why dont Wilt era fans like to brag about 6-5 Elgin Baylor averaging 19.8 rebounds

[kennethgriffin]

or 38.3ppg

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 Jerry Lucas averaging 21.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 wes unself averaging 18.2 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 gus johnson averaging 17.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 maurice stokes averaging 17.0 rebounds per game


na theyed rather just assume that there was no inflated averages back then. and wilt was just that much better than everyone. and his 50ppg average would translate into todays nba

when in reality. theres a reason why the center position died. its not due to there being no centers. its because the game evolved. defenses are better and rules are put in place so some big pounding back to the basket guy cant just take advantage of his height anymore

the fact is... in the 90's.. wilt might average 27ppg tops

in the 00's.. wilt might average 24ppg tops

but in the 2010's.. wilt would not average over 20ppg ... its just not the style of basketball suited for his game anymore. its a run and gun league where outside shooting is a must and just standing with your back to the basket with 1 hand palmed over the ball waiving it back and forth while a bunch of midgets run around you isnt the way things are done anymore

[LAZERUSS]

or 38.3ppg

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 Jerry Lucas averaging 21.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 wes unself averaging 18.2 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 gus johnson averaging 17.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 maurice stokes averaging 17.0 rebounds per game


na theyed rather just assume that there was no inflated averages back then. and wilt was just that much better than everyone. and his 50ppg average would translate into todays nba

when in reality. theres a reason why the center position died. its not due to there being no centers. its because the game evolved. defenses are better and rules are put in place so some big pounding back to the basket guy cant just take advantage of his height anymore

the fact is... in the 90's.. wilt might average 27ppg tops

in the 00's.. wilt might average 24ppg tops

but in the 2010's.. wilt would not average over 20ppg ... its just not the style of basketball suited for his game anymore. its a run and gun league where outside shooting is a must and just standing with your back to the basket with 1 hand palmed over the ball waiving it back and forth while a bunch of midgets run around you isnt the way things are done anymore

Jerry Lucas would average about the same amount of rpg as Kevin Love. BTW, those two were/are nearly identical in almost every aspect of their games.

How about this... a 36 year old Chamberlain, in his LAST season, and in a post-season in which he played 17 games...AVERAGED 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg.

TODAY's NBA is averaging 42.9 rpg.

Let's do the math, shall we?

42.9 / 50.6 = 85%.

85% of 22.5 = 19.1 rpg.

This from an OLD Wilt, in his LAST season.

[kennethgriffin]

Jerry Lucas would average about the same amount of rpg as Kevin Love. BTW, those two were/are nearly identical in almost every aspect of their games.

How about this... a 36 year old Chamberlain, in his LAST season, and in a post-season in which he played 17 games...AVERAGED 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg.

TODAY's NBA is averaging 42.9 rpg.

Let's do the math, shall we?

42.9 / 50.6 = 85%.

85% of 22.5 = 19.1 rpg.

This from an OLD Wilt, in his LAST season.


address 6-5 baylors 20 rpg

[LAZERUSS]

address 6-5 baylors 20 rpg

About the equivalent of a 6-5 Barkley leading the league at 14.6 rpg in an NBA with Hakeem, Moses, Parish, Ewing, Kareem, and other's...

[DatAsh]

People really underrate Kevin Love's rebounding ability.

[ArbitraryWater]

About the equivalent of a 6-5 Barkley leading the league at 14.6 rpg in an NBA with Hakeem, Moses, Parish, Ewing, Kareem, and other's...

nope. baylor aint the rebounder barkley is..

[LAZERUSS]

People really underrate Kevin Love's rebounding ability.

I don't.

He averaged 15.2 rpg in 36 mpg one season. Still, if he could put up those numbers, then Chamberlain would easily be capable of 18-20 rpg.

[LAZERUSS]

nope. baylor aint the rebounder barkley is..

His numbers translate to nearly an equivalent. In actuality, probably about 13 rpg in today's NBA. Still, that would be there with the leaders, right?

[SHAQisGOAT]

:facepalm

Ban

[kennethgriffin]

About the equivalent of a 6-5 Barkley leading the league at 14.6 rpg in an NBA with Hakeem, Moses, Parish, Ewing, Kareem, and other's...


the problem here ( you asinine clown of a human being ) is that for every 1 guy every 20 years that flukes out a great rebounding year at an average height since wilts era ... theres 10 other guys doing it every single year back then

and that 1 guy you use as an example is still 5-6 rebounds off the pace


You clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous junk.. f*ck off


so sick and tired of 60's fans being so stuck up their own a**

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, I don't know of any knowledgeable Wilt fan that would claim that ANY player in the 60's would average the same RPG in today's NBA.

[Pointguard]

but in the 2010's.. wilt would not average over 20ppg ... its just not the style of basketball suited for his game anymore. its a run and gun league where outside shooting is a must and just standing with your back to the basket with 1 hand palmed over the ball waiving it back and forth while a bunch of midgets run around you isnt the way things are done anymore
The funny thing is that Wilt played in a real run and gun league. It was a two and a half hour track meet in his early days and way more up and down than now. In fact if Wilt played on Houston they would run even more and Wilt would be leading the pack. What's really ironic is that with the lead footed big men in the league now - Wilt would be scoring on guards and SF who are really small, as they are the only ones fast enough to keep up.

Amare Stoudamire once averaged 26ppg based on his athleticism/speed alone. He had no shot to speak of when he did it. Wilt would be the strongest guy in the game quite easily right now as well. 24ppg for Wilt might be a bit low.

[Rose'sACL]

talking about pre-late70s basketball is really not a great idea. CavsFTW and some other guys who fap to 60s stars might disagree but not having full game videos of players for 30-40+ games from playoffs from those old eras makes it almost impossible to call them bad or good. To top it all, these guys don't think that defense now is way better no matter what Cs played back then.

[LAZERUSS]

talking about pre-late70s basketball is really not a great idea. CavsFTW and some other guys who fap to 60s stars might disagree but not having full game videos of players for 30-40+ games from playoffs from those old eras makes it almost impossible to call them bad or good. To top it all, these guys don't think that defense now is way better no matter what Cs played back then.

If defenses are so much better today, how do explain the TODAY's eFG% of .499? BTW, the CURRENT NBA is shooting FT's at a .755 pace. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756.

[kennethgriffin]

The funny thing is that Wilt played in a real run and gun league. It was a two and a half hour track meet in his early days and way more up and down than now. In fact if Wilt played on Houston they would run even more and Wilt would be leading the pack. What's really ironic is that with the lead footed big men in the league now - Wilt would be scoring on guards and SF who are really small, as they are the only ones fast enough to keep up.

Amare Stoudamire once averaged 26ppg based on his athleticism/speed alone. He had no shot to speak of when he did it. Wilt would be the strongest guy in the game quite easily right now as well. 24ppg for Wilt might be a bit low.


i think you're confusing run and gun... with running around like a chicken with your head cut off... they didnt have guns. they had butter knives

[secund2nun]

It shows how stats from back then are useless because the competition was trash. I mean really 50 ppg? wth. Wilt was a legit NBA player going up against mainly trash that would not have a chance in hell of making the NBA these days.

[LAZERUSS]

How many posters here have ever heard of Swen Nater? He was a 6-11 backup to Bill Walton at UCLA in the early 70's. In the 79-80 season, he led the league in rebounding at 15.0 rpg, and in only 35 mpg...in an NBA that averaged 45 rpg. In fact, he has one of the highest TRB% rates in NBA history.

[kennethgriffin]

If defenses are so much better today, how do explain the TODAY's eFG% of .499? BTW, the CURRENT NBA is shooting FT's at a .755 pace. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756.

the best part of this quote is using free throw percentage as a defensive statistic. considering there is no defense on free throws

and the problem with using shooting percentages as a defensive stat is that everyone back in the day would brick anything beyond 15 feet. their 1 handed flat footed shots would routinely be around 40% even with nobody near them. while a player today hits 90% of their shots in practice with similar sh*t defense


the funniest thing about the 60's is that players shot such a shit percentage even without a 3 point line. only big men have relative percentages to other eras because they never were concerned with shooting three's for the most part

think if kobe never shot a 3 pointer in his life. his fg% would be around 50-55%

when lebron shoots a ton of 3's his fg% was 48%.. now that he only shoots wide open 3's a few times a game and goes mostly for layups. its up to near 60%


so no... fg% or shooting % of any kind are hardly a way to judge defense.

the way to judge defense is seeing the fact that back in the day guys could be player/coach and not draw up a single play or defensive scheme and win nba championships while doing it

[LAZERUSS]

the best part of this quote is using free throw percentage as a defensive statistic. considering there is no defense on free throws

and the problem with using shooting percentages as a defensive stat is that everyone back in the day would brick anything beyond 15 feet. their 1 handed flat footed shots would routinely be around 40% even with nobody near them. while a player today hits 90% of their shots in practice with similar sh*t defense


the funniest thing about the 60's is that players shot such a shit percentage even without a 3 point line. only big men have relative percentages to other eras because they never were concerned with shooting three's for the most part

think if kobe never shot a 3 pointer in his life. his fg% would be around 50-55%

when lebron shoots a ton of 3's his fg% was 48%.. now that he only shoots wide open 3's a few times a game and goes mostly for layups. its up to near 60%


so no... fg% or shooting % of any kind are hardly a way to judge defense.

the way to judge defense is seeing the fact that back in the day guys could be player/coach and not draw up a single play or defensive scheme and win nba championships while doing it

Kareem started playing in the NBA in 1969. He had four seasons in the 70's in which he shot .539, .529, .518, and even .513. He never shot anything below .564 in the 80's (until his last two years at ages 41 and 42.) His career high's came in the 80's.

In 28 career H2H matchups with Wilt, he shot .464 from the field. In 40 career H2H's with Nate Thurmond, he shot .440. This from a PEAK/PRIME KAJ. Kareem, at ages 38-42 shot .607 against Hakeem in his 23 career H2H's, and .567 against Ewing in his eight career H2H's (badly outshooting both of them.)

And both were among the top defensive centers of the 90's. I think that speaks volumes about your supposed "better" defense.

[kennethgriffin]

Kareem started playing in the NBA in 1969. He had four seasons in the 70's in which he shot .539, .529, .518, and even .513. He never shot anything below .564 in the 80's (until his last two years at ages 41 and 42.) His career high's came in the 80's.

In 28 career H2H matchups with Wilt, he shot .464 from the field. In 40 career H2H's with Nate Thurmond, he shot .440. This from a PEAK/PRIME KAJ. KAJ, at ages 38-42 shot .607 against Hakeem in his 23 career H2H's, and .567 against Ewing in his eight career H2H's (badly outshooting both of them.)

And both were among the top defensive centers of the 90's. I think that speaks volumes about your supposed "better" defense.



you have to be the biggest dope ive ever talked to on here.

when kareem was facing wilt. he was averaging 23-25 shots a game and was the main focul point of a centered offense around him. taking probably 60% of his shots from 6-8 feet out

when kareem was facing ewing. he was averaging 4-7 shots per game and was the last man on the floor to get a shot out of the starters. he scored all his points off tip ins or wide open dunks. maybe shot a hook once or twice a game for nostalgia



you ignoramus

[jzek]

Same reason why no one cares DaJuan Wagner scoring 100 points in HS... it's Bush League.

[Rose'sACL]

If defenses are so much better today, how do explain the TODAY's eFG% of .499? BTW, the CURRENT NBA is shooting FT's at a .755 pace. In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756.
current NBA players shoot better from 3s. no 3s back in those old eras. Current league shoots the most 3s in the history of the league. it is not only bad teams either. pretty much all the good teams shoot well from 3s. The fact that today's defense has to cope with that too just shows how good the defense is given that PPG is way lower as compared to any era pre 90s. It is not like the league lacks players that can run. the league has the fastest players of all time.

[SHAQisGOAT]

when kareem was facing ewing. he was averaging 4-7 shots per game and was the last man on the floor to get a shot out of the starters. he scored all his points off tip ins or wide open dunks. maybe shot a hook once or twice a game for nostalgia



:facepalm


Kareem was still taking 17 shots per game, at 38 years old, in 1986, 20 in the post-season to score 26 ppg.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=ewingpa01

Both averaged pretty much the same amount of shots, Kareem scored more than Ewing, in 3 less minutes, on MUCH greater efficiency. And Jabbar was 38(!) when Ewing came around. Also dropped 40 on him once.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01

Scored 40 or more, 3 times against Hakeem, including a 46/11/4 on 21-30 game, in 37 minutes, at 38 years old. Averaged more ppg in the regular-season. Kareem was 37 when Dream joined the NBA.


