PDA

View Full Version : Can you place patrick ewing's career over bill walton and/or george mikan's?



RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 02:38 PM
why or why not? in other groups/forums bill walton and george mikan's name comes up a lot more often than ewing's when it comes to dominate centers.


i sort of believe ewing had a better career though.. Ewing pretty much led his team to the playoffs 13 seasons straight 1988-2000, no other center has led a team to the playoffs more years straight than 13(atleast i dont think)


shaq? only 12 seasons
wilt? only 10 seasons
russell? 13 seasons, tied...
mikan? only 6 seasons...
reed? only 5 seasons
jabbar? 13 seasons, tied..
olajuwon? only 7 seasons
robinson? only 6 seasons
walton? only 2 seasons
moses? only 7 seasons
pettit? only 6 seasons


patrick ewing is the only center aside from jabbar and russell to lead his team to the playoffs that many times consecutively. and russell and jabbar had arguablly the best team ever assembled. i believe that alone is A HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT
-

also:

wilt chamberlain is the only center in nba history to achieve more career points than patrick ewing with less games played.

while mutombo, bellamy, thurmond, chamberlain, russell are the only centers in nba history to achive more career rebounds than patrick while playing less games.

so not only is ewing on the list of players to lead his team to the playoffs, but there is only 1 center in history who has played less games and scored more career points. and there are only 5 centers to grab more boards and play less games aswell...
_


i also have a little problem with walton and mikan.

mikan played in an era which had only 10 teams, and his dynasty team would lose in exhibition matches against teams such as the globetrotters.

mikan has only played 439 NBA games, thats equivelent to around 5 full seasons in todays game.


i mean if each team had 12 players, and there are 10 teams. thats 120 players active

and out of those i would say maybe 35 of them were centers. outshining 35 players is decent, but when you look at what ewing did, its just jaw dropping. i mean the guy took his team to the playoffs 13 years straight. hes right up there with russell and jabbar in the perspective of long time dominance. plus he went against way more centers, way more talented centers, faced more teams and more versatile players.

compare mikans all nba teams to ewings:

george mikan
bob cousey
neil johnston
ed macauley
dolph schayes
bob davies
vern mikkelsen
any phillip
bill sharman
bobby wanzar


at best you only recognize 6 players.

and ewings era had way too many players to list..
__




as far as walton goes.


bill walton has only led his team to the playoffs twice, the other times he was in the playoffs was when he was with the celtics where he came off the bench and which were led by possibly the best frontcourt of all time parish, bird and mchale

SwaggaIke
09-02-2008, 03:11 PM
I'd take Ewing over Walton and Mikan, honestly.

quade36
09-02-2008, 03:48 PM
Walton yes, Mikan no. You have to remember, times were different then. They didn't have surgery to fix your body. The game was more of a TEAM game. What Mikan did for basketball in both college and the pros in the short time was amazing. I think you have to compare his stats to others that played during his time to realize how good he was.

m26555
09-02-2008, 03:53 PM
It's funny, because if Mikan played in this day and age, I can almost guarantee you that he would be nothing more than an above average center. Ewing was better than Mikan...and Walton, for that matter.

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 03:58 PM
It's funny, because if Mikan played in this day and age, I can almost guarantee you that he would be nothing more than an above average center. Ewing was better than Mikan...and Walton, for that matter.

Walton would make Ewing his *****

Lakersfan2483
09-02-2008, 04:19 PM
Patrick Ewing definitely had a hall of fame career, I think because of Walton's injuries, Ewing had the better overall career. As far as Mikan, it's hard to say how he would perform in the modern day NBA.

Mr Grim
09-02-2008, 04:25 PM
Walton would make Ewing his *****

And how exactly would he do that with his bad feet? Walton couldnt walk without hurting himself.

mrblisterdundee
09-02-2008, 04:30 PM
Patrick Ewing was definitely more talented than both those guys. George Mikan is a relative unknown, and Bill Walton was always getting injured. Patrick Ewing was at least as dominant, and more reliable.

ewing
09-02-2008, 04:54 PM
I love Ewing but a healthy Buill Walton was a more talented player (kinda like McHale but with incredible eyes instead of being perdominately a scorer). Still your correct in saying Pat had a better career. As for Mikin I think your crossing to many eras to really have a valid comparison and I never saw the guy play a game so I don't have much to say

jayl1377
09-02-2008, 05:03 PM
Walton yes, Mikan no. You have to remember, times were different then. They didn't have surgery to fix your body. The game was more of a TEAM game. What Mikan did for basketball in both college and the pros in the short time was amazing. I think you have to compare his stats to others that played during his time to realize how good he was.

