A shame Wilt didn't come back to play in 1985

[DaRkJaWs]

At age 50 Wilt would have knocked the "GOAT" on his ass as he went up for the dunk :lol :lol :lol

Then all the Wilt haters would have been like :biggums: :biggums:

[DaRkJaWs]

Recall that at the time many NBA players still played against him on the playground or UCLA, etc and said he could still play.

[deja vu]

Nah he would be shellshocked having to face guys who are as big as him. No more 6'5" centers to feast on.

[CavaliersFTW]

Nah he would be shellshocked having to face guys who are as big as him. No more 6'5" centers to feast on.
The only guy within 40lbs of Wilt in 1985 was 290lb Mark Eaton. Wilt in 1985 was 327lbs... fresh off lifting weights with Arnold. Think about that. He would have been a lot slower end-to-end than his own playing days but nobody would have been able to even budge him in the paint if that's where he wanted to go and so long as he would not have gotten injured or been forced to play heavy minutes he'd have gotten inside at will against anyone in the league at that time. I don't know if he would have been able to play an 80 game season or not, but nobody was his "size" in the 80's. Nobody is his size still.

[julizaver]

At age 50 Wilt would have knocked the "GOAT" on his ass as he went up for the dunk :lol :lol :lol

Then all the Wilt haters would have been like :biggums: :biggums:

A video of MJ try to dunk on old Kareem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo_Saiwsgw

It was better for him not to try although I think that he could give his teams some solid 10-15 minutes (in defense and rebounding) based on the fact that he was physical specimen. But to play at highest pro-level is different then playing pick up games. During the 80s he played with NBA guys like Mark Eaton, who mentioned Wilt in his motivinatiol speech and how he changed his game based on Wilt's advise.
With current medicine according to doctors (from AC Milan Italian football club -lab, not american football) a pro-athlete could possibly perform at highest level untill he turns 40, considering the he is a strong regimen and lack serious injuries.

[CavaliersFTW]

A video of MJ try to dunk on old Kareem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvo_Saiwsgw

It was better for him not to try although I think that he could give his teams some solid 10-15 minutes (in defense and rebounding) based on the fact that he was physical specimen. But to play at highest pro-level is different then playing pick up games. During the 80s he played with NBA guys like Mark Eaton, who mentioned Wilt in his motivinatiol speech and how he changed his game based on Wilt's advise.
With current medicine according to doctors (from AC Milan Italian football club -lab, not american football) a pro-athlete could possibly perform at highest level untill he turns 40, considering the he is a strong regimen and lack serious injuries.
Boxers like George Foreman proved beyond shadow of a doubt, that some athletes you just can't put a number on. Wilt is like, one of a kind... even if a Doctor could put some arbitrary number on a general pool of athletes, I don't think any blanket can be applied to the best of the best at any professional sport. Some guys can just keep on going, well beyond their peers. Due to physical tools, or w/e. Some the opposite happens.

[Collie]

At age 50 Wilt would have knocked the "GOAT" on his ass as he went up for the dunk :lol :lol :lol

Then all the Wilt haters would have been like :biggums: :biggums:


Yeah man, imagine if the "GOAT" went up against extremely physical players like Rick Mahorn, Dennis Rodman or even Bill Laimbeer. :biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

How about a 40 and then 50 year old Darrell Green?

At age 40, he ran a 4.2 at a Washington Redskin training camp, and then supposedly at age 50, he ran a 4.43 40...

However, at age 52 it appears he started to slip, as he own son finally beat him in a race...

http://blog.redskins.com/2012/03/09/darrell-green-no-longer-the-fastest-green/


Earlier this offseason, we peeked at the pre-draft diary of Jared Green, son of Redskins legend Darrell Green, who is looking to follow in his father’s NFL footsteps.

The elder Green offered unparalleled longevity during his time in Washington, and was renowned for his breath-taking speed. On his 40th birthday–which he celebrated as a Redskins player–Green clocked a 4.2 at Redskins training camp.

On his 50th birthday, Darrell had finally slowed to a 4.43, which is still faster than all but three of the 2012 Combine times.


But now, at age 52, Darrell finally loses foot races to his son, as Jared discussed in his latest entry for ProPlayerInsiders.com (as written by Khalil Garriott):


In a foot race, the winner would definitely be me. My dad is still fast—we train everyday—but he’s given me the tools and every single secret that he has.

Not to mention that God has given me the genes. It’s really an exciting thing to not only be a product of Darrell Green’s genes, but of his teaching as well.

Jared writes with a great deal of confidence in his abilities, and his numbers seem to back it up. According to his page at nfldraftscout.com, Green has 4.42 speed, with a low of 4.34 seconds. No matter who you are, that’s fast. And on March 19, he will be able to show what else he can do at the Southern University Pro Day.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Was his 40 time at 40 laser timed or hand timed?

[coin24]

Was his 40 time at 40 laser timed or hand timed?

mountain lion timed

[Deuce Bigalow]

2/6 is forever dude

[LAZERUSS]

2/6 is forever dude

As are many of his HUNDREDS of NBA RECORDS, both regular season, and post-season.

By FAR, the most dominant player in NBA history.

GOAT.

:bowdown:

[Deuce Bigalow]

As are many of his HUNDREDS of NBA RECORDS, both regular season, and post-season.

By FAR, the most dominant player in NBA history.

GOAT.

:bowdown:
2/6

Set in stone

[oarabbus]

mountain lion timed

:oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

2/6

Set in stone

Using that analogy...

MJ, ZERO rings without Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. And Kobe ZERO rings without Shaq, Gasol, and even Horry and Artest.

TEAM game.

[julizaver]

Boxers like George Foreman proved beyond shadow of a doubt, that some athletes you just can't put a number on. Wilt is like, one of a kind... even if a Doctor could put some arbitrary number on a general pool of athletes, I don't think any blanket can be applied to the best of the best at any professional sport. Some guys can just keep on going, well beyond their peers. Due to physical tools, or w/e. Some the opposite happens.

Of course it is different with different people and there is also exceptions as the one Lazeruss posted. And I am not saying that Wilt could not do it beyond his 40 or at 50. But he wouldn't be the player he was 15 years prior.

About George Foreman since I am a boxing fan also. Foreman who won the tittle 19 years after lose it to Ali in 1975 was not the same boxer he used to be. Prior to Ali match young Foreman was considered the strong favourite and because of his dismantling of Frazier most people believe that Foreman would just crushed Ali.
Although an old Foreman beated Moorer for the title he never boxed vs prime Tyson or Lennox Lewis and was defeated by Holyfield. I do not want to underestimate Foreman achievement - he was among the best heavyweghts in his 40s but not the best. He do not dominate opponents the way he dominate them prior to Ali match.
I am not saying that 40 is a "death sentence" age, it was estimation of sport doctors who was speaking strictly about physical abilities not about the skills or leadership. We all know that full-court pro-basketball is physically dimanding sport and most athletes start their physical decline after turning 30. Jordan in his last season with the Bulls (35) was not the Jordan in 1993 (30). Wilt was feeling extreemely tired after '73 Finals according to his own words and was already showing the age effects (that according to the press). The fact that he was able to play almost all the minutes in the postseason at 36 is more than prove for his durability and physical abilities, but it is not possible to imagine that he would average 30-35 minutes 15 years later.

[LAZERUSS]

Of course it is different with different people and there is also exceptions as the one Lazeruss posted. And I am not saying that Wilt could not do it beyond his 40 or at 50. But he wouldn't be the player he was 15 years prior.

About George Foreman since I am a boxing fan also. Foreman who won the tittle 19 years after lose it to Ali in 1975 was not the same boxer he used to be. Prior to Ali match young Foreman was considered the strong favourite and because of his dismantling of Frazier most people believe that Foreman would just crushed Ali.
Although an old Foreman beated Moorer for the title he never boxed vs prime Tyson or Lennox Lewis and was defeated by Holyfield. I do not want to underestimate Foreman achievement - he was among the best heavyweghts in his 40s but not the best. He do not dominate opponents the way he dominate them prior to Ali match.
I am not saying that 40 is a "death sentence" age, it was estimation of sport doctors who was speaking strictly about physical abilities not about the skills or leadership. We all know that full-court pro-basketball is physically dimanding sport and most athletes start their physical decline after turning 30. Jordan in his last season with the Bulls (35) was not the Jordan in 1993 (30). Wilt was feeling extreemely tired after '73 Finals according to his own words and was already showing the age effects (that according to the press). The fact that he was able to play almost all the minutes in the postseason at 36 is more than prove for his durability and physical abilities, but it is not possible to imagine that he would average 30-35 minutes 15 years later.

