Russell And Chamberlain explain to Ahmad Rashad how they would guard Shaq

[jongib369]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdd2biHVlyA&t=4m43s


http://24.media.tumblr.com/1c357ecea0916394f06ba44c12de1102/tumblr_mh5a22pW8q1r10tndo1_500.jpg


Would Bill, Wilt or Nate be able to put Shaq below 50%? Keep in mind Wilt and Thurmond did exactly that to Kareem. Personally don't think its possible but would love to see them go at it.

This is how I would guard Shaq if I was Bill Russell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN8ogQVSrt0

[Suckafree]

What a great interview.

In regards to bill's strategy he outlined, in theory that sounds like a pretty damn smart way to nullify shaqs abilities.

But in saying that, was any team successfuly able to push the ball enough to mitigate shaqs talents?

Another reason why Shaq may have been so dominant is that he hit his prime in basically the slowest and lowest scoring era in NBA history. Not trying to downplay his dominance btw.

[Pushxx]

Great find!

[Breezy]

great find and I think he's exactly right although 60-70 ppg :biggums: Come on Wilt. You're smarter than that.

[Psileas]

Interesting that neither picked Kareem for their top-6 (actually top-8, since they excluded themselves). Both picked Baylor and, also interestingly, Russell left out West, whom he respected a lot, while picking Pettit (or Hakeem).

[jongib369]

great find and I think he's exactly right although 60-70 ppg :biggums: Come on Wilt. You're smarter than that.
If given an insane amount of touches per game with a few other great scoring options he could get around 40-50 TODAY IMO...but just like in his era it WONT win so it wouldn't happen

60s/70s > 90s/00s Centers...And he wouldn't face the top centers of the 90s as much as he did the top centers of the 60s...


This doesn't prove anything but I like pointing it out
WILT

Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Total Games= 452




SHAQ

Duncan - 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219

[jongib369]

Interesting that neither picked Kareem for their top-6 (actually top-8, since they excluded themselves). Both picked Baylor and, also interestingly, Russell left out West, whom he respected a lot, while picking Pettit (or Hakeem).
Yeah I was a little surprised, wish Ahmad would have jumped on that and asked why they weren't including him. Pettit is great but no way in hell was he a better player than Kareem

[jongib369]

*bump because I'm an asshole

[La Frescobaldi]

Yeah I was a little surprised, wish Ahmad would have jumped on that and asked why they weren't including him. Pettit is great but no way in hell was he a better player than Kareem

Their off-the-cuff picks.......

Wilt's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Russell):
Larry Bird, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and he wanted to add Charles Barkley but they wouldn't let him

Russell's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Chamberlain)
Magic, Michael, Larry, Baylor, Oscar, and Olajuwan or Pettit (slid in that 7th guy just like Chamberlain did lol).

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

How can you know Pettit wasn't better? Have you watched him? Can you watch him with an impartial eye, within the days that he played?

Those guys couldn't possibly know, what was not known yet, about basketball. It doesn't mean they had no talent just because you view them 50 years later.

Watching basketball is like watching acting, my friend.
When you grow up watching guys like Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, Sidney Poitier, Cary Grant....... you have no other measure than the measure of their days. How can you say that Val Kilmer, or Harrison Ford, or Brad Pitt, or whoever it is...... is a better actor than those guys were? Yeah sure, it's more 'realistic.' Because acting chops across the board are far better today than they were in the 1960s. That doesn't mean the talent is higher - not at all.

It means the skills are advanced.

In the same way, it's easy to declare "Kyrie Irving would smoke anybody in 1968, he'd average 60 ppg" or whatever.
It makes no sense to say such nonsense. Probably 20% of Kyrie's entire lexicon wasn't even invented yet, and another 30 or 40% of it would be a turnover because he carries the ball every time he dribbles!!
The whole idea of crossover in the 60s was flat out a turnover.

So to come out and say "Bob Pettit was great but no way........." that is placing an anachronism on their game.
It's like putting a clock in a story about Ancient Greece or a car in 14th Century London.

awesome clip!!

