom asked to lead the team in scoring (although he did just that in the 65-66 Finals, at 23.6 ppg.) And, if you take league average into consideration, he was a better offensive player than his overall numbers imply.

Near the end of the 60's and into the early 70's, the center position became a mixture of post players and 15 ft shooter, with some players being adept at both. Elvin Hayes was a center early in his career, and was an excellent jump shooter. Bob Lanier was good a example of being a post up and a pop-out shooter. Kareem may have been the most skilled offensive center of all-time. Gilmore was a post-up center, who seldom took a bad shot. Cowens was good at both types, and he ran the floor so well. Later Walton came along and he was as good an all-around center that I have ever seen. Unseld was not a great offensive player, but he was a banger with decent skills and amazing outlet passing ability.

But, once again, I have always found it mystifying that Reed came into the league with a .432 FG%. Thurmond at .395. Havlicek had several awful FG% seasons in the early to mid-60's, and then became a much better shooter in the 70's. Same with Barry, Hayes, Bellamy, and other's. And many players shot much better in the LATE 60's.

As far as moving from the 70's into the 80's...maybe someone here can explain the EXPLOSION in FG% in the decade of the 80's. Even with the advent of the 3pt shot, the 80's STILL basically had seasons from .480 to .490 almost every year. There were TEAMS shooting over 50%. Even BAD teams were shooting over 50% (e.g., 84-85 Kansas City shooting .504, and going 31-51.) Players like Dantley, (who was NEVER a great outside shooter(, was shooting a high of .520 in the 70's (and .510 and .512) suddenly shooting .570, .576, and .580. Gilmore went from an NBA high of .575 in the 70's to four seasons over .600, including .652 and .670...all at past his peak.

Kareem was the clincher for me. In his physical PRIME, he had a HIGH of .579 in the 70's, but he also had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the decade of the 80's, and in the first EIGHT years of that decade, his LOW was .564, and he had FOUR seasons equal to, or better, than his BEST season in the 70's. He had one year at .604, and another at .599 (at age 37!) Granted, he was paired with Magic, who made ALL of his teammates more efficient, but it is still pretty amazing that, well after his peak (just look at his anemic rebounding numbers in the 80's), that he could still score 25 ppg on nearly 60% shooting for the most of the decade.

He is, of course, a good example of DEFENSE, too. I have mentioned it before, but Thurmond and Wilt held him WAY below his CAREER FG%. And Wilt basically played him one-on-one, too. Both Nate and Wilt were well past their primes, while Kareem was in his statistical prime. Thurmond held him to back-to-back playoff series of .405 and .428 shooting...and yet, Kareem was pouring in over 40 ppg over a three game set against none other than Hakeem in the mid-80's, and as the oldest player in the league.

Anyway...that is my take on it. Maybe other's here can chime in.

[Pointguard]

As far as Wilt outplaying every center........
Just goes to show how deceptive stats can be.

Certain stats will never be broken and are as clear cut as can be. Certain stats are not reachable by Shaq's power game. Not enough diesel in the engine for him to reach it. You have to be an Iron Man to pull off what Chamberlain did. It involves know how, it involves skill, it involves endurance, it inolves consistency, it involves versatility, it involves athletism, it involves adjusting to distinguish himself from the crowd.

Shaq had Power but Jordan had "the Power." Tim Duncan had Nuclear Power. There was a lot of power going around at that time. Shaq might have had more physical force but wasn't at the top of the pyramid. Nor did he distinguish himself from the greats in his time. He was dominant but a far cry from his Airness. He wasn't the best scorer. He wasn't the best at anything cept FG% but who wouldn't if they shot everything at point blank range. When confronted about Yao's ability to stop him Shaq said, "he's 7'6 he's supposed to block me." Well Shaq, you supposed to run over the league, the refs were allowing it, but a guy 14 inches smaller and 40% your body weight than was winning more scoring titles. And that Shaq's strong suite!

[Poochymama]

jlauber, can you please stop bringing up these Wilt fairy tales that are akin to Chuck Norris jokes. It makes your other points, which are usually fairly well thought out and detailed seem far less credible.

Wilt did not flick a ball so hard that it broke a guy's spine.

Wilt did not bench anywhere near 500lbs with his frame

Wilt did not have anywhere near a 48 inch vertical.


If I had to guess Wilt's bench press, having been a avid fitness geek all my life, I'd say it was probably in the range of 275 - 350 pounds. And that's assuming he is actually much stronger than he looks. Judging just by his chest/shoulder/tricep size and ridiculously long arms I'd have to say 250 max.

Wilt's vertical was also probably in the range of 36 - 39", or about the same as Dwight Howards, which would in fact make that supposed 12 foot dunk quite possible.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq had Power but Jordan had "the Power." Tim Duncan had Nuclear Power. There was a lot of power going around at that time. Shaq might have had more physical force but wasn't at the top of the pyramid. Nor did he distinguish himself from the greats in his time. He was dominant but a far cry from his Airness. He wasn't the best scorer. He wasn't the best at anything cept FG% but who wouldn't if they shot everything at point blank range. When confronted about Yao's ability to stop him Shaq said, "he's 7'6 he's supposed to block me." Well Shaq, you supposed to run over the league, the refs were allowing it, but a guy 14 inches smaller and 40% your body weight than was winning more scoring titles. And that Shaq's strong suite!

Are you referring to Iverson with the scoring titles? :roll: Look at the shot attempts! And Shaq spent his prime playing on teams in the hunt for a championship, how many players have won a title and a scoring title in the same season? I already told you, Shaq is one of the 4 players to do it.

And as far as Shaq vs Yao head to head? http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=mingya01

And while that includes Yao's first couple of seasons, it also includes his decline years vs Yao's prime years.

[PHILA]

Oh, the irony. :roll:

I am not the one who believes there is a consensus top center of all time (a fine gem I found from various misinformed posters a week ago) nor have I dismissed any possibility of Chamberlain, Russell, or Magic Johnson being even the 5th best player in NBA history. Between this and the LeBron thread I honestly never thought I would see the day where Magic became underrated amongst the common fan. I have believed that Chamberlain at his peak with the 76ers was the top player in league history. Of course there are a select few others in the same discussion. You on the other hand along with Fatal9 (and some others stat geeks on RealGM) as well as Bill Simmons and most NBA fans beit past or present seem to be grasping at straws to find a new critique for Chamberlain.

[Pointguard]

As far as Wilt outplaying every center........


