Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

But what is the goal of basektball?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Here's another good quote.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

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

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

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

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

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

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

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

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