Printable View
[QUOTE]He can jump 24 inches straight up[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article3.html[/url]
Certainly doesn't sound like the athletic freak we've heard so much about. He also had only a 7'2 wingspan which is pretty surprising. And 225lbs is just embarassing. Shaq weighed something like 310lbs at the same age with 10x the athleticism.
For comparison, Shaq had a 7'7 wingspan and 36 vertical.
Huh? :confusedshrug:
:sleeping
And this changes.... what?
in before all the old timer defenders
Saying he can jump 2 feet just shows the standards they had then...doesnt mean its all he could do. Half of ISH can jump 24 inches im sure. But half of ISH isnt getting up enough to be an NCAA highjump champ as a hobby or to long jump 22 feet as he has proven capable of.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/images/nba/1999/chamberlain/wilt2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.explorepahistory.com/images/ExplorePAHistory-a0l0v1-a_349.jpg[/IMG]
That is not a man with a 24 inch vertical.
[QUOTE=Bobe Kryant][url]http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article3.html[/url]
Certainly doesn't sound like the athletic freak we've heard so much about. He also had only a 7'2 wingspan which is pretty surprising. Some swingmen are longer than that in the modern game (Rudy Gay, Mcgrady, Durant etc), let alone C's. And 225lbs is just embarassing. Shaq weighed something like 310lbs at the same age with 10x the athleticism.
For comparison, Shaq had a 7'7 wingspan and 36 vertical.[/QUOTE]
he's not an athletic freak for nowdays standarts. but how many of them where like him back at times when he played. at that times basketball played alot more white people and they are not known as athletic freaks. and his weight was completly ok for those days. how many guys had muscles and bodies like nowdays players? none. so his 225lbs and 24 inch was more then enough and it made him athletic freak compared to other guys that time in league. different times, different standarts
Overrated
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Saying he can jump 2 feet just shows the standards they had then...doesnt mean its all he could do. Half of ISH can jump 24 inches im sure. But half of ISH isnt getting up enough to be an NCAA highjump champ as a hobby or to long jump 22 feet as he has proven capable of.
That is not a man with a 24 inch vertical.[/QUOTE]
I don't know... it's difficult to gauge leaping ability from stills. He doesn't look to have an especially explosive vertical in the videos I've seen.
[QUOTE=Lebron23]Wow, and this guy is suppose to be a better player than Prime Shaquille O'Neal and Prime Tim Duncan.[/QUOTE]
no, you see you can't compare players like that. like you can't compare a fifty years old car with a ferrari and put them in a drag race. and both cars are one of the best in their's era and then you say this old piece of **** is one of the greates?
if you want to compare players, you can compare them based on what they achived...
[QUOTE=jernejtera]no, you see you can't compare players like that. like you can't compare a fifty years old car with a ferrari and put them in a drag race. and both cars are one of the best in their's era and then you say this old piece of **** is one of the greates?
if you want to compare players, you can compare them based on what they achived...[/QUOTE]
He only won 2 NBA Championships during his prime, and Russell and his team always kicked his ass in the playoffs.
Do you consider guys scoring 100 points in the NBL, CBA, PBA, D-League, and some other leagues in this some part of the world a much superior player than Kobe Bryant, who scored 81 points in the NBA?
His standing reach was 9'7''. Ive seen pictures of him palming a ball and touching it to the rim without jumping. Why would he need to show his full athletic potential to dunk? His most athletic plays are usually blocks and even those he didnt have to go all out for. Simple and plain....he high jumped 6'6'' in the 50s using a style that takes inches from modern athletes. At times he finished second to the first man to high jump 7 feet.....and he never went all out in the training and didnt even have good form by the standards of that time. Even at 7' if you can jump over a 6'6'' high jump bar clean without a full approach you can get up more than 24 inches. Look at 24 inches on a wall with a tape measurer or something. Its nothing. Somewhat fat linemen on my HS football team in the 250-260 range got up more than that. They arent jumping from the 3 point line to the basket though.....which track records show him doing in the long jump.