100% correct. And that is the real reason why Chamberlain didn't entertain offers after retired. He knew that he not be anywhere near the player he had been. Obviously, he would have still been a force to be reckoned with, but he would not have been the Wilt that dominated in his entire career.

[SpanishACB]

Using that analogy...

MJ, ZERO rings without Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. And Kobe ZERO rings without Shaq, Gasol, and even Horry and Artest.

TEAM game.

team game?

i thought h2h stats were your favorite thing to prove points?

you realize that if A scores a bunch on B and B sucked balls it might because because A's team found him in position, played good plays for A, and helped defense on B?

Or is it a team game only when it suits your internet super arguments?

[AirFederer]

As are many of his HUNDREDS of NBA RECORDS, both regular season, and post-season.

By FAR, the most dominant player in NBA history.

GOAT.

:bowdown:

Too bad he played a team sport.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Using that analogy...

MJ, ZERO rings without Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. And Kobe ZERO rings without Shaq, Gasol, and even Horry and Artest.

TEAM game.
How many HOFers did the Stilt play with again?

[sportjames23]

mountain lion timed


:roll:

[Asukal]

Using that analogy...

MJ, ZERO rings without Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. And Kobe ZERO rings without Shaq, Gasol, and even Horry and Artest.

TEAM game.

Let us disregard all of Wilt's records then. :rolleyes: !

[LAZERUSS]

team game?

i thought h2h stats were your favorite thing to prove points?

you realize that if A scores a bunch on B and B sucked balls it might because because A's team found him in position, played good plays for A, and helped defense on B?

Or is it a team game only when it suits your internet super arguments?

As always...a POS post.

MJ didn't win shit without the best supporting cast in the league. How come? Did his teammates carry him to those titles?

A peak KAJ averaged a 35-17-5 on a team that went 63-19. A prime KAJ averaged 28-17-5 on a team that went 40-42. Obviously it must have been because of his decline in scoring, right?

Chamberlain led the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then FG% record in his 62-63 season, and his team went 31-49. Three years later he led the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then FG% record, and his team had the best record in the league. What changed?

Hakeem never had a team that won more than 58 games, and not many that even won 50. Furthermore, his teams either didn't make the playoffs, or were wiped out in the first round, in ELEVEN of his 18 seasons. What changed in '94 and '95?

Even with a prime KAJ, and stacked rosters, his teams of the 70's never sniffed a title. How come a past-his-prime Kareem would win FIVE?

Being the BEST player in the league does not guarantee titles. Chamberlain was overwhelmingly the best player in the league in the 60's, and yet only won one title. How come?

He took last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating stacked Celtic teams TWICE. And in '67, his team just crushed the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics. What happened? How come Wilt's '65 40-40 Sixers team lost to the Russell's 62-18 Celtics by one point in a game seven, and in a series in which Chamberlain annihilated Russell H2H, ...and then two year's later, Wilt's '67 68-13 Sixers just crushed Russell's 60-21 Celtics, 4-1, in a series in which Chamberlain just annihilated Russell H2H?

The Bulls went 57-25 in '93 with MJ. They went 55-27 the next year without him. Was he only worth two wins?

Kobe played on a team that went 34-48. He also anchored a title team that went 65-17. Did he play that much worse in '05? And do the '09 Lakers win a title withOUT Kobe?

And what happened to Bird in TEN of his 13 seasons? And how come he STILL won a ring in one Finals, in which he averaged 15 ppg on a .419 FG%? And how come a Bird in his greatest statistical season, in 87-88, and healthy in the post-season, had the worst post-season of his career, and he led his team down the drain in the ECF's?

The list is endless. TEAMs win games, and the best TEAMs usually win them. BUT, the BEST player(s) generally make them the best TEAM. Not always, of course, but certainly in majority of them.

[andremiller07]

mountain lion timed
:roll:

[LAZERUSS]

How many HOFers did the Stilt play with again?

Other than Greer in '67, and West in '69, very few that actually played well in the post-season. Still, the majority of Wilt's "HOF" teammates, played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT him.

[Smoke117]

Truly a shame...I mean...we all want to watch a 50 year old play 11-15 mpg through an 82 game season and get injured barely half way through it...right?...or are we carrying over this nonsense that Wilt was some higher form of human being and could actually play an 82 game season, with signficant mins, and stay healthy? He did after all school NBA players in pick up games...

[dunksby]

Only clowns would find it would be a good idea to return at 50 years of age and Wilt was no clown.

[LAZERUSS]

Let us disregard all of Wilt's records then. :rolleyes: !

Yes, a player who single-handedly carried last place rosters to near titles, and who went on to win two dominating titles with team's that went 68-13 and 69-13.

And how about Chamberlain's historic '62 season, in which he averaged 50 ppg? He took a roster, the core of which was the same last place roster that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against the HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics. Oh, and in that post-season, his teammates collectively shot .354 from the field, and as bad as that was, they collectively shot .345 in the Finals. Should we just completely ignore that season, and the total IMPACT he had?

Again, who would you rather have? MJ in '89, or MJ in '98? One won a ring, while the other did not. Was Jordan in '98 a better player than Jordan in '89?

How about KAJ in '77, or KAJ in '88? One was swept in the post-season with HCA, and in a series in which he hung a 30-15 .608 series on Walton, ...and the other won a ring with arguably the worst Finals performance by a "GOAT" candidate in NBA history.

[Asukal]

In jlauber's words, "Wilt was hobbled by injuries" in his thirties yet his stans believe he could dominate the league at age 50. :rolleyes:

When it comes to Wilt, there's always an excuse. But go on, tell us more of his h2h stats that resulted in 2 titles. :rolleyes:

[Marchesk]

In jlauber's words, "Wilt was hobbled by injuries" in his thirties yet his stans believe he could dominate the league at age 50.

The claim is that Wilt could still play in the league at age 50, not that he would be the same player. Maybe he plays an effective 15 minutes a game and still has an impact.

[LAZERUSS]

In jlauber's words, "Wilt was hobbled by injuries" in his thirties yet his stans believe he could dominate the league at age 50. :rolleyes:

When it comes to Wilt, there's always an excuse. But go on, tell us more of his h2h stats that resulted in 2 titles. :rolleyes:

I see you avoided MY questions.

How come MJ in his '89 (and '90) seasons did not win a title? Was he not good enough?

How come KAJ didn't win a ring in '77? Was he not good enough?

How come Kobe didn't win a ring in '06, but he won one in '09? Was he a MUCH better player in '09 than in '06?

How come Russell could win rings throughout his career, including several against Wilt, and yet got blown out by Chamberlain and his Sixers in '67?

[Asukal]

I see you avoided MY questions.

How come MJ in his '89 (and '90) seasons did not win a title? Was he not good enough?

How come KAJ didn't win a ring in '77? Was he not good enough?

How come Kobe didn't win a ring in '06, but he won one in '09? Was he a MUCH better player in '09 than in '06?

How come Russell could win rings throughout his career, including several against Wilt, and yet got blown out by Chamberlain and his Sixers in '67?

Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

There's no excuse, they lost plain and simple. Yet when all is said and done they lead their teams to more than 2 rings. Wilt? Oh yeah I forgot we gotta give him a pass coz he got injured and Baylor and West sucks. :rolleyes:

[senelcoolidge]

Wilt after his NBA career played a lot of volleyball. He said that this actually helped him a lot. He was having knee issues toward the end of his career and volleyball was great rehab. I think as he got older he began to have a hip problem, but I'm not sure if this was at age 50 or later. Either way Wilt would could have played and been effective even at age 50 with limited minutes. I believe he would have still been a dominate rebounder and defender for his minutes.

[julizaver]

The claim is that Wilt could still play in the league at age 50, not that he would be the same player. Maybe he plays an effective 15 minutes a game and still has an impact.

I think he could do things which a player of Mark Eaton caliber could do - stay near the basket catch some rebounds, blocked some shots and then "cruising half court" to see what happen... for those 15 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uakwVc86vg

[LAZERUSS]

Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

There's no excuse, they lost plain and simple. Yet when all is said and done they lead their teams to more than 2 rings. Wilt? Oh yeah I forgot we gotta give him a pass coz he got injured and Baylor and West sucks. :rolleyes:

Yep, Kareem's contributions to his '88 ring, when his team won DESPITE his awful play, outweigh Chamberlain's failed effort in '65, in a series in which Wilt was BY FAR the best player on the floor.

makes perfect sense...

