# Wilt Chamberlain would DESTROY today's NBA



## dantheman9758

watch the footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZXiaDzyc

He would dominate just like he did in his own era. 

I don't think there's any less disparity between what he could do against today's athletes vs the men from the era he played in. 

According to draftexpress.com there's nobody playing today that is his length, and hardly anyone is even close, and according to data from his playing days only a few guys today - no matter how muscle bound or fat - are approaching his playing weight (258 as a rail thin rookie, but shot up to a playing weight of 292lbs in 1963-64 season, 300+ with the Lakers). Today's biggest guys that have _almost_ as much size plus length (like Bynum) certainly do NOT move with that agility. He moves like, well like a well conditioned Track and Field athlete, but one that is merely 6'2 or 6'3... not 7 foot... To be that big and move like that is not normal


----------



## R-Star

He'd easily be the best big man in the league, but I don't think he'd drop 100 on anyone.


----------



## Ballscientist

*A few years ago, Charley Rose said Shaq and Yao would DESTROY Wilt and Bill Russell.*


----------



## R-Star

I think a prime Shaq would go toe to toe with Wilt and hold his own.

Yao? He was a distant second best of our time when compared to a prime Shaq. Not even sure if his peak was better than a current Dwight.


----------



## Diable

The old Warriors teams that Wilt played for averaged around 118 to 121 points per game and that would put them in the top five in scoring in an NBA with 8 to 12 teams. People don't look at the numbers in context. Wilt had something like 20 to 30% more possessions available to him than you have in today's NBA game. They did not have videotape and they usually only had a couple of coaches on the staff. I don't Auerbach ever had any assistants. 

It is silly to think that Wilt could walk into today's game and dominate any more than the modern big men like Shaq. I doubt he'd be as good really. He'd get to shoot a lot of free throws and teams would scout him and defend him with vastly more effectiveness than was even conceivable during his prime.


----------



## dantheman9758

Ballscientist said:


> *A few years ago, Charley Rose said Shaq and Yao would DESTROY Wilt and Bill Russell.*


And he based that opinion on what?

Yao can't even be in this discussion, he moves like Frankenstein compared to Wilt, and Wilt has a higher standing reach, and a wider wingspan and can jump out the building so what good would Yao's height do? Also, 292lbs with the strength he is touted as having? Come on...

Wilt is taller than Shaq (Shaq never measured the full 7'1, he was 7'0.88" and Wilt was 7'1.06") and again, wider wingspan greater reach... The only thing Shaq had on Wilt was mass and in Shaq's case the difference maker was fat, not muscle or strength. Also, if you didn't notice, Wilt can step out a few feet and sink shots... 

The only people that think Wilt would merely a product of his era have not taken any time to research and discover that nobody like him has ever been drafted since he played save for Shaq, who came close, but was still not there. What he does on film looks routine only to the the people that assume he'd be no bigger centers playing today like Dwight Howard. But his measurements are literally through the roof, and his agility made him a gifted NCAA D1 track and field stud - his PR in high jump is only 4.75" away from what won Olympic Gold just the 1 year prior to when he was competing in college. He would have placed 5th in the Olympics if he was a theoretical competitor and his form was TERRIBLE he did it on raw athleticism.

Since 1989 on Draftexpress.com

His barefoot height has been exceeded only 12 times since 1989 out of 1,499 measurements. 

His hands are large enough that out of 130 known measurements, only 1 exceeds them.

His wingspan has literally never been matched.

His standing reach is 9'6 but this was in the 1/4" Chuck Taylors of his era. Put him in Nike's like today's drafted centers wear, and his standing reach becomes about 9'7.5" which has never been matched. Even the 9'6 in his paper thin fabric shoes has only been exceeded 5 times out of hundreds of DE's draftee's since 1989

And btw, none of those draft prospects approaching Wilt's size (save for Shaq) have EVER looked like "athletes". The same things that made him special then, would make him special today nothing has changed about that. He'd stun a draft camp with his stature and agility. Just watch the footage.




And people... Please... stop talking about stats, I didn't mention them so no need to argue that his stats wouldn't be the same. Everyone knows already. And that isn't the point.


----------



## Diable

So Wilt would win 12 titles in today's NBA? He did it back then so he could do it now? Wilt's legacy is his numbers. Period. He's behind a whole lot of big men if you're counting titles.


----------



## GNG

LOL at these new posters coming in writing 11 paragraphs dissecting Wilt Chamberlain's measurements down to the hundredth of an inch. 

Some other guy typing out a novella about the exact size lens and lighting the cameraman used to take promotional photos of LeBron James.

Love these guys. No sarcasm.


----------



## Bogg

R-Star said:


> He'd easily be the best big man in the league, but I don't think he'd drop 100 on anyone.


Basically. In a league where Bynum's starting in the all-star game and actually _deserves_ it, then yea, Wilt would obviously be elite. However, I think it's pretty obvious that a slower pace, modern defensive schemes, and competition that's physically superior to that of the 1960s would bring his statistical production closer to what you see out of star players today, and less along the lines of "50 and 25 over a whole season".


----------



## R-Star

Yep.


----------



## dantheman9758

Diable said:


> It is silly to think that Wilt could walk into today's game and dominate any more than the modern big men like Shaq. I doubt he'd be as good really. He'd get to shoot a lot of free throws and teams would scout him and defend him with vastly more effectiveness than was even conceivable during his prime.


Not silly at all when you look at what made Shaq special... and than come to learn that Wilt had "more" of it in almost every facet - plus a few things Shaq never had. 

Like freak stamina. Wilt was running 50 mile marathons in his mid 50's, at over 300lbs. Do you think Shaq was EVER in good enough shape to do that? Do you think Shaq, with his agility+size that impressed the Draft, could rule the quarter mile in under 50 seconds? Would he be an NCAA D1 winner in the high-jump!? 

There isn't 1 thing Wilt had in his arsenal of physical gifts that some other player at some point probably had in common with Wilt, can anyone think of one guy who was a better overall basketball specimen? Shaq and Kareem come closest for different reasons. 

And... everybody keeps trying to imagine Wilt in today's game. How about, put Shaq in a pair of Converse all-stars and put him into the early 60's with all of their rules, limitations, and ref calls for dunking/dribbling/etc and he would NEVER be able to get away with his offensive fouling "no regard for human life!" plays. They'd call it every time. 

Wilt was bound by gear and rule limitations that most fans today have absolutely no clue about and they don't give it any thought. His movements and style (if he played today) wouldn't be stuck in his own time. He wouldn't be a confused puppy, he'd easily adapt on top of his physical gifts he had an extremely high basketball IQ. 

He expressed in the early 90's that given a shot in the modern game he would be doing what Shaq was doing (violently driving to the basket). Something he could not get away with w/o a charge (and possible a racism riot) in his day. Given his superior physical gifts all across the board to Shaq it would be murder. As I said, because of Wilt's gifts Wilt would be same scary rule-bending monster today as he was when he played in his era. Different style, different stats, of course no fan of the game doesn't know that. But the disparity between him and his gifts vs everyone else is the same as it was when he played in his own era. Nobody comes close.


----------



## dantheman9758

Diable said:


> It is silly to think that Wilt could walk into today's game and dominate any more than the modern big men like Shaq. I doubt he'd be as good really. He'd get to shoot a lot of free throws and teams would scout him and defend him with vastly more effectiveness than was even conceivable during his prime.


Not silly at all when you look at what made Shaq special... and than come to learn that Wilt had "more" of it in almost every facet - plus a few things Shaq never had. 

Like freak stamina. Wilt was running 50 mile marathons in his mid 50's, at over 300lbs. Do you think Shaq was EVER in good enough shape to do that? Do you think Shaq, with his agility+size that impressed the Draft, could rule the quarter mile in under 50 seconds? Would he be an NCAA D1 winner in the high-jump!? 

Every NBA athlete before during and since Wilt played has probably had things in common with Wilt, but can anyone think of one guy who was a better overall basketball package? He literally had "the best" or close to the best at every gift a basketball player should have when he was on the floor. Shaq and Kareem come closest I think, they had a lot of the things Wilt had but not all of them. 

And... everybody keeps trying to imagine Wilt in today's game. How about, put Shaq in a pair of Converse all-stars and put him into the early 60's with all of their rules, limitations, and ref calls for dunking/dribbling/etc and he would NEVER be able to get away with his offensive fouling "no regard for human life!" plays. They'd call it every time. 

Wilt was bound by gear and rule limitations that most fans today have absolutely no clue about and they don't give it any thought. His movements and style (if he played today) wouldn't be stuck in his own time. He wouldn't be a confused puppy, he'd easily adapt on top of his physical gifts he had an extremely high basketball IQ. 

He expressed in the early 90's that given a shot in the modern game he would be doing what Shaq was doing (violently driving to the basket). Something he could not get away with w/o a charge (and possible a racism riot) in his day. Given his superior physical gifts all across the board to Shaq it would be murder. As I said, because of Wilt's gifts Wilt would be same scary rule-bending monster today as he was when he played in his era. Different style, different stats, of course no fan of the game doesn't know that. But the disparity between him and his gifts vs everyone else is the same as it was when he played in his own era.


----------



## Ron

I saw him play.

The best ever. Ever.


----------



## Luke

It all depends on what you mean by "destroy". If by "destroy" you mean that he would be easily the best big in the game and arguably the best player in the world, then sure, destroy. But if you're trying to walk in here and say that he could throw up 50/25 over an 82 game season then you're an idiot. If you think that he would instantly make any team in the league a dynasty then you're an idiot.

On the other hand if you think that Wilt would flame out and not be a real factor in the NBA just because he played in the 60's, you're an idiot. 

The only thing worse than the posters that pretend like Larry Bird couldn't play in today's league due to advances in training are the ones that over romanticize an inferior and over inflated era and act like you can look at raw statistics in a vacuum and assume that they could replicate that type of dominance.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> It all depends on what you mean by "destroy". If by "destroy" you mean that he would be easily the best big in the game and arguably the best player in the world, then sure, destroy. But if you're trying to walk in here and say that he could throw up 50/25 over an 82 game season then you're an idiot. If you think that he would instantly make any team in the league a dynasty then you're an idiot.
> 
> On the other hand if you think that Wilt would flame out and not be a real factor in the NBA just because he played in the 60's, you're an idiot.
> 
> The only thing worse than the posters that pretend like Larry Bird couldn't play in today's league due to advances in training are the ones that over romanticize an inferior and over inflated era and act like you can look at raw statistics in a vacuum and assume that they could replicate that type of dominance.


I mean he would destroy the league and be best in the world etc - I left out any mention of stats in my posts for a reason because the specifics of the #'s themselves are a product of that era and it's style and rules, but the _disparity_ between him and everyone else (I believe) is not. Back then every athlete he competed against had shoes equipment and training methods no better or worse than he had. He was so far ahead of everyone because of his natural gifts. That still holds true today, if he had all the modern perks of a modern athlete he'd be using them and his natural gifts would still keep that talent gap wide open. 

To the public he'd be just as unstoppable and difficult to comprehend today - if he was on a trashy team I'm sure fans and media would develop the same sort of attitudes against him that they had in his era. Assumptions that he should win chips left and right would arise out of the rift of talent between him and everyone else, his gifts and how they'd be received can best be seen in Lebron - only Wilt as a specimen is above Lebron and it's not _nearly_ as close as modern fans would like to think. His stats would certainly not be specifically 50 and 25 because the game just doesn't express stats in the same manner as 1962. But they'd still be gaudy and would raise the bar well above the curve of what we thought was possible in today's game, and he'd be smashing new kinds of records today - blocked shots for example. He'd be beast. Not like Dwight Howard beast, like... re-writing the definition of NBA dominance all over again beast.

Others obviously disagree here, but I didn't form the conclusion out of thin air, most of the "myths" I've found about Wilt Chamberlain are the _negative_ things people have fabricated over the years in an attempt to rationalize his dominance.


----------



## Ballscientist

dantheman9758 said:


> watch the footage
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZXiaDzyc
> 
> He would dominate just like he did in his own era.
> 
> I don't think there's any less disparity between what he could do against today's athletes vs the men from the era he played in.
> 
> According to draftexpress.com there's nobody playing today that is his length, and hardly anyone is even close, and according to data from his playing days only a few guys today - no matter how muscle bound or fat - are approaching his playing weight (258 as a rail thin rookie, but shot up to a playing weight of 292lbs in 1963-64 season, 300+ with the Lakers). Today's biggest guys that have _almost_ as much size plus length (like Bynum) certainly do NOT move with that agility. He moves like, well like a well conditioned Track and Field athlete, but one that is merely 6'2 or 6'3... not 7 foot... To be that big and move like that is not normal


Charley Rosen was born in 1941
Wilt was born in 1936

When were you born?

Ballscientist was born in the same month and the same date of Wilt. Check data of this board.


----------



## GNG

Ballscientist said:


> Charley Rosen was born in 1941
> Wilt was born in 1936
> 
> When were you born?
> 
> Ballscientist was born in the same month and the same date of Wilt. Check data of this board.


I welcome Ballscientist referring to himself in the third person.


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> I mean he would destroy the league and be best in the world etc - I left out any mention of stats in my posts for a reason because the specifics of the #'s themselves are a product of that era and it's style and rules, but the _disparity_ between him and everyone else (I believe) is not. Back then every athlete he competed against had shoes equipment and training methods no better or worse than he had. He was so far ahead of everyone because of his natural gifts. That still holds true today, if he had all the modern perks of a modern athlete he'd be using them and his natural gifts would still keep that talent gap wide open.
> 
> To the public he'd be just as unstoppable and difficult to comprehend today - if he was on a trashy team I'm sure fans and media would develop the same sort of attitudes against him that they had in his era. Assumptions that he should win chips left and right would arise out of the rift of talent between him and everyone else, his gifts and how they'd be received can best be seen in Lebron - only Wilt as a specimen is above Lebron and it's not _nearly_ as close as modern fans would like to think. His stats would certainly not be specifically 50 and 25 because the game just doesn't express stats in the same manner as 1962. But they'd still be gaudy and would raise the bar well above the curve of what we thought was possible in today's game, and he'd be smashing new kinds of records today - blocked shots for example. He'd be beast. Not like Dwight Howard beast, like... re-writing the definition of NBA dominance all over again beast.
> 
> Others obviously disagree here, but I didn't form the conclusion out of thin air, most of the "myths" I've found about Wilt Chamberlain are the _negative_ things people have fabricated over the years in an attempt to rationalize his dominance.


Then why didn't he win more in a weaker league? If you're conceeding the fact that he played in a lesser era while stating that he was so far ahead of his time that players even today could not stack up, then why did Wilt retire with only two rings?


----------



## R-Star

Cinco de Mayo said:


> I welcome Ballscientist referring to himself in the third person.


Yea, if you like ****ing plagiarism.


----------



## Jamel Irief

Ballscientist said:


> Charley Rosen was born in 1941
> Wilt was born in 1936
> 
> When were you born?
> 
> Ballscientist was born in the same month and the same date of Wilt. Check data of this board.


Wilt born in 1936, Ball-scientist born in 1936. 

Ballscientist and Wilt have things in common. Wilt sleep with 20,000 women, Ballscientist sleep with 20,000 women. Wilt destroy today's NBA, Ballscientist destroy today's NBA.


----------



## eddymac

Talent translate in any era. He would be great regardless.


----------



## dantheman9758

Ballscientist said:


> Charley Rosen was born in 1941
> Wilt was born in 1936
> 
> When were you born?
> 
> Ballscientist was born in the same month and the same date of Wilt. Check data of this board.


There are so many HOF'ers peers and coaches from that era, many still active in the NBA today that disagree entirely with that kind of nonsense that what he said is not even worth mentioning unless you also believe it and care to reveal further insight to your own personal take on things. 

Shaq wouldn't be murdering Wilt in the 1960's... for one he can't play the same minutes, and would need to lose a crap load of his weight just to play the fast break game and not wreck his knees early in those unpadded shoes. He'd be a less effective version of Wilt Chamberlain, probably better than anyone else at center in that era offensively not named Wilt or Kareem but he wouldn't be able to hang his hat as high as those guys because he CAN'T SHOOT. He also never was thirsty for rebounds like Wilt or Russell. I highly doubt he would rebound any better than a player of Nate Thurmond's caliber. His fg% in the early 60's would probably break Wilt's during the years that Wilt was shooting, only because since he can't shoot he'd have no choice but to try to get close. He'd be bound by the constraints of the game Wilt and Russ were bound by and he'd fair relatively worse in that era than he did in today's.

Why do I feel that way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew
This style of play is flat out ridiculous and impossible in the 1960's and 70's. Nothing but charges and offensive fouls, he'd foul out in 3 minutes if he tried that crap, he'd have to adjust and going back in time it would be to his disadvantage. This kind of play in the 90's and '00s is where I concede that Russell in his vintage lean conditioning would fair poorly. But who's to say he wouldn't work out and turn into the equal-height/length Dwight Howard? Anyways things Shaq was allowed to get away with irritated Wilt and he was vocal about it perhaps out of envy. He alluded that he'd embrace it in the modern game had he had the chance. But physically abusing people on the offensive end to get to the paint with blatant shoulder dips was simply was not allowed in the vintage game. 

It was absolutely _essential_ that ref's become tolerant of such offensive violence for Shaq to become as dominant as he was at center. It enabled him to use virtually everything he had that no-one else had - that unmatched size, strength and athleticism and it cloaked his obvious weaknesses to step outside and shoot by making those kind of situations completely redundant. All he had to do was murder the defender barreling forward to the hoop and w/o any sort worry of a whistle there was no pressure or need to shoot outside and try anything else. No past players of similar freakish size and strength (hint.. Wilt) was ever granted such perks. If ref's never allowed this physical playing in the 1960's than how does anyone propose Shaq is going to flat out murder a big guy like Wilt or even a small one like Bill? Shaq's going to rely a lot more on the shooting touch that he doesn't have, and suffer the same deteriorated shooting percentages those early 60's guys had. And his inability to dominate his leagues in rebounding means he's not hungry enough to be in the company of Wilt or Bill. He'd probably rebound no better than Thurmond.. 

It's plain and simple, in an era free of silent racial tension plus no white superstars, fans perception of things over time obviously radically changed and this allowed a lot of bending and shifting in the games style and rules. Fans in the '00's WANT to see big Shaq dominate anyone and everyone, the rules finally seemed okay to actually loosen up and _favor_ such an impressive specimen's strong physique. Wilt's contemporaries all made efforts to STOP a bullying dominance but that does not mean Wilt couldn't easily do the same things Shaq did (and better) were he allowed.

better shooter, longer wingspan, taller, higher reach, much faster, better leaper, better stamina, and equal too or superior in raw potential strength.

Shaq's got one advantage, weight. And it wasn't from muscle. 

Who's gonna dominate who, whether Shaq be in Wilt's era or Wilt in Shaq's? I think Wilt has the edge no matter which era your talking about. Russell is a different story.


----------



## Bubbles

Note to self: dantheman has a hard on for Wilt's stilt.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> Then why didn't he win more in a weaker league? If you're conceeding the fact that he played in a lesser era while stating that he was so far ahead of his time that players even today could not stack up, then why did Wilt retire with only two rings?