That was a lot of work to just prove that he got outplayed in one series. So I guess I don't have to ask about the overall series question huh?

Are you suggesting that Shaq was never outplayed??? Wilt might have lost one to a relentless Russ and his All Stars but everybody looses one - cept maybe his Airness? But I doubt that. Is that the way it rolls here. You have to defend every series with the Wilt?

[jlauber]

:facepalm Wow, usually you're somewhat reasonable, if you honestly believe Wilt would put up those numbers in Shaq's time, wow.

Wilt couldn't even put up those numbers in the 60's, which was a MUCH weaker era, than the era Shaq played in.

I really hope that was just one of those things you say when you get mad, surely you don't honestly believe that, if so you just lost a lot of credibility.

Obviously, I was being somewhat facetious...but my point was, Wilt seldom had the luxury of playing against second-rate centers in the post-season. I'm sorry, but McCullough would NOT have been a starter in the 60's...and he most assuredly would not have led a team to the post-season, much less the Finals. Wilt DID abuse the none HOF centers he faced. But even then, Zelmo Beatty was an all-star, and yet Wilt had a 38.6 , 23.4, .521 series against him in 63-64. And, even though he cut back his shooting in 66-67, he had a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking that year. And, just so you know, he had a 41 point game, on 19-30 shooting, and with 22 rebounds against him. He also had a 37 point game, on 16-24 shooting, with 27 rebounds and 11 assists in that same series. And, a 16-30-19 game, too (those 19 assists were a playoff record at the time BTW.) He then crushed both Russell and Thurmond in the next two rounds.

The fact was, though, that Wilt faced a HOF center in 70% of his post-season series (112 out of 160 games.) He had 30-30 series against Russell, as well as a 29-27 .590 series against Russell. And, I will agree with ShaqAttack that Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt in a couple of full games in the '62 ECF's, but let's get real here. Wilt basically took, what had been a last-place roster when he joined them two years earlier, to a game seven, two-point loss to Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers. I'm sorry, but even with Wilt's diminished stats, it is inconceivable to believe that the rest of that horrid roster could have played the rest of Boston's roster to a standstill. The reality was, it was the CELTICS that held Chamberlain down in that series.

We'll never know how a prime Wilt would have fared against the teams of the 00's. And we can only speculate on what a prime Shaq would have done to the NBA in the 60's. So, we can only go by just how dominant those players were against their peers...and I think the answer is/was obvious. Wilt was setting some 130+ or more records, many of which will never be approached, much less broken, against his peers. He outscored his nearest competitor by nearly 20 ppg in one season, and 10 in another. He not only won the rebounding title nearly every season he played, he won some of them by five per game. He also was the only center to lead the league in assists. And he set FG% marks that were/are light-years ahead of what anyone else has ever done. He had seasons of double-digit blocks, and games of over 20. And he was so dominant that the league routinely implemented rules to curtail his dominance.

Shaq was the most dominant player of his era, but based on play against their peers, Wilt was the most dominant ever.

[PHILA]

Wilt's vertical was also probably in the range of 36 - 39", or about the same as Dwight Howards, which would in fact make that supposed 12 foot dunk quite possible.
According to some here it was a mere 24 inches max.


If I had to guess Wilt's bench press, having been a avid fitness geek all my life, I'd say it was probably in the range of 275 - 350 pounds. And that's assuming he is actually much stronger than he looks. Judging just by his chest/shoulder/tricep size and ridiculously long arms I'd have to say 250 max.

So SI was lying? These are not tall tales that have grown over the years.


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.'



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."'



NFL Legend Jim Brown publicly stating he'd rather fight the heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali as opposed to an untrained Wilt Chamberlain.


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 against 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."'



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, run the quarter mile in 47s, and high-jump over 6-11.'


He was even stronger during his later years in life.

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

http://i48.tinypic.com/mk9pts.jpg


http://i45.tinypic.com/2dqttet.jpg

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. I've also 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."



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 impresario, Wilt Chamberlain stopped by the New York Knicks' office for a quick social hello and now he was waiting for an elevator that would take him upstairs to the Madison Square Garden arena floor. When the elevator doors opened, Wilt stepped back as two husky workmen struggled to wheel a heavily loaded dolly into the corridor. On the dolly there were 10 big cartons of envelopes. For perhaps a minute the workmen pushed and pulled, trying to get the wheels of the dolly across the uneven gap 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. The workmen stared and thanked him. Wilt smiled, entered the elevator and the doors closed.

"I never saw anything like that," one of the workmen said. "These carton each weight 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 could lift the team into contention with the Boston Celtics for the Atlantic Division title.'




I believe jlauber recently posted a John Havlicek quote on a physical confrontation Chamberlain had with NFL player and part time professional wrestler Big Daddy Lipscomb in the early 60's. Ended with Lipscomb on the floor and Chamberlain muttering, "Nobody messes with Wilt."


http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2005/09/01/lipscomb.jpg

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2005/09/01/lipscomb365x445.jpg

[Gotterdammerung]

You on the other hand along with Fatal9 (and some others stat geeks on RealGM) as well as Bill Simmons and most NBA fans beit past or present seem to be grasping at straws to find a new critique for Chamberlain.


I wouldn't lump Fatal9 & Shaqattack with Bill Simmons, who proved beyond all doubt in his book that he was a hater on top of being an unabashed Boston Celtics homer. I admire his love for the game, and his unique writing style, and I follow his column every friday (except when its about baseball, *gags*) but I always take his claims with a giant pillar of salt. :oldlol:

Fatal9 & Shaqattack, on the other hand, are fans at best, or at worst, homers who have a good command of basketball knowledge & analysis. They're not true "haters" who are completely incapable of crediting anyone that isn't their pet favorites. For some reason the hater's ego is twinged beyond belief when anybody tries to credit a non-favorite of theirs. :rolleyes:

[ZenMaster]

Actually, the poorer shooting in the EARLY 60's has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. Abe (PHILA) posted a quote from Wilt about some of the CONDITIONS of the early 60's. Uneven flooring, cold arenas, and even breezes in some of them. Your argument on the basketball, itself, is as good as any. In any case, that is why I always consider it an important factor when comparing shooting across eras.

As far as defense is concerned, I do get a laugh out of those that claim that it was non-existant in the 60's. If anything, the lanes were much more compacted, and while everyone points to Wilt's FGAs, the fact was, it was still a much more perimeter-oriented game. Look at the scorers of the 60's. West and Oscar had multiple 30+ ppg seasons. Dave Bing led the NBA one year. Rick Barry was more of a balanced scorer, but he was a very good outside shooter. Baylor was more of a slasher, but he had a decent mid-range game.

