Wilt the "Choker"

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!

Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!

We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.

Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.

Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.

Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.

A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.

Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

*This message is hidden because jlauber is on your ignore list. *

But since its easy to guess OP topic, few points :rolleyes:

1. Wilt wasnt a choker, just he was more inclined to get personal records than to win the rings.

2. Russell was ultimate winner, so even though they both had similar chance to win it all (Rus first half of their career, Wilt - 2nd half), Rus won almost 6x more rings, I think it says more than enough.

If you want spectacular individual performance you pick Wilt, if you want to win Championships, you pick Russell. There are many factors, but at the very core its that simple :sleeping

Nobody gives a **** about Wilt.

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

[QUOTE=jlauber]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." [B]In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time[/B]; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]

People will never consider him the greatest winners of all-time. He was consider more of a underachieve because of his talent. How can someone that dominant as much as he does, but could never win the championship? The reason is because it is a team sport. He was criticize because of his output, his stats, and points. It wasn't until he stop producing as many points did they win a title. This will always be something that will hang over Wilt's head.

He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA? Nobody consider him the best winner then, why should we consider him the best winner now? Team always beat individuals. Winning was never his record, it's individual dominance.

In fact, Jordan had the same treatment. They criticize him that NOBODY can win the NBA title leading the league in scoring and being the one man show. They wanted him to be more like Bird or Magic who pass the ball, decreasing their scoring output, and make their team better. The only person who lead the league in scoring and win the title was Kareem. It wasn't until the triangle system that Jordan ended up proving them wrong. Then later Shaq. Wilt never had that luxury.

The common people just think that Wilt was ahead of his time, care too much about stats than team production, when he concentrated on team production he couldn't get over the hump as much. His record doesn't argue against it in the main outcome, and that's what will the people will see.

Wilt was probably the best athletic freak that the NBA ever seen, unfortunately he could not dominant the NBA titles as much he can dominate the stats. That is the main concept of winning, and he could not do it because basketball is a team sport.

Wilt even wanted to quit the NBA because he could never win the title. Plus people nowdays think he never had the "killer instant". He never wanted to to completely destroy the opponent.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVV7DDY7B9A&feature=related#t=06m10s[/url]

People nowadays would say if Wilt had Russel mentality, Bird, or Jordan (nowadays) then Wilt would be more amazing.

But overall: Wilt just does not have the record of winning the titles. That is what people will see. People will think "This guy averaged this many points/rebounds/assists and he still couldn't win?" Wilt will never be consider as the best winner.

What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was [I]although[/I] the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE [i]has to be[/i] in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.

[quote=creepingdeath]What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was [I]although[/I] the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE [I]has to be[/I] in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.[/quote]

:applause:

[QUOTE=Andrei89]Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time[/QUOTE]
I would rep you if i could.

[QUOTE=Andrei89]Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time[/QUOTE]
Get out troll, the centers today are just terrible. How did we go from Wilt and Russsel, to Kareem, McAdoo, Bill Walton, Bob Lanier, and Willis Reed, to Moses Malone and Robert Parish, to Hakeem, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing, to Shaq and Duncan, to freaking Dwight Howard and Andrew Bogut? :facepalm

[QUOTE]He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]At KU, Chamberlain became a player for the Kansas Jayhawks freshman team under coach Phog Allen, whom he admired, and also a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc, where he was the president of his pledge class.[24] Announced as "looking lighter than his 240 pounds, [able to] reach 9'6" up in the air [flatfooted], and a [wingspan of] 7'2"", [B]his debut was highly anticipated, and he delivered: in Chamberlain's debut game for the freshman squad, the freshman Jayhawks were pitted against the varsity Jayhawks, who were favored to win their conference that year. Chamberlain dominated his older college mates by scoring 42 points (16

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

[QUOTE=ashlar]Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many good college teams today have a player like 6-9 260 lb Luke Jackson at PF, or 6-7 "Kangaroo" Billy Cunningam on the bench, along with players like Hal Greer and Chet Walker on their starting five? Oh, and BTW, a 7-1, 285 lb center that was a high-jump champion, a long-jumper, a sprinter, a powerful weight-lifter (perhaps as much as 500 lb. bench press) that could score from 15 ft. with a variety of post moves and shots.