When did I say lesser era? Or weaker league? I'm not alluding to that notion at all. I said the stats would translate differently in today's game. The game and rules took on a different character back then, not a "worse" one. Some of those guys could be transported in time just as they were physique and all and play today some couldn't, and this goes visa versa. Other guys would have to change their games dramatically and some couldn't make the cut. For example the game back then was definitely no place for Joel Anthony. Nor is today's game an appropriate place for Swede Halbrook. Neither would make bench swapping era's. And many center's today would be up for a rude awakening if they had to play in a league dominated by two ELITE track star centers chasing down anyone and everyone w/o some sort of competent fast break agility and stamina. Btw, Wilt and Bill certainly played a large role in PUSHING that leagues pace up with their strong influence as "22 percent" of the leagues starting centers - something most people don't consider. It stayed high for as long as Wilt played and plummeted his final season as his athleticism and influence as a superstar was waning. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2akdYIFJ2A
No business in the 60's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGFRRQgnLnc&t=5m10s
Because of guys like this


----------



## GNG

dantheman9758 said:


> There are so many HOF'ers peers and coaches from that era, many still active in the NBA today that disagree entirely with that kind of nonsense that what he said is not even worth mentioning unless you also believe it and care to reveal further insight to your own personal take on things.
> 
> Shaq wouldn't be murdering Wilt in the 1960's... for one he can't play the same minutes, and would need to lose a crap load of his weight just to play the fast break game and not wreck his knees early in those unpadded shoes. He'd be a less effective version of Wilt Chamberlain, probably better than anyone else at center in that era offensively not named Wilt or Kareem but he wouldn't be able to hang his hat as high as those guys because he CAN'T SHOOT. He also never was thirsty for rebounds like Wilt or Russell. I highly doubt he would rebound any better than a player of Nate Thurmond's caliber. His fg% in the early 60's would probably break Wilt's during the years that Wilt was shooting, only because since he can't shoot he'd have no choice but to try to get close. He'd be bound by the constraints of the game Wilt and Russ were bound by and he'd fair relatively worse in that era than he did in today's.
> 
> Why do I feel that way?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew
> This style of play is flat out ridiculous and impossible in the 1960's and 70's. Nothing but charges and offensive fouls, he'd foul out in 3 minutes if he tried that crap, he'd have to adjust and going back in time it would be to his disadvantage. This kind of play in the 90's and '00s is where I concede that Russell in his vintage lean conditioning would fair poorly. But who's to say he wouldn't work out and turn into the equal-height/length Dwight Howard? Anyways things Shaq was allowed to get away with irritated Wilt and he was vocal about it perhaps out of envy. He alluded that he'd embrace it in the modern game had he had the chance. But physically abusing people on the offensive end to get to the paint with blatant shoulder dips was simply was not allowed in the vintage game.
> 
> It was absolutely _essential_ that ref's become tolerant of such offensive violence for Shaq to become as dominant as he was at center. It enabled him to use virtually everything he had that no-one else had - that unmatched size, strength and athleticism and it cloaked his obvious weaknesses to step outside and shoot by making those kind of situations completely redundant. All he had to do was murder the defender barreling forward to the hoop and w/o any sort worry of a whistle there was no pressure or need to shoot outside and try anything else. No past players of similar freakish size and strength (hint.. Wilt) was ever granted such perks. If ref's never allowed this physical playing in the 1960's than how does anyone propose Shaq is going to flat out murder a big guy like Wilt or even a small one like Bill? Shaq's going to rely a lot more on the shooting touch that he doesn't have, and suffer the same deteriorated shooting percentages those early 60's guys had. And his inability to dominate his leagues in rebounding means he's not hungry enough to be in the company of Wilt or Bill. He'd probably rebound no better than Thurmond..
> 
> It's plain and simple, in an era free of silent racial tension plus no white superstars, fans perception of things over time obviously radically changed and this allowed a lot of bending and shifting in the games style and rules. Fans in the '00's WANT to see big Shaq dominate anyone and everyone, the rules finally seemed okay to actually loosen up and _favor_ such an impressive specimen's strong physique. Wilt's contemporaries all made efforts to STOP a bullying dominance but that does not mean Wilt could easily do the same things Shaq did (and better) were he allowed.
> 
> better shooter, longer wingspan, taller, higher reach, much faster, better leaper, better stamina, and equal too or superior in raw potential strength.
> 
> Shaq's got one advantage, weight. And it wasn't from muscle.
> 
> Who's gonna dominate who, whether Shaq be in Wilt's era or Wilt in Shaq's? I think Wilt has the edge no matter which era your talking about. Russell is a different story.


A nine-paragraph response to Ballscientist. You lose, dantheman.


----------



## Ballscientist

dantheman9758 said:


> There are so many HOF'ers peers and coaches from that era, many still active in the NBA today that disagree entirely with that kind of nonsense that what he said is not even worth mentioning unless you also believe it and care to reveal further insight to your own personal take on things.


Welcome you to join this board. I'd like to know ...

Were you born in 1940s?


----------



## Jamel Irief

Cinco de Mayo said:


> A nine-paragraph response to Ballscientist. You lose, dantheman.


No matter how you respond to Ballscientist he can always counter with this: Who has the Ph. D in Ballscience?

There is no winning.


----------



## Jamel Irief

What get's me about Wilt is his incredible touch. What big man have you seen in the last 30 years finger roll and flip lay-ins around the basket like he did? Vlade maybe?


----------



## dantheman9758

Cinco de Mayo said:


> A nine-paragraph response to Ballscientist. You lose, dantheman.


----------



## Noyze

Wilt was definitely ahead of his time and his wingspan was incredible. But in todays NBA I'm not convinced he'd put up more then 20 point per


----------



## dantheman9758

Ballscientist said:


> Welcome you to join this board. I'd like to know ...
> 
> Were you born in 1940s?


My old man was born in the 1945, your seniority here warrants some respect. I'm a daft and reckless 25 year old with a little bit of wit too much ego for my own good. Pertinent to my discussion here I don't observe anything in life on any timescale that simply follows a linear pattern of "better", nothing's a one way street. From what I've learned, Wilt Chamberlain appears to one of those dead ends as an athlete who's genetic gifts have remained unmatched to this day. Before I spill more paragraphs on why I came to that conclusion, please, feel free to enlighten me as to where you disagree thus far.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt

Here is the list of every NBA player that was at least 6'9 and played 20 minutes per game when Wilt averaged 50.

Bill Russell 6'9 215
Red Kerr 6'9 230 
Larry Foust 6'9 215
Bob Pettit 6'9 205
Clyde Lovellette 6'9 234
Walter Dukes 7'0 220
Ray Scott 6'9 215
Cleveland Buckner 6'9 210
Darrall Imhoff 6'10 220
Phil Jordon 6'10 205

So Wilt dominated a bunch of players who qualify as small forwards in today's game.


----------



## Ballscientist

dantheman9758 said:


> My old man was born in the 1945, your seniority here warrants some respect. I'm a daft and reckless 25 year old with a little bit of wit too much ego for my own good. Pertinent to my discussion here I don't observe anything in life on any timescale that simply follows a linear pattern of "better", nothing's a one way street. From what I've learned, Wilt Chamberlain appears to one of those dead ends as an athlete who's genetic gifts have remained unmatched to this day. Before I spill more paragraphs on why I came to that conclusion, please, feel free to enlighten me as to where you disagree thus far.


Shaq is 360 pounds, Wilt is 275 pounds. Few people know how strong is Shaq. Shaq can put wilt on Shaq's stomach (eat him up).

Shaq would win. His strength would be too much for Wilt Chamberlain to contain.

Think in this way

I am 175 pounds. I would never stop a player who is 260 pounds with excellent basketball skills in the paint.

You just can't stop someone who weight 100 more pounds than you.


----------



## dantheman9758

Noyze said:


> Wilt was definitely ahead of his time and his wingspan was incredible. But in todays NBA I'm not convinced he'd put up more then 20 point per


Dwight averages 20 a game today

Dwight is:
6'9 240(drafted weight) 285 today, 7'4.5" wingspan, 7'3" standing reach
And his strengths are not based around his ability to score...

Wilt is:
7'1, 258(drafted weight) 292 in his prime, 7'8+ wingspan, 7'6+ standing reach,
And his strengths revolved around his effortless ability to score...


No matter how I look at it I just don't see how a guy that size gracefully sinking 50ppg = "no more than" 20ppg today... care to elaborate?


----------



## dantheman9758

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Here is the list of every NBA player that was at least 6'9 and played 20 minutes per game when Wilt averaged 50.
> 
> Bill Russell 6'9 215
> Red Kerr 6'9 230
> Larry Foust 6'9 215
> Bob Pettit 6'9 205
> Clyde Lovellette 6'9 234
> Walter Dukes 7'0 220
> Ray Scott 6'9 215
> Cleveland Buckner 6'9 210
> Darrall Imhoff 6'10 220
> Phil Jordon 6'10 205
> 
> So Wilt dominated a bunch of players who qualify as small forwards in today's game.


Yah, our league is loaded with 6'9 small forwards...
:2ti: 

www.draftexpress.com/measurements

you need some perspective before you attempt to compare heights from Wilt's era to today's era. Such as, how official list heights today (and since ~1980's) have been completely bogus, where as in his era they were generally much closer to the players "in stockings" height. In 1/4 inch thick shoes there really was no rhyme or reason to ever even think of the concept of "in shoes" height. Some guys were rounded down (6'9.5 Bill Russell became 6'9, 7'1 1/16th Wilt Chamberlain became 7'1) some guys were rounded up (7'1 5/8 KAJ to 7'2). But no guys were like Dwight Howard (6'9 barefoot, 6'10.25 in shoes, 6'11 official listed height). 

D. Howard, #1 center in the league today. 6'9. What were you saying about 6'9 guys? No matter anyways, here's every single player from the NBA in 1962, when Wilt scored 50.4ppg from starters down to the last bench player and compared them with all the calculated NBA barefoot measurements displayed on Draft Express from 1989-present as per this tool: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-...raft=100&sort=... Why barefoot you say? Because remember... "shoe heights" don't exist in Chuck Taylors.

Pure Guards (Let's call them the Point Guards:
Bob Cousy G 6-1
K.C. Jones G 6-1
Gary Phillips G 6-3
Al Attles G 6-0
York Larese G 6-4
Guy Rodgers G 6-0
Al Bianchi G 6-3
Larry Costello G 6-1
Paul Neumann G 6-1
George Blaney G 6-1
Donnie Butcher G 6-2
Al Butler G 6-2
Richie Guerin G 6-4
****** Martin G 6-2
Sam Stith G 6-2
Hot Rod Hundley G 6-4
Bob McNeill G 6-1
Bobby Smith G 6-4
Jerry West G 6-2
Bucky Bockhorn G 6-4
Adrian Smith G 6-1
Dave Zeller G 6-1
Johnny Egan G 5-11
Willie Jones G 6-3
Chuck Noble G 6-4
Don Ohl G 6-3
Gene Shue G 6-2
Jimmy Darrow G 5-10
Dick Eichhorst G 6-3
Vern Hatton G 6-3
Cleo Hill G 6-1
Johnny McCarthy G 6-1
Lenny Wilkens G 6-1
Howie Carl G 5-9
Ralph Davis G 6-4
York Larese G 6-4
Slick Leonard G 6-3
1961-62 Season, 37 active, avg = 6-1.89"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 93) avg = 6-1.02"
(Point guards of that season averaged over 3/4 of an inch taller than modern point guards of 1989-present)

Guard/Forward swingmen (Let's call them the Shooting Guards):
Carl Braun G-F 6-5
Sam Jones G-F 6-4
Frank Ramsey F-G 6-3
Paul Arizin F-G 6-4
Ed Conlin F-G 6-5
Tom Gola G-F 6-6
Hal Greer G-F 6-2
Bill Smith G-F 6-5
Frank Selvy G-F 6-3
Oscar Robertson G-F 6-5
Jack Twyman F-G 6-6
George Lee F-G 6-4
Jackie Moreland F-G 6-7
Al Ferrari G-F 6-4
Si Green G-F 6-2
Cliff Hagan F-G 6-4
Fred LaCour G-F 6-5
Bob Sims G-F 6-5
Andy Johnson F-G 6-5
Jack Turner G-F 6-5
1961-62 Season, 20 active, avg = 6-4.45"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 90) avg = 6-3.76"
(Shooting guards of that season average over half an inch taller than shooting guards of 1989-present)

Pure Forwards (Let's call them the Small Forwards):
Gene Guarilia F 6-5
Jim Loscutoff F 6-5
Tom Sanders F 6-6
Ted Luckenbill F 6-6
Tom Meschery F 6-6
Frank Radovich F 6-8
Dave Gambee F 6-6
Joe Roberts F 6-6
Chuck Osborne F 6-6
Lee Shaffer F 6-7
Dave Budd F 6-6
Ed Burton F 6-6
Doug Kistler F 6-9
Elgin Baylor F 6-5
Tom Hawkins F 6-5
Bob Boozer F 6-8
Joe Buckhalter F 6-7
Bob Wiesenhahn F 6-4
Bailey Howell F 6-7
Shellie McMillon F 6-5
S. Arceneaux F 6-4
Horace Walker F 6-3
Barney Cable F 6-7
Ron Horn F 6-7
George Bon S. F 6-8
1961-62 Season, 25 active, avg = 6-6.08"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 91) avg = 6-6.40"
(The average small forward height of that season is only 1/3rd of an inch less than the average small forwards drafted between 1989-present)

Forward/Centers (Let's call them the Power Forwards):
Tom Heinsohn F-C 6-7
Joe Ruklick F-C 6-9
Joe Graboski F-C 6-7
Red Kerr C-F 6-9
Dolph Schayes F-C 6-7
C. Buckner F-C 6-9
Johnny Green F-C 6-5
Phil Jordon C-F 6-10
Willie Naulls F-C 6-6
Howie Jolliff F-C 6-7
Jim Krebs C-F 6-8
Rudy LaRusso F-C 6-7
Wayne Embry C-F 6-8
Hub Reed C-F 6-9
Bob Ferry C-F 6-8
Ray Scott F-C 6-9
Larry Foust C-F 6-9
Clyde Lovellette C-F 6-9
Bob Pettit F-C 6-9
W. Sauldsberry F-C 6-7
Archie Dees F-C 6-8
Joe Graboski F-C 6-7
Dave Piontek F-C 6-6
Charlie Tyra C-F 6-8
1961-62 Season, 24 active, avg = 6-7.83"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 127) avg = 6-7.95"
(The power forwards average height that season is negligible in comparison with all modern power forwards from 1989-present... less than 1/8th of an inch)

Players strictly listed as Centers:
Bill Russell C 6-9 (1/2)
Wilt Chamberlain C 7-1 (1/16)
Swede Halbrook C 7-3
Darrall Imhoff C 6-10
Ray Felix C 6-11
Wayne Yates C 6-8
Bevo Nordmann C 6-10
Walter Dukes C 7-0
Walt Bellamy C 6-11
1961-1962 Season, 9 active, avg = 6-11.06" (6-10.81" excluding Wilt)
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 67) avg = 6-10.44"
(Centers of that season averaged over 1/4 of an inch taller than modern centers, and that is if we exclude Wilt - the difference is more than 1/2 an inch if we included him)

The reason I have to structure the list in such a way for 1-5 spots was because back then there were only 3 recognized positions. G, F, C. But www.basketball-reference.com has done an excellent job at indicating the players that were pulling double-duties between 2 positions. I used those players that pulled double duty as the analogues for today's common distinctions between of P/S Guards and S/P Forwards. 

Small league? No. Humans never evolved since the 1960's, and the NBA wasn't stupid or primitive back then, basketball is an old sport that pre-dates the NBA and it was well known that 7 footers (if coordinated) made good centers and smaller guys who could dribble made good guards, with in-between guys made a good compromise in size to pull double duties weaving into the paint or floating out to the perimeter. The same sized athletes were recruited back then as they are today because the same sized humans existed back then as they do today. Your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.


----------



## e-monk

Wilt would be Shaq-like on offense (with a more rounded game) and Dwight-like on defense +the stamina and the passing

(also DTM - dont buy BS's age claim, and keep in mind that his advanced degree in hoopsology was awarded by Phoenix University so there is some question about his accreditation)


----------



## Basel

Ballscientist said:


> Shaq is 360 pounds, Wilt is 275 pounds. Few people know how strong is Shaq. Shaq can put wilt on Shaq's stomach (eat him up).
> 
> Shaq would win. His strength would be too much for Wilt Chamberlain to contain.
> 
> Think in this way
> 
> I am 175 pounds. I would never stop a player who is 260 pounds with excellent basketball skills in the paint.
> 
> You just can't stop someone who weight 100 more pounds than you.


You cannot argue this. You can try, but you will fail.


----------



## dantheman9758

Ballscientist said:


> Shaq is 360 pounds, Wilt is 275 pounds. Few people know how strong is Shaq. Shaq can put wilt on Shaq's stomach (eat him up).
> 
> Shaq would win. His strength would be too much for Wilt Chamberlain to contain.
> 
> Think in this way
> 
> I am 175 pounds. I would never stop a player who is 260 pounds with excellent basketball skills in the paint.
> 
> You just can't stop someone who weight 100 more pounds than you.


Your logic and your facts... :naughty:

You didn't use a listed weight for Shaq, you pulled that number out of nowhere (unless you can cite please) and you DID use the listed weight for Wilt. Some consistency would at least be nice, but nonetheless you need to be digging for more personalized info on both of those guys if you want to actually see how they stack up. Weight is very dynamic. You won't find Shaq's (true) playing weight looking at his listed weight nor will you find Chamberlains.

In actual numbers Wilt was 258lbs upon his rookie debut, but by only his 4th season he entered the Warriors training camp at 320lbs and most of it noticeable in his upper body as he heavily worked out in that off-season. He cut down to 292 as his playing weight that season, it was a running game I'm sure he either slowed or stopped lifting especially for road game trips. He floated between 275-290 for the remainder of 1965-1970. Then he blows his knee, and while rehabilitating he can't run so he strength trains and shoots up to well over 300. As a Laker late in his career he's likely about 315lbs though no specific weigh in source confirms it. The others are cite-able back to newspapers and old articles about his training camps MUCH like how we can find info on Shaq today.

IIRC Shaq in his prime was PLAYING at 327, NOT 360 which sounds more like his off season out-of-shape weight... but even that I recall being in the 340's (at least during his prime)... so cite that source please and I'll look for mine about his 327 and update this later.

The disparity between their weight is not 100lbs. Wilts prime was hitting 292, 35lbs difference. And that's not even considering Wilt's frame was proven capable of bulking up to the 320 in upper body bulk, just because he shed that weight in his fast break style ball doesn't mean he'd shed it in a league against a guy like Shaq.

And your logic about "100lbs difference". No.

A guy 100 pounds heavier than you has 54% more mass than you.

A guy 100 pounds heavier than a "275"lb Wilt has only 36% more mass than he does, but that's not even the case.

327 Prime Shaq vs 292lb Prime Wilt means Shaq is only 8.3% heavier than Wilt. And btw, Wilt was 292 in a lean runners body. Shaq? ... ummm ... he was fat.


----------



## Ballscientist

in 2001

Did you see that 292 listed pounds Sabonis can not stop 340 listed pound Shaq?

Shaq true weight is believed to be $360 pounds.


----------



## seifer0406

I think this guy might be one of Wilt's illegitimate children. Your daddy was good but I don't think he would dominate the league today.


----------



## dantheman9758

Ballscientist said:


> in 2001
> 
> Did you see that 292 listed pounds Sabonis can not stop 340 listed pound Shaq?
> 
> Shaq true weight is believed to be $360 pounds.