The only real scorers from the center position were Wilt and Bellamy. Reed was basically a PF for most of the 60's, and even when he was a center he was more of a 15 ft shooter. Lucas was a PF for most of his career (and an emergency center later in his career), but he had unbelieveable range. Thurmond was a decent offensive player, but I really wouldn't call him a scorer. And Russell, despite what many believe here, was actually a very accomplished offensive player. He generally played on teams with multiple scoring options, so he was seldom asked to lead the team in scoring (although he did just that in the 65-66 Finals, at 23.6 ppg.) And, if you take league average into consideration, he was a better offensive player than his overall numbers imply.

Near the end of the 60's and into the early 70's, the center position became a mixture of post players and 15 ft shooter, with some players being adept at both. Elvin Hayes was a center early in his career, and was an excellent jump shooter. Bob Lanier was good a example of being a post up and a pop-out shooter. Kareem may have been the most skilled offensive center of all-time. Gilmore was a post-up center, who seldom took a bad shot. Cowens was good at both types, and he ran the floor so well. Later Walton came along and he was as good an all-around center that I have ever seen. Unseld was not a great offensive player, but he was a banger with decent skills and amazing outlet passing ability.

But, once again, I have always found it mystifying that Reed came into the league with a .432 FG%. Thurmond at .395. Havlicek had several awful FG% seasons in the early to mid-60's, and then became a much better shooter in the 70's. Same with Barry, Hayes, Bellamy, and other's. And many players shot much better in the LATE 60's.

As far as moving from the 70's into the 80's...maybe someone here can explain the EXPLOSION in FG% in the decade of the 80's. Even with the advent of the 3pt shot, the 80's STILL basically had seasons from .480 to .490 almost every year. There were TEAMS shooting over 50%. Even BAD teams were shooting over 50% (e.g., 84-85 Kansas City shooting .504, and going 31-51.) Players like Dantley, (who was NEVER a great outside shooter(, was shooting a high of .520 in the 70's (and .510 and .512) suddenly shooting .570, .576, and .580. Gilmore went from an NBA high of .575 in the 70's to four seasons over .600, including .652 and .670...all at past his peak.

Kareem was the clincher for me. In his physical PRIME, he had a HIGH of .579 in the 70's, but he also had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the decade of the 80's, and in the first EIGHT years of that decade, his LOW was .564, and he had FOUR seasons equal to, or better, than his BEST season in the 70's. He had one year at .604, and another at .599 (at age 37!) Granted, he was paired with Magic, who made ALL of his teammates more efficient, but it is still pretty amazing that, well after his peak (just look at his anemic rebounding numbers in the 80's), that he could still score 25 ppg on nearly 60% shooting for the most of the decade.

He is, of course, a good example of DEFENSE, too. I have mentioned it before, but Thurmond and Wilt held him WAY below his CAREER FG%. And Wilt basically played him one-on-one, too. Both Nate and Wilt were well past their primes, while Kareem was in his statistical prime. Thurmond held him to back-to-back playoff series of .405 and .428 shooting...and yet, Kareem was pouring in over 40 ppg over a three game set against none other than Hakeem in the mid-80's, and as the oldest player in the league.

Anyway...that is my take on it. Maybe other's here can chime in.


Maybe in the 80's when the 3pt line was instated defenses had to change their dispositions as for guarding outside players, but the offensive players would still mainly be finishing from within the arc the defense still had to make more closeouts on 3pt shots and this opens up space. I still find it incredible the way the tactics of the game has evolved, for example: the 85 Lakers shot about 1/4 of the 3pointers the 09/10 Lakers did.

[PHILA]

I wouldn't lump Fatal9 & Shaqattack with Bill Simmons, who proved beyond all doubt in his book that he was a hater on top of being an unabashed Boston Celtics homer. I admire his love for the game, and his unique writing style, and I follow his column every friday (except when its about baseball, *gags*) but I always take his claims with a giant pillar of salt. :oldlol:

Fatal9 & Shaqattack, on the other hand, are fans at best, or at worst, homers who have a good command of basketball knowledge & analysis. They're not true "haters" who are completely incapable of crediting anyone that isn't their pet favorites. For some reason the hater's ego is twinged beyond belief when anybody tries to credit a non-favorite of theirs. :rolleyes:
Of course BS is the Celtics fan who has said some things for instance that Wilt Chamberlain was a homosexual who have went out of his way to lead the league in turnovers per game had the stat been recorded. In his cheap attempt to exclude the '67 76ers from the top 10 teams all time he lies about Billy C's rookie year. At least he had some positive feedback towards Allen Iverson. :applause:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I am not the one who believes there is a consensus top center of all time (a fine gem I found from various misinformed posters a week ago) nor have I dismissed any possibility of Chamberlain, Russell, or Magic Johnson being even the 5th best player in NBA history. Between this and the LeBron thread I honestly never thought I would see the day where Magic became underrated amongst the common fan. I have believed that Chamberlain at his peak with the 76ers was the top player in league history. Of course there are a select few others in the same discussion. You on the other hand along with Fatal9 (and some others stat geeks on RealGM) as well as Bill Simmons and most NBA fans beit past or present seem to be grasping at straws to find a new critique for Chamberlain.

I've seen you post pictures of Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain in response to someone calling Kareem the best center, doesn't seem like a guy too tolerant of other's opinions.

And yes, I think Kareem is hands down the best center ever factoring in peak, longevity, winning, clutch play and individual dominance.

And Magic is not underrated, he's consistently ranked over Bird when Bird was clearly the better player for the vast majority of their careers(atleast 1980-1986 and he had an argument through 1988).

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt's vertical was also probably in the range of 36 - 39", or about the same as Dwight Howards, which would in fact make that supposed 12 foot dunk quite possible.

According to some here it was a mere 24 inches max.

*sigh* That's just ridiculous. Take a look at this:

“Chamberlain no longer takes 30 shots per game. Rather, he usually takes fewer than 12. He concentrates more on screening for teammates, looking for a free man to pass off to and muscling for good position for rebounds. One defense Chamberlain is awesome. He arms reach over the rim (10 feet) and he can jump three or four feet from a standstill.”

His vertical was somewhere between 36 and 48 inches. So let's just put that to bed right now. And that was in 1972. If we're going to talk, let's talk from a factual basis.

