Why do people criticize Wilt Chamberlain for "only" winning two championships?

[Audio One]

All the time here, people refer to him as a stat-padder, that should've won more. Well, how many championships should he have won, and why?

During what year(s) specifically?

And during said year(s), what should he have did differently? What was he supposed to do to win?


When he failed, how much was it due to him "choking", and how much credit does Russell and his squad deserve? He is (arguably at the very least) the GOAT defender, is he not? And he did apparently have "stacked" teams, no?

I'm honestly just curious and would like to address these "concerns". Outside of this website, Chamberlain's routinely ranked in the top 3 GOAT, yet ppl here don't even rank him in the top 5. I know people are entitled to their opinions, well, I'd like to hear yours

[navy]

Bill Russel has 11.

[CavaliersFTW]

All the time here, people refer to him as a stat-padder, that should've won more. Well, how many championships should he have won, and why?

During what year(s) specifically?

And during said year(s), what should he have did differently? What was he supposed to do to win?


When he failed, how much was it due to him "choking", and how much credit does Russell and his squad deserve? He is (arguably at the very least) the GOAT defender, is he not? And he did apparently have "stacked" teams, no?

I'm honestly just curious and would like to address these "concerns". Outside of this website, Chamberlain's routinely ranked in the top 3 GOAT, yet ppl here don't even rank him in the top 5. I know people are entitled to their opinions, well, I'd like to hear yours
Actually you may have it backwards, Wilt is treated very well here on ISH, a few of us consider him THE GOAT or a player who by all means is in the discussion with a strong case for what he could do and accomplished. ISH probably has one of the best Wilt fanbases of any basketball discussion board, it is OUTSIDE of ISH that I notice he doesn't get his due. Most of the people on ISH who speak ill of him don't really have legitimate criticisms, or they are exaggerating, and as such they get called out immediately. The anti-Wilt crowd doesn't steal show about Wilt on ISH, where as I notice on other sites they do.

[trueDS]

All the time here, people refer to him as a stat-padder, that should've won more. Well, how many championships should he have won, and why?

During what year(s) specifically?

And during said year(s), what should he have did differently? What was he supposed to do to win?


He should shot less in his early years, he should led his team to better offensive results, he should have more overall impact (and from occurrences when he changed teams we know, that his impact wasn't so great as his box score suggest) and finally after Bill Russell (the ultimate excuse for Wilt) retired he should won more than once... especially in 1970, when Reed played on one leg and Wilt was unable to dominate him in G7 (what's even more strange when we consider that he scored like 40 in G6).

Overall though, the most important is his global impact, which was lower than box score numbers suggest.

[CavaliersFTW]

He should shot less in his early years, he should led his team to better offensive results, he should have more overall impact (and from occurrences when he changed teams we know, that his impact wasn't so great as his box score suggest) and finally after Bill Russell (the ultimate excuse for Wilt) retired he should won more than once... especially in 1970, when Reed played on one leg and Wilt was unable to dominate him in G7 (what's even more strange when we consider that he scored like 40 in G6).

Overall though, the most important is his global impact, which was lower than box score numbers suggest.
I love how you never saw Wilt but you presume to know how he 'should' have played. :oldlol:

You'll learn much more about him by receiving input, not producing output.

[trueDS]

I love how you never saw Wilt but you presume to know how he 'should' have played. :oldlol:

You'll learn much more about him by receiving input, not producing output.

I'm smarter than you and know more about basketball. Accept that and life would be easier for you :)

[ArbitraryWater]

I think its pretty obvious he should have won all from 1968-1970.. choked those away thoroughly

[Ancient Legend]

Switch Russell and Wilt's teams, how many chips does Bill Russell win? I'm thinking at most 1, while the Celtcis already stacked and with Wilt would be unbeatable.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm smarter than you and know more about basketball. Accept that and life would be easier for you :)
Who says things like this? :facepalm

[reppy]

Who says things like this? :facepalm

Richard Sherman? :confusedshrug:

[iamgine]

Why do people criticize Wilt Chamberlain for "only" winning two championships?
The answer to this is because Bill Russel has 11.

[CavaliersFTW]

Richard Sherman? :confusedshrug:
:oldlol: oh shit

trueDickSherman

:eek:

[Audio One]

He should shot less in his early years

How much less?


he should led his team to better offensive results

How else besides shooting less?


he should have more overall impact (and from occurrences when he changed teams we know, that his impact wasn't so great as his box score suggest)

What does this even mean, and how do you know this?


and finally after Bill Russell (the ultimate excuse for Wilt) retired he should won more than once... especially in 1970, when Reed played on one leg and Wilt was unable to dominate him in G7 (what's even more strange when we consider that he scored like 40 in G6)

So what kind of defense was being played on Chamberlain? How was he scoring his points, and what should he have done differently?

What kind of sets on offense was the Ramsay running?

Were his teammates providing adequate floor spacing?

How many doubles was Wilt seeing?

How much can be attributed to Willis' strong play?

And what other years should he have won, and why?


Overall though, the most important is his global impact, which was lower than box score numbers suggest.

Subjectively speaking

[TylerOO]

who cares? dudes dead

http://i.imgur.com/UWjKLBz.gif

[Audio One]

Actually you may have it backwards, Wilt is treated very well here on ISH, a few of us consider him THE GOAT or a player who by all means is in the discussion with a strong case for what he could do and accomplished. ISH probably has one of the best Wilt fanbases of any basketball discussion board, it is OUTSIDE of ISH that I notice he doesn't get his due. Most of the people on ISH who speak ill of him don't really have legitimate criticisms, or they are exaggerating, and as such they get called out immediately. The anti-Wilt crowd doesn't steal show about Wilt on ISH, where as I notice on other sites they do.

Actually, thinking about it, I may have it wrong altogether. Wilt's just disrespected period by the masses, generally. As far as here especially, this fanbase you speak of, that hold him in a high light, is relatively low, in comparison to those that bash him, or rank him outside the top 3. Directly, or indirectly, it doesn't seem that he gets his due. I can't think of another player that's held to such ethereal standards, and has their flaws magnified, and focused upon more than their positives.

All the average fan here seems to think, generally, is that:

a) he played at a super face pace that generated 1000 extra possessions
b) players back then were only 5'4
c) only 3 teams
d) he goaltended and padded his misses, a la Kevin Love

And then people have the nerve to scapegoat ppl like @LAZERUSS for their hatred for Wilt, when in actuality they already have had their own preconceived notions built and minds made up. I could be wrong, but I don't even think Wilt made the top 3 all-time here for this site's rankings

[Bosnian Sajo]

I'm smarter than you and know more about basketball. Accept that and life would be easier for you :)

How are you gonna say you know more about Wilt than THE Wilt Chamberlain guy on ISH. Hell, he's the guy who put Wilt vids up on youtube, the same ones they used on TNT, Yahoo, and NBC. The man has obviously watched more Wilt games than most basketball fans, and you're just a Jan 2014 :oldlol:



Step off, clown.

[Deuce Bigalow]

The fact that he won those two titles makes him the greatest of alltime. Dude was averaging 30/30 vs Russell's Celtics in their playoff matchups :bowdown:

[knicksman]

maybe if he doesn't have the biggest dropoff, he would've won more. No way a player who only has 2 rings and only 1 ring as the man should be considered top 3 GOAT. Plus the more you give responsibility to your teammates, the happier they are and the more likely a team is winning. While wilt wants all the responsibility so he could've great stats same with bron, Oscar, Iverson, arenas so they could win those mvps. Which results in their teammates being unhappy and considered cancers. No one wants to play with these guys that's why they are losers. That's why LeBron has to form a superteam in order to win.

Theres a reason why Russell and Duncan are considered the greatest winners despite their stats.

[AirFederer]

Dude is the all time best play off performer :bowdown:

[Audio One]

maybe if he doesn't have the biggest dropoff, he would've won more. No way a player who only has 2 rings and only 1 ring as the man should be considered top 3 GOAT. Plus the more you give responsibility to your teammates, the happier they are and the more likely a team is winning. While wilt wants all the responsibility so he could've great stats same with bron, Oscar, Iverson, arenas so they could win those mvps. Which results in their teammates being unhappy and considered cancers. No one wants to play with these guys that's why they are losers. That's why LeBron has to form a superteam in order to win.

Theres a reason why Russell and Duncan are considered the greatest winners despite their stats.

:no: Wilt was unquestionably the leader of those Lakers

http://www.forumblueandgold.com/2011/08/15/remembering-greatness-the-1972-lakers/

http://www.lakersnation.com/wilt-chamberlains-role-in-the-lakers-1972-championship-season/2013/08/21/


While West and Goodrich combined to average over 50 points a game, the true leader was Chamberlain, it was his defense and rebounding that would create easy fast break opportunities for the rest of the Lakers

And you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you criticize Wilt for not scoring enough, then criticize him for not playing a team game. Well, how do you know the drop-offs weren't somehow attributed to that? And Chamberlain's dropoff can be attributed to other things as well:

-Having to play the GOAT defender Russell and the defensive juggernaut Boston teams, plus great defensive centers like Thurmond, Reed, Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas, etc
-Him getting the red light, as his coaches were trying to implement a team-oriented game.

And I found this by Psileas:


OK, time to blow up the "choker" myth a bit more analytically: Wilt's regular season (RS) vs playoff (PO) scoring season by season vs the same opponent:

1960:
vs Nationals-- RS: 38, PO: 38.7 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 39.9, PO: 30.5 (adv. RS)

1961:
vs Nationals-- RS: 39.9, PO: 37 (adv. RS)

1962:
vs Nationals-- RS: 48, PO: 37 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 41.7 (incl. games that Russell missed), PO: 33.6 (adv. RS)

1964:
vs Hawks-- RS: 32.8, PO: 38.6 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 29.1, PO: 29.2 (adv. PO)

1965 (playing for Sixers):
vs Royals-- RS: 36.8, PO: 27.8 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 25.0, PO: 30.1 (adv. PO)

1966:
vs Celtics-- RS: 28.3, PO: 28 (adv. RS)

1967:
vs Royals-- RS: 28.6, PO: 28 (adv. RS)
vs Celtics-- RS: 20.3, PO: 21.6 (adv. PO)
vs Warriors-- RS: 20.7, PO: 17.7 (adv. RS)

1968:
vs Knicks-- RS: 22.6, PO: 25.5 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 17.1, PO: 22.1 (adv. PO)

1969:
vs Warriors-- RS: 12.6, PO: 12.0 (adv. RS)
vs Hawks-- RS: 17.9, PO: 19.2 (adv. PO)
vs Celtics-- RS: 16.3, PO: 11.7 (adv. RS)

1970:
Too small RS samples

1971:
vs Bulls-- RS: 21.2, PO: 15.7 (adv. RS)
vs Bucks-- RS: 23.2, PO: 22 (adv. RS)

1972:
vs Bulls-- RS: 8.8, PO: 14.5 (adv. PO)
vs Bucks-- RS: 13.0, PO: 10.8 (adv. RS)
vs Knicks-- RS: 16.8, PO: 19.4 (adv. PO)

1973:
vs Bulls-- RS: 11.5, PO: 12 (adv. PO)
vs Warriors-- RS: 5.7, PO: 7 (adv. PO)
vs Knicks-- RS: 9.3, PO: 11.6 (adv. PO)

RS vs PO: 13-13

Falls by 5+ ppg: 5
Raises by 5+ ppg: 4

Seems pretty even to me. Choker? I don't think so.



Of course, I'm not trying to imply Chamberlain wasn't w/o his faults, but what NBA player, let alone human, isn't w/o their faults? So again I ask, how many rings was he supposed to win, and why?

[iamgine]

Great stats by Psileas. I think the critic has some merit though. According to Psileas' stats, Wilt had his scoring dip in the playoff by 20%-25% 4 times during his high scoring years ('60-'66) out of 10 times. That's 40% of the times. I don't know how bad that is, gotta compare with other high scoring GOATs.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Because they don't know sh!t.

[ILLsmak]

I don't think it's an outright criticism. It's more of a reply or context. People say Wilt (stats) and then someone replies "Yea, but..."

It's a legit gripe. If someone can put up 50 ppg, you'd think he could lead his team to a championship. If you score 50 ppg and don't win a ring, then people are gonna say... why didn't you win, you must have been doing something wrong. Basically, it comes with people knowing he was capable of leading a team to a championship because of his individual dominance.

If Wilt is gonna come out and say, "Well, I just didn't have the team around me... Bill had a better squad." Then he's a bitch, period. I heard Wilt joke about when they played the Cs that he'd try to go out and torch Bill because he knew his team wasn't gonna win. It was a funny joke, but there is probably some truth in it. I know personally if I was on a team... it doesn't matter if we're playing NBA video games online, playing at the YMCA, or at the highest level... if I am getting 50 points per game and we aren't winning, I'm going to be pissed.

It's illogical to say a player was capable of scoring 50 ppg and incapable of winning.

So, in summary, the idea is that IF he was the player his peak stats indicate (which IMO he's NOT... altho he's an all time great, top 10 player), then he'd have won more than one + one role player championship.

It's not a criticism... nobody is 'hating' on Wilt. It's more of a legit rebuttal to those who say due to his name appearing so much in the record books and his statistical dominance, he should be considered the GOAT.

-Smak

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't think it's an outright criticism. It's more of a reply or context. People say Wilt (stats) and then someone replies "Yea, but..."

It's a legit gripe. If someone can put up 50 ppg, you'd think he could lead his team to a championship. If you score 50 ppg and don't win a ring, then people are gonna say... why didn't you win, you must have been doing something wrong. Basically, it comes with people knowing he was capable of leading a team to a championship because of his individual dominance.

If Wilt is gonna come out and say, "Well, I just didn't have the team around me... Bill had a better squad." Then he's a bitch, period. I heard Wilt joke about when they played the Cs that he'd try to go out and torch Bill because he knew his team wasn't gonna win. It was a funny joke, but there is probably some truth in it. I know personally if I was on a team... it doesn't matter if we're playing NBA video games online, playing at the YMCA, or at the highest level... if I am getting 50 points per game and we aren't winning, I'm going to be pissed.

It's illogical to say a player was capable of scoring 50 ppg and incapable of winning.

So, in summary, the idea is that IF he was the player his peak stats indicate (which IMO he's NOT... altho he's an all time great, top 10 player), then he'd have won more than one + one role player championship.

It's not a criticism... nobody is 'hating' on Wilt. It's more of a legit rebuttal to those who say due to his name appearing so much in the record books and his statistical dominance, he should be considered the GOAT.

-Smak
There is zero connection to one player scoring a shit load of points and that persons team winning championships. Anyone who assumes there is one doesn't know basketball. Holding Wilt's 50 against him is asinine, do you hold MJ's 37 against him when his team couldn't even crack .500? Was it his fault? He's capable of scoring 37 yet couldn't win a championship when he scored like that, really? Don't be a hypocrite. Basketball is a 5 on 5 game.

[JohnFreeman]

I am not sure and I have nothing to bring to this thread.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Bill Russel has 11.

I think this is part of the reason.

Wilt is a legit candidate for GOAT. So is Russell with 11 rings. So is Jordan with 6 rings. So is Kareem with 6 rings. Maybe Magic and he has 5.

You can say Wilt didn't win more for this or that, but that fact of the matter is that literally every other GOAT candidate doesn't need to make those excuses. Unless you think I'm missing someone from the conversation? For me it's MJ, Russell, Wilt, or KAJ.

[ILLsmak]

There is zero connection to one player scoring a shit load of points and that persons team winning championships. Anyone who assumes there is one doesn't know basketball. Holding Wilt's 50 against him is asinine, do you hold MJ's 37 against him when his team couldn't even crack .500? Was it his fault? He's capable of scoring 37 yet couldn't win a championship when he scored like that, really? Don't be a hypocrite. Basketball is a 5 on 5 game.

I must not know basketball then lol.

I don't care about MJ. 37 isn't 50 any more than 24 is 37. Points, as used in the Wilt argument are a measurement of his dominance. Wins are pretty much the all-time measurement of any player's dominance. I don't think it's hard to see why people say Wilt should have won more...

If you can put up 50 ppg and are a threat to drop 60 or 70, then you should be able to win a playoff series if you play correctly. Who knows, maybe if MJ had been a bit smarter during his best statistical season, he would have won more then, too.

-Smak

[MichaelCorleone]

Bill Russel has 11.
Bill Russel has 11.

[PsychoBe]

style of play didn't translate to wins when it mattered the most. just that simple. cant even claim the title of best scorer when mj averaged more points in his entire career than wilt did.

[CelticBaller]

He's dead

But to rustle your jimmies, he choked almost every chance he had, not only that he also pulled a LeBron and colluded only to choke

[D-FENS]

I'm smarter than you and know more about basketball. Accept that and life would be easier for you :)

If it's true, I invite you both to have a live discussion on basketball history and theory. I'm happy to send out a link by PM to both of you to a chat website.

Let's see you back up (or eat) your words.

[dankok8]

People don't criticize Wilt for not winning per se. They criticize him for playing well below his standards in many important games and series. Like '66 EDF Game 1 through 4, '68 EDF Game 6 and 7, entire '69 Finals, and '70 Finals Game 7.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Jerry West was the one who choked on the Lakers.
And Greer or Cunningham choked in Philly. And Guy Rodgers choked in San Francisco. And Ron Loneski choked at Kansas.

Plus, Wilt had a series of the worst coaches ever... from college to the pros.
Don't believe me though... read about everybody Wilt blames in his autobiography, Wilt.



[Note: Other nuggets: Chamberlain beat Jerry West in long-distance jump shooting contests every day. And Wilt beat the great Jim Brown (RB) in a foot race. While wearing a suit. Without shoes. After cutting his foot and needing stitches. And Brown was wearing workout gear and tennis shoes. Wilt also did a reverse dunk from 20 feet away (take that Jordan) in the middle of a game... in traffic. It's all there. Wilt was the greatest man ever... or so he claimed. The question is whether you believe him.]

[stanlove1111]

I don't unless people try to rank him over Russell or MJ.


Wilt is among the next 4 on the list with Jabbar,Bird, and Magic.

Russell and MJ when surrounded by a team that you expect the greatest of all time to win with, won almost everytime. The only 2 you can say that about. The two most valuable players ever.

The other 4 while winning a lot and being close to the greatest ever, failed often in situations where you wouldn't expect the greatest to fail.

[Audio One]

I don't unless people try to rank him over Russell or MJ.


Wilt is among the next 4 on the list with Jabbar,Bird, and Magic.

Russell and MJ when surrounded by a team that you expect the greatest of all time to win with, won almost everytime. The only 2 you can say that about. The two most valuable players ever.

The other 4 while winning a lot and being close to the greatest ever, failed often in situations where you would expect the greatest to fail.

I agree with Russell, but I don't see how Jordan's better than Stilt. Michael Jordan won when his 80's comtemporaries became old, and when he stacked the deck during the weakest stretch of talent since the merger, a three point line shortened, and overexpansion. Jordan didn't beat any great teams; I doubt any of the teams he defeated would make the top-25 teams all-time.

And why Jordan's viewed in the same light as Russell, as far as being a "winner" just baffles me. He's cut from the same cloth as Chamberlain, only difference being Jordan lucked out with acquiring a GOAT head coach candidate, and getting such a skilled and smooth leader in Pippen, who actually made people better, and wasn't obssessed with stats, or berating teammates like Jordan. Jordan's a stat-padder just like Chamberlain is. He led the league in FG attempts NINE times, would've been ten had he played all of '95, REFUSING to let Winter cut down his ballhogging ways. And this was further proved when he came back to the shitty ass Bullets just to pad his stats.

Plus Chamberlain spent half his career in the Finals, and actually beat his comteporary while he was in his prime, Jordan cannot say that :confusedshrug:

And people criticize Wilt for choking/quitting, but why does no one ever bring up Jordan quitting aganist Detriot in '89, game 5? The supposed "GOAT scorer" only taking 8 shot attempts in an ECF game, WOW! People give Pippen shit for quitting on a play, and Bean for quitting in a half, but this loser quit on an ENTIRE GAME :roll:

[Audio One]

And I just love the hypocrisy on this site. Chamberlain's not better than Jordan 'cause he only has 2 rings, 1 "sidekick" ring (which destroys your credibility if you seriously think this), yet Russell has almost twice the rings, "bu-bu-bu Jordan's the better scorer!" even though he's nowhere NEAR the defender, and of course there's more to offense than scoring.

Yet Magic's better than Kobe, when he's nowhere near the defender, or scorer, "but there's more to offense than scoring!"

You guys kill me! :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

People don't criticize Wilt for not winning per se. They criticize him for playing well below his standards in many important games and series. Like '66 EDF Game 1 through 4, '68 EDF Game 6 and 7, entire '69 Finals, and '70 Finals Game 7.

Of course, anyone who would have actually researched those post-seasons, would have come up with entirely different opinions.

Game recaps of the '66 EDF's describe Wilt's performances as dominant. In fact, in his lowest scoring game of the series, in which he scored 15 points, he was cited as "almost single-handedly winning the game." He slaughtered Russell in every game of that series, and in the clinching game five loss, he annihilated a helpless Russell with a 46 point, 34 rebound game.

And I always find that one game five performance as THE benchmark game in their 49 post-season games. Why? Because, while Chamberlain's teammates were puking all over the floor in that entire series (shooting an unfathomable collective .352 from the field in the series), Chamberlain finally decided that he was Philly's only hope, and exploded against a Russell who was powerless to stop him.

Now, the Russell supporters will immediately point out that his Celtics won the game, and the series.

Ok, then let's have the Russell-supporters explain this: If Russell were truly the better player than Wilt, what happened the very next season? Russell was in the EXACT same situation that Wilt had been in in the '66 EDF's. Boston had narrowly avoided an embarrassing sweep in game four, and were down 3-1 going into game five.

Did Russell rise up, as Wilt had the prior EDF's, and when his teammates so desperately needed him too? Nope...he went quietly like a lamb being led to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists, in a blowout loss. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" pounded Russell for 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half, and when the game was still close; on 10-16 shooting from the field; with 13 assists, 36 rebounds, and seven blocked shots. (Incidently, in their known H2H games with blocked shots, Chamberlain held an enormous margin over Russell in that category.)


