List of players over 7 foot, 230 pounds in Wilt's time

[QUOTE=millwad]How cute of you to upload a video dedicated to me and how cute of you to put on some dramatic music while only showing highlights and why the shift in speed between slow and fast and then normal...:facepalm

And it's pretty sad because it's obvious that you've been around ISH before so why the need of multiple accounts, no one beside a butthurt poster write the way you do.. :facepalm

And 03:08 is a great example of a player having a sucky lefty..[/QUOTE]

I've been a reader of these boards for about a year - don't have any other accounts.

And uhhhh... you've never seen a mix-tape!? They all add music... they all use slow motion shit all the time :facepalm and I dropped it from NTSC to PAL for a deliberately choppy frame rate, - which is another simple trick many mix-tapes use. I also color-corrected it to get rid of the yellowed drab look. I guess I shouldn't be tampering with mix tape footage to give it dramatic appeal right? Mix tapes are all about being ordinary :roll:

Would you have rather I kept that leave it to beaver style music, the ugly blurry looking corroded film, and announcers that quipped "pretty!" after a slam that would've give modern announcers a ****ing heart-attack? Such makes for fair demonstrations of their abilities right?... Someone finally makes a standard looking half-ass Youtube mix using 60's footage and you complain. :cry:


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPcmQMdiPw4[/url]
Is it because these guys actually look talented and you don't want to admit it?

[QUOTE]You'd think one person at the time would be like "hey, this guy did something I've never seen before, I should take a picture". [/QUOTE]

You wouldnt think it if you took a moment to consider the situation. This wasnt 2010. It was 1955 or so(HS wilt). Playing high school ball. The NBA finals were not even always on tv back then. Shit in the 80s the NBA finals were on tape delay. This is 60 years ago. Everyone didnt have camera phones. Do you know how big a deal it was when quick use disposable cameras came around? When I was a kid they were new. And that was not the 50s.

People wouldnt be standing around a high school practice with Tex Winter with video cameras. They wouldnt usually even be at NBA games getting lots of footage in the mid 50s.

But you think its likely someone schedules a film crew or something to record Wilt doing a Ft line dunk...in high school?

They wouldnt send a film crew to see George Mikan more often than not. But they are gonna film and preserve(for 60 years) footage of a HS kid doing dunks to confirm what several people say they saw? I dont think they would have much if any motivation.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I've been a reader of these boards for about a year - don't have any other accounts.

And uhhhh... you've never seen a mix-tape!? They all add music... they all use slow motion shit all the time :facepalm and I dropped it from NTSC to PAL for a deliberately choppy frame rate, - which is another simple trick many mix-tapes use. I also color-corrected it to get rid of the yellowed drab look. I guess I shouldn't be tampering with mix tape footage to give it dramatic appeal right? Mix tapes are all about being ordinary :roll:

Would you have rather I kept that leave it to beaver style music, the ugly blurry looking corroded film, and announcers that quipped "pretty!" after a slam that would've give modern announcers a ****ing heart-attack? Such makes for fair demonstrations of their abilities right?... Someone finally makes a standard looking half-ass Youtube mix using 60's footage and you complain. :cry:


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPcmQMdiPw4[/url]
Is it because these guys actually look talented and you don't want to admit it?[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the fact that you made the video but I didn't like the part were you speed up some plays and slow mo'd other plays, it's just stupid and a try to mislead the viewers.

I don't put much value to highlight videos at all to be honest, and I have my reasons. I play basketball in the swedish basketball league and I've played games for the swedish youth national team and I'll tell you this, highlights are so misleading.

We were playing Bulgaria I think it was and youth players don't have much footage or info out there but our scouting went all wrong due highlight videos. One of their guys I guarded looked amazing in his highlight video but kid couldn't ball, he was a true showboater and he took stupid flashy shots all game long. I had him locked down for 9 points but the dude who who absolutely destroyed us (he was playing pro in Germany last I checked) had a random highlight video out there with some misses and some makes but nothing spectacular at all.

Every player can look spectacular in highlight videos, that's my point and it's true as well. Hell, I even saw a Chris Mihm highlight-video where he looked great. Mixtapes/highlights are crazy misleading and especially with all the nonsense slow mo and extra speed..