Acting impressed he can jump more than 2 feet just shows that vertical leap wasnt a major issue then and they didnt do much to find its limits. Id be shocked if a guy like Elgin Baylor or Maurice Stokes wasnt well beyond that....hell Oscar robertson too. 24 inches just isnt that high....1958 or 2008.
On the forums page, when this is the last updated topic, it says
"Wilt Chamberlain: 24 Inch...."
It does not say vertical. And that is not the first word that came to mind before I entered into the NBA forum.
[QUOTE=mayorhoiberg]On the forums page, when this is the last updated topic, it says
"Wilt Chamberlain: 24 Inch...."
It does not say vertical. And that is not the first word that came to mind before I entered into the NBA forum.[/QUOTE]
Do you know how I know you're gay?
You thought "peni s" before "vertical."
[QUOTE=Lebron23]He only won 2 NBA Championships during his prime, and Russell and his team always kicked his ass in the playoffs.
Do you consider guys scoring 100 points in the NBL, CBA, PBA, D-League, and some other leagues in this some part of the world a much superior player than Kobe Bryant, who scored 81 points in the NBA?[/QUOTE]
well i'm a kobe fan so i'll say as fan no :D
but... scoring 81 points i think it would be the easiest in nba. look it's all relative.
for example kobe is the best in the world and he's playing in the best league in the world. if you put him in a lower league, maybe he can score 100 points if he uses all of his team shots. He can score 200 point if he plays in the lowest league in the world but would that make him a GOAT? no.
Why is nba the easiest to score 81... only nba has 48 min. that's 8 min more. only nba has 3pt line 3 foots longer, that leads to more space inside the 3pt line and it's easier to drive and it leads to less help for a defensive player. that means more one on one and if we assume that he is the best he has adventage. he can't score 81 point in euroleague in europe. because even though it would be easier for him to score a basket or create a shot, there would be less time, slower game tempo, he would be forced to shot more because of the defense and even though he's a great shooter imo it's heavier to score a 3pt with a hand on your face then an lay-up or a dunk.
you see that's why you can't make comparisons like that. i might be a great player in youth league where i play, but i'm nothing compared to kobe. it's all relative so you can't compare players and stuff like that
and that argument about only 2 rings. how come sir charles can be HOF?
Sir Charles posting in
5
4
3
2
1
[QUOTE=VanillaThunder]Sir Charles posting in
5
4
3
2
1[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll:
peace sir charles :cheers:
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek][IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/369/55566556yz6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
i laughed so hard on that one i almost felt of a chair. i didn't notice earlier that he sad that he's gay to himself
:roll: :roll:
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek][IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/369/55566556yz6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
I was thinking the same thing.
Dude just busted a gay joke... on himself. :wtf:
[QUOTE=mayorhoiberg]On the forums page, when this is the last updated topic, it says
"Wilt Chamberlain: 24 Inch...."
It does not say vertical. And that is not the first word that came to mind before I entered into the NBA forum.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mayorhoiberg]Do you know how I know you're gay?
You thought "peni s" before "vertical."[/QUOTE]
:roll: :oldlol:
Somebody forgot to log out of their main account.
From the footage ive seen he was like Mutombo with less coordination, fair enough it was the older games with the lakers, full games too but his fundementals were shockingly bad.
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek][IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/369/55566556yz6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Someone's coming out of the closet :roll:
[QUOTE=mayorhoiberg]Do you know how I know you're gay?
You thought "peni s" before "vertical."[/QUOTE]
lmao why u calling youself gay?:roll: :hammerhead:
Maybe a standing 24 inches...
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek][IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/369/55566556yz6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
LOL, should've just put FAIL across it and start using it on people. :roll:
[QUOTE=Korki Buchek][IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/369/55566556yz6.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This is the funniest thing I have ever seen.
It's funny how, among all the other things, the OP chose to believe (and promote) the most derogatory one...Objectivity at its worst. It's wrong, anyway. I've repeatedly shown a video with 35-y.o Wilt's head being at almost rim level during a blocked shot, which denotes a [B]past prime[/B] 34 inch vertical.