[quote=ashlar]Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?[/quote]

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=PHILA]Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Thanks to PHILA...

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by PHILA
'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-1982



"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-1985




Wilt Chamberlain


1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 10 block game.
[/QUOTE]

[quote=ashlar]you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:[/quote]Russell's Celtics and Thurmond/Barry '67 Warriors go without saying as well.

You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.

I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?

[quote] For many years following Chamberlain's departure from the University of Kansas, critics claimed that he either wanted to leave the very white Midwest or [B]was embarrassed by [U]not being able to bring home the NCAA basketball tournament victory.[/U][/B] [/quote]

- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career[/url]

He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.

Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.

How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.

1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever

[QUOTE=ashlar]You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Of course, we know that Thurmond and Wilt outplayed Kareem at times in the 70's, and certainly limited him in their H2H matchups to a significant degree. He struggled to even hot 40% against Thurmond, and in his 28 H2H games against Wilt, he shot .464 (including only .434 in his last ten...while Chamberlain outshot him .637 to .450 in their last six regular season encounters.) We also know that in their only H2H encounter before Wilt's knee injury, that Chamberlain outscored Kareem, 25-23, outrebounded him, 25-20, outassisted him, 5-2, outblocked him, 3-2, and outshot him, 9-14 to 9-21.

And, we know that a 39 year old Kareem poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) against the likes of Hakeem. Or that Kareem, in that same post-season, had a couple of 30+ games againt Hakeem. Or that in his last three seasons against Hakeem, and all in his 40's, he outshot him, H2H, by a .567 to .475 margin. Or that Kareem, in that same '85-86 season, had a game against Ewing, in which he poured in 40 points, and held Ewing to 2-16 shooting. Or that over the course of his three years, and all at age 40+, he outshot Ewing, H2H, by a .551 to .483 margin, and nearly matched his scoring with a 16.5 ppg average to Patrick's 18.8.

We also know that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be among the best centers of the 90's, and that Hakeem played Shaq to a standstill in the '95 Finals.

[QUOTE=Micku]I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?



- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career[/url]

He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.

Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.

How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.

1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever[/QUOTE]

I wasn't declaring Wilt a better "winner" than Russell, or MJ, or Magic, or even Duncan. BUT, his team's probably won somewhere around 67% of their games, or more, in his CAREER. He played on 12 teams, in 14 seasons, that made it to the Conference Finals. He played on six conference champions. He played in six Finals. He played on four teams that won 60+ games. He played on four teams with the best record in the league. And he played on two record-setting teams that dominated en route to titles.

And, furthermore, how many "great" players have taken a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the eventual champion, that went 62-18, and had a 5-2 edge in HOFers?

He certainly wasn't the "loser" that so many like to depict him as.

BTW,

In Wilt's two title teams, he took his 68-13 76ers, and they completely destroyed a 60-21 Celtic team (with a 4-3 edge in HOFers), 4-1 (and nearly swept them, losing game four by four points), in a series in which Chamberlain just crushed Russell. That ended Boston's streak of eight titles in a row. Following that convincing romp, they pounded a Warrior team, 4-2, that had Barry and Thurmond (and Wilt buried him BTW, as well.)

Then, in the 71-72 season, Wilt took his 69-13 Lakers to a sweep of the 57-25 Bulls, a 4-2 win over the defending champion 63-19 Bucks, and a 4-1 blowout of a NY team that had FIVE HOFers.

[QUOTE=ashlar]You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]

The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.

