PDA

View Full Version : Wilt Chamberlain or Lebron James - Start a team, who do you take?



JordansBulls
01-15-2015, 11:22 PM
Wilt Chamberlain or Lebron James - Start a team, who do you take?

CavaliersFTW
01-15-2015, 11:30 PM
I'll take the most dominant athlete/player the game has ever witnessed.

http://youtu.be/zirehYtoxoI

bucketss
01-15-2015, 11:47 PM
as much as i like bron, gotta go with the g.o.a.t

JV35
01-15-2015, 11:56 PM
Wilt, of course.

Hard to believe that anyone would takes James over Wilt.

InRoseWeTrust
01-15-2015, 11:57 PM
I'll take the most dominant athlete/player the game has ever witnessed.

http://youtu.be/zirehYtoxoI


as much as i like bron, gotta go with the g.o.a.t

Didn't see that Jordan was an option.

beasted86
01-16-2015, 12:00 AM
LeBron, because I wouldn't pick a dead guy to start a team.

cmellofan15
01-16-2015, 12:05 AM
fairly obvious. always gotta go with the big man to start a team.

Htownballa1622
01-16-2015, 12:07 AM
I think the better question is Manute Ból or Muggsey Bogues.

Wilt.

Crunch Time
01-16-2015, 12:10 AM
who gets HCA?

izmb
01-16-2015, 12:11 AM
lebron james is the real deal

Htownballa1622
01-16-2015, 12:16 AM
who gets HCA?

:laugh2:

WIN

utl768
01-16-2015, 12:24 AM
wilt

as great as lebron is its alot easier to find production on the wing then at center

SteveZissou
01-16-2015, 12:49 AM
I'll take the most dominant athlete/player the game has ever witnessed.

http://youtu.be/zirehYtoxoI

Anyone who hasn't seen this video needs to because it will change their mind about who is the g.o.a.t

I didn't get it until I saw him look shaq in the eyes, than saw his athleticism and passing game he had along with it.

CavaliersFTW
01-16-2015, 12:57 AM
Anyone who hasn't seen this video needs to because it will change their mind about who is the g.o.a.t

I didn't get it until I saw him look shaq in the eyes, than saw his athleticism and passing game he had along with it.

He's impossible to believe unless you see it. The stories are literally unbelievable until you see film for context.

goingfor28
01-16-2015, 01:25 AM
Didn't see that Jordan was an option.
He's not. Wilt is.

ILLUSIONIST^248
01-16-2015, 03:56 AM
Wilt Chamberlain or Lebron James - Start a team, who do you take?

Wilt

Sean Moore
01-16-2015, 07:19 AM
Wilt easily. Not sure how this is even up for discussion.

PurpleLynch
01-16-2015, 08:40 AM
Wilt.

FlashBolt
01-16-2015, 09:03 AM
I'd go with Wilt strictly because I'd take Shaq over anyone; including Bron.

Goose17
01-16-2015, 10:09 AM
Lebron is a more versatile player but Wilt was physically just terrifying.

I think Wilt would destroy centers in the league right now. So I would take Wilt and surround him with shooters like van gundy did with Dwight.

FlashBolt
01-16-2015, 10:41 AM
Lebron is a more versatile player but Wilt was physically just terrifying.

I think Wilt would destroy centers in the league right now. So I would take Wilt and surround him with shooters like van gundy did with Dwight.

Man.. Wilt would absolutely dance around Dwight tbh. This dude was so mobile, tall, strong, and had a great instinct for the game. Imagine Wilt surrounded by shooters? Oh boy.

Goose17
01-16-2015, 12:06 PM
Man.. Wilt would absolutely dance around Dwight tbh. This dude was so mobile, tall, strong, and had a great instinct for the game. Imagine Wilt surrounded by shooters? Oh boy.

I would be intrigued to see if the modern defenses would bother him any. I mean zone defense was pretty much allowed in the NBA just because of Dwight being so physically dominant. It would be fun to watch for sure.

mngopher35
01-16-2015, 02:14 PM
I would be intrigued to see if the modern defenses would bother him any. I mean zone defense was pretty much allowed in the NBA just because of Dwight being so physically dominant. It would be fun to watch for sure.

You spelled shaq wrong.

As for the thread question, wilt.

Chronz
01-16-2015, 02:39 PM
You spelled shaq wrong.

As for the thread question, wilt.
I know right

Chronz
01-16-2015, 02:42 PM
Wilt
I think We all know your answer on anything Bron related. I happen to actually agree with you on This one But im curious to see if your rationale goes beyond the typical hate You admit to.

Chronz
01-16-2015, 02:44 PM
Man.. Wilt would absolutely dance around Dwight tbh. This dude was so mobile, tall, strong, and had a great instinct for the game. Imagine Wilt surrounded by shooters? Oh boy.
Which version of Wilt were you describing because he took many forms

LakersIn5
01-16-2015, 03:15 PM
Wilt. Had blocks been recorded he would have the record for all time blocks

Avenged
01-16-2015, 04:02 PM
Man.. Wilt would absolutely dance around Dwight tbh. This dude was so mobile, tall, strong, and had a great instinct for the game. Imagine Wilt surrounded by shooters? Oh boy.

I would be intrigued to see if the modern defenses would bother him any. I mean zone defense was pretty much allowed in the NBA just because of Dwight being so physically dominant. It would be fun to watch for sure.

WHAT lol

MILLERHIGHLIFE
01-16-2015, 04:04 PM
Wilt!

Bruno
01-16-2015, 05:27 PM
Lebron is a more versatile player but Wilt was physically just terrifying.

I think Wilt would destroy centers in the league right now. So I would take Wilt and surround him with shooters like van gundy did with Dwight.

Put prime Wilt on this years Warriors. not too shabby.

Avenged
01-16-2015, 05:41 PM
Lebron is a more versatile player but Wilt was physically just terrifying.

I think Wilt would destroy centers in the league right now. So I would take Wilt and surround him with shooters like van gundy did with Dwight.

Put prime Wilt on this years Warriors. not too shabby.

Put him on any current team. Not too shabby

benny01
01-16-2015, 05:57 PM
I would be intrigued to see if the modern defenses would bother him any. I mean zone defense was pretty much allowed in the NBA just because of Dwight being so physically dominant. It would be fun to watch for sure.

To be fair, Patrick Ewing's ******** brother Jeffy would dominate todays centers. I'll take Wilt in the survey and gimme Jordan if I get my pick. Jordan, obviously, would have no say in personnel decisions.

asandhu23
01-16-2015, 06:51 PM
Man.. Wilt would absolutely dance around Dwight tbh. This dude was so mobile, tall, strong, and had a great instinct for the game. Imagine Wilt surrounded by shooters? Oh boy.

You don't need to imagine. Look at 72 Lakers. The team with the original Splash Brothers in West and Goodrich... interestingly you can see the similar design in current Warriors team and Jerry West is in the front office.

Goose17
01-16-2015, 08:08 PM
You spelled shaq wrong.

As for the thread question, wilt.

LMAO. Why the hell did I say Dwight? My bad. Brain fart. I feel ashamed that my brain thought shaq and typed Dwight.

Bramaca
01-17-2015, 11:44 AM
I would probably go with Wilt but I think it's a lot closer then many on here are making it out to be. Lebron is bigger, stronger, and more athletic then most of the centers Wilt went up against in his first 10 years and he is a sf (sometimes an undersized pf) in today's game. Centers back then were allowed to set up low post position 5' from the basket without being touched, entry passes were relatively uncontested compared to now, and then they were given like 2' of space with nobody leaning on them. Things just aren't that easy for centers in today's NBA.

Each position is bigger, faster, and stronger on average then it was in his day and you just aren't given the same position in the post that they were then. He would probably be one of the most skilled and strongest centers of the last 20 years if not the most and would fit today's game very well but he wouldn't be as dominant as he was then IMO.

Vampirate
01-17-2015, 11:59 AM
Lebron, Wilt can't affect the floor anymore unless he's haunting it.

xcghjh
01-17-2015, 12:11 PM
http://ehealthca.com/ipad/images/123.gif http://ehealthca.com/hu12uk1.jpgWilt Chamberlain or Lebron James - Start a team, who do you take?

Ty22Mitchell
01-17-2015, 01:25 PM
To be fair, Patrick Ewing's ******** brother Jeffy would dominate todays centers. I'll take Wilt in the survey and gimme Jordan if I get my pick. Jordan, obviously, would have no say in personnel decisions.

Totaly agree. I do question how Wilt would stack up against 80s/90s centers though. For that reason I take LBJ 80s/90s (Wilt the rest). Do you think Wilt could of hung with prime Dream, Shaq, DRob, etc?

R. Johnson#3
01-17-2015, 01:55 PM
Wilt easily. No offence to Lebron but Wilt is just on another level. Lebron is very talented but Wilt was just so unbelievably dominant.

basch152
01-17-2015, 05:38 PM
Lebron is a more versatile player but Wilt was physically just terrifying.

I think Wilt would destroy centers in the league right now. So I would take Wilt and surround him with shooters like van gundy did with Dwight.

That's honestly not saying much though. I don't know if there's a single center in the NBA right now worthy of the hall of fame. Put Dwight in the 90s and we'd be wondering who the **** he is right now. The 10th best center of the decade at best?

basch152
01-17-2015, 05:40 PM
Totaly agree. I do question how Wilt would stack up against 80s/90s centers though. For that reason I take LBJ 80s/90s (Wilt the rest). Do you think Wilt could of hung with prime Dream, Shaq, DRob, etc?

See, I personally think the dream was the best player of all time.

The guy was the best center in the era dominated by centers more than anyone. He proved himself against the best.

jerellh528
01-17-2015, 05:46 PM
Wilt, Kareem, or shaq woulda been a better question

Raps18-19 Champ
01-17-2015, 05:50 PM
Wilt is a center and could do it all. He could probably average 30 and 15 in any other decade.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 05:52 PM
Totaly agree. I do question how Wilt would stack up against 80s/90s centers though. For that reason I take LBJ 80s/90s (Wilt the rest). Do you think Wilt could of hung with prime Dream, Shaq, DRob, etc?
The late 60's and early 70's was a golden age of centers many would argue even superior to the 80's and 90's. Wilt wasn't playing spring chickens.

This is the kind of center competition he faced nightly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv9LhEH3YCw

I don't know how these myths of Wilt played against no-one special or lesser center position talent than existed in the 80's/90's even got started... he played against as many HOFers as existed in the 90's... except in a much smaller league so he never had the volume of nights off cutting his teeth on less than stellar talent like Robinson/Hakeem/Shaq did. Those guys hardly ever played each other compared to how often Wilt was facing 50-greatest and HOF tier talent.

He'd dominate the 80's and 90's or any other period of the game with as much ease and impunity as he did his own era. He's just that much more competitive and physically and intellectually capable than everyone else.

KnicksorBust
01-17-2015, 05:55 PM
LeBron.

nandovelez
01-17-2015, 06:02 PM
Wilt the year that the sixers won the championship and lead the league in assist over anyone to start a team haha. Nothing against lebron himself

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 06:03 PM
I'm definitely in the minority of this, but I'm taking Lebron. And it's not necessarily a knock on Wilt (although who the better player is historically is certainly up for debate) so much as it is a knock on basketball in the 60s. If I'm taking either player to play across any era, give me the guy who has played with 50+ years of additional scientific advances in sports medicine and training as well as athletics in general.

And you could say "don't take science or athletic advances into consideration," but that's impossible. Lebron would have been a completely different player if he had peaked in the 60s and Wilt would have been a completely different player if he peaked in 2015. I have to go with the players as we know them, and the Lebron I know today has played with and against far more quality athletes than Wilt did in the 60s.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 06:18 PM
I would probably go with Wilt but I think it's a lot closer then many on here are making it out to be. Lebron is bigger, stronger, and more athletic then most of the centers Wilt went up against in his first 10 years and he is a sf (sometimes an undersized pf) in today's game. Centers back then were allowed to set up low post position 5' from the basket without being touched, entry passes were relatively uncontested compared to now, and then they were given like 2' of space with nobody leaning on them. Things just aren't that easy for centers in today's NBA.

Each position is bigger, faster, and stronger on average then it was in his day and you just aren't given the same position in the post that they were then. He would probably be one of the most skilled and strongest centers of the last 20 years if not the most and would fit today's game very well but he wouldn't be as dominant as he was then IMO.
This is all based off a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Lebron is bigger (strictly speaking weight) than most centers in TODAY'S game. Not just Wilt's time, nor any other time. It's part of what makes him such a matchup nightmare. But he's a physical outlier. Just like Magic Johnson is an outlier point guard at the size he was.

Drafted weights (to try and take out the variable of weight training - which is a trend in this era, less popular in Chamberlain's but anyone could theoretically weight train)

Lebron 245

Dwight Howard: 240
Tyson Chandler: 227
Joakim Noah: 224
David Robinson: 227
Kevin Garnett: 217
Nerlens Noel: 205

These guys all filled out or will fill out and add 15-35+lbs, in Wilt's time the same happened they tended to also add mass just not as much as today because they didn't weight train as much as players do today. But physically they start out as the same size templates. Most centers, historic or present, have frames that are inherently smaller than Lebron James. Again that's just what makes Lebron special. But it should also be noted there were gifted guys playing forward Lebron's size in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Maurice Stokes (who was also gifted with Lebron/Magic-like coordination he just had an accident tragically in his prime and could never play again), Jim Barnes, Luke Jackson etc.