As for the 67-68 EDF's...yep, let's just ignore the fact that Wilt was playing with SEVERAL injuries, including a similar injury to what Willis Reed would suffer in the '70 Finals (and which basically limited him to an on-looker.) In fact, game recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series. Even Russell commented after that series, "that a lessor man would not have played", which of course meant, that NO ONE else would have played under the same circumstances. (My god, KAJ missed the most important game of the '80 Finals with a sprain.) Still, Chamberlain played EVERY MINUTE of that seven game series, and despite being at nowhere near 100%, he hung a 22-25-6 .487 series. Oh, and his teammates not only ignored him that game seven, they collectively shot .333 from the field while doing so...in a four point loss.


I will agree that Chamberlain's '69 Finals was the worst series of his entire post-season career. Of course, had anyone taken the time to research it, they would have realized that his incompetent coach had shackled him, while allowing West and Baylor to shoot at will. West, to his credit, was brilliant, but Baylor basically cost LA three games in that series (shooting 2-12, 2-14, and then 8-22 in game seven.) Oh, and while Wilt was shooting .875 from the floor in that game seven, two point loss, his teammates were outshot from the field by Russell's teammates, .477 to .360.


And game seven of the '70 Finals? Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well. He scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting from the field, with 24 rebounds. Of course, while Reed was considered "heroic" with his meager four points, on 2-5 shooting, and 3 rebounds...Wilt was blamed for the loss. But, no one ever brings up the fact that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100% in that series. Go ahead, and watch YouTube footage of that game seven, and then compare it with YouTube footage from Wilt's game five in the '72 Finals. In the '70 game he looks stiff-legged, and with no vertical elevation at all...while in the '72 clinching game five win, he was all over the floor, and skying to record nine blocks (and even his goal-tends were spectacular.) Of course, he dominated that game with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (NY had a combined 39 BTW)...all while playing with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist with a fracture. (Here again, KAJ missed CHUNKS of two separate seasons with broken wrists.)


Yep...only WILT would be ripped for putting up 28-30 .509 series; or a 22-25-6 .487 series (and doing so with multiple injuries); or a 23-24 .625 Finals (on one-leg)...which BTW, is the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history.

[LAZERUSS]

It's also interesting that Wilt had to battle the greatest (and most loaded) dynasty in NBA history, for 10 of his 14 seasons. And in his last four seasons he faced the 70 and 73 Knicks with their four and six HOFers, and the 71 and 72 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar.

And yet, people here put Bird, with his three rings alongside HOF-laden rosters, and his multiple post-season flop jobs, on a pedastal. Or a prime KAJ, who won exactly ONE ring (in arguably the weakest era for championship teams in NBA history), and again, with multiple flop jobs and talented rosters that under-achieved year-after-year.

[SHAQisGOAT]

It's also interesting that Wilt had to battle the greatest (and most loaded) dynasty in NBA history, for 10 of his 14 seasons. And in his last four seasons he faced the 70 and 73 Knicks with their four and six HOFers, and the 71 and 72 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar.

And yet, people here put Bird, with his three rings alongside HOF-laden rosters, and his multiple post-season flop jobs, on a pedastal. Or a prime KAJ, who won exactly ONE ring (in arguably the weakest era for championship teams in NBA history), and again, with multiple flop jobs and talented rosters that under-achieved year-after-year.

:facepalm :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrFBwwWJ44

Thought you've ended your sad, little miserable life by now, guess I was wrong.:lol

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrFBwwWJ44

Thought you've ended your sad, little miserable life by now, guess I was wrong.:lol

Again, you can never come up any substantive arguments. And your baseless opinions are worthless. Get back to me when you have something, you POS.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Again, you can never come up any substantive arguments. And your baseless opinions are worthless. Get back to me when you have something, you POS.

I'll answer with the same I did last time:

If you think I'd give you more of a response than that, you must be crazy. Everytime anyone presents you with a solid response, with facts and good arguments you just write them off and post some bullshit-ass reply, filled with ignorance and very selected facts to push your agenda up everyone's throat. Jig is up, and has been that way for a very long time now.

You got almost 3000 posts with that account and like 10000 with your previous one - not including alts - and not even 1/3 of them were taken seriously by the majority of people here :roll: Plus most of those posts are centered around your own (crazy) personal agenda, and always filled with dumb shit, ignorant arguments and selected facts, not to mention every once in a while you always write some big-ass essays, mostly about Wilt.
To sum it up, you're wasting your whole life doing something you get 0 money and close to no credit for, plus most of it is about your love for someone you didn't even met/know :lol It's funny, psychotic, pathetic and sad all at the same time. Keep up the good work :facepalm

I won't even write another serious response to you anymore.


And, you've been exposed:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

Please stop posting and just end your miserable existence or something.

[LAZERUSS]

I'll answer with the same I did last time:

If you think I'd give more of a response than that, you must be crazy. Everytime anyone presents you with a solid response, with facts and good arguments you just write them off and post some bullshit-ass reply, filled with ignorance and very selected facts to push your agenda up everyone's throat. Jig is up, and has been that way for a very long time now.

You got almost 3000 posts with that account and like 10000 with your previous one - not including alts - and not even 1/3 of them were taken seriously by the majority of people here Plus most of those posts are centered around your own (crazy) personal agenda, and always filled with dumb shit, ignorant arguments and selected facts, not to mention every once in a while you always write some big-ass essays, mostly about Wilt.
To sum it up, you're wasting your whole life doing something you get 0 money and close to no credit for, plus most of it is about your love about someone you didn't even met/know It's funny, psychotic, pathetic and sad all at the same time. Keep up the good work

I won't even write another serious response to you anymore.


And, you've been exposed:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

Please stop posting and just end your miserable existence or something.

You are quoting Millwad??

He who claimed that jlauber was dead? The same Millwad who claimed that Kareem wasn't guarded by Hakeem in their 84-85 and 85-86 matchups, and then was completely shelled when PHILA posted a newspaper article that ripped Hakeem's coach for allowing Kareem to pour in 46 point in only 37 minutes against a helpless Hakeem? And then Fatal produced a complete game (since removed) in their 84-85 season, in which Kareem slaughtered a helpless Hakeem with a 40 point game?

The same Millwad who claimed that Andrew Bynum was a better player than Wilt. The same Millwad who claimed that Russell was not a world-class high-jumper. The same Millwad who claimed that Joey Johnson (the high-jumper_ couldn't get his chin above rim level? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face seven-footers? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face double-teams? The same Millwad who claimed that Barkley did not outrebound his teammate, Hakeem, by four rpg in a season?

I could go on, but it is obvious you two are the same posters. Two complete morons who cannot come up with any substantial arguments, and instead throw up ridiculous opinions and flat out lies.

[Odinn]

When your rival has 11 of anything and you have 2, it is ONLY 2.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Wilt sits comfortable on the GOAT throne and in a few years LeBron and him will be 1a and 1b.
Two most dominant and impactful players ever:applause:

[moe94]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/stop+fight_437a91_3783682.jpg

[SHAQisGOAT]

You are quoting Millwad??

He who claimed that jlauber was dead? The same Millwad who claimed that Kareem wasn't guarded by Hakeem in their 84-85 and 85-86 matchups, and then was completely shelled when PHILA posted a newspaper article that ripped Hakeem's coach for allowing Kareem to pour in 46 point in only 37 minutes against a helpless Hakeem? And then Fatal produced a complete game (since removed) in their 84-85 season, in which Kareem slaughtered a helpless Hakeem with a 40 point game?

The same Millwad who claimed that Andrew Bynum was a better player than Wilt. The same Millwad who claimed that Russell was not a world-class high-jumper. The same Millwad who claimed that Joey Johnson (the high-jumper_ couldn't get his chin above rim level? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face seven-footers? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face double-teams? The same Millwad who claimed that Barkley did not outrebound his teammate, Hakeem, by four rpg in a season?

I could go on, but it is obvious you two are the same posters. Two complete morons who cannot come up with any substantial arguments, and instead throw up ridiculous opinions and flat out lies.

There you go twisting things again, like I've said any of that.. I didn't quote nobody, just posted a link where you get exposed. The rest, I've said before.

[LAZERUSS]

When your rival has 11 of anything and you have 2, it is ONLY 2.

That is why players like Eaton, Parish, Thompson, Divac, et ak, were all greater players than Hakeem.

And why players like Reed, Thurmond, Cowens, Walton, and Webster were greater players than Kareem.

They beat those guys H2H, just like Russell was "beating" Wilt H2H.

[SHAQisGOAT]

That is why players like Eaton, Parish, Thompson, Divac, et ak, were all greater players than Hakeem.

And why players like Reed, Thurmond, Cowens, Walton, and Webster were greater players than Kareem.

They beat those guys H2H, just like Russell was "beating" Wilt H2H.

Hakeem has 2 rings as the best player, Parish has 3 as not the best player. Won't even mention the rest.

Kareem has 6 rings, easily more than anyone you've mention there.

Wilt has 2 to Russell's 11.. The discrepancy is enormous :lol Not even fair.

(I can use messed up "logic" since you use it too)

You've been exposed, crawl back to your hole.

[navy]

That is why players like Eaton, Parish, Thompson, Divac, et ak, were all greater players than Hakeem.

And why players like Reed, Thurmond, Cowens, Walton, and Webster were greater players than Kareem.

They beat those guys H2H, just like Russell was "beating" Wilt H2H.

Dude, 11 rings to 2. That is ridiculous nomatter how you slice it. Now I personally think Wilt was better than Bill Russel, but damn you cant walk around with 2 rings and beat your chest.

[Odinn]

jlabuer getting sensitive all over again. :roll:

Let's check out what I said;

When your rival has 11 of anything and you have 2, it is ONLY 2.
When your rival 11 choke-jobs and you have 2, it is ONLY 2.
When your rival 11 rings and you have 2, it is ONYL 2.

It can go either way. But in this particular case, 2nd one applies. :oldlol:

Also when Divac, Eaton were rivals for Hakeem? You can not even understand properly what you see on the screen (since that's the case, it's hard to claim that you can read), why even bothering responding?

[LAZERUSS]

Hakeem has 2 rings as the best player, Parish has 3 as not the best player. Won't even mention the rest.

Kareem has 6 rings, easily more than anyone you've mention there.

Wilt has 2 to Russell's 11.. The discrepancy is enormous :lol Not even fair.

(I can use messed up "logic" since you use it too)

You've been exposed, crawl back to your hole.

Using YOUR ridiculous logic, Hakeem was beaten by better centers in 13 of his 15 post-seasons (and wasn't even good enough to get in the playoffs in three more seasons.)

And KAJ was beaten like a dog by better centers in 12 of his 18 post-seasons (and again, evidently was a POS in '74 and '75 when he couldn't even get to the playoffs.) And the reality was, he was LAs third best player in their '87 title run, and then in '88, he "won" a ring DESPITE being a complete joke in the post-season. They would have won a title in '88 with Helen Keller at center.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Using YOUR ridiculous logic, Hakeem was beaten by better centers in 13 of his 15 post-seasons (and wasn't even good enough to get in the playoffs in three more seasons.)

And KAJ was beaten like a dog by better centers in 12 of his 18 post-seasons (and again, evidently was a POS in '74 and '75 when he couldn't even get to the playoffs.) And the reality was, he was LAs third best player in their '87 title run, and then in '88, he "won" a ring DESPITE being a complete joke in the post-season. They would have won a title in '88 with Helen Keller at center.

11 to 2.. Huge difference, damn. Show me two other superstar rivals, best players in the league, that played during the same time-span, with a difference of 9 championships. 9!!! :lol

http://blog.smalldog.com/images/3791.jpg

****ing 11 to 2 man, that's ridiculous in every aspect.

[moe94]

11 to 2.. Huge difference, damn. Show me two other superstar rivals, best players in the league, that played during the same time-span, with a difference of 9 championships. 9!!! :lol

http://blog.smalldog.com/images/3791.jpg

****ing 11 to 2 man, that's ridiculous in every aspect.

Disparity between their stats is every bit as drastic doe :coleman:

Rings are a team accomplishment and Russell unarguably had better teams throughout most of his career.

[LAZERUSS]

11 to 2.. Huge difference, damn. Show me two other superstar rivals, best players in the league, that played during the same time-span, with a difference of 9 championships. 9!!! :lol

http://blog.smalldog.com/images/3791.jpg

****ing 11 to 2 man, that's ridiculous in every aspect.

Of course, Chamberlain was wiping the floor with Russell in his H2H's, while Kareem was getting beaten to a pulp by Thurmond in one, and flat-out murdered by Moses in their two playoff H2H's (and in fact, Moses held a 6-1 W-L record against Kareem...including beating him with a 40-42 team, and sweeping him with a lessor roster in another.)

[PsychoBe]

Disparity between their stats is every bit as drastic doe :coleman:

Rings are a team accomplishment and Russell unarguably had better teams throughout most of his career.

wilt averaged 11 points in a final series. cream always rises to the top and russell always rose higher. i wont even argue the "better help" nonsense since there are too many imaginative variables for it to have been argued properly. every player on russell's celtics credits russell for those wins. he was their leader, their coach, their defensive anchor, their playmaker, their everything. no one has said anything remotely close like that about wilt. if you win 11 finals series through different teammates, systems, and competition then it's you. no other way around it.

but you knew that already but we appreciate you playing devil's advocate.

[PsychoBe]

Of course, Chamberlain was wiping the floor with Russell in his H2H's, while Kareem was getting beaten to a pulp by Thurmond in one, and flat-out murdered by Moses in their two playoff H2H's (and in fact, Moses held a 6-1 W-L record against Kareem...including beating him with a 40-42 team, and sweeping him with a lessor roster in another.)

if chamberlain wiped the floor with russell in their h2h's then why does russell have 11 rings while wilt has two?

[CavaliersFTW]

11 to 2.. Huge difference, damn. Show me two other superstar rivals, best players in the league, that played during the same time-span, with a difference of 9 championships. 9!!! :lol

http://blog.smalldog.com/images/3791.jpg

****ing 11 to 2 man, that's ridiculous in every aspect.
In the same time span it is technically 10 to 1 Russell's teams to Wilt's, not 11 to 2

9 to zero Russell's to Robertson's

9 to zero Russell's to West's

10 to zero Russell's to Baylor's

all those guys must suck so bad :lol




:rolleyes:




Wilt owns the NBA record book and most of his records can't ever even be broken, the next best aren't even close usually plus 2 titles as the best player on those teams, 4 MVP's etc. Basically shits on any other players resume that 'only' got "2 rings". Actually, his resume shits on most players who played for teams that won more rings than his did. Hence, he's a GOAT candidate.

[CavaliersFTW]

if chamberlain wiped the floor with russell in their h2h's then why does russell have 11 rings while wilt has two?
5 on 5 not 1 on 1

[moe94]

if chamberlain wiped the floor with russell in their h2h's then why does russell have 11 rings while wilt has two?

SEPARATE TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL ABILITY

[SHAQisGOAT]

Disparity between their stats is every bit as drastic doe :coleman:

Rings are a team accomplishment and Russell unarguably had better teams throughout most of his career.



In the same time span it is technically 10 to 1 Russell's teams to Wilt's, not 11 to 2

9 to zero Russell's to Robertson's

9 to zero Russell's to West's

10 to zero Russell's to Baylor's

all those guys must suck so bad :lol




:rolleyes:




Wilt owns the NBA record book and most of his records can't ever even be broken, the next best aren't even close usually plus 2 titles as the best player on those teams, 4 MVP's etc. Basically shits on any other players resume that 'only' got "2 ringsz"

Relax.. I'm just messing with jlauber, man, dude's a tool.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Of course, Chamberlain was wiping the floor with Russell in his H2H's, while Kareem was getting beaten to a pulp by Thurmond in one, and flat-out murdered by Moses in their two playoff H2H's (and in fact, Moses held a 6-1 W-L record against Kareem...including beating him with a 40-42 team, and sweeping him with a lessor roster in another.)

http://cdn.tss.uproxx.com/TSS/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bill-russell_yawn.gif

11......2

[LAZERUSS]

wilt averaged 11 points in a final series. cream always rises to the top and russell always rose higher. i wont even argue the "better help" nonsense since there are too many imaginative variables for it to have been argued properly. every player on russell's celtics credits russell for those wins. he was their leader, their coach, their defensive anchor, their playmaker, their everything. no one has said anything remotely close like that about wilt. if you win 11 finals series through different teammates, systems, and competition then it's you. no other way around it.

but you knew that already but we appreciate you playing devil's advocate.

In that ONE series you are referring to, Chamberlain OUTSCORED Russell, crushed him in rebounding, and outshot him from the field by a .500 to .399 margin. And that was the CLOSEST series between the two.

As for the "teammate" argument...Russell had a HOF edge in surrounding talent in EVERY season in which the two were in the league together. Not only that, but his surrounding talent just annihilated Wilt's in H2H play.

BTW, when Russell arrived in Boston, he joined a Celtic team that had gone 39-33 the year before, and made the playoffs. AND, he was their SECOND pick in the draft, behind eventual ROY winner, Tommy Heinsohn. Oh, and Russell missed 24 games in his rookie season. In the 48 in which he played, Boston went 28-20. In the 24 he missed, they went 16-8.

And in the '58 Finals, Russell was injured in game three, and the series tied 1-1. Boston lost that game three 111-108, but actually outscored the Hawks without Russell in the game. Russell missed the next two games, and without him, Boston won game four easily, and then lost game five by two points. Russell returned for game six, but was worthless. The Celtics lost that game by a 110-109 margin, and again, actually outscored St. Louis without Russell.

Furthermore, Boston would draft Sam Jones the next year after they drafted Heinsohn and Russell, and then would continue to either draft well, or acquire star players for the rest of Russell's career. His 62-63 Celtics featured NINE HOFers, including Clyde Lovellette, who they acquired during the off-season, and just after a season in which he had averaged 20 ppg. And he was only around their 8th best player in '63.

Even Russell, himself made the comment, that Sam Jones was handed the ball eight times in do-or-die playoff situations, and he came thru in every one of them. And, of course, Havlicek was perhaps Boston's best player by the 67-68 season.


Meanwhile, Chamberlain was drafted (in high school mind you) by a last place team. Not only that, but that roster would get older, and worse, each season Wilt was with the Warriors. Then, he was traded to another bottom-dwelling team in the middle of the 64-65 season, and immediately carried them to a game seven, one point loss, against the 62-18 HOF-laden Celtics in the EDF's.

Wilt played with worse rosters, that played even worse in the playoffs, in nearly his entire 10 years in the league together with Russell. That he beat Russell handedly in one, and nearly beat him in FOUR more was just incredible.

All while just crushing Russell in the process.

[Deuce Bigalow]

There you go twisting things again, like I've said any of that.. I didn't quote nobody, just posted a link where you get exposed. The rest, I've said before.
Wilt (GOAT) >>> Bird

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt vs. Russell Playoff H2H

1960 P.O

Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0

1962 P.O

Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9

1964 P.O

Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2

1965 P.O

Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3

1966 P.O

Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2

1967 P.O

Wilt: 21.6/32.0/10.0
Russell: 11.4/23.4

1968 P.O

Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9

1969 P.O

Wilt: 11.7/25.0
Russell: 9.1/21.1

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt (GOAT) >>> Bird

Damn Deuce...

:bowdown:

[CavaliersFTW]

Relax.. I'm just messing with jlauber, man, dude's a tool.
I forgot about your guys never ending feud, carry on

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt vs. Russell Playoff H2H

1960 P.O

Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0

1962 P.O

Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9

1964 P.O

Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2

1965 P.O

Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3

1966 P.O

Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2

1967 P.O

Wilt: 21.6/32.0/10.0
Russell: 11.4/23.4

1968 P.O

Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9

1969 P.O

Wilt: 11.7/25.0
Russell: 9.1/21.1

'60 playoffs Chamberlain shot 50.0% against Russell. I don't have Russell's total numbers.

'62. Wilt .468, Russell .398.

'64. Wilt .517, Russell .386.

'65. Wilt .555, Russell .447.

'66. Wilt .509, Russell .451.

'67. Wilt .556, Russell .358.

'68. Wilt .487, Russell .440.

'69. Wilt .500, Russell .398.

[Stringer Bell]

Expectations are higher when you are so talented. Wilt was a freakish talent who put up godly numbers.

Wilt/Russell and Magic/Bird, are the biggest individual rivalries in the sport's history.

When you win 2 titles and the other guy wins 11, you're gonna get some criticism. Yes, it's a team sport, and not fair, but that's the way it goes. People are necessarily fair when it comes to assessing sports.

[moe94]

I forgot about your guys never ending feud, carry on

Number 2 to the GOAT EL/gabepizza.

[navy]

Larry Bird has three rings and played in a respectable era.
Larry Legend > Wilt the GOAT Choker.

~Bill Simmons

[fpliii]

lol

[PsychoBe]

In that ONE series you are referring to, Chamberlain OUTSCORED Russell, crushed him in rebounding, and outshot him from the field by a .500 to .399 margin. And that was the CLOSEST series between the two.

As for the "teammate" argument...Russell had a HOF edge in surrounding talent in EVERY season in which the two were in the league together. Not only that, but his surrounding talent just annihilated Wilt's in H2H play.

BTW, when Russell arrived in Boston, he joined a Celtic team that had gone 39-33 the year before, and made the playoffs. AND, he was their SECOND pick in the draft, behind eventual ROY winner, Tommy Heinsohn. Oh, and Russell missed 24 games in his rookie season. In the 48 in which he played, Boston went 28-20. In the 24 he missed, they went 16-8.

And in the '58 Finals, Russell was injured in game three, and the series tied 1-1. Boston lost that game three 111-108, but actually outscored the Hawks without Russell in the game. Russell missed the next two games, and without him, Boston won game four easily, and then lost game five by two points. Russell returned for game six, but was worthless. The Celtics lost that game by a 110-109 margin, and again, actually outscored St. Louis without Russell.

Furthermore, Boston would draft Sam Jones the next year after they drafted Heinsohn and Russell, and then would continue to either draft well, or acquire star players for the rest of Russell's career. His 62-63 Celtics featured NINE HOFers, including Clyde Lovellette, who they acquired during the off-season, and just after a season in which he had averaged 20 ppg. And he was only around their 8th best player in '63.