Again you attempt to use a listed weight? I believe 360lbs is NOT Shaq's playing weight unless your referring to old arthritic Shaq or off-season Shaq. Please cite the source?

And further, your trying to use Sabonis as an analogue to the athleticism and strength of prime Wilt Chamberlain... Arthritic old Sabonis mind you... 

Shaq: He was measured & weighed twice leading up to the '92 draft. At one he was 7'0 5/8" & 301 lbs....at the other he was 7'0 7/8" & 303 lbs. <--- Rookie Shaq

In 2000-2001 season with the Lakers he weighed in at 327 lbs at training camp. <--- Prime Shaq

Also, at one point after a injury kept him from practicing & performing any cardio for about 6 weeks in one season with the Lakers, he got as heavy as 368 pounds.... your kidding yourself if you think he was playing and maintaining this weight when he was young and prime... this is the absolute heaviest weight I've found and it demonstrates lethargy on his part not supreme strength.

Also:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CqxIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xwANAAAAIBAJ&pg=3715,469887&dq 
Wilt 320lbs off season weight entering training camp due to strengthening his upper body. Only 7lbs less than Shaq in training camp in his prime in '00-'01 season. So... 7lbs difference? Damn that slightly chubby Shaq might toss featherweight Wilt around like he was cleanex with a huge 7lb gap in their prime training camp weights... :wlift:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...36511&dq=wilt+chamberlain+pounds+weighs&hl=en 
290lbs (because as I said, he preferred to play slimmer)
And... AFL coach clocked him at 4.6 40 in his barefeet. A perk of being a genetic freak 7 footer who is also a track stud.
On Shaq vs, Shaq's 40 was clocked at 5.8 in his shoes... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SC5TLJ2TjA&t=13m41s
292lbs 1963-64, later into the season which he started at 320lbs in training camp


----------



## e-monk

why are you arguing with our resident rain man?


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt

Why did you list the average height by position? Fact is there was only one other player at least 7 feet tall who averaged 20 minutes per game. Now every team has one. Wilt had a massive size advantage back then, he wouldn't have it now. That means he wouldn't be as productive. 

Besides, for such a "dominant" player, his production dropped significantly in the playoffs and he only won one championship in his prime.


----------



## Dre

No shit


----------



## seifer0406

the real question is how many women would Wilt bone if he played today


----------



## Jamel Irief

He's right though. I'm 6'5" in shoes. In the past two years I've been within 5 feet of Shawn Marion, Metta Peace and devin ebanks who were my height or in MWPs case shorter. Jason Kidd was a couple inches shorter. 

I don't know if players were more honest in the 60s, but 6'9" players now aren't.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt

What matters is the height of guys who Wilt would be going up against today. In his 50 point season, there was one seven footer who averaged more than 20 minutes per game. You can quibble over the exact height, but I can guarantee there are more legit 7 footers in the NBA now. This is a guy who was held far below his averages by a someone who measured 6'9 215. And we haven't even discussed the athleticism of today's players.

But even if you throw out the physical side, you have to take into account several things:

- Teams score fewer points today and shooter a higher percentage. That means fewer points and rebounds
- Nobody would play him 48 minutes per game. Again, his numbers go down.

I'm not saying he couldn't play today, but the idea that he would put up the same numbers is absurd.


----------



## futuristxen

He would do well though. 7 feet tall, can score in the post. Can block some shots. Good rebounder. That automatically puts him in the top centers today. 

The center position is ostensibly dead right now. If prime shaq came back and played this crop he'd be even more unstoppable than he was back then. Shaq going against guys like Divac, Zo, old Sabonis, and Ostertag seems like a golden age compared to now.


----------



## dantheman9758

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Why did you list the average height by position? Fact is there was only one other player at least 7 feet tall who averaged 20 minutes per game. Now every team has one. Wilt had a massive size advantage back then, he wouldn't have it now. That means he wouldn't be as productive.
> 
> Besides, for such a "dominant" player, his production dropped significantly in the playoffs and he only won one championship in his prime.


People there is much perspective to be gained here....

1961-62 - 9 teams

2011-2012 - 30 teams

It is not "how many" 7 footers he faces, it is how many times he faces them. The answer would be, for that season at least, more often than anyone playing in the league today. 

And, people please, stop assuming the NBA is taller today than it was in Wilt's era the "average" height should have been indicator number one - in order to get a HIGHER average than all centers drafted since 1989 that implies 1962 was a rather tall year, so it's not likely today's guys are going to have a higher density of tall players. Not many players have ever truly been <7'0 tall, most "7 footers" your all probably thinking of are not 7 feet tall. 

www.draftexpress.com/measurements

Here's the guys who are a LEGIT 7 foot playing in today's league that have gone through a draft camp:
7'1.25" Hasheem Thabeet 
hmmm.... ONE GUY actively playing out of the hundreds of people drafted through draft express in recent years.
Btw I'll add one more guy to the list of active NBA 7 footers because through independent measurements it looks like he's legit:
7'0.25" Andrew Bynum

thats two...


Here are some of the 7 footers who never measured over 7 foot:
6'11.5" Chris Kaman
6'11.5" Tyson Chandler
6'11.25" Brook Lopez
6'11 Kevin Garnett
6'11 Tim Duncan
6'11 Javale McGee
6'11 Andrew Bogut
6'11 Greg Oden
6'10.5" Joakim Noah
6'10.5" Spencer Hawes
6'10 Kwame Brown
6'9.75" DeAndre Jordan

Are these the "7 footers" everyone is referring too that seem to be bursting at the seams in today's league? 

And for good measure look at these huge defensive specialist beast-centers that are of recent years or up and coming:
6'9 Dwight Howard
6'8.31" Bismack Biyombo
6'7 Ben Wallace

Wilt's era is not small. It's a myth that entirely traces back to the 1980's Nike's and market value increase of the NBA. Big huge players sell, both to teams and to the hearts of fans, and big giant Nike's that replaced the old Chuck Taylors helped make exaggerating heights seem excusable. Overall, 1962 actually was a tall year, his era in general was an era dominated by center play so this makes sense, it was never full of guys any SHORTER than guys in today's league. Comparing 2011-2012 with 2 confirmed 7 footers spread over 30 teams to 1962 means he'd play more games against LEGIT 7 footers than any player in this years league will ever face.


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> When did I say lesser era? Or weaker league? I'm not alluding to that notion at all. I said the stats would translate differently in today's game. The game and rules took on a different character back then, not a "worse" one. Some of those guys could be transported in time just as they were physique and all and play today some couldn't, and this goes visa versa. Other guys would have to change their games dramatically and some couldn't make the cut. For example the game back then was definitely no place for Joel Anthony. Nor is today's game an appropriate place for Swede Halbrook. Neither would make bench swapping era's. And many center's today would be up for a rude awakening if they had to play in a league dominated by two ELITE track star centers chasing down anyone and everyone w/o some sort of competent fast break agility and stamina. Btw, Wilt and Bill certainly played a large role in PUSHING that leagues pace up with their strong influence as "22 percent" of the leagues starting centers - something most people don't consider. It stayed high for as long as Wilt played and plummeted his final season as his athleticism and influence as a superstar was waning.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2akdYIFJ2A
> No business in the 60's
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGFRRQgnLnc&t=5m10s
> Because of guys like this


First of all, you're probably the first poster in the history of the site to get into it with Ballscientist. Well done.

Secondly, you didnt' adress the crux of my post.* Why didn't Wilt win more if he was so dominant*? And by the way, he did play in a weaker league. Not quite as weak as the Mikan era or the pre merger 70's, but a significantly faster paced and weaker NBA than the product that we are currently watching.


----------



## dantheman9758

e-monk said:


> why are you arguing with our resident rain man?


I guess I don't actually want to come off as argumentative, maybee I can tone it down. I have information worthy of a discussion, at least I think I do


----------



## Luke

And people that look that much into heights are stupid. Like an inch makes that big of a difference.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> And people that look that much into heights are stupid. Like an inch makes that big of a difference.


Come on man, I do research, and I'm stupid? I'm a paleontology artist in my day job I thrive on both data and history. I'm getting dogged here by other people who are claiming the league today is loaded with taller talent when I have very legitimate information that suggests this is simply not the case. Some might learn something here, some might not care, but I don't think I'm stupid for taking the time to look this kind of stuff up.


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> Come on man, I do research, and I'm stupid? I'm a paleontology artist in my day job I thrive on both data and history. I'm getting dogged here by other people who are claiming the league today is loaded with taller talent when I have very legitimate information that suggests this is simply not the case. Some might learn something here, some might not care, but I don't think I'm stupid for taking the time to look this kind of stuff up.


I'll rephrase - you are not stupid as far as I know. Looking into something as trivial about the height difference between in shoe measurements and out of shoe measurements is stupid and a waste of time.

This is the second time that you've quoted me without responding to my original question.

Welcome to the boards, by the way.


----------



## Dre

People stay having these arguments..you play basketball with shoes on for one


----------



## e-monk

dantheman9758 said:


> I guess I don't actually want to come off as argumentative, maybee I can tone it down. I have information worthy of a discussion, at least I think I do


not questioning your argumentiveness, questioning the wisdom of arguing with an idiot not-so-savant


----------



## Dornado

I just want to point out the logical flaw in comparing NBA players in Wilt's day with the heights of all "drafted" players (or players who showed up for the combine, in this case) from the last 20 years... if you want to compare drafted players from both eras, that's one thing... otherwise, there are a bunch of tweeners and such to drag those numbers down.

And Tyson Chandler is a legit 7 footer... he was 18 when they took those measurements... actually, rookie measurements in general are unreliable from that perspective.

And Hasheem Thabeet gets a mention but there's no love for the White Panther, Aaron Gray?

Edit to add: also... Bob Petit weighed 205 pounds at 6'9"... I weigh more than that and I'm 6'2"... in general I recommend firing up basketball reference and checking the weights on the players we're referring to as big men in Wilt's day. Also... any time someone uses Swede Halbrook in the Wilt-era height argument, you know they're reaching, or ****ing with the numbers.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> First of all, you're probably the first poster in the history of the site to get into it with Ballscientist. Well done.
> 
> Secondly, you didnt' adress the crux of my post.* Why didn't Wilt win more if he was so dominant*? And by the way, he did play in a weaker league. Not quite as weak as the Mikan era or the pre merger 70's, but a significantly faster paced and weaker NBA than the product that we are currently watching.


I'm new so I didn't know of the reputation that Ballscientist seems to have, I hope I wasn't rude he seems highly respected, he had an opinion I disagree'd with it that's all I hope it doesn't become a big deal. 

Anyways Wilt did win, a lot, he brought ineffective and mediocre teams with any combination of poor ownership, coaching, talent or injury much farther than they'd have otherwise gotten and he took them as far as he possibly could. I still haven't come across any documented games that he legitimately appears to deserve the reputation as a Choker, or even the reputation as a selfish stat padder as if were something he actually favored above winning. This kind of stuff originates from bad guy vs good guy stories the Boston writers like to embellish about Wilt and Bill. 

In interview with family, friends, coaches, teammates they all paint an opposite image of Wilt possessing almost a selfless determination to win first and foremost and a fear of letting his teammates down as a heavy motivator for this. Throughout the old newspaper articles I read I do not get any indication he had flaky performances like how Lebron has been perceived the past two post-seasons in big games. Wilt seems to have actually played hard every minute but his _teams_ could not win over the Celtics there's the critical difference. It's a 5 on 5 game not 1 on 5. 

You and I likely just differ in opinion here about how important a players success in the ring conquest is when judging "greatness". It's case by case for me, certainly they mean something. But no matter how good you are as a singular person basketball is a team game with too much dependency on a multitude of other variables to try and pretend one persons will, leadership, or leadership pulled everything together. Other things had to go right too. 

3 common patterns on championship teams throughout NBA history - very rarely do they shy from this formula

*System
Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's except 1967 and 1968

*Talent
Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's except possibly 1966, and certainly 1967 1968 and 1969

*Health of Talent
Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's in the playoffs except 1967

This is just his teams vs Celtics. After Russell retired this same formula applies to his twilight years vs the Bucks/Knicks

Only one of those conditions ever lined up for Wilt to have a shot at a title vs those Celtics. The 1969 Lakers for example were similar the 2011 Heat. Loaded with talent, but in an ineffective system (thanks to a terrible coach). 


Any other seasons Wilt didn't win that you suspect he should have ask and I'll give you newspaper archives, game footage, etc on those teams and why they couldn't cash in on a ring. I can assure you though there aren't any seasons that Wilt's teams had all three of those championship ingredients that he didn't get a ring. Those variables aren't part of his or any other superstars control.


----------



## e-monk

Shawn Bradley was 7.5 feet tall and Charles Barkley was maybe 6'5" but probably 6'4" - who do you want on your team? who is the better rebounder? who is the better low post player?

not only do many of you have a misconception about variance in the average height of players along the decades (it's mass, not height - we havent passed through an evolutionary epoch, we've improved methods of nutrition and training)

but you put way too much weight into the measures anyway (pun intended) - the best rebounder of all time was maybe 6'7" (maybe) 

some sick % of all the actual 7 footers who ever lived are and were stiffs and so what? I challenge anyone here to a list off where you put down the names of great 7 footers and I put down the names of 7 foot stiffs - I will name that tune at 5 to 1 (I list 5 stiffs for every 1 great player) - that's 80 % suckage - any takers?


----------



## dantheman9758

Dornado said:


> I just want to point out the logical flaw in comparing NBA players in Wilt's day with the heights of all "drafted" players (or players who showed up for the combine, in this case) from the last 20 years... if you want to compare drafted players from both eras, that's one thing... otherwise, there are a bunch of tweeners and such to drag those numbers down.
> 
> And Tyson Chandler is a legit 7 footer... he was 18 when they took those measurements... actually, rookie measurements in general are unreliable from that perspective.
> 
> And Hasheem Thabeet gets a mention but there's no love for the White Panther, Aaron Gray?
> 
> Edit to add: also... Bob Petit weighed 205 pounds at 6'9"... I weigh more than that and I'm 6'2"... in general I recommend firing up basketball reference and checking the weights on the players we're referring to as big men in Wilt's day. Also... any time someone uses Swede Halbrook in the Wilt-era height argument, you know they're reaching, or ****ing with the numbers.


Bob Pettit weighed 195lbs as a rookie and lifted weights to bulk up to 240lbs... nice try looking at listed weights as a means to gauge their size. But it's never gonna give you an accurate grasp on things. Russell was listed what, 215? He played 220, 225, weighed 240 in off Seasons, how would anyone ever know that stuff just looking at list weight? Chamberlain 292lbs!? He was never listed above 275. Dwight Howard weighs 285 now, I believe he's listed like 265? And his draft weight was only 240! LBJ listed 250, he's 260 at least now a days. 

Just because a number of superstars over the years have been drafted high school does not mean it has dramatically skewed the results beyond what, 1/4" tops if we ONLY look at '00's-now? That list goes back to 1989 and has 1,500 draftee's, it's likely deep enough with various aged players that it's not significantly skewed from Wilt's era.. besides as I said Wilt's era isn't all as simple as going by those listed heights either. Those heights tend to be + or - 0.5" from the number of players I've found actual height info on. and some of those listed heights are carryovers from NCAA list heights and thus, the athletes weren't measured upon being drafted. They could have grown too. But here's the kind of things I find: Bellamy 6'10.25", Thurmond 6'10.75" Russell 6'9.25-6'9.5, Chamberlain 7'1.06 KAJ 7'1.67 --- they don't line up perfect with their list heights some round up some round down, but because they all are so close and can go + or - it looks like that era's list heights are a much closer measure to reality than today's but it's still best to look up guys on an individual basis. 

KG for example is likely 6'11.25-6'11.75 based on past comments he has made about his barefoot height. This is slightly more than his barefoot height.

None of this changes my point that was made quite clearly. There are not a bunch of 7 footers in today's league, unless people want to count 6'9-6'11 guys as 7 footers as well. In which case, you should be doing so for Wilt's era too which still proves that there is no difference in height from his time vs now. And there certainly doesn't seem to be a higher density of legit 7 footers in today's league vs Wilt Chamberlain's 1962 season.

People should watch this if they want to know some actual differences between now and then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWyu7DXdo1Y

"Late developing" <--- not lifting weights early and prepping for pro until during or after college vs the same prep processes starting as early as high school today

"Ball Handling" <--- His team (at least for Pettit) was purpose built to feed him the ball

Height... simply does not look like a true difference.

And of course we can simply consider physiques of the athletes in general, which differed from today's players by (typically) having much less upper body bulk (and therefore mass). They instead favored endurance and running. This physique was actually still popular throughout the 1980's

Btw, pettit was a legit 6'9, as in, he's as tall as Dwight Howard 6'9... his 240lbs is Dwights rookie weight. Not bad for his era considering they didn't like to put on too much bulk.


----------



## Ron

dantheman9758 said:


> I guess I don't actually want to come off as argumentative, maybee I can tone it down. I have information worthy of a discussion, at least I think I do


A lot of posters are being tongue-in-cheek, don't take them so seriously.

But keep up the passion...I like it.

And I agree.

Wilt was the best ever. No one even comes close to how this man dominated the game.


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> I'm new so I didn't know of the reputation that Ballscientist seems to have, I hope I wasn't rude he seems highly respected, he had an opinion I disagree'd with it that's all I hope it doesn't become a big deal.
> 
> Anyways Wilt did win, a lot, he brought ineffective and mediocre teams with any combination of poor ownership, coaching, talent or injury much farther than they'd have otherwise gotten and he took them as far as he possibly could. I still haven't come across any documented games that he legitimately appears to deserve the reputation as a Choker, or even the reputation as a selfish stat padder as if were something he actually favored above winning. This kind of stuff originates from bad guy vs good guy stories the Boston writers like to embellish about Wilt and Bill.
> 
> In interview with family, friends, coaches, teammates they all paint an opposite image of Wilt possessing almost a selfless determination to win first and foremost and a fear of letting his teammates down as a heavy motivator for this. Throughout the old newspaper articles I read I do not get any indication he had flaky performances like how Lebron has been perceived the past two post-seasons in big games. Wilt seems to have actually played hard every minute but his _teams_ could not win over the Celtics there's the critical difference. It's a 5 on 5 game not 1 on 5.
> 
> You and I likely just differ in opinion here about how important a players success in the ring conquest is when judging "greatness". It's case by case for me, certainly they mean something. But no matter how good you are as a singular person basketball is a team game with too much dependency on a multitude of other variables to try and pretend one persons will, leadership, or leadership pulled everything together. Other things had to go right too.
> 
> 3 common patterns on championship teams throughout NBA history - very rarely do they shy from this formula
> 
> *System
> Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's except 1967 and 1968
> 
> *Talent
> Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's except possibly 1966, and certainly 1967 1968 and 1969
> 
> *Health of Talent
> Celtics were better here than every team of Wilt's in the playoffs except 1967
> 
> This is just his teams vs Celtics. After Russell retired this same formula applies to his twilight years vs the Bucks/Knicks
> 
> Only one of those conditions ever lined up for Wilt to have a shot at a title vs those Celtics. The 1969 Lakers for example were similar the 2011 Heat. Loaded with talent, but in an ineffective system (thanks to a terrible coach).
> 
> 
> Any other seasons Wilt didn't win that you suspect he should have ask and I'll give you newspaper archives, game footage, etc on those teams and why they couldn't cash in on a ring. I can assure you though there aren't any seasons that Wilt's teams had all three of those championship ingredients that he didn't get a ring. Those variables aren't part of his or any other superstars control.