You can't look at the raw numbers and say those types of things... Top10 leaders in rpg's were mostly (if not all of them) playing in the 60's - because of pace pretty much - and you just can't say that those are the top10 rebounders of all-time like that (similar thing for PER, for example). Wilt would be a beast in any era, and a top5 center of all-time all the same with an incredible peak, regardless of his numbers.
It's no surprise a geeky kid like you is "only" looking at the numbers and throwing them around like that. I don't know why I even bother though, I won't reply again, you're one of the worst posters here, surprises me why some people even take an ignorant child, such as yourself, seriously.

[SHAQisGOAT]

current NBA players shoot better from 3s. no 3s back in those old eras. Current league shoots the most 3s in the history of the league. it is not only bad teams either. pretty much all the good teams shoot well from 3s. The fact that today's defense has to cope with that too just shows how good the defense is given that PPG is way lower as compared to any era pre 90s. It is not like the league lacks players that can run. the league has the fastest players of all time.

So you're faulting them for not having a 3pt line (or for not coming up with it, like players in the 80's)? Child please :facepalm Imagine them with a 3pt line scoring more points :eek: Goes both ways.

Look at this tool, looking at PPG and ignoring things like pace... Current Bobcats give up 3 less points than the 89 Pistons, guess they're a better (defensive) team? :rolleyes: Put them in 1989 and you can be sure as hell they would be giving up more points than the Bad Boys, considerably.
Riddle me these things:
Why is average DRtg and eFG% pretty much the same now and in the 80's?
Why is DRtg worse than in the 70's? Worse defense, or better offense?
Why did FG% increased as pace decreased through the 70's into the 80's?

So, let me guess this straight, you're also saying that it was much harder to score in the paint (also looking at the rules)? Again, goes both ways.

Yea, fastest, strongest, biggest players, best offense and defense, so on (what else?)... I know all of that (bullshit) talk :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please just stop posting, son.. Always coming up with ignorant shit :facepalm :rolleyes:

[jongib369]

Question Kenneth, Rank these rebounders

Russell

Rodman

Wilt

Love

lucas

Dwight

Shaq

Griffin

[CavaliersFTW]

About the equivalent of a 6-5 Barkley leading the league at 14.6 rpg in an NBA with Hakeem, Moses, Parish, Ewing, Kareem, and other's...
this, OP is retarded

[jongib369]

this, OP is retarded
How does one know of Dennis Rodmans existance and yet doubt the ability of a smaller rebounder? How can someone who probably saw this guy play decent for the minutes he was given http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesch01.html

doubt the impact of someone like Unseld? I do have a little bias here but jesus

Literally no one I know on here compares stats from different eras directly....

[Sarcastic]

One of the great all time players put up great stats.

SHOCKING!!!

[Kblaze8855]

na theyed rather just assume that there was no inflated averages back then. and wilt was just that much better than everyone. and his 50ppg average would translate into todays nba


There are thousands of ISH posters. Show me two times anyone said that and wasn't clearly joking.

Show me. show me someone saying the numbers would translate directly.

[CavaliersFTW]

Elgin's estimated TRB% was calculated to fit nicely right in between Lebron James and Charles Barkley... Baylor was nothing short of an outstanding rebounding forward. IIRC his eTRB% turned out to be roughly the same as Larry Bird's. If he were playing today, he'd be the best rebounding small forward in the game, better than Lebron at it... considering that was basically what he was in his own time (the best rebounding SF), why should that be a surprise to anyone?

[bmd]

So you're faulting them for not having a 3pt line (or for not coming up with it, like players in the 80's)? Child please :facepalm Imagine them with a 3pt line scoring more points :eek: Goes both ways.

Look at this tool, looking at PPG and ignoring things like pace... Current Bobcats give up 3 less points than the 89 Pistons, guess they're a better (defensive) team? :rolleyes: Put them in 1989 and you can be sure as hell they would be giving up more points than the Bad Boys, considerably.
Riddle me these things:
Why is average DRtg and eFG% pretty much the same now and in the 80's?
Why is DRtg worse than in the 70's? Worse defense, or better offense?
Why did FG% increased as pace decreased through the 70's into the 80's?

So, let me guess this straight, you're also saying that it was much harder to score in the paint (also looking at the rules)? Again, goes both ways.

Yea, fastest, strongest, biggest players, best offense and defense, so on (what else?)... I know all of that (bullshit) talk :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please just stop posting, son.. Always coming up with ignorant shit :facepalm :rolleyes: Let me put it to you this way...

When I played, I averaged about 18-20 points per game at all levels. In middle school, high school, and college.

Now, clearly I was a much better player in college than I was in middle school. Yet I averaged the same amount of points.

How in the world could that be? Were the middle schoolers I was playing against in middle school as good as the college players I was playing against in college?

Of course not.

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm


Kareem was still taking 17 shots per game, at 38 years old, in 1986, 20 in the post-season to score 26 ppg.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=ewingpa01

Both averaged pretty much the same amount of shots, Kareem scored more than Ewing, in 3 less minutes, on MUCH greater efficiency. And Jabbar was 38(!) when Ewing came around. Also dropped 40 on him once.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01

Scored 40 or more, 3 times against Hakeem, including a 46/11/4 on 21-30 game, in 37 minutes, at 38 years old. Averaged more ppg in the regular-season. Kareem was 37 when Dream joined the NBA.


You can't look at the raw numbers and say those types of things... Top10 leaders in rpg's were mostly (if not all of them) playing in the 60's - because of pace pretty much - and you just can't say that those are the top10 rebounders of all-time like that (similar thing for PER, for example). Wilt would be a beast in any era, and a top5 center of all-time all the same with an incredible peak, regardless of his numbers.
It's no surprise a geeky kid like you is "only" looking at the numbers and throwing them around like that. I don't know why I even bother though, I won't reply again, you're one of the worst posters here, surprises me why some people even take an ignorant child, such as yourself, seriously.



Absolute destruction...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Fazotronic]

i disagree with the part that the position died.
while it might be harder we still don't have anyone with the athletic ability and size like shaq. we don't have anyone that is able to move like hakeem did.
no bigman today comes close to the talent they had.

position dead or not

[LAZERUSS]

i disagree with the part that the position died.
while it might be harder we still don't have anyone with the athletic ability and size like shaq. we don't have anyone that is able to move like hakeem did.
no bigman today comes close to the talent they had.

position dead or not

Chamberlain was taller, longer, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Shaq. And Kareem was more skilled than Hakeem.

Both played in the 60's.

[Fazotronic]

Chamberlain was taller, longer, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Shaq. And Kareem was more skilled than Hakeem.

Both played in the 60's.

pfff

[Rose'sACL]

So you're faulting them for not having a 3pt line (or for not coming up with it, like players in the 80's)? Child please :facepalm Imagine them with a 3pt line scoring more points :eek: Goes both ways.

Look at this tool, looking at PPG and ignoring things like pace... Current Bobcats give up 3 less points than the 89 Pistons, guess they're a better (defensive) team? :rolleyes: Put them in 1989 and you can be sure as hell they would be giving up more points than the Bad Boys, considerably.
Riddle me these things:
Why is average DRtg and eFG% pretty much the same now and in the 80's?
Why is DRtg worse than in the 70's? Worse defense, or better offense?
Why did FG% increased as pace decreased through the 70's into the 80's?

So, let me guess this straight, you're also saying that it was much harder to score in the paint (also looking at the rules)? Again, goes both ways.

Yea, fastest, strongest, biggest players, best offense and defense, so on (what else?)... I know all of that (bullshit) talk :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please just stop posting, son.. Always coming up with ignorant shit :facepalm :rolleyes:
You posted eFG% and then you act like an idiot when i point out the obvious 3 point line.
Why do you act like such an idiot with bad posts ? you make them bold too so that no one misses them.
also, the league has overall the fastest players in history of the NBA. Most players agree. You can debate stronger but they are the fastest.

[LAZERUSS]

You posted eFG% and then you act like an idiot when i point out the obvious 3 point line.
Why do you act like such an idiot with bad posts ? you make them bold too so that no one misses them.
also, the league has overall the fastest players in history of the NBA. Most players agree. You can debate stronger but they are the fastest.

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

[bmd]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?There are several reasons for that.

The first being that the 3-point line opens up the floor and makes it harder for defenses to cover.

Secondly, shooters today are much better and much more versatile.


I mean, offenses are so much more complex today than they were in the 60's. And the defenses have to improve greatly to stop these offenses.

You can just watch the games and see how much better the defense is today and how much harder it is to play defense today.

Offenses today would make 60's defenses look absolutely silly. They wouldn't be able to defend the pick and roll as well as today and their rotations would be stupid bad.

It would be a joke.

[ralph_i_el]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?

well obviously the 2pt% will be higher today :facepalm

the .410-.460 is including shots from 3 point distance! It's not like people didn't take deep shots back then. Also today guys pass up long 2's to take 3's. No incentive to do that back then, hence more long 2's

[LAZERUSS]

There are several reasons for that.

The first being that the 3-point line opens up the floor and makes it harder for defenses to cover.

Secondly, shooters today are much better and much more versatile.


I mean, offenses are so much more complex today than they were in the 60's. And the defenses have to improve greatly to stop these offenses.

You can just watch the games and see how much better the defense is today and how much harder it is to play defense today.

Offenses today would make 60's defenses look absolutely silly. They wouldn't be able to defend the pick and roll as well as today and their rotations would be stupid bad.

It would be a joke.

They didn't have a 3pt line in the NBA until the late 70's. It was more DIFFICULT to shoot in the 60's for a variety of reasons, but CONGESTED lanes were among them. Players who were certainly capable of 20+ foot shots were discouraged because there was no benefit.

And again, show me the EXACT year when all of a sudden the NBA became much better at BOTH offense and defense. Because I will point out the season just before that, and you will look like a fool.

The game is MARGINALLY different today, than it was 50 years ago. Same size court, same size hoop, same number of players, same size players, with the same basic goals of shooting, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. Don't make it out to be something that it is not.

And for those that claim that today's players are faster...explain how scoring has dropped, (as well as "pace.")

[Rose'sACL]

Throw out 3pt% altogether. TODAY's NBA has a 2pt% of .485, and there are SIX teams shooting over 50%.

Now, are you going to tell me that defense is better today than in an NBA that was shooting .410 to .460 in the 60's?
of course. why wouldn't i ? You guys assume pretty much everything like Pace of the game only impacting things you don't like.
teams play better defense forcing teams to pass the ball and 3 point shot opens the lane for drivers.
It also goes the other way when a good finisher like lebron/kd drives and forces defense to collapse causing open team mates for mid range jumpers or 3 point shot.
Since the 90s, defense has reached new peaks.It is way more complicated. This year has actually been a little sloppy because of some teams not trying to win any games and it is still overall a better defensive league than anything before 90s.

[jongib369]

pfff
I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed he needed fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suit his size

[Rose'sACL]

They didn't have a 3pt line in the NBA until the late 70's. It was more DIFFICULT to shoot in the 60's for a variety of reasons, but CONGESTED lanes were among them. Players who were certainly capable of 20+ foot shots were discouraged because there was no benefit.

And again, show me the EXACT year when all of a sudden the NBA became much better at BOTH offense and defense. Because I will point out the season just before that, and you will look like a fool.

The game is MARGINALLY different today, than it was 50 years ago. Same size court, same size hoop, same number of players, same size players, with the same basic goals of shooting, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. Don't make it out to be something that it is not.

And for those that claim that today's players are faster...explain how scoring has dropped, (as well as "pace.")
The game is much better than it was 50 years ago. pretty much every major sports is. only guys like you believe otherwise.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

OP just madd that any knowledgeable people have
Oscar and Wilt over Kobrick on their alltime lists:roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed needed he fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suits his size

I don't see ANYTHING from Shaq that would indicate he was STRONGER than Wilt. The internet is PLASTERED with page-after-page of Wilt's ENORMOUS strength, and from FIRST-HAND accounts such as Arnold himself.

And yet, a Shaq who was supposedly capable of benching 450 lbs couldn't even budge 405.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2-x-0lAQo


SI ran article claiming Wilt was benching EASILY benching 400 in the mid-60's. And we KNOW that Chamberlain became bigger and stronger after that.

[bmd]

They didn't have a 3pt line in the NBA until the late 70's. It was more DIFFICULT to shoot in the 60's for a variety of reasons, but CONGESTED lanes were among them. Players who were certainly capable of 20+ foot shots were discouraged because there was no benefit.