[Elosha]

I've followed these Wilt discussions on ISH for years with interest, even long before I joined. Let me say I find both the pro and con arguments to be intriguing and find some merit to both. I'm much older then most posters on ISH, but not old enough to have watched Wilt play, like several of our posters. But I will say that we are fortunate to have members like Cavs, who posts so much rare footage of Wilt and other great players of the past. Same with the details provided by JLauber/Lazeruss, who I have little doubt from his posts, watched Wilt play in person. Agree with them or not, they certainly spark what can often be thought-provoking debate

Where the controversy starts is where to place Wilt and others in the modern context, given how long ago he played. When analyzing Wilt's actual playing ability/athletic ability, and the relative playing ability/athletic ability of his peers, the most authoritative source for me is actual game footage. Although it's limited, thanks to Cavs and others, we actually have a somewhat significant amount of video highlights and game footage, although regrettably Wilt's younger years are underrepresented. Second in priority, I do appreciate and consider anecdotal evidence of Wilt's play/athleticism, although such testimony must yield in my opinion to the actual physical evidence that we have, limited though it is. I do maintain a healthy amount of skepticism for anecdotal evidence, whether from the past or present day. Such evidence often, intentionally or not, becomes exaggerated, distorted, or just plain inaccurate.

It's like a tall tale I remember hearing of Jordan during his sophomore year at UNC. During a practice, he was supposed to have stolen the ball, driven the length of the court, jumped from the free throw line past two defenders, double pumped and dunked with two hands. As great as Jordan was, I do not believe this occurred. What probably happened was a monster dunk that then became a bit of an urban myth. Not to say every Wilt exploit is inaccurate, he was unquestionably a very big, strong, and athletic man. But I prefer to judge as much as possible on physical, rather than anecdotal evidence.

As to the question of whether Wilt could have played at 50. Perhaps on a limited basis. But as Lazeruss stated, he wouldn't have been the player he was. No one can be at that age. I saw a video on here, probably posted from Cavs, of Wilt dunking the ball at around 50. Cavs rightfully proclaims this an impressive feat given his age. I agree, but I remember also watching the video and noting how much more difficult in seemed for him to dunk and how it seemed he really could not get up very high at all. Not to say that he couldn't jump higher, but the man was human, not a demi-god. At age 50, neither Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Magic, Elgin, Bird, West, or any other great could ever play to the level of their prime, it's not humanly possible.

Oh and for the record, MJ dunked at age 50 too, and he's 7-8 inches shorter than Wilt. :)

[julizaver]

I've followed these Wilt discussions on ISH for years with interest, even long before I joined. Let me say I find both the pro and con arguments to be intriguing and find some merit to both. I'm much older then most posters on ISH, but not old enough to have watched Wilt play, like several of our posters. But I will say that we are fortunate to have members like Cavs, who posts so much rare footage of Wilt and other great players of the past. Same with the details provided by JLauber/Lazeruss, who I have little doubt from his posts, watched Wilt play in person. Agree with them or not, they certainly spark what can often be thought-provoking debate

Where the controversy starts is where to place Wilt and others in the modern context, given how long ago he played. When analyzing Wilt's actual playing ability/athletic ability, and the relative playing ability/athletic ability of his peers, the most authoritative source for me is actual game footage. Although it's limited, thanks to Cavs and others, we actually have a somewhat significant amount of video highlights and game footage, although regrettably Wilt's younger years are underrepresented. Second in priority, I do appreciate and consider anecdotal evidence of Wilt's play/athleticism, although such testimony must yield in my opinion to the actual physical evidence that we have, limited though it is. I do maintain a healthy amount of skepticism for anecdotal evidence, whether from the past or present day. Such evidence often, intentionally or not, becomes exaggerated, distorted, or just plain inaccurate.

It's like a tall tale I remember hearing of Jordan during his sophomore year at UNC. During a practice, he was supposed to have stolen the ball, driven the length of the court, jumped from the free throw line past two defenders, double pumped and dunked with two hands. As great as Jordan was, I do not believe this occurred. What probably happened was a monster dunk that then became a bit of an urban myth. Not to say every Wilt exploit is inaccurate, he was unquestionably a very big, strong, and athletic man. But I prefer to judge as much as possible on physical, rather than anecdotal evidence.

As to the question of whether Wilt could have played at 50. Perhaps on a limited basis. But as Lazeruss stated, he wouldn't have been the player he was. No one can be at that age. I saw a video on here, probably posted from Cavs, of Wilt dunking the ball at around 50. Cavs rightfully proclaims this an impressive feat given his age. I agree, but I remember also watching the video and noting how much more difficult in seemed for him to dunk and how it seemed he really could not get up very high at all. Not to say that he couldn't jump higher, but the man was human, not a demi-god. At age 50, neither Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Magic, Elgin, Bird, West, or any other great could ever play to the level of their prime, it's not humanly possible.

Oh and for the record, MJ dunked at age 50 too, and he's 7-8 inches shorter than Wilt. :)

It is not a big deal for me. A player of Wilt's height could dunk easy with 13-14 inch vertical on 10ft basket, which is nothing for a good conditioned 7th ft athlete in his 50s. A player of MJs size would need around 25 inches to dunk one handed. DrJ could dunk at 60.
And a player with Wilt's stature could rebound almost flat footed - just need to be in a good position for the rebound. The last is basketball ability. :)

[jongib369]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsz3wLZfwSo

Really wish he played in that game, would of been cool to see him and Thurmond go at it again

If they were on the same team it would of been comical

[jongib369]

I've followed these Wilt discussions on ISH for years with interest, even long before I joined. Let me say I find both the pro and con arguments to be intriguing and find some merit to both. I'm much older then most posters on ISH, but not old enough to have watched Wilt play, like several of our posters. But I will say that we are fortunate to have members like Cavs, who posts so much rare footage of Wilt and other great players of the past. Same with the details provided by JLauber/Lazeruss, who I have little doubt from his posts, watched Wilt play in person. Agree with them or not, they certainly spark what can often be thought-provoking debate

Where the controversy starts is where to place Wilt and others in the modern context, given how long ago he played. When analyzing Wilt's actual playing ability/athletic ability, and the relative playing ability/athletic ability of his peers, the most authoritative source for me is actual game footage. Although it's limited, thanks to Cavs and others, we actually have a somewhat significant amount of video highlights and game footage, although regrettably Wilt's younger years are underrepresented. Second in priority, I do appreciate and consider anecdotal evidence of Wilt's play/athleticism, although such testimony must yield in my opinion to the actual physical evidence that we have, limited though it is. I do maintain a healthy amount of skepticism for anecdotal evidence, whether from the past or present day. Such evidence often, intentionally or not, becomes exaggerated, distorted, or just plain inaccurate.

It's like a tall tale I remember hearing of Jordan during his sophomore year at UNC. During a practice, he was supposed to have stolen the ball, driven the length of the court, jumped from the free throw line past two defenders, double pumped and dunked with two hands. As great as Jordan was, I do not believe this occurred. What probably happened was a monster dunk that then became a bit of an urban myth. Not to say every Wilt exploit is inaccurate, he was unquestionably a very big, strong, and athletic man. But I prefer to judge as much as possible on physical, rather than anecdotal evidence.

As to the question of whether Wilt could have played at 50. Perhaps on a limited basis. But as Lazeruss stated, he wouldn't have been the player he was. No one can be at that age. I saw a video on here, probably posted from Cavs, of Wilt dunking the ball at around 50. Cavs rightfully proclaims this an impressive feat given his age. I agree, but I remember also watching the video and noting how much more difficult in seemed for him to dunk and how it seemed he really could not get up very high at all. Not to say that he couldn't jump higher, but the man was human, not a demi-god. At age 50, neither Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Magic, Elgin, Bird, West, or any other great could ever play to the level of their prime, it's not humanly possible.

Oh and for the record, MJ dunked at age 50 too, and he's 7-8 inches shorter than Wilt. :)
This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UbK5EMhJwg

[Psileas]

Just 1 play, but he looks pretty fine at the age of 44:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVTDO8JsZM#t=20s

[Mr Feeny]

Using that analogy...

MJ, ZERO rings without Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. And Kobe ZERO rings without Shaq, Gasol, and even Horry and Artest.