The center position in Wilt's time was filled with legitimate center sized players. Same types of impressive armspans/heights/natural sized frames you'd see impressing draft scouts today.

I made some images a few years ago to point out the fallacy in this oft-made assumption he played small competition:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pIInIGtX6Ug/UO45mn6D3oI/AAAAAAAAD9U/Wymp3tG_aro/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scale.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zf38x9d8www/UQN-FnvilBI/AAAAAAAAEC8/hlY2EpcMNGw/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scaleWIP3.jpg

Wilt's era was the era where you had to put a guy on the roster that could hold his own against... well... Wilt Chamberlain. They weren't putting midgets on the guy. The 60's and 70's was a golden age of centers, that was the highest density of HOF center talent in the league of any era. Meaning the ratio of how many HOF centers to the number of teams playing was at it's highest. Guys like Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond are not physically inferior specimens to the centers playing today.

PurpleLynch
01-17-2015, 06:59 PM
This is all based off a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Lebron is bigger (strictly speaking weight) than most centers in TODAY'S game. Not just Wilt's time, nor any other time. It's part of what makes him such a matchup nightmare. But he's a physical outlier. Just like Magic Johnson is an outlier point guard at the size he was.

Drafted weights (to try and take out the variable of weight training - which is a trend in this era, less popular in Chamberlain's but anyone could theoretically weight train)

Lebron 245

Dwight Howard: 240
Tyson Chandler: 227
Joakim Noah: 224
David Robinson: 227
Kevin Garnett: 217
Nerlens Noel: 205

These guys all filled out or will fill out and add 15-35+lbs, in Wilt's time the same happened they tended to also add mass just not as much as today because they didn't weight train as much as players do today. But physically they start out as the same size templates. Most centers, historic or present, have frames that are inherently smaller than Lebron James. Again that's just what makes Lebron special. But it should also be noted there were gifted guys playing forward Lebron's size in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Maurice Stokes (who was also gifted with Lebron/Magic-like coordination he just had an accident tragically in his prime and could never play again), Jim Barnes, Luke Jackson etc.

The center position in Wilt's time was filled with legitimate center sized players. Same types of impressive armspans/heights/natural sized frames you'd see impressing draft scouts today.

I made some images a few years ago to point out the fallacy in this oft-made assumption he played small competition:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pIInIGtX6Ug/UO45mn6D3oI/AAAAAAAAD9U/Wymp3tG_aro/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scale.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zf38x9d8www/UQN-FnvilBI/AAAAAAAAEC8/hlY2EpcMNGw/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scaleWIP3.jpg

Wilt's era was the era where you had to put a guy on the roster that could hold his own against... well... Wilt Chamberlain. They weren't putting midgets on the guy. The 60's and 70's was a golden age of centers, that was the highest density of HOF center talent in the league of any era. Meaning the ratio of how many HOF centers to the number of teams playing was at it's highest. Guys like Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond are not physically inferior specimens to the centers playing today.

Man. This is just a great answer. It reminds me of bagwell's posts.
The last two photos were also amazing.

Definitely,congrats. Now I know a lot of new things.

basch152
01-17-2015, 07:20 PM
Man. This is just a great answer. It reminds me of bagwell's posts.
The last two photos were also amazing.

Definitely,congrats. Now I know a lot of new things.

What? The picture was freaking terrible.

It shows two players from Wilts "era", even though Kareem didn't even start playing until Wilt was at the *** end of his career when he was averaging barely 20 ppg, and the other is Russell who was considered a big center back then at 6'9.

Meanwhile on the current era you have 3 small forwards that are all as big or bigger than Russell, two power forwards who are both bigger than Russell, and a center that is undersized and relies on his strength and athleticism.

Terrible examples.

For some reason people want to use centers that didn't play until wilts last 3-4 years as examples as to why he didn't actually play against smaller competition. Doesn't work that way.

PurpleLynch
01-17-2015, 07:32 PM
What? The picture was freaking terrible.

It shows two players from Wilts "era", even though Kareem didn't even start playing until Wilt was at the *** end of his career when he was averaging barely 20 ppg, and the other is Russell who was considered a big center back then at 6'9.

Meanwhile on the current era you have 3 small forwards that are all as big or bigger than Russell, two power forwards who are both bigger than Russell, and a center that is undersized and relies on his strength and athleticism.

Terrible examples.

For some reason people want to use centers that didn't play until wilts last 3-4 years as examples as to why he didn't actually play against smaller competition. Doesn't work that way.


Dave Cowens(6'9" 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed, (6'9" 240 lbs.)
Wes Unseld, who was (6'7" 245 lbs.)
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)



Enough?

Bramaca
01-17-2015, 07:33 PM
This is all based off a lot of incorrect assumptions.

Lebron is bigger (strictly speaking weight) than most centers in TODAY'S game. Not just Wilt's time, nor any other time. It's part of what makes him such a matchup nightmare. But he's a physical outlier. Just like Magic Johnson is an outlier point guard at the size he was.

Drafted weights (to try and take out the variable of weight training - which is a trend in this era, less popular in Chamberlain's but anyone could theoretically weight train)

Lebron 245

Dwight Howard: 240
Tyson Chandler: 227
Joakim Noah: 224
David Robinson: 227
Kevin Garnett: 217
Nerlens Noel: 205

These guys all filled out or will fill out and add 15-35+lbs, in Wilt's time the same happened they tended to also add mass just not as much as today because they didn't weight train as much as players do today. But physically they start out as the same size templates. Most centers, historic or present, have frames that are inherently smaller than Lebron James. Again that's just what makes Lebron special. But it should also be noted there were gifted guys playing forward Lebron's size in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Maurice Stokes (who was also gifted with Lebron/Magic-like coordination he just had an accident tragically in his prime and could never play again), Jim Barnes, Luke Jackson etc.

The center position in Wilt's time was filled with legitimate center sized players. Same types of impressive armspans/heights/natural sized frames you'd see impressing draft scouts today.

I made some images a few years ago to point out the fallacy in this oft-made assumption he played small competition:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pIInIGtX6Ug/UO45mn6D3oI/AAAAAAAAD9U/Wymp3tG_aro/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scale.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zf38x9d8www/UQN-FnvilBI/AAAAAAAAEC8/hlY2EpcMNGw/s0/NBA%2520Big%2520men%2520scaleWIP3.jpg

Wilt's era was the era where you had to put a guy on the roster that could hold his own against... well... Wilt Chamberlain. They weren't putting midgets on the guy. The 60's and 70's was a golden age of centers, that was the highest density of HOF center talent in the league of any era. Meaning the ratio of how many HOF centers to the number of teams playing was at it's highest. Guys like Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond are not physically inferior specimens to the centers playing today.

It's not based off of incorrect assumptions and you only addressed half of my point.

Those players that you mention started entering the league after his 4th, 5th season or later. Up until that point much of his competition at the center position was smaller (around Lebrons size) the years he was putting up absolutely massive numbers. After the league started filling up with bigger and better centers he was still arguably the best but he wasn't as dominant.

The second point I made which you didn't address at all was that centers back then were allowed to set up deep post position without any real fight, entry passes weren't contested like they are now, and centers were allowed a lot more space to work. In today's NBA he would not get the ball in the position he did that easily or be given as much room to operate. Another thing to consider is that as fantastic as his individual numbers look you have to take the amount of minutes he played and the pace of the game into consideration. Adjusted to per 36 and the pace of today's game his numbers are still very, very good but not nearly as impressive. The top rebounders in today's game get 20-24% of available rebounds. Wilt's rebounding numbers look amazing but it's comparable to a player of today averaging around 14rpg.

I'm not saying that Wilt wouldn't do very well and probably be the top center in the league today but I don't think he would be walking all over the league like many on here are making it out as.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 07:39 PM
What? The picture was freaking terrible.

It shows two players from Wilts "era", even though Kareem didn't even start playing until Wilt was at the *** end of his career when he was averaging barely 20 ppg, and the other is Russell who was considered a big center back then at 6'9.

Meanwhile on the current era you have 3 small forwards that are all as big or bigger than Russell, two power forwards who are both bigger than Russell, and a center that is undersized and relies on his strength and athleticism.

Terrible examples.

For some reason people want to use centers that didn't play until wilts last 3-4 years as examples as to why he didn't actually play against smaller competition. Doesn't work that way.

Count how many games Wilt squared off against Kareem. Again, in a small league, he's playing Kareem as many times or more in say, a 4 year span as Shaq played against Hakeem in a 10 year span.

Also, did you not see the 2nd image? Do you even know who those players are? I can give you their playing weights, measurements, etc. I research this stuff. The players of his time are impressive physically imposing big men. They had to be. They had to not get embarassed by Wilt night in and night out.

Bill Russell was unique when he came into the league because of how skinny and "small" he was. Not because of how big he was. The "template" of center position was set by George Mikan in the late 1940's. A guy who was 6-10 without shoes had long arms and a gigantic 245lbs frame as a rookie eventually filling out to 280lbs. Bill Russell was also 6-10 (6-9 and 5/8ths without shoes to be precise), and also had long arms (7-4 armspan) but he was only a 215lb rookie. Eventually he filled out to as heavy as 240, but he mostly played at 230. This was considered light. He was not bigger than everyone else, he actually weighed less than most of the guys he played against his standout trademark was his length coordination and quickness definitely not imposing size.

Also as for that 2nd image, that's not even half the centers Wilt faced. He went up against guys like Bob Lanier, 6-11 300lbs. Picked him up like a "coffee cup". Wayne Embry was Al Jefferson's height without shoes and weighed 270-280, had the biggest hands in league history with a 12 inch spread thumb to pinky. He was playing against physical freaks. The league fielded the biggest most talented players on the planet to go up against him. It is a total myth I'd imagine just brought about by people who never saw that era and never wanted to do adequate research about it that he played against physically inferior competition than what you would expect to see drafted into the league today.

You honestly think Tyler Zeller for example, is any more physically imposing than Darrall Imhoff, the guy who Wilt scored 100 points against? Their measurements are almost identical, their athleticism looks the same, only Imhoff had bigger hands and longer arms and was schooled how to play center under a better program at UCLA and actually was good enough to make an all-star game roster. Kareem played against Imhoff for a few years too. Did you know that? He never even scored 50 on him, let alone 100 like Wilt. Wilt isn't a product of inferior competition. He's a product of his own superior talent. A once in a _____ years athlete. I leave that blank because who knows how many more years it will take before another Wilt-tier giant comes along in history. One didn't exist in any other sport to my knowledge in prior recorded history, nor has one come along since his time has passed. Shaq was the closest, but Shaq never had his level of conditioning and stamina, even Phil Jackson points that out when asked to compare the two physically.

PurpleLynch
01-17-2015, 07:45 PM
It's not based off of incorrect assumptions and you only addressed half of my point.

Those players that you mention started entering the league after his 4th, 5th season or later. Up until that point much of his competition at the center position was smaller (around Lebrons size) the years he was putting up absolutely massive numbers. After the league started filling up with bigger and better centers he was still arguably the best but he wasn't as dominant.

The second point I made which you didn't address at all was that centers back then were allowed to set up deep post position without any real fight, entry passes weren't contested like they are now, and centers were allowed a lot more space to work. In today's NBA he would not get the ball in the position he did that easily or be given as much room to operate. Another thing to consider is that as fantastic as his individual numbers look you have to take the amount of minutes he played and the pace of the game into consideration. Adjusted to per 36 and the pace of today's game his numbers are still very, very good but not nearly as impressive. The top rebounders in today's game get 20-24% of available rebounds. Wilt's rebounding numbers look amazing but it's comparable to a player of today averaging around 14rpg.

I'm not saying that Wilt wouldn't do very well and probably be the top center in the league today but I don't think he would be walking all over the league like many on here are making it out as.

If you adjust his numbers to the pace of today's league he would average around 30 ppg and 20 rpg. Not too shabby. His minutes per game must be lowered in the calculation(42 is realistic imo).

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 07:48 PM
Dave Cowens(6'9" 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed, (6'9" 240 lbs.)
Wes Unseld, who was (6'7" 245 lbs.)
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)



Enough?
Keep in mind too

bball reference (I'm assuming your source, or the original author of that lists source) tends to just take one uncited source for playing weight, usually some outdated rookie weight (so the lightest those guys ever were listed - as all bigs tended to gain weight through their careers, even back then)

And also players in that time tended to list closer to their barefoot height.

There's exceptions to every trend but I've uncovered specific measurements for lots of those guys,

For example Elvin Hayes admits in an NCAA interview that he's actually 6-9 and a half without shoes, but he'd list 6-8 if he had the choice. He weighed 245 most of his career. Luke Jackson was also closer to 6-10 and played at about 270 not that 240 list weight. Bob Pettit 6-8 and 1/4 without shoes (a half inch taller than Kevin Love) and was a 215lb rookie that bulked up to 245, claims he'd easily have played 260 if he played today he'd just make the simple adjustment to gain a few more pounds in the gym. All those guys would, on top of their playing weights that were generally playing well above what is listed in that list you've got.

