Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

G.O.A.T.

I will agree with you about Ramsey and KC Jones. Heinsohn's numbers were pretty solid, even if not HOF worthy, though. And, as I pointed out, how would guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, and particularly Sam Jones have done on other teams, where they might not have shared the ball as much.

IMHO, Wilt only played on two teams that were better than Russell's supporting cast, 66-67 and 67-68 Philly, and if the 68 team had not suffered a rash of injuries, I am convinced they would have easily won that season.

The only other two teams that were remotely close to Russell's were the 65-66 Sixers, and the 68-69 Lakers. While the '66 76ers had a one game edge over Boston in the regular season, I don't believe they were favored. That Sixer team was an up-and-coming team, to be sure, but they had gone 40-40 the year before, while Boston had just won their seventh straight title, and had had their best record during their Dynasty of 62-18. So, when the 54-26 Celts beat the 55-25 Sixers, I don't think that was a great shock. True, the 65 76ers had given Boston all they could handle, just the year before, but instead of Simmons marvelling at THAT fact (when a 40-40 team lost a game seven, by one point to a 62-18 team), he rips Wilt for his "superior" '66 team losing. In any case, to blame Chamberlain for that series loss in '66 was ridiculous. Chamberlain outscored Russell 28-14, outrebounded him 30-26, and probably outshot him (Wilt shot .509 during that series...but I don't have Russell's numbers.) AND, in the clinching game five loss, Chamberlain put up a 46-34 game (to Russell's 18-31.) So much for the "choking" theory.

As for the 68-69 Lakers...one more time. Their incompetent COACH cost them that series. LA would have been better off with Soupy Sales as their head coach. AND, when you take into account that Boston had TWO miraculous shots to win TWO games in that series...well, just another case of the bad luck that followed Wilt throughout his career.

Look, Russell did whatever it took to win. There is no question in my mind that Russell made his teammates better than Wilt did his. I don't think it was a coincidence that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Chamberlain's. Russell put his players in their optimum positions, and took opponents' out of their's. But for Simmons to suggest that Wilt and Russell played with equal talent throughout their careers is ludicrous. As was pointed out by that one poster...Russell basically had better talent ON THE FLOOR with him, TWICE as often as Wilt did, during their 10 years of H2H play.

To the greatest of Russell, his team's went 7-1 (really 9-1) against Chamberlain's. But, IMHO, Wilt really only two superior rosters in those ten years, and had one of them been decimated by injuries (and horrible shooting at the worst possible time), Wilt would have been 2-0 with those two teams. You can argue that Russell went 2-0 against Wilt with about even teams (65-66 and 68-69), but I have given you some reasons why Wilt's TEAM lost.

BUT, what about the six seasons? Russell had FAR superior surrounding talent...and Chamberlain nearly led those mediocre teams to stunning upsets. One more time...with a shot here, or there (or a miss by a Boston player on one their "miraculous shots), or a play here, or there, and Wilt could easily have gone 5-3 against Russell. FOUR game seven losses by a TOTAL of NINE points is not a DOMINANT victory by Russell over Wilt.

My main point is that I truly believe Russell was the greatest player to ever play the game. BUT, Simmons' almost makes it seem like Wilt was some "choker" or "failure" who collapsed against Russell. NONE of his numbers, or statements, back that up. His arguments were so one-sided that he can't be taken seriously.

This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.

[QUOTE=Bandito]This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain statistically outplayed Russell, but Russell made his team's better. I would not say that either one "owned" the other. It is a testament to their greatness, that this topic is still being hotly debated some 40 years after they last went H2H.

Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.[/QUOTE]

I can't argue those points. For all of his individual dominance, Wilt's TEAMMATES seldom outplayed Russell's. And I agree, it is hard to believe that it could be coincidence in seven out of eight post-season series' between the two.

It is interesting, that I debated Wilt's side of the Russell-Wilt discussions for many years (and still do, although, thanks to your insightful posts, I have changed my opinions)...and it was a losing battle. For decades, most observers ranked Russell over Wilt. Now, in the last decade, or so, it seems that Wilt has overtaken Russell in many of these "polls."

Now, I find myself having to defend Russell's brilliance, despite the fact that he was the game's greatest "winner." The fact is, while Wilt had all of the records, Russell won more MVPs (although I still don't know how Russell beat Wilt out in that 61-62 season.) Russell's PEERS generally rated Russell ahead of Wilt. I never could understand it, either, until just recently.

Fatal9 posted some spectacular footage of Russell, in his prime, and while the average viewer would probably just look at his performances as "ho hum"...if you take a REAL CLOSE look, you see Russell doing all the right things. AND, it seems that in every single play, he has a purpose. You just can't overlook his intimidation, his determination for entire games, his relentless defense, his brilliant outlet passes, his specatular help defense, the way gets the ball to the teammates that have an advantage over their opposing players..the list is endless.

