Fans are starting to realize 81 points is a record...

[9erempiree]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.

[PickernRoller]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.

62 in three quarters was more impressive. The hypotheticals for the 4th quarter of that game had he played are endless. For some odd reason both teams included PF's with rings, Bosh and Dirk.

[Scoooter]

Not really.

19 points shy of the record is still exceedingly impressive.

[swag2011]

people don't think it's a record or are impressed by it because its Kobe. that's all.

but i agree with the guy above. 62 in 3 quarters was more impressive. Even more so because dallas had 61

[9erempiree]

Here are my "Most Point Scored in a scored in a game" and these are the records:

Kobe - 81 points

David Robinson - 71 points

Michael Jordan - 69 points

Kobe - 65 points

MJ - 64 points

[Scoooter]

You forgot Wilt's.

[9erempiree]

You forgot Wilt's.

:facepalm

If you read the thread, you would know why.

[ispin69]

Too busy nut huggin kobe to remember the top record.

[9erempiree]

:facepalm
Too busy nut huggin kobe to remember the top record.

[Scoooter]

:facepalm

If you read the thread, you would know why.
http://blog.stagaustin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/wilt100.jpg

[RazorBaLade]

62 in three quarters was more impressive. The hypotheticals for the 4th quarter of that game had he played are endless. For some odd reason both teams included PF's with rings, Bosh and Dirk.

Not really that endless.

He would have put up between 85 and 95 points. 100 was very unlikely to happen.

[jlip]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.

@ bolded part...So what you are telling me is that there are going to be no more rule changes in the NBA. Okaaaay...

[9erempiree]

@ bolded part...So what you are telling me is that there are going to be no more rule changes in the NBA. Okaaaay...

Pretty much finalized because I don't count tweaks any major changes.

The game was basically changed almost in it's entirety in regards to rules and what is illegal today and adopted by the world.

[KyrieTheFuture]

This is obviously just an attempt to give Kobe the record. Why can't we just be satisfied with what he's done? It was absolutely incredible we don't need to discount other things to make it even more so.

[Deuce Bigalow]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

[9erempiree]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

It's not so much the size of Wilt's opponents it was during a time when cherry picking and standing under the basket was ok.

Basketball in it's infancy.

[amfirst]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:


:applause:

[Scholar]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.

Stopped reading after reading that bolded part. "all rules ... finalized."

:biggums:

[Legends66NBA7]

1979-80 was the start of the "modern era".

[Living Being]

Lin would easily hit 100 if he played a full 48 minute game like Kobe or Wilt. What they did is not impressive, really. They also relied on their athleticism and were way too arrogant to be considered "good" in terms of record-breaking achievements.

[Asukal]

OMG!!!! OP you are a genius! I always thought 81 points was a common thing. :eek:

[Story Up]

Just picture Kobe playing against centers who were raja bell's size, he'd obliterate Wilt's 100.

[Nezty]

I don't know. As fast as the game was back than it's still impressive a Center getting 100 points without shooting threes and being a bad free throw shooter.

[Living Being]

I don't know. As fast as the game was back than it's still impressive a Center getting 100 points without shooting threes and being a bad free throw shooter.
Banned.

[Nezty]

Banned.


Wow, Lol, Now in days it's a sin to state opinions, Pathetic.

[Living Being]

Wow, Lol, Now in days it's a sin to state opinions, Pathetic.
No, not a sin. You just stated your true opinion in a thread full of sarcasm and trolling. If you want to defend Wilt and have a quality discussion, I suggest starting a new thread about it. :banana:

[Nezty]

The arguemant can go either way really, You can say Wilt was too big a dude for the Centers and a faster pace game, But you can say Kobe dropped those points knocking down 3's against a weak team. And I'm a Kobe fan and Wilt fan even though I never watched him play BTW.

[Halcon]

Lisa Leslie scored 100 points in a half in "modern" Basketball... G.O.A.T.

[Round Mound]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

Is It Also a Joke that a 6`4 3/4 Overweight and 33-36 Year Old Man Outplayed a Young Athletic Peek Duncan in The Late 90s?

Height is Not Everything :no:

Lets Remember that As Far as Rebounding Championships There Are More Players In the 6`4-6`11 ft Range than 7`0 ft Plus range that Have Won Them

[Deuce Bigalow]

Is It Also a Joke that a 6`4 3/4 Overweight and 33-36 Year Old Man Outplayed Duncan in the Early 2000s?

Height is Not Everything

Lets Remember that As Far as Rebounding Championships There Are More Players In the 6`4-6`11 ft Range than 7`0 ft Plus range that Have Won Them
Chuck is 6'6" - 6'7"

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/barkleyc.jpg

[I<3NBA]

da fuq? ofc 81 points is a record you dumbass. it's in the record books. right below Wilt's.

[LAClipsFan33]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

Darral Imhoff

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/img/lakers/bio_photos/darral_imnoff.jpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/imhofda01.html

6'10" measured barefoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-kLorJbWhY

Imhoff speaks on how the backup center was 6'8"...also that Wilt beasted him and forced him to foul four times almost immediately

[DKLaker]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

It was the backup center at that :oldlol:

I was at the 81 point game, Kobe had 25 at the half and the Lakers were losing. I told my friend that Kobe would have to score at least 50 to win the game.......I had no freaking clue what was about to happen.

[DaHeezy]

@ bolded part...So what you are telling me is that there are going to be no more rule changes in the NBA. Okaaaay...

Obviously not, but it's pretty irrelevant to his point.