Tallest, biggest, most coordinated athletes have always been the recipe for basketball players. And the biggest guys of all played in the middle. They were well beyond figuring this out by the time the Wilt Chamberlain era came along. People just don't want to give Wilt or his contemporaries credit. It's easier to just write it off and assume it was one big giant against physically inferior talent.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 07:54 PM
If you adjust his numbers to the pace of today's league he would average around 30 ppg and 20 rpg. Not too shabby. His minutes per game must be lowered in the calculation(42 is realistic imo).

No his minutes should not be adjusted IMO.

Even today players are green light to play as many minutes as they physically can, so long as their stamina permits.

Wilt's stamina was record-setting. 48.5mpg, he had a resting heart rate of 38.

Pop just said in a recent interview that there is no minute limit, for example, on K Leonard. He said Leonard will play as much as his endurance permits. Phil Jackson said the one most impressive thing that separated Shaq and Wilt physically was Wilt's stamina. He told Shaq early in his career, that the greatest thing (in his opinion) Wilt ever did was play 48+ minutes a game. He challenged Shaq to try and play as many minutes as possible. Wilt wasn't out there because of bad coaching, if a player could do what Wilt could do today you might see it happen again. If Jackson or Pop were the coach at least.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 07:55 PM
Wilt's era was the era where you had to put a guy on the roster that could hold his own against... well... Wilt Chamberlain. They weren't putting midgets on the guy. The 60's and 70's was a golden age of centers, that was the highest density of HOF center talent in the league of any era. Meaning the ratio of how many HOF centers to the number of teams playing was at it's highest. Guys like Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond are not physically inferior specimens to the centers playing today.

Agree to disagree on some of this. There were a lot of good centers in the 60s and 70s, but not all of them played at the same time and not all of them were in their primes at the same time. Russell retired before Kareem entered the league and well before Moses came around. Meanwhile, in the early-mid 90s, you had Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Mourning all playing in their primes. The 90s was a much better era for top tier talent at the center position, and I don't think it's that close.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 07:57 PM
Agree to disagree on some of this. There were a lot of good centers in the 60s and 70s, but not all of them played at the same time and not all of them were in their primes at the same time. Russell retired before Kareem entered the league and well before Moses came around. Meanwhile, in the early-mid 90s, you had Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Mourning all playing in their primes. The 90s was a much better era for top tier talent at the center position, and I don't think it's that close.

There's nothing to agree to disagree about you're actually just straight up wrong. Look at some of the all star game rosters from 1967 to 1973.

Then give me some all star game rosters from the 90's that trump them and explain why. Then look up how big the league was in that time and how often the guys were playing each other.

mightybosstone
01-17-2015, 07:59 PM
Keep in mind too

bball reference (I'm assuming your source, or the original author of that lists source) tends to just take one uncited source for playing weight, usually some outdated rookie weight (so the lightest those guys ever were listed - as all bigs tended to gain weight through their careers, even back then)

And also players in that time tended to list closer to their barefoot height.

There's exceptions to every trend but I've uncovered specific measurements for lots of those guys,

For example Elvin Hayes admits in an NCAA interview that he's actually 6-9 and a half without shoes, but he'd list 6-8 if he had the choice. He weighed 245 most of his career. Luke Jackson was also closer to 6-10 and played at about 270 not that 240 list weight. Bob Pettit 6-8 and 1/4 without shoes (a half inch taller than Kevin Love) and was a 215lb rookie that bulked up to 245, claims he'd easily have played 260 if he played today he'd just make the simple adjustment to gain a few more pounds in the gym. All those guys would, on top of their playing weights that were generally playing well above what is listed in that list you've got.

Tallest, biggest, most coordinated athletes have always been the recipe for basketball players. And the biggest guys of all played in the middle. They were well beyond figuring this out by the time the Wilt Chamberlain era came along. People just don't want to give Wilt or his contemporaries credit. It's easier to just write it off and assume it was one big giant against physically inferior talent.

Another criticism of that list is that a lot of those guys were players who peaked in the 70s, whereas Wilt was a shell of himself by the time the 70s rolled around. If we're talking peak Wilt versus peak Lebron, peak Wilt clearly peaked in the 60s when there were far, far fewer elite centers in the league.

CavaliersFTW
01-17-2015, 08:10 PM
Another criticism of that list is that a lot of those guys were players who peaked in the 70s, whereas Wilt was a shell of himself by the time the 70s rolled around. If we're talking peak Wilt versus peak Lebron, peak Wilt clearly peaked in the 60s when there were far, far fewer elite centers in the league.

That 70's Wilt was a "shell of himself" is also not entirely true. He was playing under a different role. He was not trying to outscore anyone that late in his career. He was more keen on laying back on defense similar to how Russell's role was defined for the Celtics.

He was, in his Final NBA season at the age of 36 for example:

*Still shattering records that haven't been touched (72% from the field)
*Still leading teams to ECF/Finals (Went to the NBA Finals again, 2nd year in a row, fresh off a FMVP and 3rd place MVP finish)
*Still in MVP races (finished fourth in MVP voting)
*Still the most physically imposing force in the league
*Leading the league in rebounding
*Leading the league in blocked shots (50+ game sample size has been compiled, 5.4bpg)
*Leading the league in minutes played (47.1mpg)
*Still durable, played all 82 games
*Best defensive player in the league (that was his role at that time)

He retired because he was going to jump to the ABA as player-coach (a-la Bill Russell, or Lenny Wilkins - it was more common in that era). The Lakers threatened to sue him for breach of contract if he dawned an ABA jersey as a player though, so he sat out the year and just coached and decided he didn't want to play anymore after that. He got legitimate NBA contract offers to play up until 1992. That's the kind of specimen he was.

When people for example, did not understand his deliberate act of shooting less, or whatever the role change was on his given rosters, he'd occasionally catch wind of what was written about him, get pissed and go off for 60+ points. In 1969 for example, several months before Kareem entered the league, he dropped 2 60+ point performances (one of them 66 or 67 points I believe). The next year Jabbar was in the league, played against the same team/players, and his role WAS to score, and his career high's in points are only in the 50's. Wilt had the ability to impose his will even late in his career. He just played whatever style the teams needed.

JustinTime
01-17-2015, 08:28 PM
as much as i like bron, gotta go with the g.o.a.t

You like Lebron? what's wrong with you?

SanAntonioSpurs23
01-17-2015, 10:06 PM
Wilt.

basch152
01-17-2015, 10:10 PM
Dave Cowens(6'9" 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed, (6'9" 240 lbs.)
Wes Unseld, who was (6'7" 245 lbs.)
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)

So I'm going to readjust this list taking off anyone that came into the NBA after the 65-66 season, and anyone under 6'10, that leaves -

Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)

About what I figured. More than half of the damn list were players that played the last 2-3 years of Wilts career.

Of those players, only Thurmond(and he was on wilts team most his career) and Bellamy were worth a damn, most were unathletic or unskilled. Half of them averaged under 5 ppg...

I'm not even arguing Wilt had no competition, it's just tiring listening to all the Wilt homers try to mislead people the way they do, it's beyond ridiculous. Making excuses for everything too.

Yeah his scoring and rebounds went down in the later half of his career because he took a different role, had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there were far more athletic big men to challenge him throughout the NBA or anything, nope.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2015, 12:10 AM
Wilt for me. I have him the #3 player of all time, and while LeBron may very well enter my top 5 ever, Wilt was just so amazing, he gets my nod.

Bruno
01-18-2015, 12:13 AM
in defense of LeBron, were talking about Wilt here, haha.

There are only two reason why we don't consider Wilt the GOAT. MJ, and the Boston Celtics.

Bramaca
01-18-2015, 01:35 AM
If you adjust his numbers to the pace of today's league he would average around 30 ppg and 20 rpg. Not too shabby. His minutes per game must be lowered in the calculation(42 is realistic imo).

They only have his Rebounding % for the last 3 years of his career but looking at the basic stats you can figure out his R% +/- 1% throughout his career. He had one season around 23.5% and the rest are in the 19-22% range. That is a very good % and would always put him near the top of the league but wouldn't get him 20rpg in the league the way it is and at the current pace.

His scoring his best season (50ppg season) would adjust to around 32-33ppg @ 42mpg but that's without taking into consideration the room he was allowed and how much big men are used now. If you watch any of the videos from back then centers were given room and position that centers today can only dream of getting.

As I said earlier, I am not saying that Wilt couldn't make it in today's league. I think he would be one of the best if bigs around if not the best. In my first post I said I would take him over James but I don't think the gap is anywhere close to as big as its being portrayed.

CavaliersFTW
01-18-2015, 03:23 AM
Dave Cowens(6'9" 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed, (6'9" 240 lbs.)
Wes Unseld, who was (6'7" 245 lbs.)
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)

So I'm going to readjust this list taking off anyone that came into the NBA after the 65-66 season, and anyone under 6'10, that leaves -

Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)

About what I figured. More than half of the damn list were players that played the last 2-3 years of Wilts career.

Of those players, only Thurmond(and he was on wilts team most his career) and Bellamy were worth a damn, most were unathletic or unskilled. Half of them averaged under 5 ppg...

I'm not even arguing Wilt had no competition, it's just tiring listening to all the Wilt homers try to mislead people the way they do, it's beyond ridiculous. Making excuses for everything too.

Yeah his scoring and rebounds went down in the later half of his career because he took a different role, had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there were far more athletic big men to challenge him throughout the NBA or anything, nope.
You do know that prior to your totally arbritrary cut off of 1966 (People who saw Wilt play often say 1966-68 were his most unstoppable/dominant seasons), the league was only 8-9 teams right? Meaning it was densely packed, even a small list equates to a stacked league.

And point number two is - those list weights are WAY underbilled for some of those guys, Bellamy weighed 250, and was actually about a half inch taller than Hakeem Olajuwon. And those list heights? - If you are to compare to modern players? Most of the centers in the league today wouldn't even meet your criteria.

For example Al Jefferson, listed 6-10 today? he's only 6-8 and change. Kevin Love, listed 6-10? Only 6-7 and 3/4 in real life. Dwight Howard, the most physically imposing big in the game today? Only 6 feet 9 inches tall. 5/8ths of an inch shorter than Bill Russell, who you omitted from the list. Those guys listed their approximate barefoot heights back then. The league back then was not the media-hype machine you see today. Today players are way overbilled.

You failed to make a point. I'll list specific measurements of players back then and compare to a list of guys today if you'd like me to flush this out more thoroughly. Players today are likely way smaller than you think.

PurpleLynch
01-18-2015, 03:36 AM
They only have his Rebounding % for the last 3 years of his career but looking at the basic stats you can figure out his R% +/- 1% throughout his career. He had one season around 23.5% and the rest are in the 19-22% range. That is a very good % and would always put him near the top of the league but wouldn't get him 20rpg in the league the way it is and at the current pace.

His scoring his best season (50ppg season) would adjust to around 32-33ppg @ 42mpg but that's without taking into consideration the room he was allowed and how much big men are used now. If you watch any of the videos from back then centers were given room and position that centers today can only dream of getting.

As I said earlier, I am not saying that Wilt couldn't make it in today's league. I think he would be one of the best if bigs around if not the best. In my first post I said I would take him over James but I don't think the gap is anywhere close to as big as its being portrayed.

I agree,in fact I think the most of critics are not against you,but against the concept that he faced weak competion while in his prime,but played like **** in his decline (just because he was averaging like fifteen point playing as a defensive anchor in LA) against stronger opponents.

PurpleLynch
01-18-2015, 03:48 AM
Dave Cowens(6'9" 230 lbs.)
Willis Reed, (6'9" 240 lbs.)
Wes Unseld, who was (6'7" 245 lbs.)
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.)
Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.)
Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.)
George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.)
Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)
Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.)
Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.)
Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.)
Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.)
Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.)
Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.)
LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.)
Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.)
Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.)
Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.)
Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.)
Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.)
Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.)
Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.)
Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.)

So I'm going to readjust this list taking off anyone that came into the NBA after the 65-66 season, and anyone under 6'10, that leaves -

Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.)
Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.)
Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.)
Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.)
Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.)
Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.)
Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.)
Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.)

About what I figured. More than half of the damn list were players that played the last 2-3 years of Wilts career.

Of those players, only Thurmond(and he was on wilts team most his career) and Bellamy were worth a damn, most were unathletic or unskilled. Half of them averaged under 5 ppg...

I'm not even arguing Wilt had no competition, it's just tiring listening to all the Wilt homers try to mislead people the way they do, it's beyond ridiculous. Making excuses for everything too.

Yeah his scoring and rebounds went down in the later half of his career because he took a different role, had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there were far more athletic big men to challenge him throughout the NBA or anything, nope.

Why celebrating a top tier HOF player is being a "homer"?
We aren't making excuses,we just look at how Wilt played in his era and we are trying to compare it to players from our current era(this is probably the most difficult bball related topic,because nobody agrees on how rating a player from a past era).

CavaliersFTW
01-18-2015, 03:50 AM
I have to reiterate to you guys - coaches today do not all limit player minutes. If a player like Wilt was around you better believe he'd play every minute of every game in this era too. He was a marvel, he pulled more fans in the league than anyone and was one of the most durable players of all time. Even if he got injured he tended to play anyways save for two occasions in his career.

