PDA

View Full Version : Charles Barkley "Ill say it on the record, I was better than Karl Malone"



Ilovetosuckdip
06-19-2012, 06:48 PM
Sports Illustrated author Jack McCallum is set to release a book on the 1992 Dream Team in July. In the lead-up to the hardcover release, the writer has decided to release short stories involving the book. This section features on the life and career of Charles Barkley, and is well worth a read. The part that we took out involves Barkley claiming he was a much better overall player than Karl Malone.


"Look, I’m in the top twenty of players who ever lived,” says Charles. “When I first started out, they said, ‘He’ll never make it. Too short.’ That never even concerned me. Because you know what? I could get all my stuff on my own.

“You take Karl. Karl needed John Stockton. That’s not a knock on Karl; it’s just a fact. I could get mine any time I wanted to. So I’ll say it on the record: I was better than Karl. Nothing against Karl. He was great. But I was better. The only thing he did better than me was score, and that came down to John Stockton.

http://www.iamagm.com/news/2012/06/19/charles.barkley.ill.say.it.record.i.was.better.kar l.malone

Let the debate begin

b@llhog24
06-19-2012, 06:50 PM
I'd believe him.

asandhu23
06-19-2012, 06:50 PM
comparisons forum.

CavsYanksDuke
06-19-2012, 06:58 PM
I don't like Sir Charles, but he's got a point. However, Malone put up a ridiculous amount of points. I view them as equals because their fingers are bare, but their stats are both nice.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-19-2012, 06:59 PM
He is better.

Chronz
06-19-2012, 07:02 PM
Sir Charles is wrong, Karl didnt score better than he did, he only scored more because of his longevity. Chuck was as unique/efficient of an offensive player as we will ever see.

Karl was prolly better on defense tho

Hawkeye15
06-19-2012, 07:20 PM
he is right...

thekmp211
06-19-2012, 07:22 PM
Sir Charles is wrong, Karl didnt score better than he did, he only scored more because of his longevity. Chuck was as unique/efficient of an offensive player as we will ever see.

Karl was prolly better on defense tho

the fact that it's close seals the deal for me though. barkley at his best was a better offensive player than malone.

and i think everyone can agree that personality will help paint this picture especially since chuck has continued to be striaight baws while malone has solidified himself as one of my least favorite athletes in any sport.

in their primes i'd take chuck one on one, barely.

theheatles
06-19-2012, 07:35 PM
Charles should stfu when he's talking

b@llhog24
06-19-2012, 07:37 PM
Charles should stfu when he's talking

That's impossible.

UPRock
06-19-2012, 07:40 PM
And he's right.

eibbor
06-19-2012, 07:42 PM
comparisons forum.

Post padding forum ^

On point though, Chuck is right

mark1125
06-19-2012, 07:42 PM
I'd take Barkley at his best over Malone at his best.

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 07:43 PM
Malone was better, I dont really know the numbers off the top of my head, but Ioved malone back in the day. I had like fifteen pages of cards all Karl Malone .... Saying he had Stockton is a cop out . A TON of great players had another great player with them.... Shaq had Kobe, but that don't make vlade divac better.... Kareem had magic but that don't make bill Walton better.

greg_ory_2005
06-19-2012, 07:43 PM
It's true.

mikekhelxD
06-19-2012, 07:54 PM
For someone who plays PF that just as tall as the guards, Charles can play.

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 07:54 PM
Just read some stats, and Malone is 10th all time in steals, 6th in total rebounds, 1st in defensive rebounds, first in free throws made and attempted (and for those that remember, he use to talk to himself at the charity line) and 2nd all time in feild goals made..... That's pretty impressive.... I was just a kid watching him, and I didn't keep stats like that back then, but his numbers are a lot better then I thought.

Barkley was pretty impressive tho too:
5th all time in free throws attempted
9th in offensive rebounds........
11 time Allstate....
He was a beast down low but Malone was way better....

He did do great right guard commercials tho. And I did have his jersey

Kashmir13579
06-19-2012, 07:58 PM
From 1988 to 1993 it was probably true.

valade16
06-19-2012, 08:21 PM
Malone was better, I dont really know the numbers off the top of my head, but Ioved malone back in the day. I had like fifteen pages of cards all Karl Malone .... Saying he had Stockton is a cop out . A TON of great players had another great player with them.... Shaq had Kobe, but that don't make vlade divac better.... Kareem had magic but that don't make bill Walton better.

