Wilt the "Choker"

[QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part

[QUOTE=aau][QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part[/QUOTE]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.

[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=aau]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that analogu, however, is that there were far too many times when Wilt's teammates DESERVED the blame. Aside from West in '69 and '70, and Greer in '67, Chamberlain had a plethora of playoff series in which his teammates were awful. His pundits will find an occasional game like Greer's 40 point game six in '68, but they will completely ignore Greer's 8-25 game seven (in a FOUR point loss.) They will cite Meschery's 32 point game seven in the '62 ECF's, but fail to mention that he shot .397 in the post-season. Hell, even in Wilt's '72 championship season, his teammates generally played worse than they did in the regular season, particularly West, who was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career (.376 over his entire playoff run.)

There were a couple of posters here who blamed Wilt for his '66 team getting beat 4-1 by Boston. Yep...all Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51%, against Russell, who averaged 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot .451. How about Wilt's teammates? Greer shot .325. Walker shot .375. Jones shot .325. Jackson shot .429. And Cunningham shot .161.

And one can only wonder how many more titles Wilt would have won had he had Hannum or Sharman coaching his team's his entire career, instead of the majority of them being complete morons.

[quote=aau]

nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning[/quote]
Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?

[quote]i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance[/quote]
From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically [B]another [/B]Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.

[quote]think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages
[/quote]
Tearing down others? :facepalm

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

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

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
It's always good to see some posts with wisdom..

Just out of curiosity, according to how exactly they play or matchups and your "what if's" criterias, how do you rank Kareem and Nate Thurmond and Russell? And how do you rank Hondo, Kobe and Pistol?

BTW, welcome to ISH although I'm not a regular in this board:cheers:

[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=aau]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.[/QUOTE]

Why people do it to Lebron every year.


Lol sry had too.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I posted this over two years ago:

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

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

It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:

To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):

Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs

[QUOTE=alexandreben]It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:

To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):

Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs[/QUOTE]

I get a kick out of those posters that claim that the 90's were the "Golden Age" of centers. Wilt faced as many as 11 HOF centers in his career, and he also faced All-Stars like Zelmo Beatty and Wayne Embry. He even easily outplayed Gilmore in a brief encounter in the early 70's. I doubt that the 90's class will have more than HALF as many HOFers, and they most certainly will not come close to ELEVEN (despite league's with 29-30 teams!)

Yet, that is what Wilt faced, and mostly outplayed, or downright crushed.

[QUOTE=PHILA]Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?


From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically [B]another [/B]Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.


Tearing down others? :facepalm[/QUOTE]

most definitely a stiff , , you guys love fg%

nate shot 39% , 42 , 40 , 43 , 41 , 41 , 41% his first 7 seasons
he wasn't a jumpshooter , mainly shot from pointblank range
we're talking career 60% free throw shooter . . . in '69 he
took 1394 shots to make 1524 points . . . . . . GTFO
stiff

now you want to make it personal , , , , i was a basketball fan
long before i became a laker fan . . . i hit you with some very
poignant stuff , , normally you reply with harvard-like essays
that read like bible references with quotes from Jesus . . . .
i feel cheated

according to you guys it was never wilt's fault , , , all his teammates
you guys have gone so far as to give him "close-to-the-title" points

"well if sam jones hadn't drilled that jumper in wilt's face at
the buzzer in game 7 , , , , , , , , we woulda won"
lmao

pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it

bill russell would run over his mother to win a game

wilt would rather run his mouth

[QUOTE]pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it
[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.

As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.

As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.[/QUOTE]

yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool

it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt

just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete

'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'

face up , y'boy was a loser

he couldn't have cared less about winning

[quote=jlauber]I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.[/quote]

It may potentially have worked wonders for Chamberlain's legacy had there been a required compensation for a veteran free agent during his years as opposed to the days of illegal reserve clauses where the owners had complete control (abolished in large part thanks to Abdul-Jabbar's apparently overrated disgraceful choker of a teammate in [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135720"]Oscar Robertson[/URL]), allowing the Lakers to bar Chamberlain from extending his professional basketball career with the Knicks or the Conquistadors, thus indirectly ushering him into a Hall of Fame professional [URL="http://i41.tinypic.com/9hn91z.jpg"]volleyball[/URL] career. Of course without noting that the balding defensively liable role player rode a free ride to at least two of his world championships, one of which required the obligatory Laker gift in the form of two foul shots on the single [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJTsmS5MokM#t=5m45s"]worst call[/URL] in the history of professional basketball to save them from elimination.

The first generous compensation was a #1 draft pick for a veteran that had signed with another team as a free agent due to the steaming arrogance from the management refusing to financially compensate the man for his contributions to the organization (notably his being a key member of the single greatest [URL="http://i42.tinypic.com/ju7p6b.jpg"]team[/URL] in that franchise's history to date.) His new team had it's [URL="http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7gowo.jpg"]star player[/URL] suffer what was effectively a career ending injury, leading to them having the worst record in the league the next season prior to relocating (before the lottery era). That top pick they gave away ended up being [URL="http://i42.tinypic.com/uolg4.jpg"]this man[/URL]. The second one being for a #1 pick again (this time from a team that lost it's top scorer midway through the season with their new owner getting suckered into the single worst trade in the history of professional basketball) for a bench warmer. End result being [URL="http://i41.tinypic.com/10dxjyu.jpg"]this man[/URL] gift wrapped for the world champions.

It would indeed be a fantasy to have a man like Oscar Robertson teamed up with Wilt Chamberlain at any point in their careers (as opposed to Chamberlain's Warriors losing 2 of their top 3 ball players and head coach simply due to the 2500 mile move to San Francisco; not to neglect seven new ball players resulting in a rebuilding process of a team that was seconds away from dethroning the Celtics a few months earlier, merely for financial reasons).

When the Lakers did happen to face off against the [URL="http://i44.tinypic.com/2uh1krr.jpg"]top team[/URL] of the 1980's, it was a disgraceful sweep & Abdul-Jabbar was humiliated by his opponent in the pivot. Things could have been a bit interesting the year before had Chamberlain had accepted Katz' willing offer of $500,000 to play the remainder of the '82 season for the Sixers. God forbid they get to the Finals actually beat the Lakers.

[QUOTE=aau]yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool

it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt

just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete

'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'

face up , y'boy was a loser

he couldn't have cared less about winning[/QUOTE]

I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.

As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"

good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time

think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell

you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get

hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like

happy halloween

[QUOTE=aau]good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time

think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell

you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get

hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like

happy halloween[/QUOTE]

Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."