Was Peak Charles Barkley better than Peak Karl Malone?

[Duncan21formvp]

Was Peak Charles Barkley better than Peak Karl Malone?

[rodman91]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrbh2ryblc1qc8eed.gif

[HurricaneKid]

Yes. And not close.

[Clippersfan86]

Most on ISH think so but I think Malone was better. Better longevity at the top, better scorer, better defender. Barkley was a better rebounder and passer. I think people worship Barkley because of his unique skillset and how entertaining he was compared to Malone.

[creepingdeath]

Most on ISH think so but I think Malone was better. Better longevity at the top, better scorer, better defender. Barkley was a better rebounder and passer. I think people worship Barkley because of his unique skillset and how entertaining he was compared to Malone.
Longevity doesn't matter when we're talking about peak. And yeah, I'd choose peak Barkley over peak Mailman.

[Bernie Nips]

Comfortably.

[HurricaneKid]

Better longevity at the top...

:wtf:

Does not understand peak.

[Clippersfan86]

Longevity doesn't matter when we're talking about peak. And yeah, I'd choose peak Barkley over peak Mailman.

I missed the peak :facepalm . :hammerhead:

[rodman91]

Barkley was had better post moves,better offensive rebounding,ball handling, more range and clutch. He was also more agressive on offense.

Malone was better post defender, athlete, hard worker and he better midrange shooting probably.

[Clippersfan86]

Barkley was had better post moves,better offensive rebounding,ball handling, more range and clutch. He was also more agressive on offense.

Malone was better post defender, athlete, hard worker and he better midrange shooting probably.

Better defender period. Better jumper period.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Yes. And not close.

This.

[Dasher]

Peak Malone was not a better athlete than Sir Charles. The speed, leaping, and arguably the strength advantage goes to Chuck. Barkley had no regard for human life on the break. He was every bit the terror of prime Shawn Kemp and Antonio McDyess in that regard.

[Clippersfan86]

Peak Malone was not a better athlete than Sir Charles. The speed, leaping, and arguably the strength advantage goes to Chuck. Barkley had no regard for human life on the break. He was every bit the terror of prime Shawn Kemp and Antonio McDyess in that regard.

I agree Barkley was the better athlete. I meant jumper as in jumpshot if you're talking to me. Malone was the superior defender and shooter and it's not close. Barkley is the better rebounder, passer. Pros and cons to both. Peak it's Barkley, overall all time rank it's Malone.

[Whoah10115]

Barkley, at his peak, in his prime, is the best PF ever.


And I would take Malone as the best all-time, even over Duncan.

[swi7ch]

Of course, especially mentally.

[Duncan21formvp]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

[Tinseltime17]

Peak is the only thing Barkley has over Malone.

[Clippersfan86]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.

ISH favors entertaining or flashy players obviously. Lately it seems to be spreading like wildfire around here that Barkley is better than Malone despite the fact that nobody has ever really questioned that besides a few Barkley homers.

[Tinseltime17]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.
What does that have to do with peak?

[Dasher]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.
We're talking peak here, and if you use WS to determine both players peaks, though I wouldn't do this; Barkley wins.

There best PER postings are identical at 28.9.

I'd take Barkley from 89-91 over any form of Karl Malone.

[Clippersfan86]

What does that have to do with peak?

That's prime. Peak is absolute best of each player.

Peak=Barkley
Prime=Malone
All time rank=Malone

[Round Mound]

Yes by Far :facepalm

No :no: Malone wasn`t a Better Scorer than Barkley...Give Me A Break he Just Shot More...Especially Against Bad Teams

Malone Never Delivered in the Play-Offs Efficiently

Malone shot 46.3% in the Play-Off s for 25 PPG while Charles shot 51% in thee Play-Offs for 23 PPG

Malone for Just 1 Bucket More for 5% Less Effectiveness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-Point FGs and 2-Point FG% thats where you can check about how Efficient a Big Man is:

Barkley Season: 21.6 PPG on Only 12.9 Two-Point FGs and 58.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Season: 24.7 PPG on 17.5 Two-Point FGAs and only 51.9% Two-Point FG%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Play-offs: 22.5 PPG on Only 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG and 55.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Play.Offs: 24.6 PPG on 19.3 Two-Point FGAs PG and Only 46.5% Two-Point FG%

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

Yes Barkley was a Better Scorer and in the Play-Offs not only did he have more 30-20 and 40-20 games and a 56 Point Game but also his Rebounding was Better at 12.9 RPG vs 10.7 RPG

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

Yes Barley was a Better Creator and Passer 3.9 vs 3.6 in the Season and Play-Offs 3.9 vs 3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes he was Better Stealer and Shot Blocker aswell.

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

Barkley has the Highest SPG Avg for a PF Ever....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wan`t a Prime Resume and Analysis I Have that Too.

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

Only thing Malone was Better than Barkley was as a Man to Man Defender Slightly (he wasn`t Tim Duncan or Garnett level) and as a FT Shooter

[Clippersfan86]

I saw that coming :facepalm . Round Mound literally comes to this forum purely to suck Barkley's di**.

[Round Mound]

[B]Not Only Did Barkley Outplay Karl Malone for 70% of Their Total 100% Head to Head Match Ups When HEALTHY and BOTH in Their PRIMES but he was THE TOTAL BETTER PLAYER

HEALTHY PRIME BARKLEY (before back and knee injuries) VS HEALTHY PRIME MALONE 1985-1985: ages 22-31

PLAYER COMPARISON:

Barkley

37 MPG (Playing Less Minutes)

22.7 PPG (14,6 FGAs PG only) on 55.5% FG (Way More Effective Scorer!)

11,3 RPG (More!)
3.8 APG (More!)
1.6 SPG (More!)
0.9 BPG (More!)
3.2 TOVs PG [COLOR="DarkRed"](Ofcourse! He Didn

[Round Mound]

I saw that coming :facepalm . Round Mound literally comes to this forum purely to suck Barkley's di**.

