Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=Kebab Stall]There's a couple of goaltendings in there, but overall a very fun mix to watch.[/QUOTE]


Goaltending rules did seem to be a bit more liberal(if we go by these clips only) during that time, didn't they? I don't know if these 'goaltends'(by todays standards) on the video were exceptions or the rule?

Although Wilt was also exceptional at cherry picking the ball at it's peak some were definitely descending at the time he blocked them.

No matter he was obviously(from most accounts) the most intimidating shot blocker in history & would no doubt own most Blocked shot records had they been kept.

[QUOTE=32jazz]Where in this thread was he called GOAT B***ch? :confusedshrug:

There are other threads if you wish not to speak of Wilt's 'shot blocking abilities' which is what this thread is about.

You've been a good troll.:applause: Now Go away.[/QUOTE]

Dont get upset,namecalling in a debate is a sign of Low IQ.He isnt in GOAT discussions, thats all.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Hmm... what do you base that on? Which bigger centers did Wilt ever play against?

Heh, if Kareem had to put as much strain on his body as Yao did, and Kareem had 3 serious injuries because of that in his first 6 years playing, are you making this point now? Yep, I thought so. I mean, come on. You guys don't even try to make sane analogizes.[/QUOTE]


Why the excuses Yao has yet to play at the level that kareem has and this is against weak peers. You cant look at some tape and say hey this guy is bigger faster stronger than that guy so he must be better. How many players were bigger faster and stronger could jump higher than Bird,Magic,Barkley,isiah Thomas yet these players with IQ heart skill and will were able to out perform there opponent.This is the point with Russ and Wilt against today sCenters.

My own favorite is the one at 0:35-0:36. It happened during the 1957 NCAA final and it was the block that kept the score tied and sent the game into one of the 2 overtimes. The shooter seems to be at least 8 feet away from Wilt when the ball left his handsm and he wasn't even his personal opponent.

I agree to an extend with Manute that all the Wilt topics made by the same person and have the same reason should be merged, else they get tired. The same though should happen about similar topics about every retired legend.

db23, you're simply trolling and trying to piss people off with your 1-liners. Although I have you on ignore, you're still annoying because a lot of others don't and when it comes to topics like these you have absolutely nothing to offer but vandalize them with the same off-topic, tired crap all over again. I (and others) hate certain things like hip-hop, but we don't enter topics devoted to hip-hop just to say "yeah, you guys talk about hip-hop, too bad hip-hop sucks". You don't think Wilt is in the discussion for GOAT? We don't care. We've read/heard opinions of people who actually have a reason to talk and they are diametrically opposite to yours. After all, there are also people who think that the earth is flat, that the cosmos is 6,000 years old, etc, so extreme ignorance exists everywhere, and it only manages to convert simpletons and piss off normal people.

BTW, a few of them really are goaltending violations. However, we can't know from the video whether they were whistled or now. For example, from the games I've watched, I remember the plays at 0:44 and 1:08 having been whistled, though it doesn't show here. Defensive goaltending was banned way before Wilt.

[QUOTE=32jazz]Winning two finals MVP's?:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

He has one.

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Indiefan23,

Are you just trying to increase your post count by posting 10 straight posts in the one thread? Just put it all in one post. :banghead:[/QUOTE]

I dunno, I just click reply and reply to people. Sorry if that hurts you somehow.

[QUOTE=Psileas]My own favorite is the one at 0:35-0:36. It happened during the 1957 NCAA final and it was the block that kept the score tied and sent the game into one of the 2 overtimes. The shooter seems to be at least 8 feet away from Wilt when the ball left his handsm and he wasn't even his personal opponent.

I agree to an extend with Manute that all the Wilt topics made by the same person and have the same reason should be merged, else they get tired. The same though should happen about similar topics about every retired legend.

db23, you're simply trolling and trying to piss people off with your 1-liners. Although I have you on ignore, you're still annoying because a lot of others don't and when it comes to topics like these you have absolutely nothing to offer but vandalize them with the same off-topic, tired crap all over again. I (and others) hate certain things like hip-hop, but we don't enter topics devoted to hip-hop just to say "yeah, you guys talk about hip-hop, too bad hip-hop sucks". You don't think Wilt is in the discussion for GOAT? We don't care. We've read/heard opinions of people who actually have a reason to talk and they are diametrically opposite to yours. After all, there are also people who think that the earth is flat, that the cosmos is 6,000 years old, etc, so extreme ignorance exists everywhere, and it only manages to convert simpletons and piss off normal people.[/QUOTE]


Im sorry you feel that way but all the evidence points to Wilt being a choker in the playoffs.Since we are currently in the playoffs its a fair time to reflect on past players weaknesses.Wilt was a great regular season player for his era, Im not denying that.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]Have you seen how ridiculously in shape Wilt was ? The man ran in a marathon and a 50-mile race when he was 60 years old ...[/quote]

Yea, but running is an endurance sport. Basketball is an explosive agility sport. You don't really lose things like a slow heart rate as you age. Thats why soccer players last into their 40's: cuz its all running, where ball players are done in their early 30's.

[quote]I've never said I thought Wilt was a better rebounder than Rodman. I think Rodman is the best rebounder of all time, and also one of the most underrated player ever.[/quote]

We agree there big time. I'm not saying you said it though: I'm saying that there was no Rodman's in Wilt's era to grab those boards from him. Its not even that: rebounding was so non-physicial then.

[quote]So if size mattered that much, how come Baylor was a good rebounder back then ? By your logic, taller guys should have come up with the ball more often than not ...[/quote]

Cuz Elgin could jump and get up there. My logic is not restricted to size. If you're athletic its going to help. If you're big its going to help. If you're smart its going to help. Nate Robinson is smaller then me but I know he's out board me cuz his vertical is 48"'s. In that era having one of those 3 things would get you lots of boards. At the NBA's peak in the 90's with so much competition there were/are plenty of big players who were smart and were also athletic. As for today's players: I'm not really sure what I think of centers today. Its in a low period for sure but I think we need a few more years to figure out what the league is exactly.

