# Wilt Chamberlain, Greatest Athlete & Baketball Player ever?



## oldskool (Aug 25, 2011)

I saw Wilt Play many times, and I witnessed his incredible feats. If there was an athlete around like Wilt today it would blow peoples minds!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

17 year old Wilt palming a basketball in each hand using three fingers for each in that video.... ridiculous.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

He's not the best player of all time. Not even close.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> He's not the best player of all time. Not even close.


Yes he is, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Did you ever see the man play? I did. Most dominating player ever.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

oldskool said:


> I saw Wilt Play many times, and I witnessed his incredible feats. If there was an athlete around like Wilt today it would blow peoples minds!


Totally agree. Most people on these boards think basketball started with Jordan. :laugh:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Ron said:


> Yes he is, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Yup. 

:laugh: at "not even close"


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

He looks like dalsim, damn that guy was skinny compared to centers of today.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Ron said:


> Yes he is, you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Did you ever see the man play? I did. Most dominating player ever.


I'm not going to get into a drawn out debate over a player that played before I was born.

What I will say is this, that anyone who puts Wilt over Russell considering the circumstances if choosing to be revisionist. Also, anyone who touts a player that constantly and consistently under preformed in the real season (the playoffs) as the best player of all time doesn't understand what's important.

This is especially ironic coming from one of LeBron's biggest critics on this site. Very ironic.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to me the wilt vs. russell argument is weak when everyone knows russell's supporting cast was the best in nba history and wilt usually owned russell in individual matchups, just the fact they had to change the rules because he was too dominant says all that needs to said.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Da Grinch said:


> to me the wilt vs. russell argument is weak when everyone knows russell's supporting cast was the best in nba history and wilt usually owned russell in individual matchups, just the fact they had to change the rules because he was too dominant says all that needs to said.


Wilt played with more all stars and a comparable number of players that made the NBA's top 50 list. The teammate argument is a myth.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Wilt played with more all stars and a comparable number of players that made the NBA's top 50 list. The teammate argument is a myth.



the day wilt stepped onto an nba court russell had 6 teammates who were hall of famers, there is nothing comparable to that, not mention satch sanders don nelson and halvicek who came along later(i believe he played with 10 hof's and i cant recall someone).

there is nothing comparable to that for anyone else.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

VanillaPrice said:


> Wilt played with more all stars and a comparable number of players that made the NBA's top 50 list. The teammate argument is a myth.


Certainly.

Part of being a better player also includes being a better teammate.

From a pure "skill" standpoint I think Wilt has an argument to being the greatest player ever. He's really a guy who had the ability to do whatever the hell he wanted.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Da Grinch said:


> the day wilt stepped onto an nba court russell had 6 teammates who were hall of famers, there is nothing comparable to that, not mention satch sanders don nelson and halvicek who came along later(i believe he played with 10 hof's and i cant recall someone).
> 
> there is nothing comparable to that for anyone else.


Did you not read the post you quoted? Wilt played with just as many allstars and just as many NBA top 50ers as Russell. Stilt's "poor me! Russell has 30 HOFers on his team!!!!" argument is a myth.

The fact of the matter is that while Wilt _wilted_ (pun intended) in the postseason whereas Russell raised his game to the point where he kicked Wilt's ass out of the playoffs every year.

If you have Wilt as your best player of all time and disinclude LeBron in your top ten then you're a ****ing hypocrit. The only tangible argument that Wilt has is raw numbers and regular season accolades. LeBron has already posted multiple GOAT level statistical regular seasons (from a PER perspective) and has been the best regular season player (by far) for going on four years.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Nearly all of the Russell era Celtics who made it to the Hall of Fame are in because of the number of titles that team won, rather than how good they actually were as players. In fact their inclusion caused the Hall of Fame voters to make it much tougher for above average players to get voted into the Hall. 

It is like saying that Magic Johnson is a great player because he played with James Worthy. It is just a facetious and disingenuous argument.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

VanillaPrice said:


> I'm not going to get into a drawn out debate over a player that played before I was born.
> 
> What I will say is this, that anyone who puts Wilt over Russell considering the circumstances if choosing to be revisionist.


um? we've done this to death but head to head and mano e mano Wilt owned Russell the Celtics had better teams but Wilt was clearly the better player



> Also, anyone who touts a player that constantly and consistently under preformed in the real season (the playoffs) as the best player of all time doesn't understand what's important.


what is this based on again? how is 50/25 under performing? how is 48 mpg underperforming? how is leading the league in scoring and rebounds and assists etc underperforming?



> This is especially ironic coming from one of LeBron's biggest critics on this site. Very ironic.


yeah this whole post is kind of a mess - please bring details and facts so we can debate rather than vague defamations without basis in any fact


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Diable said:


> Nearly all of the Russell era Celtics who made it to the Hall of Fame are in because of the number of titles that team won, rather than how good they actually were as players. In fact their inclusion caused the Hall of Fame voters to make it much tougher for above average players to get voted into the Hall.


so Bob Cousy basically invented the PG position because of Russell (several years before Russell joined the league)? so Sam Jones was the leading scorer on the team and this was because of Russell (well in fact yes it was because Russell was limited offensively) Hondo won several more titles without Russell because of Russell? 

people give Russell well too much credit and his team mates AND Red nowhere near enough



> It is like saying that Magic Johnson is a great player because he played with James Worthy. It is just a facetious and disingenuous argument.


no actually it would be like more like saying that Shaq was better than Ben Wallace but because Big Ben played with Chauncey etc and Shaq was on a disaster cruise with a mass of warring egos Ben wound up winning the series - in fact it would be exactly like that and anyone who tried to argue the other side would look silly (just like they do when they try to argue the merits of Russell's case based on intangible pixie dust and leadership (on a team with Red and 5 future hall of fame head coaches)

(also 'facetious' is probably not what you mean unless you think someone was trying to make a joke - there is a joke being perpetrated here but you arent on the right side of it)


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I have never seen Russell play but comparing him to Big Ben might be way too much of a stretch here...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

e-monk said:


> um? we've done this to death but head to head and mano e mano Wilt owned Russell the Celtics had better teams but Wilt was clearly the better player
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wilt's numbers plummet and Russell's improve when they played head to head (Wilt still had the edge) but Bill won the vast majority of the time. Did Chamberlain ever beat the Celtics in the playoffs? I believe he did once over the course of a decade.

Did you not read the post? Here, I'll spell it out for you - if what's important in regards to the best player of all time is statistical dominance and regular season stats, then absolutely, Wilt is on the short list of greatest players ever, if not the greatest. But the fact of the matter is that his play diminished greatly in the playoffs (the *real* season) and he consistently under preformed in the big moments. Winning two titles in a talent depleted league (one of which he was arguably Jerry's sidekick) does not look like the best basketball player of all time. At least in my opinion.

The LeBron comparison makes perfect sense. Two insane athletes that have dominated the regular season like few (or really no) player has ever done. But both are notoriously chokers when it came to the big stage and were out preformed by their peers.

Wilt is an all time great (as is 'Bron) but he, nor James, is the best player ever. Period. That honor should go to someone who dominated all year round.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Did you not read the post you quoted? Wilt played with just as many allstars and just as many NBA top 50ers as Russell. Stilt's "poor me! Russell has 30 HOFers on his team!!!!" argument is a myth.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that while Wilt _wilted_ (pun intended) in the postseason whereas Russell raised his game to the point where he kicked Wilt's ass out of the playoffs every year.
> 
> If you have Wilt as your best player of all time and disinclude LeBron in your top ten then you're a ****ing hypocrit. The only tangible argument that Wilt has is raw numbers and regular season accolades. LeBron has already posted multiple GOAT level statistical regular seasons (from a PER perspective) and has been the best regular season player (by far) for going on four years.


1st of all you run off wilts all star teammates like its even and top 50 teammates like it means something.

at no point did wilt have 6 all stars or top 50 players on his team , russell was not only playing with HOF's but hOF's in their prime and a bunch of them at all times , not a couple with the warriors and a couple with the 76ers and a coupole more with the lakers in any odd season , it really is a ridiculous argument you are making .

this has nothing to do with lebron i dont see why you are even trying to run away by using him.

the best argument wilt has is the powers that be thought him so dominant they instituted rules specifically to slow him down and lower his dominance...no such rules for russell or anyone really except mikan who was the game's 1st dominant big man.

wilt>russell in virtually every way


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Da Grinch said:


> 1st of all you run off wilts all star teammates like its even and top 50 teammates like it means something.
> 
> at no point did wilt have 6 all stars or top 50 players on his team , russell was not only playing with HOF's but hOF's in their prime and a bunch of them at all times , not a couple with the warriors and a couple with the 76ers and a coupole more with the lakers in any odd season , it really is a ridiculous argument you are making .
> 
> ...


Because they had comparable talent around them. Just because teams shipped Wilt around because he never got it done is irrelevent. Wilt played with talented guys out there. Chamberlain played with guys like Jerry West, Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond and many more.

LeBron is a valuable comtemporary because he's essentially the modern day Wilt in a 6'8 body. I'm not running away from anything.

The best argument against Wilt is the postseason. His scoring and efficieny plummet (30 to 22 PPG, below average efficiency) whereas Russell's raise to 17 whilst outrebounding and averaging more assists despite a much lower usage rate. He won one title against the Celtics over his entire career and that was at the tail end of Bill's tenure in the league.