Listen to this article/quote by Gregg Popovich:
http://www.sportsmanias.com/news/san-antonio-spurs/live-updates-leonard-will-start-vs-blazers/54b9a763f7ed2f701e0000bf

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said Kawhi Leonard will start at small forward tonight against Portland, ending his stretch of 15 straight missed games with a torn ligament in his right (shooting) hand.

“Why not?” Popovich joked. “Somebody’s got to start.”

There are no limitations on Leonard’s minutes, Popovich said, with his availability depending strictly on what his conditioning allows for. Leonard said at shootaround earlier in the day that he’s experiencing no pain in the hand.

That's a totally modern coaches philosophy. That's the exact same Philosophy Wilt's coaches had, like Frank McGuire.

So if Poppovich was Wilt Chamberlain's coach... guess how many minutes you think he'd play? Every minute of every game. Because Wilt famously stated to never got tired. Frank McGuire famously revealed in an interview "My first season coaching I asked Wilt how many minutes he felt he could play, he said all of them. I said all of them? He said I never get tired."

Wilt was running marathons in his 50's. His resting heart rate was 38. He was a freak, he could play every minute so he did. He wasn't doing it because coaches back then ran their players into the ground. He's the ONLY player who ever did that, in any era.

PowerHouse
01-18-2015, 04:01 AM
If its superstar wing player vs superstar center I go with the big man every time. Wilt.

cahawk
01-18-2015, 04:44 AM
In 1972 Wilt brought the Los Angeles Lakers their 1st NBA Title.
Wilt was 36, West 34 & Baylor had retired before season started. (kobe is 35 for comparison)
The next year, Wilts last, Wilt set the all-time season FG% record - .727% while leading NBA in Rebounding.
Wilt & MJ have by far highest career scoring average-30.1. (Lebron is 3rd at 27,kareem & kobe career aver 24ppg)

basch152
01-18-2015, 07:31 AM
You do know that prior to your totally arbritrary cut off of 1966 (People who saw Wilt play often say 1966-68 were his most unstoppable/dominant seasons), the league was only 8-9 teams right? Meaning it was densely packed, even a small list equates to a stacked league.

It was actually 10-12 teams at that point, but ok.

The point is, look at the majority of centers who played back then. Half of them were completely worthless. Most averaging under 5 ppg. They were unathletic and unskilled. The actual competition wilt played the first half of his career was very limited. He was far bigger and more athletic than everyone playin then. Stop acting like he'd completely dominate today when every team has 2-3 players as big or bigger than the biggest player on every team back then.

Half the centers in that era are the size of small forwards or small power forwards today. Stop trying to mislead people.


And point number two is - those list weights are WAY underbilled for some of those guys, Bellamy weighed 250, and was actually about a half inch taller than Hakeem Olajuwon. And those list heights? - If you are to compare to modern players? Most of the centers in the league today wouldn't even meet your criteria.

Prove that they're actually bigger than listed. And stop trying to use players that only played in wilts last 2-3 years.


You failed to make a point. I'll list specific measurements of players back then and compare to a list of guys today if you'd like me to flush this out more thoroughly. Players today are likely way smaller than you think.

And you'll fail to see the point that centers are FAR more skilled and athletic today than they were back then.

Goose17
01-18-2015, 08:45 AM
Take a look at the playoff teams the year he won his first chip,

Bulls, Warriors, Celtics, Hawks, Knicks, Lakers, Royals.

Erwin Mueller (6'8), Nate Thurmond (6'11), Bill Russell (6'10), Zelmo Beaty (6'10), Walt Bellamy (6'11), Darrall Imhoff (6'10), Connie Dierking (6'9)

Now Wilt played LONG before my time, so I never saw these teams play but those were the "contenders" that year, so out of the top 8 teams only two of them had starting Centers under 6'10. Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell and Walt Bellamy were all high caliber players to say the least.

Arguing skill is one thing but arguing size is another, the idea that all the best centers other than Wilt were 5'11 or whatever crazy **** people are saying is just moronic at best.

Now you could make an argument for centers being more skilled. But guys like Thurmond, Russell and Bellamy were not small guys and they were the top talent at the C up until the early 70's (which for some reason you won't let people discuss)

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 03:02 PM
I'm sorry but people are refuting the unbelievable. Yes, Wilt was great. But you cannot tell me he could play every minute of every game in the modern NBA. That is just a joke. The fact Wilt could play every minute during his team isn't a testimony of how "durable" he is. Simply put, the competition was just VERY weak to the point where the effort he applied was minimal. Can you seriously debate how this guy managed to play 48.5 MPG (with OT's) in a season? That's impossible to do against peak competition. His numbers are great but you have to be pretty stupid to think it would be just as good in today's league. No frickin way.

Goose17
01-18-2015, 03:08 PM
I'm sorry but people are refuting the unbelievable. Yes, Wilt was great. But you cannot tell me he could play every minute of every game in the modern NBA. That is just a joke. The fact Wilt could play every minute during his team isn't a testimony of how "durable" he is. Simply put, the competition was just VERY weak to the point where the effort he applied was minimal. Can you seriously debate how this guy managed to play 48.5 MPG (with OT's) in a season? That's impossible to do against peak competition. His numbers are great but you have to be pretty stupid to think it would be just as good in today's league. No frickin way.

I think the pace might have changed but the talent (at the Center position) is drastically worse than it was back then. Wilt would destroy and by destroy I mean completely manhandle every single big man in this league, he would be smashing some of his own records. He would crush these guys.

The pace would be interesting, I'm not sure how many minutes he would play but I reckon even if they held his minutes back he would be incredibly durable and healthy throughout the season.

This is all so subjective though, there's never going to be a right answer.

CavaliersFTW
01-18-2015, 03:29 PM
I'm sorry but people are refuting the unbelievable. Yes, Wilt was great. But you cannot tell me he could play every minute of every game in the modern NBA. That is just a joke. The fact Wilt could play every minute during his team isn't a testimony of how "durable" he is. Simply put, the competition was just VERY weak to the point where the effort he applied was minimal. Can you seriously debate how this guy managed to play 48.5 MPG (with OT's) in a season? That's impossible to do against peak competition. His numbers are great but you have to be pretty stupid to think it would be just as good in today's league. No frickin way.
Yes Frickin Way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpTNSLJqaAE

Wilt's Final NBA game, he's 36 years old, it's the NBA FINALS. Watch it, does it look like he's not working hard the entire time? He's playing full throttle. He played EVERY MINUTE of that game, and there's about 4 or 5 others out there available start to finish of him playing every minute in his 30's, and he's going up and down in transition running, setting screens snatching up rebounds at a scary rate, pushing and shoving in the post. In this particular matchup against the 2 time champion Knicks rotation of HOF front-court players in Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere. They all needed to sit and rest. Everyone else did. Not Wilt. He didn't need to rest, period. He never got tired.

Wilt averaged 47.1 mpg that season. Probably only sat at the end of blowouts.

Again, if Phil Jackson flat out says Wilt is a better athlete than Shaq because of his stamina, and told Shaq the most amazing thing about Wilt was said-stamina, and if Coach Popp is saying he doesn't apply minute barriers to his players as of TWO DAYS AGO, than you can be in denial all you want.

Here's Jackson's quote on Chamberlain vs Shaq:
http://deadspin.com/phil-jackson-compares-shaquille-oneal-to-wilt-chamberl-513695908
"Shaquille didn't have quite the same athleticism that Wilt had," said Jackson. "He had the bounce and he had the speed, but he didn't have the endurance."

There's another interview by Shaq where Shaq says when he first came to the Lakers Jackson came up to him and said do you know what the most impressive thing Wilt Chamberlain did was? Shaq said he knew it was a trick question (IE not the 100 point game) so he mentioned something else like the 50 point season or w/e and Jackson said no, it was that Wilt was capable of playing every minute of every game through the course of a season. And he challenged Shaq to play as many minutes as possible.

Doubting some unknown player could play every minute in a vaccuum is one thing, it does sound silly, but doubting Wilt Chamberlain in light of film, and first hand testimony from NBA coaches becomes unreasonable doubt. I provided the video that explains how Wilt was such an outlier athlete the 2nd post of this topic. Watch it. There's a ton of unbelievable Wilt stuff, minutes he was capable of playing being just one of them. He actually existed, he actually was just that much better an athlete than everyone else who has ever played, and he still would be. He's just bigger than the sport.

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 06:48 PM
Yes Frickin Way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpTNSLJqaAE

Wilt's Final NBA game, he's 36 years old, it's the NBA FINALS. Watch it, does it look like he's not working hard the entire time? He's playing full throttle. He played EVERY MINUTE of that game, and there's about 4 or 5 others out there available start to finish of him playing every minute in his 30's, and he's going up and down in transition running, setting screens snatching up rebounds at a scary rate, pushing and shoving in the post. In this particular matchup against the 2 time champion Knicks rotation of HOF front-court players in Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas and Dave Debusschere. They all needed to sit and rest. Everyone else did. Not Wilt. He didn't need to rest, period. He never got tired.

Wilt averaged 47.1 mpg that season. Probably only sat at the end of blowouts.

Again, if Phil Jackson flat out says Wilt is a better athlete than Shaq because of his stamina, and told Shaq the most amazing thing about Wilt was said-stamina, and if Coach Popp is saying he doesn't apply minute barriers to his players as of TWO DAYS AGO, than you can be in denial all you want.

Here's Jackson's quote on Chamberlain vs Shaq:
http://deadspin.com/phil-jackson-compares-shaquille-oneal-to-wilt-chamberl-513695908
"Shaquille didn't have quite the same athleticism that Wilt had," said Jackson. "He had the bounce and he had the speed, but he didn't have the endurance."

There's another interview by Shaq where Shaq says when he first came to the Lakers Jackson came up to him and said do you know what the most impressive thing Wilt Chamberlain did was? Shaq said he knew it was a trick question (IE not the 100 point game) so he mentioned something else like the 50 point season or w/e and Jackson said no, it was that Wilt was capable of playing every minute of every game through the course of a season. And he challenged Shaq to play as many minutes as possible.

Doubting some unknown player could play every minute in a vaccuum is one thing, it does sound silly, but doubting Wilt Chamberlain in light of film, and first hand testimony from NBA coaches becomes unreasonable doubt. I provided the video that explains how Wilt was such an outlier athlete the 2nd post of this topic. Watch it. There's a ton of unbelievable Wilt stuff, minutes he was capable of playing being just one of them. He actually existed, he actually was just that much better an athlete than everyone else who has ever played, and he still would be. He's just bigger than the sport.

There is no fricking way dude.. You can watch YouTube highlights you want but that does not tell you how "tough" they are playing.

How the hell do you play 48.5 MPG? I'm sorry but there is no way to explain this. To be able to give it your all for 48.5 is physically impossible for anyone. It's why Jordan couldn't do it. Bill Russell played upwards to 45 MPG. Again, not possible for someone of his stature. Bill was 220? 6'9? I just don't buy it that some of these players could play 95% of the game at the highest level and more. Your body isn't capable of handling that. LeBron is the most physically gifted player IMO and he can't do it. Jordan can't. Iverson played 44 minutes but he was so small/slim, it was much easier for him to preserve energy.

CavaliersFTW
01-18-2015, 08:00 PM
There is no fricking way dude.. You can watch YouTube highlights you want but that does not tell you how "tough" they are playing.

How the hell do you play 48.5 MPG? I'm sorry but there is no way to explain this. To be able to give it your all for 48.5 is physically impossible for anyone. It's why Jordan couldn't do it. Bill Russell played upwards to 45 MPG. Again, not possible for someone of his stature. Bill was 220? 6'9? I just don't buy it that some of these players could play 95% of the game at the highest level and more. Your body isn't capable of handling that. LeBron is the most physically gifted player IMO and he can't do it. Jordan can't. Iverson played 44 minutes but he was so small/slim, it was much easier for him to preserve energy.
Lol, this is the definition of denial.

FlashBolt
01-18-2015, 09:14 PM
Lol, this is the definition of denial.

So you're telling me Wilt could have played every single minute against Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Parish, McHale, and all the legendary centers? Lol.

CavaliersFTW
01-18-2015, 10:08 PM
So you're telling me Wilt could have played every single minute against Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Parish, McHale, and all the legendary centers? Lol.
Of course. The guys Wilt played against are as good as those guys, and he played against them more often than the guys you mentioned played against each other. Like, do you seriously not know who Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell, Willis Reed, or Nate Thurmond are? Wilt would manhandle anyone in the history of the game. And he'd play every minute. He'd make anyone he faced look physically and athletically inferior. That's Wilt Chamberlain. Did you not watch the video posted on the first page, 2nd post? Watch it. Listen to it. Learn something.

Lebron is not the greatest physical specimen the game has seen. He's not even on the tier of Shaq let alone Wilt. Lebron is probably the greatest physical specimen to ever play forward, I'll give him that. But Wilt ran the same 40 time as Lebron and he was 290lbs and ran it barefoot. He seems like a myth but he isn't. He actually was just that much better than the athletes you are familiar with.

bucketss
01-18-2015, 10:12 PM
Of course. The guys Wilt played against are as good as those guys, and he played against them more often than the guys you mentioned played against each other. Like, do you seriously not know who Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell, Willis Reed, or Nate Thurmond are? Wilt would manhandle anyone in the history of the game. And he'd play every minute. He'd make anyone he faced look physically and athletically inferior. That's Wilt Chamberlain. Did you not watch the video posted on the first page, 2nd post? Watch it. Listen to it. Learn something.