I know I don't agree that slower older centers would be able to dominate. Today's center needs agility more then ever because relative to a pre-2004 center they constantly play out of position. For a guy like Wilt that might make it easier for him... like I said I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it more.

[quote]WTF ? :wtf: What kind of an argument is that ? You do know Wilt outrebounded Kareem when they played together right ? They played against the same competition, and he was pulling down more rebounds. While clearly out of his prime. And Kareem was in physical prime too. The "he only played against him twice a year" argument doesn't make any sense. Shaq only faced Hakeem twice a year when he was in the East. Dwight only plays Duncan or Yao twice a year. Dwight actually has more games against Jeff Foster, Zaza Pachulia, Kendrick Perkins, Andrew Bogut or Brendan Haywood than against Shaq, Duncan or Yao. So what ?[/quote]

Well, its relevant. Only 3 players from the top 10 in Wilt's last season played in his conference. Positions 1, 2 and 10. If one conference has all the good rebounders its easier for you. I admit I didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, but Kareem didn't play against the same competition but played against stronger comp.

Either way, the point I'm making is not that there was no one else good. Its just that most everyone else was not good and it inflated those few good guy's stats. The league evolved and rosters filled out so that a few guys wern't dominating everyone else. Ie: just like I've been saying: competition is much better. Theres more parity. Look at this list for 1961.

and compare it to 1991, 30 years later.

1961
1. Wilt Chamberlain*-PHW 27.2
2. Bill Russell*-BOS 23.9
3. Bob Pettit*-STL 20.3
4. Elgin Baylor*-LAL 19.8
5. Bailey Howell*-DET 14.4
6. Walter Dukes-DET 14.1
7. Willie Naulls-NYK 13.4
8. Dolph Schayes*-SYR 12.2
9. Red Kerr-SYR 12.0
10. Wayne Embry-CIN 10.9
11. Johnny Green-NYK 10.7
12. Clyde Lovellette*-STL 10.1
13. Oscar Robertson*-CIN 10.1
14. Tom Heinsohn*-BOS 9.9
15. Rudy LaRusso-LAL 9.9
16. Tom Gola*-PHW 9.4
17. Cliff Hagan*-STL 9.3
18. Paul Arizin*-PHW 8.6
19. Phil Jordon-TOT 8.5
20. Jack Twyman*-CIN 8.5

1991
1. David Robinson*-SAS 13.0
2. Dennis Rodman-DET 12.5
3. Charles Oakley-NYK 12.1
4. Karl Malone-UTA 11.8
5. Patrick Ewing*-NYK 11.2
6. Brad Daugherty-CLE 10.9
7. Robert Parish*-BOS 10.6
8. Benoit Benjamin-TOT 10.3
9. Otis Thorpe-HOU 10.3
10. Derrick Coleman-NJN 10.3
11. Blair Rasmussen-DEN 9.7
12. Buck Williams-POR 9.4
13. Dominique Wilkins*-ATL 9.0
14. Bill Laimbeer-DET 9.0
15. James Donaldson-DAL 8.9
16. Lionel Simmons-SAC 8.8
17. Kevin Willis-ATL 8.8
18. Larry Smith-HOU 8.8
19. Larry Nance-CLE 8.6
20. Horace Grant-CHI 8.4

In 1961 there were a few people grabbing lots of boards. Wilt led the first five places by (2) 3 (3) 7 (4) 8 (5) 13 boards. The 7'th place guy was getting less then half of Wilt's boards and the 20'th place guy was getting a less then a third.

In 1991 Robinson led the top five players by (2) 0.5 (3) 0.9 (4) 1.2 (5) 1.8 boards. The 20'th place guy is getting well over half of the leader, Robinson, and the 7'th place guy is grabbing about 82% of Robinson's total.

I mean, you don't reach a player who got half of Robinson's until you hit about player 50-75. You hit that guy at player # 7 in 1961. Alvin Attles who's around 50 in 61 got 2.8 BPG which translates to I'm not sure how that's competitive. For competition to exist you need players who are able to compete on your level and clearly almost no one was on Wilt's level and there were plenty on everyone's level in the 90's. Parity. One thing that I know from playing with people in Asia: playing with lots of people who are not on your level sure makes you look better then you are.

So you're asking why does Wilt get higher percentages? I say its because his compeititon is not as good as he is. They're also not as good as TD in his prime by a long shot. TD also played PF in his prime with Robinson focusing on getting boards and defense all which very significantly deflated his numbers. TD in his prime would have been an absolute terrifying monster in the 60's. Again, there's no way to prove these things, but with his ridiculous footwork I'd imagine upwards of 30 boards at least.

[quote]That stat doesn't rely on pace or minutes played.

1. Shaq didn't have anything close to Dream's polish, but Shaq was arguably the better player. No one can come close today to Kobe's polish, but LeBron is considered just as good as him or even better by a lot of people. Same thing with Wade.[/quote]

Hmm... not if your arguing with me. Dream was much better then Shaq. Shaq was lazy and didn't commit to D. If all you consider is scoring average, which is not that important a center stat anyway and which Dream was better at in either case, you can make that argument. Young Shaq in his first two years was awesome. Had he kept developing instead of got lazy he could have been the best ever.