----------



## Pump Bacon (Dec 11, 2010)

Wilt's definitely one of the greatest of all time whether its basketball or athletically. He was a truly remarkable specimen of a human being with a HOF career loaded with records that will remain untouchable.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Because they had comparable talent around them. Just because teams shipped Wilt around because he never got it done is irrelevent. Wilt played with talented guys out there. Chamberlain played with guys like Jerry West, Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond and many more.
> 
> LeBron is a valuable comtemporary because he's essentially the modern day Wilt in a 6'8 body. I'm not running away from anything.
> 
> The best argument against Wilt is the postseason. His scoring and efficieny plummet (30 to 22 PPG, below average efficiency) whereas Russell's raise to 17 whilst outrebounding and averaging more assists despite a much lower usage rate. He won one title against the Celtics over his entire career and that was at the tail end of Bill's tenure in the league.


in most years he played 2 or so such players , while russell on avg played with 6

you are making a disingenuous argument ...nate thurmond really ? was nate even a decent player when they played together?

he was by all acounts a scrub the only season they played together 7 pts a game .395 fg career lows 12.1 PER

6 still beats 2 and apparently your 2 gets shaky when you want to throw nate thurmond in the mix.

wilt in the playoffs shot less but his efficiency didn't plummet it went down like everyone else's in the playoffs his fg% went from .540 to .522 KAJ's went from .559 to .533 shaq went from .582 to .563 russell went from .440 to .430.

wilt and lebron are not contemporaries one is a 7 ft plus center the other is a 6'8 point forward , at the time there was no one bigger and stronger than wilt , there are plenty of players currently bigger and stronger than James


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

At the end of the day none of that matters because Wilt couldn't step up on the biggest stage, and the best player of all time most certainly needs to be cold blooded in those situations. Quit dodging it all you want, but Chamberlain was, for the vast majority of his career, a choker. And I'm not comfortable with calling a player who dominated the regular season and nothing else the best player of all time. Period.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> At the end of the day none of that matters because Wilt couldn't step up on the biggest stage, and the best player of all time most certainly needs to be cold blooded in those situations. Quit dodging it all you want, but Chamberlain was, for the vast majority of his career, a choker. And I'm not comfortable with calling a player who dominated the regular season and nothing else the best player of all time. Period.


To be fair, neither one is the greatest player of all time.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dornado said:


> To be fair, neither one is the greatest player of all time.


That's true.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*"Wilt is playing better than I used to* -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." 
-- *Bill Russell*, Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24 

"One-on-one he [Wilt]* would've murdered Russell and everyone*. But playing five-on-five, Wilt was consigned to a specific role because of his ability to score so easily, whereas the Celtics fit Russell into their team concept better." 
--Red Holzman, A View form the Bench, p. 78 

"I have great respect for Wilt. When I was with the Lakers, he never missed a practice or a game, or was late for a plane. If I asked him to make an appearance, he did it. This man has gone through life with a bad rap. We are talking about a very good person." 
--Fred Schaus, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 334 

"People lose sight of the fact that Wilt was a 440 champion, a guy with great coordination. He also was so strong that the double-teaming defenses used today wouldn't bother him." 
--Wayne Embry (GM for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327 

"If [the referee] is calling [the game] loose then everyone gets away with more. So, you have to handle your own man accordingly, *unless it's Wilt Chamberlain. Him, you just don't handle. He's too strong. The best you can do is make him work hard." *-- *Bill Russell*, Go up For Glory p.100.

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket *the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. * With Wilt, of course, *there's that offense on top of it*, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers." 
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then." 
--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

"I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for the money than Wilt did during his career. Eddie Gottlieb [owner of the Warriors] wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did. [Alex] Hannum and some of his other coaches wanted him to pass and play defense, so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night. Those who criticized Wilt -- first for his scoring, then for not scoring more -- really should have criticized his employer." 
--Leonard Koppett, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 329 


*head-to-head numbers:*
Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference)

In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5ppg and 23.7rpg

Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62, and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt.

Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell, and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. Bill.
Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt.

Wilt's teams lost all 4 seventh games against Russell's Celtics... (Russell's Celtics were 10-0 in game 7s during his career).

The total margin of defeat in those four 7th games was *nine points*

(begin the teammate argument because head-to-head is a no-contest)

Russell was limited offensively, Wilt essentially unstoppable

playing the same role on the boards (i.e. primary rebounder except Wilt was also primary offense and Russell wasnt which means he should have been available for more o-boards to no avail) Chamberlain more or leass swept him on rebounding titles (like 9 of the 11 seasons they were both active Wilt lead the league in rebounding).

passing? who was the only center in the history of the association to lead the league in assists?(and he almost did it twice) - not Bill Russell


Russel's intangibles were great no doubt but he had lots of hall of fame bound team-mates on a dynasty team run by the best coach/gm of his era running a system he fit into perfectly 

ultimately unless you award points for pixie dust intangibles this is a joke

(pin this and close the damn thread)


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Interesting stuff. I've never claimed to be an expert on NBA in the 60's because I wasn't alive, so it's always cool to see unread quotes/facts or whatever. 

But back to why I entered this thread in the first place - emonk, do you actually believe that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player of all time?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Interesting stuff. *I've never claimed to be an expert on NBA in the 60's because I wasn't alive, so it's always cool to see unread quotes/facts or whatever. *
> 
> But back to why I entered this thread in the first place - emonk, do you actually believe that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player of all time?


What the f? 

So you are willing to aknowledge the fact you know little (if anything!) about Wilt, but you are dissing on him (in this thread) just the same?

What the f? 

The Monk's quotes are easy to find, if you wanna know a little about Wilt Chamberlain.
F, just go arounf nbs.com and check him out, for Pete's sake!:



> He was basketball's unstoppable force, the most awesome offensive force the game has ever seen. Asked to name the greatest players ever to play basketball, most fans and aficionados would put Wilt Chamberlain at or near the top of the list.
> Dominating the game as few players in any sport ever have, Chamberlain seemed capable of scoring and rebounding at will, despite the double- and triple-teams and constant fouling tactics that opposing teams used to try to shut him down.
> As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The books don't lie."





> But the most outstanding figures are his scoring records; Most games with 50+ points, 118; Most consecutive games with 40+ points, 14; Most consecutive games with 30+ points: 65; Most consecutive games with 20+ points: 126; Highest rookie scoring average: 37.6 ppg; Highest field goal percentage in a season: .727. And with many of these, the player in second place is far behind. His name appears so often in the scoring record books that his name could be the default response any time a question arises concerning a scoring record in the NBA.





> During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).





> When Chamberlain finally slipped on a Philadelphia uniform for the start of the 1959-60 season, the basketball world eagerly awaited the young giant's debut -- and he didn't disappoint. In his first game, against the Knicks in New York, he pumped in 43 points and grabbed 28 rebounds. In a sensational rookie year, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 points and 27.0 rebounds and was named NBA Rookie of the Year, All-Star Game Most Valuable Player and NBA Most Valuable Player as well as being selected to the All-NBA First Team. Only Wes Unseld would duplicate Chamberlain's feat of winning Rookie of the Year and MVP honors in the same season. (Unseld did it in 1968-69.)





> Chamberlain's inaugural season seemed to take a heavy toll on him. After the postseason loss to Boston, the rookie stunned his fans by announcing that he was thinking of retiring because of the excessively rough treatment he had endured from opponents. He feared that if he played another season, he would be forced to retaliate, and that wasn't something he wanted to do.
> In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."


Etc-. etc..

Study up, kid. Basketball-recference.com only takes you so far...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I never claimed to know everything about Wilt. I do know a good amount about the player. Granted, seeing as it's you, I can understand the confusion.

Playoff chokers can't be considered the best player of all time. Cry about the teammate myth, or whatever fabricated reason Dipper fans have to defend their idol. But at the end of the day, a choker is a choker.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Oh, and as cute as posting nba.com/history's article on Wilt is, that's not quite the same as e-monk bringing lesser known quotes and head to head match ups to the table.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

by lesser known quotes do you mean Bill Russell saying 'Wilt is playing better than I used to'?

by play off choker do you mean willing lesser teams to within 9 points of the greatest dynasty the association has known? here are Wilt's supposed 'choke jobs' 1) the infamous Willis Reed game - people forget that Wilt played 12 whole regular season games that season after a cataclysmic knee injury from which he never really recovered: did Mike 'choke' against the Magic(he had more time to get back in the swing than Wilt did)? 2)the balloons game? Van Breda Kolff held him out of the last few minutes of the game despite his request that he be put back in (it was a 1 pt game with 2 minutes left)
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_NBA_Finals ) - when else did he 'choke'

there is the player and there is the team - player to player Wilt was clearly better - offense? no question. Rebounds? lead the league 9 out of 11 times while Russell was around, lead the head to head match-ups. Passing? only C to lead the league, higher season averages than Russell ever posted. defense? closer than you might think according to Carl Braun, Red Holzman and Russell himself - so all you've got left is pixie dust intangibles and 'leadership' on a team with arguably the greatest coach/gm of all time and several future title winning/hall of fame coaches on the roster (how much leadership did they really need?)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

VanillaPrice said:


> But back to why I entered this thread in the first place - emonk, do you actually believe that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player of all time?


I would put 3 guys at the top of the list and bitch out of a final resolution on the question:

Mike
Wilt
Kareem

you could make solid arguments for any of the three - I do take Mike's titles with a grain of salt due to the double dip watering down of the expansions and salary cap regulations that kicked in right about the time his bulls started dominating

and I would like to mention that Wilt was on TWO different teams that set the (at the time) record for wins - and both teams went onto win titles (it's not like he never got a ring)


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

His numbers drastically drop in the playoffs and it's well known that he had problems closing games out. He won two titles, but the second one was in the complimentary role (ala KG in '08, arguably the best player, but not first option) to Jerry West. So he led his team to one title during his entire career as the main man in a league that is nothing compared to the post merger NBA. I'm not overly impressed.

