Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=GP_20]Why don't you breakdown their games individually?


Wilt a far superior scorer. (This is a major understatement)
Wilt a better rebounder (clearly)
Russell a better defender (Though Wilt was also good)[/QUOTE]

Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?

[QUOTE=GP_20]Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

Russell.

[QUOTE=Dresta]So how come Russell still won in 69, despite a vastly inferior team?[/QUOTE]

[B]Russell won? :no: No his Team won :rolleyes:

Well Experience. You play a Decade Wth the Same Players and the Best Coach Ever you have alot of advantages. And also u must account for Bench.[/B]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?
[/quote]

Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.

[quote]
Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?[/QUOTE]

Close. Wilt.

[QUOTE=GP_20][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?[/QUOTE]

Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.[/QUOTE]

Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

[B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B]

Yeah, I can really see Bill Russell taking Wilt's Philly teams to 10 titles. You're right GOAT. It is absolutely a fact that Russell would have taken the Philadelphia Warriors and 76ers to multiple titles.:oldlol: :oldlol: It is absolutely obvious that Wilt would have only won two titles with Bill's Celtics teams. Please! Stop the madness.:mad:


Wilt would have won more titles with Russell's Celtics teams than Bill would have won titles with Wilt's Philadelphia teams. Do we honestly need to debate this? GOAT, since the only statistics you seem to think are important are titles, I present the above as evidence of Bill Russell

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them. [/quote]
Goat that is the goal of many athletes. Do you honestly believe Wilt was NOT trying to win. Give me a break.



[Quote]Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.[/quote]
That's nice GOAT but the bottom line is that a lot of hall of fame and good players that make players better.:cheers: Steve Nash makes players better. Rondo makes players better.

The bottom line is this Bill Russells ability to make players better could not help Wilt's Philly's teams win more than 2 titles. However, if Wilt was on the Russell's Celtics teams, Wilt's ability to make players better by asissts and his overwhelming offensive arsenal would give the Celtics 8 titles. See, I'll give Russell credit on making players better but the bottom line is that he had Hall of Fame caliber players before he arrived. What do you not understand? Wilt is a far superior center than Bill Russell. Honestly, GOAT do you really think Wilt would not win multiple titles if he were on Russell's Celtics teams and Bill would only win two titles if he were on Chamberlain's Philly's teams? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=ArizaAttack24]Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.[/QUOTE]

Wilt was the best overall player. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Wilt did not make his players better.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?[/QUOTE]

GOAT for someone who rips others for using individual stats, you are addicted to title stats. I guess you think that Rajon Rondo is equal to Oscar Robertson. Pretty soon, you will be arguing Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone. :roll:

Russell was one of the major contributors on those Celts team. Yes, he was often the best player. However, I find a man who individual dominates and takes a scrubby non-play off team to the 2nd best record in the NBA, more impressive. I find a man who takes vastly inferior Philly teams within a few points of the Boston Cetlics, more impressive. Wilt scored becuase he had to freaking score. Bill Russell to me is a level below Magic.

In many ways, he is no different than Troy Aikman. The difference is Rusell was fortunate to be on a championship level team which won seven more titles than Aikman.

This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.

I would rather have Wilt, but you can't go wrong with either one.

This thread is resurrected after three months?

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]This thread is resurrected after three months?[/QUOTE]
Are you surprised?:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Looks like someone created a second account to rehash the argument.

Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.