:facepalm :roll:

Nahh....I Just Have the Proof That You May Not Wan`t to See

Barkley Prime > Malone Prime
Barkley Peak > Malone Peak
Longevity? Its Not an Age or Endurance Debate but Who Was Better than Who

[oolalaa]

The fat man vs The choker.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :pimp:

[Whoah10115]

Round Mound, I don't think it helps for you to post so many stats. Also, the font really doesn't help. It's hard to read and just too abrasive.



Now, I don't know where the idea comes from that only on this website is Barkley held in any regard over Karl Malone.


Karl Malone, peak, prime, career, whatever, is one of the greatest players ever. But at their best, Charles Barkley was the better player. I'm sure there are articles here and there and all that. But Barkley was better than any non-MJ during his prime. He was better than Isiah (who is slept on here), better than post 88 Larry (tho Bird was still incredible, especially in 89-90). Barkley was better than the raw Hakeem, who was just too raw in comparison. Barkley was playing the 3 for like 3 years.

[Round Mound]

Round Mound, I don't think it helps for you to post so many stats. Also, the font really doesn't help. It's hard to read and just too abrasive.



Now, I don't know where the idea comes from that only on this website is Barkley held in any regard over Karl Malone.


Karl Malone, peak, prime, career, whatever, is one of the greatest players ever. But at their best, Charles Barkley was the better player. I'm sure there are articles here and there and all that. But Barkley was better than any non-MJ during his prime. He was better than Isiah (who is slept on here), better than post 88 Larry (tho Bird was still incredible, especially in 89-90). Barkley was better than the raw Hakeem, who was just too raw in comparison. Barkley was playing the 3 for like 3 years.

Barkley did Outplay him for 70% of their Meetings (Got the Info) and in Both Their primes ages 22-31 or 32 before Barkley began to Get Injured... Barkley had the Better Raw Stats, Broken Down Stats, EFF, PER, WS, OWS, +/-, Shot Made Missed Diferential etc too.

Malone had the Longevity over Barkley that is Obvious but as 1 Player vs 1 Player on Who Was Better? Its No Contest. Barkley.

Barkley in the Play-Offs had More 30 and 20 and 40 and 20 Point Games than the Whole League but Shaq and somewhat Hakeem

Also, Barkley did not rely on a System Designed for him to Score like Stockton and SloanDesigned for him.

Malone shot 46% FG in the Play-Offs. Thats Very Bad a For a Big Man

Barkley, MJ and Hakeem where the 3 Best Players from 87 to 95.

[bdreason]

Yes.

[Whoah10115]

Barkley did Outplay him for 70% of their Meetings (Got the Info) and in Both Their primes ages 22-31 or 32 before Barkley began to Get Injured... Barkley had the Better Raw Stats, Broken Down Stats, EFF, PER, WS, OWS, +/-, Shot Made Missed Diferential etc too.

Malone had the Longevity over Barkley that is Obvious but as 1 Player vs 1 Player on Who Was Better? Its No Contest. Barkley.

Barkley in the Play-Offs had More 30 and 20 and 40 and 20 Point Games than the Whole League but Shaq and somewhat Hakeem

Also, Barkley did not rely on a System Designed for him to Score like Stockton and SloanDesigned for him.

Malone shot 46% FG in the Play-Offs. Thats Very Bad a For a Big Man

Barkley, MJ and Hakeem where the 3 Best Players from 87 to 95.




I obviously agreed with everything you said. But the way you laid out the stats is too long and too abrasive. And the font really doesn't help.

[Round Mound]

I agree Barkley was the better athlete. I meant jumper as in jumpshot if you're talking to me. Malone was the superior defender and shooter and it's not close. Barkley is the better rebounder, passer. Pros and cons to both. Peak it's Barkley, overall all time rank it's Malone.

Karl Malone the Better Shooter? :roll: Are You taking About Far Range, Mid Range and Post Range? :rolleyes: :facepalm Barkley destroys Malone as a Shooter. Malone always had some Range but Never Better than Barkley.

Just Compare their FG% especially inside the 3-Pointline and it Goes to Barkley by Miles

Barkley was More Skilled Offensively
Barkley had Better Fundementals
Barkley could Put it On the Floor 1 on 1
Barkley was the Better Off Man Defender for Blocks and Steals
Barkley was the Better Creator and Passer
Barkley was the Better Post Player and Overal Floor Shooter
Barkley was the Better Ball Handler and Dribbler
Barkley could Go Coast to Coast himself (not relying on a Stockton pass)
Barkley was the Better Rebounder

Barkley was Better than Malone the only things Malone was Better at was Man to Man D (certainly not in the level of Duncan or Garnett) as a FT Shooter and as Finish-Catch Player (Best Ever at it).

A The End Barkley was Better. Sadly He Did Not Last As Long Do To His Back Problems and Later on Knee Problems.

[Whoah10115]

Charles was not a better shooter than Malone. No way.

[k0kakw0rld]

Tough one ! But i'll go with The Mailman

[Poodle]

yes but Malone was overall better imo. Barkley peaked when he was old, but his early years he was very overrated. Malone was the model of consistent workhorse throughout.

[magnax1]

Definitely better then Malone IMO. Barkley was a more versatile offensive force, and just much easier to build an offense around. Malone was stronger, probably faster, had a better jumper and was a much better defender, but none of that really mattered when he couldn't get a shot up without his team mates setting him up in one form or another.

[bizil]

Give me peak Chuck over peak Malone. Peak value wise, I think Chuck is the best PF of all time. U got the premium PF aspects from him in dominating the glass. But u got small forward and point forward elements from him as well. And on top of it he was a freakish athlete at 6'6 and 265 pounds. He was undersized in height at PF, but had one of the biggest weight advantages EVER at SF. Malone was a beast and he's probably number two all time in terms of peak. But once again, guys like Duncan and KG were more versatile than Malone and were better on defense. And were just as good or even better rebounders than Malone. But in any aspect, I feel the top 4 PF's in term of peak are:

Barkley
Duncan
Garnett
Malone

But for that fifth spot it could be:

Hayes
Pettit
Dirk
McHale
Webber

[Deuce Bigalow]

They both sure did lose like a man

[bwink23]

Charles Barkley and not sure why this is even a question....:pimp:

[Round Mound]

Where do people get the idea that Malone was a Better Shooter than Barkley? :rolleyes:

- Maybe Malone Got Better as a Shooter Later on his Career. Thats what you Probably Mean

Malone`s "Shot Form" Might have Looked Nicer but he was NEVER A BETTER SHOOTER THAN BARKLEY!