[swi7ch]

ISH

Where 81 points is better than 100 points. :facepalm

[leopoldstotch]

where is jlauber to put this fool in his place? :lol

[Linspired]

Chuck is 6'6" - 6'7"

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/barkleyc.jpg


lol you are an idiot. he is standing in front and he is wearing shoes

[Pushxx]

All I hear in this thread is "Wilt scored 100 points but let's pretend he didn't."

Are people high?

Records don't change just because time passes. Roger Maris' 61 home runs wasn't randomly disregarded after decades. And if anything, baseball changed a hell of a lot more than basketball...

[lock]

It was my understanding Wilt's 100 points was a result of the other team fouling and boosting him/allowing him to score for the purpose to set that record, that's why I never give it as much credit.

[Halcon]

MLB actually wanted to put an asterisk next to Maris' record. lol

[I LUV KOBE]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.
:applause:

If GAWDBe play in Wilt era he will score 200 points easily and fouled out every opposing player...

[TheAnchorman]

It was my understanding Wilt's 100 points was a result of the other team fouling and boosting him/allowing him to score for the purpose to set that record, that's why I never give it as much credit.
This. The way he got those last 30 points sometime in the 4th quarter was pretty sketchy too... it was a blowout, your team was feeding you the ball everytime, and apparently Wilt would just stand around under the other teams basket, just waiting for the ball to be given to him so he can just dunk it or lay it in. In addition the Warriors intentioanlly put in bench players around Chamberlain during the 4th quarter, with the sole purpose of fouling the Knicks so that they coudl get the ball back to Chamberlain as soon as possible. Not exactly basketball the way its meant tob e played.

Technically still the record, but I find Kobe's 81 more impressive.

[AlonzoGOAT]

This. The way he got those last 30 points sometime in the 4th quarter was pretty sketchy too... it was a blowout, your team was feeding you the ball everytime, and apparently Wilt would just stand around under the other teams basket, just waiting for the ball to be given to him so he can just dunk it or lay it in. In addition the Warriors intentioanlly put in bench players around Chamberlain during the 4th quarter, with the sole purpose of fouling the Knicks so that they coudl get the ball back to Chamberlain as soon as possible. Not exactly basketball the way its meant tob e played.

Technically still the record, but I find Kobe's 81 more impressive.

That's because the knicks were purposely fouling the warriors except for their center and drove ball as slow as they could to deny Wilt getting his record. The game also didn't end in a blowout.

Either 100>81 But they're way better game then these 2 regular season games against scrubs.

[BlueandGold]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:
Yep this, plus wilt was practically the entire team for the Sixers at that point. If you look at how many FG's he attempted per game it was like 60-80% of the team's entire FG attempts. Not to mention the average size of the NBA players was a couple of whole inches shorter, also players were obviously not as quick and athletic as they are today.

Plus kobe's 81 point game was entirely televised and recorded while people have to go on eye-witnesses testimony and accounts to remember Wilt's game. The fact that Kobe was playing in front of a couple of million viewers vs Wilt playing to a couple of thousand people at an arena has a lot to do with it as well.

[SyRyanYang]

This is obviously just an attempt to give Kobe the record. Why can't we just be satisfied with what he's done? It was absolutely incredible we don't need to discount other things to make it even more so.
Good point. OP always makes awful thread:facepalm

[SyRyanYang]

ISH

Where 81 points is better than 100 points. :facepalm
It's obviously better:facepalm
But then again, a record is a record

[TOUCH MY BODY]

Black Mamba :bowdown:

[DKLaker]

:applause:

If GAWDBe play in Wilt era he will score 200 points easily and fouled out every opposing player...

Nah, the other team would forfeit after Kobe broke all their ankles :oldlol: :rockon:

[Cali Syndicate]

Pretty much finalized because I don't count tweaks any major changes.

The game was basically changed almost in it's entirety in regards to rules and what is illegal today and adopted by the world.

Many of the rules changes were because Wilt dominated so much.

[The Iron Fist]

ISH

Where 81 points is better than 100 points. :facepalm
Is that like when you clowns claim 1>>5?

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

strange thread.
100 is the record.
81 is just INSANE

[williams012]

The record is Wilts 100, and it should stay that until someone breaks it.

Now if you want to discuss whether the 81 points was better/harder to do/more important then do that. But don't try to change what the highest scored really was by saying "well, NBA was shit back then so the record is now 81".

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

ISH, "Kobe, some here have come to the conclusion that your 81 is the record".

Kobe: "what?"

ISH: "Yep, your 81 is the record"

Kobe: "What the fcuk are you talking about man?"

ISH: "81"

Kobe: ":facepalm "

[Math2]

:facepalm

If you read the thread, you would know why.

Yep, it's because you think that Kobe could score more points than Wilt. either that or you are just retarded :lol

Can we really stop making stupid threads like this?

[Psileas]

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points...

Is there anything more that needs to be said about the OP? :oldlol:

[BoutPractice]

So let me get this straight. Just because you don't like the reality that someone once scored 100 points in an NBA game, you choose to ignore it and pretend that 81 is the actual record? How exactly does that work?

[TheMan]

Kobetards are really something else:facepalm

[G.O.A.T]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

This alone will show why you're wrong.

Modern basketball is relative to the modern day. In 50 years, 2007 won't be the modern era.

The rules aren't finalized ever. They are constantly evolving.

If you're not going to count what Wilt did, then you have to accept that eventually what Kobe did won't count either.

[9erempiree]

So let me get this straight. Just because you don't like the reality that someone once scored 100 points in an NBA game, you choose to ignore it and pretend that 81 is the actual record? How exactly does that work?

I acknowledge anything above 1978 as modern basketball.

Heck, basketball reference only acknowledges 1985 and up.