Even Russell, himself made the comment, that Sam Jones was handed the ball eight times in do-or-die playoff situations, and he came thru in every one of them. And, of course, Havlicek was perhaps Boston's best player by the 67-68 season.


Meanwhile, Chamberlain was drafted (in high school mind you) by a last place team. Not only that, but that roster would get older, and worse, each season Wilt was with the Warriors. Then, he was traded to another bottom-dwelling team in the middle of the 64-65 season, and immediately carried them to a game seven, one point loss, against the 62-18 HOF-laden Celtics in the EDF's.

Wilt played with worse rosters, that played even worse in the playoffs, in nearly his entire 10 years in the league together with Russell. That he beat Russell handedly in one, and nearly beat him in FOUR more was just incredible.

All while just crushing Russell in the process.

the celtics were an offensive team but when russell joined his presence alone literally changed the entire culture of the team and turned them into a defensive one. players would scream "hey, bill!" and he would always be there to shut down any player regardless of their position from point-guard to center and we all know how he'd intentionally block shots with his fingertips so that he could catch the ball and start the fast break. the celtics would play a gung-ho style of aggressive defensive because they knew they had russell behind them so they literally did not care if they were beaten off the dribble. russell changed everything.

and then you bring up the st.louis series without mention the game-saving "coleman play"?

also you need to stop bringing up scoring as if it matters. russell was not a scorer and his career high was 18.9. russell did other things to win besides score but it's a shame wilt didn't understand that until later in his career. russell had all the intangibles but wilt did not. cream always rises and not many players rose as high as russell did.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Larry Bird has three rings and played in a respectable era.
Larry Legend > Wilt the GOAT Choker.

~Bill Simmons
MVPs? Wilt 4. Bird 3.

Scoring titles? Wilt 7. Bird 0.

Rebounding titles? Wilt 11. Bird 0.

FG% titles? Wilt 9. Bird 0.

I could go on but the argument's already over.

Wilt the GOAT >>>>> Bird

[moe94]

Larry Bird has three rings and played in a respectable era.
Larry Legend > Wilt the GOAT Choker.

~Bill Simmons

http://www.wcbsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Simmons.gif

[navy]

MVPs? Wilt 4. Bird 3.

Scoring titles? Wilt 7. Bird 0.

Rebounding titles? Wilt 11. Bird 0.

FG% titles? Wilt 9. Bird 0.

I could go on but the argument's already over.

Wilt the GOAT >>>>> Bird
Wasnt a respectable era doe. Larry Bird was beasting on the likes of Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. Wilt was playing against unathletic white guys and overrated legends like Bill Russel. At least Russel was stacking rings doe.

Larry Legend > Wilt the limping stilt

[LAZERUSS]

And I always get a kick out of those that use the argument that Russell "curtailed" Wilt's numbers. True, he slightly held him down in terms of scoring and FG%'s, but how about this...Chamberlain actually held Russell's FG% down MORE than Russell held down Wilt's.

[r0drig0lac]

because he was the true MDE

[PsychoBe]

5 on 5 not 1 on 1

so it's 1 on 1 in the regular season but not in the finals? interesting.


SEPARATE TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL ABILITY

an individual can have a drastic impact on a team. not a revolutionary concept. russell changed everything for the celtics.

[LAZERUSS]

MVPs? Wilt 4. Bird 3.

Scoring titles? Wilt 7. Bird 0.

Rebounding titles? Wilt 11. Bird 0.

FG% titles? Wilt 9. Bird 0.

I could go on but the argument's already over.

Wilt the GOAT >>>>> Bird

You could also add... the NBA RECORD BOOK. Wilt's name is plastered all over it. And to be honest, he likely holds HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of NBA records (if you include "streak" records.) I doubt Bird has more than a dozen, and none of them would be considered significant.

[CavaliersFTW]

so it's 1 on 1 in the regular season but not in the finals? interesting.

I never said, nor implied that. Stop making straw men, man.

[PsychoBe]

And I always get a kick out of those that use the argument that Russell "curtailed" Wilt's numbers. True, he slightly held him down in terms of scoring and FG%'s, but how about this...Chamberlain actually held Russell's FG% down MORE than Russell held down Wilt's.

in the 1961-1962 post-season game 7 vs the warriors (where it mattered the most) russell held the "monster" wilt to 22 points (while scoring 19 himself) who had averaged 50 points during the regular season and scored 100.

cream always rises to the top but wilt rarely rose when it mattered the most. he failed under pressure too many times to be excusable.

[PsychoBe]

I never said, nor implied that. Stop making straw men, man.

making sure we're on the same page.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wasnt a respectable era doe. Larry Bird was beasting on the likes of Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. Wilt was playing against unathletic white guys and overrated legends like Bill Russel. At least Russel was stacking rings doe.

Larry Legend > Wilt the limping stilt
Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to name a few...

Playoff series losses with HCA
Bird 7
Wilt 5

Bird the Legendary Choker

Antoniobanderas.gif

[LAZERUSS]

so it's 1 on 1 in the regular season but not in the finals? interesting.



an individual can have a drastic impact on a team. not a revolutionary concept. russell changed everything for the celtics.

Let me ask you this, then...

Chamberlain took a team that had gone 34-46 the year before he arrived (and didn't even make the playoffs), to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team that had gone 62-18, and was at the peak of their dynasty. And he did so, in a series in which he outscored Russell, per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31.4 ppg to 25.2 rpg,; outshot Russell from the field in that series, .555 to .447; and even outshot Russell from the line by a .583 to .472 margin (including outscoring him from the line by a 49-17 margin)...

and you tell me who the better player was?

And then, after you answer the above, can you explain what happened to Russell in the '67 EDF's? Who was the better player in that series?

[CavaliersFTW]

making sure we're on the same page.
No you aren't, you're creating straw men. People who create straw men don't know how to argue their points and thus resort to logical fallacies that attempt to disparage the person who disagrees with them. Poor form on your part. If you wanted to understand my position you could have simply asked for more details and/or clarification.

[navy]

Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Bob Pettit, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to name a few...

Playoff series losses with HCA
Bird 7
Wilt 5

Bird the Legendary Choker

Antoniobanderas.gif

3 rings in a respectable era >> 2 Rings as a stat padding choker

http://i.minus.com/iBEwT7tEC0X2B.gif

[Psileas]

in the 1961-1962 post-season game 7 vs the warriors (where it mattered the most) russell held the "monster" wilt to 22 points (while scoring 19 himself) who had averaged 50 points during the regular season and scored 100.

cream always rises to the top but wilt rarely rose when it mattered the most. he failed under pressure too many times to be excusable.

Funny how you believe that this was a bad game for Wilt, when he was praised for his performance, leaving even Bob Cousy (not a Wilt enthusiast) impressed. Funny how, for some, when trying to belittle Wilt and the boxscore doesn't favor Wilt, the boxscore IS all that matters.

[LAZERUSS]

in the 1961-1962 post-season game 7 vs the warriors (where it mattered the most) russell held the "monster" wilt to 22 points (while scoring 19 himself) who had averaged 50 points during the regular season and scored 100.

cream always rises to the top but wilt rarely rose when it mattered the most. he failed under pressure too many times to be excusable.

Of course...in a series in which Chamberlain outscored a Russell at his scoring peak, 34-22 ppg, and outshot Russell from the field, .468 to .398 (in a season in which Russell shot .457 against the NBA.) Included was a game in which Chamberlain oustcored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20. Oh, and just how in the hell did Wilt get THAT roster past Syracuse in the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics...and all with his teammates collectively shooting .354 from the field (and his two best teammates shooting .375 and .271)?

Incidently, Wilt "only" averaged 39.6 ppg against Russell, on a .471 FG%, in their ten regular season H2H's...in an NBA that averaged 118.8 ppg on .426 shooting. Furthermore, his 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting in the EDF's, came in a post-season NBA that averaged 112.6 ppg on a .411 eFG%.

[moe94]

making sure we're on the same page.

You're dissing Wilt. :biggums:

You are NOT on his page. :coleman:

[PsychoBe]

Let me ask you this, then...

Chamberlain took a team that had gone 34-46 the year before he arrived (and didn't even make the playoffs), to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team that had gone 62-18, and was at the peak of their dynasty. And he did so, in a series in which he outscored Russell, per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31.4 ppg to 25.2 rpg,; outshot Russell from the field in that series, .555 to .447; and even outshot Russell from the line by a .583 to .472 margin (including outscoring him from the line by a 49-17 margin)...

and you tell me who the better player was?

And then, after you answer the above, can you explain what happened to Russell in the '67 EDF's? Who was the better player in that series?

russell's career high in scoring was 18.9. he wasn't much of a scorer so that point is moot. in game 5 of that series russell did his usual all-around, winning basketball performance - 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, 7 assists, 6 steals.

russell was a winner and did whatever it took to win and was much more of an all-around player than wilt ever was. cream always rises and russell always rose higher when it mattered the most, contributing in literally every facet of the game at the highest level never before seen in the body of a 6-11 big-man.



No you aren't, you're creating straw men. People who create straw men don't know how to argue their points and thus resort to logical fallacies that attempt to disparage the person who disagrees with them. Poor form on your part. If you wanted to understand my position you could have simply asked for more details and/or clarification.

you need to calm down. i clearly asked a question. you could have simply left said "you're mistaken" and moved on.

[LAZERUSS]

Funny how you believe that this was a bad game for Wilt, when he was praised for his performance, leaving even Bob Cousy (not a Wilt enthusiast) impressed. Funny how, for some, when trying to belittle Wilt and the boxscore doesn't favor Wilt, the boxscore IS all that matters.

Not to mention that Wilt tied the score with 16 seconds left, on a dunk and a MADE FT. Oh, and then Sam Jones made the game-winner...over the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it...Wilt. Here was Chamberlain being swarmed by Celtics on his offensive end of the court, and then having to defend the entire Celtic team at the other end.

[Deuce Bigalow]

3 rings in a respectable era >> 2 Rings as a stat padding choker

http://i.minus.com/iBEwT7tEC0X2B.gif
4 MVPS > 3
7 SCORING TITLES > 0
11 REBOUNDING TITLES > 0
9 FG% TITLES > 0
OWNING THE RECORD BOOK > ANYTHING BIRD DID

Bird lost with HCA 2 more times than Wilt

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/196fucggnlckngif/ku-xlarge.gif

[PsychoBe]

Funny how you believe that this was a bad game for Wilt, when he was praised for his performance, leaving even Bob Cousy (not a Wilt enthusiast) impressed. Funny how, for some, when trying to belittle Wilt and the boxscore doesn't favor Wilt, the boxscore IS all that matters.

wilt went from averaging 50 points to being held to 22 in the decisive game. you can try to spin it however you want it but russell was a proven winner at the highest level while wilt was not.

[navy]

Non respectable era. You can list all the stat padding accomplishments you want.

Larry Bird in the 60s would have been the GOAT and made Wilt retire ringless.

[PsychoBe]

Not to mention that Wilt tied the score with 16 seconds left, on a dunk and a MADE FT. Oh, and then Sam Jones made the game-winner...over the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it...Wilt. Here was Chamberlain being swarmed by Celtics on his offensive end of the court, and then having to defend the entire Celtic team at the other end.

so it's a team game for the winner but a solo game for the loser? it's a team game for russell when he wins but wilt was all alone in his losses. you just said that wilt failed to block sam jones's game winner and you're still defending him. cream always rises and wilt never rose high enough.

[LAZERUSS]

russell's career high in scoring was 18.9. he wasn't much of a scorer so that point is moot. in game 5 of that series russell did his usual all-around, winning basketball performance - 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, 7 assists, 6 steals.

russell was a winner and did whatever it took to win and was much more of an all-around player than wilt ever was. cream always rises and russell always rose higher when it mattered the most, contributing in literally every facet of the game at the highest level never before seen in the body of a 6-11 big-man.




you need to calm down. i clearly asked a question. you could have simply left said "you're mistaken" and moved on.

Except that he wasn't. Chamberlain was clearly the better scorer; clearly the more efficient shooter; clearly a better rebounder (he outrebounded Russell by FIVE per game over the course of their 143 H2H games, and including all EIGHT of their post-season series' H2H's); was a better passer (especially in his more "balanced" role); was probably Russell's equal defensively from the mid-60's on; and was a better shot-blocker (in their known H2H games, Chamberlain held an enormous margin in blocked shots.)

[PsychoBe]

Except that he wasn't. Chamberlain was clearly the better scorer; clearly the more efficient shooter; clearly a better rebounder (he outrebounded Russell by FIVE per game over the course of their 143 H2H games, and including all EIGHT of their post-season series' H2H's); was a better passer (especially in his more "balanced" role); was probably Russell's equal defensively from the mid-60's on; and was a better shot-blocker (in their known H2H games, Chamberlain held an enormous margin in blocked shots.)

russell wasn't a scorer so that point is moot. they were equal rebounders seeing how russell holds the record for most rebounds in a final series (40) and they are comparable passers and defensively it's not even close russell wins that by a land-slide. all the celtics had to do was shout "hey, bill!" and he was there, literally guarding 1-5 and had the quickness to get to his man and go back to contest the big-man. he had an omni-potent presence on the defensive end that was unrivaled and unmatched by many others.

[LAZERUSS]

wilt went from averaging 50 points to being held to 22 in the decisive game. you can try to spin it however you want it but russell was a proven winner at the highest level while wilt was not.

Chamberlain also had "must-win" playoff games against Russell of 50 points and 35 rebounds; 32-21; 30-27; 30-26; 30-32 (on .800 shooting from the field); 46-34; and 18-27. He also had a series-clinching win performance of 29-36-13-7. And in between he had many other 30-40 point playoff games against him.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Bird lost with HCA 2 more times than Wilt


Yet has 1 more ring than Stilt, and his rival and other main superstar of his era "only" has 2 more while being healthy more years and with better teammates on average. :lol
For Russ and Wilt the difference is 9!!! :oldlol:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Here was Chamberlain being swarmed by Celtics on his offensive end of the court, and then having to defend the entire Celtic team at the other end.

:roll:

This dude is sad, pathetic and funny at the same time. Must be like 15 years old only too. :lol

[SHAQisGOAT]

Chamberlain also had "must-win" playoff games against Russell of 50 points and 35 rebounds; 32-21; 30-27; 30-26; 30-32 (on .800 shooting from the field); 46-34; and 18-27. He also had a series-clinching win performance of 29-36-13-7. And in between he had many other 30-40 point playoff games against him.

Yet

Russell: 11

Wilt: 2

:eek:

Wilt would've given all of his regular-season (because the rest just takes a complete dip, big dipper lol) stats - or padded stats though - even MVP's and most of his money to have half of Russell's rings. :oldlol:

[Psileas]

wilt went from averaging 50 points to being held to 22 in the decisive game. you can try to spin it however you want it but russell was a proven winner at the highest level while wilt was not.

You added nothing more than the "I saw the boxscore" perspective and you compare it to the one of those who saw the game. It suits the "choker Wilt" agenda, so nothing surprising here.
You may as well pretend it was Russell's defense and Wilt's "choking" that made Wilt take 15 shots in the whole game.

[LAZERUSS]

russell wasn't a scorer so that point is moot. they were equal rebounders seeing how russell holds the record for most rebounds in a final series (40) and they are comparable passers and defensively it's not even close russell wins that by a land-slide. all the celtics had to do was shout "hey, bill!" and he was there, literally guarding 1-5 and had the quickness to get to his man and go back to contest the big-man. he had an omni-potent presence on the defensive end that was unrivaled and unmatched by many others.

Equal rebounders? Are you kidding me? How about these FACTS:

Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin in rebounding "wins" in their 143 H2H games.

Chamberlain held s 7-1 margin over Russell in H2H 40+ rebound games.

Wilt held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebound games.

Chamberlain holds the all-time single game rebounding record of 55, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin.

Wilt outrebounded Russell in ALL eight of their playoff series, including margins of 25-21; 30-26; 31-25, and even 32-23.

Wilt holds the playoff single game rebounding record of 41, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell, 41-29. (Oh and he also outrebounded in games of that same series, by margins of 32-15, and 36-21.)

Chamberlain was CLEARLY the greater rebounder.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You added nothing more than the "I saw the boxscore" perspective and you compare it to the one of those who saw the game. It suits the "choker Wilt" agenda, so nothing surprising here.
You may as well pretend it was Russell's defense and Wilt's "choking" that made Wilt take 15 shots in the whole game.

Jlauber does the same, even much worse, just on the other side of the fence.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yet has 1 more ring than Stilt, and his rival and other main superstar of his era "only" has 2 more while being healthy more years and with better teammates on average. :lol
For Russ and Wilt the difference is 9!!! :oldlol:
You must have Kobe, Duncan, and Shaq over Bird huh? More rings :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

2 chips is good, but 3 chips is the standard for all time greatness.

[LAZERUSS]

Yet

Russell: 11

Wilt: 2

:eek:

Wilt would've given all of his regular-season (because the rest just takes a complete dip, big dipper lol) stats, even MVP's and most of his money to have half of Russell's rings. :oldlol:

You forgot to add that Chamberlain also held a 7-2 margin in All-NBA First Team selections over Russell, in their ten years in the league together.

[PsychoBe]

Chamberlain also had "must-win" playoff games against Russell of 50 points and 35 rebounds; 32-21; 30-27; 30-26; 30-32 (on .800 shooting from the field); 46-34; and 18-27. He also had a series-clinching win performance of 29-36-13-7. And in between he had many other 30-40 point playoff games against him.

no one said wilt didn't have great playoff performances he clearly was a great player but he just wasn't quite as comparable to russell. wilt's sixers thoroughly outplayed the celtics in the 1967 post-season(which russell acknowledges as his only loss considering he was injured before) and he shook wilt's hand.

however, in the 1968 post-season, when philly was favored to win, they blew a 3-1 series lead and allowed the celtics to come back for a game 7, where russell held wilt to two shot attempts in the second half alone and did clutch play after clutch play, (clutch freethrow, clutch rebound, and clutch assist to sam jones) displaying his brilliance.

cream always rises and russell rose higher than wilt when it mattered the most.

[LAZERUSS]

You must have Kobe, Duncan, and Shaq over Bird huh? More rings :confusedshrug:

Hondo too.

Clearly, Russell and Hondo were the greatest Celtics of all-time. Hell, Hondo went 8-0 in his Finals.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Non respectable era. You can list all the stat padding accomplishments you want.

Larry Bird in the 60s would have been the GOAT and made Wilt retire ringless.
Great argument man. Funny how you talk about eras. Wilt was beating Kareem in the '72 playoffs while Bird lost to 38 year old Kareem in the '85 Finals with Kareem taking FMVP honors :oldlol:

[SHAQisGOAT]

You must have Kobe, Duncan, and Shaq over Bird huh? More rings :confusedshrug:

Actually no, but no problem in having Shaq. Bird played in the most competitive era, in the most competitive conference, filled with top-notch superstars at the top, goat era for the position he was playing at his best, turned a franchise completely around and was unbelievably impactful from the get-go, not really long longevity due to injuries (style of play, giving it his all, or else wouldn't have been the same) but while healthy was just doing unreal shit, walked away with plenty of accolades, awards and acomplishments.

[PsychoBe]

Equal rebounders? Are you kidding me? How about these FACTS:

Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin in rebounding "wins" in their 143 H2H games.

Chamberlain held s 7-1 margin over Russell in H2H 40+ rebound games.

Wilt held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebound games.

Chamberlain holds the all-time single game rebounding record of 55, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin.

Wilt outrebounded Russell in ALL eight of their playoff series, including margins of 25-21; 30-26; 31-25, and even 32-23.

Wilt holds the playoff single game rebounding record of 41, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell, 41-29. (Oh and he also outrebounded in games of that same series, by margins of 32-15, and 36-21.)

Chamberlain was CLEARLY the greater rebounder.

russell holds the record for most rebounds in a final series(40) and has career average of 22.5 to wilt's 22.9. they are equal at best.


You added nothing more than the "I saw the boxscore" perspective and you compare it to the one of those who saw the game. It suits the "choker Wilt" agenda, so nothing surprising here.
You may as well pretend it was Russell's defense and Wilt's "choking" that made Wilt take 15 shots in the whole game.

i never used the term "choker". it's just unfortunate for wilt that he ran into the greatest winner ever. cream always rises to the top and he never rose quite as high as russell did. he had his moments but was never consistent enough as history clearly shows.

[moe94]

Great argument man. Funny how you talk about eras. Wilt was beating Kareem in the '72 playoffs while Bird lost to 38 year old Kareem in the '85 Finals with Kareem taking FMVP honors :oldlol:
http://asset-c.soup.io/asset/1522/9137_c5ad.gif

[SHAQisGOAT]

Great argument man. Funny how you talk about eras. Wilt was beating Kareem in the '72 playoffs while Bird lost to 38 year old Kareem in the '85 Finals with Kareem taking FMVP honors :oldlol:

Plus Magic, Worthy, McAdoo, Cooper, Scott. Bird with a severely injured elbow and hand, and it took a GOAT-level performance from Kareem still. ****in legend. Wilt would've crumbled long before :lol

[SHAQisGOAT]

You forgot to add that Chamberlain also held a 7-2 margin in All-NBA First Team selections over Russell, in their ten years in the league together.

Yet Russ walked away with 9 more rings :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

no one said wilt didn't have great playoff performances he clearly was a great player but he just wasn't quite as comparable to russell. wilt's sixers thoroughly outplayed the celtics in the 1967 post-season(which russell acknowledges as his only loss considering he was injured before) and he shook wilt's hand.

however, in the 1968 post-season, when philly was favored to win, they blew a 3-1 series lead and allowed the celtics to come back for a game 7, where russell held wilt to two shot attempts in the second half alone and did clutch play after clutch play, (clutch freethrow, clutch rebound, and clutch assist to sam jones) displaying his brilliance.

cream always rises and russell rose higher than wilt when it mattered the most.

Did you actually research the '68 EDF's? Of course not, or you would have known that HOFer Billy Cunningham was injured before that series, and did not play in it. And as for the Sixers's "blowing" that 3-1 series lead, you do realize that BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones were injured in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And that Chamberlain was playing with SEVERAL injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the entire series. And that Chamberlain "the choker" put up a 28-30 game in that game five, which would normally have been enough to have wrapped up the series, had his teammates even contributed anything at all.