Note on Kobe. I don't think his game is that polished. Its not really complete. I can think of other guards who are better then him at most everything. His post up game (Kobe's real weakness) is nothing compared to Jordan's. His jumper is inferior to Ray Allen's. His mid-range game is inferior to Dwayne Wade's. His team play/defense is inferior to Bron's and Wade's. His penetration is inferior to a lot of players. He does a great job of putting it all in one package, but his all around game is still not as good as Lebron's/Jordan's/Wade's.

Kobe can hit the three pretty well. But hitting 3's is not really that important for a 2 guards (PG's/shooters should care about that) which is why players like MJ/Wade don't really focus on it. I credit Kobe with improving every year. Even this year he's a much better player then last year. He's really taken a leap this year I think. But he's still not very good at understanding how to let a team's offense flow through him and defers to Gasol the same way he used to defer to Shaq. Which makes sense anyway since Pau Gasol might be the best player ever aside from Sabonis to run the triangle through. The lake show looks strong this year man and again to Kobe's credit, I think its because he has accepted the most effective role he can play on the team.

[quote]2. I don't really like to talk about athleticsm. There are so many variables. So many different ways you can be considered athletic. How are you supposed to compare Jordan's athleticsm to Shaq's for example ? Or Jordan's and LeBron's ? What matters is that they all could do dominate the game physically, and Wilt could do it too. There's never been a guy like Wilt in this league. He was strong as hell, could run like crazy, had incredible stamina, could jump out of the gym. What more do you want ?

3. Not more athletic than prime that ? WTF ?[/QUOTE]

Well, yea, but like I pointed out before there was no one else his size who could do anything like that. Camby if you forget was an athletic monster in his prime. A MONSTER. Teams in the east were retooling their rosters specifically because they had absolutely no answer for him.

Check this awesome game out...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn3eiVcPF60[/url]

Anyway, whether you dislike or love Camby, I don't think you should take it as such an insult that he's my comparison point for Wilt. Cuz I know for an absolute, undebateable fact that I LOVE MARCUS CAMBY. I loved him in college. I loved him in Toronto. i loved him in NYC. I loved him in Denver. I loved him even this year on that crappy Clippers team. I've watched Wilt play lots and if he played today I think that's how they'd use him. Big athletic guy with speed can be a key contributor on a serious team.

I just disagree that he would dominate. I don't see it. Every concieveable aspect of his game has been improved on and the league has gotten much, much more physicial and bigger. Maybe if you used the 'if he were trained today' argument but I don't think its really valid. Training and natural ability make athletes who the players they are. Yea, if Wilt was trained better, he would be a better athlete and a better player and he would do better in the more competitive league. But he wasn't and that player I see on ESPN classic would be a shell of who he was in the 60's which was a player bigger then the game itself. To the point where he didn't really win but was considered far and away the best anyway. That's really my point.

And I'd just like to add that you seem pretty rationale. The Wilt Garbage That Has To Stop is not that. Its people who claim he would show all these young 'whipper snappers' a thing or two about how to play the game. He could play. He'd probably be decent. But he wouldn't come in and school Shaq in his prime based on the merit of schooling vastly inferior player in his own prime. It just doesn't cut it.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Why the excuses Yao has yet to play at the level that kareem has and this is against weak peers. You cant look at some tape and say hey this guy is bigger faster stronger than that guy so he must be better. How many players were bigger faster and stronger could jump higher than Bird,Magic,Barkley,isiah Thomas yet these players with IQ heart skill and will were able to out perform there opponent.This is the point with Russ and Wilt against today sCenters.[/QUOTE]

I'm not convinced at all that Kareems peers were stronger then Yao's. Although I'm not sure. I don't think we have enough information yet after the rule changes that affected the center position so much and that Yao plays under. Its a much bigger change to the game then like, widening the lane or whatever and allows your opponent to much more easily deal with a traditionally dominant center.

And where does this notion that Magic/Bird/Thomas/Barkley wern't great athletes come from? Man, they were incredible athletes. Bird/Barkley were not strong? Magic wasn't big? Thomas was slow? ;0

Barkley could still jump 40"'s despite his weight. Magic used his speed/coordination/strength at his size to routinely overpower opposing points and guarded 4 positions. Thomas was fast as **** and coordinated as hell. Bird was strong as an ox and for his size could run fast forever. He was also 100% ambidextrous and could shoot 3's with both hands. I think this notion exists because MJ came in an athletically dominated everyone in every way but come on already... they were smart players but they were elite gifted athletes as well.

[QUOTE=Raindrops]Dennis Rodman averaged 16.1 boards a game at the age of 35, and he was listed at 6'7 and 210 pounds. Charles Barkley put up a 19 and 14 at the age of 33 and he was listed at 6'6 (and that was far from his best season). Corrected for pace those are very similar rates to Baylors, so was the late 90's a weak era?[/QUOTE]

No, they were just way freaking better then Elgin Baylor.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I'm not convinced at all that Kareems peers were stronger then Yao's. Although I'm not sure. I don't think we have enough information yet after the rule changes that affected the center position so much and that Yao plays under. Its a much bigger change to the game then like, widening the lane or whatever and allows your opponent to much more easily deal with a traditionally dominant center.

And where does this notion that Magic/Bird/Thomas/Barkley wern't great athletes come from? Man, they were incredible athletes. Bird/Barkley were not strong? Magic wasn't big? Thomas was slow? ;0

Barkley could still jump 40"'s despite his weight. Magic used his speed/coordination/strength at his size to routinely overpower opposing points and guarded 4 positions. Thomas was fast as **** and coordinated as hell. Bird was strong as an ox and for his size could run fast forever. He was also 100% ambidextrous and could shoot 3's with both hands. I think this notion exists because MJ came in an athletically dominated everyone in every way but come on already... they were smart players but they were elite gifted athletes as well.[/QUOTE]

I think all would agree they were gifted basketball players but against there peers I would not rank either very high athletically. Would you rank Bird as great an athelet as Dominique Barkley as gifted an athlet as Larry lance Michael Cooper was a better athlet than Magic and they were on the same team. I would agree that Barkley might be the best ahtelt of the players I named if he was only as determined as MJ to be at top shape.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Yea, but running is an endurance sport. Basketball is an explosive agility sport. You don't really lose things like a slow heart rate as you age. Thats why soccer players last into their 40's: cuz its all running, where ball players are done in their early 30's.[/QUOTE]

Well, just call me when another NBA 7 footer runs a marathon when they're 60. Obviously you're not impressed so it must be pretty common.