They don't even recognize Wilt.

:cheers:

[AlphaWolf24]

Kobetards are really something else:facepalm


Haters are a Joke...not 1 person even saw Chamberlain score 100 points...

nearly everyone here saw Kobe drop 81 and 62..


that's the problem....you have many people here talking about players/Games/rankings ...but they never even watched the players/games :roll:


Wilt has 100 points

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2963000/AlphaWolf-2963314_1611_930.jpg

is it the record?...sure..

was it better then Kobe?...doubt it.

[9erempiree]

Like myself, Basketball Reference doesn't even mention Wilt in points in a single game.

What are my name callers and haters going to say next? :confusedshrug:

[stallionaire]

Wilt is the leader.

[Mr. Incredible]

The 81 point game is the art of ball hogging. :applause:

[KyrieTheFuture]

More agendas in here than a middle school

[jlauber]

Like myself, Basketball Reference doesn't even mention Wilt in points in a single game.

What are my name callers and haters going to say next? :confusedshrug:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203020NYK.html

[Johnni Gade]

A record is a record.

[Nick Young]

lettuce face reality, Kobe is the GOAT perimeter scorer of ALL TIME

[NumberSix]

I'm pretty sure that 100 > 81, but i'm not any kind of math expert or anything.

[jlauber]

in "modern" basketball. When all rules are finalized. I know most people want to say that Wilt's 100 is a record but not in Modern basketball.

When Wilt supposedly scored this many points it was a time when basketball was in it's infancy. Over the course of decades the game has been tweaked and rules have been implemented to create fair play.

Since 1978 and beyond is when the game of basketball was very similar to what it is today. The rules of past is no good in today's league. Therefore, many have accepted 81 points as the official scoring record in "modern" basketball.

Where to begin...

1. "Modern basketball?" So you are saying that the game became "modern in '78?" Interesting. Kareem had greater seasons BEFORE and AFTER that 77-78 season. The best players in the league in 77-78? Bill Walton, who had been around since 74-75, and had his greatest season just the year before, was the league MVP. George Gervin, who would win four scoring titles from '78 on, actually had worse seasons BEFORE '78. In fact, players like Moses Malone became dominant FROM '78 on. How come those players weren't blowing up the "pre-historic NBA?" The FACTS were, there were great players, playing great, before, during, and after that 77-78 season. And there was no significant increase, or decrease, in statistical breakdowns just prior to the '78 season, or immediately after it. The bottom line...the game was no different before '78.

2. "Modern basketball?" James Naismith invented the game in the 1890's. By the end of the turn of the century, colleges were playing the game. By the 1920's there were PROFESSIONAL teams traveling the country. The NBA was formed in 1946.

Furthermore, aside from the advent of the 24 second clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot in the late 70's, the game is basically played the same way as it was in the early 1900's. And with the same court dimensions, same hoop size, same number of players, and roughly the same ball. True, there have been "tweaks" to the game, like offensive and defensive goal-tending (which were already in existence BEFORE Wilt came into the NBA BTW), the widening of the lane (which had absolutely NO EFFECT on Chamberlain's offense), and other's, but here again, those were MINOR tweaks.

Black players were playing in the NBA in the 50's. By the mid-60's, the NBA was becoming largely Black.

So, NO, Chamberlain was not scoring 100 points in game in an NBA in it's "infancy."


But let's continue...

True, Kobe's 81 point game, came in an NBA that was scoring at SLIGHTLY less than when Chamberlain scored 100 pts in '62. The NBA averaged 97.0 ppg in '06, and 118.8 in '62. Or guess what? 81% of the league that Wilt played in.

Kobe scored 81 points on 46 shots from the floor. Wilt scored 100 on 63 shots. Had Kobe taken 63 shots, he may very well have scored somewhere around 100 points. It would have been close, though. On 63 shots, he would have gone 37-63. 7 of those were from the 3pt line...so you could probably add another 2 more points from the arc (making 9 3pters).That would be 83. Add in his 18 FTs, and he would have been at 101

So there is an argument to at least compare Kobe's 81 with Wilt's 100. And, there have been MANY who have TRIED to come up with "had so-and-so" taken so many shots, he might have scored 100, too. However, even Jordan admitted after his 69 point game, that Wilt's 100 was safe. And, while other players like Bird and Shaq posted 60 and 61 point games, they came in just as "uncompetitive" a game as Wilt's 100. Bird was being cheered on by his opposing players. And Shaq played 45 minutes in a blowout win over the lowly Clippers, who had three different clowns trying to guard him in that game. Robinson shot 26-41 in his 71 point game, against a team that had long since packed in the season (once again...the Clippers.)

IMHO, there was truly only ONE player who could have challenged Wilt's 100 point game, and yet, his name is never mentioned. WILT, himself COULD have made a run at that 100 point game.

Think about this...there have been 10 70+ point games scored in NBA history, and Chamberlain has SIX of them. In fact, no other player ever had more than ONE.

In the HISTORY of the NBA, there have been 62 60+ point games. Wilt had more HIMSELF, than the entire list of ALL of the other NBA players who have ever played the game...COMBINED (32-30.) Not only that, but there have been SIX 60+ games in NBA history, in which the player shot over .700 from the field. Chamberlain has FOUR of them, including the HIGHEST FG% in a 60+ point game, in NBA HISTORY.

So, if we are going to look into "hypotheticals" with Bryant getting 63 shots instead of 46, to MAYBE score 100...how about Chamberlain in some of his 60+ point games? He had a 73 point game (one of two BTW), in which he scored 73 points on 29-43 shooting. Had he made the same number of FTs in that game, and taken 63 shots, on the same efficiency, he would have gone 42-63, and 15-19 from the line...or 99 points.