If you want to live in your imaginary world where you think that those oldschool ballers were just as skilled as modern era players, then go ahead. But there's an obvious reason why they shot with crappy FG% and there's a reason why guys who didn't jump when they were attempting JUMP shots could be all-stars. I even saw all-star footage of warm-ups were 5 straight guys struggled with a simple left-handed lay-up, either they missed it or shot it with the right or went under the basket for a right handed lay-up.

Get real, your quotes doesn't change the facts..

[QUOTE=millwad]I appreciate the fact that you made the video but [B]I didn't like the part were you speed up some plays and slow mo'd other plays[/B], it's just stupid and a try to mislead the viewers.

I don't put much value to highlight videos at all to be honest, and I have my reasons. I play basketball in the swedish basketball league and I've played games for the swedish youth national team and I'll tell you this, [B]highlights are so misleading[/B].

We were playing Bulgaria I think it was and youth players don't have much footage or info out there but our scouting went all wrong due highlight videos. One of their guys I guarded looked amazing in his highlight video but kid couldn't ball, he was a true showboater and he took stupid flashy shots all game long. I had him locked down for 9 points but the dude who who absolutely destroyed us (he was playing pro in Germany last I checked) had a random highlight video out there with some misses and some makes but nothing spectacular at all.

Every player can look spectacular in highlight videos, that's my point and it's true as well. Hell, I even saw a Chris Mihm highlight-video where he looked great. Mixtapes/highlights are crazy misleading and especially with all the nonsense slow mo and extra speed..

If you want to live in your imaginary world where you think that those oldschool ballers were just as skilled as modern era players, then go ahead. [B]But there's an obvious reason why they shot with crappy FG% and there's a reason why guys who didn't jump when they were attempting JUMP shots could be all-stars.[/B] [B]I even saw all-star footage of warm-ups were 5 straight guys struggled with a simple left-handed lay-up, either they missed it or shot it with the right or went under the basket for a right handed lay-up.[/B]

Get real, your quotes doesn't change the facts..[/QUOTE]

Perhaps your confusing "speed up" with the choppy PAL frame rate of 25fps vs typical NTSC 29-30fps... There's slow mo... than there's regular. And anyways doing everything I did for every reason I did it IS the point of any mixtape or highlight, it's emphasizing moves, setting the stage, showcasing talent. It's not a game film for players to study, its a mix tape for fans to enjoy. I can't help it if you don't like it's what every mix tape is all about :confusedshrug: .

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvknOlKuBjw[/url]
Does that guy look spectacular? Does that look ANYTHING like say, Wilt Chamberlain's abilities in his high school footage? Sorry but even fancy editing can't make wine out of water, that dude ****ing sucks in comparison yet he's still prob gonna make some sort of post-highschool career.

And... fg%?

Defense. Very physical hands-on defense. The type that's not allowed today - and the change in defensive rules has indeed inflated player fg% now it's not a shift in talent, it's that guards are now allowed to charge a center and he's likely to get a "foul" if the center even breathes on him. If you made a drive on Wilt you were going back down on the floor. Watch the video again, look at the narrower lane its smaller real-estate thus jam packed with forwards or centers. If you couldn't shoot with range you were going to face the unbreakable wall of that tightly packed key. The best way to counter this in the coaches minds at that time was just run the fast break like mad. And they did. There's reasons for the stat changes sure, but blaming it on talent? Come on man. That league had plenty of talent to go around.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Perhaps your confusing "speed up" with the choppy PAL frame rate of 25fps vs typical NTSC 29-30fps... There's slow mo... than there's regular. And anyways doing everything I did for every reason I did it IS the point of any mixtape or highlight, it's emphasizing moves, setting the stage, showcasing talent. It's not a game film for players to study, its a mix tape for fans to enjoy. I can't help it if you don't like it's what every mix tape is all about :confusedshrug: .

There is no honesty in entertainment[/QUOTE]

I am not trying to diss you for the video you did, I actually liked the video and looked at it at least 3 times and it sure thing was better then the most highlights from that era on youtube.

What I didn't like was the fact that you tried to use it as proof for their skillset. I know as a fact that the games improved over time and if anyone watch a longer game tape they'll tell you like it is.