Barkley actually could hit 3s. Not efficiently but he could hit them unlike Malone.

Barkley was not a jump shooter he was "Stand Shooter like Bird".

So if you say Malone had a nicher jumper i will agree...but a Better Shooter? Funny as Hell...Since Barkley had a Higher FG% Per Shot Taken and a MUCH HIGHER 2-POINT FG% (AND...its not like Barkley just got offensive put backs or rebounds or dunks...he could do it all)

Malone was not Faster or Stronger than Barkley either.

Malone worked harder on the Weight Room Thats why He Lasted Longer and his Body Looked Intune compared to Barkley (his body did not break as fast) but he Never Had The Torso and Lower Body Strength-Legs That Barkley had. That strength is Only Matched by Shaq.

Barkley Never Liked to Strengthen his Upper Body because He Prefered To Maintaing His Shooting Touch in the Post

[Kblaze8855]

Malone was the superior defender and shooter and it's not close.

Karl Malone couldnt shoot nearly as well as Barkley until like 96. And even then he didnt have his range or ability to shoot off the dribble.

[Round Mound]

For Better Understanding of Barkley`s Game i Suggest You Take a Look at This Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwxGTjEwcg8&feature=related

[Cali Syndicate]

Karl Malone the Better Shooter? :roll: Are You taking About Far Range, Mid Range and Post Range? :rolleyes: :facepalm Barkley destroys Malone as a Shooter. Malone always had some Range but Never Better than Barkley.

Just Compare their FG% especially inside the 3-Pointline and it Goes to Barkley by Miles

Barkley was More Skilled Offensively
Barkley had Better Fundementals
Barkley could Put it On the Floor 1 on 1
Barkley was the Better Off Man Defender for Blocks and Steals
Barkley was the Better Creator and Passer
Barkley was the Better Post Player and Overal Floor Shooter
Barkley was the Better Ball Handler and Dribbler
Barkley could Go Coast to Coast himself (not relying on a Stockton pass)
Barkley was the Better Rebounder

Barkley was Better than Malone the only things Malone was Better at was Man to Man D (certainly not in the level of Duncan or Garnett) as a FT Shooter and as Finish-Catch Player (Best Ever at it).

A The End Barkley was Better. Sadly He Did Not Last As Long Do To His Back Problems and Later on Knee Problems.

Barkley may have had more range, Malone had the more consistent 10-15 footer. HOWEVER, so you don't get all ape shit, Malone got a lot of clean looks playing with Stockton while Barkley like you stated was creating more of his shots on his own.

[Jotaro Durant]

mos def barkley

he was something else:bowdown:

[knickswin]

Barkley easy . . .

to me, Barkley is the one guy who really should have won a championship that didn't. He fit into everything I believe a finals MVP is. Dominant post scorer who could also create looks for his teammates.

I guess his problems were poor teammates and a poor attitude for most of his career. Didn't really get it all together until he went to the Suns, and then his body started breaking down giving him too small a window.

[Whoah10115]

Karl Malone was a more out-and-out PF and hardly stretched his range.



There are guys here like Round Mound and Kblaze, who have watched more ball than me and whose opinions I respect....but there is NOOO way that Karl Malone isn't a better shooter than Charles Barkley.



Charles is a better shooter off the dribble because he's better, more skilled, more talented. He's more capable of getting his shot off. That's just being that good. The shooting itself isn't close. Charles should have shot an even higher percentage throughout his career (and never under 50% during any of the Phoenix years) if he shot fewer 3's. Even more range, he didn't have. He had the ability to get that shot and he was more willing to jack them up. Malone ran the floor, used the high post, pick n' roll. He didn't shoot 3's unless he had to. He shot 40 3's, 3 times in his career. He averaged .2 attempts per game. Barkley averaged 1.9.




Come on...how many PF's, prior to Dirk, were better jumpshooters than Karl Malone?

[knickswin]

I agree that Malone was a better pure shooter. He got a lot more open looks though . . .

It is interesting how a lot of the PF's now (Dirk, Bosh, Garnett, Amar'e) are considerably better pure shooters than the guys in the 90's. They all shoot 10-20% better from the line than the likes of Barkley, Ewing, and Hakeem.

[Round Mound]

I agree that Malone was a better pure shooter. He got a lot more open looks though . . .

It is interesting how a lot of the PF's now (Dirk, Bosh, Garnett, Amar'e) are considerably better pure shooters than the guys in the 90's. They all shoot 10-20% better from the line than the likes of Barkley, Ewing, and Hakeem.

:facepalm :no:

He wasn`t a Better Pure Shooter or Scorer than Barkley (See Play-Offs)

Barkley shot at a Higher FG% and WAY HIGHER 2-POINT FG% per SHOT TAKEN

Barkley was a Stand Shooter like Bird.

Malone was a Better FT Shooter than Barkley thats All

Ewing and Hakeem PFs? More like Center and CF

Them 4 Would Destroy Todays Soft League

[knickswin]

:facepalm :no:

He wasn`t a Better Pure Shooter or Scorer than Barkley (See Play-Offs)

Barkley shot at a Higher FG% and WAY HIGHER 2-POINT FG% per SHOT TAKEN

Barkley was a Stand Shooter like Bird.

Malone was a Better FT Shooter than Barkley thats All

Ewing and Hakeem PFs? More like Center and CF

Them 4 Would Destroy Todays Soft League

I didn't mean to say they're forwards, Ewing and Hakeem were obviously centers, just comparing big men to big men. I think you're right that those guys would beast. I think guys like Garnett and Bosh and Amar'e are good shooters partly because they can't play down low at all.

[Round Mound]

Barkley was the Master of the Mid Range and In Between Post-Mid Range Shot.