And how about his LAST 60+ game. He shot an unfathomable 29-35 from the floor (and 8-18 from the line.) At the same efficiency, and taking 63 shots, Wilt would have gone 52-63 from the floor (actually 52.2.) That would have been 104 points, just from the field. Add in his 8 points from the line, and that game would have projected at 112.

The problem with HYPOTHETICALS though, is that, they are just that HYPOTHETICAL. How do we know if Kobe could have sustained that rate? We KNOW that Chamberlain did in his 100 point game. And, how do we know if the Raptors would have continued to let Kobe shoot. They might have pulled exactly what Wilt's opposing team did in the 100 point game. They might have run the shot-clock down, and then fouled Kobe's teammates.

Those that believe that the Knicks just "let" Chamberlain score 100 points had better check on their history. The Knicks did everything in their power to PREVENT Wilt from hitting that mark.

And, as for Wilt's opposing center(s)...Darrall Imhoff started, and quickly picked up four fouls, but Wilt had scored 23 points on him in that first period. BTW, Imhoff was a career journeyman STARTER in his NBA career. He was at least a decent center. He was also 6-10...and would be a full 6-11 by today's measuring system. As for his backups, it must be mentioned that Wilt, as usual, was SWARMED in that game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain's_100-point_game


Darrall Imhoff later even stated, "He literally stuffed us through the hoop with the ball. It didn't even help when we quintuple-teamed him."[citation needed] Chamberlain now realized he could break his own 73-point scoring record (for a 48-minute game) or his record 78 points, set in triple overtime.[41]



A couple of other points. There have been those that have disparaged Wilt's 100 point game based on "pace" or "competition."

If "everyone" was scoring so much in the Wilt-era (which ran from '59-60 thru '72-73)...how come, aside from Wilt, the next highest scoring game was Elgin Baylor's 71? How come that, aside from Wilt's 32 games, there were only a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games scored in the 14 seasons in which Wilt played (Baylor with four, and West with one?)

And I always mention this. Kareem played FOUR seasons IN the Chamberlain era, and from '69-70 thru '72-73. In Wilt's 68-69 season, and just a year before Kareem arrived, Chamberlain hung TWO 60+ games. Kareem faced BOTH of those centers in his career, and never came close to a 60 point game (his career HIGH was "only" 55.) In fact, Kareem faced Imhoff on multiple occasions. Where was Kareem's 100 point game? Kareem faced several of the same centers that a PRIME Chamberlain just murdered, and never approached the massive games that Wilt bombed them with.


Think about this. In the so-called "Modern era", from '78 on, there have been 21 60+ point games, and yet, aside from Wilt, only FIVE in the Chamberlain era. I know, I know...more teams, and more players...but how come 21 60+ point games were scored in the "fair" era, and in a supposedly tougher defensive era, and with a slightly lower "pace?"

"Competition?" Kobe scoring 81 points against the hapless Raptors. How about Chamberlain having FOUR games of 60+ just against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (who would be listed at 7-0 today)...including a HIGH game of 73 points, on 29-48 shooting, and with 36 rebounds? Or Wilt hanging a 62 point game on Russell (on 27-45 shooting?) Or Wilt pounding 6-11 Leroy Ellis with several 60+ games, including a 72 point game? Or pouring a 58 point game on HOFer Willis Reed? Or a 45 point game on Nate Thurmond? Kareem faced all of those guys, except Russell, (and all were nearing the ends of their career's), and never sniffed those games. Yet, a 38-39 Kareem, playing in the mid-80's, and covering ten straight games, could average 32 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem, with three games of 40+ (and a high of 46, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) And in the same week that he dumped 46 on Hakeem, he outscored Ewing, 40-9 (outshooting Patrick 15-22 to 3-17.)

The bottom line, though, is that Kobe's 81 isn't even CLOSE to Wilt's 100. And, the VAST MAJORITY of people DO recognize Wilt's 100 as the record. In fact, it wis probably the most recognizable single stat in major professional team sport's history.

[9erempiree]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203020NYK.html

They recognize the game played and that it may have happened but as far as we know it, there isn't a video on this.

Also, basketball referenced did recognize the highest points in a game....they pretty much agree with me as I do with them.

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

[9erempiree]

Also, here is an interesting quotes about Wilt:

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who never played basketball. He pointed to statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability...I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments." -Bill Bradley

"I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game he doesn't want the ball. He doesn't want any part of the pressure." -Rick Barry

[SuperPippen]

Also, here is an interesting quotes about Wilt:

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who never played basketball. He pointed to statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability...I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments." -Bill Bradley

"I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game he doesn't want the ball. He doesn't want any part of the pressure." -Rick Barry


You really want to get into hating on Wilt Chamberlain, when you're an incredibly biased and obsessed stan of Kobe Bryant, one of the most polarizing players ever?

:facepalm

I'm really hoping that your third ban comes soon.

[Mach_3]

lol you are an idiot. he is standing in front and he is wearing shoes

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[PHILA]

100
Competitive Fire - Michael Clarkson (1999)


Athlete - Wilt Chamberlain

Event - March 2, 1962 (NBA Game)

Angry at opponents for saying he was too slow and lacked stamina. Scored a record 100 points.

[monkeypox]

Wilt's actually lucky there's no film of the 100pt game. Otherwise people would realize what a joke of a game it was. He had his teammates fouling the other team just so they could get the ball back without wasting time. It was a circus. Kobe's 81 was at least during a real game.