[jlauber]

jlauber, can you please stop bringing up these Wilt fairy tales that are akin to Chuck Norris jokes. It makes your other points, which are usually fairly well thought out and detailed seem far less credible.

Wilt did not flick a ball so hard that it broke a guy's spine.

Wilt did not bench anywhere near 500lbs with his frame

Wilt did not have anywhere near a 48 inch vertical.


If I had to guess Wilt's bench press, having been a avid fitness geek all my life, I'd say it was probably in the range of 275 - 350 pounds. And that's assuming he is actually much stronger than he looks. Judging just by his chest/shoulder/tricep size and ridiculously long arms I'd have to say 250 max.

Wilt's vertical was also probably in the range of 36 - 39", or about the same as Dwight Howards, which would in fact make that supposed 12 foot dunk quite possible.

I won't bother arguing anything else except the 500 lb. bench press. You are in the MINORITY of you HONESTLY believe that Wilt couldn't bench anywhere near that mark.

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 Pamm_MSNBC says:
Our guest is Wilt Chamberlain, NBA legend and author of "Who's Running The Asylum". Wilt's book is only available by calling 800-280-1776. A portion of the book proceeds will benefit Chamberlain's favorite charities.

Host @Wilt_Chamberlain has joined the conversation.

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:
Hello!

M3 says:
Hi Wilt

kovler says:
what up wilt

jonn says:
hello wilt

^LapTop^ says:
Hi Wilt !

Ron says:
hows it going wilt?

Host Chris_MSNBC2 says:
one says:
Oh, well in that case my question would be...."witch collage where you drafted from?"

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:
I was drafted from high school back in 1955. I went to U of Kansas, but they made a special ruling and I was the first drafted out of high school, Overbrook high school in Philadelphia.

Host Chris_MSNBC2 says:
Rastaman says:
What's his book about??

NooRotic says:
I've got nuthing but RESPECT for you WILT....

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:
My book is about how the inside of sports has gone completely crazy and what we can do about straightening things out. About illuminating the problems inside of sports today and what we can do about it.

Host Chris_MSNBC2 says:
Rastaman says:
And How did he feel when he scored the 100 points...

Host Wilt_Chamberlain says:
Well, I am known mainly for scoring 100 points. I felt, at that particular time, very tired. But it was not an individual record as most think, it was my team, they went above and beyond to get me the ball and stop the NY Knicks from doing all sorts of outlandish things to stop me from scoring.

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 an SI article from 1964 and well before Chamberlain ever reached his peak in size or strength...

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


Here is a good explanation from another source...

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.



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


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

Here is a video in which Howard Cosell makes the comment that Wilt was (is at the time) quite possibly the strongest athlete in the world...

http://videosift.com/video/Muhammad-Ali-vs-Wilt-Chamberlain-The-Fight-That-Almost-Was


In Robert Cherry's biography on Wilt (and I won't take the time to look it up now), he interviewed a well-known weight-lifter that was known to have benched 500 lbs. And while he didn't provide a maximum, that weight-lifter claimed that Wilt was the strongest man he knew.

In Lynch's book on the 66-67 76ers, Billy Cunningham tells the story of an arm-wrestling match between Wilt and 6-9 260 lb. Luke Jackson (who was considered one of the strongest men in the league.) Wilt threw him down in the blinking of an eyelash.


http://volleyball.org/people/wilt_chamberlain.html


From Pat Powers, 1984 Olympic Volleyball Gold Medalist, 10/14/99 -
A lot has been written about Wilt the last several days here in So Cal. He is receiving more attention now than he has for the last fifteen years--he would have preferred it this way, Wilt was never one for the spotlight off the court.

Here are two stories that I just attached names to yesterday:

One day big Wilty (a notorious card cheater) was playing a game off VB down at Muscle Beach in Santa Monica. To say Wilty was competitve in all sports would be a minor understatement. An argument broke out over the correct score and Wilty was not giving ground to anybody on the court. One of the players, Amon Lucky, made the mistake of stepping under the net to further the point, when Wilty picked him up and threw him over the net!!! Now understand the "Amer" weighs something on the order of 225lbs, so the rumor is Wilty "taped"him on the throw over. needless to say Wilty won the argument, and if memory serves me correct, the game.

Wilty was one of the strongest guys I have ever seen. I once was sitting on the steel fence at Rosecrans taking in the Rosecrans open with Wilt and several cohorts back in the late 70's. A player from Muscle Beach was standing beneath us and told us he was going to walk around so he could come join us up on the rail. Wilty told him there was "no no reason to walk," and reached down and picked him up by one arm and hoisted him over the bar. Mike weighed ~240lbs!!!

I have been around some athletes in my day. But nobody and I mean nobody was stronger than Wilty. He was a man's man!!!

[jlauber]

Continuing further...

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


No other player in NBA history has spawned so many myths nor created such an impact. It's difficult to imagine now, with the seemingly continuing surge of bigger skilled players, the effect of playing against Chamberlain, who was not only taller and stronger than almost anyone he matched up against but remarkably coordinated as well. A track and field star in high school and college, Chamberlain stood 7-1 and was listed at 275 pounds, though he filled out and added more muscle as his career progressed and eventually played at over 300 pounds.

An incident recounted in the Philadelphia Daily News involving Tom Meschery of the Seattle SuperSonics illustrated what it was like to play in the trenches against Chamberlain. Meschery had the ball in the line and put up four fakes before attempting his shot. Chamberlain slapped the ball down. Meschery got it again, faked again, and got it blocked again. Enraged and frustrated, the Seattle player ran up to Chamberlain swinging. As if in a scene from The Three Stooges, Chamberlain put his hand on the 6-6 Meschery's head and let him swing away harmlessly. After the third swing, Chamberlain said, "That's enough," and Meschery stopped.

Chamberlain's power was legendary. Rod Thorn, who has been a player, coach, GM and NBA executive, remembers a fight in which Chamberlain reached down and picked up a fellow player from a pile of bodies as if he were made of feathers. The man was 6-8 and weighed 220 pounds.

Chamberlain was one of the few players of his day who had the sheer strength to block a dunk. In a game against New York in 1968, Walt Bellamy, the Knicks' 6-11, 245-pound center, attempted to dunk on Chamberlain. "Bellamy reared back," one spectator who was there later recalled to the Philadelphia Daily News, "and was slamming the ball down when Wilt put his hand above the top of the rim and knocked the ball off the court. He almost knocked Bellamy off the court, too."