Agree Completely

RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 05:18 PM
Walton yes, Mikan no. You have to remember, times were different then. They didn't have surgery to fix your body. The game was more of a TEAM game. What Mikan did for basketball in both college and the pros in the short time was amazing. I think you have to compare his stats to others that played during his time to realize how good he was.

mikan played in a league with about 35 total centers and 10 teams... i think if the league was more competitive i'd give him more credit. i think mikan changed the game a lot more than ewing, but i believe ewing deserves more credit as a player.

lalakobe24
09-02-2008, 05:18 PM
waltons best season was 18 ppg 7 rpg and 4 asp

then the rest were nothing soooooooo why is he in the hall of fame again

BRADfromOZ
09-02-2008, 05:25 PM
shaq? only 12 seasons
wilt? only 10 seasons
russell? 13 seasons, tied...
mikan? only 6 seasons...
reed? only 5 seasons
jabbar? 13 seasons, tied..
olajuwon? only 7 seasons
robinson? only 6 seasons
walton? only 2 seasons
moses? only 7 seasons
pettit? only 6 seasons
Q. What is the one thing that all the above players have but Ewing doesn't?
A. A Championship Ring.

Of the above players you have listed i'd say that Wilt, Olajuwon and Robinson are the only ones listed that are better players than Ewing. I think the only reason he doesn't get compared is because he doesn't have a ring, and thats wrong but it happens across all spectrums of sport. "He/She didn't win a championship. he/she can't be that good" is really the wrong mentality to have.

Oh yes i can place Ewing's career over Walton's and Mikan's.

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 05:27 PM
mikan played in a league with about 35 total centers and 10 teams... i think if the league was more competitive i'd give him more credit. i think mikan changed the game a lot more than ewing, but i believe ewing deserves more credit as a player.

How is having a higher cut off not make it a more competitive league. There are what 60-90 centers in the league today? Change that to 35 and now 2/3 of the centers are cut from their teams and most starters are now backups. That makes it more competitive not less.

RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 05:28 PM
Q. What is the one thing that all the above players have but Ewing doesn't?
A. A Championship Ring.

Of the above players you have listed i'd say that Wilt, Olajuwon and Robinson are the only ones listed that are better players than Ewing. I think the only reason he doesn't get compared is because he doesn't have a ring, and thats wrong but it happens across all spectrums of sport. "He/She didn't win a championship. he/she can't be that good" is really the wrong mentality to have.

Oh yes i can place Ewing's career over Walton's and Mikan's.

great point. lol i hate the whole ring arguments also....

championships are a team accomplishment not an individual. if jordan played on a horrid team and never won a title it would not take from his individual ability...

DreamShaker
09-02-2008, 06:00 PM
Q. What is the one thing that all the above players have but Ewing doesn't?
A. A Championship Ring.

Of the above players you have listed i'd say that Wilt, Olajuwon and Robinson are the only ones listed that are better players than Ewing. I think the only reason he doesn't get compared is because he doesn't have a ring, and thats wrong but it happens across all spectrums of sport. "He/She didn't win a championship. he/she can't be that good" is really the wrong mentality to have.

Oh yes i can place Ewing's career over Walton's and Mikan's.