TEAM game.

Are you a complete idiot?
Giving an opinion is not the same thing as stating a fact.
MJ was 6 for 6 in NBA finals while Wilt was a serial choke artist going 2-6. That's a FACTS. Your d!ck slurping isn't going to change that.

Mr 18 ppg in NBA finals doesn't hold a candle to MJ, unfortunately. And most wouldn't have him top 5, Never mind GOAT.
:oldlol:

[Euroleague]

Why is it a shame? Did you want him to die on the court of a heart attack?

[coin24]

Lonely laz has gone full retard:lol

Time to move on, wilt hasn't played for about 40 years it's time to get a life:cheers:

[DaRkJaWs]

Why is it a shame? Did you want him to give Michael Jordan a heart attack?
Why yes, yes I did. Kill the "GOAT" before his "legend" could take off.

[deja vu]

Jordan would've shoved his balls on Wilt's face. :lol Wilt hasn't seen such athleticism back in his heydays.

[CavaliersFTW]

Jordan would've shoved his balls on Wilt's face. :lol Wilt hasn't seen such athleticism back in his heydays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uchAeIUAZco

Wilt dislocated this guys shoulder when he tried to dunk on him. He's as good a leaper as anyone and is actually a lot bigger and stronger than MJ. MJ would enter Wilt's domain at his own risk.

[DaRkJaWs]

Recent article on Wilt:

http://www.isportstimes.com/articles/11881/20141215/wilt-chamberlain-puts-stamp-game-basketball-renaissance.htm

From article:

One final issue that I want to tackle once and for all is the question who is the greatest basketball player of all-time? Besides Wilt the other most modern name mentioned is Michael Jordan. The current media for the most part has surrendered "The Greatest" title to Jordan. Claude Gross who saw Dip at his most athletic prime says that Chamberlain would beat Jordan in a one on one game because Dip was quick enough to stay with Jordan and could block his jump shots and his attempts to get to the basket. When Dip would have the ball he would just back him down with his super human strength and dunk on Jordan. Makes sense but we need more to close this subject out for all-time!
Let's have Wilt and Michael resolve the matter as it is said they actually did. The setting is at the introduction celebration of the top 50 NBA players of All-Time! The story is told that Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan and the other top 50 players were waiting in the wings as David Stern and the NBA is about to unveil their top 50 team. Wilt and Michael both have notorious reputations in their eras for not wanting to lose at anything. The two giants of the game are in the corner of the waiting room having a spirited debate on this very topic, who's the best of all-time? Neither one is giving an inch. David Stern comes in requesting all the players begin coming out to the platform where they were to be introduced and honored. Obviously, these two were not having a quiet conversation so everyone could hear. Stern came back to drive the players out of the waiting room to the platform he demanded. Most of the players adhered, but Chamberlain and Jordan would not quit. Finally David Stern came in for the last and final time announcing that he was starting the ceremony without you two! Wilt and Michael knew they need to bring this debate to an end. Then Wilt Chamberlain said these words to Michael Jordan; "When I played, all of the rules were made so it was harder for me to score and when you played all of the rules were changed to make it easier for you to score." Situation settled!


Alpha as ****, those two were. But goes to show you, the other 48 people in the room knew that the argument for best ever was really between those two, as nobody bothered to interrupt them and say they were both wrong.

[La Frescobaldi]

Of course it is different with different people and there is also exceptions as the one Lazeruss posted. And I am not saying that Wilt could not do it beyond his 40 or at 50. But he wouldn't be the player he was 15 years prior.

About George Foreman since I am a boxing fan also. Foreman who won the tittle 19 years after lose it to Ali in 1975 was not the same boxer he used to be. Prior to Ali match young Foreman was considered the strong favourite and because of his dismantling of Frazier most people believe that Foreman would just crushed Ali.
Although an old Foreman beated Moorer for the title he never boxed vs prime Tyson or Lennox Lewis and was defeated by Holyfield. I do not want to underestimate Foreman achievement - he was among the best heavyweghts in his 40s but not the best. He do not dominate opponents the way he dominate them prior to Ali match.
I am not saying that 40 is a "death sentence" age, it was estimation of sport doctors who was speaking strictly about physical abilities not about the skills or leadership. We all know that full-court pro-basketball is physically dimanding sport and most athletes start their physical decline after turning 30. Jordan in his last season with the Bulls (35) was not the Jordan in 1993 (30). Wilt was feeling extreemely tired after '73 Finals according to his own words and was already showing the age effects (that according to the press). The fact that he was able to play almost all the minutes in the postseason at 36 is more than prove for his durability and physical abilities, but it is not possible to imagine that he would average 30-35 minutes 15 years later.

George Foreman is the only heavyweight boxer of his era that could compete at the highest levels today.
Other guys like Ali, Frazier, Norton, Quarry, etc.... they were all way too small, outweighed by 35 or 40 lbs, outsized by 6 inches, out-reached by several inches compared to today's heavyweight champion-level boxers. I mean look at late career, paunchy,no-six-pack-abs-in-sight rumble in the jungle Ali ...... weighed 216 LMAO

Worse - much worse - if you watch film of them they clearly did not have any knockout punch whatsoever to compare with Haye, either Klitchko, nor Tyson ( closest to their size of the latter day greats). Not remotely. Foreman did have a sledge for a fist though.
It's amazing to me to go look back at Joe Frazier film today - having watched all those guys box during their days - and see how dinky his punches were, compared to that of any heavyweight contender today.

Now if they were cruiser weights, yeah, they'd be right up there because they were some of the all-time great boxers. But they were simply too small to compete in the 2000s.

This is vastly different from basketball, where player height/reach/speed has not changed in 50 years.
Of course skills are vastly higher, thanks to film, training camps, etc... but the raw material in the NBA is not different at the highest levels than it was in the mid-'60s.

[jongib369]

George Foreman is the only heavyweight boxer of his era that could compete at the highest levels today.
Other guys like Ali, Frazier, Norton, Quarry, etc.... they were all way too small, outweighed by 35 or 40 lbs, outsized by 6 inches, out-reached by several inches compared to today's heavyweight champion-level boxers. I mean look at late career, paunchy,no-six-pack-abs-in-sight rumble in the jungle Ali ...... weighed 216 LMAO

Worse - much worse - if you watch film of them they clearly did not have any knockout punch whatsoever to compare with Haye, either Klitchko, nor Tyson ( closest to their size of the latter day greats). Not remotely. Foreman did have a sledge for a fist though.
It's amazing to me to go look back at Joe Frazier film today - having watched all those guys box during their days - and see how dinky his punches were, compared to that of any heavyweight contender today.

Now if they were cruiser weights, yeah, they'd be right up there because they were some of the all-time great boxers. But they were simply too small to compete in the 2000s.

This is vastly different from basketball, where player height/reach/speed has not changed in 50 years.
Of course skills are vastly higher, thanks to film, training camps, etc... but the raw material in the NBA is not different at the highest levels than it was in the mid-'60s.
Can you name specifically what skills you think are higher?

[deja vu]

Wilt's ego would've taken a huge hit once Jordan posterizes him. He didn't like to get dunked on and I'm pretty sure MJ would dunk on him more than once. :lol

[jongib369]

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

Wilt dislocated this guys shoulder when he tried to dunk on him. He's as good a leaper as anyone and is actually a lot bigger and stronger than MJ. MJ would enter Wilt's domain at his own risk.
Are you talking as is or Guss potential strength because of being athletic and bigger?

[La Frescobaldi]

Wilt's ego would've taken a huge hit once Jordan posterizes him. He didn't like to get dunked on and I'm pretty sure MJ would dunk on him more than once. :lol
ask Magic Johnson about what happened when an ancient' 45 year old Wilt Chamberlain announced "there will be no more lay-ups in this gym."

[deja vu]

Heavyweight boxers nowadays are a bunch of lemons save for the Klitschkos. I don't know where you get the idea that Ali wouldn't hang with today's heavyweights. Dude was supremely skilled and he mauled prime Foreman and Frazier; I can see him dominating the bunch of lemons we see nowadays.

But then I realized that La Frescobaldi was being sarcastic. :lol

[deja vu]

ask Magic Johnson about what happened when an ancient' 45 year old Wilt Chamberlain announced "there will be no more lay-ups in this gym."
I can see old Wilt swatting some sissy layups but he ain't no blocking Jordan's dunks. Yeah he would try to take down MJ in mid-air but that's only because he wouldn't wanna be posterized and embarrassed.

