Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

[QUOTE=jlauber]I don't think you would too much of an argument from even the most ardent Russell fans on Wilt's 66-67 and 71-72 seasons...especially the 66-67 season. When Wilt played at his highest level, there was none better, nor more dominant. Problem was, I don't think Chamberlain had the same focus, or intense desire to win, that Russell did (in fact, even Wilt would admit as much.)

I will never forget one of my first visits to the forum, and I read a comment by Abe Lincoln, in which he said that Wilt was basically an underachiever. I was livid. Here was the greatest record-holder in probably not just basketball, but in any major professional team sport...being called an underachiever.

BUT, the more I read, the more I had to agree. The fact was, Wilt COULD have been more dominant. Even on one leg, he should have crushed Reed in that game seven. Robert Cherry blamed Wilt's game six (not his game seven) in the 68-69 Finals, for LA losing to Boston.

Not all of it was Chamberlain's fault. He had some mediocre teams early in his career. He also had some teams that suffered injuries at the worst possible time. And, he even had some remarkable bad luck. But, as great as he was, he should have been able to overcome much of that, particularly later in his career, and CARRIED those teams to wins.

I have long maintained that Wilt was EXPECTED to do more than anyone else. Was that fair? Probably not, but the fact was...he was such a skilled player, and such a physical specimen, that he was probably CAPABLE of accomplishing more.

When it came to the desire to win...no one was as obsessed as Russell. And deep down, I think Wilt "settled" far too much in his career. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but when you consider things like him getting upset with an SI article criticizing his ability to score...and he responded with a 60 point outburst...well, where was that when it was absolutely critical?[/QUOTE]
Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Well said!

HEY STRO-SHOW PLEASE MERGE THIS WITH THE WILT vs. RUSSELL thread.

THANKS

G.O.A.T said to me in another thread this.
"Just start by telling me why you rank Wilt above Russell despite Russell almost always beating him head-to-head."


Wilt from his rookie season had good games against Russell's Celtics.
He had 53 points against him in his rookie season.

Wilt was much better offensive player,he could score with fadeaway shots,with finger rolls,with monster dunks.Also he was a better passer not by far but he was.And he was scary dominant.Rebounds was very close but I give a little edge to Chamberlain.
Russell was a better defender.Not by far but he was.Chamberlain was also a very good defender.
So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.
Even the great Red Auerbach changed his mind in the 80s and he said that Bird was the GOAT not Russell anymore.

Wilt most of the times is at least in the Top-3..Russell not always.
IMO Russell is a top 6-8 of all time player.

As I said before I respect Bill Russell but IMO he isn't so good as Wilt or MJ or Kareem..It's my opinion.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]
Wilt from his rookie season had good games against Russell's Celtics.
He had 53 points against him in his rookie season.[/QUOTE]

Yet Russell's teams won 84 times and Wilt's 58 and Russell won seven of eight playoff series against Wilt despite them each having the better teammates in those series a total of four times.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Wilt was much better offensive player,he could score with fadeaway shots,with finger rolls,with monster dunks.Also he was a better passer not by far but he was.[/QUOTE]

A better score, undoubtedly, more skilled on offense for sure. A better offensive player, yes but not by as much as people like to assume. Russell was the superior passer as well. The have the same career average for assists and Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs while Wilt's go down. Russell also touched the ball about one third of the amount of times Wilt did, so he was a much more efficient passer form the post. Plus Russell was a tremendous outlet passer which doesn't show up in the stats.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]And he was scary dominant.Rebounds was very close but I give a little edge to Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]

I would tend to agree, but Russell did average more rebounds than Wilt in the playoffs and has the NBA Finals record with 40 in a game.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Russell was a better defender.Not by far but he was.Chamberlain was also a very good defender.[/QUOTE]

