Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.[/QUOTE]
Of couse I have an agenda! You have an agenda as well. How does that discredit the brutal facts which reflect Rusell's inferiority to KING Chamberlain?

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?[/QUOTE]

Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.

[QUOTE=theguru]Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.[/QUOTE]

Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Russell numbers go up even more in game sevens where he averaged 30 rebounds and shot nearly 70% from the line.

I just imagine what Russell would have done with Wilt's ability.

Ironically in 1967 Wilt had his finest game in closing out the Celtics. Wilt posted 29 points 36 rebounds and 13 assists en route to victory and the eventual NBA title.

Earlier in the season Russell had said of Wilt "He's unstoppable, he's playing like me"

Unfortunately, Wilt became obsessed with assist and FG% records over the next few years and never beat Russell again.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?[/QUOTE]
because in 1980, jordan was in high school

[QUOTE=97 bulls]because in 1980, jordan was in high school[/QUOTE]

Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.[/QUOTE]
not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to

[QUOTE=97 bulls]not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to[/QUOTE]

No it wasn't.

This is a Chamberlain vs. Russell thread. No one besides you ever mentioned MJ.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Here again, Wilt's post-seasons were inevitably played against Russell, usually in either the first or second rounds (and in some cases, the second round was Wilt's first.) In Wilt's post-seasons, he went up against Russell eight times, Reed three times, Thurmond three times, and Kareem twice. All among the greatest defensive centers in NBA history.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]"When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?"[/COLOR]

No argument there. Russell was considered the best by his peers. And that is what amazes me about so many posters here...who have him ranked near the bottom of the top-10. Russell, at the VERY LEAST, is top-3 all-time...and IMHO, he is #1.

G.O.A.T.,

I remember reading a comment by you about the Russell-Wilt debates...

something along the lines of...

If there had been no Russell, Wilt would have probably won anywhere from 6-10 rings...and HE would be ranked as THE greatest ever.

That is a fine tribute to BOTH.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

[B]Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2[/B]

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.

[QUOTE=theguru]I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.[/QUOTE]

Guru,

I USED to believe the same thing. But having studied footage of both (and I did see them play live BTW...albeit on TV)...

Wilt's INDIVIDUAL talent and skills stand out, no question. But you REALLY have to take the time to watch the IMPACT that Russell had on the game. It seems like he always made the key rebound, or pass, or defensive play...and that does not include the INTIMIDATION that he also made famous.

Believe me, I honestly think that Russell was THE most prepared player in NBA history, and perhaps the most intelligent. Almost everything he did on the court had a purpose. Most players, even today, block a shot into the seats. Russell would not only block shots...he would DIRECT them... to his teammates. AND, there was a post here, maybe a link (I am so old I am losing my memory) in which Russell made the comment that he got the ball to teammates who had an offensive edge against their defender, or to other teammates who were in position to score. His OFFENSE was in his TEAM's offense. He simply made his teammates more successful, and his impact on the floor had the opposite effect on opposing TEAMs.

You certainly could not quantify Russell's IMPACT...although Regul8r DID present a substantial analysis which was probably as accurate as it gets. Russell's DEFENSIVE IMPACT was the equivalent of MJ's OFFENSIVE IMPACT.

Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.