[La Frescobaldi]

Can you name specifically what skills you think are higher?
In the NBA? The League is uniformly more skilled at footwork, passing, dribbling, off-ball movement.... just about every skills area except boxing out and rebounding. Team strategy is well-developed, psychology is better, coaching is immensely better.

I'm not talking about Earl Monroe or Connie Hawkins, or Wilt Chamberlain, see? I'm talking about as a whole here. Film changed everything, so did the grinding, desperate, sickly love of money, so did starting kids off at five or six. Of course there are guys in the League that started hoops in high school or whatevers man, but still. Take a look at JJ Barea compared to Don Ohl or even Sweet Lou Hudson. Obviously he had more training in his youth.
But if Lou had that same background, he'd be tearing it up somethin' fierce because dude was blistering fast, smart, and like a lethal missile on a court.

[La Frescobaldi]

Heavyweight boxers nowadays are a bunch of lemons save for the Klitschkos. I don't know where you get the idea that Ali wouldn't hang with today's heavyweights. Dude was supremely skilled and he mauled prime Foreman and Frazier; I can see him dominating the bunch of lemons we see nowadays.

But then I realized that La Frescobaldi was being sarcastic. :lol
No.

Ali would be way too small, way too out of shape to get in a ring with a heavyweight contender today. Don't confuse what the Klitschkos make these guys look like, with lemons. The contenders are immensely skilled but those Ukrainians are universal level great.
Ali? Absolutely skilled, quick, great footwork, and could compete at cruiserweight beyond question.

But if he got hit by a blunt force punch today his jaw wouldn't just break it'd go clear sideways and shatter. If he got in a heavyweight ring with those guys he'd have to run away even faster than he did against Frazier. But these guys wouldn't tire like Joe, and they don't have a feather fist like the vast majority of Ali's competition. His life would literally be in danger many, many rounds.
edit~ nor was that a prime Foreman, in fact George was probably poisoned before that fight look it up.

[La Frescobaldi]

I can see old Wilt swatting some sissy layups but he ain't no blocking Jordan's dunks. Yeah he would try to take down MJ in mid-air but that's only because he wouldn't wanna be posterized and embarrassed.
you truly don't know what you're talking about, my friend.

[DatAsh]

Boxers like George Foreman proved beyond shadow of a doubt, that some athletes you just can't put a number on.

Young Foreman would have would have killed old Foreman. Foreman showed the weakness of that era more than anything, or the strength of his era.

Nothing to do with Wilt btw, just wanted to comment on that as I remember it clearly.

[DaRkJaWs]

I can see old Wilt swatting some sissy layups but he ain't no blocking Jordan's dunks. Yeah he would try to take down MJ in mid-air but that's only because he wouldn't wanna be posterized and embarrassed.
:roll: :roll:

Love it when you people act like wilt was was short and had short arms. He'd destroy MJ at the rim at age 45...age 50 it's up in the air, because anything could have happened in a few short years. From what I could tell from looking at his history it's that he started to go downhill little by little once the 90s started. First his hip needed replaced in 91 or 92, then the irregular heartbeat and building up of fluid in his legs started to occur.

[Elosha]

Knowing Jordan, he'd be sure to strategically challenge Wilt at the rim at times and Wilt would certainly accept the challenge. Wilt would sometimes be able to block his shot, or force Jordan to change his shot from a dunk to a lay up. But Jordan had a lot of success dunking on formidable big men during his career and the notion that he would be completely incapable of dunking on Wilt is quite dubious. Jordan's got a big advantage in overall quickness and how fast he can get up. I have little doubt that there would be some dunks for Jordan and some blocks for Wilt.

[La Frescobaldi]

Young Foreman would have would have killed old Foreman. Foreman showed the weakness of that era more than anything, or the strength of his era.

Nothing to do with Wilt btw, just wanted to comment on that as I remember it clearly.
And we never actually saw Foreman's prime because he left boxing at like 28 or 29.

These young guys think Will Smith is Ali. They obviously never watched his fight film either.

He freaking ducked on Foreman, just like Wikipedia listed it off:

....."Ali also preferred to fight such lowly ranked opponents as Chuck Wepner, Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coopman, and Alfredo Evangelista."

he fought a whole bunch of chumps.

Foreman was the real deal tho

[deja vu]

:roll: :roll:

Love it when you people act like wilt was was short and had short arms. He'd destroy MJ at the rim at age 45...age 50 it's up in the air, because anything could have happened in a few short years. From what I could tell from looking at his history it's that he started to go downhill little by little once the 90s started. First his hip needed replaced in 91 or 92, then the irregular heartbeat and building up of fluid in his legs started to occur.
Wilt can jump high no doubt but you're crazy if you think Jordan can't dunk on Wilt. You think 45 year old Wilt was a better shotblocker than prime Motumbo, DRob, Hakeem, Zo that MJ dunked on? :lol I can even see MJ dunking on prime Wilt. Yeah he'd block some but Jordan had crazy quickness and elevation he'd catch Wilt off guard.

[CelticBaller]

A shame the mountain lion didn't get his rematch

[deja vu]

No.

Ali would be way too small, way too out of shape to get in a ring with a heavyweight contender today. Don't confuse what the Klitschkos make these guys look like, with lemons. The contenders are immensely skilled but those Ukrainians are universal level great.
Ali? Absolutely skilled, quick, great footwork, and could compete at cruiserweight beyond question.

But if he got hit by a blunt force punch today his jaw wouldn't just break it'd go clear sideways and shatter. If he got in a heavyweight ring with those guys he'd have to run away even faster than he did against Frazier. But these guys wouldn't tire like Joe, and they don't have a feather fist like the vast majority of Ali's competition. His life would literally be in danger many, many rounds.
edit~ nor was that a prime Foreman, in fact George was probably poisoned before that fight look it up.
This is so wrong on many levels. Just for the fact that Shavers was considered by many as the strongest puncher in boxing history.

Also David Haye was 210 pounds more or less and became heavyweight champion. :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

This is so wrong on many levels. Just for the fact that Shavers was considered by many as the strongest puncher in boxing history.

Also David Haye was 210 pounds more or less and became heavyweight champion. :lol
Shavers!! lol

dude got past Ken Norton, what else did he ever do? Nothing.
The guy was real strong... any boxer like that has a puncher's chance. No wide-awake, quality boxer is letting that happen, then, now, or ever.

Haye got a belt as a cruiser & a heavy but that belt was held by a weakling unlike other belts. And Haye promptly lost it to a bigger stronger guy.

[jongib369]

In the NBA? The League is uniformly more skilled at footwork, passing, dribbling, off-ball movement.... just about every skills area except boxing out and rebounding. Team strategy is well-developed, psychology is better, coaching is immensely better.

I'm not talking about Earl Monroe or Connie Hawkins, or Wilt Chamberlain, see? I'm talking about as a whole here. Film changed everything, so did the grinding, desperate, sickly love of money, so did starting kids off at five or six. Of course there are guys in the League that started hoops in high school or whatevers man, but still. Take a look at JJ Barea compared to Don Ohl or even Sweet Lou Hudson. Obviously he had more training in his youth.
But if Lou had that same background, he'd be tearing it up somethin' fierce because dude was blistering fast, smart, and like a lethal missile on a court.
So are you saying that JJ is a better player because of the tools he had to train? And that Hudson though not as good as JJ if he was "time travelled" would be superior had he had been brought up in the same environment? Maybe that wasn't the best comparison you could of made so if you'd rather use someone like Wilt VS Shaq as a better example go right ahead

Or that the 1967 76ers wouldn't beat a championship team of the last 20 years if they were time traveled due to things like strategy? (Like not having the 3 practiced or game planned)Along with the player training differences you mentioned.

You're one of the posters I "follow" in a sense, just trying to get an idea of how you directly compare them without the "If they had modern training" argument

[jongib369]

So are you saying that JJ is a better player because of the tools he had to train? And that Hudson though not as good as JJ if he was "time travelled" would be superior had he had been brought up in the same environment? Maybe that wasn't the best comparison you could of made so if you'd rather use someone like Wilt VS Shaq as a better example go right ahead

Or that the 1967 76ers wouldn't beat a championship team of the last 20 years if they were time traveled due to things like strategy? (Like not having the 3 practiced or game planned)Along with the player training differences you mentioned.