The reality was, Russell never outplayed Wilt, and narrowly won four game seven's (by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points) in series in which Chamberlain's teammates were crushed by Russell's.

A few more points and Wilt would have held a 5-3 margin over Russell in their post-season H2H's.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Did you actually research the '68 EDF's? Of course not, or you would have known that HOFer Billy Cunningham was injured before that series, and did not play in it. And as for the Sixers's "blowing" that 3-1 series lead, you do realize that BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones were injured in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And that Chamberlain was playing with SEVERAL injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the entire series. And that Chamberlain "the choker" put up a 28-30 game in that game five, which would normally have been enough to have wrapped up the series, had his teammates even contributed anything at all.

The reality was, Russell never outplayed Wilt, and narrowly won four game seven's (by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points) in series in which Chamberlain's teammates were crushed by Russell's.

A few more points and Wilt would have held a 5-3 margin over Russell in their post-season H2H's.

This tool talking about research when he never mentions big injuries for other players (he hates on), yet will talk about meaningless shit for Wilt. :lol

Yea, yea, yea.. That's pretty good but Russell still walked away with 9(!!!!) more rings :roll: Stay mad.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Plus Magic, Worthy, McAdoo, Cooper, Scott. Bird with a severely injured elbow and hand, and it took a GOAT-level performance from Kareem still. ****in legend. Wilt would've crumbled long before :lol
Like Bird crumbling in the '83 playoffs getting swept by the Bucks while having HCA? Or like Bird completely choking in '88 to the Pistons?

[Odinn]

Great argument man. Funny how you talk about eras. Wilt was beating Kareem in the '72 playoffs while Bird lost to 38 year old Kareem in the '85 Finals with Kareem taking FMVP honors :oldlol:
:cheers: :cheers: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Yet Russ walked away with 9 more rings :roll:

In a TEAM game, and with much better teammates, who dominated Wilt's teammates in the post-season.

And yet Bird "only" won three, on teams with 3-4 more HOFers, his ENTIRE career. And don't give me this crap that Bird faced better teams in his post-seasons. He didn't have to face the greatest dynasty in NBA history.

[PsychoBe]

Did you actually research the '68 EDF's? Of course not, or you would have known that HOFer Billy Cunningham was injured before that series, and did not play in it. And as for the Sixers's "blowing" that 3-1 series lead, you do realize that BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones were injured in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And that Chamberlain was playing with SEVERAL injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the entire series. And that Chamberlain "the choker" put up a 28-30 game in that game five, which would normally have been enough to have wrapped up the series, had his teammates even contributed anything at all.

The reality was, Russell never outplayed Wilt, and narrowly won four game seven's (by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points) in series in which Chamberlain's teammates were crushed by Russell's.

A few more points and Wilt would have held a 5-3 margin over Russell in their post-season H2H's.

russell was in the twilight of his career that year and that celtics squad had just come off of being crushed by wilt and were a shell of their former glory. we're not here to argue who had the biggest excuses, we're here to argue why was it that wilt only won two championships and it was because he was up against the greatest winner ever.

all wilt can boast about is scoring and russell isn't even a scorer. career-wise wilt has a marginal .4 lead in rebounding and .1 lead in assists.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yet Russ walked away with 9 more rings :roll:
While getting penetrated by Wilt from behind in their H2H playoff series.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Like Bird crumbling in the '83 playoffs getting swept by the Bucks while having HCA? Or like Bird completely choking in '88 to the Pistons?

Showing your knowledge right there :applause: :facepalm Bird was injured in 1983, didn't even play one game so technically he didn't get swept, so stay mad :lol

Choking? That was just before he got back and heels surgery, against one of the greatest teams ever, a team that would just beat the crap out of you on the court, while the Celtics were falling apart and had no bench (****ing unreal how he even got the C's past them the year before :bowdown:)

Talk about broken fingernails for Wilt though. :oldlol:

[PsychoBe]

In a TEAM game, and with much better teammates, who dominated Wilt's teammates in the post-season.

And yet Bird "only" won three, on teams with 3-4 more HOFers, his ENTIRE career. And don't give me this crap that Bird faced better teams in his post-seasons. He didn't have to face the greatest dynasty in NBA history.

it's a team game for everyone else but wilt it seems. wilt did everything by himself but russell, magic, kareem, and hakeem were carried by their teams.

sorry but that's not gonna cut it. the clear-cut best player on every team takes the brunt of the blame for everything, especially in the post-season. that's never going to change for anybody and especially not for someone as dominant as wilt was in the regular season.

[SHAQisGOAT]

it's a team game for everyone else but wilt it seems. wilt did everything by himself but russell, magic, kareem, and hakeem were carried by their teams.

sorry but that's not gonna cut it. the clear-cut best player on every team takes the brunt of the blame for everything, especially in the post-season. that's never going to change for anybody and especially not for someone as dominant as wilt was in the regular season.

:applause:

[Kblaze8855]

Idiocy and nothing else. That anyone has ever been mocked for being a multiple time champion is a joke.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Showing your knowledge right there :applause: :facepalm Bird was injured in 1983, didn't even play one game so technically he didn't get swept, so stay mad :lol

Choking? That was just before he got back and heels surgery, against one of the greatest teams ever, a team that would just beat the crap out of you on the court, while the Celtics were falling apart and had no bench (****ing unreal how he even got the C's past them the year before :bowdown:)

Talk about broken fingernails for Wilt though. :oldlol:
He played 3 games that series and averaged 19 ppg on 44% :oldlol:

How about that '88 series vs the Pistons?

20/12/6 on 35%, 29% from 3 losing in 6 games while having HCA

Larry "Legend" :oldlol:

[SHAQisGOAT]

While getting penetrated by Wilt from behind in their H2H playoff series.

Like jlauber said, team game, and Russell knew that, knew how to play for the team, for the win, as a team.. That's why he has 9(!!!) more rings than Wilt. If it was like 2 or 3, all good, I ain't saying shit, Stilt was an unreal dominant force and had worse teammates on average, Wilt has a great case and an "excuse", now 9? 9? While Bill has 1 more MVP? Shit that's clear as it gets, Russell's on top, no argument.

[PsychoBe]

Idiocy and nothing else. That anyone has ever been mocked for being a multiple time champion is a joke.

samaki walker.

[SHAQisGOAT]

He played 3 games that series and averaged 19 ppg on 44% :oldlol:

How about that '88 series vs the Pistons?

20/12/6 on 35%, 29% from 3 losing in 6 games while having HCA

Larry "Legend" :oldlol:

So basically adding more to what I've said? Thank you. :cheers:

Yes he didn't play the 4 games and was injured (serious shit for Bird not to play, toughest dude out there), so yea..

Yes, he was falling apart, again, that was just before back and heels surgery that would eventually end his career, while the C's had no chance and no bench, against one of the greatest teams ever. Look at what they did the following year without him :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Like jlauber said, team game, and Russell knew that, knew how to play for the team, for the win, as a team.. That's why he has 9(!!!) more rings than Wilt. If it was like 2 or 3, all good, I ain't saying shit, Stilt was an unreal dominant force and had worse teammates on average, Wilt has a great case and an "excuse", now 9? 9? While Bill has 1 more MVP? Shit that's clear as it gets, Russell's on top, no argument.
Im sure William planned on getting outrebounded by such large margins too huh? All part of the plan :oldlol:

[Psileas]

russell holds the record for most rebounds in a final series(40) and has career average of 22.5 to wilt's 22.9. they are equal at best.



i never used the term "choker". it's just unfortunate for wilt that he ran into the greatest winner ever. cream always rises to the top and he never rose quite as high as russell did. he had his moments but was never consistent enough as history clearly shows.

Phrases like "he failed under pressure too many times to be excusable" are not all that different from calling someone a choker. History has shown that whether Wilt rose to the occasion or didn't, if few followed his lead, it wouldn't end well. Wilt dominated in a Russell-like way in 1962 and definitely did his job "when it mattered the most" in multiple other cases his team lost (his last games in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1973). For any other all-time great, such performances would either be remembered as valiant efforts in defeats or, at least, more than balance with his underperformances and form a more fair image than what image was formed.

[PsychoBe]

Im sure William planned on getting outrebounded by such large margins too huh? All part of the plan :oldlol:

wilt has the honor and the privilege to have out rebounded russell by a wide margin of .4 career wise.

sorry but russell is the superior player and it's not even close. he changed everything for the celtics. everything.

[Euroleague]

Probably because he was playing in an 8 team league.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Im sure William planned on getting outrebounded by such large margins too huh? All part of the plan :oldlol:

Again, say what you want, they played in the same time-span, were both the main superstars in the league and rivals, Russell walked away with 9 more rings(!!!) while having 1 more MVP? That's clear as day, nothing you can do about it. It wasn't 2 or 3 more rings while having less MVP's or the same, it was ****ing 9 more rings and 1 more MVP :eek: Shit, Russell "had" to retire for Wilt to win his 2nd :oldlol:

[PsychoBe]

Phrases like "he failed under pressure too many times to be excusable" are not all that different from calling someone a choker. History has shown that whether Wilt rose to the occasion or didn't, if few followed his lead, it wouldn't end well. Wilt dominated in a Russell-like way in 1962 and definitely did his job "when it mattered the most" in multiple other cases his team lost (his last games in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969, 1971, 1973). For any other all-time great, such performances would either be remembered as valiant efforts in defeats or, at least, more than balance with his underperformances and form a more fair image than what image was formed.

we're comparing it to his regular season dominance. that's the problem with wilt. he can post a 50 point average regular season yet in a game 7 vs russell when it mattered the most, score a measly 22 points and in a separate instance, be held to two shot attempts in the second half by bill russell.

cream always rises and wilt never rose as high as russell.

[NumberSix]

we're comparing it to his regular season dominance. that's the problem with wilt. he can post a 50 point average regular season yet in a game 7 vs russell when it mattered the most, score a measly 22 points and in a separate instance, be held to two shot attempts in the second half by bill russell.

cream always rises and wilt never rose as high as russell.
Shit floats too.

[moe94]

Shit floats too.
:roll:

[PsychoBe]

Shit floats too.

so do cowards.

[Euroleague]

Idiocy and nothing else. That anyone has ever been mocked for being a multiple time champion is a joke.

Strange........because you have done plenty of that whenever a list of players that have won multiple Euroleague titles comes up.....

[moe94]

Strange........because you have done plenty of that whenever a list of players that have won multiple Euroleague titles comes up.....

Those do not count. :coleman:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Again, say what you want, they played in the same time-span, were both the main superstars in the league and rivals, Russell walked away with 9 more rings(!!!) while having 1 more MVP? That's clear as day, nothing you can do about it. It wasn't 2 or 3 more rings while having less MVP's or the same, it was ****ing 9 more rings and 1 more MVP :eek: Shit, Russell "had" to retire for Wilt to win his 2nd :oldlol:
Wille both were in the league at the same time, Wilt won 4 MVPs to Russell's 4, Wilt made 7 All-nba 1st teams to Russell's 2, Wilt won 8 rebounding titles to Russell's 2, and Wilt won 7 scoring titles to Russell's 0.

Edit: MVPs are both at 4

[PsychoBe]

Wille both were in the league at the same time, Wilt won 4 MVPs to Russell's 3, Wilt made 7 All-nba 1st teams to Russell's 2, Wilt won 8 rebounding titles to Russell's 2, and Wilt won 7 scoring titles to Russell's 0.

russell wasn't a scorer. his career high was 18.9 so that's a wash. their career rebound average is almost exactly the same (22.5 - 22.9) and russell had the honor and the privilege to lead the celtics to 11 championships.

there is just no comparison between the two. russell always rose higher than majority of the time when it mattered the most.

[CavaliersFTW]

russell wasn't a scorer. his career high was 18.9 so that's a wash. their career rebound average is almost exactly the same (22.5 - 22.9) and russell had the honor and the privilege to lead the celtics to 11 championships.

there is just no comparison between the two. russell always rose higher than majority of the time when it mattered the most.
:roll:

[PsychoBe]

:roll:

let's compare horry's rings to mj's while we're at it.

[CavaliersFTW]

let's compare horry's rings to mj's while we're at it.
go right ahead

[dankok8]

Of course, anyone who would have actually researched those post-seasons, would have come up with entirely different opinions.

Game recaps of the '66 EDF's describe Wilt's performances as dominant. In fact, in his lowest scoring game of the series, in which he scored 15 points, he was cited as "almost single-handedly winning the game." He slaughtered Russell in every game of that series, and in the clinching game five loss, he annihilated a helpless Russell with a 46 point, 34 rebound game.

And I always find that one game five performance as THE benchmark game in their 49 post-season games. Why? Because, while Chamberlain's teammates were puking all over the floor in that entire series (shooting an unfathomable collective .352 from the field in the series), Chamberlain finally decided that he was Philly's only hope, and exploded against a Russell who was powerless to stop him.

Now, the Russell supporters will immediately point out that his Celtics won the game, and the series.

Ok, then let's have the Russell-supporters explain this: If Russell were truly the better player than Wilt, what happened the very next season? Russell was in the EXACT same situation that Wilt had been in in the '66 EDF's. Boston had narrowly avoided an embarrassing sweep in game four, and were down 3-1 going into game five.

Did Russell rise up, as Wilt had the prior EDF's, and when his teammates so desperately needed him too? Nope...he went quietly like a lamb being led to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists, in a blowout loss. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" pounded Russell for 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half, and when the game was still close; on 10-16 shooting from the field; with 13 assists, 36 rebounds, and seven blocked shots. (Incidently, in their known H2H games with blocked shots, Chamberlain held an enormous margin over Russell in that category.)


As for the 67-68 EDF's...yep, let's just ignore the fact that Wilt was playing with SEVERAL injuries, including a similar injury to what Willis Reed would suffer in the '70 Finals (and which basically limited him to an on-looker.) In fact, game recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series. Even Russell commented after that series, "that a lessor man would not have played", which of course meant, that NO ONE else would have played under the same circumstances. (My god, KAJ missed the most important game of the '80 Finals with a sprain.) Still, Chamberlain played EVERY MINUTE of that seven game series, and despite being at nowhere near 100%, he hung a 22-25-6 .487 series. Oh, and his teammates not only ignored him that game seven, they collectively shot .333 from the field while doing so...in a four point loss.


I will agree that Chamberlain's '69 Finals was the worst series of his entire post-season career. Of course, had anyone taken the time to research it, they would have realized that his incompetent coach had shackled him, while allowing West and Baylor to shoot at will. West, to his credit, was brilliant, but Baylor basically cost LA three games in that series (shooting 2-12, 2-14, and then 8-22 in game seven.) Oh, and while Wilt was shooting .875 from the floor in that game seven, two point loss, his teammates were outshot from the field by Russell's teammates, .477 to .360.


And game seven of the '70 Finals? Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well. He scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting from the field, with 24 rebounds. Of course, while Reed was considered "heroic" with his meager four points, on 2-5 shooting, and 3 rebounds...Wilt was blamed for the loss. But, no one ever brings up the fact that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100% in that series. Go ahead, and watch YouTube footage of that game seven, and then compare it with YouTube footage from Wilt's game five in the '72 Finals. In the '70 game he looks stiff-legged, and with no vertical elevation at all...while in the '72 clinching game five win, he was all over the floor, and skying to record nine blocks (and even his goal-tends were spectacular.) Of course, he dominated that game with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (NY had a combined 39 BTW)...all while playing with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist with a fracture. (Here again, KAJ missed CHUNKS of two separate seasons with broken wrists.)


Yep...only WILT would be ripped for putting up 28-30 .509 series; or a 22-25-6 .487 series (and doing so with multiple injuries); or a 23-24 .625 Finals (on one-leg)...which BTW, is the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history.

Cherry-picking stats as always.

Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first 4 games of the '66 EDF. That's 10 points below his season averages and well below in efficiency as well.

Wilt's teammates were indeed ravaged by injuries in '68 EDF and we went over it in huge detail on other threads. But Wilt put in two horrific performances back to back in Game 6 and 7. In the 2nd half in Game 7 he didn't even shoot. I'm not solely blaming him for this loss but his poor play and unwillingness to score was a factor in it.

1969 Finals... coach shackling him or not (Butch hated Wilt known fact...), 12 ppg is terrible. To put it in perspective it's way way worse than Lebron's 2011 Finals and again from the footage and unofficial tallies we have he was very subpar on defense too.

Why not mention that in '70 Finals Game 7 (which I watched in its entirety...) Wilt also had 0 blocks, 6 turnovers, and shot a woeful 1-11 from the free throw line. And that he basically zero defensive impact. It was a lay-up line for the Knicks all game.

[PsychoBe]

go right ahead

no i wont. although horry's performance against the pistons was legendary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdik09RGJI
^"OH MY! UNBELIEVABLE! THIS GUY IS OFF THE CHARTS!"

[Psileas]

we're comparing it to his regular season dominance. that's the problem with wilt. he can post a 50 point average regular season yet in a game 7 vs russell when it mattered the most, score a measly 22 points and in a separate instance, be held to two shot attempts in the second half by bill russell.

cream always rises and wilt never rose as high as russell.

Given that Wilt had a completely different role than having to score 50 in that game, it's not anywhere near as bad as it sounds. That's the problem with lots of people, they think Wilt was simply out there to score 50 just because he did so in the regular season, yet the plan was for the team to play a way more balanced game and it payed off. If Wilt had scored a "measly" 22 points (as in "choked big time"), it would have been on something like 7-28 FG's, he would probably have looked indifferent defensively and his team would probably have been blown out, as is often the case with teams whose superstar really underperforms. Instead, he took 15 shots, dominated defensively and his team was on the verge of winning the game. He played a Russell-like game and it worked out fine.

[Deuce Bigalow]

no i wont. although horry's performance against the pistons was legendary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdik09RGJI
^"OH MY! UNBELIEVABLE! THIS GUY IS OFF THE CHARTS!"
That dunk though :roll:

Dude turned into Michael ****ing Jordan :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

no i wont. although horry's performance against the pistons was legendary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdik09RGJI
^"OH MY! UNBELIEVABLE! THIS GUY IS OFF THE CHARTS!"
That's great, are you finished failing to make a point yet?

[Psileas]

russell wasn't a scorer. his career high was 18.9 so that's a wash. their career rebound average is almost exactly the same (22.5 - 22.9) and russell had the honor and the privilege to lead the celtics to 11 championships.

there is just no comparison between the two. russell always rose higher than majority of the time when it mattered the most.

What is a wash exactly?

[PsychoBe]

Given that Wilt had a completely different role than having to score 50 in that game, it's not anywhere near as bad as it sounds. That's the problem with lots of people, they think Wilt was simply out there to score 50 just because he did so in the regular season, yet the plan was for the team to play a way more balanced game and it payed off. If Wilt had scored a "measly" 22 points (as in "choked big time"), it would have been on something like 7-28 FG's, he would probably have looked indifferent defensively and his team would probably have been blown out, as is often the case with teams whose superstar really underperforms. Instead, he took 15 shots, dominated defensively and his team was on the verge of winning the game. He played a Russell-like game and it worked out fine.

so you're telling me that he tried to imitate russell and failed at it? i dont buy that at all. wilt could have easily posted his usual numbers and did what he felt like doing during the regular season and translate it to the post-season considering how long the stretch was. notice how mj's points didn't dip while averaging over 10 assists per game in his first finals appearance(out-assisting magic johnson). other facets of his game didn't have to suffer but all i'm asking is for you and everyone else to hold wilt accountable.

no one wants to for whatever reason.

they will hold his team accountable,
they will hold his coach accountable,
they will even hold other players accountable,
but not wilt.
this has to stop.

hold him accountable.

this is all i ask. hold him accountable. wilt thoroughly outplayed russell before and beat him 4-1, in which russell acknowledges as his only real lost and i held russell accountable for that. now do the same and hold wilt accountable.

[PsychoBe]

That's great, are you finished failing to make a point yet?

why are you so angry? did i do say something mean to you? i never intended to come off as malicious in any way so i apologize in advance but if you continue to harass me like this i will be forced to report you.


What is a wash exactly?

the scoring. russell wasn't a scorer. that would be like comparing kobe to reggie. two different styles of play at the same position. one was a volume scorer the other was a off-the-ball sharp shooter.

[dankok8]

Given that Wilt had a completely different role than having to score 50 in that game, it's not anywhere near as bad as it sounds. That's the problem with lots of people, they think Wilt was simply out there to score 50 just because he did so in the regular season, yet the plan was for the team to play a way more balanced game and it payed off. If Wilt had scored a "measly" 22 points (as in "choked big time"), it would have been on something like 7-28 FG's, he would probably have looked indifferent defensively and his team would probably have been blown out, as is often the case with teams whose superstar really underperforms. Instead, he took 15 shots, dominated defensively and his team was on the verge of winning the game. He played a Russell-like game and it worked out fine.

That sounds all well but you're suddenly asking his teammates to make up for the 28 points (50 minus 22) that he isn't putting up on the board and that he did in the regular season. Of course playing a defensive style and a slower pace may reduce that burden his teammates have to carry but it's still humongous.

If he (or his coaches) really did change his style of play at a whim in the playoffs that really explains why his teams never did so well. You don't ask role players who take 10 shots a game to suddenly take 20.

Wilt wasn't doing anyone a favor by scoring so little.

[Euroleague]

Those do not count. :coleman:

According to ESPN and the Elias Sports Bureau, nothing before the NBA/ABA merger counts.

[Asukal]

11-2. "Only argument I need shawn." :rolleyes:

[Psileas]

so you're telling me that he tried to imitate russell and failed at it? i dont buy that at all. wilt could have easily posted his usual numbers and did what he felt like doing during the regular season and translate it to the post-season considering how long the stretch was. notice how mj's points didn't dip while averaging over 10 assists per game in his first finals appearance(out-assisting magic johnson). other facets of his game didn't have to suffer but all i'm asking is for you and everyone else to hold wilt accountable.

no one wants to for whatever reason.

they will hold his team accountable,
they will hold his coach accountable,
they will even hold other players accountable,
but not wilt.
this has to stop.

hold him accountable.

this is all i ask. hold him accountable. wilt thoroughly outplayed russell before and beat him 4-1, in which russell acknowledges as his only real lost and i held russell accountable for that. now do the same and hold wilt accountable.