[QUOTE=Psileas]The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.[/QUOTE]

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

[QUOTE=ashlar]You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).[/QUOTE]

You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours. About Lauber, honestly, I don't see him talking about all-time team matchups often. He mostly points out the inaccuracies told about Wilt (not always 100% objective, but then again, who is?), talks about Magic (a more modern player) and often criticizes Kareem and backs up his claims about Russell not being the individual player Wilt was. That's not overglorifying your era, that's mainly talking about it. Neither is overglorifying your era claiming that Russell would be way better today than what people who compare him to Ben Wallace think.
All superstars face weak competition compared to them. Raw stats depend mainly on the game's pace and the team structure. Guys like LeBron, Shaq, Jordan enjoy(-ed) freakishly better natural gifts than their average opponents. Like I said in another thread, for me, the only difference between most people watching Jordan dominate Ehlo and Wilt dominate Mel Counts is that most know who Ehlo was and don't know who Counts was. But the fact is, both were just weak competition (for Jordan's and Wilt's standards). You can't praise one's exploits while scoffing at the other's and not expect justified reactions from certain people.

[quote=Psileas]You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours. [/quote]
To be fair we have some excellent teams today. Miami Heat could definitely cause some matchup problems against the '67 team, and of course the Lakers are deep and loaded with talent. But it comes down inside muscle and rebounding. Sixers would dominate the boards by a staggering margin and pretty much control the middle, especially with Wilt playing 45 minutes per game & Luke Jackson ready to spell him the pivot for those brief periods he may be on the bench. Lakers are a big team with the top front court in the NBA today, yet they'd be small against behemoths like Wilt & Luke Jackson. Chet Walker & Billy C as well off the bench could rebound. Odom properly utilized could be a potential matchup problem. However as Pat Riley has said, "No rebounds, no rings." Of course Miami's interior weakness has been criticized as well. And this Sixers team had the best front court in NBA history and had strong and excellent defensive players at all positions that played well together.


[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8[/URL]

In the above video (0:15 mark) shows the versatility of a 6'10, 272 lb bull in Lucious Jackson, who was very potent under the board but also quick and mobile. It appears the '67 Sixers were excellent at this baseline action with the pivot man. All of their top players were quick and versatile.



[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/n5kgm8.jpg[/IMG]



Chamberlain was excellent at picking off (with the basketball in his possession) the smaller defensive man, forcing the switch right at the rim. You can see just how much better the ball and player movement was back then, before teams starting camping outside using the 3 point line to space the floor.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s[/URL]


Of course I would think this worked best with a lightning quick player like Hal Greer, who could shoot in the blink of an eye or pass off the Wilt for a dunk if the defense over committed.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s[/URL]


Another fine play between Wilt & Big O. :applause:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m34s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m34s[/URL]

It may hard for some to understand how the game was played before the 3 point line. Sixers had some great 1-1 players like Greer, Walker, & Cunningham, however Chamberlain would get the ball and [B]everything[/B] ran through him. He was their playmaker from the pivot.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s[/URL]

[QUOTE=PHILA]Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

notsureifserious....

[quote=branslowski]notsureifserious....[/quote]
Perhaps if you made some changes to the Lakers, they'd make it a more competitive series against the '67 team.

- Direct Bryant & Fisher toward the fountain of youth.

- Replace Gasol with a hardnosed mean inside player who can rebound, defend, & spot up. For instance Oakley, Ho Grant, Mo Lucas, etc.

-Replace Bynum with a top tier center at peak form (Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Olajuwon, etc).

[QUOTE=ashlar]You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).[/QUOTE]

Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.

If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.

The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.

You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?

[QUOTE=PHILA]Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?

[quote=alexandreben]a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?[/quote]

Not sure, here's another team photo with Wilt in the middle.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM#t=2m53s[/url]

[QUOTE=ashlar]You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).[/QUOTE]

I have been on record as saying the GENERALLY, the players of today in the three major sports (baseball, football, and basketball) are bigger, stronger, and faster. They are probably slightly more skilled as, well, because they have had previous generations of athletes from their particular sport to build upon.

However, aside from the fact that football players of today, are considerably bigger than those of 50 years ago (my god, we have 260 lb. quarterbacks today), almost every other area has, ...IMHO...only seen a SLIGHT increase.