You're one of the posters I "follow" in a sense, just trying to get an idea of how you directly compare them without the "If they had modern training" argument
I feel like I've asked you this a couple of times so my bad if I have. Ill try to remember this time :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

So are you saying that JJ is a better player because of the tools he had to train? And that Hudson though not as good as JJ if he was "time travelled" would be superior had he had been brought up in the same environment? Maybe that wasn't the best comparison you could of made so if you'd rather use someone like Wilt VS Shaq as a better example go right ahead

Or that the 1967 76ers wouldn't beat a championship team of the last 20 years if they were time traveled due to things like strategy? (Like not having the 3 practiced or game planned)Along with the player training differences you mentioned.

You're one of the posters I "follow" in a sense, just trying to get an idea of how you directly compare them without the "If they had modern training" argument
Yes, I'm saying JJ is better trained. Vastly. Why is it not a good example? It's available to see at a glance of film. He's not a better athlete, not smarter, has no comparison to make in any physical terms; but he's infinitely better trained.

The 76ers? You're talking about one of the two or three greatest teams ever.... in terms of sheer physical ability quite likely the greatest.

But if you are talking about coaching strategy, there is no comparison in quality between Coach Hannum's primordial use of the triangle offense and P Jax' use of the exact same offense. Not only did Phil get to study film for 40 years, he played against that exact squad.

Look at the last couple of finals. The Heat had all the physical superiority in the world over the Spurs but the Spurs were always the better team with the better coach. The first series they couldn't overcome that physical superiority... the second time they literally destroyed Miami. Over time, over seasons, skills and teamwork and stacked benches and coaching excellence are going to win over teams even with a LeBron James or a Michael Jordan or a Wilt Chamberlain.

If skills and coaching and fundamentals did not improve over a half century, I would have despaired of basketball decades ago.

Help me understand what I'm missing here

[Asukal]

Yes, I'm saying JJ is better trained. Vastly. Why is it not a good example? It's available to see at a glance of film. He's not a better athlete, not smarter, has no comparison to make in any physical terms; but he's infinitely better trained.

The 76ers? You're talking about one of the two or three greatest teams ever.... in terms of sheer physical ability quite likely the greatest.

But if you are talking about coaching strategy, there is no comparison in quality between Coach Hannum's primordial use of the triangle offense and P Jax' use of the exact same offense. Not only did Phil get to study film for 40 years, he played against that exact squad.

Look at the last couple of finals. The Heat had all the physical superiority in the world over the Spurs but the Spurs were always the better team with the better coach. The first series they couldn't overcome that physical superiority... the second time they literally destroyed Miami. Over time, over seasons, skills and teamwork and stacked benches and coaching excellence are going to win over teams even with a LeBron James or a Michael Jordan or a Wilt Chamberlain.

If skills and coaching and fundamentals did not improve over a half century, I would have despaired of basketball decades ago.

Help me understand what I'm missing here

Except, this guy didn't lose in the finals. Don't lump him with those 2 chokers grandpa. :pimp:

[LAZERUSS]

Yes, I'm saying JJ is better trained. Vastly. Why is it not a good example? It's available to see at a glance of film. He's not a better athlete, not smarter, has no comparison to make in any physical terms; but he's infinitely better trained.

The 76ers? You're talking about one of the two or three greatest teams ever.... in terms of sheer physical ability quite likely the greatest.

But if you are talking about coaching strategy, there is no comparison in quality between Coach Hannum's primordial use of the triangle offense and P Jax' use of the exact same offense. Not only did Phil get to study film for 40 years, he played against that exact squad.

Look at the last couple of finals. The Heat had all the physical superiority in the world over the Spurs but the Spurs were always the better team with the better coach. The first series they couldn't overcome that physical superiority... the second time they literally destroyed Miami. Over time, over seasons, skills and teamwork and stacked benches and coaching excellence are going to win over teams even with a LeBron James or a Michael Jordan or a Wilt Chamberlain.

If skills and coaching and fundamentals did not improve over a half century, I would have despaired of basketball decades ago.

Help me understand what I'm missing here

You don't really believe that do, you?

Let me ask you some simple questions...

Last night a 38 year old Duncan easily outplayed the reigning DPOY, with a 48 minute effort of 23-16-5-3. Now, get in your DeLorean, drive back to 2003, pick up Timmy, and drive him right back to 2014. He doesn't have time to do anything, but run onto the floor for the Spurs. How does THAT Duncan do?

Three years ago Kevin Love easily led the NBA in rpg, at 15.2 rpg, and in 36 mpg. Pick him up a Rodman right before a game in 92-93, and drop him off with just enough time to take off his wedding dress, and put on a uniform, and have him play the entire 2010-11 season in Love's absence. What rebounding numbers does he put up?

Just last year Demarcus Cousins put up a 23-12 season, and in 32 mpg (and was doing even better this year before his illness.) As the new GM of the Kings, you trade Cousins off before this season starts, and you once again head back to the past, where you stop just before the 81-82 season, and pick up Moses Malone. You race back to the present, and Moses takes over at center, and plays his usual 40 mpg. What kind of numbers does THAT Moses put up THIS year, and against the current crop of (non)-CENTERs?

Think about this? How often does a CENTER, in TODAY's NBA, put up a 45 point game? Well, just a few years ago, in 2009, a shell of a Shaq, probably pushing 370 lbs, had one. But let's go back to 2001, when a more prime Shaq hung a 33-15 .560 Finals on DPOY Mutombo. Two questions here...one, how do think a prime Mutombo would fare in TODAY's NBA...and if you think h would do just fine...how do you think a 2001 Shaq would do? And then go back a year to a PEAK Shaq, and have him play 40 mpg on a nightly basis in TODAY's NBA.

In a topic a while back, you questioned my take that Zach Randolph is basically Willis Reed in today's NBA. Randolph just put up a 21-21 game last night, and just a few years ago, had hung a 24-10 season. Are you going to then tell me that a 68-69 Reed, fresh out of the DeLorean, wouldn't approach a prime Randolph?

And how about the Timberwolves? In the last few years they had the 6-3 Ricky Rubio guiding the team with his .357 shooting. And this year it is no better with a 6-4 Zach Lavine scoring 8 ppg on a .391 FG%. Now, just parachute a '77 Pistol Pete onto the court tomorrow night, and how does he perform? Would you prefer Rubio or Lavine?

Drop a '67, or even a '72 Thurmond into the current NBA, and does ANY center in today's NBA come close to their actual regular season scoring and FG%'s?

A prime Larry Bird? Would he be just another Tyler Hansborough today, or do you think he might do pretty well?

Look at the 6-0 Chris Paul, and drop a PRIME Magic onto the floor for the opposing team. Who do think would be considered the better player by the time the game was over?

Swoop in and pick up a '71 or '72 Kareem, and drop him off right onto the Sixers roster this Friday night. No time to prepare. How does he do against the Hornets? And how does he, and his Sixers do the rest of THIS season?

Take a '75 McAdoo right out of the box, put him on him on the Jazz, and what kind of numbers does he put up?

Drop a mid-60's Wilt right on top of Andre Drummond, and since Drummond would then miss the rest of the season in a coma, what kind of numbers does THAT Chamberlain put up? Especially when he is going to be asked to SCORE? How does a PRIME Wilt fare against an NBA that only has a handful of centers that are worth a damn?

How about Archibald, West, Frazier, Oscar, Lucas, Lanier, Cowens, Dr. J, Barry, Walton, McHale, Hakeem, and Gervin?

Again, no time to prepare. These guys will have to adjust as the season goes on.

Now ask yourself, all of those guys, and in their primes...do their numbers decline, and if so, by how much? If the decline is minimal, then what does that say about THEIR competition, and THEIR peers?

[La Frescobaldi]

Except, this guy didn't lose in the finals. Don't lump him with those 2 chokers grandpa. :pimp:
Jordan had his ass handed to him year after year and only ever won with stacked teams. He failed every year when in a great league and only thrived in a weakened expansion league.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Jordan had his ass handed to him year after year and only ever won with stacked teams. He failed every year when in a great league and only thrived in a weakened expansion league.
His stats were insane when he did lose

85 - 29/6/9 57ts
86 - 44/6/6 58ts
87 - 36/7/6 53ts
88 - 36/7/5 60ts
89 - 35/7/8 60ts
90 - 37/7/7 59ts

85-90 playoffs - 36/7/7 59ts :biggums:

Then when he gets a championship level supporting cast he goes 6/6 in championships when he played the whole season :applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

You don't really believe that do, you?