Agreed mainly as far as skill goes, but Russell was a much smarter defender and had a MUCH greater impact on the game defensively. Russell blocked shots to teammates, Wilt blocked them out of bounds. That makes Russell's blocks twice as valuable. Russell was a vastly superior help defender, Chamberlain TRIED not to foul out of games, Russell would murder you to win, that's really the difference between the two there.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.[/QUOTE]

In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Even the great Red Auerbach changed his mind in the 80s and he said that Bird was the GOAT not Russell anymore.[/QUOTE]

Auerbach also said he'd never have wanted Wilt on the Celtics. And in his autobiography he says they'll never be a greater winner in all of sports than Bill Russell. Winning is the goal of the game.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Wilt most of the times is at least in the Top-3..Russell not always.
IMO Russell is a top 6-8 of all time player.

As I said before I respect Bill Russell but IMO he isn't so good as Wilt or MJ or Kareem..It's my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Just offering a different opinion and some information you may not have been aware of.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Yet Russell's teams won 84 times and Wilt's 58 and Russell won seven of eight playoff series against Wilt despite them each having the better teammates in those series a total of four times.



A better score, undoubtedly, more skilled on offense for sure. A better offensive player, yes but not by as much as people like to assume. Russell was the superior passer as well. The have the same career average for assists and Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs while Wilt's go down. Russell also touched the ball about one third of the amount of times Wilt did, so he was a much more efficient passer form the post. Plus Russell was a tremendous outlet passer which doesn't show up in the stats.



I would tend to agree, but Russell did average more rebounds than Wilt in the playoffs and has the NBA Finals record with 40 in a game.



Agreed mainly as far as skill goes, but Russell was a much smarter defender and had a MUCH greater impact on the game defensively. Russell blocked shots to teammates, Wilt blocked them out of bounds. That makes Russell's blocks twice as valuable. Russell was a vastly superior help defender, Chamberlain TRIED not to foul out of games, Russell would murder you to win, that's really the difference between the two there.



In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.



Auerbach also said he'd never have wanted Wilt on the Celtics. And in his autobiography he says they'll never be a greater winner in all of sports than Bill Russell. Winning is the goal of the game.



Just offering a different opinion and some information you may not have been aware of.[/QUOTE]
I've always had the opinion that Chamberlain was the best regular season player ever and MJ the best playoff player ever.

I accept that Russell is the greatest winner..The 11 rings speaks.
But my point is that he never been such a good player as Michael,Wilt or Kareem were.

If your points is only the rings then yes he maybe is the GOAT.But to me is not only about the rings.Is about the best player.

And I have a question to you.
Is in your opinion Russell the GOAT?I guess yes......

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I've always had the opinion that Chamberlain was the best regular season player ever and MJ the best playoff player ever.

I accept that Russell is the greatest winner..The 11 rings speaks.
But my point is that he never been such a good player as Michael,Wilt or Kareem were.[/QUOTE]

I disagree for several reasons. Russell had huge games all the time, especially in the finals where's had a closeout game triple double (quadruple-double if you count blocks) and a 30-40 game in game seven.

His total stats were not as great as Jabbars because that wasn't his style. There is statistical analysis on this site available that shows Russell's impact on defense is at least as great as Jordan's on offense.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]If your points is only the rings then yes he maybe is the GOAT.But to me is not only about the rings.Is about the best player.[/QUOTE]

I agree and on Wilt vs. Russell, when I consider all the factors, stats, titles, supporting cast, opinions of peers, etc etc. I come up with Russell everytime and it's not even close.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]And I have a question to you.
Is in your opinion Russell the GOAT?I guess yes......[/QUOTE]

I won't spoil the suspense of my list thread, but I can tell you he is in my top four.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]That's all you need, if you don't understand that do some homework.

But I'd say 5 MVP's and constantly being in the top four his entire career is pretty good.

Also second most rebounds ever and would easily have the most blocks if it was a stat

Highest APG in the postseason ever for a center

More top 10 assist finishes in the season than any other center

watch the videos do some homework and get back to me.