[La Frescobaldi]

Interesting that neither picked Kareem for their top-6 (actually top-8, since they excluded themselves). Both picked Baylor and, also interestingly, Russell left out West, whom he respected a lot, while picking Pettit (or Hakeem).

I was surprised, actually, that either one of them selected a Center at all.

That it was Olajuwon was no surprise, though.

I heard Chamberlain several times over the years AFTER he retired, give praise to some centers - very darn few of them. Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, very grudgingly Kareem... and very high praise indeed for the Dream. Of course he always had nice things to say about players, when he was playing.

The highest praise I can remember Wilt give to a center that he didn't play against, was for Shaquille O'Neal, He even said that Shaq may become better than Wilt himself. And I remember hearing that when he said it, because it was in the 90s, it was on the radio, I was driving in heavy traffic, and almost went off the road from shock.
OP that's a nice find.

[DatAsh]

Their off-the-cuff picks.......

Wilt's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Russell):
Larry Bird, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and he wanted to add Charles Barkley but they wouldn't let him

Russell's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Chamberlain)
Magic, Michael, Larry, Baylor, Oscar, and Olajuwan or Pettit (slid in that 7th guy just like Chamberlain did lol).

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

How can you know Pettit wasn't better? Have you watched him? Can you watch him with an impartial eye, within the days that he played?

Those guys couldn't possibly know, what was not known yet, about basketball. It doesn't mean they had no talent just because you view them 50 years later.

Watching basketball is like watching acting, my friend.
When you grow up watching guys like Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, Sidney Poitier, Cary Grant....... you have no other measure than the measure of their days. How can you say that Val Kilmer, or Harrison Ford, or Brad Pitt, or whoever it is...... is a better actor than those guys were? Yeah sure, it's more 'realistic.' Because acting chops across the board are far better today than they were in the 1960s. That doesn't mean the talent is higher - not at all.

It means the skills are advanced.

In the same way, it's easy to declare "Kyrie Irving would smoke anybody in 1968, he'd average 60 ppg" or whatever.
It makes no sense to say such nonsense. Probably 20% of Kyrie's entire lexicon wasn't even invented yet, and another 30 or 40% of it would be a turnover because he carries the ball every time he dribbles!!
The whole idea of crossover in the 60s was flat out a turnover.

So to come out and say "Bob Pettit was great but no way........." that is placing an anachronism on their game.
It's like putting a clock in a story about Ancient Greece or a car in 14th Century London.

awesome clip!!

Well said.

[jongib369]

Their off-the-cuff picks.......

Wilt's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Russell):
Larry Bird, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and he wanted to add Charles Barkley but they wouldn't let him

Russell's All-Time team (excluding himself, and Chamberlain)
Magic, Michael, Larry, Baylor, Oscar, and Olajuwan or Pettit (slid in that 7th guy just like Chamberlain did lol).

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

How can you know Pettit wasn't better? Have you watched him? Can you watch him with an impartial eye, within the days that he played?

Those guys couldn't possibly know, what was not known yet, about basketball. It doesn't mean they had no talent just because you view them 50 years later.

Watching basketball is like watching acting, my friend.
When you grow up watching guys like Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, Sidney Poitier, Cary Grant....... you have no other measure than the measure of their days. How can you say that Val Kilmer, or Harrison Ford, or Brad Pitt, or whoever it is...... is a better actor than those guys were? Yeah sure, it's more 'realistic.' Because acting chops across the board are far better today than they were in the 1960s. That doesn't mean the talent is higher - not at all.

It means the skills are advanced.

In the same way, it's easy to declare "Kyrie Irving would smoke anybody in 1968, he'd average 60 ppg" or whatever.
It makes no sense to say such nonsense. Probably 20% of Kyrie's entire lexicon wasn't even invented yet, and another 30 or 40% of it would be a turnover because he carries the ball every time he dribbles!!
The whole idea of crossover in the 60s was flat out a turnover.