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


Former Celtics guard K.C. Jones remembered his casual run-in with Wilt. "He stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling," Jones said. "It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game. [Source: Goliath's Wonderful Life, Hoop Magazine; May 1999; Chris Ekstrand]
Several years after Wilt stopped playing, he toyed with the idea of a comeback. On the day he visited the Knicks' offices in Madison Square Garden, he talked to Red Holzman, then strode out to the elevator. When it opened, two deliverymen were struggling with a dolly piled high with boxes of office supplies, mostly letterheads and envelopes. The load was so heavy, the elevator had stopped maybe four inches below the floor level and now the deliverymen were huffing and puffing, but they couldn't raise the dolly high enough to get it on the floor level. After maybe two minutes of the deliverymen's huffing and puffing, Wilt, his biceps bulging in a tank top, peered down at them and intoned, "Gentlemen, maybe I can help." They stepped back, he stepped into the elevator, grabbed each end of the rope slung under the dolly and without much exertion, quickly lifted the dolly onto the floor level. Looking up in awe, the deliverymen said, "Thank you." Wilt said, "You're welcome." Wilt stepped into the elevator and rode down to the street level as another witness followed the two deliverymen toward the Knick offices and asked, "How much does all this weigh?" They quickly surveyed the stack of big boxes of office supplies. "Close to 600 pounds," one said. [Source: The Good Natured Giant Wasn't Belligerent, Sports of the Times; Oct 13, 1999; Dave Anderson]

[/QUOTE]


Look, I could go on for hours. Just GOOGLE Wilt's bench press, and let me know what you come up with. Incidently, Wilt played with and against hundreds (if not thousands) of NBA players. He also played for and against many coaches. There were many in the media who covered Wilt in his career. He was almost universally accepted as the strongest man in the NBA. And, if Wilt could not bench 500 lbs, show me the link that gives the definitive weight. I always find it fascinating that virtually NON ONE DISPUTES Wilt's incredible feats.

[PHILA]

[quote=ThaRegul8r]*sigh* That's just ridiculous. Take a look at this:

[I]

[PHILA]

I've seen you post pictures of Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain in response to someone calling Kareem the best center, doesn't seem like a guy too tolerant of other's opinions.

Mainly the the Laker loyals and other attempt to state that it was inarguable. We are fortunate that Chamberlain did not retire after '69 or they may have been some fans that believed he was unfit to carry Jabbar's jockstrap. Of course there is no question he is as good as any to have on your team and was perhaps the most polished big man. While he may have been the best fit in the league today of the last few years, I think Chamberlain (despite the absolute shit we have in the pivot these days) would have fared better in the 80's and 90's as it was more of a fast paced league that did not frown on a big man using his physical prowess. Especially the walk it up tempo of the 90's. Imagine a hypothetical game between Hannum's Sixers and Riley's Knicks. Now despite the fact that Phiily had a much better team this game would be a treat for the rebound battles and defensive clinics. It would have been something. :applause:

[Poochymama]

PHILA, if SI did in fact say he could bench 500lbs they were either, lying, misinformed, or exaggerating. I'm most inclined to believe they were just misinformed or going off what they "heard".

Wilt had very small pectoral and shoulder muscles which are both used quite heavily in bench press. This, combined with his unnaturally long arms, make a 500 lb bench press absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, Wilt's biceps were quite large for his time, which suggest that his pulling muscles were probably pretty strong. These supposed 125lb curls Wilt did, actually seem quite possible.

However, anyone with any kind of weight lifting knowledge will take one look at Wilt and tell you there's no way in hell that man benched 500 lbs.

This is an interesting read about Wilt's strength

"I spoke to a source by phone that used to work out with him in the same facility in LA back in the 90s. I asked this source whether Wilt could bench 500 lbs, he said no and told me he didn't believe to the best of his recollection that Wilt's bench was anything special(and that it wasn't his type of workout), so then I asked, not even 450? He said, nah nah, with relative certainty, but he could be wrong...I just need to find a source at either Stanford University gymnasium or even Arnold S. himself. Anyhow, so then the question arose to me, why was Wilt seen as such a dominant creature at the time?

The answer lies with his wrist curling ability. According to this same source(who worked out heavily and who could himself bench 525 pounds at one time), he was absolutely in awe with how much Wilt could curl. He said that he could "easily" curl 125 lbs, and that he could probably do more. This explains a lot of things. 1)why anyone who tried to dunk his hand through the basket NEVER COULD, 2)how he could easily maneuver people out of his way with his hand/wrist strength alone, 3)how he could slam the ball so hard and cause it to bounce with such ferociousness, and how he dislocated a player's shoulder in 1967 by blocking his shot and sending him to the floor(still the only time someone has ever had his shoulder dislocated by a block), etc etc. In fact, he would purposedly slam the ball down gently most of the time because he was afraid he would break someone's wrist eventually. I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. I always assumed it was in his arms, which hell, there may have been that too, but his wrist strength really brings me to understand why people feared him so much. And don't get me wrong, he still had a lot of upper body strength.

So my question arises, does Shaq or any other bball player have the wrist strength Wilt had? If Shaq didn't and still doesn't, who would manhandle who? Someone with a lot more weight on his body like Shaq, or someone who would easily be able to block shaq and prevent him from ever getting a shot off?"

[jlauber]

PHILA, if SI did in fact say he could bench 500lbs they were either, lying, misinformed, or exaggerating. I'm most inclined to believe they were just misinformed or going off what they "heard".

Wilt had very small pectoral and shoulder muscles which are both used quite heavily in bench press. This, combined with his unnaturally long arms, make a 500 lb bench press absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, Wilt's biceps were quite large for his time, which suggest that his pulling muscles were probably pretty strong. These supposed 125lb curls Wilt did, actually seem quite possible.

However, anyone with any kind of weight lifting knowledge will take one look at Wilt and tell you there's no way in hell that man benched 500 lbs.

This is an interesting read about Wilt's strength

"I spoke to a source by phone that used to work out with him in the same facility in LA back in the 90s. I asked this source whether Wilt could bench 500 lbs, he said no and told me he didn't believe to the best of his recollection that Wilt's bench was anything special(and that it wasn't his type of workout), so then I asked, not even 450? He said, nah nah, with relative certainty, but he could be wrong...I just need to find a source at either Stanford University gymnasium or even Arnold S. himself. Anyhow, so then the question arose to me, why was Wilt seen as such a dominant creature at the time?