And again, show me the EXACT year when all of a sudden the NBA became much better at BOTH offense and defense. Because I will point out the season just before that, and you will look like a fool.

The game is MARGINALLY different today, than it was 50 years ago. Same size court, same size hoop, same number of players, same size players, with the same basic goals of shooting, passing, rebounding, and playing defense. Don't make it out to be something that it is not.

And for those that claim that today's players are faster...explain how scoring has dropped, (as well as "pace.")1. I know they didn't have a 3-point line. That's my point. It was easier for defenses to defend because the game was more contested back then. With the 3-point line, this opened up the floor. Now, defenses have much more ground to cover. That means it's much harder to play defense.

2. There was no single year where offenses and defenses miraculously became better. it happened over time. Different strategies were implemented by different teams and had to be stopped eventually. Eventually new ways of defending are implemented. Then new ways of scoring points are implemented. Etc. Improvements are constantly being made.

3. I guess the NFL in the 1960's is the same as the NFL today too.. right?

[LAZERUSS]

The game is much better than it was 50 years ago. pretty much every major sports is. only guys like you believe otherwise.

So you are essentially claiming that a 2000 Shaq would not be nearly as great today? Or a mid-90's Hakeem? Or an early 90's MJ? Or a mid 80's Bird and Magic? Or an early 80's Moses? Or a mid-70's McAdoo? Or an early 70's KAJ? Or a 60's Wilt, Russell, and Oscar?

NONE of them would be nearly as dominant today?

[bmd]

I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed he needed fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suit his sizeThat is a terrible angle in that video. If you look at his hand, it looks like it's near the top of the backboard. But if you look at his feet, it looks like he barely jumps off the ground.

You can't tell anything from that angle.

[Rose'sACL]

I don't see ANYTHING from Shaq that would indicate he was STRONGER than Wilt. The internet is PLASTERED with page-after-page of Wilt's ENORMOUS strength, and from FIRST-HAND accounts such as Arnold himself.

And yet, a Shaq who was supposedly capable of benching 450 lbs couldn't even budge 405.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2-x-0lAQo


SI ran article claiming Wilt was benching EASILY benching 400 in the mid-60's. And we KNOW that Chamberlain became bigger and stronger after that.
be happy knowing that Wilt was the GOAT then because no one will agree with you as you have to assume everything. if i get 30-40 full playoff game videos of wilt then only can i judge him.
common sense dictates that he would do worse in today's league. common sense also indicates that he would be a top 3 players in any era given his stats.
I am still not sold on russell being a top 3 player of all time though.

[Rose'sACL]

So you are essentially claiming that a 2000 Shaq would not be nearly as great today? Or a mid-90's Hakeem? Or an early 90's MJ? Or a mid 80's Bird and Magic? Or an early 80's Moses? Or a mid-70's McAdoo? Or an early 70's KAJ? Or a 60's Wilt, Russell, and Oscar?

NONE of them would be nearly as dominant today?
50 years ago is not the year 2000. what is wrong with you? 50 years ago is the 60s.

[bmd]

I don't see ANYTHING from Shaq that would indicate he was STRONGER than Wilt. The internet is PLASTERED with page-after-page of Wilt's ENORMOUS strength, and from FIRST-HAND accounts such as Arnold himself.

And yet, a Shaq who was supposedly capable of benching 450 lbs couldn't even budge 405.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2-x-0lAQo


SI ran article claiming Wilt was benching EASILY benching 400 in the mid-60's. And we KNOW that Chamberlain became bigger and stronger after that.If you think this mid-60's Wilt Chamberlain was "easily" benching 400:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h20xQuCsCsU/UCWZDEuKBMI/AAAAAAAAARk/6oCxEEaMoek/s1600/WiltChamberlain1960_display_image.jpg




Then you will believe anything.

That is utterly asinine that you would believe somebody with arms that long who isn't even that muscular could "easily" bench 400 pounds.

Don't believe everything you read.

[LAZERUSS]

1. I know they didn't have a 3-point line. That's my point. It was easier for defenses to defend because the game was more contested back then. With the 3-point line, this opened up the floor. Now, defenses have much more ground to cover. That means it's much harder to play defense.

2. There was no single year where offenses and defenses miraculously became better. it happened over time. Different strategies were implemented by different teams and had to be stopped eventually. Eventually new ways of defending are implemented. Then new ways of scoring points are implemented. Etc. Improvements are constantly being made.

3. I guess the NFL in the 1960's is the same as the NFL today too.. right?

The NFL has no faster players today than the fastest of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Henry Childs, Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, OJ Simpson, Mel Gray, Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Darrell Green.

Bigger, yes. So what? Give the players of the 60's the same diets and weight-training programs, and they would be much bigger too.

The most powerful HR hitter of all-time? None other than Mickey Mantle, who was 5-11 and weighed 190 lbs. And give Nolan Ryan the SAME radar gun used TODAY, and he would be the fastest pitcher in the game today.

[Rose'sACL]

The NFL has no faster players today than the fastest of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Henry Childs, Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, OJ Simpson, Mel Gray, Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Darrell Green.

Bigger, yes. So what? Give the players of the 60's the same diets and weight-training programs, and they would be much bigger too.

The most powerful HR hitter of all-time? None other than Mickey Mantle, who was 5-11 and weighed 190 lbs. And give Nolan Ryan the SAME radar gun used TODAY, and he would be the fastest pitcher in the game today.
guys like you and cavsftw make one big mistake. you take only the best from eras and compare them. What about the whole league? also, NFL has faster players now than they did in the 60s.

[LAZERUSS]

50 years ago is not the year 2000. what is wrong with you? 50 years ago is the 60s.

A PRIME Shaq was not as dominant against Hakeem, that an OLD Kareem was. Shaq's career high game against Hakeem was 37 points. Kareem had THREE of 40+, including a 46 point game in 37 minutes.

And yet a PRIME Kareem faced the little-known Nate Thurmond in some 40 H2H games, and his HIGH game was 34 points. Oh, and he shot .440 against Nate in those 40 H2H's, too.

My point is, if you are claiming that a 2000 Shaq would be a great player TODAY, but not Kareem, then you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. And, how about the 6-10 Moses, who ROUTINELY TRASHED a more prime KAJ?

Furthermore, a PRIME Kareem faced several of the same centers that a PRIME Chamberlain did. Guess what? A PRIME Wilt was FAR more dominant against those same centers...and I mean by LIGHT-YEARS.

So NO, the game today is not SIGNIFICANTLY any better today, than 50 years ago.

[bmd]

The NFL has no faster players today than the fastest of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Henry Childs, Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, OJ Simpson, Mel Gray, Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Darrell Green.

Bigger, yes. So what? Give the players of the 60's the same diets and weight-training programs, and they would be much bigger too.

The most powerful HR hitter of all-time? None other than Mickey Mantle, who was 5-11 and weighed 190 lbs. And give Nolan Ryan the SAME radar gun used TODAY, and he would be the fastest pitcher in the game today.First off, I'm glad to see you didn't answer my first two points. That means I'm right.

As for your post, the NFL players today are much faster than in the 60's. It's not even a contest. The skill positions are faster, but there is an even bigger discrepancy in regards to the lines.

Lineman and linebackers in the NFL today are absolute monsters compared to the 60's in terms of size and speed. They are SO much faster than in the 60's.

Then take into account quarterbacks who can actually throw the ball now, and how much more complex the offenses and defenses are, and it's not even close.

The NFL today is vastly superior to the NFL in the 60's in terms of athletes, skill, strategy, etc.

And as for baseball, Mickie Mantle wasn't hitting against guys like Randy Johnson or Greg Maddux. The pitchers back then were so vastly inferior to today that it's not even funny. Guys would pitch so many more innings back then that their arms would be dead. They didn't have the control or junk that they have today.

And what is this about Nolan Ryan being clocked with a different gun than players are clocked with today?

[fpliii]

Fewer rebounding opportunities were available. If you look up TRB% (which has been posted here before), the truth is somewhere in between that and RPG (since there are diminishing returns as more minutes/possessions are played).

Might not hold for other stats (#shots for stars hasn't changed, rather role players get fewer attempts so PPG would be similar; APG would be the same or slightly higher since AST% was around 20%-25% lower in the 60s, offsetting the made FGs; FG% is higher today with the improved floor spacing and smarter offensive possessions), though.

I can't comment on level of competition at the moment since I haven't finished my research on the topic, but a lot of the transformation occurred in the early 60s. I trust mid-late 60s numbers more than I do late 50s and early 60s.

[LAZERUSS]

guys like you and cavsftw make one big mistake. you take only the best from eras and compare them. What about the whole league? also, NFL has faster players now than they did in the 60s.

I have mentioned it before. Neal Walk averaged 20 ppg in a season in the early 70's. Guess what? He would have only been considered a second tier center, at best in that period. In the early 70's the NBA had players like Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, Lanier, McAdoo, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Kareem, and Wilt. And the ABA had Gilmore and Beaty.

As for the 60's NFL...how come the 230 lb Jim Brown (who ran track in college) wasn't averaging way more ypc and ypg than a 200 lb Barry Sanders was just a little over a decade ago? You would think that an athletic freak like Brown would have been rushing for 200-300 ypg and on 10-20 ypc, right?

[LAZERUSS]

First off, I'm glad to see you didn't answer my first two points. That means I'm right.

As for your post, the NFL players today are much faster than in the 60's. It's not even a contest. The skill positions are faster, but there is an even bigger discrepancy in regards to the lines.

Lineman and linebackers in the NFL today are absolute monsters compared to the 60's in terms of size and speed. They are SO much faster than in the 60's.

Then take into account quarterbacks who can actually throw the ball now, and how much more complex the offenses and defenses are, and it's not even close.

The NFL today is vastly superior to the NFL in the 60's in terms of athletes, skill, strategy, etc.

And as for baseball, Mickie Mantle wasn't hitting against guys like Randy Johnson or Greg Maddux. The pitchers back then were so vastly inferior to today that it's not even funny. Guys would pitch so many more innings back then that their arms would be dead. They didn't have the control or junk that they have today.

And what is this about Nolan Ryan being clocked with a different gun than players are clocked with today?

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

http://www.danpatrick.com/2011/05/11/mitch-williams-on-hot-pitching-radar-guns-and-indians-success/


Williams also maintained that radar guns are jacked up and guys are not throwing any faster than they used to. He said Aroldis Champan would hit 97 on an old gun, not 106. “Nolan Ryan to this day is still the hardest thrower I’ve ever seen,” Williams said.

[Rose'sACL]

A PRIME Shaq was not as dominant against Hakeem, that an OLD Kareem was. Shaq's career high game against Hakeem was 37 points. Kareem had THREE of 40+, including a 46 point game in 37 minutes.

And yet a PRIME Kareem faced the little-known Nate Thurmond in some 40 H2H games, and his HIGH game was 34 points. Oh, and he shot .440 against Nate in those 40 H2H's, too.

My point is, if you are claiming that a 2000 Shaq would be a great player TODAY, but not Kareem, then you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. And, how about the 6-10 Moses, who ROUTINELY TRASHED a more prime KAJ?

Furthermore, a PRIME Kareem faced several of the same centers that a PRIME Chamberlain did. Guess what? A PRIME Wilt was FAR more dominant against those same centers...and I mean by LIGHT-YEARS.

So NO, the game today is not SIGNIFICANTLY any better today, than 50 years ago.
Shaq did pretty well against hakeem. I didn't claim anything. you claimed things about wilt.
No one watched wilt on this site when he played and there isn't enough video evidence. why should we believe anything about wilt? His stats were great and that is why i said that he would be a top 3 player in any era.
Also, i didn't say anything about kareem. i have watched a lot of kareem. i haven't watched pretty much anything of wilt other than those cavsftw highlight videos.

[jongib369]

If you think this mid-60's Wilt Chamberlain was "easily" benching 400:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h20xQuCsCsU/UCWZDEuKBMI/AAAAAAAAARk/6oCxEEaMoek/s1600/WiltChamberlain1960_display_image.jpg




Then you will believe anything.

That is utterly asinine that you would believe somebody with arms that long who isn't even that muscular could "easily" bench 400 pounds.

