# Wilt Today



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

What do u rekon his stats would of been like if he played today, better than Shaq


----------



## RocketFan85 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think Shaq is a better player. I would even put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in front of Wilt. Basketball has changed alot since when Wilt played. Wilt could put up 25ppg and 10rpg in todays game.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

Wilt's 50/25 season would be 30/15 today, considered that teams take fewer shots and there are fewer rebounds to grab in today's game. Further Wilt wouldn't be able to dominate with his physics today as much as he was able to in the 60s. Nowadays centers are usually 7 ft, while they were about 6-10 in the 60s.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RocketFan85</b>!
> I think Shaq is a better player. I would even put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in front of Wilt. Basketball has changed alot since when Wilt played. Wilt could put up 25ppg and 10rpg in todays game.


wilt would easily be the best rebounder in the league today. 10 rpg? c'mon, the guy was a monster & a freak.


----------



## Unlimitedgame (Jul 16, 2003)

*Shaq*

When Wilt played there was no such thing as 3 seconds in the key. Can you imagine shaq playing with no 3 second call? He would average 50 points and 50 rebounds too. Wilt in todays game is like Todays shaq.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> Wilt's 50/25 season would be 30/15 today, considered that teams take fewer shots and there are fewer rebounds to grab in today's game. Further Wilt wouldn't be able to dominate with his physics today as much as he was able to in the 60s. Nowadays centers are usually 7 ft, while they were about 6-10 in the 60s.


I can see that. 30 and 15 sounds pretty good to me. He'd have to work harder to score but he'd still be the best player in the game. I don't see him averaging 20+ rebounds because teams shoot the ball less than they did before. Of course, they shoot lower percentages than they did before so there's always a chance...


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

I'd put Wilt at about 20/10... obviously the game has evolved and there are bigger centers and stuff. Who knows how he would've played if there was 3 in the key? And how does he match up against the better post defenders of recent times? I mean, Hakeem would've owned him...


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I'm only 12 and I've never seen Wilt play, but I heard on ESPN that Wilt Chemberlon played against a bunch of short fat white guys. Well in the NBA today there aren't any short fat white guys, so I rekon Wilt wouldn't even be good enough to make an NBA roster.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

they had the 3 second rule with wilt. what wilt caused them to do was widen the lane from 12 feet to 16 feet. he was still the most dominant rebounder in the league. to think he wouldn't be dominant today, or moreso be a dominant rebounder, is ridiculous. he was still a dominant rebounder in the 70s when he had lost some of his athleticism.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

He'd be good, but not as good. His size was a huge advantage to him back then, but that wouldn't be the case now, so its hard to really say.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ToddMacCulloch11</b>!
> He'd be good, but not as good. His size was a huge advantage to him back then, but that wouldn't be the case now, so its hard to really say.


his size would be a huge advantage today as well. he was 7'1 300 lbs. he was one of the strongest people in the world. he ran track. he was a physical freak then, he'd be a physical freak today.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

Also, much to the advantage of Wilt, there was no offensive goaltending either.


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

30 PPG 18 RPG

Essentially an Orlando Magic era Shaq with more maneuverability.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ice Nine</b>!
> 30 PPG 18 RPG
> 
> Essentially an Orlando Magic era Shaq with more maneuverability.


And a much bigger dedication to rebounding.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

I think he would be just a 20/10 guy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

He'd be Ben Wallace. 7 ppg / 15 rbpg.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> He'd be Ben Wallace. 7 ppg / 15 rbpg.


the smiley means you're kidding, right?


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

I could see him feasibly putting up 35-38 ppg and 18 rpg in his prime, but let's not forget the defensive side of the ball. He could probably average around 5 blocks in the game today as well, and maybe around 4 apg. I think he'd dwarf Shaq, and the rest of the league, if he played today.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> the smiley means you're kidding, right?


Yup. But I thought I could boil the blood of a few people. 

It's a fairly futile exercise to figure out what a player would do in an entirely different era. Not only is the game different, the rules different, the players different, but the outside elements, like training and nutrition, are different.

How would all those things come together for an overall effect?

I think he'd dominate the way O'Neal has dominated, but not beyond that. The league is much better equipped to defend big men, the rules don't favour big men as much as they did in the past and the game is simply tougher. No one, not even Wilt Chamberlain, is going to average 48+ minutes per game today.


----------



## panthera_pardus (Dec 29, 2003)

KG nowadays, could have beaten Wilt in his prime, 1 on 1...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>panthera_pardus</b>!
> KG nowadays, could have beaten Wilt in his prime, 1 on 1...


he wouldn't have much of a chance of defending wilt. wilt was a beast. and wilt was athletic enough to stay with garnett.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

:no: This post is COMPLETELY disrespectful to one of the absolute best players in the history of the NBA, he was Michael Jordan in his era, are people gonna say this about him in 25 years. This is pathetic. Wilt is the REASON NBA rules were changed, he was so dominant that they had to make it harder for him.
He completely RULED Bill Russell and Russel was also one of the best players in the history of the NBA. Russell may have more championships and he was the "other" Center in the league during Wilt's time but Wilt put up his BEST numbers against Russell. You guys need to go back and watch this guy play A LOT because you don't know what you are talking about. He dominated then and he'd dominate now. You also forget that the NBA had a lot less teams back then so it was a lot less watered down and it didn't have a bunch of 18 year old stick figure kids in the league back then either. 
I'm embarrassed that people on this board could even THINK that Wilt would be only average my GOD that is ludicrous and beyond uneducated:sigh:


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> :no: This post is COMPLETELY disrespectful to one of the absolute best players in the history of the NBA, he was Michael Jordan in his era, are people gonna say this about him in 25 years. This is pathetic. Wilt is the REASON NBA rules were changed, he was so dominant that they had to make it harder for him.
> He completely RULED Bill Russell and Russel was also one of the best players in the history of the NBA. Russell may have more championships and he was the "other" Center in the league during Wilt's time but Wilt put up his BEST numbers against Russell. You guys need to go back and watch this guy play A LOT because you don't know what you are talking about. He dominated then and he'd dominate now. You also forget that the NBA had a lot less teams back then so it was a lot less watered down and it didn't have a bunch of 18 year old stick figure kids in the league back then either.
> I'm embarrassed that people on this board could even THINK that Wilt would be only average my GOD that is ludicrous and beyond uneducated:sigh:


Whiterino, I'm beginning to like you more and more with each post I read of yours.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> I'm only 12 and I've never seen Wilt play, but I heard on ESPN that Wilt Chemberlon played against a bunch of short fat white guys. Well in the NBA today there aren't any short fat white guys, so I rekon Wilt wouldn't even be good enough to make an NBA roster.


If I could give you five stars twice, I would.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

Wilt would have been a monster in the NBA right now. I could see him doing exactly what he did back then, but obvioulsy not to the extent. He would lead the league in scoring and rebounding every year, and probably blocks too. The guy was a legit 7'0 and he was an olympic calibur high jumper, and if I'm not mistaken he was a pretty good sprinter also. In today's league he would probably have 10-15 pounds more of muscle with all that other stuff, he would be unstoppable. He was also a pretty good passer to, he could pretty much do it all. I could see his #s looking like this 33/15/5/4.


----------



## nikeflightz (Apr 1, 2004)

wtf? man, dude, wilt could dunk from the free-throw line. dats pretty scary for ANY person to do. even scarier was the fact that he was a SEVEN-FOOT CENTER who could dunk from the free-throw line. 

wilt could get 20 pts based on atheletism alone (example: amare stoudamire).


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

is it my twisted imagination, or did someone just say that wilt dominated bill russell?

it's the other way around, buddy.

bill russell was 6'10 220, and he gave wilt trouble. imagine what today's athletic freaks would do. 6'10 220 is SF size, nowadays. hell, even SG (see: t-mac). wilt wouldn't be nearly as effective as he was.

if wilt played nowadays, he'd still be a HoF'er most likely. however, his stats would effectively be cut by 50%. can't really picture him doing better than 28 and 13, if that.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> is it my twisted imagination, or did someone just say that wilt dominated bill russell?
> 
> it's the other way around, buddy.
> ...


Actually Wilt always dominated Bill Russell, Russell just came out with the Ws. Wilt was by far the better player, Russell just had the much better supporting cast.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually Wilt always dominated Bill Russell, Russell just came out with the Ws. Wilt was by far the better player, Russell just had the much better supporting cast.


you can't say wilt dominated russell when russell's team won damn near every time.

you figure wilt would've carried his team to a win more often. 11 championships to 2? come on.

and russell weighed 220, for christ sakes.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>nikeflightz</b>!
> wtf? man, dude, wilt could dunk from the free-throw line. dats pretty scary for ANY person to do. even scarier was the fact that he was a SEVEN-FOOT CENTER who could dunk from the free-throw line.


Jonathan Bender can dunk from the free throw line, but I'm not willing to consider him as one of the best of all times.



> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> The guy was a legit 7'0 and he was an olympic calibur high jumper, and if I'm not mistaken he was a pretty good sprinter also.


*Wilt said of himself* he was an olympic calibur high jumper. He also said he's the world's best volleyball player. Dude talked a lot of crap back then.

I've seen Wilt play (not when he played, but on tapes), and I don't think he's a physical freak as much as Shaquille O'Neal is. Shaq is quicker and heavier, just more powerful. That's why I think Wilt wouldn't average more than 30/15 per game if his prime were today.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> you can't say wilt dominated russell when russell's team won damn near every time.
> ...


I don't get the relevance of the wins when your talking about which player outplayed who. If Wilt got 40 points and 25 rebounds and Russell got 12 points and 23 rebounds, and the Celtics won, who outplayed who? That is no exaggeration either, thats how their games went a lot. I remember watching ESPN and they were talking about how Wilt averaged over 40 and 20 for a series against the Celtics but they lost. There is no way you can say Russell outplayed him because the Celts won, the Celts supporting casts were vastly superior to the Sixers.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I have come the the conclusion that Wilt would easily be a dominant player in the league right now, just as he was when he played in the 60-70's.

Some people love to point out that there were more shots to be rebounded, but consider this: 

Tim Duncan pulled down his career high of 25 rebounds in a game with 101 missed shots. 

Look at what Chamberlain did in the 1970 Finals:

106 misses-24 rebounds for Wilt
105 misses-24 rebounds for Wilt
90 misses- 27 rebounds for Wilt

In Duncan's first 400+ games, he never grabbed as many as 25 rebounds...Wilt averaged over 25 rebounds a game in one season.


*Wilt vs. Russell* 

Head to Head matchups

Wilt-28.7 ppg 28.7 rpg
Russ-14.5ppg 23.7 rpg

Wilt won 58 of those games
Russell won 84

Chamberlain's record against Boston when he was with the 76ers and Lakers (and also had better teammates) he was 34-35 against Russell.

Chamberlain lost 4 game 7's to Russell. The losses were by a combined 9 points.

I'll take Wilt.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> Wilt would have been a monster in the NBA right now. I could see him doing exactly what he did back then, but obvioulsy not to the extent. He would lead the league in scoring and rebounding every year, and probably blocks too. The guy was a legit 7'0 and he was an olympic calibur high jumper, and if I'm not mistaken he was a pretty good sprinter also. In today's league he would probably have 10-15 pounds more of muscle with all that other stuff, he would be unstoppable. He was also a pretty good passer to, he could pretty much do it all. I could see his #s looking like this 33/15/5/4.


olympic calibre is a bit of an overstatement. he may have been one of the better highjumpers in college though.

he had all the tools to make him the best big man in the game today but taking wilt out of the 60s and plonking him in the current NBA he'd have to make a LOT of adjustments. if he grew up in the modern era he would develop an even better body and skills than he had, resulting in...exactly what he already is, one of the greatest players of all time.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> I have come the the conclusion that Wilt would easily be a dominant player in the league right now, just as he was when he played in the 60-70's.
> 
> Some people love to point out that there were more shots to be rebounded, but consider this:
> ...


Thanks for comming up with the stats to dispell the myth that Russell outplayed Wilt in head to head matchups.


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> I'm only 12 and I've never seen Wilt play, but I heard on ESPN that Wilt Chemberlon played against a bunch of short fat white guys. Well in the NBA today there aren't any short fat white guys, so I rekon Wilt wouldn't even be good enough to make an NBA roster.


Quotes like this are simply ridiculous.

You obviously need to research the era in which he played.

Chamberlain was a freak. He was the strongest ever to play in the NBA, and possibly all of professional sports. He was extremely athletic(check his track and field history), and was extremely lean and toned. 

Wilt would dominate more than Shaq does in todays NBA. Give me a break, guys like Eddy Curry, would just get murdered. I think Wilt would make Shaq look silly. And that is not to take away from Shaq, wilt is just wilt. 

There will never ever ever be another chamberlain.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TheTruth34</b>!
> 
> 
> Quotes like this are simply ridiculous.
> ...