I hold Wilt accountable to the degree that he should be held and not more. What has been established among people is that, because he failed to win more titles and because his scoring in generally dipped, he's to be held accountable for a lot. I've seen Wilt being held very accountable for games he wasn't healthy (1968, 1969, 1970), for games his boxscore productivity didn't match his regular season one (1962), etc, without ever having the opposite side heard. Bullshit like Wilt quitting in 1969, ignoring his injury in 1970 and others had been pretty much the only popular opinion being voiced for whole decades and you're now complaining that I (and a few others) don't hold him accountable enough? Really? Accountable enough to match the crap we'd been exposed to for decades now? Yeah, I guess we should also go back and consider his competition as being 6-5 centers, too. This crap was also the popular opinion for decades now and unfortunately it hasn't been wiped out yet.

I don't care what you buy, although I'm sure you don't like it. Wilt was praised for his Game 7 performance. Bob Cousy claimed that "if Wilt plays like this each time, forget it" - and, yes, "forget it" in a praising (="he's got a great future") manner, not a "he's not going anywhere" manner (I wish I could remember his whole quote, although someone may have the clip).

[Psileas]

the scoring. russell wasn't a scorer. that would be like comparing kobe to reggie. two different styles of play at the same position. one was a volume scorer the other was a off-the-ball sharp shooter.

So, if I claimed that "Wilt wasn't much of a defender" (which isn't true), that would suddenly be "a wash", too?

[Psileas]

That sounds all well but you're suddenly asking his teammates to make up for the 28 points (50 minus 22) that he isn't putting up on the board and that he did in the regular season. Of course playing a defensive style and a slower pace may reduce that burden his teammates have to carry but it's still humongous.

If he (or his coaches) really did change his style of play at a whim in the playoffs that really explains why his teams never did so well. You don't ask role players who take 10 shots a game to suddenly take 20.

Wilt wasn't doing anyone a favor by scoring so little.

Ironically enough, they did well enough to come one breath away from winning in Boston. And it's not as if they did this all the time. This is something that, if his teammates were hot enough, could catch Boston by surprise. It almost did.

[PsychoBe]

I hold Wilt accountable to the degree that he should be held and not more. What has been established among people is that, because he failed to win more titles and because his scoring in generally dipped, he's to be held accountable for a lot. I've seen Wilt being held very accountable for games he wasn't healthy (1968, 1969, 1970), for games his boxscore productivity didn't match his regular season one (1962), etc, without ever having the opposite side heard. Bullshit like Wilt quitting in 1969, ignoring his injury in 1970 and others had been pretty much the only popular opinion being voiced for whole decades and you're now complaining that I (and a few others) don't hold him accountable enough? Really? Accountable enough to match the crap we'd been exposed to for decades now? Yeah, I guess we should also go back and consider his competition as being 6-5 centers, too. This crap was also the popular opinion for decades now and unfortunately it hasn't been wiped out yet.

I don't care what you buy, although I'm sure you don't like it. Wilt was praised for his Game 7 performance. Bob Cousy claimed that "if Wilt plays like this each time, forget it" - and, yes, "forget it" in a praising (="he's got a great future") manner, not a "he's not going anywhere" manner (I wish I could remember his whole quote, although someone may have the clip).

jerry west praised russell in the finals as well siting how what he does day in and day out was just "simply remarkable". wilt was a great player and we all understand that, but we have to scratch our heads at how someone as dominant as him could not have more post-season success? and it's simply because of the greatest winner ever. you seem to at least understand that wilt should be held accountable to a varying degree, but what puzzles me was how nothing was ever wilt's fault.

but it is what it is. i look at what's in front of me and take it for what it is. it's what's real vs what's ideal. ideally, wilt's level of play from the regular season to the post-season should have translated to more championships, but realistically, it didn't. it's a shame but it is what it is.


So, if I claimed that "Wilt wasn't much of a defender" (which isn't true), that would suddenly be "a wash", too?

wilt chamberlain was a great defender but he didn't possess the lateral quickness to trap and swarm every position 1-5 like russell did. so no we can't ignore the defensive end since wilt was lauded as a great defender during his time, but he wasn't as good as russell. russell was never lauded as a scorer by any stretch of the imagination. so that's apples to oranges. unless you want to say that wilt was an "offensive" center(same mold as shaq) while russell was a "defensive" center (ben wallace mold) then we can just say they their style of play as a whole shouldn't be compared which i wouldn't have a problem with.

[Psileas]

jerry west praised russell in the finals as well siting how what he does day in and day out was just "simply remarkable". wilt was a great player and we all understand that, but we have to scratch our heads at how someone as dominant as him could not have more post-season success? and it's simply because of the greatest winner ever. you seem to at least understand that wilt should be held accountable to a varying degree, but what puzzles me was how nothing was ever wilt's fault.

but it is what it is. i look at what's in front of me and take it for what it is. it's what's real vs what's ideal. ideally, wilt's level of play from the regular season to the post-season should have translated to more championships, but realistically, it didn't. it's a shame but it is what it is.



wilt chamberlain was a great defender but he didn't possess the lateral quickness to trap and swarm every position 1-5 like russell did. so no we can't ignore the defensive end since wilt was lauded as a great defender during his time, but he wasn't as good as russell. russell was never lauded as a scorer by any stretch of the imagination. so that's apples to oranges. unless you want to say that wilt was an "offensive" center(same mold as shaq) while russell was a "defensive" center (ben wallace mold) then we can just say they their style of play as a whole shouldn't be compared which i wouldn't have a problem with.

What West said is for me beside the point, because I didn't say anything bad about Russell's performances.
Wilt should be held accountable, but when the majority of posters here already hold him accountable, and then some more (this is what makes the difference), why would I have to mainly concur with them, when I should be pointing out the "then some more" errors, since few others point them out?

As for the last paragraph, what doesn't make sense is the "wash". If Russell wasn't known as a scorer and Wilt was, that's a plus for Wilt, not something that balances with nothing.

[PsychoBe]

What West said is for me beside the point, because I didn't say anything bad about Russell's performances.
Wilt should be held accountable, but when the majority of posters here already hold him accountable, and then some more (this is what makes the difference), why would I have to mainly concur with them, when I should be pointing out the "then some more" errors, since few others point them out?

As for the last paragraph, what doesn't make sense is the "wash". If Russell wasn't known as a scorer and Wilt was, that's a plus for Wilt, not something that balances with nothing.

i understand where you're coming from but i didn't want the dishonesty among wilt fans to continue. he's a great player, clearly top 10, but let's not try to pretend like he didn't have his failures like any other great player.

i'm of the opinion that since russell's career high was exactly 18.9, that means he wasn't much of a scorer. that just wasn't his role on the team nor in his make-up and i dont think it would be fair for that to count against him, just like how you wouldn't compare shaq's ppg average to ben wallace so to be fair i wanted to even it out but i can see the other side of the argument.

[Psileas]

i understand where you're coming from but i didn't want the dishonesty among wilt fans to continue. he's a great player, clearly top 10, but let's not try to pretend like he didn't have his failures like any other great player.

i'm of the opinion that since russell's career high was exactly 18.9, that means he wasn't much of a scorer. that just wasn't his role on the team nor in his make-up and i dont think it would be fair for that to count against him, just like how you wouldn't compare shaq's ppg average to ben wallace so to be fair i wanted to even it out but i can see the other side of the argument.

I don't see why we have to even out the strong traits that someone possesses and his rival doesn't, especially when we're comparing individuals. If I ignored Shaq's and Ben's scoring, it would suddenly be a much, much closer battle between them. But what's the point? Scoring is by far the most important reason Shaq >> Big Ben. It would still be so regardless of how many rings each one had.

[PsychoBe]

You are getting exposed left and right in this thread, you've created nothing but straw man arguments and your double standards stick out like a sore thumb, I'd say it's time to stop posting for the day, clearly you're worked up over this but you haven't thought it through.

here you are to harass me again. sorry but i'm reporting you for trolling and abusive behavior. you have been warned and yet you continue to abuse the posting system with malicious behavior that insidehoops.com frowns upon. continue to abuse your privilege to post and i will be sure to report you again until you have a time-out to reflect on what you have done.


I don't see why we have to even out the strong traits that someone possesses and his rival doesn't, especially when we're comparing individuals. If I ignored Shaq's and Ben's scoring, it would suddenly be a much, much closer battle between them. But what's the point? Scoring is by far the most important reason Shaq >> Big Ben. It would still be so regardless of how many rings each one had.

i see your point so i guess it wouldn't be fair to wilt to try and take away his scoring dominance since that is what he was known for. career wise however they are still both very, very similar players in terms of rebounding and assists so it just comes down to offense vs defense i would imagine.

[AceManIII]

Didn't Wilt himself claim he didn't have the sheer desire to win like Bill Russell and often focused on his stats too much?

[PsychoBe]

Didn't Wilt himself claim he didn't have the sheer desire to win like Bill Russell and often focused on his stats too much?

who are you?

[LAZERUSS]

Cherry-picking stats as always.

Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first 4 games of the '66 EDF. That's 10 points below his season averages and well below in efficiency as well.

Wilt's teammates were indeed ravaged by injuries in '68 EDF and we went over it in huge detail on other threads. But Wilt put in two horrific performances back to back in Game 6 and 7. In the 2nd half in Game 7 he didn't even shoot. I'm not solely blaming him for this loss but his poor play and unwillingness to score was a factor in it.

1969 Finals... coach shackling him or not (Butch hated Wilt known fact...), 12 ppg is terrible. To put it in perspective it's way way worse than Lebron's 2011 Finals and again from the footage and unofficial tallies we have he was very subpar on defense too.

Why not mention that in '70 Finals Game 7 (which I watched in its entirety...) Wilt also had 0 blocks, 6 turnovers, and shot a woeful 1-11 from the free throw line. And that he basically zero defensive impact. It was a lay-up line for the Knicks all game.

Cherry picking stats???!!!

Those were Wilt's SERIES numbers...and in SERIES in which he absolutely dominated Russell.

Meanwhile, you are selecting SINGLE games (or even HALVES of single games) in a desperate attempt to disparage Chamberlain.

Ok, two can play that game.

Kareem in game five of the '70 EDF's. Reed wipes the floor with him and leads the Knicks to a series clinching game five win by a 132-96 margin.

Kareem in the first round of the '72 playoffs. Nate Thurmond outscores and outshoots KAJ from the field (holding Kareem to 12 ppg under his regular season average, as well as holding him to a .405 FG%, in a season in which KAJ shot .574 from the field. Luckily for KAJ, his teammates wipe out Nate's, and the Bucks advanced to face the Lakers.

KAJ in the last FOUR games of the '72 ECF's... he shoots .414 from the field, and even his teammates give up after that. Chamberlain dominates him in the clinching game six, come-from-behind win in Milwaukee), and the defending champion Bucks are knocked out of the playoffs.

KAJ in the first round of the '73 playoffs. Once again Thurmond completely shuts Kareem down, holding him to yet another 22.8 ppg series (in a season in which he averaged 30 ppg), while holding Kareem to a .428 FG% (in a season in which KAJ shot .554.) Oscar plays brilliantly, but even he can't overcome the massive puking that Abdul-Jabbar spews all over the floor, and the heavily-favored Bucks are wiped out in six games by a 47-35 Warrior team.

KAJ in game seven of the '74 Finals. The 6-9 Dave Cowens, despite five fouls early in the 4th period, completely shells KAJ in that final quarter, and easily outplays him for the entire game, en route to a rout of the favored Bucks, and on Milwaukee's home floor, no less.

KAJ in 74-75. He breaks his hand early on, and misses 16 games (remember Chamberlain not only playing with a broken hand in the clinching game five win of the '72 Finals, but also DOMINATING that game?) Of course, Oscar retired, and without Oscar, even a healthy KAJ can only lead the Bucks to a 35-31, and they don't even make the playoffs. As a sidenote, Rick Barry, with ROOKIE Keith Wilkes, takes his cast of no-names to a 48-34 record, and an eventual title.

KAJ in 75-76. He was gladly traded away by the Bucks, and the trade doesn't phase Milwaukee at all. They again go 38-44 without KAJ. Meanwhile, Kareem's scoring (and mpg) drops considerably, and his .529 FG% is one of the worst of his career. His Lakers can only go 40-42, and don't even make the playoffs.

KAJ in 76-77. Kareem's Lakers go on to have the best record in the league, but then are swept by the 49-33 Blazers in the WCF's. Yes, KAJ crushes Walton, but so what? Wilt routinely dominated Russell to the same extent, and yet he gets no credit, so why should KAJ? If Wilt were to blame for his losses, even when castrating Russell in the process, then so should KAJ. Obviously, it was completely Kareem's fault that his Lakers were swept, 4-0.

KAJ in 77-78. The Lakers easily have the most talented roster in the league. KAJ now has Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and an Adrian Dantley who was averaging 27 ppg when he was traded to LA. Oh, and the Lakers also now have a more seasoned Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes. And yet, LA only goes 45-37, and are routed in the first round by a Seattle team with one borderline HOF player. Oh, and a 44-38 Bullets team wins the title.

KAJ in 78-79. Again...the Lakers are easily the most talented team in the league (essentially the same cast from the season before, but not a more veteran group that has played together for a while.) And again, they badly underachieve. They can only go 47-35, and again, are routed by the same Sonics team with one borderline HOF player.

KAJ in 79-80. Fortunately for Kareem, MAGIC arrives. Magic leads the Lakers to a 60-22 record, and because of him, they wipe out those pesky Sonics, 4-1. Then, in the Finals, KAJ sprains his ankle and misses the clinching game six. Before the game starts, the announcer asks, "How are the Lakers going to replace Kareem's 33 ppg and 14 rpg in this game six?" Magic goes beserk, scoring 42 points, grabbing 15 rebounds (which is five more than anyone else on the floor), and even hands out seven assists. LA wins the clinching game, on the road, and all with Kareem putting a band-aid on his ankle, and while watching the game from his couch.

KAJ in 80-81. Magic is injured early on, and misses nearly the entire last half of the season. He does return at the end of the season, but is clearly not himself in the first round of the playoffs. Still, the Lakers roster is far superior to the 40-42 Rockets. BUT, Moses then slaughters KAJ in that series, and the heavily-favored Lakers are stunned in the first round. Incidently, KAJ shoots .462 from the field in that series...and yet another playoff series in which he doesn't even shoot the league average.

KAJ in 81-82. Kareem becomes the second banana, and in the Finals, even McAdoo, coming of the bench, and playing far less minutes, equals Kareem's overall production. Of course, it is MAGIC who leads the Lakers to another title, and again, it is MAGIC who wins the well-deserved FMVP. BTW, Magic outvotes Kareem in the MVP balloting, and would do so until KAJ retires after the 88-89 season (EIGHT straight seasons.)

KAJ in 82-83. Kareem runs into a Moses with a much better supporting cast than what he had in '81, and the results were predictable. The Sixers SWEEP the Lakers, and Moses just has his way with a helpless KAJ. One of the worst poundings ever given to another GOAT player.

KAJ in 83-84. With the Finals all knotted up at 2-2, Kareem puts up a 7-25 game five, and the Lakers never recover. Boston wins the series in game seven. Oh, and KAJ shoots .481 from the field in that series...and yet ANOTHER post-season series in which he doesn't even shoot the NBA league average.

KAJ in 85-86. During the regular season, and in five H2H's with Hakeem, KAJ averages 33 ppg on a .610 FG%, including two games of 43 and 46 points. However, in the playoffs, the Rockets move Sampson over to defend Kareem, and he declines dramatically... 27 ppg on a .496 FG%. The Lakers are stunned by the underdog Rockets, 4-1.

KAJ in 86-87. Kareem is now only LA's third best player (behind Magic and Worthy), and plays like it. But his Lakers are so deep and talented, that they run away with the title.

KAJ in 87-88. He is simply awful in the playoffs, even worse in the Finals (he averages 13 ppg, 4 rpg, and shoots .414 from the field in the Finals), and just blows chunks all over the floor in game seven (4 points, on 2-7 shooting, 3 rebs, five fouls, and is bombed by Laimbeer.) Perhaps the worst game seven ever turned in by a GOAT candidate. Still, and as always, Magic leads the Lakers to yet another title. Clearly, LA wins that ring DESPITE Kareem's horrific play. In fact, rumor has it that the Lakers are going to replace KAJ with Carrot Top before the next season.

KAJ in 88-89. He is just clearly along for the ride now. And while he was only LA's fifth best player in the 87-88 season, he is now a minor role player. But, the talented Lakers cruise thru the playoffs and are 11-0 going into the Finals. But, they lose Byron Scott, and his 20 ppg, in the last playoff game before the Finals. Then, in game two, MAGIC goes down. Of course, they now have no chance, and without any help from KAJ, they are swept.

Kareem retires after that season. Meanwhile, the Lakers IMPROVE, going from a 57-25 record, to a 63-19 record, which would be their second best record in Magic's 12 seasons. And then in the next season, the go 58-24, and make the Finals.

Oh, and then Magic retires...and the Lakers immediately crumble to records of 43-39, and then 39-43.

[MichaelCorleone]

11 rings.

/thread

[Audio One]

so you're telling me that he tried to imitate russell and failed at it? i dont buy that at all. wilt could have easily posted his usual numbers and did what he felt like doing during the regular season and translate it to the post-season considering how long the stretch was. notice how mj's points didn't dip while averaging over 10 assists per game in his first finals appearance(out-assisting magic johnson). other facets of his game didn't have to suffer but all i'm asking is for you and everyone else to hold wilt accountable.

no one wants to for whatever reason.

they will hold his team accountable,
they will hold his coach accountable,
they will even hold other players accountable,
but not wilt.
this has to stop.

hold him accountable.

this is all i ask. hold him accountable. wilt thoroughly outplayed russell before and beat him 4-1, in which russell acknowledges as his only real lost and i held russell accountable for that. now do the same and hold wilt accountable.

I certainly do hold Chamberlain (partially) responsible for when he failed; there's not ONE player that's ever been perfect. I also however recognize his positives, which folk like u don't seem to recognize; WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I MADE THIS THREAD.

all following like u do is place him under a microscope, and magnify his flaws, and only focus on that. WHY?? The Chamberlain fan club here is relatively small, and the vast majority of them rank Wilt properly. The majority of this website views Wilt more or less as a stat-padder, a massive choker, played at-the-speed-of-light style pace, played with only four teams, and against midget math teachers. There's only one person that maybe (slightly) overrated Chamberlain to an extent, but (unfortunately) most here don't even listen to him, So no, he's clearly not overrated here. So why u feel the need to point out his flaws, when Chamberlain's already constantly ripped for them?

Do the unpopular views of one individual really make u feel the need to magnify his flaws, and control how u think? Or is he just a convenient outlet for u to bash Wilt? Like I said, I could see if most people actually agree with what LAZERUSS says, but in reality its quite clearly the polar opposite. The problem I have is how Wilt's graded on such different scales. I agree w/ u that Russell's better than Chamberlain, however in that manner it's only consistent to rank Russell as the GOAT, which I ultimately do. And hence, I believe Chamberlain to be the 2nd greatest player ever, absolute worst case scenario 3rd. So if you want this Wilt fan to hold Wilt accountable, and recognize his flaws, I do, however it's only fair that you recognize the context of his situations, and recognize when he isn't at fault. And be consistent w/ how u grade other players like u do w/ Stilt, instead of referring to him as a top-10 player. I mean, do you refer to Jordan as a top-10 player? :LOL:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Cherry picking stats???!!!

Those were Wilt's SERIES numbers...and in SERIES in which he absolutely dominated Russell.

Meanwhile, you are selecting SINGLE games (or even HALVES of single games) in a desperate attempt to disparage Chamberlain.

Ok, two can play that game.

Kareem in game five of the '70 EDF's. Reed wipes the floor with him and leads the Knicks to a series clinching game five win by a 132-96 margin.

Kareem in the first round of the '72 playoffs. Nate Thurmond outscores and outshoots KAJ from the field (holding Kareem to 12 ppg under his regular season average, as well as holding him to a .405 FG%, in a season in which KAJ shot .574 from the field. Luckily for KAJ, his teammates wipe out Nate's, and the Bucks advanced to face the Lakers.

KAJ in the last FOUR games of the '72 ECF's... he shoots .414 from the field, and even his teammates give up after that. Chamberlain dominates him in the clinching game six, come-from-behind win in Milwaukee), and the defending champion Bucks are knocked out of the playoffs.

KAJ in the first round of the '73 playoffs. Once again Thurmond completely shuts Kareem down, holding him to yet another 22.8 ppg series (in a season in which he averaged 30 ppg), while holding Kareem to a .428 FG% (in a season in which KAJ shot .554.) Oscar plays brilliantly, but even he can't overcome the massive puking that Abdul-Jabbar spews all over the floor, and the heavily-favored Bucks are wiped out in six games by a 47-35 Warrior team.

KAJ in game seven of the '74 Finals. The 6-9 Dave Cowens, despite five fouls early in the 4th period, completely shells KAJ in that final quarter, and easily outplays him for the entire game, en route to a rout of the favored Bucks, and on Milwaukee's home floor, no less.

KAJ in 74-75. He breaks his hand early on, and misses 16 games (remember Chamberlain not only playing with a broken hand in the clinching game five win of the '72 Finals, but also DOMINATING that game?) Of course, Oscar retired, and without Oscar, even a healthy KAJ can only lead the Bucks to a 35-31, and they don't even make the playoffs. As a sidenote, Rick Barry, with ROOKIE Keith Wilkes, takes his cast of no-names to a 48-34 record, and an eventual title.

KAJ in 75-76. He was gladly traded away by the Bucks, and the trade doesn't phase Milwaukee at all. They again go 38-44 without KAJ. Meanwhile, Kareem's scoring (and mpg) drops considerably, and his .529 FG% is one of the worst of his career. His Lakers can only go 40-42, and don't even make the playoffs.

KAJ in 76-77. Kareem's Lakers go on to have the best record in the league, but then are swept by the 49-33 Blazers in the WCF's. Yes, KAJ crushes Walton, but so what? Wilt routinely dominated Russell to the same extent, and yet he gets no credit, so why should KAJ? If Wilt were to blame for his losses, even when castrating Russell in the process, then so should KAJ. Obviously, it was completely Kareem's fault that his Lakers were swept, 4-0.