He Was Influenced by Dantley alot. He mentions this in his HOF Entrance

Kids today have watched more old Malone Tapes so They Think he Was a Better Shooter or Had More Range...Which is Totally False.

As Another Poster Mentioned. Malone Later on Developed a Better Post Game at around 1994-95

Barkley had a Better Range From All Over The Court Shooting.

It wasn`t like 6`4 3/4 Barkley was Dunking or Getting Putbacks All Over the Place...He was Doing a Bit of All Those Things.

Proof of Better Shooting?

2-Point FGs and 2-Point FG% thats where you can check about how Efficient a Big Man is:

Barkley Season: 21.6 PPG on Only 12.9 Two-Point FGs and 58.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Season: 24.7 PPG on 17.5 Two-Point FGAs and Only 51.9% Two-Point FG%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Play-offs: 22.5 PPG on Only 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG and 55.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Play.Offs: 24.6 PPG on 19.3 Two-Point FGAs PG and Only 46.5% Two-Point FG%

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

Malone just Shot More...

[JohnnySic]

Barkley did indeed have the higher peak, but the gap is not as drastic as some make it out to be.

Malone had the better career, and ultimately that wins the day for me.

[Round Mound]

Its quite clear Malone was never in the league of a Prime Barkley

[Duncan21formvp]

Its quite clear Malone was never in the league of a Prime Barkley
How so? Barkley needed to get traded to make the finals. Malone led teams to the finals as the man on the team that drafted him.

[Odinn]

How so? Barkley needed to get traded to make the finals. Malone led teams to the finals as the man on the team that drafted him.
Said like Karl Malone didn't need one of the top 3 pgs ever to make it to the finals?:roll: :roll:

Peak wise; Charles Barkley > Karl Malone. Period.

[Round Mound]

How so? Barkley needed to get traded to make the finals. Malone led teams to the finals as the man on the team that drafted him.

:roll: :facepalm

As the man? Stockton was the One that Send the Jazz to the Finals. Karl Malone never delivered in the Play-Offs he shot 46% FG while Barkley shot 51% and i won`t even compare the 2-Point FG where Barkley was Shaq like.

Barkley got traded to the Suns and KJ played only 49 games that season and the Suns had a Higher Winning% Without KJ than With Him. Infact KJ was constantly injured in his time with the Suns

*Not to Mention Barkley was Robbed from the 1990 MVP

Malone played in a System that was Designed for Him with Stockton Leading the Way.

No to mention that both Malone and Stockton had Mark Eaton the Greatest Shot Blocker of Modern NBA History. Infact that Team with Baily was Better than the 90s Versions of the Jazz.

I was there to Watch it Live when the Suns made the Finals...Everyone had the Rockets, Sonics and Jazz over them.

Barkley outplayed Malone for 11-12 Straight years when he was Healthy or 70% of their Meetings

Oh and he Outplayed Duncan at ages 34-36 with 4 Games without Hakeem.

Barkley had a Higher WS till 1996 and OWS ofcourse.

Injuries slowed Barkley so he was sent to the Rockets as 2nd or 3rd Option because he couldnt play anymore (as he even mentions it)

No to mention Barkley is ranked:

Top 10-11 All Time In Season PER
Top 10-11 All Time in Play-Off PER
Top 10 All Time in EFF
Top 9 All Time in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
Top 5 All Time in +/-
Top 4 All Time in Shot Made/Missed Diferential

Barkley was easy a Top 10 Player of All Time in his Prime while Malone should be ranked around Top 15-20.

[bwink23]

Barkley could do most things a guard could do, and everything a PF his size shouldn't be able to do....(aside defense.) Give me peak Barkley.

[32Dayz]

Peak Prime Barkley was significantly better then Peak/Prime Malone.

Malone was never the best player in the league or close to it although he set a standard of consistent excellence.

Barkley was close to that in the early 90's... Malone just never approached that level of play/dominance.

/Thread.

[Cali Syndicate]

Barkley was the Master of the Mid Range and In Between Post-Mid Range Shot.

He Was Influenced by Dantley alot. He mentions this in his HOF Entrance

Kids today have watched more old Malone Tapes so They Think he Was a Better Shooter or Had More Range...Which is Totally False.

As Another Poster Mentioned. Malone Later on Developed a Better Post Game at around 1994-95

Barkley had a Better Range From All Over The Court Shooting.

It wasn`t like 6`4 3/4 Barkley was Dunking or Getting Putbacks All Over the Place...He was Doing a Bit of All Those Things.

Proof of Better Shooting?

2-Point FGs and 2-Point FG% thats where you can check about how Efficient a Big Man is:

Barkley Season: 21.6 PPG on Only 12.9 Two-Point FGs and 58.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Season: 24.7 PPG on 17.5 Two-Point FGAs and Only 51.9% Two-Point FG%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barkley Play-offs: 22.5 PPG on Only 14.5 Two-Point FGAs PG and 55.13% Two-Point FG%

Malone Play.Offs: 24.6 PPG on 19.3 Two-Point FGAs PG and Only 46.5% Two-Point FG%

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

Malone just Shot More...

How are you determining who the better shooter is by comparing 2pt FG% which is anything inside 23 feet? I don't get it.

If Hoopsdata took it's stats to the 80's and 90's, %'s could indicate more but in your sense it's futile.

[Shepseskaf]

Not sure for those who say Barkley comfortably.
If you look at PER Malone had 6 seasons over 26.0 while Barkley had 4 seasons.

If you look at WS Malone had 9 seasons over 15.0 while Barkley had 3 seasons over 15.0.
From comments like this, I'm getting the feeling that some people didn't actually see both players extensively, in their prime.

Barkley easily passes the eyeball test over Malone. Yes, the Mailman was more steady, but he had Stockton to get him the ball consistently.

Barkley had a much higher ceiling, and it showed on the court.

[StateOfMind12]

Barkley did indeed have the higher peak, but the gap is not as drastic as some make it out to be.

Malone had the better career, and ultimately that wins the day for me.
Pretty much this.