You think Ewing was better than Kareem and Russell??

jjizle
09-02-2008, 06:28 PM
id take ewings career over waltons, at least at the professional level. i think walton is remembered mostly for his dominance as a collegiate athlete. he was injured for a large part of his professional career. comparing ewing to mikan is tough because those are two completely different generations. mikan proved that big men have a place in the league, so even though not as great as the contribution jackie robinson made to baseball he did break barriers. however, overall i think ewing is without a doubt one of the greatest centers of all time, only two that i can think of that i would take over ewing is wilt, shaq, and bill russell.

dre1990
09-02-2008, 06:34 PM
ill take ewing over Mikan, but not walton

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 06:37 PM
you can't compare sports that require speed, size, and strength, in different eras. Mikan would not dominate now, at all. But for his time, he was the equivalent of 7'6", athletic, etc. Send KG back to 1967. yikes. Send Kobe to 2028. Same results, he would be overwhelmed. Baseball, golf, etc., ie, the skill sports, are the only thing you can compare eras.

knicks religion
09-02-2008, 06:53 PM
Ewing is hands down the all around better basketball player. His college AND pro-career. he played with the kind of fire and desire that players in this day and age lack, and that didn't even exist in mikan and walton's times. he was skilled on both ends of the court and did the unpredictable. he was a leader and team player that didn't need to be a high profile jordan esque type recognizeable player. PATRICK EWING [ ! ]

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 07:13 PM
Ewing is hands down the all around better basketball player. His college AND pro-career. he played with the kind of fire and desire that players in this day and age lack, and that didn't even exist in mikan and walton's times. he was skilled on both ends of the court and did the unpredictable. he was a leader and team player that didn't need to be a high profile jordan esque type recognizeable player. PATRICK EWING [ ! ]

uh, didn't Ewing play when Walton won a ring with the Celtics? Ewing's problem is the same as many. He never won when it counted. It will forever be that way. I liked him as a player, but he is not a top 10 center of all time. I have even met him on two occasions. Great guy. But he didn't do it when it counted.

RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 07:20 PM
uh, didn't Ewing play when Walton won a ring with the Celtics? Ewing's problem is the same as many. He never won when it counted. It will forever be that way. I liked him as a player, but he is not a top 10 center of all time. I have even met him on two occasions. Great guy. But he didn't do it when it counted.

ewing was a rookie when walton won his ring...

and walton averaged 7pts, 6 rebounds that season..

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 08:04 PM
you can't compare sports that require speed, size, and strength, in different eras. Mikan would not dominate now, at all. But for his time, he was the equivalent of 7'6", athletic, etc. Send KG back to 1967. yikes. Send Kobe to 2028. Same results, he would be overwhelmed. Baseball, golf, etc., ie, the skill sports, are the only thing you can compare eras.

I hope you realize how ******** that logic is. Its saying cognitive or physical ability has improved over the years, it hasn't, medicine and training equipment has.

RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 08:28 PM
I hope you realize how ******** that logic is. Its saying cognitive or physical ability has improved over the years, it hasn't, medicine and training equipment has.

man i actually may side with him... lol players skill and abilities have increased like crazy from that era.

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 08:37 PM
man i actually may side with him... lol players skill and abilities have increased like crazy from that era.

Why

ARMIN12NBA
09-02-2008, 08:48 PM
Mikan won 5 championships in his 7 years of playing basketball. He didn't lead his team to the playoffs more because he got injured after 7 years. Anyways, in a short 7 years, he still won 5 more championships than Ewing.

SwaggaIke
09-02-2008, 09:02 PM
Why

Name the greatest athletes of the 40s and 50s. Compare them to the greatest athletes of the 70s and 80s. Then compare them to the greatest athletes of the 90s and 2000s. Its obvious that a lot of players can't do the things that they can do now. PF's who can handle the ball like guards. Players who can play up to 4 positions due to their phenomenal skill level.

JMKnick33
09-02-2008, 09:15 PM
Walton yes, Mikan no. You have to remember, times were different then. They didn't have surgery to fix your body. The game was more of a TEAM game. What Mikan did for basketball in both college and the pros in the short time was amazing. I think you have to compare his stats to others that played during his time to realize how good he was.

Put Ewing against Walton or Mikan..and he'd destroy both of them one on one. Ewing would've had at least 2 rings if it weren't for Jordan.

Also, he had to face the likes of Moses Malone, David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Mourning, Rik Smits, and Shaq. So there you go, Ewing definitely was better and in my eyes, had a better career than those two.

I dont even know why this thread was made up. Ewing hands down all the way.