He's probably the best regular season player ever. But his playoff resume falls from legendary from november - april to merely great in the post season. And that's not necessary a bad thing, not everyone can be a hero, but the best player of all time should be.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> His numbers drastically drop in the playoffs and it's well known that he had problems closing games out. He won two titles, but the second one was in the complimentary role (ala KG in '08, arguably the best player, but not first option) to Jerry West. So he led his team to one title during his entire career as the main man in a league that is nothing compared to the post merger NBA. I'm not overly impressed.
> 
> He's probably the best regular season player ever. But his playoff resume falls from legendary from november - april to merely great in the post season. And that's not necessary a bad thing, not everyone can be a hero, but the best player of all time should be.



you do realize he is still the best statistically in the playoffs too , no other player in history can claim a 20-20 career avg. in the playoffs(no one btw is even close) ....and has won a finals mvp so i dont think calling him a choker is by any means accurate.

he is far and away the best player in the regular season , the margin might be closer in the playoffs but Wilt is still ahead of any individual by a country mile.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> Oh, and as cute as posting nba.com/history's article on Wilt is, that's not quite the same as e-monk bringing lesser known quotes and head to head match ups to the table.


lol.
Please stop and spare yourself a beating.

Monk's a pretty smart poster, but really, you are talking about Wilr Chamberlain and haven't yet come across airjudden's site (wich contains the quotes Monk has put forth - and i have been doing the same for the last 5 years or so)?

If you want to discuss Wilt Chamberlain using basketball-reference.com, yuu are way over your head, young grasshopper.

I'll make it simple for you to understand:

1- How many players in the history of the game have seen the NBA rules changed because of said player (to his detriment, not to his benefit - like Jordan)?

2- How many non-PG players in the history of the game do you imagine could lead the league in assists?

3- How many players in the history of the game were Finals MVP at age 36?

4- How many were MVP in their rookie year?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> His numbers drastically drop in the playoffs and *it's well known that he had problems closing games out. *


Link, please (i'm not taking your word for it!).



> He won two titles, but the second one was in the complimentary role (ala KG in '08, arguably the best player, but not first option) to Jerry West.


Who won Finals MVP? 
And why?



> So he led his team to one title during his entire career as the main man in a league that is nothing compared to the post merger NBA. I'm not overly impressed.


If you know anything about the "post merger NBA", how do you rank Jordan's 6 championships against Magic's 5 and Bird's 2?



> He's probably the best regular season player ever. But his playoff resume falls from legendary from november - april to merely great in the post season. And that's not necessary a bad thing, not everyone can be a hero, but the best player of all time should be.


I'll just leave you with this: if the league prevented Jordan from palming, carrying and travelling, one would say that they were simply uppholding the rules (wich they didn't btw). In Wilt's case, the NBA *changed *the rules the game was played *because *of him.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

btw in case you missed it Wilt was the anchor member of two of the top 4 teams ever in terms of games won - two teams that experts commonly list amongst the greatest teams of all time

and

why do you think it's ok to belittle his role on that Lakers squad (i.e. defensive anchor, rebounding monster, offensive facilitator etc)

while giving West (who bombed out against the Knicks and despite the mvp nod tired out and begged out against the Celts "In Game 3, Russell decided to double-team West, and the guard's exhaustion finally took its toll: West asked twice to be subbed for longer periods, and both times the Lakers fell back by double digits and finally lost by six points" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_West) 

and yet shit on Sam Jones and give Russell all the credit for doing the exact same thing but with a ton less efficiency?

and finally 

let me explain something about statistics - Wilt went thru several phases in his career - primary scorer putting up 50ppg etc, secondary scorer/facilitator putting up mid 20s but leading the league in assists and reboundign and finally Russell-esque defensive anchor/board lord (well he was always the latter) - here's the thing about the statistics - he played 1045 regular season games so those roles tend to express in a more balanced way in the regular season (i.e. hundreds of games averaging 50, 40, 30 ppg balance out hundreds scoring less for an average of 30ppg) 

the play-offs on the other hand are obviously much shorter than the regular season - alot less games, a much smaller sample size - over his career Wilt played in 160 play-off games 

but

half of those happened AFTER he entered his third phase (and was in his 30s post 68) so guess what you SHOULD expect to happen to his career ppg averages in the play-offs? (and remember they added rounds and changed the formatting of the play-offs later in his career too)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

PauloCatarino said:


> If you know anything about the "post merger NBA", how do you rank Jordan's 6 championships against Magic's 5 and Bird's 2?


I want to take a stab 

Wilt's 66-67 76ers were the last pre-ABA title winner and they beat Russell's Celtics in a 5 game stomp and set the record for most wins (at the time) - perennial contender for one of the top 3 teams of all time

the 71-72 Lakers (another perenial all time team contender) won 69 games (and a still record 33 straight) but this was well into the ABA era so you have to take some of this with a grain of salt

Magic and Larry were playing in the most competitive era of all time - post merger, 22-24 teams, teams were seriously deeper (I always like to point out how Stockton and Malone in their physical primes couldnt get out of conference despite a 2 time DPOY tagging along but did so twice as 'old' (early to mid 30s) men with Greg Ostertag) - so their title counts are probably the most meaningful but at the same time (ironically) they have to share the credit with their team mates a little more for the same reasons (i.e. they had a lot more help)

Mike had less quality teammates but (especially in the second 3 (see Jazz point above)) less quality competition

so basically the top 3 wins all times teams (Wilt's Lakers, Mike x2) happened because the league was watered down (by ABA, expansion, salary cap) at the time


(how did I do?)


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

PauloCatarino said:


> Link, please (i'm not taking your word for it!).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fact that he was the most athletically dominant player of the era, had ample help, and only defeated the one player with reasonable athleticism in comparison (Russell) once in the span of a decade. The fact that he only won two championships and one was when he joined forces with a top five guard ever.

The consensus is that the NBA peaked from 1980 to 1993. After that we saw expansion and therefore a watered down product, as well as the loss of some of the league's best players. Only since 2008 has the NBA really been back in a solid state as a whole.

Jordan's first three titles came against elite competition and he was otherworldly. I wouldn't say that it was *quite* up to par with Magic's five and Larry's three, but the talent pool was certainly comparable. In Jordan's second three peat I've always maintained that he got the benefit from playing in a weaker league (72 wins happened in an expansion season) and exploited weaker teams en route to three more championships. As e-monk stated, the Jazz were every bit as good for nearly a decade until they finally broke through the western conference, and an objective fan has to realize that them breaking through has more to do with the mediocre competition than anything else.


----------



## CJPhillips (Jun 27, 2005)

Of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (selected in 1996) have had the opportunity to watch 33 of them play and had the fortune of interviewing majority of the 50 all accept Arizin, Mikan and Schayes. As a coach or guest organizer, was on a first-name basis with 10 of the said above. Continue to be involved with the game at various levels and various functions be it a writer, historian, coach, administrator etc. With that background in place let it be said "There has never been a player of Wilt's athletic talents in any shape or form to have stepped out on to the hardwood."

Wilt vs Jordan

Wilt is simply more dominating. While Wilt's only flaw was free throws, Jordan was not a great three point shooter?

From the guard position Jordan averaged one asst/game more than Wilt during his career. The rules of what an assist would be changed after Chamberlain. If they were interpreted the same in his day he would have way more than Jordan
Jordan's took way more shots than Wilt, yet both averaged 30.1 ppg during their careers.

Wilt was a far better scorer as he changed his game in later years and let over players score while he led the fast break of rebounds and outlets. Wilt could have finished his career easily with a 35 to 38 ppg average.

Wilt was far far stronger than Shaq...no comparison. Just ask any old time basketball historian or player that had seen both play....including yours truly.

Jordan has also received the benefit of rules changes that have been implemented to help offensive players, such as well-defined rules concerning zones, rules against hand checking, and flagrant fouls. 

Jordan never came close to threatening Wilt's 100 point game or 50.4 PPG average, and scoring is supposed to be Jordan's specialty, let alone Wilt's 8.6 APG in a season, or his rebounding numbers, or his 72.7% field goal percentage. 

Finally, consider each player's ability to carry a team. Wilt came into the league and carried a bad team to immediate contention. He took the 1962 Warriors, not a great team, to the 7th game of the conference finals, where they lost by 2 points on a controversial call, to the champion Celtics.

Jordan, on the other hand, came into the league and joined a losing team and after 3 years, they were STILL a losing team. He was 1-9 in the playoffs and posted 3 consecutive losing seasons. 

Jordan scored 50 or more points 31 times in his career. Wilt did it 45 times in one season!

Wilt vs Bill Russell 

Wilt and Russell squared off 142 times. Wilt averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds in those games. Russell averaged 23.7 points and 14.5 rebounds against Wilt (Russell's career average was 22.5 and Wilt's was 22.9, so it sure looks like Russell wasn't controlling the boards in those games!) Wilt had a 62 point game on January 14, 1962, in Boston and had 6 other games of 50 points against Russell. The most Russell ever scored against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30-point games. 

Wilt grabbed an NBA-record 55 rebounds against Russell on November 24, 1960, and had six other games of at least 40 rebounds against Russell. When the Sixers beat the Celtics in the 1967 playoffs, Wilt averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds, and 10 assists -- a triple double-- against Russell! In the clinching game 5, he had 29 points, 36 rebounds, and 13 assists. If all of this is being "shut down" then Michael Jordan has been shut down by the Cleveland Cavaliers during his entire career. Michael Cooper shut down Larry Bird in the finals, because the Lakers beat the Celtics 2 out of 3 times! If this is being "shut down", then there isn't a player in the NBA that hasn't been "shut down" every single night of his career! 

Many of Wilt’s teammates during that era were anything but Hall of Famers, whereas Bill Russell shared the court with seven of them.Wilt, without a great supporting cast, nearly defeated some of the greatest “teams” in NBA history merely on the strength of his own ability

Other Tidbits

Wilt was never the tallest player in the NBA during his entire career! If height makes a great plyer what about Yao Ming, Rik Smits, Shawn Bradley, Chuck Nevitt, Mark Eaton, Randy Breuer, Ralph Sampson and the list goes on and on of players who were several inches taller than Wilt. Height doesn’t equate to dominance.

Wilt clocked in 48.5 minutes per night in 1961-62 in a league that was run and gun. His stamina is unmatched.

Hakeem, Ewing, Parish, and company couldn't stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when they were in their prime and Kareem an old man. Yet as an old man Wilt blocked and owned Kareem when Kareem - two inches taller - was in his prime.