[ripthekik]

I'm pretty sure that 100 > 81, but i'm not any kind of math expert or anything.
No you're not, we know that :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Psileas]

Wilt's actually lucky there's no film of the 100pt game. Otherwise people would realize what a joke of a game it was. He had his teammates fouling the other team just so they could get the ball back without wasting time. It was a circus. Kobe's 81 was at least during a real game.

...And, of course, you skipped the part when the Knicks started leaving any other player unguarded in order to quarduple and quintuple team Wilt. Or the part when the Knicks started fouling any other player but Wilt, before what you wrote started happening. If anything, Kobe is the lucky one for playing in a less of a circus game, against a team that didn't give a damn how many points he'd score on them (because if they did, they'd care to at least come close to doing against Kobe what the Knicks were doing against Wilt).

[Punpun]

...And, of course, you skipped the part when the Knicks started leaving any other player unguarded in order to quarduple and quintuple team Wilt. Or the part when the Knicks started fouling any other player but Wilt, before what you worte stared happening. If anything, Kobe is the lucky one for playing in a less of a circus game, against a team that didn't give a damn how many points he'd score on them (because if they did, they'd care to at least come close to doing against Kobe what the Knicks were doing against Wilt).

Wait, so were they quintupling Wilt or fouling other players ?

:yaohappy:

[Horatio33]

Kobe has benefited from rule changes. No handchecking. Wilt had rules to slow him down. Kobe had rules to help perimeter players.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

...And, of course, you skipped the part when the Knicks started leaving any other player unguarded in order to quarduple and quintuple team Wilt. Or the part when the Knicks started fouling any other player but Wilt, before what you wrote started happening. If anything, Kobe is the lucky one for playing in a less of a circus game, against a team that didn't give a damn how many points he'd score on them (because if they did, they'd care to at least come close to doing against Kobe what the Knicks were doing against Wilt).
Kobe was chucking shots from all over the court. Deep 3s. Just anything.
Wilt was not. He went into the post where they tried to collapse on him.
Its not easy to collapse on a guy shooting 3s. Double him? Yes. But you never triple a guy at the 3. You would be embarrassed when he throws it down to the guy in the paint. Its one thing to triple the post, another to triple a 3....you just dont expect the 3 to go in every fcuking time.

[lilblingy]

yes, imagine if that day he decided, "Im going for the record today." i really believe he could have chucked his way to 100 had he been as aggressive as he was in the 2nd half in the first.

[Psileas]

Kobe was chucking shots from all over the court. Deep 3s. Just anything.
Wilt was not. He went into the post where they tried to collapse on him.
Its not easy to collapse on a guy shooting 3s. Double him? Yes. But you never triple a guy at the 3. You would be embarrassed when he throws it down to the guy in the paint. Its one thing to triple the post, another to triple a 3....you just dont expect the 3 to go in every fcuking time.

That's why I said "come close to doing against Kobe what the Knicks were doing against Wilt". It's obviously easier to throw multiple defenders on a big guy (which is why I respect huge scoring games from big men more than I do from small men), but what's interesting is that the Raptors never changed their defensive tactics against him regardless of how hot he was getting, regardless of slowly getting to lose a game they could win and regardless of the types of shots he was taking. Even many of his 3 point shots were definitely not results of him running the court and chucking the shot with no chance from the opposing team to double him, he took some of them in 5 vs 5 situations, when he was much more "double-able". And then he still took 31 2 pointers, with most of them being mid range shots while guarded by a single player or easy, pretty uncontested drives or some drives when the opposing defense would initially start moving towards him and then end up just standing there and doing nothing but watch him shoot (for example, see points #60-61 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ptwYqwYAQ). They just never seemed to care to stop him from humiliating them.

By the way, Wilt reportedly did take some shots from non-center distance in that game, although it hasn't been mentioned whether he made them or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he did, seeing how he was hitting 28-32 from the line.



yes, imagine if that day he decided, "Im going for the record today." i really believe he could have chucked his way to 100 had he been as aggressive as he was in the 2nd half in the first.

That's purely speculative though. You can't say you're going for the record when you have 14 points by the end of the 1st quarter and 26 by the end of halftime, which you've done multiple times in the past and you've broken the 60 point barrier only once up to then (not to mention that you will get benched for a few minutes, as well). Wilt himself definitely wasn't thinking about 100 by the end of his own game's halftime, when he had 41, since there had been other halves when he'd have 30-35 points and still not get close or even break his own record. Getting to around 70 and maybe challenge his own record would be much more realistic. If Wilt had entered the game with the same mentality you mention, he could have scored more than 100 points himself.

[ProfessorMurder]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

1st string center was 6'10, 2nd string 6'9, then 6'6" 3rd string. You're a dumb piece of shit.

[jlauber]

1st string center was 6'10, 2nd string 6'9, then 6'6" 3rd string. You're a dumb piece of shit.

And you add at least an inch using today's measuring methods.

And, has already been pointed out, it was not ONE man attempting to defend Chamberlain, but as was almost always the case early in his career (and in fact throughout his career), he was being swarmed.

The REALITY was, Chamberlain had very few games in his 1200+ games in which he was primarily defended by someone that was 6-6. I am not sure of Unseld's exact height, because he was listed at 6-8 in college, and 6-7 in the his NBA career, but I have read some articles claiming he was 6-67. In any case, he was around 250 lbs for much of his career, and, of course, he had a HOF career, which included being the only other player besides Chamberlain, to win ROY and MVP in the same season (and BTW, Chamberlain dominated him in their H2H's that season.)