Most uneducated posters here believe that Wilt was a stumbling frankenstein that dunked on helpless, nerdy, skinny, 6-6 white centers. Here are some interesting FACTS: One, the average starting center in Wilt's historic 1962 season was 6-10. In fact, in the following season, Wilt wasn't even the tallest player in the league (Swede Halbrook was 7-3...and barely on a roster.) The average starting center in Wilt's last season of 72-73, was 6-11. How about in 2010? 7-0. That is a whopping two inch increase in nearly 50 years. Not only that, but those that even use the height argument are overlooking,..Two, that there has never been a 7-3+ center to ever lead the league in rebounding. In fact, there have only been THREE 7-2 centers to lead the league in rebounding, in a TOTAL of FOUR seasons. If you take Wilt and his ELEVEN rebounding titles out of the discussion, there have been far more players at 6-10, or less, who have won rebounding titles. And you only need go back a few years when 6-7 Ben Wallace (that's right...6-7, NOT 6-9) won TWO rebounding titles in a row.

Ok, let's get back to my original point here, which is that the players of today are MARGINALLY better, on AVERAGE, than those of yesteryear.

If I were to tell you that a peak Babe Ruth would be a great player in TODAY's game, you, and perhaps the vast majority of this forum would probably laugh me off the board. How could that rotund, tooth-picked legged "athlete" be a GREAT player in TODAY's game?

This is where the "bridges" come in. Players like Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and Nolan Ryan.

Ted Williams is a good place to start. His career spanned FOUR decades. In his rookie season, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. In his LAST season, in 1960, he batted .316 with 29 HRs (in only 310 ABs.) Back to his rookie season. In his rookie year, Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. So, we know that Foxx was a better player, in 1939 than Williams was. And just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. In 1932 Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. In that same season, Ruth, at well past his prime, batted .341 with 41 HRs. And just five years prior, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, continuing...there were pitchers that Williams faced in 1939 that Foxx faced in 1938. There were also pitchers in 1932 that Foxx faced, that also pitched to Ruth in that season.

But wait...those players played before integration. There is no way they would have accomplished those numbers against the players post-1947. Hmmm...interesting point...except that Williams batted .406 in 1941 (pre-integration), and then, in 1957, he batted .388 (with 38 HRs in 420 ABs)...or POST-integration.

In that 1957 season, Mickey Mantle batted .365 with 34 HRs. Just the year prior, in 1956, Mantle batted .356 with 52 HRs. And just the year before that, in 1955, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Why is that significant you ask? Those players not only faced many of the same pitchers in the decade of the 50's, they also faced pitchers who pitched in the 40's, and pitcher's who would pitch in the 60's. Incidently, I will get back to Mantle a little later, but for now, let's go with Mays. Mays had a long career. Once again, in 1955, he hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, he hit 52. So, his great seasons lasted for many years. How about Aaron? In 1957 he hit 44 HRs. In 1973, and well past his peak, he hit 40 in 392 ABs. He faced pitchers like Robin Roberts, Warren Spahn, Don Newcombe, and many other great hurlers in the 50's. He also faced Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, and Seaver in the 60's. And, in the 70's, he faced Carlton, Palmer, and even Ryan.

Ryan is the next "bridge." He pitched for 27 years, and in FOUR decades. In the early 70's, he was clocked (by a SLOW radar gun) at 101 MPH, in the eighth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. His very LAST pitch, in the early 90's, and on an injured arm, was clocked at 98!

BTW, I mentioned a SLOW gun. Here is an interesting article about Ryan's speed... and it might actually have been as high as 108 MPH...

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

Oh, and BTW, how about the name of Steve Dalkowski? He never made it the major's, but he was pitching in the 1950's and 60's. Just take a moment and read this article...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Dalkowski[/url]

[QUOTE]Estimates of Dalkowski's top pitching speed abound. Cal Ripken Sr. guessed that he threw up to 115 miles per hour (185 km/h).[18[/QUOTE]

Back to Ryan. While we know that Ryan was a great pitcher, and for many years, he was seldom the best in his era. There were spectacular seasons turned in by Ron Guidry and Doc Gooden, among others. Furthermore, as hard as Ryan threw (and he may have been the fastes of all time), there were MANY pitchers that threw hard long before him. Koufax reportedly was clocked at 98 MPH in the mid-60's...and after he had SLOWED down his fastball to control it. Back in the 30's and 40's, Bob Feller was throwing nearly 100 MPH. And, think about this...as hard as Feller was throwing, hw didn't have the K/9 IP that many of the pitchers of today do. In other words, even with his blinding fastball, the players of his era were hitting him. Before him it was rumored that Walter Johnson was probably close to 100 MPH in the "dead ball" era.

