Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[quote]What do we get here? That the [B]first basketball game ever[/B], in 1891, was played with a soccer ball and that 4 years after Jerry West was born, molded basketball balls already started existing.[/quote]

Yep, and I'm sure he had access to the latest in sports technology too.

[quote]If your whole argument is about the ball being brown and having laces, that's a far cry from being a soccer ball.[/quote]

Its also a far cry from being a basketball.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Then it mentions the brown balls, made specifically for basketball, AND THEN, in the late '50s, about the orange ball used today.[/quote]

You left out: [B]Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.[/B]

FAIL!

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]
So, Wilt played against Russell and Kareem. Kareem played Moses and Olajuwon. Olajuwon played Shaq. From these numbers, you could acertain that a great big man is a great big man in any era.[/QUOTE]

Common, we both love Manute. Don't be dumb.

1. I've never said Wilt would suck. He's one of the few players who looks like would be effective. As for a lot of the other players in the league, well lots of them would never come close to the NBA and would have problems making a lot of high school teams.

2. I can find players who played each other all the way back to Naismith: it doesn't mean they can hang with Shaq and Olajuwon. The 70's were a weak era and thats why people who were 6'5" almost averaged 40 ppg and 20 rpg.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Ahh, I see Mr "I blame you for calling 39.9 year old Kareem a 40 year old" still has issues with factual numbers.[quote]

It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.

I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By refusing to accept their flaws you highlight them instead and bring it to the forefront of who they were. You

F
A
I
L

[QUOTE=Psileas]Ahh, I see Mr "I blame you for calling 39.9 year old Kareem a 40 year old" still has issues with factual numbers.[quote]

It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.

I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were.

Improving the game is their legacy as they were the one's to improve it's quality in their own playing days. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By reusing to accept their flaws you highlight them and make the case look worse cuz you falsify stats to improve the case.

You could say "yea, Jerry West wasn't the most athletic guy and Kareem/Wilt sure didn't have a lot of other guys to compete against them, but its because they were so much better that everyone else raised their game to their level and we have the league we have today."

And I'd say "Yea I totally agree. You can't overstate the importance of doing something first. Its one of the best things about sports. Even though Michael Jordan took Dr. J and extended his style way past anything he ever did or accomplished, MJ always knows in his heart and acknowledged he'd never be the same player if Erving hadn't had his career first." Cuz thats how I and just about every single other person who's rational about the 50-70's era and see's it's flaws thinks.

Instead you go around posting pictures of old teams and laughing at people with other people who were fans of that era for being so stupid and young and saying things like "you had to have watched it" as if it erases the fact that no one is jumping over 2 feet when we've watched the exact same games you have on better TVs. Or are you going to claim the tube tv's in the 50's 60's were better too? How about the telegraph?

You

F
A
I
L

Wilt and russell played in a league where the standard was dog****. the 69 finals showed the lakers vs celtics, 2 best teams, and its like watching ymca ball.All these
people bringing up the odd example of nash, iverson etc, if you threw them in to that clip it would look like michael jordan playing with 2 year olds.

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Why are you making it about skin colour? Its not that there were white or black people playing on a team, its that a group of super talented athletes were disadvantaged to the point where for part of that era they wern't even really allowed to play and didn't have the resources to train due to civil rights. Its that the competition in the league was weaker, not that one celtics team was more black. Thats just racist.

ie: as someone pointed out earlier in some way to try and say the era was stronger, go figure, that rucker park playground legend, The Goat, could grab a dollar bill off the top of the backboard but the NBA wouldn't let him play.[/QUOTE]


ITs sad that in the year 2009 with an African American president we still have ignorant people. I hope young man your under 20. Blacks have played and at a high level from the very begining. The Goat didnt play in the NBa because of a live style he chose like many other players in inner city playgrounds around the country. Also grabing a dollar bill off a backboard doesn't mean a player can play under a whistle and within a team concept running plays and playing without the ball.When young people get on and say silly things like a weak era I wonder how weak is this era when kids can come right out of high school and become impact players like in todays game.

This is what a soccer ball looks like in the old basketball days:


[IMG]http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/englishballold.jpg[/IMG]

You can see the evolution of the soccer ball here.

[url]http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm[/url]


Now can you see the similarities between a soccer ball at that time to a basketball? It is obvious they played basketball with a soccer ball and made changes to it as the game evolves. But even the old improved basketballs were definitely closer to the old soccer balls than a modern day basketball.