[QUOTE]Well, its relevant. Only 3 players from the top 10 in Wilt's last season played in his conference. Positions 1, 2 and 10.[/QUOTE]

Only 3 guys but that includes the top 2. In the end it even things out. And an extra 2 games isn't a big deal. Let's say it is. Then you can make the argument those other guys in the top 10 are there just because Wilt was in the other conference so he couldn't take rebounds away from them. Just like the No.2 and No.3 guy.

[QUOTE]So you're asking why does Wilt get higher percentages? I say its because his compeititon is not as good as he is. They're also not as good as TD in his prime by a long shot. TD also played PF in his prime with Robinson focusing on getting boards and defense all which very significantly deflated his numbers. TD in his prime would have been an absolute terrifying monster in the 60's. Again, there's no way to prove these things, but with his ridiculous footwork I'd imagine upwards of 30 boards at least.[/QUOTE]

And if Duncan played in the 60's and got that many boards, we'd be arguing right now because you'd think there would be no way he would dominate in the 90's.


[QUOTE]Hmm... not if your arguing with me. Dream was much better then Shaq. Shaq was lazy and didn't commit to D. If all you consider is scoring average, which is not that important a center stat anyway and which Dream was better at in either case, you can make that argument. Young Shaq in his first two years was awesome. Had he kept developing instead of got lazy he could have been the best ever.[/QUOTE]

Hakeem was a better player overall, but I think a prime Shaq was more dominant than a prime Hakeem. But that's another debate.

[QUOTE]Note on Kobe. I don't think his game is that polished. Its not really complete. I can think of other guards who are better then him at most everything. His post up game (Kobe's real weakness) is nothing compared to Jordan's. His jumper is inferior to Ray Allen's. His mid-range game is inferior to Dwayne Wade's. His team play/defense is inferior to Bron's and Wade's. His penetration is inferior to a lot of players. He does a great job of putting it all in one package, but his all around game is still not as good as Lebron's/Jordan's/Wade's.[/QUOTE]

All I wanted to say was LeBron or Wade had holes in their games, sometimes pretty big ones. Kobe doesn't. He's not elite in every aspect of his game, but he's got no real weaknesses. His post game is not as good as Jordan's ? Well that's like saying he can't rebound like Rodman ... His post game is good enough.


[QUOTE]I just disagree that he would dominate.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying he could play a game against prime Shaq and humiliate him. But I just don't see how he could be anything less than a Dwight Howard if he played today. He would still dominate physically. He'd be in the top 2 most athletic players today. Or even in the 90's. Any era. He would be a 7'1 Dwight Howard. I don't care if you think the 60's and 70's were a weak era, the fact is Kareem played against the exact same competition, and he couldn't do some of the things Wilt did. Even though Wilt was in his 30's. So maybe Kareem was not that good then ? Then I guess Hakeem wasn't good either, because Kareem played extremely well against him. But then that means Robinson, Shaq, Zo and Mutombo are all crappy players.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]
WTF ? :wtf: What kind of an argument is that ? You do know Wilt outrebounded Kareem when they played together right ? They played against the same competition, and he was pulling down more rebounds. While clearly out of his prime. And Kareem was in physical prime too. The "he only played against him twice a year" argument doesn't make any sense. Shaq only faced Hakeem twice a year when he was in the East. Dwight only plays Duncan or Yao twice a year. Dwight actually has more games against Jeff Foster, Zaza Pachulia, Kendrick Perkins, Andrew Bogut or Brendan Haywood than against Shaq, Duncan or Yao. So what ?[/QUOTE]

You don't even have to go there, because, once again, the stats he's posted are blatantly wrong. Because Wilt faced Kareem a total of [B]17 [/B]times in the regular season (plus 11 in the playoffs), not 4 or 6 or whatever he wrote. Hayes and Unseld come 1 season before Kareem and, knowing that in this era, Eastern and Western teams faced each other in a much more balanced number of times compared to nowadays, it's a safe bet that he faced Hayes and Unseld even more times in the reg.season.

[QUOTE=Psileas]BTW, a few of them really are goaltending violations. However, we can't know from the video whether they were whistled or now. For example, from the games I've watched, I remember the plays at 0:44 and 1:08 having been whistled, though it doesn't show here. Defensive goaltending was banned way before Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering whether or not that was the case. Happens on these compilations routinely when a great play is highlighted ,but it was actually an illegal shot,dunk,block,etc,......

I still like the agression while the ball is in the air as it gave opponents something to think about as they entered the paint. Altered many opponent shots I am certain.

To me he is perhaps unofficially the NBA's all time shot blocker just as he was unofficially the 1967 finals MVP.(Although I'm not too excited over awards)

OK, out of curiosity, I searched a bit and Wilt faced Hayes 19 times up to 1972, while in '73 he played 4 games against the Bullets, a team that featured Hayes [B]and [/B]Unseld.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]I think all would agree they were gifted basketball players but against there peers I would not rank either very high athletically. Would you rank Bird as great an athelet as Dominique Barkley as gifted an athlet as Larry lance Michael Cooper was a better athlet than Magic and they were on the same team. I would agree that Barkley might be the best ahtelt of the players I named if he was only as determined as MJ to be at top shape.[/QUOTE]

[B]Could Larry Nance jump off 1 foot straight up and under the basket (on one leg) at 284 lbs?

