Greatest basketball player of all time?

[wheresmybacon]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


I just don't understand how you see Jordan being the best. He didn't put up as good of numbers, he didn't dominate like Wilt did, he was given huge Nike contracts and was loved by the media, and he played during a time when scoring was easier. During the 1960's, the guys played a lot harder, more physical, faster and the players were just as athletic on paper as they are today. Could the players of the 1960's not dunk? Nope, there were guys under 6' tall that could easily dunk, just like today...so athleticism is not a question.

I'm not going to argue your point that guys played harder in the 60's...speaking in terms of the regular season that's true, however your assertion that players were "more physical", "faster", and "just as athletic on paper as they are today" is laughable at best. How exactly is one "athletic on paper"? They write fast? Players today are on a different planet in terms of size, raw power, speed, and overall athleticism than they were when Wilt played.

Wilt was great, but not the best. He was great by virtue of his size and overall athletic ability relative to 90% of his competitors.

Michael Jordan is without question the best basketball player to ever live.

 

[Shlong]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Shlong
I would say MJ. How would have Wilt & Russell competed night in & night out against the likes of Ewing, Olajuwon, Shaq (7'2" 300 early in his career, 350+ later), David Robinson, Mourning in Jordan's era. Wilt was 7'1" 250, the C's of that era were more Russell size at 6'9" and 215. All the C's of Jordan's era were 7'0" or taller and over 230 (usually 240 - 250). I think both Wilt & Russell would've been good players but not put nearly the same numbers they did. And back when Russell was winning those championships there were under 10 teams (later about 12 teams at the end of the run) & on some of those Celtic teams they had 7 Hall of Famers playing.

You're right, they wouldn't have put up the same numbers...they would have put up more! Wilt is much stronger than ANY of those centers you said and considering that Jordan played during a period of time when the rules all catered to scoring offense (no zones, 3-point line was moved in, no elbowing, etc), Wilt would have had no problem against the slower players of the 1990's.

Consider this. Shaq in his best years had no problem scoring. Now imagine Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt is much stronger than Shaq. Wilt can jump much higher than shaq. Wilt has much longer arms than Shaq. Wilt is much faster than Shaq. Wilt has better foot-work than Shaq. Wilt is a better shooter than Shaq. Wilt is a better offensive rebounder than Shaq.

Wilt stronger than Shaq? Nah, I don't think so. Shaq in his prime was stronger than Wilt was. Wilt was faster, and had better footwork, but his shooting was just as bad as Shaq's (FT). Jordan's era centers were bigger & more athletic, so I wouldn't say they were slower. Russell was great & he gave Wilt trouble, I think a lot of the C's in the Jordan era could've matched up defensively as well.

C's like Bob Lanier & Abdul-Jabaar didn't join the NBA until the end of Chamberlain's career when he was averaging 14 points a game. Look at the size of C's in his era when he scored 50 points a game: Bob Pettit @ 6'9" 205, Red Kerr @ 6'9" 230, Dolph Schayes @ 6'7" 195, Swede Halbrook 7'3" 235 (big guy but role player played only 2 seasons & averaged 5.5pts a game), Johnny Green @ 6'5" 200, Rudy LaRusso @ 6'7" 220, Jim Crebs @ 6'8" 230, Ray Felix @ 6'11" 220, Wayne Embry @ 6'8" 240, Hub Reed @ 6'9" 215, Ray Scott @ 6'9" 215, Walter Dukes @ 7'0" 220, Walt Bellamy @ 6'11" 215, Charlie Tyra @ 6'8" 230.

As you can see most guys are in the 6'9" range undersized by todays standards. You don't think Shaq in his prime would've dominated those guys? I think Shaq's career #'s would've increased tremendously in that era while if you put Wilt in the NBA of 12 years ago, his career #'s would've dropped. The game between the two periods are very much different however.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: hungfarover
I'm not going to argue your point that guys played harder in the 60's...speaking in terms of the regular season that's true, however your assertion that players were "more physical", "faster", and "just as athletic on paper as they are today" is laughable at best. How exactly is one "athletic on paper"? They write fast? Players today are on a different planet in terms of size, raw power, speed, and overall athleticism than they were when Wilt played.

Wilt was great, but not the best. He was great by virtue of his size and overall athletic ability relative to 90% of his competitors.