IMHO, no player made his TEAMS better, and his opposing TEAMS worse, than Russell.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Chamberlain statistically outplayed Russell, but Russell made his team's better. I would not say that either one "owned" the other. It is a testament to their greatness, that this topic is still being hotly debated some 40 years after they last went H2H.[/QUOTE]
Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I can name Non-Hall of famers who are clutch players as well. I am not disputing Bill being clutch. I am disputing this as evidence to put him above Wilt. Robert Horry is an all-time clutch shooter. Is he better than Karl Malone? Reggie Miller is one of the best playoff shooters in NBA history. Should I put him above Clyde Drexler. BTW Jerrry West was considered a clutch scorer as well. Is he above Jordan? Please. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=catch24]You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is a gimmick that Wilt brutally outplayed Russell. What I find a gimmick is that Russell homers love to flash out rings as evidence of Rusell's undisputed superiority. Okay, I guess you think James Worthy is better than Larry Bird.:oldlol: :oldlol: Pretty soon, you will try to convince me John Paxson is better than Steve Nash. Now who is the real idiot!:oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.[/QUOTE]
Intangibles can not count more than tangibles. For instance, Joe Montanna is better than Peyton Manning in the post season because Montanna's numbers reflect it. Montanna had outstanding superbowl stats.

[QUOTE=Justice44]Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that there is any question that Russell played with more talented teams throughout his career. But even Wilt, himself, said that Russell blended better with those teammates than he would have.

Look, G.O.A.T. made a comment in another topic, that had Russell not played during Wilt's career, that Chamberlain likely would have won 6-10 titles. I think that is a fair assessment. I don't want to diminish Russell's accomplishments, because to do so, does the same to Wilt's. IMHO, Wilt's close seven game losses with inferior teams was a testament to his greatness, instead of the opinions of many other's that Wilt was a failure.

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.

[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?


Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.


Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

Wilt Chamberlain: “Where I see him as the tremendous player is as a rebounder. He was the only guy who could rebound along with me, and sometimes I thought he was a better rebounder than I was. He used more things to get to the ball than I had to use. I always had the highest respect for his rebounding."

Johnny Kerr: "[T]here is a side of basketball that can’t be measured in numbers. Often, it is not how many rebounds a player gets, but when does he get them? Does it happen in the middle of the second quarter when no one else is under the basket or does it happen late in the game when everyone is jumping over your back and trying to tear your head off to get to the ball? [...] Russell appealed to those with an artist’s sense of the game. His baskets, his rebounds, his blocks all seemed to come when it really meant something."

Jerry West: "When it counts, Bill Russell is the best rebounder of all. “Wilt and Nate Thurmond are great rebounding centers, [...] but Russell is far and away the best the game has ever known."

I would like to point out that West said this while he was a teammate of Wilt on the Lakers.

Ben Kerner, St. Louis Hawks owner, whose team faced Russell and the Celtics in 1957, '58, '60 and '61: "In big games, no one was better. In the fourth quarter, he’d get every defensive rebound. How are you supposed to win when you get only one shot and there’s Russell sweeping the backboards?"

Wilt Chamberlain: "Russell was the best clutch rebounder this game has ever seen."

So it isn't that simple as being "clearly better" when so many people who were there at the time—even people who were playing with Wilt every night—say otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?


Close. Wilt.


Ah. There was a reason I asked. Had you said Jordan, I would have then whipped out the fact that five years ago Dean Oliver revealed that statistical analysis showed that Bill Russell had the same impact through his defense that a prime Jordan did. Thus if Jordan's offensive impact > Wilt's, and Russell's defensive impact = Jordan's offensive impact, then it wouldn't be true that Wilt's offensive advantage was far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Unfortunately though, you didn't take the bait.[/QUOTE]

great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.

[QUOTE=Horatio33]great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

[B]Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.[/[/B]QUOTE]

Another fallacy. There are MANY examples of Chamberlain dominating at clutch times, and in big games. In the 64-65 ECF game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, (including going 2-2 from the FT line)...and he brought his Sixers back from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. AND, "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with the inbounds pass, allowing Philly a chance to win the game. However, "Havlicek stole the ball!" In that game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds (Russell had a solid game, as well, scoring 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds.)

AND, in the clinching game six win over Milwaukee in the 71-72 WCF's, Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried LA in the 4th quarter, thoroughly outplaying Kareem down the stretch, bringing the Lakers all the way back from a 10 deficit with ten minutes to play, and a win.