A) Kareem was one of the best Centers in NBA History long before Magic

B) If Walton hadn't been hurt we might've been talking about him being one of the best Centers to ever play the game.

Mr.SmackYoMama
06-19-2012, 08:24 PM
Barkley any day he was a BEAST!!!

JonnyBrav000
06-19-2012, 08:28 PM
Charles should stfu when he's talking


You make no sense guy... Anyway Charles is only speaking his mind and yes he was better than Karl, imagine Barkley playing alongside Stockton or a top distributing pg who's jumper had to be respected, his numbers would have been on steroids.

MadBomber
06-19-2012, 08:32 PM
i'd take charles over malone.

StinkEye
06-19-2012, 08:39 PM
My mind is telling me Charles, but my body, my body is telling me noooooooo.

... I think Charles was better, but it's not like there's a huge gap between the 2. I feel like we're all lucky to even be able to argue about this. Charles was so great and such a character. Malone was awesome for a long time. We are so fortunate to have watched these guys.

AddiX
06-19-2012, 08:44 PM
^
that bird gif is for the win....

As for the topic... I'm going w Malone. But I won't argue with anyone who would take Barkley, I just loved Malones game, for a very longtime, Malone had an incredibly dominating way about his game.

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 08:53 PM
Lol, everyone seems to want to say Barkley but I always wonder with this forum, how many people commenting actually watche them?

smith&wesson
06-19-2012, 08:56 PM
Career #s

barkley 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg 54.1 fg%. charles was a 6'6 pf

malone 25 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.4 spg, 51.6 fg %. karl was a 6'9 pf

barkley gives malone credit saying he may be the better scorer. but clearly barkley was the more efficient scorer out of the two he also edges him out in every other catagory.

also barkley never played with another hof caliber player like stockton so again he has another valid point there.

barkley was 6'6 and malone was 6-9 and barkley was a better rebounder

i mean if you look at tim duncans career numbers you will see how similar they are to barkleys numbers. if duncan is the best pf of all time. you have to put barkley right up there with him.

barkley >> malone.

smith&wesson
06-19-2012, 09:00 PM
My mind is telling me Charles, but my body, my body is telling me noooooooo.

... I think Charles was better, but it's not like there's a huge gap between the 2. I feel like we're all lucky to even be able to argue about this. Charles was so great and such a character. Malone was awesome for a long time. We are so fortunate to have watched these guys.

If you consider their height difference and the fact that one played with one of the best pg's ever then you will notice that there is infact a gap between the two.

ohreally
06-19-2012, 09:01 PM
Just for anyone who thinks the Knicks were gifted with the Ewing pick: Dave D was very high of Malone, who was widely seen as someone whose game wouldn't translate to the pros. Cartwright, Malone, and then Mark Jackson. The Knicks still would have been very good, though very different.

Chacarron
06-19-2012, 09:07 PM
I agree with the Chuckster.

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 09:13 PM
Career #s

barkley 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg 54.1 fg%. charles was a 6'6 pf

malone 25 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.4 spg, 51.6 fg %. karl was a 6'9 pf

barkley gives malone credit saying he may be the better scorer. but clearly barkley was the more efficient scorer out of the two he also edges him out in every other catagory.

also barkley never played with another hof caliber player like stockton so again he has another valid point there.

barkley was 6'6 and malone was 6-9 and barkley was a better rebounder

i mean if you look at tim duncans career numbers you will see how similar they are to barkleys numbers. if duncan is the best pf of all time. you have to put barkley right up there with him.

barkley >> malone.

And we all know numbers lie...

First of all a .1 difference in percentage points is absolutely nothing especially since Malone played like 5 more seasons then Barkley

Malone is 2nd all time in feild goals made and total points and is first all time in defensive rebounds....

69centers
06-19-2012, 09:18 PM
I watched both play through their entire careers. Malone was better. Chuck's just using Stockton as excuse. There's the reverse argument that Stockton's numbers were better because of Malone being such a prolific scorer, who played nearly every year Stockton did.