Michael Jordan is without question the best basketball player to ever live.

Wilt played against TOUGHER competition than Jordan. Wilt played in a time when it was HARDER TO SCORE. Wilt was able to run the 40 in 4.4, the 100 in 10.9, jump over 60 inches and bench press 500 pounds without supplements, special trainers, special equipment, special shoes, and all of those other luxuries that modern players have.

By your logic, lets saythat modern players are maybe 5-10% more athletic (that's a big maybe). Why are they more athletic? Because of all of those luxuries. If Chamberlain were to play in modern day, he would also have those luxuries and he himself would be 10-15% more athletic. Chamberlain is STILL the most athletic center to ever play the game, and number 2 doesn't even come close to what Wilt was able to do athletically. If Shaq can put up over 20-30 points a game with his athleticism and strength, then Chamberlain would be able to easily put over 40 points every night since he is way stronger, longer, smarter, and all around more athletic and a better player than Shaq.

There is no QUESTION at all that MJ was a great player...he's probably top-5...but the best? Not a chance. ESPN calling him the greatest athlete ever (despite being a PISS POOR baseball player and not even able to compete in track competitions and failling to win a championship at UNC as the leader) is probably the best example of ESPN credibility being nothing more than a pile of sh!t.

Edit for Shlong: Ask any expert and see if anyone says Shaq is stronger. Nobody will say that. Wilt could have easily been the strongest all around man who ever lived on this planet, and that's not a joke. Did Shaq ever dislocated somebody's shoulder on an all-ball clean block? Did Shaq ever dunk a basketball and have it land on a player's foot and break his toe? How far can Shaq do the shot-put? Can Shaq bench press 500 lbs?

And another thing is that those centers you listed really aren't that much shorter than today. Plus, height doesn't even hold that much bearing. Shawn Bradley, Manute Bol, Mark Eaton were all way taller than the competition (much more so than Wilt), so why didn't they put up those kinds of numbers? It simply isn't that big of deal.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I just don't understand how you see Jordan being the best. He didn't put up as good of numbers, he didn't dominate like Wilt did, he was given huge Nike contracts and was loved by the media, and he played during a time when scoring was easier. During the 1960's, the guys played a lot harder, more physical, faster and the players were just as athletic on paper as they are today. Could the players of the 1960's not dunk? Nope, there were guys under 6' tall that could easily dunk, just like today...so athleticism is not a question.

that entire bolded statement is opinion, yet you say it like it's fact.

care to show evidence/facts that people:

a. played "harder" in the 60s
b. were more physical
c. were faster
d. were just as athletic as players today

now, i'm NOT doubting what you're saying........just don't say that like it's some sort of fact that's been proven somewhere. did they have a league average 40 yd dash time back then, that you can compare to now?

 

[wheresmybacon]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: hungfarover
I'm not going to argue your point that guys played harder in the 60's...speaking in terms of the regular season that's true, however your assertion that players were "more physical", "faster", and "just as athletic on paper as they are today" is laughable at best. How exactly is one "athletic on paper"? They write fast? Players today are on a different planet in terms of size, raw power, speed, and overall athleticism than they were when Wilt played.

Wilt was great, but not the best. He was great by virtue of his size and overall athletic ability relative to 90% of his competitors.

Michael Jordan is without question the best basketball player to ever live.

Wilt played against TOUGHER competition than Jordan. Wilt played in a time when it was HARDER TO SCORE. Wilt was able to run the 40 in 4.4, the 100 in 10.9, jump over 60 inches and bench press 500 pounds without supplements, special trainers, special equipment, special shoes, and all of those other luxuries that modern players have.

By your logic, lets saythat modern players are maybe 5-10% more athletic (that's a big maybe). Why are they more athletic? Because of all of those luxuries. If Chamberlain were to play in modern day, he would also have those luxuries and he himself would be 10-15% more athletic. Chamberlain is STILL the most athletic center to ever play the game, and number 2 doesn't even come close to what Wilt was able to do athletically. If Shaq can put up over 20-30 points a game with his athleticism and strength, then Chamberlain would be able to easily put over 40 points every night since he is way stronger, longer, smarter, and all around more athletic and a better player than Shaq.