Don't believe everything you read.
Shaq with arms just an inch shorter was capable of benching 450...Wilt benching 400 isnt too much of stretch by mid 60s when he was around 290..I dont know the details, but cavs has pointed out before that the lenses they used then was different...Made everyone look lankier than they were...So hes probably a bit more filled out than it looks...But for the sake of saying even though I think Wilt is better than Shaq and all around more athletic....I still have my doubts if he was stronger...Legs specifically...Upperbody if not stronger the same

[ralph_i_el]

The NFL has no faster players today than the fastest of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Henry Childs, Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, OJ Simpson, Mel Gray, Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Darrell Green.

Bigger, yes. So what? Give the players of the 60's the same diets and weight-training programs, and they would be much bigger too.

The most powerful HR hitter of all-time? None other than Mickey Mantle, who was 5-11 and weighed 190 lbs. And give Nolan Ryan the SAME radar gun used TODAY, and he would be the fastest pitcher in the game today.


Yup everyone was faster and hit longer home runs before we had the technology to measure those things precisely. 40 times have been slower across the board since they started using an electrical timing system. Mantle's "record" home run was hit out of the park over....THE SINGLE DECKED RIGHT FIELD BLEACHERS....AND THEN MEASURED AFTER IT STOPPED ROLLING. I'm sure you believe that Josh Gibson hit a 911 ft home run in the Negro League too :facepalm

Nobody will hit home runs the "distance" that guys used to because there is no way to hit balls out of the back now with all the double-decker bleachers. I think the only way to do it is to splash down in McCovey Cove at AT&T park

[CavaliersFTW]

If you think this mid-60's Wilt Chamberlain was "easily" benching 400:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h20xQuCsCsU/UCWZDEuKBMI/AAAAAAAAARk/6oCxEEaMoek/s1600/WiltChamberlain1960_display_image.jpg




Then you will believe anything.

That is utterly asinine that you would believe somebody with arms that long who isn't even that muscular could "easily" bench 400 pounds.

Don't believe everything you read.
Yeah Wilt wasn't even muscular because someone took a non-zoom lens picture of him slouching.

Dwight isn't even muscular either
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8VNBpKu2QwY/S4fV2iKGMBI/AAAAAAAABCA/YFk2w9wMOw0/s800/Kaci-with-Dwight-Howard-717686.jpg

[Miller for 3]

:facepalm

why is there a new Wilt thread on this forum every day? Who gives a $hit? He was a 7-2 guy in a time where 6-5 guys grabbed 20+ boards a night. Is the tall guy in your YMCA league thread worthy? If not, then neither is Wilt. Tall unskilled guys playing against midgets are not thread worthy. That is what Wilt was, and it is why he only won 2 rings, with one of them being as a 3rd option to West and Goodrich

[lakers_forever]

1962

Points Per Game

1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 50.4
2. Walt Bellamy*-CHP 31.6
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 31.1
4. Jerry West*-LAL 30.8
5. Oscar Robertson*-CIN 30.8

Can anyone who dismiss Wilt's greatness explain this? 18,8 ppg ahead of the second place? :oldlol:
If it was so easy, why no one ever averaged even 40 ppg in Wilt's era? The closest was 37 by Jordan on 87.

[bmd]

I have mentioned it before. Neal Walk averaged 20 ppg in a season in the early 70's. Guess what? He would have only been considered a second tier center, at best in that period. In the early 70's the NBA had players like Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, Lanier, McAdoo, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Kareem, and Wilt. And the ABA had Gilmore and Beaty.

As for the 60's NFL...how come the 230 lb Jim Brown (who ran track in college) wasn't averaging way more ypc and ypg than a 200 lb Barry Sanders was just a little over a decade ago? You would think that an athletic freak like Brown would have been rushing for 200-300 ypg and on 10-20 ypc, right?So I guess that settles it. Since second-tier Neal Walk could average 20 ppg back then, I guess that means defense back then sucked.

As for Jim Brown... he and Barry Sanders had completely different running styles. And just because you are athletic doesn't make you a great running back. Jim Brown was a great running back... I'm just saying just because he "ran track in college" doesn't give the guys on defense any bonus points for not allowing him to earn more ypc than Barry Sanders.

Offenses and defenses improve over time. Take my example I used earlier in this thread. I scored 20 ppg in middle school. I also scored 20 ppg in college. Does that mean the middle school defenses I faced were as good as the college defenses? Of course not.

You cannot look strictly at numbers across eras and think that settles it. Otherwise what you are saying is I faced the same defenses in middle school as I did in college.

[jongib369]

That is a terrible angle in that video. If you look at his hand, it looks like it's near the top of the backboard. But if you look at his feet, it looks like he barely jumps off the ground.

You can't tell anything from that angle.
Angles can be decieving but he was about as high as it looks in this footage IMO. Besides that though, have you seen videos of Wilt sprinting down court in college? Shaq was fast but never that fast....He might of had quicker spin moves but I dont see how Shaq was noticeably that much more athletic than Wilt to the point someone sugesting Wilt was more athetic deservrd to be scoffed at

[bmd]

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Williams also maintained that radar guns are jacked up and guys are not throwing any faster than they used to. He said Aroldis Champan would hit 97 on an old gun, not 106.

[LAZERUSS]

There is no way there is a 9 mph difference between the guns.

This site claims as much...

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

According to THEIR research, Ryan would easily be throwing harder than Chapman.

[CavaliersFTW]

There is no way there is a 9 mph difference between the guns.
There is no way you aren't in total denial about the athleticism, size, and strength of Wilt Chamberlain.

[bmd]

Yeah Wilt wasn't even muscular because someone took a non-zoom lens picture of him slouching.

Dwight isn't even muscular either
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8VNBpKu2QwY/S4fV2iKGMBI/AAAAAAAABCA/YFk2w9wMOw0/s800/Kaci-with-Dwight-Howard-717686.jpgDwight isn't that muscular... Dwight is pretty skinny.

http://www.hoopsvibe.com/images/stories/dh(1).jpg

[LAZERUSS]

So I guess that settles it. Since second-tier Neal Walk could average 20 ppg back then, I guess that means defense back then sucked.

As for Jim Brown... he and Barry Sanders had completely different running styles. And just because you are athletic doesn't make you a great running back. Jim Brown was a great running back... I'm just saying just because he "ran track in college" doesn't give the guys on defense any bonus points for not allowing him to earn more ypc than Barry Sanders.

Offenses and defenses improve over time. Take my example I used earlier in this thread. I scored 20 ppg in middle school. I also scored 20 ppg in college. Does that mean the middle school defenses I faced were as good as the college defenses? Of course not.

You cannot look strictly at numbers across eras and think that settles it. Otherwise what you are saying is I faced the same defenses in middle school as I did in college.

So an athletic freak like Brown, playing against supposedly smaller, weaker, and slower opposing players, was no more dominant than Sanders was against supposedly much bigger, stronger, and faster defenses?

WTH???

[CavaliersFTW]

Dwight isn't that muscular... Dwight is pretty skinny.

http://www.hoopsvibe.com/images/stories/dh(1).jpg
He weighs 270 now, or close too it, he was a 240lb rookie... you tell me BMD, when was that photo taken?

BTW, I can tell you EXACTLY when the photo of Wilt you posted was taken, it was taken just prior to the 1962 season, Wilt weighed about 265lbs at the time. By the pre-season of 1964 Wilt tipped the scales at 320lbs. But no way in hell you think he could bench 400 right? Even though Shaq could? Even though a 260lb Dwight from 2008 is seen on film repping 360lbs?

Get a clue man. Your trolling shtick is weak.

[Fazotronic]

I can understand your reservations about Wilt being stronger than Shaq but the rest is reasonable...Even Phil Jackson doesnt think Shaq was the all around athlete Wilt was...

http://youtu.be/yDMCh5HrcG0

Could Shaq get that high in college from one step?


And Kareem being more skilled or equally isnt a stretch either....Would Hakeem need to do those mves to create space for a shot if he was Kareems size? Hakeem isnt a true 7 footer and like Reed he needed fancier moves to get space....If he was Shaq or Wilts size and still played like that hed be pretty dumb even though itd look awesome. Kareem has as much skill but his skills suit his size

it doesn't matter. dwight jumps higher than all of them still doesn't make him more athletic than shaq. dude would dive for loose balls and jump on the floor like he was carring a 200pound body.
Everything about wilts strenth is aobut ppl TELLING it and those storys have been told for decades and we all now what happens with storys over years.
Sure the guy is strong but the case you have is much worse just looking at those pics and videos with stupid angles that are suppossed to justify that he was more athletic is ridiculous. as if saying someone jumping higher makes him overall more athletic. its just as stupid as when i hear charles say how great jordan was but then says but lebron is BIGGER, STRONGER.
so what? is he the better player? does he play better? can he win them more games?
wilt can be a 8ft dr. octopus with even longer arms but its still doesn't make him more athletic, stronger or the more dominant force.

And @Kareem...
you can come with alot of reasons why kareem is greater than hakeem but being more skilled is not.

[LAZERUSS]

1962

Points Per Game

1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 50.4
2. Walt Bellamy*-CHP 31.6
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 31.1
4. Jerry West*-LAL 30.8
5. Oscar Robertson*-CIN 30.8

Can anyone who dismiss Wilt's greatness explain this? 18,8 ppg ahead of the second place? :oldlol:
If it was so easy, why no one ever averaged even 40 ppg in Wilt's era? The closest was 37 by Jordan on 87.

Hell, KAREEM played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era, and never sniffed the numbers that a prime Chamberlain put up.

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Yeah Wilt wasn't even muscular because someone took a non-zoom lens picture of him slouching.

Dwight isn't even muscular either
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8VNBpKu2QwY/S4fV2iKGMBI/AAAAAAAABCA/YFk2w9wMOw0/s800/Kaci-with-Dwight-Howard-717686.jpg[/QUOTE

yeah and nobody is out there claiming dwight benches 400 either you dolt
He was filmed repping 360lbs back in 2008 when he weighed about 260... you dolt

[bmd]

Angles can be decieving but he was about as high as it looks in this footage IMO. Besides that though, have you seen videos of Wilt sprinting down court in college? Shaq was fast but never that fast....He might of had quicker spin moves but I dont see how Shaq was noticeably that much more athletic than Wilt to the point someone sugesting Wilt was more athetic deservrd to be scoffed atI never said anything about Shaq or Wilt's speed? Why even bring that up?

The angle is terrible in that video. Why would you believe his arm is as high as it looks when you can see his feet not get that high off the ground?

Look at this picture:

http://sundaymorningbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/anthony-davis-block-2.jpg


I guess Anthony Davis jumped so high his knee is as high as his teammates head, and his own head is as high as the rim.

[CavaliersFTW]

I never said anything about Shaq or Wilt's speed? Why even bring that up?

The angle is terrible in that video. Why would you believe his arm is as high as it looks when you can see his feet not get that high off the ground?

Look at this picture:

http://sundaymorningbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/anthony-davis-block-2.jpg


I guess Anthony Davis jumped so high his knee is as high as his teammates head, and his own head is as high as the rim.
Not the same angle, not the same scenario - straw man argument. Stop modifying what other posters are discussing in an effort to convolute the argument. That is a fallacy.

[bmd]

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]
He was filmed repping 360lbs back in 2008 when he weighed about 260... you doltShow me video of Dwight Howard repping 360 lbs. I cannot find anything.

[bmd]

So an athletic freak like Brown, playing against supposedly smaller, weaker, and slower opposing players, was no more dominant than Sanders was against supposedly much bigger, stronger, and faster defenses?

WTH???It's not about one person. Jim Brown also had slower and weaker offensive lines that was more comparable to the defenses.

Sanders had offensive lines that were bigger and faster like the defenses when he played.

That's why.

[jongib369]

I never said anything about Shaq or Wilt's speed? Why even bring that up?

The angle is terrible in that video. Why would you believe his arm is as high as it looks when you can see his feet not get that high off the ground?

Look at this picture:

http://sundaymorningbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/anthony-davis-block-2.jpg


I guess Anthony Davis jumped so high his knee is as high as his teammates head, and his own head is as high as the rim.
Well we were talking about athleticism and speed is an aspect of it which I switched to. And like Cavs said the angle isnt nesrly as drastic as that...Not off a 1 step jump Im assuming either. On mobile atm so I cant reply as much as Id like

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Show me video of Dwight Howard repping 360 lbs. I cannot find anything.
http://www.stack.com/video/2305637272001/dwight-howard-benches-365-pounds/

whoops my mistake it was 365lbs not just 360... video has been circulating since 2008...

stop this ridiculous argument that a man 30+lbs heavier than Dwight who's strength captivated even guys like Arnold Schwartzenegger somehow couldn't possibly be bench pressing 400+ pounds in the 60's and around 500 after he packed on even more mass. Shaq was cited with a 450lb bench press back in like 2001, Dwight repped 365 as a 260lb player, Wilt's upper body looks as big as any player who ever played and that includes Shaq. You are in denial if you dismiss all the accounts of Wilt's strength.