Lol.

He did not win a lot. He won two championships in his career. That's not a lot.

Wilt played with more allstars throughout his career than Russell did. And even if he was playing on less talented squads, shouldn't the most dominant player of all time be able to overcome the odds? Especially considering the physical advantages he held over Russell (and everyone else)?

Wilt was obsessed with statistics and record breaking throughout his prime, not winning. I'm sure he cared a great deal about winning, but it wasn't his sole focus. Michael Jordan would have never felt it prudent to alter his game just so that he would never foul out. Kobe would never have abandoned the trait that made him dangerous (scoring) just so that he could lead the league in assists. Larry Bird would have never stat padded his way to 100 points.

Did not falter in the playoffs you say? His numbers plummet across the board. Explain that please. His PPG drop from 30 to a measely 22 on much weaker efficiency. That does not scream dominance. Especially considering the pace. Pace adjust the numbers and he was scoring in the teens for his playoff career.

The goal in basketball (or any sport) is to win. I don't care how pretty your PER is if you can't get in done when it matters.

And don't think I'm some Wilt hater. I already recognized that he would be the best big in the league today and arguably better than LeBron. Which is weird, because Chamberlain was basically the Lebron of the 60's. Huge talent, uncomparable athlete, incredible regular season numbers, weak playoff resume all things considered.


----------



## e-monk

vanillaprice you dont know shit about Wilt's play-off resume and you've been shown to the door repeatedly on that point - some people dont learn and wont so there it is


----------



## dantheman9758

Dre said:


> People stay having these arguments..you play basketball with shoes on for one


I guess we should measure hockey players and figure skaters "in skates" or football players "in cleats" while we're at it right? Might as well measure football players in "helmets" too and weigh them in their pads cause it all adds to their imposing physiques right? That's the childish mentality of even trying to justify listing in shoes, it's like the NBA and/or fans have become insecure about revealing the actual heights of those guys.

A persons height is a persons height, it's how tall they are when a doctor measures them without their shoes on. Now a days we can't ever expect to compare an NBA players list height with our own heights or even vintage basketball players heights with modern heights because they've screwed up the system by changing it under the radar and never making it public - and never being consistent with it. It's not about logical "in shoes" heights thats just a veil of smoke and mirrors. The real motive is to sell players to both the league and to the fans. 

Dwight Howard is 6'9 barefoot and 6'10.25 in shoes. Has he ever even been listed 6'10.25"? nope. He's listed 6'11. The NBA doesn't give a damn about in shoes height. It just wants to help sell the idea that Dwight is an imposing dominant center.

Kevin Durant measured 6'9 barefoot. He's listed 6'9. He likes to play small forward and run the floor so seeing as how he's Dwight Howards height it would NOT serve him well to be listed in shoes. Again, nobody cared about listing his shoes height, they don't give a damn about that.

The NBA would be a lot better off just listing peoples actual barefoot heights so at least we can compare those guys as athletes to other athletes throughout the world that tend to have ACTUAL barefoot height data listed. Browsing through www.draftexpress.com you quickly see how ridiculous and inconsistent listed heights are relative to a players actual barefoot height.


----------



## Diable

Well when Wilt got 100 it was not really stat padding any more than a normal game. He just hit his free throws. He literally had about a half dozen or more games in his career when he would have approached that level if he'd just hit his free throws. One night in Hershey he did hit them.


----------



## Dre

dantheman9758 said:


> *I guess we should measure hockey players and figure skaters "in skates" or football players "in cleats" while we're at it right? Might as well measure football players in "helmets" too and weigh them in their pads cause it all adds to their imposing physiques right? That's the childish mentality of even trying to justify listing in shoes, it's like the NBA and/or fans have become insecure about revealing the actual heights of those guys.*
> 
> A persons height is a persons height, it's how tall they are when a doctor measures them without their shoes on. Now a days we can't ever expect to compare an NBA players list height with our own heights or even vintage basketball players heights with modern heights because they've screwed up the system by changing it under the radar and never making it public - and never being consistent with it. It's not about logical "in shoes" heights thats just a veil of smoke and mirrors. The real motive is to sell players to both the league and to the fans.
> 
> Dwight Howard is 6'9 barefoot and 6'10.25 in shoes. Has he ever even been listed 6'10.25"? nope. He's listed 6'11. The NBA doesn't give a damn about in shoes height. It just wants to help sell the idea that Dwight is an imposing dominant center.
> 
> Kevin Durant measured 6'9 barefoot. He's listed 6'9. He likes to play small forward and run the floor so seeing as how he's Dwight Howards height it would NOT serve him well to be listed in shoes. Again, nobody cared about listing his shoes height, they don't give a damn about that.
> 
> The NBA would be a lot better off just listing peoples actual barefoot heights so at least we can compare those guys as athletes to other athletes throughout the world that tend to have ACTUAL barefoot height data listed. Browsing through www.draftexpress.com you quickly see how ridiculous and inconsistent listed heights are relative to a players actual barefoot height.


Why not. The only attributes that matter are the ones that are accurate on the field, court, or rink of play

I don't care really care though


----------



## MarioChalmers

Wilt Chamberlain would be Javale McGee today.


----------



## Luke

e-monk said:


> vanillaprice you dont know shit about Wilt's play-off resume and you've been shown to the door repeatedly on that point - some people dont learn and wont so there it is


Not my fault he LeBron'd out.


----------



## dantheman9758

Diable said:


> Well when Wilt got 100 it was not really stat padding any more than a normal game. He just hit his free throws. He literally had about a half dozen or more games in his career when he would have approached that level if he'd just hit his free throws. One night in Hershey he did hit them.


His teammates were also deliberately feeding the ball after he hit about the 82 mark. It was on everyone's agenda to see how many points Wilt could get (except the Knicks who had the opposite agenda).

Also, according to Joe Rucklik Wilt openly expressed that he was embarrassed and ashamed that he took 63 shot attempts that game. His teammates didn't feel that way though, his record was their record as much as his, they were the ones collectively feeding him the ball after they realized he was on such a scoring tear. People don't realize if your a center, your going to be fed the ball. 

The only reason he even scored 50ppg was because his coach discussed it with him in the off-season as a way to give them a chance against Boston because he felt the team didn't yet have enough weapons. So the teams offense from 61-63 was built to feed Wilt the ball because the _coach_ did not feel there was any better option to "beat" Boston. Obviously, they still didn't beat Boston with Wilt scoring like that but the point is it certainly wasn't Wilt thinking the hell with my team I'm gonna go out there and get me some stats! 

And personally I think Wilt was perhaps the one man in history that ever would have a hope to pull such a scoring feat off. The amount of energy that must have taken to produce that many baskets, get to the line that many times, and grab that many boards (on top of how many shots he used to block, he blocked 20 in the last game that season) is what's incredible. Sure his stats had more legroom in the fast pace but that doesn't mean guys from any era could just Waltz into the 1961-62 season and expect to replicated such a feat, you only have as much leg room as your endurance and ability permits. Every other guy that season still only had the energy to score like modern players score.


----------



## Ron

gian said:


> Wilt Chamberlain would be Javale McGee today.


Spoken from true ignorance.

Bravo.


----------



## Dornado

dantheman, I'm curious as to what sources you're using to find out Pettit's various playing weights... and how many blocks Wilt had, when they didn't record that as a statistic at the time... not saying you aren't right, I'm just curious as to where you're finding this stuff.


----------



## Dre

Javale McGee would be a top tier Center back then though


----------



## dantheman9758

Dre said:


> Javale McGee would be a top tier Center back then though


Back when? 61-62? 

He's better than Kerr

He's better than Felix

He's better than Dukes

He's better than Embry

He's better than Jordan

Any of the above listed centers (who are not stars) are guys he can replace and help the team. Especially the Lakers... Baylor, West, McGee actually sounds like a sick lineup.

But any guy below this point he's clearly worse than and it's not close, these guys were superstars.

The hawks didn't have a true center so they'd play Pettit in that spot. Pettit would just light McGee up and out rebound him. McGee is clearly worse 

Russ and Wilt would shut his ass down

Wilt would also murder him on the scoreboard.

And Bellamy that season would also torch him on both ends.

In a 9 team league that makes him just above middle-of-the-pack among starting centers, he is clearly better than some of the guys below him but he is also clearly worse than the guys above him. Isn't that right about where he stands in the pack today?... You can't teach a guy effort on defense, and IQ He's not going to be edging out any starting all-stars that season, remember it's a 9 team league, rather dense in talent, the teams that didn't have a dominant big man had well rounded rosters in other areas so he'd actually be a nice compliment offensively on a few of those teams. The Royals is another one that comes to mind, with the Big O feeding him some lobs!


----------



## Dre

Man please. All someone would have had to do was find him at the basket and he'd have averaged 20 a game for 10-12 years and be some old coot today saying Andrew Bynum couldn't see him


----------



## dantheman9758

Dre said:


> Man please. All someone would have had to do was find him at the basket and he'd have averaged 20 a game for 10-12 years and be some old coot today saying Andrew Bynum couldn't see him


:50ha:





********EDIT*********




> Back when? 61-62?
> 
> He's better than Kerr
> 
> He's better than Felix
> 
> He's better than Dukes
> 
> He's better than Embry
> 
> He's better than Jordan
> 
> Any of the above listed centers (who are not stars) are guys he can replace and help the team. Especially the Lakers... Baylor, West, McGee actually sounds like a sick lineup.
> 
> But any guy below this point he's clearly worse than and it's not close, these guys were superstars.
> 
> The hawks didn't have a true center so they'd play Pettit in that spot. Pettit would just light McGee up and out rebound him. McGee is clearly worse
> 
> Russ and Wilt would shut his ass down
> 
> Wilt would also murder him on the scoreboard.
> 
> And Bellamy that season would also torch him on both ends.
> 
> In a 9 team league that makes him just above middle-of-the-pack among starting centers, he is clearly better than some of the guys below him but he is also clearly worse than the guys above him. Isn't that right about where he stands in the pack today?... You can't teach a guy effort on defense, and IQ He's not going to be edging out any starting all-stars that season, remember it's a 9 team league, rather dense in talent, the teams that didn't have a dominant big man had well rounded rosters in other areas so he'd actually be a nice compliment offensively on a few of those teams. The Royals is another one that comes to mind, with the Big O feeding him some lobs!


I retract all of that in lieu of this:
http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-forum/465817-just-sums-up-javale-mcgee.html
:rotf:
...I underestimated what an airhead McGee was, he doesn't just have low BBall IQ... he has low IQ in general

He could be a starter for the '61-'62 season in place of Dukes who was notoriously prone to error himself, or Jordon, or Ray Felix who was old and past his prime, that's IT lol! Embry and Kerr aren't superstars... but those guys were dependable, predictable, and most of all _intelligent_! 

Longterm? Javale McGee = Leroy Ellis of the 60's
A leaping athletic big guy w/nothing else to offer - his stats would stay the same as they are now for a few years, then dwindle... they'd give him less and less minutes as the league filled with guys like Thurmond, Reed, KAJ, Bellamy. He'd be released from any non-expansion team by '69 :rotf:


----------



## e-monk

Dornado said:


> dantheman, I'm curious as to what sources you're using to find out Pettit's various playing weights... and how many blocks Wilt had, when they didn't record that as a statistic at the time... not saying you aren't right, I'm just curious as to where you're finding this stuff.


Elias has some block figures for the 60s but they dont/wont make them public (and they're problematic methodology-wise) but there is a great deal of eye witness/anecdotal evidence to the effect that both Russell and Chamberlain were blocking 7 or 8 shots a night at their peaks (it's a shame they didnt keep those stats officially)


----------



## dantheman9758

Dornado said:


> dantheman, I'm curious as to what sources you're using to find out Pettit's various playing weights... and how many blocks Wilt had, when they didn't record that as a statistic at the time... not saying you aren't right, I'm just curious as to where you're finding this stuff.


August 20th 1959 - Maurice Stokes benefit game 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=6898,3405455 
20 points 14 rebounds 10 blocks "in half the playing time" (~24 minutes of play) 
*weighs 258, *can "lift" 358 

October 16th 1959 - (pre season?) Exhibition Game. 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i... wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=750,995521 
Wilt: 26 points 9 blocks 
Bill: 16 points 5 blocks 

November 25th 1959 - Warriors @ Celtics 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/195911250BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7120,2927106 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1741,2786439 
Wilt: 45 points 35 rebounds 6 blocks
Russ: 15 points 13 rebounds - missed much of 2nd half due to ankle sprain and 5 early fouls 

February 23rd 1960 - Warriors vs Celtics
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196002230BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7088,957541 
53 points 29 rebounds 11 blocked shots 
*and 8 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed?

November 12th 1960 - Warriors @ Knicks
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196011100NYK.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5585,1934748 
22 points 30 rebounds 10 blocked shots 
*Described Wilt as having an "at least 10 blocks"

March 15th 1962 - Warriors @ Packers 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203140CHP.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2612,1404720 
"My record means nothing, would rather have the title" final regular season game. 
34 points 33 rebounds 20 blocks ***"blocked about 20 shots" 
*and 1 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed? 

December 26th 1962 - SFW @ Boston
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196212260BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5381,3093627 
"Wilt Victor, Team loses" (to the Celtics) 
Wilt: 43 points 32 rebounds "at least a dozen shots" (12 blocks) 
*and 6 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed? 
Russell: 8 points 

January 21st 1963 - Celtics vs Lakers 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4311,2748847 
Bill Russell nearly complete stat line: 29 points 43 rebounds 12 blocks 5 steals 3 assists 

April 17th 1964 - PLAYOFFS G7 - Hawks @ SFU 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196404160SFW.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4985,692747 
Wilt: 39 points (1-6ft) 12 blocks vs St Louis. 

**Wilt is traded**

January 22nd-23rd 1965 SFU @ 76ers 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196501210PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2525,2295322
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5587,1754572 
Wilt: 22 points (9-17fg) (4-10ft) 29 rebounds 12 blocks 

April 1st 1965 - PLAYOFFS G4 - Royals @ 76ers 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196503310PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=6195,275359 
Wilt: 38 points (10-16ft) 26 rebounds 11 blocks 

April 7th 1965 - PLAYOFFS EDF G2 - Celtics @ 76ers 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196504060PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7261,1385370 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2236,3664006 
Wilt: 30 points (6-9ft) 39 rebounds 8 blocks 7(or 8) assists 
Russell: 12 points (2-3ft) 16 rebounds 4 blocks 5 assists

April 11th 1965 - PLAYOFFS EDF G5 - 76ers @ Celtics
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196504110BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=3556,1952624 
Wilt: 30 points (4-7ft) 21 rebounds 2 blocks 2 assists 0 steals 
Russ: 12 points (4-5ft) 28 rebounds 12 blocks 7 assists 3 steals 

January 30th 1966 76ers @ Detroit 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196601300PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7347,4888887 
Wilt: 38 points (6-11ft) 23 rebounds 6 blocks 

November 8th 1966 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196611080DET.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5379,1439594 
Wilt: 18 points (8-13fg)(2-7ft) 24 rebounds 4 assists 17 blocks 

January 15th 1967 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196701150BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2672,2821872 
Wilt: 19 points (5-8ft) 25 rebounds 13 blocks 
Russell: 17 points (7-12ft)

April 2nd 1967 - PLAYOFFS G2 EDF - 76ers @ Celtics EDF 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704020BOS.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i... wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=743,348697 
Wilt: 15 points (5-9 ft) 29 rebounds 5 blocks 5 assists 

April 11th 1967 - PLAYOFFS G2 EDF - Celtics @ 76ers
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704110PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4814,1918114 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1181,5419592 
Wilt: 29 points (9-17ft) 36 rebounds 13 assists 7 blocks 
Russell: 4 points (0-1ft)

April 14th 1967 - SFW @ 76ers NBA Championship G1 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704140PHI.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1543,4981995 
Wilt: 16 points (4-9ft) 33 rebounds 10 assists 9 blocks (including crucial final seconds block on Nate under the basket to send the game to OT) 
Thurmond: 24 points (4-5ft) 31 rebounds 

**Wilt is Traded**

December 22nd 1968 - Lakers @ 76ers
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196812220LAL.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5776,6077181 
Wilt: 16 (or maybe 17) points (4-7ft) 22 rebounds 4 blocks in 48 minutes 


April 7th 1969 - Playoffs Lakers @ Phoenix
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/197004070PHO.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4989,1990260
Wilt: 12 points (4-12ft) 26 rebounds 12 blocks


Fri 10/24/69
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196910240LAL.html 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5109,586614
Chamberlain 25 pts (7-18ft), 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks (all vs Kareem), 9-14 FG/FGA W
Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts (5-9ft), 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L 










Below is research done by by others of the rest of the KAJ Wilt H2H matchups - there's plenty more newspapers I have yet to read to get more blocked shot numbers, but that's generally how I get them. That's also how I got Wilt's track and field performances at Drake Relays and KU and what not.

2. Date: Fri 11/20/70 
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

3. Date: Mon 12/21/70
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W

4. Date: Fri 02/05/71
- Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L

5. Date: Thu 02/11/71
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA – 2 blocks against Wilt W

6. Date: Wed 03/03/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W

Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

9. Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L

10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

Regular season – 1971-72

12.Date: Sat 11/21/71
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 4-9 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA L

13.Date: Sun 01/09/72
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 12 rebs, 2 as, 6 blocks, 7-11 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, 9 blocks, 18-34 FG/FGA W

14.Date: Fri 02/04/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 8-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 18 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 16-33 FG/FGA L

15.Date: Wed 03/01/72
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 17 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 12 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

16.Date: Fri 03/17/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 50 pts, 8 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 22-39 FG/FGA L

Post season – 1971-72 – WCF playoffs

17.Date: Sun 04/09/72
- Chamberlain 10 pts, 24 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 3-12 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-26 FG/FGA W

18.Date: Wed 04/12/72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 17 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 7 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 18-31 FG/FGA L

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L

20.Date: Sun 04/16/72 
- Chamberlain 5 pts, 11 rebs, 4 as, 3 blocks, 2-7 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 18 rebs, 3 as, 7 blocks, 14-33 FG/FGA W

21.Date: Tue 04/18/72 
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L

Regular season – 1972-73

23.Date: Tue 11/14/72
- Chamberlain 16 pts, 15 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 6 as, 7 blocks, 17-32 FG/FGA L

24.Date: Tue 12/05/72
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 15 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 4-4 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 11-30 FG/FGA L

25.Date: Sun 01/07/73
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 12 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 17-36 FG/FGA W

26.Date: Fri 02/09/73
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-3 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-24 FG/FGA W

27.Date: Sun 02/25/73
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 20 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 10-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 21 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 10-27 FG/FGA L

28.Date: Tue 03/27/73
- Chamberlain 0 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 0-0 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 24 pts, 17 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 12-31 FG/FGA W 





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWyu7DXdo1Y&t=17s
Starting at 0:17-0:55
Bob Pettit himself explains he went to pro's at 6'9 195lbs, and his third season he went on a strong weight lifting program. Then as he explains what he'd theoretically way under today's system vs the old NBA he indicates 235-240lbs was once his actual playing weight, the one we can safely assume he shot up too after all of that weight lifting.