So to come out and say "Bob Pettit was great but no way........." that is placing an anachronism on their game.
It's like putting a clock in a story about Ancient Greece or a car in 14th Century London.

awesome clip!!
If you were familiar with my posts you would know that I hold all those players from back then in high regard and DO in fact look at it with an "impartial eye"...I've seen a fair amount of footage from those days and have a lot of respect for guys like Clyde Lovellette, who I see no one mention even though he was able to average 20+ on Wilt AND Russell for a few seasons. I've seen your posts in the past and respect what you say a lot, so I'm curious how you could reason Pettit being able to be ranked higher than Kareem. And I'm not saying that sarcastically, I'm all ears to learn from people who know the history better than I do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAuQLyeB9mM

[jongib369]

I was surprised, actually, that either one of them selected a Center at all.

That it was Olajuwon was no surprise, though.

I heard Chamberlain several times over the years AFTER he retired, give praise to some centers - very darn few of them. Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, very grudgingly Kareem... and very high praise indeed for the Dream. Of course he always had nice things to say about players, when he was playing.

The highest praise I can remember Wilt give to a center that he didn't play against, was for Shaquille O'Neal, He even said that Shaq may become better than Wilt himself. And I remember hearing that when he said it, because it was in the 90s, it was on the radio, I was driving in heavy traffic, and almost went off the road from shock.
OP that's a nice find.
I've seen a video of Wilt thats no longer on youtube saying exactly what you just said. Was actually just thinking about that earlier...Wilt saying someone could possibly become better than him is mind blowing LOL

[Breezy]

If given an insane amount of touches per game with a few other great scoring options he could get around 40-50 TODAY IMO...but just like in his era it WONT win so it wouldn't happen

Just so you don't think I'm a hater. I think Wilt is the Most athletic player of all time, Probably in any sport. I think he would dominate in any era. And he would easily be the best center in today's league... Like by a freaking light year.

That being said there is no way in hell any Coach from the 90's(Or today) would let him get that many touches, his team mates wouldn't let him get that many touches and most importantly the other team wouldn't let him get that many touches. he would be stuck in a half court game too often to score even 40ppg. My guess is he would probably put up Shaq like numbers with better rebounding and shot blocking Basically Shaq + Good defense.

My guess at his prime numbers if he were the #1 Option on a team anywhere in the last 20 years. Something like 31/16/4 with 3-4 Blocks a game.

[La Frescobaldi]

If you were familiar with my posts you would know that I hold all those players from back then in high regard and DO in fact look at it with an "impartial eye"...I've seen a fair amount of footage from those days and have a lot of respect for guys like Clyde Lovellette, who I see no one mention even though he was able to average 20+ on Wilt AND Russell for a few seasons. I've seen your posts in the past and respect what you say a lot, so I'm curious how you could reason Pettit being able to be ranked higher than Kareem. And I'm not saying that sarcastically, I'm all ears to learn from people who know the history better than I do

Because it's Bill Freaking Russell stating it.
That isn't me being a fan believe you me - I freaking hated Bill Russell when the Celtics showed up, he was the undertaker. I say it because of watching the dude play on a bad leg, almost crawling, just like a wolf. I say that because he would block a shot, tap the ball like a whisper to Satch and then just stand under the basket because he didn't have to run, he knew the Celtic fast break was going to score......... and the entire time his back was to the court and he was blowing huge air, facing the crowd. Incredible ferocity, incredible stamina but yet so smart he was taking a break right on the court. I say it because Russ is still the best commentator I have seen. He's '70s commentaries were just phenomenal - we all felt we were getting a glimpse of genius every week listening to him. He would almost let stuff slip out like...... mid-3rd quarter, Bucks down by 10 and he'd say "Bucks are going to win this one going away. Kareem is going to take over this game." And voila! 20 minutes later the Bucks had just pounded the Sixers right into powder. If there is such a thing as a genius in a basketball player I'd say Russell would be one.

He doesn't name somebody else. Out of the galaxy of stars we have seen, Bill Russell has seen them all with a far better eye for basketball than I will ever have. So if he wants to put Bob Pettit on the list, how can I do anything but have respect for what I never saw?

lol sorry for the windy stories

[jongib369]

Just so you don't think I'm a hater. I think Wilt is the Most athletic player of all time, Probably in any sport. I think he would dominate in any era. And he would easily be the best center in today's league... Like by a freaking light year.