[bmd]

Not the same angle, not the same scenario - straw man argument. Stop modifying what other posters are discussing in an effort to convolute the argument. That is a fallacy.I know it's not the same angle. But I'm telling you how angles make things look strange.

And I'm not convoluting anything. I responded to a point a poster brought up.

[LAZERUSS]

Look, whether you can believe whatever you want regarding Wilt's physical feats, but the fact remains that he was dominating HOF players his entire career. My gawd, in his last ten straight games against the 6-11 265 lb Bob Lanier, Wilt AVERAGED 24 ppg on... get this... a .784 FG%.

And Lanier would be an elite center until the early 80's.

And again, KAREEM faced Reed. Where are KAJ's 52, and 58 point games against him?

Kareem faced Bellamy. His HIGH game against him was 41 points, and his next highest was 39. My gawd Chamberlain had entire SEASONS, covering 10 games in each, of 44 and 53 ppg against Bellamy, including THREE of 60+ and a high of 73.

Kareem faced Jim Fox. Just the year before KAJ came into the league, Chamberlain hung a 66 point game on him. KAJ's high game against Fox? 41 poinst.

KAJ faced Thurmond some 40 times. His high game was 34 points. And he shot about .440 against him. Wilt had games of 38 and 45 against Nate, and in Nate's greatest season, Wilt averaged 21 ppg on a .633 FG% against him. KAJ faced Nate in three post-seasons, and shot .486, .428, and .405 against him. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392, .560 to .343, and .611 to .373 in his three post-seasons against him. And a PRIME "scoring" Wilt had more 30+ point games (and in only 12 H2H's in that span) against Thurmond, than KAJ did in his 40.

KAJ faced Dierking in a number of games. His high game against him? 41 poinst. Just the year before KAJ came into the league, Chamberlain hung a 60 point game on Dierking. And he had seasons of nearly 50 ppg against him.

How about Darrell Imhoff? Again, KAJ's high game against Imhoff was 41 points. Wilt? How about back-to-back games of 100 and 58, and many other 50+ games????

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=bmd]
http://www.stack.com/video/2305637272001/dwight-howard-benches-365-pounds/

whoops my mistake it was 365lbs not just 360... video has been circulating since 2008...

stop this ridiculous argument that a man 30+lbs heavier than Dwight who's strength captivated even guys like Arnold Schwartzenegger somehow couldn't possibly be bench pressing 400+ pounds in the 60's and around 500 after he packed on even more mass. Shaq was cited with a 450lb bench press back in like 2001, Dwight repped 365 as a 260lb player, Wilt's upper body looks as big as any player who ever played and that includes Shaq. You are in denial if you dismiss all the accounts of Wilt's strength.
Whats his wingspan?

[CavaliersFTW]

I know it's not the same angle. But I'm telling you how angles make things look strange.

And I'm not convoluting anything. I responded to a point a poster brought up.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uUXpXjGoZok/UfAajkkJM8I/AAAAAAAAEgg/To_gD-YiPJo/s400/Sequence%252001.Still003.jpg

This is the angle in question, it is a common angle used in every game that has ever been filmed and broadcast because it is the standard half court bleacher view that is used to pan across the court and follow the action from a fixed position. It isn't some wonky floor or crosscourt cam with a special sports photography lens to add action/drama for a magazine cover angle or w/e. It's just the standard broacast cam. As such, surely, there should be numerous clips of other players that APPEAR to get as high as Wilt via this same standard angle, right? So go find some examples - like I said every game even today uses the angle.

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]
http://www.stack.com/video/2305637272001/dwight-howard-benches-365-pounds/

whoops my mistake it was 365lbs not just 360... video has been circulating since 2008...

stop this ridiculous argument that a man 30+lbs heavier than Dwight who's strength captivated even guys like Arnold Schwartzenegger somehow couldn't possibly be bench pressing 400+ pounds in the 60's and around 500 after he packed on even more mass. Shaq was cited with a 450lb bench press back in like 2001, Dwight repped 365 as a 260lb player, Wilt's upper body looks as big as any player who ever played and that includes Shaq. You are in denial if you dismiss all the accounts of Wilt's strength.I don't believe it because during the second set, the video said he was doing 315... but that wasn't 315. 315 would be six 45 pound weights and he did not have six 45 pound weights on the bar.

[iggy>]

A decent thread from a troll.

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]
Whats his wingspan?
7-4.5 as a 6-9 19 year old rookie as per draftexpress

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]
http://www.stack.com/video/2305637272001/dwight-howard-benches-365-pounds/

whoops my mistake it was 365lbs not just 360... video has been circulating since 2008...

stop this ridiculous argument that a man 30+lbs heavier than Dwight who's strength captivated even guys like Arnold Schwartzenegger somehow couldn't possibly be bench pressing 400+ pounds in the 60's and around 500 after he packed on even more mass. Shaq was cited with a 450lb bench press back in like 2001, Dwight repped 365 as a 260lb player, Wilt's upper body looks as big as any player who ever played and that includes Shaq. You are in denial if you dismiss all the accounts of Wilt's strength.LOL @ 7'2" Wilt Chamberlain bench pressing 500 pounds without a bench shirt.


The world record until 1971 was 615 pounds.

You are telling me that Wilt Chamberlain was only 115 pounds off the world record at 7'2"?

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=jongib369]
7-4.5 as a 6-9 19 year old rookie as per draftexpress
There goes the "Too long of arms" argument

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]LOL @ 7'2" Wilt Chamberlain bench pressing 500 pounds without a bench shirt.


The world record until 1971 was 615 pounds.

You are telling me that Wilt Chamberlain was only 115 pounds off the world record?
I don't know when Wilt lifted nearly 500, he's cited as lifting 400 in the early/mid 60's than it isn't until the 90's that 'eyewitness' accounts came about of him benching 465lbs "years ago" at Stanford gym and 500lbs and an undisclosed time by his brother in law. Also Wali Jones (a Philadelphia native/former pro) said when he was growing up he'd got to Wilt's house to watch him lift 360lbs, this would have been the late 50's or early 60's. I'm sure there are others who've claimed they'd witnessed Wilt put up those numbers too, but as far as I know none of them specified the time period when he was doing it. Why is this important? Because Wilt weighed 327lbs and seemed like he didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984 on the set of Conan the Destroyer, he could have been putting up those numbers THEN for all we know, not say, 1971 when he weighed closer to 300-310lbs... but then again maybe he was, I don't know really. But there are too many accounts for any reasonable person to dismiss. Wilt was one of the best athletes on the planet for a great deal of his lifetime, so much so that some were convinced he was likely one of the best athletes to have ever lived.

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=bmd]
I don't know when Wilt lifted nearly 500, he's cited as lifting 400 in the early/mid 60's than it isn't until the 90's that 'eyewitness' accounts came about of him benching 465lbs "years ago" at Stanford gym and 500lbs and an undisclosed time by his brother in law. Also Wali Jones (a Philadelphia native/former pro) said when he was growing up he'd got to Wilt's house to watch him lift 360lbs, this would have been the late 50's or early 60's. I'm sure there are others who've claimed they'd witnessed Wilt put up those numbers too, but as far as I know none of them specified the time period when he was doing it. Why is this important? Because Wilt weighed 327lbs and seemed like he didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984 on the set of Conan the Destroyer, he could have been putting up those numbers THEN for all we know, not say, 1971 when he weighed closer to 300-310lbs... but then again maybe he was, I don't know really. But there are too many accounts for any reasonable person to dismiss. Wilt was one of the best athletes on the planet for a great deal of his lifetime, so much so that some were convinced he was likely one of the best athletes to have ever lived.
Cant believe he died so young...Youd think he'd ironically live to 100...But he went at 62, the year he scored his 100

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]
I don't know when Wilt lifted nearly 500, he's cited as lifting 400 in the early/mid 60's than it isn't until the 90's that 'eyewitness' accounts came about of him benching 465lbs "years ago" at Stanford gym and 500lbs and an undisclosed time by his brother in law. Also Wali Jones (a Philadelphia native/former pro) said when he was growing up he'd got to Wilt's house to watch him lift 360lbs, this would have been the late 50's or early 60's. I'm sure there are others who've claimed they'd witnessed Wilt put up those numbers too, but as far as I know none of them specified the time period when he was doing it. Why is this important? Because Wilt weighed 327lbs and seemed like he didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984 on the set of Conan the Destroyer, he could have been putting up those numbers THEN for all we know, not say, 1971 when he weighed closer to 300-310lbs... but then again maybe he was, I don't know really. But there are too many accounts for any reasonable person to dismiss. Wilt was one of the best athletes on the planet for a great deal of his lifetime, so much so that some were convinced he was likely one of the best athletes to have ever lived.Didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984?

http://movies.mxdwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Wilt-Chamberlain.jpg


I notice you (like many Wilt fans) like to exaggerate. He's probably a good 15-20% body fat there. And he would be 48 years old. No way he was putting up 500 pounds.

Like I said. The World record until 1971 was 615 pounds. No way 7'2" Wilt Chamberlain put up just about 100 pounds less than that. Not even close.


He's still lanky:

http://www.ballnroll.com/Uploads/Blogs/Basketball/Images/Bizarre1.jpg

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984?

http://movies.mxdwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Wilt-Chamberlain.jpg


I notice you (like many Wilt fans) like to exaggerate. He's probably a good 15-20% body fat there. And he would be 48 years old. No way he was putting up 500 pounds.

Like I said. The World record until 1971 was 615 pounds. No way 7'2" Wilt Chamberlain put up just about 100 pounds less than that. Not even close.


He's still lanky:

http://www.ballnroll.com/Uploads/Blogs/Basketball/Images/Bizarre1.jpg
What would you guess his max to be given where Shaq was at with a 7'7 wingspan and dwight with 7'4

[Soundwave]

There aren't any good centers today because no one wants to play center anymore IMO. It takes a long time to develop post skills, post-Jordan era, kids growing up want to play wing positions and dribble the ball a lot not the traditional C/PF.

That's one thing. Centers today just aren't as skilled as they used to be.

[kennethgriffin]

Question Kenneth, Rank these rebounders

Russell

Rodman

Wilt

Love

lucas

Dwight

Shaq

Griffin


in terms of skill with era's taken into account

#1 rodman - given minutes. good big men era/ modern - legit 16rpg
#2a Wilt - around 25rpg output in shit era prime.. adjusted - 15rpg
#2b russell - around 24rpg output in shit era prime.. adjusted - 15rpg
#4a howard - between 13-14rpg in a bad era. adjusted - 12rpg
#4b shaq - around 12rpg in a good era, modern - legit 12rpg
#5 Love - near 14rpg in this new era with no bigs. adjusted - 11rpg
#6 lucas - around 19rpg in his shit era prime . adjusted+6-7height - 9rpg
#7 griffin - around 10rpg in new era with no bigs. adjusted - 8rpg



i'm not saying wilt and russell couldnt rebound. i honestly think only rodman could rebound better than them in todays era. but anyone who thinks theyre putting up anything higher than 15-16rpg are completely out of their mind

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]
What would you guess his max to be given where Shaq was at with a 7'7 wingspan and dwight with 7'4I don't know since I never see people that tall lifting weights. But the taller you are, the harder it is for you to get up big weight.

So somebody at 7'2" would have a much harder time lifting the same weight as somebody who is 6'2".

So Dwight repping 100 pounds more than his bodyweight at his height as a basketball player would be very impressive.

500 pounds is out-of-this-world stupid.

Kevin Durant couldn't even bench 185 pounds once lol.

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Didn't have an ounce of fat on him in 1984?

http://movies.mxdwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Wilt-Chamberlain.jpg


I notice you (like many Wilt fans) like to exaggerate. He's probably a good 15-20% body fat there. And he would be 48 years old. No way he was putting up 500 pounds.

Like I said. The World record until 1971 was 615 pounds. No way 7'2" Wilt Chamberlain put up just about 100 pounds less than that. Not even close.

Don't you find it fascinating though, that the internet is just PLASTERED with accounts of Chamberlain's amazing physical feats...and yet, not ONE LEGITIMATE source has stepped up and REFUTED them?

Wilt played with with multiple coachs. He played with hundreds of teammates. He was covered by many members of the media. And he was watched by perhaps millions.

