[quote=ashlar]you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:[/quote]Russell's Celtics and Thurmond/Barry '67 Warriors go without saying as well.
Printable View
[quote=ashlar]you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:[/quote]Russell's Celtics and Thurmond/Barry '67 Warriors go without saying as well.
You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.
I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?
[quote] For many years following Chamberlain's departure from the University of Kansas, critics claimed that he either wanted to leave the very white Midwest or [B]was embarrassed by [U]not being able to bring home the NCAA basketball tournament victory.[/U][/B] [/quote]
- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career[/url]
He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.
Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.
How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.
1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever
[QUOTE=ashlar]You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Of course, we know that Thurmond and Wilt outplayed Kareem at times in the 70's, and certainly limited him in their H2H matchups to a significant degree. He struggled to even hot 40% against Thurmond, and in his 28 H2H games against Wilt, he shot .464 (including only .434 in his last ten...while Chamberlain outshot him .637 to .450 in their last six regular season encounters.) We also know that in their only H2H encounter before Wilt's knee injury, that Chamberlain outscored Kareem, 25-23, outrebounded him, 25-20, outassisted him, 5-2, outblocked him, 3-2, and outshot him, 9-14 to 9-21.
And, we know that a 39 year old Kareem poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) against the likes of Hakeem. Or that Kareem, in that same post-season, had a couple of 30+ games againt Hakeem. Or that in his last three seasons against Hakeem, and all in his 40's, he outshot him, H2H, by a .567 to .475 margin. Or that Kareem, in that same '85-86 season, had a game against Ewing, in which he poured in 40 points, and held Ewing to 2-16 shooting. Or that over the course of his three years, and all at age 40+, he outshot Ewing, H2H, by a .551 to .483 margin, and nearly matched his scoring with a 16.5 ppg average to Patrick's 18.8.
We also know that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be among the best centers of the 90's, and that Hakeem played Shaq to a standstill in the '95 Finals.
[QUOTE=Micku]I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?
- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career[/url]
He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.
Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.
How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.
1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever[/QUOTE]
I wasn't declaring Wilt a better "winner" than Russell, or MJ, or Magic, or even Duncan. BUT, his team's probably won somewhere around 67% of their games, or more, in his CAREER. He played on 12 teams, in 14 seasons, that made it to the Conference Finals. He played on six conference champions. He played in six Finals. He played on four teams that won 60+ games. He played on four teams with the best record in the league. And he played on two record-setting teams that dominated en route to titles.
And, furthermore, how many "great" players have taken a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the eventual champion, that went 62-18, and had a 5-2 edge in HOFers?
He certainly wasn't the "loser" that so many like to depict him as.
BTW,
In Wilt's two title teams, he took his 68-13 76ers, and they completely destroyed a 60-21 Celtic team (with a 4-3 edge in HOFers), 4-1 (and nearly swept them, losing game four by four points), in a series in which Chamberlain just crushed Russell. That ended Boston's streak of eight titles in a row. Following that convincing romp, they pounded a Warrior team, 4-2, that had Barry and Thurmond (and Wilt buried him BTW, as well.)
Then, in the 71-72 season, Wilt took his 69-13 Lakers to a sweep of the 57-25 Bulls, a 4-2 win over the defending champion 63-19 Bucks, and a 4-1 blowout of a NY team that had FIVE HOFers.
[QUOTE=ashlar]You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]
The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.
[QUOTE=Psileas]The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.[/QUOTE]
You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).
[QUOTE=ashlar]You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).[/QUOTE]
You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours. About Lauber, honestly, I don't see him talking about all-time team matchups often. He mostly points out the inaccuracies told about Wilt (not always 100% objective, but then again, who is?), talks about Magic (a more modern player) and often criticizes Kareem and backs up his claims about Russell not being the individual player Wilt was. That's not overglorifying your era, that's mainly talking about it. Neither is overglorifying your era claiming that Russell would be way better today than what people who compare him to Ben Wallace think.
All superstars face weak competition compared to them. Raw stats depend mainly on the game's pace and the team structure. Guys like LeBron, Shaq, Jordan enjoy(-ed) freakishly better natural gifts than their average opponents. Like I said in another thread, for me, the only difference between most people watching Jordan dominate Ehlo and Wilt dominate Mel Counts is that most know who Ehlo was and don't know who Counts was. But the fact is, both were just weak competition (for Jordan's and Wilt's standards). You can't praise one's exploits while scoffing at the other's and not expect justified reactions from certain people.
[quote=Psileas]You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours. [/quote]
To be fair we have some excellent teams today. Miami Heat could definitely cause some matchup problems against the '67 team, and of course the Lakers are deep and loaded with talent. But it comes down inside muscle and rebounding. Sixers would dominate the boards by a staggering margin and pretty much control the middle, especially with Wilt playing 45 minutes per game & Luke Jackson ready to spell him the pivot for those brief periods he may be on the bench. Lakers are a big team with the top front court in the NBA today, yet they'd be small against behemoths like Wilt & Luke Jackson. Chet Walker & Billy C as well off the bench could rebound. Odom properly utilized could be a potential matchup problem. However as Pat Riley has said, "No rebounds, no rings." Of course Miami's interior weakness has been criticized as well. And this Sixers team had the best front court in NBA history and had strong and excellent defensive players at all positions that played well together.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8[/URL]
In the above video (0:15 mark) shows the versatility of a 6'10, 272 lb bull in Lucious Jackson, who was very potent under the board but also quick and mobile. It appears the '67 Sixers were excellent at this baseline action with the pivot man. All of their top players were quick and versatile.
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/n5kgm8.jpg[/IMG]
Chamberlain was excellent at picking off (with the basketball in his possession) the smaller defensive man, forcing the switch right at the rim. You can see just how much better the ball and player movement was back then, before teams starting camping outside using the 3 point line to space the floor.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s[/URL]
Of course I would think this worked best with a lightning quick player like Hal Greer, who could shoot in the blink of an eye or pass off the Wilt for a dunk if the defense over committed.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s[/URL]
Another fine play between Wilt & Big O. :applause:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m34s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m34s[/URL]
It may hard for some to understand how the game was played before the 3 point line. Sixers had some great 1-1 players like Greer, Walker, & Cunningham, however Chamberlain would get the ball and [B]everything[/B] ran through him. He was their playmaker from the pivot.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s[/URL]
[QUOTE=PHILA]Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.
[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
notsureifserious....
[quote=branslowski]notsureifserious....[/quote]
Perhaps if you made some changes to the Lakers, they'd make it a more competitive series against the '67 team.
- Direct Bryant & Fisher toward the fountain of youth.
- Replace Gasol with a hardnosed mean inside player who can rebound, defend, & spot up. For instance Oakley, Ho Grant, Mo Lucas, etc.
-Replace Bynum with a top tier center at peak form (Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Olajuwon, etc).
[QUOTE=ashlar]You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).[/QUOTE]
Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.
If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.
The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.
You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?
[QUOTE=PHILA]Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.
[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?