Karl Malone > Charles Barkley

[Im Still Ballin]

Title.

[starface]

:lebronamazed:

[Micku]

:lebronamazed:

[Mr. Woke]

Obviously.

Barkley gets overrated because he is on TNT nowadays.

[Axe]

I concur.

[SATAN]

Barkley was a machine in his prime and very unique. I hate these comparisons. Give us some substance. Or is trolling OG RoundMound the new thing or something? I enjoy his posts.

[starface]

:lebronamazed:

[Proctor]

Barkley was a machine in his prime and very unique. I hate these comparisons. Give us some substance. Or is trolling OG RoundMound the new thing or something? I enjoy his posts.

That's your answer. And it's never worked. :oldlol:

Back to Turbo Slayer for virgin OP

[AussieSteve]

OP makes this thread periodically to get a response.

Everyone knows... Barkley > Malone, but Malone's career was clearly better. Hence Malone may be higher on a goat list depending on your criteria.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It's debatable. Barkley was definitely better prime for prime but if you want to go off purely off career value you can certainly take malone.

[Micku]

Yeah, you can flip a coin. I think they are on the same tier.

Barkley in his prime and peak was better offensively and I think a better player. But KM has the longevity.

So, it's whatever.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Title.

Bro btw, can I get an invite to the LeBron Family Group?

[TheGoatest]

Karl Malone is probably the most boring all-time great to watch. I want to say Barkley was better so bad, but 13K more career points, 2.5K more career rebounds and 1K more career assists is one hell of a tier-breaker in favor of Malone. Also, he has 4 all-defense selections (3 first), whereas Barkley doesn't have a single one.

Barkley was the better playoff performer, but considering he didn't win any championships, certainly not enough to make up the difference between Malone's clearly greater regular season accomplishments.

It's a shame that Barkley choked in 1997 when they met in the playoffs. The Rockets lost that series because of Barkley.

[Phoenix]

No.

[Roundball_Rock]

Career wise because his longevity crushes Barkley's (or anyone's not named KAJ or LeBron) but prime vs. prime and peak vs. peak Barkley was better.

[Wally450]

Obviously.

Barkley gets overrated because he is on TNT nowadays.

If anything he's underrated. Most basketball fans never saw Chuck play. People associate how they are as TV analysts and combine it with their playing days. They say that X player sucks because he's a bad analyst. Chuck was a monster in his playing days.

More recent example would be Paul Pierce. Awful analyst but was a great player in his day.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Two great players without rings, then whoever went to finals more often than the other wins the comparison. Runner-ups are negative for those who've won titles, but are definitely positive for those who havent ever won at all.

[Phoenix]

Obviously.

Barkley gets overrated because he is on TNT nowadays.

No he doesn't. Around 90 the general idea was Charles was right after MJ and Magic. Hell there were some Philly-Bulls games where Barkley looked like the best player on the floor at times.

Nobody was putting Mailman in that conversation back then.

[Im Still Ballin]

Bro btw, can I get an invite to the LeBron Family Group?

https://i.ibb.co/3yymybv/wwww.png

Jeff edited the settings

Can't add anyone

The group was made before he locked everything up

[light]

Obviously.

Barkley gets overrated because he is on TNT nowadays.

That's not the reason.

In the late 80's the consensus was that Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan belonged in their own group as superstars who carry their teams single handedly to such an extent (this was a time when Jordan's teammates - even Pippen - were still being referred to as The Jordanaires). Charles was also very entertaining to watch, being an endearing combination of aggressive, arrogant, rash and funny. Barkley's reputation has remained high since that time.

His selection to the Dream Team and the fact that he led the Dream Team in scoring didn't surprise anyone. His MVP season in 1993 only validated the public's existing high opinion of him as a basketball player. In fact, I'd argue that we (the people) thought so highly of Barkley that we were eager to give him the MVP in 1993. The idea made us smile.

[Mr. Woke]

If anything he's underrated. Most basketball fans never saw Chuck play. People associate how they are as TV analysts and combine it with their playing days. They say that X player sucks because he's a bad analyst. Chuck was a monster in his playing days.

More recent example would be Paul Pierce. Awful analyst but was a great player in his day.

Nope, he is overrated. He wasn't better than Malone.

[Mr. Woke]

No he doesn't. Around 90 the general idea was Charles was right after MJ and Magic. Hell there were some Philly-Bulls games where Barkley looked like the best player on the floor at times.

Nobody was putting Mailman in that conversation back then.

Malone was better.

[Mr. Woke]

That's not the reason.

In the late 80's the consensus was that Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan belonged in their own group as superstars who carry their teams single handedly to such an extent (this was a time when Jordan's teammates - even Pippen - were still being referred to as The Jordanaires). Charles was also very entertaining to watch, being an endearing combination of aggressive, arrogant, rash and funny. Barkley's reputation has remained high since that time.