Hi, I'm sarcasm. Nice to meet you.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> is it my twisted imagination, or did someone just say that wilt dominated bill russell?
> 
> it's the other way around, buddy.
> ...


bill russell was the greatest defender the league has ever seen, and wilt put up pretty decent stats head-to-head against him. he lead the league in rebounding at 36 in 1973, a shell of his former self.

the guy was a freak, people. a freak then, a freak now. 

the game may have been different, but wilt as a freak wouldn't be different. he overmatched people back then, and with his athleticism, skill and strength, he'd overmatch people today. 

he's not going to score 50, but he's going to dominate on the boards, and block alot of shots.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TheTruth34</b>!
> 
> 
> Quotes like this are simply ridiculous.
> ...


wilt was stronger than shaq?

don't make me laugh.


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>panthera_pardus</b>!
> KG nowadays, could have beaten Wilt in his prime, 1 on 1...


Wake up Call.

Strength does play a big part in a one on one matchup. Especially in the post...

Skinny Garnett would get destroyed. Wilt would literally break him. But that is not to take anything away from KG. 

Wilt is like no other.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> Some people love to point out that there were more shots to be rebounded, but consider this:
> 
> Tim Duncan pulled down his career high of 25 rebounds in a game with 101 missed shots.
> ...


Actually how often there are 100+ missed shots in a game _today_? In that Heat-Spurs game you talk about, San Antonio hit just 37.5% of their shots, Miami only 28.3%. Usually, there aren't more than 60-70 missed shots in a game today.

Shaquille O'Neal's season-high 26 rebounds came in a game vs. the Bucks, where both teams missed a combined 101 shots as well, by the way. If teams were missing more than 100 shots per game on a nightly basis, Shaq would probably average 25 boards per game as well.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

why do people still try to argue that wilt's stats aren't padded?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> wilt was stronger than shaq?
> ...


Wilt was MUCH stronger than Shaq. He could bench 500 pounds, and defenses triple-teamed him as often or more often than they triple-team Shaq. Shaq is fatter than Wilt, but that doesn't mean he's stronger.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> Actually how often there are 100+ missed shots in a game _today_? In that Heat-Spurs game you talk about, San Antonio hit just 37.5% of their shots, Miami only 28.3%. Usually, there aren't more than 60-70 missed shots in a game today.


Just yesterday there were two games with 85 misses and a game with 95 misses.... I have no doubt that Wilt would be able to lead the league in rebounding if he played right now.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilt was MUCH stronger than Shaq. He could bench 500 pounds, and defenses triple-teamed him as often or more often than they triple-team Shaq. Shaq is fatter than Wilt, but that doesn't mean he's stronger.


would you happen to know how much shaq weighs? and did wilt himself say he could bench 500 lbs, or is that actually a fact? 

there's a lot more to strength than just benching, you know.

shaq has like one layer of fat covering pure muscle. he's not fat. he's just a freak of nature. if he was fat he wouldn't have nearly the agility that he has, being 7'1 and all.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Wilt was MUCH stronger than Shaq. He could bench 500 pounds, ...


Again, that's something Wilt told the press, just to show off. Don't take his stories too serious.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

Nuff said


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> is it my twisted imagination, or did someone just say that wilt dominated bill russell?
> 
> it's the other way around, buddy.
> ...


I'm pretty sure whiterino, an educated Celtics fan, has a pretty firm grasp on what went down in the Russell-Wilt matchups. Check the stat sheets. Chamberlain obliterated Russell every time they met up.........but the Celtics still managed to win most of the time


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> I have come the the conclusion that Wilt would easily be a dominant player in the league right now, just as he was when he played in the 60-70's.
> 
> Some people love to point out that there were more shots to be rebounded, but consider this:
> ...


I hadn't heard some of that. Damned interesting stuff, nice find.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> wilt was stronger than shaq?
> ...


I don't know the official numbers, but I do know Wilt was known as one of the strongest men in the universe. I also know that he could still manage about 500 lbs. on his bench press when he was 60 years old. I don't know why, but I have some doubt as to whether Shaq could get that much.......

With Shaq's weight advantage he may have more power, but he is not pound-for-pound stronger than Wilt was. And with the better nutrition and technology today, Wilt could very easily make up for anything he may have given up one time because of weight differential.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> Again, that's something Wilt told the press, just to show off. Don't take his stories too serious.


No it's not. Hell if I can remember, but there was a legitimate eye-witness (probably several, and I'm talking former NBA stars and personalities, but it's been a while since I heard this), but they saw Wilt get under 475 lbs, without warming up mind you, and get it with relative ease.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> why do people still try to argue that wilt's stats aren't padded?


Nobody's arguing that he could manage 50 points a game, or 28 rebounds a game, or 8 assists a game, or 10 blocks a game in today's league. However, reducing his unbelievable accomplishments to simply an above average player in today's NBA is simply assanine, IMO.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

I'd say his and Shaq's numbers would be very similar, somewhere in the region of 27 ppg, 14 rbp (better rebounder than Shaq probably) and 3 bpg. Mind you those are absolutely phenomenal numbers by anyone's standards, considering that today's game is more intense, requires more athletecism and more skill.


----------



## Chicago76 (Mar 30, 2004)

Wilt is the most athletic man who probably ever lived. To say he was an Olympic caliber high jumper is no joke. He jumped a documented 6-6 in high school and a little more in college although I wouldn't say he focused on track too much. 6-6 doesn't seem like much now, but in 1956, about the time Wilt was an 18 year old dabbling in the high jump, it was good for 8th place in the Olympics. Not bad. His 400 and 800 times weren't world class, but a 7-1 freak who can run a 49.0 quarter is pretty impressive, especially when the very best in the world were running about a 46 at the time. The famous 500 lb benched were witnessed by dozens too. A pro football team gave him a tryout and he ran a 4.4 barefoot in pants. The coaches ran him through everything, thinking the had the best tight end in history before Chamberlain told them he was only interested in being a QB. It goes on and on...

I think a lot of what he really was gets lost because of his own tendency to embellish a bit. 20,000 women? Driving across the country in 18 hours going 140 mph all the way? 

The truth sometimes gets lost in the fiction with him. Which is too bad, because in this case the truth is more often stranger than the fiction.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago76</b>!
> Wilt is the most athletic man who probably ever lived. To say he was an Olympic caliber high jumper is no joke. He jumped a documented 6-6 in high school and a little more in college although I wouldn't say he focused on track too much. 6-6 doesn't seem like much now, but in 1956, about the time Wilt was an 18 year old dabbling in the high jump, it was good for 8th place in the Olympics. Not bad. His 400 and 800 times weren't world class, but a 7-1 freak who can run a 49.0 quarter is pretty impressive, especially when the very best in the world were running about a 46 at the time. The famous 500 lb benched were witnessed by dozens too. A pro football team gave him a tryout and he ran a 4.4 barefoot in pants. The coaches ran him through everything, thinking the had the best tight end in history before Chamberlain told them he was only interested in being a QB. It goes on and on...
> 
> I think a lot of what he really was gets lost because of his own tendency to embellish a bit. 20,000 women? Driving across the country in 18 hours going 140 mph all the way?
> ...


I used to think that if Shaq played back when Wilt did he would be more dominant, and Wilt wouldn't be as dominant in the 90s as Shaq was. But after really considering how much of an athletic freak he was, I have no doubt that he would have been more dominant than Shaq. How can a 7 footer run a 4.4? That would be fast for an NFL running back. Benching 500 at 7'1 is also remarkable considering the length of the press. Arnold (don't feel like trying to spell his last name) talks about how bench pressing a lot is difficult for him becuase of his height and he's only 6'2. Wilt would've been too strong and too quick for centers, and just would've dominated now. I think their are only 3 players in the league who would've had any chance of even slowing him down, Shaq because of the strength, Yao Ming becuse of his height, and KG becuase he matches up with Wilt quite well.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> No it's not. Hell if I can remember, but there was a legitimate eye-witness (probably several, and I'm talking former NBA stars and personalities, but it's been a while since I heard this), but they saw Wilt get under 475 lbs, without warming up mind you, and get it with relative ease.


Well, if you want to believe it, do it. I don't give Wilt's stories too much credit.

I don't believe his "I'm the best volleyball player in the world" story.

I don't believe his "I beat Arnold Schwarzenegger in benching" story.

I don't believe his "I have a 50+ inch vertical" story.

I don't believe his "I run faster than every football player out there" story.

I don't believe his "I had 20,000 women" story.

This guy said so much bullsh*t, it's funny. I don't think he believed it himself.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> Well, if you want to believe it, do it. I don't give Wilt's stories too much credit.
> 
> ...


I'm not taking his word for it, I'm taking the numerous eye witness's who had no reason to spread fibs' word for it


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

wilt chamberlain ran a 4.4 40?

i'd love to see proof.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Wilt would be just as good today as he was 40 years ago. Maybe less rebounds and blocks, but on the offensive end I doubt anyone could seriously stop him.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

Wilt could always fly, he was a gourmet chef, his saliva was a stain repellant/cleaning utility, could turn anything into gold with his touch, had bowel movements that smelled like bakery fresh cinnamon buns, and he used his dick, a piece of string, and chewing gum to catch fish to feed the entire continent of Africa.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> Wilt could always fly, he was a gourmet chef, his saliva was a stain repellant/cleaning utility, could turn anything into gold with his touch, had bowel movements that smelled like bakery fresh cinnamon buns, and he used his dick, a piece of string, and chewing gum to catch fish to feed the entire continent of Africa.




:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Chicago76 (Mar 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> wilt chamberlain ran a 4.4 40?
> 
> i'd love to see proof.


Here's an excerpt from a longer recounting of a tryout he had under the eye of Hank Stram. 

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article10.html

To quote the article:

And, according to the old football coach Hank Stram, Wilt could've been an NFL star. 

"One year when Wilt was holding out on the 76ers," Stram said, "we invited him to an early training camp in the Catskills." This was when Stram's Kansas City Chiefs were an NFL dynasty in the making. "First thing we did was run him 40 yards." 

Wilt ran in slacks and bare feet. He outsprinted the Chiefs' best running back, Curtis McClinton. 

"Then we threw some passes, and Wilt went over the goal posts to get 'em," Stram said. "By now, I'm getting excited." 

Only one problem. 

"When we were done, Wilt said it'd been fun, but he really wanted to be our quarterback," Stram said. 

***********************************************

While the excerpt I found doesn't declare his 40 to be 4.4, he outsprinted a friggin' pro running back. 

So at worst, we're talking 4.5-4.6. 4.4, I've seen quoted in more extensive versions of the tryout. The least you could say is that it doesn't seem so unlikely. 

Anything Wilt claims by himself, I take with a good degree of skepticism. People in sport who have their reputations and have no reason to lie, I tend to believe.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

The official Big Eight 1958 Track and Field championships lists Wilt Chamberlain of University of Kansas winning the high jump with a height of 6' 6-3/4"

The winning height at the 1956 Olympics was 6' 11-1/4" ... the Bronze medal was only 6' 9-3/4"

It's literally no joke to say that Wilt was a 7' 1" olympic caliber high jumper. Repeat that again and let it sink in.

Wilt caused many of his own doubts in people's minds by needlessly blowing things out of proportion. The fact that he was an athletic freak beyond all athletic freaks didn't need embelishment. He would dominate todays game, simply because 7' 1" men with Vince Carter level hops and his shot/skills can't be stopped today anymore than they could have been stopped back then. Read the people in the NBA Draft forum salivating over anyone who can tie their shoes at 7', let alone with the athleticism Wilt had. He was a freak of nature, a once in a 100 years type of player. That hasn't changed.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> Wilt could always fly, he was a gourmet chef, his saliva was a stain repellant/cleaning utility, could turn anything into gold with his touch, had bowel movements that smelled like bakery fresh cinnamon buns, and he used his dick, a piece of string, and chewing gum to catch fish to feed the entire continent of Africa.


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> Wilt could always fly, he was a gourmet chef, his saliva was a stain repellant/cleaning utility, could turn anything into gold with his touch, had bowel movements that smelled like bakery fresh cinnamon buns, and he used his dick, a piece of string, and chewing gum to catch fish to feed the entire continent of Africa.



Shutup.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheTruth34</b>!
> 
> 
> Shutup.


I'm sorry, did I disrespect your god? All of these embellishments, hearsays, and predictions are far more embarassing to Wilt's legacy than me making a joke.

"Wilt would score 35, grab 30, and get 5 assists."

Please man. Pop a collapsing zone on Wilt with a good big man, he ain't going nowhere.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Shaquille O'Neal doesn't have the explosive leaping ability Wilt had, and he still gets 25 and 13 with all of the collapsing defenses man can design. The fact remains that big men with skill are still unstoppable in the NBA, no matter what era.