DID YOU KNOW? 

Wilt, not Bill Willoughby, was the first player drafted by the NBA out of high school. However, he was required to wait four years until he could join the NBA. Wilt played with the Harlem Globetrotters for one season (and during some summers) and played guard. 


Wilt wasn't allowed to play his freshman year at Kansas University (NCAA rules). However, at the exhibition varsity vs. freshman game during Wilt's freshman year, 14,000 people showed up to see him. He led the freshmen to victory -- the only time the freshmen ever beat the varsity -- scoring 42 points. 


The distance from the tip of Wilt's middle finger to the break of his wrist was 9-1/2 inches. 

Wilt was offered a contract to play for the Kansas City Chiefs.

In Wilt's FIRST varsity game at KU, the Jayhawks beat Northwestern 87-69. Wilt scored 52 points, which is STILL a school record, and grabbed 31 rebounds, which no other player in KU history has ever topped (and is 2nd, only to his 36 rebound game, he had 2 years later). 

Wilt's teams never lost to a team in the finals that had less hall of fame players than his had? In Wilt's first NBA game, he scored 43 points on 17-of-20 shooting, grabbed 28 rebounds, and (unofficially) blocked 17 shots. 


The night Wilt scored 100 points, he grabbed 25 rebounds -- and it was a below average rebounding night for that season! On the night Wilt scored 100 points, he hit 28 of 32 free throws. 


Wilt was not the tallest guy in the NBA in 1962. Swede Halbrook (7'3") was. Wilt was not the first 7 foot player in the NBA. Walter Dukes (1955) was. 


Wilt, unlike other big men, was an amazing leaper. He won the Big 7 in the high jump his junior year of college. Along with the high jump, Wilt competed in the shot put and the long (broad) jump in college. 

Wilt's "go-to" move was not the dunk, but rather the finger roll and the fade away jump shot. 


Wilt got his nickname "The Big Dipper" from friends because he dipped under doorways. Wilt did not like being called "the stilt." 

Wilt never fouled out of a game, (however, he was ejected from 2.) 


In 1962, Wilt played all but 9 minutes for the entire season. Wilt is one of only 2 players to have won the MVP in his rookie season. (Wes Unseld is the other) 

The year before Wilt arrived, the Warriors were 32-40. Wilt's first season, they improved 17 games to 49-26. 

Wilt used to lift weights with Arnold Shwartzenegger and Wilt got his bench press up to 500 pounds. 
In the 1967 Eastern Conference Finals against Bill Russell, Wilt averaged 22 ppg, 32 rpg, and 10 apg. 

Wilt has authored 5 books. 

Wilt ran the Honolulu Marathon and competed in a 50 mile Canadian race -- when he was over 60 years old! In his career, Wilt led the league in points, rebounds, field goal percentage and assists. 


Wilt coached for part of a season. He signed a contract to be a player-coach for the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA. However, the Lakers took him to court, and prevented him from playing, claiming that he owed them an option year on his contract. 

In his final season, at the age of 36, Wilt was voted first team all-defense and led the league in rebounds and shot a record 72.7% from the field. 


The league tried widening the lanes and changing rules in a futile attempt to slow his domination. 

The Big Dipper played 3,882 of his team’s 3,890 minutes or 99.8%, the highest percentage by any player in any season in NBA history in 1961-62. He was thrown our of a game with two technicals in one game.


Only athlete to be MVP in two pro sports. Was co-MVP with my good friend Garth Pischke of Winnipeg in the International Volleyball Association in 1976 when Wilt was in his 40s!

How's this for a 10 game stretch for scoring in the last 10 games of the regular season for him 54 - 65 - 67 - 61 - 100 - 58 - 58 - 40 - 34 - 34

Why did Wilt not get the accolades? He had a huge ego. He coasted sometimes. He was a black man dating white women - by the dozens - and the white media and management of this era did not like it. He was out spoken.

At a Hollywood Celebrity Function beat Jim Brown in a 100 yard race, threw the shot put farther then world champion Al Otter

Wilt could bench press 500 pounds!

In his 50s' in a scrimmage he dominated Magic Johnson!

There is no centre in today's NBA that could run as fast our jump as high as Wilt. Computer simulations have proven it.

That 1971-72 Lakers squad led by Wilt also posted the longest winning streak in NBA history that year, winning 33 games in a row between November 5, 1971 and January 7, 1972, which is 11 full games ahead of the second longest streak by the 2007-08 Houston Rockets who won 22 in a row between January 29, 2008 and March 18, 2008

One story told is about an incident that occurred between rising star center Walter Bellamy of the Chicago Packers (now the Washington Wizards). Bellamy was a 6-11 245 lbs behemoth who averaged 31.6 PPG and 19.0 RPG that season, second only to Wilt in scoring. The first time they played against each other, Bellamy is said to have approached Wilt saying, “Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I’m Walter Bellamy.” Wilt returned his greeting, shaking his hand and saying, “Hello, Walter. You won’t get a shot off in the first half.” Wilt was true to his word, going out and blocking Bellamy’s first nine shots.

Wilt's vertical makes Dwight Howard look ill....



How many 7 footers have led the league in rebounding? Three? Four? Wilt did it 11 times!



Wilt was a two-time NBA Champion, winning titles with the Philadelphia 76ers in 1967, and the Los Angeles Lakers in 1972, and led his teams to the NBA Finals six times. In five other campaigns he reached the Division (now known as the Conference) or Conference Finals, losing each time to the eventual NBA Champion—Boston four times and Milwaukee once.



In seven of the eleven Division (Conference) or NBA Finals appearances, his teams took the series to seven games five times, and another two to six games. His teams were never swept out of those Division (Conference) or NBA Finals



Chamberlain had broken his hand late in Game Four (although it was called a ‘sprain’ by the team), and it needed to be wrapped heavily for him to even take the court in Game 5 of NBA finals. The old man proceeded to show exactly why he was considered such a force among his peers, scoring 24 points and grabbing 29 rebounds as the Lakers demolished the Knicks 114-100





Some rule changes to prevent Wilt from dominating game.

- Offensive goaltending rule

- Inbound pass over the backboard

- The dunk from the foul line in a free-throw attempt

- The Alley oop

- Also widened the lane in an attempt to slow his progress down Seconds allowed in the lane


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> I want to take a stab
> 
> Wilt's 66-67 76ers were the last pre-ABA title winner and they beat Russell's Celtics in a 5 game stomp and set the record for most wins (at the time) - perennial contender for one of the top 3 teams of all time
> 
> ...


You could have gone further, young grasshopper. 
Fine post, but a little "short".

Fact is, *competition *defines winning.

Wilt didn't "win enough" because he played in an era ruled by the Greatest Team Ever.
The 80's were really the most competitive era of basketball, where great, stacked teams like Boston, Philly, LA, Detroit, Houston, and many others provided great battles. And yet, no team dominated the others for long.
This was the time when the MJ's Bulls were being swept by the Bird's Celtics. The time when a team with two all-time greats like John and Karl never got far (as you mentioned). And even Akeem, without Sampson, was an afterthought.

Guys like Jordan, Duncan, Kobe and Shaq thrived in a watered down era. Guys like Bird, KAJ, MO, Doc, Magic, Zeke (the dude who conquered Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers and MJ's Bulls) had to grind it out.

With that in context, why would Wilt "had to win more", when he played in the times of the GReatest BAsketball Team Ever?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

@ CJP - way to walk into the middle of a conversation and just take a dump over everything without bothering to read anything that had been posted previously

@PC - "Why would Wilt 'had to win more'" - if that's in response to something in my post (which you quoted) I dont know what and if not I still dont follow what you're saying - remember I was the one rebutting vanilla (you know the one with young Wilt head at rim level as my avatar?)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> @PC - "Why would Wilt 'had to win more'" - *if that's in response to something in my post (which you quoted) I dont know *what and if not I still dont follow what you're saying - remember I was the one rebutting vanilla (you know the one with young Wilt head at rim level as my avatar?)


Not a response, Monk, but a continuation of the "competition" argument.

People often knock on Wilt Chamberlain because he didn't "win" enough (team-wise, off course) to be considered the GOAT. 

IMHO, Wilt had to deal with tougher competition than great players after him. And mainly, the juggernault that were the Dinasty Celtics, the greatst Team of All-Time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ok - sorry for the misunderstanding - but from that point of view dont you then have to give the nod to Magic and his 5 titles in 80s when the competition was toughest?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> ok - sorry for the misunderstanding - but from that point of view dont you then have to give the nod to Magic and his 5 titles in 80s when the competition was toughest?


Sure. That's why i have Magic #2 in my all-time list.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I actually appreciates CJP's post. A nice resume of his achievements.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

really? you dont think half of his post had already been stated in the thread previous to his posting?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

I read his post and enjoyed it too. 

This is entire thread has been enlightening to say the least. Arguably my favourite basketball discussion I've seen on this board in a while.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ok well it's a little repetitive let's just say - did you know that Wilt averaged 48.5 mpg during the 61-62 season? it's true! did you know that he played in 99.8% of the minutes in the 61-62 season? really, it's true! and by the way maybe you dont realize this but in 61-62 he played in all but 9 minutes of the season - did you know that? huh huh? because it's true - I guess just a little editing would have been welcome but who am I to quibble?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

:laugh:

It could have been more concise but at least it was all together in one post and you didn't have to work to piece it together.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

My problem with CJ's post is that the majority of it were things we already know. Everybody knows Wilt averaged 50 a game for a season. Everybody knows about his 48.5 minute season. It's just kind of common knowladge. I'm open to hearing arguments as to why Wilt is better than Russell, (though I personally wouldn't say he had a better career) but I'm going to need a little more than his volleyball achievements to sway me.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

What I liked was that it was all in one place.

But Wilt stronger than Shaq!? Really!? I can't see that being true. Wilt looks like a stick next to Shaq.