His selection to the Dream Team and the fact that he led the Dream Team in scoring didn't surprise anyone. His MVP season in 1993 only validated the public's existing high opinion of him as a basketball player. In fact, I'd argue that we (the people) thought so highly of Barkley that we were eager to give him the MVP in 1993. The idea made us smile.

I have never thought that highly of Barkley. He doesn't do anything for me.

Malone was better.

[Round Mound]

Kind of gets boring to discuss this but we all know (ones who saw both of them) know prime & peak Barkley > Malone. Malone had a better career do to weight tranining, longevity and has cumulative numbers but Barkley was the better player. Kinda of like the MJ vs Lebron comparrison. Lebron will have better cumulative stats and better longevity but as far as dominance MJ > Lebron. Same with Barkley > Malone in terms of dominance. As someone mentioned Barkley in his prime and peak would take scrubs to wins one his own while Malone relied on Stockton Sloan System pick and rolls. BTW...Barkley was not very much liked by the media in his prime before joining the Suns reason to why he was robbed from the 1990 MVP. He was clearly the most valuable player relative to level of teamates and wins for his team. He did get the MVP in 1993 but Hakeem actually deserved that one over Barkley. I guess Chuck won that MVP do to prestige as him being along side Jordan the few players that could carry teams on their own. Barkley was a more efficient player than Malone, a better play-off performer, a better clutch performer, a better scorer, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better floor defender and stealer, a better shot blocker, a better ballhandler, a better post player, a better coast to coast player, a better slasher, had more moves, more skill etc. Malone was a better 1 on 1 defender and ft shooter. Thats about it. If you like accolades and longevity then put Malone over Barkley. If you watched them both and measure just level of play, you go with Barkley.

[Ben Simmons]

Malone in terms of career and longevity.

Barkley in terms of peak

[tanibanana]

We rank players according to "all" factors there is in their career. So, Malone is ahead of Barkley.
We don't use "only" peak of their prime comparing players. Just like Chris Paul will be ranked higher than Westbrook, Havlicek is ranked higher than Baylor, etc.

[dankok8]

I think in terms of peak it can go either way. Malone was a way better defender than Chuck and this seems to get lost in the shuffle. Although I will say that Malone did benefit a lot from Stockton feeding him for easy buckets.

[Reggie43]

Its a shame that nobody is a dedicated fan of Malone in this site because he was really really good. Barkley is not inarguably better than a guy who gave you 30 pts 12 rebs 3asts 1.5 spg 1 bpg on around 54fg% for his peak/prime while giving much better defensive effort.

I like how fundamentally sound he is and his blue collar work ethic but the only reason I rooted for him is I wanted the Jazz to beat the Bulls those Finals years.

[Round Mound]

So you wan't to go with numbers:

Barkley vs Malone in the Play-Offs

23.0 PPG on 51.3% FG (Shot 55.13% Two-Point FG% at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG), 12.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.6 SPG & 0.9 BPG

25.0 PPG on 46.3% FG (Shot 46.6% Two-Point FG% at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG), 10.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.3 SPG & 0.7 BPG

[Reggie43]

So you wan't to go with numbers:

Barkley vs Malone in the Play-Offs

23.0 PPG on 51.3% FG (Shot 55.13% Two-Point FG% at 22.5 PPG on 14.5 ...Two-Point FGAs PG), 12.9 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.6 SPG & 0.9 BPG

25.0 PPG on 46.3% FG (Shot 46.6% Two-Point FG% at 24.6 PPG on 19.3...Two-Point FGAs PG), 10.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.3 SPG & 0.7 BPG


How about regular season totals/per game? What does their head to head numbers look like? Does your numbers show how good they were defensively?

Like a few posters said this is basically a wash and it would be hard to prove that one is inarguably better than the other because they had different types of skillsets, strengths, weaknesses, situations etc. unless you only talk about one side of the ball.

[1987_Lakers]

I think in terms of peak it can go either way. Malone was a way better defender than Chuck and this seems to get lost in the shuffle. Although I will say that Malone did benefit a lot from Stockton feeding him for easy buckets.

Malone wasn't some sort of defensive monster by any means, great low post defender, but he wasn't a rim protector and didn't guard multiple positions like someone like KG. His defensive impact was limited, Malone's edge on defense isn't enough for me to choose him over Barkley if we are talking peaks.

[Round Mound]

How about regular season totals/per game? What does their head to head numbers look like? Does your numbers show how good they were defensively?

Like a few posters said this is basically a wash and it would be hard to prove that one is inarguably better than the other because they had different types of skillsets, strengths, weaknesses, situations etc. unless you only talk about one side of the ball.