KAJ in 77-78. The Lakers easily have the most talented roster in the league. KAJ now has Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and an Adrian Dantley who was averaging 27 ppg when he was traded to LA. Oh, and the Lakers also now have a more seasoned Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes. And yet, LA only goes 45-37, and are routed in the first round by a Seattle team with one borderline HOF player. Oh, and a 44-38 Bullets team wins the title.

KAJ in 78-79. Again...the Lakers are easily the most talented team in the league (essentially the same cast from the season before, but not a more veteran group that has played together for a while.) And again, they badly underachieve. They can only go 47-35, and again, are routed by the same Sonics team with one borderline HOF player.

KAJ in 79-80. Fortunately for Kareem, MAGIC arrives. Magic leads the Lakers to a 60-22 record, and because of him, they wipe out those pesky Sonics, 4-1. Then, in the Finals, KAJ sprains his ankle and misses the clinching game six. Before the game starts, the announcer asks, "How are the Lakers going to replace Kareem's 33 ppg and 14 rpg in this game six?" Magic goes beserk, scoring 42 points, grabbing 15 rebounds (which is five more than anyone else on the floor), and even hands out seven assists. LA wins the clinching game, on the road, and all with Kareem putting a band-aid on his ankle, and while watching the game from his couch.

KAJ in 80-81. Magic is injured early on, and misses nearly the entire last half of the season. He does return at the end of the season, but is clearly not himself in the first round of the playoffs. Still, the Lakers roster is far superior to the 40-42 Rockets. BUT, Moses then slaughters KAJ in that series, and the heavily-favored Lakers are stunned in the first round. Incidently, KAJ shoots .462 from the field in that series...and yet another playoff series in which he doesn't even shoot the league average.

KAJ in 81-82. Kareem becomes the second banana, and in the Finals, even McAdoo, coming of the bench, and playing far less minutes, equals Kareem's overall production. Of course, it is MAGIC who leads the Lakers to another title, and again, it is MAGIC who wins the well-deserved FMVP. BTW, Magic outvotes Kareem in the MVP balloting, and would do so until KAJ retires after the 88-89 season (EIGHT straight seasons.)

KAJ in 82-83. Kareem runs into a Moses with a much better supporting cast than what he had in '81, and the results were predictable. The Sixers SWEEP the Lakers, and Moses just has his way with a helpless KAJ. One of the worst poundings ever given to another GOAT player.

KAJ in 83-84. With the Finals all knotted up at 2-2, Kareem puts up a 7-25 game five, and the Lakers never recover. Boston wins the series in game seven. Oh, and KAJ shoots .481 from the field in that series...and yet ANOTHER post-season series in which he doesn't even shoot the NBA league average.

KAJ in 85-86. During the regular season, and in five H2H's with Hakeem, KAJ averages 33 ppg on a .610 FG%, including two games of 43 and 46 points. However, in the playoffs, the Rockets move Sampson over to defend Kareem, and he declines dramatically... 27 ppg on a .496 FG%. The Lakers are stunned by the underdog Rockets, 4-1.

KAJ in 86-87. Kareem is now only LA's third best player (behind Magic and Worthy), and plays like it. But his Lakers are so deep and talented, that they run away with the title.

KAJ in 87-88. He is simply awful in the playoffs, even worse in the Finals (he averages 13 ppg, 4 rpg, and shoots .414 from the field in the Finals), and just blows chunks all over the floor in game seven (4 points, on 2-7 shooting, 3 rebs, five fouls, and is bombed by Laimbeer.) Perhaps the worst game seven ever turned in by a GOAT candidate. Still, and as always, Magic leads the Lakers to yet another title. Clearly, LA wins that ring DESPITE Kareem's horrific play. In fact, rumor has it that the Lakers are going to replace KAJ with Carrot Top before the next season.

KAJ in 88-89. He is just clearly along for the ride now. And while he was only LA's fifth best player in the 87-88 season, he is now a minor role player. But, the talented Lakers cruise thru the playoffs and are 11-0 going into the Finals. But, they lose Byron Scott, and his 20 ppg, in the last playoff game before the Finals. Then, in game two, MAGIC goes down. Of course, they now have no chance, and without any help from KAJ, they are swept.

Kareem retires after that season. Meanwhile, the Lakers IMPROVE, going from a 57-25 record, to a 63-19 record, which would be their second best record in Magic's 12 seasons. And then in the next season, the go 58-24, and make the Finals.

Oh, and then Magic retires...and the Lakers immediately crumble to records of 43-39, and then 39-43.

:oldlol: Go on with the bullshit. Stay mad, dankok always owning you. :lol

[SHAQisGOAT]

Didn't Wilt himself claim he didn't have the sheer desire to win like Bill Russell and often focused on his stats too much?

:applause:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

:applause:
:facepalm :facepalm
Wilt is so much better than Shaq i dont even know where to begin:no:

[Dr.J4ever]

When will this debate end? Never. Will it ever be settled? Nope.

On one hand are people obsessed with the single most dominant player in basketball history. Perhaps the greatest athlete in NBA history. A literal giant, unparallelled before or since.

On the other hand, people who have seen Wilt's feet of clay. Just 2 Titles in so many opportunities in a small league. A great player, but with character defects that prevented him from attaining as much as his biggest rival, Bill Russel. A great player, who surprisingly came up short on too many occasions when it really mattered.

The issue is complex. This is true. When Wilt won, he won big. The 67 Sixers and 72 Lakers are among the best ever. Ironically enough, Wilt won when he started playing more like Russel, and shot the ball less. When he didn't worry too much about his stats and facilitated team play, this is when he succeeded the most.

On KAJ, sorry, KAJ, to me, is the best of all time. KAJ won titles either as alpha or co-alpha on too many occasions. When the game slowed down, and the Lakers needed a tough shot, everyone in the stadium knew who would take the shot, and what type of shot was coming. Even Magic's great last second shot vs. Boston in 1985 came as a result of Kareem posting up in a 2 man game with Magic.

Kareem won without Magic, but Magic never won without Kareem. Kareem might not have won Titles every year when they were favorites, but who has? Save for Bill Russel. Kareem kept his teams in contention almost every year, and won many titles.

Bottom line: KAJ>Russel> Wilt..Top 3 of all time centers.

[PsychoBe]

I certainly do hold Chamberlain (partially) responsible for when he failed; there's not ONE player that's ever been perfect. I also however recognize his positives, which folk like u don't seem to recognize; WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I MADE THIS THREAD.

all following like u do is place him under a microscope, and magnify his flaws, and only focus on that. WHY?? The Chamberlain fan club here is relatively small, and the vast majority of them rank Wilt properly. The majority of this website views Wilt more or less as a stat-padder, a massive choker, played at-the-speed-of-light style pace, played with only four teams, and against midget math teachers. There's only one person that maybe (slightly) overrated Chamberlain to an extent, but (unfortunately) most here don't even listen to him, So no, he's clearly not overrated here. So why u feel the need to point out his flaws, when Chamberlain's already constantly ripped for them?

Do the unpopular views of one individual really make u feel the need to magnify his flaws, and control how u think? Or is he just a convenient outlet for u to bash Wilt? Like I said, I could see if most people actually agree with what LAZERUSS says, but in reality its quite clearly the polar opposite. The problem I have is how Wilt's graded on such different scales. I agree w/ u that Russell's better than Chamberlain, however in that manner it's only consistent to rank Russell as the GOAT, which I ultimately do. And hence, I believe Chamberlain to be the 2nd greatest player ever, absolute worst case scenario 3rd. So if you want this Wilt fan to hold Wilt accountable, and recognize his flaws, I do, however it's only fair that you recognize the context of his situations, and recognize when he isn't at fault. And be consistent w/ how u grade other players like u do w/ Stilt, instead of referring to him as a top-10 player. I mean, do you refer to Jordan as a top-10 player? :LOL:

wilt is graded on the same scale as everyone else, i dont understand why you believe there are double standards but there isn't. the debate was why for wilt it's "only" two, and the answer was: because his rival won 11.

also i do not like comparing players from the chamberlain-robertson-russell era to the jordan-magic-bird era since there are too many variables to argue or debate but for the most part michael jefferey jordan is the consensus greatest basketball player of all time and there are numerous, numerous reasons as to why and it's almost a given at this point.

i still wouldn't put wilt in my top 5 however, as my personal top 5 in order is

mj > magic > bird > kareem > kobe

because they completely revolutionized the game both on and off the court. magic and bird saved basketball, mj globalized it, and kobe modernized it. and then there's kareem due to shear accolades won and his unstoppable sky-hook that literally could not be stopped.

you can argue it however way you want to though but at the end of the day it is what it is.

[moe94]

How did Kobe modernize anything? His game is a carbon copy of Jordan's. There is no visible jump whatsoever.

[PsychoBe]

How did Kobe modernize anything? His game is a carbon copy of Jordan's. There is no visible jump whatsoever.

in the absence of jordan kobe's clutch play and jordan-esque mannerisms captivated fans and the imaginations of many around the world. i knew people who literally didn't know any other basketball player but kobe, he was a household name, an icon, even post-3peat era he stayed relevant by posting up a historic 81-point game comeback. kobe was must-see t.v., more so than any of his contemporaries in terms of longevity. the only person that came close was a.i. but then we factor in longevity and it's not even close. he did too much for the game of basketball compared to others post-jordan era for it to be much of a comparison at all. he was voted player of the decade by fans for a reason.

[moe94]

Iverson, Carter and T-Mac were actually more popular than Kobe during his early prime and he took over when they all fell off, so I don't even believe that. The game already captivated imaginations. Kobe did his best Jordan impression. Cool. He didn't modernize shit. If anyone deserves such a label, it's Iverson.

[PsychoBe]

Iverson, Carter and T-Mac were actually more popular than Kobe during his early prime and he took over when they all fell off, so I don't even believe that. The game already captivated imaginations. Kobe did his best Jordan impression. Cool. He didn't modernize shit. If anyone deserves such a label, it's Iverson.

that's why i factored in longevity due to numerous "flavors of the month" that reared its head during kobe's time.

iverson brought the modern hip-hop, urban attitude to the court and i do remember many kids my age wanting "handles like iverson" but whenever we were on the playground going for the game winner we'd all scream "kobe!" not "iverson" or "shaq" or "duncan" or "carter", we'd all chant kobe's name. it was a real thing and yes iverson was extremely fun and entertaining to watch but when it was playoff time all eyes were on kobe because it was public knowledge that he was chasing after jordan's spot on the throne and we all wanted to see just how close he could get.

[BoutPractice]

LAZERUSS > Obviously this post is very agenda driven.

At the same time a lot of it is, quite simply, supported by the facts.

I've always had the nagging suspicion that Kareem "got off the hook" because of Magic. That's because his career has a weird shape: at the beginning, he dominates individually racking up a ton of MVPs, but mostly chokes and underachieves in an era that was almost served to him on a platter, with no real competition on his level... then Magic comes along and the team accomplishments with it.... and it also happens that he has great longevity, so he retires at an old age.

But notice how this is a three part sequence. Yet in fans' minds, especially those who have Kareem as GOAT, it's as if they blur: as if Kareem was the dominant individual, the winner, and the survivor, all at the same time. In the end the resume looks good, but it doesn't tell the whole story (kind of like Kobe and his 5 titles).

I'm not doubting Kareem's ability (in fact it's obvious by watching him in his peak that even if he's not the GOAT he had the potential to be) you can't help but wonder how he would be perceived if Magic hadn't been drafted by the Lakers. His resume before Magic arrives is that of the ultimate underachiever: a GOAT level player with a decade to himself, for the taking. If LeBron's first 10 years had unfolded like Kareem's, I can't even imagine how the stans would feast on him.

In the mid to late 70s Russell and Chamberlain are gone, the ABA makes the talent more evenly distributed... the competition at center isn't nearly on Kareem's level (even Walton, who got injured anyway, just to make things a tiny bit easier). The league should be his, he has even more of a boulevard than early 00s Shaq, yet he keeps coming up short. Yes, he's sometimes just facing better teams, but they're far from spectacular in talent either - it's not like he's losing against Russell's Celtics or Jordan's Bulls, they often have little to no star power, poor records, and no homecourt advantage.

Besides if he's the GOAT then he wouldn't need those kinds of excuses anyway. The likes of LeBron and Dirk carried teams with rosters made up of mostly nobodies to over 65 win seasons in a much more competitive league... Hakeem and Duncan won titles without any other all-star, etc. It's like Kareem has immunity - for some reason you can't touch him.

[LAZERUSS]

wilt is graded on the same scale as everyone else, i dont understand why you believe there are double standards but there isn't. the debate was why for wilt it's "only" two, and the answer was: because his rival won 11.

also i do not like comparing players from the chamberlain-robertson-russell era to the jordan-magic-bird era since there are too many variables to argue or debate but for the most part michael jefferey jordan is the consensus greatest basketball player of all time and there are numerous, numerous reasons as to why and it's almost a given at this point.

i still wouldn't put wilt in my top 5 however, as my personal top 5 in order is

mj > magic > bird > kareem > kobe

because they completely revolutionized the game both on and off the court. magic and bird saved basketball, mj globalized it, and kobe modernized it. and then there's kareem due to shear accolades won and his unstoppable sky-hook that literally could not be stopped.

you can argue it however way you want to though but at the end of the day it is what it is.

Again with this "rival" nonsense. So Wilt's TEAM's, losing to Russell's heavily-stacked TEAM's, is somehow a lessor accomplishment than Bird only winning three titles with HOF-laden rosters, and losing to what I guess would his "rivals", like Milwaukee's Marques Johnson (in a sweeping loss in which Bird was just plain awful)? My god, Bird not only "lost" with HCA SEVEN times in his post-season career, he was either ordinary, or downright atrocious in them. Hell, he needed a Cedric Maxwell, of all people, to overcome his own shooting woes, in order to a beat a 40-42 Rockets team in the Finals.

Or Hakeem losing to his "rival" Mark Eaton, or Mychael Thompson, or AC Green, for cryingoutloud? Hakeem's list of "failures" is nearly endless. He could only make the playoffs in 15 of his 18 seasons, and was buried in the first round in EIGHT of those.

KAJ not only "losing" to his "rival" Nate Thurmond, but getting downright embarrassed in the process. Or watching his "riva"l Marvin Webster going to the Finals? Not to mention "losing" to Moses and his 40-42 Rockets, but getting destroyed in the same series? And then absolutely crushed by Moses a couple of years later in a SWEEPING loss? Oh, and how do you respond to this: A peak Kareem and an old Wilt played in the league together for four seasons, and in that span, Wilt and KAJ split in H2H series, and in titles, BUT, Chamberlain held a 3-1 edge in Finals. Furthermore, while Kareem and was trashed by Thurmond in the '73 first round, taking his Bucks 60-22 down in flames, Chamberlain just annihilated that same Thurmond in the next round, in leading LA to a 4-1 romp over Nate's 47-35 Warriors. CLEARLY, Chamberlain > KAJ, right?

And yet, Chamberlain "losing" to his "rival", who is unquestionably the GOAT "winner" in NBA history, in series in which Wilt either outplayed, or downright annihilated him, is considered "losing???!!!" Oh, and it was not as if Russell's heavily-favored squads were just wiping out Wilt's teams in them, either. FOUR of those series came down to seven games, and with razor-thin margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points (and he wasn't even on the floor in the last five minutes of this one.)

You are trying to tell me that Russell was somehow a better when Chamberlain goes to a pathetic Sixer team (and the Sixers traded THREE players to get him), that had gone 34-46 the year before, and didn't even make the playoffs...and then Wilt takes that crappy roster to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 62-18 Celtics, at the peak of their dynasty, in a series in which Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot Russell from the field by a .555 to .447 margin??????!!!!!

Geezus, evidently Jordan was pure trash in the '86 playoffs against Bird's 67-15 Celtics, when his Bulls were SWEPT. With your reasoning, the Bulls would have been much better off without MJ's 44 ppg in that series. He was THE reason that the Bulls lost, right?

And we know, by your reasoning, that when KAJ just murdered Walton in the 76-77 WDF's, he was still the ONLY reason why his Lakers were swept, right?

The reality was, Chamberlain played with either putrid rosters, or teammates who puked all over themselves in their biggest games, or had miracle shots beat him (TWICE in one series), or had incompetent coaching, or he, or his teammates were suffering significant injuries...or some combination of all of those...and yet he still went to 12 Conference Finals, went to SIX Finals, lost FIVE times in game seven's (FOUR of which were decided by a combined TOTAL of NINE points), and even won TWO. His TEAM's lost to the eventual champion TEN times. And, he was the best player on the floor in the vast majority of them (and was just waxing the GOAT "winner" in every one of their H2H's.)

Wilt "losing" with his pathetic, choking rosters, would be akin to Hussein Bolt "losing" in a 4x100 meter relay with the Three Stooges as his track partners.

[PsychoBe]

The reality was, Chamberlain played with either putrid rosters, or teammates who puked all over themselves in their biggest games, or had miracle shots beat him (TWICE in one series), or had incompetent coaching, or was he, or his teammates were suffering significant injuries...or some combination of all of those...and yet he still went to 12 Conference Finals, went to SIX Finals, lost FIVE times in game seven's (FOUR of which were decided by a combined TOTAL of NINE points), and even won TWO. And, he was the best player on the floor in the vast majority of them (and was just waxing the GOAT "winner" in every one of their H2H's.)

there you go again, not holding wilt accountable. so i guess in a crucial game 7 against russell wilt's teammates forced him to only two field goal attempts in the 2nd half in a losing effort? or his teammates and coach who allowed him to average 50 points per game was dropped to a measely 22 ppg (while russell had 19) in a close-out game of the series enroute to a title? you never even gave wilt praising for dominating russell 4-1 simply because it doesn't fit the "wilt never had help" agenda that you keep asserting. wilt has the honor and the privlege of handing russell his only "real loss" as russell puts it. russell even went out of his way to shake wilt's hand after the game. but the year after that, while wilt was heavily favored and was up 3-1, russell dug deep and rallied his team to a series win and i believe it was that game 7 in which wilt had two field goals in the 2nd half, completely shut down by russell who helped willed his team to victory.

you can spin it however you want it, you can try to blow up every other player's failures as if that's suppose to excuse wilt, but it doesn't. wilt wasn't the level of winner russell was, and bird wasn't the level of winner magic was (which is why i rate magic higher than him), which is what you seem to fail to understand.

for once i want you to say "wilt messed up." hold him accountable. every one else did so far except you. now it's your turn. i want you to examine his flaws to his game and hold him accountable for the crucial losses. you can bring up the numbers all you want, but career wise, russell and wilt both averaged 23 rebounds(when rounded up) and approximately 4.6 assists, the only difference was wilt was a much better scorer and russell was a much better defender. when russell came to the celtics they were not a defensive team by any stretch of the imagination. russell changed everything for the celtics. everything. wilt didn't change the culture of any team he had ever been on, it was all about him and his stats. that's the difference. and you can't use the help argument since you just said it would always go down the wire, and cream always rises to the top and russell rose higher when it mattered the most.

now hold wilt accountable.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:facepalm :facepalm
Wilt is so much better than Shaq i dont even know where to begin:no:

You don't know where to begin because you don't know shit :lol

[LAZERUSS]

there you go again, not holding wilt accountable. so i guess in a crucial game 7 against russell wilt's teammates forced him to only two field goal attempts in the 2nd half in a losing effort? or his teammates and coach who allowed him to average 50 points per game was dropped to a measely 22 ppg (while russell had 19) in a close-out game of the series enroute to a title? you never even gave wilt praising for dominating russell 4-1 simply because it doesn't fit the "wilt never had help" agenda that you keep asserting. wilt has the honor and the privlege of handing russell his only "real loss" as russell puts it. russell even went out of his way to shake wilt's hand after the game. but the year after that, while wilt was heavily favored and was up 3-1, russell dug deep and rallied his team to a series win and i believe it was that game 7 in which wilt had two field goals in the 2nd half, completely shut down by russell who helped willed his team to victory.

you can spin it however you want it, you can try to blow up every other player's failures as if that's suppose to excuse wilt, but it doesn't. wilt wasn't the level of winner russell was, and bird wasn't the level of winner magic was (which is why i rate magic higher than him), which is what you seem to fail to understand.

for once i want you to say "wilt messed up." hold him accountable. every one else did so far except you. now it's your turn. i want you to examine his flaws to his game and hold him accountable for the crucial losses. you can bring up the numbers all you want, but career wise, russell and wilt both averaged 23 rebounds(when rounded up) and approximately 4.6 assists, the only difference was wilt was a much better scorer and russell was a much better defender. when russell came to the celtics they were not a defensive team by any stretch of the imagination. russell changed everything for the celtics. everything. wilt didn't change the culture of any team he had ever been on, it was all about him and his stats. that's the difference. and you can't use the help argument since you just said it would always go down the wire, and cream always rises to the top and russell rose higher when it mattered the most.

now hold wilt accountable.

Once again, in that game seven in the '62 EDF's, even Russell's TEAMMATES applauded Wilt's DEFENSIVE IMPACT on that game. Oh, and Chamberlain TIED the score with a dunk and FT with 16 secs left, too. And, as was so often the case, SAM JONES hit the game-winner. In a series in which Chamberlain massively outscored Russell, easily outrebounded him, and dramatically outshot from the field. Oh, and how about Wilt's teammates again in that post-season? Somehow Chamberlain dragged that cast of rejects from Gilligan's Island, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss, in a post-season in which those teammates collectively shot .354 from the field (and his two best teammates shot .375 and .271 BTW.) Care to explain that one?

And I have covered the '68 EDF's au nauseum here. If the same Sixer team that had blown thru the league in the least two seasons, and slaughtered Boston the '67 EDF's had played in the '68 EDF's, it would have been a major upset for Boston to have beaten them. But, alas, the Sixers were already down one HOF player (Cunningham) before that series even began. And, even without him, they still forged a 3-1 lead. And all of this with a Wilt who was playing with an assortment of injuries, including a tear in his right calf (which was a similar injury that reduced Reed to a worthless statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals.) Even Russell claimed that a "lessor man would not have played", which by inference was, NO ONE else would have been playing under those circumstances. And on top of all of that, the Sixers, who were not a deep team to begin with, lost both Luke Jackson and Wali Jones to leg injuries in the fifth game, and they were worthless the rest of the series. Oh, and in game seven, Wilt's teammates passed him the ball a TOTAL of SEVEN times in the second half, and he only touched the ball twice on the offensive end in the fourth quarter (and both of those were offensive rebounds.)