Malone had a better prime than Barkley because he was more consistently dominant for a longer period of time than Barkley was. There is a difference between peak and prime, I hope some people realize that. Peak holds pretty much the least meaning to me compared to prime and longevity which is why Malone is higher than Barkley on my all-time list.

Malone made the All-NBA first team for 10 seasons in a row. I usually put little to no stock in All-NBA teams but that's a pretty nice accomplishment. It also shows that voters, fans, media, etc. felt like Malone was the best or 2nd best forward for a long period of time.

[Round Mound]

How are you determining who the better shooter is by comparing 2pt FG% which is anything inside 23 feet? I don't get it.

If Hoopsdata took it's stats to the 80's and 90's, %'s could indicate more but in your sense it's futile.

It Makes sense because PFs Usually Shoot Inside the 3 Point Line...or not? Yes!

There is Enough Evidence indicating Barkley was Better Pure Scorer and Shooter than Malone....Thats would Big Men Do...Shoot In the Mid Range, Far Range sometimes but most importantly the Mid Range and Post ofcourse too.

As You Can See Chucks FG% Per Shot Taken to Score 20 A Game is MUCH HIGHER than Karl`s and as i said...Its not Like Chuck Was Getting Just Open Dunks or Put Back Rebounds but also Shooting in the Post, Mid Range and sometimes Far Range.

Barkley was a Better Player than Malone. Anyone who watched the NBA prior to 1996 Knows This. The ones that Don`t know are usually kidds that where 25 and below who only saw the washed up overweight and back and knee injured Barkley in the Rockets when he himself said "I Can`t Play Anymore". He lost his Leap, Speed, Agility and Quickness to Dominate the Post and Mid Range Region like he did Before.

Barkley was a Better Player.

[Shepseskaf]

Barkley was a Better Player than Malone. Anyone who watched the NBA prior to 1996 Knows This. The ones that Don`t know are usually kidds that where 25 and below who only saw the washed up overweight and back and knee injured Barkley in the Rockets when he himself said "I Can`t Play Anymore". He lost his Leap, Speed, Agility and Quickness to Dominate the Post and Mid Range Region like he did Before.

Barkley was a Better Player.
/thread

[StateOfMind12]

Said like Karl Malone didn't need one of the top 3 pgs ever to make it to the finals?:roll: :roll:

Peak wise; Charles Barkley > Karl Malone. Period.
At their peaks, Kevin Johnson was nearly as good, if not better than Stockton was. Obviously career wise, prime, all-time list, Stockton is higher than KJ, but if we were simply just comparing peaks? KJ at his peak was just as good, if not better than Stockton was at his.

[Round Mound]

At their peaks, Kevin Johnson was nearly as good, if not better than Stockton was. Obviously career wise, prime, all-time list, Stockton is higher than KJ, but if we were simply just comparing peaks? KJ at his peak was just as good, if not better than Stockton was at his.

KJ better than Stockton? :roll: :facepalm Thats funny KJ was a "1st Drive then Pass Create PG"....Those types of PGs don`t make Anyone Better.

Stockton was more Efficient than KJ by Miles in more Aspects of the Game including Defense ofcourse (Stockton ranked very high fora PG in DRT).

Stockton was also a Better Shooter too. KJ was Better than Stockton at Driving to the Basket. Thats it.

Another thing youy are forgetting is that KJ was constantly injured from 92 on

92-93: 49 Games
93-94: 67 Games
94-95: 35 Games
95-96: 55 Games

*In the 93 Finals he playe very poorly shooting 42.1%FG taking almost 16 FGAs PG. He also delivered only 6.5 APG...1 APG Less than Barkley

His Injuries should have Taken the Tole on the Suns but the Suns Maintained Their Level thanks To Charles.

Stockton was Better than KJ from 1987 to 1995 easy.

[Whoah10115]

Barkley was the Master of the Mid Range and In Between Post-Mid Range Shot. =



You can post all the 2pt stats you want, but the same eyeball test that shows me prime/peak Barkley was better, shows me that Malone is a better pure shooter. There is no way to deny that.



Charles Barkley was some sort of elemental force on the court. Malone had much more touch and relied on it. He wouldn't put the ball on the floor and attack the rim. He only did that off-ball. His post game was always good. It was refined after 1994 and became elite. From then on he focused a lot on facing up and shooting straight up or even fallback jumpers, not to mention the turnarounds and fadeways from the lower post, that were all about the shot itself and not the ability to create the space to shoot it.





And by the way, whoever suggested KJ was better than Stockton, at their peaks...maybe, maybe not. But Barkley's last peak season was his first year in Phoenix, when KJ was injured for half of it and not himself in the Finals. The next year, when KJ was back to full force, Barkley was leaning closer towards retirement than to coming back, as he didn't want to take cortisone shots the rest of his career. So not a fair statement at all...and those old Philly teams were old when he got there and fading. As soon as Barkley started to step his game up to elite status (his 2nd season), they were well on their way down. Let's not act like prime Barkley had a great team in Philadelphia, at least not over any stretch of time.

[Cali Syndicate]

It Makes sense because PFs Usually Shoot Inside the 3 Point Line...or not? Yes!

There is Enough Evidence indicating Barkley was Better Pure Scorer and Shooter than Malone....Thats would Big Men Do...Shoot In the Mid Range, Far Range sometimes but most importantly the Mid Range and Post ofcourse too.

As You Can See Chucks FG% Per Shot Taken to Score 20 A Game is MUCH HIGHER than Karl`s and as i said...Its not Like Chuck Was Getting Just Open Dunks or Put Back Rebounds but also Shooting in the Post, Mid Range and sometimes Far Range.

Barkley was a Better Player than Malone. Anyone who watched the NBA prior to 1996 Knows This. The ones that Don`t know are usually kidds that where 25 and below who only saw the washed up overweight and back and knee injured Barkley in the Rockets when he himself said "I Can`t Play Anymore". He lost his Leap, Speed, Agility and Quickness to Dominate the Post and Mid Range Region like he did Before.

Barkley was a Better Player.

Yeah, your logic still doesn't make sense. If that's the case, Barkley was a better jump shooter than both Dirk or Bargnani.