And I also know that mixtapes and highlights are crappy when talking about skillset, it's just misleading and that's why I never give a crap about how good anyone look in a mixtape. Just compare your mixtape to a longer game tape and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, thanks for the video and this is a stupid discussion anyway. Nothing anyone writes in this thread will change the others mind. It's always like this, Jlauber copies stats from google and acts like he's a historian with his biased standpoints and then we have fanboys who absolutely love his texts and then we have people like me who just dissmiss everything he writes due his crappy credibility no matter if it's true or not. It never leads no where and we are all obviously wasting our time.

It's a shame that Jlauber takes so much space in Wilt discussions, you've probably noticed how better posters guys like Psileas and some others are.

[QUOTE=millwad]I am not trying to diss you for the video you did, I actually liked the video and looked at it at least 3 times and it sure thing was better then the most highlights from that era on youtube.

What I didn't like was the fact that you tried to use it as proof for their skillset. I know as a fact that the games improved over time and if anyone watch a longer game tape they'll tell you like it is.

And I also know that mixtapes and highlights are crappy when talking about skillset, it's just misleading and that's why I never give a crap about how good anyone look in a mixtape. Just compare your mixtape to a longer game tape and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, thanks for the video and this is a stupid discussion anyway. Nothing anyone writes in this thread will change the others mind. It's always like this, Jlauber copies stats from google and acts like he's a historian with his biased standpoints and then we have fanboys who absolutely love his texts and then we have people like me who just dissmiss everything he writes due his crappy credibility no matter if it's true or not. It never leads no where and we are all obviously wasting our time.

It's a shame that Jlauber takes so much space in Wilt discussions, you've probably noticed how better posters guys like Psileas and some others are.[/QUOTE]

Glad that you liked the video - I hope it at least opens your mind even if it doesn't change it.

That era wasn't a bunch of small/short white guys nor are they unathletic or any of that.

Take #16, the white guy in the very beggining. One might think he's got a surprisingly smooth handle for that time. But bahhh it's still too easy to dismiss him as a "small" white-guy after that right? Except....

It's Cliff Hagen. He's only a guard. And he's every bit as tall in his barefeet and just as heavy as todays Tyreke Evans. Then there's Oscar, who is even bigger than Cliff who plays PG. In his barefeet Oscar stands just slightly taller than MJ or Kobe - and watch his intensity and his ability to drive pass or shoot - how could his size, intensity IQ and abilities [I]not[/I] translate to a superstar in today's league?

Don't need to answer that, it's just food for thought.

[QUOTE=Clippersfan86]... Ming and Wallace are two of the best centers ever. Shaq said he considers Yao a top 5 center of all time. Wallace is arguably a top 5 defender and rebounder all time. Then a couple others I mentioned are HOFers. [B]Reality is Wilt had nobody that could even try to body him up, Shaq did.[/B]

Sabonis, Wallace and Yao all had their success against Shaq in the paint at some point or another.[/QUOTE]

Please do some actual research on this and then get back to me. I could (and have) DESTROYED that assertion before, but now I want YOU to back up that statement. Chamberlain was SWARMED and BRUTALIZED in his career, and no other player in NBA history was more defended. I can back up my claim...let's see you back up your's.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]You wouldnt think it if you took a moment to consider the situation. This wasnt 2010. It was 1955 or so(HS wilt). Playing high school ball. The NBA finals were not even always on tv back then. Shit in the 80s the NBA finals were on tape delay. This is 60 years ago. Everyone didnt have camera phones. Do you know how big a deal it was when quick use disposable cameras came around? When I was a kid they were new. And that was not the 50s.

People wouldnt be standing around a high school practice with Tex Winter with video cameras. They wouldnt usually even be at NBA games getting lots of footage in the mid 50s.

But you think its likely someone schedules a film crew or something to record Wilt doing a Ft line dunk...in high school?

They wouldnt send a film crew to see George Mikan more often than not. But they are gonna film and preserve(for 60 years) footage of a HS kid doing dunks to confirm what several people say they saw? I dont think they would have much if any motivation.[/QUOTE]


Great points...Plus i would imagine the costs to get that type of equipment back then didn't justify the means....