Can anybody who have seen both of them play confirm this!?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

VanillaPrice said:


> My problem with CJ's post is that the majority of it were things we already know. Everybody knows Wilt averaged 50 a game for a season. Everybody knows about his 48.5 minute season. It's just kind of common knowladge. *I'm open to hearing arguments as to why Wilt is better than Russell,* (though I personally wouldn't say he had a better career) but I'm going to need a little more than his volleyball achievements to sway me.


If you are talking about inadividual greatness (and not team winnings), then you got it all wrong, young grasshopper. Absolutelu no one ranks Russell over Wilt considering pure individual play. No one.

Russell won more (much, MUCH more), yes. But that's it. 
Wilt was, by far, the superior player, individually considered.

In facto, i would loooove to hear you propo Russell over Wilt in that regard...


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Dee-Zy said:


> What I liked was that it was all in one place.
> 
> But Wilt stronger than Shaq!? Really!? I can't see that being true. Wilt looks like a stick next to Shaq.
> 
> Can anybody who have seen both of them play confirm this!?


yes - I cant find a link but circa filming Conan Wilt and the Governator were workout buddies and the Governator is on record as saying Wilt was the strongest guy he ever worked out with - strongest, Arnold, period.

also the Wilt who looks like a string bean (as in my avatar picture) is like 17-21 - the Wilt who was that strong was like in his late 20s and after and weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 280lbs 

also Shaq is a fat bastard and not exactly a fan of weight training (unlike Wilt who basically pioneered it)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> yes - I cant find a link but circa filming Conan Wilt and the Governator were workout buddies and the Governator is on record as saying Wilt was the strongest guy he ever worked out with - strongest, Arnold, period.
> 
> also the Wilt who looks like a string bean (as in my avatar picture) is like 17-21 - the Wilt who was that strong was like in his late 20s and after and weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 280lbs
> 
> also Shaq is a fat bastard and not exactly a fan of weight training (unlike Wilt who basically pioneered it)


Where are Wilt's fotos in "Conan the BArbarian"??


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

PauloCatarino said:


> If you are talking about inadividual greatness (and not team winnings), then you got it all wrong, young grasshopper. Absolutelu no one ranks Russell over Wilt considering pure individual play. No one.
> 
> Russell won more (much, MUCH more), yes. But that's it.
> Wilt was, by far, the superior player, individually considered.
> ...


The goal of playing basketball is to win. That's the only goal. Not to individually domiante the stat sheet, and not to go on historic scoring runs. The goal is to win. Bill Russell understood this and therefore won more than any other player in the history of professional team sports, and that's an impressive feat no matter how you slice it.

Wilt played with his fair share of HOF teammates and could not beat Russell on a consistent (or really any, outside of '67) basis, and that's why I have a problem with ranking Wilt higher. He put up prettier stats and was definitely more individually dominant, I have no problem admitting that. But he didn't buy into a team concept until his later years when he was passed his physical peak, and hence doesn't have a fifth of the hardware that Russ does.

From the bits and pieces I've seen of Russell on tape, and from the numerous documentaries I've seen/read, everything points to this - Bill did what the Celtics needed him to do in order to win basketball games. Whether it was being the premier defender of his era, a ferocious rebounder, help run the offense or start the break, Bill did what was asked for him and his teams won 11 championships in 13 years. That's remarkable.

Again, I've only seen bits and pieces of Wilt (most of which was latter day Wilt) and he just doesn't seem to get "it". He wanted to win and be as successful as Russell, you can tell just by looking at his demeanor. But he didn't understand the concept that less is more. How many teams have won championships with their lead player averaging well over 30 points a game? As far as I know, none. Basketball is a team game and young Wilt didn't involve his teammates to the point where I feel they were hesitant in big moments, and often depended on a less than stellar closer and Shaq-lite free throw shooter to bail them out, and that's not a recipe for success. Then later Wilt decided that the best way for him to win was to average crazy assist numbers and essentially abandon his trait that made him the legend he is remembered as - his scoring ability. He obviously did not understand when to be the alpha and when to be complimentary, and that added with his *clear* love of statistics and breaking records was not an effective way to *win championships.*

Chamberlain was talented enough and surrounded by a super team in '67 and they won the title (I believe in Russell's first season as player-coach?) but that's about it as far as his winning as the sole batman. As we all know he won again in '72, but he was paired up with the GOAT guard at that point and was involved in a fairly equal partnership in terms of who the "man" was. Wilt was the defensive anchor that would rebound, block, pass, and score when needed (kind of like some other guy, I think he played for the Celtics or something?) while West took on more of the scoring load.

Wilt Chamberlain was a *great* basketball player, and a pioneer of the game. The NBA as a whole wouldn't be the same had he never stepped on the hardwood. But for all of his talent and ability, he didn't have a better career than a 6'9 225 pound player that got "it", and that's why he's not in *my* conversation when talking about the best players of all time.

Side note - I find it extremely weird that you have an undying love for Wilt but have nothing but resentment for LeBron James. Nobody has really commented on this in the thread but the parallels are creapy. They both dominated the regular season like no one before them, put up ridiculous stats, but eventually faltered in the playoffs. They are both the premeir athletic specimens of their era, and both were outstanding enough to achieve the "honor" of *everyone* having a strong opinion of them. I'm willing to bet that every basketball fan in the 60's either loved Wilt for his individual dominance, or loathed him for his apparent selfishness and cockery, kind of like LeBron today. It's just something to think about.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

e-monk said:


> yes - I cant find a link but circa filming Conan Wilt and the Governator were workout buddies and the Governator is on record as saying Wilt was the strongest guy he ever worked out with - strongest, Arnold, period.
> 
> also the Wilt who looks like a string bean (as in my avatar picture) is like 17-21 - the Wilt who was that strong was like in his late 20s and after and weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 280lbs
> 
> also Shaq is a fat bastard and not exactly a fan of weight training (unlike Wilt who basically pioneered it)


All of the videos I have seen of Wilt, he is as skinny as a wire compared to Shaq. I saw him in the clip earler, albeit in his early career, but I also saw clips of him on YouTube: ie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QmhTWmAaBc

and I haven't seen him muscular at all. I have a hard time seeing him 280.

Even in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O63ohddcYM

With him with the Lakers, he doesn't look anywhere near 280.

250 at best, if not 225.


You want to say that he jumped high and ran fast, fine but from the clips that I see, I cannot see him stronger than Shaq. No matter how lazy and fat Shaq is, nobody was able to match him in terms of strength for a long time. Only when he was on the decline were people able to match up with him (ie: Howard, Big Ben).


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

West was never the GOAT guard. Oscar was pretty widely regarded as the best guard of the era.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> At the end of the day none of that matters because Wilt couldn't step up on the biggest stage, and the best player of all time most certainly needs to be cold blooded in those situations. Quit dodging it all you want, but Chamberlain was, for the vast majority of his career, a choker. And I'm not comfortable with calling a player who dominated the regular season and nothing else the best player of all time. Period.


Wilt a choker? Unbelievably pathetic. Now you are just making shit up.

You didn't see him play, by your own admission. You still don't have any idea what the **** you are talking about.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Ron said:


> Wilt a choker? Unbelievably pathetic. Now you are just making shit up.
> 
> You didn't see him play, by your own admission. You still don't have any idea what the **** you are talking about.


Show me proof of the contrary. Dude won 2 titles in a 13 year career and one was with Jerry West.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Winning one of the titles with Jerry West as a teammate doesn't lessen the accomplishment one iota.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Especially since West was total shit the entire Finals series...it is ironic that West's only title was when he played his worst Finals.

But newcomers like Jim McMillan really stepped up in that series.

Oh, and who was the MVP of that series?

I'll give you a hint: It's one of the guys in my avatar.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

this thread is starting to rehash itself - new posters I recommend reading the damn thread you are posting in rather than just walking up like a drunk in the middle of a conversation at a bar


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> West was never the GOAT guard. Oscar was pretty widely regarded as the best guard of the era.


not true - West was Russell's MVP if that counts for anything and in this thread I think it might


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

VanillaPrice said:


> Show me proof of the contrary. Dude won 2 titles in a 13 year career and one was with Jerry West.


show me proof of the contrary? man - Hakeem only won 2 titles was he a choker? Larry Bird only won 3 was he? fckng read what people have posted repeatedy for the last 5 pages - there are facts and statistics in there - are you retarded or just trying to increase posts?

here's one for you - you are the color turqouise - go ahead and disprove me if you can


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

e-monk said:


> show me proof of the contrary? man - Hakeem only won 2 titles was he a choker? Larry Bird only won 3 was he? fckng read what people have posted repeatedy for the last 5 pages - there are facts and statistics in there - are you retarded or just trying to increase posts?
> 
> here's one for you - you are the color turqouise - go ahead and disprove me if you can


Hakeem isn't considered to be the best player of all time and is literally never in the conversation. Larry won more in a tougher era and he still isn't in GOAT conversations. These guys are top ten players of all time and that's pretty much it. But thanks for proving my point. 