Malone put up 2000+ points in 12 seasons. That's insane numbers and definitely not because of Stockton. Chuck only did that twice. Jordan did it 11 times. Malone's one of the most prolific scorers the game's ever seen, scoring over 20PPG in 17 out of 19 seasons. Barkley did it in 11/16.

Malone: 12 times scoring 25+PPG. Barkley only did it 4 times. Their rebounding and assist numbers were very close, but the scoring is way in Karl's favor.

Every power forward ranking of all time that I've seen either on TV or on the net always have Malone over Barkley. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone say Chuck is better except for Chuck. :laugh2:

John Walls Era
06-19-2012, 09:21 PM
Barkley was a better scorer. He could score in many more ways.

69centers
06-19-2012, 09:27 PM
Barkley was a better scorer. He could score in many more ways.

You must have missed my above post.

Also, Malone only played 3 more seasons than Barkley but scored 13,000 more points. That's nuts. Take away Karl's last 3 seasons and he scores about 34,100 points in 16 years compared to Barkley's 23,700 points in 16 years. It's not even close.

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 09:28 PM
Barkley was a better scorer. He could score in many more ways.

Lmao, you apparently never watched either play.
Not only was Malone a better scorer then Barkley, but there is actually statistically only one player in the history of the sport that IS better then him.

Kashmir13579
06-19-2012, 09:35 PM
Are we saying scoring doesn't get easier for Barkley if he's playing with Stockton?

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 09:42 PM
Are we saying scoring doesn't get easier for Barkley if he's playing with Stockton?

No, we are saying that if you watched then you know how prolific of a scorer he really was.... Yeah Stockton made it easier, but he isn't the main reason that Malone has the most points out of any other power forward to ever play the game . Ever..... Stockton is the assist man only because Malone knew how to finish....

llemon
06-19-2012, 10:01 PM
Glad Chuck didn't say smarter.

Alayla
06-19-2012, 10:13 PM
Sixers fan here... and im sorry Barkley but No... just ... no

smith&wesson
06-19-2012, 10:15 PM
And we all know numbers lie...

First of all a .1 difference in percentage points is absolutely nothing especially since Malone played like 5 more seasons then Barkley

Malone is 2nd all time in feild goals made and total points and is first all time in defensive rebounds....

its def more then a .1 difference in %

what about the height difference and rebounding nummbers?

YashBoone
06-19-2012, 10:20 PM
And we all know numbers lie...

First of all a .1 difference in percentage points is absolutely nothing especially since Malone played like 5 more seasons then Barkley

Malone is 2nd all time in feild goals made and total points and is first all time in defensive rebounds....

its def more then a .1 difference in %

what about the height difference and rebounding nummbers?

Yeah Barkley was great but his height as an excuse only get you so far..... Mosey boges was tiny and what he did was amazing but that don't mean he can just call himsel better then other guys cause he did what he did at his height.....

And the rebounding numbers?
Barkley is fifth all time in offensive.....Malone is 1st all time in defensive.

Chronz
06-19-2012, 10:35 PM
Height difference? LMFAO you dont get extra credit for being short.

Chuck was better in his prime, once they both hit 30 it was Malone. Would you guys rather have the better player throughout his prime or the guy who can extend his prime well into his late 30's? Chuck was also the much better playoff/finals performer.

Carey
06-19-2012, 10:36 PM
Chuck is right...Karl was better defensively but it's not by a significant margin, Charles was impossible to stop because he had no holes in his game offensively

b@llhog24
06-20-2012, 03:48 AM
And we all know numbers lie...

Ironic seeing that you made this post


Just read some stats, and Malone is 10th all time in steals, 6th in total rebounds, 1st in defensive rebounds, first in free throws made and attempted (and for those that remember, he use to talk to himself at the charity line) and 2nd all time in feild goals made..... That's pretty impressive.... I was just a kid watching him, and I didn't keep stats like that back then, but his numbers are a lot better then I thought.

Barkley was pretty impressive tho too:
5th all time in free throws attempted
9th in offensive rebounds........
11 time Allstate....
He was a beast down low but Malone was way better....

He did do great right guard commercials tho. And I did have his jersey


You must have missed my above post.
Also, Malone only played 3 more seasons than Barkley but scored 13,000 more points. That's nuts. Take away Karl's last 3 seasons and he scores about 34,100 points in 16 years compared to Barkley's 23,700 points in 16 years. It's not even close.