Russell was a clutch player, too, but take a look at the video footage in game seven of the 68-69 Finals. That was the game in which Wilt injured his knee, and had to come out, with a little over five minutes left. In that 4th quarter, Wilt had as many rebounds, on his injured leg (he stayed in for two possessions), as Russell did for the entire quarter. And while that post-season was one of Wilt's worst, he still outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21...despite Russell playing all 48 minutes to Wilt's 43.

Fatal9 pointed out Wilt's performances in must-win games...and he was brilliant in nearly all of them.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. The bottom line is that you are pathetically arrogant to think that you have an airtight case for Bill R. How can you have that type of audacity!:lol :lol

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
It's funny how you ignore the fact that Wilt would have won 9 titles with those celtics teams without Russell. :oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
Now how do you know I am a duplicate account? You confuse not comprehending the discussion with rejecting your asinine arguments.

Russell's IMPACT cannot be measured by stats alone (although he had his share of them.) Regul8r posted an analysis which credited Russell's defensive IMPACT, as the equivalent of Jordan's offensive impact. How many more points was Russell's mere presence worth, on the defensive end? The fact is, his IMPACT was enough to make his teammates worth more points on the offensive end (by his outlet passes, his brilliant passing from the post, and his relentless offensive rebounding), AND, his defense minimized opposing offenses, just in INTIMIDATION alone...much less his actual shot-blocking, his exceptional "help" defense, and his outstanding rebounding (less second chance attempts by opponents.)

And, believe it, or not, it was not about Wilt's stats. It was about his IMPACT on the game. Look, there have been quite a few VERY GOOD players who averaged 30+ ppg in a season...Barry, Iverson, Maravich, Archibald, B. King, McAdoo, and others. But, what their true IMPACT. Most of them played on average to perhaps good teams, at best.

Take for instance, Walt Bellamy in the 61-62 season. 31.6 ppg, 19 rpg, and led the league in FG% at .519. AND, he played on a last place team. I have long maintained that Wilt's surrounding cast in that 61-62 season was no better than Bellamy's. Yet, Wilt almost single-handedly carried that Warrior team to within an eyelash of beating the vaunted Celtics in the playoffs. I contend that had Wilt swapped teams with Bellamy, that it would have been Chicago battling Boston in the playoffs, while Philadelphia would have languished in last place.

Wilt's IMPACT was actually greater in the middle to end of his career. While he was "only" putting up 24-24-.600 seasons, the FACT was, EVERYONE in the league KNEW he could easily score 40-50 points in a game. At his PEAK, even Russell could not match his overall IMPACT. However, what separated Russell from Wilt, was that Russell was OBSESSED with winning. As amazing as this sounds, I really think that Wilt underachieved throughout his career (much like Kareem BTW), and it seemed that he just did not sustain the intensity that Russell did.

In any case, Russell's IMPACT has to be considered, at the very least, among the most dominant ever.

[QUOTE=Justice44]Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.
[/QUOTE]

:cheers: I totally agree.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]

That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.

[QUOTE=theguru]
That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.[/QUOTE]


Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.

Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.[/QUOTE]
Of couse I have an agenda! You have an agenda as well. How does that discredit the brutal facts which reflect Rusell's inferiority to KING Chamberlain?

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?[/QUOTE]

Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.

[QUOTE=theguru]Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.[/QUOTE]

Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Russell numbers go up even more in game sevens where he averaged 30 rebounds and shot nearly 70% from the line.

I just imagine what Russell would have done with Wilt's ability.

Ironically in 1967 Wilt had his finest game in closing out the Celtics. Wilt posted 29 points 36 rebounds and 13 assists en route to victory and the eventual NBA title.

Earlier in the season Russell had said of Wilt "He's unstoppable, he's playing like me"

Unfortunately, Wilt became obsessed with assist and FG% records over the next few years and never beat Russell again.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?[/QUOTE]
because in 1980, jordan was in high school

[QUOTE=97 bulls]because in 1980, jordan was in high school[/QUOTE]

Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.[/QUOTE]
not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to

[QUOTE=97 bulls]not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to[/QUOTE]

No it wasn't.

This is a Chamberlain vs. Russell thread. No one besides you ever mentioned MJ.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Here again, Wilt's post-seasons were inevitably played against Russell, usually in either the first or second rounds (and in some cases, the second round was Wilt's first.) In Wilt's post-seasons, he went up against Russell eight times, Reed three times, Thurmond three times, and Kareem twice. All among the greatest defensive centers in NBA history.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]"When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?"[/COLOR]

No argument there. Russell was considered the best by his peers. And that is what amazes me about so many posters here...who have him ranked near the bottom of the top-10. Russell, at the VERY LEAST, is top-3 all-time...and IMHO, he is #1.

