Wilt the "Choker"

[QUOTE=aau]nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?[/QUOTE]

Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.

[QUOTE=aau]shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out[/QUOTE]

I posted this over two years ago:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/url]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

[quote=aau]i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals[/quote]

Basketball reference is inconsistent, plus player weights were not updated beyond college. Walt Bellamy at 225 on that site.


[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EDRWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1834,3749152&dq"]The Spokesman-Review - Aug 12, 1960[/URL]
[I]
"Bellamy must weigh at least 260 pounds," estimated Ex-West Virginia center Lloyd Sharrar, now with the Pipers. "What a man."[/I]


[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8mRLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1830,2899284&dq"]The Press-Courier - Apr 12, 1970[/URL]
[I]
Guerin also plans to match Chamberlain with the Hawks two big men, starting center Walt Bellamy (6-11 and 265 pounds)



[/I]Luke Jackson is listed on BBall Reference at 240 lbs. In '68 he reported at 272 lbs.


[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081713/2/index.htm"]Sports Illustrated - October 21, 1968[/URL]

[I]Jackson tends to put on weight. He came in at 272 when Ramsay had been hoping for 240, but the extra pounds may serve big Luke well in the middle. He is no novice there, anyway. In pre-Chamberlain days the 76ers twice beat the Celtics, with Jackson battling Russell underneath.[/I]




Shaq is listed on Bball reference at 325 lbs. Late in the '02 season, he was rumored to be 382 lbs and looked a lot less explosive than he did during his first two championship years. Most likely was 400+ the next year.

Ok, hopefully we put some the ridiculous myths to rest about Wilt's competition. Chamberlain faced players nearly the same height, on average, that Shaq would face some 40 years later. BTW, who is generally regarded as the best center of the CURRENT NBA? It is 6-11 (or shorter) Dwight Howard. And we know that Wilt was not only taller than Howard, he was bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more skilled. Chamberlain was a high-jump champion, a long jumper, a sprinter, and was not only regarded as the strongest man in the NBA at the time, but there were those that believed him to be among the strongest men in the world at the time (most noteably Howard Cosell.)

And I will apologize up front to those who have read this take many times, but, here we go again...

We have a "bridge" in Kareem that we can compare different eras with. Kareem was the best player in the league in the 70's, no question. BUT, he struggled mightily against Thurmond and Wilt in his H2H games against each.

Thanks to Alexbre and Julizaver, we have virtually EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Thurmond. Kareem faced Nate 61 times, and Wilt 28 times. He seldom scored 30 points against Thurmond (in fact, I believe his high was around 34.) In the VAST MAJORITY of those 61 games, he didn't even shoot 50%. And there were MANY in the low 40's, and even some in the 30% range. In the '72 playoffs, Thurmond not only held Kareem to an awful .405 from the floor, he outscored and outshot him. In the '73 playoffs, Thurmond held Kareem to .428 shooting, and his Warriors stunned Kareem's heavily-favored Bucks. Even well past his prime, in the mid-70's, Kareem seldom shot close to 50% against Thurmond.

Meanwhile, in the 28 H2H games between Wilt and Kareem, Chamberlain held Abdul-Jabbar, who was a CAREER .559 shooter, to a .464 FG% (while shooting 53% himself.) In the '71 WCF's, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older (and well past his prime), Wilt battled Kareem to a statistical draw (in fact, the recaps actually credited Wilt with outplaying Kareem.) In the '72 WCF's, and despite being heavily outscored Wilt, by virtually every account, outplayed or even "decisively outplayed" (Time Magazine) the younger Kareem who had the BEST statistical season of his career. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, and held him to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the last four pivotal games of that six game series.) In fact, Chamberlain took over in the clinching game six, and dominated Kareem down the stretch. Then, in their last six regular games, Wilt not only outshot Kareem, .637 to .450, he even outscored him in one game, despite the fact that he had dramatically cut back his shooting late in his career. Furthermore, in their only H2H game before Wilt was injured in 1969-70 season, Chamberlain just buried Kareem in EVERY aspect. Granted Kareem was a rookie, but, to be fair to Wilt, he was considerably past his "scoring" seasons of the mid-60's, and his overwhelming seasons in '67 and '68.

Continuing, in Wilt's PRIME, he pounded Thurmond on numerous occassions. He had a game in which he outscored him 45-13, and another game with 38 points and 31 rebounds. Even in the '67 season, when his coach asked him to shoot in the second half of a game against Nate, he poured in 24 second half points (30 in all), along with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks. In fact, in their three post-season series, Wilt shot a combined 54% to Nate's 37%, and outrebounded him in all three (and by over six rebounds a game in '73.) Chamberlain shot over 50% in all three series (with a high of .560), and Thurmond NEVER shot even 40% against Wilt, (with a low of .343.)

Why is all of that significant? Because Kareem would go on to be among the best centers in the 80's. In the '85 Finals, after a poor first game, he averaged 30 ppg over the last five games against Boston's HOF frontline, and won the MVP. He had one season in the 80's when he shot .604. He had another, at age 38, when he shot .599. And amazingly, at age 39, in the '85-86 season, he had three regular season games against Hakeem, in which he scored 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting.) He also added a couple of 30 point games in the post-season against him that season, as well. And, in the same season, he hung a 40 point game on Ewing, while Patrick only managed a 2-16 shooting performance against him. Incredibly, Kareem played three more seasons, all from age 40 on. In those three seasons, H2H against Hakeem, in 13 games, he outshot him, .567 to .475. And, in those three seasons, he had six games against Ewing. Ewing had a slight scoring edge of 18.8 to 16.5, but Kareem easily outshot him, .551 to .483.