And according to your logic, Jordan had a better jumper in his rookie year than he did from 96-98 which obviously is false.

And your rant about who the better player was has nothing to do with my statement that Malone had a more consistent mid-range.

[Round Mound]

Ok Kiddos below 25 years of age keep believing what you want the TRUTH his Barkley was A BETTER SHOOTER THAN MALONE. Go Watch hte Games Before 1996-97

Barkley had MORE RANGE than Malone and was ALSO A BETTER POST PLAYER.

Infact Barkley was Better than Malone at ALMOST EVERY ASPECT.

FG% Doesnt Lie!!!
2-Point FG% Doesnt Lie Either!!!

Play-Off Time where Malone Never Appeared

Tell me If Malone ever Shot like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprxJNQuH2E

[Whoah10115]

Ok Kiddos below 25 years of age keep believing what you want the TRUTH his Barkley was A BETTER SHOOTER THAN MALONE. Go Watch hte Games Before 1996-97

Barkley had MORE RANGE than Malone and was ALSO A BETTER POST PLAYER.

Infact Barkley was Better than Malone at ALMOST EVERY ASPECT.

FG% Doesnt Lie!!!
2-Point FG% Doesnt Lie Either!!!

Play-Off Time where Malone Never Appeared

Tell me If Malone ever Shot like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprxJNQuH2E



The problem with some of your posts is that you keep ignoring the specifics of what others are willing to engage in discussion with you over.


I respect your opinions, but respect others. Barkley is not as good a shooter as Malone. The above poster just brought up that Barkley has better 2pt FG% than Dirk (as does Malone) and asked if that means he's a better shooter than Dirk. He asked if Jordan's jumper was better in his rookie year (or 87-93) than 95-98 and you didn't answer. His rationale for the question is your basis for your definitive answer: 2pt FG%. Obviously, that's not enough.



If Malone didn't have a better jumpshot than Barkley, he'd have a lower career PPG than Barkley.



And seriously, why the font? Don't you understand it makes it tiresome on the eyes (literally, on the eyes) to read that font? It doesn't help. And it also feels like you're talking down to everybody.

[Round Mound]

The problem with some of your posts is that you keep ignoring the specifics of what others are willing to engage in discussion with you over.

I just proove to u statistically who shot better. You just wan`t to avoid truth

I respect your opinions, but respect others. I'm 28, and Barkley is not as good a shooter as Malone. The above poster just brought up that Barkley has better 2pt FG% than Dirk (as does Malone) and asked if that means he's a better shooter than Dirk. He asked if Jordan's jumper was better in his rookie year (or 87-93) than 95-98 and you didn't answer. His rationale for the question is your basis for your definitive answer: 2pt FG%. Obviously, that's not enough.

Thats ur opinion. My opinion is that Barkley was Better Post Shooter, Mid Range Shooter and Far Range Shooter. Barkley had a "Stand Shot like Bird" in the Mid Range and he had the "Fadeways" usually in the Post too.

Jordan`s Jumper was always good but he got Better at It as the Years Passed. I never denied this. You bring something up that i agree with.

Malone always had a Good Mid Range Shot and Far Range Shot BUT IT WAS NOT AS GOOD AS BARKLEY`s thats All.

2-Point FG is a Big Man`s Test of How Efficient He Is Inside. Big Men Play Inside: Post, Mid Range and Exceptionally Far Range.


If Malone didn't have a better jumpshot than Barkley, he'd have a lower career PPG than Barkley.

He had a Lower FG% and 2-Point FG% because he WAS NOT AS SKILLED and NOT AS GOOD SHOOTER.

His PPG is Higher because he Shot 5-7 FGAs More Per Game than Barkley. He was More of Chucker because HE OVER SHOT INEFFICIENTLY...Shooting 46% FG in the Play-Offs

Great Scorers Shoot at High FG% Not PPG

And seriously, why the font? Don't you understand it makes it tiresome on the eyes (literally, on the eyes) to read that font? It doesn't help. And it also feels like you're talking down to everybody.

The Font is my Style...Find Your Own...If You Don`t Like It...Don`t Read Me.

Infact You Have Not Even Read All The Proof I Posted.

[Cali Syndicate]

FG% can be used to indicate how efficient a player scores, not necessarily how ell they shoot unless that player is strictly a pure shooter like Kerr, Korver, Morrow, etc.

Lebron scores at a better FG% than Kobe ever has but Kobe is obviously the better shooter. Using 2pt FG% which includes any and all shots inside 23 feet to determine a player's shooting ability is flawed logic.

[Round Mound]

FG% can be used to indicate how efficient a player scores, not necessarily how ell they shoot unless that player is strictly a pure shooter like Kerr, Korver, Morrow, etc.

Lebron scores at a better FG% than Kobe ever has but Kobe is obviously the better shooter. Using 2pt FG% which includes any and all shots inside 23 feet to determine a player's shooting ability is flawed logic.

Barkley had More Range than Malone...Both in the Mid Range or Far Range. Anyone who saw both play in their primes knows this. Kidds watched Malone as old and think he was a better shooter which he wasn`t. For Charles to shoot much higher FG% and 2-Point FG% would mean he would Play in the Post or Dunk All Day like Shaq but that didn`t happen that way. He scored most of his points in the Mid Range region and then the Post. While Malone later on developed a Better Post Game and Mid Range Game..because he was so reliant on Pick and Rolls and Fast Breaks Designed by Stockton.

Barkley was a Better Player than Malone. End of Story

[Cali Syndicate]

Barkley had More Range than Malone...Both in the Mid Range or Far Range. Anyone who saw both play in their primes knows this. Kidds watched Malone as old and think he was a better shooter which he wasn`t. For Charles to shoot much higher FG% and 2-Point FG% would mean he would Play in the Post or Dunk All Day like Shaq but that didn`t happen that way. He scored most of his points in the Mid Range region and then the Post. While Malone later on developed a Better Post Game and Mid Range Game..because he was so reliant on Pick and Rolls and Fast Breaks Designed by Stockton.