That being said there is no way in hell any Coach from the 90's(Or today) would let him get that many touches, his team mates wouldn't let him get that many touches and most importantly the other team wouldn't let him get that many touches. he would be stuck in a half court game too often to score even 40ppg. My guess is he would probably put up Shaq like numbers with better rebounding and shot blocking Basically Shaq + Good defense.

My guess at his prime numbers if he were the #1 Option on a team anywhere in the last 20 years. Something like 31/16/4 with 3-4 Blocks a game.
thats very reasonable, and can see his numbers being exactly that. Not intending to be a "WiltTard" or anything but I really do think he could get at least 35 if given the touches...Put him on a team that NEEDED him to get the ball that often like the Warriors had to, I dont see 35+ being out of the realm of possibility. Obviously he had a very different game than shaq, and I think his skill set would allow him to reach that number easier than Shaq...But it wouldn't be a winning formula...

Basically what I'm saying is

Plays on the Bobcats 35 is a possibility if needed but they aren't going anywhere....Plays on DA BULLS....More around what you said if not lower and they get a ring

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

[steve]

What a great interview.

In regards to bill's strategy he outlined, in theory that sounds like a pretty damn smart way to nullify shaqs abilities.

But in saying that, was any team successfuly able to push the ball enough to mitigate shaqs talents?

Another reason why Shaq may have been so dominant is that he hit his prime in basically the slowest and lowest scoring era in NBA history. Not trying to downplay his dominance btw.

Shaq in his first several years would've been fine, but the Shaq everyone remembers at his most "dominant" wouldn't been at a disadvantage in a lot of ways in the '60s because of what you mentioned. There's a good chance Shaq doesn't stick around in the NBA quite (or even close to) as long as he did in an earlier era, just because after his first injury he wouldn't be able to cover and keep his weight off to a point where he'd still be effective or at least effective long enough to be a guy who could play most of the game with the ball being pushed as much.

Although it's funny they both included Baylor because he's a good example of what might have happened to Shaq in the '60s. Baylor in his first five seasons was an incomparable player compared to the one he was after the '63 season because he was never quite able to recover from injuries in a manner that lived up to his previous talent level. Whereas if Baylor were playing today, would've been able to regain most, if not all of his former playing ability (think about what happened to Wade). It's hard for me to see Shaq bouncing back the same way in the '60s as he did in his day (although it's likely to assume being a black player, his mentality would've been shaped differently and he wouldn't have quite taken things for granted in the same way).

[Round Mound]

Wilt Mentions Sir Charles in His Top 7 :applause:

[PHILA]

Wilt Mentions Sir Charles in His Top 7 :applause:


"I would have liked to have gone to war against (Bill) Russell with that boy at my side."

-Wilt Chamberlain on Barkley

[Round Mound]

"I would have liked to have gone to war against (Bill) Russell with that boy at my side."

-Wilt Chamberlain on Barkley

Charles is the Most Underrated Great of All Time Just Because He Did Not Win a Ring. Wilt Who Was the Most Dominant Force in NBA History Might Have Never Gotten a Ring in the 60s Had He Not Had a Good Build Around Himl.

Sir Charles is Peek Wise a Top 10 Player of All Time but Since the Lack of Accolades or Longevity then He Is in The Top 10-15 Range.

[Whoah10115]

Charles is the Most Underrated Great of All Time Just Because He Did Not Win a Ring. Wilt Who Was the Most Dominant Force in NBA History Might Have Never Gotten a Ring in the 60s Had He Not Had a Good Build Around Himl.

Sir Charles is Peek Wise a Top 10 Player of All Time but Since the Lack of Accolades or Longevity then He Is in The Top 10-15 Range.


I wouldn't disagree with this.

[fpliii]

How do you think Barkley compares to an Elgin Baylor (stylistically speaking)?