----------



## Dornado

dantheman9758 said:


> August 20th 1959 - Maurice Stokes benefit game
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=6898,3405455
> 20 points 14 rebounds 10 blocks "in half the playing time" (~24 minutes of play)
> *weighs 258, *can "lift" 358
> 
> October 16th 1959 - (pre season?) Exhibition Game.
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i... wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=750,995521
> Wilt: 26 points 9 blocks
> Bill: 16 points 5 blocks
> 
> November 25th 1959 - Warriors @ Celtics
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/195911250BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7120,2927106
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1741,2786439
> Wilt: 45 points 35 rebounds 6 blocks
> Russ: 15 points 13 rebounds - missed much of 2nd half due to ankle sprain and 5 early fouls
> 
> February 23rd 1960 - Warriors vs Celtics
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196002230BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7088,957541
> 53 points 29 rebounds 11 blocked shots
> *and 8 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed?
> 
> November 12th 1960 - Warriors @ Knicks
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196011100NYK.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5585,1934748
> 22 points 30 rebounds 10 blocked shots
> *Described Wilt as having an "at least 10 blocks"
> 
> March 15th 1962 - Warriors @ Packers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203140CHP.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2612,1404720
> "My record means nothing, would rather have the title" final regular season game.
> 34 points 33 rebounds 20 blocks ***"blocked about 20 shots"
> *and 1 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed?
> 
> December 26th 1962 - SFW @ Boston
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196212260BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5381,3093627
> "Wilt Victor, Team loses" (to the Celtics)
> Wilt: 43 points 32 rebounds "at least a dozen shots" (12 blocks)
> *and 6 of: assists? turnovers? steals? free throws missed?
> Russell: 8 points
> 
> January 21st 1963 - Celtics vs Lakers
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4311,2748847
> Bill Russell nearly complete stat line: 29 points 43 rebounds 12 blocks 5 steals 3 assists
> 
> April 17th 1964 - PLAYOFFS G7 - Hawks @ SFU
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196404160SFW.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4985,692747
> Wilt: 39 points (1-6ft) 12 blocks vs St Louis.
> 
> **Wilt is traded**
> 
> January 22nd-23rd 1965 SFU @ 76ers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196501210PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2525,2295322
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5587,1754572
> Wilt: 22 points (9-17fg) (4-10ft) 29 rebounds 12 blocks
> 
> April 1st 1965 - PLAYOFFS G4 - Royals @ 76ers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196503310PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=6195,275359
> Wilt: 38 points (10-16ft) 26 rebounds 11 blocks
> 
> April 7th 1965 - PLAYOFFS EDF G2 - Celtics @ 76ers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196504060PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7261,1385370
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2236,3664006
> Wilt: 30 points (6-9ft) 39 rebounds 8 blocks 7(or 8) assists
> Russell: 12 points (2-3ft) 16 rebounds 4 blocks 5 assists
> 
> April 11th 1965 - PLAYOFFS EDF G5 - 76ers @ Celtics
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196504110BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=3556,1952624
> Wilt: 30 points (4-7ft) 21 rebounds 2 blocks 2 assists 0 steals
> Russ: 12 points (4-5ft) 28 rebounds 12 blocks 7 assists 3 steals
> 
> January 30th 1966 76ers @ Detroit
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196601300PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=7347,4888887
> Wilt: 38 points (6-11ft) 23 rebounds 6 blocks
> 
> November 8th 1966
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196611080DET.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5379,1439594
> Wilt: 18 points (8-13fg)(2-7ft) 24 rebounds 4 assists 17 blocks
> 
> January 15th 1967
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196701150BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=2672,2821872
> Wilt: 19 points (5-8ft) 25 rebounds 13 blocks
> Russell: 17 points (7-12ft)
> 
> April 2nd 1967 - PLAYOFFS G2 EDF - 76ers @ Celtics EDF
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704020BOS.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i... wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=743,348697
> Wilt: 15 points (5-9 ft) 29 rebounds 5 blocks 5 assists
> 
> April 11th 1967 - PLAYOFFS G2 EDF - Celtics @ 76ers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704110PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4814,1918114
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1181,5419592
> Wilt: 29 points (9-17ft) 36 rebounds 13 assists 7 blocks
> Russell: 4 points (0-1ft)
> 
> April 14th 1967 - SFW @ 76ers NBA Championship G1
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196704140PHI.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=1543,4981995
> Wilt: 16 points (4-9ft) 33 rebounds 10 assists 9 blocks (including crucial final seconds block on Nate under the basket to send the game to OT)
> Thurmond: 24 points (4-5ft) 31 rebounds
> 
> **Wilt is Traded**
> 
> December 22nd 1968 - Lakers @ 76ers
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196812220LAL.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5776,6077181
> Wilt: 16 (or maybe 17) points (4-7ft) 22 rebounds 4 blocks in 48 minutes
> 
> 
> April 7th 1969 - Playoffs Lakers @ Phoenix
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/197004070PHO.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...ilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=4989,1990260
> Wilt: 12 points (4-12ft) 26 rebounds 12 blocks
> 
> 
> Fri 10/24/69
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196910240LAL.html
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...wilt chamberlain blocked shots&pg=5109,586614
> Chamberlain 25 pts (7-18ft), 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks (all vs Kareem), 9-14 FG/FGA W
> Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts (5-9ft), 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is research done by by others of the rest of the KAJ Wilt H2H matchups - there's plenty more newspapers I have yet to read to get more blocked shot numbers, but that's generally how I get them. That's also how I got Wilt's track and field performances at Drake Relays and KU and what not.
> 
> 2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
> - Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W
> 
> 3. Date: Mon 12/21/70
> - Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W
> 
> 4. Date: Fri 02/05/71
> - Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L
> 
> 5. Date: Thu 02/11/71
> - Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA – 2 blocks against Wilt W
> 
> 6. Date: Wed 03/03/71
> - Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W
> 
> Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs
> 
> 7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
> - Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W
> 
> 8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
> - Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
> 
> 9. Date: Wed 04/14/71
> - Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L
> 
> 10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
> - Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W
> 
> 11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
> - Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W
> 
> Regular season – 1971-72
> 
> 12.Date: Sat 11/21/71
> - Chamberlain 11 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 4-9 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA L
> 
> 13.Date: Sun 01/09/72
> - Chamberlain 15 pts, 12 rebs, 2 as, 6 blocks, 7-11 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, 9 blocks, 18-34 FG/FGA W
> 
> 14.Date: Fri 02/04/72
> - Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 8-14 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 18 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 16-33 FG/FGA L
> 
> 15.Date: Wed 03/01/72
> - Chamberlain 8 pts, 17 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 12 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L
> 
> 16.Date: Fri 03/17/72
> - Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 50 pts, 8 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 22-39 FG/FGA L
> 
> Post season – 1971-72 – WCF playoffs
> 
> 17.Date: Sun 04/09/72
> - Chamberlain 10 pts, 24 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 3-12 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-26 FG/FGA W
> 
> 18.Date: Wed 04/12/72
> - Chamberlain 11 pts, 17 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 7 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 18-31 FG/FGA L
> 
> 19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
> - Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L
> 
> 20.Date: Sun 04/16/72
> - Chamberlain 5 pts, 11 rebs, 4 as, 3 blocks, 2-7 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 18 rebs, 3 as, 7 blocks, 14-33 FG/FGA W
> 
> 21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
> - Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L
> 
> 22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
> - Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L
> 
> Regular season – 1972-73
> 
> 23.Date: Tue 11/14/72
> - Chamberlain 16 pts, 15 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 6 as, 7 blocks, 17-32 FG/FGA L
> 
> 24.Date: Tue 12/05/72
> - Chamberlain 9 pts, 15 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 4-4 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 11-30 FG/FGA L
> 
> 25.Date: Sun 01/07/73
> - Chamberlain 9 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 12 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 17-36 FG/FGA W
> 
> 26.Date: Fri 02/09/73
> - Chamberlain 8 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-3 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-24 FG/FGA W
> 
> 27.Date: Sun 02/25/73
> - Chamberlain 24 pts, 20 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 10-14 FG/FGA W
> -Abdul-Jabbar 21 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 10-27 FG/FGA L
> 
> 28.Date: Tue 03/27/73
> - Chamberlain 0 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 0-0 FG/FGA L
> -Abdul-Jabbar 24 pts, 17 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 12-31 FG/FGA W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWyu7DXdo1Y&t=17s
> Starting at 0:17-0:55
> Bob Pettit himself explains he went to pro's at 6'9 195lbs, and his third season he went on a strong weight lifting program. Then as he explains what he'd theoretically way under today's system vs the old NBA he indicates 235-240lbs was once his actual playing weight, the one we can safely assume he shot up too after all of that weight lifting.


Awesome, thanks. Lots to read.


----------



## dantheman9758

Dornado said:


> Awesome, thanks. Lots to read.


Don Pierce, KU's SID at the time, kept track of blocked shots too. In both the 1957-58 and the 1958-59 KU media guides he wrote about Wilt's previous seasons stats including blocked shots. 

182 in 27 games (Sophomore)6.7bpg

120 in 21 games (Junior) 5.7bpg

302 in 48 games (NCAA career) 6.3bpg

Bill Mayer occasionally writes about it such as follows:
"Research by the late Don Pierce, KU sports publicist par excellence, showed Chamberlain had 182 confirmed blocks in ’56-57, an average of just under seven per game. He missed two games in ’57-58, but had 120 rejections, thus a two-year total of 302. Greg Ostertag is considered the KU record-holder for swats with 258 in four seasons, still 44 short of Chamberlain’s two-year number."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/27/born-first-3d/

I've got 2 complete KU games on film and third that is 2/3rds complete, and I counted 9, 3, and 7_(incomplete game)_ blocked shots in them, those numbers seem legit


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> Lol.
> 
> He did not win a lot. He won two championships in his career. That's not a lot.


:raised_ey ...you ever tracked how well his teams did with and without him or what his win shares are? In his prime the dude was DRAGGING teams with old past-their-prime stars, scrubs, injury wrecked stars, and rookie starters to the FINALS... w/e, I'm gonna bury this Wilt-Loser myth in this post. 

And FYI Anyone who understands the game knows rings don't = greatness, if they did, DJ Mbenga would be a greater center than Ewing... and Satch Sanders would be the 2nd greatest player of all-time behind Bill Russell.. And John Stockton is a worse point guard, a bigger loser, or less great than Derek Fisher? You obviously need to know each player and the context in which they played - and I'm sure you understand that (I hope). The problem is you DON'T understand Wilt Chamberlain, or his context (the 1960's) so I will give this a shot. 



> Wilt played with more allstars throughout his career than Russell did. And even if he was playing on less talented squads, shouldn't the most dominant player of all time be able to overcome the odds? Especially considering the physical advantages he held over Russell (and everyone else)?


No.

The Celtics - come playoff/finals time - always had the better coaching and team chemistry, and they were either more loaded with talent, or healthier, - OR BOTH - than every single one of Chamberlains losing teams that they faced. Every. Single. One.. Even 1969, where Chamberlain's team was a chemistry disaster all thanks to the dumbass coach Breda Kolf who HATED Chamberlain and preferred to coach teams with the philosophy that the role of center was useless and clogged the middle. Yah, wise coaching choice for a team that just acquired the greatest center in history ... They feuded all season and Wilt stepped out of that game in the 4th quarter of the last game in the finals to ice his inflamed knee, with every intention of coming back, the moment comes that he's ready to jump back in and shut the paint down. Wilt - "Tell coach I'm ready to play" Breda - "You can tell Wilt to go to hell." Celtics Win. That's the only time Wilt's team collapsed in the finals with both a relatively healthy and certainly talented lineup against the Celtics. Neither team was perfectly healthy, both were old. Wilt's age and knees were already catching up to him and Baylor was literally a shadow of himself who froze under pressure that game shooting clankers the whole time. Breda Kolf wanted him to stay in. The LA system with Breda Kolf was literally terrible. So much drama destroyed that teams potential



> Wilt was obsessed with statistics and record breaking throughout his prime, not winning. I'm sure he cared a great deal about winning, but it wasn't his sole focus. Michael Jordan would have never felt it prudent to alter his game just so that he would never foul out. Kobe would never have abandoned the trait that made him dangerous (scoring) just so that he could lead the league in assists. Larry Bird would have never stat padded his way to 100 points.
> 
> Did not falter in the playoffs you say? His numbers plummet across the board. Explain that please. His PPG drop from 30 to a measely 22 on much weaker efficiency. That does not scream dominance. Especially considering the pace. Pace adjust the numbers and he was scoring in the teens for his playoff career.
> 
> The goal in basketball (or any sport) is to win. I don't care how pretty your PER is if you can't get in done when it matters.
> 
> And don't think I'm some Wilt hater. I already recognized that he would be the best big in the league today and arguably better than LeBron. Which is weird, because Chamberlain was basically the Lebron of the 60's. Huge talent, uncomparable athlete, incredible regular season numbers, weak playoff resume all things considered.



(insidehoops.com)
"Wilt averaged 27.0 ppg in his 35 "must-win" and/or clinching games. Meanwhile, his starting opposing centers averaged 14.5 ppg in those 35 games. He also outscored his opposing starting center in 29 of those 35 games, including a 19-0 edge in his first 19 games of those 35. Furthermore, in his 13 games which came in his "scoring" seasons (from 59-60 thru 65-66), Chamberlain averaged 37.3 ppg in those "do-or-die" or clinching games. And there were MANY games in which he just CRUSHED his opposing centers in those games (e.g. he outscored Kerr in one them, 53-7.)

Wilt had THREE of his four 50+ point post-season games, in these "elimination games", including two in "at the limit" games, and another against Russell in a "must-win" game. He also had games of 46-34 and 45-27 (and only 4 months removed from major knee surgery) in these types of games. In addition he had games of 39 and 38 in clinching wins. 

In the known 19 games in which we have both Wilt's, and his starting opposing center's rebounding numbers, Chamberlain outrebounded them in 15 of them, and by an average margin of 26.1 rpg to 18.9 rpg. And, had we had all 35 of the totals, it would have been by a considerably larger margin. A conservative estimate would put Wilt with at least a 30-5 overall edge in those 35 games. He also had games, even against the likes of Russell, and in "must-win" situations, where he just MURDERED his opposing centers (e.g. he had one clinching game, against Russell, in which he outrebounded him by a 36-21 margin.)

And finally, in the known FG% games in which we have, Chamberlain not only shot an eye-popping .582 in those "do-or-die" games, but he held his opposing centers to a combined .413 FG%. BTW, he played against Kareem in two "clinching" games, and held Abdul-Jabbar to a combined .383 shooting in those two games.

The bottom line, in the known games of the 35 that Wilt played in that involved a "must-win" or clincher, Wilt averaged 27 ppg, 26.1 rpg, and shot .582 (and the 27 ppg figure was known for all 35 of those games.)

And once again, Chamberlain played in 11 games which went to the series limit (nine game seven's, one game five of a best-of-five series, and one game three of a best-of-three series), and all he did was average 29.9 ppg (outscoring his opposing center by a 29.9 ppg to 9.8 ppg margin in the process), with 26.7 rpg, and on .581 shooting. Or he was an eye-lash away from averaging a 30-27 game, and on nearly .600 shooting, in those 11 "at the limit" games.

Chamberlain's _TEAMs_ went 24-11 in those 35 games, too."


*Known numbers in Wilt's "must-win" playoff games (elimination games), and clinching game performances (either deciding winning or losing games), of BOTH Chamberlain, and his starting opposing centers in those games.*
1. Game three of a best-of-three series in the first round of the 59-60 playoffs against Syracuse, a 132-112 win. Wilt with 53 points, on 24-42 shooting, with 22 rebounds. His opposing center, Red
Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, had 7 points. 

2. Game five of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, a 128-107 win. Chamberlain had 50 points, on 22-42 shooting, with 35 rebounds. His opposing center, Russell, had 22 points and 27 rebounds.

3. Game six of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, in a 119-117 loss. Wilt had a 26-24 game, while Russell had a 25-25 game.

4. Game three of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 60-61 playoffs , and against Syracuse, in a 106-103 loss. Chamberlain with 33 points, while his opposing center, the 7-3 Swede Halbrook,
scored 6 points.

5. Game five of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 61-62 playoffs, against Syracuse, in a 121-104 win. Chamberlain had 56 points, on 22-48 shooting, with 35 rebounds. Kerr had 20 points in the
loss.

6. Game six of the 61-62 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 109-99 win. Wilt with 32 points and 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds in the loss.

7. Game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, against Boston, in a 109-107 loss. Wilt with 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the win.

8. Game seven of the 63-64 WCF's, and against St. Louis, in a 105-95 win. Wilt with 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty, who would go on to become a multiple all-star,
had 10 points in the loss.

9. Game five of the 63-64 Finals, and against Boston, in a 105-99 loss. Chamberlain with 30 points and 27 rebounds. Russell had 14 points and 26 points in the win.

10. Game four of a best-of-five series in the 64-65 first round of the playoffs against Cincinnati, a 119-112 win. Chamberlain with 38 points. His opposing center, multiple all-star (and HOFer) Wayne Embry
had 7 points in the loss.

11. Game six of the 64-65 ECF's, against Boston, a 112-106 win. Chamberlain with a 30-26 game. Russell with a 22-21 game in the loss.

12. Game seven of the 64-65 ECF's, and against Boston, a 110-109 loss. Wilt with 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Russell had 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds in the win.

13. Game five of a best-of-seven series, in the 65-66 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 120-112 loss. Wilt had 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds in the win.

14. Game four of a best-of-five series, in the first round of the 66-67 playoffs, and against Cincinnati, a 112-94 win. Wilt with 18 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 27 rebounds and 9 assists. His opposing 
center, Connie Dierking, had 8 points, on 4-14 shooting, with 4 rebounds in the loss.

15. Game five of the 66-67 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 140-116 win. Chamberlain with 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocks. Russell had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with
21 rebounds, and 7 assists in the loss.

16. Game six of the 66-67 Finals, and against San Francisco, in a 125-122 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds. His oppsoing center, HOFer Nate Thurmond, had 12 points, on 4-
13 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the loss.

17. Game six of the first round of the 67-68 playoffs, against NY, in a 113-97 win. Wilt had 25 points, and 27 rebounds. His opposing center, HOFer Walt Bellamy, had 19 points in the loss.

18. Game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, against Boston, in a 100-96 loss. Wilt with 14 points, on 4-9 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 12 points and 26 rebounds in the win.

19. Game six of the first round of the 68-69 playoffs, against San Francisco, in a 118-78 win. Wilt with 11 points. Thurmond had 8 points in the loss.

20. Game four of the 68-69 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Chamberlain with 16 points. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty had 30 points in the loss.

21. Game seven of the 68-69 Finals, against Boston, in a 108-106 loss. Chamberlain had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Russell had 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in the win.

22. Game five of a best-of-seven series (the Lakers were down 3-1 going into the game) in the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, and against Phoenix, a 138-121 win. Wilt with 36 points and 14 rebounds. His
opposing center, Neal Walk, had 18 points in the loss.

23. Game six of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, in a 104-93 win. Wilt with 12 points. Jim Fox started that game for Phoenix, and had 13 points in the loss.

24. Game seven of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, and in a 129-94 win, which capped a 4-3 series win after falling behind 3-1 in the series. Wilt with 30 points, 27 rebounds, and 11
blocks. Fox had 7 points in the loss.

25. Game four of the 69-70 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Wilt with 11 points. Bellamy had 19 points in the loss.

26. Game six of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 135-113 win. Wilt with 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Nate Bowman had 18 points, on 9-15 shooting, with 8 rebounds in the loss.

27. Game seven of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 113-99 loss. Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. HOFer Willis Reed had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds in the win.