Wilt would get 30 a night in the current NBA. Why is that so hard to accept? He was a 7' 1" man with Olympic class leaping ability and a decent touch. And it's not like people can't average 30 a night in the current NBA, hell - guards (A.I, Tmac) get nearly that and Kobe sure as hell could if he got cut loose. Jordan averaged 30 a night for his career, and that wasn't that long ago, again as a guard.

Would he get 25 boards a night? Nah, the game has changed. Is 30 and 15 out of the question? Actually, that sounds a lot like what he would get. I'm not sure about blocks, the game has changed a lot there. But 30/15/3 sounds very reasonable for the most athletic person to play the center position.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Let´s see…

How would the greatest scorer and rebounder the game has ever seen, who also happens to be one of the best big men ever in defense and passing do in today´s game?

Imagine Kevin Garnett´s agility;
Shaq´s strength;
Olajuwon´s footwork;
Dennis Rodman´s appetite for the glass;
David Robinson´s (young) speed;
Pat Ewing´s jumpshot;
Dikembe Mutombo´s presence in the lane (blocking and altering shots);
Shawn Kemp´s hops.
Mix it all up and still I believe the result still wouldn´t define the player Wilton Chamberlain was.

Stats in today´s game? That would depend.
If he played on a team with a good passer (Lebron James, Andre Miller), I believe he could average something like 35pts on +.600%, 17rbs, 5blks and 6asts

Over exaggerating?
Well, I tried but couldn´t find a site (a little biased against Michael Jordan) who compared Chamberlain with other great players. The link for that site was once in a BBB.Net´s thread, for that matter. In that site there were numerous quotes of other great NBA players, who were unanimous in proclaiming Wilt to be the strongest man who ever played ball (it´s told that he once dunked so ferociously that a player got his foot broken by the ball).


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

did it ever occur to any of you that today's players are far more athletic than in wilt's time?

7'1 with olympic leaping ability? even if thats true, it was olympic leaping ability from BACK THEN. i'm pretty sure people jump much higher these days. the proof is right in front of your eyes. players who are 6 feet tall can dunk. could they back in wilt's days? i strongly doubt it.

the times they are a-changin'. 7-footers were a diamond in the rough back then, period. not only that, but if you're a 7 footer with athletic ability in the 60's, how can you NOT dominate? that's two rarities.

and did someone really say wilt chamberlain had vince carter's jumping ability? :no: 

kevin garnett's agility? so ridiculous.

wilt was an amazing athlete FOR HIS TIME. he'd still be a great player today, but you people saying he'd avg numbers like 30 and 20 with 5 blocks need a reality check.

i'm sure some people still believe wilt > MJ, too.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure whiterino, an educated Celtics fan, has a pretty firm grasp on what went down in the Russell-Wilt matchups. Check the stat sheets. Chamberlain obliterated Russell every time they met up.........but the Celtics still managed to win most of the time


Thank you KC.
Wilt dominated Russell game after game after game, Russell himself will tell you that, they were rivals and hated each other for a long time but eventually they became friends, Wilt came to Boston for Bill's number retirement. Wilt's BEST games were against Russell because he brought out Wilt's desire. He HATED the Celtics and wanted to win so badly against them. Russell's team won more games because he played with other HOF guys, Wilt had NO ONE on his team until he finally went to LA. 
I was born in Mass and I live in Mass but I grew up in Southern California and I used to watch Wilt play volleyball at Venice Beach when I was a kid. He was a MONSTER! NO ONE in todays game compares to him, not even Shaq and that's not to take anything away from Shaq. 
By the way, there was a documentary on Wilt on TV only a couple of weeks ago and the 4.4 story is true because one of the guys that witnessed it was on the show and the 500 bench story is also true and they interviewed a couple of different guys who witnessed that and are STILL in awe! No, I don't think the 20,000 women story is true:laugh:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> did it ever occur to any of you that today's players are far more athletic than in wilt's time?
> 
> 7'1 with olympic leaping ability? even if thats true, it was olympic leaping ability from BACK THEN. i'm pretty sure people jump much higher these days. the proof is right in front of your eyes. players who are 6 feet tall can dunk. could they back in wilt's days? i strongly doubt it.
> ...



the world record in the high jump has increased approximately 6 inches in 40 years, from 7.5 feet to 8 feet. note also, that the current world record was banned for steroid use sometime after his world record jumps (he increased the record 3 times).

bob beamon's 1968 record in the long jump stood for a long time, until it was broken by a matter of inches about 10 years ago.

bob hayes, the 1960 olympic sprint champ, is probably still the fastest human ever.

according to the association for basketball research, the average nba height increased from 6'6 in 1964 to 6'7 in 2001.

again, he wasn't a freak for his time, he was a freak. today, there'd be no one like him still, and he'd still be a freak. his numbers would be lower, but he'd still be pretty dominant.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you KC.
> ...


wilt was awesome, but he didn't dominate russell every time. russell had a different objective - he wasn't going to match wilt point for point, nor did he have to. he needed to control wilt (note that wilt scored significantly less against russell than his season averages), he needed to dominate defensively, and he needed to bring the best out of his teammates.

wilt didn't have NO ONE on his team in philly - his teams were arguably more stacked than russells - hofers greer & cunningham, with chet walker, wali jones, lucious jackson. from 66-68. in '69 he had west and baylor. the results those 4 years? 3 championships for russell, 1 for wilt.

personally, i think wilt was such an overwhelming presence that he overshadowed his own teammates, and they contributed less in his presence than they were capable of. russell had an opposite effect. and of course, wilt's ability to close out games was similar to shaq's, in that neither could hit ft's.


----------



## alpngso (May 23, 2003)

30 pts, 13 rebs, 4 blks is what Wilt can do in the league today IMO


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Let´s see…
> 
> How would the greatest scorer and rebounder the game has ever seen, who also happens to be one of the best big men ever in defense and passing do in today´s game?
> ...


Well, what about a player with
Iverson's speed
Marbury's handling
Peja's shooting touch
Artest's as well as Big Ben's defense
Carter's vertical
Magic's vision
Zidane's footwork
Einstein's brain
Hulk's strength
Spiderman's agility
and Harry Potter's witchcraft
Mix it all up and you have the perfect player, namely Wilt Chamberlain.



> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Stats in today´s game? That would depend.
> If he played on a team with a good passer (Lebron James, Andre Miller), I believe he could average something like 35pts on +.600%, 17rbs, 5blks and 6asts


17 rebounds? Maybe, if he was the only good rebounder on his team (like KG and the Wolves)
5 blocks? A bit high, although he was arguably a Olajuwon-type of shot-blocker. Probably 4 bpg.
35 points and 6 assists? No. Either 30+ points or 5+ assists, but not both. I think he'd have something like 30 ppg and 3 apg.



> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Over exaggerating?
> Well, I tried but couldn´t find a site (a little biased against Michael Jordan) who compared Chamberlain with other great players. The link for that site was once in a BBB.Net´s thread, for that matter. In that site there were numerous quotes of other great NBA players, who were unanimous in proclaiming Wilt to be the strongest man who ever played ball (it´s told that he once dunked so ferociously that a player got his foot broken by the ball).


Some quotes:

Joe Maloof: _"To me, the three best players in the history are Shaq, number one. Wilt Chamberlain, number two. And Jordan, number three. ..."_

Kevin Loughery: _"I put Shaquille ahead of Wilt. Chamberlain didn't have enough titles. ..."_

Rod Thorn: _"I used to compare Shaq to Wilt, but O'Neal is quicker and bigger than Wilt."_

Source: "Who's better, who's best?" by Elliott Kalb

Especially the last quote says something you Wilt-Fans don't understand. Actually it's Shaquille O'Neal, who's a unique athlete, not Wilt. Shaq is a lot quicker. Even last year, when he carried about 360 pounds, he ran the court faster than most guards. Shaq is more explosive. His explosiveness comes second to only Charles Barkley. 
Wilt was better on defense, yes, but he's *not* a better athlete than Shaquille O'Neal.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> Well, what about a player with
> Iverson's speed
> ...


Found the damned site!


Here are some quotes from his peers.

Study up.

Example: "When I coached the San Francisco Warriors, I thought Al Attles was the fastest guy on our team--by far. We used to gamble a lot--which player could jump the highest and run the fastest. So I set up a series of races, baseline to baseline. In the finals, it was Wilt and Al Attles and Wilt just blew past him. I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen." 

--Alex Hannum, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> (it´s told that he once dunked so ferociously that a player got his foot broken by the ball).


It's told that Paul Bunyon brushed his teeth with redwood trees.

Applying common sense once in a while can't hurt.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RocketFan85</b>!
> I think Shaq is a better player. I would even put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in front of Wilt. Basketball has changed alot since when Wilt played. Wilt could put up 25ppg and 10rpg in todays game.


Wilt today

22 points and 11 boards per game in the West.
25 points and 14 boards per game in the east.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> It's told that Paul Bunyon brushed his teeth with redwood trees.
> ...


All he's doing is relaying what other people have said. Facts are great, but the thing is, everytime people bring up facts about Wilt, they're denounced by others who say there's not enough solid proof.

Yes, people are more athletic on average now then they were 40 years ago, however, if Wilt were born 30 or so years later in life, I don't think it's debatable that he would've been an even greater athlete than he already was. There have been profound advances in nutrition and weight-training technology, on top of other training techniques, that would obviously benefit Chamberlain.

And yes, spriggan, many, many people do believe Wilt > MJ


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Found the damned site!
> ...


here's a small quote from one of the quotes on that page:



> Gus was a very strong player. I weighed 220 pounds, and with one hand Gus could push me out of the lane. The man was a physical specimen [6-foot-6, 230 pounds], all muscle.


that's pretty much what i was trying to explain. wilt dominated at a time when a person that was 6'6 230 was considered a "physical specimen".


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> that's pretty much what i was trying to explain. wilt dominated at a time when a person that was 6'6 230 was considered a "physical specimen".


6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle isn't a physical specimen anymore?

And you left out the part that he suffered a dislocated shoulder stemming from a Chamberlain rejection......


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> 6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle isn't a physical specimen anymore?
> ...


if 6'6 230 lbs is a "physical specimen", do you realize how many "physical specimens" there are in the NBA today?

i'd use the words "physical specimen" to describe someone like KG or lebron. but that's just me.

and dislocated shoulder, indeed. just like the guy who claimed that wilt once dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe? 

people often embellish the truth. this is something you need to learn.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> if 6'6 230 lbs is a "physical specimen", do you realize how many "physical specimens" there are in the NBA today?
> ...


You know who said he dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe? Red Kerr, the man who's toe was broken by said dunk. 

Sure people embellish the truth, but just because something's amazing doesn't neccesarily mean it's untrue. That's something YOU need to learn.

6'6'' 230 pounds of solid muscle is a physical specimen. KG is a terrific athlete but he's not physically imposing. Would you concede Ron Artest to be a physical specimen? Because his physique is stikingly similar to the description given. 

You're going to believe what you want and will continue to shrug off Wilt's accomplishments as untrue or exaggerated, and that's fine. It just goes to show that people have a hard time fathoming how good he really was.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> You know who said he dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe? Red Kerr, the man who's toe was broken by said dunk.
> ...


you actually believe that wilt chamberlain once dunked a ball so hard it broke someone's TOE?

and you don't believe KG to be a physical specimen?

wow.

oh and, ron artest is nearly 250, so no, it's not "strikingly similar".

glenn robinson is 6'7 240. i guess he's a physical specimen. don't be fooled, it's all muscle.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> You're going to believe what you want and will continue to shrug off Wilt's accomplishments as untrue or exaggerated, and that's fine. It just goes to show that people have a hard time fathoming how good he really was.


And you're going to believe anything said about Wilt Chamberlain, no matter how outlandish. It just goes to show that some people will believe anything just because they want it to be true.

That statement above is as reasonable as what you said.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Chamberlain was undoubtedly a brilliant athlete, who would be great today, but he wasn't a superhuman. Some of those stories are purely ridiculous and some of the stories probably are true.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> you actually believe that wilt chamberlain once dunked a ball so hard it broke someone's TOE?


Why would a man lie that his toe was broken by someone else's dunk? It's ludicrus. I guess there's just a big conspiracy that nearly everyone who saw him wanted to build up his legend.

As for KG, no, he's not a physical specimen in the sense that he's physically imposing (as was suggest per the quote you gave). However, he is an athletic freak.

And Ron Artest is listed at 6'7'' 245. 6'6'' 230 of solid muscle is a HUGE drop-off from 6'7'' 245, I know.......


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> And you're going to believe anything said about Wilt Chamberlain, no matter how outlandish. It just goes to show that some people will believe anything just because they want it to be true.
> ...


You're making a rather rash assessment of my stance on the subject based purely on the fact that I'm defending several people's eye-witness testimonies. When numerous legitimate witnesses attest to some of the things spriggan and others continue to denounce, I tend to believe the former.