Going forward I'd really like to turn this discussion away from all players except Wilt and Russ for the the sake of the thread.[/QUOTE]

:bowdown:

Only a homer like Shaqattack could disagree

[QUOTE=unbreakable]:bowdown:

Only a homer like Shaqattack could disagree[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: at this butthurt moron.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][QUOTE=MakeHistory78]So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.[/QUOTE]

In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:

[QUOTE]Bill Russell, who revolutionized modern pro basketball with his defensive wizardry and who was an inspiring winner in college, the Olympics and pro ranks, was named basketball

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:



I can only attribute it to a lack of knowledge. (On a side note, what one "never heard" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't mean one is knowledgeable, it just means they were unaware of it, which is a different thing from "it didn't happen." Just means one needs to do more research.)[/QUOTE]

There is probably no one here who is more of a Wilt fan, than myself. And I applaud MakeHistory for suggesting that Wilt might have been the greatest. A few months ago, I would be completely agreeing with him, too.

But, guys like Regul8r, G.O.A.T, Abe Lincoln (who is probably as much a Wilt fan, as myself), and other's here (sorry if I left you out...I am typing this while falling asleep)...have made so many valid points.

The fact is, the INTELLIGENT posters will agree that Wilt was a GREAT player, and most of them would probably agree, that at his BEST, he may have been the best ever. But, the simple fact was, Russell rose to the occassion, and led his teammates to wins...and it was usually at Wilt's expense.

While I disagree with Bill Simmons', who seems to want to bash Wilt, as much as he wanted to heap praise on Russell...there is simply no defense against 11 rings in 13 tries, or being undefeated in game seven's, or taking a good team, and making them great, and then after leaving, they return to ashes...

it goes on-and-on. And, as Reg and G.O.A.T gave stated...Russell's peers recognized him as the greatest ever...and it wasn't even close. The ultimate goal, in a TEAM game, is simply, to WIN. Throw out all the stats, or records, or flashy high-lights,...because, in the end, Russell was the game's greatest winner. And by extension, the game's greatest player.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:



I can only attribute it to a lack of knowledge. (On a side note, what one "never heard" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't mean one is knowledgeable, it just means they were unaware of it, which is a different thing from "it didn't happen." Just means one needs to do more research.)[/QUOTE]

Why you don't understand my friend?I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.

Dan Issel said
"He might have been the greatest to ever play. He didn't win the championships that Bill Russell did, but he didn't have the supporting cast that Bill Russell did. The stats that he put up might never be erased."

And listen to Bill Russell his big rival that's important!
"He’s probably the best player to play the game. I mean,not even close. He was physically bigger, stronger, faster than everybody who’s ever played."

Warren Jabali said that
"Because Russell won all the championships he is supposed to be the greatest player. Well, he's not the greatest player. Chamberlain was the greatest player. You take that team away from Russell and let Russell play with some mediocre players, what is Russell going to do? If you put Chamberlain and Russell with the same mediocre players, Chamberlain's team would win more games."

KC Jones,Bill Russell's teammate
"Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game."

Connie Hawkins also
"In my humble opinion,(Wilt) the greatest basketball player that ever lived."

I'm a big fan of MJ and I don't like that Spencer Haywood said.
"Michael was not the best player ever. I know you all think he was, but…Anyway Wilt was far greater."

Also 2003 Slam Magazine top 75 NBA players in the History and Wilt was the 2nd greatest only behind Michael.


So let me say this.
Russell IMO is one of the 6-8 greatest players ever.But IMO Michael Jordan was the greatest ever play the game.In the GOAT descussion i put there 3 players.MJ,Wilt,KAJ.
I don't take anything from Russell he is great and probably the greatest defender ever.
But Wilt was a beast and MJ also.
That's an opinion.I respect if you have a different opinion..

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Why you don't understand my friend?I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.

Dan Issel said
"He might have been the greatest to ever play. He didn't win the championships that Bill Russell did, but he didn't have the supporting cast that Bill Russell did. The stats that he put up might never be erased."