There is no QUESTION at all that MJ was a great player...he's probably top-5...but the best? Not a chance. ESPN calling him the greatest athlete ever (despite being a PISS POOR baseball player and not even able to compete in track competitions and failling to win a championship at UNC as the leader) is probably the best example of ESPN credibility being nothing more than a pile of sh!t.

Wilt played against midgets running in honey compared to what the NBA is today. If you actually believe that the competition was tougher then, well I'll just kindly step out of this thread laughing my ass off.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: hungfarover
Wilt played against midgets running in honey compared to what the NBA is today. If you actually believe that the competition was tougher then, well I'll just kindly step out of this thread laughing my ass off.

Well if you believe the NBA was full of a bunch of midgets, then you've obviously never seen any film of any games played in the 1960's where the players played MUCH better fundamentals. It's just a fact. Today you see Nate Robinson doing a show dunk and traveling...that just about sums up the "skill" of today's players vs back then.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: iamme
care to show evidence/facts that people:

a. played "harder" in the 60s
b. were more physical
c. were faster
d. were just as athletic as players today

now, i'm NOT doubting what you're saying........just don't say that like it's some sort of fact that's been proven somewhere. did they have a league average 40 yd dash time back then, that you can compare to now?

Well the problem is that you just can't research the sort of deal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6QmhTWmAaBc

Watch this video and you'll see the game is played faster then than it is today. People hustled back and forth on the court all game long back then. Watch the defenders on Wilt. You will see they are not "midgets" (not that you are claiming they were). You will also see that the defender(s) (often times 2-3 guys) are on him like glue.

Edit: Much of this video is in slow motion.

 

[iamme]

lol, that video makes the 1960's game look LESS athletic and even slower than today's game.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: iamme
lol, that video makes the 1960's game look LESS athletic and even slower than today's game.

Then you are looking at the camera quality and the slow motion. Look harder. It's not that hard to see.

 

[wheresmybacon]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: iamme
lol, that video makes the 1960's game look LESS athletic and even slower than today's game.

Then you are looking at the camera quality and the slow motion. Look harder. It's not that hard to see.

So, unlike EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD, in your opinion, basketball is the only one in which players from 40 years ago were more athletic than they are today.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: hungfarover
So, unlike EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD, in your opinion, basketball is the only one in which players from 40 years ago were more athletic than they are today.

I said they were just as athletic. Of course, it doesn't matter, I already proved that it doesn't matter. Wilt would be the same percentage more athletic overall today than he would have back then in comparison.

Face it. The NBA has become watered-down and has lost a lot of it's fundamentals on offense and defense. The NBA calls fouls on everything and they all run slower plays. Also, the players get more rest and tons more luxuries.

After Wilt retired and Magic Johnson was on the Lakers, Wilt played a scrimmage-type game against the Lakers. Wilt blocked every one of Magic's layups as a RETIRED nba player. I guess that shows how much better the talent has gotten.

Excuse me, Wilt (in his mid 40's and retired) blocked every lay-up by ALL the players on that extremely talented Lakers team.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: hungfarover
So, unlike EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD, in your opinion, basketball is the only one in which players from 40 years ago were more athletic than they are today.

I said they were just as athletic. Of course, it doesn't matter, I already proved that it doesn't matter. Wilt would be the same percentage more athletic overall today than he would have back then in comparison.

Face it. The NBA has become watered-down and has lost a lot of it's fundamentals on offense and defense. The NBA calls fouls on everything and they all run slower plays. Also, the players get more rest and tons more luxuries.

After Wilt retired and Magic Johnson was on the Lakers, Wilt played a scrimmage-type game against the Lakers. Wilt blocked every one of Magic's layups as a RETIRED nba player. I guess that shows how much better the talent has gotten.

interesting, because i consider Magic Johnson to be one of the greatest players to ever don a basketball court. i would take magic of Michael.

for me, it's

1. Wilt
2. Magic
3. Michael
4. Oscar

but it's really really close between magic, mj and oscar.

 

[BlancoNino]

Oh and BTW if newer eras make such a huge difference in talent, than in a few years, you will see a league that MJ could not handle as well.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh and BTW if newer eras make such a huge difference in talent, than in a few years, you will see a league that MJ could not handle as well.

won't be long, in a few years people will be talking about Lebron as the greatest ever and MJ fans are going to get all PO'd by it.

wilt is still the greatest to ever play the game.