Nobody's suggesting Wilt was superhuman, but people are suggesting he's the best athlete to ever pick up a basketball. Are you saying this isn't a possibility, if not probability?


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would a man lie that his toe was broken by someone else's dunk? It's ludicrus. I guess there's just a big conspiracy that nearly everyone who saw him wanted to build up his legend.
> ...


why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.

i hear those words used a lot to describe lebron. imagine if lebron was around in the 60's. 18 years old, 6'8 240 lbs. what words could they have possibly used to describe lebron? certainly not "physical specimen". that's reserved for smaller guys, apprently. 

face it. athletes today are bigger, stronger and quicker. a physical specimen in the 60's would probably not be considered so today, if i had to guess.. wilt was certainly a physical specimen, and would still be in this day, but not the guy he blocked so hard he dislocated his shoulder. if that's even true, of course. however, that's much easier to believe than wilt breaking someone's toe with a basketball.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> You're making a rather rash assessment of my stance on the subject based purely on the fact that I'm defending several people's eye-witness testimonies.


No I'm not. I'm pointing out how easily such rhetoric can be used to try and dismiss the other person. I don't actually believe that little blurb I said about you, I was just reversing your rhetoric.

As I said, I think the truth lies in between the people who think much of this is bunk and the people who think it's all true.



> Nobody's suggesting Wilt was superhuman, but people are suggesting he's the best athlete to ever pick up a basketball. Are you saying this isn't a possibility, if not probability?


I think it's a possibility. I don't think _some_ of the stories put forth about Chamberlain are possible.

And people exaggerate all the time, even about things that happened to them. The bigger the story, the more interested people are.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.
> ...


I'm not saying there isn't a discrepency between physical specimens today and physical specimens from 40 years ago. However, you isolated a VERY small part of the page and used it to feed your side of the argument, when in actuality it really isn't a profound discovery. Do you really think somebody 6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle couldn't be considered a physical specimen in today's NBA?

Once again you assume that something's untrue just become you personally don't find it feasible. You know what I don't find feasible? Somebody lying about his toe being broken by somebody else's dunk. I could see an exaggeration but at the very least I'm sure his toe was awfully damn sore.

Let's face it, some of the stories about Wilt are untrue. For instance, there's no way in hell he had a 50 in. vertical. But eye witness accounts by rival NBA legends, coaches, GM's, etc. usually have a bit of validity. 

This is being dragged out too far. You're looking for statistical facts to prove Wilt was the athlete that he was, which we simply aren't going to find (and if we did, you'd probably find some flaw in that as well, making it moot). Your opinion differs from mine, which is perfectly okay. However, the sarcastic remark "I bet some people still think Wilt > MJ too" is, quite simply, disrespectful to many people (for a few examples......Larry Bird, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson) who feel Wilt is the greatest player who ever lived. Is he better than MJ? Not neccesarily. Is MJ better than Wilt? Not neccesarily. There's an argument to be made for both of them as the greatest ever (as well as Oscar), but your snide remark is a bit uncalled for, IMO.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> As I said, I think the truth lies in between the people who think much of this is bunk and the people who think it's all true.


More than likely. However, I don't think many think it's all true. I'm not under the assumption that every story I hear about Chamberlain is 100% correct.  However, most of them have some truth to them. People don't just fabricate the kind of things they say about this guy. Obviously the lack of media attention and televised games helps his legend, but it also hurts him in the regard that many haven't seen him and just assume that since he didn't play in the same era as MJ and Shaq, that he couldn't possibly be as good.




> I think it's a possibility. I don't think _some_ of the stories put forth about Chamberlain are possible.
> 
> And people exaggerate all the time, even about things that happened to them. The bigger the story, the more interested people are.


Some of the stories put forth aren't possible, however, the majority of them are conceivable. 

Once again, I understand that many people naturally exaggerate stories, but I find it somewhat far fetched that, with the enormous amount of testimonies to his extreme athletic ability, his freakish skills are simply a figment of everyone's imagination. I realize that's not what you're implying, but I personally feel there's more backing the claim that he was probably the greatest athlete in basketball history as opposed to him being on Jermaine O'neil's level if he were to play today, which is what many any here would have you believe.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.
> ...


if lebron was around in the 60s he would likely not be 6'8 240. he's a product of his times, as were athletes back in the 60s. lebron in '60 would be much skinnier, but relative to his peers he'd stand out, like he does today. wilt today wouldn't be 7'1 280, he'd be much larger, given that he had the work ethic to live in the gym and take supplements like todays freaks do. we just don't make people bigger & stronger today, they work at it - just like many of the athletes of yesterday would today. again, a superfreak of yesterday would likely be a superfreak today.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't a discrepency between physical specimens today and physical specimens from 40 years ago. However, you isolated a VERY small part of the page and used it to feed your side of the argument, when in actuality it really isn't a profound discovery. Do you really think somebody 6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle couldn't be considered a physical specimen in today's NBA?
> ...


you know how all of this started? it was a big argument between who was stronger, shaq or wilt. i'm sure wilt was an extremely strong man, but i have a hard time believing he was stronger than shaq. a younger shaq, at least.

that's pretty much all i'm trying to say.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
> 
> 
> you know how all of this started? it was a big argument between who was stronger, shaq or wilt. i'm sure wilt was an extremely strong man, but i have a hard time believing he was stronger than shaq. a younger shaq, at least.
> ...


I'd beg to differ. However, we've already gone over everything there is to go over, and there's no way to prove either of our sides to be 100% correct. Thus, this debate should probably coast to a close, IMO.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd beg to differ. However, we've already gone over everything there is to go over, and there's no way to prove either of our sides to be 100% correct. Thus, this debate should probably coast to a close, IMO.


agreed.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Younger Shaq got absolutely worked by Hakeem Olajuwon. I mean ... worked  Watch Shaq against Yao now - true big men still give him some problems. How many teams in todays NBA start a true center? Maybe ... 8? Might even be less, depends on who you qualify as a "true" center. There's no more real centers today than in Wilt's time, they both spent most of their careers dunking on 6' 9" guys who were hopelessly outmatched.

Part of Shaq's legend has been built because there are very few true centers in the league today, the golden age of NBA centers (Jabbar and Walton all the way to Ewing and Olajawon and Mutombo) was actually between Wilt and Shaq - who both played in eras in which they physically dominated smaller oponents.

The man was an absolute freak of nature though, and yes - he really did have Vince Carter quality hops (do you realise what high jumping 6' 6-3/4" with the technique of those days meant?), watch some film of him if you can find it, it's unbelievable. I don't think he's the greatest player ever, but he very possibly was the greatest athlete to ever play basketball.


----------



## TyGuy (Apr 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> if lebron was around in the 60s he would likely not be 6'8 240. he's a product of his times, as were athletes back in the 60s. lebron in '60 would be much skinnier, but relative to his peers he'd stand out, like he does today. wilt today wouldn't be 7'1 280, he'd be much larger, given that he had the work ethic to live in the gym and take supplements like todays freaks do. we just don't make people bigger & stronger today, they work at it - just like many of the athletes of yesterday would today. again, a superfreak of yesterday would likely be a superfreak today.


If hes just a product of his generation howcome nobody else is like him?


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

Wilt DIDN'T have Vince Carter hops. Get that through your head. Vince can get his head at rim level, and Wilt has never done that. There are no videos or pictures of him doing anything close to that. He was a great athlete because of speed and strength, but you're kidding yourself if he had Carter-like hops. If he did, where's the proof? There's a difference between the high jump and a vertical leap.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> What do u rekon his stats would of been like if he played today, better than Shaq


I haven't read any of the responses so I apologize if any of what I say is repeated.

Many people forget what type of athlete Wilt was. He was an elite track and field performer and volleyball player. It is said that Wilt could consistently snatch a quarter off the backboard and bench over 450-500 pounds.

Is Shaq better than Wilt? I don't think so. Wilt has more moves and is equally as aggressive. Many people forget that Wilt played over 300 pounds late in his career with the Lakers where he sacrificed much of his offensive stats for the team.

If Shaq could get 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg in his best season today I reckon Wilt could get 31-33 ppg, 15-17 rpg, 3-5 bpg today. It's mere speculation but people don't give Wilt enough credit. Here is a giant who played basically 48 MPG while travelling on buses to cities with no weight conditioning programs OR technological advances in sports medicine, training and gameplay. Could you imagine how much stronger Wilt would be today with the conditioning programs implemented by every team now? or How much he would be better with all the game tapes and scouting reports players have now? People often never take these advances into consideration and that is why comparing players of different eras is very difficult. 

Wilt was exceptional and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't be so in today's game even with all variables held constant.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Wilt Today*



> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> I haven't read any of the responses so I apologize if any of what I say is repeated.
> ...


I completely agree, the #s you gave were basically what I said, my stat line for Wilt in today's game was 33/16/5 and 5 assists to boot. He was incredible back then and would be incredible now.


----------



## Jordan23 (Apr 12, 2004)

Come on people give Wilt some props! I'm not one that believes in all the stories surrounding wilt. But I do believe he would of been dominate in todays game. But better than shaq ? hmm I dont know about that I do think they would be formidable foes to each other. And if you don't think so than essentially you say that Yao Ming is better than Wilt Chamberlain since Yao is the only center in recent memory that has won the one on one match up between Shaq and Yao and Yao is only in his second year not to shabby. Wilt Chamberlain might even be a little better than Shaq for an over all talent. But I think Shaq is more powerful. But again I point to at what Yao was able to accomplish against Shaq in only his second season. You got to think that Wilt Chamberlain could also do that in his prime.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vadimivich</b>!
> Part of Shaq's legend has been built because there are very few true centers in the league today, the golden age of NBA centers (Jabbar and Walton all the way to Ewing and Olajawon and Mutombo) was actually between Wilt and Shaq - who both played in eras in which they physically dominated smaller oponents.


Wrong. In Shaq's early years, the league was full of elite centers, probably more than in every other area of basketball. Although Shaq was young, raw and unexperiecend, he as good as any of them. Don't tell me Hakeem "worked" on Shaq. This matchup wasn't like Jordan-Drexler in '92, it was like Erving-Bird in '82. The Magic would have won this Finals series if they've had some clutch players.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Look, if a girl owned me in a streetball park, and the whole world found out by way of radio or mouth even. I'd tell everyone, damn, it wasn't humiliating because that girl is a freak! She was so strong that when she dunked the ball it hit my foot and broke my toe! 

Ok, I feel better now, since you people have seen how much of an athletic freak that girl is... I'm respectable again because I didn't lose to a girl, I lost to a physical specimen and a freak.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TyGuy</b>!
> If hes just a product of his generation howcome nobody else is like him?


he is relatively freakish for his generation. put him in another generation, and he'll likely still be freakish, but he wouldn't be the same person / athlete he is today. same with wilt. there was noone like him then, there'd be noone truly like him today.

if lebron was 18 in 1960, do you think he'd look like he does today?


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>gian</b>!
> I mean, Hakeem would've owned him...


Hakeem would of owned any center


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> Wrong. In Shaq's early years, the league was full of elite centers, probably more than in every other area of basketball. Although Shaq was young, raw and unexperiecend, he as good as any of them. Don't tell me Hakeem "worked" on Shaq. This matchup wasn't like Jordan-Drexler in '92, it was like Erving-Bird in '82. The Magic would have won this Finals series if they've had some clutch players.


Excuses..da dream worked shaq..so bad that shaq said he wanted to be like the dream...it was more like jordan vs marleje


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> 
> 
> Hakeem would of owned any center


I think Hakeem and Wilt are the 2 greatest centers, they would've had battles, neither would be able to stop each other. I think they both have similiar talents, meaning they were both unusually agile for people their height. Wilt would have the strength advantage and the Dream would have the better post moves.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Priest</b>!
> 
> 
> Excuses..da dream worked shaq..so bad that shaq said he wanted to be like the dream...it was more like jordan vs marleje


yeah, shaq ONLY averaged 28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, 59% fg%.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Hakeem and Wilt are the 2 greatest centers, they would've had battles, neither would be able to stop each other. I think they both have similiar talents, meaning they were both unusually agile for people their height. Wilt would have the strength advantage and the Dream would have the better post moves.


i'd put kareem ahead of hakeem. particularly a young kareem. better offensively (by a decent amount), a great rebounder and strong defender. more dominant overall.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Hakeem and Wilt are the 2 greatest centers


I agree. I rank them (based on prime NBA value):

*1.* Hakeem Olajuwon
*2.* Wilt Chamberlain
*3.* Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
*4.* Shaquille O'Neal
*5.* Bill Russell
*6.* David Robinson
*7.* Moses Malone
*8.* Bill Walton
*9.* Patrick Ewing
*10.* Alonzo Mourning


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

hakeem won 1 mvp. take jordan out of the equation, and hakeem still would have won 1 mvp (he finished top 3 twice in his career).

the only argument for hakeem would be if you analyzed his offensive & defensive skill / ability and concluded that made him the best. because by any other objective measure, stats, accomplishments, awards, success, dominance for era, he lags behind his peers. 

hakeem was awesome, but i don't think he warrants a top spot.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Taking Minstrel's cue, here are my center ratings, based on prime value. 