The difference is one player is lauded for his longevity and another player had to retire due to suffering multiple injuries throughout his career.


Lmao, you apparently never watched either play.
Not only was Malone a better scorer then Barkley, but there is actually statistically only one player in the history of the sport that IS better then him.

If your only talking about total points the sure, but if you mean in a broad scope of statistics? He's not top 10.

DR_1
06-20-2012, 07:56 AM
:laugh2: I love Chuck

blastmasta26
06-20-2012, 08:28 AM
Height difference? LMFAO you dont get extra credit for being short.

Chuck was better in his prime, once they both hit 30 it was Malone. Would you guys rather have the better player throughout his prime or the guy who can extend his prime well into his late 30's? Chuck was also the much better playoff/finals performer.

I think this is a very interesting ideological question, and I'm not sure myself. But I lean towards the player capable of extending his prime if both players are very close during their primes.

JasonJohnHorn
06-20-2012, 08:45 AM
I would say that Barkley did more with less. He was much shorter than Malone, and inch for inch, Barkley was the better player, BUT, in a head-to-head comparison, Malone stand a little taller than Barkley. He was a better scorer, almost as good a rebounder, better defender, had better conditioning and more longevity and they were both good passers and their shooting percentages weren't very far off from each other. If Barkley had the work ethic of Karl Malone he would have been able to play until he was 40 as well. The fact that Malone could still play at a high level at the age of 40 has to count for something.

I think most GM's, wiht hindsight, would want to draft Malone over Barkley if it was put to them. They are both all-time greats, and as I said, Barkley did more with less, but Malone did more. Of course, Barkley never had a PG as good as Stockton, though he did get to play with Kevin Johnson for a few seasons, and KJ was a great PG.

Anyways... it's like splitting hairs with these two, they were both amazing, but Malone has the edge in scoring and defence, and all other catagories are too close to give an edge to one player over another.

Edit: With all that said, I think the best way for these two guys to sort out who the better player is, is to have a game of one-on-one as soon as possible. I'd pay ten bucks to see that, even at their age.

michigan2489
06-20-2012, 09:04 AM
I will agree, Karl had amazing stats, he had a great team to go with it, plus, one of the top point guard that played that position as a real PG, a distributor, Stockton new his position well and make the game much easier for Karl to get where he is in all the categories. Sir Charles, never had a PG like Stockton, don't get me wrong he had KJ and Danny Ainge, but was his supporting cast did not help him inflate his numbers.

If I was to pick one of them in their prime, I'd take Charles "I speak my mind cause I can" Barkley.

JordansBulls
06-20-2012, 10:50 AM
Charles should stfu when he's talking

Why???

b@llhog24
06-20-2012, 02:18 PM
I think this is a very interesting ideological question, and I'm not sure myself. But I lean towards the player capable of extending his prime if both players are very close during their primes.

Personally I think that factors more into who had the better career, but if we're looking at their prime run Barkley noticeably gaps Malone, just look at their playoff production.

Losoway
06-20-2012, 02:26 PM
barkley is way better malone

Sinestro
06-20-2012, 02:46 PM
I agree Sir Charles was a stud, Stockton and Malone benefited a lot from playing together

Getting UGGLA
06-20-2012, 03:00 PM
3 words for Barkley's ego: "Turrible"

D-Will4Prez
06-20-2012, 03:01 PM
Malone was better, I dont really know the numbers off the top of my head, but Ioved malone back in the day. I had like fifteen pages of cards all Karl Malone .... Saying he had Stockton is a cop out . A TON of great players had another great player with them.... Shaq had Kobe, but that don't make vlade divac better.... Kareem had magic but that don't make bill Walton better.

x2 huge cop out.

You guys know that not only is Karl 2nd all-time in points scored, but is #10 in steals? Also, what about Cheeks, Dawkins, and Kevin Johnson? All good passers in this league. Charles is throwing them all under the bus by insinuating that he didn't have anyone good passing to him while Karl had Stockton. Boasting is one thing, but this was kind of a douche move by Chuck.

BDawk4Prez
06-20-2012, 03:05 PM
When Sir Charles is right, the man is ****ing right.