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Tex Winter said that the League changed the rules so Counts had to actually shoot his freethrows instead of dunking them like he did in high school.[/QUOTE]

Of course, the REAL intention of the above comment was a slap in the direction of Chamberlain.

And, yet, we have a YouTube INTERVIEW in which the highly respected Tex Winter claims that he headed up a team to ban the dunking of FTAs because he WITNESSED a young Wilt, with a few steps behind the line, dunking a FT attempt.

But beyond that, these "anti-Chamberlain" posters always bring up the so-called "myths" about Wilt. That he killed a mountain lion with his bare hands (hell, we don't know for sure...how big was the mountain lion?) Or that he broke the toe of a player with a vicious dunk (BTW, WILT never claimed that feat, but instead, it was the ACTUAL player who said so.)

In my first couple of years on this forum, these "Chamberlain-haters" would constantly challenge my claims. Where was the footage, they asked, of Wilt's supposed "leaping ability?" Or his supposed "shooting range?" Or that he was actually facing taller players? Or that he was "doubled?"

Well, in the last few months, someone using the name of Dantheman, has posted a TON of VIDEO footage on YouTube...and lo-and-behold, we now SEE Chamberlain blocking a shot, with no time to react, and going straight up, in which his fingertips are within a couple of inches of the top of the backboard. Or multiple single game highlights of Chamberlain routinely hitting a variety of shots from 15+ feet. Or a SWARMED Chamberlain rising above 6-10+ centers and hitting bank shots from 10-15 ft.

And, once again, Sonny Hill, a highly respected icon in Philadelphia sports history, claiming that he witnessed Wilt touching the top of the backboard. (BTW, long time Sixer trainer, Al Domenico also claimed that.) Of course, it was well known during the Chamberlain era that he did, in fact, accomplish that very feat. Or Philly sportswriter George Kiseda measuring a verical leap, by Chamberlain, in a hospital, of 42". Of course, we also know that Wilt's college coach rolled out a 12 ft rim, and there have been those that claim that Chamberlain was dunking on it.

There were those that challenged my take that Wilt was ROUTINELY blocking a PRIME and ATHLETIC Kareem's "unblockable" sky hook. BUT, we not only have game logs in Chamberlain was blocking 4-5 or more of Kareem's shots (surely many of them were skyhooks), we also have VIDEO footage of Wilt blocking not one, but TWO, skyhooks within a matter seconds.


Of course, there are MANY claims of Wilt's staggering strength. However, there are also some interesting articles, as well. SI ran a story in 1964, in which Chamberlain was already credited with a 425 bench. That was long before Wilt would reach his peak. We also have an interview by Robert Cherry, with a known weight-lifter, who was 6-5 and 250 lbs, and who was easily capable of benching over 500 lbs, claiming that Wilt was the strongest man he ever met. Or an EYE-WITNESS interview, in which he claimed that he witnessed Chamberlain benching 465 lbs...at age 59! And, of course, Wilt then acknowledged that he could have done more (as well as claiming he HAD done more in his lifetime.)

Just GOOGLE Wilt's vertical or bench. The internet is PLASTERED with stories with incredible claims.

BUT, it goes beyond that. Wilt played with and against dozens of coachs in his lifetime. He played with and against hundreds, if not thousands, of players in his career. He was closely followed by many members of the media, and was SEEN by thousands, of not millions, of fans. And here we have all of these "mythical" feats, and yet, where are those that would DISPUTE them???? Surely Wilt must have tried to touch the top of the backboard in practice with surrounding teammates on more than one occasion, and yet, not one LEGITIMATE eye-witness has ever stepped forth to dispute that he indeed accomplished it. And surely Wilt worked out with many partners and in view of many other's in his lifetime, and yet, not one LEGITIMATE first-hand account disputing those that claimed that Wilt had a 500+ bench press???

If anything, we now KNOW that those many eye-popping physical feats were NOT "myths", but were actual FACTS.

Jlauber, why you trying to teach common sense to a bunch of degenerates who have Lin avatars like some hype-driven loons?? Keep doing what you do man, cuz you do it well....Most of those who don't agree with you can't discredit your posts. Like you said, they will sight "mountain lion", post some childish gif, then go *********e in the shower.