Oh, and yes, Ewing is my hero and my most favorite player of all time :p

BRADfromOZ
09-02-2008, 09:30 PM
You think Ewing was better than Kareem and Russell??
Better than Russell, yes(IMO, but not by much). Better than Kareem, no. I place Ewing and Kareem at the same level of excellence/skill. Both have similar career stats.

For their careers
Ewing 22.0ppg 10.3rpg 2.0apg 1.0spg 2.6bpg
Kareem 24.6ppg 11.2rpg 3.6apr 0.9spg 2.6bpg

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 09:39 PM
I hope you realize how ******** that logic is. Its saying cognitive or physical ability has improved over the years, it hasn't, medicine and training equipment has.

really??? Um, look at the average height and weight of the NBA in 1960, compared to now. I don't even feel like bothering with that, because I know the average now will probably be 5 inches, 40 lbs bigger. Evolution bro. It is a fact.

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 09:40 PM
Better than Russell, yes(IMO, but not by much). Better than Kareem, no. I place Ewing and Kareem at the same level of excellence/skill. Both have similar career stats.

For their careers
Ewing 22.0ppg 10.3rpg 2.0apg 1.0spg 2.6bpg
Kareem 24.6ppg 11.2rpg 3.6apr 0.9spg 2.6bpg

Are you kidding? I will take 11 rings over 0 to begin with, and Kareem is not as good as Ewing??? Wow. way to put yourself out there. Ewing is not a top 10 center of all time. I like him as a player, but c'mon people. No Way.

RoyCisneros
09-02-2008, 09:43 PM
Are you kidding? I will take 11 rings over 0 to begin with, and Kareem is not as good as Ewing??? Wow. way to put yourself out there. Ewing is not a top 10 center of all time. I like him as a player, but c'mon people. No Way.

man i would not take ewing over kareem or russell.. but i think ewing is a top 10 center.


try to list 10 centers better..

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 09:53 PM
man i would not take ewing over kareem or russell.. but i think ewing is a top 10 center.


try to list 10 centers better..

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Russell
6. Robinson
7. Mikan
8. M. Malone
9. Parish
10. W. Reed

That is off the top of my head, sorry. I love Ewing. I do. But I think he was a Karl Malone type, he didn't get it done when he had to.

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 10:10 PM
really??? Um, look at the average height and weight of the NBA in 1960, compared to now. I don't even feel like bothering with that, because I know the average now will probably be 5 inches, 40 lbs bigger. Evolution bro. It is a fact.

Any ninth grade biology student can tell you that's ********. Evolution doesn't happen over 40 years. If we grew 5 inches every 40 years we'd be 90 feet tall and could run the speed of light.


Name the greatest athletes of the 40s and 50s. Compare them to the greatest athletes of the 70s and 80s. Then compare them to the greatest athletes of the 90s and 2000s. Its obvious that a lot of players can't do the things that they can do now. PF's who can handle the ball like guards. Players who can play up to 4 positions due to their phenomenal skill level.

How many players today can hit the mid range jumper with a man in their face. Because EVERYBODY knew how to do that in the 80s. How many people can run marathons. Because EVERYBODY could do that in the 60s. Just because things have changed doesn't mean its for the better.

Lakersfan2483
09-02-2008, 10:12 PM
Top Centers

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Shaq
4. Russell
5. Hakeem
6. M. Malone
7. D. Robinson
8. Ewing
9. W. Reed
10. Mikan

SwaggaIke
09-02-2008, 10:17 PM
How many players today can hit the mid range jumper with a man in their face. Because EVERYBODY knew how to do that in the 80s. How many people can run marathons. Because EVERYBODY could do that in the 60s. Just because things have changed doesn't mean its for the better.

I can agree w/ that partially. But look at the Redeem Team. We faced teams that were all around better shooters than us. But we won because of sheer athleticism. Just because everybody doesn't shoot as well as in previous times doesn't mean the players aren't better. Honestly there are players in the top 50 of all time that could have their spot taken by a few of the greats that came into the game after 96. A lot of players are just simply more dominant physically and athletically and that matters. Nobody from Mikan's era could guard a Shaquille O'Neal or a LeBron James. Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. Players are just a lot more gifted than they were then.

