Hall of fame centers in the 60's vs team defenses in the early 00's

[QUOTE]You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know[/QUOTE]

Pretty Much. He(as are quite a few fans who take their support of individual players to a laughable extreme) decides how intelligent you are from one moment to the next based on little but if your current words can be taken to support his guy or not. Hes quoted things I said with the little cheers emoticons and props and all....and some other time im a Wilt hater. Despite the fact ive been here for 10 years mostly defending Wilt when hes hated on.

Not that such things are limited to him.

While back I came up on a list of the worst Lebron haters...the same day some other guy said I was the biggest Lebron fan here.

ISH can be funny in that way....

[QUOTE=jlauber]

The widening of the lane had NO affect on Wilt.[/QUOTE]

Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.

[QUOTE=Rooster]You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.[/QUOTE]

And you forgot to mention that Wilt's TEAM was DECIMATED by injuries, including Wilt himself, who PLAYED with his. And, yes, 34 rebounds (to Russell's 26), all while battling an assortment of injuries. Instead of getting some kind of praise for a pretty amazing accomplishment, you rip him for supposedly losing the game.

In '69 they were playing better without Wilt? From about the ten minute mark, when LA trailed by 17 points, to the around the six minute mark, when Wilt left the floor, LA had cut the margin down to seven points. That was 10 points in about 3-4 minutes. Boston was clearly out of gas by that point, too. BTW, watch footage of that game...early in the 4th quarter, and after Russell had picked up his 5th foul, the Lakers go into Wilt, who goes right around Russell for an easy basket. That would be about the last time he would get the ball.

Of course, PHILA found a classic quote from coach Van Breda Kolf, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." And the brilliant Van Breda Kolf kept Wilt on the bench, and rode the great Mel Counts down the stretch. No wonder then, that after LA lost that game, he was promptly fired, and his career was basically over.

In the '70 Finals, it was tied 2-2, and LA was BEATING NY by TEN points, when Reed went down with his injury. However, helped by questionable officiating in that second half (and none other than NY Times writer Leonard Koppett made that comment), the Knicks came back from 13 down at the half to win the game. How suspect was that officiating? Wilt took three shots, and West, two shots, in that second half. Koppett claimed that both were allowed to be mauled in that second half. So, had there been a semblance of balanced officiating, Wilt's 45-27 (on 20-27 shooting) game six might have been the series winner.

But once again, this was a Wilt who was nowhere near 100%. I invite you to watch game seven of the '70 Finals on YouTube, and then the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, and compare the two Wilt's.

Of course, there was that Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD, in which he was EXPECTED to do much more. He couldn't use injuries, or poor play by teammates, or horrible coaching, or poor officiating, or miraculous shots and plays by opposing players, as excuses. He was expected to beat teams by himself (even at less than 100%.)

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.[/QUOTE]

In 63-64, Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .543 shooting. and he faced Russell in five of his 12 playoff games, and averaged 29 ppg on .517 shooting.

In the 64-65 season, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .510 on .510 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, with seven of his 11 playoff games against Russell (and he hung a 30-31 series on Russell.)

In 65-66, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting. In the five game playoff series against RUSSELL, he averaged 28 ppg on .509 shooting.

Oh, and BTW, and as always, he ELEVATED his rebounding.

Of course, he faced a HOF starting center in 99 of his 160 playoff games. And because he played with mostly inept rosters, he only played 52 games in his "scoring" prime, including not even making the playoffs in the season in which he averaged 44.8 on .528 shooting. Incidently, in those 52 games in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in 30 of them. Is it any wonder then, why Wilt's offensive production declined somewhat?

So, if you are somehow suggesting that Wilt declined SIGNIFICANTLY, I sure don't see it. Especially when you factor in his playoff opposing centers.

[QUOTE=-23-]Think is Chamberlain is very disproportional (stilt nickname), his legs are long and lean, and his torso is not as balanced as the rest of his body. He tooks "tall" but not proportional. Shaq on the otherhand looked proportional and hence why he was able to staff of injuries for much of his career. Shaq has a lower center of gravity, and could easily overpower any center in any era, regardless of when he was born. No doubt, if he played in the 60's he'd still retain much of his athleticism since the nature of his body would allow him to.[/QUOTE]

The speed of the game, the lack of rest, the four back to backs, the cramped hotel rooms, six hours in airports, cold arenas, hot arenas, freezing locker-rooms, stretching not being a science, stress of getting hit, and off court stresses would have broke Shaq down. He wasn't that durable with all of the pampering now and averaged about 65 games a year without a complete year and 12 years where he missed more than 10 games. Wilt was an iron man when stretching wasn't a science - I would have him as the greatest iron man in the sport. Shaq's weight, without stretching is a 10 game disaster.

Wilt's long legs would be a disadvantage in boxing out for rebounding. Charles Barkley always said his butt against somebody's legs would win everytime. He definitely was special for his size but he definitely wasn't Chamberlain on the boards either. KG has a high center of gravity and he lead the league in rebounding while sometimes guarding small forwards and being very good on help defense (he wasn't in the best position to get rebounds -but he wanted it more than the next guy). Rebounding is more about who wants to go get it.

With today's rules, Wilt would have the most devasting first and last steps the game every had cause his leg length was crazy (stretching also increases explosion considerably). Back then they didn't allow hops, baby steps, Shaq shuffles, and called the game very tight on Wilt. Of 7 footers, the ironmen are Gilmore, Kareem, KG, Wilt and Parrish all of which had longer legs than torso (maybe not Parrish), sobeit, not to the extent of Wilt. Of the Shaq types: Oliver Miller :lol They would suffer in bad conditions.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]And...then I have reality. which can be proven....showing Russell one on one with wilt many many many many many many many times. So...what now?

You gonna pretend to not have seen what im talking about? There are many famous individual clips of them one on one. The team flat out does NOT collapse on him on the catch and double him. this isnt my opinion.

Its...in virtually every piece of footage availiable.[/QUOTE]

In fairness to a level of sophistication, you know there are no absolutes. all statements made are general in context. Let's not get crazy.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.[/QUOTE]

I notice that a couple of posters say no way could a player average 42 minutes per game because today's players can't do it. Lebron definitely can but... . I just watched the Ali/Frazier trilogy and no way can heavyweights do that today in a 12 round fight much less the 15 rounds they fought then - note I saw that Jack Johnson had several 30 plus round fights in the 1920's. Holyfield who is known for his wars couldn't do it. And boxing is by far the most taxing of energy of all the sports. I think the foods of today have too much preservatives and slows people down.

How many players have you ever heard of that ran 26 mile marathons much less the 50 mile ones Wilt ran when he was 60 years old. He had a freak heart, cause it has to beat a lot and strong to get blood to his long extremities. He was indeed a freak in this regards. He wasn't like other 7 footers. I really think that Shaq or Hakeem have no chance of doing a regular marathon at 50 years old. Probably now.