Of course, with his Sixers leading that series, 3-1, how did an injured Chamberlain respond in that potential series clinching game? He outscored Russell, 28-8; he outrebounded Russell, 30-24; he outassisted Russell, 7-4; and he outshot Russell from the field by a 11-21 to 4-10 margin. Had his crippled teammates even put together an ordinary game, and that series would have been over after five games.


And again, I can find playoff game after playoff game in which Chamberlain just annihilated Russell...by HUGE margins in scoring, rebounding, passing, blcoked shots, shooting...you name it. TONS of them. You can probably find a dozne, or so games in which Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt, and really only ONE in which he downright outplayed Chamberlain. Game three of the '60 EDF's. Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounded Chamberlain, 39-15. Oh, and Boston won the game, of course, 120-90. How did that happen? Wilt badly injured his shooting hand in a fight in the previous game, and it was so swollen that he couldn't grip a basketball. Of course, a couple of days later when it much better, he pounded Russell with a 50 point-35 rebound "must-win" playoff game win. Which would be just one of the MANY games in which he abused Russell in their playoff H2H's.

[LAZERUSS]

You don't know where to begin because you don't know shit :lol

A typical unresearched, POS response that we have all come to expect from you.

[LAZERUSS]

there you go again, not holding wilt accountable. so i guess in a crucial game 7 against russell wilt's teammates forced him to only two field goal attempts in the 2nd half in a losing effort? or his teammates and coach who allowed him to average 50 points per game was dropped to a measely 22 ppg (while russell had 19) in a close-out game of the series enroute to a title? you never even gave wilt praising for dominating russell 4-1 simply because it doesn't fit the "wilt never had help" agenda that you keep asserting. wilt has the honor and the privlege of handing russell his only "real loss" as russell puts it. russell even went out of his way to shake wilt's hand after the game. but the year after that, while wilt was heavily favored and was up 3-1, russell dug deep and rallied his team to a series win and i believe it was that game 7 in which wilt had two field goals in the 2nd half, completely shut down by russell who helped willed his team to victory.

you can spin it however you want it, you can try to blow up every other player's failures as if that's suppose to excuse wilt, but it doesn't. wilt wasn't the level of winner russell was, and bird wasn't the level of winner magic was (which is why i rate magic higher than him), which is what you seem to fail to understand.

for once i want you to say "wilt messed up." hold him accountable. every one else did so far except you. now it's your turn. i want you to examine his flaws to his game and hold him accountable for the crucial losses. you can bring up the numbers all you want, but career wise, russell and wilt both averaged 23 rebounds(when rounded up) and approximately 4.6 assists, the only difference was wilt was a much better scorer and russell was a much better defender. when russell came to the celtics they were not a defensive team by any stretch of the imagination. russell changed everything for the celtics. everything. wilt didn't change the culture of any team he had ever been on, it was all about him and his stats. that's the difference. and you can't use the help argument since you just said it would always go down the wire, and cream always rises to the top and russell rose higher when it mattered the most.

now hold wilt accountable.

I could respond by asking you to acknowledge that Chamberlain was the better player in the vast majority of their H2H games, too. Once again, Wilt took last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's teams, which had between FIVE and NINE HOFers EVERY season in which he played.

Are honestly going to tell me, that if you swapped Wilt and Russell's rosters, that Russell would have gone 9-1 in rings in the Wilt-era? Do you honestly believe that Russell, playing with Wilt's misfits in '63, '64, and '65, would have titles in those seasons, while Chamberlain, playing alongside 7-8 HOFers in those years, would not?

[PsychoBe]

Once again, in that game seven in the '62 EDF's, even Russell's TEAMMATES applauded Wilt's DEFENSIVE IMPACT on that game. Oh, and Chamberlain TIED the score with a dunk and FT with 16 secs left, too. And, as was so often the case, SAM JONES hit the game-winner. In a series in which Chamberlain massively outscored Russell, easily outrebounded him, and dramatically outshot from the field. Oh, and how about Wilt's teammates again in that post-season? Somehow Chamberlain dragged that cast of rejects from Gilligan's Island, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss, in a post-season in which those teammates collectively shot .354 from the field (and his two best teammates shot .375 and .271 BTW.) Care to explain that one?

And I have covered the '68 EDF's au nauseum here. If the same Sixer team that had blown thru the league in the least two seasons, and slaughtered Boston the '67 EDF's had played in the '68 EDF's, it would have been a major upset for Boston to have beaten them. But, alas, the Sixers were already down one HOF player (Cunningham) before that series even began. And, even without him, they still forged a 3-1 lead. And all of this with a Wilt who was playing with an assortment of injuries, including a tear in his right calf (which was a similar injury that reduced Reed to a worthless statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals.) Even Russell claimed that a "lessor man would not have played", which by inference was, NO ONE else would have been playing under those circumstances. And on top of all of that, the Sixers, who were not a deep team to begin with, lost both Luke Jackson and Wali Jones to leg injuries in the fifth game, and they were worthless the rest of the series. Oh, and in game seven, Wilt's teammates passed him the ball a TOTAL of SEVEN times in the second half, and he only touched the ball twice on the offensive end in the fourth quarter (and both of those were offensive rebounds.)

Of course, with his Sixers leading that series, 3-1, how did an injured Chamberlain respond in that potential series clinching game? He outscored Russell, 28-8; he outrebounded Russell, 30-24; he outassisted Russell, 7-4; and he outshot Russell from the field by a 11-21 to 4-10 margin. Had his crippled teammates even put together an ordinary game, and that series would have been over after five games.


And again, I can find playoff game after playoff game in which Chamberlain just annihilated Russell...by HUGE margins in scoring, rebounding, passing, blcoked shots, shooting...you name it. TONS of them. You can probably find a dozne, or so games in which Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt, and really only ONE in which he downright outplayed Chamberlain. Game three of the '60 EDF's. Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounded Chamberlain, 39-15. Oh, and Boston won the game, of course, 120-90. How did that happen? Wilt badly injured his shooting hand in a fight in the previous game, and it was so swollen that he couldn't grip a basketball. Of course, a couple of days later when it much better, he pounded Russell with a 50 point-35 rebound "must-win" playoff game win. Which would be just one of the MANY games in which he abused Russell in their playoff H2H's.

still not holding him accountable. i see you bringing him stats again when it's a wash. they both averaged virtually 23 rebounds and the same amount of assists (about 4.6). russell was the better defender and wilt was the better scorer. yet for some reason, when it mattered the most, russell would always have the edge over him, holding him to only 2 field goal attempts (which you chose to ignore) and a 22-point "must win" game (russell scored 19) in which chamberlain that same season averaged 50.

also that celtics team was a shell of it's former glory too(no cousy or red to lead them, russell had to be a player-coach, etc) and it suffered from its own injuries as well and they were completely out of whack considering they were in a 3-1 deficit before russell willed them to victory and during the finals that year jerry west called russell "simply remarkable" i believe so both wilt and russell earned respect from their opponents so that's a moot point.

"If I had a choice of any basketball player in the league, my No.1 choice has to be Bill Russell. Bill Russell never ceases to amaze me."- Jerry West.

russell was more of a winner than wilt ever was. it's just that simple.

now hold him accountable.

[LAZERUSS]

still not holding him accountable. i see you bringing him stats again when it's a wash. they both averaged virtually 23 rebounds and the same amount of assists (about 4.6). russell was the better defender and wilt was the better scorer. yet for some reason, when it mattered the most, russell would always have the edge over him, holding him to only 2 field goal attempts (which you chose to ignore) and a 22-point "must win" game (russell scored 19) in which chamberlain that same season averaged 50.

also that celtics team was a shell of it's former glory too(no cousy or red to lead them, russell had to be a player-coach, etc) and it suffered from its own injuries as well and they were completely out of whack considering they were in a 3-1 deficit before russell willed them to victory and during the finals that year jerry west called russell "simply remarkable" i believe so both wilt and russell earned respect from their opponents so that's a moot point.

"If I had a choice of any basketball player in the league, my No.1 choice has to be Bill Russell. Bill Russell never ceases to amaze me."- Jerry West.

russell was more of a winner than wilt ever was. it's just that simple.

now hold him accountable.

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html

Jerry West in 1999...


"You just don't think things like this are going to happen to people of his stature," echoed Jerry West, the Lakers executive who played against Chamberlain for many years, then with him on the great '72 Lakers squad.

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages."

[PsychoBe]

I could respond by asking you to acknowledge that Chamberlain was the better player in the vast majority of their H2H games, too. Once again, Wilt took last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's teams, which had between FIVE and NINE HOFers EVERY season in which he played.

Are honestly going to tell me, that if you swapped Wilt and Russell's rosters, that Russell would have gone 9-1 in rings in the Wilt-era? Do you honestly believe that Russell, playing with Wilt's misfits in '63, '64, and '65, would have titles in those seasons, while Chamberlain, playing alongside 7-8 HOFers in those years, would not?

you make it seem like those players were born hofers. they weren't. russell came before most of them and he had already established a defensive culture that spawned a winning dynasty. wilt did none of that. russell changed everything for the celtics. they were an offensive team until russell came and taught them the true meaning of defense and togetherness, he completely changed the entire make-up of the team for years and years to come but wilt didn't change of culture of any team ever. it was all about him and his stats and his personal achievements, russell always kept his team focused on the big picture. wilt didn't. he was too busy out partying and sleeping with women maybe, but he surely was not the caliber of leader russell was and i'm sure many could attest to this. russell changed everything for those celtics i want you to truly understand that. because that's the difference between a winner and a "wilt".

[SHAQisGOAT]

A typical unresearched, POS response that we have all come to expect from you.



I'll answer with the same I did last time:

If you think I'd give you more of a response than that, you must be crazy. Everytime anyone presents you with a solid response, with facts and good arguments you just write them off and post some bullshit-ass reply, filled with ignorance and very selected facts to push your agenda up everyone's throat. Jig is up, and has been that way for a very long time now.

You got almost 3000 posts with that account and like 10000 with your previous one - not including alts - and not even 1/3 of them were taken seriously by the majority of people here :roll: Plus most of those posts are centered around your own (crazy) personal agenda, and always filled with dumb shit, ignorant arguments and selected facts, not to mention every once in a while you always write some big-ass essays, mostly about Wilt.
To sum it up, you're wasting your whole life doing something you get 0 money and close to no credit for, plus most of it is about your love for someone you didn't even met/know :lol It's funny, psychotic, pathetic and sad all at the same time. Keep up the good work :facepalm

I won't even write another serious response to you anymore.


And, you've been exposed:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

Please stop posting and just end your miserable existence or something.

...

[LAZERUSS]

...

Exactly the same miserable response that we have all come to expect from you.

SHAQisPOS...

BTW, who is jlauber? I believe your alt account, Millwad, claimed that he was dead.

[LAZERUSS]

you make it seem like those players were born hofers. they weren't. russell came before most of them and he had already established a defensive culture that spawned a winning dynasty. wilt did none of that. russell changed everything for the celtics. they were an offensive team until russell came and taught them the true meaning of defense and togetherness, he completely changed the entire make-up of the team for years and years to come but wilt didn't change of culture of any team ever. it was all about him and his stats and his personal achievements, russell always kept his team focused on the big picture. wilt didn't. he was too busy out partying and sleeping with women maybe, but he surely was not the caliber of leader russell was and i'm sure many could attest to this. russell changed everything for those celtics i want you to truly understand that. because that's the difference between a winner and a "wilt".

Wilt was drafted by a LAST PLACE team.

Russell? He was Boston's SECOND pick (after a trade) in the '56 draft, along with Tommy Heinsohn, who would win ROY, and go on to have a fine HOF career. This from a team that had gone 39-33 and made the playoffs.

How good was that team that Russell landed on? He missed 24 games in his rookie season. In the 48 in which he played, Boston went 28-20 (.583.) In the 24 in which he missed, they went 16-8 (.667.)

The next year they added future HOFer Sam Jones (who would play on TEN title teams.)

How good was THAT team? Russell was injured in game three of the '58 Finals, in a series that was tied 1-1. Boston lost that game three by three points, but outscored the Hawks after Russell left the game. The Celtics then easily won four without Russell. Russell would also miss game five, a 102-100 Hawks win. And Russell tried to return for game six, but had to leave after 20 minutes. Again, Boston lost 110-109, but they outscored the Hawsk without Russell.

THAT was the talent that Russell had from DAY ONE. Along with a HOF coach and GM. And each year they would add even better players. How in the hell did they manage to acquire Clyde Lovellette before the start of the '63-64 season? My god, Lovellette was a 20 ppg scorer just the season before. With Boston? Lovellette was their 7-8th best player.

Later on they would pick up Bailey Howell, and his 20 ppg .500 shooting for relatively nothing. Howell would go on to have a HOF career.

And the reality was, Russell had MULTIPLE teammates, that had MUTILPLE 20+ ppg seasons, and some, like Havlicek, would explode after Russell retired.

Meanwhile, Wilt's LAST-PLACE roster would get just older, and worse. He had generally had either lazy, or incompetent coach's. One of them took a look at his surrounding teammates, and decided that their only hope was for Wilt to score 50 ppg.

When Hannum arrived before the start of the '64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, with the veterans facing off against rookies and rejects. He was shocked when the rejects won. The team was a cast of mis-fits. And yet, with his coaching, and Chamberlain's dominance, he got them to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost to Russell's Celtics (and their EIGHT HOFers), 4-1. But, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. And Chamberlain just demolished Russell in that series.

Just one of the MANY examples of the differences in talent that Russell and Chamberlain had throughout their 10 years in the league together.

[PsychoBe]

Wilt was drafted by a LAST PLACE team.

Russell? He was Boston's SECOND pick (after a trade) in the '56 draft, along with Tommy Heinsohn, who would win ROY, and go on to have a fine HOF career. This from a team that had gone 39-33 and made the playoffs.

How good was that team that Russell landed on? He missed 24 games in his rookie season. In the 48 in which he played, Boston went 28-20 (.583.) In the 24 in which he missed, they went 16-8 (.667.)

The next year they added future HOFer Sam Jones (who would play on TEN title teams.)

How good was THAT team? Russell was injured in game three of the '58 Finals, in a series that was tied 1-1. Boston lost that game three by three points, but outscored the Hawks after Russell left the game. The Celtics then easily won four without Russell. Russell would also miss game five, a 102-100 Hawks win. And Russell tried to return for game six, but had to leave after 20 minutes. Again, Boston lost 110-109, but they outscored the Hawsk without Russell.

THAT was the talent that Russell had from DAY ONE. Along with a HOF coach and GM. And each year they would add even better players. How in the hell did they manage to acquire Clyde Lovellette before the start of the '63-64 season? My god, Lovellette was a 20 ppg scorer just the season before. With Boston? Lovellette was their 7-8th best player.

Later on they would pick up Bailey Howell, and his 20 ppg .500 shooting for relatively nothing. Howell would go on to have a HOF career.

And the reality was, Russell had MULTIPLE teammates, that had MUTILPLE 20+ ppg seasons, and some, like Havlicek, would explode after Russell retired.

Meanwhile, Wilt's LAST-PLACE roster would get just older, and worse. He had generally had either lazy, or incompetent coach's. One of them took a look at his surrounding teammates, and decided that their only hope was for Wilt to score 50 ppg.

When Hannum arrived before the start of the '64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, with the veterans facing off against rookies and rejects. He was shocked when the rejects won. The team was a cast of mis-fits. And yet, with his coaching, and Chamberlain's dominance, he got them to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost to Russell's Celtics (and their EIGHT HOFers), 4-1. But, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. And Chamberlain just demolished Russell in that series.

Just one of the MANY examples of the differences in talent that Russell and Chamberlain had throughout their 10 years in the league together.

again, they weren't born hofers. the celtics without russell weren't winners, evidenced by their lost in the finals during his injury. once he recovered he changed the culture of the team and completely shifted gears, during an offensive minded team to a defensive minded one, where they would shout "hey, bill!" whenever they needed help to guard their man (at literally every position) and russell would be there all the time. you underestimate what establishing a winning culture would do, a culture of where you trust your teammates to make plays, where you always play for each other and not yourself, it all started with their leader russell. wilt never did that. he didn't establish a winning culture with any team. it was all about his stats. maybe if wilt played more like russell then things would have been different, but then again, no one possessed the lateral quickness to stay in front of a man positions 1-5 like russell did, so maybe that's not fair.

at the end of the day, russell changed everything for the celtics, everything. wilt changed nothing.

that's the difference between a winner and a "wilt.

now hold him accountable.

[millwad]

Exactly the same miserable response that we have all come to expect from you.

SHAQisPOS...

BTW, who is jlauber? I believe your alt account, Millwad, claimed that he was dead.

It's funny that you think that I am like you, I don't create new accounts to make it seem like my views are popular around here, I am not the one who's been exposed like you've been.

And the facts about your wife and your pathetic life was true so I had no reason to not trust the poster who out'd you, Jeff.

And as Shaqisgoat mentioned you've been exposed like no one else, going from the stuff you used to write compared to what you claim nowadays just proves that you live in a dream rather than reality. I couldn't find the certain post now but a couple of weeks ago you even claimed that a Wilt had more blocks in a certain game compared to what the boxscore showed and that you counted the blocks in that game close to 45 years ago.

This while TheRegul8tor exposed you completely, you didn't even think Wilt or his era was that good just a few years ago, your obsession started with his freaking youtube-clips. You're a clown.

[moe94]

When you guys are out here trying to expose each other because you have contradictory views on Wilt, it's time to stop arguing.


Exactly the same miserable response that we have all come to expect from you.

SHAQisPOS...

BTW, who is jlauber? I believe your alt account, Millwad, claimed that he was dead.

This shit is gold.

[LAZERUSS]

again, they weren't born hofers. the celtics without russell weren't winners, evidenced by their lost in the finals during his injury. once he recovered he changed the culture of the team and completely shifted gears, during an offensive minded team to a defensive minded one, where they would shout "hey, bill!" whenever they needed help to guard their man (at literally every position) and russell would be there all the time. you underestimate what establishing a winning culture would do, a culture of where you trust your teammates to make plays, where you always play for each other and not yourself, it all started with their leader russell. wilt never did that. he didn't establish a winning culture with any team. it was all about his stats. maybe if wilt played more like russell then things would have been different, but then again, no one possessed the lateral quickness to stay in front of a man positions 1-5 like russell did, so maybe that's not fair.

at the end of the day, russell changed everything for the celtics, everything. wilt changed nothing.

that's the difference between a winner and a "wilt.

now hold him accountable.

Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. He immediately led them to a 49-26 record, and a trip to the EDF's, where they would lose to the 59-16 Celtics, 4-2, in a series in which Chamberlain badly injured his hand, and was worthless in one game, and below average in another.

Again, his teammates would get older, and progressively worse. Still, in his 61-62 season, he single-handedly took that same crappy roster that he inherited in his rookie season, thru the first round of the playoffs (and with a clinching game five 56-35 performance), then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics. All in a post-season in which his teammates (again, LAST PLACE teammates) that collectively shot .354 from the field.

BTW, after that series...teammmate Tom Meschery, "The Boston players, man-for-man, were better players than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship."

I am certainly not going to hold Wilt accountable for those "defeats." He was CLEARLY a better player than Russell in those series.

And I could go right down the line.

How about this? Chamberlain led the 63-64 Warriors to a 48-32 record. His second best player, Tom Meschery, averaged 13 ppg that season. He was traded mid-season, in 64-65, to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and failed to make the playoffs. Meanwhile, the Warriors would go 7-36 without Wilt, and because of that, were able to draft Rick Barry.

So, in the 65-66 season, they moved Nate Thurmond to the center slot, where he would go to have a HOF career. And with Barry and his 26 ppg...they could only go 35-45. TWO HOFers basically replacing Wilt...and going 35-45.

In the 66-67 season, the Warriors would add Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel to that roster. Tom Meschery would average 11 ppg that season, but was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player. Meanwhile, Thurmond had the greatest season of his career, and Rick Barry put up a 36 ppg season. The result? A 44-37 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they were wiped out by...guess who...Wilt's 68-13 Sixers.

Think about that. Wilt, with Meschery as his second best teammate, took a Warrior team to a 48-32 record (and a trip to the Finals), but a Warrior team just LOADED with talent (and Meschery now their SEVENTH best player), couldn't duplicate it.

THAT was Wilt's IMPACT.

Oh, and of course, Chamberlain immediately led that bottom-feeding scum roster of the Sixers to three straight seasons with the best record in the league, and that dominating world title in 66-67. And had they not been decimated by injuries in 67-68, they would surely have repeated.

Chamberlain forced a trade to the Lakers before the start of the 68-69 season (and it cost LA a total of 29 ppg and 15 rpg in that trade.) AND, the Lakers also lost future HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. Oh, and West missed 21 games in that 68-69 season (and LA went 12-9 without him.) The result? Wilt led that Laker team to an LA team record of 55-27.

He would take the Lakers to the Finals FOUR times in his five seasons in LA. Included were two 60+ win seasons, with a 69-13 world championship in '72. LA's first ever.

Chamberlain "retired" following his 72-73 season, and the Lakers promptly plummetted from a 60-22 record (and a trip to the Finals) to a 47-35 record, and a first round blowout loss to the Bucks.

The next season the Lakers would crumble even further, dropping to 30-52. They would trade for Kareem, but even he couldn't do anything with them (going 40-42.)

And it wouldn't be until MAGIC arrived, in 79-80, before the Lakers returned to where Chamberlain had left them.

Again...THAT was Wilt's IMPACT.

[LAZERUSS]

It's funny that you think that I am like you, I don't create new accounts to make it seem like my views are popular around here, I am not the one who's been exposed like you've been.

And the facts about your wife and your pathetic life was true so I had no reason to not trust the poster who out'd you, Jeff.