And to add to that, Shaq was defended by the 6-7 Ben Wallace in a considerable amount of games. By most accounts, the 6-8 Rodman did a good job on him. I have read where the 6-9 Brian Grant gave him some trouble. And I believe that he was even defended (later in his career) by the 6-6 Chuck Hayes who was Houston's starting center for a number of games.

And none of that is any attempt to knock Shaq. He still put up a huge Finals against Wallace (as well as being doubled for much of that series.) But for those that attempt to disparage what Chamberlain accomplished, they need a dose of reality.

And, as I have mentioned many times, Chamberlain faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post season games, and a multiple all-star starting center in another 26. So, in 131 of his 160 he faced a very good, to great, starting center.

Finally, by the end of Wilt's career, when he had no interest in scoring, he was still dominating defensively, winning rebound titles, and shooting mind-boggling percentages from the floor. In his last two seasons, and in 10 H2H games, (and once again, in seasons in which he hardly shot the ball), he averaged 24.5 ppg on, get this... .750 shooting, against the 6-11 260 lb. Bob Lanier.

Here was a 35-36 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee,coming in third and 4th in the MVP balloting; outplaying a prime Kareem in two straight playoff series; and winning a FMVP...in leagues that had centers like Reed, Bellamy, Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Lanier, McAdoo, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem.

Only uneducated idiots like Dunce would make these ridiculous claims that Wilt was facing 6-6 centers.

[jlauber]

Of course, when it comes to records, there are the "ESPN" records, and then the ACTUAL records.

A few years ago Kobe went on a tear, in which he had nine straight games of 40+ points (averaging 44 ppg over that span.) It was hailed as the record at the time. Except, it wasn't even close to the REAL record. Wilt had TWO separate streaks of 14 straight games of 40+ points, (and he averaged 53 and 54 ppg in those two streaks BTW), as well as another separate streak of ten.

Then a couple of years ago Durant went on a scoring streak of something like 30 straight games of 25+ points. ESPN then came out and reported that Durant was approaching MJ's record of 40 (I believe it was something like 40.) EXCEPT...Chamberlain had ONE separate streak of 126 straight games (covering much of two seasons), and ANOTHER separate streak of 92 (again, covering two seasons.)

So the next time you are watching an NBA game, and the announcer brings up a screen which shows some record is about to be broken, keep in mind that the ACTUAL record is probably REALLY held by Wilt. And not only that, but he is probably LIGHT YEARS ahead of that so-called "record."

[eliteballer]

That 100 point game came before they widened the lane among a million other rule changes. Wilt was never the same once they widened the lane.

[9erempiree]

That 100 point game came before they widened the lane among a million other rule changes. Wilt was never the same once they widened the lane.

that's why Kobe's 81 is the record when basketball was finalized to what it practically is now.

[jlauber]

That 100 point game came before they widened the lane among a million other rule changes. Wilt was never the same once they widened the lane.

Another fallacy. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the '64-65 season. The year before that, Chamberlain had averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. Well, at mid-season, and just before Wilt was traded in that 64-65 season, he was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He went to a better team, and cut back his shooting, and wound up at 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. He then would average 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 shooting (in a league that shot .433) in 65-66. And the very next season? 24.1 ppg on an unfathomable .683 shooting.

BTW, Chamberlain had SIX games of 60+ AFTER the NBA widened the lane, which is more than MJ had in his entire 15 season career, and Kobe has had in his 16 season career. And the reality was, Wilt could have had a TON more. Even as late as his tenth season, at age 32, he was hanging games of 60 and 66. And that 66 point game came on 29-35 shooting, or an .829 FG%, which is the all-time record for a 60+ point game.

[9erempiree]

Another fallacy. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the '64-65 season. The year before that, Chamberlain had averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. Well, at mid-season, and just before Wilt was traded in that 64-65 season, he was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He went to a better team, and cut back his shooting, and wound up at 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. He then would average 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 shooting (in a league that shot .433) in 65-66. And the very next season? 24.1 ppg on an unfathomable .683 shooting.

BTW, Chamberlain had SIX games of 60+ AFTER the NBA widened the lane, which is more than MJ had in his entire 15 season career, and Kobe has had in his 16 season career. And the reality was, Wilt could have had a TON more. Even as late as his tenth season, at age 32, he was hanging games of 60 and 66. And that 66 point game came on 29-35 shooting, or an .829 FG%, which is the all-time record for a 60+ point game.

I can only imagine what Shaq would do in a time when basketball was in it's infancy and the wrinkles were being ironed out.

He would be putting up 60 and 30

[Myth]

So if we get to ignore Wilt's existence, does that mean in 30 years or so I can pretend that nothing Kobe did counts? :banana:

[jlauber]

I can only imagine what Shaq would do in a time when basketball was in it's infancy and the wrinkles were being ironed out.

He would be putting up 60 and 30

Infancy? The game was invented in the 1890's. And aside from the shot clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot in the late 70's, it has been essentially the SAME game that has been played over the course of a 100+ years.

And, as for Shaq, I suspect that he would have had to dramatically adjust his game back in Wilt's era.

There was simply no way the NBA would have allowed him to do this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

He would have fouled out on those possessions alone.

AND, has Wilt been allowed to do that, well...he could have single-handedly won every game, and would have averaged 100 ppg.

[M.Bustly15A5RU8]

if Wilt Chamberlain played today he would get the same benefits from nutritional and technological advancements as players today and he would be the best physical specimen and by far the best player in the league

[Nick Young]

they need to write wilts 100 out of the record books or asterix that shit with a big fat asterix that says "achieved in a weak era"

[DKLaker]

they need to write wilts 100 out of the record books or asterix that shit with a big fat asterix that says "achieved in a weak era"

I'm not in favor of that.......but it was horribly weak and NOT in the modern era.