 

[thesurge]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: iamme
lol, that video makes the 1960's game look LESS athletic and even slower than today's game.

Then you are looking at the camera quality and the slow motion. Look harder. It's not that hard to see.

LOL. You just said these things are hard to research and then you expect us to come to your conclusion from some slow motion video. haha.

 

[Shlong]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Edit for Shlong: Ask any expert and see if anyone says Shaq is stronger. Nobody will say that. Wilt could have easily been the strongest all around man who ever lived on this planet, and that's not a joke. Did Shaq ever dislocated somebody's shoulder on an all-ball clean block? Did Shaq ever dunk a basketball and have it land on a player's foot and break his toe? How far can Shaq do the shot-put? Can Shaq bench press 500 lbs?

"Hall of Famer Dolph Schayes earned selection to the NBA?s 50 Greatest Players List and played against Wilt Chamberlain for several years before coaching him with the Philadelphia 76ers. Who would he take first in a hypothetical draft -- Wilt Chamberlain at his best or Shaquille O?Neal at his best? Schayes replies, ?The Wilt Chamberlain of the latter years is who I would pick, merely because he was an unstoppable inside player -- a much better rebounder than Shaq, a better shot blocker than Shaq and I think he was a better team guy than Shaq. "It was the Wilt who was the all-around player, the passing Wilt. They are both haunted by their poor foul shooting. In Shaq?s case -- if he and Wilt had to play against each other -- one of Wilt?s great records would have been broken and that record is never having fouled out of a game. I think that if Wilt had to play Shaq -- the physical Shaq going to the basket and all that and Wilt accepting the challenge of trying to stop him -- Wilt would have fouled out of games. Wilt never fouled out against the Celtics because (Bill) Russell was not the offensive threat that Shaq is. "

Dr. Jack Ramsay - "Ramsay notes that Chamberlain was ahead of his time with his emphasis on strength training. Was Chamberlain stronger than Shaq in terms of basketball, not necessarily bench press strength, but in terms of holding his position, backing somebody down, using the strength in a basketball sense? Ramsay said, ?I think probably Shaq (is stronger), because of his body mass. He is so wide and thick -- and very quick-footed, has great command of his feet. You'll see every so often, some of his spin moves, they're lightning quick. I don't think Wilt had that. Wilt was more methodical, worked the ball and the finger roll, back into the basket. It's hard to say how it would've come out, but it would've been a great matchup."

http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_0522.html Chamberlain was ahead of his time in strength but I don't think his strength matches Shaq's. Could you provide links to where he benches 500 pounds? Shaq was a muscular & thick 320+, Chamberlain was around the 275 range. How much can Shaq bench? I know that Donovan Mcnabb can bench 500 and he's much smaller than Shaq.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And another thing is that those centers you listed really aren't that much shorter than today. Plus, height doesn't even hold that much bearing. Shawn Bradley, Manute Bol, Mark Eaton were all way taller than the competition (much more so than Wilt), so why didn't they put up those kinds of numbers? It simply isn't that big of deal.

Today is different than Jordan's era. During Jordan's era there were legit 7 footers + that were all-stars (David Robinson, Shaq, Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Rik Smits, Hakeem Olajuwon). Height for centers is most effective from 7'0" - 7'3". Anything lower & your undersized, anything higher & its a negative because of the difficulty of keeping balance. That's why you see the supertalls like Bradley, Bol, Eaton struggling & even Yao it's somewhat of a negative because of the lack of balance. The prime centers are all in the 7'0" - 7'3" range.

Also I saw footage of both Russell & Chamberlain on ESPN Classic a few times & nothing really stood out.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: hungfarover
So, unlike EVERY OTHER SPORT IN THE WORLD, in your opinion, basketball is the only one in which players from 40 years ago were more athletic than they are today.

I said they were just as athletic. Of course, it doesn't matter, I already proved that it doesn't matter. Wilt would be the same percentage more athletic overall today than he would have back then in comparison.

i don't think you have actually proven one thing in this entire thread......you've just stated your OPINION over and over, pretending they're facts.