And listen to Bill Russell his big rival that's important!
"He

[QUOTE=jlauber]MakeHistory,

Your opinions, especially as well documented as they are, are every bit as good as anyone's here.

IMHO, the problem with Wilt was that I think, at his PEAK, and playing his best TEAM basketball, he was probably the best ever. BUT, there is just so many frustrating losses, some on teams that were every bit as good as Russell's. Individually, IMHO, NO ONE was a great. As Oscar said..."The Record Book does not lie."

And, there is no question in my mind that many of Wilt's "failures" were due to mediocre personnel, injuries, bad luck, bad coaching, bad officiating, or a combination of all five. Still, despite so MANY brilliant post-season performances...some in critical games...it just seems that there were too many games in which he did not sieze the moment, as MJ or Russell did, and take over. Robert Cherry made the comment that it was not Wilt's fault for that game seven debacle against Boston in 1969. BUT, had Wilt put up a normal game in game six, the Lakers would have won the title that year. And there were some questionable circumstances surrounding Wilt's game seven in the '68 ECF's...BUT, had Wilt decided to take over the game offensively (even demanding the ball), especially when the Sixers were missing some of their offensive firepower...that he could have made a case for an even greater career.

As for Russell...too often we get caught up in individual stats. I have said it before, but those that diminish Russell's offensive skills (which, IMHO, were better than believed)...are not factoring in Russell's offensive CONTRIBUTIONS. He would tell you that HIS offense came in the form of his TEAM's offense. His teammates would certainly concur. He made the right pass to the right player, in the right circumstance. He was a fierce offensive rebounder, which led to more offensive baskets. And his defensive rebounding and outlet passes led to easy offensive baskets. And none of that even comes close to his defensive impact...which as Regul8r has pointed out, has been compared to Jordan's offensive impact.

One-on-one, I am convinced Wilt would have killed Russell. But in terms of making his TEAMs better...very few would argue that against Russell. Ultimately, it was the difference in an 11-2 advantage in rings.[/QUOTE]

I respect you..You have good points.

Except of Wilt dominance I like more Wilt's offensive skills because he could score with fade away shots,with finger rolls and monster dunks..I've seen Russell also in some games and liked me some hook shots he made.

My point is that Russell is the greatest winner ever(11 rings) but he isn't the greatest player ever because he wasn't so good as Michael or as Wilt,KAJ were..
For the same reason Sam Jones(10 rings) never was as good as Baylor or Jerry West were.He is a greater winner but he wasn't better player..

I know that some people thought that Bill Russell is the greatest.I don't have problem with this.He is a great player don't get me wrong..

But to me is not only the Rings.Is a combination of rings and to be the best player..
Russell has the (rings) but IMO he wasn't the best.Wilt was the best but he hasn't many rings..But i still believe is greater than Russell.

This is one of the reasons I believe MJ is the GOAT.He had it all..

But I respect all these legends..Especially Wilt and Russell..They did a lot for the game of basketball!

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Why you don't understand my friend?[/QUOTE]

That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.[/QUOTE]

Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]KC Jones,Bill Russell's teammate
"Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game."[/QUOTE]

Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I'm a big fan of MJ and I don't like that Spencer Haywood said.
"Michael was not the best player ever. I know you all think he was, but

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.



Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.



Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.



What does [B]Michael Jordan[/B] have to do with an [B]Chamberlain/Russell[/B] thread?

:confusedshrug:

Is it possible for people to refrain from bringing up his name in a thread that has nothing to do with him?



[I]SLAM Magazine[/I]. Who also have Kareem ranked #7. :rolleyes:

People there at the time ranked Russell higher, which is also reflected in the fact that Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade for the 1960s "by a landslide" in 1970, and was named the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980. That's a fact. It's only later, when a new generation of people who never saw either came along, that general opinion changed, when people just looked at the stats and then denigrate Russell, saying he was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace."