[QUOTE=db23]All this bickering, throwing stats around, heights etc, JUST WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO, ANYONE THAT CANT TELL HOW LOUSY THE STANDARD WAS BACK THEN BY WATCHING NO MORE THAN 2 MINUTES OF THE FOOTAGE NEEDS TO DELETE THEIR ACCOUNT.That standard is worse than current college ball, Adam Morrison and JJ Reddick were stars in current college ball, so anyone who thinks players from 60's NBA would translate to todays NBA needs to reconsider.[/QUOTE]


i think a gigantic DUH needs to go out to all of these "players from previous eras wouldnt be crap in this era" arguments. that's the case for the vast majority of ANY athlete from ANY sport from a much earlier era - especially in the beginning phases of a sport - you think babe ruth would stand a chance against today's pitchers?

Have NFL players always been this fast, athletic and generally HUGE?

why do you think world records are constantly being broken in the olympics?

Etc etc etc..

They may not be able to succeed in today's leagues but they set the precedent of the time - in 50 years, we may look back at Lebron or Kobe and think "man...they just wouldnt make it in today's league, look at how weak their game is compared to know - only need to watch 2 minutes to know" does that mean that right now what they are doing is any less impressive or important NOW? of course not. so please, stop.

[QUOTE]Yep, and I'm sure he had access to the latest in sports technology too.[/QUOTE]

And I'm sure that all the great talents in the history of the game, including talents of today, had instant access to the latest of technology now. Every kid in the ghettos of N.Y, Chicago, Detroit, etc, learned basketball with official NBA balls and $200 shoes...
That's not even the point. The point is that you claimed players like West grew up playing basketball with soccer balls, which is false.

[QUOTE]Its also a far cry from being a basketball.[/QUOTE]

At least you agreed for once that you were wrong. It was much closer to being a basketball ball than a soccer ball.

[QUOTE]You left out: Dribbling was eventually introduced but limited by the asymmetric shape of early balls. Dribbling only became a major part of the game around the 1950s, as manufacturing improved the ball shape.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball[/url]

[QUOTE]Dribbling was not part of the original game, but [B]was introduced in 1901.[/B] At the time, a player could only bounce the ball once, and could not shoot after he had dribbled. [B]The definition of dribbling became the "continuous passage of the ball" in 1909, allowing more than one bounce, and a player who had dribbled was then allowed to shoot.[/B][/QUOTE]

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

That's from 1947.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRO1jCPrzg&feature=PlayList&p=E65C0FAAA9715D5E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13[/url]

That's from 1949.

The game was more static and dribbling rules were different in its early stages, but dribbling existed way before the 50's. Players like Cousy didn't learn how to dribble in the 50's, as NBA players...
Plus, no-one said that balls were of great quality. But, after the first years, they weren't soccer balls, that's for sure.

[QUOTE]It wasn't 39.9 and 40. You said "When Kareem was 40 he did this" and then used the stats from his previous year to inflate how great he looked. It was blatent manipulation. On bball ref which we both used it says Kareem's age was 39 and you just subtracted one to make him look better thinking no one would check. Then I called you on it and you came up with a BS excuse that "no man, his birthday is in the middle of the season so those are his stats at 40" pretending as if you had honestly considered the situation and produced results. So I called you on that cuz you lied about the numbers and didn't even know his birthday was after the season ended when you lied to try and cover it up.[/QUOTE]

It [B]was[/B] 39.9 and 40--actually the main discussion was about 38.9 and 39, but it's still the same point. Kareem became 39 a few days after the 1986 regular season ended and the playoffs began. In case you haven't encountered this before, when players celebrate their birthdays during a season, people don't subtract the stats they posted in that season before their birthday. Some even round up or down their ages.
Even going by your standards, it won't even help your case. Remember, we were discussing old Hakeem and old Kareem. After Hakeem turned 39, his scoring averages fell even more, to 6.1 ppg and 5.6 ppg in the playoffs. When Kareem started his 1987 campaign, he was older than Hakeem ever was as a player.



[QUOTE]I can't handle your stubbornness. Sorry. You lie about stats and can't admit when watching tape of classic games that most of the players bloody suck. The sad thing is really that Kareem and all those guys were great but instead of just talk about their own greatness and acknowledge how amazingly the game took the road they paved, cuz thats what they did, they made everyone ahead of them WAY better, you've got to hang on and insult their memory by trying to pretend they are something they're not and refusing to let them be honored for who they were.
Improving the game is their legacy as they were the one's to improve it's quality in their own playing days. Its you disrespecting their generation of players, not me. By reusing to accept their flaws you highlight them and make the case look worse cuz you falsify stats to improve the case.[/QUOTE]

"I lie about stats", says the guy who did exactly that in his previous posts about Hayes and '81 Kareem. OK.
I fully acknowledge the greatness of everyone. What you forget is that the thing about greatness is that people who have it are able to adapt to their era. Cousy today wouldn't dribble like he did. Schayes wouldn't shoot like he did. Would they be equally successful now as they were back then? That's an assumption. But if you judge the "greatest players of all time", you have to do it either by comparing people vs people of their own era or, at worst, you can do it by estimating what older people would achieve with today's means. [B]Not[/B] what older people would achieve today with the means of [B]their own era[/B], because you're comparing people, not technology.
Similarly, what you can't understand is that because players played in a certain way during a certain era, this reflected their whole natural talent and athleticism. You never saw West dunk in the very limited footage you watched, so you assumed that he couldn't do it. You never saw a certain player crossover, so you assume he couldn't do it, and so on. Would you also bet that a player like Jordan or Erving couldn't dunk between their legs because they never did it? If there was only as much footage available for Magic or Bird as for 60's players, would you bet that they couldn't dunk (because they rarely did)? Or that an "ancient" 1920 player would be unable to learn how to dribble in today's fashion?

