Wilt Chamberlain discussion

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]A PRIME Wilt is the Greatest Player that Ever Played by miles! :rolleyes:
Also the Best Most Complate Athletic-Physical Player ofAll Time
Also the Most Complre IMPAC (Technically-Slilled and Physicaly) Center of All Time

He played in Second Toughest Era in NBA History The Late 60s-Early 70s reason why it was very diffuclt for him to win same as for Charles, Malone, Stockton, Kemp-Paton (we know Lakers after his prime), Webber etc etc

Second Best Era`s After the 80s.

Early 90s and Mid 90s is close to that of the late 60s and early 70s

Late 90s and 2000s = One of the Weakest Eras in Competitive Team Ball Ever. Team Expansion, Less Posibilities of Great Role Players, Stars and Supestars To Play Togheter, Zero Fundamentally Sound Players, Passing Game, Shot Selection, Court Vision, Rule Changes to Easen the Game and A WAY LESSER PHYSICAL ERA than Wilts[/B]

:violin:[/QUOTE]

Ah, Sir Charles, thanks for the motivation.

[url]http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2009/05/nba-fan-evolution-part-1-fan-eras.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]
Late 90s and 2000s = One of the Weakest Eras in Competitive Team Ball Ever!. Team Expansion, Less Posibilities of Great Role Players, Stars and Supestars To Play Togheter,[B] Zero Fundamentally Sound Players[/B], Passing Game, Shot Selection, Court Vision, Rule Changes to Easen the Game and A WAY LESSER PHYSICAL ERA than Wilts[/B]

:violin:[/QUOTE]

Yep, cuz when I think of Tim Duncan and David Robinson, I think of poor fundamentals, right?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Jack, there is no such thing as a logical player comparison. Logic is 1 + 1 =2 and there's just no black and white player achievements to add up like that.

You continue with this 'it can't be done' mantra. Comparing a player's achievements are just as illogical because winning a title in 1948 is just as affected by era as scoring 50 PPG. Its just not the same achievement. And what 'achievements' are you talking about anyway? Winning titles is no indication of how good you are as a player because teams win titles and a million things can prevent you from winning or even having winning seasons that have 0 to do with your personal talent. Was Mitch Richmond poor? Cuz he didn't win jack.

Really, the only logical way to compare players is to watch tape of them playing at their highest level and compare them by their performance.

I think its a little convenient that you hang onto this 'achievements' thing. The Pistons made the con finals 7 years in a row, so they achieved way more then the Sacromento Kings teams, but the Kings were way better because the east was intensely weak during those years and the same applies to the Celtics winning 11 of 13 titles. They were better then everyone, thats an achievement, but everyone stank, and that lowers the achievement.

The only reason someone would have for it is to protect their perceptions of those players. If you can ignore their poor play and only count up rings or whatever other era based stat you want you can ignore the fact that players today just play the game at a higher level. There is zero question that Mitch Richmond was a better player then say, tommy heinsohn. Richmond was an elite athlete. Tommy Heinsohn, well, he was a smoker, and there just no way around that fact. Mitch is better. Its that simple.[/QUOTE]

Boxing is a great example. Many boxing historians agree that someone like Harry Greb wouldn't compare with Middleweights of the 80's, 90's and of today. The reason he is considered an all-time great and in many peoples top 20 p4p list is because of his achievements and accomplishments in his own era.

Wilt never got to play now, and to compare his style of play in a completely different NBA league than today to today's players is just plain stupid. It's an argument that's based on assumptions which is a logical fallacy in itself.

Personal achievements are scoring titles, statistics, MVP's, All-NBA teams, DPOY's, etc...

That is how athletes should be ranked and it's been done quite successfully and with ease in Boxing.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I'll be out of the site for quite some time, so here's one last note, about this:

Some of these stats don't reveal anything about sophistication. The all-time highest FG%'s were during the mid-80's, not today. In the late 60's, they were already comparable to nowadays. FT's? Lower than today, but players were also fewer. You see yourself that in the early 70's, more players shot at high percentages, and most of these played in the 60's, as well. Assists? They were measured in a different way than today. Assist leaders having less assists can be explained by this and can also mean that the game was more team-oriented. And it was. [B]High pace doesn't help individualism, and this is a main reason I don't buy 100% the absolute pace adjustments.[/B] Apart from Wilt, no superstar of the era took as high a percentage of his team's shots as Kobe or LeBron or younger Iverson. Even Wilt, given his playing time and pace, didn't take such an extraordinary number of shots.[/QUOTE]

What kind of garbage is that? Wilt took almost 40 shots a game one year and almost 40% of the entire year's shots. Thats almost double iverson's most ball hoggish year. 3159 vs 1669, and that didn't help out wilt's individual stats? You just say things without actually knowing if they are true or not. Wilt took twice as many shots as Iverson and shot a much larger %age of his team's shots. Silly. Here are some more since Wilt was the only one.
player - seasons shooting more FGAs the iverson's max anomaly season.

Kareem - 6
Jerry West - 4
Elgin Baylor - 8
Bob McAdoo - 3

We'll just stop there cuz its foolish.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Boxing is a great example. Many boxing historians agree that someone like Harry Greb wouldn't compare with Middleweights of the 80's, 90's and of today. The reason he is considered an all-time great and in many peoples top 20 p4p list is because of his achievements and accomplishments in his own era.[/quote]

Boxing is a terrible example. It peaked long ago and has been in decline. Today's boxers would get punked by yesterday's.

[quote]Wilt never got to play now, and to compare his style of play in a completely different NBA league than today to today's players is just plain stupid. It's an argument that's based on assumptions which is a logical fallacy in itself.

Personal achievements are scoring titles, statistics, MVP's, All-NBA teams, DPOY's, etc...

That is how athletes should be ranked and it's been done quite successfully and with ease in Boxing.[/QUOTE]

Please, explain the 'logical fallacy'... like, what kind of fallacy is it? Making an assumption is not a fallacy, in fact, no argument can exist without some axiomic assumptions being made. Stating that there is only one valid ranking of athletes is a rather stupid assumption you are making. You're ranking the all time achieved players and I put Russell right up there, but if you rank of everyone to ever play, who is the most talented, that has nothing to do with achievement. Its a different ranking, not an invalid one.

You trying to tell me that beating the Detroit bad boy Pistons on your way to a title requires the same talent as the Fort Wayne pistons is patently retarded. You know its not. Therefore MJ's achievement of beating them is in fact 'greater' then Russell because he achieved something much more difficult. Again, I beat people at the Y's rec league, its a different league, so if I win the YMCA title 50 times does that make me thebest ever? No, because you ahve to compare the league I was playing in to the one Wilt and MJ play in, and its obvious I'm a lesser player. I know you can't argue that logic, Simple Jack. I'm not as good as MJ no matter how many championships at the Y I win. So how can you use it to argue about NBA players playing in lesser talented leagues? You can't. You know it. The weakness of your competition factors into how you should be evaluated and you know that. Yet simply refuse to admit it.

I can put up better stats, win more titles and accolades then any player in history if you lower the competition enough. Just tell me: would I be better then MJ then?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]I LOVE the worm, but its gotta be said. He was a specialist. If he was trying to score more he does not get as many boards or get way up on that list as high so he's kind of an anomaly. Guys like Forston are there cuz they couldn't play 30 minutes without fouling out. Either way, I think it shows a totally weak and statistically era even if those guys had higher %'s. Wilt's case for everything is stats and without playing 25% more possessions every game or out bigging diminutive players, that's all he'd remain. A great big dude who didn't win much.[/QUOTE]

4 mvps? 2 rings? diddnt win much? STFU

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Yep, cuz when I think of Tim Duncan and David Robinson, I think of poor fundamentals, right?[/QUOTE]

[B]Im refering to the "average player", "role player" not a Superstar :violin: [/B]

[B]Chamberlain: Strongest and Most Athletic 7`1 (Leaping Ability, Speed, Potence, Off 1 Step Jump, Endurance, Stamina) of All Time
Chamberlain: Most Fouled Player of All Time
Chamberlain: Greatest Rebounder of All Time
Chamberlain: Greatest Shot Blocker of All Time
Chamberlain: Among the Top Assiters Centers of All Time
Chamberlain: Never Fouled Out a Game
Chamberlain: Played More Minutes Per Game than Any Player Ever
Highest Scoring Avg and FG% of All Time in his Peak: Most of His Shots Jumpers, Fadeways, Bank Shots and FInger Rolls away from the Basket (not Dunks)
Chamberlain: Creator of the Fadeway Bank Shot[/B]

[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/index1.html[/url]

[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/pictures.htm[/url]

[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/images/nba/1999/chamberlain/wilt2.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://media.kansan.com/img/photos/2008/02/14/30_Wilt1.jpg[/IMG]



[IMG]http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/LIFPOD/956089~University-of-Kansas-Basketball-Star-Wilt-Chamberlain-Playing-in-a-Game-Posters.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.dotphoto.com/SAN1/AA/25/DB/iAA25DBF1-4A0D-45F0-9EFC-1BF6091E2D9F.jpg[/IMG]

[B]Chamberlain Ages 45-50. Look ath the Musucle Tone without 90s Vitamins and Weight Lifting Programs[/B]

[IMG]http://www.nba.com/media/allstar2007/kareem_wilt_0215.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Boxing is a terrible example. It peaked long ago and has been in decline. Today's boxers would get punked by yesterday's.



Please, explain the 'logical fallacy'... like, what kind of fallacy is it? Making an assumption is not a fallacy, in fact, no argument can exist without some axiomic assumptions being made. Stating that there is only one valid ranking of athletes is a rather stupid assumption you are making. You're ranking the all time achieved players and I put Russell right up there, but if you rank of everyone to ever play, who is the most talented, that has nothing to do with achievement. Its a different ranking, not an invalid one.

You trying to tell me that beating the Detroit bad boy Pistons on your way to a title requires the same talent as the Fort Wayne pistons is patently retarded. You know its not. Therefore MJ's achievement of beating them is in fact 'greater' then Russell because he achieved something much more difficult. Again, I beat people at the Y's rec league, its a different league, so if I win the YMCA title 50 times does that make me thebest ever? No, because you ahve to compare the league I was playing in to the one Wilt and MJ play in, and its obvious I'm a lesser player. I know you can't argue that logic, Simple Jack. I'm not as good as MJ no matter how many championships at the Y I win. So how can you use it to argue about NBA players playing in lesser talented leagues? You can't. You know it. The weakness of your competition factors into how you should be evaluated and you know that. Yet simply refuse to admit it.

I can put up better stats, win more titles and accolades then any player in history if you lower the competition enough. Just tell me: would I be better then MJ then?[/QUOTE]

You clearly don't know boxing but that's a whole different discussion.

Where do you plan on putting up these vast stats and personal accolades? The NBA always drafted the best of the best and it remains a professional sport, not a pick-up game in your local gym. You act like Wilt and Russell weren't insanely conditioned athletes.


Edit: For one you are begging the question. Also, your entire argument is based on a questionable and falsifiable assumption; oh look, there's another logical fallacy.

[QUOTE]Making an assumption is not a fallacy, in fact, no argument can exist without some [B]axiomic[/B] assumptions being made.[/QUOTE]

Axiomic? Really?

[QUOTE=indiefan23]Yep, cuz when I think of Tim Duncan and David Robinson, I think of poor fundamentals, right?[/QUOTE]

It's pretty much a given that the next generation of basketball fans will call Tim Duncan overrated and say he wouldn't be a top 3 player in their era.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]Im refering to the "average player", "role player" not a Superstar :violin: [/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, lets take a 90's role player. Greg Ostertag. His fundamentals suck? 60's players didn't box out for rebounds on free throws... that includes Wilt. I can only imagine how bad their role players must have been if the best player from a whole era doesn't box out. His fundamentals sucks a wet bag my man. 'Playing the right way" had not even been touched on yet.

[QUOTE=UCLA - Lakers]It's pretty much a given that the next generation of basketball fans will call Tim Duncan overrated and say he wouldn't be a top 3 player in their era.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so... when you watch Duncan play shaq its pure competition. That being said Duncan won his titles in the weakest modern era, so maybe they will and I'll have to accept they're a little right, but when you watch Spurs games they don't look anything like the 60's games. The game grew dramatically since then and that growth has leveled off a bit.

Seriously, Tim Duncan does not play in an era where a 6'5" player can almost put up a 40/20 season twice. Its a totally valid. Cept he played vs lots of other great players and greats at his position. Wilt... well, people bring up Walt Bellamy, Walter Dukes, and the fact that a 6'9" 215 pound dude beat him a bunch of times. Ball was in it's infancy then and Wilt was just a man among boys. It inflated his stats the same way when I play kids. These are facts. I dunno why its so hard to accept it.

[QUOTE=YoungRich]4 mvps? 2 rings? diddnt win much? STFU[/QUOTE]

Heh, he only won by accepting a lesser role on a team established as someone else's. You STFU.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles]I want to have sex with Wilt Chamberlain 20,000 times[/QUOTE]

Charles, posting a bunch of pics is totally useless. You think the guy is superhuman, he's not. He was the next step in basketball's evolution, that pure fact, but there have been multiple steps taken since then. Who cares about 90's nutrition and work out programs. Yes players training was worse in the 60's. When you train better it makes you a better athlete. Modern training is better therefore today's people are better athletes.

You list all this stuff thinking you're making his look awesome. These are all my points for why he's over rated: a guy does not have 50 PPG seasons when the competition and defense does not suck. Wilt was more dominant then anyone in history, but that domination is a knock against his skill because it shows how weak the comp was, not a indicator of anything superior.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]You clearly don't know boxing but that's a whole different discussion.[/quote]

Sure is, but since Foreman had a decent/competitive career when he was fat and 40, I'm going to guess he knocks Tommy Morrison flat on his back when he's in his prime.

[quote]Where do you plan on putting up these vast stats and personal accolades? The NBA always drafted the best of the best and it remains a professional sport, not a pick-up game in your local gym. You act like Wilt and Russell weren't insanely conditioned athletes.[/quote]

1. No, they didn't. That's why when the ABA merged half the allstar team came from a non-NBA league.

2. It doesn't matter where my accolades stand because that's stipulation you made: strength of era does not count. Since the 1960's leauge is totally different then the 90's one, that translates to strength of league does not count.

[quote]Edit: For one you are begging the question. Also, your entire argument is based on a questionable and falsifiable assumption; oh look, there's another logical fallacy.[/quote]

I'm begging the question? Are you serious? Begging the question is when your conclusion is contained in your premise. Here is my argument.

P: Achievement in hoop is done in relation to competition.
P: Achievement over stronger competition is more difficult.
P: Successful completion of more difficult tasks is a greater achievement then less difficult tasks.

90's players had considerably stronger competition then Wilt.

therefore: Modern player's achievements were more difficult and thus greater in comparison to Wilt's.

You show me which part of that argument is invalid and where any begging the question exists. It does not. I know how to make a real argument and its a solid one.

Here is your's Simple Jack.

P: There's only one way to rank players across eras.
P: To compare based on anything but achievements in their own era requires assumptions.
P: Stating that an achievement (eg: winning the title) is the same across all eras is not an assumption.

Assumptions are stupid.

Therefore: There's only one way to rank players across eras.

One of the most ironic things about logic and philosophy is that I dunno, 50%, 75% of the time, someone who accuses you of committing a fallacy is actually committing that same one themselves. I'd suggest you not bring up logic if you don't really know how to use it to your advantage. I can tell you don't: you make no distinction between truth and validity. My argument is totally valid. I'm quite certain the statements are true. Would you like to try again?

[quote]Axiomic? Really?[/QUOTE]

Yes, really, you can't make an argument without making some assumptions, they are called axioms, things which are self-evident. Axioms are axiomatic. Or are you really down to pointing out my typos now?