Let me ask you some simple questions...

Last night a 38 year old Duncan easily outplayed the reigning DPOY, with a 48 minute effort of 23-16-5-3. Now, get in your DeLorean, drive back to 2003, pick up Timmy, and drive him right back to 2014. He doesn't have time to do anything, but run onto the floor for the Spurs. How does THAT Duncan do?

Three years ago Kevin Love easily led the NBA in rpg, at 15.2 rpg, and in 36 mpg. Pick him up a Rodman right before a game in 92-93, and drop him off with just enough time to take off his wedding dress, and put on a uniform, and have him play the entire 2010-11 season in Love's absence. What rebounding numbers does he put up?

Just last year Demarcus Cousins put up a 23-12 season, and in 32 mpg (and was doing even better this year before his illness.) As the new GM of the Kings, you trade Cousins off before this season starts, and you once again head back to the past, where you stop just before the 81-82 season, and pick up Moses Malone. You race back to the present, and Moses takes over at center, and plays his usual 40 mpg. What kind of numbers does THAT Moses put up THIS year, and against the current crop of (non)-CENTERs?

Think about this? How often does a CENTER, in TODAY's NBA, put up a 45 point game? Well, just a few years ago, in 2009, a shell of a Shaq, probably pushing 370 lbs, had one. But let's go back to 2001, when a more prime Shaq hung a 33-15 .560 Finals on DPOY Mutombo. Two questions here...one, how do think a prime Mutombo would fare in TODAY's NBA...and if you think h would do just fine...how do you think a 2001 Shaq would do? And then go back a year to a PEAK Shaq, and have him play 40 mpg on a nightly basis in TODAY's NBA.

In a topic a while back, you questioned my take that Zach Randolph is basically Willis Reed in today's NBA. Randolph just put up a 21-21 game last night, and just a few years ago, had hung a 24-10 season. Are you going to then tell me that a 68-69 Reed, fresh out of the DeLorean, wouldn't approach a prime Randolph?

And how about the Timberwolves? In the last few years they had the 6-3 Ricky Rubio guiding the team with his .357 shooting. And this year it is no better with a 6-4 Zach Lavine scoring 8 ppg on a .391 FG%. Now, just parachute a '77 Pistol Pete onto the court tomorrow night, and how does he perform? Would you prefer Rubio or Lavine?

Drop a '67, or even a '72 Thurmond into the current NBA, and does ANY center in today's NBA come close to their actual regular season scoring and FG%'s?

A prime Larry Bird? Would he be just another Tyler Hansborough today, or do you think he might do pretty well?

Look at the 6-0 Chris Paul, and drop a PRIME Magic onto the floor for the opposing team. Who do think would be considered the better player by the time the game was over?

Swoop in and pick up a '71 or '72 Kareem, and drop him off right onto the Sixers roster this Friday night. No time to prepare. How does he do against the Hornets? And how does he, and his Sixers do the rest of THIS season?

Take a '75 McAdoo right out of the box, put him on him on the Jazz, and what kind of numbers does he put up?

Drop a mid-60's Wilt right on top of Andre Drummond, and since Drummond would then miss the rest of the season in a coma, what kind of numbers does THAT Chamberlain put up? Especially when he is going to be asked to SCORE? How does a PRIME Wilt fare against an NBA that only has a handful of centers that are worth a damn?

How about Archibald, West, Frazier, Oscar, Lucas, Lanier, Cowens, Dr. J, Barry, Walton, McHale, Hakeem, and Gervin?

Again, no time to prepare. These guys will have to adjust as the season goes on.

Now ask yourself, all of those guys, and in their primes...do their numbers decline, and if so, by how much? If the decline is minimal, then what does that say about THEIR competition, and THEIR peers?

you'll have to read the whole thread. I already mentioned "league as a whole" for a reason.
All time greats are going to be all time greats no matter what. You list off the very best players of an era like they are pocket change laying around on every street corner....
while I specifically talk about very strong but very definitely secondary level guys.

And yes, skills are higher, of course. Lucas doesn't shoot like Curry, man; but he would still completely destroy the League with his overwhelming abilities.

[LAZERUSS]

you'll have to read the whole thread. I already mentioned "league as a whole" for a reason.
All time greats are going to be all time greats no matter what. You list off the very best players of an era like they are pocket change laying around on every street corner....
while I specifically talk about very strong but very definitely secondary level guys.

And yes, skills are higher, of course. Lucas doesn't shoot like Curry, man; but he would still completely destroy the League with his overwhelming abilities.

I also asked you this...

If those "greats", and in their primes, that I mentioned, were to play in THIS era, how would their numbers translate? If you believe that there numbers would decline, how much? And if the decline is minimal, what does that say about THEIR competition, and THEIR peers?

For instance, how about a '75 McAdoo? The man played 43 mpg, averaged 35.4 ppg on a .512 FG% (and an .805 FT% BTW), in an NBA that averaged 102.6 ppg on an eFG% of .457.

Compare McAdoo's '75 season with just last year. Last season the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg, on an eFG% of .501.

Now, you tell me what kind of numbers that McAdoo would put up in THIS era.

[La Frescobaldi]

His stats were insane when he did lose

85 - 29/6/9 57ts
86 - 44/6/6 58ts
87 - 36/7/6 53ts
88 - 36/7/5 60ts
89 - 35/7/8 60ts
90 - 37/7/7 59ts

85-90 playoffs - 36/7/7 59ts :biggums:

Then when he gets a championship level supporting cast he goes 6/6 in championships when he played the whole season :applause:

Yeah dude was insane. Him and Kareem are only guys in Chamberlain's circle.

everybody else is on some lower level of existence from those three

[La Frescobaldi]

I also asked you this...

If those "greats", and in their primes, that I mentioned, were to play in THIS era, how would their numbers translate? If you believe that there numbers would decline, how much? And if the decline is minimal, what does that say about THEIR competition, and THEIR peers?

For instance, how about a '75 McAdoo? The man played 43 mpg, averaged 35.4 ppg on a .512 FG% (and an .805 FT% BTW), in an NBA that averaged 102.6 ppg on an eFG% of .457.

Compare McAdoo's '75 season with just last year. Last season the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg, on an eFG% of .501.

Now, you tell me what kind of numbers that McAdoo would put up in THIS era.
I have no idea.
The percentages of using the 3 shot vs. the 2 are so overwhelming that he may not get the ball often enough to show

[LAZERUSS]

I have no idea.
The percentages of using the 3 shot vs. the 2 are so overwhelming that he may not get the ball often enough to show

Or, he may have expanded his 20 ft range to 23 ft, and been another Durant.

[LAZERUSS]

you'll have to read the whole thread. I already mentioned "league as a whole" for a reason.
All time greats are going to be all time greats no matter what. You list off the very best players of an era like they are pocket change laying around on every street corner....
while I specifically talk about very strong but very definitely secondary level guys.

And yes, skills are higher, of course. Lucas doesn't shoot like Curry, man; but he would still completely destroy the League with his overwhelming abilities.

Take a look at the '67 Warriors, the '67 Lakers, the '67 Hawks, the '67 Royals, and the '67 Knicks, of which four of those five teams had losing records, and tell me with a straight face, that the "secondary" players on those doesn't compare to those of today.

For instance...Bob Love, Jon McGlocklin, and Flynn Robinson were basically riding the Royals bench. The Lakers had Gail Goodrich and Walt Hazard on their bench.

The reality is, you could go right down those rosters, and they were loaded with players who would have multiple 20+ ppg seasons.

[La Frescobaldi]

Or, he may have expanded his 20 ft range to 23 ft, and been another Durant.
McAdoo??

I dunno on that one......................

[La Frescobaldi]

Take a look at the '67 Warriors, the '67 Lakers, the '67 Hawks, the '67 Royals, and the '67 Knicks, of which four of those five teams had losing records, and tell me with a straight face, that the "secondary" players on those doesn't compare to those of today.

For instance...Bob Love, Jon McGlocklin, and Flynn Robinson were basically riding the Royals bench. The Lakers had Gail Goodrich and Walt Hazard on their bench.

The reality is, you could go right down those rosters, and they were loaded with players who would have multiple 20+ ppg seasons.

again. You are talking about raw talent. I am talking about teachable things.

[LAZERUSS]

again. You are talking about raw talent. I am talking about teachable things.