Sadds The Gr8
06-20-2012, 03:08 PM
Sir Charles is right

ryguy553
06-20-2012, 03:38 PM
Barkley gets kudo points for being the better playoff and Finals performer despite not having a ring. He went toe to toe with Jordan in that Suns/Bulls Finals series even registering a triple double. I give it to Sir Charles he did more with less.

Gritz
06-20-2012, 03:44 PM
He loves talking just for the sake of talking, head looks like some botoxed balls

mkdo
06-20-2012, 03:44 PM
comparisons forum.

man who's that girl?

AsfanSince99
06-20-2012, 03:57 PM
Barkley had the ability to dictate the flow of a basketball game with his scoring, passing, and rebounding. He was one of the few players in his day that could do that. And once he got the ball in the paint, he was either going to score, get an And1 or go to the foul line for 2 free throws. And if you doubled him, he would find the open man for an easy layup or 3 pointer.

I also liked how he would snatch a defensive rebound, dribble the length of the court for an arena rattling dunk that'll bring down the house. He was unstoppable.

If he never shot any 3's, he would be the all-time leader in FG% in NBA history.

IMO, I think he played a few yrs too long, because most people tend to remember the later years of a players career. Bottom line: Barkley is 1 and Malone is 1A.

AsfanSince99
06-20-2012, 04:03 PM
x2 huge cop out.

You guys know that not only is Karl 2nd all-time in points scored, but is #10 in steals? Also, what about Cheeks, Dawkins, and Kevin Johnson? All good passers in this league. Charles is throwing them all under the bus by insinuating that he didn't have anyone good passing to him while Karl had Stockton. Boasting is one thing, but this was kind of a douche move by Chuck.

LOL, @Johnny Dawkins?? He was a servicable pg, but c'mon, he was nothing to write home about. KJ was a scoring pg, he scored 1st, passed 2nd, and he was always injured. Stockton in comparison was an Iron Man, played almost every game and was a true pg. Stockton and Malone arguably ran the pic-and-role better than any duo in NBA history. Barkley never played with anyone like that. Mo Cheeks was the closest but he was at the tail end of his career.

ChicagoJ
06-20-2012, 05:36 PM
I've been a fan of Barkely since he was a player. It's funny because I remember him complaining one year that he could be a better rebounder than Rodman if that is all he tried to do. He likes to talk himself up a bit, but I kinda like his arrogance.

As for the comparison, they were both great players. I'd take Barkely over Malone, not by much, but to say the only reason Malone was a better scorer was because of stockton is selling Karl short. He was a great individual scorer regardless.

kubernetes
06-20-2012, 06:25 PM
Might be kinda generous giving Barkley 6'6". I've heard he's actually less than 6'5".

zB_#85
06-20-2012, 06:42 PM
initially I thought this was funny and rediculous, but the more I think about it he probably is. Numbers are all on the Mailman's side which immediately made me think Chuck was wrong but I think if it were Chuck all those years with Sloan coaching and Stockton setting the table for him they might have won a ring or two. Some of Chuck's playoff performances (especially '93 with the Suns) were incredible. He had the heart of a champ, just never the team around him to get it done. Too bad the Rockets were so damn old when they assembled Clyde/Pippen/Chuck/Hakeem because that is a legendary big 4 right there!

StarvingKnick22
06-20-2012, 06:59 PM
are you kidding me Barkley?
http://www.theschoolphilly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/adidas.jpg D-Rose's Injury free shoe :D

dodie53
06-20-2012, 07:11 PM
Charles should stfu when he's talking

hahaha

Federal Reserve
06-20-2012, 07:11 PM
Barkley was and is a fat piece of blubber. He played no defense and was a terrible rebounder when it mattered. Malone was a much better player (and I always loathed Malone).

AsfanSince99
06-20-2012, 10:39 PM
initially I thought this was funny and rediculous, but the more I think about it he probably is. Numbers are all on the Mailman's side which immediately made me think Chuck was wrong but I think if it were Chuck all those years with Sloan coaching and Stockton setting the table for him they might have won a ring or two. Some of Chuck's playoff performances (especially '93 with the Suns) were incredible. He had the heart of a champ, just never the team around him to get it done. Too bad the Rockets were so damn old when they assembled Clyde/Pippen/Chuck/Hakeem because that is a legendary big 4 right there!

