Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=jlauber]YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well. And how bad was Wilt's roster in '63. Chamberlain shot .528 from the field (in addition to leading the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories), while his teammates collectively shot .412...or WAY less than the WORST team in the league (.427.) Jeez, the only mistake Wilt made in that '63 season was passing the ball at all (3.0 apg.) And his coach should have had him taking EVERY shot. They would have had a better chance.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.[/QUOTE]
J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Here again, I am perplexed. What is it with you and GOAT? The Warriors won a title in the 55-56 season, which was pre-Russell AND Heinsohn. They then went 37-35, 37-35, and 32-40 over the next three seasons. Yes, in a limited league, they went to the ECF's in 57-58, and were blown out by Boston, 4-1. So what?

And, Johnston was injured in 58-59, and the Warriors, basically a .500 team the year before, dropped to LAST-PLACE. Now, did Johnston return in Wilt's rookie year? Hell no. He was done. YET, Chamberlain took what had been a .500 team, that perhaps had lost their best player to injury and retirement, and had fallen to LAST-PLACE, to a then BEST-EVER record in Chamberlain's rookie year of 49-26 (which was even better than their 45-27 championship team in 55-56.)

And why do guys continually bring up that 55-56 season? That was FOUR years before Wilt arrived. Once again, using the same ridiculous analogy, I could argue that Boston was even BETTER after Russell retired. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26 (Russell's Celtics were 48-34 in his last year.) Foru years after he retired they went 68-14 (which is STILL the best ever in their HISTORY), and five years after he retired they won an NBA title (and would win another two years after that.)

As for Gola...maybe I am missing something here. The man was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, and his BEST season (in a year in which he played WITH Wilt BTW) was 15.0 ppg, 10 rpg, and .433. Not only that, but he was no more than average in his limited post-season career, and was absolutely AWFUL in his three years with Chamberlain. Once again, I would aargue that Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did to his.

BTW, the great Gola shot a CAREER .336 in his FIVE post-seasons. And, yes, he is somehow in the HOF.[/QUOTE]

Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.[/QUOTE]

First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.[/QUOTE]

Are YOU dense???!!! How many times do I need to destroy this argument? The 55-56 Warriors won a title in the pre-Russell AND Heinsohn era (and Sam Jones as well.) And, they also went 45-27 that season...which, once again, I will get back to. BUT, that was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. Furthermore, the core of that 55-56 team went 37-35, 37-35, and then a last-place 32-40 in the year before Chamberlain arrived.

How many times do I have to make this analogy? Using that ridiculous analogy, I could argue that the Celtics were a BETTER team after Russell retired, too. Why? Because only three years after he was gone, Boston went 56-26 (which was better than Russell's last season opf 48-34.) Four years after he retired they went 68-14 (once again, the best record in Celtic history.) And five years following Russell's retirement, they won a title.

The 55-56 season was in a completely different season, and under a completely different set of circumstances than Chamberlain's rookie season. It was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. And once again, the core of that team had basically two consecutive .500 seasons afterwards, going 37-35, before dropping to LAST PLACE. Finally, Wilt then took what had been, at best, an average roster (and one that had slipped to last place), and replaced HOFer Johnston...and took that team to a then BEST-EVER record of 49-26. And, while the '58 Warriors were whipped, 4-1 by Boston, the '60 Warriors, despite a hand injury sustained by Wilt, lost to Boston, 4-2, including a 119-117 loss in game six. In game five of that series, Chamberlain put up a monumental 50 point, 35 rebound game on Russell, in leading the Warriors to a 128-107 win. How many of those games did Johnston have against Russell in the post-season?

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.[/QUOTE]

Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.[/QUOTE]


Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.[/QUOTE]

Another myth. Many here believe that Wilt cared about were his personal stats. YET, when his COACH's asked him to either score 50 ppg (as in his '62 season), or being a balanced scorer-passer (as in his 66-67 and 67-68 seasons), or just to defer to another player (as in his '69 season, when Baylor was allowed to misfire all season long, and especially in the post-season), or to dominate defensively, grab rebounds, and start the break (as in his 71-72 and 72-73 seasons) he DID so.