Nance was 6`11 205 lbs (rougly later in his career 235 lbs) but silky-light...etc...another type of built to Barkley fluctuated between 252 and 284 lbs most of his career but he felt his deal weight was 260-265 lbs (he felt weaker below that)

But my friend athletic Capacity Most Also Involve [U]Potence[/U], Torso Strength, Legg Strength and especially Interior/Natural Strength...Barkley`s [U]Natural/Interior Strength [/U] was Off the Charts (even his coach in Phily mentioned that Charles was the Strongest Player, naturally he ever coached) and Top of All Time.

Don`t give me the nice looking muscle tone that weight lifting adds bull: rolleyes: ...that just adds to your Natural/Interior strength! but [U]nothing can change your Natural/Interior strength initially [/U](only vitamins from your teens till about 21 years of age)

Also Bird was quite fast for your average 6`9 1/2 er (average) ofcourse not the fastest of ones, he was quick, great 1st step etc

What Bird did not have was POTENCE...but who gives a f-u-c-k.. if you can Shoot like a SG!, Post up (very strong according to weight-thick boned aswell *See Rodman for that) almost in PF style!, Pass and See The Court like a PG!, Play the Game with BOTH HANDS! (what players today can?) and Won`t Go There With His Overall Skills, Fakes, Court Awareness, Timing, Anticipation, B-Ball IQ, Fundamentals etc...HIS WHERE JUST UNCOMPARABLE to Any Player today...

Bird had more of a SG-PG way of Playing (Skill Wise) with PF Post Up Skills and Rebounding than a your typical Pure Sliky, Fast and Leaping SF [/B] :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I'm not convinced at all that Kareems peers were stronger then Yao's. Although I'm not sure. I don't think we have enough information yet after the rule changes that affected the center position so much and that Yao plays under. Its a much bigger change to the game then like, widening the lane or whatever and allows your opponent to much more easily deal with a traditionally dominant center.

And where does this notion that Magic/Bird/Thomas/Barkley wern't great athletes come from? Man, they were incredible athletes. Bird/Barkley were not strong? Magic wasn't big? Thomas was slow? ;0

Barkley could still jump 40"'s despite his weight. Magic used his speed/coordination/strength at his size to routinely overpower opposing points and guarded 4 positions. Thomas was fast as **** and coordinated as hell. [U][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Bird was strong as an ox and for his size could run fast forever. He was also 100% ambidextrous and could shoot 3's with both hands[/COLOR][/U]. I think this notion exists because MJ came in an athletically dominated everyone in every way but come on already... they were smart players but they were elite gifted athletes as well.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

[B]Exactly recently a couple of months I watched Larry Bird Sports Century and when he was being signed by the Celtics...he was writing with his LEFT HAND...What does that make you think? [/B]

wilt thinks he could score 70 points in this era.

[QUOTE=Mikaiel]Well, just call me when another NBA 7 footer runs a marathon when they're 60. Obviously you're not impressed so it must be pretty common.[/quote]

Uh, its impressive but has no bearing on 'can he ball at 48' which I'm saying no, he can't.


[quote]Only 3 guys but that includes the top 2. In the end it even things out. And an extra 2 games isn't a big deal. Let's say it is. Then you can make the argument those other guys in the top 10 are there just because Wilt was in the other conference so he couldn't take rebounds away from them. Just like the No.2 and No.3 guy.[/quote]

I don't think it works that way. Wilt and Nate make up what, 15 games together? That's not enough to bring the averages of every other west big down that much. The best boarders were in the east which created parity. In the west were two elite rebounders and the rest who they cleaned up on.

[quote]And if Duncan played in the 60's and got that many boards, we'd be arguing right now because you'd think there would be no way he would dominate in the 90's.[/quote]

If Duncan played in an era where they didn't box out in the NBA finals yea, I would be arguing that his stats were inflated and his dominance were an indication of it's weakness. I would also be saying he would have a tough time dominating in the 90's because in the 90s Tim Duncan DID NOT DOMINATE! He was one of the best of a huge crop of fantastic players.

TD will be a hall of famer but would Wilt make it? His game was not as polished as Duncan's because he spent the majority of his career playing against people who couldn't sniff his jock without being dominated by him. He's great for doing it but because of that I just see holes in his game. Competition raises your game and makes you a better player. Thats why they sent Yao to play in the NBA: because they knew he would never be able to compete at a higher level if he stayed in China.

Duncan did have that competition his whole career. Watch this NBA finals:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTOPU5SvtIQ&feature=related[/url]

And tell me you see anything resembling Dwight Howard or Duncan. Or tell me you see someone like Iverson that Wilt has to try to defend in the paint and not pick up fouls against. Its just not there and it make's Wilt's game weak because when you see him play you can just tell how raw and undeveloped it is. He didn't have the advantages Duncan did, but thats a big reason why Duncan is better.

Heres the 1967 east finals and its still not much better.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVtr2t7SvFE[/url]

I'm seen lots of rookies who's games looked more developed honestly. And its not so much Wilt's fault as the game hadn't developed much yet. I mean, its the finals and they're giving people 2 feet of space and not boxing out for boards and the defense is just not sophisticated. Wilt is 30 here btw and already nearing the end of his prime. I mean, Wilt's size advantage as he catches a lob pass over the top and dunks on someone is present in nearly every single scoring/defensive play and the fact its pretty obvious.

Side note: Nice dunk on Russel at 1:20 though. That's vicious!

[quote]Hakeem was a better player overall, but I think a prime Shaq was more dominant than a prime Hakeem. But that's another debate.[/quote]

He averaged more points. I think thats it.