GregOden#1
09-02-2008, 10:21 PM
I can agree w/ that partially. But look at the Redeem Team. We faced teams that were all around better shooters than us. But we won because of sheer athleticism. Just because everybody doesn't shoot as well as in previous times doesn't mean the players aren't better. Honestly there are players in the top 50 of all time that could have their spot taken by a few of the greats that came into the game after 96. A lot of players are just simply more dominant physically and athletically and that matters. Nobody from Mikan's era could guard a Shaquille O'Neal or a LeBron James. Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant. Players are just a lot more gifted than they were then.

Yeah because the league was segregated. That stopped in the early 50's, NBA basketball saw its last major change in the late 1950's, and has been roughly the same ever since.

Hawkeye15
09-02-2008, 10:35 PM
Any ninth grade biology student can tell you that's ********. Evolution doesn't happen over 40 years. If we grew 5 inches every 40 years we'd be 90 feet tall and could run the speed of light.



How many players today can hit the mid range jumper with a man in their face. Because EVERYBODY knew how to do that in the 80s. How many people can run marathons. Because EVERYBODY could do that in the 60s. Just because things have changed doesn't mean its for the better.

we are talking about the elite, exceptional ones, not the average dude. Yes, since 1960, the AVERAGE height may have only grown by a inch or two. But if you add in the fact that black players were not looked at state wide as talented then, on top of better nutrition, training, and being huge attracted players, sports EVOLVE. Why do you think world records in the Olympics are constantly broken, and there are few that are old?? Because people get bigger, stronger, and faster. Evolution dude. There are what, 30 or so 7' players in the NBA now. How many were there in Wilt's day? exactly

BRADfromOZ
09-02-2008, 11:59 PM
Are you kidding? I will take 11 rings over 0 to begin with, and Kareem is not as good as Ewing??? Wow. way to put yourself out there. Ewing is not a top 10 center of all time. I like him as a player, but c'mon people. No Way.
That just means that the team that Kareem was on was better than the team that Ewing was on. Basketball, last time i checked, was a team sport. If everyone isn't playing their best they just don't win.

GregOden#1
09-03-2008, 06:29 AM
we are talking about the elite, exceptional ones, not the average dude. Yes, since 1960, the AVERAGE height may have only grown by a inch or two. But if you add in the fact that black players were not looked at state wide as talented then, on top of better nutrition, training, and being huge attracted players, sports EVOLVE. Why do you think world records in the Olympics are constantly broken, and there are few that are old?? Because people get bigger, stronger, and faster. Evolution dude. There are what, 30 or so 7' players in the NBA now. How many were there in Wilt's day? exactly

That's not evolution for one. Sports equipment, nutrition all that gets better with time. Olympic records get beaten every year because of them. Doesn't mean Mikan wasn't more of an athlete than anyone that plays today.

And if we only look at the exceptional ones (ie the NBA) then the height difference is non existant. Only the best basketball players played basketball, by 1960 the NBA had become a career choice, and anyone that could do it did it. There was no shortage of athletes, with only 8 teams to fill you could easily say it was more competitive than the 30 team league we have now.

And players were measured barefoot then, today in shoes, so you have to add an inch and a half to make it fair.

ewing
09-03-2008, 07:31 AM
1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Russell
6. Robinson
7. Mikan
8. M. Malone
9. Parish
10. W. Reed

That is off the top of my head, sorry. I love Ewing. I do. But I think he was a Karl Malone type, he didn't get it done when he had to.


Ewing was a better then Robert Parish on both sides of the ball. All you really is that parish won rings. Anyone who saw both players knows Ewing was head and shoulders above the Chief.

ewing
09-03-2008, 07:35 AM
Better than Russell, yes(IMO, but not by much). Better than Kareem, no. I place Ewing and Kareem at the same level of excellence/skill. Both have similar career stats.

For their careers
Ewing 22.0ppg 10.3rpg 2.0apg 1.0spg 2.6bpg
Kareem 24.6ppg 11.2rpg 3.6apr 0.9spg 2.6bpg

you never saw Kareem play. Maybe when you were 4 and he was 40

innovator
09-03-2008, 07:53 AM
yes to walton no to mikan