Lebron is not the greatest physical specimen the game has seen. He's not even on the tier of Shaq let alone Wilt. Lebron is probably the greatest physical specimen to ever play forward, I'll give him that. But Wilt ran the same 40 time as Lebron and he was 290lbs and ran it barefoot. He seems like a myth but he isn't. He actually was just that much better than the athletes you are familiar with.

not on shaqs tier? gotta disagree with that. his combination of strength,size and speed is freaky and unfair.

Chronz
01-18-2015, 10:17 PM
Late to the party and Im with you on Wilt being underrated by the masses who cite incorrect measurements and ignore how Wilt fared vs the games best. That said, Wilt wouldn't play as long as he has simply because teams value and covet their star players more. He wouldn't be out there risking injury during any blowouts thats for sure, lest he be ridiculed by modern critics. I dont know why that has to be taken as a slight on Wilt's conditioning. You could argue the rest would make him more efficient throughout his career, but a few factors come into play when discussing the NBA today. Bulkier players abound, more grind it out basketball/less marathons make it more grueling to sustain those minutes, mentally/physically. He would benefit from modern equipment and nutritional standards. Ironically, limiting his minutes would likely have prolonged his career and allowed him to play more overall.

All I know is that Wilt has proven more than enough to be ahead of Bron.

Chronz
01-18-2015, 10:24 PM
not on shaqs tier? gotta disagree with that. his combination of strength,size and speed is freaky and unfair.

Ima have to disagree on it being unfair in a comparison vs Shaq.

asandhu23
01-19-2015, 03:01 AM
Lol. A lot of NBA starters played huge minutes back then.

IKnowHoops
01-19-2015, 03:35 AM
I understand Wilt is a beast, but I'm just not going to say he would be the best center ever going up against the other greats. I can't say he would get the best of Drob, Dream, or Shaq. The best I can do is to put him on par with Drob/Dream. I think Drob, Dream, and Shaq put up similar numbers to his in his era, but with even better efficiency. Wilt was a freak, but I think Drob and Hakeem were better, meaning would outplay/out perfom Wilt in the same era or head to head.

When comparing Shaq to Lebron athletically, its a toss up in my opinion. Both are freaks of nature that are one of a kind and physically at there position there is none close. Ive always kind of thought that Lebron was the best athlete ever. Shaq was the most physically dominant basketball player ever. (Excluding Wilt in his era) But I have no doubt that if Shaq and Wilt banged down low for a game, Shaq would bully him around.

As for who I'd take. Well, I'd take Lebron, Jordan, and Shaq over Wilt.

And it makes no statistical sense to take Wilt over Lebron and then take Magic over David Robinson.

Chronz
01-19-2015, 03:57 AM
I understand Wilt is a beast, but I'm just not going to say he would be the best center ever going up against the other greats. I can't say he would get the best of Drob, Dream, or Shaq. The best I can do is to put him on par with Drob/Dream. I think Drob, Dream, and Shaq put up similar numbers to his in his era, but with even better efficiency. Wilt was a freak, but I think Drob and Hakeem were better, meaning would outplay/out perfom Wilt in the same era or head to head.

When comparing Shaq to Lebron athletically, its a toss up in my opinion. Both are freaks of nature that are one of a kind and physically at there position there is none close. Ive always kind of thought that Lebron was the best athlete ever. Shaq was the most physically dominant basketball player ever. (Excluding Wilt in his era) But I have no doubt that if Shaq and Wilt banged down low for a game, Shaq would bully him around.

As for who I'd take. Well, I'd take Lebron, Jordan, and Shaq over Wilt.

And it makes no statistical sense to take Wilt over Lebron and then take Magic over David Robinson.
I dont see any logical backing as to why you can/cant think of Wilt in that rare air. Or why you think Shaq would bully around someone who most have considered to be the strongest to ever play. Put it this way, there are 3 main guys who were KNOWN for their physical prowess. Wilt, Gilmore and Shaq. So when I hear HOF bigmen who's careers overlapped 2 of those guys, they tend to side with Wilt. Not because they played with/against him, but because of how they relate. Like when Parish compared the physical punishment of a Shaq vs Gilmore, he sided with Gilmore. The same guy most people gave Wilt an edge against. So if Shaq isn't even seen as a stronger specimen than he, why should he get the doubt vs Wilt?

I have also never trusted your interpretation of any sort statistical translation/analysis so you'll have to be less vague for people to care about that complaint.

IKnowHoops
01-19-2015, 06:17 AM
I dont see any logical backing as to why you can/cant think of Wilt in that rare air. Or why you think Shaq would bully around someone who most have considered to be the strongest to ever play. Put it this way, there are 3 main guys who were KNOWN for their physical prowess. Wilt, Gilmore and Shaq. So when I hear HOF bigmen who's careers overlapped 2 of those guys, they tend to side with Wilt. Not because they played with/against him, but because of how they relate. Like when Parish compared the physical punishment of a Shaq vs Gilmore, he sided with Gilmore. The same guy most people gave Wilt an edge against. So if Shaq isn't even seen as a stronger specimen than he, why should he get the doubt vs Wilt?

I have also never trusted your interpretation of any sort statistical translation/analysis so you'll have to be less vague for people to care about that complaint.

The stats relative to there era tell me that Shaq was statistically the most dominant of all of them. What kind of a PER would Shaq have registered playing then. I think that is obvious.

Little things like Shaq ripping the entire backboard off, or collapsing the mechanical equipment that held it up. Those 1960's rims would have stood no chance as Shaq would of destroyed one on accident.

Wilt just wasn't as heavy as Shaq. He was much more slender than shaw, especially early on. He filled out and was a beast, but he still was not as heavy as Shaq was.

Now I am not putting any guy down, and acknowledge that each man was an absolute beast in his own right, but Gilmore was 240lbs. Shaq was 300lbs as a slim and trim rookie. Gilmore would get annihilated by Shaq, lets be real.

The rate at which you dominate has some correlation to your so called strength, speed and ability to use both so to make the player as much of a force as possible on the court. There is no doubt Wilt is a beast and dominated an era in a way never seen again. But again looking at the film of the two of them playing basketball, Shaq to me looks more physical and stronger and bigger.

Goose17
01-19-2015, 06:21 AM
Wilt could bench 500lbs.

/Argument

The picture of Wilt as a retired "old" man standing next to rookie shaq says it all. Wilt is the most physically dominant specimen the league has ever seen. He made Shaq look like an average joe standing next to him AFTER he retired, long after. In his prime? Forget about it.

IKnowHoops
01-19-2015, 06:28 AM
Wilt could bench 500lbs.

/Argument

The picture of Wilt as a retired "old" man standing next to rookie shaq says it all. Wilt is the most physically dominant specimen the league has ever seen. He made Shaq look like an average joe standing next to him AFTER he retired, long after. In his prime? Forget about it.

Coming from someone who benched 425lbs. The bench 500 lbs things doesn't mean much at all. When Wilt was next to Shaq, Wilt was way out of his prime and carrying around a lot of weight that he normally wouldn't. Current Shaq would make Rookie Shaq look tiny. Just cause you bench a lot, doesn't mean your going to move someone out of the way. Especially when moving that person consists mostly using your legs and hips. Bench Press is semi overrated when talking about what will happen between two one of a kind athletes. Or even athletes in general. On the football field, the hardest hitter isn't the guy that bench presses the most.

Goose17
01-19-2015, 06:31 AM
Shaq couldn't bench 400. So it says something.

There was a story about Wilt dislocating a guys shoulder when blocking his shot. Never saw shaq do that.

The thing with Wilt is the guy is like basketball legend. A myth. Unless you were there it's difficult to work out what to believe and what not to.

tredigs
01-19-2015, 07:27 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Ij7HJtd.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Wilt_Chamberlain_Nate_Thurmond.jpg

http://www.thisisnotporn.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wilt-Chamberlain-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-and-Andre-the-Giant.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/images/nba/1999/chamberlain/wilt7.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/basketball/_photos/wilt-chamberlain-gallery/wilt6pg-vertical.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/909/336/WiltChamberlain_display_image.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF8yJ1J1W7Q


^Yeahhh, I'll take that guy.

PurpleLynch
01-19-2015, 08:19 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Ij7HJtd.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Wilt_Chamberlain_Nate_Thurmond.jpg

http://www.thisisnotporn.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wilt-Chamberlain-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-and-Andre-the-Giant.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/images/nba/1999/chamberlain/wilt7.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/basketball/_photos/wilt-chamberlain-gallery/wilt6pg-vertical.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/909/336/WiltChamberlain_display_image.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF8yJ1J1W7Q


^Yeahhh, I'll take that guy.

These pics were real good,thanks!

PurpleLynch
01-19-2015, 08:31 AM
There is no fricking way dude.. You can watch YouTube highlights you want but that does not tell you how "tough" they are playing.

How the hell do you play 48.5 MPG? I'm sorry but there is no way to explain this. To be able to give it your all for 48.5 is physically impossible for anyone. It's why Jordan couldn't do it. Bill Russell played upwards to 45 MPG. Again, not possible for someone of his stature. Bill was 220? 6'9? I just don't buy it that some of these players could play 95% of the game at the highest level and more. Your body isn't capable of handling that. LeBron is the most physically gifted player IMO and he can't do it. Jordan can't. Iverson played 44 minutes but he was so small/slim, it was much easier for him to preserve energy.

Why? I can't understand why Iverson is able to do that against bigger players at PG/SG(Iverson was undersized) and Wilt is not because he play against players of his same or less size.

Lebron James is sixth in mpg of all time,behind Wilt,Russell,Robertson,Iverson and Baylor. He's averaging 39.45 mpg. Just saying...

TheNumber37
01-19-2015, 08:39 AM
Wilt. If he was playing today he'd be mvp. Lebron is not mvp right now

Chronz
01-19-2015, 03:23 PM
The stats relative to there era tell me that Shaq was statistically the most dominant of all of them. What kind of a PER would Shaq have registered playing then. I think that is obvious.

Like I said, I dont trust your interpretation of any statistical analysis. The only thing I find obvious is that you dont know what you're talking about. Feel free to agree to disagree, but if you're actually trying to make an objective point, quit being so vague. Show me what you find to be obvious.


Little things like Shaq ripping the entire backboard off, or collapsing the mechanical equipment that held it up. Those 1960's rims would have stood no chance as Shaq would of destroyed one on accident.
The likes of Daryl Dawkins broke rims too. Why is this relevant? As for Shaq destroying them by accident, it was a different time. Showboating like that was not taken lightly. Shaq would have been punched in the face for acts like that, god knows Wilt was.


Wilt just wasn't as heavy as Shaq. He was much more slender than shaw, especially early on. He filled out and was a beast, but he still was not as heavy as Shaq was.
But we're not talking about whos fatter/heavier, we're talking about STRENGTH. Rodman for example was extremely slender, but was farm strong. Some players physique belie their true strength.


Now I am not putting any guy down, and acknowledge that each man was an absolute beast in his own right, but Gilmore was 240lbs. Shaq was 300lbs as a slim and trim rookie. Gilmore would get annihilated by Shaq, lets be real.
Lets be real, when it comes to dissecting strength, your rudimentary take doesn't outweigh the opinion of guys who actually went against the 2 players you are discussing. The notion that weight trumps strength is beyond silly.



The rate at which you dominate has some correlation to your so called strength, speed and ability to use both so to make the player as much of a force as possible on the court.
Now it sounds like you're making **** up. LMFAO, show me this correlation or humble yourself.


There is no doubt Wilt is a beast and dominated an era in a way never seen again. But again looking at the film of the two of them playing basketball, Shaq to me looks more physical and stronger and bigger.
But why would anyone care about your unsubstantiated opinion above the testimonials from actual NBA players.

Chronz
01-19-2015, 04:23 PM
Why? I can't understand why Iverson is able to do that against bigger players at PG/SG(Iverson was undersized) and Wilt is not because he play against players of his same or less size.

Lebron James is sixth in mpg of all time,behind Wilt,Russell,Robertson,Iverson and Baylor. He's averaging 39.45 mpg. Just saying...

Probably because of the grind of low post play but that was much more the case in the older days I think.

IKnowHoops
01-19-2015, 04:37 PM
=Chronz;29535361]Like I said, I dont trust your interpretation of any statistical analysis. The only thing I find obvious is that you dont know what you're talking about. Feel free to agree to disagree, but if you're actually trying to make an objective point, quit being so vague. Show me what you find to be obvious.

OK, I won't be so vague. I am more impressed by Shaq's PER of 30.65 in the year 2000, than I am
Wilt's PER of 31.82 in 1962. If your not, then thats on you. But I believe the gap in talent from 62 to 2000 is much larger than the gap in PER that both Shaq and Wilt displayed. So in short, I believe Shaq puts up a higher PER than Wilt if his 2000 self played in the 60's. Not trying to convince you of anything because you are stuck in your ways of thinking. But to say I don't know what I am talking about makes no sense because I know what I am referring to and exactly why I think it. Understand. I don't think its to hard to connect these dots, and there is more than enough reason to believe Shaq would of dominated the 60's a ton more than the 2000's wouldn't ya say?