Season numbers are all pretty much the same but the gap of 2-Point FG% between Barkley and Malone's isn't as far stretched like it is in their play-off numbers

Head to Head? Malone has the edge career wise if you include role player Barkley passed his prime, overweight and injured with the Rockets.

Barkley in Philadelphia and Phoneix Head to Head is pretty much as good as Malone's ages 23-32: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?135370-Charles-Barkley-vs-Malone-(In-Their-Primes-ages-23-32-Head-to-Head)

I wonder what other broken down stats suggests regarding the Barkley vs Malone debate (PER, VORP, Plus/Minus etc) but i think Barkley has the edge their too. Especially in the play-offs and finals.

Barkley was a lazy defender but when he was pissed and concentrated he was pretty good (he had a game of 7 steals vs the Spurs in the 93 play-offs). He was a better shot blocker than Malone in their primes. Lets remember that when Barkley had a good center (Moses) with him he ranked 7th in defensive rating. Malone not only had the best creator of offense ever in Stockton desiging part of his scoring but he also had for 8-9 years, the best rim protector-shot blocker and twice defensive player of the year in Mark Eaton

Broken Down Stats and Analytics all suggest Barkley > Malone.

Malone has the longevity and cumulative stats but that has nothing to do with being a better player.

[Reggie43]

Whats the excuse when Eaton retired and the Jazz were still a good defensive team? Cherry picking a random good defensive game doesnt really help and the "when motivated" logic is a poor excuse.

Malone was 4x all defense and 3x he was the best defender at his position in the whole nba. He was his teams defensive anchor the years when they were most successful so i cant really see how you can diminish that.

[Round Mound]

Whats the excuse when Eaton retired and the Jazz were still a good defensive team? Cherry picking a random good defensive game doesnt really help and the "when motivated" logic is a poor excuse.

Malone was 4x all defense and 3x he was the best defender at his position in the whole nba. He was his teams defensive anchor the years when they were most successful so i cant really see how you can diminish that.

Barkley was a better floor defender, team defender, stealer and shot blocker than Malone in their primes. I´ve never seen Malone block people straight up off two legs without much of a running start, while i've seen Barkley do it on forwards and centers. Malone could rest with Eaton by his side on the defensive end and also on the offensive end he was asured with Stockton. Much more help while Barkley had to do more things and could do more things than Malone without Stockton.

Analytics and Broken Down stats also suggest Barkley > Malone. All he has on Barkley is longevity and cumulative numbers.

[Reggie43]

Guess you dont have any excuse on Malone's defensive success when Eaton retired and instead listed how much better Barkley was in certain aspects of defense and not talking about their actual impact in total.

The point im trying to make is they are both great and you cant go wrong choosing either player but I guess I cant convince someone who thinks Malone's only edge is longevity and cumulative stats so we just have to agree to disagree.

[Round Mound]

Guess you dont have any excuse on Malone's defensive success when Eaton retired and instead listed how much better Barkley was in certain aspects of defense and not talking about their actual impact in total.

The point im trying to make is they are both great and you cant go wrong choosing either player but I guess I cant convince someone who thinks Malone's only edge is longevity and cumulative stats so we just have to agree to disagree.

Nope i do give Malone the edge in 1 on 1 defense in the post and he was also a harder worker reason to why he was a better ft shooter . I give the edge to Barkley as a team defender, stealer and shot blocker though. The rest of the skills apart from mid range (they where both great) post moves, ballhandling, rebounding, assisting, creating offense, slashing, clutch shooting and performances, going coast to coast, b-ball iq etc goes to Barkley. And that cannot be denied.

[dankok8]

Malone wasn't some sort of defensive monster by any means, great low post defender, but he wasn't a rim protector and didn't guard multiple positions like someone like KG. His defensive impact was limited, Malone's edge on defense isn't enough for me to choose him over Barkley if we are talking peaks.

For me it might be enough because Barkley was at times a defensive liability.

[Phoenix]

Malone was better.

Nah.

[pandiani17]

It's debatable. Barkley was definitely better prime for prime but if you want to go off purely off career value you can certainly take malone.

I didn't see them play in their prime, but that's the answer I've read most in this debate that turns up from time to time. Barkely had a better prime and Malone a better and longer career.

[MadDog]

Prime Barkley>Malone. Don't think Malone's defense had the impact other bigs did (Rodman, Ewing, Hakeem, Mutombo etc) to offset Barkley's clear edge on offense.

[Smoke117]

Karl Malone has to be the most underrated all time great. You can't leave this guy out of the top 20, but the way people talk about him you'd think he was Derrick Coleman or something. This black redneck was still a ****ing superstar in 2000 when he was 36 years old. Put some respect on his name.