I've said time and time again that I'm waiting for a real Wilt argument but you guys are either "retarded" or incapable of articulating an argument.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Hakeem isn't considered to be the best player of all time and is literally never in the conversation. Larry won more in a tougher era and he still isn't in GOAT conversations. These guys are top ten players of all time and that's pretty much it. But thanks for proving my point.
> 
> I've said time and time again that I'm waiting for a real Wilt argument but you guys are either "retarded" or incapable of articulating an argument.


the thing is your points aren't points they are just wrong .

magic and bird didn't play in the tougher era , wilt did .

pick any 5 or so HOF's and put them on a team with a top 5 all time player and you have dynasty 

magic had kareem from ages 32 -42, no longer in his prime worthy from his start through his prime byron scott Rambis Cooper and AC in the 80's that was a dynasty 

in the 90's you MJ and pippen and they slotted out ho grant for rodman in the 2nd 3peat and a bunch of capable but nondescript vets and that was a dynasty

and you think that was tougher than going up against russell plus cousy , sharman, KC and sam jones heinsohn, ramsey

thats 6 HOF's plus russell thats what a rookie chaimberlain had to go up against in 59-60

the next year they add satch sanders keeping who is a HOF plus the previous 7 

in wilt's 3rd year the celts lose sharman gaining an over the hill carl braun keeping the HOF count at 8 

the next year they add and over the hill HOF in clyde lovette and draft havlicek losing braun so they now have 9 HOF's for wilt to line up against

in wilts 5th year they lose cousy keeping the other 8.

in his 6th they lose ramsey and lovette so russell only has 5 other HOF's at his disposal his lowpoint thus far

in the ensuing years they would keep reloading with don nelson , wayne embry and bailey howell

in every one of these seasons the celtics had a better record than wilt's team and were the favorites when they met.

in wilts 7th season his team finally outplayed the celts by 1 game gaining homecourt advantage , the guy you call a choker avg. 28 pts and 30 rebs that series , not far from his 33 and 24 avg. of the season his shooting went down from 54 to 51 percent 

he's not the reason they lost that series.

they lost because his team gave him a lot less help than usual.

hal greer went from 22.7 pts in the reg season on .445 shooting to 16.4 on .352 shooting.

bill cunningham got hurt only played 17 minutes a game and missed a game went from avg 14.3 pts on .426 shooting , to 5.3 on .161

chet walker went frpm 15.3 on .451 to 14.6 on .375.

people like to look at this series as proof that wilt doesn't step up , but nobody is beating that team by himself.

the next year they beat the celts, wilt avg. nearly a triple double in the playoffs and he got alot more help from his supporting cast as they ran through the celts 4-1

i could go further but i dont feel like it we all know he went on to win finals mvp.

wilt didn't win more because he was playing during an era where the celts were by far the best team, they had stars and depth, the best coach of all time, i'll just go by what is the common thread of the time wilt was a dominating defender like russell but also a dominating scorer, the celts were title contenders b4 russell (they had the league's 2nd best record the season before they drafted russell) they would have been contenders without him, possibly even champions if they got a good center

basketball is a team game and bill russell's team was superior to wilt's , but individually its no contest . Wilt is better .


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Just to point out, I think the argument has been made very clearly as to why people consider Wilt number one. 

I am scratching my head as to how Vanilla still seems lost.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Enlighten me then Porn. Why should I consider Wilt the best player of all time?

He puts up arguably the most impressive regular season stats and has raw numbers that are beyond impressive (albiet in a much weaker league that played at a faster pace). But he won two titles in 13 years, and lost the majority of the "big" games in his career. His numbers *plummet* in the post season. He was consistently defeated by his only contemporary despite being more individually talented and having comparable help.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Grinch - Magic and Larry played in the golden age of the NBA ('80-'93) and it's not arguable. Saying otherwise is ignorant.

Keep in mind that the majority of Russell's HOF teammates were inducted to the HOF because they won so often, and they won so often because Russell dominated. No, I'm not talking about Cousey or Hondo, but there was never five players on a celtic squad that would have had a HOF career on another team.

But whatever, let's forget Russell - what makes Wilt better than Michael Jordan? What about Kareem? Or Magic? You know, the real greatest players of all time. I wouldn't freak out if someone put Wilt at 4, but he's not touching those three and in my opinion is further down the list.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Wilt supporters - explain the 1968, 1969 and 1970 seasons to me. From everything I've gathered Wilt was favoured but faltered like usual.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wilt played in the toughest era ever? Really Da Grinch? Are you ****ing kidding me? A top team from today would absolutely annihilate a team from Wilts era. To the point of it being pathetic. You're old, we get it. Now go take a nap and shut the **** up. You spouting off about a player none of us were old enough to see may make you feel special, but you're still the same old man yelling at his tv at the end of the day.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Grinch - Magic and Larry played in the golden age of the NBA ('80-'93) and it's not arguable. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
> 
> Keep in mind that the majority of Russell's HOF teammates were inducted to the HOF because they won so often, and they won so often because Russell dominated. No, I'm not talking about Cousey or Hondo, but there was never five players on a celtic squad that would have had a HOF career on another team.
> 
> But whatever, let's forget Russell - what makes Wilt better than Michael Jordan? What about Kareem? Or Magic? You know, the real greatest players of all time. I wouldn't freak out if someone put Wilt at 4, but he's not touching those three and in my opinion is further down the list.


since you brought up K.Abdul-Jabbar i decided to post his opinion on the subject...from a few months ago in an open letter to scottie pippen.

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/laker...lebron-james-may-be-the-greatest-player-.html



> How Soon They Forget: An Open Letter to Scottie Pippen
> 
> Dear Scottie,
> 
> ...


in this letter you have someone who played against or with most of the people you just touted.

as for r-star's lame post there were 8 team's then, obviously the league's talent was more concentrated than it is now , so the reasoning of how the league was harder then when you can cram over 400 players into the best 100 or so should be easy for even you to understand.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Kareem is a notoriously bitter human being that hasn't been known to be kind to players of the newer generation, I'm not going to really take his opinion all that seriously. He's arguably the GOAT, better than both Bill and Wilt, but I've learned to stay away from the opinion's of former players. Bias plays too big of a role.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

VanillaPrice said:


> Kareem is a notoriously bitter human being that hasn't been known to be kind to players of the newer generation, I'm not going to really take his opinion all that seriously. He's arguably the GOAT, better than both Bill and Wilt, but I've learned to stay away from the opinion's of former players. Bias plays too big of a role.


of course you wouldn't take his opinion seriously ...it disagrees with your own , even though

he has 1st hand knowledge 

knows more about being great at basketball than virtually anyone.

and has played with or against people from the "golden era" and still maintains that wilt and russell were better .

how would bias play a role, he's from both era?

if you cant trust someone who actually guarded that player who's opinion is better ....a middle aged man in the press row?

at this point you are just hurting yourself.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> of course you wouldn't take his opinion seriously ...it disagrees with your own , even though
> 
> he has 1st hand knowledge
> 
> ...


So if someone was to say.... post an article of a player saying MJ was the GOAT, it would somehow prove our point? 

Player articles are great. But they don't prove shit. It would be easy to post countless ones where players say MJ was the greatest player of all time. Would that sway your opinion? No. I didn't think so.


And as far as your 8 team garbage. That's great. They had 6 in hockey back in the day as well. Any of the current teams now would also wipe the floor with them. The level of training, not to mention the sheer number of people playing ball now compared to back then isn't even comparable.

For a more recent example, you take the top UFC fighters from today and pit them against the top guys before Dana White took it main stream. It would be a blood bath with the new generation coming out on top. There were way less fighters before Dana took over, yet contrary to your view on the 8 teams in the NBA, it was not like contracting the league right now and making 8 super teams.

You like to live in the past. That's great. You're still wrong at the end of the day.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar said:


> How Soon They Forget: An Open Letter to Scottie Pippen
> 
> Dear Scottie,
> 
> ...



So... Kareem's point is that if you combine Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell they are better than Michael Jordan?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

VanillaPrice said:


> Wilt supporters - explain the 1968, 1969 and 1970 seasons to me. From everything I've gathered Wilt was favoured but faltered like usual.


this is what I was talking about

first the Lakers were not favored in all three of those seasons - they werent favorites against the Knicks who had a better record and home court advantage and hadnt had their 3 best players all miss significant PT in the regular season

and 

(I already did this pages back)

68/69: the inexplicable Van Breda Kolff decision(keeping Wilt out of the last 5 minutes of game 7 when the game was decided - hard to choke when your idiot coach isnt putting you in the game despite repeated pleading to be put back in - and hell yes Van Breda Kolff got his ass fired for it)

69/70 Wilt's catastrophic injury - only played 12 games in the regular season (remember the line about Mike choking against the Magic?) oh and the Knicks were favored and had home court going into the series

and like I mentioned previously (again) you are talking about a guy who was 32, 33 and recovering from injury, and 34 years old in those respective seasons not Wilt in his prime

as for 67-68 that was addressed several posts above this one that Im quoting - so again read the thread - if you have issues with the points by all means bring them up for discussion but seriously....


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> this is what I was talking about
> 
> first the Lakers were not favored in all three of those seasons - they werent favorites against the Knicks who had a better record and home court advantage and hadnt had their 3 best players all miss significant PT in the regular season
> 
> ...


Monk, no one is willing to adress the "Is Wil Chamberlain the GOAT" question seriously.
Peeps will say "he was a playoff chocker" without reading up on it;
Peeps qill say Russell won (much) more than Wilt, but disregard Russell was the (consensus) inferior player;
Peeps will talk about some Michael Jordan, without acknowledging (sp?) he played/won in an era of diluted talent, and only after the great teams of the 80's were gonr...

Don't expect some rational reasoning from peeps, Mon k...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So if someone was to say.... post an article of a player saying MJ was the GOAT, it would somehow prove our point?
> 
> Player articles are great. But they don't prove shit. It would be easy to post countless ones where players say MJ was the greatest player of all time. Would that sway your opinion? No. I didn't think so.
> 
> ...


1. vanilla brought kareem into the fray not me , but since he did i used his opinion.

2. as i've already posted the reasons for why i feel wilt is the best i'll just implore you to read the thread , the reasons are simple and concrete.

3 i'm not living in the past its a stupid point to make seeing as all the players mentioned the GOAT are long since retired, but somehow you missed that huh?