The likes of Daryl Dawkins broke rims too. Why is this relevant? As for Shaq destroying them by accident, it was a different time. Showboating like that was not taken lightly. Shaq would have been punched in the face for acts like that, god knows Wilt was.

Breaking a backoard is different than pulling it off or did you not know that. Breaking a backboard is different than making the mechanical mechanism fail and shut down and fold, or did you not know that? Did you see What shaq did to the rim? If so, why bring up Dawkins as if he did anything remotely close to what Shaq did. Also Dawkins has proven to be a very powerful player. If a player would of punched Shaq, he would of made an example of them.



But we're not talking about whos fatter/heavier, we're talking about STRENGTH. Rodman for example was extremely slender, but he was farm strong.

I beginning to think you never played sports. Or understand the basic principles of force. Weight room strong doesn't mean your going to push someone else around. Chronz tell me this, how many guys that benched more than Shaq did you see push him around? Please tell me of this because I never saw it. Rodman got annihilated by Shaq. His farm strength had nothing for Shaq, and that was because Whaq weighed more, and was able to throw his weight around.


Lets be real, when it comes to dissecting strength, your rudimentary take doesn't outweigh the opinion of guys who actually went against the 2 players you are discussing. The notion that weight trumps strength is beyond silly.


Well there is film so if what one player says, goes against what Ive seen over and over, then I don't care. Plus your player account is severely flawed. You say that Mchale said Gilmore was more punishing. That could mean that he was a rougher player not a more powerful player. You have nothing that says Gilmore was stronger. Your filling in your own blanks and I won't do that. You coming to your own conclusion of what "punishing" means. Obviously Gilmore wasn't harder to stop with all of his power. Shaq was the more dominant player, the heavier player, the bigger player, if you want to formulate what other players say to fit your belief, then go right ahead.



Now it sounds like you're making **** up. LMFAO, show me this correlation or humble yourself.

Look at Shaq's productivity, Wilts productivity and Gilmore's productivity. The least productive player was also most likely the one with the least athletic ability and power, since they all relied so heavily on brute strength and size to accomplish what they did. Unless your going to say, Shaq was just so much more skilled than Gilmore? If your not saying that, then Shaq's power took him a lot farther than Gilmore's power did.



But why would anyone care about your unsubstantiated opinion above the testimonials from actual NBA players.

Again your testimony doesn't say what you want it to say. It doesn't say Gilmore is more powerful than Shaq.

Chronz
01-20-2015, 05:11 AM
OK, I won't be so vague. I am more impressed by Shaq's PER of 30.65 in the year 2000, than I am
Wilt's PER of 31.82 in 1962. If your not, then thats on you. But I believe the gap in talent from 62 to 2000 is much larger than the gap in PER that both Shaq and Wilt displayed. So in short, I believe Shaq puts up a higher PER than Wilt if his 2000 self played in the 60's. Not trying to convince you of anything because you are stuck in your ways of thinking. But to say I don't know what I am talking about makes no sense because I know what I am referring to and exactly why I think it. Understand. I don't think its to hard to connect these dots, and there is more than enough reason to believe Shaq would of dominated the 60's a ton more than the 2000's wouldn't ya say?
Is that you attempting to rank Wilt's best season vs Shaq's? I dont agree with your selections but to be clear, what exactly would Shaq be putting up, just with simple translations, accounting for league averages. PER neglects Wilt's superior defensive impact so its not really as telling as you think, thats why I dont just boil down a players productivity by PER. You're making it real hard to connect the dots because you have provided nothing worth connecting.




Breaking a backoard is different than pulling it off or did you not know that. Breaking a backboard is different than making the mechanical mechanism fail and shut down and fold, or did you not know that? Did you see What shaq did to the rim? If so, why bring up Dawkins as if he did anything remotely close to what Shaq did. Also Dawkins has proven to be a very powerful player. If a player would of punched Shaq, he would of made an example of them.
lol... Yeah that is unique to Shaq.




I beginning to think you never played sports. Or understand the basic principles of force. Weight room strong doesn't mean your going to push someone else around. Chronz tell me this, how many guys that benched more than Shaq did you see push him around? Please tell me of this because I never saw it. Rodman got annihilated by Shaq. His farm strength had nothing for Shaq, and that was because Whaq weighed more, and was able to throw his weight around.
Show me where I said anything about weight room strong? LOL plz dont stoop to straws here, what my actual point was, that most people that were Rodman's size stood zero chance of defending someone like Shaq, yet he more than held his own. That he was actually Chicago's best choice over the likes of behemoths like Luc Longley speaks to the fact that strength isn't measure by your rudimentary standards.



Well there is film so if what one player says, goes against what Ive seen over and over, then I don't care.
Show me the film that exposes the testimony as flawed. I'd LOVE to see how you measured strength between 2 players from your couch LMFAO.


Plus your player account is severely flawed. You say that Mchale said Gilmore was more punishing. That could mean that he was a rougher player not a more powerful player. You have nothing that says Gilmore was stronger. Your filling in your own blanks and I won't do that. You coming to your own conclusion of what "punishing" means. Obviously Gilmore wasn't harder to stop with all of his power. Shaq was the more dominant player, the heavier player, the bigger player, if you want to formulate what other players say to fit your belief, then go right ahead.
Sorry for not providing proper context. He said that Gilmore was stronger than Shaq, but that Shaq was more athletic. Thats why Shaq was a FAR better player (IMO anyways), but that had less to do with his own individual production and more to do with his influence on the game.


Look at Shaq's productivity, Wilts productivity and Gilmore's productivity. The least productive player was also most likely the one with the least athletic ability and power, since they all relied so heavily on brute strength and size to accomplish what they did. Unless your going to say, Shaq was just so much more skilled than Gilmore? If your not saying that, then Shaq's power took him a lot farther than Gilmore's power did.
But I've seen it, your giving me a barometer we dont even see eye to eye on to begin with and wouldn't determine strength even if we did. So whats the point?




Again your testimony doesn't say what you want it to say. It doesn't say Gilmore is more powerful than Shaq.
If a player thinks a smaller Gilmore was stronger than a bigger Shaq, it says enough for me. And Wilt was much stronger than Artis. Explain how Gilmore can be stronger than Shaq but Shaq is stronger than Wilt...

cxvnxgh
01-20-2015, 08:21 AM
Hard to believe that anyone would takes James over Wilt.http://financenot.com/image/images/40.gifhttp://financenot.com/image/images/23.gif

InRoseWeTrust
01-20-2015, 11:53 AM
He's not. Wilt is.

:laugh:

Bramaca
01-20-2015, 12:10 PM
Some things to consider when doing a comparison between a player from the 60's as compared to now.

Minutes

Wilt did average a lot of minutes, over his career 45.8mpg. During the 60's and early 70's though the top big men averaged 42-46mpg. Wilt definetely averaged the most but he wasn't too far above what other bigs in the league were doing.

In the 80's and much of the 90's the top bigs were averaging 38-42mpg. In today's game the top bigs average 34-38mpg.

So which is more realistic?
That every top center from the 60's was able to handle 20%+ more mpg then today's centers and that Wilt would be able to come in and play 48mpg now

OR

That the game has changed over time and centers are used less for various reasons.

Strength

The comparisons regarding the strength of the players has some problems with it. In terms of brute strength players are at their weakest and lightest when they are just starting out and are strongest physically towards the end of their careers (old man strength). So when a player says I played against Wilt and Gilmore and Wilt was way stronger it's very likely true but they were also likely playing against Wilt later in his career when he was at his biggest and strongest while playing against Gilmore when he was younger and hadn't built up his strength. The same goes for players who compare the strength of Gilmore to Shaq. They are comparing a player playing at their peak strength when they are at their weakest to a player they are playing when they are at their strongest and that player is at their weakest.

Rebounding

Wilt put up some big numbers here but you have to take into consideration pace and minutes played. if you look at rebounding % (% of available rebounds grabbed) Wilt in general grabbed around 21% of those over his career. That is very comparable to Dwight Howard's rebounding rate. Absolutely great numbers but not a rate that separates him from other top rebounders like Rodman's run of seasons where he was above 24% and up to 29%.

Scoring

He definetely scored at a high rate in his prime and even adjusted for pace and minutes would be up over 30ppg during his top seasons. But IMO you have to take into consideration how much room he was allowed in comparison to today's game. The video provided by the Cavs fan clearly shows bigs got the ball in low post positions and with room to move that bigs today simply just aren't given. Bigs also aren't used close to as much as they were which I doubt would be any different for Wilt considering his atrocious free throw shooting.

Competition

He did play against some great bigs but they where spread out with the majority of the great ones coming towards the end of his career. I heard the mention of the amount of all-star players and HOF he faced almost every game. In the early 60's that's such a great feat really. There were 8 teams, a total of 40 starters in the league. 22 players made the all-star team. Thats not exactly numbers that suggest the best of the best are making it.

And towards the end of his career when better bigs were coming out it was arguably the most diluted time frame in basketball history in terms of talent. Between the NBA and ABA there were more teams then there are today with an extremely smaller pool from which to pull talent.

IMO Wilt would definetely be a top center in the league but he wouldn't be playing 48mpg, rebounding at a better rate then other players in the top 10, or scoring at close to the rate he was back then. A hybrid of Howard and Cousins is my best guess which is a hell of a player to have and one of the best in the league but not absolutely dominating the league like nobody has before like has been suggested.

Sactown
01-20-2015, 12:15 PM
Basketball isn't even the same game that it was in the 60's so with that being said it would probably be hard to determine who would the better selection

cmellofan15
01-20-2015, 12:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Ij7HJtd.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Wilt_Chamberlain_Nate_Thurmond.jpg

http://www.thisisnotporn.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wilt-Chamberlain-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-and-Andre-the-Giant.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/images/nba/1999/chamberlain/wilt7.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/basketball/_photos/wilt-chamberlain-gallery/wilt6pg-vertical.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/909/336/WiltChamberlain_display_image.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF8yJ1J1W7Q


^Yeahhh, I'll take that guy.

terrible high jumping form :laugh2:

i'm assuming if he would have learned a better technique he could have gotten a little higher than 6'6".

IKnowHoops
01-20-2015, 01:27 PM
Is that you attempting to rank Wilt's best season vs Shaq's? I dont agree with your selections but to be clear, what exactly would Shaq be putting up, just with simple translations, accounting for league averages. PER neglects Wilt's superior defensive impact so its not really as telling as you think, thats why I dont just boil down a players productivity by PER. You're making it real hard to connect the dots because you have provided nothing worth connecting.




lol... Yeah that is unique to Shaq.




Show me where I said anything about weight room strong? LOL plz dont stoop to straws here, what my actual point was, that most people that were Rodman's size stood zero chance of defending someone like Shaq, yet he more than held his own. That he was actually Chicago's best choice over the likes of behemoths like Luc Longley speaks to the fact that strength isn't measure by your rudimentary standards.



Show me the film that exposes the testimony as flawed. I'd LOVE to see how you measured strength between 2 players from your couch LMFAO.


Sorry for not providing proper context. He said that Gilmore was stronger than Shaq, but that Shaq was more athletic. Thats why Shaq was a FAR better player (IMO anyways), but that had less to do with his own individual production and more to do with his influence on the game.


But I've seen it, your giving me a barometer we dont even see eye to eye on to begin with and wouldn't determine strength even if we did. So whats the point?




If a player thinks a smaller Gilmore was stronger than a bigger Shaq, it says enough for me. And Wilt was much stronger than Artis. Explain how Gilmore can be stronger than Shaq but Shaq is stronger than Wilt...

Gilmore - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5EUU9UZWCc
Shaq - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg

Chronz, before I go on, I just want you to be clear. You believe Gilmore was more of a physical force than Shaq right?

savvy1803
01-21-2015, 02:24 PM
I will take the ex Globetrotter , the guy that made the league change the way the game was played because of his dominance .

Chronz
01-21-2015, 02:51 PM
Gilmore - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5EUU9UZWCc
Shaq - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg

Chronz, before I go on, I just want you to be clear. You believe Gilmore was more of a physical force than Shaq right?
LOL, highlight clips are suppose to tell us what exactly?

Anyways,
I believe their strength was comparable depending on which years you want to focus on, to use the hyperbole you have used throughout this thread is borderline insanity.


Overall, Shaq is obviously more of a force than Gilmore, but its due to the complete athletic package moreso than a single attribute. Gilmore could elevate but he wasn't springy/bouncy, couldn't utilize raw forward momentum because he couldn't create the angles like Shaq (mass and agility).

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 03:32 PM
LOL, highlight clips are suppose to tell us what exactly?

Anyways,
I believe their strength was comparable depending on which years you want to focus on, to use the hyperbole you have used throughout this thread is borderline insanity.


Overall, Shaq is obviously more of a force than Gilmore, but its due to the complete athletic package moreso than a single attribute. Gilmore could elevate but he wasn't springy/bouncy, couldn't utilize raw forward momentum because he couldn't create the angles like Shaq (mass and agility).