The answer lies with his wrist curling ability. According to this same source(who worked out heavily and who could himself bench 525 pounds at one time), he was absolutely in awe with how much Wilt could curl. He said that he could "easily" curl 125 lbs, and that he could probably do more. This explains a lot of things. 1)why anyone who tried to dunk his hand through the basket NEVER COULD, 2)how he could easily maneuver people out of his way with his hand/wrist strength alone, 3)how he could slam the ball so hard and cause it to bounce with such ferociousness, and how he dislocated a player's shoulder in 1967 by blocking his shot and sending him to the floor(still the only time someone has ever had his shoulder dislocated by a block), etc etc. In fact, he would purposedly slam the ball down gently most of the time because he was afraid he would break someone's wrist eventually. I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. I always assumed it was in his arms, which hell, there may have been that too, but his wrist strength really brings me to understand why people feared him so much. And don't get me wrong, he still had a lot of upper body strength.

So my question arises, does Shaq or any other bball player have the wrist strength Wilt had? If Shaq didn't and still doesn't, who would manhandle who? Someone with a lot more weight on his body like Shaq, or someone who would easily be able to block shaq and prevent him from ever getting a shot off?"

I have seen that quote before, but, NO source is actually cited. Furthermore, that "source" also says that "he could be wrong."

There are just TOO many articles, including EYE-WITNESS accounts to just blindly say that Wilt couldn't bench 500 lbs.

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt's vertical was also probably in the range of 36 - 39", or about the same as Dwight Howards, which would in fact make that supposed 12 foot dunk quite possible.

According to some here it was a mere 24 inches max.

*sigh* That's just ridiculous. Take a look at this:

“Chamberlain no longer takes 30 shots per game. Rather, he usually takes fewer than 12. He concentrates more on screening for teammates, looking for a free man to pass off to and muscling for good position for rebounds. One defense Chamberlain is awesome. He arms reach over the rim (10 feet) and he can jump three or four feet from a standstill.”

His vertical was somewhere between 36 and 48 inches. So let's just put that to bed right now. And that was in 1972. If we're going to talk, let's talk from a factual basis.

Wow, would there be a link to this? I have recently posted a Bill Russell video interview where he says he could touch the top of the backboard and get his eyes above the rim. Now Russell, while not being as big as Chamberlain, could undoubtedly get off the ground quicker as some would note "cat reflexes."

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=185173

Here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ljY0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=dOEIAAAAIBAJ&pg=3985,3251361

I hate when people speak mistruths, and I will point them out should I see them, whomever it’s being said about. WHOEVER’s being discussed, let’s only speak from the facts. Only people with agendas resort to mistruths.

[PHILA]

PHILA, if SI did in fact say he could bench 500lbs they were either, lying, misinformed, or exaggerating. I'm most inclined to believe they were just misinformed or going off what they "heard".

Wilt had very small pectoral and shoulder muscles which are both used quite heavily in bench press. This, combined with his unnaturally long arms, make a 500 lb bench press absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, Wilt's biceps were quite large for his time, which suggest that his pulling muscles were probably pretty strong. These supposed 125lb curls Wilt did, actually seem quite possible.

However, anyone with any kind of weight lifting knowledge will take one look at Wilt and tell you there's no way in hell that man benched 500 lbs.

This is an interesting read about Wilt's strength

"I spoke to a source by phone that used to work out with him in the same facility in LA back in the 90s. I asked this source whether Wilt could bench 500 lbs, he said no and told me he didn't believe to the best of his recollection that Wilt's bench was anything special(and that it wasn't his type of workout), so then I asked, not even 450? He said, nah nah, with relative certainty, but he could be wrong...I just need to find a source at either Stanford University gymnasium or even Arnold S. himself. Anyhow, so then the question arose to me, why was Wilt seen as such a dominant creature at the time?

The answer lies with his wrist curling ability. According to this same source(who worked out heavily and who could himself bench 525 pounds at one time), he was absolutely in awe with how much Wilt could curl. He said that he could "easily" curl 125 lbs, and that he could probably do more. This explains a lot of things. 1)why anyone who tried to dunk his hand through the basket NEVER COULD, 2)how he could easily maneuver people out of his way with his hand/wrist strength alone, 3)how he could slam the ball so hard and cause it to bounce with such ferociousness, and how he dislocated a player's shoulder in 1967 by blocking his shot and sending him to the floor(still the only time someone has ever had his shoulder dislocated by a block), etc etc. In fact, he would purposedly slam the ball down gently most of the time because he was afraid he would break someone's wrist eventually. I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. I always assumed it was in his arms, which hell, there may have been that too, but his wrist strength really brings me to understand why people feared him so much. And don't get me wrong, he still had a lot of upper body strength.

So my question arises, does Shaq or any other bball player have the wrist strength Wilt had? If Shaq didn't and still doesn't, who would manhandle who? Someone with a lot more weight on his body like Shaq, or someone who would easily be able to block shaq and prevent him from ever getting a shot off?"


SI said 400 lbs.

And yes that is more believable as a RealGM member posted it. Chamberlain's arms and upper body was huge compared to his skinny legs. The stress his knees took must have been devastating up until he ruptured the tendon in '69. After surgery he went above 300+ lb mark putting more muscle on his lower body to compensate for loss of explosiveness and leap.

http://i38.tinypic.com/1zpqvqq.jpg

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ljY0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=dOEIAAAAIBAJ&pg=3985,3251361

I hate when people speak mistruths, and I will point them out should I see them, whomever it

[Poochymama]

You providing anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence. Until you can find a video or official recorded bench press, there is no way he could bench 500 lbs.

Physics is physics man, Wilt can't defy physics. For someone with such long arms to bench 500 lbs, he would need RIDICULOUSLY large pectorals, shoulders, and triceps, in reality, Wilt's shoulders and pectorals were pretty tiny.

And I disagree about me being in the minority. Very few on this board other than the few known Wilt fanatics actually believe those stories, most people throw them around the same way the throw around chuck norris jokes now days.

Again, anyone who knows anything about weight lifting would have to be mildly retarded to believe that a 500lb bench press from Wilt is even close to possible.

Nathan Jones is a legit 6'9" and has a max bench of 550 lbs, you could subtract about 50 lbs off that weight if his arms were as long as Wilt's. You'd have to be a complete fool to think Wilt is anywhere near as strong as this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDrijM0H_Uc

[jlauber]

You providing anecdotal evidence is not actual evidence. Until you can find a video or official recorded bench press, there is no way he could bench 500 lbs.