On that note, Lisa Leslie scored 101 in a HALF in high school..........the other team snuck out of the gym at halftime and never came back. True

[magictricked]

I'm not in favor of that.......but it was horribly weak and NOT in the modern era.

On that note, Lisa Leslie scored 101 in a HALF in high school..........the other team snuck out of the gym at halftime and never came back. TrueThey forfeited the game at half time because they only had 4 players total due to injury

[TheBigVeto]

Sorry, Wilt Chokedagain is the record holder here, not Kobrick Cryant.

[DKLaker]

They forfeited the game at half time because they only had 4 players total due to injury

Yeah, sure injury..........as in HURT FEELINGS :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Nice lie they told to keep from getting banned for the remainder of the season and to keep the coach's job :oldlol:

[DKLaker]

Lets be REALLY HONEST here.......the NBA had only 9 teams when Wilt scored 100 :oldlol: To call that the Modern Era is a freaking joke x1000000
Of those 9, only 5 are still the same Boston, Lakers, Pistons, Knicks.......SF Warriors.
And those help defenders weighed as much as Wilt's legs and couldn't jump as high as his head :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not to bash the greatness of Wilt......he was GREAT!!!, BUT.....we have to be honest here.

[jlauber]

Lets be REALLY HONEST here.......the NBA had only 9 teams when Wilt scored 100 :oldlol: To call that the Modern Era is a freaking joke x1000000
And those help defenders weighed as much as Wilt's legs and couldn't jump as high as his head :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not to bash the greatness of Wilt......he was GREAT!!!, BUT.....we have to be honest here.

Please name the three clowns that Shaq scored his career high 61 point game against.

[BabyBull]

Sorry, Wilt Chokedagain is the record holder here, not Kobrick Cryant.
are you like 6 years old or something ?

there has to be more creative ways to bash players than that.

[DKLaker]

Please name the three clowns that Shaq scored his career high 61 point game against.

Sure.....Bigger, Stronger and More Athletic players.......NEXT.....:roll:

[Eat Like A Bosh]

The pace of the game in the 60s was far faster than was Kobe was playing with in 2006. Wilt had more possessions in the up-and-down game. There were 316 combined points in that game.

Then you have to consider that Chamberlain's points came easier. He was a post player that could be fed the ball and overwhelm his opponents. Kobe is a perimeter player that had to handle it and score by creating his own shot off the dribble for the most part. Chamberlain simply overpowered everyone. It's like a college kid dominating middle school kids. Kinda like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4-CThQskBM

It was a close game early on, but despite facing the Toronto Raptors, the Lakers were down 71-53 at one point. Remember the 06 Lakers? They were shit. In the end Kobe pretty much single handily beat the Raps on his own.

In terms of pure dominance, Wilt's game was better. Considering the position of each player and the era, Kobe's game was more impressive than Wilt's. Maybe not as dominating, but the degree of difficulty just makes it more impressive. 81 points on mostly jump shots? Not to mention Kobe took 17 less shots, 12 less free throws, and only fell 19 short of Wilt's record. Not bad at all.

Record or not, 81 points is an impressive feat and will definitely be one of the most memorable moments of his career,

[jlauber]

Sure.....Bigger, Stronger and More Athletic players.......NEXT.....:roll:

The great clod Olowakandi, then 6-10 Piatkowsky, and then even the 6-7 Chilcutt. That is a list for the ages...

[LAClipsFan33]

Sure.....Bigger, Stronger and More Athletic players.......NEXT.....:roll:

Michael Olowokandi (One of the worst centers ever)

Pete Chillcutt (Who ?)

Yeah really great players

The guy Wilt scored most of his 100 on Daryl Imhoff was a more respected player than these two

[jlauber]

Michael Olowokandi (One of the worst centers ever)

Pete Chillcutt (Who ?)

Yeah really great players

The guy Wilt scored most of his 100 on Daryl Imhoff was a more respected player than these two

And to echo this...

Chamberlain had a 73 point, 36 rebound game against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, who would have been listed at 7-0 in today's NBA.

[LAClipsFan33]

And to echo this...

Chamberlain had a 73 point, 36 rebound game against the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, who would have been listed at 7-0 in today's NBA.

36 rebounds to me is just as impressive as 70 points. Getting over 30 rebounds is hard as hell

[jlauber]

36 rebounds to me is just as impressive as 70 points. Getting over 30 rebounds is hard as hell

Chamberlain had 17 40-30 games (or 30-40 games) just against Russell, including a 34-55 game, and a 44-43 game.

In fact, Chamberlain had more 40-30 games, just against Russell (17), than all of the rest of the NBA had in it's history...COMBINED (9.) BTW, Wilt had 73 of them.

[KOBE143]

Chamberlain had 17 40-30 games (or 30-40 games) just against Russell, including a 34-55 game, and a 44-43 game.

In fact, Chamberlain had more 40-30 games, just against Russell (17), than all of the rest of the NBA had in it's history...COMBINED (9.) BTW, Wilt had 73 of them.
81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

[raptorfan_dr07]

81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81

[PyrrhusX]

81 points >>>>> all Wilt The Choker stats combined..

Wilt > Kobe.:bowdown:

Kobe stans still mad :confusedshrug:

[KOBE143]

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81
Sorry, Kobe embarrassed your franchise.. :oldlol:

[jlauber]

Yet the majority of sane, knowledgeable basketball fans rank Wilt higher than Kobe all time. Only people that throw out the "weak era", "midget white guys" BS are Kobe trolls, the dumbest collection of morons on the the internet. Kinda sad, seeing as how Wilt was a Laker and brought the franchise it's first ring in Los Angeles.