As I thought. Kind of reminds me of what you were saying to Goose. When he said he wasn't talking about overall talent, just top tier talent. Now here you go trying to isolate one aspect of what makes a guy "powerful". So you admit Shaq was more of a force, yet argued who is stronger, but then said you said nothing about weight room. Now you bring up mass and agility to why Shaq was more of a force, but earlier said this isn't about who is heavier/fatter. Its hard to figure out what the hell your even arguing at this point lol. A lot of backtracking and double talk in your posts here, all just to win an argument.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 03:44 PM
Didn't Arnold himself state how strong Wilt was in a weight room?

As far as pure strength goes, Shaq may have a slight edge on the basketball court. But his agility, as great as it was for his size, is nothing compared to the agility, speed, and ups of Wilt. Not even in the same planet.

Bruno
01-21-2015, 03:58 PM
Shaq over Wilt? common now.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 04:20 PM
Didn't Arnold himself state how strong Wilt was in a weight room?

As far as pure strength goes, Shaq may have a slight edge on the basketball court. But his agility, as great as it was for his size, is nothing compared to the agility, speed, and ups of Wilt. Not even in the same planet.

Dude, Ive said this exact thing. Weight room strength and court strength are not the same. And like you said I'd give the edge to Shaq on the court. When it comes to banging bodies, which is what matters in b-ball, its Shaq. Really don't know why someone would argue strength that isn't translating onto the court. When it comes too triceps extensions, bench press, and cleans...Wilt all day. Without any idea, I'd concede Gilmore has Shaq beat in those areas too. But at the end of the day, what matters is, what kind of force you have on the b-ball court, and Shaq is at the top when it comes to this.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 04:23 PM
Shaq over Wilt? common now.

If the two in there physical primes guarded each other, one on one all game, who would move who more?

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 04:26 PM
Another thing about Wilt. From the film I've seen, when he has his "4.4" 40 speed, dude is long and lanky. When he was on Swoll later in his career, he wasn't that athlete anymore. He was still a great athlete, but he didn't have the world class sprinter speed anymore once he got his swolls on. Or at least I didn't see him moving like that anymore.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 04:29 PM
Dude, Ive said this exact thing. Weight room strength and court strength are not the same. And like you said I'd give the edge to Shaq on the court. When it comes to banging bodies, which is what matters in b-ball, its Shaq. Really don't know why someone would argue strength that isn't translating onto the court. When it comes too triceps extensions, bench press, and cleans...Wilt all day. Without any idea, I'd concede Gilmore has Shaq beat in those areas too. But at the end of the day, what matters is, what kind of force you have on the b-ball court, and Shaq is at the top when it comes to this.

right, but there has never been a combination of sheer strength and athletic ability to match Wilt. Like, not close. He would have enough strength to offset Shaq, and be able to use his vastly superior quickness, speed, and jumping ability to rip him up dude.

I have seen Wilt (in video) literally pick a 260 lb man up like he was a child. That is freakish. Add to it his track star ability, and we may have seen the world's greatest athlete of all time in Wilt.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 04:36 PM
right, but there has never been a combination of sheer strength and athletic ability to match Wilt. Like, not close. He would have enough strength to offset Shaq, and be able to use his vastly superior quickness, speed, and jumping ability to rip him up dude.

I have seen Wilt (in video) literally pick a 260 lb man up like he was a child. That is freakish. Add to it his track star ability, and we may have seen the world's greatest athlete of all time in Wilt.

But it seemed to me his track star speed was there when he was skinny and lanky. When he was on swoll, he was older, and he didn't exactly thwart Jabbar with his strength or athletic ability. If rookie Shaq goes up against rookie Wilt, I see it as a David Robinson vs Shaq type of matchup. Wilt wasn't dumb athletic when he was a 300lb muscle bound sidekick of Conan.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 04:55 PM
But it seemed to me his track star speed was there when he was skinny and lanky. When he was on swoll, he was older, and he didn't exactly thwart Jabbar with his strength or athletic ability. If rookie Shaq goes up against rookie Wilt, I see it as a David Robinson vs Shaq type of matchup. Wilt wasn't dumb athletic when he was a 300lb muscle bound sidekick of Conan.

There's footage of Wilt getting UP in his Laker years as well. Blocking shots that most players would not even think to contest. He was obviously slower than his fastest-player-in-the-NBA speed due to size and age, but would still be more athletic than most bigs in history.

It's also very relevant that while he was wiry as a kid, he was still clearly insanely athletic/fit/strong to go along with the world class skill level. The mass was not there, but he had no reason to add it as his natural strength was more than enough. This was at a time when weight-lifting was not part of the NBA regiment (some guys like Pettit would dabble in it midway through their careers, that's about it). It was an equal landscape in that regard. Had he come during a later date and needed to do some squats to increase his base, I don't see how that would be an issue. We saw how quickly he was able to add size when needed due to age/film-projects, etc.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 04:59 PM
There's footage of Wilt getting UP in his Laker years as well. Blocking shots that most players would not even think to contest. He was obviously slower than his fastest-player-in-the-NBA speed due to size and age, but would still be more athletic than most bigs in history.

It's also very relevant that while he was wiry as a kid, he was still clearly insanely athletic/fit/strong to go along with the world class skill level. The mass was not there, but he had no reason to add it as his natural strength was more than enough. This was at a time when weight-lifting was not part of the NBA regiment (some guys like Pettit would dabble in it midway through their careers, that's about it). It was an equal landscape in that regard. Had he come during a later date and needed to do some squats to increase his base, I don't see how that would be an issue. We saw how quickly he was able to add size when needed due to age/film-projects, etc.

Enough to handle Shaq by himself for a game? Enough to outmuscle Shaq? Enough to be the more physically dominant player between him and Shaq for a game?

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:01 PM
From a statistical standpoint, is there anything that Wilt did in his era, that you believe Shaq, Drob, Hakeem, or Lebron could not do in the same era?

FlashBolt
01-21-2015, 05:11 PM
From a statistical standpoint, is there anything that Wilt did in his era, that you believe Shaq, Drob, Hakeem, or Lebron could not do in the same era?

I doubt LeBron would put those numbers up. They played as close to the basket as possible. It's like saying MJ would put up Wilt's numbers. Just not their position to do so. I do think Shaq/D-Rob would put up those numbers. I have zero proof but so does everyone else. It's hard to say who was really stronger just by watching tape. I know people who benchpress much more than others but when it comes to boxing out or posting up, the person who benches more gets pushed over quite easily. Not saying Shaq is stronger than Wilt, but there may be some over-exaggeration going on.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 05:17 PM
Enough to handle Shaq by himself for a game? Enough to outmuscle Shaq? Enough to be the more physically dominant player between him and Shaq for a game?

Why not? If Hakeem could do it, what jump in rationale makes you think Wilt could not?


From a statistical standpoint, is there anything that Wilt did in his era, that you believe Shaq, Drob, Hakeem, or Lebron could not do in the same era?

I'm not sure what this is asking. You're just naming a bunch of great players without context of what specifically you're talking about.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 05:22 PM
I'll put it this way: If the 7'2" tall, 7'8" long world class track star / high jumping Wilt Chamberlain came into the league in the 2015 draft class, he would likely be considered the world's best player and the biggest athletic freak in NBA history by 2016/17.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:23 PM
[=tredigs;29544976]
Why not? If Hakeem could do it, what jump in rationale makes you think Wilt could not?

Hakeem outmuscled Shaq? Hakeem was more physically dominant than Shaq? Did you miss the constant double teams Shaq endured?




I'm not sure what this is asking. You're just naming a bunch of great players without context of what specifically you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Average 50pts a game for a season? Average 25 reb for a season? Score 100pts in a game? Against the talent at that time?

Chronz
01-21-2015, 05:26 PM
As I thought. Kind of reminds me of what you were saying to Goose. When he said he wasn't talking about overall talent, just top tier talent.
Actually I was always talking about overall talent, but that is neither here nor there.


Now here you go trying to isolate one aspect of what makes a guy "powerful".
Thats because you asked me to. My argument from the beginning has always been about strength. Its really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.


So you admit Shaq was more of a force, yet argued who is stronger, but then said you said nothing about weight room.
Shaq was more of a force than Gilmore(imo) by virtue of being the better athlete/player. You dont seem to understand the argument at hand, its the same argument I gave you earlier, the one about players admitting that Shaq was the better athlete but that other guys were stronger than him. I think I posted it on the last page, go back and actually read it if you dont believe me.


Now you bring up mass and agility to why Shaq was more of a force, but earlier said this isn't about who is heavier/fatter. Its hard to figure out what the hell your even arguing at this point lol. A lot of backtracking and double talk in your posts here, all just to win an argument.
I've always been talking purely about strength not overall dominance/force/power, whatever subjective criteria you are now clinging to. Its not hard to figure out what I've been arguing from the start if you understand nuanced context.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 05:28 PM
Average 50pts a game for a season? Average 25 reb for a season? Score 100pts in a game? Against the talent at that time?

Tough to say. There was a lot of insanely talented players in that league as well, and nobody else dominated on an individual level like Wilt did it. I don't even think Kareem could have, and he was still dominating as a lanky old man in the late 80's. The pace is the major difference though, not the talent disparity (clearly there are far more of the very good players now a days, but there are also a ton more teams to delude that talent). Just the evolution of the game and dedication to it against top athletes from such a young level progresses players to be better now than most were there, but that applied to Wilt as well (scary to know that he'd be even better if he came in during this era, ay?), so it's not an apples to apples comparison and never really should be.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 05:32 PM
Hakeem outmuscled Shaq? Hakeem was more physically dominant than Shaq? Did you miss the constant double teams Shaq endured?


On many occasions Hakeem outplayed Shaq despite the size disparity (Hakeem is a man who was not quite in Wilt's tier from a strength/athleticism standpoint). That's the bottom line of the argument I assume.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:35 PM
Actually I was always talking about overall talent, but that is neither here nor there.


Thats because you asked me to. My argument from the beginning has always been about strength. Its really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.


Shaq was more of a force than Gilmore(imo) by virtue of being the better athlete/player. You dont seem to understand the argument at hand, its the same argument I gave you earlier, the one about players admitting that Shaq was the better athlete but that other guys were stronger than him. I think I posted it on the last page, go back and actually read it if you dont believe me.


I've always been talking purely about strength not overall dominance/force/power, whatever subjective criteria you are now clinging to. Its not hard to figure out what I've been arguing from the start if you understand nuanced context.

Lets get specific. Shaq and Gilmore lineup like like sumo wrestlers. Who pushes the other guy backwards?

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:41 PM
On many occasions Hakeem outplayed Shaq despite the size disparity (Hakeem is a man who was not quite in Wilt's tier from a strength/athleticism standpoint). That's the bottom line of the argument I assume.

No its not the bottom line. Ive seen David outplay Shaq as well. Yet David severely fails my question.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 05:41 PM
From a statistical standpoint, is there anything that Wilt did in his era, that you believe Shaq, Drob, Hakeem, or Lebron could not do in the same era?

play 47.6 mpg at a pace of 130 possessions a game with that body size.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 05:43 PM
Lets get specific. Shaq and Gilmore lineup like like sumo wrestlers. Who pushes the other guy backwards?
You let Shaq get a full head of steam hes prolly going over everyone save for Wilt, but basketball isn't played that way. The dynamics of the game are far different. There are certain situations where each player will have an advantage in the strength department depending on how they are lined up with their opponent. Like Rodman did a good job of leveraging his lower center of gravity against Shaq in the post and was stronger than his frame appeared so he wasn't just easily dislodged. But in a rare play, if he was caught in transition with Shaq coming full steam, there isn't anyone in history who could stop that play without fouling.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 05:44 PM
Shaq over Wilt? common now.

As overall players or careers? I think theres a case to be made in either event but we're talking strictly about strength here.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:45 PM
Tough to say. There was a lot of insanely talented players in that league as well, and nobody else dominated on an individual level like Wilt did it. I don't even think Kareem could have, and he was still dominating as a lanky old man in the late 80's. The pace is the major difference though, not the talent disparity (clearly there are far more of the very good players now a days, but there are also a ton more teams to delude that talent). Just the evolution of the game and dedication to it against top athletes from such a young level progresses players to be better now than most were there, but that applied to Wilt as well (scary to know that he'd be even better if he came in during this era, ay?), so it's not an apples to apples comparison and never really should be.

He'd be better, for the same reasons that David, Shaq and Hakeem were better, but he'd be less productive, than he was in the 60's for the same reasons David, Shaq and Hakeem were less productive than he was.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 05:46 PM
play 47.6 mpg at a pace of 130 possessions a game with that body size.

The more fat you pack on, the more mass you will have but your conditioning and ability to use that strength will fade more quickly. But if Shaq was playing back then, he would have likely been trimmer.

tredigs
01-21-2015, 05:47 PM
No its not the bottom line. Ive seen David outplay Shaq as well. Yet David severely fails my question.

If I'm getting the gist of your argument, your contention is that Shaq would be able to body up and beat up Wilt in the post more often than not, correct? The premise of the argument is a "who would you rather have", and you're leaning on Shaq's size as the reason why you'd take him. I'm highlighting a player (of lesser strength) who Shaq did not slow down until Dream was in his late 30's.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:47 PM
You let Shaq get a full head of steam hes prolly going over everyone save for Wilt, but basketball isn't played that way. The dynamics of the game are far different. There are certain situations where each player will have an advantage in the strength department depending on how they are lined up with their opponent. Like Rodman did a good job of leveraging his lower center of gravity against Shaq in the post and was stronger than his frame appeared so he wasn't just easily dislodged. But in a rare play, if he was caught in transition with Shaq coming full steam, there isn't anyone in history who could stop that play without fouling.