Here's another video of college Wilt blocking a shot at 0:15. You watch that and come tell me with a straight face that he had a 24-inch vertical...
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fQAk7uiXVk[/url]
Not to mention that a 24-inch vertical will not give you a 6'6 high jump (old-style jumping), neither a 22 foot broad jump or good 400 and 800 times.
As for the wingspan, it's not really surprising, given that his height probably didn't reach his absolute peak yet and, especially, that his upper body was still very thin compared to his later versions.
[QUOTE]From the footage ive seen he was like Mutombo with less coordination, fair enough it was the older games with the lakers, full games too but his fundementals were shockingly bad.[/QUOTE]
Show us the footage you've seen.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
[IMG]http://www.explorepahistory.com/images/ExplorePAHistory-a0l0v1-a_349.jpg[/IMG]
That is not a man with a 24 inch vertical.[/QUOTE]
idk but thats some ancient photoshopping... theres probably something which had to be concealed in the background. trampoline maybe.
not that i doubt wilt's abilities, but its just a strange pic
btw before the ish detectives start: "peni s" has only been used twice on ish before.
It was a weak era for measurement sticks
[QUOTE=DuMa]It was a weak era for measurement sticks[/QUOTE]
yeah that joke was made in the last thread about wilt too.
[QUOTE=loot]yeah that joke was made in the last thread about wilt too.[/QUOTE]
And was deleted.
:roll: @ Hoiberg clowning himself by mistake. Priceless.
another 60's related bashing thread [IMG]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/alexgray23/NikeTalk/smh.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=mjbulls23]another 60's related bashing thread [IMG]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/alexgray23/NikeTalk/smh.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It is sad how guys don't appreciate history & are convinced that somehow we have become some superhuman athletes within a generation or two.:rolleyes: Since thew Olympics are here:
MJ maybe they don't know that great 60's athletes like Bob Beamon still has the second longest Long Jump ever.:confusedshrug:
Maybe they don't know that Lee Evans(of the 60's) 400 meter record(43'86) wasn't broken until 1988 by a dirty:no: Butch Reynolds & he(Evans) still is the 4th fastest 400 meter runner ever(including these supposedly "better" athletes & their performace enhancing drugs) Though I trust Michael Johnson.
The 68' 4 x 400 meter relay team world record wasn't approached until 1988 & dismissing the teams on which Butch Reyolds ran the 68' time is still the 2nd or 3rd fastest ever.
Jim Hines(of the 60's) ran a 9.95 which wasn't broken until 83(9.93) & has had many dirty athletes to set the record since Montgomery,(dirty)Gatlin(dirty)Be Johnson(:no: ),Maurice Greene has been seriously implicated),etc,.....Too many to name here. I have my doubts about todays sprinters as Marion Jones & Antonio Pettigrew underwent extensive test for over six years but neither ever tested positive.
Carl Lewis & Evelyn Ashford are only two of a handful of "star" post 80's sprinters I believe may not be dirty. Why do they need drugs to compete if they are so naturally superior than 60's athletes:confusedshrug:
The human body can only do so much & today's athletes are only benefitting from better equipment & training to get the absolute most out of their bodies. The huma body hasn't improved that quickly. Matter of fact we may eve become worse athletes in the future as we are becoming a very sedentary society.
This sixties bashing is nonsense.
[quote=32jazz]It is sad how guys don't appreciate history & are convinced that somehow we have become some superhuman athletes within a generation or two.:rolleyes: Since thew Olympics are here:
MJ maybe they don't know that great 60's athletes like Bob Beamon still has the second longest Long Jump ever.:confusedshrug:
Maybe they don't know that Lee Evans(of the 60's) 400 meter record(43'86) wasn't broken until 1988 by a dirty:no: Butch Reynolds & he(Evans) still is the 4th fastest 400 meter runner ever(including these supposedly "better" athletes & their performace enhancing drugs) Though I trust Michael Johnson.
The 68' 4 x 400 meter relay team world record wasn't approached until 1988 & dismissing the teams on which Butch Reyolds ran the 68' time is still the 2nd or 3rd fastest ever.