28. Game seven of the first round of the 70-71 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 109-98 win. Wilt with 25 points and 18 rebounds. 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle had 4 points for the Bulls in the loss.

29. Game five of the 70-71 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 116-94 loss. Wilt had 23 points, on 10-21 shooting, with 12 rebounds, 6 blocks (5 of them on Alcindor/Kareem.) Kareem had 20 points, on 7-23 
shooting, with 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks in the win. Incidently, Wilt received a standing ovation when he left the game late...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

30. Game four of the 71-72 first round of the playoffs, against Chicago, in a 108-97 sweeping win. Wilt had 8 points and 31 rebounds. Clifford Ray had 20 points in the loss.

31. Game six of the 71-72 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 104-100 win. Chamberlain with 20 points, on 8-12 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 9 blocks (six against Kareem.) Kareem had 37 points, on 16-37 
shooting, with 25 rebounds in the loss.

32. Game five of the 71-72 Finals, against NY, in a 114-100 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks. HOFer Jerry Lucas had 14 points, on 5-14 shooting, with 9 
rebounds in the loss.

33. Game seven of the first round of the 72-73 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 95-92 win. Wilt with 21 points and 28 rebounds. His opposing center, Clifford Ray, had 4 points.

34. Game five of the 72-73 WCF's, and against Golden St., in a 128-118 win. Wilt with 5 points. Thurmond had 9 points in the loss.

35. Game five of the 72-73 Finals, against NY, in a 102-93 loss. Wilt with 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Willis Reed had 18 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 12 rebounds.
35 total "must-win" elimination and/or clinching post-season games.




*The third highest total of "game winning" shots of any center in NBA history.*

Wilt: (11)
9 game winners in 1,045 regular season games (0.0086%)- 3rd best # and % of all-time
2 game winners in 160 playoff games (0.0125%)- 2nd best # and % all time.
A 150% increase in playoff game winners per-game vs regular season.
His increased percentage of game winners per-game in the playoffs is bar-none

Hakeem: (12)
11 game winners in 1238 regular season games (0.0089%)- 2nd best # and % all-time
1 game winner in 135 playoff games (0.0074%)-
A -16.9% reduction in game winning shots per-game vs regular season.

KAJ: (17)
14 game winners in 1,560 regular season games (0.0090%) - virtual tie with Hakeem
3 game winners in 237 playoff games (0.0127%) - virtual tie with Wilt
A 141% increase in playoff game winning shots per-game vs regular season.



Code:


1. Nov 10, 1959 vs New York (and 3 GW blocked shots in a row)
2. Nov 28, 1959 @ New York
3. Mar 4, 1961 vs Syracuse (FT's)
4. Feb 19, 1963 vs L.A Lakers
5. Dec 8, 1963 @ L.A Lakers (FT's)
6. Dec 28, 1963 @ Baltomore (interestingly, just one game later, he sank the OT basket)
7. Feb 23, 1964 vs L.A Lakers (he played injured and scored his team's last 5 points)
8. Mar 5, 1965 @ Cincinatti (scored 16 in 4th Q, blocked 2 shots in the last 18'', he scored the OT basket 3 games later)
9. Mar 24, 1965 @ Cincinatti (Playoffs. Hits winning FT's, while playing in the last games with a stomach ailment)
10. Dec 29, 1965 @ Detroit (FT)
11. Apr 17, 1970 vs Atlanta (Playoffs. Hits winning FT's in the end of OT).


And about those playoff stats... 

Wilt played a much higher ratio of playoff games during his years he was asked not to focus on scoring. Simple enough to understand?


----------



## Luke

Do you think that Wilt was a better playoff career preformer than Jordan, Magic, or Kareem? Because if not then I don't really care how many boxscores you show me. The regular season is almost a formality in the NBA because half of the teams make the post season... this isn't the NFL. Legacies are made in the playoffs, not the regular season. If the regular season held as much weight than David Robinson would be considered better than Hakeem, LeBron would be (arguably with Jordan and Wilt) the greatest player of all time, and Karl Malone would be considered better than Tim Duncan.


----------



## Ballscientist

to dantheman,

Several people think I am a joke poster. Several people represent 0.01% of all posters.


----------



## e-monk

dont underestimate your 'following' BS - I think you might be surprised


----------



## e-monk

http://media.photobucket.com/image/zelmo beaty dunk/nombreesizzyt/zelmo.jpg


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> Do you think that Wilt was a better playoff career preformer than Jordan, Magic, or Kareem? Because if not then I don't really care how many boxscores you show me. The regular season is almost a formality in the NBA because half of the teams make the post season... this isn't the NFL. Legacies are made in the playoffs, not the regular season. If the regular season held as much weight than David Robinson would be considered better than Hakeem, LeBron would be (arguably with Jordan and Wilt) the greatest player of all time, and Karl Malone would be considered better than Tim Duncan.


Regardless of how many rings his _teams_ won, as an individual playoff performer he was one of the most awe inspiring playoff performers in NBA history. 

1970-71 LA playoffs for example. Both Baylor and West DNP plus ANOTHER starter on that squad (Erickson)... Wilt was a year off knee surgery, had arthritis in the other and was years removed from his prime. LA limped past the Chicago Bulls in a 7 game first round series but now they're right in the line of fire of one of the most flat-out dominating GOAT teams in NBA history. The 1971 Milwaukee Bucks lead by PRIME KAREEM and OSCAR, and armed to the teeth with depth that included FOUR more all-star caliber players. They didn't just beat teams, they annihilated them by an AVERAGE point margin of 12 points. The series was going to be a guaranteed sweep, LA was written off before they even started. But not in Wilt's mind they weren't.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=wilt chamberlain bucks&pg=7393,1564062

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSEwXP_5gc&t=15m24s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmCBYymM0&t=13m50s

G1 Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

G2 Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
(BTW that night LA ties an ALL-TIME LOW 73 points as an opponent of those Bucks... yet, the THE BUCKS fans and media were in total awe of old man Wilt)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=wilt chamberlain bucks&pg=7125,1475901
Milwaukee Journal: "Chamberlain just about had to do the job alone, the big man lead everybody on the court with 26 points and 22 rebounds but had little help. Told that he played well, Chamberlain said _Thanks but that's no consolation at all._"

G3 Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=wilt chamberlain bucks&pg=5507,4535684
"Chamberlain made a big difference" - Oscar Robertson

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=wilt chamberlain bucks&pg=3326,1516167
(Thus far in the series, Wilt is 70 points to Kareem's 72, and he is averaged 22rpg, to 17rpg. And he is the recipient of all sorts of media and fan praise from both Milwaukee and LA. 

G4 Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

G5 Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W - 2 blocks against Chamberlain W


Wilt was like an aged 12 point buck standing his ground in the face of a pack of hungry wolves that series, his team may have lost but he flat-out ERASED KAREEM and stunned the crowds and media. He plummeted Kareem's points and fg% while boosting his own production BEYOND that of Kareem's in G2, G3, and G5 out of the 5 game series...
LA never stood a chance but Chamberlain was every bit a hero in that series. The duel between him and Kareem those games was the stuff of legend, old man Wilt and his determination even sent a few SKYHOOK'S back down Kareem's throat! 

That Bucks team was a loaded gun in every spot including the 6th man. LA (as a team) was just massacred. Yet Milwaukee press flat out acknowledged Chamberlain outplaying their MVP, first-team and second-team(defense) stud Kareem - who had otherwise torched everyone that season (including Wilt in the regular season) Wilt got a very long and very sincere _standing ovation_ from the _Bucks fans_. Let me repeat that, Wilt Chamberlain received several minutes of _standing ovation_ from the Bucks fans. You really think just because he doesn't get rings that you should be assuming that he played like shit in the playoffs!? It's the same with Bill Russell's Celtics vs Wilt. Wilt was the best damn player on the floor and no less-determined than the "winners" even if he was faced with adversity or fighting in a losing battle. Can you HONESTLY sit here and tell me that Wilt Chamberlain was showing signs of choking!? Or being a "LEBRON"? I'm sorry but did LEBRON get a standing ovation from anyone in the playoffs from another arena in the face of elimination!? Wilt wasn't a loser, nor a quitter nor a frontrunner, nor a choker, or w/e else you've got in your head to think that he as an individual somehow wasn't doing his job in the playoffs. Instead of just _assuming_ history happened a certain way, why not try looking it up first? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmCBYymM0&t=13m50s


Also, he busted out a similar awe-inspiring performance for LA's first ever title in NBA history (1972). As both team captain and _Finals MVP_
He seals the series with THE winning G5 performance that he wasn't expected to play. His stat-line was 24points 29 rebounds 8 assists 8 blocks (some say 9, the last 5 minutes of footage is missing)... One hand was literally fractured and both were swollen and tightly bound in athletic tape.. he took NO painkillers. He faced prime KAJ head to head again in order to even get there. He earned that title with finals MVP honors... He did it as _the_ integral finals performer on one of the greatest teams in NBA history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18u9GVSo1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRhTtQO7W8Y&feature=related <--- listen to what West says at 2:30. 
Yet not only are you not afraid to slight his ring-less years w/o ever looking them up, but you even tried to suggest this '72 performance was somehow similar to KG's 2008 performance in another thread as if to say credit shouldn't go to Wilt!? Yah... sorry but there's no comparison here. KG was younger never had surgery yet and totally healthy and was not even the finals MVP. Chamberlain's MVP performance was on a body that was one year from retirement and had racked up over 10,000 more career minutes of wear and tear vs KG, plus the knee surgery on one leg and arthritis on the other, and again... you forgetting about his BROKEN HAND and the other one severely sprained!? In terms of impressiveness Chamberlain's '72 series is literally miles beyond KG's, it's one of the 61 GOAT NBA playoff performances. Plus, how many times did KG get out of the first-round before Boston again? Chamberlain - like KG - was stuck with scrubs too... But unlike KG he dragged his scrubs to the conference finals and NBA finals and through his prime put up one helluva fight against the greatest sport dynasty in history (And he was better than their star Bill Russell). He DID finally get a ring against them, being the only superstar to do so against that Boston team in the 1960's. KG just doesn't belong in any discussion about Wilt Chamberlain.


----------



## Luke

[0QUOTE=dantheman9758;6753780]Regardless of how many rings his _teams_ won, as an individual playoff performer he was one of the most awe inspiring playoff performers in NBA history. 

1970-71 LA playoffs for example. Both Baylor and West DNP plus ANOTHER starter on that squad (who's name escapes me)... Wilt was a year off knee surgery, had arthritis in the other and was years removed from his prime. LA limped past the Chicago Bulls in a 7 game first round series but now they're right in the line of fire of one of the most flat-out dominating GOAT teams in NBA history. The 1971 Milwaukee Bucks lead by PRIME KAREEM and OSCAR, and armed to the teeth with depth FOUR more all-star caliber players. They didn't just beat teams, they annihilated them by an AVERAGE point margin of 12 points. The series was going to be a guaranteed sweep, and LA needed a hero.[/QUOTE]

The entire premise of this post incorrect because neither Oscar nor Kareem were in their primes during that season. I didn't even read the rest of your post. Oscar was a shell of his former self and Kareem was a sophmore the year that the Bucks took the title. I don't even want to argue this anymore. He was not the best playoff preformer of all time and that quite literally disqualifies him from being considered the GOAT. Call him the best regular season preformer if you want, that's fair. But Magic, Jordan, and Kareem were better in the real season, the post season, and that's
why they were better players. That's the end of it. Reciting boxscores that you (or I) were not there to witness holds absolutely no value. 

Do you consider Tracy McGrady to be one of the best players of all time? Because if you don't then you're a hypoctit. He posted incredible numbers in the vast majority of his first round exists, but for the most part had crappy supporting casts and therefore didn't win any titles.


----------



## dantheman9758

> The entire premise of this post incorrect because neither Oscar nor Kareem were in their primes during that season. I didn't even read the rest of your post. Oscar was a shell of his former self and Kareem was a sophmore the year that the Bucks took the title. I don't even want to argue this anymore. He was not the best playoff preformer of all time and that quite literally disqualifies him from being considered the GOAT. Call him the best regular season preformer if you want, that's fair. But Magic, Jordan, and Kareem were better in the real season, the post season, and that's
> why they were better players. That's the end of it. Reciting boxscores that you (or I) were not there to witness holds absolutely no value.
> 
> Do you consider Tracy McGrady to be one of the best players of all time? Because if you don't then you're a hypoctit. He posted incredible numbers in the vast majority of his first round exists, but for the most part had crappy supporting casts and therefore didn't win any titles.


OMFG.... :rotf: Are you ****ing kidding me dude!? First you openly admit (on another thread) that you don't even follow or understand Wilt's era than you attempt to claim you've got a damn clue about when Kareem and Oscar's prime was!? And as a result of that ONE THING you refuse to keep an open mind about the alternative REALITY to your fore-drawn un-researched conclusions!? 

KAREEM NOT YET IN HIS PRIME!???!?!?! :rotf: I'm gonna piss myself... Kareem was league MVP (The first of THREE IN A ROW), Held the league's scoring title, was NBA champion on a top 5 ALL-TIME team, was selected for the All-Defensive Second Team, was selected for the All NBA First Team, was already 24 years old with not just 1 year of NBA experience but 4 years of UCLA under his belt - winning multiple titles at all prior levels of competition... Him as a mere "sophomore" was 100% part of his freakin prime and he was better at that age than just about player at any age who's ever laced up a pair of shoes save but a small small handful of guys. First I thought you were sarcastic but now I'm beginning to think you truly don't understand what happened in the NBA during that time period do you? It's like a black hole, and you painted your own fictional image of what happened in it's place.

Oscar was still a top 5 active guard in the league, and read it again - I didn't even say Prime in front of his name. Anyhow his scoring only dropped 5 points not because he "couldn't" but because he "shouldn't" be the #1 scoring option anymore (THE '71 BUCKS ARE A 5 ALL TIME TEAM! - MANY SAY ITS THE GREATEST!!!) Deeeeeeep roster of weapons... read my damn post above.. and you might learn something.
Also: _As a testament to Robertson's importance to the Bucks, in the season following his retirement the Bucks fell to last place in their division with a 38–44 record in spite of the continued presence of Abdul-Jabbar_


----------



## Ron

This whole thread is like a thesis.


----------



## Dre

I'm trying to figure out why it loads wide..is one of the links that long


----------



## dantheman9758

Dre said:


> I'm trying to figure out why it loads wide..is one of the links that long


I can prob fix it by editing my post with the /code in it. It got wide after I posted it I'll try to edit it

*Fixed now*


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> OMFG.... :rotf: Are you ****ing kidding me dude!? First you openly admit (on another thread) that you don't even follow or understand Wilt's era than you attempt to claim you've got a damn clue about when Kareem and Oscar's prime was!? And as a result of that ONE THING you refuse to keep an open mind about the alternative REALITY to your fore-drawn un-researched conclusions!?
> 
> KAREEM NOT YET IN HIS PRIME!???!?!?! :rotf: I'm gonna piss myself... Kareem was league MVP (The first of THREE IN A ROW), Held the league's scoring title, was NBA champion on a top 5 ALL-TIME team, was selected for the All-Defensive Second Team, was selected for the All NBA First Team, was already 24 years old with not just 1 year of NBA experience but 4 years of UCLA under his belt - winning multiple titles at all prior levels of competition... Him as a mere "sophomore" was 100% part of his freakin prime and he was better at that age than just about player at any age who's ever laced up a pair of shoes save but a small small handful of guys. First I thought you were sarcastic but now I'm beginning to think you truly don't understand what happened in the NBA during that time period do you? It's like a black hole, and you painted your own fictional image of what happened in it's place.
> 
> Oscar was still a top 5 active guard in the league, his scoring dropped 5 points not because he "couldn't" but because he "shouldn't" be the #1 scoring option anymore (THE '71 BUCKS ARE A 5 ALL TIME TEAM! - MANY SAY ITS THE GREATEST!!!) Deeeeeeep roster of weapons... read my damn post above.. and you might learn something.


You're twenty five and don't know what you're talking about either. The only people that are actually credible when talking about old timers would be quite literally the old timers on this site (e-monk, Ron, Munro etc.). You didn't watch these players play the game of basketball. You look up numbers on a basketball reference website, join a site and act like everything you speak is gospel. The difference between you and I is that I'm open to learn from people that actually know what they're talking about. I may not agree with e-monk in the sense that I don't think that Wilt is the best player (or top three, whatever) of all time, but his input into these threads has helped formulate a different opinion about one of the game's great players. And even if we go at it at times during threads I have no problem conceeding that he is more knowledgable about the older incarnation of the NBA, because he is. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am incorrect in a thread when I've been proven wrong. Everyone on this board has been incorrect at some time or another.

But okay, for the sake of discussion we'll keep this one going. You said that Kareem and Oscar were in their primes when they defeated Wilt and the Lakers en route to their '71 title. I disagreed. Oscar was a shell of his former self, clearly out of his athletic prime and his numbers show this. At no point in my prior post did I indicate that Robertson was a poor or mediocre player in 1971. I said that he wasn't the Oscar that is romanticized on message boards and ESPN. Because he wasn't. Mid 60's Oscar was putting up triple doubles every night, this Oscar was playing a complimentary role to arguably the greatest that ever played, but that's it - a complimentary role. If you're going to tell me that an old Robertson that put up averages of 19/5/5 in the regular season (as opposed to earlier lines of 31/10/12) and 18/5/9 in the playoffs is a prime Oscar then you are clearly less in touch with the pre merger NBA than I am. If you're telling me that a man who's dominance allowed him to win MVPs in two different decades peaked in his second year than you're an idiot.

Let's use this example - in 1999 Tim Duncan led the Spurs to their first title and won Finals MVP honors. In hindsight he probably should have won MVP too. Does that make 1999 the prime of Timmy's career? Of course not. That would be somewhere between '01-'05 (peaking '02-'03). Does this change the fact that he was an incredible player? No. Does the fact that Abdul-Jabaar didn't peak until later in his career change the fact that he was fantastic early in his career? No.

And I don't know about the '71 Bucks being the greatest of all time. The '85 Lakers, '86 Celtics, '93 Bulls, '01 Lakers, whichever of Russell's championship teams etc. were probably better. But that's a moot point to begin with. Because the entire crux of my argument is that Kareem was a better player and a better playoff preformer than Wilt. Stating that Kareem was the man on arguably the "greatest team of all time" (your words, not mine) in his second year is essentially conceeding what I have been arguing this entire time.