And with these claims of touching the top of the backboard (by at least two legitimate sources); or taking a couple of steps from the FT line, and then dunking (Tex Winter); and amazing physical power (read Cherry's book) or watch Schwartzenegger's video, or an interview in which their is an eye-witness account of him benching 465 lbs; as well as the dozens, if not hundreds of article on the internet in which he is credited with benching 500+ lbs......

and yet, not ONE LEGITIMATE source has come forth and said, "Hey, I worked out with Wilt, and he couldn't even do x amount of weight on the bench." Or, "I was at a practice when Wilt tried to touch the top of the backboard, and he could only get x high."

Again, where are those that would DISPUTE these claims???

[Soundwave]

Also regarding bench press, it's harder to press a lot if you have longer arms.

That's why I find the 500 pound claim to Wilt as being pretty suspect especially with his freakish wingspan.

Arnold even in his Mr. Universe days couldn't bench as much as his training partner, the shorter, stockier Franco Columbu, its also why in bench press competitions pretty much all the guys are shorter/stockier dudes.

I don't doubt Wilt was freakishly strong, but I think 500 pounds is probably a little dubious (as is Wilt's claim of sleeping with 10,000 women or whatever, lol).

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=jongib369]I don't know since I never see people that tall lifting weights. But the taller you are, the harder it is for you to get up big weight.

So somebody at 7'2" would have a much harder time lifting the same weight as somebody who is 6'2".

So Dwight repping 100 pounds more than his bodyweight at his height as a basketball player would be very impressive.

500 pounds is out-of-this-world stupid.

Kevin Durant couldn't even bench 185 pounds once lol.
Kevin Durant doesn't have a massive upper body.

Wilt, Shaq, and Dwight have massive upper bodies - I don't just mean bulky in muscle I mean they had broad shoulders and just massively built frames, are you blind comparing them to Durant? Do you not understand that people are not all built the same way just because they might have a similar height, or armspan, or whatever? Generally people who are tall are skinny and most are uncoordinated, they are more or less all usually 'relatively' weak, unathletic, etc. Most tall people aren't even good athletes. But this is JUST a generalization. The same way NBA players blew the stupid myth that all tall people weren't/couldn't be athletic Wilt, Shaq, Dwight blow that stupid myth about long arms making you bad at bench press out the water, you can generalize all you want about tall people with long arms, but those guys are strong as shit. It's on video for Dwight, it's in countless testimonial for Wilt and to a lesser degree Shaq. Sorry man, you are just in denial. You even denied video evidence of Dwight repping 365 :oldlol:

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]

Don't you find it fascinating though, that the internet is just PLASTERED with accounts of Chamberlain's amazing physical feats...and yet, not ONE LEGITIMATE source has stepped up and REFUTED them?

Wilt played with with multiple coachs. He played with hundreds of teammates. He was covered by many members of the media. And he was watched by perhaps millions.

And with these claims of touching the top of the backboard (by at least two legitimate sources); or taking a couple of steps from the FT line, and then dunking (Tex Winter); and amazing physical power (read Cherry's book) or watch Schwartzenegger's video, or an interview in which their is an eye-witness account of him benching 465 lbs; as well as the dozens, if not hundreds of article on the internet in which he is credited with benching 500+ lbs......

and yet, not ONE LEGITIMATE source has come forth and said, "Hey, I worked out with Wilt, and he couldn't even do x amount of weight on the bench." Or, "I was at a practice when Wilt tried to touch the top of the backboard, and he could only get x high."

Again, where are those that would DISPUTE these claims???That's what happens with legends. It would make a very interesting study for psychologists or sociologists or whoever.

The same ridiculous stuff can be seen plastered on the internet about Bruce Lee.

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=bmd]
Kevin Durant doesn't have a massive upper body, he just has long arms

Wilt, Shaq, and Dwight have massive upper bodies - I don't just mean bulky in muscle I mean they had broad shoulders and just massively built frames, are you blind comparing them to Durant? Do you not understand that people are not all built the same way just because they might have a similar height, or armspan, or whatever? Generally people who are tall are skinny and uncoordinated, they are more or less 'relatively' weak therefore they are also ultimately weak. THAT'S why they usually can't lift weight. Wilt, Shaq, Dwight blow that stupid myth about long arms out the water, you can generalize all you want about tall people with long arms, but those guys are strong as shit. It's on video for Dwight, it's in countless testimonial for Wilt and to a lesser degree Shaq. Sorry man, you are just in denial. You even denied video evidence of Dwight repping 365 :oldlol:
Lol wht did it quote me as saying that :lol

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]
Lol wht did it quote me as saying that :lol
ISH seems to be broken on the quotes... or is it just me?

[bmd]

[QUOTE=bmd]
Kevin Durant doesn't have a massive upper body, he just has long arms

Wilt, Shaq, and Dwight have massive upper bodies - I don't just mean bulky in muscle I mean they had broad shoulders and just massively built frames, are you blind comparing them to Durant? Do you not understand that people are not all built the same way just because they might have a similar height, or armspan, or whatever? Generally people who are tall are skinny and uncoordinated, they are more or less 'relatively' weak therefore they are also ultimately weak. THAT'S why they usually can't lift weight. Wilt, Shaq, Dwight blow that stupid myth about long arms out the water, you can generalize all you want about tall people with long arms, but those guys are strong as shit. It's on video for Dwight, it's in countless testimonial for Wilt and to a lesser degree Shaq. Sorry man, you are just in denial. You even denied video evidence of Dwight repping 365 :oldlol:I wasn't comparing them to Durant. I just mentioned it because I found it amusing.

And the long arms thing is not a myth. It is fact. It's why you never see gigantic people in powerlifting competitions.

As for the Dwight video. Go watch it. When it says he is benching 315, he is obviously not benching 315. There are not six 45 pound plates on the bar.

[Deuce Bigalow]

When it mattered most Wilt could only lift two Larry O'Brien trophies tbh

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=jongib369]
ISH seems to be broken on the quotes... or is it just me?
You're right, looking now literally everyones is wrong

[jongib369]

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I wasn't comparing them to Durant. I just mentioned it because I found it amusing.

And the long arms thing is not a myth. It is fact. It's why you never see gigantic people in powerlifting competitions.

As for the Dwight video. Go watch it. When it says he is benching 315, he is obviously not benching 315. There are not six 45 pound plates on the bar.
I feel pretty good about myself. I can shoot free throws better than Shaq and used to out bench a pro athlete....

http://youtu.be/7eYJtALV8Ao

[LAZERUSS]

When it mattered most Wilt could only lift two Larry O'Brien trophies tbh

Not sure how heavy the NBA RECORD BOOK is, but the bulk of the pages has his name plastered all over them.

[Fazotronic]

Not sure how heavy the NBA RECORD BOOK is, but the bulk of the pages has his name plastered all over them.

come on you know exactly what the typical respons is gona be.
competition, pace, accessibility... i don't think its the first time you're arguing with him

[sd3035]

why dont Wilt era fans like to brag about 6-5 Elgin Baylor averaging 19.8 rebounds
because he was like the 3rd tallest guy in the league, and probably one of three black guys

[Deuce Bigalow]

Not sure how heavy the NBA RECORD BOOK is, but the bulk of the pages has his name plastered all over them.
Not in the playoffs/finals. Could only lift 2 LOBTs.

[fpliii]

because he was like the 3rd tallest guy in the league, and probably one of three black guys
League was 1/2 to 2/3 black for most of his career, try harder.

[LAZERUSS]

come on you know exactly what the typical respons is gona be.
competition, pace, accessibility... i don't think its the first time you're arguing with him

Yep.

Competition? He faced Lovellette, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Lanier, McAdoo, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF.

Pace? Today's NBA is scoring at 85% of a PEAK 60's season, and rebounding at 67% of a PEAK 60's season. Which means, reduce Wilt's scoring and rebounding down to 2014 levels, and a PEAK Chamberlain would merely be a 40-18 guy. Oh, and BTW, you would have to RAISE his FG% to current levels, or from about the .435 mark that his era averaged, to the near .500 eFG% of today's NBA, which would mean that he his actual career FG% of .540 would rise to about a career mark of .620.

Accessibility? He finished 3rd and 4th in the MVP balloting in his LAST TWO seasons, in an NBA that was already nearly 80% black. Hell, and OLD Chamberlain, in ten straight H2H games with 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, averaged 24 ppg on a .784 FG%. In his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg. That was the LAST time anyone would ever average more than 17.3 rpg in a post-season. And, in his LAST season, he set an NBA record of a .727 FG%, which will probably never be broken (BTW, he also holds the second best all-time mark of .683.)

BTW, a PRIME Chamberlain just CRUSHED centers like Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell...all black.

[CavaliersFTW]

League was 1/2 to 2/3 black for most of his career, try harder.
and thanks to your efforts we now know exact figures :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Not in the playoffs/finals. Could only lift 2 LOBTs.

TEAM game.

Sam Jones was waving 10, Hondo eight, and even KC Jones had eight.

Maybe you can tell me just how close they are to Wilt in terms of RECORDS and AWARDS.

And even though Russell's TEAMS won more rings, it doesn't detract from the FACT that, in their ten seasons in the NBA together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in NBA First Team selections. CLEARLY, the vast majority AT THE TIME, considered Wilt to be the greater player.

[Deuce Bigalow]

TEAM game.

Sam Jones was waving 10, Hondo eight, and even KC Jones had eight.

Maybe you can tell me just how close they are to Wilt in terms of RECORDS and AWARDS.

And even though Russell's TEAMS won more rings, it doesn't detract from the FACT that, in their ten seasons in the NBA together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in NBA First Team selections. CLEARLY, the vast majority AT THE TIME, considered Wilt to be the greater player.
They were of course on Bill Russell's team. Bill Russell was the NBA's 35th anniversary player announced on October, 30, 1980; meaning GOAT, not 2-time Chamberlain. Sorry.

As selected in 1980 through a poll by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America.
Red Auerbach was selected as coach, Bill Russell was selected as the greatest player, and the 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers were selected as the greatest team.

[LAZERUSS]

They were of course on Bill Russell's team. Bill Russell was the NBA's 35th Anniversery player announced on October, 30, 1980; meaning GOAT, not 2-time Chamberlain. Sorry.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/nba_35th_anniversary.html


As selected in 1980 thru a poll by the Professional Basketball Writers of America.


Interesting isn't it...since the WRITERS were voting for FIRST TEAM ALL-NBA in the 60's, and when the two were actually playing.

What changed in the ten years after Russell retired?????

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/nba_35th_anniversary.html




Interesting isn't it...since the WRITERS were voting for FIRST TEAM ALL-NBA in the 60's, and when the two were actually playing.

What changed in the ten years after Russell retired?????
Pretty simple, All-NBA teams are regular season awards. Bill raised his game in the playoffs and basically won the LOBT every year while Chamberlain wilted.

[LAZERUSS]

Pretty simple, All-NBA teams are regular season awards. Bill raised his game in the playoffs and basically won the LOBT every year while Chamberlain wilted.

Find me ONE playoff series between the two in which Russell outplayed Wilt. And I don't want nonsense about his TEAMMATES outplaying Wilt's either, since we both KNOW that he ALWAYS had better teammates, and those teammates almost always pounded Wilt's.

And please don't bring up West either. Chamberlain outplayed Russell in the '69 Finals, and cleaned his clock in game seven.

And the rest of their SEVEN other playoff series were heavily dominated by Chamberlain. Not even close.

[sd3035]

League was 1/2 to 2/3 black for most of his career, try harder.
:facepalm

here's the team roster for the Celtics during Wilt's first year in the league

http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/celtics_59_60.jpg

[fpliii]

:facepalm

here's the team roster for the Celtics during Wilt's first year in the league

http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/celtics_59_60.jpg
I said most of his career. Besides, I posted the actual numbers here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wAJwRWhTyY7813xGy8KKbxzcIk8O_EBLmJAAojp3mKg/

This doesn't include 69-70, 70-71, 71-72, 72-73, which were even higher.

His rookie season about a quarter of the league was black. By his fourth season, half the minutes in the league were played by black players, and in the 70s it was approximately the same percent as in game today.

You can post however many pictures you want, won't change the numbers.

I'm not even a Wilt guy, but I hate when people knowingly post things that are incorrect.

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm

here's the team roster for the Celtics during Wilt's first year in the league

http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/celtics_59_60.jpg

Counting Russell

SEVEN HOFers. And a HOF coach.

Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, KC Jones, Sam Jones, and Russell.