I think that '93 team was a championship caliber team. Unfortunately, they ran into a relentless and unstoppable Jordan.


I've been a fan of Barkely since he was a player. It's funny because I remember him complaining one year that he could be a better rebounder than Rodman if that is all he tried to do. He likes to talk himself up a bit, but I kinda like his arrogance.
I would argue that it's not arrogance, but he is highly confident in his ability.

THE MTL
06-20-2012, 10:54 PM
Imma go with Karl Malone and most of the ranking I have seen, rank Karl Malone over Chuck as well. Karl's Malone's achievements blow Barkeley out the sky and are not only greater but he was far more durable.

Karl Malone missed 5 games in his first 13 years in the league! Barkeley missed 16 games by his third season!

And no dont blame the fact that Malone was actually a good teammate and had guys that wanted to play with him unlike Barkeley who was alone because no one wanted to play with him.

I think Barkeley has a problem with guys who had superstar teammates because he never had one.

Raph12
06-21-2012, 03:02 AM
Karl was a better defensive player, Chuck was better overall...

mrbean
06-27-2012, 01:53 PM
Barkley was my favorite player, so I'll admit to being bit biased by agreeing he was better than Malone.

Malone did have a better career than Barkley, though. If you look up "pick and roll" in the encyclopedia of basketball, you'll see a picture of Malone standing there with Stockton. They did it better than any duo I've seen in my 30+ years of watching basketball.

Barkley was never part of a tandem like that of Malone/Stockton or MJ/Pippen for any significant stretch of time. He had to create most of his own shots; he had to. Go watch an old game where Malone scores 30, then go watch an old game where Barkley scores 30. You'll see two guys who play the same position put up similar stats in very different ways.

Who knows, maybe Karl Malone was the better player. He was certainly a lot more disciplined than Charles; but in no way was he more talented.


For some of the younger people who frequent this forum that see Barkley as nothing more than a rotund talking head on TNT spouting what may seem to be nonsense, I seriously implore you to get your hands on some full games of Charles when he played. Not highlights, but full games. You'll see a guy that in the course of a 48 minute game would play 5 different positions. He'd shoot threes, run the point, spot the defense, switch off to guard the opposing center, clean the glass like no-ones business, and last but certainly not least, he would post up and become unstoppable. He did this in a league with REAL centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc... and he did it all at 6'5."

For all the talk that I read about today's players being bigger, faster, and stronger, I've yet to see anyone who played the game like Charles Barkley did.

llemon
06-27-2012, 02:07 PM
Too bad the Rockets were so damn old when they assembled Clyde/Pippen/Chuck/Hakeem because that is a legendary big 4 right there!

Don't believe Clyde and Pippen ever played together.

JPS
06-27-2012, 02:32 PM
Barkley was my favorite player, so I'll admit to being bit biased by agreeing he was better than Malone.

Malone did have a better career than Barkley, though. If you look up "pick and roll" in the encyclopedia of basketball, you'll see a picture of Malone standing there with Stockton. They did it better than any duo I've seen in my 30+ years of watching basketball.

Barkley was never part of a tandem like that of Malone/Stockton or MJ/Pippen for any significant stretch of time. He had to create most of his own shots; he had to. Go watch an old game where Malone scores 30, then go watch an old game where Barkley scores 30. You'll see two guys who play the same position put up similar stats in very different ways.

Who knows, maybe Karl Malone was the better player. He was certainly a lot more disciplined than Charles; but in no way was he more talented.


For some of the younger people who frequent this forum that see Barkley as nothing more than a rotund talking head on TNT spouting what may seem to be nonsense, I seriously implore you to get your hands on some full games of Charles when he played. Not highlights, but full games. You'll see a guy that in the course of a 48 minute game would play 5 different positions. He'd shoot threes, run the point, spot the defense, switch off to guard the opposing center, clean the glass like no-ones business, and last but certainly not least, he would post up and become unstoppable. He did this in a league with REAL centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc... and he did it all at 6'5."

For all the talk that I read about today's players being bigger, faster, and stronger, I've yet to see anyone who played the game like Charles Barkley did.


Amen