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. David Robinson
5. Hakeem Olajuwan
6. Bill Russell
7. Moses Malone
8. Patrick Ewing
9. Alonzo Mourning
10. Artis Gilmore


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ok, here goes:

russell
wilt
kareem
shaq
hakeem
moses
robinson
ewing
reed
thurmond

walton fits somewhere ahead of robinson, but he just didn't do enough.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> the only argument for hakeem would be if you analyzed his offensive & defensive skill / ability and concluded that made him the best.


That's exactly what I did.



> because by any other objective measure, stats, accomplishments, awards, success, dominance for era, he lags behind his peers.


True. And those things all have flaws as measures of cross-era individual ability, in my opinion.

It's satisfying to sum things up quantitatively, but my opinion is that this sort of thing is a purely qualitative exercise and the numbers, awards, etc are all just nice evidence to examine, but not conclusive.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I did.
> ...


I don't any major complains about your list, as it is a subjective exercise, but your inclusion of Walton is curious, as his greatest merits were in the college game.


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

There are a lot of good posts on this thread. I think it is impossible to judge accurately. If he was thrust directly from the 60s/70s to today's game, he would suck. If he had developed in the modern era as one person mentioned, he probably would dominate. The best way to judge players is to acknowledge what they did in their time regardless of competition.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I did.
> ...


hakeem's actual production places him well below kareem offensively. scoring, effeciency, passing. would you argue he was as good offensively? i'd say no, based on skills and based on numbers.

his stats show him to be comparable as a peak rebounder. little to debate here, imo.

his stats show him with a slight edge defensively, although we are missing some data for kareem at his peak. 

you'd have to argue that hakeem defensively makes up for the offensive disparity. stats don't support it. was he so far superior as a man defender?

hakeem's output, his success, may just not support your overall assessment. maybe it does.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> I don't any major complains about your list, as it is a subjective exercise, but your inclusion of Walton is curious, as his greatest merits were in the college game.


I said I was using peak value. At his peak, with the Blazers, he was truly great.

If I were going by career value, he wouldn't be on the list and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would probably be tops.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>-D!</b>!
> If he was thrust directly from the 60s/70s to today's game, he would suck.


i agree with the rest of your points. not this one. thrust him directly into today's game, and you'd have a 7'1 athletic freak who could play the game of basketball. he would be hard to stop today. he certainly wouldn't suck.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> hakeem's actual production places him well below kareem offensively. scoring, effeciency, passing. would you argue he was as good offensively? i'd say no, based on skills and based on numbers.


I think at his peak, he was as good as anyone, offensively. His array of post moves were possibly the best I've ever seen (I'll admit I didn't see Chamberlain play live, but I've seen a lot of film) and he was a perfectly good passer.



> his stats show him with a slight edge defensively, although we are missing some data for kareem at his peak.


The statistics aren't a bad thing to use, but I rarely judge defense by statistics. If you overwhelm your opponent and simply force him to give the ball up or to miss a shot, that's great defense, but not encapsulated in blocked shots and steals.

I'd say that Olajuwon was the best defensive center ever (and I've been priviledged to see some of the greatest in Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo and Mourning) with the caveat that Russell may have been better, as all I can judge from is film.

I've definitely seen more of Olajuwon.



> you'd have to argue that hakeem defensively makes up for the offensive disparity. stats don't support it. was he so far superior as a man defender?


At his peak, I'm not sure I'd agree that Olajuwon was a poorer offensive weapon than Abdul-Jabbar. For a career, Abdul-Jabbar was superior, offensively.

At his peak, Olajuwon was a considerably better defender than Abdul-Jabbar, in my opinion, and better for his career.

If we go with peak value, I'd pick Olajuwon first. If we go with career value, I'd pick Abdul-Jabbar first.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I said I was using peak value. At his peak, with the Blazers, he was truly great.
> ...


Looking over Walton's accomplishments again, I'll agree. I never considered him enough of a scorer to warrant such a high ranking, but he does have incredible all-around skills. Being a fringe pick, it doesn't seem as much of a reach as before, though I still think Walton over Ewing is a stretch.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I think at his peak, he was as good as anyone, offensively. His array of post moves were possibly the best I've ever seen (I'll admit I didn't see Chamberlain play live, but I've seen a lot of film) and he was a perfectly good passer.
> ...


again, i don't see how you could argue hakeem was on par offensively. there's just not much to justify it. his production was much lower. era adjusted, it's still not that close. he wasn't as efficient. he didn't score as much. he wasn't even the go-to guy kareem was. he didn't pass nearly as well. to call it a wash is to ignore or just discount what kareem did. he was unstoppable. as much as hakeem could do, he didn't shoot a remarkable %, and he didn't score a remarkable amount, even relative to his peers from his generation. i just don't see how you can call this even. you need more than to say "hakeem had alot of moves".

i agree that defensively, stats don't tell a complete story. but kareem was a dominant shot-blocker, he was athletic, he was very good defensively, at his peak.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> again, i don't see how you could argue hakeem was on par offensively. there's just not much to justify it.


Kobe Bryant wasn't very close to Tracy McGrady in scoring, but would you say it's unreasonable to say Bryant was an equivalently good offensive weapon? I wouldn't say that.

There are different factors that come into play.

One is era, as you note. Another is pace...some teams play at a much greater pace up and down the floor, which can lead to easier scores (as well as more points given up). Abdul-Jabbar played a great deal of his career with the Showtime Lakers, while Olajuwon played in mostly half-court set teams with the Rockets.

That's why I'm not big on the stats from across eras. While they did overlap, I'd say Olajuwon's prime was in the '90s, while Abdul-Jabbar's was in the '70s and '80s.

Had Olajuwon played his prime during the go-go-little-defense era of the '80s, in Showtime, for a decade, I think his numbers would look very different.



> i agree that defensively, stats don't tell a complete story. but kareem was a dominant shot-blocker, he was athletic, he was very good defensively, at his peak.


I agree with you. All the top five or six centers of all-time had dominant defensive periods or even careers. I feel that Olajuwon was the best and significantly better than Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe Bryant wasn't very close to Tracy McGrady in scoring, but would you say it's unreasonable to say Bryant was an equivalently good offensive weapon? I wouldn't say that.


he shot a lower %, and was on a much worse team.

kareem scored more, shot a much higher %, on great teams (that he made great).



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> There are different factors that come into play.
> ...


kareem's prime was in the early-mid 70s. showtime, he was past his prime, albeit still great. we're still talking peak, right?


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

My list, based on team sucess and pure individual dominance

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Hakeem Olajuwon
5. Bill Russell
6. Moses Malone
7. George Mikan
8. Bill Walton
9. David Robinson
10. Patrick Ewing


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

There are some great arguments going on here but I like to interject and give my thoughts on Hakeem.

Hakeem was the BEST center I have ever seen live hands down. So that doesn't include Wilt or Russell since I was not born during that era but I have seen enough footage of them to acknowledge they are legends. But back to Hakeem.

Hakeem to me was kind of a myriad of Wilt and Russell. Taking some strengths of one while mixing it with the strengths of the other. 

At his offensive peak, Hakeem was unstoppable. He sported a combination of post moves that at times he made opponents HYPNOTIC. Heck he induced people who watched him live or on TV to become disoriented. (You know there is a reason why they call him the Dream.) His combination of post moves puts Duncan to shame and Duncan is incredible. No one could guard Hakeem...no one. He was both finesse and strength in the post. Offensively skill wise I say he was as good as Kareem. In fact, I can't even separate the two...forget the stats. Stats are deceiving...look at skills. Hakeem's skill set for a center is second to none, offensively and defensively.

Hakeem is easily...EASILY the best post defender I have ever seen. He was simply Russell-esque. Honest. Go look at Russell tapes and compare him to Hakeem. Russell was a little quicker but Hakeem was equally as intimidating. I have seen Hakeem block shots while trailing an opponent's fastbreak. The only other center I have ever seen that (or could do it consistently) was Russell and at times David Robinson. Stat wise Hakeem is the only player ever to achieve 200 blocks and 200 steals in one season. The leading shotblocker of alltime...2162 career steals (easily the best for any center - David Robinson is 2nd with 1387). If I was picking my all-time defensive team Hakeem would be standing beside Russell. 

So how great is Hakeem in comparison to his giant peers? Skill wise Hakeem is #2 in my books behind only Wilt...holding all variables constant. Obviously if you want to judge by careers Kareem should be placed higher...6 MVPs...how can you argue with that? You can't and that is why on all the Greatest of All-time lists Kareem is placed higher and RIGHTFULLY so. 

So how do you judge? Do you judge purely based on legacy? Skill set? Championships? Accolades? Stats? I can only go by what I have seen and therefore the easiest way to judge Hakeem is against the players he played against. 

Hakeem played in arguably the most talented big man era of all-time. Just look at the names he played against and then look at the result. What you will find is that he beat all of his competition. Name it. He beat Ewing, David Robinson, Shaq, Brad D...all the prime time centers of his era. He not only beat them, he DOMINATED when it counted. Ask Ewing in the 93 Finals...ask Robinson a year later. Sure Shaq was young and actually averaged more boards and only 2 points less than Hakeem in the finals but there was no question who was more dominant. But as I also admitted, Shaq wasn't in his prime. But Hakeem to me was more impressive (especially skill set wise) in his prime even when compared to Shaq five years later (when he reached his prime). 

Like I said, skill set wise Hakeem was and is second to none as far as centers are concern. Well...at least second to Wilt who is IMO the greatest center of all-time (no question about that). If you take legacy and other externalities which are outside of a player's core skill set into account of course Kareem and Russell would precede Hakeem. But if I was force to pick a team today and right now...Hakeem would be my 2nd center. A choice I would make with NO hesitation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i don't see why with hakeem the stats are deceiving and it's the skills that matter. his skill at putting the ball in the basket are behind kareem's. his skill at passing the ball is surely behind kareem. get passed the hypnotic, the dazzling skills, and you've got a great offensive player, but not an unprecendented one, by any stretch. if i needed a basket, i'd unquestionably throw the ball into kareem in the post before i give it to hakeem. he was taller, better at getting a good shot off, and had an unblockable offensive weapon. i just don't see the argument for hakeem, not offensively.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

if i had to throw the ball into the post to a single player hoping to get an immediate basket out of it, i'd pick shaq, personally.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> i don't see why with hakeem the stats are deceiving and it's the skills that matter. his skill at putting the ball in the basket are behind kareem's. his skill at passing the ball is surely behind kareem. get passed the hypnotic, the dazzling skills, and you've got a great offensive player, but not an unprecendented one, by any stretch. if i needed a basket, i'd unquestionably throw the ball into kareem in the post before i give it to hakeem. he was taller, better at getting a good shot off, and had an unblockable offensive weapon. i just don't see the argument for hakeem, not offensively.


Like I said how people judge a player is all subjective. Hakeem is 2nd in my books and nothing will ever change that. No disrespect to Kareem (look at my avatar) but Hakeem was out of this world. Also stats don't tell the whole truth. If so David Robinson should be ranked top 5 in everyone's lists. At his peak Robinson averaged 30 ppg, 14 rpg, 4 bpg, and 3 spg in a very dominant big man era.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said how people judge a player is all subjective. Hakeem is 2nd in my books and nothing will ever change that. No disrespect to Kareem (look at my avatar) but Hakeem was out of this world. Also stats don't tell the whole truth. If so David Robinson should be ranked top 5 in everyone's lists. At his peak Robinson averaged 30 ppg, 14 rpg, 4 bpg, and 3 spg in a very dominant big man era.


i wouldn't argue too hard against picking hakeem over kareem overall at peak value, although i'd still go with kareem. i don't, however, think the argument for hakeem offensively is too strong in comparison to kareem. in fact, i think kareem clearly has an edge. i think an honest assessment of overall offensive skills, in a addition to stats, bear that out.

the difference with robinson, is that he didn't have as good a post game, and when his team needed big baskets, he didn't necessarily have a go-to move, or much to rely on in a grind out half court set. he got his in the flow of a game. kareem, on other hand, was the greatest post threat ever, with the greatest go-to move ever. he had the post game, the go-to game, the feel for the game, in addition to the mind numbing numbers. there's little argument against him (as opposed to robinson). i just don't see where hakeem would have an advantage offensively. the numbers just bear that out, but an assessment of skill does as well, imo.

now, defensively, i'd certainly give hakeem the nod overall, and that makes it a tougher debate overall. but i'm not buying the offensive argument. it's just not very supportable, imo.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> kareem, on other hand, was the greatest post threat ever, with the greatest go-to move ever.