Oh and by the way, 100>>>81


Only on ISH will you find that huge a margin being argued...

[Droid101]

Only on ISH will you find that huge a margin being argued...
Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.


It seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.

But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior. Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:



Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.
Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.

Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.

Bryant needed fewer minutes. If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.

The game was different. Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.

Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.

If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points. And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.

Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.

So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.

[LuppersGB]

In Wilt's 100 point game, a 6'6" center was guarding him.
That is like Kobe guarding Shaq in the post. It's a joke of an era. 6'6" - 6'8" centers :oldlol:

I guess we can discredit Yao Ming's whole career then. Or was having a 6inch advantage because we're in a weak era or 7" Centres:facepalm

[Nick Young]

I guess we can discredit Yao Ming's whole career then. Or was having a 6inch advantage because we're in a weak era or 7" Centres:facepalm

Different situation sport, and you know it.

Giant 7'5 centers traditionally have struggled with fitness and athleticism and never had an inherant advantage over 7'0 centers. George Muresan and Shawn Bradley were scrubs. Yao Ming is the only 7'4+ center I can think of who was any good.

A center at 6'6 is WNBA size today. 7 footer playing against 6'6 scrubs is ridiculous, and even with his height advantage, it took wilt 100 freethrows to get his 100 points.

[Psileas]

Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.


It seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper.

But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior.Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts:



Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.
Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent.

Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.

Bryant needed fewer minutes.If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.

The game was different.Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did.

Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.

If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points.And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game.

Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.

So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.

Any measurable figure? The article you posted has clearly no intention of giving an unbiased look to the comparison, so let's quickly counter what has been written:

-There was no 3-point shot in Wilt's era. So, if we want to pretend that we can inflate the numbers in Kobe's league/game to catch the numbers of Wilt's league/game, let's also stick to the rules of Wilt's league/game. Therefore, it's not the equivalent of an 81-point game the one that we need to adjust, it's the equivalent of a 74-point one. Which means that, after the adjustment, you'll have to remove about 10 points from Kobe's inflated figure.

-In 2006, it was a blessing to be a perimeter player anyway, thanks to the rules: 35.6 ppg for Kobe, 33 ppg for Iverson, 31 for LeBron, 29.5 for Arenas. There hasn't been a season when so many perimeter players dominated the scoring sector.

-The Knicks actually did care about not getting humiliated after a point. They triple, quardupled, even quintupled Wilt to prevent the ball from reaching his hands. The Raptors didn't give a rat's ass. Kobe had reached 40, 50, 60 points and they still single covered him instead of collapsing on him, they still let him get the ball and shoot whenever the hell he wanted to.

-The Knicks started fouling Wilt's teammates before Wilt's teammates responded the same way (which of course the article failed to mention), thus unnecessarily inflating Wilt's teammates' point total. Another sign they didn't want Wilt to humiliate them.

-Wilt's game involved more possessions, but Kobe took a significantly larger percentage of his team's shots (32% vs 27%, an 18.5% difference or, to put it in the article's terms, a 18.5% inflation of Kobe's scoring). Not to mention that an increase of a game's pace brings down overinflated possessions' percentage, so it's not reasonable to expect that Kobe at Wilt's pace and for 48 minutes would still take 32% of his team's shots (BTW, in Wilt's game, that would translate to Kobe taking 75 shots).

-Kobe's performance would have a better chance of being better if other "unimportant" things like defense or rebounding were not included. Defensively, it was definitely not the best game for either Wilt or Kobe. However, Wilt did grab 25 rebounds to Kobe's 6 (in a game with high FG %'s and less rebounding opportunities than the usual 1962 game), while also giving 2 assists to Kobe's 2. So, it's not 100 vs 81, it's 100/25/2 vs 81/6/2.

So, why didn't the article mention any of these things? At least, I admit that I wrote this as a rebutal. If the article's author is honest about himself, he'll admit his intentions were at least as biased and agenda-driven.

[mentallooser]

Sorry, I love history and all that, but Kobe's 81 was better than Wilt's 100 by any measurable figure.
Except for the measurable figure of basic numbers. You know how 100 > 81 ? If you think that Kobe's 81 point game is better then that is fine. But every measurable figure?

[Nick Young]

If Kobe chucked as many shots as Wilt did in his 100 game, Kobe could have easily reached 120+
Wilt needed
32 Freethrows
63 Field Goal attempts
:facepalm

Kobe only needed 46 field goal attempts and took 20 free throws to get 81.

Imagine if Kobe took 15 more shots and got 12 more freethrows-he would have shattered Wilt's record.

[riseagainst]

If Kobe chucked as many shots as Wilt did in his 100 game, Kobe could have easily reached 120+
Wilt needed
32 Freethrows
63 Field Goal attempts
:facepalm

Kobe only needed 46 free throw attempts and took 20 freethrows to get 91.

Imagine if Kobe took 15 more shots and got 12 more freethrows-he would have shattered Wilt's record.

so many typos in this post...... :wtf:

[magictricked]

[QUOTE]After scoring 28 points in the third quarter, Chamberlain had 69 points for the game, including 21 on 22 free-throw attempts

[Droid101]

Except for the measurable figure of basic numbers. You know how 100 > 81 ? If you think that Kobe's 81 point game is better then that is fine. But every measurable figure?
So Monta Ellis averaging 27 points per game on a run-and-gun (95+ possessions) is better than LeBron James averaging 26 points per game on a slow-it-down offense (83 possessions)?

I'll let you think about that for a while.