Maybe next time I'll put rolling smilies to illustrate my point too. You know, instead of facts.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> You're twenty five and don't know what you're talking about either. The only people that are actually credible when talking about old timers would be quite literally the old timers on this site (e-monk, Ron, Munro etc.). You didn't watch these players play the game of basketball. You look up numbers on a basketball reference website, join a site and act like everything you speak is gospel. The difference between you and I is that I'm open to learn from people that actually know what they're talking about. I may not agree with e-monk in the sense that I don't think that Wilt is the best player (or top three, whatever) of all time, but his input into these threads has helped formulate a different opinion about one of the game's great players. And even if we go at it at times during threads I have no problem conceeding that he is more knowledgable about the older incarnation of the NBA, because he is. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am incorrect in a thread when I've been proven wrong. Everyone on this board has been incorrect at some time or another.
> 
> But okay, for the sake of discussion we'll keep this one going. You said that Kareem and Oscar were in their primes when they defeated Wilt and the Lakers en route to their '71 title. I disagreed. Oscar was a shell of his former self, clearly out of his athletic prime and his numbers show this. At no point in my prior post did I indicate that Robertson was a poor or mediocre player in 1971. I said that he wasn't the Oscar that is romanticized on message boards and ESPN. Because he wasn't. Mid 60's Oscar was putting up triple doubles every night, this Oscar was playing a complimentary role to arguably the greatest that ever played, but that's it - a complimentary role. If you're going to tell me that an old Robertson that put up averages of 19/5/5 in the regular season (as opposed to earlier lines of 31/10/12) and 18/5/9 in the playoffs is a prime Oscar then you are clearly less in touch with the pre merger NBA than I am. If you're telling me that a man who's dominance allowed him to win MVPs in two different decades peaked in his second year than you're an idiot.
> 
> Let's use this example - in 1999 Tim Duncan led the Spurs to their first title and won Finals MVP honors. In hindsight he probably should have won MVP too. Does that make 1999 the prime of Timmy's career? Of course not. That would be somewhere between '01-'05 (peaking '02-'03). Does this change the fact that he was an incredible player? No. Does the fact that Abdul-Jabaar didn't peak until later in his career change the fact that he was fantastic early in his career? No.
> 
> And I don't know about the '71 Bucks being the greatest of all time. The '85 Lakers, '86 Celtics, '93 Bulls, '01 Lakers, whichever of Russell's championship teams etc. were probably better. But that's a moot point to begin with. Because the entire crux of my argument is that Kareem was a better player and a better playoff preformer than Wilt. Stating that Kareem was the man on arguably the "greatest team of all time" (your words, not mine) in his second year is essentially conceeding what I have been arguing this entire time.
> 
> Maybe next time I'll put rolling smilies to illustrate my point too. You know, instead of facts.


I work with experts in paleontology so that I can create shit that happened a long time ago for a living it isn't always going to be 100% correct because information is lost in the past and holes exist in certain places. But I'm quite used to doing exhaustive research from countless angles to paint as accurate as possible visuals of the past... Obviously, to get in such a spot, it means I at least have the discipline never to be doing 1 dimensional research to believe I've got any sort of perspective whatsoever on things (like say, if I "just looked at basketball reference" as you accuse).

I'd have loved to see them in person or watch live broadcasts but neither I nor you _need_ to see these guys live there is plenty of content out there to form a far _more_ solid opinion than the one you've discussed so far. I have countless games at my disposal that I DO WATCH REGULARLY because I enjoy the vintage basketball games as much as I enjoy the modern ones. In my line of work and in my line of personal interests history and the present are one in the same. Just because I wasn't alive doesn't mean I can't have a better-than-you-think grasp on what _actually_ happened. How many times did you see Lebron in person? How about, Dwight Howard? Bosh? Kobe? Bynum? Chandler? Jordan? Garnett? Bird? Magic? Shaq? ... How often did you get to see them live if not in person? Should you only ever talk about the guys you "saw" (live or in person)? No obviously that's a ridiculous restriction to put on yourself or others. Clearly we live in the information age and can learn a lot w/o seeing something live there are multiple windows of information. You read one editorial or watch one highlight on a game you won't learn much about it, you use twenty sources of video/editorial you'll learn a lot more and can have a fairly good grasp on what happened.

I think the difference between you and I is that you don't just don't have the interest in vintage basketball that I do, therefore you never actively pursue that information. It's a passing interest at best for you of course you'll never go out of your way to read old newspapers all day searching for un-official stats and scouting old players, nor will you be watching downloading or buying old game footage, or reading about rule changes and the history of basketball, or any of that stuff. I do enjoy it and actively do all of that and I learn a lot in the process. Don't be so quick to dismiss information I bring forward just because I'm 25, that doesn't mean I'm uneducated.


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> I work with experts in paleontology so that I can create shit that happened a long time ago for a living it isn't always going to be correct but I'm quite used to doing exhaustive research from many angles to paint accurate visuals of the past... Obviously, to get in such a spot, it means I at least have the discipline never to be doing 1 dimensional research to gain perspective on things (like say, if I "just looked at basketball reference").
> 
> I'd have loved to see them in person or watch live broadcasts but neither I nor you _need_ to see these guys live there is plenty of content out there to form a sound opinion. I have countless games at my disposal that I DO WATCH REGULARLY because I enjoy the vintage basketball games as much as I enjoy the modern ones. In my line of work and in my line of personal interests history and the present are one in the same. Just because I wasn't alive doesn't mean I can't have a better-than-you-think grasp on what _actually_ happened. How many times did you see Lebron in person? How about, Dwight Howard? Bosh? Kobe? Bynum? Chandler? Jordan? Garnett? Bird? Magic? Shaq? ... How often did you get to see them live if not in person? Should you only ever talk about the guys you "saw" (live or in person)? No obviously that's a ridiculous restriction to put on yourself or others. Clearly we live in the information age and can learn a lot w/o seeing something live.
> 
> I think the difference between you and I is that you don't just don't have the interest in vintage basketball that I do, therefore you never actively pursue that information. It's a passing interest at best for you of course you'll never go out of your way to read old newspapers all day searching for un-official stats and scouting old players, nor will you be watching downloading or buying old game footage, or reading about rule changes and the history of basketball, or any of that stuff. I do enjoy it and actively do all of that and I learn a lot in the process. Don't be so quick to dismiss information I bring forward just because I'm 25, that doesn't mean I'm uneducated.


Cool story.

That doesn't change the fact that you weren't there. And that doesn't change the fact that you haven't seen enough in game tape to formulate a concrete opinion for yourself.

You need to watch players play basketball to definitively evaluate how good basketball players are. I've seen my share of old tape (granted it's typically later generations than the 60's.) but I don't believe for a second that a real person sits down and watches vintage basketball games on a regular basis. It would be a waste of time.

The only reason I even engage in these old players threads is so that I can learn something from people that know what they are talking about, not to look at boxscores. Boxscores are a waste of time and do not paint a clear picture. All you've done throughout this entire thread is post a bunch of numbers that mean nothing.

All in all it doesn't even matter because there's no point in continuing a debate with you. You've dodged critical points in each of my last few replies, and no, stating your profession is not the same thing as admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you call the '71 Oscar a "prime" Oscar.


----------



## dantheman9758

VanillaPrice said:


> You're twenty five and don't know what you're talking about either. The only people that are actually credible when talking about old timers would be quite literally the old timers on this site (e-monk, Ron, Munro etc.). You didn't watch these players play the game of basketball. You look up numbers on a basketball reference website, join a site and act like everything you speak is gospel. The difference between you and I is that I'm open to learn from people that actually know what they're talking about. I may not agree with e-monk in the sense that I don't think that Wilt is the best player (or top three, whatever) of all time, but his input into these threads has helped formulate a different opinion about one of the game's great players. And even if we go at it at times during threads I have no problem conceeding that he is more knowledgable about the older incarnation of the NBA, because he is. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am incorrect in a thread when I've been proven wrong. Everyone on this board has been incorrect at some time or another.
> 
> But okay, for the sake of discussion we'll keep this one going. You said that Kareem and Oscar were in their primes when they defeated Wilt and the Lakers en route to their '71 title. I disagreed. Oscar was a shell of his former self, clearly out of his athletic prime and his numbers show this. At no point in my prior post did I indicate that Robertson was a poor or mediocre player in 1971. I said that he wasn't the Oscar that is romanticized on message boards and ESPN. Because he wasn't. Mid 60's Oscar was putting up triple doubles every night, this Oscar was playing a complimentary role to arguably the greatest that ever played, but that's it - a complimentary role. If you're going to tell me that an old Robertson that put up averages of 19/5/5 in the regular season (as opposed to earlier lines of 31/10/12) and 18/5/9 in the playoffs is a prime Oscar then you are clearly less in touch with the pre merger NBA than I am. If you're telling me that a man who's dominance allowed him to win MVPs in two different decades peaked in his second year than you're an idiot.
> 
> Let's use this example - in 1999 Tim Duncan led the Spurs to their first title and won Finals MVP honors. In hindsight he probably should have won MVP too. Does that make 1999 the prime of Timmy's career? Of course not. That would be somewhere between '01-'05 (peaking '02-'03). Does this change the fact that he was an incredible player? No. Does the fact that Abdul-Jabaar didn't peak until later in his career change the fact that he was fantastic early in his career? No.
> 
> *And I don't know about the '71 Bucks being the greatest of all time.* The '85 Lakers, '86 Celtics, '93 Bulls, '01 Lakers, whichever of Russell's championship teams etc. *were probably better.* But that's a moot point to begin with. Because the entire crux of my argument is that Kareem was a better player and a better playoff preformer than Wilt. Stating that Kareem was the man on arguably the "greatest team of all time" (your words, not mine) in his second year is essentially conceeding what I have been arguing this entire time.
> 
> Maybe next time I'll put rolling smilies to illustrate my point too. You know, instead of facts.


This illustrates a difference between you and I. Your perfectly content to never ever look into that kind of stuff yourself. You seem perfectly happy speculating and wondering (and assuming) how things fit into a context rather than feeling the need to ACTUALLY go a bit out of the way to figure it out. Are you about to look up the 1971 Bucks? Gonna spend some time catchin up on vintage media, or read old articles, or new articles looking back? There's a few games of that squad in entirety on youtube, including the finals. I doubt you even care. I don't expect you too or think less of your for not. But just don't expect me to be getting into side-tracked discussions about T-mac or Duncan when you won't even read some of the posts I DID put time into with solid information... 

- I've posted a lot of information on this thread, more than many will read perhaps including yourself - go back and look it over a few times when your bored. then come back and ask some questions because otherwise I'll be repeating things. It isn't just a bunch of basketball-reference info - those #'s and archived footage can tell a clear story if you don't just skim over them.


----------



## Luke

Again with the Oscar dodge. I'm done. Have fun posting boxscores.


----------



## dantheman9758

Luke said:


> Again with the Oscar dodge. I'm done. Have fun posting boxscores.



...There is no Oscar dodge...



> The 1971 Milwaukee Bucks lead by PRIME KAREEM and OSCAR, and armed to the teeth with depth that included FOUR more all-star caliber players.





> Oscar was still a top 5 active guard in the league, and read it again - *I didn't even say Prime in front of his name.* Anyhow his scoring only dropped 5 points not because he "couldn't" but because he "shouldn't" be the #1 scoring option anymore (THE '71 BUCKS ARE A 5 ALL TIME TEAM! - MANY SAY ITS THE GREATEST!!!) Deeeeeeep roster of weapons... read my damn post above.. and you might learn something.
> Also: _As a testament to Robertson's importance to the Bucks, in the season following his retirement the Bucks fell to last place in their division with a 38–44 record in spite of the continued presence of Abdul-Jabbar_


I edited that above post but I didn't bring it to your attention and perhaps I should have so bc u didn't see it. I'm not dodging that question I just didn't realize you didn't see it. Does it clear that issue up for you? - Your "boxscores" comment illustrates why I suggest you re-look at that post you chose to ignore. It isn't just boxscore... Video/Articles and those boxscores include advanced stats not a part of official boxscores. It's good info, and it paints Wilt in a different light than you've thus far expressed. It's not a big deal if you never read it but you just might learn something if you do.


----------



## OneBadLT123

All this arguing back and forth is nonsense. Seriously, I dont care how one puts it, Wilt played in the prehistoric era of the league. 

You replace Wilt in that era with Shaq, David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant or Jordan and you think they wouldnt tear up the league? Any one of those players has the ability to put up those kinds of numbers in that era. It's not speculation, its common sense. Hell even a prime Gilbert Areanas would have probably scored 100+ points. 

Wilt is the most overrated player in the history of the game. Along with Pistol. Sure he would have held his own in todays league, but destroyed todays NBA? Who are you kidding. 

The real GOAT of centers is Kareem.


----------



## Bogg

You guys are _really_ adamant about a purely theoretical exercise. With all the variables over time and styles of play, there's no real way to definitively claim anything beyond "Wilt would be one of the best players in the game today".


----------



## Mrs. Thang

Wilt Chamberlain's a son of a bitch.

One time I asked Wilt to dress up as Santa for a Christmas party I was having for my children. Anyway, Wilt shows up as Santa, says I've got goodies for you kids. He reaches into his bag and proceeds to hand out scrap metal and cigarettes to them. Then he takes off his beard and says "there is no Santa cause I ate him!"


----------



## e-monk

I've always loved that story


----------



## Ballscientist

Luke said:


> You're twenty five and don't know what you're talking about either. The only people that are actually credible when talking about old timers would be quite literally the old timers on this site (e-monk, Ron, Munro etc.). You didn't watch these players play the game of basketball. You look up numbers on a basketball reference website, join a site and act like everything you speak is gospel.


There is a reason I reply to dantheman thread after I know I am older than him.


----------



## dantheman9758

Bogg said:


> You guys are _really_ adamant about a purely theoretical exercise. With all the variables over time and styles of play, there's no real way to definitively claim anything beyond "Wilt would be one of the best players in the game today".


:whoknows:

Everyone is entitled to disagree otherwise there is no point of a discussion, right? Hell, at the end of the day anyone can walk away believing Wilt was as real as the tooth-fairy for all I care lol. The recent arguments weren't even about the topic headline (which my theory on that was quite simple). It's Wilt Chamberlain's "choker" labels that lead me to show things like his game-winners clutch performances and info on playoffs... They came up as sort of a side discussion.


----------



## dantheman9758

Here's a Recap that's actually got to do with my topic headline:

As far as my topic headline my theory goes, it's based on an idea that is quite simple:

Shaq was a dominant force based on physical dominance, he was in a rare class of _true_ 7 footers which have _never been common_ in the NBA despite the popular misconceptions caused by player list heights (and I provided plenty of evidence to prove that). The size alone didn't make him awesome it was his combination of size and startling athleticism that made him so physically awesome because it's even rarer to be able to move like that at that size. Also, I'll add he's no idiot either he's got good BBall IQ. This total package we can call the Shaq template and with it he could develop a skill-set that doesn't have to be as good as say, Olajuwon's yet he still simply Dominated in his prime... Not many people would disagree there. On the court we know Shaq is gigantic nimble and strong, it's obvious in highlights. Off the court he did additional shows that showcased his rare class as a specimen like Shaq vs (kind of a cheeseball show) but it highlights why he's a not just big, but also an athlete. In that show we saw him do three things we can talk about _AND_ compare directly with Wilt... Sprint, get timed in the 40, play volleyball. Shaq amazes his peers for doing what he does at his rare-as-it-is size. He wasn't a great sprinter in Shaq vs but he was a suprisingly good one (plus he's a little older and heavy, and had knee surgery to be fair), he ran the 40 in 5.8, and he actually was pretty good on the volleyball court. We also have figures like his bench press (450lbs) on the web that seem credible. All In all we do have _data_ that shows why Shaq was what he was.

Then we have that dinosaur Wilt that old farts like to pretend was special. But measurements that can directly be compared with Shaq's of him were taken a lot in his lifetime because he had younger versions of these old-farts in awe in a similar spectacle to how we perceived Shaq. I simply organized all of that data and low and behold it actually reveals that he's the real deal. Collectively all the data suggests he's a _rarer_ class of specimen (by measurements) with a startlingly longer wingspan, taller reach, taller height, massive hands, was far heavier than his listed weights (just like shaq by the way...) and to top all of that off he was an even _better proven athlete_ due to his accolades out side of the game of basketball that in and of themselves are impressive even if Wilt wasn't a giant basketball player... _His peers like Bill Russell also talk about him as if he was one of the smartest guys he ever played against so Wilt's also got a great basketball IQ_. The way he dominated in his league supports my theory but it isn't what I used to come up with it.




Code:


[B]Shaq:[/B] 
7'0.88" barefoot height 
7'7 wingspan 
9'5 standing reach 
[B]303-327lbs[/B] prime and [B]368[/B] max measured (but remember, his physique was kinda fat)
40yd dash: 5.8 
Max Bench Press: 450lbs
*Appeared to play volleyball very well and show versatility in athletics 
*5.8 for his weight/age is actually decent 
*He had a 36" vertical at 303lbs which is VERY impressive 
*he had a 28 inch vertical on the show Shaq vs (after knee surgery, age, weight gain) 
which IMO is impressive for his size

[B]Wilt:[/B] 
[B]7'1.06"[/B] barefoot height
[B]8'4"[/B] wingspan 
[B]9-6[/B] standing reach [I]would be 9'7+ in modern shoes[/I]
258-292lbs prime and 327 max measured 
40yd dash: [B]4.6[/B]
Max Bench Press: [B]465lbs[/B]
*At his rookie weight of 258, he was already benching 358lbs this is very a-typically strong for his size 
*Won the Philly league high-jump title twice
*Was a D1 Big-Eight [I]1st place[/I] High Jump winner 3 times at prestigious track events such as 
the KU and Drake Relay's 
*His 6'6.75" PR was only 4.75" from Olympic gold medal winners of his era and was a KU indoor record
*He triple jumped (takes incredible co-ordination) at collegiate level for a 3rd place 45'9" - his PR was 46'2.5" 
which is very competitive
*Could run the 440 (3 yards more than a 400) in around 49 seconds (extremely impressive) 
*long jumped about 22' in HS which is also impressive 
*Anchored his KU 1/4 mile relay team in one event
*He wasn't simply good at volleyball, he's actually [I]in[/I] the [U]Volleyball HOF[/U]. 
*He ran two 50 mile super marathons in his 50's 
*Could clean-and-jerk 265lbs and Military Press 210 (1961) well before he was fully bulked up
*At least 6 NBA Basketball teams approached Wilt to play for them throughout the 1980's, 
and at least 1 in the year 1990 (at age 54)

So my theory is quite simple... Everything that made Shaq awesome in the 90's and '00's, Wilt seemed to have to had to an even higher degree except for body mass, which reflected Wilt's style of play in his era and that Wilt never allowed himself to get fat... So why the heck wouldn't he take today's league by storm? A bigger framed, stronger, more athletic player than Shaq? I just don't see how he wouldn't?

I suggested he would do it with the same disparity that he did in his own era and my reasoning for that was because the "shorter competition" doesn't pan out at all to be true, barefoot heights of modern players line up perfectly with his era (back when list-heights do not appear to be a runaway train from their true height). Wilt dominated guys with access only to the same things they had access too in terms of training and equipment he wasn't "ahead of his time" he was _part_ of his time. His physique is no more common today than it was back then he was truly a rarity, and would perhaps be no less dominating today considering how he compares with Shaq no?


----------



## GNG

dantheman9758 said:


> *I work with experts in paleontology *so that I can create shit that happened a long time ago for a living it isn't always going to be 100% correct because information is lost in the past and holes exist in certain places. But I'm quite used to doing exhaustive research from countless angles to paint as accurate as possible visuals of the past... Obviously, to get in such a spot, it means I at least have the discipline never to be doing 1 dimensional research to believe I've got any sort of perspective whatsoever on things (like say, if I "just looked at basketball reference" as you accuse).
> 
> I'd have loved to see them in person or watch live broadcasts but neither I nor you _need_ to see these guys live there is plenty of content out there to form a far _more_ solid opinion than the one you've discussed so far. I have countless games at my disposal that I DO WATCH REGULARLY because I enjoy the vintage basketball games as much as I enjoy the modern ones. In my line of work and in my line of personal interests history and the present are one in the same. Just because I wasn't alive doesn't mean I can't have a better-than-you-think grasp on what _actually_ happened. How many times did you see Lebron in person? How about, Dwight Howard? Bosh? Kobe? Bynum? Chandler? Jordan? Garnett? Bird? Magic? Shaq? ... How often did you get to see them live if not in person? Should you only ever talk about the guys you "saw" (live or in person)? No obviously that's a ridiculous restriction to put on yourself or others. Clearly we live in the information age and can learn a lot w/o seeing something live there are multiple windows of information. You read one editorial or watch one highlight on a game you won't learn much about it, you use twenty sources of video/editorial you'll learn a lot more and can have a fairly good grasp on what happened.
> 
> I think the difference between you and I is that you don't just don't have the interest in vintage basketball that I do, therefore you never actively pursue that information. It's a passing interest at best for you of course you'll never go out of your way to read old newspapers all day searching for un-official stats and scouting old players, nor will you be watching downloading or buying old game footage, or reading about rule changes and the history of basketball, or any of that stuff. I do enjoy it and actively do all of that and I learn a lot in the process. Don't be so quick to dismiss information I bring forward just because *I'm 25*, that doesn't mean I'm uneducated.