[jongib369]

Because it's Bill Freaking Russell stating it.
That isn't me being a fan believe you me - I freaking hated Bill Russell when the Celtics showed up, he was the undertaker. I say it because of watching the dude play on a bad leg, almost crawling, just like a wolf. I say that because he would block a shot, tap the ball like a whisper to Satch and then just stand under the basket because he didn't have to run, he knew the Celtic fast break was going to score......... and the entire time his back was to the court and he was blowing huge air, facing the crowd. Incredible ferocity, incredible stamina but yet so smart he was taking a break right on the court. I say it because Russ is still the best commentator I have seen. He's '70s commentaries were just phenomenal - we all felt we were getting a glimpse of genius every week listening to him. He would almost let stuff slip out like...... mid-3rd quarter, Bucks down by 10 and he'd say "Bucks are going to win this one going away. Kareem is going to take over this game." And voila! 20 minutes later the Bucks had just pounded the Sixers right into powder. If there is such a thing as a genius in a basketball player I'd say Russell would be one.

He doesn't name somebody else. Out of the galaxy of stars we have seen, Bill Russell has seen them all with a far better eye for basketball than I will ever have. So if he wants to put Bob Pettit on the list, how can I do anything but have respect for what I never saw?

lol sorry for the windy stories
Really wish I could ask Russell himself, I do respect the mans opinion and if HE holds Pettit in such high regard that really puts him into perspective... Did you happen to see him play yourself? And if you have how would you describe his game? Or just any information you personally know about him

Its just kind of crazy to hear considering how high MOST people have Kareem....But, I'll trust a basketball genius who played/watched the game more than any of us over anyone

[Round Mound]

How do you think Barkley compares to an Elgin Baylor (stylistically speaking)?

[B]A More Athletic, Stronger, Faster, Quicker, More Agressive and More Polished Offensively Version of Elgin. Except Elgin Played SF While Charles Played PF.

Their Game in the Open Court Is Similar but Barkley

[jongib369]

Wilt Mentions Sir Charles in His Top 7 :applause:
haha as soon as he said it I thought "Round Mound would love to hear that"

http://24.media.tumblr.com/2d104542f10134a423a68953d9dde5ba/tumblr_mioskhCsie1qcjcu1o1_1280.jpg

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]A More Athletic, Stronger, Faster, Quicker, More Agressive and More Polished Offensively Version of Elgin. Except Elgin Played SF While Charles Played PF.

Their Game in the Open Court Is Similar but Barkley

[Whoah10115]

How do you think Barkley compares to an Elgin Baylor (stylistically speaking)?


That's actually a great question...I think Round Mound did a decent job answering it. Tho Baylor was not as good a rebounder. That came down more to era, tho I'll give him credit for putting up those numbers from the 3 (tho he did play some 4) and he played a lot inside. A power 3. I wonder if it's crazy to compare some of Melo's offensive game to Baylor's.


Baylor was a bit too high volume, I think. And Barkley is the most efficient player, per shot attempt, that I know of.

[Xiao Yao You]

He's '70s commentaries were just phenomenal - we all felt we were getting a glimpse of genius every week listening to him. He would almost let stuff slip out like...... mid-3rd quarter, Bucks down by 10 and he'd say "Bucks are going to win this one going away. Kareem is going to take over this game." And voila! 20 minutes later the Bucks had just pounded the Sixers right into powder.

He was an idiot by the early 80's. Couldn't believe when the Kings hired him to be their GM or President or whatever it was after listening to him call games.

[Round Mound]

More polished offensively? I think that could be argued

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUBiSbD2HbE

But you do know Charles better than I do. if I have a question about him you'd be the person to go to for that

:lol


[B]In The Open Court They are Similar and When They Attacked the Rim They Where Too Strong to Contain. Barkley

[Round Mound]

That's actually a great question...I think Round Mound did a decent job answering it. Tho Baylor was not as good a rebounder. That came down more to era, tho I'll give him credit for putting up those numbers from the 3 (tho he did play some 4) and he played a lot inside. A power 3. I wonder if it's crazy to compare some of Melo's offensive game to Baylor's.


Baylor was a bit too high volume, I think. And Barkley is the most efficient player, per shot attempt, that I know of.

[B]Barkley

[Papaya Petee]

I'm sorry, and no offence to the great Bill Russell, but that strategy would never work for him.

Bill was never a big enough offensive threat, and Shaq had some lazyness in him, so he would never chase him around the court at full speed and exhaust himself.