[quote]All I wanted to say was LeBron or Wade had holes in their games, sometimes pretty big ones. Kobe doesn't. He's not elite in every aspect of his game, but he's got no real weaknesses. His post game is not as good as Jordan's ? Well that's like saying he can't rebound like Rodman ... His post game is good enough.[/quote]

I don't think his post game is good enough at all. When Kobe gets pushed he lives and dies by the 3 because under tough defenses he really has nothing else unless someone else initiates the offense for him. And when he does get aggressively defended his passing/creating game is crazy weak too as he just seems to have issues making the right decision as opposed to jackin up some 3 pointer while being triple teamed. His shot selection has improved steadily but again he always has and probably always will force way too many shots. Lastly Kobe is a totally 100% lackluster leader. I don't know how many times I've seen him scowl at teammates but you can just tell from body language he has difficulty getting along with his teammates and you can tell from how he behaves that he doesn't make much of an attempt to correct it and create a winning attitude on his team. And I consider that a big part of a star athlete's game. I'm sorry, I honestly hate Kobe. He's really improved these past couple years though so I begrudgeingly give him credit. Kobe's problem: he's figuring out things at 30 he should have picked up when he was 23.

[qutoe]I'm not saying he could play a game against prime Shaq and humiliate him. But I just don't see how he could be anything less than a Dwight Howard if he played today. He would still dominate physically.[/quote]

Dude, how would he? Prime Shaq daddy is the same height, 75 pounds heavier and has so much more game in him. How would he box out Shaq for rebounds when he really didn't box out anyone for anything? Litterally, someone would have to take Wilt aside and show him where to put his feet and how to move his ass backward to force the other player out of the lane. How is that guy going to drop in a game and dominate Shaquille O'Neal?

[quote]He'd be in the top 2 most athletic players today. Or even in the 90's. Any era. He would be a 7'1 Dwight Howard. I don't care if you think the 60's and 70's were a weak era, the fact is Kareem played against the exact same competition[/quote]

After the ABA merger Kareem never had more then 13 RPG. Still in his prime in the 80's he never averaged more then 10 RPG in 80-81. After that his boards declined to 8.7 and 7.5. Did he suck? Not really: he just was not the best rebounder in the league for the most part and the scrubs he and Wilt made a killing off of were drying up. He was getting old but that's hardly the whole story. He spent the rest of his career around the 6 RPG mark.

[quote]and he couldn't do some of the things Wilt did. Even though Wilt was in his 30's. So maybe Kareem was not that good then ? Then I guess Hakeem wasn't good either, because Kareem played extremely well against him. But then that means Robinson, Shaq, Zo and Mutombo are all crappy players.[/QUOTE]

Uh, yea, Kareem also was on the best team in basketball. But lets check it out. Before 86 I'm guessnig Hakeem probably had about twice the boards/blocks/steals as their averages suggest. I'm guessing since they nearly swept the Lakers to the finals in 85-86 Kareem wasn't overly effective there. 86 on Dream basicly handed it to him. 20 boards to 4... ouch.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01[/url]

I 'love' Hakeem. :)

[QUOTE=nbastatus]wilt thinks he could score 70 points in this era.[/QUOTE]

Do you think he could? How about sleep with 100,000 women?

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]:applause:

[B]Exactly recently a couple of months I watched Larry Bird Sports Century and when he was being signed by the Celtics...he was writing with his LEFT HAND...What does that make you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, it tells me he eats and writes with his left hand (like many people who use both hands equally do) but because I'm not an idiot I know that he plays right handed hover is 'ambidexterous' like I said in my post. It makes me think that Larry Bird spent a summer dribbleing/shooting every single day with his left to make sure he could use it to play just as much as his right... cuz thats what he did.

You're a joke Sir Charles.

[QUOTE=Psileas]OK, out of curiosity, I searched a bit and Wilt faced Hayes 19 times up to 1972, while in '73 he played 4 games against the Bullets, a team that featured Hayes [B]and [/B]Unseld.[/QUOTE]

So 19 games out of 1045? I'm not impressed. The NBA was 'full' of scrubs. Thats why he averaged 3 times the boards as teh guy in 20'th and twice as many as 7'th.

[QUOTE=nbastatus]wilt thinks he could score 70 points in this era.[/QUOTE]

and he would be correct.

[QUOTE]So 19 games out of 1045? I'm not impressed. The NBA was 'full' of scrubs. Thats why he averaged 3 times the boards as teh guy in 20'th and twice as many as 7'th.[/QUOTE]

19 of the 257 actually that he played between the seasons 1969-72, when he faced solely Hayes. And another 4 of 82 in '73, when he faced the combined duo of Hayes-Unseld.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]Could Larry Nance jump off 1 foot straight up and under the basket (on one leg) at 284 lbs?

Nance was 6`11 205 lbs (rougly later in his career 235 lbs) but silky-light...etc...another type of built to Barkley fluctuated between 252 and 284 lbs most of his career but he felt his deal weight was 260-265 lbs (he felt weaker below that)

But my friend athletic Capacity Most Also Involve [U]Potence[/U], Torso Strength, Legg Strength and especially Interior/Natural Strength...Barkley`s [U]Natural/Interior Strength [/U] was Off the Charts (even his coach in Phily mentioned that Charles was the Strongest Player, naturally he ever coached) and Top of All Time.