Which can't be said for Gilmore, which in effect makes Shaq on the court stronger.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:50 PM
If I'm getting the gist of your argument, your contention is that Shaq would be able to body up and beat up Wilt in the post more often than not, correct? The premise of the argument is a "who would you rather have", and you're leaning on Shaq's size as the reason why you'd take him. I'm highlighting a player (of lesser strength) who Shaq did not slow down until Dream was in his late 30's.

Correct, that is exactly what I am saying, and that is all that I am saying in this sub debate of the real debate of (who would you rather have).

Chronz
01-21-2015, 05:52 PM
Which can't be said for Gilmore, which in effect makes Shaq on the court stronger.
LOL, because of the rare play above and beyond where strength is mostly displayed on the court (Boxing out, battling for post position, setting screens etc..). Based on every facet of strength you can display on the court, its a comparison worthy of making. My point has always been about the hyperbole you've used here. To make it clear, I do think PEAK Shaq was stronger than Gilmore. But Gilmore is no Wilt. And if we have players who will attest to inferior athletes being stronger than Shaq, I dont see how its not an argument.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:54 PM
Actually I was always talking about overall talent, but that is neither here nor there.


Thats because you asked me to. My argument from the beginning has always been about strength. Its really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.


Shaq was more of a force than Gilmore(imo) by virtue of being the better athlete/player. You dont seem to understand the argument at hand, its the same argument I gave you earlier, the one about players admitting that Shaq was the better athlete but that other guys were stronger than him. I think I posted it on the last page, go back and actually read it if you dont believe me.


I've always been talking purely about strength not overall dominance/force/power, whatever subjective criteria you are now clinging to. Its not hard to figure out what I've been arguing from the start if you understand nuanced context.

If you remember, our argument started when I said, Shaq would be able muscle Wilt down low. Then you said Gilmore was stronger than Shaq. And Wilt was stronger than Gilmore. My argument has always been about the translation of strength to muscling someone down low. If quickness, size, and agility all contribute to muscling someone down low, then you got off track from jump. I'd say the only one clinging to something is you.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 05:58 PM
LOL, because of the rare play above and beyond where strength is mostly displayed on the court (Boxing out, battling for post position, setting screens etc..). Based on every facet of strength you can display on the court, its a comparison worthy of making. My point has always been about the hyperbole you've used here. To make it clear, I do think PEAK Shaq was stronger than Gilmore. But Gilmore is no Wilt. And if we have players who will attest to inferior athletes being stronger than Shaq, I dont see how its not an argument.

I wonder if you could win that argument against yourself? LOL

Hawkeye15
01-21-2015, 06:01 PM
The more fat you pack on, the more mass you will have but your conditioning and ability to use that strength will fade more quickly. But if Shaq was playing back then, he would have likely been trimmer.

he would have had no choice but be trimmer.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 06:01 PM
If you remember, our argument started when I said, Shaq would be able muscle Wilt down low. Then you said Gilmore was stronger than Shaq. And Wilt was stronger than Gilmore. My argument has always been about the translation of strength to muscling someone down low. If quickness, size, and agility all contribute to muscling someone down low, then you got off track from jump. I'd say the only one clinging to something is you.
Of course I remember, thats why you bolding my post about what happens in much rarer transition plays was so dumbfounding. Not seeing your point. My argument is that if Gilmore and Shaq were comparable at certain points in their careers (tho I've admitted I would give the edge to Shaq overall) then Wilt makes for a much BETTER comp. I dont see Wilt getting outmuscled, especially as the game wears on and Shaqs inferior stamina detracts from this strength.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 06:04 PM
I wonder if you could win that argument against yourself? LOL
I already know their peers considered one stronger than the other despite Shaq being the more overwhelming force, so long as you understand its been an argument, then thats all you can ask. Thats the win. Its when you resort to ur level hyperbole that we are all losers.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 06:09 PM
Actually I was always talking about overall talent, but that is neither here nor there.


Thats because you asked me to. My argument from the beginning has always been about strength. Its really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.


Shaq was more of a force than Gilmore(imo) by virtue of being the better athlete/player. You dont seem to understand the argument at hand, its the same argument I gave you earlier, the one about players admitting that Shaq was the better athlete but that other guys were stronger than him. I think I posted it on the last page, go back and actually read it if you dont believe me.


I've always been talking purely about strength not overall dominance/force/power, whatever subjective criteria you are now clinging to. Its not hard to figure out what I've been arguing from the start if you understand nuanced context.


You let Shaq get a full head of steam hes prolly going over everyone save for Wilt, but basketball isn't played that way. The dynamics of the game are far different. There are certain situations where each player will have an advantage in the strength department depending on how they are lined up with their opponent. Like Rodman did a good job of leveraging his lower center of gravity against Shaq in the post and was stronger than his frame appeared so he wasn't just easily dislodged. But in a rare play, if he was caught in transition with Shaq coming full steam, there isn't anyone in history who could stop that play without fouling.


Like I said, I dont trust your interpretation of any statistical analysis. The only thing I find obvious is that you dont know what you're talking about. Feel free to agree to disagree, but if you're actually trying to make an objective point, quit being so vague. Show me what you find to be obvious.


The likes of Daryl Dawkins broke rims too. Why is this relevant? As for Shaq destroying them by accident, it was a different time. Showboating like that was not taken lightly. Shaq would have been punched in the face for acts like that, god knows Wilt was.


But we're not talking about whos fatter/heavier, we're talking about STRENGTH. Rodman for example was extremely slender, but was farm strong. Some players physique belie their true strength.


Lets be real, when it comes to dissecting strength, your rudimentary take doesn't outweigh the opinion of guys who actually went against the 2 players you are discussing. The notion that weight trumps strength is beyond silly.



Now it sounds like you're making **** up. LMFAO, show me this correlation or humble yourself.


But why would anyone care about your unsubstantiated opinion above the testimonials from actual NBA players.


Is that you attempting to rank Wilt's best season vs Shaq's? I dont agree with your selections but to be clear, what exactly would Shaq be putting up, just with simple translations, accounting for league averages. PER neglects Wilt's superior defensive impact so its not really as telling as you think, thats why I dont just boil down a players productivity by PER. You're making it real hard to connect the dots because you have provided nothing worth connecting.




lol... Yeah that is unique to Shaq.




Show me where I said anything about weight room strong? LOL plz dont stoop to straws here, what my actual point was, that most people that were Rodman's size stood zero chance of defending someone like Shaq, yet he more than held his own. That he was actually Chicago's best choice over the likes of behemoths like Luc Longley speaks to the fact that strength isn't measure by your rudimentary standards.



Show me the film that exposes the testimony as flawed. I'd LOVE to see how you measured strength between 2 players from your couch LMFAO.


Sorry for not providing proper context. He said that Gilmore was stronger than Shaq, but that Shaq was more athletic. Thats why Shaq was a FAR better player (IMO anyways), but that had less to do with his own individual production and more to do with his influence on the game.


But I've seen it, your giving me a barometer we dont even see eye to eye on to begin with and wouldn't determine strength even if we did. So whats the point?




If a player thinks a smaller Gilmore was stronger than a bigger Shaq, it says enough for me. And Wilt was much stronger than Artis. Explain how Gilmore can be stronger than Shaq but Shaq is stronger than Wilt...


LOL, because of the rare play above and beyond where strength is mostly displayed on the court (Boxing out, battling for post position, setting screens etc..). Based on every facet of strength you can display on the court, its a comparison worthy of making. My point has always been about the hyperbole you've used here. To make it clear, I do think PEAK Shaq was stronger than Gilmore. But Gilmore is no Wilt. And if we have players who will attest to inferior athletes being stronger than Shaq, I dont see how its not an argument.


Of course I remember, thats why you bolding my post about what happens in much rarer transition plays was so dumbfounding. Not seeing your point. My argument is that if Gilmore and Shaq were comparable at certain points in their careers (tho I've admitted I would give the edge to Shaq overall) then Wilt makes for a much BETTER comp. I dont see Wilt getting outmuscled, especially as the game wears on and Shaqs inferior stamina detracts from this strength.


I already know their peers considered one stronger than the other despite Shaq being the more overwhelming force, so long as you understand its been an argument, then thats all you can ask. Thats the win. Its when you resort to ur level hyperbole that we are all losers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-GcL1Cd5b4

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 06:14 PM
I already know their peers considered one stronger than the other despite Shaq being the more overwhelming force, so long as you understand its been an argument, then thats all you can ask. Thats the win. Its when you resort to ur level hyperbole that we are all losers.


I'll try and cut down on the hyperbole but this could of been your second post to me and everything in between would of been understood without having to post it ya know.

IKnowHoops
01-21-2015, 06:37 PM
Of course I remember, thats why you bolding my post about what happens in much rarer transition plays was so dumbfounding. Not seeing your point. My argument is that if Gilmore and Shaq were comparable at certain points in their careers (tho I've admitted I would give the edge to Shaq overall) then Wilt makes for a much BETTER comp. I dont see Wilt getting outmuscled, especially as the game wears on and Shaqs inferior stamina detracts from this strength.

Likewise, I also found it dumfounding you isolating strength as an argument, when size, weight, and athletic ability and strength contribute to one player muscling another player down low.

Thats why I likened it to what Goose said. Goose isolated top tear talent, and you corrected him by saying "why isolate top tear talent, when overall talent is what matters." You got it then, and then dismissed it here. It didn't make any sense that you would do that in this argument. Or should I say it made about as much sense for you to do that here, as it made for goose to do that then.

xnick5757
01-21-2015, 06:54 PM
lebron.

wilt was too obsessed with personal records whereas lebron is a willing passer

Chronz
01-21-2015, 06:57 PM
Likewise, I also found it dumfounding you isolating strength as an argument, when size, weight, and athletic ability and strength contribute to one player muscling another player down low.
I dont see where your confusion stems from. The argument has been clear from the beginning, it was YOU who highlighted a rare fast break occurrence to determine strength when the argument at hand comes from battling on the blocks. Your initial argument was about bullying down low and Im speaking about strength in that regard both because of what you said and because its by far the area where strength is most exhibited. You then offered some faux statistical stuff and some contrivance about "Weight room" strength.




Thats why I likened it to what Goose said. Goose isolated top tear talent, and you corrected him by saying "why isolate top tear talent, when overall talent is what matters." You got it then, and then dismissed it here. It didn't make any sense that you would do that in this argument. Or should I say it made about as much sense for you to do that here, as it made for goose to do that then.
I dont see the connection but ok. All I know is that talent is dependent on the context of the question. For example, there is regular season depth and playoff tested talent. Having 10 quality guys is extremely useful in the regular season grind, but I believe having more talent in your top guys is more important during the playoffs. We all have our ways of assessing that and the context behind those questions aren't quite clear yet. Its why there are no comparisons to make, me and goose are still chiming in on that one.

But this debate has been clear from the get-go to me, I simply disagree with your tone and exaggerations.

Anyways, good chat. Gotta get **** done now.

Chronz
01-21-2015, 07:08 PM
lebron.

wilt was too obsessed with personal records whereas lebron is a willing passer

You cant blame Wilt for that. When he was piling on the raw scoring #'s, he was doing it for the sake of the league more than just his team (both of which still benefited from his play). The Warriors owner at one point called for it, to help attract more numbers at the gate. Even so, he showed a clear willingness to change his game those same seasons, come playoffs. I remember reading some old news clips about how the Warriors had altered their offense in the weeks before the playoffs, this after riding Wilt all year. I dont believe in a world of 2 extremers, selfish/unselfish. I think you can take a team first approach by being selfish and vice versa. Everyone has abit of both in them to me. Was Bron less selfish? I dont see how either is any different to be honest.

Goose17
01-21-2015, 08:17 PM
Wilt has 80% of the votes. Please end this discussion.

lol, please
01-22-2015, 05:02 PM
Wilt, and it's not close to close.

asandhu23
01-22-2015, 05:57 PM
lebron.

wilt was too obsessed with personal records whereas lebron is a willing passer

Lol. keep on believing this myth.

Hawkeye15
01-22-2015, 06:40 PM
this poll is a hulk smash haha

PurpleLynch
01-22-2015, 07:22 PM
lebron.

wilt was too obsessed with personal records whereas lebron is a willing passer

Lol,what? He averaged 4.4 apg in his entire career.In 1967-68 he averaged 8.6 apg. And he was a center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q

asandhu23
01-23-2015, 03:24 PM
Lol,what? He averaged 4.4 apg in his entire career.In 1967-68 he averaged 8.6 apg. And he was a center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWHKZlQ9x7Q

People convinced of the stats obsession myth use this as an example supporting their claim.

PurpleLynch
01-24-2015, 01:41 PM
People convinced of the stats obsession myth use this as an example supporting their claim.

Obsessed? I'm not using advanced stats or something like that. I just posted his career average and his best passing season.(plus a bonus video to show that he was also fancy passing the ball). The fact is that in his era he was one of the best passing big man. So...what were you trying to say with this meaningless post?