As I previously said, Jordan has nothing to do with this discussion. It shows insecurity to keep bringing him up in a thread talking about other greats as if afraid it might change some people's opinions on him.



When was it ever said this wasn't the case?



The obligatory MJ inclusion. :rolleyes: See previous comments.



I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is.[/QUOTE]

Regul8r,

Just curious...can I see your Top-10? (I know...slightly off-topic but here again...I have the utmost respect for your opinions)

MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.



Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.



Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.



What does [B]Michael Jordan[/B] have to do with an [B]Chamberlain/Russell[/B] thread?

:confusedshrug:

Is it possible for people to refrain from bringing up his name in a thread that has nothing to do with him?



[I]SLAM Magazine[/I]. Who also have Kareem ranked #7. :rolleyes:

People there at the time ranked Russell higher, which is also reflected in the fact that Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade for the 1960s "by a landslide" in 1970, and was named the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980. That's a fact. It's only later, when a new generation of people who never saw either came along, that general opinion changed, when people just looked at the stats and then denigrate Russell, saying he was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace."



As I previously said, Jordan has nothing to do with this discussion. It shows insecurity to keep bringing him up in a thread talking about other greats as if afraid it might change some people's opinions on him.



When was it ever said this wasn't the case?



The obligatory MJ inclusion. :rolleyes: See previous comments.



I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is.[/QUOTE]
Russell was officialy GOAT 1980..Ok but even his former coach Legendary Red Auerbach changed his mind and considered Bird as the GOAT.

I didn't dispute that Russell back to 1980 condidered as the GOAT...I said i've never heard old players and basketball people who said that Russell is the GOAT.

Of caurse I don't agree with SLAM's KAJ ranked #7 but that was a list by a very important Magazine.Also I don't agree with Big O ranked #3 but is another story..
However was a list.

Any one who saying he(Russell) was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace." is a sciolist..
Ι watched Russell in old games and of caurse was special..

At the end I don't understand why you are so abrupt..We talk about basketball,right?

Please don't advise me if I feel this:
"I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is."

Ιf you don't like this I don't care...But don't advise me!

Stay in basketball talks with me.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)[/QUOTE]


Russell like so many other Greats did things that dont show up in the box scores . Only those that take the time to learn about how great the 60's Celtics were can understand how Great Russell was. There may have been more skilled players than Russell ie: Wilt KAJ but no player in the history of the game had the leadership and IQ of winning like Russ.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)[/QUOTE]

I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...

Russell to me is a 6-8 ever..I don't feel that I dispute him because I don't put him in Top-3...So simple

I watched him play in old games..I don't speak about stats

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...

Russell to me is a 6-8 ever..I don't feel that I dispute him because I don't put him in Top-3...So simple

I watched him play in old games..I don't speak about stats[/QUOTE]


If I was a GM and needed a player I would want the guy that won 11 times in 13 years over a guy that had stats now maybe if Russ played for the Hawks he wouldnt have the 11 rings who knows but what we do know is that he was a winner

[QUOTE=Niquesports]If I was a GM and needed a player I would want the guy that won 11 times in 13 years over a guy that had stats now maybe if Russ played for the Hawks he wouldnt have the 11 rings who knows but what we do know is that he was a winner[/QUOTE]

Ok no prob..But think..Why Red Auerbach at the middle of the 80's said that
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''

Even former Russell teammates like Don Nelson don't consider him as the Greatest player..
"The question didn't seem relevant. But Larry Bird came along with all the skills, all the things a basketball player has to do. I think he's the greatest"



I'm not the only who don't consider him as the GOAT but even people who were with him and built the Celtics legacy didn't consider him as the GOAT..

[QUOTE=Niquesports] Only those that take the time to learn about how great the 60's Celtics were can understand how Great Russell was.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...
[/QUOTE]

But what is the goal of basektball?

What is the reason the skills MJ, KAJ and Wilt had are so Great?

It's about winning...that is every players goal.