----------



## rayz789 (Oct 30, 2008)

Lmfao @ Wilt is better then Jordan as the greatest player of all times. Is this thread for real?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

are you? did you read the thread? it's a highly debatable point with arguments to be made for both sides


----------



## rayz789 (Oct 30, 2008)

e-monk said:


> are you? did you read the thread? it's a highly debatable point with arguments to be made for both sides


yea i read this thread and this thread is laughable. wilt has a case for being the number 1 greatest center of all times but the greatest player of all times? <<<number 1? lol thats pushing it big time pal. why? cause back then in wilt era the game was play the way he plays? look in jordan's era he has to compete against hof centers that were great in ewing, shaq, hakeem, zo, mutumbo, kareem. man do i have to explain more to you that this thread is laughable to even think wilt is ahead of jordan as the greatest player to ever play the game?? its not debatable.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I'm going to get flamed to death, but I don't care:

This was probably already mentioned..but how do you really gauge Wilt's numbers vs. what other modern players did against more comparable competition? Wilt was a physical anomaly who played in a non 3 pt era with a quicker pace. I imagine it was easy to run downcourt and just dump it to the guy who was like a 7th grader playing against 3rd graders. Not to diminish his actual _ability_, *because I do believe he would be top tier in any era*, but I just don't see how you can put those numbers on a billboard and parade them around when they're in dire need of an asterisk. 

In rating Wilt vs. contemporaries people sidestep or overlook just how big the disparity in physical ability between him and the average player was. Even if I were 60 years old and had seen it all I'd have a hard time fairly comparing a guy like Wilt to players who played in a time with a higher average physical ability level. 

How do you compare what he did being so physically superior to what a Kareem or Shaq or even Hakeem could've done in that position? Today we have below average players who back then would've been athletic marvels. I mean hell, if Javale McGee was around 30 years ago he just might be a hall of famer right now, real talk. Who would have stopped him?

I remember reading here about the 100 point game, and how towards the end of the game everyone was in on it, the other players, the refs with the clock, the coaches, to keep him scoring...it sounded almost WWFish. Do you think that's the first time teammates and peers conspired, even a bit to get big Wilt his numbers? 

Again I say I believe he had top tier ability but that extra padding that resulted in 50 point, 25 rebound averages...*and not one player in history* comes close to that, despite some displaying the same physical characteristics...to be so experienced and wise it's childish to really cling to that.

And then, like Vanilla is saying, when you don't have the titles to back up individual dominance like that it begins to look like a total farce. 

_That's_ why it's just hard for me to compare over eras, and why it's not as simple as being lucky to watch these guys. Reading back on that it sounds brutal as if I think Wilt was a flake, not so, I just think people are playing themselves listing out Wilt's videogame accomplishments and comparing them to what other players had to go through with straight faces, because you just don't know what it would look like on an even playing field.

Oh, and if the 80s were sooo competitive how come there were only 4 different champions? The league might've been deep but it's pretty obvious what matters, the championships, were largely defined by having the best players in Magic or Bird, just like every other era. You had a lot of very good teams, but they were jockeying with each other for the right to face the great ones.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

2 things off the top of my head

1) an example: in a random season during the 90s (lets say 94-95) Shaq had to play Hakeem and Drob 2 x during the regular season. He had to play Ewing and Mourning 4 times during the regular season. In between he got to play against guys like Olden Polynice, Greg Ostertag, Luc Longley, Kevin Duckworth, Sharone Wright, Jon Salley (starting for the Heat in a game in 94), the mighty Eric Montross, Alton Lister, Jon Koncak (I could go on).

In Wilt's prime (let's say 65-66) during the regular season because of the size of the league he had to face Bill Russell 10 times, a front court comprised of Willis Reed & Walt Bellamy 10 times, and Nate Thurmond 10 times (not to mention guys like Jerry Lucas or Zelmo Beatty). I dont think level of competition vs. nights off is close, I just dont think it plays out the way you think it does.

2) my favorite example of 80s competitive depth (and you just look at team composition to see it) which you've probably heard before is this: Malone and Stockton in their primes supported by a 2 time DPoY cant get out of the 2nd round in the 80s but Malone and Stockton in their mid 30s supported by Greg Ostertag go to back to back finals (and no, an elderly Jeff Hornacek and Bryon Russell were not better supporting players than Dr Dunkenstein and Thurl Bailey, sorry)


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

About freaking time somebody takes my side on this.

I will agree with e-monk's tidbit about the Jazz/80's though.


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

I'll post what I've posted in other forums because the OP is absolutely 100 percent correct. Wilt WOULD BLOW PEOPLES MINDS... Just as he did in his career he'd make today's biggest players look small which is an awe inspiring sight, and he'd have no equal in strength. Considering today's crop of centers, he'd have no equal in shot selection and scoring ability either and only Dwight even approaches some of Wilt's defensive presence. Few people here are acknowledging the real reasons why/how Wilt was what he was, in fact some of you think he _wasn't even true_ at least in the sense that what he did then for some reason is either fake or doesn't apply now. 

Wilt Chamberlain has become almost mythical for a reason. There are embellishment to some stories as can be expected with any pro athlete but none of these embellishments came out of thin air, and none of them have become irrelevent in today's era. I strongly assert that there has never been another equal in terms of size+athleticism to Wilt much less size+athleticism+skill, and nobody has ever even come close. The closest supersized yet also athletic player since Wilt is Shaq. And both physically and athletically, Wilt was literally more of what Shaq was in every measurable category except for BODY FAT. 

This is how Wilt Chamberlain relates to some modern and historic players: 

His Wingspan: 7'8"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYEbga0XueA&t=6m15s 
Since 1989 out of 1,207 total recorded wingspan measurements for draftee's only 4 of them have ever met or exceeded this wingspan. That's how rare his wingspan alone is. 
www.draftexpress.com/measurements
Please additionally note, that contrary to the draft camps, Wilt's 7'8 wingspan is taken without the benefit of stretching and loosening up for a day of career dependent measurements... he has been sitting immobile in a chair wearing a tight fitted sport coat. Ali's reach is also measured in this footage and he is also wearing a suit and not at all loosened up. Ali's wingspan here measures about 2" less than it has been recorded for numerous other fights... Wilt's wingspan in uniform after loosening up could plausibly add inches. His wingspan is literally just as unmatched or rare today as it was in his day.


http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/...s-hands?popup=1 
His 9.5" x 11.5" hands, today, would be larger than all but one draftee's hands out of the 130 officially documented 
www.draftexpress.com/measurements 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYEbga0XueA&t=7m3s 
Check them out compared to 6'3 Heavyweight Muhammad Ali's hands... 


His precise barefoot height dwarfs the barefoot heights of almost all active and historic NBA centers. Only 12 NBA draft entrees heights out all 1,449 measured players since 1989 have truly proven to be equal too, or taller than Wilt in their bare feet. Since the term 7 footer is used so loosely today and since list heights are so bogus I'm sure few people realize just how "short" MODERN players are compared to Wilt and his contemporaries (which were mostly listed by the NBA OUT of shoes at that time). Here's a small sample pool of some draftee, and historic barefoot heights to get an better idea of his stature relative to some famous or current bigmen 

7'1.62" - KAJ - 1969/70 (age 22) 
7'1.33" - KAJ - 1966/67 (age 19) 
7'1.06" - Wilt Chamberlain 1959 (age 23, at ~250lbs) 
7'0.88" - Shaq 1992 (age 20) 
7'0.63" - Shaq 1992 (age 20) 
7'0.5" - Wilt Chamberlain 1984 (age 48, a very fit but heavy 327lbs, and remember he had knee surgery) 
7'0.25" - Andrew Bynum - just about the tallest/largest player in the league today
7'0 - David Robinson 1989 (age 24) 
6'11.88" - Shaq 2012 (age 39, 370+ and fat, post knee surgeries) 
6'11.5" - Wilt Chamberlain 1953 (age 17!) 
6'11.25" - Brook Lopez 
6'11" - Pau Gasol 
6'11" - Greg Oden 
6'11" - Javale McGee 
6'11" - Kevin Garnett 
6'11" - Brad Miller 
6'10.75" - Nate Thurmond 
6'10.5" - Tim Duncan 
6'10.5" - Hakeem 
6'10.5" - Joakim Noah 
6'10.25" - Walt Bellamy 
6'10" - Kwame Brown 
6'09.75" - Rasheed Wallace 
6'9.5" - Alonzo Mourning 
6'9.33" - Bill Russell 
6'9.25" - Dwight Howard 2011 (age 25) 
6'9" - Chris Webber 
6'9" - Dwight Howard 2004 (age 19) 
6'8.75" - Emeka Okafor 
6'8.5" - Amare Stoudemire 
6'8.5" - Blake Griffin 
6'8.31" - Bismack Biyombo 
6'7.75" - Kevin Love 
6'7.75" - Carlos Boozer 
6'7.5" - Tristan Thompson 
6'7.5" - Glenn Davis
6'7" - Ben Wallace - Yes, in the modern era effective centers can be as short as 6'7 in their bare feet.

Also, Wilt's standing reach was measured at KU to be 9'6"... I'd imagine this was taken either out of his shoes, or even if it wasn't back in the 1950's in his converse all star shoes there would only be about 1/4 of an inch of inflation. Since today's shoes add about 1.5" of height to every players "standing reach", this puts Wilt's actual standing reach in some new Nike's at around 6'7.25"-6'7.5". A standing reach of that height has only been exceeded one time since 1989, out of about 900 known measurements and it wasn't Yao Ming. Even if we only use his 9'6" in his barefeet/vintage shoes, only 5 draftees have ever met or exceeded that standing reach.

Now, his recorded weights: (NOT his listed weight, which like all NBA players, isn't accurate)

1959 ~250lbs (rookie draft weight to determine his initial listed weight)
September 1963 Warriors training camp: 320lbs
(reported that he heavily worked out his upper body to bulk up to this weight)
September 1963 Warriors training camp: 315lbs
September 1963 Warriors training camp: 303lbs (cuts almost 20lbs after 2 weeks of the fast-break era NBA work outs) 
Mid-season 1963-64 Warriors: 292lbs

See how early in his career that weight explosion was?

He won't play at over 290lbs again though, until his final years with the LA Lakers as he expressed in interviews he prefered to play at 275, which made sense for the running game of that time but that doesn't mean his frame wasn't easily capable of supporting mass. For quite a few years he floats around at 280, 285, 275, 290... up and down depending on how much he is weight lifting vs running and how far he is into the season.