[QUOTE=bwink23]Jlauber, why you trying to teach common sense to a bunch of degenerates who have Lin avatars like some hype-driven loons?? Keep doing what you do man, cuz you do it well....Most of those who don't agree with you can't discredit your posts. Like you said, they will sight "mountain lion", post some childish gif, then go *********e in the shower.[/QUOTE]

The Wilt "Double Standard" on this forum, at least in several cases, is just ridiculous.

I have read so many posts that Wilt was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games. And, yet, I have proven that he was perhaps the MOST CLUTCH "big game" player of all-time (with only Jordan having a case over him.) Wilt not only put up HUGE games in his "must-win" and "series clinching" post-season games, he routinely CRUSHED his opposing center in them, as well.

And it fascinates me that Kareem, who was arguably a GOAT candidate, is held in some kind of higher esteem, and yet, when the two played in the league together for four seasons, an OLD Wilt was a better "winner" than a PRIME Kareem. Or that an OLD Wilt could battle a PRIME Kareem to a statistical draw in one H2H season, and by ALL accounts, outplay a Kareem in his greatest statistical season, in another. Even a Chamberlain in his LAST season battled a PRIME Kareem to a relative draw in their H2H's. And virtually no one brings up this interesting fact...in Kareem's rookie season, in a year in which he averaged 28.8 ppg on .518 shooting, Wilt started out that same season leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg on .600 shooting, in his first nine games, which included a H2H in which Chamberlain just pounded Kareem. Granted, that was a rookie Kareem, and he would go on to become a much greater player, but that was also NOT a PRIME Chamberlain, either. Wilt was in his 11th season at the time.

Furthermore, Kareem's first ten years, in his absolute prime, were much more of a "loser", and a "choker" than Wilt's first ten seasons, and in his prime. And, as well now all know, a PRIME Chamberlain dominated his peers FAR more than a PRIME Kareem did his, including the fact that they both faced some of the same centers.

Nor do the "anti-Wilt" clan ever credit Chamberlain with taking PUTRID rosters, who played even WORSE in the post-season, to within an eye-lash of beating Russell's HOF-laden Celtic teams, in the apex of their dynasty, TWICE. Or that a PRIME Chamberlain led an equally talented supporting cast to a rout of the Celtic Dynasty, in a series in which Wilt just SHELLED Russell.

Or that Wilt led 12 teams to the Conference Finals in his 14 seasons. Or that he led his team's to six division titles, and six conference finals. Or that Chamberlain went to SIX Finals. Or that Wilt played on teams with the best record in the league (in talent-rich NBA seasons) FOUR times. Or that he led his team to 60+ wins on FOUR occasions (which was one more time than even Russell did.) Or that Chamberlain anchored TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13, and won dominating world titles.

He was the game's greatest scorer, rebounder, and arguably (considering the league's he played in) the most efficient shooter of all time. And, at his peak he was perhaps on the level of even the great Russell in terms of defensive impact. Or that a PRIME Wilt LED the NBA in assists, and came in third in another season. Or that Chamberlain was perhaps the greatest shot-blocker of all-time.

And Wilt not only was the best in all of the above, he was often LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers in MANY of them.

And, of course, he wasn't doing it against non-athletic 6-6 white centers, but in actuality, was dominating 6-11+ athletic centers in his entire career, including several 7-0 footers.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]:facepalm Starts as ROY, then settles into his modest early years as a 2 time scoring champ 3-time MVP (in 5 years), 2-time champion, finals MVP, the dominant scorer of his team every year, leagues leading shot-blocker, and MVP of one of the top 5 teams in NBA history.... + First team and all defensive team picks during those years....

What you been smokin bro? That skinny Kareem was > athletic and dominant than Laker Kareem[/QUOTE]

:no:

Laker Kareem>Milwaukee Kareem.

Not even close. Bucks version of Kareem got pushed out of his comfortable spots for the sky hook. And LA Kareem killed it in that regard.He was bulked up, by then he could shot the sky hook with the left hand and from bigger distance.

Defensively he was dominant, better all-around player and was a far better passer out of the post. He averaged 6.3 assists at one point of his season. He peaked in his days as a Laker overall.