Physics is physics man, Wilt can't defy physics. For someone with such long arms to bench 500 lbs, he would need RIDICULOUSLY large pectorals, shoulders, and triceps, in reality, Wilt's shoulders and pectorals were pretty tiny.

And I disagree about me being in the minority. Very few on this board other than the few known Wilt fanatics actually believe those stories, most people throw them around the same way the throw around chuck norris jokes now days.

Again, anyone who knows anything about weight lifting would have to be mildly retarded to believe that a 500lb bench press from Wilt is even close to possible.

Nathan Jones is a legit 6'9" and has a max bench of 550 lbs, you could subtract about 50 lbs off that weight if his arms were as long as Wilt's. You'd have to be a complete fool to think Wilt is anywhere near as strong as this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDrijM0H_Uc

Here again, I'll go with the MANY that played for, and against, Wilt, including 6-11 265 lb. Bob Lanier who stated that Wilt picked him up and moved him "like a cup of coffee." . And the MANY in the media that covered Wilt. I'll go with Howard Cosell suggesting that Wilt might have been the strongest athlete in the world at the time. I'll go with the actual eye-witness account (and by a KNOWN source) that watched Wilt bench 465 lbs at age 59. And I'll go with the MANY that witnessed Chamberlain extraordinary strength.

[Poochymama]

SI said 400 lbs.

And yes that is more believable as a RealGM member posted it. Chamberlain's arms and upper body was huge compared to his skinny legs. The stress his knees took must have been devastating up until he ruptured the tendon in '69. After surgery he went above 300+ lb mark putting more muscle on his lower body to compensate for loss of explosiveness and leap.

http://i38.tinypic.com/1zpqvqq.jpg

I can agree that his arms are very large compared to his legs, which again suggest very strong pulling muscles, but have very little impact on bench pressing ability.

Even in that pic, his chest is VERY VERY small compared to other well known 500lb bench pressers with MUCH shorter arms.

http://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Dave_Batista_326977.jpg

Wilt's chest would need to be significantly larger than this to be able to bench 500lbs considering his arms are MUCH longer.

[jlauber]

As for Wilt's dominance...I'll go with RECORD BOOK, and the 130+ records that he set against TWELVE HOF centers.

[Poochymama]

Here again, I'll go with the MANY that played for, and against, Wilt, including 6-11 265 lb. Bob Lanier who stated that Wilt picked him up and moved him "like a cup of coffee." . And the MANY in the media that covered Wilt. I'll go with Howard Cosell suggesting that Wilt might have been the strongest athlete in the world at the time. I'll go with the actual eye-witness account (and by a KNOWN source) that watched Wilt bench 465 lbs at age 59. And I'll go with the MANY that witnessed Chamberlain extraordinary strength.

I'm not denying that he was a strong guy, maybe even the strongest to ever play in the NBA, there is just no way that 500lb bench press is true. You're best bench pressers are always, short guys with short arms for their size, and a huge chest. Wilt is the exact opposite of this, really tall, long arms for his height, and a comparatively small chest.

On the other hand, his long arms would give him an advantage in lifts such as the dead lift.

[PHILA]

On the other hand, his long arms would give him an advantage in lifts such as the dead lift.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-24-2005/featured_1

According to esteemed author Gary M. Pomerantz, Chamberlain could deadlift 625 lbs.



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, run the quarter mile in 47s, and high-jump over 6-11.'


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. I've also 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."



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 impresario, Wilt Chamberlain stopped by the New York Knicks' office for a quick social hello and now he was waiting for an elevator that would take him upstairs to the Madison Square Garden arena floor. When the elevator doors opened, Wilt stepped back as two husky workmen struggled to wheel a heavily loaded dolly into the corridor. On the dolly there were 10 big cartons of envelopes. For perhaps a minute the workmen pushed and pulled, trying to get the wheels of the dolly across the uneven gap 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. The workmen stared and thanked him. Wilt smiled, entered the elevator and the doors closed.

"I never saw anything like that," one of the workmen said. "These carton each weight 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 could lift the team into contention with the Boston Celtics for the Atlantic Division title.'

[Pointguard]

Wilt's chest would need to be significantly larger than this to be able to bench 500lbs considering his arms are MUCH longer.

Naw, muscle density is the case with guys like KG, Buck Williams (oldschool), and Earl Boykins have some internal strength that doesn't measure like regular people. I am much more amused at little Earl Boykins lifting over 300 pounds than Wilt's 500. Boykins was lifting over twice his weight in a small frame as opposed to Wilt lifting less than twice in a wide frame.

I know in the south they refer to such people as being Ox strong. My 165lb cousin is Ox strong. He would come up to New York and man handle guys 220 pounds that worked out. I can't explain it but everybody is amused at it.

[Poochymama]

Naw, muscle density is the case with guys like KG, Buck Williams (oldschool), and Earl Boykins have some internal strength that doesn't measure like regular people. I am much more amused at little Earl Boykins lifting over 300 pounds than Wilt's 500. Boykins was lifting over twice his weight in a small frame as opposed to Wilt lifting less than twice in a wide frame.

I know in the south they refer to such people as being Ox strong. My 165lb cousin is Ox strong. He would come up to New York and man handle guys 220 pounds that worked out. I can't explain it but everybody is amused at it.

But guys like Earl Boykins go exactly with what I have been saying.

Earl Boykins 300lb press is MUCH MUCH more believable than Wilt's 500lb press. He has the perfect body type for bench pressing(short), plus he has a noticeably larger chest than Wilt for his size.

[MiseryCityTexas]

This has been argued before.

Wilt was dominant at his time.

Shaq was during his time.

Different time periods and opponents.

Not fair to compare.


not fair to compare, but its still fun to compare.

[ILLsmak]

I don't believe Wilt could hit 500... I don't think you guys realize how much 500 is... especially for someone who is playing a sport that requires endurance. Football players, sure, but someone who is playing 48 minutes a game? That's pretty hard to believe...

If Shaq can't hit 500 (I think he was barely over 400) what makes you think that Wilt could...?


-Smak

[Poochymama]

I don't believe Wilt could hit 500... I don't think you guys realize how much 500 is... especially for someone who is playing a sport that requires endurance. Football players, sure, but someone who is playing 48 minutes a game? That's pretty hard to believe...