Face it. The NBA has become watered-down and has lost a lot of it's fundamentals on offense and defense. The NBA calls fouls on everything and they all run slower plays. Also, the players get more rest and tons more luxuries.

keep in mind that during much of the 60's Wilt played in a league with only EIGHT teams. playing the same group of guys over and over again does have its advantages.

After Wilt retired and Magic Johnson was on the Lakers, Wilt played a scrimmage-type game against the Lakers. Wilt blocked every one of Magic's layups as a RETIRED nba player. I guess that shows how much better the talent has gotten.

Excuse me, Wilt (in his mid 40's and retired) blocked every lay-up by ALL the players on that extremely talented Lakers team.

lol, so the Wilt-led team must have won the game like 50 - 0 !! Wilt must have had like 30 blocks in one game! please.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Shlong

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Edit for Shlong: Ask any expert and see if anyone says Shaq is stronger. Nobody will say that. Wilt could have easily been the strongest all around man who ever lived on this planet, and that's not a joke. Did Shaq ever dislocated somebody's shoulder on an all-ball clean block? Did Shaq ever dunk a basketball and have it land on a player's foot and break his toe? How far can Shaq do the shot-put? Can Shaq bench press 500 lbs?

"Hall of Famer Dolph Schayes earned selection to the NBA?s 50 Greatest Players List and played against Wilt Chamberlain for several years before coaching him with the Philadelphia 76ers. Who would he take first in a hypothetical draft -- Wilt Chamberlain at his best or Shaquille O?Neal at his best? Schayes replies, ?The Wilt Chamberlain of the latter years is who I would pick, merely because he was an unstoppable inside player -- a much better rebounder than Shaq, a better shot blocker than Shaq and I think he was a better team guy than Shaq. "It was the Wilt who was the all-around player, the passing Wilt. They are both haunted by their poor foul shooting. In Shaq?s case -- if he and Wilt had to play against each other -- one of Wilt?s great records would have been broken and that record is never having fouled out of a game. I think that if Wilt had to play Shaq -- the physical Shaq going to the basket and all that and Wilt accepting the challenge of trying to stop him -- Wilt would have fouled out of games. Wilt never fouled out against the Celtics because (Bill) Russell was not the offensive threat that Shaq is. "

Dr. Jack Ramsay - "Ramsay notes that Chamberlain was ahead of his time with his emphasis on strength training. Was Chamberlain stronger than Shaq in terms of basketball, not necessarily bench press strength, but in terms of holding his position, backing somebody down, using the strength in a basketball sense? Ramsay said, ?I think probably Shaq (is stronger), because of his body mass. He is so wide and thick -- and very quick-footed, has great command of his feet. You'll see every so often, some of his spin moves, they're lightning quick. I don't think Wilt had that. Wilt was more methodical, worked the ball and the finger roll, back into the basket. It's hard to say how it would've come out, but it would've been a great matchup."

http://www.probasketballnews.com/friedman_0522.html Chamberlain was ahead of his time in strength but I don't think his strength matches Shaq's. Could you provide links to where he benches 500 pounds? Shaq was a muscular & thick 320+, Chamberlain was around the 275 range. How much can Shaq bench? I know that Donovan Mcnabb can bench 500 and he's much smaller than Shaq.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And another thing is that those centers you listed really aren't that much shorter than today. Plus, height doesn't even hold that much bearing. Shawn Bradley, Manute Bol, Mark Eaton were all way taller than the competition (much more so than Wilt), so why didn't they put up those kinds of numbers? It simply isn't that big of deal.

Today is different than Jordan's era. During Jordan's era there were legit 7 footers + that were all-stars (David Robinson, Shaq, Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, Patrick Ewing, Rik Smits, Hakeem Olajuwon). Height for centers is most effective from 7'0" - 7'3". Anything lower & your undersized, anything higher & its a negative because of the difficulty of keeping balance. That's why you see the supertalls like Bradley, Bol, Eaton struggling & even Yao it's somewhat of a negative because of the lack of balance. The prime centers are all in the 7'0" - 7'3" range.

Also I saw footage of both Russell & Chamberlain on ESPN Classic a few times & nothing really stood out.

Zo and Hakeem are not 7 footers, both top out at around 6' 11".