Barkley was a Better Player than Malone. End of Story

Did I say Barkley wasn't better? Cause I didn't, so I really don't get why you keep trying to preach to me. I know how Barkley played cause I caught a lot of Barkley's career.

Keep deflecting my point that your 2pt% jump shooter logic makes no sense.

And what difference does it make that Malone began developing his mid-range later in his career?

For the pick n' roll to be most effective, the pick man should also have a good mid range so that when the defenders start cheating on a roll, he can pop out for a shot if there is a better look for him than the ball handler has.

And while it was evident Malone relied more on his jumper late in to the 90's, he still had to develop a good mid-range for that exact purpose.

His 10-15 footer was solid for a large portion of the 90's. Like I said, Barkley had the ability to extend out to 23 feet but Malone catered his game for that mid-range. He was just more consistent there. If you don't agree, fine. But don't feed me your 2pt% to prove his shooting ability cause it proves nothing in the that sense.

[Round Mound]

Did I say Barkley wasn't better? Cause I didn't, so I really don't get why you keep trying to preach to me. I know how Barkley played cause I caught a lot of Barkley's career.

Ok dude but where you there to watch it live? I was.

Keep deflecting my point that your 2pt% jump shooter logic makes no sense.

It does point to Efficiency Shooting Inside the 3-Point Line so it does Matter.

As i said before It wasn`t like Barkley was just "Getting Put Back Rebounds" or "Dunking" The Dude had The Best Mid Range Shooting Game in the NBA to have that high FG% Inside the Line 58.13% and 55.13% on 22 and 23 PPG Career.

And what difference does it make that Malone began developing his mid-range later in his career?

From 85-95 10 Years Passed its Alot and Malone was a Work Horse do to Lack of Talent but he did Become a Good Mid Range Shooter. Just NOT IN THE LEVEL OF CHARLES.

For the pick n' roll to be most effective, the pick man should also have a good mid range so that when the defenders start cheating on a roll, he can pop out for a shot if there is a better look for him than the ball handler has.

Most of His Pick and Rolls Ended Up With Him "Attacking the Rim Laying It Up or Dunkin" Atleat for 1985-1995 Malone.

And while it was evident Malone relied more on his jumper late in to the 90's, he still had to develop a good mid-range for that exact purpose.

His 10-15 footer was solid for a large portion of the 90's. Like I said, Barkley had the ability to extend out to 23 feet but Malone catered his game for that mid-range. He was just more consistent there. If you don't agree, fine. But don't feed me your 2pt% to prove his shooting ability cause it proves nothing in the that sense.

I was there to Watch the Games and Malone missed more Shots than Barkley in the Mid Range. Infact Inside the 3-Pointline Malone wasn`t a Better Shooter or Post Player than Barkley. Statistically too.

Thats my view and I Saw it Live: Greets

[StateOfMind12]

Barkley did have more range than Malone did but I am not sure if it was necessarily more effective.

It is kind of like comparing Chris Bosh (Toronto) to Amare Stoudemire (Phoenix). Bosh had very long range, he actually had 3 point range but didn't utilize it that often, similar to Barkley. Amare didn't have as long of range as Bosh did but his mid-range game was very effective and according to Hoopdata, 82games, etc. Amare actually shot from mid-range better than Bosh did.

Was there anybody that actually thought Bosh was the finisher or scorer Amare was during that time? I don't think so other than maybe a few Raptors fans at the time.


There is little to no argument that Barkley is better than Malone in my opinion. Maybe someone can try to convince me otherwise but I just have a hard time seeing it.

[La Frescobaldi]

Barkley did have more range than Malone did but I am not sure if it was necessarily more effective.

It is kind of like comparing Chris Bosh (Toronto) to Amare Stoudemire (Phoenix). Bosh had very long range, he actually had 3 point range but didn't utilize it that often, similar to Barkley. Amare didn't have as long of range as Bosh did but his mid-range game was very effective and according to Hoopdata, 82games, etc. Amare actually shot from mid-range better than Bosh did.

Was there anybody that actually thought Bosh was the finisher or scorer Amare was during that time? I don't think so other than maybe a few Raptors fans at the time.


There is little to no argument that Barkley is better than Malone in my opinion. Maybe someone can try to convince me otherwise but I just have a hard time seeing it.

************************

that right there.
And in honor of RoundMound fontings...


Sir Charles Reigned

[Teanett]

oh hell yes he was!

[StateOfMind12]

************************

that right there.
And in honor of RoundMound fontings...


Sir Charles Reigned

I was actually referring to the all-time list, career, and prime. Barkley doesn't have an argument over Malone in those cases. I agreed earlier that Barkley had the better peak but that is the only thing Barkley has over Malone.

Peak holds little to no meaning to me. Who cares how good a player was for 1-3 years? I prefer players to be consistent and dominant for a long period of time and Malone fits that bill while Barkley doesn't.

If peak meant more than prime, career, etc. than Bill Walton would arguably be the greatest Center of all-time, yet if you look at most people's all-time list and Center rankings, Walton is never even in the top 5 or even top 6 for Centers. Bill Walton was that good in his peak. I know there was a thread here or on another site where the majority thought Bill Walton had a better peak than Tim Duncan did, yet who honestly has Walton ranked above Duncan in their all-time list? Pretty much nobody because peak doesn't hold that much meaning.

[Whoah10115]

You're short-changing Barkley's prime. Malone didn't have a better prime, in means of average. Barkley's prime goes from as far as his 3rd season to his 9th season. That's at least average, as far as length goes.


What makes Malone freakish on the all-time lists is that his prime goes from his 3rd season...to his 15th! That's 13 years of prime. You can get specific, here and there, but it's legit. The 1st and last season in that span bookend 11 straight appearances on the All-NBA 1st Team...all of them not only deserved, but correct. And being honest, Malone was probably better than either Garnett or Duncan in 99-00 and should have 12 appearances on the 1st team.



So when considering prime, don't necessarily assume that Malone's was better. Barkley's prime was a normal amount of time. Malone's prime is the length of Michael Jordan's career.

[32Dayz]

91 Barkley would s*** on any version of Malone.

[uberspork]

Round Mound, you know you can type without bolding everything right?