[QUOTE]You could say "yea, Jerry West wasn't the most athletic guy and Kareem/Wilt sure didn't have a lot of other guys to compete against them, but its because they were so much better that everyone else raised their game to their level and we have the league we have today."[/QUOTE]

And you could say the same thing for everyone who's ever played the game as an excuse. We know who Jerry West and Kareem faced. We know how good they were, especially compared to the means of their era. We know both that West was athletic and that Kareem faced a lot of great opponents. And we know that, while the game involved, it didn't do so in such a way to suddenly make Kareem or West look typical or even bad. Players didn't all of a sudden turn into supermen. Jordan started his career in 1985. It's been 24 years since then. Basketball evolved since then. But the question is, how much? Do we have many Jordans today? Many with his talent and athleticism?

[QUOTE]And I'd say "Yea I totally agree. [B]You can't overstate the importance of doing something first[/B]. Its one of the best things about sports. Even though Michael Jordan took Dr. J and extended his style way past anything he ever did or accomplished, MJ always knows in his heart and acknowledged he'd never be the same player if Erving hadn't had his career first." Cuz thats how I and just about every single other person who's rational about the 50-70's era and see's it's flaws thinks.[/QUOTE]

You already saw Jerry West doing a crossover and the only thing you did was you dismiss it as "bad looking". Zero praise for someone starting (along with Oscar) something way before Hardaway. You saw Wilt running like a guard and you pretended that it's nothing special and compared it to Oden's and a scrub's personal best. You seriously expect me to believe that you have such morals? You have already proved otherwise.

[QUOTE]Instead you go around posting pictures of old teams and laughing at people with other people who were fans of that era for being so stupid and young and saying things like "you had to have watched it" as if it erases the fact that no one is jumping over 2 feet when we've watched the exact same games you have on better TVs. Or are you going to claim the tube tv's in the 50's 60's were better too? How about the telegraph?[/QUOTE]

Again, you were the first to start calling names and spit inaccuracies about West not being athletic, Wilt not being so good compared to today's players, mentioned things that never happened and wrong figures and you expect me to be like "oh, yes, you have a point about Kareem's competition being stiffs"?

[QUOTE]You

F
A
I
L[/QUOTE]

I don't care about your personal motos and ambitions. Keep them for yourself.

Wilt would average about the same as Prime Mutombo in todays league, maybe a fraction less.

[QUOTE=Pinkhearts]This is what a soccer ball looks like in the old basketball days:


[IMG]http://www.soccerballworld.com/images/englishballold.jpg[/IMG]

You can see the evolution of the soccer ball here.

[url]http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm[/url]


Now can you see the similarities between a soccer ball at that time to a basketball? It is obvious they played basketball with a soccer ball and made changes to it as the game evolves. But even the old improved basketballs were definitely closer to the old soccer balls than a modern day basketball.[/QUOTE]

Take out the stitches and paint this ball orange and it suddenly looks a lot like a basketball ball. That's zero proof that those balls were soccer balls.

[QUOTE]2. I can find players who played each other all the way back to Naismith: it doesn't mean they can hang with Shaq and Olajuwon. The 70's were a weak era and thats why people who were 6'5" almost averaged 40 ppg and 20 rpg.[/QUOTE]

Just for fun, another wrong stat pull out by indiefan23. It has become as common as sand in the beach.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Just for fun, another wrong stat pull out by indiefan23. It has become as common as sand in the beach.[/QUOTE]

I didn't even bother ask him what 6'5 player averaged 40 ppg & 20 rpg.:rolleyes: Just too stupid to acknowledge.

But he points to an aging Kareem(who was 32/33 by 1980) & his falling rebound numbers of the late 80's to prove the 70's was a 'weak era' since Kareem dominated.