Some players want to score, others want to rebound, others are content to defend, but all want to win.

Russell scored 50 points in a game, he grabbed 40 rebounds, he blocked 20 shots, he had 10 assists...none of them however were his primary goal. Like all players (in this discussion) his goal was to win, and he did it more than anyone else. Rather that took scoring or rebounding or defending or outsmarting his opponent, he was going to win.

I understand liking Jordan's visual competitiveness and grace or Wilt's Power and Dominance or Kareem's refined perfection and understated mastery as a style better than Russell's workmanlike psychological warfare. However not seeing the guy who won as nearly as many Championships as Michael, Wilt and Kareem combined can't possibly not be in the same class; it is an insult and it is ignorant rather it's your opinion or not.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]But what is the goal of basektball?

What is the reason the skills MJ, KAJ and Wilt had are so Great?

It's about winning...that is every players goal.

Some players want to score, others want to rebound, others are content to defend, but all want to win.

Russell scored 50 points in a game, he grabbed 40 rebounds, he blocked 20 shots, he had 10 assists...none of them however were his primary goal. Like all players (in this discussion) his goal was to win, and he did it more than anyone else. Rather that took scoring or rebounding or defending or outsmarting his opponent, he was going to win.

I understand liking Jordan's visual competitiveness and grace or Wilt's Power and Dominance or Kareem's refined perfection and understated mastery as a style better than Russell's workmanlike psychological warfare. However not seeing the guy who won as nearly as many Championships as Michael, Wilt and Kareem combined can't possibly not be in the same class; it is an insult and it is ignorant rather it's your opinion or not.[/QUOTE]

Again..How did you explain that?
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''Red Auerbach

And something else!
Russell has 11 rings..
Sam Jones has 10 rings,right?Is he greater than Jordan or Jerry West,or Kobe Bryant,or Elgin Baylor(0 rings)?

Don't try to prove me that Russell is the GOAT.I know very well the History of the game.I Know very well all the greats even underrated past Legends like Falks or Mikan.I watched the History of the game!

Russell to me is a 6-8# ever..So simple.I explained the reasons.

I respect if you or anyone else consider him as the GOAT or better than Wilt.
But IMO he isn't..
I'm not kid to change my mind..I know the history

Wilt is almost unquestionably the most dominant player to have ever played the game. Statistically, he crushed Russell, which is remarkable considering that Russell was universally accepted as the best defensive player of his era (and maybe of all-time.) I can see an argument for Wilt based solely on H2H individual play. But, Russell's impact went beyond the individual stats. Probably the best answer I can give is that Russell made his teammates better, and his opponents worse. IMHO, only Duncan and Magic can come close to Russell in overall impact on their teams...and while Duncan was a very good defender, Russell was the best.

1.) Wilt
2.) Kareem
3.) Shaq
4.) Russell
5.) Hakeem "The Dream"

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Again..How did you explain that?
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''Red Auerbach
[/QUOTE]


I would guess he said that because Bird was going to be a free agent the next summer.

He was written or said many times that no one will ever be a greater leader, winner or player than Russell.

Here's another good quote.


“If we played Boston four on four, without Russell, we probably would have won every series. The guy killed us. He's the one who prevented us from acheiving true greatness.”
--L.A. Lakers forward "Hot Rod" Hundley

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're opinion lacks credibility in this instance because it ignores some pretty basic facts. And you never really explained it beyond saying t's your opinion. It's not about questioning your knowledge or the validity of your opinion. Still I'm not sure I've ever heard of Joe Falks.

The fact that there is still so much discussion involving Russell and Wilt, is testament to their enduring greatness.

As I have stated many times, there probably has never been a player, in any major professional team sport, that was as dominant as Chamberlain. I believe Gretsky holds something like 63 major hockey records. Babe Ruth used to hold many. But, not only does he still hold some 130 records, many of them will never be approached, much less broken. AND, in many cases, Wilt holds the next best mark, or marks.