Was Wilt a "loser?" He took 12 teams, in his 14 seasons, to the Conference Finals. He took SIX teams to the Finals. He took badly out manned teams to near wins over the "Dynasty". He played on SEVEN conference champions. He played on FOUR teams with the best record in the league. He played on FOUR 60+ win teams. AND, he anchored two of the greatest title teams in NBA history.

Was Wilt a "choker?" I have given you many of the games in which Wilt just crushed Russell. But how about this fact. In his nine game seven's, Wilt averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .626 from the field (which, I believe is the highest among the truly "great" player in NBA history.) AND, that does not include his 56-35 game five in a best-of-five series. Nor the many BIG games he had in "must-win" situations, like his 50-35 game against Russell in game five of the '60 ECF's.

The fact was, Wilt outplayed his opposing center in perhaps EVERY one of his 29 post-season series. I could only find ONE series, in which he was outshot from the floor, and in that series, he missed 20 shots, while Kareem missed over 100. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 series, by ANY player.

But, still, there will be thoe that will call him a "loser" and a "choker."

This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.[/QUOTE]

This "Gola thing" has become laughable. All of a sudden we have these "pro-Gola" posters popping up. Not because they actually believe Gola was any more than a decent player...but to find some way to disparage Wilt's career.

G.O.A.T even posted that in 1970, that Gola received votes as the Greatest NBA player ever! As I stated previously, Gola was never even the best player on any of his NBA teams. And, once again, his stats are among the WORST of a ANY NBA player in the HOF (yes, you can find a couple worse...but not many.)

And also once again...did Gola step it up in the playoffs? He shot .336 in his five post-season career, including two of .355 and .330 BEFORE he played with Chamberlain.

Yet, all of a sudden, there are those here claiming that HE was responsible for the Warriors narrowly losing a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics in '62ECF's...with his 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%. Granted, if he had been able to just score three more measley points in that game seven, perhaps Wilt would have won his first ring.

Gola better than Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones? I don't think so.

[QUOTE=jlauber]This "Gola thing" has become laughable. All of a sudden we have these "pro-Gola" posters popping up. Not because they actually believe Gola was any more than a decent player...but to find some way to disparage Wilt's career.

G.O.A.T even posted that in 1970, that Gola received votes as the Greatest NBA player ever! As I stated previously, Gola was never even the best player on any of his NBA teams. And, once again, his stats are among the WORST of a ANY NBA player in the HOF (yes, you can find a couple worse...but not many.)

And also once again...did Gola step it up in the playoffs? He shot .336 in his five post-season career, including two of .355 and .330 BEFORE he played with Chamberlain.

Yet, all of a sudden, there are those here claiming that HE was responsible for the Warriors narrowly losing a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics in '62ECF's...with his 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%. Granted, if he had been able to just score three more measley points in that game seven, perhaps Wilt would have won his first ring.

Gola better than Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]Because MJ is an icon. He changed basketball in the business sense and made it marketable and made everyone interested in it again.

Bill Russell didn't have his own huge nike shoe deal

It has nothing to do with stats, rings, etc. Those are all secondary. It's because we were exposed to MJ more than guys like Russell, Chamberlain, etc. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

This.

MJ is the Ali of basketball. That doesn't neccesarily mean MJ is the Sugar Ray Robinson of basketball.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...[/QUOTE]

Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.

[QUOTE=LosBulls]Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]
And when Boozer wins 11 titles as his team clear leader than he will be GOAT.

[QUOTE=LosBulls]Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]

sure - why not...if Boozer could lead his team to 11 rings as a best player I'm pretty sure he would be in contention as a GOAT:confusedshrug: