Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=OutOfPlace]Chamberlame was an unathletic stiff who would get merked the f*ck out by today's centers. Yao, Howard, Shaq and even Bogut, Okafor etc would be way too much for him to handle due to their superior size, strength and skills.[/QUOTE]

People will slam you for being a 'whippersnapper' or something for having that attitude. I say how can a player compete at the highest level when Darko Milicic knows how to box out better then you do, but you don't understand: Wilt arm wrestled strong men and ran marathons in his 50's. So maybe now you understand why that would make him dominate now, right? ;0

[QUOTE=Bodhi]I only read about half of this thread, but all I saw was the Wilt supporters posting list after list of statistics trying to prove that he'd be a star in today's league while ignoring every video of him actually playing.

Watch the videos. Basketball today isn't even comparable to basketball from the 60s and 70s. The game has improved so much that they look like different sports.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I was starting to think I was crazy or that all the time I've spent learning about this game didn't count. I suggested that its not the same game at all, its like different sports and they just jumped all over me for being young and stupid. Of which I'm neither. I just don't understand how Wilt dominates a league in which he's one of the only players who dunks in a finals game and players don't box out on free throws.

I mean, they pretend that size and athleticism don't count and say as much. Then they say that Magic/larry/chuck/isiah were bad athletes who won with their basketball IQ. Except those players are the best to ever play the game and were fantastic athletes. In comparison to them the 50's/60's guys look like original nintendo to xbox 360.

They learned to play with soccer balls. Its all so crazy.

[QUOTE]I thought I was being nice. So you want to include more seasons when the comp was even weaker?[/QUOTE]

How were you being nice since you once again tried to underplay his competition and you made the false point that Wilt faced Kareem, Hayes and Unseld 4-6 times in his career each? I included the seasons these specific players played altogether. Even if I included other seasons, things wouldn't change a lot. When Kareem didn't exist, Russell did, and Wilt faced Russell many more times even than Kareem.

[QUOTE]I only read about half of this thread, but all I saw was the Wilt supporters posting list after list of statistics trying to prove that he'd be a star in today's league while ignoring every video of him actually playing. [/QUOTE]

Who posted Wilt videos to make certain points? That's right, Wilt supporters.
Who were the only persons who pretended to be unimpressed by them? Certain guys who had their agenda fixed beforehand. Read the general comments on these videos or in the videos Sir Charles posted in his threads and you'll see that people who were impressed included a lot more than his (very few in this board) "fanboys". Actually pretty much anyone not belonging to the same category with indiefan23.

[QUOTE]Watch the videos. Basketball today isn't even comparable to basketball from the 60s and 70s. The game has improved so much that they look like different sports.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? We're comparing the greatness of players, not the form and evolution of the game, which, in big part depends on coaches, doctors, gymnasts, etc. Basketball today is different compared to the 80's as well (the form of 80's basketball was actually closer to 70's basketball than 00's), but I don't see anyone dare to mention it and try to belittle its protagonists. Also, watch the 40's game and compare it to 60's. Again, different game. The game changes all the time. Peoples' greatness remains. Eras matter a lot less than achievements. Your avatar depicts someone who lived 2000 years ago, so make the connection.

[QUOTE=Bodhi]I only read about half of this thread, but all I saw was the Wilt supporters posting list after list of statistics trying to prove that he'd be a star in today's league while ignoring every video of him actually playing.

Watch the videos. Basketball today isn't even comparable to basketball from the 60s and 70s. The game has improved so much that they look like different sports.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, why do people keep ignoring this, there are enough game videos on youtube for anyone with eyes to see Wilt looked like Mutombo out there with some kind of mutated spider-gene.Nothing from the videos suggests he is anywhere near a Shaq/Robinson/Hakeem level of athlete.His skillset was awful and took advantage of playing against white stiffs who couldnt jump over a sunday newspaper or shoot a free throw.

[QUOTE=momo]You're a serious poster? Explain WTF you are talking about with this soccer ball silliness.

40's ball.
[url]http://www.antiqueathlete.com/vintage-basketball-memorabilia.shtml[/url]
[IMG]http://www.antiqueathlete.com/antique-basketball/leather-basketball-laceless.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Ha, lets read the caption.

ITEM 6: 1940

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Or Jerry West:

"Jerry Alan West was born into a poor household in Cheylan, West Virginia.[1] His main distraction was shooting at a basketball hoop which a neighbor had nailed to his storage shack."

And you think that these guys played with state of the art balls that are being auctioned off because of how rare they are?[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of:

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

[QUOTE]Larry Bird was born in West Baden, Indiana, the son of Georgia Kerns and Claude Joseph "Joe" Bird. He grew up in both West Baden and the adjacent town French Lick, which earned him the nickname "the Hick from French Lick" in his later basketball career. Financial troubles would plague the Bird family for most of Larry's childhood. In a 1988 interview with Sports Illustrated, Bird recalled how his mother would make do on the family's meager earnings: "If there was a payment to the bank due, and we needed shoes, she'd get the shoes, and then deal with them guys at the bank. I don't mean she wouldn't pay the bank, but the children always came first."[4] Bird sometimes was sent to live with his grandmother due to the family's struggles. Bird told Sports Illustrated that being poor as a child "motivates me to this day".[4]

The Bird family's struggle with poverty was compounded by the alcoholism and personal difficulties of Joe Bird. In 1975, after Bird's parents divorced, his father committed suicide.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Psileas]How were you being nice since you once again tried to underplay his competition and you made the false point that Wilt faced Kareem, Hayes and Unseld 4-6 times in his career each? I included the seasons these specific players played altogether. Even if I included other seasons, things wouldn't change a lot. When Kareem didn't exist, Russell did, and Wilt faced Russell many more times even than Kareem.[/quote]

Hmm... did they play inter conference teams more then twice then? I looked at a schedule earlier and there were only 2 a year. Either way, even if it was. I don't think it mattered if Russel existed. He still played the vast majority of his career against incredibly weak competition. The existance of a few good players is pretty meaningless when all but 5 people in the league can pull down more then half your boards in a game.

I'm being nice because I give you the benefit of the doubt that those terrible,slow, non-athletes playing in those finals games actually were good athletes.

[quote]Who posted Wilt videos to make certain points? That's right, Wilt supporters. Who were the only persons who pretended to be unimpressed by them? Certain guys who had their agenda fixed beforehand. Read the general comments on these videos or in the videos Sir Charles posted in his threads and you'll see that people who were impressed included a lot more than his (very few in this board) "fanboys". Actually pretty much anyone not belonging to the same category with indiefan23.[/quote]

Who's pretending to not be impressed? I've always liked Wilt and no one in any sport has ever come close to his level of domination of a single sport. Wilt was a man among boys. Its cool, but I don't find men beating up on boys overly impressive. No one is pretending.

[quote]Who cares? We're comparing the greatness of players, not the form and evolution of the game, which, in big part depends on coaches, doctors, gymnasts, etc. Basketball today is different compared to the 80's as well (the form of 80's basketball was actually closer to 70's basketball than 00's), but I don't see anyone dare to mention it and try to belittle its protagonists. Also, watch the 40's game and compare it to 60's. Again, different game. The game changes all the time. Peoples' greatness remains. Eras matter a lot less than achievements. Your avatar depicts someone who lived 2000 years ago, so make the connection.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? The era was weak. We aren't comparing their greatness: its who's the 'best'. Best means if they played eachother who would win. Who had perfected the art of ball more. Greatness/achievement matters lots and those guys get plenty of respect and credit for those things. They just named finals MVP after Bill Russel even though Michael Jordan is twice the player he was and I, the agenda driven guy you hate, claimed it was a classy move by the NBA.

Its not 'greatness' when you say who's better however. And you're not saying 'greatness' when you claim that Russel would dominate today, which you said. Players like Jordan and Shaq had the benefit of those doctors and coaches and it made them better players. Russel did not and it made him a worse player. Its cool... Russel got to be ahead of his time and invent jumping to block a shot. But at the same time it means he played in an era when people didn't know that jumping to block shots helped defense. The same can be said for 'boxing out on rebounds'. Except everyone not only knows all these things now, they have them perfected at the NBA level and if those guys came up they would be destroyed like children and its just ridiculous to suggest they wouldn't be.

Watch those videos. Almost no plays are NBA level. Its just obvious.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Reminds me of:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Bird[/url][/QUOTE]

Except Larry Bird is 100 times the player West was and probably played on a 1. real hoop and 2. with a real ball.

Really, is the only argument that the all weak era team could hang with the all peak era team is that you can find touching similarities between the players that don't really address the differences in skills or abilities?

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Voters for the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (player), Marv Albert (media), Al Attles (team), Red Auerbach (team), Elgin Baylor (team), Dave Bing (player), Larry Bird (team), Marty Blake (team), Fran Blinebury (media), Bill Bradley (player), Hubie Brown (team), Wilt Chamberlain (player), Mitch Chortkoff (media), Bob Cousy (player), Billy Cunningham (team), Chuck Daly (team), David DuPree (media), Wayne Embry (team), Julius Erving (player), Joe Gilmartin (media), Sam Goldaper (media), Alex Hannum (team), Lester Harrison (team), John Havlicek (player), Chick Hearn (media), Red Holzman (team), Phil Jasner (media), Earvin Johnson (player), John Kerr (player), Leonard Koppet (media), Bob Lanier (player), Frank Layden (team), Leonard Lewin (media), Jack McCallum (media), Dick McGuire (team), George Mikan (player), Bob Pettit (player), Harvey Pollack (team), Jack Ramsay (team), Willis Reed (team), Oscar Robertson (player), Bill Russell (player), Bob Ryan (media), Dolph Schayes (player), Bill Sharman (player), Gene Shue (team), Isiah Thomas (team), Wes Unseld (team), Peter Vecsey (media), Jerry West (team)

These players from the 60's and 70's were pick by the above I guess they dont agree with you that the NBA was full of "scurbs" in the 60's and 70's but Im sure you know more about basketball than these nobodies[/QUOTE]

Heh, its funny too. Look at that list. Its like, 80 or 90% comprised of people from the 60's 70's era. You think its a big secret they voted for their friends?

I mean, since the NBA at 50 happened how many of those guys are just going to get bumped from the new players who are obviously in that group? Kobe/Bron/Wade/Duncan/Reggie/Kidd/Iverson/Nash/Ray Allen/Carter/Dirk/Pierce. Maybe not Pierce. I made that list of 12 off the top of my head without thinking. You may balk at Carter but he's the best dunker in history and gets on for that. Allen is the best shooter. Dirk is the most skilled 7 footer ever. The rest should be obvious. And thats before you even factor in what people like Durant/Rose et al are going to do.

[QUOTE=db23]Exactly, why do people keep ignoring this, there are enough game videos on youtube for anyone with eyes to see Wilt looked like Mutombo out there with some kind of mutated spider-gene.Nothing from the videos suggests he is anywhere near a Shaq/Robinson/Hakeem level of athlete.His skillset was awful and took advantage of playing against white stiffs who couldnt jump over a sunday newspaper or shoot a free throw.[/QUOTE]

The best reason: a 6'9, 215 lb guy could check Wilt in his prime repeatedly and win every time.

[QUOTE]Hmm... did they play inter conference teams more then twice then? I looked at a schedule earlier and there were only 2 a year.[/QUOTE]

I won't believe this till I see it.

[QUOTE] Either way, even if it was. I don't think it mattered if Russel existed. He still played the vast majority of his career against incredibly weak competition. The existance of a few good players is pretty meaningless when all but 5 people in the league can pull down more then half your boards in a game.[/QUOTE]

In a league with 10 teams, it's more than expected that only a few players with both high talent and big minutes will come close to the best one. It's also expected not to have an all-time great or even a decent opponent in all your games. No-one ever did that.

[QUOTE]I'm being nice because I give you the benefit of the doubt that those terrible,slow, non-athletes playing in those finals games actually were good athletes.[/QUOTE]

Hayes was a better athlete (and player) than most of today's big men. Of course I won't ask you whether you agree or not, but I know most do.

[QUOTE]Who's pretending to not be impressed? I've always liked Wilt and no one in any sport has ever come close to his level of domination of a single sport. Wilt was a man among boys. Its cool, but I don't find men beating up on boys overly impressive. No one is pretending.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about his stats. I was talking about his overall game and athleticism. Every video of Wilt had most people admire him and admit that he'd be great even today, without needing any improvement. I find it very hard to believe that 80%+ of people who watched the video are Wilt's fans.

[QUOTE]Who cares? The era was weak. We aren't comparing their greatness: its who's the 'best'. Best means if they played eachother who would win. Who had perfected the art of ball more. Greatness/achievement matters lots and those guys get plenty of respect and credit for those things. They just named finals MVP after Bill Russel even though Michael Jordan is twice the player he was and I, the agenda driven guy you hate, claimed it was a classy move by the NBA.

Its not 'greatness' when you say who's better however. And you're not saying 'greatness' when you claim that Russel would dominate today, which you said. Players like Jordan and Shaq had the benefit of those doctors and coaches and it made them better players. Russel did not and it made him a worse player. Its cool... Russel got to be ahead of his time and invent jumping to block a shot. But at the same time it means he played in an era when people didn't know that jumping to block shots helped defense. The same can be said for 'boxing out on rebounds'. Except everyone not only knows all these things now, they have them perfected at the NBA level and if those guys came up they would be destroyed like children and its just ridiculous to suggest they wouldn't be.

Watch those videos. Almost no plays are NBA level. Its just obvious.[/QUOTE]

Actually I (and most of the others) do talk about greatness. I don't really care what would happen if so and so changed eras and remained "only" as good as they were, because that would never happen. You're born and grow up in an era, yet, despite this obvious fact, some continue using the "time transportation" thing.
Despite this, I still believe that a lot of all-time greats would do fine in just about every era, because nature didn't suddenly make humans 50% more athletic in a span of very few dacades, neither did it suddenly double their brains and logic and natural talent to do something. The most fundamental differences of 60's basketball and today's basketball is advanced dribbling and game strategy. Yet, that's nothing that a decent player of any era would be unable to learn to an extent. You don't even need to be a super dribbler to succeed. Stockton never did fancy things but was an very good to elite PG, and that's from the late 80's to the early 00's. As for strategy? A lot of Euroleague players are more advanced than NBA players nowadays in this field, without being more talented at all.
Athleticism, you say? Not as big a difference as some think. Remember, today we do have the luxury of compiling the most athletic moments, the highest leaps, etc, of a player in lists from practices and draft camps or in videos taken from all their games. Not so with older ones, and this led a lot to believe wrong things. Some used to think that Baylor wasn't actually a good athlete. because the only aired videos of him for many years showed him only perform a couple of simple dunks, without getting too high. Recently though, appeared this pic of him ([url]http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx[/url] -- 2nd row, 3rd from left), which shows that he was much more athletic than these very limited videos made people think. Same with others.

[QUOTE]Except Larry Bird is 100 times the player West was and probably played on a 1. real hoop and 2. with a real ball.[/QUOTE]

Except he isn't and that it's certain that even today a lot of the most talented players learn the game under miserable conditions, which shows that there are more things than the equipment you used as a child.
Oh, and except that Bird might have trained in hoops like this ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du-fmgN_5Hc&feature=PlayList&p=4A407B932011BDCA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12[/url]) or hoops without nets ([url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/1998/bird/flashbacks/1988flash.html[/url]) and that your assumptions about Jerry West growing up playing with a soccer ball are just that.

[QUOTE]Really, is the only argument that the all weak era team could hang with the all peak era team is that you can find touching similarities between the players that don't really address the differences in skills or abilities?[/QUOTE]

West's skills are well-known. Fast, great shooter, good passer, quick and long hands, quick shot release, defensive instinct. You brought up the "soccer balls" thing first.

[QUOTE]The best reason: a 6'9, 215 lb guy could check Wilt in his prime repeatedly and win every time.[/QUOTE]

Russell wasn't 215 in the NBA. And his team won, Wilt usually outplayed him.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Russell wasn't 215 in the NBA. And his team won, Wilt usually outplayed him.[/QUOTE]

I wonder do people say foolish stuff like that about the undrafted Ben Wallace winning a ring over Shaq in 2004?


The fact that someone finds the time to post over ten pages :confusedshrug: about Wilt & the 60's/70's is a testament to their significance. You cannot have a serious discussion about the greatest players of all time without mentioning Wilt/Big O/Kareem.
Kareem(as well as Elvin Hayes) who technically played in the 60's,70's & 80's proves the continuity / fluidity of the game from that era up until today. They were great no matter which decade they played.(Kareem won the NBA finals MVP at 38 years of age in '85 just as he had in '71. Elvin Hayes was an allstar in '80 . Both feats at advanced ages )

Those guys legacies are cemented & internet rants cannot change the record books.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Russell wasn't 215 in the NBA. And his team won, Wilt usually outplayed him.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so far

1. your arguing Bill Russel is a top 3 all time center. For evidence of this you say he played Wilt and beat him.

2. You're saying Bill Russel is not 215, even though that's what the scales read when he was in the NBA.

3. You're saying Wilt was amazing, even though his team lost to a stacked Celtics team he usually outplayed Russel.

4. You're claiming that an uncontested lay up after a fast break off a transition steal at half court and an awkward cross over on a slow defender means Jerry West was more athletic then Magic and Bird and could not only athletically match up with players like Jordan, Iverson, TJ Ford, he could be a star against them and defenders like Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier and Ron Artest.

Sorry, you didn't mention #4 but so far its my favorite thing anyone has said on inside hoops. Bar none. So its got to be mentioned again.