G.O.A.T.,

I remember reading a comment by you about the Russell-Wilt debates...

something along the lines of...

If there had been no Russell, Wilt would have probably won anywhere from 6-10 rings...and HE would be ranked as THE greatest ever.

That is a fine tribute to BOTH.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

[B]Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2[/B]

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.

[QUOTE=theguru]I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.[/QUOTE]

Guru,

I USED to believe the same thing. But having studied footage of both (and I did see them play live BTW...albeit on TV)...

Wilt's INDIVIDUAL talent and skills stand out, no question. But you REALLY have to take the time to watch the IMPACT that Russell had on the game. It seems like he always made the key rebound, or pass, or defensive play...and that does not include the INTIMIDATION that he also made famous.

Believe me, I honestly think that Russell was THE most prepared player in NBA history, and perhaps the most intelligent. Almost everything he did on the court had a purpose. Most players, even today, block a shot into the seats. Russell would not only block shots...he would DIRECT them... to his teammates. AND, there was a post here, maybe a link (I am so old I am losing my memory) in which Russell made the comment that he got the ball to teammates who had an offensive edge against their defender, or to other teammates who were in position to score. His OFFENSE was in his TEAM's offense. He simply made his teammates more successful, and his impact on the floor had the opposite effect on opposing TEAMs.

You certainly could not quantify Russell's IMPACT...although Regul8r DID present a substantial analysis which was probably as accurate as it gets. Russell's DEFENSIVE IMPACT was the equivalent of MJ's OFFENSIVE IMPACT.

Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.

[QUOTE=theguru]I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like [B]comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing[/B].[/QUOTE]

If you really think that's a valid comparison there is no sense having this discussion.

Russell scored 30 in game seven of the NBA finals. How many times has Wallace scored 20? Also Wallace was not one of the three greatest passing centers of all-time. Nor did he ever finish in the top in the league in FG%. Nor did his FT% rise significantly in the postseason.

Wilt averaging 15 points per game more is irrelevant because Russell's teams won anyway. They didn't NEED him to score more. When they did, he did, every time without fail except 1967 when Chamberlain played as both he and Bill have said "Like Russell".

So let's start with that, Russell was an above average offensive player. His points per game and assists as well as offensive rebounds were all above the average for starters at his position and all positions. This is not debatable, none of Russell's teammates or opponents have ever said otherwise. I defy you to find a single quote or article or book talking about Bill's limitations of offense. Saying otherwise shows you've done nothing more than evaluate him on statistics without context.

Second as for those not being individual stats, it's not an individual game. Look at how Russell's stats go up in those playoff games, up higher in conference finals games and even higher in Finals games. Look at how high they are in game sevens. Look at them in elimination games. Across the board with very few exceptions his numbers go up based on how important the game is.

We can both agree (I hope) that is a trait synonymous with the GREATEST of the Great players and that there is a high likelihood of a correlation between Russell's elevated play and the Celtics record in those games.

Add to that how pretty much every Celtic gushes over how it was Russell that made everything possible and it's really hard not to see him as a clearly superior player to Wilt for the course of his career. Wilt's numbers went down more often than not, Russell's up. Wilt's team lost as much as they won and almost always to Russell, Bill's only lost once when he was healthy from 1955-1969.

If you want to believe that's a coincidence, fine. If you want to believe it happened because of how much better Russell's teammates were, you're ignoring facts and opinions of those very same players, but fine.

However if you want to say Russell was an average or worse offensive player, you're wrong. If you compare him to an offensive liability like Wallace you're nuts. If you think his teams were always better than Wilt's you need to look at the rosters and win-loss records of both teams from 1965-1969 and then look at what happened in the playoffs.

Basketball is a team game dominated by transcendent individual performances within the context of team. You need to be your absolute best while allowing space for all of your teammates to be their best. Go play pickup basketball and tell me how many guys are "scorers" (in their mind or reality) and how many are defensive anchors, communicators and leaders. Then learn a few things about supply and demand and decide which guy is more valuable.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Guru,
Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.[/QUOTE]

That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.[/QUOTE]

G.O.A.T.,

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.

[QUOTE=jlauber]G.O.A.T.,

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.[/QUOTE]

You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.[/QUOTE]

No, it was a mutual misunderstanding.

And having said that...your GOAT list is a fountain of information. It is one thing to quote some stats...quite another to put them all in perspective. And then you add so many little-known tidbits...just a great body of work. Like I said, I'm sure there are those will disagree with some of your opinions, just as they would mine, or anyone else's...but they will also respect them.

The important thing is that we are all getting an education here. And for all the meaningless drivel that I see on this forum...it is refreshing to read the valuable contributions of quite a few here. Whether we agree or not.