Kareem was hardly among the best five rebounders at his absolute peak against those so called 'weak Players' of the 1970's:rolleyes:


Top Rebounds per game(High rebound numbers are because of faster Pace of game & not ability of players):
1970
*Wilt -18.4- Injured most of season(Knee) but would have won it again
1)Hayes 16.9
2)Unseld 16.7
3)Kareem 14.5

1971
1) Wilt 18.6(on a ruined knee:pimp: barbarically repaired by todays standard)
2)Unseld-16.9
3)Hayes-16.6
4)Kareem -16

1972
1)Wilt-19.2
2)Unseld- 17.6
3)kareem-16

1973
1)Wilt-18.6
2)Thurmond-17.1
3)Cowens-16.2
4)Kareem-16.1

1974
1)Hayes-18.1
2)Cowens-15.7
3)McAdoo-15.1
4)Kareem

1975
1)Unseld-14.8
2)Cowens-14.1
3)Lachey-14.2
4)McAdoo-14.1
5)Kareem

1976
1)Kareem-16.9

1977
1)Walton-14.4
2)Kareem-13.3
3)Malone-13.1
4)Gilmore-13.0


1978
1)Truck Robinson-15.7
2)Malone-15.0
3)Cowens
4)Hayes
6)Gilmore-13.1
7)Kareem

1979
1)Malone
2)Kelley
3)Kareem
4)Gilmore-

Kareem could only muster about 4 top three RPG's finish & one(1) rebounding title at his absolute peak in the so called 'weak' 1970's:rolleyes: Wilt especially, & others used to criticize Kareem's relatively weak rebounding(compared to all time greats like Wilt). So to point out the rebounding numbers of a 'relatively weak'(historically speaking) rebounder like Kareem in the late 80's when he was in his late 30's & retired at 41 or 42 years of age is ludicrous. But I am preaching to the choir.

[QUOTE=32jazz]I didn't even bother ask him what 6'5 player averaged 40 ppg & 20 rpg.:rolleyes: Just too stupid to acknowledge.

But he points to an aging Kareem(who was 32/33 by 1980) & his falling rebound numbers of the late 80's to prove the 70's was a 'weak era' since Kareem dominated.

Kareem was hardly among the best five rebounders at his absolute peak against those so called 'weak Players' of the 1970's:rolleyes:


Top Rebounds per game(High rebound numbers are because of faster Pace of game & not ability of players):
1970
*Wilt -18.4- Injured most of season(Knee) but would have won it again
1)Hayes 16.9
2)Unseld 16.7
3)Kareem 14.5

1971
1) Wilt 18.6(on a ruined knee:pimp: barbarically repaired by todays standard)
2)Unseld-16.9
3)Hayes-16.6
4)Kareem -16

1972
1)Wilt-19.2
2)Unseld- 17.6
3)kareem-16

1973
1)Wilt-18.6
2)Thurmond-17.1
3)Cowens-16.2
4)Kareem-16.1

1974
1)Hayes-18.1
2)Cowens-15.7
3)McAdoo-15.1
4)Kareem

1975
1)Unseld-14.8
2)Cowens-14.1
3)Lachey-14.2
4)McAdoo-14.1
5)Kareem

1976
1)Kareem-16.9

1977
1)Walton-14.4
2)Kareem-13.3
3)Malone-13.1
4)Gilmore-13.0


1978
1)Truck Robinson-15.7
2)Malone-15.0
3)Cowens
4)Hayes
6)Gilmore-13.1
7)Kareem

1979
1)Malone
2)Kelley
3)Kareem
4)Gilmore-

Kareem could only muster about 4 top three RPG's finish & one(1) rebounding title at his absolute peak in the so called 'weak' 1970's:rolleyes: Wilt especially, & others used to criticize Kareem's relatively weak rebounding(compared to all time greats like Wilt). So to point out the rebounding numbers of a 'relatively weak'(historically speaking) rebounder like Kareem in the late 80's when he was in his late 30's & retired at 41 or 42 years of age is ludicrous. But I am preaching to the choir.[/QUOTE]

What makes this discussion even the more silly is hearing people talking about the 70's and 60's being weak at center when you look at how weak todays Centers are. With the exception of D Howard is there any other dominating intimitating center today NO!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Niquesports]What makes this discussion even the more silly is hearing people talking about the 70's and 60's being weak at center when you look at how weak todays Centers are. With the exception of D Howard is there any other dominating intimitating center today NO!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Big men of the 60's/70's like Nate Thurmond,Artis Gilmore,Bob Lanier,Willis Reed,etc.... would be easily among the top/more dominant Centers today (not to even mention Wilt & Kareem).

Because big men today do not want to play,nor can they can play, the 'back to the basket' traditional Center position(not glamorus enough) as these fundamentally sound big men of yore.

Tim Duncan is the last great 'back to the basket' big man & he is considered 'boring'/not glamorous' by most(the reason young players don't want to play in that manner anymore). His fundamental play is more in line with what the great big men of the 60's & 70's did & Duncan is not nearly as athletic as most of those guys. Yet people seriously believe they could't play today.

Could you imagine these same people would be criticizing the 'unathletic' Tim Duncan & swearing that he could not play with Shaq/Howard or today's big men if he had played in the 1970's. :rolleyes: