Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

**Disaprine** · 03-19-2010, 02:15 PM

respect the goats people

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by 32jazz

Can't remmber off hand about that one(Eaton), but I'll do some research.
I do remember very well the story Larry Brown tells about the pick up games at UCLA with Magic in the early 80's.

Magic was crying about fouls & made a few layups & Wilt got pissed. Said" No more layups in this gym today' & there were no more lay ups as Wilt swatted/intimidated everything else & pretty much shut up Magic in his mid 40's.

Also read a story that he was offered the oppurtunity to return as a 'back up' Center in the early 80's by the Lakers & maybe the Cavs(?) wanted him. With the Lakers it was alleged he was offered the oppurtunity to play home games only in the regular season, but eventually rebuffed the offer(Wilt was VERY successful/well off finanacially & didn't want to be some publicity stunt).

I'll try to find that for you.

I have read them, but yes, if you can find it, please post it. Incidently there was a post about Wilt here a while back, after he "retired" from the NBA (he never technically retired)...and I found a remarkable comment from Wilt, saying that, at the time, he was in the best shape of his life. He even said that his arthritis had cleared (if that is possible?)

When people talk about Wilt's greatness, I almost never read about his LAST year in the NBA, and at age 37. He led the Lakers to the Finals (60-22 record BTW)...and four CLOSE losses (all games decided in the last minute.) He was voted first-team all-defense (for the second year in a row.) He averaged well over 20 rebounds per game in the post-season (as he did EVERY post-season.) He led the NBA in rebounding (for the 11th time in 14 seasons.) And he set a FG% mark of .727...that will probably not be approached, much less broken.

IF there was ever a player who could have played well into his mid-40's, it would have been Chamberlain. One of the most fascinating accounts of Wilt's physical condition, was the fact that there is an eye-witness account of him bench-pressing 465 lbs... at age 59! In Robert Cherry's book on Wilt, he interviewed hundreds of people who frequented with Wilt...and the stories of his physical prowess abound.

AND, as I have said MANY times...for all of the non-believers out there...where are the legitimate eye-witness accounts that DISPUTE his enormous strength, and staggering leaping ability???

**G.O.A.T** · 03-19-2010, 04:12 PM

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by G.O.A.T

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

Probably as good as any theory out there. Wilt, himself, said later in his life, when he was offered contracts to play in his 40's...that he knew he could be competitive with the current players, but that he knew he was nowhere near the player he had been.

I am actually glad he never came back. I think, like Koufax and Jim Brown...they left with many fans wanting, and expecting more...even if it was probably unrealistic.

**ThaRegul8r** · 03-19-2010, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by G.O.A.T

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

Here's what someone from the Association of Professional Basketball Research said in 2006:

[quote]Without a doubt Wilt could have played in the NBA in his 40s' and
50s'.
In his final season he averaged a league leading 18.6 rebounds per
game. He average a respectable 13.2 ppg while shooting an
unbelievable .727 from the field. That is not a typo. Read my
lips .727 from the field. All of this at the age of 36. That same
year a young lad by the name of Kareem Abdul Jabbar was fourth in
rebounds at 16.1 per game. He was prime time talent his fourth year
as a pro and this old man Chamberlain is out hustling and out
rebounding him. Three years later Kareem would lead the league in
caroms at 16.9 per. Wilt would have then been 39 years of age and
Kareem 28 years of age. When Kareem was 36 and playing for LA his
rebound average was 7.3 per game a far cry from Wilt's 18.6 rebounds
at the same age. Two stars of two eras but look at the differance.
In Wilt's last season Elvin Hayes was No. 7 in the league at 14.5.
Four years later Elvin was still in top 10 at No. 6 with 12.5
So if we do guesstimate work at age 40 Wilt would get say two less
boards a game giving him a still league leading 16.6. Second in the
league would have been Bill Walton at 14.4 per game. Could you
picture a scrawny Bill holding back the muscle bound Wilt?
What about the other top rebounders of that year Bob McAdoo, Larry
Kenon? Wilt would have bowled them over.
Now at 50 years of age it would be a different story for Wilt.
Let's see? The top rebounder that year was Charles Barkley. Just
imagine Barkley at 6-foot-4 trying to hold back the aging Wilt who
at 50 was still in tip top shape playing and dominating scrimmages
with current and future NBA stars.
And if we look at development of the game in 5 years prior to Wilt
entering the NBA the top rebounder had 15.1 per game. In Wilt's
rookie year he averaged 27.0 boards per game. Five years after his
retirement the top player averaged 15.7 per game. So...five years
before Wilt came into the league top rebounders were at 15 per game
and five years after retiring they were back down to 15 per game.
His rebounding stats show that he was in a league of his own.
At age 40 Wilt would have still been the best defensive player in
the NBA.
At age 50 Wilt in the NBA?
Of the 23 teams I honestly believe he would have been the starting
centre for at least half of them.
Atlanta

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 08:31 PM

Regul8r,

I don't think any of that is the least bit far-fetched. Half the centers in the NBA in the 80's were 7-0+ footers who could barely score, or rebound, ...and passing and dribbling were an adventure. I swear that some of them could not dunk. I did a study a while back, and the "tallest" period in NBA history was in the late 80's...something like 35 seven-footers. In fact, I believe it was in the year that 6-3, 170 lb. Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding, he was in the top-20 in the league.

In Wilt's first book, there is a picture of him, probably in his late 30's, playing volleyball...and in it, his waist is above the top of the net. Jazz already mentioned the Larry Brown story...in which an amazed Brown witnessed Chamberlain taking over a summer league game that had the likes of Magic Johnson and Marques Johnson playing in it...and Wilt would have been in his mid-40's at the time. Hopefully someone can dig up Van de Wege's story about Wilt outplaying Mark Eaton...in the mid-80's.

Many of the current generation just believe that so much that has been written about Wilt is pure exaggeration. The fact is, the vast majority of those that played with Wilt, or were among his friends, had some eye-popping, eye-witness accounts of his incredible strength or leaping ability. I have given several here before, so no need to bore the readers again, but needless-to-say, as Robert Cherry wrote...he was "Larger than Life."

**magnax1** · 03-19-2010, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234

I did watch the videos and from watching them it seemed laughable to suggest Russell was better than Shaq and Kareem who truly dominated. He can have all of the assist numbers in the world, but he was not a better passer than Shaq or Kareem. Both were capable of more difficult passes from what I saw and because of their scoring ability, they drew far more double teams.

Then we have scoring which is what makes the comparison laughable. Shaq and Kareem were hands down top 3 scorers at their position and truly unstoppable. Russell was not even a top 20 scorer.

Russell has the edge as far as defense, but consider the huge advantage that guys like Ben Wallace and Mutombo have over guys like Daugherty and Yao defensively. But not one GM would take the former over the latter. Hell, you have a guy like Zo who was one of the best defenders ever and a great scorer himself(20-23 ppg), but no GM is taking him over Shaq. The bottom line is it's easier to build around a great low post scorer who is still a defensive presence than a great defender who is merely good offensively.

Russell won 11 titles with 1/4 the amount of teams and he played on a stacked team that is far beyond anything Shaq played with or even Kareem during his actualy pime('70-'80).

Despite Russell's pace advantage(which is the main reason for his rebounding and assist advantage) Shaq and Kareem are still more impressive statistically and both won a ton of titles themselves. Hell, Kareem won more MVP's than Russell as well.

You don't have to be dominant to be great. Magic, KG, Nash, Stockton, Walton, and Russell all weren't dominant, but had more impact then 90% of players.
Not really arguing with you statement that Kareem and Shaq were quite a bit better, but Russell has a logical argument for 2nd best player ever. He made his team mates better because he was amazing at everything except scoring. He didn't need to dominate the ball to have a huge impact.

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by magnax1

You don't have to be dominant to be great. Magic, KG, Nash, Stockton, Walton, and Russell all weren't dominant, but had more impact then 90% of players.
Not really arguing with you statement that Kareem and Shaq were quite a bit better, but Russell has a logical argument for 2nd best player ever. He made his team mates better because he was amazing at everything except scoring. He didn't need to dominate the ball to have a huge impact.

I think that is VERY true. If it weren't, Wilt would have won about 10 rings, Kareem about 15, and Shaq probably somewhere around 10. Some players not only blend better (Rick Barry on the 74-75 Warriors), but they make their own teammates better (Russell...on almost any of his teams.)

Even Wilt, himself, admitted that Russell made his (Russell's) teammates better than he (Wilt) would have.

**magnax1** · 03-19-2010, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by jlauber

I think that is VERY true. If it weren't, Wilt would have won about 10 rings, Kareem about 15, and Shaq probably somewhere around 10. Some players not only blend better (Rick Barry on the 74-75 Warriors), but they make their own teammates better (Russell...on almost any of his teams.)

Even Wilt, himself, admitted that Russell made his (Russell's) teammates better than he (Wilt) would have.

Very true. The great thing about Russell from what I've watched of him (which sadly isn't that much) is that he combines the huge offensive impact a great point guard can have with the huge defensive impact a center can have.
While I don't think if he was stuck on Wilt's teams hed have 11 rings, He probably would have 5. However, 67 Wilt and 72 Wilt were better then any year of Bill Russell. So I'd have to put Wilt over Bill.