Shaq would semi-coast on defense, alter shots, grab some rebounds, then back the f*** out of Bill and score on him every single time.

7'1 325 pounds vs 6'9 240 pounds on defense? Zero chance.

[jongib369]

I'm sorry, and no offence to the great Bill Russell, but that strategy would never work for him.

Bill was never a big enough offensive threat, and Shaq had some lazyness in him, so he would never chase him around the court at full speed and exhaust himself.

Shaq would semi-coast on defense, alter shots, grab some rebounds, then back the f*** out of Bill and score on him every single time.

7'1 325 pounds vs 6'9 240 pounds on defense? Zero chance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0

340 shaq would die trying to keep up with that the whole game.

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm sorry, and no offence to the great Bill Russell, but that strategy would never work for him.

Bill was never a big enough offensive threat, and Shaq had some lazyness in him, so he would never chase him around the court at full speed and exhaust himself.

Shaq would semi-coast on defense, alter shots, grab some rebounds, then back the f*** out of Bill and score on him every single time.

7'1 325 pounds vs 6'9 240 pounds on defense? Zero chance.
OH REALLY.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_magic/files/2010/06/1995-nba-finals.jpg
#34 saying hello.... this strategy is getting me a ring ..............


And! Not only am I getting a ring but I'm going to hand this to my friend shaqqie, he can take it home as a momento of the occasion.....
http://www.goldfishandclowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/feather_duster.jpg

No maybe I will give him these........

Rox 4
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/francisda/francisda1105/francisda110500133/9615287-stack-of-4-rocks.jpg

Magic 0
http://artswork.asu.edu/ceramics/images/goose_egg.jpg

[Round Mound]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0

340 shaq would die trying to keep up with that the whole game.

[B]And Lets Not Forget About Rodman Who Was 3 Inches Shorter (Rodman was 6

[La Frescobaldi]

Charles is the Most Underrated Great of All Time Just Because He Did Not Win a Ring. Wilt Who Was the Most Dominant Force in NBA History Might Have Never Gotten a Ring in the 60s Had He Not Had a Good Build Around Himl.

Sir Charles is Peek Wise a Top 10 Player of All Time but Since the Lack of Accolades or Longevity then He Is in The Top 10-15 Range.

we probly got to fight on that.

Sir Charles will be known forevermore for this right here.

http://www.athlonsports.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/athlon_slideshow_portrait/slideshow-images/1992.jpg

I call Barkley the MVP of the greatest team in the history of modern sports.

[Round Mound]

we probly got to fight on that.

Sir Charles will be known forevermore for this right here.

http://www.athlonsports.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/athlon_slideshow_portrait/slideshow-images/1992.jpg

I call Barkley the MVP of the greatest team in the history of modern sports.

[B]Well Atleast He Was The Best Player of the Greatest International Team of All Time :applause:

That

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]A More Athletic, Stronger, Faster, Quicker, More Agressive and More Polished Offensively Version of Elgin. Except Elgin Played SF While Charles Played PF.

Their Game in the Open Court Is Similar but Barkley

[ThaRegul8r]

From footage of both guys, and from someone calculating rebounding % Barkley is likely a better rebounder despite their season rebounding volumes. Even if rebounding % goes up when pace goes down (which I suspect is actually likely) it might close the gap a little but I'd still assume Barkley would be the superior rebounder.

I've done the calculations. Barkley had the higher rebound rate.

[jongib369]

From footage of both guys, and from someone calculating rebounding % Barkley is likely a better rebounder despite their season rebounding volumes. Even if rebounding % goes up when pace goes down (which I suspect is actually likely) it might close the gap a little but I'd still assume Barkley would be the superior rebounder. Baylor's rebounding % was better than Lebrons though, IIRC it was par with Larry Bird's maybe a little higher.