Tell us more about your paleontology internship.


----------



## Bogg

dantheman9758 said:


> :whoknows:
> 
> Everyone is entitled to disagree otherwise there is no point of a discussion, right? Hell, at the end of the day anyone can walk away believing Wilt was as real as the tooth-fairy for all I care lol. The recent arguments weren't even about the topic headline (which my theory on that was quite simple). It's Wilt Chamberlain's "choker" labels that lead me to show things like his game-winners clutch performances and info on playoffs... They came up as sort of a side discussion.


I mean, I guess. Wilt's generally regarded as a top-five player all time and it's pretty much acknowledged that he'd translate physically. I think where most people are really taking exception is the idea you seem to be putting across is that if you were to time-travel a 21 year old Wilt to today we might as well fold the league. I agree that he'd be one of the premier players in the league, put up some really pretty stats, and in the right situation might win a title or six. However, even with all the measurements and stats you posted I don't think he'd be so unmanageable on his own that it wouldn't matter, any good defensive team can stop one guy. The number of titles he would or wouldn't win would depend mostly on how much he bought into the team concept and the quality of his teammates, as is the case with any of the games' greats.


----------



## dantheman9758

Bogg said:


> I mean, I guess. Wilt's generally regarded as a top-five player all time and it's pretty much acknowledged that he'd translate physically. I think where most people are really taking exception is the idea you seem to be putting across is that if you were to time-travel a 21 year old Wilt to today we might as well fold the league. I agree that he'd be one of the premier players in the league, put up some really pretty stats, and in the right situation might win a title or six. However, even with all the measurements and stats you posted I don't think he'd be so unmanageable on his own that it wouldn't matter, any good defensive team can stop one guy. The number of titles he would or wouldn't win would depend mostly on how much he bought into the team concept and the quality of his teammates, as is the case with any of the games' greats.


Well seeing as how they never folded the league when he played I didn't mean to imply that would happen at all the league actually skyrocketed in fan-draw and became profitable enough for expansion because of him, his away games had a higher profit than anyone else and the Celtics of his era should prove that no matter how individually mind boggling he was above his peers he still proves that one man doesn't win a ring w/o a strong system of talent in good health. 

I did mean to imply I believe he'd be _relatively_ capable of the same margin of dominance - being the type of specimen that he was. Today people throw terms around like "7 footer" without realizing they are likely describing the multitude of realistic player sizes down to around 6'9 and that our league does in fact still occasionally have 6'7 centers and it isn't any more rare today than it was in his day for them to be that size. Literally it looks like heights did not change since the 60's. 7 footers today never actually quite measure up to 7'0 save for a few guys like Bynum, Gasol, Zydrunas, Thabeet... And how great of athletes are those guys anyways? The one's that are big actually move like they're that big - they aren't dropping jaws with leaping and running that belies their massive size. When I look at draft measurements the league today just didn't add up on paper to a league that is bigger (in height) than the league he was in.

So if let's say, a _teenager_ of Wilt was transported in time from around his age of ~14-15 years old I believe in no-time he and his high school would be making the same kind of national news headlines he was making in his own era for being this unbelievably huge and remarkably athletic kid with strength and agility that belies size and he'd be considered a similar up and coming force in the NBA. He'd probably skip college in the modern age (unless his parents would be transported in time with him... they made him go for as long as he did - otherwise he'd have been a full-time Globie b4 NBA eligibility had he had it his way). Draft-camp's like draftexpress.com have measurements of about 1,500 people since 1989 and his size alone is literally above 99th percentile in every category from wingspan to reach to height to hand size with the exception of weight - (but again that's due to his running era) and he did prove capable of being 327lbs in solid muscle later in his life (His weight for the movie Conan the Destroyer). 

His mobility and those measurements really serve to confirm he's a legit spectacle. Like I said, people today can think he's just make believe for all I care but for the sake of discussion I don't mind providing data that not many people have looked at when trying to gauge what kind of a player he was/could be in a different era.


----------



## Noyze

*List of players over 7 foot, 230 pounds in Wilt's time*

Mel Counts - 7'0", 230 lbs
Swede Halbrook - 7'3" 235 lbs (played only 2 seasons)


----------



## Luke

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Tell us more about your paleontology internship.


Dodged.


----------



## dantheman9758

Noyze said:


> *List of players over 7 foot, 230 pounds in Wilt's time*
> 
> Mel Counts - 7'0", 230 lbs
> Swede Halbrook - 7'3" 235 lbs (played only 2 seasons)


LOL a troll made a thread about that on inside hoops - but no. Not true.

Both "listed" height and "listed" weight - are entirely non-factual and vintage players simply can't be compared with players of the media age (from 1980's on) based on "listed" anything. 

Guys were mostly measured barefoot in his era and almost all of those list heights from the 1940's into the early 70's are tightly followed within + or - 0.5". Listed heights today are flat-out-_lies_ that can embellish a players listed size + by as much as 3" and I've never once seen them round down or list a player lower than they measured in their bare-feet. And, it is only on the rarest occasions if a guy wants to play down a position that he's even considered to be listed based on his barefoot size (oldschool style). 

Guys from BOTH era's aren't weighed on a regular basis and their weights constantly change and are almost always wrong. Guys from Wilt's era were late developers and their listed #'s undersell them by a mile because they'd come from college very lean but generally by the 2nd-3rd season these guys had already jacked themselves up +15-20lbs or so. Some of these vintage guys later in their careers blew up 50lbs+

If you don't believe me about this plain and simple fact look here:
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/A-Historical-Look-at-the-NBA-Pre-Draft-Measurements-2912/
The NBA draft OPENLY explains the modern draft in DETAIL. It's not even closely guarded secret. 

So drafted players today that get measured show up here:
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/
Should be your only source for any real comparisons unless you have training camp info from some articles or something. Player weigh-in's etc can come from training camp info which can help pin-point how much weight player A or B has gained since visibly "bulking up". Same goes with if a player grew. Usually a later-career measurement can be hunted down but it certainly isn't going to be determined from any "listed" information. 

*So what do you define as "7 foot" in height? Legit barefoot 7 foot? If that's the criteria here's how many centers met the same criteria for '11-'12 NBA:*

Andrew Bynum:
7'0.25" - barefoot
(est 295+ as of '11-'12)
(#'s from some gym that claimed they measured him out of shoes)

Hasheem Thabeet:
7'1.25" - barefoot
267lbs - (likely heavier for '11-'12)
(draft-express)

Aaron Gray:
7'0.00" - barefoot
271lbs - (2007)

See that list? None more than these guys proved to meet that same criteria - 7'0.00 or more (230lbs+) - based on reliable measurements, and the overwhelming majority of "7 footers" today show up in the 6'9-6'11.5 category just like the overwhelming majority of 1960's/70's centers. So just 3 men can "with certainty" meet this same criteria across over 30 NBA teams... I'm sure there's room for a small handful of other players that might be truly 7'0 or more in real life but it is way less than people think. Being over 7 feet tall is RARE - and usually the people who are aren't even good. Since 1989, out of draftexpress's 1,499 measured draftee candidates only 31 people ever measured to be truly 7'0 or over... and only a dozen of those guys even made it into the NBA - and only 3-4 were any good. Again, this covers a span of 23 "modern" years. Not every player gets drafted and not every player gets measured barefoot but based on how scarce actual 7 foot people are out of a sample pool of 1,499 - at best the ratio of the league could only ever be about 50:1 but seeing as how most of those legit 7 footers didn't even get drafted the ratio is more likely as low as 75:1


*Now let's look at 1971-72 - because I don't even need to span his entire era to show how erroneous that implication was (that he faced shorter competition):*

Guys 100% verified "7 feet tall" via barefoot measurements:

Wilt Chamberlain:
7'1.06" - barefoot
315lbs
http://i.imgur.com/7Nkzu.png

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
7'1.625" - barefoot
232lbs (actual weight as of March 1971)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...IBAJ&pg=4519,4185979&dq=alcindor+pounds&hl=en

Artis Gilmore: (ABA, but he faced Chamberlain in the all-star game)
7'1.31" - barefoot
240lbs at that time
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...pg=7422,5850870&dq=artis+gilmore+pounds&hl=en


Guys from '71-'72 that could very well be legit "7'0" due too the more accurate listed heights/weights of that era: (Note, these guys didn't have very specific "barefoot" data like the above 3)

Elmore Smith:
7'0-7'1 
250lbs (rookie season weight.. thus listed weight is actually close) - He was 235lbs in the NCAA
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=5806,655441&dq=jabbar+pounds&hl=en 

Tom Boerwinkle:
7'0
270-275lbs is his weight throughout that season
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...pg=7448,1211287&dq=tom+boerwinkle+pound&hl=en


Those guys represented 16 NBA teams (and with Gilmore and the ABA, 11 more)...

It takes a while to do the research so I have to stop here, I only scratched the surface of looking up players from that season alone. There's likely to be a few more, and there's certainly going to be no less than say - Shaq's era (or any era). It takes time to research this stuff and it takes a lack of bias to even put forth the effort to research it. Which of course no troll or casual NBA fan would bother doing they'll just hear "Wilt played short people/weak era" and take 5 minutes to look at completely false billed-heights and weights from both era's and jump to ridiculous conclusions. Mikan had already set the standard for strong/heavy/tall bigmen in the paint more than a decade before Chamberlain and his contemporaries ever laced up their sneaks. Bill Russell - being rather thin and fast - was actually an _exception_ to that rule in the early 60's. Most guys wanted too be stronger and most teams looked for guys taller than the oft-mentioned "6'9" Russ because none had his a-typical speed and IQ anyways. BTW, Russ = Dwight Howard in both height and wingspan... and Russ had the better vertical. And just like other players his listed weight was false especially by the 2nd half of his career.


----------



## dantheman9758

Luke said:


> Dodged.


What he asked is not even what I claimed. 

Paleontology illustration is what I do, wtf does an internship have to do with what I do? (Do paleontology internships even exist? I've never seen one with the people I worked with)

My comment in hindsight was admittedly one of very poor form. I came off as gloating. I mentioned it only in retaliation to being dismissed for being "only 25 years old" and for the implication that as a result I must not have a damn clue about the past because I "wasn't there". My father was there, and he doesn't know jack shit about Wilt Chamberlain or basketball of the 1960's. Just because he was from that time doesn't make him more educated about certain things that happened in his time because not everyone pays attention to it. Doing research to learn about history _can_ make someone knowledgeable you know, otherwise what is the point of any historian or a even in my related field of paleontology? Do we simply toss out information about the past? No information get's recorded in various ways - Google news archives and footage from that time are literally windows to that time free of modern tampering and there's plenty of it to paint quite a vivid picture about Wilt and his era. It's just disorganized and takes quite a bit of effort to put together. That won't happen with fans like yourself because it is of little enough interest too outweigh the effort. I've done the research - your quick to dismiss it but not so quick to provide any REAL data that supported why you disagree you just tried to discredit me as if to make people think my research efforts are futile, meaningless, or not acceptable. Meanwhile you hold onto an opinion that just doesn't hold up to the information I can produce from that time period, if you disagree than prove it via a similar effort to find and produce evidence don't just be an ass and simply try to dismiss my credibility.

And at this point I've assumed that if I responded with info pertaining to my career and involvement with paleontology-illustration I'd just be exposing myself for getting flamed by anyone who'd like to troll or teach me some sort of lesson for the arrogant moment I had. No thanks. Slight me for the moment of self-promotion, I deserve it, but I'm not posting information about my paleontology background if the intent is just to pick it apart as well.


**EDIT**

If my credibility is really going to be put in the spotlight I guess I can offer some insight about my involvement in paleontology: 

*I work mostly digital with CS5 and a Wacom Intuos4 as my form of media

*I do commissioned work, or when magazines/museums/websites ask for permission to use images I have already produced I release them for said organization's "standard acquisition fee" which varies from place to place - this is how most of my content is used because it's cheaper than any commissioned work. I also occasionally donate.

*I do have to do LOTS of research to be able to do credible Paleontology Illustration. Research about the past - about anatomy - about measurements that have to be precise because facts and physical data has to be spot on. Gray areas have to be speculated based on the best broad understanding of things related so there isn't room for much guess work. This is why I felt comments questioning my research in basketball was unfairly judgmental simply because "I'm 25". 

*My favorite things to research and illustrate are Late-Pleistocene fauna of North America which as a result, is the content of most of my non-commissioned work. 

I'd rather not derail the thread - the thread is about Wilt Chamberlain and basketball.


----------



## Dornado

I see Aaron Gray is still not getting credit for being 7 feet without shoes... the White Panther demands acknowledgement.


----------



## dantheman9758

Dornado said:


> I see Aaron Gray is still not getting credit for being 7 feet without shoes... the White Panther demands acknowledgement.


Your Right, didn't catch him in the draft list I'll edit! -


----------



## Luke

dantheman9758 said:


> What he asked is not even what I claimed.
> 
> Paleontology illustration is what I do, wtf does an internship have to do with what I do? (Do paleontology internships even exist? I've never seen one with the people I worked with)
> 
> My comment in hindsight was admittedly one of very poor form. I came off as gloating. I mentioned it only in retaliation to being dismissed for being "only 25 years old" and for the implication that as a result I must not have a damn clue about the past because I "wasn't there". My father was there, and he doesn't know jack shit about Wilt Chamberlain or basketball of the 1960's. Just because he was from that time doesn't make him more educated about certain things that happened in his time because not everyone pays attention to it. Doing research to learn about history _can_ make someone knowledgeable you know, otherwise what is the point of any historian or a even in my related field of paleontology? Do we simply toss out information about the past? No information get's recorded in various ways - Google news archives and footage from that time are literally windows to that time free of modern tampering and there's plenty of it to paint quite a vivid picture about Wilt and his era. It's just disorganized and takes quite a bit of effort to put together. That won't happen with fans like yourself because it is of little enough interest too outweigh the effort. I've done the research - your quick to dismiss it but not so quick to provide any REAL data that supported why you disagree you just tried to discredit me as if to make people think my research efforts are futile, meaningless, or not acceptable. Meanwhile you hold onto an opinion that just doesn't hold up to the information I can produce from that time period, if you disagree than prove it via a similar effort to find and produce evidence don't just be an ass and simply try to dismiss my credibility.
> 
> And at this point I've assumed that if I responded with info pertaining to my career and involvement with paleontology-illustration I'd just be exposing myself for getting flamed by anyone who'd like to troll or teach me some sort of lesson for the arrogant moment I had. No thanks. Slight me for the moment of self-promotion, I deserve it, but I'm not posting information about my paleontology background if the intent is just to pick it apart as well.
> 
> 
> **EDIT**
> 
> If my credibility is really going to be put in the spotlight I guess I can offer some insight about my involvement in paleontology:
> 
> *I work mostly digital with CS5 and a Wacom Intuos4 as my form of media
> 
> *I do commissioned work, or when magazines/museums/websites ask for permission to use images I have already produced I release them for said organization's "standard acquisition fee" which varies from place to place - this is how most of my content is used because it's cheaper than any commissioned work. I also occasionally donate.
> 
> *I do have to do LOTS of research to be able to do credible Paleontology Illustration. Research about the past - about anatomy - about measurements that have to be precise because facts and physical data has to be spot on. Gray areas have to be speculated based on the best broad understanding of things related so there isn't room for much guess work. This is why I felt comments questioning my research in basketball was unfairly judgmental simply because "I'm 25".
> 
> *My favorite things to research and illustrate are Late-Pleistocene fauna of North America which as a result, is the content of most of my non-commissioned work.
> 
> I'd rather not derail the thread - the thread is about Wilt Chamberlain and basketball.


Honestly I don't really care. I just thought it was funny that you were show casing your career and then proceeded to ignore someone who called you out on it. Not a big deal.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic

Marc Gasol??


----------



## Luke

Or Pau.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic

Hamed Haddadi or Omer Asik?


----------



## dantheman9758

If you don't see them on www.draftexpress.com/measurements or know of independent measurements taken, they may have never been measured barefoot so be very cautious before assuming anyone is legit 7'0 or 7'1 as listed. If it helps here are some rules of thumb advised by the NBA draft and observed by many: 

*If any "7 footer" is American born and raised and get's drafted/signed by the NBA, with a listed 7'0 or 7'1 - honestly they more often than not are not-quite true 7 footers. If they're listed 7'2+ it becomes more likely that they might indeed be a true "7 footer" - but they won't be their listed height they're probably between 7'0-7'1. 

*If they are international players that have played for their home country BEFORE they were adopted into the U.S. basketball media-machine their listed height will typically follow the same rule of thumb as the 1960's players (Double check their international listed heights from before the NBA to be doubly sure) - but generally height's for those guys seem to be accurate to within + or - 0.5" so for example Pau or his brother are both quite plausibly true 7 footers. 

This doesn't negate my underlying point - as I said a small handful of other guys listed at 7'+ are likely to be found in today's league standing above 7 feet out of their shoes... Still, the majority will not. I never even gave a look at that 1971-72 roster. I certainly did not point out "every single" 7 footer from that year either, those guys I listed were literally ones that I remembered offhand and had some bookmarked newspaper articles for. I hope you guys are actually getting the underlying point. The NBA hasn't had a measurable height "increase" since the late 1950's. The bulge in the 1980's is because _the listed heights increased._ And that's 100% due to the media age of the 80's where big money and promotional value was seen in selling these guys as larger-than-real-life. The _actual_ heights of guys that play basketball has not deviated at all since probably the mid 1950's. 7 footers are no more readily available in today's league than they were in ANY of the years Wilt played. 2 other 7 foot players aside from himself actually played in his 1962 season when he scored 50ppg - in a 9 team league the # of times he played "7 footers" in '62 is actually a HIGHER (relative) number of times than Bynum or Gasol will be facing legit "7 footers" this season.

Also I'm gonna go off on a little sidenote here: Has anyone on this thread encountered the kinda basketball fans that dismiss the 1960's because they think it was an era of 6'6 white centers? It's interesting how some people I've come across in other forums quite literally believe the 1960's equated to "white 6'6 centers"... A 6'6 center in the NBA never even happened in the 1960's. What I find most alarming is that this white inferiority-complex and black superiority-complex is still being embedded into the hearts and minds of this generation, it's so annoying. I'm sure some people here know there was once a time in America when "white" kids grew up just as confident and focused to play pro-basketball as any of today's African-American's or White-European players. White International players are literally of identical ancestry to Americans.. it's quite obvious "white" guys still have no trouble what-so-ever making their presence felt in the NBA, same with Bird or Stockton, same with any of those "white guys" from the 1960's or 70's... Oh well... /Rant lol


----------