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by magnax1

Very true. The great thing about Russell from what I've watched of him (which sadly isn't that much) is that he combines the huge offensive impact a great point guard can have with the huge defensive impact a center can have.
While I don't think if he was stuck on Wilt's teams hed have 11 rings, He probably would have 5. However, 67 Wilt and 72 Wilt were better then any year of Bill Russell. So I'd have to put Wilt over Bill.

I don't think you would too much of an argument from even the most ardent Russell fans on Wilt's 66-67 and 71-72 seasons...especially the 66-67 season. When Wilt played at his highest level, there was none better, nor more dominant. Problem was, I don't think Chamberlain had the same focus, or intense desire to win, that Russell did (in fact, even Wilt would admit as much.)

I will never forget one of my first visits to the forum, and I read a comment by Abe Lincoln, in which he said that Wilt was basically an underachiever. I was livid. Here was the greatest record-holder in probably not just basketball, but in any major professional team sport...being called an underachiever.

BUT, the more I read, the more I had to agree. The fact was, Wilt COULD have been more dominant. Even on one leg, he should have crushed Reed in that game seven. Robert Cherry blamed Wilt's game six (not his game seven) in the 68-69 Finals, for LA losing to Boston.

Not all of it was Chamberlain's fault. He had some mediocre teams early in his career. He also had some teams that suffered injuries at the worst possible time. And, he even had some remarkable bad luck. But, as great as he was, he should have been able to overcome much of that, particularly later in his career, and CARRIED those teams to wins.

I have long maintained that Wilt was EXPECTED to do more than anyone else. Was that fair? Probably not, but the fact was...he was such a skilled player, and such a physical specimen, that he was probably CAPABLE of accomplishing more.

When it came to the desire to win...no one was as obsessed as Russell. And deep down, I think Wilt "settled" far too much in his career. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but when you consider things like him getting upset with an SI article criticizing his ability to score...and he responded with a 60 point outburst...well, where was that when it was absolutely critical?

**magnax1** · 03-19-2010, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by jlauber

I don't think you would too much of an argument from even the most ardent Russell fans on Wilt's 66-67 and 71-72 seasons...especially the 66-67 season. When Wilt played at his highest level, there was none better, nor more dominant. Problem was, I don't think Chamberlain had the same focus, or intense desire to win, that Russell did (in fact, even Wilt would admit as much.)

I will never forget one of my first visits to the forum, and I read a comment by Abe Lincoln, in which he said that Wilt was basically an underachiever. I was livid. Here was the greatest record-holder in probably not just basketball, but in any major professional team sport...being called an underachiever.

BUT, the more I read, the more I had to agree. The fact was, Wilt COULD have been more dominant. Even on one leg, he should have crushed Reed in that game seven. Robert Cherry blamed Wilt's game six (not his game seven) in the 68-69 Finals, for LA losing to Boston.

Not all of it was Chamberlain's fault. He had some mediocre teams early in his career. He also had some teams that suffered injuries at the worst possible time. And, he even had some remarkable bad luck. But, as great as he was, he should have been able to overcome much of that, particularly later in his career, and CARRIED those teams to wins.

I have long maintained that Wilt was EXPECTED to do more than anyone else. Was that fair? Probably not, but the fact was...he was such a skilled player, and such a physical specimen, that he was probably CAPABLE of accomplishing more.

When it came to the desire to win...no one was as obsessed as Russell. And deep down, I think Wilt "settled" far too much in his career. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but when you consider things like him getting upset with an SI article criticizing his ability to score...and he responded with a 60 point outburst...well, where was that when it was absolutely critical?

Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.

**jlauber** · 03-19-2010, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by magnax1

Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.

Well said!

**G.O.A.T** · 03-24-2010, 03:11 PM

HEY STRO-SHOW PLEASE MERGE THIS WITH THE WILT vs. RUSSELL thread.

THANKS

**MakeHistory78** · 03-24-2010, 04:51 PM

G.O.A.T said to me in another thread this.
"Just start by telling me why you rank Wilt above Russell despite Russell almost always beating him head-to-head."

Wilt from his rookie season had good games against Russell's Celtics.
He had 53 points against him in his rookie season.

Wilt was much better offensive player,he could score with fadeaway shots,with finger rolls,with monster dunks.Also he was a better passer not by far but he was.And he was scary dominant.Rebounds was very close but I give a little edge to Chamberlain.
Russell was a better defender.Not by far but he was.Chamberlain was also a very good defender.
So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.
Even the great Red Auerbach changed his mind in the 80s and he said that Bird was the GOAT not Russell anymore.

Wilt most of the times is at least in the Top-3..Russell not always.
IMO Russell is a top 6-8 of all time player.

As I said before I respect Bill Russell but IMO he isn't so good as Wilt or MJ or Kareem..It's my opinion.

**G.O.A.T** · 03-24-2010, 05:10 PM