I've heard many experts say that Olajuwon's "dream shake" was every bit the go-to move that Abdul-Jabbar's "sky hook" was. Many have branded it among the greatest offensive weapons in history.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I've heard many experts say that Olajuwon's "dream shake" was every bit the go-to move that Abdul-Jabbar's "sky hook" was. Many have branded it among the greatest offensive weapons in history.


What I don't understand is if Olajuwon's post moves are the best ever, then when didn't he score more and at a more efficient rate? His statistics seem somewhat "low" for someone who possesses such an explosive offensive move.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> What I don't understand is if Olajuwon's post moves are the best ever, then when didn't he score more and at a more efficient rate? His statistics seem somewhat "low" for someone who possesses such an explosive offensive move.


"More" could have to do with the scheme. The Rockets played a lot of post-and-kick half court offense that was popularized greatly in the '90s. They had guys like Mario Elie, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith shooting off of Olajuwon post passes after he drew the double-team.

As far as efficiency, he's a career .512 shooter which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially when you consider that his career percentage is dragged down by his rather poor end of career, when he had 4 of his final 5 seasons under 50% shooting. He also shot more jumpers than most centers, including Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## Chicago76 (Mar 30, 2004)

My top 10 of all-Time:
1-Chamberlain
2-Kareem
3-Shaq
4-Hakeem
5-Russell. Could have been higher if we knew what he could do without a team of Hall of Famers around him. 
6-Moses
7-Robinson
8-Gilmore
9-Reed
10-Mikan. Had great impact during the pre-shot clock era. Couldn't stack up today. Still, his influence is huge.

Honorable mention:

Mel Daniels-dominant ABA center. Potentially on par w/ Reed. We just don't know for sure

Walton-not enough longevity to make a lasting impact

Zo
Ewing
Thurmond
Cowens
Lanier
McAdoo
Bellamy-if he weren't so lazy, he could have been top 5 or 6.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> As far as efficiency, he's a career .512 shooter which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially when you consider that his career percentage is dragged down by his rather poor end of career, when he had 4 of his final 5 seasons under 50% shooting. He also shot more jumpers than most centers, including Abdul-Jabbar.


consider this - hakeem was top 10 in fg% once in his career (10th in '94). kareem was top 5 15 times in his career, including all his peak scoring seasons.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> consider this - hakeem was top 10 in fg% once in his career (10th in '94). kareem was top 5 15 times in his career, including all his peak scoring seasons.


And also consider this - Shaq was leading the League in fg% in 8 of his 12 years in the NBA. His worst was 4th in 1993 and 1997. He's #3 All-time in fg%.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> "More" could have to do with the scheme. The Rockets played a lot of post-and-kick half court offense that was popularized greatly in the '90s. They had guys like Mario Elie, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith shooting off of Olajuwon post passes after he drew the double-team.


But you can draw up those excuses for both of his main contempararies as well. Dale Ellis, Vinny Del *****, Chuck Person, etc. have all made livings in the past playing with David Robinson. Olajuwon has a career 2.5 APG rate, and so does Robinson. It doesn't seem to me that Robinson was being any more selfish than Olajuwon was. In the early Magic, guys like Nick Anderson, Scott Skiles, and Dennis Scott all reaped the benefits, while in his Laker career, Horry, Fisher, and Fox played the same role. In addition, Shaq has played with a explosive perimeter scorer for almost all his career, something that neither Olajuwon and Robinson can claim to. 


> As far as efficiency, he's a career .512 shooter which doesn't seem unreasonable, especially when you consider that his career percentage is dragged down by his rather poor end of career, when he had 4 of his final 5 seasons under 50% shooting. He also shot more jumpers than most centers, including Abdul-Jabbar.


Even if you take away his last three seasons, his career FG% still falls behind Robinson's career FG%, an offensive player who had the same versatility that Olajuwon had.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> But you can draw up those excuses for both of his main contempararies as well. Dale Ellis, Vinny Del *****, Chuck Person, etc. have all made livings in the past playing with David Robinson. Olajuwon has a career 2.5 APG rate, and so does Robinson. It doesn't seem to me that Robinson was being any more selfish than Olajuwon was. In the early Magic, guys like Nick Anderson, Scott Skiles, and Dennis Scott all reaped the benefits, while in his Laker career, Horry, Fisher, and Fox played the same role. In addition, Shaq has played with a explosive perimeter scorer for almost all his career, something that neither Olajuwon and Robinson can claim to.
> 
> Even if you take away his last three seasons, his career FG% still falls behind Robinson's career FG%, an offensive player who had the same versatility that Olajuwon had.


the problem with a robinson - olajuwon comparison is that they met at their respective heights, with robinson the current mvp, and it was lopsided in hakeem's favor. any statistical advantage robinson may have, and he had one that season, takes a backseat to what happened when they met on the court, and where hakeem ultimately took his team. shaq - hakeem was more of an even matchup, and it was at different points of their respective careers. additionally, shaq went on to win 3 finals mvp's and have his greatest successes afterwards. robinson's prime ended shortly after his matchup with hakeem ('96 essentially his last superstar year).

robinson, as i mentioned earlier, had trouble in crunchtime, without really a great back-to-the-basket game to rely on. of course, he didn't have great talent around him as well.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> the problem with a robinson - olajuwon comparison is that they met at their respective heights, with robinson the current mvp, and it was lopsided in hakeem's favor. any statistical advantage robinson may have, and he had one that season, takes a backseat to what happened when they met on the court, and where hakeem ultimately took his team. shaq - hakeem was more of an even matchup, and it was at different points of their respective careers. additionally, shaq went on to win 3 finals mvp's and have his greatest successes afterwards. robinson's prime ended shortly after his matchup with hakeem ('96 essentially his last superstar year).
> ...


I don't believe one series dictates which player is better, especially when Hakeem and Robinson did match up pretty fairly in the rest of their careers in the regular season.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> I don't believe one series dictates which player is better, especially when Hakeem and Robinson did match up pretty fairly in the rest of their careers in the regular season.


no, but that one series led to another series that lead to a 2nd championship and 2nd finals mvp. it was a big series, their biggest matchup ever, and again, at the peak of both their powers, and it was lopsided. hakeem had the crown , with the prior season championship, robinson challenged for the crown with his mvp, and hakeem settled it on the court, decisively.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> no, but that one series led to another series that lead to a 2nd championship and 2nd finals mvp. it was a big series, their biggest matchup ever, and again, at the peak of both their powers, and it was lopsided. hakeem had the crown , with the prior season championship, robinson challenged for the crown with his mvp, and hakeem settled it on the court, decisively.


But do you understand how small of a sample size six games is? From what I remember and read, Hakeem was simply unstoppable in that series, and honestly, no one could have stopped him. I can't find the box scores for that playoff series anywhere, but it would be interesting to see them.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> I can't find the box scores for that playoff series anywhere, but it would be interesting to see them.


*Hakeem's Averages* 
35.3 ppg
12.5 rpg
5.0 apg
4.1 bpg
1.3 spg

*Robinson's Averages* 
23.8 ppg
11.3 rpg
2.7 apg
1.5 spg

Hakeem outscored him every game of the series except one (they tied) and the last two games he outscored him 81-41.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wilt_The_Stilt</b>!
> 
> 
> *Hakeem's Averages*
> ...


I was looking more for the individual box scores if you have those, but these will do for now. I won't sugercoat. Robinson did get outplayed by a significant margin. However, it does support my theory, that it may be attributed to Hakeem simply being on fire for that series. Robinson still managed to average 20+ PPG, but Hakeem simply overshadowed him by average 35+ PPG.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

blah the "mvp" shoulf of stepped up regardless...he is gettin paid millions


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

can anyone post a vid of hakeem playing or him doing the dream shake? i'd very much like to see it.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i wouldn't argue too hard against picking hakeem over kareem overall at peak value, although i'd still go with kareem. i don't, however, think the argument for hakeem offensively is too strong in comparison to kareem. in fact, i think kareem clearly has an edge. i think an honest assessment of overall offensive skills, in a addition to stats, bear that out.
> ...


Kareem was great, no doubt and he has numbers to back it up but Hakeem to me was equally as dominant offensively. Like I said stats don't tell the whole story and my Robinson example was to point that out NOT to compare Robinson to Hakeem. Once realizing that everyone should acknowledge that stats are not the "end all be all" determinant of a player's skill. However they DO add merit to one's determinant but it should never be used as its primary device.

You must keep in mind that in my original post I neither leveraged Hakeem not Kareem as a better offensive player. I don't get where you get that from my post? Maybe you either misread or were confused.

From previous post:

"Offensively skill wise I say he was as good as Kareem. In fact, I can't even separate the two...forget the stats."

Rather I said that I could not make a distinction betweem the two. Obviously if you factor in defense as well as offense IMO Hakeem is a much better overall player. 

"Hakeem's skill set for a center is second to none, offensively AND defensively." (I capitalized AND)

Obviously I later admitted that the second to none comment was in reality second to Wilt. Hence why Hakeem is #2 in my books and not first.

Kareem's hook shot is arguably the most effective low post offensive move ever (definitely the most consistent) along with Jordan's fadeaway and Hakeem's "dream" shake. All were unstoppable and I admitted Kareem's hook shot was perhaps the most consistent. But...I wouldn't necessarily say that it was more revered than the others I mentioned.

But let's compare Kareem and Hakeem offensively. Sure Kareem had an average best of 34.8 ppg which was IMPRESSIVE but keep in mind the era he played in. Don't get me wrong, Kareem had solid competition at 5 with Wilt (an aging Wilt), Reed (oft injured), Thurmond, Bellamy, Lanier and Cowens. But I believe that Hakeem played in an era (mid 80s to mid 90s) of probably the toughest big men...Ewing, David Robinson, Shaq, Brad D, Moses Malone, Parish, Zo and an aging Kareem. I'm not going to take anything away from Kareem (because I LOVE him as a player - like I said look at my avatar) but take away his first 6 years and the most ppg he averaged in a season after that was 27.7 ppg. But that really isn't fair to Kareem. 

Here are Kareem's stats (if you want to look at numbers):

http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=ABDULKA01

Here are Hakeem's stats:

http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=OLAJUHA01

The obvious advantage about Kareem from his stats was his longevity and consistency but this argument is NOT about that. It is simply about them as players while they were at their PEAK. (You must keep in mind as I said before I neither leveraged Hakeem nor Kareem on the offensive end.) If you want to go by numbers, Kareem's offensive peak saw him average 34.8 ppg while Hakeem's only saw him scoring 27.8 ppg. Stat wise there is no argument who had a more dominant offensive season. But if you factor in all the variables any argument about one being more dominant than the other gets closer and closer. It's the same thing as saying "yeah Wilt can score 50 ppg in the 60s but now he would only score 31 ppg". This is pure speculation of course but I don't believe that Kareem would score 35 ppg in the 90s especially with centers like Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Zo, and etc. as his opposition. Keeping variables in mind, you must also remember by this time centers were stronger, bigger, and more athletic. Of course just as my argument of Wilt: external variables must be taken into consideration when comparing players of different eras. If so you really can't compare unless if you do a complete analysis. That simply takes too long and that is why people will often compare a past player using today's standards. But we all know that standards change. However, holding all variables constant I think I can safely say that Kareem would not average 35 ppg and 16 rpg as a 235 pound center in the 1990s. 28-29 ppg definitely but 35 ppg...I just can't see it. Therefore stats in that sense become pretty much a waste of time. Hence why stats are always the greatest measure. So what is?

Let's look at skill. Kareem had great positioning but so did Hakeem. Kareem had the infamous hook shot while Kareem had the dream shake. Was Kareem a better passer? Ican't really say because the truth is I can't even remember. But by the time I started watching Kareem he was beyond his 4-5 apg days. Also when you played with some of the offensive weapons that Kareem played with...it shouldn't be that hard to collect assists. But Kareem was a good passer. But Hakeem was a pretty good passer out of the double teams and such as well. As a result, je averaged close to 4 apg during his peak. But then who is better? I will say this...Divac is better than both of them. Like I said, I HONESTLY cannot make a distinction between the two. All I know is that I saw Hakeem DISMANTLE a prime Ewing and Robinson in the playoffs (forget season...the playoffs) offensively. Not only that but he stopped them dead in the tracks defensively. Ewing and Robinson are two of the GREATEST post defenders of all time and Hakeem basically made them look like school children. Honestly I don't know if Kareem could have done that although Kareem did school his competition during his prime. 

Like Kareem, Hakeem often stepped up his offensive game during the time it mattered the most (he still holds the record for most points scored in a 4 game series - 150 pts...37.5 ppg and he is 6th all time highest scorer in the finals with 27.5 ppg...2 Finals MVPs). Kareem of course is the 2nd highest postseason scorer with 5762 points including 2 Finals MVPs. 