Jim Hines(of the 60's) ran a 9.95 which wasn't broken until 83(9.93) & has had many dirty athletes to set the record since Montgomery,(dirty)Gatlin(dirty)Be Johnson(:no: ),Maurice Greene has been seriously implicated),etc,.....Too many to name here. I have my doubts about todays sprinters as Marion Jones & Antonio Pettigrew underwent extensive test for over six years but neither ever tested positive.
Carl Lewis & Evelyn Ashford are only two of a handful of "star" post 80's sprinters I believe may not be dirty. Why do they need drugs to compete if they are so naturally superior than 60's athletes:confusedshrug:
The human body can only do so much & today's athletes are only benefitting from better equipment & training to get the absolute most out of their bodies. The huma body hasn't improved that quickly. Matter of fact we may eve become worse athletes in the future as we are becoming a very sedentary society.
This sixties bashing is nonsense.[/quote]
It was a weak era for steroids testing.
[QUOTE=32jazz]It is sad how guys ... are convinced that somehow we have become some superhuman athletes within a generation or two.[/QUOTE]
All that bull testosterone in the water supply will do that! :)
[QUOTE=32jazz]It is sad how guys don't appreciate history & are convinced that somehow we have become some superhuman athletes within a generation or two.:rolleyes: Since thew Olympics are here:
MJ maybe they don't know that great 60's athletes like Bob Beamon still has the second longest Long Jump ever.:confusedshrug:
Maybe they don't know that Lee Evans(of the 60's) 400 meter record(43'86) wasn't broken until 1988 by a dirty:no: Butch Reynolds & he(Evans) still is the 4th fastest 400 meter runner ever(including these supposedly "better" athletes & their performace enhancing drugs) Though I trust Michael Johnson.
The 68' 4 x 400 meter relay team world record wasn't approached until 1988 & dismissing the teams on which Butch Reyolds ran the 68' time is still the 2nd or 3rd fastest ever.
Jim Hines(of the 60's) ran a 9.95 which wasn't broken until 83(9.93) & has had many dirty athletes to set the record since Montgomery,(dirty)Gatlin(dirty)Be Johnson(:no: ),Maurice Greene has been seriously implicated),etc,.....Too many to name here. I have my doubts about todays sprinters as Marion Jones & Antonio Pettigrew underwent extensive test for over six years but neither ever tested positive.
Carl Lewis & Evelyn Ashford are only two of a handful of "star" post 80's sprinters I believe may not be dirty. Why do they need drugs to compete if they are so naturally superior than 60's athletes:confusedshrug:
The human body can only do so much & today's athletes are only benefitting from better equipment & training to get the absolute most out of their bodies. The huma body hasn't improved that quickly. Matter of fact we may eve become worse athletes in the future as we are becoming a very sedentary society.
This sixties bashing is nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Great examples. Also the limited NBA footage that's available from that era doesn't help much either as well as the fact that people nowadays often confuse flashy moves with athleticism.
[QUOTE=loot]idk but thats some ancient photoshopping... theres probably something which had to be concealed in the background. trampoline maybe.
not that i doubt wilt's abilities, but its just a strange pic[/QUOTE]
Yeah, maybe they were using some secret anti-gravity machine developed during the Cold War?
Every generation wants to believe that they are special, and the time they live in is special. It would seem that in the world of sports fans, this means that you have to downplay the achievements of athletes who you, yourself, never saw. (The converse of this is the older fan who talks about the athletes of yesteryear as if they were gods and claims that today's athletes are inferior.)
As someone who has watched the NBA for over 40 years, I get tired of listening both types, but in this forum i usually have to listen to the younger guys who seem to believe that sliced bread is a new thing, and no player they have not seen can be compared to anyone playing today.
Please grow up and understand that there actually were great players and athletes playing before you were weaned from your mommy, and that many of them would still be stars today. And then think about how you will respond in 25 years when some kid starts making fun of Kobe, Lebron, or Wade and how inferior they were compared to the players of 2033.