Still, despite being the most dominant indivdual player in sports' history, one man stood between Chamberlain, and perhaps as many as 10 team titles. As GOAT has said many times, had there been no Russell, there would be no debate as to who the greatest player, probably in ANY team sport, would have been. Wilt would not hold the lion's share of the record book, he would also have been basketball's greatest winner (and perhaps all of sports' as well.)

Wilt had a 46-34 game against Russell in game five of the '66 playoffs...just one of many overwhelming statistical efforts that he put up against him...and yet Russell's team won the game, and the series. In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history. In his 80 games, Chamberlain was held under 30 points, three times...all by Russell. Even more importantly, in game seven of the ECF's, a game in which Boston won by two points, Russell held Wilt to 22 points. What does that mean? Simply...Russell did whatever it took to win. Russell's IMPACT was such that he could surrender a 40-30 game to Chamberlain, and still LEAD his team to a win...or he could hold him to a 22 point game, in a season in which Wilt averaged 50. AND, in that 61-62 season, despite ESPN's take...Russell was voted the league MVP.

Statistics never meant anything to Russell. He was not interested in whether he was outscored, or outshot, or outrebounded, or outanythinged...he was only interested in the scoreboard...and what it would take to have the higher score at the end.

Along the way, Russell was almost universally accepted by his peers, as the greatest basketball player ever. As the years have gone by, Russell's legacy has diminished. You can see it in so many fan polls, or in forums like this. ESPN Sport's Century ranked him a ridiculous #18 (Wilt was at #13 BTW...and MJ was #1.) And I suspect that if they were to run a new series (the original took place in 1999), that both Wilt and especially Russell, would drop further. Why? Because the casual fan just looks at numbers. In Wilt's case they simply just don't believe them. In Russell's case, they look slightly better than ordinary, at least in offensive production. Never mind that Russell was a winner at every level. Never mind that he made every team he joined a champion, and when he left them, they would drop off dramatically.

Never mind that he was sport's greatest winner...

I don't see this as debat - as Russell admits Chamberlain was the better individual - and not only the number shows it. And yes Russell is a winner, but the reason for him to be in Boston is Red Auerbach - and Red is the main reason for building Celtics dinasty, simply because he assembled that team piece by piece for several years. It was something like destiny for Felton to be a winner.

[QUOTE=julizaver]I don't see this as debat - as Russell admits Chamberlain was the better individual - and not only the number shows it. And yes Russell is a winner, but the reason for him to be in Boston is Red Auerbach - and Red is the main reason for building Celtics dinasty, simply because he assembled that team piece by piece for several years. It was something like destiny for Felton to be a winner.[/QUOTE]

You're right not to see it as a debate, anyone who can read final scores knows it's Russell.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You're right not to see it as a debate, anyone who can read final scores knows it's Russell.[/QUOTE]

And I dont know in which game Russell scored 50 :). Simple as that - the Celtics were the better team. Of course Russell is a winner, but I can not agree that Wilt is a loser, in the 7 th games that Wilt's teams lost it was not his fault. Someone said that Wilt should crashed one leg Reed in 1970 - OK, and Wilt scored 21 points (on 10 from 16) and 24 rebounds and 4 assists against 4 points (2 from 5 ) and 3 rebounds of Reed. It was the Frazier's best game (36 points, 7 rebounds and 19 assists ) who outplayed completely Jerry West.

[QUOTE=julizaver]And I dont know in which game Russell scored 50 :). Simple as that - the Celtics were the better team. Of course Russell is a winner, but I can not agree that Wilt is a loser, in the 7 th games that Wilt's teams lost it was not his fault. Someone said that Wilt should crashed one leg Reed in 1970 - OK, and Wilt scored 21 points (on 10 from 16) and 24 rebounds and 4 assists against 4 points (2 from 5 ) and 3 rebounds of Reed. It was the Frazier's best game (36 points, 7 rebounds and 19 assists ) who outplayed completely Jerry West.[/QUOTE]

It's not Wilt's fault his team always lost to Russell and it's not because of Russell that the Celtics won.