Honestly I CAN'T come up with an argument that favours one over the other offensively. At least considerably enough to acknowledge that one is definitely better than the other. I just can't...sorry. 

But like I said if you factor in defense into the equation. Well that is a different story. If you want to go by stats....Hakeem has 3830 blocks and 2162 steals with career highs of 376 blocks in 89-90 and 213 steals in 88-89. Kareem had 3189 blocks and 1160 steals with highs of 338 blocks in 75-76 and 119 steals in the same year. As far as rebounding goes, Kareem's high was 16.9 rpg in 75-76 while Hakeem's was 14.0 rpg in 89-90. But honestly stats involve a ton of variables and as I said I believe that Hakeem played in a more dominant big man era. 

So let's look at defensive skill. Hakeem is simply the greatest interior defender I have seen except for Bill Russell tapes. Period. With his long arms he could block anyone and could steal the ball like a guard. Not to mention that his strength allowed him to box out and gain great interior positioning. Hakeem is an all-time 1st team defender IMO. Mutombo and Robinson are up there as well but not even close. There is no comparison here between Kareem and Hakeem IMO. But Kareem WAS also a solid defender as well (5 time first team all defense) and many people often underrate him when it comes to that aspect. If you're wondering Hakeem was a 5 time member as well. But Hakeem was so dominant defensive IMO that he was simply Russell-esque. It's like comparing Pippen to Artest. Both were great but one was simply better if not legendary.

Like I said Hakeem is #2 in my books and I gave no leverage between the two when it came to offense. However when it came down to evaluating their complete skill set I think Hakeem is better. But that is not to say that Kareem is not good. NO. In fact, I believe I did a post about the greatest centers (should be most SKILLED not really greatest) ages ago on this board and I believe I had Kareem #3 before Shaq and even Russell. But opinions in the end are all subjective anyway...some will judge by legacy, rings and accolades while others will judge by stats and skill set. 

Personally if I were to make a greatest list then of course you have to take everything into consideration (all the criteria I listed above). But that would still be subjective as well because each individual will proportion each criteria differently. As I said however, on an all-time greatest list with all criteria factored in Kareem SHOULD be ahead of Hakeem. 6 MVPs...38000 points and more rings than one hand can fill. How can you argue that? Simple...you CAN'T. But if we were judging them by their peak value I rather judge by skill set and as I mentioned skill wise Hakeem only lacks behind Wilt. That is my opinion...take it for what its worth.:grinning: 

Also here is an interesting site especially for the poster looking for box scores...not box scores but the game by game scoring numbers are there:

http://www.nba.com/rockets/history/Hakeem_Olajuwon_The_NBAs_Bes-91094-34.html


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Wilt was 7'1" and about 300 pounds (depending on the season). He could bench press over 500 pounds, was an Olympic-caliber sprinter and had something around a 40" vertical leap. Against Bill Russell head to head, he averaged 29 points and 29 rebounds. Against _Bill Russell._

If he played today, my guess is he'd be a 25/15/4 block guy. In the West.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

On Jerry Krause still being able to keep his job as GM of the Chicago Bulls: "Jerry Krause must have pictures of his boss's wife having sex with a monkey."

"I have so many great memories, I thank God I have this huge brain that can keep all these memories stored."

"I can be bought. If they paid me enough, I'd work for the Klan

I know why his name is DMX. Because his real name is Earl. Imagine if his name was Earl the rapper.

I could get five guys in this studio and beat Golden State

On supersized Oliver Miller: "You can't even jump high enough to touch the rim, unless they put a Big Mac on it."


Just a few of Charles Barkley, funny mofo



OOPS, wrong board i ment to put it in the nba quotes board..soz


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> Kareem was great, no doubt and he has numbers to back it up but Hakeem to me was equally as dominant offensively. Like I said stats don't tell the whole story and my Robinson example was to point that out NOT to compare Robinson to Hakeem. Once realizing that everyone should acknowledge that stats are not the "end all be all" determinant of a player's skill. However they DO add merit to one's determinant but it should never be used as its primary device.
> ...


hakeem's peak period was really '93 to '96. his top competition was really shaq, robinson, ewing, zo, daugherty ('93 only), mutombo. only robinson and mutombo did he face more than 2x a year. the rest of the time he was facing felton spencer, mike brown, sean rooks, sam perkins, oliver miller, victor alexander, mark bryant, vlade divac, pete chilcutt and elmore spencer. not exactly the toughest bunch to put up decent numbers. while shining in an era with alot of great centers is great, i wouldn't say his numbers are the more impressive because he had to go up against those guys all the time. also, while hakeem may have played in a era with other good big men, he didn't separate himself statistically from the others offensively. 

kareem put up 23 ppg on 56% shooting at 38, making 1st team over hakeem (just pointing out their careers did intersect). he was a shell athletically at that time. i just don't know how you automatically reduce kareem to 28 ppg, putting him in ewing & robinson territory, without entertaining the idea he was superior offensively and could just as easily scored just as much as he did back in his prime. again, as an efficient scorer, kareem has him beat by alot (unarguably, i'd think). as a overall scorer, i'd take kareem as well. i believe he was a superior passer as well, and had a better overall feel for the game offensively.

on some other points, ewing was not one of the great post defenders - he was decent, and part of the disappointment with ewings career was that he wasn't the dominant defender he was expected to be. that said, hakeem put up 27 ppg on 50% in '94. the dismantling came in holding ewing to 19 ppg on 36% shooting, not in an unprecedented offensive performance. robinson, on the other hand, was killed offensively.

again, defensively, i think hakeem has a decent advantage. but i don't see the wash offensively, and that's the point i'm debating here.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

what kflo said

considering athletes today get vitamin supplements, creatine, and access to weight lifting and training programs...

Also there was less known about health matters.

You can say the players were less athletic, but you also have to put in context that they'd be bigger, faster with better nutrition and training


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Whoa now, the Pete Chilcutt blast was out of line 

Seriously though, you could list Wilt, Hakeem and Kareem in any order 1-3 as the greatest centers in NBA history and I'm not sure you'd get to many people all riled up. They were all terrific players and they all led their teams to multiple titles.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>vadimivich</b>!
> Whoa now, the Pete Chilcutt blast was out of line
> 
> Seriously though, you could list Wilt, Hakeem and Kareem in any order 1-3 as the greatest centers in NBA history and I'm not sure you'd get to many people all riled up. They were all terrific players and they all led their teams to multiple titles.


i'd throw russell and shaq in the mix as well.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

With out a doubt Hakeem was the most skilled center


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> hakeem's peak period was really '93 to '96. his top competition was really shaq, robinson, ewing, zo, daugherty ('93 only), mutombo. only robinson and mutombo did he face more than 2x a year. the rest of the time he was facing felton spencer, mike brown, sean rooks, sam perkins, oliver miller, victor alexander, mark bryant, vlade divac, pete chilcutt and elmore spencer. not exactly the toughest bunch to put up decent numbers. while shining in an era with alot of great centers is great, i wouldn't say his numbers are the more impressive because he had to go up against those guys all the time. also, while hakeem may have played in a era with other good big men, he didn't separate himself statistically from the others offensively.
> ...


First, I don't think there is any question that Hakeem played in a more dominant big man era than Kareem. 

Second, you are using stats too much again. As I said, Kareem in a more competitive era did not average more than 26 ppg. Also you stated Kareem averaged 23 ppg at 38 but the point being argued here and I honestly believe you are either misreading my posts or getting confused here...I am not debating their longevity but their peak value. Also it is very arguable whether or not Kareem should have received 1st team all-NBA honours that season.

Kareem

85-86 23.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 3.5 apg, 1.6 bpg

Hakeem

85-86 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 1.4 apg, 3.2 bpg but only played 68 games

I am not saying Hakeem should have been but if you want to use stats as a determinant the argument becomes very arguable.

Saying that Kareem would average 28-29 ppg DOES NOT take away from his prowless. It is taking into consideration the level of big men of Hakeem's peak era (of course holding all other variables CONSTANT). Remember if you were to hold all variables constant Kareem was a skinny 225 in his prime. He was also neither as athletic as Hakeem. Remember Hakeem was part of the Phi Slamma Jamma fame for those who don't remember his athleticism. Of course as I mentioned in my previous post and in the post I made about Wilt there are many external variables to consider...meaning the type of technology available today.

There is one misunderstanding I think you and I are having. You state your opinions as if I thought Hakeem was better offensively than Kareem and by a mile. Like you I DON'T see any wash offensively but the difference is I don't see it in Kareem's corner either.

Honestly I don't see how Kareem is considerably a better offensive player while both players were at their PRIME. I don't see it for EITHER player...I'm sorry I just don't.

Also that Ewing comment is ridiculous. Ewing was one of the best post defenders of his era and he has 2894 blocks to back it up. He manned the notorious early to mid 90s Knicks defense. Ewing was highly heralded for his defense coming out of college and would have been on more all-defense teams if not for Hakeem, David Robinson, Mutombo, and Eaton. Those names ALONE show just what type of defenders a center had to face during Hakeem's era. Sure Kareem faced an old Wilt but he never faced centers like Hakeem DID while all were in their primes. Naming those other names and saying that Hakeem only had to face them twice a year is simply being quite ignorant of his competition.

Now about Hakeem's performance in the 93-94 finals. Did you watch it? Hakeem dominanted offensively against a team which was notoriously known for their interior defense. We are talking about the bruising Knicks here. He schooled Ewing, Oakley, and Mason. I honestly implore you to watch that series again especially when it came to clutch time and how Hakeem performed. Hakeem was definitely unstoppable offensively in that series. 

Let me repeat again...I did not leverage either Hakeem or Kareem as a better offensive player. I merely stated that I could not see any evidence that is considerable enough to warrant that one is DEFINITELY better than the other. Remember we are talking about them at their peak values NOT that Kareem could still score 23 ppg at 38.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> 
> 
> First, I don't think there is any question that Hakeem played in a more dominant big man era than Kareem.
> ...


my point on kareem's scoring at 38 was simply that it shows what he was capable of playing against hakeem's competition.

we're not misunderstanding each other - my point is that kareem was better offensively at his peak than hakeem was. your point is that he wasn't. am i wrong? i speak nothing about longevity other than to point out what kareem was capable of against similar competition while well beyond his prime.

as for your statement that "Naming those other names and saying that Hakeem only had to face them twice a year is simply being quite ignorant of his competition" i ask how is naming the players he actually went up against frequently being ignorant of his competition. it's giving a complete picture of his competition. 

i remember the '94 series quite clear. hakeem was clearly the difference in the series. he wasn't unstoppable. you tend to disregard the numbers when they don't support your argument. 50% from the field is excellent, but it's not quite unstoppable. 27 ppg is excellent, but not quite unstoppable. it was a great performance - offensively and defensively.

ewing was a good interior defender, but he wasn't great. i live in ny. ewing was just not a dominant defensive presence. it's not ridiculous to say at all.

even capping kareem at 28-29 ppg, that's still more than hakeem's prime. add his obvious advantage in effeciency, his passing advantage (imo he was definitely a better passer - hakeem learned the game and how to pass as his career progressed, but he never had kareem's overall feel for the game as a passer), and i just think kareem has the clear advantage offensively. i just think you have to do alot of rationalizing to get kareem's stats down to hakeem's stats. beyond stats, you can't use hakeem as a better go-to post option because he simply wasn't. again, if i needed a basket, i'd drop the ball into kareem in the post.

i respect you're opinion, i just think it's less supportable than mine .


----------



## vanhill (May 31, 2003)

simply,by putting KG on the floor with Wilt
Do u guys still thinking wilt can run faster than him?!
i just can't believe it..he can run 4.6 /40 yards...


----------



## 2PacFan4Life (Aug 4, 2003)

Wilt in today's game: 28-15-5-3 in his prime.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Wilt today?

30-16-5blocks-4assists on like 55%


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> my point on kareem's scoring at 38 was simply that it shows what he was capable of playing against hakeem's competition.
> ...


First, Kareem scored 23.4 ppg at 38 which is an impressive feat regardless what era he played in. But how can you say that Kareem would have scored that at that age in Hakeem's era? In 85-86, it was Hakeem's 2nd season...Ewing's rookie season...David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, Zo, and Brad D have yet to even enter the league. Therefore, that argument does not really have a purpose. Of course we still have to keep in mind that we are afterall debating about their primes and not who is older and scored more. That's useless to this argument IMO. 

Second, If you name those other names you might as well as name Kareem's lesser tier competition as well. But as I said in general Hakeem's competition was simply better. There should NEVER be a question about that. If you question that just name the names again and the fact will show the difference in competition. Hakeem competed against arguably 5 of the top 8 centers of all time. Those 5 being Kareem, Moses, Ewing, David Robinson, and Shaq. Not to mention a host of centers that in today's game would be probably be considered amongst the league's elite at 5. 