Ok, so we have basically covered the Williams thru the Ryan eras...or from the 30's thru the 90's...and there were MANY great players. Williams was certainly among the best, but he played against guys like Aaron, Mays, and Mantle...all of whom were as great, or nearly as great.

We have covered the hard-throwers, but how about the power-hitters? Certainly the players of TODAY hit the ball much farther, right? I recall reading an article in SI about five years ago. The writer claimed that Barry Bonds' LONGEST measured HR was 490 ft. Interesting...Reggie Jackson's HR in the '71 All-Star game may have still been rising at that distance. BTW, Jackson would clear that wall in 1984. Lou Brock, of all people, hit a HR in the Polo Grounds that cleared the 505 ft. sign. Furthermore, there were many power hitters that were hitting tape measure shots back then. 6-8 250 lb. Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell to name just a few.

But the most powerful HR hitter of all-time? I will submit a player that was all of 5-11, and 195 lbs. Not only that, but he was hitting "tape measure" HRs from BOTH sides of the plate. In fact, the term "tape measure home runs" was coined after him.

Mickey Mantle hit MANY HRs over 500 ft.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mantle[/url]

[QUOTE]Mantle also hit some of the longest home runs in Major League history. On September 10, 1960, he hit a ball left-handed that cleared the right-field roof at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and, based on where it was found, was estimated years later by historian Mark Gallagher to have traveled 643 feet (196 m). Another Mantle homer, hit right-handed off Chuck Stobbs at Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1953, was measured by Yankees traveling secretary Red Patterson (hence the term "tape-measure home run") to have traveled 565 feet (172 m). Though it is apparent that they are actually the distances where the balls ended up after bouncing several times,[4] there is no doubt that they both landed more than 500 feet (152 m) from home plate. Mantle twice hit balls off the third-deck facade at Yankee Stadium, nearly becoming the only player (along with Negro Leagues star Josh Gibson, though Gibson's home run has never been conclusively verified) to hit a fair ball out of the stadium during a game. On May 22, 1963, against Kansas City's Bill Fischer, Mantle hit a ball that fellow players and fans claimed was still rising when it hit the 110-foot (34 m) high facade, then caromed back onto the playing field. It was later estimated by some that the ball could have traveled 620 feet (190 m) had it not been blocked by the ornate and distinctive facade. While physicists might question those estimates, on August 12, 1964, he hit one whose distance was undoubted: a center field drive that cleared the 22-foot (6.7 m) batter's eye screen, beyond the 461-foot (141 m) marker at the Stadium.

[/QUOTE]

As amazing as those numbers are, how about this link...

[url]http://www.themick.com/10homers.html[/url]

Ok, now, after all of that, is it still laughable to presume that Babe Ruth would be a GREAT player today? Incidently, Ruth reportedly swung a 42 ounce bat. Try to swing one if you can even find one. Furthermore, can you imagine what players of yesteryear could accomplish with all of the benefits of modern technology.

Now, we have covered baseball...on to football...

Continuing...

I already admitted that the average football player of TODAY, is considerably bigger than those of 50+ years ago. And I will be the first to admit that the AVERAGE NFL player of today is faster than those of 20-30-40-50 years ago. However, are TODAY's football players the fastest?

Let's start with another "bridge." Darrell Green played from 1983 to 2002. At his fastest, he was clocked at 10.08 in the 100 meters. Remember that number. Now, you can dispute hand-held 40 yard times if you like, but Green had some downright ridiculous one's. There was even one at 4.09. In any case, Green won the "NFL's fastest man" competition FOUR times. Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35.