I just want to say that no matter how much we might disagree on some topics, I always respect your opinions. I never have a problem with those that back up their arguments with research, facts, and logic.

[Asukal]

I just want to say that no matter how much we might disagree on some topics, I always respect your opinions. I never have a problem with those that back up their arguments with research, facts, and logic.

30->22->18. FACT. But of course you have a problem with it. :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

30->22->18. FACT. But of course you have a problem with it. :rolleyes:

Certainly do.

Prime scoring Wilt...

33 ppg...and that is also missing a season in which he averaged 45 ppg. So the drop is from 38 down to 33. And, of course, in those 52 games, he faced RUSSELL and the Celtics in 30 of them, or 60%.

Again, MJ's scoring and efficiency DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY when he faced a prime "Bad Boys" team from '88-90.

Shaq's scoring and efficiency declined SIGNIFICANTLY when he faced the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 to '02.

And KAJ's scoring and efficiency FELL off the cliff when he faced Thurmond and Chamberlain in '71 thru '73.

BTW, Chamberlain just MURDERED his HOF OPPOSING centers in the entire decade of the 60's in his post-season series against them. And even in the 70's he wiped the floor with them on glass and in efficiency.

How come you never mention that Chamberlain not only considerably ELEVATED his rebounding in the post-season, but he SLAUGHTERED his HOF peers on the glass as well?

Oh, and in his SIX Finals, he murdered his opposing HOF centers on the glass, and outshot them from the field by a staggering .559 to .439 margin (in post-seasons that shot about .435 on average over his entire career.)

And his Finals career scoring "decline" was from 23 ppg all the way down to 19 ppg. Yes, in the seasons in which he reached the Finals, his overall scoring "decline" from his regular season numbers to the Finals, was 23 to 19. And he faced a HOF center in ALL SIX of them.

[Asukal]

Certainly do.

Prime scoring Wilt...

33 ppg...and that is also missing a season in which he averaged 45 ppg. So the drop is from 38 down to 33. And, of course, in those 52 games, he faced RUSSELL and the Celtics in 30 of them, or 60%.

Again, MJ's scoring and efficiency DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY when he faced a prime "Bad Boys" team from '88-90.

Shaq's scoring and efficiency declined SIGNIFICANTLY when he faced the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 to '02.

And KAJ's scoring and efficiency FELL off the cliff when he faced Thurmond and Chamberlain in '71 thru '73.

BTW, Chamberlain just MURDERED his HOF OPPOSING centers in the entire decade of the 60's in his post-season series against them. And even in the 70's he wiped the floor with them on glass and in efficiency.

How come you never mention that Chamberlain not only considerably ELEVATED his rebounding in the post-season, but he SLAUGHTERED his HOF peers on the glass as well?

Oh, and in his SIX Finals, he murdered his opposing HOF centers on the glass, and outshot them from the field by a staggering .559 to .439 margin (in post-seasons that shot about .435 on average over his entire career.)

And his Finals career scoring "decline" was from 23 ppg all the way down to 19 ppg. Yes, in the seasons in which he reached the Finals, his overall scoring "decline" from his regular season numbers to the Finals, was 23 to 19. And he faced a HOF center in ALL SIX of them.

The problem with your argument is you select individual games and series when I'm talking about overall career. You mention rebounding when the topic is PPG. Don't bother answering with your selected stats. :facepalm

I've never seen a stan more annoying than you. Kobe stans don't pretend, bran stans are just plain stupid, jordan stans can be annoying too, but you are on another level entirely. :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

The problem with your argument is you select individual games and series when I'm talking about overall career. You mention rebounding when the topic is PPG. Don't bother answering with your selected stats. :facepalm

I've never seen a stan more annoying than you. Kobe stans don't pretend, bran stans are just plain stupid, jordan stans can be annoying too, but you are on another level entirely. :rolleyes:


And the problem with "bashers" like yourself, is that you never use CONTEXT.

A prime "scoring" Chamberlain...(and then even to a "balanced" Wilt up thru '68)


Here are Chamberlain's AND his opposing center's scoring games in Wilt's PRIME from 59-60 thru 67-68...all 80 of them. BTW, Wilt played in 160 playoff games, and these were exactly half of them.

Incidently, Wilt' "scoring" prime was from 59-60 thru 65-66.

* denotes games against Russell
** denotes games against Thurmond
*** denotes games against Bellamy

Some other sidenotes:

1. Wilt averaged 30 ppg against Russell in the '60 EDF's, and on a .500 FG%, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .402.

2. Wilt outshot Russell from the field in the '62 ECF's, .468 to .399 (BTW, Russell shot .457 from the field against the NBA that year.)

3. Chamberlain shot .559 in the '64 WCF's (while scoring 38.6 ppg)

4. Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg, and outshot Russell from the floor by a .517 to .386 margin.

5. Wilt hung a STAGGRING seven-game series on Russell of 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and on a .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429) Oh, and Russell shot .451 against Wilt in the '65 playoffs (and .702 against LA in the Finals.)

6. Wilt shot .509 against Russell in the '66 ECF's (while averaging 28 ppg and 30.2 rpg)

7. Wilt outshot Russell in the '67 ECF's by a .556 to .358 margin.

8. Wilt outshot Thurmond in the '67 Finals by a .560 to .343 margin.

9. Wilt held Bellamy to .421 shooting in the '68 playoffs (Bellamy shot .541 against the league that season.) Meanwhile, all Wilt could do was average 26-20-7 .584 FG%.



Quote:

Prime "Scoring" Wilt

1. 35-5
2. 28-25
3. 53-7
4. 42-19 *
5. 29-15 *
6. 12-26 *
7. 24-17 *
8. 50-22 *
9. 26-25 *
10. 46-15
11. 32-12
12. 33-7
13. 32-9
14. 28-18
15. 40-14
16. 29-27
17. 56-20
18. 33-16 *
19. 42-9 *
20. 35-31 *
21. 41-31 *
22. 30-29 *
23. 32-19 *
24. 22-19 *
25. 37-24
26. 28-4
27. 46-22
28. 36-14
29. 50-6
30. 34-20
31. 39-10
32. 22-9 *
33. 32-9 *
34. 35-16 *
35. 27-8 *
36. 30-14 *
37. 26-18
38. 30-10
39. 17-16
40. 38-7
41. 33-11 *
42. 30-12 *
43. 24-19 *
44. 34-18 *
45. 30-12 *
46. 30-22 *
47. 30-15 *
48. 25-13 *
49. 23-10 *
50. 31-11 *
51. 15-18 *
52. 46-18 *


Wilt from 66-67 thru 67-68


53. 41-29
54. 37-21
55. 16-12
56. 18-8
57. 24-20 *
58. 15-14 *
59. 20-10 *
60. 20-9 *
61. 29-4 *
62. 16-24 **
63. 10-7 **
64. 26-17 **
65. 10-8 **
66. 20-17 **
67. 24-12 **
68. 37-14 ***
69. 24-26 ***
70. 18-22 ***
71. 23-28 ***
72. 26-11 ***
73. 25-19 ***
74. 33-11 *
75. 15-11 *
76. 23-13 *
77. 22-24 *
78. 28-8 *
79. 20-17 *
80. 14-12 *

Wilt outscored his opposing centers in 49 of his first 50 playoff games (and 50 of 52 in his "scoring" prime overall) MANY by HUGE margins.

Overall, in Wilt's first 80 playoff games, covering his PRIME years, he outscored his opposing starting center in 73 of them.

The Wilt who "declined" in the post-season...

Furthermore,

In Wilt's "scoring" prime, he averaged 37 ppg in his "must-win" games.

Of course, overall, in his "must-win" games...


12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points...which BTW, are the ONLY THREE by a "GOAT" candidate in NBA post-season history.

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

GOAT...

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Asukal]

And the problem with "bashers" like yourself, is that you never use CONTEXT.

A prime "scoring" Chamberlain...(and then even to a "balanced" Wilt up thru '68)



Furthermore,

In Wilt's "scoring" prime, he averaged 37 ppg in his "must-win" games.

Of course, overall, in his "must-win" games...



GOAT...

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Excuses excuses excuses.... :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

Excuses excuses excuses.... :rolleyes:


Excuses?

For being the best player in the vast majority of his 29 post-season series?

And in many he just CARPET-BOMBED his opposing HOF centers?

And CLEARLY the best rebounder, while playing GOAT-level defense against the likes of Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Russell,and especially on a peak Kareem?