Third, you must judge performance on a different criteria than I do especially when it comes to the 93-94 Finals. As I said, Hakeem scored 26.9 ppg against arguably the TOUGHEST interior defense ever assembled on an NBA court and on the biggest stage. I honestly believe you are undermining Hakeem's offensive performance. I still believe that the 93-94 Finals is still the lowest scoring Finals. In fact the most points either team scored was 93. As I said Hakeem averaged 26.9 ppg against arguably the toughest interior defense (no question the most BRUTAL interior defense ever). I thought Hakeem was indeed quite dominant in that series offensively and defensively. Stats simply DON'T tell the whole story in this case.

Fourth, I guess I will respect your opinion about Ewing but many people would disagree with you. Ewing was a great defender...perhaps even equally as good as Kareem. Ewing was the center piece of that era's toughest interior defense. He was a beast on defense in college and he was a hell of a defender in the pros. Just name the top 10 post defenders of all-time and most if not all would have Ewing on their list.

Fifth, either you have an advantage over me being 40 years old or something and watched games of Kareem in the early 70s a lot. Honestly Kareem in the 80s was not as dominant as Hakeem in the 90s. You must also keep in mind the teams they played for. As far as Kareem in the early 70s it's hard enough to even get legitimate game tapes but from what I have seen he isn't really more dominant offensively especially when you factor in competition and how the overall game has changed. But in all honesty there are too many variables to consider in order to make a percise assumption. 

The simple fact are the ones I have outlined and I have used facts and logical arguments. Truth is you can't really go by stats. You simply can't especially if you are comparing cross eras. If you want to compare Kareem and Hakeem in a similar era although it still isn't really similar...Kareem never averaged more than 26 ppg in the 80s and after he left Milwaukee his highest average was 27.7 ppg in a Lakers uniform.

Last, I am not rationalizing too hard at all. Like I said I outlined all my arguments with logical facts. This is a debate after all and I am a pretty good debater.  I don't cough up crap like "yeah Hakeem is just simply better". Not true at all. 

Getting Kareem's stats down is not as hard as you think. Same as people will admit that Wilt won't score 50 ppg now. It is simply just LOGIC. C'mon are you seriously saying that Kareem would average 35 ppg and 16 rpg in the mid 90s when that was his peak in the early 70s? Boy could you imagine the damage then that Hakeem would have done in the early 70s then? 

I still don't understand why Kareem was a better go-to post option than Hakeem? You didn't really analyze anything. So let's analyze. 

Kareem has the hook shot. Hakeem has the dream shake. Sure I will admit that the hook shot is a more consistent weapon but not more revered than Hakeem's dream shake IMO. Kareem was 7'2 and 225 pounds in his prime. Hakeem was 7'0 and 255 pounds in his prime. Hakeem had the longest arms for a center I have ever seen. I honestly can say that Hakeem was more athletic and stronger. Agility wise...it's really HARD to say but Kareem was quicker due to obviously being lighter. Both were GREAT finesse big men. Now seeing that listing you would think that I would mostly side with Hakeem but that is not so. Hakeem's dream shake was a calculated move but the hook shot seemed like a reflex for Kareem. Simply put, it could be unleashed anytime and anywhere. Like I admitted it IS a more consistent offensive weapon and Kareem's FG% reflects that. But then if I admit that wouldn't Kareem then be better offensively? NO, I don't think that either. Hakeem has the strength advantage and he was a tremendous post defender that blocked every big man he played against. The hook shot is quite unstoppable but it ISN'T impossible to stop especially if you take into consideration Hakeem's strength and arm length advantage. Afterall, Wilt did block Kareem in succession. Honestly I don't think EITHER Kareem nor Hakeem could stop each other at least consistently. Therefore I will settle with a tie in terms of offensive skill because no evidence points to one being more considerable than the other. It might go one way one time and the other another time. Like Wilt on Shaq: I can't stop him and he can't stop me. I will conclude the same. 

So then why can't the obvious determinant be stats then? Afterall Kareem's high IS 34.8 ppg while Hakeem's high is 27.8 ppg. But like I said stats don't tell the whole story. David Robinson averaged 30 ppg at his offensive peak but I don't think anyone would say that he was offensively more skilled than Hakeem. Like I also suggested if you want to go by stats then just do a vice versa and imagine how Hakeem would do in the early 70s (holding all external variables constant of course). I think many people take stats too seriously. It adds merit to any argument but it shouldn't always be used as an argument's primary device. Honestly if we were purely going by stats I would feel more comfortable if Kareem accomplished that during the mid 90s. But he didn't, he did it in the early 70s.

Anyways, in all honesty I really enjoyed this debate (best debate I had on this board in AGES) especially when the other poster has knowledge about the game and like I said I neither leverage Hakeem nor Kareem on the offensive end. So I won't really bother with this debate anymore since all opinions especially this one (between you and I) are subjective afterall to our own measures. We can honestly go on forever just like those Kobe vs. TMac and Duncan vs. KG arguments. And I think it is pretty evident that we both have strong convictions with our opinion on this issue. In the end, I think should just both agree that the greatest offensive center of ALL-TIME was named Wilt.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Great debate going on here.
Just my 2 cents about Kareem-Hakeem:

Competition:
Althought it´s true that Hakeem played and often won against some of the 
best centers in the history of the League (namely Ewing, Robinson and Shaq) in an era of many skilled centers (Daugherty and Mourning also comes to mind), I wouldn´t go so far as to say Kareem had his work cut out for him.
During is long career, Kareem was named first team All-Nba like 10 times. In those years (first was 70-71, last 85-86), he was judged better than the likes of Wilt Chamberlain (granted he wasn´t in his prime, but still averaging like 18rpg!!), Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Bill Walton, Moses Malone, Robert Parish, just to name All.Nba teamers. If one also include the likes of Bill Laimbeer, Artis Gilmore, Wes Unseld, Jack Sikma who Kareem fought late in his career, it´s a pretty impressive class of centers, I believe. And a prime Walton, McAdoo and Mo don´t pale while comparing to Ewing, D-Rob and Shaq.
So, I wouldn´t say Hakeem has the edge here, or that it makes all the difference.

Scoring/Offense:
Kareem was a better offensive player, hands down.
Even disregarding his first years in the League, where he was an instant statistical monster, how can we begin to understand a player who consistently averaged +20.0ppg in his late 30’s? Who in 84-85 (his 16th season in the league!) was named Finals MVP after averaging in 4 Laker wins 30.2ppg, 11.3rpg, 6.5apg and 2bpg?
Kareem´s scoring prowess in the 80’s is more astonishing when one considers that the Lakers used a fast-tempo offense that didn´t suit his carachteristics and that he had severall scorers in his team (Magic, Worthy, Wilkes, Nixon, even Scott), while Hakeem (even with Sampson on the team) was the undisputed Main man and go-to guy in the Rockets squad.
Kareem also mastered the most unstoppable offensive weapon ever, the sky hook. Hakeem´s “dream shake” was great, but I watched plenty of Hakeem in his prime and he wouldn´t use that move so often than we are forced to believe.
One of Kareem´s most impressive statistics, IMHO, is his FG%. The guy played 20 seasons in the league. Yet, his career FG% is .559 (.559!!!). That states clearly that not only was he a great scorer, but also that he scored somewhat easily (unlike, say, Iverson, for example). 
I believe Kareem was also the better passer from the two. His career average of 3.6apg is great for a center. I wonder how that ranks All-time amongst centers…

Rebounding/Defense:
Kareem and Hakeem were both good-to-great rebounders.
Hakeem has the upper-hand in blocks and steals, and by a large margin.
Hakeem is also considered the second greatest defensive center in history (following the untouchable Bill Russell), so you got no argument from me that he was better than Kareem 
But Kareem was no slouch, either.
I remember vividly that, even late in his career, he was an imposing defensive presence. It was very difficult to score in the paint against the 80’s Lakers in an half-court offense, for Kareem´s presence would often intimidate slashers from attacking the rim. He was also a great help defender (I believe people said that Magic and Scott were given free reign to cheat on the passing lanes for they had Cap in their backs to erase any mistake).
But Hakeem was better. Period.

One-on-one:
I believe Kareem was better than the Dream.
For almost 20 years he was a force to be reckoned with, and his achievments don´t lie: 6 times MVP, 10 times All-NBA 1st team, 6 rings, you name it.
If there´s a center that i believe could match up to Kareem (and not having watch Wilt or Russell play), i would have to say Hakeem Olajuwon. He would put up a great fight. But he wouldn´t win.

Therefore, i would rank Centers something like this, in their respective primes:
1- Wilt;
2- Russell;
3- Kareem;
4- Shaq;
5- Hakeem.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

just quickly - i can easily name 10 interior defenders better than ewing:

robinson
hakeem
thurmond
russell
wilt
dikembe
eaton
walton
mourning
tree rollins
shaq
duncan

many more can be considered like kareem, moses, parish, cowens, gilmore, lanier, ben wallace.

ewing anchored some great defensive teams in the 90s. some terrible defensive teams in the 80s. guys like harper, mason, xman, oakley, starks also had something to do with how good defensively those teams were.

i don't think ewing would make many top 10 lists. he was very good though.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i don't think you can just pull raw stats and say player 1 from era a is better than player 2 from era b.

but kareem was consistently in the top 5 in fg% in the league. i have no doubt he would have been top 5 in hakeem's era. he was an efficient scorer, as efficient as the league has seen in a dominant post scorer. he was among the scoring leaders, leading the league a couple of times. i have no doubt he'd be among the top scoring leaders in hakeem's era, particuarly assessing his skills against those of the scoring leaders in hakeem's era. above all that, he had the greatest go-to offensive weapon the league has seen in the sky hook. a key to the dominance of the sky hook was his ability use the move often (more often that hakeem could unleash the shake). he had a greater feel for the game as well.

the only big men with kareem's combo of fg% and scoring (bulk & efficiency) were wilt and shaq. and kareem's advantage on both of them is his go-to move, and his ft shooting. their advantage on kareem was how they could use their strength and agility to get good shots (which becomes less useful when you need a basket in a half court setting). kareem's advantage on hakeem was that he was just a more efficient scorer, who could more easily get himself a good shot.

kareem was athletic, he was graceful, he was strong, he was quick and he was extremely long. he was well schooled. he benefited from an ncaa that prohibited dunking. again, focusing solely on offense, imo, his advantage over hakeem was clear. i can envision hakeem in the 70s, and i don't think you get kareem's overall offensive numbers.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

If anyone cares, here are some videos of Wilt.

Turn around jumper against the Celtics 

Rebound and the dunk 

Easy bucket off a fast break


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

They are some nice videos. Do you think Wilt could average 5 or 6 assists per game today?


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

When it comes down to it, it would depend on how Wilt would develop his skills.

The fact is, turn around finger rolls and weak turn arounds won't get it done in todays game. 

If you have seen Wilt in action, you know he didnt have the polished post game that many big man today have. Also a HUGE difference is the contact, the game is much more physical today then it was 40 years ago.

He was a freak physically and that is how he dominated. 7 footers were more rare back then. He had a lot of advantages, and many of those advantages would be gone in todays game. 

I think Wilt would average 20/15/4 maybe. Depending on how well he developed in certain areas.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> When it comes down to it, it would depend on how Wilt would develop his skills.
> 
> The fact is, turn around finger rolls and weak turn arounds won't get it done in todays game.
> ...


Great points......In fact I'm pretty sure that Kareem Abdul Jabbar was the first player 7' or taller that Wilt ever faced.....and Kareem didn't arrive until Wilt had about 4 years left.

Also......Consider that one of the worst defenders at the center position is Eddy Curry......who is 7'0" 295 (his Berto Center measurements this summer). Eddy behind Wilt with 7'1" 247 lb. Tyson Chandler coming over the top on the double team. How big were PFs back then? Consider Wilt against Boston.....6'10" 235 lb. Bill Russell on Wilt's back with 6'7" Satch Sanders at PF. And that was Wilt's greatest challenge?


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Thats a good point - Say a FREAK came into the league - 8'4 and had Wilts skills - does he put up close to Wilts stats and dominate?


----------



## kingschamps02 (Dec 22, 2012)

Do you know the name of the article where you saw 4.4? Also I don't think the link for that article works anymore, also you mention his tryout when he was with the 76ers, I also read an article when he tried out with the chiefs when he was playing with the Warriors? Did he try out twice?


----------



## kingschamps02 (Dec 22, 2012)

Johnny Kerr disagrees with you, but who is he to say, after all it was only his toe


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

^da fuq?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

indeed - you just revived an 8 year old thread kingschamps, you're walking through a graveyard speaking to the dead


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

e-monk said:


> indeed - you just revived an 8 year old thread kingschamps, you're walking through a graveyard speaking to the dead


Almost literally, since he is quoting a dead Johnny Kerr like he spoke yesterday.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

what's wierd is that there have to be at least half a dozen other Wilt threads of much more recent vintage but he chooses this one


----------