We all KNOW that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be two of the best centers of the 90's. In fact, by most accounts, Hakeem was THE best center of the 90's. And we KNOW that Hakeem battled Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals (some would even say he "won" that battle.) And, of course, Shaq would go on to dominate the early 00's.

What does all of this mean? Well, if Shaq was the best center of the 00's, and Hakeem was the best center of the 90's, and if an aged, and well past his prime Kareem could outplay Hakeem in the 80's...just what does that say about the greats of the 60's, like Wilt and Thurmond, both of whom were well past their primes when they were giving Kareem fits? In fact, if Wilt were able to win his H2H battles with Kareem, at well past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, just what would have a PRIME Chamberlain done to him?

Furthermore, players like 6-9 Dave Cowens gave Kareem trouble in the 70's (even outplaying him in a game seven of the Finals.) 6-7 Wes Unseld outrebounded Kareem in the '71 Finals. Meanwhile, 6-11 Walt Bellamy, who was a force in the entire decade of the 60's (he was routinely among the top scorers and shooters) went on into the 70's, and near the end of his career, in Kareem's spectacular 71-72 season, Bellamy averaged 18.6 ppg on .545 shooting. There were other's, of course. Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Bob McAdoo (who outscored Kareem in two seasons in the 70's), as well as 7-2 Artis Gilmore, who dominated the ABA, and then had MANY quality seasons in the 80's (he retired as the all-time FG% leader...and still is.)

The 60's and 70's also had players like the great Russell (once again, a world-class leaper with a wingspan of a condor), Jerry Lucas who could grab 20+ rebounds per game in a season, and still shoot from as far as 25 ft. (the "Lucas Layup"), McAdoo, who was 6-11 and could score from anywhere on the floor; Rick Barry who led the NBA in scoring in '66 at 35.6, and then 10 years later, in 74-75, averaged 30.6 ppg; Connie Hawkins, Oscar, David Thompson, Jerry West (who routinely dominated Walt Frazier); Walt Frazier, a truly great guard in the 60's and 70's; Nate Archibald (he and Oscar are the only two players to ever lead the league in ppg and apg in the same season); and thye magical Pete Maravich, who would make Jason "White Chocolate" Williams look ridiculous today.

Each decade gave us new great players, but keep in mind, most of those greats in that new decade, were playing against (and often times being outplayed) by the greats of the previous decade.

Finally, I always bring up this point. If you truly believe that the players of today are MUCH better than those of yesteryear, then give me the EXACT year in which the players became competitive with those of today. Would the Shaq of 2000 be as great today? Would the Hakeem of '95 be as great today? Would the MJ of '91 be as great today? Would the Magic of '87 be as great today? Would the Bird of '86 be as great today? Would the Moses of '83 be as great today? Would the Walton of '77 be as great today? Would the McAdoo of '75 be as great today. The Dr. J of '72? The Kareem of '72? Wilt in '67? Russell in '64? Oscar and Wilt in '62? And if not all of them, give the players that would in the years that they would. But be careful...because I will show the peers of those players in the same seasons, and BEFORE.

The bottom line? Yes, today's players are MARGINALLY better than those of the 60's. But they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better...in ANY sport. I recall reading a post here a while back in which the poster claimed that WNBA all-stars would beat the best of the NBA in the 60's. Just think about how ridiculous that statement is. Do you think the gals of the current WNBA could battle someone like Gus Williams, who was 6-6 235 lbs, and was shattering multiple backboards back then? Or a 6-8 225 lb Lucas who could not only pound them on the glass, but disgrace them all from over 20+ ft? Or 6-10 WORLD-CLASS Bill Russell? Or 6-11 Thurmond with his HUGE wingspan? Or 6-5 225 Oscar? Or Jerry West, who many consider had the perfect shooting form? Or 7-1 (or taller) Chamberlain, with his 300 lbs and reported 500 lb. bench press, along with his 40"+ vertical leap?

The same goes for a "good college team" of TODAY beating the best in the NBA in the 60's. Give me a break! The top players of the 60's would be among the best players in the NBA TODAY. And they would certainly smoke a "good college team."

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/url]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.[/QUOTE]

Believe it, or not, but I had never read that take before. I say that because I have echoed so much of what you posted here...without having ever read your view.

Having said that, though, I have now saved that link.

Great stuff!

[quote=ThaRegul8r]Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

[URL="http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226"]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/URL]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.[/quote]

:applause:

I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).

[QUOTE=jlauber]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]
Some good points from a Wilt fan.[B]But[/B] nobody was at the same level with Michael Jordan at the post season.Jordan was the best performer,the most clutch and he has the bigger book of great moments at the post season.
I don't dispute Wilt,or KAJ but nobody was/is like MJ at the playoffs and for so long.It's not even a debate.
Wilt wasn't a loser.He was by far the best player of his Era.Russell was the greatest winner but Russell was easily the better player.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).[/QUOTE]


I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]

[QUOTE]"[B]Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt[/B],"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin." [/QUOTE]

Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]



Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.[/QUOTE]
Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.

[QUOTE=DatWasNashty]Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.[/QUOTE]

Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.

Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

[URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL]

[quote=nycelt84][URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL][/quote]Good read, subjective as it was.

[QUOTE=DatWasNashty]No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. [B]Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.[/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]

Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.