Don`t give me the nice looking muscle tone that weight lifting adds bull: rolleyes: ...that just adds to your Natural/Interior strength! but [U]nothing can change your Natural/Interior strength initially [/U](only vitamins from your teens till about 21 years of age)

Also Bird was quite fast for your average 6`9 1/2 er (average) ofcourse not the fastest of ones, he was quick, great 1st step etc

What Bird did not have was POTENCE...but who gives a f-u-c-k.. if you can Shoot like a SG!, Post up (very strong according to weight-thick boned aswell *See Rodman for that) almost in PF style!, Pass and See The Court like a PG!, Play the Game with BOTH HANDS! (what players today can?) and Won`t Go There With His Overall Skills, Fakes, Court Awareness, Timing, Anticipation, B-Ball IQ, Fundamentals etc...HIS WHERE JUST UNCOMPARABLE to Any Player today...

Bird had more of a SG-PG way of Playing (Skill Wise) with PF Post Up Skills and Rebounding than a your typical Pure Sliky, Fast and Leaping SF [/B] :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Why is it that this is the only place where nobodies know more than people that played the game been around the game and covered the game. I have never read any article heard an interview or seen with my own eye anything that would prove Bird or Barkley to be incredible athlets WHy is it that when ever someone makes a point on a player people on ISh take it as an insult to that player.Bird could do many things but few will remember him as a great athelet Great Basketball player yes

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]A 6'2" White SG couldn't be a star but a 5'11 165 lb Black SG can win 4 scoring titles and average 30PPG several times?

[IMG]http://www.cavsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/AllenIverson.jpg[/IMG] Look at how athletic

People have grossly overrated the athleticism of today and it's impact on the game. If size/athleticism was the only prerequisite for success in the NBA, then guys like Jason Richardson and Josh Smith would be sure-fire hall of famers. Also, most players in this era don't even use their size correctly. Zydrunas Ilguaskas is what 7'6"? When was the last time you saw him in the post? The guy's purely a jump shooter and he isn't an anomally, he's the norm. Oversized, soft jump-shooting big men who want nothing to do with banging down low and playing tough... that's today's NBA.

And why on earth wouldn't Bill Russel be the same defensive force he was back then? I mean Ben Wallace (6'9" same height as Russell) had a string of seasons where he averaged 13+ RPG and 2-3 BPG.... playing CENTER. Some of the best defensive players in this decade are some of the more unathletic players in the game- Tim Duncan, Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier, etc.

In summary, SKILL>>>>>>>ATHLETICISM[/QUOTE]

You're right, and Allen Iverson is more skilled than Jerry West was. Watching West try to guard Iverson would be funnier than a Chappelle show skit.

And Russell wouldn't be the same because he's not playing against undersized, unathletic players with a fraction of the skill and strategies players have/know now.

[QUOTE=Younggrease]and he would be correct.[/QUOTE]

No.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]So 19 games out of 1045? I'm not impressed. The NBA was 'full' of scrubs. Thats why he averaged 3 times the boards as teh guy in 20'th and twice as many as 7'th.[/QUOTE]


Voters for the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (player), Marv Albert (media), Al Attles (team), Red Auerbach (team), Elgin Baylor (team), Dave Bing (player), Larry Bird (team), Marty Blake (team), Fran Blinebury (media), Bill Bradley (player), Hubie Brown (team), Wilt Chamberlain (player), Mitch Chortkoff (media), Bob Cousy (player), Billy Cunningham (team), Chuck Daly (team), David DuPree (media), Wayne Embry (team), Julius Erving (player), Joe Gilmartin (media), Sam Goldaper (media), Alex Hannum (team), Lester Harrison (team), John Havlicek (player), Chick Hearn (media), Red Holzman (team), Phil Jasner (media), Earvin Johnson (player), John Kerr (player), Leonard Koppet (media), Bob Lanier (player), Frank Layden (team), Leonard Lewin (media), Jack McCallum (media), Dick McGuire (team), George Mikan (player), Bob Pettit (player), Harvey Pollack (team), Jack Ramsay (team), Willis Reed (team), Oscar Robertson (player), Bill Russell (player), Bob Ryan (media), Dolph Schayes (player), Bill Sharman (player), Gene Shue (team), Isiah Thomas (team), Wes Unseld (team), Peter Vecsey (media), Jerry West (team)


Kareem
Moses
Wilt
Russ
Pettit
Cowens
Reed
DeBusschere
Thurmond
Unseld
Hayes
Walton
Lucas

These players from the 60's and 70's were pick by the above I guess they dont agree with you that the NBA was full of "scurbs" in the 60's and 70's but Im sure you know more about basketball than these nobodies

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Voters for the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (player), Marv Albert (media), Al Attles (team), Red Auerbach (team), Elgin Baylor (team), Dave Bing (player), Larry Bird (team), Marty Blake (team), Fran Blinebury (media), Bill Bradley (player), Hubie Brown (team), Wilt Chamberlain (player), Mitch Chortkoff (media), Bob Cousy (player), Billy Cunningham (team), Chuck Daly (team), David DuPree (media), Wayne Embry (team), Julius Erving (player), Joe Gilmartin (media), Sam Goldaper (media), Alex Hannum (team), Lester Harrison (team), John Havlicek (player), Chick Hearn (media), Red Holzman (team), Phil Jasner (media), Earvin Johnson (player), John Kerr (player), Leonard Koppet (media), Bob Lanier (player), Frank Layden (team), Leonard Lewin (media), Jack McCallum (media), Dick McGuire (team), George Mikan (player), Bob Pettit (player), Harvey Pollack (team), Jack Ramsay (team), Willis Reed (team), Oscar Robertson (player), Bill Russell (player), Bob Ryan (media), Dolph Schayes (player), Bill Sharman (player), Gene Shue (team), Isiah Thomas (team), Wes Unseld (team), Peter Vecsey (media), Jerry West (team)


Kareem
Moses
Wilt
Russ
Pettit
Cowens
Reed
DeBusschere
Thurmond
Unseld
Hayes
Walton
Lucas

These players from the 60's and 70's were pick by the above I guess they dont agree with you that the NBA was full of "scurbs" in the 60's and 70's but Im sure you know more about basketball than these nobodies[/QUOTE]


That's not how you make a point dude. If I find a single ex-nba player, preferably a great, saying something outlandish and stupid, I can claim it as truth because he played in the NBA and none of us did?

Regardless, these players' greatness should be examined not how they would do across eras, but how they played within their own.

[QUOTE=Younggrease]and he would be correct.[/QUOTE]

That's funny. He's going to score 25% more then his best season playing 30% fewer possessions and fewer minutes? Logic is a ***** huh.

List of bigmen I would take over wilt:
Shaq
Hakeem
Kareem
Mose Malone
Karl Malone
Barkley
Tim Duncan

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Voters for the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (player), Marv Albert (media), Al Attles (team), Red Auerbach (team), Elgin Baylor (team), Dave Bing (player), Larry Bird (team), Marty Blake (team), Fran Blinebury (media), Bill Bradley (player), Hubie Brown (team), Wilt Chamberlain (player), Mitch Chortkoff (media), Bob Cousy (player), Billy Cunningham (team), Chuck Daly (team), David DuPree (media), Wayne Embry (team), Julius Erving (player), Joe Gilmartin (media), Sam Goldaper (media), Alex Hannum (team), Lester Harrison (team), John Havlicek (player), Chick Hearn (media), Red Holzman (team), Phil Jasner (media), Earvin Johnson (player), John Kerr (player), Leonard Koppet (media), Bob Lanier (player), Frank Layden (team), Leonard Lewin (media), Jack McCallum (media), Dick McGuire (team), George Mikan (player), Bob Pettit (player), Harvey Pollack (team), Jack Ramsay (team), Willis Reed (team), Oscar Robertson (player), Bill Russell (player), Bob Ryan (media), Dolph Schayes (player), Bill Sharman (player), Gene Shue (team), Isiah Thomas (team), Wes Unseld (team), Peter Vecsey (media), Jerry West (team)


Kareem
Moses
Wilt
Russ
Pettit
Cowens
Reed
DeBusschere
Thurmond
Unseld
Hayes
Walton
Lucas

These players from the 60's and 70's were pick by the above I guess they dont agree with you that the NBA was full of "scurbs" in the 60's and 70's but Im sure you know more about basketball than these nobodies[/QUOTE]

Um, being a 'great' player is done by being great compared to your peers. You have no point. Find me Greg Ostertag riding the pine in the 60's. If someone of Ostertag's caliber was in the 60's you'd have just listed him for me. Next.

[QUOTE=zay_24]List of bigmen I would take over wilt:
Shaq
Hakeem
Kareem
Mose Malone
Karl Malone
Barkley
Tim Duncan[/QUOTE]

I think I would add Howard/Robinson/prime Webber too.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I think I would add Howard/Robinson/prime Webber too.[/QUOTE]
Good Idea, I forgot about Robinson, But wilt fanboys would start crying if somone would take Webber over Wilt.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]That's not how you make a point dude. If I find a single ex-nba player, preferably a great, saying something outlandish and stupid, I can claim it as truth because he played in the NBA and none of us did?

Regardless, these players' greatness should be examined not how they would do across eras, but how they played within their own.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. Does Jerry West deserve to be in the hall of fame even though he couldn't hang with some of today's players? Absolutely: the guy was great and the reason so many players today are great.

I just think its silly how some people get carried away and think the talent of the guy they watched 50 years ago is comparable to today when the game has grown so much. If you were to insert West into last year's draft I wonder what round he goes in. The longer this thread goes on the list of things you have to ignore to maintain that belief gets.

[QUOTE=zay_24]Good Idea, I forgot about Robinson, But wilt fanboys would start crying if somone would take Webber over Wilt.[/QUOTE]

Webber in his prime was an absolute monster. His game was so polished and he was so athletic/mobile. He'd kill Wilt. I mean, they seem to have this notion that Wilt's athleticism is comparable to today and list all these stats from when Wilt trained specifically for track and weighed nothing soaking wet. If Webber didn't hurt his knee he would be considered an all time super great.

A big part of the issue people don't mention either is the lack of stats to base comparisons on. As a fan its way too easy to look at film of your favorite player myopically and happen to not see their poor lateral movement of small vertical. Today all that stuff is measured but when you go back its all anecdotal. Wilt is more then he was. He arm wrestled strong men. Benched 600 pounds. Had a 50+ inch vertical and slept with 20,000 women. Today he would score 70 points a game.

Another part of this is look at those injuries. Wilt/Kareem/Russell really didn't have a serious injury when they played for the vast majority of their careers. Wilt hurt his knee but the league's more forgiving margin of error didn't really punish him for it much. Russel and Kareem didn't get hurt in a combined 36 years of play. I just don't see careers like that anymore cuz the demands put on your body and what you have to put out to win is so much greater.

[QUOTE=Psileas]19 of the 257 actually that he played between the seasons 1969-72, when he faced solely Hayes. And another 4 of 82 in '73, when he faced the combined duo of Hayes-Unseld.[/QUOTE]

I thought I was being nice. So you want to include more seasons when the comp was even weaker?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I thought I was being nice. So you want to include more seasons when the comp was even weaker?[/QUOTE]

Are you a retard? You told me the 60's were better than the 70's due to the ABA?

Now the 60's are inferior to the 70's ?Make your point:confusedshrug: .I can quote you.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]
- Most of that era's players actually played with soccer balls

[/QUOTE]

Wut?

This is when they are playing soccer for kicks between basketball games? Or ... what? Huffing paint? Did players do that back then? Please help me understand, because I am pretty much sure you hyperspaced right then.