And as Shaqisgoat mentioned you've been exposed like no one else, going from the stuff you used to write compared to what you claim nowadays just proves that you live in a dream rather than reality. I couldn't find the certain post now but a couple of weeks ago you even claimed that a Wilt had more blocks in a certain game compared to what the boxscore showed and that you counted the blocks in that game close to 45 years ago.

This while TheRegul8tor exposed you completely, you didn't even think Wilt or his era was that good just a few years ago, your obsession started with his freaking youtube-clips. You're a clown.

This...

He who claimed that jlauber was dead? The same Millwad who claimed that Kareem wasn't guarded by Hakeem in their 84-85 and 85-86 matchups, and then was completely shelled when PHILA posted a newspaper article that ripped Hakeem's coach for allowing Kareem to pour in 46 point in only 37 minutes against a helpless Hakeem? And then Fatal produced a complete game (since removed) in their 84-85 season, in which Kareem slaughtered a helpless Hakeem with a 40 point game?

The same Millwad who claimed that Andrew Bynum was a better player than Wilt. The same Millwad who claimed that Russell was not a world-class high-jumper. The same Millwad who claimed that Joey Johnson (the high-jumper_ couldn't get his chin above rim level? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face seven-footers? The same Millwad who claimed that Wilt didn't face double-teams? The same Millwad who claimed that Barkley did not outrebound his teammate, Hakeem, by four rpg in a season?

I could go on, but it is obvious you two are the same posters. Two complete morons who cannot come up with any substantial arguments, and instead throw up ridiculous opinions and flat out lies.

You have been ripped to shreds in EVERY argument you have ever tried to produce.

BTW, don't you find it creepy that you have become so obsessed with jlauber that you go to extremes to get info on his wife and kids? Truly scarry. Do you live in a basement with your grandmother?

Millwad=POS.

[PsychoBe]

Again...THAT was Wilt's IMPACT.

you're right, it was all wilt's impact...........































































































but it wasn't enough.

it was a winner vs a "wilt."

[LAZERUSS]

Which explains why Jordan was a "loser" in nine of his 15 seasons (including FIVE on team's with losing records)

Or Bird being a "loser" in 10 of his 13 seasons.

Or West being a loser in 12 of his 13 seasons.

Or Baylor being a loser in all of his 13 seasons.

Or Robinson a loser in 12 of his 14 seasons.

Or Duncan a loser in 13 of his 17 seasons.

Or Kobe a loser in 12 of his 17.

Or Shaq a loser in 16 of his 20.

Or Kareem a loser in 14 of his 20 (and being carried by a teammate in several of his "winning" seasons.)

Or Hakeem being a loser in 16 of his 18 seasons.

The list is endless. All of the above were clearly "losers" in YOUR book.

[PsychoBe]

Which explains why Jordan was a "loser" in nine of his 15 seasons (including FIVE on team's with losing records)

Or Bird being a "loser" in 10 of his 13 seasons.

Or West being a loser in 12 of his 13 seasons.

Or Baylor being a loser in all of his 13 seasons.

Or Robinson a loser in 12 of his 14 seasons.

Or Duncan a loser in 13 of his 17 seasons.

Or Kobe a loser in 12 of his 17.

Or Shaq a loser in 16 of his 20.

Or Kareem a loser in 14 of his 20 (and being carried by a teammate in several of his "winning" seasons.)

Or Hakeem being a loser in 16 of his 18 seasons.

The list is endless. All of the above were clearly "losers" in YOUR book.

i never called wilt a loser. everyone loses, i just found it funny how you never held wilt accountable while everyone else holds every other player accountable. just hold wilt accountable that's all i ask. just do it. i want you to just hold him accountable, no excuses. it's like you know everyone's failures but wilt's.....

hold him accountable. add wilt to that list and i'll drop this debate.

hold him accountable.

[LAZERUSS]

i never called wilt a loser. everyone loses, i just found it funny how you never held wilt accountable while everyone else holds every other player accountable. just hold wilt accountable that's all i ask. just do it. i want you to just hold him accountable, no excuses. it's like you know everyone's failures but wilt's.....

hold him accountable. add wilt to that list and i'll drop this debate.

hold him accountable.

Hold him accountable? For what? For being held down in a few of his 160 post-season games, in series in which he was the best player on the floor?

Did Wilt have some poor playoff games? Of course he did (of course, a "poor" Wilt game was still one in which he was the leading rebounder and shot-blocker.)

But he sure as hell had FAR more games in which he was clearly the most dominant player on the floor...including the vast majority of his 49 playoff H2H's with Russell.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, if you make me any madder, I am going to report you.

[LAZERUSS]

jk

[PsychoBe]

Hold him accountable? For what? For being held down in a few of his 160 post-season games, in series in which he was the best player on the floor?

Did Wilt have some poor playoff games? Of course he did (of course, a "poor" Wilt game was still one in which he was the leading rebounder and shot-blocker.)

But he sure as hell had FAR more games in which he was clearly the most dominant player on the floor...including the vast majority of his 49 playoff H2H's with Russell.

that's all you needed to say. wilt played poorly, sometimes when it mattered the most. that's what the narrative will be and has always been with him, it's very fortunate but it's the truth.

i'm sorry but youre just going to have to accept it.

[Pointguard]

KAJ in 76-77. Kareem's Lakers go on to have the best record in the league, but then are swept by the 49-33 Blazers in the WCF's. Yes, KAJ crushes Walton, but so what? Wilt routinely dominated Russell to the same extent, and yet he gets no credit, so why should KAJ? If Wilt were to blame for his losses, even when castrating Russell in the process, then so should KAJ. Obviously, it was completely Kareem's fault that his Lakers were swept, 4-0.


This. Totally appropriate for the argument at hand. Shaq vs Ben Wallace to a lesser extent. For those saying Russell was better give me one example of one player dominating another and you really thought the dominated player was better. Russell had one incredible strong point that was measurable and Wilt set a record on him in rebounding. And consistently out rebounded him when he played him - a very definite pulling of rank on Russell. Even in blocked shots Russell people never say that Russell outblocked him.

Is there another comparison of GOAT with near similar peaks more dominating than Wilt/Russell? Team accomplishments not included since we are comparing individuals. When I first came to this board a Russell fan said Russell's defensive game had more impact than Wilt's 30 more ppg than Russell that year. And then he had Dirk better than KG and this was after KG had one of the best defensive teams ever (and there hasn't really been another great defensive team in the post hand check era). When I showed him that KG consistently outscored Dirk when he guarded him so there was at least some measure of the offense defense measure, the guy literally left the board.

[PsychoBe]

BTW, if you make me any madder, I am going to report you.

it's very unfortunate that i had to report that guy but hopefully he learned his lesson.

[LAZERUSS]

This. Totally appropriate for the argument at hand. Shaq vs Ben Wallace to a lesser extent. For those saying Russell was better give me one example of one player dominating another and you really thought the dominated player was better. Russell had one incredible strong point that was measurable and Wilt set a record on him in rebounding. And consistently out rebounded him when he played him - a very definite pulling of rank on Russell. Even in blocked shots Russell people never say that Russell outblocked him.

Is there another comparison of GOAT with near similar peaks more dominating than Wilt/Russell? Team accomplishments not included since we are comparing individuals. When I first came to this board a Russell fan said Russell's defensive game had more impact than Wilt's 30 more ppg than Russell that year. And then he had Dirk better than KG and this was after KG had one of the best defensive teams ever (and there hasn't really been another great defensive team in the post hand check era). When I showed him that KG consistently outscored Dirk when he guarded him so there was at least some measure of the offense defense measure, the guy literally left the board.

You mentioned KG. He is another example of a great player being saddled with poor rosters, and single-handedly carrying pathetic rosters to 50 win seasons.

And what happened when he was finally given a quality (and healthy) supporting cast? A 66-16 record, and a dominating title. Unfortunately for him, it was a little late, or he would surely have won more.

[Keno]

seriously, wilt is one of the greatest forces to step on the basketball court. the reason he only won two rings because of how stacked russell's celtics actually were. no one man can stop a whole team all by himself. wilt also had a stacked team at one point, but that was in his later years when he was plagued by injuries and such. if he had russell's celtics he would of won more than 11 rings.

i like the comparison of wilt = lebron. two of the greatest players in nba history, carried scrubs to deep playoff runs, etc.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wait Laz, so you're not the legendary poster jlauber?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't criticize him per se, just think he could have (and should have) won more. Kinda goes to show how great Wilt was though. Just 2 rings, and the man is still an undisputed top 5 GOAT.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't criticize him per se, just think he could have (and should have) won more. Kinda goes to show how great Wilt was though. Just 2 rings, and the man is still an undisputed top 5 GOAT.

Well, let's put it this way...

Chamberlain was an eyelash away of FOUR more rings (and all against Russell's Celtics.) His team's lost four game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

His under-dog '70 Laker team also lost a game seven to the Knicks.

Furthermore, his team's lost to the eventual champion TEN times. Think about that...in his 13 seasons, he either lost to the eventual champion, or dowright won the title, in 12 of them.

[LAZERUSS]

Wait Laz, so you're not the legendary poster jlauber?

I think most people here are beginning to think that YOU are jlauber. Which is nice compliment I might add.

[LAZERUSS]

again...

jk

[moe94]

I think most people here are beginning to think that YOU are jlauber. Which is nice compliment I might add.

You, Duece and Shaq are the same person. That's the strongest theory. :coleman:

[Deuce Bigalow]

I think most people here are beginning to think that YOU are jlauber. Which is nice compliment I might add.
Nobody thinks I'm the great jlauber on here. It's basically assumed by everyone that you are indeed the man, the myth, the legend.

[LAZERUSS]

You, Duece and Shaq are the same person. That's the strongest theory. :coleman:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VCthhNIQfxE/UJxmHb8wsBI/AAAAAAAAAJk/yweIFbV3Dww/s1600/Rod.jpg

[Pointguard]

The twilight zone post above fits right in.


BTW, who is jlauber? I believe your alt account, Millwad, claimed that he was dead.
The Mill did have a good run here and we barely see him much now but his timely response and reappearance in this thread.

It's funny that you think that I am like you, I don't create new accounts to make it seem like my views are popular around here, I am not the one who's been exposed like you've been.

And as Shaqisgoat mentioned you've been exposed like no one else, going from the stuff you used to write compared to what you claim nowadays just proves that you live in a dream rather than reality.


Back in the days when Jlauber was claimed dead by Millwad...



Well, I had two accounts and I never intended to make it the way it became.
My "Millwad" account is not really mine, I had an old account which I forgot totally about and I couldn't get back the password because I used a new mail and had no access to my old mail. Me and my teammate started to share this account which was his to start with and he stopped posting some years ago so I took it over completely.

The Jlauber account was my own account which I used for troll purpose and it was never going to be about Wilt to be honest either. But I got interested in both Olajuwon and 60's (mostly Wilt) basketball at the time I got my account activated and no one really wanted to discuss either player so I started to beef with my two accounts so people would start to discuss them more and obviously I made it. Then I admitted that I was behind both accounts and my Jlauber account got ip-banned but it didn't effect this account.

I don't use my own IP because I download alot and it's very illegal in Sweden and I also have my own small downloading site so I use tunnels and I had two of them, one in Sweden and one in the US and the later one I got for free so I thought I'd use it for the Jlauber account which I did. That one got banned.

So, that's all. And "Jlauber" stands for the first name of my of our teacher (me and my old teammate's) and Lauber was his last name, it was just a joke.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7953949&postcount=42

Ha!!!

[moe94]

millwad ironically said he never got exposed.


Nobody thinks I'm the great jlauber on here. It's basically assumed by everyone that you are indeed the man, the myth, the legend.

What happened to the Mikan stuff? Hop off this weird Wilt stan stuff. :(

[LAZERUSS]

Nobody thinks I'm the great jlauber on here. It's basically assumed by everyone that you are indeed the man, the myth, the legend.

Unfortunately, he has been declared dead, possibly murdered, and the investigation is now centering around a small basement in Sweden...

[Deuce Bigalow]

millwad ironically said he never got exposed.



What happened to the Mikan stuff? Hop off this weird Wilt stan stuff. :(
Ah...the great George Mikan.

[moe94]

Ah...the great George Mikan.

Was Mikan a greater player than Wilt?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Unfortunately, he has been declared dead, possibly murdered, and the investigation is now centering around a small basement in Sweden...
Okay jlauber okay.

:bowdown: The legendary jlauber everybody :applause:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Was Mikan a greater player than Wilt?
He was close, but not close enough.

[moe94]

He was close, but not close enough.

Deuce is dead. :biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

Okay jlauber okay.

:bowdown: The legendary jlauber everybody :applause:

Of course, THE story here at ISH is...just what have you done to the REAL Deuce?

[Pointguard]

Unfortunately, he has been declared dead, possibly murdered, and the investigation is now centering around a small basement in Sweden...
:lol

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Of course, THE story here at ISH is...just what have you done to the REAL Deuce?
This is the real Deuce.

[LAZERUSS]

This is the real Deuce.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[BoutPractice]

LAZERUSS is unquestionably jlauber, but the jury is still out on whether he's also millwad.

Most people keep falling into repetitive speech patterns that can make almost anything they write instantly recognizable if you're familiar enough with them... they just cant help it. jlauber has some of the most distinctive vocabulary and turns of phrases I've ever seen (certainly the most distinctive here along with Euroleague's), yet I don't recall millwad ever "slipping" into jlaubisms.

[moe94]

What does one dude gain from arguing with himself and exposing his alternative accounts for years upon years? It's insanity.

[Dizzle-2k7]

We all like Wilt... and 2 championships is great.

But dont try and tell me he's top 5 all time. He was a great scorer, but an average teammate. He couldnt lead the way other Legends do.

Timmy, Bill, MJ, Kobe, Bird, Magic, KAJ, Shaq > Wilt

Wilt is the Hakeem/Lebron level right now.. 1 more ring as leader pushes you up to a higher tier.

3 rings >>>> 2 rings

[LAZERUSS]

What does one dude gain from arguing with himself and exposing his alternative accounts for years upon years? It's insanity.

I guess you will have to ask jlauber and Millwad that question...

I'm staying completely out of it, though.

[moe94]

Why isn't Hondo in that tier?

[LAZERUSS]

Why isn't Hondo in that tier?

He is actually in the tier above those guys...

[CavaliersFTW]

We all like Wilt... and 2 championships is great.

But dont try and tell me he's top 5 all time. He was a great scorer, but an average teammate. He couldnt lead the way other Legends do.

Timmy, Bill, MJ, Kobe, Bird, Magic, KAJ, Shaq > Wilt

Wilt is the Hakeem/Lebron level right now.. 1 more ring as leader pushes you up to a higher tier.

3 rings >>>> 2 rings
Wilt has 4 times as many MVP's as Hakeem, over 5 times as many rebounding titles, and Hakeem never won a single scoring title, Wilt did that 7 times in a row, the list goes on and on, Hakeem isn't comparable to Wilt at all he has zero case even being near Wilt let alone over him :lol

[Dizzle-2k7]

Wilt has 4 times as many MVP's as Hakeem, over 5 times as many rebounding titles, and Hakeem never won a single scoring title, Wilt did that 7 times in a row, the list goes on and on, Hakeem isn't comparable to Wilt at all he has zero case even being near Wilt let alone over him :lol


i agree with you i have wilt far over hakeem as well (and lebron currently). but as far as tiers go i believe 3 rings is the high tier as leaders

[CavaliersFTW]

i agree with you i have wilt far over hakeem as well (and lebron currently). but as far as tiers go i believe 3 rings is the high tier as leaders
Rings are a team accomplishment, Wilt is more individually dominant than literally every single player who ever won more rings than he did. As such, there is no arbitrary '3 ring' cutoff that applies to him. He's a GOAT candidate and he's cemented himself as such because he's the most dominant individual force in NBA history and he blew records so far out of sight most can't be touched. Simple as that.

[LAZERUSS]

i agree with you i have wilt far over hakeem as well (and lebron currently). but as far as tiers go i believe 3 rings is the high tier as leaders

So Wilt gets no credit for taking a last-place roster to a game seven, two point loss against the eventual champion 60-20 Celtics in '62? Or taking a team that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of it's dynasty (and in a seven game series in which Wilt hung up a 30-31 .555 FG% series)?

[Dizzle-2k7]

Rings are a team accomplishment, Wilt is more individually dominant than literally every single player who ever won more rings than he did.

i agree but at what cost? couldnt wilt have averaged 30 and done more in other areas? screens, extra passes etc.


wilt was too far ahead of his time. he shouldve "dumbed down" to make his teammates better and win more rings.

[LAZERUSS]

i agree with you i have wilt far over hakeem as well (and lebron currently). but as far as tiers go i believe 3 rings is the high tier as leaders

And Bird gets credit even though he needed a teammate to overcome his woeful shooting in one of his "rings" in order to beat a 40-42 team?

Or that Bird lost SEVEN times with HCA (including being swept in one), and in most of those he was ordinary, or even downright awful?

[NumberSix]

Wilt is a Mt. Rushmore guy.

Like it or not, even with his 11 rings, Russell will never be regarded on the same tier as Wilt.

Wilts name is legendary. Outside of hardcore fans, most people don't even know who Bill Russell is. Real talk.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Wilts name is legendary. Outside of hardcore fans, most people don't even know who Bill Russell is. Real talk.

more hype from you, scrub

wilt is legendary for his quest of women, his acting, his athleticism... HYPE.. TV MACHINE

bill russell dominated the BASKETBALL COURTS and when judging legends, thats all that matters!

you disney ass, nickelodean watchin, espn subscribin, lame-o :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

more hype from you, scrub

wilt is legendary for his quest of women, his acting, his athleticism... HYPE.. TV MACHINE

bill russell dominated the BASKETBALL COURTS and when judging legends, thats all that matters!

you disney ass, nickelodean watchin, espn subscribin, lame-o :oldlol:
Bill Russell dominated nothing. He was on the team that won... while routinely losing his individual match up.

Ring counting simpleton.

[LAZERUSS]

more hype from you, scrub

wilt is legendary for his quest of women, his acting, his athleticism... HYPE.. TV MACHINE

bill russell dominated the BASKETBALL COURTS and when judging legends, thats all that matters!

you disney ass, nickelodean watchin, espn subscribin, lame-o :oldlol:

Russell was to the the face of Joe Frazier, what Chamberlain was to the fists of George Foreman.

[gts]

Don't want to get int all the numbers and seasons and such but I do want to say there is a disconnect between Wilt the guy who put up insane numbers vs the Wilt who won on the big stage

Wilt is almost mythical when it comes to his numbers but his dominance doesn't match the results in the end and I think that's where the critics find fault in his titles or lack of

I'm not saying he should have more or that I'm one who holds having "only 2" titles against Wilt
2 titles are incredible and are 2 more than 90% of the guys who ever played the game have but in the same sentence when you start stacking his 2 titles up against guys with 6 5 4 or even 3 titles then you compare to how he's lauded as this incredible unstoppable force of nature then something doesn't add up and that's what his critics take aim at

does that make sense?

[NumberSix]

Don't want to get int all the numbers and seasons and such but I do want to say there is a disconnect between Wilt the guy who put up insane numbers vs the Wilt who won on the big stage

Wilt is almost mythical when it comes to his numbers but his dominance doesn't match the results in the end and I think that's where the critics find fault in his titles or lack of

I'm not saying he should have more or that I'm one who holds having "only 2" titles against Wilt
2 titles are incredible and are 2 more than 90% of the guys who ever played the game have but in the same sentence when you start stacking his 2 titles up against guys with 6 5 4 or even 3 titles then you compare to how he's lauded as this incredible unstoppable force of nature then something doesn't add up and that's what his critics take aim at

does that make sense?
No. It's a team sport and Wilt happened to play in an era where the game was in its early stages. There were only 8 teams and the disparity between the Celtics and every other team was too much for any 1 player to make up. It's the same story in every major sport. Whether it's the Canadiens, packers or the Yankees, there's always 1 team that dominates the early years of a sport. It's not a coincidence. It's not like today where millions upon millions of people try to be good enough to be pros. Everybody and their momma wasn't busting their ass to make $8 a game as a pro athlete. 95% of the players in that era legitimately couldn't make today's D-League.

If you put prime LeBron James or Kevin Durant on the Current Syracuse team, they're not going to be able to win a series against the worst NBA teams.

The celtics didn't need Russell to win 11 championships. They just needed any one of the better centers of the era. They would have won just as much with Walt Belamy.

[fpliii]

No. It's a team sport and Wilt happened to play in an era where the game was in its early stages. There were only 8 teams and the disparity between the Celtics and every other team was too much for any 1 player to make up. It's the same story in every major sport. Whether it's the Canadiens, packers or the Yankees, there's always 1 team that dominates the early years of a sport. It's not a coincidence. It's not like today where millions upon millions of people try to be good enough to be pros. Everybody and their momma wasn't busting their ass to make $8 a game as a pro athlete. 95% of the players in that era legitimately couldn't make today's D-League.

If you put prime LeBron James or Kevin Durant on the Current Syracuse team, they're not going to be able to win a series against the worst NBA teams.

The celtics didn't need Russell to win 11 championships. They just needed any one of the better centers of the era. They would have won just as much with Walt Belamy.
C'mon man, you're better than that. :facepalm

[NumberSix]

C'mon man, you're better than that. :facepalm
You know its true.

Saying Russell > Wilt is like saying Eli > Peyton or Fisher > Kidd.


Russell was a worse player on a better team. It's that simple.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You know its true.

Saying Russell > Wilt is like saying Eli > Peyton or Fisher > Kidd.


Russell was a worse player on a better team. It's that simple.
Were Eli or Fisher 5x MVPs?

[PsychoBe]

You know its true.

Saying Russell > Wilt is like saying Eli > Peyton or Fisher > Kidd.


Russell was a worse player on a better team. It's that simple.

no it's not and you're speaking from pure ignorance. do you know what it means to try to break down your man off the dribble and then they shout "hey, bill!" and you see a 6-11 behemoth with the lateral quickness of a guard trap you in the half court and just as you attempt to swing the ball back inside he flashes in the middle and contest the shot and starts the fast break while john havelicek finishes in the open court thanks to russell's brillance?

russell changed everything for the celtics.

everything.