I don't know what you mean by more "polished" offensively - both were incredibly different offensively. Barkley was offensively more efficient/effective than Baylor in the scoring department because of his own unique physical gifts that let him bang in the low post more often but Baylor used his own unique gifts and was a more creative offensive player that used 1,000 moves some of which Barkley probably couldn't even attempt and he was the better passer which also counts for something offensively. My sneaking suspicion is that Baylor is superior in the open court too. He is a better ball handler, his assignment was to play small and bring the ball up the floor when Boston started pressing with K.C. Jones which means he was the most secure dribbler on the team. Athletically Sir Charles is a better power leaper, but Baylor has better body control and I'd guarantee Baylor, not Sir Charles, is the faster and quicker of the two based on not just footage but also his ligher size and testimonials about how remarkably fast and quick he was from players of his era - capable of beating almost every player in the league down the floor when he pushed with the ball. Now, I have to say I do give the edge athletically to Barkley but only barely. Again to be clear Baylor has better body control in the air he also has bigger "MJ/Hawkins" hands which help with his vast offensive repertoire and also like I said I think at 214-236lbs Baylor is definitely quicker/faster. But Barkley's power, strength, and 252-286lbs body mass was an overwhelmingly effective combination - and even if I think Baylor was quicker and faster I'm not saying Barkley wasn't remarkably quick or fast for his weight. He was probably one of if not the quickest 250-300lb range players the league has seen.

Bottom line: Though they have some overlap because both are 6-5 wide-bodied good rebounding forwards, in my eyes Barkley definitely isn't a "More Athletic, Stronger, Faster, Quicker, More Agressive and More Polished Offensively Version of Elgin." - that's an insult to Elgin and these guys are simply way too different to make that blanket statement.
I feel like I've asked this before but who is your top 10?

[Round Mound]

[B]Barkley was More Skilled in the Post and Well He Was PF Not a SF, So He Did Not Need as Much Ballhandling as Baylor Did. Baylor Was Probably a Better Ballhandler But Barkley He Did Have Some SG/SF Traits ion Terms of Handles Maybe Not Dribbling Skills but Handles Yes. He Could Handle the Ball, Spread the Defenses and Finish At The Rim after Getting a Defensive Rebound like No Other But Lebron James or DR J IMO. Here is Some Rare Clips of Barkley

[Papaya Petee]

OH REALLY.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_magic/files/2010/06/1995-nba-finals.jpg
#34 saying hello.... this strategy is getting me a ring ..............


And! Not only am I getting a ring but I'm going to hand this to my friend shaqqie, he can take it home as a momento of the occasion.....
http://www.goldfishandclowns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/feather_duster.jpg
Are you serious? That super young Shaq dropped 28/12 on ridicolous percetages, and it was Hakeem who shot in the 40's.

[Whoah10115]

I will disagree on a little on Baylor. I don't know that he was really a much better ball-handler. He was more perimeter-oriented, naturally, and his game is certainly the more polished game. That's why I brought up Anthony. Baylor was a straight scorer and his offensive repertoire allowed him to play that way.

But he was not a better passer. I don't mean just playmaking. I think Barkley is clearly the better passer.


Are you serious? That super young Shaq dropped 28/12 on ridicolous percetages, and it was Hakeem who shot in the 40's.


I'm sorry, but you didn't watch the series.

[ProfessorMurder]

Because it's Bill Freaking Russell stating it.
That isn't me being a fan believe you me - I freaking hated Bill Russell when the Celtics showed up, he was the undertaker. I say it because of watching the dude play on a bad leg, almost crawling, just like a wolf. I say that because he would block a shot, tap the ball like a whisper to Satch and then just stand under the basket because he didn't have to run, he knew the Celtic fast break was going to score......... and the entire time his back was to the court and he was blowing huge air, facing the crowd. Incredible ferocity, incredible stamina but yet so smart he was taking a break right on the court. I say it because Russ is still the best commentator I have seen. He's '70s commentaries were just phenomenal - we all felt we were getting a glimpse of genius every week listening to him. He would almost let stuff slip out like...... mid-3rd quarter, Bucks down by 10 and he'd say "Bucks are going to win this one going away. Kareem is going to take over this game." And voila! 20 minutes later the Bucks had just pounded the Sixers right into powder. If there is such a thing as a genius in a basketball player I'd say Russell would be one.