SEVEN of the best basketball players in the world at the time.

[CavaliersFTW]

Okay sd3035 let's play guess the era based on race:

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1969nbachamp_576.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/media/celtics/Champs_85_86.jpg

[LAZERUSS]

How about just a couple of years ago, when a 6-2 white guy led the league in apg (and in only 33 mpg), and another 6-8 white guy ran away with the rebounding title, and yet another white guy led the league in bpg?

How often did that occur in the Chamberlain era?

[sd3035]

How about just a couple of years ago, when a 6-2 white guy led the league in apg (and in only 33 mpg), and another 6-8 white guy ran away with the rebounding title, and yet another white guy led the league in bpg?

How often did that occur in the Chamberlain era?

White guys are always good at positions in sports which require intelligence, decision making, and leadership, like a QB in football for example, that's why Stockton and Nash are two of the best point guards to ever play

[CavaliersFTW]

White guys are always good at positions in sports which require intelligence, decision making, and leadership, like a QB in football for example, that's why Stockton and Nash are two of the best point guards to ever play
So, do those positions include power forward and center? Because Bogut was the most dominant shot blocker and Love the most dominant rebounder, and Dirk the most dominant playoff performer within the past few seasons... Marc Gasol has a case as the best two way center in the game today and Pau Gasol was the best big man on the Lakers most recent two championships...

[sd3035]

So, do those positions include power forward and center? Because Bogut was the most dominant shot blocker and Love the most dominant rebounder, and Dirk the most dominant playoff performer within the past few seasons... Marc Gasol has a case as the best two way center in the game today and Pau Gasol was the best big man on the Lakers most recent two championships...

They use skill, intelligence, and hard work, none of them are super athletes like Shaq or Wilt

Look at Dwight Howard, he has the IQ of a turnip and he's a top center in the league

[CavaliersFTW]

They use skill, intelligence, and hard work, none of them are super athletes like Shaq or Wilt

Look at Dwight Howard, he has the IQ of a turnip and he's a top center in the league
Weren't you trying to make some sort of point?

[sd3035]

Weren't you trying to make some sort of point?

no, I was just randomly answering questions in this thread, feel free to ask more

[TheCorporation]

its just not the style of basketball suited for his game anymore. its a run and gun league where outside shooting is a must and just standing with your back to the basket with 1 hand palmed over the ball waiving it back and forth while a bunch of midgets run around you isnt the way things are done anymore

:lol :applause: :lol

[LAZERUSS]

White guys are always good at positions in sports which require intelligence, decision making, and leadership, like a QB in football for example, that's why Stockton and Nash are two of the best point guards to ever play

Get out of the 19th century.

Russell was one of the most intelligent players to have ever played the game. Russell Wilson just won a SB.

Rodman was 6-7 and 220 lbs...did he dominate the glass with his size and athleticism?

Moses was 6-10, 240 lbs, and could barely dunk. He won several rebounding titles.

You show me a rebounding leader and I will show you a hard-worker.

[Round Mound]

[B]Its unbelievable the level of stupidity i see in ISH from young posters. :facepalm

If you wan

[AintNoSunshine]

It's OK OP, those years doesn't count. Real basketball started in 80's

[Marlo_Stanfield]

who watches some Wilt footage and reads some articles about him and then still denies him being both athletically better than Shaq and stronger is in clear denial.
grandpa Wilt nearly ripped Orlando Shaqs arm out ffs.
Both are peak for peak the best Centers ever tho.
Wilt was just more skilled as a basketball player and a once in a millenium athlete.
have you ever seen him run the court like LeBron James?? i have

[Psileas]

Weren't you trying to make some sort of point?

Wasn't he arguing that Wilt was one of the 2-3 blacks in the league 1 page before? Yeah, serious debating right there...Making Wilt's 50 inch vertical claims look like mathematical axioms in comparison.

[stanlove1111]

Hell, KAREEM played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era, and never sniffed the numbers that a prime Chamberlain put up.


This again?

What is the point of talking about how much someone scored without talking about how many shots he took. Why do you guys act like its baseball where people get the same amount of at bats.

Wilt shot a ton more then anyone ever at that point so of course he is going to score more points.

Why do I have to keep bringing this up?

[stanlove1111]

Yep.

Competition? He faced Lovellette, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Lanier, McAdoo, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF.

.

When he was putting up his huge scoring numbers he was not facing Reed,Unseld,Hayes,lanier,Mcadoo, or Kareem.

[Psileas]

When he was putting up his huge scoring numbers he was not facing Reed,Unseld,Hayes,lanier,Mcadoo, or Kareem.

He sure was facing Reed. Reed was a rookie in 1965 and gave up some huge scoring games vs Wilt. He sure was facing Russell and Thurmond, too, and they were better defenders than any of these players. Their presence wouldn't deter Wilt from scoring big if his role was to do so. It didn't really deter Wilt from scoring his usual amount of points in his era. E.g, against Lanier, he was very often more productive than his average in those seasons. Against Kareem, he was still often more productive than his average (although Kareem did cut down his efficiency, as Wilt also did to Kareem - on the other hand though, Lanier wasn't having a negative effect on Wilt's efficiency, quite the opposite, iirc).

[stanlove1111]

He sure was facing Reed. Reed was a rookie in 1965 and gave up some huge scoring games vs Wilt. He sure was facing Russell and Thurmond, too, and they were better defenders than any of these players. Their presence wouldn't deter Wilt from scoring big if his role was to do so. It didn't really deter Wilt from scoring his usual amount of points in his era. E.g, against Lanier, he was very often more productive than his average in those seasons. Against Kareem, he was still often more productive than his average (although Kareem did cut down his efficiency, as Wilt also did to Kareem - on the other hand though, Lanier wasn't having a negative effect on Wilt's efficiency, quite the opposite, iirc).

Reed was a rookie in 1965 and often just played forward against Wilt. Wilt had his big scoring years before 1965, If you want to post Wilt's stats head to head against Reed for his career go for it. I don't think it will work out that well for Wilt backers..

You can also post Wilt's head to head game stats against Lanier also. Don't think that will work in your favor.

Same for most centers on that list.

[Demitri98]

When he was putting up his huge scoring numbers he was not facing Reed,Unseld,Hayes,lanier,Mcadoo, or Kareem.
Wilt had his 55 rebound record against Bill Russell. Your argument is invalid.

[oarabbus]

Wait so now Wilt would make prime Amar'e look like a little child?

I have no problems conceding Wilt would be better than a prime Amare, but to make prime Amar'e look pathetic? Yeah right.

No one is making Prime Amar'e look pathetic. No one in this history of the league.

[Dro]

Wait so now Wilt would make prime Amar'e look like a little child?

I have no problems conceding Wilt would be better than a prime Amare, but to make prime Amar'e look pathetic? Yeah right.

No one is making Prime Amar'e look pathetic. No one in this history of the league.
:lol Of course he would, have you ever seen Amare's defense?

[MavsSuperFan]

or 38.3ppg

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 Jerry Lucas averaging 21.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-7 wes unself averaging 18.2 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 gus johnson averaging 17.1 rebounds per game

why dont wilt era fans like bragging about 6-6 maurice stokes averaging 17.0 rebounds per game


na theyed rather just assume that there was no inflated averages back then. and wilt was just that much better than everyone. and his 50ppg average would translate into todays nba

when in reality. theres a reason why the center position died. its not due to there being no centers. its because the game evolved. defenses are better and rules are put in place so some big pounding back to the basket guy cant just take advantage of his height anymore

the fact is... in the 90's.. wilt might average 27ppg tops

in the 00's.. wilt might average 24ppg tops

but in the 2010's.. wilt would not average over 20ppg ... its just not the style of basketball suited for his game anymore. its a run and gun league where outside shooting is a must and just standing with your back to the basket with 1 hand palmed over the ball waiving it back and forth while a bunch of midgets run around you isnt the way things are done anymore


:applause: :applause: :applause: :bowdown:
I'm usually not a fan of yours but thank you for this post

[MavsSuperFan]

It shows how stats from back then are useless because the competition was trash. I mean really 50 ppg? wth. Wilt was a legit NBA player going up against mainly trash that would not have a chance in hell of making the NBA these days.
:applause: agreed

[oarabbus]

:lol Of course he would, have you ever seen Amare's defense?

I have, should clarify I was talking about offense.

[MavsSuperFan]

So you are essentially claiming that a 2000 Shaq would not be nearly as great today? Or a mid-90's Hakeem? Or an early 90's MJ? Or a mid 80's Bird and Magic? Or an early 80's Moses? Or a mid-70's McAdoo? Or an early 70's KAJ? Or a 60's Wilt, Russell, and Oscar?

NONE of them would be nearly as dominant today?
They would be as good as today.

The key reasons the nba is better today than the 1960s

1 financial incentives of nba players in the 60s
2 racial discrimination/quotas of white players
3 international talent today.

By the 1980s NBA players had already reached the threshold of financial reward that would incentivize all of the best talent to go to the nba

Further the financial rewards of the NBA caused young people with talent to focus solely on basketball as their path to the future

NBA teams also stopped fielding white players purely for racial reasons. All white players today in the nba actually deserve to be there they aren't just there for marketing reasons

[Psileas]

Reed was a rookie in 1965 and often just played forward against Wilt. Wilt had his big scoring years before 1965, If you want to post Wilt's stats head to head against Reed for his career go for it. I don't think it will work out that well for Wilt backers..

You can also post Wilt's head to head game stats against Lanier also. Don't think that will work in your favor.

Same for most centers on that list.

Wilt had his big scoring years before 1967. Of course, I'm not including his 1967+1968 seasons, when he still averaged 24 ppg, but on elite efficiency + all-around brilliance.

As for Wilt vs Reed: Reed was a C as a rookie (hadn't teammed with Bellamy yet) and Wilt did the following against him:

52/21/3
41/21/6
36/22/6
58/22/5
46/18
41/32
29/17
29/13/0
37/32/2 (14-22 FG)
30/18/2 (9-15 FG)
37/28/3 (18-30 FG)

They never again faced each other until Wilt lessened his scoring (although he still outplayed Reed in 1969). But Reed wasn't stopping high scoring Wilt. And, though I don't have Wilt's FG%'s from all games, I have the majority of them, and Wilt shot 154-287. Suffice to say, rookie (but still 20/15 level) Reed didn't fare that well at all.

Wilt's 1-on-1's vs Lanier may not look as dominant in that Lanier had some high scoring games against Wilt, but that wasn't my point to begin with. My point was that Lanier shouldn't be used as an example of a player who wasn't playing when Wilt was scoring big, since he rarely performed fine against Wilt defensively. Had he been playing in the 60's, Lanier's name would likely have appeared multiple times in the long list of Wilt's 40+ and 50+ scoring games.

[jlip]

I thought that it had been established for a while that the only individual stat that was inflated in the 60's is rebounding. This thread is not really news.

[CavaliersFTW]

I thought that it had been established for a while that the only individual stat that was inflated in the 60's is rebounding. This thread is not really news.
Yep, Wilt's trolls are the only ones who haven't acknowledged this yet. This is their favorite straw man.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt had his big scoring years before 1967. Of course, I'm not including his 1967+1968 seasons, when he still averaged 24 ppg, but on elite efficiency + all-around brilliance.

As for Wilt vs Reed: Reed was a C as a rookie (hadn't teammed with Bellamy yet) and Wilt did the following against him:

52/21/3
41/21/6
36/22/6
58/22/5
46/18
41/32
29/17
29/13/0
37/32/2 (14-22 FG)
30/18/2 (9-15 FG)
37/28/3 (18-30 FG)

They never again faced each other until Wilt lessened his scoring (although he still outplayed Reed in 1969). But Reed wasn't stopping high scoring Wilt. And, though I don't have Wilt's FG%'s from all games, I have the majority of them, and Wilt shot 154-287. Suffice to say, rookie (but still 20/15 level) Reed didn't fare that well at all.

Wilt's 1-on-1's vs Lanier may not look as dominant in that Lanier had some high scoring games against Wilt, but that wasn't my point to begin with. My point was that Lanier shouldn't be used as an example of a player who wasn't playing when Wilt was scoring big, since he rarely performed fine against Wilt defensively. Had he been playing in the 60's, Lanier's name would likely have appeared multiple times in the long list of Wilt's 40+ and 50+ scoring games.
Reed vs Wilt in the NBA Finals?