Really annoying!

[Round Mound]

I saw both Barkley and Malone play in their Primes before Barkley was constantly injured and Barkley was Better. Prime, Peak, Longevity the way you like it...Barkley was Better than Malone as a Player.

[StateOfMind12]

I saw both Barkley and Malone play in their Primes before Barkley was constantly injured and Barkley was Better. Prime, Peak, Longevity the way you like it...Barkley was Better than Malone as a Player.
:facepalm How did Barkley have better longevity than Malone? It is not even an opinion that Malone had better longevity than Barkley did, it is a fact.


You're short-changing Barkley's prime. Malone didn't have a better prime, in means of average. Barkley's prime goes from as far as his 3rd season to his 9th season. That's at least average, as far as length goes.


What makes Malone freakish on the all-time lists is that his prime goes from his 3rd season...to his 15th! That's 13 years of prime. You can get specific, here and there, but it's legit. The 1st and last season in that span bookend 11 straight appearances on the All-NBA 1st Team...all of them not only deserved, but correct. And being honest, Malone was probably better than either Garnett or Duncan in 99-00 and should have 12 appearances on the 1st team.



So when considering prime, don't necessarily assume that Malone's was better. Barkley's prime was a normal amount of time. Malone's prime is the length of Michael Jordan's career.Good post, but I do think Malone separates from Barkley because of the intangibles such as leadership, work-ethic, etc. and because of defense. Malone was probably the best defensive PF in the 90s while Barkley was one of the worst. That has to count for something. Barkley is probably the greatest offensive PF of all-time, yes above Duncan, above Dirk, above any other PF, but nobody considers him to be better or greater than Duncan. Why? Because of Duncan's defense, even if Duncan never won any rings, most people would still say Duncan was better than Barkley.

Defense is that important and it should be.

[brisbaneman]

Amazing how overrated Barkley has becum on here.

[ThaRegul8r]

I saw both Barkley and Malone play.

The answer is yes.

[BarberSchool]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrbh2ryblc1qc8eed.gifThis.
Emphatically.

[Cali Syndicate]

There is little to no argument that Barkley is better than Malone in my opinion. Maybe someone can try to convince me otherwise but I just have a hard time seeing it.

Barkley at his best was better than Malone's best. There is no question about it.

Malone was just an insanely durable player. His knee injury during his final season was the only injury that caused him to miss any multiple number of games throughout his entire career. Tough as nails that guy was.

[Owl]

Barkley at his best was better than Malone's best. There is no question about it.

Malone was just an insanely durable player. His knee injury during his final season was the only injury that caused him to miss any multiple number of games throughout his entire career. Tough as nails that guy was.
Why? And I've seen a lot of people state this but I'm not sure why it is believed? By single year peak PER (a combination of boxscore stats which ignores Malone's significant advantage on D) they are exactly equal (28.9).

My ideas as to why Malone's peak is considered worse/ why Malone is generally underrated when these two are compared:
1) He was less spectacular, played in a poor media market for national recognition, and was less charismatic.
2) Barkley's Peak came sooner so we thought of him of as an elite player for longer and looked at Malone as in his shadow and not at his level.
3) Barkley's peak came first, in a higher pace era, so superficially they look better than they really are.
4) Malone got more points at the line (which some people don't seem to count), both by getting fouled more and shooting better from the line.
5) People ignore defense.
6) Malone's peak isn't readily identifiable as his 3rd and 4th best years (by PER) came ten years apart (89-90 and 99-00).
7) Bill Simmons said Barkley's peak was better. Though he didn't explain why but did say that Barkley was shooting 2's excellently that year (as he always did, but that doesn't matter if you throw up too many threes and you don't have that range).

[JtotheIzzo]

yes and end the thread

[StateOfMind12]

Barkley at his best was better than Malone's best. There is no question about it.

Malone was just an insanely durable player. His knee injury during his final season was the only injury that caused him to miss any multiple number of games throughout his entire career. Tough as nails that guy was.
Like I said I was referring to all-time list, career, prime, etc. not peak. I already agreed with the notion that peak Barkley was better than peak Malone.

I think people really overrate Stockton and not to mention Malone never had much of a supporting cast outside of Stockton for the majority of his career especially in the late 80s and early 90s. The only time they actually had a legit team with depth and with talent was in 1997 and 1998 and guess what? Malone led the Jazz to the Finals those two seasons and he lost to Michael Jordan which is nothing to be ashamed of.

[Round Mound]

Why? And I've seen a lot of people state this but I'm not sure why it is believed? By single year peak PER (a combination of boxscore stats which ignores Malone's significant advantage on D) they are exactly equal (28.9).

Single Year is A Season Its More Important Compare PER in the Play-Offs:
...Check Malone`s PER in the Play-Offs. Here is where you Face the Best Teams. Don`t forget he shot 46% FG for All his Play-Off Runs (Barkley shot 51% for 23 PPG and 55% Two-Point FG for 22.5 PPG) Barkley was Way More an Efficiency Scorer

Malone had Slight Edge on DRT but Prime Barkley...Excelled at ORT, OWS and WS before his inuries of 1995 over Malone

My ideas as to why Malone's peak is considered worse/ why Malone is generally underrated when these two are compared:

Malone shot over 50% for only 2 Play-Off Runs for his Whole Career. Thats Very Low for a PF.

-Barkley was a Way Better Player All Round Game Wise than Malone: Including High Efficiency Scoring Under Tight Situations in the Play-Offs, Recieving More Double Teams and Defensive Rotations On Him, Zone Buster,Rebounding, Creating and Assiting, Floor Defense, Stealing and Shot Blocking

1) He was less spectacular, played in a poor media market for national recognition, and was less charismatic.

Barkley was hated more than Malone in the 80s and Early 90s

- Just look at the problems he had with the REFs, The Media, The Offcourt Incidents. Malone was never seen as good as Barkley from 1985 to 1995 by Any None that Studied the Game

2) Barkley's Peak came sooner so we thought of him of as an elite player for longer and looked at Malone as in his shadow and not at his level.

[B]Barkley