He doesn't name somebody else. Out of the galaxy of stars we have seen, Bill Russell has seen them all with a far better eye for basketball than I will ever have. So if he wants to put Bob Pettit on the list, how can I do anything but have respect for what I never saw?

lol sorry for the windy stories

Repped. Bill Russell just has this air about him that is undeniable. It's a weird, inherent wisdom. I'd listen to him talk shop all day. He weaves life, sport, philosophy, justice and everything together. That hour special Simmons did with him a few weeks ago was great.

[DatAsh]

. He's '70s commentaries were just phenomenal - we all felt we were getting a glimpse of genius every week listening to him.


:cheers:

[jongib369]

:banana:

[Micku]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0

340 shaq would die trying to keep up with that the whole game.

Shaq already faced something similar. Look at David Robinson speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18

Look at what Shaq did to David Robinson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI85iVU3xkE

Tho David Robinson and Tim Duncan are two of the better defenders to guard Shaq, Shaq still average 26.1 ppg on 53.6% against David Robinson.

It depends on the pace of the game. But you can bet that a team with Shaq on it will give him the ball in the half court and they will want to control the pace.

[Whoah10115]

Shaq is always going to put up numbers. The impact is the question.


Wilt always put up HUGE numbers against Russell and he didn't even outplay Russell every single one of those times. And Wilt is better than Shaq.

[MisterAmazing]

great find indeed. their strategy is certainly very smart and makes sense, but making shaq play horizontally is easier said than done. shaq's physicality down low prevented that from happening most of the time. while russell and chamberlain themselves were physical on the defensive end, i just can't see them being able to keep shaq from backing them down and getting near the hoop. prime shaq was an absolute monster in the paint and would get whatever he wanted. go back to the 2000 finals when the Pacers would sending three or four guys his way, he'd still power through to get a dunk, layup, or hook shot.

[jongib369]

Shaq is always going to put up numbers. The impact is the question.


Wilt always put up HUGE numbers against Russell and he didn't even outplay Russell every single one of those times. And Wilt is better than Shaq.
That matchup would be so intense lol

[NugzHeat3]

They had Bill Russell on the halftime show for game 1 of the 1995 finals and he said the same thing in regards to guarding Shaq (playing without the ball, horizontally instead of vertically) along with discussing some other matters like how his teams would fare with some of the recent championship squads, Hakeem's all time place, series vs San Antonio, game plans ect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybkS2Kz_ug

1:02:05 mark.

[GOBB_Junior]

Prime Shaq would destroy Russell and Chamberlain.

[CavaliersFTW]

Prime Shaq would destroy Russell and Chamberlain.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gif

[Anaximandro1]

David Robinson and Tim Duncan are two of the better defenders to guard Shaq

indeed.

for anyone who thinks Shaq is unstoppable.Shaq played 30 playoff games against the Spurs.He only scored 30+ points four times (Olajuwon scored 27,41,43,20,42 and 39 in 1995 playoffs against prime Robinson and prime Rodman)


Shaq vs Spurs

Playoffs 1999
21
16
22
36-> 1

Avg 23.8

Playoffs 2001

28
19
35-> 2
26

Avg 27.0


Playoffs 2002

23
19
22
22
21

Avg 21.4


Playoffs 2003

24
27
21
29
20
31 -> 3

Avg 25.3


Playoffs 2004

19
32 -> 4
28
28
11
17

Avg 22.5


Playoffs 2008

11
19
19
14
13

Avg 15.2



(1999 - 2004) Avg 23.9

(1999 - 2008) Avg 22.4


I suspect that Bill and Wilt could have been extremely successful against Shaq

[jongib369]

Prime Shaq would destroy Russell and Chamberlain.
http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab336/Brdleysmth/ShaqPoint.gif

[jongib369]

Charles is the Most Underrated Great of All Time Just Because He Did Not Win a Ring. Wilt Who Was the Most Dominant Force in NBA History Might Have Never Gotten a Ring in the 60s Had He Not Had a Good Build Around Himl.

Sir Charles is Peek Wise a Top 10 Player of All Time but Since the Lack of Accolades or Longevity then He Is in The Top 10-15 Range.

"I would have liked to have gone to war against (Bill) Russell with that boy at my side."

-Wilt Chamberlain on Barkley

How well would they work together?