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]:no:

Laker Kareem>Milwaukee Kareem.
[/QUOTE]
:cheers: 1976-77 season speaks for itself already.

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]:no:

Laker Kareem>Milwaukee Kareem.

Not even close. Bucks version of Kareem got pushed out of his comfortable spots for the sky hook. And LA Kareem killed it in that regard.He was bulked up, by then he could shot the sky hook with the left hand and from bigger distance.

Defensively he was dominant, better all-around player and was a far better passer out of the post. He averaged 6.3 assists at one point of his season. He peaked in his days as a Laker overall.[/QUOTE]

Not even close???

You are absolutely out of your mind. In fact, how about this? In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, averaged 34.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg, shot .574, and averaged 4.6 apg. And he accomplished all of that on a team that romped to a 63-19 record, and had a whopping +11.1 ppg differential.

Then, playing with an average supporting cast, at best, in his 75-76 Laker season, he played 41.2 mpg, averaged 27.7 ppg, which was among his worst seasons in the 70's, and shot .529 from the floor, which was his third WORST season of that decade. Granted, he led the NBA in rebounding, at 16.9 rpg, but before anyone gets too excited about that, it was his ONLY rebounding title, and he barely edged 6-9 Dave Cowens, who was at 16.0 rpg. The other leaders were 6-7 Wes Unseld, 6-7 Paul Silas, and 6-10 Sam Lacey. Gone were the dominant rebounders like Wilt and Thurmond. And of course, the biggest question simply has to be...in a season in which his team needed him to be a dominant scorer, he basically couldn't do it. And it wasn't like no one was scoring, either. McAdoo ran away with the scoing title, at 31.1 ppg, and the season before, he romped over Kareem, with a 34.5 ppg average (in a league that only averaged 102.6 ppg.)

And I will stand by my assertion that Kareem's all-around greatest season came in his SECOND season. He easily led the league in scoring at 31.7 ppg, and in only 40.1 mpg, while grabbing 16.0 rpg, and shooting .577 (which was his greatest differential against the league-average... .128 points...of his entire career.) He won the MVP, and then went on to win the FMVP, and on a team that went 66-16. BTW, the Bucks DEFENSE, in the Kareem's years, were simply among the greatest defensive team's EVER. They were holding opponents to .420, .422, and .424 seasons. Kareem was a MAJOR factor in that.

IMHO, while Kareem was a little bigger, and a little stronger by the mid-70's, he had lost some motivation, and was not as dominant as he could have been. Even more damaging, was the fact the NBA from the time Chamberlain retired in '73, until the emergence of Bird and Magic in the '80 season, was probably the weakest in it's history. The '75 Warriors won a title, with Rick Barry and rookie Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes, and a cast of no-names, who went 48-34. In the '77 season, the 49-33 Trailblazers not only won the title, they SWEPT Kareem's 53-29 Lakers in the process. And Kareem's 77-78 Lakers were routed by a 47-35 Sonics team, with only one borderline HOF player (Dennis Johnson), and that team lost to a 44-38 Bullets team in the Finals. BTW, guess who was playing alongside Kareem in that '78 season? A more experienced Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and an Adrian Dantley, who was averaging 26.5 ppg when LA acquired him. THEN, with that same basic roster, only with a year under their belts, they were again blown away, 4-1, by essentially the same Sonic's team, that went 52-30 en route to a title.

Granted, it was certainly not all of Kareem's fault. But, as gifted and dominant as he was, why couldn't he lead talented rosters to titles in years in which the champions were among the weakest ever?

[QUOTE=Odinn]:cheers: 1976-77 season speaks for itself already.[/QUOTE]


Really? What exactly does it speak for? Comparing his 71-72 season to 76-77, 34.8 ppg - 26.2 ppg, 16.6 rpg - 13.3 rpg, and 4.6 apg - 3.9 apg. Shooting percentages were pretty much the same. Looks to me like he was more dominant in 71-72 than in 76-77.

Kareem truly was a phenomenal player, but he was NEVER the dominating force that Wilt was. Not even close. Whether it was lack of motivation, or lack of stamina, or a combination of both, I don't know.