How about Bo Jackson in the 80's, He was a WORLD-CLASS 60 meter man. AND, he has the fastest recorded time at the NFL combine ever, of 4.13.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Jackson[/url]

[QUOTE]he won the 1985 Heisman Trophy, the prize annually awarded to the most outstanding collegiate football player in the United States. He also reportedly ran a hand-timed 4.13 40 yard dash, still considered the fastest verifiable 40 time at an NFL Combine.[/QUOTE]

Deion Sanders was timed at 4.18 in the 40.

Before him, there was Hershel Walker, who reportedly ran a 10.1 100 meters in the early 80's. And before him were players like Cliff Branch and Mel Gray who were running 9.2 100 yard dash times (or probably around 10.2 in the 100 meters.) Back in the 60's OJ Simpson was part of USC's STILL world-record holding 4x100 yard relay team (I know, it is a little deceptive, since there have been teams in the last few years that ran a faster 4x100 meters.) In any case, OJ was a 9.3 or 9.4 sprinter in the 100 yards. And, players like Henry Childs and Travis Williams were running 9.3's in the 60's as well.

However, the FASTEST NFL player EVER? I will submit Bob Hayes, who played in the 60's, and was a LEGITIMATE HOF NFL player. (My god, the man AVERAGED 42 yards on his 76 career TD's.) He ran a 10.0 100 meters in the mid-60's! There has NEVER been a LEGITIMATE NFL player (not some two-bit track star that got cut, but legitimate) who has run a faster 100 meters.

Furthermore, as big as the players of today are, there were huge athletes back in the 60's. Buck Buchanon was 6-9 285 lbs. Ernie Ladd was over 300 lbs. And how about Jim Brown, who was 6-2 and 230 lbs back then (and a 9.6 sprinter)?

Ok, that was a much more brief look at the football players of today, compared to those of yesteryear...

Next up, basketball. But it will be a little later...I have to run for now...

[QUOTE] Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gWL-Oafx2w[/url]

He ran a 4.2 at age 40 and 4.4 at age 50 this year. :applause:

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

[QUOTE=aau]"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .[/QUOTE]

Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.

[QUOTE=aau]"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .[/QUOTE]

Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1[/url]

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw[/url]

But, back to that that list...

[url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR[/url]

[QUOTE]Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:
Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:
Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

[/QUOTE]

Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...

I would say Wilt had a slightly greater physical advantage over his competition than guys like Shaq and Kareem. Kareem's advantage was part tactical and part physical in that he had a shot that could never be blocked by a man unless he was near or over 7'0" and had great athleticism and timing. Shaq's was pure power, but in his era there was a greater emphasis on bulk and weight lifting which resulted in more 240-260 post players than in the 1970's and 60's when most 4's were 210-225 and 5's 220-245.

Still all three have one common characteristic and that is that officials allowed players to foul these three on every possession essentially just to make it "fair".

Still the notion that Wilt or any player from the post-shot clock era dominated an NBA filed with 6'7" white stiffs is so far from the truth or anything resembling it, it should just be ignored.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.[/QUOTE]
no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out

To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.

Flash forward to 2008 and 30 teams.

The only guys who would be of any significant offensive threat to him would be Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire and Tim Duncan. Actually, you can probably look at Al Jefferson and Andrew Bynum, as well as Chris Kaman.
[/I][/LEFT]

But Amare certainly doesn't stand a chance at defending Wilt; remember, this is a guy who gets ruined by Rasheed Wallace, he's not actually a competent defender 4 out of 5 nights. Kaman doesn't stand a chance either and his offense would be problematic against someone with the sort of size and mobility possessed by Wilt. And Bynum... is unproven as a primary option, heavily reliant on the triangle action and playing off Kobe. How he'd react to someone larger, stronger and a lot more athletic than he would be interesting.

So sticking with that first list, the guys that posed some notable threat to Wilt make a list 4 long, 6 if you're generous. That means you're looking at about 13-20% as your proportion for competitive players.