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Zo and Hakeem are not 7 footers, both top out at around 6' 11".

i don't think the inch is the point......it's more that they are "throw back" centers, which you don't see too much anymore. so many 6'11" or 7' guys are outside or midrange threats, rather than back-to-the-basket guys....like Dirk, KG, Bosh, Jermaine O'Neal. all play a high post, jump shooting game, rather than a old school low post game.

 

[cavemanmoron]

The Best I recall, was some guy named Lou Al Cinder.

Then he changed his name, to Kareem.


Crap I spelt it wrong.

1971/72: Lew Alcindor converts his religion to Islam changing his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The name change would not affect his play on the court as he won the MVP for the 2nd straight season by averaging 34.6 ppg as the Bucks won the Midwest Division with a solid 63-19 record. In the playoffs the Bucks would beat the Golden State Warriors in 5 games setting up a highly anticipated match up with Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conference Finals. However, this time the Lakers would get the best in the Bucks dethroning them as Champions in 6 games



http://st.matthewathletics.tripod.com/id24.html

 

[Insomniator]

Michael Jordan without question.

 

[Lurknomore]

Michael, Wilt, Russell- all garbage.

If you know anything about basketball, you'd know that Magic is the greatest- PERIOD!
1) Plays all five positions, remember in 1980 when he subbed for an injured Kareen and scored 42, and rebounded 15??? A pt. guard subbing for a center...just wow.
2) Level of competition- Michael beat the pathetic Blazers, an aging Lakers team without any good players left except Magic, overrated Suns team, craptacular Sonics, and the short hapless Jazz. Just sad.
Magic beats the Sixers with Dr. J, Moses, Bobby Jones, Mo Cheeks, the Boston Celtics with Bird, McHale and Parrish, teh
Pistons with Isiah, Rodman, Laimbeer. He loses to the same squads- very tough competition- plus an up and coming Bulls team with Jordan when Worthy and Kareem were long gone. He only left because he was HIV positive and couldn't get good role players for another run at the title.
3) His defense was subpar to Jordans- still, his role was to lead the offense and organize plays. Jordan??? Pippen and the triangle did the job for him.

There should be no question who's the greatest of all time.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: iamme
care to show evidence/facts that people:

a. played "harder" in the 60s
b. were more physical
c. were faster
d. were just as athletic as players today

now, i'm NOT doubting what you're saying........just don't say that like it's some sort of fact that's been proven somewhere. did they have a league average 40 yd dash time back then, that you can compare to now?

Well the problem is that you just can't research the sort of deal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6QmhTWmAaBc

Watch this video and you'll see the game is played faster then than it is today. People hustled back and forth on the court all game long back then. Watch the defenders on Wilt. You will see they are not "midgets" (not that you are claiming they were). You will also see that the defender(s) (often times 2-3 guys) are on him like glue.

Edit: Much of this video is in slow motion.

Wilt was not double teamed once in that video. Yes there were sometimes more players near him, but that's because the man they were gaurding was close by. There certainly was never 2-3 guys "on him like glue".

This is just a highlight real showing only Wilt's scoring moves. It shows nothing about how the offence was run or how fast the game was played.

Wilt may not have played against midgets but the average hight was a hell of a lot lower than it is today. You can see in that video that Wilt can sometimes even reach right over his defenders head to put it into the basket.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
so by your argument you'd take John Pax over John stocton. or Danny Ainge over Clyde Drexler . . .

the argument that an inferior team from a winning team is better than the superior player from the losing team is about the stupidest there is.

You're the idiot if you think that is what I was saying. I was talking the clear leader on the team and you talk two role players. Stop putting stupid words in my mouth and then calling them stupid.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

But Chamberlain WON his matchups against Russell. Chamberlain outplayed Russell 1 on 1. Chamberlain was only able to win 2 championships against Russell's team, but that was because Chamberlain's teammates weren't producing good enough numbers. If Chamberlain was on the Celtics instead of Russell, they would have easily won all 13 championships.

Again who cares about his individual stats. He only won 2 out of 13 against bill's 11 of 13.

I'm sure Bill had a better supporting cast, but Jordan made others around him better and so did Bill. I don't know that Wilt did that.

It is not clear if the supporting cast was better because Bill made them so or just because.

Look at Pippen once he left Chicago he wasn't nearly so dominant.