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

What about in 1966 1968 and 1969 when Chamberlians team was clearly better than Russell's?

Here's the immediate reaction to and impact of Wilt joining the NBA.

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1133889/index.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]It's not Wilt's fault his team always lost to Russell and it's not because of Russell that the Celtics won.

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

What about in 1966 1968 and 1969 when Chamberlians team was clearly better than Russell's?[/QUOTE]

No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.

I agree that 1967 and 1968 teams of Sixers bested slightly those of Celtics - due to aged Celtics roster.

[QUOTE=julizaver]No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.
[/QUOTE]

1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.

[QUOTE=julizaver]No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.

I agree that 1967 and 1968 teams of Sixers bested slightly those of Celtics - due to aged Celtics roster.[/QUOTE]

I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.[/QUOTE]

1. Russell won all his titles with Celtics and Red as GM behind him. Russell quit Celtics and go coaching Seatle and Sacramento and winning nothing.
2. Look at Jlauber post, and furthermore Wilt played injured in that series.
3. The team spirit is something which begin with the coach - if the coach can not gone alone with the players - no way to have good spirit. When Alex Hannum replaced the friendly but unassertive Dolph Schayes in 1966 it was the first thing to do and the result is obvious. And in 1968-69 Wilt went to LA Lakers, and also have problems with his coach, which limited Wilt offensive game in favor of Baylor (the later just a shadow of himself).

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.[/QUOTE]

And in my opinion had Hannum and Wilt stayed in Philadelfia they would have won 2-3 more tittles. And recently I watched Bill Russell on youtube explayning that in that final game of ECF he did not guarded Chamberlain in the second half (the game in which Wilt attempted only 2 FG after the break), instead he guarded Chet Walker, who according to Russell "was killing us" in the first half. So Russell overpowered Walker, and Wilt was guarded closely by Russell back-up Wayne Embry (who was able to comit more fouls). And yes Wilt do what he does all season - fed his teamates, rebounding and shotblocking. Wilt was anything, but not shut down by Russell, for god sake he even not guarded him in the second half, according to his own testimony.

I think Wilt got a bad rap for some many of those "failures." If anything, he played brilliantly, with mediocre personnel, for the first half of his career. It was testament to his greatness that he could CARRY what was basically a last-place roster to a game seven, two-point, defeat to the 60-20 Celtics in 61-62. Not only that, but he CARRIED a 40-40 76er team past Oscar's best team of the 60's, (48-32) in the 64-65 playoffs, 3-1, before then taking that team to a ONE-POINT, game seven loss to the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game, he dominated down the stretch.

IMHO, you can find fault with some of Wilt performances in the post-season, from 66-on. Unfortunately, a relatively poor game (poor being along the lines of a 15-20 game) in the middle of a crucial playoff series would ultimately lead to a game seven defeat in which he usually played well, at the very least.

Robert Cherry does not blame Wilt for that game seven defeat in 1969. However, as he stated, had Wilt played a normal game in game six of that series, that series would never have gone to a game seven.

On the other hand...Russell deserves his place in history. He never had to have any excuses for his, or his team's, play in the post-season (unlike Wilt, Kareem, and MJ.) He simply led his teams to titles.

To me, it's not a case of Wilt being a "failure", nothing could be further from the truth, but that Russell, and his teams, just played better, when it mattered most. And you can't diminish the fact that Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt's. Russell deserves the credit for much of that. He made his teammates better, while, for whatever reasons, Chamberlain's generally always under-performed.

As G.O.A.T. stated in another thread...if Russell had not played in the Wilt era...there would be NO discussion as to the greatest player was. Wilt would have won a plethora of rings, and owned the record book, as well. You just can't discount what Russell did, however. He did it not only to Wilt...but to the rest of the NBA, as well.