Reed - '70 and '73 rings, 2 FMVPs
Wilt - '72 ring, 1 FMVP

[fpliii]

I thought that it had been established for a while that the only individual stat that was inflated in the 60's is rebounding. This thread is not really news.
Probably shot-blocking as well (though we have very few numbers from the early 60s anyway), but rebounding is most of it.

[MavsSuperFan]

The NFL has no faster players today than the fastest of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Henry Childs, Bob Hayes, Cliff Branch, OJ Simpson, Mel Gray, Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, and Darrell Green.

Bigger, yes. So what? Give the players of the 60's the same diets and weight-training programs, and they would be much bigger too.

The most powerful HR hitter of all-time? None other than Mickey Mantle, who was 5-11 and weighed 190 lbs. And give Nolan Ryan the SAME radar gun used TODAY, and he would be the fastest pitcher in the game today.
You are insane.

The reason Jim Brown was considered amazing is cause he was running against tackles that were slightly smaller than him. Brown in today's NFL would be at best Jerome Bettis

Mickey Mantle would not be anywhere close to the most powerful homerun hitter of all time

[stanlove1111]

Wilt had his big scoring years before 1967. Of course, I'm not including his 1967+1968 seasons, when he still averaged 24 ppg, but on elite efficiency + all-around brilliance.

As for Wilt vs Reed: Reed was a C as a rookie (hadn't teammed with Bellamy yet) and Wilt did the following against him:

52/21/3
41/21/6
36/22/6
58/22/5
46/18
41/32
29/17
29/13/0
37/32/2 (14-22 FG)
30/18/2 (9-15 FG)
37/28/3 (18-30 FG)

They never again faced each other until Wilt lessened his scoring (although he still outplayed Reed in 1969). But Reed wasn't stopping high scoring Wilt. And, though I don't have Wilt's FG%'s from all games, I have the majority of them, and Wilt shot 154-287. Suffice to say, rookie (but still 20/15 level) Reed didn't fare that well at all.

.

That is one of the things that bothers me about you Wilt backers. When he doesn't scare a lot against someone you just pass it off to Wilt taking a lesser role in scoring. But when you talk about his monster scoring games you don't mention that he was shooting more then anyone else ever. You want it both ways.

[sd3035]

His fake feats of strength were about as credible as his 20 000 women

[QUOTE]Doug Krikorian:

[CavaliersFTW]

His fake feats of strength were about as credible as his 20 000 women
Not comparable. Wilt is the only one who ever claimed 20,000 where as Wilt rarely even mentioned his own strength, it is OTHERS who marveled at his strength and told about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOBX9ikNzEk

it's no myth, you can see him tossing guys around like rag dolls or doing lat pull downs on an entire rack even in the limited footage we have, and there is first hand testimony after testimony from sources like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Lanier, etc.

[pudman13]

address 6-5 baylors 20 rpg

You do realize that Dennis Rodman's only an inch taller than Baylor, right?

[CavaliersFTW]

You do realize that Dennis Rodman's only an inch taller than Baylor, right?
and Rodman weighed about 15lbs less than Elgin, also important to note

[sd3035]

Not comparable. Wilt is the only one who ever claimed 20,000 where as Wilt rarely even mentioned his own strength, it is OTHERS who marveled at his strength and told about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOBX9ikNzEk

it's no myth, you can see him tossing guys around like rag dolls or doing lat pull downs on an entire rack even in the limited footage we have, and there is first hand testimony after testimony from sources like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Lanier, etc.

Do you believe all the stories in the bible?

[CavaliersFTW]

Do you believe all the stories in the bible?
All what stories, and how would anything in the bible (written by scribes several lifetimes after all alleged events even happened) be at all comparable to the subject at hand :facepalm :oldlol:

[pudman13]

and Rodman weighed about 15lbs less than Elgin, also important to note

Baylor and Gus Johnson would be beasts in today's game, and most certainly would play PF at 6'5" and 6'6", just as Barkley and Rodman did.

[sd3035]

All what stories, and how would anything in the bible (written by scribes several lifetimes after all alleged events even happened) be at all comparable to the subject at hand :facepalm :oldlol:

both are just hearsay

[CavaliersFTW]

Baylor and Gus Johnson would be beasts in today's game, and most certainly would play PF at 6'5" and 6'6", just as Barkley and Rodman did.
Baylor was a small forward though, actually he was more accurately a positionless player as most great forwards are, he had a great full court handle, he brought the ball up the court when other teams would press. He was a big body inside when he wanted to rebound (or post up for that matter) but he had all the finesse and agility of smaller forwards so more akin to just another Larry Bird or Lebron in that sense. Gus was actually also very versatile but he was so long in the arms and big and strong he probably would be stuck into the PF spot just because that's where his strengths lie, but I've even got footage of him playing 'positionless' ball in college, where he's just doing everything. In that sense he sorta reminds me of a Charles Barkley, who played PF but in reality he also looked pretty positionless himself.

[CavaliersFTW]

both are just hearsay
Incorrect.

Hearsay is where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone.

Those people talking about Wilt, are persons who have personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it. They are Eyewitnesses.

Hearsay is inadmissable in a court of law, where as eyewitnesses testimony is.

See? You learned something new today :cheers:

[sd3035]

Incorrect.

Hearsay is where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone.

Those people talking about Wilt, are persons who have personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it. They are Eyewitnesses.

Hearsay is inadmissable in a court of law, where as eyewitnesses testimony is.

See? You learned something new today :cheers:

so, in other words, they're both just hearsay

[swagga]

Jerry Lucas would average about the same amount of rpg as Kevin Love. BTW, those two were/are nearly identical in almost every aspect of their games.

How about this... a 36 year old Chamberlain, in his LAST season, and in a post-season in which he played 17 games...AVERAGED 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg.

TODAY's NBA is averaging 42.9 rpg.

Let's do the math, shall we?

42.9 / 50.6 = 85%.

85% of 22.5 = 19.1 rpg.

This from an OLD Wilt, in his LAST season.

why don't you use rebound rate and pace to truly compute that number? You'd be surprised.

[CavaliersFTW]

so, in other words, they're both just hearsay
http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Michael-Scott-Closes-The-Door-Awkwardly-On-The-Office.gif

[Marchesk]

in terms of skill with era's taken into account

#1 rodman - given minutes. good big men era/ modern - legit 16rpg
#2a Wilt - around 25rpg output in shit era prime.. adjusted - 15rpg
#2b russell - around 24rpg output in shit era prime.. adjusted - 15rpg
#4a howard - between 13-14rpg in a bad era. adjusted - 12rpg
#4b shaq - around 12rpg in a good era, modern - legit 12rpg
#5 Love - near 14rpg in this new era with no bigs. adjusted - 11rpg
#6 lucas - around 19rpg in his shit era prime . adjusted+6-7height - 9rpg
#7 griffin - around 10rpg in new era with no bigs. adjusted - 8rpg


Alright, so what would be your numbers for prime Barkley and Baylor?

[Psileas]

That is one of the things that bothers me about you Wilt backers. When he doesn't scare a lot against someone you just pass it off to Wilt taking a lesser role in scoring. But when you talk about his monster scoring games you don't mention that he was shooting more then anyone else ever. You want it both ways.

Not sure what the point is here. The scoring leaders routinely also lead the league in FGA's, especially if there's a large scoring separation from the rest. Wilt shooting a lot in his high scoring seasons, while true, isn't something to blame him about when it comes to efficiency, since he had always been among the FG% leaders (including leading the league in scoring and FG% in the same season 4 times).

[millwad]

Jerry Lucas would average about the same amount of rpg as Kevin Love. BTW, those two were/are nearly identical in almost every aspect of their games.

How about this... a 36 year old Chamberlain, in his LAST season, and in a post-season in which he played 17 games...AVERAGED 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg.

TODAY's NBA is averaging 42.9 rpg.

Let's do the math, shall we?

42.9 / 50.6 = 85%.

85% of 22.5 = 19.1 rpg.

This from an OLD Wilt, in his LAST season.

Lets use the same math while checking his adjusted scoring average to the modern era and suddenly and also his playing time and suddenly you don't have alot to brag about anymore.

[LAZERUSS]

Lets use the same math while checking his adjusted scoring average to the modern era and suddenly and also his playing time and suddenly you don't have alot to brag about anymore.

Gladly...


Let's reduce Wilt's '62 season FGAs and FTAs down to 2014 levels...

In '62 Wilt averaged 39.5 FGAs per game, and 17.0 FTAs per game, in a league which averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game.

How about today's NBA?

83 FGA and 23 FTA per game.

83/108 = .768
.768 x 39.5 = 30.4 FGA per game.

Wilt shot .506 from the field in '62, BUT, you if you are going to reduce Wilt's FGAs to 2014 levels, you HAVE to adjust his eFG% to 2014 levels, as well (go ahead and do the math...if you don't adjust for eFG%'s, then the teams of '62 would average about 87 ppg in 2014, instead of the actual 101.)

So, Wilt's '62 NBA had an eFG% of .426. Today's NBA is at .501.

.501 / .426 = 1.18
1.176 x .506 = .595.

So, a '62 Wilt, playing in 2014, would be shooting an eFG% of .595.

30.4 x .595 = 18.1 FGM in 2014. 18.1 x 2 = 36.2 ppg, just on his FGAs.


His 17 FTAs per game came in a league that averaged 37 FTAs per game.
The current NBA is averaging 23 FTA per game.
23 / 37 = .622

Wilt's 17 FTAs in '62 drop to :

17 x .622 = 10.6 FTA per game.

Wilt shot .613 from the line in '62.

10.6 x .613 = 6.5 FTM in '2014.

36.2 ppg on his FGA and 6.5 ppg on his FTM = 42.7 ppg.


Of course, we could do the SIMPLE MATH, as well.

Wilt's '62 NBA averaged 118.8 ppg.
Today's NBA is averaging 100.9 ppg.

100.9 / 118.8 = .849

50.6 x .849 = 42.97 or 43 ppg in 2014.


Now, would Chamberlain play 48.5 mpg in 2014? Of course not, but he would lead the league. So, let's cut his mpg down to 40 mpg.

40.0 / 48.5 = .825

.825 x 43.0 = 35.5 ppg, and on a .595 eFG%.

BTW, if you reduce Wilt's mpg, his EFFICIENCY would naturally rise. So that .595 might become .610 or higher.

In any case, a '62 Wilt, playing 40 mpg in the 2014 season...

35.5 ppg on a .595 eFG%.

[kentatm]

Dennis Rodman was like 6'5/6'6 w/o shoes and he averaged 18 a game twice

Ben Wallace is 6'7/6'8 w/o shoes and got up to 15 a game.

Jason Kidd was 6'4 and a threat to rebound 10+ every night and averaged up to 8 simply from being on the court, who knows how many he would have had if that was a main focus?

some guys just rock at certain things, size be damned.

[LAZERUSS]

Dennis Rodman was like 6'5/6'6 w/o shoes and he averaged 18 a game twice

Ben Wallace is 6'7/6'8 w/o shoes and got up to 15 a game.

Jason Kidd was 6'4 and a threat to rebound 10+ every night and averaged up to 8 simply from being on the court, who knows how many he would have had if that was a main focus?

some guys just rock at certain things, size be damned.

Don't forget the 6-5 Charles Barkley leading the league in rpg, either.

Or a 6-3 170 lb. Fat Lever having TWO seasons in which he averaged more RPG than a 34 year old Hakeem in his 96-97 season. And how about this...Lever averaged more rpg in his 89-90 post-season, than Hakeem did in his 94-95 playoff run!

[jzek]

Wilt (and the pre-80s era AKA Weak Era) being exposed in this thread! :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Wilt (and the pre-80s era AKA Weak Era) being exposed in this thread! :oldlol:
:oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt (and the pre-80s era AKA Weak Era) being exposed in this thread! :oldlol:

Yeah...you would never see Moses outrebounding anyone in the 80's...

[DonDadda59]

Wilt (and the pre-80s era AKA Weak Era) being exposed in this thread! :oldlol:

Argument could go either way really. You can attribute some inflated stats from that era to the high pace (although as pointed out, several players from the modern era who were 6'5-6'9ish were monster rebounders).

But how do you explain away the 5'11 165 lb Iverson avering 33 PPG in a slow paced '06 season? :confusedshrug:

[oarabbus]

Wilt (and the pre-80s era AKA Weak Era) being exposed in this thread! :oldlol:


90s=weak era
00s = weak era

'10s = strong era

[The-Legend-24]

Fvcking trash league. PG's averaging 20 rebounds? :roll:

[NumberSix]

Why is it so difficult/hard to admit that guys in the past were playing against chumps?