If Shaq can't hit 500 (I think he was barely over 400) what makes you think that Wilt could...?

-Smak

Anyone who thinks Wilt benched anywhere near 500 has no idea how much a hindrance long arms are for bench pressing.

[jlauber]

Anyone who thinks Wilt benched anywhere near 500 has no idea how much a hindrance long arms are for bench pressing.

Interesting that there are eye-witness accounts of Wilt, at age 59 benching 465. Also interesting that there are NUMEROUS links with credit him with 500. As well as an SI article, in 1964, and well before Wilt was at his peak, EASILY benching 400 lbs.

And the ONLY one that I have seen to the contrary comes from an ANONYMOUS SECOND-HAND guy that can't be sure what Wilt did, but that it might have been 450 lbs.

[AirJordan23]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Tough question, because it implies a simple answer, and neither center played the same game throughout their careers. Shaq started out weighing less than 300 lbs, but by the time he was winning titles with the Lakers, his weight ballooned to 380 lbs. As for Wilt, he went through three phases: the unstoppable scorer/rebounder during his first 6 years, then he became a point-center with the Sixers & led the league in assists, and finally, a defensive wizard with the Lakers.

Despite these wildly different variants, we still can make a strong comparison between the two most powerful and dominant bigmen in league history.

Physical attributes: Let

[Poochymama]

Interesting that there are eye-witness accounts of Wilt, at age 59 benching 465. Also interesting that there are NUMEROUS links with credit him with 500. As well as an SI article, in 1964, and well before Wilt was at his peak, EASILY benching 400 lbs.

And the ONLY one that I have seen to the contrary comes from an ANONYMOUS SECOND-HAND guy that can't be sure what Wilt did, but that it might have been 450 lbs.

Yea because eye witness accounts hold so much credibility.

[PHILA]

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7192/21onexz.gif

If he said Shaq was better then would you have read it?

[AirJordan23]

If he said Shaq was better then would you have read it?
:facepalm

how do I know he said Shaq was better when I didn't read it? smh. the wise man fell off.

[Pointguard]

But guys like Earl Boykins go exactly with what I have been saying.

Earl Boykins 300lb press is MUCH MUCH more believable than Wilt's 500lb press. He has the perfect body type for bench pressing(short), plus he has a noticeably larger chest than Wilt for his size.

I seen Wilt in 88 but he had a jacket on so I can't really speak on that. Boykins is just a small guy. I seen him. He's no Nate Robinson who I saw frequently. Tall guys are supersized in volume. Simply more muscle. Limb length means there is more muscle as well and Boykins lacks that as well. Nat Thurmond, Bob Lanier (who Wilt picked and moved him like a tea cup), Gus Johnson (Wilt tore his arm out of his socket on a dunk), KC Jones (who was shaking because Wilt picked him up so easy) all had football builds and were amazed at Wilt's strength. Arnold Schwagnegger was in the gym 24 seven and he was. Its just that way sometimes.

You think muscle subsribes to a certain look and package. It isn't always that way. Lebron is massive but I'm willing to bet he's in the Boykins range. I can look at Kenyon Martain and tell you he's totally deceptive in strength. If he gives 50 pounds to Bogut in weight, I'll bet he can lift 50 pounds more. The best jumpers have little skinny legs a lot of the time.

[Poochymama]

I seen Wilt in 88 but he had a jacket on so I can't really speak on that. Boykins is just a small guy. I seen him. He's no Nate Robinson who I saw frequently. Tall guys are supersized in volume. Simply more muscle. Limb length means there is more muscle as well and Boykins lacks that as well. Nat Thurmond, Bob Lanier (who Wilt picked and moved him like a tea cup), Gus Johnson (Wilt tore his arm out of his socket on a dunk), KC Jones (who was shaking because Wilt picked him up so easy) all had football builds and were amazed at Wilt's strength. Arnold Schwagnegger was in the gym 24 seven and he was. Its just that way sometimes.

You think muscle subsribes to a certain look and package. It isn't always that way. Lebron is massive but I'm willing to bet he's in the Boykins range. I can look at Kenyon Martain and tell you he's totally deceptive in strength. If he gives 50 pounds to Bogut in weight, I'll bet he can lift 50 pounds more. The best jumpers have little skinny legs a lot of the time.


the 300lb bench press has never been officially confirmed. Just like Wilt's bench, it's all based on hearsay. Again I'm not really knocking Wilt's strength, I saw him play, and I firmly believe that he was the strongest man to ever play the sport, even stronger than Shaq, but there is simply no way he's benching 500 pounds. I'd believe an 800 pound dead lift before I'd believe a 500 pound bench.

Looking at Wilt's body, his chest muscles are obviously his weakest muscle, and not that Wilt had a weak chest, but when compared to the rest of his upper body, it does stick out.

Regardless of natural strength, which will get you to about a 250 pound bench, to bench press 500 pounds, you need to be short and stocky with a huge chest, or tall but with short arms and an even bigger chest. Wilt is super tall with a comparatively small chest. To give some perspective, Wilt's chest would need to be more than twice as Boykins to put up the same bench press since his arms are so damn long.

this is a guy with a 500 pound benchhttp://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Dave_Batista_326977.jpg, you honestly believe that Wilt's pectoral muscles are twice as strong as this guys?

[Pointguard]

the 300lb bench press has never been officially confirmed. Just like Wilt's bench, it's all based on hearsay. Again I'm not really knocking Wilt's strength, I saw him play, and I firmly believe that he was the strongest man to ever play the sport, even stronger than Shaq, but there is simply no way he's benching 500 pounds. I'd believe an 800 pound dead lift before I'd believe a 500 pound bench.

Looking at Wilt's body, his chest muscles are obviously his weakest muscle, and not that Wilt had a weak chest, but when compared to the rest of his upper body, it does stick out.

Regardless of natural strength, which will get you to about a 250 pound bench, to bench press 500 pounds, you need to be short and stocky with a huge chest, or tall but with short arms and an even bigger chest. Wilt is super tall with a comparatively small chest. To give some perspective, Wilt's chest would need to be more than twice as Boykins to put up the same bench press since his arms are so damn long.

this is a guy with a 500 pound benchhttp://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Dave_Batista_326977.jpg, you honestly believe that Wilt's pectoral muscles are twice as strong as this guys?

You are looking for this refined massive look. Ox strong doesn't subscribe to that look. If Arnold is sterioding it up with other massive steroid users who are drugging themselves to attain this goal, why would Wilt impress him???