Then he has knee surgery in his 2nd Lakers season and all the additional working out for his recovery jacks his playing weight (permenently until he retires) 305-315lbs. He was a monster in his last Laker years, prime Shaq was playing at but a few lbs heavier (327) but he was carrying it with a much higher BF%.

That kind of weight on his size frame doesn't look as dramatic or heavy and slow as it would on the frames of smaller guys. Despite Wilt's obvious reaching and length advantages, no one, and I mean no one in the NBA has ever posessed the strength and mass to push Wilt around save for maybe a prime hefty Shaq.



Now some of Wilt's athleticism

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=svUeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6osEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7442,2836511 
Look here, an AFL coach clocked him at a 4.6 40 in his bare feet, during a season he weighed about 290lbs. Who can haul that kinda mass that freakishly fast in today's league? 
http://i.imgur.com/YRmNb.png 
He, (like David Robinson) was always reportedly faster than anyone on his teams 
Shaq ran a 5.8 40 (in shoes) in 2009 for comparison. 

And we know that he was a competitive track and field athlete. Most of his track numbers in the media are fictional. But (officially) these are some real recorded numbers that have survived through time: 

Representing Overbrook: 
1953 Philadelphia Public League Track Championship 
5'10" High Jump - first place 

1955 Philadelphia Public Leage Track Championship 
6'2" High Jump - first place 

Representing KU: 
May 1956 
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2130/2054495403_c87033d18d_z.jpg?zz=1 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uuV6zd7TbT4/ScFtXukjfUI/AAAAAAAADvo/6J18ad9Oo-w/s400/wilt2.jpg 
46' 2.5" triple jump good for fourth place 
(I believe this is actually non official, as he was a freshman) 

April 20th 1957 Kansas Relay's 
http://i30.tinypic.com/18g7f5.jpg 
6'6" High Jump which tied for second place 
45' 9" triple jump which tied for third place 

April 27th 1957 Drake Relays 
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/VideoNetwork/50386121001/Relays-history-Wilt-Chamberlain-high-jump 
6'6.25" which tied for first place 

May 18th 1957 Big Seven Conference Outdoor Track Championship 
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200.../GIFs/wilt2.gif 
6'5" High Jump which won first place 

May 1958 Big Eight Conference Indoor Track Championship 
6'6.75" High Jump (without practicing!) which tied first place. 
This was also a KU indoor record at that time. 


At Overbrook High School he participated in more events but most of his numbers have been lost or skewed by newspapers so I won't attempt to claim any but he was once an active competitor in: 
Shot Put (allegedly held the PA shot put record... likely a media spin though) 
http://explorepahistory.com/kora/files/1/2/1-2-13FA-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0l0v2-a_349.jpg 
440 (allegedly a "crack quarter miler" plausibly in the 49-50 second range) 
880 
http://explorepahistory.com/kora/files/1/2/1-2-1423-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0l1a0-a_349.JPG 
High Jump 
Long Jump (allegedly in the 22 foot range) 
And more. 

Since today's Track and Field techniques and gear are vastly superior to the 1950's, the #'s should not be compared with modern ones. They should be compared relative to other people of his time that had the same gear and training limitations he was faced with (jumping in saw dust for one... lol)... Relative to his peers Wilt's form was honestly... atrocious lol... He butchered the "western roll" technique and got by on his sheer height and athleticism. But even still with this haphazard technique and a handicap 3 step approach his 6'6.75" jump is only 4.75" from the 6'11.5" Gold Medal winning jump of the 1956 summer olympics. In fact, Wilt's 6'6.75" PR would have been good enough for 5th place in that 1956 Olympic competition... 5th place.. out of 28 world participants. How many NBA players today do you think could pull Olympic/ELITE NCAA level Track and Field numbers!? Among any you suspect could, how freakishly big are they in stature!?... 


Before him nobody put up numbers like him. While he played nobody put up numbers like he did. After he played nobody matched his numbers. He must have terrified his new opponents especially after his 52 point 31 rebound debut... images like these circulated in all the newspapers about how he wasn't just hype, he was the real deal. A giant, an unstoppable giant that was probably more athletic than your teams best point guards, and bigger than your largest center. 

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbi...17-f27d5f8d2306 

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbi...2f-8e7a33be5657 

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbi...a3-66761a43a047 

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/200...430eb3e6a451be5 

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/200...4167d6870b19a92


ALL of his physical gifts mean no less today than they did back then, and the reality is today he wouldn't be surrounded by players that are able to cope with it any better than his peers could. That's why Shaq was literally unstoppable in his prime. Shaq is not as long, had no mid range shooting touch like Wilt did, lacked rebound and shot blocking focus, and was NOT athletically competent enough to be a multi-event track and field stud. Use Shaq as your gauge. He was incredible, but in comparison to Wilt even he seems lacking both physically, athletically, and skillwise. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9W7OJaltts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EpVZS26BUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlhhne8ElfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB43A-ODuLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAJjP6e6pg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9cUpYe6G10


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Dee-Zy said:


> What I liked was that it was all in one place.
> 
> But Wilt stronger than Shaq!? Really!? I can't see that being true. Wilt looks like a stick next to Shaq.
> 
> Can anybody who have seen both of them play confirm this!?


I saw them both play and Wilt was definitely stronger.

You might be referring to the time when Wilt first broke into the league with the Philadelphia Warriors in the late '50s. I can't really say he was thin...but well-proportioned, but he really bulked up in his later years with the 76ers and then the Lakers.

The guy was absolutely dominating. I know Shaq was dominating in his prime as well, it's a close call...but I am going to go with Chamberlain.

Oh, by the way, Chamberlain was a HELL of a lot more intimidating than Shaq too. Shaq smiles all the time...but on the court, the only time I ever saw Chamberlain smile was when the Lakers were winning in the waning moments of the clinching game 5 in the Finals and he was on the free throw line smiling and laughing and enjoying the moment. (Yeah, he missed both free throws too, as usual. :laugh: )


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

Dee-Zy said:


> He looks like dalsim, damn that guy was skinny compared to centers of today.


He's bigger than you think...

http://www.basketballforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12132&stc=1&d=1327734110

And remember, your looking at a 6'11.5" 225lb teenage kid in high school.

10 years later on the warriors he will waltz into training camps at 320lbs and "cut" his playing weight down to a trim 292lbs to accommodate the running fast-break style games. At 7'1.06" barefoot, his abnormal height, limbs, and the fact that we're not seeing any modern players next to him for reference makes him seem thin and unimpressive. But seeing him in person or next to other large "7 footers" really showed how massive his long frame was.


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

VanillaPrice said:


> His numbers drastically drop in the playoffs and it's well known that he had problems closing games out. He won two titles, but the second one was in the complimentary role (ala KG in '08, arguably the best player, but not first option) to Jerry West. So he led his team to one title during his entire career as the main man in a league that is nothing compared to the post merger NBA. I'm not overly impressed.
> 
> He's probably the best regular season player ever. But his playoff resume falls from legendary from november - april to merely great in the post season. And that's not necessary a bad thing, not everyone can be a hero, but the best player of all time should be.


Do you know anything about why Wilt's stats appeared to drop in the Playoffs and/or why his teams didn't win? I only ask because you said earlier in this thread you didn't know much about the 1960's games...

Thanks to the research efforts of user Psileas from Insidehoops.com, Wilt should be wearing the "clutch" crown. Not the choker label. At least as far as centers go. The third highest total of "game winning" shots of any center in NBA history. Hows this look for choking? 

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. 

That's not the kinda company to be in if your a "choker". Titles aren't won by one man. And, more so in his era than in today's even, "one superstar" could not carry a roster of either low-density talent and/or injury ravaged starters to a championship vs that very densely packed small-league he played in. His competition was ridiculously stacked by today's standards. Most of his own late-career stacked teams that looked good enough to win on paper were plagued by DNP's and debilitating _INJURY_ to the starting lineups. In the 1971 playoffs for example, both Baylor AND West DNP + 1 other starter! Wilt actually got a standing ovation from the opposing Milwaukee fans for his 2nd round performance against their prime KAJ that season, he got his bench players PAST the first round vs a Chicago team that was predicted to sweep them! - and you seem to imply he's a poor playoff performer as if a stat sheet (that never tracked advanced stats) is gonna tell the whole story? The 68 76ers were in the same boat and yet he played 48.5 minutes trying to carry them through the playoffs. I can recall countless other instances where Wilt was left high and dry by either poor teammate performances or lack of support and he always gave 110%, and I never heard of any game that anyone seriously thinks he choked in. That stuff originated as a bunch of fabricated sensationalist hear-say spread by the old media critics who hailed from Boston and today it is only being spread by the people that never watched him play. 

Here's that choker proving he was _NOT_ collapsing under pressure to win the game.
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).



KG's performance in the 2008 finals... Stellar
Wilt's performance in the 1972 finals... Legendary
*2008 finals KG:*
*NOT the MVP
*healthy 
*before any knee surgeries
*32 year old body with 40,825 NBA minutes of wear and tear 
*1972 finals MVP Wilt:*
*THE FINALS MVP.
*2 swollen taped hands, one of them fractured.
*2 years removed from knee surgery 
*36 year old body with + 50,907 NBA minutes of wear and tear.

And his G5 is more impressive than than any Jordan flu-game or Kobe broken finger performance.

As an injured "old man" written off by many he unleashes a fiery performance in the finals that looked unstoppable. Incredibly balanced defensively and offensively, plus he kept his teammates in the game. He was playing complete basketball at a youthful up-tempo like a virtual clone of himself in those '67 76'ers years. Compared to regular season, he ramped up big-time. 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 in order to even get there. He earned that title with finals MVP honors... He did it on one of the greatest teams in NBA history, and it was LA's first ever title.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18u9GVSo1E

And his performance made the cut of #45 on the 60 greatest playoff moments in NBA history. KG in 2008 aint gonna make a list like that. There's no comparison.


----------

